It will be interesting to see if they have to halt direct marketing and ads once word gets out and people start buying, i.e. the Prius shortage and wait list.

The neither the 2001-2003 Prius nor the 2003-2004 Honda Civic Hybrid garnered the demand shown for the 2004 Prius. Perhaps the Hybrid V6 Accord is the bump people need to say "I have to have one of those".

I am strongly *AGAINST* hybrid configurations/models that do not deliver at least SULEV rating.

Improved MPG is a given. But a hybrid, like Accord, that doesn't reduce emissions at all (just ULEV) is not something I will endorse.

priusist, welcome to the owners side...10 points... thanks for letting us know what Honda has to say...

Bob Andersen

I saw today that the Honda Accord Hybrid can now be priced on the Honda website (although the only choice is NAV or not). Not on Edmunds yet.

John - re: your comment on the emissions, do we know how much better the Accord Hybrid does just compared to the standard Accord V6?

rpm

Honda is saying $29.995

Just how much can you expect to save with the Accord Hybrid? Good question. Well, with gas mileage of 29 mpg city/37 mpg highway

To me, using hybrid is a responsibility and a way to save gas not save money. We have used so much of precious resources. Part of them are simply wasted such as the wasted heat picked by the hybrid technology.

I could not imagine what the marketing will be like if there is a hybrid Hummer.

The Escape-Hybrid delivers SULEV.

Why doesn't the Accord-Hybrid?

The Accord gets better mileage than the Escape but since it doesnt use a Toyota system it cant be "endorsed"? Give Honda the credit they deserve. Have owned a few Honda products and have been very pleased with build quality, service and performance. The term "hybrid" will evolve, as will the cars. There is no "standard of identity" for the term hybrid, we, the consumer will drive (pun intended) the process and rate of change.
The more choices, the more better.

Automakers should deliver SULEV. It is 72.8% cleaner than ULEV. That a big difference, and smog is a very real problem. Reducing emissions is both realistic & affordable, the traditional vehicle achieving SULEV have proven that.

The "assist" system that Honda uses has been proven to not do as well as a "full" system in stop & slow traffic with respect to MPG. And worse, auto-stop is very limited in both peak summer and peak winter temperatures. That is not true for a "full" hybrid, as HSD Prius has demonstrated. It has also shown that highway cruising data, compared the Civic-Hybrid CVT, has proven lower too.

And to matter matters even worse, their third-generation "assist" system is rather complicated. That, combined with the lower efficiency, prevents it from being cost-competitive with a "full" hybrid.

And to further disappoint, the "assist" technology cannot bridge a transition to increasingly electric vehicles. With a passive recharging system, electric A/C will be very limited. And without a PSD, it cannot offer stealth or EV at all.

So what's the point?

Even Honda itself has stated they will be re-evaluating their hybrid plans once the Accord-Hybrid is rollout is complete.

We need to focus on goals.

If a seeming good technology doesn't deliver, we thank the automaker for trying and wish them luck with their attempt at another. Honda is in that position. They did not try to deceive the public in anyway about their technology. They have been honest and upfront about it. So we should not hold anything against them. We should hope there next endeavor is provides greater success. After all, they didn't fail. We just want even cleaner and more efficient technology, that is also cost-effective.

By the way, there is already a traditional Accord that delivers SULEV. In fact, each one sold in CA earns 0.2 PZEV credits... hence the frustration about the hybrid version only being a ULEV.

IMO, you are getting far too tied up on only one aspect of hybrid technology. 72.8% of what number? A fraction of four or five places? How much is that in reality? Fuel not being burned at all, yields a 100% reduction in emissions in comparison to the fuel consumed in the similar vehicle. Fuel not being burned, is fuel not being purchased. This means that demand for the resource is reduced. Get demand down enough, and you can tell the Arabs where they can stuff their oil wells.

Now, I don't think the Honda IMA system is as good as the Toyota system. Honda does seem to be aware of this. However, it IS still a step in the right direction towards energy independence. It should be recognised for it, and unlike the GM market fraud of a system, it IS a true hybrid system, even if it is only a mild one.

Wolfman,

I agree with you 100%, if I wanted to really work on reducing pollution I would be driving and electric vehicle, but hybrids help you conserve the recources we have, hence we drive hybrids, I bought my vehicle mainly for fuel economy, and to help gain independence from foreing oil.

I think all of us hybrid owners are on the right track regardless of the make of hybrid (well almost) we buy.

Best single tank avg. 84.5 mpg

"SULEV" is a standardized designation given by the EPA.

It represents very specific values of NOx, HC, and CO emissions. In other words, it is a simplified way of stating a pollution reduction objective.

Actually, CARB came up with those acronyms. The EPA and the automobile market simply adopted them. Irregardless, the seemingly "major" percentages are really only minute, fractional differences, when the numbers are looked at more closely.