Honda CR-Z Mileage Dissappoints In Real World Testing
Our seat time behind the wheel of the Honda CR-Z was summed up quite succinctly by our man Mr. Lavrinc, who noted that Honda's two-seat hybrid is "a capable fuel miser that can muster some sport when summoned.
Unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless." As our time piloting the CR-Z was limited to a brief first drive, we didn't have the opportunity to run any real-world miles per gallon calculations. Instead, we based our judgment on Honda's fuel economy ratings of 36/39 miles per gallon city/highway with the CVT and 31/37 on the manual model and noted that many hybrid drivers routinely beat the numbers posted by manufacturers.
2011 Hyundai Equus Photo Gallery
2011 Mercedes-Benz CLS Photo Gallery
2011 Ford Edge Crossover Photo Gallery
Concours D'Elegance Monterey 2010 Photo Gallery
Concours Weekend Monterey 2010 Photo Gallery
AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries
If you want to see your photos running on our homepage photo ticker, be sure to
upload
your
photos
on the go by sending them to
Mobile@AutoSpies.com
Share on Facebook
Read Article
freeagent -
8/25/2010 3:04:06 PM
+8 Boost
The CRX was a thoroughbred, or at least a horse. This CRZ is at best a camel. what happened to Honda engineering? depressing
_43LE -
8/25/2010 3:29:19 PM
+7 Boost
Insiders at Honda definitely know they have dropped the ball on several occasions and realize they are no longer considered as leaders. Apparently there are lots of changes happening and these past few years have been the awkward transition. But, I'll believe it when I see it.
toyfan -
8/25/2010 5:18:43 PM
+2 Boost
I use to average that in my 2004 Corolla (automatic). . . Honda is very disappointing and falsely regarded as a top manufacturer. They confuse noisy and harsh riding for sporty, are falling behind in effeciency as their hybrids are virtually point less, and are not any more durable than any other brand!
thstone -
8/25/2010 6:40:58 PM
+3 Boost
Please remember that there were three different versions of the original CR-X; the base CR-X, the sporty CR-X Si, and the high milage CR-X HF.
It seems that everyone has an amalgamation of all of the CR-X models in their head when they think back on the car - except that there was no sporty, fun to drive, high milage version that existed!
mert3 -
8/26/2010 9:48:57 AM
+2 Boost
I've been visiting Autospies almost daily since 2007, but I never bothered to sign-up/comment on anything until reading this post. The most frustrating thing is how people will comment (whether negative or positive) about cars they've never driven, and in most cases probably never will drive.
I took a 122 mile test drive in this car (6mt EX Navi), have owned a 91 CRX si for 10 years and a 2005 S2000 for 2 years, SO I consider myself to be a credible critic on this particular car. Here's what I found: a million times more refined than my CRX, took my favorite S-turn faster than my S2000, and averaged 37.2 MPG over the test, ALL in Sport mode (the least efficient of the 3). Acceleration in gears 1-3 felt like the current Civic Si (minus the 6k-8k RPM Vtec range), the car sounds awesome, steering is excellent, etc etc...
If I needed a new car this is the one I'd buy. For $19,950 you can't beat it.
I hope anyone else who critiques this car, whether good or bad, has driven it. Not only that, but I hope they have something relevant to compare it with. Otherwise, move on to the next article
WarrenGrove -
9/15/2010 10:30:51 AM
+1 Boost
Want some "real world" numbers?
The car's EPA mileage was measured in "Normal" mode. In "ECON" mode, my first tank was 43.1 mpg - and a long trip yielded 47 mpg!
I am a happy camper!
Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC