I couldn’t resist this twosome, especially since the Veloster may well get as close as anything to being a “replacement” for the much loved and lamented CRX. Or am I missing someone? CR-Z? Never seen one, yet. Another view:
The Veloster almost towers over the CRX. Like all new cars, it’s a lot bigger, but then it does have a back seat.
That Veloster looks even more humpy next to the CRX. It looks like it should be painted flat black and have gun ports in the windows. As for the CR-Z, meh. I don’t remember seeing one of them.
Do CRX vs. CR-Z SOON!
I bought my Veloster in November. It looks like it may be a suitable replacement for the CRX, but there are some fundamental differences. Yes, the back seat is there, but I have learned that anyone other than my 9 and 7 year old kids are not so comfortable back there.
Also, the Velosters here in Canada are very well equipped. Panoramic sunroof, touch screen nav, back up camera (necessary in this one, trust me) and heated seats for example. It’s no penalty box.
I use it as my commuter vehicle to work, and it does its job well. It uses half the gas of my F150 and gets a lot of looks wherever I drive it. Hyundai is still having supply issues with these, so they are still quite rare around here. It stands out in a sea of Civics and Corollas.
Not sure Ive seen a Veloster yet plenty of Hyundais roaming the roads here their diesel accent has award winning fuel consumption and the H1 Diesel vans are everywhere if they could be bothered building a cab/chassis ute theyd have everything sewn up. CRXs on the other hand are getting rare most have been riced and wrecked but I know of one original close by must shoot ot for the cohort page.
IMO, a Mazda2 is the closest you can get to a “new” CRX. Everything else is too big, too heavy, or too expensive (*cough* Mini).
If you are thinking size, then perhaps you may be correct, but if you are thinking of concept, not so much as the M2 is a 4 seater like the Veloster and has 4 actual doors while the CRX is a 2 seater, 2 door hatch that is meant to be much sportier than the more mundane Civics of the time and they were anything but mundane to drive in their day.
A few years ago I saw a similar CRX parked next to a 1st Gen Insight, the side profile shows quite the resemblance.
The rightful heir to the light, fun and economical throne of the CRX would be a 1st gen Insight stripped of the Hybrid system and swapped over to a newer VTECH swapped in.
Of course for Eco-modding swaps the Überinsight keeps the hybrid system but replaces the engine with a 1.2 VW TDI
Of course IMHO there is virtually nothing with wheels (or tracks) that is not improved by a properly sized diesel.
Just a well sorted diesel is usually enough
As much as I dislike the CRX, I dislike them there new bulbous cars more.
Hyundai/Kia are on a roll right now. They even have me looking their way.
If my 200 year old Pontiac dies soon, and I can’t find the used HHR SS of my choice, I may look at a new Kia Rio. Or a Sonic sedan.
Hyundai is the new Honda. They’re pushing out new tech with every new model (practically), their styling is great (or horrible, depends), the pricing is still undercutting Japan, Inc., and they developing a reputation for having good cars right out of the gate. I know several people who have bought them because of the warranty, then gone out and bought newer ones, because they liked the cars.
Honda, and it’s apologists, crab and nag about using tried and true technology and methods, while the rest of the world leaves them behind. I’ve seen the posts over at TTAC. If you were to substitute GM for Honda in some of those posts, the subsequent posts would be full of derision for the original poster.
I’ve only seen the CR-Z and the Veloster once each in person (in Detroit no less). I guess because the Veloster is so dramatically styled it really stuck out in my mind. The CR-Z is the modern CR-X, just with a huge schnozz. The CR-Z is really poorly named IMO. It brings comparisons to the CR-X to mind, and the CR-Z has a different mission. Honda is in their ‘malaise’ period. This isn’t just my opinon, but the opinion of many others.
With any luck, they’ll get their mojo back soon.
@geozinger:
Exactly. The posts about how the adoption of direct injection will lead to maintenance nightmares – and how “smart” Honda is for avoiding them – are just laughable. Honda’s just lagging behind most other automakers in terms of technology.
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/direct-injection-fouls-some-early-adopters.html
“Many automakers’ gasoline DI engines do not appear to exhibit any carbon build-up issues at all, however. Digging into online threads about Cadillac’s 3.6-liter DI V6 in its popular CTS lineup does reveal some owner concerns about carbon build-up, but it’s difficult to find even a single report that any build-up has actually occurred – a record that is notable considering that Cadillac has sold more than 200,000 CTS models with DI V6s (Audi sold fewer than 2,000 RS 4s in the US during its two-year sales run).
Haider, GM’s V6 assistant chief engineer, explained how GM has designed its DI engines to combat carbon buildup: “We maintain great engine function and performance in our all our DI engines through an optimization strategy with our valve events,” he said. “Our intake-cam timing, injector targeting and timing of the injection events are optimized to avoid direct fuel contact on the intake valves. This strategy keeps smoke and soot formation to an absolute minimum, which in turn prevents excessive deposit formation.”
At the Detroit Auto Show in January, Ford was confident enough about its popular 3.5 liter EcoBoost direct-injection V6 to have technicians tear down an example engine that had accumulated the equivalent of 160,000 miles through an intentionally abusive regimen of log dragging, high-speed towing and desert racing. When they opened it up before a live audience, they found some light carbon deposits on the valves and pistons, but not enough to affect performance. In fact, the engine showed a loss of just one horsepower afterwards – roughly what Boyadjiev’s RS 4 engine lost every 500 miles.”
Yes, some Audi engines with direct injection have problems like carbon buildup. But plenty of GM (!!) and Ford engines use DI technology and experience no issues related to DI.
Agreed. My wife’s ’99 Grand V’ger needs to die, or at least I’m waiting for an excuse to murder it, and I’m eyeing a new Sonata as a replacement. It’s brilliant what they’ve done, for 24 grand you get 274 horsepower and 35 highway MPG.. wait what? And true 5 person seating?
Now that I have my quad cab Dakota to haul us when we want to take the dog(s) and a bunch of skateboards and bikes, it’s a no brainer to downsize on her car. And double the gas mileage (plus some), and make a fun to drive family car? Where do I sign up?
I predict it’s only a blown water pump, radiator, or gasket away.
The Veloster is not really close to the CRX. For one, it’s a lot bigger and heavier. Also, its engine is tuned more for mpg than speed. You don’t see Hyundai advertising “138 horsepower!” It’s all about the “40 MPG!” Hyundai’s trying to make a car that looks sporty, and they’ve done that. However, for some real performance (cross your fingers), they’ll bring a turbo to North America. But for now, no, the Veloster is no CRX. And don’t even let me get started on the CR-Z.
Sure saw a lot of CRX’s scampering around NorCal (northern California) back “in the day” often driven by a curvaceous younger gal who knew she looked good and thus generally immune to driving in a manner showing courtesy to fellow motorists.
The CRXs appeared regularly in the yard de la wrecking having been proclaimed “totaled” by insurance firms.
They were generally picked clean quickly then off to their destination overseas.
Cute little critters (the cars).
In 1994 I bought a used 1987 CRX Si. I was going to be starting college that winter, 40 miles away each way and driving there, which common sense dictated would not be such a grand idea to attempt in my then 1968 Galaxie 500 with the 390. So I was on a search, and decided on the CRX.
I had that awful little car for just over 3 years, and don’t miss it one bit. During that time I found every excuse I could to drive the galaixe and avoid the Honda, and when I had the chance to finally rid myself of it – I did.
Why did I buy it? I read tons – TONS – of auto mags and everyone proclaimed how the CRX, particularly the Si, was a fun car to drive. And it was, rarely, downhill, and with predictable corners. When it didn’t break.
And it liked to do the latter. A LOT.
Anyway I’ll never miss that little bundle of terror and it stranding me at random places. Black with black tinted windows and a sunroof, it looked absolutely menacing and even sounded good – but then you would look at the speedo and say “wow, that sure was a lot of work for.. 40 mph?”
I replaced it in the fall of 1998 with a 1992 Ford F-150 Custom, which was equipped with a long bed, straight six, 5 speed manual, air conditioning, and a tow package – that’s it. I loved – LOVED – that pickup, and would still have it, had a Chevy Dually not taken it from my life in early 2006.
But the CRX? I hope it’s rotting.
Its hard to find a modern equivalent of the CRX, given C-segment cars are too large and B-segment cars are usually tall-format so don’t give the same feeling. Perhaps the previous model Renaultsport Clio 197, or Alfa 147 would be closest.