Classic And Rare 1977 Honda Civic Cvcc on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why Honda of America won't fit 2014 Fit models with start/stop

One of the most recent yet notable additions to the modern vehicle's growing suite of fuel-saving technologies is the humble start-stop system. It's rather simple - when the vehicle is stopped, the engine shuts off. It then fires back up when the driver starts to take his foot off the brake or step on the clutch. For one of the most important fuel sippers of the year, though, start-stop tech is a no-go.
Honda will not be offering the system on the North American-spec, non-hybrid Fit despite it being a standard item on both the hybrid (pictured above) and gas-only Japanese domestic models. According to Honda, it's ostensibly due to the momentary lag, that occurs when the gas engine re-fires and power is available. The start-stop-equipped Fits "will lose at stoplights to V6s," Nobuhiko Shishido, the lead powertrain engineer for the Fit, told Automotive News. This is just an observation on our part, but unless the new Fit turns up with dramatically more than the current car's 117 horsepower, it'll "lose at stoplights" regardless of whatever fuel-saving features are fitted.
The other issue Honda sees is more realistic. In the world of the EPA, stop-start systems are not taken into account in fuel economy testing. That makes the cost-adding technology a tough sell for US consumers who are forced to take a dealer's word on real-world economy gains over the milage numbers on the window sticker. That said, wouldn't it at least make sense to offer start-stop as an option? Have your say in the Comments below.

2016 Honda HR-V scores class-leading 35 mpg

Smaller cars generally net better fuel economy ratings, and while crossovers aren't generally as efficient as hatchbacks and small sedans, smaller crossovers are getting better EPA ratings all the time. The latest to join the pack is the new 2016 Honda HR-V. The US Environmental Protection Agency has just released its ratings for the littlest Honda crossover, and the figures are pretty impressive. In front-wheel-drive form with the optional continuously variable transmission, the HR-V is rated at 28 miles per gallon in the city, 35 on the highway and 31 combined. Those figures make it the most economical conventionally powered SUV on the market. (The EPA doesn't distinguish between truck-based sport-utes and car-based crossovers) Among crossovers, the FWD HR-V outperforms the Nissan Juke, Kia Soul, Chevrolet Trax, Buick Encore... the whole lot. Only the Mazda CX-5 matches it on the highway rating, which is noteworthy since it's a much bigger vehicle. Along with the forthcoming Fiat 500X and Jeep Renegade, Mazda's nearly here CX-3 hasn't been rated yet (we predict it will score better than the HR-V, if only to improve on the fuel economy ratings of its larger CX-5 counterpart). Of course, there are hybrids that get better ratings than the Honda, but comparing a hybrid to a conventional vehicle is like comparing apples to electrically charged oranges. Naturally, the picture changes a bit if you go for all-wheel drive or the available six-speed manual. In AWD spec (only available with the CVT), the HR-V gets 27 city, 32 highway and 29 combined. The front-driver with the six-speed suffers a worse fate at 25 city, 34 highway and 28 combined. No matter which way you slice it, of course, the Fit hatchback upon which the HR-V is based, with its CVT hooked up to a smaller engine and with less weight to motivate, still sips fuel more lightly than the HR-V. But as far as crossovers go, Honda's new HR-V is looking pretty frugal. Featured Gallery 2016 Honda HR-V View 25 Photos News Source: EPAImage Credit: Honda Green Honda Crossover honda hr-v

Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tundra flunk IIHS headlight test

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety put pickup truck headlights to the test and found that the majority of them were equipped with subpar units. The 2017 Honda Ridgeline was the only truck to earn a rating of "good." The large pickup truck test was comprised of the: 2016 to 2017 GMC Sierra, 2017 Nissan Titan, 2016 Ram 1500, 2016 to 2017 Chevrolet Silverado, 2016 to 2017 Ford F-150, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tundra. The Sierra's headlights earned a rating of "acceptable," the headlights found on the Titan and Ram 1500 were found to be "marginal," and the ones on the Silverado, F-150, and Tundra were rated as "poor." IIHS claims the F-150 was the most disappointing out of the large pickup trucks as both its halogen and optional LED headlights failed to provide adequate visibility during testing. The Ridgeline (which earned a "good rating"), is usually considered a midsize or small truck, though IIHS included it in the field of large pickups. The headlights on the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, 2016 GMC Canyon, 2016 Nissan Frontier, and 2016 to 2017 Toyota Tacoma, which made up the small pickup truck group, all earned a rating of "poor." The IIHS claimed the Colorado had the worst headlights of any truck that was tested, as the base vehicle's units were only able to illuminate up to 123 feet in front of the car. The Ridgeline's headlights, for reference, were able to illuminate up to 358 feet in front of the vehicle. To conduct its test, the IIHS utilizes a special tool to measure how far light is projected out of the headlights in different driving situations. The trucks' headlights were tested in a straight line and in corners, while vehicles with high-beam assist were given extra praise. The headlights on the pickup trucks also mimic the testing that was done on small SUVs and cars earlier this year. Next year, automakers will need to fit their vehicles with headlights that earn a rating of either good or acceptable to earn the IIHS Top Safety Pick+. Related Video: