New Honda CRZ not CRX

waxon-waxoff

Earlier today i seen a Scirocco sized, 11 reg Honda coupe id never seen before. I thought Honda had finally replaced the CRX but unfortunately not, its a new CRZ, a 1.5 hybrid. It looks like what a modern version of the CRX would look like with the trademark high rear. A missed opportunity by Honda me thinks, they should have put a tyre-r engine in it and called it a CRX.

http://www.honda.ie/configurator/index.cfm?fuseaction=gallery&modelID=2543&bodyID=4232

Gumbo

yeah been driving one since xmas on Gran Turismo 5

Dilbert75

Looks like a natural evolution of the CRX alright. S'pose they had to go from CRX to CRZ - the one in the middle wouldn't be a big seller...:D

Gary ITR

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

Earlier today i seen a Scirocco sized, 11 reg Honda coupe id never seen before. I thought Honda had finally replaced the CRX but unfortunately not, its a new CRZ, a 1.5 hybrid. It looks like what a modern version of the CRX would look like with the trademark high rear. A missed opportunity by Honda me thinks, they should have put a tyre-r engine in it and called it a CRX.

http://www.honda.ie/configurator/index.cfm?fuseaction=gallery&modelID=2543&bodyID=4232

The hybrid engine is the next big thing for Honda, the TypeR engine is no more unfortunately.

hellyeah

glad i still have my integra type r.
times are a changing people. performance cars are a thing of the past in the eyes of the manafactures. its all about economy these days.:mad:

zero19

I pass by a Honda garage a good few times a week and the CRZ has grown on me big time, wouldn't mind driving one at all.

Just need to throw a K20A into it...

Gary ITR

hellyeah wrote: »

glad i still have my integra type r.
times are a changing people. performance cars are a thing of the past in the eyes of the manafactures. its all about economy these days.:mad:

That seems to be the case. If you want performance now there is a huge premium to pay

pburns

There was talk of a Type R though with 200bhp...a hybrid Type R

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/17/rumormill-honda-cr-z-type-r-in-the-works/

I'm not a fan of hybrids but 200bhp in a car that size and weight would be fun. I just think efficiencies can be improved without unnecessary complication and weight of a supplementary electric motor. Honda have done a complete volte-face though and fallen for the whole eco-backlash. They even sold the F1 team just as it was about to hit the big-time.
Bull**** corporate over-reaction...

n97 mini

pburns wrote: »

They even sold the F1 team just as it was about to hit the big-time.

No, it went big time because they sold it. They were clearly part of the problem. Proof is in the pudding and all that.

Tragedy

The CR-Z just doesn't make sense when you can get diesels that provide better MPG and higher power and similar emissions.

n97 mini

Characteristics of a diesel engine, ie turbo lag, small power band, and weight, make it unfavourable in sporty applications.

Tragedy

n97 mini wrote: »

Characteristics of a diesel engine, ie turbo lag, small power band, and weight, make it unfavourable in sporty applications.

Most(all?) modern diesels are aluminium, turbo lag is a thing of the past and small power band in sporty applications doesn't apply when we're comparing it to a car that barely manages 0-60 in under 10 seconds :pac:

billyboy01

The CRZ looks great, But does it drive and handle as well. Also 26k+ is a bit high for fancy Civic! If it was priced closer to the 20k mark. It would be an attractive option to a Golf or Focus!

billyboy01

Tragedy wrote: »

Most(all?) modern diesels are aluminium, turbo lag is a thing of the past and small power band in sporty applications doesn't apply when we're comparing it to a car that barely manages 0-60 in under 10 seconds :pac:

Sorry, but diesel and sporty just dont mix!

A 1.6 petrol car will still out perform a 2.0 diesel!

Diesel is just more attractive thesedays for MPG!

Tragedy

billyboy01 wrote: »

Sorry, but diesel and sporty just dont mix!

A 1.6 petrol car will still out perform a 2.0 diesel!

Diesel is just more attractive thesedays for MPG!

The highest output 1.6 petrol I've seen in a new car lately is the 1.6 Insignia(177BHP, 0-60 8.6s) compared to the 2.0 CDTi Insignia(157BHP, 0-60 9.2s). The 1.6 has 12% more power but is only 6% faster 0-60.

That's also as high as I've seen a 1.6 go lately while I've seen 2l diesels pushing almost 190BHP.

billyboy01

Tragedy wrote: »

The highest output 1.6 petrol I've seen in a new car lately is the 1.6 Insignia(177BHP, 0-60 8.6s) compared to the 2.0 CDTi Insignia(157BHP, 0-60 9.2s). The 1.6 has 12% more power but is only 6% faster 0-60.

That's also as high as I've seen a 1.6 go lately while I've seen 2l diesels pushing almost 190BHP.

Yeah, the stats look great on paper, But I would rather drive a 1.6 petrol Golf or Focus for performance, then the 2 Litre diesel equivalent.

But if I was a rep or long distance commuter, for fuel economy reasons diesel would be the choice!

But to get back to the thread topic, I'd say the CRZ would be handy for city driving with the hybrid electric motor for low gear, low speed driving in traffic! It also has a manual gearbox, which is a first for hybrids! AFAIK!

Tragedy

billyboy01 wrote: »

Yeah, the stats look great on paper, But I would rather drive a 1.6 petrol Golf or Focus for performance, then the 2 Litre diesel equivalent.

So if the diesel offers better performance, you'd rather drive a petrol...for performance?

But to get back to the thread topic, I'd say the CRZ would be handy for city driving with the hybrid electric motor for low gear, low speed driving in traffic! It also has a manual gearbox, which is a first for hybrids! AFAIK!

But you just argued that it's better than a diesel because it's sportier as it's a terrifically underpowered and slow petrol, but it's great for low speed driving in traffic?

billyboy01

Tragedy wrote: »

So if the diesel offers better performance, you'd rather drive a petrol...for performance?




But you just argued that it's better than a diesel because it's sportier as it's a terrifically underpowered and slow petrol, but it's great for low speed driving in traffic?

Read the post again!

Performance and fuel efficiency, are opposites! You dont get one without sacrificing the other!

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

Most(all?) modern diesels are aluminium,

So are most petrols. Diesels tend to be overbuilt to stand up to the extra stresses. In addition they usually have extra hardware like turbos, dual mass flywheels, dampers etc.

Tragedy wrote: »

turbo lag is a thing of the past

Unfortunately it's not, especially with single turbo applications.

Tragedy wrote: »

and small power band in sporty applications doesn't apply when we're comparing it to a car that barely manages 0-60 in under 10 seconds :pac:

0-60 isn't the only metric by which sportiness is measured. MX-5 owners will attest to that.

Tragedy

n97 mini wrote: »

So are most petrols. Diesels tend to be overbuilt to stand up to the extra stresses. In addition they usually have extra hardware like turbos, dual mass flywheels, dampers etc.

However diesels up until recently weren't aluminium and extremely heavy.

1.6 Petrol Megane Coupe: 1205kg
1.5 Diesel: 1205kg

1.75 Petrol Giulietta: 1320kg
2.0 Diesel: 1320kg

Unfortunately it's not, especially with single turbo applications.

Variable geometry turbochargers(and it's not as if they're new).

0-60 isn't the only metric by which sportiness is measured. MX-5 owners will attest to that.

Neither is wide power band as most american muscle cars will attest to.

Seeing as how diesels don't seem to weigh any more than petrols, their power band is more useful in every day driving, many have no noticeable turbo lag(whether due to variable geometry, twin turbos, or other mechanical trickery) - why couldn't you have one in an MX5?

dharn

i have owned 3 series bmws 3 petrols and now an 06 320d i love the performance of the diesel once you reach 1500 rpm it has massive acceleration only complaint is it hits the rev limiter very quickly and 40 mpg no bother 50 + on a long run

Atomic Pineapple

dharn wrote: »

i love the performance of the diesel

What performance? :pac:

200bhp petrol versus 200bhp diesel - petrol every time, simple as. (In terms of everyday fun performance)

ottostreet

I switched back to petrol after driving two diesels. Costs me a lot more money, but I'm so much happier driving a nice petrol!

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

Variable geometry turbochargers(and it's not as if they're new).

While they have helped they've not cured the problem. I've driven many modern turbo diesels and they all suffer from lag, Honda's diesels is one of the worst.

Tragedy wrote: »

Neither is wide power band as most american muscle cars will attest to.

American muscle cars are not considered sporty. Brawny, but not sporty.

Tragedy wrote: »

why couldn't you have one in an MX5?

I suspect it's the same reason you don't get then in Ferraris, Lambos, Porsche cars, BMW M cars, and so on.

Tragedy

draffodx wrote: »

What performance? :pac:

200bhp petrol versus 200bhp diesel - petrol every time, simple as. (In terms of everyday fun performance)

In terms of fun performance I agree with you(but with modern diesels, solely due to the lovely sound of a high revving petrol engine)
In terms of everyday fun performance? Diesel will provide you max torque in the power band you actually use in everyday driving. It's liberating being able to use an engine at max torque day in day out in every driving situation without getting 17mpg.

Squall19

draffodx wrote: »

What performance? :pac:

200bhp petrol versus 200bhp diesel - petrol every time, simple as. (In terms of everyday fun performance)

Fun wise yeah I agree.

Power wise I think its much easier to get performance out of a diesel from a normal driver, pro driver is a different story.

Say John and Kevin at work who have a passing in cars had a race around mondello.John was driving a 2.0 140bhp na petrol Golf and Kevin in a 2.0 140bhp diesel.

Who would you fancy to win? I would pick Kevin every time myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDcKES5sv4k

Mini Cooper 1.6 115bhp, 149nm, 1150kg.
Fabia Vrs 130bhp, 320nm, 1290kg.

Both have the exact same power to weight ratio, yet the fabia has the legs on the straights ( which is a combination of bad driver and torque im )

Tragedy

n97 mini wrote: »

While they have helped they've not cured the problem. I've driven many modern turbo diesels and they all suffer from lag, Honda's diesels is one of the worst.

Really? There's no mechanical, engineering or physics based reason for any variable geometry turbo to exhibit discernible turbo lag above around 1,500rpm. Literally no reason.

American muscle cars are not considered sporty. Brawny, but not sporty.

That's like saying American Football isn't considered sporty. Brawny, but not sporty. They have a different idea of what a sports car should be(no replacement for displacement), doesn't mean it isn't a sports car.

I suspect it's the same reason you don't get then in Ferraris, Lambos, Porsche cars, BMW M cars, and so on.

Of course, it's that simple! It's not that no-one makes big automotive diesel engines, it's not that as diesels get larger and more powerful the absolute difference in consumption between them and a similar petrol shrinks to a large degree, it's not because on luxury pedigree sports cars where image counts for more than anything they stick with petrol and it's not because we've gone from compared 200bhp cars to suddenly comparing 400-600bhp cars.

No, it's because diesels have magical fairy created turbo lag and it wouldn't work in an MX5. That's what Ferrari are basing their engine decisions on
Oh wait, they're moving from N/A cars to smaller displacement turbo charged ones.

About that turbo lag...

(Just so you know, Porsche will have diesels in both the Cayenne and Panamera by the end of the year, BMW have been laying the ground work for a diesel M car(s) but have publically stated that the time isn't right yet and Lamborghini has been testing a diesel engine in the Gallardo)

n97 mini

Clarkson says in that ^ "power comes in huge lumps, it's like being hit with a wrecking ball". Sounds like turbo lag.

Going on the commentary the Mini is the better drive.

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

That's like saying American Football isn't considered sporty. Brawny, but not sporty. They have a different idea of what a sports car should be(no replacement for displacement), doesn't mean it isn't a sports car.

Two speed automatics and leaf spring suspensions do not make for very good sports cars. I think you know that.

(Just so you know, Porsche will have diesels in both the Cayenne and Panamera by the end of the year, BMW have been laying the ground work for a diesel M car(s) but have publically stated that the time isn't right yet and Lamborghini has been testing a diesel engine in the Gallardo)

I'm sure diesel will get there eventually, a lot of money is being put into improving diesel engines, especially by Europeans.

Tragedy

n97 mini wrote: »

Clarkson says in that ^ "power comes in huge lumps, it's like being hit with a wrecking ball". Sounds like turbo lag.

Going on the commentary the Mini is the better drive.

It's using the ancient VAG 1.9TDI 130bhp.
Yeah, it does sound like turbo lag because the engine is from 2 decades ago. Any more startling insights for us?

Two speed automatics and leaf spring suspensions do not make for very good sports cars. I think you know that.

That's amazing, people have been building tens of millions of cars for almost a hundred years that Americans didn't want! Why didn't someone design them a proper sports car that they did wan't?

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

It's using the ancient VAG 1.9TDI 130bhp.
Yeah, it does sound like turbo lag because the engine is from 2 decades ago. Any more startling insights for us?

So you're saying turbo lag in modern cars isn't a thing of the past?

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

It's using the ancient VAG 1.9TDI 130bhp.
Yeah, it does sound like turbo lag because the engine is from 2 decades ago. Any more startling insights for us?

A quick google shows that the 1.9 TDI uses a variable geometry turbo.

But don't take my word for it, have a look for yourself.

Gregsor

Great looking car the CRZ and i can't wait to see one in the flesh.
Some price though and Honda will have a long wait to shift them when they are compared to other cars in the same market and prices on the road.
A breath of fresh air away from the TDi's and all the German mass production duplicate road going vehicles you would see everywhere these days.
I do have an eye for the new Scirocco in white though,just as a spectator.

Mass produced obtaining diesel engines should not be the way forward for all car owners.
One should always try have a weekend and a weekday car,the CRZ would be great as the latter unless you had the cash to do this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAqGYP2AXjQ

Also love the Mugen edition-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ojhcw6-rZw

I think Honda can really do well with the CRZ if marketed properly and the tuning companies keep coming with modifications for the young at heart since all other Honda flagship coupes and sports hatches and saloons have all been slated.

Squall19

n97 mini wrote: »

Clarkson says in that ^ "power comes in huge lumps, it's like being hit with a wrecking ball". Sounds like turbo lag.

Going on the commentary the Mini is the better drive.

I have driven both ( owned the fabia ) and the mini of course handles better, loved that car while I had it for the week.It was excellent off the line and loved the gear box.

Power wise from 0-100mph all the way through the gears they were fairly close when both pushed to the limits, fabia did have the edge past 60.

Fabia was quicker in gear, it would walk away from the mini if it wasnt in the right gear and had much better overtaking power with all that torque.When the fabia was remapped there was no comparison power wise.

I prefered the mini tbh and thought it was the better car.

n97 mini

Squall19 wrote: »

I prefered the mini tbh and thought it was the better car.

I've no doubt the Fabia would be quicker, but I'd take the Mini too. That particular TDI engine would drive me insane (I had a Fabia TDI for a week many moons ago)

Tragedy

n97 mini wrote: »

So you're saying turbo lag in modern cars isn't a thing of the past?

If they're designed around VGTs or twin turbo, yes.
The 997 911 Turbo uses VGTs, I'm assuming that means you now think it suffers from turbo lag and couldn't ever be a sports car.

n97 mini wrote: »

A quick google shows that the 1.9 TDI uses a variable geometry turbo.

But don't take my word for it, have a look for yourself.

Yes, on an ancient cast iron design which uses Pumpe Duse that's fairly well known for having bad flatspots at random places in it's revrange.

Your original argument was weight(which only exists in your imagination) narrow powerband(which isn't much of an issue in sub 200bhp cars unless you're tracking it) and turbo lag(which has been minimalised and equally applies to petrol, how many sub 200bhp sporty petrol cars are N/A exactly?)

I went from a 170-180bhp Diesel with a non variable vane turbo to the exact same car in 2.5l 190BHP N/A form. The difference is, my car's design was ~12 years old, the diesel engine was cast iron and weighed almost twice as much as the petrol engine, and it had a pisspoor small turbo to keep the power down.

That makes sense. Swapping from a diesel that weighs the same, offers the same power, provides the same(or better) acceleration and with a modern design that minimalises turbo lag to a petrol with a turbo that minimalises turbo lag... what's your point again? It's not sporty because it's not in a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Porsche? I doubt any car you've ever driven has that distinction either.

Squall19

Tragedy wrote: »

If they're designed around VGTs or twin turbo, yes.
The 997 911 Turbo uses VGTs, I'm assuming that means you now think it suffers from turbo lag and couldn't ever be a sports car.


Yes, on an ancient cast iron design which uses Pumpe Duse that's fairly well known for having bad flatspots at random places in it's revrange.

I agree tragedy, my fabia was very laggy but thats old tech and not worth talking about.I had a spin in a 330d before and it was nothing like my 1.9tdi, it went like a train with no lag at all ( of course it had a little bit, even big na petrols have some unless you have a v8 or v10 ) it had a throttle response similar to my 2.3l turbo mazda 3 petrol.

Gregsor

Lads you are spoiling the thread which is supposed to be directed to the CRZ,please feel free to start another one on a debate on German cars elsewhere :pac:

Yakult

Would freaking love a Cr-z. Kinda reminds me of a Citroen C4 from the side abit, just alot more sporty looking.



rawr..

Atomic Pineapple

Jesus thats nice, its screaming out for a proper engine!

Stench Blossoms

I bought one on Friday. Only been driving it for the weekend but love it so far.

I'll throw up some pictures later on when I get a chance.

--Kaiser--

n97 mini wrote: »

0-60 isn't the only metric by which sportiness is measured. MX-5 owners will attest to that.

Nevertheless, 0 - 60 in 10 seconds is pathetic for a 'sporty' car

Creamy Goodness

nice front and interior but end of the day, it's a honda* :pac:


/runs away

*honda's just aren't my thing, nor are any japanese cars really. love other japanese stuff though

n97 mini

That black one is sweet!

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

I bought one on Friday. Only been driving it for the weekend but love it so far.

I'll throw up some pictures later on when I get a chance.

Well wear! I'd love to hear more!

Gary ITR

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

I bought one on Friday. Only been driving it for the weekend but love it so far.

I'll throw up some pictures later on when I get a chance.

Nice one, I had a poke around one over in Tom Walsh Motors, they really do look the part.

Cr-z +k20= yummy

Stench Blossoms

Put pics up here.

BostonB

I used to have a Mrk2 CRX. The CRZ looks like an updated version.

I expected they'll be big interest in stripping these out and putting bigger engines into them.

Gregsor

BostonB wrote: »

I used to have a Mrk2 CRX. The CRZ looks like an updated version.

I expected they'll be big interest in stripping these out and putting bigger engines into them.

May have to wait quite a while for price depreciating before the likes of people interested in doing that could get there hands on them.

Mostly tuning companies doing that at the moment,always trying to be the first.

I wonder would Honda sell it without the engine?:D

Absurdum

Dammit Honda, stick an updated B16 into it, 40mpg combined shouldn't be too difficult to achieve

BostonB

There was a piece in EVO about one. The MPG wasn't its strong point vs a Insight, ironically.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2010/05/honda-crz-mpg-fuel-economy.html

n97 mini

Stench Blossoms wrote: »

Put pics up here.

The fit an finish in them, i.e. cabin build quality, is supposed to be good enough to rival anything from Germania... is this your experience?