backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by WUMINJUN.. on Jan 24 at 7:58 PM


Toyota FT-CH Hybrid Concept  (Source: Toyota)

Production Honda CR-Z hybrid concept  (Source: Edmunds Inside Line)
Toyota and Honda show off new hyrids in Detroit

Whenever a new hybrid vehicle is introduced, it is invariably compared to Toyota's hugely successful Prius. The Prius, which is currently its third generation, has been a big sales hit for Toyota and has put the Japanese auto giant at the forefront of the "green" auto movement.

Now that Toyota has the Prius, Camry Hybrid, and Highlander Hybrid under its belt (along with a few hybrids from its upscale Lexus division), the company is looking to put its hybrid system into a vehicle smaller than the Prius. Toyota plans to tackle the compact sector with the FT-CH concept.

The Prius, which is classified as a midsize vehicle, is 22 inches longer than Toyota's new FT-CH. Not many details are available on the new hybrid other than the fact that it will be priced below the Prius. It's more than likely that this concept will make it to production, but Toyota is keeping mum for now.

"A century after the invention of the automobile, we must re-invent it with powertrains that significantly reduce or eliminate the use of conventional petroleum fuels," said Toyota Motor Sales President Jim Lentz. "One of many alternatives is through what is commonly called the electrification of the automobile. By far, the single most successful example of this has been the gas-electric hybrid."

Another new hybrid making news today is the Honda CR-Z hybrid. The vehicle has already been profiled numerous times on DailyTech, but Honda today is revealing production specifications for the vehicle. The nearly 2,700-pound vehicle makes use of a 122 hp / 128 lb-ft gasoline engine paired with Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system. The vehicle will be rated at 31/37 mpg with a manual transmission and 36/38 mpg with an continuously variable transmission (CVT).

It's admirable that Honda wants to appeal to enthusiasts with a 6-speed manual on the CR-Z, but it's a crying shame that choosing to row your own gears results in such a dramatic cut to city mileage.

For comparison, the larger Honda Insight is rated at 41 mpg combined, while the even larger Prius is rated at 50 mpg combined.

According to Edmunds Inside Line, the CR-Z will go on sale this August.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Price
By Mitch101 on 1/11/2010 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Price: Unknown, but Honda's similarly sized Civic Hybrid starts at $23,550. The only other quote I have seen is above $20,000.00

Trying to hold out as long as possible with my existing car because there is a lot to be exited about on the horizon.




RE: Price
By TMV192 on 1/11/2010 2:17:07 PM , Rating: 5
yes, the future is very exiting


RE: Price
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 3
122 HP in a car that weighs 3,000 pounds fully fueled with passenger...

Yeah I don't know about you, but that's SO exciting.


RE: Price
By SPOOFE on 1/11/2010 2:55:23 PM , Rating: 1
Not that it's particularly great as far as hybrids go - as the article alludes - but why would you assume horsepower and weight are the significant factors in this vehicle?


RE: Price
By strikeback03 on 1/11/2010 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 4
Well, the fuel economy isn't great, and with that HP and weight it isn't looking really high on the fun-to-drive scale, so what exactly is the market? From the numbers it basically looks like a 2-door Fit, hopefully picking up some more fun-to-drive in exchange for the higher price and less cargo room. That concept will certainly appeal to some people, but not nearly as many as if it got a combined mileage in the 40s


RE: Price
By SPOOFE on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Price
By lightfoot on 1/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Price
By Durrr on 1/11/2010 4:59:56 PM , Rating: 3
Ummm, yeah...no....sorry.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 4:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the hybrid assist system this car will likely preform like a 250-300 HP engine
LOL! The combined power of the gas engine AND the IMA is 122 PEAK hp and 128 PEAK lb-ft of torque. And at 2670 lbs, this car will NOT perform anything like a 250-300hp car. I have to admit, your post was really funny.


RE: Price
By lightfoot on 1/11/2010 5:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies...
quote:
Between its engine and motor, the CR-Z develops 122 horsepower and 128 pound-feet of torque.

The way it was written in the DT article made it sound like those numbers were for the ICE engine alone.

Those are truly pathetic numbers in this case. I have a 2.0 L I4 Turbo that makes 260 HP and gets 19 City/29 Highway. I had assumed that Honda's hybrid system was actually a step forward, not back.


RE: Price
By Runiteshark on 1/11/2010 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 5
Spuke, we very often agree on car related issues, but I gotta say this one takes the cake.

I can't understand the idiots here, and everywhere else that are looking forward to this car.

It will weigh anywhere between 26-3100lbs when its done, and have a totally pitiful amount of power. This is supposed to be the successor the CRX, and look at the interior, etc of this car.

The whole thing is total shit, and Honda isn't even relevant anymore. They don't know how to make fun, cheap, light cars. Those were the cars that made them great (See SI pre 2006, CRXs, etc).

I'm betting this will cost around 20k, in which many other options open up like:

Cobalt SS
Genesis Coupe 2.0 R Spec (23)
Ford Focus (2011!)
Mustang V6 (2011!)
FT-86
Subaru variant of the FT86
Not far away from a WRX

In summary, Honda is a crap company now. All their cars are either bland boring junk, heavy junk (Wow, I can't believe I'm saying that about honda no less), and complete idiotic junk (Killing the diesel, or this CRZ).

What happened Honda? Do you want Ford and Hyundai to replace you so bad? Do you want to fade to the shadows and be like Saturn or Pontiac?


RE: Price
By Jedi2155 on 1/11/2010 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
Owning a Honda Civic ATM I sorta agree with you on why people even like Honda other than style...

But dude...I want a HYRID ...


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
--- "and complete idiotic junk (Killing the diesel, or this CRZ)."

Don't blame Honda for killing off all their US diesels. Blame the new EPA regulations on diesel engines.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 3:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, this is false

The 2.2 Liter Honda Diesel is capable of passing European Bin5 regulations. The same system should be capable of passing US regulations, since its pollution wise very similar to the 2.0 TDI VW engine (Also a European Bin5).


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 5:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but its true. The EPA's Bin8 standard is essentially identical to Europe's T2Bin5, yes...but Bin 8 doesn't cover New York and California, both of which have tougher standards, and which constitute roughly 1/5 of the US automarket.

Wheen Chrysler phased out its very popular diesel jeep cherokee, they specifically noted it was due to increased emission standards. Meeting them would have meant another $4-5K to the base price of every diesel. That might sell in Europe, where gas costs 2-3X as much, but not here in the US.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 5:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hrm. Sorry... I think your off-base here.

I-DTEC 2.2 Liter Honda Engines should be capable of California and New York Emissions. They were as of 2008

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080113Clean-Dies...

In specific refer to "In addition, the i-DTEC engine meets the ultra-stringent U.S. EPA Tier II Bin 5 emission standards without the on-board storage of urea."

Straight from Honda. They were slated for Acura as they would require upcharge.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 6:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
""In addition, the i-DTEC engine meets the ultra-stringent U.S. EPA Tier II Bin 5 emission standards "

What are you arguing here? No one is saying Honda can't make an engine that meets the standards. The point is that doing so adds so much to the cost that its not a viable sale any more.

Like it or not, the new EPA standards roughly doubled the cost premium that a diesel engine adds to a gas-powered car.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/12/2010 6:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What are you arguing here? No one is saying Honda can't make an engine that meets the standards.
Honda was slated to introduce a diesel engine in the Accord for the 2010 model year. They did not because the market took a crap. As a matter of fact, all of the manufacturers were slated to introduce diesel engines for all of their 1/2 ton pickups but when people stopped buying cars, it didn't make sense to introduce new models. There's really nothing more to it.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Forget this

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf

Tier 2 Bin 5 corresponds to "LEV II" on the california Emissions chart. I am not seeing any additional requirements enacted since 2007. Now I believe thier are fleet requirements that require the average to be greater than LEV II, so this might be a passive way the standards "forced" Honda not to use Diesel.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
From a 2006 story when the new diesel regulation first kicked in:

quote:
According to the Detroit News, the [Jeep's] engine doesn't meet new tough federal emissions standards that will kick in next year and Chrysler didn't want to put a newer engine into the Liberty. A Chrysler spokeswoman told the Detroit News, "The emission standards are becoming very stringent, and we weren't able to make a credible business case for a limited production vehicle."

The company is not giving up on diesel altogether. A diesel version of the Grand Cherokee SUV is coming in 2007. Diesel Liberty vehicles, which are built in Toledo, will still be sold in Europe. The new diesel regulations have also affected Volkswagen, which recently announced they would not release any diesel versions of their Jetta, Golf or Beetle models in 2007.


http://green.autoblog.com/2006/06/07/diesel-jeep-l...


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
And how is 2008 plans (Honda announced thier plans in Jan. 2008) cancelled because of 2007 regulations (Introduction of reduced California PM standards)?

Porkpie, the truth is that provided the car is C segment load, Honda, Toyota, VW, GM, Ford, etc ALL sell Diesels in Europe (or plan to within a year or two) that would pass 50 state emissions. It may take a small bit of extra effort, but its not a hard barrier. The US market doesn't warrant the split sales.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 7:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
"the truth is that provided the car is C segment load, Honda, Toyota, VW, GM, Ford, etc ALL sell Diesels in Europe (or plan to within a year or two) that would pass 50 state emissions. "

Of course. As I already said, fuel in Europe is 2-3X as expensive compared to US prices. Thus, European buyers are much more likely to pay the extra costs for a diesel engine.

You still haven't challenged the main point. When EPA diesel standards kicked in, the cost premium for a diesel engine went from $3-5K per car to nearly double that. That kicked the crap out of the US diesel market.

Now that we've developed engines that can meet those standards without onboard urea, the price premium (which still much higher than it previously was) dropped enough to allow _some_ automakers to consider reintroducing _some_ diesel models. Still true.

But trying to claim the new EPA regulations had no effect on the business realities of trying to sell a diesel here in the US is just goofy.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 7:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You still haven't challenged the main point. When EPA diesel standards kicked in, the cost premium for a diesel engine went from $3-5K per car to nearly double that. That kicked the crap out of the US diesel market.


Nope Sorry

Wrong Wrong Wrong

Please provide me #1 source that can back that up.

The price difference is typically less than 3,000 US dollar between equivalent models in Europe.

VW, Honda, Audi, BMW, GM, Ford. All of these sites.

Its true, sometimes the difference is more than 3,000 US dollars. Sometimes alot less too. (I saw 1 model of VW where the difference was less than 1,500)

But hey, VW can sell TDI Golfs and Audi can sell TDI A3s for less than 2,000 dollar premiums... in the US, but why let manufactures prices change you from the idea that a diesel costs somewhere from 6,000! to 10,000! more than the gasoline car. (A Golf TDI is sold at around 22,000 base... you really think the engine costs around 8,000-12,000?)

quote:
But trying to claim the new EPA regulations had no effect on the business realities of trying to sell a diesel here in the US is just goofy.


I would never ever say that. I said, EPA regulations did not make Honda change its plans to retroduce Diesel to the US from the original announcement data of Jan. 2008. The engines that were slated to be put in the cars in Jan. 2008 pass today's emission standards.

Not sure why this can't get through to you.

Honda abandoned Diesel in the US because Honda does not think they will sell well. Not because of Emissions standards.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 7:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Please provide me #1 source that can back that up."

I already did. Volkswagon and Chrysler both cited the new standards as the primary reason they dropped the diesel models they were currently selling in the US. Did you not read the link?

Honda said the same thing themselves. Here's yet ANOTHER source:

quote:
Thanks to stricter emissions regulations in the United States and Japan, Honda has officially canceled its future diesel plans. The Japanese automaker had planned diesel powerplants for a number of its Honda and Acura vehicles, but will now focus on hybrid technology


http://www.leftlanenews.com/honda-abandons-diesels...


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 8:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight

Your believing that Honda in 2008 did not know what Emission standards would be in 2009 in the US? Can you point me to where the standards changed??!?! (Post 2008).

Now the Japanese part of the statement might be true.

A more accurate translation of that statement is

"We don't believe US consumers will pay the Diesel premium in large enough numbers to pay for the certification"

NOT that the cars aren't already complaint or couldn't be made complaignt easily. Sometimes it takes millions just to get papers stamped! (Testing programs etc) Its the Honda's Idea that the US consumer won't pay 2,000 more for Diesel TSX over an I4 gasoline TSX that made them self the plans. If not enough customers will.. then of course its too expensive to pay the fixed costs.

VW/Audi current sells "6" (really 2) TDI model in the US. Where did you get this idea they don't? Sure they dropped the older 1.8 TDI engines which didn't meet compliance standards and for 1 whole year had no TDI on the market.

Why doesn't the US have Diesels? Emissions standards make it hard to incorporate Diesels into the most popular cars without expense. Low fuel prices mean the Diesel premium is not worth it. Its totally a business case since European standards are now at or nearly at the same level as US standards for Diesels. It used to be somewhat of a Engineering challenge as European Diesels would not meet US standards.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 9:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
"So let me get this straight. Your believing that Honda in 2008 did not know what Emission standards would be in 2009 "

Are you really this dense? Honda announcing something in 2008 doesn't mean they decided it in 2008. Carmakers have to plan models out years in advance. They can't turn around on a dime the moment the US passes a law.

"VW/Audi current sells "6" (really 2) TDI model in the US. Where did you get this idea they don't? "
Once again, you apparently can't read. VW already SAID they dropped plans to sell several diesel models in the US because of the changing regulations. Read some of the links I posted.

Since that original annoucement, they've cautiously reintroduced some of those they dropped...but they still dropped them due to the regulatory changes.

" Low fuel prices mean the Diesel premium is not worth it."

That's what I said ten posts ago. Glad to see you're finally catching up.


RE: Price
By Samus on 1/11/2010 10:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
Excited? I wouldn't get excited about any hybrid. They will always handle piss poor and be slow as molasses because they have the weight of four passengers worth of batteries taking up all your trunk space.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 4:07:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but why would you assume horsepower and weight are the significant factors in this vehicle?
Could it be because this car is marketed as a "fun car"? Nah, that's not it.


RE: Price
By SPOOFE on 1/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't see the significance of the comment.
Read my post a few more times. It will come to you eventually.


RE: Price
By Camikazi on 1/11/2010 6:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
fun cars are quick agile and fun to drive, a low powered heavy car is none of those things least of all fun.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/11/2010 7:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Horsepower and Torque are only important if you plan to drive the car.

Horsepower indicates the maximum power the engine can produce. Regardless of whether a car is a hybrid or not, if there is not a significant amount of horsepower, the car will be limited on the maximum speed it can travel, the maximum climbs it can make, or maximum cargo it can carry. Torque also plays a role, especially in the responsiveness of the car.

Simply put, this CRZ does not have enough horsepower to warrant a serious look. At Wieght levels around 3,000 lbs (when loaded with some people and stuff), we are talking like ~25 lbs/hp. If I look at the Camry Hyrbid as foil, the Camry Hybrid, loaded with a similar people/stuff load is only ~21 lbs/hp. Now, the CR-Z may be more "tossible" in take I am sure it will go around corners betters and may like to rev higher, its likely to be on a straight line slower than a Camry Hyrbid. The Camry Hyrbid also gets nearly the same Average Fuel Economy (34 --> 37).

Simply Put, the CRZ is a more expensive, less usable, higher mass Fit that gets barely better fuel economy. It needs to either get close to a 40 MPG combined (current config) with 40+ for CVT OR its okay to be 35 MPG, with a Sub 7 second 0-60 time. I mean, its a 2 seat coupe!


RE: Price
By Hogger1 on 1/12/2010 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
"Horsepower and Torque are only important if you plan to drive the car."

Right on! I certainly don't plan on driving my cars. That's why I order them without engines.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 2:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
"Simply put, this CRZ does not have enough horsepower to warrant a serious look. "

People are so silly.. The original Corvette had 150 horsepower...substantially LESS than this tiny car.

The CRZ may not have enough horsepower for you to consider it fun to drive, but the idea that its entirely an unviable vehicle is just...idiotic.


RE: Price
By MrFord on 1/12/2010 2:51:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People are so silly.. The original Corvette had 150 horsepower...substantially LESS than this tiny car.


... and 223lbs/ft or torque @ 2400rpm, that's a big difference. And the original Corvette wasn't meant to be a sport car but more a direct competitor to the Thunderbird, a cruise car.
On top of that, it weight 2700lbs, pretty much like the CRZ.

The CRZ could be compared to the 90-93 Accord for it's power-to-weight ratio


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 4:47:28 PM , Rating: 4
Man...

Right on the Honda site

"CR-Z the Intersection of Sport and Hybrid"

"Production Version of 2011 Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid Coupe Makes Official Debut"

"It's the first hybrid designed to maximize style and fun, in addition to efficiency and economy."

Sorry Porkpie. If Honda came out and said... hey this is a Hybrid for those people who must own a Coupe. Then CRZ might serve a purpose. But really, can you imagine a US market who want a Manual Transmission and a Coupe, but find a 9.7 0-62mph time acceptable (JDM booklet listing)? Especially when the compensation is only ~34 MPG? And you give up 2 seats?


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 5:15:43 PM , Rating: 1
"Right on the Honda site: "CR-Z the Intersection of Sport and Hybrid"

Did you miss the word "intersection" in that statement? It's not a sports car. Its not designed to be one. Compared to a hybrid like the Prius, say, that weighs 200 lbs more and has 20 less HP, the CR-Z qualifies as "sportier". But once again-- it's NOT A SPORTS CAR.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/12/2010 6:24:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But once again-- it's NOT A SPORTS CAR.
The Mazdaspeed3 has 260hp and good handling and is not a sports car. The Cobalt SS Turbo has 260hp and great handling and is not a sports car. The Civic Si has 197 hp and good handling and is not a sports car. When you use the word "sport" in your marketing when referring to a car, you are automatically putting it in the "sport" category. Actual buyers of these vehicles WILL expect good acceleration and good handling. Actual buyers are NOT thinking, "oh this car will be sportier than a Prius". No, they'll be thinking, "this car will be like a Civic Si (or other sporty car) but with a hybrid drivetrain". Why market "sport" when you have no intention of providing that?


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 6:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
"The Mazdaspeed3 has 260hp and good handling and is not a sports car. The Cobalt SS Turbo has 260hp and great handling and is not a sports car. The Civic Si has 197 hp and good handling and is not a sports car"

How many of those are hybrids?

Once again: this car is "something vaguely sporty" for those misguided souls who believe they simply must own a hybrid.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:24:20 PM , Rating: 4
::blink::

Curb wieght is indeed 200 more for the Prius.

But your wrong about the Power.

Net Power Out from Prius Hybrid System- 134 hp

The Prius has a better Horsepower/Wieght Ratio! A PRIUS.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 6:34:22 PM , Rating: 1
"But your wrong about the Power. Net Power Out from Prius Hybrid System- 134 hp:"

Nope. You can't linearly add the power of the gas and electric engines, they don't both meet max output at the some point on the rpm curve.

The net power is indeed 110 hp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius#2004.E2.80.9320...


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh... check out the 2010 Model year. You know, the side by side for the CRZ.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, while we are on the subject, the Prius is severaly limited by its batteries and electronics. Due to thier CVT system it should be possible to sync the power's better. The batteries however hold them back. The maximum power out from the batteries in a 2010 Prius is around ~33 kW (Its possible that they can burst higher, but they really aren't rated higher). One of the reasons why you only get a 27 kW maximum boost from electric motor even though its rated at 60 kW. Toyota uses the larger electric motor to allow for more Torque at the low end (I assume from the specs). The same as every other Hybrid setup I have ever seen.

Honda has repeatly tried to cheapen out in the IMA by using undersized motors in comparison to other manufactures. I think this is why they fair so poorly in EPA testing that requires fast speeds and fast accelerations. IMA is just not useful when your pushing the car and the car reverts back to primarly gasoline usage.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 7:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Sigh... check out the 2010 Model year."

Ok, we'll work with the 2010 model instead of 2009. You're right it has an extra 22 hp. It also weighs 150 more lbs. That's 350 lbs over a CR-Z. The CR-Z also has tighter steering and suspension, grippier tyres, and a "sportier" look.

Are you seriously trying to claim a Prius is more of a sports car than a CR-Z? Neither qualify, of course. But a CR-Z is somewhat less further away.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 8:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
No.

I am saying that the person who bought a CRZ will want it to beat a Prius from a Light. The type of person who wants a 2-Door "Sporty" car does so mainly for looks. It doesn't look good to be beaten from lights by Prius, Camrys, Altimas, Escapes, etc. Let alone going neck and neck with things like the Fit or a standard Civic.

Like I have been saying. The CRZ needs to either gets some MPG or gets some speed. At 7.0 Seconds (heck even 7.5 seconds) 0-60, and 34 MPG, it can take those other 34 MPG hybrids at the lights. Or if it returned 40-45 MPG (Less than a Prius, Right around the Civic Hybrid) than one can see... Civic Hybrid or More Sporty Two Seat CRZ or more practical Hatchback Insight

quote:
grippier tyres


Sorry, this made me laugh. Now I can't find a source for the Tire make, but the release says 195/55R16 V rated tires. Not really impressing me. They could be nice grippy tires, but the contact point is fairly narrow and the aspect ratio suggest more of a All-Season or Touring Tire. The upgrade? 205/45R17 V rated tires... really similar infact to the Prius upgraded 215/45R17 V rated tires.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/12/2010 3:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The CRZ may not have enough horsepower for you to consider it fun to drive
How much hp does it take to be fun? Is 80hp enough? How about 50? Maybe it's what the driver wants. For me, 122hp in a 2700 lb car is NOT going to be fun. It will be lethargic at best. I had a 1992 Sentra with a 2.0L 140hp (SR20DE) engine and weighed 2400 lbs. Not a rocket but plenty of fun. It could get out of its own way unlike this car.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 3:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
"How much hp does it take to be fun? Is 80hp enough? How about 50? "

It really wasn't that long ago when your average family car actually did have 50hp. They weren't drag racing much, but if you're buying a car to save gas, you really don't need 300+ hp, believe it or not.

(disclaimer: my own car has over 300hp. But I could give a hoot about gas consumption)


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/12/2010 3:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It really wasn't that long ago when your average family car actually did have 50hp.
When was that? Here in the US, 50 hp have always been few and far between. Most US cars in the last 40 years or so have had around 100 hp or more. Certainly not average. Regardless, 122hp and 2700 lbs = slow. And we really don't know how well this car will handle either. Will it be on the Cobalt SS Turbo side of handling (considered the best handling FWD car by Car and Driver) or will it be just like most FWD 4 cyl cars. Which is understeer on entry, understeer through the corner and understeer on exit.

Giving a car a fairly quick steering rack and somewhat grippy tires does not a good handler make.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 4:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about Horsepower, its about application and Horsepower

#1. The original (1951-1955 model years) C1 Corvette was not a good car.

The first year that the Corvette became a reasonable car was the 1956 model. It had a V8 with 210 hp to 240 Hp and curb wieght well south of 3,000 lbs. (I believe it was in the range of 2,750). Thus, the base Corvette wieghed about the same as the CRZ and delievered nearly twice the power. Hmmm... significant difference? Yes.

This cars Horsepower and Torque numbers are less than most other cars on the road.

The Toyota Hybrids all have better Hp/Wieght Ratios.
The Ford Hybrids all have better Hp/Wieght Ratios.

If the goal is to make a car go, then its fine to have a 25 hp engine.

Unfortunately, you have to look at the Market.

Honda is aiming at the ~20,000 dollar entry sports/enthusiast car market.

For 20,000 you can get a Mazda3 which (appears) destroys the CRZ in terms of sportiness. Moving from 23-24 MPG --> 34 MPG is not worth the loss of 150 HP and 2 seats.

For 20,000 you can get a Golf TDI which gets better MPG, is faster, and has more room.

For 20,000 you can get a Base Mini with manual and get 32 MPG combined, sporty handly, 4 seats!

Tell me who you would think would buy a CRZ over the above choices? Why would a car maker bother to introduce a car that is apparently worse in every respect compared to 2-3+ year old cars? Maybe in the JDM, testing gives it an equal footing (or premium) over the Mini type cars. Start/Stop etc. Maybe the JDM market car has at least a 2+2 configuration (apparently it does)? Something? But in the US its a no-go at this point. Maybe if gas spikes to above 5 dollars a gallon the sliver of difference between the Mini and the CRZ will make it worthwhile?


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 6:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
"#1. The original (1951-1955 model years) C1 Corvette was not a good car."

The Corvette didn't come out until 1953. And you might not consider it a "good car", but the 53 Vette was highly regarded at the time, and today they're one of the most expensive collector autos in the world.

"This cars Horsepower and Torque numbers are less than most other cars on the road"

They're MORE than most other HYBRID cars on the road. You're still missing the market segment here.

"Tell me who you would think would buy a CRZ over the above choices? "

Some dork who thinks he's saving the planet by buying a hybrid, of course.


RE: Price
By Spuke on 1/12/2010 6:33:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're MORE than most other HYBRID cars on the road. You're still missing the market segment here.
You're the one that's missing the market. Honda is in business to sell cars. This car is aimed at the Civic coupe buyer or the Mazda3 buyer that's looking to get better gas mileage also have some similar performance. Not to the .03% of the environmentalists that wants a car and also wants a sporty car.


RE: Price
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 7:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
"This car is aimed at the Civic coupe buyer or the Mazda3 buyer that's looking to get better gas mileage also have some similar performance. Not to the .03% of the environmentalists that wants a car and also wants a sporty car."

I think you're wrong. This car is aimed at the young urban buyer who considers the "hybrid" label to be worth a price premium, but doesn't want something quite as stodgy as a Prius.

There are quite a few people out there who buy inferior products at higher prices ("free trade coffee, anyone?) because it fits in with their belief system.


RE: Price
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 6:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
Errr... Mate, the Original Corvette was designed in 1951. I believe the first production prototypes were completed in 1952.

Although they might be collectors items... they were not well regarded as a sports car.

For one thing... they didn't have a manual option at launch.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6fqyf5ceXucC&prin...

Here are some highlishts. In 1955, an estimated 1/3 of the 1954 production sat on lots.

"
"This cars Horsepower and Torque numbers are less than most other cars on the road"

They're MORE than most other HYBRID cars on the road. You're still missing the market segment here."
"

The 1955 model, though much improved, was still not a sports car.

WRONG

Prius, Camry, Altima, Fusion are all better.

ONLY Honda sells lower Horsepower to wieght in Hybrids.


RE: Price
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2010 3:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they meant "We'll make fun of this car" instead of "we'll make this a fun car".

Who knows... Typos are omnipresent these days, even in PR


RE: Price
By artemicion on 1/11/2010 4:10:46 PM , Rating: 3
but is it exiting?


RE: Price
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 1/11/2010 5:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
eventually anyway


RE: Price
By WUMINJUN on 1/24/2010 7:58:18 PM , Rating: 2


http://www.brand-bar.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

---****Handbag $36 ---****sunglass $18

---****jean $36 ---****ugg boot $60

http://www.brand-bar.com


Not Bad
By btc909 on 1/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not Bad
By dubldwn on 1/11/2010 3:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I think you’re going a little to easy on them. This is a future green car from Honda. For what it is, I think the mpg sucks. The 2009 Civic Hybrid gets 40/45.


RE: Not Bad
By Chris Peredun on 1/11/2010 3:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
EPA numbers can be underestimate a car's rating pretty greatly. My 05 Civic is rated at 27/34 (fueleconomy.gov) and I don't think I could get those kind of numbers unless I only ever used the first two gears.


RE: Not Bad
By Chris Peredun on 1/11/2010 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, "can be" should be "can". Curse my indecisive wording and inability to edit.


RE: Not Bad
By dubldwn on 1/11/2010 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe 36/38 and 40/45 *are* the EPA ratings. And considering the CRZ's extra power, there doesn't seem to be any improvement at all over Honda's current hybrids. Which is what I was expecting.


RE: Not Bad
By PrazVT on 1/11/2010 3:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah but I don't think the hypermiling is what the CR-Z is being intended for. So sure, the mpg sucks compared to a Prius. But it's not trying to be a Prius anymore than the Insight was trying to be a Prius.

Even the hybrid class is going to have sub-divisions. Economy, luxury, sportiness - (relative to other hybrids). Whether or not the CR-Z will ultimately have much in the way of sporty characteristics has yet to determined, but I assume that is Honda's intent.

If you want a frickin Civic Hybrid, go buy a Civic Hybrid. Now if the Civic Hybrid outhandles a CR-Z - well then you've got me. But you're missing the point otherwise.


RE: Not Bad
By dubldwn on 1/11/2010 3:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I get your point. This car is supposed to be “fun-to-drive.” You know, a “sporty” car. My point is I was expecting better mpg for what it is. The Cruze, for example, will get better mpg, and it doesn’t even use a hybrid powertrain. Same with the Fiesta. Will this car outperform those cars? Like you said – it remains to be seen.


RE: Not Bad
By dubldwn on 1/11/2010 3:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
better *highway* mpg


RE: Not Bad
By lightfoot on 1/11/2010 5:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
Given the specs listed, I wouldn't pay over $15K.

If they actually put an engine in it (at least 200 HP,) then it might be worth $20K.


RE: Not Bad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 6:13:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Given the specs listed, I wouldn't pay over $15K. If they actually put an engine in it (at least 200 HP,) then it might be worth $20K.


That's because you are objectively assessing the value of the vehicle and how it pertains to your budget and lifestyle.

Environmentalist don't do that, and they don't want us to have the option to either. To them, there is no price too high to pay to feel warm and snuggie about 'saving the planet'.


RE: Not Bad
By Keeir on 1/11/2010 6:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
But even in that situation... I just don't understand why someone would buy a CRZ over a Golf TDI, at the same price point.

Unless one does alot of City Driving the Golf
#1. Has 4 Seats
#2. Has rear visibility
#3. The Power and Torque to wieght of the TDI is significantly better so its probably true that the TDI is faster/more responsive than a CRZ
#4. A significantly nicer interior. Not that the Golf is great, but the Autoshow pictures of the CRZ look like the early 1990s Honda. Hard Plastic in brown beige.

When its all said and done, over 5-10 years, the TDI would likely cost less to own, even with increased maintainence, or the difference would be in the 100 dollar a year range...

Why Honda? Why? Does the CRZ work better in the JDM?!?


RE: Not Bad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 6:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why Honda? Why? Does the CRZ work better in the JDM?!?


Honda is in a jam right now. They made a pledge, for whatever reason, to shift from practical affordable cars with mass appeal to impractical arguably as efficient cars of questionable appeal.

quote:
I just don't understand why someone would buy a CRZ over a Golf TDI, at the same price point.


Well yeah, but again, we aren't dealing with rational people here.


RE: Not Bad
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honda is in a jam right now. They made a pledge, for whatever reason, to shift from practical affordable cars with mass appeal to impractical arguably as efficient cars of questionable appeal.


This is no excuse.

Look at the NCC "Concept" VW is showing off in Detriot. Its about 95% Production Ready (Very little "concept" car stuff). VW thinks it can get close to 45 MPG. Its a Jetta Sized Coupe with ~177 hp/177 ft-lbs (1.4 TSI turbo+Electric+ 7 speed DSG)

Its still a Gas/Electric Hybrid

Its Faster, Larger, Wieghs More, AND gets better MPG (even if we assume VW is over-estimating by 15%)

Honda or Honda America needs to wake and realize. Americans still want large fast cars OR SUPER MPG.

IMA will not work in the US.
Original Insight = Fail (Would not have made a profit on US sales)
Accord V6 Hybrid = Fail
Civic Hybrid = Fail (Sales are much less than Prius, etc. Less than Fusion Hybrid for example, despite a 10,000 cost advantage)
Insight 2.0 = Fail (Sales much much less than Target)
CR-Z? I would argue Fail since its a car with ~35 MPG combined and 0-60 times in the high 8s to low 9s. Fail since over 90% of the "target" audience in the US dislikes it.

This is ontop of the Crosstour, the Pilot, and multiple other questionable choices (For example, why not more Integra/RSX in the Acura lineup?)

BTW, I am not saying any of the above cars are -bad- just that they were given the wrong price point to succeed. The Insight 2.0 might be a sales success at 15,000 but it was priced at 18,000. The CP-Z may be a sales success at 14,000. But doesn't look like thats where the price point is headed.


What happened to the gas sippers?
By vanionBB on 1/11/2010 4:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 1991 Geo Metro that gets 36 MPG and it has bad rings. When it was tuned up engine and everything was in working order I was getting 54 to 57 MPG measured. I spent $700 to purchase it when gas was getting to $5.00/gallon.

I know a Geo Metro is essentially a go-kart with very few bells & whistles (safety and luxury are lacking) but when I only travel to work and back, I could care less.

I believe all of the regulation applied to automobiles has killed any chance of us seeing another Geo Metro gas sipper. There is no way it would pass modern crash test safety requirements for vehicles, and modifying it so that it could would make it so heavy it would never get the same mileage.

Regulation may be making cars safer, but the drawback is that you end up with very expensive cars that only get 33mpg, worse mileage than my tired old Geo Metro.




By The0ne on 1/11/2010 4:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was in the game too late and when I looked around for a geo metro people were asking 5k-7k for it. for $700 I would have bought 2-3 just in case one happened to dissolve in rain or something :) Can't beat the mpg though, IF that's all you care about.


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By Noya on 1/11/2010 4:53:33 PM , Rating: 1
My cousin (11 or 12 at the time) accidentally hit the shifter or e-brake and ran over his grandmother. The door of the Metro was open and she got wedged between it and the ground and got dragged for like 30ft! LMAO I still can't stop laughing when I think about.


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By Pirks on 1/11/2010 5:08:04 PM , Rating: 1
Smart is your sipper, costs under 12k and you can get 40mpg on it if you don't mash accelerator too much.

Toyota Yaris is another (more powerful) gas sipper. Costs about 12k as well, and you can get 36mpg with a manual and careful driving. Not too bad for an engine that's probably twice as powerful as your Geo's. Can carry much more stuff and people than Geo or Smart.

So cheapo sippers are there, just open your eyes ;)


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By The0ne on 1/11/2010 6:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
he spent $700, I think $12k is way way way off. And yes, even I consider the vehicles that you've mentioned but not going to spend $12k for a cheapo car to begin with. And smart around here is definitely not going for $12k. price got jacked pretty high.


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By Pirks on 1/11/2010 6:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, everyone knows there are free rusty "project cars" around, way cheaper than $700, but I compared modern cars with those rusty ones because OP implied that gas sippers disappeared since 1991. Looks like he's wrong.


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By vanionBB on 1/11/2010 7:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
I meant new gas sippers. The Geo's got bigger engines in the later 1990's and then they stopped making them because they were competing in a different car class and ceased being gas sippers.

I have 2 Geo Metro's and spare parts in case one dies. With Craigslist, you can find used Geos out there project cars, but what I want is a NEW Geo Metro that gets incredible mileage, screw the hybrid batteries, screw the electric vehicle, just give me a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon on unleaded, no power steering, no AC, but maybe some comfortable seats and some modern electronics, at a reasonable price, say 12 to 15k retail.

Electric vehicles at 40k to 100k places these cars out of reach of anyone with access to an excel spreadsheet and the initiative to do a cost analysis.


RE: What happened to the gas sippers?
By Pirks on 1/11/2010 9:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're asking for Smart Fortwo then.


By The0ne on 1/12/2010 3:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Electric vehicles at 40k to 100k places these cars out of reach of anyone with access to an excel spreadsheet and the initiative to do a cost analysis.


I couldn't agree more but you still have the rich kids who can't fathom why anyone would not just shell out, in cash, the $40k to just buy the car. Or adults who still live with parents or other family members and think they are living the "rich" life. I have brother and 3 nephews like that. What a surprise it's going to be when they move out and live on their own, lol.


Can it see in the dark?
By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 1/11/2010 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have to seriously wonder about those headlight clusters. Won't it present a bit of an issue for seeing immediately in front of the vehicle in the dark? Unless those three squares on each side of the fascia are the immediate distance illumination or something?




RE: Can it see in the dark?
By strikeback03 on 1/12/2010 9:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the driver can't see immediately in front of the vehicle either. All they need is for the headlights to have a little better downward angle than the tallest possible driver does.


Fuel Ecomony
By btc909 on 1/11/2010 11:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
According to Hyundai latest commerical they have the best overall MPG. Ooops Honda.




RE: Fuel Ecomony
By The0ne on 1/12/2010 4:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Every car manufacturer claims that. Same for quality too.


Styling
By Mondochiwan on 1/12/2010 8:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
I know it's a concept and all, but that Honda could be put on the road just like that. It's stylish, modern and practical. But the Toyota is just mental! It looks like an acid trip hallucination and the dashboard is beyond wacky! I'd have a lot more faith in the Honda making it to the road than that crazy looking Toyota!




RE: Styling
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2010 10:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the Honda is in production trim -- that's the final design/car. As for the Toyota, I don't find the exterior all that bad. The front is a bit over the top, but from the windshield back it looks pretty normal.


Design?
By R6Raven on 1/11/2010 4:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Who designed the Toyota? I thought the Prius looked bad enough on its own, but now we have the Prius' and Nissan Cube's bastard child... Seriously?




Seems pretty stupid car on paper
By akse on 1/12/2010 5:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why would I buy this car when I can get a Bmw 120 that weighs about the same and has 170hp and can run combined for 42mpg, not sure about the cost but I would guess about the same.

If I'd buy 120d (diesel) I'd get 177hp with 55.85mpg.

Does people only buy it for the smaller CO2 emissions? Or is it even smaller when it actually uses more fuel / mile than normal engine?




Torsion beam fail
By walk2k on 1/12/2010 11:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
Forget the anemic power and the porky weight, the suspension is complete crap. Torsion beam, really?

Looks like it will take the FT-86 to save this segment.

Such a shame. I was thinking I could pick up a used CR-Z in 5-6 years, swap it with a K20 (200+ whp), ditch the IMA and heavy battery altogether and have a sweet little race car, probably still get 35 mpg on the highway too.

But with that suspension what's the point? PASS.




Why electric
By merc2600 on 1/14/2010 5:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
So. We destroy the forest getting the heave metals for the batteries. You are caring a heavy weight bank of battery. and no mater how you look at it the batteries need recharging. so you convert petrol to battery power and then use it later. every time energy is converted there is a loss (wasted energy). Even if you can charge it from the power point the energy comes from a fule.
Diesel cans are more efficient and there are big development in bio diesel or wait for hydrogen fuel to be produce cheap




Fairy Dust
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fairy Dust
By kaoken on 1/11/2010 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 3
No, because you are gonna run out of oil in 100 years.


RE: Fairy Dust
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 4:13:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, because you are gonna run out of oil in 100 years.
So you're saying that electricity generation doesn't require oil?


RE: Fairy Dust
By kaoken on 1/11/2010 4:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
70% of the electricity comes from coal in the US I believe.


RE: Fairy Dust
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 5:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, you are correct. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas in that order. Still, a significant portion from natural gas. In CA, most of the electricity is from natural gas (45%).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1...


RE: Fairy Dust
By Alexstarfire on 1/11/2010 4:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Strictly speaking... no, it doesn't require oil. Do we use oil somewhere in the process... yea. Mostly transportation I'd assume, but it's not something that's needed.


RE: Fairy Dust
By Spuke on 1/11/2010 5:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mostly transportation I'd assume, but it's not something that's needed.
But it's being used right now just like gasoline engines are being used right now. How can one thing be irrelevant and not the other?


RE: Fairy Dust
By kkwst2 on 1/11/2010 5:39:56 PM , Rating: 4
Because 1) where your electricity comes from is pretty transparent to the end-user and 2) we currently have the tech to eliminate oil use from electricity production. If we wanted to, we could certainly ramp up nuclear power production and largely eliminate need for oil for electricity production in 10-15 years.

The same could not be said for cars. If we were forced to drastically cut oil use for cars in the near future, we would all certainly feel the pain. The technology is simply not there yet to make that transition.


RE: Fairy Dust
By Keeir on 1/12/2010 5:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
You realise I hope that gasoline production requires Electricity and typically also uses Natural Gas.

Using the most efficient means of distilling (which is NOT the gasoline end product), a typical gallon of gasoline requires ~6.7 kWh of energy (US DOE). In California this is split between NG and Electricity roughly 4:1. A single gallon of gasoline repesents roughly ~4-5 kWh of electricity that could be used in a different means.


RE: Fairy Dust
By Reclaimer77 on 1/11/2010 6:58:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, because you are gonna run out of oil in 100 years.


I love how everyone on DT is both an automotive, energy, and political expert as well as Constitutional lawyers.


RE: Fairy Dust
By croc on 1/11/2010 10:11:22 PM , Rating: 3
"I love how everyone on DT is both an automotive, energy, and political expert as well as Constitutional lawyers."

Awww... Is someone impinging on 'your' territory? Feeling threatened, are we?

Coming from you, that comment is a bit rich, mate...


RE: Fairy Dust
By porkpie on 1/12/2010 2:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
"No, because you are gonna run out of oil in 100 years. "

There's no reason for us ever to run out of oil. We might run out of natural petroleum one day, but we can always make more. In fact, I'd bet with about 10% of the money we'd spent on researching boondoggles like wind and solar power, we'd have synthetic petroleum plants all over the country.


RE: Fairy Dust
By grebe925 on 1/11/2010 11:29:03 PM , Rating: 1
There is a pertinent question to be asked about what would happen when all the cars in the U.S. are plugged into the electrical grid, in a electric/hybrid world. Would that lead to a breakdown of an already stressed system?

However, isn't it more efficient to have the energy storage for all vehicles in one place at the generation facility and distribute it via the grid rather than have the driver carry it around while driving and replenishing it with such an inefficient system of gas stations that have to be supplied by polluting trucks?


RE: Fairy Dust
By The0ne on 1/12/2010 4:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your question is something that most here wouldn't be able to comprehend. Energy, or lack thereof, is a big issue in many states. People talk the talk but ultimately fail to realize how in the world we would be able to provide the juice if electric/hybrid vehicles really do that off.

For example, I'm all for the Leaf testing here in San Diego but nothing has been said about how this will affect the grid, where the energy is going to come from, what the drain will be, etc. Energy and water. Both of which, I assume, people don't need O.o


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki