Honda Insight vs Toyota Prius

[Jason]

Here are the dueling hybrids in a nutshell:

2010 Honda Insight: While Honda still makes the Civic Hybrid, the new Insight is the first hybrid-only Honda since that original two-seat Insight. It's a handsome car, with room for two adults in the rear, three in a squeeze. The interior is not quite deluxe, but it's on par with the Civic.

The base-model Insight lists for just under $20,000, but don't expect to see many at that price on dealer lots. The test Insight had the navigation system with voice activation, and listed for $23,770. Fuel mileage is EPA-rated at 40 mpg in the city, 43 mpg on the highway. I averaged just over 43 mpg.

2010 Toyota Prius: Knowing in advance that the Insight was coming, Toyota stepped up the makeover for the 2010 Prius, and it's impressive: There will be a base model likely priced above the current starting price of around $22,000, but add options, and it seems certain the Prius can top $30,000. Options include a sunroof with a solar panel that doesn't generate electricity for running the car, but for running fans inside the car that can keep the interior cooler while the Prius is parked in the sun. There's also the "park assist" feature offered on Lexus models that can actually parallel-park the Prius on its own, with the driver's hands literally off the steering wheel. Add those two features to leather upholstery and a navigation system, and the Prius becomes almost a luxury hybrid.

Toyota won't release prices of the new Prius for a month or so, closer to its arrival at dealers. But it has released mileage figures: It's EPA-rated at 51 mpg in the city, 48 mpg on the highway. Why is the city mileage better than the highway mileage? Because you can press a button labeled "EV," and the Prius can run on electric-only power at speeds up to 25 miles per hour, and depending on the charge level for the battery, for a distance of almost a mile, using no gasoline at all. There is a "plug-in" Prius coming - plug it into household current overnight, and it will go father on electric power than the current model - but it is at least a year away. I averaged 51.8 mpg in the Prius.

One interesting feature on the Prius: Open the hood, and you'll notice that there are no belts. Most everything, including power steering, air conditioning and even the water pump, is now electric, so nothing is belt-driven.

So the biggest question from customers cross-shopping the Insight and the Prius is likely to be this: If the Insight has a smaller gasoline engine, why does it get worse mileage than the Prius?

The answer is because the Prius is a "full" hybrid, meaning it can move along on electric power alone. The Insight is considered a "mild" hybrid, meaning the gasoline engine is always turning. With both cars, the gas engine stops at a red light. With the Insight, it re-starts when you take your foot off the brake. With the Prius, it can accelerate - slowly - on electric power alone before the gas engine starts up.

Actually, though, it isn't quite that simple, due to Honda's new "integrated assist" feature: While all the internal components of the gas engine are always rotating as the car drives down the road, under certain and very limited conditions - rolling downhill, for instance -- the onboard computer can actually cut the gasoline supply to the engine, while the electric motor does the work. In essence, the car is operating on battery power alone, but since the engine is always turning, you don't get the stealthy, silent-running experience you do in a Prius. This less complex system helps make the Insight less expensive than the Prius, but as mentioned, the mileage isn't as good.

That said, for pure driving experience, I slightly prefer the Honda. The new Prius steers and handles much better than the current model, but the Honda has a sportier feel, and I'd submit that it's the better-looking car. If I lived in a big city, though, and was constantly caught in heavy stop-and-go traffic, the Prius would be the better buy in the long run.

Both cars are aimed carefully at their target markets, and both score direct hits. One of these is likely to be the 2010 car of the year.




2010 Toyota Prius
Base price: $22,750 (estimate)
Engine size: 1.8-liter four-cylinder with 98 horsepower.
EPA overall fuel mileage rating: 50 mpg
EPA classification: Midsize car.



2010 Honda Insight
Base price: $20,470
Engine size: 1.3-liter four-cylinder with 88 horsepower.
EPA overall fuel mileage rating: 41 mpg
EPA classification: Compact car.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/04/back-to-back-hybrid-smack-prius-vs-insight.html

[Off Grid Solar]

Jason, Please look up AMP Motors. This car gets zero miles per gallon. I have developed a charger system for this car and it takes 4-6 minutes to recharge this car. EV are comming fast..

[darelldd]

The answer is because the Prius is a "full" hybrid, meaning it can move along on electric power alone.

Another question along these lines: The 2010 Prius has a LARGER gas engine than the 2009, so why does ithe 2010 get 10% better gas mileage? The answer obviously has NOTHING to do with the Prius being a "full" hybrid, since both the 09 and 10 are "full" hybrids. And really the answer of the question between the Honda and the Prius doesn't hinge so much on this aspect either. Lots of factors go into this equation. And in the end, Toyota spends more money on their Hybrid Synergy Drive (and thus has a more expensive car). Toyota offers a car that is larger, more powerful, roomier for people and cargo, with more bells and whistles for a bit more money. The Honda offers a less expensive car. The beauty of the Honda is that I can see more college kids driving a hybrid now with this introduction.

[darelldd]

Jason, Please look up AMP Motors. This car gets zero miles per gallon. I have developed a charger system for this car and it takes 4-6 minutes to recharge this car. EV are comming fast..

I'm not sure what this has to do with the hybrids in question (maybe not the proper thread for this?), but I do have some questions for you:
1. How many of these conversions have been built/delivered?
2. What sort of electrical input is required for a six-minute (150 mile) charge? Current? Voltage?
3. The "charger system" is only half the battle. What sort of batteries can gobble up that sort of charge rate without smoking? I have seen the 123 batteries gain about 100 miles of charge capacity in 10 minutes. This was demonstrated before a live audience. Is there any documentation of the charge rate you speak of?
4. What happens now that Saturn is not owned by GM?

Thanks!

[theroman]

In my opinion hybrid technology is not so good. But it has few advantage. I would personally buy an electric car.
P.S. i read http://italkaboutcars.com/5_facts_to...rids_pros_cons and that's why electric car is my favorite)) link isn't a spam.

[emartin00]

Forget the Prius. Get a Volt!

[inetdog]

In my opinion hybrid technology is not so good. But it has few advantage. I would personally buy an electric car.
P.S. i read http://italkaboutcars.com/5_facts_to...rids_pros_cons and that's why electric car is my favorite)) link isn't a spam.

An interesting link, but the guy lost all credibility with me when he stated that hybrids have been around for a long time and cited examples of pure steam and pure electric vehicles to prove his statement.

[truav8r]

The compromise nature of "hybrids" is a turn off to me. Can't go very far on the electric portion, and still have the maintenance on the ICE portion. Go pure EV or go home, I say. We have a Leaf and love it. Great commuter vehicle if your work / life allows for it.

[PNjunction]

Heh, there is always the issue of just moving the chess pieces around.

At the other end of a "pure-EV", is there a fossil-fuel, coal-fired power plant in the next state / territory providing the juice for your charge?

The entire delivery chain has to be looked at, and is only as strong as it's weakest link. But there are those that are happy as long as that link is not in their neighborhood.

I think the early Australian EV pioneers really brought this issue to the forefront a few decades ago.

[emartin00]

Heh, there is always the issue of just moving the chess pieces around.

At the other end of a "pure-EV", is there a fossil-fuel, coal-fired power plant in the next state / territory providing the juice for your charge?

The entire delivery chain has to be looked at, and is only as strong as it's weakest link. But there are those that are happy as long as that link is not in their neighborhood.

I think the early Australian EV pioneers really brought this issue to the forefront a few decades ago.

Here in the US, an EV is cleaner than the average ICE car in almost every state.
You can plug in your zipcode here to see exactly how much: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/..._emissions.php

In my area, an EV is 3 times cleaner.

And remember, gas doesn't come out of the ground ready to burn. It takes an average of 6kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gas. You could drive an EV 20 miles on that energy alone.

[SunEagle]

Here in the US, an EV is cleaner than the average ICE car in almost every state.
You can plug in your zipcode here to see exactly how much: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/..._emissions.php

In my area, an EV is 3 times cleaner.

And remember, gas doesn't come out of the ground ready to burn. It takes an average of 6kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gas. You could drive an EV 20 miles on that energy alone.

And yet the total number of EV's sold in 2014 was less than 1% of total vehicles sold. And even with the push of newer and better models the estimated sales for EV's in 2025 will only be 20% of total.

Apparently being 3 times cleaner is not a motivation for the US public. The problem is cost to maintain and run a vehicle.

So unfortunately unless gas goes back up above $4/gallon I see very little increase of sales for those type of cars.

[emartin00]

And yet the total number of EV's sold in 2014 was less than 1% of total vehicles sold. And even with the push of newer and better models the estimated sales for EV's in 2025 will only be 20% of total.

Apparently being 3 times cleaner is not a motivation for the US public. The problem is cost to maintain and run a vehicle.

So unfortunately unless gas goes back up above $4/gallon I see very little increase of sales for those type of cars.

The problem is that consumers don't look at the cost to maintain. EVs are far cheaper to maintain than ICE vehicles. The Volt has a lower 5 year total cost of ownership than the Cruze.
I've had my Volt for 4 years, and the only maintenance it has needed is 2 oil changes. Yes, 2, in 4 years. At 35k miles, I would be up to 7 with a Cruze, not to mention anything else it may need.
EV is also far cheaper than gas. I can get 40 miles for less than $1 of electricity. Even with gas at $2/gallon, you would be lucky to do half that good.

[SunEagle]

The problem is that consumers don't look at the cost to maintain. EVs are far cheaper to maintain than ICE vehicles. The Volt has a lower 5 year total cost of ownership than the Cruze.
I've had my Volt for 4 years, and the only maintenance it has needed is 2 oil changes. Yes, 2, in 4 years. At 35k miles, I would be up to 7 with a Cruze, not to mention anything else it may need.
EV is also far cheaper than gas. I can get 40 miles for less than $1 of electricity. Even with gas at $2/gallon, you would be lucky to do half that good.

While the cost to maintain may not be looked at by all, most consumers combine that cost along with the initial cost as well as the dependability of a vehicle to the formula before they make a major purchase.

I will get one eventually but at this time it is not a viable resource due to the lack of charging infrastructure in my area and the longer one way commute distance.

Maybe if initial costs come down while the battery range goes up I will make the leap. But at this time I still need an ICE or hybrid vehicle for most of my driving requirements.

[J.P.M.]

The problem is that consumers don't look at the cost to maintain. EVs are far cheaper to maintain than ICE vehicles. The Volt has a lower 5 year total cost of ownership than the Cruze.
I've had my Volt for 4 years, and the only maintenance it has needed is 2 oil changes. Yes, 2, in 4 years. At 35k miles, I would be up to 7 with a Cruze, not to mention anything else it may need.
EV is also far cheaper than gas. I can get 40 miles for less than $1 of electricity. Even with gas at $2/gallon, you would be lucky to do half that good.

A bigger problem might be that consumers (at least in the U.S.) don't look much at costs, period, at least, for this conversation, as it might relate to transportation and associated costs. If they did, for starters they'd do the no brainer thing and keep their vehicles a little longer if they had a vehicle at all, but that's drifting into the area of the confusion between wants and needs.

As to EV vs. ICE ownership costs, that's the stuff of process economics. Which one will cost less after X years of ownership ? Or, conversely, which one will leave you with more $$'s after all cost considerations over X years using time value of money concepts ?

Because the future is not absolutely predictable beyond some ill- or non- defined probability, the best you can do, if you can be truly objective and dispassionate about it, is take your best shot based on information that is no better than an educated guess. Expecting more accuracy is probably wishful thinking and the vision of a fool.

Three steps: Do your time value of money homework, pay your money, take your choice. Most folks skip step one.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[jflorey2]

And yet the total number of EV's sold in 2014 was less than 1% of total vehicles sold. And even with the push of newer and better models the estimated sales for EV's in 2025 will only be 20% of total.

Right. 20% is a good target. EV's aren't for everyone; many people need greater range or faster fueling than EV's can provide.

One of the most important things that EV's will give us is fuel flexibility. The next time we have an oil shock, if we have EV's ready to be a part of the solution, then it won't hit us nearly as hard as if we were 100% gasoline powered. (Same goes for technologies like ethanol, natural gas, biogas etc.)

So unfortunately unless gas goes back up above $4/gallon I see very little increase of sales for those type of cars.

That's the key. For long term profitability of tight oil, oil has to stay above about $60/barrel - and that means that higher prices will eventually return.