Honda: CR-Z News **Facelift Revealed (page 31)**
#321
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Age: 37
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know diesels in american Hondas are dead, but here's an instance where it would make a lot more sense. Drop in a 2.2L i-DTEC and drop the hybrid system and I believe you could get 50 MPG freeway. I'm positive the efficiency of the i-DTEC would beat that of this hybrid.
Then offer an enthusiast gas version -- non hybrid of course. Drop in a Civic SI or S2000 engine. It'd be a high revving sports car for enthusiasts.
I'd much rather drive either of those options than this pointless hybrid.
Then offer an enthusiast gas version -- non hybrid of course. Drop in a Civic SI or S2000 engine. It'd be a high revving sports car for enthusiasts.
I'd much rather drive either of those options than this pointless hybrid.
#322
The sizzle in the Steak
^^ and the diesel will have what Honda lacks.....torque!!!!
#323
Safety Car
i think when you file for taxes theres an option to receive credit for hybrid auto ownership. im sure the form has a list of cars to pick from so they are able to track hybrid sales. although i dont think you need to have a specific hybrid to get "approved" for the tax credit. im not a tax guy, so i dont know for sure.
Last edited by ThermonMermon; 01-11-2010 at 04:30 PM.
#324
Racer
Wasn't there a per-manufacturer limit on the number of tax credits that the government would allow? I think Toyota and Honda both passed theirs a while ago and buyers don't get any kind of credit. I could be wrong though.
#326
i think when you file for taxes theres an option to receive credit for hybrid auto ownership. im sure the form has a list of cars to pick from so they are able to track hybrid sales. although i dont think you need to have a specific hybrid to get "approved" for the tax credit. im not a tax guy, so i dont know for sure.
Edit: Ooops, I missed that PG2G said it too
#327
#329
Senior Moderator
Saw a Prelude this morning which got me thinking. For a few years in the late 90's early 2000's Honda at the same time was selling...
- Prelude
- Civic Si
- S2000
- Integra GS-R
- Integra Type R
Not to mention the Accord Coupe and CL
What a rudderless ship they've become as far as 'sport' goes.
- Prelude
- Civic Si
- S2000
- Integra GS-R
- Integra Type R
Not to mention the Accord Coupe and CL
What a rudderless ship they've become as far as 'sport' goes.
Last edited by dom; 01-12-2010 at 07:43 AM.
#330
Photography Nerd
The original CR-X put out 137hp and got 50mpg. It seems like the whole reason the hybrid exists in this car is so that it has enough power to pull around the extra weight of the hybrid system.
#331
Safety Car
i remember reading an article about the inefficiency of the Escalade Hybrid. they found that all of the stripped parts made to offset the hybrid system turned out to be more of a MPG saver. and in the end, the Escalade hybrid was considered a failure, b/c if a regular engined escalade had the same weight savings as the hybrid counterpart, then it would have better MPG #s than the hybrid version itself.
#332
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Honda likes to underrate...just like one of the posts above says, 31mpg in a 2004 TL when it's rated at EPA 18/26mpg.
Last edited by iforyou; 01-12-2010 at 08:51 AM.
#333
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 47
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, to be fair, the Insight is rated at 41/43mpg if I remember correctly, and people have been getting 50+mpg easily, while some get as high as 70mpg (from TOV).
Honda likes to underrate...just like one of the posts above says, 31mpg in a 2004 TL when it's rated at EPA 18/26mpg.
Honda likes to underrate...just like one of the posts above says, 31mpg in a 2004 TL when it's rated at EPA 18/26mpg.
#334
Senior Moderator
Underrating makes perfect sense when it comes to fuel efficiency. Why on earth would you want customers to know what MPG they will actually get. Its far more effective to let them be surprised so they can report back their mileage to people on the internet and hope word of mouth gets the message out.
Marketing FTL.
I think its a tad more realistic to presume that MOST people will actually get what the window sticker suggests.
I've yet to read any long term test where mileage figures are actually higher than the EPA ratings.
Marketing FTL.
I think its a tad more realistic to presume that MOST people will actually get what the window sticker suggests.
I've yet to read any long term test where mileage figures are actually higher than the EPA ratings.
#335
Punk Rocker
My point is, why build a sporty-looking little pocket rocket then strap it with a useless hybrid engine. If I want a sporty car I want performance, not mpg....
#336
06 Anthracite TL
I had a 1986 CRX-Si- it was a blast! It was light (2000 lbs), had a small 1.5 L 91 HP motor, and probably got to 60 in ~ 8.5 seconds. I owned it from new until 126,000 miles when I had an accident and it wasn't worth repairing. It also got 35 mpg. The CR-Z will no doubt be heavier secondary to more safety equipment and better padding in the interior as well as soundproofing. I agree there's little reason to pay a premium for a hybrid that only gets max. 38 mpg with a hybrid drivetrain. A non hybrid Civic getting in the mid 30's for mpg makes more sense.
I also agree that unless they're sold relatively cheap (~ $15-17K, and it's likely they will be more $$$) something like the TL that gets ~30 mpg on the highway (the 3.2L motor), is a better, more usable car than a hybrid 2 seater.
I also agree that unless they're sold relatively cheap (~ $15-17K, and it's likely they will be more $$$) something like the TL that gets ~30 mpg on the highway (the 3.2L motor), is a better, more usable car than a hybrid 2 seater.
#337
I got the Shifts
iTrader: (5)
Well, to be fair, the Insight is rated at 41/43mpg if I remember correctly, and people have been getting 50+mpg easily, while some get as high as 70mpg (from TOV).
Honda likes to underrate...just like one of the posts above says, 31mpg in a 2004 TL when it's rated at EPA 18/26mpg.
Honda likes to underrate...just like one of the posts above says, 31mpg in a 2004 TL when it's rated at EPA 18/26mpg.
#338
Saw a Prelude this morning which got me thinking. For a few years in the late 90's early 2000's Honda at the same time was selling...
- Prelude
- Civic Si
- S2000
- Integra GS-R
- Integra Type R
Not to mention the Accord Coupe and CL
What a rudderless ship they've become as far as 'sport' goes.
- Prelude
- Civic Si
- S2000
- Integra GS-R
- Integra Type R
Not to mention the Accord Coupe and CL
What a rudderless ship they've become as far as 'sport' goes.
At the same time they were buying their SUVs from Isuzu when the greatest growth was in SUVs. You cannot deny they were skewed away from where the market was headed.
So maybe they listened to the 'enthusiasts' who said that FWD sucked in sporty coupes and decided to concentrate on trucks? Maybe they took a generation of coupes off the market while the redirected their efforts in a new direction for coupes?
#339
Senior Moderator
At the same time they were buying their SUVs from Isuzu when the greatest growth was in SUVs. You cannot deny they were skewed away from where the market was headed.
So maybe they listened to the 'enthusiasts' who said that FWD sucked in sporty coupes and decided to concentrate on trucks? Maybe they took a generation of coupes off the market while the redirected their efforts in a new direction for coupes?
Last edited by dom; 01-12-2010 at 12:29 PM.
#340
And like you mentioned, they had 2 RWD cars in the lineup they they've since abandoned.
Granted. But does following the market have to mean abandoning everything else? Can't they do 2 things at once?
In other words, if they build a new CL"ish" car, people will complain that it's FWD, if they add AWD people will complain that its too heavy. If they built a new RWD chassis, people will complain it costs too much. So in effect, (IMO) people are getting what they wished for: the new coupe won't be FWD, it won't be AWD, and it won't cost too much. IOW, they won't make anything. And people say that Honda doesn't listen...
If a CR-Z Si is on the way then great, a move in the right direction.
Although I no longer think that 200Hp and 150 lb-ft cut it in today's market....But what about Acura?
#341
^^^ Sorry for the long winded post. IMO, every criticism has a logical (if unpopular) answer except the one nobody's raised: If they wanted to do a RWD chassis, why didn't they do it in 2001-04 when the TL and MDX were selling well and the auto market was going like gangbusters? (or did they and this is what was canceled???)
#342
Senior Moderator
On what chassis? There is no suitable flexible chassis for such a car.
These were never intended to be a new production series, the were specifically presented as "a car to celebrate Honda's racing success" and a "50th birthday present to themselves" So they weren't abandoned, they simply ended their (long) production runs.
Quite possibly yes. Compared to Chevy, Toyota and VW, Honda is a small company. Yet they have built the entire franchise off of the backs of 2-3 car platforms, and 2 truck platforms. This type of manufacturing flexibility is the envy of the auto industry. BUT for a few buyers that want something that does not fit within the manufacturing structure, there will be disappointment.
In other words, if they build a new CL"ish" car, people will complain that it's FWD, if they add AWD people will complain that its too heavy. If they built a new RWD chassis, people will complain it costs too much. So in effect, (IMO) people are getting what they wished for: the new coupe won't be FWD, it won't be AWD, and it won't cost too much. IOW, they won't make anything. And people say that Honda doesn't listen...
And who is to say there isn't a Si version waiting in the wings? As I recall the original CRX debuted with a 76 hp engine (or something like that), Only as the car matured, did it get the higher powered versions.
And that's the "problem". People only thinking about "today" and "me". Honda is looking at what they'll need in 5 and 10 years down the road and this is a LOT harder than armchair quarterbacking a decision from 3 years ago.
These were never intended to be a new production series, the were specifically presented as "a car to celebrate Honda's racing success" and a "50th birthday present to themselves" So they weren't abandoned, they simply ended their (long) production runs.
Quite possibly yes. Compared to Chevy, Toyota and VW, Honda is a small company. Yet they have built the entire franchise off of the backs of 2-3 car platforms, and 2 truck platforms. This type of manufacturing flexibility is the envy of the auto industry. BUT for a few buyers that want something that does not fit within the manufacturing structure, there will be disappointment.
In other words, if they build a new CL"ish" car, people will complain that it's FWD, if they add AWD people will complain that its too heavy. If they built a new RWD chassis, people will complain it costs too much. So in effect, (IMO) people are getting what they wished for: the new coupe won't be FWD, it won't be AWD, and it won't cost too much. IOW, they won't make anything. And people say that Honda doesn't listen...
And who is to say there isn't a Si version waiting in the wings? As I recall the original CRX debuted with a 76 hp engine (or something like that), Only as the car matured, did it get the higher powered versions.
And that's the "problem". People only thinking about "today" and "me". Honda is looking at what they'll need in 5 and 10 years down the road and this is a LOT harder than armchair quarterbacking a decision from 3 years ago.
Because Honda as of late has shown other wise and if honda is looking beyond to what they will need they are going backwards faster than they are going forward, especially with their designs.
^^^ Sorry for the long winded post. IMO, every criticism has a logical (if unpopular) answer except the one nobody's raised: If they wanted to do a RWD chassis, why didn't they do it in 2001-04 when the TL and MDX were selling well and the auto market was going like gangbusters? (or did they and this is what was canceled???)
#343
Senior Moderator
Build one.
Yet they somehow found the funds and resources required to build 2 RWD cars that were never intended for long production runs? Sounds like mismanagement to me when the RWD chassis could morphed into other variants.
Why does Nissan for example have no problem offering a RWD platform which they then spread across to Infiniti as well, and do so at a reasonable cost? Is Honda not capable of doing is? Something Hyundai has also recently done.
Isn't that like going in circles? Are you blaming the customer?
I never suggesting its NOT coming. I'm hoping.
Yet everyone else seems to be going full steam ahead with green AND performance cars.
I've long since decided Honda was no longer the company for me. They just aren't focused on what I as a customer am looking for at this time. I just wish that wasn't the case.
Quite possibly yes. Compared to Chevy, Toyota and VW, Honda is a small company. Yet they have built the entire franchise off of the backs of 2-3 car platforms, and 2 truck platforms. This type of manufacturing flexibility is the envy of the auto industry. BUT for a few buyers that want something that does not fit within the manufacturing structure, there will be disappointment.
In other words, if they build a new CL"ish" car, people will complain that it's FWD, if they add AWD people will complain that its too heavy. If they built a new RWD chassis, people will complain it costs too much.
So in effect, (IMO) people are getting what they wished for: the new coupe won't be FWD, it won't be AWD, and it won't cost too much. IOW, they won't make anything. And people say that Honda doesn't listen...
And who is to say there isn't a Si version waiting in the wings? As I recall the original CRX debuted with a 76 hp engine (or something like that), Only as the car matured, did it get the higher powered versions.
And that's the "problem". People only thinking about "today" and "me". Honda is looking at what they'll need in 5 and 10 years down the road and this is a LOT harder than armchair quarterbacking a decision from 3 years ago.
I've long since decided Honda was no longer the company for me. They just aren't focused on what I as a customer am looking for at this time. I just wish that wasn't the case.
#344
Senior Moderator
^^^ Sorry for the long winded post. IMO, every criticism has a logical (if unpopular) answer except the one nobody's raised: If they wanted to do a RWD chassis, why didn't they do it in 2001-04 when the TL and MDX were selling well and the auto market was going like gangbusters? (or did they and this is what was canceled???)
Logical reason doesn't make it the correct choice. IMO.
I think we all know it was canceled. That part was made official. And it was IMO a terrible decision.
#345
^^If you guys hate Honda so much, why don't you move on and let someone else moderate the forums?
#346
These two cars were not going to morph into anything. They were designed from the outset to be exactly what they were and not built on a flexible architecture. This is why they were so good at what they did.
#347
Senior Moderator
I'd love to hear the sound reasoning to explain this one.
Last edited by dom; 01-12-2010 at 02:29 PM.
#348
Senior Moderator
How many times does it have to explained that we are/were fans of the company and are just disappointed with where they're going. I didn't realize that wasn't allowed and only Honda fanbois are allowed to moderate.
#349
So they can build dedicated cars with a short life span but not a platform that can be shared amongst a few models? BTW - the S2K wasn't that expensive so I'm not sure where the idea that they can't build a RWD car for reasonable price came from.
I'd love to hear the sound reasoning to explain this one.
I'd love to hear the sound reasoning to explain this one.
On cars with a typical 5 year lifespan, they will share a chassis, ala Accord or Civic.
#350
See, the hatred of Honda has impaired you ability to moderate. All this talk about Acura doesn't belong in the CR-Z thread. BUT since it suits you bashing agenda....
#351
Senior Moderator
You claim Honda can't do 2 things at once to defend their decision not to offer RWD because 'they're a small company'. Yet they still found a way to justify 2 dedicated RWD platforms. Does that seriously make sense to you? Wouldn't making a RWD platform that can be shared across the range make sense....like they do with the Accord.
And please feel free to respond to my other points about why Honda can't make that RWD platform while others can. Unless your bag of 'logical excuses' has run dry.
#353
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
The cars weren't killed, Honda let them die.
EDIT - Off topic, Im sorry.
#354
The sizzle in the Steak
Honda/Acura fanboys call it hate.
The rest of the car enthusiasts understand that it's not hate, but massive disappointment with Honda/Acura product and direction of late.
#356
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
#357
Senior Moderator
#358
So 15 and 10 year production runs were part of the plan all along? Or since they had nothing to move to they stuck with it?
And please feel free to respond to my other points about why Honda can't make that RWD platform while others can. Unless your bag of 'logical excuses' has run dry.
And please feel free to respond to my other points about why Honda can't make that RWD platform while others can. Unless your bag of 'logical excuses' has run dry.
You specifically mentioned Nissan/Infiniti. Well, Renault is bankrolling them so they fall into that "large company' fold like the others I mentioned.
Is it "can't" or "won't"? Maybe they believe that the traditional Honda virtues of "doing more with less" also applies to chassis? Maybe they feel that if they can match 80% of the performance and combine that with their manufacturing goals, that they have accomplished what they set out to do?
Anyway, way OT, I'm done
#359
Sorry, but you don't want open discussion here. You only want opinions that mirror yours. You guys relentlessly beat down any dissenting thoughts as if its your own private sandbox. I'm shocked that you can't see that.
#360
Senior Moderator
But its become clear that you don't see the negative and continually refuse to acknowledge it. Instaed, you seem to think that your logical explanations should devoid Honda of any and all wrongdoing. Since you have a vested interest and bias I guess that's understandable.