Honda has pretty much dared everyone to do this comparison. If it had called its new hybrid two-seater the Insight Coupe or the H2S or the EI-EI-O, then maybe those of the thick-headed persuasion would never thought of comparing the 2011 Honda CR-Z with a 1987 Honda CRX Si.
But no, Honda went and called its new car "CR-Z" (it stands for "Compact Renaissance Zero," the corporate product planners tell us), so we're all comparing it to the CRX in our minds if not in sheet metal. So Honda, don't whine. You asked for it.
If the CR-Z comes up short, don't blame us. Instead blame all those engineers working at Honda back in the early 1980s, some of them now up in senior management, many of them retired and a few dead. They're the ones who did such a spectacular job with the original Civic CRX. Because it is a car with a magical luster that hasn't faded with time.
Back to Simple
In 1976 Honda adopted one of the greatest ad slogans ever chiseled out of an agency flack's brain: "We Make It Simple." These four words perfectly summarized the guiding principles of Honda's design philosophy back when the Honda Accord was brand-new and the company still had to prove itself in the American market. This was back when people bought Hondas because they were, in fact, simple and exquisitely engineered. And even though Honda stopped using "We Make It Simple" as a slogan way back in 1982, a lot of people still believe that's what Honda is all about. Or, at least, is supposed to be all about.
The Honda Civic was due for a generational change with the 1984 model year, but the CRX was an unexpected addition to the line. "Honda's all-new Civic CRX 1.5 suggests the term 'Rollerskate GT' because," wrote Kevin Smith for Motor Trend upon first encountering it, "walking up to it for the first time you may think it's easier to strap it to your feet than to climb into; it truly looks like a toy."
Almost 27 years later, we approach Chris Hoffman's well-preserved and well-used 1987 CRX Si and it still seems inconceivably small. At just 144.7 inches long, this first-generation Honda CRX is 0.9 inch shorter overall than a 2010 Mini Cooper, while its 86.8-inch wheelbase is an amazing 10.3 inches shorter than the BMW-engineered Mini. More pertinently, the CRX is a staggering 15.9 inches shorter overall than the new CR-Z, while its wheelbase is 9.1 inches shorter.
The Style of No Style
But it's not just the Honda CRX's super-dink proportions that differentiate it from its hybrid grandkid. The CRX's body is almost unadorned; the flat body panels are clean and free of styling flourishes. This unfussiness lets the CRX's slope-backed profile become the visual focal point of the car. The CR-Z's visual firepower, on the other hand, lies in details like the character lines that run along its flanks, around the beautifully shaped rear taillights and across the rear glass panel.
There's a real cigarette lighter next to a real ashtray for those precious moments with a menthol 100.
Where the CR-Z fails stylewise, is in its flat and busy nose. It's too flat (thanks for the pedestrian impact standards, EU!) and over-decorated with a massive grille. The big, heavily sculpted holes beneath the headlights contain driving lights that look as if they were pulled from a parts bin as an afterthought. With the old CRX you have to work hard to even find the grille. And while the CRX's driving lights might as well be stuck on the front of the car with Elmer's Glue-All, they're as square as the headlights at least.
Of course there are design elements to the CRX that are archaic. The 14-inch wheels with four round holes in them are pure retro from the Huey Lewis era, the mud flaps look like they're off a Kenworth big rig and the marker lights in the front fender are just arbitrary. But overall, the CRX is still a sweet little package. And it's still a great-looking car — timeless, really.
The CR-Z isn't likely to age that well.
Interior Simplicity
Both the CRX and CR-Z do a great job of accommodating two people and more of their stuff than you might think possible. There are some style and convenience differences, however. And they matter.
Of course the CRX was built back in those bloody, gore-splattered, awful days when airbags weren't a mandated element of every car. So when you face the steering wheel, the dashboard seems almost barren. Still, however, every control is at the driver's fingertips. There's a nice cubby with a hinged lid atop the dash in which to accumulate change for the tollway (back when tollways didn't require folding money), and there's a real cigarette lighter next to a real ashtray for those precious moments that can only be completed by firing up a Benson & Hedges Menthol 100.
The CRX's harshly trapezoidal dash cover over the instrumentation looks dated; the orange-on-black numerals of the instrumentation was a bad idea back then and still is; the slider-based ventilation controls aren't as convenient as dials; and both the seats and door panels are covered in mouse fur. But these are just decorator issues. The driving position is low, but perfect. The seats are nicely shaped. And any single-DIN radio will slide right in.
The CR-Z innards are, yes, better than the CRX's. The seats are better, there are more storage areas strewn around the cockpit and the navigation system is an improvement over any single-DIN radio. Yes, the instrumentation is a bit too Tokyo pop, but otherwise the CR-Z interior is a great driving environment.
Nevertheless, once you throw some airbags into the CRX, round off the dash angles, redesign the instrumentation graphics, add power windows and mirrors and upholster everything in contemporary materials, this interior would be among the best offered in any small car today.
Driving Simplicity
According to Honda's factory specifications, the 1987 Honda CRX weighed 1,830 pounds with a full tank of fuel, which makes it 824 pounds lighter than the CR-Z EX. The math says this means every one of the CRX Si's 91 horses has to move 20.1 pounds of vehicle mass. Each of the CR-Z EX's 122 horses has to contend with 21.8 pounds of heft. Virtually all the measurable performance differences between the two cars can be explained in light of those numbers.
In deference to Chris Hoffman's CRX Si's age and 108,500 miles, we're using performance numbers generated by Motor Trend in its issue of March 1985, which featured coverage of the 1985 Honda CRX Si. The CRX galloped to 60 mph in 8.1 seconds (with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and ripped through the quarter-mile in 16.2 seconds at 84.5 mph. That's not terrible performance today, and it was terrific performance for back then. Faster than the Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo, Pontiac Fiero V6 and Toyota MR2, the editors noted.
These acceleration numbers, however, don't tell the whole performance story of the CRX Si. Its punk-spec, fuel-injected SOHC 12-valve 1.5-liter inline-4 might predate the introduction of VTEC variable valve timing, but it's still a rev-happy twerp. Throw in the precise shifting of the five-speed transmission and the result is still a blast to drive. It's not just good in a vintage way; it's good in every way.
In contrast, the CR-Z is simply more of a chore to drive. First, the driver needs to pick a driving mode — Econ, Normal or Sport — and then it's a matter of tuning oneself to drive within that mode. A soft touch for the Econ, a moderate touch for Normal and moderately harder touch for Sport. The CR-Z demands more attention than the CRX.
Like the original CRX Si, the CR-Z has a fuel-injected SOHC 1.5-liter inline-4, and thanks to 16 valves and i-VTEC it makes 113 horsepower on its own. Combine it with Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system and the output goes up to 122 hp. And in Sport mode, there's actually some low-end torque to play with.
At full throttle the CR-Z performs the same no matter what mode it's in. And that performance is a trip to 60 mph in 8.8 seconds (8.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout) and 16.5 seconds at 84.1 mph for the quarter-mile. If you engage the traction and stability control system (technology the CRX Si conspicuously lacks), you get to 60 mph in 9.4 seconds (9.1 seconds with 1 foot of rollout) and reach the quarter-mile in 17.1 seconds at 82.9 mph.
The CR-Z's six-speed shifts great and the entire hybrid drivetrain is refined, but it's not as quick as the old CRX Si. And yes, that's even after taking into account Motor Trend's aggressive weather corrections and timing methods in 1985.
Simple Life, Simple Pleasures
Set up right on aggressive tires, an old CRX is a monster in autocross events. But even wearing the modest 185/60R14s that Chris Hoffman's car does, the CRX Si is a precise driving instrument from the tip of its manual steering to the trailing edge of its rear beam axle.
In comparison, the CR-Z really is one of the very best-driving hybrids to go on sale in America. But it can't duplicate the direct connection between car and driver that the CRX provides. The CR-Z does have a more compliant and controlled ride than the CRX, but it's nowhere near as much fun.
But also keep this in mind. While we all remember the CRX for its extraordinary fuel mileage, this is because of the special, low-performance, fuel-sipping CRX HF. Back in 1987 the EPA rated the Honda CRX HF at an incredible 52 mpg in the city and 57 mpg on the highway. But once you calculate the CRX's numbers with the latest EPA methodology, its results drop to 42 mpg and 51 mpg, respectively. The 1987 CRX Si, on the other hand, carried a sticker showing an EPA-certified 30 mpg in the city and 33 mpg on the highway, which converts to 26 mpg in the city and 30 on the highway today. The legend of the hyper-parsimonious CRX is at least somewhat conditional.
But the bigger, heavier 2011 Honda CR-Z six-speed carries an EPA rating of 31 mpg in the city and 37 on the highway. While other hybrids do better, the CR-Z actually does very well in the context of its ancestors.
A Simple Summary
As we've discovered here in this 1987 Honda CRX Si, the CRX Si in its first- and second-generation forms remains among the most lovable cars that Honda has ever produced. And if Honda produced something directly equivalent to them today — as lightweight and with just as delightful a powertrain — we'd all want one.
But that's not what Honda offers us. Times have changed, and the 2011 Honda CR-Z shows us that modern standards of safety and comfort have taken their toll on the size and weight of small cars, even as improved structural rigidity and electronically enhanced engines, brakes and vehicle control systems have made them better for everyday transportation.
Yet what Honda offers in the CR-Z isn't that bad at all.
Add A Comment »
kjgood says:
10:25 AM, 07/13/2010
Didn't we see a prequel to this when Inside Line did the old-Integra R vs new-Civic SI comparo? With similar results? For similar reasons?
"Times have changed, and the 2011 Honda CR-Z shows us that modern standards of safety and comfort have taken their toll on the size and weight of small cars, even as improved structural rigidity and electronically enhanced engines, brakes and vehicle control systems have made them better for everyday transportation."
But the truth of the matter is that Honda didn't need to do an update of the old car with an overly-heavy and ugly hybrid, the design philosophy of which is in many ways inconsistent with that of the much superior (given the context of the times) CRX. If Honda's gas engine development were not falling behind current technology, there would be no reason they couldn't have designed a lighter car (especially if it's only a two-seater) with a direct-injection gas engine of say, 1.8 liters, which would exceed the performance of both CRX & CRZ, while getting fuel mileage closer to the latter.
The further truth is that while "times have changed" the real difference is that Honda's focus is chiefly what has changed. Honda has abandoned their sporting spirit and have latched resolutely onto "green" at the expense of enthusiast cars. They apparently think that as an offering to those who still expect some degree of their old spirit from them, it is sufficient to produce what they consider to be a sexy hybrid. Perhaps IL is a bit taken in, but the resulting CRZ is still a dud. Honda could, and should, do much better. It remains to be seen if moribund sales will effectively deliver that message to them. I wouldn't buy a CRZ over a Mini Cooper with someone else's money.
shelbyturboz says:
04:12 PM, 07/12/2010
hey guys its funny how the new cars are being comparied to the old cars they replace and the old cars keep coming out ahead. How is this possible with all the new tec thats been invented in the last 20 to 30 years. I'll tell you why because gps, i pod, sync,push button start, bluetooth, etc, etc dont make a car fun to drive.They just make a boring car seem interesting enough to buy.The crx is a great example of simplicity.
rod_stewart says:
04:27 PM, 07/07/2010
Oh and Hahahaaha
"Track Test Results
0-60 mph, mfr. claim (sec.) 8.5
1/4-mile, mfr. claim (sec. @ mph) 16.7 @ 115"
Hot damn that's a great trap speed for a 17-second car!!! LOL maybe the CRX did have crazy vtec and it just didn't kick in till you'd been driving for 13 seconds (the last 3.7 seconds would be awesome, vtec just KICKED IN YO!)
rod_stewart says:
04:18 PM, 07/07/2010
From the photo caption: "The CRX Si's five-speed has great shift action, Honda's best ever"
Now THAT is a BOLD statement. Ever driven an Integra? NSX? Prelude? Hell even the older Accords had great shifters. And how about the S2000 for cryin out loud! I have a hard time believing that this CRX is that good, I sure don't remember it being that good back in the day. I think old hondas just had amazingly good shifters, so every time you get into one today and compare it to new Hondas (which mostly suck) yeah of coruse it's going to seem like the best shifter ever.
mrgold78 says:
10:28 AM, 07/07/2010
Why Honda are you trying so hard to convince us that this CR-Z is better than your own 23+ year old CR-X? Like your article says above, in the March 1985 Motor Trend issue, the original CR-X was good because compared to it's natural rivals it was "Faster than the Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo, Pontiac Fiero V6 and Toyota MR2" of it's time. Now let's get real for a minute here since it is 2010. What are the natural rivals to the CR-Z today if Honda dares to claim it is a sporty hatch back? Volkswagen GTI, Mini Cooper S and Mazdaspeed 3 are just three that comes to mind out of many and the CR-Z will lose badly to any of these. Heck the CR-Z even loses out to the base models of these three cars too (Volkswagen Golf, Mini Cooper and Mazda 3). How sad is that!
Message to Honda: If you are going to make a claim to sporty performance then at least make your cars comparable to your competition. We are NOT impressed with your 122 combined hp Insight engine, semi-independent torsion beam rear suspension, P195/55R16 all-season low-rolling resistance tires or your quarter-mile in 17.1 seconds at 82.9 mph! We are not that stupid!
bach1750 says:
08:49 AM, 07/07/2010
Hi 1987 Honda CRX Si - it's been awhile. You still look great and I still lust for you.
sugarlandtx says:
08:47 AM, 07/07/2010
Another who cares story for losers. Snore snore
bb49 says:
02:48 AM, 07/07/2010
Even if the CR-Z comes close to the performance of the CR-X (although the CR-X SI is still a little faster and better handling)--the writer misses the point completely. If you compare the 0-60 times of the time period when the CR-X was released it was actually pretty fast when compared to cars of that era. However, by the same token the CR-Z is slow when compared to the cars today. Furthermore, I would expect the modern CR-X to out perform the old CR-X in everyway (ie. it should be faster and better handling than the old CR-X). After all the latest renditions of the Mustang and Camaro easily out perform there earlier models.
One final comment, unlike the CR-Z, the CR-X had at maximum power avaliable all the time, whereas with the CR-Z, with hard driving, you can deplete the battery thereby losing the electric motors added horsepower and torque. In other words your already slow car becomes slower.
It sure looks like the Veloster won't really have to be that outstanding to be a better car than the CR-Z since Honda set the bar so low.
rodger_victor says:
12:36 AM, 07/07/2010
Should have the typical Honda transmission failure at, or before, the 10k mile mark
n2guru says:
10:45 PM, 07/06/2010
I disagree with Kia/Hyundai being "souless" (Their Seoul is in Korea...haha). They will be the one to watch out for, especially with their new cars underway. They are just fine tuning their soul searching. Honda and Toyota have sat on their laurels and reputation. Thats why they are "dull appliances".
mirde98 says:
09:27 PM, 07/06/2010
Only Mitsubishi, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda and Suzuki are the only carmakers left with soul and personality. Honda, Toyota, Kia and Hyundai are all souless and dull appliances. Thats why they sell well here. Honda really makes me sad. How sad knowing we will never see again Prelude's, CRX's, Integra's.
dougmare says:
09:05 PM, 07/06/2010
Other than a few similarities in layout, the CR-Z is in no way similar to a CRX, not even the HF. It's just a 2-seat commuter car with a reasonably frugal powertrain, not an instant cult car like the original CRX was. It's got more in common with the first Insight. It's doubtlessly good at this task, as was the CRX, but it's not aimed at the same market. The original CRX was inexpensive, deliberately simple, and intentionally sporty. By contemporary standards of the day even the HF was considered a decent performer. Compare the CR-Z's numbers to today's vehicles and it's immediately clear that it's not intended to be more than slightly reminiscent of a CRX in terms of market placement.
mrbacon says:
08:40 PM, 07/06/2010
More like "Can the New CR-Z Hybrid Hang With the Original CRX?"
zip_1802 says:
08:00 PM, 07/06/2010
Since we're driving down memory lane... I had a 1986 Civic Si. It was ten years old with 112K miles on it when I bought it and lived in four states with me before I parted with it after 5 years at 185K miles. Needless to say, it was a terrific, fun car to own and drive. It was "right" in every way. It wasn't about raw power, phenomenal acceleration or epic handling: it was about balance and FUN sensibility. I hated to part with it, but would do so again if I had it today: the prospect of getting smushed by the behemoth SUVs and full size trucks on the road these days is frightening!
Cars like that and the CRX Si will not happen again. They will never be that light. They will never be that simple. I miss the simpler Hondas and VWs of yore. bc1960 put it best:
"Aside from 25 more years of regulatory requirements, people demand a lot more in the way of amenities and creature comforts now than they did then." To that, I add safety regulations (driven by people, not politicians)
Really, the CRZ should be compared to a regular CRX, not an Si. I have not driven one yet, but I'm intrigued by a manual hybrid. It seems its mission is economy while delivering some fun (not to be confused with performance), and it delivers on those fronts while giving people the cush they expect these days.
If you want to compare a Civic/CRX Si to anything today, look to a Mazda MX5 or Mini Cooper/S. Everything else, including the current Civic Si, is in a different league.
But what I really want to know is how he managed to own a 1987 CRX and have ONLY 108K miles and keep it in such superb condition! Kudos!
alex38 says:
07:16 PM, 07/06/2010
Agree, the old CRX was a really nice ride. Never had one but always did want one.. An honest and fair write up by IL..
sportyaccordy says:
03:50 PM, 07/06/2010
Decent enough car but nothing worthy of the CR-X ancestry
Don't forget, in Japan the the top of the line 2nd gen CR-X had close to a 100HP/ton power/weight ratio
It was truly a thrilling machine of little to no compromise that was attainable by the average Joe
What is the purpose of this CR-Z? Yes, a new Civic Si costs a little more with navi and fuel, but ultimately it's much more thrilling and practical than a CR-Z will ever be. And of course once you throw in the prospect of a CPO CSi, unless you really want to project the image of being green & cool, there's no point to this car.
This era of Honda will be remembered with confusion & a lack of a sense of direction or purpose. From the CR-Z to the ZDX to the TL SH-AWD, Honda has strayed long from its unified and thrilling lineup of just 10 years ago. As a Honda enthusiast the CR-Z really depresses me
pengwin says:
03:46 PM, 07/06/2010
so that thing corners better than a lexus GS400h?
srlracing says:
03:05 PM, 07/06/2010
Honda should have named the CR-Z the CR-Y because that's what you're going to do after you get smoked in a race by a CRX.
bc1960 says:
02:35 PM, 07/06/2010
I love how so many people remember the CRX Si's performnace but the HF's fuel economy. If the CR-Z is "slow as hell", what was the CRX DX's 10.1-sec 0-60? At least the even slower HF compensated with much higher fuel economy.
I found different R&T numbers. The 1985 Si curb weight was 1890 lb (it was the DX you cited, I think), and the 1986-87 was 63 lb more than that, so the weight-to-power ratio is much closer to the CR-Z's. So the Si's performance advantage would be more impressive, except that the figure I saw cited is 8.7-sec 0-60, which is nearly even. Clearly the CRX is more fun to drive, if only because its lighter weight and comparitively rudimentary nature make it more visceral. Aside from 25 more years of regulatory requirements, people demand a lot more in the way of amenities and creature comforts now than they did then. Look at a 318i or even a 325is compared to a 128i--the 1-series has a wheelbase almost as long as an '86 Taurus and weighs more.
TrackDaze says:
01:47 PM, 07/06/2010
The CRXs that I remember were the 130+ hp version sold in Europe (and Japan), this 91 hp version isn't a true representation of how truly great the CRX was.
The CR-Z has no legitimate claim to being the CRX of the 21st century.
gearcat says:
11:43 AM, 07/06/2010
Fur is Dead! lol
aston_dbs says:
11:22 AM, 07/06/2010
:-D
I can't help it but LOL looking at the dorky CRX wheels...
Wheel design has certainly gone a long way since then...
Truly brings back the memories... ;-)
alman08 says:
10:39 AM, 07/06/2010
Honda will probably sell a ton of these to the younger generation. Time will tell.
tmanz says:
10:20 AM, 07/06/2010
"As for the safety part I think if you added air bags to the old CR-X I would choose it over the new CR-Z."
I'd be more worried about the passenger compartment compressing. Cars have come a long long ways since the 80's. Just check out a few crash tests from 10-15 years ago compared to now.
Although my all time favorite is the test where they smash a 59 Bel Air into a 2009 Malibu.
sts_pa says:
10:19 AM, 07/06/2010
I had an 85 CRX Si and a 91 CRX Si and currently drive a 2008 civic Si. The 85 never got less than 30 mpg and would touch 40 on road trips. The 91, which was my favorite, was about the same. Both were fast enough with superb steering and shifters and could out handle anything. The old era brakes were only adaquate and the cars' stiff suspensions and light weight gave a rough ride on anything but smooth pavement(the 85 especially). The 08 Civic Si is simply a better car overall, with easily the best 4 cyl engine/trans combination I've ever experienced. Its much more comfortable, much faster, and still gets 28 mpg. The stereo is in another league than my aftermarket upgrades in the past. Gotta say the electric steering and digital dash are steps back.
HOWEVER, the CRXs represent 20-25 year old technology and Honda has clearly lost their way with the CRZ, which is a compromise car that doesn't work particularly well as either a hybrid or a sporty car. Honda (or any other manufacturer) shows no interest in reviving the light, sporty minimalist cars that were so fun back then. Honda could have hit a home run with this car and instead chose to lay down a bunt- and a poor one at that.
lt1boy says:
09:57 AM, 07/06/2010
Honda's new slogan should be "We're doing it wrong."
tmanz says:
09:57 AM, 07/06/2010
" (thanks for the pedestrian impact standards, EU!) "
those standards have ruined car styling.
Hey Pedstrians! Get out of the road!
foxtrot685 says:
09:52 AM, 07/06/2010
i can also say... the aftermarket suppliers have been hard at work on the CR-Z. Mugen, Tein, Spoon, etc. have all released special editions of the JDM car already! so it should have a good aftermarket supply soon.
lzks says:
09:48 AM, 07/06/2010
@vikasdesai Agreed. Honda and toyota stopped making fun cars. Where is our rsx, celica, mr2, S2000, supra, nsx? Japanese has gone all soft. Only Americans keep making fun cars. But I don't buy American. So what the hell am I supposed to do? I'm only left with 370z, rx8, and genesis coupe. At least Mitsubishi and Subaru still have the spirits to keep the EVO/STI legend going.
k55 says:
09:39 AM, 07/06/2010
I had an 85 CRX-SI and an 88 CRX-SI when new and both were fun .......... as well as a 2002 MINI Cooper S . I am looking at a 2011 Cooper S as well as this CRZ ( 6spd ,no nav). The CRZ starts at 20k.......21500 for the EX .........a Cooper is 20k and 23500 for a Cooper S . I will wait until VW releases the POLO GTI and '11 GOLF GTI ,and the Hyundai Veloster,,,,,as well as the FIAT Abarth...........and Suzuki Swift Sport......
...phew ,yes alot of these little pocket rockets are coming soon. I am now on car number 19 since HS....and the Mini Cooper S was the most fun of any. Even though it is expensive it really "works". The Cooper S will have a new uprated engine for 11( from 172 to new 181). The Mini is still in first place but I am keeping an open mind to any of these. I had more expensive stuff ( BMW,Porsche,Audi) but they are just not worth it to me. Lets wait to judge one when it gets here. The CRZ is not about all out speed ..its about fun.
vikasdesai says:
08:48 AM, 07/06/2010
the crx is a once in a lifetime car, the cr-z isn't paticularly good at anything, its not even close, you want mileage, get an insight, you want performance get a subaru wrx or civic si, the cr-z is a snooze fest, more boring cars from honda, so sad, this country has a love affair with honda performance cars but every year the cars become more generic and dull, remember integra type r?, s2000? the old legend coupe? RSX type S? NSX? all gone with no replacement insight(haha PUN!). The TL is a fat pig, the civic si has no tourque, and honda is a people mover and that's about it, they probably will save the world from our dependance on gas but it will be a boring journey
carlos20 says:
08:36 AM, 07/06/2010
BRN
THE CR-Z is not a Fiesta competition. The new Fiesta was built to compete with the FIT.
The Fit beat the new Fiesta at recent comparisions test at Europa.
Why the CR-Z isnt compare with the Prius is a big mistery.
wx_geek says:
08:11 AM, 07/06/2010
In addition to safety of the 2 cars I would suggest emissions are quite a bit different as well. As for the safety part I think if you added air bags to the old CR-X I would choose it over the new CR-Z. It seems it gets harder every year to find a car that connects you with the road. For those of us who enjoy the driving experience our choices in anything affordable are limited.
seppoboy says:
07:18 AM, 07/06/2010
Yet what Honda offers in the CR-Z isn't that bad at all.
The CR-Z is really adequate, though it doesn't excel at it. But that's OK, the world needs adequate cars. You know, ones that start and move, that change direction when you turn the wheel, and that stop when you push on that brake pedal. And it has seats, so people can sit in it, too. The headlights let it be driven when it's dark out!
Yes, Honda uses very up to date technology like computers and hybrid in the CR-Z. Did Pontiac use that kind of stuff in their adequate cars? Of course not, and see where that got them.
Honda people, forget about that old CRX Si, that was then, this is now. Welcome to the future!
foxtrot685 says:
07:16 AM, 07/06/2010
I hope to purchase a CR-Z sometime next year. If Honda decides to drop a Si engine or standard Civic engine into it, great! If not, I'll still take a white CR-Z EX 6M/T without navi.
brn says:
07:12 AM, 07/06/2010
Next up, let's compare the CR-Z to the Fiesta. 34mpg combined for the CR-Z. 33mpg combined for the Fiesta. I'll take the 1mpg hit for the $10K savings and back seat.
sms8 says:
07:06 AM, 07/06/2010
I must echo the statements of the previous posters and the author. What this comparison does is not only contrast the performances of the CR-Z and its spiritual predecessor, but it also highlights the differences of current safety standards (more size, more weight, less styling flexibility) and convenience features compared to decades ago. These are inevitable though and therefore to be expected (good and bad), but interesting to digest.
The biggest contrast, in my opinion, is how lost Honda has become from its original formula for success. Current models have become too stylized for their own good. While, say, the current edition Accord still has its merits, being simple and attractive are not two of them. From the dash boards to character lines, from nose to end... current Honda's (and Acura's for that matter) lack the simple attractiveness that once complimented their reliability and practicality. Today though, their design prowess significantly trails any positive traits. And that is a shame for all of us, but most of all Honda.
carlos20 says:
05:56 AM, 07/06/2010
Thank you Inside Line, great job. You make me a happy man.
Please, for a moment, i dont want to read the word Hyundai or veloster.
I know the Hyundai is the best car company , and the veloster is a car that for the next
26 years, like the CR-X we will be talking about. please ,for a minute, give me a break.
The CRX and the CR-Z is all about a Honda is intend to be. A cas designed by inspiration,
free spiret design , taking risk , dont thinking about competition a expression of
a car company mision, values and compromise with a cleaner world.
At early 90s former President Noboiko Kawamoto outlined the Honda vision for the future,this vision is still alive in each model Honda produce.
garyc2 says:
05:37 AM, 07/06/2010
My first new car was an '86 CRX in red. I paid $10,200 before tax and that included the optional dealer installed a/c. I owned that car until 1989 and enjoyed every minute of driving it. I seem to remember getting 33-35 mpg on the highway. John told the story of the driving experience just as I remembered it; a well balanced and honest little car.
Unlike many of the cars I've owned in the past, I've never longed to drive or own a CRX since '89. It was a great car to own, but it was also a great car to move up from.
2blkstangs says:
05:12 AM, 07/06/2010
My ex had a 91 CRX SI and that car was a blast to drive. It was quick and very responsive. I did not care that it did not have power steering. That car was alot of fun. This coming from a life long Mustang guy.
lifebylight says:
03:39 AM, 07/06/2010
Wow, great job Inside Line. I sincerely appreciate this article because it clearly shows how incredibly lame the new CRZ truly is. It's a good idea, but the design and execution from Honda is extremely poor. They could have done much better.
If Honda took the CRX concept and advanced it to today's safety, efficiency, and power standards, they would have had a really winner on their hands IMO.
miniguyverona says:
01:06 AM, 07/06/2010
I had a 89 SI, which resembles the looks of the CR-Z a bit closer. That car with it's meager 108HP was an absolute blast. That was the first car I ever bought, I bought a new M3 in 95, which was a better car in nearly every way, but it was such a step up in performance, you really couldn't drive very close to the limits on public roads. With the CRX, you could be at 90%, having a blast, and still be within the law, or relatively at least.
I had 126k miles on the CRX when I gave it to my 17Y/O sister, and she drove it for another 100k until she rolled it down an embankment in an ice storm. It's not that it didn't still run, it ran fine, it was just not worth 2k in body work to fix it. She ended up parting in out and STILL managed to get $1500 for it, after 220k miles and it being 11 years old, and rolled so that every body panel and piece of glass was broken.
That was just a fantastic car; roomy, spritely (not really fast), handled like nothing else at the time. When I say roomy, I am 6'4" and was 320lbs after college, I was a NT, and one of my High School buddies played DT for the Eagles and we drove from Cincinnati to Philly with both of us and all his stuff when he reported in for rookie camp, and it all fit. At least 1k lbs of man and machine, so basically the same as the new CRZ, with little more power.
Today, the closest thing you can find is a regular Mini, handles a bit better, a bit roomier, a tad better mileage, but it's only slightly faster. That's the problem with the CRZ, it doesn't perform as well as the regular Mini, doesn't get any better mileage with the 6 speed, and costs more. To the point where you can almost jump and get a Cooper S. The CRZ is about 2k more than a Cooper and 2k less than an S, both would be better cars. I've got a 2003 Cooper S that I bought new and I'm never selling it, it's the closest thing you can get to an old CRX, at least for a while. Ford's Fiesta RS/ST or whatever they call it, is going to be pretty nice. As would a VW Polo GTI.
Honda really needs to have at least a limited release CR-Z with the 2L SI motor, a few thousand a year would have people salivating for some of that feeling of out 20's again.
calspecial68 says:
12:37 AM, 07/06/2010
Some 24 years later and all you get is about an extra ohhh let's see....30 hp and an extra.....30 lb-ft coupled with around 600-700 more pounds in weight that definitely nullifies the extra power. Decent gains in fuel economy but that doesn't count cuz they sure as hell better be waaay higher than the CRX. And still no backseat?? Isn't that against the fuel-conscious code of carpooling or something?? The only step-up to CR-Z I can see is a navigation screen. You want a fun two-seater sports car, get an MX-5. Way better in every aspect.
bearsdkills says:
11:13 PM, 07/05/2010
The next gen civic should be out soon. 2012 if they do something extravagent with that, then it will be game over for honda. I'm hoping they do it right.
trjnflip says:
10:44 PM, 07/05/2010
The upcoming Hyundai Veloster is going to rock the CR-Z. At least Honda has the awesome new Odyssey as its sportiest model :p. Daddy Like! haha.
jeremiahhutch says:
10:38 PM, 07/05/2010
This really makes me miss my CRX SI...It was, and still is my favorite car I've ever had...This CRX is just beautiful...Hold on tight to it!
gbriank says:
10:34 PM, 07/05/2010
Every time I see a "new" Honda product, I ask myself "whom is running this company???"
I don't think Honda has a clue! C'mon, the RL sales are lackluster at best. Its design is approaching 6 years old without any significant updates. KILL IT! Re-direct resources to designing a new one and marketing dollars to other products. Secondly, you produce a 6 speed automatic for the re-freshed MDX and the new ZDX. Why not update the rest of the SH-AWD vehicles (TL and RL) and raise your CAFE standards?
Honda...oh, Honda... MMC changes on the Accord limited to minor exterior and interior changes, along with a software update to the 5 speed automatic (shift up faster). The *NEW* Sonata is starting to nip at your heels...larger interior, better braking distance, higher fuel economy, 6 speed automatic, longer warranty... And what's up with the CR-Z? People asked for a sporty two door coupe (with a BACK SEAT) and a super torquey, but efficient, four cylinder engine (reminicent of the CR-X). What did we get? A spruced up INSIGHT! Sheesh! Drop the hybrid and create 2 styles of CR-Z (base and Si). Put the Civic 1.8 liter in the base and the high revving 2.0 liter into the Si model. Done. By dropping the hybrid drivetrain and batteries, you've saved yourself atleast 200 lbs.
eldaino2 says:
10:31 PM, 07/05/2010
i agree that a gas powered version should be available, the same way different versions were available back in the late 80's.
edmunds: you did 1 thing great with this article and one thing TERRIBLY wrong.
here is what you did right:
1. you have proven, finally, to everyone, that aside from the crx-hf, regular cr-x's did NOT get the epic mileage that they were touted to by many posters on this site. in fact the heavier honda fit, with more power from a similarily sized engine but more weight and gobs more safety is rated at 3mpg higher on the highway and significantly more in the city.
here is what you did wrong:
1. where the hell are the handling numbers? i know that the cr-z is one of those cars that feels better to drive than the numbers suggest...but you guys should have put both cars through a comparsion on the same proving ground....because despite what some old skool honda fanboys would suggest, unless you mod the hell out of a cr-x, the handling numbers would probably be on par if not worse than the cr-z, which has 'weight' to contend with.
zim65 says:
10:31 PM, 07/05/2010
I want the old one. Don't know who will be interested in tepid performance of CR-Z. Still have fond memories of my '86 Civic Si.
mrjost55 says:
09:52 PM, 07/05/2010
They need to make a regular gasoline powered version of this hatch with Si modifications. Basically the same thing as a Civic Si. Honda are you listening? Teenagers/early 20 year olds will eat this up.
tmanz says:
09:50 PM, 07/05/2010
crash test them, see who walks away alive.
From what I hear Honda's production numbers are going to be so low on them it won't matter if everyone loves it or not.
bearsdkills says:
09:12 PM, 07/05/2010
The new CRZ is a disgrace to the CR platform name, Honda hit a EPIC FAIL with this car. Its ugly, its slow as hell, its cannot ever corner for a honda and if anyone wants to buy a ugly hybrid why not just get a insight.
WHY HONDA WHY??!!! WHY DID YOU RUIN THE CRZ NAME??!!!
trash the hybrid powertrain, drop the si's engine in it and this car will sell.