bottom line, they should never have marketed it as the successor to the CRX.
Have they named it something else, say as a new insight, they would have been better off.
bottom line, they should never have marketed it as the successor to the CRX.
Have they named it something else, say as a new insight, they would have been better off.
Remember the Civic 1500S? Not a bad car, but the Civic Si that came after totally rocked it. I am waiting for the next gen CR-Z.
Yep, me too. Just had some snowy parking lot donut fun. 
Lesley wrote: Yep, me too. Just had some snowy parking lot donut fun.
Hey, keep both hands on the wheel and save the donuts for later.
One of these?
Two pages and three days and I didn't even know what it was. I had the CR-V stuck in my head.
I don't care how good it may or may not be, that thing is just way too UGLY!
wbjones wrote: can't remember where, but recently I read that a CR-V might become available with a turbo... and NO battery pack...
it already is, its called the acura RDX
kabel wrote: bottom line, they should never have marketed it as the successor to the CRX. Have they named it something else, say as a new insight, they would have been better off.
but they already copied the prius with the new insight
Ever hear this guy's opinion on Prius'?
It's like going into a restaurant for the big juicy steak they've had pictured on the bill boards and on the menu only to find out it's really a hamburger patty.
It lacks the power and simplicity that drove enthusiasts to the Civic and CRX while having looks that make "normal" people think of fart can exhausts. It is also pretty expensive. In short, there are better options for most demographics that would consider this car. It's also as if Honda tried to please everyone, but polarized them instead.
I love how all these people complain about the weight. For a new car it isn't that bad. It is all of 150lbs heavier then a new MX5.
Lesley wrote: Agreed. But at least it's a progression from the frump-ugliness of the previous generation of hybrids. Having driven in California a lot over the last couple of months, I've grown to despise Prius (Priiius? Priuses?) and their self-righteous d-bag owners (been brake-checked several times, almost became a 5.0L Mustang suppository on Mulholland). At least this hybrid isn't smug.
My wife has a Prius. When I drive it any distance on the highway, I usually use the cruise control. I have gotten in the habit of lightly tapping the brake pedel to disengage it when I need to slow down. I hope no know thinks I am doing some sort of brake-check manuver.
Prius's seem to carry as much Socio-political bagage (assumptions about the owners motives and interests) as Miatas and Porsches these days.
So, to propogate the stereotyping...
In my experience, there are two types of Prius drivers. Type 1 Prius owners encompass about 90-95%, and are identified by being a single-occupant car in the HOV lane doing 5 under the limit despite a stack of cars behind them. Type 2 Prius owners can be identified by driving hyper-aggressively, usually doing at least 20-over the posted limit.
All sorts of judgements could be drawn from their behavior at the wheel, but I'll just stick to what I can actually observe.
For the CR-Z, I'm interested. I really appreciate that SOMEONE is trying to make use of the performance potential of a hybrid system, and not just try to push the "Look at how GREEN I am!" image. I'd like to see more performance out of the gas side of the motor, like a proper twin-cam mill in the 1.8L range, but I'm guessing that will be solved with an Si variant.
That being said, I don't understand the hate, either, and it'd definitely be something I'd give a test drive if I were in the market for a new-off-the-lot car and had more than a 3 mile commute.
You want something to hate, how about the insanely ugly grille that's stuck on the face of new Acuras? Let's make it REALLY ugly, and make it CHROME so no one can ignore it!
Apparently rampant drug use in the workplace didn't go away in the 80's.
Strizzo wrote:wbjones wrote: can't remember where, but recently I read that a CR-V might become available with a turbo... and NO battery pack...it already is, its called the acura RDX
that's a SUV or cute-ute or what ever... don't see the RDX as a a-x/track day vehicle ... turbo or no turbo
wbjones wrote:Strizzo wrote:that's a SUV or cute-ute or what ever... don't see the RDX as a a-x/track day vehicle ... turbo or no turbowbjones wrote: can't remember where, but recently I read that a CR-V might become available with a turbo... and NO battery pack...it already is, its called the acura RDX
he's referring to the fact that you wrote CR-V in your first post.... which is a cute-ute
oops..... see what happens when you get old 
so .... can't remember where, but recently I read that a CR-Z might become available with a turbo and NO battery pack 
My problem with the CR-Z: I can buy a 4 seater that gets BETTER gas mileage, has better acceleration and handles almost as good stock for $8k less. Why would I bother with the CR-Z?
SEEKERone wrote: 2 youtube videos of the CR-Z with K20 engine swap LHT Performance KR-Z KR-Z "test drive"
The reason everyone is so mad is the CRZ could have been like this /.
No one really wanted a hybrid sports car, the concept doesn't even make sense? You don't buy a sports car because it gets good gas millage (though that may be a nice perk) you get a sports car because it stops goes and turns like you want. Adding a hybrid system gets this car what? 4 to 5 mpg over what a K20/K24 would get you? It adds cost, weight, and complexity. Things that are bad mouthed at every turn on this forum. Who knows what the cars weight could have been without the ridiculous hybrid but i am betting that it would have been 200/300lbs.
I recently went to test drive one the other day when i had some free time, it was sitting at the back of the lot and they let me pull it out and take it for a spin. Inside the car is nice once you get use to the way things are laid out. The seats are good and the shifter it great. Their is a good deal of space in the hatch as well. The car felt nimble-ish but it is completely ruined by the power-train. I have driven a RSX that felt faster, a civic Si, and i think an Intergra GSR? that all felt faster and more fun to drive. I could forgive some of the suck but the motor doesn't even want to rev, the first time i hit it i bounced off the limiter right at 6k. 6k in a Honda. Where are the magical VTAK motors of my youth that wanted to rev til the sun came up and would explode when the hot part of the cam kicked in. Turns out the motor is some single cam economy mill that is, well a single cam economy mill. All this in a sports car? I don't think so.
Timely thread Lesley. I keep GRM next to the bed and read every night, last night I discovered the CRX vs CR-Z article. I don't understand the hate, it looks and acts like an updated CRX.
Also note the image I threw up there a few posts ago doesn't look even close to the car depicted in GRM's November issue.
I'm not a tree hugger because that would be hypocricy with all the other vehicles I have, but I understand it.
Nay sayers should read this article.
Dan
The hate comes from the wasted potential. It's not that it's particularly bad, it's just that it could have been SOOO much better if Honda wasn't so stubborn.
After jumping on the hate-wagon early on upon hearing the numbers and seeing the pics., I've still yet to drive one, or even see one in person. No sense in whining, as it'll be 20 years before I can afford one anyway, at which point, all the hybrid stuff will be gone, someone will have figured out a crazy/easy/reliable swap, the t00n3R fad will be all but dead (hopefully ending the big-wing/primered non-fitting body panel idiocy,) and I'll be able to scoop one up for less than $5k. I win.
I will say that a 1G crx, especially a non-Si is pretty abysmal on paper too, but they're one of my favorite cars evAr, in the sense that they're tossable, cheap to maintain, easy to work on, and with less than $1k in engine and suspension upgrades, can be made to run 13's and turn on a dime...and still be capable of fuel economy in the 30's. Sure, the 1st gen could've been built with more power... but it still wouldn't be enough for an enthusiast (knowhadamean?)
Looking on the bright-side: I'm happy honda at least made the effort. I hope they sell a berkeley ton of them, and offer a super-econo (HF) and performance (Si) model in 4 years.
Yep, looking forward to the next model.
You'll need to log in to post.
