So you think the Honda CR-Z is a success?

[996GT2]

There is a factory supercharger option for CR-Z's ... if someone feels like taking a few G's to their dealer.

The power gains are still less than if Honda put a K20 in it from the start. 187hp with the supercharger added on? That's weak...

Heck, just stick the 185HP I-4 from the current Accord in the CR-Z and it would probably get the same gas mileage as a supercharged CR-Z. Not to mention it would be faster without the ~250 pounds or so that the hybrid motor, batteries, and supercharger adds.

I think the CR-Z fails on both the performance front and the fuel-economy front. The CR-Z has LESS total HP than a Prius (which makes it really slow), and the fuel economy is considerably worse than a Prius despite the CR-Z being a lighter car.

If they put a K20 in the car, the car would get abysmal fuel economy and nobody would care about the vehicle except a few people. A 2700lb 200hp car is nothing to get excited about as Honda already has a car like that, it's called the Honda Civic Si. What the car needs is a diet, plain and simple.

A CR-Z without the weight of all the hybrid baggage would be about 2500 pounds. 2500 lbs + the 220hp K20 from the RSX-S would be a pretty nice package. With the right gearing, it would easily do well over 30 mpg on the highway, so the gas mileage would be far from "abysmal".

 

[tortillasoup]

The power gains are still less than if Honda put a K20 in it from the start. 187hp with the supercharger added on? That's weak...

Heck, just stick the 185HP I-4 from the current Accord in the CR-Z and it would probably get the same gas mileage as a supercharged CR-Z. Not to mention it would be faster without the ~250 pounds or so that the hybrid motor, batteries, and supercharger adds.

I think the CR-Z fails on both the performance front and the fuel-economy front. The CR-Z has LESS total HP than a Prius (which makes it really slow), and the fuel economy is considerably worse than a Prius despite the CR-Z being a lighter car.



A CR-Z without the weight of all the hybrid baggage would be about 2500 pounds. 2500 lbs + the 220hp K20 from the RSX-S would be a pretty nice package. With the right gearing, it would easily do well over 30 mpg on the highway, so the gas mileage would be far from "abysmal".

The fact that you think 30mpg highway isn't abysmal is what I find to be frightening. There are cars with way more weight, power and utility that far exceed 30mpg highway. The car is just too heavy and by putting that 200hp engine it makes it like a crappy Scion Tc which nobody cares about.

 

[NutBucket]

I think the CR-Z fails on both the performance front and the fuel-economy front. The CR-Z has LESS total HP than a Prius (which makes it really slow), and the fuel economy is considerably worse than a Prius despite the CR-Z being a lighter car.

You should check your facts at least. A regular Prius does about 10 seconds 0-60. A Prius C takes over 11 seconds. A CVT CR-Z is in the low 9 second range and a manual equipped car is high 8 seconds. (all numbers are from edmunds so no cherry picking) While it isn't a rocket ship it can get out of its own way.

A CR-Z without the weight of all the hybrid baggage would be about 2500 pounds. 2500 lbs + the 220hp K20 from the RSX-S would be a pretty nice package. With the right gearing, it would easily do well over 30 mpg on the highway, so the gas mileage would be far from "abysmal".

Have to agree with the Prius lover on this one. Almost any "smaller" car should easily achieve mid 30's on the highway. And by smaller I mean anything smaller than a 300c (which ironically gets over 30mpg highway). I'd say an impressive highway number is something over 40...like a Cruze TDI or something.

 

[996GT2]

The fact that you think 30mpg highway isn't abysmal is what I find to be frightening. There are cars with way more weight, power and utility that far exceed 30mpg highway. The car is just too heavy and by putting that 200hp engine it makes it like a crappy Scion Tc which nobody cares about.

You know a 6-speed stock CR-Z is only rated for 37 mpg highway, right? And it's a hybrid with ~120hp.

My whole point is that the CR-Z makes no sense when it's so woefully underpowered AND gets horrible mpg for a hybrid. If it was underpowered but got Prius-like mpg, that would be fine. If it had a K20 and got worse mpg, well, at least it would be decently quick.

And again, a K20 CR-Z would only weigh about 2500 lbs. A Scion TC weighs half a ton more.

You should check your facts at least. A regular Prius does about 10 seconds 0-60. A Prius C takes over 11 seconds. A CVT CR-Z is in the low 9 second range and a manual equipped car is high 8 seconds. (all numbers are from edmunds so no cherry picking) While it isn't a rocket ship it can get out of its own way.

High 8 seconds is a full second slower than an Accord or Camry 4 cylinder. Also, I never said the CR-Z was slower than a Prius, I just said it was less powerful than one, which it is. And that it's really slow, which it is, unless you don't consider 1 second slower to 60 than a 4-cylinder Accord or Camry to be slow...

 

[NutBucket]

I average 40 in mine in mixed driving. Yes, I know the EPA numbers are far from impressive.

While I agree high 8s isn't fast, I don't see what difference it makes if it's less powerful. The fact is it's faster than a Prius is all that matters. Think about the original Insight. Got awesome mpg but also had a tiny 3 cylinder engine and was slow as dirt. Can't exactly have everything.

 

[tortillasoup]

You know a 6-speed stock CR-Z is only rated for 37 mpg highway, right? And it's a hybrid with ~120hp.

My whole point is that the CR-Z makes no sense when it's so woefully underpowered AND gets horrible mpg for a hybrid. If it was underpowered but got Prius-like mpg, that would be fine. If it had a K20 and got worse mpg, well, at least it would be decently quick.

And again, a K20 CR-Z would only weigh about 2500 lbs. A Scion TC weighs half a ton more.

Yes but Honda can't afford to have any gas guzzlers in the near future and the CR-Z with the K20 would be exactly that. The CR-Z isn't underpowered, it's just that it has a poor power to weight ratio which means worse performance, worse fuel economy. I don't get why all I hear is MORE POWER, LESS FUEL ECONOMY instead, LESS WEIGHT, MORE FUEL ECONOMY MORE POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO. If the damned thing weighed like a 2000-2006 Insight, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The M/T Insight with its piddly 1.0L engine was a relatively quick/fun car with excellent fuel economy and that's due to its weight. Now imagine that same car but with the 1.5L engine, and now it's really quick and fun. Even if they added 200lbs to the Insight, it still would have been mad quick!

Think about the original Insight. Got awesome mpg but also had a tiny 3 cylinder engine and was slow as dirt. Can't exactly have everything.

The Insight wasn't slow as dirt, only the CVT version was and that's because of the power sapping CVT transmission which lead to shit fuel economy, shit performance and shit reliability.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

High 8s is not just not fast, it's very slow any way you look at it. A Camry V6 will do 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and even a Sequoia which weighs close to 6k lbs can do it in right at 6s.

 

[tortillasoup]

High 8s is not just not fast, it's very slow any way you look at it. A Camry V6 will do 0-60 in 5.9 seconds and even a Sequoia which weighs close to 6k lbs can do it in right at 6s.

it's all relative. v6 camry has power of muscle cars of the early 70s... cars are over powered today.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

it's all relative. v6 camry has power of muscle cars of the early 70s... cars are over powered today.

I can't ever remember thinking my car has to much power

 

[996GT2]

it's all relative. v6 camry has power of muscle cars of the early 70s... cars are over powered today.

That just means cars back then were underpowered.

 

[PhoKingGuy]

I'm quite happy with my SUV that gets 34 mpg highway and 0-60 in 6.3 secs.

 

[tortillasoup]

I can't ever remember thinking my car has to much power

That just means cars back then were underpowered.

See yes there is such a thing as "too much power" in that you're trading efficiency for power. This won't be an issue with electric vehicles but it is definitely a consideration for gasoline powered ones. People have been too complacent in accepting the wastefulness of gasoline powered vehicles.

 

[996GT2]

See yes there is such a thing as "too much power" in that you're trading efficiency for power. This won't be an issue with electric vehicles but it is definitely a consideration for gasoline powered ones. People have been too complacent in accepting the wastefulness of gasoline powered vehicles.

Or maybe people just don't want really slow cars?

 

[tortillasoup]

Or maybe people just don't want really slow cars?

really slow cars, 0-60 in less than 7 seconds, does not compute.

 

[996GT2]

really slow cars, 0-60 in less than 7 seconds, does not compute.

We're talking about the CR-Z here. 0-60 in the high 8 second range is very very slow. Nobody is saying a modern V6 Camry is molasses slow in a straight line, but it isn't fast either.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

See yes there is such a thing as "too much power" in that you're trading efficiency for power. This won't be an issue with electric vehicles but it is definitely a consideration for gasoline powered ones. People have been too complacent in accepting the wastefulness of gasoline powered vehicles.

I'll be honest anything above 15mpg is more than adequate for me. Efficiency is pretty much my lowest priority when vehicle shopping.

 

[tortillasoup]

I'll be honest anything above 15mpg is more than adequate for me. Efficiency is pretty much my lowest priority when vehicle shopping.

Why would efficiency be your lowest priority unless you drive very infrequently?

 

[NutBucket]

If he can afford it what's the difference? I don't judge how people spend their money. I'm not smug about driving a hybrid. The fact it's a hybrid is pure coincidence.

 

[tortillasoup]

If he can afford it what's the difference? I don't judge how people spend their money. I'm not smug about driving a hybrid. The fact it's a hybrid is pure coincidence.

Nothing is worse than wasting money while hurting the environment. It's like a double whammy and I don't like double whammys.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Some of us don't drive enough for efficiency to really matter.

 

[NutBucket]

Nothing is worse than wasting money while hurting the environment. It's like a double whammy and I don't like double whammys.

You can take the bus. Where's my Chevy SS?

 

[tortillasoup]

You can take the bus. Where's my Chevy SS?

Bus is more of a poor people transportation thing than anything else. For the most part, most public transportation is less efficient than a pure electric car. However New York probably wouldn't function too well w/o public transport.

 

[NutBucket]

Not true. Consider one bus. Sure it may get 8 mpg lets say. But it carries 20-30 people. Even using that stupid MPGe crap it blows away any affordable electric car.

 

[tweakmonkey]

Problem with buses is they're usually nowhere near 20-30 people except during peak hours and end up polluting more than gas powered cars typically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation

There's a lot of debate on this, trains usually win, but I think planes are even quite good when you consider the massive time savings.

 

[NutBucket]

However don't forget every Metro bus in LA is CNG powered One could probably make the argument CNG is cleaner than electricity. LAUSD is moving to CNG power too.