Honda CR-Z

Honda CR-Z: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Honda CR-Z catalogue contains one generation, produced from February 2010 to January 2017 as a Mini 3-doors body, so the buying decision is not between generations or body styles. It is between five hybrid, front-wheel-drive specifications: two versions rated at 112 hp, one at 120 hp, and two at 124 hp.

The Honda CR-Z catalogue contains one generation, produced from February 2010 to January 2017 as a Mini 3-doors body, so the buying decision is not between generations or body styles. It is between five hybrid, front-wheel-drive specifications: two versions rated at 112 hp, one at 120 hp, and two at 124 hp. The main choice is whether to prioritize the 6-speed Manual, the Variable gearbox, lower measured fuel consumption, stronger torque, or the quickest measured acceleration.

Honda CR-Z generations and versions

The 1 generation ran from February 2010 through January 2017. It used the Mini 3-doors body and included five catalogue entries. All five combine a front, transverse Hybrid engine with FWD, but identical version names do not always indicate identical specifications. For clarity, every repeated name below is distinguished by power: 1.5 CVT (112 hp), 1.5 MT (112 hp), 1.5 MT (120 hp), 1.5 CVT (124 hp), and 1.5 MT (124 hp).

Because the supplied data contains only one generation, there is no numerical basis for comparing one CR-Z generation with another or describing what changed between generations. The meaningful comparisons are among the five versions within 1 generation.

Honda CR-Z engine and specs comparison

The 112 hp versions produce about 74.9 hp per litre, while the 120 hp 1.5 MT reaches about 80.2 hp per litre. Both 124 hp versions deliver about 82.8 hp per litre, the highest result in the range.

The difference between the least and most powerful specifications is 12 hp. Torque rises more substantially: the 124 hp 1.5 MT has 174 Nm, which is 40 Nm more than either 112 hp version. The 124 hp 1.5 CVT provides 167 Nm, or 33 Nm more than the 112 hp 1.5 CVT.

Honda CR-Z performance, mpg and economy

The quickest measured choice is the 1.5 MT (120 hp), reaching 100 km/h in 9.1 seconds. It is 0.7 seconds quicker than the 1.5 MT (124 hp), 0.8 seconds quicker than the 1.5 MT (112 hp), and 1.3 seconds quicker than the 1.5 CVT (124 hp). Acceleration for the 1.5 CVT (112 hp) was not measured.

The two manual versions with measured consumption—the 1.5 MT (112 hp) and 1.5 MT (120 hp)—both use 6.1 L/100 km in the city, 4.4 L/100 km on the highway, and 5 L/100 km combined. Against the 1.5 CVT (112 hp), either manual uses 0.4 L/100 km less in the city, 1.6 L/100 km less on the highway, and 1.3 L/100 km less combined.

A top speed of 200 km/h is listed for both 112 hp versions, the 1.5 MT (120 hp), and the 1.5 MT (124 hp). Top speed for the 1.5 CVT (124 hp) was not measured. Fuel consumption for both 124 hp versions was not measured, so the data does not support an economy ranking between the 124 hp manual and CVT.

Honda CR-Z dimensions, weight and tank capacity

Wheel sizes were not measured for any of the five versions.

At kerb weight, each 1147 kg version carries a different power-to-weight implication. The 112 hp cars have about 10.24 kg per hp, the 120 hp 1.5 MT has about 9.56 kg per hp, and the 124 hp 1.5 MT has about 9.25 kg per hp. The 1160 kg 1.5 CVT (124 hp) has about 9.35 kg per hp. On these figures, the 124 hp manual has the most favorable weight-per-horsepower ratio.

The 1.5 CVT (124 hp) is 13 kg heavier than the other versions. The 1.5 MT (120 hp) has 135 mm of ground clearance, 15 mm less than every alternative. Its 1522 kg gross weight is 2 kg above the listed 1520 kg figure for the other versions with measured gross weight. Gross weight for the 1.5 CVT (124 hp) was not measured.

All versions use independent, spring front suspension and semi-independent, torsion rear suspension. Each has ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes.

Which Honda CR-Z version should you buy?

The 1.5 MT (120 hp) is the strongest evidence-based all-round choice. It records the quickest acceleration at 9.1 seconds, while matching the 112 hp manual’s measured 5 L/100 km combined consumption. It adds 8 hp and 12 Nm over the 1.5 MT (112 hp), yet retains the same 1147 kg kerb weight. The trade-off is its 135 mm clearance, which is 15 mm lower than the other versions.

Choose the 1.5 MT (124 hp) when maximum listed output, torque and power-to-weight matter most. Its 124 hp and 174 Nm lead the range, and its 9.25 kg-per-hp ratio is the best of the five. However, its measured 9.8-second acceleration is 0.7 seconds slower than the 120 hp manual, while its fuel consumption was not measured. The extra 4 hp and 28 Nm over the 120 hp version therefore do not produce the quickest recorded sprint.

The 1.5 MT (112 hp) is the most completely documented lower-output option. It combines a 9.9-second acceleration time, 200 km/h top speed, and 5 L/100 km combined consumption. Compared with the identically powered 1.5 CVT (112 hp), it has the same 112 hp, 134 Nm, 1147 kg kerb weight, 150 mm clearance, and 200 km/h top speed, but consumes 1.3 L/100 km less on the combined cycle. The CVT’s acceleration was not measured, so no acceleration advantage can be claimed for either one.

Choose the 1.5 CVT (124 hp) specifically for the Variable gearbox and stronger low-rpm torque. It delivers 167 Nm at 1000–1500 rpm, compared with 134 Nm at 5500 rpm in the 112 hp CVT. That is an increase of 33 Nm, accompanied by 12 additional horsepower. Its disadvantages in the supplied figures are a 13 kg higher kerb weight and the slowest measured acceleration, at 10.4 seconds. Its top speed and fuel consumption were not measured.

The 1.5 CVT (112 hp) is the alternative for buyers who want the Variable gearbox but do not require the higher-output specification. Its combined consumption of 6.3 L/100 km is the highest measured figure here, and its acceleration was not measured. It otherwise matches the 112 hp manual in power, torque, kerb weight, gross weight, clearance, tank capacity, and listed top speed.

No purchase-price data is provided, so the extra money required for any version—and whether that premium is worthwhile—cannot be measured. Reliability and problems data is also not provided; consequently, no version can be described as more reliable or more troublesome from this catalogue evidence alone. Based strictly on the available numbers, the 1.5 MT (120 hp) offers the best combination of measured acceleration and measured economy, while the 1.5 MT (124 hp) is the choice for maximum power, torque, and the best weight-per-horsepower figure.