backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by TMike7.. on Mar 18 at 2:51 PM

2010 Honda Insight gets priced

Honda's Insight has been making the rounds here at DailyTech for quite some time. The vehicle first made an appearance as a concept car at the 2008 Paris Auto Show and was revealed in production form at the Detroit Auto Show.

Ever since the vehicle was first announced, Honda batted around the idea of releasing the vehicle in the U.S. with a price tag below $19,000. Today, however, Honda announced the official starting price of the Insight and it will actually be priced just below $20,000.

The 2010 Honda Insight LX will have a base price of $19,800 -- this compares to a $22,000 base price for the standard 2009 Toyota Prius. The next trim level is the Insight EX which will be priced at $21,300. Those that wish to have integrated GPS will have to part with $23,100.

The Honda Insight uses a 1.3-liter four-cylinder engine paired with the Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system. The vehicle is EPA rated at 40 MPG in the city and 43 MPG on the highway.

The 2010 Honda Insight will face stiff competition from Toyota's third generation Prius. The 2010 Prius will launch later this year and will have an EPA combined rating of 50 MPG.

It is not known if Toyota will lower the price of entry of the new Prius to combat the Insight in the U.S. It's possible that Toyota may take a page from its Japanese strategy and offer the current Prius at a lower price and maintain the 2010 model as a "premium" offering.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cool
By therealnickdanger on 3/10/2009 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 4
While I'll probably never drive one, I'm glad to see that there's still a push to keep these cars under $20K. The Volt will really struggle if it comes out with a $40K price tag - even IF it pays off over a 10-year life cycle. Oh well, we're still in a big transition. You can't have it all... well, that is if you ignore the euro-diesel market.




RE: Cool
By A Stoner on 3/10/2009 1:46:32 PM , Rating: 5
Well, at an inflated driving range of 15,000 miles per year, assuming the car reduces fuel consumption by 20 MPG, that save 750 gallons of fuel a year, or 7,500 gallons in 10 years. A comparably equipped car, with size, quality of build, comfort features would probably cost about $15,000 or less. Think Civic, Mirage and other economy models, and that is the comfort level you buy with these cars. Which by the way, these cars get significantly more miles per gallon that 20. $40,000 minus the $15,000 = $25,000. $25,000 divided by 7500 galons of gas = fuel prices must be $3.33 a gallon at these estimated values for you to break even after 10 years. This assumes the car ends up not losing more resale value than the other car in the same period of time. This is unlikely to be true.

How many times does the battery get replaced over ten years? I know my computer batteries last about 2 years before they only give out about half the original charge. My car battery usually lasts about 5 years for the same charge loss. I know of no battery type that can last more than 5 years without significant loss in it's ability to retain a full charge. Have you heard of any batteries that do?

As for the current model they are showing, at least the cost premium has come down a bit, from more than $10,000 to maybe only $5,000 over a normally powered vehicle. It will be much easier to recoupe those costs over the life of the car than before. A cost premium of $25,000 is going to make the Volt a novelty item.


RE: Cool
By DLeRium on 3/10/2009 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 4
The Camry Hybrid breaks even in 10 years too approximately. But honestly, why would you spend $40k when you can spend $30k. The Prius is looking more and more practical to people now so that even $25k is looking good. The Insight is cheaper now, and so I never understood the hype of the Volt. Sure it's cool you can plug in and go like a cell phone, but why would you invest SO MUCH in a car to break even in 10 years when you can break even using a Prius for much less? Throwing down 40k is much harder than 25k so in the end you might be the same but that initial payment will bite you hard. Poor GM.


RE: Cool
By TheFace on 3/10/2009 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 3
Here is my argument why people will spend the extra bit on getting a hybrid vs. non-hybrid. People are not looking at $30k vs. $40k, they're looking at $500/month vs. $600/month payments, or however they break it down. Then they factor in the life of the vehicle, which they may sell before they have it all paid off. The savings in gas per month is not much, but it "feels" like it as you "feel" like you've gone farther with the hybrid. A large portion of why people buy cars is how they feel about them. (To be fair, GM's quality COULD be as good as Toyota but since people don't think they are, it doesn't translate into $$). This is also why the resale price of a hybrid will be higher than the same vehicle in the standard version.

Now the Volt is a different matter entirely.


RE: Cool
By Mitch101 on 3/11/2009 9:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
Im going to throw the economy factor into play because its not going away any time soon. It may flat line this year however the damage will take years to overcome.

The odds of people getting a 20K car loan is significantly higher than that of a 40K car loan. Even if the 40k car could provide a decent return on investment over a number of years. The number of loans approved for a 40K vehicle may be limited. The days of the hummer's, Escalades, and BMW's financed through home equity loans will be much more limited in the years to come.


RE: Cool
By mherlund on 3/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By rburnham on 3/12/2009 6:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
I still have my 1998 Honda Civic. Repairs are still far cheaper than a car payment. Although with these new hybrids on the way, my car may be on its last year for me.


RE: Cool
By DLeRium on 3/10/2009 2:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
BTW your calculations are wrong. You did 15,000 divided by 20 when that really just calculates how many gallons you need for 15k miles on 20mpg. If you were trying to show

40mpg vs 20mpg, that's

375 gal/yr vs 750 gal/yr You really just save 375 gal/year. At $3 gas, it's $900 a year. $9k over 10 years. More realistic would be 40mpg vs 30mpg.

375 gal vs 500 gal. You save 125 gal/year. $375 / year at $3 gas ==> 3.7k a year. Interesting huh? Crank it to 45mpg and you get about 167 gal / year which saves you 5k over 10 years. There's your Prius making its money back.

Can somone show the Volt's electricity consumption and break that down into cost savings?


RE: Cool
By therealnickdanger on 3/10/2009 2:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
We've played this game before. Search back to some of the older Volt stories and you'll find plenty of breakdowns regarding the total 10yr operating cost of the Volt including battery replacements (which GM will pay for at least one as part of the warranty).


RE: Cool
By A Stoner on 3/10/2009 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 4
I appreciate your feedback. Like your calculations more than mine. I would rate you up, but for some reason i cannot rate anyone after I make a post...

I thought the volt uses 0 Gas, so I used a baseline car MPG estimate of 20MPG and reduced it to 0 for my calculations. But your calculations are far superior to mine. I was trying to give it the best possible outcome for the volt, while still showing the futility of the entire endeavore of trying to show that these hybric/electric cars eventually break even.

The first rule is that in ten years, most of these cars will be in scrap yards, not the highway, as replacing the batteries will cost more than the car is worth.
The second rule is that the people who buy these cars are buying them for the status symbol they represent, and in two years a newer better model will be out, and those people are going to take the lions share of the depreciation of the vehicle as they upgrade.
The third rule is that if something tangible costs alot of money, it is because it required alot of energy to produce it. Either human energy, electric energy, heat energy and something that all of these energies have in common is that they create the "evil global warming culprit" CO2, which is also known as plant food.

None of these cars will ever really break even. The real reason these companies can bring the price down to only a $5,000 premium over any other car is because the government, also known as your hard work stolen in the form of taxes, subsidizes these vehicles to thousasnds if not ten thousands of dollars each in the form of research grants, actual car by car payments or tax breaks for simply building that particular car. On top of that, many of these car companies are losing money on these models for nothing more than the publicity and name recongnition those cars garner them, it is basically a form of advertizing. So, when all is said and done, while the consumer may eventually break even with one of these cars, the cars really never do break even, because of the hidden costs (read energy to build/CO2 produced) of the vehicles that the average consumer will never see.


RE: Cool
By Spivonious on 3/10/2009 3:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt only uses zero gas for the first 40 miles. After that it charges the batteries with a gasoline generator.


RE: Cool
By Oregonian2 on 3/10/2009 6:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
That's the biggie for those who's commute (and perhaps shopping) distance allows them not to use gasoline at all for most of their driving.


RE: Cool
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/10/2009 9:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
In cold weather, Volt will use gas engine to warm up the battery pack until the pack can discharge enough power.


RE: Cool
By Alexvrb on 3/10/2009 10:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
I was not aware the Volt did this. That's actually really smart, and it wouldn't use much fuel to do so. Very useful for cold climates, and doing so (along with their other methods such as not using the full capacity) should greatly extend the life of the lithium ion battery.


RE: Cool
By sinclaj1 on 3/10/2009 4:41:35 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, you're not saving much (if anything) once you factor in the interest over the life of the loan and the replacement of the car's hybrid battery.

Let's take $20k vs $25k at 7.5% for 60 months, for example. $5k is about the average cost difference between a non-hybrid and a similar hybrid model:

From cars.com auto-loan calculator:

$20k @ 7.5% x 60 mos = $24,045
$25k @ 7.5% x 60 mos = $30,056

The interest difference alone is $1k for each $5k difference in price, assuming you can snag a rate that low. The Federal tax credit for hybrids will take out a little, but not much of that. The cost for replacing the battery will add more to it.

I'm not against hybrids. I love the idea and the technology, and I owned one for several years, but I bought it when it was priced UNDER retail with great financing. Only then does it make clear sense. Now with gas prices down under $2 and dealerships scrambling to sell cars, now may be that time again.

Otherwise, it's as simple as paying for a $25k car over a $20k one. The $20k one will simply draw more buyers if it is a solid, dependable, and reasonably fuel efficient car.


RE: Cool
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/11/2009 7:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
What if you actually drive 30K miles per year? That is what I drive. The Hybrid pays for itself in less than 2 years. That is the extra cost of getting the hybrid option over the base car, not paying for the whole car. The hybrid option cost an extra $3K or so.


RE: Cool
By clovell on 3/10/2009 2:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget that a Civic starts at $15,550 and gets 36/25.


RE: Cool
By Keeir on 3/10/2009 4:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can't argue with End conclusion of your calculations, I think your base assumptions are a bit off...

lets look at the first one

A Volt will cost 40,000 for the same comfort level of a 15,000 Civic/Corrolla/etc. Ahhh... no. Checking US Honda, a 2009 Civic runs you a minimum of 16,000+ and thats completely stripped down. Unless I am misunderstanding the information thats been provided so far on the Volt, the "standard" model is going to be more like a "EX" type Civic with Automatic transmission. This pushes the cost for a true compeditior to 20,000+. (Civics go all the way into the 24,000+ range for the non-SI model).

Additionally the Volt's Li-on battery is covered by a 10 year warrenty. (Which you can believe whatever you want on GM's being able to fulfill that promise)

On this current offering (Honda Insight), the premium is not 5,000 dollars!

Examing the this Honda Insight its pretty comparable to a Civic also in terms of size. The Honda Insight starts at the "LX" trim level. The Insight seems to be only 1,000-2,000 price premium over non-Hybrid Civics "LX" type cars. It also uses Nickel Batteries which have significantly longer life than Li-on. The Insight seems be a slam dunk comparison to a Civic... 2,000 miles, 29MPG->41MPG, Gas=2.50, ---->~80,000 replayment time.


RE: Cool
By retrospooty on 3/10/2009 7:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
On top of all that, you have to automatically assume the Volt will die before the Honda or Toyota. Unless somehow being totally broke gave GM a quality conscience that it didnt have before =)


RE: Cool
By Doormat on 3/10/2009 7:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
I've posted my personal Volt math before, I'm going to post it again....

Volt: $40,000 - $7500 tax credit = $32,500
Civic $16,300 (Auto. 4 door, per honda website), 29mpg combined

Cost of electricity: 12c/kWh
Efficiency of electrical system: 85% (wall socket to battery)
Miles per charge: 40 (8kWh usable battery)
MPG on gasoline: 48 (per tests by the EPA)

My daily commute: 38 mile commute (how convenient ;) )
Yearly mileage: 12,000 - we'll assume 10,000 miles by electricity and 2,000 miles by gasoline (for trips out of town and to start the engine once a week to keep it going...)

Civic yearly consumption (gasoline): 12,000 miles, or 413 gallons
Volt yearly consumption (electricity + gasoline): 10,000 miles or 2,352kWh plus 2,000 miles or 42 gallons of gas

So if gasoline is $2.50/gal and electricity is 12c/kWh (current conditions)..

Civic: $1,032/yr
Volt: $282 + $105 = $387/yr

A difference of $645/yr. You can see that its no where near enough to compensate for the $16,000+ purchase price difference.

Now if you bump up gas prices to $3.50 a gallon it looks better...

Civic: $1,445
Volt: $282 + $147
A difference of $1,016/yr. Closer but still no cigar.

Even at $4.50/gal, its still about $300/yr short.

Civic: $1,858
Volt: $282 + $189 = $471
A difference of $1,387.

Thats not to say people still wont buy Volts. But it will be because they want to be environmentally responsible (make a statement), not because its cheaper.


RE: Cool
By rdeegvainl on 3/11/2009 12:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
another poster brought up the interesting point of interest on the loan. Factor that in to your calculations and you will get an even better picture.


RE: Cool
By Doormat on 3/11/2009 1:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, this math does ignore finance costs. If I had more free time I could do an NPV calculation on both.


RE: Cool
By bankerdude on 3/11/2009 11:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I had more free time I could do an NPV calculation on both.

Ok, I'll take a crack at it. Based upon your calculations of annual costs for each vehicle plus the assumptions posted earlier in the thread of a six year loan at 7.5% (assuming no money down for simplicity) it looks like you will be paying an additional premium of $6,202.50 over the initial cost differential of $16,200 between the two vehicles (assuming the $7,500 tax credit on the Volt).

Here's my calculations:
Finance the Civic - $16,300 @ 7.5% for 72 months = $281.83/mo. This ends up costing $3,991.76 in interest over the life of the loan.
Finance the Volt - $32,500 @ 7.5% for 72 months = $561.93/mo. This ends up costing $7,958.96 in interest over the life of the loan.
The interest savings alone therefore save you (7958.96-3991.76)= $3,967.20.

In addition, you will also be saving money on your monthly payment, to the tune of $280.10/month (561.93-281.83). If you assume this equal stream of 72 monthly payments of $280.10 are invested in a money market account at a constant interest rate of 3% per year, the NPV of that stream = $18,435.30. The NPV calculation is as follows: C/i * [1-{1/(1+i)^n}] or in our example 280.10/.0025 * [1-{1/(1+.0025)^72}].

So, if the NPV of the cash flow stream is $18,435.30; plus the interest savings of $3,967.20; that equals $22,402.50 total additional cost of buying Volt, or a premium of $6,202.50 (22402.50-16200.00) over just the initial purchase price of the vehicles.

Adding the additional cost premium of $6,202.50 to your 10 year cost analysis example equals another $620.25 per year of cost savings necessary just to break even.


RE: Cool
By Steve Guilliot on 3/10/2009 11:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
Your experience with a laptop battery gives you exactly zero anecdotal expertise with Li batteries in cars. These batteries have a 10 year warranty, meaning a very high percentage last at least 10 years, probably much longer given the calculus manufacturers consider before setting warranty coverage of auto components.

This reminds me of that recent Daily Tech story saying that Prius batteries were about to start dying becuase the 10 year warranty on the first Prius' were coming due. Sheer genius. In other news, my car will not start next Monday when the powertrain warranty expires.


RE: Cool
By dgingeri on 3/10/2009 3:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
3 things to think about with a Volt vs other hybrids:

1. the warranty is 10 years/100k miles, including battery costs. In that time, you will spend the difference just in replacing batteries.

2. GM is also paying for models that they would like to retire, since they actually end up costing the company money instead of making a profit, but the UAW threatens strikes if they hint at retiring them.

3. GM is also paying for mandatory UAW retirees' benefits, allowing them to graduate at 58 with 80% of their pay.

So, if you support the overpowered union way of life, make sure and buy American.


RE: Cool
By meepstone on 3/10/2009 5:49:33 PM , Rating: 1
of course it wont pay off. its a chevy, youll spend thousands of money fixing stuff. only if american cars were as reliable as japanese.


RE: Cool
By Hiawa23 on 3/10/2009 7:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it's cool that they can get the price under $20k. It may not even matter depending on how the economy looks in 2010 cause many are not even buying Priuses right now, & I don't know about some, but I really don't expect the economy to turn around anytime soon. I have 2 cars, a Honda Civic & a Mitsu Lancer Ralliart so I can't see buying a car anytime soon, but if GM is still around & they can get the Volt to a decent price it may give these some comp. I am still baffled why gasoline engine technology has not improved to the point where we see 45 plus per gallon, but I guess that's just not possible.


Why so ugly?
By Spivonious on 3/10/2009 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 3
If Ford can make the Fusion hybrid get 40+mpg, why did Honda make the Insight so ugly?




RE: Why so ugly?
By therealnickdanger on 3/10/2009 1:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... but my eye is the same as yours. ;-)


RE: Why so ugly?
By quiksilvr on 3/10/2009 1:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Because they're stupid. This cuts down on the Coefficient of Drag, but for some odd reason, the efficiency remains the same...SO WHY DID THEY MAKE IT LOOK ALL PRIUSY? Because apparently consumers relate to hybrids as that shape.


RE: Why so ugly?
By A Stoner on 3/10/2009 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
That is total bullshit, it does not have a Coefficient of Drag benifit to have that crappy shape. If you want to have a perfect CoD car, it would look like a drop of water as shown, not in real life. big bulb at front that tapers to a point at the rear. What the Prius and this car does is cut off the back of the car and this cause far more drag. It is style, plain and simple, and my eye says it looks horrible, and that is because anyone with working analytical brains can tell that the car form is designed poorly. Tigers look beautiful because their form fits exactly what their role in the wild is, fast and deadly. Prius and this car look terrible because their form is exactly opposed to what their role is on the highway, which is fuel economy, but in a shape built for increased drag.


RE: Why so ugly?
By ShapeGSX on 3/10/2009 6:01:54 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, cutting off the end of a tear drop shape has been found to still allow air to converge nearly the same way as a tear drop.

This is called the Kamm effect. And essentially, you can end up saving weight by eliminating the full taper, while still getting the benefit of air converging cleanly.

You can read about it here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=edqTZb9PbLQC&pg=P...


RE: Why so ugly?
By SpaceJumper on 3/10/2009 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
I own a Honda Civic Hybrid. My best MPG was 58MPG. It is all depending how you utilize the kinetic energy and acceleration efficiency. People will shoot me if I drive 58MPG, my acceleration was so slow and super fast during down hill by letting it rolls.
I think any small engine car can get the 40MPG rating. The shape does help but it is not the big factor. The biggest factor is the driving technique.


RE: Why so ugly?
By A Stoner on 3/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why so ugly?
By jjmcubed on 3/11/2009 6:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
I can get 58 mpg going downhill with my GTI... As the past owner of a Civic hybrid, I can see getting 58 mpg easily.


RE: Why so ugly?
By mmntech on 3/10/2009 2:36:47 PM , Rating: 1
Studies have shown that the regular shaped cars like the Civic Hybrid don't sell as well as the Prius, which has a "hybrid look". Owning a hybrid is a bit of a status symbol among the greeneis so they want people to instantly recognize they're driving one. The new Insight is a little more palatable than the original one. I have noticed though that there seem to be an awful lot of hybrids (especially the Prius) on used car lots recently. People are buying (leasing) them but they aren't hanging onto them. So much for it being a "best value".


RE: Why so ugly?
By VoodooChicken on 3/10/2009 3:02:29 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe people are getting tired of inhaling their own farts all the time.


RE: Why so ugly?
By kondor999 on 3/11/2009 3:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the Tesla. Indistinguishable from the Lotus Elise from which it's derived. And, despite the problems the company has, there's a big waiting list.

I would LOVE to have my S2000 in a hybrid format - with totally unchanged styling.

I think in this current, early stage of Hybrids that typical first-adopters (enthusiasts) are probably buying them. Me? No way am I gonna get in something that ugly.

Sorry - life is too short. :-)


RE: Why so ugly?
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/10/2009 9:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not all hybrids are created equal. Ford's full hybrid is similar to the Toyota HSD while Honda Insight has the cheap-down Assist type with a single very weak electric motor. Full hybrids have two electric motors, around 8x the power of the Assist types.

Fusion hybrid does not get 40+ MPG. It gets the combined 36 MPG while the smaller Insight gets combined 41 MPG. The new larger Prius will get 50 MPG. The Iconic Prius shape that the Insight mimics, maximizes interior while minimizing the aero drag. The rear hatchback opens the the door to the utility of an SUV. You can fit a full size mattress or 56" LCD TV in the Prius. Try that in the Fusion hybrid which is a sedan.

You gotta question why the Sedan trunk is separated from the passenger cabin. Don't they think we want to haul long cargo sometimes? That problem is solved by making the rear seats fold down with the hatchback door open up.


RE: Why so ugly?
By twhittet on 3/10/2009 10:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fusion hybrid does not get 40+ MPG. It gets the combined 36 MPG while the smaller Insight gets combined 41 MPG


Um, no. Anandtech has reported on both - the Fusion DOES get 41mpg city, and the smaller Insight is rated 40mpg city. If you're going to compare, use apples to apples, not Fusion's highway versus Insight's combined.

I like sedans, and do most of driving in the city. Based on that - the Fusion sounds worth checking out to me.


RE: Why so ugly?
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/11/2009 12:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
Chill, it was a typo. It should read 38 combined MPG (41 City / 36 Highway) vs. Insight 41 combined MPG (40 City / 43 Highway).


What ony 40MPG!
By drewsup on 3/10/2009 3:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone remember the initial specs being @70 MPG. What gives ???




RE: What ony 40MPG!
By Bytre on 3/10/2009 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
old insight was ~70MPG.


RE: What ony 40MPG!
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/10/2009 9:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
In 2008, EPA changed their testing procedures to reflect more aggressive driving and heavier A/C usage.

2006 Insight CVT would get 47 MPG in 2008 EPA standard (see below URL). Keep in mind the new 2010 mid-size Prius gets 50 MPG beating that funny looking mini two seater hybrid!

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi...

2001-06 Insight used aluminum frame with rear wheel skirts to get good mileage. It was not meant to be mass produced but just to claim the highest MPG crown. Honda lost money on everyone it sold. They never got the halo effect they were looking for.

Instead Prius became iconic because it was truly a car that delivered! It seated 5, no compromises, got motorcycle-like MPG and its benefit (HOV lane) while being extremely reliable. 90% owner satisfaction. Advertised only through owner's word of mouth. It moved the entire industry forward.


RE: What ony 40MPG!
By Noya on 3/10/2009 8:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does anyone remember the initial specs being @70 MPG. What gives ???


The old model was a 2-seater that looked like a teardrop and had like 13" wheels and tires.

I've read in many places that this new model will easily achieve 60mpg+.


RE: What ony 40MPG!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/10/2009 9:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Dash
By Alphafox78 on 3/10/2009 1:31:36 PM , Rating: 3
Rest assured the dash in the picture is NOT from the 19K model..




RE: Dash
By Smartless on 3/10/2009 2:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
batteries not included.


RE: Dash
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/10/2009 10:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
The $19.8k LX model with $670 destination charge becomes $20.5k.

LX does not have alloy wheels (just steel with plastic covers). You won't have Cruise Control. No Traction Control. No buttons on steering wheel. No Vanity mirrors or lights.

If you add the extra features that the base Prius comes with it, the Insight is only $1k cheaper.

http://www.truedelta.com/comparisons101/Insight-vs...

Insight is slower, smaller and get lower MPG. Is it worth saving $1k? Oh and it won't qualify for the HOV lane access because you need at least 45 MPG.


Best Interior
By KingstonU on 3/10/2009 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
I just went to an Auto Show and sat in it and it was by far my favorite interior of all cars at the show in terms of layout, and aesthetic appeal. Just my personal opinion, I'm sure many will disagree.




RE: Best Interior
By KingstonU on 3/10/2009 2:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention the same goes for the steering wheel and it's button layout.


RE: Best Interior
By ElFenix on 3/10/2009 2:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
looks horrible to me. too busy, strange angles, lots of seams. like a bad sci-fi movie.


RE: Best Interior
By monomer on 3/10/2009 4:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree, as I test drove a Civic which has a similar dash layout, and really couldn't stand it.

To be fair, I have a friend who owns one who now loves the interior, and finds it uncomfortable going back to a more traditional dash. I guess it's just a matter of getting used to it.


Price fixing/Dumping?
By whirabomber on 3/10/2009 1:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
And how much will these vehicles sell for in Japan?




RE: Price fixing/Dumping?
By Sulphademus on 3/10/2009 1:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
1,948,000¥?


By drewsup on 3/10/2009 5:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/10/2009 9:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it was driven in IDEAL condition. Wait for owner's mileage in real-world road in the winter and the summer. The entire year MPG should come out close to the EPA 41 MPG rating.


Mileage
By TMike7 on 3/12/2009 2:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hi there,

Nice discussion you have going on here.
Though I'm a little bit puzzled by the numbers in the posts on mileages.
I currently drive a Toyota Corolla 1,4l Diesel (similar in size as a Honda Civic). I have an average mileage from 45 miles per gallon with a minimum of 40 miles per gallon and a maximum of 49 miles per gallon. My colleage with his Citroën C3 has an average mileage of 59 miles per gallon.
A well known TV-show (Top Gear) here in Europe put the Toyota Prius against a BMW320d. The BMW managed to go 50% more miles than the Toyota with the same amount of fuel.
Hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius can help reduce the problem of smog in the cities.
Though for me the future lies in Hydrogen fueled cars.
A nice example is the Honda Clarity.

Greetings




RE: Mileage
By usbseawolf2000 on 3/13/2009 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Corolla 1.4l Diesel? You must be in Europe. You do realize that one US gallon is 0.83 Imperial gallon right? So your MPG are inflated in reference to the US MPG. Prius get65 MPG in EU test cycle and it is bigger and faster than the Citroen C3.

I have seen the Top Gear video comparison and their main point is the driver, not the car. Yea, definitely the drive because if you drive Prius with the parking brake, you may get 17 MPG. On average, owners get 48 MPG (US).

If driven equally, Prius would more than double the BMW in MPG. If they were driven like what they were designed for, Prius should triple the BMW's MPG.


i liked the old insight better
By Gul Westfale on 3/10/2009 2:31:11 PM , Rating: 1
at least the old one looked like some sort of futuristic CRX. the new one just looks like a prius knock-off (oh the irony! now the japanese are copying each other!), and the prius looks like shit.




By Spivonious on 3/10/2009 3:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The old Insight was neat looking, even though it was only a two-seater. This new one just screams "Prius-copy", but Honda's marketing team isn't stupid.


one question
By judasmachine on 3/10/2009 4:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
How big is the gas tank? I want it go further on one tank. My civic holds just over ten gallons (i think). It goes roughly about 310 miles on a tank. I want a car that I have to stop less for gas. The ecological stuff too, but I hate stopping for gas.




Bulltish
By andrinoaa on 3/10/2009 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
How can you guys make such WILD assumptions about the Volt when it isn't in production, we have no idea of cost, no idea of battery life only some idea of electric milage!!!??? At this rate, nobody will be buying new chips from Intel! Doh!
This Prius clone is megafugly. If cost is the only thing in your armory, you end up like AMD: unwanted at any price.




By nanogeektech on 3/10/2009 7:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
I should have about 16 in stock before the months end....

kjoseph@ourismanhonda.dealerspace.com




Re:Re:Mileage
By TMike7 on 3/18/2009 2:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your reply. Indeed I live in Europe.
For my calculation, I used : 1 gallon = 3.78541178 liters
and 1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers. I wasn't aware that there was a difference with the British gallon. A British gallon is 4.5 litres. So, my numbers were not inflated.
As for the Prius, indeed the test wasn't fair, the only thing it was able to show is that the fuel-efficiency of the fuel-engine in the Prius is not that great. The whole system including the electric motor is fantastic, because every time you slow down or when you need to brake, the energy is being stored in the battery for later use instead of simply being wasted like in normal cars.
Greetings




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki