Drove both the manual and automatic and found the manual more fund to drive. Particularly the close shifting ratio of the gears and the smooth shifting. The critics reviews on Edmunds are accurate. I am buying an automatic 2009 Nissan Maximum V-6 SE Coupe, which has 270 hp and I am averaging 22 MPGs.
Wanted to test drive the CR-Z, not available in 2009 due to its MPGs and MSRP and the high trade-in vale of the Nissan.
Decided the CR-Z is not worth purchasing due to what I would give up with the Nissan for only 12 more MPGs and the MSRP of the CR-Z, which is not being discounted that much, even if gas went to five dollars a gallon. Also due to the crash ratings. Would prefer to wait.
Shifting, handling, roominess of driver and passenger area, climate control, outside temperature reading, heated outside mirrors, and all noted safety devices in and outside.
Re-design to reach five star crash test in all areas. Improve design to improve review.
Over 5 years, it will cost $5,750 extra in gasoline cost to drive the Maxima vs. the CR-Z according to Fuel Economy.gov.
Also, a 2009 Maxima vs a 2011 CR-Z is about 3k more in initial costs, so now we're at $8,750 additional over a 5 year ownership.
I'll happily take a CR-Z :)
No offense, but its hard to rely on a review on this type of product when you dont actually own it. Its like when apple haters were trashing the iPad on Amazon before it was even offered for sale, and they were basing their reviews on what they read from other articles that it was expensive and just a "big iphone". But if you look at the iPad reviews now you see more satisfied customers and useful critizism about weak wifi and other comments that actually help prospective customers make a better decision.
IIHS gives good rate on CRZ front and side crash tests, which should be good enough. As for the new gov 5 star crash rating, even many SUVs earn only 4 or 3 stars. Do we really need to drive tanks to be safe on road?