Carmakers are beginning to realise that saving gas and reducing emissions, and making a fun car to drive aren't mutually exclusive.
At the top of the market there are now plenty of high-performance hybrids to choose from, but what if your budget is a little lower - nearer the $20,000 mark?
That's where the 2012 Honda CR-Z and 2012 Hyundai Veloster come in. Both are compact coupes, both do in the region of 40 MPG on the highway, and both are designed to be fun to drive. So which should you choose for a bit of green fun?
Economy and emissions
With a six-speed manual transmission, the Hyundai hits the all-important 40 MPG highway rating, which looks good in the brochure and is sure to bring in the customers. That dips to 38 MPG with the dual-clutch auto, though to compensate, city mileage is better at 29 MPG, to 28. The overall mileage is 32 MPG for both transmissions.
The Honda gets higher overall mileage - 34 MPG combined with the 6-speed manual, and 37 combined for the continuously-variable auto. The auto just misses out on a 40 MPG figure for highway mileage, getting 39 - with 35 in the city.
As such, the Honda is the cleaner according to the EPA fueleconomy.gov site, using 8.9 barrels of petroleum per year to the Hyundai's 10.3 barrels, less tailpipe CO2, and a better smog score. At $3.79 per gallon of gasoline, it'll also cost you approximately $250 a year less in gas than the Hyundai over 15,000 miles.
Performance and fun
Economy is only one facet of these coupes - the other is fun. The Hyundai starts off well by offering the more powerful engine. It uses a 138-horsepower 1.6 with direct injection and variable valve timing. You'll complete the 60mph sprint in between 9 and 10 seconds depending on the transmission.
Honda's coupe delivers you to 60mph in somewhere just under ten seconds, which isn't particularly quick, but close enough to the Hyundai - the lack in engine capacity made up by the electric assistance - a feature that also gives the car useful torque at low revs, beneficial for both performance and economy.
Both cars are fun to drive, as you'll see in our full reviews of each. The Honda is certainly more nimble and exciting than its humble Insight underpinnings suggest.
Practicality and value
The Veloster takes a fairly easy victory here. The asymmetric door layout may not be to all tastes as far as styling is concerned, but it improves access to the rear seats. The CR-Z doesn't even offer rear seats, though luggage space is improved as a result.
The cabin is light and airy though, and the build quality is good. We did find a few seat comfort issues when we reviewed the car though, so try both out to see which fits you best.
The Veloster is the cheaper of the two vehicles - it starts with an MSRP of $17,300 to the CR-Z's $19,545. That gets you the manual transmission in each. Another $650 gets you CVT in the Honda, bringing the total to $20,195. The dual-clutch auto adds $1,250 to the Veloster's price. The CVT is worth having in the Honda for the economy gains, but it may not be as fun to drive as the manual car.
Verdict
Choosing between Veloster and CR-Z is closer than some of the other comparisons we've looked at, because the hybrid isn't as clean-cut on economy in this instance. It's close though, and if your driving takes in a mix of routes, the CR-Z should be the more efficient, and cleaner choice overall.
However, if value is your deciding factor then it's hard to argue against the Hyundai. It gets up to 40 MPG, has two more seats and costs less to buy.
Both cars show that economical need not mean boring though - more cars like this please, auto industry.
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Have an opinion?
I've driven the Veloster. It's stylish, has good fuel economy, however steering response is lacking and the engine it quite lethargic in comparison to the Honda. The Veloster does have a backseat, but good luck finding someone small enough to fit back there... perhaps small children or little people.
Bottom line, this report is biased and is only going off the what the paper says. Drive the CRZ and you'll find it is the better choice for anyone who can live without a cramped backseat.
I assure you there is absolutely zero bias in the article.
In fact, it's a shame you choose "bias" as the default response, particularly as I didn't actually come to a definite conclusion in the article - one paragraph was in favor of the CR-Z, the other in favor of the Veloster (that makes it a 50/50 split to me, unless my math is wrong...), and the third paragraph suggesting that other carmakers should produce similar vehicles.
Bottom line (as you liked to put it), an article that raises negative points against something you own isn't automatically "biased".
A healthy bit of scepticism might be warranted as well. Hyundai is getting loads of press over their slate of 40 mpg cars. But, the fact is, based on real-world MPGs Hyundias are essentially the worst performers among other 40 (or nearly so) MPG models. http://goo.gl/zyw18
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1070094_consumer-watchdog-to-epa-re-test-hyundai-elantra-gas-mileage
and here:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071844_hyundai-hits-mileage-targets-early-says-elantra-40-mpg-rating-accurate
Second, we mostly find EPA *combined* ratings to be within 1-2 mpg of what we get on our road tests. Remember, mileage varies far more than THAT with driving style. Aggregations of consumer-reported fuel efficiency can be limited by low sample size & self-selection bias. EPA ratings are hardly perfect, but test cycles are consistent across all models.
On the other hand a nabor has the voloster works a block from me is averaging 31ish mpg does not drive aggressive hmmmm. the fact that were given are off of paper.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!