1. Ok have you driven the CR-Z before? Have you driven it in GT5? Who knows it could be a really fun car to drive. We dont know until we try it, so lets not be so hasty to pass judgement on something based on the fact that its a hybrid. If you play it in GT5 and its total garbage and sticks out like a sore thumb then your whole rant is justified.

2. Flogging is usually ment to beat or torture. Hence why i brought up the difficulty.

3. I am not a engine guru so i cant comment on what upgrades this car can or cannot handle. But it can be upgraded all cars can in some way or another (weight reduction, shocks, exaust, bodykit, ect).

 Check this out  http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/09/spoon-developing-parts-for-honda-cr-z/

Goes to show that there are people out there that want to race this car. Also these people would probably be interested in GT5.

 I would also like to say while on topic of modding or upgrading that this is the one area GT could improve on. I think they should let people put body kits on cars and customize paint jobs. Also yesterday i got passed like i was standing still by a CR-Z and i have to say its a great looking car if it wasnt just a ok hybrid i might want it. But its just ok and my car now non-hybrid does just as good if not better mpg wise.

1) I don't need to drive the CR-V to make such a general observation.  Basic vehicle dynamics says it won't be much good at this sort of thing.  You're going to spend the majority of the course at full throttle because you can't accelerate fast enough to even approach the max speeds for most corners.  When you do finally build up enough steam to take a corner at your tire's limits, it's going to understeer heavily thanks to a 60:40 weight distribution and you're going to have to fight it all the way through a corner.  Fun racing that does not make.

2)  "Flogging a car" is an expression to describe driving it on the edge and trying to extract every ounce of performance you can out of a car.  Here's a video posted in another forum called "Fifth Gear's Tiff Needell flogging the M3":

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?s=af425fb7a9629ed5dd64e97dc514e664&t=424797

3) Wait, so you think because Spoon, who's whole business strategy is cashing upon the "JDM" obsession of neo ricers, is making aftermarket body kits for the CR-Z like they do every other Honda car it means that the CR-Z is now a fun car to race?  No.  That doesn't mean anything.  Yeah you can throw springs and shocks on the car, but that can't change the fact that the chassis is designed for comfort and space and not rigidity and the suspension geometry was designed with a nice ride in mind, not a good roll center, pitch center, mechanical/pneumatic trail for racing.  As I pointed out, a lot of the weight in this car comes from it's hyrbid drive train, there's really not much you can take away.  A bodykit is not a performance part.  This car doesn't even get fast enough for aero to matter anyways.  Aside from getting rid of the catalytic converter, you're not really going to get much out of a new exhaust because the engine isn't moving much air in the first place.  I'm not saying those modifications won't be available, but they won't cause any significant performance jump.  This car will remain a boring car to race.

Whatever dude its like im talking to a wall. Consider this my last comment on this discussion.

1."I first drove the CR-Z at a press junket, which included twisty (but unfamiliar) roads and an autocross circuit (a low-speed 1st- and 2nd-gear racetrack with lots of sharp turns). Overall, I was a bit underwhelmed. But out on Auto Club's fast track, the CR-Z's true character really came out. Not only is the CR-Z nimble, but it's surprisingly well balanced, even going so far as to kick the tail out in the bends. The technical term for that is oversteer, and it's a rare trait (and a rare treat) in factory-stock front-wheel-drive cars, most of which are engineered to understeer (plow straight ahead) so as not to surprise drivers in a panic swerve. The CR-Z wasn't terribly fast in the straights, but that meant I could push deeper into the corners before hitting the brakes, which held up very well to the abuses of track use. I was surprised and delighted"

http://cars.about.com/b/2010/09/16/track-day-surprises-honda-cr-z-and-lexus-is-f.htm

So yes you have to drive the car.

2. i wasnt saying you were wrong i was saying i have never herd it used that way.

3. You said " the antithesis of the car anyone would want to drive in Gran Turismo, and anyone interested in the car isn't going to be looking at it for its performance.  There are plenty of other cars being released/unveiled at the moment that appeal far more to the type of person that would be interested in GT5" thats why i included the link. If no one wanted to race it and thought it was crap then why is there aftermarket parts for it? A company isnt going to design stuff for racing for a car that nobody does. So that right there is proof people see potential in the car for racing. you = wrong.

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/crz-wraptivo-2010-09-02  people modding it for November's SEMA show.

What reviewers have said.

"The Honda CR-Z hybrid has been one of the most often-tuned Honda vehicles in recent time." - Top Gear.

""is set to become one of the most desirable cars on the planet" and concluded with "it's a lulu to drive". A lulu? Is that good?" - Mirror

"In short, the CR-Z is a car that anyone, from urban commuters to weekend racers, can enjoy" - Road & Track

Will any of this get you to stop thinking you know everything? No but hell i gave it one last try.

That first review is a joke.  It is impossible for a FWD car to "kick the tail out."  You need a longitudinal force on the rear wheels in order for that to happen (i.e. rear wheel drive).  What he did was powerslide the car which is caused by jumping on the brakes and turning sharply.  The rear tires begin to slide, losing grip, and the tail end comes around.  This guy has no clue what he's talking about.  While that's technically oversteer, it has nothing to do with how the car's set up.  You can make absolute boats that refuse to turn oversteer by overloading the tires and making them slide.  Still doesn't change the fact that a train is more responsive than those cars.  Maybe if you actually quoted the whole review instead of that snippet, you'd see he felt underwhelmed.  It performed poorly in the tight autocross section (i.e. where this car can actually reach max corner speeds).  He only liked it on the larger track because it was slow and easy to drive.  He didn't have to brake as much, and there wasn't as much he could screw up through these corners.  Citing some guy from about.com is hardly the best source on how well a car handles.

Spoon does not modify cars for performance.  Body kits and useless exhausts?  That's not performance, that's entirely an image thing.

Your "Top Gear" quote is from a site called Top Speed.  Wonderful "source" right there.  It looks like some BS blog trying to get hits.  It's just got a bunch of riced out CR-Z's.  A bodykit and 22 inch wheels (which hurt performance because of all the unpsrung weight they add) is not tuning a car to make it faster.

Look, how about you answer me this.  If the CR-Z really had the potential you claim it does (and you're clearly an expert when it comes to cars, and you're not arguing with a mechanical engineer with a good amount of vehicle dynamics knowledge and experience tuning race cars), why does Honda continue to use the Civic in all the Touring Car Championship Series it races in?  Because the whole sporty image is all marketing and a complete joke.  It's a heavier Honda Fit (there's a FWD low power car I actually like) with a weaker powertrain and worse balance.

It's going to continue to have idiot reviewers review it as nimble because it's got a short wheel base and thus rotates very quickly and it's slower than molasses and thus very easy to drive around a track.  That doesn't make it fun.  I've read several CR-Z reviews, and they all say the same thing.  It's slow.  It's not bad on some country roads (because they're only taking it to 7/10), but the moment they push it to the edge it's pretty underwhelming.  I was pretty psyched when Honda promised a CRX successor, but this is a pretty pathetic one.

The event was 2 days prior to the post? I live in NYC and I heard nothing about this. :(

Ok because you insist on spreading false information here.

"It is generally perceived that front-wheel-drive cars - that is, cars in which the front wheels do both, put power to the road and steer - are understeering wrecks that fly off the road if you go into a corner too quickly. This is generally true, but it is possible to eliminate understeer and actually oversteer to a certain degree. Oversteering fun is not just the domain of rear-wheel-drivers.

One way to induce oversteer in your front-driver is to plow hard into a corner and then lift off the throttle in the middle of the corner. Lifting off the throttle will cause the weight of the car to "shift" to the front, thereby putting more weight over the front wheels and, ultimately, adding more grip to the front tires. However, if you are lucky, the rear tires will lose traction and start to slide outwards while you're turning. You are now oversteering."

http://www.modernracer.com/tips/frontwheeldriveoversteer.html

Just because i know your going to question the site here is a video

You even contradict yourself you say its impossible and then (guessing what the reviewer did) say it was still technically a oversteer.

Also you seem to forget the topic we are debating here. Should the CR-Z be in GT. I have shown multiple links of people in racing that are interested in it. It having Racing geared parts being manufactured for it shows there is a market out there for it (otherwise they wouldnt make them). So if the racing community accepts it and some of them play GT then guess what...

 My solo reasoning for putting it in my reply is that it contradicts everything you said the car is going to be like and its from someone who actually has driven the car.

"While the steering lacks feel, it’s fairly accurate and well-weighted, and due to the low ride height and relatively short suspension travel, body roll is also relatively modest. The CR-Z responds well to steering inputs, and feels agile and capable in the corners. Gather enough speed and leave the throttle, and you’ll even manage to induce some old school back slips. "

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2011-honda-crz/

The spoon article also mentions ECU modifications.

It does have the potential. The tech is new they are still creating parts so its an up and comer as opposed to the civic which has tech thats been around for a while. Not saying anything will come from hybrid tech in racing, who knows. However, this question/paragraph has no relevance to the topic we are debating.

This is what it seems like you want to discuss and your main problem with it being in GT. I could care less.

ok you guys, those posts are WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY to huge. Cut down on the quotes by hitting the "delete row" button inside the unnecessary quotes. Thanks.

Oversteer simply means the car has more yaw rotation than it should vs. lateral acceleration.  Kicking the tail out is a specific type where you use a longitudinal force on the rear wheels to cause the rear end to rotate around (i.e. giving it too much gas in a corner).  He just explained the same thing I did.  In a FWD car, you can only cause the car to powerslide by shifting weight onto the front wheels (and off the back wheels), and trying to change direction (by turning).  Powersliding and "kicking the tail out" are two VERY different things.  The reviewer couldn't tell the difference between the two, and that's the issue I took with it.  If he can't understand something as simple as that, I should really trust his review (that was lukewarm at best)?

The reviews you keep posting are from no name sites that look about as legit as that white van sitting outside the local convenience store with "FREE CANDY" posted on the side.

Here's an excerpt from Autoblog's review of the CR-Z:

"Overall, the CR-Z isn't worthy of a sports car badge, but it is by far the best-driving low-cost compact hybrid we've come across. It feels less like an appliance (Prius) and more like a focused driver's car, even though you won't have much to show for in terms of sheer performance or mileage numbers. And this is where the CR-Z starts to lose its appeal. As soon as you consider the larger scope of what the Honda hybrid is trying to accomplish, your disappointment will start to outweigh any of the good vibes felt from behind the wheel."

Here's what your quoted review said in the concluding three paragraphs:

"Is the Honda CR-Z a sporty coupe? Not really. Is it an exceptionally good hybrid? Afraid not. After driving Honda’s newest hybrid and only real sporty car in its lineup, I returned with more questions than strict answers and criticism.

In many ways, the CR-Z is a disappointment. Aside from its exterior design, it seems to be doing all its tasks halfheartedly, and the resulting feeling is that this car has a lot of unfulfilled potential. Fifty more horses could have made it a true enthusiast’s choice in a segment rarely represented in the US. Ten more MPGs would have made it a just ambassador in the hybrid club.

But in a different sense, the CR-Z is one of those ‘first’ cars, like the first Caravan or the original Grand Cherokee. While Honda surely was not the first to toss ‘hybrid’ and ‘sport’ into the same sentence, they were the first to massively produce and market such a car. It does fall between the chairs, and in many ways is inferior to its more traditional rivals – like the VW Scirocco TDI in Europe – but it represents a future. And if that’s the future of hybrids, color me green with envy."

It's a step above a Prius from an enthusiasts perspective.  But that's like saying you're a step above a guy with no legs at running the 100m.  Both reviews point out that the VW TDIs are more fun.  That's a 3,000 lb hatch with a diesel engine that revs up to an INCREDIBLE (this is sarcasm) 4500 rpms and runs out of breath around 3000.  Having driven one hard through the mountains, they're really not that enjoyable either.

Finally, you admit that you're not an engine guru, and you clearly aren't a big car expert in general, and you're trying to tell me what kind of potential it has?  There's this wonderful thing called volumetric efficiency and it means that you can only get so much power out of a certain displacement because you can only take in so much air without turboing the car.  But see, here's the problem with the engine.  It's horrendously undersquare by design, and that means that its volumetric efficiency is going to drop off in the high rpms.  You simply can't make much torque up top with this engine.  Horsepower = torque x rpm / 5252.  You can see that if you want a lot of horsepower you need a good amount of torque at a high rpm.  There simply isn't a lot of room for improvement without going forced induction (turbo or supercharger).  This engine's running some pretty high compression though, so you'd have to drop that down some (which is going to hurt your numbers) and you can't really run much higher than 4-6 psi without the engine dying in 10k miles.  Max you might be able to get out of this car NA is about 130-140 hp and 180ish with forced induction.  That's a joke.