Video: Honda execs talk up historical link between CR-Z and CRX
Honda execs relate CR-Z to the original CRX – Click above to view the video after the jump
Looking at the 2011 CR-Z, it's hard not to think back to the original Honda CRX. The two-seat configuration, double-paneled glass hatch and sport compact styling are what made the CRX a huge hit for Honda buyers some two decades ago, and the automaker is hoping to recapture that magic with the CR-Z, though with a slightly different approach.
The big difference with the CR-Z is that it uses a hybrid powertrain rather than a standard petrol mill. And while the automaker's decision to give the CR-Z a gas/electric powertrain isn't necessarily sitting well with everyone, Honda reassures us that the fundamental values that made the CRX a success are very much present in the CR-Z. John Mendel, executive vice president of auto sales, says, "We hope consumers look at this car and see all the passion around the original CRX, but [we're] taking that passion and moving it into a whole new generation." See what other Honda execs and enthusiasts have to say about the CR-Z by watching the video after the jump.
Gallery: Detroit 2010: 2011 Honda CR-Z
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
neptronix 3:04PM (3/09/2010)
Not sure how anyone's gonna see the passion of the CRX in this car but okay.
Here's to hoping they pull a 2010 mustang & put a powertrain in it that doesn't suck in a year.
Oh, they don't seem to have any updated powertrains to stick in it, bummer.
Reply
neptronix 3:20PM (3/09/2010)
And whatever happened to those 'Advanced VTEC' motors that were supposed to come out in '09.. ya know.. the ones that are up to par with every other manufacturer's engines.
I'm only pissed off because i want to believe Honda can be great again.
Jared 3:26PM (3/09/2010)
0-60 in 9.7 seconds and a nose only a mother could love? Sorry, but I'm not feeling any passion for the CR-Z.
Bobmarley 4:16PM (3/09/2010)
The main problem I see is thats its underpowered and its a hybrid so its slow and complex. Ya its got twice the HP as the old base CRX but times have changed.
0-60 in almost 10 seconds in a modern car that is expected to be sporty and fun to drive is a mega failure. It may corner well but hit the gas and your gonna get smoked by a prius!
They should have gone with this look (link) with a k20!!!
http://mycomputerninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/2010crx.jpg
naggs 3:20AM (3/10/2010)
the single cam 1.8 would only add about 100 lbs and makes a healthy 140, feel good enough in a civic, in something that weighed 2600 lbs w a short wheelbase would have been awesome. they decided to go a different direction w it
ken_aisin 9:15AM (3/10/2010)
"put a powertrain in it that doesn't suck in a year."
Yes, shed the hybrid powertrain and the heavy battery pack. Shed all those "standard" features such as ABS, stability control, power steering, etc. Stuff the Civic Si's 197hp 2.0L 4 pot in there. Then come back to talk to us again about CRX passion (and I would try my best to forgive it for being so ugly.)
neptronix 12:17PM (3/10/2010)
I would root for the 1.8 as the gas engine too, it only makes sense.
Similar, or even better gas mileage, ~150hp, ~140ft-lb total..
I think that would be fun to drive.
naggs 10:56PM (3/10/2010)
the crx is the best example of honda doing small and light
the crz is the worst example of honda doing small and light
they could have made a new crx, sure it would have been a few hundred lbs larger than an old one, but there is no reason honda couldn't have made a 2 door fit w this bodystyle
that would have been reason to celebrate. honda of america was right in america 'hybrid' and 'sport' are an oxymoron
neptronix 11:06PM (3/10/2010)
Ha. you totally hit the nail on the head.
I totally agree with you that a 2 door fit would have worked better. Lower the roofline, change the gearing or drop an r18 in it. People will come up with turbo kits & it'll be the next Civic Hatch.
When will they realize that their 30 year old recipe for success needs a modern touch.
Oh well, the domestic companies will bring us the sport compacts that we *really* want.
Maxximtl 3:05PM (3/09/2010)
The historical link? You mean how Honda took the greatest small car they ever built and ruined it? I dunno how Honda manages to continue to screw things up. All they had to do was make a new CRX. Its all anyone has wanted them to do since 1991. Yet they still haven't figured it out.
Reply
Erik 3:44PM (3/09/2010)
"All they had to do was make a new CRX. Its all anyone has wanted them to do since 1991."
Sadly, this is simply not possible. A lot of what made the CRX great was its light weight and down to the basics approach. Customers won't touch anything that doesn't have power everything, a/c, the latest electronic gimmicks, and every convenience of a luxury car, so down to the basics will not fly int he showroom. Styling wise, I think Honda did a great job of evoking the old CRX, but that's about where the similarities seem to end. And I don't think that's necessarily Honda's fault. Times are different, and making a "new CRX" would pretty much be un-profitable and illegal.
Erik 3:48PM (3/09/2010)
Sorry, that was confusing. I forgot to type the part about modern safety requirements preventing the manufacture of such a light car as the CRX. That's what I meant by the "illegal" part.
Joe 4:00PM (3/09/2010)
I dont think thats true at all. There are plenty of base vehicles on the road that still have crank windows and manual locks/seats/mirrors. Mine included. A car that small doesn't need power steering, and all it would take is a test drive to prove that. As for safety, I'm sure its possible. If lotus can do it, so can Honda.
eb110americana 11:34PM (3/09/2010)
"All they had to do was make a new CRX. Its all anyone has wanted them to do since 1991."
Someone at Honda needs to print this out in giant-typeface-adorned motivational posters and plaster them all around the studio.
@Erik:
The Honda Fit weighs from 2489-2520 Lbs. with a manual transmission and it gets 27/33mpg with a 5-speed manual (the auto gets up to 35 on the highway). It's 117hp @ 6600 rpm and 106 lb.ft. @ 4800 rpm will get it to 60mph as little as 8.3sec according to Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/112_0809_2009_honda_fit_sport_quick_test/performance_fuel_economy_price.html
Oh. And that's with seating for 5 people and a whole bunch of stuff.
By comparison, the CR-Z outweighs its larger brother at 2,670 Lbs. and gets 31/37mpg with a 6-speed manual. Its 122 hp @ 6000 rpm and 128 lb-ft. @ 1,000 – 1,500 rpm would seem to barely edge-out the Fit, but only manages 0-60 in the mid-nine's if speculation is to be believed.
Seeing as the CR-Z does away with 60% of of the seating capacity of the Fit, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to shed a few hundred pounds. Instead of burdening it with a heavy battery pack and a measly 4mpg improvement over the Fit, how about a slightly more powerful engine and less weight? A 2200 Lb. car with around 150 hp doesn't just seem possible, it seems so obvious one has to wonder why Honda insisted on compromising the power, weight, and economy of the car by making it more complex (read: expensive) instead. Soichiro Honda would not have approved, I'm affraid.
Level 3:06PM (3/09/2010)
They are trying really really hard to link this car to the CR-X and with a sincere straight face lol..
Reply
Jared 3:27PM (3/09/2010)
I doubt there is anything sincere about their straight faces. They just want to move metal and don't care if it craps all over memory of the CR-X.
zamafir 5:13PM (3/09/2010)
Jared's correct, sad but true. It's such a pity to see honda relentlessly pursue blandness and appliances. Of all the Japanese automakers they’d been the most committed to fun for the longest (S2000 anyone?). At least the Civic Si is still available, though it’s a far cry from the S2000s and NSXs I see every day :/.
Honda’s not the biggest carmaker but they’re certainly not the smallest. If VW can build performance variations of damn near every one of their cars from the polo to the veyron I don’t understand why Honda cannot (or does not have the will to) put a decently fun engine in this car. Is it really THAT cost prohibitive? Are they really that behind in terms of platform sharing and engine sharing across a given range? I thought they were on the ball in terms of car building tech. What gives?!
Lucas 3:09PM (3/09/2010)
It should be called the CR-Y, for several reasons.
Reply
sugaki 1:07AM (3/10/2010)
Considering I feel it's a step backwards, I think it should be called a CR-W
=P
kbye 3:10PM (3/09/2010)
Too bad they didn't get the REAL enthusiasts' reactions.
Reply