Review: 2011 Honda CR-Z
08-25-10, 07:04 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2011 Honda CR-Z
By CL and non-CL request, a Review of the 2011 Honda CR-Z.
http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-z/
In a Nutshell: Honda quality; a much-better replacement for the old CRX than the ill-fated Del Sol, but the IMA/CVT drivetrain needs work.
There's been a fair amount of interest in the new Honda CR-Z; I've gotten several review requests from both CL and non-CL members. And, of course, I've had some interest in seeing the car myself....a close friend of mine had two old CRX models back in the late-80'sthrough the 90's....a high-mileage XF and a sporty Si (I got to drive both of them), and we had a lot of fun in them. Though he and I went up to a local Honda shop to check out the replacement for the CRX...the rather ill-fated Del-Sol, neither of us were very impressed with it. Honda, at the time, had very little experience in building convertibles/T-Tops, and, sure enough, the Del Sol was not only very space inefficient, but, as it aged, got marked body-integrity/rattle/squeak/leak problems. So, he just kept the old CRX Si, ran up many thousands of miles on it, sold it to another friend (who has some mechanic/technician training) for a discount after he and his wife had been moderately rear-ended. It was still drivable, but the insurance company totalled it, gave him a settlement check, but still allowed him to keep it (and sell it)....a pretty good deal.
There isn't much I can really tell you guys about the old CRX that you probably won't already know. It was introduced during a time (early-mid 80s) when there were deliberate restrictions on the imports of Japanese vehicles into America, and Americans were getting sick and tired (as I was) of the poor-quality American cars of the time (the Japanese auto manufacturers had not yet opened up American plants). There were insulting mark-ups (and snobby dealers) on many Hondas of the period.....but the mark-ups on the first CRX models in 1984 were truly ludicrous. I can remember seeing new CRX models listing for $5000-6000 marked up to as much as $9000...a 40% increase....same a few years later when the first Mazda Miatas arrived. But, of course, to some people, it was worth it.....a number of auto magazines/journalists of the period considered the CRX and Miata the two best small two-seat sports cars in the American market. And, because they were two-seaters, insurance companies treated them as sports cars, pricing their insurance premiums accordingly. Still, that didn't stop a lot of CRX-addicts and the caps-on-backwards crowd. They went on to make it truly a cult-car...when Honda (foolishly, IMO) replaced it in 1992-93 with the Del-Sol, they simply turned deaf ears to the howls from the CRX crowd, just as Mitsubishi did when they dropped the turbo/AWD Eclipses and refused to listen to their fans (though, of course, the Evo eventually replaced it). It's been a long wait for CRX fans, but now we have at least a halfway-credible replacement, though still not without some faults and (IMO) marketing errors. The 1-Gen Insight, introduced in 2000, used the old CRX's body-style, and had phenominal gas mileage, but had goofy-looking rear-wheel skirts and a powertrain (and, it must be remembered, the old CRX-HF, with 48 HP and a carburator about the size of a large walnut, could equal the 1Gen Insight's mileage in many conditions). No, the 1Gen Insight was not, IMO, a proper replacement for the CRX.....neither, of course, was the Del-Sol, as I explained above. So, is the CR-Z (finally) a credible CRX replacment? Yes...and no, as I've determined from a review and test-drive. It is, barely, but could be better..as I'll explain later.
The new CR-Z comes in two trim models...a base and EX (there is no DX/LX, like with some other Hondas). Both come with a 1.5L gas, in-line, VTEC Honda four-cylinder and the 13 HP/58 ft-lbs torque IMA electric-assist motor....total power is 122 HP and 123 or 128 ft-lbs. of torque, depending on the transmission (Honda doesn't publish the gas-engine-alone power figure). Electric motors, of course, develop max torque at very low RPMs. The IMA-battery pack is of the Nickel-Hydride type. A choice of two transmissions is offered on each version.....a conventional, 6-speed manual with the Subaru-type Hill-Start-Assist or a Continuously-Variable-Transmission (CVT) with 6 pre-programmed, paddle-shift ratos if auto-manual shifting is desired. The base CR-Z starts at $19,200 (without freight); the EX model at $20,760....both reasonable prices, IMO, for a hybrid.
The first CR-Z models have just started to come into the D.C. area....several local shops have at least a few in stock (or pre-sold) now. A local Honda shop near my place had 4 of them on the Internet, in stock.....just arrived. One was already in the showroom, two in the service bay getting prepped, and one was on the lot available for a test-drive, so I hopped into my Outback and went out to see them. I did static-reviews on both the showroom model (a silver/gray EX with CVT) and the one on the lot, but test-drove the one on the lot.....a Black EX model with CVT.
After the test-drive, as I turned in the key and dealer-plate back in, thanked them, got the sales guy's card, and started out, there were two older women looking at a silver Element on the lot. They stopped me and asked some questions (I let them know I wasn't a salesperson). Their English wasn't too good, but we could still communicate. I answered their questions about FWD/AWD and other features, pointed out the Element's water-resistant cloth seats, rubber floor-covering/hose-it-out interior, and versatile cargo-area configurations. They seemed quite interested, and asked about pricing and what they (might) have to go through on a deal. So, I explained Virginia's 3% new-car sales tax and the dealer-processing fees, which, in Virginia, can run to $200-$500 (Maryland limits it to $99, but has a higher 6% sales-tax). They seemed serious, so I estimated what I thought what they might get off in a serious deal, took both of them back inside, introduced them to the salesguy who had given me the keys to the test-drive, told them these ladies were looking for an AWD Element, and let him take it from there. If he didn't sell ME a new vehicle that day, he might to them.
And, incidentally, speaking of prices, he said that the dealership would sell their CR-Zs at or close to list, with no added mark-up or second-sticker.....with the current status of it being a hot new model, particularly with the old CRX crowd, they might (?) be able to actually get mark-ups if they wanted them, but a lot of dealerships are trying harder now than they did in the past to please their customers, even if profits dip a little. I couldn't help but remember the old, ludicrous price-gouging I'd seen on the 80's-vintage CRX models. Shows how things have come a long way...and the customer is more important now.
OK....let's get to the review.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Honda CR-Z EX
Base Price: $21,410
Options: None
Destination/Freight: $750 (about average)
List Price as reviewed: $22,160
Drivetrain: FWD, 1.5L VTEC in-line 4, DC-permanent-magnet electric motor, 13 HP @ 1500 RPM, Torque 58 ft-lbs. @ 1000 RPM) with paddle-shift, Nickel-Hydride battery pack.
(Total) 122 HP @ 6000 RPM, (total) Torque 123 ft-lbs. @ 1000-2000 RPM, CVT (Continously-Variable-Transmission),
(Torque 128 ft-lbs. @ 1000-1750 RPM with 6-speed manual transmision)
EPA Mileage Rating: 35 City, 39 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Gray/Patterned Cloth
PLUSSES:
Swiss-Watch-like overall assembly quality/construction.
Excellent Honda reliability.
Reasonable price for a hybrid.
The first American-market production hybrid with a 6-speed manual-transmission option.
Very quick steering response.
Flat cornering/little body roll.
Good underhood layout despite the complex drivetrain.
Excellent paint job.
Superb-quality exterior hardware.
Equally-superb-quality inteior hardware.
Side-mirror-mounted turn signals.
Versatile, multi-use cargo area.
Hybrid battery-pack does not infringe on cargo space.
Attractive, multi-patterened interior trim.
Solid, durable interior hardware.
Attractive, durable-feeling seat cloth upholstery.
Precise-feeling, tank-solid door and hatch-lid closings.
Low depreciation (likely).
MINUSES:
EPA mileage figures not as good as some other small hybrids.
Relatively unrefined IMA hybrid system.
Unrefined CVT transmission with rubber-banding.
Ride comfort not the best.
Noticeable road/tire noise.
Cheap hood prop-rod.
No (apparent) body-side mouldings for ding-protection.
Relatively busy, confusing dash layout.
Hard-plastic interior dash/trim surfaces.
Cheap-feeling sun visors.
Dated ignition switch, especially for an all-new hybrid.
Marginal head room for tall persons.
Front-seat cushions a little narrow for wide people.
Very poor rear vision.
Cargo area could be better-finished.
Rather low ground clearance over obstacles.
Overly-flat rear-hatch window will accumulate snow/ice quickly.
Only 5 exterior paint colors....but IMO they are decent.
Discounts unlikely.
EXTERIOR:
Well, walking up to the CR-Z does bring back strong memories of (you guessed it) the old CRX, although the overall body side is slightly larger, and the open-grille is considerably larger. Still, there is no doubt that (finally) Honda has finally done something in the spirit of the old car, even if hybrid gas-electric and still in need of some improvements...more on that later. The body sheet metal, like on the old car, is high-quality and well-done, and the doors and rear hatch have an even more solid, precise fit. Both the doors and (especially) the rear hatch shut with a solid, precise, "THUNK". Honda really seems to do a lot of work at the factory, with laser-precise fitting, to get body panels/doors that precise and that solid-closing. All of the exterior hard ware is of very high quality and, in the Honda tradition, extremely well-fitted/assembled. The side-mirrors have integrated turn-signals, and swivel/lock with solid but butter-smooth precision. The paint job, as usual, is extremely well-done, but Honda, IMO, could offer more than just 5 exterior colors (limited color-choice has been a Honda problem on its smaller models for many years). Still, the colors aren't bad.....especially the bright blue and bright red. There isn't much ground clearance underneath for snow, mud, or road obstacles....try not to run over debris lying in the road. That also, of course, means it's difficult to get a hose underneath for bottom flush-offs. A bad styling point, IMO, is the almost-flat, horizontal rear-window, even more horizontal than on the old CRX. It will (likely) pile up snow, ice, and rain water very quickly...in moist-climate areas, you're going to really need the standard rear-window washer/wiper/defroster. The 16" alloy wheels are generally good-looking, and have rather tall 55-series all-season tires (17" alloys with lower, 45-series high-performance tires are an option), but the 55-series tires still didn't do much for ride comfort....more on that later. And, unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that could pass for a ding-protecting body-side moulding either. Vision out the back was VERY poor due to the flat rear window, a dividing-bar, and the styling of the rear roof-pillars.
UNDERHOOD:
Generally well-done, despite the complexity of the IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) powertrain. Open the lightweight but solid hood, and the only poorly-done feature is the cheap manual prop-rod you have to fiddle with to hold it up (this is not an expensive car, though). There is a nice underhood insulation pad on the underside of the hood to help keep things quiet when the gas engine is running. The 1.5L gas 4-cylinder fits in very well, even with the electric motor and the CVT transmission next to it. There is a fair amount of room around the engine-block to reach things, and no big annoying engine cover (it is fairly small) to block access. A rather small gas-engine battery lies off to the right, uncovered (the main hybrid battery-pack, of course, is in back, hidden out of sight). All dipsticks (the oil-dipstick is the usual Honda bright-orange), reservoirs, and filler-caps are easily-reached.
INTERIOR:
Extremely well-assembled/crafted in the Honda tradition, but, IMO, like the rival Honda Insight, too much hard plastic was used for the dash and door panels. But most of the actual textures all look good, and the door panels have a center-strip of nice silver/gray/patterned fake carbon-fiber. The seat upholstery is a durable-feeling cloth, done ia a textured silver/gray tweed that is more or less like the carbon-fiber on the door panels. The seats themselves, while firm and supportive, have bottom side-cushions that are just borderline adequate for wide rumps like mine...and they are not adustable. The seat-adjusters are manual, and have large oval loop-rings that are easy to grab and adjust, but they don't feel quite as solid as the rest of the superb interior hardware. The *****/buttons/switches are all of superlative quality and silky-smooth to use, but, on the center-dash, are arrainged in a rather busy pattern that takes some getting used to....and some are needlessly complex, such as the stereo volume/tune/adjust controls that force you to use 3 or 4 buttons, pushed 3 or 4 different ways, that could easily be designed with 1 or 2. Time to maybe go back to Honda's old motto of decades ago....."We Keep it Simple". The stereo sound itself is one of the better ones, though not anywhere near Lexus-Mark Levinson territory...the CR-Z's relatively small interior size doesn't allow for a lot of speakers. The primary gauges are lit up in bright-blue back-lighting and include a fairly large analog tachometer and a smaller white digital speedometer (I myself don't like digital gauges) inside the tach. The way Honda works the back-lighting, the digital speedometer, to my eyes, actually had a 3-D depth-effect.....I don't know if that was intentional or not. To the left of the main gauges are smaller hybrid bar-gauges, which incudes a Charge/Assist meter for the electric motor and battery-pack. I liked the thick, short, but useful vertical-pull grips for the doors (my Outback also has them). I also liked the way that the interior was multi-patterned, with several different trim-textures....none of the same dull black or tan/beige monotone you see in many other vehicles.
Headroom was marginal for taller persons.....I was able to fit in with my ubiquitous baseball cap by adjusting the seat-cushion height down and reclining the seat-back a little (you don't want to recline it too much, because then the belt/shoulder harnesses has too much slack and won't work properly in a crash). There is, of course, no back seat...this is strictly a 2-seater. The steering wheel has a nice shape, is comfortable to hold, has the usual buttons/controls on the spokes, and the spokes use some painted-silver which is not as nice as the rest of the EX interior trim, but not as bad-looking as on some vehicles. All of the interior hardware, including all the switches, stalks, latches, etc.....was first-rate, solid-feeling, and extremely well-assembled.......Honda, IMO, does this better than any other mass-production automaker. The sun visors, though, had a cheap-feeling covering...this is becoming more and more common with automakers, even with some not-so-cheap vehicles.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Well-designed and versatile, though the trim could be a little-better-finished. The carpet is rather thin and covers only the trunk floor, with hard-plastic walls. But the versatility easily makes up for that. The trunk lid, as I explained previously, opens with a heavy, solid feel and shuts with a tank-like, Rock-of-Gibralter thunk. It also shuts with a laser-like precision. The cargo area is quite roomy for a small car this size (partly because of the lack of rear seats. Behind the seats are two large cubby-holes in the floor for storing things....a filp-down panel above them can be lowered to cover them up and extend the flat-load-floor area. A solid, well-made cargo-pull-cover, in the EX, can be mounted in either of two positons....a normal raised one or a lowered one for large/bulky cargo. The cargo area is rather narrow (due to the design of the rear fenders) , but still, as I said above, not bad for a car this size. And the bulky Nickel-Hydride battery-pack for the IMA does not intrude into cargo space or block any access.....automakers have come a long way in combining these battery-packs with ample cargo-space, and keeping them out of the way. Under the floor is, of course, a temporary spare tire (IMO, every car should have a real spare), but, given the car's fairly low price, I'm not going to complain.
ON THE ROAD:
As someone who vividly still remembers how the old CRX drove, with its agile but slow non-power manual-stering gear, spongy Push-and-Pray brakes, crisp-shifting 5-speed manual transmission, and loud road noises, the new CR-Z is quite a contrast in several areas. But you still start up the gas 1.5L four with a conventional side-column ignition switch and key...an odd set-up when most all-new, state-of-the-art hybrids use an engine START/STOP button. It will run for a few minutes until the oil is warm, then auto-stop at the next stop sign or trffic light....a green hybrid auto-stop light comes on when the gas engine stops. With the CVT, when you remove your foot from the brake and hit the gas, the gas engine cuts on again...and the electric motor cuts in as needed, as long as the battery-pack is charged. from what I could tell on my test-drive, it doesn't run on electrics alone like the Ford/Toyota hybrid systems do...the electric motor has only 13 HP and 58 ft-lbs. of torque. That may (partly) explain the lower MPG figures compared to the Prius...but, still, 39 MPG on the highway isn't bad....few all-gasoline cars can equal that outside of a few like the Ford Fiesta and Toyota Yaris. Power level is adequate for normal stop-and-go street driving, but it is clear that this powertrain is not the sport-coupe image that Honda marketers are projecting.
I've never liked the Honda IMA hybrid drivetrains as much as those from Ford or Toyota...and the CR-Z is no exception. They are just not as refined, and don't operate with the same smoothness as Toyota hybrids. On the road, the electrics cut in and out with a mild but noticeable bump, and the CVT transmission, with its marked rubber-banding surges at low-speed start-up, doesn't help matters. Manual Sport-shifts can be done with the steering-column paddles (they are tied to 6 pre-determined ratios in the CVT). But CVT transmissions don't HAVE to motorboat or rubber-band like this anymore......Nissan and Subaru have both found ways to make them feel more or less like conventional torque-converter geared automatics. I rarely favor manual-transmission cars over automatics or auto-manuals, but, in this case, I'm going to make an exception. Unless most of one's driving is done in really awful, stop-and-go conditions like big-city rush-hour gridlock, for most driving conditions, I'm going to recommend the 6-speed manual in this car (and the CR-Z, ironically, is the first American-market hybrid to offer a 6-speed manual). No, I didn't specifically test-drive a manual CR-Z today (none were available), but I have sampled the clutch and shift-linkage in a number of small FWD Hondas, and, IMO, there are probably no smoother, crisper, easier-to-shift FWD units on the planet. And, to boot, the CR-Z's manual transmission has a Subaru-type Hill-Start-Assist that prevents rolling backward when starting out.
The new power-steering system, however, is worlds better than the old, slow-reacting CRX unit....tough, of course, it doesn't provide quite as much road feel as unassisted units do. Steering response is very quick, MUCH better than the old CRX, almost to the point of being darty, and there is some articial road-feel dialed in, though it is a long way from classic BMW tactile-feel. A vertical row of three buttons, on the left-corner of the dash, marked ECONOMY/NORMAL/SPORT, is supposed to vary steering/throttle-response, but I could detect little or no difference in the settings (these buttons do not affect the suspension firmness, as in some cars). Handling/cornering was quite flat, reflecting the car's low stance, low center-of-gravity, and rather firm suspension. Ride comfort, even with the small (for today) 16" wheels and 55-series all-season tires, is not harsh. but does leave something to be desired (the optional 17" 45-series high-performance tires will likely be even stiffer). Some of the traditional Honda road noise also makes its way into the cabin (the car's small size and low-stance does not leave much room for either spring/shock compression for ride-smoothness or wheel-well/cabin sound insulation. Wind noise, though, while not luxury-car-quiet, is reasonably muted. Brakes, of course, are a big improvement over the old CRX, with its clearly undersized rotors/calipers. In fact, the Regenerative-Braking function of the IMA hybrid system works so well, that, except to come to a complete stop, I didn't have to use the brake pedal very much at all. When you let up on the gas, the electric motor up front acts as a generator, converting the vehicle's forard-motion kinetic energy into an electric-recharge for the battery-pack. (it is the one function of the Honda IMA/Hybrid system that DOES seem to work well). This, of course, will save a lot of wear on the brake pads/rotors themselves, and help prevent rotor-warping from heat-buildup. The pedal itself usually doesn't need much pressure because of the good engine-braking regenerative function, so it was difficult to tell just what kind of feel or sponginess the pedal had... (this is the case with a number of hybrids). I don't remember my big size-15's having much trouble hanging up on the underside of the pedal going from gas to brake (but then I didn't use the pedal that much)
THE VERDICT:
Is this (finally) a worthy CRX successor? Again, I'll repeat what I said above.....yes and no. The assembly-quality, overll construction, paint job, hardware, and materials used are all first-rate....IMO, some of the best in the buisness. Gas mileage, while not as high as some other snall hybrids, is excellent. The car's overall shape adds a little more passenger/cargo room inside but still, IMO, keeps the classic looks of its predecessor. The cargo area is extremely-well-designed, if not finished/carpeted perfectly. Brakes, from the IMA regenerative braking, are worlds above the old CRX........as is the steering response. Depreciation is likely to be low, though discounts, at least initially, will probably be hard to get.
But the IMA drivetrain, IMO, is clearly a disappointment, with (still) not enough refinement in the gas/electric-motor integration and an unrefined CVT transmission to prone to motorboating and rubber-band surging. I clearly recommend the 6-speed manual for all but the most dense big-city traffic. In fact, I personally think that Honda should have done a conventional gas-engine verson, with a conventional automatic/automanual, and simply made the IMA a option....perhaps they will in the future. But, for now, this is what we have...and (perhaps) it was done for fuel-mileage reasons, as the strict 2015-16 EPA standards are fast-approaching.
If you can put up with the car's rather firm, noisy ride and IMA's relative unrefinement, though, it should make a nice daily driver/commuter, especially if you don;t need a back seat or a big, wagon-like cargo area. With the low ground clearance, you'll need to avoid deep snow and/or road obstacles, but that is the case with its competitors too, including the Miata. It has the makings, in the chassis (but not the power) of a good small 2-seat sports-coupe. Reliability, as with most Hondas, should be well-above-average. And, perhaps best of all, it is reasonably-priced even without a discount, and won't break your bank account.
And, as always, of course............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-z/
In a Nutshell: Honda quality; a much-better replacement for the old CRX than the ill-fated Del Sol, but the IMA/CVT drivetrain needs work.
There's been a fair amount of interest in the new Honda CR-Z; I've gotten several review requests from both CL and non-CL members. And, of course, I've had some interest in seeing the car myself....a close friend of mine had two old CRX models back in the late-80'sthrough the 90's....a high-mileage XF and a sporty Si (I got to drive both of them), and we had a lot of fun in them. Though he and I went up to a local Honda shop to check out the replacement for the CRX...the rather ill-fated Del-Sol, neither of us were very impressed with it. Honda, at the time, had very little experience in building convertibles/T-Tops, and, sure enough, the Del Sol was not only very space inefficient, but, as it aged, got marked body-integrity/rattle/squeak/leak problems. So, he just kept the old CRX Si, ran up many thousands of miles on it, sold it to another friend (who has some mechanic/technician training) for a discount after he and his wife had been moderately rear-ended. It was still drivable, but the insurance company totalled it, gave him a settlement check, but still allowed him to keep it (and sell it)....a pretty good deal.
There isn't much I can really tell you guys about the old CRX that you probably won't already know. It was introduced during a time (early-mid 80s) when there were deliberate restrictions on the imports of Japanese vehicles into America, and Americans were getting sick and tired (as I was) of the poor-quality American cars of the time (the Japanese auto manufacturers had not yet opened up American plants). There were insulting mark-ups (and snobby dealers) on many Hondas of the period.....but the mark-ups on the first CRX models in 1984 were truly ludicrous. I can remember seeing new CRX models listing for $5000-6000 marked up to as much as $9000...a 40% increase....same a few years later when the first Mazda Miatas arrived. But, of course, to some people, it was worth it.....a number of auto magazines/journalists of the period considered the CRX and Miata the two best small two-seat sports cars in the American market. And, because they were two-seaters, insurance companies treated them as sports cars, pricing their insurance premiums accordingly. Still, that didn't stop a lot of CRX-addicts and the caps-on-backwards crowd. They went on to make it truly a cult-car...when Honda (foolishly, IMO) replaced it in 1992-93 with the Del-Sol, they simply turned deaf ears to the howls from the CRX crowd, just as Mitsubishi did when they dropped the turbo/AWD Eclipses and refused to listen to their fans (though, of course, the Evo eventually replaced it). It's been a long wait for CRX fans, but now we have at least a halfway-credible replacement, though still not without some faults and (IMO) marketing errors. The 1-Gen Insight, introduced in 2000, used the old CRX's body-style, and had phenominal gas mileage, but had goofy-looking rear-wheel skirts and a powertrain (and, it must be remembered, the old CRX-HF, with 48 HP and a carburator about the size of a large walnut, could equal the 1Gen Insight's mileage in many conditions). No, the 1Gen Insight was not, IMO, a proper replacement for the CRX.....neither, of course, was the Del-Sol, as I explained above. So, is the CR-Z (finally) a credible CRX replacment? Yes...and no, as I've determined from a review and test-drive. It is, barely, but could be better..as I'll explain later.
The new CR-Z comes in two trim models...a base and EX (there is no DX/LX, like with some other Hondas). Both come with a 1.5L gas, in-line, VTEC Honda four-cylinder and the 13 HP/58 ft-lbs torque IMA electric-assist motor....total power is 122 HP and 123 or 128 ft-lbs. of torque, depending on the transmission (Honda doesn't publish the gas-engine-alone power figure). Electric motors, of course, develop max torque at very low RPMs. The IMA-battery pack is of the Nickel-Hydride type. A choice of two transmissions is offered on each version.....a conventional, 6-speed manual with the Subaru-type Hill-Start-Assist or a Continuously-Variable-Transmission (CVT) with 6 pre-programmed, paddle-shift ratos if auto-manual shifting is desired. The base CR-Z starts at $19,200 (without freight); the EX model at $20,760....both reasonable prices, IMO, for a hybrid.
The first CR-Z models have just started to come into the D.C. area....several local shops have at least a few in stock (or pre-sold) now. A local Honda shop near my place had 4 of them on the Internet, in stock.....just arrived. One was already in the showroom, two in the service bay getting prepped, and one was on the lot available for a test-drive, so I hopped into my Outback and went out to see them. I did static-reviews on both the showroom model (a silver/gray EX with CVT) and the one on the lot, but test-drove the one on the lot.....a Black EX model with CVT.
After the test-drive, as I turned in the key and dealer-plate back in, thanked them, got the sales guy's card, and started out, there were two older women looking at a silver Element on the lot. They stopped me and asked some questions (I let them know I wasn't a salesperson). Their English wasn't too good, but we could still communicate. I answered their questions about FWD/AWD and other features, pointed out the Element's water-resistant cloth seats, rubber floor-covering/hose-it-out interior, and versatile cargo-area configurations. They seemed quite interested, and asked about pricing and what they (might) have to go through on a deal. So, I explained Virginia's 3% new-car sales tax and the dealer-processing fees, which, in Virginia, can run to $200-$500 (Maryland limits it to $99, but has a higher 6% sales-tax). They seemed serious, so I estimated what I thought what they might get off in a serious deal, took both of them back inside, introduced them to the salesguy who had given me the keys to the test-drive, told them these ladies were looking for an AWD Element, and let him take it from there. If he didn't sell ME a new vehicle that day, he might to them.
And, incidentally, speaking of prices, he said that the dealership would sell their CR-Zs at or close to list, with no added mark-up or second-sticker.....with the current status of it being a hot new model, particularly with the old CRX crowd, they might (?) be able to actually get mark-ups if they wanted them, but a lot of dealerships are trying harder now than they did in the past to please their customers, even if profits dip a little. I couldn't help but remember the old, ludicrous price-gouging I'd seen on the 80's-vintage CRX models. Shows how things have come a long way...and the customer is more important now.
OK....let's get to the review.
Model Reviewed: 2011 Honda CR-Z EX
Base Price: $21,410
Options: None
Destination/Freight: $750 (about average)
List Price as reviewed: $22,160
Drivetrain: FWD, 1.5L VTEC in-line 4, DC-permanent-magnet electric motor, 13 HP @ 1500 RPM, Torque 58 ft-lbs. @ 1000 RPM) with paddle-shift, Nickel-Hydride battery pack.
(Total) 122 HP @ 6000 RPM, (total) Torque 123 ft-lbs. @ 1000-2000 RPM, CVT (Continously-Variable-Transmission),
(Torque 128 ft-lbs. @ 1000-1750 RPM with 6-speed manual transmision)
EPA Mileage Rating: 35 City, 39 Highway
Exterior Color: Black
Interior: Gray/Patterned Cloth
PLUSSES:
Swiss-Watch-like overall assembly quality/construction.
Excellent Honda reliability.
Reasonable price for a hybrid.
The first American-market production hybrid with a 6-speed manual-transmission option.
Very quick steering response.
Flat cornering/little body roll.
Good underhood layout despite the complex drivetrain.
Excellent paint job.
Superb-quality exterior hardware.
Equally-superb-quality inteior hardware.
Side-mirror-mounted turn signals.
Versatile, multi-use cargo area.
Hybrid battery-pack does not infringe on cargo space.
Attractive, multi-patterened interior trim.
Solid, durable interior hardware.
Attractive, durable-feeling seat cloth upholstery.
Precise-feeling, tank-solid door and hatch-lid closings.
Low depreciation (likely).
MINUSES:
EPA mileage figures not as good as some other small hybrids.
Relatively unrefined IMA hybrid system.
Unrefined CVT transmission with rubber-banding.
Ride comfort not the best.
Noticeable road/tire noise.
Cheap hood prop-rod.
No (apparent) body-side mouldings for ding-protection.
Relatively busy, confusing dash layout.
Hard-plastic interior dash/trim surfaces.
Cheap-feeling sun visors.
Dated ignition switch, especially for an all-new hybrid.
Marginal head room for tall persons.
Front-seat cushions a little narrow for wide people.
Very poor rear vision.
Cargo area could be better-finished.
Rather low ground clearance over obstacles.
Overly-flat rear-hatch window will accumulate snow/ice quickly.
Only 5 exterior paint colors....but IMO they are decent.
Discounts unlikely.
EXTERIOR:
Well, walking up to the CR-Z does bring back strong memories of (you guessed it) the old CRX, although the overall body side is slightly larger, and the open-grille is considerably larger. Still, there is no doubt that (finally) Honda has finally done something in the spirit of the old car, even if hybrid gas-electric and still in need of some improvements...more on that later. The body sheet metal, like on the old car, is high-quality and well-done, and the doors and rear hatch have an even more solid, precise fit. Both the doors and (especially) the rear hatch shut with a solid, precise, "THUNK". Honda really seems to do a lot of work at the factory, with laser-precise fitting, to get body panels/doors that precise and that solid-closing. All of the exterior hard ware is of very high quality and, in the Honda tradition, extremely well-fitted/assembled. The side-mirrors have integrated turn-signals, and swivel/lock with solid but butter-smooth precision. The paint job, as usual, is extremely well-done, but Honda, IMO, could offer more than just 5 exterior colors (limited color-choice has been a Honda problem on its smaller models for many years). Still, the colors aren't bad.....especially the bright blue and bright red. There isn't much ground clearance underneath for snow, mud, or road obstacles....try not to run over debris lying in the road. That also, of course, means it's difficult to get a hose underneath for bottom flush-offs. A bad styling point, IMO, is the almost-flat, horizontal rear-window, even more horizontal than on the old CRX. It will (likely) pile up snow, ice, and rain water very quickly...in moist-climate areas, you're going to really need the standard rear-window washer/wiper/defroster. The 16" alloy wheels are generally good-looking, and have rather tall 55-series all-season tires (17" alloys with lower, 45-series high-performance tires are an option), but the 55-series tires still didn't do much for ride comfort....more on that later. And, unfortunately, I couldn't find anything that could pass for a ding-protecting body-side moulding either. Vision out the back was VERY poor due to the flat rear window, a dividing-bar, and the styling of the rear roof-pillars.
UNDERHOOD:
Generally well-done, despite the complexity of the IMA (Integrated Motor Assist) powertrain. Open the lightweight but solid hood, and the only poorly-done feature is the cheap manual prop-rod you have to fiddle with to hold it up (this is not an expensive car, though). There is a nice underhood insulation pad on the underside of the hood to help keep things quiet when the gas engine is running. The 1.5L gas 4-cylinder fits in very well, even with the electric motor and the CVT transmission next to it. There is a fair amount of room around the engine-block to reach things, and no big annoying engine cover (it is fairly small) to block access. A rather small gas-engine battery lies off to the right, uncovered (the main hybrid battery-pack, of course, is in back, hidden out of sight). All dipsticks (the oil-dipstick is the usual Honda bright-orange), reservoirs, and filler-caps are easily-reached.
INTERIOR:
Extremely well-assembled/crafted in the Honda tradition, but, IMO, like the rival Honda Insight, too much hard plastic was used for the dash and door panels. But most of the actual textures all look good, and the door panels have a center-strip of nice silver/gray/patterned fake carbon-fiber. The seat upholstery is a durable-feeling cloth, done ia a textured silver/gray tweed that is more or less like the carbon-fiber on the door panels. The seats themselves, while firm and supportive, have bottom side-cushions that are just borderline adequate for wide rumps like mine...and they are not adustable. The seat-adjusters are manual, and have large oval loop-rings that are easy to grab and adjust, but they don't feel quite as solid as the rest of the superb interior hardware. The *****/buttons/switches are all of superlative quality and silky-smooth to use, but, on the center-dash, are arrainged in a rather busy pattern that takes some getting used to....and some are needlessly complex, such as the stereo volume/tune/adjust controls that force you to use 3 or 4 buttons, pushed 3 or 4 different ways, that could easily be designed with 1 or 2. Time to maybe go back to Honda's old motto of decades ago....."We Keep it Simple". The stereo sound itself is one of the better ones, though not anywhere near Lexus-Mark Levinson territory...the CR-Z's relatively small interior size doesn't allow for a lot of speakers. The primary gauges are lit up in bright-blue back-lighting and include a fairly large analog tachometer and a smaller white digital speedometer (I myself don't like digital gauges) inside the tach. The way Honda works the back-lighting, the digital speedometer, to my eyes, actually had a 3-D depth-effect.....I don't know if that was intentional or not. To the left of the main gauges are smaller hybrid bar-gauges, which incudes a Charge/Assist meter for the electric motor and battery-pack. I liked the thick, short, but useful vertical-pull grips for the doors (my Outback also has them). I also liked the way that the interior was multi-patterned, with several different trim-textures....none of the same dull black or tan/beige monotone you see in many other vehicles.
Headroom was marginal for taller persons.....I was able to fit in with my ubiquitous baseball cap by adjusting the seat-cushion height down and reclining the seat-back a little (you don't want to recline it too much, because then the belt/shoulder harnesses has too much slack and won't work properly in a crash). There is, of course, no back seat...this is strictly a 2-seater. The steering wheel has a nice shape, is comfortable to hold, has the usual buttons/controls on the spokes, and the spokes use some painted-silver which is not as nice as the rest of the EX interior trim, but not as bad-looking as on some vehicles. All of the interior hardware, including all the switches, stalks, latches, etc.....was first-rate, solid-feeling, and extremely well-assembled.......Honda, IMO, does this better than any other mass-production automaker. The sun visors, though, had a cheap-feeling covering...this is becoming more and more common with automakers, even with some not-so-cheap vehicles.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Well-designed and versatile, though the trim could be a little-better-finished. The carpet is rather thin and covers only the trunk floor, with hard-plastic walls. But the versatility easily makes up for that. The trunk lid, as I explained previously, opens with a heavy, solid feel and shuts with a tank-like, Rock-of-Gibralter thunk. It also shuts with a laser-like precision. The cargo area is quite roomy for a small car this size (partly because of the lack of rear seats. Behind the seats are two large cubby-holes in the floor for storing things....a filp-down panel above them can be lowered to cover them up and extend the flat-load-floor area. A solid, well-made cargo-pull-cover, in the EX, can be mounted in either of two positons....a normal raised one or a lowered one for large/bulky cargo. The cargo area is rather narrow (due to the design of the rear fenders) , but still, as I said above, not bad for a car this size. And the bulky Nickel-Hydride battery-pack for the IMA does not intrude into cargo space or block any access.....automakers have come a long way in combining these battery-packs with ample cargo-space, and keeping them out of the way. Under the floor is, of course, a temporary spare tire (IMO, every car should have a real spare), but, given the car's fairly low price, I'm not going to complain.
ON THE ROAD:
As someone who vividly still remembers how the old CRX drove, with its agile but slow non-power manual-stering gear, spongy Push-and-Pray brakes, crisp-shifting 5-speed manual transmission, and loud road noises, the new CR-Z is quite a contrast in several areas. But you still start up the gas 1.5L four with a conventional side-column ignition switch and key...an odd set-up when most all-new, state-of-the-art hybrids use an engine START/STOP button. It will run for a few minutes until the oil is warm, then auto-stop at the next stop sign or trffic light....a green hybrid auto-stop light comes on when the gas engine stops. With the CVT, when you remove your foot from the brake and hit the gas, the gas engine cuts on again...and the electric motor cuts in as needed, as long as the battery-pack is charged. from what I could tell on my test-drive, it doesn't run on electrics alone like the Ford/Toyota hybrid systems do...the electric motor has only 13 HP and 58 ft-lbs. of torque. That may (partly) explain the lower MPG figures compared to the Prius...but, still, 39 MPG on the highway isn't bad....few all-gasoline cars can equal that outside of a few like the Ford Fiesta and Toyota Yaris. Power level is adequate for normal stop-and-go street driving, but it is clear that this powertrain is not the sport-coupe image that Honda marketers are projecting.
I've never liked the Honda IMA hybrid drivetrains as much as those from Ford or Toyota...and the CR-Z is no exception. They are just not as refined, and don't operate with the same smoothness as Toyota hybrids. On the road, the electrics cut in and out with a mild but noticeable bump, and the CVT transmission, with its marked rubber-banding surges at low-speed start-up, doesn't help matters. Manual Sport-shifts can be done with the steering-column paddles (they are tied to 6 pre-determined ratios in the CVT). But CVT transmissions don't HAVE to motorboat or rubber-band like this anymore......Nissan and Subaru have both found ways to make them feel more or less like conventional torque-converter geared automatics. I rarely favor manual-transmission cars over automatics or auto-manuals, but, in this case, I'm going to make an exception. Unless most of one's driving is done in really awful, stop-and-go conditions like big-city rush-hour gridlock, for most driving conditions, I'm going to recommend the 6-speed manual in this car (and the CR-Z, ironically, is the first American-market hybrid to offer a 6-speed manual). No, I didn't specifically test-drive a manual CR-Z today (none were available), but I have sampled the clutch and shift-linkage in a number of small FWD Hondas, and, IMO, there are probably no smoother, crisper, easier-to-shift FWD units on the planet. And, to boot, the CR-Z's manual transmission has a Subaru-type Hill-Start-Assist that prevents rolling backward when starting out.
The new power-steering system, however, is worlds better than the old, slow-reacting CRX unit....tough, of course, it doesn't provide quite as much road feel as unassisted units do. Steering response is very quick, MUCH better than the old CRX, almost to the point of being darty, and there is some articial road-feel dialed in, though it is a long way from classic BMW tactile-feel. A vertical row of three buttons, on the left-corner of the dash, marked ECONOMY/NORMAL/SPORT, is supposed to vary steering/throttle-response, but I could detect little or no difference in the settings (these buttons do not affect the suspension firmness, as in some cars). Handling/cornering was quite flat, reflecting the car's low stance, low center-of-gravity, and rather firm suspension. Ride comfort, even with the small (for today) 16" wheels and 55-series all-season tires, is not harsh. but does leave something to be desired (the optional 17" 45-series high-performance tires will likely be even stiffer). Some of the traditional Honda road noise also makes its way into the cabin (the car's small size and low-stance does not leave much room for either spring/shock compression for ride-smoothness or wheel-well/cabin sound insulation. Wind noise, though, while not luxury-car-quiet, is reasonably muted. Brakes, of course, are a big improvement over the old CRX, with its clearly undersized rotors/calipers. In fact, the Regenerative-Braking function of the IMA hybrid system works so well, that, except to come to a complete stop, I didn't have to use the brake pedal very much at all. When you let up on the gas, the electric motor up front acts as a generator, converting the vehicle's forard-motion kinetic energy into an electric-recharge for the battery-pack. (it is the one function of the Honda IMA/Hybrid system that DOES seem to work well). This, of course, will save a lot of wear on the brake pads/rotors themselves, and help prevent rotor-warping from heat-buildup. The pedal itself usually doesn't need much pressure because of the good engine-braking regenerative function, so it was difficult to tell just what kind of feel or sponginess the pedal had... (this is the case with a number of hybrids). I don't remember my big size-15's having much trouble hanging up on the underside of the pedal going from gas to brake (but then I didn't use the pedal that much)
THE VERDICT:
Is this (finally) a worthy CRX successor? Again, I'll repeat what I said above.....yes and no. The assembly-quality, overll construction, paint job, hardware, and materials used are all first-rate....IMO, some of the best in the buisness. Gas mileage, while not as high as some other snall hybrids, is excellent. The car's overall shape adds a little more passenger/cargo room inside but still, IMO, keeps the classic looks of its predecessor. The cargo area is extremely-well-designed, if not finished/carpeted perfectly. Brakes, from the IMA regenerative braking, are worlds above the old CRX........as is the steering response. Depreciation is likely to be low, though discounts, at least initially, will probably be hard to get.
But the IMA drivetrain, IMO, is clearly a disappointment, with (still) not enough refinement in the gas/electric-motor integration and an unrefined CVT transmission to prone to motorboating and rubber-band surging. I clearly recommend the 6-speed manual for all but the most dense big-city traffic. In fact, I personally think that Honda should have done a conventional gas-engine verson, with a conventional automatic/automanual, and simply made the IMA a option....perhaps they will in the future. But, for now, this is what we have...and (perhaps) it was done for fuel-mileage reasons, as the strict 2015-16 EPA standards are fast-approaching.
If you can put up with the car's rather firm, noisy ride and IMA's relative unrefinement, though, it should make a nice daily driver/commuter, especially if you don;t need a back seat or a big, wagon-like cargo area. With the low ground clearance, you'll need to avoid deep snow and/or road obstacles, but that is the case with its competitors too, including the Miata. It has the makings, in the chassis (but not the power) of a good small 2-seat sports-coupe. Reliability, as with most Hondas, should be well-above-average. And, perhaps best of all, it is reasonably-priced even without a discount, and won't break your bank account.
And, as always, of course............Happy Car Shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-25-10 at 07:55 PM.
08-25-10, 07:23 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
It will be considerably harder to "Rice" out this complex IMA drivetrain than on the simpler gas-powered CRX of 20 years ago. Might see some trim/paint/body-flare modifications, though, from the caps-on-backward crowd.
Can't wait to see these riced out 
08-25-10, 07:27 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Any talk of how many manuals the dealers will have order vs CVT?
Don't underestimate the power of the Honda owner
08-25-10, 07:30 PM
#5
Mmarshall, thanks for another indepth review.. great read. 
Seems like a well built sporty looking car that is not a sporty drive nor was it intended to be. Based on your review it seems to me that this car is a nice sporty step up commuter car from the Insight (original and current) but seems to fall short of the CRX replacement it could have been. Am I pretty close?
Seems like a well built sporty looking car that is not a sporty drive nor was it intended to be. Based on your review it seems to me that this car is a nice sporty step up commuter car from the Insight (original and current) but seems to fall short of the CRX replacement it could have been. Am I pretty close?
08-25-10, 07:33 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Not specifically, but, in the dense-traffic areas you and I both live in, there will (probably) be substantially more automatics.
Yep. The old CRX owners were one of the most fanatic on the planet. It was a true cult-car.
Don't underestimate the power of the Honda owner
Last edited by mmarshall; 08-26-10 at 03:10 AM.
08-25-10, 07:41 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Close enough.
The chassis is plenty sporty....especially the quick power-steering and flat cornering. It also has a firm ride.....more or less expected with the short-wheelbase and low-stance. But the IMA drivetrain, for reasons I outlined above, still, IMO, needs more work and refinement.....or a conventional gas-engine option. In that sense, it is not a true CRX replacement.
But, don't forget, not all of the old CRXs were that sporty either....they weren't all Si's. Many of them were done in the gas-miser XF version.....which barely had enough power to get out of its own way, but could, without air-conditioning, achieve 50-60 MPG on the road.
Seems like a well built sporty looking car that is not a sporty drive nor was it intended to be. Based on your review it seems to me that this car is a nice sporty step up commuter car from the Insight (original and current) but seems to fall short of the CRX replacement it could have been. Am I pretty close?
The chassis is plenty sporty....especially the quick power-steering and flat cornering. It also has a firm ride.....more or less expected with the short-wheelbase and low-stance. But the IMA drivetrain, for reasons I outlined above, still, IMO, needs more work and refinement.....or a conventional gas-engine option. In that sense, it is not a true CRX replacement.
But, don't forget, not all of the old CRXs were that sporty either....they weren't all Si's. Many of them were done in the gas-miser XF version.....which barely had enough power to get out of its own way, but could, without air-conditioning, achieve 50-60 MPG on the road.
Trending Topics
08-25-10, 08:36 PM
#8
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the write up. With Honda's recent bout of bad hybrid PR it will be interesting to see what will happen to this car. Hopefully they got their act together but personally I would only buy one of these because it is the only new hybrid that you can get in a stick.
08-25-10, 10:17 PM
#9
In regards to performance, is a $22k CR-Z worth the premium over a 5-seater $17k Civic?
Yeah, the gas mileage advantage is there (the Civic gets 25/36). But it seems to lack the fun and functionality of the Civic.
Can the Civic's specs and price actually be the CR-Z's main competition?
Yeah, the gas mileage advantage is there (the Civic gets 25/36). But it seems to lack the fun and functionality of the Civic.
Can the Civic's specs and price actually be the CR-Z's main competition?
08-26-10, 02:39 AM
#11
Lexus Test Driver
Good report. You were a bit more positive than I would have been. I think Honda has lost their mind with all this obnoxious front overhang. Nothing sporty there at all.
08-26-10, 03:22 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks for the write up.
With Honda's recent bout of bad hybrid PR it will be interesting to see what will happen to this car. Hopefully they got their act together but personally I would only buy one of these because it is the only new hybrid that you can get in a stick.
08-26-10, 03:43 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
[/QUOTE]Yeah, the gas mileage advantage is there (the Civic gets 25/36). But it seems to lack the fun and functionality of the Civic.[/QUOTE]
The CR-Z's steering/chassis is more fun than that of the regular Civic, but, as I mentioned earlier, the IMA/CVT drivetrain is not impressive. And the CR-Z's highway mileage is only 3 MPG better on the highway...the difference in town is much more....10 MPG.
Can the Civic's specs and price actually be the CR-Z's main competition?
08-26-10, 03:48 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I don't think it looks bad either, but there are some who disagree. I do think the rear end is a little too up-swept, and the design of the rear window/roof pillars causes very poor rear vision.
Some people may want or (need the) Insight's 4 doors and small rear seat for various purposes, even though it is generally unfit for large adults.
they hit the spot on this! now why didn't they just dis-continue the insight and made this one rated for 40 mpg ?
08-26-10, 03:53 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
I try and be fair and objective, giving the car (and Honda) both credit and criticism where I think it's due.
There IS some sportiness in the chassis/steering, though the 3-positon ECONOMY/NORMAL/SPORT buttons don't seem to make much, if any, difference in the steering/throttle response.
You were a bit more positive than I would have been. I think Honda has lost their mind with all this obnoxious front overhang. Nothing sporty there at all.
There IS some sportiness in the chassis/steering, though the 3-positon ECONOMY/NORMAL/SPORT buttons don't seem to make much, if any, difference in the steering/throttle response.