By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Mr. Flint,
Please excuse my rudeness in my previous email.
I personally don't drive my 16 mpg pick-up to the recycle center. I don't own a 16 mpg pick-up.
While I understand your contention that many larger cars get around the same fuel economy, that wasn't what your article said. You suggested that replacing SUV's with Honda sedans wouldn't make a difference. Not replacing SUV's with big luxury cars.
The Ford Explorer is the best selling SUV in America. It gets 14/19 mpg dropping 20-25 pounds of smog forming crap into the air over 15,000 miles.
The Honda Accord is the best selling sedan , it gets 26/34 and drops 0-1 pound of smog forming crap in to the air over 15,000 miles.
How about recanting your statement. It was completely irresponsible on your part. And, flat out incorrect.
Jerry Flint
because when you add up all the co2, is that what your are talking about,
from
8-9 billion people )expelling co2 from every breath), from eveery power
plant
in the world, from 750 million motor vehicles, it an't much o an increase
at
all.
why pick on crs. why not tell everyone to turn down their thermnostats 5
degrees in winter and the ac by 5 in summer. why not. because no one
would do
it. but it is easy to yell at cars. big truck sales willb e dropping with
1. the present high fuyel prices,
2. the greater variety that givbes people more choice./
jf
Me
You cannot unequivoqly say it won't make a difference. You have absolutely nothing other than opinion to stand on. You work for a well respected magazine, people put stock in what you have to say. It is just wrong to make blanket statements about things you cannot back up.
How do you know the co2 you put in the air won't be the co2 pounds that screws us all? It takes more than one person to make a change. Following your logic, it's useless to vote too.
Jerry Flint
i have been following the industry for a half century. i was in at the beginning of the safey debate and knew nader. i was in at the beginning
of the polllution debate and knew the people who discovered the causes of smog.
i have seen more bsl than you can imagine. and i'm right most of the time, because i know what i'm talking about. i wouldn't be working after 50
yers if
i wasn't right most of the time. so i don't have kto apologize or explain myself.
regards
jerry flint
HOW ARROGANT!!
Good one! I about fell aout of my chair laughing when I read that. You really should read for comprehension.
Since this is a Honda thread, I'll not help you to turn it into another "John vs logic, reason and the laws of physics" forum.
> manufacturer subsidy and tax encentives (sic),
> their purchase price demands a premium that
> cannot be revovered in fuel savings in an
> ownership cycle and probably not in the life
> of the vehicle.
Depends what you compare it to. Our second choice would've been a Civic HX, which can get 40 mpg and costs around $3000 less, so yeah, we don't rack up the savings in $$.
If, on the other hand, you were considering even a modest-sized SUV... Let's take the Chevy "compact" Blazer for example: MSRP is *higher* than the HCH, and with its combined MPG rating of 16, you save nearly $1000 a year in gas (assuming $1.50 a gallon).
Plus, given the lifespan of a Honda (and of course depending on what the real-world life of the batteries turns out to be), it could easily be more economical even than a much cheaper poor-mileage car like the Ford Focus (combined MPG anywhere from 22-29).
Further, an incredible number of American consumers are currently paying a much higher premium for "status symbol" cars loaded with useless extras. Despite paying more for the new technology, the HCH costs far less than comparably sized "status" cars that get nowhere near its mileage.
Let's keep this dicussion focused on the Civic Hybrid.
Thanks.
1) Who can work on these, only the dealer? Is this going to be a situation if something "breaks" that its going to cost $$$$ to fix because only the dealer can do it?
2) They are offering a 10yr/150K warranty on the battery - is this a situation where you have a good quality battery, or the MPG and charge performance degrades continually over this time period then you throw it away like I do on my laptop NiMH batteries? (What does it cost to replace one of these?
3) I commute alot and it has an interesting motor off feature. Is it off/on alot while commuting in stop and go traffic, and is the MPG adversely effected because of this type of driving?
This is a drawback to the car; it's probably going to leave you more tied to the dealer's service department than other cars. (Although in many areas where Hondas are popular, there are independent mechanics who specialize in Hondas, and I would expect these to be interested in supporting hybrid owners soon. I miss my Honda specialist in Seattle...here in Chicagoland, you're lucky if you can find a mechanic that doesn't laugh when you bring in an import!)
The gas engine is still a pretty normal gas engine, and brakes, transmission, cooling system, etc. are pretty standard. Anything involving the IMA, though, I'd want to take to the dealer or someone with some hybrid experience (though the dealer mechanics actually don't seem to know much about the cars, so far!). The requirement for OW20 oil currently pretty much limits you to the dealer or doing your own, as well...not supported yet by Jiffy Lube and the others, as far as I've seen.
> 2) They are offering a 10yr/150K warranty on
> the battery - is this a situation where you
> have a good quality battery, or the MPG and
> charge performance degrades continually
The Insight, Prius and HCH are all too new to really know. The Insight fans on the honda-hybrid Yahoo! group could tell you the most; it doesn't seem that those who have Insights from their first year are reporting a lot of problems. I would expect some degradation in charging performance over time, though. Replacement cost is currently estimated around $2000 (better hope it happens under warranty!) but the thought is that the cost will come down as hybrids catch on (we hope) and that the technology may also improve.
> 3) I commute alot and it has an interesting
> motor off feature. Is it off/on alot while
> commuting in stop and go traffic, and is the
> MPG adversely effected because of this type
> of driving?
Stop-and-go driving is the worst for any car's mileage; the mileage you actually get will certainly depend on the conditions on your commute. I have a good number of stop signs and stoplights on my surface-street commute, but also open stretches of up to 45 mph between; under these conditions (and in warm weather), I get 48-50 mpg. But if you mean real bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go crawling, you probably can expect to get only in the 30s. The "Auto Stop" feature does help--lots of gas not wasted idling at lights--but the constant accelerating and decelerating takes its toll, as it does on any car. (But think what MPG the SUV in front of you is getting!)
Think carefully about whether you want the 5-speed or the CVT for your commute. The CVT is rated a little higher for mpg in city driving, and I think might do a little better if your drive is stoplight-drive two blocks-stoplight type traffic. If you're really crawling, the 5-speed might give you some advantage, because it's better at re-engaging the "Auto Stop" when you have to creep up a couple car-lengths and stop again.
The Civic Hybrid only got 26 MPG on the city and the Prius got 31 in the city.
But all of CR's city mileage are really low. Most V-6s which are suppose to be close to 20 in the city are more like 14 or 15.
Is the EPA that off? Or do CR people have lead feet?
CR explains their testing regimen in exacting detail in the annual April auto issue each year. Few people bother to read the fine print, but their cycle is considerably more rigorous than the equivalent EPA test.
Personally, I find CR's OVERALL fuel consumption number for any given model in their tests to be VERY close to what we achieve in our house for the same car. Our numbers and their numbers are usually within 3% of each other, about as real-world and it gets in the real world.
The EPA numbers are all achieved in a lab under controlled conditions, and as the EPA itself has repeated many times, are only good to compare one vehicle with another, and bear little relationship with what each individual driver will achieve with any given car out there in the cold, hard world.
Anyway, CR's urban test is a really tough one, and bears no resemblence to the EPA test. Frankly, my experience suggests the former knows more about how real people drive than the latter...
> mileage of hybrids?
> The Civic Hybrid only got 26 MPG on the city
> and the Prius got 31 in the city.
I think the CR tests generally do a good job of modeling "real world" driving. In the case of the hybrids, however, it's likely that the tests are done by drivers with little hybrid driving experience. Almost everyone who buys a hybrid and is serious about learning to drive it for best MPG reports steady mileage improvement over the first several tanks.
Still, I couldn't understand how the EPA got mileage numbers for this car that were so much higher (46 city, 51 highway). Eventually, I found a web site that describes the EPA tests, and that explained a lot. Aside from the fact that the EPA tests are done as an off-road simulation, it was interesting to see how they define city and highway driving.
Their highway test simulates a trip with an average speed of 48 MPH and a maximum speed of only 60! I've been getting about 45 MPG for freeway driving, but that's usually averaging at least 70 MPH. So I suspect that if I decided to do my highway driving at 50-60 MPH, I probably would get what the EPA got.
The EPA city test simulates a trip with an average speed of about 22 MPH and a maximum speed of only 56, only 4 MPH less than the maximum on their highway test. I only get around 30 MPG around town, but that's mostly stop-and-go driving on hilly streets. I rarely get to go faster than 30 MPH in town. When I tried to duplicate something like the EPA city trip on relatively flat streets, I did get over 40 MPG, not too far off from the EPA number.
So my conclusion is that the EPA numbers are pretty accurate for what they're measuring, but what they're measuring seems pretty different from what most people would define as city driving and highway driving.
By the way, I'm less annoyed about my mileage than the fact that the car's mileage gauge is 5-10% too high, consistently. Has anyone figured out why that is?
Here's the web site I got this EPA info from:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#estimates
i'm getting a bit frustrated since i've been to the dealer three times for the "check engine" light, and it just came on (briefly) for a fourth time. so far, the original computer has been replaced, and new software has been downloaded twice. all this and the car is 10 months old with about 15,200 miles.
i understand this is new technology, but honda could at least notify owners when updates are available, rather than wait until owners have trouble. i do like the car, but the time it's spent in the shop is troubling. too bad the car was 75 miles over the 15,000 mile lemon law limit the last time the light came on.
bobwolf1, i talked to the dealer about re-calibrating the mpg gauge, his only response was to document the difference, which i am doing. i am also getting about 10% too low when compared to the digital display.
After learning how to maximize the use of the regenerative braking, my mileage has increased to 50+ mpg consistently. During hot weather, the mpg seems to improve, registering as high as 52 mpg, despite the fact that AC is used extensively. Perhaps the reduced warm-up time is a factor. Driving speed during the commute is typically 70-80 mph. I cannot fathom how CU conducts their mileage testing to achieve only 36 mpg. I don't think I could do that poorly, no matter how hard I tried. I am extremely pleased with the performance of the car, the only complaints being dashboard rattles and lack of battery capacity during long, steep hill climbing.
You might wanna check out this thread, too:
Car_man "Part One: Internet vs. Traditional Car Buying" Nov 21, 2002 9:36am
However, they noted that at 80 mph, the Civic Hybrid was revving around 3,000 rpm, while the Civic EX was revving around 4,000 rpm (33% higher).
I'm convinced that adding a sixth gear (that would bring revs down on the highway) would give the standard Civic EX similar mileage to the Hybrid.
This could be easily tested -- does someone with a Civic Hybrid want to test a tankful of gas without going into 5th gear? I'm guessing that 4th gear on a Hybrid is revving around 4,000 at 80mph. I bet at those revs, the Hybrid matches the Civic EX's 38 mpg highway rating.
Why doesn't Honda offer more gears? It would cost a minimal amount, and the payoff would be huge in gas savings.
Should one wait for the 2004 Prius?
The problem with doing a test with the hybrid in 4th to match RPMs similar to an EX in 5th is this: The lean-burn mode only operates under 3000 RPM. Go above that and you have a basic engine not unlike any other in terms of efficiency.
Honda won't put a 6th tall gear in the EX because it would hurt perfomance in that gear and increase mileage too close to the hybrid's.
My HX's wide gear ratios were it's worst problem when it came to acceleration. 2nd gear was always too high coming out of a turn and by the time you had revved the engine into its powerband in 2nd, you were almost doing 65MPH!
You hit the nail on the head. It's strictly a marketing decision.
Granted, 6th gear acceleration would be pretty poor, but it could be used as an 'optional' gear. Don't use it if you're involved in a driving situation where acceleration is required.
This could also be solved by having 5 or 6 speed automatic transmissions, with a really tall overdrive. With more gears, it would improve city MPG, since if you are accelerating gently, the transmission would shift at 2500 rpm instead of 3000 rpm with a 4 spd auto trans.
Look at what the 5 speed auto transmission did for the new Accord. The previous generation Accord with a 4 speed automatic transmission was rated at 30 mpg highway, while the new Accord with the 5 speed automatic is rated 34 mpg, a 13% improvement.
If they did this for the Civic EX, it could potentially increase highway MPG from 38 mpg to 43 mpg. That would save about $70 per year in gas costs (15k/yr). I doubt it would cost Honda much more than $100 or $200 to add this to the Civic, so there would be a quick payback. But Honda would never do this, because it would make the standard Civic's MPG too close to the Hybrid's.
online, try the used car inventory search features
available from honda.com and toyota.com. Be
willing to open a large net to see all available
vehicles, as you might have to go a distance to
find one.
Since you're in CA, you have some EVRental locations
near you. EVRental sells off their used rental vehicles
after a few years. They currently have a number
of 2000 Honda Insights and 2001 Toyota Prius
available.
http://www.evrental.com/ResaleVehicles/
You hit the nail on the head. It's strictly a marketing decision."
Don't think it's quite that simple. Honda make far greater margins on LX and EX Civics than they do on Hybrids. If they could move substantially more EXs and LXs by simply adding a 6th gear for improved fuel economy, they would do so.
The Civic Hybrid, looking solely at the gasoline engine, is extremely efficient in its own right. It features micro-polished pistons and cylinders, SOHC VTEC optimized for efficiency rather than power, and some other technology wizardry.
I think Honda has concluded that the increased cost of a 6 speed transmission for the EX, oriented toward fuel economy, wouldn't offer enough fuel savings to serve as an incentive to drive more sales. Conversely, I think adding a 6th gear plus detuning VTEC for fuel efficiency could substantially improve EX mileage. Detuning VTEC, however, thwarts the "sporting" aspirations of the EX model.
In every way? Really?
TDI vs. Civic Hybrid: Which uses regular unleaded fuel available at every single service station nationwide?
VW vs. Honda: Quality...let's see what JD Powers has to say about the two manufacturers...
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/cars/msg0714035616884.html
How many Volkswagens vs. Hondas on Car and Driver's 10 Best list during the last 10 years?
Last year, 2 Honda models, zero VW models.
Going back 10 years, VW probably has less than 2 10 Best titles in 10 years. Honda probably has at least 1-2 per year. Go figure.
Nah, all things being equal there are DISTINCT advantages to owning a Honda Civic Hybrid versus a VW Jetta TDI. Quality, quality, quality.
If only Honda would offer a performance oriented hybrid,
Please respond by October 22 to jfallon@edmunds.com with your daytime contact info.
Thanks!
Jeannine Fallon
PR Director
Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The same engine is used in a bunhc of Mazdas now (Mazda 6, 3) and will gradually be introduced (in various avataars) across the Ford line - some Focus'es (Focii) have it too. And base Ford Rangers will get it, IIRC.
CVT version is AT-PZEV.
Acceleration better on a Jetta TDI? What are you talking about? Civic Hybrid 0-60 = 11.5 seconds. VW Jetta TDI 0-60 = 12 seconds.
So, in sum, you have the privilege of going really slow while you watch it fall apart if you choose a Jetta TDI.
wagons are made in Germany.
My average overall miles per gallon has been 55.3 MPG. This takes into account last winter and now with the temperature begining to fall into the high 20 and 30's. So far the
only problem I have had was the tires were out of balance when I first purchased in
Oct 2002.
I know Volkswagen is probably not the most dependable car but they indeed do deliver the
mileage as they claim. I have noticed that the hybrid's, Honda and Toyota, appear to
get far less miles per gallon than other vehicles as per EPA figures.
Alster2
They won't. They will get on a four-month waiting list and even then they are not guaranteed a car with the trim they want.
Buy a Honda and save gas while others waste gas waiting for the Prius.
If this is true, then it would make sense to use Cruise Control whenever possible even at lower speeds such as 45 mph.
The next 50 miles turned out even better: 47.3 mpg. And that with temps in the 30's and 40's.
My experience so far is this: The best miles per gallon can be achieved driving at a steady 40-45 mph (CC where possible) on almost level roads with a few small hills. And that with ECON enabled and the fan speed at a minimum (but not auto).
The hybrid is a great idea, but at today's gas prices, and questionable hybrid resale values, you will end up paying more to say money at the pump. Spending several thousand extra $ on the Hybrid to save a $ or two at the pump is a poor investment.
> two at the pump is a poor investment.
Unless you want to help reduce dependence on imported oil and you want to reduce SMOG emissions.
JOHN