I've finally driven the 2011 Honda CR-Z. I owned two Honda CRXs in my youth (a 1987 CRX Si and a 1989 CRX Si) and have henceforth been excited about the CR-Z ever since it was shown in concept form a few years ago. If you've read Inside Line's first-drive or most other first-drive articles, you've probably gotten the sense that this is not the fizzy CRX Si successor that many people hoped for. But before full depression sets in, WT3 is here to remind you to think positive and realize that there are still things to like about the new CR-Z.
3. Sporty handling with very good fuel economy
Previously, the only car you could really attribute this combination to was the Mini Cooper. Now there's another choice. The CR-Z is nimble around town and on a curvy road, even if it doesn't really respond well to max-attack driving. But remember that this is the base version. Conceivably, an Si variant (even if Honda hasn't said anything official about it) would be tuned much more sharply.
2. Distinctive styling
Many people have complained that the CR-Z's look has been too watered down from the concept's. Perhaps. But I'll tell you that it does look better in person than in photos. And on the road, the CR-Z stands out as sharp and distinctive.
1. Two seats
Alright, this one is fully debatable. From a practical standpoint, having just two seats is silly, especially since the CR-Z is sold with a backseat in other markets. But I remember enjoying the CRX's two-seat layout. I didn't have a family to cart around and I typically didn't give a ride to more than one person anyway. And when it came time to get together with my friends to go to something like a party, the CRX provided the excuse for not being the taxi and/or designated driver. You'll be able to do the same with the CR-Z.
Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor
By moparbad
on June 18, 2010
08:44 AM
Sporty handling, very good fuel economy, and even more practical than CR-Z = ?
Golf TDI
By greenpony
on June 18, 2010
08:57 AM
This is going to be the everyman's sports car of 2016. Or vehicles similar to it. At more than 20 lb/hp, though, it's going to be a sloth. A nimble, agile sloth, perhaps, but a sloth nonetheless.
By robert4380
on June 18, 2010
09:03 AM
A Mini Cooper, Ford Fiesta, and Mazda2 are all fun to drive. Each gets 37+ mpg on the freeway. Each seats 4 people. With the exception of the Mini, each one fully loaded tops out around 20 grand. Honda needed to add a heavy, complex hybrid system to the CR-Z so that it can barely achieve what the above named competitors can achieve without a hybrid system. If Honda had developed a newer 4 cylinder that got close to 40 mpg on its own without the hybrid system, then they could knock off the extra cost of said hybrid system and the CR-Z would at least be more competitive in terms of value against the Mini, Fiesta, and Mazda2. Every single journalist doing one of these "first drives" of the CR-Z seems to gloss right over that point. How is adding the cost of a hybrid system to a compact like the CR-Z cost effective when other non-hybrid compacts can equal the fun and frugality of the CR-Z at a cheaper cost?
By cruiserhead1
on June 18, 2010
09:39 AM
Brent,
I had a '89 and '91 CRX Si. Both were fun and I miss the 91 (last year for the CRX).
The CRX was also sold with back seats in other markets, with the cargo tray in the USA so maybe the CRZ's is just more of the same.
Hopefully they come out with a beefier Mini S fighter. Looks like the CRZ would look great with some bigger wheels and tighter suspension.
By pat1usmc
on June 18, 2010
10:51 AM
I'm trying to like this car too, but its very hard especially with the other options that others have mentioned.
And you'd think that when you have to write an article written solely about excuses to like a vehicle, and you can only come up with 3, with one being that it only has two seats, then maybe the car is asking you to compromise a little too much?
By ahightower
on June 18, 2010
11:22 AM
I agree that the TDI may be a better choice on paper, but I also reserve judgment until driving one, and seeing what people figure out how to do to it. The aftermarket tuners will surely find a way to turn these sporty hybrids into either really fast cars or really frugal cars. I suspect there's a lot of hidden potential that the compromised OEM set-up doesn't reveal.
By yankeez
on June 18, 2010
11:46 AM
Looks more like a successor to the Insight than the CRX
By rsholland
on June 18, 2010
11:49 AM
"I suspect there's a lot of hidden potential that the compromised OEM set-up doesn't reveal."
I agree. This is the future folks. Get used to it.
By fuhteng
on June 18, 2010
01:36 PM
I am totally unimpressed with this thing. It looks like a vacuum and can't outrun a Prius. It seats two, and it weighs 2,800 lbs. It is turd. Anyone who buys this is a fool. You want small and sporty? Fiesta, Civic, Mazda 3. You want fuel efficient? Well, remove the Mazda, and it is the same list.
By greenpony
on June 19, 2010
05:57 AM
pat1usmc, don't you think it would have been odd if Brent wrote about ten points in a "weekly top three" article?
By pat1usmc
on June 19, 2010
02:12 PM
Yes, I guess it would! I didn't read the title.
But still, if being a two seater is 1 out of 3 good points, there might be a problem.
I think the styling, both exterior and interior, is unique and I might actually like it. The fact that it comes with a 6-speed manual is also a huge plus.
By estreka
on June 22, 2010
01:48 PM
I'd take the 2-seat argument out. The handling, well, I'll reserve judgement until I try it out. As far as styling, I think the production version looks a LOT heftier, but it still looks good. The rear end looks way too high, even without a significant wheel gap.