 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / August 2006Fit hybrid ?
When might there be a Fit hybrid, I'm starting to druel ...  SignatureRob Fruth - Houston, Tx http://www.rfruth.net 1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o 1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _) 2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_) > When might there be a Fit hybrid, I'm starting to druel ... You can stop your drooling. Even though there's plenty of rumors about a Fit hybrid, consider these numbers: the EPA gas mileage for the Fit is only 31/38 city/hwy. That's worse than the Civic, which is 30/40. Also, the rumors also say that if Honda implements hybrid for Fit, it will be a scaled down hybridization, meaning smaller batteries than other hybrids. So I can't see a hybrid Fit getting better than 40-45 mpg, which is not impressive at all. BTW, can anyone explain how the Fit gets no better mileage than the Civic? I can't. Fit: 2514 lbs, 1.5L, 109HP, 5-speed auto Civic: 2751 lbs, 1.8L, 140HP, 5-speed auto >> When might there be a Fit hybrid, I'm starting to druel ... > > You can stop your drooling. Even though there's plenty of rumors about > a Fit hybrid, consider these numbers: the EPA gas mileage for the Fit > is only 31/38 city/hwy. That's worse than the Civic, which is 30/40. - snip - Possibly a Fit hybrid would run cleaner than a Civic ... SignatureRob Fruth - Houston, Tx http://www.rfruth.net 1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o 1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _) 2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_) > BTW, can anyone explain how the Fit gets no better mileage than the > Civic? I can't. > > Fit: 2514 lbs, 1.5L, 109HP, 5-speed auto > Civic: 2751 lbs, 1.8L, 140HP, 5-speed auto Some simple arithmetic (from your numbers): Civic: 0.051 hp/lb Fit: 0.043 hp/lb Civic: 1.27 hp/cu in Fit: 1.18 hp/cu in Simply put, the Fit's engine is having to work a bit harder than the one in the Civic. A smaller engine is not necessarily more economical. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ TeGGeR wrote: >> BTW, can anyone explain how the Fit gets no better mileage than the >> Civic? I can't. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Simply put, the Fit's engine is having to work a bit harder than the one in > the Civic. A smaller engine is not necessarily more economical. SO a Fit hybrid must be in the works (more power/creature comfort, lower emissions, same cost) as a gas only Fit ? SignatureRob Fruth - Houston, Tx http://www.rfruth.net 1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o 1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _) 2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_) > TeGGeR wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > SO a Fit hybrid must be in the works (more power/creature comfort, > lower emissions, same cost) as a gas only Fit ? Maybe to all but "same cost". Hybrids are by definition more expensive than IC-only, and will remain so for evermore. Hybrids are an evolutionary dead- end. Personally, I think the next wave is electric cars (think 2006 Tesla, not 1907 Electromobile). The major stumbling block to electric cars is energy storage. Eventually there will be a breakthrough-type development in battery technology, and when that happens, the ICE will be dead. The higher oil costs go, the more investment capital will desert oil and migrate to alternative technology, such as electrical energy storage. This is already happening, and energy storage is one of the beneficiaries. The free market at work. Just wait. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Personally, I think the next wave is electric cars (think 2006 Tesla, not > 1907 Electromobile). They already had an electric car wave back in the 90s (i.e. GM's EV1). I have personally driven the EV1, and it was a sweet car. An all-electric was an unbelievable experience. So quiet and smooth, 0-60 in 7.4s, top speed of over 100 mph (although governed to ~80mph), almost no maintenance required except for brakes, tires, and batteries. The most impressive thing was the acceleration. Even when you are cruising and floor the pedal, you get an *immediate* response that is quicker than any sports car out there, because there is zero lag with an all-electric. The 120 mile range is more than adequate for normal usage. But I think what killed it was the cost of the technology at that time. Maybe the next wave will succeed after people realize that hybrids are a marginal improvement over gas, while doubling the complexity. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/paul.commentary/ >> Personally, I think the next wave is electric cars (think 2006 Tesla, >> not 1907 Electromobile). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > almost no maintenance required except for brakes, tires, and > batteries. Ah, the batteries: a garrison of ordinary 12V lead-acid assemblies. They were the EV-1's Achilles heel. The state of California's legislative pinheads really outdid themselves that time, forcing automakers to produce the uproduceable. And that's the very point here. These new electric cars (such as the Tesla) are being designed, funded and produced without any sort of governmental stupidity...er...involvement. Right now they're terribly expensive, but so were IC cars around 1900. Their only real obstacle is batttery capacity and delivery, and you can expect that to be solved within the next ten years provided oil prices stay high and the government butts out. Then kiss the gasoline engine goodbye. > The most impressive thing was the acceleration. Even when > you are cruising and floor the pedal, you get an *immediate* response > that is quicker than any sports car out there, because there is zero > lag with an all-electric. Which probably explains the near-universal reported 0-60 times of around 4 sec for most of the new generation of electric cars. > The 120 mile range is more than adequate for normal usage. Sorry but 120 miles is not impressive to the motoring public. Tesla gets 250 miles. Now *that's* practical. 250 miles will get you somewhere meaningful, and back. > But I think > what killed it was the cost of the technology at that time. And the clunkiness. > Maybe the > next wave will succeed after people realize that hybrids are a > marginal improvement over gas, while doubling the complexity. The next wave will succeed so long as the government and the environuts stay out of it. Get them involved and the promise will implode. Personally, I think the electric car is the next big thing. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Tesla gets 250 miles. Now *that's* practical. 250 miles will get you > somewhere meaningful, and back. And if you give some programming ability to the driver, say to ask the car to help maximize range or whatever, you might get more. > Simply put, the Fit's engine is having to work a bit harder than the one in > the Civic. A smaller engine is not necessarily more economical. True, but practically speaking, it's almost always the case that the smaller the engine displacement, the better the gas mileage. Your calculations were based on max HP (around 5000-6000 rpm), which I'm not sure even comes even to play in the EPA tests. >> When might there be a Fit hybrid, I'm starting to druel ... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Fit: 2514 lbs, 1.5L, 109HP, 5-speed auto > Civic: 2751 lbs, 1.8L, 140HP, 5-speed auto My Jazz/Fit (1.4DSI Sport) 50MPG right now. Skippy E&OE > My Jazz/Fit (1.4DSI Sport) 50MPG right now. I am going to assume that this is 50 miles per Imperial gallon. EPA's estimates are in miles per U.S. gallon. Therefore, 50 mpg(Imp) is about 41 mpg(U.S.), which is still a bit more than EPA estimated. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >about 41 mpg(U.S.), which is still a bit more than EPA estimated. > No. It is probably what it says. I have a 98 Civic HX, and I always get between 50 - 56 mpg - seasonly dependant. Of course, I do drive it very gently, and probably just as relevant is the number of digital gestures per mile. However, that latter number has gone down significantly recently. > My Jazz/Fit (1.4DSI Sport) 50MPG right now. The U.S. Fit has significant differences than the Jazz. I looked up the specs for the Jazz 1.4 DSI Sport: Jazz 1.4 DSI Sport: 2394 lbs (1086kg), 1.34L, 83 HP, CVT-7, combined mpg = 48 U.S. Fit: 2514 lbs, 1.5L, 109HP, 5-speed auto, mpg = 31/38 (city/hwy) The Jazz is 120 lbs lighter, a tiny engine, 26 HP less, different transmission. They're far from identical. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.