Honda CR-Z Hybrid Car Forums banner

What engine would you choose for your custom CRZ?

  • 1.3 Liter IMA *97 HP 43 mpg (Insight engine)

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • 1.5 Liter IMA 122 HP 38 mpg (actual CRZ)

    Votes: 22 37.3%
  • 1.5 Liter ICE *117 HP 35 mpg (175 lbs. lighter) (-$1000)

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • 1.8 Liter ICE *140 HP 32 mpg (140 lbs. lighter)*

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • 2.0 Liter ICE *197 HP 28 mpg (100 lbs. lighter) (+$1000)

    Votes: 26 44.1%
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Honda decided to split the difference on choice of engine for the CRZ. They didn't go all out for fuel economy or they would have used the same engine as the Insight. They didn't go all out for performance or they would have used the 2.0 liter civic si power plant.

So, what engine would you have picked if given the choice of the current 2 liter and under 4 cylinder power plants in the US market?

Notes on the poll choices:

The 1.3 liter hybrid (IMA) is the same as in the Honda Insight. I did not include the 1.3 liter from the Civic hybrid because I think Honda is getting out of that IMA motor.

The 1.5 non hybrid internal combustion engine (ICE) is the Honda 1.5 liter Fit engine. Assume the car would be 175 pounds lighter with this engine and the car would cost $1000 less since it would not have the hybrid system and batteries

The 1.8 liter is the basic civic engine. The wieght would be more than the Fit 1.5 liter, but still less than the hybrid 1.5

The assumed fuel economy is based on the real world average of the reported mileage on fuelly.com. If you have a CRZ and get 33 mpg (or 5 mpg less than I have posted for the 1.5 liter IMA) then reduce the assumed fuel economy for each of the other engines by 5 mpg and if you get better than 38 mpg on your CRZ, increase the assumed fuel economy for the other choices accordingly.
 

·
Capt'n Jack
Joined
·
9,499 Posts
We can see where this is going. Screw 37MPG, give me close to 200HP.... 2.0 was also my vote... But couple that with lithium and don't see why 37mpg+ and 200hp is not to far in the future.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,333 Posts
K20+awd=win :)
2nded :yeahthat:



maybe i'm thinking too literal with this... but i'm having a hard time with this poll only b/c the numbers seem a bit off from actual or EPA figures... the current R18 in the Civic gets 34mpg and the Si gets 30mpg both highway... keep in mind that these are the newer 2008 numbers... the 2006-2007 EPA figures were Civic-40mpg and Si-32mpg... they've since been revised again and the numbers are the current Si-29mpg & Civic-34mpg... my '09 LX EASILY gets 40mpg at a steady 80mph cruise on the highway... and my '06 Si easily got +33mpg under the same conditions... if you used those numbers alone, it would be an easier choice...

a 100lb lighter CR-Z is like 200-300lbs lighter than an Si and with the K20Z3, it would yield close to 35mpg in real-world non-EPA crap... but for the sake of EPA argument, lets say it was still 32mpg which is a reasonable estimate... the R18 Civic engine will be EPA, +40mpg with that same weight loss...

i can't see myself voting for a 28mpg 197hp Si engine when i know it gets wayyyyy more than that (i got nearly that COMBINED '26-27mpg' with CRAZY :vtec: driving)... and i can't see voting for any of the other engines b/c they seem inferior...

with those choices and those numbers, i'm gonna stick with the 1.5L IMA CR-Z like it is now... unless u need me to edit the poll to reflect at least the EPA figures w/o our weight-loss estimates lol...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
2nded :yeahthat:



maybe i'm thinking too literal with this... but i'm having a hard time with this poll only b/c the numbers seem a bit off from actual or EPA figures... the current R18 in the Civic gets 34mpg and the Si gets 30mpg both highway... keep in mind that these are the newer 2008 numbers... the 2006-2007 EPA figures were Civic-40mpg and Si-32mpg... they've since been revised again and the numbers are the current Si-29mpg & Civic-34mpg... my '09 LX EASILY gets 40mpg at a steady 80mph cruise on the highway... and my '06 Si easily got +33mpg under the same conditions... if you used those numbers alone, it would be an easier choice...

a 100lb lighter CR-Z is like 200-300lbs lighter than an Si and with the K20Z3, it would yield close to 35mpg in real-world non-EPA crap... but for the sake of EPA argument, lets say it was still 32mpg which is a reasonable estimate... the R18 Civic engine will be EPA, +40mpg with that same weight loss...

i can't see myself voting for a 28mpg 197hp Si engine when i know it gets wayyyyy more than that (i got nearly that COMBINED '26-27mpg' with CRAZY :vtec: driving)... and i can't see voting for any of the other engines b/c they seem inferior...

with those choices and those numbers, i'm gonna stick with the 1.5L IMA CR-Z like it is now... unless u need me to edit the poll to reflect at least the EPA figures w/o our weight-loss estimates lol...
There are several CRZ owners on this forum getting less than 30 mpg and at least one getting more than 50 mpg, there are people with Honda Fits getting as little as 25 mpg and as much as 50 mpg+ as well. But based on the averages posted by hundreds of Civic, Fit, and Insight owners at Fuelly.com, the average of the averages are what I based these estimates on. If you think that you could get 10 mpg more, then adjust all the estimates by 10 mpg and base your vote on that.

The point of the poll is that there is no free lunch, more power cost you more fuel so how much power do you want relative to now much fuel economy you would sacrifice?

Everyone dreams of more efficient and powerful engines, but this is what is in the US Honda stable today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
I choose 1.5L IMA in the poll because other choices aren't what I want. From all rumors and news I've read, performance K20 is soon to be history. R-series isn't an engine I want to drive for pleasure. IMA is a nice thing to have for daily driving. I still want it, unless losing it can make CR-Z weight ~2000lb.

My preference of my custom CR-Z is still 1.5L + IMA. However, it is not a L15. I would like to have a 1.5L K-series with a 9000rpm rev limit producing 150hp and 160hp combined with IMA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
666 Posts
I chose the current 1.5L IMA. I like this setup, the IMA torque band cannot be beat by any of the non-IMA choices. Combine that with great fuel economy, and I think Honda made the right choice.

Surely its not going to meet everyone's needs right out of the box, though. I think there will eventually be enough aftermarket support for those that want more power to be able to get it out of the 1.5, even if that means adding boost.


:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
My SI gets 28 mpg for work and weekend driving and 32 on the highway. I love that engine. I never get below 33 mpg with this car and my high was 40.6. With regard to torque, it is only available as long as the battery are charged. On steep grades I have shift down to 4th to maintain 65 mph. With the SI, I put it on curze control and it maintains speed no matter what the terrain is like.

All that being said, I love this car. My wife wanted the SI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
My SI gets 28 mpg for work and weekend driving and 32 on the highway. I love that engine. I never get below 33 mpg with this car and my high was 40.6. With regard to torque, it is only available as long as the battery are charged. On steep grades I have shift down to 4th to maintain 65 mph. With the SI, I put it on curze control and it maintains speed no matter what the terrain is like.

All that being said, I love this car. My wife wanted the SI.
Since you own both a CRZ and a Civic si, based on the same driving conditions, what would you say your overall average fuel economy is for each?

For me, I own both a CRZ and a 2009 Fit. My CRZ is averaging 37.8 over it's first 2500 miles and my Fit is averaging 34.8 over 16,800 miles. The best fuel economy I have ever gotten from a tankful from my fit is 39.9 and is 40.2 for my CRZ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
My suggestion: keep the IMA, use a LI battery to reduce weight, and develop a lightweight direct-injection engine of about 1.3 liter size in the 125 bhp range. This would increase both fuel economy and acceleration while making the car more agile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
^^ Maybe the LI as suggested, but keep the weight the same and increase the capacity? This would allow longer running with electric boost. IMO, the current pack is already pretty light at ~45 pounds so it's not really an anchor. I think it would be nice to get the IMA portion up to 25-30 HP and 75-100 lbs of torque if they can keep the weight in check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Well, lots of dreams expressed here, but among the engine choices that Honda actually has in it's inventory, it looks like Honda made the right economy choice for this market and the market still waits and wants a CRZ si with the k20 motor.

I am a bit surprised that no one here would have chosen the engine offering better fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
hmm... if CR-Z actually had K20, it would be a very short production model. It would be dying along with Civic Type-R. Emission law kills this engine in Europe and Japan. :cry:
 
1 - 20 of 37 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.
Top