Clarkson Reviews Insight

[Methanolandbrats]

:D http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece

[Napoleon]

Ouch! That has to hurt.

[opinionated ow]

I've been considering going for a test drive in both this and the Prius to see whether they are as f***ing awful as I imagine. Might not need to now...

[datachicane]

I enjoy Clarkson, I have little reason to doubt that the Insight is a nasty piece of work, and I agree with his preference for small diesels, but he sounds like a complete idiot in this review.

Chuck the CVT 'cuz you don't like the sound?
Ummm, OK. :saywhat:
It may well be the ideal transmission for a small-displacement, high mpg vehicle, and here it sits installed in a small-displacement, high mpg vehicle. Chucking it solely for non-rational aesthetic reasons makes him just as nutty as the 'weird-beards' he slogs on later for making similarly non-rational aesthetic choices.

Then the whole hydrogen shtick rears its ugly head again. Look, Jeremy, it isn't infrastructure problems that keep hydrogen from leading us into a golden age of clean energy. It isn't even that producing hydrogen is "a fuel-hungry process"- that could be worked around. The problem is that producing hydrogen is a net energy loss, that is, it takes more energy to produce than is in the hydrogen you've just created. That means that hydrogen is not an energy source by any conventional definition, but merely a (not particularly efficent) conduit for energy which must already exist.

It's exactly like suggesting that a viable solution to the world's energy problems would be to simply build more Romex factories. Unfortunately, an enormous buttload of cash has been spent by traditional energy producers on a PR effort to convince folks that hydrogen is somehow akin to oil or natural gas. That net energy loss means that they'd sell x+n units of fuel in a hydrogen economy, rather than merely the x units they'd sell if their product was burned directly.

[Andrew Longman]

It isn't even that producing hydrogen is "a fuel-hungry process"- that could be worked around. The problem is that producing hydrogen is a net energy loss,

Is that really true?

And even if it is, isn't it important that solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc. sources of energy, which won't work in a car, can be converted to hydrogen which can work in a car.

[Methanolandbrats]

That was a grate review :thumbup: Anyone who calls out those self-rightous, slow assed Prius/Insight Peckerheads is doing a damn good job. I am constantly getting caught behind PIPs doing exactly the speed limit or UNDER the speed limit :mad:, the bastards lift off a block before their turn and they accelerate like a sick turtles. :flame:

[oddlycalm]

I'm sure he's right about the Insight. The Prius in an ok car around town but nowhere as good as a Corolla at a third less. Why do hybrids have to have uncomfortable seats, dashboards that light up like the Ginza at night and stupid exterior styling?

For all the money and attention they are throwing that the auto companies nobody seems to mention that losing half the vehicle mass is something that has to occur before we get to rational energy requirements in useful sized vehicles. The MPG discussion seem to be focused solely on propulsion while the core issue is actually weight. To make a stamped steel car that meets the new fuel economy standard it's going to be a tiny matchbox regardless of the propulsion used. I like the Mini but then our kids have long since taken up living elsewhere and arranging their own transport. I'd not want one if I had three kids at home.

There is certainly a market for small urban cars with electric or hybrid propulsion but it tiny compared to the market for larger family vehicles that have power to deal with hills, grades or longish commutes.

oc

[datachicane]

Is that really true?

And even if it is, isn't it important that solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc. sources of energy, which won't work in a car, can be converted to hydrogen which can work in a car.

That's just it- those are sources of electricity, which most certainly will work in a car.
Source>hydrogen>market transport>ICE
is less efficient than
Source>transmission>storage battery>motor

In any case, the majority of electricity in this country comes not from solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc., but from- you guessed it- fossil fuels.
Increased electric consumption==increased fossil fuel consumption, whether we like it or not. Introducing lossy vectors between that fossil fuel source and your gearbox will just exacerbate the problem. That's why pushing electric vehicles as a panacea is nearly as idiotic as hydrogen.

Look, I'd like all of this to be true.
Believe it or not, I'm one of those longhairs who wears a beard and worn-out tie dye, I eat local food, I collect Jerry Garcia recordings, I've even commuted to work on an electric vehicle for years. I'm a bona-fide PBS watching, NPR listening treehugger. I worry about whether or not my favorite coffee is fair-trade.
None of that changes physics, though.
My electric commuter makes a nice geeky gearhead project, but I'm not going to kid myself that it's going to solve any larger problems. You want maximum efficiency and minimum emissions in a world where most electricity comes from fossil fuels? Build a 1500lb 80mpg CNG vehicle and you're there.

Burning natural gas to generate electricity to produce hydrogen to power cars is a great model if you're trying to consume as much natural gas as possible, which, of course is why the idea gets so much press. Check out the full-page ads touting hydrogen in Scientific American and the like- why do you think those companies are spending that kind of money on a PR campaign for a specific technology? Don't more efficient technologies naturally come to dominate anyway? Isn't that what a free-market economy does? Who, exactly, is their intended audience, and what do they expect you to do?

[Napoleon]

In any case, the majority of electricity in this country comes not from solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc., but from- you guessed it- fossil fuels.



While true I think that everyone that has really looked at moving to a more sustainable energy system realizes that there is not anything remotely close to a magic bullet and that it is going to take a bunch of separate changes, like move to more electric vehicles, generating electricity with more solar, wind, etc., a significant upgrade to the transmission system, bringing a smart grid on line, increasing use of things like white roofs on buildings instead of black, etc. etc. etc. But more electric cars are definitely part of that mix.

Someone up thread mentions making cars lighter. I don't have time to look up all the specific facts and figures but over the last 20-25 years while the average fuel mileage of vehicles on the road has more or less remained the same the efficiency of engines has vastly improved, but the manufacturers poured it into HP. If you go back to power to weight ratios of 1980ish and reconfigure the engines to use the increased efficiency to help MPG instead you could pick up large gains fairly quickly (IMO).

[nrc]

Chuck the CVT 'cuz you don't like the sound?
Ummm, OK. :saywhat:
It may well be the ideal transmission for a small-displacement, high mpg vehicle, and here it sits installed in a small-displacement, high mpg vehicle. Chucking it solely for non-rational aesthetic reasons makes him just as nutty as the 'weird-beards' he slogs on later for making similarly non-rational aesthetic choices.

I doubt that Clarkson has ever claimed that he's about getting from point A to point B in the most rational, efficient means possible. Yes, for many auto enthusiasts it's important for cars to be efficient, but making the driving experience as enjoyable as possible within the parameters of the vehicle is the main thing.

The problem is that making more efficient cars won't do any good if people don't want them because they aren't what they like, want, or need. Yes, you'll get the weird beards who think they're doing the world a favor but until gas hit $4 a gallon nobody outside the group was willing to sacrifice an ounce of comfort, performance, or convenience for an extra mile per gallon.

[oddlycalm]

None of that changes physics, though.

Exactly, it all gets down to mass. It's not a politcal, social or avant garde power source issue which makes 99% of the current discussion at all levels as useful as teets on the space shuttle. As long as cars are stamped steel boxes efficiency is effectively capped and is purely a function of size. They can make minor incremental gains but not wholesale leaps.

oc

[Napoleon]

They can make minor incremental gains but not wholesale leaps.

But incremental gains add up. Seriously, check performance on engines the last time CAFE was changed vs today and the change is dramatic, but its not because of any one big change.

[nrc]

Someone up thread mentions making cars lighter. I don't have time to look up all the specific facts and figures but over the last 20-25 years while the average fuel mileage of vehicles on the road has more or less remained the same the efficiency of engines has vastly improved, but the manufacturers poured it into HP. If you go back to power to weight ratios of 1980ish and reconfigure the engines to use the increased efficiency to help MPG instead you could pick up large gains fairly quickly (IMO).

The improved efficiency of engines has been largely directed towards more power because that's what the consumer has wanted. That's partly because it has been necessary to offset the weight gain associated with improved safety and emissions regulations. But people expect better performance than they did ten or twenty years ago.

This month's Car & Driver compares the new Prius and Insight along with a '98 Geo Metro. The Metro weighs in at 1840 pounds, over a thousand pounds less than the average of the other two. It also gives up 3 seconds in the quarter mile to the hybrids. The net result is 42mpg on their test trip - the same as the best of the two hybrids.

Of course nobody would buy a car with the performance and features of the Metro today. But I would bet that if you shaved half that weight difference off these cars then you wouldn't need a hybrid system to make 42 mpg.

Heck, I average 34 MPG in the MINI driving a similar mix of roads as their test (they drove from Ann Arbor to Knockemstiff and Tranquility, Ohio). There's no way I'd give up all that fun to make an extra 8 MPG.

[datachicane]

The problem is that making more efficient cars won't do any good if people don't want them because they aren't what they like, want, or need. Yes, you'll get the weird beards who think they're doing the world a favor but until gas hit $4 a gallon nobody outside the group was willing to sacrifice an ounce of comfort, performance, or convenience for an extra mile per gallon.

Why the hell not? Guys like you and I are more than happy to sacrifice comfort and convenience for performance, and we'll even chuck that out the window for a healthy dose of an intangible like coolness. Last time I checked they're selling a boatload of Prius hybrids. I may think it's a pile of crap, but there's obviously enough folks who disagree to make it a success. Isn't that what free markets are about?

Really, I don't get the enthusiasm for throwing mpg junkies under the bus. It may not be my bag, but it's certainly no weirder or more irrational than my bag. Ragging on them is exactly, and I mean exactly, the same as the old codger next door who can't understand why you'd want a car that goes that fast when the limit is 65 anyway, and is convinced that everyone should drive Mopar minivans and Camrys.

[extramundane]

This month's Car & Driver compares the new Prius and Insight along with a '98 Geo Metro. The Metro weighs in at 1840 pounds, over a thousand pounds less than the average of the other two. It also gives up 3 seconds in the quarter mile to the hybrids. The net result is 42mpg on their test trip - the same as the best of the two hybrids.

Funny. 2 months ago, Jalopnik did (http://jalopnik.com/5186000/new-prius-vs-fusion-hybrid-vs-honda-insight-which-hybrid-should-you-buy)a Prius vs Insight vs Fusion Hybrid vs '90 Metro XFi piece.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5887/hybridcarwars.jpg

They called it in favor of the Prius, BTW. Apparently, the 17" wheel package makes it utterly unremarkable, which is a big step up from the awfulness of the base model.

[datachicane]

While true I think that everyone that has really looked at moving to a more sustainable energy system realizes that there is not anything remotely close to a magic bullet and that it is going to take a bunch of separate changes, like move to more electric vehicles, generating electricity with more solar, wind, etc., a significant upgrade to the transmission system, bringing a smart grid on line, increasing use of things like white roofs on buildings instead of black, etc. etc. etc. But more electric cars are definitely part of that mix.


You're right that there's no magic bullet, but if the concern really is about reducing fossil fuel consumption and/or emissions, electric vehicles can only be part of that solution after, not before, changes in electrical generation, and that's driven by pure economics. Just like our dependence on foreign vs. domestic oil, we mistake a simple economic choice for a political and/or technological one. Electricity comes from fossil fuels not because of any deep love for them, but simply because it's cheaper that way.

Not only is there no technological magic bullet, there's not likely to be a palatable political one, either. We're all (I'm making an assumption here) fans to varying degrees of free-market economies, and this, I'm afraid, is where free-market economies take it in the shorts. Unless a critical mass of concerned consumers willing to pay a significant premium for cleaner electricity magically appears (something I find unlikely), or the political winds change such that a tax incentive program with serious teeth becomes viable (only slightly less unlikely- I can picture the campaign ads now), we'll be stuck with something very like the current arrangement for a long, long time.

My fellow Oregonian is right about the pragmatic solution, such as it is. No foreseeable technology on the planet will sustainably allow a 98lb woman to commute alone 50 miles in a 6000lb vehicle, or drive an hour to the nearest Trader Joe's for an eighth ounce of vanilla.

[opinionated ow]

The thing you've all seemingly neglected is that the reason that car weights have gone up is primarily because of extra safety equipment and consumer demand for a bigger car.

[TravelGal]

The improved efficiency of engines has been largely directed towards more power because that's what the consumer has wanted. That's partly because it has been necessary to offset the weight gain associated with improved safety and emissions regulations. But people expect better performance than they did ten or twenty years ago.



The thing you've all seemingly neglected is that the reason that car weights have gone up is primarily because of extra safety equipment and consumer demand for a bigger car.

Don't mess with the boss. ;)

Quite the review, I must admit. Everything else I've read has sung the praises of the Insight. Since I've never even been in a Prius or Insight, I can't comment knowledgeably but I SEE an Accord glide into the driveway across the street every so often and marvel at how quiet it is. No clunking or clanking. At least from the outside.

[datachicane]

The thing you've all seemingly neglected is that the reason that car weights have gone up is primarily because of extra safety equipment and consumer demand for a bigger car.

Safety equipment, yes, but bigger?

At one time I owned a '63 Falcon and a '91 Taurus (it's OK, it was an SHO).
Recall that, while the Falcon was the smallest car Ford sold at the time, the Taurus was the standard-sized ride. The Falcon had a longer wheelbase, comparable interior volume, gave up an underwhelming 10" in overall length (that would be the 5mph bumpers for those playing at home), and weighed more than 700lb :eek: less than the Taurus.

It also didn't have power windows, power doorlocks, power seats, AC, tilt/cruise, lighted vanity mirrors, power outside mirrors, acres of sound deadening, power brakes, power steering (thanks to the lighter weight, the last wasn't particularly necessary), or a dozen other things I've forgotten, most of which are standard equipment on any modern car sold outside the 'emerging markets'.

Not much mystery as to where a goodly chunk of that 700lbs went.
It was fun (depending on your definition) to drive, took some babying to start in cold weather, was dead reliable, and anything that did go wrong could be repaired with a leatherman under a streetlight. </end rant>

[opinionated ow]

Safety equipment, yes, but bigger?

Compare VW Golf Mk I with Golf Mk VI
Compare Ford Focus Mk I with Ford Focus Mk II

I can go on but consumers always want a car bigger than the last. Don't know why that happens but it does.

[Michaelhatesfans]

Compare VW Golf Mk I with Golf Mk VI
Compare Ford Focus Mk I with Ford Focus Mk II

I can go on but consumers always want a car bigger than the last. Don't know why that happens but it does.

Maybe that's regional. Around here, I wouldn't say that the trend has been toward bigger cars. Actually, the "I could hit a train with this car and walk away" generation is dying off. On average, I haven't really noticed cars around here getting any bigger over the past 15 years or so.

Mind you, I'm talking cars, here. I'm not counting the gotta hide my little pecker with a big pickup crowd (maybe a duallie if their pecker is really small). And I'm definitely not including the soccer moms who need Chevrolet Subdivisions to drop off two kids and then take 15 minutes to work their way into a parking space at Starbucks.

[Michaelhatesfans]

My fellow Oregonian is right about the pragmatic solution, such as it is.

Yeah, you two have been holding up the blue and gold flag pretty well on this one.:laugh:

I'm just sipping at my coffee saying, "yeah" for the time being. Let me know if you need me.:cool:

[cameraman]

I wouldn't say that the trend has been toward bigger cars.

Oh please.:rolleyes:

1995 Subaru Outback
wheelbase: 103.5"
overall width: 67.5"
overall length: 183.9"
Overall height: 59.9"
Steering - 34.8 ft min. turning circle
Curb weight 3190 lb
Cargo volume 73.0 cu ft
Engine: 2.2 L, 135 hp, 4 cylinder boxer
Tires 195/60 R15

2009 Subaru Outback
wheelbase: 105.1"
overall width: 69.7"
overall length: 189.0"
overall height: 61.6 "
Steering - 35.4 ft min. turning circle
curb weight 3,357 lb
Engine: 2.5 L, 170 hp, 4 cylinder boxer
Cargo volume: 65.4 cu ft
Tires 225/60 R16

You'll note that while the overall size of the car has increased, the useable cargo volume has decreased.:saywhat:

[TrueBrit]

Jeremy Clarkson is a knuckle-dragging neanderthal that wouldn't believe that water was wet unless you water-boarded him...

He is, however, howlingly bloody funny!!!:D

He gave the Tesla a fair shot on TG and said that there were parts of it that were brilliant...but the bottom line is he is correct...the automobile industry still hasn't faced that VHS/Beta conundrum yet...and nothing truly significant will happen until it does..the rest of it is posing...weird-beards or not...

[Michaelhatesfans]

Oh please.:rolleyes:

You'll note that while the overall size of the car has increased, the useable cargo volume has decreased.:saywhat:

Well, when they drive past, I don't try to estimate how much water they can hold. And I was comparing today's cars to the behemoths that I grew up around, not the fluctuation of a few inches here or there. (yes, proceed with the shrinkage/I was in the pool jokes...)

[datachicane]

Well, when they drive past, I don't try to estimate how much water they can hold. And I was comparing today's cars to the behemoths that I grew up around, not the fluctuation of a few inches here or there. (yes, proceed with the shrinkage/I was in the pool jokes...)

Yep, it's a matter of perspective. It's a far cry from a Galaxie or Impala to current offerings, a long-term trend that dwarfs the current inch here or there.

Reminds me of the ubiquitous lists of the greatest films or musicians of all time, with the last decade or so invariably overrepresented by the, umm, unseasoned compilers.
:gomer:



Viva Fungi!
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/images/or_fib.gif

[extramundane]

You'll note that while the overall size of the car has increased, the useable cargo volume has decreased.:saywhat:

While the measured volume may have decreased, my friend's '03 Outback has a great deal more truly usable space than our '99.

What they've done to the Forester is Model Bloat at its worst. :yuck: