Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
That's 'cause you live over on the flat side of the country. To be a realistic car hereabouts, you need to be able to climb about 5000 vertical feet of 7% grade, including some acceleration out of hairpin curves. That's quite a bit more than one 0-70. From my experience, it's about twice the Gen 1 Insight's battery pack capacity.
|
I drove my Insight to an elevation of 3500 feet on a trip to Blacksburg. Grades that slowed the big rigs down to 35 MPH in the truck only lane added for that purpose. Still managed 70.2 MPG on that trip, with the CVT and no lean burn. Maybe your location does not have the topography of the east coast with the piedmont between the mountains and the Atlantic.
Any vehicle is a constant energy drain. If I lived and drove the route you describe then I would own a Toyota Echo, which can climb at BSFC and coast down the negative grades using DFCO if necessary. I drove the same route in my 94 Civic VX and averaged 65 MPG.
No hybrid will help you much in your scenario. Thinking about something for literally hundreds of hours includes all potential scenarios, including yours. Why would you assume otherwise?
What percentage of the general driving population would commute that distance, about 70,000 feet horizontal distance.
5000/7X100 is over 71,000 feet distance. 71,285 to be fairly exact. You are talking about a distance of 13.5 miles.
What percentage of the driving public drives that commute daily. Maybe 1/10 of 1%.
Quoting rediculously low percentages of the driving public is making a point that has no value to those who would build a car for such a limited market.
Even a Nissan Leaf would be hard pressed to make that climb daily. They just made the Pikes Peak Hill climg in a Leaf, barely.
As you posted yourself, it requires twice the battery capability of the first gen Insight. Honda made the choice to keep the vehicle weight low with the small capacity battery. You still can not buy a more efficient car to drive.
regards
Mech