iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Not only do they do that with their power rating, but they also do that with their EPA ratings. I don't know if you have noticed or not, despite being not so impressive in EPA ratings, a lot of Honda cars actually get very decent "observed" mpg in those road tests.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

IIRC the EPA ratings are out of their hands, thats the EPA using their unrealistic method of calculating mileage ratings. But I have experienced that first hand; my CL is rated at 28mpg hwy and I was averaging 31. My brothers Accord is rated at 25mpg hwy and thats his mixed fuel economy. On the highway he averages about 30mpg. We both by no means have light feet either. Im actually getting better gas mileage now with the 3.6l then I ever did with the 3.2l.

I remember when the 8th gen Accord came out they dyno'd a 6MT and its more in line with what the 3rd gen TL-S put down. The Civic Si put down an impressive number as well.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, the 5g AV6 6MT dyno'd at 240whp with regular fuel while the TL-S 6MT put down 253whp. The Civic Si got around 180whp I believe. Now, don't ask me how I can remember these numbers...lol...I guess I'm just a fanboi...while I'm at it....the 1st gen TSX put down close to 180whp as well, and the 2g TSX 6MT put down a bit more with a much fatter/broader torque curve.

I used to be getting that kind of mileage in my TL too but not anymore because it takes me 7 minutes to drive to work. The engine doesn't have time to warm up.....

Colin

No S2Ks for us now. No money for such extravagances, my income was cut in half in 2008, half again in 2009. I've just got the 08 TSX coming up on the end of it's lease in March. If I qualify, I'll need to replace it with something. The TSX seems like the obvious choice but paying full list price for the car and having my higher payment subsidized by the dealership and Acura may have too high a (hidden) price. As for the Mods here, I have a different opinion, but that's not the topic at hand.

Colin

As noted, it was a pre-production model so maybe more tweeks were done at the last minute.

Or maybe they don't want to run the risk of posting too high a number ala Mazda RX-8, MX-5, etc. (like how people here complain that they say one thing but don't back it up)

Or maybe they want to be able to raise rated power later without doing a significant amount of reworking?

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Did you use to have an S2k? For some reason I remember someone saying you had/have one.

Colin

Oh yeah, we had 4 between us (2000,01,04 & 05)

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

There's another stock CR-Z dyno at TOV. The test was done on a dynapack, which I believe reads a little high than dynojet.

Results:

139hp with IMA assist
121hp without IMA assist.

I am not sure what do those mean in terms of flywheel hp. Peak torque is close to 150lbft.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Its amazing to see how much that electric motor helps out.

http://vtec.net/articles/article-ima...-z_hondata.gif

And to quote Shawn:

dom

Not sure what any of that means. The spec's speak for themselves. Both from Car & Driver.

CR-Z
0-60: 9.6
1/4 mile: 17.2
0-100: 29.3
Top Gear
30-50:14.1
50-70:16.0

Fit
0-60: 8.3
1/4 mile: 16.5
0-100: 27
Top Gear
30-50:11.4
50-70:12.7

So really, who cares what a dyno says, its still slow as molassus. Maybe Honda is 'underrating' it because they realize they've have a hard time explaining its performace whith even higher HP/Tq figures.

And Observed fuel economy, 36 vs 34 in favor of the CR-Z. So its probably a safe assumption to make that if the CR-Z wasn't a hybrid, not only would it be quicker than it is, bit probably almost as fuel efficient. All for less money. Brilliant.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...aeb2e8df48.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...b50ee22645.pdf

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

The difference in real world performance is probably the gear ratios.

CR-Z:
1st: 3.143
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.303
4th: 1.054
5th: 0.854
6th: 0.689
Reverse: 3.307
Final Drive: 4.11

http://hondanews.com/channels/honda-...s-and-features

Fit:
1st: 3.308
2nd: 1.870
3rd: 1.303
4th: 0.949
5th: 0.727
Reverse: 3.308
Final Drive: 4.62

http://hondanews.com/channels/honda-...s-and-features

First in the Fit is shorter then the CR-Z while second and third are the same, but the biggest difference is the final drive, with the Fit having the shorter of the two. The tires on the Fit are 24.01" tall, while the CR-Z has 24.44" tall tires, further lowering the final drive on the CR-Z.

It makes me wonder if the CR-Z had the exact same gearing and tire size as the Fit, what would the mileage ratings be. To me, that makes Hondas IMA system seem even more unimpressive.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

The new road and track magazine I am looking at right now has the cr-z tested at 0-60 in 8.6 sec for the manual and 1/4 mile of 16.4 @ 83.7. Lateral acceleration is .82g and 66.8mph thru slalom.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Motortrend got 8.3s:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/specs.html

0-60 mph 8.3 sec
Quarter mile 16.4 sec @ 83.6 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 122 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.84 g (avg)
MT Figure Eight 27.5 sec @ 0.60 g (avg)


May be Car and Driver is the one who needs to do some explaining considering that Motortrend and Road and Track usually get slower times.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I wonder if C&D had it in ECO mode?

SSFTSX

C&D is wrong. Just like first time they publish wrong data of TSX V6.
CRZ is way faster than Fit. and once speed is built over 60mph. Fit is practically hopeless against CRZ. and high speed fuel economy like going 70 to 80mph on Freeway CRZ will be atleast 10mpg better than Fit.

CRZ-GT is 9 second faster from 0-100mph with 8mpg avg better fuel economy than the efficient verion 1.4 VTEC Honda Jazz. That is the most realistic comparision. CRZ is on 16inch Alloy on wider tires. that is 6MT version. with CVT against 5speed Auto. the fuel economy gap will be even wider.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...TEC-GT/248790/



http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...1.4-ES/235669/

Hapa DC5

I average 40mpg in my Fit on the highway..............................

fsttyms1

This. This is what has been said all along. Its a waste of money unimpressive system

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

Shut the fuck up. Please. Its tiring reading the same bullshit excuses from you post after post. You're comparing cars that arent available here, and for what? So you can prove Honda worlds most best car maker? Stop. Just stop.

EDIT - Sorry mods if Im a bit direct with this. Its just frustrating.

fsttyms1

Why are they wrong. Just because their numbers dont meet your liking? Maybe this is real world numbers and not a test mule that is a little special? Not every car is manufactured the same. Not every test surface and day is the same. Maybe the others are wrong. Either way its an unimpressive car with lack luster performance and mileage

SSFTSX

C&D has made several mistakes in the past. like putting 6AT on Honda Crosstour. Putting wildly different times for TL road tests.
They are not 100% accurate in every instances.
This Autocar is very reliable British Magazine interms of test data.
Fit will fall way short of CRZ in performance/Fuel economy/Handling. there is is simply no comparision. I cant believe some people still banging there heads even on such obvious reality.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

To me, it's good to see a hybrid car that is not an "appliance." The CR-Z also shows that Honda is delivering what it has promised - something about delivering more green products. The performance is better than expected IMO and I think the extra low end torque is very useful in city driving. It's also something 0-60mph won't tell you, like a diesel-powered car.

On paper the CR-Z looks rather disappointing but from what I've seen so far, it's a rather decent car when you are actually driving it.

fsttyms1

So tell me what is the "accurate" number since every test surface and day can result in a different number?

dom

None of those arguments and other tests change the fact that if the CR-Z was a not a hybrid, it would handle just as well and be just as fun to drive all while delivering comparable fuel economy and performance AT A CHEAPER PRICE.

IMO the CR-Z is nothing but a marketing ploy. "Look at me, I'm a sport hybrid. The First sport hybrid" I see no tangible benifit to the hybrid part other than being able to market is as a hybrid.

Any intelligent customer will see through that and realize there are better buys in the Honda showroom. Having said that cars are emotional purchases. Someone may really like the styling and the drive. I just really wish there was a non hybrid version of this thing available.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

If it performed the same way it does but got the same mileage as the first gen Insight, then Id be fine with it. If it got the same mileage that its rated at now and performed the same as the Civic Si, Id have one. But having horrible mileage ratings and horrible performance figures makes for a horrible vehicle packaged in a nice looking wrapper (IMO).

fsttyms1

Hapa DC5

No it doesn't "fall way short." You are the resident magazine racer you saw the numbers with your own two eyes. Then you discredit them. You always quote blogs or magazine numbers.

The Fit is a better buy and much more useful.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

But then you would pretty much have a slower Civic Si with fewer seats.

It IS a marketing ploy, hence they are only looking to sell 15000 of those here yearly. It's still early to tell, but so far I believe they are meeting, if not exceeding that target in the States. And I believe it's doing way better in other parts of the world. I guess most of those buyers just like the fact that it's a hybrid and it's pretty cheap to buy. Now, how well would it have sold if it didn't have the hybrid system?

I'm not sure if the fuel efficiency is really comparable between a Fit and the CR-Z. From what I've seen from different road tests, the CR-Z real world mpg is in the high 30's to low 40's - not impressive for a hybrid. On the other hand, the Fit seems to be getting around low to mid 30's on average. Not a huge difference but on average the gain is around 15%-20%. Last time I checked, the real world mpg difference between the Sonata 2.0T with its super high-tech engine and the TSX with the old J series and the ancient 5AT is 5% (26.4mpg from Edmunds vs 25mpg from C&D). And people bragged about how great turbo + direct injection + 6at are. So..I don't know...if the IMA is so useless/worthless....what about the turbo + direct injection + 6at?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Opps my bad, the TSX V6 obtained 28mpg in the real world...not 25mpg.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...06720d4d53.pdf

Costco

How the hell? Despite the IMA providing much needed low end torque, considering the fact that it has an additional forward cog over the Fit (regardless of gear ratios), the CR-Z will have a hard time matching or even keeping up with a Honda Fit? It will in all likelihood cost more than the Fit, and only get somewhat better gas mileage. And even then, you sacrifice the incredible versatility of the Fit.... that's just stupid.

Sport hybrid my foot. I shook my head when I saw someone driving one the other day. Even if the Fit and the CR-Z were the exact same price I still wouldn't get the CR-Z. Ah, well.... a fool and his money are soon parted.

Colin

^^What if someone doesn't want or need 4 seats? What if they don't want a mini-minivan looking appliance? What if they don't want to be one of 100,000 on the roads? What if you have 20K to spend and you want something small and fun to drive?

IMO, if you only have 16-19K to spend, the Fit is a sporty fun car, and if you have 23-25K to spend the Civic Si is a fun and sporty car. What is so wrong with slotting a car in between?

Costco

Yeah, then I guess if someone don't want or need 4 seats, they don't want a mini-minivan looking appliance, don't want to be one of 100,000 on the roads, want something small and fun to drive, don't really like the Fit or the Civic Si but they want a Honda and they have 20k to spend... the CR-Z is the PERFECT car for them.

It's a smart move on Honda's part, I didn't consider the gap between the Fit and the Civic Si when you're talking about a fun to drive car. Still, color me unimpressed by the CR-Z.... and I'm just one out of many. This is another case of "well, there's nothing really wrong with this car, but they could have improved it quite a bit during the development stage to increase sales/revenue" e.g. the 4G TL

A lot of people here are implying that the use of IMA on the CR-Z is questionable. Are you saying it's the same with direct injection and a 6AT? The precise fuel metering of DI and the increased flexibility with gear ratios which usually improves both acceleration and fuel economy is an absolute must, IMO. Why settle for what you got now when you can have something better?

I've never really believed in the principle that a smaller, turbocharged engine with fewer cylinders could truly match a bigger engine with more cylinders.... that's just my bias though. The highway MPG on a turbocharged 4-cylinder vehicle might be better than the same vehicle with a N/A 6-cylinder putting out similar power, but when it comes to city driving or driving with a heavy foot, the gas gets sucked down quite faster. There's also an endless multitude of other things that kinda bug me, and then again there are other things that I also like about F/I engines but that's for another thread.

At least on Edmunds, the Fit got 2 mpg more than the CR-Z did. See the sidebar in each article:

CR-Z mpg (Edmunds observed)
Fit mpg (Edmunds observed)

My emphasis is that we shouldn't be looking at it from a "oh hey look, Honda did as well as another car did with inferior tech". My thinking is, if they can do that with an outdated 3.5L V6 and one less gear, imagine what they can do with all new engine tech.... direct injection, 6AT, etc. I've mentioned it before... I don't know what's going on at their R&D labs but other manufacturers have implemented direct injection into their new engines and have markedly improved fuel economy.

fsttyms1

But your comparison isnt the same car. That tech has to be compared to the same car, not another car. The new 2.0t is much better compared to the non in that car, not to mention the power. No one said that that motor/tech will wipe the competition in mpg but what it does do is make more power and better power than what they had before. IMA is worthless. It gains very little. The turbo+direct inj plus 6 speed make HUGE improvements. I dont know how you dont think they do. Look at the power it puts down and the mpg it returns (for that motor) I would argue the gains are far better than the IMA vs Non IMA vehicle

VQPower37

this is a really good lookin car ... it may be the first hybrid i ever buy if i were in the market for a smaller car

dom

There could be a myriad of reason to choose one over the other. The last thing I was trying to suggest is that someone should buy a Fit over a CR-Z. They are quite different cars that I doubt would be cross shopped much, if at all.

I just see a much better overall car in the Fit for less money. I feel Honda is really trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the Sport Hybrid BS. IMO its clear that this would be a far better car (lighter and cheaper while sacrificing little in MPG) if it weren't a hybrid. If they can sell every one they make, then more power to them. They've done their job. At least it looks pretty good.

Yumcha

Call me nuts, but when I saw it on the way to work this morning...I thought the car looked hawt.


IWHI.

dom

Read the thread noob, few if any think otherwise. And isn't it close to -60 there? Surprised the battery works in that weather.

Yumcha

Given how each of these Honda threads have turned...I think I'm getting alot of them confused for each other. One is looks, the other is performance...




And STFU about the weather. How are them Leaves doing?

dom

They've just about all fallen off the trees. And out of the playoff hunt.

SSFTSX

Car is well received in EU. They are far complex reason behind using IMA than turbo charging or introducting small diesel in EU.
Look at CO2 emission and congetion tax in EU cities. It competes against VW Scrico TDI/Audi TT TDI.
Creating small TDI engine is far expensive than just adding IMA. and with upcoming Euro 6 emision standards. more and more hybrids will be norm. look at midrange performance figures compared to Fit. it is a car on much wider tires than standard Fit/Jazz.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

This is why you see way more Honda Fits than CR-Zs. This is why the sales target for the CRZ is much lower. Honda is just providing more options to the consumers. Honda is also taking advantage of economies of scale by producing more IMAs.

I think Honda could have produced different trim levels with different powertrains for the CR-Z. With only one single trim level, I think it's hard to satisfy all markets. For instance, in North America, people demand more power for a sporty car, and this is one area where the CR-Z isn't good at.

No no, I am not implying that IMA = DI and/or turbo. I personally think that hybrid + DI + turbo would be desirable. I just think each of these systems has its own merits and flaws. I agree with you about turbo.

Yup, in certain tests, the Fit would outperform the CR-Z in fuel efficiency. However, I was talking about on average. After all, the difference is around 15% or so; I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases, the Fit gets better mileage. I mean, my 02 TL-S sometimes gets better mileage than my 98 Camry LE (I4).

As mentioned before, Honda implemented DI before on the Honda stream (I think it was a K series). However, the non-DI R-series engine that came out later was more efficient than the DI K series. Perhaps at this moment, Honda doesn't think the benefits of DI are good enough for the extra cost?

I am comparing between different cars because people always complain about how the J series is no longer competitive against these new engines. I am trying to show that, despite being outdated, the J series in a heavier car can still put out some very competitive numbers, that's all.

Like I said before, I am not saying that turbo + direct inj are useless. This is what I said in my previous post, "if the IMA is so useless/worthless....what about the turbo + direct injection + 6at?" And I quoted that IMA in general improves mpg by 15-20%. Here are some EPA numbers since most of us here like to use them.

2007 Accord V6 5AT: 18/26/21
2007 Accord Hybrid V6: 24/32/27
Gain: 28.6% (combined)

2011 CR-Z CVT: 25/39/37
2010 Fit 5AT: 27/33/30 (2011 data N/A)
Gain: 23.3% (combined)

2011 CR-Z 6MT: 31/37/34
2010 Fit 5MT: 27/33/29 (2011 data N/A)
Gain: 20.7% (combined)

2010 Civic Hybrid: 40/45/42
2010 Civic 5AT: 25/36/29
Gain: 44.8%

The gain on average is over 24%. I purposely left out the 44.8% gain in my calculation because the Civic Hybrid as far as I know is a much slower car than the normal Civic, correct me if I am wrong. Nonetheless, my previous 15-20% estimate was on the conservative side.

A gain of well over 20% while not sacrificing any performance (plus much more usable low-end torque) to me isn't worthless.