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 (_)/ (_)

 

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

 

- 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 (_)/ (_)

 

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 (_)/ (_)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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/

 

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.

Which probably explains the near-universal reported 0-60 times of around 4
sec for most of the new generation of electric cars.

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.

And the clunkiness.

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.

 

And if you give some programming ability to the driver, say to ask the
car to help maximize range or whatever, you might get more.

 

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

Skippy
E&OE

 

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.

 

2751 #s?? Are you sure?

What a pig!

 

No. It is probably what it says.

I have a 98 Civic HX, and I always get between 50 - 56 mpg - seasonly
dependant.
Of course, I do drive it very gently, and probably just as relevant is
the number
of digital gestures per mile. However, that latter number has gone down
significantly
recently.

 

The U.S. Fit has significant differences than the Jazz. I looked up the
specs for the Jazz 1.4 DSI Sport:

Jazz 1.4 DSI Sport: 2394 lbs (1086kg), 1.34L, 83 HP, CVT-7, combined
mpg = 48

U.S. Fit: 2514 lbs, 1.5L, 109HP, 5-speed auto, mpg = 31/38 (city/hwy)

The Jazz is 120 lbs lighter, a tiny engine, 26 HP less, different
transmission. They're far from identical.