The production version of the 2011 Honda CR-Z was just introduced at the 2010 Detroit Auto show, but a magazine in Japan has already taken a test drive on a closed course. Here's a translated version of their thoughts on the car.
"The production version of the car looks sharp sitting on the track thanks to well balanced proportions. The character line that runs down the side of the car looks more pronounced on the silver paint than it does on a red or blue color. The tires and wheels are noticeably less spectacular then the ones from the show car as the wheels are only 16-inches in diameter with 195/55R16 tires. That said, the wheels look of high quality and don't make the car look cheap.
Now we climb into the cabin. The tachometer sits at the center of the instrument cluster with a digital speedometer readout located immediately beneath it. The entire dashboard layout has a distinct sporty look and feel to it, leaving no doubt in the driver's mind that he's sitting in a performance-oriented car. Despite the car being labeled a 4-seater, the rear seats are quite cramped and look just large enough to fit two children.
The shift knob of the 6-speed manual transmission slides into each gear with a resounding click. We throw the lever into 1st gear and launch. The car leaves the line spritely, but accelerates in a milder way than anticipated. You can feel the presence of the electric motor, but it's quite subtle almost transparent. Continued after the jump.
2010 Detroit Auto Show: 2011 Honda CR-Z
It doesn't kick in like a turbocharger or supercharger giving you that sudden forward surge. From the seat of the pants, the car feels like it's powered by a naturally-aspirated 2.2- to 2.4-liter 4-cylinder. While we would have preferred more kick from the electric motor, the CR-Z doesn't feel slow by any means, just smooth.
So is it quick like a lightweight sports car? Not really. Our Honda representatives informed us that the car runs from zero to 62mph in 9.7 seconds, which makes it a full second quicker than a Toyota Prius. What's noteworthy about the CR-Z is how smooth it gets to cruising speed. It does so in a very linear manner just like a traditional gas-powered car.
While the car's acceleration character is quite similar to that of its hybrid stablemate, the Insight, the CR-Z's handling is in an entirely different class. In this department, the car truly feels worthy of the sporty-car label.
The biggest difference is how the rear end feels through corners. Unlike rear suspension in the Fit or the Insight, the stroke of the rear dampers have been increased, resulting in increased stability through corners and over bumps. And thanks the to the CR-Z's wider track, the car exhibits less body roll and better overall balance than either the Fit or the Insight, making it a delight to drive through turns. And despite possessing firmer dampers and springs than the Insight, it rides just as smoothly.
We also sampled the CVT-equipped CR-Z, and while we prefer the 6-speed manual, the CVT can be quite fun because of its manual mode. It allows you to manually choose gears via paddles behind the steering wheel. For economy-minded motorists, the CVT is definitely the choice because it allows the car to sip less fuel. The manual-gearbox CR-Z gets 22.5 km per liter in Japan's 10-15 mode, while the CVT returns 25.0 km per liter.
billt9 says:
05:25 AM, 01/25/10
"Despite the car being labeled a 4-seater, the rear seats are quite cramped and look just large enough to fit two children."
The American version is 2 seat only. Wow Japanese children are small. I bet they can put children's seats in the space of a cargo tray.
carlisimo says:
07:44 AM, 01/25/10
This a question about automotive writing in general: what does "increased stability through turns" mean?
To me it just sounds like you're not going fast enough.
brn says:
08:39 AM, 01/25/10
Smaller, less powerful, and worse mileage than a Fusion Hybrid.
I wonder if it'll cost more too.
cjasis says:
08:54 AM, 01/25/10
I consider myself lucky to have owned an NSX-T, two S2000's, a GS-R Integra, and a Legend Coupe LS 6-speed (among other Honda/Acura products) and I used to be a bona fide Honda nut. The company made products I was enthusiastic about and wanted to drive.
But I honestly think Honda has lost their way. The only products in the entire Honda/Acura portfolio that are even modestly interesting to me... albeit in very different ways... are the Fit and the Odyssey.
sabastian says:
08:55 AM, 01/25/10
The acceleration numbers do seem disappointing and that's coming from someone who drives a base Mini. A sub 9 second 0 to 60 is the least Honda could have done.
jederino says:
09:12 AM, 01/25/10
I respect what Honda set out to do, but I'm afraid this is a big "no" for me. A civic is more attractive than this, and it doesn't seem to deliver much sport, either.
mlh says:
12:18 PM, 01/25/10
Is the photo above the concept or the production version? The reason I ask is that it actually looks good, leading me to believe it's the concept.
carlisimo says:
12:38 PM, 01/25/10
mlh, the wheels look like the ones shown on the production version. But sometimes those production models used in photos have a lower suspension than the real thing.
It looks good, if you avoid putting a license plate up front - but that's hardly a problem unique to this car.
robert4380 says:
01:07 PM, 01/25/10
Would someone at Honda please, please, PLEASE explain why a hybrid powertrain is necessary in this particular application? The Ford Fiesta, Mazda 2, Mini Cooper, and Chevy Cruze will all get basically the same mileage as the CR-Z, and none of the competitors I've mentioned are hybrids. So what's the point?
You can get all of the competing vehicles I've mentioned with a manual transmission. They all have seating for 4. They all cost under $20,000. With the exception of the Cruze (from what I've read of it from European reviews), they all have a sporting nature and good handling.
So aside from evoking the shape of the old CR-X, Honda, please tell me, WHAT IS THE POINT?
bb49 says:
03:48 PM, 02/14/10
I agree with all of the comments regarding this car being too slow. Instead of making it faster, Honda is doing PR campaign to define sport as not being about speed but handling. So sad too see a once great company fail to face the truth that no true car enthusiast would fine a 9.7 0-60 times as worthy of a sporty car. With the release of this poor performing product, apparently, Honda has no interest in producing any sporty cars and has decided to go by producing dull, slow cars.
This car needs to fail miserably. And hopefully Honda will stop wasting their resources on hybrids and work on improving their powertrains (engines, transmissions etc.).
The fix is simple just offer this car without your lousy 2nd rate hybird system and it will be cheaper, lighter and faster.
Please Honda wake up--as although I am a Honda fan, I see little to be happy about the direction that the company is moving.
norman_1 says:
07:51 PM, 02/21/10
@brn,
"Smaller, less powerful, and worse mileage than a Fusion Hybrid."
Uh, is Fusion Hybrid's fuel mileage really that GREAT?
I read that:
' The Fusion Hybrid has been Ford’s poster boy ever since its arrival, trumpeting its 39 mpg combined rating. A survey of tests of it and the very similar 34 mpg rated Camry hybrid shows the same results, literally; as in 34 mpg. The consensus of a number of tests fails to show any measurable difference between the two, except their EPA ratings, of course. CR also tested both at 34 mpg.
Conspiracy theories are not exactly our preferred fall-back explanation, but it really is rather curious that these two particular cars (Equinox, Fusion Hybrid) are both being heavily advertised (despite the Fusion hybrid’s limited availability) as symbols of American auto manufacturer’s ability to deliver class-leading fuel efficient vehicles. '
Is it true that Ford game the EPA rating of Fusion Hybrid?
bb49 says:
11:12 PM, 02/21/10
The big mistake that Honda made with this car is that they released it too soon. By that I mean they really haven't developed the hybrid technology to make a fast, affordable, hybrid that gets great gas mileage. I still don't understand why Mr. Ito didn't just delay this hybrid and release it with a high performance gasoline engine. Although, an engine in the 200-250 hp range would have been nice--even a 150 hp engine would have been a better choice then the dismal performing hybrid system Honda chose to burden this car with. Or if Honda is so desparate to have another hybrid to supplement the slow selling Insight why couldnt they have also offered a non-hybrid version for the many who believe (myself included) that the hybrid system in this car makes no sense.
Once the public realizes that this car is basicaly a more expensive Insight coupe that is only marginally faster and gets worse gas mileage--I'm afraid Honda will find that it has another hybrid failure.
What's next-- a Civic Si with this same lousy hybrid system?
charlesb says:
09:42 PM, 02/24/10
I like this car and that is what the CR-Z is really about making a sporty appealing hybrid. I think people who are looking for a sports car are barking up the wrong tree with this one.
bb49 says:
02:00 AM, 03/ 3/10
Even if you were think it made sense for Honda to make this car a hybrid (despite the fact that they could have produced a faster, lighter car with the same or close to the same gas mileage without going the hybrid route). It makes absolutely no sense to offer this car with only a hybrid option. Had Honda made the smart move and offered a non-hybrid version--they could have offered a much more affordable model for people who cannot spend $25,500 dollars for a 2 seater.