New Honda CRZ Type R for 2012

[blaaah]

This is the news i am reading today, tentatively scheduled for 2012, looks like ditching the hybrid aspect and fitting in a new 1.6 turbo petrol engine. Two versions of this engine are being made a 160bhp and 200bhp. The Type R should get the 200bhp. This engine will also replace the 2.0 unit of the Civic Type R, this should make the Type R brand more competitive again, i have a feeling the turbo engines should be higher revving than other brands as vtec will still be used i gather.
So us GT5 drivers can try something like it by tuning the GT5 CRZ to 200bhp and see how it fights other competing cars perhaps?

 

[GT_Prologue5]

No info? Can you show the article, or some proof for that matter?

 

[blaaah]

No info? Can you show the article, or some proof for that matter?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/254419/
No more extra info than what i have said, but here is the article.
I have also read statements before from Honda than their Type R brand is tightly bonded to high rpm engines, so that's why i guess their turbo engines could be more revvy than normal, which they would be if they used vtec.

 

[Keef]

That would be sweet if they just gave it a turbo B16 like all the tuners build. But like, with direct injection. Two hundred horses and 250,000 miles sounds like a pretty decent powerplant to me.

 

[YSSMAN]

The only problem I have is that the "standard" 1.6L Turbo engine option would probably be more expensive than the standard CR-Z, even while going without the expensive hybrid powertrain. I'd be happy with the standard 155 BHP K20 from the CSX up in Canada, eh.

 

[blaaah]

The only problem I have is that the "standard" 1.6L Turbo engine option would probably be more expensive than the standard CR-Z, even while going without the expensive hybrid powertrain. I'd be happy with the standard 155 BHP K20 from the CSX up in Canada, eh.

I very much doubt it.
I think a hybrid system costs significantly if not a great deal more than a turbocharger system.

 

[homeforsummer]

Hard to say. Honda's hybrid system is pretty mild. Have you seen the size of it? It basically looks like a big flywheel that fits between the engine and the actual flywheel. Bung a few batteries in and that's your IMA system. Much simpler than something like Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. So YSSMAN could be right.

Hard to say though. Honda will get economies of scale from the unit since they'll be using it in the Accord, Jazz/Fit and Civic too. And turbocharged petrol engines are getting fairly cheap to produce.

Just read the article myself (bought the paper Autocar mag) and whilst I'm pleased that there's going to be a Type R version, part of me is a little disappointed that it'll be turbocharged rather than just a high-revving screamer. I know that's the world we live in, but hey. If anything, I'd have been happy with a thoroughly re-worked version of the 1.5 IMA currently in it. Spoon have managed to get an 8k rpm limit from it and they've also managed to strip a load of weight from it too, and in my eyes that's pretty much what a Type R is.

 

[-Fred-]

part of me is a little disappointed that it'll be turbocharged rather than just a high-revving screamer.

This. It's always been about razor sharp handling, lighter cars, and stratospheric rev limits. It's sad that we'll never see cars like the original Integra and Civic Type-R anymore.

 

[Keef]

Yeah, it's sad to see them moving away from their roots, but the fact is that their usual way of doing things simply is not competitive anymore. It just isn't. It's not like these new cars have the same personality as an old CRX SiR anyway - they're big, heavy, and...comfortable. They're not the same cars so they don't need the same engines.

Supporting an uncompetitive car company just makes us Honda fans look stupid.

 

[Philly]

I guess it also looks like this'll be the engine that gets used in the Civic SI as well.

Although I do find it interesting that Honda will be building a GTI clone essentially.

 

[Jim Prower]

The reason revvers are going a way is kind of the same reason motorcycles are abandoning two-strokes...High-revving engines seem to be inherently dirty, and with the EPA and other organizations ever tightening their grasp on emissions, (which I'm starting to find ridiculous at this point) The cleaner turbocharged, direct-injected engine seems to be the way forward.

 

[blaaah]

A 1.6 high revving engine is cleaner than a 2.0 high revving engine, the turbo gives it the power of the 2.0. Problem solved. I think it will still be high revving, but maybe not quite as much as it used to be.

 

[Ariel Atom Bomb]

All I want is a CRZ with sportier suspension, and a K20Z3. However, I know that Honda won't build something like that, and if they do the States will never see it. Honda is becoming more and more of a letdown by the year, and I've always been a huge Honda fan.

 

[vfrmaverick]

looks like ill be getting one in 2012

 

[Philly]

Yeah, it's sad to see them moving away from their roots, but the fact is that their usual way of doing things simply is not competitive anymore. It just isn't. It's not like these new cars have the same personality as an old CRX SiR anyway - they're big, heavy, and...comfortable. They're not the same cars so they don't need the same engines.

Supporting an uncompetitive car company just makes us Honda fans look stupid.

Funny you should say this because Autoblog just posted an article on this. I agree with it. Honda would be better off being Honda instead of Toyota.

 

[homeforsummer]

Funny you should say this because Autoblog just posted an article on this. I agree with it. Honda would be better off being Honda instead of Toyota.

Of course, that's in the States, which is like a different planet as far as the car market is concerned. In Japan they love the CR-Z and the Insight, and although I can't comment on sales figures here in the UK, you do see quite a few of both about.

The 1.6 turbo CR-Z is almost certainly being considered because U.S. sales are poor.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the CR-Z is a fantastic car in terms of look and feel, inside and out. The problem for me is that the mechanical bits just aren't there. All Honda would need to do, and I am being completely serious about this, is stick a middle-range four cylinder in it, and I would be all over the car. It wouldn't even have to be a K20. Just something with a bit more gusto, and I'm good.

 

[Keef]

Funny you should say this because Autoblog just posted an article on this. I agree with it. Honda would be better off being Honda instead of Toyota.

The 1.6 turbo CR-Z is almost certainly being considered because U.S. sales are poor.

I think the CR-Z is a fantastic car in terms of look and feel, inside and out. The problem for me is that the mechanical bits just aren't there. All Honda would need to do, and I am being completely serious about this, is stick a middle-range four cylinder in it, and I would be all over the car.

I commented on that Autoblog article about how I'd always figured the CR-Z would flop over here. Social stigmas and stereotypes are strong in the States and I don't believe you can mix hybrids and sports cars because of that, at least not for a while. People who want hybrids get hybrids, not sports cars, and people who want sports cars get sports cars. There is no mixing of the two. The hybrid shoppers look at the CR-Z and say, "But I can't put my kids in it," and they buy an Insight (i.e. Prius). The sports car shoppers say, "But it's a hybrid," and then proceed to buy a Civic Si.

As for engines, I've always been rooting for the K20, but a commenter mentioned the R18 which is the Civic's base engine. It's got, what, 140 horses? 130? Either way it is more powerful than what the CR-Z has now, and without the batteries and electric motors the car would be much lighter. More importantly, I would consider buying it because it would literally be a modern interpretation of the CRX which, as we all know, sold by the billion and is still sought after by Honda performance gurus and hypermilers alike.

 

[YSSMAN]

That's the thing... The CR-Z does have a lot of the boxes checked in the right way, and even while being burdened by the heavy hybrid system and batteries, it manages to ride and drive quite well. I can only imagine how awesome it would be without it, maybe about 150 BHP, and a six-speed manual.

 

[blaaah]

What's wrong with 200bhp from a 1.6 turbo?

 

[homeforsummer]

I commented on that Autoblog article about how I'd always figured the CR-Z would flop over here. Social stigmas and stereotypes are strong in the States and I don't believe you can mix hybrids and sports cars because of that, at least not for a while.

I completely agree - which is why although I'm prepared to fight the CR-Z's corner since for all intents and purposes it's both a fun car and economical by most standards, it's just not right for the U.S. market where a large proportion of the market wants it no-compromises faster, and another proportion wants it no-compromises economical.

In Europe and Japan, the middle ground suits most people - in most of Japan you can never do more than 5mph anyway thanks to traffic, so the image counts more than anything else. In Europe, outright performance is less important than handling in the twisty bits, and economy is king (as demonstrated by the popularity of diesels), so again it makes sense.

A 1.6 turbo conveniently covers the U.S. "gap" in the possible CR-Z market by giving buyers that performance aspect they don't deem to be good enough.

What's wrong with 200bhp from a 1.6 turbo?

Nothing at all if you're solely looking at performance, but for Type R purists a turbo is a bit sacreligious. No Civic, NSX, Integra or Accord R built so far would be quite the car it is had they been turbocharged rather than equipped with screaming NA engines.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Honda CR-Z K20 (Autoblog)



Edit:

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd like to see some performance figures on the car. More specifically, what kind of fuel economy they get. Yes, I am a nerd.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Id like to know too. Would make a great case against the hybrid powertrain if it pulls similar mpg numbers.

 

[zhunterzz]

I wanna hear that thing go with that K20. I bet it gets better gas mileage than the Si does.

 

[Keef]

Honda CR-Z K20 (Autoblog)

Beat me to it! Needless to say I'm very excited and interested in this thing. I'd love to see it running and I imagine they'll have those videos up soon enough. If I were to stumble upon a CR-Z this is definitely, definitely the first modification I would save up for.

Does the CR-Z have any battery packs? If so, I'm wondering where they were and how the weight balance changed if they were removed. Ruining the already terrible weight balance would be the only thing I'd consider before doing this swap. Also, a bigger fuel tank would be necessary and totally possible within the battery's old home.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If that shop can sell a complete install kit, with new fuel tank and everything, they're going to make a killing off that swap. Makes me wish I was in the industry.

 

[homeforsummer]

Does the CR-Z have any battery packs? If so, I'm wondering where they were and how the weight balance changed if they were removed. Ruining the already terrible weight balance would be the only thing I'd consider before doing this swap. Also, a bigger fuel tank would be necessary and totally possible within the battery's old home.

It does have battery packs, though not many. They're in the back of the car under the trunk floor, which is partly why the trunk floor is quite high and partly why they don't bother fitting rear seats to the USDM versions and why the rear seats fitted in other countries are only suitable for babies with no legs.

Not sure where you got the terrible weight balance thing from though. Many reviews I've read of the car seem to suggest it handles quite neatly, and that the little extra weight in the back can even give it a bit of a snap if you lift off the gas too quickly.

Whether a bigger fuel tank would be possible or not is a different matter though. I expect the battery packs have been laid quite flat and there's almost certainly a bulkhead between them and the fuel tank, so you'd have to embark on some major engineering to fit a bigger tank, I'd suspect.

EDIT: Interesting watching the video and seeing how much more space the Insight has under the hood compared to the CR-Z. The K20 looks quite small in the Insight yet takes up most of the space in the CR-Z, by the looks of things.

Amusing how the first-gen Insight was probably the most cleverly-engineered Honda this side of the NSX, too. Gives you an idea of what Honda can manage when they really put their mind to something. Part of me really thinks I should have hunted down an Insight to replace the MX5 with.

 

[blaaah]

Isn't the k20 an old engine? I like new technology at the peak on engineering and performance. That's why i'm looking forward to any new performance engines Honda produces. I think a 1.6 turbo will offer more performance compared to a k20, it may also be lighter if the 1.6 block and turbo systems are efficiently designed.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think that 1.6 is going to have to be a REALLY good motor to be better than the K20. Honestly, the K20 is one of the best N/A 4-Cylinders to ever be produced by a manufacturer, and will be hard to replace. (if ever)