Topic: 2011 Honda CR-Z; Day 1

[Sival]

The thing about the CRX is that it weighted 1 800 lbs and was, basically, a death trap in case of accident. Its only safety equipment was seatbelts. The super-efficient CRX was the HF, which had a 60 hp lean-burn engine and got to 60 mph in 12 seconds (with a manual). The version of the CRX that had similar performance to the CR-Z was actually the CRX Si, which had much worse fuel economy than the HF, it would be about as efficient as the Dodge Caliber manual 1.8L (so Canadian ratings of around 8,5 l/100 Km in the city and 6,6 l/100 Km on the highway, EPA ratings of 24/30 MPG).

So, did the CRX have just as good fuel economy as the CR-Z? One version did.
Was the CRX just as fast or faster than the CR-Z? One version was.
Was there one version of the CRX that was both? No.

Basically, the CR-Z is just as fast as the fastest version of the CRX was and still gives fuel economy that's better than most versions of the CRX in a car that's nearly 1000 lbs heavier and that is much safer and with more creature comforts. It remains a much better package than the CRX ever was.

As to the fact that today's cars tend to be much faster, that's true. But what car amongst the midsize sedans and minivans can really use that potential? Most of these cannot deal with that kind of power if there's any kind of curve in the road. The CR-Z is a car with the power matched to its handling capabilities.

I'm really not a Honda fanboy, but I don't like the unjustified beating this car gets.

[Shnak]

Great post! 

[Snowdog]

Sure, it could be lighter, quicker or have better fuel economy... but overall, it's still a neat package that will attract some people.

Sure it will attract some people. The Pontiac Aztek attracted some people (more than the CR-Z ever will).

BUT IMO competition is heating up and cars like the new Focus will deliver a practical,refined car, that out performs, out handles, gets better highway MPG, and IMO even looks better.

At some point Honda will be forced to address the performance, but it will still be ugly with no rear windows to speak of, and they will likely maintain the hybrid so it will be even more expensive.

I predict slow sales the first year and dwindling after that.

  @Sival:  You are again comparing to 20 year old goal posts that have moved on significantly.

A modern CRX SI performance today would match Miata/GTI  just like it did 20 years ago. Today that 0-60 in under 7 seconds. A modern civic HF wannabe should be getting Prius like 50mpg.

Honda tried to do it all in one car and failed miserably at both tasks. What they should have done is what I previously suggested.

A K20/6spd right out of the Civic Si, and no hybrid. This is the SI and it would have been a blast getting well under 7 seconds to 60 (and be lighter and better handling).
A 1.3/CVT/IMA  right out of the Insight. This is the HF and it would have done mid 40s MPG.

Both of these powertrains already existed and would have required no new engineering, to deliver two much better models than the weak MT/CVT with 1.5/IMA that we have now.  They wasted time and money on a terribly compromised power train when they already had better in the parts bin.

[Shnak]

Sure, it could be lighter, quicker or have better fuel economy... but overall, it's still a neat package that will attract some people.

Sure it will attract some people. The Pontiac Aztek attracted some people (more than the CR-Z ever will).

BUT IMO competition is heating up and cars like the new Focus will deliver a practical,refined car, that out performs, out handles, gets better highway MPG, and IMO even looks better.

Funny how you specifically pointed out highway MPG and not the usually more meaningful city MPG.

Also, if the Fiesta is any indication, the Focus probably won't impress anyone with its handling... one of the better strong suits of the CR-Z according to pretty much everyone. So allow me to highly doubt that the base Focus will significantly out-handle the CR-Z.

[TopGun]

.....
Basically, the CR-Z is just as fast as the fastest version of the CRX was and still gives fuel economy that's better than most versions of the CRX in a car that's nearly 1000 lbs heavier and that is much safer and with more creature comforts. It remains a much better package than the CRX ever was.

And a current Camry may be faster and have better fuel economy than a Miata -- who freak'n cares?  Shnak had it right previously...it's the fun to drive factor.  And if the CR-Z has it, then I'm all good.

.....The CR-Z is a car with the power matched to its handling capabilities.

I read (MotorTrendy) that the car is just too heavy.  However, I haven't driven either, so I'm obviously not able to say anything.   

[Steve]

Question for Wing, hope I'm not too late. I drive a lot of country road and do a lot of 80km/h to 80km/h 90 degree turns. Here's what I want in a sporty hybrid: the hybrid system store the wasted braking energy and acts as a zero lag booster as I exit the corner. How well does the CR-Z's motor boost the car out of the corner? And how's the acceleration between 70-120km/h?

[Shnak]

Question for Wing, hope I'm not too late. I drive a lot of country road and do a lot of 80km/h to 80km/h 90 degree turns.

Unless you've got a F-1, I honestly doubt that.

And how's the acceleration between 70-120km/h?

I'm very curious about that also... how does it compare to a Mazda3, for instance?

[Steve]

Question for Wing, hope I'm not too late. I drive a lot of country road and do a lot of 80km/h to 80km/h 90 degree turns.

Unless you've got a F-1, I honestly doubt that.

Dude, you know what I mean. Speed limit 80km/h, 90 degree intersecting roads.
P.S. I ride a factory honda motogp to work.  Sucks for carrying a lunch, but the 70-120 is out of this world.

[Shnak]

Question for Wing, hope I'm not too late. I drive a lot of country road and do a lot of 80km/h to 80km/h 90 degree turns.

Unless you've got a F-1, I honestly doubt that.

Dude, you know what I mean. Speed limit 80km/h, 90 degree intersecting roads.
P.S. I ride a factory honda motogp to work.  Sucks for carrying a lunch, but the 70-120 is out of this world.

You're telling me you're doing 90-degree turns with your car while maintaining a speed of 80kph and staying in your lane? Sure...

[Snowdog]

one of the better strong suits of the CR-Z according to pretty much everyone. So allow me to highly doubt that the base Focus will significantly out-handle the CR-Z.

There is nothing special about the handling. There are some first drive type impressions that indicate "it has sporty handling".The is some tossability by virtue of being smaller and lighter than a minivan.

But handling isn't that great and isn't significantly better than an economy car like the Fit/Mazda2. As more serious testing emerges it is scoring quite low in objective tests (Slalom) and there seem to be a lot of reports about chassis instability, unexpected rotations, body roll. This is not a brilliant handling car.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q3/2011_honda_cr-z_ex-road_test
The electric power steering gives you all the quality feedback you might expect from a Chinese calculus professor—a poor trait that also plagues the Civic. The rear hatch’s split window and large C-pillars downgrade rearward visibility to merely adequate. ...Or, for a lot less money, there’s the Fit: slightly less efficient, but better in almost every way—and quicker."

Inside line found that it slalomed slower than Hondas own mini SUV, the CR-V (watch video review, ~2:15 they start talking about handling):
http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-z/2011/2011-honda-cr-z-full-test-and-video.html
"Slalom: With stability control disengaged, the rear of the car walks/moves around quite a lot, limiting the CR-Z's speed because of oversteer. Fun for test-driver, but not recommended for a civilian. With stability control engaged, the self-correcting brake applications keep the car on track well within its limits."

Both motortrend drivers found cornering issues:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/1010_2011_honda_cr_z_vs_2010_volkswagen_golf_tdi/cr_z_handling.html
Scott Mortara: "The car rotates too much (cornered hard), maybe it's the batteries, but I found myself constantly correcting in the corners.

Ed again: "The main high-performance issue is that the CR-Z moves around a lot, especially when braked hard, which can be disconcerting. In corners, it displays an odd diagonal chassis shimmy;


http://www.cars.com/honda/cr-z/2011/reviews/?revid=56388
The handling is definitely sporty, but the CR-Z didn't beg to be driven hard. Part of this is about power. On the downside, this ostensibly sporty model exhibits a lot of body roll, a common but no longer inevitable tradeoff of a compliant ride. This was unexpected, in part because the CR-Z's hybrid battery pack — mounted low toward the rear — lowers the car's center of gravity.

[wing]

The car pivots like no other.  Ie oversteer this is what makes it a blast to drive.  But it is not fast

[Angry Chicken]

Pivots?  You mean it oversteers, or simply that it has relatively eager turn-in?  Tossable...even with that rear beam axle?

[wing]

Yeah like I said, oversteer which is really fun.  Very tossable, one must drive it to understand.  Really the numbers do not always tell the entire story.

[Snowdog]

Many of the reviews (Motor Trend, Inside Line above) tag it more like it can't hold a line while hard cornering, needing to multiple corrections while cornering, and raising time through the corners.

It doesn't sound like desirable behavior to me. I wonder if the ESC will be able to tame that tendency in a Canadian winter.

[wing]

Are you plannng on winning races with it?  Didn't think so.  There is fast and then there is fun.  They are different.  A neutral car is fast, a loose car is more fun.

[Snowdog]

Are you plannng on winning races with it?  Didn't think so.  There is fast and then there is fun.  They are different.  A neutral car is fast, a loose car is more fun.

A loose car is also a lot more dangerous. Hence my question about whether the ESC can do enough to tame this in a Canadian winter.   

[wing]

I'm sure it is fine, I was tossing it around at about 120-130km/h in a slalom.  At regular driving speeds you would never know.

[Erik]

I am sure not getting too worked up over the performance of this. As an old Honda guy, I loved every CRX. I learned to drive stick in an original CRX. No, those were not fast, but there have been damn few cars that were as much fun, or as sporty, to drive. I look forward to driving one real soon.

People stuck in the mist of time, pointing out that that the CRZ is as fast as 20 year old CRX are failing to recognize that times have changed and there has been automotive progress in the last 20 years.

They also seem to be forgetting that 20 years ago, the CRX was actually quick for it's day, it would have been faster than trucks/vans/station wagons, and it would have been right on par with other sporty cars of the day like the Miata, and VW GTI.

Today, the CRZ is slower than SUVs/Minivans and much slower than sporty counterparts like VW GTI/Miata.

The CRX was quick among its contemporaries, the CRZ is an absolute dog amongst its contemporaries.

I owned a first generation Miata with this kind of performance and while it was reasonably fun, it was kind of slow 15 years ago!

I am starting to think about my next car and for a another point of comparison. I am thinking about a compact economy car. The new Focus, with Euro-tuned suspension, 160 HP, 146 ft-lb torque base engine. Which should out perform, out handle the CRZ, while getting up to 40 MPG on the highway. It will also cost less, and have back seat. In comparison the CRZ is just a sad joke.  No one should be making excuses for this poor showing from Honda.

Certainly not stuck in the mist of time. My Daily driver is about as quick as the fastest cars in the world were in the late 70's and early 80's. I went from a 5.0 Mustang to the CRX, and it was still tons of fun! It was never about the speed of the CRX, regular or Si. At a time when most performance cars were in the 6-8 second range, the Si was doing close to 9's. But it was always a hoot to drive.

[Erik]

Are you plannng on winning races with it?  Didn't think so.  There is fast and then there is fun.  They are different.  A neutral car is fast, a loose car is more fun.

A loose car is also a lot more dangerous. Hence my question about whether the ESC can do enough to tame this in a Canadian winter.   

So is a fast car. But you don't buy them for safety. You buy them for entertainment.
There are a ton of boring, "safe" cars out there. But very few that are loose and fun. If I am reading what Wing is saying right, Honda has chosen to make a truly fun car, that gets great gas mileage. Sounds pretty fantastic to me.

[Snowdog]

So is a fast car. But you don't buy them for safety. You buy them for entertainment.
There are a ton of boring, "safe" cars out there. But very few that are loose and fun. If I am reading what Wing is saying right, Honda has chosen to make a truly fun car, that gets great gas mileage. Sounds pretty fantastic to me.

Except it is a slow car, potentially an unsafe slow car. The worse of all possible worlds.

My old 323 hatchback with it's very short wheelbase had a high tendency to rotate, it was not fun in the winter, it was dangerous.

Not really my concern as I don't like the car for a variety of reasons, but I expect we will here more about this in the winter.