What's Wrong With This Picture: From X To Z

by Paul Niedermeyer

Published: April 19th, 2010

what s wrong with this picture from x to z

[Courtesy Hooniverse]

#Crx #Crz

Paul Niedermeyer

More by Paul Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

8 of 41 comments

Psarhjinian on Apr 19, 2010

Oh, boo-hoo, no one makes cars like the old CR-X, Geo Metro and Toyota Tercel anymore! How can that be?! The buying public simply doesn't appreciate the finer virtues of sitting in a gutless tin can with your ass six inches off the floor. I think we need to get over the collective hallucination that's deceiving us into thinking that cars produced circa 1977-1990 were the rule rather the exception. Anything made before of after that very small window was not very small. The reason no one is making cars like this anymore is that people aren't buying them. It's the same reason people don't buy low-roof wagons, diesels (in North America, or in Europe where diesel isn't tax-favoured), unreliable European cars, and so forth. It isn't because people have become fat, stupid and morally degenerate, it's because engineers managed to make comfortable, commercially viable cars that get decent mileage. I'm sure at some point gas will spike again, but the day of the Civic CVCC and it's spawn is gone unless that spike is to something like twenty bucks a gallon. I like small, light cars as much as the next person, but whenever someone actually makes a small, light car, it gets trashed all over the popular press and gets shunned by the market, even among enthusiasts who pine for the exact same car.

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- Bancho on Apr 19, 2010
  
  I don't really expect any manufacturers to make mass market cars for the US as small as the old CR-X again. It's sad but it's not going to happen. The thing I'm most disappointed with is the direction Honda took with the CR-Z. They've hit no winners in the hybrid department so introducing a hybrid that's also a niche vehicle isn't really the best strategy especially given how profoundly mediocre the new Insight turned out. If they'd come out with a CR-Z with an ICE powertrain they'd probably have done much better. The vehicle could be lighter and they could've included other technologies (direct injection, start/stop, etc...) to make the car probably as efficient as the hybrid will be (except in heavy traffic where hybrids really excel).
  
  Like
- Porschespeed on Apr 19, 2010
  
  psarhjinian, I would offer that the death of the 2000-2500# car was due far more to safety regulations than it was to NVH concerns. The cars got bigger due to safety regs, then the rest followed. Save for hybrids and diesels, mileage hasn't really improved. In fact, a 2010 Civic is no better with gas than an '83 1500 S. Sure they were gutless, but with today's engines in them, the old cars really haul. And get better mileage than the cars they came out of. As someone who rolled an 82 Civic Wagon twice at 50 MPH and walked away unscathed, I have no more fear in one of those "tin cans" than I do in the average new car today. Another time, I T-boned a Metro with an x1/9 at about 35MPH. Not a scratch on me, and the Metro was able to drive (with 2 foot less interior width) away before the cops showed up. Safety, schmafety. Wear your belt and you'll likely survive anything you might survive. If you're gonna die, you're gonna die. If the Geo Metro were legally salable today, I wager they'd sell. If the gen I CRX was a new car, they'd sell. Just like compact trucks, and lots of other things not available due to the safety regs. Just can't sell them with the current safety regs.
  
  Like
- PeriSoft on Apr 19, 2010
  Wear your belt and you’ll likely survive anything you might survive. If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die. So, you're saying that a modern car with incredible structural rigidity, airbags, and extremely effective crumple zones can never save your life in an accident which would kill you in a 1991 Geo Metro? Seriously? Enjoy your delusions. The fact that you survived a single accident has no bearing on the overall safety of classes of vehicles - people have survived four story falls onto cement, too; that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bother with a safety harness. I'm consistently shocked that TTAC's generally intelligent and well-spoken readers seem to shut their brains off completely when it comes to safety; "Don't get into an accident, and anyway, no modern car will save you from a rampaging SUV if a 2100lb '80s econobox wouldn't". All right, guys, I get it - you're very, very manly. You can stop doing that legs-apart, devil-may-care cowboy saunter now. Whether or not you want to take the risk is your choice, but don't trick yourself into thinking you're not vastly, vastly more likely to suffer serious injury in an old, light car with crap structural engineering and few safety features.
  
  Like
- Porschespeed on Apr 19, 2010
  
  I've survived over a dozen accidents - a few of which were avoidable. Most of which involved me being hit. Several while stationary. Some were the youthful indiscretions of 11/10ths driving on country roads, late at night. (Those were most of the 'avoidable' category.) Never a scratch. Yes, I've been fortunate. But mainly, I wear my safety belt. Between looking at cars at salvage auctions, and sometimes hanging out with cops and EMTs, I have heard plenty of stories. All the safety gear in the world isn't going to save you in a 60 MPH head-on. Conversely, the airbags are not doing you any good without a safety belt. However, they just may kill you. Sure, on paper, 12 airbags, a multi-layer crumple zone, and lots of things may give the extra edge that will allow you to survive that 1 in 10,000 shot on the ragged edge. I doubt I'm winning the lottery, and I doubt I'll have one of those rare accidents either. Yes, there is a calculated risk. This isn't a cowboy/macho thing. I don't drive without a belt, or ride without a helmet. But accidents are like lots of things in life - the ones you are gonna walk away from, you would have walked away on '78 safety regs. The law of diminishing returns applies to everything. Safety's low-hanging fruit was picked long ago. If one were to analyze the indirect costs the extra weight, engineering time and money, and oil use that are a direct result of safety regs post-early 80's, you might find the fatality balance to be rather neutral overall. Yes, you're correct I'm safer in a 2010 Civic than in a TR3. But when we're talking about 80s v. 2010s, it's not a quantum leap.
  
  Like
Rcdickey on Apr 19, 2010

I hate automotive bloating. I'd love to have a 2500lb car with back seats and 200-250hp! And 40mpg would be icing on the cake. I know the safety factor will be thrown back at me but I don't buy cars to wreck them nor do I worry about it. Uncle Sam or big brother whichever you prefer to call them forces these things on me because I'm too stupid to care about it myself. ;-p

Like Reply
AdamYYZ on Apr 20, 2010

I gotta be honest, the CR-Z has grown on me. I would consider it as a new car next year. BUT! This car somehow weighs MORE than my 2002 Civic EX Coupe. And it has a power to weight disadvantage. To be honest with you, I'm looking for something a little more than a peppy commuter. I want something substantial with some oomph for carrying cargo or passenger(s) without feeling like I'm dragging an anchor behind me. The quirky shape and the trick dashboard aren't enough to justify the high cost, mediocre fuel economy and low output from the engine. No sale.

Like Reply
Crxmike on Apr 22, 2010

As the owner of #20 CRX - Yes, the CRX is smaller than the CR-Z. BUT, mine is lowered probably 3 inches and it has 13x8 wheels instead of the larger 14" wheels. So the comparison is a little exaggerated. Carry on.

Like Reply