Japanese Magazine Honda CR-Z Test Drive Review

[bizzybear]

Japanese Magazine Test Drive Review

The production version of the 2011 Honda CR-Z was just introduced at the 2010 Detroit Auto show, but a magazine in Japan has already taken a test drive on a closed course. Here's a translated version of their thoughts on the car.

"The production version of the car looks sharp sitting on the track thanks to well balanced proportions. The character line that runs down the side of the car looks more pronounced on the silver paint than it does on a red or blue color. The tires and wheels are noticeably less spectacular then the ones from the show car as the wheels are only 16-inches in diameter with 195/55R16 tires. That said, the wheels look of high quality and don't make the car look cheap.

Now we climb into the cabin. The tachometer sits at the center of the instrument cluster with a digital speedometer readout located immediately beneath it. The entire dashboard layout has a distinct sporty look and feel to it, leaving no doubt in the driver's mind that he's sitting in a performance-oriented car. Despite the car being labeled a 4-seater, the rear seats are quite cramped and look just large enough to fit two children.

The shift knob of the 6-speed manual transmission slides into each gear with a resounding click. We throw the lever into 1st gear and launch. The car leaves the line spritely, but accelerates in a milder way than anticipated. You can feel the presence of the electric motor, but it's quite subtle almost transparent.

It doesn't kick in like a turbocharger or supercharger giving you that sudden forward surge. From the seat of the pants, the car feels like it's powered by a naturally-aspirated 2.2- to 2.4-liter 4-cylinder. While we would have preferred more kick from the electric motor, the CR-Z doesn't feel slow by any means, just smooth.

So is it quick like a lightweight sports car? Not really. Our Honda representatives informed us that the car runs from zero to 62mph in 9.7 seconds, which makes it a full second quicker than a Toyota Prius. What's noteworthy about the CR-Z is how smooth it gets to cruising speed. It does so in a very linear manner just like a traditional gas-powered car.

While the car's acceleration character is quite similar to that of its hybrid stablemate, the Insight, the CR-Z's handling is in an entirely different class. In this department, the car truly feels worthy of the sporty-car label.

The biggest difference is how the rear end feels through corners. Unlike rear suspension in the Fit or the Insight, the stroke of the rear dampers have been increased, resulting in increased stability through corners and over bumps. And thanks the to the CR-Z's wider track, the car exhibits less body roll and better overall balance than either the Fit or the Insight, making it a delight to drive through turns. And despite possessing firmer dampers and springs than the Insight, it rides just as smoothly.

We also sampled the CVT-equipped CR-Z, and while we prefer the 6-speed manual, the CVT can be quite fun because of its manual mode. It allows you to manually choose gears via paddles behind the steering wheel. For economy-minded motorists, the CVT is definitely the choice because it allows the car to sip less fuel. The manual-gearbox CR-Z gets 22.5 km per liter in Japan's 10-15 mode, while the CVT returns 25.0 km per liter.

Japanese Mag Takes Honda CR-Z For a Drive; Says It's Slow, But Handles Well

Thoughts??

[bizzybear]

after reading the article again... i'm confused about this part...

The manual-gearbox CR-Z gets 22.5 km per liter in Japan's 10-15 mode, while the CVT returns 25.0 km per liter.

according to my calculations that comes out to:
6MT - 52mpg
CVT - 57mpg

Honda's estimated mpg:
6MT - 31/37
CVT - 36/38

now i did a straight conversion of this to get these numbers... not sure how accurate it is, if at all... i searched to find a more accurate measure of conversion but even on another site i found very similar results (actually slightly higher mpg at 53/59)...

can anyone shed light on the proper conversion method or why these figures add up like this...

[Syphen]

My 89' CRX isn't fast, but it sure is fun to whip down a tight twisty road in. I got the stock D16A6 with just i/h/e.

If this thing handles great then it could make up for its sloth like powers on a straight away.

[bizzybear]

i like what i read from that article... i knew it wouldn't be a rocket out the gate... but i had a good idea of how good it will handle... even with all those people online saying "it's not independent rear... it's torsion beam..." blah blah blah... i guess they forgot to take in the fact that springs and damper are stiffer than the cars they were comparing the CR-Z to...

i wish the article had more "performance" stats... ie: 0-60 time, 1/4mile time, 60-0 braking, slalom speed, etc...

[MikeCR-Z]

The article is still very promising for the CR-Z, good news for Honda.

Originally Posted by bizzybear

i wish the article had more "performance" stats... ie: 0-60 time, 1/4mile time, 60-0 braking, slalom speed, etc...

I second that!

[rd118403]

"Our Honda representatives informed us that the car runs from zero to 62mph in 9.7 seconds"

There are no actual stats, just driving impressions. They later mention they "sampled the CVT" but don't give any impression as to how different the acceleration is relative to the 6-MT. In addition, absolutely nothing is mentioned about the 3-mode system and the difference in MPG or performance in any of the modes.

I know this was posted on Edmunds which is a reputable site, but the writing of the "Janapense Magazine" should be taken with a grain of salt. In the realm of automotive journalism, this is a great example of what's considered "crap."

Still, better this than no article at all.

[bizzybear]

Originally Posted by rd118403

Still, better this than no article at all.

that's exactly what i was thinking haha...

[TelecasterBlues]

Originally Posted by bizzybear

after reading the article again... i'm confused about this part...



according to my calculations that comes out to:
6MT - 52mpg
CVT - 57mpg

Honda's estimated mpg:
6MT - 31/37
CVT - 36/38

now i did a straight conversion of this to get these numbers... not sure how accurate it is, if at all... i searched to find a more accurate measure of conversion but even on another site i found very similar results (actually slightly higher mpg at 53/59)...

can anyone shed light on the proper conversion method or why these figures add up like this...

Those are the Japanese fuel economy estimates, they use a different formula/scale than we do. Basically it still converts into EPA numbers on par with the Honda reported figures for American models. Those are also basically the same reported figures from Honda through the leaked Japanese brochure. I don't think this review really did much of anything except serve as an advertisement, no stats/figures, and it only echoes what we already knew from Detroit and the leaked Japanese brochure.

[GoHuskies]

Not impressed.

Unless Honda is really off the ball with the mpg figures this car doesn't make much sense unless you specifically wants a hybrid 2-seater. Fiesta beats it mpg wise without any batteries, 2012 ecoboost Fiesta will beat it even more. If the Aveo comes stateside in RS trim then its another blow. CR-Z seems like its going to lose relevance fast.

[bizzybear]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

Not impressed.

Unless Honda is really off the ball with the mpg figures this car doesn't make much sense unless you specifically wants a hybrid 2-seater. Fiesta beats it mpg wise without any batteries, 2012 ecoboost Fiesta will beat it even more. If the Aveo comes stateside in RS trim then its another blow. CR-Z seems like its going to lose relevance fast.

wow, the Fiesta is AT-PZEV? i didn't know that /sarcasm

does everyone really think honda can't produce an engine that makes power and gets great fuel economy that isn't AT-PZEV?? c'mon look at the R18; 140hp 36hwy mpg and is ULEV... even the Si with it's K20Z3 that makes 197hp is rated LEV... the Fiesta is rated LEV, in case anyone is curious and only makes 119hp out of the 1.6L engine...



btw... i think i fall in the category of Hybrid 2-seater...