qweezyq

Is it something we could see eventually?
Would you like it?

drunkenbuda

i would...

ck123

not at the price of how much it cost to replace the battery.....100% not worth it no matter how much u drive. The only beneficial thing by getting a hybrid is going to the gas station less often. and also the tsx is already a LOW EMISSIONS VEHICLE.

teg_to_bike

I would like to see a TSX hybrid... in fact I would have bought one even if it did cost 5K more.

Hybrids are not about saving money... even the environmental 'gains' are questionable since you are trading in one type of pollution (air) for another (dealing with used batteries/landfill issues)

They are, however, a strong political stance.... like a big "FU" to the oil industry and the middle east.

2006CGPTSX

I would really consider it as my next car if it comes out in the next 5 years or so. I like to get a new car about every 5 or 6 years.

EuRTSX

Hate me, but I would never buy a hybrid vehicle.

Dan Martin

I would never buy one. i-CTDI is a far better solution if you're too cheap to pay for gas: http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=99

Gas is just an operating expense. If you can't afford the gas, don't buy the car. Spending $4000 or $5000 more on a hybrid setup is retarded because you'll never recover the cost in fuel savings. Plus the last thing the TSX needs is more weight to lug around.

mg7726

i want the diesel honda's developing with the plasma reactor and 30% better mpg

jihan3

I'd strongly consider getting one.

While it costs more up front, you'll recoup some of that cost when you sell the car. In fact, the current trend is for hybrids to retain more of their value than standard gasoline cars. Whether this trend will continue is unknown, of course.

I don't think very many people buy a hybrid to simply save on money, yet it's an often cited rationale against buying one. Lots of people recycle - is it to save them money? No, the main purpose of recycling is to reduce the amount of resources consumed, and there is an end user cost to recycling (time+effort). As United States citizens, we collectively consume far more resources than is sustainable with today's technology. Any little change that we make towards reusing and conserving resources is, in my humble opinion, a step in the right direction. And hybrids are a way to do just that.

Toyota is often quoted that the environmental break-even point for their Prius is around 20,000 miles. The metric that they selected to calculate this with is CO2 emissions. They calculated that manufacturing a Prius requires X additional CO2 emissions over a comparable standard gasoline car, and that it takes approximately 20,000 miles to save the equivalent amount of CO2 while driving the Prius. Most cars last well beyond 20K miles, so if you believe Toyota's figures, then the Prius is a net reducer in carbon emissions.

There are indeed issues with the disposal of hybrid batteries. Ideally, they'd be economically beneficial to recycle, just like lead-acid batteries are today. This would lead to a high recycling rate. As it stands, it costs more to recover materials by recycling NIMH batteries than through other means. Perhaps with growing demand, technology will be produced to change this. Nonetheless, Toyota has a hybrid battery recycling program in place. They give dealerships a $200 bounty for each hybrid battery recovered from use, giving a strong incentive to recycle rather than discard (and giving the environmentally conscious an environmentally friendly place to get rid of their spent battery pack).

From this post, I might come off as a crazy enviro tree-hugger (not that there's anything wrong with that)... so I'll try to defuse this sentiment now

I understand that hybrids aren't for everyone. I myself wouldn't necessarily get one, but I'd strongly consider it. A lot of people can't afford one, some couldn't care less about emissions, some think hybrids are all marketing mumbo jumbo, and maybe some simply prefer a lighter car that handles better in the corners.

To each his own At least we live in a time and place where we are free to make this choice!

Dan Martin

Well written post.

The long term value of hybrids is unknown. Certainly, I would expect them to be very expensive to maintain with essentially two separate drivetrains. I can't imagine what a battery pack would cost to replace.

With regards to emissions, the i-CDTI diesel found in the Euro Accord is actually superior to our K24A2 (145 g/km vs. 214 g/km CO2). The hybrid Civic with it's tiny 1.3L engine still puts out 104 g/km of C02 emissions. If a hybrid TSX were to hit the market, it would need a bigger engine and would likely be on par with the diesel for emissions.

One other thing to consider: the energy that goes into making the components in a hybrid vehicle is far greater than all of the energy it saves in its lifetime. Unless the entire power grid switches to nuclear or wind energy, the net effect on the environment will be worse than had you never bought that hybrid in the first place.

To me, hybrids are trendy but not an appropriate solution to the fuel and environmental problems we face today.

moda_way

^^Additionally to Dan's comments...

Give me gasoline or give me hydrogen. Today's hybrids are of little value to the consumer or the environment. Toyota probably did a fantastic job understanding their manufacturing CO2 output, but what about the tires or other components outsourced on their car, better yet the transportation costs to get those parts to where they belong. If you are a true environmentalist and want to save the environment, invest in nuclear or self-power technology.

jpt

+1 for diesel and other fuel-saving technologies not requiring a hybrid powertrain. Toyota makes hybrids not because they give a squat about emissions or gas consumption, but to draw attention from their gas-guzzlin', smog- and greenhouse-gas-spewin' luxury sedans, large pickup trucks and SUVs (all of which are worse than the industry average for their class). The logical conclusion to draw, then, is that Toyota lies and misleads with numbers whenever possible to make their hybrids look better than they really are. I therefore wouldn't believe their stated CO2 cost of hybrid construction for a second (and let's not forget that the DOLLAR cost of building a hybrid car could be spent on CO2 offset projects instead, very possibly making more of a difference to the world's bottom line).

In Europe, where gas consumption actually matters because gas is actually expensive, turbodiesels (with fuel-saving technologies like cylinder deactivation and idle-stop that are here only available on hybrids) are king, and low-sulfur diesel (of the type which will be available everywhere in the US shortly) helps keep diesel-engine emissions down. Diesels get great mileage on the highway, and with idle-stop (yes, it can work on non-hybrids) are great in the city too. They're also quite cheap both to manufacture and maintain; and don't forget that hybrid powertrains are more expensive than they look, even without the tax breaks -- Toyota subsidizes them, again to draw attention away from the Tundra, Sequoia, LX470, LS430, and friends.

Lastly, there's one way, completely unrelated to magical drivetrain technology, to make cars way more efficient. That, of course, is to just build smaller cars that don't need so much power to move around. Lest we forget, that's how Honda and Toyota made their names in the US in the first place. In my 1982 thesaurus "Toyota" is listed as a synonym for "econobox" (no, not really). Toyota and Honda, of course, haven't forgotten, and much-refined descendants of their original small, efficient cars are making it back to the US just as gas prices are starting to make people think about trading in their Canyoneros. It's like the 70s all over again! In a few years (if gas prices keep going up, which I personally doubt) even Smart may see enough of a stateside market to bring their cars over (sadly, bringing a car model to the US is a monumentally expensive process so this may not happen until much later than it should).

Edit: As far as the TSX, specifically, goes, I don't expect to see a hybrid. The hybrid Civic is better positioned to take advantage of the political benefits of a hybrid (which, as we've seen, are the only real reason to build one), and a CTDi TSX (they're available in England without the leather and some other stuff) makes too little power to be a viable car in today's American market (or rather, that segment of it in which the TSX resides), I think.

bradykp

again with the battery comments?

ok, i admit, hybrids do not make drastic changes to MPG numbers. but if you're in any areas with heavy traffic, you do see a benefit.

batteries cost around $1,000 to replace, and last around 5 years.

the cost of batteries will go down, simply because of economies of scale, once more people are purchasing them. the batter arguments is so retarded.

hybrids will, in the long run, save you money on gas, but in addition to that, there is the intangible savings that you are positively contributing to a better environment.

you can not break down a hybrid's worth simply in $ value. it's not that simple.

bradykp

never? really?

my friend spent $4,000 extra to get the Toyota Highlander hybrid model. He immediately received a $2,000 refund, so that brings him down to only needing to recoup $2,000. well, he is currently saving about $30 per week in gas compared to if he had the non hybrid model....which is another $1,560 in the first year.


less then 2 years, he starts pocketing money.

seems straightforward to me.

bradykp

toyota still does not produce SUVs like the American car companies do and, i do believe Smart cars are on their way to america soon (they are already in canada)

aw1

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060621/2/zh5j.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...845231221.html

Dan Martin

Government subsidies aside, hybrids aren't nearly as efficient as they claim to be. If he drives his highlander 100% of the time in the city, he'll be doing ok, but on the highway, diesels are far more efficient. Put the same subsidy on a diesel and the hybrid would never catch up in fuel costs.

Found this interesting chart on EVworld.com:
The average reported economy for the regular Highlander is 19.3 MPG so the extra 3.1mpg the hybrid gets means your friend can go an extra 32 miles a week, free of charge.

jpt

No, Toyota does not produce SUVs like the American companies do. They produce better ones, that sell better, but still burn just as much gas, and put out as much or more pollution (www.epa.gov/emissweb/).

And Smart has not only refused to bring their cars to the US (apparently they don't think there's enough of a market to justify the cost yet) but has torpedoed attempts by importer ZAP to do so.

jpt

You're missing the point. The only reason this works is because Toyota and the government (i.e. me, against my will) are paying the real cost of the hybrid drive in his SUV, which is closer to $10k than $2k (looking for a source, be back in an hour). Dollars spent are dollars spent, no matter whose pocket they come out of. Your friend is only breaking even at the expense of every other American and every other Toyota buyer.

Something that appears economically feasible only with huge government subsidy is a fortiori not worth doing. This is my biggest complaint about hybrids: if they were really a worthwhile technology, we wouldn't need to force people to pay for it, but because we do, everyone assumes it must be great.

jpt

Your Hybrid-Highlander driving friend is making the environment worse off by spending $4000 extra (this -- at a minimum -- is what he spent; the fact that it was partially my money rather than his is immaterial) to buy a hybrid. Why?

The non-hybrid 2WD Highlander emits 9,586 lbs of CO2 in a year (assuming 12k miles per year -- source). To offset this with appropriate carbon credits would cost $50 a year.

The hybrid 2WD Highlander emits 7,689 lbs of CO2 in the same year. To offset this costs $40 a year. That's less! But... only $10 a year less, or 80% as much.

Your friend could have bought the regular highlander, put the $4k in a savings account earning $100 a year in interest (very low estimate, ING direct currently pays 4.25%) and have the same effect on the environment as buying NEGATIVE ONE Highlanders, or -100% as much pollution as one Highlander. In other words, $4000 worth of carbon credits do ten times as much to control pollution as $4000 worth of hybrid drives.

sauceman

Actually, not exactly. At least not when comparing a Civic Hybrid to a Jetta TDI.

Last week in La Presse, they did a sort of competition between the Civic Hybrid and Jetta TDI to know which car would get the longest distance with their tank full of gas/fuel.

The Civic has a 46L tank, while the Jetta has a 55L tank.

Turns out the Civic hybrid outlasted the Jetta by 25km.

Now, lets put things in perspective: The test was pure highway, half of it on the St-Laurence River Valley flats, and the other half in the mountains. The mountains is where the Civic edged out the Jetta, because it benefitted highly from the IMA assistance. If it had been only flatlands like in the midwest, the Jetta would have outlasted the Civic. Still, in pure mpg, the Civic Hybrid wins.

Another thing to consider: The TDI is now considered a dinosaur. The i-CDTi Honda diesel is way ahead with their technology, so the comparo with the civic Hybrid or Prius would be interesting.

What would I choose?

If they offered diesel, I'd take it in a heartbeat, but would regret not being able to track the car anymore. I've started believing diesel isn't so bad after all since I've had the Smart. Actually, the Smart is really a fun car, but the diesel is no downer. Especially not when I get 700km out of a 20L tank with it.

If they offered the IMA, I'd also take it in a heartbeat, because for my needs it would be an upgrade. Also consider that Honda pays particular attention to IMA cars' aerodynamics. It would also mean I could still bring it to the dragstrip once in a while. That would put a smile to my face.

Honestly though, I'd be all over a hybrid diesel. That car would make so much torque it would be ridiculous. I'd also track it just for fun.

rmpage

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that you can't get more energy out of a reversible process than you put into it.

That's pretty much all you need to show that hybrids are nothing more than overcomplicated, expensive drivelines that still produce every iota of power from gasoline. Period.

Give me a hydrogen fuel cell that I can supply with H2 electrolysized by nuclear energy, and I'll pat myself on the back for saving the environment. Until then, I'll be over here burning dinosaurs.

Chris_F

some really interesting posts in this thread. After reading them I'd rather stick with petrol or maybe go hydrogen

bradykp

article one's findings are flawed because of the following:

"RAA Technical Services Manager Mark Borlace said that with the Honda Civic hybrid costing $9,000 more than the petrol Civic, the fuel cost saving it offered could not be recovered over the five-year period."

why would you compare the base civic to the hybrid civic? that's not fair. the base civic doesn't have the same options as the hybrid model, thus the true difference isn't $9,000. and if it was, you would have gotten around $4,500 back in tax breaks.

bradykp

true, diesels are better, but hybrids ain't as bad as people try to portray them. and he's getting better than 22.4mpg, i think he gets around 25mpg.

bradykp

so you're going to fault toyota for meeting the demands of the american consumers?

if we keep saying we want bigger bigger bigger, wouldn't they be stupid to not offer it?

while GM shunned hybrid technology for so long, toyota grabbed onto it, and has beatin the americans yet again. they'll be turning decent margins on it in no time, and helping to reduce the demand on gas a bit, even if not the most effective method.

bradykp

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67405,00.html

bradykp

ok, to fully understand the economics of this, fine, you can argue that hybrids are not yet worth it. were plasma tvs worth it for $50,000 5 years ago? no, but now those same tvs cost $5,000. the government subsidies will slide away, and the market will dictate the price. the subsidies are to help the technology survive, and toyota is recouping the R&D costs, and will eventually turn a profit. the prices are thus inflated, because of the subsidies, but will start falling in line with demand as the tax breaks are phased out.

subsidies exist when there are other, non-monetary benefits, to a product.

there's a reason why there's a tax on cigarettes and a tax on pollution, and there's a reason why there are subsidies on other things. does our government operate 100% efficiently? no, but the hybrids, in the end, are a positive turn and spark at least some thought on alternatives to fuel only vehicles.

bradykp

ok, we all know that a hybrid vs hydrogen fuel cell is not in favor of the hybrid. diesels will often have the advantage over a hybrid as well.

but when it comes down purely to a tsx hybrid, or a tsx that runs on 91 octane fuel, the hybrid has the edge. all these semi-scientific arguments against the hybrids are fun, but in reality, you're consuming less fuel, and in the long run, you're saving money, and yes, you are helping the environment. how about driving a hybrid, and contribiting to reduce CO2 emissions? then you're accomplising even more.

PittIsIt

Brady, are you talking to yourself? If you wanted to, let us know...I just want to know if we should be ordering some professional help for you, pal.

HONgDA

iTrader: (1)

Are they releasing it in the states? Spotted the Accord Wagon i-CDTi at my work. It was parked in the space where they write reviews for vehicles.
Sorry for the bad cell phone pics but i'd thought i share.

sidssp

This is cool. Imagin what kind of MPG we can get if we could make a hybrid run on diesels.

jihan3

How could I let this thread slip by!

I believe the opposite - my OPINION is that Toyota's primary purpose of selling Hybrids is to gain a technological edge on their competitors (by being one of the pioneers of the technology) in order to capture significant share in what they felt was going to be a promising market.

Unless you can come up with conclusive evidence backing your OPINION, you cannot use it in later logical conclusions. I make this point because the assertion you make is far from obvious, and there are few people in this world that know the truth.

<tin foil hat>

We, as consumers, should be outraged that companies are giving us choices! How dare Toyota subsidize the cost of some new fangled technology to allow consumers choice in the marketplace! Obviously they must have some ulterior evil motive!

</tin foil hat>

Before we had hybrids in the marketplace, there were gasoline cars and diesel cars. Diesel cars typically get better fuel economy. Today, hybrids make gasoline cars more efficient in typical city driving - perhaps more so than diesel cars, but perhaps not. Regardless, now consumers have the choice between gasoline, diesel, and hybrid gasoline.

To suggest that gasoline hybrids are useless because diesel is a solution that already works great is rediculous. There will be cars running on gasoline as long as there are cars running on diesel. Thus, there is a market for fuel efficient diesel engines as well as fuel efficient gasoline engines. Diesel engines clearly do not make gasoline engines more fuel efficient.

Cars have put on weight because that is what consumers have historically demanded. Rich, first world consumers in the US have demanded safety, convenience, and comfort - and these attributes come at a weight penalty.

To knock hybrids because smaller cars are more fuel efficient is also rediculous, by the same reasoning I applied previously. The technology allows consumers to select a car that retains its safety, convenience, and comfort features yet consume less fuel. Different consumers have different needs - for many, a sub-compact car does not serve their requirements and wants.

jihan3

I disagree with this sentiment. The hydrogen economy is a long long ways off, and hybrids are a convenient transition technology/stepping stone to the future. They allow the initial integration of battery packs and electric motors into gasoline cars.

As battery technology advances, we'll see increasing battery capacity and motor power integrated into hybrid cars while gasoline/diesel engines play an ever smaller role. Then when the major technological problems of hydrogen are solved, the shift to a hydrogen economy will be smoother.

In the meantime, hybrid gasoline engines can still serve their purpose and provide benefit to those who are best situated to take advantage of them.

Finally, the advantages gained from regenerative braking found in current hybrids will be completely applicable to hydrogen powered cars.

jihan3

Cars do not need to break any laws of physics to provide significant increases in efficiency.

Non hybrid cars convert kinetic energy to non-recoverable heat energy everytime one hits the brakes. Hybrid cars have the ability to reclaim some of this otherwise wasted energy. This ability is one of their main benefits.

timeshock

What I'm amazed at in this discussion is the downright HOSTILITY some posters express just to the idea of the hybrid.

I don't understand it unless some people feel this technology is part of a governmental conspiracy of some sort to control our minds or something. Then it becomes just downright paranoia.

Or perhaps some people feel threatened that the old way of doing things is dead, leaving them confused and frightened, hanging on to old ideas that don't work anymore.

One thing is certain, IMHO: the way we view, drive, and consider automobiles as fun and necessary parts of our lifestyles will never be the same. Once we accept that, it becomes easier to move forward without the hostility associated with the change.

The challenge for those of us who love automobiles is how to adjust to new realities on the ground and pass on this lifestyle to our children in an environmentally safe way.

As far as the TSX is concerned, I'm interested in why Honda cannot make the TSX AT-PZEV compliant. Sure, a hybrid or diesel (or other) version would be nice, but at the very least, the engine offered in this car should carry the highest standards for preventing polution. LEV is not enough IMHO.

mar21182

My problem with hybrid cars is that they aren't really solving any environmental or energy problems. They still run off gasoline. They still emit CO2. Whether or not they use less gasoline and emit less CO2 aren't really important. They still work under the same principles as every other car.

The environment and global warming are huge issues. However, I firmly believe the much larger issue is the FACT that the world is running out of oil. We are already starting to see the effects as gas prices and oil prices are sky rocketing. American production of oil peaked a long time ago and is quickly dwindling. Total global production of oil is due to peak in the next several years. With the way the global energy demand keeps rising, we only have 3 or 4 decades tops before we've used up all the oil.... and when this happens, global warming won't matter anymore because we won't have any fossil fuels to burn to raise CO2 levels.

Therefore, we desperately need to start developing alternative sources of energy. Right now, we're many decades away from any sort of cheap, large-scale alternative energy source that can meet our constantly increasing energy demands. Developing this energy source is only part of the problem. It also takes time to build the global infrastructure in order to support the alternative energy. We need fuel stations to go up on every corner in order to fuel (or charge, or whatever) our vehicles. We need powerplants to go up to supply this power to every city. We're nowhere near ready for this, but we'll have to be sooner than most of us think.

I don't know what the fuel source will be. I don't know if hydrogen is a viable option. I don't even know if there is a solution. Perhaps, this comfortable lifestyle we have in which everyone can drive their beautiful cars to work, the movies, restaurants, etc. will change. Suburbs might give way to tighter, city-like areas in order to make public transportation easier.

Again... I don't know, but either some scientist or group of scientists is going to come up with a huge breakthrough or we're going to all be forced to undergo a HUGE lifestyle change.

mg7726

Our mindless lawmakers get to drive a Honda diesel!...among other cars
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...21/019466.html

Honda Accord diesel....mmmmmm

yuhoo22

oooooh! I would def. consider a honda diesel engine

LuvMyTSX

ME TOO!! I can't wait to see what they bring to market around 2010. I hear they have about 3 diesels coming to market here.