Honda CR-Z - glowing review by Autocar

Leonard Hofstadter

This the first hybrid that people might actually be able to afford that is actually desirable and not a Prius or an Insight or something weird like that.

If this thing drives as well as Autocar says it does then I want one in a few years time when they've depreciated:D!

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Honda-CR-Z-1.5-i-VTEC-GT/248133/

Max_Damage

At least it has a proper manual gearbox, none of that CVT rubbish.

robtri

Looks as bad as a prius....

wouldnt say the MPG is great 56.5mpg offical... a lot of diesels nowadays offer very similar if not more....

CO2 is 117g..... not really great either is...

overall.. I dont see the point as it does nothing more than many eco diesels out there at the moment.....

Zubeneschamali

the coupe jumps from rest and reaches 60mph in 9sec

So it's a 1.5 VTEC sports coupé that barely out-drags my diesel MPV to 60.

Keep trying, guys.

JHMEG

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So it's a 1.5 VTEC sports coupé that barely out-drags my diesel MPV to 60.

Keep trying, guys.

It drives like a sports coupe. Your diesel MPV drives more like a van.

stevenmu

HP and torque seem pretty low, and considering the MPG isn't stunning doesn't that kind of ruin the point? The mentioned Mugen version might be more interesting.

BlackWizard

JHMEG wrote: »

It drives like a sports coupe. Your diesel MPV drives more like a van.

He's right though. At least a sports coupe should out spring a mammy wagon

Zubeneschamali

JHMEG wrote: »

It drives like a sports coupe.

There's only one reason a little 6-speed coupe with 122 bhp could be so slow: weight.

Excess weight will also affect the handling, cornering and braking compared to a similar sized and powered car that does without all the hybrid rubbish.

neilthefunkeone

Why do they all have to look terrible????

stevenmu

There's only one reason a little 6-speed coupe with 122 bhp could be so slow: weight.

Excess weight will also affect the handling, cornering and braking compared to a similar sized and powered car that does without all the hybrid rubbish.

It's a whole 44kg lighter than an insight

Leonard Hofstadter

It's a pity that it's not faster.

It's still band A, it has a rev happy engine(apparently), and there is none of that complicated stuff that goes expensively wrong in diesel engines(DMF, common rail injectors, turbos) quite often, it's meant to be a great drive so it has a lot to recommend itself if they price it well here.

I really don't think the performance is that bad, if it's got a rev happy engine matched to a well sorted chassis it will be great fun working it hard, and isn't that the point of a sporty Coupe?

Given Honda's rep it should really be hitting about 180 bhp from that NA 1.5 though:D!

JHMEG

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There's only one reason a little 6-speed coupe with 122 bhp could be so slow: weight.

Excess weight will also affect the handling, cornering and braking compared to a similar sized and powered car that does without all the hybrid rubbish.

Whatever, but the review says it's a great drive.

JHMEG

captainspeed wrote: »

It's a pity that it's not faster.

It's still band A, it has a rev happy engine(apparently), and there is none of that complicated stuff that goes expensively wrong in diesel engines(DMF, common rail injectors, turbos) quite often, it's meant to be a great drive so it has a lot to recommend itself if they price it well here.

I really don't think the performance is that bad, if it's got a rev happy engine matched to a well sorted chassis it will be great fun working it hard, and isn't that the point of a sporty Coupe?

Given Honda's rep it should really be hitting about 180 bhp from that NA 1.5 though:D!

It's actually slightly quicker than the iconic MX-5 1.6L

ShadowHearth

looks ugly,slow... its not honda... its rubbish.


price tag is awesome aswell...

Matt Simis

neilthefunkeone wrote: »

Why do they all have to look terrible????

Blame the Germans!

A Kammback is a car body style that derives from the research of the German aerodynamicist Wunibald Kamm in the 1930s. The design calls for a body with smooth contours that continues to a tail that is abruptly cut off. This shape reduces the air resistance of the vehicle.

"Kammback" is an American term. In Europe the design is generally known as a Kamm tail or K-tail.

Really though its aerodynamics, the 2010+ Prius and CR-Z have Cd's of 0.25.
A (new) Nissan GTR for comparison has a Cd of 0.27
RX8 is .31
VW New Beetle (its symmetric uniform shape is almost the opposite of a Kammback design) has terrible 0.39
Interestingly the 2001 onwards Audi A2 (remember those?) could reach over 65mpg in 1.4TDi guise and a staggering 95mpg in the light weight 1.2TDi form. With nearly a decade if technology progression since, they could likely do far better if they re-engineered one. The whole car only weighed 930kg... people say diesels are heavy!?
Presumably the new Audi A1 will be around 65mpg in 1.6TDI form too, but also has 2 petrols to choose from.

The odd ball in terms of looks vs drag is the Chevy Volt:

0.28, same as the first gen Prius.

Stevie Dakota

Matt Simis wrote: »

0.28, same as the first gen Prius.

Given that the 1982 Audi 100 had a CD of .30 we really have not come very far at all.

Matt Simis

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Given that the 1982 Audi 100 had a CD of .30 we really have not come very far at all.

True, but getting a low Cd with good safety and pedestrian sponges it much harder now than in 1982.

An old Saab 92 (1947) also had a Cd of .30 and the 1948 legendary Tucker Torpedo (technically a production car, 50 odd units) managed 0.27. But both of them look like you would be hurt just falling against them, let alone in a crash.

cruizer101

I got to say I like it. With regards to the styling I think it kinda based of the old CRX which had that flat back also.
http://zephilou57.ifrance.com/crx/crx24.JPG

unkel

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Given that the 1982 Audi 100 had a CD of .30 we really have not come very far at all.

Tatra were managing .20 in the 30s!

Tea 1000

How do ye know? There was no wind tunnels back then!

Matt Simis

Tea 1000 wrote: »

How do ye know? There was no wind tunnels back then!

Cos we have wind tunnels now and can put whatever we want (new or old) into them and test of course! :pac:

Tea 1000

Matt Simis wrote: »

Cos we have wind tunnels now and can put whatever we want (new or old) into them and test of course! :pac:

But the boys were stating the fact as if the manufacturers were aiming to get a low drag coefficient. In actual fact, I reckon it was fluke!

Guy:Incognito

Tea 1000 wrote: »

But the boys were stating the fact as if the manufacturers were aiming to get a low drag coefficient. In actual fact, I reckon it was fluke!

Which would mean that manufacturers deliberately trying to do it now and fareing no better is just not good enough.

Matt Simis

Tea 1000 wrote: »

But the boys were stating the fact as if the manufacturers were aiming to get a low drag coefficient. In actual fact, I reckon it was fluke!

Lol, you really think its possibly to design something as complex as a car and coincidentally it happens to become freakishly aerodynamic!?

Tatra based their designs on work by Paul Juray, who used early wind tunnels to design better zeppelins in 1910-1930ish (he later worked on cars directly and out sourced his design work):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jaray


http://www.itea.org/files/2008/2008%20Journal%20Files/March%202008/jite-29-01-14.pdf

Undeterred, Jaray began studying the best airship
form based on a combination of diameter, crosssection,
volume, and stress points. The
systematic study of shapes led him to conclude that
teardrop cross-sections (in which increases in capacity
were achieved through thickening fuselages rather than
lengthening them) offered the best solution. Penciland
tube-shapes had to go. It would be several years
before this concept was accepted.
Presenting the calculations was one thing, but only
actual flight tests could confirm Jaray’s assertions

Incidentally a Cd rating is a mathematical formula, not a computer-era generated number. They would have been able to work out Cd 100 years ago. They were working on Drag Coefficient Theories and formulas from the early 1800s, getting to the formulas we use today by the late 1870s.. afaik



PS: Id love a high version of that Tatra poster.

aidanodr

Hi Guys,

The prices for the CR-Z are out on the UK Honda Site:

http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/cr-z/

As usual - not at the Irish Honda Site itself. Are we going to have POA in comparison to the UK prices / site

In the UK - 3 models:

1 - CRZ S £16999
2 - CRZ SPORT £17999
3 - CRZ GT £19999

Reasonable prices with direct £ to € conversion BUT I assume VRT gets slapped onto these prices and humps them up by €6k - €8k at least??

On the Irish Site:

http://www.honda.ie/contentv3/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&pageID=18066&parentID=4115

"The CR-Z will go on sale in Ireland this summer and prices will be announced closer to the launch."

Aidan

JHMEG

Should benefit from the €2,500 VRT rebate on hybrids and flex-fuels tho.

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Should benefit from the €2,500 VRT rebate on hybrids and flex-fuels tho.

Is that still in effect as is, was there some changes made in one of the budgets?

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

Is that still in effect as is, was there some changes made in one of the budgets?

Nope, still there.