backtop


Print 30 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Jun 20 at 11:10 AM

Honda's hybrid follies continue

It looks as though another Honda hybrid vehicle is being put to rest. The company’s luxury Acura division announced today that the ILX Hybrid, which was introduced for the ’13 model year is being discontinued.
 
New of the discontinuation first came with a press release for the ’15 model year changes for the ILX. Only the base 2.0-liter model -- which is rated for up to 24/35/38 (city/highway combined) -- and the 2.4-liter model were detailed in the company’s press release.
 
Autoblog inquired about the lack of ILX Hybrid details and was greeted with the following statement from Acura:
 
The 2015 ILX remains a standout choice in the entry premium segment with its combination of performance, luxury, refinement and value and is the top-selling luxury vehicle to younger buyers. Based on the stronger appeal of the ILX 2.0 and 2.4 models, we are streamlining the ILX lineup to better align with customer demand, Acura will no longer offer the ILX Hybrid starting with the 2015 model year.
 
In other words, customers didn’t see the additional benefit in ponying up extra money for superior fuel economy. The ILX Hybrid is rated at 39/38/38 (city/highway/combined).


Acura ILX Hybrid
 
Perhaps the biggest problem came down to pricing. When optioned with the Technology Package (as most Acura buyers do), the ILX 2.0 rings in at $31,600 while the ILX Hybrid is $3,000 more expensive at $34,600.
 
When all was said and done, Acura only managed to sell 972 ILX Hybrids for all of 2012 and 1,461 for all of 2013. For comparison, Lexus sold 17,673 CT 200h hybrids in 2012 and 15,071 in 2013.
 
The ILX Hybrid’s failure in the marketplace is the latest in Honda’s hybrid misfortunes. The company’s original Accord Hybrid bombed due to minimal fuel economy gains over its more traditional siblings, and the second generation Insight is being discontinued later this year after failing to put up a credible fight against the Toyota Prius. Even the first generation Civic Hybrid was seen as a failure by Honda.
 
More recently, Consumer Reports called out the current generation Accord Hybrid for failing to meet its EPA-rated fuel economy numbers.

Sources: Autoblog, Acura, Lexus Enthusiast



Comments     Threshold


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

Are you surprized?
By Dr of crap on 6/17/2014 12:25:47 PM , Rating: 1
Come on, no one wants them, that's why they aren't selling.

We all know that the car companies NEED them for California and the CAFE numbers.

IF they sell, wasn't Fiat that said they don't care if there's sells, its only the sandal wearing, want to be green but don't know how, that will buy in big numbers.

Right now big sales for these is not going to happen. AND I think Honda knows that. Its just you reporters that make it look bad for the company!




RE: Are you surprized?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 12:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
The price diff is not really that bad if all the numbers are accurate. If you care most about city driving, at $3.66 a gallon, once you drive 12,295 miles in the city the hybrid will have paid for itself. Anything after that is a savings.

Seems reasonable to me, I would buy it. Personally, I prefer the up front cost to the unknown cost of gas later.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Flunk on 6/17/2014 1:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
You'll find that most people don't do the math on this stuff. They just see the up-front price.


RE: Are you surprized?
By mgilbert on 6/17/2014 1:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
At $3.66 per gallon, and 39 MPG, the hybrid will burn 9.38 cents worth of gas a mile. At 24 MPG, the non-hybrid will burn 15.25 cents worth per mile. So the hybrid will save 5.87 cents per mile. At that rate, it will take 51,107 miles to save the $3,000 difference in cost - not counting the extra taxes on the $3,000, nor the interest if the car is financed. If you kept the car long enough, it would save you money, but it would take a while unless you drive a lot.


RE: Are you surprized?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 1:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here is how I calculated 12,295.

$3000 / 3.66 $/gal = 819 gallons of fuel.

Mileage diff is 39-24 = 15 mi/gal.

819 gal * 15 mi/gal = 12,295 mi.

So how I see it, that 3000 dollars funds your conventional car's extra gas for the first 12,295 miles. After that you are even, and the improved mileage on the hybrid means you are paying less from that point forward.

Correct my math if it is wrong. It seems like your calculation is not counting the gas you already have to pay to drive either car, while mine is only counting the extra fuel needed to drive the non-hybrid.


RE: Are you surprized?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 1:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
I am not seeing the problem with your math, but I don't see the problem with mine either... Genuinely confused at the drastically different numbers.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Mint on 6/19/2014 3:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that you subtracted two MPG figures. You need to subtract GPM (gallons per mile) to get fuel savings.


RE: Are you surprized?
By mgilbert on 6/17/2014 1:48:26 PM , Rating: 3
You've calculated that the hybrid will go 12,295 miles further than the non-hybrid on the first $3,000 worth of fuel. That does not represent a savings of $3,000, though.


RE: Are you surprized?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 2:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh, so I have. Thanks for pointing that out.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Mint on 6/19/2014 3:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is why so many people are supportive of CAFE.

When people buy a new car, 50-100k miles is a long time for fuel cost payback, and few people consider that a hybrid will have higher resale value.

But the car is on the road for 200k+ miles. That disconnect is hurting the ~80% of people who drive used cars.


RE: Are you surprized?
By wallijonn on 6/19/2014 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
When people buy a new car, 50-100k miles is a long time for fuel cost payback, and few people consider that a hybrid will have higher resale value. But the car is on the road for 200k+ miles.


How many times do you think the battery will be replaced in that 200K mile span and at what cost? If the car & battery is only warranted for 50K miles, the next buyer may end up spending $3000 (or whatever they now go for) for a new battery. The seller will get rid of the car before 50,000 miles, obviously; the new buyer will have to buy an extended warranty. I doubt there are any warranties which will cover any car out to 200,000 miles.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Mint on 6/20/2014 11:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
Batteries on regular hybrids (the topic of discussion) have proven to nearly always last the lifetime of the car.
http://autos.aol.com/article/toyota-prius-reliabil...
http://www.dailytech.com/Ford+Hybrid+Battery+Packs...


RE: Are you surprized?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/17/2014 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you drive like the average person (let's say 50/50 city/highway), it's gonna take you a hell of a lot longer than 12,000 miles. The fuel cost difference between the two annually is only $400.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&...


RE: Are you surprized?
By BurnItDwn on 6/17/2014 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
3.66 a gallon?

It's been back over $4 here for a while ... :(


RE: Are you surprized?
By Ophion on 6/17/2014 8:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's still very cheap. Where I live it's roughly $8.3/gallon.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: Are you surprized?
By Dorkyman on 6/17/2014 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
Coming late to the party, I guess, but I drove my first Prius a few weeks ago. Was fun for the novelty factor and the whizzy display, but the car always felt light as a feather and as thin-skinned as a beer can. This particular Prius had a bit of a "lurch" when coming to a full stop.

My biggest critique of the folks who love these cars is that they think going from 20 to 40 mpg halves their car costs. In fact, typical Prius costs about $0.50 PER MILE to own, overall. Non-hybrids might be $0.60, so yeah, you save some money, but not a great deal, relatively speaking.


RE: Are you surprized?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 6:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but the car always felt light as a feather


Well that's what happens when you put the absolute shi*tiest tires possible on a vehicle lol.


MPG is a joke!
By CalaverasGrande on 6/17/2014 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
the problem with these hybrids is that they really dont get vary good mileage. There are non-hybrid European market cars that easily beat these numbers, and do not sacrifice much in terms of acceleration or torque.
Hybrids are certainly a good idea, but building a hybrid for the American taste in cars is exceedingly difficult. They really ought to just go for the jugular in terms of gas mileage and conform everything else to that. When I see 60+MPG or better I will be interested.




RE: MPG is a joke!
By Solandri on 6/17/2014 2:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
European car mileage is based on a different test which yields numbers which are actually higher than the CAFE mileage (which in turn is higher than the EPA mileage). Plus the UK uses the imperial gallon vs the smaller US gallon. The 50+ MPG you see for UK cars translates to about 30-40 MPG when you use US gallons and the EPA mileage test. There is nothing magical about it being European.


RE: MPG is a joke!
By Spuke on 6/17/2014 7:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
There's always some idiot that tries to compare EU mpg with US EPA mpg. Not to mention car manufacturers are "allowed" to cheat on the EU tests.

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/14/carmakers-tak...


RE: MPG is a joke!
By mgilbert on 6/17/2014 2:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Don't confuse a European MPG with a U. S. MPG. They are not the same. They calculate based on Imperial gallons.


Maths?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 12:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
24/35/38 (city/highway combined)

This doesn't make sense.




RE: Maths?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/17/2014 12:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
It was a typo. Should have been 28 combined.


RE: Maths?
By SeeManRun on 6/17/2014 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is some responsiveness I can really get behind!


Not worth it.
By splatter85 on 6/18/2014 3:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Not worth it.
By Nexos on 6/18/2014 7:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
A riced out s2000 with YOLO camber? Not likely.

Or at least only until the car blows a tire and spins out on the Hway due to uneven tire wear.


2015?
By Gunbuster on 6/17/2014 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 3
/Checks the date. Does double take on photo.

That is a 2015 model? That thing looks DATED




RE: 2015?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/14, Rating: 0
No surprise here
By DukeN on 6/18/2014 3:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's one of those chicken-egg quandries.

Vehicle isn't showcased in dealerships or in marketing because it's not earning those dollars , so customers don't know or ask about it (because it's new). Customers don't ask about = customers don't buy it = crappy sales




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














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