Skip navigation

carsguide.com.au

Honda CR-Z hybrid

  • By Karla Pincott
  • Carsguide
  • image

    After successive studies and concepts, the road-ready version joins Civic and Insight as the third hybrid in the Honda family. Photo Gallery

Honda has finally unveiled the production version its CR-Z hybrid sports coupe.

After successive studies and concepts, the road-ready version joins Civic and Insight as the third hybrid in the Honda family.  Drawing on the style of the iconic CRX of the 1990s – and touted as its spiritual successor – the CR-Z intends to be “the first hybrid to maximise style and fun, in addition to efficiency and economy,” says Honda’s US vice-president of sales, John Mendel.

The car features a 81kW/96Nm 1.5-litre petrol engine boosted by a parallel hybrid system – which means it never runs completely on electric power -- resulting in outputs of 91kw of power at 6000rpm and 174Nm of torque between 1000-1500rpm.

Honda says the CVT automatic transmission version will return fuel economy of 6.5l/100km on the city cycle, dropping to 6.1l/100km out on the highway, while the six-speed manual transmission models will post 7.6 and 6.3 respectively.  The CR-Z’s three-mode drive system switches between Sport, Normal and Economy via three backlit buttons on the steering wheel.

Sport tightens throttle, power steering and the electric motor’s power assist, while Economy loosens everything off for fuel efficiency – including adjusting the airconditioning system to reduce its drain on the engine.

Honda says there’s a full raft of safety features, including front, side and side-curtain airbags, anti-skid brakes and active head restraints.  While the car is partly based on the hybrid Insight, it’s more powerful – and far more attractive.

Demand for the Insight overseas when it launched early last year meant it has been delayed for Australia and is now expected to arrive some time this year – although there’s no word on when.  The CR-Z is also in Honda Australia’s sights, and is tipped for later this year or early in 2011. Depending on supply in the face of overseas demand.

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 10 comments

  • 91kw is a joke. Give me a K20 plus the eleccy motor an I promise to buy one.

    Andy of Canberra Posted on 29 March 2011 12:40pm
  • Iove the design but question the sporty bit. Need more power for the expected cost to justify the it's positioning. 91kw is not even a modern garden variety hatchback.

    Phuong of Canberra Posted on 26 March 2011 4:47pm
  • I agree, the grill to me just looks odd. But i guess its not ment to appeal to everyone...

    Alex Craig Jones of Berwick Posted on 20 March 2010 8:10am
  • That's what I call Ugly!

    Nelson of Sydney Posted on 13 February 2010 12:05pm
  • As a previous owner of two performance hondas (a 1998 Intergra vti-r and a 1989 Civic SiR that I imported myself from Japan) I am not impressed by the initial specs of the CR-Z. Firstly, the 1989 CRX was a great car because it weighted next to nothing and the engine liked to be revved. A 91kw engine may have been great 20 years ago, but this is 2010. Bear in mind that my old Civic from 1989 (same as the CRX but with back seats) had 120kw from a Jap-spec B16A and you can see why many Honda enthusiasts are already disappointed by this so-called successor. I feel that Honda have ignored the original reason behind the CRX and created something that won't appeal to either the environmentally conscious (as the fuel economy isn't really that great) or performance enthusiasts as it is just too slow.

    Tristan of Thailand Posted on 25 January 2010 6:43pm
  • Come on Honda how about some fresh ideas. The CRZ looks like a rehash of the old classic CRX. At least that had VTEC power. I expected better especially considering the Type R civic is a far better sports option. Economy be damned...

    Rob.. of WA Posted on 19 January 2010 11:51am
  • Is that supposed to be a "sporty" look? C'mon, wo are you kidding Honda? The Civic Type R looks more sporty that the new CRZ - very disappointed!

    Dilan of Melbourne Posted on 14 January 2010 5:33pm
  • I am a fan of most Honda products, however I am NOT impressed with this 3rd Honda Hybrid incorporating the obligatory electric drive 'in parallel', the obligatory additional battery/s, additional weight and complexity and of course for the marketing people, a HYBRID BADGE. So whats wrong, 6.1/100 and 6.5/100 fuel economy numbers are NOT impressive, Hybrid Cars are supposed to? offer superior fuel economy numbers to offset initial cost/ battery costs etc. One just has to glance over at the Ford Fiesta Econetic, (a somewhat similar two door town car), reported to achieve better than the stated 3.7/100 with a very simplistic (non hybrid) drive train. I drove a late model Prius for some two months (UK) in '09, looked at the Specs of all currently available Hybrids, they simply do not stack up when comparing initial cost vs long term savings. I firmly believe the now and future of the motor car is not ICE, not ICE/Hybrid but Hydrogen (like the Honda Clarity) and full electric. [ICE=InFernal Combustion Engine]

    deejay51 of Gold Coast Posted on 14 January 2010 11:28am
  • I guess 91kw is lacking for a 'sport', but then again, its a starting point for a hybrid engine considering it has no VTEC anymore and when 1996-2000 D16Y4 Fuel injected engine also only produced 88kw. But the 6-speed manual gearbos is a nice touch though.

    EP3R of victoria Posted on 13 January 2010 10:34am
  • So 91kw and 174Nm is what we're calling 'sport' now? oh ok.... Good one Honda. Hey is that your target market, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy over there?

    adam of tasmania Posted on 13 January 2010 7:23am
Read all 10 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Cars for sale

Sponsored Links