Honda Insight + Hybrid Chatter: What the CR-Z should have been all along - Post 288

[Eric.]

They put supercharged K20s in the Fit. And 7.0L V8s in a Miata. A K20 will fit in this car. Not that I think it needs it. The R18 would be perfect for it (instead they are going to be doing 150hp out of the R15 in the Mugen...thats okay I guess, however a tuned R18 with about 170hp would be really nice). I'm not expecting us to see the Mugen model here. We only get Mugen appearance items (Mugen Civic Si anyone? $10k markup for a bodykit, short shifter, wheels and tires, plus an axleback exhaust that's not even good enough for Honda to bother dynoing to see if its better).

 

[homeforsummer]

Hey now! Not all of us Americans are like that .

The only thing I have against the CR-Z is it's a hybrid. Seriously put a small, fuel efficient engine in it without all the hybrid crap and it would be awesome. 90hp and light weight, now that would be in the spirit of the CR-X.

Sorry Joey, I know you aren't all like that.

I know what you mean though. Don't get me wrong, I can understand the cynicism about it being a hybrid, but I reckon it's mostly unfounded. People have become indoctrinated into the mindset that all hybrids are the anti-car, that they're cars for people who don't like cars. I disagree with this on a number of counts (not that I'd own any current hybrid myself - the last one I was interested in was the original Insight, the next one is the as-yet unreleased CRZ) and once you get past the self-riteous attitude of the stereotypical hybrid owner you'll see that there are plenty of people who genuinely like cars that drive hybrids. They like the technology, and they like the new, different challenge that chasing high MPG numbers brings.

I'm sure the CRZ would be great with a regular engine, but then that's assuming that it won't be great with the hybrid motor.

And really, where would giving it a normal engine really get us? There's only so much further companies can go with standard petrol and diesel engines - at the end of the day it's still a fairly crude machine and any further advances in efficiency will no doubt compromise the things we enjoy such as the sound and performance of regular engines. Hybrids do actually offer some favourable characteristics - great economy when you're toddling about, yet there's still a proper petrol engine there when you want a bit of performance. The CRZ even gives you a six-speed manual to play with. And low-down torque, at lower revs than most turbodiesels will have even woken up at.

At the end of the day, a lot of people are making assumptions about the car, and I think it's unfair. I can see what Honda are trying to do with the CRZ, and until people have driven it we really don't know whether it'll be a success. If it comes out and it's crap, then I'll be fully prepared to concede that I was wrong, but if ever there was a case for "innocent until proven guilty"...

 

[buickgnx88]

I may have missed it, but have they announced a price for it yet?

 

[YSSMAN]

At the end of the day, a lot of people are making assumptions about the car, and I think it's unfair. I can see what Honda are trying to do with the CRZ, and until people have driven it we really don't know whether it'll be a success. If it comes out and it's crap, then I'll be fully prepared to concede that I was wrong, but if ever there was a case for "innocent until proven guilty"...

While I do agree with you, I'm still disappointed by the car. I'm one of those people who say, "Only 37 MPG with a hybrid motor? What if we went without?" I mean by all accounts, 37 MPG is a pretty awesome figure here in the US, but it really isn't that great. The Toyota Corolla can do over 40 MPG that doesn't have anything special going on (well, other than not braking and not being able to drive in a straight line). Its a quick buck move by Honda, one that has me interested at best, but a shade disappointed at worst.

 

[homeforsummer]

While I do agree with you, I'm still disappointed by the car. I'm one of those people who say, "Only 37 MPG with a hybrid motor? What if we went without?" I mean by all accounts, 37 MPG is a pretty awesome figure here in the US, but it really isn't that great. The Toyota Corolla can do over 40 MPG that doesn't have anything special going on (well, other than not braking and not being able to drive in a straight line). Its a quick buck move by Honda, one that has me interested at best, but a shade disappointed at worst.

Again, I see where you're coming from, but the current estimates for the CRZ are likely from the car's "normal" mode rather than "eco". And I'd be more confident of being able to achieve those figures in the CRZ than I would in getting 40mpg out of the Corolla. Especially at speed, as I'm guessing the CRZ is aerodynamically pretty good (after all it, the first Insight and the old CRX share basically the same very efficient shape). Probably in town too, since you get peak torque between 1k and 1.5k rpm.

I dug out a couple of my Autocar mags to see what they're getting from their long-term Insight. Apparently they're struggling to get less than 50mpg (that's UK gallons, so about 41.5 US) even driving into and through London, and they're getting upwards of 60mpg (/50mpg US) on the motorway. That doesn't sound too shabby to me, and the CRZ will be lighter and likely have a smaller frontal profile too.

 

[eSZee]

And really, where would giving it a normal engine really get us?

It would get us a weight savings of some 300lbs.

 

[homeforsummer]

It would get us a weight savings of some 300lbs.

Would it really? I've just had a look at the respective weights of two similarly-sized cars on sale in the UK - the Insight, and the Honda Civic 1.4. The Insight is a 1.3, so it's a reasonably fair comparison as far as the expected weight of the engine and all it's gubbins should be.

The Insight is slightly wider, slightly longer, and slightly lower than the Civic. And weighs about 4kg (~8lb) more. I'm aware they're on different platforms, but it's evidence that you can make a Hybrid with the weight of an equivalent non-hybrid.

So I seriously doubt removal of the hybrid drivetrain would save 300lbs, and even then you'd struggle to match the economy. Incidentally, the Insight and Civic above do 64mpg and 47mpg respectively on the combined EU cycle (in imperial gallons). The Insight is also a little more powerful, and quicker on both top end and 0-60. Neither are performance cars of course, but it doesn't bode too badly for the CRZ.

 

[Philly]

The CR-Z is around 200 lb heavier than the equivalent Fit. So even with the extra 5 horsepower you get by grabbing the hybrid, the straight line performance is probably quite a bit slower.

But, as mentioned, the gas mileage is going to go up significantly, even with the extra 200 lb on board. But if Honda had stuck with the engine in the same tune as it is in the Fit (with 117 bhp), then the CR-Z would probably be a pretty serious warm hatch.

 

[homeforsummer]

It might be anyway, given that even with similar performance to the Fit it's intended to be sporty. Not to mention that it presumably has a low-slung seating position rather than the "perch" of the Fit.

 

[YSSMAN]

Of course, neither will be as awesome as the older Fit/Jazz Sport.

 

[Eric.]

Would it really? I've just had a look at the respective weights of two similarly-sized cars on sale in the UK - the Insight, and the Honda Civic 1.4. The Insight is a 1.3, so it's a reasonably fair comparison as far as the expected weight of the engine and all it's gubbins should be.

The Insight is slightly wider, slightly longer, and slightly lower than the Civic. And weighs about 4kg (~8lb) more. I'm aware they're on different platforms, but it's evidence that you can make a Hybrid with the weight of an equivalent non-hybrid.

So I seriously doubt removal of the hybrid drivetrain would save 300lbs, and even then you'd struggle to match the economy. Incidentally, the Insight and Civic above do 64mpg and 47mpg respectively on the combined EU cycle (in imperial gallons). The Insight is also a little more powerful, and quicker on both top end and 0-60. Neither are performance cars of course, but it doesn't bode too badly for the CRZ.

The Civic Hybrid (USDM) weighs 2877lbs. The Civic Sedan weighs 2687 (LX spec, should be similar to the Hybrid in features. And an Si Sedan goes up to 2950bs.

Edit: And note that is going from a 1.3L to a 1.8L (2.0L in the Si).

 

[niky]

Of course, neither will be as awesome as the older Fit/Jazz Sport.

Sob. Sob. Sniffle.

Even with the absolutely horrid electric steering, the torsion beam rear end and the seat-comfort issues, that car was the closest to perfect any Honda economy car has been since the Civic EF/EG hatchbacks.

-

Have you seen how much people are asking for those things secondhand? Damn.

 

[EA11R]

^Yeah, pretty near new pricing, that. I looked into them for new car for my stepmom, and found a decent example. For $13,000. We instead bought a lovely Chrysler 300 (We're a bit mad) for $15,000.

Also, something just hit me: This car is a new, groundbreaking concept for Honda. They are doing it entirely wrong, but just think about it for a moment.

This is a Honda with torque.

 

[homeforsummer]

This is a Honda with torque.

Well, quite.

 

[niky]

Official press release:

http://world.honda.com/news/2010/4100225All-New-CR-Z-Hybrid/

Some salient points: (sorry if they've been covered before)

The world’s first 6-speed manual transmission on a hybrid vehicle enhances driving enjoyment. A CVT version features paddle shifters as standard equipment.

Bodes well for driving excitement... (the 6-speed, that is) ...wonder how well it'll match up?

· In the front, MacPherson struts contribute to the CR-Z’s spaciousness, low height and low center of gravity, while the lower arms are made of forged aluminum to reduce weight. In the rear, a compact H-shaped torsion beam suspension allows for the placement of the IPU (Intelligent Power Unit) beneath the cargo area floor. In combination, these elements offer a sporty yet highly stable steering feel.

· The high-output EPS offers quick steering gear ratio of 2.48 turns lock to lock, while the rigidly attached steering gearbox contributes to the direct steering feel.

Partially disappointed by the rear torsion... but not completely, as torsion beams can be made to perform decently (see Euro Civic Type R... Renaults). Of course, the disappointment is the mention of "sporty yet stable", which brings to mind the aforementioned Civic... which is "sporty yet stable". Driving most any FD Civic feels like piloting a wildly responsive front end with the rear end stuck to the ground with a giant thumbtack running through the rear axle.

The EPS part is more encouraging. It seems to suggest the box will be mounted to the rack, as BMW Mini and newer Mazdas do it... which indeed contributes greatly to direct steering feel.

And going back to this:

This is a Honda with torque.

I've driven a 1.5 liter Prius, and indeed, a 1.5 mated to an assist motor gives the same performance as a 2.0 at low speeds (up to around 60 mph)... but seeing as the 1.5 doesn't seem to have a raised redline or a wild cam, that fun will probably be mostly limited to low-to-medium speeds and tight, winding roads.

Of course... tight, winding roads are what cars like this are built for. The big question, though... what will it cost? And, more importantly, will we get a non-hybrid base model?

 

[homeforsummer]

Partially disappointed by the rear torsion... but not completely, as torsion beams can be made to perform decently (see Euro Civic Type R... Renaults).

I was just about to say that. Torsion beams aren't as sophisticated and it's been a shame that Honda ditched double wishbones a while back (do the USDM/JDM Civics still use them) but there have been a long, long line of Peugeot, Renault and other hot hatches that have used them perfectly, and the current Euro Civic R is another. I presume the Fit is another too.

Of course, the disappointment is the mention of "sporty yet stable", which brings to mind the aforementioned Civic... which is "sporty yet stable". Driving most any FD Civic feels like piloting a wildly responsive front end with the rear end stuck to the ground with a giant thumbtack running through the rear axle.

Stable doesn't necessarily imply "dull" though. Again, current Renault hatches are far more stable than they used to be - they just now have obscene levels of grip at both ends, rather than just the front.

The EPS part is more encouraging. It seems to suggest the box will be mounted to the rack, as BMW Mini and newer Mazdas do it... which indeed contributes greatly to direct steering feel.

Two and a half turns between locks is pretty much the same as the MINI, as far as I'm aware. And the first-gen MINI had great steering, good feel and very quick. I've not driven an R56 to compare though.

I do recall that the MINI was one of the cars Honda have bought to benchmark with.

 

[niky]

Hopefully they're benchmarking a Cooper S with the "Sport" mode engaged. With "Sport" mode off, the Cooper's steering is good but not great. With "Sport" on, it's much better.

Both generations of Fit have been torsion. The older one is better. Suspension tuning was stiff bordering on jittery, but the rear end was chuckable, and thanks to passive rear toe occuring under high loads, catchable. The Mazda2 also exhibits this behavior, only with a bigger window. The newer Fit is softer and more stable.

The problem with "stable" is that sometimes rear-end mobility is sacrificed for grip. It's okay for 8/10ths driving, but the best feeling front-drivers (not the best cornering, mind you) sacrifice a little rear grip for a more neutral balance.

It's the difference between feeling a car rotate around your personal center of balance and feeling it rotate around the rear end. It's a small gripe, but it's worth considering when tuning a suspension for a road-going sportscar.

 

[homeforsummer]

I agree. Hopfully the CRZ doesn't sacrifice too much balance for "excessive" stability (a little is always nice unless you're a FWD touring car racer).

The Mazda2 drives very nicely. I really have to get around to having a proper go in one at some stage, as I've only had about five minutes max in one so far, a 1.5 Sport. As for the MINI, the old one didn't have fancy buttons but then it wasn't electrically assisted.

EDIT:

More official mugen pictures released

Source: ABG

Looks a bit overdone IMO. Though there's nothing to say that you can't ignore all the dodgy body bits and just have the cat-back exhaust, brake upgrades and suspension upgrades.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, if I could avoid that grill midpiece (Looks like an Ewwdi), I'd be okay with it.

 

[Philly]

It looks a lot faster than it is. With all that kit you'd expect something that's pretty track ready but instead you get something that's probably about on par with the GTI.

Also, it has those stupid Audi LED lights. And they're in a stupid location and look pretty stupid on it.

 

[hemisport15]

Am I the only one that thinks the back of this car looks bad? I understand that they were trying to make it look like the CRX, but the dimensions just look completely wrong to me. From the front and side it doesn't look too bad, but the back just looks really tall. But I guess that doesn't really matter when you're in the driver's seat.

 

[Philly]

It's kind of a coupe-ish hatchback thing like the Scirocco. So styling wise, I think they did a pretty good job of getting that down. It does look like there is zero trunk space though.

 

[niky]

From reading the release, there's less trunk space than in the Fit, but it's not tiny...

It looks a lot faster than it is. With all that kit you'd expect something that's pretty track ready but instead you get something that's probably about on par with the GTI.

Also, it has those stupid Audi LED lights. And they're in a stupid location and look pretty stupid on it.

Probably not even as fast, not with an electrically-assisted non-turbo 1.5. I'd put the power at a combined 140-160 bhp. (theoretical, depending on the level of assist).

 

[GT Pro]

Hydrogen is the future. It has to be, because it is the only long-term solution I can think that will still maintain that so-important exhaust sound of a car. It's an emotional thing, and something that hybrids and full-electrics just don't have.

 

[homeforsummer]

Am I the only one that thinks the back of this car looks bad? I understand that they were trying to make it look like the CRX, but the dimensions just look completely wrong to me. From the front and side it doesn't look too bad, but the back just looks really tall. But I guess that doesn't really matter when you're in the driver's seat.

One word: Aerodynamics. The line coming from the top of the windscreen and leading to a sharp stop with a "kammback" is the most easy to produce aerodynamically efficient shape for a roadcar, as it's the same angle as nature's most aerodynamic shape, the teardrop. Ideally, an aero-efficient car would follow that line even further and then end with a kammback, but then all cars would be impractically long. The CRZ is an example of a good compromise. You'll also note how the sides of the car taper in towards the back, and this is for the same reason.

It looks a lot faster than it is. With all that kit you'd expect something that's pretty track ready but instead you get something that's probably about on par with the GTI.

Also, it has those stupid Audi LED lights. And they're in a stupid location and look pretty stupid on it.

As Niky said, it's probably nowhere near GTI pace.

I was thinking the other day of the CRZ's real rival, as people keep missing the point entirely by comparing it to the GTI and other proper hot hatches - it's real rival is more something like a standard MINI Cooper, a bit like the one Joey has.

Hydrogen is the future. It has to be, because it is the only long-term solution I can think that will still maintain that so-important exhaust sound of a car. It's an emotional thing, and something that hybrids and full-electrics just don't have.

You do realise that hydrogen fuel cell cars are used to power electric motors, right? That you get no engine noise whatsoever, and that hybrids do have an engine so are still capable of providing that "emotional thing"?

Anyway, hydrogen isn't the future. It's just another fuel, and one that can't even be gathered efficiently like people seem to believe. Electrolysis uses a huge amount of power to extract hydrogen from water, so the most efficient way to gather hydrogen is by...










...drilling. Just like we do with oil.

Normal electric cars are the future, not hydrogen. Apart from anything, they cut out the middle man. Why fuel up with something to generate electricity to power a motor? Why not just fill up with electricity and then use it?

 

[Philly]

Probably not even as fast, not with an electrically-assisted non-turbo 1.5. I'd put the power at a combined 140-160 bhp. (theoretical, depending on the level of assist).

So then this isn't the one that was supposed to be coming along with 200 hp that I mentioned in post 288? That makes the body kit even more outlandish I think.

 

[niky]

If they create a Type R, it may be 200hp, but given the current hardware... doesn't look like it.

 

[Eric.]

Hopefully they're benchmarking a Cooper S with the "Sport" mode engaged. With "Sport" mode off, the Cooper's steering is good but not great. With "Sport" on, it's much better.

Both generations of Fit have been torsion. The older one is better. Suspension tuning was stiff bordering on jittery, but the rear end was chuckable, and thanks to passive rear toe occuring under high loads, catchable. The Mazda2 also exhibits this behavior, only with a bigger window. The newer Fit is softer and more stable.

The problem with "stable" is that sometimes rear-end mobility is sacrificed for grip. It's okay for 8/10ths driving, but the best feeling front-drivers (not the best cornering, mind you) sacrifice a little rear grip for a more neutral balance.

It's the difference between feeling a car rotate around your personal center of balance and feeling it rotate around the rear end. It's a small gripe, but it's worth considering when tuning a suspension for a road-going sportscar.

Whoa. STOP RIGHT THERE. Please refer to this thread before you start throwing language around like that.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=123960







Take the wing off that Mugen and I think it looks pretty good. It may or may not be functional, but I think its distracting and would look cleaner with some sort of low profile ducktail spoiler or something.

 

[GT Pro]

O

You do realise that hydrogen fuel cell cars are used to power electric motors, right? That you get no engine noise whatsoever, and that hybrids do have an engine so are still capable of providing that "emotional thing"?

Anyway, hydrogen isn't the future. It's just another fuel, and one that can't even be gathered efficiently like people seem to believe. Electrolysis uses a huge amount of power to extract hydrogen from water, so the most efficient way to gather hydrogen is by...










...drilling. Just like we do with oil.

Normal electric cars are the future, not hydrogen. Apart from anything, they cut out the middle man. Why fuel up with something to generate electricity to power a motor? Why not just fill up with electricity and then use it?

There are two ways hydrogen can power an engine, and the one I am referring to is that of hydrogen fueling an internal combustion engine. Granted, it has achieved far less development than other methods by major car manufacturers but it remains a desirable possibility.

 

[homeforsummer]

I doubt it'll ever come to fruition, mainly because of the reasons I mentioned above. For an abundant element, hydrogen is extremely labour-intensive to harvest (you can't just scoop it out of the air), which counts very highly against it as it would take as much energy to gather as fossil fuels, which doesn't move anything on whatsoever. And the big bad power stations that people love to say still power electric cars would just be used instead to generate millions of gallons of liquid hydrogen through electrolysis. Hydrogen makes no sense whatsoever as a liquid fuel for internal combustion and only a little more sense in fuel cells.