Much has been written about the Insight, Honda’s new low-priced hybrid. We’ve been told how much carbon dioxide it produces, how its dashboard encourages frugal driving by glowing green when you’re easy on the throttle and how it is the dawn of all things. The beginning of days.So far, though, you have not been told what it’s like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.
So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit.
Because the Honda has two motors, one that runs on petrol and one that runs on batteries, it is more expensive to make than a car that has one. But since the whole point of this car is that it could be sold for less than Toyota’s Smugmobile, the engineers have plainly peeled the suspension components to the bone. The result is a ride that beggars belief.
There’s more. Normally, Hondas feel as though they have been screwed together by eye surgeons. This one, however, feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.
Please click to read the rest of the article at the Times Online
Don’t get me wrong, I like new technology, and improved fuel economy too, but I just had to show this auto review excerpt from the Sunday Times because, well, it’s just so darn funny.
Out of topic, but for those of you who have existential questions with mini black holes etc, there is this site at CERN http://angelsanddemons.cern.ch/
in preparation of the launching of the film, when they will be inundated with questions.
Jeff Alberts (08:21:22):
Y’know- I don’t think the groceries, or the soil for the organic vege garden, or the lumber for the log cabin is a problem. Motorcycles have never aspired to be a replacement for the motorcar- sure, if you’re in your early twenties and wanting to pick some young women up they might do the job. But anyone who drives a motorbike in the real world most of the time does it because they’re quicker at speeds you can get away with on the road than most cars you can drive on the road for more than a thousand miles before their engine explodes, can dodge between inconsiderate car drivers between lanes quicker than they can swerve in front, can park in a space at least a tenth smaller than any Smart car.. oh yeah, and they’re fuel efficient.
Extra space for when you don’t leave the house for more than a week at a time to shop for groceries is something you can hire, or borrow off your mates. Not to say that NIMRLs (Not In My Right Hand Laners) don’t make it dangerous for everyone who drives a bike the same amount of power as their car but with a fifth of the weight.. but that’s a problem that’s easily solved by getting people with cars engineered to the OPEC cartel off the road.
A point we have to think about is why are hybrids being developed. An interview with a VP from Ford a few years back revealed their thinking – hybrids enable them to play with electric car technology before going to full electrically-driven vehicles in the future. They are not an end in themselves and the current form – adding an electric motor and batteries to an existing car (complete with combustion engine and transmission) – is not an efficient option.
To design a fully-electric car, you could easily do away with the whole transmission and drive each wheel (4 or 2) with its own electric motor. I think the Tesla works on this approach and performance seems to be OK – the question is really over how to store enough power to give it a useful range.
Apart from the most optimistic (insert epithet of choice here), everyone else considers that batteries just don’t cut it as they simply weigh too much and are horribly inefficient. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels give pretty much the best energy storage options and using a nice efficient diesel generator would be my preferred option right now (I admit, I don’t know whether a battery storage system may be needed for acceleration, but the KERS systems being developed for formula 1 racing cars may provide something useful here).
But, hydrocarbons are destroying the earth/running out/come from nasty foreign countries (choose your particular doomsday scenario), so what are the alternatives?
This is where the drive for fuel cells and hydrogen comes from. I think we are nearly at the stage where fuel cells can deliver the power, but delivering hydrogen on the same scale that we deliver hydrocarbons at present is going to take a very big investment in infrastructure.
If your drive to replace hydrocarbon fuels is based on environmental notions, you have to consider that the ’emissions’ that will result from the massive infrastructure needed will completely wipe out any reductions for many years into the future. [Besides, the infrastructure has to be developed prior to gaining the emissions reduction benefits. Oops]
I’ve not heard much about fuel cells running on methanol recently. This is the preferred option for small cells (those being developed to power laptop computers are designed with replaceable methanol cylinders a bit like disposable cigarette lighters), but I would think that this provides a stepping stone as production and distribution could – theoretically – utilise the same infrastructure as other liquid hydrocarbons.
Of course methanol contains the dreaded Carbon and thus will release the deadly CO2, making it a non-starter for the those who approach this from the AGW perspective. But nothing will satisfy these people who are, essentially, misanthropic in their outlook and are only using climate change as a way to promote de-development.
Me? Well, given the fact(?) that geological hydrocarbons are finite, we will have to address this one day and I would sooner have had plenty of time to work out the kinks. If some people want to drive hybrids fo no other reason than that it assuages their guilt that is fine by me. At least it provides some funds to continue development of better options.
And Jeremy Clarkson is very funny, whether you agree with his politics or not!
Xavier Itzmann (15:34:53) :
In the US market, only three 4-seat cars — all of them hybrids — get 35 mpg or better:
My Ford Focus at $15000 and change claims 35mpg. On my mostly freeway drive I’m getting 41.7mpg per trip. Gas went up .25/gallon in the last three weeks. Obama won’t need to mandate better gas mileage as soon as the world economy turns and gas proces once again surpass supply and demand theory. Everyone will be crying for it and asking why the auto industry has failed to adjust. Again.
Maybe Jeremy should try driving other cars with CVT. I could only find one review that had an automatic, and he didn’t like that either. I have a friend with a Mini Cooper with a CVT, I drove it once and had the same slip clutch reaction to it. It takes getting used to. This is the same guy who like the Citroën line. he gives the C4 4 stars but says “Of course, I can pretty much guarantee that your C4 will break down every 15 minutes. Citroëns just do.” Now I know why I don’t watch the BBC.
i would not think of buying a japanese car, i would more support our car industry. But i know that is a political question and a quesetion if you can afford it.
It’s a funny article but not very accurate. I am NOT a AGW alarmist but decided to buy the 2010 Inisght based on my needs and economics; it compares favorably to most economy cars on handling, acceleration, features, space, and fuel mileage, and is priced right smack in between economy cars and the Prius. Like the Prius, it blows away the mid-size field in fuel mileage. I got it because I ran my numbers and saw it was actually going to save me $$$ over most mid-sized cars (with my driving profile), draw nearly even dollar-wise with economy cars, and has my needs and wants many economy cars fell short of. Basically it bridges a gap. Now that I have it and have practiced a bit I can top 60mpg going the speed limit on longer drives (if I’m driving classically I am still easilly 45-50mpg. I drive many many rental cars for work and so I can say with certainty the author of this article just has an axe to grind against hybrids or Honda or something. It’s not a bad car at all. Remember, I hate Al Gore too 🙂
REPLY: If it works for your needs, all the better. – Anthony
This is the same guy who took a Toyota Prius to the high desert and shot it up with a 50 caliber machine gun.
He kept shooting until the Prius caught on fire — which I never thought could happen.
Clarkson’s point is, of course, that hybrid technology is a bit silly. Hybrids do nothing very well and cost more.
I’ll still with my Scion.
Wow – a car that doesn’t sound or act like we’re used to. Adaptation can really be a bitch, huh? And this is a really tough case to adapt to. 😉
I think you’ve missed the point that the “benefits” of hybrids are a complete greenwash. I am a mechanic, and these are disposable, 100K- cars. Likewise, how long are those batteries going to last? What environmentally caustic processes are required to produce them? What special tools and parts are required for maintenance of their novel designs?
Don’t get me wrong, I like them from a novel technical angle. But the claim that they are in ANY way environmentally beneficial is a total marketing sham. It’s not just that you’d be breaking even in terms of your green index, it’s that you’re actually causing MORE damage to the environment by driving these things. MPG and emissions are only one facet of a whole collection of factors determining the green benefit of a given car; hybrids improve these (unimpressively), while worsening nearly every other factor (the behavioral factor not the least of all). A conventional, compact car is still FAR more environmentally-sound than any hybrid.
Time to go remove those snarky, resentful liberal bumperstickers… I mean hey, save yourself 20K and get a bike and a bus pass.
People who are afraid of EM radiation ought to avoid going out in the sun.
And if magnetic fields disturb you avoid living on earth.
ektachrome,
gotta give Prius and Insight credit for 1 thing they do well; fantastic fuel economy combined with reasonable power and size. There are people who this makes sense for. Probably not most, but I am definitely one of them. I drive far and often for work and haul enough equipment/luggage and passengers that economy cars are too small and slow. Mid-sizes kill me on mileage compared to these hybrids and aren’t much (if at all) bigger or faster. Meanwhile the Insight pricing is in the sweet spot where I should be able to make out on the deal over the years, even at current gas pricing. Insight filled my niche and I doubt I’m alone. As a side note they get decent low-end torque compared to other cars. Like I said, I didn’t buy this car to do anything about AGW because I don’t believe it’s a problem.
I drive a 1984 Caprice Classic sedan. I love this car, V8, automatic transmission, high torque at low revs, room for six, can put my bike in the trunk when needed (Sometimes you do need to do this over here in the Netherlands).
Minor problem is gas price, currently about €1,30 per liter or $ 6,50 per gallon. But then again this car runs on LPG (Liquified petroleum gas), which is about € 0,50 per liter or $ 1,90 per gallon. In both cases the car runs about 15 to 20 MPG.
If a want to drive a Prius or any other Hybrid I would have bought one and I am happy to have a choice.
The person who wrote that Ford, Chrysler and GM won’t exist in 2016 got it mostly right. Chrysler will go well before then, or just as soon as the Obamacrats can pin it on Fiat and then let it die a natural death. Ford will hunker down until the new CAFE standards–when it will sell Fiats. And long before then, GM will have become Government Motors with a full Obamian federal subsidy so our CEO-in-Chief (the same Barack feller) can create his green car playthings and have the government buy them (while paying off his cronies in the UAW). Is this a great country or what?
Lance,
Incorrect, hybrids like the Prius and Insight improve highway mileage too. Not only do they save in the city through regen braking, but the electric drive allowed the makers to use a smaller gas engine without sacrificing much on acceleration, which means you’re running at a more efficient rpm and smaller displacement to get the same hp cruising on the highway. They also have great drag coefficients.
I drive a 2005 Toyota Prius on my 50-mile daily commute (Mon-Fri), and it is a great car. I average 48 mpg, maybe closer to 46 when the Texas summer weather hits. I’ve never experienced the problems with the CVT that are described here in relation to the Insight, and I have found that the car picks up speed very nicely on the freeway. My old Saturn took me 250 miles on a 15 gallon tank, and the Prius goes about 500 on an 11.9 gallon tank.
I don’t have any experience with the Insight, though I note that the new design is remarkably reminiscent of the Prius….
Sir (10:33:07) :
Actually the purpose of any of these fuel saving vehicles is to push nations to become more energy independent. Here in North America avoiding the need to ship $700B annually overseas just for fuel *should* be the priority. By transitioning to less fossil fueled vehicles we can keep the bulk of that $$$ at home – where it belongs.
The savings in military support of foreign resources alone would put an end to whatever “economic crisis” we’re in at the moment. Energy independence is a justifiable reason to conserve fossil fuel. Croaking on an AGW heatwave is not.
Also, in addition to what you say (all true), they use an Atkinson cycle four-stroke rather than conventional Otto cycle, which snags something like 10% more energy out of the gas being burned.
If that was on Top Gear, they most likely added some pyrotechnics to help it along. They do that. It’s a comedy show, not a documentary about car reviews. Every situation they have is I’d say at least 75% contrived.
But it’s still funny.
Great writeup Jeremy, I’ll fire up my TVR V8 in solidarity with your sentiment. I love the heady smell of glue and petrol vapour in the morning. 🙂
These mongrel cars are overweight and underpowered. Roll on the Hydrogen fuel cells and give me some MORE ! POWER !!
Life is for having fun in, take no notice of anyone who tries to sell you original sin.
I had a chuckle too when I read that review, but he does go on to commend Honda’s other offering: “I would have hoped, therefore, that Honda had diverted every penny it had into making hydrogen work rather than stopping off on the way to make a half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen.”
“”” dhogaza (16:19:42) :
When comparing prices, I think that Toyota and Honda are subsidizing prices to sell the dang things.
Toyota’s making money on the Prius, though I’m not sure how long it will take them to pay off the research investment.
Why we can’t get the 55 mpg diesel BMW in the US is beyond me.
The switch to low-sulfate diesel in the US is going to help diesel makers meet US emissions standards. “””
Are you sure about that “low sulphate” diesel ?
I would think that any engine fuel that carries oxygen in it; like an alcohol or ether additive; or a sulphated diesel fuel would inherently be low mileage efficiency; the equivalent of adding water to the gas.
My guesss is that dirty diesel carries sulphides; not sulphates. The main advantages of the California Reformulated Gasoline are that the Benzene content was cut in half to under 0.5%, but the sulphide components were reduced by something like 85%; greatly reducing the sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.
of course then the idiots mandated MTBE, and eventually ethanol “oxygenates” which is energetically equivalent to adding water to the gasoline and charging the customer for all gasoline fuel prices. So you end up with about 15% lower fuel mileage; and hence greater carbon emissions; and actually no cleaner air in any case.
I did find one new interesting automobile gizmo. Engineers at MIT have built an electromagnetic shock absorber. You’ve seen those flashlights with a sliding magnet and coil that you whip back and forth to charge up a super capacitor to run the flashlight.
Well this shock absorber uses the same principle to turn the bouncing energy of bumpy roads into electricity to charge the battery, instead of wasting it as thermal energy; sometimes called “heat” (not a noun).
Ok you can’t run the car on bounce; but it sure beats just throwing that bumpy road generated energy away.
Colorado and New Mexico voted heavily for O’Bama. I wonder how many of those Hope and Change types live in the mountains where 10+ feet of snow every year is the norm. Also wonder how they will get by once SUVs and trucks are verboten and they have to navigate those mountains in a Prius or Civic.
Oh well, stupid is as stupid does for voting the way they did.
Pofarmer (05:22:15) :
‘That’s not what the ad says. The add talks about how much fuel it takes to move a ton of freight 423 miles. My Semi will move a ton of freight about 200 miles on a gallon of diesel, but that certainly doesn’t mean I get 200 MPG.’
I stand corrected. Thanks
“Jeff Alberts (08:27:50) :
Clarkson doesn’t like any car that won’t do at least 200 mph.”
He actually thinks the Mundano is a good car so that’s not true! (He likes it too).
Hybrids may be fine about town, but on a motorway, (Interstate,) they’re abyssmal.
LPG!
All the LPG vehicles I’ve driven require that you have some petrol, (gasoline,) in the second tank.
DaveE.