Hyundai's CR-Z destroyer?
11-10-2011, 04:46 AM
#111
Moderator
Originally Posted by Triple-H' timestamp='1320785126' post='21139504
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1320778120' post='21139104']
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end.
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end.
You say the engine is gutless? Then what the f do you call the CR-Z? The base Veloster eats the CR-Z alive, and yes, I have test driven both of them :
Let's face it - the base Veloster is a hatchback/wagon with a basic motor, a basic suspension, some interesting looks (love it or hate it) and a low price with some great features. That's all.
The CR-Z is gutless, too - no doubt about that at all. Sounds pretty good, though.
[/quote]
Captain! He's gone full fanboi!
11-10-2011, 09:56 AM
#112
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1320778120' post='21139104
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end. I imagine they'll improve that with the turbo motor (way more power) and an improved suspension but the current one is hardly the choice of an enthusiast driver.
JonBoy, how can you call the Veloster's engine "basic"? 138hp from a direct injection 1.6 sounds pretty good to me. Especially when you compare it to the Civic's 2.0 engine with its 140hp. The Acura (Honda) Integra's 1.8 liter engine made 140 hp in 1992. 20 years later...this is what they have?
11-10-2011, 10:06 AM
#113
Former Moderator
JonBoy, how can you call the Veloster's engine "basic"? 138hp from a direct injection 1.6 sounds pretty good to me. Especially when you compare it to the Civic's 2.0 engine with its 140hp. The Acura (Honda) Integra's 1.8 liter engine made 140 hp in 1992. 20 years later...this is what they have?
11-10-2011, 10:09 AM
#114
Hmm, I wonder why I thought that. So it's still 1.8 liters then...
Allow me to correct my statement. In 20 years all they've accomplished is matching power with a SOHC engine and a 25% bump in fuel economy. Such progress!
Allow me to correct my statement. In 20 years all they've accomplished is matching power with a SOHC engine and a 25% bump in fuel economy. Such progress!
11-10-2011, 10:39 AM
#115
LMAO, Saki GT I think your joke went over everyone's heads.
JonBoy, how can you call the Veloster's engine "basic"? 138hp from a direct injection 1.6 sounds pretty good to me. Especially when you compare it to the Civic's 2.0 engine with its 140hp. The Acura (Honda) Integra's 1.8 liter engine made 140 hp in 1992. 20 years later...this is what they have?
JonBoy, how can you call the Veloster's engine "basic"? 138hp from a direct injection 1.6 sounds pretty good to me. Especially when you compare it to the Civic's 2.0 engine with its 140hp. The Acura (Honda) Integra's 1.8 liter engine made 140 hp in 1992. 20 years later...this is what they have?
11-10-2011, 10:40 AM
#116
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1320778120' post='21139104
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end. I imagine they'll improve that with the turbo motor (way more power) and an improved suspension but the current one is hardly the choice of an enthusiast driver.
11-10-2011, 10:48 AM
#118
Speakling of CR-Z - Last weekend, driving the S back from Chicago where I had just bought it, I was taking 355S back to 88W and pulls up next to me is a young couple in a completely Mugenized CR-Z and they were dressed blingy too and thugging hard - ginormous sunglasses etc. That Mugen wing is really strange looking. Anyways, they stare at me and then he punches it and takes off. I just smiled and kept crusing at 60 while he is weaving thru traffic. It was humorous. They were proud and loud of that thing. I hope they knew the s2000 would eat it for lunch and spit out its socks, but guessing not!
11-11-2011, 07:01 AM
#119
Originally Posted by Saki GT' timestamp='1320779956' post='21139200
[quote name='JonBoy' timestamp='1320778120' post='21139104']
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end. I imagine they'll improve that with the turbo motor (way more power) and an improved suspension but the current one is hardly the choice of an enthusiast driver.
Meh - the press has almost universally panned it as a car that offers some fun, some utility and some new "looks" (some liked it, some didn't) but not very much sport or handling. Virtually none said it was a truly sporty car or even all that fun to drive. The motor is gutless and the suspension is definitely on the cheap end. I imagine they'll improve that with the turbo motor (way more power) and an improved suspension but the current one is hardly the choice of an enthusiast driver.
[/quote]
Interesting blog post. Given the attitude at Honda though I'm going to assume if any performance model comes out it will have around 160hp and cost $25k. Nobody will buy it and Honda will say, we told you so!
On the flip side fingers crossed that it's 200 hp and costs $22k.
11-11-2011, 08:24 PM
#120
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting blog post. Given the attitude at Honda though I'm going to assume if any performance model comes out it will have around 160hp and cost $25k. Nobody will buy it and Honda will say, we told you so!
On the flip side fingers crossed that it's 200 hp and costs $22k.
On the flip side fingers crossed that it's 200 hp and costs $22k.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post