In 2010, Honda excited enthusiasts with a car that looked like nothing else and had promising marketing. The Honda CR-Z was touted as the driver’s hybrid with sporty driving dynamics, a design nodding to the iconic Honda CRX, and stellar fuel economy. There was only one problem as the production car wasn’t that sporty, that economical, or all that practical. Somehow, it gets worse from there.
The late 2000s and the early 2010s were a different, almost unrecognizable time in the automotive industry. EVs weren’t quite yet all of the rage, but journalists and the public alike had their eyes on how the Tesla Roadster helped make electric cars sexy and the Tesla Model S added practicality to hot design. At the same time, electrification was a big deal from hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight to wonders like the Chevrolet Volt. Shorter-range EVs also became a thing including the Smart Fortwo Electric Drive, the Nissan Leaf, and the Th!nk City.
This was an era of alternative fuel exploration. Electric vehicles didn’t get to have all of the fun as automakers also tried their hands at furthering the popularity of diesel-powered passenger cars. Then there were the weirdos like the Honda Civic GX which ran on compressed natural gas and the hydrogen fuel cell Toyota Mirai. Even motorcycles got in on the bandwagon as Harley-Davidson launched the development program that would lead to the LiveWire, Zero Motorcycles was a rising star, and Brammo was still a thing.
Honda noticed a problem in the electrification landscape and it was that nobody was combining hybrid power with a sporty driving experience. The Honda CR-Z was supposed to change that.
Compact Renaissance Zero
Car news sites were abuzz in 2007 with news of a new Honda concept.
In October of that year, Honda released images for a concept car it called the Compact Renaissance Zero. Later that month, the concept car made its debut at the 2007 Tokyo Motor Show. At the show, Honda explained what Compact Renaissance Zero means and sadly, it’s a little bit of marketing jargon:
‘CR-Z’ stands for ‘Compact Renaissance Zero’—an expression intended to capture the idea of a renaissance in the design of compact cars that begins anew from fundamentals.
This design research model of a lightweight hybrid sports car features advanced technologies that deliver enjoyable driving for all while reducing the vehicle’s environmental footprint.
The CR-Z concept was a stunner. It had a face that made it look like a relative of the Mazda RX-8, but the rest of its hatch body and that name “CR-Z” pointed enthusiasts in the direction of an ’80s and ’90s icon, the Honda CRX. Before we continue, I will note that Honda stylizes the classic hatch as the “CRX” in some markets without a hyphen. It was marketed without a hyphen in America, so that’s how I’m going to write it here.
As Car Magazine UK wrote in 2007, the CR-Z built on the Honda Remix concept from 2006 and the production version of the CR-Z has its own design story. As Autoblog wrote in 2009, Motoaki Minowa created the proposal model and production concept while Makoto Iwaki was responsible for the production of the 2007 show car. The design team included Chief Designer Takashi Nagura, Exterior Designer Yosuke Tokoro, and interior designers Takashi Ozaki and Mr. Takahito Tsuchiya.
Nagura indicated that the CR-Z wasn’t a hybrid early on in its development, but when the hybrid part was added, one of the design concepts of the CR-Z was a “Hybrid Café Racer” for Everyday Enjoyment. In this case, Café Racer is making a nod to the enthusiasts who gathered at cafés in London with their fast rides. Basically, the CR-Z is supposed to be a sporty car that you can enjoy and talk about with your friends over some tea. At the same time, Nagura pointed out that London was concerned about inner-city pollution, so the design team wanted to make a sporty car that you could enjoy guilt-free by making it a hybrid.
So, the design brief of this car was something sporty, but clean. Honda also uploaded a video detailing the design team’s mission. According to the video, Chief Engineer of Chassis Dynamics Terukazu Torikai said “the basic concept of this car is ‘fun-to-drive’.” But more than that, they wanted to take the agile handling of a Mini and combine it with easy-to-drive daily performance.
Torikai mentions Honda engineers went out and bought a bunch of different cars to drive and benchmark. These included a Mini, a Volkswagen Scirocco, and a Lotus Elise. The Elise would become the engineering team’s inspiration throughout the whole development period of the CR-Z. I mean, who doesn’t want a car that handles like one of the best modern Lotus cars?
Torikai continues that since handling was a big deal, the engineering team focused on precise tuning of the CR-Z’s electric power steering. They also engineered the CR-Z to have the body rigidity of a Civic Type R. Yet, remember that they weren’t trying to build a hardcore track day car, so they based the CR-Z on the base structure of the Insight so that the CR-Z delivered predictable control.
Once the engineers had prototypes together, they were taken to Europe and evaluated on roads out there to see if the resulting vehicle would meet the engineers’ expectations of a sporty everyday driver.
Next, Project Leader Norio Tomobe chimed in to talk about the market research Honda conducted. The brand found out that prospective customers wanted a vehicle with values that they would be proud to talk about with other people. The engineering team believed those values would come from the vehicle’s sporty performance and Honda’s hybrid system.
Combine all of this work into one vehicle and in 2010, the world got to see the Honda CR-Z enter production.
A Fun Car With A Big Promise
Honda began publishing press releases to its American sites in June 2010. Those press releases made some big promises that automotive journalists were about to put to the test.
Honda never shied away from comparing the 2011 CR-Z to the old CRX. The press release says this:
Honda designers envisioned the CR-Z as a highly personal coupe that symbolizes a new era of style that is sporty yet environmental at the same time. The one-motion wedge form, compact dimensions, light-weight construction and aerodynamic design help to improve performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The progressively raked roofline and sharply truncated tail of the CR-Z is a feature shared with many Hondas past and present, including the CRX, first-generation Insight and the FCX Clarity. All of these cars have been designed to cut through the air with minimal disturbance, reducing aerodynamic drag to increase efficiency.
The exterior design of CR-Z deliberately evokes the iconic style of the 1980s and 1990s Honda CRX, which was originally developed to provide a small, stylish car that could achieve excellent fuel economy. Signature features of the CRX, like the split-level rear glass hatch of the second generation model and the low, shallow raked roofline have been referenced in the design of the sleek coupe and then combined with a curvaceous and deeply sculpted exterior form.
The press release then gets pretty bold from there, even comparing spec sheets of the 2011 Honda CR-Z against the 2010 Honda Insight, the 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid, the 1991 Honda CRX Si, and the 1985 Honda CRX Si.
This seems like it could have been a mistake because cracks showed in the CR-Z right there in the press release. For example, the Honda CR-Z was shown to be the most powerful of the bunch, but it also weighed a hefty 2,637 pounds. That was weird when you think about it because the Honda Insight it was based on wasn’t even a full hundred pounds heavier despite having two more doors, two more seats, and a foot more in length. It also didn’t compare favorably to the CRX that Honda was so happy to reference, which weighed nearly a thousand pounds lighter at its lightest. Even worse was the fact that the CRX had a better power-to-weight ratio. But at least Honda was honest about all of this upfront.
At the same time, Car and Driver indicated that journalists got to drive the CRX before getting into the CR-Z, so Honda really wanted you to know that the CR-Z was basically the second coming of the CRX.
On paper, the CR-Z sounds pretty awesome. Honda says the CR-Z was the sixth unique application of its Integrated Motor Assist technology since its debut in the original Insight back in 1999. In this case, the CR-Z has a powertrain consisting of a 1.5-liter four-cylinder i-VTEC engine that makes 113 HP and 107 lb-ft of torque on its own. Mounted between the engine and the transmission (and functioning as the “Integrated” part of IMA) is a DC brushless motor good for 13 HP and 58 lb-ft of torque. The engine hits peak torque at 4,800 RPM while the electric motor hits peak torque at 1,000 RPM. Combine it together and Honda says peak system power is 122 HP and 128 lb-ft of torque.
Honda really wanted buyers to get their CR-Zs with a six-speed manual transmission for the best performance. Honda says CR-Zs with manuals have five gears for fun and a sixth gear for fuel economy. The CR-Z is fairly high-tech outside of the IMA system including the aforementioned i-VTEC Valvetrain, drive-by-wire throttle, dual-probe spark plugs, and a subframe torque rod damper system to reduce vibration, noise, and harshness.
Honda drummed up interest during the vehicle’s 2010 launch by talking about how it was sporty, environmentally friendly, and the first-ever hybrid with a six-speed manual transmission:
“The CR-Z is a personal sport hybrid coupe for people with a spirit of adventure and an elevated sense of responsibility toward the environment,” said John Mendel, executive vice president of sales for American Honda. “It’s the first hybrid designed to maximize style and fun, in addition to efficiency and economy.”
Honda also talked about how its engineers achieved the difficult mission of melding hybrid technology with a vehicle that was still fun to drive. How did all of this translate to reviews?
Here’s a snippet of what Car and Driver said:
Where the impish CRX used lightness and a stripped-down approach to deliver entertainment and efficiency, the CR-Z looks to a gasoline-electric hybrid powertrain. The difference between the two paths is stark, or so goes conventional wisdom. With less weight and simplicity come fun and momentum-style hoonage, and with a hybrid powertrain comes, well, soul-crushing dullness. Somewhat shockingly, however, this hybrid is entertaining, even as it tries to marry the disparate concepts of sport and efficiency.
The chassis plays a big part in making the hybrid experience transparent. The brakes are a touch grabby, but they have only the slightest hint of hybrid-style sponginess, and the transition from regenerative to conventional braking is essentially seamless. The linearity of the brakes is good, too. The electrically boosted steering has more feel than we expected, and turn-in is eager in normal mode and quick in sport. Where the CR-Z impresses most is in ride quality. Generally, when something has the wheelbase of a Matchbox car, you can expect to be revectored as you hit midcorner bumps, plus a jarring, crashing ride—the sportiest Minis being prime examples. The CR-Z exhibits very little of such behaviors, though, with part of the credit going to the standard 16-inch wheels and relatively tall sidewalls of the 195/55 Dunlop SP Sport 7000 rubber. That’s not to say the CR-Z is firmly planted all the time. Pitch this Honda hard into a corner with stability control disabled and lift off the throttle, and the back will swing around (and quite quickly due to the short wheelbase), so you need to be ready to dial in some opposite lock. Blame the weight of the batteries, which live between the rear wheels.
The Truth About Cars noted that the CR-Z is pretty peppy at first, but the performance began running out quickly:
The problem lies outside the first two short gears, where the CR-Z runs out of breath. There’s simply not enough midrange grunt to label this car a performance coupe, and under determined driving the battery runs out, rendering the CR-Z a little more than an overweight Fit (pun unintended. Honestly).
And it’s a real shame. No, the CR-Z handles nothing like the CR-X, and it shouldn’t – the CR-X was a different car for a different generation, and expecting the 2010 car to have the 1990 driving dynamics is like expecting to get satnav in a Hyundai Excel. But the truth is that when you get it up to speed, the CR-Z can bring a naughty smile on your face.
While the steering lacks feel, it’s fairly accurate and well-weighted, and due to the low ride height and relatively short suspension travel, body roll is also relatively modest. The CR-Z responds well to steering inputs, and feels agile and capable in the corners. Gather enough speed and leave the throttle, and you’ll even manage to induce some old school back slips. Unfortunately, CR-Z doesn’t manage to shake off the braking syndromes associated with hybrids.
Car Magazine UK had a CR-Z as a long-term loaner and the publication adored the looks and the hybrid technology, but was let down by the “sporty” part of the car:
The CR-Z was far from perfect, but oddly – or encouragingly enough – it wasn’t the hybrid technology that let the side down, but rather straightforward dynamics. The Honda’s ride quality was terrible. Brittle, stiff and ludicrously lacking in compliancy, it made tackling our roads something to be done through gritted teeth. I don’t quite understand why Honda has got this so wrong over the last decade – every Honda I’ve driven in recent memory has been marked out by a stiff-jointed and unforgiving ride. The other major shortcoming was the mute and artificial-feeling steering. Sure, it was quick and unerringly accurate, and you could peel the coupe into corners with real precision, but my nephew’s plastic Playstation steering wheel has better feel and feedback. Maybe Honda’s engineers need to have a long drive in the 1995 Integra Type R – one of the finest front wheel-drive cars (along with the Peugeot 306 Rallye and Ford Racing Puma) I have ever driven – to remind themselves that they’ve done it once, so they can and should do it again.
Most reviews followed a similar theme. Journalists found the CR-Z fun, but heavy and not the most sporty thing out there. Alright, so the car wasn’t quite the Lotus Elise or Mini that it was benchmarked with, but what about that hybrid part? Honda was once the king of hybrids. The original Insight scored an incredible 70 mpg in EPA testing before the EPA revised its metrics and downgraded the Insight to a still awesome 60 mpg.
Headwinds
Well, it wasn’t great. The official numbers were 35 mpg city, 39 mpg highway, and 37 mpg combined, but that’s if you defeated the purpose of the car and bought it with the CVT. Those with the six-speed manual faced 31 mpg city, 37 highway, and 34 combined.
The problem is that these numbers weren’t that great for an economy car, let alone a hybrid. This car was on sale at the same time as the Smart Fortwo, which was officially rated for 33 mpg city, 41 mpg highway, and 36 mpg combined without any hybrid trickery. The CR-Z wasn’t much better on paper than Honda’s own cars. The Honda Fit got 28 mpg city, 35 mpg highway, and 31 mpg combined, but did so with two more seats for $15,870, compared to the $19,950 base price of the CR-Z.
In other words, CR-Z buyers paid more money for fewer seats and not a whole lot more performance or fuel economy. Speaking of those seats, those journalists never keyed readers in on the CR-Z’s dirty secret. The owner’s manual of U.S. market CR-Zs says that the vehicle’s maximum load limit is just 400 pounds. The average American male weighs around 200 pounds. So, two guys would be putting the car technically overweight after lunch at Subway. Or they would put the car overweight if they used the deleted rear seats for luggage.
Now, I’m someone who tows trailers with Smart Fortwos, so I’m not trying to cast any stones here. But an official weight limit of just 400 pounds is unfortunate.
The CR-Z continued to disappoint the press after its launch. In 2010, Paul Niedermeyer published probably the harshest opinion yet when he said “Why The Honda CR-Z Is So Ugly And Should Never Have Been Built” in the Truth About Cars:
Ok, it’s not exactly a new phenomena: car company shows a low and slick concept, and the final product looks like an obese baby seal. We took GM to task with its Volt bait-and-switch routine. And now we take on Honda, although probably not quite so ferociously; given that the gap between the CR-Z concept and production version is a tad bit narrower than the Volt Grand (Lie) Canyon. But the Volt was always intended to be a four-seater; not the CR-Z. Therein lies the Honda lie: it’s ok to just chop off the back of a sedan and call it…not good.
Reading the various reviews out there, it seemed as if the Honda CR-Z wasn’t a bad car, just that it didn’t live up to Honda’s hype of a thrifty sporty experience. The CR-Z was neither super sporty nor super economical. I’ve gotten to drive one of these for a short time and liked it, but just thought of it as a weird economy car.
Perhaps others felt the same. Honda moved 5,249 CR-Zs in the opening sales year of 2010. Things were decent in 2011 with 11,330 examples finding new homes, then sales fell off of a cliff and never came back. Between 2010 and 2020, Honda sold just 35,040 CR-Zs in America. To put that into perspective, that’s roughly a third of the cars Smart USA sold in America in roughly the same amount of time and the Fortwo wasn’t considered a sales success.
Honda officially killed off the CR-Z in 2016, but there were enough leftover units to keep registering some sales until 2020. Just one person somehow managed to find a brand-new Honda CR-Z for sale in 2020.
If you’re interested in getting one of these sweet oddballs, you won’t have a problem finding one for sale. These cars also haven’t held on to a ton of value, so it should be easy to locate one for under $10,000.
As a reminder, calling the CR-Z an Unholy Fail isn’t necessarily saying that the CR-Z is a bad car. I know that the CR-Z has a lot of fans and for good reason! It’s a cool little ride. However, it was a failure from the standpoint of Honda setting expectations so high that the car just couldn’t reach them. It’s a shame, too. If the CR-Z had just a little more power, a little better fuel economy, or maybe a lower price, it might have found more buyers.
I really liked the size, shape, and looks of the CR-Z, so my test-drive pal and I went to the Honda dealer in Van Nuys to test drive it when it first came out. We were delighted that they even had one with a manual!
Unfortunately, the car’s performance and dynamics didn’t come close to living up to its looks. It wasn’t bad to drive (and I wasn’t expecting it to be fast) but it wasn’t really the least bit entertaining either. It reminded me a bit of a better-feeling first-gen Honda Insight, which we also test drove with a stick back in the day. Which is to say: perfectly adequate as transportation, but not the least bit emotional or enjoyable.
I was a lot younger then, so maybe if I drove a well-preserved one now, I’d be less disappointed with the CR-V. Again: I really liked the way it looked (and I still do: it’s clean and simple and visually appealing IMO) and if it had been as entertaining to drive as say, a Golf GT, or even a sporty Elantra, I think it’d have sold much better than it did.
For my money would’ve much rather seen a Fit Si variant or even a performance hybrid version of the Fit, always seemed like a big miss to me. I can’t help but wonder if the CR-Z would’ve done better as a 4 door, the declining popularity of 2 doors was an established trend at this point.
I think the major thing Honda missed was that the CR-X hit a right time, right place zeitgeist that I really don’t think was there for the CR-Z. And in spite of a small cadre of nerdy enthusiasts who were excited about the CR-X, I don’t think the broader population had the same nostalgia as the Mini (which we never got in the states and thus also created curiosity) or the Beetle-and then add odd and somewhat frumpy styling into the mix and it never shocked me that these sold poorly.
Ironically, it seems like they’ve tee’ed themselves up for a similar situation with the new Prelude which is neither fish nor fowl and will likely end up pleasing no-one because of it.
At least they seem to make pretty good K-swap candidates from what I’ve seen, though why honda didn’t just do it themselves is a mystery
I was shopping for a car in 2015. Loved the look and the vibe of this thing, but the specs were horrendous. A Civic had almost the same mpg without being a hybrid and was a million times more practical, so that’s what I went with
I test drove one of these back in 2011 when I was shopping for a new car. Then I drove a Volvo C30 and didn’t give the CR-Z another thought.
I would say the Smart Car and this are good examples of overpriced small 2 seaters that were not that efficient considering size and not that sporty. they were a niche that filled quickly and then faded.
The problems with the CRZ were:
A new true successor to the CRX of the 1980s is what Honda enthusiasts wanted. What Honda delivered was weaksauce compared to expectations and compared to other fun cars Honda has made.
As a former CRX Si owner, I approve this message
So Honda went directly from the CRX to the CRZ and skipped the CRY?
They went backwards and did the CRV instead.
FYI the “max weight” of 400 lb is nothing new to anyone that’s owned a performance Honda. All S2000’s had the same “restrictions”. Which, as a 200 lb male, I found rather annoying.
That prototype was gorgeous and would still sell like hotcakes today, at least I hope it would.
These were overly maligned little cars for sure, much better than they are given credit for. Problem was many fold though from a market perspective. First off, small coupes were already practically dead when it launched as the ever widening wage gap drove people towards more and more practical imaged vehicles. Second, as many have noted, Honda alone already several vehicles in its own line up that did everything the CRZ did but better, even if none of them quite nailed it’s particular blend of features the same way it did. I think for it to have been successful you would have needed more variants, like the CRX itself had, an HF with the insight engine and 50mpg, the regular one, and an SI with the HFP supercharger and other tweaks but from the factory to make the price palatable. But even if they invested all that into it the Civic alone had all those variants already and did everything as well or better with more space, so likely never had much of a chance. I’m really glad they built it though, I find them delightful little cars.
My problem is that it doesn’t do anything brilliantly. It’s just okay. It looks okay, handles okay, gets okay fuel economy. That’s fine for a crossover, but not for a CRX successor. The only redeeming thing for me is the stick shift. But that’s not enough to overcome everything else.
It always makes me a little sad to think about these. It’s such an exciting looking little car, with a very exciting concept. And then you see the execution and it all ends in tears.
When this was released I was hoping it was a good replacement for the first Honda Insight since in paper they were pretty similar (Manual, hybrid, 2 seats) but the result was like when I moved to the US and gained weight, the same thing happened to this lol.
I’ve always thought the car had unique looks. However, that power to weight ratio isn’t great at all. Even 200 WHP on a 2600 lb car would’ve made for some spirited driving. a K20 would’ve done wonders for it.
I’m curious how this K24-swapped CR-Z handles. Take the battery weight out of the back and you don’t have as much pendulum oversteer. OTOH, why not just do a K24-swapped Fit?
I’ve heard of people K24 swapping the CRZ. I think even the new Si engines (the 1.5 turbo) would be decent. Without the hybrid backbone, I bet it would be a zippy little car.
Shame that the unique looking concept was so terribly restyled into the production model.
I’ve heard the supercharged ones are absolutely a hoot but it seems like they’re super rare. They weren’t factory were they?
I heard somewhere that Honda had a plan to put a K20 in it, but weren’t able to after all, something about the block being too big for crash safety (the crumple zone wouldn’t crumple as much because there was less air up front). Don’t know about the validity of the claim, but the K20/K24 fit very neatly in the engine bay with very little modification.
Well if it’s true that the K20 was too big and caused crash safety issues, they could have gone with a variant if the R-series (good for up to 155HP) or do a hopped up DOHC 1.5L L series which would have been good for at least 130hp.
HPD/Mugen(depending on country) created a performance kit that had a supercharger/LSD/aero kit/cooling but the problem was the kit cost somewhere from 10-15k, and it had to be installed by the dealer. Matt Farah had one on track and it was pretty decent, but 20k for the car+10k for the kit took you into Focus/Fiesta ST territory with more usability.
https://youtu.be/UgBqAPtHou4
The efficiency being honestly bad. bad. compared to all the other hybrid sedans coming into the market (even midsized) was completely a non-starter for me, and I really would have loved to be able to justify it.
The 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid was rated (at the time) for 47/47 mpg, and that is a whole different league of heft and spaciousness. I honestly don’t understand how the CR-Z is that bad at fuel economy for what it is.
Especially for the power output! But maybe that was the reason, everything was just overstressed?
Must have been.
To be fair Ford got whacked by a class action lawsuit for that estimation being overly generous. But the 2014 Fusion Hybrid I had did quite comfortably manage 40 mpg for a pretty biggish mid-size sedan.
IIRC the lawsuit was that the cmax used the same numbers as the fusion hybrid, they presented to the EPA that the drivetrain was the same and the overall were similar enough (which apparently is allowed under the EPA rules not every car needs its own test) and then it was found that the cmax never lived up to the fusion (pretty obvious from aero when you look at the two). I also believe there was another issue that affected Ford fuel economy numbers but that was IIRC more across the board and not related to the hybrid system specifically. I had a fusion energi and with that extra battery weight and extra size could out drive the CRZ EPA numbers. I also had a 1st gen insight which was probably way more fun to drive than the CRZ due to light weight. Always wondered what real tires would have done for that car but I wanted the real world 85-100 MPG I could get out of it.
Yeah, I mean they revised it down to 44 combined eventually. Still better than the CR-Z, which is a big problem
This is how they should have sold it:
LX: Honda Fit Drivetrain. Add back the rear seats. Sell for Honda Fit Money (Undercut the Civic Coupe)
HX: Hybrid, but make it with a purpose. Give it super light wheels, remove rear seat, give it some useful aero, slightly bigger battery.
SI: K20 swap it, manual only, Civic SI Seats.
They missed the mark when they sold them, but they are currently owned by enthusiasts. I’ve read that a supercharged CRZ on coilovers is hilarious to drive, and the K Swap completely fixes this car.
Fun fact: Rumor said Honda did built a prototypes CRZ Si with the K20 from the Civic Si at the time. Apparently they couldn’t get the car through crash test due to the engine packages in the tiny engine bay so it never see daylights.
This is the correct answer. Honda should have offered separate hybrid and sporty models, rather than bundle into a compromise.
I test drove these when they were released, both manual and CVT, and I thought they were fine. Objectively speaking, they were fun to drive and had character, which was more than could be said for many other cars.
Just ignore the comparison with the CR-X (because it is a different car for a different time) and I’ll bet most enthusiasts will like the CR-Z too.
This pretty much sums it up: “The CR-Z was neither super sporty nor super economical”. The Honda Fit, Civic, and Insight were better at what the CR-Z was supposed to be (either fun or economical).
Also the backseat issue was a problem. I don’t have people (or canines) in my backseat very often, but if my vehicle has no backseat, it better say “Porsche” or “Corvette” on it and be ready to reward me with a fun weekend of cruising.
Looks were never the problem for me. I liked the way it looked. If it has a backseat and gave me 45 mpg on a commute, I would have likely bought one. Or if it gave me 40 but drove like a CRX Si of old.
Former CRZ owner here. Problem is the car is not really engineered for North America roads condition where the average speed is much higher than Asia or Europe condition. The car work brilliantly and get great fuel economy if i was driving in core downtown Toronto traffic. However, driving in Suburb and highway it was wayyyyy underpowered so I am constantly mashing the throttle just to keep myself with the traffic flow. Keep in mind even with hybrid assist the car barelt make the same power as a Honda Fit, but in suburb or highway conditions where you are not regenerating the battery enough (CRZ has a very small battery pack that drain very quick if you are not constantly doing the regeneration, aka traffic jams and traffic lights). When the battery pack is drained car is WAY DOWN on power and can barely do highway speed. The problem is the engine was engineered to be as efficient as possible so it has a very small powerband and revving up the engine doesn’t mean quicker acceleration.
Later in the ownership I upgraded the 2nd gen Honda Fit intake manifold and camshaft, which is a significant improved in term of usable power and the car drive way better in suburb and highway conditions. But still slow, so if you want fun Honda that is very economical, just buy a Honda Fit, you get similar fuel economy but was more practical and yet you get same driving experience, since both cars are pretty much built on the same platform.
Meh, Honda always understates their weight limits. My 2011 CR-V says it has a weight limit of around 800lbs, yet it has tolerated 1500+lbs when I hauled concrete pavers and bags of mulch.
The people drawn to this form factor and design expected lightness and performance, and instead received the opposite. I appreciate the attempt but like basically everyone here agrees, this should have been lighter and ditched the hybrid equipment for a better power to weight ratio. Sadly, I think this concept with the hybrid would be achievable today, but no car company would ever green light something as quirky as a non-sports car micro coupe today.
I miss the 00’s, where manufacturers seemed hellbent on creating their own segments.
Honestly it wasn’t even competitive in its own era though. 2 years later a full slate of hybrid midsized cars (2012 Camry, 2013 FFH, 2013… Accord Hybrid) would get (rated at the time) 50 MPG-ish with much much peppier real world driving. In 2018 I was cross-shopping the used market for a vehicle just like this, and even amongst hybrids, the CR-Z dudded out.
I’ve had 3 CRXs and I really wanted to like the CRZ, but it’s slow, heavy and uses too much fuel.
However, if you don’t compare it to a CRX it’s small and fun looking, and so Mrs Muppet cross-shopped them when she was looking to replace her 2007 Civic Sport. We’re in the UK, so we had the rear seats, which are as usable as the rear seats in any 2+2, by which I mean amputees only. This put her off. In the end she got a Suzuki Swift Sport which was lighter, faster, more economical and can seat four actual adults. It also weighs the same as a MR2 Spyder and is more fun on twisty roads (we had both cars at the same time). Suzuki Swift Sports are amazing.
I’d still consider a CRZ if I needed a commuter car, but I’d probably get a Renault Sport Clio or Swift Sport because in the UK a lot of small fun and relatively frugal cars can be had for 3k.