2009-2010 Honda Insight

Actually, that's a great point. VW has tons of PZEV models available (Jetta, Rabbit, Golf, Beetle). I never realized VW was so up there.

Thank you for the proper response to your own FUD.

 

Whatever. A quick look at the actual quantity available reveals an entirely different story.

Next we'll get praise for VW's diesel TDI making a huge difference, even though only 8,000 will be available of the 2009 for purchase in the US.

.

 

Of course there's no "proof." You cannot "prove" that somebody won't do something in the future. I expressed an opinion. "Why the hype?" you ask? Let me turn that around: Most car makers keep quiet about future developments until they're ready to show a car. GM clearly wants to counter the bad publicity they got by killing the electric car, so they claim they're going to build a super car. The picture keeps changing; the specs keep changing; the price keeps rising until it's through the roof. It was going to be an affordable family sedan, but now it's a $45,000 luxury car but without any luxuries. There'll be some more hype, and then they'll announce "We tried. We really did. But it can't be done." Just about that time, Toyota will introduce the PHEV Prius. No proof. Just my opinion, as should have been obvious.

I have a lot of respect for your views. You may very well be right about cost. But I want an EV that's a pure EV until the battery gets too low. I don't think HSD is the way to do that.

Great car! Early Insight buyers are the real pioneers. When everyone else was waiting for a 5-passenger sedan, a few folks were willing to give up a bit of space in order to save fuel. My hat is off to you!

For extended highway driving you are right. But I envision driving pure electric all year long, for all my in-town driving, and all my near-town driving, and only using the gas engine for my once-a-year hiking trip to Canada. Six-hour drive up, a couple of two- or three-hour drives between lodges, a six- or seven-hour drive home. Once a year. Maybe a thousand miles on gas, and all the rest of my driving on pure grid electric. For that, I believe the best solution is an EV with a range extender.

Another thing: With a big enough electric motor and battery, the ICE only needs to supply the average needed power. I think this means the ICE in a range-extended EV can be smaller (and therefore more efficient) than the ICE in an HSD, where by design the ICE is providing more power to the wheels.

Since a PHEV-60 is not likely to be available any time soon, I expect to have an EV for 90% of my driving, and my 2004 Prius for that once-a-year trip to Canada.

Now if Toyota can produce an HSD-based car that can go 60 miles on pure electric, then I'm in. But if it only goes 10 miles, then I'm burning gasoline several times a week, and I'm not willing to do that if I can possibly avoid it. It has to go 30 on EV before I'll even consider it.

But of course John is right that the economics of batteries makes that unlikely any time soon, so I'll just keep driving my EV.

 

I'd have to agree. A number of manufacturers have been pushing PZEV as an attempt to greenwash the fact that they have no small fuel efficient vehicles. Worse still, others make a few PZEVs to get enough credits so they can continue making their dirtiest vehicles. Most of these are made in limited numbers and only available in certain states.
PZEV vehicles, and why you probably can’t get one in your state

Number of models is pretty meaningless unless people can actually find and buy them. At the same time, some effort to clean up their vehicles is better than nothing.

Toyota is no better (or worse) than most on a number of their vehicles, but at least they make a few really clean ones and sell them everywhere in significant numbers.

The claim about Toyota/Honda is pretty exaggerated. The Civic Hybrid is SULEVII-PZEV. So are the Camry Hybrid and Prius. The Highlander Hybrid is not PZEV, but is SULEVII. Then again Honda's SUVs are all LEVII, and ULEVII, they don't have an SULEVII or PZEV SUV at least as of 2008 models according to fueleconomy.gov.

Rob

 

daniel, I think we are on the same page. I want all EV too. I just think that for the next 3-5 years HSD or other mixed serial/parallel hybrid with a plug will be the most feasible way to cut fuel consumption as much and as quickly as possible. EV range will have to start small to keep cost in check, I think thats GMs folly. If next year Toyota comes out with a $25k 10 mile PHEV, and GM comes out with a $40k 40 mile PHEV, which one do you think people will buy? I would bet the Toyota outsells the GM 10:1. Thats going to have a much bigger overall impact on national fuel consumption. Particularly as every mile of EV range is diminishing returns to some extent. 35% of people drive less than 20 miles per day, 50% drive less than 33 miles per day. While a 10 mile range may not sound that exciting, its by far the biggest bang for the buck on a national scale.

Rob

 

I want an all-electric car, but I like road trips (and unless airfares come down, more and more people will "like" them too). Until the EV can go 750 miles in a day (like I the driver do), I'm going to be looking for something hybrid.

 

Neither EV's nor ICE can go 750 miles unless 're-filled' ... and you can re-fill both. You either squirt toxic liquid explosive fuel in the ICE or you swap out a modular pack on the EV, as you do when your Makita drill runs low. Fact is, a battery swap can be done quicker than liquid fuels. Swapable modular battery packs could easily be done at all the toxic liquid explosive fuel stations we now have. And in a very few years, when the reserves of toxic liquid explosive fuels have spiraled beyond affordability, we'll all be:

1) Driving EV's anyway

2) Looking to hang the oilie exec's who have forced our society, via corrupt lobby efforts, into a piss poor energy usage, when we should have been changing over to Ev's decades ago. (imo)

 

This is my reasoning, too. Doesn't detract from Daniel's willingness to pay for an even larger EV mix to his driving, but it is expensive. Moreover, I think that people with a limited clean energy budget will find they can get more green for their dollar by smart investments in the home.

Andy Grove from Intel was spot on I think, when he pointed out that federal subsidy of a EV charging infrastucture will be a whole lot smarter use of taxpayer dollars than long(er) range PHEV subsidy. Meaning people should be able to charge away from home at work and while shopping. I'd shoot for 90% FE improvement in 90% of the population in 10 years.

 

I only buy one car at a time, and demand PZEV that I can average over 55 mpg with in both city and highway driving consistently, in a sub $25K package I like.

If you know of a better car than Prius that meets these criteria please let me know.

 

I like the idea of EV or PHEV in the city for the great majority of people, and public transport when there is long distances to travel.

 

Swapping thousand-pound battery packs (or 500-pound packs if you use more expensive and lighter lithium) would require a tremendous investment in machinery, and you still need high-capacity charging capability to charge the swapped-out batteries, plus a lot of quality-control to make sure people are not getting batteries that are too worn out to hold a sufficient charge.

And a very important matter: Unless all EVs use identical packs, the swapping stations would need an enormous inventory of every different size and style of battery pack. Look at all the different cell phone standards, look at the war for high-def DVD standards, consider the differing demands for power and range in different cars; and you'll see that we're not going to have a one-size-fits-all battery pack. A swapping center would have to occupy a city block to carry the needed inventory.

And even if you did have a one-size battery pack: Without fast charging, a station that gets 50 cars an hour during the daylight hours and 5 an hour at night would have to have an inventory of 660 battery packs, each on a 24-hour charge cycle, or 600 on a 12-hour charge cycle. If those packs cost $5,000 each, that's a capital investment of three million dollars for a single battery swapping station. And not only the machinery for swapping, but the machinery for moving the batteries from the charging area to the customer area.

With fast charging you still only need the same total charging capacity, but you have six or eight fast chargers instead of 600 slow chargers. No machinery because the customer or an attendant just plugs in the car. And it's a trivial matter to design a plug that does not deliver power until it's properly seated, and shuts off instantly in the event of a ground fault. (By contrast, anybody that wants to, or is careless, can pump gasoline onto the ground.)

Battery swapping is a poorly conceived idea that just does not pass a simple review of what's involved. And it's unnecessary because modern batteries can be charged in ten minutes with a suitable charger. (And they can still be slow-charged overnight at home.) Fast charging will require a fraction of the investment that swapping would. We just need the investment. Or the governmental initiative.

This is probably true.

Personally, though, I have an intense aversion to gasoline and diesel fuel. They stink, and the engines that burn them are noisy.

 

Public transport? As in airplanes, high-speed rail, bus, etc.? If oil prices go where they should, airplanes are going to have to make some really big changes to stay aloft. Bus may be the way we have to go but it can take a long time to travel 750 miles (with stops). High-speed rail isn't likely without a lot of taxpayer involvement, and we know how much Americans like taxes. Not that I disagree exactly, although I still like the long trips by highway (old fossil that I am), but I just don't know that I see America having the moxey to get it done.

 

Rising fuel costs are going to force us to make changes. Either we make the investment in sustainable energy, or our economy slides back to the 19th century when travel and non-local consumer goods were luxuries for the super-rich. My fear is that politics and vested interests will push us to coal, which will cause climate changes that will be disastrous for our economy, or nuclear, which will leave future generations with waste products which are intensely deadly for about a thousand times as long as any human technology will be able to contain them. We already have "temporary" waste ponds that are full to overflowing, and government's response is to authorize ever more dense storage. When the "temporary" barrels start to rust out we'll be in deep doo-doo. But the decision makers have a very short time horizon as they are old and mainly just want things to continue as they are during their own lifetimes.

 

Japanese Best Car magazine has published the rear view of the new Insight. It may not be a genuine photo, but having in mind the official photo of the production car released by Honda, it should be pretty close to the reality.

????????。Japanese Green Cars: ...and here is the rear view of the New Honda Insight!

--------------------

Those of you that had the chance to buy January issue of CAR magazine will have read also some interesting information (issue 557, pp. 96-101).

????????。Japanese Green Cars: Honda Insight 2009: The key facts

 

A member from Vtec.net came across with a YouTube posting, which containts a few JDM brochure pics. There is also one of the Modulo version!!!

????????。Japanese Green Cars: New Honda Insight: JDM brochure pics + Modulo! (Part 1)

????????。Japanese Green Cars: New Honda Insight: JDM brochure pics + Modulo! (Part 2)

 

"Following the post "Honda Insight 2009: The key facts", which contains info that CAR magazine obtained, and the JDM brochure photos that were posted yesterday (part 1 + part 2), a Japanese magazine revealed information that came from a product preview meeting for Honda dealers in Japan."

http://japanesegreencars.blogspot.com/2008/12/unverified-2009-honda-insight.html

 

kosutasu,

Nice find.

(Excuse me while I wipe the drool off my chin.)

Thanks.

 

I saw the specification, and the Insight looks poor man's Civic Hybrid.

Insight vs Civic Hybrid
engine power:88HP vs 94HP
motor power:14HP vs 20HP (The HV battery on the Insight is also scaled down)
motor torque:9.4kgm vs 10.5kgm
Japanese 10-15 mode mileage:30.0km/L vs 31.0km/L (Prius:35.5km/L)

Ken@Japan

 

Er, a couple pallet jacks, and an over head set of 'I' beans to roll a load with lifting straps for under $5K. Check it out at your local Harbor Freight Tool company. Compare that to the cost of burying & maintaining toxic liquid fuel tanks. How is it that doesn't work? Quality control for battery packs, as in a PC board on the pack that measures capacity / over all life / SOC ... easily mass produced for under $200. How is it that doens't work? It's hardly insurmountable.

I guess if you create a mentally insurmountable problem, then that's what you end up with. However, our Fed D.O.T. does have the authourity to set those kind of standards, just like they have done over the decades, with Truck heights, fenders, padded dashes, etc. Your flat screen doesn't have to match everyone else's so that's why it's not regulated. Not the same level of importance, right? So making up a standard for battery packs is a no brainer. Packs can even be set up like lego building blocks, for different configurations. It isn't that hard.

There are already businesses that successfully use battery change out technology for EV equipment. So that's a moot point. Since over 80% of folks travel less than 40miles a day, the notion of 50 cars per hour sounds pretty silly ... a 'straw-man' argument ... an overy high estimate. The lion's share of people could charge at/near home or work. Isn't that what Rav4-EV's are doing now? Why re-invent the wheel? Transportation power is facing a "no-silver-bullet" situation, it would be equally silly to knife one perfectly good form of charging, only to insist on another type of charging ... namely fast charging. There are issues with that too. All the more reason to use both.

 

battery swapping would never be a primary option. lets face it, the only time you would need it is for trips significantly longer than your EV's range. ranges in the 50-200 miles should be available in the next couple years. the times more than this is needed will be relatively rare...

so switching out a pack would be an option then, otherwise, opportunity charging and daily charging at work and home should more than do it. sure a lot would need to be invested to get the infrastructure in place, so say... 50% of what we spend on oil now should allow us to build that infrastructure in just a few years.

i think it will be at least 2 decades before we can completely get off oil for certain transportation needs like big trucks etc. the reason is that oil has too much money to just go away. they will control our movement to renewables and EV's and without a doubt be heavily vested into that money stream as well.

as far as the small optimised generator recharging an EV. i dont see a battery pack being big enough at this point being able to recharge fast enough without charging at too high a current for sustained highway speeds. plus i think, at highway speeds, its more efficient to have an optimised system like THS. i get close to 60 mpg at 60 mph. could be better, but i am not sure it would be much better considering possible additional weight and expenses