The new CR-Z, a disgrace to the CRX?

That's what most of Honda's facebook followers think

http://www.facebook.com/Honda?v=feed&story_fbid=246146816831

http://cr-z.honda.com/

Rough specs: 2600lbs 120hp 33mpg

I feel the same way. Honda missed the mark, yet again.

Honda makes cars?

ALL carmakers are stuck nowadays. It's next to impossible to make an AFFORDABLE, lightweight, car. That said, the prototypes of the CR-Z that I have seen, are reasonable, and certainly better than Honda's previous attempt to "replace" the CRX....the del sol. Besides, doesn't the CR-Z have a hybrid powertrain? That adds weight.

I've owned a 4th gen. Civic and a 2nd gen Integra (closely related), and the Civic weighs about 300lbs LESS than the Integra....and is less sophisticated. Folks can't ask for 6 airbags, a supremely quiet interior, and massive capabilities from their in-car entertainment....then expect a lightweight car.

What's wrong with an updated CRX? How hard is it to drop the RSX motor into a 2-door Civic with a hatch? I mean, they basically have it in the UK. Just drop a few pounds, put the wheel on the correct side and poof!

A set of specs like that on the CR-Z is sure to make Honda fans think they shouldn't have skipped over Y and gone straight to Z.

The type-R rebadged would have been a much better solution, IMO.

I feel real dumb about the double post now, I even posted in the other thread and still forgot it was there.

integraguy wrote: ALL carmakers are stuck nowadays. It's next to impossible to make an AFFORDABLE, lightweight, car. That said, the prototypes of the CR-Z that I have seen, are reasonable, and certainly better than Honda's previous attempt to "replace" the CRX....the del sol.

I've driven a CRX Si, as well as Del Sol. The Del Sol wasn't a terrible car, and in its time seemed like a very natural next step, particularly considering that everyone's favorite answer to every question on this board had recently come along. It's pudgier and more flexible than the CRX, to be sure. That said, it handles well, while being a car you can comfortably drive everyday and get good mileage.

Aesthetically, the CR-Z is something I like, but it's barely more powerful and not really anymore fuel efficient than the '94 Del Sol (automatic) my mom has been driving daily since it was nearly new. I also look at the CR-Z compared to the average compact car. A Mazda3 is marginally heavier, and a bit less fuel efficient, but I'm sure will be noticeably faster. I'm still trying to figure out how the CR-Z makes more sense than a Mini Cooper.

BAMF wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how the CR-Z makes more sense than a Mini Cooper.

While I hate it, it's still a Honda. Maintenance costs. My uncle just had both O2 sensors replaced on his Mini, $750!!! Then they discovered it should have been covered by a recall, and refunded $530 of that...

1. I like EVs and the CR-Z being a hybrid interests me

But, Honda dropped the ball big time. The original Insight was enough indication that Honda knew how to make a light chassis that was relatively safe in modern terms. They should have stuck with that package instead of going with more traditional design material.

Next, sorry to say but Honda's IMA is a little behind Toyota's HSD system. What Honda should have done was stuck a better electric motor in there, oh I don't know something like the MG2 off a Highlander hybrid which produces 167 hp and 247 lb-ft of torque. Yeah that would make a seriously wicked hybrid car, add in rear wheel drive and you'd really get petrolheads going specially since it comes with a nice 6 speed box on the CR-Z.

Instead they make a fairly cool looking car, mate it to a cool 6 speed manual and makes it weigh 700 lbs too much, drive wheels on the wrong end and gives it a tiny electric motor.

So let me get this straight..... honda builds a 2 seat hybrid that is slower, weighs as much and gets the same fuel economy as my 8 year old Korean econobox that holds 5 people? Yeah, I think they missed something.

Do we REALLY need another "The CRZ is not a CRX" thread? Seriously. 20 in 2 years is bad enough. 2 in 2 days is a little excessive. Everyone knows it's ugly and heavy. Move on.

Yeah, it sucks. Suppose you take out the hybrid system, drop in an integra GSR motor, and add side-exit cherry bombs...

I think Honda's biggest mistake was making it hybrid-only. If they would offer a non-hybrid model the aftermarket support would explode and people really would be calling this the return of the CRX. That would also open up the door of Honda offering a Type-R model.

dont like the "Jay Leno Chin" it has...

There's only one thing wrong with the new CR-Z...it's an 'H' word.

Regardless of powertrain or weight, it looks like E36 M3. Like an Insight with some fender flares and a nose like an anteater. Tow it to the track behind a Crosstour and you have an ugly train. Do they have retarded monkeys designing their cars these days?

How does anyone think this car even remotely looks "correct?" The front wheels position is about 2 feet too far back!!

http://cr-z.honda.com/wp-content/gallery/cr-z-exterior-photos/05_pass_profile.jpg

It might be OK looking. I'll wait till I actually see one. What's interesting is that it has "Hybrid butt". Funny how all the Toyota and Honda hybrids have the same high hatchback arse. Hmmm, maybie Ford would sell more Hybrids if they just added a Hybrid butt.

GM already tried the Hybrid butt once. It didn't work out too well.

irish44j wrote: GM already tried the Hybrid butt once. It didn't work out too well.

Nah, the Aztec was merely too far ahead of its time, just like the Pacer, Vega and Corvair!

the late 80s CRX had that silly rear window too.

kreb wrote: Funny how all the Toyota and Honda hybrids have the same high hatchback arse.

That's how the wind tunnel is going to shape cars methinks.

Man... some of those comments on the facebook page make me think that about 75% of the world's population shouldn't procreate.

'Saif Ali Cmon make a car with more then 268 horse power my c 63 amg Is better then my 2 door Honda accord which is fully loaded."

No berkeleying E36 M3?

93celicaGT2 wrote: Man... some of those comments on the facebook page make me think that about 75% of the world's population shouldn't procreate. 'Saif Ali Cmon make a car with more then 268 horse power my Dads c 63 amg Is better then the 2 door Honda accord i wish i had which is fully loaded." No berkeleying E36 M3?

Fixed.

Honda makes 300hp inthe acura lineup.... too bad it's in 2-ton vehicles.

93celicaGT2 wrote: Man... some of those comments on the facebook page make me think that about 75% of the world's population shouldn't procreate. 'Saif Ali Cmon make a car with more then 268 horse power my c 63 amg Is better then my 2 door Honda accord which is fully loaded." No berkeleying E36 M3?

I stopped on that very same comment. I don't even know WTF that meant!!!

<--still avoids facebok like the plague