backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 95 comment(s) - last by erple2.. on Jul 20 at 9:29 PM

The sporty 2010 Honda CR-Z hybrid will be based on the 2007 CR-Z concept, shown here.  (Source: AutoBlog)

The hot-selling Honda Fit is getting a hybrid makeover for 2010.  (Source: Cars.com)
Honda steps up to the plate with some hot new hybrid offerings

Hybrids are fast becoming Japan's best-selling vehicles and are still quite popular in the U.S.  Honda set Japanese sales records with the debut of its Insight hybrid, but it has since seen tough competition from the Toyota Prius, which stole its sales crown.

Honda is stepping up to the plate to counter Toyota with two new hybrids to go into production and hit the streets next year.  The first is the much-anticipated hybrid version of the Honda Fit, which is already a hot seller in the U.S. and Japan.  The 2010 Fit Hybrid is rumored to be thousands less expensive than the 2009 Honda Insight.

The second hybrid is the 2010 Honda CR-Z.  The car is inspired by the Honda CRX which was very popular among auto enthusiasts in the late 1980s and early 90s.  It debuted in concept form at the 40th annual Tokyo Motor Show in 2007. 

Honda's press release describes the new performance hybrid, stating, "The CR-Z sporty hybrid will feature advanced technologies that deliver enjoyable driving for all while reducing the vehicle's environmental footprint."

No word has been released yet on the pricing of the vehicle.

Both hybrids feature Honda's proprietary Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) system which is highly efficient, lightweight, and compact.  Honda also announced that it’s working on a new hybrid platform for mid-to-large size vehicles.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Rhl on 7/13/2009 12:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
Look, we already know the Honda Fit is a great car. The manual transmission version averages about 38-40 MPG, and it's a fun car to drive, and has tons of space and utility. It's also way cheap.

So to get a hybrid version for even less than an Insight... I think Honda is going to have a huge hit on their hands. While I don't enjoy the styling of the Fit very much, I appreciate its good qualities and I'm sure a lot of other people do too.

Now just make a new Integra/RSX with an MDX-based engine (maybe turbocharged) and you'll be cool again, Honda.




RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/13/2009 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 5
The regular Fit is only rated for 27 mpg city/33 mpg highway with a stick. The automatic version is actually rated higher at 28 mpg/35 mpg. That seems pretty pathetic to me for such a small car with a weezy engine.

I'm not quite sure where you got your figures from.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2009 12:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. I average 27 mpg city in my Cobalt SS. And 31 on the highway. While perhaps not having as much interior space as the Fit due to not being a hatchback, it was a larger car. And certainly weighed more. You can get similar mileage with a base Camry. For such a tiny car the Fits mileage is pathetic.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2009 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I averageD.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Samus on 7/13/2009 1:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
I get 30mpg highway in my SVT Focus and it has double the horsepowers of a fit.

City mpg is another story...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Murst on 7/13/2009 2:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
You have to remember that this is the official MPG rating of the car. Going at around 65mph on the highway in my Escape ( non-hybrid) I get ~34mpg, even though the sticker said 28. I'm not sure exactly how they calculate highway MPG ( or city ), but it seems pretty conservative. The overall MPG ( city + highway ) in my Escape is 26.1 , which is better than I was expecting considering the sticker said 22 city, 28 highway.

And honestly, I'm not sure why the Fit is such a hit. For about the same price, you can get a Civic with comparable MPG and way more room.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Keeir on 7/13/2009 2:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure exactly how they calculate highway MPG ( or city ), but it seems pretty conservative.


Google 2008 EPA driving Cycles. There is a very detailed test requirement cycle that in the US includes Air Conditioning, Radio, etc type of loads.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Hiawa23 on 7/16/2009 2:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart with the 2.4L engine & the sticker said MPG of 21-29, I guess I was hoping for 29consistantly , but it has never done 29 even with highway only driving, yet my 1997 Honda Civic DX still gets over 30mpgs & it has over 225,000 miles on it.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Spuke on 7/13/2009 3:02:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And honestly, I'm not sure why the Fit is such a hit. For about the same price, you can get a Civic with comparable MPG and way more room.
It's not a hit really. The Civic is number 5 on the best selling list in the US. The Fit is not even in the top 20.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By 67STANG on 7/13/2009 4:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
I get 31-34mpg highway in my 1 million pound Chrysler 300...

Of course, it only has the 265hp 3.5 V6 in it (not the hemi), but that just goes to show that even heavy cars with >4 cylinders can get good highway mileage.

It's city where most cars fall short... I get about 15 city, but rarely drive at all since I telecommute. ;-)


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/13/2009 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. I can manage nearly 33 mpg on the highway with my Mazda 3s Hatchback which is much larger than a fit, heavier, and has a quite a bit more power/torque.

For the past 7 months, however, my average has been closer to 27 mpg:

http://i26.tinypic.com/2lo0xu9.jpg


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Keeir on 7/13/2009 1:39:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree. I can manage nearly 33 mpg on the highway with my Mazda 3s Hatchback which is much larger than a fit, heavier, and has a quite a bit more power/torque.

For the past 7 months, however, my average has been closer to 27 mpg:


But thats due in large part to your driving style. You would most likely also exceed the Fit's numbers... by a similar percentage. The Mazda 3s from 2006 has a 2.3L Four rated at 22/28 right? Based on that, with a Fit, you would probably avegerage closer to 34 mpg (rated 28/35), an "improvement" of 25%. Since you live in the US however, thats a difference of only around 100 gallons/15,000 miles which is not really that great a yearly cost penality for the much better driving experience


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By chick0n on 7/13/2009 12:57:02 PM , Rating: 1
I get at least 34 mpg on my manual fit, thats EVEN if I drive it like some 2f2f wannabe.

can you do that in your PoS Cobalt? guess not.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By FITCamaro on 7/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mdogs444 on 7/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By thornburg on 7/13/2009 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not to mention it looks like shrunk down version of a euro grocery getter.


This is really funny, because I have a Mazda 5, which is one of those "euro grocery getter" type cars, and one day a Fit parked next to me while we were at lunch, and when left the restaurant, one of the guys I was with said, "Look, it had a baby!"

That said, I like the Fit, I think it's a great car. I also hear a lot of satisfied Cobalt drivers, so it must be better than Chevy's were 10-15 years ago...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By bhieb on 7/13/2009 1:09:15 PM , Rating: 1
wow thanks for the chuckle. A Fit driver calling a Cobalt a POS too funny. They are both bottom of the line econoboxes for Pete's sake.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By The0ne on 7/13/2009 2:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
The Cobalt SS is not bottom of the line econoboxes. Maybe in your view but certainly not for most reviews. This years Cobalt has pretty good performance around the track.

You shouldn't be comparing the Fit to the Cobalt anyway. Compare it to the Yaris, Aveo or something in the same class. Making arguments that a Cobalt makes 30+MPG while the FIT, being smaller and such, should at least make twice that is just plain stupid.

Honestly, think about what you're saying for a second. I'm even more shock that FitCamaro is making some of these comments himself. The only way that question would make sense if if they put the damn same engine and most of the parts contributing to the 30+ Cobalt MPG into the body of the Fit. That of course is not the case.

But yes, they could have made the care more efficient but then the cost goes up, maintenance is more horrific, etc etc.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By bhieb on 7/13/2009 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Was really targeting the OP that he, as a fit owner, had the audacity to criticize the cobalt. Sure it is no Lexus or Beemer, but come on a fit owner comparing e-penises, that is just funny to me. It is like hey my 4 incher is bigger than your 3 incher. Come on when you hit 10 inches then brag, until then chain up your sub $20K car next to the bikes and STFU.

That was my point I'm all for a good vette vs. viper vs. porche argument but a Fit owner pounding his chest was just hilarious to me.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By The0ne on 7/13/2009 6:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
/nod


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Samus on 7/17/2009 7:08:38 AM , Rating: 1
driving style? let me tell you about brandon and mines driving style. i've never been in a car with him, i've never even met him, but i already know, because he drives virtually the same car I do (mazda 3s and svt focus are same platform, same size, similar weight, similar power, idential suspension and handling dynamics.

the only way to drive our cars is fast.

how fast is fast? (looks up fit performance data on fitforum) well, the fit can do 105mph going downhill at 5200rpm in 5th gear. according to drivers, it felt very unstable.

our cars, based of the focus platform, are autobahn-grade machines with no governor. its advertised top speed is 130mph (the mazda 3s with a 2.3l duratec, similar power, is advertised at 120mph. according to forum members for each respective car, they can both exceed 135mph. i've personally gotten mine to 153mph in utah and my only modifications to engine performance are a ecu tune, some ignition upgrades and an air filter.

back to the point. people who drive fits will go 75-80mph and get terrible fuel economy. people who drive real cars will go 75-80 and get decent fuel economy.

i generally do 90-95 driving from san diego to LA on I5 (and most left lane drivers do) achieving around 30mpg. if i could be bothered to do 70mph (which is dangerously slow here) i might get 32-33mpg.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By vaporstx on 7/13/2009 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Econoboxes and hybrids do not impress me when VW has a Jetta TDI pulling in 50 mpg in the real world. Even a test drive from a popular auto magazine puts the VW Touareg TDI at almost 30 mpg and that is a 5500 pound AWD SUV.

Even I pull in 30+ mpg on the highway in my 06 Ford Mustang V6 Auto at up to 70 mph. Drops to about 24 mpg at 80. In the city I can only get about 19 mpg, but that's a trade off I'm willing to make to drive a sports car.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 6:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Emissions requirements in the US put the diesels at a disadvantage. Plus they just aren't very popular, diesel fuel is much less common at the average corner gas station.

Plus they stink!


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Starcub on 7/14/2009 4:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
The new deisel cars are different. The fuel standards for deisel changed in '07.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By coolkev99 on 7/14/2009 9:22:18 AM , Rating: 3
Uhg. You can't have it both ways! Some of you are criticising the fit's poor mileage by comparing the fit's EPA mileage estimate compared to what *you* average in your car.

Then some others of you complain that the Fit can't get 35-38 mpg because it's way above the EPA estimate! huh?

The EPA is just a guideline compare against other cars when shopping. It does not nessisarily reflect *your* real world mileage!

If you want more realistic numbers go to www.fueleconomy.gov. There you will see that the Fit does indeed get better mileage in real world driving averages than almost any other gasoline engine car out there, including your Colbalt.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Pneumothorax on 7/13/2009 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
That's why I picked a Civic over the Fit. Smoother/quieter ride, taller gearing on highway, and pretty much equal or sometimes better fuel economy. Honda should've put the much better R18 engine in the fit instead of the crappy cheap 1.5 liter motor.
PLUS with minor haggling about the same price as a fit sport as most dealers don't discount Fit's much at all compared to civic fire sales.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mmntech on 7/13/2009 1:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose it's due to the gearing and the size of the engine; even though the car is lighter it has to run at a higher RPM, thus negating any fuel savings. I calculated my fuel economy once on my 05 Civic and I can get about 33mpg with typical driving assuming I don't speed or push the engine to hard. That's pretty much exactly what the EPA says it gets.

I have noticed that Canadian automakers are still grossly exaggerating fuel economy on cars even though the US EPA has changed their methodology. My company just bought four new Carollas for our fleet. Toyota is claiming the Carolla gets 50mpg on the highway! Downhill maybe with a good tail wind.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelra...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

As for the hybrids, they're certainly still a colossal waste of money. Let's compare the above mentioned 2010 Carolla to the Prius. According to the EPA, you save about $500 per year with average driving if you go with the Prius, but it costs roughly $7000 more after incentives. So it would take roughly 14 years to recoup additional costs in fuel savings. Most people don't keep cars that long these days so it makes sense to just buy a cheap, all gas compact. Environmentalists be damned. You're not saving the planet by driving one either. It emits 70% less than the Carolla but 3.7 tonnes versus 6.3 tonnes per year is still a drop in the bucket.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Keeir on 7/13/2009 2:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have noticed that Canadian automakers are still grossly exaggerating fuel economy on cars even though the US EPA has changed their methodology.


::Blink:: You mean that the Canadian government has not changed it testing methodology right? Unless in Canada there is no standard set?

quote:
Toyota is claiming the Carolla gets 50mpg on the highway!


Again, see above. Furthermore to be clear, thats 50 mpg-imp. Converted to US is 42 mpg-us. The same car gets 5.7L and 8.6L per 100 KM on Euro cycling. So it appears Candian requirements are even less energy intensive than European cycles...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By martinw on 7/14/2009 12:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you comparing a Prius with a Carolla (aka Corolla)? The Prius is bigger, it is not a direct comparison. Why not do the comparison between the Camry and Camry hybrid, for example?


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Starcub on 7/14/2009 4:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Environmentalists be damned. You're not saving the planet by driving one either. It emits 70% less than the Carolla but 3.7 tonnes versus 6.3 tonnes per year is still a drop in the bucket.


You're not making any sense. People with far better arguements against hybrids than yours have been debunked. You're actually using evidence to support a premise that contradicts the premise.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Spuke on 7/13/2009 1:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
A Fit Sport without nav is about $18.5k sticker. I can get a certified used, low miles 07 Camry hybrid for $20k that gets 33/34.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By The0ne on 7/13/2009 2:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Dealers are marking up the prices for Fit, at least around San Diego county when I was in the market for one, and it really doesn't make any sense to buy one when their prices reaches civic, camary and similar vehicles prices. You get "more" from the other models.

When I was in the market for one it was actually cheaper to buy a brand new Civic than the Fit. Why would I even consider the Fit when I can grab a much better (material and build quality IMO) Civic. I won't.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/13/2009 2:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
You can do better than that in the Camry. I get 38+mpg in my Camry, mostly highway and some city driving with a 400' altitude change between work and home.

The Honda philosophy of performance hybrid didn't work with the Accord, which they eventually pulled, so I am not sure why it would work with this one.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By adiposity on 7/13/2009 6:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
The price of a used car should probably not be directly compared to that of a new car. Even a "certified" vehicle has substantially less warranty left. Granted, your certified vehicle may be better than a new model of another car, but everyone knows brand new cars just have that extra sticker price...

Unless your point is "you shouldn't buy brand-new vehicles," the comparison doesn't really make sense.

-Dan


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Spuke on 7/13/2009 6:52:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unless your point is "you shouldn't buy brand-new vehicles," the comparison doesn't really make sense.
That was kinda my point. Unless you're buying an irreplaceable classic or some exotic, buying new is ridiculous. Yes, I know, ALL used cars are garbage, you don't know who was driving it, etc. I find it hilarious that people wouldn't buy their own car if it was on a used car lot. I have bought new cars but I have seen the light and I'm tired of losing thousands of my hard earned dollars in depreciation. I bought a used 2006 Ford F250 diesel with 39k miles on it for $23k (stickered $50k new). Runs like a champ and looks like new. A carfax and a mechanic check are all you need. You could probably have the VIN looked up to see what work was done on it.

Even if I wasn't making this point, if you are interested in VALUE when buying a car, then comparing new to used makes perfect sense. If you just want a new car, then you're not interested in value anyways.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 7/13/2009 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
awesome, I average 20mpg in my v8 4runner. 27 is terrible for such a little death box.

I loved the Top Gear where they had a BMW M3 get better mileage than a prius.

http://www.topgear.com/us/blog/more/bmw-m319.4-mpg...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mdogs444 on 7/13/2009 1:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I average about 18mpg combined with my 320hp V8 Tahoe, and about 21-22 on the highway.

I'll gladly give up the 6-10mpg difference between my full size SUV and a compact car for the safety, luxury, and convenience.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Shark Tek on 7/13/2009 2:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I love the new M3 but the real thing is that it has to bow on front of the Prius on city (stop & go) conditions. When it gets more than twice the MPG than the best of the M3.

That test is completely unfair is like a tow competition between a Honda Civic and a F250 Turbo Diesel.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/13/2009 2:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
But they drove the Prius hard on a race track, not on the EPA mileage loop. Their point was that you can get sh*t mileage in any car depending on how you drive it. They went on to say that if you wanted good mileage, you could get the M3. But that would mean you would have to drive normally on the road, which is where the Prius excels. The whole thing was meant to be a joke. Anyway, apples to apples. Please note the octane ratings in the UK are like 110, not the crappy 93 max we get here.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Murst on 7/13/2009 2:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
European octane ratings are either the max or average, while in the US they are the minimum ( says so on the stickers if you pay enough attention ). You shouldn't compare the two like they're identical.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Suntan on 7/13/2009 4:21:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Please note the octane ratings in the UK are like 110, not the crappy 93 max we get here.


In Europe they use RON whereas in America they use the average of RON & MON. It’s like complaining that in Europe they had a cool day in the upper 30s while in America we had a scorching day that got over 100.

95 Octane rated in RON is about equal to 91 Octane when using the RON+MON average.

Lastly, while the two measuring scales provide roughly the same results, minus the offset, it is widely known that the RON+MON average gives a more accurate result.

Educate yourself before trying to put something down.

-Suntan


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/14/2009 7:15:32 AM , Rating: 1
Regardless of method, the LOWEST octane rating you can get in Europe is equivalent to 91 in the states - using the US method. So how is that off the mark?


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Pudro on 7/14/2009 1:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
That was explained to you in the first reply.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By DigitalFreak on 7/13/2009 1:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
29mpg highway on my 2009 Ford Fusion SEL V6, doing +5 over the speed limit.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Dark Legion on 7/13/2009 3:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
He seems to be speaking from experience, while you are quoting numbers, and there seems to be a general consensus around here that those numbers are not very accurate (EPA ratings in general). Having driven both the manual and automatic versions of the Fit, I would have to back him up on those numbers. The 1.5L under the hood is not exactly 'weezy' on that small car, either.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By 67STANG on 7/13/2009 4:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the city/hwy mileage is so close on these cars with "weezy" engines is that due to lack of power gearing is enhanced.

The standard Fit for example has 4.62:1 gears in it. These are deeper gears than used in most muscle cars! 4th and 5th gears are BOTH overdrives in a Fit. The strategy is to close ratio these little 100hp engines in an attempt to make them "feel" zippy.

My wife's old Scion Xb was the same way. Zero power, but got up in the city good enough to be driveable. On the highway? 4000rpm @ 80mph.

Make sense?


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Gil554 on 7/14/2009 3:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
I've tracked every tank on our 07 Fit. After 33k miles it has averaged just under 38 mpg. We'd average a bit higher but autox tanks bring things down. The upright seating allows for 6+ footers to sit in back and its dynamics are entertaining if a bit anemic.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By erple2 on 7/20/2009 9:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've found that all but the accelerating dynamics in the Fit are, in fact, superb. It corners exceptionally well for a car in the 15k category, brakes very nicely, and has very good dynamic control. The straight line dynamics are, well, it does only have about 100 hp...

However, it's also a surprisingly well appointed car for 15k. The seats are made of high-grade material, the dash isn't chintzy plastic (at least, not like on many other 15k cars), and everything is relatively easy to read and use.

So, I'd say that it's dynamics are amazing for a car in the 15k price range (for the '07). It's acceleration and engine are also surprising for a car in that price range - no buzzing, no vibrations, etc...


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By cleco on 7/13/2009 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
I own a 2008 Fit Sport Manual.... And Unless I drive like a Grandma, never go over 3k RPM, and never have to slow down on interstate; I will never hit over 36. That was a good tank. Typically I drive aggressive because how many horrible drivers there are in US.

Typically I get 30-33 MPG. Its slow as balls. Real close gears to make up the lack of acceleration. Looks like a Mini mini van. Hardly any outside noise damp (myguess to save weight). And poor quality, started to rattle after 2 months.

I had 0 mechnical issues though. OEM tires are lasting a good bit and grip fairly well.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By cleco on 7/13/2009 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter, I'm trading in that poo car in for a new Subaru.

Love, its what makes a subaru a subaru! .... so cheesy


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By MrBlastman on 7/13/2009 12:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
My wife and I love our Subaru's. :)

They make great, underappreciated cars. Check out the new WRX hatch and the Forrester XT's. If we had to do it again, we'd of bought the XT for its turbo vs. the regular Forrester - though, we still love the car.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By cleco on 7/13/2009 1:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
They are especially underappreciated in the south. But I can understand. Don't get too much snow and don't have too many hills/mountains.

I have a 2002 WRX sedan. Hopefully by end of this week i'll be in a 2009 WRX sedan and out of this mini mini van


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By theapparition on 7/13/2009 9:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Look, we already know the Honda Fit is a great car.

You consider the Fit a "great" car?

I'd weep if I wasn't laughing so hard. Further proof that I won't take car advice from the typical DT crowd.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By Rhl on 7/16/2009 6:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You consider the Fit a "great" car? I'd weep if I wasn't laughing so hard. Further proof that I won't take car advice from the typical DT crowd.


First off, the Fit IS a great car for the crowd it targets. I'm sure it doesn't appeal to you, but it does have its market.

And it might be a good thing you're not taking advice from the 'typical' DT crowd... it might give you some decent taste in cars. For the record I drive an '06 BMW M3.


RE: Honda Fit Hybrid A+
By lagomorpha on 7/14/2009 12:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
"Now just make a new Integra/RSX with an MDX-based engine (maybe turbocharged) and you'll be cool again, Honda. "

The 3.7L V6 seems a bit bulky and noseheavy for a new sport compact. Now the 2.4L turbo from the RDX on the other hand...


Pretty funny
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/13/2009 12:04:13 PM , Rating: 4
I think that it's pretty funny that back in the 80s, the CRX was getting 45 MPG city, 50 MPG highway. Fast forward 20+ years and we need hybrids and diesels to get the same fuel economy.

I guess we can blame it all on safety (added weight), feature creep (added weight), and larda$$es ;-)




RE: Pretty funny
By mdogs444 on 7/13/2009 12:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess we can blame it all on safety (added weight), feature creep (added weight), and larda$$es ;-)

Emissions regulations...more additives that water down fuel


RE: Pretty funny
By VoodooChicken on 7/13/2009 12:47:06 PM , Rating: 3
Blame it on emissions from lardasses? That's just getting nasty and personal.


RE: Pretty funny
By goku on 7/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Pretty funny
By mdogs444 on 7/13/2009 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think it's necessary to be at 3K rpm at 60mph?

Ive owned many cars ranging from: 98 Civic, 02 Audi A4, 03 4Runner, 04 Madza 6, 07 Honda Accord 2dr v6, 08 Lexus GX, 08 Chevy Tahoe...and a few more.

Not once have any of my cars been steady at 3,000RPM's while going 60MPH on the freeway.


RE: Pretty funny
By FITCamaro on 7/13/2009 1:48:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah my Cobalt turned 3K rpms at 80. 3K rpms at 60 is absurd.

In the GTO if I was at 3K rpms in 6th I'd be going....well I'd be going to jail when they pulled me over. It's around 120. :)


RE: Pretty funny
By robertisaar on 7/13/2009 2:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
that 6th gear is nice for the fuel economy too, you're pretty much idling at 55mph...


RE: Pretty funny
By corduroygt on 7/13/2009 3:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh...how I miss my GTO except the featureless dash and the manual transmission. LSx motors are the best high performance motors in the world when it comes to hp and tq per mpg.


RE: Pretty funny
By tdawg on 7/13/2009 3:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
My Subaru Outback is around 3K at 60mph. I really wish I had a 6th gear, though I'd probably get myself in some trouble if I had a 6th gear. :)


RE: Pretty funny
By Keeir on 7/13/2009 3:24:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Um, yeah but no. The real reason for worse fuel economy is because of the shorter transmissions and the higher displacement, more powerful engines. Do you really think it's necessary to be at 3K rpm at 60mph?


So many.... wrongs.

Okay first.... Find me the car that really gets 3k rpm at 60mph and I will discover the engine thats really efficient at 3k rpm!

Here is a partial list of real reasons today's fuel economy is not as good as the 1992 cars.

#1. Emission controls. Its well known in the combustion and engine worlds that tuning an engine to reduce pollution will reduce its maximum output as well as it maximum efficieny.

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf

The best pollution scores in 1992 would not be allowed to be sold today. In fact, the very best cars from 1992 would need to reduce thier pollution per mile by 50% to 95% (different chemicals) to be even allowed for sale, let alone classify for special status.

This takes a toll.

#2. Safety requirements add wieght AND cross sectional area

The definations of "compact" etc. have not changed significantly. A 1992 Civic has nearly the same interior passenger index score as a 2009 Civic, yet the 2009 Civic has around 10-15% more cross sectional area to push. The 2009 Civic is no doubt a much -safer- car than a 1992 Civic, but if your LOAD is now 15%+ greater, than engine efficieny needs to increase(unrealistically) to maintain the same mileage numbers.

Further to this safety point, Cars need to pass -crash- safety requirements. This often limits the Carry Wieghts of cars... because the internal structure etc of the car needs to be able to safely stop the items, etc.

This increased safety takes a huge toll on fuel efficieny as well.

#3. "Feature Creep"

Daytime running lights? Reduce fuel economy by around 0.5 mpg. Fancy airconditioning? Can be as much as 2 mpg. Six Disc CD changers with 10 speakers? I am sure your getting the picture. Many of those old "super" MPG cars were essentially stripped. No air conditioning, No heated seats, No Navigation, No daytime lights (or Halogen with Fog Lights).... heck many times no even power locks, windows, keyless entry, etc. How about electronic stability control systems? IE things considered almost "standard" today. The electronics and stuff in todays cars add safety, convience, and enjoyment. But they need to be powered, and these take thier toll as well


RE: Pretty funny
By lagomorpha on 7/14/2009 1:04:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Okay first.... Find me the car that really gets 3k rpm at 60mph and I will discover the engine thats really efficient at 3k rpm!"

I have a vehicle that is around 5k rpm at 60mph in 6th gear... granted it gets around 60mpg.


RE: Pretty funny
By Aeonic on 7/13/2009 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 3
I drive a 97 Hyundai Tiburon (with 151k miles) that's at 3k @ 60 in 5th. It has a 1.8 liter engine, and they're trying to make it sporty, so that's what you get. I wish it had a 6th gear for highway, but oh well. It is peppy though.

I get 29-30ish mpg in a highway commute with some consistent slow traffic areas.

As for the Fit, I think you just give up too much and gain too little, at least based on the EPA estimates.

My next car will have a V8, in protest of all this misplaced, fad green movement crap. Maybe the last V8 I'll be able to buy if current trends continue :/


RE: Pretty funny
By MrBlastman on 7/13/2009 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
Fat People, we should blame it on the fat people.

Or, as this ad from the past proclaims - Chubbies!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Sa-NAXwzFm8/Skp8rEXLH3I/...

The CRX was a sweet car - it still makes for an incredible Autocross car. I love watching them tear up the course and get better times than Z06's and Porsches. It gives me a big smile. :) (of course, in a line they'd get wasted pretty quick).


RE: Pretty funny
By callmeroy on 7/13/2009 1:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's a LOT of people to blame then....considering statistically speaking 1 in ever 4 Americans are classified as overweight, 1 in every 6 classified as "obese".


RE: Pretty funny
By DigitalFreak on 7/13/2009 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 4
1 in 8 are classified as a house.


RE: Pretty funny
By ShapeGSX on 7/13/2009 12:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, safety and feature creep. And the biggest of all is emissions requirements.


RE: Pretty funny
By clovell on 7/13/2009 12:27:51 PM , Rating: 1
You are aware that the EPA revised how it calculates fuel efficiency in recent years, right? So, to a degree, you're comparing apples to oranges.


RE: Pretty funny
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/13/2009 12:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Even if you take into account the mpg change, it's still rated at 40/47 which is better than any other gasoline-only/non-hybrid vehicle on the market in the U.S.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?...


RE: Pretty funny
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 1:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Do you mean the Civic VX or something? Because the CRX never got anywhere near 45/50 mpg. At least, not the Si version.


RE: Pretty funny
RE: Pretty funny
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 4
That's the HF. 27-33mpg for the regular CRX.


RE: Pretty funny
By Spuke on 7/14/2009 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
Brandon, have you ever owned or driven a 91 Civic HF? My brother owned one. I had the Si. Fun car, decent mileage but the HF was NOT quick and the really skinny tires took what little fun you could have out of the equation. It was stripped, no A/C, manual windows and door locks, manual steering (yes there were cars with NO power steering), it didn't even have a passenger side rear view mirror. It was solely for high gas mileage and that's it. There were no amenities whatsoever. There was a ton of wind noise although, back then, that was to be expected from a car in that price range. The car droned on the freeway...LOL!

If that's what you want in a car, have at it, you can pick them up for well under $1000 IF you can find one that doesn't have a B16 or other engine installed in it. I, for one, am glad those days are long gone.


RE: Pretty funny
By EricMartello on 7/13/2009 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that is true, you could get mileage in the high 40s ore better with some 80s econo cars. The main reasons why include:

- Low power engines. The CRX put out like 80 HP.

- TALL tranny gearing keeps the engine spinning slower (killing acceleration). You can be in 3rd gear doing 60MPH with the engine spinning around 1700-2000 RPM. For a 4-cyl engine the powerband typically STARTS around 2500 RPM so these cars very very sluggish, even with manual trannys.

- Light weight. They did not have the bloat that modern cars have. Safety-wise, I'd say they're a notch above motorcycles but not by far.


Shame
By corduroygt on 7/13/2009 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame the awesome styling of the CRZ (assuming it's close to concept) is wasted on a hybrid powerplant. A type-R version with the K20 would sell like hotcakes.




RE: Shame
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/13/2009 2:25:38 PM , Rating: 1
They won't sell many hybrids based on their so-called "performance hybrid" philosophy. That is what killed the Accord. Not much better mileage, not much better performance because of the horrendous weight penalty of the hybrid drive, and much greater cost. A real lose-lose-lose. This might weigh in at 3500+ lbs.

If they only make this in a hybrid, they might sell a few. My guess is a gas-only version will be offered.


RE: Shame
By corduroygt on 7/13/2009 3:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
I meant just get rid of the hybrid motor, batteries, and put the K20 in there by itself, with nothing else to weigh it down.


RE: Shame
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 4:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
3500+ lbs are you daft?
Prius: 2900
Insight: 2700
Those are both 4door/seaters. CR-X is 2 seater, could easily come in under 2600 lbs.

As for Accord, it was never sold as a "performance" car, by any stretch. There's no reason at all a hybrid could be a very fine performance car, look at that concept Acura NS-X from a few years ago, 300HP, 0-60 in like 4 seconds, and over 40 mpg.


RE: Shame
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 4:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
The original Insight (2 seater) = 1900 lbs using older battery technology.


RE: Shame
By oopyseohs on 7/13/2009 9:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I read somewhere that the new CR-Z will have 4 seats (albeit tiny and hardly useful). I have been watching this car for 2+ years now... hopefully it will be utilitarian enough for me to get. I need a car now though, so at least I won't be an early adopter.


CR-Z
By Goty on 7/13/2009 12:01:46 PM , Rating: 1
If Honda keeps the side profile of the CR-Z concept and changes the front to something more mundane, they'll have a definite winner on their hands.




RE: CR-Z
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/13/2009 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
I say keep the front end... although it looks expensive to produce.

I'm usually not a fan of Honda styling (that's actually an oxymoron) but this one is a winner in my book.


RE: CR-Z
By walk2k on 7/13/2009 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
The concept is a bit aggressive (like most concepts) but overall it's good. Tone it down for the street and it should be a good looking car.

It won't have blue headlights though :)

If I was still commuting 70+mi/day I'd consider it, however at this point if I was going to go back to a 2-seater Honda (drove a CRX Si for 4-5 years) it would be the S2000 =)


RE: CR-Z
By AwesomeSauce on 7/13/2009 2:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I like the way it looks from the front more than i do the side. it has a modern/futuristic look to it that is refreshing compared to everything else. We aren't ever going to get space age cars if we don't start making them.


CR-Z - Hope it comes to the USA
By L1011 on 7/14/2009 4:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
All those comments about the Fit and very few about the CR-Z. I am really hoping Honda brings the CR-Z to America. I loved my 87 CRX HF and my 90 CRX Si and have been upset at Honda ever since they stopped selling the CRX (although my '06 Si has redeemed Honda). The CR-Z is a worthy successor to the CRX and I love the styling of the car. I want one, but I'm weary of what Honda will do for the Hybrid version, so I'm hoping for the best.

I agree with another poster: Drop the Civic's Si engine in the CR-Z and I'll buy two of them! (OK, maybe not two, but definitely one). And how about a convertible version too? The CR-Z would look fantastic as a droptop. VW already disappointed me by killing their BlueSport convertible so please don't hurt me again Honda...PUHLEEZZE bring the CR-Z to the US!




RE: CR-Z - Hope it comes to the USA
By Orlando on 7/14/2009 11:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
I had a '90 CRX Si for 12 years, and it still got 36 mpg when I sold it in '02. I'm looking to buy the CR-Z as it could be a lot of fun.


kaint cee
By howthehunh on 7/13/2009 12:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
wow with that wedgie weight saving zoom fast look, seems as though one might be challenged in backing that thaing up... maybe hybrid drivers are forward thinkers, hope nothings coming up from behind that matters, i don't think it can be seen from the drivers seat.




By nanogeektech on 7/16/2009 8:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
I am a Honda Salesman............and the Fit is a great car for the price. I have customers that tell me they are averaging around 43MPG in their Honda Fit. For the price the Honda Fit is one of the best small cars on the road. Same goes for the Insight the Gov MPG is 41 combine but with the ECO Button engage you can get up to 50+MPG.......

Honda is the most fuel efficient car marker today. Honda has capture 30% marketshare from Toyota for the first time in it's history in a bad economy....

The Fit is a great car.........




Should it be "Fit?"
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Should it be "Fit?"
By andrinoaa on 7/13/2009 6:18:54 PM , Rating: 1
I can't beleive all the ill informed BS that passes from some people'e backsides. My wife has a Honda Jazz ( fit in US ). Its got a cvt transmission and 1.3ltr motor. Its zippy and the economy is around 6.5lt/100km. My wife calls it the toy. If you don't like it, thats fine, just don't invent BS to cover your predjudices. I think a hybrid will be substantially more economical. I just think some of you guys are trying to hold the tide back. I laugh at your increasingly shreekyer postings. ie my dick is bigger than yours, lol


WOW !
By Beenthere on 7/13/09, Rating: -1
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki