Honda CR-Z vs. Honda CRX

In reply to Fletch1:

Hey Fletch, do you live in the Columbus area? I just remembered that a kid from Columbus just starting at OSU bought my CRX. It had an IHI turbo mounted over the transaxle (before you could buy turbo manifolds) and used a air to water intercooler. I sold it in 1999 in showroom condition and with 51k on it. Ever seen it?

In reply to bravenrace:

I'm 45 minutes north of Columbus. But now that you mention it, I remember a black one with black wheels in great shape for sale. It was on craigslist, but I can't remember if it was this year or last year. I also believe it was in your area. I'll check my e-mail to see if I have any info.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to scardeal: It wouldn't suffer in acceleration? I thought the motor assisted in acceleration?

I'm theorizing that the decrease in weight would completely compensate for the decrease in hp/torque.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: I'm 45 minutes north of Columbus. But now that you mention it, I remember a black one with black wheels in great shape for sale. It was on craigslist, but I can't remember if it was this year or last year. I also believe it was in your area. I'll check my e-mail to see if I have any info.

Sounds like you aren't too far from Mid-Ohio?

In reply to bravenrace:

25 minutes. Actually, the only time I've ever been there was during Vintage Bike Days. I went several times. I sold a 89 Honda CB-1 there.

scardeal wrote: I'm theorizing that the decrease in weight would completely compensate for the decrease in hp/torque.

According to Honda's specifications

ICE torque 1000-1750 RPM = 128lb/ft

IMA (electric motor) torque 1000 RPM = 58 lb/ft

Not sure losing the weight would get that low end assist back

I thought the new Insight's styling was based on the Prius. Seriously, I'm a car guy but I have a VERY hard time telling the two apart.

White_and_Nerdy wrote: I thought the new Insight's styling was based on the Prius. Seriously, I'm a car guy but I have a VERY hard time telling the two apart.

Well, if you look at the first generation Insight and Prius, then you could say Toyota copied Honda for the 2nd gen Prius (the first Prius had a trunk). The main difference being 2dr vs 4dr. In reality, that truncated "fastback" shape was discovered by a German aerodynamicist (sp?) decades ago for it's low CD. I've since forgotten his name, but I'll see if I can dig it up.

In reality, that truncated "fastback" shape was discovered by a German aerodynamicist (sp?) decades ago for it's low CD. I've since forgotten his name, but I'll see if I can dig it up.

I think you would be referring to Wunibald Kamm

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: 25 minutes. Actually, the only time I've ever been there was during Vintage Bike Days. I went several times. I sold a 89 Honda CB-1 there.

One time? You need to rectify that! I'm 1-1/2 hours away and I get there 2-3 times a year. You wouldn't believe how much fun you could have with that CRX at a track event there! I plan on taking my Civic to a couple of them next year.

In reply to bravenrace:

Actually, twice. It's like I live up there I've thought about getting into racing. I think my tightness gets in the way. What event/rules/cost, etc?

Sorry, I read your post incorrectly. Well they have various open track events that aren't racing but give you track time. I haven't done it in many years myself (raising kids), but plan on it next year. I'm not sure what event I'll attend. I used to go to BMWCCA events, which allow all types of cars. They were about $350 for the weekend at the time, and you got 1-1/2 hours of track time each day. These weren't just open track days though, they were driving schools which included some classroom time and other on-track excercises. It was fun beating up on all those expensive German cars with my little econobox Honda.

What about the 1st gen. Insight? You never hear about that neat little car anymore.

The Cr-z is a "sporty" version of the insight, not a re-born Crx. The only thing this new car shares with the original is that it's a two-seater.

To be fair, the Cr-z performance numbers are probably close to being inline with the original Crx Dx model.

Is there an echo in here or am i just RIGHT?

Sure, I'd rather it not be a hybrid, and I'd rather it be a few hundred pounds lighter, but even a Mini is heavy compared to a CRX, so waddya going to do?

If it wasnt a hybrid it would be LESS fun to drive at anything under 4 or 5k rpm. As far as the lightness, manufacturers dont really listen to armchair consumers. Honda DID build a 2-dr hatch that weighed 1880 lb, as light as an 85 crx and lighter than the more popular ones, and did you buy it? This is what im saying. Honda TRIED building a super light, super MPG car, and not enough people bought it. I was in high school when it came out but ive got one now. The prius model turned out to be much more successful in the real-world market. The new CR-Z is the result of these learning experiences, building what they think they can actually sell rather than building what will get the armchair consumers on forums that aren't even car-shopping excited. The fact that it's a 2dr hatch that's even remotely sporty is something we should be giving serious thanks for, because 2-dr hatch lovers have NOT given much financial support (proportionally) to honda over the last 2 decades and they dont owe us a damn thing.

Vigo: You make good points. Our cheap asses do not remotely constitute a profitable market to the automakers. Witness Mazda's inability to sell stripped down Miatas.

CLH wrote:

In reality, that truncated "fastback" shape was discovered by a German aerodynamicist (sp?) decades ago for it's low CD. I've since forgotten his name, but I'll see if I can dig it up.

I think you would be referring to Wunibald Kamm

Yep - that's him. Thanks for doing my homework!

New Flash!

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/02/sema-preview-wraptivo-honda-cr-z-type-f/

Hey, if the supercharger can add 60lb ft right off idle it'd be helping as much as the ELECTRIC MOTOR! Yet somehow i doubt it will do that on a 1.5. Perspective.

So I drove a CR-Z yesterday. I'd say its a mixed bag. It really is a decent looking car in person. Its very comfortable, even for a 6ft+ driver like me. Its WAY over the top in terms of the displays, lights and gadgets. I would love to have about 15 less displays, one color of display lights, no TPMS (I can read a tire guage, thank you Honda) and have a sticker price about $1,000 - 1,500 less. I really can't overstate how much unnecessary electronic crap there is in the cockpit of this car. (Paddle shifters on a CVT transmission come to mind) The handling was decent, and really does remind me of the few CRX's I've driven over the years, only slightly more refined, and slightly less fun. The acceleration feels decent, until you realize the guy in the F-150 next to you is keeping up w/o working hard. It seems to have decent torque with the electric motor in full assist, but runs out of gas like a smoker in a sack race up top. The bottom line for me is for the $19k-20k I'm going to pay for the CR-Z, I'm about 95% of the way to a Civic Si four door, which hauls the entire family, gets decent MPG, is a decent autocrosser and puts Mr. F-150 in the rearview before the second shift. Now drop the Si motor and transmission into the CR-Z and I'll be back for another test drive.

Vigo wrote: Hey, if the supercharger can add 60lb ft right off idle it'd be helping as much as the ELECTRIC MOTOR! Yet somehow i doubt it will do that on a 1.5. Perspective.

Will 100 ft-lbs off idle work for you?

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

I think you may have your idle set too high.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Vigo wrote: Hey, if the supercharger can add 60lb ft right off idle it'd be helping as much as the ELECTRIC MOTOR! Yet somehow i doubt it will do that on a 1.5. Perspective.

Will 100 ft-lbs off idle work for you?

What exactly is that graph of?

bravenrace wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Vigo wrote: Hey, if the supercharger can add 60lb ft right off idle it'd be helping as much as the ELECTRIC MOTOR! Yet somehow i doubt it will do that on a 1.5. Perspective.

Will 100 ft-lbs off idle work for you?

What exactly is that graph of?

High compression turbo D16A6.

Can't wait to see the article. I will admit I have low expectations for the CRZs performance...

I test drove a CVT version of the CRZ on Tuesday. If they had a manual available on the lot, I'd be driving a CRZ today.

For me, the appeal is in the sum of its parts. It's not a fast car by any stretch of the imagination. The whole package feels a lot lighter than it really is, much like the old Accord Hybrid, which was heavier than its NA counterpart, but had a lot of iron replaced with aluminum in the suspension.

I felt the cockpit was very driver friendly. Everything was within reach. It sort of had me thinking about the David Bowie song "Space Oddity" with the ultra modern displays and the massive amounts of information being fed to me, the feel was more space ship than car. Major Tom would be impressed.

Acceleration was about what I expected. It felt a lot like an old CRX to me. I had to really get on it to get anywhere. There was more torque to be had, but the right foot had to demand with more force than most would expect.

Since I wasn't on a track, and wasn't where I could really hoon on the car, so outside of a few curves, I couldn't really get a feel for the handling. On the short course, it felt nice and tight, and everything felt like it would add up to a car that handles pretty well.

I'm looking forward to GRM's review as much as the rest of you guys. I expect them to see a lot of the same things that I experienced myself.

High compression turbo D16A6.

Which is... not a supercharged 1.5? motor? I dont see anything about off-idle there either, the power readings dont start until 2500 rpm.