Topic: 2011 Honda CR-Z; Day 1

[Autos_Editor]

Honda calls its new CR-Z the only "sporty" hybrid on the market, and James is inclined to agree. To what degree it's sporty is up for debate though; keep reading this week for his opinions on this CRX-esque two-seater.

Read More...

[JohnM]

There is going to be a lot of criticism of the CR-Z  on the basis it is not a rubber burner.  But it is probably about as sporty as cars are going to be once new fuel efficiency standards are enacted.  And certainly enough for most people now.

So call it "real world sporty".

But it does look great in the sheet metal in my opinion and the other factor is impressions from people who count.  My gf thinks it looks great.  She actually gets enthusiastic.  Case closed.

Cheers,
John Meyer

[Just the Facts]

Cudos for Honda for keeping the low price point, can't go wrong with that.

[Ex-airbalancer]

At 182.88 cm and 112 kg, there was room for me in the driver seat

I see enough Smart cars out there that 2 seats will not be a problem

[Mike]

I applaud that Honda put a 6-speed manual into a hybrid and the two seat compact shape is very appealling.  I just wish they would stop pushing the 'sport' so much with this car and let win people over on its own merits as a tossable hatchback with great fuel economy.

Calling it the sportiest hybrid is like saying you own the fastest minivan.

[Shnak]

I applaud that Honda put a 6-speed manual into a hybrid and the two seat compact shape is very appealling.  I just wish they would stop pushing the 'sport' so much with this car and let win people over on its own merits as a tossable hatchback with great fuel economy.

Calling it the sportiest hybrid is like sayung you own the fastest minivan.

Hey, no need to put down minivans... many of them, like the Sienna, are faster than a lot of sporty cars, like the Regal. 

[Mike]

I applaud that Honda put a 6-speed manual into a hybrid and the two seat compact shape is very appealling.  I just wish they would stop pushing the 'sport' so much with this car and let win people over on its own merits as a tossable hatchback with great fuel economy.

Calling it the sportiest hybrid is like sayung you own the fastest minivan.

Hey, no need to put down minivans... many of them, like the Sienna, are faster than a lot of sporty cars, like the Regal. 

[Snowdog]

There is going to be a lot of criticism of the CR-Z  on the basis it is not a rubber burner.  But it is probably about as sporty as cars are going to be once new fuel efficiency standards are enacted.  And certainly enough for most people now.

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.



What Honda should have done for the two models:

1: Is make a sporty non-hybrid model with a 6spd MT, K18/20 engine. It would have been faster/lighter/cheaper and still achieved pretty good MPG.
2: The hybrid model with the same 1.3L/CVT as insight that would have been getting comparable fuel economy to other Hybrids.

Then there would be a clear model for enthusiasts and eco-fans, that were each very good at their mission. Instead neither CRZ is good at anything, it is designed by committee mediocrity defined. 

[Shnak]

There is going to be a lot of criticism of the CR-Z  on the basis it is not a rubber burner.  But it is probably about as sporty as cars are going to be once new fuel efficiency standards are enacted.  And certainly enough for most people now.

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.



What Honda should have done for the two models:

1: Is make a sporty non-hybrid model with a 6spd MT, K18/20 engine. It would have been faster/lighter/cheaper and still achieved pretty good MPG.
2: The hybrid model with the same 1.3L/CVT as insight that would have been getting comparable fuel economy to other Hybrids.

Then there would be a clear model for enthusiasts and eco-fans, that were each very good at their mission. Instead neither CRZ is good at anything, it is designed by committee mediocrity defined. 

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the terms 'Sporty' and 'Sports car'. The CR-Z is a sporty hybrid coupe because by most accounts, it handles well and is fun to drive, but it's not a Sports car.

[D70]

 I can see a place for this sporty Insight, sorry CR-Z, . If you want a coupe that's good to drive why not.

  The best economy is not the objective of this car its the overall experience I would think a very practical car for a lot of people just as the Miata is

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d70w7/4928888979/in/set-72157623030799954/

[Dante]

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the terms 'Sporty' and 'Sports car'. The CR-Z is a sporty hybrid coupe because by most accounts, it handles well and is fun to drive, but it's not a Sports car.

It is. And there is a big distinction between 0-60mph and "sporty" or "sport" car - see your above comment on the minivans . "Sporty" would have more to do with handling than 0-60 mph time; however this is not to say acceleration doesn't count, but I think how power is delivered and accessible overall combined with steering, suspension tuning, transmission etc. is what makes a car "sporty" or not.

I think a little Mazda2 M/T for example, with its little 4 bangers 100 hp is "sportier" than a 270 hp A/T minivan by all accounts.

[Shnak]

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the terms 'Sporty' and 'Sports car'. The CR-Z is a sporty hybrid coupe because by most accounts, it handles well and is fun to drive, but it's not a Sports car.

It is. And there is a big distinction between 0-60mph and "sporty" or "sport" car - see your above comment on the minivans . "Sporty" would have more to do with handling than 0-60 mph time; however this is not to say acceleration doesn't count, but I think how power is delivered and accessible overall combined with steering, suspension tuning, transmission etc. is what makes a car "sporty" or not.

I think a little Mazda2 M/T for example, with its little 4 bangers 100 hp is "sportier" than a 270 hp A/T minivan by all accounts.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. Either way, I certainly don't have a problem with Honda marketing the CR-Z as a sporty vehicle.

[whaddaiknow]

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the terms 'Sporty' and 'Sports car'. The CR-Z is a sporty hybrid coupe because by most accounts, it handles well and is fun to drive, but it's not a Sports car.

What is the big distinction between sporty and sports? Only having some attributes of a sports care but not ALL? Which ones? "Handles well"? Get a thicker stabilizer bar and sticky tires on the CamAry, and it will handle well, too. Fun to drive? "Fun" is such a subjective term.

There are many cars out there which I could call fast, tight, well-composed, solid, AND comfortable be it a sedan or a coupe without naming any that actually provide some serious "sportiness" and every day comfort.

To me the word "sporty" means lacking some or most of the attributes of a real sports car, or simply pretending to be one, and it aint good. Call it a tossable fun to drive hatch, and I may give it a second look. When it is marketed as something it clearly is not, it sounds like they are trying to con their target audience into buying their product under a false pretence, and when they do convince you to buy their "sporty" car, they patronizingly exclaim "Good sport!" and give you a pat on the back. Sounds like it might be a teenager's first dream car but the hybrid may kill that appeal though. Clear identity crisis.

It's my emotional reaction to this vehicle, nothing personal.

[Dante]

I think there's a big distinction to be made between the terms 'Sporty' and 'Sports car'. The CR-Z is a sporty hybrid coupe because by most accounts, it handles well and is fun to drive, but it's not a Sports car.

It is. And there is a big distinction between 0-60mph and "sporty" or "sport" car - see your above comment on the minivans . "Sporty" would have more to do with handling than 0-60 mph time; however this is not to say acceleration doesn't count, but I think how power is delivered and accessible overall combined with steering, suspension tuning, transmission etc. is what makes a car "sporty" or not.

I think a little Mazda2 M/T for example, with its little 4 bangers 100 hp is "sportier" than a 270 hp A/T minivan by all accounts.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. Either way, I certainly don't have a problem with Honda marketing the CR-Z as a sporty vehicle.

On a nutshell I agree with you that distinction should be made between "sporty" and "sport" cars, but I don't agree that a minivan (Sienna in your example) is "sportier" than a car (you used the Regal as a reference ) just because is has a faster 0-60 mph time.

Is the CR-Z really "sporty"? I don't know. Perhaps by the hybrid standards it is, but like someone said before, this is not much to say.

[Jaeger]

I applaud that Honda put a 6-speed manual into a hybrid and the two seat compact shape is very appealling.  I just wish they would stop pushing the 'sport' so much with this car and let win people over on its own merits as a tossable hatchback with great fuel economy.

Calling it the sportiest hybrid is like saying you own the fastest minivan.

Agreed on all points.

Jaeger

[Dante]

Sporty cars? I would say Civic Si, Mazdaspeed3, GTI, Lancer Ralliart, WRX

Sports cars? They come in different flavours and there is a broad spectrum for them - Corvette, GT-R, Porche, Evo, STi, Mustang GT and above

[Shnak]

On a nutshell I agree with you that distinction should be made between "sporty" and "sport" cars, but I don't agree that a minivan (Sienna in your example) is "sportier" than a car (you used the Regal as a reference ) just because is has a faster 0-60 mph time.

I never said the Sienna was sportier than anything... I said it was faster than many 'sporty' vehicles, but I never implied a link between speed and sportiness.

[Shnak]

Sporty cars? I would say Civic Si, Mazdaspeed3, GTI, Lancer Ralliart, WRX

Sports cars? They come in different flavours and there is a broad spectrum for them - Corvette, GT-R, Porche, Evo, STi, Mustang GT and above

That's my thinking also.

To me, sporty cars are regular cars for the most part, with some tweaks here and there to make them that much more fun to drive... more power, better handling, firmer suspension, etc.

Sports cars have performance as their #1 priority. They often compromise day-to-day driving experience, but that's okay, it comes with the territory.

[Mike]

Sporty cars? I would say Civic Si, Mazdaspeed3, GTI, Lancer Ralliart, WRX

Sports cars? They come in different flavours and there is a broad spectrum for them - Corvette, GT-R, Porche, Evo, STi, Mustang GT and above

That's my thinking also.

To me, sporty cars are regular cars for the most part, with some tweaks here and there to make them that much more fun to drive... more power, better handling, firmer suspension, etc.

Sports cars have performance as their #1 priority. They often compromise day-to-day driving experience, but that's okay, it comes with the territory.

Exactly, and to make things more confusng, a Sports car is not necessarily faster then a sporty car.  My RX-8 was a sports car, but my current 'sporty' car (WRX) wold beat it around most tracks. 

[Shnak]

Sporty cars? I would say Civic Si, Mazdaspeed3, GTI, Lancer Ralliart, WRX

Sports cars? They come in different flavours and there is a broad spectrum for them - Corvette, GT-R, Porche, Evo, STi, Mustang GT and above

That's my thinking also.

To me, sporty cars are regular cars for the most part, with some tweaks here and there to make them that much more fun to drive... more power, better handling, firmer suspension, etc.

Sports cars have performance as their #1 priority. They often compromise day-to-day driving experience, but that's okay, it comes with the territory.

Exactly, and to make things more confusng, a Sports car is not necessarily faster then a sporty car.  My RX-8 was a sports car, but my current 'sporty' car (WRX) wold beat it around most tracks. 

Which is why I'm not entirely sure I would consider the RX-8 a sports car myself... at the very least, not a very good sports car. But that's only my opinion and I'm sure many will disagree. The distinction between sporty and sports car isn't cut and dry... it's more of a general sentiment. "This car has some sporty aspect to it" as opposed to "This car is a dedicated sports car". I don't know. Who cares really, it's only marketing really.