Originally Posted by S2KN05,Jun 22 2010, 08:47 PM

Newer cars have improved engines which have increased mpg. They don't just take the old engine and turbocharged and get more mpg out of it. As for the civic and S getting high mpg; it's cause they're not spooling the turbo on highway speed. They still get the same mpg as non-turbo cars.

And whatever you tell OP, he's going to buy his CRZ. There is no point in this discussion. He just wants to know if anyone else wants to buy it. The answer is "NO."

Originally Posted by Disgustipated,Jun 22 2010, 07:07 PM

Maybe if your reading comprehension was a little bit higher, you'd understand that by "real" torque I meant SIGNIFICANT torque. As in 200-250+ lb/ft, if not more. Not "fake" torque.

But then again it's hard to assume someone with your obvious great mental capacity could connect the dots when it comes to semantics after reading this real gem of a comment:

You're a small-minded fool and it shows.

And if you were a little bit knowledgeable (a stretch, I know) you'd realize that the S2000 has a pretty flat torque curve, so it stays consistent throughout the powerband from 2500 RPM to around 8000 RPM.

But go ahead thinking you'll save money with a CR-Z and that it's going to be so much easier to drive thanks to "electric motor torque"

Originally Posted by N2oExpresS2k,Jun 22 2010, 06:36 PM

Thanks for sticking to the original question

But he's right, you can get improved MPG boosted because of the increased low end torque you get off the backpressure caused by the turbo manifold while in vacuum. My CRX gets 30 mpg... But building a turbo setup to increase your MPG would be silly.

Originally Posted by Driven,Jun 22 2010, 11:30 PM

$20K is priced competitively? What drugs are you on sir...

CR-Z
140hp
2700lbs
37mpg freeway
0-60 in 10.x secs
$20K

Yaris
106hp
2200lbs
35mpg freeway
0-60 in 9.x secs
$13K

Mini Cooper
118hp
2600lbs
37mpg freeway
0-60 in 8.x secs
$19K


Those three cars are all essentially in the same category. Cheap, econoboxes, with a goal to provide good gas mileage for under $20K.

Now, just looking at those three (without including the Fit, the xB, xD, Cube, etc)... the CR-Z is the WORST. It doesn't have an amazing MPG, it costs more than the other two, is slower than the others, weighs the most, and is the ugliest (the only opinion in that sentence).

Stop defending the car, Honda was aiming for the sky and hit their shins. If you simply said you thought it was pretty, great. We can disagree and think you're blind, but thread ends there. But, you keep coming back with some far-fetched claim and ridiculous stances that keep this going.

Bottom line, the CR-Z, on paper, sucks in it's market segment, above it's market segment, and below it's market segment. It's the "Waterworld" of cars... costs a lot and leaves ya thinking: well, that's just crap.