Last month I reported that the Canadian goverment had inacted new legislation that gave buyers of fuel-efficient vehicles a $1,000 rebate. If the vehicle falls below the fuel-economy threshold of 6.5 liters per 100 kilometers, the car is eligible for the rebate. Well that basically meant that the Honda Fit did not qualify because it only acheives 6.6L, but the Toyota Yaris does qualify. That did not sit well with Honda.
According to Honda, the Fit is designed to be both safe and fuel-efficient, and the automaker refuses to sacrifice safety for better fuel-economy. Honda has stated that if it weren't for all of the standard safety equipment that comes on the Fit, the car would qualify. The extra airbags and standard ABS add extra weight, which has reduced the overall fuel economy of the Fit. The Yaris does not have ABS or side airbags as standard equipment.
Honda president, Hiroshi Kobayashi stated, "At Honda, we offer pride of ownership because we do not sacrifice safety for the environment."
Basically the only automaker that is happy about the rebate program is Toyota. Yaris sales increased 15% in April, the first full month after the rebate was offered. Sales of the car's competitors have dropped significantly.
Honda has raised its concerns with the Canadian government. They have also started to advertise their criticisms of the rebate program in newspapers across Canada, which is promoting specific cars and not the whole class of small fuel-efficient cars.
The automaker has also started offering its own $1,000 rebate on the Fit to match the rebate by the government. Honda is also giving the rebate to people who bought the Fit as far back as March 19th.
Apparently Honda isn't going to stand still and take it! It is interesting that the Canadian government decided to set the bar at a level where the Honda Fit and Nissan Versa and other fuel conscious cars do not qualify.
Full Story: Autoblog
Related Stories:
Would You Sacrifice Your Safety for Better Gas Mileage and $1000?!
Comments (16)
BOO FREAKIDY HOO.
I will actually feel better if the rebates is for cars more efficent than the Yaris. Or, Honda can sell a cheaper version the Fit without ABS (if that really is the reason of missing .1 liter per 100 km. I'll personally get the version with ABS anyway.
I really hope Honda isn't becoming more like U.S. automaters.
At the same time, Honda was/is making cars MUCH more efficent than the Fit/Jazz, more efficent than the Insight and Civic Hybird as well. JUST SEND THEM TO NORTH AMERICA.
I don't see any big problem.
Posted by enewmen | May 18, 2007 3:57 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 15:57
Honda, don't start acting like Detroit. This can't do stuff doesn't cut it. You should look at it as a challenge, a goal to be reached.You have one of the best engineering teams on the planet. I have complete confidence that the new standard can be met.
Sometimes car makers have to be nudged in the right direction.
Posted by Biil Owens | May 18, 2007 4:49 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 16:49
The point is that they cut it just perfectly so only Toyota would get the rebates. Sounds more like Toyota is acting like Detroit...
Posted by harakim | May 18, 2007 5:01 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 17:01
The whole thing is a joke! If the Canadian Government really wanted to create an incentive (one that might gain respect from the rest of the world) , it would allow the sale of these fuel-efficient vehicles "Tax Free" :)
Posted by Blake | May 18, 2007 6:03 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 18:03
.....or maybe Honda would take a hint and not put extra, unnecessary, airbags in. Also, I fail to understand how ABS is a safety feature. My first car had ABS when I was a teenager and my current car (that I've had for 6 or 7 years now) doesn't - I've yet to wreck in my new car. Anyone want to guess which mechanical failure caused my old car to be totaled?
Posted by Remy LeBeau | May 18, 2007 11:43 PM
Posted on May 18, 2007 23:43
Remy, my guess is operator error. When anti-lock brakes fail, they become... locked brakes.
Posted by Mike | May 19, 2007 6:19 PM
Posted on May 19, 2007 18:19
Anti-lock brakes can screw up without breaking completely.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | May 19, 2007 7:52 PM
Posted on May 19, 2007 19:52
Anti-lock brakes can screw up without breaking completely.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | May 19, 2007 7:53 PM
Posted on May 19, 2007 19:53
I have to praise Honda for selling their cars with one of the highest safety standards in the industry. I own a 2006 Honda Civic EX built in American and I have to say that car saved my butt a couple of times (didn't get into a wreck, just poor road conditions in different parts of America).
Also, if you don't know how to deal with anti-brakes then get some training!!! It does work as advertised, just have to know how to react.
Posted by Darkk | May 21, 2007 2:30 PM
Posted on May 21, 2007 14:30
Honda needs to get a clue and remove the safety features. Some people would rather have a cheaper car with better fuel mileage AND a $1000 rebate. Also, apparently Honda is also offering $1000 off of manual base Civics.
Posted by gm0n3y | May 24, 2007 3:14 PM
Posted on May 24, 2007 15:14
Just about every company makes an econo car. A tenth of a litre per hundred is imperceptible and bad driving can wipe it out big time. I we were really serious we would have $5/litre gas and everyone would find a way to save. Most Canadians are desperately trying to burn as much fuel as they can so they can buy more fresh gas at these cheap prices. People leave their cars running when they go to the doctor so they won't have to turn the key when they get back to the car.
Posted by Rudy | May 25, 2007 12:35 AM
Posted on May 25, 2007 00:35
@Rudy
I think you're exaggerating there buddy. Maybe notice that people stop going on vactations and buy less when gas is high. high gas prices mean high EVERYTHING prices in Canada where EVERYTHING is shipped by truck.
Posted by Canadian in an american forum | May 25, 2007 12:43 AM
Posted on May 25, 2007 00:43
I think Honda is partially right in their complaint for two reasons.
First, they missed the mark by .1 litre / 100 km. The vehicle is still one of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road, yet even if they're .00001 litre / 100 km over the 6.5 mark, their car gets nothing. Why not have two-three brackets instead of just one mark? Add a little gray area.
Under 6.5 = $1000
6.5 - 6.7 = $750
6.7-6.9 = $500
Second, why isn't there a separate incentive for standard safety features? Airbags minimize damage to the passengers which could save the country money on healthcare. (Universal health care). A $250 incentive for a specified set of safety features (ABS / driver & passenger airbags / driver knee airbag (my brother hurt his knee in a minor accident that has now cost over $50,000 in medical bills) / side curtain airbags).
Combine the two changes to the incentive system and Honda customers would get the same rebate as Toyota.
Posted by upl8n8 | May 27, 2007 3:05 AM
Posted on May 27, 2007 03:05
What's confusing about Honda's stance is that I bought a Yaris and got ABS added, and could've added extra airbags if I had chosen (choose not to due to uncertainty of the impact on small children of rear airbags), and I'm still getting the rebate with ABS, and would've with the airbags.
So, is Toyota beating the system by having those things as options, or is Honda making things up by suggesting the safety features are to blame?
Posted by andythesaint | June 29, 2007 3:13 PM
Posted on June 29, 2007 15:13
The Honda Fit gets 3 out of 5 star rating for side crash by the NHTSA and it gets a POOR rear crash rating by the IIHS (these are the people who have to pay after the crash) Do your homework people. The Versa only gets 4 out of 5 on the frontal crash but it's all 5 stars and GOOD rating on the rear crash tests. The Yaris is the worst.
Posted by CoffeeCat | January 10, 2008 11:16 PM
Posted on January 10, 2008 23:16
Thats not an NSX thats a damn S2000
Posted by james elliot | May 28, 2008 2:55 AM
Posted on May 28, 2008 02:55