SmokeyVtec Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Did anyone else read the right up in USA today on Friday? Why is it that a new electric hybrid in sport mode will get less than my Del sol vtec? 30 mpg Honda has lost its mind. If that isn't a fail IDK what is. I love the way it looks. Being my first car was an 84 crx but that got 40 mpg and was almost 20 years old. no nav, sub standard interior and over 20k price tag. I just don't get it. Honda used to build great econ boxes for real cheap. Now the KIA forte looks better! And I HATE KIA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 you guys realize that hybrids under a certin mph dont use ANY gas right? and batteries weigh a lot.. companies are still doing a lot of research on new batteries with longer ranges, lightweight, etc If you do reasearch on the hybrids/EV's companies are trying to do better.. just kind of hard when the US is not built for full electic.. or mainly electic.. almost no hyrdrogen filling stations etc most of the research didnt go anywhere because everyone thought the market wasn't going that way so they just resumed heavy research in the late 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I abhor the idiots who complain about newer cars having reduced fuel efficiencies compared to tin cans that had no safety features, no ride comforts and near zero emissions controls. Without spending all day: 1984 crx: efficient in it's day, gross polluter by modern standards tin can on wheels crap ride quality minimal comforts manual steering and brakes 46hp or something dumb 0-60 in 5 minutes Rolling deathtrap if you get hit by a modern suv nice looking in a quirky way, but not an attractive car to most people 2010 crz cleaner emissions even thought worse mpg much heavier modern safety - abs, airbags, crush zones, blah blah. comfortable - nice stereo, comfy interior, softer ride yet still sporty faster then an 84 crx stylish compared to the box on wheels don't forget that epa released mpg numbers are not calculated the same as they used to do. Vehicle mpg ratings now cannot be directly compared to ratings prior to 2007 (or was it 2006?) not saying it's the greatest thing honda ever built, but you have to compare apples to apples and stop being ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 ^ what he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeyVtec Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 I can not disagree with the above comments, But still Honda could have actually done much better. The article made some of the same points. Still very disappointing to a former crx (both gens), current del sol vtec owner who was looking forward to one of the next in a line of nice sporty, economy car with lots of potential that could help with a 100 mile a day commute. The article even compared the electric motor to a small turbo! Honda and the article dissapointed me. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 well if i get a job at honda i'll make it better lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyvanmc Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 This is the latest on the CR-Z, should be out by the end of the year!!! My link bobbyvanmc My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Actually, the first gen crx SI was/is faster than the CR-Z stock for stock. I'll have to find the article where the two were set up side by side and compared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I saw the video of the crx beating it.. but again.. they are completly different in safety regulations and drivetrain wtf happened to 'im leaving and not coming back' shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm sorry I missed your birthday too, sarah. Oh and thanks for the warm welcome, I'm glad to know you're so happy to receive me back here. Regardless, you'd think after 20+ years they'd figure out how to make a car that actually outperforms its predecessor and still keeps the same style of the original car. All of honda's other cars have evolved with the years and are loads better than when they had started. Why not the CR-Z? I bet even the honda fit can out perform the cr-z... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 your comparison is a fail. crx si vs cr-z is not stock for stock. if you want to make a fair comparison you need to select the standard level trim for comparisons, and not the modified sport model. crx dx/hf (or whatever) vs cr-z, how does that compute now that you are comparing apples to apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 How is an SI modified? It comes factory with that option, I picked the highest trim of each car to compare. It just so happens that the CR-Z only has one trim option. If you want to make a fair comparison, you shouldn't be comparing a car made in 1984-1987 to something made in 2010. Just sayin'. That's Honda's fail, not mine. I'll keep my $600 87 Si over the $24,000 cr-z EDIT: Oh, here it is. http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-z/2011/2011-honda-cr-z-vs-1987-honda-crx-si.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 ok, you want to be a tool out of the box, fine. Did you even read the original post? It compared an 80's crx to a cr-z, not me dumbass. and, original year the crx launched, what trim levels were available? that's right, NOT the si, it was the dx or hf. Get your facts right before wasting my time with useless posts. if you got 10 hours at work then you have more then enough time to research before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm well aware that the SI wasn't available until 86, but now you're comparing even older technology, a EW1 with a carburetor from 1984. Would you still really want to compare it? I don't think that's very fair, seeing as how now we are at a 27 year difference... 1984-2011. Still, the stock 1984 DX's ran about 10 seconds 0-60, where as the cr-z is looking at ~9 seconds. The crx DX ran a 17 second quarter mile... flat... some people dipped into high 16's. The CR-Z is looking at mid-high 16's. The bottom line is that the CRX was one of the BEST cars of its time. it set the bar for its class. It won awards on top of awards. The worst part is that the CRX DX would still beat a CR-Z on the track. The CR-Z just falls in line with all the other hybrids and sport compacts out there. As far as my posts being useless, I'm actually here stating solid facts. You're the one who lurks the forum just trying to discredit everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 both boys stop the crz has VERY different requirements.. and batteries are heavy as hell btw... yes they possibly could have done a little better but they were trying to make it quite affordable to the general public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 They should put a k20 in the cr-z... just sayin'. Porsche did something amazing with their hybrid. Honda's hybrid is expensive for what it is. The gas mileage isn't even that impressive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 both boys stop bite me! Arguing on the internet is my goal in life. It will take a lot more then a simple request from suger tits to absolve me of my dreams. I am stating facts: If someone wants to draw a direct comparison between the crz and crx they need to use the initial year product offering for direct comparison. the crx si was a later year upgraded model. Whether the car has a carb or FI is irrelevant since the crz is a hybrid. The locomotion method of all the versions are completely different. I am guessing (opinion, not fact) that if the crz has even a moderately positive sales rate that honda will deliver on an si type model after a couple years. the platform has a lot of potential and letting the first true mainstream hybrid 'sports' car moniker pass them by would be a hugely wasted opportunity. for the record, i never stated that I liked the crz over the crx, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of admonishing honda's product offering by using such an outdated product for reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 i DO like the crz over the crx and i was agreeing with you mister this is a pointless arguement lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I know, I'm just passing the time cause I have nothing better to do. I got nothing against Shane either. Too bad he didn't take the flame bait and run with it. A good flame war is great for post whoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 thats so true argueing provides enterntainment while at work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanebot90 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I know, I'm just passing the time cause I have nothing better to do. I got nothing against Shane either. Too bad he didn't take the flame bait and run with it. A good flame war is great for post whoring. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT THE frack UP FOR ONCE? GO ROLL OVER IN A FIRE AND DIE, frackER. I'M DONE WITH YOUR BULLcrap! syke I know you too well, xeryon. I know when not to feed the trolls. I still think that it's absurd to be able to compare this brand new top-of-the-line vehicle to that outdated technology, and still have the old POS come out on top in terms of performance. It shouldn't happen, Honda could do a lot better. Through research, I'm finding that the insight coupe is a better buy than the CR-Z in terms of fun, drivability, efficiency, and performance... That's just sad. D: still.... i <3 my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkyle96 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 I'm not sure whether you are aware of it or not, but the CR-Z actually has three separate mode settings. One for performance, one for economy and one in the middle. The EPA will only use the middle setting. I'm not saying that the CR-Z is anything less than a disappointment either. I too was disappointed when comparing the MPG and stats to a current Civic LX. I think they would have been better off dropping the weight of the batteries and electric drive to improve both efficiency and performance. To go faster in the straights go with a bigger engine, to go faster everywhere go with a lighter car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelSolSweetie Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 To go faster in the straights go with a bigger engine, to go faster everywhere go with a lighter car. thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard one problem with the insight.. its sooooo UGLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkyle96 Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard ...and yet you drive a Del Sol... a 2200 lb pocket rocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 What he said is true to an extent. The hybrid affords Honda huge headroom in the emissions catagory. The performance and mpg may be better with a crx but the crz would crush it in tailpipe emissions. I can't seem to find specific numbers on the crz emissions right now though. Don't forget safety features: safety cages, crush zones, abs systems and bags of air do add a lot more weight to the thing. Not that all that crap matters but the ntsb has been scaring the hell out of people for the last 20 years so that stuff has to be on there or companies don't sell cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.