Got a new UFO*: 2000 Honda Insight 5-speed (ailing IMA hybrid battery pack)

[dennyt]

Congrats on your new ride! Toast or not, I'm jelly. I'm working on selling my lady on the idea of an Insight for carpooling...

[MetroMPG]

Thanks, dennyt.

Bob: I was able to get the a print out of the car's service history back to 2003 from the Honda shop, but the entries aren't detailed - just a few words. Some are obvious, eg. "oil & filter", but others are less so, eg. "engine mechanical".

Mr Smalls: will definitely report back on EGR condition when I get to that task.

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

. . .
Mr Smalls: will definitely report back on EGR condition when I get to that task.

I had one misgiving about the Prius EGR and that was and remains the EGR cooler. In the 1970s we had a Plymouth Fury, 400 ci, station wagon and it had a "heat riser" tube that I had a chance to examine. With over 100,000 miles, it was totally blocked by carbon. This remains a real fear I have with our 2010 Prius because the exhaust tap is before the catalytic converter.

My wife's 2010 Prius is at 18,250 miles and I'm planning another transaxle oil change and test. But around 50,000 miles, I plan to disassemble the EGR cooler and measure the carbon deposits on every pipe. I do not want to learn the ERG is blocked ... after the fact.

Bob Wilson

[MetroMPG]

What little driving I have done in the car has mostly been with the hybrid bits disabled - meaning max power of 67 hp from the 995cc 3-cyl (when it was new ), in a slightly (~50 lbs) heavier car than my 3-cyl Firefly.

Given the modest oomph available, I've been pleasantly surprised at how tall the Insight's gearing is!

I'm already used to taller than normal gearing, having swapped the original final drive (4.39) in the 993cc Firefly for the tallest one available from the 4-cylinder 1.3L Suzuki Swift version of the car. (see Project 'nerd gear': taller tranny transplant nets +5.2% MPG - MetroMPG.com )

Compare the Swift/Firefly transmission ...

3.523 (f.d.) & 0.757 (5th)

... to the Insight transmission ...

3.208 (f.d.) & 0.710 (5th)

So both the final and top gears are taller in the Insight than the Firefly. And it's entirely manageable. It's made me wish for even taller gearing in the Flea!

---

Other than picking up a set of gently used Nokian Hakkapeliitta winter tires that will fit the Honda (165/70 14's), no other news to report. Next week I may get around to scheduling an inspection.

[MetroMPG]

Found the NRCAN (natural resources Canada) official fuel economy figures for the 2000 Insight.

Interesting: both the Chev Metro / Pontiac Firefly and the Insight were on the list of "most efficient cars for 2000" by NRCAN. 2000 was the first model year for the Honda, and the last model year for the Metro/Firefly:



NRCAN Honda Insight ratings (5-speed manual):

- City: 3.9 L/100 km (60 mpg US / 72 mpg Imperial )
- Highway: 3.2 L/100 km (73 mpg US / 88 mpg Imperial )

Compare to US figures...

EPA (old) ratings (5-speed manual):

- City: 3.9 L/100 km (61 mpg US / 73 mpg Imperial )
- Highway: 3.4 L/100 km (70 mpg US / 84 mpg Imperial )
- Combined: 3.6 L/100 km (65 mpg US / 78 mpg Imperial )

EPA (new) ratings (5-speed manual):

- City: 4.8 L/100 km (49 mpg US / 59 mpg Imperial )
- Highway: 3.9 L/100 km (61 mpg US / 73 mpg Imperial )
- Combined: 4.4 L/100 km (53 mpg US / 64 mpg Imperial )

[SwamiSalami]

I'm curious to know the difference in fe performance with manual/automatic in the first generation insight.

Even on the EPA's website Fuel Economy of the 2000 Honda Insight, it doesn't mention an automatic transmission.

It does mention a 2006 automatic here: Gas Mileage of 2006 Vehicles by Honda.

Of course, the epa's numbers are always undershot. I'd be curious to know what a conservative driver could get out of an automatic 1st gen insight.

[SwamiSalami]

p.s. booo to you and your monopolization of fuel efficient vehicles!

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by dieselbeetle

I'm curious to know the difference in fe performance with manual/automatic in the first generation insight.

Even on the EPA's website Fuel Economy of the 2000 Honda Insight, it doesn't mention an automatic transmission.

It does mention a 2006 automatic here: Gas Mileage of 2006 Vehicles by Honda.

Of course, the epa's numbers are always undershot. I'd be curious to know what a conservative driver could get out of an automatic 1st gen insight.

The CVT wasn't introduced in America until MY2001. Also, they didn't give it lean burn, so the performance is not that exciting (assuming 60mpg on a good day doesn't excite you).

[MetroMPG]

Interesting - dieselbeetle, you prompted me to check, and apparently the Insight with CVT was never offered in the Canadian market.

That's according to gov't fuel economy ratings, and this article: Honda puts clean pioneer out to pasture | Wheels.ca

Sorry for monopolizing! (Hey, your car was in the best fuel economy list too.)

[bwilson4web]

I don't think my Canadian cousins are missing much. My studies of the Honda CVT approach didn't not excite me as I keep seeing too many friction losses and moving parts. I really think good 4+ speed, manual or semi-automatic, 4+ speed gear box is much more efficient than the Honda sliding-cone, CVT. I don't have any direct, hands-on experience with the Honda CVTs but just from my looking at the approach.

Bob Wilson