Project: Rebuilding an '01 Honda Insight as a nonhybrid

[Fabio]

I'm sorry for not replying here as much as I should. Thank you for standing up for your views theunchosen, I agree exactly with what you have been getting at.

Even so, I feel compelled to bring up the whole "Why" deal again.

There just simply are too many people here satisfied with their half empty glass not to.

I have had, and am currently, an owner of cars from both worlds of fuel economy--The NOW: a 2001 Toyota Prius--and the WAS: a 1992 Geo Metro XFi.

In short, the XFi is funner to drive, more fuel efficient, and is immensely easier and cheaper to repair (even if it's a total rust bucket).

The only practical benefits I can readily see for the extra $13k and 9 years of technological advancements is a marginal amount of additional performance--which I can't say I use too often--increased sound deadening, and colorful, informative displays.

I'm sure safety is a plus on the Prius, but like many, many other drivers I don't fear for my life on a day to day basis and thus never wear my seat belt.

Is it too much to ask for a logical renewal of the Geo Metro? --So we don't have to drive either our 18 year old **** heap Metro's or settle for double priced, less fuel efficient new vehicles offering less fuel economy than that of autos from 80's and 90's? The answer is NO. All regulations can be meet under a sub 10k price tag, with a sub 2k pound car, and 50 + mpg ratings. There is obviously a strong demand for such a car, they obviously serve a good, practical purpose, and they obviously could make stand alone profits, all while reinvigorating the lackluster youth auto market. If they were available perhaps the median car buyer this year wouldn't have been 49 years old.

And that, in a very rough summarized way, is why I want to turn this ex-hybrid into a more fuel efficient, but vastly more simple and affordable version of it's prior self.

Spending $10 grand extra on a car is okay if it gives you what you want, but being forced to spend an extra $10 grand to get nothing more than early 80's fuel economy is not what anybody should want and thus it is not okay.

Now regarding all the hybrid discussion on this topic. I welcome it, but it's not the point of this project. This Insight will be powered by a super fuel efficient, yet marginally affordible <5k new, ICE.

I do have a bunch of wrecked hybrids laying around and I intend on getting many, many more, so yes I'm going to eventually look for some way to beat the efficiency of the Insight that I am working on now.

If however, after starting another project like I just mentioned, I end up spending 10k extra just in the drivetrain, and I still end up with a car that can only obtain 50 mpg, then that project would be deemed a failure. In fact if it is any less efficient than my current Insight project will be upon completion, then it will also be a failure.

Likewise, the Prius is a failure.

It was sold at a cost premium of 10 grand over comparative vehicles with the one useful promise being that it would deliver exceptional fuel economy with low emissions.
It delivered sub 50 mpg figures.
It has failed to give the consumer what they deserved--instead it gave them the economic performance of a 1992 Geo Metro with an added paranoia that every little problem will cost thousands to repair.

If that's not fulfilling a goal--in fact a need--then I have no idea what is. How 3/4 of a million Prius' alone were sold is just a statement to how cornered the market has become--and to how brain washed we've come to the meaning of fuel efficiency. This is not fuel efficiency, even with my Prius I have to pay over $100 to transport my ass from Chicago to LA, and that's the cheapest, most practical way I can think to do it. I want to do it for $20, but that means is not offered to me, despite the fact it is available, and that pisses me off.


This is energy we're talking about here. From a political, economic, and humanitarian aspect, it is difficult to imagine a more important issue. The fact that we've been toyed around with so much from a fuel economy standpoint that most of us can't even remember the fuel economy of cars sold new on the lot 15 years ago is absolutely terrifying. If this is how easy it is to twist the wants and needs of consumers then I don't see any reason why an automotive company would feel compelled to ever give us what we want--they're just decide what we want for us.

Likewise they are going to decide how much it costs for us to fly in a plane, the cost to heat our homes and feed our families, how many people die due to global warming next year in costal Nigeria, and ultimately that heating our butts as we drive our AC chilled car at 120 mph is a ****ing key necessity.

This is not a new idea, nor is it one that's hard to grasp, it's simply an everyday occurrence--and the current fuel economy standards in the US are a blatant example--and thus one that's easy to stand up to.

Fuel economy is just the tip of iceberg in regards to overall energy corruption. It just happens to be relevant in a fuel economy forum, where, if anywhere else, there should be people willing to step up and demand what's right, what's wanted, and what's needed.

[theunchosen]

What I'd like. . . .

Is someone Lotus-minded to take up FE. If Lotus geared themselves towards FE instead of 0-60 and corners it would be an awesome car.

The exige s240 has power nothing, except maybe windshield wipers. The Ariel Atom weighs in at 1350 lbs. Imagine what you could do with 2 wheels of drive traction a 250-500 cc engine and an aero frame with minimal frontal area and enough trunk space for two briefcases or some small groceries(enough for 2 people for a week).

Obviously the Insight is bigger and roomier than that with alot more unnecessary devices. . .but its a good place to start the idea. . .

[LeanBurninating]

Another long one! I just read up to the point where you don't wear your seatbelt... sorry man. Things happen whether you plan on them or not. I would rather get a concussion and a messed up face from the air bag explosion, even broken arms and stuff.... than be thrown out the car through the windshield. Or worse. But don't let me distract.

Have you seen Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear review the Prius? You should check it out on youtube. He races the prius around their track flat out and has a 2008 400hp M3 pace the prius for 10 laps. The prius gets 17 mpg and the m3 gets like 19 or something. Not a fair comparison, but still funny. Jeremy says that its more environmentally friendly to manufacture a Landrover Discovery than a Prius, because of the nickel mining required to make the batteries, the acid rain that it causes, and the amount of shipping of parts required on large cargo ships all over the world. Do you buy that?

I would agree that the prius is a failure. I live in proximity to the wealthiest in America, and its pathetic to see how many prius' there are around, Ive heard of people on waiting lists to buy them... One of my friends neighbors has THREE of them. One for mom, one for dad, one for spoiled little brat girl. All brand new.

And then when I am driving 65 I am getting tailgated by them and they are trying to do 80. I know I am smoking them in the MPGs. At least when they drive like the average snobs around here.

I am glad that they are driving 40 mpg vehicles rather than 10 or 15 mpg vehicles.. but they are so stuck about about it, like they are really doing the world a favor, and all things considered I think they really are not.

There. You rant I rant back.

[theunchosen]

Anyone who tells me they bought a hybrid to save the environment I usually scoff.

I then give them two suggestions for next time.

1.) Buy an old used Metro, crx, vx and use the extra money to buy solar panels and get off the electrical grid.

2.) Buy an old used metro, crx, vx and use the extra money to give to some charity(the dozen people who are arrogant about it like to brag about their charitable giving so it shuts them up two fold ^_^).

The impact of producing any new car will almost never outweight the pollution savings of buying one that gets good or bad mileage but its already here. Second. . .If it gets the same mileage or better as the Prius you aren't really noticeably hurting the environment so they extra 15 grand you spent was for luxury and status not the environment. 15 grand is almost enough to put my house on Solar(with federal tax credits it is) and thats infinitely better value than the Prius by itself. . .

[LeanBurninating]

^word

[Clev]

I spent 24 hours with a Prius a couple of weekends ago. (Free upgrade at the rental lot.) Despite starting out with a mostly-discharged battery and learning how to drive the thing, I averaged 54.9 mpg over New Jersey's hilly backroads.

My biggest concern with the Prius is just how unrepairable it is. The transmission, electrical system, body systems and high-voltage systems are so computerized and closed that I wouldn't even know where to start--and I'm not sure that, unlike the Insight, I could drive it home in the case of some kind of HV-system failure.

I do love driving in "EV mode", but that just makes me want to do an EV conversion more, not get a Prius. :-)

BTW, the seatbelt does two things. First, it keeps you in the car in case of a crash, and second, it keeps you in your seat so you can maintain control of your vehicle. If you hit a rock in the road, I'd rather you keep moderate control of the vehicle than get knocked askew and end up plowing into somebody else head-on because your left foot is no longer in front of the brake pedal.

[theunchosen]

BTW seat belts also do other things. . .like protect other people in the car around you. The only survivor in the Princess Diana wreck was almost killed when Princess Diana smashed into him from behind because she wasn't belted in.

Multiply a few lbs mass by many feet per second and you get some serious devastating force.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

BTW seat belts also do other things. . .like protect other people in the car around you. The only survivor in the Princess Diana wreck was almost killed when Princess Diana smashed into him from behind because she wasn't belted in.

Multiply a few lbs mass by many feet per second and you get some serious devastating force.

Quite true. A relative of mine was t-boned and heavily injured. The police said that her injuries would have been only minor if the passenger in the car, who died in the crash, had worn his seat belt. Instead, he was thrown into her by the impact.

[Fabio]

Such seriousness with the seat belts.

Automotive safety standards have become ridiculous. At least one out of three automobile commercials focus on automobile safety as their main selling points--and each one of these hits on a supposed responsibility of putting your friends, wife, and children in the safest vehicle possibility. Clearly, if you don't buy a full size SUV with the most expensive safety equipment available, you'd be risking your family's life in exchange for saving a buck on a car.

Come on.. That's fear mongering. But it's almost politically incorrect to suggest that auto companies are going too far to protect their consumers. Suggesting that perhaps an extra 30 mpg would be more valuable to some consumers than two dozen well placed air bags would be sheer insanity. Furthermore it turns an excuse--that the drop of automotive fuel economy was necessary due to increased weight needed for added safety measures--into a statement of infallible truth, never to be questioned.

Same deal with CarFax commercials. Talk about overdoing things.
"OMG, I put my daughter in a SALVAGE vehicle! Had I checked CarFax first, I wouldn't have put my daughter's life in danger!"

Or better go to Iraq.. "...we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

You know, one of the funniest things I ever saw at a used car lot was when a salesman tried to suggest to a ~35ish old woman she buy a compact. He sure got an earful--everything from Styrofoam bumpers, to being mauled over by a Hummer, to conspiring to invoke a 5 count homicide--2 month old infant included of course..

Ah these people and their damn Ford Excursions... They just can't help but run over subcompacts all day..


Not trying to talk anyone else into shredding their seat belts of course.. I am clearly in the wrong, but it's not like my irrationality is challenging an issue any more rational.
My actual logic in not wearing my seat belt is that if I drive my Prius and I wreck it, I would be ejected before I could be protected by any of the safety precautions that I despise so.
What's ironic about this is that I'm boycotting a technology that actually once was dirt cheap, logical, simple and wonderfully effective at its purpose: saving lives. And of course recent safety advancements have been the total opposite--I mean adding 2000 lbs to every vehicle on the road to make them safer does kind of have an effect on the safety of, well, the rest of us on the road.

[theunchosen]

I just disable and rip out the extra safety equipment.

I do this in the shop as well. I ask customers if they want their extra airbags. The say no I rip them out. Customers who have a broken AC system and don't ask for it to be repaired I ask them if they want me to rip it out and put a shorter belt so they can save gas( I explain it won't be much but it cools their engine better(which is ALWAYS better in the summer) and its not added weight or pulley problems). I also ask if they want their tires inflated to max sidewall and then explain that its reasonably safe and not an issue. I would be careful advocating this for anyone else. people here are really nice and if something went wrong and it wasn't because something I had changed they are very unlikely to sue, whereas I'm not sure if thats the case in your areas.