Honda not so Insight(ful)
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
It ashame that VW hasn't brought over their excellent small diesel engines to the USA.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
That question was based upon the preceding comment to the effect that the Insight was Civic-based. As I already noted, it has a very petit 100 inch wheelbase, shorter than the Civic and the Prius, which ironically, both have a 106.3 inch wheelbase. This, of course, is why comparing the Insight and the Prius really doesn't make any sense. . . Again, that's like comparing the Civic and the Camry -- different cars with different missions.
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
It ashame that VW hasn't brought over their excellent small diesel engines to the USA.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
But would it meet US safety and emissions standards?
It ashame that VW hasn't brought over their excellent small diesel engines to the USA.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
But would it meet US safety and emissions standards?
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
It ashame that VW hasn't brought over their excellent small diesel engines to the USA.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10001373/bluemotion-vws-to-be-made-in-the-usa/
It ashame that VW hasn't brought over their excellent small diesel engines to the USA.
I'd gladly take a new 2010 Polo with a 1.4 turbo diesel engine that can achieve around 60 mpg. and has a decent manual transmission to boot. You can actually get excited about driving this model as well.
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10001373/bluemotion-vws-to-be-made-in-the-usa/
From the quoted article:
Quote:
In Polo form, with a 1.3-liter turbodiesel, it acheives a whopping 60 mpg–better than a Prius.
Why does intelligence seemingly vanish when people start comparing diesels to hybrids??? The Polo weighs in at only a tad over 2500 lbs. The Prius weighs more than 3000. Duh. The Prius is a substantially larger car than the Polo. The Prius has about ten (10) cubic feet more interior volume than a Polo. Would we ever seriously try to compare the mpgs of a Corolla and a Camry on even footing???
A more sensible comparison would be a Passat TDI vs the Prius -- those cars are much closer in weight and usable space.
And the authors also claim that German auto execs scold us because "diesels are cheaper". Than what? When? I suppose if they're playing the game of comparing a microcar to a mid-size then maybe so. . .
I'd also like to know why we've had to endure a decade of fictional fear mongering about the cost of replacing hybrid traction batteries (which has turned out to be a total non-issue), yet the press simply won't touch the question of how expensive it would be to repair the very complex exhaust system necessary to make a diesel run with any semblance of cleanliness.
Quote:
In Polo form, with a 1.3-liter turbodiesel, it acheives a whopping 60 mpg–better than a Prius.
Why does intelligence seemingly vanish when people start comparing diesels to hybrids??? The Polo weighs in at only a tad over 2500 lbs. The Prius weighs more than 3000. Duh. The Prius is a substantially larger car than the Polo. The Prius has about ten (10) cubic feet more interior volume than a Polo. Would we ever seriously try to compare the mpgs of a Corolla and a Camry on even footing???
A more sensible comparison would be a Passat TDI vs the Prius -- those cars are much closer in weight and usable space.
And the authors also claim that German auto execs scold us because "diesels are cheaper". Than what? When? I suppose if they're playing the game of comparing a microcar to a mid-size then maybe so. . .
I'd also like to know why we've had to endure a decade of fictional fear mongering about the cost of replacing hybrid traction batteries (which has turned out to be a total non-issue), yet the press simply won't touch the question of how expensive it would be to repair the very complex exhaust system necessary to make a diesel run with any semblance of cleanliness.
You show all the symptoms of being an informed consumer. This 'malady' would be better served if it were more contagious...
Everyone these days wants to whine about newer cars getting worse fuel mileage than older cars they've owned in the recent past. Which makes me wonder, why sell the old car?
Let's say I have a 1992 Civic LX sedan, it's got a 1.5 and a 5-speed, originally EPA rated 35 city and 40 highway, now more like 30/36. Either way, this SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD RATTLETRAP still has cold air, power windows and locks, cruise control, tilt wheel, Pioneer CD deck, sunroof, nice Enkei alloys, and window tint. It's literally sex on wheels. It gets wonderful fuel mileage. It's for sale on my local Craigslist for $2100!!!
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage? The econoboxes of the 90s all got 30-40mpg and ran like well-oiled sewing machines! Civics, Corollas, Mirages, Colts, Sentras, and even domestics like 1st gen Neons, 1.9L Escorts, and Saturns with the SOHC engines had no trouble getting EPA ratings of 37-40 highway back in the day. What happened? Airbags, antilock brakes, side impact regulations, and emissions bottlenecks.
Stop buying new cars to "save" gas. Buy an old economy POS and live with the tinniness and the stigma of owning a car that, when new, was laughed off the road by the Fleetwood Broughams and Town Car Jack Nicklaus editions!
1997 Sentra 5-speed, $1700 on my local CL
2009 Versa XFE+, $16330 is the MSRP BASE price of a new one
1992 Civic LX 5-speed, $2000 on my local CL
2009 Civic LX 5-speed, new MSRP of $17455 (base price)
1999 Mirage DE 5-speed, $1800 on AutoTrader
2009 Lancer DE 5-speed, $14355 for a new one
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
Let's say I have a 1992 Civic LX sedan, it's got a 1.5 and a 5-speed, originally EPA rated 35 city and 40 highway, now more like 30/36. Either way, this SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD RATTLETRAP still has cold air, power windows and locks, cruise control, tilt wheel, Pioneer CD deck, sunroof, nice Enkei alloys, and window tint. It's literally sex on wheels. It gets wonderful fuel mileage. It's for sale on my local Craigslist for $2100!!!
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage? The econoboxes of the 90s all got 30-40mpg and ran like well-oiled sewing machines! Civics, Corollas, Mirages, Colts, Sentras, and even domestics like 1st gen Neons, 1.9L Escorts, and Saturns with the SOHC engines had no trouble getting EPA ratings of 37-40 highway back in the day. What happened? Airbags, antilock brakes, side impact regulations, and emissions bottlenecks.
Stop buying new cars to "save" gas. Buy an old economy POS and live with the tinniness and the stigma of owning a car that, when new, was laughed off the road by the Fleetwood Broughams and Town Car Jack Nicklaus editions!
1997 Sentra 5-speed, $1700 on my local CL
2009 Versa XFE+, $16330 is the MSRP BASE price of a new one
1992 Civic LX 5-speed, $2000 on my local CL
2009 Civic LX 5-speed, new MSRP of $17455 (base price)
1999 Mirage DE 5-speed, $1800 on AutoTrader
2009 Lancer DE 5-speed, $14355 for a new one
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
I've bought old cars and bought old cars and bought old cars. When you commute like I do, the bad thing about old cars is taking the time to fix the old little thing that breaks/wears out. I played that game for years. I've gotten to the point where I just don't want to have to dash out at 9pm after getting all the kids down and hope it's enough time to replace whatever is gonna keep me from commuting to work at 6 am.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Everyone these days wants to whine about newer cars getting worse fuel mileage than older cars they've owned in the recent past. Which makes me wonder, why sell the old car?
Let's say I have a 1992 Civic LX sedan, it's got a 1.5 and a 5-speed, originally EPA rated 35 city and 40 highway, now more like 30/36. Either way, this SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD RATTLETRAP still has cold air, power windows and locks, cruise control, tilt wheel, Pioneer CD deck, sunroof, nice Enkei alloys, and window tint. It's literally sex on wheels. . . .
Well, I loved the 88 Civic I bought new and drove for 10 years. It was a lot of good things, but "sex on wheels" was not one of them.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage?
Well for many of us, there are multiple reasons involved. I've become very buggy about safety equipment since the side curtains in my late 02 Camry literally saved my head. As much as I loved that old Civic, I would not drive it today, period. You're welcome to dispute the logic, but then again, you didn't have the pleasure of seeing the grille of a speeding Chevy Tahoe 18 inches or so from your driver's side window. For me, it's curtains for any car without curtains.
...
Originally Posted By: occupant
Stop buying new cars to "save" gas.
See my last comment.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Buy an old economy POS and live with the tinniness and the stigma of owning a car that, when new, was laughed off the road by the Fleetwood Broughams and Town Car Jack Nicklaus editions!
No, I won't. But I do love the comment about the "Town Car Niklaus Edition" (I wonder if Jack ever drove one... )
. I can easily imagine the smug retiree, wearing white patent leather shoes, fancying himself driving a car like Jack's.
...
Originally Posted By: occupant
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
Two problems there. First, of course, the rating system has changed substantially -- all new cars appear to get worse than their counterparts of years gone by.
Second, what about my 09 Camry Hybrid (bought "used" with 5k miles, looking new, but heavily discounted)? Can you name a 3700 pound car from the early 1980s that gets 35-ish, city and highway? OK, that's a semi-unfair question, so how 'bout this: The plain ole I-4 Camry is EPA rated for 22c/33h. You could probably get similar results from a mid-80s Chevy Celebrity, but don't forget -- the Camry's I-4 is making almost 50hp more than the Celebs V-6 was.
And besides, I too lack the time necessary to keep a real oldster on the road. I respect those who do, but that doesn't fit my reality at the moment.
Everyone these days wants to whine about newer cars getting worse fuel mileage than older cars they've owned in the recent past. Which makes me wonder, why sell the old car?
Let's say I have a 1992 Civic LX sedan, it's got a 1.5 and a 5-speed, originally EPA rated 35 city and 40 highway, now more like 30/36. Either way, this SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD RATTLETRAP still has cold air, power windows and locks, cruise control, tilt wheel, Pioneer CD deck, sunroof, nice Enkei alloys, and window tint. It's literally sex on wheels. . . .
Well, I loved the 88 Civic I bought new and drove for 10 years. It was a lot of good things, but "sex on wheels" was not one of them.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage?
Well for many of us, there are multiple reasons involved. I've become very buggy about safety equipment since the side curtains in my late 02 Camry literally saved my head. As much as I loved that old Civic, I would not drive it today, period. You're welcome to dispute the logic, but then again, you didn't have the pleasure of seeing the grille of a speeding Chevy Tahoe 18 inches or so from your driver's side window. For me, it's curtains for any car without curtains.
...
Originally Posted By: occupant
Stop buying new cars to "save" gas.
See my last comment.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Buy an old economy POS and live with the tinniness and the stigma of owning a car that, when new, was laughed off the road by the Fleetwood Broughams and Town Car Jack Nicklaus editions!
No, I won't. But I do love the comment about the "Town Car Niklaus Edition" (I wonder if Jack ever drove one... )
...
Originally Posted By: occupant
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
Two problems there. First, of course, the rating system has changed substantially -- all new cars appear to get worse than their counterparts of years gone by.
Second, what about my 09 Camry Hybrid (bought "used" with 5k miles, looking new, but heavily discounted)? Can you name a 3700 pound car from the early 1980s that gets 35-ish, city and highway? OK, that's a semi-unfair question, so how 'bout this: The plain ole I-4 Camry is EPA rated for 22c/33h. You could probably get similar results from a mid-80s Chevy Celebrity, but don't forget -- the Camry's I-4 is making almost 50hp more than the Celebs V-6 was.
And besides, I too lack the time necessary to keep a real oldster on the road. I respect those who do, but that doesn't fit my reality at the moment.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Well, I loved the 88 Civic I bought new and drove for 10 years. It was a lot of good things, but "sex on wheels" was not one of them.
My 14 year old took a double take at that '92 Civic ad when it was on my screen. She is a G8/Impala/Charger kind of girl. Case closed.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
For me, it's curtains for any car without curtains.
1997 was the last major change to federal side impact regulations that I'm aware of (the ones that killed off the A-bodies, Corsica/Beretta, and others)...it's why so many cars were redesigned in 1996-1997, and became heavier as a result.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
I can easily imagine the smug retiree, wearing white patent leather shoes, fancying himself driving a car like Jack's.
Metallic Pebble Beach Fairway Green. With the white canvas top, white leather interior, plush green carpet, and four sets of mismatched golf clubs in the trunk. He has the sunglasses that go over his regular trifocals and wrap around his whole head. A straw hat with several assorted PGA Tour pins in it. The digital dash is always set to the compass and outside temperature. And it has a chrome decklid luggage rack which has never seen a piece of luggage attached to it.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
What about my 09 Camry Hybrid (bought "used" with 5k miles, looking new, but heavily discounted)? Can you name a 3700 pound car from the early 1980s that gets 35-ish, city and highway? OK, that's a semi-unfair question, so how 'bout this: The plain ole I-4 Camry is EPA rated for 22c/33h. You could probably get similar results from a mid-80s Chevy Celebrity, but don't forget -- the Camry's I-4 is making almost 50hp more than the Celebs V-6 was.
And that's where I'm at, if I want a midsize front-drive sedan I'll pick up an A-body with the 2.2 engine, 94-96. 25 city, 32 highway. My '95 Century sporting well over 200K on the clock had no trouble getting those exact numbers no matter how hard or gentle I drove it. Highway cruising cross country got me 32-33. PIZZA DELIVERY got me 25-26.
And instead of spending $20-$25K on a new 4-cylinder Camcord...I can get the A-body for $2000 in MINT condition with well under 100,000 miles. I can get one in "still runs" condition for under $1000. It is all about the time involved to keep it going smoothly. If you have the time, you can save eighteen grand. If you don't bother to take the time to make adjustments, fix little problems, replace the bits that break, then that $18,000 plus taxes, interest, and the ugly cost of depreciation, is your opportunity cost for the convenience of "drop it off at the dealer if it squeaks when you go over the railroad tracks."
Well, I loved the 88 Civic I bought new and drove for 10 years. It was a lot of good things, but "sex on wheels" was not one of them.
My 14 year old took a double take at that '92 Civic ad when it was on my screen. She is a G8/Impala/Charger kind of girl. Case closed.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
For me, it's curtains for any car without curtains.
1997 was the last major change to federal side impact regulations that I'm aware of (the ones that killed off the A-bodies, Corsica/Beretta, and others)...it's why so many cars were redesigned in 1996-1997, and became heavier as a result.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
I can easily imagine the smug retiree, wearing white patent leather shoes, fancying himself driving a car like Jack's.
Metallic Pebble Beach Fairway Green. With the white canvas top, white leather interior, plush green carpet, and four sets of mismatched golf clubs in the trunk. He has the sunglasses that go over his regular trifocals and wrap around his whole head. A straw hat with several assorted PGA Tour pins in it. The digital dash is always set to the compass and outside temperature. And it has a chrome decklid luggage rack which has never seen a piece of luggage attached to it.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
What about my 09 Camry Hybrid (bought "used" with 5k miles, looking new, but heavily discounted)? Can you name a 3700 pound car from the early 1980s that gets 35-ish, city and highway? OK, that's a semi-unfair question, so how 'bout this: The plain ole I-4 Camry is EPA rated for 22c/33h. You could probably get similar results from a mid-80s Chevy Celebrity, but don't forget -- the Camry's I-4 is making almost 50hp more than the Celebs V-6 was.
And that's where I'm at, if I want a midsize front-drive sedan I'll pick up an A-body with the 2.2 engine, 94-96. 25 city, 32 highway. My '95 Century sporting well over 200K on the clock had no trouble getting those exact numbers no matter how hard or gentle I drove it. Highway cruising cross country got me 32-33. PIZZA DELIVERY got me 25-26.
And instead of spending $20-$25K on a new 4-cylinder Camcord...I can get the A-body for $2000 in MINT condition with well under 100,000 miles. I can get one in "still runs" condition for under $1000. It is all about the time involved to keep it going smoothly. If you have the time, you can save eighteen grand. If you don't bother to take the time to make adjustments, fix little problems, replace the bits that break, then that $18,000 plus taxes, interest, and the ugly cost of depreciation, is your opportunity cost for the convenience of "drop it off at the dealer if it squeaks when you go over the railroad tracks."
Originally Posted By: occupant
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
The EPA ratings were lowered because customers were complaining that they weren't getting the estimated fuel economy. Instead of telling them to stop driving like morons, which would be politically unpopular, the EPA decided they were adjust their fuel economy estimates to match what a moron would get when driving the car.
The 2009 models DO NOT achieve the same EPA ratings as the older ones. It's ridiculous.
The EPA ratings were lowered because customers were complaining that they weren't getting the estimated fuel economy. Instead of telling them to stop driving like morons, which would be politically unpopular, the EPA decided they were adjust their fuel economy estimates to match what a moron would get when driving the car.
Did someone say something about squeaking over railroad tracks?
I dunno, I'm still scratching my head about why it's wiser to spend buckets of money rebuilding a ten+ year old car for hi-miles daily use. That's no knock on American makes. I'd feel the same about any make.
I dunno, I'm still scratching my head about why it's wiser to spend buckets of money rebuilding a ten+ year old car for hi-miles daily use. That's no knock on American makes. I'd feel the same about any make.
Originally Posted By: occupant
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage? The econoboxes of the 90s all got 30-40mpg and ran like well-oiled sewing machines!
Safety, comfort, and convenience come to mind immediately as good reasons to buy a new car; I agree gas mileage would be a poor reason standing alone to purchase a new car.
The mpg of those old deathtraps doesn't impress me much - my G8 can do 29 mpg easy on the highway. My wife's Jag can do low 30's, and it's a full size luxury car car with a V8.
Why the *censored* would anyone spend $15K to $25K on any new car just to get better gas mileage? The econoboxes of the 90s all got 30-40mpg and ran like well-oiled sewing machines!
Safety, comfort, and convenience come to mind immediately as good reasons to buy a new car; I agree gas mileage would be a poor reason standing alone to purchase a new car.
The mpg of those old deathtraps doesn't impress me much - my G8 can do 29 mpg easy on the highway. My wife's Jag can do low 30's, and it's a full size luxury car car with a V8.
Originally Posted By: occupant
. . .
And that's where I'm at, if I want a midsize front-drive sedan I'll pick up an A-body with the 2.2 engine, 94-96. 25 city, 32 highway. My '95 Century sporting well over 200K on the clock had no trouble getting those exact numbers no matter how hard or gentle I drove it. Highway cruising cross country got me 32-33. PIZZA DELIVERY got me 25-26.
And instead of spending $20-$25K on a new 4-cylinder Camcord...I can get the A-body for $2000 in MINT condition with well under 100,000 miles. I can get one in "still runs" condition for under $1000. It is all about the time involved to keep it going smoothly. If you have the time, you can save eighteen grand. If you don't bother to take the time to make adjustments, fix little problems, replace the bits that break, then that $18,000 plus taxes, interest, and the ugly cost of depreciation, is your opportunity cost for the convenience of "drop it off at the dealer if it squeaks when you go over the railroad tracks."
It would be interesting to see what the result would be if the advances in engine technology of the last 20 years, which have shown themselves in an outright doubling of peak engine output, were channeled instead into fuel economy improvements. Had engine development followed this path, the easy conclusions we make about buying cars for fuel economy improvements might not be so clear and easy.
. . .
And that's where I'm at, if I want a midsize front-drive sedan I'll pick up an A-body with the 2.2 engine, 94-96. 25 city, 32 highway. My '95 Century sporting well over 200K on the clock had no trouble getting those exact numbers no matter how hard or gentle I drove it. Highway cruising cross country got me 32-33. PIZZA DELIVERY got me 25-26.
And instead of spending $20-$25K on a new 4-cylinder Camcord...I can get the A-body for $2000 in MINT condition with well under 100,000 miles. I can get one in "still runs" condition for under $1000. It is all about the time involved to keep it going smoothly. If you have the time, you can save eighteen grand. If you don't bother to take the time to make adjustments, fix little problems, replace the bits that break, then that $18,000 plus taxes, interest, and the ugly cost of depreciation, is your opportunity cost for the convenience of "drop it off at the dealer if it squeaks when you go over the railroad tracks."
It would be interesting to see what the result would be if the advances in engine technology of the last 20 years, which have shown themselves in an outright doubling of peak engine output, were channeled instead into fuel economy improvements. Had engine development followed this path, the easy conclusions we make about buying cars for fuel economy improvements might not be so clear and easy.
Buckets of money? Depends on what's wrong with it, and whether one is capable of doing the work themselves or needs to pay a shop to do it.
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Buckets of money? Depends on what's wrong with it, and whether one is capable of doing the work themselves or needs to pay a shop to do it.
That's the point. There's always, eventually going to be something wrong. If it's going to be claimed that the ownership experience (minus the monthly payments) is near identical, then lets compare apples to apples here and include the outlay up front for anticipated wear items and/or known model-specific failures.
Buckets of money? Depends on what's wrong with it, and whether one is capable of doing the work themselves or needs to pay a shop to do it.
That's the point. There's always, eventually going to be something wrong. If it's going to be claimed that the ownership experience (minus the monthly payments) is near identical, then lets compare apples to apples here and include the outlay up front for anticipated wear items and/or known model-specific failures.
If you have a car that needs $300 worth of work, are you ahead (over buying a new car) if the repairs make the car last 6 more months?
- Status
