Crz

File: 143743_5_coups_de_coeur_de_Gabriel_Gelinas_au_Salon_de_l_Auto_de_Tokyo_2013.jpg (96KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x640px

It being hybrid makes it awful.

The 660 on the other hand...

its based on the insight chassis and is loaded with useless hybrid tech when it could've just been a smaller fit with a shitbox engine.

>>17690915
Great car, safer and faster than original CRX while still looking good. Has some decent aftermarket and used prices have dropped significantly, what's not to like?

>>17690915
Have you actually driven one OP? I have, both the auto and the manual because I worked at a Honda dealer when these first came out, and the driving experience is mostly crap. The hybrid drivetrain is lazy and unresponsive, there's no real enthusiasm from it even if you try really hard to hoon it. The handling was "meh" at best. The road noise and ride quality is uncomfortable with no real benefit of being fun to drive. A slight breeze and passing vehicles were enough to blow it off course while driving. It is nothing like a CRX other than being tiny and getting good gas mileage. That is why no one talks about it.

>>17690951
>faster
It's slower. Power to weight is down from the CRX Si. All the thrill from driving a tin can that revs to 8500 is gone, I'd rather just get a Fiesta ST.

>>17690938
NEVER
EVER

>>17690961
Fiesta st is alot more expensive I think you underestimate how cheap used crz is nowadays. Are you sure it's slower? I know it's few hundred pounds heavier but that's to be expected

>>17690956
I think the concept of the crx as a car still carries over, it was meant to be the car of the future with massive mpg

File: Honda-S660-Concept-9[2].jpg (92KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x800px

>>17690965
>tfw Honda is too much of a pussy to compete with Mazda's Miata

JUST

>>17690967

Not him, but it's both 200Kg heavier AND has less power than the top engines from the CR-X (really, the combined peak power of both ice and electrical engines barely touches 125hp). It is slower.

>>17691098
>top engines from the CR-X
America didn't get those, amirite?

File: fd2-honda-civic-type-r-52.jpg (339KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 800x533px

>>17690915
>its just a modern remake of the crx
That was the intent. The execution of it fell flat though.
The CRX was based on the fun to drive Civic.
The CRZ is based on the boring penalty box that is the Honda Fit.
The CRX had a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde mentality. It was capable of over 50 MPG when you didn't push it, and screaming like a banshee when you put your foot down.
The CRZ on the other hand is neither of those things. It's fuel economy is identical to that of a normal Fit despite the hybrid system, and it isn't fun or exciting to drive.
The looks of the CRZ are spot on. But the execution failed because it failed to live up to the legend of the CRX,
It should've been based on the 8th gen Civic.
It should've been given a high revving 2.0L K20Z3 screamer from the Civic Si instead of the 1.5L hybrid BS we got.
It was too sporty to be a fuel efficient eco-hybrid.
It was also too heavy and economy-oriented to be any fun as a sports compact.

Was a CRX revival a good idea? Yes.
But they did it wrong. It should've been based on this

>>17691114

I actually took a look, and the best the US got was the 110hp D16. What the fuck happened over there? If there's any country I'd expect a shitload of B16 CR-X's to be sold, it'd be the US.

>>17691116
Although it wasn't "great" execution I'm glad they still made it, 2013 CRZ with under 40k miles can be had for under 12k. A fun manual commuter it would be

>>17691078
>tfw no new rwd hondas for borgerstan

>>17691145
It's only cheap because it's not especially good in any category therefore nobody wants it. If Honda had pulled it's collective head out of it's collective ass and made an actual CRX remake not only would it be more expensive on the used market but there'd still be new generations getting produced. Of course now the ship has sailed on hatchbacks (in the USA), majority of the market wants egg-shaped crossovers with CVT transmissions.

>>17690940
>loaded
Lol im pretty sure the whole hybrid system adds like 100lbs incluiding the battery. And it sits in between the block and the flywheel and its super thin like 2 inches. Why not.

>>17690915
if you think thats a modern crx then you have autism

File: af9ae8be-8f19-496f-a0dd-5420667050c6..jpg (2MB, 3180x2375px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3180x2375px

>>17690915
Yearly reminder that the Veloster is more CRX than the CRZ.

>>17692500
that ratty pos doesnt hold a candle to even a fiesta NON st lmfao. what makes you think it even competes with the mazda3, GTI, and focus st? only posers buy this car, it literally has ZERO redeemable values

>>17692512
For starters, the Veloster's interior isn't tupperware clad together with elmer's glue tier like the Ford PARTY.

File: OcBkL0n.jpg (399KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1920x1080px

>>17692500
Both are garbage. The Fiesta ST is the one true godmachine.

>>17692582
You're saying you bought a korean garbage can because of its interior, yet fail to admit that the mazda3 and gti are objectively better in every regard?

>>17692642
>dead in the us market

>>17692667
Mazda 3 is god-tier.

GTI is a German garbage can that can't complete a lap with an electrical failure.

>>17692682
*without

>>17692682
>>17692690
You've never owned a vw. Nice memes.

>>17692698
Don't have to own one to heed the advice of basically everyone. VW makes nice-looking and nice-performing vehicles.... until the factory warranty ends.

>>17692753
which are grossly exaggerated. you take care of your car and itll take car of you.

t. owned a vag car with over 130k miles and never got stranded

things just cost more to replace which scare people who shouldnt drive those cars anyways, those people are suited better for corollas

>>17692782
Not the guy you are arguing with but I can say from experience the vw memes are real. Ex had a Jetta that was so unreliable we used the trip meter to measure the distance between breakdowns.

>>17692803
some can be nightmares but generally they were shoddily taken care of, for sure. and almost all cars have some terrible cons, you pick and choose which fit you the best. i rather have a gti that has a better fit and finish and drive than a "safer" choice more "reliable" car thats plastic and boring af

File: Regal heard you talking shit.jpg (114KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x683px

>>17692816
>i rather have a gti that has a better fit and finish and drive than a "safer" choice more "reliable" car thats plastic and boring af

>>17692428
Look at the car and the name

>>17692803
Wrong.

Had a 2015 Jetta Sport, Tuned it at 10k miles for APR stage 1 93 octane. Ran to 20k miles ROCK SOLID.

Traded in for a 2017 GTI which has also been great.

VW memes may have been semi real during the 00's but right now they are making some quality cars. They really do have the turbo game refined now, very reliable cars.

File: Honda.png (240KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 500x465px

>>17691078

>>17690915

The CRX is better. It has soul and charisma. It is loveable. Even in the HF form with 62 measly HP, it is still better than any CRZ that ever existed. The CRX was based, the CRZ is a wooden shade of beige.

>>17694609
>The CRX is better. It has soul and charisma
because it was a literal tin can, CR-z is heavier and rightfully so in 2017 i see it as a cheap commuter than can be fun with the manual offered. Better MPG's than base civics nowadays and small little car to park easily around city. Overall 7/10 shitbox commuter for used price and manual, looks good too

>CR-Z owner and former CRX Si owner here.
>Interior is leaps and bounds ahead on the CRZ in terms of quality, the car is quieter and generally more pleasant to be in, though the CRX has boatloads more legroom.
>The CR-Z is absolutely slower than the CRX and too fucking slow for it's own good. Literally ANY incline grade on a highway will force you to downshift. The car is nearly undrivable unless you are in Sport mode, as the others are simply too sluggish to keep with traffic.
>For all the power the car trades away for it's hybrid setup, enjoy 28 city, and maybe 32 highway.
>Engine has stop/start, which means the A/C dies when the car is stationary. This feature cannot be disabled, no matter the mode.
>Door handles like to shear off an internal connecting rod, necessitating a replacement of the entire door handle assembly as Honda does not sell this part separately.

I like the car though and it's handling and styling are something that I genuinely love. But you'd be better served buying a Fit if you want a fun small car, and if you REALLY like the CR-Z, bite the bullet and start saving for the K series swap that Honda should have put on the options list in the first place like I'm going to do. This hybrid setup is dogshit.

>>17694685
you have earlier year with lower power and weaker battery?

I own a crz, I regret not buying a swift sport instead.

>>17694685
If you turn on the windscreen de-mister start stop get's disabled.