Filed under: Car Buying, Economy, Green, Hatchbacks, Honda
Nasty Fit: Honda calls out Ottawa government over federal rebate
The Canadian p
One of the Fit's direct competitors, the Toyota Yaris, consumes 6.4 liters/100km, and is thus eligible for the rebate. As such, according to this report, Toyota is practically the only automaker in Canada not upset about the federal rebate program that officially began on March 19th. Perhaps that's because sales of the Yaris in Canada grew by 15% in April, the first full month the rebate was offered. Sales of most its competitors that weren't eligible for the rebate reportedly fell, some by double digits.
Though it has voiced its concerns to Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Honda is stepping out and fighting back. The company has bought ad space in newspapers across Canada and is publishing an open letter that criticizes the Canadian government's rebate program. If any Canadian reader finds the ad, we'd love to know everything that's said, but one quote from Honda president Hiroshi Kobayashi will be, "At Honda, we offer pride of ownership because we do not sacrifice safety for the environment." Honda is also offering its own $1,000 rebate on the Fit to match the government's offer, even making it retroactive for those who purchased a Fit all the way back to March 19th.
You hear that? It's Honda's Kobayashi saying, "Eat it, Flaherty!"
Thanks for the tip, Rob!
[Souce: The Globe and Mail]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
bob&doug 2:58PM (5/18/2007)
Ottawa isn't a province, it's the capital city of Canada.
Reply
Aaron 3:06PM (5/18/2007)
lmao the canadian province of ottawa, you nodoubt mean ontario..
Either way, these rebates have AIDS - well actually the gas guzzler tax of the other side of it is what has AIDS. We get nailed everytime we fill up at the pump as our sexy healthcare system is heavily subsidized by gas taxes.
The conservative government played to the pinkos presumably to help protect their own hides..
in other news my powerstroke has been running since last tuesday in protest, and Honda Canada can cry me a river. If you miss the cut off you miss the cut off.
Reply
bernie 3:06PM (5/18/2007)
If you are a nation the size and pouplation density of Canada and you've set a fuel economy bar at a level where the Fit and the Versa don't qualify, you need to revisit your rules.
Reply
Hamud 3:06PM (5/18/2007)
#1 Took the words out of my mouth, or keyboard.
Reply
FredericB 3:08PM (5/18/2007)
Ottawa is not a Province.
Reply
Big Mike Wood 3:10PM (5/18/2007)
Bunch of Honda crybabies. If this was GM you guys would be ripping them a new hole.
Reply
rrr 3:13PM (5/18/2007)
Look i love what Honda does, they do great stuff. But, look the government has the right to put their own terms. If Honda wants that $1000 they need to keep all that safety stuff but come up with a more efficient engine or somehow lose the weight and still keep safety equipment.
Its called evolution..............something Wagoner knows nothing about.
Reply
J. Kempe 3:13PM (5/18/2007)
I like that they realize they can't compete without the rebate so they spin it to sound like they are fighting Canada by giving a rebate that the country 'should have' given them, when in reality its like Ford putting a rebate on their 500 so that it can sel against its competitors. Nice spin.
Reply
XJ 3:19PM (5/18/2007)
Honda sounds like the B student who missed getting an A by 1%.
Reply
John Neff 3:20PM (5/18/2007)
My bad on the "Ottawa province" miss. Shows my American-centric bias I guess, though I'm working on it :)
I have to disagree and side with Honda on this. It's not that the government shouldn't be allowed to offer a rebate, I just don't think it researched the market enough before it chose the cutoff as 6.4L/100km. By doing so, it effectively is subsidizing a very small number of vehicles over others that can hardly be called gas guzzlers because they miss the mark by .1L/100km. It just appears to me that Toyota is getting an artificial boost from the government because of this. The rebate is fine, but its not promoting the class of small, fuel efficient cars to people, it's promoting very specific cars, which seems unfair.
Reply
JohnC 3:20PM (5/18/2007)
Toyota wins again. Honda get in line behind GM,Ford,Chrysler,Nissan,Jauguar,Mazda,BMW,Mercedes, Volvo,Range Rover,Hyundia,Jeep etc..........
Reply
mj 3:29PM (5/18/2007)
Here's a surprise: Honda doesn't pitch a FIT in the USA because they split all of California's legislators with Toyota and get whatever they want. Like no diesels in cars just before they roll out THEIR special diesel engine.
And, hey, HONDA, I think the entire IDEA of the law is to get you to change your car slightly to qualify.
Reply
Eric B 3:30PM (5/18/2007)
Actually Big Mike, you got it all wrong, like a typical import basher.
Honda is actually doing something about it instead of pleading for a government handout to bail out their crappy product.
Booya
Reply
Peter 3:30PM (5/18/2007)
Nothing wrong with the incentive. Honda is full of BS on this. The fit doesn't get mileage partly because it is as aerodynamic as a brick. Hondas, bigger, heavier, bigger engined civic beats Fit on the highway.
The number should be hard to beat. Why have an incentive that most cars already meet. You want to encourage innovation and improvement, you set the bar high. I would have set it so most cars miss it.
Reply
Joshua 3:31PM (5/18/2007)
Both sides are correct - the government has a duty to set laws in the public interest independent of corporate interference, however Honda definitely did get screwed by this particular random law. Laws of this type should be designed to apply on a sliding scale. For example for every .1 L/100km of improved mileage under 7.0L/100km you $100 off the purchase price up to $1000. Of course this was put through for purely political reasons (to make our oil fueled conservative government look green) and the lure of a bullet point law will win over a rational alternative every time.
Reply
Erik 3:31PM (5/18/2007)
Honda you bunch of crybabies. You think the government of Canada should base it's legislation around the fuel economy of your puny, pathetic econobox? You relly think they should amend the law JUST so you can boost your sales? And what if they did? Then the company who produces the 6.8l/100k car would start whining and complaining? You car didn't make the cut. Sorry. Deal with it.
Reply
Chet 3:35PM (5/18/2007)
The problem is that it's a hard cutoff. It should be a more graduated scale. If there was a $900 rebate for the Fit, there'd be nothing to talk about... except how many people were buying Fits instead of much-less-efficient vehicles.
Of course, even as-is, Canada's rules are far ahead of the US' incentiveless "demand magic stuff from automakers" system. If WE had an inverse to the gas-guzzler tax, we'd see a jump in average fuel economy.
Reply
dsmalls 3:45PM (5/18/2007)
I think Honda has a point here. The line was arbitrary, and the Yaris does not come with side curtain airbags which are significant for passenger safety in these small cars. Honda does not want to have to rip up their "safety for all" philosophy just because some suit in Ottawa sneezed when he came up with the 6.5 number. Toyota on the other hand, has always made safety equipment optional.
BTW, just because the Yaris looks like a fish, doesn't mean it's more aerodynamic.
Reply
Peter 3:56PM (5/18/2007)
I agree the line was arbitrary. Make it tougher, not easier if it needs to change.
Side air bags don't significantly contribute to fuel Economy losses. In real world tests the Fit lags the Yaris in fuel economy by a couple of MPG. 20lbs of safety equipment are not going to save a couple of MPG. Whether it is better aerodynamic or better power train engineering is debatable, it is certainly isn't airbags.
The hard cutoff pushes more people to by the really efficient vehicle than a soft cutoff would.
Honda needs to suck it up, just like everyone else who didn't make the cut. Hondas civic hybrid will make the cut BTW.
I like this credit, because they now have incentive to make more efficient cars.
Reply
JC3 4:10PM (5/18/2007)
Honda...is the Yaris less safe than the Fit?
Reply