Honda Insight takes a nose dive.
#21
07-08-2009, 09:09 AM
I used the Comparitor at Edmunds for the Insight and the Civic hybrid, so if I got my info wrong, I apologize. I was going on their charts. Same with gas mileage, I used Fuel Economy. gov for that.
I do get carried away when I'm enthusiastic, and I also get very frustrated with the auto makers.
I'm in a different position that a lot of the people here. I'm older and I'm disabled. I don't work. Their (the auto makers) idea of affordable is not my idea of affordable. Their idea of good mpg is not my idea of good mpg.
Affordable and good mpg are relative...to one's income. Right? And also has to do with age and disability/ability...younger folks have more time, more possibilities to earn that income if they are healthy and able-bodied.
Even though it had many flaws, the Yugo sold:
Auto critics tended to laugh at the Yugo, and branded it more of a toy than a car. They also pointed out a series of flaws, and as it happens many of the flaws were valid. Many owners complained of mechanical problems including premature engine failure, bad brakes, poor shifter and transmission, and faulty electrical systems, and terrible dealer service. The insurance industry faulted the cars crash worthiness, which didn't help matters.
http://www.inet.hr/~bpauric/epov.htm
------
In total 141,511 cars were sold in the US from 1985 to 1991, with the most American units sold in a year peaking at 48,500 in 1987. 1991 sales were only 3,981 cars.[1] The Zastava Koral was sold with an updated design, priced at about 350,000 dinar (3,500 euro, 4,300 USD), until 11 November 2008, when production stopped with a final number of 794,428 cars.
Zastava Koral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
------
Why would people do this:
As soon as it was announced that the Yugo would go on sale, people stormed the 90 Yugo dealerships, and put down deposits on the cars. They did this before even seeing the cars, much less driving them. By the time 1500 cars had arrived dealers had orders for 5 times that amount.
http://www.inet.hr/~bpauric/epov.htm
------
Not because it was reliable or dependable or had an excellent history...but because it was cheap. Affordable. Just about anyone could afford to buy a $4,000 car. And it would be a NEW car. MPG wasn't outstanding, but it wasn't bad either:
Gas Mileage of 1989 Vehicles by Yugo
Maybe they were the equivalent of the dollar stores. LOL! Cheap, yet useful sometimes.
We have plenty of $20,000 cars available. We have lots of hybrids. Where's the "miracle car"? Where's the totally affordable car? Where's the car that gets 80 mpg?
The car that a high school student could buy, by working hard during summer and part time the rest of the year, and have that car paid off.
The car that seniors on strict budgets could buy and use to get around town.
The car that would become THE commuter car or the around town/city car to run errands in.
The car that could be everyone's second car if they needed two cars.
I think of that suburban sprawl I grew up in, where it was 15 miles to get to any freeway, LOL! Most all driving took place on residential streets and the main thoroughfares chock full o' traffic signals.
There wasn't anywhere to DRIVE 60 mph locally. Zero to 60 times didn't matter. And there are very few places where 0-60 times matter, legally. One is the Treasure Island on-ramp on the Bay Bridge. From a dead stop, one is supposed to suddenly merge with morons driving too fast on the bridge. Even the zippiest car can have problems doing that.
Yes, Honda does a much better job at creating cars than the American auto makers. Cars that are more reliable, for instance. But they are also doing what the American car makers have been doing, that led to their downfall.
"Good enough"
It's good enough if some people will buy it. It's good enough to stay with an old platform or to stick with things that people have bought in the past. It's good enough to stay in a particular market segment.
Where's the innovation? I don't mean ridiculous artist renderings of concept cars that are completely unrealistic.
Well, while Honda fiddles while Rome burns, other people ARE innovating:
Tata 'NANO' - The People's Car from Tata Motors
Features include doors, a steering wheel and round wheels.
According to Tata Group's Chairman Ratan Tata, the Nano is a 33 PS (33 hp/24 kW) car with a 623 cc rear engine and rear wheel drive, and has a fuel economy of 4.55 L/100 km (21.97 km/L, 51.7 mpg (US), 62 mpg (UK)) under city road conditions, and 3.85 L/100 km on highways ( 25.974 km/L, 61.1 mpg (US), 73.3 mpg (UK)).
Tata Nano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do get carried away when I'm enthusiastic, and I also get very frustrated with the auto makers.
I'm in a different position that a lot of the people here. I'm older and I'm disabled. I don't work. Their (the auto makers) idea of affordable is not my idea of affordable. Their idea of good mpg is not my idea of good mpg.
Affordable and good mpg are relative...to one's income. Right? And also has to do with age and disability/ability...younger folks have more time, more possibilities to earn that income if they are healthy and able-bodied.
Even though it had many flaws, the Yugo sold:
Auto critics tended to laugh at the Yugo, and branded it more of a toy than a car. They also pointed out a series of flaws, and as it happens many of the flaws were valid. Many owners complained of mechanical problems including premature engine failure, bad brakes, poor shifter and transmission, and faulty electrical systems, and terrible dealer service. The insurance industry faulted the cars crash worthiness, which didn't help matters.
http://www.inet.hr/~bpauric/epov.htm
------
In total 141,511 cars were sold in the US from 1985 to 1991, with the most American units sold in a year peaking at 48,500 in 1987. 1991 sales were only 3,981 cars.[1] The Zastava Koral was sold with an updated design, priced at about 350,000 dinar (3,500 euro, 4,300 USD), until 11 November 2008, when production stopped with a final number of 794,428 cars.
Zastava Koral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
------
Why would people do this:
As soon as it was announced that the Yugo would go on sale, people stormed the 90 Yugo dealerships, and put down deposits on the cars. They did this before even seeing the cars, much less driving them. By the time 1500 cars had arrived dealers had orders for 5 times that amount.
http://www.inet.hr/~bpauric/epov.htm
------
Not because it was reliable or dependable or had an excellent history...but because it was cheap. Affordable. Just about anyone could afford to buy a $4,000 car. And it would be a NEW car. MPG wasn't outstanding, but it wasn't bad either:
Gas Mileage of 1989 Vehicles by Yugo
Maybe they were the equivalent of the dollar stores. LOL! Cheap, yet useful sometimes.
We have plenty of $20,000 cars available. We have lots of hybrids. Where's the "miracle car"? Where's the totally affordable car? Where's the car that gets 80 mpg?
The car that a high school student could buy, by working hard during summer and part time the rest of the year, and have that car paid off.
The car that seniors on strict budgets could buy and use to get around town.
The car that would become THE commuter car or the around town/city car to run errands in.
The car that could be everyone's second car if they needed two cars.
I think of that suburban sprawl I grew up in, where it was 15 miles to get to any freeway, LOL! Most all driving took place on residential streets and the main thoroughfares chock full o' traffic signals.
There wasn't anywhere to DRIVE 60 mph locally. Zero to 60 times didn't matter. And there are very few places where 0-60 times matter, legally. One is the Treasure Island on-ramp on the Bay Bridge. From a dead stop, one is supposed to suddenly merge with morons driving too fast on the bridge. Even the zippiest car can have problems doing that.
Yes, Honda does a much better job at creating cars than the American auto makers. Cars that are more reliable, for instance. But they are also doing what the American car makers have been doing, that led to their downfall.
"Good enough"
It's good enough if some people will buy it. It's good enough to stay with an old platform or to stick with things that people have bought in the past. It's good enough to stay in a particular market segment.
Where's the innovation? I don't mean ridiculous artist renderings of concept cars that are completely unrealistic.
Well, while Honda fiddles while Rome burns, other people ARE innovating:
Tata 'NANO' - The People's Car from Tata Motors
Features include doors, a steering wheel and round wheels.
According to Tata Group's Chairman Ratan Tata, the Nano is a 33 PS (33 hp/24 kW) car with a 623 cc rear engine and rear wheel drive, and has a fuel economy of 4.55 L/100 km (21.97 km/L, 51.7 mpg (US), 62 mpg (UK)) under city road conditions, and 3.85 L/100 km on highways ( 25.974 km/L, 61.1 mpg (US), 73.3 mpg (UK)).
Tata Nano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but unfortunately, that miracle car is going to be hard for even honda to make.
i do think its a little unfair to say that honda is letting rome burn. the are some of the biggest innovaters on the face of the planet. just look at the clarity. sure its not made for everyone, but its a step in the right direction, and it works flawlessly. granted there are probably SOME bugs, hence why its not being touted as a car for everyone, or even being made available to them. however, the insight is an honest to goodness attempt at bringing 'green' to the masses and in that instance it excels. sure the tata nano is great, but good luck selling that to folks in america who want to at least 'feel' safe in thier cars and require some form of content.
#22
07-08-2009, 09:17 AM
eldaino:
The "Prius clone" sentiments can't be helped sadly in the case of the gen2 Insight. That's what being first in the minds of the consumer nets you (not necessarily being first in the market). Yeah, I know the gen1 Insight predated the popular gen2 Prius but somehow it just didn't capture the general public's imagination as well as the Toyota did. We enthusiasts would know about the Insight but the regular Juan dela Cruz here in Manila wouldn't even know of it.
Regarding the "Well a Yaris/Versa/Fit is cheaper" note...I suggest you look at the final paragraph on the Car and Driver comparison test. While they awarded the Insight the win because it at least had a semblance of driving dynamics, they still pretty much mooted the whole hybrid game because conventional small cars still deliver much more (dynamics, space, etc) at not much more MPG penalty and definitely at lower MSRP.
Hybrids and the Yaris/Fit/Versa/whathaveyou are an apples-to-oranges comparison maybe...but some people sadly just don't look beyond the sticker price :( Nor are they as willing to research new cars' strengths and weaknesses as much as we do :( Hence the mythical status of hybrids reigns, regardless of how well short they actually live up to the lofty claims of being eco-friendly and whatnot.
Not trying to refute anything or speculate any further. That's just what I've observed.
The "Prius clone" sentiments can't be helped sadly in the case of the gen2 Insight. That's what being first in the minds of the consumer nets you (not necessarily being first in the market). Yeah, I know the gen1 Insight predated the popular gen2 Prius but somehow it just didn't capture the general public's imagination as well as the Toyota did. We enthusiasts would know about the Insight but the regular Juan dela Cruz here in Manila wouldn't even know of it.
Regarding the "Well a Yaris/Versa/Fit is cheaper" note...I suggest you look at the final paragraph on the Car and Driver comparison test. While they awarded the Insight the win because it at least had a semblance of driving dynamics, they still pretty much mooted the whole hybrid game because conventional small cars still deliver much more (dynamics, space, etc) at not much more MPG penalty and definitely at lower MSRP.
Hybrids and the Yaris/Fit/Versa/whathaveyou are an apples-to-oranges comparison maybe...but some people sadly just don't look beyond the sticker price :( Nor are they as willing to research new cars' strengths and weaknesses as much as we do :( Hence the mythical status of hybrids reigns, regardless of how well short they actually live up to the lofty claims of being eco-friendly and whatnot.
Not trying to refute anything or speculate any further. That's just what I've observed.
i guess its just indicative of how little people now about cars in general. ok so maybe the first gen insight didn't strike a cord with the typical yuppies that drive priuses, but everyone should know about the crx. its main engineer worked on the new insight as well, hence the shape. but all in all, i can see why only folks like us and sites like edmunds would refute such claims, whereas the wall street journal probably just looks at it as a toyota clone.
i agree, i think that the new fit does offer more in terms of space and driving dynamics....and i also agree that some folks simply dont do their research. but that comparison is ages old and can be taken to various levels. i can get an 01 civic hx and blow all these cars away with regards to price points. my point is that the common knock against hybrids with their high prices is much less evident with the insight, simply because its cheaper or at least AS cheap as some models that honda has on their lots right now. (civic) you could still argue the fit against it...but granted that between the fit, the civic and the insight, the fit gets the worse highway mileage makes the argument less plausible.
i dunno, i just like to think some people have eyes you know?
#23
07-08-2009, 09:37 AM
ok so maybe the first gen insight didn't strike a cord with the typical yuppies that drive priuses, but everyone should know about the crx.
Honda didn't really get a foothold here prior to 1992 and the EG Civic, such is the stranglehold Toyota had over the Philippine car market.
Slightly OT, sorry :p
i dunno, i just like to think some people have eyes you know?
#24
07-08-2009, 10:08 AM
Maybe in the US yeah. But here the EF CR-X is a very rare car. I can count on my fingers the number of CR-Xes I've seen in Manila streets. Most EFs that still run today are the sedan variety.
Honda didn't really get a foothold here prior to 1992 and the EG Civic, such is the stranglehold Toyota had over the Philippine car market.
Slightly OT, sorry :p
Not all of them looking at the same things perhaps...that's the human condition for ye :)
Honda didn't really get a foothold here prior to 1992 and the EG Civic, such is the stranglehold Toyota had over the Philippine car market.
Slightly OT, sorry :p
Not all of them looking at the same things perhaps...that's the human condition for ye :)
crap, i keep forgetting you are in manila! wow so no foothold prior to the eg huh? crazyiness. the ef here, both sedan and especially hatch/crx variants is somewhat of a legend. lol.
human condition ftl. ;)
#25
07-08-2009, 11:35 AM
A couple of my thoughts:
The original Insight was a "Halo Car." It was never intended to be a huge seller. It was to show the world what Honda could do, what hybrid cars could do, to challenge the perception that hybrid cars have to be slow and dopey looking. (Cars - Honda Insight) You put a Halo Car in the show room so that people come ogle it...and then hopefully buy something, even if it's a different car.
They knew that hybrids would sell - just a couple of years after the Insight hit the showrooms, the Echo-ugly original Prius was selling out like hotcakes in 2001, and Honda was already preparing to launch the Hybrid Civic which was announced in 2002 and released for MY2003.
The Insight was sold thru MY2006. They ditched it because it's value was in what it symbolized and with the onslaught of the even more popular 2nd gen Prius it no longer had much symbolic meaning. It had nothing to do with whether Honda thought there was a market for hybrids.
The reason hybridized versions of "normal" cars fails is definitely a differentiation problem BUT it has very little to do with "Look at me! I'm driving a hybrid!" and far more to do with simple mathematics. An EX-L Civic Sedan with Nav is $3000 less by MSRP than a Hybrid Civic with leather and nav. Figure $4/gallon gas, 12k miles/year using EPA estimates, $1142 per year fuel with the hybrid vs. $1655 for the EX....it would take 6 years to make up the savings...and gas is currently 25% or more less than that. It doesn't make any sense.
Basically you need a standalone hybrid because if you can directly compare a hybrid to a conventional car, the cost premium for the hybrid is almost impossible to justify. You're alienating the "Look at me!" crowd by having no differentiation, but you're alienating the much larger cost-conscious crowd who can't justify the extra cost.
The Fit Hybrid will probably have the same problem. Would that many people really buy a 45MPG Hybrid Fit for $21000 MSRP when they can get a 35MPG Fit Sport w/ Nav for $18000 MSRP?
I certainly wouldn't.
PS - that solar roof on the Prius is complete gimmick. It powers an exhaust fan and nothing else.
The original Insight was a "Halo Car." It was never intended to be a huge seller. It was to show the world what Honda could do, what hybrid cars could do, to challenge the perception that hybrid cars have to be slow and dopey looking. (Cars - Honda Insight) You put a Halo Car in the show room so that people come ogle it...and then hopefully buy something, even if it's a different car.
They knew that hybrids would sell - just a couple of years after the Insight hit the showrooms, the Echo-ugly original Prius was selling out like hotcakes in 2001, and Honda was already preparing to launch the Hybrid Civic which was announced in 2002 and released for MY2003.
The Insight was sold thru MY2006. They ditched it because it's value was in what it symbolized and with the onslaught of the even more popular 2nd gen Prius it no longer had much symbolic meaning. It had nothing to do with whether Honda thought there was a market for hybrids.
The reason hybridized versions of "normal" cars fails is definitely a differentiation problem BUT it has very little to do with "Look at me! I'm driving a hybrid!" and far more to do with simple mathematics. An EX-L Civic Sedan with Nav is $3000 less by MSRP than a Hybrid Civic with leather and nav. Figure $4/gallon gas, 12k miles/year using EPA estimates, $1142 per year fuel with the hybrid vs. $1655 for the EX....it would take 6 years to make up the savings...and gas is currently 25% or more less than that. It doesn't make any sense.
Basically you need a standalone hybrid because if you can directly compare a hybrid to a conventional car, the cost premium for the hybrid is almost impossible to justify. You're alienating the "Look at me!" crowd by having no differentiation, but you're alienating the much larger cost-conscious crowd who can't justify the extra cost.
The Fit Hybrid will probably have the same problem. Would that many people really buy a 45MPG Hybrid Fit for $21000 MSRP when they can get a 35MPG Fit Sport w/ Nav for $18000 MSRP?
I certainly wouldn't.
PS - that solar roof on the Prius is complete gimmick. It powers an exhaust fan and nothing else.
Last edited by jzerocsk; 07-08-2009 at 11:37 AM.
#26
07-08-2009, 12:06 PM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 1,448
its ok taffeta, i get enthusiastic too, and i truly do see and agree with alot of your points.
but unfortunately, that miracle car is going to be hard for even honda to make.
i do think its a little unfair to say that honda is letting rome burn. the are some of the biggest innovaters on the face of the planet. just look at the clarity. sure its not made for everyone, but its a step in the right direction, and it works flawlessly. granted there are probably SOME bugs, hence why its not being touted as a car for everyone, or even being made available to them. however, the insight is an honest to goodness attempt at bringing 'green' to the masses and in that instance it excels. sure the tata nano is great, but good luck selling that to folks in america who want to at least 'feel' safe in thier cars and require some form of content.
but unfortunately, that miracle car is going to be hard for even honda to make.
i do think its a little unfair to say that honda is letting rome burn. the are some of the biggest innovaters on the face of the planet. just look at the clarity. sure its not made for everyone, but its a step in the right direction, and it works flawlessly. granted there are probably SOME bugs, hence why its not being touted as a car for everyone, or even being made available to them. however, the insight is an honest to goodness attempt at bringing 'green' to the masses and in that instance it excels. sure the tata nano is great, but good luck selling that to folks in america who want to at least 'feel' safe in thier cars and require some form of content.
They (Honda) might fiddle away, their time, their energy, their resources, perhaps assuming that good fortune has smiled upon them with the U.S. automakers struggling.
Except the U.S. automakers were the king for awhile and then Honda came along. With U.S. belly up, Honda can be the king of the hill...but only until the next rival comes along.
New automakers were coming on to the scene before the big three had problems. With the problems in the U.S., expect more to come from them. Hey, things like this were already coming...
Fiat releases Fiat 500 Abarth official details
Which were based on this:
Fiat 500 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And what else came from the first versions of the Fiat 500? That's right, the Tata Nano. From Wiki:
The use of a rear mounted engine to help maximize interior space makes the Nano similar to the original Fiat 500, another technically innovative "people's car". A concept vehicle similar in styling to the Nano, also with rear engined layout was proposed by the UK Rover Group in the 1990s to succeed the original Mini but was not put into production.[57] The eventual new Mini was much larger and technically conservative. The independent, and now-defunct, MG Rover Group later based their Rover CityRover on the Tata Indica.
---
Everything is so interwoven. And since Honda has made it's originals into larger cars (they even did that with our FITs), someone has to take up the small/micro car niche. Whether or not it's Honda reigning king of THAT hill, it has yet to be seen.
#27
07-08-2009, 01:09 PM
A couple of my thoughts:
The original Insight was a "Halo Car." It was never intended to be a huge seller. It was to show the world what Honda could do, what hybrid cars could do, to challenge the perception that hybrid cars have to be slow and dopey looking. (Cars - Honda Insight) You put a Halo Car in the show room so that people come ogle it...and then hopefully buy something, even if it's a different car.
They knew that hybrids would sell - just a couple of years after the Insight hit the showrooms, the Echo-ugly original Prius was selling out like hotcakes in 2001, and Honda was already preparing to launch the Hybrid Civic which was announced in 2002 and released for MY2003.
The Insight was sold thru MY2006. They ditched it because it's value was in what it symbolized and with the onslaught of the even more popular 2nd gen Prius it no longer had much symbolic meaning. It had nothing to do with whether Honda thought there was a market for hybrids.
The reason hybridized versions of "normal" cars fails is definitely a differentiation problem BUT it has very little to do with "Look at me! I'm driving a hybrid!" and far more to do with simple mathematics. An EX-L Civic Sedan with Nav is $3000 less by MSRP than a Hybrid Civic with leather and nav. Figure $4/gallon gas, 12k miles/year using EPA estimates, $1142 per year fuel with the hybrid vs. $1655 for the EX....it would take 6 years to make up the savings...and gas is currently 25% or more less than that. It doesn't make any sense.
Basically you need a standalone hybrid because if you can directly compare a hybrid to a conventional car, the cost premium for the hybrid is almost impossible to justify. You're alienating the "Look at me!" crowd by having no differentiation, but you're alienating the much larger cost-conscious crowd who can't justify the extra cost.
The Fit Hybrid will probably have the same problem. Would that many people really buy a 45MPG Hybrid Fit for $21000 MSRP when they can get a 35MPG Fit Sport w/ Nav for $18000 MSRP?
I certainly wouldn't.
PS - that solar roof on the Prius is complete gimmick. It powers an exhaust fan and nothing else.
The original Insight was a "Halo Car." It was never intended to be a huge seller. It was to show the world what Honda could do, what hybrid cars could do, to challenge the perception that hybrid cars have to be slow and dopey looking. (Cars - Honda Insight) You put a Halo Car in the show room so that people come ogle it...and then hopefully buy something, even if it's a different car.
They knew that hybrids would sell - just a couple of years after the Insight hit the showrooms, the Echo-ugly original Prius was selling out like hotcakes in 2001, and Honda was already preparing to launch the Hybrid Civic which was announced in 2002 and released for MY2003.
The Insight was sold thru MY2006. They ditched it because it's value was in what it symbolized and with the onslaught of the even more popular 2nd gen Prius it no longer had much symbolic meaning. It had nothing to do with whether Honda thought there was a market for hybrids.
The reason hybridized versions of "normal" cars fails is definitely a differentiation problem BUT it has very little to do with "Look at me! I'm driving a hybrid!" and far more to do with simple mathematics. An EX-L Civic Sedan with Nav is $3000 less by MSRP than a Hybrid Civic with leather and nav. Figure $4/gallon gas, 12k miles/year using EPA estimates, $1142 per year fuel with the hybrid vs. $1655 for the EX....it would take 6 years to make up the savings...and gas is currently 25% or more less than that. It doesn't make any sense.
Basically you need a standalone hybrid because if you can directly compare a hybrid to a conventional car, the cost premium for the hybrid is almost impossible to justify. You're alienating the "Look at me!" crowd by having no differentiation, but you're alienating the much larger cost-conscious crowd who can't justify the extra cost.
The Fit Hybrid will probably have the same problem. Would that many people really buy a 45MPG Hybrid Fit for $21000 MSRP when they can get a 35MPG Fit Sport w/ Nav for $18000 MSRP?
I certainly wouldn't.
PS - that solar roof on the Prius is complete gimmick. It powers an exhaust fan and nothing else.
fantastic points on the old insight. thats pretty much the key to toyotas success: they grabbed the look at me crowd first. had honda made the current gen insight then, it would be a much different world right now.
and i totally agree on the points with regards to having a unique hybrid model. and your price comparison is good too...it fact it reflects why a car like the insight now makes sense. the last 19-20k civic i checked (an lx-s) basically offers a lot of the same standard equipment, albeit in a better handling, but less fuel efficient package. honda is giving folks a choice in what they want.
the fit hybrid is going to be a tough one....it would be different if hybrids were looked at and marketed with a more extreme version of hondas 'less is more' approach, and only equipped with the bare necesities, as opposed to being loaded up with every option imaginable. imagine a fit hybrid with only power windows and a/c and decent radio standart. maybe an i pod hook up. and a super thrifty powertrain. then maybe they could sell it closer to the price of a regular fit.
#28
07-08-2009, 08:26 PM
A stripper Fit Hybrid? That would define the phrase "minimalist motoring." :D
And that's actually not as bad as it sounds. IMO, better to drive a minimalist car and pay 100% attention on the road than a super-cushy, gas-guzzling, tech-laden pig that distracts 90% of your attention from driving...and there are too many cars that fall into the second category if the car reviews at CNET are any indication...
In keeping with the fuel efficiency theme, I'd throw in a navigation system. Even just as an option. :D Might drive the price upward though.
And that's actually not as bad as it sounds. IMO, better to drive a minimalist car and pay 100% attention on the road than a super-cushy, gas-guzzling, tech-laden pig that distracts 90% of your attention from driving...and there are too many cars that fall into the second category if the car reviews at CNET are any indication...
In keeping with the fuel efficiency theme, I'd throw in a navigation system. Even just as an option. :D Might drive the price upward though.
#29
07-08-2009, 09:24 PM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 1,448
A stripper Fit Hybrid? That would define the phrase "minimalist motoring." :D
And that's actually not as bad as it sounds. IMO, better to drive a minimalist car and pay 100% attention on the road than a super-cushy, gas-guzzling, tech-laden pig that distracts 90% of your attention from driving...and there are too many cars that fall into the second category if the car reviews at CNET are any indication...
In keeping with the fuel efficiency theme, I'd throw in a navigation system. Even just as an option. :D Might drive the price upward though.
And that's actually not as bad as it sounds. IMO, better to drive a minimalist car and pay 100% attention on the road than a super-cushy, gas-guzzling, tech-laden pig that distracts 90% of your attention from driving...and there are too many cars that fall into the second category if the car reviews at CNET are any indication...
In keeping with the fuel efficiency theme, I'd throw in a navigation system. Even just as an option. :D Might drive the price upward though.
Use various techniques to make it resilient. Like those plastic body panels on the Smart. That is pretty cool. The ones that are body color all the way through, they won't chip. You'll never have the visible dings that we get on painted metal or plastic. Because a car doesn't really need to come in 15 colors.
So maybe the car only comes in white. But we can choose to have it painted ANY color we want. If the panels are replaceable, and only come in white, it will be a lot easier to find and put on a new panel. No mismatched parts (unless you've had it painted).
They can use a simple slogan, like "It's a CAR!"
It's a car that's affordable.
It's a car that's reliable.
It's a car that gets good mpg.
It's a car to get you from here to there.
All cars don't have to win friends and influence people and make a statement about one's status or lifestyle. Sometimes you just need a car.
It's a car.
#30
07-21-2009, 09:51 AM
The nerds over at CNET have weighed in on the insight v. Prius debate.
Videos - Free video downloads and streaming video - CNET TV
::spoiler::
The insight wins, but JUST barely. Their methods are pretty subjective, but interesting nonetheless.
I'd still pick the fit over either of these cars.
-P
Videos - Free video downloads and streaming video - CNET TV
::spoiler::
The insight wins, but JUST barely. Their methods are pretty subjective, but interesting nonetheless.
I'd still pick the fit over either of these cars.
-P
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
