honda606

Did you see that I mentioned the word airbags? I'm fully aware of the fact that the CR-Z is heavier due to the need to meet current crash standards. But I don't ever factor in to my car purchases how well the car will hold up in an accident. I don't drive like an idiot on public roads therefore I'm not placing myself into the position of having to worry about that kind of thing.

As far as the Grassroots comparison goes I'm not surprised the CR-Z kept up as well as it did. Do you really think they took the CRX and replaced all the components of the stock suspension prior to testing? There is no way to tell how worn those parts are going up against the CR-Z with a brand new suspension. Look at how much body roll the CRX has in the promo video they put up on youtube. Suspension looks pretty worn from my point of view.

Also, I don't understand your mention of the MPG. When I owned my stock 91 CRX Si from 2004-2008 I averaged between 40-45 and all that was done was removal of the spare tire. No hybrid nonsense and no battery to periodically replace either.

I still fail to see how the CR-Z is superior, especially in the "every way" context that Steponme asserted.

JonBoy

I hope you never get hit. It's not like you can avoid them all or anything. Try getting away from being rear ended at a stop light at a busy intersection with nowhere to go sometime....

Bottom line is this: the CR-Z is as quick around a track as a CRX, gets equal or better gas mileage (plenty of people are averaging the same thing you averaged, or better, in the CR-Z on sites that track it), is safer and offers enough fun for most people. The CR-Z is slightly slower (but has caught up in speed by the end of the 1/4 mile) but that's about it. It grips better and brakes as well. More to the point, the CRX will NOT run circles around a CR-Z (if nothing, the sticky tires would more than negate any lost time from a worn suspension).

honda606

I've never been in accident that I didn't cause myself. Perhaps I'm just lucky.

Bottom line is this: the CRX doesn't have a battery in it that costs three times as much as the cost of a CRX itself. If you get the IMA pack replaced by a dealership you're looking at roughly $4000-5000. The cheapest I've read is $1600 and that was the guy buying the pack and doing the replacement himself. You can buy 2-3 CRX's for the cost of a CR-Z battery. No thanks.

Take a CRX bought at $1500 and put the other $2500 in to suspension and motor swap and it WILL hands down run circles around the CR-Z. Shit, take just $600 for a Koni/GC setup, because no one in their right mind would spend the money to replace the suspension with stock parts (unless they are a purist trying to keep the car completely factory stock), and the CRX takes the CR-Z. Plus you have $2-3k still left in your pocket.

There is absolutely no way to properly test the CRX and CR-Z in stock form against each other, unless someone were to take the time to actually fit the CRX with an entirely brand new suspension including arms, bushings, etc. Since that is never going to happen, you and I can just agree to disagree on this one. Sticky tires is not going to negate a 25 year old suspension.

sparrow

As soon as you started talking about modding your argument went into the toilet, and I was onboard with you. The modding is an "if" game that has no end. If you swap in a K20 and remove the crz's batteries then add kwv3 you could compete in BTCC. See how easy that was. The only thing possibly relevant is the cost of the crz vs the cost of the crx(used obviously) and perceived value and trade offs. Yea your crx is lapping fast now but it probably sounds like a spray paint can being shaken when you drive over a bump.

JonBoy

I'm thinking you're the only one that doesn't see the silliness of your post. Really - an old used car can be purchased and modified to be faster than a brand new car for far less money? WHAAAAAT? Seriously?

By your own logic, regardless, there is no way for YOU to prove that a CRX would run circles around a CR-Z. We do know that the one time it was tried, the CRX didn't run circles around it, even with sticky tires. That's good enough for me.

Plenty of 24 Hours of Lemons cars add good rubber and drop a couple seconds per lap. Tires are a massive improvement on any car, especially when we're talking Falken Azenis vs the crappy stock all-season narrow rubber on a CRX.

honda606

I was simply making the point that you could do all that to a CRX for the cost of the CR-Z's IMA battery pack. Nothing more.

I understand the adage that bringing modding in to a debate is pointless, but in the end it is all still relative. You could strip a CRX down to the sheet metal, completely rebuild it with professional paint, suspension, wire tuck, OBD conversion, K swap, etc. and still be under $15k. Take the CR-Z and simply do suspension and K swap and you're easily at $25-30k.

Both have the same power output but one still weighs 500 lbs less...and costs $10-15k less. What is the outcome going to be on the track?

You're right. I can't prove it because I refuse to spend the money rebuilding a CRX with new stock suspension pieces. The Grassroots test showed nothing other than the fact that it thought giving the CRX sticky tires would make up for it having a 25 year old suspension. It doesn't. Have you driven an EF generation hatchback or CRX lately on stock suspension? I have. If the suspension can't keep the tires planted to the pavement it doesn't matter whether they are sticky rubber or not. This is common sense and that is my point. If one were to actually the spend the time and money to test the two in true stock condition it's pretty easy to guess what the outcome would be. 12HP and about 20 extra torque is not going to make up for a 500+ lb weight differential.

I'm not arguing with you that tires make a massive improvement in general. They obviously do. But not on a suspension that can't go over a speed bump without slowing down to 5mph.

blizz81

How much weight and parasitic drivetrain loss would a flux capacitor add to a CR-Z? This score will never be settled...

Duke Togo

The CR-Z is not what it might have been - it's the new Honda and for many it's underwhelming. While the CRX may have inherently less weight and theoretically better suspension the crz gains from having a fresh set of components alot more torque and a chassis that is light years ahead of the crx. If I was going to speculate on what could have been I would imagine double wishbones and a diet. That doesnt mean the car is garbage it just means I am not interested.

Rather than dump buckets of money into one I would pick up a late model TSX - it already has a 2.4L K series, double wishbones and is relatively inexpensive when purchased used. Plus they are very capable.

The new NSX makes me sad because I saw a picture of the old/new one right after the finished development and the economy hit forcing them to shelve it and reassign the 50 dedicated team members working on it. This is not that car.

Steponme

Fine, in most ways, then. With similar performance, but from the safety, quality, interior, and even exterior style standpoints, the CR-Z > CRX. The stock CR-Z wears very crappy tires, even MotorTrend disapproved of them and said that with better tires, it might have taken first place.

Regardless, the CR-Z is just an affordable mass-produced hybrid coupe, which Honda intended it to be; on the other hand, the new halo supercar is a limited project that Honda is going to work on it carefully to make it the brand's halo. I think it's going to have very good-to-excellent performance while showcasing new technologies. However, by 2015, I think it will not be the first production car to hit the market with electric motors aid-driving the wheels anymore. They should market it by the middle of next year.

thielepr

Jon your post just demostrated that the CR-Z is a better car than a 25 year old CRX. I think that everybody just agree with that. It's a better car but maybe not a better sport car. Even if the CR-Z is faster than the CRX by 5 seconds on a track that doesn't mean that is a better sport car. Imagine a CR-Z without the weight of the batteries and the IMA parts. Probably it would get the same MPG and it would be more fun to drive

I think that Honda should manage marketing a little bit different. After 15 at the dearleship looking at the CR-Z and really understood that it is a good car. But seeing the car is one thing, the performance is another. A big example the veloster. It looks like it's going 150 MPH but it isn't. It's the same with the CR-Z. When you compare it to the icon like the CRX it should stand for that name. If Honda named it Insight coupe maybe would not receive such bad reactions from Honda lovers. The same will happen with this new NSX.

Also the 38MPG is a big fail to me. The are a few cars from differents brands there macthing those MPG.