2010 Honda CR-Z Hybrid Coupe: Official Brochure of Production Model Leaked Online

The official Japanese domestic market brochure for the 2010 Honda CR-Z hybrid coupe has surfaced online revealing the hybrid coupe in full production glory. The scanned photos show that in terms of exterior and interior design, little, if anything, has changed from the prototype version of the CR-Z which made its world premiere at the Tokyo Motor Show in September.

Furthermore, we get the chance to see the hybrid-coupe fitted with several dealer options such as an aluminum trim exterior package, but most importantly, the leaflet provides us with engine specs, and preliminary performance and fuel economy figures.

The brochure confirms that the CR-Z's hybrid drivetrain will comprise of a 1.5-liter four-cylinder petrol unit and an electric motor, with power being delivers to the front wheels through a six-speed manual gearbox.

From what we gather (more accurate translations are welcome), the petrol engine delivers an output of 114ps (84kW or 113 HP) at 6,000 rpm and a peak torque of 145Nm (107 lb-ft) at 4,800 rpm, while the electric motor, 14ps (10kW or 13.4 HP) at 1,500 rpm and 78Nm (58 lb-ft) at 1,000 rpm.

The result is a not so sporty 0-100 km/h (62mph) sprint time of 9.7 seconds. The leaflet also makes word of a 25.0 km/lt (58.8mpg US or 4.0 lt/100km) and 22.5 km/lt (52.9 mpg US or 4.5 lt/100km) fuel consumption, but we don't know what the numbers refer to.

In comparison, the Honda Insight hybrid is equipped with 1.3-liter petrol engine and a 10HP electric motor producing a combined output of 98HP and 123 lb-ft, for a sprint time of 12.5 seconds and an combined fuel economy of 41mpg US (40mpg city, 43mpg highway).

The new CR-Z hybrid will go on sale in Japan in February of 2010, with Europe and North America following shortly after.

Via: Minkara


Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

Am i the only one who thinks its an ugly car?

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

Get rid of the underwelming and weighty hybrid power train and I'll be first in line for it.

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

What Honda/Acura these days isn't ugly?

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

I can’t wait until 2011 when it comes to the States! Would like to be able to buy one right NOW!

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

I was really looking forward to the CRZ,I had full intention for this car to be my next automobile,but 9.7 seconds 0-60?That's only .1 second better than the Prius!What a shame,I really had faith that Honda would bring us the world's first true hybrid sports car.The idea of a 21st century CRX has had me captivated ever since the Remix concept of 2007,but that 0-60 time is simply pitiful.

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

I hope it comes to America with a non-hybrid option. Preferrably the gone but not forgotten s2000 engine.

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

When Chris Bangle started designing cars for BMW he told the reporters that you can't judge the cars by their pictures, You have to see them. I saw bunch of new Honda and Acura cars and trucks in LA auto show last week and I have to say the pictures are much nicer than the real ones. They are horrible. Anything we buy is an image of what we are, regardless of what it is, food,cloths, ... and cars. I can't understand why people may buy this ugly vehicles?

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

very dissapointing engine output.. would expect ar least 100hp/litre from honda given their skills with n/a engines. should have used the cbr1000rr lump instead!

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

It looks a little better than I expected actually - compared to the concepts weve seen. the sides look a bit less slabby with the creases and the headlamps look a bit better. Not so angular overall. We'll have to see what the tuners like Mugen and whip up in terms of bodykits etc.

Phontsolo said... »December 08, 2009

What the hell happened to Honda? I used to enjoy they're cars. Honda CRX Si, Prelude, Integra. Having owned 2 '91 Honda CRX Si's this is NOT what I've been looking forward to at all.

91 Honda CRX Si had 108 horses. This has 114?! What the F?! It's almost been 20 years and they've only added 6 more horses and it's a hybrid?!! What? It's like almost going backwards!

Huge EPIC fail in my opinion.

Woody Thompson said... »December 08, 2009

Folks, they will come out with a SI version, so don't go grey right now : )

Sergio said... »December 08, 2009

@Phontsolo, and this CR-Z will be a lot heavier than the CR-X... this car is indeed and epic fail from my point of view.

Anonymous said... »December 08, 2009

according to honda this model will not have non-hybrid or autogearbox option. i wonder what all honda engineers did everyday in last decade??nothing.they worked only at design. cr-z may sell only in japan.not competetive for eu and us markets.i think honda has dark future in europe. cr-z was a hope for honda fans. but it born dead.

Vic said... »December 08, 2009

I wanna get one indeed... But is it a two-seater? It would be better if it's a four-seater.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

You people aren't getting it. The CRX is about driving fun - not 0-60 times. I like it , a compact modern looking car that should be fun to drive and also light on fuel.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

I want to change front mask of CR-Z just now.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

Guys go lose you cars designs are changing faster than ever.... more radicle.

SamuraiJack said... »December 09, 2009

My 18 year old CRX has more power, and thanks to it's lower weight, is a lot faster. Ok, I don't get 22.5 km/l but I have made over 17 km/l with careful driving.

What irritates me is that Honda CAN get a lot more power reliably out of a small engine. Why don't they? All the extra cost, weight and complexity for a 10kW hybrid powerplant??? Why?

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

its ugly and slow -> epic fail!

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

fun to drive? how?? ignoring the pitiful 0-60 times its never going to be as chuckable as its rivals (hybrid=batteries=not very chuckable).
can only hope previous poster is right about an si version.. and that it doesnt turn into yet another pointless, pseudo-environmentally friendly paris hilton runaround

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

"You people aren't getting it. The CRX is about driving fun - not 0-60 times. I like it , a compact modern looking car that should be fun to drive and also light on fuel."

And waiting 9.7 seconds to get to 100kph isn't fun at all.

Also, calling this 'modern' is subjective as any car can look 'modern', so your argument is moot.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

and let us not forget the original CR-X came with a rinky dink 1.5 litre engine upon its arrival as well.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

"Guys go lose you cars designs are changing faster than ever.... more radicle."

In case a Honda PR person has convinced you so, and given what kind of cringe-worthy and ghastly stuff Honda has been churing out lately, then no, they aren't becoming 'radicle'

Besides, unless a car offers something far and above the standard, car styling has historically been almost always conservative in it's approch. Honda, since it's inception, has always done the cars with a conservative brush...up until lately. Now, their cars are jsut repulsive to look at and this is no exception.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

"and let us not forget the original CR-X came with a rinky dink 1.5 litre engine upon its arrival as well."

and let us not forget the orginal CR-X came with a rinky dink 1.5 litre engine upon its arrival and didn't weigh nearly as much as this bloated cow does had it also had no need for a hybrid powertrain to suppliment it's performance.

Remember the Lotus principle: simplify and then add lightness. The old CRX exemplified that principle. This does not and will not.

Anonymous said... »December 09, 2009

Liking the exterior but the brochure pics of the interior seem to indicate loads of shiny, cheap and mismatched plastics like the horrid Insight. Non merci!

Automobiles on world said... »December 23, 2009

i like Honda CR-Z, is consistent with the amount I have

Anonymous said... »January 06, 2010

Y'all are crazy. The car looks good, is a gas miser, and doesn't cost much.

It'll sell, no matter what you dinks think.

Anonymous said... »February 28, 2010

I agree with all of the negative comments,it's just too slow and heavy. Honda should never have made it a hybrid. And for those of you who like this car--would you pay %25,500 for the base model?

Anonymous said... »February 28, 2010

Honda apparently has forgotten how to produce fun to drive, sporty cars. This car is too underpowered and slow and Honda doesn't seem realize this simple fact.

At least Toyota, unlike Honda, is trying to bring passion back to its product lines with cars like the FT-86.

Post a Comment