Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
My 2001 Honda Insight is running well and will need a Texas state inspection during September. The IMA /power battery is not working and is already safely disconnected.
Texas MAY vote next year to do away with state inspections.
At present I don't have the $2500 I need to buy and have installed a new power battery.

There are two lights lit up on the dash since I, at a member's recommendation, detached connections to the dead power battery.

1- Is there some way to shut off these two dash lights--"IMA" and "check engine" ?
2-If this is done, does that mean my car would then pass a state safety and emissions inspection?
3- Is there something I can do to get my car to pass the state inspection--other than a new power battery?

Thanks for any INSIGHT you can offer me
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,641 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
1) The bulbs can be removed. There are instructions on this site for removal. However, the TX test may involve:
a) confirming the CEL comes on when it should at ignition on and turns off after starting.
b) connect to OBD port.

2) probably not. the easiest way to confirm exhaust emissions system per step 10 is to check codes:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/vi/inspection/inspectionCriteria.aspx

A failed IMA battery is an emission system failure.

3) Get IMA battery functionality long enough to complete the needed drive cycle tests to pass emissions (grid charge or a ton of 12V resets).

Given that you have 90 days between inspection and registration expiration to get it inspected. Does it serve you to take it now and see what happens?

If it's a manual transmission, you can install a calpod switch and "disable" the pack to help you get through the drive cycles to pass emissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,008 Posts

·
Linsight Designer
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
Texas plugs into the OBDII port on any car that has it... you will fail inspection even if you remove the lights. However, if you follow the instructions in these three youtube videos, you'll have no CEL or IMA lights, even though the IMA battery is completely removed. However, as pointed out above, this modification isn't legal in the USA on any federally funded road (i.e. all public roads). Don't let the programming scare you, it really only takes 30 minutes to figure out how to upload the firmware to the Arduino.

General overview (Look in video description for download and instructions):

Wiring specifics:

If you've never touched the IMA before, expect to spend 5 hours and a six pack doing it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
934 Posts
mudder has the solution, that's what I'm doing with my CVT to pass inspection in Tennessee. failing emissions for hybrid accessories is complete BS, as a hybrid battery is not a standard emissions requirement for all cars. I feel no shame in tricking the emissions testers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
mudder has the solution, that's what I'm doing with my CVT to pass inspection in Tennessee. failing emissions for hybrid accessories is complete BS, as a hybrid battery is not a standard emissions requirement for all cars. I feel no shame in tricking the emissions testers.
So, your car emits the same amount of pollutants without a battery as it did when it was functioning properly?

Bulls**t.

"Hybrid accessories" - seriously? The hybrid components of the car are as integral as any major automotive system like the transmission. It just has the unique feature of being partially operable when bypassed, but the car fails to perform as rated in every measure.

The hybrid system is implicitly a part of the emission system. It had the longer warranty period because it is part of the emission system. When it is not functioning, you are emitting more pollutants. Period.

You're bypassing it because you don't give a s**t. You don't like being told what to do, and nobody has the right to tell you that you have to spend thousands to fix a car that "runs fine."

Mind you, I'm not judging your actions. I would consider doing it too depending on circumstances. I'm judging the absurdly silly reasoning and story you're telling yourself to justify it. Be a cheap and/or rebellious bastard all you like.

Be honest with yourself.
 

·
Linsight Designer
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
My thought process has always been the following:
1: Assume you are driving on a long trip and are in a damn hurry. For example, you're driving TX130 (speed limit 85), so the IMA battery will drain quickly, hovering around empty.
2: Forced regen will eventually kick in, at which point the IMA system is actually worsening emissions, and yet this is legal because it's completely stock.

Now consider the case when no IMA is installed at all... since there's never forced regen, the emissions aren't affected. Another example, my house is 600' above the city, but the IMA motor dials back charge current to prevent overheating on my drive down. On the drive back up, the IMA battery starts fairly empty, and is exhausted about 300' up... queue forced regen, which forces me into 2nd gear (@ 30 mph), whereas I can stay in 3rd without regen (e.g. Calpod). The mpg difference is huge, hence the reason I contend that IMA modifications are legal, yet the EPA regulations are so vague...

If you think too hard about it, you could certainly make a case that Calpod, MIMA, Linsight, etc are all against the letter of the law, even though I propose they actually improve efficiency when used properly.

...

Keep in mind, though, that my IMA bypass is only designed for foreign vehicles and MONSTER TRUCK INSIGHT RALLIES.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
I think all that is bunk. It's magical thinking that's used to justify desires.

It's not vague. It's basically, "if you test the car like this, you will get these results." They publish the drive cycle criteria.

If you run an IMA bypassed Insight through the EPA test, it will get lower than rated mileage - period.

Hills aren't relevant just as no other individual situation is, but the EPA test is what's "typical" for the unwashed masses - that's what matters.

Again, I don't really care that one modifies or bypasses their IMA. I just dislike bulls**t reasons. Bottom line is that "EMISSIONS" are affected. The hybrid system IS an emissions system. Nobody believes that a failed cat doesn't affect emissions. Why do folks delude themselves into thinking the IMA system doesn't affect emissions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
820 Posts
I think all that is bunk. It's magical thinking that's used to justify desires.

It's not vague. It's basically, "if you test the car like this, you will get these results." They publish the drive cycle criteria.

If you run an IMA bypassed Insight through the EPA test, it will get lower than rated mileage - period.

Hills aren't relevant just as no other individual situation is, but the EPA test is what's "typical" for the unwashed masses - that's what matters.

Again, I don't really care that one modifies or bypasses their IMA. I just dislike bulls**t reasons. Bottom line is that "EMISSIONS" are affected. The hybrid system IS an emissions system. Nobody believes that a failed cat doesn't affect emissions. Why do folks delude themselves into thinking the IMA system doesn't affect emissions?
You're correct in that a good working IMA system will reduce emissions to the extent that it helps the car use less fuel and thus create less emissions... and in an ideal world it is best to fix it. However, for those of us that are chaotic good instead of lawful good, I do think the option of de-hybriding a car with a failing pack can be overall the most practical option. At some point I plan on de-hybriding my #2 car and hopefully Linsight-ing my #1.

Also, you can call it BS justification, but for the average driver, simply driving on a heavier tire setup will cause about the same percentage MPG drop, and, by extension, about the same emissions increase... there's just no CEL or legal requirement for detecting the OEM tire. Then there is the fact that pretty much every other class C vehicle made in the same years still burn more fuel and create more emissions.. including all the 5.7L V8 trucks running straight pipe exhausts that are mainly just used to tailgate people and commute to work.
 

·
Engine-Off-Coast
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
I was thinking about this on my way to work today S Keith.

I don't think anyone will ever do this, but my hunch is that it's possible to remove the IMA battery and then modify the car in some certain ways that would let it pass the original EPA test with the same or better results than the stock car. It would probably be extremely difficult, and definitely impractical, but it may not actually be "impossible."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
I was thinking about this on my way to work today S Keith.

I don't think anyone will ever do this, but my hunch is that it's possible to remove the IMA battery and then modify the car in some certain ways that would let it pass the original EPA test with the same or better results than the stock car. It would probably be extremely difficult, and definitely impractical, but it may not actually be "impossible."
Hunches are notoriously unscientific and come from the same people who are in complete disbelief that a single failed cell will take out a whole pack... "It SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY!"

Read this and tell me you still think it's possible:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

You see the curves indicating time and speed relationship as well as time vs. change of speed = acceleration and deceleration. Do you really believe an insight with an inoperable IMA will ever achive that when it has to meet a specific acceleration requirement?

The cutaway Insight is a good start as it likely has already lost at least part of the weight needed. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
You're correct in that a good working IMA system will reduce emissions to the extent that it helps the car use less fuel and thus create less emissions... and in an ideal world it is best to fix it. However, for those of us that are chaotic good instead of lawful good, I do think the option of de-hybriding a car with a failing pack can be overall the most practical option. At some point I plan on de-hybriding my #2 car and hopefully Linsight-ing my #1.

Also, you can call it BS justification, but for the average driver, simply driving on a heavier tire setup will cause about the same percentage MPG drop, and, by extension, about the same emissions increase... there's just no CEL or legal requirement for detecting the OEM tire. Then there is the fact that pretty much every other class C vehicle made in the same years still burn more fuel and create more emissions.. including all the 5.7L V8 trucks running straight pipe exhausts that are mainly just used to tailgate people and commute to work.
Still is BS. You're doing more of the same... imagining scenarios that support your position. There is an expectation of all that stuff, variables, sloppy bastids who don't air up their tires, aggressive drivers, etc.

Tires aren't a part of the emissions system. They're a consumable. What are manufacturers doing now? Pressure monitoring.

The EPA rating is a baseline, i.e., when produced by the factory and tested in this matter, a functioning car will produce these results ± some %.

The reality is that when the IMA is inoperative, the in-town and combined mileage goes to pure **** unless you let that little ol' lady who only drives on sundays out-accelerate you by 2X.

Again, I support anyone's decision to bypass/modify or whatever, but I don't support flawed logic. Even those scenarios are valid. Even arguments of big trucks and ****ty drivers are justified... just don't pretend you shouldn't fail emissions when a massive part of the emission system has failed.

I live in AZ with emissions testing, and yes, me and the CEL have had our issues in the past, and it sucks trying to get through emissions when the battery is acting up, or I have other issues, but you know what? I get it. I can see how the economy has taken a big hairy ****, and yeah... this car no longer meets the emissions guidelines WELL BEYOND what would be expected from natural variations due to driving style, tire choice, etc.

Oh, and I need to take my Gen1 Prius to emissions right now, but guess what? I have a "P" code and a CEL... inverter is acting up... I'm not resentful that I have to fix it though. I get it. Sucks, but I get it.

So again... please... modify as you see fit, just don't be pissed that the government is at least going through the motions to improve air quality, and acknowledge that you're not doing your part to the same degree as you used to, and THAT'S why you don't get to pass emissions when your city/combined mpg is in the ****ter. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
934 Posts
So, your car emits the same amount of pollutants without a battery as it did when it was functioning properly?
Nice strawman argument there Keith, I never said "mycar emits the same amount of pollutants without a battery as it did when it was functioning properly". But you know what? It emit less emissions than my non-hybrid cars with a bypassed battery. I suppose I can just junk the car and buy a new gas guzzler, since the car is worth less than the battery. That's why it's BS.


You're bypassing it because you don't give a s**t. You don't like being told what to do, and nobody has the right to tell you that you have to spend thousands to fix a car that "runs fine."
you are one cranky dude. Does someone **** in your Cheerios on a daily basis?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Really? You're going to attempt to label my argument as a logical fallacy? I gave you the logical reasoning for your flawed logic. Your car does not meet its rated emissions requirements. Period. It has nothing to do with any other car.

You're comparing requirements for hybrid cars to non-hybrid cars. That's the logical fallacy.

So, you should be able to pass emissions with a failing cat too, or are you going to say no because other cars that aren't hybrids need cats too? Magical thinking.

I'm actually not cranky at all. I'm just tired of this BS argument. It's ridiculous. The "solution" you propose would easily be substantially more expensive than repairing your car. That's silly. Just fix it.. or don't.

Again, do what you want, just don't delude yourself with flawed reasoning. Do it because you're too cheap to repair it. Awesome. I totally support that, but guess what... your car shouldn't pass emissions when its emissions system has failed as it is producing far more pollutants than it was certified to emit given anticipated variations. I have to contend with exactly the same issue. You don't see me whining about it. I get it. It makes sense. It's LOGICAL AND REASONABLE.

Those VW TDIs should be good too, right, because I'm sure some of the requirements for diesels don't apply to gas cars. Since they don't apply to gas cars, they shouldn't have to meet them, right?

See your flawed logic... or are you good with the VW TDI issue?

Again, enjoy whatever path you choose, just walk in the light. Be proud of your choice for the right reasons - not out of spite for "the man" and his rules.

Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other person gets sick. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
934 Posts
These cars are still LEV's even without a hybrid battery. It's nonsense to be unable to register one of these cars over the battery.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Not relevant at all. It was rated PZEH SULEV or whatever the hell it was. Doesn't matter what it can do with a failed emissions system component.

You can identify a plethora of vehicles the TDIs outperform. You good with those VWs staying on the road? They aren't meeting the standards they were subject to when produced. Neither does your Insight.

A major component of the emissions system has failed. Regions that adopt EPA rules require the emissions system to be operational. It's not. No pass for you.

Keep in mind that my Prius has a fully functional battery pack with a wonky inverter. I still can't pass emissions. When it runs, it produces no more emissions than it is rated for; however, since the inverter is part of the hybrid system, it falls under the emission umbrella.

My ONLY NEW solution is THOUSANDS of dollars from Toyota that would make your battery look cheap.

We are in the exact same boat in that regard; however, one of us has a VERY skewed perspective.

I'm not bitching though... because I get it.

EDIT: Again, I support everybody's decision to go the bypass route if they so choose... just not the "it shouldn't fail because my battery is bad and my emissions have gone up significantly, but it's still better than a truck" reasoning.
 

·
Linsight Designer
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
Changing the scope of the question slightly, suppose someone is working on a drop-in lithium battery replacement with ten times the OEM capacity and a grid charger? This hypothetical system substantially reduces emissions, and yet technically it violates EPA's vague Clean Air Act statutes, which specifically "prohibits tampering with or defeating the emission control systems."

With the above example, I would argue that we are doing the opposite of "defeating the emission control system;" the car gets better mileage. And yet, technically these systems are illegal without certifying the vehicle. Truth is, Calpod, Linsight, MIMA, spark plug disablers, turbochargers, and many other devices, are technically tampering with the emission control system, unless the vehicle is recertified ($$$) after all modifications are performed.

Moving away from the legalese, from an environmental impact perspective, I propose that scrapping a G1 due to a dead battery is more harmful than driving a G1 without the battery... it's more than likely more environmentally friendly than any other non plugin vehicle you'd replace it with. Going one step further, I propose that the environmental impacts resulting from scrapping 120 NiMH cells and building 120 more are worse than any theoretical efficiency decrease one might encounter.

And finally, I still believe there are use cases where the OEM IMA system actually worsens Insight's environmental impact. I proposed two cases previously, both of which are how I actually drive the car. In summary, I'm either driving a couple miles downhill when the engine is cold, or I'm driving 1000 miles on the highway. In both cases, the IMA isn't terribly useful, hence I usually Calpod it off.

Please keep the comments civil. At the end of the day it's only a car and people are going to do what they want with it.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top