Edmunds.com Announces True Cost to Own(R) Award Winners: Honda and Ford Vehicles Shine

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Jul 25, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Honda Motor Co. won five categories in the 2011 Lowest True Cost to Own(R) Awards, given by Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information. The awards name the 2011 model year cars and trucks in 23 categories that offer the lowest True Cost to Own(R) (TCO(R)), which is the projected ownership cost over a five-year period.

The 2011 Honda Accord earned victories in two categories: Coupes $25-$35K and Sedans $20K-$30K. Honda's other award winners are the Honda Civic Hybrid (Hybrids), the Honda Ridgeline (Large Light Duty Truck) and the Honda Pilot (SUV $35K-$45K).

Ford Motor Co. also had a strong showing in this year's awards, with Edmunds.com recognizing the Ford Ranger (Compact Truck), the Ford Flex (Wagon Over $35K), the Ford Fiesta (Sedan Under $20K) and the Ford Transit Connect (Van/Minivan).

The other automotive brands receiving at least two awards were Chevrolet and Cadillac.
"One of the key factors that pushed many of this year's award winners over the top was their free maintenance plans, which can save car owners hundreds or even thousands of dollars over a five-year period," said Danny Zhou, senior director of data products and operations at Edmunds.com. "The 2011 Volkswagen CC, for example, edged past its closest competitors in the Sedan $30K-$40K category in large part because it offers free maintenance for three years or 36,000 miles."

To calculate the Lowest True Cost to Own(R) winners, Edmunds.com uses an algorithm that takes into account depreciation, interest on financing, taxes and fees, insurance premiums, fuel, maintenance, repairs and any federal tax credit that may be available. In order to estimate certain mileage-dependent costs, Edmunds.com assumes that vehicles will be driven 15,000 miles per year. Only vehicles launched during the period from July 29, 2010 to April 14, 2011 were considered for the 2011 awards.

To see the full list of all 23 winners this year, please visit the award page at http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/2011-lowest-cost-to-own.html .

Consumers can learn more about Edmunds.com's True Cost to Own(R) (TCO(R)) before they buy their next car at http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html .

About Edmunds.com, Inc. ( http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/index.html )
Edmunds.com Inc. publishes Web sites that empower, engage and educate automotive consumers, enthusiasts and insiders. Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information, launched in 1995 as the first automotive information Web site. Its mobile site, accessible from any smartphone at www.edmunds.com , makes car pricing and other research tools available for car shoppers at dealerships and otherwise on the go. InsideLine.com is the most-read automotive enthusiast Web site. Its mobile site, accessible from any smartphone at www.insideline.com , features the wireless Web's highest quality car photos and videos. AutoObserver.com provides insightful automotive industry commentary and analysis. Edmunds.com Inc. is headquartered in Santa Monica, California, and maintains a satellite office in suburban Detroit. Follow Edmunds.com on Twitter@edmunds and fan Edmunds.com on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/edmunds .

Source;
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/edmundscom-announces-true-cost-to-ownr-award-winners-honda-and-ford-vehicles-shine-2011-07-25?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Edmunds.com Review: 2011 Honda CR-Z First Drive

A Tesla Roadster at a Honda Price
By Peter Nunn, Contributor Published Mar 17, 2010
Finally the 2011 Honda CR-Z has come down off the stand at the auto shows and it's sitting right here on the asphalt on Naruto Skyline, a mountain road down the spine of Shikoku, the smallest of the main islands of Japan. We've been waiting to get behind the wheel of this car since the concept first appeared at the 2007 Tokyo Motor Show, and now we're getting our chance.

Already there's plenty of hype building for the car's introduction to the U.S. late this summer, as American Honda has already built a Web site to promote the car's arrival. But this is the real car in front of us, ready to be released into the Japanese market, and Honda officials tell us that the American version won't be much different.

The 2011 Honda CR-Z asks a lot of questions. The recession has dramatically affected Honda's adventurous engineering spirit, and the company has had to sell its Formula 1 team, cancel the development of its new front-engine replacement for the Acura NSX and end the sale of the Honda S2000 in America. Does this company still have the imaginative engineering that makes it so different?

The Honda CR-Z is certainly a different kind of car. A hybrid can be a lot of things. Clean, clever and fuel-efficient, without a doubt, and a poster child for a forthcoming generation of sensible cars. But fun?

Smart Car
Honda has been working hard to make sure that the 2011 Honda CR-Z makes us remember the Honda CR-X, its two-passenger coupe built from 1983-'91. Just as with the CR-X, the mission here has been to build a small, smart, eco-friendly coupe for the modern era. Lightness and efficiency are the key attributes, because the combination of 122 horsepower and a curb weight north of 2,550 pounds tells you the CR-Z is not going to be blowing too many doors off a Bugatti Veyron any time soon.

Here on the Naruto Skyline, the CR-Z defies its critics in cyberspace, who have been quick to dismiss the idea of the first hybrid with a six-speed manual transmission. It proves surprisingly taut, sporty, agile and entertaining as it tackles the twists and turns of the Shikoku roads.

Of course, it's a totally different car from the CR-X coupe. That is to say, it's not some kind of cut-down Honda Civic coupe with a manic 1.6-liter VTEC twin-cam engine screaming its way to an 8,000-rpm redline. Nor is it a redo of the original Honda Insight, the slippery 1.0-liter hybrid coupe that Honda launched back in 1999 as the first hybrid to go on sale in the U.S.

Fact is, the 2011 Honda CR-Z falls somewhere between the two — both in terms of design and in the amount of performance on offer. Honda believes that this is the right combination to build a network of CR-Z enthusiasts from Mini-type buyers who like the idea of a smart premium-style compact, only with the green image that a hybrid conveys.

The CR-Z is like a Tesla Roadster, but without the $109,000 price tag.

Hybrid CAFE Racer
While the CR-Z is loosely based on the current four-door Honda Insight sedan, you'll be cheered to know that the Honda engineers have massively improved the formula by shortening the wheelbase, widening the front and rear track and making the structure far more rigid.

The car measures 160.6 inches from end to end, 68.5 inches wide and only 54.9 inches to the tip of its antenna. The wheelbase is 95.8 inches, some 4.6 inches shorter than the Insight, and the CR-Z retains the suspension of the Insight platform with front MacPherson struts and a rear torsion-beam setup. The bad news is, Honda claims only a 97-pound reduction in weight from the Insight sedan.

Once you pull open the somewhat heavy door, a novel interior design awaits, a kind of cost-conscious, Honda-type attempt to deliver the arty style of a Mini or Fiat 500. The low-set driving position is just what you want in a performance car, and the pedals and shift lever feel perfectly placed. The sport seat offers fine all-around support and looks good. The instrument panel is a busy mass of buttons, lights and switches, but there are cool touches like the usual entertaining display of power flow through the internal combustion engine and hybrid system.

Don't look back, though, because rear vision is badly hampered by that dramatic, sloping roof line, especially into the blind spots over your shoulders. In Japan, the CR-Z comes as a 2+2 with kid-size jump seats behind you, but the new small Honda will be strictly a two-passenger vehicle in the U.S.

It's the Power
The DOHC 1,496cc inline-4 with i-VTEC variable valve timing and lift comes from the Honda Fit, and it delivers 111 hp at 6,000 rpm and 106 pound-feet of torque at 4,800 rpm. It's matched up with a six-speed manual transmission with ratios selected from the European Civic.

Just like the Insight, the 2011 Honda CR-Z features a parallel hybrid system with an electric motor powered by nickel-metal hydride batteries. The motor is rated by Honda at 13 hp, and some complicated calculations by the engineers (don't ask) lead Honda to rate the combined output of the CR-Z's powertrain at 122 hp at 6,000 rpm and 128 pound-feet of torque at 1,000-1,500 rpm (123 pound-feet when equipped with the optional CVT).

The CR-Z adds sport to the hybrid system with a three-mode drive system. Three backlit buttons on the dash give you the choice of Economy, Normal or Sport, and the inner ring of the tachometer is illuminated in green, blue or red to match. Each mode offers a different combination of throttle response, steering effort, idle-stop time and power from the hybrid system.

It's Alive!
Once you bring the engine to life, you'll recognize the uninspiring clatter. But when you select a gear from the six-speed manual, your frame of reference shifts along with the gears, as this tight, precise, short-throw linkage makes you think of the CR-X.

From the first, the CR-Z's chassis also feels infinitely better than you expect, far better damped than the Insight and with an incisive feel to the way it responds to the steering. The front struts have forged-aluminum lower control arms to reduce unsprung weight, while the compact, H-shape torsion beam in the rear (which helps make it possible to package the batteries unobtrusively) doesn't feel like a handicap.

And in the cut and thrust of driving — both in the city and on back roads — the 2011 Honda CR-Z feels sharp and punchy. Put that down to the extra push (in the way of torque) provided by the electric motor. In the Honda hybrid style, the electric motor is more than just a device to make it possible to stop and start the 1.5-liter engine at stoplights or propel the car silently across parking lots. Instead the motor delivers a maximum of 42 lb-ft of torque just as the 1.5-liter gas engine is getting into its stride. As a result, the CR-Z's powertrain has a sweet spot between 1,000 and 5,000 rpm on the tachometer, a smooth, seamless blend of power that gives the CR-Z a zest you don't expect.

On the highway, the CR-Z cruises easily at 80 mph, the sportified suspension giving a firm but not harsh ride. Up over the Naruto Skyline, the CR-Z uses its quick-ratio electric-assist steering, tight front suspension calibration and wide 195/55R16 Bridgestone Potenza RE050A tires on special lightweight wheels to turn into corners well and neatly stay on line. There's good consistency to the steering feel and the CR-Z seems entirely predictable and linear in the way it behaves.

We also tried the 2011 Honda CR-Z with its optional continuously variable transmission (CVT), and even with the slightly detuned engine (111 hp; 106 lb-ft of torque) required in this configuration, the car still accelerates briskly and smoothly.

Three Modes of Go
Gearheads, now look away.

This Fit-based 1.5 is no sports-car engine and starts to get loud at around 5,000 rpm. Keep the hammer down and all too soon you find the engine stuttering as it hits the ignition cutout at 6,500 rpm. Worked hard, the engine sounds flat and hard — not exciting at all. And when you're on the limit rather than just pushing along, the CR-Z gives in to soggy, plowing understeer, and the body rolls over in distress. And a few hot runs up and down the hills soon had the brakes smoking. Yikes.

There is, meantime, a big difference if you choose the Sport button over Economy. Throttle response is massively sharper in Sport (as it should be) and the Honda feels as if it's suddenly gained an extra 50 hp. But remember, on the hybrid side, there is no EV mode in Economy as such, and the CR-Z doesn't run in silent, zero-emissions mode like a Prius.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, American Honda tells us that we can expect the six-speed CR-Z to record 31 mpg city/37 mpg highway, while the CVT-equipped CR-Z will return 36 mpg city/38 mpg highway.

Is This a CR-X or Not?
So what to make of the 2011 Honda CR-Z? Honda says CR-Z stands for "Compact Renaissance Zero," a phrase meant to capture Honda's commitment to go back to the point of origin (zero) to take on the challenge of creating a new kind of compact car, one not bound by the values expressed by traditional coupes.

Down in Shikoku, the CR-Z proved that while it's not a machine to have the Nissan GT-R running for cover, it does have its own kind of sophisticated green-tinged driver appeal. Up to a pretty high level, it works, and that's pretty much all the CR-X offered us, however much we have romanticized the car in the past two decades.

At a price of between $25,000 and $27,600 in Tokyo, the Honda CR-Z is fairly expensive, but early orders have still been flooding in. Come late summer, will Honda's formula with the CR-Z click with Americans?

Source;
http://www.insideline.com/honda/cr-z/2011/2011-honda-cr-z-first-drive.html

Edmunds: Tire Test: All-Season vs. Snow vs. Summer

I often get people asking me what the difference between Winter Tires and All-Seasons, here's a great article explaining how things work, pros, and cons.
Will It Grip or Will It Slip?

It's a chilly February morning in northern Minnesota, and a broad expanse of groomed snow stretches before our thermally booted feet. We're standing on the 54-acre snow VDA (Vehicle Dynamics Area) at Automotive Enviro Testing (AET), a company that builds and maintains a sprawling, snowy proving ground in Baudette, Minnesota, each winter for those bent on testing the performance of cars and tires in winter conditions.

And testing tires on snow is precisely why we're here. It's Step One of our quest to quantify the differences among three types of tires (summer, all-season and winter) in three types of driving conditions (dry pavement, wet pavement and snow).

When we're done playing on the white stuff, we'll ship these tires to a specially built facility for wet-asphalt tire testing in Arizona (of all places) for Step Two and then haul them back to California to finish off the rubber with our usual testing regimen on dry pavement. This test sequence — snow before wet before dry — is critical because it ensures that the tread stays in top condition for each successive test.

When we're done, we hope to answer some important questions. Do snow tires represent a big advantage in winter driving? What's the best type of tire for wet pavement? Are all-season tires really a helpful compromise? Are the differences really all that significant?

The Tires

You've heard it before: Tires are much more than black, air-filled cylinders that provide protection for your shiny alloy rims. The four fist-size contact points that exist where the tires meet the ground represent the only link between the multiple thousands of man-hours of complex engineering in the car above and the wide range of road and weather conditions that can exist below.

Tires matter — a lot. The variety of possible road conditions is so vast that you can significantly alter the performance of your vehicle with a simple change of tires.

Let's meet the players in our little experiment:

Summer tires — known simply as "tires" before all-season tire use became widespread — are currently marketed as "performance" or "high-performance" tires. The tread is generally comprised of large tread blocks with high lateral stiffness, while wide circumferential grooves expel and sequester water. The rubber formulation is calibrated for warm weather and pays little heed to snow and ice.

Snow tires, on the other hand, utilize rubber compounds specifically formulated to produce grip at low temperatures and a tread that features a pattern of elements that are oriented to physically bite into snow. A network of hair-thin cuts — known as "sipes" — crisscrosses the tread blocks, subdividing them into numerous edges for added grip. The result is a squishier, less stable tread than you'd see on any summer tire.

All-season tires can't be as singled-minded as these others. Their tread pattern seeks to serve both dry-weather grip and snowstorm bite, so we see medium-size tread blocks that provide some lateral stiffness along with an increased number of biting edges. Sipes are present, but not in great numbers. An intermediate rubber compound with a wider temperature range is often employed.

And because all-season tires are the default tire on many new cars today, they have to somehow simultaneously minimize noise levels, maximize tread life and promote fuel economy with low rolling resistance. In short, all-season tires are asked to do everything.

Selection Criteria

As you might imagine, this test represents a big undertaking, with many potential pitfalls. We took pains to eliminate as many variables as possible before we booked hotel rooms in the wilds of northern Minnesota.

For starters, we would test same-size tires to isolate the effects of the various tread patterns and rubber compounds. We also sought a trio of test tires that were produced by a single tiremaker — it didn't matter which — to ensure that they were developed with a shared engineering philosophy. Beyond that, we wanted original equipment tires (OE) that were developed specifically for a particular car and installed on the assembly line. Finally, we planned to test the tires using the very car for which they were developed.

The ideal tire candidates would therefore come from a vehicle that offered same-size, same-brand summer and all-season OE alternatives, straight from the factory. Winter tires, of course, are always aftermarket replacements.

Only one car satisfied all of these specific requirements: the Honda Civic Si. It can be bought with your choice of Michelin Pilot HX MXM4 all-season tires or, for $200 more, Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2 high-performance summer tires, both in size 215/45R17. And Michelin builds an aftermarket snow tire in that very size, the Michelin Primacy Alpin PA3.

The Tests

Online tire seller Tirerack.com agreed to provide new mounted and balanced test tires for our effort and it shipped them straight to AET's door, ready to go. They're sitting outdoors in the snow, acclimating to the temperature as we survey the test course and install our VBOX data logger in the bright red 2009 Civic Si four-door we drove up from Minneapolis last night.

Typical tire validation tests in snow focus on a tire's performance in city and suburban traffic situations, so 0-40-mph acceleration and 40-0-mph braking tests are the norm. We're adding these tests to our usual 60-mph evaluations and will continue to use them on all three surfaces.
But we're not running our usual 600-foot slalom because the multiple runs required to get good data create deep ruts in the snow that skew the results. But we can still use a skid pad for lateral grip measurement because we can get representative data with no more than a single pass in each direction on AET's snow circle.

Lest you think that performance testing is inconsistent with the careful driving necessary to survive on slippery roads, consider this: Reduced traction on slick surfaces makes at-the-limit situations likely in everyday driving. And along these same lines, we'll be keeping our Civic's traction control system up and running during all of our tests because, if not now, when? As for stability control, our 2009 Civic doesn't have it, so our test driver will have to stay alert.

Snow Test Results

No one expects the snow tires to come in anywhere but 1st place on this wintry surface at AET. The point here is to see how big their advantage really is over all-season and summer tires.

It takes 11.7 seconds for our Civic Si to accelerate to 40 mph on snow tires, and 14.5 seconds to get there on all-season rubber — nearly 3 seconds and 24 percent slower. As for the summer tires, well, they require, ahem, 41.7 seconds as they struggle to 40 mph. That's no typo; it takes a half-minute longer — 257 percent more time — for the summer tires to reach this modest speed.

What about our traditional 0-60-mph test? Well, snow tires get to 60 mph in 19.1 seconds, while the all-season treads arrive in 22.9 seconds, nearly 4 seconds later. Forget the summer tires, however. The available 3,650 feet of snow — seven-tenths of a mile — isn't enough. We figure 67 seconds and 3,100 feet are needed to get there, and then there's the small matter of needing to stop again.

And that brings us to our next test: full stops with ABS engaged. Here again the snow tires dominate, stopping from 40 mph in 156 feet, some 28 feet shorter than the all-season tires' 184-foot performance. Meanwhile, our summer tires skate to an ultimate distance of 351 feet, the ABS actuator rattling for all it's worth the whole way.

Increase the starting speed to 60 mph and these distances more than double. It takes 362 feet for the snow tires to stop and 421 feet for the all-season donuts. The summer tires sit this one out because they can't manage to get themselves to 60 mph in the first place. (We do the math instead and come up with an estimate north of 800 feet.)

Skid pad results follow the same now-predictable pattern. Our snow tires pull 0.30 lateral g, the all-seasons manage 0.28g and the summer tires produce a pitiful 0.15g despite a heroic effort by our shivering hot shoe.

Wet Test Results

As with the snow test, it takes a purpose-built test surface to get meaningful and accurate wet test results. What's needed is a large flat VDA with a special asphalt formulation and a water-delivery system that can maintain a uniform depth of water (the approximate thickness of a quarter), so there's a consistent coefficient of friction across the entire surface.

We find it at Arizona Proving Ground (APG) near Phoenix, formerly a Volvo facility and now branded as Ford. Its pristine micro-pool looks gorgeous on this May afternoon as the surrounding mountain peaks, little fluffy clouds and spring sunlight reflect in the glassy surface.

It turns out we can test everything to and from 60 mph here, so for brevity's sake we'll stick to a discussion of those results. Those who want to can find the 40-mph results on the accompanying charts.

Acceleration testing provides the first surprise, as the all-season tire trails the pack with a 15.4-second 0-60 run. The snow tire's 12.7-second effort for 2nd place is significantly better, but the summer tire tops them all with an 11.9-second performance, over 20 percent quicker than the all-season tire. In fact, the all-season tire began encountering trouble near 40 mph, where it had been only 0.4 second behind the summer tire's performance when hydroplaning and wheelspin paid a visit.

Things are much the same when braking from 60 mph. The summer tire's 157-foot stop is the shortest, the snow tires come up 2nd at 181 feet and the all-season tires lag further behind in a flurry of ABS activity on the way to a distance of 215 feet, some 58 feet longer than the summer tire.

On the wet skid pad the summer tire smokes them once more, even delivering a little tire squeal as it churns out 0.81g — a figure many car-tire combinations can't match on dry pavement. The winter tire trails with a 0.71g run characterized by noticeable squirm, presumably from the side loads acting on the numerous sipes in its snow-biased tread pattern. That said, it still bests our all-season tire, which once again brings up the rear with a disappointing 0.65g showing.

Dry Test Results

Home sweet home. We're back at our usual test ground at Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, California, for some good old dry asphalt. This is the surface we're all familiar with, so we figure we can predict the finishing order with ease: summer, all-season, then snow.

And so it is. The summer tires (actually you could also think of them as three-season tires) top the charts in acceleration (8.7 seconds), stopping distance (120 feet) and lateral acceleration (0.86g). OK, this acceleration figure isn't the best we've ever achieved with a Civic Si, but for the sake of consistency we're still using traction control for these launches.

Our all-season tire ties for top honors in the 0-60 test with another 8.7-second run, but its stopping distance and lateral grip figures sag in comparison to the summer tire, with marks of 131 feet and 0.84g, respectively. Not bad, but still second-best.

Pity the poor snow tires, as they are well and truly out of their element here. They manage a competitive 8.9-second acceleration pass to 60 mph, but the 155-foot braking runs and 0.81g lateral acceleration laps take a visible toll on the tread, which might not make it to the car's next oil change if we keep this up. And the noise they make when cruising straight and level reminds us of a lifted off-road pickup.

Summing Up

What can we make of all this? For one, low-friction surfaces demand respect. Our stopping distances in the wet range 30-40 percent longer than those recorded on dry pavement. Meanwhile, stops on snow consume at least three times the distance as they do on dry asphalt, even with the use of best-case tires in each situation.

Second, no single tire type excels on all surfaces, and the differences between each are sometimes striking. These differences are so massive, in fact, that we feel that certain generalizations can be extrapolated from our small trio of carefully selected test tires.

To the surprise of exactly no one, our winter tires dominate in snow and the summer tires dominate in the dry. The eye-opener here relates to wet performance, where a well-developed summer tire embarrasses an all-season tire made for the same car by the same folks. Anyone who never sees or visits snow would be very well served by summer tires for year-round use.
Another key take-away from this exercise is the utter worthlessness of those same summer tires on snow. Anyone who uses snow tires in winter and summer tires the rest of the year — a good strategy to maximize performance and control all year — needs to time the switch-over carefully to avoid getting caught out by the first rogue snow accumulation of the season.

And the lameness of summer tires on snow makes it easy to see why the California Highway Patrol and other local authorities can have a hair-trigger when it comes to requiring snow chains. It also explains why so many carmakers spend a lot of energy on all-season tires; they don't know where you live or where you'll drive, so they want to make sure you've got passable winter rubber.

But in delivering this capability, all-season tires sacrifice a noticeable bit of dry and wet performance. Meanwhile, snow and summer tires provide clear benefits to those who can use them. In this particular test, at least, all-season tires live up to the old figure of speech our old dad used to trot out on occasion: "jack of all trades, master of none."

Source (click on the link for video's and more pic's);

http://www.insideline.com/features/tire-test-all-season-vs-snow-vs-summer.html

Edmunds Review; 2010 MDI AIRPod First Drive

Heeeeyyyyy....this guy might just be onto something....

5.4 hp; 11 lb-ft of torque
180cc twin-cylinder engine
30-mph top speed
90-mile cruising range

The Air Car
By Nick Kurczewski, Contributor Email

Date posted: 06-24-2009

It's not every day that we get to drive a car that could change the world. Then again, maybe this car is just another bizarre footnote in the rush to develop zero-emissions vehicles.

The 2010 MDI AIRPod emits no emissions and runs on nothing but compressed air. Yes, it sounds like another one of those crackpot inventions, but we traveled to Nice, France, for an exclusive test of the world's only "air car." And here at the research and development center of Luxembourg-based Motor Development International (MDI), the AIRPod seems like more than just a bright idea.

If the air car and the technology beneath its bubblelike body prove a success, pumping fossil fuel into a gas tank could someday seem as antiquated as hand-cranking a car's engine to life.

The AIRPod

The heart of the 2010 MDI AIRPod is a piston engine that has been specially adapted by MDI to run on compressed air. The expansion of the compressed air within the cylinders moves the pistons. The engine is "fueled" by a system of high-pressure air tanks. Built by EADS, an aerospace firm, the tanks are constructed of lightweight carbon-fiber. Though the tanks are presently limited to a capacity of 80 liters (21.1 gallons) at 200 bars of pressure (2,900 psi), MDI plans an increase to 200 liters (53 gallons) and 300 bars of pressure (4,400 psi, which is actually substantially less than the 10,000-psi rating of hydrogen tanks used in fuel-cell vehicles) for the first production models of the AIRPod, set to be built by the end of this year.

As a prototype, the AIRPod we've come to drive is limited to a top speed of only 50 km/h (30 mph). The top speed of future models will be 80 km/h (50 mph).

With one person onboard and the car running solely on air power, MDI estimates the AIRPod's range at between 90 and 125 miles. When the tanks are empty, a recharge of air can take as little as two minutes (MDI conveniently has an industrial-strength air refueling station at its facility). The company says the infrastructure needed to build air refueling stations will cost only a fraction of that needed to establish a network of hydrogen refueling stations, the holy grail of the eco-car world. MDI claims running costs amount to only €1 per 200 km (a penny per mile).

Step Aboard, Dave

The technology sounds futuristic and, to be honest, the AIRPod looks pretty otherworldly when we spot our metallic brown test car.

At first glance, the 2010 MDI AIRPod looks like a prop from some science-fiction movie. Glass hatches sweep up and over the front and rear of the air car. There are two large circular windows cut into either side, along with two smaller windows located on either side of the driver seat. It's a kind of tricycle, not so different in concept from Karl Benz's 1885 Motorwagen, only with twin 100/90R16 tires in back and tiny, twin 10-by-4.00-5 tires in front.

The AIRPod measures 81.5 inches long, 63 inches wide and 68.5 inches tall. Built with a simple space frame and fiberglass bodywork, it weighs 485 pounds. The AIRPod has been conceived to meet specifications for city vehicles set by the municipal government of Paris, where 500cc cars (as well as the Smart Fortwo) are already popular.

To step aboard the AIRPod, you open the hatch, swing it upward and enter the front of the car. It all feels very Luke Skywalker-esque. There are no side doors, and there is seating for only the driver up front. A space-age-looking rearward-facing bench seat is accessed by the rear hatch and is wide enough to accommodate three adults.

Running on Air

A flick of a switch and the 2010 MDI AIRPod fires to life. The engine is mounted in the center of the car, beneath the seats, emitting a friendly tappa-tappa-tappa that's more John Deere than Millennium Falcon. The tiny 180cc, two-cylinder engine is rated at 5.4 horsepower and 11 pound-feet of torque with 261 psi of air pressure. An MDI spokesperson explains to us that upgrades will also boost power for the upcoming AIRPod GT model to 6 kW — still just 8 hp.

One thing you won't find in an AIRPod is a steering wheel. Steering is controlled by a joystick mounted on the right armrest of the driver seat. Acceleration and braking were originally supposed to be controlled by this stick, but MDI confided that the system proved awkward to use. Small aluminum gas and brake pedals now sprout from the floor. A small instrument panel with displays for speed and driving range is planned, but, like the forthcoming acoustic insulation around the engine, had not been fitted to this prototype.

For those interested, the rest of the article is as follows;

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=151246?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..2.*#3

Inside Line: Comparison Test: 2010 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Honda Accord

Alot of good things said about both makes;
A Product of Their Times
By Erin Riches, Senior Editor Email
Date posted: 07-20-2009

If you understand the limitless desire of Americans for personal space, then you understand the thinking behind the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited and 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation. Taurus and Accord may be iconic midsize-sedan nameplates, but now the badges are on large-car rumps.

Officially, the 2010 Ford Taurus and 2009 Honda Accord each seat five. Realistically, neither of these large sedans will ever see more than four passengers. And nobody will so much as rub an elbow, shoulder, buttock or knee during the 15-minute drive to the sushi buffet.

As crossovers promise everyone a whole row of seating to himself, families are fleeing even the roomiest of family sedans like these. So you might be driving around by yourself in a Ford Taurus or Honda Accord. And you might care about something besides shoulder room and legroom.

In its previous life, the Taurus couldn't stand up to such scrutiny. It was a big lug, a slobbery SUV shaped like a sedan. However, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited reflects a serious change of heart at Ford. This is a smarter Taurus with crisper handling, quality interior bits, and up-to-date but easy-to-use technology.

This is also exactly the sort of Taurus that should be able to do battle with the smarty-pants of the family car class, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation.

Tuck in That TummyYou'll notice we call both the Taurus and the Accord large cars. We don't kid you, though. The truth is, these two have gotten fat together.

Our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi tester weighs in at nearly 3,600 pounds. It outweighs the previous-generation Accord by 250 pounds. It outweighs a 1999 Accord EX V6 sedan by more than 300 pounds.

Although rivals like the Mazda 6 and Nissan Altima are close in size (and weight, in the case of the Mazda), only the Accord crosses the 120-cubic-foot interior volume threshold into the EPA's "large car" classification.

Built on a 112.9-inch wheelbase (2.7 inches longer than the Accord's), our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited stretches nearly 203 inches from nose to tail. It's 8.5 inches longer than the Accord, not to mention unnaturally tall (60.7 inches) and wide (76.2 inches) for a sedan.

The Taurus is certainly the hulk of the family sedan class. It draws fat jokes from strangers and outweighs the hefty Honda by 450 pounds. But at 122.3 cubic feet, its total interior volume only tops the Accord by a couple cubes.

Pounds of GadgetsAt least a few dozen of those pounds are accounted for by all the technology in our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which isn't even fully optioned. Notably, it lacks a sunroof, Ford's hard-drive-based navigation system and the multicontour seats that heat, cool and knead your backside. We'll live.

For a $31,995 base price, the front-wheel-drive Taurus Limited provides a leather interior, 10-way power front seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, a USB jack, the Sync hands-free interface, wood-grain interior accents that may or may not be to your taste, and 19-inch wheels that definitely will not be to your taste.

Our test car also has Package 302A ($2,000), which adds keyless ignition, a blind-spot information system (Volvo's BLIS), automatic high-beams and a very decent 12-speaker Sony audio system. The blind-spot radar supplements the car's standard rear-bumper sonar by providing useful warnings on the trip computer display like "vehicle approaching from the left" when you have the Taurus in reverse.

Adaptive cruise control adds an additional $1,195 to the Ford's bottom line for a total of $35,190.
Most of these features simply aren't available on the Accord. However, our 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 comes with the high-quality Acura navigation system (stripped of the nav weather and nav traffic features), as well as Bluetooth, heated leather-upholstered seats, dual-zone climate control, a sunroof, and an unassuming set of 17-inch wheels.

We don't mind the lack of wood-grain appliqués in the Accord, but this car needs an iPod-friendly USB jack. Aux alone doesn't cut it in 2009.

Still, this 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation can be yours for $31,615 — a savings of $3,575 over the 2010 Taurus Limited.

Different Personalities
You wouldn't know the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 Navi is the cheaper of the two based on how it drives.

Right away, the Accord establishes itself as the sportier of the two sedans, which isn't terribly hard to do when your opponent weighs 2 tons. Still, we wonder if Honda has subtly recalibrated this car's drivetrain for 2009, because this Accord V6 doesn't feel as shortchanged on low-end torque as the 2008 models we tested. In addition, its five-speed automatic transmission shifts crisply right at the 3.5-liter V6's 6,800-rpm redline instead of short-shifting. Good thing, because there's still no manual shift gate.

Honda has rerated the V6 sedan's output at 271 horsepower at 6,200 rpm (from 268 hp) and 254 pound-feet of torque at 5,000 rpm (from 248 hp), but there's more here than meets the eye. Throttle response is downright snappy in the 2009 Honda Accord.

At the track, the Accord reaches 60 mph from a standstill in 7.2 seconds (or 6.9 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and hits the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 93.1 mph.

The fact that our 2010 Taurus Limited breaks into the 15s at all borders is impressive considering its weight disadvantage. It runs a 7.8-second 0-60 time (7.5 seconds with rollout) and a 15.7-second quarter-mile. With a trap speed of just 88.9 mph, though, it has no hope of catching the Accord. The Ford's 3.5-liter V6 is rated at just 263 hp at 6,250 rpm, but its torque is accessible at lower rpm, with the peak 249 lb-ft available at 4,500 rpm.

Most of the time, our 2010 Ford Taurus Limited accelerates adequately in traffic. It's only when you hop into the Accord that you realize what you've been missing. Shifts from the Ford's six-speed automatic transmission often feel lackadaisical, too, even in manual mode. Plus, torque steer is an issue under full throttle.

Fuel economy ratings are close, with the V6 Accord earning a slight advantage with its 19 city/29 highway mpg figures versus a preliminary rating of 18 city/28 highway mpg for the front-drive 2010 Taurus. Both sedans return high teens in weekday traffic, though our Taurus test car's 2,500-mile road trip understandably pushes its two-week average above the Accord's, with its average during our test interval coming to 21.1 mpg versus 19.3 mpg.

Weight Management
Ordinarily, we don't give the current-generation Honda Accord a lot of credit in the handling department. Its steering is precise, but conservative suspension tuning, meek P225/50R17 Michelin Pilot HXMXM5 all-season tires and a few too many pounds rob it of it the usual Honda cornering character.

But it's all relative, and a 2-ton 2010 Ford Taurus makes the Accord look good on a back road.
It's not that the Taurus Limited is a terrible handler. There's just a lot of car to transition through corners, and Ford's legal team knows this, so the big sedan has a very aggressive and very non-defeatable stability control system. If it senses you're about to stuff the Taurus into a tight corner, it clamps down hard on that inside wheel. The steering ratio (17.0:1) also feels slower than it needs to be, and heavy inputs elicit moaning from the power steering pump.

At our test track, the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 manages 0.83g on the skid pad and 64.1 mph through the slalom. With its stability control active, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited can't do any better than 0.79g and 60.3 mph. When we run the Accord through these tests with stability control on, the numbers are closer: 0.79g on the skid pad and 62.2 mph in the slalom.

In braking tests, the Ford's wider P255/45R19 100Y Goodyear Eagle RS-A tires give it a slight advantage. The Taurus stops from 60 mph in 131 feet. This is 2 feet shorter than the Accord's best stop. Still, we prefer the Accord's firmer pedal. And notably, this is the first Honda we've tested in months — even years — that hasn't had an issue with brake fade (though there's still some smoke coming off the rotors after our testing).

The Comfort Argument
We're not sure how Ford's chassis engineers were able to get such a well-damped ride out of a car with a 19-by-8-inch wheel weighing down each corner, but they did. The 2010 Ford Taurus Limited has an exceptional ride quality. It's plush over most interstate freeways, yet highly controlled at all times. This is the family sedan you want to drive cross-country.

You could do the same in the 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6, but it wouldn't be quite so comfortable. In Honda tradition, the Accord's ride is all about firm control. You might be fine with this as a driver, but passengers often give a different opinion.

We measure a higher decibel level in the Accord at a 70-mph cruise, and we blame it on characteristic Honda road noise, which detracts from cabin calm even when you're just running errands around town.

Better Packaged Accord
Yet you might put up with the extra noise, because the smaller 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 has a subtly more spacious cabin. The beltline is lower, the seats are wider and, whether you're driving or riding in back, the cabin has an airier feel. Here we are back at the personal space argument again.

But there's also cohesion to the Accord's cabin design that makes the car easier to live with day-to-day. All the displays and controls have an ergonomic design that feels instantly familiar, and there's a unity to how everything works. You and the car and all its stuff are part of one Honda life form.

That's not to say you can't live well in the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited, which feels more upscale than the Accord and offers many more conveniences for iPod and BlackBerry users. But somehow the tall chairs, deeply recessed gauge pods, pixelated radio displays and sophisticated Sync interface in this Taurus Limited feel more like a collection of stuff than elements of a whole.

Critical Mass
Family sedans don't necessarily involve your family anymore, so most of us are looking for more than vast amounts of space on the cheap. We want quick acceleration; we'll take adroit handling if we can get it; and the cabin electronics had better play nice with our smart phone.

The 2009 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with Navigation wins this test by 2.6 points, largely because it's faster and more agile, yet less expensive. It's hardly a sport sedan, but of these two, the Accord is the driver's pick. A more space-efficient cabin design is another big point in the Honda's favor.

At the same time, the 2010 Ford Taurus Limited is more refined and personable than any Taurus to date. Its nicely resolved ride is no small benefit if you take long road trips, and we really do like Sync. Yet it's tough to justify paying $35K for a 263-hp sedan that needs almost 8 seconds to hit 60 mph.

There's a larger issue here, too, as we'd like to have an intervention with both Ford and Honda to talk about weight. From the standpoint of acceleration, handling, braking and fuel economy, neither the Honda Accord nor the Ford Taurus can afford to get any larger. If anything, make them smaller.

Follow this link to find out what Inside Line Executive Editor Michael Jordan says:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=153146/pageId=173625

Edmunds; Comparison Test: 2010 Honda Insight vs. 2009 Toyota Prius

The Differences Are More Than Skin Deep

By Jason Kavanagh, Engineering Editor

Date posted: 01-18-2009

Psychologists have said that consumers have a three-week memory of fuel prices. If prices stay constant for more than three weeks, the buying public's decision-making ability becomes myopic and they act as though prices have never been different from what they are in the here and now.

And at this very moment, fuel prices have been below two bucks a gallon for about six weeks. Fuel is so cheap that we're considering igniting 55-gallon drums of the stuff in our front yards just for kicks.

Now, we don't know the hippocampus from a hippopotamus, but our instincts remind us that good times don't last forever. An increase in fuel prices in the near future is practically inevitable, and those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

That's where the all-new 2010 Honda Insight and 2009 Toyota Prius fit in. By shopping for fuel misers like these while gasoline is still cheaper than designer-bottled sugar water, savvy shoppers will dodge long dealership queues in the future and avoid forking out a premium for such cars — like they did in the summer of 2008.

Follow the Follower

You might remember the original Honda Insight. When introduced in 1999, it was the first hybrid vehicle sold in the U.S.A., an affordable technical tour de force that achieved spectacular fuel economy by adding a battery-assisted electric motor to the powertrain. But as a diminutive two-seater, it certainly wasn't a car for the masses.

It took Toyota's introduction of the Prius to stamp the word "hybrid" into the public consciousness and swell the ranks of hypermiling wonks. Boasting an extra pair of doors and a rear seat compared to the early Insight, the Prius was a real car suitable for families. That it looked the part of a hybrid sealed the deal among the socially conscious, and Toyota has ridden this wave of success to new heights, selling 181,221 examples of the Prius in 2007 alone.

In response, Honda has retooled the Insight formula for 2010 into a four-door package that paints a target dead smack on the Prius' nerdy forehead. The Insight's sheet metal is said to be shaped by the wind tunnel, but the general proportions and detailing are far too Prius-like to be coincidental. Honda's intentions with the Insight appear obvious — scale the heights of hybrid sales success by following in the Prius' footsteps.

The Cars

Often found clogging up the passing lanes of freeways all over the country, the Prius is now a common sight on public roads. The 2009 Toyota Prius we tested will blend right in, as it is largely unchanged from earlier models, right down to its 110-horsepower powertrain with its 1.5-liter engine and sophisticated hybrid system comprised of two electric motors and planetary gearsets. (A revised Prius is on the horizon for 2010, but it remains under wraps.)

Our Prius boasted its fuel economy of 48 mpg city/45 mpg highway on its price sticker and it was equipped with the $3,280 Package #5 option, including a navigation system, premium audio, satellite radio capability, Bluetooth, a back-up camera, stability control, cruise control and a few other items. This car is well-equipped but not the most fully loaded Prius variant available and checks in at $27,643.

The all-new 2010 Honda Insight merges an updated version of Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrid system with a 1.3-liter, eight-valve inline-4, and the powertrain produces a combined output of 98 hp and 123 pound-feet of torque. The IMA system slots a 13-hp electric motor between the engine and continuously variable transmission (CVT) and it is juiced by a nickel-metal hydride battery pack behind the rear seats. Lithium-ion batteries would have cut the space requirement in half, chief engineer Yasunari Seki says, but were quickly rejected on the basis of cost.

And cost is the Insight's trump card. Honda's hybrid system is more basic than the Prius' NASA-grade hardware, yet its more affordable cost is the key to delivering the Insight's dirt-cheap sticker price. At least, we think it's dirt cheap. Pricing hasn't been formally announced, so we're going on whispers and hints from the Honda brass. But you can count on the Insight's official EPA fuel-economy rating of 40 mpg city/43 mpg highway, plus the fact that the car will be formally released on Earth Day, April 22, 2009.

Our scrutiny of Honda's marketing data makes us pretty confident that the model we drove — a fully optioned Insight EX with navigation — will sticker for very close to $22,170 with destination. If we're wrong, then we only request that you wait at least three weeks before composing your hate mail.

Static Electricity

When you climb inside a Prius, you're confronted with a decidedly unorthodox dashboard layout. There are no conventional gauges; instead the speed readout and general operational information peek out from a narrow slot at the base of the windshield. The climate control, audio and navigation controls are all embedded in a single, centrally located multifunction screen. Even the "gear" selector sprouts from the dash immediately to the right of the steering wheel. The Prius is a hybrid, dammit, and it won't let you forget that fact.

The Insight, however, trades a little zoominess for much improved function. There's a real gauge cluster in front of the driver and non-virtual heating and ventilation controls that fall immediately to hand. The Insight's cabin also places you in a driving position that's more natural than that of the Prius, and this is further enhanced by the Honda's telescoping steering wheel and height-adjustable seat.

These two latter features aren't available in the Prius, yet it desperately needs both of them. The Toyota's driving position seems scaled to Japanese bodies, not corn-fed American ones, so you can never place the tilt-only steering wheel in quite the right place. Simply put, you sit on the Prius and in the Insight.

If you think this means the Insight has the superior cabin, you'd only be half right. Full-size humans can find space and comfort in the backseat of the Prius, whereas in the Insight they will find only cramps. Your knees have to splay to accommodate the front seatback, while the tumblehome of the Insight's roof eats up precious headroom. You could say that swelled heads fit better in the back of the Prius.

Behind the backseats, it's pretty much a draw in cargo capacity, although Honda claims a bit more volume by the numbers than the Prius. It can also claim more volume of the acoustic variety, as the Honda is noticeably noisier than the Prius, and it doesn't come close to isolating its occupants from road roar and wind hiss in the way that the Toyota does.

Hedonists take note: The Prius boasts a back-up camera, HID headlights and keyless ignition, and you can't find these goodies on any Insight.

Nothing's Shocking

Economy with speed is as common as gravy-flavored ice cream, and these cars proved no exception once we placed our testing equipment on them. The Prius' 110-hp combined output propels it from a standstill to 60 mph in 10.4 seconds (10.1 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), followed by the Insight in 10.9 seconds (10.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). Off the line, however, neither of these hybrids feels as glacial as these numbers suggest thanks to the boost in low-end torque provided by the electric motors.

It's not just in acceleration that the Prius pips the Insight. The Prius also brakes shorter, coming to a halt from 60 mph in 120 feet, 5 feet fewer than the Insight. It also produces a quicker slalom speed, 61.8 mph compared to the Insight's 59.3 mph. Despite the numbers, the Prius' brake pedal feels like a lumpy mattress underfoot as the transition from regenerative braking to pure mechanical braking is clumsy, while the electric-assist steering responds with all the enthusiasm of warm tapioca.

Ride quality is an area where the Prius gets the nod, as it glides over pavement compared to the choppy springiness of the Honda. The flip side of the Honda's firmer suspenders comes in routine handling maneuvers, where it is more alert than the Prius. Likewise, the Insight's quicker and more naturally weighted steering imparts lots of confidence even in everyday driving. This transparency in the feel of the controls paired with the more user-friendly driving position help give the Insight a thin edge in our scoring evaluation.

Fuelish Behavior

The numbers most relevant to these dromedaries relate, of course, to their frugality with fuel. To that end our two drivers hashed out a driving loop of nearly 100 miles, consisting of a mix of city and freeway driving conditions. They topped off the fuel tank of each car at the same fuel pump and drove the loop. Then they switched cars and drove the loop again. They then refilled them at the same fuel pump and recorded the dosage.

To make a long, boring story short, the Prius netted 54.4 mpg to the Insight's 51.5 mpg during our driving loops. These results are considerably better than the EPA estimates for each car since our driving style was conservative to minimize variables in performance and to ensure the cars remained nose-to-tail for the entire drive. Hard-core hypermiling wonks will undoubtedly top even these results.

Perhaps the most loudly voiced objection from both drivers is that the Insight's cruise control consistently undershot the target speed when in Eco-Assist mode. Like a nun armed with a switch, this mode modifies the Insight's behavior to favor fuel-efficiency over drivability and comfort. The Prius, which needs no such supplemental mode to achieve its stellar fuel economy, exhibited no such untoward tendencies.

When Being Green Reduces Your Green
Some of us will make a choice between these two cars based solely on superior fuel economy. But if you're really interested only in the contents of your wallet, some careful assessment of the cost/benefit equation will be illuminating.

It turns out the additional $5,473 required for the privilege of owning a Prius instead of an Insight can buy a lot of fuel. At today's fuel prices, the actual monetary savings earned by the Prius' edge in fuel economy is miniscule, working out to a paltry $70 per year. Paying off the Prius' extra tariff in sticker price with the savings in fuel purchases would require more than 75 years.

Even if fuel prices were to leap to $5 per gallon, a Prius owner would have to drive his car for nearly 413,000 miles just to break even. These calculations use the EPA combined fuel economy numbers — plug in the higher fuel-economy results we measured and the payoff period is measured in lifetimes.

This simple math exercise demonstrates how deceptive a 5-mpg difference can be. Among fuel-sippers like these, this is one occasion where it doesn't pay to be green. It turns out that the 2010 Honda Insight's emphasis on affordability as well as fuel economy puts more dollars in your pocket than the 2009 Toyota Prius.

There's a certain irony in the Insight's victory. In its desire to create a car that wears its hybrid-ness on its sleeve, Honda examined its rival to such a degree that the Insight and the Prius are nearly indistinguishable at a glance. Yet Honda's final product is no Prius clone, and its lack of hybrid-style compromises in the way it drives works to its advantage in this comparison.

Consider the Prius outsmarted. For now.

Source;

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=139686?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.*#6