122hp and 33mpg? Seriously, You suck.
I mean, seriously, how hard was this?
I concur. 06 Kia Spectra 140HP 35mpg (Actually higher than the EPA test)
Originally Posted by Dirty Octopus™
From Jalopnik:
Honda wants you to believe that the CR-Z is the reincarnation of the legendary CRX. It should have been — and it even looks right — but it's no CRX. How do I know? I own one.
The assembled media at Cobo Hall seem to be moderately impressed with Honda's CR-Z. I can understand this. It's a hybrid, it looks cool, and it's likely to be more entertaining than most green cars. But to my mind, it's a perfect example of product Fail, and on a personal level, it's one of the greatest vehicular disappointments in recent memory.
How can I say this without having driven it? Easy: I can read a press release, and I own a 1988 Honda CRX Si. The Si is a 2000-pound, 100-hp wonder, a manic, front-wheel-drive snotrocket that can crank out 35 mpg and make any winding road its bitch. The CR-Z is a wildly different machine. It weighs 2800 pounds. It's rated for 37 mpg on the highway, which seems impressive until you remember just how tiny it is. And while its 1.5-liter hybrid four can be mated to a six-speed manual, it also makes just 122 hp.
How did this happen? A million questions pop into my mind: If mileage, not marketing, is the goal, then why doesn't the CR-Z have a tiny, high-revving gasoline engine — or, better yet, Honda's excellent diesel four — under its hood? Is a power-to-weight ratio of almost twenty-three pounds per horsepower supposed to be fun, or merely fun by comparison? (I suppose that anything is entertaining next to a Toyota Prius, but "better than blah" doesn't make for much of an ad line.) Isn't a fun, carefully engineered, minimalist approach to the hybrid problem exactly what everyone expects from Honda? And in what world does a two-seat, 2800-pound fuel-economy special — remember, the base Civic weighs 2630 pounds and offers 34 mpg — fulfill that expectation?
For most of my life, I was not a Honda fan. I grew up around oddball German and British iron, and by comparison, Hondas were never fast, quirky, or rear-wheel-drivey enough. Like most people, I spent a lot of time believing that the cars from the Big H were little more than bland, if useful, appliances.
Then I went racing. I discovered motorcycles. I hung out with guys who spanked Civic hatchbacks and hoon-happy CRXs around road courses, and I watched friends of friends win SCCA championships with relatively stock S2000s. I bought a 1975 Honda CB400F, a single-overhead-cam, four-cylinder motorcycle that makes less horsepower than my blender but spits out an insane howl at 10,000 rpm and is impossible not to love. I read a little more about Soichiro Honda's life, learning that he was, as Honda claims, a dreamer, but that he was also a incurable pragmatist. And I saw something.
In a nutshell, Hondas are the Swiss Army knives of the automotive world: They may not be the perfect tool for every job, but they're surprisingly good at everything. We expect them to be reliable, light, smart, fun without being cranky, and designed with real people in mind, and they usually deliver. And most importantly, the killer hits, the wait'll-they-get-a-load-of-this focused efforts, are usually knocked out of the park. They leave the competition gasping and show ordinary people that cars don't have to suck.
The CR-Z? This from the company that gave us the Civic CVCC, the Isle of Man TT wins, the first CB750, the Acura NSX, and the most slideable underpowered car of the last ten years, the S2000 CR? Where's the joy? Where's the fanaticism-for-the-people engineering? Where's the love?
I want more, Honda. I want a light, small, and fun green car that makes a Fit look like the nerdiest thing on the planet. I know you can do it, and this isn't good enough. Get on it.
Damn it looks so ugly to me now. Concept pics def. looked way better. And huge fail with the specs too
I don't see why they can't just make another CRX. I have an 88 CRX Si my self and I love it.
Is Honda trying to hard? I had high, high hopes for the CR-Z I was even going to postpone purchasing a Civic just to have the CR-Z. But this is terrible. Completely terrible. The looks, the mpg, the hp rating and the weight. I've owned a CRX and I'll return to a CRX. No need to grab one of these.
Terrible reincarnation (if any) Honda... yuck
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Part of my reason for selling my car was to start building up some cash for the CR-Z. At this point, I'm so disappointed with the stats that I doubt I'll be purchasing any new Honda (I love the upcoming TSX wagon but that will be outta my price point). A Genesis coupe will very likely be in my future.
^^^^I hope everyone thinking of buying this car does the same thing. CR-Z sux, they could have put a K20 in it and got the same mpg but tons more of the fun they claim they were aiming for.
or at least market it as a gas saver (as the CRX was intended to be and still is )
Make an underpowered version, stripped of some features, but would come standard with power windows and 15 inch wheels and possibly A/C. Then make (of course) a mid-range with a few other options, but not wieghty options like, idk for todays market, power seats or... a 6-disc cd changer and premium light-weight 15's (to offset some of the weight) and a larger exhaust.
And the Si model with a larger motor (doesnt have to be crazy hp) to compete with its cousin the CRX, with a vtec motor of the sort. 16-17 inch wheels, power moonroof, chrome tipped exhaust, maybe even larger, full power seats, A/C, power windows. And make that damn rear hatch look NON-INSIGHT like. LED tail-lght setup and HID's up front.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
all they needed to do (in keeping with the CR nominclature) is to keep it what its suppose to be. If it wasnt suppose to be an econ rocket, y make it similar to the CRX econo rocket? and... how do u get 2800lbs, whether estimated or not, in a 2000lbs chassis?
I figured it was going to be slighty heavier, because the typical car buyer is greedy for THINGS and not for the drive and mechincal feel of their micro-car. So... maybe 2200 would of been a nice number. Everyone wants things other than a nice running car/truck. I need this, I need that, wtf ever. If the car was intended to destroy fuel economy and give a fun feel and ride then it should of. But I think this got stuck in a ORT cloud of trying to be too many things at once and ended up becoming a pile of hybrid fail.
I would of purchased it with a 96hp motor so long as the car was light and had at least some attractive small wheels or NICE lines and windows. But this hurt my feelings and created a rant
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I think this nails it on the head. I think I was expecting the CR-Z to be marketed as more of a Fit-level 2 seater coupe. Just basics with an AUX input, and they would have had me sold. Heck, the Fit's L15 would have been fine with me.
Instead I see a Civic Si - level interior with a tragically underpowered motor and horrible proportions that will probably sell for $25k.
No freakin thanks.
But, Honda did good with its actual Civic. So... unless I see or hear changes to this production model CR-Z. I'm just going to get a Civic LX and drive it to the end of time and resale it on IA in 2038 for 9k with a K26B swap boosted and 18inch Rotas!!
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
I'll be in this thread all night!
The only thing I like is the interior. They werent messing around with that at least. Very well made and I loves the dash and dials. Though the steering wheel is up for debate.
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
But its also to "Accordish" with the lines in the doors and the accords standard wheels and with a heavy nose...
CHASE ->>> WHAT MATTERS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote