braisler

Official Honda link

The first of the next generation Honda Insights have started to hit dealer lots. It is remarkable to me that this car has taken a huge step backward in terms of fuel economy. I know that Honda, as a car company, has to cater to what it thinks are the needs of its customers. But this new Insight is an insult to those same consumers. I just don't see where it fits into their overall car line-up. They already had the Fit for those that wanted a hatchback, the Civic Hybrid gets almost exactly the same fuel economy for those who want that.

The Insight of 2000 was a small but significant step forward in terms of efficiency and fuel economy. That car was rated at 62 MPG highway. TEN years later they are introducing a Generation 2 Insight that gets a whopping 43 MPG. That is just terrible. In the past, I have owned a 1991 Honda CRX HF. When that car was nearly 10 years old, it was still routinely getting 52 MPG without a hybrid motor. I also owned a 2000 Insight 5-speed. With that car, my top mileage was 73 MPG for a 330 mile stretch on a road trip. Other original Insight owners report getting 90-100 MPG by careful driving habits or after-market soft-mods.

Yes, they added a back seat and four door instead of two. But they removed the rear wheel covers that decrease wind resistance. Ditto for the nearly solid profile wheel rims. And in all that time, they appear to be using the exact same battery and hybrid electric engine in the car. Nothing has improved in 10 years??!?!!? Nothing!?

Obviously, I won't be buying this car. Not ever. I was hopeful, but my hopes have been dashed.

shakran

The original insight sucked for most people, and Honda lost money on every one they sold. Sure it got great fuel economy, but thanks to its thin tires and minimal weight a small puff of wind knocked it around. Its low-drag rear wheel skirts got ripped off if you didn't detach them before taking it through a car wash. I also was not impressed with its real world MPG of 62 since as you mentioned it was only 10mpg more than a non-exotic-drivetrain CRX HF, which also felt more solid and drove more confidently. And solid-profile rims is another way of saying "Shitty cooling for the brakes," and also doesn't add all that much as far as wind resistance goes - Indy Car experimented with these back in 1988 to see if they could get a few more laps or a few more mph out of them



but dropped them as being too much hassle for the gains. These are guys who get excited if they get one more lap out of some mod. If they dropped such wheels, then they didn't do much for the Insight, either.

Frankly I wish they'd bring the CRX back, in both the HF and the Si form. They're supposedly bringing a CRZ to market in '11, but after looking at the car it would have been better if they hadn't skipped a letter for the acronym.

braisler

Despite 'sucking' for a lot of people, the original Insight does have a large fan base of hyper-milers who are more concerned about getting a few more MPG than a few more HP. There have been Insight owners who have shaved the side view mirrors off to reduce drag and replaced them with rear-facing CCD cameras. Other people have modified the Insight to tweak the air intake with pre-warmed air, or tweaked the IMA to make it manually adjustable to maximize efficiency.

The original Insight also had the lowest drag coefficient of any production car at the time of its release. 5.1 CdA ft^2 vs. 6.24 for the Toyota Prius for example. I don't know the drag numbers on this new Insight, but I'd bet it was closer to a Prius instead of moving forward.

I'm just really disappointed to not see a new move forward.

shakran

First off, hypermilers suck. They drive like idiots, blowing stop signs, coasting down hills at 70, going up hills at 10, taking corners damn near on two wheels, doing almost anything they can think of to increase efficiency at the cost of traffic safety. I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but I really don't care what they think. It's a road, not a video game.


But at only .01 better than the 1989 Opel Calibra, and .02 better than the 1948 Tucker Torpedo, and .038 worse than the 1935 Tatra T77. . .

(not to mention the GM EV-1 which had a .195 drag coefficient compared to the Insight's .25, and that car came out 3 years earlier, and used a whole lot less gas )


The fact is, the insight was a proof-of-concept car that worked fine for the purpose, but no one wants a light weight non-sound insulated, blow away in a strong wind econobox that's slower than your average big wheel. If people don't buy it, then it's not going to save the environment or reduce our use of gas.

The CRX has a cult following too. I have 3. But that doesn't mean it'd be a commercial success if they brought it back today as it was between 88 and 91 (even if they could, which they can't due to new safety regs). I'm guessing it'd be a flop. It's underpowered and under luxuried for what people want out of a car today, just as the insight was.

braisler

Wow, generalize much? I don't know who you have been driving with, but I don't know a single hypermiler that drives like that. I'm sure that there might be some out there that do, but most of the people that I know who are interested in maxing out fuel economy do not do so at the expense of traffic safety.

Have you ever driven an Insight? I did for 2 years. I loved mine. My wife thought it was a little underpowered on acceleration, but it would cruise along at 85 on the interstate no problem. No problems with it blowing away off the road. It was also no louder than my Subaru Legacy. It was louder than my BMW 528, but then, so are most cars.

As for people not buying it, they had a back log of people waiting to buy one year after year when they came out. And back last year when gas was $4/gallon, some of the 5 year old Insights were selling on Ebay for near their original retail price.

The last sentence there has you sounding a lot like a corporate shill for the auto manufacturers. Obviously people buy cars for lots of different reasons. Some people want a 300HP SUV that they'll never drive offroad. Others, like myself, would like to buy a car that gets much better than average fuel economy. For that benefit, I'd be willing to give up some power and some luxuries.

The point of my original post was that I am disappointed with the apparent lack of progress that has been made in the 10 years since the original Insight was released. I mean, why no newer battery technology with higher power density like LiIon or LiPolymer? Why no plug-in hybrid option with a larger battery pack of any type?

I just don't see how the new Insight fills any gap in the Honda product line? They've got a hatchback. They've got a high fuel economy sedan. The Insight used to be their flagship of fuel economy and was heralded as the technology of things to come. Now the new Insight is out, and it is a weaker overall offering. 10 years later and it is barely competitive with the Toyota Prius?

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

Cynthetiq

There are more safety features in today's vehicles that are required than 10 years ago, that alone is enough to warrant a sharp decrease in fuel economy.

Also, take into account that when a car is manufactured and offered to the public there has to be suitable replacement parts available. I'm not sure of what the exact requirement is, but I doubt the newer battery technology can fit that requirement and keep the costs down. This is the very reason that boutique manufacturers use off the shelf engines instead of designing and creating their own.

You'd be willing to give up those luxuries, but many will not. There are so few bare bones models available today that I find it incredible. It is cheaper to offer the luxury at a small premium than to not install it. It keeps you competitive at a small cost. I still find it odd that my rear occupants have manual windows and I have no convenient way of closing them if they were left open. More annoying than cost savings or weight savings.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

shakran

Then you should call yourselves high-milers or something to distinguish, because the jackholes I describe have gotten themselves out in the media to the point that when you say hypermiler, that's what people think.




I've driven every product Honda has sold in the US since the 70's, from the CVCC Civic to the NSX. I didn't own all of them, but I've driven 'em. Yes, I've driven the insight. Three of them, in fact. Some of the drawbacks I listed about that car, I don't personally mind - the size, the 2 seats - hell, that was like being in the CRX. But the crappy handling and the acceleration of a freight train was severely underimpressive for the mileage gains, which are so few over the CRX HF. And the HF was a better car to be in, even if it did lack a passenger side mirror and a 3rd steering wheel spoke





So will an Aztek, but that doesn't mean people want to buy it, either.


Look, if you only make 3 units of something per month, and you find 6 people per month who want to buy it, you're going to have a backlog. Eventually, a big one. That doesn't mean it was massively popular - it only means they made less than demand, but since they didn't make very many of them. . .

Oh, and during the gas crunch I got an offer of 10,000 bucks on my HF, which in retrospect I probably should have taken them up on Anything with good efficiency was selling at inflated prices when gas was 4 bucks a gallon, not just the Insight.


No it doesn't. It has me sounding like a realist, and it has you sounding like some of the guys on the CRX forums. "Build the CRX again because I and 24 of my friends really want one!" Well, great, but to be a success you're gonna have to either sell it for about 200 grand a pop or find more people who want one. I'm not saying the Insight was a miserable car. I'm saying that the tradeoff of luxuries, power, and comfort is not worth the relatively minor fuel efficiency gains to most people. This new Insight is more like a car that they'd buy anyway, which means they might consider going the electro-hybrid route.

The original Insight was just like the S2000. They were never meant to sell in volume. They were meant to sell to enthusiasts (one to high MPG enthusiasts, the other to sports car enthusiasts), and to be a "hey dude look at what Honda can do!" lure to get people in the showrooms to look at Accords and Civics. Now they want to make one that appeals to the "masses," so to speak, and I think it's silly to decry that idea considering how much Toyota wiped the floor with them by making a Prius that felt more like a real car (even if it was ugly as hell).



In May of last year, right in the middle of the gas spike, the Civic sold over 53 thousand units. In one month. Think you can find even half that number of people /per month/ to buy the original Insight? I'll give you a hint. Honda's not stupid. If they were out there, Honda would have sold to them.

Because GM bought the patent to high-capacity LiIon batteries and sold it to Texaco. You're not gonna see those batteries powering cars in your lifetime unless someone changes patent law so that companies can't just sit on a patent to thwart progress at the expense of society - something I would wholly support, btw.


because they're expensive as hell and you'd have to replace them about every 4-5 years. No one's gonna go for that.

Agreed, but then they should have done that with the first Insight.


I bet they sell more of them than the old Insight. The trouble is societal, not Honda. Americans want big comfortable luxury cars. Hell we get mad if the electric windows don't have auto up. AND down. Look at a new Civic and compare it to one from the 70's. The Civic is bigger than the old Accord for god's sake. They could build us a 100mpg car tomorrow if we'd buy it, but we wouldn't because no one wants a 2 cylinder car with bicycle tires. There is a minimum standard of solidity and luxury that people are willing to accept, and the original insight does not meet that standard with enough people to be a commercially viable car.

You want progress? So do I. I wanted the original insight to do a hell of a lot better than 12mpg over the 1988 HF, but it didn't. I want to abandon hybrid technology altogether because it's stupid. If you have a gallon of milk, whether you drink 2 glasses a day or cut back to 1, you're still gonna run out. It's time to develop a car that runs on genuinely renewable energy rather than bullshit like ethanol, hydrogen, or "slightly less gas."

Cynthetiq

thanks for the insight on the battery patents. I wasn't aware of that with Texaco. Makes sense, but not at the same time.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

QuasiMondo

The patent that Texaco holds when it purchased Cobasys from GM is for NiMH batteries, not LiIon. That patent is set to expire within the next 5-10 years, btw.

LiIon was developed by Exxon, and follow-on patents are held by 3M, Motorola, and other companies.

LiIon is also not as great a battery as everybody thinks it is. It's expensive, it's dangerous, and I don't think it can handle the harsh environment automobiles are subject to. They've got a long way to go before it's ready for prime time in a car.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

shakran

Oh, that's right. My mistake - I'm sorry.

You're right, though, that LiIon isn't all that great. We use them for camera batteries and they don't really last much longer than the older NiCads. About the only difference is that they don't have as much of an issue with memory.

braisler

I agree that patent law needs some reform. I've seen some patents bought by companies just to quash them. If LiIon batteries in cars is under a patent, then how is the Tesla Roadster getting away with it? Produced overseas to avoid US patent law? Nissan also has a LiIon battery powered car in the works from what I've seen.

I appreciate your point of view, shakran. It does sound like you are very well informed about the auto industry. I also agree that hybrid technology may not be the way to go with automotive progress. But I fear that there are limited other options on the table. What is going to be the next big jump in automotive technology that takes us off gasoline for good?

I'd buy a 100 MPG car almost without regard for its luxury level or looks. If/when it was available nationwide, I'd consider buying an Aptera full electric car. I know that I'm not the average car consumer though. Hell, if I had more knowledge and free time I'd even consider converting an old Neon or Metro to full electric to use as a commuter.

I admit that I'm always on the lookout for a decent CRX HF. Unfortunately the market has really tightened up for them with all of the tuner guys out there buying them to swap out the engine for a Acura VTEC. It is pretty hard to find one that doesn't have 280K miles, or rusted out side panels, or some silly body kit crap installed by a kid that half finished his half-assed project car.

QuasiMondo

The battery cells used in the Tesla Roadster are sourced from commercially available suppliers. Those suppliers either hold their own development patents or license them from other companies. Most LiIon patents deal with how the batteries are made, not the technology itself.
Any CRX (or 88-91 Civic) would do, don't limit yourself to the HF. I had a '91 CRX Si that got 40 on the highway. Most tuners have moved on from old Civics anyway so you'll still find a good deal here and there. I just found a 91 Civic DX myself for $700. Bone stock and runs like a champ. Just don't be like that one lady on CNN who was dumb enough to pay $7000 for a Metro.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

shakran

the other CRX's weren't nearly as economical around town. The DX was dumb - a dual point fuel injector (Read: glorified carb) that made it an underpowered, but less efficient HF-brother, and the Si, which was not designed for fantastic fuel economy at all

hey braisler: I'll sell ya my HF for $9500

braisler

Yeah, thanks. You should have cashed out at the peak of the $4 gas run-up.

I saw someone who had a fairly decent CRX-HF not too far from me for $3500. It was fairly stock for the engine/trans, but he had made some ridiculous mods to the body that looked like total crap. Painted the whole thing day-glo orange and added a fake carbon fiber hood and low profile wheels. He was totally set on his price, so I never even went to look at it.

I do prefer the HF over other Honda models. The Civic hatchback and the other CRX models do 'ok', but that is just my preference.

Once in a while I see a mid-90s Metro with a blown engine for sale for $300 or so. I daydream about an electric conversion for about 4 minutes.

new man

I would never have bought the original insight, for its lack of space. It was pretty useless, and it would have required owning another car to do anything else in. Even my Integra GSR has four doors. I can fit my snowboard and skis into it, or my mountain bike if I take the front wheel off (seat folds). Snow tires allow me to pass 4WD's with all season tires going up into the Rockies to ski. I still get 33-35 mpg. Also, unlike the old CRXs and so forth, I have two airbags and 2700 lbs of car wrapped around me. A few mpg is not worth my safety and quality of life.

Willravel

We need another Prius like we need a hole in the head. It's been nothing but lies and disappointment in what has to be one of the ugliest form-factors in recent history. And yes, 43 mpg is a joke. I can get close to 40 mpg in my baseline 2001 Jetta. You can get 60 mpg in a 1994 Geo Metro. You can get about 80 mpg in a 2008 VW Polo diesel.

When can I get the Honda Clarity?

skyemoor

There seems to be some hasty opinions on the original Insight and the Prius. I have both and will provide my experiences;

2000 INSIGHT:
- Achieve over 60 mpg lifetime (120k+), sometimes in the low 80s
- All the acceleration I need (and I live in a hilly region)
- Handling is more than adequate.
- Never any issues with wind and it can get very windy here in winter and spring
- Wheel skirts are a plus and anyone who has poked their head into a wind tunnel lab can tell you they make a difference.

2004 PRIUS:
- Achieve ~50mpg overall (wife slightly less)
- All the acceleration I need (and I live in a hilly region)
- Handling is more than adequate.
- Never any issues with wind and it can get very windy here in winter and spring
- Styling is more than appealing to me (beauty is in the eye of the beholder), though aerodynamics trumps IMO every time.


I personally feel the new Insight has been dumbed down; many features could have been added to make it more fuel efficient, but the design was likely rushed due to the rising oil prices and Prius product line rumours.

I believe most people complaining about either of the above cars hasn't spent enough time behind the wheel or tend to favor performance cars; neither of the above is a performance car, so should not be measured against them. America is addicted to oil, so cultural deadweight should be discarded before you find your future children having to read the Koran every day.

Birol 6.7% oil

BadNick

In the global economics picture, what are we really saving with a Prius? Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage