Close, but no cigar: Honda CR-Z
I really wanted to like the CR-Z, Honda’s new hybrid 2+2 coupé.
A car billed as a modern-day successor to the CR-X is always going to stir my imagination. But with the Type R badge currently unemployed in the UK, the CR-Z is the only way to enjoy a hot Honda. Priced from £17,360, the CR-Z emits 117g/km of CO2 and attracts zero road tax. Honda also claims that the car is capable of combined 56.5mpg. So, a sporty coupé that’s cheap to run and doesn’t kill polar bears. Job done – have we found a contender for PetrolBlog Car of the Year 2011?
There are certainly reasons to be cheerful about the CR-Z. The styling divides opinion, but for me the looks present a modern interpretation of the CR-X without appearing retro. Indeed, to my eyes, the CR-Z makes the Scirocco look a little bland. The optional White Pearl paint job on my test car certainly draws attention, so this is not a car for shrinking violets. Having said that, with the exception of Milano Red, the CR-Z is actually a little anonymous in other colour schemes. But in general, apart from a few clumsy angles, the CR-Z’s styling is a welcome addition to UK roads.
Things continue to impress once inside. You lower yourself into the CR-Z in true sports car style and position yourself within gloriously comfortable wraparound seats. Indeed, the driving position is pure sports car and the overall feeling is one of glorious snugness – the kind you get with a low-slung two-seater. This is felt no more so than at night where it is best to slide the roof cover shut and revel in the veritable feast for the eyes that is the CR-Z dashboard.
The light show is best described as being reminiscent of a trendy cocktail bar in the centre of town and is dominated by a huge, glowing rev counter and digital speedo. Honda has done with the CR-Z what so many car manufacturers fail to appreciate these days – the sense of anticipation before setting off for a journey. From the feel of the ignition key, to the feel of the door handle, right through to the actual event of sliding into the car and turning the key. OK, so the Honda has a starter button, but that’s not the point. Getting into the CR-Z and initiating the launch procedure is pure theatre and Honda should be applauded.
It reminds me of my old VX220 which demanded limbs of spaghetti and the flexibility of a limbo dancer to get in to, but once settled and behind the wheel, you felt special. A turn of the key would initiate the Stack dials and a series of mechanical noises before a quick switch of the starter button fired the engine into life.
But here’s where the CR-Z fails slightly. The engine starts using the IMA batteries and as a result, produces a noise that’s only slightly more alluring than a milk float. After the fireworks that surround the launch procedure, the starter button provides about as much excitement as a catherine wheel in a bucket of sand. But unlike the majority of cars, the CR-Z gives you a choice of driving modes – Sport, Normal or Econ. In short, they do exactly what they say on the button.
In Sport mode, the CR-Z is set-up for spirited driving through sharpened steering and a livelier go-faster pedal. It is altogether quite convincing too. Nicely weighted steering, a great driving position and a musical, if slightly artificial, exhaust note helps to liven up a bit of B-road frivolity. In case you don’t notice, the tacho glows bright red to let you know you’re in Sport mode. Neat.
In Econ mode, the CR-Z has a completely different set of party tricks and as you’d expect, they’re all painted bright green. To start, the Econ button ensures the engine management and climate control settings are set-up for fuel efficiency. In truth, switching from Sport to Econ mode is rather like someone tying a lead weight to Usain Bolt’s running shoes and then asking him to run 100 metres. In a river of treacle. The transformation is huge. The throttle becomes heavy and steering gets lighter and it all becomes rather unpleasant.
But then when you’re saving money and rescuing the planet from armageddon, having fun isn’t top of your agenda. In fairness, playing with the array of displays associated with the car’s Eco Assist System becomes a joy in itself. There are gauges that measure your braking and acceleration technique and help you achieve maximum efficiency. The tacho will change to blue when you’re verging on becoming inefficient and subsequently change to red when you’re about to be plain naughty. The gear change indicators seem a little overcautious for my liking.
From a standing start, the computer will ensure you’re into sixth by the time you’ve reached 42 mph. It is rather laborious, especially when seeing glaciers overtake you as you get there. Oh and one final thing – the CR-Z allows you to grow trees on the dashboard. The better you drive, the more trees you grow. Get a little heavy with the gas pedal and the trees will disappear faster than a cutting saw through a rainforest. It is all rather fun and helps to liven up a normally dull cross-city commuter run. It also does a jolly good job of helping you to improving your own driving efficiency – nice one Honda.
This final driving mode is Normal, which sits somewhere in the middle of the Sport and Econ mode. Why would you ever need to use this? It has about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Today I’m not interested in saving money, saving the planet or having fun. No, I’d much rather pop down to Marks & Spencer for some beige slacks.
But all things considered, the CR-Z is good to look at, has a funky interior, is good to drive and has enough toys to make Inspector Gadget feel inadequate. Time to head down to your local Honda dealer armed with a deposit?
Er, not exactly. The thing is, I can’t really recommend a Honda CR-Z. Not yet anyway.
To start with, calling the CR-Z a 2+2 would be laughable were it not for the fact that it isn’t funny. If the +2 in your life happens to be a couple of dwarf monkeys or stubble quails, then you’ll be fine, but if you have children or more than one friend, then forget it. There is quite literally no room in the back. With the front seats pushed back to the max, you can barely fit a sheet of A4 paper into the gap between the front and back seat.
I managed to prize a Recaro Young Sport child seat into the passenger side rear seat, but it was only really practical with the front seat in the forward most position. There is also next to no rear headroom in the back, unless you’re happy to be transported around with your head at a 90º angle. I could go on, but in my opinion, Honda would have been better off making the CR-Z a two-seater and positioning it as a fun-sized S2000 replacement. It would be more authentic as a result.
Then there’s the economy problem. Honda claims that the CR-Z is capable of 56.5 mpg on a combined cycle. I’m not convinced. During my test I saw figures in the low to mid 40s, even when growing trees. Admittedly, much of the week involved city driving, but considering the car’s size and the fact that it is essentially a two-seater, this isn’t really good enough. Not bad for a petrol-engined car but on the basis that many people will buy the CR-Z on the basis of frugality, it isn’t great.
Finally, there’s the drive. It is fun and involving, but it never feels exhilarating. The modest 122bhp, (14 of which is derived from the electric motor), just isn’t enough to get the pulse racing. It all feels overly assisted and not as pure as other drivers’ cars. I think back to my old Ford Puma as a benchmark coupé. Well over a decade separates the two cars, but I’d rather have a Puma. At least the little Ford doesn’t write you a school report after each journey to tell you how many trees you destroyed during your dawn raid.
Don’t get me wrong, the Honda CR-Z is an excellent little car, especially the top spec GT model (priced at £20,450). The level of standard kit is astonishing: heated leather seats, panoramic glass roof, xenon lights, hands-free phone and USB port for iPhone / MP3 player. It is genuinely great value and as a commuting tool or second car, it works very well indeed. It gives me hope that we will one day see a hybrid that is as fun to drive as a petrol-fed equivalent and that’s great. But for me, the CR-Z is a little like a concept car that has been released too early. A glimpse into the future perhaps and if so, the future’s very bright indeed.
In the meantime, I’ll wait for the 200 bhp Turbo edition…
1 Comment
I didn’t know you’d ever reviewed one of these! I actually bought one of these right after they came out and ran it for two and a half years, covering a lot of miles as part of my job. I actually think it’s a good little car, provided you look at it on its own merits and don’t expect either a new version of the original Insight (forgetting the dreadful actual new Insight) or a Type-R coupe.
I always loved the looks of the thing. I don’t think I’ve ever stared at a car I’ve owned quite as much and was forever finding pleasing new details, like the way line between the quarter panel and rear bumper flowed into the rear light cluster, which flowed across the lower rear screen. Or how the creases on the doors combined with the window line and sills to create a pleasingly dynamic arrowhead-type effect. The pearlescent white paint had beautiful depth and variation, too, and I still think it makes most other modern white paints look rubbish.
Inside the car was a nice place to be. The wheel was small and pleasantly weighted (unless you had Eco mode switched on – not sure why Honda assumed you’d want dull steering while trying to save petrol) and the view of the Star Trek dials was unobstructed. I never got tired of waiting for the rev counter to do its little song-and-dance before pushing Start. The seats were comfortable and reasonably supportive, although I often found myself having to brace my knee against the centre console under hard cornering. Visibility was a bit patchy – great when going forwards 99.9% of the time (I’m used to a split rear screen from owning a C4 Coupe and an Audi A2), but oblique junctions could be very awkward and I quickly got into the habit of always backing into parking spaces because you simply couldn’t see to either side when backing out again.
On the road, things were pretty good. The CR-Z was pleasingly grippy and the weight of the battery over the rear axle gave it a nice balance. You could really chuck the thing into bends knowing that, barring a very bad surface, the front end would stay stuck. The wings of the CR-Z sported an array of rubber flecks from the stock Yokohamas throughout both summers I owned it. Was it fast? Not particularly. Out-and-out speed wasn’t really the CR-Z’s thing. Through coupling the electric motor and 1.5L VTEC the way they did, Honda created a successful illusion of a sporty car. In daily driving, the peppy throttle response and flat torque curve gave the impression that you were driving a fast, sporty car, which made it fun to zip through town to the office, but if you got on the open road and really pushed on, the car’s lack of ultimate power became apparent. You could run down the battery quite quickly, especially on hilly ground, after which the car felt pretty lumpen without electrical assistance. That’s not to say you couldn’t have fun attaching a good B-road; the sharp chassis meant you could carry a lot of speed through bends and keeping your braking late and hard was the best way to keep the battery topped up.
On balance, then, did Honda fail with the CR-Z? On the basis of sales, I think you’d have to say yes. However, if you were someone like me in 2010, a young, childless professional trying to balance an on-the-road job with a car that’s distinctive and fun to drive, then it was a great fit. People would often ask me about the CR-Z’s fuel economy and would be disappointed when I said I averaged 45mpg. Two issues with that:
1) We’re talking petrol, not diesel, so those gallons are a fair bit cheaper (or were at the time, at least).
2) People often only remember their mileage when it’s been impressively high i.e. when they’ve done a lot of motorway driving. They forget that their 55mpg diesel struggles to make 30mpg while they’re rattling round town.
I’d recorded my mileage in the CR-Z meticulously, so that 45mpg was the average over literally my entire ownership. In fact, when I really put the effort in (on long, leisurely motorway cruises) I could actually meet and exceed that 56mpg official figure – I even got 60mpg out of one tank. I’ve never owned another car that could get close to its official figures, never mind exceed them.
So, why did I get rid of it? Well after two-and-a-half years and 60,000 trouble-free miles (seriously, only ever had to change brakes and tyres), I could see children on the horizon and the size of the CR-Z was already becoming an issue. The rear seats really are all but unusable. I only ever carried three adults in it twice – my sub-five foot mother and grandmother on one occasion, and an extremely uncomfortable rugby teammate on another. You could only just get a bike in the back and a bike rack risked damaging either the rear window or bumper. My wife was never comfortable with either the rear visability or the low driving position and I was spending three days per week on the road with work, so fancied something with less road noise and a softer ride. I swapped the CR-Z for a Volvo V50 and sadly, have never looked back. As a box-ticking exercise, the V50 is a formidable machine. It does just about everything very well, to the point where it lacks a bit of character as a result but give me an undulating B-road or a big traffic jam (the CR-Z’s stop/start system is sublime) and I’m pining for the Honda.