Legend2TL

Colin Congrats!
Great pics also!

Colin

^^ I'm definitely not a photographer, but I know enough to realize that White is going to be hard to shoot. I got up before sunrise to set up and some things were still a little off. Need to plan better next time.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Another interesting comparison test:
http://www.evo.co.uk/features/featur...4_tsi_160.html

I have noticed a few flaws in the article though. Nonetheless, a good read if you have time.

Colin

Great read, it seems we clearly made the right 'choice' since the other two aren't sold in the US. Here are a couple of thoughts I can share. First off, remember that this is not my DD. I've only driven it a few times. I agree that the seats could use more lumbar support. This might be my bad back as much as anything so take it with a grain of salt. (the S2000 seats needed more support for me too).

I'm still trying to learn how to best maximize the IMA usage. We have a gentle hill to climb just before our house (sea level to ~500ft). Yet, despite this, I park the car with an almost full battery. It seems like it would be more efficient to use more electrical power vs. gas going up the hill. Especially since the trip down the hill will fully recharge the pack for the next day's driving.

In day to day driving, this car is no slower than the TSX I just sold. I guess I just didn't push that car much as it was rather boring to me. Of all the cars I've owned, the TSX was my least favorite... ever. The gearbox was nice, and it was quiet, but the clutch take up and handling were disappointing. By selling it short of my 3 year lease, it set the record for the shortest ownership for me.

A lot has been said about the blind spot issues with the CR-Z. I can say that while significant, they're VERY similar to the RSX (I'll try to take some pics one day). Also, it's got better rearward visibility than an S2000 with the top up. IMO, if you set you mirrors a 'click wider' than usual, it's not an issue. The car is so short, that by the time a car is out of the rear view mirror, it's visible through the side window.

The steering is pretty sensitive. I'm still adjusting to it after the the Acura's slow ratio. Weighting is a bit heavy, strangely so. We're halfway through the first tank and economy has settled to 38ish mpg over ~190 miles. Assuming the second half of the tank is 'smaller' (isn't it always?), I'm guessing we'll see about 300 miles in range. LOL, my wife was commenting that she's 'already' down a half tank. Then I pointed out that it's only a 10 gallon tank...

dom

Congrats! Sounds like you guys have the perfect tool for the job. Enjoy it. But going by your history I don't think it will remain in the family for very long.

Was it a second gen TSX you just got rid of? Did you also own a first?

Colin

It was a 1st Gen, but a 2008. Believe me, it was a very different car than the 2004s.

docboy

Colin, how is the 2008 different from the 2004s? I had 05 TSX, albeit an auto, that I thought was a great reliable commuter vehicle w/very low maintenance costs. So much so, I may consider getting a used 1G TSX in the future for commuting.

Colin

The funny thing is that there were no published changes. But I can say that post-MMC 1st gen TSXs seemed to ride higher, with softer springs or shocks. Much more body roll than the earlier cars. Also the clutch went from being perfect to having the dreaded 'delay valve' that screwed up the feel.

Costco

Given your history with an MR2 Turbo and an S2000, that's rather disappointing to hear about the TSX. At the same time, it says a lot about the CR-Z. I figured the TSX would be a nice DD (it is a nice car for the money) but never got to push one very hard.

I would imagine slow speeds, light throttle and a low gear would utilize battery power more than gas?

docboy

Going off topic, which year of the 1G TSX was the MMC (ie. ones to avoid)? My 05 IMHO had very little body roll and had a decently stiff ride but never punishing, though it was very underpowered, esp compared to my TL 6MT.

On topic, how does the CRZ compare to the RSX by chance?

Colin

It was in 2006. Sadly, the additions for 2006 were the only redeeming things in that car for me. Bluetooth, aux in, were my two favorite things about that car. You really should pay extra attention if you're looking at one as a second car. IMO, the crappy clutch takeup was the worst part of the car so if you're looking at autos it may be less of an issue.

Our RSX is a 2006 Leather Base w/ 5MT and was purchased used. The RSX has longer shift throws, and a stiffer clutch. With 160 hp, it is faster in a straight line, but in day to day, it's not that different. Our car has crappy Goodyear tires that are getting VERY loud as they age. So quietness is not a fair comparison, but after I change these tires out, we'll see. However, my gut feeling is that the CR-Z will still be quieter.

As far as ride and handling. The RSX has a very choppy ride. I've always felt that the rear suspension design that 'toes in' under braking was a little unpredictable and I wish the car had more rebound dampening in the rear. The RSX is one of the last cars to have a hydrolic steering system, and this is is very noticeable. However, there is a lot of dartiness over uneven pavement, but I suspect it's the tires tram-lining.

The CR-Z definitely has greater torsional rigidity, but then I expect every modern car to be stiffer than those that came before it. Since the RSX is two Civic generations old, this is not a surprise. The doors and hatch close with a solid feel and the materials seem commensurate with the price of the car. This is not to say they're cheap, but I can see areas of cost cutting. It seems to have a semi-soft dash, somewhere between the hard plastic of the RSX and the molded TSX dash.

I think that I can say that except for straightline speed, this CR-Z feels every bit as sporty as any of my other two seaters. The steering is quick, the clutch light and the gearshift 'Honda smooth'. The auto-stop feature is seamless and unobtrusive and other than the digital dash reminders, you'd never know you were driving a hybrid.

TSX69

Hot CR-Z will be a Hybrid

Honda R&D chief Tomohiko Kawanabe has confirmed that the firm is working on a high-performance CR-Z hybrid.

In an exclusive interview with Autocar, Kawanabe admitted that development work on the more powerful 2-door has started, and that — contrary to earlier reports — it will keep its IMA hybrid system.

“It’s true: we are working on a more powerful CR-Z,” he said. “Our problem with the car as it stands is that it looks very good, but it doesn’t have the performance some customers expect.”

Autocar’s sources suggest that Honda might turn to a turbocharged 1.6-litre engine for the new CR-Z, but Kawanabe refused to confirm this.

"The decision on the engine hasn’t been made,” he said. “Turbocharging is an option, but a high-compression petrol engine would work better in tandem with a hybrid assist system.”

It is highly likely that the faster CR-Z will use Honda’s next-generation IMA system, which will appear 1st in the US-market Civic Hybrid next year.

Featuring lithium ion batteries, the new IMA will be capable of producing twice as much power as Honda’s nickel-metal hydride system, without requiring a larger battery.

A more sophisticated coupling should also allow it to fully disengage from the engine during brake energy regeneration (something the current IMA system can’t do), allowing it to recapture more kinetic energy to recycle as electric power.

The problem for the CR-Z’s performance will be Honda’s efficiency targets. “It will not be acceptable for the new car to be less fuel efficient than the current one,” Kawanabe said. “The CR-Z must deliver low CO2 emissions, as well as be fun to drive.”

That being the case, a combined petrol-electric power increase to 160bhp is likely, delivered without compromising fuel efficiency thanks to that more powerful hybrid system.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

I have mixed feelings on that. I dont really want IMA but Im willing to see what sort of performance they can inject into it.

dom

^ +1

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

"Featuring lithium ion batteries, the new IMA will be capable of producing twice as much power as Honda’s nickel-metal hydride system, without requiring a larger battery."

What exactly does that mean?

The lithium ion batteries should be able to store more energy, but how does that translate to more power? Or is it suggesting that, because of the added battery capacity, then the IMA motor can be made more powerful without worrying about draining the battery too quickly?

dom

I don't think the new Civic Hybrid is twice as fuel efficient. Sounds like whoever wrote that is a tad too optimistic.

Brandon24pdx

I would guess the later. Batter technology is really the limiting factor on hybrids and all electric cars right now.

CarbonGray Earl

I'll believe it when I see it on US shores.

Colin

I think they're saying the battery is twice as powerful without being larger. They're probably talking about the energy storage capacity vs. weight. Personally, I would welcome more capacity as it would allow the existing electric motor to provide a longer duration of assist (say when climbing a long hill). Or as noted, they could make the electric motor more powerful and offer assist similar in duration to the current car.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

A Civic's R18 engine with some tweaks (140 to 150hp) plus new IMA (may be around 20hp) would be decent IMO. I'd imagine 160hp to 170hp is reasonable.

This would make it quite competitive with the Mini Cooper S performance-wise, but with better mpg.

oonowindoo

see.. Honda has all the tools to make it a fantastic car and there is definitely a huge market for it. Somehow, they just choose not to go for it.

Put the turbocharged K24 and SH-AWD (i prefer RWD but that is just fantasy) in a CR-Z and make the sticker $32k...

It will sell better than the current $22k econ box. i would trade in my s2000 in a heart beat for it...

but we all know that aint gonna happen so... keep dreamin...

Moog-Type-S

A competitor for the GTI and GTI-R?!?!?

Why would Honda want to do that!?!?!?

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

every time i spot one on the road, i always say... damn... only if that thing had a turbo 4 in it.....

fking hybrid....

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

I mean it just look so stunning.

phile

+1

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

The salesmen at my dealer keep saying they wish there was something more under the hood, maybe they could actually sell a few. They have a handful on the lot and theyve been there for quite some time.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

Yea they seem very desperate to sell. After I went to dealer to test drive, guy was calling me daily and sending me a letter every week.

fsttyms1

Our dealer has 3 sitting on the lot that they just cant get rid of.

Colin

More likely, you ran into a "good" sales consultant.

majin ssj eric

Typical Honda.

Colin

If I remember correctly, the current Civic Hybrid uses a 120 cell NiMh battery pack (vs. 84 cells for CR-Z) and the electric motor adds 20 hp (vs. 12hp). I think there is a possibility of pairing the larger Civic gas engine (1.8 liters 140 hp) with the larger Civic hybrid system. This is not a combination currently available and could yield 160 hp with ~190 ft lbs of torque. Weight could increase by a negligible ~20 lbs for the larger battery pack. With the addition of Li batteries, who knows how much electric power there might be on tap. Could they squeeze 30 hp out of the new system?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

lol Colin, did you copy and paste the above from TOV?

Someone mentioned that the R18 and K series are too big (tall) to fit in the CR-Z. However, LHT has succesfully dropped the K20A in the CR-Z (KR-Z)..so I personally don't think it's a problem, but then again, the KR-Z doesn't have a hybrid system..so..I don't know...

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

The hybrid system wouldnt make the motor taller, it would make it wider.

Colin

Well yeah, why 'reinvent the wheel' if the same post fits? Honda had to redesign the Fit engines intake manifold to fit under the CR-Z hood, (http://asia.vtec.net/Engines/CR-Z/index.html) so I suppose they could do it again if they were inclined and it weren't totally impossible. I've written a new post about our first 2 months with the car, you can read it here if you're interested. (http://bit.ly/ffW8ab)

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Nice article, I didn't know this is true until I read your post:

"Well, a quick look at EPA.gov and their list of fuel economy leaders for the 2011 model year, there are only four other cars that get better gas mileage than the Honda CR-Z"

It's also amazing that you are getting 40mpg in your car. Is that because of your driving habit?

Colin

Actually, I think that if I were the primary driver, I could do a little better. We have a 40 mile round trip but mine is spent in less traffic. My wife's morning drive of ~20 miles can take an hour (give or take 10 minutes) while the return trip without traffic can be 25-30 minutes.

Is she driving slow to do these numbers? Somewhat. It means that you have to accelerate smoothly but by no means do you need to 'hold up traffic'. Our freeway speed limits are typically 50-55 mph with only one section being 65. Average freeway speeds are ~65 but never better than 70. Again, this is keeping up with traffic and actually faster than those that are actually doing the speed limit.

On a side note. A fellow forum dweller recently had his first autocross in his CRZ. He's experienced and had campaigned an S2000 for many years. His results from their race this weekend were very impressive. Running only Kuhmo 710's in a totally stock chassis, he PAXed 5th. In raw times he finished 28th out of 68, their results are here: http://srrscca.com/SCCAEventResults/...202011_raw.htm

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

From your experience, do you get better mileage in highway driving or city driving? I'm under the impression that for city driving, the car has time to recharge the battery during braking. On the highway though, I don't think the motor is being used much, so you are gaining anything from the hybrid system. May be the instantaneous mpg meter gives you more info on that?

I was checking out that list, it's really impressive that he's faster than 350z, M3, Vette, etc. Does he have any engine mods?

fsttyms1

Im not that impressed. Look at some of the cars above him 88 accord,93 civic, Mazda 3. Sounds like it was a more technical course where raw power isnt as necessary, driver talent and experience make or brake results in auto-x.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The CR-Z driver definitely has experience, according to Colin. Colin, what do you mean by "totally stock chassis"? Do you mean that all he has are good tires, nothing else? As in, no engine mods, no bolt-on's, no suspension mods, no weight reduction, etc?

What about the cars above him (like the cars mentioned by fsttyms1 - 88 Accord, 93 Civic, Mazda3, etc)? I see that they are not in the "HS" class. What mods do those have?

Colin

SCCA classifications in Solo II change, but typically, SP (street prepared) allow suspension mods like coilovers etc. and bolt on engine mods, M (modified) allow almost anything. Stock, means that you can change tires, but only on the stock rim size. You can change shocks, but must use factory pick up points and springs. You can add a front sway bar, but not a rear bar. You can change the air filter, but must use the stock air box. It's been a long time since I raced, but that is the gist of the rules, if I'm incorrect on some of the details, I'm sure someone will chime in. As far as I can tell from his posts, all he has are R compound tires, no suspension, and no engine mods. I think he's looking for a new front bar, but hasn't settled on a design. Dont forget, PAX is a system to (attempt) to equalize cars of different size and capability, so finishing 5th there obviously shows his experience level. Still the raw times were quite good for the first time out.

It seems that the best mileage is at moderate highway speeds. 50-65 seems to be the sweet spot. Cruising above 70 really affects mileage as does the typical 'stop and go' grind. In this respect, its just like any other car. Under steady state highway cruising, the battery doesn't come into play very often. However, you'll see small amounts of assist being provided when you go up a slight grade etc. Once the car uses some of the charge, the system will start trickle charging the battery if it's not full. This is represented by 2-3 segments of charging indicator. If you're driving in light traffic, everytime you take your foot off the gas, the car regenerates some of the energy.

What people don't understand is just how fast the battery charges and discharges. I would need to put a stop watch on it, but I'm going to guess that there is a 2:1 ratio for charge and discharge times. But the reality is that both happen really quickly. The battery charge meter has 8 segments and one really hard pull from 0-60 will probably use 4-5 bars, but the braking from 60-0 puts 70-80% of it back in (depends on how fast you decelerate).