Rockstar21

the guys from the new USA version of Top Gear ran a small segment on the CR-Z and give their opinions on the car.

some mixed reviews but overall the driver enjoyed the car. and it made me want one a bit more.

link to last night's Episode. *(just hit the play button, dont select video quality)

http://www.megavideo.com/?d=8HXUAE02



for those of you who havent been watching, the show is really picking up and i recommend watching it.

k(10*2)tech

I don't know...
I don't think I can stand to watch an American Top Gear...
I'll miss the UK guys.

exigejoe

my wife wants one after watching that show

prelude182

the american top gear is starting to grow on me a little bit more every episode, it will never ever match the uk version of top gear imo. But back to the topic, i think they did a great review for the crz, it makes me want one. It has alot of helpful features that would be put to use for a daily/ busy commute. Overall i think its a good car for what its purpose is, and gotta give props to honda for making a sport/ hybrid to appeal to the younger car buyers out there such as myself.

efjones9

this show is stupid. no open highways, no actual tech info on the cars. it hurts to watch

Rockstar21

miss them?

there are 16 seasons, fire up netflix and get crackin'.

this is their first season, they havent had time to build chemistry or natural flow.

nobody is expecting it to be better than the original, but lets face it, most people who are watching this show have never seen the UK version.

it gets better as it goes on. im giving them a legitimate chance.
(and im a huge UK top gear fan)

BLACKSHEEPMU0

it's a fun car to drive i work at a Honda dealer i've driven the auto and the manule, and as for the auto even it was fun to drive. i would buy one.

661rex89si

i loved that episode actually only thing stopping me from buying a crz is well i never buy the first year of any car since they always come out with some thing better for the next gen.

eklum

idc what anyone says american top gear is hella dope for this episode.
i agree its kinda bootsy compared to the uk version but they been showin honda love hardcore. lol

EM2Civic

Tanner is the only host that makes sense. The show is too much of a knock off the Original Top Gear the budget doesn't seem to be there much.

mustclime

lol, 0-60 in about 8 seconds.....maybe if the drove it off a cliff....trusting hondas numbers ftl

guy_from_nerk

Watching this now, gotta love DVR. I actually like the US version a lot better then the UK version. Yes I watch that version too, helps having a gf who works for cable company, gotta love having the BBC for free.

AP14TW

you got that right. tanner is ok, and i really like him, but he alone doesn't even come close to the dry humor and witty, snarky remarks. the UK top gear's worst show beats US' best by miles.

As for the CR-Z. Tanner put it best. 22 years later and they arent even CLOSE to the 1988 CR-X engineering of the hf as far as mileage. kind of sad.

Bwill9886

What did you expect for budget? Most people thought this show wouldn't last more than one episode (or at least hoped it wouldn't). It's on the history channel and has nowhere near the viewership of the UKTG, hence nowhere near the budget.

It will take time for the hosts to get comfortable (or perhaps replaced), the budget to increase, and the writing and ideas to get better. Hell, look at old UKTG and you'll see it took them a while to find their groove as well.

Tanner does make sense as he has good experience to bring to the table. However, his problem right now is that he brings almost no humor to the show... for now at least. It seems like almost every episode he gets slightly better (Rutledge and him seem to work well with each other).

Actually Rutledge has a decent amount of car knowledge, does have a sense of humor, and has an interesting car history. The problem is that they aren't really using any of that to his advantage in his writing. Not once has it been mentioned that even though he is a "southerner", it sounds like he has probably owned more imports than domestics (and definitely likes them more. See his top 10 cars on jalopnik).

Instead they play up his southern roots and he acts like he loves mostly domestics. Also his humor still needs work just like everyone elses.

As for Ferrara... when are they getting rid of him? It's obvious he knows very little about cars and he isn't really that funny (I'm assuming he was brought on to be "the funny guy" as he has no other applicable qualities). How am I supposed to take his opinion on the Mercedes SLS seriously in any way? He "says" he likes how the old Gullwing looks and drives much more (already questionable, at least from a driving standpoint), yet I get the feeling he might have never heard of the car before joining Top Gear. It's "rubish" as the Brits would say.

You're a brave man haha. You're probably one of like 4 people in the world that think that, but different strokes for different folks.

Again, I refer to the first seasons of UKTG and you'll notice it took them some time to bring the show to what it is today. You can't expect it to go head-to-head with a show that has had years of work and experience poured into it (and also a solid cast).

The CRX comparison regarding mileage, while sad, is unfair given all of the safety and luxury/convenience features and design you need in todays cars to get them to sell. Just because it follows the concept of the CRX doesn't mean it's trying to be just like it.

The price points are not similar when compared (adjusting for inflation of course). The CRZ offers far more features than the CRX did.

How well do you think the CRX does in a crash test compared to the CRZ? Probably not well...

There are just a lot of things to consider.

djork

I caught a rerun of it tonight. I think I watched that more for the mt. biking than the car itself. I ride mt. bikes, so seeing the riders and their stunts was way cool.

Anyway, I really love the new CR-Z. I wish it could just be the 2nd-gen Insight since it looks resembles it, especially the tail. I'm just a bit disappointed that the mpg is so low. I know it's a "sports' car, but at least get the mpg ratings to at least 40!

I'd definitely get one if I were in the market. But I'll wait to see how it fares and wait for used ones to pop up.

Any 1st-gen Insight owners here?

AP14TW

They have a decade of looking at the UK Top Gear to learn from. Don't hire an pro driver, a comedian, and a tubby southerner to try to relate the way the UK guys do. All 3 of them have, or at least appear to have, thanks to producers, carnal knowledge of production sports cars, racing, and everything in between. How are you going to have a comparable show where only one guy knows cars.

As for the CR-X/CR-Z comparison.... Did any car in 1988 have anything like today? Has Honda not had 20+ years to engineer economy and fun back into a car? This was their chance. The CRX Si got 32 mpg highway and was well equipped for its time back in 91. Safety and Luxury! In 88-91, in Honda, that didn't exist. Nor did it in any other car in its class. Hell, it was in a class of its own. The cr-z is even slower in the 1/4. You wouldn't call something fun when its slower than its 20 year old brother. You shouldn't call something economical that at best gets only 7 mpg better than the Si and falls way behind the HF. Where is the silver lining here? it's shinier and has more gadgets? Just like everything else in today's market. Paleeze!

Bwill9886

Yes they did, but you have to remember that this show almost didn't happen at all due to switches and complications. I agree that they could have started better as far as content goes, but the chemistry the UKTG presenters have cannot be duplicated overnight. Especially with guys like Ferrara still on board.

Ok, did you forget that James May studied music, Hammond worked in radio, and Clarkson was a journalist? Doesn't sound like much of a team when compared like that does it? They work great together now though don't you think? Keep in mind that same carnal knowledge you mentioned that the UK guys have about cars also comes from doing the show for so long.

Only one knows cars? That "tubby southerner" actually does know cars if you look at the jalopnik piece they did with him when he was filming the aston martin bit for TGUS. He has had quite a few different cars and most of them are quite interesting. So both Tanner and Rutledge both know cars, which leaves the "comedian" who doesn't even bring comedy to the table.

You just completely contradicted yourself and supported my point. Again, how do you truly compare two cars that have to appeal to different markets and regulations. I agree with you that the CRZ falls short in many areas, no doubt about it.

But like you said, the CRX didn't have to have a bunch of safety features, sat nav, and other various electronics. First, most didn't exist and second they weren't required to sell the car. Nowadays, people expect those things in a car that sells for over 20 grand.

Just because the CRZ's design "represents" the CRX doesn't mean it's supposed to be just like it.

AP14TW

You mostly agreed. The Cr-Z falls short. and if you don't see the side-by-side similarities of the three letter car of today that shares the same shape, engine size and passenger configuration of the three letter car of yester-year, you may believe in the Easter Bunny. I still kinda do...
Like you said, the UK Top Gear wins. No need for long winded quotes.

ckysodkorn

cr-z i have no feelings for. it's a hybrid.

sr388

I'm really disappointed by the CRZ just because it looks so friggin' sick. Somebody just needs to drop a k20 or something in it.

sr388

and a two seater hybrid? Most people nowadays like hyrbids for the practicality and I think Honda lost its demographic by doing that. Probably why the insight did so crappy too.

wolfy47

Im not backing the guy who you qouted because i see where he contradicted what he was saying. The car doesnt have to be just like the crx but shouldnt it at least be better performance wise than the crx, and/or better gas millage wise than the HX since its is trying to be both???

I mean yes the car market is different than it was 20 years ago, yes cars need power windows, power doors, gps systems and 50 airbags to sell...but the way it is the same is that we still want cars to have more performance and mpgs compared to the car(s) it is succeeding (especially since theyve had 20 years to plan out the next crx)

for example, the new 2011 V6 mustangs have all that modern day stuff in it power everything, all while getting better gas millage and having more power than the V8 5.0 foxbodys back in the day

Superhatch

https://honda-tech.com/forums/honda-insight-cr-z-hybrid-154/lht-performance-cr-z-k20-2872129/ Already done.

Bwill9886

You're right, I'll stay away from presenting facts to support my arguments next time.

Thank you.

And I will agree NO QUESTION that Honda screwed up on their attempt at hyping it (or allowing it to be hyped) as a "spiritual successor" to the CRX. Clearly it's features list and drivetrain (and the resulting price tag) push it away from what the CRX fully was at heart. The car that has been delivered can't just appeal to those looking for a what a CRX offered. Therefore, while it can be agreed that Honda should have done better, you can't compare it spec-for-spec to the CRX.

The CRZ is trying to fulfill multiple roles (and perhaps that's where they first went wrong) with a drivetrain that just isn't versatile enough. Honda, you have developed some of the best N/A, non-assisted 4 cylinders on the market, so why isn't there one in a car that is supposed to be so symbolic of your past?

Perhaps they thought that making it a hybrid would attract more attention to a niche that they themselves created in the current market (sporty, less-functional, very fuel efficient compact category). I don't know, I'm not a Honda exec.

I agree with your point about the Mustang too. That is a car that has really turned it's marketability way up.

AP14TW

As far as the price point. A lot of it has to do with the engineering involved to make it a hybrid and design the 1.5 to pair it up with. But think about this. If they would have simply put the R18 civic engine in it that gets 36 mpg in the civic. Don't you think it would be cheaper, faster, and more eMo friendly?