Your rabbit is also a death trap and a million times more polluting.

Update your rabbit to meet current safety and emissions regulations, then we'll see what it's fuel economy really is.

I think what may be more informative is comparing the new Insight's JC08 and 10•15 ratings to the current Civic Hybrid and Prius.

2010 Insight: 26 km/L JC08 - 30 km/L 10•15
2009 Civic Hybrid: 26 km/L JC08 - 30 km/L 10•15
2009 Prius: 26.9 km/L JC08 - 35.5 km/L 10•15

I have to think that the Insight will probably be very similar to the Civic in real world driving, and still slightly lower (~10%) than the Prius.

I have to wonder, though - just how many Civic Hybrids will Honda sell when they are now offering basically the same car in different packaging for a few thousand dollars less?

Nearly decade-old examples of the original Insight have averaged mid-50s mpg, sometimes getting into the 80s when they were new. Without the direct injection promised in its show-car circuit origins, there could be no CRX Si -like version. But it was close, like a MkI CRX DX with airbags and ABS that used half the gas. A MkII (or MkIb) Insight should have gotten direct injection, a turbocharged Si version and preferably a dual-clutch series/parallel hybrid powerplant allowing real electric-only operation. Now they've apparently just given up on real innovation and gotten on the overweight, steel-bodied Prius-lookalike bandwagon, with about 2/3rds the MkI's mpg as a result.

There's still nothing our there than can really replace my mid-80s CRX/Civic Si habit I've been maintaining for 17 years now. Haven't heard anything more about the CR-Z either... Anything light and therefore both fun and efficient too often gets judged unmarketable. (The MINI weighs too much, and the engine doesn't really impress me.)

Peter:

For proper comparison make a note that diesel fuel packs about 10% more energy per gallon/liter than gasoline.

Also, on gasoline cars catalytic aftertreatment does not lead to increased fuel consumption. On diesel cars NOx absorber does require additional fuel to be wasted during regeneration events, to burn all oxygen in exhaust. Plus additional fuel penalty because of back pressure of particulate filter.

BTW, same NOx absorber as on diesel works fine on lean-combustion direct injection stratified charge gasoline engine, which is close to diesel in thermal efficiency.

Peter,

Not only is your comparison misleading because gasoline contains 124,000 BTUs per gallon and diesel contains 139,000 BTUs per gallon -- 13% more energy per gallon, but there is something even more interesting: out of a barrel of oil, 20 gallons of gasoline can usually be obtained, but only 10 gallons of diesel.

It is true that diesel requires less energy to refine, but with low sulfur requirements phasing in that's becoming less and less true.

At the end of the day, diesel drivers use more fuel per barrel.

If, and this is a big if, there were cheap biodiesel substitutes (such as algal oil) and no similar cheap substitutes for gasoline, then I would agree that compression ignition engines are the better bet.

Hybrids using atkinson cycle engines get closer to diesel peak efficiency, but hybrid keep the average efficiency the same or higher by keeping the engine closer to its sweet spot.

This makes hybrids a better bet long term and just like all other electronic systems, time will make gas-electric hybrids much cheaper whereas diesels will continue to rely heavily on expensive heavy duty engine blocks which will not get cheaper.

Ralph