Topic: First Drive: 2011 Honda CR-Z

[Mozeby]

The Echo hatchback at just over 2100 lb was a light car, now that was a fun car to drive despite the piddly 108 HP. The new light is probably the Mazda 2 at just over 2,300 lb. 2,800 lb is not light, but given the batteries, I never expected it to be in the first place.

I think really we can blame government regulations for the new overweight generation of vehicles.

The companies are just giving us what we want, as consumers.  If Honda re released the original CRX as is, people would be stupified.  Where is the sophistication?  Where is the safety?  What is the door like a piece of tin?  It's too small, I can't fit inside, I'm too fat...  WHAT, only 14" rims? etc....

Todays subcompacts are the size of the 80s & 90's compact cars.  Same goes for compacts that now have the interior room of most midsizers from those same decades.  The new midsizers are just as big or bigger than the full size cars from any year before 2000.  It's crazy but many muscle cars from the 60s weigh about the same as todays V6 family sedans.

[Angry Chicken]

My '89 CRX Si weighs only 2000 lb.  The original engine in it was 108 bhp.  It's weight/power ratio is 18.5 lb/bhp.  The CRZ is 2800 lb.  Its hybrid power plant is good for 122 bhp meaning that its weight/power ratio is 22.9 lb/bhp.  It's not particularly quick since its transmission is geared more for fuel economy.  Most car magazine peg the CRZ at the mid 9's to low 10's to 60 mph.  The Gen II CRX Si is capable (again with the stock engine) of the high 7's to mid 8's to 60 mph by virtue of packing less weight per unit power + it has a much closer ratio transmission.

Unfortunately the CRZ's avoir du pois, coupled with cheap, easy-to-package macpherson struts up front and a torsion beam in the back makes it more of a poseur boulevardier vs. a serious corner carver.  This is something that the original CRX (both Gen I and II) were known for.  Will people care about these things?  Probably not.  People forget that this was essentially the formula for the Gen I CRX.  Cheap, fun-to-drive and reliable.  Plus you had an instant excuse for not giving free rides to all your friends since it's only a 2-seater.  The Gen II CRX Si was the more serious model and catered to the performance crowd (at least around curves!) though it does have more serious scoot in a straight line by virtue of it's multipoint sequential fuel injected 1.6 litre engine, vs. the more pedestrian CRX model's 1.5 litre, throttle body injected engine.  It also had 185/60R14 tires (vs. 175/70R13!) and was fitted with both front and rear anti-roll bars.  Both Gen II CRX engines are SOHC 16V engines....a design that Honda pioneered for passenger cars.

I will be most interested in the CRZ Si.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I'll buy one as long as its weight/power ratio and gearing can match the Gen II CRX Si.  To do that, (and assuming a 2800 lb curb weight) it will only need 150 bhp and probably a 6 speed transmission where the 1st 5 speeds are close ratio.  Of course I'm assuming lower profile, wider tires and different suspension tuning too.

[rrocket]

Yes, I was a bit surprised by the curb weight, since my 2001 Insight weighed a mere 1887lbs.

[Ex-airbalancer]

the reason for heavy cars
http://www.iihs.org/

[Angry Chicken]

I'm fine with the extra weight actually since it's truly value (safety) added.  I'm feeling a bit exposed in my CRX to tell the truth.  No airbags, antilock brakes or proper rollover and safety cell construction.  2 decades have seen a *lot* of improvements.

[rrocket]

I'm fine with the extra weight actually since it's truly value (safety) added.  I'm feeling a bit exposed in my CRX to tell the truth.  No airbags, antilock brakes or proper rollover and safety cell construction.  2 decades have seen a *lot* of improvements.

Yea..you'd be squished if in a wreck in that car...

[Angry Chicken]

I'm fine with the extra weight actually since it's truly value (safety) added.  I'm feeling a bit exposed in my CRX to tell the truth.  No airbags, antilock brakes or proper rollover and safety cell construction.  2 decades have seen a *lot* of improvements.

Yea..you'd be squished if in a wreck in that car...

I won't let my kids drive it.  Also, recently someone died in a CRX recently near here.  A young adult who had just bought it the week previously wrapped his around a pole.

[johngenx]

One of the reasons we bought the Corolla was the number of safety features packed into a $20K car.

However, I sure don't let lack of safety features influence my decision when it comes to fun.

[Minou]

I purchased a new "pedestrian" 92 hp silver CRX in January 1988 and kept it more than 5 years.  It took me to Nova-Scotia that year and to Florida in 1991 plus several other shorter trips.  How I could manage that without A.C., cruise and that sitting on the floor seat I don't know but this small car was amazing.  It weighed all of 1922 lbs and I recall a best tank of 57 Imp MPG.  An average highway tank would be around 52.

I don't know why Honda went to such lenghts with the CRZ.  I would have much prefered them to go the lighter and simpler route.  i.e. ditch the batteries and hybrid hardware in favor of a regular 140 HP 1.8 Civic engine for the base model and the SI's high strung 2.0 as the top model.  Top that with DI, VCM and stop-start for great performance and similar fuel economy as the hybrid CRZ is pulling.  All that for thousands less while resurecting the mytical gen II CRX in today's standards.

[Snowdog]

As with my old Insight, the "real world" figures blow the EPA numbers out of the water.  When I was so inclined, I could get my economy down into the mid 2s to mid 3s.  Since this car uses pretty much the same system, I'm guessing you'll see some pretty impressive economy numbers...if you aren't driving the car like you've stolen it...

This is nothing like the Insights system, except that they both have an IMA.

Hybrids boost MPG in three ways:

1: Recovery of wasted braking energy (regen).
2: Keeping the Gas engine in the most efficient range by running on EV power alone, or aiding the Gas engine.
3: Having a very efficient gas engine you wouldn't normally include (Atkinson, undersized engine with lean burn).

Of these the most important thing is #3. Have a very efficient engine.

In the this case all three MPG boosting effects are weakened.

1: CR-Z Regen energy recovery is compromised for brake feel.
2: CR-Z has no EV only mode as it is in other Honda hybrids (weak but at least they have one).
3: The CR-Z engine is not a special economy motor, it isn't a small 3 cyl, it isn't Atkinson, it isn't lean burn. It is just a standard Fit engine.

All in all you would expect a small bump on Fit mpg and that is what you are seeing.

[Dan]

Althought I really like the look of this new CR-Z it doesn't have nearly enough power to make this a "sporty car" in my mind. BBC's Top Gear put the Toyota Prius and the BMW M3 head to head on the race track and the M3 got far better gas millage than the Prius. So if you are thinking of buying this car thinking you car drive it aggressively and still get great gas milage you are propbably going to be disappointed. Could be wrong, but I'm skeptical. Why doesn't Honda bring back the Prelude with a 300BHP motor in it or a true electric sports car like the Tesla but for far less coin? Now those would be of interest !

[CanuckS2K]

Althought I really like the look of this new CR-Z it doesn't have nearly enough power to make this a "sporty car" in my mind. BBC's Top Gear put the Toyota Prius and the BMW M3 head to head on the race track and the M3 got far better gas millage than the Prius. So if you are thinking of buying this car thinking you car drive it aggressively and still get great gas milage you are propbably going to be disappointed. Could be wrong, but I'm skeptical. Why doesn't Honda bring back the Prelude with a 300BHP motor in it or a true electric sports car like the Tesla but for far less coin? Now those would be of interest !

Now that is something I'd definitely like to see Honda do......especially with the SH-AWD!!

[rrocket]

Althought I really like the look of this new CR-Z it doesn't have nearly enough power to make this a "sporty car" in my mind. BBC's Top Gear put the Toyota Prius and the BMW M3 head to head on the race track and the M3 got far better gas millage than the Prius. So if you are thinking of buying this car thinking you car drive it aggressively and still get great gas milage you are propbably going to be disappointed. Could be wrong, but I'm skeptical. Why doesn't Honda bring back the Prelude with a 300BHP motor in it or a true electric sports car like the Tesla but for far less coin? Now those would be of interest !

Ahh yes..another one of Top Gear's "tests".....

[dkaz]

I won't let my kids drive it.  Also, recently someone died in a CRX recently near here.  A young adult who had just bought it the week previously wrapped his around a pole.

About a week and a half ago, two kids (21 and 22) in a 2007 Nissan Altima died when their car hit a power pole severing that pole in half before smashing into a building. If you go stupidly too fast, a lamp or power pole is going to kill you no matter how young or old your car is.

[Angry Chicken]

I won't let my kids drive it.  Also, recently someone died in a CRX recently near here.  A young adult who had just bought it the week previously wrapped his around a pole.

About a week and a half ago, two kids (21 and 22) in a 2007 Nissan Altima died when their car hit a power pole severing that pole in half before smashing into a building. If you go stupidly too fast, a lamp or power pole is going to kill you no matter how young or old your car is.

True enough, but when you have kids you tend to feel their mortality as well as your own.  The CRX is a agile little beast and arguably will be able to avoid most accidents when properly and attentively driven.