Specs: 0-60 times

[crz2luv]

They still have my sale but they pretty much have since the very beginning. Any changes since the concepts have just been bonuses to me.

[rd118403]

0-60 in 9.7sec kills the deal for me. It wouldn't suprise me if they put a larger gas engine in the US Spec model, or possibly offer an "si" version with higher output to complement the "hf" 1.5L

[Blake]

So who was the closest guess?

Can I still guess 9.7 seconds ?!

[Dave]

Was a bit disapointed at first, but for a 122 PS car that has to carry some hybrid gear its not that bad. Eg. a Mini Cooper with 120 HP needs 9,3 to 100 km/h (real test figure with a car that has some equipment such as A/C) and does 28 mpg.

Then there is the question if the 9,7s figure is for the CVT or the MT car and even if it is for the MT car, the 0-100 is only a very rough performance indicator. I'd really like to know the gearing and final drive of the MT...

[rd118403]

Originally Posted by Dave

Was a bit disapointed at first, but for a 122 PS car that has to carry some hybrid gear its not that bad. Eg. a Mini Cooper with 120 HP needs 9,3 to 100 km/h (real test figure with a car that has some equipment such as A/C) and does 28 mpg.

Then there is the question if the 9,7s figure is for the CVT or the MT car and even if it is for the MT car, the 0-100 is only a very rough performance indicator. I'd really like to know the gearing and final drive of the MT...

Interesting you bring this up, because I was looking at Mini's website last night for those figures. Check this out (BTW, this is all USA Spec):

-The Base Mini Cooper makes 118hp at 6000 RPM, and 114tq at 4250 RPM. The 6-MT weighs 2568 lbs. Official 0-60 time from Mini's site is 8.5s. Combined 32MPG

-The Base CRZ makes 122hp at 6000 RPM, 128tq at 1000 RPM. The 6-MT weighs 2670 lbs. No official 0-60 time. EST 33mpg combined.

**The CRZ is 102 lbs heavier, BUT makes more HP and TQ overall, with the key being the fact that the CRZ max TQ is at just 1000 rpm's.

**The 9.7s that everyone is quoting is actually based on 0-62, NOT 0-60, AND that was the Japanese spec where the CRZ has a BACK SEAT (More Weight), AND it doesn't specify if that is for the MT or CVT, although I would imagine that was the 0-62 for the CVT given the fact that Honda stated the 6-mt will have very aggressive 1-5 gears, and an economical 6th gear..



My Prediction?
The 6-MT will go 0-60 in 8.6s,
The CVT will go 0-60 in 9.2s

Another Predicion:
When you test drive this car in Sport Mode you will forget about 0-60 becuase you will be grinning due to your 128tq @ 1000rpm and the Civic-SI-like Handling.

[MikeCR-Z]

Originally Posted by rd118403

Another Predicion:
When you test drive this car in Sport Mode you will forget about 0-60 becuase you will be grinning due to your 128tq @ 1000rpm and the Civic-SI-like Handling.

Let's hope so - I am trying very hard not to judge the car based just on specs until I can get out there and test drive one

[rd118403]

Originally Posted by MikeCR-Z

Let's hope so - I am trying very hard not to judge the car based just on specs until I can get out there and test drive one

I was extremely disappointed when I saw the final specs yesterday, but the more I look at all the information (official and unofficial), the more encouraged I am.

I like the fact that the car has a 3-mode driving system, because I truly believe it will be capable of averaging 40mpg in Econ mode, and extremely fun driving in Sport mode. With the base price at under $20k, I think they got it right. Honda doesn't plan to build this in high volume, and doesn't expect it to sell in high volume; that being said, I think they did a good job.

[Keith42]

Originally Posted by MikeCR-Z

Well if the JDM brochure is correct looks like the 0-60 MPH time will be in at 9.7 secs.

Did Honda make or break your sale, or do you even mind what the 0-60 time is?

I was quite interested in the CR-Z as a downsize replacement for my 2004 Accord Coupe V6MT (0-60 in low 6s) but I'm dismayed at the performance. The definitive Sports Car is probably the Mazda Miata with 0-60 in the 7.0 to 8.0 range. I don't think the CR-Z can be called a Sports Car when most Mini-Vans and SUVs on the road could beat it in normal traffic, and probably on a twisty road! I'll wait to drive it and hope I'm wrong, but the Toyota FT-86 is looking more like the probable replacement for me.

[bizzybear]

why do i always read that they're gonna pass on this CR-Z and wait for the FT-86 when that car is supposed to be in the $30k+ range???

i mean it's not even in the same class/league as the CR-Z... that's like me saying "i'm gonna pass on the CR-Z and just get EvoX"

[Keith42]

Originally Posted by bizzybear

why do i always read that they're gonna pass on this CR-Z and wait for the FT-86 when that car is supposed to be in the $30k+ range???

i mean it's not even in the same class/league as the CR-Z... that's like me saying "i'm gonna pass on the CR-Z and just get EvoX"

What got me interested was that Honda called the CR-Z a "Sports Car". That's what I'm looking for and unfortunately the performance numbers do not appear to be in what I think is Sports Car territory (8 secs or less to 60). So it may be on to a Toyota but I'll certainly drive the CR-Z first. The EvoX doesn't fit my definition of a Sports Car either - two doors , two seats only!