Slashdot Mirror

It's just like software bloat. Car models get bigger over time. A new Honda Fit is a closer match to your 92 Civic. It's probably a little smaller outside, but it matches the old Civic for power, comfort and interior room.

BTW, the EPA adjusted the mileage test for 2008. MPG is down across the board because the old mileage test was unrealistic and didn't match up with real world (read lead-footed) driving.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

Honda Fit got 38 mpg highway under the old test, 34 mpg highway under the new test. If you drive it like a granny, you'd still get 38 mpg.

From Fueleconomy.gov:

We have revised the 1985-2007 MPG estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 MPG estimates!

Fuel Type: Regular
MPG (city): 41
MPG (highway): 50
MPG (combined): 45

Not bad, but not 50-60 mpg.

Toyota hybrids use a strange thing called an E-CVT. Ford hybrids are supposed to have something similar. My experience with a Prius is that it's transmission does a far better job than a regular automautic transmission, but you'll have to decide for yourself.

4 WD truck hybrids do exist. They are even planning on hemi-hybrids next year. Personally I'd wait a few years before looking at a truck hybrid.

It just seems to be a shallow field--either the Prius, or the Honda Civic Hybrid.

You haven't been paying attention and it shows.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_news.shtml

Toyota in addition to the Prius has the Highlander and Camry.

Thanks for the info--it was this kind of post I was hoping for.

You are welcome.

Oddly enough, I can't find the revised numbers you cite for the S70 at the government's fuel economy site. Same with the Accord.

Also, if you have a manual transmission, you can easily beat the epa mileage estimates. Automatics don't do as well, since you can't "lug" the engine, etc.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

It's simple math. I don't care what the Prius looks like or what the Civic Hybrid looks like.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp? id=23599 vs http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp? id=23533

Stat: Prius vs Civic
Class Midsize Compact
MPG 46 42
GHG Emissions 4.0 4.4
Engine 1.5 1.3
Passenger Volume 96ft3 91ft3
Trunk Volume 16ft3 10ft3

Sure the Prius hybrid is more popular than the Civic Hybrid, it gets more MPG and has more cargo area and more cabin space.

Besides if the looking different thing is so significant why is it that you can't easily tell the difference between a Camry and a Camry Hybrid?

Stat: Camry Hybrid vs Old school Camry
MPG 34 24
Combined HP 187 158
GHG Emissions 5.4 7.7
Engine 2.4 2.4
Passenger Volume 101ft3 101ft3
Trunk Volume 11ft3 15ft3

If you want the extra cabin space and horse power at the expense of cargo volume and worse emissions you get the Prius vs Camry Hybrid comparison

Stat: Prius vs Camry Hybrid
Class Midsize Compact
MPG 46 34
GHG Emissions 4.0 5.4
Engine 1.5 2.4
Passenger Volume 96ft3 101ft3
Trunk Volume 16ft3 11ft3

The Prius costs less. The Camry looks "normal".

There are plenty of trade offs but looks are the last of my concerns when deciding between these three Hybrid vehicles. and yes the formatting is bad, not sure why I couldn't just use a PRE tag.

It's simple math. I don't care what the Prius looks like or what the Civic Hybrid looks like.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp? id=23599 vs http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp? id=23533

Stat: Prius vs Civic
Class Midsize Compact
MPG 46 42
GHG Emissions 4.0 4.4
Engine 1.5 1.3
Passenger Volume 96ft3 91ft3
Trunk Volume 16ft3 10ft3

Sure the Prius hybrid is more popular than the Civic Hybrid, it gets more MPG and has more cargo area and more cabin space.

Besides if the looking different thing is so significant why is it that you can't easily tell the difference between a Camry and a Camry Hybrid?

Stat: Camry Hybrid vs Old school Camry
MPG 34 24
Combined HP 187 158
GHG Emissions 5.4 7.7
Engine 2.4 2.4
Passenger Volume 101ft3 101ft3
Trunk Volume 11ft3 15ft3

If you want the extra cabin space and horse power at the expense of cargo volume and worse emissions you get the Prius vs Camry Hybrid comparison

Stat: Prius vs Camry Hybrid
Class Midsize Compact
MPG 46 34
GHG Emissions 4.0 5.4
Engine 1.5 2.4
Passenger Volume 96ft3 101ft3
Trunk Volume 16ft3 11ft3

The Prius costs less. The Camry looks "normal".

There are plenty of trade offs but looks are the last of my concerns when deciding between these three Hybrid vehicles. and yes the formatting is bad, not sure why I couldn't just use a PRE tag.

My '94 Civic VX was rated for, and fully capable of, 56mpg highway. It has 140,000 miles, and I've been ironing out some 'bugs' in the systems over my 7500 miles in the car (sticking brakes, bad lean air fuel sensor, poorly-gapped spark plugs, etc), but I've still averaged 46-47mpg since I got the car in early May. I recently had two 420-mile tanks, 200 miles hwy/220 miles city that averaged 50.5 and 51.2mpg. Then I screwed up the brakes, and the following two 320-mile tanks averaged 42mpg. Fixed the brakes, and the next tank popped up to 50mpg.

See my other post on the Civic VX/HX/Hybrid and Insight

Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi deBySidePopUp.jsp?column=1&id=7733, the most efficient 91 Tercel (in terms of highway mpg) was one w/a 4 speed manual, rated at 33/37. It had a curb weight of ~1950 to 2050 lbs. from looking at http://www.edmunds.com/used/1991/toyota/tercel/883 0/specs.html and autos.msn.com along w/a whopping 82 hp.

In comparison, a 2007 Honda Civic is EPA rated 30/40 w/auto, weighs 2690 to 2807 lbs (depending on trim per http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications _full_specs.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan&Category=4) and has 140 (!) hp.

However, per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, using the new MY 2008+ ratings, the Corolla you speak of is EPA rated 28/37, 31 combined vs. 48/45, 46 combined. That's a deficit of about ~21% for highway and 48% combined. Not that close in my book.

That's total BS to claim that you're CLEANING the environment by driving any car. I guess you've never bothered to look up actual emissions nor the meanings of air pollution scores. Per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm, the 07 Mercedes E320 Bluetec emits 8.1 tons/year of greenhouse gases. It's greater than 0 or negative. FWIW, the Prius is estimated to emit 4 tons/year.

The air pollution score for the Merc for some reason is unavailable, but http://www.trucks.autoblog.com/2006/08/29/bluetec- diesel-fails-to-meet-50-state-emissions-requiremen t/ mentions it failed to meet Tier 2 Bin 5. You can lookup the meaning of that on page 1 of http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/detailedchart.pdf vs. the PZEV (9.5 score that CARB spec Priuses get) on page 3. You'll see that for Tier 2 Bin 5, the allowed emission limits for all pollutants except one are MANY times higher than that of a PZEV car. Again, both of these are non-zero values.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

The 07 328i is EPA rated 18/28 w/a manual per the new MY 2008+ ratings and 20/30 per the MY 2007- ratings. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm. It seems unlikely you're getting in the high 30s (assuming US gallons and not Imperial gallons) unless you're hypermiling or you're basing it on a trip computer which maybe way inaccurate. (My former 02 Nissan Maxima's trip computer usually read 2-3 mpg too high, sometimes as much as 4 mpg high.)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp? id=23518

That's 21 combined, sucker! You're likely faring much worse if you brake right at the light and hit the gas at every start like the other BMW drivers I know ;)

Even the EPA agrees!

2006 VW Golf 1.9l Diesel vs. 2006 VW Golf 2.0l Gas
(both manual transmission)

Fuel Economy:
Diesel: 34MPG (Combined City and Highway)
Gas: 24MPG (Combined City and Highway)

Annual Petroleum Consumption (15,000 MPY):
Diesel: 11.6 Barrels
Gas: 14.3 Barrels

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (15,000 MPY):
Diesel: 6.2 tons/yr
Gas: 7.7 tons/yr

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes?

See for yourself!
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

The most efficient Toyota would have to be the Prius which according the same site gets around 46 mpg

We are NOT using a gallon of petroleum to produce a gallon (of less then a gallon if you believe the FUD) of ethanol. Not all energy in the world comes from petroleum. Most of the fuel used to produce Ethanol comes from Coal or Natural Gas.

Your other statement about fuel mileage is also inaccurate.

The production of ethanol involves growing plants which reduce smog and CO2 while the production of gasoline only produces smog while never contributing to the reduction of it, that is simple common knowledge that you don't need a PHD to understand.

Do you have anymore FUD that you've been swallowing from Big Oil without researching?

Don't need to. $2.34 a gallon? In your dreams. $3.50/gal * 90.9 gallons = $318.15

That's a price difference of ($425 - $318.15 = $106.85), a small price to pay for independence from foreign oil. And that's assuming that their 17MPG figure is correct for an E85 vehicle (which it's not) and that they had compared vehicles of the approximately the same size and class (which they didn't). I also question their prices per gallon for ethanol, as the government shows them as being cheaper to operate

Don't need to. $2.34 a gallon? In your dreams. $3.50/gal * 90.9 gallons = $318.15

That's a price difference of ($425 - $318.15 = $106.85), a small price to pay for independence from foreign oil. And that's assuming that their 17MPG figure is correct for an E85 vehicle (which it's not) and that they had compared vehicles of the approximately the same size and class (which they didn't). I also question their prices per gallon for ethanol, as the government shows them as being cheaper to operate

The global economy is going to at least triple in the next 30 years, just based on population growth and inertia. It could do a whole lot more than that. 20% per capita reduction for the top energy users doesn't matter when the group of people using grows by 400%.

(And the big 3 are going out of business because of their pension and insurance liabilities, not because of any technical magic under the hoods of Hondas and Toyotas. The fuel use of a 1985 Escort is not insanely out of line with the fuel use of a 2005 Civic; the Civic is a nicer car, but the Escort got decent mileage. Here are a bunch or models of each:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Ford_E scort.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Honda_ Civic.shtml

Note that the Escort has ~85 cubic feet of passenger volume to the Civic's 91. Not great, but not too shabby.)

The global economy is going to at least triple in the next 30 years, just based on population growth and inertia. It could do a whole lot more than that. 20% per capita reduction for the top energy users doesn't matter when the group of people using grows by 400%.

(And the big 3 are going out of business because of their pension and insurance liabilities, not because of any technical magic under the hoods of Hondas and Toyotas. The fuel use of a 1985 Escort is not insanely out of line with the fuel use of a 2005 Civic; the Civic is a nicer car, but the Escort got decent mileage. Here are a bunch or models of each:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Ford_E scort.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Honda_ Civic.shtml

Note that the Escort has ~85 cubic feet of passenger volume to the Civic's 91. Not great, but not too shabby.)

My 30mpg '93 Ford Escort kicked the bucket a few weeks back, and I started looking for a replacement. I felt fortunate to find a 1994 Honda Civic VX. It had 133,000 miles, and was being sold by a lady who didn't want the standard transmission anymore due to degeneration of her knees. Just got back yesterday from a 4000 mile road trip, and if I exclude the sub-40mpg tanks that resulted from a bad sensor ("Lean Air Fuel", iirc, replaced before the return trip), we averaged 50mpg.

The Civic VX has Honda's economy engine, the VTEC-E. Whereas most engines are optimized for perfomance, this one is optimized for fuel economy. It's kind of gutless on normal driving, but has decent acceleration in 2nd and 3rd gear above 4000rpm - better than my escort, certainly.

If my 13-year old civic can get 52+mpg (best tank was 57mpg for 417 miles, before the sensor went bad), why does the fuel economy of all new cars suck? The only new cars rated at 50mpg or higher are fat hybrids (read that the new civic gained 500 pounds). Auto manufacturers could build a non-hybrid car with a 40 or 48 volt electrical system, and a starter/generator to stop the engine whenever it idles, and electric power brakes and Air Conditioning (essential in certain markets). After 13+ years of drivetrain development, the new Honda Fit should get at least 70mpg. Maybe someone can explain to me why it's only rated for 38 on the highway - what I got when my car was missing due to the bad sensor.

No, Hybrids and Ethanol and Hydrogen and Peak Oil and CO2-caused Global Warming are just meant to distract 'teh masses' ('us') from the fact that we're getting screwed by the 1% who own 70% or 90% of all wealth. Their auto companies only buld us cars that get crappy gas mileage, and now that we're all mostly dependant on the "everyone has their own car" philosophy of transportation, they jack the price of gasoline to squeeze the last little bit of wealth from the common peoples' wallets.

Hopefully someone will figure out cold fusion soon, and make the energy establishment ('big oil') obsolete.

My 30mpg '93 Ford Escort kicked the bucket a few weeks back, and I started looking for a replacement. I felt fortunate to find a 1994 Honda Civic VX. It had 133,000 miles, and was being sold by a lady who didn't want the standard transmission anymore due to degeneration of her knees. Just got back yesterday from a 4000 mile road trip, and if I exclude the sub-40mpg tanks that resulted from a bad sensor ("Lean Air Fuel", iirc, replaced before the return trip), we averaged 50mpg.

The Civic VX has Honda's economy engine, the VTEC-E. Whereas most engines are optimized for perfomance, this one is optimized for fuel economy. It's kind of gutless on normal driving, but has decent acceleration in 2nd and 3rd gear above 4000rpm - better than my escort, certainly.

If my 13-year old civic can get 52+mpg (best tank was 57mpg for 417 miles, before the sensor went bad), why does the fuel economy of all new cars suck? The only new cars rated at 50mpg or higher are fat hybrids (read that the new civic gained 500 pounds). Auto manufacturers could build a non-hybrid car with a 40 or 48 volt electrical system, and a starter/generator to stop the engine whenever it idles, and electric power brakes and Air Conditioning (essential in certain markets). After 13+ years of drivetrain development, the new Honda Fit should get at least 70mpg. Maybe someone can explain to me why it's only rated for 38 on the highway - what I got when my car was missing due to the bad sensor.

No, Hybrids and Ethanol and Hydrogen and Peak Oil and CO2-caused Global Warming are just meant to distract 'teh masses' ('us') from the fact that we're getting screwed by the 1% who own 70% or 90% of all wealth. Their auto companies only buld us cars that get crappy gas mileage, and now that we're all mostly dependant on the "everyone has their own car" philosophy of transportation, they jack the price of gasoline to squeeze the last little bit of wealth from the common peoples' wallets.

Hopefully someone will figure out cold fusion soon, and make the energy establishment ('big oil') obsolete.

You must be doing mostly highway driving...

The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.

Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."

On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/hon da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).

Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

You must be doing mostly highway driving...

The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.

Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."

On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/hon da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).

Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

Driving cars on different days, at different weather and traffic conditions would never pass QA. The indoor, well-controlled tests provide a standardized way of comparing one car to another. The EPA needs to have well-controlled experiments to cover its ass. Real world numbers can be obtained from the site linked above.

On carmax.com, right now, I can buy a two-year-old Ford Explorer, nicely equipped, for @22k. A decently-equipped Prius (sorry, no hairshirt for me) is going to run around $30k. There are no second-hand Prii for sale at Carmax.

Who is paying $30k for a Prius these days? A fully loaded Prius (Touring edition w/ Package #6) has a MSRP of $27,865, invoice of $21,791, and Edmunds says people are currently paying $26,497. There was even a $2000 rebate on that package last month (don't know if its still available). How can you compare the price of a two year old car with a new car? Carmax in my area has used Priuses. There is a 2005 model for about $22k. Maybe this is just a problem with your area.

Paying $8k more for a car with a much smaller load-carrying capacity doesn't cut it for me. I can offset current spending on gasoline against the principal and interest on $8k, and easily carry five people, all their luggage, and four bikes to the beach (e.g., Atlanta to Pensacola), and know that the technology under me is fairly well-understood and easily-maintainable.

Does that scenario (5 people and four bikes) actually occur very often? If not, you can always rent a larger vehicle when you really need to do that. The Prius is not a small car, and can actually fit quite a bit of cargo. You can fit 2 people + 2 bikes easily and that's IN the car, no bike carier. Five very tall people will have no problem fitting (the rear seating is very spacious), and with a bike rack you could do 4 bikes with no problem. There is even a trailer hitch available that will support a bike rack. It's not the monstrosity that an Explorer is, but it does have a very usable cargo area.

My next car will be an Explorer as well.

And you next car, unless its a hybrid or uses alternative fuels, will probably put out 10-11 tons of greenhouse gases a year (compared to the 3.4 tons a Prius puts out). See this site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodel NF.shtml

Yep. Also, the tests would need to be repeatable.

For a summary of the test procedure, see:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

One can also compare old and new MPG estimates at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYea r.jsp.

Yep. Also, the tests would need to be repeatable.

For a summary of the test procedure, see:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

One can also compare old and new MPG estimates at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYea r.jsp.

Yep. Also, the tests would need to be repeatable.

For a summary of the test procedure, see:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

One can also compare old and new MPG estimates at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYea r.jsp.

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it.

a) wheels, roof, motor
b) highway speed capable
c) 4 seats and small storage
d) low TCO

So, I drive a 1996 Geo Metro which based on the new tests is listed at 40MPG (which based on my records, I'm actually getting year round - over 45 in summer, about 35 in winter).

Compare this to the 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid which is rated at an astounding 42MPG and I'm really hoping to get many many more miles out of my Metro before I'm force to down grade to a newer car....

a) wheels, roof, motor
b) highway speed capable
c) 4 seats and small storage
d) low TCO

So, I drive a 1996 Geo Metro which based on the new tests is listed at 40MPG (which based on my records, I'm actually getting year round - over 45 in summer, about 35 in winter).

Compare this to the 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid which is rated at an astounding 42MPG and I'm really hoping to get many many more miles out of my Metro before I'm force to down grade to a newer car....

The EPA doesn't actually test the cars under real situations.

The car manufacturers test their OWN cars, but not in real-world. They put them on a Dynamometer, drive it in varying conditions, and collect the carbon it produced. From that, they calculate how much fuel the car burned and then derive the MPG from that.

Of COURSE a hybrid would SHOW a huge MPG rating by that government standard. A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass (pun intended)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

While fuel efficiency is one of those places where "your mileage may vary" should be taken literally, the rated fuel economy of the 2001 Jimmy (2WD, 4WD is even worse) is 16 city, 22 highway. If you are getting 22-27 mpg, either you must have an unusually efficient car, your foot has an aversion to the gas pedal, you only drive on perfectly smooth roads (which seems to defeat the point of an SUV to me), or you suck at math.

Also, note that typical sedans can usually get from the mid 20s to the low 30s. No a sedan won't help you compensate for your small penis, but to be honest I don't think your Jimmy will fool that many girls either.

Per http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s0600 3.htm, the average curb weight of 2006 model year vehicles sold in the US was 4142 lbs. 50% of them were "light trucks" which includes SUVs, minivans, pickups and some vans.

There are an insane # of solo and/or soccer mom driven 5000+ lb. SUVs such as Ford Expeditions, Chevy Suburbans, Yukons, Tahoes and Lincoln Navigators. Hummer H2s are even worse w/ 6400 lb. curb weight. They're exempt from even being TESTED for mileage and don't even count against GM's CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy Numbers) per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/which_tested.shtml because they have over 8500 lb. GVWR.

They're gross polluters and a danger to other drivers.

Okay, we're arguing over a faulty generalization that is not in any form a fact nor truth, but instead bullshit, and FUD.

"many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy" is as true as "all geeks wear glasses" or "your momma is fat..." without any scientific numbers to fairly digest against.

Thank you for at least naming one vehicle such as the VW Golf to compare with, but it's only slightly comparable to the Prius in FE, size, and weight.

Briefly, fueleconomy.gov has the Golf at 34MPG for a diesel TDI (or 29.58MPG gasoline) with 638593.389 cubic inches on 3091 lbs over 98.9 inch wheelbase, or 0.01099/0.00956 MPG/lb respectively. 30miles * 30 days @ 34MPG @ $2.96 diesel = $78.

A Prius is 46MPG (16.42MPG more) on gasoline with 690373.25 (51779.861 more cubic inches) on 2890 lbs over a 106.3 inch wheelbase, or 0.01591 MPG/lb. 30 miles * 30 days @ 46MPG @ $3.228 gasoline = $63.

Price between the two is ~$1K MSRP. My scientific conclusion is the Prius is bigger, lighter, and more fuel efficient per pound than the diesel Golf, so a better value. Probably not as fun to drive, however.

Got another "easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy"?

Okay, we're arguing over a faulty generalization that is not in any form a fact nor truth, but instead bullshit, and FUD.

"many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy" is as true as "all geeks wear glasses" or "your momma is fat..." without any scientific numbers to fairly digest against.

Thank you for at least naming one vehicle such as the VW Golf to compare with, but it's only slightly comparable to the Prius in FE, size, and weight.

Briefly, fueleconomy.gov has the Golf at 34MPG for a diesel TDI (or 29.58MPG gasoline) with 638593.389 cubic inches on 3091 lbs over 98.9 inch wheelbase, or 0.01099/0.00956 MPG/lb respectively. 30miles * 30 days @ 34MPG @ $2.96 diesel = $78.

A Prius is 46MPG (16.42MPG more) on gasoline with 690373.25 (51779.861 more cubic inches) on 2890 lbs over a 106.3 inch wheelbase, or 0.01591 MPG/lb. 30 miles * 30 days @ 46MPG @ $3.228 gasoline = $63.

Price between the two is ~$1K MSRP. My scientific conclusion is the Prius is bigger, lighter, and more fuel efficient per pound than the diesel Golf, so a better value. Probably not as fun to drive, however.

Got another "easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy"?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20680.shtm l

And, it's a deathtrap: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/rat ings.php?id1=2
I believe European crash tests are much stricter than the American's because of the possible higher European highway speeds, and more twisty roads.

You could already achieve near 100MPG in most high MPG cars with sensible driving (such as Prius and Insight), or sensible size as you've said.

Do you have any references? The best I can find is a 2003 Honda Insight, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001cartablef.jsp?i d=18313

From what I can see elsewhere, the Smart fortwo gets 60 in theory and 50 in practice. It's also using Diesel which has a higher energy density. When you put regular gas in one, it gets 49 in theory... and I don't know what in practice.

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=7 51&fArticleId=3742155

There's not a lot you can shave off the Insight before it becomes impractical. Maybe you can go Diesel and boost the milage, do some creative work with the fuel to ensure it is completely consumed, and finally start losing acceleration, seats and trunk space... turning it into something as impractical as the Smart, only much more fuel efficient. Then to make 100, start cutting safety features.

100MPG is a tough target for a practical vehicle. I think the people who designed the goal wanted something that could be achieved after the second or third competition.

I'm sorry, I think I was mistaken about the trim level on the Civic. I believe it was the VX and not the HX because the HX has a 1.6L engine and the car I am referring to had a 1.5L engine which was only available in the VX. The Honda Civic VX is the "economy version" of the Civic. You can find economy numbers for the 1995 Honda Civic here:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/11700.shtm l

It came with 13 inch wheels with low rolling resistance tires and weight saving options like manual window cranks and lightened wheels and suspension components to reduce unsprung weight. It was the lightest Civic and it returned 20-30% better economy over a Civic DX or EX. I have not owned one personally but a friend in college did and we tracked actual gas mileage to be above 45 MPG on the highway and around 35-40 MPG in the city depending on conditions and speeds.

Given the adjustment of mileage standards that the U.S. recently instituted, the Civic equals if not betters the Prius' economy. If you want to better it Suzuki's mid-90's Swift had mileage ratings in the 50 MPG category and actual measured mileage in the mid 40's for city and highway driving.

Many Prius owners are seeing real world mileage numbers of 35-40 MPG on average. What I don't have numbers for and seems to be harder to find is emissions statistics for all of these cars mentioned. I do know that the Civic has been for a very long time a Low-Emissions Vehicle or Ultra Low-Emissions Vehicle. The Swift was never rated on the LEV or ULEV vehicle scale as far as I know and the scale is adjusted for engine size and so on anyway. My truck is rated as a LEV.

I will reiterate the point that the Prius is not necessarily an eco-friendly car because there are too many factors that go in to determining that to say for certain. Gas mileage is only a small part of a much bigger picture. It is not even accurate when it can be shown that a car that does not have to lug around the weight of the sophisticated electric drive system can achieve better mileage numbers than the "godsend" that is the Prius.

Stop deluding yourself. You bought a nice car with gadgetry that will lead to better systems in the future. Unfortunately, the Prius has turned into a fad. The Prius is not going to save the planet. All it will do is give you the self-righteous satisfaction of thinking you are doing something to save the planet. I'll keep trying to actually do something to save the planet. You can continue to feel good about yourself because you bought a Prius. You could probably conserve more energy, save more resources and do more work to save the planet by recycling trash you find in the gutters than driving a Prius.

The story is absolute crap and I've already emailed The Recorder's Editor-in-Chief Mark Rowan a week ago when the story appeared on digg

From the article: "The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs."

Here's the 2008 mpg Aveo getting 23/31 according to the EPA's 2008 website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi deBySide.jsp?column=1&id=23173

and the 2008 mpg for the Prius getting 48/45: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEng ine.jsp?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Prius

HOW THE HELL DO YOU Call 23 city compared to 48 city "spitting distance". Even 45mpg highway and 31mpg highway isn't "spitting distance".

The guy is a complete liar and should never write another article. If the reader has to look up every claim the guy makes and prove which ones are true and which ones are false what good is the article?

The story is absolute crap and I've already emailed The Recorder's Editor-in-Chief Mark Rowan a week ago when the story appeared on digg

From the article: "The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius's EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs."

Here's the 2008 mpg Aveo getting 23/31 according to the EPA's 2008 website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi deBySide.jsp?column=1&id=23173

and the 2008 mpg for the Prius getting 48/45: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEng ine.jsp?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Prius

HOW THE HELL DO YOU Call 23 city compared to 48 city "spitting distance". Even 45mpg highway and 31mpg highway isn't "spitting distance".

The guy is a complete liar and should never write another article. If the reader has to look up every claim the guy makes and prove which ones are true and which ones are false what good is the article?

But if you have a car that gets even 17 MPG it will take you literally longer than you will probably be driving to reach the point where you've saved enough fuel to make up for the energy that went into producing a hybrid, let alone something that gets say 35 MPG.

WTF?! Regular cars get 35 MPG easily, and if you're really trying to save money you can always get an older non-hybrid that'll get over 50 MPG. If you're talking about a hybrid, you should be looking for mileage on the order of 60 MPG, not 35!

But if you have a car that gets even 17 MPG it will take you literally longer than you will probably be driving to reach the point where you've saved enough fuel to make up for the energy that went into producing a hybrid, let alone something that gets say 35 MPG.

WTF?! Regular cars get 35 MPG easily, and if you're really trying to save money you can always get an older non-hybrid that'll get over 50 MPG. If you're talking about a hybrid, you should be looking for mileage on the order of 60 MPG, not 35!