Honda weighs safety cuts to qualify for energy rebate

[2961883]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/business/story.html?id=018e62c8-16c2-4ad8-b4c4-8160fb9c9fc8

Honda weighs safety cuts to qualify for energy rebate
Gear could be lifted for fuel efficiency; 'But $1,000 for a human life?' executive asks
Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor Star
Published: Friday, April 06, 2007

WINDSOR - Honda Canada Inc. is "seriously considering" stripping some life-saving safety equipment out of the smallest car it sells in Canada to meet new federal fuel efficiency ratings.

The Honda Fit does not qualify for a $1,000 rebate under the new rules, announced in the federal budget two weeks ago, while the Yaris, produced by arch-rival Toyota, does.

The difference can be explained by the extra air bags, side curtains, antilock brakes and other equipment the Fit has, but the Yaris does not, says Jim Miller, executive vice-president of Honda Canada.

"If we stripped all that out, it would qualify," Mr. Miller told a University of Windsor marketing class.

"But $1,000 for a human life?"

The Fit consumes 6.5 litres of fuel every 100 kilometres, which is the cutoff point for the new federal incentive to buy fuel-efficient cars. The Yaris consumes 6.3 l/km and qualifies for the money.

Most of the subcompact cars on the Canadian market, which account for more than half of all sales in this country, achieve mileage similar to the Fit.

Honda, which prides itself on the tiny Fit's five-star U.S. crash safety rating, doesn't want to trade safety for sales, Mr. Miller told about 80 students and area automotive business people.

But it might have to.

"Do we give that up? I don't think from a corporate social responsibility point of view we should," he said of the car's five-star rating.

"But obviously, to remain competitive, we're giving it serious consideration." He said Honda can't afford to walk away from as many as 20,000 units of sales in a crucial segment of the business, handing them to its most important competitor. Honda doesn't lose many sales to the Detroit Big Three, mainly to Toyota, he said.

"It's going to have an impact" on Honda's sales, he said of the federal incentives, although it is too early to tell how much.

Mr. Miller said the federal government's new green levies, or "feebates" as some have called its new taxes and rebates, may be too arbitrary to have the desired environmental effects on the marketplace.

Toyota, whose customers some analysts say stand to pick up the bulk of rebates from the new federal program, is the only automaker that has wholeheartedly endorsed the budget announcement.

Stephen Beatty, managing director of Toyota Canada Inc., told the same University of Windsor class on Monday that the company was delighted with the federal budget provisions.

[Anessa]

That's so dumb...

[rfdrfd]

Then Honda can use that to advertise to compete against Yaris. Get $1000 rebate, but do you want a less safer car?

Looking at their sales numbers this past year, I'm sure Honda doesn't need to make they cars qualify for the rebate to get more sales.

People will buy Honda's for what it gives: brand, engine, sportyness, reliability, safety, resale value, and more.

Something non-Japanese car makers cannot achieve, so they would have to try to make the rebate limit to get more sales.

I guess if they are trying to compete with Toyota, then sure, that makes sense. But the Honda name still means more in "Racing" or "Sporty" when compared to Toyota, at least IMHO. Civic is the #1 seller in N.Am. for the younger crowd, not Corolla.

[actng]

Toyota is Honda's biggest competitor???

In theory I can see how that's true. Both are cheap... both are Japanese... but I have not known a person who was deciding between a Civic or a Corolla. To me those are VERY DISTINCT markets.

If I were Honda, I would sell a green Fit. No, not the colour green. Have an environmentally friendly line of Fit that qualifies for that rebate (perhaps entry level minus all the safety equipment.)

Seems easy enough of a case study! ...or am i missing something?

[malaco0219]

Toyota is Honda's biggest competitor???

In theory I can see how that's true. Both are cheap... both are Japanese... but I have not known a person who was deciding between a Civic or a Corolla. To me those are VERY DISTINCT markets.

If I were Honda, I would sell a green Fit. No, not the colour green. Have an environmentally friendly line of Fit that qualifies for that rebate (perhaps entry level minus all the safety equipment.)

Seems easy enough of a case study! ...or am i missing something?

I agree. Rather than stripping out the safety implementation just to qualify for the rebate, i think they should have a green Fit instead. I'm awfully surprised though the fit is off by so little. Perhaps if they had a 2 door version where less material is used, and thus with less weight, may it qualify?

[rfdrfd]

I think Honda is still trying to gain back the grounds it lost on the Hybrid race. Toyota has a Prius, which is world known, and Honda doesn't have its "Insight" anymore.

[malaco0219]

I think Honda is still trying to gain back the grounds it lost on the Hybrid race. Toyota has a Prius, which is world known, and Honda doesn't have its "Insight" anymore.
wow.. imagine a Hybrid Fit.

I think that would be cool, but whether it will work is a diff story

[Anessa]

They should put some carbon fibre and aluminum. That'll lighten the load and appeal to the tuner crowd :cheesygri

[belfour]

The Fit's engine is the old Vtec (not i-Vtec).... so is the design.

A brand new Hybrid model will be coming in 2008~2009

[gordholio]

Sure, Honda could sell a cheaper fit with just front air bags and no extra ones or ABS.
Lots of cars just have front air bags and nothing else.
Safety comes mostly from how you drive.

I don't understand though - are the extra air bags and ABS adding weight and causing the car to get worse mileage?
If that's the case, they could cut weight in other areas as well.

They could put in a less powerful engine - I had a car back in 1988 - a Dodge Colt - weighed 1900 lbs and had a 68 hp engine, yet still didn't feel sluggish at all and got 43 mpg.

[tidus888]

it will be funny if Honda makes a new trim for the energy rebate.

LOL

like... Honda FIT ER edition..

the only reason why i think honda would consider that.. is because they will have a new plant in north america for building the FIT... so... everything can be localized..

[ullyeus]

Honda should consider this, let the consumers decide what they want.

[KnifeEdge]

Honda should consider this, let the consumers decide what they want.

then why not offer everything as options ? would you like three or four tires on your vehicle, would you like brakes ?? steering ?? get my point ??

The fit has awesome safety rating stock, no options added. The competitors cant say that since most if not all only offer safety equipment such as airbags and abs as options which closes the gap in price between them and the fit. Toyota for one markets their Yaris with the extremely low base price, but if you want anything near the amount of kit that's in the fit the price differential becomes nil.

Honda COULD just strip all the airbags out of the fit, qualify for the rebate and then offer the airbags as options but that's not what Honda is about. The keyword in that article is social responsibility. You cant always trust the consumer to decide what's best, it's same reason why we get free healthcare, cuz we pay out our asses in taxes.

The answer isn't as simple as it may seem since $1000 is quite a big incentive in this market segment. But I firmly believe that it isn't enough to justify deleting standard safety equipment from both consumer and a corporate point of view. I would suggest they try to fiddle with the gear ratios to get a better highway rating expecially on the MTs which have a short 5th gear. Without more information though all this is just guesswork. The taller gearing will make the car less peppy but will achieve better fuel economy, like someone has mentioned before this could be under a new trim level or a transmission choice on all trims.

[and or]

Safety and fuel efficiency (and cost) are always a trade-off in car design -- otherwise everyone would drive tanks.

[seftonm]

Sounds like Honda is looking for the easy way out. Fine tune the engine, transmissions, and aerodynamics and they should meet the goals.

[Sonbuster]

honda's not stupid, canada's stupid.

a car with more safety standards save you a lot of insurance dollars. canada should bump of the fuel cut-off to 6.5 and allow the fit and other various makes to make the $1000 rebate. why are they so ********? i like toyota too, but are they and gov't in cahoots?

[gordholio]

They could certainly strip out the extra air bags and the ABS and make a cheaper, more fuel efficient vehicle.
Many cars don't even have side air bags and ABS is not a necessity if you want to save money and gas.

[ullyeus]

then why not offer everything as options ? would you like three or four tires on your vehicle, would you like brakes ?? steering ?? get my point ??


Why not offer things that are optional as options. I don't get your point.

[jackboot]

Sounds like Honda is looking for the easy way out. Fine tune the engine, transmissions, and aerodynamics and they should meet the goals.

exactly....this is just a marketing ploy by Honda. They are presenting the option as if taking out the safety devices is the ONLY way to reduce weight/improve fuel efficiency. LOL! Talk about spin doctors...

Instead of taking out safety equipment, they could:
- lighter wheels
- carbon fibre / aluminium parts
- aerodynamics
- detune software
- lightweight interior parts - ie seats

Boooo for Honda on this one by trying to trick consumers on an emotional topic (safety & environment).

[KnifeEdge]

Why not offer things that are optional as options. I don't get your point.

There should be a standard for what items should be on a car. Before abs and airbags were the norm it would have been ridiculous to make those two items standard on an econo-box. But now that these items are readily available and not terribly costly to design and implement, they should become standard equipment.

Other manufacturers are trying to artificially deflate the cost of their vehicles by deleting some of this equipment and offering them as options. Firstly I don't think it's ethically correct to advertise a car as say 10,000 dollars but having nearly everything that one would want as options which push the car towards say 20,000 dollars. More importantly I don't think it's ethically correct to advertise a car's safety rating which was performed with OPTIONAL safety equipment.

One could argue and say that by offering some of this equipment as options it lets people with low resources have access to a vehicle but I'm saying just buy a used car. Airbags saves lives, abs is more or less better most of the time, if these remain as options there will always be cheap asses who skimp and progress will never be made. If the seatbelt wasn't made standard how many people do you think will be using it right now regularly, how many people do you think would have died ??

Honda's decision to make airbags and abs standard is a tribute to their company's philosophy. Honda doesn't make cheap cars, one could say they're overpriced, I say you get what you pay for.

[KnifeEdge]

Instead of taking out safety equipment, they could:
- lighter wheels
- carbon fibre / aluminium parts
- aerodynamics
- detune software
- lightweight interior parts - ie seats

Boooo for Honda on this one by trying to trick consumers on an emotional topic (safety & environment).

well if it was easy to reduce the fuel economy rating dont you think they would have done it ??

Lighter wheels wont really make much of a difference since there's a limit as to how light you can go before costs increase too much. In most cases it's not worth the gain either since the best lightweight rims on the market right now only shed about 20-25% of the weight but at 4-5 times the cost of the originals. This would also only marginally decrease fuel consumption. Weight only little to no impact on economy at cruise but at city speeds with stop and go weight would make a noticible impact on fuel consumption, but the amount of weight needed to be removed is just too great and would be much too costly to implement. Aerodynamics is a complicated subject and again I'd say the main deterent to this would be costs of testing. I'm not sure what you mean by detuning but fuel consumption is a function of many variables, the state of "tune" is optimized for different purposes, changing this will only make it worse in some other aspect.

[KnifeEdge]

Sounds like Honda is looking for the easy way out. Fine tune the engine, transmissions, and aerodynamics and they should meet the goals.

dropping even .3L/100km is quite a feat when you consider it already achieves combined rating of 6.5L/100km

Anything that becomes too costly will just push the car's price up too high negating the effects of the rebate they are trying to attain. The L15A is already quite advanced, this isn't an american pushrod v8 we're talkin about.

[rchong]

Not everyone wants airbags, abs, power steering, or esc in a car. For me, I'm happy with just front airbags. I have a basic car in the driveway that has a rear window defroster and nothing else; no power steering, no radio, no a/c, 4spd manual, FR, carburetted.

[KnifeEdge]

Not everyone wants airbags, abs, power steering, or esc in a car. For me, I'm happy with just front airbags. I have a basic car in the driveway that has a rear window defroster and nothing else; no power steering, no radio, no a/c, 4spd manual, FR, carburetted.

i understand your point of view

but when the decision affects more than one person it's not as simple

the lack of abs endangers other drivers or pedestrians on the road because you may not be able to avoid them, the lack of airbags endangers passengers.

a few hundred dollars for the enhanced safety is a drop in the bucket when looking at the grand scheme of things

[seftonm]

dropping even .3L/100km is quite a feat when you consider it already achieves combined rating of 6.5L/100km

Anything that becomes too costly will just push the car's price up too high negating the effects of the rebate they are trying to attain. The L15A is already quite advanced, this isn't an american pushrod v8 we're talkin about.

VW managed to increase fuel economy for their Polo TDI by over 20% through modifications to aerodynamics, gear ratios, and some more intensive engine modifications. It costs buyers £540 over the regular Polo TDI. I would expect that could Honda forgo the engine work and still get enough out of it to meet the goals for less than $1000 if VW can get such a large boost for £540. Give the Fit some LRR tires and make 5th gear taller and they are there.

[tidus888]

VW managed to increase fuel economy for their Polo TDI by over 20% through modifications to aerodynamics, gear ratios, and some more intensive engine modifications. It costs buyers £540 over the regular Polo TDI. I would expect that could Honda forgo the engine work and still get enough out of it to meet the goals for less than $1000 if VW can get such a large boost for £540. Give the Fit some LRR tires and make 5th gear taller and they are there.

good find...

but the thing is.. i would imagine POLO being a diesel engine.. diesel engine tends to have a higher torque than gasoline engine.. so taller gear would be fine for POLO... but i guess u should really compare the North American models..

coz if you compare EU models.. the FIT is known as JAZZ there..

use HONDA UK as example... fit is offered with either a 1.2 or 1.4 litre engine..
where the 1.2 gets like 51mpg(imperial i think) combined and the 1.4 gets like the ... er... 47 or 48 combined..

so like 5.5L/100km and 6.0L/100km respectively..

itz not that they can't do it.. but i would think Honda wants the 1.5 to be in North America due to the acceleration needed in the highway. I remember going to the states with my friends last summer... the whats so call highway ramp is so damn short. if u drive a smart car down in new york.. chances are.. u will get rear ended =)

[jackboot]

well if it was easy to reduce the fuel economy rating dont you think they would have done it ??

Lighter wheels wont really make much of a difference since there's a limit as to how light you can go before costs increase too much. In most cases it's not worth the gain either since the best lightweight rims on the market right now only shed about 20-25% of the weight but at 4-5 times the cost of the originals. This would also only marginally decrease fuel consumption. Weight only little to no impact on economy at cruise but at city speeds with stop and go weight would make a noticible impact on fuel consumption, but the amount of weight needed to be removed is just too great and would be much too costly to implement. Aerodynamics is a complicated subject and again I'd say the main deterent to this would be costs of testing. I'm not sure what you mean by detuning but fuel consumption is a function of many variables, the state of "tune" is optimized for different purposes, changing this will only make it worse in some other aspect.

Shedding 20-25% will make a huge difference in fuel economy. Wheels are rotating mass which is much different than simply shedding sprung weight in a vehicle. Only a 5-10% reduction in wheel weight will make a noticeable difference. This can be done not by adding "expensive" alloys so much as by decresing the wheel/tire size, which coincidentally offers another improvement in fuel economy because of an improvement in rotational inertia. By detuning I mean simply trading off HP/Torque for fuel economy by altering engine software. So yes, the car *will* be worse in one aspect - performance.

IMO, by using a combination of the factors I mentioned it would not be difficult to get an additional 0.3L/100KM. Claiming that the only way to increase fuel consumption is by getting rid of safety equipment is outright spin doctoring.

[KnifeEdge]

VW managed to increase fuel economy for their Polo TDI by over 20% through modifications to aerodynamics, gear ratios, and some more intensive engine modifications. It costs buyers £540 over the regular Polo TDI. I would expect that could Honda forgo the engine work and still get enough out of it to meet the goals for less than $1000 if VW can get such a large boost for £540. Give the Fit some LRR tires and make 5th gear taller and they are there.

540 pounds is like 1100 dollars

[KnifeEdge]

Shedding 20-25% will make a huge difference in fuel economy. Wheels are rotating mass which is much different than simply shedding sprung weight in a vehicle. Only a 5-10% reduction in wheel weight will make a noticeable difference. This can be done not by adding "expensive" alloys so much as by decresing the wheel/tire size, which coincidentally offers another improvement in fuel economy because of an improvement in rotational inertia. By detuning I mean simply trading off HP/Torque for fuel economy by altering engine software. So yes, the car *will* be worse in one aspect - performance.

IMO, by using a combination of the factors I mentioned it would not be difficult to get an additional 0.3L/100KM. Claiming that the only way to increase fuel consumption is by getting rid of safety equipment is outright spin doctoring.

where in hell will you find 500 lbs to remove

rotating mass is a factor but not significantly huge one, i could do the math but its a pain in the assat cruise rotating mass does nothing, it's when u accelerate that u start loosing some power due to angular acceleration, if you decrease the wheel size u also increase rpms at cruise negating any benefits

you cant really detune it since it's not that aggressively tuned in the first place, for most situations the car is running at stoichemetric which is determined by the displacement and rpms, you cant change that

ur right, removing safety isnt the only option, but it would seem to be the only cost effective solution which was the whole point

if cost wasnt an issue we'd all be riding in carbon fibre everything

[seftonm]

540 pounds is like 1100 dollars

I'm aware of that. That is why I suggested all the Fit needs is LRR tires and marginally taller gears or aerodynamic tweaks. Honda does not need bother to do the more expensive modifications like the turbo, which VW did. All Honda needs is a few percentage points, not 20%.

[KnifeEdge]

I'm aware of that. That is why I suggested all the Fit needs is LRR tires and marginally taller gears or aerodynamic tweaks. Honda does not need bother to do the more expensive modifications like the turbo, which VW did. All Honda needs is a few percentage points, not 20%.

yeah taller gears would definetly help but on a car already lacking in power it would hurt they sportiness feel and image of the car (someone mentioned about offering a new trim level which is a good idea, like the CX of old)

again aerodynamics is really complicated subject and unless we know the fit was underengineered in this department we cant say conclusively it would help.

LRR tires usually have less grip as a tradeoff which again affects the sporty image of the fit

[tidus888]

Shedding 20-25% will make a huge difference in fuel economy. Wheels are rotating mass which is much different than simply shedding sprung weight in a vehicle. Only a 5-10% reduction in wheel weight will make a noticeable difference. This can be done not by adding "expensive" alloys so much as by decresing the wheel/tire size, which coincidentally offers another improvement in fuel economy because of an improvement in rotational inertia. By detuning I mean simply trading off HP/Torque for fuel economy by altering engine software. So yes, the car *will* be worse in one aspect - performance.

IMO, by using a combination of the factors I mentioned it would not be difficult to get an additional 0.3L/100KM. Claiming that the only way to increase fuel consumption is by getting rid of safety equipment is outright spin doctoring.

the rotational mass has a huge affect on acceleration and deceleration but not really fuel economy when the car is going at constant speed.

the ECU on the L15 engine is indeed fine-tuned to a point where tuners think that ain't much room for improvement.

you would need the basic HP/Torque to survive on the highways in North America.

What i think Honda should really do is to offer the 1.3L which runs.. 24km/L according to Honda JP.. or maybe offer the CVT version here =)

[seftonm]

So Honda is sending out a message that the sporty image of the Fit is more important than the car's standard safety features. Why can't they at least make 5th gear in the manual transmission have a gear ratio similar to that of the automatic? No sense in making it rev higher on the highway than the automatic. Hondas, even the sporty and fast ones, have never been about 5th gear passing prowess.

[tidus888]

So Honda is sending out a message that the sporty image of the Fit is more important than the car's standard safety features. Why can't they at least make 5th gear in the manual transmission have a gear ratio similar to that of the automatic? No sense in making it rev higher on the highway than the automatic. Hondas, even the sporty and fast ones, have never been about 5th gear passing prowess.

two things u have to consider... is it a press release from HONDA that they wanna cut down safety to qualify for rebate?

i am not too sure about that.

itz really a matter of changing to a 1.3 that would do the job =)

[KnifeEdge]

So Honda is sending out a message that the sporty image of the Fit is more important than the car's standard safety features. Why can't they at least make 5th gear in the manual transmission have a gear ratio similar to that of the automatic? No sense in making it rev higher on the highway than the automatic. Hondas, even the sporty and fast ones, have never been about 5th gear passing prowess.

True, the tranny ratios on the manual could really use some tweaking to achieve better economy as i said in my first post. I really dont think itd hurt the sportyness of the car at all either since it feels pretty peppy in first and second and could probably use a taller final gear.

[seftonm]

two things u have to consider... is it a press release from HONDA that they wanna cut down safety to qualify for rebate?

i am not too sure about that.

itz really a matter of changing to a 1.3 that would do the job =)
Well it's not from Honda directly, but their executive vice president is quoted in the article. He said, "But obviously, to remain competitive, we're giving it serious consideration.".

I would like to see them get the 2.2 i-CTDi certified quickly and try to cram it into the Fit. It would be infinitely faster than the 1.3 and more efficient as well.

[ES_Revenge]

I don't understand though - are the extra air bags and ABS adding weight and causing the car to get worse mileage?
If that's the case, they could cut weight in other areas as well.

They could put in a less powerful engine - I had a car back in 1988 - a Dodge Colt - weighed 1900 lbs and had a 68 hp engine, yet still didn't feel sluggish at all and got 43 mpg.
Though I can't be certain about this since I don't have the weights for either engine you seem to have overlooked the fact that it is quite possible the engine in the Fit weighs around the same or even less than did the engine in the '88 Colt. Engines of today are quite a bit more efficient (e.g. better fuel injection, combustion process, engine management, etc.) and use lighter weight materials (e.g. more aluminum is used today than was back then).

Now I guess you could still say that they could put an even lesser engine than what they have in there and get an even lighter engine for more weight savings but I doubt that's going to happen.

Personally I agree with the other guy that said Honda should strip the safety gear (or make it optional)--people that cheap out on cars and buy things like the Fit/Yaris/Versa should get no safety, LOL. Well that sounds a bit extreme I guess, but there's no denying you do pay for safety--you definitely can't expect the safety features of a 7-series BMW or S-Class Benz in some el cheapo econobox, it just doesn't work that way.

However at the same time I'll commend Honda (something I seldom do, lol) on making that saftey gear standard equipment. Perhaps it's the government who should be making different conditions for these rebates. Certainly "green" is the intent of the incentive, however they should make exceptions for added safety equipment which is also a "good thing". I.e. They should set the weight criteria excluding certain types of saftey equipment.

[ES_Revenge]

Not everyone wants airbags, abs, power steering, or esc in a car. For me, I'm happy with just front airbags. I have a basic car in the driveway that has a rear window defroster and nothing else; no power steering, no radio, no a/c, 4spd manual, FR, carburetted.
That may be but these cars aren't just about being "no-frills". They're more about being green/economy than having no frills. It's clear from advertising that they're trying to offer a lot in small economical packages. Not have a car that is 4 wheels, a steering wheel, a seat, a windshield and nothing else...

Furthermore people not wanting options (safety related or not) has little to do with the subject here which is the government rebate for "greener" vehicles. The fact that you have a car with a carburetor already says you aren't being very "green", basic car or not...

The L15A is already quite advanced, this isn't an american pushrod v8 we're talkin about.
And the LS7 is not an advanced engine? :rolleyes: Gimme a break. Just because an engine doesn't have overhead cams doesn't mean it can't be advanced. :rolleyes: But again strange things like spewing misconceptions about "advanced" and pushrod engines have nothing to do with government rebates for energy savings and saftey equipment.

[KnifeEdge]

However at the same time I'll commend Honda (something I seldom do, lol) on making that saftey gear standard equipment. Perhaps it's the government who should be making different conditions for these rebates. Certainly "green" is the intent of the incentive, however they should make exceptions for added safety equipment which is also a "good thing". I.e. They should set the weight criteria excluding certain types of saftey equipment.

ooo didn't mention that

although it would be interesting to note whether or not the yaris can hit the rated 6.3L/100km combined economy with abs and airbags which come standard on the fit. And what's more interesting, if the yaris cannot hit this figure with the safety features than do vehicles come installed with these accesories still apply for the rebate ??

Either way it would seem to be unfair, if it does still qualify then it means that toyota is recieving undue benefit while if it doesnt qualify it forces consumers to choose between green and safety both important factors (though I would not go so far as to say which is more)

[KnifeEdge]

And the LS7 is not an advanced engine? :rolleyes: Gimme a break. Just because an engine doesn't have overhead cams doesn't mean it can't be advanced. :rolleyes: But again strange things like spewing misconceptions about "advanced" and pushrod engines have nothing to do with government rebates for energy savings and saftey equipment.


haha i can tell right away we can get into page long convos about whats better
but this is hardly the time nor place.

lets just agree to disagree on this topic shall we ??

[ES_Revenge]

lets just agree to disagree on this topic shall we ??
;)