CR-Z: Another fail Honda
 

The CR-Z was supposed to be the new CRX; small, lightweight, cheap, great handling. What a colossal failure this thing appears to be. 122hp, 2725lbs and it even gets the same gas mileage my 1985 CRX Si use to get, what amazing progress they've made in the past 25 years. :jerkit:

2011 Honda CR-Z First Drive

:vash:

Old news.

:fawk:

You're right, its a total disappointment that they have managed to get the same MPG in a car that weighs almost 800lbs more and makes 2x as much power. They must be retarded.....


I'll agree that it is not completely in the spirit of the original car, but the fact is that they can not make those cars anymore because your government has passed safety laws that would make it illegal. On your original points above though, I think you are retarded.

Honda CR-Z brochure leaks out, production specs revealed — Autoblog

12/8/09

:fawk:

The car weighs 350lbs more than the current Fit, makes less power than a 15 year old miata, gets 32 highway mpg less than a 2006 Insight, and apparently handles like crap. Forgive me for being disappointed.

:facepalm:

I agree the car is huge amounts of fail. Looks like no fun what so ever. TDI's get better mileage and are probably more fun. I'll take my 25/34 and still have fun. If this car does come out, i really don't think any one would buy it. I would be much more excited if it didn't have that electro garbage on it. My wifes 08 civic gets about 40mpg on the interstate and 28-30 in town. (30 is her driving). I think the 1.8 vtecs like my wifes car has make 140 hp too. So compared to cars made 3 years before this by the same company? Epic fail.

Shouldn't have skipped the Y in their name pool. CR-Y fits much better.

Oh hey, lets compare a car to like 50 other cars to find all its faults compared to those 50 cars. Then lets completely forget about our original post about comparing it to the original car that it resembles in spirit. This will really keep with the premise of the thread.

Yeah but "Z" is more JDM yo!!

I vote fail. However Honda will always have a market as long as they stamp a VTAK decal on it, them boyz luvz tha VTAKz

I just think it looks terrible.

All of my honda hatred aside, 9/10 cars they offer look like total shit.

I would sex0r the shit out of a new TL-S, or even just a TL.. Those things are HOT! To be quite honest I'd even drive an RSX if it were RWD. Hell I'd even daily drive a 5th Gen Prelude, ESPECIALLY if RWD!

Just looking at their cars driving down the street.. The pilot used to be okay looking then they boxed it off and just looks like an ulgy fucking turd.

When someone posted the published specs of the japan version CR-Z it didn't look too bad.. The specs, the car always looked like garbage... But seeing the actual specs for the USDM, Pass.

I think what was being pointed out is that it realy isn't anything special in any category. Honda has something lighter, something with better gas mileage, plenty with more power, one or two with better suspension. Therefore the market for the car will be smaller than it would be if it really acelled in one area and had all the others there as well.

I'm not defending the car, just pointing out that the current logic behind the posted argument is fully retarded. If what you stated is in fact his position then he needs to articulate that. It is not apparent in his OP.

I own a 89 CRX HF currently myself and I <3 it. I think the CRZ is an abomination. But I also feel dumber after having read this thread so, rightly, I'm a little annoyed.

I've got no idea what your problem is man. In my opinion, it is very underpowered, overweight, overpriced, only has 2 seats, doesn't get remarkable gas mileage and allegedly handles like shit. I'm having trouble thinking of anything that it would compare favorably to.

I was actually excited about this car coming out. I've always owned hondas before and was thinking this would probably be my next car. Unfortuantely it didn't measure up to any of my personal expectations. If you like it, great, maybe they will sell some afterall.

That CR-Z looks like a flying suppository.

Whatever you do...don't push the green button!

The friggin US govt. won't let us have fun cars like the original CRX. Now we have to have crumple zones, 18 air bags and all the other BS that makes cars heavy. Look at how tiny the CRX really was. There is nothing like that available. CRX's and our Miatas make the new "Mini" cooper look like a box truck. My 94 Saturn Wagon was rated for the same EPA mileage as that CRZ.

I want a truly light, tiny and yes, underpowered car! I love driving a car with no hp but likes to rev and handle. You can have fun pushing it's limits on public roads without other drivers or the cops knowing or caring.

The euro's get all sorts of fun little cars that either won't meet our standards or that car makers believe wouldn't sell to us fat Americans.

This.

I had one of the very first '86 Integras...and man was that car FUN!

You could push it on any road, without being too crazy. The best part was all the performance envelopes matched. You ran out of brakes, suspension and power all at the same time. Great visibility, lovely gear box and willing motor.

Those had the DOHC version of the D16, and mine looked brand new internally at 140K miles. Brakes were 4 wheel discs, uncommon at the time. Everything on that car still worked even though it was almost 20yrs old.


I really wish they still could make cars like that.

One of the ugliest new cars Ive seen in a long time.

I think we know the answer to this question......

Honda is now a huge company. It will do what huge companys do. Churn out products that please large numbers of people.

I am sure that many people will buy the car as a economical fun little runabout that gets good mileage and will make a safe hand-me-down for junior when he turns 18.

The fact that people like us who know what understeer is and what it feels like dont like it is maybe 10% of the possible market for the car. And the other 90% would be very turned off by a car that had the ability to oversteer when pushed hard. So they make a understeery little egg because thats what appears to sell.

We dont matter enough to rate highly on the list of priorities for any car being made by a large corporation dealing with a crap global economy. In the best of times very few cars get built for people like us, and in the worst it goes to basically none.

Driving a car with low limits AT it's limits is fantastic fun and great training.

One of my favorite cars of all time is the late 60's early 70's alfa GT. 0-60 in 10+ seconds, little 155 width tires provided corner g's about equal to a steel wheeled roller skate. Only a 5700 rpm redline but can run at redline all day. No one would call it a boring car to drive even though the performance limits are laughable. Carmakers (and many drivers) have forgotten the joy of simple, light and willing.

I agree, driving a well balanced car with low limits is a blast. I just don't like that cr-z. I know I am not a majority of drivers, and i require something a bit different, and get upset every time a true manual trans isn't offered. My wife looks at me funny when i start talking about over and understeer. I just don't like electronically muddied down cars i guess. They could take off that ghey electro shit and get better highway mileage. It is a fail, the fit is infinitely better, more simple, and less to work on. I could come up with a million reasons not to buy it. Maybe we should start making cars.

I used to love Honda. But lately they've:

- bloated the Accord
- made the Civic resemble a spaceship
- diluted the R models
- killed off the S2k and NSX
- killed off the Insight to replace it years later with this crap

I think Mr. Enzo Ferrari once made a similar statement after being disappointed in the chariot he picked for a hillclimb.

If only we had the money.

It does make you thankful for Mazda overall. Show me a sub 30K car that has brakes as good as the RX8 and its overall dynamics. Proves that a strategy of actually making cars that dont suck to drive can work. But its not going to be the money maker that cars like the Accord and Camry are.

Hmmm..

http://content.etilize.com/Large/11964581.jpg
http://www.jayhondaaccessories.com/i..._Civic_2Dr.jpg



Yep.

I don't think Honda's new design aesthetic will grow on me as the bangle-beemers did.

Unfortunately, as with all product design, the aesthetic is a result of constraints (regs., cost, shipping, etc.) and desires - most of which are not the designers or the 'passionate' buyers (in this case, auto enthusiasts). In some cases, directors and their designers can manage these variables as they translate an initial sketch to reality, in other cases they cannot.

Honda's new aesthetic seems like one of those instances where marketing initiates the idea of adding 'more tech' aesthetically. I'm sure the early concepts were compelling, however, filtering design concepts through reality can ready muddle things up. They should have threw in the towell on the aesthetic long before cutting the tools.

In short, I think their line up looks like shit and their CRV looks like a fat chick in pocket-less pants.

-Zach

Somethng in the current Japanese aesthetic sort of world seems to go exatcly that way. Look at the Kei cars and their evolution. I hope they swing the other way soon. I have to remind myself that the Japanese did create the MKIV Supra ( I even like the MKIII), the FD, the NSX, and the 2000GT.