CR-Z - why the hate?

In reply to JohnGalt: But it's not a sports car. It's sport-y, but it's not supposed to be a sports car. It's just supposed to be a fun runaround.

That's exactly what it is.

I just drove the CR-Z. I was pleasantly surprised after reading all the hate about it. Its a sporty little car. Especially in "sport" mode. You feel the difference instantly. I wouldn't use the "econo" mode unless I was crawling in traffic. Might as well save gas.

Is it a race car? No. Is it a family car? With no back seat. No. But it is a zippy little commuter car that you can drive with a clear conscience towards the environment. I'd buy one if I didn't need a tow vehicle, and had only 1 friend.

^^ Former CR-X owner.

JohnGalt wrote: 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....

this ^

ReverendDexter wrote: But it's not a sports car. It's sport-*y*, but it's not supposed to be a sports car. It's just supposed to be a fun runaround.

but the CRX was a sports car and they have marketed the CRZ as a successor to the CRX, and it's not.

I don't hate the car, I hate that Honda marketed the CRZ as a successor to the CRX, and it's not even in the same spirit.

ReverendDexter wrote: In reply to JohnGalt: But it's not a sports car. It's sport-*y*, but it's not supposed to be a sports car. It's just supposed to be a fun runaround.

That's a good point, i certainly would take one over a smart car however when a car only has 2 seats and two doors that in my mind limits the purpose of the car severely. If i wanted a runaround car i would want something a bit more utilitarian than a two seat two door sport-y car. Maybe the car just has an identity complex. For a runaround i would rather have a Fit and for a sporty car i would buy a Civic SI. The CRZ is stuck on the middle at least for those who don't WANT a hybrid.

About a month and a half ago I test drove a nearly stock CRX for a board member. Getting in the car was a great reminder of what turned my onto Hondas in the first place. Less than a week later, we got the CR-Z as a press car.

They aren't the same, but I challenge anyone to drive them back to back (stock for stock) and not feel the direct lineage.

I'm not completely in love with the CR-Z, (It's too expensive and leans too far toward economy for my tastes) but I seriously don't get the negative reaction from folks who haven't driven it. It's a fun, cool car.

My .02, YMMV.

Tom Heath wrote: ...but I seriously don't get the negative reaction from folks who haven't driven it. It's a fun, cool car. My .02, YMMV.

Like I said, it's the fact that it could have been so much better.

If the RX7 were to be re-released, but came with a single rotor engine, you could say that it's just as fast as a '79, you could talk about how cutting edge it is, etc., but the fact would remain that it wouldn't be living up to it's potential.

It's like when Ford tried to release the Probe as the next-gen Mustang. It's a good car, but it isn't a Mustang. The CR-Z may be a good car, but it hasn't earned the right to carry the nameplate.

I also think that if they had realeased a K20 powered Si, and followed up with the hybrid drivetrain, then the negative reaction would be nil.

The CR-V may be a good car, but it hasn't earned the right to carry the nameplate.

But it seats six!

I could see it being cool if it was the first turbo hybrid. Maybe turbo diesel hybrid for insane mileage.

kabel wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: But it's not a sports car. It's sport-*y*, but it's not supposed to be a sports car. It's just supposed to be a fun runaround.

but the CRX was a sports car and they have marketed the CRZ as a successor to the CRX, and it's not.

But the original CRX wasn't a sports car. It was originally designed as a more fuel-efficient version of the Civic, and just happened to be sporty because of what they did to make it so. Everyone's performance image of the CRX is based off of the Si, and there's no CR-Z Si to make it a fair comparison.

ReverendDexter wrote:

kabel wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: But it's not a sports car. It's sport-*y*, but it's not supposed to be a sports car. It's just supposed to be a fun runaround.

but the CRX was a sports car and they have marketed the CRZ as a successor to the CRX, and it's not.

But the original CRX *wasn't* a sports car. It was originally designed as a more fuel-efficient version of the Civic, and just happened to be sporty because of what they did to make it so. Everyone's performance image of the CRX is based off of the Si, and there's no CR-Z Si to make it a fair comparison.

^^^ Ed Zachary!

But it hasn't earned the right to carry the badge from a fuel efficiency standpoint either.

If you're only comparing current model with the best ever of the breed, it's going to be hard to find any satisfaction. The same could be said for the new Beetle, Camaro, Challenger, Charger, etc... except the CR-Z is a better match for the original than any of those.

Oh wait, it's not even the CRX, it's the CR-Z. New badge, no problem, right?

A 20 year advance in technology should allow it to do SOMETHING better than the original though, shouldn't it? Lighter? Faster? Better Mileage? More blue LED's? Oh wait - they nailed that last category.

DILYSI Dave wrote: A 20 year advance in technology should allow it to do SOMETHING better than the original though, shouldn't it? Lighter? Faster? Better Mileage? More blue LED's? Oh wait - they nailed that last category.

Well, you won't like this answer, but the advantage it has is that as a base model, it hits all of the same benchmarks of the performance model of the CRX, while having all of the tacked on BS expected and/or required of a brand new car. So, you get CRX performance with modern airbags, crash protection, infotainment system, power windows/seats/mirrors, etc, etc, etc. I'd also reckon a guess that it's much happier and quieter cruising at 75mph than the CRX ever thought of being.

Toyman01 wrote: Because it's a Honda. I have an irrational hate of any Honda with more than two wheels. The Civic Si we used for Lemons came close to changing my mind, but not quite.

(shakes head) You will eventually come around.

I don't know enough about the CR-Z to make an informed comment (yeah, I know, when has that ever stopped me before? ) so I will refrain until I get a chance to actually drive one.

I have to say that I have owned both two and four wheeled Hondas, damn good vehicles and not at all difficult to work on.