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

[Keef]

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.

Bro, they made a small two door hatchiback with the engine and drive wheels up front. A sporty suspension and design. It's got a two-pane rear window, split in the middle by the high hatch. Honda could have never even mentioned the CRX whatsoever and could have called this thing the Gaurana and people would have been like "Woah, it's a new CRX!" It's a damn CRX HFS, there is no denying that. The car is marketing itself as a new CRX because it's just like a damn CRX, except it's failing because it's not actually like a CRX. Nothing will ever be like the CRX, it just won't work in today's industry with today's stupid rules. It would sell like wildfire, but the companies just won't do it. Instead they make it a hybrid because that's the cool new **** that no young people want or can afford.

I see Niky mentioned the 2 and Fiesta. The 2 especially is something I'm pretty interested in, and that's saying a lot because I typically despise new cars. Especially cars like the CR-Z. Spoon can have all the fun they want with this one but until they take this car back to basics I'm not even into it.

 

[homeforsummer]

Bro, they made a small two door hatchiback with the engine and drive wheels up front. A sporty suspension and design. It's got a two-pane rear window, split in the middle by the high hatch.

Like the Citroen C4 you mean?

Or like their own Insight with two fewer doors. Or like the old Insight, with more power.

Honda could have never even mentioned the CRX whatsoever and could have called this thing the Gaurana and people would have been like "Woah, it's a new CRX!"

Exactly. And they did the same thing with the first Insight, even though that was even less like the original CRX. People have remarkably little imagination.

It's a damn CRX HFS, there is no denying that.

It's not. It's a sporty hybrid which shares similar, but by no means identical styling cues to the CRX. Honda do not market it as a new CRX, they're marketing it as a hybrid you can have fun with.

I see Niky mentioned the 2 and Fiesta. The 2 especially is something I'm pretty interested in, and that's saying a lot because I typically despise new cars. Especially cars like the CR-Z. Spoon can have all the fun they want with this one but until they take this car back to basics I'm not even into it.

I'd definitely recommend the 2. I've had a brief drive and it's remarkable how close it feels to an NC MX5, even down to the short gearshift and engine noise.

If you don't like the CR-Z because it's slow, or because it's a hybrid and you just don't like hybrids, that's fine. But it's ignorant to dismiss it because it can't perform like a quarter-century old hatchback that's neither as safe nor economical (and good examples of which are thin on the ground as it is).

The CR-Z isn't a CRX. It's a modern rival to the Scirocco, MINI, and various other small-engined or diesel engined hatches and coupes.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Personally I don't like the CR-Z because it's not a CR-X. And because it's rather slow by today's standards as well as apparently not that great of a drive. 37-40mpg is far from special these days all things considered. In fact, the Cobalt XFE hits the same 37mpg rating on the highway without being a hybrid and is likely just as good to drive, not to mention quicker in a straight line.

They very honestly would be better off without the hybrid stuff here. I could see 30-32mpg from a K20 powered version given proper gearing and then much better for less powerful versions.

 

[homeforsummer]

Mildly related for all this CRX/CR-Z stuff, I went to a car show today. Mainly classic cars but a few dealerships had new stuff. Honda had not one, not two but five CR-Zs lined up, a couple of top specs and some other specs in different colours. I like the styling in the metal, and the numberplate mounting takes away a bit of the "gaping mouth" look to the front. The one in the pic below I think is the base model (maybe the Sport), which is available at about £17k.

Had a sit inside, and it seemed nice enough to me. Seats were good, all the controls were well placed (relationship between wheel and pedals was similar to my Mazda), and I quite like the design of the dashboard. Rear seats are certainly very occasional - I certainly wouldn't subject my friends to them for more than 15 mins, but they can be lowered to extend the boot with a completely level boot floor. I don't have many friends anyway so that wouldn't be a problem

Picked up a brochure too, and I think I'd be happy enough for the base model. The Sport and GT specs wouldn't offer me enough above the basic one - just stuff like HID headlamps, foglamps, metal pedals, leather gearknob, leather seats on the GT, etc. Nothing special and certainly not worth an extra £3-4k over the base one. I'd prefer to spend that money on buying all the Spoon bits being developed for the car. Or beer.

As well as the brochure I picked up a magazine supplement. A Top Gear one. It was, typically, rubbish. Here's an example:

Mid-engined Del Sol? Yeah... okay. Typical sloppy journalism the Top Gear mag is moving towards. In a TV program, entertainment is great. In a magazine, if I'm to be entertained I want it to be by the quality of the writing, not by flashy colours and "jokes". Especially if it's going to get in the way of accuracy.

 

[Jondot]

It does look fantastic in that shade of blue, I must say. Though I'm not loving the greyish blue colour they've painted half the interior, it's as tacky as hell.

Mid-engined Del Sol? Yeah... okay.

Oh Top Gear, that's just embarrassing

 

[homeforsummer]

The greyish blue might just be my shoddy camera work. It was a very light grey and a fairly normal grey in the car.

 

[Jondot]

The greyish blue might just be my shoddy camera work. It was a very light grey and a fairly normal grey in the car.

I'm not convinced that's much of an improvement to be honest. Just make the whole thing black and be done with it, I say.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think it looked okay. Made the place look light and airy. I reckon the coal-hole plastics and blacked-out windows on the SporK have turned you over to the dark side

I know this'll sound daft, but I think a light-coloured interior sort of looks more high-tech and futuristic than going down the all-black route. That might be pre-conditioning from having a very "retro" black plastic interior myself. Wood and leather stopped in the 1970s, then came the black plastic era, the 90s was the era of funky awful seat trim and coloured plastics, and now we're in the "light and dark contrast interior" period...

Edit: This is the colour scheme the car I sat in had:

 

[Jondot]

I think it looked okay. Made the place look light and airy. I reckon the coal-hole plastics and blacked-out windows on the SporK have turned you over to the dark side

It's entirely possible Though I'd say it's more a case of dreadful light-coloured interiors putting me off. For 6 years I had to put up with this, for example:

(Not my photo, by the way - even my mother wouldn't buy an auto)


The CR-Z one is bearable, but any 'rugged' plastics coloured that light grey colour are just going to look like they came from a Hyundai Tucson (which I believe holds the world record for the greyest interior known to man). Actually no - d'you know what it reminds me of? The Transit vans BT used to drive around in the late '90s:

 

[FoolKiller]

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:

That is the caution lights/emergency blinkers button. The passenger side airbag is automatic based on a weight sensor. I am now curious to see if child seat + 15lb child is enough to turn the airbag on.

In which case, say your kid is in the front, wife in the back (as I imagine VW would like you to be seated)

Two sets of child seat anchors in the back seat, none in the front seat, and my owner's manual suggesting rear seat placement. Try again.

It appears in none of their marketing material,

What do you call a video, made by Honda, with a VP, from Honda, talking about it on their own You Tube channel? If that isn't marketing material I don't know what is. This isn't some fan-made video thrown up on the Internet. This is a marketing video professionally created and paid for by Honda.

One video does not a strong statement make.

But it does make it an official statement.

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.

Wearing seatbelts are US law, and have been for years now. People not wearing seatbelts in the US are doing more than just being stupid. The rate of seatbelt wearing is better in the US than it used to be.

 

[Jondot]

That is the caution lights/emergency blinkers button. The passenger side airbag is automatic based on a weight sensor. I am now curious to see if child seat + 15lb child is enough to turn the airbag on.

And right below the hazard light switch is...

The light that says the passenger airbag is off.

And if I do a bit more digging, you can see that the European Golf has a switch in the glove box for turning off the passenger air bag. Now I'm guessing here, but as Rabbits clearly have a light that says they're on or off, I imagine VW have put a similar switch in yours.

Two sets of child seat anchors in the back seat, none in the front seat, and my owner's manual suggesting rear seat placement. Try again.

Quoting from EuroNCAP here...

Child occupant
The restraint used by the 3 year old was forward-facing VW-branded Britax Romer Duo Plus fitted to the car using the ISOFix anchorages and top tethers. That used by the 18 month old was rear facing VW-branded Britax Romer BabySafe fitted to the car using the adult belts.

Source

That would imply to me that the people that actually crash test your car would rather you put <18 month olds in the front, regardless of whether there are ISOFIX points or not. And then on the page for the 2009 Golf, there's a nice little diagram to demonstrate the same point:

I can 'try again' if you like, but if you're going to keep making me look up things about your car I suggest you employ me.

 

[FoolKiller]

And right below the hazard light switch is...

An indicator light letting me know if the passenger side airbag is on or off. On or off is determined by a weight sensor.

And if I do a bit more digging, you can see that the European Golf has a switch in the glove box for turning off the passenger air bag. Now I'm guessing here, but as Rabbits clearly have a light that says they're on or off, I imagine VW have put a similar switch in yours.

He is talking about removing wires and says nothing about a switch.

next thig remove all associated wires first 2 are footwell light and interior glovebox light (if you have these), second picture is airbag light (do not turn ignition on with this out as your airbag light will come on and need vag-com'd off)

To add: his car is not my car, as my car does not have a lock on the glove box door but does have an auxiliary audio port and climate control vent built in to the inside.

Quoting from EuroNCAP here...

<snip>

That would imply to me that the people that actually crash test your car would rather you put <18 month olds in the front, regardless of whether there are ISOFIX points or not. And then on the page for the 2009 Golf, there's a nice little diagram to demonstrate the same point:

I wasn't aware that EuroNCAP was testing US spec models now.

But I do know that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration does and this is what they say for all child seats, and children. Note: NHTSA guidelines are what all US spec models will have posted in them.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/childps/newtips/pages/Tip1.htm

Children age 12 and under should ride properly restrained in back.

And then again.

WARNING: The back seat is the safest place in a crash. Children age 12 and under should ride properly restrained in back. Infants riding rear-facing must NEVER be placed in front of an airbag.

Their emphasis.

Should I also point out that my wife and I had our child seat installations inspected by an NHTSA certified inspector that works locally as an emergency responder?

 

[homeforsummer]

What do you call a video, made by Honda, with a VP, from Honda, talking about it on their own You Tube channel? If that isn't marketing material I don't know what is. This isn't some fan-made video thrown up on the Internet. This is a marketing video professionally created and paid for by Honda.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as this is going nowhere.

Honda have consistantly maintained that the CR-Z is not a successor the CRX, no more than the original Insight was that looked a little bit like the CRX. The video you posted is called "a nod towards the CRX" not "CR-Z - the new CRX" or similar, and not a single one of the people interviewed said "this is a successor". They all just acknowledge that the styling will evoke memories of the CRX and that it's aimed at the same sort of buyer.

When you start finding several videos stating specifically that it's a successor, quotes from brochures etc, then I will acknowledge that Honda themselves see it as a successor. Until that point, I'll go along with everything else that I've read where they say it is not.

The CR-Z is no more a successor to CRX than the new MINI is to the original Morris/Austin/Rover Mini. The styling may be similar, but the concept is different. Ironically, the MINI is another car that fans of the original dislike for not being basically identical to the original...

 

[Jondot]

An indicator light letting me know if the passenger side airbag is on or off. On or off is determined by a weight sensor.

Right, so you're telling me that the passenger airbag 'off' light comes on every time the front seat is empty? Rubbish. It's there to warn the driver that they've deliberately switched off the front air bag. Why would they deliberately turn off the front passenger airbag? So that a child seat can be placed there. I would bet £20 that there's a switch for turning off the air bag somewhere. Open up your glove box and send me a decent sized picture. If there's not one there I'll PayPal you twenty of my British pounds. Off you pop.

He is talking about removing wires and says nothing about a switch.

Of course he doesn't mention the switch, he's talking about removing bits of trim, not the air bags. If you'd looked at the pictures, however...

Looks a lot like an airbag on-off switch to me.

I wasn't aware that EuroNCAP was testing US spec models now.

I wasn't aware that EuroNCAP's advice was suddenly worthless because they're an organisation based in a different country. Despite testing what's essentially the same car with the same seats and seatbelts. And indeed the same 'airbag off' warning light. My mistake.

But I do know that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration does and this is what they say for all child seats, and children. Note: NHTSA guidelines are what all US spec models will have posted in them.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/childps/newtips/pages/Tip1.htm

That's right, because they're afraid the air bag will deploy. So surely switching off the air bag has the same effect as it not being there, no? And if there is a switch buried somewhere in your car, surely it's then better to use it and place any child seats in the front where you know an airbag isn't going to go off?

Should I also point out that my wife and I had our child seat installations inspected by an NHTSA certified inspector that works locally as an emergency responder?

You can if you like, means nothing to me. I'm not arguing that you're doing something that's unsafe for your child, I'm suggesting that what you're so adament can't be done actually probably can.

 

[FoolKiller]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one as this is going nowhere.

Sounds good.

 

[homeforsummer]

Interesting airbag discussion guys, but allow me to hint that it's fairly off-topic...

 

[Tornado]

Total necropost:

Yeah, I'm sure Honda won't possibly be able to better the sublime handling yard stick that is the Fit.

What, you mean the Mini competitor American Fit, or the old-lady-with-several-cats European Jazz?

And who needs an attractive coupe with a premium price tag when you can have the Fit Sport!

See look - a bodykit. Sporty.

Yes. Totally. As we all know, sporty body lines and fancy cladding is what a sporty car make. This is why the 1999 Pontiac Gran Am was the pinnacle of FF sport coupes, despite handling like a wet tissue.




In regards to the Euro/JDM Type R issue from a few pages back, it is such a sad thing that it is now moot.

 

[niky]

Actually, the underpinnings are the same, wherever you buy your Fit. It's just the engine choices that differ.

Now if you could get a Fit with an R18...

 

[homeforsummer]

In regards to the Euro/JDM Type R issue from a few pages back, it is such a sad thing that it is now moot.

Unless I've missed something, how do you mean?

 

[Tornado]

JDM Type R is going away in August, to be replaced in Japan by the Euro Type R.

Feel free to insert the "Whatever happened to the Honda of the 90s" statement of your choice in response.

 

[homeforsummer]

Meh, doesn't really bother me, and given how popular the Euro R is in Japan, I doubt it bothers them too much either. The sedan will still be available second hand anyway.

 

[Jondot]

What, you mean the Mini competitor American Fit, or the old-lady-with-several-cats European Jazz?

Am I being crazy - aren't they the same car?

It's only a Mini competitor in the US because it's one of about 3 other small cars that are actually on sale. Here in Euro-land they're in completely different classes (sporty expensive thing and frumpy practical thing, respectively). As I think it's been discussed before somewhere-or-other.

 

[homeforsummer]

The one difference the US version has over the Euro Jazz is the top engine available. You guys get a zingy 1.5 that's now shared with the CR-Z, we get a mildly enthusiastic 1.4 with about 90bhp as our top model. The chassis is the same though.

And it's a good chassis - but it lags behind the best available over here, namely Fiesta/Mazda2, MINI, hotter Clios etc.

I do like the Jazz though. It's an "unassuming" car, and I reckon they could show more powerful cars a clean pair of heels on a challenging road, it's just that in the UK they totally aren't bought by that kind of driver.

This is our top car in the UK, the Jazz Si:

It's an "Si" in name only (has the same 1.4 as other Jazzes) but I do think it's a good looking design, the interior is pretty cool too, typical modern Honda - a little crazy but ergonomic and interesting.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd appreciate a Fit Si here in the US if they ever got around to making a legitimate one. A little more aggressive wheel/tire package, a slightly more stiff suspension tune, it would go a long way for only a little bit of money.

Too bad Honda USA lost their mojo.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd be happy enough if the UK Si just had the 1.5 you guys get in the States. But then the UK market for the Jazz is a lot different from the US market for the Fit. And by different, I mean about a quarter-century older.

I should hopefully be having a test drive of the CR-Z tomorrow all being well. Last time I popped to the local Honda garage their only cars were both out, but they should have at least one in tomorrow. When (if) I do, I'll report back here. It won't exactly be in-depth but I'll try and at least relay what I find.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thread revival time. Seemed like an appropriate place to put it, rather than starting a new thread.

2013 Honda CR-Z revealed in Paris - more power, few tweaks here and there.

Main points:

- Power rises from 122bhp to 135bhp, 0-60 drops from just under 10s to 9s
- Lithium-ion battery pack, rather than nickel
- 'S+' button - if battery capacity is over 50%, you get an extra boost from the motor for ten seconds if you press this
- New colours (comes in perpl, for Famine)
- New trim features
- Economy the same as before

I already quite liked the CR-Z, though I've still not yet driven one (may as well wait until January now when the updated one arrives).

But whaddya reckon? More desirable now or still way off the mark? I've never had a problem with the performance figures but that's because my local roads are all typical twisty UK country roads where you're lucky to get above 50mph, so I tend to prioritise handling over outright performance... and the extra shove probably makes the CR-Z quite a good country road car now, particularly with the extra boost for overtakes or hills. And I also quite like that it'll do ~50mpg at 70-odd, given what fuel costs over here.

I do hope that black isn't the sole interior colour now though. I quite liked the light grey of before, and I find entirely-black interiors depressing.

But of course, U.S. buyers typically have different requirements. Still too slow for the enthusiasts, and not economical enough for the greens?

 

[YSSMAN]

The improvements definitely make it a more interesting car, and I'm still really curious about them. The major limiting factor has always been the price, in my opinion. The segment is really too competitive, and even non-hybrid options are able to throw up numbers (fuel economy and performance) that are better than this.

Still, I really like the purple. That alone makes it nearly worth it.

 

[homeforsummer]

And potentially, the CR-Z could at least get better gas mileage in the next few years...

Honda Details Future Small-Car Hybrid System; We Drive It

As could the Fit, and any other small Honda.

Quick science lesson: The current Honda hybrid system, Integrated Motor Assist, is what many call a "mild" hybrid. You have an engine and transmission as normal (usually CVT, manual in the CR-Z) and a slim, light, electric motor between the two. Batteries somewhere beneath the trunk power the whole caboodle.

The new Honda hybrid system, i-DCD, uses an Atkinson-cycle engine (similar to Toyota hybrids - think Miller cycle without the supercharger), attached to a 7-speed dual-clutch transmission. An electric motor sits within the transmission.

Unlike the IMA, i-DCD can operate entirely in electric mode (like Toyota's system, and several others), which is an immediate benefit for city driving. Plus, it can assist or generate energy as before. And for people who hate CVTs or e-CVT (planetary gearsets, as in Toyotas and Fords), the 7-speed DCT should give a bit more of a sporty, 'connected' feeling.

Science lesson over.

Thoughts? I'd be quite interested actually - in something like a CR-Z it would probably convince me to drop the manual for an auto. You'd have the sporty aspect (paddleshift is presumably going to be an option) but it would get better MPG too. Hybrids are always really relaxing to drive around town - it's amazing what difference the engine being off most of the time actually makes. And it'd still be fun on the open road.

One would hope they'd give the CR-Z a bit more power though too, so you could exploit the DCT a little more.

 

[sumbrownkid]

That's neat and all, but once Honda goes along that Atkinson cycle engine, then the hybrid drivetrain has to make up for that loss of grunt in the low end.

The CR-Z never really jived well with the masses. I think the problem was that many people who came in to see the CR-Z in a dealership were instead directed towards the Civic hybrid, or just a basic Civic.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd say the CR-Z's problem was not being economical enough for the greens, and not fast enough for the gearheads. Fix either one, or both, and sales would improve. This looks like fixing the economy, but hopefully it could gain a bit more power at the same time.

As for the loss of grunt thing, are the current engines particularly grunty anyway? They're fairly low-capacity units tuned more for economy than performance - I can't see an Atkinson-cycle engine being much worse, like-for-like.