Fit hybrid ?

When might there be a Fit hybrid, I'm starting to druel ...
--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net


1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

anyone wrote:
> 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

Bucky wrote:
> anyone wrote:
>> 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 ...


--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net


1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

"Bucky" > wrote in
ps.com:


>
> 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.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR wrote:
> "Bucky" > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>

SO a Fit hybrid must be in the works (more power/creature comfort, lower
emissions, same cost) as a gas only Fit ?

--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net


1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

anyone > wrote in
t:

> TeGGeR wrote:
>> "Bucky" > wrote in
>> ps.com:
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

TeGGeR® wrote:
> 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/

TeGGeR® wrote:
> 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.

"Bucky" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> anyone wrote:
>> 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
>

My Jazz/Fit (1.4DSI Sport) 50MPG right now.

Skippy
E&OE

Skippy wrote:

> 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.