Honda’s idea of a sports car: No, thank You!
Honda CRZ
Some time ago I asked myself a question: What’s going on with Honda? Hoping that this weird trend Honda was presenting in recent years will somehow get reversed. Hoping that they will announce a new S2000 – faster, lighter and… better. That TypeR badge will fight back for it’s name – to lead again in the class. And instead, they release CR-Z model… (and here I should put some fancy “facepalm” jpg to express my feelings more precisely).
I admit that the first impression is good. A little car with muscular and dynamic body. Both the looks and the name are strongly connected to a legendary model CRX from 80s and 90s. The old version had great VTEC engines and low weight that were the ultimate recipe for a fun car. But is the legend still alive?
The interior…
is not to spacious as the car is small 
What can You expect. It’s officially 2+2 car, but it’s somehow brave to say that. It’s more of a 2 seater with a pretty big trunk. Or if You have passengers with folding legs… The design and feel is positive – like all of the honda’s. Some would say they are too modern, but it’s not the point here. Let’s say the interior fits the car.
You start the engine – 1.5 liter gasoline engine (which tames 114 bhp (at 6100 rpm) and torque reaching 145 Nm (at 4800 rpm)) with a stupid “Start” button, for which to work You have to turn the ignition on with a regular key anyway (why double the work??). And You can go.
Honda CR-Z Interior
The green stuff…
is a must these days. So here You can choose 3 different driving modes: Normal, Econ and Sport. The only difference is the throttle response and use of electric motor (producing extra 14 bhp at 1500 rpm and 78 Nm of torque at 1000 rpm). Combined, both engines give 124 bhp at 6100 rpm and 174 Nm of torque at 1500 rpm (ok, that’s pretty early). You probably note that the engine parameters don’t sum up directly, as they are reached at different rpm levels.
Needless to explain: the effects of these 3 modes. Econ mode makes the car less responsive and slower, but gives You better mileage. In city traffic You have the start/stop system, which turns of the engine when You put the gear to neutral. The tester during driving longer distances was able to get as low as 5l/100 km. Besides You have the special gear change indicator and You can collect green leaves when You are “eco-driving”. Boring and useless…
Honda CRZ - 3 modes - cute but useless
Honda didn’t use the traditional hybrid concept (known from Insight), where You can drive only using electric motor. This way the car is less heavy and it’s cheaper! Besides they say it’s also due to the sporty character of the car (LOL).
Normal mode is a compromise between driving pleasure and economy. The 6-gears manual transmission is good – this is a thing that Honda does well, always… You have to admit that.
And finally Sport mode. The power of the engines vs the car weight (1.2 ton) is pretty good. But still it’s only 124 bhp! What sport mode can we talk about here? The car is more responsive, but still – most of the average compact cars on the street is faster. Ok, it’s economical – in this mode You will get 6l/100 km result. But is this what You expect from a “sport” car?
Honda CR-Z rear
The ride…
is stiff. The car is like a go-kart – at least something in common with old CRX. It’s low center of weight, it’s wide – promises much. The handling is good, power steering (in sport mode) gives You some sporty feel, but… there is some nervous wobbling and under-steer. That completely spoils the impression. Plus is, the engine sounds like it was at least 2.0l motor – bravo for the exhaust. But it’s not something that You can’t get in other – regular car.
And what’s most disappointing: NO stronger engine version is considered currently by Honda. They will think about giving some more power to the electric engine, but that’s it. They also say that they wanted to create a car that will be both fun and sporty, but being economical at the same time. Looking at the order list in Japan – they can think they succeeded.
But I don’t like it any way. It doesn’t deserve to be called a sport car. Admit – it’s not a rocket science to put some more power to a car of this size! Give us (buyers) at least a choice. Like other producers did. Ex. Renault Megane Coupe, VW Scirocco – You can buy these with modern engines that give You similar performance and economy (1.4 TCE or TSI engines) or even better economy with diesel, but at the same time – You can get over 200 bhp without any problem. And if You have to put these hybrid systems – look at Toyota – even they can make over 300 bhp hybrid lexus. As well as BMW…
Honda still disappoints here. Where is the passion for speed? 25 years ago they could give You 100 bhp per 1.0l of engine capacity in a car that weight around 900 kg – they were market leaders. Now? CR-Z can’t even get close to these parameters.
And it’s launched like a something extraordinary? This just sucks!
Photos: Honda.com
You may also like:
I concur with your comments–Honda really made a lot of poor decisions with this car. They should have offered a gasoline only version (given that the hybrid system does nothing for this car other than make it slower, heavier and more expensive) and a more powerful motor as and option. Since this car is such a poor performing car which will do nothing for Honda’s reputation for car enthusiasts–hopefully Honda will have a new Civic SI did will do 5 second 0-60 times and have some real torque on the lower rpms.
I’m glad that I’m not alone in my opinion. But I know at the same time that the car will be a success – they will sell it. As people won’t demand a real pleasure and performance. They will take this – and will be proud that they’re driving sport car that is eco :/ Sad…
I totaly agree! I figured, why didn’t they put the civic type R engine in the crz?
It produces about 200hp which would translate into plenty of fun and then perhaps add the hybrid system for added torque and “environmental friendlieness”. Yes the fuel consumption would suffer, but you simply cannot have both an eco-friendly and sporty car at the same time.. unless you put ALOT of batteries in the car like the Tesla, but that would make it crazy expensive instead.
@carguy
Don’t count on that lol
0-5 seconds on a civic=LOL
Non-hybrid drivers have absolutely no business doing a review on this car. I have an original Honda Insight. I love the thing. It’s not the fastest thing for sure but it’s still very agile and fun to drive in town and gets just over 50mpg in very hilly San Diego. But it would be nice to have more power. This car almost doubles my cars horsepower. I think it will be a kick to drive. If you want power and handling buy a Porsche (my weekend car). Come to think of it that’s probably why you didn’t like it. If you are reviewing Boxters and M3′s, your opinion will be more than a little jaded. This car is not designed to be a sports car. It’s a “sporty” car. Big difference. One you should know quite frankly. Your review was useless. People who will buy this car are much more interested in the mileage obtained from the various modes than it’s 0 to 60 time.
@TheLostSurveyor
Well, I don’t review Porsche or M3′s – I’m more down to earth guy. I don’t care about their 0-60 time, loosing 0,001 of a second in the corner. Even if I did – would I try to compare some poor Honda to them?
I trying to be objective about this Honda – it’s sportiness sucks. Honda has (or had) the ability to make fun cars, but they lost it (stopped S2000, NSX, TypeR is the last one to choose amond hot hatches etc).
I understand the mileage and the need to save “gas money”. But it doesn’t mean that this car should suck so much while driving – massive understeer kills driving pleasure. Plus: it’s heritage – previous CRX fans, are now crying and throwing darts to Honda’s logo.
Plus… It’s not sporty, it’s not practical. What is it for? Just for saving money on fuel (You write about people interested in this car) ? There are tons of better examples of these kind of cars.
So I believe that CRZ idea was to be a fun car – but it isnt. There are many options for fun and economical “sporty” cars (Fiat 500 Abarth, Seat Ibiza Cupra, Fiesta ST – they are half cheaper and faster, and still give decent MPG’s). The money You save on purchase, gives You fuel for years… CRZ just sucks on every level. The only thing about it – is that it’s a hybrid. But this isn’t a reason to be proud either.
And that is my opinion – and I’m not alone in it. I haven’t read any positive review on the car.
Any way – I appreciate Your opinion. But I think that instead of being an opinion, You are just showing off: you are gadget guy and go with a fashion = drive some pseudo eco / slow / “original” Honda instead of a diesel. You have a Porsche for weekends. Wow… congrats. But next time try to read with understanding.
Regards,
Owned and drove an 88 CRX HF for 9 years and 365,000 miles. Purchased the car for fuel economy and a little of the fun factor for a car with not too much HP. Without a doubt the most reliable and economical car ever sold in the US. 58 miles on the HWY with my foot it it commutting to/from work. My question is. If Honda wanted to market a car with great fuel Eco why didn’t they put this engine in the CRZ…….Oh this would have made the electric part USELESS…..Can’t sell a Hybrid when you sell a gasser like this.
i agree with the author of this review. the cr-z is a disappointment. i do not consider this a sports car. it’s just a sportier LOOKING honda fit.
as to the TheLostSurveyor. why would non-hybrid drivers have no right to write a review on the cr-z? you say such an ignorant statement without even attempting to explain the reason why. all i can say is that you are wrong; anyone has the right to write a review about anything. as for your porsche, i hope you didn’t mention that to try and show off because that would be pathetic. we are talking about the honda cr-z, not porsches.
Guys, thanks for stopping by…
Regarding Honda, I tried to find some positive information. Figured… that after all this negative buzz about this car all over the web, Honda would try to react and give “us” “something”… and they did…
they promised to consider to raise the electric motor output and even gave the number…
wait for it… +9 bhp… no comments
I purchased the CRZ cvt w/nav Dec 8th. I am coming from a Mustang GT 5.0 with mods and two 911 Porsches a SC and Carrera-S. All great cars with nice handling characteristics. After two long test drives I bought the CRZ. I am 6-2 and 240 and have all the room I need. I added 17inch wheels and tires and lowered it one inch. It handles well it drives beautifully. I got 52 MPG in econ and in sport last two days I am at 37 MPG. For those of you that don’t like it ..great don’t buy it. Was up on freeway this morning to work and at 85 it just purrs along and again handles well. It also has every electronic device known to man and even voice activation ( 5 voices ) and great sound system bluetooth etc. So at the MPG I am achieving the looks of the car technology it has and loving the handling well it is a SPORTS HYBRID >>> and again you don’t like it ..great I do and you need to read what other owners are saying also .. but don’t buy one I want less of them around ..oh I also got 8 yr warr with all labor and parts 100% as well as a lifetime warr on exhaust system and intake..I work for a living and the Porsches were great but at 3-5K a yr avg for maintenance wasn’t worth it comapred to thia veh which will be less then $100 a yr…
Hey William, Thank You for commenting. I really appreciate Your input, but I have to comment one thing. Looks like You traded economy and gadget, over fun factor. It’s Your choice, and of course there is room for such drivers – and everyone has a right for an opinion.
The car is ok if:
1. You like the looks
2. Care for economy over fun
3. Don’t care about handling
Reg 3. I’m really surprised that a Porsche owner writes positively about CR-Z handling? No offense, but it looks like You can’t appreciate good handling or You are just convincing Yourself to justify that You bought the car for the “wrong” reason – that is why You like CR-Z. I understand that after a Mustang the handling isn’t bad as Ford doesn’t know how to turn. But Porsches are superb in this area… And CR-Z just sucks at cornering.
Well, the time will show, if Honda will do something about the handling issue and make this car more fun – only major upgrade will make the car to be likable…
I can’t believe they tried to market this as the spiritual successor to the CRX.
I have a 1st-gen CRX Si. GREAT handling, peppy acceleration (especially since I port matched the block
), good road manners… and I still get 40-42 mpg. The CRZ is none of these. Sure, it may “feel sporty” but people say a Jeep Wrangler does as well.
So… I find it hilarious when a car company brags “our new hybrid car gets 40-45 mpg” when there were cars that were doing that over 20 years ago! Without electric engines!
So, where are those cars now? Ah, yes, people would rather have a heavy, bluetooth’d, sat-nav’d, climate-controlled, MP3 stereo on wheels than a lightweight and practical car with good performance and fuel economy.
Car companies have a lot to learn… And all they need to do is look back at what they were doing in the 80-90′s.
Hi Justin – You got to the point. This attitude of Yours is to be especially appreciated when it comes from “former” Honda enthusiast.
Maybe it’s a good idea to write a tribute post for the old CRX…
Take good care of this 1st gen CRX. It’s a classic now, especially with such a poor successor