|
|
|
|
 |
human668
 |
|
New total output,
CVT: 99kW@6600rpm, 172Nm 1000-3000rpm
6MT: 100kW@6600rpm, 190Nm 1000-2000rpm
|
human668
|
|
|
Dren
|
|
|
from 124 to 136hp, so a jump of 12hp. It'll be felt, especially the added low end torque.
|
human668
|
|
New info:
The engine alone 120 PS at 6,600 for 6MT 118PS for CVT
IMA motor 20PS
|
P54
|
|
Honda CR-Z facelift makes world debut in Indonesia
http://paultan.org/2012/09/20/honda-cr-z-facelift-makes-world-debut-in-indonesia/
|
Restless
|
|
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
Chocs
|
|
|
I have this compelling urge to squash the hood down a few inches-
|
IntegraDC5R
|
|
|
Most likely just took the cam from the GE8 and intake manifold to get the additional power output (though I have not seen pics under the bonnet of the new one). Probably as well some ECU tweaks. The quick way to add a tiny bit of power to the existing CR-Z is putting in the cam and intake manifold from the GE, plus with the ability to have FlashPro can get a bit more from it.
|
superchg2
|
|
|
Throw a K20 in and get in the game.
|
JIRZLEE
|
|
The little bump in power is nice, along with the increased redline. I'm guessing this couldvget it into the high 7 sec range for 0-60mph or at least ~8.0sec.
I wonder if the EPA ratings will improve. ???
|
FiSH-Chan
|
|
Chocs wrote:
I have this compelling urge to squash the hood down a few inches- |
For some reason, that image + your comment makes me think it would result make it look like a yellow angry bird:
|
HondaFan1990
|
|
|
I hope there's more to it than this. Cause this doesn't seem like much......I wonder if it can get a sunroof now as well? That's all I'm looking for!!!! And the leather seats other markets get too!!
|
Gumbercules
|
|
JIRZLEE wrote:
The little bump in power is nice, along with the increased redline. I'm guessing this couldvget it into the high 7 sec range for 0-60mph or at least ~8.0sec.
I wonder if the EPA ratings will improve. ???
|
EPA ratings need to to be higher because 300 CRZ owners over 3 million miles are averaging ~39mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-z
In contrast to the "40mpg" veloster averaging only ~32mpg
http://www.fuelly.com/car/hyundai/veloster
Of course they need more than EPA ratings to make the car be a hit.
|
Potenza
|
|
Restless wrote:
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
The Civic got zero power increase after 6 years on the market. (In fact it's only 10% more powerful than it was 20 years ago). The Si got a 4hp bump after 6 years. The '13 Accord EX went down 5hp from the 2008 model...
From a company never known for massive power increases, only the most cynical could bitch about it.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
My question to suggestion of adopting the cam from GE8 is: will it comprise the fuel economy, which Honda has said the new set up wouldn't.
My thinking is: would it adopt the new ED CVT?
|
danielgr
|
|
I've writen in detail other times, but there is nothing Honda could do about the EPA ratings of their hybrids unless they increase the battery capacity to lure them.
In short:
- EPA ratings do not represent actual fuel economy during test driving cycles, but corrected values.
- Hybrid vehicles get an additional corrective factor which aims to compensate for the fact that they get an unfair advantage over short distances (when starting the test with a full battery).
- That trick brought Toyota-like hybrids (large-battery+EVoperation) down to real life, and since the new EPA standard got approved the Prius rating finally reflects its actual FE in US average conditions.
- Honda hybrids use a much smaller battery and have nearly none EV-mode ability, and where already matching their EPA numbers before the 2008 adjustment.
- As a result Honda hybrids EPA ratings are now artificially brought down to a useless value, which always underestimates its actual milleage as demonstrated on the test cycle.
Bottom line, unless Honda increases battery-capacity and EV-range, in order for their hybrids to get the same unfair advantage over short runs as Toyota's, Honda hybrids will remain severely under-rated in the US.
Last edited by danielgr on 09-21-2012 01:53
|
DCR
|
|
Doesn't Toyota also best Honda hybrid MPG in the "real world?"
|
Potenza
|
|
danielgr wrote:
Bottom line, unless Honda increases battery-capacity and EV-range, in order for their hybrids to get the same unfair advantage over short runs as Toyota's, Honda hybrids will remain severely under-rated in the US.
|
Firstly, Honda will further develop its lightweight and compact one-motor hybrid system with the aim of achieving No1 fuel economy among all hybrid vehicles. Improvements in motor output and battery performance and a newly developed transmission will help to extend the zero emission electric driving range.
|
danielgr
|
|
Potenza wrote:
danielgr wrote:
Bottom line, unless Honda increases battery-capacity and EV-range, in order for their hybrids to get the same unfair advantage over short runs as Toyota's, Honda hybrids will remain severely under-rated in the US.
|
Firstly, Honda will further develop its lightweight and compact one-motor hybrid system with the aim of achieving No1 fuel economy among all hybrid vehicles. Improvements in motor output and battery performance and a newly developed transmission will help to extend the zero emission electric driving range.
|
It's funny, this car ends up getting what I always thought would be heading for the ILX. And it's a pity, because although on paper the HCH drivetrain gets much better FE (needed for the hybrid bragging rights), I believe the actual mileage of the CR-Z drivetrain is not really far behind in the real world (except for pure city driving).
Imho, it would have made a much better "Acura". Who knows, maybe it was simply:
- too expensive (vs. their price target)
- not yet ready (at the time the ILX was released)
- ready, but they rather leave it for a future update...
|
iNteGRaz92
|
|
Restless wrote:
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
no power increase = people complain
slight power increase = people complain
good grief.
|
owequitit
|
|
Potenza wrote:
Restless wrote:
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
The Civic got zero power increase after 6 years on the market. (In fact it's only 10% more powerful than it was 20 years ago). The Si got a 4hp bump after 6 years. The '13 Accord EX went down 5hp from the 2008 model...
From a company never known for massive power increases, only the most cynical could bitch about it.
|
1) This car produces less than a 1992 Honda Accord EX. That is just sad.
2) Pointing to a bad time in Honda's history to justify a lack of power is silly. Go back and look at the ENTIRE history of the Civic, and you will find that it got a 10-20% power increase generation after generation with the exception of 8th to 9th. Of course, we all know how well that has been received, so it isn't like it is a double standard.
3) Regardless what HP the car now has, it started 20-30HP below (as an absolute MINIMUM) where ANY fun and sporty Honda should. At the very least it should have had a 150-160HP option at the top end. ESPECIALLY when billed as a "sporty" car. Frankly, the CR-Z with 122HP was quite slow, and with an extra 12-14HP will still be quite slow.
All of this adds up to make the car a lame duck in the market place. I will be surprised if sales trend up even 5%.
|
Grace141
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Restless wrote:
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
The Civic got zero power increase after 6 years on the market. (In fact it's only 10% more powerful than it was 20 years ago). The Si got a 4hp bump after 6 years. The '13 Accord EX went down 5hp from the 2008 model...
From a company never known for massive power increases, only the most cynical could bitch about it.
|
1) This car produces less than a 1992 Honda Accord EX. That is just sad.
2) Pointing to a bad time in Honda's history to justify a lack of power is silly. Go back and look at the ENTIRE history of the Civic, and you will find that it got a 10-20% power increase generation after generation with the exception of 8th to 9th. Of course, we all know how well that has been received, so it isn't like it is a double standard.
3) Regardless what HP the car now has, it started 20-30HP below (as an absolute MINIMUM) where ANY fun and sporty Honda should. At the very least it should have had a 150-160HP option at the top end. ESPECIALLY when billed as a "sporty" car. Frankly, the CR-Z with 122HP was quite slow, and with an extra 12-14HP will still be quite slow.
All of this adds up to make the car a lame duck in the market place. I will be surprised if sales trend up even 5%.
|
Maybe the most important factor here is the CRZ is an AT-PZEV rated vehicle which along with the Insight and Civic Hybrid would have allowed Honda to continue selling cars in California but let me see if I can start another fire storm here...
1.) A 1992 Accord EX produced just 140hp vs. the 2013 Accord's 185hp. The 2013 is vastly larger, safer, and is rated by the EPA at 24 city/ 28 highway for the 6MT vs. the '92 5MT at 21 city / 28 highway. This for a car which is 413 lbs heavier and produces a fraction of the emissions. The '91 CRX Si produced just 108hp so while the 2012 CRZ produces just 125% of the power of the CRX, the '13 Accord is rated at 135% of the power of the '92 Accord. Yes, the advantage goes to the Accord.
2.) Okay, the 2012 CRZ produces 2.3x the HP of the 1975 Civic CVCC 1.5L with vastly improved emissions. Any comparison of safety ratings with that '75 Civic would be so laughable as to be worthless. The 2013 base Mustang GT 5.0L is rated at just 1.55x the HP of the 1965 289 High Performance Mustang GT. Again, the Mustang having much improved MPG and emissions. A friend at Ford helped develop that new 5.0 and I've told him several times what an amazing job they've done. Yes, the 1975 Mustang V8 produced less than half of the HP of the '65 Hi-Po but then that comparison would take into account social, economic, environmental, and political factors which affect the auto industry, wouldn't it?
3.) Why just 160hp? That would place the CRZ in the same power levels as the 1995 del Sol VTEC. The truth from an overall view and not just at the internet microcosm perspective is the auto industry in the US has been on a HP binge for the past twenty years and Honda unsurprisingly refused to join the ride. They've already admitted their 21st century supercar won't be anywhere near the leading edge in terms of power. There is no reason to believe any Honda sporty hybrid 2-seater would have 160hp. Those of us not focused on the HP chase see a 138hp CRZ would have more power than:
- 1972 BMW 2002
- 1979 Porsche 924 Turbo
- 1982 Mustang GT with the dreaded 255ci/4.2L V8
- 1987 Audi 4000
- the CRZ falls short of the 1972 BMW 2002 tii by just 4hp.
- the CRZ falls short of the 1996 BMW Z3 by just 2hp.
Honda never placed the CRZ in the US as a sporty car but rather a sporty hybrid - a sporty car in today's market which allows a driver to have some fun while using less fuel and leaving less of an impact on the environment. The CRZ falls short in tests intended for performance and sports cars which should surprise no one. Sure, the CRZ should have a non-hybrid option with even the Civic 1.8L and the battery pack removed offering a nice potential performance increase.
The problem here is one of context because there is always a better car which comes along. A Honda fan needs to either focus on the current market and choose an FRS/BRZ over the CRZ while admitting the NSX is now rubbish, the ITR a waste of time, and the CRX Si a hairdresser's car. Or every car must be viewed in its proper context meaning the CRZ stands on its own merits which are a nice sporty hybrid 2-seater with many of the well-known Honda characteristics about it which have made Honda famous over the years.
|
Potenza
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Potenza wrote:
Restless wrote:
WOW.
What a Massive power increase. NOT.
There was a movie called Dumb and Dumber...
|
The Civic got zero power increase after 6 years on the market. (In fact it's only 10% more powerful than it was 20 years ago). The Si got a 4hp bump after 6 years. The '13 Accord EX went down 5hp from the 2008 model...
From a company never known for massive power increases, only the most cynical could bitch about it.
|
1) This car produces less than a 1992 Honda Accord EX. That is just sad.
2) Pointing to a bad time in Honda's history to justify a lack of power is silly. Go back and look at the ENTIRE history of the Civic, and you will find that it got a 10-20% power increase generation after generation with the exception of 8th to 9th. Of course, we all know how well that has been received, so it isn't like it is a double standard.
3) Regardless what HP the car now has, it started 20-30HP below (as an absolute MINIMUM) where ANY fun and sporty Honda should. At the very least it should have had a 150-160HP option at the top end. ESPECIALLY when billed as a "sporty" car. Frankly, the CR-Z with 122HP was quite slow, and with an extra 12-14HP will still be quite slow.
All of this adds up to make the car a lame duck in the market place. I will be surprised if sales trend up even 5%.
|
But don't let that stop you from coming into the CR-Z forums yet again to blather off topic about a car you hate.
p.s. There was no 10-20% power increase when the Civic went from 125hp 5th gen to 127hp 6th gen. But I guess that was a bad time in Honda's history to use as an example.
|
Dean Stevenson
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
Maybe the most important factor here is the CRZ is an AT-PZEV rated vehicle which along with the Insight and Civic Hybrid would have allowed Honda to continue selling cars in California but let me see if I can start another fire storm here...
1.) A 1992 Accord EX produced just 140hp vs. the 2013 Accord's 185hp. The 2013 is vastly larger, safer, and is rated by the EPA at 24 city/ 28 highway for the 6MT vs. the '92 5MT at 21 city / 28 highway. This for a car which is 413 lbs heavier and produces a fraction of the emissions. The '91 CRX Si produced just 108hp so while the 2012 CRZ produces just 125% of the power of the CRX, the '13 Accord is rated at 135% of the power of the '92 Accord. Yes, the advantage goes to the Accord.
2.) Okay, the 2012 CRZ produces 2.3x the HP of the 1975 Civic CVCC 1.5L with vastly improved emissions. Any comparison of safety ratings with that '75 Civic would be so laughable as to be worthless. The 2013 base Mustang GT 5.0L is rated at just 1.55x the HP of the 1965 289 High Performance Mustang GT. Again, the Mustang having much improved MPG and emissions. A friend at Ford helped develop that new 5.0 and I've told him several times what an amazing job they've done. Yes, the 1975 Mustang V8 produced less than half of the HP of the '65 Hi-Po but then that comparison would take into account social, economic, environmental, and political factors which affect the auto industry, wouldn't it?
3.) Why just 160hp? That would place the CRZ in the same power levels as the 1995 del Sol VTEC. The truth from an overall view and not just at the internet microcosm perspective is the auto industry in the US has been on a HP binge for the past twenty years and Honda unsurprisingly refused to join the ride. They've already admitted their 21st century supercar won't be anywhere near the leading edge in terms of power. There is no reason to believe any Honda sporty hybrid 2-seater would have 160hp. Those of us not focused on the HP chase see a 138hp CRZ would have more power than:
- 1972 BMW 2002
- 1979 Porsche 924 Turbo
- 1982 Mustang GT with the dreaded 255ci/4.2L V8
- 1987 Audi 4000
- the CRZ falls short of the 1972 BMW 2002 tii by just 4hp.
- the CRZ falls short of the 1996 BMW Z3 by just 2hp.
Honda never placed the CRZ in the US as a sporty car but rather a sporty hybrid - a sporty car in today's market which allows a driver to have some fun while using less fuel and leaving less of an impact on the environment. The CRZ falls short in tests intended for performance and sports cars which should surprise no one. Sure, the CRZ should have a non-hybrid option with even the Civic 1.8L and the battery pack removed offering a nice potential performance increase.
The problem here is one of context because there is always a better car which comes along. A Honda fan needs to either focus on the current market and choose an FRS/BRZ over the CRZ while admitting the NSX is now rubbish, the ITR a waste of time, and the CRX Si a hairdresser's car. Or every car must be viewed in its proper context meaning the CRZ stands on its own merits which are a nice sporty hybrid 2-seater with many of the well-known Honda characteristics about it which have made Honda famous over the years.
|
Great post, and I believe you are correct on a number of points.
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" Another is "why the hell didn't Honda offer a version of it with a non-hybrid drivetrain?" And lastly, "wouldn't I be happy with a sporty hybrid with all the Honda traits I've loved over the years?"
|
bigblue
|
|
Dean Stevenson wrote:
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" |
UK figures (and gallons) for urban / extra urban / combined mpg / CO2,
CR-Z : 47, 64, 57, 116g
BR-Z S : 31, 50, 41, 159g
BR-Z SE : 27, 44, 36, 181g
By the way,
Civic Type-R Euro (FN2) : 22, 40, 31, 215g
If these aren't a priority, then the CR-Z (in its current form) may not be for you. If they are, it may be. If it's not your number one priority, you have to balance performance too, CR-Z 0-62mph 9.1s (£21k-£24k), BR-Z 7.6s (£25k-£28k). The CR-Z 0-62 mph figure is probably a somewhat conservative number, but it's not going to match the BR-Z in any case. You might want to even drive them to see how they actually feel in use, and factor that in too. It's a sporty hybrid. Not a sports car. Not an economy car. Somewhere in-between. Maybe in no-mans-land. Maybe just right.
|
danielgr
|
|
bigblue wrote:
Dean Stevenson wrote:
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" |
UK figures (and gallons) for urban / extra urban / combined mpg / CO2,
CR-Z : 47, 64, 57, 116g
BR-Z S : 31, 50, 41, 159g
BR-Z SE : 27, 44, 36, 181g
By the way,
Civic Type-R Euro (FN2) : 22, 40, 31, 215g
If these aren't a priority, then the CR-Z (in its current form) may not be for you. If they are, it may be. If it's not your number one priority, you have to balance performance too, CR-Z 0-62mph 9.1s (£21k-£24k), BR-Z 7.6s (£25k-£28k). The CR-Z 0-62 mph figure is probably a somewhat conservative number, but it's not going to match the BR-Z in any case. You might want to even drive them to see how they actually feel in use, and factor that in too. It's a sporty hybrid. Not a sports car. Not an economy car. Somewhere in-between. Maybe in no-mans-land. Maybe just right. |
As for your last sentnece, I'd guess for most here in temple of VTEC it's indeed "in no mans land", yet for a small minority (most of who actually own one) it's indeed simply "just right". It sure is for me (though I'd gladly take the MMC one over mine any day :P )
|
Colin
|
|
Dean Stevenson wrote:
Great post, and I believe you are correct on a number of points.
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" Another is "why the hell didn't Honda offer a version of it with a non-hybrid drivetrain?" And lastly, "wouldn't I be happy with a sporty hybrid with all the Honda traits I've loved over the years?"
|
Our 2011 CR-Z EX listed around $21K and we paid a little less. The BR-Z costs ~$4500-5000 more base, and the Limited (needed to get HID) is over $28K. Granted there is a higher level of performance for this extra money, but it's 20%-35% more money for that car! I think this is a detail overlooked in many discussions. In 2011, $20,500 got us a 6-MT, Bluetooth, HID and a fun to drive package. There was no other choice offering this content in this price range.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
|
Don't forget the 86 is at least GBP 4,245 (or over USD 6,400 - must be small change to some here), or over 20% more expensive, at least in the UK.
|
THX17201
|
|
Colin wrote:
Dean Stevenson wrote:
Great post, and I believe you are correct on a number of points.
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" Another is "why the hell didn't Honda offer a version of it with a non-hybrid drivetrain?" And lastly, "wouldn't I be happy with a sporty hybrid with all the Honda traits I've loved over the years?"
|
Our 2011 CR-Z EX listed around $21K and we paid a little less. The BR-Z costs ~$4500-5000 more base, and the Limited (needed to get HID) is over $28K. Granted there is a higher level of performance for this extra money, but it's 20%-35% more money for that car! I think this is a detail overlooked in many discussions. In 2011, $20,500 got us a 6-MT, Bluetooth, HID and a fun to drive package. There was no other choice offering this content in this price range.
|
You get RWD, a backseat and 200hp. The difference is justified and worth it IMO...
|
Colin
|
|
THX17201 wrote:
Colin wrote:
Dean Stevenson wrote:
Great post, and I believe you are correct on a number of points.
I struggle with some of the very things you suggest. One being "why wouldn't I step up to a BRZ when I compare the CR-Z's performance and price to it?" Another is "why the hell didn't Honda offer a version of it with a non-hybrid drivetrain?" And lastly, "wouldn't I be happy with a sporty hybrid with all the Honda traits I've loved over the years?"
|
Our 2011 CR-Z EX listed around $21K and we paid a little less. The BR-Z costs ~$4500-5000 more base, and the Limited (needed to get HID) is over $28K. Granted there is a higher level of performance for this extra money, but it's 20%-35% more money for that car! I think this is a detail overlooked in many discussions. In 2011, $20,500 got us a 6-MT, Bluetooth, HID and a fun to drive package. There was no other choice offering this content in this price range.
|
You get RWD, a backseat and 200hp. The difference is justified and worth it IMO...
|
And if you don't have more money? Just saying that every car has a price point and every buyer has a budget.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
