Insights performance

Was browsing YouTube and came across a funny retro motor week video about the 1993 Ford Taurus SHO. This was at the time one of the “highest performance American sedan” of the time. At 220hp and 215 pounds of torque, it gets you a zero to 60 time of 7.6 seconds (motor trend shows the Insight EX as 7.3 seconds). It’s quarter mile time is 15.5@92mph (just a little quicker than the EX’s 15.8@84.6mph. The reason I’m posting this is to show how amazing cars are today. Sure compared to a lot of cars now days - a lot of people would have paid a LOT more for the performance we have in our little green cars. Pretty neat stuff!

 

As promised, here are the results of my 0 - 60 MPH test. Searched many "valley" roads to try and find a level section that didn't have too much traffic. I thought Rt 82 (Stissing and Clove Valley) would be good, but almost every part of it was on some sort of grade. Started heading over to Rt 22 (Harlem Valley) hoping to find a flat section there when I glanced up Rt 44 where 82 splits and finally found a flat section. Had the battery charged 90% from Sport Mode all day, but initial temperature of 70 degrees was on the rise (had to act quickly). Temperature was 76 degrees. No Air Conditioning. Tire pressure 40 up front and 38 in back. 100% Sport Mode. Half a tank of non-ethanol 91 octane. LKAS on. Regenerative breaking with 3 arrows down (max). No Break Hold. Traction Control off.

Did four runs, and had to drive a bit to recharge for each successive run.

RUN 1 - 8.61 seconds.
RUN 2 - 8.26 seconds.
RUN 3 - 8.21 seconds.
RUN 4 - 7.62 seconds.

The last run was at 100% battery charge, as I went down the road a bit further and went up hill some. Then I turned around and "pumped up" the charge with regen to 100%. Not bad. I'll take that! DONE!

And even then I managed 50.8 MPG driving 114.6 miles in Sport Mode with a long car wash (plus outside bug and inside window cleaning), and a 5 minute wait in the driveway for my wife, who I took with me (AC on for the last 12 miles) to a restaurant. This car is really fun to play with. :wink:

Phil

 

I keep reading about the difference between the Touring and EX/LX MPG (and now 0-60 times) being weight of the wheels/trim level weight. I have not seen anyone mention the actual tires being the possible difference. So if my MPG numbers are not really changing much at all if there are 1, 2 or 3 passengers in my Insight (each adding 125 lbs or more per person), why are we not discussing tire design as the reason for the MPG and 0-60 time difference?

Been flirting with the idea of upgrading my EX tires to Michelin DEFENDER LTX M/S for a while now, but two reason I don't want to, at this time, are suspected loss of MPG when I do, and waste (plenty) of remaining tire tread. The way tire manufacturers discontinue tire models, I'm tempted to buy a set now (when there is a good sale going on), and install them after I burn these original tires down some. But I think the original Michelin ENERGY SAVER A/S tires are really a big part of the equation here, and not so much car/wheel weight.

Today is my 0-60 test day. I'll post results later.

Phil

 

Been flirting with the idea of upgrading my EX tires to Michelin DEFENDER LTX M/S for a while now, but two reason I don't want to, at this time, are suspected loss of MPG when I do, and waste (plenty) of remaining tire tread. The way tire manufacturers discontinue tire models, I'm tempted to buy a set now (when there is a good sale going on), and install them after I burn these original tires down some. But I think the original Michelin ENERGY SAVER A/S tires are really a big part of the equation here, and not so much car/wheel weight.

I put Defender LTX on my Highlander Hybrid last fall and no complaints so far. Our Insight came with Continental ProContact. When the tread is down, I'd definitely do Defender LTX or the CrossContact LX EcoPlus we had on our Prius at one time.

 

Latest Motor Trend report claims 7.3 seconds

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...6902&wc_rid=4035:556240&_wcsid=E2D0A1BC74DBCDAE087BDB2EF9577EEF16906756572BEDF6

 

latest motor trend report claims 7.3 seconds

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/hon...6902&wc_rid=4035:556240&_wcsid=e2d0a1bc74dbcdae087bdb2ef9577eef16906756572bedf6

Note that the recent Motor Trend 0-60 run at 7.3 sec was done in a 'lighter' EX model, while the original 0-60 run at 7.7 sec quoted in first post of thread was in the Touring trim. The difference in curb weight is 'only' 78 lbs (3000 EX, 3078 Touring), but the two models also use different tire brand/size.

 

Also not mentioned was if Traction control was enabled or not. Most cars can achieve better acceleration numbers without traction control if the tires don't ever break loose. Traction control pulls power away to maintain traction.

Also another factor to consider is the temperature of both the battery pack and electric motors. Electrical efficiency is directly proportional to temperature.

Say a reviewer decided to do a 0-60 mph run after driving the car for 30 minutes, vs a reviewer who drove the car for 5-10 minutes for the purpose of reaching ICE operating temperature and charging the batteries to the best of his/her ability.

Also factor in if they decided to let the car sit for 1 minute, or 10 minutes etc between driving and testing. So many factors that aren't necessarily accounted for when a non-scientific approach is taken.

 

Also not mentioned was if Traction control was enabled or not. Most cars can achieve better acceleration numbers without traction control if the tires don't ever break loose. Traction control pulls power away to maintain traction.

Also another factor to consider is the temperature of both the battery pack and electric motors. Electrical efficiency is directly proportional to temperature.

Similarly, tires themselves play a huge role. I don't know how many vendors Honda uses on the Insight, but just going from Bridgestone to Continental to whomever or even different tires from the same company could be a huge difference. With low rolling resistance fuel efficient tires, perhaps higher temps are even more favorable to keep them from slipping at launch?

I also wonder if the driver response is included in the numbers at some publications.

Credit to @Wifey'sInsight and @safedad for calling out traction and tires as factors on prior page of thread. Our forum members are waaaaay smarter than professional reviewers!

 

Server error, trying again. 2019 Touring in Sport mode. Using the youtube studio editor timer, I'd say roughly 7.6s 0-60 and 10.1s 0-70. Fairly consistent with Motor Trend.

 

Server error, trying again. 2019 Touring in Sport mode. Using the youtube studio editor timer, I'd say roughly 7.6s 0-60 and 10.1s 0-70. Fairly consistent with Motor Trend.

...wondering if reviewer acceleration rate varied along with the song/genre they played via Sirius XM? :wink:

 

Wheels are a definite variable. I’m sure
Most reviewers are getting the heavier Touring model along with the larger tires.

 

What's confusing is that even among reviewers who are driving the same Touring trim in the same mode (Sport), their results are differing by a wide (up to 2 sec) margin...?

 

As such, IF YOU WERE still shopping for this vehicle and have some level of interest in the car’s 0-60 time, which drive mode would you want to see the 0-60 time listed with (ECON, Normal, Sport)? Do you think all reviewers should list the tested drive mode OR AT LEAST try to conform to a certain drive mode standard in order to have consistency across reviews? [For the record, I would like to see the 0-60 time listed in SPORT and have all reviewers try to conform to testing 0-60 in SPORT mode]

I like Motor Trend's principle of comparing acceleration in Sport mode, because it is the most "aggressive" setting the car has and should represent the "best" acceleration result the car can deliver.

As a couple adds to your summary of Insight acceleration results in "Sport" mode:
- The Fast Lane Car = ~9 seconds [see 8:14 to 9:16]
- MPGomatic = ~8 seconds [see 27:06 to end]

 

I like Motor Trend's principle of comparing acceleration in Sport mode, because it is the most "aggressive" setting the car has and should represent the "best" acceleration result the car can deliver.

As a couple adds to your summary of Insight acceleration results in "Sport" mode:
- The Fast Lane Car = ~9 seconds [see 8:14 to 9:16]
- MPGomatic = ~8 seconds [see 27:06 to end]

Insightfully, thanks for those additional links. Interesting to see more notable discrepancies - with an 8 second and a 9 second time.

 

1. Battery level
2. Weight (# of passengers, empty trunk?)
3. Stock tire or not (psi?)
4. Temperature
5. Elevation
6. Sport mode
7. Fuel quality

The above factors will probably change the 0-60mph time.

 

Thanks for that, Andrew, I wonder if - from worst case to best case variables - the 0-60 time can differ by up to two seconds using SPORT mode?

 

FYI, heres an in-depth article on how Motor Trend does their testing.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/motor-trend-testing/

 

FYI, heres an in-depth article on how Motor Trend does their testing.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/motor-trend-testing/

Mr. Natural, thanks so much for the Motor Trend article. I found most helpful the following info from that article:


1) "If there's a sport/sport plus mode, drag race mode, sport drive, or any other performance-enhancing setting, we'll start with those and work backward to see if it indeed helped."



2a) "Finally, a 2017 Toyota Prius Prime, tested on a mild 78.3-degree day with 17 percent relative humidity and 28.74 inHg barometric pressure (0-60 in 10.1 seconds - no weather correction). Plug-in or not, hybrids receive very little (weather) correction because a good portion of their power comes from batteries that feed electric motors.



2b) "In an attempt to ensure fair comparisons between cars with internal combustion engines tested in the high-desert heat of summer and the dense cold of a Michigan winter, we record ambient weather conditions using a Computech RaceAir system. With that data tied to each vehicle, we then use the Society of Automotive Engineers' SAE J1349 procedure as a guide to correct all acceleration results to standard operating conditions: 77 degrees F (25 C), 29.2348 inches mercury (Hg) barometric pressure (99 kPa), and zero percent relative humidity...It's worth noting that the correction factor is reduced for turbocharged engines, for hybrids, and turbocharged hybrids because electric motors and turbochargers are not affected much by swings in barometric pressure (turbos reach a preset boost pressure regardless of intake air pressure)."


Makes me wonder about the weather/ humidity effect of road testing the Insight in June 2018 (most early reviews came out in late June) in Minnesota. As I understand it, Honda flew a number of reviewers out to Minnesota to test drive the vehicle. Minnesota example, Forbes magazine... June 20 2018: "On a Minnesota drive loop that combined heavy traffic in Minneapolis, some higher speed freeway running and some curving rural roads, I achieved an indicated 41 mpg while maintaining a brisk pace and making no attempt to maximize efficiency."

 

Amount of charge in the battery would be a factor too, yes?

 

Great point, Hasarad, I didn't even think of that when composing the original post!