"Come on Honda, you can do better"

You are misunderstanding what I said.

I don't give all Hondas a pass - flops like the hybrid Accord.

What I am saying is hold off on the judgement it's an epic fail.

That and fuel efficiency is harder than 20 years ago for EVERYBODY.

The average US vehicle in 1988 AND 2007 got about 21mpg - everybody.

I beg to differ on your statement anyone but Honda can do a retro vehicle - link us an example of a retro vehicle that gets 20-30% better fuel economy AND performance - find it.

The negative review on the CR-Z here was NOT and apples to apples comparision - the CR-Z is pretending to be any kind of CRX. Fault Honda on bad marketing, but I don't see the engineering as the issue. The CR-Z is at least 700lbs heavier than the 1988 CRX Si. Then the review compares the fuel economy to the CRX Si.

Even the CRX Si and CRX HF is apples to oranges when discussing the engine and drivetrain. The CRX Si had 50% more horsepower and about 50% more fuel consumption than the CRX HF...the gear rations and compressions were different, as were the tires. And the CR-Z is so different it should be considered a different class of car. It's OK to blast Honda that it's not really a CRX.

Would you compare the Mustang II of the 70's with the Shelby Mustangs before and since that era? Same concept. 2000 Insight is not the same as a 2010 Insight or CR-Z is not a CRX.

I could dig up Corollas in the 1980s and scream why the Prius is not waaay better in fuel economy -get it?

The CR-Z could very well be a market failure - we'll see.

 

How can I tweet this?

The CR-Z may be badly marketed - we'll see.

This is what I have a problem with: "If it does not perfrom like a Mini, approach the fuel economy of the 2000 Insight while weighing over 2700 pounds IT SUCKS!!!!" .... can anyone make a car that can do all that? Anyone?

 

The production version of FT-CH may be able to. We know it will get better MPG than Prius. Handling is the only question left. It will be smaller and lighter so should be more fun.

 

What I am saying is call it what it is. ANYONE'S definition is sure not sporty. There is no marketing magic that could make this a seller. It's a insight II with +10hp and and a 2 seater that is about the same weight with less mpg. From a design and spec stand point how is that sporty? the standard for sporty in today's terms is a sub-8 second 0-60 and that's at the slow end of "sporty". the 10 sec 0-60 time is not considered sporty to put it frankly (a Prius V would be considered sporty).

it might handle nicely, but it sure isn't going anywhere fast.

 

It's not what I'd get either, but why are so many SO HARD on the CR-Z?

This kind of bashing would be appropiate for the GM BAS "hybrid" or the Aztek. It may be a loser, but not "worst ever".

The degree of negativity against the CR-Z is simply not rational.

 

I think it boils down to two factions. The first is "call it what it is". I am in this faction. I know what sporty means and the CR-Z isn't it. i would look like a fool if I called my prius a sports sedan. Honda is a fool for calling the CR-Z sporty. Which I think is a fair assessment. If the would have just called it a CR-Z a two door hybrid, I'm cool with that, but sporty?!? HA!!! The name doesn't bother me anyway

The second and most venomous faction is partly based on the first. Everyone knows what sporty is and to and insult to injury Honda is Taking a beloved moniker and making a mockery of it (CR-Z). It's the people that owned or have driven the CR-X and feel insulted by Honda making the CR-Z with such piss poor (for a sports car) specs. That would be dodge or chevy bringing back their muscle cars (the challenger and Camaro) that is slower than they were before or with a 0-60 time of 9 seconds.

I wish Honda the best of luck, but all the CR-Z does is prove what the neigh sayer's mantra "Hybrids dont save gas and they can't go fast"!!! If Honda can get this car in under 18k then I will say because of the price it is the fastest hybrid you can get. Otherwise why bother?

 

I've already said it's not any variety of CRX, and acknowledged it may not move many cars.



Some may not know me but the most likely candidates for a new car would include:

• Prius PHEV
• Scion PHEV
• Aptera
• If the Honda iCDT clean diesel could be sold in the US

I have a 2000 Honda Insight, and had a 1988 CRX HF before that.

I'm not the only one here that has observed a bias simply because the CR-Z is not a Toyota...Toyota may have made a few mistakes now and then.

Again, I have not exactly praised the CR-Z, but why is it necessary to soundly DAMN it? Since nobody has bothered to explain why the CR-Z is in the category of GM BAS hybrids - I'm convinced many of these posts are less reasons and more rant.

Many of the over the top remarks at the CR-Z, etc. are really going to convince Honda folks to switch.

 

I wouldn't put Honda's IMA hybrids and GM BAS Hybrid in the same category, but they aren't that far apart either. Honda has seemed to hit an impasse when it comes to both power and efficiency. The civic Hybrid has been around since 2003 with THE SAME MPG(a 2mpg gain is nothing over a 7yr span). Where's the progression/evolution of the IMA system? The insight II which is smaller and lighter than a civic gets less MPG... The HCH and Insight II still can't have the compressor(for the a/c) on without the ICE on.

I believe that Honda got the first insight right. They have slid backwards ever since or better yet everyone else has left them behind. Then you have the head of Honda stating Hybrids are "trash" (to sum it up) and diesels are better and then flip flop. That doesn't inspire confidence in Honda's IMA, IMHO, is not the worst hybrid system out there. Honda needs to bolster the electrics. Battery needs to be improved, a 5.5 ah battery is so skimpy it's not funny. an electric motor that only puts out 20 hp... are you cutting a lawn?

Honda doesn't want to invest anymore money into its IMA. I bet you if Honda would have bumped the electric motor to 50hp and the battery capacity to even 1kw, that CR-Z would fly off the line. That low end torque would be spectacular. Honda has stated that they are developing a new hybrid system that can be used in large cars, but when will that be here? are they just going to let the IMA sit and flounder?

 

I wish Honda had worked a lot harder after the 1st generation IMA (and the death of Mr Honda)

If you were to compare Civics in www.fueleconomy.gov, that would be proof that IMA is far more effective than BAS

 

I thought Honda came out with 2 great cars back in the 80's. I had a 1983 Honda Civic FE. I wish I never had sold that. 45-50 mpg. The only two cars that year that got better gas mileage was the Honda CRX FE and the Volkswagon diesel.

 

I would not even call GM's BAS a hybrid. it's nothing but a glorified start and stop system. it provides no power at all to drive the wheels and has a modest 2mpg gain over the non hybrid model. Thats a mockery of what a hybrid should do. GM did a good job with the Two Mode Hybrids, but they can't "fit them in cars" even though MB and BMW have two mode hybrid cars.

 

The BAS was an insulting imitation of the IMA system, just like the Oldsmobile diesel was to the VW diesel Rabbit. I hope GM culture has changed to putting a good product out for a change - if not they will be toast.

 

Price is a factor here. The Ford hybrid is close to $30K. Insight right now is $3K cheaper than the best price I could find on a Prius III. It's priced like a used 08 Prius II, in the $18K range for the LX model.

Price and gas mileage will be the main factors separating these hybrids. Though other factors will include size and reliability issues.

 

Well the Insight isn't being offered in the 18K range in my area. Not even close.

If I could get an Insight for 18K? I'd buy one. But locally, without naming specific names, the Insight is advertised in the $22,000-$25,000 dollar range. I'm assuming you could negotiate down from those suggested prices, but not $4000-$7000 dollars worth.

I think that is what has killed the Insight, more than it's slightly smaller size. I couldn't get an Insight here for much less than a 2010 Prius II, so why would I?

Maybe it is just my area, but a well equipped Honda Fit is hovering near $20,000 so getting an Insight for $18,000? You got a good price.

 

I first got wind of the price through an email sent to me by AAA. They are now in the car selling business for its members--offering AAA discount internet prices. You can get a local discounted price on line for any car by going through a menu. You get connected to a local dealer who has internet sales. The discounts are greater than what you get walking through the door.

My best AAA price for a base Prius III was 21.0K within 150 miles and $21.8K within 25 miles. For the Insight, it was $18.0K within 150 miles and $18.6K within 25 miles. The latter dealer nearby knocked another $300 off the price with an internet coupon, so it came to about $18.3K less trade. At that price, you look seriously at the Insight.

AAA shows you the average price for your car vs their price--relative to the invoice. They had a better deal for Insight than Prius --well below invoice--because Honda has a dealer incentive right now until March 1st. I guess that incentive was not well advertised.