2009 Honda Odyssey Review
June 2009

MSRP: $26,355 - $41,105

STYLING | 7 out of 10

For 2009, the Honda Odyssey upgrades the EX-L trim level, expands the application of Bluetooth, and adds a power tailgate to the Odyssey EX-L. The look of the Odyssey isn't startlingly good or bad, but it doesn't matter because people don't buy minivans based on looks and emotion.

Car and Driver appreciates the updates, saying, "Now there's a minivan we don't mind driving." MotherProof agrees, describing the Honda Odyssey as "elegant, poised, smooth ... [with] sleek lines and subtle accents." Autoblog says, "Honda has dressed up the Odyssey with some styling tweaks, including ... front bumper fascia." Cars.com notes that the Honda Odyssey "continues its trend of exterior and interior changes."

The interior design is clean and functional. However, the center stack of controls are scattered around and it takes some time to get accustomed to the arrangement. Cars.com, for example, points out the Odyssey's “gearshift lever sits on the instrument panel." ConsumerGuide finds "it's easy to reach but obstructs some controls when in park." Elsewhere, ConsumerGuide likes the "large, clearly marked main gauges." MotherProof says "subtle backlighting creates an elegant view of the instrument panel," and Autoblog points out the "interior has received new colors, textures and fabrics, as well."

Conclusion

On the outside, the 2009 Honda Odyssey is just a minivan, but inside it’s styled a little more than you might expect.

PERFORMANCE | 8 out of 10

The 2009 LX and EX models come standard with a 3.5-liter VTEC V-6 engine that delivers 244 horsepower and 16/23-mpg fuel economy. The EX-L and the Touring are fitted with a 3.5-liter engine that utilizes cylinder deactivation technology. This technology shuts down half of the cylinders at cruising speeds for added fuel efficiency. This engine is rated at 17 mpg city, 25 mpg highway. This more efficient engine produces 241 horsepower, or 3 hp less than the base engine, but you'll never notice the difference—except at the fuel pump. A five-speed automatic transmission is standard with both engines.

"Engines in the LX and EX make 244 horsepower and 240 pounds-feet of torque; EX-L and Touring engines are good for 241 hp and 242 pounds-feet of torque," reports Cars.com. The 3.5-liter V-6 that moves the Honda Odyssey provides very respectable acceleration, especially in a class that isn't known for performance. Edmunds says the "V-6 complements the van's likable road manners, providing satisfying acceleration in virtually all situations." ConsumerGuide is also impressed by the Honda Odyssey’s performance, calling the acceleration "ample around town and when merging onto highways, even with a full complement of passengers."

The transmission is generally without major fault, although ConsumerGuide points out the gearbox "doesn't always downshift promptly in passing situations." Cars.com notes, "Honda's 3.5-liter V-6 teams with a five-speed automatic transmission." The more advanced engine improves fuel economy, and Autoblog corroborates the claim: "VCM improves fuel economy of the 3.5L from 16/23 to 17/25, which isn't a huge jump, but may be appreciated by parent-run chauffeur services."

Edmunds calls the Honda Odyssey "the most car-like minivan on the market today, thanks to its tight turning radius, responsive steering and athletic tuning." ConsumerGuide likes the Odyssey's "sharp, accurate steering," but cautions potential buyers about the Honda's ride over rough roads, "where sharp bumps and highway expansion joints sometimes jab through—especially to rear-seat riders." Editors from TheCarConnection.com continue to be impressed with how well the Odyssey drives, and its good handling does not come at the expense of a smooth ride.

Edmunds finds the Odyssey "easy to pilot," but warns that "its bulk can be a hindrance if you're never taking extra passengers or gear along." As for braking, ConsumerGuide notes, "stopping control is good even with a full passenger load."

Conclusion

Conclusion

Improved fuel economy and carlike handling are two strengths of the 2009 Honda Odyssey.

COMFORT AND QUALITY | 9 out of 10

The 2009 Honda Odyssey delivers a comfortable cabin for up to eight passengers.

While the 2009 Odyssey EX, EX-L, and Touring models can seat eight people, passengers of the standard Honda Odyssey have seven seats to choose from. "Thanks to a removable center seat in the second row that can stow into a recessed compartment, which can be used for storage when the seat isn't stowed," says Cars.com of the EX, EX-L, and Touring models. ConsumerGuide calls the front seats "comfortable and supportive," and proclaims the Honda Odyssey's room "ample for large adults." ConsumerGuide also enjoys "a fine driving position," which is "enhanced on Tourings by power-adjustable pedals." The 2009 Honda Odyssey doesn't disappoint when it comes to rear seat room, although ConsumerGuide once again chimes in with a comment about the third-row seat, which they claim "has adult-size room, but seat suffers a short backrest and thin padding." Kelley Blue Book notes "Honda engineers have made the third-row seat more accessible, thanks to sliding second-row seats."

For some minivan buyers, the versatility of the seating and cargo arrangement is the top priority. Here, the Odyssey isn’t best in class. The second-row seats of the Honda Odyssey are heavy if you need to remove them for cargo; the third-row seat on the Odyssey does fold into a deep well in the rear of the van. When the seat is up, this is an ideal location for grocery bags or other cargo.

ConsumerGuide is impressed by the well behind the 2009 Honda Odyssey's third-row seat, which "swallows a surprising volume of cargo." Cars.com enjoys the "Lazy Susan under-floor tray holds miscellaneous items in Touring models." Edmunds provides the facts on the Honda Odyssey: "With the third row stowed, the Odyssey offers 91 cubic feet of cargo volume behind its second-row seats." There is only one problem with the storage availability in the Honda Odyssey: ConsumerGuide lodges a complaint against the Odyssey: "Under-floor compartment adds extra storage but is not readily accessible." MotherProof has some quibbles about the cup holders as well: "The two front upholders don't fit cans easily .... The other two cup holders held the can steady but were difficult to reach."

ConsumerGuide calls the Honda Odyssey's materials and assembly "top-notch," but "one tester exhibited several squeaks and rattles from aft area," an experience noted by TheCarConnection.com’s editors as well. Honda’s reputation for high quality continues with the interior of the Odyssey.

Remaining quiet while commuting is important for modern minivans, and the 2009 Honda Odyssey complies nicely. ConsumerGuide reports that the Honda Odyssey "is among the quieter minivans. Engine noise is particularly well subdued. Road noise is prevalent at highway speeds, especially with the run-flat tires." They do note passengers in the third row "hear some wind whistle around the tailgate that grows tiresome on long trips."

Conclusion

Seating in the Chrysler is a better system, but the 2009 Honda Odyssey is a spacious and well-outfitted minivan.

SAFETY | 10 out of 10

Minivan owners are concerned more about safety than consumers shopping for other types of vehicles, and the 2009 Honda Odyssey doesn’t disappoint.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) grants a "good" rating for frontal offset crash tests to the Honda Odyssey; 2009 models receive the same rating for side impact tests. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) gives the Odyssey top marks for crash safety, granting it five out of five stars in front impact and side impact protection, and four stars for rollover resistance.

Cars.com confirms the abundance of safety equipment on the 2009 Odyssey: "Side-impact and three-row side curtain airbags, all-disc antilock brakes, and traction control are standard, as is an electronic stability system." Additionally, Motor Trend notices the "2009 model adds active front seat head restraints and daytime running lights as standard equipment." On the Honda Odyssey, 2009 buyers can also get a unique option. "For the Touring trim, Honda offers Michelin PAX run-flat tires, a technology that allows punctured tires to be driven on for more than 100 miles," reports Edmunds, which also has a complaint about the unusual run-flats, noting that the high-tech tires "typically cannot be repaired when a puncture does occur."

Other optional safety gear available on the 2009 Honda Odyssey Touring model includes a "front- and rear-obstacle-detection system,” says ConsumerGuide.

ConsumerGuide reports that "rear visibility is hindered by large headrests and thick roof pillars," though the optional "rearview camera and front and rear park assist help in close-quarters maneuvering."

Conclusion

The 2009 Honda Odyssey performs well in crash tests and offers a myriad of standard and optional safety equipment.

FEATURES | 8 out of 10

The four trim levels available on the 2009 Honda Odyssey are the seven-passenger LX, and eight-passenger versions of the EX, EX-L, and Touring. Honda groups options by trim level, so while the base LX is well equipped, more equipment becomes standard as you move up in price. The 2009 Honda Odyssey Touring is downright luxurious, trimmed in leather and fitted with a navigation system and rear-seat DVD entertainment system. The quality of the interior is high in terms of fit, finish, and materials.

Standard on all models are "the disappearing third-row seat, in-floor storage, CD player, dual-zone air conditioning (tri-zone in EX-L and Touring), power windows, keyless entry and cruise control,” says Kelley Blue Book,

"The more expensive Odyssey EX-L provides a leather-trimmed interior, heated front seats, a power front passenger seat, a rearview-mirror-mounted backup camera, satellite radio and a sunroof," says Edmunds

Cars.com notes that the high-end Touring model "has standard DVD entertainment and navigation systems; those systems are also available in EX-L models, though navigation can only be had in combination with the entertainment system." ConsumerGuide is not necessarily a fan of the gadgets on the high-end Honda Odyssey models: "EX, EX-L, and Touring have an abundance of buttons, switches, and more complicated control design that takes time to understand."

According to Kelley Blue Book, options exclusive to the "premium Touring model are a power tailgate, memory driver's seat, power-adjustable pedals, front and rear parking sensors and a run-flat tire system." Motor Trend reports that "four new premium options have also been made available, including a Bluetooth HandsFreeLink, four-way power passenger seat, rearview camera display, and memory-linked side mirrors with reverse gear tilt-down. DVD entertainment and voice-activated navigation units also are available." XM Satellite Radio is optional on most Odysseys.

Conclusion

Because Honda bundles convenience features with upgraded trim levels of the 2009 Honda Odyssey, consumers are forced to step up to more expensive models in order to get the vehicle they want.

So what if parade floats and minivans are about the only vehicles that people who drive family sedans can laugh at? That doesn’t mean these family haulers can’t be fun to drive.

We think the fun factor is as important as the utilitarian virtues of roominess, fuel economy, comfort, price, and safety. In fact, what makes a car a kick to drive—eager response, precise steering, brisk acceleration, limited body motions, plenty of tire grip, strong braking—also makes it safer. Safety thinking in Washington begins with the crash, inspiring a thicket of regulations conceived to protect occupants from colliding with everything short of meteorites. That’s fine, but we think the occupants are better off if the crash never takes place. And the better a car’s fun-to-drive index, the better its chances are of going unscathed in emergency maneuvers. That’s what our lane-change test is all about.

And, of course, our core philosophy (translated here from the Greek) states: Driving a motor vehicle should provide dynamic gratification to the person at the wheel.

With that in mind, we have pitted the Honda Accord, the defending champ from our last mid-size-sedan comparo [“The Buzzard-and-Baloney Brigade,” March 2008], against two four-doors that have undergone updates, the Ford Fusion and the Mazda 6.

All three pack four-cylinder engines. We’re temperamentally inclined toward potent V-6 engine options, but about 80 percent of mid-size sedans today are propelled by fours. And while automatic transmissions dominate orders in this class, we balked at that mainstream preference. A good manual gearbox is far more gratifying than any conventional automatic.

Starting at the Streets of Willow racetrack in Southern California’s high desert, we spent two days driving in and around the sweet winding roads of the Santa Ynez Valley, where there was so much chanting “Slow in, fast out” that we damn near forgot we were testing some of the most practical sheetmetal on the market.

A winner emerged, though not unanimously. It was close. Here’s what we found.

2010 Ford Fusion SE

Even with a face inspired by a Lady Schick razor, the Ford Fusion is one of the most hopeful signs of life on planet Blue Oval. “Even if we had 10 cars in this comparo, the Fusion would still be in the top three,” gushed one editor.

The updated Fusion has already made headlines, thanks to the achievement of its new hybrid version, rated tops among mid-size gasoline-electrics by us [“Long Rangers,” February 2009], as well as the EPA (41 mpg city/36 highway). The boring old gasoline Fusion has no similar claim to greatness and is overshadowed in this comparo by two best-in-classers.

Nevertheless, functional updates such as 15 additional horsepower from a new 175-hp, 2.5-liter Duratec four, an engine that is shared with the Mazda, make this face-lifted Ford—it still has the blades to make your legs silky smooth—more pleasant to live with than its predecessor and put it several rungs higher on the mid-size ladder.

Note the word functional. We think Ford’s designers didn’t do the Fusion any favors with their latest cosmetic decisions. The bright three-bar grille that became Ford’s new design face has, for example, increased in size and acquired winglets that extend over its new headlights. With the possible exception of beluga caviar, more of a good thing inevitably becomes too much, as this new grille demonstrates.

Inside, the Fusion’s dashboard and door panels are clad in plastic with a graining that’s somewhere between the look of ostrich skin and walrus hide. It’s too coarse, and too much, to our eye. The material of the cloth upholstery was also underwhelming. Even making allowances for this car’s preproduction status, the upholstery looked cheap.

From a functional point of view, though, the Fusion stacks up well. It matched the Honda and the Mazda in ergonomics, the secondary-control backlighting was welcome at night, and if the blue-and-white instrument illumination seems a little too lurid in a showy Las Vegas way, it’s certainly a vividly distinctive feature.

The front bucket seats deliver the best lateral support of the three cars, although we think Ford’s power-seat policy—it retains manual adjustability for the seatback—is the wrong place to save money. In back, the Fusion offers good room for two adults, although it’s knees up, owing to a low H-point. It’s tight for three, but that’s the case, in varying degrees, for all mid-size sedans. The trunk space is 17 cubic feet, same as the Mazda’s, both of them bigger than the Honda’s 14 cubes.

Dynamically, the Fusion got our vote for the car to be in when you’re stuck on 40 miles of bad road. Easy does it. The suspension tuning was the softest of this trio, and hard cornering produced more up-and-down motions. A little more rebound damping might improve the Fusion’s responses without sacrificing much of its smooth ride. On the other hand, the steering was nearly as good as the best in this group, and the car was absolutely devoid of nasty surprises.

That soft suspension didn’t help the Fusion in the emergency-lane-change test, where it finished third, but it tied the Honda for braking, although stopping in 180 feet from 70 mph is nothing to brag about. It also ran neck and neck with the Mazda 6 in our acceleration tests, and the throws of its six-speed manual transmission, though long, were exceptionally crisp.

The Fusion tied with the Accord for fuel-economy honors, at 25 mpg overall, in driving that wasn’t exactly mpg minded. It was also the most affordable of the cars—lowest base price and the lowest tab as tested.

But as good as it is, the Fusion doesn’t register a high score on our fun meter. “A perfectly decent car,” concluded one crew member. “But it’s soft for intense motoring and might be better suited to someone whose needs include quiet operation and a softer ride.”

2009 Mazda 6 i Touring

Behold the four-door RX-8, says the new Mazda 6 with its styling. Right. Behold the plus-size Mazda 3, we say after driving it. Either way you call it, the new Mazda 6 continues to be the rowdy, spirited stud of the mid-size pack.

For all its rousing spirit, the previous Mazda 6 lagged in sales a bit, primarily because it was perceived to be a little small by mid-size-sedan standards. Mazda addressed that perception with its 2009 redesign, which is bigger in every dimension. (The Accord is still bigger, though just barely.) The key question here is whether that size increase has diluted the esprit that made the previous car an enthusiast favorite.

We’ll get to that in a minute. First, let’s take a look at the nondynamic elements. Styling, for example. Although we were far from unanimity on some elements of the scoring in this test, there were no arguments about which car would win in a beauty contest. There’s a hint of RX-8 in the front fenders, the fast rear roofline and backlight suggest speed, and the sheetmetal is wrapped tightly around the 17-inch aluminum alloy wheels. The previous Mazda 6 was a wallflower. This new one is a rose.

The good looks don’t stop at the door. The Mazda’s interior design is clean and elegantly simple, enhanced by quality materials, although the flimsy inside rearview mirror is out of step on this score. We can’t say we’re sold on the look of the major gauges, with their pulsing blue halos, and we were a little surprised that the bolstering on the front seats wasn’t more aggressive, considering the sporty message conveyed by the exterior. Short bottom cushions, too.

On the other hand, the Mazda has a nifty touch we haven’t seen anywhere else in this class: a three-position switch for adjusting headlight level—ideal for occasions when you’ve filled the trunk with heavy stuff such as cement bags or your mother-in-law.

Like the Fusion, the Mazda’s standard transmission is a six-speed manual, a satisfying piece of equipment with short throws and positive engagements. The Mazda’s four-cylinder is up from 2.3 liters and 156 horsepower to 2.5 liters and 170 horses—168 in PZEV (Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle) California editions such as our test car. Although the Mazda’s powerplant comes up seven horses short of the Fusion’s, it registered identical times in our benchmark sprints: 0 to 60 in 8.0 seconds, the quarter-mile in 16.1 at 88 mph.

On our impromptu handling loop, and on the run to and from a lonely stretch of beach west of Lompoc, the Mazda showed that its ability to zig and zag hasn’t been diminished too much by its size increase. But if that’s true, how did it wind up second on the scoreboard?

We’re talking subtle distinctions here. Brake-pedal feel, for example, wasn’t quite as positive as in the Accord. The Mazda turned in readily, the Accord decisively. The Mazda’s freeway ride was good, but it verged on harsh when we operated on patchy pavement. Its suspension tuning was more overtly sporty than the Accord’s, but the Honda held a tangible edge in transient response while delivering a more supple ride on just about any surface.

It came down to a question of refinement, and after three decades and eight generations, the Accord has more of it.

Still, if styling is a high priority, the Mazda 6 looks like a winner. And we don’t think there’s much chance that it would disappoint its owners in matters of fun to drive.

2009 Honda Accord EX-L

A big ol’ golden-years glider like the Mercury Grand Marquis is what comes to mind when you hear the words “full-size sedan.” That’s how the EPA defines the new Freightliner-sized Accord, but we’re not buying it. Not when it moves with the light step of a running back.

Even though the new Accord is longer and wider than the previous generation, it’s actually nowhere near as grand as the Grand Marquis. That government full-size rating has to do with interior volume, and there’s just enough to nudge the Accord sedan (but not the coupe) into the realm of the bigs.

And the Accord was the biggest car in this test, but not by much—less than a half-inch more than the mega-Mazda in any dimension. It wasn’t heaviest—the Mazda and the Fusion scaled in 20 pounds higher. That weight distinction is obviously academic, but here’s the point: The bigger Accord doesn’t drive big. It’s at least as agile as its predecessor—smooth, unflappable, and polished—with suggestions of an inner tiger when the revs spool north of six grand.

Before we get to the Accord’s dynamic credits, we must list some demerits. As noted, the Accord wins this one on a split decision, and the dissenting crew member marked it down severely for a couple of what seemed to him to be unforgivable laws. “Too big,” he complained, displaying a keen eye for tiny dimensional disparities. “And it’s ugly,” he added.

On this second point, the majority voters didn’t argue with much vehemence. Okay, perhaps “ugly” is much too strong. Let’s say it’s mildly misshapen in the same way that North Dakota is mildly flat.

Our dissident also cited noise, and it’s true that the Accord’s four generated a healthy power crescendo at wide-open throttle. But at freeway speeds, its sedate 68-dB reading was identical to the others.

Still, there were negatives that showed up on all the tallies. One you’ve heard before—a center stack studded with buttons, some for our test car’s optional nav system, some for the audio, some for the climate controls. Our gripe here is that the climate controls are split into two groups that flank the rest of the array—for symmetry, no doubt, but certainly not for any functional advantage.

A bigger black mark goes to the transmission. Not for function—like other Honda manuals, the Accord’s is a pleas­ure to use, with crisp engagements and a sweet clutch. But it’s short one gear—this five-speed should be a six. Power from the Accord’s 190-hp 2.4-liter is robust, and its screaming 7100-rpm redline was highest of the group, but there’s a significant hole in the gearing between fourth and the very tall fifth, and acceleration in fifth is languid at best.

Our test car might have been hobbled a bit by newness—just over 100 miles on the odo when we picked it up, a last-minute substitute for the car originally scheduled (which cost $4000 less). New engines generally perform better once they’ve accumulated a little mileage. But even so, the Accord was tops in standing-start acceleration, a half-second quicker than the next best to 60 mph, and tied the Ford for fuel consumption during the test (25 mpg overall). It was so-so on the skidpad at 0.82 g, but it was quickest in the emergency-lane-change exercise, partially because its stability control could be disabled completely.

The Accord scored well in expected areas—fit and finish, front seats, and ergonomics, that battalion of center dashboard buttons notwithstanding. And as we also expected, its rear cabin felt bigger—in head, leg, and shoulder room—than those of its rivals.

If the steering was a little light, it was also as precise as laser surgery. One logbook comment summed it up best, citing the Accord’s “intuitive path control—you can place the car with complete confidence, right up to the limits of adhesion.” In a very close finish, it was the Accord’s willingness to unwind a winding road that prevailed.

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.