Redesigned, Bulkier Honda Insight to Challenge Prius 638
In what probably amounts to good news for consumers eyeing a hybrid for their next vehicle purchase, Honda is resurrecting the "Insight" name, this time in the form of a five-seat, Prius-like hatchback. The automaker's announcement included the tantalizing statement that the cost would be "significantly below [that of] hybrids available today," but provided no further details on pricing. Although Honda may have some trouble unseating Toyota's dominance of this particular hybrid market, hopefully the Insight's reintroduction will help to make hybrid cars even more affordable to consumers. This is also welcome news to folks like myself who, after the initial flurry of excitement when the now-retired original Insight was introduced in '99, were left scratching their heads at Honda's hybrid strategy as Toyota picked up their dropped ball and ran with it.
Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they make more 'green' cars that look svelt like the Tesla? At a reasonable price.
I want looks, style, performance...and if they throw in the mileage, I'm interested.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, my Civic Hybrid looks just like a regular Civic.
Whether or not that's fugly is a matter for debate, though.
What gets me is that for 15 years, I was a light-truck guy (Nissans), and there are no hybrid light trucks. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
I'd love to see a compact truck (smaller than either Nissan's current Frontier or the Tacoma) with a hybrid motor that can handle everyday use. I'd be first in line to buy one when they come out.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to see one with an inline-4 Diesel. Nissan actually used to make such a thing, back in the 80s or early 90s.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Informative)
Yep! Also, I want to stress that real diesel engines are actually more efficient than gasoline engines, because the compression ratios are so much higher. So it's not really that diesels are dirtier, but rather that the US looks at different pollutants than European countries do.
The two pollutants that diesels have issues with are (1) sulfur dioxide (SO2), and (2) nitrogen oxides (NOx); both cause acid rain. The SO2 is the result of burning high-sulfur fuels, so switching to ULSD, as Andy noted, will solve this problem. NOx, however, is more problematic: These oxides are created unavoidably from the reaction of atmospheric oxygen with nitrogen in the high pressures and temperatures experienced inside diesel engines (the very same factors that make diesels more efficient).
In contrast, gasoline engines tend to produce little sulfur dioxide since they burn low-sulfur gasoline. And since the pressures and temperatures inside them are lower, there's much less NOx production. But for the same reason (lower pressures and temperatures), combustion is not as complete as in diesels, so they tend to release more unburnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. These cause photochemical smog, and are powerful greenhouse gasses.
Now, this is where regulatory differences come in: In European countries, NOx emission requirements are not as strict, but hydrocarbon requirements are stricter, whereas in the US it's the reverse. So it's easier for diesel engines to meet requirements in Europe, and for gasoline engines to meet requirements in the US.
One solution to the NOx problem for diesel engines is to treat exhaust with urea. European companies distribute an aqueous urea solution as "AdBlue" -- presumably to avoid the urinary connotations of the "real" chemical name -- and it is available at gas stations. This is a little problematic in that now you have two chemicals that you consume while driving (fuel and urea) instead of just one, and we don't have an AdBlue distribution network in the US, but it does work.
So, that's it for the practical side of things. But before I finish up I want to throw in one theoretical note... I kept saying that diesels are more efficient -- and they are. But the thermodynamic cycle that they use (the "Diesel cycle," obviously enough) is actually not as efficient, fundamentally, as that used by gasoline engines (the Otto Cycle), for the same compression ratios. But diesel engines use compression ratios that are so much higher that they're more efficient anyway (to achieve the same compression ratios in a spark-ignition engine would require harder-to-ignite fuels, like some sort of hypothetical really-high-octane gasoline). So in practice, diesels are the most efficient internal combustion engines.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"US manufactures don't bring small Diesels to the US because they're just plain evil."
Suicidal is more like it.
US companies had the prestige/image to bring light diesel pickups to market and sell them effectively because they CREATED the diesel pickup market. Instead they let their small pickup lines become boring and atrophy. Ongoing diesel production would have allowed them to refine their product and produce proven engines (just as VW has done with their automobile engines).
The VW strategy when they buil
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't ask for a hybrid truck.
What you want is a truck with a "green" diesel engine. Quiet and fuel efficient and still able to generate a lot of torque.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Torque yes, fuel efficient yes, quiet? You must be joking. Even the best diesel still sounds like a tractor compared to a petrol engine.
I see you haven't been to Europe. The last Diesel I rented in France had a problem - I couldn't tell by ear when the engine was on unless I completely turned off the fan. It was quieter than any non-hybrid/electric I've heard in America, too. Not to mention getting 50 mpg for 90 mph driving and 40 mpg for city driving and having a pretty peppy engine.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that light trucks are going to have much higher torque requirements and therefore require motors and battery packs that will deliver this. These may not be available or cost-effective yet.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, internal combustion engines deliver their maximum torque at over a thousand RPM. Since you have the greatest need for torque at 0 RPM, you'd have to have some kind of bulky gear train between the engine and the wheels.
This may not be cost effective.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hondas in the UK are like email in Korea, only old people use them.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Informative)
The Prius features the raindrop design, which has a lower drag coefficient compared to most other consumer level cars. For example the Honda Civic has a drag coefficient of .36 while the Prius is .26. The Bugatti Veyron is .36 and a Hummer H2 is .57.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kammback (Score:4, Informative)
The Prius features the raindrop design,
The Prius features a modified raindrop design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback [wikipedia.org]
And you can feel it too (Score:3, Interesting)
I own an 07 Prius. You can really feel the drag coefficient when you coast. The thing will coast just about forever.
On my commute home, I jump off the freeway and up an off-ramp hill to my neighborhood. One of the things I like to do is to take my foot off the accelerator at freeway speed a ways before the ramp and see how far up the hill I can coast.
It's really a bizarre sensation. I usually can make it all the way at a decent speed and still have to use the brakes. It almost feels like you're sli
Why hybrids, and most modern cars are ugly: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't they make more 'green' cars that look svelt like the Tesla? At a reasonable price.
Well if you want a Tesla-like car, you'll have to hire Lotus to design it for you, which won't be cheap. And to meet modern safety standards, you'll have to use different (and expensive) construction methods and materials.
Otherwise you can go with the usual design process of the big automakers:
1. Someone who's had the creativity systematically beaten out of them draws up a decent looking but still somewhat bland and and forgettable design on paper.
2. The sketch is drawn up in CAD and goes through the dullif
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:5, Funny)
What would manbearpig drive?
She blinds everybody with her super high beams
She's a squirrel-squashin', deer-smackin' drivin' machine
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero!
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Funny)
The problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have your car payed off and spend $70 a week for gas, that is a total of $3640 for an entire year.
On the other hand, if you buy a $25000 hybrid, you might only need to buy $30 of gas a week, but unless your car payments are less than $120 a month, you aren't saving any money by buying a hybrid.
Yes, over time a hybrid is going to save you money, but by the time you get it payed off, there will be a more effective hybrid that costs less.
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and don't buy that new computer now, because in a few months it will be obsolete!
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that other cars also cost thousands of dollars. Granted, their is a premium for a hybrid, but using your own numbers as an example (and my own experiences with a $17,000 regular civic vs. a $20,000 hybrid civic), your hybrid will pay back that $3000 premium in about 6 years assuming gas stays the same price (which intuition tells me it won't). Considering my last 2 cars have lasted me over a decade each before finally crapping out, that's a pretty good ROI. Granted, past performance of vehicles is no guarantee of future performance, so there's no telling if the hybrid will last me 12 years, but it's not unreasonable to believe that it probably will.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Course, the new Insight gets 60 MPG and only costs $19,000, so it would appear that efficiency is going up and costs are going down. And all your math is predicated on a $3,000 difference, and not, say, a $1,000 difference.
Plus you're not considering the alternatives. If you're going to invest your savings, then so can I.
I could, from day one, easily begin banking the savings gained from one $60 tank of gas a month vs. FOUR tanks of gas per month ($240 in the SUV I'm driving now), whichs saves $180/m or $2,160/y. Put $180 per month in the bank for six years, compounded at 5%, and you get $15,077, whereas you only made $4,020 on your inital "savings" of $3,000. Some savings.
Now, you're going to say that I need to be considering a more comperable "alternative", like, say a Jetta TDI. But a TDI only gets 45/mpg, its fuel costs are roughly 15% higher in the US due to the price of diesel, and the diesel version of the Jetta cost about $1,500 more than the gas version. Plus there's a waiting list and dealer premuim for those as well. All of which means that the Jetta comes out on the bottom when you run the same kind of numbers.
Finally, you're assuming that the guy who saved $3,000 invested it. From my perspective, it's equally likely the idiot put $3,000 down on a $5,000 72" flatscreen TV, and is now paying down his credit card at 18% interest. Compounded daily.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What a load of rubbish. Lots of banks are struggling to improve their liquidity at the moment - deposits from general banking customers are a good way to acheieve this. My standard savings account is paying 5.3% at the moment, and I've got money in a 6-month fixed rate bond offered at 6.76%. I had thought that was a good rate but a couple months later other banks were offering 10% to try and entice savers.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.hybridcars.com/faq.html#battery [hybridcars.com]
How often do hybrid batteries need replacing? Is replacement expensive and disposal an environmental problem?
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.
Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium. "Nickel metal hydride batteries are benign. They can be fully recycled," says Ron Cogan, editor of the Green Car Journal. Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards. Toyota puts a phone number on each battery, and they pay a $200 "bounty" for each battery to help ensure that it will be properly recycled.
There's no definitive word on replacement costs because they are almost never replaced. According to Toyota, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.themotorreport.com.au/6042/prius-taxi-belts-out-half-a-million-klicks/ [themotorreport.com.au]
According to Vic Johnston, Toyotaâ(TM)s manager of hybrid sales and fleet strategy, these are the only two Priusâ(TM) in Australia that have even needed a battery replacement at all, since its arrival on our shores in 2001.
"When you consider that the average car in Australia travels approximately 15,000km per year, the 350,000km Prius has crammed over 23 years of average driving into a couple of years,"
"And the 550,000km Prius has fitted 36 years into three years, which is astonishing.
"The average age of the Australian car population is now around 10 years, so the battery is lasting well over double that in distance terms.
"When you consider that the Prius taxis in Cairns are generating half the fuel and service costs of other vehicles in their fleets, the Prius is significantly cheaper in whole-of-life costs.
The missing factor in the "economics": fun + cool (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I drive the most advanced and highly engineered car on the road today (well, other than other hybrids). The engineering in my Prius is far more advanced than anything BMW or Mercedes throws into their cars.
2. I can drive silently on electric power only. Do you have any idea how cool that is? The freak'n car shuts off at traffic lights! If I go gently on the gas, I can drive 30/40 MPH on electric only and the car is SILENT!!! So freak'n cool. I've been dreaming of electric cars since I was a kid -- and I now have one (sorta)!
3. I feel good about having supported a fledgling environmentally beneficial technology with my dollars. My purchasing decision in 2002 played a part in revolutionizing the car culture in this country and the world.
4. Nerdy chicks dig Priuses.
5. I drive a damned reliable and cheap to operate automobile that I enjoy driving.
In short -- economics was largely irrelevant to my decision. Instead of buying a sports car (also generally an economically irrational decision), I decided to go the hybrid route. Actually, when I analyzed purchasing the car, I conservatively assumed that I would get 60,000 miles from the car before it started falling apart or incurred expensive repairs. I also assumed that the car would have no re-sale value, as I expected the technology would be largely obsolete by the time I went to sell it. Even with these "worst-case" scenarios, I bought the car because it was worth it to me to be part of the revolution.
Of course, I'm now well over 60,000 miles and have had no troubles, but that's not really the point, is it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The missing factor in the "economics": fun + co (Score:4, Funny)
4. Nerdy chicks dig Priuses.
Just FYI- if you are referring to more than one Prius the plural is Priuii
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
4. Nerdy chicks dig Priuses.
This is all slashdot really needs to know.
My gas guzzler is more environmentally friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
Good advice, I won't buy a new computer. Mine works just fine! Just like my non-hybrid car that is fully paid off. Maybe I could donate that $500/mo that I would normally spend on car payments to some coral reef project or some other global warming related thing. Then I'd be way ahead of those hybrid guy. Plus donating to a charity gives me a way bigger tax break.
Re:My gas guzzler is more environmentally friendly (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the breakdown of tax credits. [irs.gov] As of October 1, 2007 Prius buyers no longer receive any credit.
I wonder how this will work for the Insight. Will they count the vechicles from the original Insig
Time to see the Auditor (Score:4, Informative)
I bought a 2008 Camry Hybrid in January of this year. My car is eligible for $0 tax credit.
Since the 2008 Camry Hybrid only came out late last year, the maximum possible credit you are eligible for is $650... Not $2000.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157557,00.html [irs.gov]
I also doubt you get 55 MPG in that thing, I get 43 on occasion, 36 most of the time in city driving. On the highway it gets 35 MPG. 2000/250 = 8 MPG.
Unless there were state tax credits involved, there is FUD at work here and this is NOT an informative post.
Re:My gas guzzler is more environmentally friendly (Score:4, Funny)
Motorcycle insurance that also covers medical care is very cheap because we don't usually survive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really about cost?
Around the corner, and down a mile or so from my house is a wrecking yard. They seem to focus on late-model passenger cars. They *always* have a couple of Saturns for sale, and they sell a TON of them, for between $2,000 and $5,000 each.
For this, you usually get:
1) Midrange mileage. ~50,000 to 75,000 miles.
2) Clean body, paint, interior. They look nice, but usually have some kind of blemish on them. Everything "works" - A/C, lights, radios, heater, power windows, etc.
3) Excellent mec
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are they? Salvage cars. They've been in an accident, they've been written off by the insurance company, and they piece them back together. Both of my sons drive them, they are excellent cars.
It's worth remembering that if a car has been in even quite a serious accident *but has been repaired properly* it's perfectly safe to drive. We repaired a friend's BMW that was quite badly damaged, and when the engineer came to assess the repairs (it was actually that bad) he pointed out that we should have cut
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats a pretty long time, but not unrealistic. You should probably be keeping the car for at least 5 and maybe more like 8 or longer years.... So if you kept it for 8 years you'd actually save $5000.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.hybridcars.com/faq.html#battery [hybridcars.com]
How often do hybrid batteries need replacing? Is replacement expensive and disposal an environmental problem?
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.
Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium. "Nickel metal hydride batteries are benign. They can be fully recycled," says Ron Cogan, editor of the Green Car Journal. Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards. Toyota puts a phone number on each battery, and they pay a $200 "bounty" for each battery to help ensure that it will be properly recycled.
There's no definitive word on replacement costs because they are almost never replaced. According to Toyota, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Very true. I was in the market for a new car 3 months ago. I tabulated vehicles based on gas consumption, monthly cost to own, projected maintenance etc. Hybrids tended to have a minimal savings per month ~80-100 bucks~ but had a massively larger investment upfront were always smaller in size and had weaker engines than the cheaper gas car.(people seem to forget hybrids in addition to higher cost don't have good financing)
Hybrids weren't worth buying even if the price of gas was 8 dollars a gallon. I projec
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hybrids tended to have a minimal savings per month ~80-100 bucks~ but had a massively larger investment upfront were always smaller in size and had weaker engines than the cheaper gas car.(people seem to forget hybrids in addition to higher cost don't have good financing)
I hear this argument all the time (I own a 2008 Prius). I paid $24K for my car. People say that I paid $10K more than a Kia (or whatever compact car you want) so I will never really see the savings.
The fact is though, that the Prius is a mid-size car and when you compare the features to other mid-size cars, the "hybrid premium" is only $3-4K. With gas currently averaging $4.30/gal here in Hawaii, I save on average $1200/year over the Ford Escape that I was driving. That means I will have the "hybrid premium" paid off in about three years.
As an aside that 11 year calculation doesn't take into account what happens when you need a new several thousand dollar battery - they supposedly have an 8 year life-cycle; chances are you'll have to replace it and that pushes the break-even point out to 15 years!
Toyota tends to make very reliable cars and their warranty on the Hybrid system (including the battery) is 8 years/ 100K miles (10year/150K in Cal). The battery costs $3K (incl labor) to replace btw.
At the end of the day, I love my car. I dont care what other people think of it cause I am the one who drives it, not them.
Also, do yourself a favor and talk to your bank/credit union, you will see that you will usually get better financing through them than you will at the dealership.
that hybrid premium (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)
This October's Consumer Reports article "Which affordable hybrids save you the most money?" disagrees with you.
Conclusion: "Despite their higher price, many models pay off after only a year" and some models "can save more than $4,000 over five years."
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/affordable-hybrids/overview/affordable-hybrids-ov.htm [consumerreports.org]
|
You also complain that hybrids have "weaker engines than the cheaper gas car," forgetting that electric motors have much better torque than gasoline engines (eg. even diesel locomotives use electric motors) so higher horsepower isn't needed.
|
Finally, a reply to your battery FUD: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=954363&cid=24883785 [slashdot.org]
$10K difference, So you bought a stripped Aveo? (Score:3)
$10000 difference? This cars projected price is $19K. So you must have went with something cost in $9K. What would that be?
The only thing close seems to be stripped down Chevy Aveo.
Re:The problem is... FUD (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot depreciation and federal tax credits. Consumer Reports ran the numbers [consumerreports.org] this month and came up with several hybrid cars that will save money over their non-hybrid equivalents. These were often the same model of car for a true apples-to-apples comparison. They claim that many hybrids will save money after the first year.
There's a nice table of the results [consumerreports.org], but it's for subscribers. They calculate the total cost of ownership for a five year period, and they come up with $28,250 for the Prius and $29
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that people never use this argument when talking about BMWs? I don't get it. Pay $20k extra for a BMW, and no one says anything. Pay $5000 more for a Prius and you can't go a week without people telling that you aren't saving money. Are you saying that we should all by buying Hyundais?
I didn't buy mine to save money. I bought it because it is a damn reliable car that puts less crap in the atmosphere than the average.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its more the 'environmental' measure. A BMW 1 series has all this fancy tech in it to increase its fuel economy (like shutting the engine off at lights etc), and as a result its got the co2 emissions down to 119g/km. Over here (UK) that puts it in the £35 tax bracket, so a lot of people (especially company car drivers) are buying them. It helps that it has a 1.8 diesel engine so it goes faster than someone walking.
Of course, if people really wanted to save the planet and save on fuel they'd bu
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is with hybrids is that for most you end up paying more than you would your current car:
Yes, but a new hybrid isn't competing with old cars. Its competing with new cars. Your argument could be made of ANY new car. Better logic would be to subtract the gas savings from the cost of a new hybrid and compare that number to the cost of other new cars.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as simple as just gas mileage. The other major factor is resale value. The Prius is currently (and for several years) the leader in value-retention. I could sell my 8-month old Prius right now for sticker price. You simply cannot do that with a Chevy Malibu or a Ford Taurus.
So the calculus for the cost of owning the car depends entirely on what you plan to do with it afterwards. In my case, I'm financing my Prius and will sell it after 2-3 years and recover something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the sticker price. The total cost of ownership per month therefore ends up being lower than any other car of comparable quality/size/features.
If it was just about gas mileage, you'd be right. But it's more complicated than that. So you're wrong. Sorry! :P
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you have your car payed off and spend $70 a week for gas, that is a total of $3640 for an entire year.
On the other hand, if you buy a $25000 hybrid, you might only need to buy $30 of gas a week, but unless your car payments are less than $120 a month, you aren't saving any money by buying a hybrid.
Or you just drive your old car more sensibly and spend less than $25 week on gas. Going from driving the way I used to, I got 28 mpg per tank. Slowing down and applying a few mileage enhancing techniques, I h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't seem like a very good comparison. You're comparing the economics a car you've already paid off to one that you haven't bought yet?
Let's compare buying two new cars with equivalent features, but one is a hybrid and one isn't and then see how the comparison goes. If my car payments are the same but one involves paying less for gas, then I go with the one with the cheaper gas. If the cheaper price of a non-hybrid is canceled out by the higher gas cost, then I at least benefit by using less of a
Screw this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Screw this (Score:5, Informative)
Well, VW has double-clutched diesels in the American market right now. (For those who aren't familiar, the double-clutch design essentially allows a car to be driven as an automatic while preserving the superior characteristics of a manual, also allowing for millisecond shift-times.)
Diesel fuel economy is arguably good enough that it don't need any sort of hybrid system. They're also decently fun to drive, which you certainly can't say about the current crop of hybrids.
Unfortunately, VW probably has the double-clutch design patented to hell and back, and has no hybrid technology of its own. Seeing the two together therefore seems fairly unlikely. On the other hand, a diesel Golf/Rabbit should be making its way to American markets in a year or two.
Re:Screw this (Score:4, Interesting)
VW Golf TDI Hybrid (from May '08) [autoblog.com]
More info:
69 MPG Golf TDI Hybrid [ecogeek.org]
Though it will probably only be available in Europe for a while, it's still a step forward.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you have an efficient diesel engine you can forget all the torque worries and go for a hybrid without any conventional transmission, innovative or not. In fact using diesel engines to drive an DC generator and then using the electricity to drive a motor is a very very very old technology. Every locomotive you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not necessarily talking about top-speed. I've never been particularly impressed with a hybrid's ability to accelerate, and the handling of a Prius leaves a bit to be desired. The Jetta Diesel I test-drove was responsive, and fun to drive (this is entirely subjective).
None of this necessarily amounts to dangerous or illegal driving.
VW's current TDI models also pack a ridiculous amount of torque for cars of their size, which is great if you're hauling heavy loads, have a car full of passengers, or are p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true of hybrids, too: the electric motor makes maximum torque at 0 RPM, you know. As for actual acceleration, IIRC the Insight's 0-60 time was ~12 seconds without any electric assist, but ~8 with full assist.
Better mileage than the Prius (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
$19000 Base MSRP (Score:3, Informative)
EEEEEVIL (Score:5, Funny)
Good to know Honda's merger with Satan Corp. is working out for them.
Almost bought one. (Score:3, Informative)
I almost bought one when it first came out but the test-drive was horrible. The rear-view mirror was unusable due to the design of the rear window/hatch. The main support cross-member completely blocked the view splitting the mirror in half. That left you with trying to look over the top of it (and seeing mostly sky) or under it through a darkly tinted 'lower window' which only left a view of the bumper of the car 5 feet behind you.
I am 5'10" tall so completely 'average' by North American standards, but perhaps this car was designed to 'fit' an average Asian.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe turnabout? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honda should pick up Toyota's all-electric "dropped ball" and run with it. If memory serves, Toyota used to have a 100% electric car and stopped making it. Since ALL of my weekday driving is well within about 50 kilometres of home, I'd kill for one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with current all-electric vehicles is that the battery technology that is most affordable (lead acid) doesn't last long, the most efficient battery (lithium ion) is too expensive, and the in-between (NiMH) is patented by Ceveron-Texaco and therefore will never be seen in an electric vehicle*.
*Yes, the patents will expire in 20 years, but by then lithium ion should be much cheaper, making NiMH batteries pointless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NiMH batteries are going to be used in the 08 Chevy Malibu Hybrid. In fact, Cobasys has a large contract with GM*.
*Energy companies want to make money, they don't give two shits how. You don't make money selling expensive large format batteries one at a time, you make money selling in bulk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://pppad.blogspot.com/2007/05/nimh-held-hostage-by-chevron-texaco.html [blogspot.com]
It's a moot point though. Li-Ion (or a variation of lithium tech) or EEStor's Ultracaps will have surpassed Ni-MH by 2014.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just buy a Civic or a Fit?
They're both pretty nice compact cars that get fantastic mileage (~34mpg) without any fancy hybrid stuff.
For a good bit less than a Prius (which you couldn't even buy at the moment if you wanted to), you can get a car that gets better mileage, drives better, and is likely to be considerably more reliable.
On the other end of things, diesels are beginning to make a very big comeback, as virtually all of the traditional downsides to diesel engines have been taken care of. The fact that they get 40+ MPG makes them pretty attractive.
Also, now that the natural gas industry has woken up to the fact that there is a metric shit-ton of money waiting to be made by packaging and selling their product as automotive fuel, I imagine that we'll be seeing quite a few CNV vehicles in the upcoming years.
Re:There's not enough natural gas for cars (Score:4, Informative)
DOE Reserve Estimates [doe.gov]
The reserve numbers keep going up because they keep finding more and more of the stuff and nobody is burning it.
Natural gas is a very good option, in fact the best option for internal combustion. All combustion reactions produce CO2 and H20. Natural Gas (CH4) only releases CO2 and H20 upon combustion...no other chemicals like sulfur, mercury or other similarly nasty chemicals to have in the air. It's a big improvement over petroleum-based fuels.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there's plenty of natural gas. Known reserves worldwide [wikipedia.org] are about 172 trillion m^3. One m^3 of gas has about as much energy as one liter of oil [wikipedia.org] (38.4 MJ/m^3 vs 38.6 MJ/l).
So 172 trillion m^3 of gas is the energy equivalent of about 172 trillion liters of oil = 1.47 trillion barrels of oil.
Worldwide oil consumption is about 80.29 million barrels per day [cia.gov], or about 30 billion barrels per year.
So if we could instantaneously convert all our oil consumption into natural gas consumption, the known gas
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with natural gas is that there's not enough of it. The biggest reason for the rise in electric tariffs in the early part of the 2000's was largely because everyone built natural gas power plants, and, they more or less used up all the natural gas. Now you want to go and build natural gas cars... good luck getting natural gas.
Isn't that why Mr. Pickens is suggesting that we adopt wind power on a large scale? I saw one of his interviews and he advocated using wind to displace natural gas for electrical production so that our natural gas resources can go into the transportation sector.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We've been doing it on aircraft for some time. I believe that reliability figures actually improved in that case, because it's far easier to make an electrical system redundant.
Still, yeah. It makes me a bit uneasy, and seems generally unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the New York Times [nytimes.com], 57% of Prius buyers cited "Makes a statement about me" as the reason they purchased the car.
Hmm..... I sense a coming storm of smug ;)
2001 Civic gets 40 mpg (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks, but I'll stick with my car that doesn't use 20 pounds of cadmium and which cost only $6000 used.
Also, I'll walk and bike when possible.
And I'm never, ever going to buy a hybrid unless it has a manual transmission.
This is so discouraging (Score:5, Interesting)
The 1989 civic got 50mpg highway, [fueleconomy.gov] better than the Prius.
Yes, we need extra safety items. Yes, those add weight. But all the advances made in improving efficiency have been burned away on power and sportiness and cup holders.
50 Mpg TWENTY years ago.
And no mention of a plug-in aspect.
Very discouraging.
The standards changed for 2008 (at least) (Score:5, Informative)
The EPA changed its fuel economy standards in 2008, and perhaps other times between 1989 and then. The 2007 Prius is rated at 60 mpg city, 51 highway; the 2008, which is really the same car, is rated at 48/45. So you definitely can't compare the 1989 numbers with the 2008.
Re:The standards changed for 2008 (at least) (Score:4, Informative)
So you definitely can't compare the 1989 numbers with the 2008.
Right, but the 50MPG figure takes into account those new standards. Hilariously, the highway mileage for that particular Civic before the 2008 adjustments was an even higher 56MPG. See for yourself [fueleconomy.gov]. I have an 08 Civic. It's a small car no doubt, but it's a giant compared to the Civics of olde.
"but provided no further details on pricing..." (Score:3, Informative)
New Honda Insight Hybrid Revealed, Expected $18,500 Price Tag To Make It World's Cheapest
Dont know about you, but I would say thats a bit more detail on pricing, $18500, about the price of a standard/econo car these days.
tm
They're holding out on us! (Score:5, Interesting)
Honda already has a car that is more fuel efficient than any car they sell in North America, and would easily out-sell the Prius. But they choose not to sell it in North America.. why?
It's called the Civic CTDi. The Civic is already the most popular car in North America. It is less expensive than the Civic Hybrid, offers a heap more power, and has arguably better combined mileage. In fact, this engine was awarded "International Engine of the Year" in 2005.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. I don't. No more than I have to "look" for a station that takes credit cards or has "midgrade" fuel. If you can't find a station with diesel you shouldn't be driving. Every 'neighborhood' station around here carries it.
And no, the higher cost doesn't make up for the mileage. (They don't cancel out). My identical make and model of car gets 30 MPG. Say I get 50 MPG. To 'break even' diesel would have to cost 5/3 as much as gasoline, but it doesn't.
The problem was with how the insight worked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Insight worked that way because it had a normal transmission. It was not capable of moving without the gasoline engine turning (except when coasting in neutral with the manual transmission model).
It's not worthy the name of Insight (Score:5, Interesting)
I own a real 2000 Honda Insight. It is an amazing car. Aluminum bodied two seater made to last.
The low weight and the 990 CC engine with electric assist ensure that I am the one pulling away with spinning wheels at the lights leaving muscle cars in the dust.
This new Insight although it looks like the original one, is a stock standard steel vehicle, high curb weight. Bigger engine on even bigger weight would mean less acceleration, poorer MPG and thanks to the steel body shorter lifespan. I test drove a brand new Honda Civic last week and came away less than impressed. Just another over sized car.
I think the real Insight showed a vision of smaller more nimble cars as frugal with gas as a small motor cycle. No you can't carry 10 bags or cement it it but that is why it is called a commuter vehicle.
The "new" "Insight" does not do the original car any justice.
Re:It's not worthy the name of Insight (Score:4, Informative)
The low weight and the 990 CC engine with electric assist ensure that I am the one pulling away with spinning wheels at the lights leaving muscle cars in the dust.
Bullshit. Unless the other guy was asleep. 0-60 in 10.6s [insightcentral.net].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to leave muscle cars in the dust at stoplights on my bike, however my 0-60 time was, roughly speaking, forever.
0-20 is probably a more important figure for around town driving. 0-60 is what you need for merging from full stop onto the highway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I own an electric bike and a Honda Element, and think ultra-small hybrid cars aren't particularly useful. City commuting is most efficiently done by a bike or electric bike, and other tasks are best suited to a vehicle with more versatility and cargo room. Some days you DO need to carry 10 bags or cement.
And yes, I live in a state with
Hybrids are nice in town (Score:3, Insightful)
This is purly off hand, but i drive a 2001 Golf but one of my friends has a prius. We have both come to the conclusion that a hybrid is only sensible if you live/drive in town. I live out in leafy surrey and given the runs we do i get the same MPG as he does (44MPG ish). Now obviously this is different in town where my fuel economy goes down and his goes up. I guess the point im desperatly fumbling to make is that these hybrids can be worse than a normal ICE if they are (i wont say missold) sold to people that will see no benifit from switching.
Full EV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from no mention of a plug-in hybrid, when are we going to get some full EV cars from the manufacturers? For my commute I don't need a fossil-fuel burning car at all, plus EV cars are inherently more reliable with far fewer moving parts, no spark plugs, no oil changes ever, etc. Almost no maintenance at all. Which, it would seem, is the problem, as manufacturers makes tons of money from parts and maintenance.
If they can put out a small EV that has an 80 mile range, that would be more than enough for me. And they can - GM did it years ago with the EV-1. Surely with todays tech they can put out an affordable car that has similar range, and, for more money, much longer range if you want it, but most people don't need such range at least for a second car.
EVs wouldn't be for everyone, but they would definitely be good for many of us. I really hope I can keep my 1997 Escort running until we finally see an EV from some manufacturer, as I really don't want to spend any money on another gasoline powered car for me, hybrid or not. If they don't, my only other option would be to pay for or do a conversion myself. The big problem with that is we don't have the best technology available to us at an affordable price and usually you convert a really old car. We need the manufacturers to build EVs because they can build them in quantity, get the costs down and the technology in our hands.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing worth while to buy (Score:4, Interesting)