Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi Gang,

I'm a fairly new user. I made a couple of posts when I was looking to buy...now I'm a proud Insight owner going on 8 months or so.

I just wanted to mention that I saw an article in the December issue of Road & Track which indicated that there may be a new Insight in a couple of years. It says that Honda's plans to do this are "ambitious" and it will be a mid-engined, 130 bhp, sportier version of what we have now. There's an artist's rendition of what it might look like.

I was excited to hear that our baby might have a second chance. Just wanted to share.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
I saw that little article as well.
Very exciting news!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
Hi Dan, Glad you like your Insight.

Thanks for the tip on that article. I really liked that new style. It appears to be an artist's rendition of what a new Insight might look like if it was produced based upon the little info they had, rather than a photo of a concept car. Many of us here believe that inside that aluminum body beats the heart of a sports car. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hi Mark,

I haven't found anything on the interweb about it yet. So far, the only info seems to be in the December issue of Road & Track.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Kip,

I agree. Given the "performance hybrid" direction Honda went with the Accord Hybrid, I'm sure that beefing up the suspension, tires, displacement and IMA output would make the Insight a sporty competitor.

Even so, I still wouldn't want to trade mileage for speed.

Dan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
Dan, I'm in "Accord" with your "Insight". :badgrin:

If I were Honda, Here is how I would resolve the issue. By going to a 4 cylinder engine like the Civic, I would add cylinder idling. I'd put in a larger IMA motor to give awesome E-turbo boost. Because the engine was placed in the rear I'd have better control over temperature as happens with the radiator block. I'd put in a thermos sytem like Prius to bring the engine up to temperature faster, and I'd use the lack of an engine in the front to improve the airflow over the car in general. (The muffler system, and power cables would no longer have to run under the car and you wouldn't need to run air flow around the engine.) With improvements to the conversion efficiency of the IMA system and current drain of the computers and use of LED lighting throughout electrical drain could be reduced dramatically.

Bottom line.......I don't think the gas milleage would have to suffer at all. :D :D

Because of the aluminum body, this would out sports car everything else on the road. People wouldn't buy it to go green. They would want it because it would be a perfect sports car!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hey Kip,

Sounds like you're on to something here! It did mention in the article that the next Insight could have a mid-mounted engine.

With all of the advances in Hybrid technology since the introduction of the Insight, those improvements you mentioned are a common sense evolution.

The EV-1 went like schnell on electric alone, so I don't see why the Insight can't do the same with just a small engine.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
My Idea of a future Insight would not be to improve the performance ie the acceleration and top speed but stick with the original goal and improve the MPG! and reduce the emissions.If my interests were in speed and acceleration I would purchase one of many so called sports cars already on the matket to achieve that end.
What everyone forgets is there is a happy medium or comprimise when trying to achieve the efficiency the Insight provides combined with performance.You can't have both in large doses,you reach a compromise situation whereby if you increase the performance the efficiency suffers and vice versa.Honda outdid everyone with the Insight design and should up the ante again with a more efficient version.
Gliders and racing bicycles are super efficient and not to be compared with F16s or Japenese super bikes.We should stop deriding the Insights performance figures compared to more powerful machines which have lousy MPG and emission figures.

Another way of comparing is to ask yourself if the Insight is capable of 0 to 60 in ten and a half seconds and a top of 110 using a sub 1 Litre 3 cyl engine then why is a Ferrari so inferior in producing the performance it does? It has so much more power and such a larger engine compared to the Insight it should go into orbit.
In a decade or two these performance machines will have gone the way of the dinasouar once peak oil kicks in but cars of the Insight ilk will be the norm. ;)

DGate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
There's no reason Honda couldn't do both. For instance, just adding a turbo gives a considerable performance boost, with little mpg penalty - at least if you've got the willpower to keep driving for economy :) Likewise, adding a more powerful IMA system, or another gear between 2nd and 3rd, gives the driver a choice. Better fuel economy on average, more performance when wanted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
Yes James its easy to say add this or that but its usually at a cost which means more weight / less efficiency.
If another ratio or two in the manual box would help the acceleration then why doe's the CVT with its multitude of ratios not provide this already?Correct me if I am wrong but its no quicker than the manual with fixed ratios.
It seems to me the ideal is just enough performance with mind blowing economy and low emissions.If you start down the performance road you loose the whole concept of this vehicle and might as well choose from any number of normal cars in the market place.
The drivers choice you write of is there now,If performance is desired choose another car and if economy and low emissions are wanted keep driving the Insight!
To put it another way, everything is relative,The performance the Insight actually provides with so small an engine is extraodinary,To desire more is pointless as it was not designed or even purchased with this end in mind.

DGate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
"If another ratio or two in the manual box would help the acceleration then why doe's the CVT with its multitude of ratios not provide this already? Correct me if I am wrong but its no quicker than the manual with fixed ratios."

Maybe it has something to do with the inherent inefficiency of automatic transmissions? In any case, I don't want the extra gear for quickness, but for driving on mountain roads, where on some grades I currently have to choose between inefficient high revs in 2nd, and draining the pack then lugging the engine in 3rd.

"It seems to me the ideal is just enough performance with mind blowing economy and low emissions."

Sure, but how much is "just enough"? For me, what the current Insight has is not quite enough in some situations. The combination is still miles ahead of anything else out there, but it could be even better :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,631 Posts
If another ratio or two in the manual box would help the acceleration then why doe's the CVT with its multitude of ratios not provide this already?Correct me if I am wrong but its no quicker than the manual with fixed ratios
The CVT version of the Insight has 2 less horsepower and 1 less foot pounds of torque and a lower compression ratio due to a different piston.

The transmission also weighs more and they come standard with A/C adding more weight.

I don't think that you can compare the speed difference and just blame it on the transmission. It is not the typical automatic and I would guess to say that if the CVT had the same engine power output and vehicle weight of the manual version, the CVT would be the same or better in terms of acceleration.

JoeCVT - Just your average CVT owner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
I agree with with you joecvt and the added weight just helps prove my earlier point.
James you mention the inherent inefficiency of automatics,this is true of conventional automatics where there is slippage and hydraulic loads not to mention "dumb" control systems but the latest generation autos are a lot more efficient and in some cases beat manuals both in acceleration and mpg.
The whole concept of a CVT type is to better the manual version in this respect by providing an unbroken range of ratios between a fixed low up to a fixed overdrive while offering a solid non slip drive at the same time.
It would be interesting to know if Honda buys in this tranny or designs and builds it themselves as this might explain the weight penalty.
I appreciate what you are saying about the gap in ratios especially in the mountains,another compromise probably since a six speed box would ad weight.
I believe we are getting way off topic here though.

DGate
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,942 Posts
Dgate said:
It would be interesting to know if Honda buys in this tranny or designs and builds it themselves as this might explain the weight penalty.
IIRC a Dutch racing group originally developed this now "Honda" version of the CVT over 15 years ago. Compression link chain-belt. Flat rectangular, rounded corner, inter linking metal plates forming a belt that can transmit force through compression. They were pumping over 800 HP through it :!: :shock: ;) Honda bought the design.

There's probably some slippage in the system, but I think it would have to be very small. The start clutch being the obvious exception (allows slippage at a stop).

HTH! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
"...but the latest generation autos are a lot more efficient and in some cases beat manuals both in acceleration and mpg."

Maybe in some conditions, but not all. I think it's much the same as with the standard IMA control system vs MIMA. Honda designed a system that works pretty well most of the time, and doesn't need user attention, but it's possible to get much better performance if you have control.

Back to CVT vs MT: we can argue theory all we want, but the MT Insight still gets significantly better mpg :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
James wrote:
Back to CVT vs MT: we can argue theory all we want, but the MT Insight still gets significantly better mpg


I would bet that is due to lean burn which is missing on the CVT version.
This is where most of the mpg is racked up on the manual.
I have just re-read the description of the CVT in the Honda encyclopedia and found it most interesting,have a look.

DGate
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top