Yes, but what does the GRM review *say*? Quit teasing us! 
"...the average times after a whole morning of runs were within 0.03 second of each other..."
"...the two cars went about their missions slightly differently...The CR-Z is obviously bigger and heavier, but it drives small and rotates on its front tires like a car clearly designed to carve a nice line."
"The latest CR car is merely trying to be fun, frugal, sporty car that carries on Honda's long tradition of cutting-edge two-seaters."
I believe the message from the article is this was not an attempt to replace the CRX but rather to offer a balanced 2 seat sporty car for a future of fuel efficient driving. The market dictates heavy safety features and creature comforts therefore we will never see light weight cars like the CRX until the cost of carbon fiber comes down.
"The only surprise would be if the CR-Z didn't beat a 20 year old car in the same class. There has been massive progress in 20 years, modern iterations of sporty cars from 20 years ago, like a 2010 Miata, or 2010 VW GTI would obliterate their 20 year old counterparts (and the CR-Z). Performing like it was 20 years ago is ridiculous benchmark." I agree with your statement however tire development has allowed these cars to generate skid pad and braking numbers far superior to their 20 year old counter parts. Colin Chapman always insisted that weight is the enemy of a good handling car and the 88 CRX tips the scales at 2100lbs vs the CR-Z at 2700. Take a stock 88 CRX and add modern performance tires (like many autocrossers do), equivalent to what Honda put on the CR-Z and the Grassroots performance test would be very different indeed.
