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

[Eric.]

That is, well, crap. There is nothing hard edged about any Si the US has gotten so far. They are all just "boy racer" econoboxes that wish they were half as fun as any Type-R. Si/type s models are closer to the stock vehicles than they are to the type-r.

Whoa. Where do you have all this room to ****-talk?

 

[Azuremen]

That is, well, crap. There is nothing hard edged about any Si the US has gotten so far. They are all just "boy racer" econoboxes that wish they were half as fun as any Type-R. Si/type s models are closer to the stock vehicles than they are to the type-r.

The US spec Si is better than the Euro Spec Type R, based purely on suspension geometries. One could also consider looks.

 

[Eric.]

Anyway, we really don't know anything at all official about Si production, but the fact that people are having an extremely difficult time finding them means something. Word that the CR-Z was going to be built at whatever Si plant(s) was from a member on 8thCivic quoting someone at his dealership.

As for why the Civic's not on top for sport compacts, everyone else is running boost. They're basically dead even with a GTI, however the MS3 and Cobalt SS (T/C) are killers. But the MS3 has had turbo problems and I really don't trust GM and turbos too much. The Si will outlast either, I guarantee that. And its not a Cobalt.

 

[homeforsummer]

The US spec Si is better than the Euro Spec Type R, based purely on suspension geometries. One could also consider looks.

Well, quite. I happen to prefer the Euro Civic to the other variants available around the world at the mo, though if we're talking purely on Type R models the JDM sedan is probably my favourite in styling as well as concept.

I don't disagree on the suspension comment, but it in no way makes the current Euro R a bad car. As the review I linked to commented, the model with the LSD solved immediately any problems that the first run model had.

 

[niky]

The Si is a conundrum... yes, it's not quite as hardcore as a Type-R, but really... it's a fairly powerful car... in fact, the most powerful Civic the US has ever received... it has the better rear suspension (compared to the the Euro Type-R) and it comes, amusingly... in sedan form. It's hobbled merely by the fact that it's an Si, so doesn't come with the best tires or suspension settings, but that's a trim issue... not an issue related to coupe versus hatchback...

Still, a 200 horsepower, naturally aspirated 2-liter sedan. That's bonkers stuff. Obviously it's not going to be as quick as 250-300 hp turbocharged hatchbacks, but, as with the M3 and M5, that's not the point. It's there because a rev-hungry, naturally aspirated sportscar (oh, fiddle-sticks... fine... sports sedan) that just happens to have four seats (of course it has four seats! It's a sedan!) is fun and organically engaging in a way that effortlessly torquey turbocharged cars are (often) not.

Of course, part of the fun will be in the fact that the sedan has a more rearward weight bias and probably carries less grip than the coupe or the hatchback... which means more hooliganism on call... but since they don't sell the Si here... I'll never know.

Sigh... now I'm going to go all maudlin and start calling people I know who are in the import biz and see if I can scrounge up a test drive of one of these things...

Just for the record... neither the US nor Europe gets the best Civic...

And that's a sedan... Again... bonkers. Hmm... wondering if anyone's carrying an LHD conversion of one of these bad boys...

 

[Jim Prower]

The Si's also a 2-door.

 

[eSZee]

Whoa. Where do you have all this room to ****-talk?

Having driven the Japanese dc5 type r, ek type r and dc2 type r as well as many american Si models, I have all the room in the world.
The US always gets shafted by the Japanese and we get the watered down versions of their most fun cars.

The US spec Si is better than the Euro Spec Type R, based purely on suspension geometries. One could also consider looks.

That I'll agree with. I didn't mean to bring euro cars into the equation.

 

[niky]

The Si's also a 2-door.

I know... I don't care... the coupe version has always looked a bit iffy to me.

 

[Eric.]

Of course, part of the fun will be in the fact that the sedan has a more rearward weight bias and probably carries less grip than the coupe or the hatchback... which means more hooliganism on call... but since they don't sell the Si here... I'll never know.

It really is just a personal preference on looks and whether you need usable back seats for the coupe/sedan argument. The sedan weighs an extra 70lbs and has a 1% more even weight distribution (60/40 vs 61/39 IIRC). Just a little more overall length and an inch or two longer wheelbase. The Skunk2/Compass360 race team has one coupe and three sedans that dominate the Koni Challenge.

I know... I don't care... the coupe version has always looked a bit iffy to me.

Agreed. First time stepping onto the dealership I watched someone take delivery of a silver Si sedan, then saw the car that would become mine, as well as like three black Si coupes on the lot. Instantly wanted a sedan instead of the coupe.

 

[homeforsummer]

The Si is without doubt a nice car, but it still doesn't come close to a Type R. The Euro Type R may have a torsion beam rear suspension, but it's still closer to the JDM Type R than the Si will ever be.

 

[Eric.]

Well, the USDM car is on the same platform as the JDM Type R, for one. The Type R has a different (extra?) subframe, suspension is not interchangeable. Chassis has extra bracing. Apart from that I don't know why with the same changes the Si would be any less. The Si has a little less power and more weight, but both of those are easily taken care of.

It'd be nice if somebody had tested all three around a track on the same tires.

 

[McLaren]

Just for the record... neither the US nor Europe gets the best Civic...

And that's a sedan... Again... bonkers. Hmm... wondering if anyone's carrying an LHD conversion of one of these bad boys...

Closest we got to that was this.

But seriously, it really is an amazing piece of kit. Whomever it was can say the Type R is as fun as they want, but the Mugen Si is def. a car that can put grins on anyone's face. And the best part is, the base Si isn't really behind this. The Mugen does have the better suspension & clutch, but it can be lived without in the base model. I love mine just for the driving thrill that can be had with it as it cures my manual thirst. It loves to be tossed around, loves to rev, loves to do anything really. Power for power it can't match the thrill my Acura has, but it does a lot of things so much better.

 

[Eric.]

Closest we got to that was this.

But seriously, it really is an amazing piece of kit. Whomever it was can say the Type R is as fun as they want, but the Mugen Si is def. a car that can put grins on anyone's face. And the best part is, the base Si isn't really behind this. The Mugen does have the better suspension & clutch, but it can be lived without in the base model. I love mine just for the driving thrill that can be had with it as it cures my manual thirst. It loves to be tossed around, loves to rev, loves to do anything really. Power for power it can't match the thrill my Acura has, but it does a lot of things so much better.

Uh, our Mugen Si is an aero package, some interior bits, wheels, tires, and a different axleback exhaust. Its only faster because of the better tires.

Edit: And short shifter kit (Mugen Quickshift)

 

[McLaren]

Uh, our Mugen Si is an aero package, some interior bits, wheels, tires, and a different axleback exhaust. Its only faster because of the better tires.

Edit: And short shifter kit (Mugen Quickshift)

Uh, no, that's not why it's faster. The tires play a part, but the car's quickness on the track is done by the new Mugen springs & dampers, and the stiffer anti-roll bars.

 

[YSSMAN]

Jalopnik has their First Drive of the CR-Z Up

​

Based on what I'm reading from elsewhere, its not as bad as originally thought, but not nearly as good as it should have been. I still think the car looks pretty fantastic inside and out, and given the sacrifices that I already make with my Celica, it wouldn't be a tough switch. Still, I'd like to have one with a different engine, ditching the electric motor. To dream...

 

[niky]

Seems like all the US sites are starting to put up. Autoblog just posted theirs.

About what you expect. Drives like a porky Fit. The disappointing thing is the Fit is actually marginally quicker, with less power and torque. I'd wager that the seamless performance means that the hybrid drivetrain just about pulls its own weight... nothing more, nothing less.

A Fit drivetrain in a car like that, with all the weight saving measures it uses, would probably give performance in the 8's. Or better. As it is, it's simply a crying shame and a waste of a potentially good chassis.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm sure for people that bothered they'd skip straight past the Fit engine and put a K20 in or something.

As it is, it performs on par with the Fit but I still reckon you can get much better mileage out of it. I'm waiting for someone on the hypermiling site I occasionally go on to get one so I can see what it does when you put your mind to more economical driving. I've already mentioned the 50mpg city that Autocar got quite easily and very regularly in their Insight.

Also, it's about how the car delivers it's performance. The Fit is a sit-up-and-beg city car, the CR-Z is much lower. And the Autoblog review mentions it has a 2.5 turn lock-to-lock steering rack, which is pretty quick. The same as the MINI and similar to my MX5, as far as I'm aware.

Suppose it's also worth mentioning that the most powerful Fit(/Jazz) we get in the UK has a 1.4 that only makes about 98bhp, so the CR-Z is a big step up from the best Jazz we get.

 

[YSSMAN]

I haven't driven the new Fit, but is it really that bad compared to its predecessor? I really liked the previous Fit Sport, felt it was adequate or better under most circumstances, and was really pleased with the performance I was able to pull out of it on several test-drives. The engine was happy to rev, the gearbox was nice and tight, and the car was easy to read when I tossed it into a corner.

I would personally assume that the CR-Z would drive much more like the old Fit, but, I guess I'm a shade on the wrong side. I'll have to see one in person, give it a drive.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've not driven either generation of Fit, though I may change that soon. But I think the new car looks cool. It's a bit more youthful-looking than the old one. Honda are currently selling a model badged "Si" in the UK. It's still the 1.4 but it looks quite nice, and I'm sure they're still pretty decent to drive.

And of course, I'm still yet to drive a CR-Z. My local dealer didn't have one in last time I popped in but I think they should by now. Might try one when I pop back home at the weekend.

EDIT:

Interesting article on how the Honda's motor works here

The bit that caught my attention was this section:

Fans of the original CRX of the late-80s may complain that the hybrid CR-Z can't match the 51 mpg combined rating of the old HF. However, it's also important to remember that the way fuel economy sticker values are computed has changed several times in the last 25 years. The EPA estimates that under the current procedures the CRX HF would have been rated at 43 mpg. The CVT version of the CR-Z is rated at 37 mpg combined which is lower than the CRX but the new car is considerably larger and heavier. The CRX would never meet current emissions or crash safety standards and it's also considerably slower than the modern car. In almost every way, the CR-Z is a much better car.

So can people please stop bleating on about how cars from quarter of a century ago get the same fuel figures? Thanks. And it's fairly obvious too that the CRX HF was good on economy, but was never a performance machine. The actual high performance CRXs like the Si (or VTi in the UK, with the B16 motor) were better performing (as you'd expect with less weight and 30-40bhp more) but significantly worse on fuel, and the less said about safety the better.

The only real thing the new CR-Z has in common with the old CRX is styling.

 

[FoolKiller]

EDIT:

Interesting article on how the Honda's motor works

Imagine that AutoblogGreen, the site that has been making the CR-Z sound like the second coming since the first concept drawing, biasedly defends it as being "better" without mentioning that what makes a car "better" is purely subjective.

For example:

and the less said about safety the better.

I would gladly trade in half the safety features in my car for a few mpgs or a quicker 0-60. Actually, just a quicker 0-60.

The only real thing the new CR-Z has in common with the old CRX is styling.

So, then we should blame Honda for falsely representing the CR-Z then? People didn't pull the CRX comparison out of their butts. Honda pointed them out and even put the video up on their own You Tube channel.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/09/video-honda-execs-talk-up-historical-link-between-cr-z-and-crx/3

We will quit making comparisons when Honda says we shouldn't.

 

[homeforsummer]

Imagine that AutoblogGreen, the site that has been making the CR-Z sound like the second coming since the first concept drawing, biasedly defends it as being "better" without mentioning that what makes a car "better" is purely subjective.

ABG ran the same review of the CR-Z that Autoblog did. It therefore ended with the same conclusion, which is that they found the CR-Z disappointing. What's your point?...

Indeed, AB and ABG have been probably more critical of the car than anyone short of keyboard warriors or Jalopnik, which is pretty much as right-wing as a car site can get.

I would gladly trade in half the safety features in my car for a few mpgs or a quicker 0-60. Actually, just a quicker 0-60.

And personally, I wouldn't. The CR-Z actually performs near identically to my Miata. Given that it gets massively better fuel consumption despite being heavier, I therefore see it as being quite an achievement.

Plus, safely isn't really an option these days. It's something people just don't seem to get. You can lament as much as you want that cars are getting safer at the expense of other things, but it's a trend that isn't going to stop. If everyone had the same attitude, then people would have stopped buying new cars years ago because nothing is ever "like it used to be".

So, then we should blame Honda for falsely representing the CR-Z then? People didn't pull the CRX comparison out of their butts. Honda pointed them out and even put the video up on their own You Tube channel.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/09/video-honda-execs-talk-up-historical-link-between-cr-z-and-crx/3

We will quit making comparisons when Honda says we shouldn't.

If you've been following the CR-Z as long as I have you'll see the CRX references are far more heavily touted by the press than they are by Honda themselves. Honda have very rarely mentioned the CRX in their marketing. The video you picked out was quoting from the head of sales. Try and find an engineer who's mentioned the CRX...

Joe Public is making the comparison, not Honda. People made the comparison because of the shape. But then the shape is just a default aero-shape, which happens to have a glass tailgate and three doors. Like the original insight. Or like the Prius and current insight, but with fewer doors. Or like the Citroen C4 3dr, which is also a kamm-back with a glass slot in the boot.

I'm sure the designers drew inspiration from the CRX, but Honda have never claimed it's a replacement for that car.

 

[FoolKiller]

Plus, safely isn't really an option these days. It's something people just don't seem to get. You can lament as much as you want that cars are getting safer at the expense of other things, but it's a trend that isn't going to stop. If everyone had the same attitude, then people would have stopped buying new cars years ago because nothing is ever "like it used to be".

Half the safety features in my car are not required, nor do they come as standard on most of the competition. I could do without air bags behind every interior panel and a few other things.

If you've been following the CR-Z as long as I have you'll see the CRX references are far more heavily touted by the press than they are by Honda themselves. Honda have very rarely mentioned the CRX in their marketing. The video you picked out was quoting from the head of sales. Try and find an engineer who's mentioned the CRX...

If they don't want the comparison they shouldn't have the video on their own You Tube page, which is used as their PR. What their engineers think doesn't matter if their marketing is misrepresenting the car. You think every other car company runs their marketing by the engineers first? The image Honda is selling is this one, like it or not.

 

[niky]

Personally, I'm waiting for the economy figures, too. The new Fit apparently isn't as good in the real-world in terms of economy as the old. Honda, locally, used to do eco-runs, touting economy results between 50-70 mpg... in the city... for the old car. On a hypermiling trip, they've gotten over 1,400 kilometers out of one puny 42 liter tank... (around 77 mpg... with the iDSi engine). They held a few eco-runs with the new ones when they came out, but figures were disappointingly in the 40 mpg plus range, only.

I haven't driven the new Fit, but is it really that bad compared to its predecessor? I really liked the previous Fit Sport, felt it was adequate or better under most circumstances, and was really pleased with the performance I was able to pull out of it on several test-drives. The engine was happy to rev, the gearbox was nice and tight, and the car was easy to read when I tossed it into a corner.

I would personally assume that the CR-Z would drive much more like the old Fit, but, I guess I'm a shade on the wrong side. I'll have to see one in person, give it a drive.

The new Fit is targeted at the mass-market. Thus, it suffers from Scion xB syndrome... make it bigger... make it more comfortable... make it heavier.

That said... it's not that much heavier, and it's still a cracker to drive compared to four-door "compacts". The new engine feels pretty healthy, the steering is miles better than the annoying electric rack of the old car and the suspension isn't as rattly over bumps.

But... the softer ride and mass market appeal mean that it's not quite as tidy in a corner. It leans more, understeers more and doesn't feel quite as adjustable. In corners where I've dived into, apex-perfect at, 70 mph, four-wheel drifting, in the old Fit, the new Fit will simply scrub wide, leaning onto its outside front wheel and "pushing".

And if you've driven the new Fiesta or the current Mazda2, you'll be sorely disappointed with the current Fit's athletic abilities. Especially since the Mazda2 is just about as joyful to drive as the first-gen Fit (with better steering).

It's worth noting that the Fit feels a fair bit more spacious than either, despite on-paper stats claiming otherwise, and has a bigger cargo bin... and for people who want four seats and a trunk that can swallow an elephant, there is still no substitute.

 

[Jondot]

I would gladly trade in half the safety features in my car for a few mpgs or a quicker 0-60. Actually, just a quicker 0-60.

Considering you're a man with a wife and a child, you have no idea how much that statement surprises/angers me.

 

[FoolKiller]

Considering you're a man with a wife and a child, you have no idea how much that statement surprises/angers me.

It shouldn't. All the things I am thinking of have zero effect on my child and some would actually be better for her if they weren't there. Rear airbags when I am not allowed to place her car seat up front because of airbags amazes me.

 

[niky]

Considering you're a man with a wife and a child, you have no idea how much that statement surprises/angers me.

EDIT: tree'd, but still relevant.

Airbags are no replacement for for proper seatbelt use.

In fact, the reason you can't put a rear-facing child seat in the front (and this annoys me no end, as I sometimes drive for my kid alone) is because of the airbag... and my car doesn't have the kill-switch/weight trigger that deactivates the airbag.

The safety devices that you really need are seat-belts, crumple zones and the common sense not to perform a scandinavian flick in a four-ton SUV. Nothing much else, really.

I don't demand airbags or stability control from my car... but a minimum amount of crashworthiness is a must.

 

[FoolKiller]

EDIT: tree'd, but still relevant.

Airbags are no replacement for for proper seatbelt use.

In fact, the reason you can't put a rear-facing child seat in the front (and this annoys me no end, as I sometimes drive for my kid alone) is because of the airbag... and my car doesn't have the kill-switch/weight trigger that deactivates the airbag.

The safety devices that you really need are seat-belts, crumple zones and the common sense not to perform a scandinavian flick in a four-ton SUV. Nothing much else, really.

I don't demand airbags or stability control from my car... but a minimum amount of crashworthiness is a must.

This guy gets it.

In fact, airbags are specifically categorized in a way that indicates they are useless without a seatbelt. They are an SRS: Secondary Restraint System. In other words, no seatbelt, no use.

 

[Jondot]

It shouldn't. All the things I am thinking of have zero effect on my child and some would actually be better for her if they weren't there. Rear airbags when I am not allowed to place her car seat up front because of airbags amazes me.

Don't US Golfs have a button to kill the front passenger air bag? In fact I'm sure they do - I can see the giant alert for it right in the middle of the dashboard:

In which case, say your kid is in the front, wife in the back (as I imagine VW would like you to be seated) and you're t-boned. Are you telling me you'd still be happy you did without the side air bags for 0.2 of a second acceleration difference?

EDIT: tree'd, but still relevant.

Airbags are no replacement for for proper seatbelt use.

In fact, the reason you can't put a rear-facing child seat in the front (and this annoys me no end, as I sometimes drive for my kid alone) is because of the airbag... and my car doesn't have the kill-switch/weight trigger that deactivates the airbag.

The safety devices that you really need are seat-belts, crumple zones and the common sense not to perform a scandinavian flick in a four-ton SUV. Nothing much else, really.

I don't demand airbags or stability control from my car... but a minimum amount of crashworthiness is a must.

Of course, but again each safety device is there for a different reason. Curtain air bags are going to do **** all in a frontal impact, just like seat belts aren't going to stop your head from whacking into the C-pillar when an SUV drives into the side of you.

They might be 'secondary', but it doesn't mean they're not worth having.

 

[homeforsummer]

Half the safety features in my car are not required, nor do they come as standard on most of the competition. I could do without air bags behind every interior panel and a few other things.

That's your car. We're discussing a different one. I suspect the CR-Z isn't overflowing with airbags in the same way your car does, but all modern cars have to meet the same safety standards, like it or lump it.

If you're that bothered, go and buy something built in the 1970s before the days of crumple zones and airbags. You'll still have seatbelts, at least in the front.

If they don't want the comparison they shouldn't have the video on their own You Tube page, which is used as their PR. What their engineers think doesn't matter if their marketing is misrepresenting the car. You think every other car company runs their marketing by the engineers first? The image Honda is selling is this one, like it or not.

Except they aren't. They've mentioned it a couple of times max. It appears in none of their marketing material, and I highly doubt it even appears in any press release, though I can't confirm that.

Honda are not selling it as a CRX replacement. The media and public are assuming it's the new CRX because it shares similar design cues with one.

You can do your best to find Honda mentioning that it's a CRX replacement but I guarantee you'll come up with very little indeed. One video does not a strong statement make.

In fact, airbags are specifically categorized in a way that indicates they are useless without a seatbelt. They are an SRS: Secondary Restraint System. In other words, no seatbelt, no use.

Except that sort of thing has never been a problem in the UK, only in the US where people cruise about in the middle of nowhere with no seatbelt on, crash into a tree and wonder why the airbag broke their neck or launched them into the back of the car. Given that a vast proportion of drivers over here wear their seatbelts, airbags do the job they're supposed to.

If a car is equipped with safety features and the passengers choose not to use them, be it (literally) on their neck when the worst happens.

 

[YSSMAN]

And if you've driven the new Fiesta or the current Mazda2, you'll be sorely disappointed with the current Fit's athletic abilities. Especially since the Mazda2 is just about as joyful to drive as the first-gen Fit (with better steering).

Slightly OT Point:
The Fiestas are "late" to the US, by about a week or two. I'm dying to drive one, and hopefully when I'm down in a "big city" I'll be able to score a drive. No idea when the Mazda 2 is dropping, though. If its that close to the Fit, and considering its a little cheaper than the Fiesta, I might have to look a little closer at one.