Print 65 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Jan 29 at 1:31 PM

2010 Honda Insight

Honda CR-Z

2010 Toyota Prius
Honda still can't find the magic recipe to beat the Prius

When it comes to hybrid vehicles, it appears that Honda just can't catch a break. Its first generation Insight hybrid was the first such vehicle to hit American soil a decade ago, however, the vehicle was a sales failure. Honda went on to develop a Civic Hybrid which hasn't exactly been a Prius competitor in terms of sales and the company's Accord Hybrid, like the Insight before it, failed in the marketplace.

Honda looked to go after Toyota's Prius again with a larger, second generation Insight. However, Honda again ran into a brick wall. Honda managed to undercut the Prius by a few thousand dollars, but also did so with a much smaller vehicle that was not as fast, not as tech-laden, and not nearly as fuel efficient as the third-generation Prius. When it comes to actual vehicle sales, the numbers don't lie. Honda sold roughly 20,500 Insights during 2009 in the U.S. -- Toyota, on the other hand, sold nearly 140,000 Prius hybrids.

"Are we happy with how sales are going? No, we're not happy," said American Honda executive VP John Mendel.

Faced with the prospect of another dud in the hybrid marketplace, Honda chief Takanobu Ito is calling on his engineers to develop a vehicle that will "Out Prius" the Prius according to Automotive News. Ito wants a hybrid that will be able to exceed the stellar fuel economy ratings of Toyota's crown jewel. Toyota's Prius is rated at 50 mpg (city/highway combined) while the smaller Insight is rated at just 41 mpg (city/highway combined).

"We want to develop and expand our hybrids," said Ito earlier this month in Detroit. "We made some major sacrifices to shift people and resources to do that."

While Honda looks like it will have its hands full developing a vehicle to topple the Prius, it has also just launched a new "sporty" hybrid aimed at enthusiasts. The CR-Z can be had with a manual transmission, but fuel economy junkies should be warned -- choosing to the manual will result in a serious hit to city fuel economy. A CR-Z equipped with a continuously variable transmission (CVT) will be rated at 36/38 mpg (city/highway). Opting for the six-speed manual transmission, however, will cut those numbers to 31/37 mpg.

For comparison, a Mini Cooper (six-speed manual) gets 28/37 mpg without the need for hybrid components.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: How about...
By Iaiken on 1/25/2010 10:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
I can't imagine why the S2000 didn't sell...

- It costs MUCH more than a typical sports car
- It's marginally more nimble than a typical sports car
- It's slower to 60 than a typical sports car

The biggest problem with these little beauts was that they had NO torque at any RPM range and only marginally better handling than say, a Mustang.

For it was just a crappy car once the $40k price was factored in.

RE: How about...
By Durrr on 1/25/2010 11:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
guess you never drove one, when you're comparing it to a mustang.

RE: How about...
By Iaiken on 1/25/2010 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
I've driven one and I prefer my 06 Mini JCW hands down any day of the week. Out of the box, it was quicker in the turns, faster off the line and faster down the straights.

Don't get me wrong, I was in the market for an S2000 when I was looking for my fun car, but it is a RWD cab with a gutless power/torque curves that make me laugh. I was deliberately trying to break the back end loose and the car just wasn't able to even after I disabled the TCS and DSC.

So I guess your right about the mistaken handling comparison, as it handles more like a Civic because no matter what you do the car understeers. Though I'd also counter that you haven't driven a Mustang in a while...

When you look at other sports offerings in the same price, the S2000 is a loser, no contest:

- Genesis Coupe GT
- New Camaro
- Mini Cooper JCW Cabrio
- 2005+ Mustang
- BMW Z4 3.0

The only car it actually (barely) beats for performance is the Miata and the Mazda came in at over $12,000 less. Even then, the little Mazda has enough torque that you can have a little fun in the turns.

You don't have to look very far to see that the 600 or so people who bought S2000's in 2009 got taken for a ride.

RE: How about...
By steven975 on 1/25/2010 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
you should be comparing the early models. Honda nannied the S2K in 2006+ and completely changed the way they handle. The early models have extremely neutral handling, and oversteer is very easy to induce.

RE: How about...
By Keeir on 1/25/2010 2:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
No one could really fault you for disliking a 1999 in 2007-2009.

Honda choose not to put the RD money to keep the S2000 compeditive.

However, this doesn't change the facts that between 2000-2004, the S2000 really -was- a good sports car.

RE: How about...
By FITCamaro on 1/25/2010 2:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its not bad for Autocross but beyond that its worthless. Not enough power to keep up in the straights. Hell a buddy of mine who autocrosses his GTO beats them easily with nearly twice the weight. Course he's also beaten some well driven G37 Coupes.

RE: How about...
By Keeir on 1/25/2010 3:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
I assume your talking about the 2005 GTO with the LS2 engine?

No offense, Fit, but your proving my point.

Honda -had- a good sports car, that they just stopped caring about.

In 2000, a ~237 hp 2.0 Liter natural aspirated 4 was an amazing thing.

In 2005, not so much so.

Today, yawn.

RE: How about...
By omnicronx on 1/25/2010 2:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
However, this doesn't change the facts that between 2000-2004, the S2000 really -was- a good sports car.
Compared to what? It was a 50k+ sports car in the same market as other high end imports in which it did not really compete with.

And as I said with my other post, what the **** was up with the carpet center console? Carpet does not belong in the center console of a 50k vehicle PERIOD!

RE: How about...
By steven975 on 1/25/2010 2:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
They were $32K at intro. 2 years later the console wasn't carpet anymore and the back window wasn't plastic anymore.

carpet is softer than hard plastic, anyway.

RE: How about...
By omnicronx on 1/25/2010 2:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Man, I didnt realize the variance was so huge compared to Canadian pricing. I know we always pay more for cars, but the difference is 15k+.. The S2000 sold for over 50k in Canada in 04-05..

That being said, who cares if carpet is softer than hard plastic, a sponge is softer than carpet and I don't see too many sponge based center consoles.

Unless its a caddy from the 70's/80's or you are a pimp, carpet has no place in this portion of a car.

RE: How about...
By steven975 on 1/25/2010 2:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
the 2009 mini JCW, from, has the following straight-line stats...

0-60 6.2 secs
0-1320ft 14.5 secs

S2000 from Motor Trend
0-60: 5.4
0-1320ft 13.8 secs @101mph

Don't think TCS and DSC are ever totally disabled on the 2006+ models, so that doesn't shock me.

RE: How about...
By Iaiken on 1/25/2010 3:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Way to cherry pick your numbers. :P

The 6.2 second 0-60 on both and Motor Trend are both manufacturers estimates .

The 2009 JCW Clubman as tested by Motor Trend was ripping along in 5.7 and it's the exact same power plant in a 400lb heavier car.

The generally accepted stock 2009 JCW 0-60 run time from Alta and M7 Tuning is 5.1-5.2 seconds.

Next time try to understand what you read...

Even my old 06 factory JCW was hitting the 5.4 mark.

Finally, there are different JCW's... Factory JCW and the Cooper S JCW upgrade.
The JCW upgrade offers about 10hp less and 12ftlbs fewer than the Factory JCW. The factory car also includes the JCW aero kit, JCW suspenssion, JCW by Brembo brakes and the light weight JCW challenge wheels which have to be purchased separately on the Cooper S upgrade.

The presence or absence of the panoramic moon roof (400lbs of glass and metal and reinforcements) can also mess with the 0-60 times.

I'll buy that the TCS and DSC cannot be totally disabled, my Minis DSC has 3 modes (On, light & off) and you have to hold down the DSC toggle while you are starting the car to actually turn it all the way off.

RE: How about...
By Spuke on 1/29/2010 12:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
All stats from Car and Driver. Trying to make it as close to apples/apples comparison as possible.

2004 Honda S2000
0-60: 5.4 sec
1/4: 14.1@97mph

2004 Mini Cooper S JCW
0-60: 6.4 sec
1/4: 14.7@95mph

You really should compare similar model year cars but I'll throw in some other Coopers and S2000's for sh!ts and giggles.

2006 Mini Cooper S John Cooper Works GP
0-60: 5.9 sec
1/4: 14.5@98mph

2008 Honda S2000 CR
0-60: 5.7 sec
1/4: 14.4@99mph

2009 Mini Cooper S JCW Convertible
0-60: 6.3 sec
1/4: 14.9@96mph

The cars can be close depending on the models chosen. The Mini's problem seems to be off the line traction most likely because of FWD weight transfer. Regardless, the S2000 won't run away from a Cooper S.

RE: How about...
By Spivonious on 1/25/2010 4:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about straight-line speed? Cars are more fun in corners.

RE: How about...
By lelias2k on 1/25/2010 6:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I was deliberately trying to break the back end loose and the car just wasn't able to even after I disabled the TCS and DSC.

Seriously? I had a 2004 RX-8 which was completely anemic when it comes to torque and I went through my rear tires in less than 4k miles... I could run doughnuts all day with it without a problem.

That said, it handled superbly and I would never in a million years exchange it for a Mustang...

Maybe you test drove a lemon?

RE: How about...
By omnicronx on 1/25/2010 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
The S2000 was not in the same market as a mustang, it was comparable with vehicles such as the Audi TT and Porsche Boxter. It was inferior to pretty much every vehicle in its class, and while the pricetag was marginally cheaper, it definitely lagged behind other vehicles of the time.

Heck the first S2000 had a CARPET middle section on all models, it was the ugliest interior I have ever seen in any car let alone a sports car.

Now of course it was hands down one of the best cars to mod and upgrade, but I would not be caught dead driving a stock S2000 over an Audi TT Quattro or a Porsche Boxter S..

RE: How about...
By steven975 on 1/25/2010 2:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
it was more than marginally cheaper than any of those 2. It was at least $10K less than either of them, and at the time, performed virtually identical to the Boxster S.

The TT Quattro really wasn't a sports car with the front-biased "AWD" and the Boxster S, had, gasp, a plastic window.
For the time of its release, it was just as well equipped as the competion was.

When I had my 2001 S2000, a leather console was $100. It diched the carpet and plastic window in 2002 anyway.

RE: How about...
By SamOfSiam on 1/25/2010 1:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, if my memory serves me correctly, when the S2000 first came out, it beat a Porsche (I think Boxster)

RE: How about...
By Iaiken on 1/25/2010 1:58:12 PM , Rating: 2

I've driven a base Boxter... Ferdinand should be ashamed that it has his name on it... His cause of death was never reported, but we all know it was the Boxter that did him in.

RE: How about...
By steven975 on 1/25/2010 1:58:54 PM , Rating: 1
If you go by magazine numbers only, that's a pretty narrow view. A car's handling is more than grip and slalom numbers that are not even directly comparable unless it is the same course on the same day. When you say it has marginally better handling than a Mustang (bottom barrel of sports cars in that respect) you lost any real credibility.

This car basically dominates the A class in autocross. The only cars even close are those such as the WRX STI and EVO in that respect. Mustang...uh, yea.

5.4 to 60 and 13.8's in the quarter @100+ compares pretty well to contemporary sports cars (only a few ticks less than a V8 Mustang actually). Of course, straight-line is not what this car is for (whereas with a Mustang, it's the only redeeming attribute).

For a 2.0L to 2.2L, the engine's torque is unmatched without forced induction. Name one NA engine that size that has more? The transmission is most consistently mentioned as the best manual on any car...ever.

Even compared to a Solstice GXP or Sky Redline it compares favorably almost a decade later...while these have torque, they are not faster because they are a good bit heavier.

RE: How about...
By Iaiken on 1/25/2010 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me, you don't want to bring up AutoX Class A competition to a JCW driver.

My Mini club always has 2-3 members running faster than the fastest A Class drivers on the exact same course the same day. I've since moved over to the STX class after some minor modifications to the crank/SC pulleys etc...

I'm not a nostalgic guy and I drove only the 2006 S2000 so I cannot comment on the pre-2000 setup, but the car they were trying to sell was VERY disappointing.

If I had to have a roadster, I'd rather have a Z4 3.0i for the same price. Until then, I'm gonna motor around in my JCW until something a lot better comes along or I break it. :P

RE: How about...
By Spuke on 1/29/2010 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
If I had to have a roadster, I'd rather have a Z4 3.0i for the same price.
Are you talking a used one cause the Z4's been redesigned and the name's been changed slightly. Softer and heavier car from what I've read but never drove the new one.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Latest Headlines

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki