[elvin]

Did Consumer Reports get their numbers flipped around or do you think their protocol somehow got numbers I rarely get? I get high city mileage and lower highway mileage just like the EPA mpg ratings. I sent a message to CR but maybe there's an explanation for why their numbers are that way.

 

[insightfully]

Unfortunately, Consumer Reports STILL hasn't corrected their data, even though they've edited their articles several times:
https://www.gen3insight.com/forum/137-2019-honda-insight-reviews/2268-cr-names-insight-mpg-champ.html

I trust what the EPA (and Honda) report, instead of what Consumer Reports indicates. Hopefully CR fixes their data:

LX/EX: 52 combined = 55 city, 49 highway
Touring: 48 combined = 51 city, 45 highway​

Both the 2020 Corolla Hybrid and 2019 Insight get the same combined MPG, BUT the Insight is better in city and the Corolla is better on highway due to different gas/electric power strategy by manufacturer.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

Did Consumer Reports get their numbers flipped around or do you think their protocol somehow got numbers I rarely get? I get high city mileage and lower highway mileage just like the EPA mpg ratings. I sent a message to CR but maybe there's an explanation for why their numbers are that way.

It could very well be that when they did their in house testing, they didn't take into account starting battery level, or the tester had a lead foot off of the line, and hit a bunch of traffic lights in a row.

I know if I'm on a slower highway (55mph), and set cruise at 57 I'm normally somewhere in the high 50's, low 60's by the end of the drive.

 

[insightfully]

It could very well be that when they did their in house testing, they didn't take into account starting battery level, or the tester had a lead foot off of the line, and hit a bunch of traffic lights in a row.

I know if I'm on a slower highway (55mph), and set cruise at 57 I'm normally somewhere in the high 50's, low 60's by the end of the drive.

I would hope CR data is based on something more 'statistical' than a single drive... but given their recent track record of mis-information, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if this were true...

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

I would hope CR data is based on something more 'statistical' than a single drive... but given their recent track record of mis-information, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if this were true...

There are so many variables to consider too.

1. Did they do multiple tests and average.
2. What time of day did they do testing
3. How did they measure fuel consumption (car display or gas fill calculation)
4. Topography of drive (Loops will always yield more accurate data)
5. Speed of travel (average speed too)
6. Tire pressure
7. If fuel tested with gas station pump, was it the same exact pump every time. Did they fill until first click, or use something like TFL's 2nd click method.
8. Did they always test in the same manner or did they do a city segment immediately followed by highway with a refill in the middle. For consistency they should either start warm, or cold every test.
9. Did they do all of the testing on the same day.
10. Temperature change.

 

[safedad]

Consumer Reports numbers are often way off from EPA numbers. They use a "real world" test not a dyno so their figures are not comparable to others. If they do their test right, their figures should be comparable to other vehicles in their testing, though. Honestly, they seem mixed up to me in regard to city vs. highway as well.

If you compare to Prius and Ioniq, these CR city numbers are believable for comparison based on my experience, but seem very low in an absolute sense:

Insight: 44 mpg, Prius 43 mpg, Ioniq 42 mpg city.

For highway, I always got lower in the Insight than the other two, so the CR numbers don't match my experience or the EPA:

Insight: 62 mpg, Prius 59 mpg, Ioniq 60 mpg.

Still, that all 3 models are similar and consistent lends some credence to their testing methods. Even if they don't reflect what the masses see in the real world, they are still possibly repeatable and comparable for the course they use for testing.

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 two separate circuits. One is on a public highway at a steady 65 mph. That course is run in both directions to counteract any terrain and wind effects. A second is a simulated urban/suburban-driving test done at our track. It consists of predetermined acceleration and deceleration rates, as well as idle time. Consumer Reports’ overall fuel-economy numbers are derived from those fuel-consumption tests.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

Consumer Reports numbers are often way off from EPA numbers. They use a "real world" test not a dyno so their figures are not comparable to others. If they do their test right, their figures should be comparable to other vehicles in their testing, though. Honestly, they seem mixed up to me in regard to city vs. highway as well.

If you compare to Prius and Ioniq, these CR city numbers are believable for comparison based on my experience, but seem very low in an absolute sense:

Insight: 44 mpg, Prius 43 mpg, Ioniq 42 mpg city.

For highway, I always got lower in the Insight than the other two, so the CR numbers don't match my experience or the EPA:

Insight: 62 mpg, Prius 59 mpg, Ioniq 60 mpg.

Still, that all 3 models are similar and consistent lends some credence to their testing methods. Even if they don't reflect what the masses see in the real world, they are still possibly repeatable and comparable for the course they use for testing.

I wonder if they tested city driving in sport mode. It would increase at idle, ICE running, and drastically affect results.

 

[safedad]

Given that Ioniq and Prius did similarly in the city testing, I wonder if they simply floor it at every acceleration and make zero effort to keep it in electric operation at any time. They shouldn't baby hybrids with zealous hypermiling for the test, but it totally defeats the purpose of a fuel efficient hybrid if they completely ignore the eco indicators and drive them like a sports car.

Our Prius got 43mpg around town only when it was well below freezing in the middle of winter, but other than that for nearly 10 years it was always above 50 mpg city for over 9 months of the year and usually above 55 mpg.

My wife and I can routinely get 60-75mpg on a 7.5 mile suburban stop and go drive I do twice daily in the Insight with only a little effort. My daughter is getting 45-50 mpg in similar driving. I'd guess that by "predetermined acceleration and deceleration rates" they must have a lead foot on both pedals in the city test.

On the flip side, I haven't been able to get the Insight to get close to our Prius' fuel economy on short drives under a few miles (from a cold start) or on expressways at a constant 55 mph or above.

 

[Moviemike]

It may be that CR's figure of 44 mpg city does not reflect real world use of EV mode? A 47-50 mpg number could reflect a driving style that minimally uses EV, while the perhaps more realistic EPA testing procedure yields 55.mpg. A number many equal or exceed in the worst of city traffic.

 

[shoreview]

Going on the documentation of their web site, CR tests are fairly precisely controlled and repeated with two different drivers, but between the city and the highway measurement there seems to me to be a clear difference in the effectiveness of the test. I tend to strongly trust CR's city driving cycle, which is a true torture test of vehicles. When you see the CR city test, you know you've seen a bad traffic scenario.....something that if you live in a relatively lightly trafficked suburb you're probably going to beat.

Their highway test I'm not quite so sure about -- it seems to me it would work better for conventional cars and pure electrics than it works for hybrids. It's a ten-mile closed loop of steady 65mph driving on the rolling hills of eastern Connecticut on highways near their test facility. While it's precisely measured, it's a very specific test in a very specific setting that I think would be quite prone to missing the wide variety of highway conditions around the country.....for example long hill climbs that exceed the ability of the Insight's small battery to assist all the way up (think the 3,000 feet gain on I-80 up Parley's Canyon from Salt Lake to Park City, UT). As for ensuring consistent conditions, the closed-loop takes care of things like wind, but the temperature control is a bit looser -- they simply require above-32-degree temperatures, a dry road service, and an SAE correction factor -- basically, a statistical control -- for the temperature of the fuel at the time of the test. I hope some people can comment here about how that might play with different hybrid systems.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

Going on the documentation of their web site, CR tests are fairly precisely controlled and repeated with two different drivers, but between the city and the highway measurement there seems to me to be a clear difference in the effectiveness of the test. I tend to strongly trust CR's city driving cycle, which is a true torture test of vehicles. When you see the CR city test, you know you've seen a bad traffic scenario.....something that if you live in a relatively lightly trafficked suburb you're probably going to beat.

Their highway test I'm not quite so sure about -- it seems to me it would work better for conventional cars and pure electrics than it works for hybrids. It's a ten-mile closed loop of steady 65mph driving on the rolling hills of eastern Connecticut on highways near their test facility. While it's precisely measured, it's a very specific test in a very specific setting that I think would be quite prone to missing the wide variety of highway conditions around the country.....for example long hill climbs that exceed the ability of the Insight's small battery to assist all the way up (think the 3,000 feet gain on I-80 up Parley's Canyon from Salt Lake to Park City, UT). As for ensuring consistent conditions, the closed-loop takes care of things like wind, but the temperature control is a bit looser -- they simply require above-32-degree temperatures, a dry road service, and an SAE correction factor -- basically, a statistical control -- for the temperature of the fuel at the time of the test. I hope some people can comment here about how that might play with different hybrid systems.

I think we found the unicorn... Connecticut. I always get crazy gas mileage every time I'm in that state. Even my Colorado pulled a near 27mpg tank there. Lot's of consistent speed, smooth roads and rolling hills. It should play very well with any hybrid.

 

[Moviemike]

Going on the documentation of their web site, CR tests are fairly precisely controlled and repeated with two different drivers, but between the city and the highway measurement there seems to me to be a clear difference in the effectiveness of the test. I tend to strongly trust CR's city driving cycle, which is a true torture test of vehicles. When you see the CR city test, you know you've seen a bad traffic scenario.....something that if you live in a relatively lightly trafficked suburb you're probably going to beat.

As long as CR keeps its testing conditions the same, you'll have a valid basis for comparing one vehicle's mpg against another. Yet an individual driver who attends to and works with the design strengths and weaknesses of the vehicle can do much better mpg than other drivers, in the same vehicle. Regardless of test, reality counts and sometimes bites.

Think of the gen 3 Insight as an electric car that carries with it, its own gasoline electricity generator! Stop and go traffic with a moderate to light touch on the throttle is going to yield engine off operation for long periods. Moderate to heavy throttle will drain the battery faster, leading to greater need for engine on operation. Stop and go traffic together with heavy throttle uses limited battery for use in acceleration while providing little opportunity for regeneration from braking. Battery charging engine on operation while at a standstill yields less mpg than battery charging while the cars' wheels are turning.

The gen 2 Insight and Civic hybrid "IMA" system uses an electric motor to aide the gasoline engine in turning the crankshaft. Engine off operation is available when the car is stopped or when moving about 10 mph+ and minimal throttle / power is asked of the system. Very low battery charge level will automatically restart the engine.

Thus the gen 2 Insight and Civic hybrid should do much worse in CR's city test than the gen 3 Insight. A non-hybrid car should do worse than the gen 2 and much worse than the gen 3. A gen 3 hybrid with a photovoltaic panel in the roof, or one with photovoltaic cells in the paint, will do much better than both. Unless its raining or overcast in which case, it may equal the stop and go mpg of the gen 3.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

Thus the gen 2 Insight and Civic hybrid should do much worse in CR's city test than the gen 3 Insight. A non-hybrid car should do worse than the gen 2 and much worse than the gen 3. A gen 3 hybrid with a photovoltaic panel in the roof, or one with photovoltaic cells in the paint, will do much better than both. Unless its raining or overcast in which case, it may equal the stop and go mpg of the gen 3.

Honestly, not trying to rain on anyones parade, but photovoltaic cells will likely have no impact on a 20 mile test, regardless of weather conditions. The cells are horridly inefficient, and show their strengths only in terms of long exposure. Things like active grill shutters would help the 3rd gen insight on highway, but unfortunately Honda decided that you need to upgrade to an Accord to get those.

Hyundai's claim of ~800 miles/year of range, broken down daily is just over 2 miles per day, You could easily outpace this with a standard plug in option for the any Hybrid, without changing the battery size.

 

[safedad]

Hyundai's claim of ~800 miles/year of range, broken down daily is just over 2 miles per day, You could easily outpace this with a standard plug in option for the any Hybrid, without changing the battery size.

I think it would be great to see more hybrids have PHEV options starting at even a few miles EV range.

The all-or-nothing option with big cost and cargo/passenger volume drawbacks seem like they leave a big niche unserved. I'm sure a smart company could make some money marketing a hybrid with options to increase EV range not only at purchase, but even for $$$ at the dealer service department to upgrade later.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

I think it would be great to see more hybrids have PHEV options starting at even a few miles EV range.

The all-or-nothing option with big cost and cargo/passenger volume drawbacks seem like they leave a big niche unserved. I'm sure a smart company could make some money marketing a hybrid with options to increase EV range not only at purchase, but even for $$$ at the dealer service department to upgrade later.

I'd totally be interested in a 110v plug in charger for the Insights HV. I've seen crazy numbers when starting with a charged battery.

 

[safedad]

I'd totally be interested in a 110v plug in charger for the Insights HV. I've seen crazy numbers when starting with a charged battery.

Yup. Plus you could heat up the car, seats and steering wheel (if they add that) remotely without using gas or filling your garage with fumes in the winter. I bet they could make money by offering a plug and even just a 50% larger battery for $1000 or even $2000 as an option.

 

[Moviemike]

Honestly, not trying to rain on anyones parade, but photovoltaic cells will likely have no impact on a 20 mile test, regardless of weather conditions. The cells are horridly inefficient, and show their strengths only in terms of long exposure.

"Horridly inefficient" relative to what?? The intent here is to take advantage of the historical, and continuing decline in the per watt cost of the cells. At the same time, the long exposure strength of the cells would aide the gen3's mpg at the margins (perhaps a 3 mpg improvement per tankful)! If the cells only produced enough juice to run the AC on a humid hot 98 degree Dallas Texas afternoon, it may be a worthwhile option, if the price wasn't too high.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

"Horridly inefficient" relative to what?? The intent here is to take advantage of the historical, and continuing decline in the per watt cost of the cells. At the same time, the long exposure strength of the cells would aide the gen3's mpg at the margins (perhaps a 3 mpg improvement per tankful)! If the cells only produced enough juice to run the AC on a humid hot 98 degree Dallas Texas afternoon, it may be a worthwhile option, if the price wasn't too high.

Current on the market peak efficiency for a residential solar panel is ~25%. So 75% inefficient, pretty horrid, and that's with ideal placement.

Photovoltaic cells are only at peak efficiency for ~8-16 hours a day, and that's with ideal placement, no clouds, etc... Ideal placement is never on a horizontal plane, so the roof, hood etc of a automobile, are naturally terrible places to place a photovoltaic cell. Not to mention, you'd always have to park in direct sunlight (especially your scenario in Dallas, you would potentially be damaging the HV battery pack, charging in such heat extremes.)

Next we have to look at the fact that our systems are high voltage, not 110v, so the number of cells required wired in series etc... Plus we have to look at the electronics systems that collect and regulate that energy captured by the cells, which also aren't 100% efficient.

Using the Hyundai option as a baseline, if you got the claimed 800 miles a year/ and drove 12,000 miles a year that's an efficiency of .066 % if my math is good. For this system to even be able to give the Insight 2 miles a day of EV driving, the battery pack size would have to be increased. Not to mention this is an option that would take years to pay off. (example below, of how fiscally irresponsible this is currently)

Even at $1000, that option would take (assuming 12,000 miles driven/year at 50mpg: $3.00 a gallon of gas, and that the photovoltaic cells hit Hyundai's claim of 800 miles a year)

720$ year w/o vs $672 with a year with = 48$ a year in savings.= 22 years to pay for itself.

And that's with near ideal numbers and assuming that in the 22 years of owning the car, you don't have any damage to a cell that required repair. (Like hail, or debris while driving, and that the cells are still operating at peak efficiency 22 years later)

Just to clarify, I don't have an issues with Solar technology, and worked in the alternative energy field for 5 years. When it comes to automotive implementation of technology, I'm all for it, at the current state though, this technology is a glorified gimmick, and is years away from any meaningful application.

 

[Wifey'sInsight]

Just wanted to say, my opinion is not meant to bash anyone else's. I don't have property, and if I did, and I was looking at residential solar, it's a completely different story.

I am extremely hopeful that if Electrified vehicles are truly the future, that renewable energy technologies are part of this package.

 

[Moviemike]

I will defer to your work experience and technical knowledge in the field.

However I am a strong supporter of the technical development of this stuff down the path inspired by Amory Lovens, and his Rocky Mountain Institute. See http://www.rmi.org