Colin

I think they're not dumb enough to call it a 'replacement' for the S2000. IMO Honda has wanted a 'Miata fighter' for a while now and something at a lower price point might fit the bill (as well as the current economic state)

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I dont really see how a FWD platform would be a decent Miata fighter.

A very light weight (2100-2400lbs) RWD car powered by the R18 (or even the K20 in a higher trim) would do it. The S2000 was a damn car, and depending on who you asked was a very capable Miata fighter. The problem was price. The R18 isn't as expensive as the F20/22, so I think it would be perfect for the task. The key is keeping weight down as the Miata will still have the power edge (unless they go with the K20, but then price goes up).

/ramble

Costco

They can bring down the price and decontent the car..... but I don't think Honda wants another 2G Insight. Or at least, I don't see that as being good for their sales and reputation. The Miata already starts at $23,000, and the CR-Z is right around $19,000. I'm no automobile R&D engineer but I think it would be safe to say that it would cost more (at LEAST a couple thousand more in MSRP) to make a car a convertible than to make it a similar coupe/hatch.

If Honda is stubborn to be "green" and go with a hybrid powertrain, I don't see it being competitive with the Miata. It might steal away some sales, for sure, but line up the sales next to each other and I don't see them making a hybrid convertible that sells even half as good as the Miata.

Best case scenario, the CR-Z convertible comes out at a couple thousand less than the Miata, with relatively a lot less power. It's still FWD, and doesn't have the established pedigree that the Miata does. Plus with the aerodynamic properties and added weight of a convertible and all its bracing and hardware, it will probably get worse than the already unimpressive fuel economy that the CR-Z gets.

Most of the buyers will probably be people who have been waiting ALL their lives for a Honda hybrid droptop.... *crickets* Don't do it, Honda. And if you're that hard-headed, at least put in a non-hybrid powertrain in there.

Colin

FWD isn't the problem, except in perception. Honda has traditionally battled RWD vehicles with their FWD cars, it's the "Honda way" and in many ways a continuation of a basic Honda philosophy. This is not to say that a light RWD car like a Miata is not more fun to drive than a CRX type FWD car. Just saying that the performance envelope can be very similar (ie competitive).

Of course Honda does not posses such a chassis and we all know how much it costs to make such a chassis and for how long you need to make it if you want it to be profitable (see S2000). I doubt that your thought (however popular with enthusiasts everywhere) has much chance of happening anytime soon.

dom

IF, its only to be used for one car. If they spread the platform around like everyone else does, it doesn't have to take forever to be profitable.

Colin

But why invest in a lightweight RWD chassis if the existing FWD (small) chassis' are already competitive and (arguably) significantly more profitable?

alex2364

Honda are idiots if it took them 10 years to make the S2000 chassis profitable. They should have added a coupe and clutchless manual version to increase it's market appeal.

Colin

^^not sure you understand how the S2000 was made. It was not designed to be a 'modular chassis' but rather to be the best roadster it could be. As for profit? Who knows, maybe it was profitable at year 5 but they wanted more?

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

But just as you said, a FWD platform is percepted as bad. Enthusiasts wont want it, because once you start adding more power, FWD rears its ugly head.

Im trying to track down skid-pad numbers for the CR-Z to see how it stacks up against the MX-5 at the moment. Im not holding my breath though seeing as the CR-Z uses a torsion beam rear suspension.

EDIT - .83g for the CR-Z and .90g for the MX-5.

EDIT #2 - According to Autocar, the 2012 MX-5 (FMC) will weigh in around 2200lbs. The heaviest current model is 2619lbs with an automatic, the manual is 27lbs less.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/251503/

Colin

True, this is why I was saying in a small, lower powered car. Besides, every 'enthusiast' fell in love with a FWD Honda. (unless your first one was an NSX or S2000). People keep saying Honda needs to go back to it's roots.

Well, you're kind of making an A + B = D arguement. I was not suggesting that the CR-Z (in it's current guise) was intended to be a Miata fighter. I was only saying that if Honda wanted to fight the Miata and do it the "Honda way" with FWD, they could overcome the limitations of the drivetrain (again in a small car)

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Two vehicles come to mind when I think of Hondas roots. S500 and S600. Neither of which were FWD.

Colin

[sigh] Yes, I know about those two, but they weren't really marketed in NA were they? Heck, they were just rushed out to insure that the Japanese government didn't lock Honda out of the domestic automotive market.

dom

Gotcha. I was just pointing out that developing a RWD platform doesn't have to be a money losing proposition and dumb thing to do in poor economic conditions, if done right.

But what it will be is somewhat risky, something that Honda doesn't seem prepared to be right now.

I hear what your saying about bringing back what brought us here in the first place. Fun, lightweight FWD car. I'm just not so sure that will work in today's market. Not saying it won't. Just not certain.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

They weren't officially sold in the US, Ill give you that. But to disregard them as Hondas automotive roots is a bit odd in my book.

As far as the chassis goes, I only posted those numbers as Honda will most likely be using the CR-Z platform (which is a shortened Insight platform IIRC) for this MX-5 competitor. I feel as though those numbers will give us a slight glimpse as to what we could expect handling wise. Granted, they could (and in my honest opinion absolutely have to) improve upon those numbers. Hell, the Civic Si can pull a .89g.

But this whole conversation is based on a speculative report, so....

dom

I guess this depends on how directly they plan to go after the MX-5. IMO, you can't go directly after the best selling roadster in history, a car that many still say is one of the top handling cars in the world with a FWD chassis. If you do, you're making a terrible decision.

As long as they don't market it against the MX-5, it should do ok, despite being FWD.

Costco

I personally don't have a problem with FWD as long as the chassis is good. Still, if Honda does create a FWD roadster, it will unfortunately be compared to the Del Sol and unfairly compared to the S2000.

Unless of course, it absolutely blows us away..... but if I truly believed that were to be, I'd be lying.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Sadly thats where my cynicism stems from.

Colin

I think that it would have been nice if Honda went ahead with the mid-sized RWD chassis as rumored, but I think that time has passed (and has been discussed ad nauseum here) Interestingly, the Miata chassis is not shared with any other vehicle (that I know of). But does have an extremely long shelf life on each chassis with the first two generations (1989-2005)using the same 89.2 wheelbase. I can only wonder how much was really changed. Again, it seems to point to the 'problem' with a smallish. limited use chassis. The Miata is somewhat of an automotive anomaly. Could it be the only 'affordable' RWD vehicle made continuously for the last 30 years?

Exactly. By all accounts the CR-Z chassis is supposed to be very rigid. Not sure if it's strong enough for a great open top car though. An old ITR could uncork .92 on a skidpad despite being saddled with FWD. It can be done.

Not really, it's only 'excluded' because its not a vehicle(s) that 'put Honda on the map' When we talk about enthusiasts (which is what I said) falling for Honda, it was NOT an S500,S600, or S800 that did it. It was a CRX, Civic, Prelude or Accord. IMO. these are Honda's "roots" in NA.

fsttyms1

And i think things would have been different as far as the love for hondas had they continued to have RWD platforms the whole time. Sure back in the time the itr/crx etc were great, but i think honda could have continued with rwd and made a legend out of them only furthering the s2k by time it came out. To possibly think that the CRZ could become anything special is almost laughable at this point. I dont see honda placing a potent engine in it which is what it would need to truly be a "sport" (as they are already calling it) car that could ever possibly want to compete with the miata.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

I think a new crx based on the old one just revised and a new dc2 type R would be good and sell well. I know I would buy one. This will never happen tho.

dom

Agreed on all points. I don't think the Miata success is something to be copied or that even can be copied.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

So i had some time during lunch and decided to go to honda dealer and test drive the manual version.

Overall I liked the car more than i thought i would. The steering and clutch pedal are very light, alot lighter than in my CL. The stick shift is typical honda which means very good. The clutch engagement point is about an inch higher than my CL. The front of the car feels really lite when driving, unlike my Cl which is so front heavy.

Driving normally the car feels nice, light and maneuverable. I didnt like how the redline was at 6500, you have to shift before you would want to. The car in stock form has a good amount of body roll.

The engine note is better than i expected but nothing great. I dont like how they tried hiding the tailpipe under the rear bumper. Overall the exterior looks good, and the interior seems great for a 20k car. i didnt really get to drive that aggresively tho so couldnt get the feel of the car at or near its limits.

If they would have just made it an updated crx i would be all over it, but since its a hybrid i dont want it. Hybrid technology will get better so you might as well wait. I do think that sporty hybrids/electric cars are possible and will be the future, the technology just needs more time. Look at the tesla roadster for example or the new porsche supercar, also the porsche gt3's regenerative brakes.

TSX69

2011 Honda CR-Z EX: Road Test

Since Honda began selling the Insight—the 1st hybrid vehicle in North America—way back in the concluding month of the 20th century, it has struggled to find a winning formula for the carbon-conscious hybrid crowd. That first odd-looking, all-aluminum Insight was a fuel-economy champ, but it offered little room for belongings and only 1 additional seat, forcing most would-be buyers to wait 7 long months for the more practical Toyota Prius.

The 2003 Civic hybrid didn’t capture hybrid buyers’ apparent desire for something that looked different, that made a statement. The same can be said of the 2005 Honda Accord hybrid—and that V-6–powered sedan didn’t produce as big a bump in fuel economy as did the Civic.

Fast-forward 5 years to a completely new Insight—a low-drag, 5-door wedge similar to the Prius. That Insight won a comparo against the Prius [“Mileage Maestros,” July 2009] mainly because it drove better, not because it was the more efficient hybrid.

Apparently a lot of people missed that test—or perhaps they value the Toyota’s superior mileage and vastly larger back seat and cargo hold—because the Prius outsold the Insight more than 6 to 1 (80,141 to 12,115) during the 1st 7 months of 2010. In fact, through 2009, Toyota sold more than 3 times as many Priuses as all Honda hybrids combined. So what must Honda do to jump-start its hybrid line? Try combining 2 paragons of its past?

Honda would like you to think of the 2011 CR-Z as the spiritual successor to its sporty and now iconic CRX of  ’80s glory. But the Z is more of a 2-seat Insight and thus the spiritual successor to the original, and now, ironically, much-sought-after Insight.

Underpinning the CR-Z are the same building blocks that compose the Insight and the 10Best-winning Fit. Compared with the Insight, the CR-Z’s wheelbase is 4.5 inches shorter, at 95.9; its 160.6-inch length is clipped by about a foot, though the Z is wider, at 68.5 inches, by 1.8.

However, some CRX similarities trickle into the new Z. Both are 2-seat, 3-door hatchbacks that, in other markets, are (or were) 2-plus-2-seaters. And the Z’s flashy styling is inspired, in part, by that of the old X.

The beating heart of this hybrid is an electric motor, Honda’s familiar Integrated Motor Assist (IMA), sandwiched between a 113-hp, 16-valve SOHC 1.5-liter 4-banger (the current Insight and Civic hybrids use a 1.3-liter) and the transmission. Its 6-speed manual makes it the only hybrid with 3 pedals. An optional CVT adds $650.

This gas engine, while identical in displacement to the current 117-pony four in the Fit, is really closer to the 1st-gen Fit’s 1.5-liter in the Honda L-series-engine family tree, according to Honda. This version of IMA is identical to the current setup in the Insight: a slender, 13-hp electric motor powered by 84 1.2-volt nickel-metal hydride batteries [see sidebar, below right]. The motor makes 58 pound-feet of torque, same as the Insight’s. Combined output is 122 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque. Adopters of the CVT must settle for 123 pound-feet.
original

On paper, the Z is 100 pounds lighter than the Insight, at 2644, and 24 horses stronger, which translates to a 0.7-second advantage to 60 mph (9.6 seconds) as well as in the quarter-mile (17.2). But its acceleration is slower by a full second to 60 mph, compared with a 105-hp 1988 CRX Si, and 0.6 second behind in the quarter-mile. And don’t even get us started on the extra 558 pounds the CR-Z is packing.

According to the EPA’s test procedures, the 6-speed CR-Z returns 31 mpg in the city and 37 mpg on the highway. With the CVT, it gets 35 and 39, respectively. Both the Insight (40/43) and the Prius (51/48) are more efficient. For the sake of comparison, the original Insight is rated at 49 mpg city and 61 mpg highway by the current standards—and that’s a big reason people still want them.

Under our supervision, the CR-Z returned 36 mpg, with single-tank honors going to a 40-mpg highway trek. That aggregate is only 2 mpg better than the comparo-winning Fit [“Ego Shrinkers,” October 2010] and 2 mpg poorer than the Insight from the July ’09 comparo, where we also saw a Prius average 42. None can top the observed 48 mpg of our long-term first-gen Insight.

The CR-Z slots between its siblings in both performance and efficiency, so it would seem to make sense for it to line up pricewise between the $15,650 2010 Fit and the $20,550 ’10 Insight (2011 figures are not yet available). But the Z’s cost lands right on top of the Insight’s, in base form, at $19,950. Add the CVT automatic to the CR-Z, and it is 50 bucks more than a base Insight. Our fully loaded EX model (tier-two additions include HID headlamps, Bluetooth phone capability, aluminum pedals and shift knob, and an upgraded stereo) whistles a tune of $23,310, including an $1800 navigation unit.

A buyer confined to a Honda showroom could get the more practical, more efficient 5-door Insight for essentially the same money. Or, for a lot less money, there’s the Fit: slightly less efficient, but better in almost every way—and quicker. This will likely curse CR-Z sales no matter how good-looking it is.

But those who do opt for the stylish CR-Z will without doubt enjoy driving it. The car is filled with excellent Honda traits: perfect shifter, great ergonomics, superb chassis.

It may not have the power-to-weight ratio to compete with the old CRX, but the Z traverses blemished roads with poise. Road noise elevates the stereo-free cruising soundtrack to 71 dBA. Not exactly quiet but on par with other cars in its price range.

Inside, the well-laid-out cabin borrows switchgear and the nav unit from the community bin. The silver-cloth buckets sit low in the car, and a tilting-and-telescoping leather-wrapped wheel (another plus of the EX) and manually adjustable seat height deliver a comfortable driving position.

The hatch opens to a generous cargo area that will accept 13 cases of longnecks if the cargo partition (a hard-plastic folding shelf that, padded, would be the seatback for 2-plus-2-market CR-Zs) is folded. This small bit of practicality is overshadowed by the Fit’s ability to hold 35 cases.

A digital speedometer floats in the middle of an analog tachometer in the center ring of the instrument binnacle. The instrumentation reveals the car’s fuel-economy mission. To the left of the helm lie 3 mode buttons: normal, econ, and sport. In normal and econ modes, a color-changing ring, nestled between the tach and the speedo (as in the Insight), helps the driver get the best possible gas mileage. The ring glows green at idle and then transitions to blue with hard acceleration. Keep the ring green with gentle throttle inputs for optimal fuel economy. In sport mode, the ring glows red, steering effort increases, and the throttle gets touchier. Be wary of using the econ setting in hot, humid conditions because, in this mode, the air conditioning tones down its frosting abilities, reducing the accessory’s economy-zapping draw.

Another efficient tool is the engine’s stop-start function, which Honda has tuned more aggressively this time. In the CR-Z, the engine cuts out when slowing to a stop as early as 20 mph. As soon as you reselect a gear, it fires back up without any intrusive vibrations.

Follow the shift strategy on the dashboard, and 6th gear is suggested before 40 mph. Engage 6th gear even earlier, and one anticipates unpleasant lugging, but there’s none. The electric motor’s additional torque boost at low rpm takes some strain off the gas engine.

Making the momentum game difficult is the gas engine’s slow march to its 6300-rpm redline. The neutral chassis can provide entertainment on 2-laners, but bleed off too much speed, and getting the CR-Z back up to a velocity sufficient to reach its 0.85-g handling limit will take another corner, maybe 2. Thankfully, the stability control is completely defeatable, and if you have the talent, the CR-Z will rotate under braking.

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.

The CR-Z, in short, is good, but it’s not great like the Fit and the old CRX. It’s green but not Insight green. It’s fun to drive and looks cool. If its narrow appeal does bring buyers into Honda showrooms, they will likely find a more practical offering to the left of the CR-Z, and to its right.

fsttyms1

Ouch

Exactly what many here have said.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

sadly this hybrid will have more aftermarket support than any other honda/acura available in the last 8 years.

jnc2000

^^ Sadly I think you might be right.

TSX69

"Sporty Hybrid": No Longer an OxyMoron

The 2011 Honda CR-Z is a signal that the hybrid world is changing.

The CR-Z is a sporty-looking, 2-passenger, affordable, three-door hatchback. The car is aimed at the youth market. The styling is a head-turner.

Until the CR-Z arrived, hybrid cars have been limited to family sedans, such as the Honda Insight.

As part of that sporty image, a stick shift is standard. In fact, the CR-Z is the only hybrid car available in North America with a manual transmission. The car can be ordered with an automatic if shifting gears isn't the driver's specialty.

Until the CR-Z arrived, hybrid cars have been limited to family sedans, such as the Honda Insight, the Toyota Prius and Camry, the Ford Fusion, and several others. Automatic is the only transmission in these models.

Sure, the original Honda Insight hybrid was 2-passenger, but it was anything but sporty. The car was sold from 1999 to 2006.

This decade, the industry will offer a wide range of hybrid cars and models.

Today, we're starting to turn the corner.

You can reach Rick Kranz at rkranz@crain.com.

phile

that article said nothing at all. what was the point of it?

charliemike

I saw one last night and if it had been a 150 hp gas car I think it might have done well because it probably would have been $3,000 less.

Are there that many people looking for a small hybrid? I can't think so.

Costco

Honda should make a convertible FWD crossover while they're at it.... looking for these nearly non-existent niches. Just hypothetically, if the CR-Z had a Saab badge, nobody would buy it.

fsttyms1

I wonder if the RL would sell better if it had the Honda name on it

Hapa DC5

Make the RL a Honda Maxima.....

TSX69

Pushing the 2011 Honda CR-Z into the Red

Cars.com’s editors recently drove the sporty Honda CR-Z hybrid on a mileage challenge using its standard drive setting with the objective of replicating how most people drive most of the time. The 2011 CR-Z lets you select Econ, Normal and Sport modes, and they kept it in Normal mode at all times on the mileage challenge, with the trip computer registering 37.7 mpg over 330 miles. However, when switched to the more responsive Sport mode and driven in a sporty manner, can the CR-Z still return good gas mileage? I flogged a manual-transmission CR-Z for a weekend and drove it like a sporty car, not a hybrid, to see if the self-proclaimed “Sport Hybrid Coupe” could be efficient in that sportiest of modes.

Gears were revved out, throttle blips were used to rev-match downshifts and I drove it hard over the weekend. As a result, the speedometer’s efficiency ring, which changes color to indicate fuel-conscious driving, was illuminated in an angry red color throughout the weekend.

After a few traffic-filled commutes into Chicago from the suburbs and a weekend of thrashing — totaling 280 miles — the CR-Z’s trip computer registered 36.6 mpg. The 6-speed manual transmission model we tested is EPA rated at 31/37 mpg city/highway, which makes the returned mileage impressive. A 1.1-mpg ding for getting the best driving experience out of the CR-Z is well worth it. I'm confident that number could be improved if I drove more efficiently and switched to Econ mode, though I wasn't tempted to after getting used to the CR-Z's very non-hybridlike driving characteristics.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Very interesting. I still have yet to drive one.

Colin

Did you see this?
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...icle_id=931115

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I havent been going to TOV for awhile. Their forum is a bit out of hand. That torque curve is quite impressive. I need to get some seat time sooner then later. I really want to love the car but Im hesitant bases solely on the powertrain.

Colin

This forum isn't all that different. I some respects, the reasonable ones over there are more reasonable than the 'reasonable' ones here. (if that makes any sense). They just have more people on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Here, the 'problem' is that the heavy posters are more 'cliquish' and tend to drown out any dissenting opinions.

I still need to drive one of these, but it must be a manual and they are few and far between here. Depending on what it feels like, it might be a future replacement for one of our cars. The question is: would I prefer to drive that for ~$300/month or a '11 TSX for $80/month?

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

TSX gets my vote, as of now. But I don't know what else is in your stable aside from the S2k, so if the TSX is more of the same, the CR-Z may be a nice car to diversify.

Forums are usually the same, but here we have a nice selection of mods that IMO do a damn fine job. Im not trying to win brownie points, I really believe that compared to other forums I am on. There, it just seems out of control with some of the bickering. There are a few that I have encountered there that sound like they actually have a brain. The problem is they are heavily outnumbered.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yup...as usual, Honda is underrating its power output again.....it's also interesting to know that a Honda Fit manual puts down less than 100whp stock, according to Shawn Church.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I did see that as well.

There was a commenter there that brought up a good point. If Honda truly is underrating the power, why? A higher number may appease some of the critics. At 118hp, with the highly accurate 20% loss thats about 145-150hp at the crank. Granted, that is a pre-production model, so who knows if anything is different with the models on sale today.