TDI vs Honda CR-Z... CR-Z wins....

[funboi]

I was looking at this review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv3umVOdRuE


it looks like CR-Z wins over the TDI...

[frugality]

Originally Posted by funboi

I was looking at this review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv3umVOdRuE


it looks like CR-Z wins over the TDI...

How so? In the end, the TDI got better mileage. In a heavier car, with room for 5 plus cargo. The CR-Z has 2 + cargo. And has a cheaper interior.

It actually proves what we already know (and love) here.....you can drive a diesel sporty-like and not see the mpg's drop much at all. The Honda did better when it was being babied in 'eco' mode, but took a nose dive when it was driven sporty.

[timwagon]

The CR-Z isn't very sporty, isn't very fuel efficient, and isn't very practical.

Honda doesn't make many mistakes, but the CR-Z may be one.

[Ryephile]

I thoroughly considered both, and the TDI ended up in my garage.

I'll be honest, the one main thing that I couldn't get past on the CR-Z is that absolutely awful amateur-hour designed interior. It's embarrassingly bad with its overabundance of materials, textures, shapes, colors, optic solutions, button varieties. It utterly lacks cohesion and common sense. It's Design for the sake of Design. It's like a BMW interior without the smell of cancer but completely strung out on speed and acid and x all at once, and none of it makes sense. When I sit in a car, I'm trying to get the job done, not be stabbed in the eye with a committee of 18 year olds screaming "GODDAMNIT DESIGN OMG LOLLERCOPTER!"

After that happened and I regained my eyesight by looking somewhere outside the car, I realized the driving dynamics were actually pretty good. I wasn't thrilled with the powertrain however, it lacked soul, torque, and appeared to be less efficient than the TDI, even though I appreciated the engine stop/start at traffic lights.

[greengeeker]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

...even though I appreciated the engine stop/start at traffic lights.

What is keeping vw from putting this feature on the new tdi's?

[mug23]

With a 8 month old baby and start of a small family, my sports car is my JSW that can seat 5 people and still get 48MPG on the HWY.

[PaulGiz]

Originally Posted by greengeeker

What is keeping vw from putting this feature on the new tdi's?

On a hybrid you have the electric power to move you while the gas engine is off. The transition to hybrid from pure electric is fairly seamless.

Without electric motor, every time the light changes, or traffic stops for a bit, the starter would have to crank, motor would have to catch and then after 3-5 seconds you would lurch off. Or stall.

Uncomfortable, dangerous, annoying to others and little advantage to be gained. Don't forget how little fuel diesels use to idle.

P.

[richard_rsp]

LOL, ok, two things:

1) They are running the TDI in 6th gear at 50mph? Yeah, of course its not gonna get the same mileage as a hybrid, they are lugging the engine!... The TDI doesn't even get into it's powerband until ~1500 rpms. They need to drive the car like it is supposed to be driven.

2) Passing but not getting over 3,000 rpms??? of course its lethargic! That's using LESS than HALF of the available powerband. Max HP isnt even till ~4000 rpms!

This "review"'s test conditions feel SLIGHTLY biased...

[jluke78]

Originally Posted by richard_rsp

LOL, ok, two things:

1) They are running the TDI in 6th gear at 50mph? Yeah, of course its not gonna get the same mileage as a hybrid, they are lugging the engine!... The TDI doesn't even get into it's powerband until ~1500 rpms. They need to drive the car like it is supposed to be driven.

2) Passing but not getting over 3,000 rpms??? of course its lethargic! That's using LESS than HALF of the available powerband. Max HP isnt even till ~4000 rpms!

This "review"'s test conditions feel SLIGHTLY biased...

EXACTLY what I was going to post. The TDI loves to be revved and provides better MPG that way anyway. This was one of the most pointless "comparisons" I have ever seen.

Like others, I too was looking at the CR-Z before I bought the TDI, the CR-Z is cute, but it is for the younger generation, I was looking for something more grown up and refined. Lack of any back seat is a downer too. Plus, 300lbs of batteries, no thanks.

[meowguy]

The whole video looked like a peeing contest to me. I go for distance, you go for accuracy, let's see who wins.

The two cars just do not compare side by side at all.

[wsktdi]

I own the original Honda Insight - a great little 2-seater sporty high mpg car (56.6 mpg.) The new CR-Z is its replacement - a 2 seater that gives up the mileage for a little more performance. In my opinion, a bad trade-off. Honda's a great car company but I don't understand that move at all.
I bought the JSW tdi because I needed a COMPLETELY different car - a car with passenger and load capacity. I don't understand the comparison at all. Apples and oranges - actually, more like apples and turnips.

[n1das]

I had two Honda CRX's years ago and loved them both. Between the original CRX and the CR-Z, I'll take the CRX any day. Between a CRX and a TDI, I'll take the TDI.

[Spoolin]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

...not be stabbed in the eye with a committee of 18 year olds screaming "GODDAMNIT DESIGN OMG LOLLERCOPTER!"

That had me laughing!!

[jbright]

I thought the video was silly, for the most part, like two high school boys talking ****. A better comparison between the two cars can be found in Motor Trend:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...tdi/index.html

Back to the video -- I have a DSG but if I set my cruise control on 50 mph I get some pretty spectacular mpg, far better than a measly 40. I don't think that guy knew how to drive a diesel.

WSKTDI, yesterday I was behind one of the original Insights. He was really hauling ass down the street and turned on to the entrance ramp of the freeway and I followed him. I was surprised how fast that car was, unless he had done some kind of modification to it. I didn't try to keep up with him in heavy traffic. He was a rather crazy driver and soon disappeared down the outside lane doing at least 80.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by n1das

I had two Honda CRX's years ago and loved them both. Between the original CRX and the CR-Z, I'll take the CRX any day.

I'm with you on the CRX v. CR-Z. My first car was an '86 CRX HF. I still miss it -- what a machine. One of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I remember getting in the low-mid 50 mpg range on low grade unleaded. And that was with me driving it like a jackass. I think I paid $2700 for it in 1989.

The CR-Z is just lame. Not as bad as the current Insight (the original Insight with a manual tranny was awesome -- I still don't know why they got rid of it), but it's nowhere near the TDI in looks, performance, or utility. I'm still not sure of its purpose. It doesn't have much in the way of performance or mileage or storage or comfort. If you want a hybrid, why would you buy it instead of a Prius? Or if you just want save money, why not buy a Fit?

All of that aside, objectively it might not be that bad standing alone, but the company's suggestion that it is the heir to the CRX is what really kills it for me. EDIT TO ADD: That is, the fact that they hyped it up so much before releasing it, really ruined it for me. A lot of folks were expecting the car that Honda should have built -- 2 seater, good suspension, lightweight/minimalist, and the capacity for truly genre-breaking mileage. What they got was a 2 seater Fit with a squashed ass-end, (new) Insight engine, and lousy mileage.