The Honda Cr-Z is go....

Yeah, I'm with Dave. If the CR-Z was about 2300# I'd be all over it. But, with and extra 500# on bored... I dunno.

Man, with all of todays modern technology I just wish they could develop cars to be lighter rather then have more stuff in them.

oldsaw wrote: Sadly, this is another example of Honda having lost it's roots. They have traded "go" for "green".

Have you ever even heard of the CVCC? Fuel economy is probably the primary reason Honda is what they are today, and is absolutely as much a part of their "roots" as their racing heritage. Hopefully this one can be faithful to both. I'm interested, and in a world of 2900 lb Scions and 2600 lb Minis, 2800 doesn't seem like a plus or a minus really.

I really like the overall shape of the body. I've always wanted Honda to do a more aggressive 2dr hatchback design. There are always some elements I'd design differently, particularly the front grill. The interior is gorgeous though. I know it's a bit much to hope the special lighting and materials will carry over to the production version, but if they maintain the sculpted shapes/structure I'll be happy (yet again).

To hope they could produce a car near the weight of the CRX is unreasonable. I don't think I need to argue about modern standards in not only N/V/H, but safety as well. A S2000 is a pretty dern small car and it's already 2800lbs. Even if it does have the rear wheel drivetrain to package, hybrids also need heavy batteries. If they could hit 2500 I'd be impressed. I'll also be all-of-a-sudden interested if they do hit 200hp with electric assist.

Josh wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Sadly, this is another example of Honda having lost it's roots. They have traded "go" for "green".

Have you ever even heard of the CVCC? Fuel economy is probably the primary reason Honda is what they are today, and is absolutely as much a part of their "roots" as their racing heritage. Hopefully this one can be faithful to both. I'm interested, and in a world of 2900 lb Scions and 2600 lb Minis, 2800 doesn't seem like a plus or a minus really.

When the CVCC was introduced, I had already broken into my 20's and the two cars I had to that point were a AH Sprite and a Fiat 128SL. So, yeah, I've heard about the technology.

CVCC's were introduced to meet emission standards - so I guess one could say it was a "green" engine. However, it was problematic and was dropped in the early-mid '80's when Honda went back to a more conventional style cylinder head. Not that three valves per cylinder was very conventional at the time.

It was in the 80's that Honda really earned it's mettle by producing cars that were fuel efficient, fun to drive (i.e. - lightweight), had a high build-quality and kept their value.

There are reasons that I have an 86 Prelude Si and a 90 Civic EF; they weigh less than a Fit (for example), both get equal/better fuel economy and yet are still faster/quicker cars. Neither of those two cars has CVCC technology.

I'm happy you're interested in the CR-Z.

That doesn't mean I have be interested, too.

I just think it's silly to say that "green" technology, whether it's emissions control, fuel economy, whatever, is somehow betraying the roots of the company. If anything, they should be commended for taking a technology that other manufacturers turn into a soulless appliance and doing their best to make a fun, involving car out of it. At least they're trying to do better. A redux of the CRX HF with similar economy would be wonderful, but there's no way a car built like that could be sold in the US today.

I am actually for the hybrid part. It will all depend on the performance part too, so it's a wait and see for me. I had two CRXs in the 80s, both purchased new. One was the standard 1.5 the other was a Si. The 1.5 was my college commuting car and I could get near 50 mpg with that on the highway......and that was 20 years ago. It was also 1000 lbs lighter. Having said that my new Miata with the PRHT is only slightly over 2500 lbs. This is the where the future is going so I say more power to them. Ya, it would be cool to have a new rip snorting CR-Z (or X) Si but if it doesn't happen then there is always the aftermarket or in my case the Miata.

I don't know where all the porker comments come from - 2,800 lbs. is pretty damn good these days - a stock E30 weighs more than that.

I would consider it pretty much impossible to build a mass-market 2,300 lb. car that will get the kind of crash ratings that Honda customers demand.

Josh wrote: I just think it's silly to say that "green" technology, whether it's emissions control, fuel economy, whatever, is somehow betraying the roots of the company. If anything, they should be commended for taking a technology that other manufacturers turn into a soulless appliance and doing their best to make a fun, involving car out of it. At least they're trying to do better. A redux of the CRX HF with similar economy would be wonderful, but there's no way a car built like that could be sold in the US today.

It's a matter of perspective.

If you wish to go "literal", allow me to re-define my personal parameters for the "roots" reference.

In the mid-80's, Honda earned a well-deserved following because they started engineering and building economical and fun-to-drive cars that (usually) out-performed the competition. Enthusiast drivers loved them.

Honda has made a deliberate choice to forego that part of their history. While the CR-Z may embrace the "concept" of the CRX, the company cannot (to this point) claim it's a replacement. The promo videos even note that the CR-Z is a "sporty" concept that uses hybrid technology, but makes little reference to how much "fun" it may be to own and drive.

Based on Honda's current direction, I have no confidence the CR-Z will be a "sports" oriented vehicle. I hope they prove me wrong, but the current offerings and stated goals have me doubtful.

At this point, Mazda is the worthy successor as a company which builds cars that are aimed for and appreciated by customers who like to drive.

And I don't even own a Mazda, yet.

oldsaw wrote: In the mid-80's, Honda earned a well-deserved following because they started engineering and building economical and fun-to-drive cars that (usually) out-performed the competition. Enthusiast drivers loved them. Honda has made a deliberate choice to forego that part of their history.

It's a fuel efficient hybrid. As such, the competition are Priuses, Fusions, and the like. I have NO doubt that this will be the most fun to drive hybrid vehicle on the market, and there's a high likelihood that it will be the most fun you can have for the amount of fuel it burns (although the VW diesels are also appealing). Don't worry, man, this is still the same Honda. The game has changed, but they still appear committed to providing an enthusiast option. I am not happy either that other enthusiast cars have been put on hold, but that owes much more to economic reality than any shift in the philosophy of the company.

I hope you aren't insinuating that you can't be an enthusiast AND be concerned about how much energy you are using on a daily basis. A hybrid might not be an ideal autocross/track car, but if this one comes in around 2800lb it will still be a good deal lighter than my current "enthusiast" daily driver, and much more efficient.

speedblind wrote: I don't know where all the porker comments come from - 2,800 lbs. is pretty damn good these days - a stock E30 weighs more than that. I would consider it pretty much impossible to build a mass-market 2,300 lb. car that will get the kind of crash ratings that Honda customers demand.

You know what. I care dick about crash test ratings. If I did, I wouldn't be shopping for CRX's. Duh.

Josh wrote: I hope you aren't insinuating that you can't be an enthusiast AND be concerned about how much energy you are using on a daily basis. A hybrid might not be an ideal autocross/track car, but if this one comes in around 2800lb it will still be a good deal lighter than my current "enthusiast" daily driver, and much more efficient.

I'm not insuiating, but stating, that as an enthusiast I am NOT concerned with the energy I consume on a daily basis.

Why? Because I've not purchased a new vehicle since 1990, saving the energy and resources needed to produce a whole generation's new vehicles. Is there not efficiency in that? Any car in my future will be the lightest, most responsive and driver-oriented car that fits my parameters, regardless of drive-train technology.

If your current "enthusiast" daily driver weighs more than 2800lbs and doesn't meet your efficiency expectations, one hopes you can find something that achieves your expectations.

Again, the CR-Z may be a great choice for you. That, in no, way means it's the same for me.

But, shouldn't we have one to drive first?

My interest is definitely peeked. I would guess the interior will end up somewhat similar to the new insight, as it would make sense to share as many existing prodoction parts as possible. i couldnt find any "production " pics, but maybe i missed it somewhere.

since im now driving honda's first incarnation of the ima set up, i can honestly say its not at all a bad thing. it is a little tricky to drive properly, but im learning and when i get it right, its downright zippy. Im averaging 45 mpg right now, and this is doing 75-80mph on my daily commute.

tech has improved quite a bit since my gen 1 insight was penned, the cr-z should be a huge improvement, and so far, i really like the early version, i think honda is on the right track...

oldsaw wrote: I'm not insuiating, but stating, that as an enthusiast I am NOT concerned with the energy I consume on a daily basis. Why? Because I've not purchased a new vehicle since 1990, saving the energy and resources needed to produce a whole generation's new vehicles. Is there not efficiency in that? Any car in my future will be the lightest, most responsive and driver-oriented car that fits my parameters, regardless of drive-train technology.

DILYSI Dave wrote: You know what. I care dick about crash test ratings. If I did, I wouldn't be shopping for CRX's. Duh.

You both make fine enthusiasts, but lousy consumers. You are definitely not the demographic that Honda is targeting, as they probably don't give a crap about selling 20 year old cars.

For new car buyers (which already rules you out) who are interested in hybrids but can't stand the crap available in terms of performance, Honda is offering a solution.

For you guys, only Craigslist and Ebay can offer a solution.

I'll look. I probably won't buy, because I'm a cheapa$$.

Drop the heavy batterys and pop in a K24, then you have a modern day CRX.

maroon92 wrote: Drop the heavy batterys and pop in a K24, then you have a modern day CRX.

That's the part of this car that is interesting to me.

IMHO, it would be cool if all automakers had the same enthusiast mindset as 1991:

SE-R

Civic/CRX Si

Escort GT

Probe GT

Please give us the low-end pocket rockets....again.

DILYSI Dave wrote: It looks spectacular. The hybrid part does nothing for me, but it isn't a deal breaker either, as long as the performance is there, and it should be. It's the weight. This thing is 1000# more than an early CRX. I don't expect them to be able to hit 1800# anymore, but 2300# certainly seems reasonable.

Spectacular? Not so much-reminds me of a fat anteater from the front 3/4 view.

I agree with your comments regarding the weight, though.

forzav12 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: It looks spectacular. The hybrid part does nothing for me, but it isn't a deal breaker either, as long as the performance is there, and it should be. It's the weight. This thing is 1000# more than an early CRX. I don't expect them to be able to hit 1800# anymore, but 2300# certainly seems reasonable.

Spectacular? Not so much-reminds me of a fat anteater from the front 3/4 view. I agree with your comments regarding the weight, though.

I like it. The front end reminds me of the S2K. The profile reminds me of a mesh between a 2G CRX and a 5G hatch. I'd prefer it didn't have the cat-in-heat pose, but it doesn't bother me too much, and probably makes for better cargo carrying.

The rear bumper is a bit weird for my taste.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

forzav12 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: It looks spectacular. The hybrid part does nothing for me, but it isn't a deal breaker either, as long as the performance is there, and it should be. It's the weight. This thing is 1000# more than an early CRX. I don't expect them to be able to hit 1800# anymore, but 2300# certainly seems reasonable.

Spectacular? Not so much-reminds me of a fat anteater from the front 3/4 view. I agree with your comments regarding the weight, though.

I like it. The front end reminds me of the S2K. The profile reminds me of a mesh between a 2G CRX and a 5G hatch. I'd prefer it didn't have the cat-in-heat pose, but it doesn't bother me too much, and probably makes for better cargo carrying. The rear bumper is a bit weird for my taste.

I think the S2K is nicely styled-this thing? other than a few interesting details, I'm not impressed. Honda, IMO, has really dropped the attractive design ball with many of their recent offerings.

Need I mention that hideous cousin to the Aztek, the Ridgeline-Godalmighty, that's fugly! I was following a new Pilot today and couldn't believe such an immense, ugly beast could have been penned by the Honda crew. The Accord is also a bloated visage of its former lithe self, the Civic, while not unbearable from the exterior, is simply a gimmicky dual dash mesh inside. Sorry, but if GM, for example had produced a car with that dash, the sport compact crew would be lambasting it until unable to speak.

Look at how clean, efficiently and ergonomically styled the '99 Si was-back when Honda was on top of the pile-heck, the last version of the CRX was a stunner for it's segment, too. Their new Hybrid certainly breaks no new ground and is simply a less ugly version of the Prius, albeit a somewhat better performer.

OK, so the basic objection is that it is porky.

Let's look at the other cars mentioned in this thread.

Sports cars:

S2000- 2835 lbs.

NSX- 2976 lbs.

Civic SI- 2945 lbs.

E92 M3- 3571 lbs.

WRX- 2690 lbs.

Hybrids:

Prius- 2791 lbs.

Fusion Hybrid- 3720 lbs

VW Jetta TDI- 3284 lbs.

So, where's the pork?? If the CRZ gets near 200 hp with electric assist, it will be as fast as the sports cars, and as efficient as the hybrids. That sounds fine by me.

SVreX wrote: You both make fine enthusiasts, but lousy consumers.

Thanks, that's lofty praise!

While, like everyone else, I have to deal with the current economy, I have comfort in knowing I did as little as possible to cause it.

oldsaw wrote: While, like everyone else, I have to deal with the current economy, I have comfort in knowing I did as little as possible to cause it.

Alright, but if everyone should stop buying new cars, exactly where do you propose all the used ones will come from?

oldsaw wrote:

SVreX wrote: You both make fine enthusiasts, but lousy consumers.

Thanks, that's lofty praise! While, like everyone else, I have to deal with the current economy, I have comfort in knowing I did as little as possible to cause it.

It was intended as lofty praise!

Josh wrote:

oldsaw wrote: While, like everyone else, I have to deal with the current economy, I have comfort in knowing I did as little as possible to cause it.

Alright, but if everyone should stop buying new cars, exactly where do you propose all the used ones will come from?

Don't know how you concluded that I advocated "everyone" stop buying new cars, Josh.

I have no issues with buying new cars either by my own purchase, or someone else's. I do prefer, however, that someone else take the immediate depreciation and someone (like me) reaping the benefits later.

Automakers need to STOP making cars we dont want and shoving them down our throats. CR-Z will be a prime example. 140hp & 2800lbs??? We are getting too whimpy with needing all the heavy gadgets. Give me a clean CRX with a GSR engine. I can roll-up my own windows...