Honda CR-Z hybrid *production* version

[Daox]

Originally Posted by ac6404

sounds like in japan after the release it supposedly gets close to 60mpg. Better than 33!

IIRC Japan's test cycle is insanely optimistic.

[gasstingy]

I just finished reading all the entries for this topic and have a comment of my own to add. It's been mentioned that an older Civic / Escort / Whatever could knock down 40 mpg, so what's so special about the numbers on the new CR-Z. I'm not thrilled with the numbers either, but have to occasionally remind myself that the EPA has revised their testing procedures and reduced their mpg rating more than once. Where in the beginning of EPA mileage figures it was really tough to meet the EPA standard in the real world, it now is not that hard. Well, at least for most of us it isn't.

[Allch Chcar]

The old Honda CRX they say, got 40-50MPG and they still have 40mpg new system 50 mpg on the old stickers per the EPA with the 1.5 liter B series which was a SOHC. But they weighed less than a ton and emissions regulations were lighter in those days, the days of OBDI. But these were subcompact cars with 52BHP,72BHP, and eventually 92BHP. It's like Comparing the Geo Metro to a current generation Honda Civic. The CRX was a subcompact car with very little HP, when these cars were slower but they were light and expectations were less. Most of these same people probably forgot the heckling Honda received then for making such a, "small and lightweight and underpowered car."

The 1.3liter L Series which is used in Japan in the Fit and Europe in the Jazz, or is it the other way around? Anyway the 1.3Liter version of the first gen Civic Hybrid got a 50MPG EPA on the 7th Generation Civic base and still gets a 40mpg rating from the new system. But it weighs 2700lbs and is a compact car. It's not sporty but the 1.3Liter gets 85-91BHP and then it gets low end boost from the IMA system. It's not faster than a 7th generation Civic but it's the same MPG rating as the CRX more or less but in a much Bigger car.

And so yeah the MPG is similar but the cars are vastly different. I think it's not too much to realize that the MPG is not what they're improving over the original CRX it's the rest of the car was upgraded over time and now the MPG is still the same as the much smaller and lighter cars. If you compare the Hybrid versions of the Civic the Hybrid version is slower but it has the potential to get more MPG than the other versions of the Civic. Comparing the new Hybrids to the old Honda is crazy, if you liked the old Honda just keep driving those there's no need to call it a step backwards when the Civic has been growing with time to the point that expecting the same MPG as the older versions is crazy talk.

[AJI]

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.

Originally Posted by wdb

Motor Trend got their hands on one:

2011 Honda CR-Z First Drive - Motor Trend

Holy smokes - a Honda with low-end grunt! Me want test drive!!

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.

[RobertSmalls]

The IMA system adds 132lbs and a few thousand dollars to the CR-Z. The CR-Z would be a sportier, more fun car (for non-hypermilers) to drive if it weren't a hybrid. As to whether it would have a lower total cost of ownership, well, that's never been the point of a two-seater.

I also read that they had to beef up the IMA motor from the Insight's 1.3L to cope with the extra torque of the CR-Z's 1.5L. That pretty much rules out them dropping in the 2.0L from the Civic Si and keeping it a hybrid.

The CR-Z reminds me of the Accord Hybrid, with its uncomfortable compromise of sporty and green.

[AJI]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

The IMA system adds 132lbs and a few thousand dollars to the CR-Z. The CR-Z would be a sportier, more fun car (for non-hypermilers) to drive if it weren't a hybrid.

That's debatable. Every review I've read has commented on the lower-down torque that the IMA motor offers in comparison with anything else of the same size - and I suspect that people spend more of their time at low revs on the road. It apparently gives the car a useful turn of speed at lower revs, and then like all Hondas it does higher revs quite well too.

What removing the IMA would do is make the car more attractive to people naturally biased against hybrids.

It's a shame really, as it's clearly a good car, but performance fans hate it because it's "not quick enough", and it seems that hypermilers aren't keen because the economy isn't good enough for them.

[PaleMelanesian]

Yep - 31/37 mpg (city/hwy) isn't much better than my current 28/35 from 15 years ago, and I can seat 5 in my car. I'm not really interested.

[will88]

Of course, if the car comes out and someone on here buys one and it's still very average, then I'll be only too happy to retract my defenses for it - but until that point, I think it's important that we don't just assume that Honda have messed up...[/QUOTE]
correct
assume =ass-u-me u make an ass outa u and me thats what grandfather always said and he was very eco centric

[will88]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...bluntly paraphrased: "...don't count your chickens before the rooster screws the hen."

lmao very true man very true

[RobertSmalls]

First-gen Insights aren't getting any newer, and I had been hopeful that the CR-Z might have potential as a replacement. The more I learn about the car, though, the more I realize it should never have been called CR-Z. What Honda have built is the S1500.

I was reading a review of the new CR-Z earlier, and there was an image that made my heart sink:

The CRX has good lines, attached flow all the way to the end of the hatch, and a small wake. The CR-Z forgoes this to accomodate rear seats in Japan and Europe. Honda won't tell us the Cd, but that particular feature has a pretty large impact.

There's also the matter of mass. Of course today's cars are heavier than those from 10 or 20 years ago, but the CR-Z is heavy even by 2011 standards. At 2654lbs, it's within 50lbs of the weight of a second-gen Insight, a Fit, and even a base model Civic.

In a simultaneous coast-down test, I would put money on a second-gen Insight over a CR-Z. I reckon they have the same mass, similar frontal area, and the CR-Z has a higher Cd.

Noted hypermiler Wayne Gerdes has one for a week, and he's getting 60's mpg. He came up with the following steady-state figures using cruise control and hyperinflated tires, though the data are tainted by electric assist at higher speeds:

* 45 mph - 58 mpg
* 50 mph - 53 mpg
* 55 mph - 49 mpg
* 60 mph - 46 mpg
* 65 mph - 43 mpg
* 70 mph - 38 mpg (2900RPM in 6th gear)

He also reported entering 6th gear at 28mph! Maybe you could find a much taller final drive in the junkyard to improve those figures.

Other problems reported: IMA has been set up to be inobtrusive. The brakes are intended to feel like those on a non-hybrid. This means blending regen with friction brakes, no matter how hard you press the pedal. It might be a simple matter to correct that with a brake pedal sensor fooler circuit, but you still wish they had set up the brakes for maximum regen from the factory.

So it's heavy for its size, it's less hybridlike with half the battery capacity of a first-gen Insight and hesitant regen, it's less aerodynamic than its predecessors, it's geared wrong, and the 1.5L engine is too large for the car. This vehicle has earned its lukewarm EPA ratings.