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

[Eric.]

I'd actually see the six-speed-only option as being a turnoff for most buyers who're just looking for an efficient car (i.e - Insight or Prius buyers). Are you sure there's no auto/CVT option?

 

[Jim Prower]

It looks a LOT like the old insight. so Now I have the urge to swap a K20A into one..

 

[YSSMAN]

It still makes me wonder how fun to drive and fuel efficient the car would be if it ditched the IMA system and lost the big battery pack out back. I'd think it the fuel mileage would be the same, or better.

 

[Jondot]

Ohhh yes please 👍 Small, reasonably quick, edgy looking, I'll have one in black with a diesel engine and without the battery nonsense.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd actually see the six-speed-only option as being a turnoff for most buyers who're just looking for an efficient car (i.e - Insight or Prius buyers). Are you sure there's no auto/CVT option?

There is CVT listed next to Economy.

Ohhh yes please 👍 Small, reasonably quick, edgy looking, I'll have one in black with a diesel engine and without the battery nonsense.

Careful now, along with that diesel you risk adding some power/torque, and reducing the weight. You may even get better fuel efficiency out of it with the 6-speed. I think that would go against the point they are attempting to make: "Hybrids can be fun too. We promise. We even kept an Elise in the design lab to show how much we mean it."

 

[homeforsummer]

I'd actually see the six-speed-only option as being a turnoff for most buyers who're just looking for an efficient car (i.e - Insight or Prius buyers). Are you sure there's no auto/CVT option?

Yeah, as FK says, there is a CVT option. The manual will appeal to the two extremes, driving enthusiasts and hypermilers, both of whom prefer manuals.

Careful now, along with that diesel you risk adding some power/torque, and reducing the weight. You may even get better fuel efficiency out of it with the 6-speed.

I'm a fan of diesels but they still don't have the feel you get from a petrol engine. I'm sure a diesel engine would be a performance and economy improvement, but give me a petrol engine (even one with an electric motor attached) any day for a bit of fun.

Oh, and as for torque, most diesels don't come alive until a fair bit after the 1500rpm the CR-Z produces it's torque at. And that torque starts at 1k rpm, at which most diesels are positively asleep, especially small ones. And even afterwards, a petrol engine will give you a nice red line to aim for instead of giving up at 4500rpm.

And let's face it, people would have made much more fuss if Honda had given the spiritual successor to the CR-X a diesel engine. In fact, the States probably wouldn't have even got the car in the first place.

I think that would go against the point they are attempting to make: "Hybrids can be fun too. We promise. We even kept an Elise in the design lab to show how much we mean it."

Ooh, you cynic you. Is it not at the very least a good statement of intent that they bought a MINI, Scirocco and Elise? I know all companies benchmark and pull cars from other companies apart when developing new cars, but you don't go to the trouble of announcing it to the press if you know that you've done jack all with it.

Srsly, until reviews start appearing and until I've had a go in one myself, I'm quite happy to assume that Honda have actually done a good job.

Ohhh yes please 👍 Small, reasonably quick, edgy looking, I'll have one in black with a diesel engine and without the battery nonsense.

No doubt even with the hybrid it'd give you significantly better fuel figures than the Spork does, yet with similar performance. It's the way I'm looking at it compared with my car, too.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I think they should offer it with a normal gasoline engine as standard and make this the "HF" version; give it a K20 and a capable chassis as the base model and this as a no-cost switch.

Then make an Si with a hotter K20 (a la CSi, RSX-S, etc) and call it a day.

 

[homeforsummer]

The idea makes some sense (having the hybrid as the "HF" version), but I still think a K20 would be over-egging the pudding. Do you really need two liters in something that compact? I'd prefer if Honda re-developed the 1.5 they put in the Fit and presumably the CR-Z and turned it into the new generation B16. If they could get about 150-160bhp out of it with a nice 9k redline it'd be great. A smaller engine suits the car's character so much more.

 

[Jondot]

No doubt even with the hybrid it'd give you significantly better fuel figures than the Spork does, yet with similar performance. It's the way I'm looking at it compared with my car, too.

To be fair a 1.8 Vectra would give significantly better fuel figures than the Spork

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm a fan of diesels but they still don't have the feel you get from a petrol engine. I'm sure a diesel engine would be a performance and economy improvement, but give me a petrol engine (even one with an electric motor attached) any day for a bit of fun.

The point with the diesel is the economy though, since I think that is part of their point here by making this hybrid. Ideally I would like a base petrol model using, as you suggested, the Fit engine, and then have diesel and hybrid options as well. Maybe even a hybrid diesel too?

Oh, and as for torque, most diesels don't come alive until a fair bit after the 1500rpm the CR-Z produces it's torque at. And that torque starts at 1k rpm, at which most diesels are positively asleep, especially small ones. And even afterwards, a petrol engine will give you a nice red line to aim for instead of giving up at 4500rpm.

I know all the torque stuff, I'm just having fun with it.

And let's face it, people would have made much more fuss if Honda had given the spiritual successor to the CR-X a diesel engine. In fact, the States probably wouldn't have even got the car in the first place.

I think this is a stereotype that is about to be broken. According to VW of America, 81% of Jetta SportWagens were TDI and 40% of Jetta Sedans were TDI in July, during the Cash for Clunkers program. I want to give the TDI SportWagen a test drive, but can't find one locally.

Ooh, you cynic you. Is it not at the very least a good statement of intent that they bought a MINI, Scirocco and Elise? I know all companies benchmark and pull cars from other companies apart when developing new cars, but you don't go to the trouble of announcing it to the press if you know that you've done jack all with it.

That was mostly joking, but let's be honest here. That was a marketing video.

Srsly, until reviews start appearing and until I've had a go in one myself, I'm quite happy to assume that Honda have actually done a good job.

And this is where my skepticism is. No one has had an opportunity to properly test it yet. In my mind I imagine it is driving better than a Prius or Hindsight, but better than other non-hybrid cars that get the same fuel economy?

My honest thought is that this is targeting the average income car lover that also has some green guilt going on.

 

[homeforsummer]

The point with the diesel is the economy though, since I think that is part of their point here by making this hybrid. Ideally I would like a base petrol model using, as you suggested, the Fit engine, and then have diesel and hybrid options as well. Maybe even a hybrid diesel too?

Hmm... the thing is, I think Honda are serious about the "sport" side of it too. Personally, without knowing too much about what it's actually like, both the performance and the economy sound like reasonable compromises. There are few cars of that size that offer that sort of performance and economy together. Most do either one, or the other. Ironically, the Fit is one of them, but then it falls behind on style, and presumably handling if Honda have made the effort they're saying they have.

I think this is a stereotype that is about to be broken. According to VW of America, 81% of Jetta SportWagens were TDI and 40% of Jetta Sedans were TDI in July, during the Cash for Clunkers program. I want to give the TDI SportWagen a test drive, but can't find one locally.

Oh, it's a stereotype that's already been broken over in Europe, but it's not stereotyping saying that diesels don't have have the sensory benefits you get in a petrol car. They just don't. It's why, much as I like what diesels offer, I still wouldn't pick one if my priority was to have a bit of fun. Essentially, diesels - even great ones - are still the option people choose when their overriding priority is to save money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't sell nearly as well as they do over here. It's why petrol hybrid for me is still a better choice for sporty cars than diesel.

And I suspect it's the route that Porsche and Ferrari will be going down first.

And this is where my skepticism is. No one has had an opportunity to properly test it yet. In my mind I imagine it is driving better than a Prius or Hindsight, but better than other non-hybrid cars that get the same fuel economy?

But what are those non-hybrids that get the same economy? The Fit? The Yaris? I suspect even a diesel Jetta, good though it is, isn't exactly designed for "fun". The only cars I can think of with the same economy are small, not very exciting city and family cars.

My honest thought is that this is targeting the average income car lover that also has some green guilt going on.

Perhaps. I was wondering what I'd pigeonhole myself as, and the best I can come up with is "driving and technology enthusiast that doesn't want to spend a fortune on fuel". And I can't be the only one of those...

 

[FoolKiller]

Hmm... the thing is, I think Honda are serious about the "sport" side of it too. Personally, without knowing too much about what it's actually like, both the performance and the economy sound like reasonable compromises. There are few cars of that size that offer that sort of performance and economy together. Most do either one, or the other. Ironically, the Fit is one of them, but then it falls behind on style, and presumably handling if Honda have made the effort they're saying they have.

The problem is that you are looking at the EPA ratings for the economy. The EPA testing would not even get close to testing the performance of the car with the economy. If you are driving for fun you will get much less economy, and what that winds up being is anyone's guess. But if you drive for economy you will likely get better than these estimates and be bored. And if you are driving like a hypermiler you are also making every other driver on the road angry.

As for believing Honda is serious about the sporty side: I owned an '88 Buick Somerset. It was called sporty by Buick standards. I will consider this sporty when it meets my standards.

 

[niky]

Well, the (old) Honda Fit still gets over 30 mpg on a highway/track thrash, where the rest of us will be getting in the 20's. And if they're claiming it will be "sporty" as compared to the Fit, they're starting from an excellent base.

I'll believe it when I see it, but I've got high hopes, myself.

 

[homeforsummer]

The problem is that you are looking at the EPA ratings for the economy. The EPA testing would not even get close to testing the performance of the car with the economy. If you are driving for fun you will get much less economy, and what that winds up being is anyone's guess. But if you drive for economy you will likely get better than these estimates and be bored. And if you are driving like a hypermiler you are also making every other driver on the road angry.

That's a very generalised view. My MX-5 gets 24mpg according to EPA. I drive it to work (well, I don't at the moment as it's sitting in a pool of clutch fluid), and I drive the balls of it at least once on each tank too. And I'm currently averaging 27mpg (still in US gallons here). And that's in cold weather and with lots of rain, when economy isn't as high.

You don't need to hypermile to get good economy and it certainly doesn't have to make for a boring drive. You just have to be not a complete moron and avoid doing things like accelerating hard when you know you're going to have to stop again, shift into higher gears earlier generally keep it below 2k rpm unless the road demands more, reduce both slowing down and speeding up to a minimum by reading the road ahead... it's simple stuff. I don't use hypermiling techniques like pulse and glide, switching the engine off at a standstill or anything like that.

I think I said it somewhere on GTP, if not this very thread a few pages back, but I'd be surprised with myself if I couldn't beat those EPA figures in cold weather and driving no differently to how I normally do. And in Sport mode.

As for the Buick comments, Honda has rather more experience with "sporty" than Buick do. The GNX comes to mind... and that's about it, though I'll admit I'm not the most clued up on Buicks. But off the top of my head I could name 20 Hondas which deserve the term "sporty".

 

[FoolKiller]

That's a very generalised view.

Based on their own Web site.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm

The city and highway tests are currently performed under mild climate conditions (75 degrees F) and include acceleration rates and driving speeds that EPA believes are generally lower than those used by drivers in the real world. Neither test is run while using accessories, such as air conditioning. The highway test has a top speed of 60 miles per hour, and an average speed of only 48 miles per hour.

I know very few people that get the same as the EPA estimates. Some get above and some get below, and it isn't completely tied to how individuals drive.

As for the Buick comments, Honda has rather more experience with "sporty" than Buick do. The GNX comes to mind... and that's about it, though I'll admit I'm not the most clued up on Buicks. But off the top of my head I could name 20 Hondas which deserve the term "sporty".

I am simply pointing out the risks one takes in getting excited over a marketing video and hype because they said sporty. It is that kind of thing that leads to problems in certain other unnamed sections of this Web site.

Basically, what I am saying to Honda is, "Prove it, because your specs so far are unconvincing."

 

[homeforsummer]

Based on their own Web site.
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06069.htm

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear. I meant that assuming that driving for fun will automatically mean less economy, and that driving economically will be boring was a bit of a generalisation. I can do both on a tank of petrol and still beat EPA's estimates in unfavourable conditions. And the diesels that you mentioned earlier can certainly achieve fun and economy, if you pick the right models.

Just to clarify, the 75F that EPA test at is 23 degrees celcius. My 27mpg average has been at nearer 10 celcius, which is 50F.

I know very few people that get the same as the EPA estimates. Some get above and some get below, and it isn't completely tied to how individuals drive.

I'd say that it's largely down to how individuals drive, actually. I've not once driven a car over reasonable distance that I've not beaten it's official fuel economy figures (including a near-two tonne Landcruiser V6), and I certainly don't drive around like a granny all the time. Like I said, it's very easy to drive economically in day-to-day driving and not hold up the rest of the world.

I am simply pointing out the risks one takes in getting excited over a marketing video and hype because they said sporty. It is that kind of thing that leads to problems in certain other unnamed sections of this Web site.

I do agree, though I'm personally choosing to look for the positives 👍

Basically, what I am saying to Honda is, "Prove it, because your specs so far are unconvincing."

That's fair enough. I suppose it depends on your expectations. I don't see either the performance nor the economy being too bad when considered against the other.

 

[Tornado]

I'm gonna chime in and say that this and the Lexus HS250 are going to be a good litmus test for whether people want hybrids simply for the sake of showing off that they have hybrids rather than any other practical reason.

 

[Philly]

Apparently Mugen is working on the CR-Z

The rumormongers at AutoExpress are at it again, donning their speculative fedoras and suggesting that a 200-horsepower Honda CR-Z Type-R is on the way. But if you were hoping for a K20 swap to ditch the hybrid setup, you're in for a disappointment.

In stock form, the production CR-Z unveiled in Detroit makes due with a 102 hp 1.5-liter four-cylinder mated to an electric motor good for an additional 20 ponies. If AE is to be believed, Honda and its internal tuning partner, Mugen, plans to up the output of the stock four-pot to approximately 150 hp. Since the CR-Z was designed from the onset to be a hybrid, apparently Honda just can't swap in the 2.0-liter engine from the Euro-Civic and call it a day. Instead, a beefed-up electric motor will be fitted – reportedly good for another 50 hp – and bringing total output up to 200 hp.

Naturally, the transformation won't just be under the hood. A reworked suspension, upgraded brakes and a smattering of body mods will be included in the package, along with an additional driving mode (bringing the total to three), "Sport Plus" which will reportedly modify throttle response, steering, the start-stop system and the electric motor assist.

If the Type-R comes to fruition, expect it to debut at the 2011 Tokyo Motor Show, with the production version arriving sometime in 2012.

This is about the performance bracket that Honda should have been shooting for all along. If they wanted to make a hybrid performance vehicle, something to compete with the benchmark of sport compacts (Cooper S, GTI, Civic SI) would have been the best choice, instead of the not-so-warm hatch thing.

This car will be the answer to the question: "can they build a hybrid that's plenty fun to drive?"

 

[YSSMAN]

I've got three questions on this:

1) How much fuel economy are we expecting to lose over the already so-so numbers?
2) What kind of price markup are we thinking?
3) Is it reeeeallly going to be that competitive?


All of this makes me miss the EP Civic. Yeah, you read that right. Let the flames begin!

 

[homeforsummer]

This car will be the answer to the question: "can they build a hybrid that's plenty fun to drive?"

Or perhaps the normal CRZ will be fun in it's own right?

It still amuses me that people assume it'll be crap just because it doesn't have much power.

It's no secret that Mugen have been working on one though. Brochure pictures of that one got leaked at the same time the normal pics first hit the internet.

Actually, I've just realised that article is highlighting a "Type R" model. Right, in that case, we want less weight. And red seats.

 

[Philly]

Or perhaps the normal CRZ will be fun in it's own right?

It still amuses me that people assume it'll be crap just because it doesn't have much power.

True, maybe fun to drive is the wrong word choice. But with 122 hp, it isn't going to be that 'fast' or 'sporty.' Sort of like the Cooper S compared to the lower models. They're all fun to drive but the S is the one that's good as a sport compact that can race.

 

[homeforsummer]

True, maybe fun to drive is the wrong word choice. But with 122 hp, it isn't going to be that 'fast' or 'sporty.' Sort of like the Cooper S compared to the lower models. They're all fun to drive but the S is the one that's good as a sport compact that can race.

I understand that, but I disagree that something needs to be outright fast to be sporty. And it's worth remembering that the best (BMW) Cooper is apparently the original, non-S model. With all of 115bhp. Unless you're racing (and even then, if you're racing against cars of similar power - like the majority of race series - then this doesn't apply) then outright speed doesn't necessarily matter to have fun. Everyone knows the corners are where it's at...

 

[Tornado]

The BINI was also purpose built from the start to be a sporty, fun to drive car. This is a sport coupe hybrid (that is neither particularly efficient nor particularly sporty) with internals largely sourced from a car that is outstandingly poor to drive.

Or perhaps the normal CRZ will be fun in it's own right?

You mean like the almost-certainly significantly cheaper Honda Fit that the CR-Z is partially based on?

 

[Eric.]

Ugh. Just put a K20 in the thing and Si on the hatch.

 

[niky]

You mean like the almost-certainly significantly cheaper Honda Fit that the CR-Z is partially based on?

[conspiracytheory]The one that they softened for the second generation? Gasp... they did it on purpose![/conspiracytheory]

 

[homeforsummer]

The BINI was also purpose built from the start to be a sporty, fun to drive car. This is a sport coupe hybrid (that is neither particularly efficient nor particularly sporty) with internals largely sourced from a car that is outstandingly poor to drive.

You mean like the almost-certainly significantly cheaper Honda Fit that the CR-Z is partially based on?

I really don't get the negativity towards it. Or I do actually: Basically, the whole of America is pissed off that they've not dropped a 200bhp engine in it, because they don't understand that it's actually possible to have modestly powered cars that are still fun.

Seriously, it's like hearing a broken record. The sole reason that people dislike it is because Honda have chosen to make it a hybrid. They don't care that it might actually be great to drive and that the fuel figures will likely be improved upon if that's really your bag, because people are preconditioned to assume that all hybrids are awful.

Regarding the Fit, do you really think that the CRZ won't be miles better to drive? The Fit is a boxy small car that just happens to drive okay. The CRZ is specifically designed to be good to drive.

It also proves that people have forgotten that the original Insight was supposed to be great to drive. How much power did that have? 80bhp ish? Blasphemy.

Ugh. Just put a K20 in the thing and Si on the hatch.

It mentions in the article that it likely wouldn't fit.

 

[Philly]

I certainly understand what you're saying. And being a hybrid doesn't specifically rule the car out as being fun to drive, despite what the Prius and co. have done to the image of the hybrid.

But it's still like your old Fiesta. As I recall, you often said that while it wasn't particularly fast, the car was still very fun and tossable. While I've never driven the CR-Z, I can believe people who say it's fun to drive. And if Honda's goal was to build a hybrid that wasn't mind-numbingly boring to drive, then I'd say they succeeded. But if they were trying to build a sport compact that happens to be a hybrid, then they have failed because I think that a sport compact is something that should also be respectable at the track. That's difficult to do with a whole 122 hp to the front wheels, especially in a brand new car. But who knows. Maybe it's like the Miata which puts down decent times and is very fun to drive at the same time while still putting out, what, 0.7 hp?

 

[homeforsummer]

I certainly understand what you're saying. And being a hybrid doesn't specifically rule the car out as being fun to drive, despite what the Prius and co. have done to the image of the hybrid.

I think the image of hybrids will change a little anyway when Porsche and Ferrari start adopting the technology as they claim to be doing. I suspect hybrids are unpopular with enthusiasts mainly down to the cars they've recently been powering - Priuses, Insights, big Lexus and Toyotas... nothing particularly exciting. Unfortunately for the CRZ, it's being metaphorically bundled in with all those cars even though nobody has driven one yet.

But it's still like your old Fiesta. As I recall, you often said that while it wasn't particularly fast, the car was still very fun and tossable.

It's fairly safe to say it was outright slow, but yeah, it was great fun. Off the top of my head there are a few other people on GTP, such as Eirik and Roo, who have low-powered cars yet I'm pretty sure those are great fun too.

While I've never driven the CR-Z, I can believe people who say it's fun to drive.

Well, nobody outside Honda has driven it yet either, but they're making a fairly big deal about it being fun so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And if Honda's goal was to build a hybrid that wasn't mind-numbingly boring to drive, then I'd say they succeeded. But if they were trying to build a sport compact that happens to be a hybrid, then they have failed because I think that a sport compact is something that should also be respectable at the track. That's difficult to do with a whole 122 hp to the front wheels, especially in a brand new car. But who knows. Maybe it's like the Miata which puts down decent times and is very fun to drive at the same time while still putting out, what, 0.7 hp?

I don't think they are trying to build a "sport compact" though. You're obviously not going to compete with the big guys with only 122bhp and I don't think Honda have ever claimed anywhere that it's their intention to do so. Nor have they claimed that the car is an outright successor to the old CRX, though obviously the design is influenced by it (but then, so was the original Insight). It's the public and the press making up their own assumptions as to what a car that looks like a CRX "should be", rather than accepting that it isn't Honda's intention.

 

[Jondot]

You mean like the almost-certainly significantly cheaper Honda Fit that the CR-Z is partially based on?

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

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

See look - a bodykit. Sporty.

 

[Joey D]

I really don't get the negativity towards it. Or I do actually: Basically, the whole of America is pissed off that they've not dropped a 200bhp engine in it, because they don't understand that it's actually possible to have modestly powered cars that are still fun.

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.