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.
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.
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: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: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.
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:The problem is... (Score:1, Insightful)
The hidden gotcha with the hybrid (although I'm still considering one for my next car) is that their batteries are expensive and typically have to be replaced not long after the manufacturer's warranty gives out.
I'm not saying you can't still come out ahead of a less efficient car in the long run, but having to spring for a several thousand dollar battery at some point is something to consider.
Ugly! (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Hope its priced cheap at $15,000 (Score:2, Insightful)
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:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
I take offense Hyundai makes a damn good car. Most of the folks who drive Bimmers don't even know what BMW is an acronym for (Bavarian Motor Works) that's the English version for those who don't speak German.
In the U.S. BMW is a status symbol a mark wealth like any luxury vehicle, you don't buy them to save the environment, you buy one to show you can. The Prius enjoyed that status, when saving the environment seemed chic and Hollywood vogue (Brad Pitt I know you're out there)...
But the truth is, if gas was back below 3 bucks a gallon most folks in the U.S. wouldn't even entertain the notion of a non-SUV.
I know it's sad but before folks flame, you know it's true. If you garner extravagance you don't have to explain much other than the simple "Because I can..."
However, purchases based on economy, be it fuel consumption, or price and "Lucy, you've got some s-plainin to do..." I applaud Honda because Toyota has gotten too fat a premium for too long. Let the price wars begin.
Re:Screw this (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 pulling a trailer. This makes a huge difference on hills. It's powerful and efficient.
Re:Or maybe turnabout? (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:Bring back the CRX (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem is... (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 limited resource and polluting less while I'm at it.
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.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugly (Score:2, Insightful)
As one who has lived thru more decades of automotive evolution than I care to reveal, let me say: hybrid cars are ugly. Appearance-wise, they're throwbacks to the sixties. When I was a kid I thought cars would be really cool-looking and flying by now. Instead they're ground-bound and looking like they were designed by R. Crumb. I shake my impotent fist while cursing at the universe.
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait, SUV's are dorky looking, and about as sexy as a chuck wagon with chrome rims.
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:It's not worthy the name of Insight (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 cold and snow. (MT) My commute takes me 15 minutes by car, and a slightly more direct route via bike takes 30 minutes (~6 miles). If you're an uber road cyclist who can do 40mph instead of 15mph like me, you could probably actually get there more quickly on the bike.
Also, aluminum is not significantly lighter than steel for the same tensile strength, provided you use a quality steel alloy. It's lighter by volume, but that's not really the same thing.
Anyway, bottomline is IMO-- all cars are oversized for commuting, unless you're carrying a lot of cargo/passengers or the weather is bad and you don't own any technical clothing. Most people's commutes are only a couple miles and would be most economical to bike. Not to mention the exercise perks.
Go to any indigenous tribe in South America that hasn't been industrialized, and they could pretty much all easily run your commute without it even being challenging. The notion that we need a metal, inefficient powered carriage that is 10 feet wide to move a couple miles isn't really rational or natural considering human evolution. Making the 10 foot wide metal carriage be only 95% inefficient instead of 96% inefficient is sort of going in the wrong direction, you know?
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:My gas guzzler is more environmentally friendly (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 mechanical condition. They'll sail through smog check, and my local mechanic always gives them two thumbs up.
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.
They get decent fuel economy - about 30 MPH freeway. They seat five people. They'll last 100,000 miles after your purchase, if you take care of them. (I have a Saturn with just shy of 200,000 miles on it, original engine and transmission) They go fast enough to be fun, they have a good record for safety, and you can invest the other $15,000 in something useful, so that in three years, you have earned almost $5,000! (%10 annual interest for 3 years)
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:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't they make more 'green' cars that look svelt like the Tesla?
They make a car like the one you want, it's called a Tesla. (Don't mod me down yet)
At a reasonable price.
Oh, that's in 5-10 years. Remember when you could have a 720 36" hdtv for the low low price of $10,000? All new technology with all the best bits alway costs megabucks when first produced.
Re:It's not worthy the name of Insight (Score:2, Insightful)
I shouldn't feed trolls, but here's some clue sticks:
Round-trip time lost per day: 30 minutes = $X.
As always, there are people who conflate time and money while interpreting the phrase "time is money". The real interpretation of that is, "time has value." Some people regard time spent out of doors exercising as valuable. Perhaps you don't. Your evaluation of time spent on a bicycle is your opinion, not a counterpoint.
>Also, aluminum is not significantly lighter than steel for the same tensile strength
You may not be using your transportation device correctly. Check the manual.
Ever heard of the fallacy called a "non sequitur"? What in blue blazes does using one's "transportation device correctly" have to do with the strength of a material used in an automobile (original context)?
HINT: Never, ever, argue with ambiguity. That is the pitfall of the Republican spokesperson in this election season.
Most people don't have a job where they can show up sweaty. For those who do, additional "exercise" may not be a "perk."
You didn't comprehend his entire post, did you? I'm pretty sure he suggested an electric bike at the beginning.
Fixed that for ya.
Not likely. His point was that industrialized people are whining too much about biking to work. You merely proved his point.
>The notion that we need a metal, inefficient powered carriage that is 10 feet wide to move a couple miles isn't really rational or natural considering human evolution
Like hell it's not. Ask the noble savage if he wants calories or carbon credits.
The noble savage knows he's dead if he's fat, because he can no longer keep up with his prey. Keep your simplistic views of the world's natives to yourself, please.
"No wonder you Americans are so fat," said an Aucan native in his first visit to the U.S. "You can ride up to a window, and they give you food. You don't have to hunt at all, because you have food already in your houses."
Prosperity is not a virtue in and of itself; it comes with costs, and it comes with responsibilities.
Re:The problem is... (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 buy a Seat Ibiza ecomotive [greencarsite.co.uk] (not the other older models). That emits only has 99g/km and travels 88 (UK) mpg.
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.
Re:Sometimes you've got to ask yourself... (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:Screw this (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 see in the railroad is called diesel-electric locomotive. It is very safe to predict that diesel hybrids are going to come pretty soon. When the diesel-electric locomotive was developed in 1948-1950, it drove the all the steam locomotives off the tracks in just one decade. Pennsylvania Rail Road had ordered steam locomotives from the Baldwin Loco Works that went from the assembly line straight to the scrap yard. The change was that fast.
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.
that hybrid premium (Score:4, Insightful)