|
|
|
|
 |
CivicB18
 |
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
TurkMan71
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I don't disagree with you about Hyundai, but with Honda...what exactly is the truth? I don't know anymore...Their claims on each new product never seem to live up to their own hype. When they said they would be the most fuel efficient in each segment they competed in, were they talking about EPA numbers? No, obviously we see that now. Was it with their little magic green econ button all aglow? Maybe, but i never saw that in the fine print...nor did I see them saying 'sure our EPA numbers are lower than the competition but our real world numbers are better'.
You might know that, I might guess that to be correct, and Honda fans all over the world would give a wink and a knowing smile...but is that how you sell a car to the masses?
Hey Honda! Be clear about what you say and be sure you can back it up!!
|
P54
|
|
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I don't disagree with you about Hyundai, but with Honda...what exactly is the truth? I don't know anymore...Their claims on each new product never seem to live up to their own hype. When they said they would be the most fuel efficient in each segment they competed in, were they talking about EPA numbers? No, obviously we see that now. Was it with their little magic green econ button all aglow? Maybe, but i never saw that in the fine print...nor did I see them saying 'sure our EPA numbers are lower than the competition but our real world numbers are better'.
You might know that, I might guess that to be correct, and Honda fans all over the world would give a wink and a knowing smile...but is that how you sell a car to the masses?
Hey Honda! Be clear about what you say and be sure you can back it up!!
|
When Honda said it back when? they obviously did not know other manufacturers would come out before them and beat them at it. On the other side, BMW came out with numbers they had to adjust down, Hyundai has problems delivering as promised, Civic over delivers, another Honda model changed numbers upward so since this is early and Honda has been conservative in their numbers and still faced lawsuit on a model maybe they are even more conservative now. What remains to be seen is how the test results are, many cars have had great EPA numbers, however failed to deliver. It is much better to under estimate and later adjust numbers up than doing the opposite. If you think 36 HWY is not so good, well 27 city is impressive for this size and weight car. Compare that to smaller cars with much smaller engines and less weight. The figures Honda has presented now is much less than they said when the ED engines were shown first time. Bear in mind it could be tuned for good performance too, not outright FE as not to step on the toes of Civic and the likes before they and Fit is updated with new power trains. Most people with Civic and Fit will confirm they get way better FE than EPA sticker says. Let's not be doomsayers before the vehicle has had a chance to prove itself and we've seen comparisons to other vehicles.
|
according2kev
|
|
P54 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I don't disagree with you about Hyundai, but with Honda...what exactly is the truth? I don't know anymore...Their claims on each new product never seem to live up to their own hype. When they said they would be the most fuel efficient in each segment they competed in, were they talking about EPA numbers? No, obviously we see that now. Was it with their little magic green econ button all aglow? Maybe, but i never saw that in the fine print...nor did I see them saying 'sure our EPA numbers are lower than the competition but our real world numbers are better'.
You might know that, I might guess that to be correct, and Honda fans all over the world would give a wink and a knowing smile...but is that how you sell a car to the masses?
Hey Honda! Be clear about what you say and be sure you can back it up!!
|
When Honda said it back when? they obviously did not know other manufacturers would come out before them and beat them at it.
|
After the Altima's numbers were released, I was curious if Honda would renege. When talking about the new Accord's EPA ratings, I've read twice (once on TOV) that they would be "competitive with the Altima" instead of "class leading" like we heard initially. I had a feeling then that the Accord might fall short a little bit.
|
typer_801
|
|
Only 10 to 15% of the claims of fuel economy on window stickers are actually validated by the EPA. Case in point, the 2012 BMW 328i. It was originally EPA rated at 36mpg highway. BMW did the testing and that's the number that appeared on the window sticker. Then the EPA validated that claim and determined it wasn't correct, dropping it to 33mpg.
My point being, maybe Nissan and Ford are optimistic in their assessments and the EPA isn't validating their claims like they did with BMW.
Here's a link to the BMW incident: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/20/bmw-forced-to-lower-2012-3-series-auto-fuel-economy-to-33-mpg/
ipribadi wrote:
How the heck does the Alti gets 38mpg but the Sentra only 39mpg really puzzles me.
|
|
accord1989b
|
|
I think all the Manufacturers, even sometimes Honda who got sued over a hybrid civic is sometimes overly optimistic, but I find I usually get better mileage in Honda's than the EPA sticker.
So user forums and owners are the best judge or a rental.
The Altima is inly rated 2 miles per gallon more and is lighter and more aerodynamic and Nissan has more experience with midsize and CVT together.
But to get 38 HWY and do 0-60 in 7.14 seconds is Amazing, so they may indeed be overly optimistic.
|
CrisKo
|
|
I think I may have just stumbled onto an interesting thing about the EPA combined number. It's a weighted average, I know and understand that. What I don't understand is the EPA's method for deciding on the combined number. It would seem to be a rather easy explanation. Round the weighted average down to the nearest whole number as to not mislead. But that isn't always the case, there are quite a bit of inconsistencies.
For example both the I4-cvt accord and V6 accord combined estimates are wrong for the given city and highway values. The CVT is actually 31.05 and the V6 is actually 26.85. Both are actually 1 mpg higher than what was stated, 30 and 25, respectively.
OK sure the CVT was downgraded because while mathematically it is 31. Perhaps, the the standard deviation demanded it be downgraded. But that isn't consistent with 26.85 being downgraded to 25. I'm sorry I meant to say, how in the hell does 26.85 become 25?
Now I understand there is some room for error, between the source of the information and the gatekeeper, and maybe that is why the combined numbers are incorrect, but the problem is that on the EPA website there are inconsistencies like this too. I found a few in just a couple of minutes.
The Civic HF for example, is rated at 33 combined. In reality though, it is 34.4, and therefore should at least be, 34, right?
The Altima V6 is rated at 25 combined but its true wgt. ave. is 26.05. Perhaps the same fate as the CVT, duped by the std. dev.
And if it is the std. dev. of the wgt. ave. that really determines the combined value then why not be truly consistent and round up? Like in the case of 11' Civic AT it's true combined ave. is 29.95, so by the logic of 26.05 becoming 25 shouldn't 29.95 become 30?
All I keep thinking is, man this is all part of some conspiracy cooked up by Pepe Silvia!
|
benbess
|
|
CrisKo wrote:
I think I may have just stumbled onto an interesting thing about the EPA combined number. It's a weighted average, I know and understand that. What I don't understand is the EPA's method for deciding on the combined number. It would seem to be a rather easy explanation. Round the weighted average down to the nearest whole number as to not mislead. But that isn't always the case, there are quite a bit of inconsistencies.
For example both the I4-cvt accord and V6 accord combined estimates are wrong for the given city and highway values. The CVT is actually 31.05 and the V6 is actually 26.85. Both are actually 1 mpg higher than what was stated, 30 and 25, respectively.
OK sure the CVT was downgraded because while mathematically it is 31. Perhaps, the the standard deviation demanded it be downgraded. But that isn't consistent with 26.85 being downgraded to 25. I'm sorry I meant to say, how in the hell does 26.85 become 25?
Now I understand there is some room for error, between the source of the information and the gatekeeper, and maybe that is why the combined numbers are incorrect, but the problem is that on the EPA website there are inconsistencies like this too. I found a few in just a couple of minutes.
The Civic HF for example, is rated at 33 combined. In reality though, it is 34.4, and therefore should at least be, 34, right?
The Altima V6 is rated at 25 combined but its true wgt. ave. is 26.05. Perhaps the same fate as the CVT, duped by the std. dev.
And if it is the std. dev. of the wgt. ave. that really determines the combined value then why not be truly consistent and round up? Like in the case of 11' Civic AT it's true combined ave. is 29.95, so by the logic of 26.05 becoming 25 shouldn't 29.95 become 30?
All I keep thinking is, man this is all part of some conspiracy cooked up by Pepe Silvia!
|
I'm not sure, but I think the way EPA calculates combined mpg is something like 55% city and 45% hwy.
|
TurkMan71
|
|
P54 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I don't disagree with you about Hyundai, but with Honda...what exactly is the truth? I don't know anymore...Their claims on each new product never seem to live up to their own hype. When they said they would be the most fuel efficient in each segment they competed in, were they talking about EPA numbers? No, obviously we see that now. Was it with their little magic green econ button all aglow? Maybe, but i never saw that in the fine print...nor did I see them saying 'sure our EPA numbers are lower than the competition but our real world numbers are better'.
You might know that, I might guess that to be correct, and Honda fans all over the world would give a wink and a knowing smile...but is that how you sell a car to the masses?
Hey Honda! Be clear about what you say and be sure you can back it up!!
|
they obviously did not know other manufacturers would come out before them and beat them at it.
|
Then they should have been more cautious about what they claimed before a competitor intro (Honda knows good and well when major competitors are coming out)...I guess saying, "Our car will be the most fuel efficient car in the segment until maybe the next competitor comes out in a few weeks" doesn't sound as enticing?
I'm afraid many here are missing my point...>sigh<
|
kidoairaku
|
|
What concerns me more is that Honda believed that all of the competition would stand still. They didn't realize that all manufacturers are improving their cars? thats just stupid.
no wonder Honda is getting more average in every way. What's the point of the profit if they dont use it to beat the competitors? other manufacturers are losing money but still improving their product.
|
superchg2
|
|
|
The new Accord really looks to be improved in many ways. Honda's also seem to get better mileage than is advertised, a lot of the time. Compared to the 9G Civic's, I think the new Accord's are going to hit the ground running and I look forward to seeing complete reviews on them.
|
Crosstour2010
|
|
Crazy thought here seeing as Honda is horrible at marketing. What if, I know big if, Honda has underestimated the Accord EPA rating, so when Consumer Reports and others test the car they get 38-39-40 mpg and then herald the Accord as the true economy leader?
CR tested the Civic a few months ago and it got 8 mpg better then the sticker reads. Marketing suicide is nothing new to Honda and if they did this, time will tell how this works out.
|
Crosstour2010
|
|
Crazy thought here. Honda is a terrible marketing company and we all know they have done some stupid things in the past, but what if they did this with the Accord.
An underestimation of the EPA rating on the Accord, so when car magazines and Consumers test the car, BINGO 38-39-40 mpg shows up? CR tested the Civic and others a few months back and the Civic was 8 mpg higher than EPA ratings. Would the press hearald this, or just say wow and move on.
Could Honda then trumpet this in a marketing campaign, quoting non-biased sources?
I hope this is not the case, but we wont know until the car is released and people actually get to drive it and see.
|
Crosstour2010
|
|
|
Double post coming up I think. Sorry in advance..
|
JDMImport
|
|
Crosstour2010 wrote:
Crazy thought here seeing as Honda is horrible at marketing. What if, I know big if, Honda has underestimated the Accord EPA rating, so when Consumer Reports and others test the car they get 38-39-40 mpg and then herald the Accord as the true economy leader?
CR tested the Civic a few months ago and it got 8 mpg better then the sticker reads. Marketing suicide is nothing new to Honda and if they did this, time will tell how this works out.
|
Comsumer Reports achieved 30mpg overall in the 2012 Honda Civic, which was not tops in their test being bested by the Corolla, Mazda3, Focus SFE, Jetta TDI and Civic HF. The 47mpg you speak of was the highest highway number they were able to get at a given point, but they did not disclose what the conditions were. Several other makes also obtained well over their EPA estimates as well.
I don't believe for one second Honda "underestimated" anything. They tested the Accord according to the EPA test guidelines and they posted the results. Whether the car will do better, worse or be on par is yet to be seen.
|
Crosstour2010
|
|
|
I also agree with a post from above that Honda Accord will ace (no pun intended) the overlap test and that will be a feather in the cap of Honda. Balance of top safety/fe rating and I think safety won out.
|
TonyEX
|
|
xAbSoLuTexZeRo wrote:
This is kind of disappointing, I thought Earth Dreams would be more than a 2 MPG HWY increase.
|
You're looking at a very serious bump in torque... And Hondas do tend to meet (and exceed) their EPA numbers.
Of course, since I currently have a 3.3 mile commute, I could be driving a 5mpg Peterbuilt cab and have no fuel money cares... so if my commute stays like this I'll likely swap the '12 Si for a '13 Accord V6 MT6... ;-D
Mileage? Hell... just lay some rubber baby..
|
benbess
|
|
Crosstour2010 wrote:
I also agree with a post from above that Honda Accord will ace (no pun intended) the overlap test and that will be a feather in the cap of Honda. Balance of top safety/fe rating and I think safety won out.
|
Agree.
They wanted to improve mpg and they did, but safety was tops.
When the new Altima likely melts under the new IIHS small ofset test people will be wondering whether that 1 mpg combined mileage advantage of the Altima is worth it....I'd rather have 100 pounds more steel and still be alive if the worst happens.
|
benbess
|
|
Watch as Mercedes, Audi, Lincoln, Infiniti, etc. do poorly in this IIHS small offset test. Acura TL was one of only two cars to do well, the other being the Volvo S60.
The ACEII structure of 2013 Accord is projected by Honda's own testing at its state-of-the-art crash center as passing this test with top ratings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pam411jNf7c
|
DrWhiner
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
Comsumer Reports achieved 30mpg overall in the 2012 Honda Civic, which was not tops in their test being bested by the Corolla, Mazda3, Focus SFE, Jetta TDI and Civic HF. The 47mpg you speak of was the highest highway number they were able to get at a given point, but they did not disclose what the conditions were.
|
1. So the regular Civic beats Cruze Eco, Focus, Mazda3 2.0L 148 hp, Cruze 1.4L, Cruze 1.8L, Jetta 2.5L, Hyundai Elantra, ... and the list goes on.
2. Contrary to what you said, this is what Consumer Reports said:We perform our own fuel-economy tests, independent of the government's often-quoted EPA figures and the manufacturers' claims. Using a precise fuel-flow measuring device spliced into the fuel line, we run three separate circuits. One is on a public highway at a steady 65 mph. That circuit is run in both directions to counteract any wind effect. A second is a stop-and-go simulated city-driving test done at our track. The third is a 150-mile "one-day trip" using several drivers taking turns around a 30-mile loop of public roads that include a highway section, secondary roads, and rural byways.
It a circuit run on highway, not just at a part. point as you said.
3. According to thieir list, Civic is among the most fuel efficient regular (i.e. non-hybrid, non-Eco) gas burning vehicle during hwy drving http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/best-city-highway-mpg/index.htm. Interesting to note, no M/T regular gas burning vehicles beats it in Consumer Reports testing.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Furthermore, forgot to add, the regular Civic's hwy fuel mileage even beats Jetta TDI.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I don't disagree with you about Hyundai, but with Honda...what exactly is the truth? I don't know anymore...Their claims on each new product never seem to live up to their own hype. When they said they would be the most fuel efficient in each segment they competed in, were they talking about EPA numbers? No, obviously we see that now. Was it with their little magic green econ button all aglow? Maybe, but i never saw that in the fine print...nor did I see them saying 'sure our EPA numbers are lower than the competition but our real world numbers are better'.
You might know that, I might guess that to be correct, and Honda fans all over the world would give a wink and a knowing smile...but is that how you sell a car to the masses?
Hey Honda! Be clear about what you say and be sure you can back it up!!
|
When Honda said it back when? they obviously did not know other manufacturers would come out before them and beat them at it. On the other side, BMW came out with numbers they had to adjust down, Hyundai has problems delivering as promised, Civic over delivers, another Honda model changed numbers upward so since this is early and Honda has been conservative in their numbers and still faced lawsuit on a model maybe they are even more conservative now. What remains to be seen is how the test results are, many cars have had great EPA numbers, however failed to deliver. It is much better to under estimate and later adjust numbers up than doing the opposite. If you think 36 HWY is not so good, well 27 city is impressive for this size and weight car. Compare that to smaller cars with much smaller engines and less weight. The figures Honda has presented now is much less than they said when the ED engines were shown first time. Bear in mind it could be tuned for good performance too, not outright FE as not to step on the toes of Civic and the likes before they and Fit is updated with new power trains. Most people with Civic and Fit will confirm they get way better FE than EPA sticker says. Let's not be doomsayers before the vehicle has had a chance to prove itself and we've seen comparisons to other vehicles.
|
The wind got sucked out of your sails didn't it?
If Honda is going to make a claim such as "we WILL have the best fuel economy in every segment we compete in" then they damn well better back it up. Especially when they have traditionally had the best fuel economy in the segments they compete in...
Furthermore, ain't it a bitch that the official EPA numbers were actually revised DOWNWARD from Honda's estimates? Sucks to be you even more because now not only did they make a completely bogus claim, but they have egg on their face because they didn't even manage to deliver on their own expectations.
As for the car "exceeding" EPA values, with Honda's performance lately, I will believe it when I see it.
|
owequitit
|
|
CivicB18 wrote:
TurkMan71 wrote:
CivicB18 wrote:
Lets try to be a bit more realistic and optimistic here folks. The current k24 pretty much matches and in some cases exceeds the competitions real world mileage even though the competition has an on paper advantage. Given Hondas history of getting superior real world results I'd like to think these new EarthDreams drivetrains are no different in real world delivery.
~Patrick
|
I respectfully disagree with you optimism :-)
...and will quote myself from above
IF these numbers are TRUE HONDA AFVM has lot sa esplainin to do!!
Before anyone even starts with, "these numbers are not in ECO mode" or "Hondas always do better in real world mileage"...please shush. I'm well aware of this, but this is about perception, and if Honda comes in with lower numbers than the Altima, they have FAILED miserably when it comes to perception, PR, under-promising/over-delivering... |
|
Perception is important but it has to have truth behind it before it becomes relevant. Hyundai for example got the attention of many because of perception, on paper performance and styling but we see how quickly that turned around due to mediocre/inconsistent performance, mediocre chassis dynamics etc etc.
~Patrick
|
I agree, but here is where I see a potential sticking point, especially early in the product cycle.
I have noticed more and more than magazines are NOT reporting actual MPG. I know Motor Trend stopped doing it, and I am pretty sure Automobile has. I think Road and Track has started doing it on a case by case basis. The only two major car media outlets I can think of that regularly report actual MPG are Car and Driver and Edmunds. Of course CR does as well, but I am afraid that Honda's actual performance may get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes I have seen passing mention in the actual text of the articles, but that is not always consistent either.
That could REALLY hurt initial perception of the product, especially with the Altima coming on so strong in terms of apparent build quality, performance and advertised MPG.
|
nash24
|
|
kidoairaku wrote:
What concerns me more is that Honda believed that all of the competition would stand still. They didn't realize that all manufacturers are improving their cars? thats just stupid.
no wonder Honda is getting more average in every way. What's the point of the profit if they dont use it to beat the competitors? other manufacturers are losing money but still improving their product.
|
Did u think before you posted?
|
rancho1
|
|
benbess wrote:
Watch as Mercedes, Audi, Lincoln, Infiniti, etc. do poorly in this IIHS small offset test. Acura TL was one of only two cars to do well, the other being the Volvo S60.
The ACEII structure of 2013 Accord is projected by Honda's own testing at its state-of-the-art crash center as passing this test with top ratings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pam411jNf7c
|
Infiniti G35 did well with that test and it is an older model that's about to be replaced.
|
JDMImport
|
|
DrWhiner
The Honda Civic also has one of the weakest engines in the class as well at 140hp and 128tq. The Cruze has been noted for having sub par fuel efficiency, sans the Eco model along with the Jetta which uses the biggest engine of the group. It's really hard to find any of the old 2.0L Mazda3's around. The Skyactiv one's seem to be the vast majority of what is sold and that did better in combined efficiency than the Civic did while boasting much more power.
While in various conditions, it is possible to get great efficiency out of any of these vehicles, as noted by Consumer Reports and echoed by me that several of the vehicles tested exceeded their EPA estimates, which led to my point that just because CR got up to 47mpg in the Civic does not mean that Honda "underestimates" their efficiency ratings. There is absolutely NO advantage to underestimating those values that are the only constant for measuring economy for consumers to make a decision.
Real-world efficiency is tough to really calculate, considering various age groups, driving conditions, regions of the country and so on. There will always be those who get great efficiency in their cars and others who won't with the same model.
I have averaged 22 mpg on my 2004 Accord coupe V6, dead on with the EPA estimates, and lower than the original window sticker. Another family member of mine just turned in a 2010 leased CR-V AWD which did no better than 21mpg, which is 2 mpg less than the EPA estimates.
Thank you for posting the rest of the CR testing procedures, as I was not able to locate them.
My main argument was you cannot take a test by CR and assume Honda "underestimates" their economy figures considering several other vehicles exceeded their EPA estimates as well.
|
danielgr
|
|
kidoairaku wrote:
What concerns me more is that Honda believed that all of the competition would stand still. They didn't realize that all manufacturers are improving their cars? thats just stupid.
no wonder Honda is getting more average in every way. What's the point of the profit if they dont use it to beat the competitors? other manufacturers are losing money but still improving their product.
|
*********** OFF-TOPIC MESSAGE TO KIDOAIRAKU ***********
Could you please let me know where did you find the detailed info on Honda hybrid sales in JP you posted here ??
I am extremely interested on it; have been guessing for years, and would be nice to have actual data.
|
kidoairaku
|
|
Some website I came across when I was checking out JADA and looking for other similar sites.
http://hybrid-eco.net/index.html
|
Chris_6MT
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
DrWhiner
The Honda Civic also has one of the weakest engines in the class as well at 140hp and 128tq. The Cruze has been noted for having sub par fuel efficiency, sans the Eco model along with the Jetta which uses the biggest engine of the group. It's really hard to find any of the old 2.0L Mazda3's around. The Skyactiv one's seem to be the vast majority of what is sold and that did better in combined efficiency than the Civic did while boasting much more power.
While in various conditions, it is possible to get great efficiency out of any of these vehicles, as noted by Consumer Reports and echoed by me that several of the vehicles tested exceeded their EPA estimates, which led to my point that just because CR got up to 47mpg in the Civic does not mean that Honda "underestimates" their efficiency ratings. There is absolutely NO advantage to underestimating those values that are the only constant for measuring economy for consumers to make a decision.
Real-world efficiency is tough to really calculate, considering various age groups, driving conditions, regions of the country and so on. There will always be those who get great efficiency in their cars and others who won't with the same model.
I have averaged 22 mpg on my 2004 Accord coupe V6, dead on with the EPA estimates, and lower than the original window sticker. Another family member of mine just turned in a 2010 leased CR-V AWD which did no better than 21mpg, which is 2 mpg less than the EPA estimates.
Thank you for posting the rest of the CR testing procedures, as I was not able to locate them.
My main argument was you cannot take a test by CR and assume Honda "underestimates" their economy figures considering several other vehicles exceeded their EPA estimates as well.
|
Exactly. I don't get this "Honda underestimates MPG" line of thinking. Maybe they don't tune the AT's specifically for the test cycle, but they do not lower what is measured.
Also, by the same token, my '03 Accord V6 6MT is rated for a combined 22mpg or something and I average 28 over the lifetime of the vehicle (13 to 213,000 miles). Routinely exceed 30mpg even though the new estimate is 27mpg hwy.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
JDMImport wrote:
The Honda Civic also has one of the weakest engines in the class as well at 140hp and 128tq. [...] It's really hard to find any of the old 2.0L Mazda3's around. The Skyactiv one's seem to be the vast majority of what is sold and that did better in combined efficiency than the Civic did while boasting much more power.
|
Hmmmm.....
2013 Sentra
130 hp 128 tq.
2012 Cruze 1.8L
138 hp 125 tq
Nissan redesigned the Sentra for 2013, while decreasing both hp and tq.
The much touted world car from GM cannot beat Civic's fuel mileage nor its 'one of the weakest' horsepower or torque in the class.
Really hard to find Mazda's 'old' 2.0L?
I guess it's just because you didn't even try. Mazda put three engines in its 2012 Mazda3: 'old' 2.0 L engine, 'new' 2.0 L engine and 'old' 2.5 L engine. Just shows how much confidence Mazda has in its 'new' engine.
Within a couple of minutes' search, I can find almost a doz. Mazda3 with 'old' 2.0 engine. Really hard???
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] 3 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
