Honda wussed out
The initial pics/concept of the new Insight had some low profile mirrors that were looking very aero, but they went for the traditional crappy mirrors on the production models.
I don't know why everyone resists change and advancement so much...wouldn't the mirrors have cost about the same to manufacture, no matter what design they used? I know they alread have the tooling for the status quo, but why not actually push forward a bit? It seems like honda and toyota have actually crippled their conventional models the past couple years, in order to make the hybrids look like a better deal/have further seperation. |
I'm just mad they didn't put rear wheel skirts on it. It's a step backwards from the one 10 years ago. How much sense does that make?
|
And no manual transmission! Where's the fahrvergnuegen in a CVT?
But the bottom line on the new Insight, for me, is that the fuel economy is unimpressive. The first generation Insight made numerous, drastic sacrifices to gain a few MPG, and was therefore a commercial failure. Lots of us here have expressed our disappointment that the new Insight did not take the same approach. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's kinda sad when a Fit can match the Insight's EPA highway fuel economy. The Fit in question was also loaded to the gills, driving 70 mph from SC to NY.
They could have gotten a few more MPG out of the Insight. And also not crippled the Fit's EPA fuel economy to make the Insight more attractive. I guess 29 mpg combined (real-world with psycho drivers is 4-5 mpg higher, and hypermilers can get ~40 or greater) was the point that their focus groups told them they would pony up $3k more for a car that got ~41 combined. |
A step backwards? IMHO, it's about a half-marathon run backwards.
The original Insight didn't (as far as I can tell, and I've owned one for six years) make any sacrifices, drastic or otherwise. In fact, it made a lot of... brain stall here - what's a word that's the opposite of sacrifice? ...design decisions that made it quite costly to build. Nor was it a failure in any sense. It was an experiment: Honda built the car as a real-world test of hybrid technology, and sold it for less than what it cost to build. They chose to build limited numbers, and sold all that they built. How's that a failure? As for the mirrors, I really wish they'd change the regulations, and allow rear-view cameras instead. Not just for aerodynamics, but as a safety issue. I'm effing tired of being blinded by the glare from following cars whose drivers apparently never heard of low beams. |
Don't really have anything new to add. My thoughts reflect those of others in the thread. However, i shall watch with rapt attention..
a.k.a. Subscribed. |
Honda has to deal with a little something called 'REALITY'. You might have heard of it. Its the place where the DOT regulates the size of rear view mirrors, cost dictates the diameter of your rims etc. If you want all that concept car junk on your car, you're welcome to get your hands dirty and build those parts yourself. I'm sure the aftermarket would be more than happy to sell it to you as well. The new insight is a huge leap forward from the first generation simply because a lot more people will buy it. Toyota and Honda tried completely different formulas with the first generation hybrids. The 4 door practical sedan/hatch back won because real people with real money to spend are willing to sacrifice some fuel economy in exchange for a practical family car. Honda got the message and followed the leader. More power to them. At least they have the ability to adapt and learn from their mistakes. More than I can say for GM.
|
I am suprised that they don't make the wheel skirts as an option you can buy. If they could quantify the fe increase the additional parts they may actually sell some.
On a side note, I saw that Red Line Oil is making fluids for modern CVT's including Hondas. Don |
And it doesn't get any better mileage than the larger Civic Hybrid. A car as butt ugly as the Insight should damn well be more radically aerodynamic—it looks odd, but it's not really any kind of big step forward aerodynamically. It's not like the Civic where it's appealing to a more conservative buyer, so why not try to integrate more advanced aero (even just something like side skirts) to better get the average consumer used to such features so that they can be introduced to regular model cars in the future?
|
DonR -
Quote:
CarloSW2 |
Quote:
They're also neglecting the (potentially large) market segment composed of people who have no need for a back seat, and maybe just need a little marketing (and another gas price increase :-)) to recognize the fact. |
Does anyone know if the new insight still has lean burn?
|
41 MPG combined in a hybrid that small... I'm just .5 mpg short of that with my last fill.
They could have done so much better. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
... Mr. Frac.... I like it. :thumbup: |
Jamesqf
I really doubt their is a large market for people who don't need a backseat outside of sports car buyers. The only real market I can think would be as a second commuter car for driving to work and back. Then you're gonna have to get the price low enough so people can justify buying 2 cars. Most car buyers are looking for 4 person capacity, and that's just the US car market. |
Why do you think that? About the only people who actually need a back seat are families with kids under 18 or less, and that's far from a majority of the population. Even a lot of those already have two (or more) cars, so having one a two-seater is no problem.
Now maybe most people have been convinced that they "need" four or more seats, but that's what marketing is for. |
Quote:
The production car has to be for the real world, not for auto shows or niche enthusiasts. |
Why? There is little real-world use for an SUV, and none at all for those stupid four-door "pickups" with four-foot long beds, yet clever marketing sold millions of them before gas hit $4/gal. The same sort of marketing, by Honda or some other company, could as easily sell the idea of 2-seaters, making the company a chunk of money and increasing their CAFE numbers.
|
jamesqf -
Quote:
The 1st gen Insight's a stellar MPG machine, I considered getting one. But, I decided against it because the price didn't justify the loss in utility. It just didn't measure up to the CRX. CarloSW2 |
People don't need to be marketed "macho" vehicles—they gravitate towards them naturally to make up for the control deficiencies in their lives, be it lack of personal power, respect, or just fear and the more that buy them, the more join in to feel part of the crowd. Small and efficient says "sissy" to these type of primates and, unfortunately, these primates are the majority.
|
Honda wussed out
Quote:
BTW, marketing is more about determining what the customer wants and making it, not convincing the customer to buy your stuff. Japanese car companies have been pretty good at marketing for that reason. |
I almost never use my backseat for hauling people. It's used for "stuff" that I'm too lazy to put in the trunk, or want more secured than in an empty cavern. But when my car does get loaded down, it's nice to have.
Agreed people buy the car for the 95% rule. I do think the Honda Fit exemplifies this rule, since it's a fuel-sipping, fun-to-drive echoing cavern of a car wrapped in a dinky shell. Honda put the emphasis on the front seats, and made the rears to get out of the way. And it works marvelously! Now if only other manufacturers would get the hint we'd see some genuinely novel designs out there. |
Honda wussed out
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Or just consider the aforementioned Honda CRX. They were, and still are, quite popular, yet Honda stopped production, and hasn't offered anything comparable since(except the limited-production Insight), nor has any other automaker tried to fill its niche. |
jamesqf -
Quote:
YMMV, CarloSW2 |
Quote:
In 1990, the Miata came out. At that point, most people who wanted two-seaters decided that they were more interested in a "truuuuue roadster"--an open-topped car that had RWD handling and no cargo space. Sales of the CRX dropped like a stone. You have to understand--to Honda, the notion of selling ten thousand of a regular (non-halo) model is nothing. They need to sell many thousands of them every week in order for it to be seen as worthwhile. Maybe even more. If the 1st-gen Insight had sold in similar numbers to the Civic, there would still be a two-seat hybrid Honda on the market. It didn't, plain and simple. I remember them sitting at the dealer for months and months after they were discontinued... Maybe the market is changing--maybe. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for utilitarian two-seaters to come back to the market in a big way. That said, I love my CRX. I've had it for years, and will likely have it for many more to come. -soD |
some_other_dave -
Quote:
From my POV, the CRX died of competition. The Mazda MX-3 (a fat CRX, *with* a small vertical rear window), the Toyota Paseo (a "normal" CRX), and the Nissan NX (the evil egg). But I agree that the CRX was the best car I ever had. If I had to do it all over again, instead of selling it to my friend, I would have given the CRX to my Dad so it stayed "in the family" while keeping the mileage down. But, I'll bet someone would have stolen it. CarloSW2 |
Quote:
I hope the CR-Z does well, but I'm afraid they won't be able to capture the spirit of the CRX with it. -soD |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
You're stuck on the idea that the Insight was a sales flop, when it was widely known that Honda didn't intend to sell more that a relative few, because they were selling them below what they cost to produce. Even leaving out the cost of the hybrid system, what other aluminium-bodied car ever sold at that price? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Some folks cannot have multiple vehicles to fit multiple needs. Therefore, they need to have a vehicle that can perform multiple tasks, even if none of those tasks are optimized. |
Quote:
|
jamesqf -
Quote:
Nissan Figaro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...garo_Front.jpg But for me, multiple car ownership is ri$ky bu$ine$$. I think you need space and car fixin' skillzz to be able to have dedicated task cars, and I have neither. If I had another car, I would want to park it at the curb. Where I live, that would cost me $60 per year (small but annoying city fee), not including the extra insurance and the risk of being hit by a drunk (while parked no less!!!! happened last year, :mad: ). CarloSW2 |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com