Honda Canada considering cutting safety equipment to improve mileage
The recent Canadian budget introduced new incentives for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Unfortunately for Honda whenever rules like this are imposed it usually involves some arbitrary threshold for qualification. In this case cars are required to consume no more than 6.3L/100km of gas to get a $1,000 rebate. The Honda Fit uses 6.5L/100km and doesn't make the cut, while the Toyota Yaris does. One of the options for Honda is to reduce the car's weight to improve the efficiency.
The quickest way for Honda to do this without redesigning the car is to remove equipment, including parts like anti-lock brakes, and extra airbags. Honda Canada VP Jim Miller told a University of Windsor marketing class that removing safety equipment was an undesirable outcome, but it may be necessary in order to meet the fuel consumption thresholds. This is an issue that many carmakers will be facing in coming years and suppliers are continuously working to redesign their hardware and shave ounces of mass wherever possible.
[Source: Ottawa Citizen]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ed 12:06AM (4/07/2007)
Or they could just build the body out of carbon fiber.
Reply
Joseph 2:33AM (4/07/2007)
Oh yes, carbon fiber so that the price triples!
Reply
MetroMPG.com 10:57PM (4/06/2007)
This statement from Honda Canada is little more than politics. They were angry ("fit to be tied" was one quote I read) that the Fit fell just outside the federal efficiency rebate threshold (it's 6.5L/100km, btw, not 6.3).
It's a desperate attempt on Honda's part to send a message to the public and politicians, saying: "see what this budget initiative has wrought - it will make cars less safe!" (while simultaneously getting a jab in at the less expensive - and arguably less safe - Toyota Yaris).
This VP's comment is a slap in the face to Honda's engineers & technical people. It's ludicrous to suggest they are incapable of coming up with inexpensive (or free) changes to the vehicle to improve its efficiency by a few percent without sacrificing safety:
- A slightly taller final drive would easily accomplish this. (More than one review has said that the car is geared quite low, to create a 'sporty' driving impression.)
- How about offering one of the existing - and much more efficient - engines that are available in this platform in dozens of markets outside North America. North Americans' only choice is no choice at all: the biggest engine. Like the Model T - any colour you like, as long as it's black.
Honda's whining is ill-timed. In a week where GM's Lutz was ridiculed for his dire predictions of the consequences of improving fuel economy in GM's fleet, the last thing Honda should be doing is getting into the same boat.
Reply
Der Alte 3:49AM (4/07/2007)
I agree with #1. I'm rather surprised to see this bellowing from Honda. True, these limits are often arbitrary....but getting the Fit to comply is by no means a Herculean task. People just have to put up with a little less pep. I would say removing safety equipment shouldn't even be a consideration for Honda. They have staked a claim for themselves in packing quite a bit of safety equpment as standard for their economy lines. Such leadership challenges other auto-makers to step up their game and the consumer is the one who benefits.
As for the Feds....is setting a number like 6.3 for incentives really the way to really make a difference. How about benefits for choosing a 4 cylinder over a V6...or a V6 over a V8. If people who went for V6s decided to go for four bangers more often....I would say that has more effect than basing your incentives on something arbitrary like 6.3L/100k or less.
Reply
rgseidl 8:58AM (4/07/2007)
While it's good that Canada is offering incentives based on a socially desired outcome (fuel economy) rather than favored technologies (cp. US), none of these concepts are sustainable for the long haul. Incentives need to be funded.
I'd recommend raising taxes on fuel and using the extra revenue to cut income taxes and/or help low-income earners to switch to more efficient cars. Do this slowly, predictably and irreversably and consumers will choose fuel-sipping vehicles without further inducements.
Politicians need to focus on really moving the goalposts instead of constantly looking for quick fixes. A tax hike of 3 cents per liter every 6 months for the next 10 years would - by 2017! - bring gasoline prices at Canadian pumps in line with those already being charged in e.g. Germany today.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.html
Reply
Henry 11:09AM (4/07/2007)
Canadians are not kamikazes.
I find these actions would speak louder then the words "death to America".
Reply
Smith 1:19PM (4/07/2007)
Stick the old Honda Insight power plant and drive line in it!
Reply
Hamud 7:04AM (4/09/2007)
I guess that removing safety items is pretty stupid if you ask me. If they do that the car gets a better mileage and gets the incentive, but, who would buy the car knowing that is less safer than its competitors??? This is not the way, change some materials, but don't make it unsafe...
Reply
Chet 1:47PM (4/09/2007)
There has been some "piling on" of safety equipment to snare sales in recent years... likely the Honda Fit did so over its Yaris competition, and now it's smarting. "Less safe" is likely not less safe than the competition, certainly not less safe than older cars of similar size... and almost regardless of equipment, less safe than larger new cars. Safety costs; how safe do you want to be?
But at the end of the day, a taller top gear is probably all that's required to fix the Fit.
As for incentives to choose fewer cylinders... it's the fuel consumption that matters, not the engine configuration.
Reply
MikeW 4:14PM (4/09/2007)
Where is the dual countershaft manual transmission in the Fit?
4,8,12,16,20,24 is good gearing for the stick.
Top speed in 5th ~115mph, a supercruise 6th gear for ~105mph
Now 5th gear in the stick is ~21mph, and the automatic is ~27mph.
The VTEC transition is ~3400rpm
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/874/releases/3453
and can the engine still operate in eEGR without the non-VTEC swirl?
Reply
MikeW 6:13PM (4/09/2007)
and how about variable valve timing [cam phasing] ?
Cam switching [VTEC] isn't variable valve timing.
Toyota has vane phasers on both camshafts on its new 1.8 engine.
The automatic Fit is drag limited to ~110mph in 4th gear and ~90mph in 5th gear.
Reply
James 4:10PM (4/10/2007)
Taxing the fuel more will not bring changes as quickly as these incentives. People will just whine more. The incentives are paid for by the new taxes (up to $5000) on gas guzzlers.
Removing safety equipment isn't really the way to go. Toyota will call them on it with Yaris comparisons. Removing things is a good idea though. There is so much crammed into cars these days. I'd rather a good performing fun vehicle with less extras then a slow as molasses car with heavy extras.
Reply
Dustin 12:25PM (4/11/2007)
The standard Yaris has two airbags, the standard Fit has six. Removing two side curtain airbags will decrease significant weight while not reducing its safety in comparison to any competitors. The Fit has 5 Star front and rear crash safety ratings while the Yaris has a 4 Star front and 3 Star side ratings. The Fit is a better car any way you slice it, so why not make it eligible for the incentives as well.
Reply
ed 12:34PM (6/15/2007)
Why doesnt honda and toyota decrease their canadian prices. Our dollar is only 8% lower than the US but the final price is much much higher. These two companies are gouging canadians.Tel;l me why a corolla made in cambridge is so much higher than in detroit. 300 km away.YES YES I EVEN TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ANY DIFFERENCES IN OPTIONS.
Reply
rlynn 6:07PM (9/01/2007)
The government needs to butt out and quit creating these phony unproductive political vote buying programs. Let the market and the consumers determine the products. No more central planning please.
Reply