What is it?
2011 Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid
What's special about it?
A sporty hybrid? Yes, pretty sure we've heard that one before. There have been several attempts and several failures. Does the 2011 Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid have a better chance of success? Let's take a look.
As you can see, the design of the Honda CR-Z coupe is eerily reminiscent of the 1980s vintage CRX coupe. Honda calls the new look a "one-motion" wedge and we can't argue with its assessment. Nearly every line on the car slants down to the pavement except the roof, which tilts in the opposite direction to give the CR-Z some balance. It's an interesting update on the CRX: not pretty, but not overtly odd like Honda's Insight hatchback.
Like the Insight, the CR-Z Sport Hybrid uses Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system, which combines the power of a gas engine and an electric motor. The CR-Z uses the same 10kW electric motor as the Insight, but the displacement of the CR-Z's four-cylinder gas engine is up from 1.3 to 1.5 liters. Between its engine and motor, the CR-Z develops 122 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque.
Not exactly tire-smoking numbers and you can't expect seriously fast acceleration with roughly 2,670 pounds to pull around. Notably, the standard transmission is a six-speed manual that Honda says is optimized for performance in gears 1-5 and fuel economy in 6th. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is optional.
The Honda CR-Z will feature three different drive modes (Normal, Sport and Economy). Sport mode changes throttle responsiveness, power steering effort and the programming of the electric motor assist. Honda has released no figures that estimate the CR-Z's performance, but it did mention that manual-equipped models will get roughly 31 mpg city/37 mpg highway. CVT-equipped models will do even better, with estimates of 36 mpg city/38 mpg highway.
If the CR-Z's engine credentials don't convince you that it's a sport coupe, you're not going to like the chassis setup either. It has MacPherson struts up front, but the rear suspension consists of an H-shaped torsion beam. The standard wheels measure 16-by-6 inches and wear 195/55R16 rubber. We're glad that 17-inch wheels with 205/45R17 tires will be optional.
Two trim levels will be offered: base and CR-Z EX. The base models are actually equipped quite nicely with features like electronic stability control, a six-speaker audio system, automatic climate control and keyless entry. EX models add HID headlights, a premium seven-speaker audio system, Bluetooth connectivity and an optional navigation system.
Sales of the 2011 Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid are scheduled to begin in August.
Inside Line says: A 122-horsepower sport coupe with a torsion-beam rear end? Doesn't sound very sporty to us.
Add A Comment »
hasafraker says:
06:57 PM, 03/01/2011
My wife and I both drive Hondas, I have an 07 Fit that I dig, and the wife a 09 Accord, Honda totally missed the mark with this car. If you're going to even bother with a hybrid, hello.. mileage? I want to know what the heck happened to the original Insight... now that was a car that had the right idea. As we're looking at the very real possibility of $5 a gallon this year... I will probably continue to drive my Fit till unless someone comes in with a decent mid-small sedan that gets 40+ mpg, don't even bother talking to me about it otherwise. Originally I was really excited about this little Honda till I saw the mpg numbers, and now that I've heard more about how it's laid out... what were they thinking? This car will probably enjoy some success initially but my guess is it won't last more than a second year tops. Such a waste. At this point as I look at the changing landscape of higher gas prices I'm not even thinking about another Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, hmm... we'll see.
bb49 says:
10:37 PM, 03/08/2010
I just read that Honda almost cancelled this car 2xs. Judging from all of the poor decisions (ie. making it a hybrid only, deciding to purposely make it underpowered, promoting it as sportscar and referencing Lotus and NSX) were made perhaps it would have been better if Honda had killed the car before releasing a car that will only serve to disappoint anyone expecting a new sports car (with actual sports car perfomance ) from Honda.
I still am questioning Mr. Tomobe decision not to try to produce more hp with this car when even he stated he wished it had more horsepower). If the reason for not getting more horse power is because he could no do it with the hybrid system then he should have just dropped a gasoline only engine into this car (and I don't buy any of Honda's dubious explanations on why it had to be a hybrid only).
bb49 says:
10:02 PM, 03/04/2010
I'm still at lost how Honda could have missed the mark so far with this car. All of the shortfalls (too expensive ($25,500 for the base model), heavy, slow, burdening this platform with an outdated poorly performing hybrid system, naming the car the CR-Z (as it invites commparison to the CR-X and probably offends CR-X fans more than it attracts them (CR-X fans) because Honda did nothing to make the performance of this car superior to the old CR-X) have been correctly pointed out by others and it should have been obvious to Honda that it did a terrible job in the planning, marketing and execution and engineering of this unimpressive vehicle. The bottom line is Honda should have realized that it could not deliver on the promise of sporty hybrid (yes, I'll concede that there are a small number of people that don't care if a car is slow but they are a very very small minority as I would submit the majority of buyers looking for a sporty car want it to be fast (furthermore even those who don't mind a slow car would not object to more power and speed). As the CR-Z clearly demonstrates--Honda could not deliver impressive mpg nor any kind of even remotely acceptable power (or in the alternative make the car light enough that with only 122 hp it would still be fast) that would have made the CR-Z fast. To make matters worse for Honda, the car has not been released in the U.S. yet and already some of the media have included this car in "losers" column when rating the new cars for 2010. Face the facts, Honda-- do you really expect people to pay $25,500 for a car that is slower than a $16,000. Toyota Corolla?
bb49 says:
01:55 AM, 03/02/2010
I'm still trying to think of a reason Honda would produce this car with only 122 hp. I mean shouldn't it be obvious that no one would really object to more power? It's almost as if Honda purposely designed this car to be underpowered. I'm wondering if this is just somekind of misguided thinking by Honda that putting "performance" into a car is somehow bad for Honda's green image. On the other hand it could be that Honda just doesn't have the engineering talent to make a hybrid powertrain for this car with more than 122 hp. I'm starting to think that maybe the latter is the reason the CR-Z is so badly underpowered--as the car doesn't really exhibit any engineering "brilliance" in any aspect.
Just so you don't think there is nothing noteworthy about the car--it does offer a 6 spee and HID lights.
hondacura4 says:
09:59 AM, 01/25/2010
"they proceeded to butcher the promising CRZ concept with that hideous front overhang. Are they leaving extra room under the hood for a future V6? Turbo and intercooler?"
@Howac, Honda's deep investment in pedestrian safety and the ACE system are to blame.
"It makes you wonder where Honda is actually spending their R&D resources."
Hybrids, fuel cell vehicles, larger hydrogen infrastructure, smaller home based refueling stations.
"How do they advertise themselves as green/eco-friendly when their new small hybrid can't even get 40 mpg? "
If people wouldnt swear by EPA estimates and would do some research, Honda Hybrids and quite a few non hybrid models (like the Civic) have proven to beat EPA estimates by a good margin. I know several Si owners who can get up to 35-36mpg highway and a few Civic LX/EX owners who've gotten 40-42 highway.
calspecial68 says:
06:06 PM, 01/20/2010
When are the circus clowns gonna come climbing outta this thing?
hollowtek says:
11:38 PM, 01/19/2010
What in the name of... Why would they gimp the performance so much on a sports car as such? This makes me think of the Del Slow, the Crx successor... I had money saved up for this car, but no doubt it will go towards that turbocharged ft-86 to keep my supra company.
2000prelude says:
04:34 PM, 01/19/2010
I registered on Edmunds just to coment on this car. It is just downright horrible. Ugly front overhang and poor proportions. What has happened to Honda?
I am going to keep my Prelude until the wheels fall off. Nothing compares.
BTW, my '89 Accord Lxi with 120 hp got in the mid 30's and it had a backseat.
colorado1974 says:
06:57 PM, 01/18/2010
this and the crosstour should both be given a slow death. Why build this? huge nose. lackluster economy given the specs. no practicality.
WHY DOES THIS THING HAVE SUCH A BIG NOSE?
charlesb says:
07:59 AM, 01/16/2010
I like this car. Good work Honda. Oh, it should have the back seat. Bad work Honda.