Honda Civic Hybrid

spratt1

Test drive others. The vibration is not normal. I drove 7 before buying mine. One had a much louder whine than any of the others. All others were fine. No vibration on acceleration on any of them.

The mileage meters on test drive cars always read much lower than a reasonable person will get in their driving. When people test drive cars many (most?) tend to not do much highway driving, and test out the acceleration repeatedly. The Civic hybrids I tested generally showed mpg in the 30's. After 2800 miles on ours, we get 45/46 mpg. The Volvo V70 we have showed about 14 mpg when tested, but we get 25 mpg overall (people liked to push the turbo).

Good luck. The Civic is a great car and significantly better in every respect compared to the Prius.

spratt1

What kind of mechanical problems are you having with the car?
None at all. Everything works flawlessly.

What do you like about it?
The ride (almost as good as the Accord).
Fuel economy.
Handling and safety (all crash tests are tops in class - with Jetta).
Fit & finish excellent.
Overall quality outstanding.

What do you not like about it?
Tires are really the only thing. They are low rolling resistance design, so a little hard. But car still has best ride I've been in for a small car under $30,000.
Lack of rear cup holder kind of strange. Purchased after for $39.00 and installed by self easily (make sure to get the instructions from the dealer - they will download them off the Internet)

What have you been paying for you cars?
Paid $19,600 out the door (CVT).
Included: floor mats; window tint and etching; & scratch-guard applications at keyholes, door edges, etc.

mcadrecha

Spratt1:
Thanks for the upbeat review of your HCH. I hope to purchase one soon.

What model did you get? Manual or automatic?

How did you get 19,600 out the door (tax and everything)? Was Honda willing to wheel and deal with you?

I have heard that with the Ody minivan, dealer mark-up is to be expected since the minivan is very popular, rated highest in its class, and produced in low numbers. Additionally, these types of conditions, which drive up cost, also led to reports of Honda salespersons being rather arrogant and having an I-dont-need-you-you-need-me attitude to customers. Did you find the same attitude and issues when buying your HCH?

Thanks!

Michael

spratt1

It is an automatic. I purchased it on the last day of the month. Also, it was one of the first they had received and had been placed on the showroom floor. People were buying the others in inventory so mine sat on the floor for two months. Started to cost them money to have it there. I had one dealer that was arrogant, but this one was not (Vandergraff Honda in Fort Worth, TX)

mcadrecha

Thanks for the insight, Steve.

I am looking forward to test driving an HCH this Saturday. I made an appointment with a dealer and told him I wanted to test a regular civic and the HCH. I hear the HCH is much more quite due to the air dam and under-carriage/chassis revisions, so I am curious. I also wanted to make sure that the regular civic is outfitted roughly similar to the HCH to see the performance difference.

Thanks again,

Michael

ochonueve

Hi Everyone! I just took a new job that will allow me the luxury of commuting 70 miles one-way. In looking for a fuel-friendly car, I am considering: Jetta diesel, Honda Civic, and the Civic Hybrid. I test drove all three yesterday. I am surprised that I was greatly impressed with the HCH.

I have two questions; 1) what are the negative aspects, besides price, of owning the HCH, and 2) does anyone have input on owning and maintaining a Jetta diesel?

I am currently an Accord owner and I am accustomed to the zero-maintenance aspects of Honda cars. So, ok, here's a third question - am I crazy for even considering a Jetta diesel?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

DW McKinley

spratt1

There are some fairly important differences between the regular 2002 Civic and the 2003 Hybrid Civic.
1. The steering was upgraded in the Hybrid. It is electronic power steering and they re-tuned the system.
2. The suspension on the Hybrid was beefed up and self adjusting shocks were added. (The shocks change their response depending on the road type.)
3. Additional sound deadening insulation was added to the Hybrid.
These make for a substantial difference in how they handle. I do not know if all 2003 Civics will have these changes as the Hybrid does. The dealer may or may not know, and unless you have a real good dealer, they will tell you anything. I read about the differences in magazine reviews. Also, if you give them good side-to-side test drives that test the changes, should see the differences. The low rolling resistance tires on the Hybrid are a bit harder, but the other differences far out weigh.

One thing you may want to consider with regards to the diesel Jetta. The tail pipe emissions are much worse with the diesel. The diesel Jetta is rated at 1 of 10 for emissions. Even the regular Civic is rated 7 or 8 of 10 (depends on engine). The Hybrid is not yet rated, but would be at least as good as the regular Civic. Check the EPA Green Vehicle Guide at: www.epa.gov/autoemissions/

dfong87

some follow-up thoughts since my wife and recently test drove both of these (both 2003 Civic EX and Hybrid models) in our process that ended with an Accord, 4 cylinder. [yes, burns a more fuel, but it surprisingly emits less--SULEV/PZEV]

anyway:
1) The Hybrid was a quieter and smoother ride overall. the tire and wind noise were less in the Hybrid [seems to confirm that there is more insulation]

2) the CVT blows away the 4 spd auto in the EX. we ended up ruling out the hybrid due to them not dealing at all on them in the SF Bay Area [they sell within 2 days of arriving at the dealer so they go for about sticker], and were sorely disappointed after driving the EX auto which was very rough in up and downshifts. [the new 5 spd auto in the Accord is very smooth]

3) i think the handling is comparable between the EX and hybrid. i tried corner hard in both of them and they did equally well. IMHO, however, they do not handle quite as well as my 2000 Civic. of course, this is perhaps my imagination since i am biased in thinking the double wishbone is a better design. anyway, perhaps, the harder tires and different suspension offset each other.

4) acceleration in the Hybrid is adequate. not as much there as the EX, but should be good enough in most conditions. having the AC on, however, seemed to make a huge difference in torque for the Hybrid; less so with the EX Civic.

5) in spite of the reasonable prices i've seen here for other parts of the country, my research and inquiries at different dealers showed the Hybrid selling for 20.7-21.1k in the SF Bay Area (CVT with destination),and the EX Civic w/ side airbags for 16.8-17.2k. an almost 4k premium was too much for us to accept. [in the end, my wife fell in love with the EX accord which we got for 20.8k]

dfong87

i looked at the website spratt1 posted. thanks for the information. i was happy to see our new accord is rated a 10 out of 10!

spratt1

Can't argue about the Accord. I considered it myself. I feel the Accord is the best car made for the price. Unfortunately, the SULEV version Accord is not available in Texas, but it is in California. The SULEV Hybrid Civic will be available next year.

We purchased the Civic Hybrid over the Accord because it was still an excellent vehicle and we felt it was the right thing to do to advance the cause of alternative vehicles, and help get them into the mainstream. When they are mass produced in the numbers of the regular Civic, there will be very little difference in price. At that point, the 47mpg we are now getting will make it cost less to operate than the regular Civic.

A note on fuel economy. We were getting 42/43 mpg when we first got the car. It has climbed and now at 3,000 miles we are getting about 47mpg overall. I still can not get higher mileage in town than highway like the estimates show. I get about 50 to 56 mpg on the highway, and about 42 in town.

dfong87

Kudos to you for helping advance the cause of alternative vehicles! i think you did a great thing.

i'm also gald to see that your mileage has improved. those are very good numbers. FWIW, my friend how owns a Prius sees around 43-44 overall. he says they drive "without any regard to optimizing fuel economy" (ie, accelerate and brake and drive like they would an ordinary car without paying attention to instantaneous mileage, etc).

anyway, enjoy the car. sound like you are!

mcadrecha

What is a SULEV Accord and a SULEV Civic Hybrid? How does the SULEV Civic Hybrid differ from the Civic Hybrid?
Thanks

Michael

spidermonkey

SULEV stands for something like "Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle" In any case, to reach SULEV status the car needs specially formulated gas. I think that this gas is only sold in California and parts of the Northeast. So in much of the country a gasoline fueled car can achieve no better than ULEV from an emissions standpoint.

Honda is tweaking the current hybrid Civic engine so that it can reach the SULEV standard in those areas where the special gas is sold. If you don't live in those areas, the tweak won't matter much.

The big news is that Honda managed to get SULEV status for the new Accord. That achievement is awesome in my opinion, and I intend to reward Honda with my business for making emissions a priority on their designs.

If all vehicles driven today were magically transformed into SULEV status vehicles, places like L.A. and Houston would have almost no smog problems.

mcadrecha

Spidermonkey:
WHere are you getting your info on the cars? Edmunds, or other publications?

Michael

cpwingnut

I don't own a hybrid yet (maybe in a couple of years when prices come down) but from what I understand, the harder you drive them in city traffic, the better the fuel economy. Reasoning behind this is the more you push the gas, the more the electric assist kicks in, therefore taking load off the gas engine, thus giving you better fuel economy. It sounds logical, but as I said, I don't own one so I can't test the theory. Anyone try this yet?

lngtonge18

Honda was not the first to achieve SULEV status. Nissan was, way back in 2000. Ever heard of the Sentra CA? Maybe Nissan deserves your business since they put the highest priority on emissions reduction. By the way, the difference between ULEV and SULEV is almost nothing. We are talking about hundredths of a gram of pollutants. What California and other states that have pollution problems need to do is concentrate on getting rid of the heavy polluters rather then wasting so much money trying to eek out an extra .005 of a gram from a new car or forcing reformulated gas that actually causes lower fuel economy.

spratt1

#271 by spidermonkey provides some useful information, but with some clarification and additional information. The emissions difference discussed probably is the NOx emissions rate. The rates for a Tier II CA light duty vehicle (Generally cars) are: ULEV .07 gms/mile and SULEV .02 gms/mile, a difference of .05 gms/mile. In a year of 15,000 miles driving this difference is 750 gms per car, or in a large city of 2,000,000 cars this is 1,500,000,000 grams or 3,307,500 pounds. This is no small change! It should also be pointed out that the reduction in fule economy is very small and insignificant compared to the lower emissions generated. Reformulated gasoline (RFG) has helped tremendously in reducing vehilce caused air pollution.

Also, there are significant differences in other emissions when going from ULEV to SULEV. Emission rates of Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde are all significantly lower (between 2 and 5 times lower).

A few web sites to investigate include:

Federal and California Exhaust Evaporative Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stds-ld.htm

Light-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Certification

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert.htm

Motor Vehicle Emissions

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ld-hwy.htm

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Vehicle Emissions, but Were Afraid to Ask

http://www.edmunds.com/news/feature/general/45192/article.html

http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/facts/emissions.shtml

(This one has some nice graphic illustrations of the differences in emission rates)

Low-Emission Vehicle Program (CARB)

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levprog/levprog.htm

spidermonkey

I never said that Honda was the first to reach SULEV, and I have heard of the Sentra CA. In my mind the difference is that the SULEV Accord is Honda's mainstream offering (the 4-cylinder LX and EX). So a lot of people are going to buy the SULEV Accord whether they care about emissions or not.

Ingtonge18, I bet you're stuck paying for more expensive gas so I see why you're annoyed with SULEV vs. ULEV status. I agree that dealing with the heaviest polluters is a wiser strategy.

spratt1

Getting rid of the heaviest polluters is a good point. One single average car 20 to 30 years old puts out as much pollution as about 100 modern cars.

lngtonge18

Naw, I don't have to buy reformulated gas, thank god, but gas is already expensive enough so I would be against any increase, especially one that reduces mileage by as much as 4mpg. I live in Florida where we don't even have to deal with emissions tests anymore, except maybe in Dade county (another thank god). The only city that really has a small pollution problem is Miami, but other heavily populated areas manage to do just fine without the iron fist of CARB rules. I just think CARB goes overboard in some areas. They need to put more emphasis on getting rid of or forcing people to fix the cars that burn oil and spew raw gas, and find ways to reduce emissions of public transportation. They could see bigger improvements faster if they did this rather than concentrate on trying to force SULEV and electric cars that aren't feasible currently.

20exc

A few months ago we could not make up our mind on which civic to get, the EX or the Hybrid so we got one of each. The wife uses the EX to run the kids to school and does about 70 miles a day doing other things with 33 mpg. The Hybrid with cvt is getting about 43 mpg with much less usage. The ride and pickup is better in the Hybrid and less road noise. We are very pleased with the cars and in the past have always had a Toyota of some type. The Civic is a basic get what you see car and does the job we are asking well.

spratt1

Some clarifications in reference to #278 by Ingtonge 18.

Reformulated gasoline (RFG) is about 2 to 5 cents per gallon more than conventional gasoline. Today, when inflation is taken into account, we pay no more for gasoline than 30 years ago. Perhaps more important is the fact that RFG has substantially reduced emissions of smog causing chemicals by 105,000 tons! This is the equivalent to taking about 16 million vehicles that burn conventional gasoline off the roads.

RFG reduces gas mileage by only 1 to 3%. That means to reduce fuel economy by 4 mpg your car would have to be getting about 140 mpg. Most cars will see a reduction of about 0.2 to 0.6 mpg. The health benefits far outweight this small drop in fuel economy.

Florida is one of the lucky states. Only about a half dozen of the counties have poor air quality. The state of California is a different story as about 70% of the state has poor air quality, with the LA Basin being the only area in the country classified as extreme in poor air quality. CARB may seem heavy handed but their actions are helping to prevent a large number of illnesses and, often enough, death to people.

Emissions of public transportation have been a problem, but not near the problem as emissions from automobiles. The emissions that form ozone smog in many areas are 30 to 50 % caused by automobiles. The biggest improvements in air quality related to motor vehicles will come from removing old high emitters and replacing them with ULEV, SULEV, and eventually fuel cell vehicles. They are all feasible now - Between Honda, Toyota and Daimler-Chrysler, there will be about 100 fuel cell vehicles put into fleet service next year (2003).

robertsmx

Not to make this a Honda-Nissan war, but I thought Accord was first to get SULEV status, and went on sale January 2001 in CA. Sentra followed.

lngtonge18

Nope. Honda was the first to achieve ULEV status with the Accord. Nissan was the first to achieve SULEV with the Sentra CA. Nissan still touts their Sentra as the only SULEV-rated car in the world on their website.

lngtonge18

I think I might be a little confused. Is RFG the same thing as ethanol-based gas? If it is, I find it very hard to believe it's that much cleaner burning and owners have reported 2-4mpg losses during winter months when this gas is mandated in the north. If it isn't the same thing, than you could be right about the minuscule mpg differences, but I still can't believe it has eliminated 16 MILLION cars worth of smog. It hasn't been used long enough to achieve that and it's benefits aren't as great when compared to cars that are already rated LEV and ULEV on regular gas. I can imagine a big difference between a ULEV car running on RFG and a pre-catalytic converter car running on regular, but that statistic seems way out of wack. Maybe you could provide a link that states exactly what you are saying? Also, what is 87 octane going for these days in California?

spratt1

Our hybrid has low rolling resistance tires by Dunlap. I believe all Civic Hybrids come with some brand of low roll resist tires. Has anyone replaced them with some good tires, and if so, notice any MPG drop?

robertsmx

On sale...
Accord SULEV: January 2000
Sentra SULEV: February 2000

jrct9454

...has nothing to do with ethanol content. In fact, CA's US Senators have had an angry argument with the farm lobby over the recent legislative requirement [all about farm subsidies, of course] that CA MUST have some kind of oxygenate in its RFG, notwithstanding the fact that the oil companies have proved they can produce cleaner fuel without it.

So, with MTBE persona non grata, that means that we have to pay for both the costs of RFG [which actually has some clean air benefits] along with the costs of ethanol [which does not].

Anyway, the one has nothing to do with the other, unless you are a corn farmer, in which case you have a religious right to insist the opposite is true.

lngtonge18

That clears up my confusion. The ethanol stuff was what I was complaining about as not being any better than regular gas. I got MTBE and RFG confused.

lngtonge18

I don't know. I thought I had heard something about Honda planning on offering an SULEV Accord back in 2000 as your link shows, but apparently they either no longer sell it or it never came out. I thought Honda scratched it because our sulfur content was too high in our gas to achieve the SULEV rating. Nissan plainly states on their website about the Sentra CA, "You're looking at the cleanest gasoline-powered vehincle in the world. One of the only to receive partial zero emission credits and the ONLY one to earn California's stringent SULEV rating." That would be blatant false advertising if Honda indeed offered an SULEV Accord.

robertsmx

Honda has been selling SULEV Accords in California since January 2000, and continues to do so. Last generation SULEV Accords were rated slightly lower (148 HP) compared to their LEV/ULEV versions (150 HP).

lngtonge18

If that's the case, Nissan could be in some hot water with that sort of statement......

jrct9454

...availabilty depends on low-sulfur fuel. A lowered sulfur content is part of the RFG formula, so anywhere RFG is available, Honda can theoretically sell the SULEV Accords. HOWEVER, the practicalities of distribution have pretty much limited availability to CA.

The stubborn refusal of North American refiners to make the investment to eliminate or drastically reduce sulfur content in our fuel is holding up both clean diesel technology [already widespread in EU], and making it harder for the carmakers to do their best with gasoline engines as well. Laws on the books will solve this problem, but over a much longer timeframe than is either reasonable or necessary.

spratt1

The responders above are correct. "Ethanol Gas" is not the same as RFG. There is a formulation that has high oxygen content required in areas of the country that are in non-attainment for CO pollution. It is called Winter Oxygenated Fuel and is commonly made with 15% methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) or about 7.5% ethanol (by volume). Other fuel oxygenates that are in use to a lesser extent, or that may potentially be used, include ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE), tertiary-amyl methyl ether (TAME), diisopropyl ether (DIPE), and tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA). This gas (which is not RFG) can be used in any vehicle. There is another formulation called E-85 which can only be used in "Flexible Fuel" vehicles. It is 85% ethanol. Fuel economy of E-85 goes down because the power density is not a great as in regular (or RFG) gasoline. But it does burn cleaner, has a higher octane rating, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil (i.e. Iraq and company). For the same reasons, mpg of higher ethanol fuels may be lower. These fuels have been in use since the early 1990's.

The numbers I quoted are correct. They have been developed through evaluation of large amounts of data collected for many years. Also, hats off to #290 by jrct9454. We need ultra low sulfur fuels to really lower emissions.

You can find info on RFG and other fuels at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels.htm

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels.htm#fact

Browsing around these pages and the internal and external links will get you to all kinds of info on fuels, etc.

kcisiv

> We need ultra low sulfur fuels to really
> lower emissions

In our area, one of the oil companies (we'll just call it Big Oil) has advertised its low-sulfur gas heavily. The ads talk about how we really love the environment and our cars...so of course we want to buy their PREMIUM gasoline, the ONLY one they make low-sulfur.

So to get low sulfur, you have to pay way too much (their premium is even more drastically overpriced than that of other companies) for high-octane gas that your car doesn't otherwise need. Nice going, Big Oil!

kcisiv

I agree that SULEV status (such as the SULEV Accord) could be an important point in deciding between a hybrid and something like an SULEV Accord.

However, there are other considerations to think about. Although the HCH presently isn't an SULEV (one is apparently in the works, though we'll have to see if they can get SULEV without losing mileage), it does meet SULEV standards for CO and ULEV for hydrocarbons and NOx, so it's a very clean car.

And, importantly, it will burn only about HALF as much total gas over its lifetime as the Accord, so it will put out only half the CO2. Greenhouse gasses are not accounted for in the ULEV/SULEV standards but are one very critical environmental concern. (And of course will only put half the drain on our dwindling global oil supply.)

spratt1

It is true. We need ultra low sulfur (ULS) fuels to really lower emissions. The ULS is required for the catalytic converters to operate better. Even older cars that have catalytic converters will produce less emissions as the converter will not get as poisoned as it now is, therefore the converter will operate more efficiently. To learn more about how a catalytic converter works, please see: http://howstuffworks.lycoszone.com/catalytic-converter.htm

Starting in 2004, all gasoline will be ultra low sulfur (ULSG). This is per a Federal rule passed in February 2000. This will enable vehicles to meet the average NOx standard of 0.07 grams per mile (called for as Tier II vehicle standards). They will do this with better catalysts and ULSG. You won't have to buy premium gas to have ULS, it will all be ULS. Cost increase will initially be about 1 to 2 cents per gallon, then will settle down to probably 0 cost increase soon after. You know the way it happens. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tr2home.htm for info on ULSG.

In case you can't tell, I am NOT Big Oil. Far from it.

lngtonge18

You probably would have strangled me 4 years ago. I owned the biggest piece of junk 85 Civic Wagon (neat concept and ahead of its time but what a clunker!) and did something that would have horrified you....I gutted the catalytic converter. The darn thing had melted and clogged up the exhaust so the car would refuse to go faster than 30-50mph, depending on the incline. At the time, I was poor and didn't have the $300-500 to replace it so just dug all the silicon out with a screwdriver. Car ran like a bat out of hell afterwards though Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the smoke cloud that thing produced. Put it this way, from Tallahassee to Daytona Beach, which is about a 4 hour drive, the little engine burned almost 5 quarts of oil. It was so embarrassing to see the huge blue cloud it spewed out each morning; it was so thick you could barely see anything if you were behind me. It was probably enough to trip radar, lol. Boy was I so glad to get rid of it! These are the cars we need toget off the road...

dfong87

multiple thoughts:

-kcisiv: you're right about the greenhouse emissions. i did think seriously about that when we bought the new accord. greenhouse gases are directly proportional to fuel consumption. OTOH, i don't think "half" the fuel economy is being quite fair to the new 4 cylinder accord. even brand new, we're seeing 28 mpg which is about 2/3 city, 1/3 stop and go highway. i hope/expect that to jump up to over 30 by the time it is broken in. For similar driving, i spoke with a couple of Hybrid owners, and they are seeing anywhere from 38-42 mpg overall [using the pump consumption as opposed to the HCH's in dash indicator which appears to be about 2-3 mpg too optimistic] (the higher number for a person who has 9k on the odometer). On the highway, i've heard of people getting 38-39 mpg on the new Accord (again I4). the HCH, in comparison sees about 48-52 from what i've heard. YMMV [sorry couldn't resist ]

that being said, we came very close to buying the Civic Hybrid...in the end, our pocketbook and preference of the quieter ride of the Accord won out by a hair.

1985 Civic wagon: i had one...i thought it was great car. my 5 spd still got over 40 mpg on the highway (around 30 around town) when i donated it to charity over a year ago. i had plenty of pep with its 76 hp driving the light frame, and was a great little truck which could haula multitude of things. i was sorry to see it go...

spratt1

Intonge18: I know where your coming from, been there myself. Luckily, the equipment has been getting better. FYI catalytic converters are now covered for 8 years 80,000 miles, as is the electronic control module (computer command module), by Federal law.

dfong87: I once owned a 1990 Accord. Sorry I ever got rid of it. The Accord is one of the best vehicles made. As I mentioned before, we almost got one over our hybrid. Good news is that Honda should be putting out a hybrid Accord within two or three years. We love our hybrid Civic for local travel, and didn't need the added comfort of the Accord. We use our Volvo V70 for long distance.

summik

Hello, i will try again:

I would like someone who has actual knowledge or experience to address 2 questions I have regarding the batteries:

1. How well do they hold a charge? In other words: Do they lose charge when sitting for an extended period? I have appliances with NiMH batteries, and they will lose a charge over time, even without use.

2. How does the performance hold up over time? I realize that the batteries will need to be replaced at some point, however batteries don't just work fine, then suddenly fail. Their ability to hold a charge typically diminishes as a function of time and charging cycles. I would think that it would be frustrating to experience declining performance from the batteries, and it would be a matter of being "fed-up" with the performance decline causing the decision to replace.

thanks in advance

kcisiv

> OTOH, i don't think "half" the fuel economy
> is being quite fair to the new 4 cylinder accord.

Well, you're right that I did make some assumptions. The mileage figures I had in front of me were from the EPA Web site; the only SULEV Accord listed is the automatic, and they rate it at 23 city, 30 highway.

Using the EPA numbers, the hybrid 5-speed would be expected to use exactly 50% as much gas if your driving were 100% city, increasing gradually to 59% as much if it were driven 100% on the highway.

So, my "half" was an approximation based on assumptions that may or may not be real-world. Definitely, YMMV. If you compare your 28 actual MPG (which is actually very close to what you'd expect for 2/3 highway on the EPA numbers) to my 47 or so for the hybrid, the hybrid is using more like 60% as much gas. And clearly some people are not getting this much mileage out of their hybrids. Just wanted to make the point that ULEV/SULEV was just one factor among several.

jrct9454

The question about how well the batteries hold a charge is, when you think about it for a moment, largely irrelevant: once the engine starts and you begin the normal cycle of moving, braking, etc, the regeneration process begins and goes on continuously. Some people have, with continuous hill climbing, been able to get the onboard charge down to near-zero, but it only takes a bit of normal driving to get it back. The idea behind the battery pack doesn't really involve "storing a charge" for long periods of disuse...

mcadrecha

What about if you are stuck in bumper traffic for a long time? Can you run out of charge? Or at that point, is there a mechanism that switches to the gas engine exclusively?

MEC

jrct9454

...the gasoline engine is always available, and in fact IS the primary motivation for the car, not the electric side. That's why its called Integrated Motor Assist. The electric motor is an adjunct to the gasoline engine, not the other way around. I still maintain that the state of the batteries at any given time is strictly a performance issue, not a reliability or functional one. Low batteries mean less extra torque to go with the gasoline engine...that's all it means.

robertsmx

"What about if you are stuck in bumper traffic for a long time? Can you run out of charge?"
You will likely neither run out of charge nor gasoline (auto-shutoff at idle, assuming that you're not running a/c). If you have to accelerate and brake, then the batteries get recharged anyway.

spratt1

I have never come close to running out in 3,300 miles. Closest was about 1/3, and it recharges extremely fast. In fact, when we purchased our Civic hybrid, it had been sitting in the showroom for two months and many of the electric items had been left on. Both batteries were completely dead. The hybrid battery was charged to 80% within a few miles of highway driving. Bumper to bumper is not the time you would use the most anyway, it is long sustained uphill mountain driving. Someone from Colorado, etc. may want to reply. The management system is very good about using a trickle charge whenever it needs to in order to keep a sufficient charge.

mcadrecha

How does the HCH perform on mountain roads?

Does it negotiate freeway traffic well enough and does it have good acceleration?

I have been offered a HCH, 2003 for 20035. Is that a good price (I live in the Bay Area and these cars are popular here...

MEC

robertsmx

One of the first Insights I saw on road was in Rocky Mountains National Park, Colorado.

cason621

See the previous post to yours regarding mountain roads. I got my battery down to about 5 bars (25%) on a long sustained climb, and then it seemed to stop depleting even though I was still climbing. Does the battery go into some sort of survival mode?

On the downhill, I was fully charged in 3-4 minutes. I think a hybrid works fine in the mountains, as long as there isn't too long a period between downhills.

In fact, the real MPG payoff with hybrids is the electric assist when the engine is under load. This is where you'll see a large MPG savings over a conventional car.

Price sounds good for what I've been hearing for the Bay area. Here in SoCal they're still trying to get a $3K premium above sticker.