You can test drive a CR-Z for yourself starting on August 24, and goodness knows we’ll be lining up for a crack at it. Early reviews from Europe confirm the impression left by the stat sheet: the CR-Z is neither the re-birth of the CRX, nor the re-birth of the Mk1 Insight. And starting at $19,200, it’s not exactly cheap either [press release here]. Yes, it offers AM/FM/CD/USB audio system with six speakers, automatic climate control, power windows and door locks, remote entry, and cruise control at that base price, and quite a bit more in the $20,760 CR-Z EX, but is there a market in the US for a hybrid that’s smaller than a Prius but less efficient? And didn’t the Mk2 Insight already answer that question? We’ll wait to put the CR-Z through its paces before we pass (further) judgment, but this has the look of a Fiero-style “commuter car” rather than a legitimate sports coupe.
23 Comments on “Honda CR-Z Priced Starting At $19,200...”
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- WalterRohrl: You sound more desperate than usual. Driving around it becomes obvious that while there are very few...
- theflyersfan: New and used car prices keep staying high like this, you can bet, assuming these can meet federal...
- MidLifeCelica: Some observations from my recent drive from Nova Scotia to Florida and back in April… –...
- Jeff S: Love my Escape pickup especially with higher gas prices.
- EBFlex: “ EBFlex- So sure, I’ll take your Sunday Drive over actuaries giving the standard deviation for storm energy...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Another in a series of design duds for Honda/Acura.
Oh, c’mon. This isn’t worse than the current Insight. Nor the Crosstour. Nor the Accord. Nor the Acura shield. Nor the Acura naming.
It’s not like Honda doesn’t make any fun cars like the Prelude, S2000, NSX, or Integra…
Cut Honda some slack!
Honda appears to be using this car as a real world exercise in what is apparently a major future trend for small sporty cars.
That is not to say it’s some kind of half-baked beta test but they need to have actual products like this in real customer’s hands to continue further development.
Since the price is not bleeding edge like many other hybrids or EVs discussed here, it should present a fair value to it’s target group.
Think of it as a second generation HDTV. We all knew the forthcoming generations would perform better and be more cost effective but the TV makers didn’t spool up research/development and release the mature 4th gen for the initial public debut.
While I don’t see it being a leader in sales, it will sell enough to justify its existence. It is the best looking hybrid ony vehicle I’ve seen yet and for a cheap-ish price, remember you are also buying Honda quality with this, it will move.
Honda has jumped the shark.
Fiero-style “commuter car” rather than a legitimate sports coupe.
Hey, hey, hey now. If GM dusted off the Fiero’s tooling and dropped the ecotech in it and priced it at the level of the Cobalt. I’d buy one. Anyway by the time they cancled the car it was a legitimate sports coupe. But yes it was a case of classic GM, kill it when it gets good.
I wish Honda luck. I actually like the idea of the CR-Z but not the execution.
A turbo-4 with a modern trans in a Fiero chassis?
That’d actually do quite well for mileage.
I don’t think this car would have received quite the same scathing reviews if it was called the “Insight” rather than the “CR-Z”**. That would have allowed Honda to sell the current Insight as, oh, I don’t know, the Civic Hybrid Crosstour or something.
** I’m also sure the Accord wouldn’t have been the subject of comments about bloat if it was called the Inspire.
I don’t think the name is the main problem (although it does set expectations). There are three issues:
1. The concept looked great – the production sheet metal is lame.
2. It’s not fast enough to be a sports car and not economical enough to satisfy the “my Prius is saving the planet more than your Insight” demographic.
3. You could have achieved more fun and similar economy with a diesel motor.
#1 is true, but #2 and #3 aren’t, necessarily:
2. It’s a stick-shift hybrid, and it’s supposedly reasonably fun to drive. I like hybrids, but I also like a little more driver involvement, so this car appeals to me. Unfortunately, for Honda, there are likely not a lot of customers like that.
3. This is going to net me another “Psarj hates diesels” comment, but nowhere does it say diesels are fun, or more fun than a well-tuned gas/electric hybrid. Personally, I find the low redline, reluctance to rev and turbo lag of your average diesel to be decidedly unsporting and every small European diesel I’ve driven has, to a fault, seemed to be among the small number of cars that do better as automatics. The city economy wasn’t so good, and the emissions were noticeably worse.
psarhjinian – I drove a BMW 123d hatch in Germany and it was an absolute blast.
Pontiac sold almost 137,000 Fieros the first year. If the same sales figures wouldn’t put the CR-Z in the top-10 today, then it would come awfully close.
The Fiero was a great looking car. It was not a sports car, but a good looking car – it took a while to get it right, but the style was nice. There should be good looking, affordable cars that hit 0-60 in about 8 sec. It is so not necessary to hit 60 in sub 5 sec. for most drivers. A good looking car that is dead reliable is important to most folks. Unfortunately, this CR-Z is not attractive.
If at least the CRZ had a back seat, then I could consider it.
Not as bad as Honda was suggesting, but still, 20 grand with destination. I’m just not convinced that it’s much better than a Fit. The performance and economy gains are pretty negligible and it costs a lot more money.
What a disappointment this thing turned out to be. The concept looked great, and the original idea, a sporting hybrid in the spirit of the CRX, was perfect for our times. Instead we get, well what, exactly? A slightly more enaging Insight – talk about setting the bar low – with diminished utility and so-so looks? Sigh.
I had some interest in this car. But it’s heavier and less powerful than my Civic. And I’ll bet it will start out at $26,000 Canadian.
EFF That. I’m still getting a 2011 Mustang “Value Leader”
Based on the unfavorable comments on TTAC, this car will sell well.
CR(a)Z(y)
The Civic 5 door hatch looks like a spaceship compared to most other cars, but the US is not worthy of it? But we get the CRZ? Who asked for this? The dozen original Insight owners? What a goofy looking pile!
Speaking of the first-generation Insight, that is a car TTAC should really retro test. OK, OK, yeah it has a reputation of being the car of choice to those who displayed “Earth First is for Pansies” bumper stickers, but I always thought they were engineering masterpieces.
3 throbbing pistons putting out 65 bhp of fun. What’s not to like?
C’mon TTAC, I double dare ‘ya.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-1999-honda-insight/
There are also a few “Hammer Time” articles by Steven Lang that talk a lot about the original Insight.
I wonder if the lack of a “real” back seat would cause the insurance rates to be higher; if so, major fail.