Insight de-hybridized for performance, still returns 48 miles per gallon
There is a huge aftermarket contingency turning small Hondas into performance cars by replacing their engines with larger versions from other vehicles. We're sure that you've noticed the various Civics and Integras buzzing around town, and soon those Civics could be Insights if this vehicle starts a new trend. Created by LHT Performance in Florida, this particular Insight features the K20A engine featured in various Honda and Acura models in both the U.S. and abroad. The conversion, of course, removes the Integrated Motor Assist that made the Insight a hybrid in the first place.
The same thing that makes the Insight such an efficient vehicle, its light weight, also makes it an ideal performance car. According to LHT, the car has close to 200 horsepower and scoots along very quickly. Fuel mileage isn't quite as good as a stock Insight, as you might imagine, but is still quite respectable at nearly 50 miles per gallon on average. We hope that removing the IMA engine from the Insight doesn't become a common sight, but we can appreciate the work that went into making this one.
[Source: LHT Performance]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
steven 3:36PM (3/11/2008)
I keep wishing I could go back to my 86 CRX Si. 41MPG HWY on regular, 8 secs 0-60. A 91HP, but it weighed in at 1945lbs if I recall.
It was safe as hell and never needed airbags or those other several hundred pounds of safety features because I never got in a wreck.
Reply
Mike Z 3:43PM (3/11/2008)
steven--"never needed airbags or those other several hundred pounds of safety features because I never got in a wreck."
HAHA! That's like saying you don't need homeowners insurance because your house never burned down.
Reply
steven 3:44PM (3/11/2008)
No, it was a attempt at humor.
Reply
ronEbear 3:55PM (3/11/2008)
That thing is the cat`s ass (means cool, don`t remember where i picked it up) and it passes safety standards. Why in the hell do manufacturers moan and cry when asked to up their mpg`s. HONDA, PUT A K20 (the engine from this story) IN THE BODY OF AN INSIGHT!!
Reply
Dan 5:07PM (3/11/2008)
this car would look so much better without the covers over the back wheels. does anyone know how much they actually increase the mileage?
Reply
ug 6:14PM (3/11/2008)
Fender skirts used to be a sign of an upscale automobile (like Caddies and Oldsmobiles).
Anyway, if you want to keep fixating on the cosmetic aspects of cars (which are often at odds with efficiency) then by all means take the skirts off and drop a few mpg off and be content filling up more often with $4 gasoline.
Reply
Joseph 11:01PM (3/11/2008)
I've heard that the wheel covers add supposedly one mpg.
You can look at the Insight without wheel skirts here: http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/photos/pictures-styling.html
Reply
kt 8:27PM (3/11/2008)
Trust me it looks worse without the wheel covers.
Honda should have offered this from the start.
Reply
The Luigiian 11:58PM (3/11/2008)
To me, this proves that the light weight of a vehicle, mixed with better aerodynamics, are the real answers to the fuel-efficiency crisis--not expensive hybrids. 48 mpg? Wasn't the original around 55 to 60 mpg, with a much smaller less-powerful engine?
Reply
Rojo 1:53AM (3/12/2008)
It looks much better without the wheel covers, but we're still in 'lipstick on a pig' territory.
ug: a car must, first and foremost, appeal visually to prospective buyers or else have many more extremely positive qualities. We are animals whose perceptions are based ~80% on sight and that is not likely to change (naturally) for another couple hundred thousand years. Honda knew the Insight would be a niche market that wouldn't care as much for styling as the average buyer. Ergo, It looks utterly atrocious compared to just about any other vehicle (not counting a Xebra). The styling of the Prius is much more 'normal' as well as practical and thus, was always in higher demand even when much less fuel efficient.
Still, the real answer to fuel efficiency is not using an inefficient engine that uses gas at all. Once that underlying system is in place, we can get back to having visually appealing yet insanely efficient vehicles... well, ones that don't cost $100K anyway.
Reply
psarhjinian 10:39AM (3/12/2008)
If you want an efficient car, you need to make sacrifices. Said sacrifices are often power, space or handling. And sometimes they're cosmetic. Personally, I'd take funny-looking if it meant better mileage. Of course, I drive a Saab, so I'm already one foot in the water, as it were.
What I don't understand is why people complain about styling. Aerodynamics that benefit fuel economy are very similar to those that benefit sportscars, and generally a high-performance car isn't particularly ugly. I also wonder how much better mileage one might get out of, say,a Tahoe hybrid's powertrain if it wasn't pushing that brick of a body around.
Reply
gerlando 1:48PM (3/12/2008)
#10. The Insight looks the way it does for aerodynamics, it is the most aerodynamic production vehicle every made, The Prius II is the second most aerodynamic. The Prius is more popular because it's WAY more practical, but the Insight gets 50% better gas mileage. Even with more efficient engines, a car with better aerodynamics will use the available energy more efficiently, especially at speed. That will never change.
Reply
Snowdog 4:56PM (3/12/2008)
The original Insight with the manual transmission was good for a real world 70mpg+ on the highway.
I always admired the engineering of these cars and would have bought one if I could have found one used, even though they are ugly, they have the most efficient car bodies ever in production.
People say Honda couldn't move them. Truth is, Honda didn't want to move them. All aluminum construction meant these cost way more to build, Honda did almost no advertising and just built them to say they have the highest MPG car in America.
I seldom see one used because they were rare to start with and anyone who has is probably enjoying the crazy gas mileage.
Reply
Dan 8:34PM (3/12/2008)
so how much can i buy this one for? i think i'm in love
Reply
SEEKERone 11:33PM (3/12/2008)
I participated in the creation of this vehicle...I did the wiring conversion. Thusly I feel qualified to comment here.
The decision to start the whole project began as a "what if" type question. John Wilson, the owner of LHT Performance and I come from a background of CRXs. The question of could a K series engine be done had already been answered. There were several drag race versions. We wondered if a "real" version was feasable. It needed to remain street drivable, keep the air conditioning and heat, idle smoothly in traffic and be 100% reliable. That is exactly was we did. From outside the car it looks nearly stock as the wheels are the only visual clue of otherwise. Inside the car the original cluster was replaced with a cluster from the S2000. It was considered as more appropriate for the powertrain choice but it was also a close match in size and style as the original unit. Only when you look under the hood can you see where the deviation from stock is most obvious. The swap is done with modified OEM Honda mounts to retain good idle. The placement was done so cleanly that at the NOPI show last Sept, we actually heard more than once people ask if that is the stock motor.
The fuel milage reported was during our trip to Atlanta for that NOPI show. The HONDATA K-Pro pcm was tuned to run lean in open loop under certain conditions but the numbers surprised us.
Click on the picture above to go to the original post about this car.
Reply
bhtooefr 4:47PM (3/14/2008)
And just think what you could do with a Civic HX's motor.
And, as for the Prius II being the second most aerodynamic production car... both the 3rd-generation VW Jetta and the 5th-generation VW Passat were more aerodynamic. Frontal area is important, too.
Reply
gerlando 6:34PM (4/09/2008)
Wrong, the Prius has a drag coefficient of .26 the Jetta, .30
Reply
mikestro 4:21PM (10/17/2009)
This beautiful Insight is a true automotive master piece. It backs up some critical thinking of mine about the gas mileage battle farce that is going on right now. If I am correct the newest Civic with the R18 engine tops 40 mpg on the highway. The R18 being a 1.8 liter. The Fit (with a lighter curb weight than the Civic) is advertised by Honda to achieve 34 mpg, with a 1.5 liter... wait a minute... .. WHAT? !!!!!!! This is the first thing that raised my brow. This makes absolutely no sense for Honda when it comes to being the leader, i'm sorry, the undisputed champion of the world, of this gas mileage battle between all car companies. I understand that the Fit is a comparatively old design to the new Civic, and that Honda must think that just getting rid of the huge stocks of Fits there still are was the safe idea. However if they spent the development money to use the R18 engine in the Fit or the next Fit for that matter they could almost singlehandedly chase economy minded production hybrid cars off the road in a matter of a short few years. Or at least when the batteries on hybrid cars expire, whichever comes first. this is on the economy end of it. All of this and an increase in peak horsepower by 35bhp! Better yet put in the new K series two point FOUR liter currently achieving 34mpg in the New 08 Accord. All 3400 or so lbs. of it carried briskly along by a 200 hp engine! Yes 34mpg! If you could have class leading gas mileage WITH blistering performance in the same car minus all the stupid batteries, who wound then go and buy a Versa? or a Corrolla? NOBODY!, that's who... The K sight is the ultimate example of this melding of performance and gas mileage that I had contemplated . Albeit with engines that are considered far more efficient Than the K20A. The K sight is so far the ultimate automotive achievement in recorded history, hands down. Where everybody else (including Honda) is forced to compromise performance for efficiency to appease the masses, the K sight compromises nothing! It doesn't have to. So this observation is dedicated to all of you out there that would nay say the K sight ... you guys are dumb and can't see that the car companies of the world are duping you into thinking you are getting good gas mileage by obviously have arrangements with the oil companies of the world. If Honda wanted to make greater history than that of VTEC... well almost, then they would cut the crap and show the world just HOW superior they are in their engine designs. Like, air fuel ratios of 19 to 1 in production engines that run on pump gas making over 100 hp per liter... YAH... like that superior. Enough said except... the K sight RULES!!!!!!
Reply
Jordan Y. 11:14PM (5/26/2008)
The tuning of production cars is a compromise between power, emissions, fuel economy, long-term reliability, all-weather drivability, and other factors. The 14.7:1 gasoline stoichiometric ratio is a compromise between emissions and economy. In my days tuning my old Mitsubishi Eclipse one of the topics on a tuning discussion group was running leaner than stock for fuel economy. With a wideband air/fuel sensor and careful monitoring of the knock sensor people were running 15.5:1, 16:1, and even leaner on 20-year-old Mitsubishi 4G63 engines under light load cruise conditions. Being able to run 19:1 afr at 40 degrees timing without knock is a testament to the engineering in the much newer K20 engine. However, there is a trade-off in the form of increased emissions. My memory is a bit rusty, but I believe that below 14.7:1 unburnt hydrocarbon emissions increase, but above 14.7:1 oxides of nitrogen (NOX) increase. So along with the other reasons listed above, emissions forces OEMs to compromise. There are strategies to get around this problem, some of them advanced by Honda themselves. I remember reading about an engine with direct fuel injection and an odd "pocket" cast into the piston- I think it may have been a Honda project. Under light load conditions fuel was injected into this pocket and ignited before it could migrate out of it. The local AFR in the "pocket" was more nearly stoichiometric while th total AFR in the cylinder was very lean- 19:1 or 20:1. I'm sure we'll be seeing advances like this as fuel economy becomes ever more important in the days of 4, 5, and $6 gas.
Reply
Snowdog 4:58PM (6/07/2008)
I am big fan of the insight and this conversion, but you need to be somewhat accurate about mpg figures and where they come from.
First the Fit gets 34 mpg Highway, the civic gets 36mpg highway, not 40mpg. The small difference comes not from the engine, but the aerodynamics. The fit is brick shaped, the new civics are very aerodynamic. Same reason the Insight does so well. Putting a 1.8L in the Fit would not have improved mileage.
Running lean is also nice, but it gets harder to pass emissions when you do.
Reply