Another CR-Z test pilot here this weekend. Also a black Sport model with 6-speed.
Overall impression is that it isn't too bad; ride and handling is very good, interior is snug but it should be a genuine 2-seater not a pretend 2+2. I thought the driver's seat had a bit to much lumbar support but that is probably adjustable. The instruments are a bit gimmicky and I also found they were badly affected by sunlight. My test was around the middle of the day so the sun was pretty much straight down.
I'm not used to cars with such low torque so take-offs on Sydney hills took me a while to get used to. I usually take off around town with quite low revs but the CR-Z just doesn't have the low end to carry it off. If Honda could pull another at least another 100kg out of the car it would really help.
Design I also think the car needs to be lower. Not just 20 or 30mm lower on the suspension but 40 or 50mm lower on roof height. Get rid of those rear seats and lower the seat height to go with it and you would have a lighter, smaller and even more fuel efficient car with better performance. I guess Honda marketing says different.
At < $30k I'd buy one but at $40k the numbers just don't add up for a low to moderate fuel user like me and this is a problem for all hybrids. I can have a lot more performance in a number of other cars for similar cost or similar fuel consumption for a lot less. I like the CR-Z and its unique selling point is its styling which is streets ahead of any other hybrid, and indeed most other cars on the market.
If, as reported the replacement battery would cost $2k at current prices, then at current prices and usage it would take me at least 5 years to realise that replacement cost.
I love small sports/sporty cars and I love the potential of the CR-Z. Put a K20A in it and I would by one today. It is the size that a modern Integra Type R should be and arguably looks a lot better than the current Civic.
