This is the first official shot of Honda’s upcoming Prius-fighter. And if anyone can take on the Prius (which despite being down 50% in November compared to November 2007, still sold 8600 units), it’s Honda with this car. I say that because (1) Honda has genuine hybrid building experience with the Insight, and (2) unlike previous hybrid efforts from many manufacturers, it’s not merely a hybridized version of an existing car. It looks unique, and that carries the image that’s so critical in the hybrid market. Previously, we reported that the Insight was targeted to go on sale this Spring for less than $20,000. With continuing reports that Toyota may be taking a loss on every Prius, I’m not sure how Honda plans to pull this off. Still, if you’er into this sort of car (and I’m really not at all), you probably won’t care what Honda’s bottom line is.
Isn’t she lovely? It looks fresh. We have so few hatches in our market and the one with good fuel efficiency is a good thing. Of course, I have no idea how it drives. Original Insight was POS even with great manual transmission.
@autonut:
Yes, the original Insight was horrible to drive even with the manual … but it was a lot better with a high-revving 4-cylinder Honda engine swapped in.
BTW, the federal tax credit on Honda hybrid purchases expires at the end of CY2008.
It is very Priusey. Yuck.
I have no doubt this machine will be miserly with fuel, but if it turns out to be as much fun to drive as a Fit would it be presumptuous to stick a fork in the Prius’s reign over all things hybridy?
…one hopes…
Man, that’s ugly…
Honda uses a different hybrid system that is more cost effective but not as efficient. It is a trade off of lower up front price or lower overall mpg.
Hybrids are still too expensive b/c the alternates are fuel efficient cars – such as a $15k Civic or Fit or Corolla. From an overall perspective – a hybrid is really not any more efficient than a economy car – b/c it takes more money to build a hybrid, adds more maintenance work, degrades driving performance slightly, requires battery replacement, and uses more precious metals to add complexity. You can take any car and shut the engine off at lights giving you much better city mpg – much easier with a stick b/c you don’t have to shift into park. I’m sure it is easy to add this functionality to a standard car even keep the a/c and turn signals running.
For those who think that many Hybrid owners want to show they are hybrid owners – if the Insight is a success compared to the Civic Hybrid – part of it will be b/c the Insight is unique and a hybrid only model. Just the facts and I’ve got no bias against those who buy hybrids (better than than the Escalades, etc.) but it is a valid reason why the Prius sold so well compared to the Civic Hybrid.
The OG Insight was more an experiment in optimizing a car for fuel economy the expense of everything else.
Even without the weak 1st Gen Honda Hybrid system it would have gotten awesome mileage. The mass, Cd & rolling resistance were the best for any car ever made.
jaje beat me to it re: the lower price.
On the styling, it’s different than any other Honda, but it too closely resembles a Prius to be “unique.”
Good lord. Now the FUD is allowed to be in the postings, not just the comments?
The reason the Prius kicked the Civic Hybrid’s ass had nothing to do with the way it looked, except that the shape (part of the look) gave it such excellent cargo space and rear leg room. The CH is a compact car with a short trunk and a non-foldable rear seat that gets slightly worse mileage. Why on earth WOULDN’T you pick the Prius, a midsize car, instead?
And the claim that Toyota still loses money on the Prius has been debunked hundreds of times by now. It’s wishful thinking by the same guys who are asking for $34 billion today and tomorrow.
M1EK :
Good lord. Now the FUD is allowed to be in the postings, not just the comments?
The reason the Prius kicked the Civic Hybrid’s ass had nothing to do with the way it looked, except that the shape (part of the look) gave it such excellent cargo space and rear leg room. The CH is a compact car with a short trunk and a non-foldable rear seat that gets slightly worse mileage. Why on earth WOULDN’T you pick the Prius, a midsize car, instead?
I completely disagree. The Prius is not about mileage or practicality for most buyers. It’s about image. The fact that it looked unique and was easily identifiable even to non-car people was a critical part of its sales success.
Not what I’d call sexy, but perhaps the least-offensive styling effort Honda has fielded in the last two years, so…
It’s a smart move for them, and I think it will pay off. I was thinking about Chrysler’s original minivans — part of the reason they got such a huge share of the market (and made Chrysler so much money) was that it took until the mid-nineties before any other automaker even tried to offer anything directly comparable. GM blundered twice — first with the RWD Astro/Safari (a decent commercial vehicle, not so hot as a consumer minivan), then the Trans Sport/Lumina APV/Silhouette “Dustbusters.” It was like everyone said, “Wow, Chrysler has something really successful…let’s do something completely different!”
Justin,
It wasn’t the engine that sucked the most in original Insight. It was the heft and disbalance of car. It was a hefty pig and handled as such. The weakling of a motor was well compensated by 5 speed tranny: you could rev the daylights out of it. When you swapped engine, did you dropped batteries and electric motor or were still dragging that heft with you at higher RPM?
It is very Priusey. Yuck.
That’s because it’s an aerodynamic car. They all look like that. You may as well say supercars all look “Ferrari-ish”.
I completely disagree. The Prius is not about mileage or practicality for most buyers. It’s about image. The fact that it looked unique and was easily identifiable even to non-car people was a critical part of its sales success.
I’m going to have to agree with M1EK. I’ve talked to a few Prius buyers, and the buying process went like this:
* I want a hybrid
* Check out the Civic, Camry, Escape and Prius.
* Civic’s trunk and rear seat are too small, and it costs the same.
* Camry’s trunk is too small, and it costs more
* Escape holds about as much, costs more gets worse mileage and is practically unobtainable. Oddly, I saw more Escapes than anything except Priuses, largely because they’re the most practical.
Anecdotal evidence, I’m sure, but most buyers I’ve met either bought an Escape (if they were remotely athletic), a Prius (if they weren’t) or a Camry (if they were over fifty, or if the company was paying). No one outside of municipal fleets and Honda freaks bought the Civic.
The Prius is a better car than most people give it credit for–it has all the packaging brilliance of a Saab 900, without the brutal ownership costs–and it nails the demographic. If GM wasn’t completely clueless, they would’ve leveraged Saab as their hybrid brand.
It looks pretty good I guess. It’s just a disappointment after seeing the concept. They’ve dropped a lot of the LEDs and the profile is not as sleek. Why even come out with the concepts and get us excited?
Justin, your reasoning fails Occam’s Razor. The Insight (original) was even more distinctive looking than the Prius, and was still available when the Prius started, and sold like a dead cat.
@ psarhjinian,
Civic hybrid drives way better then Prius. Which is probably not an asset in this market segment.
M1EK :
Justin, your reasoning fails Occam’s Razor. The Insight (original) was even more distinctive looking than the Prius, and was still available when the Prius started, and sold like a dead cat.
And your reasoning conflates necessary and sufficient conditions.
I said unique looks are necessary for hybrid success, but not in and of themselves sufficient to sustain hybrid success.
And besides, when has Occam’s razor ever applied to cars?
Does the rear end look really high to anyone else?
It looks unique? I’d say it looks uniquely like a Prius.
They took a page from Hyundai and just copied another company’s styling.
Occam’s Razor applies to a case like this where you’re claiming that a car which is firmly ensconced in the top 20, outselling Buick and several other marquees, is still just a ‘fad’ which sells because of its green halo.
That’s _possible_ but if the green halo was THAT strong, the Insight would have sold far better than it did.
Much MORE likely is what I and everybody else keep telling you: there are some objective reasons for buying the Prius over the CH that have nothing to do with the green halo and that are common metrics people use for deciding between ANY two cars.
It’s a Prius with a Honda badge and a Civic interior, I’d hardly call that “unique”.
@M1EK:
You’re putting other people’s words in my mouth. If you re-read the post and my replies in this thread, you’ll find that I never said many of the things you disagree with.
autonut: It wasn’t the engine that sucked the most in original Insight. It was the heft and disbalance of car. It was a hefty pig and handled as such. The weakling of a motor was well compensated by 5 speed tranny: you could rev the daylights out of it. When you swapped engine, did you dropped batteries and electric motor or were still dragging that heft with you at higher RPM?
Huh?! The original Insight weighed less than 1850 lbs. The electric motor was thin and light and the battery pack was well under 100lbs.
How those numbers could translate to “hefty pig” mystifies me. The car certainly wasn’t fast, but it had nothing to do with weight.
argentia:
Since my family still owns a ’92 Astro and I have often been at the wheel, I want to make it clear that the Astro/Safari is NOT a minivan but a van. There is a very large difference, apart from the FWD/RWD aspect. The Astro is basically a truck while minivans are cars.
I’ve had to explain this to many, many guys who accused me of piloting a minivan. But when they saw what I could do with it (RWD manuevering/configuring the rear bench seats/loading massive amounts of cargo) the doubt immediately disappears. The Astro is an awesome vehicle, at least until you visit the pump.
i think the bottom line is that this is the first hybrid since prius debuted that has any chance, and probably will, start selling in significant numbers b/c it is a “unique” offering in that it’s a honda hybrid not based on an existing style already being offered (e.g. accord or civic) that’s not particularly “odd-looking” (e.g. the original insight). i expect it’s sales will over a couple years rival those of the prius.
looking at the new insight brought to mind the short-lived russian space shuttle program, called “buran” if i’m not mistaken. it looked an awful lot like the u.s. shuttle orbiter, to the point that some thought they’d stolen the plans and built their own. actually, our shuttle was made about as well as it could have been given the existing technology at the time it was designed. therefore, anything that would function on a par with it in terms of aerodynamics, dimensions, etc, would probably have to look an awful lot like it did, as was the case with the russian shuttle. maybe toyota designed a hybrid that could function just about as well as could be made with the existing technology, and so any competitor with any hopes of success would happen to design something coincidentally that looked remarkably similar. no other hybrids have had any(where near) the success of prius.
anyway, just my 2 cents.
Civic hybrid drives way better then Prius. Which is probably not an asset in this market segment.
Yup. Honda, like GM, flubbed the demographics. By and large, hybrid buyers don’t care about handling (Civic), power (Accord) or towing capacity (GMT900). Classic “we know better than the customers” syndrome.
From what I’ve heard (or read), Honda can manage selling the Insight for less that $20g because it is simply and Civic hybrid with a more aerodynamic body. A lot of the interior is parts-bin stuff that Honda can manufacture at a bargain price point.
B-Rad – I must disagree. The Astro was actually GM’s failed attempt at a minivan. I mean the first one. After Chrysler’s was out for a couple of years and it was plainly a hit, The General decided (as usual) that Chrysler had gotten it wrong. “What they really want is a trucky rear wheel drive van, but smaller.” Acctually, for the heart of the market where all the sales happen, Chrysler was right and GM was wrong (as has been its oft repeated pattern.) My recall (might be wrong) is that the Astro came in 3d in a 3 way sales race with the Voyager/Caravan and the Aerostar. But, by dumb luck and the passage of enough time (and some incremental improvements) GM found enough of a market for its unique vehicle. I think the older it got, the better it sold. Personally, I never saw the point. If you want bulk, crummy gas mileage, lots of room, why not just get a real van. Same money, more truck. I had many happy years with my Ford Club Wagon.
Justin Berkowitz: “I completely disagree. The Prius is not about mileage or practicality for most buyers. It’s about image. The fact that it looked unique and was easily identifiable even to non-car people was a critical part of its sales success.”
[M1EK disagrees with the importance of the look and the impact of image on buying a Prius…]
Justin Berkowitz: “You’re putting other people’s words in my mouth.”
Didn’t look like it from here.
I like the Prius (and will likely get one) because of the interior room, the cargo space, the general quality of the vehicle and the outstanding fuel economy (gas is cheap today but I expect it to be expensive tomorrow) and reasonable price (they start at just a bit more than a stripped Camry or Malibu).
Now, if someone could figure out how to fit all that into a shape resembling the Chevy Malibu, Ford Fusion, VW Beetle or Freightliner, I’d look at it and consider buying it on the merits, just like the Prius.
And, like M1EK, the people that I know who bought one bought the car on its totally practical merits. “I can fit all this crap into it and still get 46mpg? Sold.” Well… “And it’s a Toyota? Sold.”
Toyota reported back in ’02 or so that they were able to sell the car for more than unit cost. Toyota is able to sell the Yaris, which is not a bad little car at all, for as little as $10,500. It is not at all unrealistic to think they can profitably sell the Prius at $22,000… unless you intend to assert that Toyota is selling the Yaris and all its other small cars at a loss.
If Toyota can do it… so can Honda. So could GM, for the matter of that.
A better looking (and likely driving) Prius – sweet!
Hybrids never made any sense, except as must-have fashion accessories for the Church of Global Warming crowd. Dual motors? 600-pound battery packs that need replacement every 4 years? Please.
Now that the oil bubble has finally burst, and the pressure to “do something quick” is off, Honda and other companies should let these abominations die and get back to the business of developing real technologies for the future.
M1EK> The insight wasn’t available here. I looked ALL over before giving up & deciding on a sports car. Dealers told me they didn’t even know ANY OTHER dealer that they could trade with. This was in a major market (Chicago) in 2005.
In any case, I find most Prius owners use them as posermobiles to show they are “Green” or “save money” (yep, spending $25k to save $2/gallon on gas is more efficient than buying a subcompact beater at $2k, and paying occasional maintenance costs).
It looks unique, and that carries the image that’s so critical in the hybrid market.
I do not think it was unreasonable of me to paraphrase this as “green halo” or ‘fad’ argument. It’s just a slightly nicer version of the same exact language used by GM for the last few years.
Robstar, your bitterness is showing. Subcompact is not one but TWO vehicle classes below the Prius. Neither the family nor all the stuff I’ve hauled would have fit in a subcompact for the last 4.5 years we’ve been able to get it to fit in the Prius.
I have no bitterness towards Prius, but I do think the people who drive them & feel they are the best thing since sliced bread are kind of silly.
Most Prii I see around have a single person in them.
Also, regarding my above post: You can buy midsize beaters for not much more, if any, than a subcompact.
OK…yes, it is following the basic Prius styling theme but……. That said, I very much like it.
It has some styling cues from the Hydrogen Clarity sedan. Wonder if it has the old CRX back hatch double-window treatment?
Considering how many recent Honda’s and Acura’s have not done it for me on styling, this one does work. Kudos to Honda. Now they will have this and the Fit to duke it out in the marketplace. Next year will be interesting between Detroit and others!
Robstar, if you weren’t otherwise going to consider a beater (I wouldn’t, for reasons of reliability and emissions), then the Prius is a very sensible choice. And if everybody bought used beaters, the supply of used beaters wouldn’t be able to keep up with demand, since every one of them was once a new car (my problem with many of the “everybody should buy used” arguments).
Why would you buy one of these rather than a Fit–assuming that the price differential wasn’t prohibitive?
Robstar: “Most Prii I see around have a single person in them.”
And there’s plenty of big-ass pickups in the parking lot that come in with one person aboard and otherwise rattling along empty. They use two gallons of gas to do a trip that the Prius will do with about two to three quarts. What was your point?
I’d ride the bus, if the bus service was halfway decent. I’d bike more often if there was a reasonably safe way to do it when both the in and out might be in the dark (something of a concern here in MN).
But the fact is, if you’d like to reduce oil consumption, for whatever reason, choosing a Prius or an Insight over a lot of other things is certainly a convenient way to do it and just about painless and some things just aren’t very practical unless you intend to become a hermit.
“And besides, when has Occam’s razor ever applied to cars?”
With that flip remark you just guaranteed one less reader of any posting under your byline.
ExtraO :
“And besides, when has Occam’s razor ever applied to cars?”
With that flip remark you just guaranteed one less reader of any posting under your byline.
It wasn’t flip at all. I think it’s a fair point to say car marketing and sales are way too complex to summarize with a single “simplest theory fits” method of analysis.
Still, if you choose not to read anything I write again, you’ll probably find yourself in good company. If not good, then plentiful.
It does sound quite funny in the abstract: “I refuse to read anything that moron writes – he doesn’t even think Occam’s Razor applies to cars!”
KixStart:
[M1EK disagrees with the importance of the look and the impact of image on buying a Prius…]
Justin Berkowitz: “You’re putting other people’s words in my mouth.”
Didn’t look like it from here.
Oh seriously, come on. I think it’s really deeply unfair to respond to my claim that he’s putting words in my mouth and then paraphrase what he was saying in the first place.
And if you read his posts, it was clear that I never said much of what he was suggesting. I never said hybrid cars are a fad. I also never said that they sell exclusively because of a green halo.
M1EK:
That’s _possible_ but if the green halo was THAT strong, the Insight would have sold far better than it did.
Much MORE likely is what I and everybody else keep telling you: there are some objective reasons for buying the Prius over the CH that have nothing to do with the green halo and that are common metrics people use for deciding between ANY two cars.
Yes, I agree with you. Quite honestly, I am completely confused as to why you think all buyers think the same way.
My initial claim is that green image is a necessary component in making a hybrid car a sales success. Or, as I said in the post originally, “It looks unique, and that carries the image that’s so critical in the hybrid market.”
There are many necessary elements in a hybrid car being a success:
1. Function as a car
2. Price
3. MPG
4. Image
I said “You have to have green image to be able to sell a hybrid successfully (i.e. on a large scale).” You said “No, people buy cars for many different reasons.” These aren’t mutually exclusive. All I am saying is that without the image component, it’s much harder to sell a hybrid car to large numbers of people in the U.S.
The implication of “so critical” would be:
1. Image
99. Everything else
“Quite honestly, I am completely confused as to why you think all buyers think the same way.”
Once the Prius became a top-20 car, it is beyond reason to continue to claim that it’s selling simply or even primarily because of image. The numbers are large enough that it’s ridiculous to claim that there’s such a substantial difference, now, between Prius drivers and, say, Camry drivers. There simply isn’t.
While I appreciate your later comments as more rational than the original post, surely it’s clear you’re backing away from an unsupportable position that many of the troglodytes still hold? Throw red meat to the animals and then wash your hands kind of thing?
Again, Occam’s Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is right more often than the more complicated one, absent strong evidence either way. We have a simple theory on the table that isn’t contradicted: the Prius is bigger than the other hybrids, much more useful, and gets better mileage. Your theory, on the contrary, dies as soon as you look at the (old) Insight. QED.
I thought the concept was attractive and about the only hybrid I would have seriously considered buying. And it would have been even better if offered with a nice 4 cylinder turbo engine sans hybrid motor and a nice sorted Euro-Ford type suspension. But this is just a sad, cheap Prius copy.