2006 Honda Insight MT Build Thread

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Front speakers are Polk DB652s. Much improved sound quality but the bass is almost non existent at cruising speed. Compared to stock, the bass is much better quality, but the "amount" of bass seems to be lower...or maybe it's because the highs are so much better that the lows appear worse.

What should I do now? 6"x9" Polk DB692s in the rear for $90 and no sub, or a Rockwell 8" sub under the seat for $100 but no rear speakers?

I'm on a budget, so I won't do both, plus doing the sub instead of the speakers saves having to build boxes for them in the rear as part of my rear rebuild....but would I be losing sound quality by not having rear speakers? I've been running just the fronts for a couple months now and they don't sound bad.

Not looking to shake the whole car with base or blow my eardrums; I just want to be able to hear decent base while driving. And definitely not going to lose my extra cargo space for larger hardware.

Looking more into getting the spacers to mount the front speakers to the door and stop the rattling that happens whenever bass is happening due to them being mounted to the plastic. Might put on some underlay/sound deadening material there as well.

[Ecky]

In stock form my rear speakers provided nearly all of the bass, presumably because of the large and nearly sealed enclosure the IMA compartment provided. To get good bass from added rear speakers you'll need very large sealed enclosures for them. As much as I love the extra audio fill my rears provide, my vote is a small sub. I tried a 6.5" and was disappointed, 8" seems the sweet spot for this car.

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Looking at getting a Rockville 8" under seat powered sub, 150 RMS, 100db sensitivity.

From one of my ramblings on one of my threads on Insight Central tonight:

Originally Posted by mpg_numbers_guy in Marine deep cycle battery recommendations on InsightCentral.net

Did some driving today with the meanwell disabled. With it disabled, I saw almost +5 MPG with hypermiling (EOC) and almost +10 MPG driving normally (no EOC). Note that my fuel economy is currently around 100 MPG this summer, so these numbers will be less if you are getting lower MPG, and higher if you are getting better MPG. IIRC Nathan, who runs 120-150 PSI in his tires and gets 120-150 MPG noted a +15 MPG gain with the meanwell turned off. So let's say around 10%.

Adding/subtracting load didn't seem to affect economy or power at all, it was just the fact of having the meanwell on that took power and reduced fuel economy.

Suppose base load is 10 amps, at 14.3 volts, that's 143 watts, or 0.2 hp. At full power the meanwell is stealing 1 hp at most, so why is the difference between on and off so noticeable?

The car also accelerated slightly better and had slightly more available power with the meanwell turned off.

But obviously I need charging to the 12V in order for the car to run. After about 12 miles and 20-25 minutes, including 3 starts with the starter, no accessory use besides the radio for 5 minutes, the 12V resting voltage with the car off was 12.4, and under load it varied between 11.8 and 12.2 volts towards the end of my driving. Battery was fully charged before starting. This is just a typical, 500 or 550 CCA 12V starting battery. And yes, I know that wasn't good for the battery, but I just wanted to test it out to see what would happen.

Some things I'm considering doing:
- Turn the Meanwell voltage down to 13.9 volts. Right now voltage is set to ~14.3 volts and varies between 14.0 and 14.6 volts. 12V charging should be above 13.5 to keep a 12V healthy, so with it set at 13.9, voltage should vary between 13.6 and 14.2. That should theoretically reduce power consumption by ~3% (+0.15 mpg if 10 mpg is gained from turning it completely off).
- 80ah Deep cycle battery capable of 20 amp draw for 2 hours without dipping below 50% charge; 40ah might work too if it has at least 1000 to 50% discharge cycles.
- Move the meanwell kill switch so I can disable/enable charging while driving.
- Solar panels in the rear window to keep the battery topped off.

Problem is, my 12V battery is only 8 months old. 80ah deep cycles are close to $200, and a 100w solar panel is close to $100 as well.

Voltage drops under load, so a fully charged battery disconnected from the alternator may read low 12s under load, but it's still fully charged, right? I'm assuming a typical deep cycle battery is the same? If this is the case how can I measure current SOC of a deep cycle battery while I'm driving, other than temporarily shutting the car off, checking the voltage, and then turning the car back on?

I am aware that any MPG gain from disabling the meanwell will result in a MPG loss when the meanwell is reenabled and has to work harder to charge the battery, however my car does sit around for a while and a 100W solar panel should be enough (100W/14.2v = 7A) to keep the battery topped off for anything other than a long highway trip. And even on a highway trip, other than radio and headlights (LED) the car runs at base load - guesstimate 20 amps max, so in full sun I could toggle the meanwell on and off strategically while driving and keep the battery happy.

Meanwell PSU gets very hot to the touch at temperatures above 90 degrees outside, and the fan runs all the time. Voltage dropped slightly during that time, but that was likely due to having to work harder to recharge the battery after draining it with the meanwell disabled. Current setup is stock fan and the meanwell bolted and thermal pasted to an aluminum bar to more than double the contact area for cooling. Meanwell compartment isn't completely closed yet and I haven't added the intake/exhaust fans for the meanwell compartment yet. Thinking of what else I could use as additional heat sinking. Under 90 degrees outside the meanwell fan stays off 70%-80% of the time. Interior temperature is around the same as outside.

It's late, so forgive me if this is all nonsense.

[Ecky]

Something I found about solar panels under the glass in the back, was that output was significantly lower - the glass blocks a fair amount of solar energy. Plus the sun has to be at a very good angle (almost directly overhead) to get any significant output.

[samwichse]

I did the under seat sub with the DB652's, it helps a lot. I got the 10" Rockville... I'd get the 8" if I was doing it again.

It helps a lot with the bass, but you need to set your crossover fairly high because the DB652's are falling off in their output at a shockingly high frequency.

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Something I found about solar panels under the glass in the back, was that output was significantly lower - the glass blocks a fair amount of solar energy. Plus the sun has to be at a very good angle (almost directly overhead) to get any significant output.

Maybe in the car when driving and outside the car when parked? As seen though on today's response on the IC thread, with my hypermiling I wouldn't see much FE benefit from such a setup.

Originally Posted by samwichse

I did the under seat sub with the DB652's, it helps a lot. I got the 10" Rockville... I'd get the 8" if I was doing it again.

It helps a lot with the bass, but you need to set your crossover fairly high because the DB652's are falling off in their output at a shockingly high frequency.

Is that because the 10" has too much bass for your liking, or because of size? How much clearance is there between the sub and the bottom of the seat?

I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the info, and yes I have noticed that with the DB652s - the base seems less than stock but better quality.

[Ecky]

Solar panels are very sensitive to sun angle, efficiency drops off rapidly when the sun isn't almost perfectly perpendicular to the panel. Panels are also relatively expensive for what they put out, so for this reason, panels are better placed at home and with a motor to track the sun. Maybe you can get a little bit of MPG, but in terms of actual efficiency and money savings, they don't belong on a car (IMO).

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Filled up today. Pretty sure I'm nearing the peak of what my car is capable of without some extreme mods such as boattail or 130 PSI tires (neither of which are in the plans).

918.7 miles, 9.973 gallons = 92.12 MPG. Delivery driving on this tank was 740.1 miles averaging 88.36 MPG, so the remaining 178.6 miles averaged 111.87 MPG. Wish I could run a tank through without doing driving for work at all just so I could get a kilotank.

My drive into work today after filling up in town was a new record, 127.6 MPG over 10.0 miles with no significant altitude change (previous record 126.6 MPG over 4.7 miles):



Rockville 8" sub arrived came today. Will install it when the material arrives for making the seat spacers.

Floor rebuild is done, next step is carpet, will try to post pictures when I have some time.

Parking brake wire ETA is July 30 - Aug 2.

I think that's all I have to update? Not sure if I'll have time this summer to install the S2000 e-brake handle or try out a Civic steering wheel before heading back down to college.

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by mpg_numbers_guy

Is that because the 10" has too much bass for your liking, or because of size? How much clearance is there between the sub and the bottom of the seat?

I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the info, and yes I have noticed that with the DB652s - the base seems less than stock but better quality.

Same thickness, but it weighs more, cost more, draws more power/makes more heat, and the extra headroom is wasted on me since I just got it to fill in the bass, not going thumping down the road.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by mpg_numbers_guy

Wish I could run a tank through without doing driving for work at all just so I could get a kilotank.

That would be awesome. Still incredibly noteworthy with what you already get, but it would be headline material IMHO.