Honda Fit Hybrid - April '07

[Compaq888]

as in K20 and K24 swaps.

I've seen a crx run a high 12 with a K motor.

[SVOboy]

Hmm, I did not think there were more than a few of them yet.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I dunno, I'm never planning on buying a new car anyway. But my main beef with honda is their lack of dedication to efficieny. You'd think they could offer at least one option that didn't get ****ty mileage. It's not hard to take the same exact chassis and everything and just build the same motor but with less displacement and power and eliminate some of the power bull****. But they just don't want to do it. Honda has gone from power on one end and super efficiency on the other to everything somewhere in the middle with a huge price tag tacked on to it. Damn you honda.

Geez Louise! Did you read what you just typed? Lack of dedication to efficiency??? Are you nuts! Who had the first ULEV and SULEV in the U.S.; developed the Civic GX; all major Honda plants worldwide meet or exceed ISO 14001 standards "the strict Green Factory regulation" to the layperson; taken from their website:

"Union of Concerned Scientists Name Honda 2004 'Greenest Automaker'
American Honda Motor Co. was recognized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) as the 2004 Greenest Automaker in the organization's biennial ranking of car manufacturers' environmental performance. It's the third consecutive number one ranking of Honda in the UCS study. Compared with the UCS's 2002 findings, Honda actually increased its lead over other automakers in reducing both greenhouse gas and tailpipe emissions across the full range of its product lineup."

Shall I go on? Who makes your beloved Insight, Pontiac? The company's local involvment in environmental improvment is noteworthy as well. Here are 52 Pages That contradict your sweeping generalization.

As a student of Science, you should be aware of your use of the word "never". Furthermore, do you think Honda is responsible for their trend in the bell curve of efficient vehicles vs. non-efficient ones? No, it's the power-hungry, gas-guzzling, SUV yearning, American public. A company has to survive by offering a variety of vehicles that meet demand, or you DIE. Honda does this AND reduces emissions. And by the way, what's your definition of efficient? Emissions or fuel economy? Do you think the Mustang GT is a Low-Emissions Vehicle? No, but the Civic Si is an LEV-2. Your CRX will spew out more greenhouse gasses in one year of average driving than 5-years of the new Civic LX automatic, yeah that's with the same average driving. Gas mileage isn't everything my friend.

I could go on, but I've got work to do. My advice, before you go dissing a company on it's philophies, I would do a little research first. You say "Damn Honda", I say "Shame on you".

Respectfully,

RH77

[SVOboy]

As a student of Science

Huh?

Furthermore, do you think Honda is responsible for their trend in the bell curve of efficient vehicles vs. non-efficient ones? No, it's the power-hungry, gas-guzzling, SUV yearning, American public. A company has to survive by offering a variety of vehicles that meet demand, or you DIE.

This sounds like blah blah blah to me. It is not the companies that adapt to the public demand it is the companies that shape the public demand.

Honda does this AND reduces emissions.

I never said they had bad emissions, I just said they put too much power in their engines and don't at least off something with no power that also gets great mileage.

Gas mileage isn't everything my friend.

Duh/You the one wondering if you should put a cat on or not.

I could go on, but I've got work to do. My advice, before you go dissing a company on it's philophies, I would do a little research first. You say "Damn Honda", I say "Shame on you".

And yes damn honda. Just because the have good emissions doesn't mean they can't reduce consumption at the same time.

And PS: according to fueleconomy.gov the new civic puts out 5.5 tons of greenhouse gasses while my crx puts out 5.9 tons, so I don't see a 1/5th at much emissions deal going on there.

[rh77]

As a student of Science

Huh?

Aren't you taking a science class of some sort in school? In addition, to be a member of this site, you have to respect Science.

Furthermore, do you think Honda is responsible for their trend in the bell curve of efficient vehicles vs. non-efficient ones? No, it's the power-hungry, gas-guzzling, SUV yearning, American public. A company has to survive by offering a variety of vehicles that meet demand, or you DIE.

This sounds like blah blah blah to me. It is not the companies that adapt to the public demand it is the companies that shape the public demand.

You're right on this one. But it's not Honda's fault! Who started the SUV revolution? Ford and GM -- and who do you think is sleeping with the oil companies? Bingo. (hint, not Honda).

Gas mileage isn't everything my friend.

Duh/You the one wondering if you should put a cat on or not.

I thought this was an attack on Honda? I'll come right out and admit that I'm not going to be on the cover of "Green People Weekly", but when I can afford a cat, it's going on there. Right now, money's tight. Sound familiar? I'm not perfect, but I'm not going to make unfounded sweeping generalizations that are based on random feelings...

And yes damn honda. Just because the have good emissions doesn't mean they can't reduce consumption at the same time.

Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

And PS: according to fueleconomy.gov the new civic puts out 5.5 tons of greenhouse gasses while my crx puts out 5.9 tons, so I don't see a 1/5th at much emissions deal going on there.

You see, if you did that kind of research before making that post then probably we wouldn't be in this mess. You see, I made an approximation on the carbon emissions to see if you were serious about data integrity. I stand corrected on the emissions values, and apparently Science does matter to you :-P.

Bottom line -- we're a friendly group here and when you go slinging crap at a company most of us respect, it'll strike a nerve and someone will retaliate. I felt the need.

RH77

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

But my main beef with honda is their lack of dedication to efficieny. You'd think they could offer at least one option that didn't get ****ty mileage. It's not hard to take the same exact chassis and everything and just build the same motor but with less displacement and power and eliminate some of the power bull****. But they just don't want to do it. Honda has gone from power on one end and super efficiency on the other to everything somewhere in the middle with a huge price tag tacked on to it. Damn you honda.

Without a plan to "jump in" to the discussion, I'll mention this.

Honda has ALWAYS had a fuel efficient car for each production line made.

The CVCC obtained crazy gas mileage compared to competition.

The original civics were also MPG beasts (mainly due to CVCC
technology and light weight).

the CRX HF was a great fuel economy option between the years of 83-91.

92-95 gave us the Civic VX. It was in the same chasis as the Civic Si, DX (hatchback models) yet able to obtain up to 15+mpg more in some cases.

The Civic CX also ran alongside the VX, which was an updated version of the CRX HF engine (8 valves, 62HP).

Next in line was the Civic HX, which is a 1.6L version of the Civic VX motor (vtec-e) with obd2. The Civic HX was heavier than the Civic VX, and much less efficient. It was, however, roomier and more of a viable option for small families.

Let's not forget the Insight, introduced in 2000, which is still the leader in fuel economy. It's essentially a CRX chasis with aerodynamic modifications and a small 3 cylinder vtec-e engine (with a 10HP electric engine to assist).

Enter the Civic Hybrid (not too impressive) and the Accord Hybrid (very unimpressive).

rh77 points out the beauty of the most "green" vehicle in America: Civic GX. It runs on natural gas. i dont really think it's a viable long term solution, but it's showing us that it's an option.

Even Hondas non-economy models have out-performed most other cars in the same class, if not the class below it. I doubt there are many toyotas, fords, chevys, or even Geo Metros that were built in 1989 (like my car) that can beat my MPG values. This isn't about me so much as it's about the car.

Efficiency has been the name of the game since day one with Honda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272373/site/newsweek/

And for the record, arguing if the market follows what people want or if the market decides what people want is a moot point. They're both true, and it's a much more complex scenario than a simple dichotomy. The market receives influence from hundreds of factors, only one of which is the demand. Blaming Honda (or anyone for that matter) for the rise of the popularity of SUVs, Hummers, or other big vehicles shows ignorance to the process. I could just as easily blame Arnold Schwarzenegger for the rise in popularity of the Hummers as I could blame anyone else.

Pointing fingers never solves a problem.

And with that, I would never say that Honda lacks dedication to fuel efficiency.

[Compaq888]

hate to break the bad news but Arnold Schwarzenegger actually helped GM produce the H2 hummer. He always wanted a streetable hummer so he went to GM with it. End result is H2, and now H3.

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by Compaq888

hate to break the bad news but Arnold Schwarzenegger actually helped GM produce the H2 hummer. He always wanted a streetable hummer so he went to GM with it. End result is H2, and now H3.

I'm unsure how this contradicts what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Me

I could just as easily blame Arnold Schwarzenegger for the rise in popularity of the Hummers as I could blame anyone else.

[krousdb]

While have owned several Hondas and I am a big fan, I did not take SVO's comments as being disrespecful. Just as I don't take offense to comments about del slows and Subarus.

I guess I can see where SVO is coming from though. As Matt stated, from 84-91, the CRX HF was available and was dirt cheap. Then the VX/HX/CX which I also assume were easy on the wallet. But what is available today that has upper 40's & 50+ EPA ratings? Only hybrids and they aint cheap. Why not a Civic VX? Because it would compete with the Civic Hybrid. Why not a Civic CRX HF, because it would compete with the Insight. Unless I have missed something in the Honda lineup, the more expensive hybrid technology has replaced the cheap FE models.

Having owned a Hybrid, I can say that there are positives and negatives. FE is the positive, but maintenence and cost are the negatives. The hybrids are much more complicated and if something breaks, I can't fix it.

Since there are two drivers in my family and only one hybrid, I had to make a decision on what to do about the second car. The Subaru can get good mileage, but not great. I considered another hybrid but at 20-25k, I could not justify the cost. I dont think I would buy a used hybrid, too many ways to mistreat them. I considered a new Civic non hybrid but wasn't impressed with the FE. This is where I think SVO is dissappointed, as am I. So I decided to get a used high FE Honda. What I ended up with was not as good FE as I planned on, but it runs great, looks great and one can get good FE if you try. I paid 20-25% the cost of a new hybrid or 30% of a new Civic. Not a bad deal I think for 41K miles. And the best part is that if something breaks, I can probably fix it myself. Maint will be very low. :-)

[Matt Timion]

excellent points krousdb. I did not look at it that way. Hondas has ALWAYS had a cheap, fun, economical car.

Check out this old ad:

(click image to enlarge)


It is VERY sad that the cheapest "economy" car Honda makes today is over $20k. I guess this is why the Honda Fit is coming out. It's a return to basics.