True, but when you bought a CRX si's you could go to other car lots and see things like this:
That's one of my MUST-OWN cars. A CRX is NOT on that list. What's the point of being light, noisy, bouncy, and all that if it ONLY gets 37 mpg like an old CRX? My 01 insight gets 50-60 out of the same weight and compromises.
They had to make it a hybrid to get 37 mpg out of a two-seater?
No, they had to LEAVE it a hybrid to avoid completely re-engineering the platform they derived it from. I have complaints with honda's IMA but i think anyone who actually drives one will find that it does have nice benefits that other same-mpg hondas dont have, like the amount of torque between 1-3k rpm.
I still think it's a bit unfair to compare the CR-Z to a crx si rather than a lower-spec civic hatch. I think people are being fooled by the name here. IF (or when) honda makes a CR-Z si, this whole comparison would be framed differently. I think the current CR-Z should be viewed as what it is: a completely sensical and well-executed middle ground between the hyper-miler 1g Insight, and the more performance-oriented but less practical SI's of both the olden days (i.e. 89 crx si) and the present and everything in between. It may not crank any one person's WANT-meter to the max, but it appeals VERY broadly for what is still essentially a 2-dr hatchback.
Having said that, im one of the people that probably WONT be surprised by the results of the article and would just like to see all the old crx nutswingers get a little bit more perspective and recognize the car for what it is, on its own merits, and not look at it as simply being a wrong answer to a question they never actually asked Honda to begin with!!
So i AM still looking forward to this article. 