• Aug 13, 2010
Click above to watch the video after the jump

When we first laid eyes on the specs for the Honda CR-Z, you could say we were less than enthused. We'd been hoping for more grunt than 122 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque while at the same time expecting better efficiency than the CR-Z's 36 city, 39 highway miles per gallon. Those disappointments didn't change much after we drove the CR-Z, as decent driving dynamics were compromised by a significant lack of punch.

That could change after HKS Power finishes working on what sounds like a very sweet supercharger. As of this moment, the supercharger is reportedly driving CR-Z power up to a more respectable 170 ponies, though we wouldn't be surprised if the tuners will be able to tweak the blower to surpass 200 horses. Hit the jump to watch a 16-second teaser video of a blown CR-Z on the dyno. The developmental vehicle hits 169 friction-free miles per hour while sounding like a Formula One car.



[Source: YouTube]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 58 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      That was probably one of the dumbest and most misleading promotional
      videos I've ever seen. Has anyone here ever seen a dyno run video
      that was sped up 3x before? What was the point of doing that? Do
      they think we don't have the 40-45 seconds the video would have
      actually taken?
      • 4 Years Ago
      A 170hp Honda 4cyl, what is this, 1992? They are so laughable now it's almost unbearable. They took a car that should have an engine like was in the RSX-S, and instead made a smaller, MUCH less powerful one. Have they honestly had any development since the early '90s, excluding the S2000? Don't even mention the NSX, it was so out of date (oh wait, they did put a new front bumper on it, lol) it was ridiculous by the time they finally killed it off. I have been a huge Honda fan, both two wheel and four, ever since I started driving 20yrs ago, but they just make it impossible to like them any longer.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Wow Middleway, the incorrect data you spew about Honda is amazing.

        You are so totally wrong about wishbones, the engine used in the S2000, usually evertime you spew your Honda hate, it is factually wrong.

        Do you do it on purpose, or just don't know what you are talking about?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Actually the s2000 wasn't that new. It had a high tech version of the F22 motor, which was common in the Accord and some base model preludes. Up to 2009, it still had the same VTEC system that they invented in the 80's in it. Great power per liter only because it was ultra high revving, but it lacked a decade's worth of technology so it got bad torque and mpg :

        • 4 Years Ago
        Ah.

        Yeah, they've just gradually gotten worse :(..
        No high revving motors or double wishbone rear; basically everything that was fun about a Honda is gone.

        And their MPG has not kept up either.

        The one thing they still know how to do is to produce a light, yet solid chassis.
      • 4 Years Ago
      So let me get this straight:

      $20k for the CR-Z
      $4500 (?) or so for the supercharger
      $200 for the undersized pulley
      $500-700 (?) to tune the thing properly

      And for all of that you get a 2-seat GTI for only a couple grand more.

      Ugh, this thing has fail written all over it.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Well, you can drive your supercharged CR-Z while your GTi is in the shop waiting on components to fix the electronic gremlins.
      • 4 Years Ago
      CRZ engine w/HKS supercharger = 170 horsepower.

      B18C N/A = 170-200 horsepower.

      Dammit Honda, what the hell?
        • 4 Years Ago
        lol, I never said that the lack of torque was a "bad thing"; I just regarded it as an interesting personality, hence the reason why I concluded my comment with "still though, I miss Honda back in the day". Why else would there be so many fans of Type Rs?
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Alex, I agree. When I had my Si, I only considered the Turbo Kits, the SCs don't make the most sense on these small high-compression engines. But at least it's one tuner who's trying to give this car some sort of relevance.

        I still can't get over the crappy stock MPG numbers on this car, WTF?!
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'm excited for the Fit/Jazz owners who finally have something to bump up the L-series output! You folks do know the CR-Z is basically a hybrid Fit/Jazz with a different body, right?
        • 4 Years Ago
        DNR, there's been a Kraftwerks supercharger available for the Fit for quite a while now. (Kraftwerks is run by Oscar Jackson).
        • 4 Years Ago
        ....without the practicality (or even the style) of the Fit/Jazz.

        The CR-Z is a useless car but I'm sure lots of upper middle class teenagers will be able to talk their parents into buying one for them to drive.
      • 4 Years Ago
      If the CR-Z is a fail , why hyundai is still working in the Veloster. With a 1.6 140.hp
      no way, The Veloster will be a Hybrid. Count with this.
      • 4 Years Ago
      In my opinion, the care is somewhat attactive.

      Honda has completely failed its tuner crowd with this car in the very beginning. Sub-par handling, gas mileage, performance and utility. I can't even throw kids in the back. Despite all this, I would need to put $2,500 - $3,500 into aftermarket forced induction, risk a blown motor and void my warranty... all to get performance that should have come right out of the box.

      HUGE MISS! I'm not saying I miss Honda's of the 90's and early 2000's as much as I miss Honda's desire to build fun and reliable cars.

      Fun and reliable sells... Thank you Subaru, Mazda, Hyundai and Kia.

      -Sp33dklz
      • 4 Years Ago
      With this supercharger, we expect the CR-Z to hit 60 mph in a tire roasting NINE SECONDS now. LOL
      • 4 Years Ago
      So... CR-Z plus $3k for a SC on a fwd car, or I just go buy a Genesis Coupe, WRX, or a host of other cars? Not sure I get this...
        • 4 Years Ago
        completely agree, and defeats the purpose of having a hybrid even more....
        • 4 Years Ago
        A supercharged CR-Z won't keep up with a WRX, but it might be a decent balance between performance and efficiency. A 170HP CR-Z should be able to get to 60 in the low 7's and probably still returns 35 MPG as long as your not thrashing it all the time.

        I was lucky if I ever hit 22 MPG in my WRX.
        • 4 Years Ago
        so you say this about all tuning huh?

        for the tuning price you can always get something thats just as quick from the factory

        yet people tune cars...imagine that
      • 4 Years Ago
      Thats a sped up video...
        • 4 Years Ago
        From the video info on youtube:
        "
        GT Supercharger Kit for CR-Z is under development. This is a shortened video of dyno setting of the kit.
        * Caution) Since it is shortened, it sounds like F1. The actual GT Supercharger Kit does not sound like this.
        "

        Why would you shorten the video? Does it really take that long for a supercharged CR-Z to clear 150?
        • 4 Years Ago
        If HKS would just pull the unnecessary weight of the hybrid system, and kept the supercharger, this could finally be a decent car.
        • 4 Years Ago
        sbots - "Why would you shorten the video? Does it really take that long for a supercharged CR-Z to clear 150?"

        -YES.

        This is like putting lipstick on a pig.
        • 4 Years Ago
        God for a moment I thought the CR-Z sounded cool, thanks for pointing that out.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Well, the point here is that this is not a muscle car, this is not a sports car, it's a sporty hybrid.

      Problem with it is that the concept is too much of a futuristic thing for 90% of the mortals. Most of the people does not yet understand that 300bhp sport hatches are going to die soon and that you need to make a car that people actually buys. Fans dont make any money, specially when they only look at pictures of the cars in a website rather than driving...
        • 4 Years Ago
        @kevinC

        Smoke whatever you want dude,

        some people buy hot hatches, most of the people buy hatches, plainly, and it's a matter of business. If you can sell all the production of 2010 in 2010, then that's affordable. If you are in 2010 and still have stock of 2008 product, then you are losing money, that's where the japanese auto makers are headed to.

        Look at Mazda, they quit the rx6 in europe, the sales where not that awesome to investigate on a EuroV adaptation to the engine. Next rx engine will be compliant with EuroVI and the people interested on that engine will wait no matter what.

        Then Civic Type R (Euro), dissapears from europe on December. Yes, Honda has the know how and the capacity to adapt the engine to EuroV specs, but probably the investment is too risky. So, stop producing TypeR and wait till nextgen civic type R appears. Meanwhile, recovering money from the development of CRZ is not a bad idea. I understand that in US the CR-Z is probably useless and not worth a penny (except if you live in NY maybe...), but here in Europe is well suited for a lot of people. There are speed limits, and a lot of barriers, it makes no sense to go around in a 320bhp car, except if you want a track day car...

        Then you have Subaru... oh yes they made the Impreza, and oh yes, they numbers are more negative than positive quarter after quarter...

        And then you have VW group with wait: Leon FR, Golf GTI, Fabia RS, Leon Cupra, Golf R, S3, Scirocco R... yes, they make hothatches that sell quite well. One exception. But they are quite aware that they need to lower the particles that their engines send to the atmosphere soon (before the end of 2014). They managed to get 170bhp from a 1.4L engine and keep CO2 in range with 7 speed transmissions... but EuroVI is evil!

        Come to Europe and look around, you'll see that 90% of the cars move around the 150bhp range. We are slowly learning that weight and handling are sometimes more important that having a lot of ponies under the hood. In any case most of our movements are below the 100km. Go to japan, more of the same.

        It's a pity, but the time of S2000, WRX, TypeR... is over. Now we will have to wait like 5 or 6 years to see real "sports hybrids" with around 180-200bhp and 50/50 petrol/electic power. And no, BMW's with V8 engines and stop start are not "sports hybrids".


        @zergling

        I've said "sporty hybrid" not "sports hybrid". Take on accound that the bloody crz has a base with more in common to euro Civic Type R than with a Ford Focus. Handling is awesome on the turns and the only weak point I find is the acceleration. In a few years we'll see how the market goes in that direction. And also we'll see the evolution: less power and less weight, less emissions.

        We may like it or not, but companies need to make global cars that are very similar everywhere (Ford Fiesta, Chevrolet Cruze...) to be cost-efficient, and that means that it makes no sense, anymore, to produce 400bhp cars in the US that you can't sell in France because they drink too much petrol and have emissions somewhat over the allowed rate. The CRZ is almost the same everywhere in the world and in Japan it exceeded expectations.

        Mustang and Camaro are going global as well in a few years... we'll se how they manage to get into the ecofriendly laws... :(
        • 4 Years Ago
        Can I have some of what you're smoking? People DO buy hot hatches, even in the US, which is the most anti-hatch nation on earth. VW, Mazda, and Subaru are not having problems moving GTI's, Speed3's or WRX's. If they were, the cars would be discontinued. In fact, the 2010 Speed3 is the longest-running Mazdaspeed yet, and the only one that has stuck around even after a redesign.
      • 4 Years Ago
      first of all, i dont know where those fuel efficiency figures come from, but here in europe they claim 5 l / 100 km which comes to 47 mpgs combined

      second, there is a video where the standard cr-7 does 0-100 in less than 9 seconds
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqvGbXCiows

      so what exactly is the problem the the base model?
        • 4 Years Ago
        You can't compare Euro mileage figures with US ones, the Euro ones are very optimistic. For instance, the Prius is rated at 4L/100km which converts to 58.8mpg. In the US, the EPA rates the Prius at 50mpg combined. So, it makes sense that the CR-Z would be rated at a similarly lower figure than 47mpg.

        The figures for the CR-Z are from this story, http://www.autoblog.com/2010/06/18/first-drive-2011-honda-cr-z/
        The CVT CR-Z is rated at 36/39 city/hwy and the manual version is rated at 31/37.

        Prior to 2008, the Prius and other hybrids were rated higher by the EPA, but they changed they ratings method and decreased mileage across the board, but it affected hybrids the greatest. The new figures are more accurate though. The change was partially spurred on by numerous drivers who claimed that the old mileage figures were too optimistic and almost unachievable.

        Seems as though the change was for the better, most drivers now seem to be able to hit the 50mpg combined figure that the Prius has. Makes for a much more accurate figure to go off of.

        As far as the problem with the stock CR-Z, the biggest issue is that it just isn't very impressive either as a hybrid or as a sporty car. It does neither one well. It is rated a few mpg's higher than a comparable non-hybrid car, but when you consider that the performance of the non-hybrid is going to be similar and you're not gaining much mileage with the CR-Z, then what's the point?

        For instance, the Ford Fiesta is rated at 33mpg combined(with 40mpg hwy). The mileage difference isn't far off from the CR-Z without a hybrid drivetrain and the power is comparable as well. The performance isn't likely to be much different either and the Fiesta handles well too.

        The expected price of the CR-Z in the US will be about $20k, maybe a bit less. For that price, you can get an uplevel Fiesta or other comparable car. It just really doesn't give enough reasons to buy it over the competition it seems, made worse by the fact that the competition aren't even hybrids.

        • 4 Years Ago
        You can believe whichever figures you want, but the US figures are designed to be achievable by the majority of drivers.

        They won't require a hypermiler to achieve like the Euro figures do. You are correct, it is "possible" to achieve 47mpg in a CR-Z, just as it's possible to achieve 70mpg in a Prius.

        But, it won't be probable for the majority of drivers and the EPA figures are designed around what's likely, not what's possible.

        In my own personal driving, I find that I achieve pretty much what the EPA states for all the vehicles I've driven on a regular basis in recent years. I don't hypermile, I do use cruise control on the hwy and I don't drive with a lead foot most times. I generally drive about 5mph above the speed limit on open roads. Overall, I think I drive fairly average 90% of the time and my mileage seems to agree since I tend to meet the EPA ratings almost all the time. Honestly, I'm usually 1or 2mpg above, but not greatly so. I have every reason to believe that a CR-Z driven in the same manner would achieve the same, there's no reason to state otherwise. For that reason, I think the EPA figures for the CR-Z are accurate.

        Nonetheless, the Euro figures are comparable to other Euro figures so the same comparisons I made are still legit. The 47mpg that the CR-Z is rated at can be compared to other 47mpg non-hybrids and I fully believe that there will be little reason to choose the CR-Z when all aspects are compared. The CR-Z will cost more while not performing considerably better or giving better mileage. If it's worth it to you, great, but I just don't see an overwhelming reason to buy one and it seems that many reviews agree.

        • 4 Years Ago
        well, im inclined to believe the european figures, because i think fuel efficiency is mostly down to the driver and i think it is possible to do those figures

        and i think ~9 sec acceleration is just fine

        as for the price, i think its obvious they are making this a limited series (they will only import 35 into my country) so its justified: people will buy it


        though i really hope they bring out a type r with 200+50 kph and ~7 sec acceleration

        i think even the torsion bar is excusable though they could put the batteries in place of the second row of seats, that would leave enough space for multi-link in the back and an bigger boot

        my only problem really is this stupid habit of all the carmakers to insist on the second row (911 for example...)
    • Load More Comments