"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net...
> Kent Finnell wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>>Nightdude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The spare tire argument is really lame.... If that's the only reason why
>>>>you don't like the car, it's a poor one. Chevy Avalanche is a totally
>>>>different truck.
>>>
>>>Spare tires should be accessible with little effort and should consider
>>>the purpose of the vehicle. Whether rocks or an ATV, the spare should be
>>>accessible without having to unload the truck. Imagine a flat during
>>>heavy rain or on a snow covered road at -15°C ...
>>>
>>>With the Ridgeline and the misguided V-6 Honda Accord Hybrid, Honda have
>>>lost it.
>>>
>>
>> Gee, you reckon some enterprising accessory maker (or 3) will come out
>> with a rack that will fit the tail gate to correct this relatively minor
>> problem?
>
> A properly designed vehicle doesn't require after market solutions to
> design blunders.

They opted for the under-bed lockable trunk rather than an easily stolen or
damaged spare hanging, exposed, in front of the rear bumper. As much as one
tries, one cannot have it all.

>
>>
>> How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>
> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
> The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.

As compared to what, a Prius or a Civic Hybrid? It does show an improvement
over the standard Accord V6, 29/37 city/highway vs. 24/34. If you want
maximum fuel efficiency, stick yourself in an Insight. Forget comfort,
passenger and luggage capacity. Will you scoff the new Lexus Hybrid Luxury
Sedan? It probably won't do any better.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

"Kent Finnell" <kentfinn@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WcYmf.1514$w7.254@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Kent Finnell wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.net...
>>>
>>>>Nightdude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The spare tire argument is really lame.... If that's the only reason
>>>>>why you don't like the car, it's a poor one. Chevy Avalanche is a
>>>>>totally different truck.
>>>>
>>>>Spare tires should be accessible with little effort and should consider
>>>>the purpose of the vehicle. Whether rocks or an ATV, the spare should
>>>>be accessible without having to unload the truck. Imagine a flat during
>>>>heavy rain or on a snow covered road at -15°C ...
>>>>
>>>>With the Ridgeline and the misguided V-6 Honda Accord Hybrid, Honda have
>>>>lost it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, you reckon some enterprising accessory maker (or 3) will come out
>>> with a rack that will fit the tail gate to correct this relatively minor
>>> problem?
>>
>> A properly designed vehicle doesn't require after market solutions to
>> design blunders.
>
> They opted for the under-bed lockable trunk rather than an easily stolen
> or damaged spare hanging, exposed, in front of the rear bumper. As much
> as one tries, one cannot have it all.
>
>>
>>>
>>> How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>
>> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>> The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
> As compared to what, a Prius or a Civic Hybrid? It does show an
> improvement over the standard Accord V6, 29/37 city/highway vs. 24/34. If
> you want maximum fuel efficiency, stick yourself in an Insight. Forget
> comfort, passenger and luggage capacity. Will you scoff the new Lexus
> Hybrid Luxury Sedan? It probably won't do any better.
>>

Opps, excuse me, the EPA estimates for the standard Accord V6 should be
21/30. What I originally had were for the Accord L4. Of course YMMV, but
an 8 to 7 mpg increase while not losing performance or comfort seems like a
pretty good deal. But then there's the price premium.


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net...
> Kent Finnell wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>
> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
> The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan

That's okay - it is a common error. The objective of hybrids is to correct a
huge design compromise we have been forced into for a century: the use of
the same power source for low speeds, acceleration and high speeds. Whenever
auto makers increase engine power in cars (as they did in the '70s and are
currently doing) the flub becomes even more glaring - we have 300 hp engines
pulling 3000 lb cars around. Not a great concept.

Hybridization effectively separates engine power from acceleration
performance and frees the engine from stupid things like low speed operation
and idling. Sizing the engine becomes a simple exercise: it has to have
enough power to climb a 6% grade at 75 mph (under current US standards) at
full vehicle load. There is no passing reserve in the engine because that is
handled by the electrics. There is no engine consideration of acceleration
power because that is not the engine's job... the engine is there to keep
the batteries charged. Since engine operation is very predictable - it never
has to respond to somebody tapping their right foot in time to the music on
the stereo - the engine can be refined for a more limited purpose, with
better efficiency and reliability. With reduced engine mass warm-up can be
much quicker, which is good for the engine, good for emissions and good for
the passengers on cold days. Even sources that have drivability problems can
be used; it no longer matters if it takes a gas turbine ten seconds to spool
up, because it doesn't affect the throttle response.

Anyway, that is the goal. Fuel economy is a result of correcting the
original design compromise - and is a driving force at present - but it is
not the underlying purpose. The current generation (no pun) falls short in
several ways, and I agree the Accord Hybrid is an example of not even
trying. Honda knows how to do so much better, at least in their concept
cars. http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2001/auto/DUALNOTE/

Mike

 

Alan Browne wrote:
> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save
> energy. The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.

sounds to me like they wanted to see what would happen if the technology
is used merely for extra power. its nothing theyre going to lose the
farm over if it never catches on, like the 4 wheel steering prelude.

merely a technological exercise. for people that want economy, theres
the natural gas civic GX, and the civic hybrid.

mebbe a stripped down 4-door accord with a 4 cylinder engine is in the
works?

 

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save
>> energy. The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
> The only logical reason to buy a hybrid is reduced emissions. It is for
> the environmentalists.


sometimes honda engineers think "outside the box". its not a bad trait
to have.

 

Kent Finnell wrote:
> As compared to what, a Prius or a Civic Hybrid? It does show an improvement
> over the standard Accord V6, 29/37 city/highway vs. 24/34. If you want
> maximum fuel efficiency, stick yourself in an Insight. Forget comfort,
> passenger and luggage capacity. Will you scoff the new Lexus Hybrid Luxury
> Sedan? It probably won't do any better.

i havent seen any hybrid accords with "carpool lane stickers" in
california. im pretty sure the DMV has a formula based on emissions
profiles that decides which cars get the golden ticket, so to speak.

 

"Michael Pardee" wrote in message...
> I've been frequenting a VW TDi group to learn more about how to get the
most
> out of my new turbodiesel work truck. Some of the VW TDi owners brag about
> getting 35 mpg in town under favorable conditions, which agrees with the
EPA
> estimates. But our 2002 Prius gets an honest 45-50 mpg in town (our main
> driving location) in warm weather, and consistently over 40 mpg fully
loaded
> on long 75 mph trips. At 65 mph with lighter loads it will turn in 50-60
> mpg. Efficiency, absolutely. It is also the most fun of any car I've
driven
> since I had to sell my beloved Lotus 30 years ago.

You might also check out Fred's tdi page tdiclub.com - some of those guys
are getting 65mpg with their TDi's, although prolly not at 75mph, and they
have their motors 'tuned' a bit...

FWIW, in decent weather, my '02 Accord has gotten 40mpg on long 75mph trips
while using A/C, but it is a 4cyl./5-spd.

 

"mrdancer" <mrdancer@iw.net> wrote in message
news:C_Sdndvuz6RvxQPeRVn-gA@prairiewave.com.gnresend...
> You might also check out Fred's tdi page tdiclub.com - some of those guys
> are getting 65mpg with their TDi's, although prolly not at 75mph, and they
> have their motors 'tuned' a bit...
>
> FWIW, in decent weather, my '02 Accord has gotten 40mpg on long 75mph
> trips
> while using A/C, but it is a 4cyl./5-spd.
>
Highway economy really isn't a big concern for me, since the great majority
of our miles are in town.

However, I sure like the TDi in my new work truck - it gets right at twice
the economy the old gasser did under all conditions, which means "longer
legs." It also has phenomenal power on the highway and is great off-road.
Rock crawling is so much easier with a diesel. Sure wish it had some
acceleration - *any* acceleration - off the line, though. I may be old, but
I can still get across an intersection on my bicycle quicker than the truck
can. (No, silly, I haven't done a head to head race with myself!)

Mike

 

High Tech Misfit wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>
>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save
>>energy. The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
>
> The only logical reason to buy a hybrid is reduced emissions. It is for
> the environmentalists.

And since the Honda Accord Hybrid gets poor gas mileage, it fails at
reduced emissions.

I don't agree that fuel economy is for "environmentalists". Oil is a
dwindling source that when used pollutes the air. Everyone should try
to use less. First step, is get the right sized car for your needs.

 

Kent Finnell wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
>
> As compared to what, a Prius or a Civic Hybrid? It does show an improvement
> over the standard Accord V6, 29/37 city/highway vs. 24/34. If you want
> maximum fuel efficiency, stick yourself in an Insight. Forget comfort,
> passenger and luggage capacity. Will you scoff the new Lexus Hybrid Luxury
> Sedan? It probably won't do any better.

They could have achieved much better mileage with a 4 banger-hybrid.
Period.

 

Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>Kent Finnell wrote:
>>
>>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.net. ..
>>>
>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>
>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan
>
>
> That's okay - it is a common error. The objective of hybrids is to correct a
> huge design compromise we have been forced into for a century: the use of
> the same power source for low speeds, acceleration and high speeds. Whenever
> auto makers increase engine power in cars (as they did in the '70s and are
> currently doing) the flub becomes even more glaring - we have 300 hp engines
> pulling 3000 lb cars around. Not a great concept.
>
> Hybridization effectively separates engine power from acceleration
> performance and frees the engine from stupid things like low speed operation

<snipped>

I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
mileage numbers.

 

SoCalMike wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save
>> energy. The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>
> mebbe a stripped down 4-door accord with a 4 cylinder engine is in the
> works?

I would have hoped they would begin there ... I would bet it would
become a fondly regarded classic.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:CEJnf.36500$yw3.820573@weber.videotron.net...
> High Tech Misfit wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>>
>>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>>
>>
>> The only logical reason to buy a hybrid is reduced emissions. It is for
>> the environmentalists.
>
> And since the Honda Accord Hybrid gets poor gas mileage, it fails at
> reduced emissions.

Poor gas mileage? 38 mpg is poor gas mileage? And if it fails at reduced
emissions, how does it meet muster to be on sale in California?

>
> I don't agree that fuel economy is for "environmentalists". Oil is a
> dwindling source that when used pollutes the air. Everyone should try to
> use less. First step, is get the right sized car for your needs.

And if your needs exceed a Civic LX 4 door?


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net...
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:swXmf.2406$O27.75284@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>>>Kent Finnell wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:NHqlf.310$rq2.161280@wagner.videotron.net ...
>>>>
>>>>How, exactly, is the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid misguided?
>>>
>>>Forgive me for believing that the objective of hybrids is to save energy.
>>>The Hybrid makes no (or very little) gain in actual gas economy.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Alan
>>
>>
>> That's okay - it is a common error. The objective of hybrids is to
>> correct a huge design compromise we have been forced into for a century:
>> the use of the same power source for low speeds, acceleration and high
>> speeds. Whenever auto makers increase engine power in cars (as they did
>> in the '70s and are currently doing) the flub becomes even more glaring -
>> we have 300 hp engines pulling 3000 lb cars around. Not a great concept.
>>
>> Hybridization effectively separates engine power from acceleration
>> performance and frees the engine from stupid things like low speed
>> operation
>
> <snipped>
>
> I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
> very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
> mileage numbers.

Hence the 4 cylinder Civic Hybrid ... sheesh, I'll bet you're going to carp
about that too. 49/51 mpg with performance on a par with the NA 1.8 4
cylinder.

Honda just didn't slap the 3.0 liter V6 into the nearest Accord and throw in
the electric motor for grins and giggles. It is a system, a system that
includes the shut down of 3 of the cylinders under the certain conditions,
effectively becoming a 3 cylinder. The Civic has a 1.3 liter 4. Hummm, 1.5
3 cylinder, 1.3 4 cylinder.

The Accord is a larger, heavier car that some people need. Of course you
might want to opt for a Yugo.

Neither of the 4 - 6 passenger Hondas is a failure. Different specs for
different markets, yes but not failures. At least neither of them has had a
massive recall because the gas engines shut down at speed like the Toyota
hybrid. How many were there ... 75,000 or so?

Then there's always that other line of Hondas ... motorcycles.


--
Kent Finnell
From the Music City USA

 

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:sHJnf.36502$yw3.821854@weber.videotron.net...
> I don't disagree with you. However, a more modest 4 banger Accord would
> very easilly achieve acceptable performance in a hybrid with better
> mileage numbers.

I think so, too. Mating a small electric system to a V6 is not really part
of the path forward in hybridization. In fact, I think it's silly. But as
long as it sells, I suppose it is a success.

Mike