I wanna see what you guys think of my car. Had it for just over

It's slowbro

>>17573423
That's a nice car anon! I'll be buying an early CRZ for dirt cheap soon

File: 18881772_1305407782908951_8789769068557313757_n.jpg (7KB, 261x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x195px

>>17573479
Agreed, it's more suited to nice handling and excellent fuel economy but that's what just a couple of the things I love about it!
>>17573489
Thanks! If I were to make a recommendation though, try and get a 2013 model or above. They're a little more powerful and have subtle differences in styling which make them better looking that the earlier ones, at least IMO.

Aren't the front grills on those cars fake?

>>17573423
make no mistake, I like the IDEA of the CR-Z. The execution of it was trash though.

A retro Honda CR-X is a brilliant idea. But they ruined it.
The original CRX was based on the Civic. The CRZ was based on the Fit, complete with the shit suspension tuning. They SHOULD'VE based the CRZ on the 8th gen Civic.
The CRZ was a great Jekyll and Hyde car. A high revving screamer capable of great fuel economy. Rather than giving the CRZ a K20Z3 and concentrating on weight reduction of the Civic chassis, they stuck in a hybrid system with the low revving L15 engine of the Fit, adding a shitload of unnecessary weight onto the Fit chassis.
The looks of the CRZ though? spot on. It's beautiful.
The rest of it? trash. It isn't fun to drive. It's too slow. And and it gets shit fuel economy. They could've gotten the same fuel economy numbers without the hybrid BS.

>>17573693
>The CRZ was a great Jekyll and Hyde car.
*CR-X
goddamned Z and X keys right next to each other.

With the Honda supercharger it's probably a badass DD.

>>17573914
still slow. still no fun to drive. Too much weight to haul around

File: 18156036_1978519449049335_4147374728026663096_o.jpg (56KB, 885x1048px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 885x1048px

>>17573423
It is a very average car hun, too expensive and boring for what it is

I'm sorry. :(

>>17573585
The ones on the left and right are, but that's for pretty much every car now

>>17573693
Honestly this guy gets it.

I fucking love the styling on the crz but it doesn't follow what made the crx cool. A lightweight Civic with some kick and great handling. If they had left the hybrid out of the car, even with the shitty suspension the car would've been awesome and I would want that right now instead of some other shitty car.

The CR-Z had the nicest interior out of Honda's lineup, shame they had the wrong engine.

>>17573423
I like them but they're too expensive for what they are. If I had one I'd definitely swap out the motor. But the fact you actually got one is respectable, hope you like it.

OP probably comitted suicide by now because he realized he was memed into buying a shit car.

>>17574160
Is that a Jab Comix?

Quit bitching you dorks, it gets decent mpg's and is faster than original CRX while not being a fucking tin can. They are great deal as a fun reliable and economic commuter. OP did not fuck up, now he can save up for whatever other cat or project.

File: thumbsup.jpg (14KB, 240x160px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x160px

It's a great car at the price it is now, as long at it meets your practical needs.

>>17573693
>The original CRX was based on the Civic. The CRZ was based on the Fit, complete with the shit suspension tuning.

And I was considering buying one over the Civic Type-S because I love the CR-X so very much. I'm glad I didn't made that mistake...

Was going to get one of those but was too small on the inside for my needs, but man that interior was amazing. Definitely agree with the other anon here, one of Honda's best interiors, looked so sleek and stylish. Would love to test drive one to see how it drives. Enjoy it OP.