If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 (_)/ (_) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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 (_)/ (_) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
"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/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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 (_)/ (_) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
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/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
"Bucky" > wrote in
oups.com: > 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. 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. -- TeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Fit hybrid ?
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Honda to sell sub $12,000 hybrid in 07 or 08 | laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE | Driving | 25 | February 27th 06 03:25 AM |
GM to build and sell hybrid cars in Canada ... cheaper! | Chris | Technology | 0 | February 26th 06 12:52 PM |
Hybrid cars | Gordon McGrew | Technology | 0 | February 4th 06 05:29 PM |
Dear Valued Hybrid Customer... | fclaugus | Driving | 26 | December 2nd 05 11:39 PM |
bio-diesel hybrid future | Don Stauffer | Technology | 19 | August 31st 05 12:58 AM |