siegen

Yes, and I wasn't able to find conclusively which one the NHTSA uses. I know it isn't the '08 EPA rating for sure, and it is higher than that rating. So meeting the new CAFE standard won't be quite as hard, unless the government decides to start using the '08 EPA ratings for CAFE. Probably the "the". Why can't it just be Hypoetical? I think he needs to go take his aggression out on Al Gore. ;]

For those wondering about CAFE. From what I gathered, the NHTSA uses EPA values for average fuel economy, however they use the older ratings and not the '08 ratings.

I'm not feeling it. The center-stack doesn't flow with the rest of the interior at all. Otherwise it is a nice looking interior, but nothing gorgeous. I do like the instrumentation, and the steering wheel. Dash-mounted turn-key ignitions.

Given the same engine as the CR-V, but with lesser weight and better aerodynamics, I assume it could do high 20's fairly consistently, considering most people average mid 20's in the CR-V. If they used a K20 it would be even better, but would be too slow for American buyers. Seating 3 adults side by side would be a bit of a squeeze, even with the sliding middle seats. It would likely lose the front configuration if it came to the U.S., which would make it less differentiated from the Fit and CR-V, and it probably wouldn't fly in that case.

Here's a fun fact. A lot of advertisements for Honda vehicles in Japan picture Americans or Europeans using them, and often have California license plates. You can see a rather funny pic here on the Honda japan site (it also gives a good idea as to the size and proportions of the vehicle). It is rather small.

The question is if you were in the market for a crossover type vehicle. Naturally most of you wouldn't personally consider a vehicle like this.

This is nothing like an Aztek. Please keep comments serious people.

If you were in the market for a crossover or cute-ute, would this vehicle appeal to you? The Honda Edix is available in Japan. It is a 6-seater 5-door hatch, roughly the size of the CR-V except shorter and more of a wagon. It uses a 2.0L or 2.4L K-series engine. I don't know the weight, but it probably weighs a little less and due to the shape likely will get 2-3 mpg better than the CR-V. The middle seat in each row slides backwards 27cm or 17cm to make it more comfortable for the person sitting there. Likely the middle seats will be occupied by children, but when needed (and if you don't mind having your arm up against somebody else's) seating capacity for 6 would be useful. When not in use the front middle seat folds forward to become an armrest and drink holder, and the middle rear seat has an armrest built into it. The rear cargo area including the backs of the rear seats are a waterproof material instead of fabric. The 3 seats can apparently fold down independantly, and with all 3 seats down it has a lot of cargo space (3 mountain bikes with removed from wheels). With the two middle seats folded down, it can hold 4 people and a number of snowboards (or as shown in the picture, a surf board or wake board of some sort). Yeah the blue fabric is ugly, I doubt that would be the standard if the vehicle was ever brought over here. Waterproof liner for cargo area.

I can't believe any of your guys can see past that grille. I try to view the rest of the car but my eyes keep being drawn in by the horrendous grille.

Of course not lol. If you go into any car looking for things wrong or negative about it, you will undoubtedly come away with that impression. I'm not arguing that the Pilot has a nice interior or that the Lambdas do not. I believe the correct order of events is that you first saw the big H on the front, and then sat in the Pilot and wondered why so many people bought such a pile. :AH-HA_wink:

Another point that I meant to cover but forgot. For the environment's sake, burning less gas is advantageous regardless. A Tahoe hybrid will always be better than a regular Tahoe in that respect. Another good point, and you are probably correct. The Tahoe Hybrid buyer is likely to care more about the Hybrid image, given the $50K+ price of the Tahoe Hybrid. The tax write off or incentive would also factor into the cost of the vehicle. You also have to consider that my calculations did not take into account sales tax or maintenance costs. The Tahoe Hybrid may garner some special tax breaks that would be difficult to calculate. It probably will reach $4.00, if anything by inflation, before too long. In my area, as of last week, it was $3.20. It has fluctuated as high as $3.40 to as low as $2.90~ in the last few years. If, by the 100,000 miles have past, the price of gas continues up (let's say it takes 7 years to travel 100,000 miles - we are doing mostly city driving) to $4.00 or even $5.00, then the average cost difference over the course of that time between the hybrid and non-hybrid would be greater.

Let us further analyze the Tahoe hybrid. It costs roughly $10,000 more than its equivalent gas-only model. Comparing features I found the LT3 to be most comparable with standard equipment, if that is incorrect please correct me. For $10,000 you certainly get increased mileage. 14/20 for the 5.3L versus 21/22 for the 6.0L hybrid. Let us also assume that while the Tahoe has a larger engine, the extra weight of the hybrid system negates it, as the hauling and max trailer weight are both lower in the hybrid (in the hybrid's defense, it is reported to be quieter while towing, and is likely quieter around town). Essentially you get the same usability as the non-hybrid, but with considerably better mileage and a $10k price increase. Is $10,000 worth what you get? 5.3L = 7,142 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $22,854 @ $3.20 per gallon 6.0L = 4,761 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $15,235 @ $3.20 per gallon Assuming you drive in the city 100% of the time, you're saving $7,619 per 100,000 miles traveled if you purchase the hybrid. If you spend some time on the highway, the cost difference will be less. If you spend 100% of the time on the highway, the cost difference goes down to $1,455. Obviously the Tahoe hybrid should be considered only if the buyer spends most of the time in the city. We all know this. But the results show that even if the buyer does spend all the time in the city, it will still take somewhere around 131,250 miles to recover your costs. The Tahoe hybrid does and doesn't seem to make its case, depending on usage and having the vehicle for a while. The giant percentage increase does seem good at first, but the real numbers show that it is more marketing. Now to give some perspective to this, let's compare the Civic EX (25/36) versus Civic Hybrid (40/45). LX/EX = 4000 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $12,800 @ $3.20 per gallon Hybrid = 2500 gallons to travel 100k miles in city = $8,000 @ $3.20 per gallon That's $4,800 saved per 100,000 miles traveled in the city if you purchase the hybrid. The Civic hybrid costs $3,890 more than the Civic EX, which would take around 81,000 city miles to recoup the costs. That is considerably fewer miles than the Tahoe hybrid. And the advantage to the Civic hybrid is that if you take it on the highway, you also get considerably better mileage than the gas-only model, although I am not going to do that calculation right now. So while a small sedan hybrid may not have as big of a percentage increase, the real-world numbers do favor it. In GM's defense, being the first to do this is certainly a feat. And if they incorporate an equally advanced hybrid system into their small sedans, they are sure to do well. I still have a feeling a clean and quite diesel (when they come) would be a better option for larger vehicles like the Tahoe. Again, if I made any mistakes in my calculations, please correct me. As I did do this in haste. Edit: And before anyone says it, I am not comparing the Tahoe to the Civic. I am comparing the Tahoe to the Tahoe hybrid, and then separately comparing the Civic to the Civic Hybrid. Then I am putting the Tahoe comparison into perspective by showing that the Civic Hybrid does indeed make sense for someone looking for a compact sedan, while the Tahoe Hybrid doesn't make quite as much sense for someone looking for an 8-seater SUV.

That would be astounding. Just a correction. The Camry V6 is 19/28, while the I4 is 21/31. The 22/31 rating you have is the '07 EPA rating on the V6. The Tahoe Hybrid gets a combined rating that is only 10% shy of the V6 combined rating of a sedan. That is a nice thing to see, but then I really don't see why everyone compares the two. Why not compare Apples to Apples? The Camry hybrid is rated to 33/34. There is no logic in this statement. 21/22 does not look the same as 22/31. Will you blindly follow what a source says (an automotive journal or magazine) even though the result contradicts itself?

As suggested above? Both the low and high trim level Pilots are bound to have an interior considerably nicer and more luxurious than the Ridgeline or Element.

Why do the body cut lines around the doors extend all the way to the bottom? How did that grille make it out of the designers computer?

I watched the press video which shows the Pilot drive out onto the stage, spin around, and has a view from above the level of the Pilot looking down. With production headlights and hopefully a toned down grille, the Pilot will look good. It does have a very traditional look, and a bit bland. It really rests on what they do with the grille IMO, since the headlights are just for show (which is annoying that they don't put normal looking ones on there). Interior space, specially 3rd row seating space, has increased, and supposedly full-size male adults can fit comfortably in the 3rd row seat. It doesn't look like exterior dimensions have increase much.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did market it as another Camry.

The front instantly reminded me of the Ford Edge. If it weren't for the painfully ugly headlights and grille, I kind of like it. It's like a Toyota Forester. Seems like a better option than an SUV, and I'm glad people are giving Wagons some more attention, regardless of make.

I don't think anyone likes being called a troll. Call me a devil's advocate if you will. If you want to know what a troll is, it's someone who responds to a post with personal attacks rather than rebutting the statement given in the original post.

That statement isn't exactly correct, and I'm sure someone will elaborate on it more. Compared to the foreign makes that operate inside the USA, GM spends more on factories and labor. Given a clean slate I'm sure GM could cut down operating costs considerably inside the US. Just to clarify, it does not have the same VVT (continuously varying) style system that GM would employ. The change in lift, duration, and timing on one intake valve per cylinder is the only implementation of vtec on the R-series engines. The K-series has the continuously variable valve timing/phasing as well as traditional vtec system. There is much talk of the Civic EX getting a higher level engine than the LX/DX (like Accord has two 2.4L engines), and it would probably be a K20 based engine with 160hp. That is entirely speculation though.

This is one of those cars that I had to look at for a while and from different angles to decide what I really thought about. The rear end isn't particularly flattering. The whole car seems to be yelling at me "look at how macho I am!". I don't think the Cadillac design style fits a coupe like this very well. The basic body shape is good, but the more I look at it the less I like it. It would probably work well as a Chevy or Pontiac.

Which is the same as the CR-V, Odyssey, and Element. Why does it need a column shifter? It would be difficult to understand if you base a vehicle's entire value on exterior design and then assume everyone in the world likes the same thing you do.

What exactly is wrong with the shifter?

Acura Will Introduce Clean Diesel i-DTEC Engine in 2009 Turbocharged i-DTEC Engine Displayed at the North American International Auto Show Press Release - Photo Gallery 01/13/2008 - DETROIT - Acura will introduce the new i-DTEC clean diesel engine to the North American market in 2009. The i-DTEC engine reduces noxious exhaust emissions while boosting power and fuel efficiency. A combination of optimized combustion chamber design and reduced injection time results in a clean, quiet engine that delivers excellent performance for an enjoyable driving experience. In addition, the i-DTEC engine meets the ultra-stringent U.S. EPA Tier II Bin 5 emission standards without the on-board storage of urea. The i-DTEC clean diesel engine is on display exclusively in the Acura booth at the North American International Auto Show and will be utilized in an Acura vehicle to be named at a later date.

It's no doubt those headlights are goofy as hell. But this is just a concept, not even a prototype. It's gong to look quite a bit better in production form. Honda is obviously going with a Land Rover type look. Will it pay off? Who knows.