This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
I agree. The new version should be at the top of the article (just as it is for Honda Civic). The reason the image was being reverted was because it duplicates the photo in the Second Generation infobox. A separate, distinct, photo of the second generation Insight needs to be used for either the lead or the second generation infobox.THD3 (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Autos convention on image placement:
"The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox. Regardless of the ages of the vehicle shown, pick a clear, high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines; one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background."
It is quite clear that the quality of the photo is the primary factor for choosing the image for the lead infobox. When there is a photo of the 2010 Insight that is of higher quality than photos of the first generation, then that belongs in the top infobox. But not before. IFCAR (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article...
People looking for information on the new Honda Insight don't really care about the old one, and probably won't consider the old vehicle relevant anymore than someone looking for info on the civic hybrid. Perhaps there needs to be two different articles. The second generation isn't really an upgrade of the old one. It was a marketing decision to use the same name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes as much sense as saying that no one is interested in the first-generation Insight, or that the first-generation Insight isn't relevant to an article about the Honda Insight. IFCAR (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that the "high-quality image according to the image quality guidelines" that we pick for the top infobox should be of the new Insight (assuming that one is, or soon becomes, available). -- de Facto (talk). 10:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a better photo than the existing image, there's no problem. If it isn't, then it's against the convention. IFCAR (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the convention say that it has to be the best quality image that is used, or just that the image used has to comply with the image quality guidelines? -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." That is explicit. What else would you use to choose the image? IFCAR (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Vehicle production date" has no bearing on the image quality - that is very clear (and very obvious). What is not so clear is why the lead image has to be the best quality image available, and not just an image which complies with the image quality guidelines.
For example, I have 2 images - A & B - which both comply with the image quality guidelines. Does the convention allow the use of either A or B, or is there another criteria, such as which image is the best quality, which also needs to be considered? -- de Facto (talk). 13:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions does say that 'Vehicle production date is not a factor'. But if one reads just one sentence beyond what you previously quoted, it also says that 'Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image.' The old Insight was a niche car; according to this very article, fewer than 20,000 sold despite its being on the market for some years. The new model is an inexpensive, mass-market vehicle, and is currently receiving extensive media coverage. Which do you think more readers will be looking for? David Arthur (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using the same argument, you could say that the first-generation is more representative because it carried the Insight name for much longer.
But more relevantly, the fact is inarguable that there is no high-quality photo of the second-generation Insight, and therefore a photo of one should not appear -- for now -- at the top of the article. Any reader who is confused by this can read the article's second paragraph. IFCAR (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Policy is to use the best image, regardless of generation. It is never useful to have the same image twice in the article, nor is the 2010 model photo the article's best. IFCAR (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel.Cardenas. At this stage in the 2nd Gen Insight's history, it's becoming more applicable to show an image of the 2nd Gen model. However, given the special place the 1st Gen model holds in the wider automotive history, it would be even better to host an image showing both models side-by-side (and I don't mean like this. If someone could obtain one, that would be wonderful. I see more 2nd Gen Insights on the road today, so certainly this question should be revisited regularly.--Rfsmit (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide- it makes sense to use an interesting image at the top of the article to draw attention- would it make sense to use a picture of a late-model Chevrolet Impala at the top of that article? The first generation Insight is an interesting car with an interesting design shown off well by the front-quarter shot, while the second generation is better looking than the Prius. Surely it makes sense to show the more iconic design up top? Nevard (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hostility and personal attacks: a lovely response to the simple WP:CARPIX convention that the generation of the car is irrelevant to the photo chosen. Whenever any photo -- of either generation -- appears on Wikipedia that is better than the existing photo, it makes sense to replace it. But not before then based on some users' personal preferences to have the newest generation first. IFCAR (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The issue with the photo of the gray car is the reflections. Is your issue with the other photo that you don't like green? IFCAR (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I was wondering what your objection to it was, since there was no reason given in the summary. Next time if you're reverting please state why you think something is lower-quality, it will help make things smoother.
That being said, every picture has reflections, even the ones on WP:CARPIX. Even the old picture has reflections. I do hate that lime green color, but while it is my primary objection to its use, it is not the only one.
Do you have any objections to using the current 2nd gen Insight picture Lead photo, 2nd generation as the lead, and replacing it with the picture of the grey Insight?Ng.j (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline I follow for edit summaries on a photo change is that I'm not going to explain a revert if there was no explanation for the change in the first place. You still haven't cited anything that makes the gray photo better than the green one.
I guess the other arrangment -- silver / green / gray -- would work if need be, but you still haven't given any reason for the change. IFCAR (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the reasons above, especially since the new generation has sold ten times what the first generation did. I am glad we could be civil about this and work this out. Since you have agreed to my proposal I will end the RfC and close this discussion.Ng.j (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whenever there is a discussion about updating images to the "subjective" definition better quality, you will ALWAYS find Emperor Nikon, IFCAR, right in the middle defending one of his cherished images that is always at the pinnacle of the perfect picture, and it will never matter who submits a better photo, IFCARs photo must remain. And as always, I will always support the photo that came from someone else.(Regushee (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Regushee, your grudge against IFCAR is well-known, you don't have to be uncivil about it at every opportunity. I would take this to your user talk page rather than here, but like most borderline disruptive editors you immediately delete anything posted on your talk page that you don't like.
And BTW... If you're going to be an uptight jackass, maybe you should look at where the images came from first. The previous lead image came from Flickr. The new one? IFCAR. So, in fact, he was defending someone else's image at the expense of one of his. Guess you should probably change your mind and insist on the green one now, huh? --Sable232 (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
I actually just looked over both articles and no contradictions jumped out at me. Can you please be more specific? If I knew what the errors were I'd jump in and fix it. --JayHenry (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In particular the sentence The car remained the most fuel efficient machine available in the U.S. while it was produced and is still the leader of any current mass market car.[6] appears to contradict the data in the other article, which places the Prius as having better mpg according to the US Environment agency. The general lack of mention of the Prius in this article (when it has clearly been the trend setter) arouses my suspicions. (The Prius article openly compares the car to other makes.) I should note that I live in Japan, which may bias my view, as here the Prius is clearly seen as the leader in the field compared to Honda; however on my visits back to the UK I have had the same impression there. I should also say that I don't own a Prius - I'm shopping for a new car and looked on wiki for information.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion here is about the use of available. The new Prius has better fuel efficiency than any other car that you can buy new, but it doesn't have better fuel efficiency than old manual transmission Honda Insights. I do agree that this article could do a better job with comparing the Insight to other cars and does need a bit of clean-up in general. --JayHenry (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absoulutely. Most articles I've read agree that if you're carrying lots of people in a car, which noone in a Prius or new Insight actually does, the Prius has more room, and in the specialized EPA fuel runs, the Prius does marginally better. But the old Insight is still a better beater right now than the Prius ever will be. If anything, we need more emphasis on the old Insights incredibly efficient (and incredibly economical, and less importantly as bad for the environment as a 60s V8) lean burn technology. Nevard (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is called the most fuel-efficient because of its capabilities. Hyper milers have been pushing the car over 200 miles-per-gallon for the better part of a decade which by far would make it the most fuel-efficient car currently on the market. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②talk14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem about: The car remained the most fuel efficient machine available in the U.S. while it was produced and is still the leader of any current mass market car.[6]
EPA rating :-
2000 Insight 61/70 (City/Hwy)
2001 Prius 52/45
2004 Prius Mk II 60/51
Note 1) Prius was first available in the U.S. in 2000 as a 2001 model.
Note 2) All EPA rating are the original rating for respective model years, before their current 'adjustment' to concur to changes for MY 2008.
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)[reply]
You can't assume they were put there with an agenda. Jeremy Clarkson is a well-known, possibly the most well-known, automotive critic in the English-speaking world. His reviews of cars are significant, whether you personally agree with them or not. Move it to another section if you wish, but it would be wrong to exclude it altogether from the article.Mac520 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should include some justification or be deleted. Even if Clarkson is the emperror of critics, without an argument his opinion is not worth much. Please cite the argument or delete this.Alecsescu (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His argument is from his experience with the car, and his justification is his reputation. I could add more quotes from the article by him that go into more detail. Mac520 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do add that citation. Please see a test like Auto-Motor-Sport master tests, there you have grades for many aspects of the car and justification for everything. At least it gives the impression of being objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecsescu (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So I just decided to add in some other criticism from another media outlet to balance out the thing a little bit. There's a fair bit of info out there that's positive and negative, so I'm making sure to represent both side equally and fairly. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another review. I've also added more information from the Clarkson article and removed some of the non-encyclopedic (but entertaining) quotes. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His other quotes should not be removed. They are his full opinion, and give an idea of what sort of opinions real people have about actually driving the car. It would be dishonest to readers looking to know everything about the Insight to be deprived of an opinion from a legendary car reviewer. Mac520 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda try to always go back to what's encyclopedic and what isn't. What's up there right now is, in my opinion, very clearly reiterating what the article is trying to say. There's no need to get caught up in quotes, especially a single person's. Also something to keep in mind these are just opinions and are not representative of what the majority or "real people" think. Seems balanced to me right now. Would love to hear from other editors as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Legendary" is opinion. He is a TV personality, and has a clear preference for high-performance/luxury cars over economy cars. It is best to avoid subjective opinions and reviews, no matter how popular the source is. That said, subjective reviews praising the car should be reconsidered as well. --Vossanovao<18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response should answer both of you at once. All opinions are subjective; there is no such thing as an "objective" opinion. An appraiser considers his own values and uses them to formulate his opinion of the product. This is good so that others who share the same values can trust that person's opinion. It's not possible for a single quote to capture the full opinion of society. Thus, it's necessary to compile multiple primary sources (i.e. Clarkson, Edmunds, Car and Driver, Consumer Reports) together to provide a full perspective of the car. Primary sources are the most reliable and interesting. Though it would be trivial to document every minor primary source possible to support a viewpoint, I am only citing one, one significant enough that he has his own Wikipedia article. This process I'm describing is simply what I've seen in other wikipedia articles, and it's what I've been taught from writing papers documenting primary sources. It would be dishonest to hide the full quote.Mac520 (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Vossanovao<15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've pruned his quotes. I felt they were necessary to give the reader a feeling of the message of his article. Also, I'd rather not be accused of having a personal vendetta against the Insight. I do, however, have a personal vendetta against articles that present a biased POV. Before I added the "Reception" section, everything in the article was praising the Insight for its environmentalism and its awards, but nothing in the article mentioned the cars problems: drive, performance, build quality, feel, value. That is why I felt it necessary to add quotes from Clarkson's reviews, to show the uglier side of the Insight that was being ignored. Mac520 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mac, your additions did the exact opposite of the consensus that is slowly building here. You added more quotes when it's been made pretty clear we are trying to stay away from them. I'm going to agree with Vossanova here and question your overall intent because it's feeling like you're trying to push some sort of agenda here. I'm going to revert the section back to the way it looked before. It clearly explained Clarkson's views without the excess quotes. Let's discuss changes here before making them since us, as editors, are clearly divided as to what should and shouldn't be included in the article. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no. Without actual quotes from the source, the secondhand interpretation of his quotes is bland and provides vague information. Instead of saying "Jeremy clarkson criticized the engine noise", it is much livelier to say "Jeremy clarkson said this about the engine noise: 'DIRECT QUOTE'". The former tells no interesting information, while the latter shows HOW and WHY Jeremy Clarkson disliked the engine noise. Show, don't tell. The quote is more powerful and removes he middleman editor from rephrasing it. Good writing uses first-hand quotes, not second-hand interpretations of quotes. Mac520 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that are you dodging the argument. Firstly, the article in question is referenced from another manual style, and manual styles are a guideline for editing; that is their purpose. Where else do you get your guidelines from? Your own opinion? Which happens to be biased in your favor? How about addressing my logical argument about the value of including quotes from primary sources rather than evading it. Mac520 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear was previously under fire because in one of his shows an electric car under testing, a Tesla, was shown being pushed into the garage as if it had run out of battery while in fact the battery was under no circumstances below 20% reserve.[1] Clarkson was described by Guardian as 'famously cynical about efforts to reduce the impact of motoring on the environment'. A BBC spokeswoman said several times in an interview that Top Gear was 'an entertainment program.' North wiki (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, but I don't see how that's relevant. Clarkson still writes serious reviews about cars, and should not be omitted because he also hosts a television program. And if he's cynical about environmentalism, that doesn't exclude his opinion. It's still his opinion and he is notable enough for it to be included. You can't exclude an opinion just because it disagrees with you. Since arguments against including Clarkson's quotes have been weak I will be reinstating them tomorrow unless there is a better argument. Mac520 (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline may be helpful: Wikipedia:Quotations. "Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information." But then, Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. So, yes, actual quotes may be better than summarizing them ourselves in this case. However, under "when not to use quotations": the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided. Finally, The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information.
And, not to be a fuddy-duddy, but Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be "lively" or "interesting". Show, don't tell is not a Wikipedia guideline; that article only discusses its use in fiction and creative writing. --Vossanovao<16:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll concede. I was only trying to apply the principle of including quotations from primary sources I learned from William Zinsser's On Writing Well and what my professors taught me, but I suppose encyclopedias favor dry fact over good writing. I will compromise by accepting the current state of Clarkson's section. Mac520 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mac, I'm not dodging anything and I would appreciate you assume good faith. You're referencing certain things as if they are rules and I'm simply pointing out they are not. You're also assuming I'm using my own opinion to follow when editing. What I do try to follow are a strict list of policies and guidelines. We're also discussing to build a consensus and that's exactly what is happening here. We build the article following the policies, guidelines, and consensus. Anyway...
The core of the argument here is do all the quotes you're adding adhere to the policies and guidelines. I'm arguing they don't because 1) the amount you add border on copyright violation, 2) they create a biased article that seems to have an underlining intent, and 3) what Clarkson is trying to communicate can be properly shown without all of the quotes. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would say 2nd generation Insight. While the CR-Z may be closer in concept, the car that receives the same name would logically and normally be considered the successor. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a relatively new car I do not see any problem to keep monthly sales for a while, later it can be changed to yearly sales. I added the missing reference for 2010.-Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, four people isn't a huge consensus but there was and has not to my knowledge ever been support for monthly sales figures among those members of the project who offered input on it. You could certainly bring the issue up again but I don't expect there will be many people who favor this level of excess. --Sable232 (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's coming back out. There has never been consensus to include this and the proponents didn't seem interested in further discussion (but it appears they do have interest in just quietly sneaking it in). --Sable232 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
The comparison is quite fair. First of all VINCENTRIC provides state by state cost of ownership data to major car manufactures - General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Toyota, Audi and Mercedes-Benz so it is to be most trusted. What is Opportunity Cost - they do not explain but since it is there must be a reason - their comparison is complete. 1. They took the least expensive Insight which in 2010 was LX at $19,800 - it makes sense since Hybrids are usually more expansive we want to take the least expensive Hybrid for comparison. 2. Honda Insight LX has Vehicle Stability Assist, Traction Control, Brake Assist and Hill Start Assist which are not available on Honda Civic LX and even Honda Civic EX. But Civic EX has some features that not available on Insight LX - moonroof, CD changer and rear brake disc. So it makes Insight LX and Civic EX more closer in comparison. 3. Civic Coupe EX has the same price as Civic Sedan EX. --Yegort (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not comparing the least expensive hybrid to just some random other model. No car buyer interested in a Civic coupe would consider an Insight hybrid -- they'd consider a CR-Z, which is only a few hundred dollars more than the Civic coupe. Plus the whole study could be summed up in the sentence "The Insight might save the average driver this much gas money and maybe your insurance might be cheaper too." The grounds of the study are bogus, and their methods (even you don't know what they mean by opportunity cost) and results (half of the cost difference is purely insurance-based, which would not be the case for a Civic sedan and would be different for virtually any other car) are half meaningless and half bogus.
WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products." Wikipedia is not a sales or pricing directory. What the studies say car buyers want to know doesn't matter because Wikipedia is not a tool for buyers to compare cars. It is an encyclopedia. A sentence or two describing the cost difference between a hybrid and non-hybrid model would be appropriate since that is useful encyclopedic information, but this study is too irrelevant and far-fetched to be appropriate.
I'm removing the section from the article because it is not appropriate for the above two reasons, but I think you should add in a much simplified, non-third-party comparison such as "the insight saves you this many dollars in gas over this many years over this other comparable car" which is basically all of the useless information filtered out of the vincentric study. It's not original research if you cite Honda and fueleconomy.gov and just keep it down to purchase/finance price versus gas cost over a certain number of years. Even make another table if you want, but get rid of all the meaningless and speculative fields like maintenance, repairs, insurance, and "opportunity" cost so that you can give it some credibility. That's both useful for potential buyers and encyclopedic at the same time. I'll go ahead and do it myself later if you don't want to, because I do agree that some/most of this information is important to have on Wikipedia. Bdc101 (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem using VINCENTRIC as a source. My only issue is with the table, it is a borderline copyright violation and is pretty crufty anyway. I think we can have a cost of ownership section using this source, but the table should be left out. The prose is fine in my opinion. I do notice that VINCENTRIC makes two comparisons with Honda hybrids, in the case of the Insight, the hybrid is shown to be cheaper, but in the case of the Civic Hybrid the standard Civic is shown to be more economical. --Daniel19:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what, Wikipedia is not a buyers guide and it is not just for Americans. Aside from all the other issues listed above, this is enough reason not to include tables lifted from VINCENTRIC. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mariordo, asked to keep the discussion here. Vossanova is saying that I am drawing my own conclusion by saying that there is a myth that Hybrids are too expensive to own. My response: No, it is not my own conclusion. According to this Consumer reports survey [2] the biggest disadvantage of the Green cars is "High purchase price" - thus say 66% of respondents! In other words 2/3 of people see them as too expensive to own.--Yegort (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
In the US, where gas prices are kept waaaayy too low, buying a Hybrid does not make a whole lot of sense if only viewed financially. Comparing different trim levels of different cars is not encyclopaedic, it is something better done by Consumer Reports or such like. A table which assumes an American consumer choosing between a Civic EX and an Insight LX, at a yearly distance of 15,000 miles (metric, please, but that's another argument) is much too arbitrary to merit inclusion. In the end, buying a Hybrid in the US is not really a financial decision, although it is good to see that it is no longer much more expensive than buying a regular i/c car. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a rough draft I'd like to submit for review before posting to the Insight page:
===Cost of Ownership Comparison===
The cost of ownership question often arises when considering a hybrid's greater purchase price compared to a non-hybrid vehicle. In this case, if one were to compare a 2011 Honda Insight LX to a 2011 Honda Civic LX, the Insight costs USD$2,145 more than the Civic[1][2], but averages 41 miles per US gallon (5.7 L/100 km; 49 mpg‑imp) compared to 29 miles per US gallon (8.1 L/100 km; 35 mpg‑imp)[3] for the Civic. Using these assumptions, it would take less than five years to make up the cost difference solely on a cost of fuel basis (assuming 15,000 miles per year and USD$3.50/gal average fuel price). Vincentric[4] produced a study in October 2010 indicating that the average maintenance and repair cost of the Insight is comparable to that of a standard Civic. Vincentric's data also indicated that Insight owners pay much lower average insurance costs, resulting in nearly as much savings in insurance as in fuel costs. This would allow the cost difference to be made up in less than three years.
For this comparison I used the 2011 US MSRP for comparable trim levels: Civic LX sedan and the Insight LX, instead of using a higher trim level for the Civic to exaggerate the cost difference like Vincentric did. I also used $3.50/gal average fuel cost instead of the $3.11 national-average number that fueleconomy.gov uses for its calculations, so that this comparison will still be valid in 6 months when gas gets that high here in America. This comparison obviously applies only to the American market -- since I have always lived in America, I'm probably not a good person to be writing a good comparison of how a European buyer chooses a hybrid. But I do think something should be included for at least European market.
I discarded the following Vincentric data:
fuel cost data (they did not provide their fuel price/gal numbers so I calculated them using fueleconomy.gov numbers. Adding a small table or graph to illustrate the calculation better might be a good idea.)
MSRP (they used different trim levels and 2010 MSRPs which changed in 2011, IIRC)
depreciation (speculative), fees & taxes (changes by state), finance costs (probably should have included this but not all buyers borrow for new cars)
opportunity cost (still, nobody knows what this is)
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.
While I still don't see why Wikipedia should become a buyer's guide for Americans, this is definitely better than just using the Vincentric data wholesale. As a side note, I had assumed that "opportunity cost" reflects how much one could have made if one had invested the $20,000 rather than bought a car with it, but I could definitely be wrong. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not qualified to write about shopping for cars in the UK, Europe, or Japan, which is why I said someone else should do it before it's published. That is the only definition of "opportunity cost" that I know of as well, I just don't know how they calculated it to be so big (must include fuel cost?). They don't publish any of their assumptions or sources so much of it is not verifiable (unless you take Vincentric at their word), one more reason why the study data itself is not suitable for publishing. Bdc101 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed text looks quite encyclopedic as long as the analysis comes from RS (otherwise it would be OR). Regarding the recurrent concerns about the alleged American centric view, it has to be considered that the only three relevant markets for HEVs in the world are the US, Japan and Europe in that order. The Insight is not a global car, just as most of the electric-driven cars available today (this is not the Corolla). Out of more than 3 million hybrids sold up to 2010, ~1.9 million were sold in the US, more than one million in Japan, and around 300K in Europe. So I believe the constant objection about presenting US info is not justified, in fact, insisting in an nonexistent world view in this case is simple WP:Undue weight. If we were to have a similar comparison for Japan, then it belongs here too. And another example, TDI diesel cars are almost as fuel efficient as hybrids, then we should welcome a comparison between a European TDI and a similar hybrid, etc. Finally, to make clear this is not pro American, if we were to compare flex fuel cars, then the relevant markets are Brazil and Sweden (the US has the second largest fleet but use of E85 is nill); if we are talking about natural gas vehicles, then the relevant markets are Pakistan, Argentina, and Iran. Unfortunately, much more material is published in the US, but as information from other relevant markets becomes available in English, we should include it. Finally, this type of content by no means is a buying guide kind of info. All electric driven cars have a sales premium (that is why there are so many government incentives schemes) and if the article has content detailing how long it takes to pay off the premium (if ever) is in line with keeping NPOV.--Mariordo (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe (and am supported by the very first line in this discussion: "value-based comparison of hybrids vs. non-hybrids is important to any reasonable buyer") that this data is indeed a buyer's guide. If this is included, then tables from all the other markets must also be included, and we end up with an even unwieldier article than already. Buyer's comparisons are not included because there is no end to the number of comparisons that can be made, and the choice of parameters to be set is infinite. Find an article that summarizes this data ("an Insight can earn back the purchase premium over a comparable IC car in three to five years for the average US customer") and leave it at that is my recommendation. Again, I'm not going to delete any of these additions (not particularly interested in any new battles), I'm just stating my view on this for the record. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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." I completely agree with this. If there are several numbers for comparison - table is the best way to present the information - here it is even shorter than prose and it is to the point - people know how to read tables. Here fuel economy data is not enough - Depreciation, Maintenance and Repairs are other essential field for this table. Hybrids are relatively new technology and people from encyclopedic point of view are interested to know if they reliable or if they require a lot of maintenance. And a good encyclopedia should be able to answer these questions. Each Hybrid is different in terms of cost of ownership, fuel efficiency, reliability and maintenance that is why this kind of table (based on Research) would be appropriate for each Hybrid. --Yegort (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked my quote - in all honesty I love tables. However, being in table form does not make these numbers encyclopaedic to me. It's still a buyer's guide style, they are still very arbitrary and focused on a single market. Wikipedia does not exist so that Mr. Jones (or Hr. Müller or Suzuki-san) can compare the cars he wants to buy. It is also not our job to try and influence such a purchase, no matter how much we'd like for people to make responsible decisions. As for maintenance and repairs, these numbers are crystal ball style guesswork, no matter who issues the data. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that the data is arbitrary? Vincentric data is used by AOL, Yahoo Autos!, Cars.com, General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Toyota, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, The Auto Channel, Audi of America, Business Fleet Magazine, Mercedes-Benz USA, Fleet-Central.com, Forbes and MSN [3]. They use 45 sources for their data including insurance companies. Just the fact that car manufactures use their data says that it is trustworthy.--Yegort (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opportunity Costs – This cost takes into account the loss of interest earnings that could be earned with the funds spent on a new vehicle. The lost “opportunity” to earn interest income is an often overlooked cost of buying a vehicle, but nevertheless is critical to understanding overall costs and a key component when comparing one vehicle to another. Using data from respected financial information firms, we apply current savings interest rates to determine this cost [4].--Yegort (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I still fail to see why it is necessary to include any buyer's guide comparison. Wikipedia in general doesn't do comparisons between goods for potential customers. Just write a simple statement along the lines "a hybrid may save you money, depending on where you live and your yearly mileage" with a reference to Vincentric, is my recommendation. Parts of this article is already nearly unreadable as they are just long lists of numbers ("Sales and prices by country" for instance; even the intro lists two US prices, the UK price, and sales so far - I don't know if it's an outright WP:LEAD violation, but it certainly doesn't look right). But this is why I focus on older cars, by then it is more obvious what is relevant and what is not. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would like to have this discussion now, rather than after some other editor decides to add Vincentric tables to every single article covering cars included by them. This discussion will allow us not to have similar issues in the future. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the difference in insurance price between the Civic sedan and coupe, Yegort. That makes Vincentric's data even more bogus! By their own numbers, the Civic sedan 5-year insurance cost is within $20 of the Insight, yet they still chose the coupe that costs almost $2,000 more to compare it to. Wow. So even that part of the example summary that I wrote is inaccurate, because I trusted Vincentric to make a logical assumption.
My vote is against the table, but for a brief summary or nothing. I don't think the Vincentric data should be linked to at all. I don't care who pays them for it -- once you actually read it, it's clear that there's a little bit of useful data surrounded by a lot of stuff that makes no sense. In either case, there's no reason that Wikipedia would need compare the cost of ownership of a Civic Coupe and an Insight at different trim levels and using outdated MSRPs, so there's no reason to include it at all.
There is already a detailed section of Hybrid electric vehicle on this topic. If the Insight is so different from other hybrids that this section does not apply to it, then include a subsection in this article. I don't think it's different enough to warrant anything more than a sentence or two. Bdc101 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bdc101, Why do you keep saying that Vincentric's data is bogus? It is not. There is no Insight LX None-Hybrid so you have to choose the closest model one based on some assumptions. There is a logic to Vincentric's choice - Civic Coupe is the closest to Insight in interior volume (Civic Sedan is bigger). And Civic Coupe EX is the closest equivalent to Insight LX in terms of features.--Yegort (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yegort, no one would ever go to a Honda dealer to look at an Insight and think "I'd like to cross-shop with a non-hybrid. The Civic coupe is the closest in interior volume, so I'll look at that instead of the sedan, even though the Insight is a sedan." Nobody buys a coupe when they've decided to buy a sedan, or vice versa. This and half of the other Vincentric assumptions are conclusions that no one would ever come to. Your support of the Vincentric study comes across as blind trust, or as if you had something to do with the study itself. Look past the corporate BS and look at the actual data and it's a comparison that no real-life potential buyer would ever make. I'd even go so far as to say it's been deceptively arranged to portray the Insight in a favorable light over the better-optioned, higher-insurance Civic EX coupe. Bdc101 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask people who are interested in the article if that is one of the most interesting things. I suspect 9/10 will say no. More interesting is how it compares to Prius and other cars in its segment. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have a 2001 Insight that I have owned from new. I detected some reduction in efficiency after approximately 90,000 miles and invested in a new battery set from a third-party supplier. Since then the vehicle efficiency has returned to slightly better than its original state. It has now done 102,000 miles at a lifetime average of 71.1 mpg. ACCassidy (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
