Buzz Kill for 2011 Honda CR-Z Sport Hybrid from Tokyo to Detroit
By Michelle Krebs January 19, 2010When the Honda CR-Z Concept was presented at the 2009 Tokyo Auto Show last October, 
the reception among enthusiasts on Edmunds' Inside Line was upbeat and hopeful, with readers offering comments like "Woot!" and "Should get CRAZY high gas mileage!" and "This is the perfect car for me."
If there was a concern, it was only waiting for the production version to arrive.
Well, this week, it's here. Honda unveiled its showroom-ready 2011 CR-Z Sport Hybrid at the 2010 North American Auto Show in Detroit. Good news, right? Judging from the latest round of reader comments, maybe not.
Early reactions include, "Color me disappointed" and "They completely butchered the concept " and even "This makes my soul hurt."
So what happened in just three short months?
"The concept looked great," says one Edmunds.com reader, "but... the lines of the (production) vehicle don't flow anymore."
In particular, the design's long front nose draws a series of barbs, including "Holy front overhang Batman!" and "That's one horrid rhinoplasty" and "Literally the ugliest profile shot of a car that I have ever seen."
While the interior fares better, with some praising it as "sporty" and "high tech," others call it "cheap looking" and lacking "any elegance or upscale appeal," and more than one wonders, "Are they not paying attention to the (Ford) Fiesta, (Ford) Focus and (Chevrolet) Cruze?"
Performance-wise, the CR-Z "manages to achieve neither good power nor decent MPG," according to one reader. Another worries that "it's heavier than the Insight which needs 11 seconds to hit 60," prompting a Volkswagen TDI owner to gloat, "My TDI smokes that and still gets 36 mpg AND has a backseat." Others ask "What's the point?" when "even the new (Ford) Focus is anticipated to get 40 MPG highway, and this thing can't hit it even with its hybrid powertrain?"
Perhaps the CR-Z name, with its implicit comparison to the beloved 1980's-era Honda CRX, got people's hopes up a little too much. Says one, "I longed for the rebirth of the CRX. This isnt it." Another wonders, "Twenty years later, Honda's answer is 496 pounds heavier with 23% less horsepower - is this the best they can do?"
For fans of "the brand once known for light, quick, beautiful, innovative, attractive, and efficient designs, this is painful," sums up a formerly proud Honda owner.
Still, not everyone has lost all hope. One reader reminds us that "the raison d'etre for this car is driving fun...and it's POSSIBLE that specs aren't enough to make an advance judgment on that front," while another notes that, at the very least, "maybe Honda will learn from this mistake and do it right next time" - apparently as much hope as can be mustered at this point from Detroit.
From the 2010 North American International Auto Show, that's the word on the street. -- Mark Holthoff, Edmunds.com manager of Customer Support
Photos by Honda
1 - The Honda CR-Z production model was introduced at the Detroit auto show last week.
2 - The interior of the Honda CR-Z wins higher praise than the exterior.
LEAVE A COMMENT
Very rarely does a "concept car" translate into a "production car" without changes. Production cars have to deal with the reality of mandated safety standards, etc. (which often affect styling), whereas show cars don't. In fact I can't think of one production car that looks as good as its concept car counterpart.
Having said that, if Honda would offer an "Si" version with larger tires and a more powerful engine, that would go a long way to quell the critics.
rsholland - you are right that some changes are made from concept to production. But quite a few recent concepts have made the transition with minimal changes and remember the concept was only a few months ago. The changes are major (especially at the front).
Honda are going through a bad patch what with the odd redesign of the Pilot, the design of the CRZ and Insight models as well as Acura having issues.
Agree with guy1974 -- seems that the short period between concept and production versions raised folks' expectations that the latter would be a lot more like the former...
I concur with all of the negative comments regarding this car. I think if Honda had disclosed the 0-62 time of 9.7 seconds to the people at this show the crowd would have been even more disappointed (not to mention the fact that the media would have certainly questioned the sportiness of a car that is so seriously underpowered).
\
Honda has totally missed the mark on this car and it does not bold well for future products from Honda if they actually believed that a 2 seat hybrid costing well over $20,000 that is neither frugal nor fast would a "hit". Other commentators have called this car the worse of of both worlds. I think I would have to agree.
The best way to salvage this mess would be for Honda to release this car without the hybrid system as it would be cheaper, lighter, and faster. Honda should have released this car with a high powered gasoline only engine from the onset as I am not the only one who has made the observation that the hybrid system in this car makes no sense.
ADD A COMMENT