|
Production CR-Z revealed
Looks pretty decent IMO. Little weak on HP, but if the weight is low, it should be a fun little car to drive, just like the CR-X was. Hopefully, an Si version will be available.
Detroit 2010: Honda CR-Z promises to bring driving joy to the hybrid equation — Autoblog http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...crz_02-630.jpg |
im not sure what to think about this car. I would expect most people now are looking for better bang for your buck and with this car only being a two seater that might steer them away from the CRZ.
however i think with some low and a nice set of wheels that could be a pretty nifty car. |
It looked better with the sharper front end. Now it's all round....Might look better on the road.
It would be quite nice if it had K mounts. I hoping for something like the Red one in this post. http://www.torontocivics.com/tccv5forums/t158212/ Thanks for the update |
1 Attachment(s)
more details
DETROIT — The first-gen Honda CR-X combined sportiness with fuel economy in a package that was, and still is, an absolute blast to drive. It’s a combination the Japanese automaker offers again in the CR-Z, a hybrid that could be called a modern incarnation of that venerable hatchback. Honda unveiled the production version of the two-seater here at the North American International Auto Show. It joins the Civic and Insight hybrids in Honda’s gas-electric line-up, and the company promises it will bring a measure of sexiness and sportiness to the hybrid segment when it appears in showrooms this summer. “You don’t think ’sporty’ and ‘hybrid,’” said John Mendel, executive v.p. of sales for American Honda. “This car challenges that convention.” Does it? The Honda CR-Z, which will be built in Japan, combines a 1.5-liter i-VTEC engine with the 10 kilowatt (13.4 horsepower) motor in Honda’s Integrated Motor Assist hybrid system. The package delivers 122 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque. Those aren’t stellar numbers, but then the 1.5-liter in the first-gen CR-X topped out at 76 horsepower. The hybrid drivetrain is mated to your choice of gearboxes. Those inclined toward flogging the CR-Z for all it’s worth can get a six-speed manual — a first in the hybrid segment. Those who would rather set it and forget it can opt for a continuously variable transmission. Both use paddle shifters. Yes, a CVT with paddle shifters. Honda says it will “increase the performance potential” by allowing the driver to “manually simulate the stepped holding pattern.” Honda’s engineers gave the car three modes — sport, economy and normal. Push the “sport” button on the dash and you’ll get better throttle response and a better feel to the electric steering effort. “Econ” gives you optimal fuel economy by regulating throttle response and easing the air conditioner’s load on the engine. “Normal” splits the difference. The car is more aggressively styled than the Insight hybrid, and it nicely updates the styling of the second-generation CR-X. Although smaller than the Insight, it burns more gas. Mendel said the CR-Z will get 36 mpg in the city and 38 highway if you’re driving one with a CVT. The manual gets 31/37. Hybrid fanatics and hypermilers will jump all over Honda for those figures, which are pretty weak as far as gas-electric cars go (and pale compared to 1989 CR-X HF, which got 41/50 under the updated EPA standards), but Mendel said it’s good for a sporty car. If you consider the CR-Z sporty, that is. No word on price, but Mendel said it will cost more than the $19,800 Insight. Honda expects to sell around 10,000 of them in the United States during the first year. |
I like it, looks sporty. :thumb: I always liked the old school CR-X too.
This was interesting: "Honda’s engineers gave the car three modes — sport, economy and normal. Push the “sport” button on the dash and you’ll get better throttle response and a better feel to the electric steering effort. “Econ” gives you optimal fuel economy by regulating throttle response and easing the air conditioner’s load on the engine. “Normal” splits the difference" |
"Although smaller than the Insight, it burns more gas. Mendel said the CR-Z will get 36 mpg in the city and 38 highway if you’re driving one with a CVT. The manual gets 31/37. "
"figures, which are pretty weak as far as gas-electric cars go (and pale compared to 1989 CR-X HF, which got 41/50 under the updated EPA standards), but Mendel said it’s good for a sporty car." Congradulations Honda. You've succeeded in making me dislike new cars even more. I'd much rather drive/own the old 89 CR-X HF. Better fuel mileage, and, with still spending MUCH less than what the new CR-Z costs, better performance. Yeah, the new car is probably quieter, smoother etc. etc....but those atributes are partly due to the fact that the new car has more sound deadning/insulation, more electronics, more creature comforts and gadgets, and its overall a larger car then the original. All that extra everything makes it anywhere from 500 to 1000lbs heavier than the 89 CR-X. The extra weight and intrusive electronics is what ruins it for me. Weight hurts performance (acceleration, braking, cornering, city fuel mileage). Intrusive electronics prevent it from doing what YOU WANT the car to do, instead it does what it THINKS you want to do and also prevents you from fully 'feeling' what the car is doing. Just my 2 cents. :) All that aside, not a bad looking car. Though it does give the illusion, with that long over-hung front end, that if you slam on the brakes hard enough, it would tip forward on it's nose...lol. |
Originally Posted by MPR
(Post 1439964)
I'd much rather drive/own the old 89 CR-X HF. Better fuel mileage, and, with still spending MUCH less than what the new CR-Z costs, better performance.
Yeah, the new car is probably quieter, smoother etc. etc....but those atributes are partly due to the fact that the new car has more sound deadning/insulation, more electronics, more creature comforts and gadgets, and its overall a larger car then the original. All that extra everything makes it anywhere from 500 to 1000lbs heavier than the 89 CR-X. I agree with you, like the old school CR-X more. :) |
at least has cupholders...unlike the 1st and 2nd gen CRX...no more spilled drinks all over the carpet
|
Originally Posted by Cynikal.Mindset
(Post 1440171)
at least has cupholders...unlike the 1st and 2nd gen CRX...no more spilled drinks all over the carpet
LOL.. if you want drinks go to a bar/restaurant...that what tables are for... |
I'll defenitely be keeping my CRX after seeing this mockery !
I may change my opinion in 20 years though.... |
I still like it. Looks great IMO, interior looks cool, 2 seats, large hatch, small overall size. I was pretty against the hybrid IMA technology until I read up on it though, but I would much rather see a normal version with a regular engine in it.
According to the specs, the CRZ isnt really all that fuel effecient or faster then a Fit or Insight, so I dont really see the point of the hybrid except so that Honda can be the first to offer a "sporty" hybrid. I would think that a CRZ with an R18 would have more power and be lighter then the hybrid version and still be very fuel effecient and perform decently. C'mon Honda, make a normal one. |
^ I agree with you Mike. A CRZ with a normal gas engine would be more appealing than a weaker hybrid version.
Over all, though, I like the design and, if I were in the market for a new sporty car, I might even consider buying it. |
I love the look of this car! The specs however i'm not too fond of. I think i'll stick with my little Rex until Honda decides to up the numbers. Especially the fuel economy! Even with a B18C I get better fuel economy than this!
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands