Honda: CR-Z News **Facelift Revealed (page 31)**
03-30-2011, 01:58 PM
#1081
Trolling Canuckistan
Impressions after my first drive as an owner. Let me re-phrase that, our EX 6-MT will be my wife’s daily driver so I’m guessing my experience with it will be limited. However, as a frame of reference, her last cars in reverse order were: ’06 RSX (base), ’04 S2000, ’00 s2000, ’99, ’97, and ‘94 Integra GS-Rs. There was a Celica and Corolla in the distant past. So, in summary: The CR-Z is the smallest engine she’s ever owned (the ’84 Corolla was 1.6 liters). The CR-Z has the lowest power since the Corolla (70 hp and the Celica GT-S was 135hp)
So this morning was my first exposure to the car from the drivers seat. Overall, the feeling is one of connectedness and directness in all the inputs except for the throttle. I drove mostly in ‘normal’ during the drive and the only thing I noticed is that the gas pedal had a slightly disconnected feel. I understand that the DBW computer is dampening minor throttle corrections, the TSX does this too. With the CR-Z it’s just more pronounced. Sport mode seems more ‘normal’ to me in this regard.
As expected, visibility out the rear ¾ is the biggest issue. However, it’s no worse than an S2000 with the top up and arguably much better looking directly to your six. Out the front, the view is expansive and I like that the side mirrors have a gap between them and the body. It gives just a little better view out the front ¾.
The steering is beautiful! Its been a while since I drove MY S2000 and it took some time to get adjusted to the fast ratio again. I could sense that I was moving the car a little when shifting gears and reaching for the radio. The gearshift throw is a little longer than the S2000s, but shorter than the TSX. My wife felt it was a little notchy going into 3rd, but I felt it was fine.
Power was fine, in fact, I’ve been short shifting the TSX for better mileage and this felt almost the same in regular commuting mode. I’m sure that the power deficit would be more apparent if driven really hard. But in this mornings commute, which was surprisingly devoid of traffic, we were showing 47 mpg on the MID. Not bad huh?
So this morning was my first exposure to the car from the drivers seat. Overall, the feeling is one of connectedness and directness in all the inputs except for the throttle. I drove mostly in ‘normal’ during the drive and the only thing I noticed is that the gas pedal had a slightly disconnected feel. I understand that the DBW computer is dampening minor throttle corrections, the TSX does this too. With the CR-Z it’s just more pronounced. Sport mode seems more ‘normal’ to me in this regard.
As expected, visibility out the rear ¾ is the biggest issue. However, it’s no worse than an S2000 with the top up and arguably much better looking directly to your six. Out the front, the view is expansive and I like that the side mirrors have a gap between them and the body. It gives just a little better view out the front ¾.
The steering is beautiful! Its been a while since I drove MY S2000 and it took some time to get adjusted to the fast ratio again. I could sense that I was moving the car a little when shifting gears and reaching for the radio. The gearshift throw is a little longer than the S2000s, but shorter than the TSX. My wife felt it was a little notchy going into 3rd, but I felt it was fine.
Power was fine, in fact, I’ve been short shifting the TSX for better mileage and this felt almost the same in regular commuting mode. I’m sure that the power deficit would be more apparent if driven really hard. But in this mornings commute, which was surprisingly devoid of traffic, we were showing 47 mpg on the MID. Not bad huh?
I just got back from my 1st drive in a 6MT version, going to take a CVT out later. I thought it was a lot of fun to drive but in econ mode I felt like I needed to floor it to get it up hills. Normal made it liveable, sport made it fun.
03-30-2011, 09:56 PM
#1082
Don't know the specs on the S2K but the TSX was 44mm throw and the CR-Z is 45mm.
I just got back from my 1st drive in a 6MT version, going to take a CVT out later. I thought it was a lot of fun to drive but in econ mode I felt like I needed to floor it to get it up hills. Normal made it liveable, sport made it fun.
I just got back from my 1st drive in a 6MT version, going to take a CVT out later. I thought it was a lot of fun to drive but in econ mode I felt like I needed to floor it to get it up hills. Normal made it liveable, sport made it fun.
03-31-2011, 02:19 PM
#1083
Trolling Canuckistan
I wouldn't be surprised if your TSX had gained a millimeter of throw over the years, let's face it a single mm is pretty miniscule. The only reason I knew the CR-Z spec was I had read it earlier in the day. FWIW, I bailed on Acura and moved closer to home working at the same Honda dealer I bought my 97 Prelude from back in 2000, in fact the salesman who sold me the car is sitting behind me as I type this.
03-31-2011, 02:44 PM
#1084
I wouldn't be surprised if your TSX had gained a millimeter of throw over the years, let's face it a single mm is pretty miniscule. The only reason I knew the CR-Z spec was I had read it earlier in the day. FWIW, I bailed on Acura and moved closer to home working at the same Honda dealer I bought my 97 Prelude from back in 2000, in fact the salesman who sold me the car is sitting behind me as I type this.
04-15-2011, 07:40 AM
#1085
Safety Car
Thread Starter
egmCarTech w/ video
Hybrids tend to occupy vehicle bodies that are, for lack of better words, awkward and unstylish. Honda’s hybrid designers showed us that this likely always true with the design of the 1st and 2nd-generation Insight. But the Japanese automaker is here to prove us wrong and show us that hybrid and ugly don’t always have to go hand-in-hand. Meet the 2011 CR-Z Hybrid – the 1st hybrid vehicle designed to entice a more spirited driver, as it is offered with a 6-speed manual transmission and a very sport design that is sure to attract the attention of performance enthusiasts.
The silhouette of the 2011 Honda CR-Z is reminiscent of Honda’s much celebrated CR-X sport coupe in design and proportion, but with the underpinnings and powertrain are taken from Honda Insight. The questions remain however, which of these cars does the CR-Z try to emulate, and does it perform as good as it looks?
Review: 2011 Honda CR-Z Hybrid:
2011 Honda CR-Z Hybrid Specifications:
Base Price: $19,345.
Price as Tested: $23,310.
Engine: 1.5 liter 4-cylinder i-VTEC, Honda IMA electric-motor - 122-hp / 128 lb-ft.
Transmission: 6-speed manual; 6-speed automatic.
Curb Weight: 2,637 lbs.
0 to 60 mph: 9 seconds.
Top Speed: 122 mph.
Fuel-economy (city/highway): 31/37 mpg w/ 6-speed manual; 35/39 mpg w/ CVT.
All Photos Copyright © 2011 Omar Rana, Nikolina Kostrevski - egmCarTech.
Base Price: $19,345.
Price as Tested: $23,310.
Engine: 1.5 liter 4-cylinder i-VTEC, Honda IMA electric-motor - 122-hp / 128 lb-ft.
Transmission: 6-speed manual; 6-speed automatic.
Curb Weight: 2,637 lbs.
0 to 60 mph: 9 seconds.
Top Speed: 122 mph.
Fuel-economy (city/highway): 31/37 mpg w/ 6-speed manual; 35/39 mpg w/ CVT.
All Photos Copyright © 2011 Omar Rana, Nikolina Kostrevski - egmCarTech.
Exterior:
From no angle does the 2011 Honda CR-Z emanate your typical hybrid design. The sporty 2-passenger coupe shares structural architecture with Honda’s Fit and Insight, but is ultimately smaller than it’s platform relatives, measuring in at 160.6 inches long, 68.5 inches wide, and 54.9 inches tall.
The secret behind the ultra-sporty look is what Honda calls the ‘1-motion Wedge’ concept, which features an elongated and lowered hood-line coupled with a widened stance, all of which combines for the sleek nature of the vehicle’s body. Taking a design cue from the original ‘84 Honda CR-X, the rear of the car features Honda’s signature split-level glass hatch. While the split hatch offers a great look, it hinders the driver’s visibility.
There is a little doubt that Honda has succeeded in demonstrating that hybrids can in fact be attractive, and not relegated to the ‘eyesore’ category. The company has effectively shown that hybrids can be exciting, aggressive, and bold; aesthetically, this car definitely makes a statement without being shaped like a cheese wedge.
Interior:
Like the original CR-X and Insight, the 2011 Honda CR-Z is a 2 passenger car; definitely not a family vehicle. It does differ from the above however, and most other hybrids for that matter, in that it features an exciting interior with textured black materials and aluminum-style accents.
The upper portion of the dash engulfs the cabin, creating a decidedly cockpit feel, and the high-quality silver mesh sport seats provide excellent support, even for the larger driver. The most dazzling interior design element however, is the bright instrument panel mounted right behind the steering wheel; it sports a vibrant blue color pallet and 3 dimensional imaging, which combine for a multi-layered interface.
The interior build-quality is noteworthy, especially for a relatively affordable car. This is 1 area Honda has been struggling a bit with as of late, but Honda CR-Z has not fallen victim to the inconsistent nature of recent Honda interiors.
The rear-space in the cabin is well-utilized, as Honda has outfitted a large, 2-compartment cargo console just behind the seats, offering a hidden storage space for your laptop, iPad, or any other on-the-go items 1 might carry. Nonetheless, the 2011 Honda CR-Z sports a mere maximum 25.1 cu-ft of cargo space.
"The interior build-quality is noteworthy, especially for a relatively affordable car."
Depending on the trim model, the Honda CR-Z can offer some premium amenities, such as Bluetooth HandsFreeLink. Honda gave as a CR-Z EX to test for a week, and that came with a 360-watt AM/FM/CD high-powered audio system that featured seven speakers (including a subwoofer), Bluetooth HandsFreeLink, perforated leather-wrapped steering-wheel and shift knob, and Honda’s Satellite-Linked Navigation with voice recognition.
1 thing this interior does really well is offer a visually engaging experience and versatile approach to interior space utilization that puts the driver front and center. To the left of the steering wheel sits a cluster of controls which allow the driver to change driving mode (Econ, Normal, Sport), activate traction control, and adjust the side-view mirrors. Climate, audi, and navigation controls are all housed in the center console which sits tilted toward the driver, effectuating convenient access. All of this puts the driver in close control of his instruments, while leaving the passenger seat open, spacious and clutter-free.
Performance:
The exterior and interior designs of the Honda CR-Z wet your appetite for performance. Well, that’s where things get a little less exciting and that’s due to the lack of a turbo gasoline engine, something Honda enthusiasts are very much passionate about. However, we have to say, as a hybrid, the Honda CR-Z does have a little devilish side.
"Even considering the hybrid nature of the powertrain, we can’t totally label the car as lacking a sporty factor."
As mentioned above, this car is powered by a similar gasoline-electric hybrid powertrain as the Insight, which means it carries the same 1.5L 4-cylinder, 16-valve i-VTEC gas engine and 10-kilowatt Nickel Metal Hydride battery pack. That makes for an output of 122-hp at 6,000 rpm and maximum torque of 128 lb-ft at 1,000 rpm when mated to the 6-speed manual. The CVT equipped models get 123 lb-ft between 1,000 and 2,000 rpm. That output gives the Honda CR-Z the ability to go from 0 to 60 mph in a tacit 9 seconds, and a top speed of 122 mph.
Even considering the hybrid nature of the powertrain, we can’t totally label the car as lacking a sporty factor. There is a lot to be said about it being the 1st ever hybrid to be offered with a 6-speed manual, as well as the variable drive modes mentioned above. When engaged in ‘Sport’ mode, much of the driving experience becomes enhanced; the engine throttle becomes more responsive, the steering firms up, and on the CVT equipped models, the transmission ratios are optimized to maintain higher RPMs and quicker acceleration. When driving in ‘Sport’ mode, we definitely felt the difference and had a lot more confidence when over-taking other drivers and jumping off the line. Obviously, we weren’t going to be sucked to the back of the seat, and we weren’t expecting to be, but we were blown away by the degree of which the orientation changes with ‘Sport’ mode engaged.
Being a hybrid, fuel-economy is essentially what matters most. The EPA estimates 35/39 mpg and a combined 37 when mated to the CVT. The sportier 6-speed manual equipped model brings those figures down to 31/37/34 mpg. Our test Honda CR-Z 6-speed manual managed to average 31 mpg during a week-long test but that’s mainly because we never engaged the ‘Econ’ mode and stayed mainly in ‘Sport’. The ‘Econ’ mode will alter the car’s orientation for better efficiency, with the electric motor assist and air condition system reducing overall load on the engine. An option that is will save your wallet some grief when filling up.
Overall:
The Honda CR-Z isn’t for everybody. That is not to say however, that it isn’t for anybody. While many will be thrown off by the lack of performance, many still will be attracted to a vehicle that let’s them mind Mother Nature, yet still exhibit a bit of a rebellious side.
Pricing starts at $19,345 for a 6-speed manual equipped model, and $19,995 for the CVT option. Those figures are pretty competitive for a hybrid that sports a little devilish side – emphasis on little. If you’re a single 20-something who is environmentally conscious and into stylish rides, than the CR-Z is for you. If you’re married with kids and all the rest still applies, consider the Insight.
04-16-2011, 02:44 PM
#1086
Hottest Modern Collectible Cars - Hannah Elliott - De Luxe - Forbes
Ha, I don't know about this one, but hey, it's Forbes:
Ha, I don't know about this one, but hey, it's Forbes:
The list includes some of the usual suspects—the Chevy Camaro SS Convertible, the Dodge Challenger Drag Pak edition—and some that might typically go overlooked (Porsche Boxster Spyder, BMW 335 IS). They even threw in a four-door (Mini Clubman) and a Honda (CR-Z hybrid).
04-16-2011, 05:27 PM
#1087
AZ Community Team
I've seen a few CR-Z's on the road, they look really sharp from any angle and color of the ones I've seen so far.
05-18-2011, 08:15 AM
#1088
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Mugen
Honda (UK) and Mugen Euro have revealed the 1st official photographs of the Honda CR-Z Mugen - the higher-performance hybrid coupe.
Development of the supercharged Honda CR-Z is on track, with performance figures already looking promising.
Early tests with a prototype car based on a standard CR-Z and a mid-tune engine have given 0-60 mph times around that of the Civic Type R.
After a further 15% increase in power over this 'stage 1' engine and with over 50 kg reduced from the chassis, overall performance is set to meet Mugen's original targets.
"Early fuel consumption tests have also been encouraging," says Colin Whittamore from Mugen Euro. "We've retained the three driving modes from the standard car and economy ranges from 50+ mpg in 'eco' mode to mid-30 mpg when tapping into the supercharged power in a special 'Mugen' mode."
05-18-2011, 08:54 AM
#1089
Price: Twice as much as MSRP for all the Mugen goodies. 
05-18-2011, 10:26 AM
#1090
The sizzle in the Steak
That thing is goofy looking 
tastic
tastic
05-18-2011, 10:41 AM
#1092
Senior Moderator
I kinda like the Mugen version! 
06-13-2011, 08:32 PM
#1094
As with most Mugen body modifications, I don't like them and if the parts are only available through the aftermarket, you'd better bend over and have some lube ready.
Still, what's impressive is that it manages 50+ mpg with the supercharger! This part interests me...
Did Mugen make some kind of clutch to disengage the supercharger for the more economic driving modes? That's clever. Even with the likely breathing mods they did (I/H/E) I would have expected the MPGs to drop with the SC otherwise.
Still, what's impressive is that it manages 50+ mpg with the supercharger! This part interests me...
We've retained the three driving modes from the standard car and economy ranges from 50+ mpg in 'eco' mode to mid-30 mpg when tapping into the supercharged power in a special 'Mugen' mode.
06-13-2011, 08:38 PM
#1095
Interestingly, my '88 Toyota MR-2 Supercharged used an A/C style clutch on the SC pully. Back then, it was operated off of vacuum hoses, under load, the clutch would lock up and you have instant boost. Otherwise, it freewheeled. Even came with an LED in the tach to show when it was engaged.
06-13-2011, 08:44 PM
#1096
Interestingly, my '88 Toyota MR-2 Supercharged used an A/C style clutch on the SC pully. Back then, it was operated off of vacuum hoses, under load, the clutch would lock up and you have instant boost. Otherwise, it freewheeled. Even came with an LED in the tach to show when it was engaged.
edit: I found out that apparently Mercedes did this too, I have to assume on select AMG models quite some time after the AW11
06-14-2011, 01:13 AM
#1098
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Yea, Im not a fan of the triangular tip or the spoiler. The rest isnt bad though.
That video didnt have any supercharger whine, I am disappoint.
That video didnt have any supercharger whine, I am disappoint.
06-20-2011, 12:58 AM
#1099
Honda CR-Z Mugen first drive
Autocar
What is it?
So here it is: the Honda CR-Z Mugen complete with supercharged engine. Impressively quick work from Mugen Euro, because it is only a couple of weeks since we drove the car without its extra power but with all the chassis and body modifications.
To recap, that means carbonfibre bonnet and doors, 18mm wider front track, trick Showa dampers with five compression damping settings, Mugen’s 17in forged alloy wheels and Yokohama Advan A048 tyres. And a set of three extra gauges on a binnacle on top of the dashboard.
What's it like?
Mugen was aiming to equal the Civic Type R’s performance and it certainly feels as though that’s the case. This CR-Z is as quick as it looks. There’s no extra power from the electric motor. The performance comes from supercharging the engine, which now produces 197bhp instead of the standard car’s 122bhp.
It’s a novelty to drive a quick Honda that has strong torque (thanks to the hybrid IMA system) from as low as 1000rpm. Plenty of midnight oil has been burnt over the task of integrating the IMA system’s electronics with the now substantially more powerful combustion engine. Clever stuff.
What’s needed now is a similar level of graft on the chassis. The steering needs to be the first port of call. There’s an absurd amount of self-centring – so much so that you need to be careful not to let the wheel slip through your fingers as you pull out of junctions or you’ll end up on the wrong side of the road. Unsurprisingly, this trait doesn’t do a lot for cornering feel.
Next job on the list is to do some further work on the chassis. With the extremely sticky Yokohamas and a wider track, there’s no shortage of grip. What’s lacking is responsiveness; Mugen’s chassis crew need to spend some quality time with a Clio 200 Cup to see that handling is not just down to outright grip.
Should I buy one?
The idea of a hot CR-Z is exciting, especially the novelty of one that retains its hybrid technology. Not for green reasons, but because it is fascinating to see what can be done with the technology.
The flawed chassis and steering would be easy to put right. After all, we’ve been fiddling with dampers, springs and geometry almost since the birth of the car.
What is it?
So here it is: the Honda CR-Z Mugen complete with supercharged engine. Impressively quick work from Mugen Euro, because it is only a couple of weeks since we drove the car without its extra power but with all the chassis and body modifications.
To recap, that means carbonfibre bonnet and doors, 18mm wider front track, trick Showa dampers with five compression damping settings, Mugen’s 17in forged alloy wheels and Yokohama Advan A048 tyres. And a set of three extra gauges on a binnacle on top of the dashboard.
What's it like?
Mugen was aiming to equal the Civic Type R’s performance and it certainly feels as though that’s the case. This CR-Z is as quick as it looks. There’s no extra power from the electric motor. The performance comes from supercharging the engine, which now produces 197bhp instead of the standard car’s 122bhp.
It’s a novelty to drive a quick Honda that has strong torque (thanks to the hybrid IMA system) from as low as 1000rpm. Plenty of midnight oil has been burnt over the task of integrating the IMA system’s electronics with the now substantially more powerful combustion engine. Clever stuff.
What’s needed now is a similar level of graft on the chassis. The steering needs to be the first port of call. There’s an absurd amount of self-centring – so much so that you need to be careful not to let the wheel slip through your fingers as you pull out of junctions or you’ll end up on the wrong side of the road. Unsurprisingly, this trait doesn’t do a lot for cornering feel.
Next job on the list is to do some further work on the chassis. With the extremely sticky Yokohamas and a wider track, there’s no shortage of grip. What’s lacking is responsiveness; Mugen’s chassis crew need to spend some quality time with a Clio 200 Cup to see that handling is not just down to outright grip.
Should I buy one?
The idea of a hot CR-Z is exciting, especially the novelty of one that retains its hybrid technology. Not for green reasons, but because it is fascinating to see what can be done with the technology.
The flawed chassis and steering would be easy to put right. After all, we’ve been fiddling with dampers, springs and geometry almost since the birth of the car.
07-22-2011, 08:02 AM
#1100
Safety Car
Thread Starter
5th Gear
08-12-2011, 06:28 PM
#1101
Senior Moderator
2011 Honda CR-Z Mugen RR Design Concept
Press release...
MUGEN of Japan has built a CR-Z MUGEN RR design concept to demonstrate MUGEN’s capabilities in terms of function, style, performance and agility. The CR-Z MUGEN RR was produced by M-TEC in Japan for show purposes only and there are currently no plans for further production.
The CR-Z MUGEN RR has been created with many bespoke prototype parts, several of which are created in carbon fibre, including the bonnet, passenger doors and rear tailgate. Other features unique to the car include a full length carbon-fibre underbody, a twin central-exit exhaust, vented front bumpers and race-developed suspension. Orange 4-piston monobloc brake calipers and forged 18-inch alloy wheels both complement the vibrant Valencia Orange Pearl exterior paint work.
Inside the car, the seats are clad in MUGEN-branded colour-coded leather/Alcantara. The addition of a race-developed information screen has the ability to record chassis and engine data as well as housing a Satellite navigation and audio system. This high tech kit will monitor the car over two laps to “learn” a circuit and then record lap data and vehicle tracking using GPS.
The design concept was unveiled for its world debut at the beginning of July in the Moving Motor Show area at Goodwood Festival of Speed and complements the high-performance CR-Z MUGEN, which was designed and built by MUGEN EURO based in the UK.
The CR-Z MUGEN RR has been created with many bespoke prototype parts, several of which are created in carbon fibre, including the bonnet, passenger doors and rear tailgate. Other features unique to the car include a full length carbon-fibre underbody, a twin central-exit exhaust, vented front bumpers and race-developed suspension. Orange 4-piston monobloc brake calipers and forged 18-inch alloy wheels both complement the vibrant Valencia Orange Pearl exterior paint work.
Inside the car, the seats are clad in MUGEN-branded colour-coded leather/Alcantara. The addition of a race-developed information screen has the ability to record chassis and engine data as well as housing a Satellite navigation and audio system. This high tech kit will monitor the car over two laps to “learn” a circuit and then record lap data and vehicle tracking using GPS.
The design concept was unveiled for its world debut at the beginning of July in the Moving Motor Show area at Goodwood Festival of Speed and complements the high-performance CR-Z MUGEN, which was designed and built by MUGEN EURO based in the UK.
08-12-2011, 06:29 PM
#1102
Senior Moderator
The following users liked this post:
99blackhatch (09-17-2013)
09-06-2011, 06:13 AM
#1103
Race Director
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ll-cr-v-cr-z/1
Hmmm.. I guess the engineers didn't test that scenario before production. 
What was the total number of MY11 CR-Zs sold? That 5626 seems like a lot of MT equiped cars.
2011 CR-Z. Honda is recalling 5,626 2011 CR-Z hybrid sports cars in the U.S. that are equipped with manual transmissions. Honda want to update the software that controls the hybrid electric motor. In the affected vehicles, when the gasoline engine has stalled with the IMA battery in a very low state of charge and the transmission in gear, it is possible for the electric motor to rotate in the direction opposite to that selected by the transmission. If this occurs and the driver has not engaged the brakes, the vehicle may slowly roll backwards when the transmission is in a forward gear, potentially leading to a crash. No injuries or deaths have been reported related to this condition.
What was the total number of MY11 CR-Zs sold? That 5626 seems like a lot of MT equiped cars.
09-06-2011, 03:03 PM
#1104
The sizzle in the Steak
Honda finally produces a car that jives & functions with the motto: Going forward in reverse! 
12-28-2011, 11:49 AM
#1105
Safety Car
Thread Starter
MotorTrend
For as much as people often consider their car an extension of their personality, the automotive world is strikingly conservative. Sure, automakers like to wow us with out-of-this-world concepts, but you almost never see those in showrooms.
Every so often, though, a vice president gets a few too many drinks in him and says, "Sure, what the heck."
Once it's too late to cancel the project, the marketing people start biting their nails and wondering how they're supposed to sell the public on a car with 3 doors. Invariably, they decide to target younger buyers looking for a way to disassociate themselves from their parents.
These segment-defying cars don't really have direct competitors. If you're a marketing guy trying to convince a millennial or a hipster that a car is as nonconformist as it gets, that's an asset. If you're a car magazine trying to set up a comparison test, it's a headache. We've got nothing against quirky cars. In fact, we're fans of the cars that try something different, but that doesn't make our planning meetings any easier.
After a few cocktails of our own, the solution seemed clear. We'd just throw all the oddballs into one comparison. While that sounds like a cop-out, it's actually an elegant little fix. These youth-targeted rides all carry a youth-friendly base price of about $20,000 or less. So we put ourselves in the shoes of the recent high school/college grad with a few bucks from Mom and Dad who wants a sporty ride, and wouldn't be caught dead in the same Corolla S all their friends drive.
6TH PLACE: Scion tC
Lots of space and lots of power, but falls down when you take a corner.
Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom.We engage in it as much as you do, and when we started gathering the specs here, the Scion looked the clear favorite. The most horsepower in the test, the lowest as-tested price, and the only contender to offer seating for 5. So what went wrong?
True, the Scion offers a trunk big enough for hauling bags of clothes to your new studio apartment, and was one of two contenders with a back seat that could accommodate 6-footers (the other was the Beetle). It was also the clear winner at the dragstrip and obviously the most powerful from behind the wheel. The problem is, that's all it's got. Funky C-pillar and didn't-expect-it liftback hatch aside, the tC is the least quirky car of the bunch. For as much as Scion projects a counterculture image, the tC is pretty much a by-the-numbers coupe, and based on our tester, not a very good 1.
We can only hope the car Scion sent us is not representative of all tCs, because our tester was a mess. Ignoring superficial nits like the trashed paint, missing engine cover, and ill-fitting glovebox, the tC was plagued with driveability issues. It rode like an old truck, crashing over bumps and transmitting every decibel of road and tire noise into the interior. It shook so violently during acceleration testing, it vibrated the windshield wiper stalk into the "on" position. In canyons, the tC flopped around the corners, while the slow steering returned no feedback and the tires gave up what may be the first recorded case of lift-throttle understeer. Judges were unanimous, and the tC dropped from on-paper favorite to dead last.
5TH PLACE: Fiat 500
Charismatic to the nth degree, but doesn't have practicality or handling chops for this group.
The Cinquecento is a tough car to pin down. You can't help but smile when you look at it, or when you drive it. It possesses an endearing charm. This phenomenon was no more evident than when we debated the finishing order. No 1 wanted to be the guy who relegated the cute little Fiat to 5th place, but no 1 could justify putting it ahead of the others.
While the Fiat satisfied our style criteria without breaking a sweat, it struggled everywhere else. With its little-bitty trunk and vestigial rear seats, the Fiat isn't practical by any stretch. You certainly won't be bringing home your new Ikea bookshelf in this one. You also won't be bringing more than 1 friend along anywhere.
The Fiat's other failing was in the drive. A short wheelbase combined with a narrow footprint and a sport-tuned suspension conspire to give the car a bouncy ride that keeps your head tossing constantly on the freeway. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into fun in the hills, either. While the 500 is incredibly nimble, it tends to bounce around over bumps and is quick to understeer when pressed. Exacerbating everything was the driving position, which felt like driving from a bar stool.
Add to that an as-tested price of over $19,000 for the smallest car here, and 3rd-place fuel economy, and you can see why as much as we like the Fiat by itself, it wasn't a standout in this group.
4TH PLACE: Hyundai Veloster
Wins on quirkiness hands-down, and is practical to boot, but the body makes promises the chassis can't keep.
Were this comparison to be determined solely by the number of turned heads, the Veloster would win hands-down. Everywhere we went, people stopped to stare at the sporty-looking Hyundai. Maybe it was the Chernobyl green paint, maybe it was the 3rd door, but whatever it was, it got folks' attention.
The Hyundai's 4th-place finish is due entirely to its failure to deliver. The bulging fenders, fast roof, and rubber band tires promise a sporty ride, but it isn't there. Instead, the Veloster rides harder than you'd expect with no discernable payback in handling. It's not eager to turn in, and when it does, it feels like the front end is all rubber. The car pitches and bounces and can't hold an arc through a turn.
Add to that a lethargic engine and you've got the recipe for basic transportation, not a sports car. Despite having the 3rd-highest horsepower rating, the Veloster was achingly slow in nearly all circumstances. The engine is slow to rev and then you're disappointed because there's not much more power up there.
Top-gear acceleration is nonexistent, so you'll be working the shifter quite a bit, and the square knob will give you bad visions of 1980s Mustangs. The real letdown, though, was the fuel economy, as the Veloster was the only car in the test whose observed fuel economy was lower than its EPA city rating.
If only it drove better, we'd be singing a different tune. The Veloster is an otherwise strong contender, offering a big trunk, seating for 4 sub-6-foot adults (if you can get to that 4th seat), lots of low-cost options, and a great warranty for 1st-time buyers. Alas, the cool factor wears off when you lose a stoplight drag race to a Camry.
3RD PLACE: Volkswagen Beetle
Roomy, practical, and better-looking, but too soft for this sporty bunch.
If the bottom half of the group was defined by a failure to meet expectations, the top half was the opposite. Going in, no 1 expected the Beetle to do particularly well. The heaviest car with the biggest as-tested price and lowest EPA estimated fuel economy didn't look like a frontrunner on paper, but nevertheless, here it sits with a podium finish.
The Beetle merits this position by being perhaps the best all-arounder. It's not the fastest, the sportiest, or even the quirkiest, but it holds its own in each category. The retro look, especially now that it's been butched up, comes off a little forced, but no one will mistake it for anything but a Beetle, and we do like it better than the last 1. It's also 1 of the most practical cars here, with rear seats that fit real adults and a decent-sized trunk to boot.
And while the non-turbo Beetle isn't a sporty car, it doesn't feel like it's trying to be. The I-5's second-highest power rating cancels out its extra curb weight, leaving the car with a decent pull that was perfectly adequate among this group. Unfortunately, Volkswagen wasn't able to find us a manual transmission car, so we had to make do with the automatic, but it didn't draw much ire. The suspension is clearly tuned for touring rather than sporting, but the chassis is solid and it takes a corner better than any of the lower-ranked cars with the added benefit of riding better on all surfaces. Still, it felt heavy in the corners and the hyperactive stability control grated nerves.
In the end, though, its lack of sporting character and the fact that it really is a not-quirky Golf in retro clothing held it back.
2ND PLACE: Honda CR-Z
Fun-to-drive factor is held back by greater potential and a lack of seating.
Hybrids can't be fun, can they? Yes, actually, they can. The CR-Z has taken its lumps for not being the exact CR-X incarnate die-hards wanted, but that doesn't make it a bad car. It's actually quite a good little car, hybrid or not.
Like others in this group, the CR-Z was an unexpected surprise. Between the weak-on-paper hybrid powertrain and the lack of seating, we predicted a mid-pack finish at best. After climbing out of it, though, some were clamoring for it to win. The shifter, in classic Honda style, is the best of the group, sliding into every gear with just the right amount of mechanical resistance to let you know there's real metal at work here. The steering is quicker than even the Mini's and it showed itself in the bends, where the little hybrid attacked the corners with gusto. Even the hybrid drivetrain had defenders, as it delivered both exceptionally smooth power and best-in-test fuel economy.
Of course, there are reasons why it didn't win. Despite a surprising amount of zip from the electrically enhanced motor, we want more power from this car. We also want a decent set of tires and perhaps some larger wheels, for which we'd happily trade a few mpg.
There's also the issue of seating. Some of us made it through college with 2-seaters just fine, while others decried the lack of practicality. We also found that anyone over 6 feet tall is going to have trouble getting comfortable in this car.
Like so many vehicles before it, the CR-Z got a bum rap because it didn't meet everyone's preconceived notions of what it should be. That being said, it's still carrying a few too many compromises to win this comparison.
1ST PLACE: Mini Cooper
Handling dream, useable seats, quirky everything, and good fuel economy -- the Mini does it all.
If you haven't heard, Minis are really fun to drive. That doesn't just apply to the turbocharged S model, either. Much to our delight, the base Mini is no penalty box. Instead, it was the unanimous winner. Despite being 1 of the least-powerful cars here, the Mini laid down the 2nd-fastest 0-60 time and the best stopping and skidpad performance by far, and still pulled off the 2nd-best observed fuel economy, losing to the hybrid CR-Z by a tenth of an mpg. To top it off, despite a well-earned reputation for pricey options, the Mini wasn't the most expensive car here.
Of course, there are some drawbacks. You either love or hate the Mini interior, and its oddball ergonomics had more critics than defenders. Detractors conceded you'd probably get used to them. There's also the issue of the cargo capacity, or lack thereof. The smallest trunk of the bunch (yes, even smaller than the Fiat's) came under fire for its serious lack of practicality, but the tradeoff of useable back seats helped offset it.
The Mini won, of course, with its driving. The 1-2 punch of smart gearing and a thick power band make the most of the available power, and they're accessed via a precise shifter and well-positioned pedals. The real magic comes from the solid chassis, sport-tuned suspension, and direct, communicative steering. To be fair, our tester was optioned with larger wheels and better tires and an electronic limited-slip differential, but these wouldn't affect the handling enough to take the Mini out of 1st. Mini's dedication to the driver pays off in handling that trounced the field, albeit at the price of a harsh ride on rough pavement. Unlike some other contenders, though, you feel like you're getting something in return for your chattering teeth. And we didn't even spec the $500 sport suspension. It's worth adding a bit more ramen to your diet so you can swing the extra $7 a month on a 72-month lease for that.
The Mini isn't the most practical car here nor the most comfortable. It's the best combination of rewarding handling, useable space, and value. There isn't an oddball on the road that does it better.
EPILOGUE
Performance costs money, so most cars sold aren't enthusiast-oriented, high-horsepower, manual trans models. But while we picked consumer-friendly models here, turbochargers are on the horizon. Mini has its S; VW has its Beetle Turbo; Fiat just launched the 500 Abarth; and a Veloster Turbo is looming. Can you say "rematch"?
PHP Code:
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2011 Scion tC 2012 Fiat 500 2012 Hyundai Veloster
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD
ENGINE TYPE I-4, aluminum block/head I-4, iron block/aluminum head I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 152.2 cu in/2494 cc 83.5 cu in/1368 cc 97.1 cu in/1591 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.4:1 10.8:1 11.0:1
BATTERY TYPE N/A N/A N/A
POWER (SAE NET) 180 hp @ 6000 rpm 101 hp @ 6500 rpm 138 hp @ 6300 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 173 lb-ft @ 4100 rpm 98 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm 123 lb-ft @ 4850 rpm
REDLINE 6250 rpm 6750 rpm 6750 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 17.1 lb/hp 23.9 lb/hp 19.8 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual 5-speed manual 6-speed manual
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.82:1/2.32:1 4.10:1/2.76:1 4.27:1/2.94:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 14.8:1 16.3:1 14.2:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8 3 2.9
BRAKES,F;R 11.7-in vented disc; 11.0-in disc, ABS 10.1-in vented disc; 9.4-in disc, ABS 11.0-in vented disc; 10.3-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 225/45R18 91W Yokohoma Avid S34 195/45R16 84H M+S Pirelli Cinturato P7 215/40R18 85V M+S Kumho Solus KH25
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 106.3 in 90.6 in 104.3 in
TRACK,F/R 60.6/61.4 in 55.4/55.0 in 61.3/61.8 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 174.0 x 70.7 x 55.7 in 139.6 x 64.1 x 59.8 in 166.1 x 70.5 x 55.1 in
TURNING CIRCLE 37.4 ft 30.6 ft 34.1 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3069 lb 2414 lb 2736 lb
WEIGHT DIST,F/R 63/37% 62/38 % 60/40%
SEATING CAPACITY 5 4 4
HEADROOM,F/R 37.7/36.4 in 38.9/35.6 in 39.0/35.3 in
LEGROOM,F/R 41.8/34.6 in 40.7/31.7 in 43.9/31.7 in
SHOULDER ROOM,F/R 55.4/52.1 in 49.4/46.4 in 55.6/54.0 in
CARGO VOL BEH F/R 34.5/-- cu ft --/9.5 cu ft 34.7/15.5 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.3 sec 2.8 sec 2.7 sec
0-40 3.6 4.6 4.7
0-50 5.1 6.8 6.6
0-60 6.9 9.8 8.9
0-70 9.2 13.8 11.9
0-80 11.8 18.5 15.2
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.7 6.1 4.7
QUARTER MILE 15.4 sec @ 90.6 mph 17.3 sec @ 77.5 mph 16.8 sec @ 83.5 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 125 ft 123 ft 127 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.82 g (avg) 0.83 g (avg) 0.82 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.3 sec @ 0.63 g (avg) 28.1 sec @ 0.58 g (avg) 27.3 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 2400 rpm 2500 rpm 2400 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $19,005 $16,000 $18,060
PRICE AS TESTED $19,005 $19,200 $22,155
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $18,777 $18,203 $21,396
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi 10 yrs/100,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 2 yrs/unlimited 4 yrs/unlimited 5 yrs/unlimited
FUEL CAPACITY 14.5 gal 10.5 gal 13.2 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 23/31 mpg 30/38 mpg 28/40 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 147/109 kW-hrs/100 mi 112/89 kW-hrs/100 mi 120/84 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.75 lb/mi 0.59 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi
MT FUEL ECONOMY 26.5 mpg 30.0 mpg 27.6 mpg
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded premium Unleaded regular
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS 2012 Volkswagen Beetle 2011 Honda CR-Z EX 2011 Mini Cooper
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD Front engine, FWD
ENGINE TYPE I-5, iron block/aluminum head I-4, aluminum block/head I-4, aluminum block/head
VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl SOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 151.3 cu in/2480 cc 91.4 cu in/1497 cc 97.5 cu in/1598 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 9.5:1 10.4:1 11.0:1
BATTERY TYPE N/A Nickel-metal hydride N/A
POWER (SAE NET) 170 hp @ 5700 rpm 113 (gas)/13 (elec)/122 (comb) hp 121 hp @ 6000 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 177 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm 107 (gas)/58 (elec)/128 (comb) lb-ft 114 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm
REDLINE 6500 rpm 6250 rpm 6500 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 18.3 lb/hp 21.5 lb/hp 20.8 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic 6-speed manual 6-speed manual
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.50:1/2.35:1 4.11:1/2.83:1 4.35:1/2.97:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 16.3:1 12.8:1 14.1:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 3 2.5 2.8
BRAKES,F;R 11.3-in vented disc; 10.7-in disc, ABS 10.3-in vented disc; 10.2-in disc, ABS 11.0-in vented disc; 10.2-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 8.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum 6.0 x 16-in, cast aluminum 6.5 x 16-in, cast aluminum
TIRES 235/45R18 94H M+S Bridgestone Turanza EL400 195/55R16 86V M+S
Dunlop SP Sport 7000 A/S 195/55R16 87H Bridgestone Turanza ER300
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 99.9 in 95.9 in 97.1 in
TRACK,F/R 61.8/60.9 in 59.6/59.1 57.4/57.8 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 168.4 x 71.2 x 58.5 in 160.6 x 68.5 x 54.9 in 146.6 x 66.3 x 55.4 in
TURNING CIRCLE 35.4 ft 35.4 ft 35.1 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3104 lb 2617 lb 2521 lb
WEIGHT DIST,F/R 63/38% 59/41% 61/39%
SEATING CAPACITY 4 2 4
HEADROOM,F/R 39.4/37.1 in 36.9/-- in 38.8/37.6 in
LEGROOM,F/R 41.3/31.4 in 42.7/-- in 41.7/27.9 in
SHOULDER ROOM,F/R 55.3/49.0 in 53.8/-- in 50.3/44.7 in
CARGO VOL BEH F/R 29.9/15.4 cu ft 25.1/-- cu ft 24.0/5.7 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.8 sec 2.7 sec 2.5 sec
0-40 4.5 4.3 4.2
0-50 6.4 6.1 6
0-60 8.9 8.4 8.1
0-70 12 11.4 11.4
0-80 15.4 14.8 14.8
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 5.1 4.8 4.7
QUARTER MILE 16.8 sec @ 83.1 mph 16.5 sec @ 84.4 mph 16.4 sec @ 83.9 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 124 ft 119 ft 107 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.83 g (avg) 0.84 g (avg) 0.90 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 27.4 sec @ 0.62 g (avg) 27.6 sec @ 0.60 g (avg) 26.6 sec @ 0.63 g (avg)
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1950 rpm 2450 rpm 2500 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $19,765 $20,115 $20,100
PRICE AS TESTED $25,965 $23,475 $24,600
TRUE CAR TRUEVALUE PRICE* $23,749 $21,315 $23,267
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain Dual front, front side, front curtain Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 3 yrs/36,000 mi 3 yrs/36,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 5 yrs/60,000 mi 5 yrs/60,000 mi 4 yrs/50,000 mi
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 3 yrs/36,000 mi N/A 4 yrs/unlimited
FUEL CAPACITY 14.5 gal 10.6 gal 13.2 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 20/29 mpg 31/37 mpg 29/37 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 169/116 kW-hrs/100 mi 109/91 kW-hrs/100 mi 116/91 kW-hrs/100 mi
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.83 lb/mile 0.58 lb/mi 0.60 lb/mi
MT FUEL ECONOMY 24.2 mpg 33.1 mpg 33.0 mpg
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded regular Unleaded regular Unleaded premium
12-28-2011, 12:09 PM
#1106
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
This just confirms the dyno testing that shows the CR-Z motor is significantly underrated by Honda. It has over 21 pounds per hp yet is faster than the Beetle and just as fast as the Mini.
12-29-2011, 12:36 PM
#1107
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Honda is conservative....even their power ratings are a bit conservative...lol.
I find it funny that the DCT equipped Veloster is slower than the 6MT model. Isn't the main purpose of DCT is to have a gearbox that can shift faster??? And what's going with the real world mileage? Sure, it's a comparison test, with a lot of aggressive driving, but still, it's the only car that gets below the EPA ratings in this test. And this is not the first time for the Veloster.....Edmunds and C&D also got worse real world mpg than the EPA ratings....
Last edited by iforyou; 12-29-2011 at 12:39 PM.
12-29-2011, 12:46 PM
#1108
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
From what Ive seen in the past, the EPA ratings on Hyundais have been a bit optimistic.
Honda is definitely conservative with their power ratings, and they always have been. Im not sure if thats by mistake or whatever equipment they use to measure it reads low
Honda is definitely conservative with their power ratings, and they always have been. Im not sure if thats by mistake or whatever equipment they use to measure it reads low
12-29-2011, 01:10 PM
#1109
Senior Moderator
Lack of a back seat is holding the CR-Z back more than anything else IMO. Otherwise, looks good, drive's good and with a sportier model on the way, will meet the demands of a broader audience. Which takes me back to the lack of a back seat.....
12-29-2011, 04:04 PM
#1110
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
I wish there's a larger version of the CR-Z where a proper back seat (with enough legroom) can be fitted without deteriorating the shape of the car.
12-29-2011, 04:42 PM
#1111
To be fair, there's no way to fit the rear seat AND US required headrests under the current window. (not to mention there's ZERO legroom). The best case would be to fit this drivetrain to the Fit. Complete with 6MT, HIDs, BT and I'd probably consider one even though I'm 'meh' on the way Fit's look.
12-29-2011, 06:19 PM
#1112
I must say the CR-Z has grown a lot on me. Half year or so ago I had little to no interest in it. Now I'd strongly consider one, in part because I've seen many of them in person now.
I can understand the issue with not being compliant with DOT and NHTSA standards and what not and the possibility of detracting from its sporty character but a back seat would have definitely helped its overall appeal
Same with the under rating. I mean it's fine when you have say a Mustang 5.0 conservatively rated at 412 hp cause that's plenty enough... But most consumers don't know what a dyno is and won't go as far as giving it a shot because they see it "only" has 122 hp. I know Honda likes to underrate but they could be a little more loose with their MPG ratings especially.
I can understand the issue with not being compliant with DOT and NHTSA standards and what not and the possibility of detracting from its sporty character but a back seat would have definitely helped its overall appeal
Same with the under rating. I mean it's fine when you have say a Mustang 5.0 conservatively rated at 412 hp cause that's plenty enough... But most consumers don't know what a dyno is and won't go as far as giving it a shot because they see it "only" has 122 hp. I know Honda likes to underrate but they could be a little more loose with their MPG ratings especially.
12-29-2011, 06:35 PM
#1113
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
I wouldn't mind a 6MT CR-Z as a daily driver, only if the lease is very cheap. I like the interior a lot.
I like the interior a lot.
12-29-2011, 06:55 PM
#1114
I must say the CR-Z has grown a lot on me. Half year or so ago I had little to no interest in it. Now I'd strongly consider one, in part because I've seen many of them in person now.
I can understand the issue with not being compliant with DOT and NHTSA standards and what not and the possibility of detracting from its sporty character but a back seat would have definitely helped its overall appeal
I can understand the issue with not being compliant with DOT and NHTSA standards and what not and the possibility of detracting from its sporty character but a back seat would have definitely helped its overall appeal
12-29-2011, 07:34 PM
#1115
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
How's the lease deal on these? a 6MT one. I drive about 7k miles per year.
12-29-2011, 07:36 PM
#1116
Not sure how it is these days, but we put about 500 down for 270/month w/ 12K miles per year. If I recall, we bought at $500 under MSRP on our EX.
12-29-2011, 07:46 PM
#1117
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
Got it. Thanks. Just curious. 
12-30-2011, 11:29 AM
#1118
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
To be fair, there's no way to fit the rear seat AND US required headrests under the current window. (not to mention there's ZERO legroom). The best case would be to fit this drivetrain to the Fit. Complete with 6MT, HIDs, BT and I'd probably consider one even though I'm 'meh' on the way Fit's look.
What's the timeline with the boosted CR-Z? Does anyone know?
12-30-2011, 11:38 AM
#1119
Senior Moderator
The car should have been designed from the onset to accommodate back seats in North America. I don't think a CR-Z with back seats = an Insight. This was simply a case of Honda either not doing their homework or being too lazy or cheap to add a back seat. Either way I think its cost them some sales and will continue to do so.
12-30-2011, 11:49 AM
#1120
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
That's why it would be great if they make a slightly larger version of the CR-Z so that they can fit a proper back seat while being able to pass safety standards. Then again, what I'm describing sounds like the Insight...doesn't it....
What's the timeline with the boosted CR-Z? Does anyone know?
What's the timeline with the boosted CR-Z? Does anyone know?
