2011 Honda CR-Z Debuts - Another Honda Fail?

dorkmobile. Looks like Toyota doesn't have too much to worry about. Granted, it would be nice if Toyota at least improved the handling of the Prius to match the CR-Z.

 

Hi Danny;

I don't know. As Prius owners we don't really gain much by negatively slanting the comments against yet another car that does not sport a Toyota badge. Do we?

Mind you, I cannot justify buying one anytime soon because it still does not meet my minimum standards for fuel economy. But would advocating it a bit mean the demise of yet another non AT-PZEV, Tier 2 Bin 5 (or worse) vehicle from our roads? If so, that can't be a loss to many of us who seek to reduce emissions with better than average options, no? Let's see:

• It is not a mild-hybrid. It is a power assist hybrid and unless we want to publicly downgrade the product and architecture then the differences between a mild hybrid and a power assist hybrid cannot be overlooked.
• Yes, the CRX was 50 MPG but it was worlds dirtier in smog forming emissions when compared to this one. The CO2 emissions are marginally higher but hey... look more carefully, it is a Tier-2 Bin-2 rated emissions which is significantly better than the older CRX. My brand new and eco-clean 3G Prius is a Tier 2 Bin 3 which is dirtier?
• It is also heavier and much safer than the CRX, so unless we are trying to make Honda's new entry fail before it even enters the market then we cannot overlook this.
• We are being very selective by saying that the CRX was able to achieve 50 MPG on the highway. Yes, it COULD achieve that in the hands of a capable driver but not in the hands of an average and typically careless driver. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait to see what a more capable driver can do with 6 speed CRZ and then compare it to what the average FE reported by regular drivers?

I love the HSD system for all the things it does better than any other, but I will kindly and vehemently disagree with your statement that the "Honda's IMA system fails to produce any true advances in fuel efficiency".
I say the above and even back it up with the full weight of my experience on both platforms. But I also do so with the sadness and regret of knowing that we may be doing ourselves and the driving public a monumental disservice with the preempted generation of negative publicity.


Cheers;

MSantos

 

What Manuel said on the CR-Z/CRX - they are different cars, like the original Insight and the 2010 Insight.

On the 80's CRX -they had 3 different engines....the CRX Si is what this CR-Z is trying to be like and it got 35mpg. The CRX HF is the 50+mpg one - essentially a non-hybrid Insight.

The horsepower difference between the CRX HF and CRX Si was about 50% - and so was the performance/fuel economy.

 

Wow, the negative slant in that article is frankly stunning. I know that this isn't an performance enthusiasts website, but the authors' basic failure to understand that a significant segment of the market is interested in lightweight performance (good gas mileage AND good performance) is really surprising. I am very disappointed in the level of pro-Toyota bias.

 

Manuel,
I am not a Honda basher, far from it.
I do fear though that this car will be a market failure, since those customers who prize fuel economy and emissions first and foremost will not consider this car, while the wanna-have-pep consumers will choose a regular ICE over this car to save money upfont, since the differences in fuel economy do not appear large enough.

Yet perhaps -- and only perhaps -- dedicated drivers using hte manual gearbox will find this car vastly outperforms its EPA rating, and it will become a hypermiler's delight. One can hope, eh ?

 

Pretty disappointing I'd say. Call it a mild hybrid or power assist, 10kW is just plain weak. HP/weight is looking about like the base mini cooper. For that matter with the MT, MPGs are barely better than the Mini.

An "HF" with base Mini performance and handling with Prius like mileage would have been really exciting. An "Si" with Mini S performance and handling and Insight like mileage would have been exciting. Base mini performance with base mini mileage is pretty disappointing.

I'd call this yet another case of Honda completely missing the mark, but only time will tell.

MSantos, I would argue that more damage is done by praising weak hybrid offerings than by calling a spade a spade. In my experience most people on this board are more than willing to praise non-Toyota hybrids that are well designed and implemented (FFH and FEH for example). Emissions are always important to consider, but bear in mind that although they straddle the T2B2/T2B3 line, the actual test numbers for the Insight and Prius are very similar on most all counts. I'm pretty sure Honda has a T2B2 non-hybrid civic, so this is just another area that their hybrids aren't really any better than their standard offerings. Point taken though, I'd far rather someone buy one of these than more or less anything made by GM for example. Still Honda and the others need to understand that there is demand for true hybrids. If they don't hear if from us, who will they hear it from?

Rob

 

I've never been fond of the way Honda does their hybrids in general,
and leaving aside the no-pure-electric-push issue I don't think
they've ever gotten much past 10 - 12 kw on the electric side
at all. Even without knuckling under and duplicating something
like an HSD I really think they could have taken IMA much farther
by beefing it up a bit and adding a little bit of transmission
magic around it to *isolate* it from the engine when needed.
.
No question that Honda builds great engines, but their resolute
refusal to really take IMA to the next level is just puzzling.
.
_H*

 

CRZ is faster than CRX-HF by about 4 seconds from 0-60mph. That's about the only good thing I can add to above comments.

CVT highway MPG of this tiny two seater is 10 MPG less than the mid-size Prius. The 6-speed version gets 11 MPG less than the eCVT Prius. Talk about inferiority....

Honda should stop repackaging IMA and move on with a better hybrid architecture. They have spent 11 years with it and no noticeable improvement was achieved. It is a dead end technology. Come on, lesson learned and move on!

 

Whether you & what Manual said are ultimately 'right' ... turns on yet-unrealized history. So we're all simply posting opinions right now. If the CRX hybrid is deemed to be a dud, it WILL be because it's smog is still kinda smoggy, and it's so-so mpg's are still just so so ... just like the new insight's mpg's. As its stat's look, neither of these Hondas will be game stoppers ... rather just a couple more cars. The 2 seater insight, with its 70mpg WAS a game stopper ... just as the EV1 would be, if they were put back on the market. That's why many wonder why Honda & GM don't bring back their game stoppers ... instead of simply making more shiny cars.
just my opinion

+1
The folks that think lust will be generated by the hybrid CRX would appear to have never heard of the hybrid accord. Dejavu. Time for a little homework, me thinks. Now . . . don't think I can't get excited about a non-Toyota hybrid. Look at Ford's Fusion ... it's doing very nicely. Take note, Honda ... this may be one of those rare occasions where Japan can learn from the U.S. ... like in the old days.

.

 

First of all, I don't think the term "mild hybrid" should apply to Honda's IMA system. Just because it is a parallel hybrid doesn't mean it is mild. I reserve that term for the wanna-be hybrids that GM was making a few years ago (maybe still is?) In those cases, the electric didn't even assist in moving the vehicle.

However, I have to admit a huge disappointment in this vehicle being that it is smaller than my 2010 Insight, doesn't really perform much better, and gets worse fuel economy. I'm really at a loss to figure out where they went wrong. I guess if the price is really low (which I doubt it will be) then I don't see any advantage to this hybrid.

 

While I wish many of you would delay your CR-Z verdict until more is known, a few things concern me.

I just can't understand why the standard transmission FE is worse than the CVT version - on the original Insight the standard is much higher. The only rational explaination is the 6-speed and CVT versions differ a lot more than just the transmissions. This wipes out one of the advantages of the IMA - great fuel economy/performance with standard transmissions.

If the CR-Z is to be compared - compare it to the CRX Si: Was 25 city/33 highway in 88 vs 31/37 on the CR-Z (both using or aproximating the current EPA ratings). The CRX HF got 41 city/50 highway in todays EPA estimates. So the CR-Z gets better fuel economy, but modestly so....that's because it's both heavier (by 800lbs+ 2800lbs vs 2000lbs) and higher performance than the CRX Si....stricter emissions might also factor into that as well.

I'd consider this more an implementation problem than an IMA limitation. In the long term, I wish Honda would either redo the IMA or replace it to be relvant in PHEVs.

 

I'll agree with you Danny, except in one detail: The Fit looks different than the CR-Z. I'd go so far as to say that the Fit has the appearance of a mini - minivan, while the CR-Z is meant to appeal to the people who like the Si look.

Does that a market make ? As I said earlier, I doubt it. Hill's reminder of what happened to the Accord hybrid crossed my mind too. People simply bought the cheaper V6.

 

It does not take to be Toyota lover or Honda basher in order to not like this car.

Sports hybrid done half hearted is just an car that appeals to nobody. We have:
- 2 seater
- 1.5l engine
- 0-62 in 9.7 seconds
- 31/37 mpg in 6 speed version

To whoom does that car appeal? It is slow (Yaris 5 speed is faster). It does not get particulary good mileage for an hybrid (Yaris 5 speed is 12k and gets 29/36 mpg). And it will be expensive. It will probably not be particulary light, otherwise it would be faster.

So CR-Z would have been much better vehicle if they simply stick their sportier version of 1.5l engine, without hybrid powertrain whatsoever... It would get similar MPG, be faster and drive better due to lower weight... not to mention that it would be... cheaper!

 

I really like the looks of the CR-Z but I have to say it's probably going to fail because of the minimal benefit of it being a IMA Hybrid. The MPG's just aren't worth it.

Let's face it, HSD is superior to IMA if you are looking at the benefits most people want from a Hybrid. I think most people are looking for "stellar" gas mileage, not just decent...but excellent. Especially on a vehicle as small as the CR-Z I'd want better gas mileage.

Unless the performance was undeniable...and you could sell it based primarily on it's status as a sport car, with Hybrid only as an asterisk benefit, then I don't know how it get's off the ground.

I think the future truth might easily reveal itself to be this, when it comes to alternative vehicles and Hybrids specifically, the future demands more than just an Integrated Motor "Assist".

It can come down to Prius vs. Insight, or Prius vs. Honda Hybrid CR-Z but what it really is at the core so far is HSD vs. IMA and HSD is kicking nice person.....

 

As pointed out to me in my thread (and I now found it came from Honda CR-Z Specifications - Official Honda Web Site), the weights are:
"Weight (lbs., preliminary estimates): Approximately 2,670 (MT) to 2,725 (CVT)".

Yeah, I'm going to have to say that there is very little market for this car. The fuel economy is very disappointing given the type of expectations we had from the Insight and CRX. I would've hoped it'd have topped Insight II numbers given we expected it to be smaller and lighter, but then didn't even achieve that. Also, it's FWD judging by the engine orientation in the pictures I've seen. Most sports car enthusiasts would say that FWD in a sports car (or as a whole) is wrong wheel drive.

Sports cars (other than the Mustang) don't sell in large numbers either. With this car being slow and having disappointing economy, I wouldn't be surprised if it achieves Insight I-type sales numbers before being quickly killed.

For some perspective about sports car sales, take a look at 350Z/370Z, RX-8, Miata and Corvette sales at:
Nissan North America Announces December Sales -- FRANKLIN, Tenn., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --
Mazda Reports December and Full-Year 2009 Sales -- IRVINE, Calif., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire/ --
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjU1NjF8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1 (Camaro's done well but I suspect it will fall off relatively soon)

Then compare to sales of Corollas, Camrys and Prius at:
Toyota Reports December and 2009 Sales -- TORRANCE, Calif., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire/ --

 

I would, in another life, consider this car IF:

1. It had really sporty handling--was fun to drive.

2. It was $10K less than a Prius.

Anybody seen a price yet?

 

Hey, is it just me, or does anyone else think they stole the tailights from the 2010 Prius???