Slashdot Mirror
Ars Reviews Honda Insight
GeekLife.com writes "Ars Technica has posted another of their indepth reviews, this time of the Honda Insight (that gas-electric hybrid). Not just a normal Honda Insight, though, this one's been tricked up with LCD screens replacing the side mirrors, and a *portable windmill* that can recharge the battery. Not the prettiest of devices, but with gas prices continuing up, it's definitely starting to look a bit more attractive."
Apparently Chrysler is looking at hybrids for, of all things, SUVs. The use a somewhat different system, with the gas engine driving the rear wheels and the electric motor driving the front wheels (when needed). This apparently simplifies it a lot and makes the system cost only about $3000. They can get away with a lot by doing this, too; they can use a V-6 instead of a V-8, don't need a 4WD system, etc.
They claim that it boosts gas mileage from about 12 mpg to about 16 mpg, which is actually a more significant gain in terms of total gas consumption than moving from the Civic HX's 35/42 to the Insight's 60/71. With gas prices where they are, they can't justify the system based on fuel savings alone, but it may pay for itself with a combination of gas savings, reduced gas guzzler tax, and improvements to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Certainly if the Government starts increasing the gas tax or bumping fuel economy standards, this may be a reasonable choice.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Actually, not really. Since gasoline engines have to take their power plant with them, they run at only 15%-60% efficiency, depending on whom you ask. OTOH, power plants can be large and heavy because they don't have to roll. Therefore, they can use more advanced techniques that are much more efficient than the best gasoline engines.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Spare tire? I want a spare car!
Put a couple of hooks into the rafters in the garage, and you can hang three or four Hondas.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Safety wise, you are both right and wrong. Yes, it has a better chance in a collision (the weight will see to that) however, there is a big trade off. Specifically, you will roll ever very easily, then all that additional weight isn't your friend anymore. My father flipped his Bravada on a flat road simply by jerking the wheel in an attempt to swerve around an accident that took place in front of him. My little honda civic would have taken that manuver in stride, but bravada ended up on it's side.
It's called "freedom"
That I agree with you on. If people want to drive them, they will. Sometimes their reasoning in a little off, but like you said, it's freedom.
Finkployd
No, what you need is the new Ford Exorbitant.
Detroit, MI - Ford Motor Company announced today the new Ford Exorbitant. The Ford Exorbitant seats 50 comfortably, and even comes with a spare Ford Explorer. The Exorbitant, built on a standard bus frame is the largest SUV ever manufactured. Aside from the spare Explorer, other standard features include a full kitchen, 3 bedrooms, and 1.5 bathrooms.
"Many people have given up their own home and use the Exorbitant as their only living space. It's much more convenient than finding a place to park the Exorbitant," said CEO Jacques Nasser. He continued, "No longer will you be stranded if you run out of gas, or get a flat tire. Sure you could use your cell phone to call for help, but who wants to wait for help? Just unload your Explorer and take care of the problem when you want to."
"I just love it," said soccer mom, Wendy Glickman, "I feel a lot safer knowing I have the spare Explorer. What if I forget my cell phone? What if the GPS in the Exorbitant fritzes out? Half a million dollars is a small price to pay for peace of mind."
Many environmental groups have voiced concerns over the Exorbitant's nuclear powered engine. "Gee, you make a car that doesn't run on gas and they still complain," responded Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. "This vehicle gets 70,000 miles per enriched Uranium rod, which makes it the most environmental friendly SUV available."
The Lincoln Gigantro based on the Exorbitant will be available next year.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Hell, yeah! I'd be surprised if even the 5% of SUVs that you exclude see off-road use.
Ya know, the big problem is all the yentas who get behind the wheel of these things, and either leave them in 4-wheel-drive mode all the time, or turn it on when it's raining.
Or, better still, those who drive stupidly in snow because they think the 4x4 drivetrain will somehow allow them to handle and stop better than everyone else.
Gimme a break.
I drive pickup trucks, not because I need the size or the cargo space most of the time, but because I like them - which is what disposeable income and free will is all about. And because they offer a form of insurance that State Farm doesn't offer: If I'm going to die in a car accident with a Honda Civic, I'll be damned well assured that that I'm gonna take the other guy with me.
My trucks are all 2WD, because I don't need 4x4. I've currently got a 1976 Ram, and I love the thing, even though it only gets 7MPG. I love older pickup trucks, because I like the styling, I don't want leather seats or carpeting, and I'm not interested in driving around in something worth $20k + .
My previous truck was, paradoxically, newer: a 1983 Dodge Ram with a Slant-6 and a 4-speed manual transmission. Phenominal gas mileage; if I drove it gently, I could get 450 miles out of a 25 gallon tank of gas. Not bad for an old half-ton.
And it went everywhere, even though it was 2WD. I especially fondly remember watching a woman in a fur coat trying to get an Isuzu Trooper over a snowbank during a big snowstorm in Toronto two winters ago. She was spinning all four tires, just hitting the gas, the friction of her tires turning the snow under her into ice.
I pulled out of the gas station, having filled up, and gently goosed the gas pedal, having shifted early into third gear to give myself some traction. My old Ram hit the snowbank, doing about 30 miles an hour and just plowed through the 3 feet of slush, ice and snow. Then I downshifted quickly and hit the gas hard to fishtail myself into a sharp turn and into the road. I then pulled to the side, got out, and helped the lady get her Isuzu unstuck.
She was freaked out by my little display of winter driving, and commented that "weren't 4 wheel drive vehicles great?".
When I turned around and told her that my trusty old Ram didn't have four wheel drive, let alone a positraction differential, she was stunned, but that didn't stop her from driving her now-freed Trooper through the opening in the snowbank that I had made.
It's all in the driving skill. SUVs have their places, but it's not in the hands of accountants, housewives or soccer moms.
'Course, I grew up in Ottawa and Montreal, two cities known for being blanketed in snow for 5 months of the year. I've had opportunity for practice.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Because gasoline has negative externalities which are only barely taken into account by the US government. If you burn gas, you get the utility (happiness) of it getting you where you want to go. And you also have to bear your share of the pollution it produces, say one in six billion parts of it. Everyone else in the world has to bear the other part of it.
Economics says that you will do something until the additional cost to you equals the additional benefit to you, and that if everyone does this we'll all be pretty ok as a whole. But with something like gasoline the point at which the additional cost to you equals the additional benefit is a bit farther than the rest of society would like you to go, because everyone else has to bear your pollution. This is why things with negative externalities (gasoline, tobacco) are taxed and things with positive externalities (vaccines) are subsidized.
You may think that the tax on gasoline is enough and that gas can never be too cheap, but you're not paying for all of the cost of your driving! I read a study which suggested that in order to take into account all of the costs of gasoline (including the Gulf War, pollution, highway construction, etc.) the gasoline tax would need to be $6.25/gallon. Granted that's probably a bit on the high side, but it should definitely be more than it is now.
Cheap transportation is all well and good, but what we have now is generally subsidized gasoline (because the tax isn't high enough). This results in a lot more transportation being done than should be. It's why we have so much urban sprawl in the US and why there are so many cities you just can't breath in.
I'm just *waiting* for the wrongful death case in an Excursion vs. Civic collision... you're absolutely right, which is why SUV's oughta be banned. (Anything with that much mass not being used for carrying of equipment/goods should be denied from consumer purchase).
The Civic isn't remarkable so much for what is is today - it's remarkable for being a halfway decent car (if expensive), that applies a technology that ultimately will make a big difference in the way cars are built.
Right now, when my wife and I go to drive somewhere, we have a choice. We can drive her smaller Mazda 626 (she used to do a lot of distance driving), or my bigger Chevy Blazer (more comfy inside, hauls tons o' stuff, but only gets 20 MPG on the highway). Both are compromizes. We like the zippiness and economy of the Mazda, and we both like the roominess and visibility in the Blazer. But the mileage tradeoff is significant.
That said, as time goes by I'm looking farward to seeing the principles from the first-generation hybrids like the Toyota and Honda make their way into larger, more comfortable cars. It might well be possible to make a Blazer that gets 30+ MPG on the highway, or a minivan, or a larger family sedan with this technology.
Ultimately, it works out that I either walk to work or take the Blazer (I work in the town I live in - it's a long walk or short drive). She drives the Mazda to her job a couple of towns away. That way, even though I burn more gas, it still takes me a couple of weeks to go through a tank. Someday, as the technology spreads out, that won't matter. There will still be people who accuse me of unspeakable things because I own a sport-utility, but there are practical reasons to own one (how else can you get to Wasque Point on Chappy with fishing gear?) So I'll still have my ute - and it'll be a better automotive citizen, too. Hopefully this kind of technology (and fuel cells, too, down the road) will increase the efficiency of the whole fleet of cars, minivans, and sport-utilities. Then it won't be so important anymore whether you have a Honda Civic or a Ford Excursion from an energy point of view - because we'll all be using less of it.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
What we have here is a good old case of the prisoners dilema. For those of you who have not heard of it I will give you a quick low down.
Two men are caught by the police. The police have enought evidence to send both of the men to jail for 3 years. Instead the police tell both that if they rat on the other then they will get off scott free and the other person gets 10 years. If both confess and rat on each other then each gets 7 years. In most cases it becomes best to be selfish because you know that the other person will be selfish, IE both loses.
This is fairly similar. If two cars are in a collision then both drivers are hurt. If I get a bigger car than I can "win the battle", and kill the other person. Unfortunately then it is best for everyone else to be selfish and buy the big car and then no one wins.
It is a myth that bigger equals safer. To some degree that is true, but most SUVs do not have adequite roll cages to support the weight of the SUV, if they have a roll cage at all. Also, SUVs are extremely top heavy, which increases the chance of rolling. If the SUV rolls and the roll cage cannot take the weight, or there is no roll cage, then you have a flat SUV. If you get hit by a car that is not a "featherweight deathbox", and the collison is not head on then there is a really good chance that you will tip and roll. If you tip and roll the chances of the roof on your SUV becoming crushed, trapping or killing you and your kids inside, increases exponetially. If you try to swerve away from that "drunk idiot" and you do it too quick, there is a good chance you will end up on your head, again being trapped or killed by the weight of the SUV.
Oh, and even those small cars can do it. My ex-girlfriend was in her truck when it got sideswipped by a small toyota, her truck, which isn't nearly as top heavy or easy to tip as a SUV, flipped.
If you REALLY want to be safe, and you REALLY want your children to be safe, do more research on the topic. The best bets are Volvos, Saabs, Saterns, and vehicles similar to the big towncars.
By the way, the average car today burn at roughly 30-50% effecient, which is really poor. All of the SUVs out there are in the 30%s. Thats 30% of the USEABLE energy. Some of the most effecient vehicles burn at 70-80%, but those are your standard "featherweight deathbox" cars. To finish your last sentince, Today's cars burn extremely hot, because that is where 50-70% of the useable energy is going.
<flame>
Frankly, with the additude that you seem to have, I think you will be doing society a favor when you clean youself out of the gene-pool when your beloved SUV flips and crushes you.
</flame>
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Yeah, but unfortunately you're also driving a behemoth with lousy steering, brakes, and acceleration compared to those "deathboxes". While it is frequently possible to determine blame in accidents, that doesn't mean that those accidents were inevitable products of one driver's incompetence. In most accidents, the correct action by the not-at-fault driver could have avoided or at least mitigated the accident. The superior maneverability, accelaration, and brakes of nimbler cars can help tremendously in this.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Unlike other hybrid designs, or electric cars, the electric motor is not the primary motor. It is used as a secondary "I need some more power" motor. If you are not using the batteries very often then you will not need to replace them very often.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
I'm an Insight owner, in Northern Virginia. I purchased the car in April.
:)
It is the best car I have ever owned, out of 5 cars total.
My current miles per gallon is 50, I drive primarly in Surburbia, with a little on the highway, and even less in D.C. The car has a 10.8 gallon tank, so I fill-up about every 2 weeks. Other owners have gotten over 72 MPG, depending on traffic, driving conditions, speed, etc.
The car has great pickup, I can peel-out with no problem. I can even get it to peel-out in second sometimes. My max speed is about 95, though others report the car's max speed is 133.
I am about 6 feet tall, the car is comfortable, I think it would be comfortable for taller people also.
I paid about $23k for mine, 9.5% interest financed through the dealer (I will be changing to a credit union soon).
My Insight is #453, I'm hoping to sell it as a collectable in 5 years, after my warrenty is up
More info:
Honda Insight eGroups
insightman
Insight Central
Honda
--
it's a sig, wtf?
So you're not driving an SUV to survive the collision; you're driving it to kill somebody.
This basically fits in with what I've observed around my area (metro Boston) and from what others have said. Basically, SUV drivers are unmitagated assholes. When it comes to running red lights, and generally driving obliviously, SUV's are king. I've seen one nearly plow through a group of people in a crosswalk, long after the light had changed. I nearly had one run me down as I was crossing the street. Of course, the idiot had a cell phone glued to his ear.
The article mentions the fact that at stop lights and such, the engine actually shuts off and starts back up when you shift into gear and accelerate. I believe that Ars should have gone into this with more detail. Not only is shutting off and starting hard on an engine, it eats through gasoline like a tank during the starting.
:)
When you start to crank the engine with the starter, your pumping gas *through* the engine for a second or two (or 10 depending on how hard your car starts). I say through in that I mean little if no gas gets combusted. Newer cars handle this much better by recylcing as much of this wasted fuel as possible but its' still not perfect. I would imagine that the best way (and hopefully the way that Honda does this) would be to have the electric motor roll the engine over (with no gas intake) for a few seconds to get the engine (and car) rolling and then start to pump gas into the engine where it will start to combust almost immediatly with little waste. If you don't believe what I'm saying, get in your car, drive it around the city shutting it off at every light and starting it up before you start to move. Not only will this reduce your gas milage and harm your engine in the long run, it will drain your battery and piss off the people behind you.
Another interesting point it the camshaft in this car. Almost every engine on the market today has a camshaft. An engine works by letting a gas and air mixture into a chamber (via opening and closing a vertical intake valve), compressing that mixture, combusting the mixture with a spark plug and opening and closing another valve called the exhaust valve to let the gas out. This is where we get a four-stroke engine from. The job of the camshaft is to open and close those intake and exhaust valves in the correct sequence and at the right time. Older cars had a "static" or non-variable camshaft. This was easy to engineer but wasn't the most effecient way of doing things. Due to many laws of physics and such, all engines have power curves where you trade many forces (power, speed, fuel economy, etc) for themselfs. Being able to adjust the camshaft as the engine moves through that curve helps to flatten those forces out and usually give a smoother ride. There are many different ways of achieving this variance in the camshaft, one of them being the way honda appears to have done it and other one being to get rid of the camshaft all together and use a pnuematic (sp) or there force to open and close the valves via a computer. Obviously other methods exist but those seem to be the most common right now.
Hybrid and/or electric cars have come a long way. Electric motors and engines haves increased in effeciency in the past years, new ideas and innovations continue to help the situation. I'm very happy to see what Honda is doing but I wish more car companies would begin to produce/release cars in the same idea into the main stream to produce competion. With comepetion usually comes innovation and a lower price tag.
When I get that $100,000/year job, I'll go get one of these to park next to my 1995 Saturn SC2 and my 1969 MGB GT.
Thanks for reading this comment/post, I hope it helped explain some things and maybe bring up more questions. Feel free to email me at the address I have registered with slashdot.org (remove the "nispam." from the addy) about this topic. I reserve the right to delete any annoying emails that are not on topic...
Geoff
20,000. Now, some people make a lot of money and don't think that's expensive for the car, but 90% of people do think that's rather steep for a 2 seater non-sports car.
While I wouldn't mind having one, most people see that 20,000 outlay right up front (or in LOWLOWLOW monthy payments!), and shreik. They don't think they could possibly be spending that much on gas.
Of course, these people are generally not good at math.
But when you can buy a Neon, which isn't bad fuel efficiency wise or another car for under 10 grand (without the options), or a Kia (parts? Who needs parts for cars? We just throw them away now) for $8995, it's kinda pointless.
At least, that's what some would say.
Then again, the SUV's are all the rage now. So, there's no accounting for taste. (Silly me, tho, I want a Hummer so I can drive straight to work, avoid traffic, avoid roads!)
Okay, bye.
Dan
A couple of days ago, I posted a comment to the AskSlashdot question "Why are we still using gasoline", about battery stations. Some idiot replied something about "electric cars don't exactly use D cells, do they?".
From the Ars article on the Honda Insight:
Beneath the control units is a pack of 120 NiMH D cells (shown separately in the right hand picture)
Driving *should* be only about transportation. Or at least, primarily about transportation.
Hmm. Why do some cities have serious emissions rules, and others don't? Because.. some cities are windy, and polution gets sent 'elsewhere'.. so why should they care.
This north-american infatuation with cars is rediculous. Sure.. I have a car.
Your dolby digital stereo doesn't produce twice the pollutants it needs to or waste 10x the energy necessary to get you to work in the morning.
Car and driver did a road test of the Insight here. One of the things they said is that the seats are not the comfortable for long trips.
Or the GM Subdivision? (Next step up from a Suburban.)
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Come on.
SUVs are FUN to drive. Sure. They're not so great for the environment, and they're expensive to buy, and hard on gas, but they're FUN. Seriously, if you think that driving is ONLY about transportation, you should buy a bus pass, and use public transportation.
Why did I just dump a bunch of cash on a dolby digital receiver for my home theatre setup? Because I like the sound. I like to hear the sub woofer. Sure, my TV has built in speakers, and my amp burns power like crazy, but it's much more enjoyable to listen to music/movies now.
SUVs are a blast to drive. It's not about a NEED for that power, it's about wanting to be able to pass whoever you want, or tow whatever you want, or drive wherever you want, or toss whatever you want into the back. People like the feeling of power their SUV's size and height gives. Period.
It amazes me how people constantly overlook the VW/Audi TDI engine.
All the other reviews of the insight that I have read, state that it doens't actually acheieve the stated gas mielage figures that are quited. Those only occur under ideal contitions (ie. crusing on the highway without accellerating, never going up a hill, etc...)
The VW/Audi TDI (Turbocharged Direct Injection) engine achieves a REAL 50+MPG mixed driving. On my last take in my Jetta TDI, I achieved 53MPG. This car has more torque than the insight. Max Torwue 155ft/lbs reached at 1900 RPMs. (Thanks to the wastegate turbo system!) (compared to 93ft/lbs for the insight at 2000rpms)
And look at horsepower on the insight. "73 HP @ 5700" That's pittiful. To get max power you have to rev the engine pretty high to get max acceleration. While I'll admit that the TDI only achieves 90HP, it does so at a much lower RPM figure. Allowing for an optimal shift point below 3000 RPMs
Now...on to body construction. The insight is aluminum. I took a good look at one when the 2000 car show came through. and the construction just feels cheep! I honestly wouldn't feel safe in it. My Jetta TDI on the other hand feel sa lot safer and has more safety features.
Price. The insight MSRP quoted in this reviwe $20,080 i believe. A simillary equiped jetta TDI (which seats 2 more and has much more trunk space, goes for less than $19,000. And very nicely quipted at about $20,850
one last thing. maybe you know, maybe you didn't. The TDI runs on diesel. It is a virtually smokeless diesel engine. (meaning you get a little smoke on startup on a VERY cold day). There is no nasty smeel (Despite popular opinion). Diesel is cheaper! This engine is quiter than any other 4cylinder engine that I've ever driven. and has quite a lot of get-up and go.
All I can say is, test drive a Gold/Jetta/Beetle TDI, test drive an insight...then let me know which one you like better.
Visit tdiclub.com to hear form other TDI owners
What most reviewers fail to mention, or at least gloss over, is that this car has a 350 pound limit on total amount of passengers + cargo. Maybe that's sufficient for a commuter's car, which only carries one person, two people on a grocery shopping trip routinely breaks this weight limit.
True at first glance things seem this way but according to consumer report: (Taken from a random Anti-SUV page.)
According to Consumer Reports (CR): "SUVs tend to be tall and massive. Judging by looks alone, they should be
safer than most other types of vehicle -- but looks can deceive. The safety record of SUVs has been spotty at best." It is SUV's high center of gravity, according to CR, that make them less stable as a class than cars. In particular, says CR, drivers of small SUVs are involved in more fatal rollover accidents than any other type of vehicle. (November, 1997, pg. 60)
I'm sure we could quote stats all day long back and fourth. It's all about the tradeoff's I do agree. I also do agree that SUV's don't make sence for everyone but a lot do have good reason's (eg towing capacity etc...)
There's been a lot of mention of diesel engine technology and how it compares to hybrid gas/electrics. But, scanning the threads quickly, nobody really has explained the PRIMARY reason why diesel has not been better embraced here in the U.S.
The primary reason is that in order for the new generation of diesels to run properly, the direct injection types that are common in Europe and such, diesel fuel needs to have a low sulphur content. In Europe, it's mandated. However in the U.S., for years, refiners have been allowed to produce poor quality diesel fuel. Engine manufacturers in turn won't dare attempt to sell high quality diesels here because of the damage that high sulphur diesel will do to them.
Just recently legislation has been passed in the U.S. that will mandate a gradual phase over to better quality diesel. This will both reduce emissions and allow for better quality diesel engines to be sold in this country. In Europe nearly every model line is sold with a diesel engine - some of them capable of quite astonishing performance might I add (500 lbs or so of torque from a 300 HP diesel engine is not uncommon in luxury models).
Diesel cars have not progressed here because refiners have refused to foot the extra cost of cleaner burning fuel for them. Slowly this will change, hopefully.
ozone pilot
There are some things that ARS failed to mention, namely the total weight you can carry in the car - 380 pounds. So, that means I can ride in the car, but none of my friends can at the same time. Yes, I need to loose some weight...
Also, for a really excellent write up of what the pros and cons of this car are, visit Insight Man and be sure to check out his logs. He offers tons of great information on this car - a lot more than the two trips ARS took. Insight Man has attained over 90 MPG the last time I looked.
Anyway, if it was not for the low weight carrying limit, I would get one of these in a second. Guess I am going to have to go find a Prius. At least I can have someone else ride along in it.
yes, that is exactly what happens,.. in the movies and cartoons.
why don't you go try it out and report back to me what happens
force has everything to do with it, 3x the force, and you're going to have a much bigger disaster, and why don't you face it,... the SUVs aren't tanks, they are going to be smashed to bits just like everything else.
besides which, this is based on the misconception that people are squished inside of cars and that's how they die.
not so,.. people die from being flung about, rolling over, and *sometimes* being crushed by the car. (this is more common in side-impacts, in which case, guess what? your SUV really doesn't have much more space
again, Excursion vs. Festiva, yes the 3 ton car is going to send the Festiva flying into next week.
but why is it a good thing that the Festiva driver dies and the Excursion driver lives? just because you are the Excursion driver? no, you are both equally worthless, and neither one of you has a right to live beyond the other's.
that is my point, SUVs put other driver's (needlessly) in danger.
they won't let you drive an 18-wheeler just 'coz you want to, and while i am totally against the gov't coming in and regulating more, i wish people would think logically..
but of course, being a realist (and sometimes a nihilist) i know this won't happen.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...