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
I agree, anecdotal evidence is of limited value. Otherwise I can make a case for the exceptional long-term reliability of Hyundais, based on the experiences of a few owners I know, including me. I don't think many people would buy that argument.
What is the recent trend of Honda reliability problems you refer to? They had some teething problems with the '01 Civic and the '03 Accord, and of course the automatic tranny recall. What other automakers have not had similar problems, or worse? Recall the "sludge" problem with Toyotas, another brand renowned for its reliability. If you go beyond anectdotal evidence, e.g. look at CR's reliability surveys, Honda does very well. Of the seven categories in CR's 2004 survey of predicted reliability that include Honda products, Honda models are tops in four categories. The new-for-'03 Accord showed better than average reliability--very good for a new design. In fact, ALL of the Honda models reported on by CR in that survey rated above average in predicted reliability. How many other makes can say that? Not BMW. The 3 Series is only average, and other models are below average.
If you want to race and that is your #1 criterion, I agree the HAH is not the best choice. If you want lowest possible emissions and best possible fuel economy, it is not the best choice. If you want a manual transmission, it's not a choice at all (neither is the Prius). Every car has compromises.
I agree. The HCH, Insight & Prius accomplish that. It does not sound like the HAH even addresses it. I think the only important aspect of the HAH is the VCM. I think they would be money ahead to just offer the Accord V6 with VCM. If they cannot get the same performance and 30/37 mpg something is wrong with their design.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/14/pf/autos/honda_fires/
Also I hate to say this, but CR is not a monopoly of info. You say BMW is average! Tell that to the majority of BMW owners worldwide. Despite Banglesm and i-drive, there are no group of owners as loyal and passionate to a brand like BMW owners.
___I am not defending the AH given its lousy mileage (30/37 is ridiculous for a Hybrid imho) and so so emissions (ULEV-2) but expecting a 240 + HP automobile to achieve 30 in the city without being hybridized is a rather large stretch of the imagination. I have taken an 04 Accord EX-L I4 to 50 + out on the highway and 42 + in and around town but the V6 is one big SOB to expect this kind of fuel economy day in and day out for the average Joe. The average Joe is not achieving this in the I4 either! Autostop and fuel cut do have their advantages in an all-city environment that a std. ICE will never have.
___That being said, it must have taken super human efforts to balance that 6 on just 3 cylinders. Active Mounts and its Noise cancellation technology and all The Japan V6 is a straight VCM so hybridization was a hefty expense on top of VCM and possibly not needed? I wonder why Honda did not just VCM the I4? It has to be a better balance situation then 3 of 6 and you can PZEV the I4 (ala California, New York, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts Accord’s)?
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___2000 Honda Insight 5-speed #203 - 92.5 lmpg
So, how much power would HAH (minus VCM) would need? Or, for that matter, how much power would Accord V6 need at 80 mph?
You completely ignored the idea of part throttle versus full throttle in your analysis, something that forms the very basis of “overcoming drag” by providing enough power. There is no need to consider impact of clutch or torque converter because wheel speed is tied to engine speed via gearing. This is why you don’t expect to get past top speed in each gear at red line. It does not change!
So you do acknowledge that maintaining high speed take more gas than lower speed. Explain how can HAH has higher highway EPA mpg rating than city?
Stop and go traffic consumes more fuel, and also, at stop lights, you basically get 0 mpg. The throttle opening can vary from mild to almost WOT, and engine speed can fluctuate (more rpm, same throttle more gas burnt). On highway, however, the throttle is open just enough, and the rpm is as low as the gearing would allow for the speed.
Let us use S2000 for example here. In an attempt to get closely spaced six gear ratios, and starting out with a very short first, the overall spread of gear ratios between first and six is a ratio of 4.1:1 (first gear ratio divided by sixth gear ratio). This results in a higher rpm cruising speed (excess of 3000 rpm at 60 mph) and poorer fuel economy than would be obtained if a seventh gear were added that helped the spread to increase more. The cruising speed would drop and the throttle will likely be open just as much as it did (I’m willing to bet that S2000 produces more power than is needed in sixth gear for 60 mph).
Why would lower gears be bad in the city?
Drive around in first gear all day long, and then do the same in fifth gear (or changing gears per need). Which do you think will get you better fuel economy? There is a reason for existence of tall (overdrive) gears.
Nope. AFR can vary. In the latest implementation of i-VTEC (Honda K20B), AFR can go as lean as 65:1, and that does not mean the ratio is a constant at all times. I believe the competing DI engines can go as lean as 40:1. A lean mixture comes with its own issues, including tendency to (not) ignite, and the richness of the mix varies based on need.
Apologies for my abvove statement. This does not belong on a site that is dedicated to HAH. It was too late for me to press the edit button when I realized I was not on a BMWFanatic site.
SAE method yields a more impressive figure since it includes the little nooks and crannies that may be of no practical use to the users. This method involves measurement of something like how much sand or other fine grained material the cargo area will hold.
VDA method is more limiting and results in lower specification (for the same cargo space) as it neglects the nooks and crannies. Standard blocks measuring 200 mm x 100 mm x 50 mm are used to “fill” the cargo area (instead of something like sand) and the number of blocks that can fit determines the cargo/trunk volume. Honda uses VDA method, as does Ford.
Going back to HAH, there are couple of things to note. One, the battery pack sits in an area that is unlikely to hold a suitcase, may be a briefcase. And two, the space offered by spare tire well goes unaccounted for in this measurement.
And finally, there has to be some toll taken by presence of five-link double wishbone suspension in trunk space, compared to Macpherson struts or other simpler rear suspension set ups.
How do you define low? Is it supposed to be relative to *something*?
No, what I said was that CR's predicted reliability for the 3 Series is Average, and for some other BMW models Below Average. I love BMWs and would not mind owning a 3 Series. And did I say or imply that CR "is a monopoly of info"? No, I gave it as one source for information on reliability. Try to keep the personal comments out of this, OK?
But can't you hear the uproar from Honda fans if Honda were to do away with the double wishbone setup on the Accord in favor of Macpherson struts?
Also, per earlier comments about the "poor" fuel economy of the HAH: I am wondering what other mid-sized sedans available in the U.S. by December 2004 cost $30k or less, can accelerate from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, and get EPA ratings of at least 30 mpg city and 37 mpg highway? I can't think of any. Can anyone else?
Yikes, is this a trick question?
Did you pick up on my "low mileage objective "error. I meant "low gas consumption".
How do I define low? I am a bit too lazy to look at my Oxford dictionary but I think it means less than high?
"Is my low suppose to be relative to "something"?
Yes I thought it did! As in low emissions relative to other cars in the industry. What did you think? Or do you want me to use such fancy terms as SULEV or ATPZEV to clarify what I really meant. IMO, that would be a total bore.
But the SAE versus VDA measurements of trunk space was something new that I have learnt recently. I used to think all automakers followed a single standard to quote trunk space.
Not many people are looking for a 4 door sedan that will go 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. If they are they are not worried about good mileage. I am looking for a decent car like an Accord that gets great mileage 40-45 mpg. Honda has missed the boat with this one. Many people don't like the funky Prius but love the Accord. If Honda could get close to Prius mileage with the mid-sized Accord they would have a real winner. If you think there was a fuss over not getting EPA with the Prius, just wait till people start buying the HAH and not getting close to the 30/37 mpg. If it is a hotrod people will drive like it is. No one is disillusioned about the Prius being a hotrod. So they go for what it was built for good mileage.
I agree. Either a) they can't, or b) they don't want to right now. Since the HCH doesn't match the fuel economy of the Prius even though it is much smaller/lighter than the Accord and has a smaller ICE, maybe it's a). Since a competitor has already nailed the high-mpg mid-sized car target, why not tackle a market that has not yet been addressed?
It will be interesting to see what Honda has in store for HCH replacement.
I used EPA ratings because they can be compared more easily, as you have noted previously: robertsmx "2006 Honda Fit (Jazz)" Nov 3, 2004 10:46am
Accord Hybrid is a step in that direction, as opposed to the other end of the spectrum that cars like Insight, Prius and Civic Hybrid belong. So, you're correct that HAH approach is different, but few seem to understand it.
You are correct that few understand that kind of logic. It borders on fuzzy logic. It seems they are trying to appease the power hungry Americans that want to maintain high powered vehicles with a "green" banner attached. Yet I have not seen where this approach is as green as a standard Accord with a 4 cylinder. Where is the emission advantage? There is no significant mileage advantage in the class that the Accord resides. It will not qualify for the tax incentives proposed. As the car must get double the mileage of comparable vehicles.
And one dimensional comparison doesn't make sense when you consider that facet. We already know that:
HAH will have better fuel economy rating than Accord I-4
HAH will have better performance than Accord I-4
As for emissions, I would love to see how HAH stacks up against Accord I-4 and Accord V6 on a national scale for EPA pollution score as well as greenhouse gas emissions when the ratings do come out.
Unless the HAH is given SULEVII it will not equal the Accord 4 cylinder. The V6 is now only ULEVII.It will gain some with the IMA hybrid. It will have to go some to beat the other cars in its class. I thought the whole purpose of the hybrid was to get substantially better emissions and mileage.
Whoever said that was the whole (sole?) purpose of hybrid technology? The HAH does get substantially better fuel economy than the V6-only Accord. It appears it will better the V6 Accord on emissions. Plus better performance.
This whole thread is pretty amusing to me, because I remember the vociferous complaints from about year ago regarding another hybrid. This hybrid had (has) high fuel economy and super-low emissions. But it was deemed a failure in the market by these folks because it did not offer acceleration comparable to that of, say, an Accord. So Honda builds a hybrid that has performance better than any other Accord sedan, better than most sedans on the road actually, plus better fuel economy than any other V6 sedan. Now the complaint is, "it doesn't have high enough fuel economy or low enough emissions." The pursuit of perfection continues! Maybe someday we'll reach it.
My friend just bought a regular Accord V6 EX a few months ago. He could not wait for the HAH after his other Accord was totaled in an accident. He said he has driven many sport cars but none of them were solid and "fun" as his Accord V6 EX 2004.
I myself have driven Honda for almost 4 decades. I could strongly feel the superb quality and the solidity of the EX V6 Coupe 2003 when I sat behind the wheel to test drive it and bought it for my son a year ago. No complaints whatsoever on the Accord (regular or HAH). I totally trust Honda engineering.
1. Do you think a 3.5/V6 rated ULEVII has identical emissions (green house as well as EPA pollution score) compared to a 1.5/I-4 rated the same?
2. If you spend 2-3 minutes at stop lights on a 10 mile commute, do you think HAH will pollute as much as Accord V6 even if both were rated to be ULEVII?
I thought the whole purpose of the hybrid was to get substantially better emissions and mileage
Substantial is an interesting word. When does anything become substantial? Do we know that, before using it in a sentence designed to create an argument? That said, the purpose of hybrid is, as varmint pointed out, is recycle energy and reduce mechanical inefficiencies as much as possible. This does get reflected in better emissions and mileage.
Civic HX (w/5MT) is rated 36/44 mpg and gets a green house gas emissions rating of 4.9 tons/year from EPA. Compare to Civic Hybrid (w/5MT) that is rated 46/51 mpg with the emissions rating of 4.0 tons/year. Mission accomplished.
Getting back to Accord Hybrid, do you think HAH will return poorer (or same) mileage/emissions than Accord V6 under similar conditions? If you say yes, I would love to learn why you think so, and if not, what is the issue about?
I would hope that it improves on the V6 emissions. It is not that great as it is. Let me put it this way. I rented a Chevy Malibu in Hawaii two months ago. Just driving around town I averaged 27 mpg. It was a nice car that totally loaded can be bought for $21k. The HAH only has owner loyalty going for it at this point. It still makes no sense to me... I don't think I am alone in that feeling. Most of us out there want over 40 mpg and that should not be that hard to accomplish. As far as 0-60 anything in the 9 second range is plenty to get onto a freeway without blocking traffic.
If you want a midsized car that gets over 40 mpg with 0-60 in the 9 second range (9.8 actually), that car exists but it's not the HAH.
As for your experiences, should you compare something experienced with something you have not? Think about it. How about Accord I-4 for $16K (or less)? I'm sure you could average around 30 mpg if you wanted to. BUT, it will be a very different car, wouldn't it?
W8 Passat
0-60 in 6.5 seconds
18-25 mpg
$38,000+
Hybrid Accord
0-60 in 6.5 seconds
31-37 mpg
$30,000
How many other vehicles this size get 45 mpg? In order for a car to be substandard, it needs to have lesser performance than the norm for its class. That is definitely not the case for the HAH. Let's be reasonable here, folks.
BTW, when can I buy one of those (or even order one)?
Also it is kind of senseless in comparing a dated Passat(approaching 7th year since intro) with future vehicles that are not yet introduced . The latest news of the upcoming New Passat is quite impressive.
Regarding reliability----once the VW warranty expires an owner should go to an independent who specializes in servicing VWs. My ownership of an Audi 4000s for 12 years was quite painless because I found an honest mechanic who specialized in VW/Audis(yes they do exist).
FYI, the HAH has been introduced. It arrives in dealerships in less than one month, and can be ordered now. We can read about road tests in the car mags and here on Edmunds.com. When will the next-gen Passat be introduced? I saw a spy picture of it the other day in one of the car mags, but the fit and finish looked horrible! It looked like it had ugly black tape all over it. ;-)
If by that you mean the Accord is far cheaper and far more efficient, then I agree.
But my intent was not to make a direct comparison. Let me put it another way. If Honda introduced a small block V8 which gave no improvement in fuel economy and charged the same $30,000, would there be any kind of outcry? I doubt it. In fact, the motor press would probably drop on their collective knees and begin with the hosannas.
Here we have an Accord providing the driving experience of a such a car, getting better gas mileage, and yet there are people who can't figure out what it's for.
It's probably true that hybrid and green were synonymous prior to the Accord. But so were hybrid and slow. This is the first have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too hybrid on the market.
A bunch of little boys playing at being know it all's.
To dub something substandard, you have to have a standard. The norm in this class is to have a city fuel economy rating of about half of what you’re setting up as standard.
Now, if you throw Accord Diesel into the mix, realize that the engine cannot be offered in America for good reasons. In addition, even that will be substandard by your definition.
When an automaker makes a break through as significant as the Accord Diesel it deserves more exposure than just in Europe. My understanding is that it conforms to Euro4 emissions. It is rated at 52.3 mpg UK which is about 44 mpg US combined. It will cruise all day at 130 mph. It may not have the ticket getting 0-60 speed that no one really needs. It would be sold here if not for the shortsighted regulators at CARB.
As far as the HAH, if I don't see economy minded people purchasing the HAH and getting at least 40 mpg. I will not be convinced it is in the best interest of what hybrid was implemented to achieve. And if any government money is being spent to develop this car I consider it fraud. It is not being built with the sole desire to improve economy & emissions in an Accord sized vehicle.
As far as greater exposure is concerned, Honda would love to use if it can. The problem is that diesel is still a no-no in this country (and for me at this time). When it becomes a viable alternative, we will talk about it.
As far as the HAH, if I don't see economy minded people purchasing the HAH and getting at least 40 mpg.
Cars can only do what they are designed for. Is HAH designed for 40 mpg? No. Is Accord Diesel capable of delivering 40 mpg on a daily basis to me? I don’t know, but I doubt it can. Can Accord Diesel get me the mileage Insight can? I don’t think so.
That said, IMO any vehicle that exceeds average cost of a new car is beyond economy minded buyers. I believe that cost hovers around $22K at the moment. Accord Hybrid is well beyond it, and so is a loaded Prius.
This brings us to a question: Why have you been trying to relate HAH, a $30K near luxury sedan to something an economy (in terms of $$$) minded buyer would be looking at? It belongs in a completely different class! Accord Hybrid is a step in a direction that could someday deliver us a sport sedan like Honda Dual Note that had 400 HP while being capable of delivering 42 mpg and achieving a top speed of 186 mph. Those cars are not for people who want to save $$$, but want performance, however without the expense of burning more fuel.
If I were to buy an Accord Hybrid today, it won’t be so that I can save some bucks by burning less fuel. I could save a lot more bucks by choosing to drive a $15K Accord DX. HAH has a different purpose, and as Honda puts it “more power less gas”. When was the last time you heard something along these lines?