It is going to get a lot of criticism because it is an incredibly poor execution of a weak idea. Sporty-Hybrid is an oxymoron. They are at cross purposes. Sticky tires for performance will eat into fuel economy, low rollling resistance tires will kill handling. The weight of the Hybrid is negative for both acceleration and handling. Sporty and Hybrid are near mutually exclusive. CR-Z doesn't change that.
Comparing to what is out there:
CRZ somehow manages to be both slower and get less MPG than a big Ford Fusion hybrid.
Hondas own Fit is a better drivers car, faster, better handling, more practical, you can see out the back and it costs thousands less.
VW Golf TDI will get you similar performance, better fuel economy, and just better car all around.
The Fusion Hybrid is also 10 000 $ more than the CR-Z. Its advantage is due to its larger size which allows for a bigger battery and its different hybrid system that allows it to run only on the battery without turning the engine, something Honda's cheaper Integrated Motor Assist system cannot do. The CR-Z is a much better handler too.
BTW, from what info I have, the Fit isn't faster than the CR-Z, nor is it better handling.
The CR-Z is evidently a niche vehicle for people who want a small sporty car that looks futuristic and still gets great fuel economy. Like most "sporty" vehicles, if you look at it with a list of typical criteria and then compare with other options, it doesn't stand up, but that's normal. Sporty cars are often unjustifiable if you don't look at intangibles: how you like driving it, how it looks, etc... If we would care only about reasonable criteria for cars, we'd all be driving hatchbacks and station wagons with small 4 cylinder engines.
