The New CRX (2011 CRZ) - Gas Savers

bowtieguy · 07-28-2010, 08:39 PM

at first look, i'd like to have one, but FE in the 30s(hwy and city)? lame is an understatement! IT'S A HYBRID!!! 30ish mpg, give me a break!

http://cr-z.honda.com/?ef_id=1097:1:...20100729023227

pgfpro · 07-28-2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

at first look, i'd like to have one, but FE in the 30s(hwy and city)? lame is an understatement! IT'S A HYBRID!!! 30ish mpg, give me a break!

http://cr-z.honda.com/?ef_id=1097:1:...20100729023227

I'm not getting what Honda was trying to accomplish with this car? Its like it doesn't fit in either category Performance or FE-Hybrid? I like the body though.

**theholycow** · 07-29-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I'm not getting what Honda was trying to accomplish with this car? {...} I like the body though.

You're getting the point just fine (even if that was sarcasm).

BTG, where are you getting that "30ish" MPG number? I didn't see it in the specifications at that link.

BEEF · 07-29-2010, 08:33 AM

http://cr-z.honda.com/specifications/

here are the specs for it

CR-Z [1]

- 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC 4-cylinder engine with Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)

- 122 horsepower (estimated) @ 6000 rpm (combined engine + IMA)

- 128 lb-ft. of torque (estimated) @ 1,000 – 1,500 rpm (123 lb-ft. for CVT), (combined engine + IMA)

- AT-PZEV CARB Emissions Rating

- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, CVT (City/Highway/Combined): 35/39/37 miles per gallon [2]

- EPA Estimated Fuel Economy, MT (City/Highway/Combined): 31/37/34 miles per gallon [2]
- Overall Vehicle Length x Width x Height (in): 160.6 x 68.5 x 54.9 (including antenna)

- Wheelbase (in.): 95.8

- Weight (lbs., preliminary estimates): Approximately 2,670 (MT) to 2,725 (CVT)

- 3-Mode Drive System (Sport/Normal/ECON)

- Eco Assist™ System

- 6-Speed Manual Transmission (standard)

- Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) with Paddle Shifter System (available)

- Advanced Compatibility Engineering™ (ACE™) Body Structure

- Vehicle Stability Assist™ (VSA?) with Traction Control

- Automatic Climate Control

- 16-inch Alloy Wheels

- Tilt and Telescopic Steering Column

- Security System with Remote Entry

- Cruise Control

- 160-Watt AM/FM/CD Audio System with MP3/windows with MP3/Windows Media? Audio (WMA) playback capability and 6 Speakers [3]

- MP3/Auxiliary Input Jack

- USB Audio Interface [4]

Jim T. · 07-29-2010, 09:39 AM

"snort!"
Traction assist with 122hp?
Why bother?

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim T.

"snort!"
Traction assist with 122hp?
Why bother?

Mostly because the stability control is legally required in all vehicles 2012 and later, and well... Traction control really is just a component of stability control.

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 10:29 AM

I really don't understand why everyone is knocking it as a waste of a car. It is doing it's job very well, showing that not all hybrids are boring eco-focused cars.

The CR-Z is NOT the successor to the Mk 1 Insight, and it is NOT the successor to the CRX HF. Not at all. The insight was the successor to the CRX HF, and the Civic VX. The old insight was the no holds barred, maximum MPG out of a practical vehicle.

The CR-Z is much much more to be thought of as the successor to the CRX SI. It is a sporty vehicle first and foremost. Not a high performance, as even the CRX SI was pathetic in acceleration. No, it's a zippy car, a performance car that is also an efficient car.

But most importantly, it's a car that really helps defeat the idea that a hybrid is inherently boring, and open up the non-eco community to the possibilities of a hybrid for many other applications.

I see it more that the CR-Z is a challenge to other manufacturers.

"You've matched our eco-hyrids... Now show us your sport hybrids".

Fetch · 07-29-2010, 10:32 AM

I bought a Fit. Less money, only slightly worse mileage, less weight, and a lot more room. The CR-Z would be a better buy if it was $16K, 2400 lbs, and had the Civic DX/LX/EX engine in place of the hybrid powertrain. That powertrain is good for 36 mpg in the Civic. Sell an Si version with the Civic Si motor for $21K. Unfortunately, this will never happen.

**theholycow** · 07-29-2010, 10:33 AM

How did I read right past the EPA estimates?

Those numbers make it the most efficient non-hybrid gasoline powered vehicle on the market. I don't see why you guys are sneering.

I wonder why the CVT produces a better FE rating?

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theholycow

I wonder why the CVT produces a better FE rating?

Because with the CVT, the engine is able to accelerate while maintaining its perfect RPM for efficiency.

The engine is probably tuned to be most efficient at something like 2500rpm, and it's able to maintain 2500rpm throughout its entire acceleration process.

(That, and it doesn't have the energy wasting torque converter to deal with, which is the bane of all automatics)

Nrggeek · 07-29-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theholycow

How did I read right past the EPA estimates?

Those numbers make it the most efficient non-hybrid gasoline powered vehicle on the market. I don't see why you guys are sneering.

But it IS a hybrid. I'm not in the market for a new car right now anyway. Hopefully one or more of the cars from the Automotive X-Prize will make their way to the market in the next five years or so.

Bill

**theholycow** · 07-29-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biffmeistro

(That, and it doesn't have the energy wasting torque converter to deal with, which is the bane of all automatics)

I was comparing it to its rating with a manual transmission...there is no traditional automatic available with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nrggeek

But it IS a hybrid.

Eek! Once again I missed something that is totally obvious. It's plastered all over the page but I was so focused on reading numbers that I missed it.

In that case, it is the only hybrid available with a manual transmission right now. That gives it quite a distinction for hypermilers, IMO.

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nrggeek

But it IS a hybrid.

Well, in all honestly, his statement still stands.

As a hybrid, yes, it is a lot more pathetic than it could be.

But it is the single most efficient sport coupe on the market.

Honda isn't trying to make a car focused on FE, Honda is trying to show that hybrids don't have to be boring.

Don't think of it as an inefficient hybrid, think of it as a hyper-efficient sport coupe.

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theholycow

I was comparing it to its rating with a manual transmission...there is no traditional automatic available with it.

Even so, once more my statement stands.

The bane of automatics, and one of the reasons why even an incredibly efficient automatic has a hard time keeping up with a manual for FE, is the wasteful, overheating Torque converter.

With the fact that not only does it not have one of those horrid things, added to the fact that it is able to keep up the RPM at a perfect efficiency, means that it is more efficient than a manual, when the manual is driven normally.

Jim T. · 07-29-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biffmeistro

Mostly because the stability control is legally required in all vehicles 2012 and later, and well... Traction control really is just a component of stability control.

Welcome to the nanny-state where even idiots can learn to drive!

**theholycow** · 07-29-2010, 01:20 PM

Stability control is more about band-aiding the inherent instability of narrow, tall SUVs being driven like cars than it is about making driving easier.

I don't care either way about it as long as it can be shut off, but I do like that it means you're likely to have ABS.

**theholycow** · 07-29-2010, 02:13 PM

I think Biffmeistro meant a hyper-efficient 2011 sport coupe...there's no sense comparing new cars to 1980s-1990s cars, because there's no sense being exercised at the car companies.

Biffmeistro · 07-29-2010, 03:24 PM

Actually.....

At a comparable scale (Adjusted for the method of MPG calculation of 2008), the 1986 CRX Si (The most efficient Si CRX of all), got 26 city, 30 highway.

The manual CR-Z gets 31/37.

As far as performance goes, yes, the 91 CRX Si has a 0-60 of about 8.5 vs Edmunds test of 8.8 on the CR-Z, so it does have the miniscule advantage there, but the CRX Si could only pull .81g on the skidpad vs .83 for the CR-Z, with the CR-Z posting a 61.4mph slalom vs a 61.0 for the CRX.

So... Perfomance wise, these two cars are, near as makes no difference, Identical.

And yet the CR-Z gets better City MPG than the CRX did highway. Heck, even when you take the 1991 EPA ratings, the CR-Z still trashes it. Originally, the CRX Si was rated at 28/33.

So yes, the CR-Z IS a hyper efficient CRX Si. Meeting it in every performance category, and beating it in every FE category.

And when you think of it not as a hybrid, but as a performance car, it still is the most efficient performance car you can get, at all.

According to the EPA site, fort 2011 cars:
The current highest MPG "Sporty" car is the Audi A5 at 23/30.
The current highest MPG "Coupe" is the A5 quattro at 21/31
The current highest MPG "Hatchback" is the Aveo at 27/35

Heck, the only current non-hybrid gasoline cars that get better MPG are the new Fiesta and the Smart.

Yes, it is a hyper efficient sporty car. It is the most fuel efficient sporty car EVER made.

I do challenge you, find a sport oriented car that has ever had EPA mpg ratings higher than it, and you can even use the manual EPA ratings to make it easier. (Edit: It has to be in the USA, of course. No cheating by using nations with lax emissions regulations)

Edit: So far the closest thing I could find for a "sporty" type of car would be the Mini Cooper, and even that only is able to match the highway FE of the CR-Z, but not even touch the City MPG. 28/37

VetteOwner · 07-31-2010, 04:39 AM

just saw it and (insert barfing smiley here)

why WHY do new cars all look like a buncha electric razors had sex with plastic easter eggs...

doesnt look any sportier than most of the new cars that size that are out to me...

looks like im stuck looking at pre mid 90's cars since that stupid 2012 ESC mandate law is around; too much anti retard stuff on cars nowadays...

**theholycow** · 07-31-2010, 06:35 AM

If ESC is the only thing stopping you from looking at newer cars, it's easy enough to disable. Also, you don't need to go so far back to mid-90s; 2008 was when the law first started taking effect, before that there were plenty of cars sold without it.

Biffmeistro · 07-31-2010, 09:18 AM

The hybrid aspect gives the CR-Z a much better city mpg, and once more that is where it shines. The auto is the one that defeats the CR-Z, and then only the manual, because the auto CR-Z defeats the auto fiesta soundly in MPG, especially city.

Yes, you can get MUCH sportier cars than the CR-Z that only get marginally less MPG then the CR-Z, and with a much lower price tag, etc...

But the CR-Z is doing it's job very well.

It wasn't designed as a car to be a the new high performing subcompact, and it wasn't designed as a high MPG hybrid.

The CR-Z exists for one purpose:

To show that Hybrids can be sporty.

pgfpro · 07-31-2010, 10:47 AM

[HTML]The CR-Z exists for one purpose:
To show that Hybrids can be sporty.[/HTML]
I think this is what Honda was thinking with this car.

I know for fact that if Honda wanted to make a killer FE/Sports car that would be a non-Hybrid they could. Its just not in the marketing plan right now. Plus the average consumer would end up killing themselves in it.

The CR-Z sounds like a future tuner car so I guess we will have to wait and see if they can make it extremely fast while not sacrificing FE.

VetteOwner · 07-31-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theholycow

If ESC is the only thing stopping you from looking at newer cars, it's easy enough to disable. Also, you don't need to go so far back to mid-90s; 2008 was when the law first started taking effect, before that there were plenty of cars sold without it.

all the safety BS stuff is only a very small part of why new cars suck (after all they ALL can be disabled)

i stopped looking when they got rid of steel bumpers and they all started to look like silver electric razors that cross bred with easter eggs and sound like their powered by beehives and gerbils... cars have absolutely NO character nowadays...look back 30+ years and you can see major differences between auto manufacturers styles.

so yes i need to go back 20 years at least back when cars had some charachter

lol the comments on that site sheesh... some people need to get off hondas nuts haha i bet $1000 every one of em has the latest ipod and all accessories

bowtieguy · 07-31-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VetteOwner

...i bet $1000 every one of em has the latest ipod and all accessories

i know we're OT here, but it is worth noting that for all of our safety tech, consumers continue to find ways to hurt themselves...texting while driving, ipod (headphones) on while walking and driving--many pedestrians are less aware of their surroundings, like drivers.

besides, we are disconnecting ourselves from face to face contact. wounded duck say "tech not all good!"

keloyd · 07-31-2010, 04:02 PM

...sorta.

The Japanese highway fuel economy test is more like a constant 60-65 mph with the cruise on and is more optimistic than the US EPA Hwy numbers. The Japanese report 59 mpg(US) for the CVT and 53 for the 6 spd manual on the highway. European numbers are similar.

It still is a shame this car is so compromised. My '97 Jetta was the same weight, but I hope things are not as bad as they appear.

I've also read, but cannot find a citation, that the US test does not allow switching to "econ" mode. Wouldn't you prefer a peppy 30 mpg some days and a pokey 50 mpg other days when it was the right time and place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-Z#Fuel_economy

Biffmeistro · 08-01-2010, 11:05 AM

I guess then it is probably more appropriate to compare it to the Civix HX rather than the Civic VX (Same design goal, but the HX is less radical due to stricter emissions).

My point being, the fiesta SFE is a pure fuel economy based machine. I've seen definite differences in aerodynamic tweaks (grill block, underpan, ect). However, it also posts even higher city mpg than the auto, so it is definitely tuned different, and drivability had to have been sacrificed a bit.

How do I know drivability has been sacrificed? If it was just a little bit of tuning tweaks that had no effect on drivability, then they would have done it to the auto model anyway, and would have had no need for an SFE package.

But this whole digression doesn't take away from the fact that there is no car with any sportyness that can match the CR-Z in MPG. Highway? One or two can do so, but when it comes to City, the CR-Z stomps every one of them.

The CR-Z is still the most efficient sporty car on the market, Ford Fiesta even being counted!

Biffmeistro · 08-01-2010, 06:45 PM

How in the world could you consider 2600 lbs to be heavy for a modern car?

A "pig" at 2600 lbs?

I guess the fiesta is also a lardo at a barely lighter 2490 lbs, or the new insight is a fatty at 2700 lbs, or heck, the fit at 2550 lbs.

2600 lbs is the lightest Civic you can buy today.

You have a strange concept of weight in a modern car.

And since when is 36mpg CITY considered bad for MPG? Not to mention 38mpg highway.

I still stand by my statement that the CR-Z is a very efficient sporty car. And in all honesty, if there are only 2 to 4 other cars with a sporty feel that even come close to the MPG of a CR-Z, then it still stands as being a very efficient sporty car.

And as of yet, you have yet to list a sporty car that even touches its city mpg, let alone its combined.

There is also the fact that it is equal to the performance of the old CRX Si, in basically every aspect, and completely trashes the old CRX Si for MPG. Heck, it even trashes the CRX base for MPG in all aspects.

Why is a car that performs identically to the old CRX not considered sporty?

Please, answer me that.

Biffmeistro · 08-01-2010, 10:34 PM

Wait, what? You do realize that it both meets modern crash regulations, which the 90's civic doesn't. That and it is a hybrid, and I'm sorry, but hybrids have heavy battery packs. It's just a fact of it being a hybrid.

Okay, what about the fact that it does the 100 foot slalom faster than the old CRX?

So.. A 2600 lb (manual transmission) CR-V is 1000lbs too heavy? The only 1600 lb new car legal to sell in the USA is the Smart Fortwo. And that is as sporty as a Geo Metro.

Heck, at a mere 2600 lbs, the CR-Z is definitely one of the lightest sporty cars for sale in America, if not the lightest. The 2010 civic Si is 2900lbs curb. The Hyundai Genesis is 3200 lbs curb, The Scion TC is 2900 lbs curb as well.

Standard for nowadays is 3000 or so lbs being a "light" sporty car.

You have done absolutely nothing to validly dispute the fact that the CR-Z is the highest MPG sporty car on the market. And it definitely IS a sporty car, there is no denying that. Not a high performance car, a sporty car. There is a big difference.

As I have said before, it has one job, and it does that job very well.

The CR-Z shows that hybrids can be sporty.

**theholycow** · 08-02-2010, 05:13 AM

It is a combination of ever increasing safety and emissions regulations, expectations from reviewers, expectations from consumers of durability/longevity, competition for horsepower, on-road competition for crash safety against SUVs, feature creep, and lack of any reason to keep it light.

There simply is no compelling reason to make cars light, and plenty to make them heavy. If there was a compelling reason to make them light, they'd compulsively make them light.

Quote:

Just remember, the '11 CR-Z has an MSRP of around $23K, a '91 CRX-Si has an MSRP of $11,000, the '95 Civic LX has an MSRP of $13,410, and the Ford '11 Fiesta S Sedan has an MSRP of $13,320. If you look at how a vehicle that is 15 years newer has about the same MSRP as one from 15 years ago, you should realize it's either an incredible value or the one from 15 years ago is incredibly overpriced.

You really like comparing apples to fountains, don't you?

Without even comparing the cars themselves, here's a few things that can immediately be said about the 2011 Fiesta vs. the 1995 Civic:
1. No Honda tax
2. Ford needs to keep their prices low right now
3. In 1995 the Civic had a good name. In 2011 the Fiesta is unknown to the general public.
4. American manufacturers have a bad reputation for small cars while the opposite can be said of Honda.

IMO, the 1995 Civic was indeed overpriced and the 2011 Fiesta is indeed a great deal. There's almost no cheaper vehicles at all now.

Quote:

You keep spouting off about how the CR-Z is to prove that Hybrids can be "sporty"... Who cares?! I'm not going to spend twice as much money for a vehicle just to drive a vehicle with a useless title such as that

Nobody's trying to sell you one...just looking at the effect it might have on the market.

Who cares? The general public cares! They buy Prii like hotcakes, but that leaves a whole market on the table - people who want to drive something that looks more aggressive and sporty by the generally accepted current standard, but still want to be able to tell their friends that they're driving a hybrid. The CRZ delivers that in spades.

trollbait · 08-02-2010, 03:48 PM

It may not meet some people's definition of sporty, but the Lexus LS600h has a 0 to 60 of 6 sec and pulls .82g. It is also rated 20/22 city/highway. Now the Accord Hybrid gets 24/32, does 0 to 60 in 6.7, and pull .78g.

The Accord is important to this discussion because, for 2005 to 2007, it was Honda's flagship car. They built it to prove that hybrid doesn't mean underpowered and no fun to drive, and it proved that point. But there is a reason it was the flagship up until 2007, they don't make them anymore.

The CR-Z feels like the Accord to me. It may be a great car, but there won't be a market for it. The Accord at least had a real point to make. At its introduction, there were only 3 another hybrid cars on the market. The Insight, Civic, and Prius. None of which had sex appeal at the time. The CR-Z can be called an affordable sporty hybrid, but that Lexus has been available since 2008. If people still think a hybrid has no pep or can't be sporty, they're simply not paying attention.