I have to admit, I don't quite understand the point of the 2011 Honda CR-Z. It's supposed to be sporty. And it's supposed to be a hybrid. But with all the compromises involved, it kind of fails at both.
Fuel economy for this 3-door coupe is rated at 31 mpg in the city and 37 mpg on the highway. A 31 city number is nothing to sneeze at. If you could actually achieve it. Which, in a city like Chicago, is difficult. And you might think 37 mpg for the highway is pretty good, until you remember this is a compact 2-seater that weighs 2,650 pounds (EX model with the MT).
When non-hybrids like the Hyundai Elantra and Chevrolet Cruze Eco are rated at 40 and 42 mpg respectively on the highway, you've got to look at the CR-Z and give it a bit of a "Huh?"
Might be time to rethink that mild hybrid vs. full hybrid thing, Honda.
Automakers like Toyota and Ford create "full" hybrids, which means that the vehicles have the ability to drive in electric-only mode as long as the battery is charged and you don't go over a certain speed (somewhere in the 30 to 45 mph range).
But Honda creates ÒmildÓ hybrids, which means that the Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) gives an electric boost in power when accelerating and enables the engine to turn off during braking and when at a complete stop. In some instances, Civic and Insight hybrids are able to operate in electric-only mode while cruising -- but only when maintaining a constant or decelerating speed. As soon as soon as the gas pedal engages for active acceleration, the gasoline engine kicks in. The CR-Z can't drive in electric-only mode at all. And that is why a midsize car like the Prius is rated at 48 mpg on the highway, and a compact car like the CR-Z only gets 37.
Frankly, with a 1.5-liter 4-cylinder engine, I'm surprised the mileage isn't higher without any kind of an electric assist. We're only talking about a combined total output of 122 horsepower here. And they think that's enough to make it "sporty"? Pshaw. I'd venture to say the 100-horsepower Mazda2 with a 1.5-liter engine is sportier.
The CR-Z does come with 3 driving modes: sport, normal and eco. And while sport does give you a little more pep off the start, and eco does help control the lead foot tendencies, neither go far enough toward making this car either sporty or fuel efficient.
Lest you think I'm completely bashing the CR-Z, I do need to insert a little praise here. One of the things Honda did well on the CR-Z is the interior. The clean simplicity was intuitive and attractive, and there were a bevy of standard features at the EX Navi level that made this $23K car quite plush. We're talking about leather wrapped steering wheel, navigation system, steering wheel audio controls, standard Bluetooth connectivity, USB audio interface and premium audio system. The only thing I could have wanted was heated seats, and from the car builder on Honda's website, that doesn't appear to be an option. Boo.
My favorite feature on the CR-Z were the "happy little gauges" as I like to call them. The back light of the behind-the-wheel gauges glows blue or green depending on how efficiently you are driving. A nice immediate visual cue that lets you know when you should be a little lighter on the accelerator. Green means you're doing a good job, and blue means you aren't.
Ride and handling on the CR-Z were nice and tight. And, perhaps, a little sporty. I liked the 6-speed manual transmission that came equipped with the test car, and it added to the veneer of sport. An automatic transmission is optional with a $650 fee, which isn't bad when most automatics tack on $1,000.
The exterior styling is a bit quirky with the the deeply raked rear quarter. Which is made possible by the fact that there is no rear seat. In many ways it looks a lot like the old 2-seat Insight. Which in 2011 is a 4-seater. And that begs the question: Why didn't Honda launch the CR-Z as the Insight and the Insight as the CR-Z? Seriously, if you have an answer or theory, comments appreciated.
The lack of a back seat in this car is interesting in and of itself. There is a rear divider wall that, in the down position, creates a nice flat storage surface and conceals two storage wells. In the up position, however, it creates the facade of a back seat. In a pinch I could see a younger someone sneaking in a couple of additional, albeit petite, passengers -- which is in no way safe. So why not create faux backseat like you see in the Jaguar XK, Audi TT and Lexus SC? At least there would be a couple of seat belts to hold the scrunched backseat passengers in place. Not to mention the fact that it might lower insurance premiums. I'm just saying.
Overall, I liked but didn't love the CR-Z. It's a compact vehicle great for urban spaces. But it really only suits a driver who rarely (read: never) has passengers. Or it's a second car for a city dweller with an urban commute. I don't know that I'd be willing to spend $23,310 (as tested) on either of those kinds of cars. The base $19,345 is a little more attractive in this realm, but I'd probably opt for the $10,990 (base) smart car if I truly wanted either a second car or never had passengers. It's easier to parallel park. Trust me.
|
