From the Japanese datasheet it's pretty clear that:
- the petrol engine has 98 hp at 5600-6400 rpm with 127 Nm torque at typically high 4500-5000 rpm
- the electric motor has high a low-end torque (unknown value because they only state the total torque) but falls off above 3000 rpm, this indicated low hp from it. At 6000 rpm the electro power is limited to 109 - 98 =11 hp.
- line 3+4 are the total output of the whole system. 109 hp from 3500-8000 rpm and a massive low-end torque of 253 Nm but only from 0-3000 rpm. Not sure if the engine is going to rev 8000 rpm.
- So the car will feel to the driver as a pretty strong electro car but the total output is limited above 3500 rpm to strictly 109 hp by reducing the electro motor.
- So you're going to hit the windscreen under full acceleration when 3500 rpm is reached.
- No hope that the total output will be 130 hp or any higher. At least the car will 'feel' like a 2.5 l petrol engine up to 3000 rpm. But also like a 1.0 l VTEC engine at high rpms.
- Compared to the Insight Mk3 if the manufacturer wants to save costs he does best with the electro components like battery capacity.
I don't believe those 4.5 l/100 km. The Japanese states 38.6 km/l with a quite optimistic test cycle. This would be 2.6 l/100 km. Regarding the technology and the fact that you can reach the manufacturers no. ususally (at least I can go lower than them
), 3.5-4.0 l/100 km are realistic, sometimes even 3.0 for hypermilers. The CR-V is at 5.5 l/100 km but it's far heavier, AWD and with a 2.0 petrol engine.