Thursday 19th October 2017

Honda CR-Z: Spotted

A bargain hybrid with a well balanced chassis and influence from an 80s coupe

---

Older readers might remember how in the 1980s we lusted after a new breed of smaller, more affordable, performance cars. Pocket-rockets like the VW Golf GTI and the Peugeot 205 GTi, with some more left-field thinkers directing their attentions towards the likes of the Renault 5 GT Turbo, the Vauxhall Astra GTE and the Fiat Strada Abarth - or even the Uno Turbo.

Then quietly, almost discreetly, Honda entered the fray. Not with a hot hatchback but with a two-plus-two coupe of pleasing looks and even more pleasing dimensions. Called the CR-X, this low-slung wedge was a tiny jewel of a thing, a nimble machine with a typically lively Honda engine up front and some intelligent engineering underneath. Performance was pretty decent, but even more impressive was how it responded to the throttle - it went like the clappers. In time it was replaced by a Mk2 version that was even nicer to drive and just as responsive. Then, alas, after a brief and rather unsuccessful fling as a targa in its Mk3 variant, it eventually passed away.

Its legacy lives on, however, in the CR-Z, a curious petrol-electric hybrid confection that Honda launched in 2010. This combined a 1.5-litre four-pot with an electric motor, which then drove the front wheels through a six-speed transmission. The silhouette may be bloated (which car's isn't these days?) but the influence of the first two CR-Xs is clear and, despite its eco-respectability, at least a little of the old spark remains.

Indeed, its performance might not set you on fire - 0 to 60mph in 9.9 secs and a top speed of 124mph - but the chassis was well balanced and it felt light on its toes through the bends, if ultimately a little understeery. In theory it was good for a claimed average fuel consumption of 56.5mpg, too.

In its day, 2010 to 2015, it was also a bit pricey, which may have been the final nail in the coffin for those who weren't quite sure what to make of it. Now, though, it begins to look like a bit of a bargain.

Consider for example this one we found in the PH classifieds. Admittedly, it's done 61,000 miles, but what the heck, it's a Honda, so it'll probably last many times that amount. It's also only £5,295, which for this semi-spicy, quasi-ecomentalist, Honda seems rather good - just don't tell any keen drivers it shared a platform with the Insight and the Jazz hybrid!

---

HONDA CR-Z
Engine: 1,497cc, four-cylinder and electric motor
Transmission: six-speed manual, front-wheel drive
Power (hp): 122@6,100rpm
Torque (lb ft): 128@1,000-1,500rpm
MPG: 56.5
CO2: 116g/km
First registered: 2011
Recorded mileage: 61,000miles
Yours for: £5,295

See the original advert here

Mark Pearson

[Mannginger]

Cheaper than 3/4 CR-Xs in the classifieds

[hondansx]

I see one everyday in white and think it looks pretty cool. Is clearly a bit of a hypermiler as is always on the inside lane doing no more than 60mph. Am i wrong for expecting the fuel consumption to be better than that?

[CedricN]

My colleague has one, actually a really fun car to throw around the bends. The torque fill makes it nippy even though it has a small engine, real world mileage seems to very impressive aswell, and its a sweet shifting manual hybrid!

Downsides is of course practicality, and road noise aswell, at least on our Swedish roads. Residuals for the first owner must have been tough

[Wuzzle]

Looked fast, wasn't fast. Not sure why anyone would buy a 2 seater with such lame performance.

[Dave Hedgehog]

amazing, somebody actually bought one !

[Mafffew]

Wuzzle said:

Looked fast, wasn't fast. Not sure why anyone would buy a 2 seater with such lame performance.

You don't have to be going fast to have fun. Also a 2 seater does not necessarily mean it is a fast car.

[Butter Face]

Mugen did a supercharger kit for them......

[Luke.]

Mafffew said:

Wuzzle said:

Looked fast, wasn't fast. Not sure why anyone would buy a 2 seater with such lame performance.

You don't have to be going fast to have fun. Also a 2 seater does not necessarily mean it is a fast car.

And it's a four seater. Though I admit they're small.

[monkeymark]

A really disappointing car. But it had great potential. If only they removed all the hybrid gubbins which weighed it down, and put in a 1.8 litre (or even a 1.5 litre) v-tec type engine it would have been one of the greatest little hot hatches around. I test drove it twice back in 2009/10 and felt the same both times. A great chassis but felt too heavy. And the economy was laughable in the real world. I remember before we went on to buy a FN2 Civic Type R, the CR-Z was about £25k with (garish bodywork) options and the much larger and faster CTR was about £19k before a hefty discount. It was what I call a "dead in the water" car model which proved to be correct. Marketed as a 2+2 but was really a 2+ extra luggage space and too much road noise. Nice cabin/driving position though.
It's scarcity will make it a bit of a classic and it will have Honda reliability at the end of the day (road cars and not Formula 1reliability I mean!)

[saaby93]

Wasnt it something that never lived up the promise following the original Honda insight
The CRZ was supposed to be as quick as a quick thing while being as economical as something very economical
It found the compromise that achieved neither

[cybersimon]

The most glorious thing about a petrol hybrid is the silent move away from the lights and only when moving discretely bringing in the petrol power, none of the stop/start pause and clatter (looking at you 320 efficient dynamics) at every light and junction.

. . . and this Honda has missed it.

[Alanok]

Does the battery need to be replaced at certain intervals? Or is it a fit and forget item?

[Turbobanana]

Wuzzle said:

Looked fast, wasn't fast. Not sure why anyone would buy a 2 seater with such lame performance.

Never seemed to harm Smart sales.

[Loyly]

A decent little car but a relatively poor seller. I can still remember seeing a white demonstrator back in 2009 or 2010 and being taken aback by how futuristic it looked.

[SteveCat7]

Ran one for 3 years / 60,000 miles from new at release (Nav Sport model in white). Pleasant enough; not fast, but nice on a B-road. Fuel economy nowhere near what is quoted, and you would not want to spend any time in the back, despite the rear seats. Never missed a beat though, unlike a few more expensive company motors I've had before and since. Company car tax was low, which was the appeal, and it was a bit different to the normal run of the mill options. A shame they killed it rather than developing, but I guess low sales levels from launch made this inevitable.

[Quhet]

Despite being a a poor seller, I seem to see quite a few of these around. Always thought that they looked smart.
Is there much scope for upgrading? There is one with Mugen badges on that I see occasionally around Bristol - I'm assuming they're just for show?

[mp3manager]

Another prime example of the clueless Honda UK management not selling the cars that the UK public want to buy.

[culpz]

It's funny how this car didn't really seem to take off, yet it's the exact type of vehicle that is being pushed at us today. These hybrids appear the be the stop-gap that manufacturers are taking until further development of the EV improves.

Anyway, not to get too wrapped up in all that, i do like the looks of these. I'm aware that performance isn't everything but i wish it was pushed and developed more as a proper hot-hatch though. Although, i can imagine the electric motor(s) makes it feel a bit quicker than it actually is.

I'm not sure i could actually buy one, either. That goes for any hybrid. I assume that, when the technology does throw up a fault, it will no doubt be expensive. There's also a plethora of simple but decent warm/hot hatches that i'd take over one of these, any day, for much less.

Edited by culpz on Thursday 19th October 13:37

[tozerman]

I used to sell these new, and to be honest the CRZ was a commercial flop for Honda, too expensive, too small, and too slow, people didn't take to it..

However they were always great to drive.
I have one that I use as my daily driver, it is nippy (ish), refined (ish) great fun to drive, and very economical, .

I don't have young kids anymore so 98% of the time it is just me in it.

You can't argue with 56mpg and £20 a year road tax, without buying a bloody diesel.

Cheers.....Tony..

[sjg]

Luke. said:

Mafffew said:

Wuzzle said:

Looked fast, wasn't fast. Not sure why anyone would buy a 2 seater with such lame performance.

You don't have to be going fast to have fun. Also a 2 seater does not necessarily mean it is a fast car.

And it's a four seater. Though I admit they're small.

To be fair, they were barely usable and the US market didn't even bother with them. You got two vaguely seat-shaped storage trays instead:



I rather wanted one of these at the time, pre-kids - had they done it as an auto (because if you spend enough time in traffic to want a hybrid, you want an auto) I might have bought one.