Filed under: Economy, Government/Legal, Safety, Hatchbacks, Honda
Fit for Debate, Fit for Rebate
Honda's Canadian subsidiary is facing an interesting choice: fuel economy at the expense of safety.
New federal regulations recently passed in Canada award a $1000 rebate for cars that fall below a fuel consumption threshold, set at 6.5 liters per 100 kilometers in that wacky metric system. While the competing Toyota Yaris tests at 6.3l/100km, Honda's smallest offering, the Fit, sits just on the line at 6.5.
Honda figures the differential is created by the host of safety features – including more air bags and anti-lock brakes – which it includes with the Fit which do not come standard on the Yaris. Strip the safety features out, however, and Honda is confident the extra weight saved would bring the Fit below the limit and qualify for the federal rebate.
The question is surely not unique, as carmakers face similar issues in different markets around the globe. But it casts light onto the whole question of safety versus economy, even before cost considerations come into the picture. For your dime, and for your planet, is it worth sacrificing your safety?
[Source: Windsor Star via Vancouver Sun]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
mcheddadi 3:15PM (4/22/2007)
the metric system is the only system, everything else is irrelevant to the world.
Reply
Tyler 3:21PM (4/22/2007)
Imagine how many safety features we could take off if we didn't have Semi trucks with pill popping drivers and soccer moms driving huge 8,000 pound SUVs. Then again, think about how safe roads would be if ever one actually paid attention and drove well.
Reply
Bill Prince 3:29PM (4/22/2007)
Man-made global warming is a fraud. How dissappointing (and pathetic) is it that governments see fit to dictate overbearing restrictions on producers and consuners which ultimately harm the public by tempting manufacturers to delete safety equipment from their cars!
Reply
Aprime 3:30PM (4/22/2007)
Noah, you guys already said the same thing about this weeks ago, I don't see why you're bringing it back now (probably because you guys barely talk to each other or something like that).
Reply
Nick 3:46PM (4/22/2007)
No one cares about the metric system.
Reply
Jeff 3:48PM (4/22/2007)
Bill Prince is a fraud. How dissapointing (and pathetic).
Reply
Paul Y 3:56PM (4/22/2007)
Why on earth do cars need so much power, other than to sell cars to idiots with impressive-sounding numbers?
My girlfriend had a 95 Escort that, when new, claimed 88hp. In it's last days, if it was putting out 60hp, that would probably be generous, and it managed to be (just barely) driveable.
Not everyone needs a 0-60 time of less than eight seconds, and/or 6000lb station wagons. Sorry, America.
Reply
Greek Boy 3:57PM (4/22/2007)
Bill Prince is right,
people have been trying to prove that man is causing fluctuations in earths avg temp for years and still can't.
Did you all know that GW was first considered back in 1880's? Scientists detected a slight change even then. The heavily funded scientific community is running out of time to try and prove this fallacy before we all call BS. At 130+ years later, slight variations (both pos & neg)in avg temps have done nothing to try and prove a silly theory. What about the fluctuations in temp coming from the sun???
SUV's causing GW = BS
Reply
Lucas 3:59PM (4/22/2007)
Is this anti-antipollution rhetoric dressed up as health and safety pandering? Me thinks so.
#2 is right: Less SUVs would do more than more airbags. Also, I know, seatbelt compliance would probably be another good idea.
Reply
Chet 4:28PM (4/22/2007)
Sucks to be at the edge of the cutoff. It would be more fair, but likely impenetrable to the consumer, to have a sliding scale.
Almost every car trades safety or cost for fuel-efficiency. Moving some safety features from standard to optional to sneak under the arbitrary limit just means that Honda has to adjust its marketing a bit.
Reply
Bill Prince 4:37PM (4/22/2007)
I don't know how old the average autoblog reader is (#6 sounds like he's thirteen), but here's a little historical perspective for many of you: a 2007 Honda Fit is so many orders of magnitude cleaner than any car from the 1970s that it is embarassing to consider deleting ABS and airbags from them in order to meet some arbitrary, baseless bureaucratic mandate.
In the 1970s and 80s when people wanted to kill themselves they'd start their car in the garage with the garage door down and in a few minutes they assumed room temperature. When was the last time you ever heard of someone doing that? You CAN'T with a modern car!
A little perspective can be helpful to the myopic sheep who want to believe they can change the course of a climate by pulling airbags out of other people's cars.
Reply
Kowell 4:39PM (4/22/2007)
"12. I got owned by the metric sytem, went to canada and went to buy gas, "WOW, look it's only a dollar a gallon", 60$ later and realizing its per liter, yeah i got owned.."
You got owned pretty bad considering that you guys pay it about 65% of what we pay it north of the border....
Reply
naggs 4:59PM (4/22/2007)
Bill, yes modern cars are orders of magnitude cleaner than cars of the 60-70s but only in terms of smog and particulate emissions. no more black and blue clouds of smoke. that kind of air polution is completly different than CO2 which causes global warming. CO2 is a direct byproduct of burning things for energy and as long as we are getting most of our energy from buring stuff we pull out of the ground we will be contributing to global warming.
if all the airbags were taken out of all the cars in the world, the difference would be huge. as it is, its illegal to sell cars with out mandatory dead weight that esentially puts a minimum on how much damage we do to the atmosphere to drive a mile.
i seriously had no idea that anyone still thought global warming was a myth, wow guys. even bush has conceded that. seriously, pick up a newspaper or even talk to your minister. its not a debate anymore guys, the debate now is how screwed are we.
Reply
BKadalur 5:00PM (4/22/2007)
that's why i drive an underpowered 1.8 liter audi. mileage is reasonable at around 28-30 highway, but it's safe. that's what concerned me the most.
Reply
doglet 5:02PM (4/22/2007)
"Almost every car trades safety or cost for fuel-efficiency."
its not almost, its every single one of them, by law...
Reply
Praeliber 5:06PM (4/22/2007)
Comme on, tHat Bullsh** form honda. If they really want to achieve 0,2 liter per 100km they just have to put longer gears in 5th and they'll have that freaking rebate. Man, this is suppose to be the Red Giant, put some effort guys... Toyota has a Yaris hatch that manage to do it without throwing out abs and airbag....
Reply
BillPrince 5:15PM (4/22/2007)
#15: "i seriously had no idea that anyone still thought global warming was a myth, wow guys. even bush has conceded that. seriously, pick up a newspaper or even talk to your minister. its not a debate anymore guys, the debate now is how screwed are we."
Uhhh...hold on.
The Chicken Little "sky is falling" prospect of "man-made" global warming is most certainly contested by scientists. Dr. William Grey, the famous hurricance expert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray) is one you may have heard of.
If Honda Fits are responsive for "global warming", how many of them were being driven around in the 1400s? From Greenland's journalist Richard Hollingham: "A ruined church on the banks of a fjord marks the remains of a Viking farming civilisation. The sun casts shadows through the arched window to the site of the altar, last used in the 1400s before the area was abandoned when it became too cold to support habitation".
It is generally agreed that the earth's temperature has risn 0.4 degrees Farenheit in the past 120 years or so. Contrast that with the aforementioned shift from a warmer period to a cooler period and realize just how silly all of the GW prophets sound.
Reply
seoultrain 5:39PM (4/22/2007)
Do people still not know that you can find tons of info to support either side of the global warming debate? Frankly, I stopped caring just because there's too much bad info out there. There are people who are making way too much out of it, and people who aren't taking it seriously at all, like any issue.
Reply
Hat 5:40PM (4/22/2007)
#18: The Yaris only has 2 front airbags and does NOT has ABS standard equipment. The Fit has 6 airbags and STANDARD ABS. The Yaris cannot be offered with the side and curtain airbags in Canada and ABS can only be bought as a package for the Yaris in Canada.
In some ways, just lighten up the panels, do something with the transmissions, lighten up the weight somewhere, just don't do it where it'll sacrifice people's safety. And don't forget to lower the price too. haha
Reply
Jaymez 5:53PM (4/22/2007)
The less air bags in a vehicle, the better. When I'm looking at new vehicles, I look for whichever model has the least amount of air bags in it. I don't want 'em. I don't want crumple zones, either. I want my vehicle solid as a rock.
As for global warming, yes it's a fact. It's also a fact it's been happening longer than we've been around. Now, we're in a supposed warming trend. It's arrogant to think that humans could destroy this planet. All the save the planet folks are really saying is "save the people".
Reply