This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Honda Insight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm thinking as the new Honda insight goes to sale, this article is going to get very long. Compare with the Prius article. Probably most of the existing article should become a sub article for second generation insight. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by sub-article? My feeling is that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the Second Generation now has its place. 842U ( talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this article, some of the terms such as fall and trunk and fender are American which some people from around the world may not be completely familiar with. When using such terms, would it not be useful to add alternatives in brackets, such as Fall (Autumn), Trunk (Boot)? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.163.66.253 (
talk)
10:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that we sould reconsider a sub article for the second generation Honda insight because it has been three years and a lot more information has been added to the article and has become to lengthy and over cluttered-- Aaaaplay ( talk) 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
Most people coming to the article are interested in the new insight and the first image should be the new insight. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." It could not be clearer on that point. If you can think of something besides quality for which to make a rational decision for infobox image placement that is not clearly excluded as a possible criterion, feel free to propose it. IFCAR ( talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IFCAR. Going through the current group of assets, I don't see an image of higher quality than the current lead image. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IFCAR also. The older model is more representative of the Insight's history, while the new image is well, more representative of its current status. Which looks a lot like a Prius lol. --
76.204.94.183 (
talk)
04:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As there is now an image of suitable quality to use for the top image, I went ahead and changed it to the more recent model.
ThomasAndrewNimmo (
talk)
16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who would like to see the lead image show an updated image of the current Honda Insight, any attempt to update it without the approval of IFCAR will be reverted until he decides it is time to update the image, usually with a photo that IFCAR has personally taken. There is a long history of this type of issue with IFCAR.
IFCAR please update the photo with an image of the current Insight that meets with your approval.( Regushee ( talk) 03:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Against: WP:CARPIX, which was developed through a strong consensus to avoid case-by-case arguments such as this one. The "for" users who want to use a lower-quality photo because it depicts a newer car should change the guideline, not this specific case. If someone takes a photo of the 2nd-gen Insight that is better than the existing first-gen photo, that would be used; until then, it should not. This has been discussed ad nauseum across the WikiProject Autos project. IFCAR ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
By what measure are you defining higher quality? Aesthetics, pixel count, or something else? I am not being facetious, but when you state "higher quality" repeatedly it sounds like a subjective excuse to revert repeatedly. In what way does it violate
Wikipedia:CARPIX#Minimum_image_standards?
In terms of asthetics, I would say that almost any other picture would be better than that lime green color. If you are considering pixel count, the new picture is 1,936 × 1,164 pixels, while the old picture is 1,706 × 960 pixels. Ng.j ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Going through this discussion, there is a clear consensus that the lead picture should be changed. Multiple users overs the last few years have changed the lead picture, but it has been reverted every time by a single user. Ng.j ( talk) 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For image of new insight Daniel.Cardenas de Facto THD3 David Arthur ThomasAndrewNimmo Rfsmit Regushee Ng.j
Needs higher quality image before change (against): roguegeek
The issue of using a second generation picture has been Resolved. The only remaining debate is whether other pictures are of higher quality, which is a subjective debate. Ng.j ( talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
An agreement regarding images has been reached. Ng.j ( talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is to change the current picture. Arguments center around image quality (subjective). Ng.j ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The way its written suggests the car is only going to be sold in the US, which simply isn't true. Also the prices are meaning less to everyone outside of NA as we've nothing to compare them to. I'm going to try and adress some of these faults but I've not much to work from so if someone who knows more (and has sources) add some more to it.( 86.25.251.62 ( talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I suspect some POV pushing, so I've tagged the article. There are fuel efficiency claims made in this article that are contradicted by the far better sourced Prius article. That, and sources which clearly state that the Insight is not as efficient as the Prius are cited, but their conclusions not really represented. The Prius is hardly mentioned at all. It's suspicious. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 07:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy Clarkson's comments are not an award. Have they been put there by someone with an agenda as his is the most outspoken negative comment to date, largely based on opinions as opposed to facts. Suggest they be removed and if necessary put in a new section. 86.40.105.213 ( talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Mac, it seems as though there are several editors that have a problem with the statements you have listed. My biggest problem with it is you've created a whole new section that is almost entirely too unbalanced. The fact that you keep inserting the statement assuming editors are fans of this vehicle is also simply assuming bad faith. It also looks like you've been warned several times for the reverting without discussion. So, this being the case, how can we solve this problem? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mac520, enough is enough. You are adding more and more quotes from Jeremy Clarkson to the point where you are practically including the entire transcript from his article (or Top Gear episode, if it came from there). Speaking of which, isn't this much quoting on the verge of copyright violation? There is no way you can justify having this much quotation, and don't give me "it would be dishonest to include the full quote". Opinion is not the kind of "honesty" that Wikipedia needs. If you want a full quote, link to it or add it to Wikiquotes. After all these returned/appended edits, is beginning to appear as though you either a) have a personal vendetta against the Honda Insight, or b) you are so entertained by Clarkson that you feel this is a place to share his writing. -- Vossanova o< 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
References
(or even less than 14,000 units according to other sources[7]).
1. I doubt the reliability of the source and whether it is referring Global sales. 2. According to Honda (see Hondanews.com), total sales in the U.S. upto (and including) MY 2005 is 13,164; MY 2006 sales is 722; total sales in Europe upto (and including) CY 2004 is 387 (the latest info available from that site); total sales in Japan upto CY 2004 is 2,115; total sales in Canada upto MY 2004 is 370. Total global sales (based on figures available) already reached 16,758. Clearly much closer to the figure from NYT. Therefore, I suggest removal. North wiki ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems various editors has different opinions on which should be the successor(s) of first gen. Insight: 2nd gen. Insight / Civic hybrid / CR-Z.
Can we discuss to have a consensus?
North wiki (
talk)
06:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope there's a consensus among editors before it's being removed.-- North wiki ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The monthly sales table appears to have crept back in. Completely unnecessary to have that level of information, even for an anorak such as myself. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I got the links from your post above of 04:57, 9 September 2010. Now you came out and claimed they were not discussions of monthly sales information. Interesting. --- North wiki ( talk) 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There was some suspicious marketing language in the "design" subsection of the second generation of the vehicle. Please keep an eye out for anything that looks like it was written by Honda or Toyota PR. Some guy ( talk) 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's worse than that. I'm not going to dismantle it myself but the whole second generation section looks like marketing blurb. It's gross. I say this as an admirer of the Insight, using the marketing materials as the source material for a product is behaviour reserved for lazy periodicals, and is not something that belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.13.151 ( talk) 01:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Car and Driver [1] sais: "About the size of a deli pie box, the 22-pound e-motor produces 13 horsepower and 36 pound-feet of torque. This augments the three-cylinder's 67 hp and 66 lb-ft, but because the peaks are different, the combined IMA output is 73 hp at 5700 rpm and 91 lb-ft at 2000 rpm." At present, this article says 25 ft #.
For the sake of future economy efforts, I felt the need to show that the "frumpy" or awkward looks of the rear are not a necessary consequence of the low drag. Zagato has made beautiful streamlined aluminum car bodies since soon after the end of World War II, and some Jaguars, perhaps the most flamboyant production cars of their time, had wheel skirts. More likely, Honda did not want to call in their best stylists or an Italian design house (as they did for the NSX) for a car that was not intended for large volume or great public attention. David R. Ingham ( talk) 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that value-based comparison of hybrids vs. non-hybrids is important to any reasonable buyer, but this test just doesn't have very much of a point.
They compare the base model Insight sedan ($18,200) to a Civic Coupe EX (highest trim level). Why not pit an Insight EX ($21,490) against a Civic Sedan EX ($20,405)? Why use a Coupe instead and use different trim levels? And what the heck is an Opportunity Cost and why does it matter to the study? This could be summed up in "Insight saves you $x,xxx in gas over a Civic over five years" and it doesn't provide enough unique/important/useful information to warrant its own section.
Bdc101 ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As the regular editors know I believe that there is nothing better for presenting a comparison than a well structured table, because for this type of content prose is to dense and hard for the readers to grasp the information. Nevertheless, every case should be assessed on its merits. In the particular case of the Insight table, most of the variables produce negligible savings so probably the information is better presented to the reader in prose summarizing the key items (such as saving due to fuel economy) that allow to pay off the sales price premium. Now, I do not think it is very productive to center the discussion about the claim that we are in the presence of the myth or not. There is plenty of reliable sources that support the fact that hybrids are more expensive to buy, and within average use (around 15K miles per year) only the most fuel efficient (above 35 to 40 mpg) pay off that premium in a relative short time (3 to 5 years). On the other extreme, mild hybrids do not produce enough fuel savings to cover the sales premium. So if the Insight is one of the car with a cost of ownership lower than a comparable ICE model (the model chose by the authors is reasonable and they are considered a RS), then I do not see any reason for not including this relevant information. Since consensus seems to be tilting toward prose vs a table, then please someone step forward and propose a draft text in lieu of the table, so that instead of endless arguing a suitable conclusion can be reached.-- Mariordo ( talk) 05:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I discarded the following Vincentric data:
but I did include the predicted cost of maintenance and repairs as well as the average cost of insurance. I wasn't sure if I should keep this since Vincentric does not cite where they found this information.
Feel free to use this as a starting point, or just throw it out. :) Bdc101 ( talk) 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am OK if we compare Honda Insight LX to Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto. Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto is from the same report but was compared to Civic Hybrid. Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto has less features than Insight LX but is closer in the vehicles class in a sense that it does not have a sporty image like Civic Coupe (hence Civic Coupe has a higher insurance cost).-- Yegort ( talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So how do we go from here? How do we resolve the differences of opinions? -- Yegort ( talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
References
Insight is "the first production vehicle to feature Honda's Integrated Motor Assist system. How, as Wiki editors, we can determine what is interesting, or not, to readers?--- North wiki ( talk) 04:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-And for that matter how it compares to the previous generation. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for manufacturers, this article should be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.13.151 ( talk) 01:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a source for this statement: "By March 2013, most of the 2000-2006 Insight hybrids have had their batteries replaced up to three times under warranty by Honda, a failure rate that has increased logarithmically with the passage of time." My 2005 MT has about 70k miles and is on its original battery, with no sign of impending failure. My brother's 2006 AT has over 100k miles and is on its original battery, with no sign of impending failure. I have not seen an indication in the insigntcentral.net forum that battery failures on the older cars are a huge issue, although there are known concerns about whether the replacement batteries are as good as the original ones. In any case, if there were a failure scenario, it would probably not be increasing logarithmically. It might be increasing geometrically or exponentially. Dlhagerman ( talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In the fuel efficiency section is the statement: "Some claim to get over 100 mpg (US)". Just to the right of that is a photo of the display of an Insight CVT showing 62 mpg over 134 miles, suggesting that a photo constitutes proof for Wikipedia???
I have 3 photos of my 2006 manual transmission Insight 1's display showing mpg values >100 over various distances. The highest one is 136.3mpg over 27.7 miles on I-90 between Worcester and the Natick Rest Area. This one was slightly unfair because the car was already fully warmed up when I began this segment. The elevation dropped 500' over this distance, so it was not all downhill. However I probably had a mild tailwind, certainly not a raging one. No I was not drafting anybody, it's far too dangerous for me. The other two photos ( 109.5 mpg over 138.1 miles and 112.3 mpg over 116.4 miles) reflect trips starting with a cold engine.
I'll be happy to post these photos if someone tells me how to do it. Hybrid driver ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There are some structure and appearance issues on the engines list of the 2nd generation chapter. I think all gasoline engines should be lister together first (with the distinction about the "Japan only" one) and likewise for the electric motors. I just don't know how to edit the page and show it that way. Also there is a wrong reference [2] there, I think. 79.107.44.127 ( talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Honda Insight article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm thinking as the new Honda insight goes to sale, this article is going to get very long. Compare with the Prius article. Probably most of the existing article should become a sub article for second generation insight. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by sub-article? My feeling is that we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the Second Generation now has its place. 842U ( talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this article, some of the terms such as fall and trunk and fender are American which some people from around the world may not be completely familiar with. When using such terms, would it not be useful to add alternatives in brackets, such as Fall (Autumn), Trunk (Boot)? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.163.66.253 (
talk)
10:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe that we sould reconsider a sub article for the second generation Honda insight because it has been three years and a lot more information has been added to the article and has become to lengthy and over cluttered-- Aaaaplay ( talk) 11:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
Most people coming to the article are interested in the new insight and the first image should be the new insight. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." It could not be clearer on that point. If you can think of something besides quality for which to make a rational decision for infobox image placement that is not clearly excluded as a possible criterion, feel free to propose it. IFCAR ( talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IFCAR. Going through the current group of assets, I don't see an image of higher quality than the current lead image. roguegeek ( talk· cont) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with IFCAR also. The older model is more representative of the Insight's history, while the new image is well, more representative of its current status. Which looks a lot like a Prius lol. --
76.204.94.183 (
talk)
04:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
As there is now an image of suitable quality to use for the top image, I went ahead and changed it to the more recent model.
ThomasAndrewNimmo (
talk)
16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
For those of you who would like to see the lead image show an updated image of the current Honda Insight, any attempt to update it without the approval of IFCAR will be reverted until he decides it is time to update the image, usually with a photo that IFCAR has personally taken. There is a long history of this type of issue with IFCAR.
IFCAR please update the photo with an image of the current Insight that meets with your approval.( Regushee ( talk) 03:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
Against: WP:CARPIX, which was developed through a strong consensus to avoid case-by-case arguments such as this one. The "for" users who want to use a lower-quality photo because it depicts a newer car should change the guideline, not this specific case. If someone takes a photo of the 2nd-gen Insight that is better than the existing first-gen photo, that would be used; until then, it should not. This has been discussed ad nauseum across the WikiProject Autos project. IFCAR ( talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
By what measure are you defining higher quality? Aesthetics, pixel count, or something else? I am not being facetious, but when you state "higher quality" repeatedly it sounds like a subjective excuse to revert repeatedly. In what way does it violate
Wikipedia:CARPIX#Minimum_image_standards?
In terms of asthetics, I would say that almost any other picture would be better than that lime green color. If you are considering pixel count, the new picture is 1,936 × 1,164 pixels, while the old picture is 1,706 × 960 pixels. Ng.j ( talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Going through this discussion, there is a clear consensus that the lead picture should be changed. Multiple users overs the last few years have changed the lead picture, but it has been reverted every time by a single user. Ng.j ( talk) 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For image of new insight Daniel.Cardenas de Facto THD3 David Arthur ThomasAndrewNimmo Rfsmit Regushee Ng.j
Needs higher quality image before change (against): roguegeek
The issue of using a second generation picture has been Resolved. The only remaining debate is whether other pictures are of higher quality, which is a subjective debate. Ng.j ( talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
An agreement regarding images has been reached. Ng.j ( talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is to change the current picture. Arguments center around image quality (subjective). Ng.j ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The way its written suggests the car is only going to be sold in the US, which simply isn't true. Also the prices are meaning less to everyone outside of NA as we've nothing to compare them to. I'm going to try and adress some of these faults but I've not much to work from so if someone who knows more (and has sources) add some more to it.( 86.25.251.62 ( talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
I suspect some POV pushing, so I've tagged the article. There are fuel efficiency claims made in this article that are contradicted by the far better sourced Prius article. That, and sources which clearly state that the Insight is not as efficient as the Prius are cited, but their conclusions not really represented. The Prius is hardly mentioned at all. It's suspicious. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 07:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeremy Clarkson's comments are not an award. Have they been put there by someone with an agenda as his is the most outspoken negative comment to date, largely based on opinions as opposed to facts. Suggest they be removed and if necessary put in a new section. 86.40.105.213 ( talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Mac, it seems as though there are several editors that have a problem with the statements you have listed. My biggest problem with it is you've created a whole new section that is almost entirely too unbalanced. The fact that you keep inserting the statement assuming editors are fans of this vehicle is also simply assuming bad faith. It also looks like you've been warned several times for the reverting without discussion. So, this being the case, how can we solve this problem? roguegeek ( talk· cont) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mac520, enough is enough. You are adding more and more quotes from Jeremy Clarkson to the point where you are practically including the entire transcript from his article (or Top Gear episode, if it came from there). Speaking of which, isn't this much quoting on the verge of copyright violation? There is no way you can justify having this much quotation, and don't give me "it would be dishonest to include the full quote". Opinion is not the kind of "honesty" that Wikipedia needs. If you want a full quote, link to it or add it to Wikiquotes. After all these returned/appended edits, is beginning to appear as though you either a) have a personal vendetta against the Honda Insight, or b) you are so entertained by Clarkson that you feel this is a place to share his writing. -- Vossanova o< 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
References
(or even less than 14,000 units according to other sources[7]).
1. I doubt the reliability of the source and whether it is referring Global sales. 2. According to Honda (see Hondanews.com), total sales in the U.S. upto (and including) MY 2005 is 13,164; MY 2006 sales is 722; total sales in Europe upto (and including) CY 2004 is 387 (the latest info available from that site); total sales in Japan upto CY 2004 is 2,115; total sales in Canada upto MY 2004 is 370. Total global sales (based on figures available) already reached 16,758. Clearly much closer to the figure from NYT. Therefore, I suggest removal. North wiki ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems various editors has different opinions on which should be the successor(s) of first gen. Insight: 2nd gen. Insight / Civic hybrid / CR-Z.
Can we discuss to have a consensus?
North wiki (
talk)
06:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope there's a consensus among editors before it's being removed.-- North wiki ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The monthly sales table appears to have crept back in. Completely unnecessary to have that level of information, even for an anorak such as myself. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 08:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I got the links from your post above of 04:57, 9 September 2010. Now you came out and claimed they were not discussions of monthly sales information. Interesting. --- North wiki ( talk) 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There was some suspicious marketing language in the "design" subsection of the second generation of the vehicle. Please keep an eye out for anything that looks like it was written by Honda or Toyota PR. Some guy ( talk) 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's worse than that. I'm not going to dismantle it myself but the whole second generation section looks like marketing blurb. It's gross. I say this as an admirer of the Insight, using the marketing materials as the source material for a product is behaviour reserved for lazy periodicals, and is not something that belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.13.151 ( talk) 01:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Car and Driver [1] sais: "About the size of a deli pie box, the 22-pound e-motor produces 13 horsepower and 36 pound-feet of torque. This augments the three-cylinder's 67 hp and 66 lb-ft, but because the peaks are different, the combined IMA output is 73 hp at 5700 rpm and 91 lb-ft at 2000 rpm." At present, this article says 25 ft #.
For the sake of future economy efforts, I felt the need to show that the "frumpy" or awkward looks of the rear are not a necessary consequence of the low drag. Zagato has made beautiful streamlined aluminum car bodies since soon after the end of World War II, and some Jaguars, perhaps the most flamboyant production cars of their time, had wheel skirts. More likely, Honda did not want to call in their best stylists or an Italian design house (as they did for the NSX) for a car that was not intended for large volume or great public attention. David R. Ingham ( talk) 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that value-based comparison of hybrids vs. non-hybrids is important to any reasonable buyer, but this test just doesn't have very much of a point.
They compare the base model Insight sedan ($18,200) to a Civic Coupe EX (highest trim level). Why not pit an Insight EX ($21,490) against a Civic Sedan EX ($20,405)? Why use a Coupe instead and use different trim levels? And what the heck is an Opportunity Cost and why does it matter to the study? This could be summed up in "Insight saves you $x,xxx in gas over a Civic over five years" and it doesn't provide enough unique/important/useful information to warrant its own section.
Bdc101 ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As the regular editors know I believe that there is nothing better for presenting a comparison than a well structured table, because for this type of content prose is to dense and hard for the readers to grasp the information. Nevertheless, every case should be assessed on its merits. In the particular case of the Insight table, most of the variables produce negligible savings so probably the information is better presented to the reader in prose summarizing the key items (such as saving due to fuel economy) that allow to pay off the sales price premium. Now, I do not think it is very productive to center the discussion about the claim that we are in the presence of the myth or not. There is plenty of reliable sources that support the fact that hybrids are more expensive to buy, and within average use (around 15K miles per year) only the most fuel efficient (above 35 to 40 mpg) pay off that premium in a relative short time (3 to 5 years). On the other extreme, mild hybrids do not produce enough fuel savings to cover the sales premium. So if the Insight is one of the car with a cost of ownership lower than a comparable ICE model (the model chose by the authors is reasonable and they are considered a RS), then I do not see any reason for not including this relevant information. Since consensus seems to be tilting toward prose vs a table, then please someone step forward and propose a draft text in lieu of the table, so that instead of endless arguing a suitable conclusion can be reached.-- Mariordo ( talk) 05:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I discarded the following Vincentric data:
but I did include the predicted cost of maintenance and repairs as well as the average cost of insurance. I wasn't sure if I should keep this since Vincentric does not cite where they found this information.
Feel free to use this as a starting point, or just throw it out. :) Bdc101 ( talk) 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am OK if we compare Honda Insight LX to Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto. Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto is from the same report but was compared to Civic Hybrid. Honda Civic Sedan LX Auto has less features than Insight LX but is closer in the vehicles class in a sense that it does not have a sporty image like Civic Coupe (hence Civic Coupe has a higher insurance cost).-- Yegort ( talk) 04:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So how do we go from here? How do we resolve the differences of opinions? -- Yegort ( talk) 04:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
References
Insight is "the first production vehicle to feature Honda's Integrated Motor Assist system. How, as Wiki editors, we can determine what is interesting, or not, to readers?--- North wiki ( talk) 04:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-And for that matter how it compares to the previous generation. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for manufacturers, this article should be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.13.151 ( talk) 01:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a source for this statement: "By March 2013, most of the 2000-2006 Insight hybrids have had their batteries replaced up to three times under warranty by Honda, a failure rate that has increased logarithmically with the passage of time." My 2005 MT has about 70k miles and is on its original battery, with no sign of impending failure. My brother's 2006 AT has over 100k miles and is on its original battery, with no sign of impending failure. I have not seen an indication in the insigntcentral.net forum that battery failures on the older cars are a huge issue, although there are known concerns about whether the replacement batteries are as good as the original ones. In any case, if there were a failure scenario, it would probably not be increasing logarithmically. It might be increasing geometrically or exponentially. Dlhagerman ( talk) 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In the fuel efficiency section is the statement: "Some claim to get over 100 mpg (US)". Just to the right of that is a photo of the display of an Insight CVT showing 62 mpg over 134 miles, suggesting that a photo constitutes proof for Wikipedia???
I have 3 photos of my 2006 manual transmission Insight 1's display showing mpg values >100 over various distances. The highest one is 136.3mpg over 27.7 miles on I-90 between Worcester and the Natick Rest Area. This one was slightly unfair because the car was already fully warmed up when I began this segment. The elevation dropped 500' over this distance, so it was not all downhill. However I probably had a mild tailwind, certainly not a raging one. No I was not drafting anybody, it's far too dangerous for me. The other two photos ( 109.5 mpg over 138.1 miles and 112.3 mpg over 116.4 miles) reflect trips starting with a cold engine.
I'll be happy to post these photos if someone tells me how to do it. Hybrid driver ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Honda Insight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There are some structure and appearance issues on the engines list of the 2nd generation chapter. I think all gasoline engines should be lister together first (with the distinction about the "Japan only" one) and likewise for the electric motors. I just don't know how to edit the page and show it that way. Also there is a wrong reference [2] there, I think. 79.107.44.127 ( talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)