Quote:
Originally Posted by Allch Chcar
The CRZ only has a MacPherson FRONT suspension the rear is torsion beam aka semi-solid rear axle. It's a pretty standard Honda suspension design, it's cheap, not effective.
|
There's absolutely zero reason why a torsion beam can't be effective. The French manufacturers with their hot hatches have been proving this for over twenty years now, ever since cars like the 205 GTI. All of Renault's hot hatches over the past ten years or so have been consistantly top of the class for handling (and indeed along with Peugeot's GTIs, were
always better than Honda's double-wishbone Civics in comparison tests).
The basic ingredients don't matter that much. It's how you tune them that counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb
|
Thanks for posting the link. I've a few more from UK magazines:
-
Autocar first test in Japan (EDIT: I've just noticed, the same journalist as the MT test wrote this article - thought it sounded familiar!)
-
Autocar Honda CR-Z GT Road Test
-
Auto Express CR-Z first drive in Japan
-
Auto Express CR-Z first drive in UK
-
Auto Express CR-Z vs. Renault Megane Coupe & BMW 118d
Reviews are starting to appear in other magazines too. The reviews seem generally positive - it's fun to drive, and
reasonably economical even with leaden-footed journos at the wheel. The Auto Express test confuses me - the "rivals" they've picked seem too extreme at either end of the scale - the BMW too expensive and only on par with the CR-Z on economy, and the Megane too slow yet more economical, yet both beat the CRZ.
I've picked up this week's Autocar and they do a "50mpg+ fun cars" (UK gallons, obviously) test and the Honda comes out quite well, only losing out to Mercedes and a BMW, both of which are £10k more expensive.
Performance seems okay too. Autocar managed a fraction over 9s to 60mph, rather than the roughly ten seconds that was being claimed.
Needless to say, when they start arriving in the UK I'm going to get myself a go in one.