At 2,800 lbs. how is the CRZ the spiritual successor to the CRX?

I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
out there, hybrid or not.

I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.

Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
has changed?

Steve Pankow wrote:
> I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
> Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
> model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
> discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
> out there, hybrid or not.
>
> I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
> low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
> They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
> efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.
>
> Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
> experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
> yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
> has changed?
>

"crash testing".

apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and financially
independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a side impact
component, and which by definition are pretty much impossible to provide
significant protection for since there is almost no bodywork to deform
between the foreign object and the vehicle occupant, are worth investing
600+lbs of extra metal in, and thus require car manufacturers to build
accordingly.

of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything like
increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption, have
never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in unmarked
envelopes.

and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running lights
either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use their real
lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at all times. [big
picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30% conversion efficiency.
that's a ****load of gasoline.]

oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because you
can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.

bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent leaders
were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate tubular crash
cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race cars, and helmets
like race cars. race car drivers walk away from 100+ mph accidents all
the time, and their cars weigh what?

Thus spake jim beam > :

>Steve Pankow wrote:
>> I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
>> Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
>> model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
>> discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
>> out there, hybrid or not.
>>
>> I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
>> low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
>> They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
>> efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.
>>
>> Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
>> experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
>> yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
>> has changed?
>>
>
>"crash testing".
>
>apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and financially
>independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a side impact
>component, and which by definition are pretty much impossible to provide
>significant protection for since there is almost no bodywork to deform
>between the foreign object and the vehicle occupant, are worth investing
>600+lbs of extra metal in, and thus require car manufacturers to build
>accordingly.

I've seen a couple of nasty side impacts. Most of these involve folks
running red lights at pretty high speeds. One was a 'Burb vs a Lexus.
Lexus smacks 'Burb. 'Burb loses (surprisec?). 'Burb was legally
crossing the intersection when Lexus hit it doing (according to DPS)
70. 'Burb driver's side pax in serious shape. Lexus driver did not
need medical attention. She did get a ride in a black van provided by
the county. So much for 1) side protection 2) big vehicles protecting
pax better 3) improved front protection. Smack anything hard enough
and everybody gets hurt.

>
>of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything like
>increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption, have
>never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in unmarked
>envelopes.
>
>and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running lights
>either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use their real
>lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at all times. [big
>picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30% conversion efficiency.
>that's a ****load of gasoline.]

There are a few cars that, thank goodness, only light up the "parking"
lights. A few. But that's still something on the order of 25W per
side. Meanwhile we're being asked to replace our 60W bulbs at home
with CFLs that use 15W (we've got some LEDs that burn 7W and seem to
have better light).

>
>oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
>that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
>traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because you
>can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.

Let's not overlook that fact that bigger vehicles transfer more energy
in a colliision. So even if you're in a 'Burb, if a 'Burb rearends
you, you're still going to hurt. But when my CRX got rearended by a
Corolla, we got out and looked at the damage.

>
>bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent leaders
>were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate tubular crash
>cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race cars, and helmets
>like race cars. race car drivers walk away from 100+ mph accidents all
>the time, and their cars weigh what?

Yup. I can testify to that. Six point harness (many years ago when
Simpson first developed and introduced the 6 pt, they ran an ad "only
women and boys wear 5 pt.."), helmet, HANS, FIA firesuit, arm
restraints, Nomex undies, gloves & boots. etc. I've backed a car into
a wall at about 130 (suddenly running into rain on the back of the
course with slicks on), gone airborn at ?? (wheel to wheel). If we
want safe cars, we need to start with a clean piece of paper. As it
is, all we're doing is taking the current cars and stuffing stuff into
them. Ten pounds here, fifteen pounds there and suddenly your 2800
pound car is a 3200 pound car.

--

- dillon I am not invalid

"Iran wants nukes? North Korea wants nukes?
I'm sure we can give them some. Or the Navy."

- former B52 wing commander

Dillon Pyron wrote:
> Thus spake jim beam > :
>
>
>>Steve Pankow wrote:
>>
>>>I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
>>>Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
>>>model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
>>>discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
>>>out there, hybrid or not.
>>>
>>>I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
>>>low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
>>>They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
>>>efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.
>>>
>>>Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
>>>experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
>>>yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
>>>has changed?
>>>
>>
>>"crash testing".
>>
>>apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and financially
>>independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a side impact
>>component, and which by definition are pretty much impossible to provide
>>significant protection for since there is almost no bodywork to deform
>>between the foreign object and the vehicle occupant, are worth investing
>>600+lbs of extra metal in, and thus require car manufacturers to build
>>accordingly.
>
>
> I've seen a couple of nasty side impacts. Most of these involve folks
> running red lights at pretty high speeds. One was a 'Burb vs a Lexus.
> Lexus smacks 'Burb. 'Burb loses (surprisec?). 'Burb was legally
> crossing the intersection when Lexus hit it doing (according to DPS)
> 70. 'Burb driver's side pax in serious shape. Lexus driver did not
> need medical attention. She did get a ride in a black van provided by
> the county. So much for 1) side protection 2) big vehicles protecting
> pax better 3) improved front protection. Smack anything hard enough
> and everybody gets hurt.
>
>
>>of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything like
>>increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption, have
>>never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in unmarked
>>envelopes.
>>
>>and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running lights
>>either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use their real
>>lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at all times. [big
>>picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30% conversion efficiency.
>>that's a ****load of gasoline.]
>
>
> There are a few cars that, thank goodness, only light up the "parking"
> lights. A few. But that's still something on the order of 25W per
> side. Meanwhile we're being asked to replace our 60W bulbs at home
> with CFLs that use 15W (we've got some LEDs that burn 7W and seem to
> have better light).
>
>
>>oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
>>that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
>>traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because you
>>can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.
>
>
> Let's not overlook that fact that bigger vehicles transfer more energy
> in a colliision. So even if you're in a 'Burb, if a 'Burb rearends
> you, you're still going to hurt. But when my CRX got rearended by a
> Corolla, we got out and looked at the damage.
>
>
>>bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent leaders
>>were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate tubular crash
>>cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race cars, and helmets
>>like race cars. race car drivers walk away from 100+ mph accidents all
>>the time, and their cars weigh what?
>
>
> Yup. I can testify to that. Six point harness (many years ago when
> Simpson first developed and introduced the 6 pt, they ran an ad "only
> women and boys wear 5 pt.."), helmet, HANS, FIA firesuit, arm
> restraints, Nomex undies, gloves & boots. etc. I've backed a car into
> a wall at about 130 (suddenly running into rain on the back of the
> course with slicks on), gone airborn at ?? (wheel to wheel). If we
> want safe cars, we need to start with a clean piece of paper. As it
> is, all we're doing is taking the current cars and stuffing stuff into
> them. Ten pounds here, fifteen pounds there and suddenly your 2800
> pound car is a 3200 pound car.
>


And yet the improvement of the nut behind the wheel never enters any of
the safety related discussions...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> Thus spake jim beam > :
>>
>>
>>> Steve Pankow wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a little surpised to read just how heavy this thing's going to be.
>>>> Everyone in the automotive press makes comparisons to the beloved Si
>>>> model, but have they completely forgotten the HF? Save for the
>>>> discountinued Insight coupe it's still one of the highest MPG vehicles
>>>> out there, hybrid or not.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how Honda couldn't make a high MPG CRZ option with either a
>>>> low horsepower gas engine or perhaps one of their Euro spec diesels.
>>>> They seem so focused on providing IMA hybrids that they overlook other
>>>> efficiency options like cutting weight and installing detuned engines.
>>>>
>>>> Opponents to this idea cite high 0-60 times and a boring driving
>>>> experience. Those same arguments existed back in the days of the CRX,
>>>> yet it didn't deter Honda from offering high efficiency models. What
>>>> has changed?
>>>>
>>>
>>> "crash testing".
>>>
>>> apparently, "someone" has convinced our wise, straight and
>>> financially independent leaders that the 20% of accidents that have a
>>> side impact component, and which by definition are pretty much
>>> impossible to provide significant protection for since there is
>>> almost no bodywork to deform between the foreign object and the
>>> vehicle occupant, are worth investing 600+lbs of extra metal in, and
>>> thus require car manufacturers to build accordingly.
>>
>>
>> I've seen a couple of nasty side impacts. Most of these involve folks
>> running red lights at pretty high speeds. One was a 'Burb vs a Lexus.
>> Lexus smacks 'Burb. 'Burb loses (surprisec?). 'Burb was legally
>> crossing the intersection when Lexus hit it doing (according to DPS)
>> 70. 'Burb driver's side pax in serious shape. Lexus driver did not
>> need medical attention. She did get a ride in a black van provided by
>> the county. So much for 1) side protection 2) big vehicles protecting
>> pax better 3) improved front protection. Smack anything hard enough
>> and everybody gets hurt.
>>
>>
>>> of course, the oilcos, which never display any interest in anything
>>> like increasing vehicle weights thereby increasing fuel consumption,
>>> have never been known to show up in d.c. with truckloads of cash in
>>> unmarked envelopes.
>>>
>>> and oilcos have never displayed any interest in daytime running
>>> lights either - you know those things that cause idiots not to use
>>> their real lights at night, and which consume ~100W per vehicle at
>>> all times. [big picture, imagine ~100W x 100M vehicles at ~~30%
>>> conversion efficiency. that's a ****load of gasoline.]
>>
>>
>> There are a few cars that, thank goodness, only light up the "parking"
>> lights. A few. But that's still something on the order of 25W per
>> side. Meanwhile we're being asked to replace our 60W bulbs at home
>> with CFLs that use 15W (we've got some LEDs that burn 7W and seem to
>> have better light).
>>
>>
>>> oh, and while we're talking "safety", let's quietly overlook the fact
>>> that heavier vehicles are harder to brake, so with the same tire
>>> traction, you are thus more likely to get into an accident because
>>> you can't corner as hard or brake as quickly/take longer to stop.
>>
>>
>> Let's not overlook that fact that bigger vehicles transfer more energy
>> in a colliision. So even if you're in a 'Burb, if a 'Burb rearends
>> you, you're still going to hurt. But when my CRX got rearended by a
>> Corolla, we got out and looked at the damage.
>>
>>
>>> bottom line - if our wise, straight and financially independent
>>> leaders were really interested in vehicle safety, they'd mandate
>>> tubular crash cages like race cars, 5-point seat belts like race
>>> cars, and helmets like race cars. race car drivers walk away from
>>> 100+ mph accidents all the time, and their cars weigh what?
>>
>>
>> Yup. I can testify to that. Six point harness (many years ago when
>> Simpson first developed and introduced the 6 pt, they ran an ad "only
>> women and boys wear 5 pt.."), helmet, HANS, FIA firesuit, arm
>> restraints, Nomex undies, gloves & boots. etc. I've backed a car into
>> a wall at about 130 (suddenly running into rain on the back of the
>> course with slicks on), gone airborn at ?? (wheel to wheel). If we
>> want safe cars, we need to start with a clean piece of paper. As it
>> is, all we're doing is taking the current cars and stuffing stuff into
>> them. Ten pounds here, fifteen pounds there and suddenly your 2800
>> pound car is a 3200 pound car.
>>
>
>
> And yet the improvement of the nut behind the wheel never enters any of
> the safety related discussions...
>
> JT
>
>

unfortunately, that one's proven impossible to fix. as you will
doubtless witness every day on our freeways.