Honda: CR-Z News **Facelift Revealed (page 31)**
11-01-2010, 01:08 PM
#881
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
How and why did this thread turn into a talk about the J series?
11-01-2010, 01:44 PM
#882
Senior Moderator
^ 
Awesome avatar...
Awesome avatar...
11-01-2010, 01:58 PM
#883
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...brid-hard.html
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 six-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.
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 six-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.
11-01-2010, 02:01 PM
#884
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2010/1...honda-cr-z.htm
At the start of the week I was very skeptical about a sporty Hybrid. I expected boring, not sporty. After a lot of driving in the Honda CR-Z I have come to realize that a hybrid can indeed be sporty. It may not be the fastest car around, but it is pure fun to drive and, in the era of vehicle seizures and hefty fines, a slow toss-able fun to drive car that is also great on fuel may just be the ticket.
Over the week of mostly highway driving I averaged 5.5 L/100 km — my trip to Niagara-on-the-lake at 401 highway speeds netted 5.7 L/100 km while my return trip on highway 7 netted a little better at 5.4 L/100 km. I did not get to drive much in the city as I was all about the long drive this week, but saw around 5.6 L/100 km for the small amount of around town driving I did do.
You can chose to believe me or not, but the CR-Z is one fun vehicle to drive and every journalist I spoke to while testing everything from compact cars to exotics at this year’s AJAC Canadian Car of the Year TestFest agreed — the CR-Z is fun!
At the start of the week I was very skeptical about a sporty Hybrid. I expected boring, not sporty. After a lot of driving in the Honda CR-Z I have come to realize that a hybrid can indeed be sporty. It may not be the fastest car around, but it is pure fun to drive and, in the era of vehicle seizures and hefty fines, a slow toss-able fun to drive car that is also great on fuel may just be the ticket.
Over the week of mostly highway driving I averaged 5.5 L/100 km — my trip to Niagara-on-the-lake at 401 highway speeds netted 5.7 L/100 km while my return trip on highway 7 netted a little better at 5.4 L/100 km. I did not get to drive much in the city as I was all about the long drive this week, but saw around 5.6 L/100 km for the small amount of around town driving I did do.
You can chose to believe me or not, but the CR-Z is one fun vehicle to drive and every journalist I spoke to while testing everything from compact cars to exotics at this year’s AJAC Canadian Car of the Year TestFest agreed — the CR-Z is fun!
11-01-2010, 02:06 PM
#885
Senior Moderator
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.
Hopefully we can look forward to something ground breaking from whatever replaces it.
11-01-2010, 02:21 PM
#886
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.
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.
To suggest that anyone who would consider a CR-Z is 'having the wool pulled over their eyes' is a little disingenuous. I would guess (no way to prove it) that buyers for this car will be the among most educated of all Honda buyers. They're going to do their research and will know the strengths and weakness' of this car. Probably better than your Accord or Civic buyer.
As for the last part, about it being cheaper if it wasn't a hybrid. This is also my opinion, but here goes. The IMA system has been in production for 10+ years and could be as old as 13-14 years old from the drawing board. I would venture that by now, it's fully amortized. It is possible that any cost 'premium' is only because they want to set it apart from the non-hybrid offering or because it's got additional premium content.
As for weight, the only NA car sold in both gas and hybrid trim is the Civic. The Civic Hybrid weighs 2877, a Civic EX weighs 2820. I don't sell Honda's so I don't know about specific content differences, but this weigh gain seems negligible. I do know that the Civic uses a larger battery pack than the Insight and CR-Z. (I think it was 120 cells vs. 80). Based on this, I venture that the potential difference between a gas only CR-Z and the current one would also be pretty small.
IMO, IMA would be better served if it was called KERS, but they probably can't since the FIA probably owns the term. But we're talking about capturing energy (otherwise) lost during braking. Are we only saying that capturing the energy in batteries is a bad thing? What about a flywheel?
In the end it comes down to opinion. I just wish that more people here would be tolerant of differing views and try to remember not write something that you wouldn't say in person. (old BBS adage) I think it would encourage more open and intelligent discussion.
Last edited by Colin; 11-01-2010 at 02:24 PM.
11-01-2010, 02:56 PM
#887
Senior Moderator
[QUOTE=Colin;12457575]I'm just trying to point out that each person's reasons for buying or not buying are personal ones. Many people here impose their values on every car, in every thread, without considering that they do not represent every scenario.I feel that's fine cause they're entitled to their opinion. Where they cross the line is when they say things like "anyone who buys it is stupid" (or something like it as an example) because it doesn't take into account the other guy/'s values.[QUOTE]
Not sure if you're directing this at me but I don't think I've ever called someone stupid or something similar for buying a particular car. Otherwise I agree. Different strokes for different folks.
Not quite what I was getting at. Honda sells it as a Sport Hybrid, which depending on your point of view, is fair. I'm just pointing out that it could have been an even better Sporty car without the hybrid bits. I admit that's completely ignoring the whole point of this car. Give us a true sporty no holds barred car is what I'm getting at.
Definitley a specific type of customer that's buying this car.
So your suggesting that if it didn't have a battery to lug around that not only would it be the same weight, but the same price as well? I just can't see that being the case.
Lets turn that around for a second. Honda long ago payed for the J so adding it to a TSX in theory, shouldn't cost a thing, Yet they find a way to charge a 5K premium. In your weight example, the difference is 57 pounds. I have no idea what the battery weighs but I seriously doubt its 57 pounds. I would think other parts of the car would have been changed to keep weight in check.
But content is content. If the battery wasn't there I have a hard time believing it wouldn't be cheaper and lighter.
Again, I'd be interested to know if this was directed at me. But otherwise agreed.
Not sure if you're directing this at me but I don't think I've ever called someone stupid or something similar for buying a particular car. Otherwise I agree. Different strokes for different folks.
To suggest that anyone who would consider a CR-Z is 'having the wool pulled over their eyes' is a little disingenuous.
I would guess (no way to prove it) that buyers for this car will be the among most educated of all Honda buyers. They're going to do their research and will know the strengths and weakness' of this car. Probably better than your Accord or Civic buyer.
As for the last part, about it being cheaper if it wasn't a hybrid. This is also my opinion, but here goes. The IMA system has been in production for 10+ years and could be as old as 13-14 years old from the drawing board. I would venture that by now, it's fully amortized. It is possible that any cost 'premium' is only because they want to set it apart from the non-hybrid offering or because it's got additional premium content.
As for weight, the only NA car sold in both gas and hybrid trim is the Civic. The Civic Hybrid weighs 2877, a Civic EX weighs 2820. I don't sell Honda's so I don't know about specific content differences, but this weigh gain seems negligible. I do know that the Civic uses a larger battery pack than the Insight and CR-Z. (I think it was 120 cells vs. 80). Based on this, I venture that the potential difference between a gas only CR-Z and the current one would also be pretty small.
IMO, IMA would be better served if it was called KERS, but they probably can't since the FIA probably owns the term. But we're talking about capturing energy (otherwise) lost during braking. Are we only saying that capturing the energy in batteries is a bad thing? What about a flywheel?
As for weight, the only NA car sold in both gas and hybrid trim is the Civic. The Civic Hybrid weighs 2877, a Civic EX weighs 2820. I don't sell Honda's so I don't know about specific content differences, but this weigh gain seems negligible. I do know that the Civic uses a larger battery pack than the Insight and CR-Z. (I think it was 120 cells vs. 80). Based on this, I venture that the potential difference between a gas only CR-Z and the current one would also be pretty small.
IMO, IMA would be better served if it was called KERS, but they probably can't since the FIA probably owns the term. But we're talking about capturing energy (otherwise) lost during braking. Are we only saying that capturing the energy in batteries is a bad thing? What about a flywheel?
Lets turn that around for a second. Honda long ago payed for the J so adding it to a TSX in theory, shouldn't cost a thing, Yet they find a way to charge a 5K premium. In your weight example, the difference is 57 pounds. I have no idea what the battery weighs but I seriously doubt its 57 pounds. I would think other parts of the car would have been changed to keep weight in check.
But content is content. If the battery wasn't there I have a hard time believing it wouldn't be cheaper and lighter.
In the end it comes down to opinion. I just wish that more people here would be tolerant of differing views and try to remember not write something that you wouldn't say in person. (old BBS adage) I think it would encourage more open and intelligent discussion.
11-01-2010, 03:17 PM
#888
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Lol, it's because of me :P
I think that's one of the benefits with a hybrid system. As we all know, you waste a lot of fuel when you drive aggressively - gunning it and then braking hard moments later. But on a hybrid, when you brake, a lot of that energy gets captured (unless you are braking really hard...). You are still gonna be wasting energy by driving hard in a hybrid car, but you probably won't waste as much.
I understand that and I am definitely looking forward to the J series succesor.
You probably didn't mean it in a bad way, but you said the following before,
"Any intelligent customer will see through that and realize there are better buys in the Honda showroom."
Some people might think, "so a dumb customer will not see through that?"
I don't think Colin was directing at you...another person posted the following in this thread:
"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."
So your suggesting that if it didn't have a battery to lug around that not only would it be the same weight, but the same price as well? I just can't see that being the case.
Lets turn that around for a second. Honda long ago payed for the J so adding it to a TSX in theory, shouldn't cost a thing, Yet they find a way to charge a 5K premium. In your weight example, the difference is 57 pounds. I have no idea what the battery weighs but I seriously doubt its 57 pounds. I would think other parts of the car would have been changed to keep weight in check.
But content is content. If the battery wasn't there I have a hard time believing it wouldn't be cheaper and lighter.
Again, I'd be interested to know if this was directed at me. But otherwise agreed.
As far as I know, the hybrid system excluding the engine in the original Honda Insight was about 120 or 150lb.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...brid-hard.html
Pushing the 2011 Honda CR-Z Into The Red
.......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? .....the CR-Z’s trip computer registered 36.6 mpg. The six-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.
Pushing the 2011 Honda CR-Z Into The Red
.......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? .....the CR-Z’s trip computer registered 36.6 mpg. The six-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.
Point taken. But, add DI and the latest bells and whistles to the J and how much more powerful and fuel efficient would it be than the current J? That's the point people are trying to make. Its an old engine that's due for replacement.
Hopefully we can look forward to something ground breaking from whatever replaces it.
Hopefully we can look forward to something ground breaking from whatever replaces it.
"Any intelligent customer will see through that and realize there are better buys in the Honda showroom."
Some people might think, "so a dumb customer will not see through that?"
I don't think Colin was directing at you...another person posted the following in this thread:
"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."
So your suggesting that if it didn't have a battery to lug around that not only would it be the same weight, but the same price as well? I just can't see that being the case.
Lets turn that around for a second. Honda long ago payed for the J so adding it to a TSX in theory, shouldn't cost a thing, Yet they find a way to charge a 5K premium. In your weight example, the difference is 57 pounds. I have no idea what the battery weighs but I seriously doubt its 57 pounds. I would think other parts of the car would have been changed to keep weight in check.
But content is content. If the battery wasn't there I have a hard time believing it wouldn't be cheaper and lighter.
Again, I'd be interested to know if this was directed at me. But otherwise agreed.
11-01-2010, 03:54 PM
#889
The Insight pack puts out 1770 watts and holds 5.75 Amp Hours of energy versus the 1380 watts of output at 5.5 Ah capacity found in the current Civic Hybrid. It does this with just seven battery modules in the pack compared with the Civic Hybrid’s 11 modules; one module is composed of 12 cells. Pack weight shrinks from 68 pounds to 45 pounds.
http://midlandshybrid.com/2009031314...ery-setup.html
http://midlandshybrid.com/2009031314...ery-setup.html
So if not batteries, how else could we capture this kinetic energy? It is technically 'free' since we've already 'spent' the energy to accelerate the car. IMO, this is the area where the most efficiency gains are to be found (in the future).
11-01-2010, 04:35 PM
#890
New porsches, new elise coming out etc all have regenerative braking it will be on all vehicles in the future.
I read somewhere that the 3 modes econ, normal, sport are all identical except for throttle response. So you should have the same power output in all modes right? and get the same fuel economy. The only difference would be its easier to speed in sport mode. So if I bought this car I would just leave it in sport mode.
I read somewhere that the 3 modes econ, normal, sport are all identical except for throttle response. So you should have the same power output in all modes right? and get the same fuel economy. The only difference would be its easier to speed in sport mode. So if I bought this car I would just leave it in sport mode.
11-01-2010, 04:57 PM
#891
Well consider me unintelligent, but I won't hold anything back or feel like I can free up the reigns just because I'm on a forum. My opinions are my opinions, I don't think I'd say anything on the internet that I wouldn't in person to a stranger that I just met.... except in Ramblings 
If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.
Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
11-01-2010, 05:29 PM
#892
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Well said.
11-01-2010, 06:27 PM
#893
Golf TDI is $6K more expensive comparably equiped and have only 1mpg advantage based on MT road tests. I will take Honda engine life any day over any TDI engine. It is turbo. with high diesel compression.
I am not sure US version is comparable to EU GT version but that car is regarded very high interior quality comparable to Audi TT/VW Scrico.
I am not sure US version is comparable to EU GT version but that car is regarded very high interior quality comparable to Audi TT/VW Scrico.
11-01-2010, 06:34 PM
#894
The sizzle in the Steak
Well consider me unintelligent, but I won't hold anything back or feel like I can free up the reigns just because I'm on a forum. My opinions are my opinions, I don't think I'd say anything on the internet that I wouldn't in person to a stranger that I just met.... except in Ramblings If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.
Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
11-01-2010, 07:22 PM
#895
Well consider me unintelligent, but I won't hold anything back or feel like I can free up the reigns just because I'm on a forum. My opinions are my opinions, I don't think I'd say anything on the internet that I wouldn't in person to a stranger that I just met.... except in Ramblings If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.
Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
If anything, my posts on AZ are much more eloquent than how my speech would be in real life. I liked to think of myself as open-minded.... oops, guess not then.Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
I'm wrong to have high expectations for a parallel hybrid, but to me it sort of preys on the typical consumer perspective that "hybrid = impressive MPG difference over non-hybrid". If IMA is really affordable and as lightweight as I'm being told to implement, then great! Honda should implement it on more of their vehicles to notably improve mileage while hardly affecting price. It's a big step up from the starter and alternator, being that both are quite limited in the respect that they add nothing in terms of MPG.
You usually find me posting in all kinds of threads in Auto News, and you'll find that I have a very diverse taste in automobiles and find attraction in anything ranging from a Miata to a Brabus S-Class to a Unimog, and I'll be right there in every thread. If you find my posts don't add value to discussions, feel free to ignore me.... I'm not going anywhere. I did the same for SSFTSX
11-01-2010, 07:34 PM
#896
Lol, it's because of me :P
I think that's one of the benefits with a hybrid system. As we all know, you waste a lot of fuel when you drive aggressively - gunning it and then braking hard moments later. But on a hybrid, when you brake, a lot of that energy gets captured (unless you are braking really hard...). You are still gonna be wasting energy by driving hard in a hybrid car, but you probably won't waste as much.
I think that's one of the benefits with a hybrid system. As we all know, you waste a lot of fuel when you drive aggressively - gunning it and then braking hard moments later. But on a hybrid, when you brake, a lot of that energy gets captured (unless you are braking really hard...). You are still gonna be wasting energy by driving hard in a hybrid car, but you probably won't waste as much.
Look at data of Goft TDI GT 6speed manual vs CRZ GT 6Speed Manual. (there is reason Honda emphasis GT no EX-L despite having Leather
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...140-GT/237767/
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...TEC-GT/248790/
From 0-60 Golf TDI is 0.2 secon faster. but from 0-100mph. CRZ is 2 second faster. amazing aerodynamics with fuel efficiency. within 1mpg of each other as achieved by Motortrend and further confirmed by Autocar.
Euro Golf TDI is not as well equiped like full leather, navi, push button CRZ. CRZ has 8% advantage on CO2 emission.
from this you can conclude that IMA is better choice than not only TDI but full hybrid like Prius/Sonata/Camry hybrid.
Sonata hybrid can only pull 0.75g and is not more than 10% efficient despite having $8k more price with lithium polymer batteries. with no performance advantage.
CRZ do the job well done.
11-01-2010, 08:34 PM
#897
Senior Moderator
And they are all different cars than the CRZ 
at least with the others you can haul 4 people.
at least with the others you can haul 4 people.
11-01-2010, 08:49 PM
#898
11-01-2010, 10:25 PM
#899
The people who buy coupes are either single/ small family or rich enough families to have two or three cars in a house.
Coupe is for daily driving. SUV/large sedan is for weekends. and 90% of times i see only front seats occupied.
This is called bold idea of creating two seat hybrid. not just regular 6/8 cylinder vehicles.
The problem is that they are comparing 6AT Golf TDI with 6MT CRZ which is way faster than 6AT TDI only 6MT Golf TDI can match CRZ performance.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...e-results.html
Details on the routes are below. It’s worth noting that if heavy urban traffic were all you drove in, the CR-Z would be your best bet. The first 35 miles of Leg 1 took us the length of Chicago’s surface streets, which is the sort of grueling urban route reminiscent of our second mileage challenge. Averaging just 18 mph, the Cooper registered 28.3 mpg, while the Golf TDI got 30.5 mpg. The CR-Z topped the group with 32.7 mpg.
Details on the routes are below. It’s worth noting that if heavy urban traffic were all you drove in, the CR-Z would be your best bet. The first 35 miles of Leg 1 took us the length of Chicago’s surface streets, which is the sort of grueling urban route reminiscent of our second mileage challenge. Averaging just 18 mph, the Cooper registered 28.3 mpg, while the Golf TDI got 30.5 mpg. The CR-Z topped the group with 32.7 mpg.
Overall 5speed Auto Fit fally by 4mpg shorter than CRZ 6MT. with CVT CRZ the gap will be even wider.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...e-results.html
Mileage Challenge 6.2: The Results
Mileage Challenge 6.2: The Results
11-02-2010, 02:18 AM
#900
Perhaps it was too harsh to basically call someone stupid for liking the CR-Z (yes, it was me who said it, and all comments were most likely directed towards me) but my bias is that I would much rather have a turbodiesel than a hybrid, if my aim was for fun and gas mileage. I'd much rather pay the premium over a CR-Z to get a Golf TDI - IMO a more attractive car, with a better interior, more utility, DSG instead of CVT, while also offering a 6MT, etc. again, all my opinion. I'm a consumer and I tend to think a little more with my heart than I do with my brain.... the Golf TDI beckons to me in many ways, not just on paper or aesthetically, while the CR-Z does nothing for me. If I were to go for MPGs it would either be a Prius or a TDI, something that has been constantly seen to get 50 MPG or better.... unfortunately I think those two cars/powerplants have set the bar too high in my own mind.
11-02-2010, 10:47 AM
#901
Senior Moderator
Profit? Maybe they don't really want to sell made in Japan TSXs vs. made in US TLs? Don't know for sure but I agree there must be something going on. Personally I don't want to sell TSX V-6s. I think it was a stupid choice to introduce the car and an example of what's wrong at Acura. (too much variation within product lines)
Believe it.
So it appears that the Civic pack is a little more than the straight difference, and the Insight/CR-Z pack is less. In the end, the IMA system captures lost energy with little penalty. Not zero penalty, but IMO, it's smaller than many think.
So if not batteries, how else could we capture this kinetic energy? It is technically 'free' since we've already 'spent' the energy to accelerate the car. IMO, this is the area where the most efficiency gains are to be found (in the future).
So if not batteries, how else could we capture this kinetic energy? It is technically 'free' since we've already 'spent' the energy to accelerate the car. IMO, this is the area where the most efficiency gains are to be found (in the future).
Having said that I'm not in the market for a coupe anyway so it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
11-02-2010, 11:45 AM
#902
Even if you don't like the performance stock, and they dont come out with a si version there will be so many aftermarket options to make it faster/more powerful and retaining the same mpg.
Here is a thread of what bisimoto is doing. http://www.crzforum.com/forum/afterm...endly-crz.html
Here is a thread of what bisimoto is doing. http://www.crzforum.com/forum/afterm...endly-crz.html
11-02-2010, 12:12 PM
#903
you have to consider that Cars. com mileage challenge highway trip was done at avg speed of 58mph. so TDI Golf had advantage but if it was done on 70+ mph which most people drive on freeways. CRZ would have won even that segement also with 6MT.
11-02-2010, 12:15 PM
#904
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,640
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Based upon your track record so far
11-02-2010, 12:36 PM
#905
Euro 6MT Golf TDI which is much lighter vehicle than US 6AT Golt TDI achieved best 49mpg while Euro GT CRZ got 52 mpg best.
It is pretty safe to assume CRZ will beat TDI at higher speeds and city driving. TDI is more efficient in between and that only with 6AT. which is slower vehicle than 6MT TDI.
11-02-2010, 06:38 PM
#907
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
No one is dissing it. We're just stating that its old.
Id drive that CR-Z. They can keep the body kit, hood, and wing though.
Id drive that CR-Z. They can keep the body kit, hood, and wing though.
11-02-2010, 06:56 PM
#909
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
11-02-2010, 07:05 PM
#910
Senior Moderator
11-02-2010, 07:30 PM
#911
that R actually looks good
11-02-2010, 08:00 PM
#912
Senior Moderator
Not content with letting the aftermarket industry have all the fun, Honda’s factory skunkworks unveiled three custom CR-Zs for the SEMA show.
Honda Performance Development put together the stripped out white, black and red CR-Z that took center stage. Featuring a turbocharged four-cylinder powertrain, the HPD CR-Z Racer puts out 175 horsepower and 155 lb-ft. of torque. Combined with the hybrid electric components, the HPD CR-Z Racer cranks out more than 200 horsepower, according to Honda.
Larger brakes and upgraded wheels and tires improve handling and braking, while a stripped body shell reduces weight.
The HPD CR-Z Racer more than hints at a future CR-Z spec racing series, but Honda still says it has nothing to announce.
The bright red Hybrid R Concept also features a 200 horsepower powertrain and an upgraded suspension, but it retains most of its standard CR-Z creature comforts. Like the HPD CR-Z Racer, the Hybrid R hints at a Type R variant of the standard CR-Z.
Honda also used the SEMA Show to announce a Mugen-tuned version of the CR-Z would be making production. Limited to just 300 examples, the 2011 Mugen CR-Z will feature a Mugen body kit, larger rear spoiler, 17-inch wheels, Mugen shifter knob and billet aluminum oil-filler cap. The 2011 Honda Mugen CR-Z will be available next spring.
Honda Performance Development put together the stripped out white, black and red CR-Z that took center stage. Featuring a turbocharged four-cylinder powertrain, the HPD CR-Z Racer puts out 175 horsepower and 155 lb-ft. of torque. Combined with the hybrid electric components, the HPD CR-Z Racer cranks out more than 200 horsepower, according to Honda.
Larger brakes and upgraded wheels and tires improve handling and braking, while a stripped body shell reduces weight.
The HPD CR-Z Racer more than hints at a future CR-Z spec racing series, but Honda still says it has nothing to announce.
The bright red Hybrid R Concept also features a 200 horsepower powertrain and an upgraded suspension, but it retains most of its standard CR-Z creature comforts. Like the HPD CR-Z Racer, the Hybrid R hints at a Type R variant of the standard CR-Z.
Honda also used the SEMA Show to announce a Mugen-tuned version of the CR-Z would be making production. Limited to just 300 examples, the 2011 Mugen CR-Z will feature a Mugen body kit, larger rear spoiler, 17-inch wheels, Mugen shifter knob and billet aluminum oil-filler cap. The 2011 Honda Mugen CR-Z will be available next spring.
And then they go and release another Mugen.
If it's 30K like the last Mugen Civic was they should have their heads checked.
11-02-2010, 08:10 PM
#913
I would like to see a CR-Z Si. I don't see a Type-R happening in any Honda models right now, actually. I hope I'm wrong, but I certainly don't see a CTR on North American soil because of the presence of the Si and the aforementioned Mugen Civic Si. I definitely don't see a CR-Z Type R. While I don't have any issue with the concept of a "sport hybrid" (I have a bigger problem with the CR-Z itself, if you couldn't tell) I would laugh at the prospect of a from-the-factory "hardcore club racer hybrid". Now that's a niche.
11-02-2010, 11:46 PM
#915
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
I thought they would've learned with the last Mugen. When my brother bought his Accord back in '08, the dealer was trying to get me into the Mugen Si. I pointed to the sticker price and laughed. They said its been sitting there so long they wouldn't be surprised if they sold it for the same price as an Si.
11-03-2010, 12:09 AM
#916
Burning Brakes
11-03-2010, 12:15 AM
#918
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
I feel the same way about the CR-Z as I did about the CR-X, it looks much better without a wing in my opinion.
The CR-Z can pull it off, but it needs to be on a track to do it.
Last edited by civicdrivr; 11-03-2010 at 12:17 AM.
11-03-2010, 12:36 AM
#919
Burning Brakes
11-03-2010, 01:27 PM
#920
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
