Advertisement

2012 Honda CR-Z Vs. 2012 Hyundai Veloster: Gas-Saver Coupes

 
Follow Antony

2012 Hyundai Veloster  -  First Drive

2012 Hyundai Veloster - First Drive

Enlarge Photo

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.

2012 Honda CR-Z

2012 Honda CR-Z

Enlarge Photo

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.





Posted in:
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (8)
  1. When you check fuelly, Veloster got respectful 32mpg overall real world fuel economy, but you will be surprise that CRZ actually beat EPA estimate and scored 38mpg combined in real world situation. Who win?
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

  2. You do have to consider warranty as a cost of ownership. Over the life of the car beyond 4 years the Hyundai is the obvious winner.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. I own a CRZ. I wouldn't trade it for anything comparable. It's doing 0-60 right around 7.8-8.2 seconds stock and averaging 42 MPG overall. As for warranty, Honda offers an extended warranty for little money up to 120,000 miles or 6 years bumper to bumper.

    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.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

     
  4. Hi Ricky, thanks for your comment.

    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".
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. In the old days, the only MPG numbers one had were the EPA and your buddies. But these days it is possible to see real-world MPG numbers at a variety of internet sites. Green Car Reports should be keen to the fact the the EPA has little to do with real-world MPG. A more valuable article might have pulled together some real-world numbers (see fuelly.com and truedelta.com).

    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
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  6. @Go Zoner: A couple of comments. First, GCR covered the issue of Hyundai Elantra real-world gas mileage, here:
    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.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  7. Aggregations of consumer-reported fuel efficiency are, however, good when 1) the mpg distribution looks basically Gaussian (sample size is large enough) and 2) mpg comparisons between models are made based on data from the same site (self-selection criteria likely similar at given website). Do you really want to claim that a handful of 'testers' are better then hundreds of individuals? Or that manufacturer administered EPA tests are not ripe for 'optimization' - particularly given the software dominance in engine performance and the consequent ability to specify every aspect of engine control at every rpm, load, etc?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. I really don't get how an article is written if you never have been in either car. Ricky is correct. Anyone that has been in both cars sees, feels, the difference in craftsmanship in the cr-z and the voloster. That is to start, and why i purchased the cr-z. The mileage I have been receiving in a 6-speed cr-z over 7000 miles is 40.1 average. That is in Florida and i am not easy on my car. This was shocking considering the 2006 honda hybrid of my ex could not get over 31 mpg no matter how you drove it. thanks honda for more mpg she is not happy i get better mpg.

    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.
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Get great deals on the 2012 Hyundai Veloster!
By clicking above, you agree that your data will be subject to our Car Quotes Privacy Policy
Advertisement

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

 
© 2013 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.