Honda CR-Z Hybrid Car Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Registered
1,406 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

2011 Honda CR-Z: Three Test Drives, Three Editors' Opinions, Five Questions

It's not all that often that three different High Gear Media editors test-drive the same model within a few weeks of each other, but that's what happened with the 2011 Honda CR-Z two-seat hybrid sports coupe.

First, editorial director Marty Padgett got our first drive in June and wrote it up for our sister site Green Car Reports.

Then, last week, Bengt Halvorson drove the 2011 CR-Z in Portland, covering it here on The Car Connection, and discussing whether 38 miles per gallon can realistically be considered "disappointing".

Finally, we drove it over a four-day weekend and offered our assessment yesterday on Green Car Reports again.

But since the drive is fresh in mind for all three of us, we thought we'd put together a quick roundtable to compare and contrast our impressions.

Overall, what three adjectives describe the 2011 Honda CR-Z?

Marty Padgett: Uninspiring, overstyled, misdirected.

Bengt Halvorson: Sporty in appearance, frugal in execution, compromised overall.

John Voelcker: Attractive (exterior), surprisingly nice (inside), fun (to drive).

What surprised you about the CR-Z?

MP: That hard driving could actually push mileage below 30 mpg. At these levels, I think I'd rather have a Jetta TDI that handles better and to me, looks better.

BH: Especially in Sport mode, it feels much sportier than the first wave of reviews had led me to suspect. I also suspected that driving the CR-Z in a spirited way would return much less than the 38 mpg I observed.

JV: How painful the seat were not only for the small of my back, but also my passenger's. We both seriously questioned whether we could own the car based solely on the seats.

What are the biggest pluses and the worst minuses to buying a 2011 CR-Z?

MP: The big plus is having something that only a very few people will also choose. Exclusivity, which is probably not what they're aiming for, is likely what they'll get. The worst minus has to be the near-lack of a really sporting feel in anything but the six-speed-manual version, in Sport mode. It's the only way it makes any sense.

BH: Plus and minus: That those not in the know tend to see the CR-Z as a pocket-rocket. During the course of just a few days, I had someone in an E36 BMW M3 and a 1990s Toyota Celica ask me about the car and wondering how fast it is. Both seemed flat-out surprised to hear it's a hybrid, and not really all that fast.

JV: The plus is that it's small, maneuverable, economical (in the grand scheme of things), and offers a six-speed. The minus is that it's a two-seater, which dooms it to small volumes in the U.S. market no matter how good it might be.

How does the Honda CR-Z compare to the 2010 Honda Insight five-door hatchback built on the same basic platform?

MP: They're much closer than their body styles indicate. I'd rather have the Insight, frankly, and use the extra seats for occasional guests.

BH: With a wheelbase that's several inches shorter than the Insight, it feels a slight bit more maneuverable but busier and bouncier on the highway. And overall, it seems calibrated in some respects to feel a little sportier. The six-speed manual gearbox (not offered in the Insight) makes a HUGE difference in driving feel -- it brings out the finer attributes of Honda's IMA system and makes it feel a bit like a turbocharger.

JV: I agree with Bengt about the six-speed. While I really didn't like the Insight all that much, for its uninspiring performance and cheap feeling, the CR-Z fixes those problems--at the expense of two seats.

Who's the likely buyer of the 2011 Honda CR-Z?

MP: Confused greens who never drove the original. [Note by JV: WHICH original, the 1984-1992 CR-X or the 1999-2006 Insight, which the CR-Z resembles more closely?]

BH: Older-middle-age male buyers, in San Francisco/Portland/Seattle, who wanta a sporty-looking commuter coupe.

JV: Second- or third-car buyers who want something small, thrifty, and stylish, and don't want just another econobox. Plus, I suspect, at least a handful of tuners who aim to produce highly modified CR-Zs with little relationship to the Honda-spec original.

Read Full Article At: 2011 Honda CR-Z: Three Test Drives, Three Editors' Opinions, Five Questions - The Car Connection

· Premium Member
5,332 Posts
one of the worst biased reviews i've read through... Marty had the worst comments about it... good to know who's review i will never read for any type of review... John's was more or less unbiased but he still seemed that since he went last in answering, that he didn't want to feel "out of the loop" with the other reviewers and kept his answers in similar line with them...

overall i give it ** out of a possible 100...

· Registered
232 Posts
MP comes across as a wanker with a nit to pick. This car isn't perfect and won't be appreciated by everyone, but MPs review just doesn't make sense. He focuses on sport then says he'd prefer an Insight. Wanker.

· Registered
69 Posts
I got my CVT EX last night and put a good 50 miles on it since...I'm actually pretty impressed by the sport mode...I was expecting it to be a major transition from my wasn't...some seemed as fast if not faster in sport.

Got me up to 97mph rather quick on a short bypass near my home.

Then on the way to work today...I averaged 41.7mpg in Eco.

Maybe someone needs to review it from the perspective of a customer who isn't a gear head?

· Registered
1,609 Posts
then i shall not give it my review, i already want a SC or TC so i can go faster so i can match my speed with the handling abilities. Screw them means we will all standout on the road more cuz their are less of us.... POWER TO THE CReeperZ:fistpump:

· Registered
337 Posts
I don't understand why all reviewers miss the point, and in the end don't like the car.
It is just like if reviewers never drove it actually.
and in this review why the hell did they talk about the Insight 2 ???
i would never compare a grand-pa sluggish car with a snappy one !!!

· Registered
798 Posts
In my review, I bought this car because it is a fun SPORTY car (two seats = sporty) Sophisticated styling. Without paying for the balls out power and mpg that a real sports car offers. How appealing is paying more money to go fast in a straight line?
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.