New Accord "Econ" button

Page 2 of 2  
On 03/13/2013 09:43 AM, Alan Bowler wrote:


why not? they expect us to read the spew they throw up every month. they should read something someone else wrote for a change.

why? where are they for the prius?
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/13/2013 9:10 PM, jim beam wrote:

Back in 2002 reviewers of the Prius and HCH complained: 1) You will never save enough on gas to make up for the extra cost. For some strange reason at the same time tey would rave about some SUV model that cost thousands more than a Prius of HCH and got 1/2 the mileage (or worse). 2) LRR tires are too noisy 3) Honda and Toyota are losing money on every one sold and wil soon discontinue them. 4) They are too slow to accelerate, (0->60 12 second for the HCH) 5) the big battery will need replacement every 3 years and cost $9k each time (they ignored the 8 year guarentee). 6) They are only useful in city driving and are no good for sustained highway use.
There were a few good reviews. I think it was Popular Science said "It's a Civic and that's a good thing".
Now after more than a decade of reliable service from some are willing to say good things about the Prius and HCH.
Looking back at the complaints. 1) After almost 11 years and 230k KM, I have saved more than the hybrid premium on gas. Even though I did not actually expect to. Newer models, especially of the Prius get even better mileage. 2) Noise from the tires is no worse then any other common vehicle. 3) The HCH and Prius are still being produced, and at least moderately profitable. The Prius clearly been very good for Toyota judging by how the line has been expanded. 4) They are not drag racers, but there are lots of cars that are not any faster. Notably the many of the older Mustangs with automatics that the reviewers loved. The 1971 Vega was Car and Driver's "car of the year" with a 16 second 0->60. 5) My HCH is still on the original battery (and brakes) as are most others. Yes some people have to pay for battery replacements after the 8 year guarantee, but the cost seems to be in the $2->3 thousand range. Many other types of cars often need a few $1000 repairs over more than a decade. 6) Reviewers are still regularly saying "only save in city driving". Owners are generally very pleased with their mileage on the highway. On long trips in warm weather my HCH often exceeds the old "unrealistic" EPA/NRCAN ratings. Overall my mileage is not what those ratings said, but since it includes southern Ontario winter driving, I'm happy. The winter penalty is no worse than any other vehicle I've observed.
The clutch on the 2003 HCH CVT did have an issue, and more than one whole transmission was replaced under warranty (including mine). As it later turned out, most of these replacements were unneccessary, and a simpler burnishing was all that was needed after 4 or 5 years.
The Prius uses a completely different ECVT design that has been ultra reliable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/14/2013 05:22 PM, Alan Bowler wrote:

+1
toyota went ahead and sold the car anyway regardless of reviews. i don't think they expected it to take off the way it has - which says a lot about the actual buying public being a good deal more sophisticated than the invested interests of the motor "journalism" industry. i think the same would apply to honda's with "natural" cvts if they had the balls to run with it here the way they have in every other global market. and included the "explanatory brochure".
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think one thing that helped the Prius is it convinced a lot of people to buy a *smaller* car than they would have otherwise.
Comparing a Prius to a Tahoe, yeah, you can save the difference in only eleven years, especially since you start out ahead!
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except for it not being a good thing. The fact is, it's a post-apocalypse Honda--and that's a VERY bad thing. Because when Honda realized that its fuckup on the battery was costing the money, they installed a "maintenance update" the sole purpose of which was to reduce/eliminate system use of the battery so that it wouldn't fail and cost a warranty fix, in exchange for the owner using significantly more gasoline.
Virtually all users reported that they ended up getting the same mileage as a non-hybrid Civic.
Fuck Honda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/15/2013 6:29 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

Over the almost 11 years I've had the HCH, it has averaged slight better than 5 L /100KM (better than 47 miles/US-gallon). Non-hybrid Civics may get that number on warm weather highway driving, but not overall when winter weather is included.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have to "jerk it" out of economy mode and into burn-some-gasoline-dammit mode whatever that means in CVT terms, it means the electronics have to let the belt slide faster than it does in cruise mode. It doesn't mean it has to stop dead and pretend to be a fixed ratio.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/13/2013 09:41 PM, JRStern wrote:

right. as long as you're also paying attention to the fact that with cvt, you can also optimize the engine for a very narrow rpm range in which it is highly efficient. which, of course, is how the prius works. efficient doesn't mean it can't also be powerful - look at any big-rig diesel - very narrow rev range of high efficiency/power.
the way honda are doing this, they're losing efficiency by keeping the engine working over a wide rev range, and they're potentially compromising the reliability of the transmission by keeping the ratios restricted to certain regions of the cones.
the whole concept is utterly utterly retarded.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I want to accelerate I want maximum power not maximum efficiency.
For two seconds, or ten, I want to burn 4x the gas for "only" 2x the power. I want to make a carbon footprint, dammit.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/14/2013 07:34 PM, JRStern wrote:

depending on how the car is tuned, that can be the same thing. big-rig diesels have a very narrow working rev range - as low as 500rpm. that's why they have so many gears. with a cvt, you could have a very similar arrangement because the cvt effectively offers you an infinite number of gears.

--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah I guess, I don't fully grok all the issues but clearly on these gas engines that's not the case, Honda tries to keep the RPMs down under 2k or even 1k for efficiency while the power peaks are up around 4k to redline, and I presume the variable cam is still reserved for high RPM, not used to optimize a low RPM range. I do still have the variable cam, right? I oughta look ...
(cue Elmo ...)
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.