Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian
The EPA tests the vehicle in whatever the "default" mode is. They are not allowed to push any buttons or change any settings before running the test. If the default is Eco, then it's tested in Eco mode. If the default is Sport, then that's the way it's tested.
|
Ah, well in that case, as
cfg83 says above, it's likely to have been tested in Normal mode then. I was thinking about the three modes earlier and wondering why they'd actually offer a normal mode in the first place. Surely, being an "eco sports" car (my choice of words, though probably not far from Honda's), it's drivers would either want it in sports mode all the time, or in eco mode, depending on why they bought it?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by shovel
Cost factors in there... you could own an 81 Escort for the cost of one payment on a 2010 anything. But that's not the point.
The point is cars have been in production for about 110 years.
Actual production model cars with four seats + cargo were available 30 years ago that got 40+ mpg all day long, without the benefit of today's flush windshields, undertrays, hidden rain gutters, aero headlamps, synthetic lubricants, computerized engine management, or even much development budget spent on aerodynamics. We're talking the cheapest segment of cars here too, ones that had to sell on price more than anything else.
Honda's had almost a third of the total time cars have even existed, to improve on that. And they haven't. But it sure looks pretty don't it?  |
I definitely see where you're coming from - last year, I tested a 1998 Honda Civic 1.5 LS with the VTEC-E engine. That car makes 112bhp, has 98lb/ft torque, weighs 1183kg (2608lb), does 60mph in ten seconds and 117mph. Average fuel economy on the EU cycle (quite different from the EPA, but a good rough guide) is 43mpg UK, which is 36mpg in US gallons. The engine was lovely and smooth and revved nicely, and the car was a tidy handler, if not exactly thrilling.
I bet you're reading through all that and seeing a lot of similarities with the CR-Z! I certainly am - economy, weight and performance are very similar, though the petrol-only Civic lags behind on torque a little. The car I drove cost £995, which at the current exchange rate is approximately $1620.
Given an extra 12 years of development, that doesn't sound like a lot of progress when you can get an old Civic that does the same for a fraction of the price. Or a near 30-year old Escort.
But you have to look beyond that a little. You get more equipment. Better comfort. Better safety (significantly better, in fact, even than the Civic - the Escort is a tin can in comparison). Ten years extra engine and chassis development. You do get an increase in performance (the low-rev electric motor-assisted torque will see that it's in the most useful and useable range, too). We'll have to wait for the tests, but argueably the car will be more fun too.
So even with a dozen years of "modern car flab", it still achieves figures to match (or potentially better) the lightweight waifs of one, two and three decades ago.
And this is all still on the
presumption that those fuel economy figures are accurate, which much of me doubts. I wouldn't call myself a Honda fanboy (I do like them, but at the end of the day I haven't liked one enough to spend my own money on one) but I don't believe they've dropped enough of a clanger to build a hybrid with very average fuel efficiency. I see from a quick look around EM that another member has recently bought a new Insight - he'll be a good guide as to what anyone with an efficiency focus can achieve, given that the press (who've been most vocal complaining that the Insight is fairly average) are notoriously heavy-footed.
Of course, if the car comes out and someone on here buys one and it's still very average, then I'll be only too happy to retract my defenses for it - but until that point, I think it's important that we don't just
assume that Honda have messed up...