Is Going Green so bad?

[Jimbo]

Uhhh. Yeah. When it's a false or bogus savings for political purposes.

Look at the CR-Z. Isn't particularly quick and it doesn't particularly get all that great mileage either (less than 40).

This is all about appearances and posturing.

 

[Colin]

Uhhh. Yeah. When it's a false or bogus savings for political purposes.

Look at the CR-Z. Isn't particularly quick and it doesn't particularly get all that great mileage either (less than 40).

This is all about appearances and posturing.

I don't know where people get the idea the CR-Z isn't fuel efficient. In 2011 when it was released, it was the fifth most fuel efficient gas car sold in NA. While it's true it's not the fastest around, with a manual transmission, it's 'peppy' and can certainly keep up with traffic.

I agree that there is more hype than necessary around the 'green' aspect of this drivetrain. The main advantage is going to be the torque vectoring without the need for mechanical differentials and a driveshaft. They'll also be able to satisfy their goals of doing things the 'Honda Way' vs. following others with V-10 etc. I could also see it as a morale booster within the company as the associates will jockey for the prestige of working at the new facility on this project. So while this approach will surely save a few bucks at the pump, the real benefits are more widespread (but so long as you're doing it, you might as well talk about it...).

 

[NSX-C2]

At this point in time, being green with electric motor in an impractical two-seat mid engine Sportscar/supercar is like paying for sex in a brothel while giving lessons on morals.

Green and impractical sportscars don't mix, at least not yet.

 

[liftcontrol]

If every car/SUV/truck that Honda made was electric or hybrid, I would buy the notion that they ALSO had a sports car that was hybrid. Absent that however, all this hybrid for their "exotic" so called Ferrari fighter is nonsense and nothing more than posturing. If they were really concerned about the environment and being green they would turn their attention to the Pilot and the Ridgeline before they BS about the need to make the NSX a hybrid.
Has California (ugh) really become such a socialist state that is so overburdened with excessive taxation and such liberal spending on the ever increasing welfare programs for the lazy and the illegals that they need to resort to saving a few pennies on the gas that an exotic car consumes? Why not just hike your taxes up further and burden those few who still have a job in your bankrupt state? If California was a country, it would fit in nicely with the bankrupt socialist nations of Europe.

 

[N Spec]

The only sound argument against this hybrid sports car is that the NSX falls into exotic ownership and thus the nature of its use may conflict. The majority of owners will average something like 4-7K miles per year on these vehicles, which would work against the vastly complex hybrid drivetrain. The batteries and motors will lay dormant for say half of each year, which is a waste if you consider the large amount of energy used to construct this tech and idea behind more efficient use of fossil fuel. This brings into question also the reliability as the original NSX was very elegant and spartan, thus making it quite reliable since there were not many components to fail.

This new vehicle is being sold based on the novelty of technology and efficiency. The meshing of green (fuel efficiency with less reliance on fossil fuels) and high performance seems dubious, but I do not think fuel efficiency or the idea of cleaner energy is the true target here. I believe Honda really wants to introduce a new form of AWD/4WD via mass production that will impact handling/performance while also having the nice perk of added efficiency or green label.

The most valid concern is hybrid reliability, but that should be addressed by a modest warranty of something like 15 years/150,000 miles. The typical 10 year warranty will be reached by most before the 150k or even 100k is hit on these cars. I believe most 2nd or 3rd owners need not fret of the hybrid warranty because by 12-18 years, there will be new innovations in hybrid tech that can be applied and retrofitted to the NSX 2.0 (this is if Honda does not evolve the NSX properly like the last one). Perhaps even a whole new aftermarket movement with LCD skins for tachs and displays along with the new hybrid innovations.

I think is Honda is trying to cover all bases here and they may be on to something here. I hope they succeed and the key to this success if in the execution. They should market the new NSX as the true every-season, daily driven exotic sports car, much like its predecessor and the not so exotic, but monstrous GTR. Drive it as much as possible to get your money's worth. Now how that will affect residual value is another question...

 

[N Spec]

If every car/SUV/truck that Honda made was electric or hybrid, I would buy the notion that they ALSO had a sports car that was hybrid. Absent that however, all this hybrid for their "exotic" so called Ferrari fighter is nonsense and nothing more than posturing. If they were really concerned about the environment and being green they would turn their attention to the Pilot and the Ridgeline before they BS about the need to make the NSX a hybrid.
Has California (ugh) really become such a socialist state that is so overburdened with excessive taxation and such liberal spending on the ever increasing welfare programs for the lazy and the illegals that they need to resort to saving a few pennies on the gas that an exotic car consumes? Why not just hike your taxes up further and burden those few who still have a job in your bankrupt state? If California was a country, it would fit in nicely with the bankrupt socialist nations of Europe.

I agree with the the larger trucks comment. They should really let this hybrid tech trickle down into the Ridgelines, Pilot, CR-Vs, and of course the bread&butter vehicles that Americans love to commute with and are generally only transporting themselves. Idk how many people I have come across who are just fascinated with AWD simply because they believe that it may come in handy in a situation with a 1/10 probability. I do believe this new hybrid SH-AWD may be a more responsible way of implementing AWD/4WD, much better than the first iteration.

It would make more sense to commute in a lightweight sporty car(2 or 4 door) that is more efficient than to drive in large/heavy gas guzzlers everyday, especially when your job duties consist of you sitting in a chair and you are only transporting yourself. Of course, it would be hard to convince people to change their way of life, so let's change the inefficiency of these larger vehicles perhaps? This new Hybrid AWD is the first practical response I have seen so far.

Applying it to a flagship sportscar? Let's hope the results are worth the effort. Here's to hoping Honda will plan and execute it well.

 

[desertwind]

Interesting, passionate arguments.

As long as it feels fast, goes fast and sounds fast, exudes the perception of quality in its build and is reliable, who cares how its powered? If it gets better than usual gas mileage (for cars of this ilk) then great (more icing on the cake!).

Sadly, we still have to wait at least 36 months before we get to experience the new car.

 

[Quix-Draw]

Is there a different kind of "Green" I should know of...besides Brooklands?