2010 Insight curiosity

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag
Second point:
Stop skimming!, I said HIGHWAY mileage.. of course the Corolla doesn't have the same city mileage but when I hear people talk about buying a Prius because of their long commute (100 miles, opposed to spending 8 hours commuting 5 miles in the city) in order to save money, I just have to roll my eyes since most of their commute is ON THE HIGHWAY which the Prius doesn't exactly excel at.

The prius gets 45 mpg on the highway. The Corolla gets 37.

You didn't answer anyone's comment about how no one looking for a new car is going to be crossing shopping with an old used corolla. Or the fact that you'll be hard pressed to even find a corolla that has anywhere near the same options. The base model prius comes relatively well equipped while the base corolla is pretty much bare bones. You have to buy near the high end of the corolla now to get close to the same equipment as the base prius, it will only be worse when comparing it to a 7 to 8 year old car.

First point: Of course crumple zones make a vehicle larger, I don't think we're disputing that point. What I'm disputing is that you can't have a vehicle with a large trunk and engine bay w/o it weighing 3000lbs, THAT I disagree with! If you want the current Honda Fit or Yaris to be safer, all they really need to do is enlarge the engine bay to that of the Accord which should be no more than 100lbs worth of metal, if that.

You're not the only one who can pull numbers out of no where. I bet that a large increase in the size of the trunk or engine bay will weigh more than 100 pounds but I'll run with your numbers.

So you've got 100 lbs on the front for the crumple zone there, another 100 lb for the crumple zone in the rear. Add maybe 200 lb for the increased size of the passenger compartment because the hybrids are noticeably larger inside than the VX. Toss in another 100 for better side impact improvements (probably an underestimate, but you get the idea) and another 100 for reinforcing the roof for roll over protection. You suddenly went from a 2200 lb car to a 2800 lb car.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: fleabag
Second point:
Stop skimming!, I said HIGHWAY mileage.. of course the Corolla doesn't have the same city mileage but when I hear people talk about buying a Prius because of their long commute (100 miles, opposed to spending 8 hours commuting 5 miles in the city) in order to save money, I just have to roll my eyes since most of their commute is ON THE HIGHWAY which the Prius doesn't exactly excel at.

The prius gets 45 mpg on the highway. The Corolla gets 37.

You didn't answer anyone's comment about how no one looking for a new car is going to be crossing shopping with an old used corolla. Or the fact that you'll be hard pressed to even find a corolla that has anywhere near the same options. The base model prius comes relatively well equipped while the base corolla is pretty much bare bones. You have to buy near the high end of the corolla now to get close to the same equipment as the base prius, it will only be worse when comparing it to a 7 to 8 year old car.

First point: Of course crumple zones make a vehicle larger, I don't think we're disputing that point. What I'm disputing is that you can't have a vehicle with a large trunk and engine bay w/o it weighing 3000lbs, THAT I disagree with! If you want the current Honda Fit or Yaris to be safer, all they really need to do is enlarge the engine bay to that of the Accord which should be no more than 100lbs worth of metal, if that.

You're not the only one who can pull numbers out of no where. I bet that a large increase in the size of the trunk or engine bay will weigh more than 100 pounds but I'll run with your numbers.

So you've got 100 lbs on the front for the crumple zone there, another 100 lb for the crumple zone in the rear. Add maybe 200 lb for the increased size of the passenger compartment because the hybrids are noticeably larger inside than the VX. Toss in another 100 for better side impact improvements (probably an underestimate, but you get the idea) and another 100 for reinforcing the roof for roll over protection. You suddenly went from a 2200 lb car to a 2800 lb car.

Fuel economy:Why do you have to buy a new vehicle? What is wrong with buying a used vehicle ESPECIALLY if you're buying this vehicle to SAVE money which is something you won't be doing overall if you buy a brand new Prius vs. buying a used Corolla. The difference between 37mpg and 45mpg or 41mpg and 45mpg (since in practice, 40/41mpg in a Corolla isn't too hard of a feat) is pretty small especially if you're one to think that 45mpg on the highway is acceptable for the type of vehicle it is.

Weight: That's retarded and you know it. You're incorrectly assuming that sheet metal is very heavy, but guess what, it isn't.. I said to make the Civic safer, that doesn't mean make a 3 star into a 5 star, it means making a 5 star stay a 5 star when it crashes into a larger (Heavier, like 3500lbs vs. 2400lbs) vehicle. Compare the 1992 Civic Sedan with the 1996 Civic Sedan and you'll see a safer vehicle that actually lost some weight. My guess as to why it's safer is because they they added more welds to the places where the interior compartment fails since they didn't conduct an offset crash test on the '92 vehicle when it was first made. Therefore it was a design oversight due to unforeseeable circumstances, not because of some sort of constraints they had... (Weight, materials, size, $$) One other interesting point is that the interior space increased, overall length increased (2 inches) yet it lost weight on the upper trims of the vehicle. The VX and CX weigh 2100lbs because they're quite spartan and they get a 3 star rating because of the airbag ironically enough (to those who don't know any better) since the passenger in the '92 has 4 stars but 3 stars in '94 when they introduced the passenger airbag. I don't want to use star ratings in the comparison of a "safer" vs. less safe vehicle because some vehicles can get high star ratings despite the safety cage collapsing. Also these Civics do quite favorably in the side impact crash test getting a 3 star rating. Compare the 96 Civic to the Volvo S60 which weighs like 3500lbs yet has the same if not less interior space as the Civic and you'll see how much I resent heavy vehicles.

To make the jumbled mess above make sense, it is this: I'm saying, they can extend the trunk and engine bay at minor cost in weight which may improve star ratings but most importantly if utilized properly, will make collisions with larger, heavier vehicles safer because there is more crush space, therefore protecting the safety cage.

I will point out that there is a lot less material involved in the making of a large engine bay (empty space) than there is in making a larger trunk, so the weight increase from a larger trunk would probably be quite noticeable comparatively speaking.

 

[StageLeft]

The math always has been and remains the same: People don't buy bybrids to save money unless they are driving an unusual amount, like several standard deviations to the right in miles. For the rest of us, even at $4/gallon gas, the hybrids just don't make sense from a pure economics standpoint. They will. This technology or some variant of it is the future, but for now the math is not terribly kind.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
As for skinny tires, yes, in theory, skinny tires do better in the rain, but they are almost always low-rolling-resistance compounds that vastly underperform in real-world tests. Believe it or not, super-soft SUMMER tires are actually the best performers in the wet (though not when it is super cold out). If you could get a skinny summer tire, that would be the best, but good luck with that.

So what you're really saying is, in Florida where it rains all the time and is rarely "super cold", you should just stick with summer tires, eh?

For maximum traction, yes. Some of them provide better traction in the wet than an all-season tire does in the dry.

That said, summer tires usually wear out way faster than most all-season tires, they cost more, they ride harder, and they make more noise. So they aren't for everyone.

 

[JeepinEd]

Fleabag:
I drive a Prius and did not buy it for the image, nor did I buy it to save money on gas. I even posted a thread showing how it wouldn't be cost efficient to buy a Hybrid to save money. My main reasons for the Prius were 1: Use LESS gas (Less of my money going to f'd up countries) and I find the technology to be very interesting.
Just because you read some stupid survey doesn't mean that everyone who buys a Prius is doing it for the image.

Eli:
I traded in my first Prius (Gen 1 Prius) at 230K miles. I changed the front brakes at around 200K miles, the rear brakes were still at 40%. Regen braking is awesome!
Stick with your Insight. It's a cool car.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The math always has been and remains the same: People don't buy bybrids to save money unless they are driving an unusual amount, like several standard deviations to the right in miles. For the rest of us, even at $4/gallon gas, the hybrids just don't make sense from a pure economics standpoint. They will. This technology or some variant of it is the future, but for now the math is not terribly kind.

This is right on the mark. My addition to this comment is that few people end up buying cars based on costs only. If so, we'd all be driving stripped versions of minivans, trucks, small-midsize-full size cars. People wouldn't be getting things like safety features, navigation, upgraded stereo's, bigger engines, cross-overs, sports cars, etc. People want additional features and are willing to pay for them. Where fuel economy makes it tricky is that it is one of the few "options" that you can actually do some math to measure it's "worth". You can't really measure the worth of an air conditioner or an upgraded stereo. For one person it may be worthless and to another priceless for various reasons...so people really just have opinions...not really true arguments. So from an option perspective, you have several motivations why people could find this hybrid/efficient drivetrain worthwhile "option"...examples:

1) Any savings in the use of fuel results in less dependence on foreign supply chain
2) Any savings in fuel usage and resulting pollutants reduces strain on environment
3) Putting off an "eco-friendly" vibe is important to you or your circle of friends
4) You feel it is a step forward technology wise in human transportation and like to support technology initiatives
5) You enjoy the "game" of trying to minimize fuel consumption (I've met hyper-milers who appear to only be doing it for the "challenge")
6) You feel it will save you money on gas especially as the price goes up

I'm sure there are more...but the point is that there are a lot of other motivations that could cause someone to want a hybrid or other fuel efficient drivetrain...only one of them being the saving of money...and even those who have that as a motivation...it is likely that very few of them actually are based on Skoorb's comment above. That still does not make their desire/motivation for that car any less valid.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The math always has been and remains the same: People don't buy bybrids to save money unless they are driving an unusual amount, like several standard deviations to the right in miles. For the rest of us, even at $4/gallon gas, the hybrids just don't make sense from a pure economics standpoint. They will. This technology or some variant of it is the future, but for now the math is not terribly kind.

which is why GM focused it's initial hybrid push on buses. they lead in that development but got no green credit. toyota decided to sell a car that is a drop in the bucket compared to all the sequoias they'd been selling and so toyota is now considered green while GM is evil. it's retarded.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The math always has been and remains the same: People don't buy bybrids to save money unless they are driving an unusual amount, like several standard deviations to the right in miles. For the rest of us, even at $4/gallon gas, the hybrids just don't make sense from a pure economics standpoint. They will. This technology or some variant of it is the future, but for now the math is not terribly kind.

which is why GM focused it's initial hybrid push on buses. they lead in that development but got no green credit. toyota decided to sell a car that is a drop in the bucket compared to all the sequoias they'd been selling and so toyota is now considered green while GM is evil. it's retarded.

Agreed...but then public perception is often ignorant.

 

[Bignate603]

Fleabag, you obviously know so much more than all the engineers that have worked their whole lives in the car business. Why are you still here? You should be out there saving the world with safer cars that get amazing gas mileage! The world needs you!

On a serious note, I'm done arguing. You obviously think you know everything about cars. From the questions you've been asking, the comments you've been saying, and the way you've been acting I can say one thing, you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Fleabag, you obviously know so much more than all the engineers that have worked their whole lives in the car business. Why are you still here? You should be out there saving the world with safer cars that get amazing gas mileage! The world needs you!

On a serious note, I'm done arguing. You obviously think you know everything about cars. From the questions you've been asking, the comments you've been saying, and the way you've been acting I can say one thing, you don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do.

Who said ANYTHING about discrediting engineers? TALK ABOUT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT! There was a thread about some EE guy who said he joined the forum back in HS and now that he is out of college, he is disillusioned by the engineering world where you don't actually get to be innovative, but instead work towards cutting costs for the company, working towards the bottom line. You seem to think that if I disagree with you and your statements, that I'm disagreeing with a company's practice (that's not to say I don't), or that I'm saying that engineers are doing a shitty job. All I'm saying is, it's very possible to do what I've been and others have been saying all along, and this isn't with unforeseen technology, but with existing already been proven technology.

In the eyes of a company, there is no point in going above and beyond if it isn't going to be acknowledged in any shape or form, especially if the alternative makes you more cost competitive and is equally if not better for the company. It really is that simple!
What does that mean? It means that a company isn't going to make their car safe for a 60mph crash into a wall or a crash between a sub compact and SUV unless they're willing to charge the consumer more, sacrifice some features, or do anything that could potentially risk sales and or profits just for the sake of it.

Now, if the new crash tests by the NHTSA and the IIHS became multi-tiered or more comprehensive so that it tests a 30mph crash and 60mph crash, giving individual star ratings per the crash, and the company knows that safety sells, then you can bet your ass they're going to get working on it. This is the reason why government regulations in this department or at least incentives works, especially with fuel economy because otherwise businesses are always going to be waiting for the other to do it first due to the cutthroat business world that you seem to not be aware of.

Understand now? It's not that they can't do it, but that there is no will due to a multitude of factors, many of which can change quite easily at any time. (Safety rules, Fuel economy, consumer tastes, etc.)

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Eli
From a little research, it appears that Honda has no plans to offer a manual transmission as an option on the new Insight.

This makes me very, very sad. Fuck 'em, then. Though it looks like the Prius only comes with a CVT also. Gah! :| Bastards.

One thing you should know is that these cars are NOT about fuel economy, they're all about the "image" of fuel economy. I hate these cars because of the image they project and the type of drivers that drive them whom couldn't give two shits about getting good mileage and "saving the environment" but instead about the IMAGE of caring. Same crap with the SmartFortwo, it gets horrific mileage for what it is!!

So what would should the fuel economy be for people who really care?

 

[aphex]

Fleabag sure does have a twisted view of cars if you ask me. Either we should all be buying 10+ year old cars that get 80+ mpg, or we should just brag at uptight parties about getting 50mpg+ (which in his opinion sucks)?

I don't really see the big issue with the insight. Its nearly the price of a Corolla/Civic and gets better mileage by a decent margin. Its on my wife's short list for new cars to test drive when her lease runs up. And no, I won't be buying her a 10+ year old car so she can call me when it breaks down on the side of the road (Same reason I won't likely ever buy another VW).

 

[foghorn67]

I'd rather get a Fit, Fiesta or Jetta TDI.

 

[fleabag]

And no, I won't be buying her a 10+ year old car so she can call me when it breaks down on the side of the road (Same reason I won't likely ever buy another VW).

Funny that you say that because if you put $5000 into a 10+ year old car, you'd have the same reliability as a new car at a fraction of the price of a new car. You're really buying that new car because it's shiny and new, not to be economical and practical. Why not opt for a 5 year old car or something? You also seem to be forgetting that cars are fuel injected unlike the cars of 30 years ago which means that if you fix all of the problems the car has, it should last you basically the life of a car once again.

In a really convoluted way, I have basically said that it makes more sense to buy an old car and keep it running than to buy a new one.

 

[StageLeft]

Economically it's obvious that maintaining a used car is almost invariably better than buying new (frame rusting out being an example of just scrap it). As time goes on, though, statistics say that eventually every single part of the car will have to be replaced. Although the finances are kind with a cost analysis it can be a pain in the arse. I'd rather take a car on a cross-country road-trip that has 5k miles on the odo than one with 150k, even if the 150k is not currently exhibiting any issues, because some parts in it will be 150k miles old.

 

[ElFenix]

Make it stop!

 

[DivideBYZero]

Funny that you say that because if you put $5000 into a 10+ year old car, you'd have the same reliability as a new car at a fraction of the price of a new car. You're really buying that new car because it's shiny and new, not to be economical and practical. Why not opt for a 5 year old car or something? You also seem to be forgetting that cars are fuel injected unlike the cars of 30 years ago which means that if you fix all of the problems the car has, it should last you basically the life of a car once again.

In a really convoluted way, I have basically said that it makes more sense to buy an old car and keep it running than to buy a new one.

If you put 5k into a 10 year old car you could have bought a 4 year old car.

In a really convoluted way, I have basically said that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[fleabag]

If you put 5k into a 10 year old car you could have bought a 4 year old car.

In a really convoluted way, I have basically said that you don't know what you are talking about.

I also suggested just buying a 5 year old car instead.. Depending on the make, you're not always guaranteed a 5 year old car in good condition for $5k... If you already HAVE a car, putting $5K into your existing car isn't necessarily such a bad idea.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I also suggested just buying a 5 year old car instead.. Depending on the make, you're not always guaranteed a 5 year old car in good condition for $5k... If you already HAVE a car, putting $5K into your existing car isn't necessarily such a bad idea.

Where are you spending it? If your car needs no current repairs and is up to date with maintenance then you might as well eat the 5K and shit it down the toilet. Because that would be as useful as sinking 5K into a car for no reason.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If you put 5k into a 10 year old car you could have bought a 4 year old car.

In a really convoluted way, I have basically said that you don't know what you are talking about.

He's just trying to justify his Dad spending $5k too keep an old Lexus on the road. In reality he has no idea what the hell he's talking about...which has been proven over and over again.

 

[fleabag]

He's just trying to justify his Dad spending $5k too keep an old Lexus on the road. In reality he has no idea what the hell he's talking about...which has been proven over and over again.

I think spending $5k on an LS400 makes more sense than spending $60K on a new LS460.... 🙄

 

[ElFenix]

as long as that $5k includes a custom cat-back exhaust

LS400 sounds mean with an opened up exhaust.

 

[PricklyPete]

as long as that $5k includes a custom cat-back exhaust

LS400 sounds mean with an opened up exhaust.

I don't think I could live with myself driving a old school LS400 and doing anything to the drive train to "improve it"... especially from a sound perspective. That would be similar to picking up a 2008 Buick Lucerne (probably costs the same as a 2000 LS400) and putting fart can on it...and a wing.

 

[SearchMaster]

I don't think I could live with myself driving a old school LS400 and doing anything to the drive train to "improve it"... especially from a sound perspective. That would be similar to picking up a 2008 Buick Lucerne (probably costs the same as a 2000 LS400) and putting fart can on it...and a wing.

Heh - you might be surprised. My neighbor just bought a car (Altima, thankfully) and was looking at Lucernes. They were over $30K new, and well over $20K a year or two old.

 

[aphex]

Test drove the insight today, not terribly impressed. It felt cheap, light and cramped compared to a Prius. The display light (blue/green) backlighting based on driving style was a nice touch, but the whole experience just felt pure econobox. The car seemed considerably narrower inside and the backseat appeared to have a few less inches of leg room. Doors were very light to close and the interior was nice, but beyond basic. Additionally, the insight auto shut off and back on at lights was very noticeable and quite lagged. At some lights, it felt as if it took at least 1-2 seconds before the car was ready to go, not much, but it added to the clunkyness of the whole experience.

Around town, we averaged 39mpg, not bad, but also not great. The Prius in the same course averaged 50.3mpg. (We test drove both today at dealers less than 1/2 mile apart).

Once you add in some basic features to bring the insight up to a manageable level (for my wife and I), your very close to the base level Prius which, to us, was a much more agreeable car in nearly every aspect we looked at. The base Insight lacks cruise control, center console storage, and sun visor mirrors, while the base Prius has everything we would want, adding in keyless entry as well.

Anyway, the Insight is off our list. We still like the Prius, but the price is higher, so were still looking.