Honda has let us loyal CRX and Insight fans completely disappointed!

5305 Views 21 Replies 9 Participants Last post by oldchap14, Feb 3, 2010

rsnsx

Discussion Starter · Jan 27, 2010

Let me begin by saying I have owned NINE Honda or Acura vehicles since the late '70's including a ‘75 Civic CVCC, ‘84 Accord, ’85 CRX HF, ’87 Integra, ’91 Legend, ’93 Vigor, ’91 NSX, ’05 Insight CVT and my current daily driver an ’08 Accord V6 Coupe.

Ever since selling my Insight, I have closely followed the development of and anxiously awaited the release of the CRZ. After watching this forum for months, I was hoping Honda would finally offer a worthy successor to the ‘88-’91 CRX and ’01-‘06 Insight. This should have been the car, however, now that the specs are out, I am UTTERLY DISAPPOINTED! I was determined to buy CR-Z when it became available…NOT ANYMORE! Using old engineering, Honda achieved 33/37 mpg’s in Civic/CRX models without any hybrid technology. This is simply a Fit in disguise with a costly hybrid IMA and it only provides a slight MPG increase vs. a current Fit or Civic. A nearly 2700 lb two seater, HYBRID that gets 37 mpg? Honda, how are you going to market a car like this? The Fit and base Civic provide the same level of performance for $15K. You have lost the first generation Insight loyalists because of the extremely disappointing mpg. The “lifetime” mpg on my CVT Insight was 51! You have also insulted the CRX fans with the weak power to weight ratio and simplistic suspension setup. I am not an engineer, however, it seems to me that with today’s technology (and the “driving preference” switch), the CRZ could/should have offered the mpg of a Prius with the performance of a CRX. Sorry Honda, IMHO, after a short lived “craze” this car will sell no better than the original Insight. Best of luck to those on the “waiting list”. If you were smart, you would “wait” 8 to 10 months, when you’ll be able to snag one below invoice.

See less See more

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

oldchap14

· #2 · Jan 27, 2010

I'm surprised that any long time Honda owner would seem oblivious to Honda's conservative history when it comes to driving performance. Honds always delivers more than they promise when it comes to the "fun-to-drive" factor. My first Honda was a '70 AZ600 Coupe, air-cooled and two cylinders. It was as much fun as a Mini and I could take it off-road too.
One year, I used it as a pre-runner for the first 300 miles of the Baja 1000.

Don't believe the numbers you're now hearing for the CR-Z. The mpg's are only Honda's pre-EPA estimates. As stated in several other posts in this forum, the new 2008 EPA tests penalize hybrids in a very unrealistic way. All of the Prius and Civic Hybrid owners I know are getting mileage even better than the 2007 and earlier estimates. Getting well over 40-50 mpg should be no problem in the CR-Z's Normal or Economy settings.

Honda rarely talks performance numbers, but when they do, they can be so conservative it's almost humorus. When the S2000 debuted, they ran a few full page ads claiming "0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds". Most of the car mags managed 0 to 60 in 5.3 to 5.5 secs. So what's a half second or more to Honda? Evidently not much. They continued that under 6 second ad bit without change.

The mpg's will definetly be well beyond the numbers currently floating around. If 0 to 60 is your thing, spend 5-8 grand more and get a MazdaSpeed 3. But if you want to have a few kicks down Rt 66, you may want to test drive the CR-Z and the base Mini.

See less See more

rd118403

· #3 · Jan 27, 2010

Owned 5 Honda/Acura's and have driven countless others.

91 CRX Si
02 TL Type S
02 CR-V EX
05 S2000
09 Civic Sedan

Dissappointed in the CR-Z? Absolutely not. It is a niche vehicle that will do a real life 0-60 of 8.5-9.5 s, real life MPG of 40+ in econ mode, and real life handling better than that of the Fit sport (which, even with the simple suspension setup, gets rave reviews. That's not a surprise when Honda engineered it).

The CR-Z is a modern car that fits into the modern auto landscape. It will hold its own against the modern Mini Cooper for a comparable price, although it will get better MPG and emit less pollution, all while remaining more reliable.

Do people really expect to be able to buy a 60+MPG sports car for $20k? I keep seeing this complaint/request on multiple websites... Nobody offers that. In fact, I can't think of anyone else that offers a 40+MPG "Sporty" coupe for $20k. Honda is the first! The cockpit has the same layout as the S2000, and the car weighs 180 lbs less than the S2000.. If you can find another manufacturer that offers the same combination, THEN you can make a fair - modern day - comparison. Until then, the CR-Z is in a class of its own.

See less See more

bizzybear

· #4 · Jan 27, 2010

i've personally owned 7 Honda's myself...
'89 CRX
'91 CRX
'94 Civic EX Coupe
'98 Civic DX (owned for a year then swapped an H22 in it)
'06 Civic Si
'09 Civic LX

i remember getting excellent mileage in all of them and a great fun factor... the most recent memories are of the '06 Si and the '09 LX...

in my Si EPA says 20/29 (updated)... i got 25city/33hwy with very aggressive driving (60% of the time vtec was engaged)...

LX EPA says 26/36... i get 32city/40+hwy...

stats mean nothing in the real world...

oldchap14 said:
I'm surprised that any long time Honda owner would seem oblivious to Honda's conservative history when it comes to driving performance. Honds always delivers more than they promise when it comes to the "fun-to-drive" factor. My first Honda was a '70 AZ600 Coupe, air-cooled and two cylinders. It was as much fun as a Mini and I could take it off-road too.
One year, I used it as a pre-runner for the first 300 miles of the Baja 1000.

Don't believe the numbers you're now hearing for the CR-Z. The mpg's are only Honda's pre-EPA estimates. As stated in several other posts in this forum, the new 2008 EPA tests penalize hybrids in a very unrealistic way. All of the Prius and Civic Hybrid owners I know are getting mileage even better than the 2007 and earlier estimates. Getting well over 40-50 mpg should be no problem in the CR-Z's Normal or Economy settings.

Honda rarely talks performance numbers, but when they do, they can be so conservative it's almost humorus. When the S2000 debuted, they ran a few full page ads claiming "0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds". Most of the car mags managed 0 to 60 in 5.3 to 5.5 secs. So what's a half second or more to Honda? Evidently not much. They continued that under 6 second ad bit without change.

The mpg's will definetly be well beyond the numbers currently floating around. If 0 to 60 is your thing, spend 5-8 grand more and get a MazdaSpeed 3. But if you want to have a few kicks down Rt 66, you may want to test drive the CR-Z and the base Mini.

qft... i can't think of one thing to add to this post... just hit the nail on the head...

rd118403 said:
Dissappointed in the CR-Z? Absolutely not. It is a niche vehicle that will do a real life 0-60 of 8.5-9.5 s, real life MPG of 40+ in econ mode, and real life handling better than that of the Fit sport (which, even with the simple suspension setup, gets rave reviews. That's not a surprise when Honda engineered it).

The CR-Z is a modern car that fits into the modern auto landscape. It will hold its own against the modern Mini Cooper for a comparable price, although it will get better MPG and emit less pollution, all while remaining more reliable.

Do people really expect to be able to buy a 60+MPG sports car for $20k? I keep seeing this complaint/request on multiple websites... Nobody offers that. In fact, I can't think of anyone else that offers a 40+MPG "Sporty" coupe for $20k. Honda is the first! The cockpit has the same layout as the S2000, and the car weighs 180 lbs less than the S2000.. If you can find another manufacturer that offers the same combination, THEN you can make a fair - modern day - comparison. Until then, the CR-Z is in a class of its own.

another qft!!!

you guys are good... these posts are dead on...

See less See more

rd118403

· #5 · Jan 28, 2010

bizzybear said:
i remember getting excellent mileage in all of them and a great fun factor... the most recent memories are of the '06 Si and the '09 LX...

We have a 09 Civic LX Sedan as well, and I cannot believe what a great drive it is. I have also driven the current Si, and it has a better, crisper shift than the S2000. The LX does 0-60 in about 9.5 according to the last test I read, but it feels so much quicker than that in regular driving.

If the CR-Z handles or drives anything like our Civic LX I will be happy; fortunately, it will handle better and likely feel a bit quicker.

The only complaint I have about either Civic I've driven is the lack of road feel from the Electric Power Steering (EPS); according to an official Honda video on the CR-Z, there was "significant empasis placed on the settings of the EPS." Problem Solved.

bizzybear

· #6 · Jan 28, 2010

rd118403 said:
I have also driven the current Si, and it has a better, crisper shift than the S2000.

well i owned my '06 for a little over 3 years so i got a great feel for the shifter and how it "crisp" it was... i've driven a few S2k's and while they are similar, the S2k is a tighter more solid feel... once i changed the rubber bushings to aluminum and added a Short Shifter to my Si it completely changed the way it felt making it wayyy more solid and crisper...

rd118403 said:
The LX does 0-60 in about 9.5 according to the last test I read, but it feels so much quicker than that in regular driving.

i agree it feels much quicker in real life compared to what the numbers suggest... even with the lack of torque haha...

rd118403 said:
The only complaint I have about either Civic I've driven is the lack of road feel from the Electric Power Steering (EPS); according to an official Honda video on the CR-Z, there was "significant empasis placed on the settings of the EPS." Problem Solved.

the Si comes with EPS... every other Civic has Hydrolic PS... the feel of each are miles apart... in a parking lot my Si would turn easy with a very light touch... but on the highway it stiffened up and gave a really great "in control" feeling...

sadly the regular civic can't control the feel of the steering and it feels the same basically at any speed...

i'm gonna take a guess and say, based on your post, that while you may have driven the '06+ Si, you probably haven't really experienced it's true performance like i have...

check my youtube page for some vids of my Si... look on my older uploads... YouTube - bizzybearfigiblue's Channel

See less See more

rd118403

· #7 · Jan 28, 2010

You're right, the si was simply a test drive of a brand new one, while the S2000 I've driven thousands of miles. I'm sure I haven't gotten the full SI experience. The S2000 has more "play" in the shifter, and I wonder if that could just be the difference between the si being brand new and the S2000 having 30k miles.

I knew the S2000 and SI had EPS, and I just assumed the other civics had it as well. Now that I know our LX is hydralic (and has the least road feel out of all 3 cars I've mentioned in this post), the fact that the CR-Z will have EPS makes me very happy.

oldchap14

· #8 · Jan 28, 2010

Quickest Supercar?

Okay...here's a little quiz to test your automotive knowledge: Which is the quickest supercar 0 to 60 out of the following candidates?

'56 Mercedes Benz 300SL Gullwing
'61 Jaguar E-Type
'66 Shelby Cobra 427
'76 Porsche Turbo Carrera
'79 BMW M1
'80 Lamborgini Countach V12

The February 2010 issue of Motor Tend revisited their road tests of these legendary supercars. Here are the numbers:

0 to 60

M-B 300SL Gullwing 8.5
Jaguar E-Type 7.0
Shelby Cobra 427 5.3
Lambrghini Countach V12 6.0
BMW M1 5.5
Porsche Turbo Carrera 5.5
Honda S2000 5.3*

Holy Batman...how did the S2000 get in that list of supercars? And could it really be as quick as a thundering 427 Cobra? Wouldn't Honda want to advertise this type of performance? When asked, the Honda spokesperson said they would let the performance speak for itself. Now that's conservatism at its finest! (shsss, don't tell anybody

)

*Road & Track, Feb. 2010

See less See more

bizzybear

· #9 · Jan 28, 2010

2

rd118403 said:
I knew the S2000 and SI had EPS, and I just assumed the other civics had it as well. Now that I know our LX is hydralic (and has the least road feel out of all 3 cars I've mentioned in this post), the fact that the CR-Z will have EPS makes me very happy.

yeah, check under your hood you will see a reservoir to fill the PS fluid... look at this picture, you can clearly see where it is on the Civic and not on the Si...

and for those interested... this car also uses EPS... just like every other race car from Honda...

See less See more

bizzybear

· #10 · Jan 28, 2010

awesome find oldchap :thumbsup:

VTECCRZ

· #11 · Jan 29, 2010

Oh and to everyone reading this - oldchap's post just shows how honda can make other manufacturers look stupid, a 2.0l making that kind of power to weight ratio hp!!! And imagine if honda put crossdrilled rotors on any of its car that have that norm in their respective classes, honda would clean up the 60-0 numbers too, but honda doesn't and they still stay within feet of the competitors.
I still l o v e driving my fit after 3 years, i find myself still finding excuses to drive it, the cr-z (most likely crz in the us) kinda dissapointed me too with the numbers at first but i will drive one before i make a decision weather or not to buck up and buy, my fit had bad numbers also and it is a freakin riot to drive!!!!!
And i have track pictures to prove it (see my albums on my profile page)

GoHuskies

· #12 · Jan 29, 2010

Mentioned it in another thread but here we go:

2011 Fiesta - 30/38 mpg with MT
2012 Fiesta Ecoboot - 30/38 mpg? with low down grunt
20?? Aveo RS - 40 mpg hwy plus low down grunt

Those three are either definite or probable bets on showing up here. Achieve much of the same performance stats if not surpassing the CR-Z. All without going to hybrid route and with additional seating.

The CR-Z will probably stand as the only 40 mpg capable small 2 seater for awhile but in the niche I don't see very many units leaving Honda lots a month. Sounds about as big an impact on Honda sales as the 89 units sold first month of the Acura ZDX.

TelecasterBlues

· #13 · Jan 30, 2010

GoHuskies said:
Mentioned it in another thread but here we go:

2011 Fiesta - 30/38 mpg with MT
2012 Fiesta Ecoboot - 30/38 mpg? with low down grunt
20?? Aveo RS - 40 mpg hwy plus low down grunt

Those three are either definite or probable bets on showing up here. Achieve much of the same performance stats if not surpassing the CR-Z. All without going to hybrid route and with additional seating.

The CR-Z will probably stand as the only 40 mpg capable small 2 seater for awhile but in the niche I don't see very many units leaving Honda lots a month. Sounds about as big an impact on Honda sales as the 89 units sold first month of the Acura ZDX.

Agreed. I still want to check out the CR-Z in person, but I've lost a lot of faith in this thing. First it was 2 seater format for America, then the underwhelming MPG reports, then the ridiculous underbite/Insight 2.0 Sport Edition styling as opposed to what we saw with the concepts, and the last straw for me was probably the reported weight even with the back seats removed. I just don't know about this thing anymore.

You've already mentioned several competing cars, so I won't go there, but you did leave off quite possibly the most threatening model to the CR-Z...Hyundai's "Veloster" project. More or less it's being released later this year or early next, and the company has gone on record as saying: "It's a 4 seater CR-X", "140 base HP dirrect injection GDI", "Over 40+ MPG", "revolutionary in class, segment first mystery design aspect"...sounds too good to be true, and with the 2011 Sonata redesign hitting 35mpg EPA highway and the Gen Coupe being a homerun, I have all the reason to belive that Hyundai is going to drop a total bomb on the competition with this thing. Best of all..."It'll be priced below the outgoing Tiburon's starting point". That basically means south of $15k for the base model....the CR-Z could look quite stupid by comparison, looks like a coup-ish Scirocco too:angry:.

Some reading material:

IL Exclusive: 2012 Hyundai Veloster Will Get 140 hp and Direct Injection

2012 Hyundai Veloster: First Spy Shots of Hyundai's CR-X-esque Small FWD Coupe - Carscoop

Design Pics:

http://www.carlife.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=carlife&wr_id=19441eri

See less See more

AntrimWayHonda

· #14 · Jan 31, 2010

one thing I noticed about the mileage, yes Honda could get almost 50 mpg out of the old school CRX, BUT it did NOT have the weight the added safety features and largeness of this vehicle add. I believe the prelude of the same generation got a 1 star crash rating. they never crash tested a CRX.

AntrimWayHonda

· #15 · Jan 31, 2010

Also...remember this is a "sporty hybrid" it may not be the best mileage machine ever..but it looks nice, and probably drives as well.

I am however slightly disappointed in downturn on looks from the concept...much like the 2006 civic si concept.

At least it will still get HID's which is a nice plus on a non premium vehicle.

AntrimWayHonda

· #16 · Jan 31, 2010

bizzybear said:
well i owned my '06 for a little over 3 years so i got a great feel for the shifter and how it "crisp" it was... i've driven a few S2k's and while they are similar, the S2k is a tighter more solid feel... once i changed the rubber bushings to aluminum and added a Short Shifter to my Si it completely changed the way it felt making it wayyy more solid and crisper...

i agree it feels much quicker in real life compared to what the numbers suggest... even with the lack of torque haha...

the Si comes with EPS... every other Civic has Hydrolic PS... the feel of each are miles apart... in a parking lot my Si would turn easy with a very light touch... but on the highway it stiffened up and gave a really great "in control" feeling...

sadly the regular civic can't control the feel of the steering and it feels the same basically at any speed...

i'm gonna take a guess and say, based on your post, that while you may have driven the '06+ Si, you probably haven't really experienced it's true performance like i have...

check my youtube page for some vids of my Si... look on my older uploads... YouTube - bizzybearfigiblue's Channel

I do however...HATE my Si (owned 3 2006 and up) for the e-throttle. The s2k seems to have a very responsive one...I have to get hondata or COBB to fix it in the FA5... as much effort that goes into vehicles they develop, I hope this does not get in the CRZ...I can't wait til our dealer gets them!

TelecasterBlues

· #17 · Jan 31, 2010

AntrimWayHonda said:
Also...remember this is a "sporty hybrid" it may not be the best mileage machine ever..but it looks nice, and probably drives as well.

I am however slightly disappointed in downturn on looks from the concept...much like the 2006 civic si concept.

At least it will still get HID's which is a nice plus on a non premium vehicle.

Yeah it al depends on how this thing looks in person. The current Mitsubishi Eclipse looks like total crap in pictures....but in person, I think it looks absolutely amazing. You have to see it in person for all the curves and its bubbly shape to make sense, it has more of a 3D effect that doesn't show through pictures. That and you also need to see just how small it is in person to really appreciate it too. Maybe the CR-Z will be the same way and clear up some design complaints when we can actually see it for real sitting in front of us, however I really want to see the optional 17s on this thing as opposed to those dinky stock tires.

bizzybear

· #18 · Jan 31, 2010

AntrimWayHonda said:
I do however...HATE my Si (owned 3 2006 and up) for the e-throttle. The s2k seems to have a very responsive one...I have to get hondata or COBB to fix it in the FA5... as much effort that goes into vehicles they develop, I hope this does not get in the CRZ...I can't wait til our dealer gets them!

w/o going off topic too much... i had one of the first 8th gen Si's... i had it with the really bad DBW (Drive By Wire) response and rev hang... Honda later released a TSB to address those issues... IMO they did a great job with getting rid of the delayed response and the rev hang...

maybe my car was special but for some reason i could not get my revs to hang after the TSB and my throttle response was very quick... in some ways quicker than a cable throttle in terms of engine response...

the revs were so easy to match which allowed for very smooth and precise downshifts...

sometimes i think people read other peoples problems on the forums and then they subconsciously look for those same problems in their car until they find something they don't like... i thoroughly enjoyed my Si and it drove how i wanted it to...

EPS and DBW is used in ALL of HONDA's official race cars... you know the ones people can only dream to ever drive ie: F1 (RIP), SuperGT, LeMans, etc... they use this type of technology rather than the older stuff b/c they allow the team and driver to have better control of the vehicle throughout the race... just like an engine these electric components allow for a sort of "tuning" and when done right allows for better performance than it's non-electric variants...

now as for the CR-Z goes... it does have EPS for sure... and given Honda's history of newer vehicles i'm 100% sure they will incorporate the DBW system on these as well for the reasons stated in the above paragraph...

See less See more

SpoonCrz

· #19 · Feb 2, 2010

I believe Japan's version have the rear seats. If so, it wouldn't be hard to get the rear seats and add it to our version. I'm sure it will fit with no modding. As for seat belts, I've notice the hole is there, but plugged up. I'm sure you can add them too.

bizzybear

· #20 · Feb 2, 2010

i agree with Spoon... most likely will be an easy "upgrade" but that still won't help with insurance unfortunately :-/

i prefer the extra storage myself, so i won't be doing the rear seat conversion... maybe if i see it in person that might change my view but no need for me... more of an excuse to not give people rides...

1 - 20 of 22 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.