spurfan15

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.

Moog-Type-S

^^ and the diesel will have what Honda lacks.....torque!!!!

ThermonMermon

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.

PG2G

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.

dom

31/37?

What a waste of time, effort and showroom space.

Although I still love the styling.

Colin

I think that the credits are per manufacturer till the fund is used up. Unless the money was replenished, Toyota and Honda used up their tax credits years ago.

Edit: Ooops, I missed that PG2G said it too

Costco

wait.... those are HYBRID numbers?

sho_nuff1997

iTrader: (2)

I get 31mpg in my TL. Unless this thing costs $10k, it's not worth a shit.

dom

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.

Dan Martin

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.

ThermonMermon

yeah. not too mention all the addtl weight cars have put on over the years for safety standards.

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.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

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.

(Cj)

Still no excuse IMO, considering the price and unpracticality of it. If the standard non-hybrid Civic Coupe (which weighs 400-500lbs more) can get 36mpg hwy, whats the point of the CR-Z? Honda could have put the same powerplant in the CR-Z, dropped the price and gotten 40mpg easy ON EPA!

dom

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.

majin ssj eric

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....

erdoc48

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.

phee

iTrader: (5)

bs on underrating gas milage. my tl has never gotten higher than 21mpg. until i swapped it. now i get 29-30

Colin

(and NSX) And except for the NSX and S2000, they were all FWD with the engine hung over the front wheel centerline. Exactly what everyone is always complaining about.

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?

dom

I don't think I ever expected RWD at Honda. But the Integra/RSX could have nicely morphed into a RWD coupe that would have provided something for Integra/RSX owners to move up to. And like you mentioned, they had 2 RWD cars in the lineup they they've since abandoned. My point is (Maybe its just how I remember those years) that they had a stranglehold on that market. Granted is was small but there was no MazdaSpeed 3, the GTI wasn't what it is today, there was no Cobalt SS, WRX came later, no Evo. Even the Celica GT wasn't around until 98....etc.. They had a great opportunity to grow that market but chose to give it up to its competitors instead. Now they have the Si, while a nice sport coupe isn't really much better (performance wise) than any of those cars I mentioned. They seem to be at a standstill as far as performance goes.

Granted. But does following the market have to mean abandoning everything else? Can't they do 2 things at once?

If we had some evidence of this I could understand. But all we have of this new direction is the CR-Z which is hardly evidence of something sporty. 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?

Colin

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.

Colin

^^^ 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???)

fsttyms1

Thats not envy, being so limited that the designs are underpowered, over weight, and not on top with mileage numbers is pathetic and short sited.

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.


Because i dont think honda evens knows what they are doing, they are constantly going in circles and changing their minds.

dom

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.

dom

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.

Colin

^^If you guys hate Honda so much, why don't you move on and let someone else moderate the forums?

Colin

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.

dom

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.

dom

Where did it say I hate Honda?

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.

Colin

Either you're not that bright or just feeling argumentative today, but the NSX was in production for 15 years and the S2000 for 10 years. Is this not a long life span?

On cars with a typical 5 year lifespan, they will share a chassis, ala Accord or Civic.

Colin

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....

dom

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?

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.

dom

I think its your blind following that's more of an issue here.

But point taken. We are off topic.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

The problem with that issue is that Honda did not do any major updates in that time span. The NSX was a great car, dont get me wrong, but do some updates to gain some renewed interest, and that sentiment is valid for the S2000 as well.

The cars weren't killed, Honda let them die.

EDIT - Off topic, Im sorry.

Moog-Type-S

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.

dom

Its apparently hard to get that point across.

civicdrivr

iTrader: (9)

http://jalopnik.com/5446157/dont-bel...-not-a-new-crx

Thats a good read, IMO.

fsttyms1

Pretty much!

Colin

I can't say it was part of the plan, but I think that it probably was. Why didn't they update them? No idea, but my guess is that its because they're trying to amortize their costs and changing sheetmetal would set that back.

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

Colin

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.

dom

And I'm shocked that you do. How many countless times have I agreed with your opinions and explanations on why they do what they do. How quickly we forget.

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.