Why the new Honda CR-Z makes enthusiasts want to CR-Y.

At the 2010 North American International Auto Show, Honda took the wraps off their new subcompact sports coupe - the CR-Z. Scheduled for launch as a 2011 model, the CR-Z is supposed to channel the legendary Honda CRX from the '80s and early '90s. That car was extremely small, had two seats, and could be ordered in a variety of trim levels, from the fuel-sipping 50+mpg HF to the hot Si, which featured go-kart-like handling and a satisfyingly quick turn of speed.

But the last true CRXs were sold to Americans for 1991. And Honda's changed big-time since then. In 1991, Honda offered only four models: CRX, Civic (in 3-door hatch, sedan, and Wagovan bodies), Prelude, and Accord. None of their cars were sold with more than 4 cylinders under the hood. The heaviest car they made was a shade over 3,100lbs. And their reputation for quality and reliability was unimpeachable.

Today, Honda sells us 9 different models: Fit, Civic, Insight hybrid, Element, CR-V crossover, Accord, Odyssey minivan, Pilot crossover, and Ridgeline pickup. They offer fours, V6s, and hybrid models that have been met with far less success than Toyota's have. Their heaviest vehicle is now 4,640lbs, or 50% more than the heaviest Honda of 20 years ago. And since they ended production of the S2000 roadster last year, the Honda lineup is conspicuously lacking with the performance models that once gave the brand sparkle. And, in the first 2 months of 2010, Honda recalled more than a million cars worldwide for various defects.

Enter the CR-Z. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a CRX redux for the twenty-teens. Short wheelbase? Check. Two-seat cockpit layout? Check. Sloping rear roofline? Check. Characteristic glass on the upper half of the hatch fascia? Check. So it's a modern-day CRX.

But hold on a second. The 2000-06 Honda Insight hybrid checked all of the aforementioned CRX boxes, as well. But no one hailed it as a spiritual successor to Honda's legendary Lilliputian. Why? Because the Insight's emphasis was on its hybrid powertrain, featuring Honda's then-new Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) system. Its love-it-or-hate-it egg-inspired design was hugely responsible for its awe-inspiring advertized 70 mpg highway mileage figure at launch. And the 2000 Honda Insight got everyone in America talking about hybrids as Toyota was still putting the finishing touches on its first Federalized Prius. What it didn't get people talking about was handling or performance, both of which were lacklustre in the Insight as Honda engineers were tasked with wringing out every last mpg from every inch of its design. Interest started off strong, but sales levels never were stellar. Only 13,889 were sold over 7 model years. By comparison, Toyota sold 334,723 Priuses in the same timeframe.

When Honda showed the CR-Z production preview concept in late 2007, Honda enthusiasts were pleased, to say the least. Visions of high-speed cornering, bargain prices, and Spin Doctors cassettes danced in their heads. However, when Honda unveiled the production CR-Z at Detroit and launched in on the new car's specs specs, vision turned to disillusionment.

Despite Honda's happy-face PR, the important details of the new CR-Z said it all: 1.5L four, teamed with Honda's IMA hybrid powertrain generates 122 horsepower - only 14 more than the non-assisted 1.6L 1991 CRX Si. That would be somewhat excusable if the CR-Z weighed the same as the old CRX. But it doesn't. Instead, the 2011 CR-Z has a prodigious 490 extra lbs. on the flyweight '91. As a result, the 20 year-old CRX Si gets to 60 in 8.5 seconds. The CR-Z's 0-60 time: 9.7...only 0.1 ahead of the not-inspiring Prius. So, on the performance front, 20 years in the hands of Honda's engineers have yielded us a car with only 14 more horsepower, a quarter ton more weight, and a much slower time to 60mph. Not a good start.

So maybe the CR-Z isn't really a CRX replacement. It's a hybrid, after all, right? Might Honda really be replacing the original, highly economical Insight, but trying to find more success by giving it better styling and trying to make it appeal to enthusiasts, as well as tree huggers? If they did, they failed on that front, too.

Taking into account the recent changes in fuel economy testing procedures, the 2-seat 2006 Honda Insight managed 48mpg in the city and 58 on the highway. The 1991 Civic HF, with a 1.5L four and no hybrid powertrain: 40 city/47 highway. The 2011 CR-Z will be rated at 36/38 for the automatic and 31/37 for the manual. So not only does it get 20mpg less than the original hybrid Insight, it gets about 10mpg less than the 20 year-old CRX HF. A 20" longer, manual Chevrolet Cobalt with no hybrid system and an engine half again as big will get the same highway fuel economy number as the much smaller CR-Z manual. So, for a hybrid with a small engine, it fails the fuel efficiency test, too.

What's that, you say? Don't count it out yet? It's a subcompact (160.6" long)! Maybe it's really inexpensive and its 2-seat hatchback layout makes it the perfect low-price high-value commuter car! No such luck, actually. While prices in the US haven't been announced, in Japan, the base car lists for the equivalent of $25,500. For a frame of reference, its larger, now 5-door, 5-passenger 2nd-generation Insight line mate lists for the equivalent of $5k less there. So, as far as educated guesses go, it fails miserably at the value-for-money commuter car proposition, as well.

And for that money, you'll be getting a car with an uncharacteristically cheap interior. And a car whose name will make people think you're talking about Honda's crossover, the rhymes with 'Z' Honda CR-V. And, if Honda decides to make a performance version called Type R, it'll be a shoe-in for the dubious Alphabet Soup Award: Honda CR-Z Type R.

So, despite the hype, the new 2-door subcompact 2-seat hybrid CR-Z appears to have all of the disadvantages of the original Insight and CRX (i.e., limited cargo space and limited passenger space) with none of the fuel economy advantages of the Insight and none of the perfomance advantages of the CRX. Throw in, by all indications so far, a prohibitively high price and it appears that Honda has cooked up a recipe for failure of epic proportions. It is a car with limited utility that does none of the things you'll want it to very well. As it appears now, only one word seems to be appropriate in describing it: useless.

If you're shocked at the severe degree to which Honda has created a white elephant, don't be. Those of us who have been following the industry closely saw this coming. When Honda brought out the Ridgeline in 2006, an Accord-based V6 4-door midsize pickup that gets poorer fuel economy than a full-size V8 Chevy Silverado, with styling that makes a '78 El Camino look good on the outside and a '98 Suburban good on the inside, it appeared that Honda might be losing their way. Customers agreed, as the Ridgeline's sales figures would make Crystal Pepsi's units sales look good.

Then Honda followed it up with the 2009 Pilot, which had a universally hated USB port for a grille and poorer fuel economy than its larger rivals. And the subcompact 2009 Fit, which, with its manual transmission gets the same highway fuel economy as a midsize automatic Malibu, and poorer economy than the midsize Fusion or 2011 Sonata. In 2010, Honda brought the Insight name back after a 3-year hiatus on a new Prius-fighting 5-door hatchback sedan. Although $2,500 cheaper than the 2010 Prius, the new Insight has been widely panned as loud, rough, unrefined, and delivering much poorer fuel economy (40/43) than its larger, heavier, more powerful Prius competitor (51/48).

And speaking of panned, Honda also released the new Accord Crosstour in 2010. It's a fastback 5-door AWD crossover with enough ground clearance to make it hard to get into the backseat (especially as you must simultaneously duck under that sloping roofline) and load bulky items in its limited (again, by its sloping roofline) cargo bay, but not high enough to enable it to do any off-roading. The styling proportions are all wrong, as well. From certain angles, its bulging nose, squinted headlights, and hunched back make it look like Quasimodo on four wheels. When Honda first released photos of the car on their Facebook page, they instantly garnered Bronx cheers by the thousands from Honda fans, lamenting the Crosstour's styling and questioning its reason for being.

And don't get me started on the freakshow they've turned their luxury brand, Acura, into these days.

Honda has, for 3 decades now, been on the march. They've long made quality cars with good driving dynamics, great fuel economy, and unmatched quality and reliability. The company that has long required its production car engineers to earn their engineering chops in their motorcycle department, is now the purveyor of overstyled, overweight, oversized cars (the current Civic is as big and heavy as the '89 Accord was) that are packed with content and complexity, but are underachieving answers to questions that no one is asking.

And the new CR-Z, as shockingly compromised of an effort as it is, is no fluke. It is nothing other than proof that its corporate parent, much like its cross-town rival Toyota, is wandering in the desert, being victimized by its own success. With cars cars as amazing as the CRX Si, Prelude 4WS, Acura Integra Type R, and Acura NSX were, the state of affairs today at Honda is almost enough to make an enthusiast want to CR-Y.