Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Hybrid Honda Accord

1555658606166

Comments

  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Toyota has pledged to make hybridization an option on ALL of it's cars by 2010. "

    I too have read this, and I will have to see it to believe it. With the exception of the Chevy full sized pickup (which was hybridized mainly to provide 240 volt outlets), no vehicle larger than 4500 lbs has been hybridized. The larger engines simply consume too much fuel, the vehicles are too heavy, and the frontal area is too great; the increase in MPG is not sufficient to warrant the extra expense. But who knows, maybe by 2012 the Sequoia will be only 4500 lbs, maybe that is what they are assuming.

    And from an environmental standpoint, the extra "green" cost to manufacture (for example) a hybrid Sequoia would never possibly be recouped by higher MPG. It takes the Prius almost to the end of it's normal life cycle to overcome the high initial pollution caused by the manufacturing.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote Stevedebi-"And from an environmental standpoint, the extra "green" cost to manufacture (for example) a hybrid Sequoia would never possibly be recouped by higher MPG. It takes the Prius almost to the end of it's normal life cycle to overcome the high initial pollution caused by the manufacturing."-end quote...

    Did you get that info from Gary? It's an Urban Myth....I have the actual study that shows there is no such thing as a "high initial pollution" caused by the manufacturing process...It is "slightly higher" but nothing like what happens by the end of the cycle:

    The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account.

    Here is a link to my original post which has the PDF link:

    larsb, "The Future of Hybrid Technology" #522, 14 Feb 2005 3:00 pm
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Dealership apathy did not hurt Toyota with the Prius.

    I know this personally. During the summer of 2003 I went to two Toyota dealers and showed interest in the new and upcoming Prius2.

    First sales rep told me that my money would be best spent on a Camry vs. a Prius. In fact any Toyota but a Prius was well spent according to the sales rep.

    At the second dealership the sales rep told me he thought I was crazy in selling my BMW 3 series for a Prius.

    My impression was that a Prius was a car that required little salesmanship!
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    I am sure Toyota dealers have swayed folks away from the Prius as well. I guess only the well informed are driving the Prius as they know what's best. ;)
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    Thanks for that PDF Larsb. I know I'm at leasting partially contributing to a cleaner environment. I love my Prius!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account.

    This is Toyota's own LCA on the Prius vs comparable Non-hybrid. It is very clear the only significant gain is in CO2 and HC over the 150k mile life of the Prius. It never passes the non-hybrid for particulate matter. It is well toward the end of the life cycle when it gains an advantage over the non-hybrid on both SOx & NOx. I don't know what is so hard to accept about this chart it was part of your link to Toyota. Toyota knows the truth that it is a marginal over all gain.

    image
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Regardless of how the data is sliced, there is no "significant increase" in pollution during the mfg phase that is not "SWALLOWED UP" by the end of the car's lives.....Which is my point......

    There is no huge discrepancy, even by this chart.....
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    I wonder if there is a chart showing that for the truck Gary just bought. Anyone have any data on that?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    That is very true. What started this was comparing the larger hybrids and the difference in emissions associated with their manufacturing process. Does the percentage of gain on fuel consumption make them a cleaner car overall than a non-hybrid SUV? You do not get the percentages with an RX400h that you get with the Prius. In fact there are RH owners that claim they are not getting any better mileage with the hybrid than they did with the RX300 they traded in. Or in a couple cases only 1-2 MPG increase. I'm not the only one here that is skeptical on the value of larger hybrids. I would not have bought mine if it did not have the engine and towing capacity that I was looking for and they knocked off most of the hybrid premium. I like the way the truck shuts down at stop lights. I hope it gets decent mileage. I will keep you all posted.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I would be most interested to see one. I am concerned about the batteries that are only warranted for 3 years 36k miles. There are a few things that have a 8yr 80k mile coverage. Mostly controller modules.
  • dwynnedwynne Member Posts: 4,018
    It is posted here someplace (and confirmed by the service manager at my local dealership) - the batteries are 8/80k as well. You have to look in the warranty book of an Accord hybrid to find the "right" answer :-)

    Dennis
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Regardless of how the data is sliced, there is no "significant increase" in pollution during the mfg phase that is not "SWALLOWED UP" by the end of the car's lives.....Which is my point......

    There is no huge discrepancy, even by this chart....."

    Take a look at the chart again, the Prius has a large green area for manufacturing, larger than a conventional ICE car. This is what I was reffering to when I said a "significant increase in pollution during the manufacturing phase". Over the life of the car, this initial "environmental cost" is compensated by the higher MPG, thus burning less fuel and releasing less pollution. One must compare the HAH with the 4 cylinder Accord to determine how much better MPG the hybrid will achieve. BTW, the chart came from a Toyota website. One should also bear in mind that this chart is comparing the Prius to a similar sized vehicle, not an HAH to an ICE Accord. The HAH would fare much worse when compared to the I4 Accord, and probably worse (over the life of the car) than the V6 version also. Those batteries are environmentally expensive to produce.

    For a hybrid SUV, it does not get high enough MPG to compensate like the Prius does. The worse the MPG compared to a comparable ICE vehicle, the longer it would take to compensate for the initial production.

    None of this is to detract from the HAH, which is a fine vehicle. But it must be noted that just being a hybrid does not automatically make the vehicle environmentally friendly compared to a similar ICE vehicle.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I see your point, but I was just approaching the fact that the "huge negative initial enviro impact" thing is overblown, and it IS.

    Gary at one point had said he thought that Hybrids could never be produced in the USA because of the "pollution during manufacture" which I thought was bunk at the time, and it is still untrue when the life of the car is figured in, at least for the Hybrids we have NOW. Ford is making them here, and Toyota is going to make the Camry here and Nissan the Altima here.

    Time and future studies will tell how the HH and the RX400h fare in that regard.... :D
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Gary at one point had said he thought that Hybrids could never be produced in the USA because of the "pollution during manufacture" which I thought was bunk at the time, and it is still untrue when the life of the car is figured in, at least for the Hybrids we have NOW."

    I would agree only for the Civic and Prius hybrids. The HAH doesn't get significantly better gas mileage than it's ICE cousins. The other Hybrids are SUVs, and there is no way they are going to "Break even" on emissions over the normal life of the vehicle (set at 150K miles in the chart). Even if they double the MPG over their ICE contemporaries, they just won't be efficient enough. And the RX400 actually only gets a few MPG better than the RX330 (for most drivers, but don't get me started on the driving patterns)!

    Similarly, the Escape Hybrid gets (at best) about 31 MPG, compared to my 2003 Honda CR-V, which gets 23/27. That is only about 8 and 4 MPG benefit to the hybrid. It won't work out in dollars over the life of the Escape for the return on investment, and it certainly won't work out in environmental numbers.

    RE: Manufacturing in the USA. Well, we are the only G8 nation that didn't ratify the Kyoto accord, so I should think the US would be the most likely country to manufacture a Hybrid...
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote Stevedebi-"RE: Manufacturing in the USA. Well, we are the only G8 nation that didn't ratify the Kyoto accord, so I should think the US would be the most likely country to manufacture a Hybrid..."-end quote

    Yes, but we have the most stringent EPA/CARB setup, as evidenced by the five states which disallow diesels......:D
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Yes, but we have the most stringent EPA/CARB setup, as evidenced by the five states which disallow diesels......"

    Which means that one of the other 45 states will get the business of building the Hybrids...

    As well as those 45 MPG diesel cars from VW... no batteries required (except 12 volt).
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Even if they double the MPG over their ICE contemporaries, they just won't be efficient enough.

    I wonder what the emissions are to mine, refine, and transport those extra few thousand gallons of crude oil and gas? Do these lifetime emissions charts take that factor into account?

    I for one would like to see the data (not supposition) on lifetime emissions of a hybrid SUV like the HH or RX400h vs. one of similar power that gets about 1/2 the average mpg. With the conventional SUV polluting at least twice as much during its running life (and considering the emissions rating of V8s isn't very good), that would be a huge gap to make up during manufacture and disposal. And throw in the gas-production emissions while you're at it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The Toyota Prius study is the only one I have seen. I agree that the pollution from the production of the oil should be taken into consideration. I disagree on your assumption of twice the mileage. That is not happening. You can compare the hybrid SUVs to bigger heavier V8 SUVs if you like. That opens up the debate to compare lighter hatchbacks, wagons and sedans to the Hybrid CUV/SUVs. For example the HAH will outrun the RX400h carry as many passengers and gets better mileage. Some would argue in equal or better comfort. Or if you need AWD the Subaru Wagons get equal or better mileage carry as many people and as much luggage. The RX330 is still the best vehicle to compare to the RH and the non-hybrid Highlander to the HH. That lets you know if you are doing anything more for the environment by going hybrid. Anyone can make the case that the RX400h is much greener than the Hummer2. To be realistic we need to make the match as close as possible.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    If people want/need only the performance of a regular Highlander or regular RX330, or a regular Accord, they will buy one of those, and not pay the steep premium for the hybrid versions. But if someone wants V8-class power and high mpg to boot, they'll buy a HH or RX400h. That is why I compare those kinds of vehicles. Your kind of comparison completely ignores one of the major reasons people buy the hybrid versions of the Highlander, RX330, and Accord--because of the extra performance, without a penalty in fuel economy. Also, why does everyone who buys a hybrid have to do it to "do more for the environment"? Does everyone who buys a vehicle do it to help the environment? That's a nice thought, but it's not so.
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    Seems like we have strayed off into more general hybrid talk instead of the HAH. If you want to talk general or comparisons, please do so in one of discussions for that.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote gagrice-"The Toyota Prius study is the only one I have seen."-end quote

    Gary, you did not go look at that original study I posted, the PDF which I posted again yesterday? If not, GO read it and get yourself more educated about cradle to grave emissions, so you can present a more educated and well-rounded opinion when we have these discussions !! :D;)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Edmunds.com posted recently some spy pics on the '06 Accord. The changes are much less than I expected, although the new rear-end treatment is an improvement IMO, even if bland and un-original. But the article notes that there will be only minor tweaks inside the car. From other reports I was expecting much more in the way of tweaks inside and out. :(
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    From other reports I was expecting much more in the way of tweaks inside and out.

    What would be the point of major changes to the Accord when it will go through a major overhaul in a year or two after the date of the 06 intro.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Because Honda almost always makes significant changes in Year 4, like clockwork, even though a new design is coming in two more years. The changes they made to the Civic for '04, for example, were more significant than the changes for the '06 Accord. You'd have to ask Honda what their point is. I figure it's to keep their cars appearing fresh, to compete better with other cars that have been redesigned since the current gen debuted. Other automakers, e.g. Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai, do the same thing.
  • lovemyhybridaclovemyhybridac Member Posts: 2
    I have recently purchased an Accord Hybrid after shopping around for some time. I live on the South Shore of Boston (42 miles South of my job in Cambridge), and am a sporting driver (previous car a VW Jetta GLI with 6-speed manual), but had gotten VERY tired of shifting interminably in stop-and-go traffic and getting 22 mpg on premium fuel. I shopped around and paid a reasonable price (just under sticker with a good trade) for my Accord Hybrid with NAV system. I have been getting 33 mpg on regular gas, with excellent performance, in my hybrid, and my wife and I just returned from an 1100 mile trip which was very comfortable and netted 35 mpg. I am on faculty at MIT and can appreciate the technology without expecting to break even on the cost of a hybrid - when fuel cells make semse and can provide superb performance, I'll buy one. Till then, Honda has my vote!

    Happily commuiting in my new Accord Hybrid....
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
  • rocstar143rocstar143 Member Posts: 3
    i found this article on the 05 accord if any one is interested its pretty sweet n well written very informative.

    http://associatedcontent.com/content.cfm?content_type=article&content_type_id=701

    im thinkin about getting one so this helped me out a lot!
    anyone got any other stuff for me on them?
  • s2khahs2khah Member Posts: 26
    I am on the list for an HAH and plan to get an aftermarket sunroof installed later.
    I would like to hear feedback from those who have had this done or have knowledge of an HAH with one installed. I know Honda does not condone this, but I do not have any problems with that. I also would like to know it there were problems with the active noise cancellation system since the front microphone is so close to the probable roof location.
    Thanks and looking forward to many great years with my HAH.
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    I would advise against it. Most aftermarket sunroofs are not as good as the factory units. Later down, you may get leaks and it's noiser too. Don't forget the loss of headroom and structural integrity which is forfeited.
  • s2khahs2khah Member Posts: 26
    Molokai, Thanks for the input but I have an experienced installer in mind in PA. They use a German roof (that is OEM on many German cars). I also had one installed on a 93 Camry by him and it worked flawlessly. I believe the Model (not the mfg.) is Hollander. I don't have much worry, but that is a consideration. I figured a loss of about 2" of headroom which I can believe is not a showstopper. That is if I don't get one that opens above the roof (not likely). The installer has already done one HAH and has not heard complaints from the buyer yet.

    Of course I wouldn't be asking if HAH offered one as an option.
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    Glad to help.... let us know how it works. I had a friend who had an aftermarket sunroof on a Lincoln and they did an awful job as screws in the surround where showing. It never leaked, but you can instantly tell it was aftermarket. Enjoy your HAH!!
  • s2khahs2khah Member Posts: 26
    No problem. I got the Model of sunroof wrong. It is Hollandia made by Webasto.
    Now my S2000 won't be lonesome in the Garage!!! Woopee.
  • nymaxxnymaxx Member Posts: 30
    Our Accord Hybrids rated a cover page story in last Sunday's NY Times. I saw it in print, but it is likely available on the web site.
  • s2khahs2khah Member Posts: 26
    Maxx,
    I saw the article. It was somewhat upbeat but at the same time critical with not any any more input than what is already published.

    I am not buying the HAH for driving around NYC. If I live there I would likely have bought the HCH.

    I live in suburban/rural areas and I hope, with judicious driving to get 35 or more mpg with about 50% of my miles, expect the car to have the legendary reliability of a Honda AND have an ample amount of power, if needed, to aid in less clean traffic patterns.

    Not a bad reason at all.
  • nymaxxnymaxx Member Posts: 30
    I'm always interested in what the media have to say. This may have been the biggest exposure yet, the front page of the Sunday Times is literally something you can't buy.

    The article does match my personal judgment of the HAH, which is a mixed bag. My initial disappointment with the car has worn off and I'm starting to see some of the Honda charm which keeps buyers coming back over and over.

    I spent the entire day today driving around NYC and got somewhere around 22 MPG for the day. Traffic was heavy and it was very hot out. For this type of driving this economy is outstanding. A couple of times I shocked people with the acceleration, including a V6 Accord owner that was trying to push me around. Very satisfying.

    Anyway Edmunds is due for another installment in the HAH Long-Term test, let's see what they have to say.

    Be safe and happy in your new car.
  • nymaxxnymaxx Member Posts: 30
    Today my HAH with about 3K miles did something weird. I'm hoping that it was just a one-time glitch, and was wondering if anyone else in this forum had a similar experience.

    I was making a U-Turn in the Bronx, and when I put the car in reverse it didn't do anything. There was a whining noise. Not knowing what to do I put the car in Park, then back in Reverse. Same problem. I tried again, this time the car worked properly. I drove for the rest of the day without any further symptoms at all.

    Please report your experience or if you have heard anything about this on either a HA or HAH.

    Thank You
  • molokaimolokai Member Posts: 313
    It could be that your car is not a fan of da BRONX. Seriously, I doubt it was anything serious. Next time it happens, shut the car down, wait and see if it goes away. If you're still worried, go to the dealer and see if there are any error codes stored from your mishap. Enjoy you HAH!!
  • vietviet Member Posts: 847
    It is better that the NAV now reminds me 3 times "Make a U-Turn if possible" when I get lost or change my mind, not to follow the NAV pre-set route.
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    My HAH will need its 3750 mile maintenance soon. Here is my dilemma. I have 2200 miles right now and maybe 2500 in early August but will be driving over 2000 miles in early August. So by mid August I will have 4500 miles.

    My dilemma is whether to do the initial oil change before or after this larger 2000 mile trip?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Before is a better idea, because the initial still oil has a few very small metal shavings from the break in process. Better to get them out before the long trip.
  • dwynnedwynne Member Posts: 4,018
    Does the hybrid call for an earlier first oil change? The normal Accord service interval is 10k (normal duty) and 5k (harsh duty) and there is even a note in the manual about not changing the oil too soon. So unless the hybrid is different, you should be fine to go to 4,500 miles as long as you routinely check the level.

    Dennis
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    No, the Accord Hybrid does not "call" for an earlier change....nor does any production car I know about... ;)

    This is just something I learned about when researching oil back in 2000.

    Here is the reasoning behind the 1,500 mile early oil change: All cars, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on the machining of the engine combustion chamber parts, lose and "shave off" microscopic and sometimes larger slivers of metal as the engine breaks in and the metal parts grind against each other internally. It's inevitable.

    It's better practice to get those shaved off parts out of the oil around the 1,500 mile mark for a new car, when most of the metal has been shaved off, and start fresh with clean oil after the metal shavings are gone, instead of leaving those shavings in the oil to dirty up the filter and your oil.

    This is not a commonly practiced oil procedure, but it does make sense and is recommended in some oil industry circles. The sooner you get those metal shavings out of your oil, the better off you'll be. (A Google search of "slivers" and "oil change" will net you many forums where people report finding metal slivers in their oil pan, or on their oil plug, upon their first oil changes.)

    I recommend it especially for people with new cars who change their own oil like I do - it's no big deal to people like us to spend $20 for the peace of mind.... :D .

    P.S. As far as "changing the oil too soon," there is no such thing. Your car would be fine if you changed to oil every weekend !! There is a time frame you might want to wait before switching from dino oil to Synthetic oil, but that's not the issue here.
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    Thanks - the consensus seems to be to change the oil early (here, father, dealer). Normally I would not hesitate to change it but because this is the first oil change and the oil has a break in additive that I want to be sure gets to do its thing.
  • dwynnedwynne Member Posts: 4,018
    The Accord and CR-V owner's manuals clearly say not to change the oil too soon. Now I am not one to leave the first oil (or any oil) in a car too long, but it does say that in the manual. Folks on other Accord and CR-V boards have debated what these means and what to do - some going as far as having the oil analyzed (IIRC nothing special about it).

    The service manager at my local dealer said if it bothers you to wait until 10k to change the oil (per the owner's manual) then follow the harsh duty change recommendation, which is 5,000 miles per change.

    If there was any reason or benefit from an early oil change, Honda would tell us to come in and get it. I might be mentally hard to wait to 5k, but to change it sooner is really a waste of money and good oil.

    The waiting to change to synth is pretty much a wive's tale as well, since lots of new cars (like my '00 'vette convertible and both my BMWs) came from the factory with full synthetic it them. The M5 DID call for an early first oil change - real early, but the others did not. I saw switch whenever you feel like it - but again regular changes with dino oil beats prolonged changes with synth oil for most folks. Now changing often with synth is the best but also is really spendy.

    Running LOW on oil during the life of the motor would do more harm than waiting until 5k (or even 10k) for the first oil change. So check it often, but I am not going to bother changing it until around 5k (on my wife's car). On mine, I drive a lot fewer miles on each so I change it every few months no matter how many miles are on the clock. The guy at Valvoline was giving me funny looks last time I changed the oil in the pickup truck. He finally asked me why the oil was so clean. It had only been in the truck about 1k - which worked out to about a year. I looked up the records and since I purchased it used I have put about 1k on it a year - helping folks move, picking stuff up too big for another car, and taking stuff to the dump. I get the oil changed about once a year no matter if I need it or not :)

    Dennis
  • dwynnedwynne Member Posts: 4,018
    and the oil has a break in additive that I want to be sure gets to do its thing

    I don't think there is any "proof" there is anything in the initial oil, other than the statement to not change it too soon. The rough service change interval in the manual calls for 5k changes. So just check your oil level and wait until you get back. Then if there IS something special in the first oil it WILL get more chance to work. You for sure will have more money in your pocket if you change every 5k-10k as Honda recommends and not every 3k or 3,750 or whatever.

    Dennis
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    There's no valid reason that I can find for the "leave the oil in there" advice, just as there is no valid reason for the "3000 mile interval" either. It's just a standard practice by Honda I guess - if there was a REAL good reason, Honda could tell us what it is, and they have not.

    All I can say about the "no early oil change advice" from the manufacturer is that they don't want to bring liability issues into their advice, or conflict with their service schedule advice. There are definitely solid Logical and Real World reasons for changing the oil to get the metal shavings out, as I mentioned in my previous post.

    And the "wait for synth" is not a wives tale - it you do so to early, the engine will reach optimium efficiency (fully seated) at a LATER DATE than it would have without the change, so you are losing MPG by changing too early to Synth. This I know for sure, as Synth was my main thrust during my long research period back in 2000.

    Those engines you refer to which come with Synth oil from the factory have higher compression ratios or something which allows them to be sold new with Synth oil, unlike a "normal" car - I cant remember the full reason exactly, but it's a real one and explains why those engines are different from most engines.

    Maybe we need to move this to a Oil Change Forum somewhere on Edmunds? :blush:
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    How about these going to the Hybrid Honda Accord Owners: Care & Maintenance discussion?
  • vietviet Member Posts: 847
    A Fleet Manager at a Honda dealership where I bought my '92 Accord in 1992 did advise me to change engine oil at 1K miles. I followed his advice to change oil for that Accord only. The female staff at Sears auto shop looked at me with her questioning eyes when I requested oil change at 1K miles. That 1K mile oil change happened only once to me. I have felt lazy to continue practicing it for my other brand-new Accord.
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    Fine by me.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "I don't think there is any "proof" there is anything in the initial oil, other than the statement to not change it too soon. "

    I can't speak to the HAH, but with the CR-V, the factory oil is special. I changed my oil at 7500 for the first time, thereafter at 5K intervals on the severe schedule. I suspect that all Hondas are shipped with the special oil.

    Here is the quote from the owner link site FAQ:

    Why should I wait to change the oil the first time?

    Your Honda engine was delivered with an oil that is specially formulated for new engines that have not yet developed their "natural" wear patterns and may contain minute particles from the manufacturing process.

    American Honda strongly recommends this special oil be left in the engine long enough for these wear patterns to develop, usually until the first maintenance interval specified in your Owner's Manual, based on your specific driving conditions.
Sign In or Register to comment.