Hybrid Cars Don't Live Up to Mileage Claims

Omega1045 writes "Wired News is running a great little article about how hybrid cars (specifically Honda and Toyota models) do not come anywhere close to living up to their fuel efficiency claims. The article highlights that the EPA tests are more to blame than the car manufactures. Consumer reports has shown that the mileage for these cars can be as low as 60% of the claims. The article also links to a blog authored by hybrid enthusiast Pete Blackshaw detailing his failures getting any real answers on why his Honda Civic Hybrid isn't getting better fuel mileage. It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance."

Comments

Better than nothing

[Lord Grey]

It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance.

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles. From a conservation standpoint, that's still a good thing. From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car. I remember seeing something on the news a few years ago about Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer, trying to jazz up the acceleration of a bigger vehicle. I don't know what became of that testing, if anything. But it would be extremely cool to see that technology in a small, sporty car.

Re:Better than nothing

[laupark]

Also, add the environmental cost of gigantic batteries that these things will discard every five years (or has that been addressed?)- really, I don't know if it has, but I always wonder about the environmental impact of the battery production and destruction.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

31.5 isn't better than what one of the guys at work gets in his escort. And if they aren't more efficient then they are wasted.

Re:Better than nothing

[SandMouse]

What needs to be understood is that hybrid cars offer better gas milage only depending on certain conditions. If you are driving without much acceleration/decceleration, then you basically do not get the advantage of hybrid technology. For city drivers, you get the recharge while braking and it makes for very efficient energy consumption. Just my 3 cents.

Re:Better than nothing

[Merlin42]

From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.

But the key line in the article is that federal law prohibits using anything other than the EPA estmates for advertising fuel efficiancy. So while it may stink, the 'guberment' is more to blame than Honda.

NOTE: IANACG (i am not a car guy)

The article suggests that the tests are not necisarily accurate b/c they use emisions to estimate the amount of fuel used. And that the tests were designed to be simple to replicate.

Why wouldn't it be simpler to just fill the tank, run the car, and then see how much fuel it takes to refill the tank?!? Is there some reason this wouldn't be a reliable test?

Re:Better than nothing

[CavyDriver]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles. From a conservation standpoint, that's still a good thing. From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.

Not really, a normal civic get about 30-35 mpg anyway. The hybrid doesn't seem to be buying more than 1-2 MPG. Hardly signifigant.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to Ford Anniversary last year and they were displaying the various alternate fuel and hybrid Explorer. They were created by a bunch of universities across North America. The hybrid ones were really neat because the electric motor gave acceleration assist. The end result was a 5-10 mpg savings and a few extra horsepower.

Re:Better than nothing

[Dausha]

. . . the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles. From a conservation standpoint, that's still a good thing.

As I recall, the Honda Insight is supposed to get as much as 60 MPG. Sixty percent (from the root parent) of that is 36 MPG. I used to get 30-35 MPG from my old Ford Escore (stick) and up to 33 MPG in my old Saturn L-200. (I also got up to 50 MPG from my '69 Beetle, but that was because on the highway I would cut the engine off on long, steep hills. That is another story.) And, I believe that diesels can produce up into the 40 MPG range (e.g. VW Passat). So, the "better gas mileage" is, to me, "slightly better gae mileage."

However, what of the batteries? I've been told that they may cost over $1000 to replace when they go bad, and that the replacement rate is somewhere in the ball park of one in five or so years. Additionally, I've been told that the batteries themselves are quite toxic. So, methinks from a conservation standpoint they are not markedly superior to full ICEs.

That said, my brother had an Insight and tightly tracked his fuel economy. He was fanatic about trying to squeeze very amp he could. He found his economy to be in the 60 MPG range. Most of his driving was highway (60+ miles each way to work) in a low-traffic area (Arkansas). So, YMMV. Having zipped around town in them, I was quite pleased with their pep.

Re:Better than nothing

[nate1138]

From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.

Yes, it does, but don't make the mistake of blaming the companies or the advertisers for this. Federal regulations prohibit using any number other than the one calculated by the EPA test in advertising a car's mileage. This test was devised almost 20 years ago, and doesn't actually measure fuel consumption. It measures the emissions, and uses that data to calculate efficiency, and thus, mileage. Obviously a hybrid (with very low emissions) is going to skew the test.

Re:Better than nothing

[LittleDan]

My dad bought a Honda Civic Hybrid, and even though it only gets 40 mi/g, it's still very efficient and can usually run about 500 miles on a tank, more than any other car my family has had. I don't see what the big fuss is; the EPA consistently overestimates all cars and hybrids are no exception.

Daniel Ehrenberg

Re:Better than nothing

[Kainaw]

I remember seeing something on the news a few years ago about Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer, trying to jazz up the acceleration of a bigger vehicle. I don't know what became of that testing, if anything.

I saw that too. It wasn't Ford doing the actual work. They were sponsoring a competition to find alternate acceleration aids. If I remember correctly, the winner was an inflatable balloon under the driver's seat. It inflated as you drove. When you stopped and then started up again, the inflation somehow helped the acceleration. It was very weird though because the engine didn't rev as you stepped on the gas. That would take a while to get used to - sort of like going from a bicycle to a motorcycle. You have to get used to the bike moving without pedaling.

Re:Better than nothing

[MrIrwin]

About a year ago I read some figures (in an EU auto magazine) for a hybrid golf prototype developed by a private firm. They split the figures so you could work out what you would expect to get on your itinarys.

Upshot was that my daily trip to work consumed more than I would expect from a MPI diesel utility, which would also have more performance.

I think the best way to make a quantumn leap in world ecology is to simply get rid of the Americans.

Re:Better than nothing

[theLOUDroom]

I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car. I remember seeing something on the news a few years ago about Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer, trying to jazz up the acceleration of a bigger vehicle.

Here's a link you might like.

Re:Better than nothing

[daviddennis]

It would be, but I think the EPA cares more about emissions than fuel economy. You could say the economy figures are a (theoretically at least) useful byproduct of the emissions testing they already have to do.

D

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually my 1998 Honda Civic HX gets 31-32 MPG. It used to get 35-36 but 50,000 miles has some wear and tear on your efficiency. If hybrids are actually coming in at the mileage is being reported, well, that sucks.

Re:Better than nothing

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I believe the Honda DualNote concept car does that, actually. Except it's only a concept car. =(

Re:Better than nothing

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

yes it has been adressed, new hybrids have lifetime or 125,000 mile pack warrenties.

Re:Better than nothing

[Doug Dante]

"Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car...."

Welcome to the intersection of politics and engineering.

Both Ford and GM looked into making so called "booster hybrids" that would use the electric generator to aid in acceleration and performance, but would not substantially change the EPA recognized mileage of the trucks.

They were in part motivated by several federal and state tax breaks for hybrid electric vehicles.

However, after various politicking, it was agreed (I wish that I still had a link here) that these trucks would not be considered "hybrids" eligible for those tax breaks. This made sense, as the intent of those tax breaks was to improve mileage, not to get autos to go from zero to sixty a half second faster.

And now we learn that the EPA reported mileage is woefully inaccurate for hybrids, coupled with the well known fact that you won't ever get the sticker rated mileage on your new car or truck, and I have to wonder if these so called "booster hybrids" would have given real world drivers better mileage, but that we can't see this due to EPA testing biases.

Which all leads back to what the automakers want. A simple (say $0.75) tax on gas to encourage consumers to choose the best car for them that uses less gas. Whether that be hybrid, unleaded gasoline, high performance diesel, or hydrogen powered.

Re:Better than nothing

[skaffen42]

From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.

This seems to pretty normal for auto manufacturers. Even the 60% figure mentioned in the article isn't that strange. My Acura RSX has an EPA rating of 27mpg in the city, but CU only rates it at 18mpg in the city. That's only 66% of the predicted fuel economy.

The divergence in smaller for the highway figures, but as I commute in NJ the highway figures are purely academic to me. Then again in NJ the concept of clean air is also purely academic... :)

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

My 2002 Honda Civic Si does better than the hybrid in the story (31-33 for real). That's with the largest Civic engine. The smaller engines do a lot better, but aren't as fun.

Hybrids should be produce less pollution. This story doesn't talk about pollution, except for Omega1045's sarcastic editorializing.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you substitute "guberment" for government? Were you trying to make a joke or be clever or some such nonsense? Please explain your actions.

Re:Better than nothing

[mbbac]

Look for Mitsubishi's next Eclipse. It's supposed to use hybrid technology to boost acceleration and fuel economy.

Re:Better than nothing

[glitch!]

31.5 isn't better than what one of the guys at work gets in his escort.

For what it's worth, I have two Saturn SL cars, and they both average between 42 and 44 miles per gallon. One is a 1997 model, the other 2002. Aside from three or four times when someone else filled up the tank and forgot, I can account for every single gallon of fuel and every mile over the last seven (and two) years. Oh, and I bought both of them brand new from the dealer for $12K and $10K.

These cars are not hot rods, but they have plenty of power to climb hills at 65mph and I am almost always a bit quicker than the other cars.

So using my own experience as a benchmark, I can see that these 50mph+ cars may have a claim for better efficiency, but they are also a lot more expensive than mine.

Re:Better than nothing

[Glonoinha]

Yes but you have to remember - your buddy's Escort gets 31MPG and the Hybrid car may get 31.5MPG - but the Hybrid's mileage is 31.5 environmentally friendly miles per gallon of gasoline where your bud's Escort's mileage is 31 environment destroying miles per gallon.

Miles per gallon of gas in a Hybrid car are way better for the environment because the Hybrid also uses electricity, where miles per gallon of gas in a regular car are bad for the environment because of emissions, resource depletion, depending on OPEC, all that stuff.

Big difference. Or so the Honda ads would have me believe.

Re:Better than nothing

[Doc Hopper]

As a happy Honda Insight CVT owner (which is rated at 57MPG highway), the lifetime average on my 2001 model is 56.1 MPG. I bought it used, and the previous owner had averaged 54.1 MPG. My personal average is 62.1 MPG. The manual transmission Insight can do even better.

So while there are some hybrids that fail to live up to the mileage claims, with careful driving your average Honda Insight can beat the EPA estimate by an appreciable margin. But a key is careful driving. If you're a foot-to-the-floor driver, or frequently drive on roads well in excess of the EPA "highway" speed (50-60MPH), your mileage will definitely take a dive.

You're not going to get anywhere near the rated mileage doing 85 on the freeway, or if your commute is all stop-and-go.

Re:Better than nothing

[SlugLord]

My Civic (non-hybrid) gets about 35 miles to the gallon.

Re:Better than nothing

[Randy Rathbun]

I'm not sure how Honda deals with their battery pack, but on the Prius Toyota designed it as modules. Each module is made of 6 D-cell sized batteries (they change from using D-cells to a different sized battery in the 01 model year). A module runs about $150, or $4000 for the whole battery bank as of last year. That price will drop.

If one cell goes bad, you just replace the individual module.

Re:Better than nothing

[dnoyeb]

From TFA
"Honda's Civic Hybrid is rated by the EPA to get 47 miles per gallon in the city, and 48 mpg on the highway."

The EPA disagrees with your logic.

(I think the EPA is inhaling)

Re:Better than nothing

[therblig]

It is a big deal, though, when one buys a hybrid as the result of a caluculated decision. The price differences between the hybrid and conventional car are large enough that one has to be careful if saving money is the goal. This difference in mileage is enough to probably tip the scales from what was already likely to be a more expensive choice, even in the long run.

Re:Better than nothing

[Kombat]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

But this is the "Big Lie" of Hybrids. Yes, they get better mileage, but it's not because they're hybrids. It's because they have extremely low CD's (co-efficients of drag), unusually hard and narrow tires, low-friction bearings, lightweight alloys and construction, thinner-than-usual safety glass, and a host of other ounce-pinching compromises. However, the fact that they still have to haul around a couple hundred pounds of lead batteries negates a lot of that efficiency.

Here's the thing they don't want you to know. If you took all that efficiency - the ultra-streamlined body, lightweight alloys and glass, low-friction tires and bearings, and everything else - and put it in a regular car with a small engine (a diesel Golf, a Civic, whatever), the regular car would get better mileage. But it wouldn't qualify technically as "low-emission", because it is always generating (an extremely small amount of) pollutants, while the hybrid has periods of zero-emissions.

Why don't people see this? If you put all that tech into a regular car, they'd get better mileage than hybrids. It's crystal clear.

Re:Better than nothing

[alcmena]

Same here. I get about 31 city and about 36 highway. 2002 Civic EX.

Re:Better than nothing

[arivanov]

Absolutely correct.

And the other truth is that if they will give a good return only if driven in an environment where there is a lot of breaking from reasonable speed to 0 and starting after that all the way to reasonable speed.

They do not give good return in a traffic jam environment because the crawling gets the batteries drained to the point where the ECU decides to recharge them and starts from cold (and there is not enough energy recovered from breaking). This means engine running in the most inefficient mode combined with lack of working catalyst conversion (cats need to warm up too. It works just about enough to warm up and then shutdowns again for a period long enough to go cold.

So basically they will live to the expectations only in an environment where there are no highways and no long stretches of open road. At the same time it should not be congested and there should be no traffic jams as such. Frankly, I cannot think of any big city in the world that fits this description. There are possibly one or two medium size towns here and there, but even there you are likely to get better economy out of a high class recent petrol engine like on the Sirion SL or the Honda Jazz (not to mention diesels, CNG or LPG).

Re:Better than nothing

[jmitchel!jmitchel.co]

the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

Perhaps... it's kinda hard to do the apples and oranges comparisons for fuel efficiency but:

- 89 Honda CRX HF (high fuel efficiency model) got me 35-40 MPG with a very marginal engine.

- 89 Pontiac Lemans - 33-37 MPG with an engine in fair to poor condition.

- 92 Honda Del Sol gets 30-35.

None of the quite matches the Insight or the prius, they rank right around the Civic Hybrid in spite of me being a bit lead-footed and the cars all being worn out.

Re:Better than nothing

[uberdave]

What do the EPA tests measure? emissions/mile, emissions/gallon? If they are not actually measuring miles per gallon (ie how far a car will go on a gallon of fuel) then their figures should not be quoted as mileage, period. That regulation needs to be changed.

Re:Better than nothing

[Junks Jerzey]

For city drivers, you get the recharge while braking and it makes for very efficient energy consumption. Just my 3 cents.

You get the recharge, and then you it up again, plus additional power, when accelerating back to normal speed. Remember, accelerating requires much more power than driving at a constant speed. You're trying to say that stop/start driving is still more efficient than driving at a constant rate? That's simply not the case. Sure, a hybrid can make stop/start driving more efficient than in other cars, but no way should it more efficient than constant speed driving.

Re:Better than nothing

[geniusj]

I have a honda civic hybrid and I typically get around 42mpg.. It is advertised as 47. I think the main issue is that they are driven in 55 zones where as most of the highways around here are 65. If I drive 55 in the car, I can easily get 50mpg. The extra 10 mph can make a big difference. But what it boils down to for me, is that I get better mileage with this car than I would in a standard civic.

Re:Better than nothing

[chasm!killer]

This is a very good point -- I get obviously better accelleration with my 2001 Prius than any comparable size compact car, and I get 10 mpg better gas mileage and comfort that is a lot closer to a Camry than a compact. It did cost more, but not by much if I compare it to another car similarly fitted out.

I think that is another point rarely mentioned in these comparisons. A subcompact that gets 35 mpg is a lot less comfortable and cannot get anything like the accelleration that I get from my Prius. And to get within 10 mpg if the Prius gas mileage I have to really sacrifice on the comfort front (further, my son is a mpg-nut and consistently gets 52 mpg from the Prius, but I'm more one of the "just drive it crowd" and get a piddling 45 mpg in my real world -- still not too bad?).

And I think I get closer to the EPA's 45 highway/55 city mileage (or whatever they claimed) out of it than the average Highlander owner gets to its 30 highway/22 city mileage....

Re:Better than nothing

[surprise_audit]

And, I believe that diesels can produce up into the 40 MPG range (e.g. VW Passat).

Better than that, I think. I remember reading an article in a motoring magazine about 14 years ago about a road test they ran on a Citroen AX diesel engine car. They fitted it out with all the latest fuel efficiency parts and drove it around. They were getting something like 120mpg (yep, one hundred twenty miles per gallon). I'm not sure if that was highway or city... :)

The article was posted on the wall at Lucas Powertrain Systems in Cirencester, where they were developing a high-pressure diesel pump to push the fuel into the engine, as well as sensors and electronics to monitor each cylinder and meter fuel according to the efficiency of the cylinder. I guess they posted the article for our reading pleasure because the car was loaded with Lucas parts...

Re:Better than nothing

[nelsonal]

Like your brother you have to learn how to drive the hybrids to really boost efficency. I recall an article about some of the first buyers who were reliably getting 70-100 MPG (over a tank of gas). One of the coolest features I've ever seen was on an old BMW, it was a little gage that measured fuel economy. It dropped to below 2 MPG in a modestly quick (not even a launch) start from a stop sign and this was in the old 318ti (small, light car). If you pull away from every stop quickly you will burn a whole lot more fuel than if you ease your car back into motion.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's miles PER GALLON, meaning, the gas is still being burned, even if sometimes it's burned to recharge the battery.

Re:Better than nothing

[Minna Kirai]

The EPA disagrees with your logic.

No. The numbers you just quoted fully suggest the EPA agrees.

Those mileage figures are approximately the same for city and highway driving- whereas for any other vehicle, city is much much worse (typically 20%).

Therefore, they agree that hybrid engines primarily help in city driving.

Re:Better than nothing

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Miles per gallon of gas in a Hybrid car are way better for the environment because the Hybrid also uses electricity, where miles per gallon of gas in a regular car are bad for the environment because of emissions, resource depletion, depending on OPEC, all that stuff.

Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but just where do you think the precious electricity comes from that drives your hybrid vehicle? Bzzzzt! Time's up! It comes from fossil fuels, that's where it comes from!

Or were you trying to make a joke here by pointing out the obvious two-faced, no-logic tactics so frequently used by environmentalists?

Re:Better than nothing

[hendersj]

I have a couple friends who get 55-60 MPG out of their Prius'. But if you drive well over the speed limit, the efficiency drops dramatically.

Re:Better than nothing

[utunga]

Err if they burned through x gallons of fuel to go y miles, doesn't that mean that x gallons of damage was done to the environment via CO2 emitting, resource depleting transportation over the y miles between point A and B.

The fact that some of the chemical energy in the gas got turned into electrical energy before its kinetic use doesn't make a flying bit of difference to the environment.. does it?

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr. Slippery]

add the environmental cost of gigantic batteries that these things will discard every five years

Lead-acid batteries are almost completely recyclable. Anyone "discarding" them needs adjustment via clue-stick.

Re:Better than nothing

[donnyspi]

You're still burning the same amount of gas almost! There's nothing environmentally friendly about that. The hybrid actually has worse gas mileage because the 31.5 is gas AND electricity, not just plain gas.

Re:Better than nothing

[Minna Kirai]

You're trying to say that stop/start driving is still more efficient than driving at a constant rate?

He never wrote anything like that. Go up and read it again.

Sure, a hybrid can make stop/start driving more efficient than in other cars,

That's all he said... so I guess you had no point.

Re:Better than nothing

[dasmegabyte]

YMMV is correct. Why it varies is important.

On the highway, a Hybrid engine is just a low-powered gasoline engine -- generally, the electric engine does not engage over highway travel. I say low-powered, and not under-powered, because today's engines have an obscenely high average horsepower. An "economy" car like a Civic or a Focus has a better power to weight ratio than many classic V6s. Your '69 Type 1 put out 55 horsepower, which was plenty to get 4 passengers and their gear up to 75 MPH.

As a low powered gasoline engine, you get your best economy by accelerating slowly and allowing the resistance of the engine to adjust your speed. Braking on the highway, or downshifting before accelerating, will take a huge bite out of your economy.

It's in city driving where the hybrid shines, but again, only if you drive it correctly. The big thing is to try to keep the gas engine shut off as much as possible. This is performed by accelerating slowly from stoplights and braking slowly as well (more energy is recycled by the magnetic brake when less is lost to the "backup" brake). Jackrabbit starts will be tempting, as the electric assist engine has a TON of torque, but resist it! That's the only way you'll see your economy improve.

To be honest, these driving methods will help you improve the economy of any car, especially 3 and 4 cylinder engines, where keeping the revs low and speed constant has a bigger effect than with a 6 or an 8. But the difference in economy is even wider for a hybrid. Whereas I can see an 8 mpg difference between racing to work (27 mpg)and driving casual (35 mpg) in my turbocharged I4, with a hybrid that difference could be close to 20 mpg.

The EPA drivers know how to drive efficiently, and that's why their scores are so high. You can learn to drive like this too...it's why the Insight has a momentary MPG rating right on the dashboard. The guy from AutoWeek who did the long-term Insight test said he considered the average MPG rating to be a "different KIND of performance rating," and that he made it a game to get it above 60.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

My friend with the escort drives like a fiend. peeling out, jackrabbiting, stop-start, speeding... the whole bit.

Re:Better than nothing

[Discodance]

What is heavier? A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers? Neither!!! THEY ARE THE SAME. Same goes with your Escort vs. Hybrid comparison... 31MPG on the Escort vs 31 MPG on the Hybrid is THE SAME. You still need one full gallon, burn one full gallon, and depend on OPEC for one full gallon to drive 31 miles in each car. How is the Hybrid any better?

Re:Better than nothing

[devilspgd]

From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks

Lets see. If I can sum up this story in two words "marketing lied" -- The rest is just the what/where/proof.

Big deal.

Re:Better than nothing

[Linux_Bastard]

I can do much better.
I drive an 82 Mercedes 300D, and I get 27 MPG of Biodisel.
About 85% of the biodisel that I use comes from post consumer waste grease (old fast food fryer grease)
Virtualy all of the hydrocarbons that are in that grease (and thus burned by me for fuel) were first pulled out of the air as CO2 by plants.

So about 80% of the pollution coming out of my tailpipe came from the air originaly.

It's still a net loss, but it's much better than the gasoline/electric hybreds.

Re:Better than nothing

[jumpingfred]

Careful driving in a regular gas car vastly improves the millage also.

Re:Better than nothing

[Giggles Of Doom]

Yes but you have to remember - your buddy's Escort gets 31MPG and the Hybrid car may get 31.5MPG - but the Hybrid's mileage is 31.5 environmentally friendly miles per gallon of gasoline where your bud's Escort's mileage is 31 environment destroying miles per gallon.

What the hell? Um, a 31.5MPG hyrbid still uses a gallon of gas to go 31.5 miles, same as a 31.5MPG non-hybrid. It doesn't matter if there is a battery pack along for the ride, like in the Hybrid, or not, like in the Escort. They still use the same about of evil gasoline. Plus, the hybrid will have a bank of toxic batteries to dispose of at the end of its useful life.

Now, even with them not getting the huge milage gains the EPA post on the windows (how do they come up with numbers that are so inaccurate of real world conditions? Why bother to post them at all?) the hybrid cars are, I think, a stepping stone for people towards acceptance of alternitives to gas powered cars.

Re:Better than nothing

[tompaulco]

So you are proposing lowering the current gas taxes to only $0.75/gallon?

Re:Better than nothing

[driverEight]

Why wouldn't it be simpler to just fill the tank, run the car, and then see how much fuel it takes to refill the tank?!? Is there some reason this wouldn't be a reliable test?

Where would you run the test? Denver? Sea Level? Uphill? Downhill? At what speed? At what prevailing winds? How fast would you accelerate?

Re:Better than nothing

[jdbo]

While your post IS funny, it's also, uh, wrong.

Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles, regardless of mileage.

This is how they qualify as a LEV and SULEV (low-emission vehicle/super-low-emission-vehicle).

So, when compared to the more "average" pollutant level of the Escort's emissions (I don't believe there are any LEV or SULEV escorts available, correct me if I'm wrong), 31 hybrid's MPG in a hybrid can be considered "way better for the environment" than the Escort's 31 MPG.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

My '03 Civic LX was advertised as getting 35 MPG city. If I don't drive fast and don't push the engine I can get over 30.

Re:Better than nothing

[ArsonSmith]

Not that the previous poster is right but you are also wrong the electricity comes from waste energy recooped from brakeing and slowing down that would normally just be released into the environment as heat.

yes I own a Hybrid Civic and only now that the summer heat here in phoenix has gone up to 100+ has my milage dropped to 37.4 MPG. before With control I could get 50 and avaraged 45. witch puts it almost right on its sticker claim of 47/48.

Re:Better than nothing

[Merlin42]

Whatever the way is that they 'drive' the car in the current tests.

Re:Better than nothing

[GooberToo]

Actually, I just watched a show which had one an engineer talking about hybrids. They claim that stop-and-go is one of the ideal operating conditions for hybrids. The reason is that it's running off of batteries and not using gas. Then, once you get out of the stop-n-go, the batteries get recharged. That sure seems to make sense to me. Best of all, he argued that long distance highway driving, typical in America, would provide for some of the worst mileage you can get from a Hybrid as it will mostly be running off of it's ICE. Worse, most Americas tend to drive faster than cruise speeds, further increasing the load on the ICE. Again, that seems to make sense to me.

Re:Better than nothing

[drooling-dog]

Miles per gallon of gas in a Hybrid car are way better for the environment because the Hybrid also uses electricity

No, because MPG in a hybrid car is in addition to whatever electricity is consumed (which also must be generated somehow). So, I would argue that it's a good deal worse, for this and other reasons (e.g., disposal of toxic batteries, etc.).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer my question regarding the "guberment" substitution.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so he drives a car that's only kinda efficient and he's a danger to others on the road. That's nice.

Re:Better than nothing

[LurkerXXX]

Mod Parent Up.

First clueful reply I've seen to this. My car isn't a hybrid, but it is an (ultra) ULEV. They are better for the environment.

Re:Better than nothing

[wuliao]

It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance.

The Prius is also SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) certified, and has an AT-PZEV rating. There are also conventional cars that also have a PZEV rating (e.g., Ford Focus PZEV). The point is that the claim that hybrids don't reduce pollution is false: driving one of these cars is much cleaner than the vast majority of vehicles on the road.

Moreover, when you're stuck in traffic, the Prius gasoline engine shuts off. That saves gas and reduces pollution. That's not generally reflected in an MPG estimate (since you're not going anywhere, your MPG is actually 0 -- but in a conventional car, your MPG is actually negative, since you're using gas for no purpose.)

Re:Better than nothing

[nelsonal]

There are two major problems with any sort of high gas taxes. First, the politicans who go for it have killed their careers as voters are too short sighted to reelect them. Second, because of the current infastructure, it would greatly impact the poor. They can't adjust as quickly in their car purchasing habits, and there isn't an effective mass transit service for them to fall back on, yet. After a decade of investments in better forms of mass transit though that would be a very good idea. If we don't the $0.75/gallon will simply go to the owners of current oil fields (most of whom are outside the country).

Re:Better than nothing

[henley]

I was going to say something disparaging about US cars and gas mileage, since my 2.4 Volvo V70 tank gets about 33 MPG

...Then I remembered that UK Gallons are about 20% bigger than US Gallons, and that I was going to make a fool of myself, again

Carry on, nothing to see here....

Re:Better than nothing

[nolife]

I have a Ford Aspire I paid $3000 for that now has over 100K miles. I get roughly 38-45 MPG out of the 1.3L 5 speed engine. It depends on when and how I drive, in the winter it is slightly lower and above 70-75 it drops quickly. It is not fast but it gets me from point A to point B cheaply.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The electric power ultimately comes from the gasoline engine. The batteries are charged by a generator that is engaged when the brake pedal is depressed, thus recouping some of the energy that would be lost in braking (and emitted as heat). When the car is stopped and the brake pedal depressed, the gasoline engine is turned off. When the brake pedal is released, the gasoline engine is (re-)started by an electric starter, which gets the engine up to speed before you can get your foot to start pressing on the accelerator (same foot used for brake and accelerator assumed).

The catalytic converters in the hybrid cars are supposedly more efficient than found in gasoline-only automobiles. If true, then the environmental benefits are worthwhile even if the overall MPG is the same. Well, there is the environmental impact of the manufacture and reclamation of the batteries. So, there's still a caveat as far as overall environmental impact is concerned: are the benficial aspects of these hybrids greater than the negative affect of the batteries?

I only have one "real" data point - my parents bought a Honda Hybrid last fall. Their gas mileage is in the 40's (not sure if it's nearer 42 or 48), and city vs highway driving doesn't seem to make much difference (~1MPG, from what my dad tells me). Mind you, they probably aren't the most aggresive of drivers, either. I have driven this car a few times, and it is pretty weird the first few times you come to a full stop and the car becomes *silent*!

Re:Better than nothing

[guinsu]

Actually, the article mentions the Honda getting 33mpg. I owned a 99 Civic and I drove fast, I got 27mpg consistently. That was before the 2001 model update that bumped milage up at least 2-3mpg. So a 2004 Civic would get at least 30mpg the way I drive. A 3mpg gain by going hybrid isn't that great, and is less than some gas and diesel cars (Volkwagon Golf).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really better than nothing? The Honda Hybrid looks like it's gas mileage is lower than I'm seeing on my standard Civic. So you pay a few thousand dollars extra for worse mileage.

Re:Better than nothing

[henley]

Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but just where do you think the precious electricity comes from that drives your hybrid vehicle? Bzzzzt! Time's up! It comes from fossil fuels, that's where it comes from!

Umm... Since this is the good 'ol US-of-A, I thought a not-insignificant fraction of that electricty came from Your Friend, The Atom ?

Or have I been lied to by US-sourced programming like The Simpsons again?

Re:Better than nothing

[Dausha]

Your '69 Type 1 put out 55 horsepower, which was plenty to get 4 passengers and their gear up to 75 MPH.

And get you out of a speeding ticket. I was cruising over the posted speed in my old Bug and topped a hill. On the other side was one of the State's Finest. Even without having a radar detector I knew he had me--lights went on, dust flying from under his wheels. However, he quickly stomped the breaks and shut off his lights. I think he thought he would have a hard time proving in court I was going as fast as his radar gun said.

Re:Better than nothing

[bughunter]

I had a 1991 Escort LX with a 1.9 liter engine, and regularly got 27-28 miles per gallon commuting, and on the highway, usually 33 miles per gallon... 35 if I was forced to stay to the speed limit. There's a reason why you still see quite a few of that model year on the roads.

Now I just bought a Focus ZTW and miss the fuel efficiency... but nothing else - everything except the engine, suspension and transmission on that Escort fell apart completely, including the cooling system, the electrical system, the timing belt, and the dash instrumentation.

And don't get me started about the frikkin' auto-strangulation shoulder belts, and the goddamn dummy alarm that constantly went off after the belt stretched.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car. I remember seeing something on the news a few years ago about Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer, trying to jazz up the acceleration of a bigger vehicle. I don't know what became of that testing, if anything. But it would be extremely cool to see that technology in a small, sporty car.

Toyota is doing this with the Volta

Re:Better than nothing

[Phreakiture]

Batteries are also the single most agressively recycled automobile part, with deposits charged and refunded like they are on pop bottles in some states.

Re:Better than nothing

[henley]

Ummmmmmmmmmm....

I don't get it. If I drive 31.5MPG and burn a gallon of Gas, I convert 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol) into CO2, H2O and all that other lovely stuff.

The laws of chemistry don't care whether I do it in a hybrid, petro-electric, big-block V8 or average suburban runabout. They just specify that 1 gallon of high-octane hydrocarbons get converted to a bunch of gases, liberating energy

So how does my car's TLA[1] or E-TLA[2] classification affect it's actual[3] efficiency/cleanliness?

[1] = Three Letter Acronym

[2] = Extended-TLA, AKA Four-Letter-Acronym

[3] = Yes, I read the article and I realise that the EPA's methods of testing and subsequent classifications have nothing to do with the laws of physics, chemistry or common sense. Which is probably the answer I'm looking for here anyway...

Re:Better than nothing

[Thuktun]

yes it has been adressed, new hybrids have lifetime or 125,000 mile pack warrenties.

This addresses a consumer cost issue with the battery packs, not any environmental issue.

Re:Better than nothing

[Blackknight]

My Jetta TDI gets about 45 mpg of diesel, which also costs less than gas. If you want more information on VW diesels go to www.tdiclub.com, they have all the info you could ever want on diesels, and they're a great bunch of guys too.

Re:Better than nothing

[ArsonSmith]

He then also lies about his gas milage. Perhaps not a direct lie but atleast an exageration of a one time millage spoken as if it was what he always got.

Re:Better than nothing

[Gumber]

Dude,

1. Hybrids generate their own electricity from gas.

2. The post you were replying to is so clearly sarcastic.

Re:Better than nothing

[Misch]

At my worst, my manual Honda Civic Hybrid got 35.7 mpg in a tank. (That tank lasted 3 weeks too). Mind you, this was in the dead cold of winter when it was riding over an inch of unplowed snow, over a relatively short commute of about 6 miles.

Now that the temperature has gone back up over freezing, my tanks are up 40-51 mpg range again (varying because of road conditions/trip types.)

For 2004, this has been an average of 43.54 mpg. YMMV. (it's here. (Slashdot doesn't seem to like dyndns.org links.) Try here: http://misch.dyndns.org/~misch/images/fuelefficien cy20040512.gif (My thanks to the people at newyorkstategasprices.com for the image).

Re:Better than nothing

[Mike Hicks]

Heh. I hope you meant "mpg+" rather than "mph+" ;-)

Yeah, I was disappointed when Saturn dropped their SL line, since they got better mileage than the current cars. My mom got one in 1996 (it might be a '97 model), and it averages 38-40 mpg, I believe. The numbers go down a bit in the winter due to the different gasoline blend, but it's still pretty good.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight miles/gallon comparison is handy because it's simple, but it overlooks a number of other factors.

For instance -- diesel vehicles get more miles per gallon but have much higher emission of particulate matter (which is a factor in smog) than do cars with a catalytic convertor.

As well, if I've read the EPA statement correctly, they're measuring emissions (i.e. output) and working back to consumption (i.e. input). So the hybrid cars still have the emissions of a car doing twice their actual fuel consumption.

Unless I misunderstood the way they measured it all, then that still makes the hybrid cars much better for the environment than conventional cars.

Re:Better than nothing

[brilliant-mistake]

I have a 99 Saturn SL2 and it averages about 30mpg in mixed driving. Like you said, it's not fast and it's not flashy, but it's reliable and inexpensive to buy and own. And thus better than a hybrid, apparently.

Re:Better than nothing

[BrianH]

Yep, My 4 door, 5 speed Mazda 626 with a 4 cyl averages 354MPG highway and 26 city, and it can do things that these hybrids can't...like accelerate to freeway speeds on a short ramp or cruise at 95MPH on the freeway at 2AM.

And to think, I was actually considering trading it in on a Prius to get better mileage (Cali gas is just stupidly outrageous right now).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what the Honda and Toyota ads imply, and it's bullshit.

Take a conventional car getting 31.5mpg, a hybrid getting 31.5mpg, and a Harley cruiser rumbling along setting off car alarms at 45.5mpg. Guess who's best for the environment?

Another thing I see a lot of is the Hollywood "elite" driving Priuses (Priusi?) and making a big deal of it like they're doing the world a favor. Bill "I'm a smarmy asshat in need of a beating" Maher drives a Pruis, and that alone is reason enough for me to not buy one.

A BIG step toward lowering the environmental harm from cars would be to force the "gross polluters", those people driving cars in bad states of tune that belch oil smoke and unburned gas into the air, to GET THEIR CARS FIXED. These cars account for most of the pollution emitted by all vehicles. If everyone in the world who drives now drove a brand-new Ford Excursion (a.k.a. really big SUV), the overall pollution level would be LOWER than it is now. Not because Ford Excursions are especially clean vehicles, but because they would be new, and in reasonably good condition. There would be no gross polluters. Finding and citing gross polluters would be easy. There are already machines on the market that can detect excess hydrocarbons coming from a passing car's exhaust and take a picture of the car's license plate, just like a red-light camera. Send the offending driver a voucher for a "repair your car or pay a $350 fine".

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

he's got a log, every fillup. keeps it in the glovebox. artifact from when he had a car without a working gauge.

Re:Better than nothing

[Unkle]

In fact, the milage this guy is getting is in fact WORSE than what my wife gets in her 2002 Civic EX, which has the worst EPA numbers of the whole Civic line (33/38, I believe, with an automatic tranny). However, her ACTUAL milage has always been far better--there have even been times she has topped 50 mpg, mostly highway driving.

On another note, this article seems to miss a few things that affect gas milage, like driving habits. If you always floor it when starting from a dead stop, your milage will go down. And it's not really speeding that affects milage, but what speed your engine is going (lower RPM = higher milage). If your car runs at 3000 RPM at 30 mph, but shifts up a gear and runs at 2000 RPM at 35 mph, you will get better milage at 35.

Re:Better than nothing

[BrianH]

GAH!!! That's 34 MPG. I WISH it got 354. Stupid keyboard....

Re:Better than nothing

[Peter La Casse]

It depends on how the battery engine is implemented. With the Insight, the battery motor is mostly used at highway speeds, relying on the gasoline motor at lower speeds. With the Prius it's reversed: the gasoline motor gives it the oomph for highway speeds, while the battery motor is what's used in city traffic. That's why with the Prius the MPG rating is higher for city traffic than for highway traffic. (Comparing city vs highway MPG is a good way to guess which kind of battery augmentation a hybrid car is equipped with.)

Re:Better than nothing

[Unkle]

Efficiency-wise they are the same, but I would guess that the Civic is a ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), where the Escort probably puts out a bit more pollution, so the hybrid could be better from a cleanliness standpoint.

Re:Better than nothing

[corinath]

Being an LEV/SULEV is not that big of a deal. My 2002 Trans Am, which when combined with my driving style, gets about 15/27 on a good day, far less if the sun is out and the t-tops are off, is considered an LEV, and borders on being an SULEV.

The batteries is a hybrid have nothing to do with lower emissions, that is all managed by computerized engine controls and catalytic converters.

Any car with a proper combination of engine controls and exhaust set up can easily qualify as an LEV, regardless of the gas mileage that they get. It is mearly a measure of the make up of the exhaust gases, typically so many parts per million of certain polutants compared to the total output, which is mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide.

While I follow the development of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles, they have a long way to go before they are ready for main stream use. The current hybrids are too small to be useful for anything more than driving to work. They are not terribly strong and I would not want to be in one if it was ever in an accident. Plus, what sort of environmental impact are these vehicles going to have in a junkyard in ten years with all of the highly toxic batteries, and how much pollution came about as a result of making the batteries. It may not be much as compared to the millions of typical car batteries currently rotting in junk yards around the world, but it just may be enough to bridge the gap between the hybrids and normal cars.

As for other alternative fuels, E85 (ethanol) is very promising, and once it becomes mass-produced, the costs should go down, until we have a drought in the Midwest. Then we are going to have high demand for those crops for food and fuel. Hydrogen is not terribly practical other than used in fuel cells for an electric car, and there are problems with storage of the hydrogen.

For now, give me a modern gasoline engine, on a modern car. Until the other technologies are more mature, they are not much of an option, at least for me.

Re:Better than nothing

[Misch]

Stop spreading FUD.

We're not using lead batteries, damnit! It's 120 1.2 v NiMH batteries. The battery pack weighs 63 pounds, not 200 as you assert, and the entire Honda Civic Hybrid manual car weighs only 129 pounds more than a comparable Honda Civic EX manual model.

There's no lead, no mercury, no cadmium in these batteries, and they're recyclable. Just like all the other NiMH batteries.

Re:Better than nothing

[iwadasn]

That may be true, but with somewhat better energy storage the advantage will reverse. In addition, if they allowed you to plug in your car at home you could probably get a few miles out of the batteries before needing the gasoline engine at all, which might cut your fuel use in half, in especially advantageous cases.

It's likely that flywheels will replace batteries soon enough, and that would radically improve the hybrid cars.

Basically, the batteries are the weak link, but even lugging around hundreds of pounds of lead the cars are roughly comparable to what a normal car would be. When the day comes that the lead becomes graphite or Li+ batteries, they will perform much better.

In addition, electric (and hybrid) cars have two huge advantages.

1) They get to use electric motors, which are vastly better than IC motors in essentially every way.

2) They can be partially "refueled" with electricity, which is much more flexible (cheaper and easier to get) than gas. Granted, we need clean sources of electricity (nuclear is the obvious choice*), but at least standardize on one energy source that can be produced from anything, and then worry about how to best produce it. While we use oil we can't really do any better because we can't (easily) make oil out of other energy sources.

* I am a physicist, so I am biased. However, by my back of the envelope calculations, assuming power plants are about 50% efficient, and we get all our energy from nuclear (everything that currently runs on oil or coal now (including industry, cars) uses electricity instead) then we can provide for all our needs with less than 10,000 tons of Uranium a year. This would produce somewhat less than 10,000 tons of fission fragments (some of them would decay within hours or days, others within a few years). This ammount of material would easily fit in a convoy of trucks (about 100 perhaps, not sure how much a Semi can haul) or all but the smallest cargo ship. It seems radically better than releasing billions of tons of gunk into the atmosphere and dynomiting whole regions of the country to get coal.

Re:Better than nothing

[digidave]

A VW Jetta TDI can get 50 MPG. Diesel burns cleaner than gasoline and the price isn't as crazy as it is for the hybrids.

Re:Better than nothing

[Lumpy]

and is still lower than my Volkswagen TDI at 50mpg

on average I get from 47-53 MPG burning that earth destroying Desiel fuel :-)

I also paid much less than the hybrids, have a much lower TCO than the hybrid cars and can get it serviced anywhere while your hybrid can only be serviced at "authorized" service centers.... AKA nobody will touch it but the dealers.

yes I would have a lower TCO if I bought a saturn and settled for lower MPG in the 40 range (overall costs would have been cheaper too.) but I couldn't turn down the insane deal I got on it. (5000miles on it and $12,995 out the door)

hybrida are neat, but not worth owning outside the "neat" factor as thereare no advantages and lots of disadvantages.

Re:Better than nothing

[trentblase]

And it's not really speeding that affects milage

Speeding does affect fuel economy because air resistance (and mechanical) losses do not scale linearly wrt speed. I.e. it takes more than twice as much energy to 100 mph than 50 mph.

Re:Better than nothing

[Murf In Wyoming]

You are correct, except for one small thing. I remember reading about hybrids where the engine was used purely to recharge the batteries, and the power train of the car is purely electrical.

If this is so, these generators usually run at constant speed when they run at all, and this is usually at their most efficient RPM setting, or it could be at the least polluting RPM, whichever is designed in. If so, the burning of the gas could be done at the most environmentally friendly fashion possible...

What difference this would make, or whether it's being done at all in these models, are questions for someone with more knowledge than I.

Re:Better than nothing

[ichthus]

YASP (Yet Another Saturn-related Post)

I have a 2002 SL2, and I get ~39 MPG. I drive mostly highway (about 90%), and mostly 70 - 80 MPH.

I had a 94 SL1 that got 37 - 42 MPG on the same route. It was decent, but in the SL2 I have way more power and get way more looks from average-looking, middle-class women ;) So, I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Re:Better than nothing

[Unkle]

What makes a differnce is how efficiently the gas is burned, and how well things like the Catalytic Converter and the Emissions Control System work. There's a TON of computerised stuff in the emissions control system, with multiple sensors and the like. They control various things like the air/fuel mixture and all that. If these systems break down, milage tanks and emissions skyrocket.

Re:Better than nothing

[Locutus]

This is old news in the Yahoo-ToyotaPrius group. What people need to realize is that if the Toyota Hybrid/Prius is driven for only 5-10 minutes then gas milage will not be optimal. Short trips are not going to be fuel efficient for either hybrid or conventional vehicles. Emisions will most likely still be far better than conventional systems for the short trip though.

BTW, we've owned our Prius since 2000 and have an estimated 45MPG over the entire ~40,000 miles we have on it. But, we also try not to take short trips to the store. We minimize single short trips by combining errands or taking care of things after or before a longer trip. ie, pick up the bread and butter on the way home after the work.

I hardly believe the Toyota hybrid system is hype and do believe the hydrogen backers are they hype-sters and are trying to stall the adoption of fuel conservation systems already available. IMHO.

LoB

Re:Better than nothing

[Hard_Code]

I was considering an Insight, but I heard rumors of Honda discontinuing it (is this true??), and I don't want to get stuck X years down the road with a completely unsupported, unmaintainable expensive car. So I'm looking at the Prius's now.

Re:Better than nothing

[nelsonal]

I think something like 5% of our power comes from the Atom, 1-2% from Hydro (including the nearly insignficant solar, tidal, wind, and geothermal), and the rest from gas, coal, or oil. Gas is/was the quickest growing, and oil is in decline as a share of the national generation.

Re:Better than nothing

[ld_hrothgar]

What is heavier? A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers? Neither!!! THEY ARE THE SAME. No they aren't! http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/60749.htm l

Re:Better than nothing

[gfxguy]

Which is why manual transmission is a better choice. If I'm going steady at lower speeds, like 40 to 45 (common speed limit around here), then I'm often in 5th gear.

I do mixed highway/city driving, but my commute (it's my commuting car) is mostly highway, and I get close to 40MPG with my 93 Civic. I imagine I'd probably get a lot more using a hybrid than most folks around here (Atlanta, where many consider it losing face to not be the first one to the red light, or not be the first one to clear the instersection when the light turns green).

I also cruise in the right lanes at about 60-65 while people are flying by me in the left lanes, but then they have the privelage of making it to the next traffic jam before me. They win!

Re:Better than nothing

[Jeremi]

So you are proposing lowering the current gas taxes to only $0.75/gallon?

Nah, raising them by $0.75/gallon. Perhaps they could take the money raised and put it into a fund to support our next invasion of an oil-rich country.

Re:Better than nothing

[kcornia]

My 97 Saturn SL has never gotten anywhere near 42mpg. Mine has averaged closer to 28 or so. Actually the single most disappointing thing about the Saturn has been the gas efficiency. Manual transmission and all...

Re:Better than nothing

[nelsonal]

I think the certification is pollutants exhausted per mile drive in the EPA's tests. Replacing a Honda non hybrid with the Escort a gallon of gas burned shouldn't really change the pollution exhausted from a gallon of gas burned in the hybrid. I'm assuming the cylindar design and burn characteristics should be pretty similar between the hybrid's 1.5L engine and a Civic with a 1.6L engine.

Re:Better than nothing

[Jeremi]

If I can sum up this story in two words "marketing lied"

Actually, a better summation would be "EPA mandated tests are inaccurate for hybrids". Given that by law only EPA numbers can be used in marketing, I don't see what marketing could have done differently here.

Re:Better than nothing

[uberotto]

Someone please explain why this comment was given a 5 rating when everything that the author states is absolutely wrong...

Re:Better than nothing

[BoomerSooner]

Bullshit. My fucking POS 1995 Plymouth Neon gets 36 miles per gallon and it's the sport model (DOHC 4 Cylinder) on the Highway. Hell it's had one tune up and has 148,000 miles on it. Hybrid cars are making my POS look better and better. Hell my V-6 '98 Mustang gets around 24 miles per gallon. Note: I live in Oklahoma and almost exclusively drive highway miles (about 90%). Either way those Geo Metros got better milage than the hybrids, and they looked about as nice too (not nice).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car... it would be extremely cool to see that technology in a small, sporty car.

Mitsubishi agrees with you!

Re:Better than nothing

[Joe Decker]

The Prius does use both the electric motor and the ICE during acceleration. (Which is why the car doesn't feel as anemic as I expected.)

And realized milage varies. I own a Prius, my lifetime MPG on the car is over 55MPG. Just sayin'

Re:Better than nothing

[silas_moeckel]

My lord somebody else that thinks nuclear power is better than coal/oil/solar/gas on the large scale. A semi hauls about 40 tons btw. Now was that US needs or word needs?

Re:Better than nothing

[Lumpy]

IN college here a bunch of the automotive engineering students modified a KiaSephia in 1999 to get 45mpg.

their modifications were to remove the spoiler in the back, put on the hard narrow low rolling resistance tires, removed the mirrors and used plastic to plug up the front bumper vents.

that was it. they further increased it's effeciency by removing all the interior except for the drivers seat and added (get this!) a water injection system to the air intake and changed the computer's ability to control the fuel injection.

They figured that with small changes to the body, making the car lighter by removing certian aspects (I.E. make it into a 2 seater hatchback) and the right kind of engine management and a freeflow exaust system they could easily get 60-70mpg out of a ultra-economy car. the car was $7000.00 new when they got it, they did less than $1000.00 in modifications to it. (and made it no longer street legal)

they never got to finish their project as the school cut the project and sold off the car.

Re:Better than nothing

[henley]

I think you're emphasising my point:

If these systems break down, milage tanks and emissions skyrocket.

See, these are linked. When you do less MPG, you turn more petrol (gasoline) into emissions (CO2, H2O, the noxious nasties) for a given distance driven.

I also note that most (all?) cars are fitted with Cats and ECS systems anyway, not just Hybrids.

The measure of "efficiency of burning" for a car is it's Miles-Per-Gallon attained. What it does with that burned gas - power the wheels directly or recharge a battery - doesn't matter. If both cars burn a gallon to go 30 miles, then (correct me if I'm wrong, someone, please!) by definition they've released the same amount of CO2, H2O and the rest into the atmosphere.

Re:Better than nothing

[Azghoul]

Just to be a little contrarian, my 04 Prius has plenty of space inside. Just brought home a dozen 3-cubic-foot bags of mulch.

It's underpowered, for sure (only handling something like 875 lbs of people/cargo), but it's not small.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I can say that any hybrid's emissions are lower than a non-hybrid. For example I often use the exhaust from my hybrid to breath when I go snuba'ing. (Cross between scuba and snorkle for those un-aware)

Re:Better than nothing

[sLaSh_N_bUrN_(.Y.)]

I have been thinking about getting a high MPG car, and it is all about the money in my pocket at the pump. I am not saying I don't care about the environment. Just that it will not affect which car I buy. I know I am not the only one.

Re:Better than nothing

[eoyount]

Except that both bricks and feathers are solids, thus measured in avoirdupois weights.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww, are you scared of people that aren't scared of their cars? That's so endearing.

Re:Better than nothing

[tbone1]

My VW Golf TDI, was rated at 49 MPG highway; in practical driving, it's 44.2-44.9 MPG at each fill-up.

(Most of my driving is highway, but I drive like Rosie O'Donnell chasing a Twinkie truck.)

Re:Better than nothing

[Soulslayer]

I own a 5 speed Insight, model year 2000 that I picked up used. Regarding your post...

Gas Mileage:

Really it depends on how you drive. I'm a lead foot (I enjoy occasionally doing burnouts in the Insight as it annoys me that people seem to think all hybrids are slow, boring, econo-boxes) and I still get 45-50 mpg City and 60-70 mpg highway. The previous owner obviously had no clue how to drive the car as their lifetime average over 35K miles was only 40.1 mpg. If you take the time to re-learn how to drive your car and take it easy with the acceleration it is more than feasible to get well over the EPA rated fuel economy for the Insight. Insight Central lists the best lifetime average fuel consumption recorded by them at 88.3 mpg and the community average as 65 mpg. The best single trip ratings recorded are 103.8 mpg one-way and 87.3 mpg round trip. The EPA ratings for the 5 speed, manual transmission, Insight are 60mpg City and 72mpg Highway. Your mileage will most certainly vary. Everyone drives differently. If you refuse to drive in an efficient manner, don't whine and moan about not getting the EPA rating. The ratings are a bit unrealistic for modern traffic patterns and driving habits, but they aren't unobtainable.

It is also important to note that the battery pack is affected by temperature. The batteries don't like cold very much. If you live in the north, your mileage will suffer during the winter.

Batteries:

Honda warranties the battery pack for 8 years. The cost of a replacement pack is $1500, or about as much as a modern transmission replacement. The battery pack is comprised of 120 smaller batteries (roughly the size of a D cell) welded together into a single 144V pack. These batteries use the NiMH (Nickel-Metal Hydride) chemistry and are not as toxic as NiCad (Nickel Cadmium) or even the PbA (Lead Acid) batteries that you find in your gas car.

Performance:

Yes, the Insight is a peppy little car. It only weighs about 1900 lbs and is made almost entirely out of aluminum and carbon fiber. With the IMA (integrated Motor Assist) active the car only has a peak of 73 hp and 90 lb-ft of torque, but the IMA's power remains fairly constant through the entire RPM band of the 3 cylinder so the oomph is a bit more than someone used to a pure ICE rating would expect. As I mentioned earlier, the small tires and decent torque mean that you can smoke the tires and do burnouts if you want (its murder on the fuel economy, though) and the Insight does 0-60 in about 10 seconds on its way to an 18.9 second 1/4 mile.

Regen:

This is actually in reference to a previous posters comment.

The Insight and Civic do not have little electric motors on each wheel used to recharge the battery pack. (for that matter neither does the Prius) The electric motor attached to the back of the engine block is an AC unit that acts as a generator when braking (and still in gear). Extra electric motors at each wheel just for recharging would just be a lot of dead weight 90% of the time.

Re:Better than nothing

[tgd]

For what its worth my old gas guzzling 300+hp twin turbocharged 165mph+ Audi S4 would get upper 20's MPG on the highway, and is so clean people have passed emissions tests running straight pipes (ie, no catalytic converters at all).

Modern engine design means MOST gasoline engines today qualify as LEV or SULEV.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

>This addresses a consumer cost issue with the battery packs, not any environmental issue.

You can be assured, if a reputable manufacturer offers a warranty on a product, it will last that long at a minimum. Otherwise the company goes out of business replacing the poor parts. I don't see toyota/honda going broke any time soon, myself.

125,000 miles is a long way and definately shows that honda/toyota are willing to keep the environment clean of broken batteries by desgining long life ones.

Re:Better than nothing

[santos_douglas]

I just wanted to point out that while the Insight is a very compact car, the Prius is actually quite large compared to it, plus some of the other comparisons going on here such as the Civic and Escorts. The Prius has the interior volume of a midsize car, close to a Camry in fact, despite smaller exterior dimensions. Just something important to remember when doing comparisons.

As far as not getting the mileage the EPA says, this is old news if you follow the auto industry. This was evident from the first when the auto mags started testing these things. Is this a bad thing, I don't think so. The technology still has room to grow, and who knows in a few years they could be posting really big numbers. That's the price of being an early adopter. I know the feeling well, having spent $600 on a first generation DVD player when the format was new only a few years ago, only to watch prices drop to below $100. If you think the technology is worthy, even if it doesn't make sense now, then think of hybrids as an ivestment. I think the market has shown that people like the idea of these vehicles and are willing to pay a premium for them.

It is extremely unlikley you will 'save money on gas' so to speak. When you factor in higher maintenance costs, higher insurance, and the price premium, trust me, with gas as cheap as it is, you're not likely to make it up. Now that the tax credits are in danger, it may be even worse moneywise.

Other posters are right, if you really want to save on gas, buy a compact car with a manual transmission, and drive in a fuel saving way. And would it kill you to check you tire pressure?! Oh and the environmental thing, is a pretty minor point to me. My Corolla was a ULEV which is pretty darn good, not that pollution is a big problem anyway.

Re:Better than nothing

[mfarver]

Not really a fair comparison since driving style has a lot to do with fuel economy. Your buddy with the 31.5 either has a commute with much freeway driving, or has a good driving style.

For example some drivers can reach 90-100mpg in the Honda Insight. Typically this is done with nice gradual acceleration, and shifting in such a way that the electric motor is used heavily. Keep the windows rolled up, and the AC off (AC can account for 2-3mpg). Nice slow deacceleration forces the most regenerative energy to be stashed back in the batteries. (Only about the first 20% of braking force comes from the regen system,press harder on the pedal and the mechnical brakes kick in, wasting energy as heat)

Most drivers average about 40-50 mpg, and lead footed individuals can drag the Insight down to about 30mpg or less.

Driving style affects normal cars almost as much, but few people track their mileage closely. The hybrids typically have large gauges telling current fuel economy... much harder to ignore.

Also sticker mpg is based on 55mph max speed.. Aerodynamic lose increases as the square of speed.. driving 70mph instead of 55mph can make a several mpg difference as well.

Re:Better than nothing

[dgatwood]

hybrida are neat, but not worth owning outside the "neat" factor as thereare no advantages and lots of disadvantages.

Advantage: HOV lane in rush hour traffic. 'Nuff said.

Re:Better than nothing

[Short Circuit]

With warranties, you'd only want to take it to the dealer, anyway.

Hopefully, by the time the warranties expire, more places will be trained in servicing them. I know one guy in Grand Rapids who'd give it a shot, if you asked him to. Neat guy. Honest.

Re:Better than nothing

[Celandro]

Not true! Hybrids generate their own electricity by running a generator instead of using brake pads to slow down the car. It is simple conservation of energy that would otherwise be wasted. This electricity is stored in a battery and used to run a motor that increases horse power slightly and increases torque greatly (Prius has nearly 300 low end torque which is unheard of for a v4). If you are like most people, you have no idea what torque is, so simply put, torque is the major component of acceleration and horse power is the major component of top speed. This torque also allows the use of a different type of engine that has very little low end torque but about 15% better fuel efficiency.

There is a cost of generating and storing this electricity, the weight of the batteries + motor + space to put these. Hybrids were not viable due to these issues until fairly recently. With the battery improvements over the last few years, the costs of generating and storing the electricity became less than the benefits.

Over the next few years, hybrids will become much more main stream. They increase torque, horse power and fuel efficiency for a cost of about $3000, and that cost is dropping. Hybrids will be used to increase performance, fuel efficiency or both. Importantly, they can be used with any type of engine and will be instrumental in hydrogen fuel cell based engines or other new engine types.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

'82 Diesel VW Rabbit with manual transmission - averaged 54 mpg when 10yrs old. 0-60 in about 15 minutes ;) Actually, highway speed from a dead stop in 60-90 seconds; NOT pleasant in metro St Louis area during rush hour(0-35 in 6 seconds, fine for surface roads). It got 50 mpg in the worst city driving. Head winds occasionally reduced top speed to 50 mph, gas pedal floored.

I once talked my way out of a ticket by pointing out that I had never been able to get to 75 mph, downhill, with a tailwind. The car died after meeting a Cadillac when my brother "didn't see the stop sign"; the car still ran afterwards, I drove it onto the flatbed from the rear passenger seat.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, that's what makes it funny.

Re:Better than nothing

[Joe Decker]

CO2 isn't the only pollutant put out by internal combustion engines. In the linked comparison of NOx emissions, the vast difference in Prius vs. Insight emissions is not due to differing gas mileage, but other variables, such as different pollution control systems, combustion efficiency, etc.

Re:Better than nothing

[syphax]

If both cars burn a gallon to go 30 miles, then (correct me if I'm wrong, someone, please!) by definition they've released the same amount of CO2, H2O and the rest into the atmosphere.

C02: Yeah, about the same
H20: Yeah, about the same
"The Rest": Not the same

It's "the rest" (NOx, CO, particulates, formaldehyde, etc.) that are responsible for local and regional (as opposed to global) air pollution. SULEVs (including most/all hybrids), etc., are much cleaner than their conventional counterparts in regard to these pollutants. CO2 emissions are (arguably) important, but it's the other stuff that messes with smog formation, etc.

Re:Better than nothing

[hal2814]

I used to own two BMWs (an 85 528e and a 86 325e) and I can tell you that the MPG gauge will completely change how you drive. I could squeeze 32 MPG out of the 2.8L I6 engine just by following the MPG gauge recommendations and I still wasn't sacrificing that much acceleration or top speed.

Re:Better than nothing

[Paulrothrock]

The engineer is right on... for the most part. Civics don't have the advantage that the Prius has in that the gas engine shuts off if it's sitting still. Apart from getting really weird looks from pedestrians, this saves energy (especially now that the new model's A/C is hooked up to an electric compressor). The Civic, OTOH, uses its gas engine constantly, and therefore only has the advantage of having a smaller engine compared to another Civic.

Moral of the Story: Buy a Prius!

Re:Better than nothing

[mink]

I replaced my Ford Escort with a 1st generation Hybrid Toyota Prius. I cut my fuel bills in half.
YMMV ;)

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The extra 10 mph can make a big difference.

You are right. Drag increases with the velocity squared , so if you double the speed, you quadruple the power requirements.

So increasing your speed from 55 to 65 is an 18% increase in speed, but almost a 40% increase in drag.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

unless they are GOLD bricks, then you get to use the troy scale.. Have fun. :)

Re:Better than nothing

[ncc74656]

One of the coolest features I've ever seen was on an old BMW, it was a little gage that measured fuel economy. It dropped to below 2 MPG in a modestly quick (not even a launch) start from a stop sign and this was in the old 318ti (small, light car).

Basically, what that was was a vacuum gauge hooked to the intake manifold and calibrated in estimated MPG. At WOT, the vacuum developed in the intake manifold is lower than when your foot's off the gas. GM offered something similar in its cars a quarter-century ago, though the scale on theirs was only marked "good" and "not-so-good" (not exactly, but that's the idea) instead of with numbers. I don't think it was a particularly common option...they turn up in junkyard cars occasionally, but there are other gauges (temperature, oil pressure, etc.) that are more useful for monitoring your car's health.

Re:Better than nothing

[leipzig3]

My family owns a Toyota Prius (old model). We have gotten an average of 45-50 mpg combined city/hway driving which is slightly less than the claimed mileage. The thing is that when my dad drives the car, the mileage seems to go up by a good 5 mpg on average so driving habits do appear to play a significant role. He claims the secret to high mileage is accelerating quickly and then coasting to allow the engine to shut down (the gasoline engine shuts down even at stop signs).

Re:Better than nothing

[cayenne8]

Well, heck, if you want an LEV car...get a Dodge Viper...they're rated as an LEV...with a V-10 gasoline engine. Infinitely more fun to drive that one of these hybrids I'd say...

Click Here

I actually, understand that pretty much over the whole life span of the Viper, it has consistantly turned in lower emission numbers that most cars of the same year...

Now, why can't they put that kinda fun car into production for a little more reasonable price??

Still...the older ones are not that expensive anymore...and many have very low mileage...

Re:Better than nothing

[Joe Decker]

Come check my logs. 3K miles, 55MPG lifetime, 57MPG on the last tank, 56.7 MPG so far on the current tank. This is on a mix of freeway and city driving.

I frequent a number of Prius mailing lists and I don't know anyone who has managed as poor a result as 31.5MPG in the new generation Prius. The lowest results I've heard have been in the low 40s. The EPA ratings are bogus, but there's something non-representive about the Consumer Reports results as well.

Re:Better than nothing

[nelsonal]

I only drove it in a test drive. Long story short, my car was in limbo between getting totaled or being fixed and the insurance company decided to fix it. Are the MPG gauges very accurate? Presumably you measured consumption fill up to fill up, was the guide over any period of time? I've seen fuel consumption gauges in airplanes that measure gas flowing to the fuel pump, do they use those measurments?

Re:Better than nothing

[Yavi]

Ideally the combustion of a hydrocarbon breaks down into H2O and CO2. Therefore, in a perfect world, burning a gallon of gas in a hybrid engine, a SUV, or an unlucky lab rat should release the same products. However, it is also possible to get unwanted products from incomplete combustion and/or side reactions with the products. That is how you produce carbon monoxide (CO) from a combustion engine (as well as some other nasty gases). The reason that hybrid vechicles are typically thought to release less of these unwanted byproducts (and thereby qualify as ULEV, etc) is that the engines only run at their most efficient RPM value. A standard car engine runs the gambits of the RPM band as you drive, but a hybrid simply runs at the most efficient fuel/energy ratio to charge the batteries. If you're only dealing with one set of internal conditions, it is much easier to design an effective catalytic converter to remove the unwanted gases from the exhaust.

Re:Better than nothing

[Phreakiture]

And, I believe that diesels can produce up into the 40 MPG range (e.g. VW Passat).

It is inappropriate to compare a diesel engine to a gasoline engine due to the fact that a given quantity of diesel has more energy in it than an identical quantiy of gasoline. I don't remember the precise ratio, but I think it is somewhere around 1.5:1 in favour of diesel.

Re:Better than nothing

[Master Bait]

I'm getting 52 on my ancient 1982 diesel Jetta with a normally-aspirated 1600cc engine. I have also clocked about 365,000 miles on the original engine.

A better hybrid could be produced that utilizes an electric motor for the propulsion, and a fixed rpm diesel to produce electricity, regeneration from coasting and braking, and an additional sterling engine to capture heat from the coolant and the exhaust manifold.

The easiest way to gain fuel economy, however, is to drive a car that weighs 1500 lbs instead of 3000 lbs.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

And since most Highways have recently gone up to 70, I guess that means the sticker test should be adjusted, but we knew that already.

Re:Better than nothing

[evenprime]

yes it has been adressed, new hybrids have lifetime or 125,000 mile pack warrenties.

...and batteries can be recycled, anyway. I know that more than 90% of a lead-acid battery is recycleable(sp?). I would not be surprised if the same is true of Li-Ion batteries, too.

Re:Better than nothing

[cayenne8]

Not all states HAVE emission level controls, checks or laws. I've never lived in a state where I had to get my car tested for noise or emissions...

Re:Better than nothing

[.milfox]

:P My Jetta Wagon TDI gets 46mpg (avg) on that not-earth-destrying BIOdiesel fuel :P And hey, it's still cheaper than premium for B100 (2.90 where I fill up here in Seattle)

Prolly do a diesel hybrid like the Mercedes Vision GST for my next car in a decade, though.

Re:Better than nothing

[Naffer]

Except they aren't using lead acid batteries. They're using Nickel Metal Hydride batteries. I know that NiMH batteries aren't as bad on the enviorment as NiCad batteries but that doesn't mean that they're being recyled completely.

Re:Better than nothing

[Glonoinha]

Based on the efficiency and cleanliness of the engine, different crap can come out.

Take two pieces of paper, light both on fire. Blow out one the pieces of paper half burned and toss it in a glass jar. Toss the other one still burning in a different glass jar, insure enough air circulates in to keep it burning. One jar will be full of paper ashes and fairly clean looking air, the other one will be full of smoke.

Some of the differences between engines are : unburned hydrocarbons (pretty bad), carbon dioxide (not so bad), carbon monoxide (very bad), etc ... all depending on how well the fire in the hole burns the gas.

Re:Better than nothing

[Joe Decker]

The current hybrids are too small to be useful for anything more than driving to work.

Try sitting in the back seat of a 2004 Prius and saying that. It's not a luxobox, but it's a comfortable mid-sized car, with good headroom for a car of its class. Hardly a commute-only vehicle like the Insight.

I think you're right to worry about batteries, but I don't think they'll necessarily end up as waste. For me, that's an open question.

As for other alternative fuels, E85 (ethanol) is very promising, and once it becomes mass-produced, the costs should go down, until we have a drought in the Midwest

In California, delivery/production of the ethanol probably makes its use energy-inefficient, particularly when you remove various gov't incentives. This probably isn't true for fuel used in the midwest, though.

The batteries is a hybrid have nothing to do with lower emissions, that is all managed by computerized engine controls and catalytic converters.

This isn't quite accurate, IMHO. A hybrid's batteries allow a smaller ICE, which allows for more efficient combustion, and therefore better emissions for a given drive.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely that flywheels will replace batteries soon enough, and that would radically improve the hybrid cars.

But what of the problem of turning or moving? I thought flywheels would act like gyroscopes, resisting movement on their axis.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Advantage: HOV lane in rush hour traffic. 'Nuff said.



ok so that advantage is nothing in the other 99% of the country.

very FEW areas have HOV lanes.

Re:Better than nothing

[dhovis]

I hate to burst your bubble, but Ford replaced the Escort with the Focus in 2000, and the Focus has moved from LEV, to SULEV (which is Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle, BTW), and is even available in PZEV format (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). PZEV is basically the same standard as SULEV, but manufacturer has to warranty the entire emissions system will maintain that level for a minimum ten years. Keep in mind, in this context, CO2 is not considered a pollutant. This counts NOx, SOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulates, etc.

In any case, the "cleanliness" of the emissions has more to do with how efficient the combustion is, and how good the catalytic converter is. Which is why diesel cars do not come close to satisfying LEV, or SULEV. diesel combustion is not anywhere near as complete as gasoline combustion, and no catalytic converters are available for diesel (yet, it is being worked on).

Re:Better than nothing

[mdrn28]

I just bought a new all-gasoline Sentra which is rated as SULEV and supposedly gets over 30mpg.

Presumably there are more environmental impacts beyond just mileage and emissions, such as amount of recycled materials in the vehicle, energy and chemicals used in manufacturing, etc.

Re:Better than nothing

[the_mad_poster]

I drive a 2001 Mustang GT. I get about 17 mpg in it. I like it a lot more than your SL2, because it has WAY WAY WAY more power, plus I get lots of looks from hot college chicks.

...... I'm probably gonna get killed by an environmentalist now.... go pick on a Viper owner instead.... they're much worse...

Re:Better than nothing

[be951]

Not true! Hybrids generate their own electricity by running a generator instead of using brake pads to slow down the car.

Actually, the Prius (and others) use both regenerative braking and the gasoline engine to drive the generator that charges the batteries. FYI

Re:Better than nothing

[mikeboone]

We get over 30 mpg in our 97 SL2 manual, and most of that is small-town driving.

Our 03 VUE with a CVT transmission only gets 23 mpg average in town but it's better than the 17 mpg of the pickup it replaced.

We love our Saturns!

Re:Better than nothing

[ArsonSmith]

still somewhere someone is not being honest, squiling tires and hard driving and getting 55 MPG is pretty much mutually exclusive. I belive well that you may get 55MPG or that you may drive like a maniac I don't belive both.

Re:Better than nothing

[dan_sdot]

but the Hybrid's mileage is 31.5 environmentally friendly miles per gallon of gasoline where your bud's Escort's mileage is 31 environment destroying miles per gallon.

Actually, no. A gallon of gasoline burned is a gallon of gasoline burned. When gasoline is combusted, it outputs pollutants. And it always outputs the same pollutants. This is simple chemistry. The point of hybrid cars is not that the byproduct of the gasoline is supposed to be clean somehow, but rather that there is less gasoline burned. So this hybrid that burns one gallon in 31.5 miles is outputing more pollution than my Echo that burns 1 gallon in 40 miles.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

I've wondered about the same idea, but none of the currently available hybrids work this way.

I may have my definitions mixed up, but I believe what you describe is a series hybrid. The internal combustion engine generates electricity, which charges a battery. The battery's electricity is used to power an electrical engine.

The Prius, Insight, and Civic are all forms of parallel hybrids. Sometimes the electrical engine powers the car, sometimes the internal combustion engine powers the car, and sometimes they work together.

Re:Better than nothing

[ArsonSmith]

and with 10 year 100,000 mile warranty I have little to worry about. $36 dealer oil change every 10,000 miles isn't a big deal to me.

Re:Better than nothing

[JudgeDredd]

I have a '96 Integra GSR, and I've logged every tank since I bought it. I get 34 MPG city and hwy. On my last highway trip I was travelling at a slow 110 kph and got 57MPG.

A large determination of mileage is how you drive. I'll romp on it (and win) when someone challenges me , but otherwise I accellerate smoothly, keep a steady speed and anticipate stops instead of braking 20 feet from the lights.

Re:Better than nothing

[hal2814]

The BMW provides a MPG average on its onboard computer. I've spot checked it a couple of times by checking my trip odometer at fillup and the computer always was within .5 MPG of correct. I'm not sure where the MPG gauge is connected to the engine to check MPG, but the gauge was always at the bottom of the tachometer. I always assumed it had to do with RPM and gear ratios since it shares space with the tach but I never looked that up. I don't think the MPG gauge is accurate down to the unit, but it gives you a good enoug idea of how to adjust your driving.

Re:Better than nothing

[LWATCDR]

There are other LEV and SULEVs that are not hybrids. Do not forget the big honking pile of acid and lead that you do have to dispose of.
Over all I do not think that hybrids are that great of a solution.

Re:Better than nothing

[jafac]

For what it's worth, my 1972 Karmann Ghia with STOCK 1600cc carbed engine gets 35 mpg highway. (somewhere around 18 mpg stop-n-go).

The advance in fuel efficiency in cars has been pathetic.

My TDI Jetta gets 47 mpg highway. (haven't had the opportunity to test stop-n-go performance).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The batteries used in the Prius (and I believe in most/all other hybrid cars) are Nickel-Metal Hydride cells, not Lead-Acid.

Re:Better than nothing

[bmwm3nut]

A better hybrid could be produced that utilizes an electric motor for the propulsion, and a fixed rpm diesel to produce electricity, regeneration from coasting and braking, and an additional sterling engine to capture heat from the coolant and the exhaust manifold.

Thank you for saying this. I've been trying to convince people that this is the way to go. Diesel and Gas engines have 1 optimum RPM where they're the most efficient (and if you design the enigine for only 1 RPM, you can make it even more efficient). We should all have slow spinning diesels that run generators. Then we have 1 small motor at each wheel to power the car. This way you get rid of the heavy (and super inefficeint because of friction) transmission and differential. All you need to do is run some wires to the wheels. Regenerative braking is easy in this setup too. It also make traction control dirt simple. All you gotta have is a simple computer watch the wheel speeds and adjust how much voltage/current goes to each wheel and you never need to worry about wheel spin any more. This is the way the diesel-electric locomotives work. I've read that 1 diesel-electric locomotive towing 5 loaded cars gets 1 mile per gallon!. Granted they don't have the rolling resistance of cars because they use steel wheels on a steel track, but still 1 mile per gallon for that much weight is amazing. Just imagine what we could do with a 3000 pound car.

Re:Better than nothing

[Joe Decker]

I'd agree with that, I don't count myself in the "squealing tires" camp, I'll completely admit that I'm working for those 55 MPG. (But I'm enjoying it, too.)

An aside--one thing that did surprise me is that the right off-the-line acceleration for the Prius for maximum MPG isn't "anemic". It's not anywhere near "tire-squealin'", but best acceleration for MPG off the line is not annoying to most surrounding drivers. Apparently you want to be in the domain where the internal combustion engine is putting out maximum power but that the acceleration isn't being aided by the battery.

Re:Better than nothing

[rastachops]

So therefore as the UK Gallons are ~20% bigger than US Gallons your car does more US MPG than 33 UK MPG. So continue....

Re:Better than nothing

[Another MacHack]

Where do you think the energy to move the car fast enough to need braking comes from in the first place? If your answer includes gravity, account for the energy needed to get it up the hill. It's all attributable to the gasoline in the end, except for the "free" potential energy you get if they build the things at high altitude and you drive them around at low altitude. Even then you only get that the once.

Sure, it's better to recapture that energy than to burn it as heat in the brake pads, but it's still accounted for by gallons burned; saving the energy just means you burn fewer gallons later because you don't have to charge the battery as much as you would have if you just wasted the energy.

Re:Better than nothing

[rfunk]

If both cars burn a gallon to go 30 miles, then (correct me if I'm wrong, someone, please!) by definition they've released the same amount of CO2, H2O and the rest into the atmosphere.

RTFA. The whole reason for the discrepancy between the EPA estimates and real-world experiences is that the EPA looks at the emissions and estimates from there. Since the hybrid cars burn much cleaner, the EPA's estimate assumes they get much higher MPG too. Turns out they don't get much higher MPG, but they do burn those gallons more efficiently.

More efficiently in this context means the exhaust has more water and less CO2, CO, and unburned gas fumes.

Re:Better than nothing

[bteeter]

Same here. I own a 2003 Civic Hybrid. I get on average 43-44 MPG driving in the congested streets and Interstates in and around Washington DC. On long highway only trips, I've hit over 50 MPG.

When I read stories of Hybrid owners getting only 30ish MPG - either their car must be messed up, or they are driving like maniacs with all of the economy features turned off. The Civic Hybrid only has a 1.3L engine. You really have to _try hard_ to make it use a lot of gas.

Take care,

Brian
--
Linux Web Hosting -> Linux Web Hosting

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

"The easiest way to gain fuel economy, however, is to drive a car that weighs 1500 lbs instead of 3000 lbs."

True. However, if your '82 Jetta gets in a crash, you're in trouble. A new Jetta might not get you 52 mpg, but new Volkswagens have excellent crash protection. I don't know if that matters to you, but to me the two biggest considerations as a car buyer are crash protection and fuel economy.

I read an interesting discussion in the AutoWeek tech talk forum from an independent inventor working on a variant of your diesel generator/electric motor combination. He was working with an air compressor, a (reinforced) air tank, and a 4 cylinder engine. The air compressor runs at its most efficient form to keep the air tank full. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the airway from the air tank into the 4 cylinder engine, generating pressure just like detonation from traditional internal combustion.

The fellow was up front that he didn't have a completed test vehicle as proof of concept, but I thought the idea was interesting. I would think an air tank would be less prone to loss of stored energy or degradation over time than a battery, too.

Re:Better than nothing

[An Onerous Coward]

I've owned a '94 Saturn for a few years now, and I'd always been able to consistently get around 40-45 MPG (mostly highway). I bought the car from my sister, who only got 37MPG despite similar travel patterns.

It all comes down to different driving patterns. I'm generally pretty easy on the accelerator, shift into higher gears early (stickshifts are wonderful), and generally keep my speed under 65. I also throw the car into neutral on long downhills, which takes a couple thousand unneeded RPMs off the engine. But I wouldn't recommend this, as people keep trying to convince me that it's either unsafe or bad for the transmission. Screw 'em.

My car before that was an '89 Ford Festiva, which generally got around 48MPG. I loved that car so very very much.

Re:Better than nothing

[BryanR1977]

My ULEV Subaru Impreza WRX gets 24-27 MPG city.

Re:Better than nothing

[Astrorunner]

I think you need to have your sarcasm meter recalibrated. Here, use mine as a reference.

E[.........../]F

Re:Better than nothing

[dwillden]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

Really? My 1999 Ford Escort gets 31 mpg. The guy with the blog gets 32mpg with his fancy new hybrid. One mpg is not a sufficient improvement, and defninately nowhere near the advertised 48 to 60 mpg.

Re:Better than nothing

[hazem]

I don't get it. If I drive 31.5MPG and burn a gallon of Gas, I convert 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol) into CO2, H2O and all that other lovely stuff.

The difference is in "all that other lovely stuff".

There are different points of efficiency.

A hybrid only has to burn the gas to turn a generator, probably within a limited range of RPMs. It can therefore be tuned to burn the gas very efficiently (in a chemical sense), producing a better ratio of H2O and CO2 to "other stuff". A traditional car has to function at a greater range of RPM and Torque and can't be tuned so efficiently, so it produces more "other stuff".

Another point of efficiency is how the car takes that burning fuel and turns it into the car's motion.

A hybrid takes the burning fuel, turns a generator to produce electricity, which then turns a motor that turns the wheels. A traditional car takes that burning fuel, turns a set of gears, which then turns the wheels. One could measure the efficency of the process of taking the rotational energy of the engine and converting it to forward motion of the car.

So, on one hand, the hybrid, getting 31.5 MPG may be more efficient than the tradiational car because it produces less "other stuff". On the other hand, if the traditional car can be measured to be less efficient in burning, and still gets nearly the same overall mileage, then its mechanical process for converting engine rotation to car movement must be more efficient, even when taking into account the regenerative breaking.

What this points out is that hybrids need to improve the effiency of the generator-to-motor part of the puzzle.

Re:Better than nothing

[chasm!killer]

Simple chemistry -- so a gallon of gasoline is as good as 5 pounds of beef at keeping you alive? Both have about the same number of calories and approximately the same chemical breakdown.

The important thing about polution is not about the elemental mix of the outputs (which I agree is the elemental mix of the inputs) -- it is the actual chemical compounds and even the physical form of the compounds that are left in the air.

There is hardly any nitrogen in most diesel and gasoline fuels, but nitrogen compounds are a major polution problem many places (made from the nitrogen in the air, which is not normally considered a polutant).

Re:Better than nothing

[F34nor]

For fuel look to CWT's TDP (Changing World Technologies Thermal De-Polymerization Process,) turns anything made from carbon, read shit, offal, plastic, or rubber into gas, diesel, fertilizer and distilled water at 85% efficiency. Far better than E85 and the factory doesn't piss off the neighbors.

Burn that in a badly tuned Trans Am and its still very good. No fossilized hydrocarbons, no net increas in carbon in the atmosphere.

The real reason a hybrid can be very very low emission is due to the fact that you can run it at one RPM, the best one for power/emission. Also due to the DC motor you can get 100% of you torque at 0 RPM. Use a gas turbine, or a Moller Freedom Motor and it's even better. You can use a regular motor in a hybrid, you can use anything you want. You could use a god damn army of hamsters.

You can't claim that hybrid gas electric isn't mature or small, ever seen a diesel locomotive? Seems like a mature use of technology, also you might note that a 16 Liter engine is so much larger and more manly than you piss ant Trans Am that's its funny. Locomotives use diesel to drive an AC generator that runs an AC/DC inverter and then DC motors. They use that system for the low-end torque. If its good enough for a locomotive its good enough for your car buddy.

Also you battery comment is bullshit. They use lead acid batteries, which are recyclable, or NiMH, which are recyclable. NiCads suck and shouldn't be used.

Hydrogen sucks. Yes you are right.

Re:Better than nothing

[scenic]

don't take this the wrong way, but it may have to do with how you're driving... manual transmissions get you the potential to have better mileage, but don't guarantee it. For example, you could run your car at 4K RPM at 25mph all the time. Or you could speed on the highway (EPA mileage numbers are at 55 or 65, i think).

I say this because I noticed on my Matrix (XRS) that I was getting like 24-25 mpg instead of 30. I was able to get much closer to the 30 mpg when I followed the shift points described in my manual to the letter instead of my normal gun it in first acceleration. I also took 5 mph off my speed when I go to work, and I'm consistently up near 30.

To the guy below who talks about not caring about mileage, well, it's not putting me in the poor house or anything, but if I can save $5 a week in gas, I'd rather do that. Especially since my car requires premium fuel.

Sujal

Re:Better than nothing

[LWATCDR]

I thought they where NiCads. Maybe that was the Honda. But you are correct.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

In the AutoWeek forums Tech Talk section, a fellow with the handle VP (Variable Pressure) Drive has a thread where he discusses his hybrid concept: Instead of constant RPM generator, battery, electric motor he does constant RPM air compressor, air tank, specially converted internal combustion engine.

The compressor fills the air tank. Pressing the accelerator pedal opens the valve to let air from the tank fill the cylinders in the engine, generating torque just like any other car engine except without combustion. Pressing the brake applies braking to the tires and also automatically closes the valve from the air tank.

He said about one minute of hard acceleration would drain your air tank completely and would require about ten minutes to refill the tank to a drivable level, but nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight.

The concept strikes me as brilliant, although I am neither a physicist nor engineer so this is an inexpert opinion. The air tank should suffer less inefficiency of power transfer than a battery.

I posted this as a response to someone else, but I thought the idea was worth repeating.

Re:Better than nothing

[orion67]

Batteries are also the single most agressively recycled automobile part

uh, steel? nearly ever car body/carcass eventually ends up at a recycling steel mill, except those partially buried in front of trailers in Kentucky...

Re:Better than nothing

[whoever57]

He then also lies about his gas milage. Perhaps not a direct lie but atleast an exageration of a one time millage spoken as if it was what he always got.

I came to the conclusion many years ago that either:

I drive with a very heavy right foot (unlikely) or

Just about everyone lies about mileage.

Actually, I think what really happens is that people only measure mileage on long journeys, when cars naturally perform better. People just don't want to know what mileage they get around town, since it is an unpleasant number.

Re:Better than nothing

[FreakBoy]

I second these comments.
I have a 2000 Insight (manual transmission) and I have averaged 62 mpg. I've been doing better lately since I've been doing more highway driving and my foot doesn't have as much lead as it used to.

Re:Better than nothing

[gfxguy]

I think this is why you see mileage for city and highway much closer in hybrids than you see in standard cars.

But I don't believe that stop and go driving is "ideal" for any kind of car. In other words, the highway miles are still better than the city miles for that reason. It's just that stop and go conditions show how hybrids can compensate in that type of driving condition.

The difference is that a hybrid might not get much better gas mileage on the highway than a comparably light and efficient car, but it's city miles are almost just as good.

IF you do mostly city driving, then a hybrid would be better, overall. Most people do mostly city driving, but don't really think about it as such.

If you ask someone how they use their car, 90% will be city driving, but they think of the once or twice a year that they take a road trip and say they use a lot of highway miles.

I think the biggest problem with people buying cars is that they don't really evaluate how they will be really using it before deciding. They don't consider ongoing costs, either to their wallets or the environment, they buy SUVs (no I'm not really an SUV basher anymore, although I admit I once was) in the fall when gas prices are low and then have conniption in the spring when prices go up, as they ALWAYS do.

Hey, BTW, gas prices are NOT at an all time high when adjusted for inflation!

We have two cars - the family car that carts the kids around, goes shopping, takes us on long trips, etc., and my commuting car. When I replace my car, it's got to be relatively cheap, reliable and get great gas mileage. Thinking about a Volkswagen diesel these days. Current Civic (93) runs great, though, and gets really good mileage.

Re:Better than nothing

[WolfPup]

I'm more curious about the fact that in very cold cilmates, batteries tend to not have as good of performance. And in some areas the main battery of cars needs warmers to make sure they perform well enough to start the car. The hybrids may not have problems starting, but would the reduced performance of the battery cause problems in mileage efficiency since the gasoline motor would have to run more often to pick up the slack of the lower performing battery?

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a nice example of free market being compatible with ecology? Now only if the Greenpeace people got this...

Re:Better than nothing

[whoever57]

"The Rest": Not the same

There really is no reason why the present generation of hybrids should be significantly better than conventional cars in this regard.

The key to making internal combustion engines most efficient and putting out minimum pollution is to run the engine at one speed/load point. With the engine connected to the drive chain (as in current hybrids), you can't do this. What you really need is an engine that is connected only to a generator and always runs at a single speed and always the same loading.

An electric motor (or one per wheel) then provides the motive force for the vehicle. Batteries are used to balance the power input (from the engine) and output (by the electric motors).

Now, I suspect that there is some good reason why this setup has not been used in the current generation of hybrids, but nevertheless, I believe it would produce minimum emissions.

Re:Better than nothing

[tordia]

This is wrong. As described in a post above in this thread, if the honda civic hybrid slows down from driving speeds to less than 5 mph (and the temperature is above 41F), the gas engine cuts out, and stays off until you take your foot off the brake.

Mine does this all the time. There's a little light on the dash that blinks when the gas engine cuts out. You can feel and, if the music isn't playing too loudly, hear the gas engine cut out.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to burst your bubble but the escort was not replaced by the focus which which can be seen by the 2003 ford escort.

The escort has since gone away, but it was not replaced by the ford escort.

Replacing would be like when Acura replaced the Integra with the RSX because there were no more Integra's for sale after the RSX came out.

Re:Better than nothing

[the_mad_poster]

You're just mad because you spent forty thousand on a car that doesn't even have cupholders

Re:Better than nothing

[gfxguy]

I really want one of those, but need to pay off the "family" car before I can think about getting a new commuting car for myself.

The 100HP engine actually has slightly more torque than the standard 180HP engine. I'm thinking that's great for city driving, but I'm wondering how it fairs on the highway. If it's all that great, I may get a wagon and use it for the family trips instead of the monster minivan we have.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

You got it backwards.
1.2 US Gallons = 1 UK Gallon
33 miles per 1 UK gallon =>
33 miles per 1.2 US gallons =>
27.5 miles per US gallon ... Which is perfectly suitable for a moderately large Volvo station wagon.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's the amazing part. The Subaru WRX (which I own) gets 30 mpg if I'm easy on puching the pedal.

It's rated at almost 230 HP and is all wheel drive and can be purchased for less than a hyrbid.

Of course, the ultimate in fuel effiency and speed is here.

Re:Better than nothing

[dasunt]

Bah! I drive a '78 V8 318 Dodge D100 pickup that seems to have a humid/cold weather electrical issue which results in about 2 mpg when the engine is cold.

Why?

Because I support our troops in Iraq!

Re:Better than nothing

[Nogami_Saeko]

I drive my 04 Prius just like the Corolla I owned before it. I get over 50mpg without any particular effort.

If a hybrid isn't making the milage estimates on the advertising, just think about what a regular car would be getting.

They advertise 35mpg on a regular 4-door sedan, and you're probably getting a real-world value of around 20-25mpg. But those cars don't have any sort of internal mileage metering/display, so it's difficult to get an exact reading (so people don't notice).

Remember, the EPA tests are under basically "ideal" driving conditions geared for the 1960s when the test was created. There needs to be a new test all-around.

N.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Discard? Recycle, surely. I guess there's a way to recycle NiMH batteries.

90% of lead-acid batteries are recycled.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The hybrid car STILL uses a GASOLINE engine, bozo.

Re:Better than nothing

[Carnildo]

To the guy below who talks about not caring about mileage, well, it's not putting me in the poor house or anything, but if I can save $5 a week in gas, I'd rather do that. Especially since my car requires premium fuel.

If I could save $5 a week on gas, I'd be wondering who to get the cash from.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

It is slightly bad for the transmission. Ever notice how the tranny gives you some resistance when putting it in gear? That's the synchros (they're little brass clutches) trying their best to spin the input shaft back up to speed after turning so slow.

High-mileage transmissions like to "snatch" into gear, will pop out of gear, will grind, and generally are a pain to work with in 1st and 2nd gear because those synchro rings wear out. It's especially noticable if the person likes to put the tranny in neutral at stop lights or does a lot of city driving.

You can mitigate the problem by revving the engine to the speed that it should be going for the gear you'll be shifting. Do it before you push the clutch in though or you won't spin up the input shaft. You'll also have to push in the clutch before the engine slows back down or the input shaft just slows with the engine.

At any rate, putting the car in neutral on hills is about useless, especially on a fuel-injected car.

Re:Better than nothing

[ckaminski]

Oh the benefit of having a foot operated clutch...

Re:Better than nothing

[riffenator]

ya?

The reactor in the trunk?

Re:Better than nothing

[quahog]

Actually, from what I've read, coasting in gear with the transmission pushing against the engine (assuming it's above a certain RPM) will not use any gas, whereas coasting in neutral will use gas. Now that I think about it, if you coast all the way down to about 1500 RPM (in my car) you can feel when the engine starts kicking in some gas, the car jerks for a second (much like when you coast and then tap the gas).

As for doing damage to the transmission while in neutral, I doubt it (but I'm no expert).

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I also throw the car into neutral on long downhills, which takes a couple thousand unneeded RPMs off the engine. But I wouldn't recommend this, as people keep trying to convince me that it's either unsafe or bad for the transmission. Screw 'em.


You're a fucking moron then.
#1. When you are going down a hill in gear and your foot off the gas, the engine is being driven solely by the wheels. In a fuel injected engine this means that there is NO fuel usage at all. Fuel usage is not directly related to the tachometer, dipshit.
#2. If you are in neutral down a hill, the engine has to run at idle and therefore use gas to keep itself running. (Gasoline Idling uses a surprising amount of gas)
#3. You will wear out the brakes faster.

Depending on how many hills you go down, keeping the car in gear will SAVE (albeit a small amount) gas.

Name me one advantage of going down a hill in neutral (other than a quick way to accumulate speed (though in my car the difference between 5th and neutral in this case isn't that great)).

Also, in general it highlights that when you are driving a stick it is best to coast in gear for maximum efficiency. You upshift to minimize the affect of unwanted compression braking.

There is a more debatable issue about when to choose to downshift. This is not a fuel issue so much as a brake/clutch issue. This has nothing to do with your idiotic comment, so don't try to refute me with that crap.

Learn to drive, fool.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

The cost of monthly repairs and more gas on an older car usually doesn't equal out to the cost of new car payments and higher insurance until your older car is falling apart.

I have 65,000 miles on my sedan, and the only way I'll replace it before 165,000 miles would be to get something with better crash protection (Like a Honda Accord Coupe or Subaru Forester, the two safest vehicles to be tested thus far.)

Re:Better than nothing

[Nogami_Saeko]

I always wonder where this "five year" myth comes from. The current crop of hybrids have batteries that last the life of the car (which is to say, well over a decade). The power management computers in the hybrids put a very high priority on properly managing power as to not damage the batteries.

I suppose it is a bit of a tradeoff though - do people conserve gas at the expense of recycling (or disposing of) a battery at the end of the car's lifespan? I think it's worthwhile, particularly when the individual 1.5v battery cells can be removed from the casing, and those that are still useful put back into service.

While it may be easier to swap the entire battery, case and all - the design allows for replacement of individual damaged or defective cells.

The term "gigantic" battery is a bit misleading too - the battery inside my 04 Prius is just a bit larger than the wide-carriage Epson Stylus 1200 inkjet printer in my office.

N.

Re:Better than nothing

[shawn99452]

That's nothing! My 1964 Dodge gets 24mpg with it's 240hp, 360ft/lb V8, but since it was made before anyone cared about the environment, my driving of my current car instead of a newer one completely negates the cleaning effect of about 100 hybrids, in terms of emissions.

It's funny how the guy in the article gets 31mpg in his little 1500lb car, and I get 24mpg in my 3500lb car with it's 5.2 liter engine. All we really have to do to get better mileage is have transmissions and engines better matched to the car. If the transmission isn't geared right, or the engine is too small, the engine has to work hard, which wears it out and causes it to have to run outside of it's optimal RPM range.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

Manuals have two advantages besides control and fun:

- No energy lost in a torque converter.
- Generally offered with more gears, so you can keep the RPMs in the low range for efficiency or in the high range for performance as the mood strikes.

Re:Better than nothing

[the_mad_poster]

Y'know, you could probably swap a Chrysler 360 into that thing with a little ingenuity and the savings in gas would pay for the job *. Plus, you could pretend you were driving an '89 Viper Concept.... a... really..... ugly.. Viper Concept.

* Yes, I'm aware that you're not really going to save $3500 in gas...

Re:Better than nothing

[CdBee]

All in all, I'd rather drive a TD

Here in the UK most cars - including convertibles - are available with turbocharged diesel engines. My Ford Mondeo is capable of 60 miles per gallon on motorway runs, and with 90 horsepower it's no slouch. Obviously, this isn't as eco-friendly as a petrol-electric in terms of emissions (Diesels make particulates) but in recent years the quality of diesel fuel and engine management has led to continuing reductions in diesel emissions.

Coupled with the availability of bio-diesel fuel made from vegetables (short carbon cycle - far better than using fossil-fuel diesel) I can't see a real future in Petrol-electric hybrids in Europe. I have seen less than a dozen Prius hybrid cars in the last few years but every 4th car sold in the UK is a Diesel.

Re:Better than nothing

[Cromac]

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car.

Have you seen the all electric drag racing mail truck? http://www.suckamps.com/ it seems like what you're interested in. I'd like to see what it would do in an Explorer or Surburban too.

Re:Better than nothing

[riffenator]

How so?
The engine is obviously LESS efficient in the hybrid. Its being assisted by an electronic motor and still only producing the same results in terms of MPG as the escort.

Re:Better than nothing

[ibi]

Right now diesel is a pretty questionable choice in the US due to the high sulfur content of US diesel fuel - means that you put out high rates of lung-destroying fine particulates.

Once US diesel gets cleaned up (a few years from now) it'll be a better choice.

Re:Better than nothing

[Kernel Kludge]

Batteries are also the single most agressively recycled automobile part,

Yes, this is true of traditional lead-acid batteries, but what about the NiCd and NiMH batteries powering the electric motors in hybrid cars?

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine got 43 mpg blasting from Atlanta to Florida at 80 mph in the first-generation Prius, with the AC on the whole trip. I assume that the internal combustion motor was doing all the work.

Re:Better than nothing

[vondo]

Normal automotive batteries are lead acid batteries. The batteries in hybrids are NiMH, I believe. I'd be interested to know how the recycling characteristics of various batteries stack up.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

the new hdi disels are better and more economical than hybrid. and the gas cars have an fsi. these are fuel injected turbo engines with sophisticated injection systems which inject the gas or disel gradually. the only oproblem is you cant have to much water in the disel. this means you have to let the desel setle at the pumps once you take it of the truck so that the water setles out. desel is also better for towing and trucks and suvs. has higher torgue. more power a city speeds. less of a high top speed. but this is not a problem with the low speeds of the us highways.

Re:Better than nothing

[Carnildo]

Err if they burned through x gallons of fuel to go y miles, doesn't that mean that x gallons of damage was done to the environment via CO2 emitting, resource depleting transportation over the y miles between point A and B.

The key point is that all of the emissions of a hybrid are carbon dioxide, since the engine is spinning at one speed, and can be optimized for that speed. A conventional car also spits out carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot when it accelerates, which are a lot harder on the environment.

Re:Better than nothing

[caswelmo]

I think that there are multiple ratios of products that can happen when gasoline is combusted. Combustion can happen at different pressures, temperatures, fuel-to-air ratios, etc. in different engines. These all have an effect on the product gases left after combustion. And these also have an effect on power output & efficiency. However, it's not necessarily a one-to-one.

Add into all this the fact that different catalyic converters do better at different temperatures, pressures, etc. & you see that for a given mpg it is possible to have different pollutant levels.

Re:Better than nothing

[SquadBoy]

Speaking of Viper Concepts.

http://motorcyclecity.com/Concept/

Re:Better than nothing

[HokieJP]

The laws of chemistry don't care whether I do it in a hybrid, petro-electric, big-block V8 or average suburban runabout.

The reaction that goes on in your car's engine is not as simple as what you learned in general chem. What you're assuming is that the conditions are identical in the engines of all these vehicles. They are not. Things like air/fuel mix and combustion temperature have everything to do with the reaction products (particularly the nasty ones that result from incomplete combustion). Consider that the hybrid's gas engine can run at a much more consistent rate (in terms of RPM), because it can allow the electric motor to soak up the small spikes in input. It needs to perform over a much smaller range of conditions, and so can be better tuned for optimal emissions performance.

Re:Better than nothing

[Jason Hood]

From a conservation standpoint, that's still a good thing.

Assuming everyone who replaces their batteries doesnt toss them in a ditch somewhere like they do appliances, tvs and cars.

I really like the idea of electric cars, They would have far more usable torque than gas but hybirds seem to encapsulate the worst of both worlds. There arent enough battery powered cars out for people to make an honest receycling effort. At least not yet.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I replace the spark Plugs, wires and airfilter on my 2000 Civic and I got consistent 40 mpg on highway and 33mpg on local. I get more HP than the Civic Hybrid. So there...

Re:Better than nothing

[jasonisgodzilla]

yes, screw those dirty hippy environmentalists. Let's turn the planet into a smoggy ozone cloud with daily sulfuric acid rain. Then we can cut and burn all the trees to make room for a new walmart. We won't be able to go outside because the air will be too polluted and the sun will scorch us, but at least we won't be giving into to those illogical hippy enviro freaks.

Re:Better than nothing

[gfxguy]

You don't mention how annoying people are who can't drive a manual. I especially like the idiots that get inches behind you when you are stopped at a stop sign or light on an uphill incline.

Remember when "manual" transmissions used to be called "standard" transmissions, and you couldn't get a license driving an automatic? Those were the days.

Re:Better than nothing

[Paulrothrock]

Sorry, my experience in the comparison is a little old. Have they always done this, or is it a new occurance?

Re:Better than nothing

[Sketch]

Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles, regardless of mileage.

This is how they qualify as a LEV and SULEV (low-emission vehicle/super-low-emission-vehicle).

The hybrid setup does improve emissions, but it is not the only thing that allows them to be qualified as LEV's. All cars built by Honda since the year 2000 (even the S2000 and NSX) are LEV or better. Many of them, even some standard gasoline powered Civics and Accords are rated as SULEV vehicles.

Kind of funny to see this article on slashdot today, since I was just reading some messages on the Insight forum last night after someone was talking about hybrids in IRC. Many of the people there get _better_ than the claimed EPA mileage of 61/68 (which is much higher than the EPA mileage ratings for both the Prius and Civic Hybrid). Even the self-proclaimed leadfoot drivers who pass everyone doing 90 MPH on the highway are still getting over 50 MPG. :)

Re:Better than nothing

[cluckshot]

Since my work is researching HEV's and I keep pretty well up to date on the tech, I might have a point or two.

HEV's are a passing technology an interim beast which really is already out of date. They never would have existed if the numbers had been balanced. HEV's in battery storage cannot be more than about 10% thermally efficient. That's pretty rotten considering that they must do that downside of the engine efficiency. They do have the advantage of allowing Electricity to charge them up when parked. The energy efficiency issues hit this too.

There is a far better technology coming right away. It is a Fuel Reformer/Fuel Cell combo. It has all of the advantages of storing braking energy etc and none of the difficulties with batteries etc that correspond in scale to the Prius etc.

Military interest in Hybrids is related to dual use of the generator. There is also stealth.

I expect that a civilian buying a hybred thinking they are saving energy or getting a good deal is going to get stuck. The technology just isn't that good. There are exceptions to this. If you are a route driver like a mail currier you will win with a hybrid. If your commute is a lot of stop and go stuff with long periods of stop or very slow driving, it pays off. The more long high speed driving you do, the less value the hybrid is going to have.

Re:Better than nothing

[chefmonkey]

I regularly get 55 mpg in my Prius. When my wife drives it, she gets between 38 and 45.

Like with all cars, the mileage that you get is very much dependant on how you drive. I've noticed that, for the Prius at least, it mostly has to do with how you pull away from stoplights. If your impulse is to floor the accelerator when the light turns green, you get crap for mileage. (It's the same with all cars, but more pronounced in the Prius -- flooring it at a green light makes the gas engine kick in immediately; taking off at a sane pace lets the electric motor do what it does best: get you going).

As far as I can tell, the problem with hybrids right now is that type A drivers -- the type of people most likely to loudly complain about stuff -- are exactly the set of people who, by their own habits, get crappy mileage. The fault is not in the technology; it's in the people.

Re:Better than nothing

[Chibi]

I believe people are seeking an answer to the question of where these batteries wil eventually end up. Even if they are "long-life" batteries, they will eventually no longer be used. It doesn't matter if it takes 30 years until they get tossed into a landfill and leak harmful chemicals, they would still be harmful to the environment. It's just a matter of delaying the issue, rather than solving it.

So, if anyone knows what's supposed to happen to these batteries in the long-term, please share.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know that the RPM range is like on these cars? Since, with a hybrid, your speed isn't necessarily a function of final gear ratio and engine rpm, it seems that hybrids might have a distinctive advantage even on the highway.

Re:Better than nothing

[TheJodster]

I am very confused about the statement that 31.5 MPG in a hybrid is more "environmentally friendly" than the same milage is say... a 2003 Escort. The pollutants result from the burning of the fuel. Both cars consume the same amount of fuel. The hybrid is not consuming the toxins in any sort of additional process. Both cars have catalytic converters and emmisions controls.

1. If there is any less pollution from the exhaust of the hybrid, how is it achieved?
   
2. If the hybrid is in fact polluting less, why don't we just put the same emmisions controls on all the Escorts?
   

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

High-mileage transmissions like to "snatch" into gear, will pop out of gear, will grind, and generally are a pain to work with in 1st and 2nd gear because those synchro rings wear out. It's especially noticable if the person likes to put the tranny in neutral at stop lights or does a lot of city driving.



I put the tranny in neutral at stops. The shift into first is done after the tranny is not turning much to speak of anyways. You are more likely to wear out the throw out bearing on your clutch from holding it in at stops. I've replaced these (even one on my car, where I kept clutch hold in to an absolute minimum). I have a car with 190k and the first gear synchro is just fine. The second gear synchro gets a little bitchy after long drives.

Re:Better than nothing

[nametaken]

Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer

Ford went a different route on yah, they're making the Escape a hybrid now... or so I hear. Finally, a decent looking car that I only have to fill with gas once a month. I'd drive a Prius or something if they weren't so dinky looking.

Re:Better than nothing

[chefmonkey]

Yep. And actually, the new Priuses are classified at "AT-PZEV" (Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles), which is somewhat more strict than even SULEV.

Re:Better than nothing

[be951]

They do not give good return in a traffic jam environment because the crawling gets the batteries drained to the point where the ECU decides to recharge them and starts from cold (and there is not enough energy recovered from breaking).

That may or may not be true, depending on driving conditions, battery capacity, etc.... At very low speed, of if you're spending time stopped, you're drawing a little from the batteries (or nothing). Clearly, this is superior to constantly idling in a regular car. Once the batteries are tapped enough to cause the ICE to kick on, how long does it take to recharge the batteries? Won't the engine run at or near optimum rpm if only recharging the batteries and not needed to power the drivetrain? All you've offered to support your conclusion are assumptions about the way the vehicle/drivetrain behaves.

Re:Better than nothing

[Blackknight]

For city driving the TDI is great. It's also great on the highway, pretty much the same as any other car, except you'll be getting 45-50 mpg depending on how fast you drive.

Re:Better than nothing

[jazman_777]

You can be assured, if a reputable manufacturer offers a warranty on a product, it will last that long at a minimum.

And that long, at a maximum, too.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

I wish I could drive a manual - I want to learn, but I've never had the chance.

It's a little tough to start now. I don't want to drop a few thousand dollars on a used car with a manual just to learn, but I also don't want to buy a brand new car with a standard transmission because I won't be able to test drive it worth a damn.

Re:Better than nothing

[petermanmj]

I would agree that Hybrids are better than nothing. It's part of what got me to buy one. You have to remember to let it break in and not drive like you stole it. Not that anyone cares, but I threw together some of my thoughts on my hybrid.

Re:Better than nothing

[Soulslayer]

The 626 is a nice car, but don't knock the hybrids. The Insight hits 73 mph in second gear and hits its governed speed of 113mph 3/4 of the way through 3rd. And at 90 mph I'm still getting around 55-60 mpg. If I drop to a more legal speed I can bring my gas mileage up into the 70-80 mpg range.

If I need to accelerate quickly on a short ramp, I can do it, 0-60 mph in just under 10 seconds ain't great, but it's better than most econoboxes, SUVs, and pickup trucks.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome idea, particularly the Stirling Engine to capture waste heat. But what if we eliminated the piston engine entirely and just used a Stirling as the main engine. The damn thing would be alot lighter than a Wankel, let along a Chevy iron block V-8 and we'd still have all the other advantages (battery energy storage, wall charging, regenerative breaking, high torque electric drivetrain.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

You know what, thats great if all other factors are equal, but for the guy on the street(me) who is thinking about a new car I don't care, all I care about is miles per maintenance,and MPG. before and after the fact environmental factors are great, and if the TCO is the same, a nice warm fuzzy is just that, nice, but if I pay ~2x more for a car that requires more(expensive) maintenance, and provides the same MPG numbers its not worth it in my pocketbook, esp as fuel prices keep rising.

Re:Better than nothing

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

The Prius does not 'start from cold'. It has a 3-liter vacuum flask (thermos bottle) which stores hot coolant to warm up the motor before it starts.

It only 'cold starts' when it has been off for several hours.

The Prius keeps the catalytic converter warm at all cost. It will sometimes even sacrifice fuel emissions to do this. That's why it's an AT-PZEV vehicle.

Moreover, what do you think you're doing in a regular car in a traffic jam? Lots of idling. Starting the engine for ten minutes every thirty (the Prius can go a half mile before recharging) is better than leaving it running the whole time.

Re:Better than nothing

[drinkypoo]

Putting a car with a manual transmission in neutral while coasting won't harm the engine or transmission but it will drive the power steering at low power (unless it's electric) as well as the alternator and depending on the demand on these systems (sudden swerving, loud stereo) this might not be a good thing.

Putting a car with an automatic transmission in neutral while coasting WILL screw most of them up because the fluid isn't moving enough and it burns up. However, old people drive saturns because you can tow them with a tow bar and not burn up the transmission, it's something about the way it's designed that it's upside down or some wacky thing. The PT Cruiser is not designed this way, or at least wasn't a few years ago, so old people don't buy 'em. Amusing.

Re:Better than nothing

[GutBomb]

I call bullshit every city i have lived in has HOV lanes. Minneapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, Orange County, Houston, Seattle, Stockholm... Any place with a traffic problem will have HOV lanes.

Re:Better than nothing

[glitch!]

Heh. I hope you meant "mpg+" rather than "mph+" ;-)

Yep :-) I don't mean to badmouth these hybrid cars with better milage, but I don't think they have the right to make such a big deal out of a relatively modest achievement, especially considering the higher price. I think Saturn made a stupid decision about dropping the SL/SL1/SL2 models and replacing them with the higher priced, less efficient ION.

Re:Better than nothing

[drinkypoo]

Stop and go performance should be excellent on the TDI Jetta, since it makes peak torque at very low RPMs, and torque is what you need for acceleration at low RPM.

Re:Better than nothing

[Fulcrum of Evil]

We should all have slow spinning diesels that run generators. Then we have 1 small motor at each wheel to power the car. This way you get rid of the heavy (and super inefficeint because of friction) transmission and differential.

Just FYI, driveline losses for a standard transmission and diff run around 10-15%, or 20-25% for AWD. how does your generator/motor concept compare. I'd be especially interested in the numbers for highway speeds.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the moron going 50 in a 65 in the single HOV lane backing up traffic since you can't legally jump in and out of HOV lane at will to pass said moron. Because of this many people won't use the HOV lane even when they have enough people in the car. The only place I see them used with any regularity is at a metered freeway entrance ramp.

The solution is more lanes and more roads, period.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, we don't eat or drink in our cars.

Re:Better than nothing

[Glonoinha]

I consider quite regularly getting rid of my car, 15mpg and 4950lbs - but I think I am going to keep driving it until I get that one good head on collision out of the way. Nothing says loving like two and a half tons of fine German steel.

You bring up a good point, though. What is the environmental impact in creating a new car in the first place? Would the world be a better place if we simply took a year off from building new cars and drove what we had for another year? Total environmental impact, from the strip mining to get the metals, to all the fabrication and painting and transporting them around the world ... all that.

Re:Better than nothing

[Ramone Lavaar]

The best test of this, I would think, would be to compare the MPG of the Honda Civic Hybrid and the standard Honda Civic in real usage. AFAIK, they are exactly the same (same body, materials) in all respects other than what's under the hood. I've had the Honda Civic Hybrid for over a year now, and a coworker recently bought the standard Honda Civic Hybrid, so here was a good way to compare the two. Now, it's true his commute is half mine, so that does have an influence. Nevertheless, my mileage (and this is mostly highway driving, but not going too careful, mind, you) averages out to 43 MPG. His mileage averages just over 30 MPG. That seems significant to me.

Re:Better than nothing

[RESPAWN]

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car. I remember seeing something on the news a few years ago about Ford experimenting with that on an Explorer, trying to jazz up the acceleration of a bigger vehicle. I don't know what became of that testing, if anything. But it would be extremely cool to see that technology in a small, sporty car.

Mitsubishi's concept for the new Eclipse actually has just such a system. It's got a standard 6 cylinder engine driving the front wheels, and in the rear I believe it actually has two electric motors which only come in to play during hard acceleration.

Re:Better than nothing

[stanmann]

SO WHAT??

which is better for my wallet, the $10k small sedan or the $20K hybrid small sedan.

Answer: if the hybrid makes good on its claims of 2-3x mpg, over the 10 years I own it it will pay for the extra cost, But it looks like it won't make good on those claims, and sorry, but eating is more important to me than the environment. esp since the emissions differences are almost negligible.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Savings in gas my ass, but hey my 360 can kick the ass of all those fast and the fucked up cars.

Re:Better than nothing

[finkployd]

Actually my Civic gets about the same gas miliage as an Insight.

And I can climb hills with it. And attach spoilers, stickers, and large mufflers to make it go superfast, just like the cars in "The Fast and the Furious" :)

Finkployd

Re:Better than nothing

[stephenisu]

I hear you, What we need is a good small (approx 1.2 litre) turbo diesel in a ~1000 lbs open wheel in line 2 seater. Put in low/no sulpher diesel. Give it a good suspension, and low drag. Then I have a car I can drive fast when I want/need to, and it will handle hella good. All while getting 60mph with me driving like an idiot. It would still be cheaper than a hybrid too, same weigh reductions. aluminum frame and fiberglass/carbon fiber body pieces. The manufacturer could also make a KILLING on body kits that ACTUALLY make USEFUL downforce. (if you haven't noticed, I basically described an indy car with a turbo diesel)

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be so, but that is not DRAMATICALLY better than the regular stock CIVIC...

If you do the math, for the extra money you spent to get that HYBRID VS. the money saved on fuel for a regular CIVIC, you will have to drive it 15,000 + for seven years just to break even for the additional cost of the hybrid.

Not worth it.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

You upshift to minimize the affect of unwanted compression braking.

s/affect/effect/

Sorry.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have noticed no one has mentioned the biggest reason for mpg effectiveness of a car: weight. The weight of a car will affect the efficiency far more than the way you drive. So get all the extra crap out of the car, put in fewer speakers and amps and clean out the trunk = better mileage.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one thing that people seem to be missing. When I am stuck in a traffic jam, barely inching forward, I am usually running on just the electric motor, or when I stop, everything shuts off.

Image how much polution is being generated by all thousands of cars in a traffic jam right now, for hours at a time. Stop and go like this is when conventional cars put out more polution than usual.

Now imagine how quiet, how clean the air would be and how little fuel would be getting used in that same traffic jam, once every car is a hybrid.

This is where the hybrid car comes into it's own, and we will just keep getting worse and worse traffic jams as the years go by.

Re:Better than nothing

[Celandro]

By that arguement, all cars are solar powered because the run on gasoline which is refined from oil which was produced by physical processes on the remains of plant life that grew from the sun. Listing indirect power sources doesnt really add to the debate

Hybrids recapture energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat from braking. Its a basic concept that was conceived a long time ago but has not been viable. Recapturing braking energy is a worthwhile goal that is worth considering for any vehicle design.

For the record, Im on the waiting list for a Toyota Prius and I rented one from the dealershipe for a weekend. I got excellent gas mileage, typically 40-50mpg, but 60-70mpg when in stop and go driving around 25mph with engine warmed up (took the beach route home which is slow going some parts). This is extremely good for a midsized car, especially one with as many gadgets as the Prius has. The gadgets make the car great, the hybrid part is a bonus.

Re:Better than nothing

[xRelisH]

Your diesel car may get very high miles, but as far as I know, diesel cars put out more harmful chemicals into the environment.

AFAIK, most people don't buy hybrids to save on fuel, but are instead to be friendlier to the environment.

Re:Better than nothing

[Celandro]

I know.. In fact I know far too much about how the prius works from all the message boards I frequent. I was trying to simplify the hybrid concept down to the basic idea conceived in the early 1900s.

The best site Ive found for explaining how the Toyota Prius works is John's presentation

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Really...10% thermally efficient? As in put in 100 Joules, get out 10 Joules?

Obviously, you need to do more researching. Under overheated condtions, I've gotten as low as 50% efficiency storage of NiMH batteries, never down to 10%. If you keep them decently ventilated, that way back up, to somewhere around 90% if my memory serves me right.

I know that no commercial hybrids use Lithium Polymer batteries yet, but if they did, the thermal considerations would be almost non-existent, and the efficiencies would be higher too.

As for fuel cells, don't even get me started. There are so many problems (physical storage, commercial distribution systems, warm-up times, low power, etc.) that it'll be a long long time until we see anything like that on the road. Besides, the "low power" issue (they always put out constant power, unlike the internal combustion engine, which can be throttled) means you can't control your torque...the only way around that is to hybridize it and use battery storage as well.

Re:Better than nothing

[El_Ehmenopio]

Batteries don't leach into the ground like MBTE. If an electric car with a lead acid battery were to go into a lake, it would pollute less than a gallon of gas with MBTE. Keep in mind most advanced batteris are made out of Nickel Metal Hydride. Nickel is non toxic, or you should be scared of money. Metal Hydride is an Alloy of iron. Other battery technology, such as lithium ion is more reactive,but still less toxic than gasolene, methanol, nitro or, MethleButleTetraEthanol(MBTE).

Re:Better than nothing

[cardshark2001]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

Actually, my Toyota Paseo gets about 35 mpg in the city. Now, I'm fairly good at gas-conscious driving, but I've been running the A/C (Texas) a little bit lately.

I haven't done a long highway trip yet, but I would expect to get about 40 mpg. And my car certainly has a lot more horses than an insight or a civic hybrid. This guy is reporting 32 mpg. That's pretty awful, considering how much those cars cost, and how much you give up in terms of performance.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

So if the EPA is misreporting the MPG on Hybrids how badly reported are the MPG ratings on all other vehicles. That is the real story here.

The Wired article has an incorrect fact about the Prius. I logged in to the Consumer Reports website and regarding the Prius it says "Both acceleration and fuel economy have improved. We got 44 mpg overall in our tests."

Bottom line is that the Prius and Civic hybrids provide way better MPG than cars in their respective size category.

The following DoE site has a list of hybrids available now and in the near future...http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_new s.shtml

One of them is a GM hybrid truck that gets a whopping 20MPG according to the EPA (So with the new trust we have in the EPA MPG rating it is probably more like 15MPG...So GM may have found a way to reduce MPG in their Hybrids vs regular vehicles...Great job GM...keep working on that Fuel Cell concept and then backpeddle to step into the hybrid market...)

Re:Better than nothing

[dhovis]

When Ford introduced the Focus, the Escort was relegated to fleet sales only. No Ford dealers in the US carry them, and none have since the Focus was introduced. The only exception to that was the ZX2, and that shed the Escort name. For all intents and purposes, the Focus replaced the Escort (and the Contour, for that matter). Ford completely stopped marketing the Escort and threw all of their money into the Focus. The fact that the production of the two cars overlap is really irrelevant here, as it was made clear by Ford that the Escort was being phased out in favor of the Focus.

Re:Better than nothing

[HerringFlavoredFowl]

Your also forgetting the Honda Civic Hybrid in the article is being used for strickly stop and go city driving. Many hybrid drivers who do heavy city driving report less than spectacular mileage. Mine drops when tooling arround boston.

The life time for my prius (2002, 82K miles) is 43 MPG. But this is due to me putting on a sicking amount of HighWay miles at speed(70 MPH+). If I keep the car under 65, I get about 45-47 summer, 42-43 winter. It is much better than my last car (93 shadow) which had a lifetime of 26 MPG.

The problem is people expect to exceed the EPA numbers which are overly optimistic. I am happy when the tank comes in between the two EPA numbers (45/52 EPA MPG on the '02). I can usually make the EPA in the spring,summer,fall... but once winter sets in, forget it.

I thought the CVT Insight chalked up better numbers than the Manual Insight.

Re:Better than nothing

[SpaceCadetTrav]

At least his car will still run in two years.

Re:Better than nothing

[GooberToo]

Actually, IIRC (and it may be wrong), but the engineer clearly spoke of and demostrated a car running off of batteries until it hit double digits (10 - 15 MPH).

Maybe since these were foriegn cars, they function a little differently? I dunno. At any rate, it was clear that for slow stop-n-go traffic, the engine isn't used unless it needs to recharge the batteries or you exceeded 10-15 (I'm thinking it's the later in the range).

Re:Better than nothing

[jdbo]

just a small correction on my earlier post; the second sentence should read:

"Hybrids have cleaner emissions compared to standard vechicles (based on the same volume of identical fuel used, regardless of mileage)."

Pardon me!

Re:Better than nothing

[PipsqueakOnAP133]

AWD using gasoline and electric assist?

The Honda Dual-Note AWD Prototype does it. Too bad it's not for sale. Supposedly it's based off the Acura NSX frame from what a friend first told me.

http://www.edmunds.com/news/conceptcarspotlight/ ar ticles/48694/article.html

There's a possibility that the Lexus RX400H which is coming out next year does it too.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

>All we really have to do to get better mileage >is have transmissions and engines better matched >to the car.

And closed loop fuel injection systems...

Re:Better than nothing

[GooberToo]

But I don't believe that stop and go driving is "ideal" for any kind of car.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. If you can do the vast majority of your stop-n-go driving on batteries, it's a win for your pocket book AND the environment. Furthermore, making the electric motor push you in stop-n-go traffic avoids serious wear-n-tear associated with ICE engines. Thusly, another win. In otherwords, it's an ideal driving condition of hybrid cars. I'm not sure how you could think of it as anything else.

If you ask someone how they use their car, 90% will be city driving, but they think of the once or twice a year that they take a road trip and say they use a lot of highway miles.

Not in America. And that's the reason why the engineer was claiming that, on average, American's are going to get about half the effeciency, especially when you consider that most Americans are going to drive past ideal criuse speeds.

Re:Better than nothing

[thejuggler]

the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles

Um, well that depends on the car. I drive a '97 Chevy Malibu with a 3.1L V6. I get 30 to 33 MPG while on the highway with no problem. Yeah, it beats my in city driving, but I only drive 10 miles to work anyways.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

If these systems break down, milage tanks and emissions skyrocket.
See, these are linked. When you do less MPG, you turn more petrol (gasoline) into emissions (CO2, H2O, the noxious nasties) for a given distance driven.

The same amount of gasoline is consumed, but that does not mean the same content of byproducts are produced. Consider, for example, driving a 3000 pound SUV across town. It's got a lot of mass, a lot of air resistance, and takes a lot of energy to get where it's going. The same trip in a 1500 pound sports car requires less energy, so if you somehow find that both require the same amount of gasoline to make the trip, then you can be pretty confident that the sports car has somehow wasted a bunch of the energy stored in the gasoline. The wasted energy could be anywhere: maybe it's towing a 1500 pound trailer; maybe the engine runs hotter; maybe it has a slow leak in the gas tank.

This last possibiilty is, to some extent, the difference between a normal car, a LEV, and a ULEV. If all of the gasoline that goes into your cylinder does not get converted to H2O and CO2, then you're wasting energy and emitting CO, partially oxidized hydrocarbons and reduced nitrogen species. These are the "bad" emissions from the EPA point of view. H2O and CO2 have to be produced-reactive species you don't.

Re:Better than nothing

[MrIrwin]

Hmmmm......modded down as flamebait? Perhaps another reason to ditch the yanks would be thier lack of a sense of humour.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, there are other normal gas cars that got this type of efficiency a while back, nobody wanted them.

The Geo Metro of 1990 had as good of mileage as all these hybrids, but us americans don't like small cars.

53 city and 58 highway on a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine. I still see these things driving around, so they're not too bad in maitenance. They eventually upped to a 4 cyl. reducing fuel economy dramatically (42 ish city 49ish highway)

Why dont we drive small cars? why must we buy big cars that need fancy tricks to be fuel efficient?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/6516.sht ml

Re:Better than nothing

[N3Z]

"..it's why the Insight has a momentary MPG rating right on the dashboard."
This is a great insentive. I have a short term and long term MPG display in my Sienna. Seeing 99 on it is great (it only has two digits, so costing often pegs at 99). And I manage to get EPA advertised MPG if I pay attention.

Re:Better than nothing

[karnal]

The post you're responding to wasn't worried as much about burning gas in this instance, as they were worried about putting undue stress on engine components while going down a hill.

It makes sense. Spinning something at 2k rpm is probably a little more "wearing" on main bearings etc. than spinning at 1k rpm (or wherever the idle is in a saturn... probably closer to 6-700rpm.)

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws of chemistry don't care whether I do it in a hybrid, petro-electric, big-block V8 or average suburban runabout. They just specify that 1 gallon of high-octane hydrocarbons get converted to a bunch of gases, liberating energy

This is simply wrong! Besides CO2 and H2O there is a lot more crap produced in engines. NOx for instance is not very pleasant, as it causes acid rain and respiratory problems. It gets produced more as the temperature of combutions gets increased. This is a big problem, as fuel efficiency als goes up when you increase the temperature. So you have to think about a trade-off.

The laws of chemistry care a lot about the temperature in your cylinders!

Re:Better than nothing

[JKnowledge]

My VW TDI(Turbo Direct Injection) diesel engine gets 43 mpg with and AUTOMATIC. The 5 speed version gets 50+. and that is real world mpg. Once I can start my own Biodiesel production, I will be green, and still get "MOMILES". Hybrids are not as efficient as advertised, and are slow. Hydrogen is still not practical, but Biodiesel is something we can do NOW.

Re:Better than nothing

[Neil Watson]

I can recall this idea appearing back in the 70's. Like most ideas that challenge big oil it mysteriously disappeared

Re:Better than nothing

[2WheelCowboy]

31 environment destroying miles per gallon?

You're still talking about burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine. It doesn't matter if you're also using electricity. The process of burning hydrocarbons is what produces pollution, not what you do with the energy output of the engine. Your point only holds true if there's a significant difference in the emissions of the vehicles (i.e. ZEV vs. 10 year old smoker).

It's likely that Honda is feeding you some marketing hype.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hybrids aren't allowed in the HOV lane here unless they have more than 1 person just like any other vehicle. There goes your advantage.

Re:Better than nothing

[William Tanksley]

What you really need is an engine that is connected only to a generator and always runs at a single speed and always the same loading.

That's a clever idea, but you'll pay more for it than you gain. Yes, your engine will be more efficient; but the overall system will generate more losses (or simply not be usable) because it can't get the output it needs from the engine. Remember, gas is still the most efficient source of power, even in a hybrid with regenerative braking. Storing energy in batteries, or converting from mechanical to electrical, wastes a LOT of energy (although it's better than throwing the energy away).

The Toyota has an interesting twist on this, though. Its engine obviously doesn't always run at the same speed and loading -- but it does always run at its optimal speed and loading. It does this by modifying its cylinder geometry on the fly. Essentially, if you only need half the power it only uses half of each cylinder. (Not to be confused with disabling cylinders -- all the cyclinders keep working; each one changes its power curve. Read more.

-Billy

Re:Better than nothing

[Cromac]

A better hybrid could be produced that utilizes an electric motor for the propulsion, and a fixed rpm diesel to produce electricity, regeneration from coasting and braking, and an additional sterling engine to capture heat from the coolant and the exhaust manifold.

That's how a lot of the larger construction equipment and trains work today. Diesel engine to generate electricity which powers an electric motor that actually moves the vehicle.

Re:Better than nothing

[mudder]

If you're going to drive a WRX like that, you might as well have bought the standard Impreza, since there's no way you're having any fun if you're getting over 25 mpg. I get around 21 mpg, and I'm not *that* aggressive.

Re:Better than nothing

[lostguy]

Yet another data point supporting the theory that 90% of all Saturn automobiles are driven by nerds.

Re:Better than nothing

[2WheelCowboy]

My 1999 Ford Expedition is also classified as an LEV. The results of my latest emission test has backed that up. The CO and hydrocarbon levels were below measurable limits. However it only averages 13.2 mpg.

Performance, price, and convenience are going to be the big hurdles the hybrids, and newer technologies, will have to overcome. It's hard to convince someone to give up their Dodge Ram SRT for the current batch of hybrids.

Re:Better than nothing

[pixelpusher220]

Just to give you an example of how it does help in modern day cities.

I live in the suburbs, and commute 25 miles to downtown DC. So my 2003 Hybrid charges me up while driving (it's not just regenerative breaking doing the charging) on the interstates to get to the city, then I use the battery power to 'help' me around through the streets. When I head home the battery is usually about 80% depleted by the time I get to the highways again.

So for me it works perfectly...charge during the most efficient time (highway) and use that charge in the least efficient (city).

And I'm getting on average 43-46 mpg over 16k miles. Easy 500 miles on a 13 gallon tank, though I've never put more than 12 gallons in filing up so I could probably do 575 pretty safely.

Re:Better than nothing

[TomServo]

This guy is stating 32-33mpg city in his hybrid. I have a 2000 Celica GT-S that gets somewhere around 29mph city, so that really isn't that much of a difference, and believe me when I say I don't take it particularly easy on the gas pedal in my car. It's good that it's better, but I would really expect more in that situation...

Re:Better than nothing

[Nogami_Saeko]

There's also a difference on maintenance, which should be huge (they havn't been out long enough to verify this, but the concept is sound).

Because a hybrid system shuts off the ICE (internal combustion engine) whenever it's not needed, there's far less wear and tear on the engine itself. They also use a variety of interesting tricks to spin up the engine with low compression to get oil moving before firing the cylinders to reduce wear.

Not having a conventional transmission also helps in the case of the Prius - There are no belts, pads, or fluids which can cause the transmisson to fail. It should be good for the life of the car.

So it's not just the gas milage that makes a difference, it should be a much more robust vehicle as well.

Re:Better than nothing

[Dravik]

Why are fuel cells any better than the internal combustion engine? I believe they use hydrogen to run the cells. All the proposals I've seen for hydrogen production use electrolosys. To get the electricity you have to use established power production methods. To start from the other end, you have to produce electricy at the efficiency of the power plant, transmitt it through power line with loss along the way, zap the water then use the hydrogen to produce electricty which then turns the motor. Even if power plant, hydrogen production, and the electic engine were all 90% efficent you still end up with an overall system that is less than 73% efficient. That doesn't figure in line loss, and I'm pretty sure that electrolisys isn't anywhere close to 90%. Does anybody have an real numbers for comparison?

Re:Better than nothing

[OrbNobz]

I Am Not An Environmentalist, but, I need to correct a few misconceptions you have.

Firstly, go drive an '04 Prius. Then tell me it doesn't have enough room for a 4 member family. It's a midsize. I regularly use my Prius for family drives that don't require in-flight entertainment for the kids. One of them uses a carseat. No one has complained of space issues, and I'm not a tyrant, so they would tell me. I happen to think it's more comfortable than my wife's '04 Odyssey EX.

Second, the '04 Prius is expected to have quad 5-star ratings in the event of a wreck. I opted for the additional airbags and unless something rolls over the top of me taking my head off, I feel pretty safe. Oh geez. I had to open my mouth! :(

Third, as many have mentioned previously, the batteries are expected to last over 100,000 miles, and they are highly recyclable(sp?). Toyota's battery maintenance plant is currently shut down.

Lastly, from what I have read, ethanol creates more pollution in it's production than gasoline. There is also doubt whether or not the entire nation can grow enough corn to provide the ethanol demand of California alone.

I used to have your opinion. Then I did research. Consider it.
Just drive one.

- OrbNobz (Total life MPG at 4200mi: 44.7)
As my father is wont to tell me, "Be empirical... look."

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr_Huber]

Last Christmas, I put a 10' Christmas tree inside my Prius. Granted, there was no room for passengers, but its still pretty impressive.

Re:Better than nothing

[2WheelCowboy]

As I recall they were going to have each wheel driven by its own electric motor. The whole package would be connected to a sophisticated traction control system.

When they finally produce a consumer model they'll probably have to add some noise generation technology to reduce vehicle/pedestrian accidents.

Re:Better than nothing

[lindsayt]

You apparently haven't looked recently at how many perfectly normal gas automobiles are ULEVs and SULEVs. My Elantra GT (138hp) is a ULEV, and in California it's tuned slightly differently to be a SULEV (132hp). I believe the Corolla, Mazda 3, and base Civic are all ULEVs. The ULEV standard is just that - standard - for compact cars today, and most are available as SULEVs in California. With the notable absence of VW, every major car manufacturer makes at least one conventional SULEV car for the California market.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

>The EPA drivers know how to drive efficiently, and that's why their scores are so high.

IAMRME (I am a reformed mechanical engineer), and this is not quite correct. IIRC, the EPA test protocol is very rigidly specified (accelerate up to 30 mph over a seven second period, decelerate to 0 mph with an average of 0.2 g, etc.). There's very little room for interpretation or driver skill. A more accurate way to put it would be to say that the EPA test does not simulate the driving patterns of most users. Of course, the test is designed to be simple and repeatable, and the real world is not.

Re:Better than nothing

[MindSlap]

"31.5 isn't better than what one of the guys at work gets in his escort. And if they aren't more efficient then they are wasted."

31.5?!?!
OMG..
Lets compare that to my 8 Cylinder American 315HP LS1 Pontiac Formula...
Claims: 26mph highway.
Gee.. If I sacrifice 200 LESS Horsepower, I can gain about 6 miles per gallon!!
Where do I sign?!?!
NOT!!

Re:Better than nothing

[Alexei]

No smog, for one thing. By concentrating emissions at a few locations (power plants), you increase the air quality in cities and you make it easier to implement further cleaning mechanisms (one smokestack vs. 10000 cars). Also, you allow for the possibility of cars being (ultimately) powered by solar, wind, nuclear and other forms of non-fossil fuel power.

Re:Better than nothing

[lscotte]

Frankly, I don't understand why diesel engines aren't more popular. The technology has shifted significantly since the smelly, smokey diesels of 20 years ago.

Re:Better than nothing

[2WheelCowboy]

That suggestion smacks of common sense, which is exactly why no federal agency would ever implement it.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, fuckwit, I don't like people who endanger others on the road by driving 500 miles per hour and weaving in and out of traffic on a crowded road. Most of the assholes on the road who feel the need to squeal their tires and such - in my experience - fall into the category of 'recklessly drivers'.

Until you've seen some asshole do that and cut in front of a semi loaded with petrolium, causing a major accident, the deaths of half a dozen people (including the driver of the semi) due to the resulting explosion from said semi, keep your fucking mouth shut.

Re:Better than nothing

[Mike Hicks]

Heh. I think that even the McLaren F1 gets a SULEV rating ;-) (but my memory might be messed up)

It's just a factor of how fully the gasoline is burned. The engine puts out a lot more CO2 and H2O, but a lot less CO and not-fully-burned fuel bits.

Still, if you believe in global warming, pumping out more CO2 isn't the best thing. (Well, unless you're fueling up with pure bioethanol or something, where the carbon put out is balanced out by carbon taken in by plant life.)

Re:Better than nothing

[rsdavis9]

power plant 35-40%
power lines 95%??
electrolysis 85%
hydrogen fuel cells 83% theorectical 50% actual
electric motor 80%

gas engine 20%
diesel engine 30-40%

I have a volks tdi diesel I get 45-50 mpg.
I get many tanks of diesel at around 50mpg. I mostly drive 6 miles to work and back each day. I have a car lifetime avg of 45.46mpg.

I get 13% from the above calculation for fuel cell.

bob

Re:Better than nothing

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Where do you think the electric motor gets it's energy from?

Re:Better than nothing

[cbiltcliffe]

but nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight.

Speak for yourself..... :)

Re:Better than nothing

[haruchai]

I've wondered that myself. In Europe, the popularity
of diesels in passenger cars his risen spectacularly
over the last decade.
What also confuses me is why there is so much talk
about reducing sulfur and the hurdles that have to be overcome to make the process economical while biodiesel, which also adds oxygen directly to the fuel, contains no sulfur at all

Re:Better than nothing

[cbiltcliffe]

The key point is that all of the emissions of a hybrid are carbon dioxide, since the engine is spinning at one speed, and can be optimized for that speed. A conventional car also spits out carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot when it accelerates, which are a lot harder on the environment.

Sounds like you've been listening to too many Honda commercials....
It doesn't matter what speed the engine's running at, or how it's optimized, it's still going to produce NOx, and CO. They're byproducts of internal combustion. And external combustion, for that matter.
The heat causes nitrogen in the atmosphere to oxidize, which is what makes the NOx. That's what EGR is supposed to reduce, by reducing the temperature of the explosion in the cylinder. Less heat, less NOx.
CO happens no matter what you burn, under any conditions. It's incomplete combustion. Sure, you can optimize a fuel delivery system and reduce this amount, but you can never get it to zero. It cannot be done.
It's kind of like building a processor that's 100% efficient, as far as clock cycles go. You can't do it, as reality has a nasty tendency to throw wrenches into the works.

Re:Better than nothing

[eexlebots]

I too have a CVT Insight-and I am a foot-to-the-floor driver, who loves going 85 mph on the highway (it can do 110 if you're feeling particularly patient and reckless, lol)

My mileage, despite my crazy driving? Not too shabby @ around 48 miles per gallon city, 55 on the highway. Beats my old Buick Electra, that's fer sure (yay! 14 miles per gollan#$%#$%)

Re:Better than nothing

[Carnildo]

It doesn't matter what speed the engine's running at, or how it's optimized, it's still going to produce NOx, and CO. They're byproducts of internal combustion. And external combustion, for that matter.

True, but there is such a thing as "close enough" to none. If you're running at a constant speed, it's easy enough to make sure there's enough oxygen to react with the carbon monoxide, and you can get reasonable control of the operating temperature.

Re:Better than nothing

[orasio]

In my country (Uruguay), we get most of our energy from the rivers, and could take the rest from the wind, if it were cost-efficient. Weel, _right_now_ we are having a kind of a hidroelectric power shortage, but anyways the average pollution throughout the year is much lower than burning coal, so at least here electric cars would be much cleaner.

Re:Better than nothing

[Firethorn]

As in you only get out 50% of the electricity you put in charging the batteries. This is after you throw away 70-80% of the energy from the gasoline, as the efficiency of internal combustion engines isn't that great to begin with, and the generator it's turning isn't perfect either.

As I drive alot of highway miles, I wouldn't get a hybrid vehicle as their gas milage is worse on the highways than many normal cars. They make more sense for the limited distance/slow speed/frequent stops of city driving. That and even at $2 a gallon, it'd take a huge amount of driving for the better milage to make a difference.

Let's check some some figures: assume 50 miles a day, at ~25 miles to the gallon. That's 730 gallons a year. At $2 a gallon, that's $1,460 dollars a year. Your yearly savings, before maintenance, is $730 a year for going with a hybrid that gets ~50 miles to the gallon. If the hybrid costs $5k more, that's 7 years until you break even. Oh, and you're going to have to replace the batteries by then? Tack on a few more years. I bet maint. costs will more than eat up any differences. It gets even more difficult if the MPG difference is only 6.

Re:Better than nothing

[ttfkam]

Except that I actually have a hybrid -- a 2001 Toyota Prius. I get much better than 31.5MPG even on my worst average tanks. Then again, I don't gun the engine after a stop, I start braking earlier before the stop sign than most, I don't usually accelerate uphill (I can, it's just horrible for mileage), and I usually don't go 90 on the highway.

Lo and behold, my average mileage is closer to 48MPG. And this isn't from the in-dash mileage indicator. This is from watching how much gas goes in versus how far I go per tank. Going from Santa Cruz, CA to Seattle is a little over 1,000 miles (not as the crow flies, of course). I did it in two tanks. (I didn't speed while I was in Oregon as California plates seem to be a "please ticket me" sign.) Since the Prius doesn't have a 16-gallon fuel tank, I'm left with the result that I'm getting noticeably better than 31.5MPG.

I don't know about the Civic, but the Prius ain't far off the mark for advertised mileage. The newer models are even better. They are more efficient. They do have lower emissions. They are not wasted.

Re:Better than nothing

[Firethorn]

Batteries on this scale aren't likely to just be tossed into a landfill. They're so easy to reprocess and recycle that they're still worth money when they're dead. It's like scrap metal. People will actually pay money for soda cans, if you have them in bulk. Collection costs are why small appliance batteries aren't recycled all the time.

Re:Better than nothing

[ttfkam]

Careful driving is what gives SUVs their 15MPG rating. How they are normally driven, they get 7-8MPG.

The sticker estimates for all cars is with careful (sensible) driving habits.

Re:Better than nothing

[dasmegabyte]

The electric and gas engines share a common drive shaft. RPM range is therefore on par with a car with one more cylinder than the hybrid normally would have...redline at 6-9000 i'd wager.

What I think you're taling about with the final gear thing is that some hybrids ALSO have a CVT, continuously variable transmission, eg one that doesn't have traditional "gears." The CVT can improve economy by 5-10%, judging by the EPA's numbers for CVT Audis and Hondas. Incidentally, the CVT Audi doesn't have as good economy as the 6 speed manual...

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

2003 jetta tdi and I get 50-53 4 out of 5 tanks. The lowest I've got is 47. I do mostly highway as the wife is eager to point out but in my defense we are talking those diminutive U.S. gallons. ;)

Guess I didn't know about the newer safety aspects though.

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr. Piddle]

I have two Saturn SL cars, and they both average between 42 and 44 miles per gallon.

What kind of magic fuel are you using? The best I've seen in an SL2 is 38MPG for highway and high 20s for around-town.

Regardless the SL does have a very low cost of upkeep (simple cars, not much to break, easy routine maintenance).

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr. Piddle]

Screw 'em.

I wonder if you will say the same thing after:

1) Your brakes catch on fire, you lose control, crash and die.
2) You are driving downhill in snow, lose control, crash, and die.

The best thing about engine braking is safety, when you can control speed in the winter without risking wheel lock-up. Also, you will get much longer service from your brakes, and your engine really doesn't care if it is revved a little down hill (plus it's practically burning no fuel down hill, anyway). I remember those old MPG meters on the dashboards of some cars, where the thing would go very very high double digits downhill and then solid single digits while accelerating.

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr. Piddle]

I used to have a little toy car with an air tank and a little pump. The pump would pressurize the tank and then the air would drive a little two-cycle-like piston motor. The car would go about ten feet per charge.

A few things that I think would make air impractical for large cars is lubrication (how to do it reliably), condensation (how to get rid of it), and temperature (compressors get HOT). Overall, it would probably have a very low overall efficiency, after all the engineering to make it reliable.

Re:Better than nothing

[haruchai]

Overall, I'd say you're quite right but this is easily rectified. Using a blend of at least 20% biodiesel
aka B20 brings the level of pollutants way down as Biodiesel has no sulfur and contains bound oxygen resulting in a cleaner burn.
B20 can be used without modifications in just about and diesel engine.
Blends with a higher percentage or pure biodiesel (B100) may be problematic in engines made prior to 1994
due to the solvent effect on biodiesel on natural rubber.

Re:Better than nothing

[weeboo0104]

Got the same from my 84 diesel Rabbit. 1984 was the last year that VW built them in Pennsylvania.

Re:Better than nothing

[forgotmypassword]

The batteries is a hybrid have nothing to do with lower emissions, that is all managed by computerized engine controls and catalytic converters.

The engine turns off when you are waiting at stop lights.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the toyota Volta. It has all-wheel drive but the front wheels are not mechanicaly connected to the rear wheels/engine, rather it has a seperate electric motor in the front.
I think it also had cool things like 3 seats( like left, middle, right) and brake/steer/throttle by wire systems, combined so you can reposition the controls to the most convenient seat.

Re:Better than nothing

[alannon]

Good luck when it comes time to getting it certified for crash tests. Maybe you could get it classified as something more similar to a motorcycle than an automobile to get around that.

Actually, for that matter, why not just ride a motorcycle instead? Except for the type of fuel they use, generally weighing less and having only two wheels, you've pretty much described a motorcycle.

Re:Better than nothing

[Another MacHack]

True perhaps, but not in any way relevant to my argument.

DD> "No, because MPG in a hybrid car is in addition to whatever electricity is consumed (which also must be generated somehow"

G> "Hybrids generate their own electricity from gas."

C> "Not true! Hybrids generate their own electricity by running a generator instead of using brake pads to slow down the car"

AM> (paraphrase) "The energy used to make the electricity is available because gas is burned (except for the unimportant starting altitude business), thus D is wrong"

C> "Listing indirect power sources doesnt really add to the debate"

I was refuting the claim that MPG doesn't accurately reflect energy used by a hybrid, by pointing out that even the regenerative braking energy is a result of having burned gas. Thus, MPG accurately reflects energy consumption.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could save $5 a week on gas, I'd be wondering who to get the cash from.

/chuckle

You must be a fellow telecommuter...

Filling the tank more then once a month seems like such a chore! (And how long has gas been over $1.90/gal for regular fuel? Wasn't that way when I filled up in March!)

Re:Better than nothing

[SaDan]

You don't even have to do that... Today's diesel fuel isn't that high in sulfur content, and I believe the switch to zero sulfur content fuels will be happening in the next few years in the US.

Regardless, diesel fuel requires less refining. Gasoline has already had a lot of impurities burned off before it even makes it into your fuel tank, and already impacting the environment.

Diesel is better, period. Bio-diesel just flat kicks ass.

Re:Better than nothing

[bware]

While the references indicate that the actual mileage is lower than what is claimed, the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles.

How do you figure? My 84 CRX averaged 34 mpg from 1984-2000, over 250k miles (RIP). City, hwy, no difference, and I drive like the proverbial bat. It could also beat a 911 off the line to 30mph, and I only had to pull over a couple of times ever on a twisty mountain road.

So here it is 20 years later, and the latest high tech cars don't do as well as my 20 year old Honda?

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of my driving is highway. My Prius gets 49 MPG average.

Re:Better than nothing

[cluckshot]

At least a fair question or two. The thermal efficiency of a standard car engine assuming you are actually using the torque it produces is about 18% or less. The current Fuel Reformer/Fuel Cell is achieving 65%. There are still development problems but they are following a development curve that indicates that they should be quite practical very shortly. This development has been progressing quite well. Essentially the problem at this time is that the devices are "one off" prototypes rather than mass produced copies driving up the cost.

The advantage of a Hybred comes from storing up waste energy or operating the Primary Energy Converter at the peak of its power curve. There is no savings at high demand situations.

Contrary to all those claims of greater storage efficiencies, the losses and charge rates for batteries and life span issues are just awful. I pointed out in a higher post that the interest of the military was dual use. In their case they do lots of very low duty driving and in battle they bring the equal of 3 devices for the cost of one with a hybred. This issue just really isn't a very civilian set of issues. (Bringing a Generator and the fuel container and setting it up after driving ~ HEV does this in one shot)

The hydrogen in the Reformer set is cracked from the fuel directly. There are profound savings here. The vehicle has NO ENGINE, NO TRANSMISSION and NO BRAKES! It so alters the equation for vehicle development that people will hardly recognize them when this comes in. The Vehicle can weigh something like 40% less doing the same job and much more.

Regards your questions about electrical cracking for hydrogen they don't apply here. None the less electrical cracking for hydrogen is not as impractical as one might think. A very substantial part of electrial generation is lost keeping reserve in the net. Electrolysis cells can be switched so efficiently that they can load the grid just about 100% and be taken off line as demand appears allowing this lost power to be used.

A grid with solar or wind or geothermal or nuclear power as substantial sources or large facilities with long lead times on spin up finds these electrical losses very high and the more these exist the more Hydrogen as a fuel becomes a very attractive option.

Re:Better than nothing

[Handpaper]

Nickel is expensive. Cadmium more so. In this instance, the industrialists and environmentalists are in perfect agreement - recycling is good and worth it.

Re:Better than nothing

[Transcendent]

Actually, I thought that higher RPMs were more efficient. I run my car all the way up to 5k (98 Escort ZX2) and get +30mph. I tried runnin it more "consertively" for a while, and I thought I was getting worse mpg.

Then again, it all depends on the engine, type of gas, etc. So...... whatever.

Re:Better than nothing

[john1701a]

Don't believe it until you see it.

The HSD system in Prius delivers low emissions and high efficiency.

The hydrogen push for fool-cells is nothing but talk, with no obvious goals. Creating hydrogen is actually more dirty than simply just using ordinary gas in a Prius. Cost is drastically more than Prius. Reliability of Prius will be proven to an extreme long before an affordable fuel-cell vehicle will be available. And of course, the efficiency of can't even compete with traditional vehicles.

Until those against hybrids can actually deliver a product that is better, don't believe any claims or promises.

Re:Better than nothing

[tordia]

What you've described is how the Toyota Priuses (Prii?) work. The Honda Civic Hybrids are almost always using the gasoline engine. The electric engine helps out the gas engine. The only time the gas engine isn't being used is the case I described above -- slowing to a stop.

Re:Better than nothing

[tordia]

I don't know if the first Insights had this feature, but all of the Civic Hybrids and all the new Insights have this feature. They call it "Auto Idle Stop".

Don't get me wrong. I like the Prius, too. I guess I should say I like the 2004 Prius. If I could have waited until the 2004 Prius came out, I would have gone for that. At the time I was looking to buy, however, I could only compare the 2002 Prius with the 2003 Civic Hybrids.

Re:Better than nothing

[ipfwadm]

Let's check some some figures: assume 50 miles a day, at ~25 miles to the gallon. That's 730 gallons a year. At $2 a gallon, that's $1,460 dollars a year. Your yearly savings, before maintenance, is $730 a year for going with a hybrid that gets ~50 miles to the gallon. If the hybrid costs $5k more, that's 7 years until you break even. Oh, and you're going to have to replace the batteries by then? Tack on a few more years. I bet maint. costs will more than eat up any differences. It gets even more difficult if the MPG difference is only 6.

First off, if you live in the U.S., there is a $2000 federal income tax deduction for purchasing a hybrid vehicle. As far as I know, you are not required to itemize deductions to take this one. Many states offer their own deductions as well. So, you need to take this into account when comparing total cost.

Second, there are more things to consider here than just the economic factors. The average auto puts out about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas burned (before you tell me a gallon of gas weighs 6 or 6.5 pounds, you're right. Now multiply that by 3 to add the O2 that comes from the atmosphere, and you're starting to understand). I'm going to revise your calculations a bit, and assume 12,000 miles per year. That's 480 gallons at 25mpg, and 240 gallons at 50mpg. The hybrid just saved almost TWO AND A HALF TONS of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. And that's just a single vehicle. Per year. Then there's the reduction in carbon monoxide, the various nitrogen oxides, SO2, etc.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Honda Civic Hybrid and get between 43 and 45 MPGs. (500 to 600 miles per tank, depending on where I drive) This guy must have a very heavy foot since that is the only way a hybrid can give only 32 MPGs. One thing I learned is that Cruise Control is your friend and the best way to get good millage. Because it is computer controlled, it forces the use of the IMA (electric engine) instead of the gas engine. When using the "manual" pedal to accelerate, the gas engine tends to get the used the most.

Re:Better than nothing

[bluGill]

Your lucky. My car getting 45mpg saves me $25/week over the truck (getting ~21mpg). Anything I can do to save more money comes back in the long run.

Yes I'm considering moving. There are a few details that I need to take care of. Not just finding a new place, but also assuring the company will be in business long enough to make a move worth it. (I hope so, I don't like looking for a job, but as it stands they won't have enough money/income to last to next year)

Re:Better than nothing

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I thought a not-insignificant fraction of that electricty came from Your Friend, The Atom ?

You are correct, but it is a lesser fraction than most are aware of. Far less than some European nations, as well as the Pacific Rim nations. Still, I was remiss in not pointing it out, and I stand corrected.

Not that any of this matters one iota to enviro-Nazi's. To them, the only thing worse than burning fossil fuels is splitting atoms. Pardon me while I go club a baby seal somewhere ;-).

Re:Better than nothing

[Suidae]

Ya'll make me jealous. I drive a 1971 Impala with a 350cid, 4bbl gas hog of an engine. I get 11 mpg when I baby it (55mph top speed, slow starts at lights). It costs me about $60 a month for gasoline.

The only other costs to running this car are the insurance (about $25 a month), and repairs (averaged over the year, about $10 a month (I do all my own work, no computers in it, easy to fix)).

Total yearly operating cost is around $1300 if I include a few tanks of gas for a vacation or other misc trips.

I've looked around at getting somthing that gets decent mileage, but I'd end up spending at least $4000 or so to get something that gets over 30 mpg and that I would consider as reliable (since I can't fix everything on it with my existing tools, I'd either have to buy more tools or pay someone to fix stuff).

I sometimes feel bad about spewing probably at least 5x my share of CO2/CO into the atmosphere, and dripping oil all over, but I don't have the... buying power to go green. I try to make up for it by bicycling whenever possible and keeping my electric usage at home to a minimum (motion detector lightswitches rock!).

Hard to believe you found a new car for under 15 kilobucks, thats pretty impressive. Perhaps I should investigate used prices on those.

I wonder if we'll ever see some enclosed single-passenger vehicles? I'd love to buy an ultra-cheap vehicle for my 20 mile round-trip commute, but motorcycles are expensive, exposed to the weather, and while I support organ donation, I don't plan on hurring the process along any more than necessary.

Re:Better than nothing

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Not that the previous poster is right but you are also wrong the electricity comes from waste energy recooped from brakeing and slowing down that would normally just be released into the environment as heat.

No, I'm not wrong, and if you took a moment to understand thermodynamics, you'd see why. In order to make use of regenerative braking (note the spelling this time), the car must be in motion. How did it get in motion? By expending energy, of course! Electrical power becomes kinetic energy, but the overall amount of energy has not changed (taking into account motor inefficiencies, friction, etc.). When you apply the brakes, some of that kinetic energy is reclaimed and returned to the batteries, albeit a significantly smaller amount. But that energy wasn't created out of nowhere, it came from somewhere to begin with. That somewhere is a power station if the car's battery powered, or it came from a refinery somewhere if the car's a hybrid.

So, sorry to dispute your obviously-not-very-well-thought-out argument, but I'm not the one in the wrong here. You are. If you care to debate that point, make sure you've studied up on your physics first, because you're going to have to contradict all of it in order to dispute me.

Re:Better than nothing

[Suidae]

Actually, for that matter, why not just ride a motorcycle instead?

Well, because efficency savings are realized over long timespans.

They don't call motorcyclists 'doners' for nothing.

(Yes, I'm mostly kidding, but I've crashed two motorcycles already, so I think I'll stick with something more familure controls).

Re:Better than nothing

[xeeds]

It also states that the tests include several stops where the car is allowed to idle for relatively long periods of time. The Prius usually ICE shuts off rather than idling, though it will kick back in from time to time, it puts out almost no emissions during this time and skews the results. The Prius has a bladder tank, it shrinks as fuel is used, so that there is no room for fumes, which helps with the emissions aspect of the car. Aside from the tank not expanding as much when it is cold as it does when it is warm, even under similiar tempature conditions, a full tank is not always the same amount of gas everytime.

Re:Better than nothing

[Suidae]

(compressors get HOT).

Well, if you loose the heat from the compression, you'd also be loosing energy. See, you can get the same effect if you just close up the air tank and build a fire under it.

Here's an idea, instead of putting the fire ouside the tank, we can put the gas inside and burn it there, then use the hot gas to push down a cylinder.. Wait.. darn, nevermind.

Re:Better than nothing

[watchd0g]

I just bought a 2004 Civic Hybrid. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. According to the MPG display on my car, the average so far on the current tank of gas for about 250 miles of driving is 50.3 MPG. The average since I bought the car (~450 miles) is 48.3 MPG. These people that are complaining... how are they measuring their fuel economy? Could it be that the MPG display is inaccurate and you need to look at the amount that the pump at the gas station says and divide that by your trip odometer? Also, how are these people driving? I don't floor my gas pedal, I drive 20% city / 80 % hwy and I typically drive 55 MPH. Overall, I am very pleased with my new Honda civic, although I haven't had it for more than 3 weeks.

Re:Better than nothing

[TheLittleJetson]

there's no way your car *averages* 44mpg. maybe when you're cruising on the freeways... but average, including idling and stop+go driving? come on...

Re:Better than nothing

[Suidae]

Interesting idea, although as someone pointed out, its basicly the same principle as a steam engine. Might be a good system to use with a stirling engine running the compressor. Very high efficency compressor with high latency (starts slow, stops slow), and a high effiency energy storage system. I wonder the the added complexity of using a working fluid that changes phase during the cycle would help. I suppose thats probably a solved problem though.

heck, lets go for all fringe technology! We'll use a Stirling motor to compress the air, and a Tesla bladeless turbine to convert the compressed air into mechanical power!

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

In my 2002 Maxima (3.5L V6), I generally average about 23 - 24 MPG (below EPA rating): I drive fast and accelerate quickly.

While on a cross-country trip a few months ago, I decided to shoot for the highest MPG I could get:

- It's a stick
- No use of cruise control
- Bleed off some speed when going up a hill
- Coast to gain speed on the down side
- 93 octane fuel
- Slow acceleration after stopping
- On level ground, maintain constant speed

After 800 miles, my trip computer said 37.1 MPG. This seemed a bit high so I calculated miles driven (by the car's odometer) per gallons of gas purchased (trusting the pumps). It came out to be 35MPG which is probably quite accurate, yet still above the EPA rating.

Lesson learned: driving style can be a huge difference in milage.

Re:Better than nothing

[Datafage]

We can't generate enough biodiesel to significantly dent our oil consumption.

Re:Better than nothing

[CPCEnder]

What do you mean by "HEVs in a battery storage"? It doesn't seem to make sense. Here is some data: Civic Hybrid (manual transmission, ULEV spec): Fuel Economy: 46 mpg city / 51 mpg highway Tank Volume: 13.2 gal Vehicle Weight: 2675 lbf Max Power: 93 hp @ 5700 RPM Max Torque: 116 ft lbf @ 1500 RPM MSRP: $19,650 Civic LX Sedan: Fuel Economy: 32 mpg city / 38 mpg highway Tank Volume: 13.2 gal Vehicle Weight: 2560 lbf Max Power: 115 hp @ 6100 RPM Max Torque: 110 ft lbf @ 4500 RPM MSRP: $15360 These cars are comparable in acceleration and weight, probably having a close hauling energy index. Assuming the average civic travels 13000 miles per year and that the price of gas stays constant at $1.74/gal, I calculate that the Civic Hybrid will save its owner the difference in price between it and the LX in 22.9897 years...

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car."

Did you mean something like:
http://www.alphamaleperformance.com/pages/1 /index. htm

Or did you mean taking a standard 2WD car and powering the other wheels with electric motors.

Or did you mean electric motor and petrol motor running at once. If you meant this, all hybrids can do this. Due to the torque curve difference of ICE and electric motors, it is best to use the electric motor to start the car rolling before using the ICE, but most run for a period with both going to increase performance.

You must remember that most if not all factory hybrids are biased to economy not performance.

You could try adding the electrocharger to a more performance oriented setup, but then massive torque at stand still is only good when you have shares in a tyre company.

Re:Better than nothing

[smaug195]

Well they might also be a bit odd those mpg meters. Because for example my gas gauge when going downhill goes up very far, so that could be one of the reasons for it.

Re:Better than nothing

[stephanruby]

"...Especially since my car requires premium fuel."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/arti cles/0427premium27.html#

Regular gas often fine in modern cars

Bob Golfen
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 27, 2004 12:00 AM

Are you wasting money putting premium gasoline into your car or truck?

Most people are, according to automotive experts.

Only about 5 percent of modern automobiles require premium under their manufacturers' recommendation. For the other 95 percent of the cars and trucks on the road, premium fuel makes no difference in performance or reliability.

And many of the vehicles that manufacturers say need premium run perfectly well on regular without any dire consequences or significant loss of performance.

"If you can't tell the difference, the car can't, either," said Mark Salem, a Tempe veteran auto technician and advice columnist.

"The reduction in performance can only be measured on a dynamometer. Most people, including myself, can't tell the difference."

Try telling that to Kelvin Williams, 35, of Phoenix. Despite the climbing cost of premium gas, he's still using it in his Dodge Ram pickup, he said, because regular gas "actually bogs down the car."

"Yes, I have to (use premium) with my truck, it's a Dodge 1500 Sports Edition Ram," Williams said. "With the V-8, it's better for the engine itself."

Salem said he has owned his 1995 Chevrolet Corvette since it was new, and despite the automaker's advice that premium be used, "I've used regular since Day 1."

With gasoline prices on the rise, the use of premium fuel has dropped off nationally as more motorists try cheaper blends to save money. Typically, premium costs about 20 cents more per gallon than regular.

In 2003, sales of premium represented about 12 percent of pump sales, down from 13.5 percent in 2002 when the cost of gasoline was lower, according to industry data. The highest use of premium was during 1994, when it reached 20.3 percent.

Premium gasoline is not better than regular, just different, said Randy Nowell, a master technician for the American Automobile Association. The difference is in the octane levels, a measurement of the gasoline blend's resistance to engine knock caused by pre-ignition.

"Dealers and sales people will tell you to buy premium because you're buying a premium car," Nowell said. "That's a myth."

Nearly every 2004 General Motors vehicle uses regular gas, said Chuck Harrington, GM's Western regional spokesman.

Ford now has just "a handful" of cars that use premium, spokeswoman Sandra Badgett said. But those cars can use regular with no ill effects, she said.

"We generally recommended certain octane because that's where the engine is tuned to run the best," Badgett said. "If you put regular in a vehicle that wants premium, it's not going to hurt it. It's not going to drop dead on the road."

Using premium in a car or truck that requires regular gives it no benefit in performance, mileage or reliability, she added.

Regular ranges from 85 to 87 octane, midgrades from 88 to 90, and premium 91 or higher.

But only performance engines with high compression ratios or those enhanced with turbochargers or superchargers benefit from the anti-knock protection.

The premium-gas issue has changed over the past two decades. Since 1981, every vehicle includes an electronic device in the ignition system called a knock sensor, which slightly retards the vehicle's ignition timing if it senses pre-ignition. The timing change may result in slightly less performance or fuel mileage, but it won't hurt the engine, Nowell said.

He advises drivers of vehicles requiring premium to try a tankful of midrange, . which is about 10 cents per gallon cheaper than premium and slightly boosts octane at lesser cost.

If midrange works, then run a

Re:Better than nothing

[prtsoft]

hehe I was wondering when someone was going to mention the VW diesels! :>
My next car is going to ba a TDI, w/ manual tranny.

Re:Better than nothing

[logic-gate]

A car that runs on compressed air already exists (as a prototype)

Article Here

Re:Better than nothing

[corinath]

You have some very good points. I hae never driven or taken a ride in a Prius, I have played around some with an Insight, which is what I based most of my observations on. Obviously, I was mistaken to assume that the Insight was representative of the Hybrid market.

I still have no interest in actually buying a hybrid for my own use. I don't feel that they offer the performance that I like in a car. Other people have commented that the Prius is way under powered.

While these cars a obviously a good option for some people, I still think that they need to do several things before they are ready for main stream use by everyone. The biggest issue for me is the price. It needs to come down as they don't save enough gas to justify the extra money that you need to spend on one.

I am happy that the car works for you, and perhaps some day, it will be right for me and my family. I am sure that I will always have my gasoline powered cars as I am a bit of a gear head, and I enjoy tinkering with them, but once some other technology reaches the point where it is as cheap and reliable as the ICE, I am sure I will have some of those.

Thanks again for pointing out some interested facts abotu the Prius. I was obviously mistaken on a few points.

Re:Better than nothing

[Mr. Piddle]

Because for example my gas gauge when going downhill goes up very far, so that could be one of the reasons for it.

The reason gas gauges can vary with the angle of the car is that they measure the gas level using a floating ball in the tank. As the gas sloshes around fore and aft, the float moves around up and down affecting the gauge on the dashboard.

Re:Better than nothing

[glitch!]

there's no way your car *averages* 44mpg. maybe when you're cruising on the freeways... but average, including idling and stop+go driving? come on...

Sigh. Here are my records for (about) the last 90 days. The miles are from the odometer and the gallons are to the nearest tenth.

Date odom miles gallons
03-11-2004 025151 436 10.1
03-24-2004 025611 460 10.1
04-08-2004 026038 427 10.1
04-23-2004 026518 480 10.7
05-08-2004 026994 476 10.5

I trust that you can do the arithmetic...

Re:Better than nothing

[Firethorn]

Two and a half tons of CO2. Big deal. So what. The 'science' calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is shaky. Besides an acre of trees takes out 3.6 tons a year. Many faster growing plants remove even more.

A large factor for this is the cost factor. Sure, you get a $2000 deduction for buying a hybrid vehicle. This doesn't mean that you get $2000 extra back on your tax return. You get maybe $500, if you're in a high tax bracket. As for additional state refunds, my state actually passed an EXTRA sales tax on hybrids, because they 'don't pay their share for road maintenance'. I bought a new car a few years ago, and I did look at the hybrids/alternates. I didn't look at electric, because I drive too much for their range. The hybrids were priced way out of my range. I could have gotten a BMW for less!

I'll go with a hybrid/alternate fuel vehicle when it makes economic and practical sense for me. I think that the hydrocarbon fuel cells look like a good deal once they work out the problems. The energy density of hydrogen isn't that great, and it is difficult to store. Keeping it as a hydrocarbon improves the density.

Re:Better than nothing

[Sabalon]

C'mon...get a clue. Nickel is not expensive. It costs me $0.05!

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent, now that you saved 5 bucks a week, you can buy yourself some extra curry!!

Re:Better than nothing

[nullreference]

>nobody keeps the throttle wide open for 60 seconds straight Think uphill.

Re:Better than nothing

[stephenisu]

you can get exemptions from crash tests if you file under a no bumper clause like the Lotus Elise. Also, a well designed open wheel car has a strong cockpit, just expect the rest of the car to be a loss.

Re:Better than nothing

[ipfwadm]

Two and a half tons of CO2. Big deal. So what.

Two and a half tons per car per year adds up quickly.

A large factor for this is the cost factor.

I don't disagree with you there. I merely stated that that's not the only factor.

Sure, you get a $2000 deduction for buying a hybrid vehicle. This doesn't mean that you get $2000 extra back on your tax return.

I never said it did. I am well aware of the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit.

As for additional state refunds, my state actually passed an EXTRA sales tax on hybrids, because they 'don't pay their share for road maintenance'.

With all due respect, I find that hard to believe. I couldn't find any reference to anything like that during a quick google search. What state? Any links to support your claim?

The hybrids were priced way out of my range.

The Prius now costs about the same as a Camry.

I'll go with a hybrid/alternate fuel vehicle when it makes economic and practical sense for me.

I never said you should go out and buy one at any cost. Hell, I don't own one. I strongly considered the Prius when I bought a new car last year. I ended up getting a Corolla instead because the rear seats in the Prius didn't fold down. Given that I bike and ski a lot, and don't much like roof racks when I can avoid them, that's a deal-breaker for me.

Re:Better than nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e., Return of the Jetta

Re:Better than nothing

[talonts]

If your commute is a lot of stop and go stuff with long periods of stop or very slow driving, it pays off. The more long high speed driving you do, the less value the hybrid is going to have.

This is a joke, right? While hybrid mpg does drop at higher speeds, my other car gets 25mpg at 80 sustained cruise, while my Prius gets 43mpg at 80 sustained cruise. On a long trip, getting an extra 100 miles before filling up on a smaller fuel tank gives me more value than the stop-n-go where I'd fill up the other car at most weekly anyways.

I expect that a civilian buying a hybred thinking they are saving energy or getting a good deal is going to get stuck. The technology just isn't that good.

Oh yes, you're SO right. I'm getting "stuck" only getting 50-52mpg on every tankful, in a 4dr car that can actually handle 4 people and shopping bags, rather than 20-25mpg for my other car that holds 2 people and a couple of bags of groceries at most. The technology sucks, you're right. I'm obviously NOT saving energy driving the car that gets double or more the mpg than the other one. It's just my imagination.

Re:Better than nothing

[PJ_Hooker]

I own a 2004 Toyota Prius. I average around 45 to 50 miles per gallon so far (about 4000 miles).

It's certainly not impossible to beat the Prius with an all gasoline car, but the Prius does pretty well against most cars.

I'm guessing the 31.5 mpg must have taken place in a lot of hills and/or was driven by a lead-foot. I used to own a sports car before this and still drive a bit heavier than I should. Yet I get 45 mpg average even when I'm driving recklessly. However, I'm in a pretty much flat area.

Re:Better than nothing

[Bourbonium]

I remember seeing a news report a few weeks ago about a French company that is marketing air compressor powered cars in Europe. They are very lightweight vehicles for one or two passengers, but they are testing a minibus size model that they hope to put into service as taxis. I did a Google and came up with this BBC story from 2002. Really interesting stuff, but this is from 2002 and I haven't really heard much more about it.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

It depends upon how much power the engine generates, right?

If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 60 horsepower, you have one minute before you have to stop.

If your car needs 60 horsepower to maintain speed uphill and wide open throttle produces 240 horsepower, you will have substantially longer before your air tank is empty.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

I don't know anything about stirling engines - I'll look it up, thanks.

The advantage over a steam engine is at least three factors:
1. You don't need time to warm up the steam tank when you start the car.
2. You don't need to keep refilling a water reservoir.
3. Excess power generated in one trip (i.e. the air volume in the tanks) can be stored for future trips. In steam, the excess is wasted.

Re:Better than nothing

[DuckDodgers]

It depends upon your power output, doesn't it?

If you're driving a Corvette with an automatic transmission and you try to keep your foot all the way to the floor for 60 seconds straight, you're either on a particularly long and deserted stretch of highway or flat as a pancake :).

Re:Better than nothing

[shamino0]

The hybrid actually has worse gas mileage because the 31.5 is gas AND electricity, not just plain gas.

You're double-counting fuel sources. The electricity is generated from the gas, so you should just count gas consumption.

It would be different if you had to charge it from an electric power source in addition to putting in gasoline.

Re:Better than nothing

[ndixon]

... What we need is a good small (approx 1.2 litre) turbo diesel in a ~1000 lbs open wheel in line 2 seater. Put in low/no sulpher diesel. Give it a good suspension, and low drag. Then I have a car I can drive fast when I want/need to, and it will handle hella good. All while getting 60mph with me driving like an idiot. It would still be cheaper than a hybrid too, same weigh reductions. aluminum frame and fiberglass/carbon fiber body pieces...

Like the Opel Eco Speedster ?

Re:Better than nothing

[Firethorn]

Nebraska, I can't find the links right now myself. They might have repealed it due to the pressure. The reasoning was that they weren't paying their 'share' of the road maintenance.

Remember, I was just guessing and exaggerating the difference in gas milage. Considering that they are finding that these cars are getting below 40 mpg, and my car gets 30 mpg with my leadfoot, I don't have the economic incentive to buy a hybrid. I spend time during the winter in North Dakotoka, so I'll also wait until the cold trials are complete. You don't want to rely on untested technology at -40.

Re:Better than nothing

[boots@work]

Uh, no. The point which you seem to have missed is that steam engines use *steam*, not air. Steam is the gas phase of water. Air is a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, other gases and only a small amount of water.

Neither do regular cars

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

It has to do with the way the milage per gallon is calculated. It's not the same as really driving.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[Anonymous Coward]

This post was not really informative to people who read the article since it is clearly stated there several times. Good job on getting modded up by the early mods who don't bother to read either.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[flaming-opus]

Absolutely correct. If you accelerate very slowly, keep that engine running at low RPMs, only drive on flat surfaces, coast whenever possible, then you might approach the published numbers. My car is rated 24/28 or something. Realistically I average about 23-24 with mostly highway driving. I think most consumers are aware of the extreem optimism of those numbers on any type of vehicle.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[XMyth]

However, as the article states, regular cars get approx. 75% of their rating...hybrids are getting less than 60%.

It should also be noted that the differences between realized mileage and rated mileage was most noteable in city driving. Highway driving was much closer to the actual rating.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[kaszeta]

It has to do with the way the milage per gallon is calculated. It's not the same as really driving.

While I admit that the EPA tests aren't perfect, for regular cars are they that bad? I've found them to be within a few MPG of reality for a car in good working order. For example, my 2002 Subaru Outback Sport was listed as 22 mpg city and 27 mpg highway, and it averages 26.2 mpg (seeing that my driving is >90% freeway, that's reasonable).

Going back to the article, if he's getting only 31.2 mpg, and if Civic Hybrid owners in general are only getting 26 mpg, that seems to be a mediocre improvement over gas powered vehicles of a similar weight/size.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[swordboy]

Exactly...

Which is why the mileage measurement needs to be dropped in favor of a "fuel efficiency" number. They could use the same freakin' test but just put the car on a scale of 0 to 100 instead (make a 100 rating something absurdly hard to get to... like an equivalent 500mpg). Everybody drives differently and I have found that it takes a very light foot to coax rated numbers out of any car.

I'm waiting for the day when someone figures out the hydrogen storage problem. If we could get enough pure hydrogen (by weight) stored into a small enough volume, then we could simply change the car's battery "every 3000 miles" like we change oil now. 'Tis only a matter of time. I hope that I live to see it (hydrogen production arguments aside).

Re:Neither do regular cars

[drmike0099]

Exactly. I've been disappointed with my Volvo, which was rated at something like 28/32 when I bought it. Since I drive 5 miles to and from work most of the time (with shorter hops around town) through metro LA, I can't break 20-21 mpg. Add to that the fact that I spent $30 today filling up my 12-gallon tank, and I'm a little bit annoyed by all this.

However, the point that wasn't emphasized in all that is that this is still significantly better than a non-hybrid vehicle. My Civic that I owned before this didn't break 24 mpg, and was rated in the low 30's. A hybrid version that got 32 would be a significant step up from there (33% less gas) and so is a good thing. It's not 50, but it's better.

The problem with that, of course, is that these cars cost more than the non-hybrid version, somewhere around $2,000 more. The websites for the car manufacturers have calculators to show how much money you would save by getting the hybrid based on the EPA statements. If those are wrong (as they are) then they should not be pushing the cost savings, since they know people aren't going to see it.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

As the article said, they need to come up with a new testing scheme for hybrids and non-hybrids. What kind of sense does it make to only measure the exhaust gases coming out of the car. If that is such an important measurement, then would it be so hard to measure the amount of gasoline that is actually being consumed? I do it at the gas station every time I fill up (granted there could be minor discrepancies between pumps). Start will a full tank. Run the test. Fill the tank. Amount of fuel added = amount of fuel consumed!

Re:Neither do regular cars

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to look at the EPA ratings is to look at the "City" rating and expect that to be your overall fuel economy.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[morcheeba]

Actually, I do get higher than my epa rated milage -- my car is rated at 30 mpg, I usually get 32 mpg if I keep the speed reasonable. That's 1mpg less than the best MO MILES ever saw. My car (bmw 330i) is a 3-liter 3100 pound sedan, so it's no econobox, but it's ULEV and I'm very happy with it.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yeah. But consider that the hybrid versions of the same car are getting 2x the published gas mileage.. getting nearly 10/15ish MPG is nice.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[sacherjj]

But this 33% less gas comes at a cost of replacing toxic batteries every couple years. Also, as the batteries get warn down, their efficiencies and capacities drop, lowering fuel efficiency. So the average improvement over a pure fuel vehicle will be less than 33%. I've still not been convinced that hybrids are "better".

Re:Neither do regular cars

[Malc]

Actually, I've beaten the published numbers for my car on highway driving... and I was doing over the speed limit too. At some point I will probably get it chipped for an extra 40 HP and a fuel economy improvement.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[donnyspi]

so it's kind of like modems. My 56k modem averages about 44k.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[Vihai]

I'm waiting for the day when someone figures out the hydrogen storage problem.

The real problem is not storage... is economic.

If we could get enough pure hydrogen (by weight) stored into a small enough volume, then we could simply change the car's battery "every 3000 miles" like we change oil now.

If I remember correctly, the energetic content of hydrogen is half of gasoline (by volume of liquid fuel).

Even if we're able to store the hydrogen in liquid phase, we would just have half of the mileage than a tank of gasoline. No, not 3000 miles.... And since the cost of producing hydrogen (ehehe, yes, you have to produce it) is almost the same of gasoline (per litre), the net result is:

• Half mileage
• Double cost

This is why hydrogen economy will not succeed unless we find a cheap energy source :)

Re:Neither do regular cars

[XMyth]

No argument there. But something should be done...either lower their EPA rating or bring up their gas mileage. I was considering getting a hybrid but now it's almost out of the question. I'll just buy used and save money that way.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[default luser]

Hey, don't diss the 5 mile commute. It may cause your gas mileage to go down, but it reduces your overall fuel usage.

I used to have a 20 mile commute with about 3 miles stop and go. Even though I floor it on the highway, I was averaging 33mpg with my Saturn SC2.

Now I have a commute at around 6 miles, and it's all stop and go. My average has plummetted to 25mpg, but even with that significant drop in efficiency I am still using LESS THAN HALF AS MUCH fuel as I used to.

Remember, there are TWO ways you can conserve fuel. You can increase the efficiency of your vehicle, or you can decrease the distance traveled. If you have to increase the distance traveled, use as many freeways as possible; but for shorter distances it doesn't matter because the returns are tiny...it's just common sense.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[nelsonal]

Take a highway trip, and set the cruise (at 65-70 no higher). If you are still way below the expected milage you might check your spark plugs, TPS (throttle position sensor), and O2 sensor. A general tune up might not be a bad idea. If your plugs are bad you aren't burning fuel efficently, and the computer defaults to a low efficency map if they get an out of spec reading from the o2 and TPS sensor. Neither is costly or difficult to replace (on most cars). Also when you drive in the city, don't do hard accelleration, and try to coast up to stops rather than accelerating up to the point you begin breaking. Also check your tire pressure, running out of spec shortens your tire life, and reduces fuel efficency.
Not counting any tax savings, the cheapest cars, are the econoboxes that get 45+ on EPA ratings and cost 10k-15k, but have nice long warrenties. If you are willing to drive for fuel efficency a hybrid might be the way to go, but you will have to change your driving habits and techniques.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[nelsonal]

We had an old Camero that used to get 30 MPG at 75-80 vs 27 MPG at 65. I think the (5th) overdrive gear was set a bit too low (65 was ~1500 RPM).

Re:Neither do regular cars

[hb253]

Why is is that people can't spell C-A-M-A-R-O correctly?? ARRRGH!

Re:Neither do regular cars

[drmike0099]

Very good point, which is actually why I live so close to work (I used to live 2 miles away, but then got a different job, so now 5). I'm planning on moving back within the 2-mile radius in the next few months. I only have to fill up my tank once every week and a half or so (more or less) which isn't so bad...

Re:Neither do regular cars

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

well, what's conflicting is that I"m being told that when driven properly, the EPA numbers are closer to reality than what's being reported.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[coyote_oww]

I think most consumers are aware of the extreem optimism of those numbers on any type of vehicle.

I disagree, sort of. When the EPA first started publishing numbers, their milage figures where hopelessly optimistic. My mom had a Pinto in that era. The car was supposed to get 28/36 or something like that. She never did better than about 25 under any conditions.

On the other hand, they have improved dramatically. My last three cars (over 14 years) have had actual milage *better* than the EPA estimates. For reference, I had two Mustangs and a WRX (current). The Mustangs where 17/24, and I normally got 20/25. A bit higher on really long trips. The Subaru is rated 20/28, IIRC, and I get 25 just driving around (mix of city and highway) and I've gotten just over 30MPG on long trips.

Some of this is driving style. I think I have a more economical driving style than most, in spite of my vehicle preferences. But you have to give some credit to the EPA for improving their numbers as well.

Of course, my motorcycle gets 65-70MPG just driving around. Milage _drops_ on long trips, probably because my speeds pick up and I add the luggage (=much larger cross-section). The combination drags me down to the 50MPG range.

Also, interestingly, the Mustangs got the same or better milage at relatively high speeds (80mph). I think this is because the engine runs more efficiently at these RPMs. In the 5.0 series Mustangs, 60mph~=1500RPM; 80mph~=2000RPM. The cars are actually faster in 4th gear than 5th, 5th gear doesn't allow the engine to develop enough horsepower to get past 130mph.

Re:Neither do regular cars

[gujo-odori]

I've experienced the same thing, both on a 5.0 Mustang GT that I had some years ago, and the Mazda Protege that I have now: both vehicles consistently exceed the EPA estimate, both city and highway. My single-tank mileage record on the Mustang (with four-speed overdrive automatic, 2.73 axle) was 27.5 MPG on a long freeway trip. Typical freeway mileage was 25.5 - 26.5.

My Mazda (also an OD automatic, but with a 1.8 liter engine, and a lighter vehicle) gets 32 - 34 on the freeway. That 5 liter engine was under such light load at freeway speeds that it allowed it to produce mileage figures not all that far off from those of an engine a little over one-third its size (and of course, the axle ratio in this Mazda can't be anywhere near 2.73).

Duh

[Stevyn]

You can't create more energy from less fuel. You can do it more efficiently, but this going to the electric motor and back isn't that efficient.

Re:Duh

[JesseL]

The idea is that by having the gasoline engine coupled to a generator the engine can be made more efficient because it can be tuned for a particular speed and load. Conventional drivetrains require that the engine operate over a wide range of speeds and loads and thus the tuning is always compromised to achieve driveability throughout the range.

Re:Duh

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

One of the claims that I have heard is that hybrids can take advantage of some of the energy lost by breaking. Instead of using only mechanical resistance (friction -> heat), they also use some magnetic resistance (EMF -> voltage) which can be used to recharge the batteries. That is where the "extra" energy is coming from. It is being more efficient, by not wasting as much energy (think recycling).

So are these techniques actually a part of the hybrid cars out there now?

Re:Duh

[jman sr]

Not to mention recovering energy through regenerative breaking that is normally lost as heat in a conventional braking system.

Re:Duh

[feloneous cat]

You can't create more energy from less fuel. You can do it more efficiently, but this going to the electric motor and back isn't that efficient.

Depends on what you call efficient. Standard automobiles are anything but efficient - they are what the industry knows and feels comfortable with.

One design that I have heard about (but is never talked about) is the electric/gasoline hybrid. Sounds the same but isn't. This uses a gasoline motor running at a constant speed to provide the juice. All the energy is then sent to four electric motors. Said to be FAR more fuel efficient.

Re:Duh

[Plutor]

This isn't informative, it's a half-truth. So what if you can't create more energy? A huge amount of the energy that burning gas (exploding gas fumes, really) liberates is wasted in heat out the engine, heat out the gas pipe, and heat due to friction on the brake pads. Offhandedly dismissing the impact that reclaiming some of that wasted energy can have is ignorant. It's like looking at a river and thinking "Well, we can't make this water create any additional power". Build a dam and create a manmade lake, and you can generate billions of kilowatt hours per year.

Re:Duh

[LittleDan]

Nobody's saying more energy is being created; it was always that it's more efficient. Normal cars loose more energy to heat, but hybrid cars can recollect some energy that would otherwise be lost and use it for motion. This has nothing to do with breaking conservation of energy; it's all about fuel efficiency. Daniel Ehrenberg

Re:Duh

[FatherOfONe]

Well the proof is in the article. It appears that the hybrid honda civic gets very little more gas milege than it's full gas counterpart.

Sorry but 31MPG on the highway and 26MPG in the city isn't that great. Heck if you add in the fact that the car cost over $3k more, it would take a LONG time to recoupe the cost. I would argue that you will never recoup the cost, because the added complexity if the car is going to cost you more in repairs after 5 years. Honda should do something about this.

Having said this, I hope someone comes up with a good alternative fuel to what we have now.

Re:Duh

[mbbac]

Yes.

Re:Duh

[Vihai]

You're wrong in many ways.

You CAN create more energy from less fuel, of course you usually talk about USABLE energy... so, improving efficiency leads to more usable energy.

A lot of cinetic energy (which is a form of ordered, high quality energy) is wasted in the brakes, here's where you can improve efficency.

The act of moving doesn't theoretically need energy (except for the pure cinetic energy you reach during the travel) so, there's a lot of space for improvements.

The principle behind hybrid cars does make sense, it tries to recover some energy that otherwise would be wasted (engine at idle, brakes, etc...)

Re:Duh

[sammy baby]

That's usually referred to as "regenerative braking." A bunch of hybrid vehicles have this feature, including the Prius.

Re:Duh

[Technician]

Now for some truth. (disclaimer I drive a hybrid) On the freeway, the hybrid system doesn't do much. It's all plowing wind and the engine never shuts down.

However in city traffic jam traffic, it shines big time. That awful creep and stop at metered on ramps and passing the wreck is usualy done with the engine off most of the time. This is where regular cars are very ineffecient. Unfortunately most of our time on the road isn't in these conditions in the USA. Now as part of the reality check, I have missed the EPA estimates by about 10 MPG. It's still double the milage I got on my last car. At current gas prices, the payback period has droped from never to something in the car's lifetime. If gas goes up more, the payback time will shorten much more. I don't regret my used Prius purchase.

I replaced a 2.3 Liter 4 cyl Ford Mustang with a 1.5 Liter Toyota Prius. Mpg went from 24-28 to 43-48 for my commute. Getting 400 miles on a tank is normal. I haven't risked running out of gas to try for 500 miles, but I've had enough gas left at the next fill to have done it.

The big savings I found for mine is as a standby generator. During an outage, I ran a TV, refrigerator, lots of lights, and chest freezer off the car. The engine did not run all the time. It would start, cycle for a few minutes and shut back down. Overnight my best guess is I used 2 gallons of gas. Most portable generators would require a refill every 3-6 hours to do the same job. At that consumption rate, I would not worry about refilling it for several days of constant running as an emergency generator. That could never be done with a conventional car.

Re:Duh

[AK Marc]

Why Yes, Yes it is. It is more efficient because of throttling. Ever wonder why diesels get great run time when idling and gasoline engines don't? Because gasoline engines are throttled. This greatly reduces their efficiency. They produce power most efficiently when they are not throttled (AKA wide open throttle, or foot to the floor). However, that also is generally inefficient because the extra power can not be effectively used because there is only a short duration before the throttle must be reapplied or laws will be broken. Additionally, there are significant losses of energy to heat when braking.

Hybrids seek to run the gasoline (or other engines) at higher efficiency and leach off the power to be stored chemicaly. They also chemicaly store energy that would otherwise be lost in braking. If wou were to look at a torque curve, an internal combustion gasoline engine produces minimum torque (0) at 0 RPM. An electric motor produces maximum torque at 0 RPM. So, an electric motor is not only a convenient way of reusing the energy stored chemicaly, but it is also one that is quite complimentary to the gasoline engine. The underpowered gasoline engine and the underpowered electric motor combine in most hybrids to produce motive force comperable to a properly sized engine.

Re:Duh

[tompaulco]

The act of moving does require energy, to overcome friction and wind resistance (which is still friction). Without energy being put in, eventually any moving body will stop.

Re:Duh

[DaveLatham]

However in city traffic jam traffic, it shines big time... Unfortunately most of our time on the road isn't in these conditions in the USA.

You and I either have a different definition of "unfortunate", or we differ about liking to drive in traffic jams.

Re:Duh

[Lumpy]

and yet I get 18mpg on my 1977 motorhome with a Ford 460HP engine with a holley 4bbl carb.

modern car fuel effeciency absolutely sucks when it is really only slightly higher than a gas guzzling behomoth from almost 30 years ago using the most inefficient fuel management system and the largest gasoline engine available at the time.

regular cars and trucks should be getting 30-35mpg RIGHT now with hybrids getting 60+ on average.

you might scream that most work was put into emissions... but I got a clean bill of health from the tailpipe doctor noting that the emissions were lower than most vehicles in my size class.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

How'd you take 120 volt electric power off of the Prius? That's exactly what I want to do, I just didn't know it was easy.

Re:Duh

[mikeee]

You can buy inverters that will convert cig. lighter slots to 120-ungrounded, but you can't push that many amps through standard auto wiring that way...

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a 2001 Prius. My commute is 25 miles, mostly freeway with a bit of city driving at the end, and I'm getting 49 MPG (now that they've reformulated the gas), even using the air conditioner for the homeward trip. This goes down in the winter, of course, but only to around 45 MPG. I regularly get over 500 miles on a tank, and once got 604 miles (at 52 MPG with an 11.9 gal. tank - I ran it pretty close).

We drove the Prius from Indiana to the far side of Idaho last summer, averaging 44.5 MPG for the trip (and that's because we had headwinds both ways in the plains states - curse you Kansas!). I was most impressed by how it handled the mountains - he morning we came back over the Rockies we averaged 68 MPG, and the car could accelerate up anything less than a 12% grade.

The other thing that impresses me is the acceleration, especialy for passing. When passing in a 55 MPH area, I can easily hit 80 MPH without noticing it. I attribute this to the fact that both the gas engine and the electric motor are being used when I put the pedal down. In any case, I've never driven another consumer car that does that.

Plus, a couple of weeks ago I ran it completely out of gas. No problem, though - the batteries were enough to get me 1/4 mile to the filling station (don't count on that, though!)

For the record: My best average in the car is 98.2 MPG for a trip home from the gas station across town (3 miles, up and down several medium hills).

Re:Duh

[frdmfghtr]

TRY AT YOUR OWN RISK. If you burn something up, don't blame me. :)

I bought a 700W inverter and wired it (via a fuse) right to the 12V battery and mounted it in my trunk. You have to be careful not to overtax the 12V system, as I'm sure Toyota never designed it to act as a emergency source of electricity.

From what I've been able to find, the 12V system can support a charging rate of about 70A which translates to a power load of 840W. Now, my inverter is 700W so I can conceivably run it at full load and my car can handle it (2003 Prius) without sweating too hard. I put in a 60A fuse because I do NOT want to risk burning out the 12V system. Can you imagine the conversation that goes with that one, especially under warranty?

I've never run at full load; the most I did was about 200W once with a single halogen light. Without knowing what the capacity of the charging system is, I don't want to push it too hard.

Re:Duh

[Technician]

From what I've been able to find, the 12V system can support a charging rate of about 70A which translates to a power load of 840W

I went to Costco. They had a sale on 1KW inverters for about $70. I trunk mounted it. I fused it at 100A. It too was concerned regarding the capacity of the 12 volt system, so I did my research. The DC converter is rated for 100 amps or almost 1.4KW. The system is larger than most conventional car systems because it has some electric heat, electric compressor for the power brakes (not vaccuum boost) and electric power steering instead of hydraulic. With the car parked, all these high current loads go away. I set the parking brake so even the daytime running lights don't come on. (another aprox 100 watts) so just by shutting down most of the high draw items in the car (heater/AC included) it's all there for other uses with no overload. High peaks such as starting a freezer is why I went to a 1KW inverter. My average load is more in the 400-600 watt range and well within the system design of the car. Having the surge capacity with the large inverter and battery is good for starting the large motors.

I've overloaded it once using a skill saw. I got halfway through a sheet of plywood and the system voltage sagged enough to trip off the inverter.

My Civic Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

Gets 45-55 MPG. If you drive them like a race car of course the MPG is going to be a lot less

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. That is even higher than the rating on the cars. In your dreams are you getting 55 MPG. I am willing to be that you don't even have a Civic and you are just a troll. Post a link to a picture of your car's MPG current estimate and I will apologize.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Uma Thurman]

I had a Geo Metro with the 1.0L engine that got 55 MPG regularly. The car was a bit small, but it'd go 80 MPH on the highway.

And VW makes some diesels that get really great mileage, better than hybrid.

Hybrids also have the disadvantage of requiring heavy batteries that contain some nasty stuff. The environmental net might not be positive.

Nevertheless, the technology is still new, and I wonder how far it can be pushed.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Michael Wolf]

I also own a civic hybrid and get 45-50mpg, but I drive pretty conservatively.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[internic]

My friend has a Prius that also gets 45-50 mpg on a regular basis. I'm not sure what was advertised for that car, but it's still a bit improvement over most automobiles.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[internic]

Yeah, and motorcycles get even better milage, but that's because they're small. The value of hybrids is that you can ride in something a bit more comfortable and less of a death trap (maybe) than a Geo Metro or a Ford Fiesta and still get that great milage.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Jim Morash]

Diesels produce much higher particulate emissions than regular gas engines. Yuck.

As far as I know, hybrid cars use Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which are pretty clean as batteries go. You're probably thinking of NiCads, which contain cadmium - toxic stuff, but not used so much these days because they require more care and feeding than NiMH batteries.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Dr. Zowie]

Interestingly enough, the Metro got better mileage than most motorcycles -- at least on long hauls. For quick hops around town, mass dominates and the motorcycle wins. But for that 20 mile commute, wind resistance wins and the Metro was better streamlined than most motorcycles :-)

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, the particles are larger, and don't stay suspended as long.

And yes, I was thinking of the NiCads as being nasty toxic.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Uma Thurman]

The Geo Metro isn't a death trap. People like to say it is, but it's a pretty safe car.

Remember, people in Europe drive cars that small all the time, and they aren't dying in droves relative to the US.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[iangoldby]

Diesels produce much higher particulate emissions than regular gas engines.

Bzzt! Wrong. Diesels produce much larger particulates than petrol (gas) engines, but in terms of overall mass the amount is similar or less. Particulates from petrol engines are hard to measure because they are so small. But there are lots more of them.

I remember reading some research recently (sorry, can't find the reference) suggesting that particulates from petrol engines may be more harmful than the larger ones from diesel engines and may be a significant cause of asthma.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[perly-king-69]

I think you'll find that for quick hops around town the bicycle wins. As fast as a car in rush hour, burns off those calories, strengthens the heart, and cheaper to run. After a year of cycling around town, a 20 mile commute won't be so bad.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[MerlynEmrys67]

As a 2002 Prius owner I regularly get over 50 MPG over a weeks commute time. That said - when I put my bike on the back to drive to a ride, my gas milage plummets (added air resistance).

I also know that my average MPG plummets when I drive off of normal commute times where I am going 70-75 rather than 50-60.

Averages are averages, most people don't drive their cars anywhere near the conditions to get the rated MPG, but I am happy that I am around 50. It sure is nice going 500 miles to a tank of gas (I once wanted to try for 600 - but that seems like it is just pushing it)

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[bruce_the_moose]

I bought a 2004 Civic Hybrid about 2 months ago and I'm halfway through my third tank of gas. The first tank got 33mpg, the second 36mpg. The current tank is getting about 37mpg. My commute is about 3.5 miles. I attribute the increase to the weather getting warmer.

Huh?

Yeah, one of the most important technologies in these cars is the stopping of the engine when you stop in traffic. A feature Honda calls "auto-stop." Problem is, the car won't auto-stop when the engine is cold. Once the engine warms up, it'll auto-stop even when I pause to take a turn. Back in February when the temps were in the 30s and 40s in the morning the car wouldn't warm up enough to auto-stop until I pulled into my parking space. On my city-only commute I go through 14 stop lights, some of which can take 5 minutes or more. Now that the weather is warm, the car will auto-stop at the end of my street, and I auto-stop at every light. Sitting in at these lights and listening to all the other engines idle around me tells me why my mileage is better.

By way of comparison, the conventional Honda Civic the hybrid replaced was getting about 25mpg on this commute and just shy of 300 miles on tank. Three tanks in I'm averaging 35mpg and 400 miles on the same size tank, so I'd rate the hybrid a success. It didn't cost much more than a conventional Civic (particularly after the tax deduction) and I can't say I've sacrificed any performance. As I drive by gas stations showing regular getting real close to two bucks a gallon I do believe the car will be worth it.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Dr. Zowie]

I find that rollerblading to work gives me a better workout -- and that's what I do most mornings. But the main discussion was about, er, cars.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

80MPH?

I got a ticket 2 years ago in my Geo Metro doing 93 in a 60. I even tried to tell the cop that his radar must have had bad calibration or picked up an adjacent vehicle cause there was no way I could be going that fast in that car. Didn't work. LOL

But yeah, the Geo Metro was little more than an oversized go-cart, but it made a great little commuter car for me.

My friends used to laugh at lunch time cause the rated weight including all passengers and cargo was 600lbs. Well, I'm 270, so having two friends with me to lunch easily exceeded the rating for the car. Add air-conditioning to that weight, and they would chuckle and make jokes about pushing Flintstones-style.

I ended up replacing it with a Dodge Neon. Much sportier compared to a Geo Metro obviously, but at a huge miles per gallon tradeoff. It now has 120k miles on it. My next vehicle will probably be as fuel efficient as I can afford since gas is now over $2 per gallon. :-(

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[Uma Thurman]

Sometimes when I was driving into the wind, all I could do was about 75.

That car was the right thing at the right time. I needed something cheap to buy and cheap to run. It was perfect for getting around town.

Re:My Civic Hybrid

[hambonewilkins]

Yes, but in Europe they have fewer Semis (and those can't drive on the weekend in most countries) as well as FAR FEWER SUVS.

Get an SUV

[stanmann]

Does this mean I should get an SUV or does this mean that all "mileage numbers" are a fantasy...

Ah, all mileage numbers are a fantasy, and CU is a better evaluator than EPA.

Re:Get an SUV

[pe1rxq]

Does this mean I should get an SUV

Ofcourse! Because if a hybrid is only doing better than a normal car instead of much better you should get the most polluting car you can get.

Jeroen

Re:Get an SUV

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I should get an SUV

If you feel you need a penis extension, by all means do. Of course the risk of rollover and death is much higher in an SUV. The "feel" of being safer had repeatedly been shown to be just that: a feeling. Read more here

Re:Get an SUV

[stanmann]

MANY SUVs have a diesel option and given that diesel is recognized as more efficient, cheaper and cleaner, Why NOT get an SUV?

Re:Get an SUV

[Anonymous Coward]

The "feel" of being safer had repeatedly been shown to be just that: a feeling.

Of course, this is complete nonsense. When my wife was rear-ended in my pickup, my bumper and rear quarter panel were mildly dented. The other guy's vehicle had to be towed away.

Our Suburban weighs 7000 lbs. If I get in a wreck with a hybrid, whose vehicle is going to be crushed like a grape? Who's going to end up in the hospital?

Still not convinced? Then look here, where you can find that the rate for driver fatalities per billion miles for large pickups is 4.07; the rate for large SUVs (like the Suburban) is 3.79. The rate for your average aluminum can hybrid vehicle - surely a small vehicle - simply can't compare.

There are risks associated with driving anything at highway speeds. It so happens that for the rare case of rollovers, SUVs may be more dangerous - but overall, big SUVs like the Suburban and big pickups like mine are among the safest vehicles on the road.

Re:Get an SUV

[tompaulco]

Considering the long wheelbase and relatively low center of gravity (compared to other SUVs), the suburban doesn't present nearly as much of a rollover likelihood as other SUVs. However, some of the four wheel drive versions I have seen do sit up pretty high. Unfortunately, the argument that a heavier vehicle makes you safer is similar to the arms race. If everybody drove little peashooter cars, they would just bounce off of each other. As soon as someone gets a Suburban, everyone needs a suburban to be safe.

Re:Get an SUV

[Paulrothrock]

No. It means you should get a car with as small an engine as you can stand and QUIT DRIVING LIKE A MANIAC!!! Then you save lots of money.

Re:Get an SUV

[stanmann]

Another poster recently pointed out that there are really two groups of "SUVs" the ones that have been around FOREVER(Suburban, Various Jeep models, the landrover/landcruiser type vehicles) and the new Junk. And pointed out that in the rush to field something "SUVlike" that safety tended to be compromised as there wasn't a lessons learned history.

I think we will see safer SUVs when the EPA decides that SUVs need to be emmission and safety tested by the same standards as cars, station wagons and vans instead of being classified as "small trucks"

Nevertheless, there are still safer and less safe SUVs out there, choose wisely.

Re:Get an SUV

[Anonymous Coward]

If everybody drove little peashooter cars, they would just bounce off of each other.

I'm sorry, but this not only doesn't pass the smell test, it doesn't jive with reality. 17 years ago I totalled my boss's Nissan Sentra when I rear-ended another "peashooter". The only thing that saved my life was my seatbelt; otherwise, I'd have been through the windshield.

the suburban doesn't present nearly as much of a rollover likelihood as other SUVs

If you looked at the link I posted, you'd see that small 4-door cars have a 71% higher fatality rate (11.56) than even the "most dangerous" SUVs (mid-size, at 6.73). Rollovers may, perhaps, be uniquely hazardous in some SUVs, but they're still safer than what the Greens would have us all driving, by a country mile. Personally, I'd take my chances in an SUV over a Geo Metro any day of the week ;-)

Re:Get an SUV

[pe1rxq]

Because you can get a diesel engine in practicly any kind of car (including diesel-electric hybrids).
The average person doesn't need a car that looks and drives like a tank, its just a wast of energy (wheter its diesel or not)

Jeroen

I thought so

[Plaeroma]

My ex-girlfriend has a Civic Hybrid. On long trips that required two cars, I would notice her car wasn't doing *that* much better than the others. At first I dismissed it as different fuel tank sizes, but she seemed to be putting almost as much in as the rest of us. Sure, it of course did pretty well, but I was having a hard time swalloing 45+ mpg. Shame on the EPA.

Re:I thought so

[Libor Vanek]

IIRC hybrid cars should have better MPG effeciency in cities/jams with lot stop'n'jump driving (?) style.

Re:I thought so

[SlamMan]

Well, right. The idea behind the hybrids was that it charges the battery when you break. Over long car trips, you're not breaking, so you're not actually getting much benefit from the hybrid-ness of the car. Also why the city rating for MPG is so much higher in a hybrid, verses it being lower than highway in a normal car..

...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Harmotech]

I didn't see this answered in the article, but are other gasoline-only autos also overrated?

I mean, if the same EPA testing standardis used on all cars, and the hybrids are overrated...

That said, I have an '88 Volvo that I watch the mileage of pretty closely, and I get b/w 25 and 30 mpg. And it's a big heavy bastard...

hmmmmm....

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see this answered in the article

Don't lie. You didn't read the article. Most of it is about that very fact. You couldn't have gotten past the first two paragraphs.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[jeffkjo1]

I didn't see this answered in the article, but are other gasoline-only autos also overrated?


Yes. Of all of the vehicles I have owned, I have never driven one where the EPA estimate was right on. It's always off by between 1 and 3 mpg in both city and highway driving. When I shop for vehicles, I always detract a few mpg from the sticker as I know the vehicle won't actually get what it says it does.

The EPA tests are a joke and really need to be updated.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[introverted]

are other gasoline-only autos also overrated?

I didn't see it mentioned in the article (that would have made it less sensational), but I suspect the answer is a big yes.

I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid and my experience has been that, if you alternate between stamping on the gas and stamping on the brakes, then your mileage will drop to around 30. Of course, do that in a conventional engine car and your mileage will also drop drastically.

Driving conservatively (i.e. The way you're taught to drive), I routinely get 46 MPG in heavy local traffic and 50+ on the open highway.

As with any other type of car, your particular driving style has a tremendous impact on your gas mileage.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I don't know what the EPA ratings for it were, but my klutzy and heavy 1981 Toyota Corolla station wagon gets 34 MPG on the highway, almost as good as these hybrids. And it still easily passes EPA polution tests.

If hybrid owners are mad now, just think how mad they will be in a few years when they have to replace their NiMh battery packs.

Mike Perry, Inkling Blog, Seattle

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[FatherOfONe]

I believe you, but I have not had the same experience as you. I live in a flat area (Indiana), that is around sea level. I have owned the following cars.
1. Ford Mustang GT
2. Eagle Tallon - Crap car, but another story.
3. Saturn
4. Nissan Altima
5. Jeep Wrangler
6. Volkswagon Passat AWD

Every single one of these cars has gotten the exact milage that was posted on the sticker. The Mustang actually could beat the sticker in some cases, but only by a 1MPG, and given that my foot was heavy, it didn't happen that often. :-)

Again, I don't disagree with you, but there could be a lot of factors in why you get 3MPG less.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[FatherOfONe]

I have a friend who what a Civic Hybrid also, and he gets around 45MPH when being very easy on it.

What I find strange is that the guy in the article does almost all highway driving and he is getting 32MPG. Honda has been no help. That seems strange to me. I would think that they would just take the car, fill up the tank, and drive it around a while, then fill it up again and see if this guy is driving like you said. The other concern is what Consumer reports found. Specifically, they found that these cars get 60% of advertised milege.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[merlin_jim]

The EPA testing is not based on fuel consumed, but on emissions.

While all modern automobiles test more efficient, simply because their emissions are less than the benchmarks in 1972 when the test was created, hybrids are especially bad because the engine size they have create less emissions for gasoline burned, and because they are generally fitted with better catalytic converters.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[dcigary]

Hmmm. My '03 Murano is getting right at the EPA MPG rating for City driving, 20city/25highway.

I can deal with that.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[introverted]

What I find strange is that the guy in the article does almost all highway driving and he is getting 32MPG. Honda has been no help.

Well.... It does mention that the Honda dealership has verified that the car is operating properly. The lack of response from higher up in the company is a bit baffling, but there's also no mention of how long he waited for a response.

I'm kinda curious about the details of Consumer Reports testing methodology. Before buying my Civic, I read a Consumer Reports review and there was no mention of these problems. Surely they didn't review the car without actually testing it!

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[multiOSfreak]

From the article:

The EPA test "has inherent shortcomings, irrespective of what kind of car is being driven," says Philip Schmidt, professor of engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.

Emphasis mine. So at least they do a half-ass job of touching on the issue.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Kneht]

I always got better than EPA mileage . . .

unless I drove like a maniac, then it was much less.

Of course, I usually got better mileage than average with my motorcycles too.

Calm driving really saves money, especially now.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Epi-man]

I am seeing so many people posting so many blanket statements, how silly. There is no one answer. I used to drive a Honda Prelude, EPA rating 22/26 (city/highway) and 7.90 on the greenhouse gas emmisions. Before I sold it (a very sad day indeed, but with kids what can you do?) after 67,000 miles I was getting over 32+ mpg (I track this sort of thing). I then inherited my wife's Civic (32/37 mpg, 5.60, listed as a ULEV) and before we mercifully got rid of it (25,000 miles), I was never dipping below 40+ mpg. I then was graced with my new 200 bhp Acura TSX (yes, we are a Honda family). I have been tracking it from day one and logging its gas mileage. EPA predicts 22/29 with a 7.80 on the pollution index, earning an LEV rating from California (EPA rating of 8 on a 10 scale, not available for the other two cars). Now, after 6,700 miles I am averaging 30.79 mpg (yes, I have a spreadsheet for this). If I look at the last 2,400 miles, I am averaging 31.86 mpg (the engine is breaking in). So all this tripe about the hybrids being less polluting and the EPA completely overstating the mileage is just that, tripe. There are way too many factors involved to make such blanket statements, such as you have to have a whimpy engine to get good mileage or not pollute. It is possible to have both worlds.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article mentions this, but again, light-footed driving helps quite a bit. I have a '96 Geo Prizm (a.k.a. Toyota Corolla that costs less) which has a hwy rating of 34MPG. Travelling down I-5 in California, with cruise control and an automatic transmission I've gotten close to 38MPG. Here the "light foot" isn't even my own, but in general, if I get mileage as low as listed I'm annoyed. I tend not to drive like a maniac, and I don't commute with it, so a lot of my driving is less frenetic and/or longer distances than what a regular commuter would see. You can equal or beat the listed mileage, just drive a little less homicidal every now and then.

Re:...so are non-hybrid cars also overrated?

[FatherOfONe]

Thanks for the input. I have wondered about consumer reports for a long time, and don't trust them that well.

This is poppycock.

[Power Everywhere]

If you calculate mileage on a regular combustion-engine car the same thing happens. The petroleum industry has grown quite irksome of late.

Re:This is poppycock.

[nate1138]

This is true, but the problem is exacerbated (sp?) in hybrids. The test uses emissions to determine efficiency, and uses this data to calculate mileage. Since a hybrid produces far less pollutants it is calculated to get better mileage, which isn't always the case. The test needs to be redone to more accurately reflect road conditions and driver habits. Maybe something like a real-world test with 10 randomly selected drivers from a pool that the EPA hands out test cars to.

Biodiesel baby

[wherley]

An interesting alternative fuel is biodiesel:

- We can make it in the US

- Runs in existing diesel engines

- Almost all emissions reduced vs. dinodiesel

(for NOx there are some interesting additives
being produced).

- Much less toxic/dangerous than dinodiesel/gasoline

- Exhaust smells like french fries!

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Woogiemonger]

Exhaust smells like french fries!

If there's anything that's gonna sell Americans on biodiesel, it's gonna be the smell of fast food.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

- We can make it in the US - Runs in existing diesel engines - Almost all emissions reduced vs. dinodiesel (for NOx there are some interesting additives being produced). - Much less toxic/dangerous than dinodiesel/gasoline - Exhaust smells like french fries!

- And particulate emissions are slightly higher...

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

You commented:

An interesting alternative fuel is biodiesel:
- We can make it in the US

Yes, we can, but do you realize that for it to scale, the amount of crop growing would require a massive amount of fertilizer, and that the biggest source of nitrogen fertilizers is... You guessed it, hydrocarbons from the exact same source as the hydrocarbons in your gasoline and diesel fuel.

Yes, it sure sounds nice, but only if we can figure out how to scale organic growing techniques to the levels required so artificial nitrogen fertilizers wouldn't be required.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[donweel]

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Baby
We can make it here
You can drink the exhaust (h20)
You can tell OPEC to rotate.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Adriax]

Unless I'm mistaken, you can make biodiesel from used oil, like from fry vats at fast food places.
Might as well use that oil instead of letting it go to waste like it does now.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[angry_leprechaun]

The University I am attending uses Biodiesel exclusively in their shuttle buses. I can assure you the exhaust does not smell of fries. Smells more like....... Diesel exhaust.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[dexterpexter]

I love biodiesel. The main problem with them, though, is running temperature. When the temperature drops down to a few degrees above freezing, your biodiesel baby has to be garaged.

I personally like being able to drive the same vehicle, regardless of time of year.

That is why I like hybrids; you don't have that temperature concern like you do with biodiesel, although it is admittedly less straining on the environment and biodiesels usuallly have better gas mileage, in my experience.

Interesting note: ANY diesel vehicle, AFAIK, can be converted to biodiesel. Many people work out deals with their local fast food restaurants to recycle the crud they normally would throw away. However, you have to be very careful when refining the crud (yes, it has to be refined with alcohol) before putting it in your vehicle.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[chmilar]

We can divert resources from subsidized production of corn-based sweeteners (that are making everyone fat) to biodiesel. Switch from drinking sweetened soft drinks to water, and there is a good supply of raw material for making biodiesel.

Then encourage development of biodiesel/electric hybrids.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not enough used oil to replace all the diesel we currently use.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Hatta]

An interesting alternative fuel is biodiesel

And many people don't know that the diesel engine was originally invented to run on hempseed oil. Fuel, fiber, food, medicine, a nonaddictive and nontoxic intoxicant. If there is a god, Cannabis must surely be a gift from him.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

probably because your university claims to use biodiesel but is probably using a weak blend.

I run a small ford on 25% vegoil and it stinks like a chip shop

Re:Biodiesel baby

[UdoKeir]

Two more:

- It's sustainable (oil will run out sometime)
- It doesn't increase the net atmospheric carbon

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon (CO, CO2) into the atmosphere that had previously been stored for millions of years.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[York the Mysterious]

Biodiesel is a very interesting technology (it's so simple I feel like I'm over complicating it by calling it that), but there are several drawbacks. The first is that all current diesel cars and trucks lack a catalytic converter. This is due to the high level of sulfer in standard gasoline that literally kills catalytic converters. While biodiesel lacks the sulfer of conventional diesel, allowing it to function with a cat, the automobile it would be run in would lack one. This results in MUCH higher level of secondary (no COX) emissions than standard clean burn gasoline. It's true that by 2007 all diesel in the US will be low sulfer under the new Tier II guidelines and at that time diesel vehicles will be equiped with cats and better emissions systems, but that is 2007 and this is now.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

but not french fries.... only freedom fries will do

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

I was confused about Biodiesel for a while, but am now more up to date with the info.

I was confused about the difference between "Biodiesel" and "Veggie Oil" car.

From recent material that I read, Biodiesel is the type that does not require ANY modification to your diesel car. It is make (refined) from used, non-petro oil. (Veggie, animal fat, etc.) By running it throuh a process, the end result is biodiesel that runs very similar to normal diesel. No french fries smell.

"Veggie Oil" is straight used, deep fryer oil. The guys who drive across the country used just that. It requires more filtering, and cleaning in the car. This is the one that smells like fried chicken and what not.

Then the bio blend is just biodiesel and petrodiesel blended. I've seen some advertised as low as 7% blend.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[syphax]

You can tell OPEC to rotate.

Unless the cheapest source of hydrogen is...

Re:Biodiesel baby

[per11]

It takes more fossil fuel energy to make hydrogen fuel cells than the fuel cells will give. At every step energy is lost in the form of heat. Therefore, it's actually more efficient to burn the fossil fuels directly.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Adriax]

True, but we're already producing a decent amount of usable oil as it is, so it's not like we're going to have to suddenly start growing ALL the oil needed for biodiesel.

Right now we could turn all that waste oil into biodiesel as an additive, decreasing our dependence on regular oil and saving on disposal costs of that oil (infact, fast food places could make money off selling their oil instead of dumping it, win-win for everyone but opec).

Re:Biodiesel baby

[otis wildflower]

Interesting note: ANY diesel vehicle, AFAIK, can be converted to biodiesel.

Biodiesel requires no special conversion process: the formulation of the fuel already does the work of any conversion. However, older diesels (like mine) often need to replace inorganic components like gaskets and fuel lines since biodiesel is more likely to degrade them. B20 (20% bio) can run in any unmodified diesel vehicle, and any VW TDI or Mercedes CDI can run B100 no problem.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[jonfelder]

Did you ever stop to think how they get hydrogen into a form suitable for use as a transportation fuel?

It's not like you pour water into your tank or something.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[jonfelder]

Biodiesel is made from plants yes?

Have any idea how we fertilize our plants?

Re:Biodiesel baby

[b0bby]

That oil doesn't go to waste, it gets sent to the rendering plant & purified for use in animal food, etc.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[nelsonal]

Without tremendous investment in either coal burning plants or nuclear (say it with Dubya kids, Nuc-U-Lar) power plants, we'll be cracking hydrocarbons for any national hydrogen infastructure. Don't be too hasty in telling off OPEC. H2 is much cleaner source of power in the small confines of a car, the pollution savings comes in huge cracking plants which produce less pollution than current combustion engines.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

>Unless the cheapest source of hydrogen is...

In the US, the correct answer is natural gas.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[penultimatepost]

What would be interesting, is to see how much energy is spent on making, distributing, BioDiesel, what kind of resources are used etc. I did a quick search and found nothing.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[stanmann]

well, feces is a good way... of course some of that comes from plants so... hmmm..

[singing]The circle of life[/singing]

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Mike Hicks]

Hydrogen has issues. A hydrocarbon fuel source/transportation mechanism is much more practical, at least for the next several decades.

Hydrogen doesn't exist freely, it has to be made from something. It is also the least dense element in the universe, so the storage tanks in a vehicle would have to be massive. Hydrogen also has the nasty ability to seep out of pretty much anything.

Many people advocate the idea of using hydrogen reformers to convert hydrocarbon fuels into hydrogen. This is more efficient than electrolysis, though a lot of environmentalists are worried that the big oil companies will use fossil fuels like petroleum as the source fuel. A simple, efficient, and tiny ethanol-to-hydrogen reformer was demonstrated earlier this year, so that might be used in the future.

Fuel cells cost a lot of money and require exotic materials in many cases. They are also very fragile. People hope this will change, but it's hard to say if it will ever happen.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[syphax]

Though with tight domestic supply (and few imports except from Canada, if memory serves), prices would spike if nat. gas demand increases due to H2 production. We see a lot of price volatility at present.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thinking of getting a nat. gas car, but there are practical economic concerns about it's expanded use.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[jonfelder]

Just about all of it does. Either from plants directly or from things that eat plants.

Somehow I don't see the feces economy as being sustainable.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[corngrower]

It takes about 1 bushel of soybeans to make 1 gallon of biodiesel. At current prices one bushel of soybeans costs about $10.00.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Paulrothrock]

Why let someone else do it when you can follow in the footsteps of our hunter-gatherer ancestors?

Re:Biodiesel baby

[stanmann]

we need more people creating more feces, so we can have more plants producing biodiesel.

YES!!

Re:Biodiesel baby

[corngrower]

need to replace inorganic components like gaskets

That should be organic components, natural rubbers etc. They soften and degrade at high concentrations of biodiesel. Also, biodiesel can loosen the waxy deposits of petrodiesel, which could cause injectors to clog. So it's recommended that you gradually increase the percentage of biodiesel when you convert an existing engine to running biodiesel.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[DerekLyons]

And many people don't know that the diesel engine was originally invented to run on hempseed oil.

Many people don't know it, because it's not a truth that can be known, rather it's a legend created by the pro-cannibis people.

The Diesel engine was created for one reason and one reason only: To the the most thermodynamiclly efficient engine possible consistent with internal combustion. The thermal cycle now called 'diesel' was in fact first proposed by Carnot. Diesel was nothing more than the first engineer to make a practical engine based on Carnot's theories.

[As an aside; I always find it fascinating that people swallow whatever is posted on pro-cannibis sites without a shred of critical thought.]

Re:Biodiesel baby

[tompaulco]

All the fast food companies I ever worked for already did sell their oil to recyclers.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

>[As an aside; I always find it fascinating that people swallow whatever is posted on pro-cannibis >sites without a shred of critical thought.]

Of course they do! They are stoned! Who else but a stoner would read something like Hightimes?

Re:Biodiesel baby

[bpalmer]

You mean NOx. TDI Driver that runs B20.

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Ricdude]

My TDI New Beetle gets 45-47 mpg in 50/50 highway/suburban driving. Sticker is 42 city/49 highway. If I could lighten up on the go pedal (it's not a gas pedal after all), I could break 50 mpg under these conditions.

Last year about one third of the fuel I put in my car was biodiesel, grown locally, to the benefit of my local farmers. When I drive the extra 20 miles to buy biodiesel, I ask my daughter if she wants to come with me to "fight terrorism". Even though she's three, she's usually up for the trip.

The big thing that will help NOx emissions from diesels is when we here in the US will have access to Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel (ULSD). The only reason we can't use the cool catalytic converter systems that are used in European diesel cars is the high sulfur levels in our diesel fuel kills them. Another year or two, and we can start really cleaning up diesel exhaust.

Other biodiesel benefits you forgot to mention:

Carbon-cycle neutral: The CO2 from the exhaust goes back into the next cycle of crops to harvest for fuel. No more dumping carbon locked in the earth's crust back into the atmosphere.

Foreign Trade balance: No more spending billions of dollars a year to import oil into our country from other countries that don't think very much of us right now. No need to send our young men and women to die in far-off countries to protect our "national interests".

Petrodiesel Blends: Some older diesel engines (really the fuel delivery systems) may not be able to handle straight biodiesel, but can handle blends of 5 or 20% biodiesel (B5, and B20, respectively). Even reducing foreign oil imports 20% is better than nothing...

Re:Biodiesel baby

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean Freedom Fries?

Re:Biodiesel baby

[ttfkam]

- More expensive

- Cannot be used with diesels that have natural rubber hoses and lines -- they dissolve with biodiesel use

More often, the biodiesel is blended with standard fossil fuel diesel to offset the costs but still reduce the usage of fossil fuel diesel.

Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[sgarrity]

I can speak to the accuracy of hybrid fuel economy numbers, but I did do a bit of research and ended up buying a small gas-only car instead. I found the fuel economy of the hybrids wasn't so much better that it warranted the significant price increase.

I wrote more about the issue on my weblog: Why I didn't buy a hybrid car.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[afidel]

In reality the best price/pollution ratio today is a small turbodiesel. The best example is the Volkswagon Jetta TDI, the Jetta gets real world numbers within 20% of the hybrid's claims (probably higher than the real world performance of the Civic Hybrid for example). Modern turbo diesel engines have eliminated most of the historic problems of diesel engines (soot mostly) but they still have problems with NOX emissions.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can't buy one in New England.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[dexterpexter]

I don't understand the "price increase" idea. When my professor bought his hybrid, the sticker price, brand new, was $19,000 (comparable to most new cars) and the federal government gave him $2000 for buying one, and the state gave him $1000, bringing the price of his new hybrid to $16,000. I don't see this as being too much more expensive than other vehicles given the toys the hybrid has. He got 50 mpg (he was a lead foot, too), and the inside has all sorts of touch screen toys that would normally drive the price of a car to ridiculous numbers.

Considering I paid $10,000 for my car brand used, and it does not have half the options as my professor's hybrid does, I think that the sticker price on hybrids are fair. Especially given the money saved on gas.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[realSpiderman]

I also own a Diesel with Common Rail injection (Mercedes A170 CDI, to small to be sold in the US). I get between 6.5l/100km (35MPG) (full throttle, Autobahn) and 4.5l/100km (50MPG)(75MPH Autobahn).

And after all Diesel is a lot cheaper here (Germany). (0.90EUR/l instead of 1.20EUR/l)

BUT: A major problem of the Diesel, and especially the turbos, is the emission of toxic particles. The are proven to cause cancer. Filters can help that, but they also reduce the mileage.

After all, Hybrid Cars may still be the better solution.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Anonymous Coward]

My buddy at work commutes 120 miles a day. He was looking at the civic hybrid, but couldn't even find one in stock. I told him to check the jetta TDI.

He loves the thing and has been getting 50 mpg.

I think VW does a crappy job marketing the thing though. It never shows up on the "top 10 gas sippers" list.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Mike Hicks]

Yeah, I was looking at saving money to buy a TDI Golf before my job disappeared. I'm a bit concerned about getting one here in the U.S. where the fuel is chock full o' sulfur, but I've been hoping to see biodiesel expand (I'm still shocked that it's unavailable here in Minneapolis, though there are a number of filling stations in the western part of Minnesota according to biodiesel.org).

For the moment, I'm still driving an old '88 Chevy Cavalier. Even with it's heavy automatic transmission, it still gets 30 mpg or so. Then again, I often can't accelerate worth a damn, but being able to just keep up with Twin Cities traffic is good enough.

Still, I think the people who are complaining about low mileage in their hybrids are probably not driving the cars properly (slamming on the brakes rather than allowing the regenerative systems do their magic, accelerating too rapidly, etc.) Also, even in the TDI world, it has been noted that some cars just don't get the mileage they're supposed to get. It might be something messed up in the engine or transmission, who knows.. Even after being popular for 100 years, cars are still a mystery to us all ;-)

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[frankie]

the best price/pollution ratio today is a small turbodiesel.

I love my Golf TDI. It averages 40-45mpg (seasonal) for commuting and 45-50mpg on interstate trips, actual verified mileage as opposed to the useless EPA estimates that this article talks about. But please don't kid yourself about pollution. TDIs still make more soot than gas engines, and it'll be years before low sulfur diesel is standard in the US.

I bought it for the mileage. My goal is to always have higher MPG than my age. IMO, suburban SUV owners (not park rangers, USGS, etc) are supporters of terrorism.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[York the Mysterious]

The soot is due to PM from the specific refining process. There are several areas with clean diesel right now (low sulfur and low PM), but it won't be standard nationwide until 2007. Until then a Turbo diesel produces a much higher level of secondary emissions (non-COX) than a standard gasoline vehicle as though vehicles must meet much more stringent standards.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but then you have to drive a "joke"wagon.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[AK Marc]

They have dealt with the visible soot, but they still emit particulate matter of a carcinogenic variety. The fuel contains more particles that can not be burned. They just tune the engine to break down the ones that are visible. There is no less soot coming out of a "clean" diesel than many with visible soot. Until you have a filter in the exhaust system you have to change every time you fill up, you are dumping the same amount of soot out there, just invisible.

Because of the high compression that they run at (and higher compression is good, as the higher the compression the higher the efficiency), they will produce more oxides of nitrogen. The only thing that can address that (with current technology) other than a few intake tricks (direct injection and some others) are post-combustion, mainy catalytic converters. This is the same with the gasoline engines that run at higher compression.

If ever the governemnt starts paying attention to particulate matter, diesels will be banned. In fact, they currently have different standards just for that very reason, because the standards for "clean air" would pretty much ban them outright, even with the clean-looking exhaust.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[GooberToo]

Some number of years back, the American car industry decided to start making more diesel cars. They were well accepted by the public; well, initial interest anyways. The oil companies got wind of this and started raising prices on diesel fuel. It pissed off the truck drivers bad but it didn't make the prices go down. The masses soon fell out of love with the idea of cheaper gas bills by means of diesel engines. Shortly after diesel cars sales went back down, the price for diesel fuel also went down.

Until our governments stops allowing companies to buy-off politicians in America, diesels are not going to be a popular option here in the states.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Anonymous Coward]

We are looking at purchasing a new car and are considering alternatives to a regular gas engine (hybrids, diesel, etc). We looked at the VW diesels but their reliability ratings are crap. Between that and the emissions problems, the increase in mileage wasn't worth it.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Misch]

The Federal tax deduction was $2000 before this year. It's not an outright credit of $2000. That probably amounted to about $600 reduced tax liability, depending on your professors income.

Unless things have changed, the current deduction is down to $1,500.

New York State offered a $2,000 tax credit on Hybrid cars, plus a refund of the sales tax on $3,000/incremental price of the car.

I did a calculation based on the price I paid, and the incremental cost of the Honda Civic Hybrid compared to a Honda Civic LX with side impact airbags was about $3,317 (That's also counting the dealer profit on the incremental cost). Subtracting $2,600, that means I'll end up paying $717 more for the Hybrid. Considering the price difference, and the cost of gas, I'll make up the difference in 6-8 years. (possibly less if prices increase.)

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[jafac]

It's not the Turbo that solves the soot problems. It's the Direct Injection method.

Re:Why I Didn't Buy a Hybrid Car

[Icculus]

Car & Driver had a big spread last month about the state of the art in Diesel engines. IIRC the low-sulphur Diesel fuel is coming in 2006. Hot on the heels of that will be some better particulate traps on the new Diesels that are supposed to address the problems you mentioned. I think the biggest problems was dealing with emptying said traps at regular intervals, but they were confident they could get to something like 60K miles before it was a problem.

I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[AdrianZ]

I never got below 50MPG, ever, and that was living in the thin air of Flagstaff, AZ, at over a mile in elevation. I got closer to 60MPG in the lower and warmer Phoenix, AZ.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Short Circuit]

Past tense? What happened to the car?

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

I drove from Kansas City, MO to Minneapolis in a Honda Civic Hybrid on 1 tank of gas and I still had 1/3 of a tank left when I got there. The tank is 12 Gal

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[bmongar]

i have a freind with an 02 insight. He gets near 60 lifetime(mix of city and highway every day) on his car. I think the the problem a lot of people are having is their driving style. They want to take off fast and speed to the next light. Agressive driving kills your mileage.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the highway speeds and acceleration that use the gas. The city speeds and sitting in traffic would be perfect for these cars.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

The car in the story is a Civic Hybrid. These use a standard Civic body. The insight is a much smaller car and made with lots of aluminum (very expensive). I'm sure an Insight body would get 50 MPG with a conventional engine.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[the Luddite]

Very good point! I have a 2001 Saturn SL-1 that gets 42 MPG (50/50 highway/city driving) because I drive in a conservative maner. According to Saturn I should getting quite a bit less. You have to consider the driving styles of all reports and remember that there are other factors like tire pressure and number of people in the vehicle to consider...

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[dattaway]

My mom gets 42mpg on her Prius. I always get *at least* 60mpg when I borrow it.

Many people have lead feet and use the air conditioner (which requires the engine to always run.)

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[dkh2]

The way you drive can be viewed as a sampling of your personality. If you drive like an ass hole, there's a serious possibility that you ARE an ass hole.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

I rented an Insight in 2001 when Enterprise(IIRC) ran out of standard compact cars.

I got it from Reagan national airport outside of Washington, DC. I drove it from DC to New Jersey, and the car said on its display 80MPG for most of the interstate driving.

I drove from DC to NJ and back on one full tank of gas in this car. I kid you not.

I'll admit, I'm a big coaster, rarely use my brakes unless necessary (which the car then gets power from), but I love when you pull up to a stoplight or sign and the engine just automatically shuts off.

Of course, this car can only hold two people and has a rather small hatchback space (no trunk).

But I would still buy one if I had the cash. They're like $12,000 for a '01 automatic, sticks are much less.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Honda Civic Hybrid, and I consistently get the mileage they advertised. The worst case is on an open freeway, and I get 46 mpg (might have somethind to do with driving 70-75 all the time). In town, I get around 53 mpg.

Mostly, it depends on how you drive the car. It doesn't work real well at high speed (the little engine is working full bore), but in town and with some slightly conservative driving you can easily get 53 or more.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[0111 1110]

That's why it's necessary to tailgate these slow-driving arseholes clogging up the roads. If we tailgate them within inches of their bumper, they will no longer feel so safe driving 20mph under the speed limit. If they get into an accident as a result of being tailgated they may even reconsider their selfish, antisocial behavior and pull over every time someone gets behind them. IMO, if you're going to drive that slow, just do everyone a favor and WALK. It's also better for the environment.

Re:I always got ~55mpg with my Honda Insight 2001

[dkh2]

I feel your rage. I am that guy in your rear view mirror. However, if they get into an accident while being tailgaited it's probably because they got rear-ended. It's pretty much universal that the person in the back of a rear-end situation is at fault. (there are exceptions)

Rear-end nerd boy in their hybrid while you're driving maliciously and you'll have somebody thinking about vehicular assault in addition to the 'assured clear distance' violation.

Granted, there are myriad situations where 20MPH below the posted limit is patently illegal but, you're still likely to have clear distance and reckless op. charges to deal with.

Now 20MPH below the prevailing speed is a completely different matter, especially if the prevailing speed is 20MPH above the posted limit. In that case you're likely to have no legal choice but to shut up and go around them safely.

*Foreign* Fuel reliance?

[Apostata]

...try *fossil* fuel reliance. No matter where it comes from, we can't run the world on it forever.

Re:*Foreign* Fuel reliance?

[maxbang]

Tell me about it. Not only is the world supply of trilobites depleting at a tremendous rate, but it costs a pretty penny to remove the little stone bastards from your fuel filter.

These hybrids

[LOL WTF OMG!!!!!!!!!]

Have quite a bit less power than their gas-only counterparts (like the hybrid Civic). I've seen people trying to drive these things like they're race cars, and that certainly isn't going to help.

MPG estimates are easy to reach when drive like a responsible person, and according to the cars manual. This is often a bit slower than you are comfortable with, hence the problem. It just happens to be that the rift between gas waste with the two driving styles is quite larger with the hybrid engine.

Drive nicely, you're mileage will be a lot better.

Re:These hybrids

[Azghoul]

You are exactly right. I own an 04 Prius (60/51 mpg listed) and I just drove 80 miles across central VA this weekend at 54 mpg.

Plenty slower than I would have driven in my Mustang, but they are DIFFERENT CARS.

You have to drive differently than you would a normal car. It's not the car's fault people aren't bright enough to figure out the obvious feedback loops...

Re:These hybrids

[Joe5678]

I remember an article, might even have been on Slashdot, a year or so back where a guy created a very accurate monitor of MPG. He found that accelerating slowly actual gave a worse MPG than accelerating quickly because engines are designed to be most fuel efficient at 55 mph or so. So if you accelerate with the same RPM's that your car goes 55 mph at, it's probably most efficient.

Of course this was not a hybrid car, so their designed peak efficiency could be way off.

I certainly don't think that this is what most people are thinking though when they floor it at a green light only to have to break hard at the stop sign a block away though. Maybe that would be a good "Ask Slashdot" "Why are people dumb?"

Re:These hybrids

[jfessler]

I traded my Pontiac Firebird ('87) for a Civic hybrid a year ago Feb. Mileage doubled (compared to the Firebird) immediately into the low 40s and climbed from there. Now, it's reliably 44-46. True, less than the hype, but still damned good. I also didn't change my driving habits all that much. The Civic doesn't handle like the Firebird (shock), but I still drive it pretty hard.

The only oddity re: the mileage is that figuring it manually is always 2-3 mpg lower than the read-out on the dashboard... probably due to variations in tank fill level.

Re:These hybrids

[rawdot]

MPG estimates are easy to reach when drive like a responsible person, and according to the cars manual.

Yup. I just tanked up our '03 HCH and the readout gave 49.2MPG. But for this tank we were concentrating on keeping the mileage up. More typical is 42.3ish. In either case, the number is higher than the actual MPG computed by measuring gallons and miles, which for a reported ~42 is more like an actual ~39. Our mechanic tells me all trip computers just make estimates based on engine load; none of them actually measure fuel flow.

And yet it still feels great every time I'm at a full stop and the engine is off.

Cheers,
Richard

Re:These hybrids

[jafac]

Well, I drive like an asshole, and I get great milage in my Jetta TDI.

Re:These hybrids

[tompaulco]

You probably want to accelerate at the RPM at which your engine puts out maximum torque. Then you want to cruise at the RPM where your engine generates maximum HP. Piston airplane engines run for hours at the same RPM because that RPM is where the most power can be gotten from the engine. I would think that the continuously variable transmission vehicles would make use of this sweet spot, but I never researched it.

Re:These hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

in my Jetta TDI

One question: Did you replace your old rainbow Apple sticker with the new white one, or did you put the white one on the other corner of the back window?

Re:These hybrids

[jafac]

I put my white Apple sticker on my Volvo 760, which I got rid of like 5 years ago.

There's a USMC sticker on the back of the Jetta. (Previous Owner)

What About Emissions?

[Levendis47]

I get 32MPG out of my 1.8T Jetta (5-speed stick) on the highway. But I've read all over the place that the zippy little turbo belches all kinds of nasties when fully engaged.

What I'd be more interested in is the air and environment impact of charging batteries vs. providing high torgue. Not to mention what one does with batteries that can no longer hold a charge. Land fills?

Let's not look at just the MPG's on this. Let's look at the over-all impact of the vehicle throughout it's lifespan. Even if it doesn't immediately effect your bottom-line... it could effect your quality of life in 25 years.

cheers,
Levendis47

Re:What About Emissions?

[nate1138]

Not to mention what one does with batteries that can no longer hold a charge. Land fills

Actually, that is rarely the case. Those batteries are full of recycleable materials. Kind of like when you exchange a car battery at Autozone or someplace like that. They don't toss it out, they send it off to be recycled.

Re:What About Emissions?

[mbbac]

My Jetta VR6 usually gets between 31 and 33 MPG on the highway.

Re:What About Emissions?

[Malc]

Have you thought of chipping the engine? More power and torque and possibly an improvement in fuel economy.

Re:What About Emissions?

[Levendis47]

Valid point! But again, what's the impact of the recycling process?

I'm not against hybrids at all. My wife and I are actually considering a Prius or Civic hybrid as a replacement for our aging Golf GLX (yes, I'm something of a VW nut).

I just think it's a classic case of misrepresentation when people don't look at the big picture.

There was an interview on NPR a few weeks back (I think with J.C.Watts, I just can't find it right now) that discussed the impact of hydrogen-powered vehicles in an energy market that isn't oriented towards a hydrogen infrastructure. In a nutsack: hydrogen-powered cars are hyper-efficient and nearly-zero-emission (except for H20), BUT would currently have a worse impact on the environment. Why? Because the coal and oil that would be burnt to power the grid to elecrolyze hydrogen gas out of water ends up having a greater polution impact than just burning gasoline. I'll try to find the link...

Again, I'm no fan of petrol/gasoline's impact on our natural environment (or our economic/political environment for that matter), but if we're going to move away from a petrol-based energy economy, bridging steps like hybrid cars are an excellent way to start.

off my soapbox,
into my cubicle,
sign,
Levendis47

Re:What About Emissions?

[nate1138]

I'm sure there is some impact from the recycling process, but I doubt it is comparable to stuffing it into a landfill.

Re:What About Emissions?

[Levendis47]

Touché...

Next time I'll put quotes around my facetious comments.

cheers,
Levendis47

Re:What About Emissions?

[nate1138]

If you're looking for a new ride and like VW's, check out the Jetta TDI or 1.8T. I have the 1.8T, and I get about 35MPG and it runs like an NBA player from his wife and kids. The TDI isn't as quick, but the mileage is even better.

Re:What About Emissions?

[Levendis47]

nate1138,

Don't know if you'll ever see this, but read my first post. I currently have a Jetta Wagon GLX 1.8T that I absolutely love. Get about 34MPG on the highway and 26-28MPG in the city. It's a great car...

A coworker of mine bought an Audi A4 wagon for about $12k more than what I paid for the Jetta not knowing that they're nearly identical cars...

If only VW would hope on the alternative-fuel/energy bandwagon instead of making SUV's now...

sigh,
l8r,
Levendis47

Re:What About Emissions?

[nate1138]

Oops, sorry, I didn't notice that you already own one. I guess I was preaching to the converted ;-).

That being said, I love my VW. I don't know that I will ever own another brand. I only wish that they would produce a small, fast, rear wheel drive car. I love my jetta, but I like RWD so much better.

Good

[avalys]

I'm glad. Maybe this will discourage more companies from jumping on the hybrid bandwagon, and spend their research money on hydrogen-powered cars instead.

Hybrids are only delaying the inevitable, and (according to this article) not by as much as we thought.

Re:Good

[ikeleib]

This hydrogen thing will solve all of our problems. It must be a silver bullet for air pollution. I just can't imagine why hydrogen couldn't fix everything. I mean, hydrogen burns with zero emissions, right? Hrmm. I wonder where hydrogen comes from...

The hydrogen economy is a farce promogulated by existing energy companies who stand to make lots of money providing hydrogen by burning more and more fossil fuels.

Re:Good

[Dastardly]

I'm glad. Maybe this will discourage more companies from jumping on the hybrid bandwagon, and spend their research money on hydrogen-powered cars instead.

Hydrogen only becomes viable when solar, nuclear, wind, and/or water provides sufficient energy to not only cover electrical conversion, but all the enrgy required to convert water to hydrogen for every vehicle. It is not even close to reality.

Fuel cells are interesting, but not with hydrogen at this point since the fuel cell efficiency advantage is lost due to the need to make hydrogen for it. Fossil fuel (methane or gasoline) fuel cells could be interesting as they may be able to get more useable energy than burning the fuel.

Re:Good

[Kombat]

The hydrogen economy is a farce promogulated by existing energy companies who stand to make lots of money providing hydrogen by burning more and more fossil fuels.

Hydrogen can just as easily be produce through renewable resources such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydro power, as well as nuclear. Hydrogen-powered vehicles are coming, make no mistake about it. It's not a question of "if", but rather "when."

Centralizing the generation of the fuel at a hydrogen-generating station (even if run by fossil fuels) is still far better for the environment than spreading a bunch of fuel-burners all over our highways, as is the situation we currently have.

Re:Good

[ikeleib]

Hydrogen can just as easily be produce through renewable resources such as wind, solar, tidal, and hydro power, as well as nuclear.

It is true that you can electrolyze water, but it's far cheaper to catalyze natural gas.

Centralizing the generation of the fuel at a hydrogen-generating station (even if run by fossil fuels) is still far better for the environment than spreading a bunch of fuel-burners all over our highways, as is the situation we currently have.

A centralized electrolyzer will operate at a lower efficiency than a conventional engine. The hydrogen then needs to transported to the hydrogen vehicle. This is much less efficient than just burning the fossil fuels in the vehicle.

Perhaps a solution to our problems involves driving less and using less energy.

Re:Good

[LittleDan]

You do realise that hydrogen cars will all be hybrids, right? Daniel Ehrenberg

Re:Good

[Kombat]

You make a couple good points regarding cost and efficiency, but you're missing the big picture: We'll (relatively) soon run out of fossil fuels, but we'll never run out of wind, sunlight, tides, and hydro power. It doesn't really matter that electrolyzing hydrogen is less efficient than catalyzing natural gas if there's no more dead dinosaurs left to catalyze.

Re:Good

[IceAgeComing]

Centralizing the generation of the fuel at a hydrogen-generating station (even if run by fossil fuels) is still far better for the environment than spreading a bunch of fuel-burners all over our highways, as is the situation we currently have.

The "central" issue is the centralization of energy. As long as it remains centralized, the big power companies of today are behind it 100% because they will maintain control. Control of energy results in serious political power.

Unfortunately, power companies have abused their political power through loopholes in the Clean Air Act. The creation of these loopholes was due to the political/economic might of the companies that the Act was designed to regulate. As a result, we have dangerous levels of air pollution affecting a huge percentage of the US population. Recent press releases from the American Lung Association and even the EPA confirm this.

A far better solution to energy production, which power companies have fought tooth and nail, is decentralized production through alternative energy, especially wind power. Wind power technology has come far enough in the past decade to provide energy at the same cost to consumers as coal-burning power companies provide.

It's time for cities and counties to re-examine their energy infrastructure. Not only can alternative sources provide energy at the same low cost, but they eliminate the power generation plants as juicy terrorist targets.

Re:Good

[Kombat]

The "central" issue is the centralization of energy. As long as it remains centralized, the big power companies of today are behind it 100% because they will maintain control. Control of energy results in serious political power.

Easy solution: make the energy industry publically-owned. And no, I don't mean "by shareholders," I mean, "by taxpayers." As in, "the government should control the production and distribution of energy." The government is responsible for building and maintaining highways, so why not the energy infrastructure, too? Then you remove the concern about a few private players controlling the majority of a society's energy reserve. Problem solved.

Re:Good

[ikeleib]

Then perhaps we should be pouring money into higher density energy storage such as flywheels.

Re:Good

[jgordon7]

Besides the fact that a hydrogen powered Fuel-Cell vehicle would be a hybrid vehicle. Hydrogen has really crapy energy denisty. Shit I think if you look it up water actually has a higher energy denisty than hydrogen!

Here is a cood compasion chart of fuels:
http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew -eng2.ht ml

Liquid Hydrogen only has an energy density of 2.36kWh/l versus gasoline of 8.76kWh/l. Note you are not going to store liquid hydrogen in a small car. Best you can do is compressed gas and the denisty for compressed H2 is about 0.75 kWh/l.

Which means if the fuel carry capacity is the same for H2 car as a gasoline car, the fuel effeciency of the H2 car has to be 10 times better than the gasoline car to get the same range per tank!

Hybrids are used because they can run the ICE at its most efficient range. ICE vehicles are most effiencient when running at a constant load at a specfic RPM that the engine was tuned for. These conditions normally are not possible to achieve when driving, however if the engine is disconnected from the drive train such as a hybrid they can be achieved.

P.S. regen. braking for the most part is just icing on the cake for hybrids and mostly a marketing plow. With current battery techs, the energy produced under braking can not efficiently be captured. Sure you get some energy back, but not much. Batteries do not like to be charge with LARGE spikes of power in short bursts.

I love stories...

[T3kno]

That bring a smile to my face first thing in the morning. I can't wait for my "HYBRID1" plates to arrive for my 63 Pontiac with a 400 and dual Edelbrock carbs :)

Re:I love stories...

[pploco]

Best laugh all day reading this. Thank you!

Re:I love stories...

[GuyinVA]

Nah, it'll only be a hybrid if you swaped out the points for HEI ignition. But then again, I'm not sure if the HEI distributors will fit on the pre-67 engines. At least it ain't a Chevy motor.

Re:I love stories...

[T3kno]

Funny you should ask, I tried to install an HEI ignition but it wouldn't fit because of the dual carb manifold. With a normal dual plane manifold the HEI fits fine. What I did get is a converter from Pertronix called the Ignitor II that basically converts your points distributor to an electronic ignition. It's a five minute job and it works great.

Re:I love stories...

[GuyinVA]

That's exactly the set up i installed on my 79 Grand Prix. I couldn't use HEI either with my Offenhouser 360* manifold.

Re:I love stories...

[241comp]

How do you like the Pertronix unit? I've heard some bad things about the Ignitor II failing but I am still considering using it in my '47 Ford Flathead project (triple carb progressive, high comp heads, etc). Have you had any failures? Any other problems?

Re:I love stories...

[T3kno]

The only problem that I've had is that it looked like one of the magnets was seperating from the disc before I put it in. I just pushed it back up into it's slot and it's worked great since then.

ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just contradicted yourself there buddy. If you are more efficient, it requires less fuel to produce the same amount of power, a function of time and energy. Less fuel can produce just as much or even MORE energy with better efficacy.

As they say in the ads...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your mileage may vary"

Car & Driver's tests averaged 42 MPG for the Prius and 48 MPG for the Insight, combined city and highway driving with a veried range of drivers. Since that's an average, some probably got over 50, while the leadfoots got less than 40.

It's all in the driver, baby.

oil companies

[maxbang]

They've got their grubby little paws all over this! Where the hell is my tin foil hat? Ah, yes, I made a bong out of it.

just for reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for reference, I have a non-hybrid Civic EX coupe (130hp, one of faster, but not the fastest model), 1999. Similarly to the guy they are profiling, I also lived in Cincinnati until recently and drove my car there in (nasty) suburban traffic for five years.

In that time, I consistently averaged 27-28mpg when doing 100% city driving on a tank of gas, 30-32mpg when doing mixed city and highway, and typically get 35-40mpg when doing mostly highway.

However, under ideal conditions (no air conditioning, windows up, but sunroof tilted, going between 55 and 70 mph), I have often gotten 48-53mpg on long trips. This was not an artifact of tank filling - I have gotten this many times. So while the Civic hybrid may not be a great deal, regular Civics are almost as good as hybrids (maybe just as good according to some of hte numbers in this article) and definately beat many other vehicles.

Re:just for reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a non-hybrid Civic EX coupe (130hp, one of faster, but not the fastest model)

Neon lights on the window washers and "R" stickers should fix that :)

Re:just for reference...

[Technician]

I have often gotten 48-53mpg on long trips.

Most people live in cities and suburbs, not country. The Toyota Prius is rated to get getter milage in town than on the highway. Less wind resistance. As long as I'm not dashing and stopping light to light, I've found it to be the case. Put me in a parade going just under 20 mph and I get fantastic milage.

On 55 MPH highways I get much better milage than on 70 MPH freeways. In town in varies a lot depending on if it's creep and slow (not often) or dash and stop which is bad for everyone.

Volkswagen Golf TDI

[jsimon12]

I am laughing, cause my TDI (Diesel) actually gets 40-50mpg, is thousands less then a hybrid and diesel is now way cheaper then gasoline.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[Malc]

Check out Environment Canada's numbers. The VW TDI's blow almost everything away with their efficiency. There is quite a difference between them and the Honda Insight, but their performance is much much better too. I've been thinking of selling my Passat (1.8L Turbo) and getting Golf or Jetta TDI mostly because of the economy, and then also because hauling around a huge car that's normally empty is just stupid.

I'm glad the Canadian goverment introduced legislation a couple of years back that will see cleaner diesel soon. Anybody know if the US will be seeing the same standards imposed? Also, anybody know if it will up to European standards? If so, then perhaps we will start seeing the really diesels they get but we can't have.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[Malc]

Minor correction: that link is to Natural Resources Canada, not the Environment department...

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[confused one]

Yes. The EPA just approved the plan that reduces the amount of sulpher, etc. in the fuel. It's also impossing tighter requirements for off-road diesel, trucks, and locomotives. All of these take effect gradually over the next few years.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[pclminion]

I am laughing, cause my TDI (Diesel) actually gets 40-50mpg

You can't directly compare diesel and gasoline mileages. A gallon of diesel contains 13% more energy than a gallon of gasoline. Therefore you mileage is equivalent to 35-44 gasoline miles per gallon. Don't gloat too much.

You really, really ought to measure fuel efficiency in miles per kilogram of CO2 emitted. Miles per gallon is very misleading because fuels can have widely varying energy contents.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[mbbac]

How much less than $20,810 was your Golf TDI?

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[doormat]

diesel is now way cheaper then gasoline.

Have you been to california lately? Diesel is just as expensive in california as premium unleaded gasoline is in california.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[Anonymous Coward]

And why can't you directly compare when we're talking about gallons, price and emissions? Just because there's more energy shouldn't make any difference to anyone but a chemist.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[pclminion]

Just because there's more energy shouldn't make any difference to anyone but a chemist.

The amount of energy is directly related to the CO2 emissions, hence the energy content is relevant to anyone concerned with reducing the CO2 coming out of their tailpipe.

Diesel and gasoline are basically the same -- mid-sized alkane molecules, basically chains of carbon surrounded by hydrogen. The amount of energy in each molecule is (essentially) proportional to how many carbons it has. The only difference is that diesel is a denser fuel and thus has more energy (and carbon) per gallon.

A gallon of diesel burned produces more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline burned. The mileages are still pretty good, but not quite as good as the naive "miles per gallon" comparison would lead you to believe.

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[maddskillz]

It's is a good thing we still pay by the litre, and not by the kilojoule of energy! Don't forget, it takes less crude to create that litre of diesel, compared to the litre of gas, so if you are looking at it from a natural resources aspect, it is far more efficient
Of course, if you measured by CO2 emittied, he has every right to gloat

Re:Volkswagen Golf TDI

[pclminion]

Don't forget, it takes less crude to create that litre of diesel, compared to the litre of gas, so if you are looking at it from a natural resources aspect, it is far more efficient

Right... I wasn't really trying to claim one fuel is definitely better than the other, just that the miles per gallon can't be directly compared.

I think it would make more sense to add a tax on how much CO2 is emitted by the fuel (including the CO2 generated when refining the fuel, and transporting it, etc., all the way to the end user). It would help encourage people to pick more environmentally friendly fuels instead of simply whatever is cheapest for them. Make it cheaper to be cleaner.

A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr. Evil]

The Honda Civic Hybrid is an example of a hybrid is set up with the following:

• A smaller than normally practical internal combustion engine
• A continuously variable transmission to drive the wheels forward
• Improved aerodynamics
• An Aluminum chasis
• Electric motors on each of the wheels to generate power while braking and to assist the IC drivetrain

Energy is lost in the conversion from gas to electricity, it's also lost in the storage in the batteries and the usage from the batteries to the wheels. You konw and I know that while normally this would all be lost in the braking, now it is stored and used to assist with acceleration.

The odd part is that while driving where you aren't using the brakes a lot, the transmission, weight improvements and aerodynamics will be the only improvements in your efficiency. The electrical assist means that your engine can be improbably weak, but I don't know if that necessarily translates to a more efficient engine.

Here's something which nicely describes why I'm skeptical about the true performance of hybrids:

1992 Civic line:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1992_Honda_ Civic.shtml

2004 Civic line (including hybrids)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2004_Honda_ Civic.shtml

I'm not sure why, but it looks like my 1992 1.5L Civic Hatchback is(was) more fuel efficient (city and highway) than the modern 2004 Civic Hybrid. I don't think U.S. government numbers are right, but they're close enough to try to make some kind of a point :-)

As an aside, I was looking into the hybrid transmissions and from what I could tell... I was wrong, the Honda Insight was manual-only, but the newer hybrids sometimes sell with the choice of an automatic or continuously variable transmission... oddly, the fancy transmission hurts highway fuel efficiency, but it helps in the city.

Note that comparing an aluminum hybrid to a galvanized steel compact, e.g. the Insight to a "regular" car, would not be an apples-to-apples comparison since if you were to remove all the weight from the electrical system (adding hydraulic brakes) and increase the engine size to match the lost horsepower, the new gas car would be more efficient than other gas cars on the road today, and might even be better on the highway than the hybrid. (Although it really should fail to beat the hybrid in the city)

A 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid to a 2004 Honda Civic would be a more reasonable comparison than my 1992 to a 2004... the 2004's have bigger engines and are less fuel efficient. I'd also expect the 2004 hybrid to have more horsepower than my 1992 car... so I'll admit, it's not a fair comparison...

But there may be less expensive, more fuel efficient non-hybrid vehicles on the market.

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

A 2004 Civic is like twice the size of the 1992 car, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Eivind]

The electrical assist means that your engine can be improbably weak, but I don't know if that necessarily translates to a more efficient engine.

It does. A fairly typical family-car has 120ps and a 1.6 litre engine. Even though, 90% of the time it uses only a fraction of that power, the power is "needed" because people expect acceleration and ability to climb short hills without loosing speed.

With an electric assist that can give an additional push, powered from batteries for short periods, a weaker engine can be used. And here's the thing: a weaker engine is more economical.

Under circumstances where you need 35ps (for example 100km/h on flat highway) a 50ps engine is going to consume less fuel than a engine capable of 120ps, but currently near-idling at 40ps.

This is so for various reasons, partly that it requires energy to pump all that air in and out, and partly that there's a lot more mass to move in a bigger motor, which tends to lead to more internal friction-losses.

On the flipside a hybrid will tend to be heavier, because it essentially has two engines (though smaller) and two energy-storages.

Still, hybrids *do* get more mileage than conventional autos with comparable performance. Just not as much extra as the EPA-estimates will have you believe.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Frymaster]

But there may be less expensive, more fuel efficient non-hybrid vehicles on the market.

i would suggest the "smart". it's a two seater, but it has a lot of things going for it:

• ~4/100k fuel efficiency. not sure what that is mpg, but it's excellent.
• $15k cdn price tag. that's half the cost of an austin mini
• it's made by mercedes. while that means nothing to me, i know there are people out there who care about such things.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[hawkfish]

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

Heh. I drove from Seattle to Spokane a few years ago in my 1991 Civic with a blown muffler and got 45MPG!

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot...

• not actually available, maybe next year

Oh well.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Ktulu_03]

I think I read somewhere that some of the new Chrystler Hemi engines are built to consume less fuel by turning off some of the cylinders, when they aren't needed. So just coasting along, only 4 of the 6 will be receiving fuel and firing, meaning there is some gas savings. It doesn't result in a huge savings, but it does save some gas.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[tbmaddux]

Electric motors on each of the wheels to generate power while braking and to assist the IC drivetrain

This is inaccurate. The Honda IMA motor is mounted directly onto the driveshaft of the engine in both the Insight and the Civic Hybrid. Toyota Prius' design is quite different. No mass-produced hybrid to date has wheel-mounted electric motors.

it looks like my 1992 1.5L Civic Hatchback is(was) more fuel efficient (city and highway) than the modern 2004 Civic Hybrid.

It is(was). Civic HB VX was the precursor to the CRX which was the precursor to the Insight. HB VX is the 6th most fuel efficient car ever sold in the U.S. while CRX/Coupe HF (its successor(s)) is #5. Prius and Civic Hybrid are tied at #10.

Comparing the old highly efficient Civics to the Insight is unfair, as you note. It's also unfair to compare with the Civic Hybrid, which is larger, heavier, and has more features (adding to the weight) and seats, and an automatic transmission. Instead, compare Civic Hybrid to its feature-comparable Civic cousin, the EX or the LX. You will see a 30%-40% difference in mpg.

Now, it turns out that even with gas prices around $2/gal, the price premium for Civic Hybrid over EX probably means it won't pay for itself in a long time, if ever. But you might want to consider the other costs of gasoline that you don't pay at the pump.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr Caleb]

Since Volkswagen lists it's 1.9l Diesel engine in the Golf at 47mpg, why aren't more Hybrid vehicles using Diesel engines?

A biodeisel powered hybrid would get outrageous economy and be the best overall for the environment. (although, diesel engines hate being stopped/started often...)

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[driverEight]

The odd part is that while driving where you aren't using the brakes a lot, the transmission, weight improvements and aerodynamics will be the only improvements in your efficiency.

Driving without braking a lot (usually) implies driving without accelerating a lot. I don't think weight should make much of a difference.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Octos]

I totally agree with you. I had a 1992 Civic VX, which used a VTEC engine tuned for fuel efficiency. I regularly got around 40mpg or better in the city and at least 50mpg highway. Most of the city miles were delivering pizza, so it was pretty harsh conditions versus the average commute most people do.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[HungWeiLo]

Probably because a car from 1992 would have significantly lower horsepower than a 2004 model.

I remember my 1987 Honda Accord had around 110 horsepower. It's now got what, 150? 160? just for the 4-cyl. model. Around 200+ hp for the V6 model, I heard.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[AKnightCowboy]

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

And probably a deathtrap if you get hit by an SUV. That's why my next vehicle will be a huge SUV. In my car I'm afraid I'll be killed in a collision with an SUV so I need a vehicle just as big or bigger to ensure I come out on top. Fark fuel efficiency, this is survival and safety.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[cheezit]

From the top of the pass down to the E. Washington flatlands you turned off your engine and coasted, right?

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

I've said it before and I will say it again. The insight and civic hybrids are lame hybrids and have very little to do with hybrids like the Prius. The Hondas are mild hybrids, they are a parallel design and used a intergrated flywheel/altanator/motor. Between the engine and transmission. It's a slapped on add in, that provides very little power. Honda's marketing is the one to blame. They shouldn't be hyping them as hybrids as they do. They are not a very good hybrid. Also newer cars often do worse then older models do to being bigger, having way more weight adding features, and way more steal in them so they pass crash test, a 10 year old car in a crash test today would do terrible, since the crash test get harder every year.

The prius and hybrid escape that is coming our powersplits. They have CVTs from the planetary gearset that is the heart of the hybrid. They work far better.

It should be notid that if you were only going to cruise down a highway, a hybrid would not be good for you. Since the energy transfers would cost you mileage, this varries on the design as well. Current hybrids are designed for city usage were they conserve power in stop and go driving.

Far as the Mileage numbers, the test is old 1977 last I knew was the model, it doesn't reflect newer driving at all. Look at the mileage listed for SUVs or trucks, anyone who owns one knows these numbers are low. SUVs get far better mileage then their attackers think (all the numbers you see on mileage charts are low for SUVs). On the flip side of things when you see very high mileage few cars actualy get that. Its because the driving cycle the test are done on doesn't match the current evolution of cars, the road infastructure, where and how we drive the most and on and on. The mileage comes out of a computer in the end. The arn't filling up the cars and driving them around and seeing how much fuel they used. It's all controlled in the non real world.

Also new cars have very tight emmissions regulations. If you want clean, it's going to cost you in fuel, you don't get both. This is why american cars historical haven't had as good of mileage, they were under stricter emmissions regulations. If your 13 year old car was forced to meet the regs a 2004 model does, it would be hurting.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ray-auch]

Depends where you are - plenty of them on the roads here in europe, and have been for some time (couple of years I think).

The US tends to lag behind on availability of efficient cars - probably becuase it makes more sense to lauch them where fuel costs are high.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[shiftless]

A little off topic I guess, but an aluminum chassis?? That's about the dumbest idea I've ever heard of. There's *reasons* why car makers overwhelmingly use steel for cars, and soft drink manufacturers use aluminum for drink cans, and nice vice versa.

Check out this comparison to get an idea why.

What it boils down to is this: which is more harmful the environment- throwaway crap like aluminum unibody cars with battery banks that must be disposed of, or traditional cars that put out slightly more pollution, have no batteries, and last longer?

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[John Courtland]

GM has been toying with this for a while, it's called Displacement on Demand. In the 60's they tried it using mechanical means, and it sucked. They released a 368cid (I think) Cadillac in the early 80's with a half assed computer controlled version called the 4-6-8. The module would be disabled at the dealership because it failed so often. The new Cadillac 16 seems to have done it right, although us common folk will probably never be able to drive a car like that. 16 Cylinders, something like 17 liters, 1000HP and 1000 ft/lbs of torque. What a beast.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[LurkerXXX]

A 1991 Civic weighs ~600 lbs less then a 2004 Civic coupe (the sedans are much heavier). That weight savings probably accounts for a bit of that difference in MPG...

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ray-auch]

I think that in the US market the typical diesel is still nasty high-sulphur stuff - fuel which the newer cleaner diesel engines used in Europe don't cope with very well.

So for the US market diesel has a bad reputation for pollutants - so probably simply won't appeal to people who would buy hybrid for environmental reasons.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[MyHair]

Still, hybrids *do* get more mileage than conventional autos with comparable performance. Just not as much . . .

Okay, but after reading the article and some of the comments I really am wondering if a lightly built small engine car like a Toyota Echo has any economical disadvantage to a hybrid. My brother's echo gets real MPG roughly equivalent to what people say the hybrids are getting. But don't you have to periodically replace the batteries on a hybrid?

And if you factor in the environmental aspect of battery manufacturing & reconditioning (of which I know nothing), is a hybrid really more environmentally friendly than a comparably powered fossil fuel only car?

I'm starting to have serious doubts.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[PineHall]

I own a 1992 Honda Civic VX and I get over 50 mpg (during summer and high 40's during winter). Why a 12 year old car gets better mpg than most all the cars in 2004 is a good question. And now I find out that the hybrids that EPA says beat my old car (for a least some people) in reality don't. I want to replace my car sometime, but I want to replace it with a car that gets better mpg but when will I be able to do it.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[op00to]

They did this in the 70s or 80s with a caddilac 8. Big failure. I am very skeptical of these sorts of systems...

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Jeremi]

And probably a deathtrap if you get hit by an SUV. That's why my next vehicle will be a huge SUV.

Your huge SUV will then encourage other people to buy huge SUVs as well, to be "safe" from you -- making you less safe again. At the end of the game, we will all be driving gigantic monstrosities that get 5 miles per gallon, and nobody will be any safer than before -- pedestrians, bicyclists, and everyone else not in an SUV will be much less safe.

And the real irony is, this whole arms race is based on a fallacy: SUVs are not safer than passenger cars.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

D'oh! Somebody posted nearly identical points before I posted the parent. -1 redundant for me.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Eivind]

Sure. A car with simple the same small-size engine that is in the typical hybrid, but without the extra weigth and complexity of the hybrid will be both a lot cheaper, and get a little more mileage than the hybrid.

It will however have a lot poorer performance.

The essential benefit of hybrids is that you can have a car that use (almost as) little fuel as a very weak car, while still having performance under acceleration and other short power-needs similar to a much stronger car.

The best you can hope for with a hybrid is a car that accelerates as if it'd got 120ps, but drinks fuel as if it's got only half that. (doesn't mean it'll drink half the fuel though !)

If you simply want to save money, or save the environment, or both, simply buy a small, ligthweigth and weak car. Not only will it drink little fuel, it'll also have required a lot less energy and raw-materials to produce it.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ElGuapoGolf]

Ah... the Echo...

A lot of people like to compare the Echo to current hybrids because of it's better than average (for an IC only car) milage.

But here's the rub. The Echo is small. Very small. The Civic isn't much bigger, but it is still bigger. And the Prius is nearly Camry sized.

There are very few places you can get 16cu feet of cargo capacity and still get 45mpg (according to the edmund's long term test of the prius).

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Honda Civic Hybrid is an example of a hybrid is set up with the following:

* A smaller than normally practical internal combustion engine

1.3 liters, 85 hp. No hot rod, that's for sure.

* A continuously variable transmission to drive the wheels forward
...not to mention backward. The CVT is available, as is a manual (5-speed) transmission.

* Improved aerodynamics

The body is essentially identical to the standard Civic, therefore not more aerodynamic.

* An Aluminum chasis

Nope. The chassis is the same as the standard Civic.


* Electric motors on each of the wheels to generate power while braking and to assist the IC
drivetrain

Not true. The electric motor/generator fits between the engine and transmission. The drivetrain is otherwise standard. Locomotives, and some very large quarry trucks, are the types of vehicles with wheel motors.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[nelsonal]

We also have quite a few more part requirements (cat converter, bumper tests) and the like, in other countries (that weren't trying to prop up a failing manufacturing company) exhaust systems specify that you should meet an emissions standard. In the US even if your car exhausted 1/10th the clean air standards you would still have to include parts that weren't necessary. As a result most foreign cars weigh considerably less than their US conterparts. The Smart as an example isn't legally importable without changes. I don't think things like the 206/306 or Clio are legal here without a redesign either. We let pretty much everyone drive at 16, where as in other contries it's more something to earn, so we load our cars with safety features, to compensate for poor driving skills.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ArsonSmith]

Quite afew things with your post are wrong I just want to striten out some of your facts. Over all your post was fairly good.

First, there is only one electric moter between the engine and the transmission. It is a brushless motor with the ability to switch between power assist and power charge on the fly. You are even given great little gages on the dash to show when each is happening.

The only time that you use gas to generate the electricity is if you are driving up long hills and run the batteries down. Driving from Phoenix AZ, to Pinetop, AZ is a 4 hour up hill drive. I have had my battery run down although it never goes dead. eventually the motor will be allowed to run at higher RPMs to make up for the loss in power from the lack of electric assist. Millage is dropped. Climbing mountains I get as bad as 35 MPG.

Ther eis no areo dynamic advantage on the hybrid civic. There is actually a small (not even noticable) aero dynamic disadvantage to a regular civic. The hood is just slightly higher to accomidate the engine design. the only uther diffrence is the Hybrid logo on the back rather than ?X logo.

The current Civic Hybrids either have a manual transmission or a CVT transmission. They don't offer a regular automatic at all.

the steet weight of the Civic Hybrid is 2669 while the teh street wight of the LX is 2652. The Hybrid is actually heavier than the highest weated version of the regular Civic.

yes I own a Hybrid Civic and only now that the summer heat here in phoenix has gone up to 100+ has my milage dropped to 37.4 MPG. before With control I could get 50 and avaraged 45. witch puts it almost right on its sticker claim of 47/48.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[peragrin]

EPA estimates are so screwed up as to be outdaed and nearly useless. Under realistic situations, where normal highway is 65mph EPA has you only going 55mph. Lowerng your MPG several places. The City doesn't get any better because it factors a stop light every mile or so, instead of every 1/4 mile.

I thought slashdot reviewed that the EPA was going to change it's rating systems but I could be wrong.

My normal to get max MPG out of your car go 55 mph on a highway run of about 100 miles, and then go back at normal speed. You will notice the difference in gas used.

I prefer taking the back roads to get to my mothers house as i can only travel at 60mph, it takes ~10 minutes longer but is 20 miles shorter and I can go there and back on tank of gas.(Gas guzzeling Liberty)

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "just" 13.6L total.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[cayenne8]

"it's made by mercedes. while that means nothing to me, i know there are people out there who care about such things."

Why would anyone care if a car came from Mercedes? I thought most people would WANT a nice car from them if they could afford one...??

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ducman]

I keep wondering why somebody doesn't replace the piston engine in one of these hybrids with a turbine engine.

A turbine is more fuel efficient, but has never worked well for automotive applications because it's slow to speed up and slow down. If instead of trying to drive the wheels, the turbine was used to generate power, it could run at a constant speed while the electric motors provided the acceleration.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ThatsLoseNotLoose]

without loosing speed.

That's LOSING not LOOSING!

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[athakur999]

There is a hybrid Honda Accord coming in the near future that will have this feature. The hybrid Accord will use the V6 engine and will be able to disable half of the cylinders.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ArsonSmith]

Of course you'll only be able to car pool comfortably with one other person. My civic can comfortably take 4 people and could even squiz 5 thus doubling its fuel efficincy compared to the smaller car.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Herbmaster]

A few corrections:
The Civic Hybrid, like the Insight, is available with either a Continuously Variable Transmission (see also Honda Civic HX and some other Japanese Hondas) OR a 5-speed manual transmission. The manuals get better fuel efficiency but worse emissions. The Toyota Prius is only available with a CVT because the CVT is the component which "hybridizes" the drivetrain.
The Civic Hybrid does not have an aluminum chassis. Only the Insight does. Weight and aereodynamics-wise, the Civic Hybrid is almost identical to a any other Civic sedan (plus some weight, mainly for the batteries).
All three of these hybrids use regenerative (electric) breaking, but do NOT have electric motors to drive the wheels independent of the drive train. They also have friction brakes which engage during hard braking.
The Civic Hybrid does, however, benefit from a very fuel efficient 1.3L engine. Most notably, it's able to de-power 3 of its 4 cylinders while cruising. It also uses 2 spark plugs per cylinder. The upcoming (2005) Honda Accord Hybrid will have the ability to fully deactivate some of its 6 cylinders.

Like most cars, the Honda Civic has moved up-market in the past 12 years. It's a bigger, more powerful, more expensive car than it used to be. Yes, the Civic Hybrid is meant to be comparable to a modern Civic. The result comes pretty close. It's only slightly slower and has slightly less trunk space.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[aonaran]

I think that if you compare all the manual transmissions against each other you will notice there is not a lot of difference but for the automatics in those cahrts the hybrid shows a big improvement, and reality is more and more cars over the last 20 years have been automatics.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr. Evil]

There's a lot of mish-mashed stuff in my post about various forms of hybrids, thanks for the corrections.

The Civic Hybrid doesn't strike me as a good example of the limits of what a Hybrid can do, but it is a good example of what a "no compromises" hybrid can do. I think the Civic hybrid also has a steel chassis. The different transmission types I pulled from the U.S. government site, and some reviews out on the web... nothing authoritative, they could have been demo models, short-lived production runs or something like that :-)

The Prius is a decent example of a "not quite a normal car" hybrid. I was surprised searching the web to find out that it had a manual transmission.

What's the horsepower on your Hybrid and the rest of the Civics? I couldn't find those numbers to try to match horsepower and fuel efficiency.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[JayBat]

I'm not sure why, but it looks like my 1992 1.5L Civic Hatchback is(was) more fuel efficient (city and highway) than the modern 2004 Civic Hybrid

Oh, you have a VX? Yes, those were/are great for gas milage. However I think you'll find 92 Civics weigh about 2000lb, while the 04 Civics weigh about 2600lb! Drop a 75-gallon drum full of water in the back seat, drive around for a couple weeks, and let us know how much the milage drops. :-)

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr. Evil]

Sorry. Noted: loose vowel.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr. Evil]

Does anyone have experience with a Smart in a snowstorm? Anyone live to tell the tale?

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ChrisMaple]

Your points are good. This would seem to argue in favor of a small turbocharged engine with sophisticated valve and spark timing, variable compression ratio, etc.. Total cost and weight should be less than a hybrid's, and the power gained by turbocharging would be equivalent to the hybrid's electric boost.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[ArsonSmith]

OK, I'll look it up...

Civic Hybrid
93hp total 80 gas 13 electric
48/47 MPG epa I average 45 without ac 37 with ac

regular Civic 4 door
98 for GX up to 114 for LX
across all models 29 low 38 high
don't know what a reall average would be

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[maddskillz]

I know the Smart is supposed to be in Canada later this year. I would have to assume it will be available in the US too, but can't say for sure. It will only be available in diesel, since it is too small to have the required venting needed for a gas tank.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Dr. Evil]

Civic Hybrid to its feature-comparable Civic cousin, the EX or the LX. You will see a 30%-40% difference in mpg.

I couldn't do the comparison because I didn't know what the horsepower of the two cars would be. I only get qualitative "good" statements, but if the Hybrid Civic has an effective engine with the horsepower of a 1.5L engine, then comparing it against the 1992 cars might be more appropriate.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[drinkypoo]

Batteries are basically not reconditionable any more. I don't know much about recycling them but NiMH and Li-Ion should both be pretty damn dirty batteries. I think they're using NiCd in most of these cars, and cadmium is quite nasty as well.

I think it's safe to say that the TDI volkswagen is considerably more environmentally friendly than the gas hybrids, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the same is true of the CRX HF (no longer sold), the echo, and other gutless, too-small super-econoboxes. The hybrid civic is a good way to get what is by modern standards a reasonably-sized vehicle (Americans are getting taller, yet Hondas are only getting more popular, I don't understand this shit) which still has good mileage.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 1995 Civic coupe with 129,000 miles and it also gets around 40 miles per gallon on the highway - probably even more if I didn't go as fast as I usually do. That's way above the numbers I've recently seen on pretty much any new car at a dealership. So there must a lot of fuel efficiency that can be achieved even without hybrid technology. I'm not even beginning to talk about SUVs here, just mid-size.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[dabraun]

The Insight is the only Aluminum Hybrid. The Prius and Civic Hybrid are steel. In fact the Civic Hybrid has the same body as the normal Civic.

I have a 2003 Civic Hybrid and it averages 44mpg. It has an automatic (CVT) transmission and I do not play games to improve fuel effeciency - the numbers I am seeing, while somewhat lower than advertized, should be pretty much consistent with what most 'normal' drivers would get.

A few more corrections (read: actual facts):

- The Insight is available with either a manual transmission or a CVT Automatic.
- The Civic is available with either a manual transmission or a CVT Automatic.
- The Prius is only available with a CVT automatic.

None of these cars are available with 'normal' automatic transmissions (i.e. a set number of ratios)

For the Insight and the Civic the city milage is better with CVT and the highway milage is worse - the average is about the same or marginally lower for the CVT. Regardless the highway milage is always better than the city milage for these two cars.

For the Prius the City milage is significantly better than the Highway milage. This is the only car I know of that has the numbers reversed like this. Unfortunatly people have documented experiences indicating that if you only drive the Prius for short trips ( 10 mins or so) that the milage will not be nearly as good - and people who drive mostly in the city are pretty likely to be driving short trips.

The Prius is also significaly more complicated than the Honda cars are - the gas engine and the electric engine can be disconnected from one another. This is why it is the only one of these three cars that can drive (at low speeds) on the electric motor alone. All of the cars can drive on the gas engine alone if something goes wrong with the electric motor.

David

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[hambonewilkins]

My dad always referred to this model as the 4-6-8-0 because eventually that's how many cylinders would work.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[TheReal_BarkMan]

I have no statistics to back this up...
The 2004 Civic is nearly the same size or bigger than a 1992 Accord.
Vehicle weight has a lot to do with fuel efficiency.
I had a CRX that rocked wrt MPG.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Rob Parkhill]

I could do that on my 1976 Honda Civic. Pop the hood, and start pulling spark plug wires off. It would continue to run on a single cylinder, although it didn't have much power.

I'm sure they've smoothed out a few of the problems with my technique, though.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[RESPAWN]

A fairly typical family-car has 120ps and a 1.6 litre engine.

Although it becomes plainly obvious from the rest of your post, I was about to ask you what country you were from -- implying that you're not from the US. I would think that over here a fairly typical family car probably makes 40 - 60 HP more and with an engine at least 1.0 litres greater. For comparison, my 1995 Oldsmobile has a 3.1 litre engine and makes about 160hp, and that is a very typical family car around here. (W-body GM car, so Grand Prix, Lumina, Impala, Monte Carlo, and Regal are/were all built on the same platform with 3.1 engine being the base engine for the W-Body, and all are very common cars near me.)

I just thought it was funny at first when I thought you were talking about American cars.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

A turbine is more fuel efficient, but has never worked well for automotive applications because it's slow to speed up and slow down.

There is also the small matter of a 1200C exhaust.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[RESPAWN]

As an aside, I was looking into the hybrid transmissions and from what I could tell... I was wrong, the Honda Insight was manual-only, but the newer hybrids sometimes sell with the choice of an automatic or continuously variable transmission... oddly, the fancy transmission hurts highway fuel efficiency, but it helps in the city.

I believe that the CVT is less economical on the freeway due to a higher final gear ratio. This basically means that when crusing on a highway, to maintain the same road speed as the other transmissions the engine actually has to spin at a higher engine speed to keep up, thereby hurting highway efficiency some. But the CVT helps immensely in the city since the transmission is, theoretically anyway, always able to choose the optimum gear ratio to maximize fuel efficiency at any road speed.

Of course I may be completely wrong about the freeway consumption as I havne't actually taken the time to look up the final gear ratio for each transmission offered.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

This would seem to argue in favor of a small turbocharged engine with sophisticated valve and spark timing, variable compression ratio, etc..

Good idea - may I suggest a Jetta TDi or a WRX?

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Eivind]

I'm aware that Americans typically like to have even more wastefully powerful cars than do most Europeans, not only bigger, but also more ps-pro-ton than we tend to have over here.

It sure as hell ain't because you need the power though, because it's fairly easy to argue that both the two European countries I have close ties to "need" more power than do the average American.

Germany because there's literally no speed-limit on the autobahn and cruising at 180km/h is considered perfecly normal by many. Norway because it's got more mountains, and thus more up-and-down and windy-roads than just about anywhere. (75% of the country or so is at 1000m or more)

To people buying 3 ton SUVs with 250hp engines in order to transport 1.17 (average ridership in US cars according to C.I.A) persons at a speed of 40 mph to the shop/work and back, there's fairly obvious things that can be done to save fuel without needing to go to extremes like hybrids.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[RESPAWN]

The problem seems to be that driving a smaller, more fuel efficient car seems to be against the American way. I think a lot of it has to do with the fals sense of security that's gained from driving a larger vehicle. Nevertheless, it almost seems that we Americans have it ingrained in us at an early age that it is our right to drive a large vehicle.

As for the power issue, it's never about how much power we need, but it's about how much power we want. Simply put, it's nice to have that extra power, even if we'll never need it.

That said, I'm actually going to go sign a contract on a 2003 Civic tomorrow. I need a new car, and unlike a lot of people, I see nothing wrong with buying a smaller, more fuel efficient car for my daily driver. It will get me from point A to point B and has the plus of being easier to merge on the freeway, handling better due to it's lower weight (and a stiffer suspension than my Oldsmobile), and it's much easier to park when I go downtown. It may not have a ton of power, but I'll own one of those as a non-daily driver soon enough.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[soward]

Comparisons of the 2004 to the 1992 civic won't add up. the 2004 civic is approximately the size/weight of a 1992 accord. One must also factor in changes to the pollutant output of the respective engines. As we all saw in the 70s with the first generation of 'smog' control, cleaner burning engines extract some toll, be it performance, power, weight, complexity, cost, etc. Modern computer controlled and monitored engines have mostly erased such losses, but some still persist and current movments to LEV, ULEV and friends have been significant.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[nelsonal]

Rover made a few (mostly for racing) 50s or 60s. Chrysler and Opel also participated in the market (Opel in 1928!). From this site, it was the cost of manufacture tha killed the idea, power to weight was much better than even a rotary. 300+ HP out of a 130 lb engine is great $40,000 is not so great, but it would make a sweet exotic.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[jelle]

# ~4/100k fuel efficiency. not sure what that is mpg, but it's excellent.

Just ask google. Yes google can do conversions too, even Silly ones

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[theycallmeB]

Automotive / highway truck grade diesel has been low-sulphur for a long time. The high-sulphur fuel was used for heavy construction and logging equipment, mostly by operators of older equipment or who weren't smart enough to know that crappy fuel = higher maintainence costs. Recently, I think regulations were put in place banning high-sulphur diesel for use in land-based equipment/facilities.

The fuel used for large ships still has more in common with sludge / motor oil than what you get at the pump.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Quikah]

The roadster looks OK, the other one though, good god, who would want to drive that thing?

Doesn't matter to me though, they only plan to release a SUV version in the US in 2 years, none of the other models. Pretty useless for me. I would actually like to test drive the roadster, oh well.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[john1701a]

> The Prius is also significaly more complicated than the Honda cars are

Actually, it is LESS complicated.

Unfamiliar does not more more complicated, though that is what you are claiming.

Just study the engineering. The PSD (Power-Split Device) like a differential... elegantly simple. That's it! There aren't any other parts and nothing ever shift, the carriers are all permanently engaged. You can't get any more simple than that!

All of the cars can drive on the gas engine alone if something goes wrong with the electric motor.

Electric motors have a dramatically higher reliability rate than gasoline engines.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[OlivierB]

The only thing wrong with your assumption is that you think efficiency is constant accross the rpm range.
That is not true. Friction and thus losses increase exponentially with RPM. Thus a smaller engine whirling at 80% of max power will probably consume more than a bigger motor turning at very low rpm.

Just ask yourself why they put huge cubic displacement engines in Cruise Boats? The engines are aboslutely massive but turn extremely low (ie 300/400 rpm). They key is that they have more efficiency than smaller engines. Ie for each gallon of gas used they produce more mechanical energy and less termic dissapation.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Eivind]

Sorry. Fine in theory, false in practice.

If you want to produce a given amount of power constantly, with no need for sudden peaks 5 times as high as the average energy-need, then the efficient motor is *not* going to be a huge heavy-diesels 300rpm motor.

It's going to be a small turbine-motor whirling at maybe 12-15000 rpm, and running at something like 80% of it's max capacity.

This is even *more* true in applications where size and weigth of the motor plays a role, such as in a car. You are rigth that ships-engines are typically large, slow and heavy. There are other reasons for that though;

• Gearboxes for so much power are extremely expensive, and need much maintenance. Lower rpm lets you run a much simpler gearbox.
• It also decreases needed maintenance. Ship-engines often run continously for literally *years*, major service is very expensive, because you need to stop the entire ship, atleast if you ain't got two motors on the ship. (which I think should be required by law on large ships, but which isn't, because two engines cost more than one...)
• It makes it easier to burn heavier oils, which can be had for cheap. This is also a bad idea really, the typical ship-engine produces *much* more pollution pro Kwh than even a normal car-engine.
• On a large, loaded ship, the engine is a tiny fraction of the total weigth, doubling the weigth of the engine to make it 10% sturdier is almost certainly a plus. In a car that would not at all be true.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's clarify:

• The smart has going to be in Canada "later this year" for three years now.
• Mercedes isn't even going to try to get it approved in the USA, because it won't pass standards there. You also won't be allowed to import them from Canada to the USA, if they ever actually materialize (from the Mercedes web site)

In short, the Smart for Canada is a car that not only runs on vapor, it is vapor.

Re:A message I posted to a friend a while back...

[OlivierB]

I do understand where you are coming from and all this makes perfect sense.

However according to this article (http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/) larger engine s ARE more efficient than typical car engines. They state the thermal efficiency of this very large engine is in the 50% zone as cars are in the 25%/30% range. Have a read. It is very interesting.

Where I totally agree aith you is that when frequent changes in rpm and output are needed, smaller engines should be more efficient as there is less energy lost in the acceleration of deceleration of moving parts. As we both kow cinetic energy is important and when you have to get huge pistons to start moving faster it can take a lot of energy. Never mind getting the whole system (Ie engine + frame) moving. A very heavy mass to move (ie large engine) does eat up a lot of energy).

The only thing different in this hybrid car with traditional car is that the petrol engine has no mechanical connection with the wheels. Thus the engine can actually be whirling at a constant speed to produce the energy as the electric engines propulse the car. Point here is that my logical reasoning makes me believe that a diesel engine might have been better for this kind of job.

However I will not question the savoir faire of the Toyota engineers and they probably found the best weight/efficiency comprmomise.
Left in doubt however is why they used a petrol engine rather than their 1.4 turbo diesel (aka D4D) in house engine as used in the Yaris. It produces 70bhp which is quite good and is ultra efficient. But marketing has its reasons and as Diesel isn't popular in the US and Japan they went for petrol

Yes, this is very true.

[jshindl]

I have a Hybrid (Toyota Prius, 2004) & this is very true. I get 45mpg, when EPA says I should get 52/60. Still great gas mileage, though

Re:Yes, this is very true.

[frdmfghtr]

Try adding air to the tires.

No, seriously. If you read the Toyota Prius owner's group on Yahoo, you find that Toyota set tire pressures too low (at least for the 01-03 MY) to provide a softer ride. I think 35/33 is what the factory recommends for me, but I run 45/43 (tires rated at 50 max) and get better tire wear and better mileage.

Investigating this further may be of benefit. I get over 50MPG in my 03, and the 04 is supposed to be more efficient.

Re:Yes, this is very true.

[jshindl]

Well, currently my Prius is in the shop (it was stolen and driven into a mailbox/fence/ditch). So, I'll try that after I get it back :)
Jason

Not what I wanted to see this morning...

[datastalker]

...as I am seriously considering buying an Insight. With gas having gone up 5 cents overnight!, I'm looking for an efficient replacement for my old Camry. Of course, the Insight will still be that, but apparently not to the degree I was hoping.

Re:Not what I wanted to see this morning...

[jamonterrell]

Buy a motorcycle and stop lugging around 2000 pounds of extra metal you don't need :-P

Re:Not what I wanted to see this morning...

[datastalker]

Thanks, but I like living. ;)

Re:Not what I wanted to see this morning...

[jamonterrell]

oh come on, it's a small price to pay! :P

Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[thesolo]

It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance.

If these results are accurate, then this is true, and it's quite sad. What I don't understand is why we aren't promoting Diesel engines more often.

For example, a VW Jetta TDI gets 50+ MPG on the highway. Unlike the Prius or the Civic Hybrid, diesel engines are cheap, highly reliable, have low maintenance costs, and can easily run on BioDiesel without a performance loss. Even with BioDiesel and Petroleum blends, you're still talking very little pollution in comparison to a similar unleaded gasoline engine. A full tank on a TDI will get you almost 800 miles before you need a refill.

So why as a society (I'm referring to the US here, the EU is very much ahead of us with biodiesel) don't we promote this more often? Let's reduce our foreign oil dependence, and not have a need to drill ANWR. Use Diesel & Biodiesel!

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[ender_wiggins]

Bio is also over 3$ a gallon. Thats over 43$ a tank of gas!

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Viol8]

The problem with car diesel engines (speaking as a brit who's driven a few) is that yes they have good mpg but they also generally have lousy performance compared to a petrol engine of the same capacity. Also diesel exhuast despite filters and catalyst its still pretty noxious and even new diesel cars can be seen disappearing off in a cloud of black smoke if revved hard. Plus they sound awful on idle. Obviously these points don't bother many people in europe since diesel cars are big here but they're not the perfect transport solution.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[bwalling]

So why as a society (I'm referring to the US here, the EU is very much ahead of us with biodiesel) don't we promote this more often? Let's reduce our foreign oil dependence, and not have a need to drill ANWR. Use Diesel & Biodiesel!

In what volume can BioDiesel be produced, and what is the cost in doing so? We use a significant amount of oil. My understanding of BioDiesel did not lead me to believe that it could produced in the same quantities that we currently consume oil, and at reasonably comparable prices.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[otis wildflower]

Bio is also over 3$ a gallon. Thats over 43$ a tank of gas!

Err, gas in the US is gettin there (and in Hawaii it's already there)...

Considering we should be slapping a Gulf War tax on every gallon of gasoline sold, perhaps homegrown fuel would be less of a 'sacrifice'..

(frankly we should put a war tax on gasoline and subsidize biofuels, removing agricultural subsidies that are alleviated by increased pricing due to legitimate demand and giving 3rd world agribiz better access to our markets... but that's another rant..)

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, Diesel pollution is worse than Otto cycle one.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Azghoul]

But if I can get double the mileage out of a diesel then it's effectively two tanks in your car. Given the gas prices currently, 2 tanks on any sedan will likely be more than $43.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[blakestah]

In what volume can BioDiesel be produced, and what is the cost in doing so?

Right now my friends go to the recycled veggie oil pickup, grab a bunch of 55 gallon drums for free, filter them, and use them to drive up and down the coast while stinking up the air behind the bus with the fumes of french fries. And I think there is no shortage of vegetable oil used for frying in fast food joints.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Llywelyn]

That is severely offset by the rate of consumption.

Assuming diesel is 50% more expensive, then If your non-diesel gets 30 mpg and your diesel gets 45 you break-even to use diesel. Some of the numbers on these diesel cars are up in the 60's.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[York the Mysterious]

The EU has jumped on the diesel car bandwagon mostly because of their cleaner diesel blends that allow emissions technologies to function correctly. The US has a much dirtier blend of diesel (until 2007 when the blend has to get cleaner) according to the DOE's documents. Right now the major car companies are afraid of bringing in diesel cars since they won't be able to meet the emissions requirements for the required 100,000 miles. Ford was looking at bringing the Focus diesel in and they're really afraid that if it can't meet the requirements for 100,000 they'll have to pay to fix all of them.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[pclminion]

What I don't understand is why we aren't promoting Diesel engines more often.

The thing is, you can't directly compare diesel vs. gasoline mileages. A gallon of diesel simply contains more energy than a gallon of gas. This causes the diesel mileages to look more impressive than they really are.

You really should compare them in terms of miles per kilogram of CO2 emitted (sorry for mixing units there).

can easily run on BioDiesel without a performance loss.

This really is the best argument for diesel. Biodiesel is part of the surface carbon cycle and thus doesn't contribute any net CO2 emissions at all. Completely guilt-free fuel, however it can be hard to obtain.

Diesel engines also provide more torque but have less accelerating ability. This doesn't matter to me but makes a difference to some people.

Diesel also produces more non-CO2 emissions when it burns. However I personally feel that this is acceptable if we get lower CO2 emissions in exchange. Basically, CO2 is the only thing that matters globally in the long term. The other pollutants wash out of the atmosphere fairly quickly.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[mhifoe]

A good turbo-diesel has equivalent performance to a petrol car of the same capacity.

New diesels with electronic engine management limit fueling based on manifold air pressure, resulting in no smoke (unless it is faulty).

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[shiftless]

You can also run diesel engines on vegetable oil.. i.e. the stuff they throw away at McDonalds. Requires frequent fuel filter changes, but they are not expensive.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Mike Hicks]

Heh, well, this isn't entirely comparing apples to apples, but: 91 octane premium full-service at $3.11 per gallon in California

After that picture was taken, the price went up to $3.13.

I'm pretty sure that biodiesel can be produced for less than that. Production just hasn't been scaled up enough yet. In the U.S., biodiesel is only produced at a fraction of the rate of bio-ethanol.

Also, don't forget that when you compare fossil fuels to biofuels, part of the biofuel cost comes from fermenting/converting the source material into fuel. Crude oil has already gone through that process, and only refining needs to be done.

For what it's worth, I'd be happy to pay more for fuel if I knew it was coming from a closed-cycle system (the carbon produced by burning biofuels was originally absorbed by not-long-dead plant life). One issue is that we appear to be just using too much energy. If all of the cropland in the U.S. was used to produce ethanol, we'd still fall short in fueling all of our vehicles.

We simply need to become more efficient in energy usage.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Mike Hicks]

Hmm. Maybe I've become brainwashed, but I think some of your experiences may be a bit outdated. Most of the newer diesels I've seen have turbochargers to compensate for some of the performance issues. I know that there are a lot of gas/petrol cars out there that sound a heck of a lot worse than many diesels. I guess I haven't seen any black smoke coming out of TDI cars, but I guess they weren't accelerating hard at the time. I know that Biodiesel reduces most of the nasties coming out of the tailpipe, but I know there's a category or two where things are still bad (or maybe worse, I forget).

Of course, biodiesel isn't available everywhere. Even the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels aren't easy to find in the U.S.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, diesel generally has very high rates of sulfur in it (ie approx 3400 parts per million). This sulfur breaks down low emissions devices like catalytic converters which make the car put out more suit and things like that which are health risks.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Aetrix]

Let's reduce our foreign oil dependence, and not have a need to drill ANWR. Use Diesel & Biodiesel!

As much as I LOVE the idea of reducing foreign oil dependence, I am more concerned with increasing our spent-cooking-oil dependence. I can just see the cooperative McDonald$ and Texico commercials, "We're deep-frying all of our foods to help save the environment. McDonalds and Texico have partnered to make a cleaner environment by KILLING OFF ALL OF THE FAT AMERICAN FUCKS!"

The point is that Biodiesel is a great thing for a small group of people. Once we actually meet the used-fry-oil supply with our fuel demands (which should happen rather quickly, from where I see it) we're going to become dependent upon something else.

The best remedy to our foreign oil dependence is reducing our dependence on any fuel source, not shifting our dependence from a foreign source to a domestic one. Instead of Biodiesel - why not ride the bus? Bicycle? Walk?

BTW: I was going to buy a Civic Hybrid - I think I'll go back to looking at the plain-old Civic.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[mrtom852]

Diesel performance can be very competitive to unleaded these days. Plus, a lot of extra power also seems to be hidden by the ECU. Most modern EU diesels can easily have their ECUs re-mapped to produce an amazing amount of power and can sometimes become _more_ fuel efficient. I've heard of someone doing a constant 100mph and still getting 55mpg.

That said, I totally agree with the black smoke. Part of the road I drive on daily is like a drag strip and these modern performance diesels (BMW/Merc/Audi) chuck out loads of rubbish and it's not nice being behind one. This is why I stick to my 16v 1.2 (remapped) which is a lot of fun for 45mpg.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[jafac]

I wouldn't call a $65 fuel filter (see thepartsbin.com) "low maintenance costs".

A casual check of TDIClub.com will show you that these engines are not without their problems. Not diesels in general, just the VW. From MAF unreliability, to timing belt longevity issues, to intake clogging (WTF exactly is the air filter for, anyway?).

Don't get me wrong - I love my TDI Jetta, but it's not by far a miracle car. I'm looking forward to the Honda diesel being sold in America. But with all the hubub from the oil companies about low sulfur diesel fuel, I'm wondering if there's any future for diesel cars in the US.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[jermane6]

As I said in an earlier post, diesel engines do poorly in cold whether. You will be sitting there warming up your diesel engine long after the gas or hybrid crowd have driven away. In below zero cold you might be looing for a ride.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Viol8]

Thats hardly a fair comparison. Put a turbo on that petrol car THEN compare them.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[mosschops]

Thats hardly a fair comparison. Put a turbo on that petrol car THEN compare them.

Sure, but only if you still include the MPG figures in the comparison.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Anonymous Coward]

what about the golf gt tdi 150 bhp 0-60 in 8.6 secs 130mph but 50+mpg on the motorway. same torque as a porsche boxster. how much quicker do you need it ?.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Jhon]

Are there any statistics on maintenance costs on hybrids?

Currently, I drive an '88 Toyota pick-up (a 4-banger). It's got over 120k miles, averages about 30 mpg (28-31 -- varies with gas grade and what I'm doing). I have next to no maintenance expenses other than oil changes, filter changes, two clutches, and a starter (installed it myself) over the life of the vehicle. I will be needing to change hoses soon, and belts and a few other things which will probably result in the largest single expense for my truck over the last 14 years. I still can't see replacing it yet. ANYTHING would cost me more per month.

For me, the bottom line is total operation cost. I've got a wife and two children. Every penny saved benefits my family. (I shy away from 'luxury' items -- particularly cars).

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[frdmfghtr]

Note the "full service" in that quote. Most places I've seen charge a hefty premium for full service (except NJ where full-service seems to be mandated by law).

Not that I wouldn't be surprised by CA gas prices getting that high, and like you said, it's not entirely an apples to apples comparison.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Azghoul]

I haven't seen any statistics, but I can tell you I haven't had any in the 5000 miles we put on it. :-D

It was funny, Toyota sales guy told us to expect very little maintenance because there are so few moving parts... then the witch in finance tried to sell us on all kinds of extra maintenance packages (the old trick to jack up the cost).

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Jhon]

Hmmm... I've found a couple of things on the net that suggest that a hybrid just isn't cost effective right now. Like this. Maybe down the road...

I guess I'll drive my truck until it falls apart...

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Azghoul]

An interesting article. I'll tell you though, I wasn't looking for the cheapest car around, so the extra few thousand was not a huge issue for me.

Two reasons we got the car. First, it's cool tech. :) That's worth extra just in itself.

The main reason we got it was time. The good ol' HOV lanes south of DC let 3-person carpools, motorcycles, and alternative fuel cars get up into DC without having to deal with rush hour traffic.

We commute (or I did, before I moved offices. My wife still does) 18 miles from Springfield to Arlington. That trip takes 45 mins to an hour in the regular lanes. On HOV, it's 20 minutes (most of the way the speed limit is 65).

So, we end up saving at least an hour a day on average in commuting time to and from. Factor in our salaries (if our free time was measured with the same amounts) and we pay for the car payments easily every month.

It'll be a bummer when they change the rules, but we'll cross that bridge when it comes to it.

Re:Why aren't we promoting Diesel / Biodiesel?

[Jhon]

Ah yes... the commute to work.

I don't fully consider myself LUCKY as it was in part by design, but I realize I'm in the minority. I live about a 20 min walk from work. About a 5 minute drive.

Particularly in my city/state, (LA/CA) this is the exception rather than the rule. MANY people work 60+miles away from their job. Just so they can afford a nice new house (they get cheaper further out from the typical work-centers). We also have 'diamond lane' laws that allow single occupant drivers to use commuter lanes on the freeway.

I can see that as a bonus. And tech *IS* cool... I just dont feel that way about transportation... As much as my wife dislikes my truck (it's OLD! Get a new one!), I can't justify the expense even though I can afford it. Then again, I just spent $450+ on a new palm zire 72 and accessories (hard case, memory cards). While I could have LIVED with a much more modest model, I was willing to pay 2x or 3x for some geek features.

Too each his own...

Never fully understood these milage claims

[sphealey]

My 1986 Honda Civic CRX (a 2 seater, but essentially the same size as the Prius) with mechanical carb and 5-speed manual got 40-45 mpg in fast/heavy city driving. It always seemed to me that with computer-controlled fuel injection and a 6-speed it should have hit 50 easily. Plus I could toast 98% of the cars on the road at that time at the stoplight (Corvettes included - at least for the first 100 yards!).

So now come the hybrids with tons of technology, multi-speed automatics or CVTs, etc etc etc. Yet they barely do better than my 1985 CRX.

Odd.

sPh

Re:Never fully understood these milage claims

[Dr. Zowie]

The Prius weighs nearly twice as much as the CRX, and is considerably quieter. It's essentially a compact luxury car -- Toyota optimized for better mileage in a full-featured car, rather than amazing mileage in a small, lightweight car (that would be the Honda Insight).

Re:Never fully understood these milage claims

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother had that same car, and he always thought the same thing as you ("...I could toast 98% of the cars on the road at that time at the stoplight..."), until I pointed out to him that no one actually punched it when facing his car, because it was just a joke.

Re:Never fully understood these milage claims

[sphealey]

until I pointed out to him that no one actually punched it when facing his car, because it was just a joke.

I hear what you are saying, but back in the 1986-1987-1988 time period I could trigger off a stoplight contest without much problem. Edge up a few times and watch the other guy's head; when he turned his head just enough to look at you out the corner of his eyes you knew he was hooked.

Then he would proceed to "teach you a lesson", which usually didn't go quite as he expected!

I agree today no one would even look at the CRX, but there weren't many truely fast cars on the road in those days.

sPh

hybrids??? gimme EVs

[savuporo]

Give me Tango or Tzero over any hydrogen creation anytime. Simpler, saner, better performer.
Check out Michelins Challenge Bibendum results, EVs routinely kick those hybrids asses in every relevant category.

Re:hybrids??? gimme EVs

[mph]

Give me Tango or Tzero over any hydrogen creation anytime. Simpler, saner, better performer. Check out Michelins Challenge Bibendum results, EVs routinely kick those hybrids asses in every relevant category.

The Tango will get me 1/3 or 1/2 way to my fiancée's house before running out of juice. That's a relevant category to me.

Re:hybrids??? gimme EVs

[Big Boss]

EVs are cool, but have limitations in practical use that Hybrids don't.

Limited range: The GOOD EVs I've seen can go about 100 miles per charge.

Recharge time: HOURS...

Recharge locations: Limited.

Size: Small.

I drive 80-100 miles per day for my commute and around town stuff. EVs don't have the range. They may be rated for very close to it, but in bad conditions they don't perform. For example, cold weather kills battery efficiency. I live in Utah, it's cold at least half the year here! I also can't wait hours for a recharge and could only realisticly charge at home. I have too much to do. I'm 6'4" and 350lbs, the small cars like the EV1 just don't cut it. I also need reasonable cargo space when I go shopping and such. A Corolla is about as small as I can go.

On the other hand, the 04 Prius offers me more space than a Corolla (close to the Camry), "recharge" times of about 5 minutes (same as a regular car), the ability to "charge" anywhere I want to (there are gas stations everywhere), and about 40-50 MPG on the highway (most of my driving, calculated milage). Range is 400-500 miles per "charge". And with 295 lb-ft of torque (0-1200 RPM), off the line, it can even feel "sporty" to drive!

EVs can't match that. No current battery comes anywhere near the energy density of gasoline. Add the charge times, and other limitations, and that rules out EVs as nothing more than a curiousity for 90% of people. Sure, you could use a different car for long distance trips and such, but now you're telling people that they need *2* cars to do what *1* could before. That's a hard sell, and one of the many reasons the EV1 didn't sell well and was pulled from the market.

Hybrids aren't perfect, but they are a step up from pure gas and a good stepping stone toward a 100% renewable vehicle. Most importanly, they are here NOW, have a few years and a generation behined them (the 04 is gen2 of Toyota's tech, 2000 IIRC is the first Prius model in the US). What we learn from them can be applied to EVs over time, and thier batteries being mass produced could help drop the production costs to the level where we could use the NiMH or Li-Ion type batteries in an affordable EV. IMO, it's the right way to evolve the tech. Start with something that has noticable benefits, that is practical with existing infrastructure, and that people will pay for today. I see Hybrids as a "proof of concept" that cleaner cars can do all the same things regular cars can, and can use less gas and make less polution in the process. That's a GOOD THING.

Re:hybrids??? gimme EVs

[rly2000]

one correction - EV1's were never sold. They were only leased, and when the leases ended, their owners were forced (under huge duress) to give them up. They were "pulled" from the market because they are a threat to an industry that would rather see us buy their hydrogen with (currently questionable) technology when their oil runs out.

The only EVs that were ever sold were Toyota RAV4 EVs, and they were gobbled up pretty quickly. I'd challenge you to find a Toyota dealership that still has them around -- if you could, I could find plenty of customers willing to buy them!!

Re:hybrids??? gimme EVs

[savuporo]

"Limited range: The GOOD EVs I've seen can go about 100 miles per charge."
Bollocks.You havent paid attention.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/SEMAtrip2003.htm
"The tzero never faltered and arrived in Las Vegas, 245 miles from AC Propulsion headquarters in San Dimas, with at least 40 miles of reserve range."

"Recharge time: HOURS..." Bollocks. The tzero's Reductive charging system can plug in to any grounded 100 to 240V socket. The current draw from the line can be set by the user. With a 100-Amp 240-Volt connection, the tzero can fully charge in about an hour.

"Recharge locations: Limited."
Bollocks
"The tzero's Li-Ion battery and high energy efficiency got us to Las Vegas. Its onboard, plug-in-anywhere charger kept us going. We stayed with friends right in town, and upon arrival plugged into the outlet for their electric clothes dryer, had dinner, talked and went to bed. In the morning the tzero was fully charged. That's the great thing about electricity, it's already available just about anywhere."

For more, check out the details of Challenge Bibendums results, like i already recommended.

My friends Geo Metro gets 48mpg

[dougnaka]

I think he got it in 1992? It's ugly, small, and underpowered, but so are mini's...

Tree hugger gets the shaft and nobody cares.

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11.

Fire up the V8 I'm going to lunch at McDonalds in the next state.

Hey Taco!! Up yours!

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID

What's his route?

[daves]

He mentions that he lives in Cincinnati. Significant parts of the city are not particularly flat.

I'd like to know more about his commute route.

Re:What's his route?

[pclminion]

He mentions that he lives in Cincinnati. Significant parts of the city are not particularly flat.

Yes, but the regenerative braking technology in hybrids is supposed to help you recover a lot of the energy you used to lift yourself to the top of the hill. When you drive uphill, you convert energy from the fuel into gravitational potential energy, and when you go downhill you turn this gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy, which is then converted to electrical potential energy and stored in the battery. In normal breaking, the kinetic energy of going downhill just gets wasted as heat in the brake pads.

So in theory driving in a hilly area should not affect the mileage of a hybrid anywhere near as much as a normal car would be affected.

I get 30+ MPG on my Civic that's not Hybrid

[towerdave]

So if this guy is only getting 33 MPG, that's not that great. Most of my driving is interstate to work, but stop and go for the last few miles crossing the Mississippi into St. Louis.

Funny, I was just telling my wife last night that my next car might be a hybrid since I'm driving mostly highway miles to and from work. Guess maybe that won't help me much.

TowerDave

Re:I get 30+ MPG on my Civic that's not Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

A hybrid's claim to fame is (was?) city driving. If you do lots of highway driving, you're better off with a lighter airdynamic vehicle driving calmly.

depends on how you drive

[chaos421]

those hybrid cars do really well, depending on who is driving them. slam on the gas at each light? the computer thinks you're on your way to the hospital and not worried about fuel economy at that point.

...besides, how many cars beat 45 mpg?

this site explains things pretty well... http://www.hybridcars.com/how-hybrids-work.html

Re:depends on how you drive

[hey!]

Probably you are right on the mark here. A lot depends on your driving habits, and a I bet a lot of people floor it, demanding more accelleration than the electric system can deliver.

I get better mileage then my wife because I'm a lot more gentle on the car than she is. I also get greater service life out of clutches, brakes, transmission linkages, tires, suspension components, igition switches, even the sun visors which she is constantly slamming up/down and to the side. My last car lasted fourteen years and her last one nine.

Re:depends on how you drive

[green4health]

EXACTLY! I have had my Honda Civic Hybrid for over 2 years now, and my mileage varies depending on how I drive, whether or not I am cranking the air conditioning, the type of driving- (lot of traffic lights, hills, etc.) I find I have gotten 53 mpg highway, with no or little air conditioning, and as low as avg 40 mpg city driving blasting the air conditioning. I think the listed 50 mpg is very attainable short of higher demand situations like steep hills & blasting air conditioning, and probably has less variation in Japan than in the US with our variety of climates, terrain,etc. BTW, I used to drive a Nissan Altima and highway mpg was about 28 and city more like 22 mpg, so my hybrid has nearly doubled my mpg.

Proud 2002 Prius Owner

[mkop]

There are many factors to why someone would not get good gas mileage in any car hybrid or not, I have yet to see any car live up to the EPA "Estimate" of MPG. I think the biggest factor for his low mileage is the cold weather. FYI-I have an average of 41.5 MPG over the lifetime of my car. In the winter it is about 36 mpg in the spring, summer, and fall it is about 47 mpg. Even at it's worse I get better mileage than any other econo box out there

Screw mileage, how about emissions

[Microsift]

If these cars live up to the low emissions hype, then they are still part of the solution to a significant environmental problem.

Re:Screw mileage, how about emissions

[pclminion]

No. Mileage is the only thing that matters. The carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfer oxides that come out of tailpipes are obnoxious locally but don't contribute significantly to global environmental problems. For example, if the city of LA ceased driving for a week, the entire cloud of gunk would dissipate in days. These emissions are chemically reactive and don't last long in the environment. Yes, they are highly irritating to many people, but they don't have any long term negative global impact.

CO2, however, is directly linked to mileage (each gallon of gas produces a fixed amount of CO2 molecules when it burns). CO2 is unreactive and stays in the environment much longer than other emissions (because vegetation is very slow to take it up, much slower than we are releasing it).

I'd posit that CO2 emissions (and therefore gas mileage) is the only factor that matters, in a global environmental sense, when choosing a vehicle.

Re:Consumer reports

[triskaidekaphile]

CR accepts no advertising to avoid any possible or perception of bias. Since you seem to dislike their subscription rates, how would you suggest they cover their costs?

The Real Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face guys - the real reason why Hybrids get such poor mileage is because people are starting to "rice" them out just like other Asian cars.

I saw a ridiculous looking Prius yesterday - boost gauge, 17" spinners, recaro seats, quad custom exhaust. Jeez! No wonder you get such bad milage!!!

Re:The Real Reason

[MrLackluster]

The other day I saw one of those "riced" electric cars with a "NOS" sticker. I just shook my head. That ranks up there with the hub caps with cross drilled rotors.

Overblown by the media...

[mbbac]

Perhaps the Civic isn't as great as the EPA rated. I don't know, I'm not interested in one. However, Randy Rathbun's blog had a mileage log that contradicts this story at least as far as the Prius (the only hybrid I'm interested in at this point) is concerned. I trust his empirical evidence more than a poorly researched article that paints all hybrids with the Civic-brush.

Old Honda Insights

[BeerVarmint]

I owned a 2001 Honda Insight a few years ago. It did not live up to it's claims of 65+ miles a gallon, but my lifetime average was a respectable 54. Mind you, I did drive on country roads, and rarely got many highway miles, so I never complained much.

Some points on Hybrids

[Eagle5596]

First of, a Honda Civic is not a true hybrid. It doesn't contain all of the necessary systems like the Prius and the Insight to fall under classification as a true hybrid vehicle.

As for the more interesting question of why they don't get the listed MPG ratings, there are a few reasons:

1) First off you have to drive it "perfectly" to get those ratings, just as normal cars don't achieve their listed potential, neither do hybrids because most people don't know the most fuel efficient driving practices (not flooring it ever, for example).
2) Hybrids must be driven to fully take advantage of their hybrid quality. This is different from normally driving a car. You have to ensure you are using the regenerative breaks instead of coasting to a stop, switch into B drive when on hills, lay off of the accelerator when it isn't truly needed (i.e. gain speed gradually on highways, instead of flooring it and dumping a gallon of gas down the drain).

When your average person drives a car, he/she cares more about "looking cool", not letting someone cut them off, or some other idiotic driving practice than driving it economically. How much thought do you give to driving for maximum fuel economy? With Hybrids, due to their differences these changes can make more of an impact.

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[palapa]

(i.e. gain speed gradually on highways, instead of flooring it and dumping a gallon of gas down the drain)

This is wrong. Because of pumping losses gasoline engines are most efficient with zero intake vacuum (wide open throttle), and operating somewhere near the engines torque peak. Featherfooting it on a freeway merge ramp is both unsafe and inefficient.

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[sheddd]

"2) You have to ensure you are using the regenerative breaks instead of coasting to a stop."

BS. In order to use the regenerative breaking instead of coasting (on a flat surface), you'd need to expend gasoline to keep at cruising speed and then use regenerative breaking to recover some portion of that used gasoline as energy for your batteries (less than 100% of the energy).

Even in a hybrid, every time you touch the breaks you are hurting your mileage (unless you take collisions into account).

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[Eagle5596]

Lesson #1 When posting on slashdot: Think before you post.

Lesson #2 When posting on slashdot: RTFC before you post.

If you use your eyes, you will notice, even in your quoted part of my post "costing to a stop". I.e., instead of coasting slowly to the stop light, you ought to break towards it. Regenerative breaking causes you to charge the batteries when breaking. Coasting to a, once again, stop nets no charge to the batteries.

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[Eagle5596]

First off, we aren't talking about a pure gasoline engine, and that is your first wrong assumption. Second, there is a wide range of variance between flooring and feather footing, yes Charlie Brown there is a happy medium.

Hybrids perform the best when the electric motor is taking up a good deal of the load. The electric motor is powered by a battery charged by breaking, and through excess engine power, recapturing inefficiencies. Unfortunately, it doesn't provide enough acceleration to floor it, thus when flooring it, the gas pulls the majority of the load. By accelerating gradually, by which I mean at a decent rate of increase, and not excessive, you better balance the two out. You don't have to push the petal to the floor to get maximum efficency out of your car, in fact this is less efficient than finding a lower level of acceleration which is still reasonable.

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple scenario, 50 mile run, no traffic, 50mph cruising (@50mpg), stopsign at end of 10 mile run.

Coasting to a stop:
Lets assume it takes a half mile for friction to burn off the kinetic energy of the car @50mph. Car burns 45.5/50 gallons.

Using regenerative breaking:
Driver breaks a quarter mile from sign and car burns 45.75/50 gallons. Some energy goes to charging the batteries.

This is less energy than you can generate with the amount of gas the coaster saved. When using regenerative breaking, there are inefficiencies involved. You're converting from chemical (combustion) to mechanical to electrical (electric braking) to chemical (battery) to electrical (electric drive) to mechanical. It's a lossy conversion at any of those stages.

Understand?

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[Eagle5596]

Of course I understand, I apologize for my explanation as when I gave it, I assumed you had a rudimentary knowledge of basic physics. Obviously I was wrong.

You see, other than the problem with your using the tried and true pseudo-scientific method known as "making up numbers" (my car gets around 30 mpg, meaning it takes .0083 gallons to go a quarter mile), you also fail to account for inertia. Let me explain this concept to you as basically as I can.

A body in motion tends to stay in motion, a body at rest tends to stay at rest.

Thus it takes much more energy to start or stop than to continue at a constant speed. BTW, this is why convential cars get better mpg on the highway, less starting and stopping. For a hybrid, however, we gain some of this energy back when we stop, and it is at a rate proportional to the energy lost at start up (for those slashbots who are going to shout "You can't gain it all back!" notice I said proportional NOT equal). I gain much more energy through breaking than is lost in maintaining speed for that last quarter mile. This is because regenerative breaking helps make up some of the inefficiency in our propultion methods.

Do you now understand Mr. Coward?

Re:Some points on Hybrids

[frdmfghtr]

Disclaimer: I have an 2003 Prius

Please note that the first car used a half-mile to brake, where they hybrid only used a querter-mile.

IN ADDITION...during that braking, the first car is STILL burning gasoline, even while braking. Thus, energy is being lost to heat by braking, plus being lost to the idling engine. A Prius, for example, would have shut off the engine for that last half-mile, regenerated some energy back to the battery, therefore burning less gas and recovering some energy for the subsequent pull-away from the stop sign.

Too bad he/she was an AC...

The guy is an idiot

[dimer0]

This guy must be an idiot.

My cube-neighbor here at work just picked up his Honda Accord.. He's doing some city, some highway, and he's getting about 55mpg.

But, with this kinda car - depending on HOW you drive it - your gas mileage will change dramatically. There's more of an art. My buddy started out only getting about 49mpg, but he said after a while of getting used to driving and monitoring the charge-gauges, etc, he's found that changing his driving habits a bit have gotten him better gas mileage - by far!

One concrete example: this guy's wife was driving his car, and got horrible gas mileage. The reason? .. She'd accelerate, and when coming to a stop sign or whatever, she'd throw in the clutch and put it in neutral and coast to it. This is definitely NOT what you want to do to charge up them batteries... If you drive this way, the car will end up with no battery left, and you'll be spending more gas just charging the battery!

Maybe the dealers need to give training classes.

And, of course, don't drive the thing like a racecar. It's not. I drive my Z06 normal (most of the time), and get between 20 and 25 mpg. There's times, though, that I feel a bit 'spunky', and get about 6mpg. Heh

Re:The guy is an idiot

[smithmc]

My cube-neighbor here at work just picked up his Honda Accord.. He's doing some city, some highway, and he's getting about 55mpg.

Um, 55 mpg from an Accord? Wha'd he do, tear out the engine and cut a pair of holes in the floorboards for his feet, Flintstone-style?

Miles Per Gallon

[goretexguy]

I've just gotta throw in my two cents here: I'm perfectly happy with my 1996 Saturn SL2. With 101K miles on it, it gets 32 MPG during my city commute (15 miles each way) and will hit 40 MPG when I drive long distances.

The 'old' technology works just fine for me.

YMMV

[Anonymous Coward]

had to be said...

Hybrid fuel economy

[jbrandv]

I'm averaging 45 mpg in my Honda Civic Hybrid. I travel about 60 miles every day and have about 2500 feet of elevation change twice a day. I suspect that these people are driving like idiots to get such low mileage. Remember that the estimate is based on very conservative driving. Level ground, few stops/starts, etc.
When I purchased my car the regular CIVIC was ~$17000. I payed $19000 but get $2000 tax break so they end up costing the same. I also got a state sales tax break which reduced it even more.

This just in!

[Anubis333]

(CE/AP) Honda claims that mileage numbers not indicative of actual mileage. In response to a growing trend among CPU processor manufacturers, Honda will be releasing their cars with 'numbers indicative of overall performance, not purely miles per gallon'.

I'm happy with my '04 Prius's mileage

[juanfe]

True, I've rarely gotten more than 45 mpg on a full tank of gas on my new Prius. BUT, I also know a few things:

- I bought my car in January, and it's very apparent that battery performance is lower when it's cold, causing more fuel consumption. Other Prius owners confirm that... we had a full two month period in Jan/Feb in the DC area where we rarely had temperatures over 37 degrees.

- When I'm on the highway, I see average performance of ~50 mpg if I'm near speed limits. When I'm moving in rush hour traffic, I see average performance of ~60 mpg. What gets the mileage low is that on uphill stretches mileage goes down to ~20mpg or less, and on acceleration, if you speed up too quickly, mileage will go down as well... if you gradually speed up, the electric motor will go just a tad longer and the engine will kick in just a little bit later, when you have more momentum--at that point mileage is somewhat better (~30 mpg).

So I've interpreted the EPA ratings as "if you were only driving on a highway for a full tank of gas, at highway speeds moving all the time, you'd get ~55 mpg; if you were only driving in city traffic, moving most of the time at city speeds, you'd get ~60 mpg... if you're in stop-and-go commuter traffic that shifts between highway and city, with hills and such, YMMV."

Still, on my old Mazda 626, I'd only ever get anything close to 32mpg when I was on road trips on highways with steady speeds... other than that, i'd be averaging high 20s on a full tank of gas.

Honda

[FreemanPatrickHenry]

I do fairly well with my Honda Civic (5 speed stick). Well, ~30-33 MPG in normal commute traffic. It basically comes down to how you drive. If you know how to use a manual transmission, it can give you a significant boost in gas mileage, if only because you can keep the car in the most efficient gear for the condititions. Then again, with a stick you have a lot of temptation to have more fun with it, and the mileage suffers.

Bottom line: drive your car right. It'll be good to you.

Diesel.

[Anonymous Coward]

I quite happily get 50MPG on my US 2000 Volkswagen TDI in mixed driving. Yeah, I'm generally a conservative driver, but even when I hammer it around town or hit 120MPH on empty backroads I've never been lower than 40MPG. What I don't understand is why VW doesn't combine one of its smaller diesel engines with a hybrid system, as these engines produce peak torque--the thing you want when generating electricity--at less than 2000 RPMs. Even if that adds 5-10% fuel efficiency, it creates even more distance between them and everyone else. And things will only get better in 2006 when ultra-low sulfur diesel is mandated in the US, both in terms of power and cleanliness.

Hybrids? Good idea. Let the technology run for a few years, though.

half correct

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance.
This statement is only half-correct. The EPA determines MPG based off of emissions. These cars have really low emissions so they appear to get really good gas mileage. This means that they are good for the environment, they just do not reduce our reliance on foreign oil as much as expected or save as much gas money.

This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[Dr. Zowie]

I don't understand why there is so much anti-hybrid stuff in the news lately. The Prius and Insight both have quite good safety records and really excellent mileage.

One nuance that the Wired article didn't cover is that mileage depends greatly on driving style. If I make short, aggressive hops across town my Prius' mileage drops to the mid 30s in summer or low 30s in winter. If I drive more sedately (at the speed limit, with gentle acceleration instead of punching the throttle at the lights) I get mileage in the mid to high 40s. Not bad for a comfortable four-door family car.

I can drive all day at 80 mph and get 41 MPG. I do it several times a year to visit family and/or just road-trip around the state.

The lesson to take is that good mileage requires both good tech and good habits.

Geo Metro

[Patris_Magnus]

I bought a new Metro back in '93. I commute 40 miles to and from work every day where I regularly get 35 - 40 mpg when I drive reasonably. When I'm in a hurry my milage goes down to approx 30mpg. Unfortunately, the damn thing is wearing out and some of the major parts arent designed to be replaced. The lower ball joints are welded into the lower control arm thus requiring the replacement of the whole assembly. I suspect that the newer hybrid cars are constructed in the same way to shave weight off the design. A lot of money to spend for a trick throw away vehicle.

The trick to excellence in fuel efficiency is...

[brutus_007]

"drive" downhill all the time.

Your mileage (and brakes) may vary.

Not better than Diesel

[Enigma_Man]

Honda has a new Diesel powered car that isn't a hybrid, and is getting 76 MPG (U.S. gallons) in real-world testing by the FIA. It's also breaking speed records for its class in the FIA testing (with the exact same cars used for the fuel efficiency test). I'm curious as to why diesel powered cars aren't more popular in the US, they can be much more efficient, and with recent advances in catalytic converters, and technology, these new diesel engines run very clean and very quietly.

There's no batteries to worry about, and you get a fullsize (well... not subcompact like most hybrids anyway, hehe) car with a full trunk to use.

-Jesse

Re:Not better than Diesel

[scotch]

I heard on NPR this week that while diesel engines are much cleaner than they were 15 years ago, they are still much dirtier than their gasoline counterparts. The NPR story talked about how several automakers were hoping to sell more diesel autos in the US, where penetration is on the order of 1-2%. They compared this with Europe, where much higher gas prices and looser emmision standards make the diesels more popular - around 40% of consumer autos, IIRC.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[dago]

Problems with diesel are particules, not the gaz emissions which are mostly better than gasoline part and this particules are really awfull for the lungs and the buildings. But now the first filters appared in some cars in the last years and should spread quite fast ...

but yeah, the first 3.0 liters/100 km (78mpg) car appeared on the market a few year a go thanks to diesel.

So, I'll guess once the diesel exhaust cleaning process is well improved, the market share will be even higher.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[blitz1725]

I have no idea why they don't catch on better in the US. I had a Ford Tempo that was a diesel and got between 50-60 MPG, and that was when it had 130,000 miles on it. I think part of the reason is that the few cars with diesel engines usually have a truck type drivetrain(my Tempo could out pull most of my friends trucks) which limits the speed which is what most people here seem to want, or they are in cars that most people don't want, I can remember my grandparents had a diesel stationwagon for years.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[proj_2501]

i have also heard tell that the diesel fuel used in europe is of higher quality (less soot or something)

Re:Not better than Diesel

[jridley]

I heard (also on NPR) a few weeks ago that most of the pariculate emissions from diesel could be vastly reduced by using low (or zero) sulfur fuel. The EPA would like to have mandated the new fuel by now, but the trucking industry is heavily against it. They're going to mandate it anyway, I think starting in 2007, perhaps rolling from CA eastward.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[nelsonal]

Back in the oil crisis there was a push by Detroit to quickly and cheaply become Diesel friendly as they were being slaughtered by the Japanese cars. This resulted in refitting their current gasoline engines for Diesel fuel rather than designing them from the ground up (took to much time and expense). As the saying goes fast, cheap, or good you only get two, these engines were of course terrible. The quality of those cars had two effects, first buyers hoping for fuel savings found that they broke down more, smoked like crazy, ran poorly, and were generally of low quality. So we never really developed a retail infastructure for repair and fueling a large fleet of Diesel powered automobiles.
Now that Europe is leading a resurgence in Diesel technology that doesn't suck perhaps a new generation can try again. I believe the Honda Diesel was traded in a swap with one of the big three's European division for one of Honda's gasoline engines (but I don't recall which engine they gave or got).

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

i have also heard tell that the diesel fuel used in europe is of higher quality (less soot or something)

Less sulfur.

The other reason diesels are so popular in Europe is that the governments have ridiculously high taxes on fuel. When you are paying so much for fuel, the better mileage from a diesel is a big savings.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Zakabog]

Because diesel engines didn't run as clean as they do today. They had the good gas mileage but they were big polluters and pretty loud so they weren't very popular. Now that they run way clean, quieter, and the gas prices are so high, people might start turning to diesel. I think something like 40% of all the cars in europe are diesel when it's only like 1% in the US. Oh and it doesn't help that you can't get diesel fuel in every gas station, maybe when it becomes more of a standard and you just see diesel cars in show rooms, more people will start buying them.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

At least half of the US has this "winter" thing to contend with. Diesel engines are a serious PITA to get started in severely cold weather. It has to do with the fact that diesel engines don't use spark plugs. In diesel engines, combustion is achieved by squeezing the holy hell out of the fuel-air mixture (they compress it somewhere around 100 times more than in a regular gas car). This causes friction in the fuel-air mixture which heats up and causes it to combust. In extremely cold (below freezing) weather, the compression won't generate enough heat to start combustion.

You get around this by using glow plugs. These ere essentially little heaters that sit inside of each cylinder and warm it up. Depending on how cold it is, it could take upwards of 15 minutes before you cold even start you engine.

That and diesel fart fumes are bunches worse than what comes out of a regular car.

(Nitpicker note: this is from something I remembered in my high school auto shop class. That was around 15 years ago. Forgive (but feel free to correct) any minor innaccuracies).

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

As an owner of a Jetta TDI, and an engineer, I doubt that that gas mileage can be consistent across any RPM range--it seems like outright BS to me.

VW TDIs have a thermal efficency of around 40% This is VERY good for a small engine. The engine is so efficient it has a hard time warming up in the winter, because so very little of the heat energy is wasted.

The world's most efficient diesel engine is also the world's largest (built in Japan for oil tankers). It has an incredibly long stroke, and runs at about 52% thermal efficency, which is quite incredible. Most cars are in the 20-30% range.

In short, if this thing really is getting close to 80MPG on diesel, at 130MPH, they've just rewritten the books on aerodynamics and diesel technology (going to have to get about 80%+ thermal efficiency to do that, and a crazy low coefficient of drag--the F1 people would surely like to hear from Honda if that's the case). I seriously doubt they did (looks like a normal car, not extremely aerodynamic), therefore I think it's a crock. A hoax. Complete Bullshit.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Beer_Smurf]

In the US diesel cars and light trucks are all but banned due to a poorly written emission regulation.
You have to get a F250 size truck before the restrictions ease.
So people who want a diesel are often buying much bigger than they really want.
If you look at the vehicle manufactures websites from other countries you see all kinds of great high milage diesel options.
Take a look for yourself.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[scotch]

The NPR blurb also said diesel produced much more carbon monoxide. I'm doubting you're knowledge here, just reporting on the reporting.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[L0neW0lf]

Low sulfur diesel fuel will be required in the year 2006 in the US, so the mandate has already occurred. There is a lot of debate about whether older diesel-fuel cars will work well with the newer fuel, though.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously haven't ever had a diesel...

My VW TDI starts quite nicely in the winter. All you have to do is wait for the glow plug light to go out, and crank the ignition till she starts. You don't have to plug it in, or anything else. I've personally started my car in -15degree F weather (not wind chill), without much event.

I've heard of VWs starting in -60 weather--something which is outright IMPOSSIBLE to do with gasoline, without heating the cylinders to normal temperatures before starting. Go to the south pole. You'll notice that all the engines are DIESEL, and when they fly a (gasoline powered) plane in for emergency reasons they HAVE to keep it running, or else it won't start.

Granted, TDIs have a hard time warming up. They're too efficient. But you can run it, without warming up (won't warm up at idle). It'll just clatter and feel a little week till it warms up.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[riedquat]

Diesel engines can also be run on vegetable oil, which makes them even more environmentally friendly. Most existing diesel engines require the oil to be pre-heated, or converted to biodiesel by the addition of a few chemicals, but other than that they can run well, in fact in some cases better than on the fossil fuel diesel. This is made difficult in the UK by fuel duty laws - what would the legal situation be in the US?

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Linux_Bastard]

The emissions from diesel are worse, but there are much much less of them due to the higher eficiency.
The emissions are more visable due to the carbon particulates.

Biodisel is a much better choice. The emissions going into the air have been pulled from the air by the plants that produced the oil, plus this is post consumer waste.
It's still a loss for the environment, but it's a much better (not to mentions cheaper) choice than gasoline hybreds.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[iwadasn]

OK, first of all, comparing Diesel and Gasoline mileage isn't really apples to apples. They do after all use different fuel, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the energy density of diesel to be higher. Secondly, the primary reason diesels aren't popular is pretty much based on pollution. They just aren't as clean as gasoline based cars, and that's that. Good low sulfur diesel fuel (coming in 2012, a little late methinks) will help that, but for now, there's not much to be done.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Riktopher]

I, personally, have owned 2 diesel powered vehicles. My first car, in fact, was an '84 Datsun Nissan Sentra Diesel I had about 4 years ago. That vehicle averaged 57 MPG. Later I owned a '80 Benz 300D, which attained a 32 average despite its solid steel body and automatic tranny. As far as the 2 gas powered cars I've owned, my father and I's 90 Camry, on the highway, oft got 44, a bit over the original sticker value, and 36 city. The Saturn '02 SC2 I now drive averages around 40 MPG, the sticker said 27/38. I don't exactly drive it easy, or on the freeway that often.. Dumb luck?

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Linux_Bastard]

cough cough bullshit, cough

At 225,000 miles, My 82 Mercedes starts with no problems at all, ever, even at -25 (well, that was a few years ago, at only 180,000 miles)

Re:Not better than Diesel

[shiftless]

Diesel engines are awesome. The main reason diesel engines are not popular in the U.S. has to do with a) sulphur content of our diesel fuel, and b) old stereotypes. Our diesel has high sulphur content, which sucks. Also, diesel engines are viewed as loud, obnoxious, polluting, black-smoke-belching beasts. Nobody wants to drive a car like that. The Olds 350 diesel engine that GM tried in the early 80s didn't help its reputation any.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[myov]

You can get a TDI volkswagen (just about all of the models have a TDI option), but they seem to be the only company selling diesel.

You can also run the car on biodiesel (or with a bio/petroleum blend).

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

"All you have to do is wait for the glow plug light to go out, and crank the ignition till she starts."

As someone who was a mechanic in the military, I can tell you it's harder to get people to do that then it sounds. Time after time you have people saying that they can't get their vehicles to start. Not surprisingly they never wait for the glow plugs to cycle and crank the engine immidiatly (this is seriously BAD for glow plugs). So you fix it, and tell the driver to wait for the damn plugs to cycle. They nod their head, jump in their vehicle, crank the engine immidiatly and drive away.

A Diesel CAN be hard to start in the winter, but it depends on the vehicle. Most of the bad reputation that a deisel gets for starting in the winter is due to the fact that most diesel engines are very large, which makes them much harder to start.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[op00to]

I don't see anything in Title 39 or 40 about these restrictions. Where did you hear about this?

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Herbmaster]

The referenced Honda Diesel gets 80 MPG (Diesel gallons), and can go 130 MPH. I have not seen any claim that it gets 80 MPG WHILE DRIVING AT 130 MPH - that would be unbelievable. Diesel motors are typically high-torque, low-horsepower, so being able to get to 130 MPH is a significant accomplishment. I don't know what the top speed of the Volkswagen TDIs is, but I suspect it's a little less than 130 MPH. Honda's proof of concept is merely that they can build a Diesel car which gets good fuel efficiency during normal driving while still having a good maximum power output (top speed).

FYI, IIRC, Honda does compete in F1 facing already, so crazy low coefficient of drag vehicles are not out of the question.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[MyHair]

Secondly, the primary reason diesels aren't popular is pretty much based on pollution. They just aren't as clean as gasoline based cars, and that's that.

I've seen this brought up several times in this thread with no challenge. I've been told that while diesel exhaust is less comfortable to breathe, gasoline exhaust is actually way more toxic. i.e. you'll cough breathing diesel exhaust, you'll die breathing gasoline exhaust. Was I told wrong?

OK, first of all, comparing Diesel and Gasoline mileage isn't really apples to apples. They do after all use different fuel, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the energy density of diesel to be higher.

If you assume as I do that most people care about MPG for money then comparing diesel mileage to gasoline mileage is reasonable as long as diesel fuel is comparably priced to gasoline, and last I checked it's usually a bit lower than regular unleaded. But from a techincal or environmental point of view you're right that it's not necessarily an even comparison.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[corngrower]

Diesels are often perceived as being difficult to start in cold weather. Also the combustion of the fuel is different, gasoline being considerably smoother running. Diesels are also perceived as having sluggish acceleration. I don't know to what extent these things are actually true, but consumers are reluctant to buy them for various reasons.

One other thing - diesel fuel used to be more difficult to obtain than gasoline. I thing stations carrying diesel fuel are plentiful enough these days that this shouldn't be a factor.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm curious as to why diesel powered cars aren't more popular in the US, they can be much more efficient, and with recent advances in catalytic converters, and technology, these new diesel engines run very clean and very quietly."

Actually, diesel emissions are still very much an issue. I work in this field, so I have some idea what I'm talking about. Most of the particulate can be removed from diesel exhaust, but usually there is a filter involved that needs to be cleaned or replaced periodically. As for NOx emissions, catalysts exist to reduce NOx in a oxygen rich environment (which diesel exhaust is), but they tend to have short lifespans and are only active over a relatively narrow temperature range (diesel exhaust usually varies in temperature quite a bit more than spark engine exhuast).

Also, every time I am passed by a new-ish diesel pick-up truck as I'm bicycling to work (great fuel economy AND good for the environment) my lungs remind me that diesel emissions reductions are still lagging far behind their gasoline counterparts.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

The emission standards are no looser in Europe than here in the States. The problem here is that we use cheap, less-refined high-sulfur diesel. This diesel is very dirty and is indeed much dirtier than gasoline. However, in 2006, cleaner "low-sulfur" fuel is coming to America, so expect to see higher-mileage clean burning diesels here soon.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[MyHair]

The Olds 350 diesel engine that GM tried in the early 80s didn't help its reputation any.

Oh my God that thing sucked! It scared me off diesels for years. I haven't had a diesel since.

Quite a few years back my granddad acquired one of these in the form of a Regency 98 (boat on wheels with luxurious living-room-like interior) in exchange for some work. It wasn't running well, and I was going to fix it up, sell it and split the money with granddad. I had it almost ready to sell, but it was still knocking a bit on the freeway. One last adjustment and freeway test drive...it starts knocking...I pull over to let it settle down...it revs up...I turn the key off...it keeps revving faster and faster, billowing a thick smoke screen in back and accross the freeway. I panicked thinking the engine was going to throw pieces at me through the firewall and dashboard and exit the car and ran away somehow not getting hit by a car in the process.

It didn't blow up; it just quit, but it took a few minutes for the smoke to clear. I had it towed home and never tried starting it again. I sold it as is and the guy I sold it to said it was probably burning its own oil from around the pistons, and that's why turning the key off and removing it didn't stop the motor.

I wonder how the heck it got enough air to rev that fast, though? That never occurred to me until I typed this post. Weird stuff.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[shiftless]

Diesel engines don't have throttles, like gas engines do. They are controlled by controlling the amount of fuel that is injected. So if a diesel engine starts running off its own oil, it's hell to stop.

The Olds 350 diesel is only good for one thing- building a killer gas engine out of. The engine block is extremely thick and heavy (to handle being a diesel) so it can withstand a lot of abuse. You can build a 434 cubic inch stroker out of one, which is a hell of a lot of cubes from a small block!

Re:Not better than Diesel

[jermane6]

Diesel cars are not popular because they do not do well in cold whether. If the temperature is below 40 degrees F you might have to wait 10 minutes for the glow plugs to start the engine and the engine to warm up enough to drive. If the temperature is below zero you might not get it to start at all, unless you plug in an electric engine warmer the night before.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[rrkap]

I'm curious as to why diesel powered cars aren't more popular in the US, they can be much more efficient, and with recent advances in catalytic converters, and technology, these new diesel engines run very clean and very quietly.

While much cleaner than they used to be, they are still an order of magnitude higher in NOx emissions than spark ignition engines. Most european diesels don't meet U.S. regulations, much less the more stringent California regulations. This is fundamentally related to the reason why they get better fuel economy. The reason is that the engine runs at higher temperatures (which is nearly the same thing as saying that the compression ratios are higher) than a spark ignition engine

Also, in the U.S. we use a pretty poor grade of diesel compared to Europe, which is higher in sulfur and doesn't burn as well as does European diesel

The difference in approach is because U.S. air quality regulations are largely based on improving public health, which means fighting smog and particulates, while european regulations are focused on reducing carbon emissions.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a diesel to go 130 means NOTHING.

Fuck, there are diesel trucks (the new GMs, modified quite a bit) out there that can do 10 second quater miles, develop 1200ft-lbs ad 900HP, and do well over 130.

The problem is they never gear a diesel for performance. You've got to put a different transmission and final drive behind it to get performance. Diesels typically deliver their torque over a low set of RPMs. A 5 speed isn't going to put a diesel in a very favorable part of it's torque-horsepower curve at 100+ mph.

A TDI will do 130. But you're going to be redlining the engine, and it's going to be very far out of it's powerband. A 5 speed with the right gearing will allow it to push harder longer, but it's going to be a dog in the middle speeds. A lower radtio final drive is going to make it a dog in lower RPMs, unless it delivers the horsepower early (which is fine for a big engine).

When a VW comes with a 7 speed, or a multi geared final drive (like a semi-truck), it will do 130 with a low horsepower engine. 90 HP with the right aerodynamics will push a car faster than I'd care to go (but it's going to take a while to get to top speed).

Re:Not better than Diesel

[jafac]

HEre's the deal.
In California, we have the CARB (Clean Air Resources Board - or something to that effect) - which dictates California EPA standards for cars. Several other states have adopted California emissions standards.

CARB has dictated that diesel cars must improve their emissions by 2006 to a certain level. Diesel cars produce less CO and CO2 than gas cars, but more NOx, and particulate matter (the particulate matter is up for debate - some gasoline engines are far worse than diesels at the med range of their RPM range typical to highway driving, under load - which does not get tested in EPA emissions testing - plus there are new technologies like zeolite traps that trap the particulate matter, it's nasty stuff so we DO need to get rid of it).
The problem is - in order for 2006 diesels to MEET those requirements, a new set of emissions equipment needs to be phased in, which will not work with diesel fuel that has a high sulfur content.
Currently, the oil industry is fighting the effort to get low sulfur diesel fuel tooth and nail, by blaming the "boutique formulation requirments" for price rises and supply shortages. They do not want to have to go through what they went through in the 1970's with Lead.

Because of this, many manufacturers have backed away from diesel, because they're afraid that they won't be able to sell them in CARB states. Already, you can't get 2004 diesels in California. I had to go to Arizona to buy a 2003 TDI Jetta, to register it in California.

The Honda diesel interests me. Because the Jetta has a pretty bad reputation as far as reliability issues goes. I'm hoping that the diesel fuel and emissions issues will be worked out so I can sell the Jetta and get the Honda in a couple of years.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Certianly, I can see this being a problem. Most of the people driving trucks for the military are pretty fucking stupid; certianly not all of them are, I know several military people, and they're definitely ahead of the curve, but many of the grunts are just that.

Most of the military diesels are 6.2 or 6.5 GMs, and they're not exactly the top echelon of diesel reliability.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[OglinTatas]

What you described (spontaneous reving) sounds like oil blow-by runaway. I'm not familiar with the Olds diesel, but oil blow-by runaway can be caused by oil leaking through the turbo seals, spewing out of the crankcase ventilator, or leaking past the valves. With sufficient oil in the cylinders, the oil is burned as fuel in addition to the diesel fuel (or instead of it if you shut off the fuel flow) I think the engine was trashed, and you were right to get rid of it.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, diesel fuel has higher energy density than gasoline. About 8% more so. Not exactly negligible. But, diesel fuel is much easier to brew. It dosen't take nearly the energy to make as does gasoline.

However, most diesel engines are still more efficient thermally (per BTU) than most gas engines. I say most, because there are some diesels out there that just suck fuel, and run real hot (not using the bulk of the heat to make motion), and there are some gasoline engines that run very efficiently.

On average, diesel engines are more efficient than gas engines.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[FatherOfONe]

Ok, first stop listening to NPR if you want accurate news :-)

It is correct that diesle cars are a little worse than a normal gas engine. To the best of my knowlege a diesle engine runs at a compression level much higher than a normal engine. A normal engine will fire a spark from a spark plug every other time the piston comes to the top. Engineers have worked hard on getting the spark plug to burn all the gas when it fires. Now a diesle engine... it doesn't have spark plugs. It uses the extra compression to burn the fuel. So does it burn all the fuel? Nope. So the next time the piston comes up to push all the exhaust out, it will push out some fuel. The issue is that "extra" compression. Extra compression makes it far harder to turn an engine over at startup. Significantly harder.... much much much much harder. Current gas cars have a hard time starting in cold weather....

So more specifically on why people in America don't like diesle cars.
1. Their noise sucks. They are loud, and they seem to sound like an old crappy car when running.
2. You can't buy diesel fuel in most places. Unlike europe, the U.S. just about has a gas station on every other corner. 90% or so of those don't have diesel. Right or wrong, people in America don't want that inconvienence for a little better gas milage. The second to last thing they want is to drive from station to station looking for one that sells diesel. The last thing they want is to run out of fuel in a bad neghborhood passing two stations that sell normal gas.
3. Cold weather. Yes I have heard that new disels can start in cold weather, but the history has been set. Too many people who bought diesels in the past, that couldn't start their car when it got below 30 degrees (about feezing), will never buy another one.

Lastly, before I get flamed by the diesle fans... I know about glow plugs :-) They are what you cuss out when it is 35 degrees and your car won't start. :-)

Re:Not better than Diesel

[LetterJ]

I drove a diesel VW rabbit for about 6 years (taking it from 186,000 miles to over 300,000 miles) and one of the issues is that in places like where I live (St. Paul, MN) a sudden early cold snap can leave you with a tank full of jelly. You need to manage the kind of fuel you're running pretty carefully or put anti-gel in your tank regularly to avoid gelling. Of course, if diesel was more popular, the fuel stations would manage much of this for you, but it's a chicken-egg kind of problem.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[valkraider]

Show us where the Jetta TDI has a bad reliabilty rating?

These people are tons of happy TDI owners.

And it has been said before, but I'll pile it on. Running BioDiesel , the volkswagen TDI is BY FAR the most efficient and environmentally sound vehicle you can have in the USA. And it's power is NOT crippled, it's ammenities are NOT reduced. You can get a TDI Passat that is as luxurious as you want, burn BioDiesel in it and still get >40 mpg. I average 54mpg in my 02 TDI New Beetle, and I drive fast. I can get close to 60mpg if I keep the speeds around 60mph.

The CARB restrictions are bunk when it comes to the modern TDI (and now Mercades CDI) engines. They test the wrong things in the wrong way - making no sense for real world issues or in real practical use.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[bpalmer]

Gee, good thing we don't have cold weather up here in Canada or I'd never get my 2000 VW Jetta TDI to start...
I've started my car in -35 (-31 F for the metric impaired) after waiting 45 seconds for my glowplug light to go off. When I bought it, there wasn't even a block heater option available from VW because it didn't have any cold starting issues. They've since offered it as an add-on, but I've only had issues with gas cars not starting (or worse, stranding me) in cold weather.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[maddskillz]

Just a few points:
1. The new diesels are not loud. When you are driving you can't tell the difference, it's only when you are idling, and it sounds like a tractor, that people notice.
2. I don't know about the situation in the US, but in Canada probably around 1/2 of the stations have diesel.
3. In cold weather they start fine, provided your glow plugs are working ,and you are using winterized fuel. Trust me, I have started mine in -40(F or C) weather. Actually, it was pretty funny, my car started no problem, while my friends subaru WRX didn't want to go! Don't expect the car to warm up in the winter though!

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Rob Parkhill]

Ahhh, but how long does it take to get up to 130MPH? My 1971 VW, with it's insanely powerful 55hp engine and stupendous areodynamics, can hit 95 to 100MPH in about 3 minutes. On a flat road. With a tail wind. On a cool day. Did I mention the tail wind?

Kids, don't try this at home. A VW Beetle does an amazing airplane wing impression at this speed.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[gpinzone]

I'm curious as to why diesel powered cars aren't more popular in the US, they can be much more efficient, and with recent advances in catalytic converters, and technology, these new diesel engines run very clean and very quietly.

Blame GM for putting diesel engines in a VERY poor light back in the 80s. They made a diesel Cadillac engine that was hacked from a regular gasoline engine block. It was a disaster! I think 20/20 did a report about how poor those diesel cars were. None of the American car companies gave a damn about gas efficiency back then, so diesel was just a novelty to the consumer.

Anyone with a diesel engine want to comment on overall engine reliability and cold weather starts? Could someone who lives in Minnesota expect to start their diesel powered car in under 10 seconds?

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Herbmaster]

A fair question. I don't know, but a list of the statistics they did publish is available from the article on vtec.net.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Dravik]

One problem. Diesel currently costs more than premium gas. Also many of the enviro activists are trying to mandate very low sulfur diesel which will drive the price up farther. Even if they get better mileage the extra cost per gallon will prevent most people from buying.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[TamMan2000]

I love it, he says to stop listening to NPR if you want accuracy and then gives an inaccurate description of diesel engines... :)

Diesels run at much higher compression ignition and burn a much higher fraction of the fuel. Why do you think that using compression would burn less of the fuel? When using a spark you have to initiate a flame (at the spark) and then the flame front has to traverse the whole cylinder. When using a compression ignition system (diesel) the fuel everywhere in the cylinder will combust on it's own without having to wait for a propagating flame.

Also diesels use a much lower fuel/air ratio than gas engines. Stoichiometrically a gas engine doesn't have enough air for complete combustion of all of it's fuel in most situations, diesels do.

The diesel engine burns it's fuel at a much higher temperature, this is the cause for some of the emision problems (nitrous oxides) (also of the incresed efficiency). Other emisions issues are due to the fuel itself (for the most part), a lot of diesel fuel emisions could be eliminated by further processing of diesel fuel (sulfur oxides, and particulates).

The high compression has nothing to do with winter start problems. They put enourmous starter motors on those things, and many of them hae 2 batteries and run the starting system at 24V instead of 12V. The problem with winter starts is that the fuel increases in viscosity and even starts to form a gel with wax crystals in it at cold temperatures.

I am an engineer and former owner of a craptastic 1981 Oldsmobile Delta 88 diesel. I lived in Illinois at the time I had the car. I couldn't start it twice in the whole winter of the year I owned it (frequently below 0F). I had limited trouble finding fuel as well, just like I notice cheap gas now, I noticed diesel fuel then...

I would love to own another diesel, but I want something between behemoth SUV and econobox...

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Dravik]

There are currently no laws that will prevent you. Fuels are taxed by the specific fuel (gas, diesel, propane, etc...). Since they are not used there are no current taxes on them. There are no laws on what you can pour in your tank. You will probably void the delear warrenty though, but that is a private matter of the warrenty aggrement between you and the delear. To give more information, in Alabama only fuel for use on roads is taxed. You can buy untaxed fuel that has a color dye added for use driving on private property. This is generally used by farmers for farm trucks, tractors, and generators.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Dravik]

That boutique formulation isn't just them complaining. It is a lot more expensive to produce track and distribute 10 different mixtures than it is to do 1 or 2.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Kelz]

Sorry, but I'm more worried about price than the environment. Right now regular fuel is at $2.25 a gallon and diesel is at $2.45 a gallon. I wouldn't mind this if I got 85mpg but theres no way I'd be able to afford one that broke speed records for its class.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[tehdaemon]

My parents had one of these lemons. It got 80MPG just before we scrapped it. Oh yea, that was 80 miles per gallon of OIL, not fuel. (drive 80 miles, put in 4 quarts of oil, wipe layer of oily grime off the back of the car . . ) It went through 4 engines in a summer once, and at least one other engine another year.

No wonder diesels did not catch on.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[FatherOfONe]

You are correct about the fuel jelling, but to say that the higher compression has nothing to do with staring isn't correct. Yes they put larger starters and in some cases larger (more CC amp) or two batteries. Why? It is because the added compression makes it harder to start. I don't remember but I believe the compression ratio for diesel is around 22 to 1. That is fairly high compared to the 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 a normal car has. If you take both hard starting and fuel issues then it adds up to poor cold starting. I will agree that most of it has to do with the fuel issue. So thanks for the clarification.

I am glad you are an engineer. Given that there are quite a few types of engineers, (mechanical, electrical, areo etc) that doesn't mean that much.

If you are a automotive mechanical engineer, then I will relay some info from the people who work on your stuff. (Like I use to).

Every engineer should have to fix and maintain what they produce. Some of the designs you guys come up with really suck bad.
1. Audi - Battery in the back seat.
2. Corvette 454 V8. Try and change the spark plugs
3. Most mini vans.
4. Most mid engine cars...

I could go on but I have been out of it for a long while.

Either way thanks for your correction, and you don't seem to disagree with most of the reasons Americans don't buy diesels. So in that we agree.

Oh and lastly, I will admit to when I was wrong (fuel issue with diesel), that is unlike NPR admitting it is just a extreme left wing orgainization :-)

Re:Not better than Diesel

[TamMan2000]

22 to 1 is a common compression ratio, my olds had 21 to 1, I think...

The compression makes it harder to start the engine, but this is regardless of temperature...

I am a mechanical engineering renasance man, I have worked on aero/thermomechanical systems in jet engines, fracture mechaninics in rockets, heat exchangers...

I don't do much design, I am mostly an analyst, but I know what you mean about the horible maintnance situations...

NPR definatly leans left, but they always broadcast corrections if they have gotten any facts wrong. I listen to NPR, but I also watch Fox News, and listen to the BBC. The only way to get close to unbiased news is to get it from many different places...

Re:Not better than Diesel

[weeboo0104]

I did the same in my 84 rabbit. The way I got around not having a block heater in the Winter when I was in college was to put 1 gallon of gasoline in the tank and fill the tank the rest of the way with diesel. The owners manual actually recommended mixing kerosine with the diesel in the winter if only diesel#2 was available.

Never had starting issues, but the car would smoke like hell for the first 5 minutes when the temp was 20 degrees F or below.

That engine had its original seals until around 240000 miles and my dad continued to drive the car until 320000 miles. At which point he donated it to charity.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[jridley]

OTOH, I smile a little more every time the price goes higher. $3, here we come! It would be interesting to see if idiots ever stop buying SUVs.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you live, but diesel is just a little bit more expensive than REGULAR gasoline here.

For a very long time diesel was about 15-20 cents CHEAPER than regular gasoline (before lots of people started driving diesels. For chrissakes, I've seen soccer moms driving diesel suburbans lately--that's a sure sign that something is mainstream)

I think the demand has gone up, naturally so have the prices.

Re:Not better than Diesel

[jafac]

Then they should produce ONE formula that satisfies ALL requirements. DUH.

But they don't want to. If they could, they'd pump it out of the ground directly into your tank, making it clean is "your problem".

Re:Not better than Diesel

[Kelz]

If they can afford it, more power to them. I can't.

Efficency isn't their main purpose

[Ryu2]

The main purspoe and advantage of hybrids are their significantly lower emission levels, on the order of 90% compared to normal gas cars. That's their primary design goal. Obviously, fuel efficency will be a side effect of it, but the primary design goal of both the Prius and Insight are in reducing the emission levels and making it "clean", not the fuel efficency per se.

Diesel cars with similar fuel effiecncy, but definitely not the cleaniness, have been around for ages.

Re:Efficency isn't their main purpose

[Malc]

If they're burning a similar amount of fuel per mile as non-hybrid cars, then how can they have lower emissions?

Re:Efficency isn't their main purpose

[mikeee]

They don't. Some modern non-hybrids have emissions that are just as low.

Re:Efficency isn't their main purpose

[Intocabile]

Hybrids don't idle. That's why emissions are low.

Re:Efficency isn't their main purpose

[hyperventilate]

Same CO2. 90% less smog forming emmissions. In other words- prevent heart attacks and cancer but don't prevent "The Day After Tomorrow".

Not quite as good as 1,600 mpg

[Guru1]

Student made hybrid gets 1,600 mpg. Sounds like the car companies better get moving. Story Link

I would personally prefer an all electric car. My commute is 15 miles each way and that's the only drive I make most days. It would be much better to just plug the car in each night. The electricity coming from my house costs less for me, and overall created less pollution.

Re:Not quite as good as 1,600 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not so sure about the electricity coming from your house being better for the environment, actually...or I'd at least question HOW much better. odds are good that they are burning a fossil fuel to make it...if not for your case, then for most people's case this is true. Factor in all of the trouble involved in getting the raw fuel to the power plant, generating the power (which granted, they do pretty efficiently on that scale), and the electrical power lost in transmission, and things really aren't THAT great.

Keeping it simple

[zeno53]

Hybrid cars, whether the combination is gasoline internal combustion & electric or, more efficient but more expensive, two-stroke diesel & electric, are expensive and complex solutions. Simpler is almost always better. From a purely cost standpoint, factoring in initial cost, fuel over the lifetime of the vehicle, more repairs with more complexity, eventual replacement of batteries and their recycling etc., it seems to me that existing diesel technology is the much simpler short-term solution. One need only look at the offerings from Volkswagen, in North America, and other manufacturers in Europe.

Re:my bad he gets 38 city/ 45 highway

[dougnaka]

Still pretty amazing

Alcohool Based cars - Water vapor is byproduct.

[yelsirgany]

In Brazil alcohool based cars are quite common. Manufacturers produces the alcohool from sugar cane plantations and you can fill up your car at just about every gas station. I never understood why this idea never took off here. Problems with car starting in very, very cold areas?

Re:Alcohool Based cars - Water vapor is byproduct.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the total cost of producing the ethanol is about equivalent to refining gasoline. I can not comment on how efficient the collection of sugar cane is in Brazil, but in North America, the primary source of ethanol, is grain (wheat, rye, barley). The amount of fossil fuel used to plant (fuel), grow (fertilizer), harvest (fuel), transport (fuel), and process (?) grain, means that at the end of the day, you have not saved any emissions (the savings at the consumer level, was spent at the production level). I do not believe there are any issues with low temperature, since I have lived in some of the coldest cities in North America (Ottawa, Edmonton), and fuel with added ethanol was quite widley available, and used.

You may see more ethanol use in the near future. IIRC, an Ottawa company (sorry, can't remember the name, but if any /. readers happen to drive past the airport on Hunt Club, they may remember the name), has just made some very promising advances using a new process to derive ethanol from the straw waste, instead of the grain. This would (could) reduce the overall cost of production, and since it is using waste materials, the savings from emissions at the consumer level, are true savings (You can blame the emmissions on those heathens who eat bread!).

ps not affiliated in any way, just thought it was a cool story

Re:Alcohool Based cars - Water vapor is byproduct.

[Anonymous Coward]

water vapor is also byproduct of gasoline combustion too, as the same as just about any hydrocarbon or organic compound. alcohol is more expensive (energywise) to produce than to crack dead dino juice.

If someone had a cheap way to change sugar into alcohol, we'd be set. But this has been a problem that has been around for years, ever since people started drinking.... fermentation is not difficult, distillation is the biggest problem.

Don't blame the car companies?

[Genjurosan]

The article says not to knock car companies over inflated claims at the very start.

That's a load of crap.

The car companies know full well what the car is going to get well before the EPA tests are even performed. I like everyone else with half a brain would exercise the device if you knew a test to prove your results and allow you to make claims was in the near future.

The car companies are fully to blame, as they are taking advanatage of the system to make more money.

Re:Don't blame the car companies?

[BattleTroll]

Read the link bub. The car companies are Federally Mandated to use the EPA numbers, no matter how wrong those numbers happen to be. So blame the government for stupid advertising rules, not the car companies.

Re:Don't blame the car companies?

[Genjurosan]

I did. Yeah, sure they are; however you miss the entire point! If I sold you something and told you it would work for 5 years, it failed after 3, and you then found out that I KNEW that it would only work for 3 years; however, due to government policies, I was legally protected when I told you 5.... wouldn't you be pissed off? Who would you blame? Me, for taking advantage of a loophole, or the goverment for being stupid? There is NO law that says the car companies can't disclose that their tests indicated MPG at levels below the government test. This is just like the cigarette companies that know that light cigarettes are just as bad for you, depending on how many holes you cover up when you smoke them.

Depends how and where you drive

[millahtime]

The mileage really depends on how or where you drive. I have a grand prix that gets great gas mileage when i drive it nicely but it just drops off when i drive fast, floor it, etc. The same would hold true with a hybid

There is also, where they are drived. If you driving in a hilly area or a lot of stop and goes you burn more gas. This would hold true for a hybid also. The only way a hybrid could be better is if in city driving the gas motor wasn't running when it was stopped at a light or in traffic. Then there is a potential to save a lot of gas.

This isn't black and white. And it depends on how you drive it. Hell, I can get an F150 (19mpg) to suck at twice that rate (9.5mpg if you must know)

While they don't live up to the mileage hype,

[Jim Morash]

... hybrid cars are still interesting. For one, they do get good gas mileage - excellent, even - just not out-of-this-world, press-release-parity-achieving gas mileage.

They are also very low-emissions vehicles. The Prius, for example, is rated a SULEV/PZEV (Super Ultra Low / Partial Zero Emissions, who comes up with these stupid names?), far better on the pollution front than most of what's on the market. This is partially due to the hybrid drive system's ability to run the internal combustion engine at maximum efficiency more often - higher efficiency => more complete combustion => fewer nasty chemical emissions.

highway miles

[morcheeba]

forgot- that's all highway milage. I average 25 mpg with mixed usage.

Buy it for the iPod support, not mileage:

[L1nuxGuy]

From the blog:

(Oh, one more thing. My time consuming visit to the dealership wasn't a complete loss. The general manager was at least able to provide some guidance on how to hook up my trusty iPod to my Civic.)

Now that's a General Manager!

EPA Figures have always been flawed

[Gadgetfreak]

Mainly because they're over simplifed. There are too many variables in driving that will dictate your fuel mileage. Even air temperature, pressure, and humidity can easily change a normal car's gas mileage by a few MPG. Add in other factors, like road contitions, tires, driving style, windy locations, or large variations in cargo/passengers. Even a poor alignment or underinflated tires can drastically affect your mileage.
It's a huge oversimplification to put "city" and "highway" MPG figures on a car. The only thing it's got going for it is that it's usually a standardized, and therefore easily comparable test. Though from what I've heard, the EPA's testing methods are flawed as well.

Wait...

[-kertrats-]

Advertisers fudging numbers to make their product look better? Does...not...compute...

Re:Wait...

[pclminion]

They didn't fudge any numbers. By law they are required to publish the numbers derived from the EPA test methods. No other estimate of mileage can be legally advertised.

Clearly the EPA test method is wrong, but Honda and Toyota don't exactly have any say in the matter. I'm sure they probably don't mind, but they couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to.

This goes for any car

[doctor_no]

Mileage claims problems can be applied to any car. It merely depends on the way you drive. Unless you drive like EPA examiners you aren't going to get EPA mileage.

I don't own a hybrid, yet I also don't get anywhere near EPA claims also. Maybe due to the fact that, like many of us, I drive like an ass at times.

ummmm this is not a mystery

[falcon5768]

This has been discussed many times before, and the simple fact is Americans do more high speed driving than the Japanese. In city, the milage is good cause your sitting at trafic lights and generally not engaging the engine, but just the electric motor. But get above 55 and your usually on the engine, which most commuters who would be buying these things would be doing, if you live innercity like say NY, your using mass transit NOT a car simply cause you cant park the damn thing. So the hybrids really dont even become a deal with you.

Car and Driver did a study and came up with this conclusion over a year ago. Why is this a surprise to everyone that the hybrids dont work in our enviroment?

2004 Prius

[superid]

My Father in law has had an 04 Prius for about 5 months. In the current, warmer weather of the past few weeks he's been getting 57 MPG. Over the very cold winter, I think he was in the low 40's or possibly even the upper 30's.

His driving habits didn't change at all during these periods. Exclusively putting around a small town and not plowing into farmers markets as happens occasionally with old men!

Summary, for those too lazy to read the article

[David Leppik]

• The EPA tests calculate mileage based on tailpipe emissions, using 1972 data for the formulas.
  
• Hybrids generally have a display which tells you your exact mileage at any moment. Thus, people are acutely aware when the cars don't measure up.
  
• There's nothing the manufacturers can do about it, since they aren't allowed to publish numbers other than the EPA numbers.
  

So it sounds like every modern car has this problem, but people notice it most with hybrids.

Re:Summary, for those too lazy to read the article

[Misch]

Hybrids generally have a display which tells you your exact mileage at any moment. Thus, people are acutely aware when the cars don't measure up.

I will admit that one place the Honda Civic Hybrid is inaccurate is the in-dash MPG indicator. The number displayed in-dash is generally 2-4 MPG higher than actual results. Others have noted this too. Apparently the Prius is a little more accurate in its calculations.

My 3-cyl 1995 Geo Metro gets 43+ mpg after 100k

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been getting mid-40s mpg since the car was new in 1995. Just this last weekend I filled up with 103k miles on the odometer, and calculated 46.3mpg on the tank of gas. (Most fillups are 43-45mpg).

This car has very little horsepower, but Suzuki did build a solid, reliable car with a healthy following. The interior is actually rather comfortable and will-built. Headroom is excellent, the rear seats aren't horrible, and it does have a small hatch. It also has dual-airbags for safety. Fortunately, the crash ratings aren't as bad as you would think for a smaller car. (two points for engineering crumple zones, rather than just having mass....)

The engine and drivetrain is actually built really tough. I do all my own car maintenance, and this thing just keeps on going. Here's a few reviews that are right on target, too:
http://www.hardrive.com/reviews/geometro.htm
http://www.epinions.com/content_106619702916

Here's a link to my CarDomain.com page on it:
http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/560399
T here's also a few other links to Metro/Swift/Firefly groups for fun reading.

If you're looking at buying a high-mileage commuter, I would seriously suggest checking these little guys out. They're inexpensive to buy, well-built, and obviously inexpensive to own and run!

Why do I feel teh need to start a flame war?

[thomasdelbert]

Well, my SUV is rated for 20 Hwy, and 15 City, and after a year of logging my miles, I've determined that to be accurate to the tenth of a mile. Of course, I do get a little push now and again from that @#$% tailgating civic that's embedded on my bumper...

- Thomas;

New Math?

[tommck]

A $2000 tax break is not equal to $2000.

If your tax rate is 30% (it may be lower), it is equal to $2000 * 30% = $600.

So, your car cost $18,400 ($1400 more - after deduction).

T

Re:New Math?

[pclminion]

So, your car cost $18,400 ($1400 more - after deduction).

You're arguing with him about how much he spent? Don't you think he knows better than you?

It's a $2000 credit, bozo. They hand it to you on a platter.

Re:New Math?

[Misch]

No, Federal wise, it's a deduction. It reduces your AGI by $2000 so it's like you made $2000 less. That works out to about $600, depending on your tax bracket.

New York State, on the other hand, had a outright $2,000 credit for hybrid cars. THAT is like being given $2,000 outright.

Hrm. That's funny. I get higher mileage.

[Randy Rathbun]

I am getting higher than average in my 03 Prius.

This current tank I am sitting at 56.7 MPG over 420 miles - 1/2 is interstate driving, 1/2 is city street. My 03 Prius gets 50 MPG city and 46 Highway for an average of 48.

Here's what these people are doing wrong:

1. Not coasting to a stop. When you see a red light ahead, you do not accelerate to a stop! You take your foot off the gas and coast to a stop.

2. No jackrabbit starts. Slowly apply throttle and gently move away from the stop.

3. Feather the throttle when driving on level ground. In the 01-03 Prius, you can maintain 35 MPH on electric only very easily. In the 04 Prius you can go even faster on just electric.

4. DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT or slightly under.

5. Take all the McDonalds sacks and other trash out of the car. You don't need to be tooling around town with dead weight equivilant to another person in your car. More weight = more work to move the car.

Driving a hybrid requires a lot of changes to driving habits. If these people are getting horrible mileage, they really need to learn to drive properly.

My experience is that they *do* get the mpg.

[dexterpexter]

In my undergraduate days, I was on a team that built a hybrid electric "sports car" (picture rendered, not photo) which gets up to 55 mpg.

We were also given a Prius and I can attest to its getting 50 mpg. It gets even more, depending on who is driving it. I can vary my gas mileage by up to 10 mpg just depending on how hard I drive the cars.

It is interesting to note that while gas mileage is optimized on the highway for "normal" cars, its exactly the opposite for hybrids. AFAIRemember, our cars always got better gas mileage in the city than on the highway, which is opposite of what most people expect.

If anyone wants to know more about the car I helped design, you can do so by visiting Hurricane Motor Works.

Mercedes Diesel

[invisik]

I just keep rockin' my 1992 Mercedes 300D 2.5 turbodiesel. Consistent 30mpg on a low cost, and nicer car!

-m

Re:Mercedes Diesel

[mlrtime]

How do you like accelerating from a full stop?

Its like you can see people walking at the same speed beside you until the turbo kicks in and you finally go somewhere :P

Re:Mercedes Diesel

[invisik]

Yes, that's a very good description of what it's like. Probably ultimately more horses then one of those hybrids, though. I guess I'm not a very aggressive driver--I don't need to pass people if they pass me first. I normally drive with the traffic, sometimes faster if less traffic. Pulling out into traffic can be interesting with all the turbo lag, but, as my friend says, it's all part of the fun. It's TONS faster then the 1980 300D non-turbo Mercedes I had a few cars ago. You have to drive it to appreciate it, I guess.... :)

-m

That would be the dot-com bust man.

[AdrianZ]

Worked at Be Incorporated, with BeOS.
The rest is history, as is that wonderful car.

I loved it so much that it'll probably be my next car. Besides the hybrid aspect, the display was awesome and the overall experience was great.

I should note that I had the manual version. I think the automatic didn't do quite as well. It also only had two seats, I can see why the civics don't get the same results.

Gas cars and "shift up" lights

[shoppa]

For a long time now gasoline-powered cars with sticks have had "shift up" lights on the dash. The sole purpose of which is to boost their EPA scores... few drivers obey the light and there's nothing to force you to.

A lot of the automotive engineers I've worked with over the years admit that the EPA tests suck and complain about them, but at the same time they know that all their current products are built to take full advantage of the EPA tests wherever possible. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What about 100% electrics?

[gregarican]

I was looking around on the Internet yesterday and saw a few American companies maunfacturing new electric vehicles. Not hybrids, but total electrics. Prices that I saw started at around $10-11K for what I would consider a vehicle that could keep up on the highways and byways.

Any of y'all out there have any experiences with such vehicles?

Re:What about 100% electrics?

[chessie]

yes, i have. 80's ford courier truck converted to complete electric. it was about 10 years ago. range: 20 miles. cost per mile $$$$ granted that was 10 years ago and things change. entire bed was full of batteries. would i do it again, even with todays technology and even future technology: NO!

those of you wishing for 100% electrics are fools: you are only making yourself feel good by transfering the source of pollution to someone else. dirty little secret of power companies- they sell pollution emmisions to each other like commodoties. because you don't see smoke from a tailpipe doesn;t mean energy by nature is a polluting process.

for those wishing for 100% electrics and for you hybrid owners: what do you happens to the batteries when you have to change them. how do you think they get all the nasty chemicals to put in them? what happens when they 'recycle' them?

look at ALL the issues before you champion and blindly trumpet how great a technology is. look at cost of ownership. lifetime on prius batteries is like 7 yr or 120k? i don;t remember the exact number but on that order.

me: i choose to drive a vw TDI. i consistently get 45+ miles to the gallon on #2 rot-gut diesel doing 1/2 city and 1/2 highway commute. and that is with exising technology and a car that costs $5k less than a hybrid. $5k buys me the fitst 100k miles and maintenance... and i ass emissions.

don;t believe me that diesel is the way to go:
look at this story previusly covered on /.-
85 mpg+
EPA Supercar

and to those who think that 28-33 mpg is 'efficient- quite sucking on you tailpipes and get soem fresh air!

Re:What about 100% electrics?

[Big Boss]

There are 1st gen Priuses on the road well over 100K on the battery. The 8yr/100K figure is the WARRANTY. What's the powertrain warranty on that VW? You don't mention the model or year, but I hear the Jetta comes in TDI.

http://www.vw.com/warranty/index.htm?car=jetta

Hmmm.... 5yr/60K. Of course, the Prius warranty above is for the hybrid electric parts, the Prius non-electric drivetrain warranty is the same as the Jetta. How, exactly, is this a higher TCO?

There are 04 Priuses on the road getting 55-60 MPG (average). It's all in driving style and terrian. As for the batteries, what's so nasty about them? They are NiMH, one of the least toxic battery types available. The materials are somewhat valuable so they will likely be recycled. The Prius uses somewhat small batteries as well, the size is compared to 6 loaves of bread, not like the EV lead-acid packs that can fill up the bed of a truck and contain large amounts of lead. The battery in your VW is probably more toxic than the Prius HV battery.

Re:What about 100% electrics?

[chessie]

i am not sure what your point is? the emission components on the vw are a higher increment, like 8yr, 100k. in fact all cars i think have emisions components covert to that or higher. i think the hybrids are too for same reason.

yeah, my EV batteries sucked. no argument there on all fronts.

what is the cost of replacing the batteries on the prius after they are shot? of maybe one of the boards when it fries? or one of the electric motors-regenerative units? i have heard of $3k to $5k for new batteries. does not cover related electrics.

you are not going to go to pep boys and get a set of batteries for your hybrid either. they are proprietary and the anti-trust thing is yet to be resolved. you are going to be pretty pissed when you find out that your only option is to go to a dealer and the price is fixed!
doesn;t matter how much fuel you 'saved' it gets wiped out by the higher intial cost and the cost of batteries.

my 85 1.6 normally aspirated vw has over 200k.. before i sold it. i personally know others who have over 350,000 miles on their VW's with little more than general maintenence. i have always gotten anywhere from 45 to 55 mpg.

my 04 on a bad day gets 45 combined. best ever is 52. nothing fancy here. rock solid, steady. rang of 800 miles plus per tank.

what really humors me is most people who are championing hybrids either 'know someone' or have had one for 50,000 miles. knowing someone doesn't count. 50,000 miles is nothing. i do that in 16-18 months. you car is just getting broken in at that point.

find some hard-core hybrid owners, those with over 150,000 and start looking at the repair and maintenance issues they have had.

hey, i am all for increassing fule economy and lowering emissions. but making hybrids out to be answer is wrong. you are still reliant on resource intensive gasoline and tied to foriegn oil.

it's been well discussed here that a diesel-electric running bio is way better than gas burning hybrid.

hybrids blow ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would i want a shitty ass hybrid when your kids can go over to iraq and secure a couple billion barrels of oil for me and my suv?

From thi article.

[Bluesman]

>"I feel like a complete fraud driving around Cincinnati with a license plate that says MO MILES," says Blackshaw.

Not to mention a complete dork.

Re:From thi article.

[Misch]

Okay, then drive a Ford Explorer around town with the plate "TM OZONE" as in "Too Much Ozone".

Automatic qualifier for the "I'm changing the environment, ask me how!" bumper sticker.

The EPA is measuring MPG by *emissions*!?!?

[raygundan]

To quote the article poster, "It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance."

This is two separate issues. The first is reducing fuel use, and the second is reducing pollution.

The fuel-use reduction is very real with hybrid cars, but the unfortunate side-effect of EPA mileage ratings is that this seems to be the first time people are realizing just how inaccurate they are. Cars get (on a good day) 75% of their EPA rating, and this includes conventional automobiles. People who by hybrids are, of course, concerned about their mileage, and are the only ones paying this kind of attention to it. So for every 60mpg prius averaging 40mpg, there are hundreds of 24mpg cars averaging 18mpg.

The second issue is pollution. This is harder to check on your own, but if the numbers are to be believed, SULEV/PZEV rating the Prius has is as high as you can get.

The worst part of all of this is that the EPA seems to be using emissions to rate fuel economy, which is going to result in cleaner cars appearing more efficient. From the article, "The 19-year-old EPA tests for city and highway mileage actually gauge vehicle emissions and use that data to derive an estimated fuel-efficiency rating." Call me crazy, but this seems like just about the most retarded way to measure fuel economy I've ever heard. Did it never occur to them to measure the distance driven, and then measure the fuel used?

And just to add my anecdote to everybody else's-- my non-hybrid 2001 civic HX CVT gets 35-37mpg, depending on what I was doing on that particular tank of gas.

Re:The EPA is measuring MPG by *emissions*!?!?

[Quill_28]

You make good points especially about how it seems backwards they way the measure MPG....but

>People who by hybrids are, of course, concerned about their mileage, and are the only ones paying this kind of attention to it.

>my non-hybrid 2001 civic HX CVT gets 35-37mpg, depending on what I was doing on that particular tank of gas.

umm, i think you do seem to care.

Re:The EPA is measuring MPG by *emissions*!?!?

[raygundan]

I bought the HX CVT because my old station wagon broke down beyond cost-effective repair in 2001 and the original Prius had an 8-month waiting list. The hybrid civic didn't exist yet. The HX uses a similar low-emissions high-economy VTEC-e 4-cylinder and has the same mileage-improving emissions-reducing CVT transmission as the hybrid.

I'm the type who would have one if I could have. But what I have is ULEV and rated at 40mpg, and I see a sigificant percentage of that at 35-37.

I probably shouldn't have said "the only ones paying attention" but the general point still stands-- people who buy hybrids are buying to get high gas mileage. They will, of course be watching this feature of their cars closely, and discovering just how unbelieveably stupid the EPA mileage rating system is. (and then incorrectly blaming it on their car's manufacturer) You can't blame Honda or Toyota for their ads with these numbers-- federal law prevents them from using any others. At the absolute worst, the manufacturers are guilty of building really clean cars to get a good fuel economy rating. Kinda like comitting one good deed to get credit for a different one, or something...

Re:The EPA is measuring MPG by *emissions*!?!?

[Quill_28]

oh man i was just yanking yer chain.

Adult undergarments- it Depends

[Building]

Like all cars, hybrids need more power when you're overcoming inertia (and that's when they go to the gasoline teat). If you're in a hilly suburban area where you're accelerating to speed, only to immediately stop again, yeah, you're going to get crapulent mileage. Notice that the ratings are for "highway" (fairly constant cruising, once you're at speed), and "city" (low-speed stop and go traffic, where you can stay on battery half the time).

If your hypothetical bloated SUV had one of those nice little LCD consumption displays like my '04 Prius, I bet you'd find that it needed several decimal places to display anything other than 0 when dragging its lard ass up a hill. I suspect that all such mileage ratings are for "ideal conditions," and even those nice little plain-gasoline economy cars get 5-10 mpg less than the 30-40 on the sticker.

As a data point, my Prius averages 45 mpg (well, 45.4 on the current tank, around mile 400). I tend to float between 50-70 on I-495 around DC, depending on traffic conditions, and have five minutes or so of 25 mpg deadweight in the suburban areas at the endpoints of my commute.

Re:Consumer reports

[stanmann]

Let the "donors" they list inside the front cover of each issue cover that... even if I pay for their magazine And I don't(generally) ...based on a friend's issue with CR/CU pirating their articles. I still pay nearly full price for their web subscription.

Re:my bad he gets 38 city/ 45 highway

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you always talk to yourself, retard?

Proud owner of a Prius

[Evil Closet Monkey]

Owning a 2004 Prius, I come damn near the estimates. Do I always hit them? No. But that is because you can't get 30+ MPG when you start moving from a dead stop in traffic.

Moving from traffic light to traffic light is no good for gas millage in any car. Even for a pure electric you "fuel" economy is going to go way down. It is when you get moving that the economy comes in.

I consistantly get 400+ miles out of my Prius. If I go out on country roads (or take the highway at the speed limit, maybe even a tick under) I can get a heck of a lot more.

Ya, it doesn't get exactly the quoted 55mpg average... but it is still a damned cool car that I wouldn't trade for anything (except maybe a 2005 model). :P

The EPA tests work for me....

[LuxFX]

I drive a 1996 Infiniti I30t, which is rated 28mpg on the highway. I do a lot of driving back and forth between Kansas City and Virginia to see relatives, and I consistently get better than 28mpg. I've gotten as high as 33.3mpg.

So whatever problem they have with the EPA tests, it is not universal.

Not so fast!

[Martin Doudoroff]

It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance."

It's one thing to point out that the EPA fuel efficiency test is a chronic source of mis-information, but all cars go through this test and few average their advertised efficiency under practical conditions, whether they are hybrid or not. So, it would be nice if Mr. Timothy would spare us the FUD.

My father has a Prius, my girlfriend's brother-in-law has a Prius, and I have a close friend with the Honda "pod-car" hybrid, and all of them report EXCELLENT mileage: far better than they could get with any comparable conventional automobile.

But it isn't that simple. What the Wired article alludes to without really exploring it is that efficiency is related to driving habits. You can drive a hybrid like any other car, of course, but if you want the best efficiency out of a hybrid, you have to learn to drive it efficiently. That's one of the reasons the Prius has the computer display in the center of the console: so you can relate how you drive with how the engine is utilized. Mastering regenerative braking is one of these details. Learning the most efficient routes around town is another.

Another important aspect of hybrids that the Wired article ignores is emissions. Vehicles like the Prius are ultra-low emissions vehicles (ULEV), which to my mind, we need more of.

Re:Not so fast!

[rjstanford]

But it isn't that simple. What the Wired article alludes to without really exploring it is that efficiency is related to driving habits. You can drive a hybrid like any other car, of course, but if you want the best efficiency out of a hybrid, you have to learn to drive it efficiently. That's one of the reasons the Prius has the computer display in the center of the console: so you can relate how you drive with how the engine is utilized. Mastering regenerative braking is one of these details. Learning the most efficient routes around town is another.

Of course, most of the standard hybrid hints (no jack rabit starts, etc) and your comment about learning efficient routes around town would apply equally to non-hybrid vehicles...

Re:Not so fast!

[frdmfghtr]

Another important aspect of hybrids that the Wired article ignores is emissions. Vehicles like the Prius are ultra-low emissions vehicles (ULEV), which to my mind, we need more of.

No they're not...

They're SULEVs (super-ultra-low emissions vehicles) :)

The new Prius is even better...AT-PZEV or something, with "partial zero emissions"

Best gas mileage possible...

[elwell642]

It's all a conspiracy, I tell ya! Huffy is in cahoots with Exxon...

Hype? EPA is Hype on SUV's as well.

[Teahouse]

They still get better mileage than the SUV's. Further, EPA mileage is never "real-world" mileage. Hummer's don't get anything near the 12/15 rating they have on their EPA estimate either. Basic math still favors the hybrid. I don't see why people are getting their panties in a wad over the fantasy EPA sticker (which they ignore anyway).

A hybrid getting 35-40mpg is still way more efficent than an SUV getting 8.

My Prius (2004)

[einstein]

My 2004 Prius's last 4 tanks of gas averaged to about 50.5 mpg, mainly highway driving.

If I do a lot of city driving, I get 55-60 mpg.

true, in colder weather I am usually at 45 mpg, but that is only a few months out of the year.

I think the true benefit of hybrid tech right now is, pushing the use of electrical system in automobiles, while still being able to fuel up at a regular pump. In 7-10 years when I'll be looking to replace my prius, the battery pack and the whole Internal Combustion Engine will be able to replaced in a new car with hydrogen fuel cells.

Mine is

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 2003 Audi A4 listed as 20/25mpg for city/highway driving.

Most of my driving is highway, and I seem to average about 16-17mpg.

Hybrids may not represent the final step in fuel efficiency, but 60% of 50mpg is still higher than 60% of 25mpg...

Toyota Prius lives up to claims

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got two 2003 Toyota Prius' (me and my wife). The EPA says 52mpg/city and 45mpg/highway. My car gets between 45 and 50, my wifes gets between 50 and 55. We both fill up about 10 gallons after going about 500 miles. Not too shabby.

From what I've read, fuel efficiency does depend on temperature (mpgs drop some during the winter) and how the person drives. I've paid attention to my car and have increased fuel efficiency by a couple of mpgs.

Several people I work with have hybrid Civics and Prius' and they all function as advertised. Not sure what the deal is with other people seeing crappy performance.

Re:Toyota Prius lives up to claims

[sfled]

"Not sure what the deal is with other people seeing crappy performance."

Probably because they drive like the buttheads around here: aggresive acceleration, no coasting to lights or other stops, bad trip planning, poor maintenance, underinflated tires, etc.

These are the same simpletons who bitch when their unpatched computers don't work after they've managed to install Gator, Kazaa and every other piece of spyware, malware and crapware known to man. They 'feel' that no matter how complex or sophisticated a piece of equipment is, it should "work like a toaster." Hah! F 'em.

Re:Toyota Prius lives up to claims

[frdmfghtr]

Besides driving habits, a big factor is tire pressure.

Toyota quotes 35/33psi front/rear on the label to give that soft, cushy ride, but the OEM Bridgestone tires have been reported to wear out well before the 30,000 mile warranty. From the Yahoo message boards, bump those numbers up about 10psi and you get:

-better mileage

-better handling

-better tire wear

I've been running around on 45/43psi front/back, and have nice, even wear and great mileage. One tank a few weeks back got me 570 miles (400 on the highway I estimate), but I couldn't get more than nine gallons into the tank.

My Hybrid Mileage

[parc]

Hybrid mileage varies by season and driving habits:
In the summer, I get 36-38mpg. If I jackrabbit starts and drive like an ass, it'll drop to 34.
In the winter, I get 39-42mpg. If I jackrabbit starts and drive like an ass, it'll drop to 36.

I live in Austin, with plenty of hills to kill my mileage. When in flatter parts of Texas, such as Houston, my mileage improves by about 2mpg.

Huh?

[www.sorehands.com]

I get 33mpg highway on my 2000 Celica GT. That is about the same, but there is not a waiting list. I like the idea of regenerative breaking, now if they add organic solar panels or a small cold fusion reactor, they may get the advertised milage.

The article is crap

[Safety Cap]

Honda's Civic Hybrid is rated by the EPA to get 47 miles per gallon in the city, and 48 MPG on the highway. After nearly 1,000 miles of mostly city driving, Blackshaw was getting 31.4 MPG. ~ who claims that after 4,000 miles his car has never gotten more than 33 MPG on any trip.

I can't speak for the Honda, as I have the Toyota Prius, but I get consistently 48-9 city MPG, (the '02 P is rated at 47 city).

If you don't know how to drive a hybrid, then you will get poor MPG. Period. Here's how to get high MPG in a hybrid:

1. Make sure the tires are properly inflated (Toyota recommends 33-35 psi, but most Prius owners keep it at 40 psi for better mileage and traction).
2. When the light turns green, floor it until you get to your target speed (i.e., the speed limit).
3. Turn on cruise control ASAP.
4. Do not accelerate when you know you will have to stop.
5. Avoid tapping on the brake unnecessarily, anticipate the conditions ahead and lower your speed appropriately; when you see the light turn red or heavy traffic ahead, turn off the cruise control and coast. Obviously, if you have to hit the brake because someone darts in front of you, that takes precedence over MPG.
6. Run the AC only when necessary.

It is absolutely understandable why people try to drive the way they are taught: smooth acceleration, hit the brakes often, etc., but that is the antithesis of getting good gas mileage in a hybrid.

Finally, the main goal of the hybrid is reduced emissions; increased MPG is a byproduct.

Re:The article is crap

[comedian23]

>but most Prius owners keep it at 40 psi for better mileage and traction

I can buy the better mileage part, but if you over inflate your tires you should get worse traction.

Re:The article is crap

[GooberToo]

Avoid tapping on the brake unnecessarily, anticipate the conditions ahead and lower your speed appropriately; when you see the light turn red or heavy traffic ahead, turn off the cruise control and coast. Obviously, if you have to hit the brake because someone darts in front of you, that takes precedence over MPG.

I thought most modern hybrids charged the batteries when you applied the brakes??? Seems like charging the batteries for "free" would be high on the list.

Re:The article is crap

[molo]

Finally, the main goal of the hybrid is reduced emissions; increased MPG is a byproduct.

They are generally the same thing. How would you reduce emissions but to use less gasoline?

-molo

Re:The article is crap

[ubikkibu]

I agree--there is an interesting technical point in the article, but overall its intentional creation--and slashdot's eager fools--of a supposed "hybrid backlash" is just complete poop. I've had a Prius for two years in a mountainous area of Colorado. Our lifetime mileage is 44.7, but in the summer we often get 50 mpg tanks. I calculate the mileage myself, although the in-dash readings nearly agree with my own averages. I've gone 518 miles on one (10.5 gal) tank. It comes very close to not polluting at all, and it is a very comfortable family car. Having said that--if you buy one of these and continue to drive like a maniac, your mileage results will suffer noticeably. The car trains you to accelerate and decelerate gently in order to max out your mileage, and this is a good practice no matter what car you drive. The Wired propaganda article gives Republican/Libertarian/selfish folk just another justification to ignore the environment. Keep waiting for the fuel cell, kids...it's a great way to stall progress.

Re:The article is crap

[Peter La Casse]

Note that the article also gives justification to ignore the environment to liberal, green, communist, socialist, and anarchist folks. I guess you could call it an equal opportunity article: it justifies regardless of the race, creed, color and sex of the reader... what a country!

Re:The article is crap

[Just Some Guy]

You are exactly correct. At the recommended inflation, the tread of a tire is mostly flat (from side to side). Go under that level, and it becomes slightly concave so that you're riding on the outside edges of the tread. Overinflation make the tread slightly convex so that you're mainly using the middle of the tread.

It might give you slightly better mileage by decreasing contact area (and therefore rolling friction), but it certainly won't increase traction.

It will also cause your tires and suspension (due to increased transmission of road surface defects) to wear faster, and you have to remember that the manufacturing processes for those parts isn't all happy and "green".

Re:The article is crap

[jridley]

Other than "floor it out of the light" those instructions work for all cars. Anybody can probably get 5 to 10 more MPG out of whatever they're driving by doing that stuff. Good advice.

You don't need a hybrid to get 50 MPG; there are many cars on the market that will do it. I think hybrids are an interesting technology, but I don't think it's worth the added complexity to get pretty much the same mileage you could get with a nice TDI turbodiesel, and for less money.

Re:The article is crap

[SilverLuz]

When you coast or brake lightly, a small amount of braking power is used to recharge the batteries. If you brake hard and need to stop quickly, a secondary brake comes into effect - a conventional one that works well for stopping, but the energy goes to heat, not the batteries.

Re:The article is crap

[garinh]

I have to agree that the article is grossly exaggerated. Either the driver who was featured has a lemon, or he drives very agressively. I own a Honda Civic hybrid (CVT -- which in general is slightly worse mileage than the manual, if the manual transmission is used to maximize mileage), and I keep fairly detailed track of the fuel consumption. Over the life of the car -- now a year and a half and 16000 miles -- the on-dash mileage is reported as 44.2mpg and the at-the-pump actual mileage is about 42mpg. This _is_ lower than the EPA estimates for the car, but not by the ridiculous figures quoted in the article. BTW -- I find that the numbers for city driving _can_ actually be better than on the highway, but only under specific conditions. Ideal conditions for my Civic are when I drive for a while on a city road at 40 mph, with only a few stops -- under these conditions I can easily get a reported 50mpg, which should translate to around 47mpg at the pump (assuming a similar ratio to my actual figures for the car).

Re:The article is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

# When the light turns green, floor it until you get to your target speed (i.e., the speed limit).


that is the most retarted comment I have EVER heard here on slashdot.

FLOORING IT will only significantly increase your wear on the drivetrain and reduce your efficency. slowly accelerating up to speed is the correct answer.... flooring it is the answer for a 100% electric vehicle.

I strongly suggest you learn about efficency driving. many people properly driving a hybrid and driving it correctly get near 20% over the rated MPG.

slow even acceleration is the key, advanced decelleration to match the traffic's AVERAGE speed is also another key

the cruise control DOES NOT give you efficent travel, just convienent travel. a human paying attention can exceed the effeciency of any cruise control system ever made.

but anyways.... flooring it... that is a hoot! what's next? you gonna tell us that not slowing for corners and making right hand turns from the left lane at high speed and overall driving like an asshole is more efficient?

Re:The article is crap

[NilesDonegan]

I agree - and want to add one more point to to the above:

7.) Drive more! Short drives give lousy mpg for any car. My '04 Prius gets 44 mpg doing the short (15 min.) commute to lab everyday up and down very large hills. When I've driven it longer on flatter terrain, I consistently get 55-60 mpg.

I'd say the 31 mpg hybrids need a tuneup. All the ones I know are running >40 mpg.

Re:The article is crap

[FirstManOnMoon]

I agree whole heartedly.

I'm also a 2003 Prius owner. When I first bought the car, I was averaging 44 MPG. As I learned to drive it more efficiently, I eventually reached an average of 48 MGP. Driving style does make a big difference. My commute is 13 miles one way, with 2/3rds of that highway miles.

On a side note, I love the drivers that can't stand the fact that I coast to a red light rather then brake hard when I reach it. They usually get ticked off and pass me, which just means I end up following them for the next several miles and wave to them every time I pull up behind them at the next light.

Re:The article is crap

[Locutus]

I too am a Toyota Prius/Hybrid owner/driver and you make some valid points. One thing you left out was to try to combine short trips/errands or make them after a longer trip like returning from work. Those short trips will kill your average MPG.

Regarding drive habits, it just amazes my how many people will speed up to stop at a light or stop sign. It just plain stupid and wasteful.

Then again, it's also pretty obvious that many drivers do not drive/look beyond the hood of their car and probably don't even know they will be stopping at a red light in 20 yards. After all, how many times have you seen people all lined up behind a car making a left turn when there is plenty of room on the right side of the car to go around????

The MPG feedback of the Toyota and Honda hybrids are great. It'll show you how wasteful your driving habits are in a very short time.

LoB

Re:The article is crap

[hyphz]

> FLOORING IT will only significantly increase
> your wear on the drivetrain and reduce your
> efficency. slowly accelerating up to speed is
> the correct answer.... flooring it is the
> answer for a 100% electric vehicle.

No, flooring it can help on a Hybrid. I've seen it on my Civic IMA (the Euro version of the Civic Hybrid, manual only). If you accelerate slowly, sometimes it will be OK, but in some road conditions you just keep yourself inefficient for as long as possible. By flooring it, you're really inefficient while accelerating but you're done accelerating sooner.

Re:The article is crap

[Blakey Rat]

Then again, it's also pretty obvious that many drivers do not drive/look beyond the hood of their car and probably don't even know they will be stopping at a red light in 20 yards. After all, how many times have you seen people all lined up behind a car making a left turn when there is plenty of room on the right side of the car to go around????

Uh, well, in many states this is the LAW so that might be a good reason.

I can't speak for where you're from, but in my state it's illegal to drive through roadside parking (your "plenty of space to go around") to pass a person making a left turn. If that's not enough, it's also illegal to pass a car on the right, which is exactly what you're doing. This isn't just a random law, it's there for safety reasons. Driving half-blind through multiple parking spots is *not* safe driving.

Now, this is perfectly fine if the road has two driving lanes. If the right-hand lane is free, move into it and pass the left-turner. But on most roads, doing so is illegal.

Re:The article is crap

[CymorC]

Actually, Floor it out of the light does work for all ICE cars. ICEs are more efficient at medium to high RPMS.

Re:The article is crap

[CymorC]

The OEM Prius tires are rated at 50psi.

Re:The article is crap

[Rich0]

Uh, well, in many states this is the LAW so that might be a good reason.

Just like driving 57 in a 55MPH zone...

And I NEVER break that law - really...

You shouldn't go flying around people along the roadside at 55MPH, but there really isn't much point in just parking for a minute behind somebody who is waiting for oncoming traffic to clear. Traffic laws exist to promote safety.

Yelling at people who pass in these circumstances is like yelling somebody who runs a red light in the middle of nowhere at 2AM with clear visibility and no other cars in sight...

Re:The article is crap

[MindSlap]

Pfft..doesnt sound any different then how I drive a Pontiac LS1 powered car..(315hp)

" If you don't know how to drive a hybrid, then you will get poor MPG. Period. Here's how to get high MPG in a hybrid:

1. Make sure the tires are properly inflated (Toyota recommends 33-35 psi, but most Prius owners keep it at 40 psi for better mileage and traction).
--LS1 Keep tires below recommended pressure.
I run NITTO drag radials at 18psi !

2. When the light turns green, floor it until you get to your target speed (i.e., the speed limit).
--LS1 Floor it!! Oh ya!! I can reach ANY target speed in seconds.. Big fuel savings there!

3. Turn on cruise control ASAP.
-- LS1 Pfft.. I can just hit that high tech "RESUME" on my LS1

4. Do not accelerate when you know you will have to stop.
--LS1 Good advice! But then again, those that dont abide by that all have wrecked cars and may be dead anyway...

5. Avoid tapping on the brake unnecessarily, anticipate the conditions ahead and lower your speed appropriately; when you see the light turn red or heavy traffic ahead, turn off the cruise control and coast. Obviously, if you have to hit the brake because someone darts in front of you, that takes precedence over MPG.
--LS1 Hmmm really..I know some tree huggers that would sooner sacrifice an entire town's well being to save a dragonflys..Those same ones may just ram you rather give up a few MPG's that could save a bunnies lungs.

6. Run the AC only when necessary."
--LS1 Brilliant!

Re:The article is crap

[Just Some Guy]

That's the rated maximum. My OEM Intrigue tires are rated at 35psi, but you'd be an idiot to keep them there.

Re:The article is crap

[danielobvt]

Regarding drive habits, it just amazes my how many people will speed up to stop at a light or stop sign. It just plain stupid and wasteful.
Its stupid, but its a classic. And if you don't join in their insanity they give you dirty looks and will often try to zoom around you. This is the country where light truck/SUV sales now outnumber cars. Were you expecting rational behaviour?

Re:The article is crap

[Sabalon]

When I took my driving test in Georgia years ago, the book they give you to study from talks about how you can go around on the right if there is room, yet on the test, when a question about that came up, the correct answer was to wait for the person to turn.

Go figure.

Your Mileage May Vary!

[tbmaddux]

Insight Central has some very good general fuel efficiency tips and more advanced / detailed tips. I have driven my 2000 Insight over 70,000 miles and have gotten nearly 70 mpg. My driving now includes a mix of city and highway; when it was mostly highway miles I was regularly beating 80 mpg on each tank. My daily commute is now 8 miles round trip. I still get over 60mpg, which beats the EPA estimate. This is not to brag, but to point out that one or two bloggers' experiences do not fairly reflect the general experience of all drivers.

When you drive a hybrid, you will get better mileage if you change your habits to make more effective use of the hybrid's abilities. This doesn't mean you have to poke along... I accelerate hard so that I am using my batteries and minimizing the time I spend burning a lot of fuel in the gasoline engine. Plus, it's fun. You'll also get better mileage if you pay attention to things like tire pressure. Dealers like to inflate my Insight tires to 32 psi all around, even though 38 psi is what Honda recommends. An Insight with 32 psi tires looks like it's running on flats. I inflate to 44 psi. The mileage change is dramatic.

As for the original article, it has some good points in it about the EPA tests. It also has some real head-scratchers, like this: "Schmidt says hybrid cars use computers to more precisely control the flow of gasoline and have more efficient catalytic converters..." and this "hybrid cars' ability to limit emissions contributes to the disparity in EPA versus real-world numbers." There are many, many cars that have the same or better EPA emissions rating (10/10) as the Civic Hybrid and the Toyota Prius. All cars today use computers to regulate gasoline flow.

When you get your hybrid, turn on its instantaneous readout of mpg and use it to give you feedback on your driving. It will train you. Happy driving...

I have a Hybrid Civic

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy in the blog: either there is something wrong with his particular car, or he is driving like a racecar driver and using low octane fuel.

When I drive with a light foot and use 93 octane gas I can get around 50mpg. I never expected to get the EPA numbers because I've never achieved them with car's I've owned in the past.

Maybe this guy lives in an area with tons of hills, high altitude, and he is very overweight? I mean, there are a lot of factors here.

Interresting notes

[Captain Rotundo]

I drive a honda civic, and spent the last week driving my sisters civic hybrid (been considering getting one).

At first I thought it felt remarkably close to the standard civic in performance, then I went back to the standard civic :) but it still performed perfectly well

But according to the car (its readout not my calculations) I got about 39-40 MPG durring the week, where as I calculate any where from 28-35 MPG on my civic.

Not a big increase, but It seemed like they could have done more to make little improvements, like according to the car the electric motor never assists unless your really heavily accelerating or going up an incline. also it turns the gas motro of at a stop light, but if you move again it wont turn it off unless you exceed 5 MPH, so if your in real bumper-to-bumper traffic the motro stays on, now I realize the design of the engine(s) probably makes it so the car can't move without the electric but it seems to me it would be morte asthetically pleasing to keep the gas off until you actually start moving faster than say 5MPH. (there would have been stretches of 20-30 minutes in traffic without the engine even running if that were the case for me.

all in all I would definatly consider a hybrid when I purchase my next car, but my milage expectations have been brought to earth.

Mileage estimates are always skewed high

[Anonymous Coward]

My regular 2002 Civic is supposed to get 31 city / 38 highway. Its really more like 27 city / 33 highway. I've found that I can get closer to the projected numbers by running with "plus" or "premium" gas and driving slower. But of course, YMMV :-)

small savings in energy

[Anonymous Coward]

the only ways hybrids are more efficient is by:
1. getting energy back during breaking
2. running the gas engine at max efficiency

apprently there's really not that much energy to be saved using theses methods.

For all the extra complexity, i don't think hybrid cars are worth the trouble.

b.t.w. Does anyone know: if they batteries wear out, and how much they cost to replace?

This is well known, and irrelevent.

[pavon]

There is no story here. All fuel effeciency ratings given by the EPA are very overrated. Everyone knows that, which is why you should go to places like Consumer Reports to get the real story. Besides, your gas milage depends highly on how you drive. If you take it easy on the accelerator, and plan ahead so you can slowly coast to a stop and use your brakes less often you will get better milage than if you drive with a heavy foot. I read one article (I think in car and driver) about a guy who was actually able do get better than the EPA rating for a hybrid car, because he drove fuel effeciency minded. But most people shouldn't expect to get this.

Futhermore, all the people that I knew were looking into getting a hybrid car, were well aware that there were other cars (like the toyota echo, and VW golf turbodeisel) that were just as fuel miserly and more economical than hybrid. Their main desire in getting a hybrid was to support the bleeding edge technology that will eventually take us to a more efficent means of transportation. Look at all the advances in batteries, the new CVT transmissions, regenerative braking, smart power distribution algorithms, and tell me that these cars are nothing but hype. I don't know what will end up being the most cost effecient form of energy when the price of oil goes up, but there is a very good chance that it will be some form of electric, either from rail, battery, or fuel cell, so these cars are paving the way there.

Sorry

[dimer0]

Sorry, that was a Civic Hybrid, not an Accord (which I don't believe has a hybrid model)

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be an Accord hybrid available at the end of this year as a 2005 model. The Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) will be attached to Honda's 240hp V6. The V6 will also sport a fuel deactivation system called Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) that will shut down three cylinders during light load operation (read: highway miles). The Chrysler 300C Hemi already has this feature (VCM).

smoothy

[EaterOfDog]

Agreed. Smooth driving is the key for greater fuel efficiency with these cars. Gently braking to a stop allows the drivetrain to feed the energy back into the batteries. The energy you loose due to wind resistance is gone, but you can convert your momentum back to usable energy with gentle stops. If you like to stand on the gas and stomp on the brakes, these cars won't save you much. And you drive like an asshole.

I Own a Hybrid Civic

[PateraSilk]

I own a hybrid Civic, so here's my $0.02:

With the AC off, I get 44-46 mpg. That's lower than the calculated mpg the onboard computer gives me,m and lower than the official EPA mpg. However, I still think it's pretty good. I have some theories about why people don't get good mileage:

1. The electric motor acts like a turbo would. You can't just hammer down and plow past people in the passing lane. If you try that, you'll just shove the CVT into 5000 RMP mode and waste a ton of gas. You have to let it "spool up".

2. Most peope ride the brakes. If you chill out, you can engine brake and let the electric motor suck the power off the transmission rather than having the brakes turn it into heat.

3. Kinda like #1, blasting up to 80 mph is a bad idea because you waste a lot of gas *and* battery juice. You can ride at 80 mph, and relatively efficiently, too, but you have to let the car get there.

All that said, I'd like the car to have a whole lot more battery power for off-the-line accelerations, which takes up the most fuel, and to store more regenerative power.

Re:I Own a Hybrid Civic

[mekkab]

Whats funny is that Prius owners give almost the EXACT opposite advice! (aside from not riding the break; but you shouldn't do that anyway). I realize its because of the design differences between the two.

Re:I Own a Hybrid Civic

[Anonymous Coward]

I also own a Civic Hybrid and am somewhat bothered by all the FUD going around in the comments on this article. Here's a summary of my experience with my car:

The EPA estimates of mileage are pessimistic. Yes, I do better than the sticker estimate on a regular basis. Why? Because I don't try to drive my hybrid like a standard gasoline car. I have a manual transmission (stick shift), and it indicates when to shift to get the best mileage. That taught me part of how to drive it, and the rest I picked up on my own.

After 21k miles, this is what I've learned.

1. First and second gears make the most use of the battery boost. Beating people out of a red light is much easier than passing them once speeds get up to ~35 mph.

2. Engine-braking is key. I gain a lot of battery charge by down-shifting when I see traffic ahead slowing down or stopping.

3. Hybrids let you use some rather unique shifting patterns to keep the RPMs down. I use 1-2-4 and 5-3-2 on a regular basis.

4. Time approaches to red lights so you don't always have to come to a complete stop before it turns green. The most energy is used in getting the tires rolling in first gear, so anything you can save here helps.

5. When slowing down in traffic, once the RPMs go low enough that the battery charger disengages (you can feel this or see it on the display), if you balance the clutch and brake just right, you can coast for a while with the engine off.

6. Use the "Econ" button on the dash. This allows the engine to turn off when you stop rather than keeping it on so the A/C doesn't turn off. You can deal without it for a minute at a red light.

I could go on, but you get the idea. When it's cold (I live in Colorado), I average about 46 mpg. When the temperature is over 41 deg F (threshold for engine auto-shutoff), I average around 53 mpg. On my current tank of gas, I have about 500 miles and am averaging 60 mpg, but I've done a lot of highway driving recently.

Hybrids do get better mileage, but not if you drive them like a sports car.

Re:I Own a Hybrid Civic

[meta slash]

I bought my hybrid Civic 9 months back. I typically get 50mpg. I can reproduce 60+mpg most any morning (10am ;) on my way to work 15miles away. My commute is against traffic from one Washington DC suburb to another. The evening traffic usually limits me to 50+mpg (I can't vary my speed to fit the terrain as much... people get fussy when you're not going something over the speed limit). My wife (no lightfoot) got 51 the one time she took it for a long (120mi) trip up I95. So I'll back up all the people who point to driving habbits to explain poor milage. I will say though, that all the numbers quoted above are DC summer. I was getting 44-48mpg between ~December and ~Feb. I don't know if that's from oxygenated gas or just the cooler weather. I sold my Accord EX to get this civic and am very happy.

Re:I Own a Hybrid Civic

[savuporo]

"2. Most peope ride the brakes. If you chill out, you can engine brake and let the electric motor suck the power off the transmission rather than having the brakes turn it into heat. " Ok, i see alot of people are lamenting excessive braking ... now, why arent the hybrids built with electric brakes in the first place, with disks as only an emergency backup ? Why waste all the braking energy just for heating the brake disks and pads in the first place ?

Re:I Own a Hybrid Civic

[PateraSilk]

Hybrids *do* have electric "brakes". The electric motor is attached to the flywheel (or somewhere on the crankshaft) and adds its torque to the gasoline engine when needed. When you take your foot off the gas, the motor turns into a generator and pulls power from the crankshaft to charge the batteries. That's what I mean by "engine braking"; to contrast this, in a normal car, you're just giving the engine less gas than it needs to maintain a certain speed so it slows down. In a hybrid the motor actively slows the engine through magnetic resistance.

The reason you still have brake pads and shoes is because friction acts much faster than EMF resistance and is therefore better in emergencies. I don't think I'd drive a hybrid without standard brakes!

That being said, I wish that I could have the option to set the draw strength higher or lower just because I *would* like to leave the friction brakes only for emergencies.

Lead Foot ppl

[SSR]

should not talk about their poor MPG's....my girlfriend and I have a 2001 Prius and we get 48.5 MPG in FLorida consistantly and it's driven on Interstates 50% of the time, easily. If we drive without AC in the city we get 50+ MPG, interstate with AC we get 45 MPG.

Driving habits have as much to do with MPG as the car.

Like my CS professor said...

[donnyspi]

"Never buy version 1 of anything". The hybrids will get better, give 'em time. (Same isn't true for Windows though :-) )

I get the promised gas mileage in my hybrid

[delcielo]

My Honda Civic Hybrid gives me almost exactly the sticker mileage. If I'm carefull in how I drive, I can beat it. If I drive it like I've always driven cars, I get what was promised (I do a mix of city and highway driving). If I lead-foot it, of course I get less.

I used to fill the Altima up once a week. I fill the Civic up every 3. It has the same size gas tank.

The law of conservation of energy makes the hybrid thing a wash, or even less efficient than a gas motor, until you factor in the regenerative braking and the battery. In a normal gasoline-only car, you waste all of the energy that exists in the inertia of the car when you stop. With the Hybrid, you get to store as much of that as you can during braking, and use it when you start again.

Therefore, you're not creating more energy from less fuel, you're just not throwing as much of it away.

I do know another owner of the same year and model I have that doesn't get the mileage I do. He averages about 42 (mixed city/hwy). I'm convinced it's in the way he drives the car, and he will freely admit that his previous car didn't get the promised mileage either.

I think people get unrealistic expectations. Honda never said it would get 48mpg in all conditions and for all drivers. My Civic does everything it promised it would. It's an impressive bit of technology.

And how is this different from other power plants?

[dkh2]

Seriously. Car X advertises on it's sticker that this vehicle gets 27.6 MPG in the city. "* your mileage may vary." You can typically count on the average driver getting someting less than that. It's used as a reasonably consistant comparison point. A theoretically perfect driver attained this mileage consistantly in controlled tests.

The problem here is that we don't have enough comparison data on hybrid vehicles to know how accurate or consistent that estimate is from one model to the next.

Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you going to get the hydrogen?

The only cost-effective way to get it today is from coal or natural gas, which both result in releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

Hybrids are _both_ more efficient and cleaner.

FWIW my 2002 prius is getting 47.5 mpg in mixed driving. The EPA estimate for mixed driving was 48 mpg.

Is this just more anti-hybrid FUD?

[dsz]

I drive a Honda Civic Hybrid, and have kept track of my mileage for the year and several months that I've owned it.

Overall, I've gotten an average of just over 50 miles per gallon over the last 16,000 miles. In the summertime, I get about 53-55 mpg, and in the winter it's just under 50.

I definitely changed how I drove to maximize my fuel efficiency. If you don't leave the car in gear as you're braking to stop at a light or stop sign, the engine won't charge and you're mileage goes way down. If you accelerate like a bat outta hell after stopping, you lose mileage big time - instead you have to just accept that you're gonna accelerate slower than other cars.

Others have asked the question, and I'd be curious to know the answer: do non-hybrid cars live up to the EPA mileage reports? One would imagine that the EPA would have some consistency in their testing, so it'd be okay to compare numbers.

Interestingly, on my Civic hybrid, the dashboard display of the average mileage for this trip seems to exaggerate the mileage consistently by about 4-5 miles per gallon. I reset one of the trip odometers each time I fill up the tank, and use the odometer reading (number of miles travelled) along with the number of gallons I put in to make my own calculation of mileage. It's always at least 3 or 4 miles per gallon lower than what the display reports. My Honda dealer is clueless about the hybrid, and couldn't even understand the question when I asked them about this difference.

Re:Is this just more anti-hybrid FUD?

[PateraSilk]

I reset one of the trip odometers each time I fill up the tank, and use the odometer reading (number of miles travelled) along with the number of gallons I put in to make my own calculation of mileage. It's always at least 3 or 4 miles per gallon lower than what the display reports.

This is exactly the behavior I see. Either it's the difference between real-world and calculated mileage or it's marketing.

Re:Is this just more anti-hybrid FUD?

[tordia]

Me too.

My dash reports that I'm getting 45mpg over the life of the car, but my calculations are closer to 42.

Re:Is this just more anti-hybrid FUD?

[DuckDodgers]

"Others have asked the question, and I'd be curious to know the answer: do non-hybrid cars live up to the EPA mileage reports? One would imagine that the EPA would have some consistency in their testing, so it'd be okay to compare numbers."

For example, let's say the automatic transmission in a car switches gears at 3000 RPM back to 1500 RPM in light driving. It makes the switch from first to second at 22 mph, second to third at 37, and third to fourth at 52.

If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 20 mph, 35 mph, and 50 mph mileage will be relatively poor because the engine will be running close to 3000 RPMs most of the time.

If the test for mileage spends a lot of time at 25 mph, 40 mph, and 55 mph the mileage will be substantially better because the engine will be running close to 1500 RPMs most of the time.

Does the EPA take gear shift points into account when it runs the mileage tests? I'm not sure.

I have an Impala, and I'm a relatively light-footed driver. The rated mileage is 21/32 and I get 25/31.

Re:Is this just more anti-hybrid FUD?

[ray-auch]

I not sure about the EPA figures, but VW advertise the golf TDI at about 50mpg extra-urban (highway). I get around 50mpg, sometimes better, overall - probably more extra-urban than urban.

And I haven't changed how I drive at all to do that.

thoughts...

[medelliadegray]

I am getting rather frustrated with how many things the government (intentionally?) claims--which then turns out to be blantly wrong. A large majority of the people i know really do do not trust our government's information anymore. It truely is a shame.

That aside--the brochures do state that the hybrids will take advantage of braking and coasting energy for their batteries. on long trips (which are generally on freeway's) one does not brake or coast much, so the batter can not be used much--because it wont get charged either.

I often wonder why these cars do not have a solar panel on the roofs and potentially the trunk's of the cars. I suppose it would effect the sexyness of the vehicle

Another thing--how hard would a freaking electrical plugin be? with an option to specify your expected trip mileage and time between the next 'plugin'. Then commuters will be able to have the vehicle maximumise the electrical usage.

Honda Civic Hybrid driver CAN get 40-50mpg

[chopkins1]

You CAN get the 40-50mpg fuel economy in this car, the problem is that most people's driving habits won't let them achieve it.

My wife and I have both driven this car.

When I drive the car I get about what the blogger gets as gas mileage (36mpg)(I drive moderately aggressively).

HOWEVER, when my wife drives it, she has been able to get in the 50+ mpg range... She does not drive aggressively at all. (She has NEVER been in an accident or had a speeding ticket.) The way she says she manages it is:
1) Stay farther back from other vehicles.
2) Take more time braking
3) Don't switch back and forth rapidly between the gas and brakes
4) Most importantly DON'T GUN the engine for acceleration. This is the BIGGEST factor in the whole equation.

I have found that, when I try to follow these rules, I can get better mileage. I can get closer to what the EPA says the mileage should be and what my wife gets when she drives. But, I can't QUITE get there because I seem to love to floor the accelerator pedal. :-\

So, I think that driving style is the key to better performance with these cars.

So the myth begins to die

[ageoffri]

I'm always happy to see articles like this. The Asian imports in general have gained a reputation for fuel economy and reliablity that supposedly can't be matched by domestic cars. Yet check the latest JD Powers reports and domestic cars often rank higher for both.

For domestic fuel economy and power all one has to look at is the LS1 engine from GM. When it was stock my 2000 Z28 Camaro got just a hair over 30MPG on a highway trip and made 300RWHP. When hybirds or electric cars can out accelerate, have at least equal range and be comparable cost to my Z28 maybe I'll look at buying one.

Until then I view hybrids as a typical liberal feel good ploy. "It is a hybrid, so it must be good for the environment." If the people buying these cars did a bit of research they would find that the best cars for the envirnoment are things like the Jetta TDI, Golf TDI, Bug TDI.

Happy with mine

[Trystero]

Well, I love my Honda Civic hybrid. I put gas in it every 4-5 weeks (as opposed to every 1.5 to 2 weeks with my former car. Same amount of driving.) and have got over 500 miles on one tank (a little less than 12 gallons) of gas. I'm very pleased with its performance. The thing about hybrids is that one has to learn how to drive them correctly to achieve the optimal gas mileage from them.

EPA tests are outdated

[wizkid]

I got a 2004 Prius last year. With very little searching and research on the web, you can find out the real expected mileage of the cars. And the dealer also warned me that EPA mileage tests were a joke, and that most people were getting mileage in the mid-40's. I've been getting 43-46. Of course I had Lead Inplants in my right foot when I was about 16.

Dealers are only allowed to report the EPA mileage ratings. I read an article last December which quoted Toyota Mgmt (I believe it was there CTO) that said they wanted to print the expected mileage, but were specifically told by the EPA that they could only release the EPA figures.

Admittedly, I'm cheap, but I looked at things other then just the gas mileage. I went with the Prius because the design is rock solid, and should outlast any American drive-train. The "Synergy Drive" is so damned simple that it not only eliminates the tranny, but will reduce the wear and tear on the rest of the drive-train. Toyota is 6-7 years ahead of everyone else in drive-train technology, and the Prius isn't just a car, it's an IP marketing tool. I suspect that within 5 years, all the auto manufacturers will be forced into licensing their technology just to catch up.

But don't worry, GM says that they will have Fuel Cell Technology in the mainstream by 2010, and will make hybrid technology outdated. They won't need battery and electric motor technology for fuel cells. They can't help it if there clueless fucks!

how you drive + environment

[Anonymous Coward]

echoing somewhat the comments made below, it is how you drive, but there are more significant factors.

for example, in the winter you'll get up to 50% less miles to the gallon using a standard gasoline engine. (there are tons of factors that go into this)

other things to consider:

acceleration patterns
not breaking soon enough
run heat / air conditioning
hills
air density
curvy roads
water on road
snow on road
inflation of tires
wind
letting car warm up / cool down before driving
etc.

on a bad day, when a lot of those variables are against you, i could see someone getting considerably less MPG than someone who was getting the good end of all those...

Moore's Law and the Automobile

[BigBlockMopar]

Note that comparing an aluminum hybrid to a galvanized steel compact, e.g. the Insight to a "regular" car, would not be an apples-to-apples comparison since if you were to remove all the weight from the electrical system (adding hydraulic brakes) and increase the engine size to match the lost horsepower, the new gas car would be more efficient than other gas cars on the road today, and might even be better on the highway than the hybrid. (Although it really should fail to beat the hybrid in the city)

Yeah, I think the weight of the hybrid electrical system offsets the weight savings from the aluminum body.

But there are several things which really upset me about hybrids:

• I don't care what they say, sooner or later an accident will happen where the batteries are ruptured and smear electrolyte all over passengers.
• No matter what you do, you're never gonna get all the cars or their batteries back for proper recycling. People do strange things to cars. They end up in lakes or rivers, or abandoned in the woods.
• Aluminum is a difficult metal to work. Welding to the body to perform a collision repair is going to be expensive because it requires equipment that most body shops don't have - TIG welder, stock of aluminum sheet metal, person capable of TIG welding without warping thin sheet metal. Therefore, the cars will be scrapped more often after collisions. Also, aluminum rots extremely quickly in road and sea salt conditions - look at city buses, there's a reason all of the panels are interchangable with only 1/2 hour and a rivet gun.
• Complexity - either real or perceived - of the drivetrain is increased. More and more people and shops will want to avoid working on them, which will drive up labor costs for service. Therefore, because they're expensive to fix, they'll get scrapped sooner.
• Late-Life vehicles - Will driving this car be at all practical if the assist battery is disconnected? When the car is 6-8 years old and being driven around by its last owner and the battery dies, will it still be usable as a conventional car, or will it be scrapped rather than spending the many thousands of dollars a new battery will cost?

(In reality, I get about 37MPG on the highway, ~30 in the city... the car _is_ 13 years old)

1970 Dodge Dart 4-door sedan, mostly stock, seats 5 full-size (6 foot +) adults in comfort, modern radial tires, Slant-6 brings the thing up to highway speed quicker than most new econoboxes. And it's made of thick, solid steel. 34 years old, gets 25MPG highway, about 22MPG city.

Moore's Law does not apply to the automobile!

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[Hard_Code]

I don't disagree with you generally, but would just like to point out:

"I don't care what they say, sooner or later an accident will happen where the batteries are ruptured and smear electrolyte all over passengers."

They said the same thing about gas tanks, and while there are some bad cars, despite the fact holywood shows cars blowing up like nuclear explosions when somebody looks at them sideways, they are actually not all that dangerous. I would presume the quality and reliability of batteries would improve also (given that your scenario is accurate to begin with), just as gas tanks did.

"Therefore, the cars will be scrapped more often after collisions."

A recent report shows that the trend is ALREADY towards more disposable cars due to all the high tech crap and tons of airbags and such in them. If the car is going to be "disposed" of anyway, perhaps it would be better if it were more efficient during its lifetime anyway?

You have to start somewhere...automobile makers haven't capitalized on many of the low hanging fruits to improve fuel efficiency for DECADES. Just think where computer technology, or aircraft design, has gone in the same intervening period. It is taking foreign car makers to pressure the US market to even begin this stuff (of course now we are being sold the pipe dream of hydrogen...just wait hydrogen is around the corner! Fusion power is around the corner! Magic faerie power with spring fresh scent is around the corner! In the mean time buy our Ford Exorbitant!)

Fuel efficiency is achievable, we just have to start and do it. We'd never achieve anything if we gave up when our first models weren't perfect.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[pen]

It is too bad that Diesel engines have yet to catch on here in the U.S. I used to own a 1986 Toyota Camry with a 2.0-liter turbo-Diesel engine. I got 50mpg on the highway and 35mpg in the city.

• The car was slower than most, but still tolerable and fast enough to merge into highway traffic safely.
• It drove to the shop with a broken alternator belt and a dead battery.
• No batteries to rupture. (Well, just one.)
• Easy to work on. Cheap parts. Most parts were interchangable with the gasoline version. I never had a shop refuse to work on it.
• Very light due to older safety standards. A car this light probably would not be possible today, but new engine technology would make up for it.

--
IRC quotes at QDB.us

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[Locutus]

come on now, didn't you do any research into todays hybrid vehicles?

1) They use NiMH batteries and not lead-acid. If NiMH electrolytes are getting smeared all over the passengers, they probably didn't survive the crash anyways.

2) Again, NiMH and not lead acid or NiCAD so there isn't that massive environmental impact of the previous battery technologies. But I do agree we still need mandated recycling of some of these materials so they don't end up in lakes/etc.

3) The Toyota battery does not have to be completely replaced if a battery cell fails. Just the bad cell so there should be no large expense to replace the whole battery. Except maybe in a collision and again, that's going to likely be a total anyways....

4) our Dodge Dart is not getting very environmentally efficient milage( ie green house gases/etc ). There's more to good MPG with hybrid systems.

LoB

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[gfxguy]

They said the same thing about gas tanks...

And while not as bad as Hollywierd makes them out to be, they can still be a problem. With a hybrid, while batteries probably aren't a major concern, they are still a concern - only now you have batteries AND a gas tank.

A recent report shows that the trend is ALREADY towards more disposable...

True - not, I think, because of air bags (which can be replaced after an accident), but more because of other safety features, like crumple zones - the car is designed to absorb all the impact so the passengers don't have to.

Still, when you are talking about more minimal accidents, the more complicated vehicle is going to be harder and cost more to repair.

Of course, that doesn't even consider the simple fact that, in general, more complex things require more maintenance and, especially when the technology is new, more repairs (I remember my dad refusing to get car with power windows when they were first becoming popular - and for good reason, although now I've got an 11 year old car that's never had a power window problem).

Fuel efficiency is achievable, we just have to start and do it. We'd never achieve anything if we gave up when our first models weren't perfect.

I agree with you.. in fact, my last paragraph basically implies that...

But I'm worried about our efforts being misplaced. Surely the people who are buying large, relatively "wasteful" cars are not going to stop and buy hybrids - the people buying hybrids are the people who were buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars anyway. Is there hope for this technology? Or should we concentrate maybe on hydrogen, biodiesel, or alchohol based solutions? Right now I can get a diesal that blows away the gas mileage of most hybrids, in a larger more comfortable form. I'm specifically thinking about getting a Volkswagen with a TDI... Jetta Wagon gets 46MPG, according to EPA (which is probably wrong - but I've always gotten higher mileage than EPA estimates, probably because I don't drive like an idiot).

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[AK Marc]

I don't care what they say, sooner or later an accident will happen where the batteries are ruptured and smear electrolyte all over passengers.

In a crash that bad, some electrolyte on you isn't going to be your biggest concern.

No matter what you do, you're never gonna get all the cars or their batteries back for proper recycling. People do strange things to cars. They end up in lakes or rivers, or abandoned in the woods.

So? Should we ban cell phones because people discard their batteries? Ban all computers because of the lead and such in the motherboards?

Aluminum is a difficult metal to work. Welding to the body to perform a collision repair is going to be expensive because it requires equipment that most body shops don't have - TIG welder, stock of aluminum sheet metal, person capable of TIG welding without warping thin sheet metal. Therefore, the cars will be scrapped more often after collisions. Also, aluminum rots extremely quickly in road and sea salt conditions - look at city buses, there's a reason all of the panels are interchangable with only 1/2 hour and a rivet gun.

Yes. Cars are harder to work on now than they were 20 years ago. You can't work on the bodies for, say, Saturns either. The way you "repair" it is to discard the broken body piece. Cars will continue to get more complex. Properly done aluminum corrodes at a much slower rate than the metals currently used in cars. I've not heard about aluminum in autos having a corrosion problem, but I know that in many other things (say, bicycles) aluminum is touted as lasting longer than steel.

Complexity - either real or perceived - of the drivetrain is increased. More and more people and shops will want to avoid working on them, which will drive up labor costs for service. Therefore, because they're expensive to fix, they'll get scrapped sooner.

That happens every year with the "normal" updates. Mechanics didn't like working with electronic ignition, turbos, ECUs, fuel injection, or any other change. Why would this be any different?

Late-Life vehicles - Will driving this car be at all practical if the assist battery is disconnected? When the car is 6-8 years old and being driven around by its last owner and the battery dies, will it still be usable as a conventional car, or will it be scrapped rather than spending the many thousands of dollars a new battery will cost?

How many thousands do the batteries cost? Have you actually called a parts department and asked, or are you just spreading FUD without checking facts? Please, call the local Honda dealer and ask the part number of a battery replacement and cost for a Civic Hybrid. Some (actually very few) of the reviews amortize the cost of the batteries based on manufacturer's replacement time into the TCO for the vehicle. If you don't plan on that scheduled maintence, you are stupid. If the batteries are removed, they will operate no better than a regular car with a battery removed (it will not work properly).

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[snkline]

My family used to have a deisel station wagon in the mid-80's. The only problem I had with it was that it stank. The deisel fumes seemed to permeate the car. I don't know if there was something wrong with the car, or if deisel's all smell worse, but driving cross-country in that thing was unbearable.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[Geoff-with-a-G]

Moore's Law does not apply to the automobile!

Actually, it probably does. Moore's Law is about number of transistors, not speed. I would imagine the number of transistors in cars has been roughly consistent with Moore's Law.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[BigBlockMopar]

2) Again, NiMH and not lead acid or NiCAD so there isn't that massive environmental impact of the previous battery technologies. But I do agree we still need mandated recycling of some of these materials so they don't end up in lakes/etc.

You fail to understand even basic high school chemistry.

The greater the energy density of any battery, the greater the reactivity of the chemicals inside it.

4) our Dodge Dart is not getting very environmentally efficient milage( ie green house gases/etc ). There's more to good MPG with hybrid systems.

Your Dodge Dart would have to be at least 28 years old, since they were discontinued in 1976. Since it's now lasted a little over 3 times longer than the average car, all the greenhouse gases produced by burning the coal required to melt the steel and recycle it have been spared (WARNING! Calculating this might require a basic understanding of chemistry, mechanical engineering, manufacturing processes, and the cookie-cutter inefficiencies of die-stamping). Unless it's a taxicab, you'd be unlikely to make up the environmental damage from recycling the car in the incremental fuel economy increases from vehicle generation to generation.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[drinkypoo]

Keep in mind also that when you are talking about accidents that should be minimal (and would be in a steel unibody car) they will be major damage in a hybrid. In significant collisions you can often have damage in your trunk from when you rear-ended someone because the force travels through the unibody and the whole car is stressed, and the trunk area is designed to absorb impact. With an aluminum car, less of the force should travel through the body (it's softer than steel) but that just means more force will be channeled into an area which can't take as much to begin with. Result: The area of impact is going to fold up like a beer can. If it's unibody that means the whole chassis will be a throwaway. If it isn't then it must be backbone or something and then maybe you'd just have to replace, say, the whole upper body. I suspect it's an ordinary unibody though and that means that given that welding on a new front clip is going to be insanely expensive, the cars will get totalled more often than not.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[BigBlockMopar]

So? Should we ban cell phones because people discard their batteries? Ban all computers because of the lead and such in the motherboards?

Let's assume that the average cellphone lasts 2 years. Let's assume that the average computer lasts 5 years. Let's assume that the average car lasts 8 years.

Now, how many batteries will that car have?

How many orders of magnitude bigger a waste stream than a computer does that become?

Yes. Cars are harder to work on now than they were 20 years ago. You can't work on the bodies for, say, Saturns either. The way you "repair" it is to discard the broken body piece.

Small damage is easily fixed with ordinary fiberglass repair techniques, requiring no special tools or training. Larger damage requires panel replacement, as it does with steel or aluminum bodies. Unlike steel or aluminum body panels, the fiberglass and plastic panels used on everything from Fieros to Saturns are not structural, they're simply bolted on - unlike the quarter panels, for example, of a steel or aluminum car body. Steel or aluminum quarter panels almost universally (the one exception in the past 30 years is the Checker) require welding for replacement.

Properly done aluminum corrodes at a much slower rate than the metals currently used in cars. I've not heard about aluminum in autos having a corrosion problem, but I know that in many other things (say, bicycles) aluminum is touted as lasting longer than steel.

Bicycles are not usually driven in snow and salt, which we have to contend with around here.

Properly done, neither steel nor aluminum corrodes. Too bad paint chips have a tendency to undo that "properly done" bodywork.

I'd be especially concerned about suspension perches on the aluminum structure. Since the suspension bushings, etc. will be held in place with steel bolts (I would hope!), the aluminum perches on the underside of the unibody will become sacrificial in the galvanic corrosion which will quickly follow. If the perches rot off, worst case scenario is a complete detachment of portions of the suspension from the structure of the automobile.

That happens every year with the "normal" updates. Mechanics didn't like working with electronic ignition, turbos, ECUs, fuel injection, or any other change. Why would this be any different?

It isn't.

How many thousands do the batteries cost? Have you actually called a parts department and asked, or are you just spreading FUD without checking facts?

Late-life vehicles are typically purchased for under $1000 and are driven by the working poor. Most of these vehicles are serviced with junkyard parts, $20 used starter motors, $15 used alternators, $150 used engines.

A replacement assist battery will be over $1000, I guarantee it. Junkyard batteries are never a good idea. The car will be scrapped earlier in its life, even if the rest of it is in fine mechanical condition.

If you don't plan on that scheduled maintence, you are stupid.

Do you amortize the cost of an engine rebuild over the life of your car, or do you simply junk it when you have blue clouds of worn piston rings and tell-tale rod knock coming from the bottom end? That's the sort of cost we're talking about here. I can do a rebuilt engine for most cars for under $1500, including labor.

If the batteries are removed, they will operate no better than a regular car with a battery removed (it will not work properly).

Uhh... No, a conventional car will not start without a battery, since the battery provides power for the starter motor and ignition system. On the other hand, a hybrid car has two batteries: the $50 at Wal*Mart 12V battery which starts the gasoline engine, and the assist battery.

I've driven a Civic Hybrid quite extensively and took the time to flip up the back seat and turn off the hybrid features by hitting the kill switch on the assist battery. This simulates having no assist battery whatsoever. The car would still start and run and even drive, but it wa

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[zakezuke]

1970 Dodge Dart 4-door sedan, mostly stock, seats 5 full-size (6 foot +) adults in comfort, modern radial tires, Slant-6 brings the thing up to highway speed quicker than most new econoboxes. And it's made of thick, solid steel. 34 years old, gets 25MPG highway, about 22MPG city.

Really?!?! The Dodge Slant-6 gets better gas milage then the 318?!?! I'd like to know what you did diffrently then everyone else I know who have owned Dodge/Crystler/Plymouth from the 70s. Everyone I knew who owned the slant 6 got sub 15mpg, where everyone including my self who owned the 318 V8 got 18mpg. I'm sure it's possible if taken care of properly, the slant-6 might be more fuel efficent than the a v8, and i've heard many people claim it was a good solid engine. I never believed them because of my personal observations.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[cft_128]

No matter what you do, you're never gonna get all the cars or their batteries back for proper recycling. People do strange things to cars. They end up in lakes or rivers, or abandoned in the woods.

The NiMH batteries are much better on the environment than NiCD and Lead-Acid batteries. FWIW NiMHs are not considered hazardous waste by the EPA. There is some concern about the nickel in them (nothing concrete yet) but normal car batteries have lead (bad heavy metal) and sulfuric acid... not the best things in the world. I would be more worried by the lead acid battery in a normal car than the NiMH batteries on a hybrid. Of course they can both be and should be be recycled

Aluminum is a difficult metal to work. Welding to the body to perform a collision repair is going to be expensive because it requires equipment that most body shops don't have - TIG welder, stock of aluminum sheet metal, person capable of TIG welding without warping thin sheet metal. Therefore, the cars will be scrapped more often after collisions. Also, aluminum rots extremely quickly in road and sea salt conditions - look at city buses, there's a reason all of the panels are interchangable with only 1/2 hour and a rivet gun. More and more cars are using aluminum now, I know Audi's do so more shops will be able to deal with them.

Complexity - either real or perceived - of the drivetrain is increased. More and more people and shops will want to avoid working on them, which will drive up labor costs for service. Therefore, because they're expensive to fix, they'll get scrapped sooner.

Have you seen how the toyota hybrid works (not the honda)? It is incredible simple. It uses a planetary gear CVT/Power Split which simplifies the transmission. No torque converter or clutch and no complicated multi-speed gear boxes. Pretty nifty. Other things like generators (alternators) and electric motors (starters) already have equivalents in normal cars.

Late-Life vehicles - Will driving this car be at all practical if the assist battery is disconnected? When the car is 6-8 years old and being driven around by its last owner and the battery dies, will it still be usable as a conventional car, or will it be scrapped rather than spending the many thousands of dollars a new battery will cost?

Good question, but keep in mind that most of the old cars currently are the ones that are responsible most of the pollution, as time goes on we get new cars that run cleaner and more efficient. We also need to ask what portion of cars that are made now will be used in 6-8 years? Normal cars can need expensive repairs (new transmissions, new clutches) too and how many get junked for that? I know you keep really good care of your older car but I would have to say that is (regrettably) not what most people do.

1970 Dodge Dart 4-door sedan, mostly stock, seats 5 full-size (6 foot +) adults in comfort, modern radial tires, Slant-6 brings the thing up to highway speed quicker than most new econoboxes. And it's made of thick, solid steel. 34 years old, gets 25MPG highway, about 22MPG city.

How well will that car protect you in an accident? I know - 'it's made of thick, solid steel' - but we know all that means is that the shock and force of the impact will be directly passed on to the occupants rather than being absorbed by the crumple zones. This mean more and worse injuries to the occupants (see article). In 1970 there were 4.7 deaths per 100 million highway miles traveled, in 1999 there were 1.5. That is a nice improvement. Unless you added a catalytic converter to your 1970 car (they were introduced in '75), your Dodge Dart pollutes a lot more carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons than cars after it with similar milage. Milage is important, but by no means the only thing.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[ipfwadm]

You fail to understand even basic high school chemistry.

The greater the energy density of any battery, the greater the reactivity of the chemicals inside it.

Likewise. What makes NiCad batteries so environmentally toxic? That's right, cadmium. How about lead-acid batteries? Lead, and, well, acid. Now, what are NiMH batteries made of? Nickel (obviously) and various alloys of Vanadium, Titanium, Zirconium, more Nickel, Chromium (toxicity depends on type; source does not specify), Cobalt, and Iron (from here). In short, there is nothing in NiMH batteries that is as nasty as lead or cadmium. Which is why, if you google a bit, you'll discover a multitude of sites that state that NiMH batteries are much less harmful to the environment that NiCad or lead-acid.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[skids]

You have to start somewhere...automobile makers
haven't capitalized on many of the low hanging fruits to improve fuel efficiency for DECADES.

Of all the reasons, in the end this is EXACTLY why I bought a Prius. Although I prefer to "Buy American" and wrestled with that issue for a while, I eventually decided it was more important to vote with my dollars and send the recalcitrant automobile industry a message to get on the ball.
The Prius was the first serious, no-compromises, mass market model, and Toyota got my money for their innovation. (Most important is the "no compromises" part which you will not appreciate fully until you get out of your chair, go to a dealer or someone you know who owns one, and take one around for a spin.)

Of course many other factors led to the decision. All these concerns people are airing about battery disposal, etc, were fully answered to my satisfaction by Toyota and enthusiastic Prius owners. Did it cost more? Yes. Will I make my money back? Only if gas keeps getting more expensive. Do I get the advertised mileage? No but I get better than what some people seem to say (summer mid 40's to mid 50's, winter high 30's to mid 40's) Does it matter to me? No, I bought it mainly for the emissions not the fuel economy, and keep in mind that "SULEV" is a bar under which many cars can duck, but was the low bar to limbo under at the time so there can still be a big difference in actual emissions between SULEVs made prior to the formalization of newer standards.

Did I make the right choice? 2.5 years in, emphatically, YES, I am very happy with it, and convinced enough about the technology that articles like this just make me ask "why don't people get the point, and why don't journalists do the research?" But, we'll see how my experience with the repair costs goes as only time can tell. Many parts should wear less due to less contact between transmission parts (no clutch, yay! :-) and also in the brake system, and especially due to the engine being protected from undue stress. However as my model was not one of the ones integrated fully into the mass production lines, many parts are extremely expensive. This problem however should be greatly mitigated in this year's models.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[LordKronos]

Which is why, if you google a bit, you'll discover a multitude of sites that state that NiMH batteries are much less harmful to the environment that NiCad or lead-acid

In fact, many sites say that if there is no recycling program in your area, it is perfectly acceptable to just toss NiMH batteries in with the trash.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[BigBlockMopar]

Likewise. What makes NiCad batteries so environmentally toxic? That's right, cadmium. How about lead-acid batteries? Lead, and, well, acid. ** Now, what are NiMH batteries made of? Nickel (obviously) and various alloys of Vanadium, Titanium, Zirconium, more Nickel, Chromium (toxicity depends on type; source does not specify), Cobalt, and Iron (from here). In short, there is nothing in NiMH batteries that is as nasty as lead or cadmium. Which is why, if you google a bit, you'll discover a multitude of sites that state that NiMH batteries are much less harmful to the environment that NiCad or lead-acid.

Okay. Tell me what stores the energy in a secondary cell. The reactivity of the electrolytes versus the anodes and cathodes. Right? Or have you successfully applied for a variance from the Universe stating that basic chemistry doesn't apply in your little patch of the world?

Now, ignoring your little exemption from reality, I note ("**") that you indicated the ACID in a lead-ACID battery might be a problem, without considering the ALKALINE in a NiMH cell. In fact, you failed to consider the electrolyte at all.

Lemme tell you, if I want to get more energy density out of a battery, all I need to do is adjust the pH. Consider a car battery, because unless you've been living with the Amish, you've probably seen the electrolyte in that. You know, the stuff that looks like water. Ever seen yellowish oily-looking sulphuric acid? The pH is a little lower than you'll find in a car battery.

Now, unless you're interested in considering the potential reactivity of the electrolyte - not just the electrodes! - you're not actually considering all facets of the device.

If you really cared about the environment, you'd probably get something which imparts more useful knowledge than an arts degree.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[BigBlockMopar]

Really?!?! The Dodge Slant-6 gets better gas milage then the 318?!?! I'd like to know what you did diffrently then everyone else I know who have owned Dodge/Crystler/Plymouth from the 70s. Everyone I knew who owned the slant 6 got sub 15mpg, where everyone including my self who owned the 318 V8 got 18mpg. I'm sure it's possible if taken care of properly, the slant-6 might be more fuel efficent than the a v8, and i've heard many people claim it was a good solid engine. I never believed them because of my personal observations.

You're an idiot. The Slant-6 is a smaller engine, with 170, 198 or 225 cubic inches of displacement (most common are the 225s). The 318 displaces 318 cubic inches.

Want that in Liters? The Slant-6 is at most a 3.7L engine, and the 318 is a 5.2L engine.

Now, all other things being equal and assuming a stoichiometrically correct 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio for both motors, the Slant-6 should use (225/318)*100 percent of the fuel a 318 uses.

The Slant-6 is the more fuel efficient motor. If you're getting less fuel efficiency that a 318, you're either comparing a Slant-6 pickup truck with a 318 Duster. Or you're comparing a Slant-6 with a catalytic converter with a 318 with no catalytic (noting that catalytic converters generally cost you 20% in gas mileage and only abate cosmetically unpleasant gases that nature destroys within minutes at human-livable temperatures and pressures). Or you're comparing a poorly-maintained Slant-6 with a well-maintained 318.

Interestingly, you cite less than 15 MPG for a Slant-6 vehicle. I used to have a 1983 Dodge Ram (fullsize pickup truck) with a Slant-6. Even towing a 1974 Plymouth Valiant on a 4-wheel float trailer (more than 5,000lbs; 3,000 for the car and 2,000 for the trailer) from Michigan to Ottawa, I managed to get 18MPG. Normally, of course, my mileage was substantially more. What were you towing to get less than 15MPG out of a Slant-6? I simply can't match it, apparently not even with a fully-loaded Class IV hitch.

Re:Moore's Law and the Automobile

[ipfwadm]

If you really cared about the environment, you'd probably get something which imparts more useful knowledge than an arts degree.

Actually my degree is a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Rochester Institute of Technology. Nice try though.

Lemme tell you, if I want to get more energy density out of a battery, all I need to do is adjust the pH.

Or I could use different materials for the electrodes, which is the main difference between NiCad and NiMH -- the electrolyte is essentially identical.

At any rate, notably absent from your rant/flame was anything addressing the point that NiMH batteries are universally considered to be less environmentally toxic than lead-acid or NiCad batteries. You made nothing but general statements about battery design without offering any specifics regarding NiMH batteries themselves.

5114 Miles Driven Average MPG 45.1

[uberotto]

Bought my 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid in October. I've got a little over 7,000 miles mostly city driving. My daily commute round trip is about 16 miles a day. I've also made several trips to Orlando which is about 200 miles round trip. First month I averaged around 38 MPG.

Modified my driving style and second month average MPG was around 41.

Modified my driving style and third month average MPG was around 43.

After a couple of months of practice (also started driving mostly with the AC off, and I live in Florida) my MPG is now averaging between 45 and 48 MPG.

My wifes car started having problems, so she drove my car for a week, average fuel milage fell to 37 MPG.

The reason I love my car so much is because it is a real "drivers" car. What I mean by thats is the car will do everything that it claims to do, if you are a skilled enough driver.

The camaro I traded in for the Civic Hybrid claimed to do 150 MPH, but almost everywhere I go has a Max Speed limit of 45 so I was never able to see if I could drive the car at that speed. Now I have a car that gives me a driving skill test that I can actually do.

Re:5114 Miles Driven Average MPG 45.1

[shiftless]

The camaro I traded in for the Civic Hybrid claimed to do 150 MPH, but almost everywhere I go has a Max Speed limit of 45 so I was never able to see if I could drive the car at that speed.

Speed limit? That never stopped me before..

High mileage, NOT hybrid

[jridley]

If I were buying a new car this year, I'd get something like a VW Golf diesel. 48+ MPG, and any old shadetree can work on it. Plus, at least you have a SHOT at a long-term low-maintenance record. It's very unlikely you'll be able to buy a hybrid and drive it 10+ years without major maintenance bills.
Assuming you're keeping your cars emissions in check (regular tune-ups), the best thing you can do for the planet is to keep driving the same car. It will cost way more energy to build a new car than what you'll save over just driving the old one. Of course, if you're driving a Hummer or some other idiot box, this isn't true, but you don't give a damn what your impact is anyway.

www.bike-to-work.com

The difference is..

[Thng]

IIRC, this is essentially the same things that most modern trains use. Sometimes called "electromotive" or diesel/electric locomotives. From what I understand, though, they don't do it for efficiency purposes, they do it because they can get a heck of a lot more torque out of a huge electric motor than they could making a transmission for the diesel. It'd probably be a very difficult engineering job to make a tranny for the torque and speed range that trains need.

Basically, you stick a generator (similar concept to the emergency generator) under the hood and route power as it's needed.

I'm sure parent knows, just trying to explain the differnce to others.

Our 2001 Honda Insight : 62.8 mpg

[Scorchio]

...according to the latest update from my wife.

We bought it second hand recently as we were racking up a fair amount of mileage in and around Austin, TX. We're very impressed with it and would definitely recommend them.

From a "car guy"

[billcopc]

I personally don't care all that much about fuel conservation. Yeah yeah I hear you whining about pollution and stuff.. well then let's make a cleaner-burning fuel/engine combination. The main reason I don't want an electric car is because it would require half a hydro-dam to power the ridiculous acceleration I get out of my tricked-out Focus RS :) And the other half of the dam to power my stereo.

The Prius/Insight and other hybrids seems like damn cool tech to me, stuff that is just brushing the surface for the cars of the next 5-10 years, but those cars just aren't for me. If I could drop a 426 Hemi in my little hatchback I'd plop 30$ of gas a day with a big shit-eating grin for all the enjoyment I'd squeeze out of it. But then, I drive for work AND play.

Hybrid Performance

[Darth_brooks]

Hybrid owners: How's the acceleration in a hybrid vs. a normal 4 banger? Is it really that slow? A recent motorweek profile of the hybrids touted the Prius' sub-ten second 0-60 time as being above average. I was disgusted. ten seconds to 60? That'd be impressive, if I was on foot. In a car, trying to merge onto a highway, that's scary / borderline unsafe.

For those in the Ann Arbor area: Imagine trying to merge onto I-94 east bound from Jackson ave in a vehicle that takes that long to get up to speed.

The intersection above is laid out as follows; The on-ramp to the interstate is perpendicular until just before the merge. You need to brake down to 25-30 (during drought conditions. any rain/snow and it's 15), make a harder than average turn, then get up to highway speed in a very short distance.

Oh, did I forget to mention that 94 is only two lanes at this point? There's a (well-abused)concrete median, on the left. Let's not forget that the whole interchange sits behind a hill, making it a blind curve. And there's a bridge that starts just past the end of the on-ramp.

Now try that merge in a Prius. Or one of those three cylinder metros. Merges don't make me feel guilty about having a V-6, and make me wish for a V-8

Re:Hybrid Performance

[wizkid]

The Prius is not a corvette, but I can punch it at 75Mph on Surrey Ridge (Mongo Hill south of Denver on I-25) and it will zip into the upper 80's very quickly. Also, it rely's on the electric motor for that instant acceleration. Electric motors have lag measured in milliseconds. Gas motor lag is measured in seconds. The Prius goes very well.

And the Luxus/Highlander hybrid that's comming out later this year is supposed to accelerate like a V8. Note that after the first generation Prius, one of toyota's goals was to put some punch in the hybrids. They succeeded.

The real story here...

[spyrral]

Is not that the hybrids are getting(significantly) less than advertised mileage. The real story is the blog linked to in the article, Hybrid Buzz. That blog, and ones like it, has the potential to undue millions of dollars worth of advertising. Pretty amazing considering that according to this prick, blogs are worthless.

This is a story I'm going to follow.

The obvious corollary to this...

[Dixie_Flatline]

...is that even IF these cars don't get the mileage that they claim, their emissions are so low that they fool the testers into thinking that less fuel is burning than actually is. Even if the cars were getting EXACTLY the same mileage as non-hybrid counterparts, the amount they pollute appears to be significantly less, which helps at least part of the problem.

The headline to this story is misleading, too. If you RTFA, Toyota notes that they've had only a few complaints, and most people seem to be getting close to the advertised mileage. I won't believe that the cars are doing exactly as well as promised - that never happens - but because the cars are lighter, more aerodynamic, and take advantage of a lot of excellent technologies, I won't believe that they're as 'wasteful' as other cars in their class.

Get mad at the consumers

[Raleel]

They used to have higher fuel efficiency cars. without lots of hybrid tech. The CRX HF (granted, very small) had over 50mpg.

My 1992 civic vx hatchback has 80k miles on it (got it for a song, low mileage) gets..get this.. 50 mpg. that's a 12 year old car. Most of my driving is highway, but we don't ahve an efficient public transportation system (I live in the west && !California, which means that public trans is a lot more scarce).

But the demand was for huge SUVs. People want to feel safe. People want to have the status symbol.

Post your total miles and MPG for your Hybrid here

[cchuter]

2003 Toyota Prius

21232 miles
43.9 MPG

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[kawika]

I agree, my Prius has 48MPG over its 14,000 mile lifetime, most of that being trips of less than ten miles. Even with the penalty for warming up the engine (done to reduce EMISSIONS at the expense of some fuel economy as I understand it) I have never had any tankful with less than 44MPG.

My experience is that ambient temperature plays a big role. On a 65-degree day there's very little engine warmup and no need for running the A/C.

The problem with EPA estimates

[gad_zuki!]

First off, every manufacturer complains that the EPA estimates do not reflect real world use. In my experience I tend to agree.

In some cases, depending on the car's architecture, you'll get better mileage and in others worse than what is "advertised." To be fair, the advertised numbers are the EPAs.

There are Honda Insight owners who log and brag (of course) of getting 90 mpg on the highway and Prius owners complaining about not getting the advertised 60(?) mpg in the city.

I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is. Maybe better tests? Different tests? Giving up on tests in lieu of real world statistical data?

2000 Honda Insights - 52-60MPG

[www.sharkdefense.com]

Well, Ive had my 2000 Honda Insight which I bought used for about a year now, and love it. Normally, Id buy something like this new, but I found one for $10,000 in a Honda dealer in Nanuet, NY. So, with taxes and the honda extended warranty, let's call it $11,000. A good deal for someone who used to pay $40 a week in gas for a 4 runner SUV, which isnt big, but it sucks gas.

Now, for my commute which is paltry, I average 52MPG in town and the errands around the area of North NJ. If I drive it like it should be drive, I can get as high as 57MPG, but thats a lot of highway, not going faster than 55MPH ever, and very slow accelleration. Im sure if you get on a track with no water/snow/wind/other drivers you could get about 58-60MPG as well.

Honda states its 61/68 for the Insight, and thats without a passenger, headwind, groceries, extra weight, rain, air pressure being low in the tires, etc. Surprisingly, a coworker (who had to buy the exact car as me, color and everything, lol), travels about 25 miles to work and he gets 54-58 regularly now for a year. He's got a different driving style and he loves the car too.

Someone else at work got a 2004 Prius and he gets 45mph. Toyota did claim higher and that might be false advertising, but no one other than an all-electric can compare to the mileage of the Honda Insight. Shame Honda lost $8K per car they made since it was just so overly technical in the beginning. Only about 4K sold per year, I dont know if they'll make them for 04, 05, but I love it.

All this, with power windows, AC, 5 speed, and a comfortable, reliable ride from Honda. $17 fills my 10 gal tank and its 550 miles before I need another fillup - usually ONE MONTH.

The downsides? Low acceleration, bumpy ride, and not the most comfortable seats (I dont mind them, others have complained) and if you feel like saving yourself $25 a week in gas, a used one might be in order.

Driving habits

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how people are driving that gives them such low mileage. I have a 2000 honda insight. I adore it. I drive 17 miles each way to work, both surface streets and highway. I regularly get 60+ miles/gallon. My trip today I averaged 69.3 mpg. I did not run with the heater on, I did not run with the ac on. I had my windows closed, and I was careful how I accelerated and decelerated. I do drive 75 mph.

My husband and I have driven from Washington DC to Detroit MI on a single tank of gas and still had plenty left.

Maybe these people complaining ought to watch how they drive, the cars provide plenty of feedback.

Because of CARB, and public image, that's why...

[Gadgetfreak]

I'm an Audi driver myself, and I love the VW/Audi lineup. They sell a TDI (Turbo Direct Injection, for those not up to speed) equipped A4 in Eurupe, but not in the US.

There are 2 reasons why diesel isn't popular. 1 is because of it's stodgy, noisy, smelly, and shaky public image. That's not true anymore, but the image lingers. The other reason is because of CARB. California Air Research Board. You CANNOT buy a new passenger diesel car in 2004 in states which follow CARB regulations (instead of EPA regs) Those states are CA, NY, VT, MA, and ME. A very large percentage indeed.

gallon of what?

[stanmann]

Please, tell me where I can get a gallon of electricity?

Re:gallon of what?

[ArsonSmith]

catch the waste power released from breaking and slowing down. I know it isn't measured in gallons until you convert the power into gas saved.

Re:gallon of what?

[gfxguy]

The point is that a gallon burned is a gallon burned. If two cars are both using a gallon of the same kind of gas to go 32 miles, then where are your environmental savings? Comparing, for example, a "normal" civic to a "hybrid" civic, they are both ULEV and have very little emmisions (relatively speaking). But there is something to the claim about impact of manufacturing/storing/disposal of batteries.

Frankly, I demonstrably get over 35MPG in my 93 Civic. Granted, I don't use the A/C, but I don't really see where they are counting that or not.

It looks like my next car will be a Turbo Diesel - 46MPG using cheaper gasoline. Where's my incentive to go hybrid? Keep in mind that while the emissions from an uncared for diesel may look bad, diesels are actually pretty clean (and can really use bio-diesel, too, if you wanted to).

Re:gallon of what?

[ArsonSmith]

except that 35 MPG in a regular civic without useing AC and my current 37.4MPG using extreame amounts of AC in 103 Degree F heat here in Phoenix is a quite a bit diffrent. All wenter long I would get 50+ when driving carefull and 45 on average.

I love Diesel tech. Simpler engines and longer life on average. I think the Hybrid advantage will be seen when it is more prolific and you can get a Turbo Diesel hybrid that gets 56+ MPG, has better acceleration than any Diesel, and costs about the same. People say that adding an electric motor is always going to be more expensive but they don't consider that you are also getting rid of the alternator and the starter.

Re:gallon of what?

[michrech]

You may be getting rid of the alternator and starter in the current versions that are on cars now, but you still need both to 1) recharge the batteries and 2) start the gas motor when you are not running on electric power only.

Silly poster!

Re:gallon of what?

[Glonoinha]

Ok - on the subjects of 'quite a bit different.' No, not really. And if the gp is turning off his AC for fuel efficiency, he can rest easy and turn it back on.

Assuming the generally accepted 12,000 miles per year that car manufacturers intend as a lifecycle for domestic vehicles, here is the difference in costs per year in fuel (at $1.50 a gallon.)

Lets take 35mpg as a baseline. Roughly (12,000/35) 343 gallons, or $514 for the year.

Cost difference for a car getting 45mpg : save $114.60 for the whole year.
Cost difference for a car getting 40mpg : save $65 for the whole year.
Cost difference for a car getting 32mpg : use an extra 32 gallons, costing $48 more for the whole year.
Cost difference for a car getting 26mpg : use an extra 120 gallons, costing $180 more for the whole year.
Cost difference for a car getting 15mpg : use an extra 458 gallons, costing $687 more for the whole year.

The difference between a car getting 37.4mpg and one getting 35mpg, annualized, is about $30 for the entire year. With the exception of the last car in the example (getting 15mpg), the range between the best car (45mpg) and the worst car (26mpg) is less than $6 per week - about $300 per year. If you have the car for 5 years (60,000 miles) the biggest difference, going from a 26mpg car to a 45mpg car, you will save a total of $1,500. The difference between a car that gets 32mpg and one that gets 35mpg, over a 5 year life of the car? 160 gallons ($250) spread out over 5 years, aka one dollar per week.

Oh yea, going from 45mpg to the TurboDiesel 56mpg : saves 52 gallons per year, about a buck and a half per week.

The law of diminishing returns kicks in about 30mpg, and things start to get ugly below 16mpg. Good gas mileage makes us feel good but the difference between 35mpg and 37mpg is about the same difference between a P4/2.8GHz and a P4/3.0GHz. You know in your heart it is better, but you really can't tell the difference.

Re:gallon of what?

[Glonoinha]

Whoops. (Continued)

Even the most evil of cars on my list, at 15mpg, costs an extra $687 a year in gasoline ... compare that to a pack a day cigarette habit at $3/pack = $1095 per year and all of a sudden even that doesn't look so bad. It would be funny to compare emissions from a Mercedes 560SEL driven 12,000 miles a year to 365 packs of cigarettes. Or a two stroke lawnmower and edger used once a week to mow the yard.

Re:gallon of what?

[gfxguy]

I'm turning off my AC because it doesn't work!

Because it's an older AC, the environmentally "unfriendly" freon would cost hundreds of dollars to be replaced, after the hundreds of dollars to fix the AC, the total being over $1000 for an 11 year old car.

A new AC will have cheap freon, but will still cost over $1000 to buy and have installed.

For an 11 year old car. The car runs great, though, and still looks good - so I may actually go ahead and just get it fixed. I don't know how the gas mileage is affected by running the AC, but the drag caused by opening the windows is usually worse. However, I generally grin and bear it on the highway and only open the windows at slower speeds in the city.

Your estimates are a bit misleading, though... diesel costs less than regular gasoline, which currently averages around $2.00, not $1.50. And there are other savings from the higher mileage: less frequent stops, like eliminating wasting time, which is more important to me than wasting gas.

Also diesel engines are simpler and don't require as much maintenance. I've never owned one, but I've been looking at the Volkswagen website and am under the impression that there's next to no maintenance compared to regular unleaded gasoline engines.

So: better mileage at a lower cost per gallon, less frequent stops, less maintenance, higher reliability.

If I weren't going to get the diesel, I'd get the 180HP model, which costs about the same anyway, so I'm hardly wasting initial money. At 100HP, the diesel has more torque (slightly), so seems like a good car for city driving.

Re:gallon of what?

[ArsonSmith]

except you were compareing my worst to his best.

Re:gallon of what?

[ArsonSmith]

whoa are you miss informed. The electric motor used on a hybrid runs both as a starter and an alternator. You don't ever run on electric power only. As a hybrid you run on a combination of electric power and gas power. You _CAN'T_ run a Hybrid out of gas and still drive it to the gas station.

think of it like this. you start your car but the starter stays engaged and continues to turn the motor over for added power. When you hit the brakes your alternator charges extra hard to get more power for the batteries.

Now because there is technically little diffrence between an alternator and an electric motor combine them into one, make them somewhat larger and desgined to add power or charge batteries and you have a hybrid.

Re:gallon of what?

[Nogami_Saeko]

To be more specific, you can't run the Honda hybrids (Civic, Insight) on electric power alone because of the type of hybrid system they use (parallel hybrid). The gas engine is permanently coupled to the electric engine (which is just used for boost-assist and starting the engine).

You CAN run Toyota's hybrids (ie: Prius) on pure electric (they're combo series/parallel systems). They have a pretty slick planetary configuration CVT (continually variable transmission) that allows the gas engine to run alone, the electric engine to run alone, or both to run simultaneously. Infact, the reverse gear in the Prius is always 100% electric as there's no way to drive the gas engine in reverse through the CVT.

So yes, you can run a Prius out of gas, and still drive it to the station on electric power (so long as the battery holds-out anyway).

N.

Re:gallon of what?

[lindsayt]

And there are other savings from the higher mileage: less frequent stops, like eliminating wasting time, which is more important to me than wasting gas.

I hear this argument all the time. However, assuming you're driving a *car* and not one of those urban assault vehicles, you're going to get at least 20mpg on the highway and the smallest gas tanks are 10.3 gallons (40 liters). This means that even if your car had the smallest gas tank and got bad gas mileage (not a common combination) you'd have to drive 200 miles to use up a tank of gas. At 70MPH that's just under three hours.

Anybody who knows anything about fatigue, exhaustion, blood clots, bladders, and health knows that it's a *REALLY BAD IDEA* for anybody to drive more than about two to three hours without a quick break to get up and stretch, which is what a mandatory gas stop provides.

Realistically, most cars that get under 30mpg highway have tanks at least 14.5 gallons (55 liters?) so your time between breaks is already stretched to about 300 miles at 20mpg, which comes out to over four hours!!! At a more reasonable 30mpg (My Elantra gets 35mpg and has a 14.5 gallon tank, hence my comparison), a 14.5 gallon tank gives you about 450 miles, or 6 hours of driving time between stops. If you're driving six hours without stopping, I don't want to be in the car next to you...

Now if you're referring to having to stop on your daily commute, well that's a different problem. Since you're already stopped at both ends of your commute (and I'm sure your commute takes less than one tank of gas) it makes sense just to fill up at the beginning or end. That's what I used to do when I had a 90-mile round trip commute from a suburb into downtown Saint Louis when I was younger...

Re:gallon of what?

[gfxguy]

Of course I meant on my commute, although I do drive for long stretches once or twice a year.

The problem is that, where I work in the city the gas prices are too high, so scratch that idea. Then, in the area where I live, where I get gas is not on the way home, but it is closer to my way to the supermarket, which I go to every weekend.

So the tank has to last at least one week. Even then, I'd rather not go because it's still a mile or so out of the way. Even if it were on the way, it still takes time to fill up the car, even paying at the pump... precious minutes. I know it's not really a lot.

During the better months, if I work at home one day a week, I can fill it up once every other weekend. That's pretty much the ideal for me.

I know a lot of people say to keep your car filled above half at all times (for various reasons), but like I said: my car is 11 years old and I routinely go below 1/4 and have NEVER had engine problems. My last car was 15 years old when I sold it and IT never had engine problems.

Anyway, when you work it out the way that I'm living, I end up filling up the tank half as often as most people. That's gotta be worth something.

Re:gallon of what?

[lindsayt]

I end up filling up the tank half as often as most people. That's gotta be worth something.

That is worth something - pretty impressive if you have a longish commute. But what's the price difference between the convenient gas station in the city and the one you go to? They say that most people actually go out of their way to save on gas; but considering that prices usually only differ by ten cents per gallon or less, it's often only marginally cheaper in the grand scheme of things. I do it too - but perhaps it's not worth the marginal $2 per week that you save to go out of your way?

Of course, this comes from a person who keeps track of every single detail about a car (mileage at every fill-up, every repair, every car wash, cost of gas, exact (to the thousandth) amount of gas, etc. so I'm not one to be talking about wasted effort...

And at this point you probably know your car so well that you can catch it at the last pint of gas. I used to be able to do that with my old car - I'd drive 50 miles after the gas light came on - but I don't have a feel for my new one... I also don't buy into the "tank half full" crap, and since I live in Minnesota (-30 F winters) and have *NEVER* had any trouble from letting the tank go down to the last pint, I don't believe it. However, I've never run a car out of gas either, and I imagine that would be rather more drastic, especially on a cold day...

Re:gallon of what?

[ColaMan]

Regarding your A/C
- You are getting ripped off.

There are plenty of drop-in alternatives for R-12 (freon). Two off the top of my head are FR12 and Isecon 49. Both can be used in an R12 system with no effort on the technician's part. This course of action is often a lot easier than a conversion to R134A, which often requires makor component change to reach the same sort of power as the older R12 system did.

FR-12 and Isecon 49 , whilst not quite as cheap as R134A, are both a hell of a lot cheaper than R12 is/was and should cost you less than 50 bucks for the amount of gas you need to operate the A/C in your car.

Don't believe their bullshit about "a whole new system" - these gases are designed to go into old systems and closely match the temperatures/pressures of R12. Most vehicles when converting only require you to change the drier and vac out, then recharge with the new gas. If your system already needs repair, then the vac out and drier should have already been included in the quote and you can simply ask them to fill it with FR12 instead of hideously rare-and-expensive R12.

Just so you know :-)

Real Owner Information

[hatton64]

Priusonline.com has alot of infomation posted by regular owners of both the Prius and the civic hybrids. There is alot of talk about real world results with these cars

Cleaner Diesel....

[jsimon12]

There is a lot of opposition from all the trucking unions and lobbying from the transport companies over cleaner diesel, since it costs a little more then dirty diesel it would cut into there bottom line. Not sure if we will ever see it.

As for buying a TDI, I would recommend it, I would also recommend you purchase a VAG-COM if you already don't have one. Takes the guess work out of working on your VW.

Re:Cleaner Diesel....

[Malc]

Personally I don't care what the trucking or transport companies think... so long as the costs they pass on to consumers like me are reasonable. They don't have a right to populate my environment and threaten the national security of my country (dependence on foreign oil) just so that they can save a few pennies.

VAG-COM is great, isn't it? I borrowed a friend's to reprogramme the locks so that the car unlocks when I pull the key out of the ignition. Useful because in '99 version the rear passengers have trouble letting themselves out. I hear there's something that can be used with the Palm Pilot now. Before I get that though, I want to get The Alien to make venting the car in summer easier.

Re:Cleaner Diesel....

[otis wildflower]

There is a lot of opposition from all the trucking unions and lobbying from the transport companies over cleaner diesel, since it costs a little more then dirty diesel it would cut into there bottom line. Not sure if we will ever see it.

I believe the latest word is 2007. Also, older diesel vehicles may need refitting for use with no-sulfur diesel (ala no-lead gasoline), and newer inorganic fuel lines and gaskets for use with biodiesel.

Still, give 'em a big enough deduction to cover the costs and they'll shut up.

Driving Insight 3 years, 60.3 MPG lifetime average

[Plugh]

I'll add another anecdote. I bought a 2000 Honda Insight a few months after they came out (actually, I was on a waiting list -- the dealership sent out emails whenever they got one on the lot saying "first come, first served!")

Anyway, after 3 years of driving, my overall average lifetime average is 60.3 MPG (the dashboard displays it). I drive about 60% highway and 40% city, though of course in the San Francisco Bay area, "highway" can be more start-and-stop than "city".

You can definitely learn to adapt your driving patterns to be more fuel-efficient. I'm sure that applies to any car, but having your current/instantaneous fuel efficiency right on the dashboard provides a great feedback learning mechanism. If I'm patient and go for fuel savings, 65+ MPG is quite do-able. My 60 MPG average is because I drive fast (75+ MPH, sorry officer, but that's not unreasonable on highway 101) and I accelerate fast when I want to overtake or go up hill (both of which incur a pretty significant efficiency toll).

The Hybrid acceleration did surprise my skeptical family members -- if you put pedal to metal, you can screech tires, since the battery is unloading energy at the same time as the fuel engine.

Really, I'd hate to see some over-regulatory nanny beureucrat fucking with what is, at the end of the day, a car that gets way better mileage than non-hybrids. Let Consumer Reports and their ilk give the "real scoop", ie, that manufacturer's claims are only true on perfect level frictionless rollers with no wind. No shit. Do you *really* think your 2004 BMW 3 Series 325Ci Coupe gets 20 MPG city/29 MPG highway? Really? I call bullshit!

almost.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Smoking Cannabis, like anything that is smoked, will leave ash in your lungs. That is not good for them. I am not a user of illegal drugs, but of all of them Cannabis is probley the least harmful.

HEMP CAR

[ivanmarsh]

http://www.hempcar.org

Let me clarify my original post

[Stevyn]

The point I was trying to make is that all the energy is still comming from the gasoline engine. Yes, you can reuse a little more from braking on these cars, but that is really small compared to what you're wasting in heat from the gasoline engine and the electric motor. I understand that this design can be more efficient in say city driving because the engine doesn't have to idle when stopped in traffic. However, all these do not really add up to much, definatly not 40, 50, 60+ mpg. I hope that clarified things. Please post any responses to this post.

Re:Let me clarify my original post

[Azghoul]

The engine in my Prius also stops when gliding down long shallow hills.

It also idles when running even upwards of 70 mph on highways. It's not uncommon for the mileage-o-meter to read > 75 mpg while driving > 75 mph.

We actually get a lot back from braking. Recharges the battery fast (when you slam on the brakes, yell "Chargin' up the battery!" or something similar), which then assists the gas engine most other times.

It's very impressive tech, for only being a couple years old.

Re:Let me clarify my original post

[frdmfghtr]

Disclaimer: I own a 2003 Prius and do not consider myself any sort of environmentalist.

The point I was trying to make is that all the energy is still comming from the gasoline engine. Yes, you can reuse a little more from braking on these cars, but that is really small compared to what you're wasting in heat from the gasoline engine and the electric motor. I understand that this design can be more efficient in say city driving because the engine doesn't have to idle when stopped in traffic. However, all these do not really add up to much, definatly not 40, 50, 60+ mpg.

You are correct that the prime source of energy is gasoline. However, in the Prius, the engine also doesn't have to run when:

(1) Cruising through a neighborhood at 25MPH for up to a mile or so (haven't had the opportunity to measure how far yet)

(2) Crawling through the drive-thru lane at McD's...

(3) Looking for a parking space at the mall...

(4) Coasting downhill through the mountains at 65MPH (engine may be turning over, but not burning gas; it turns over to protect the electric motor from overspeeding)...

(5) Dropping from 45 to 35 to 25 when coming into the city from the countryside...

etc.

I can get up to 40MPH without burning any gas if I don't have a lead foot, and that is from a standing stop--NOT downhill either. I have also done a lot of city driving where the gas engine does help come up to speed (starting when the car is already at 10MPH from the electric motors) but then shuts down as I cruise with traffic until pulling away from the next stop sign. Thanks to the regenerative braking, I can go pretty far before the engine has to start again for any reason if I drive with half an ounce of sanity.

Are hybrids the silver bullet to energy efficiency and environmental friendliness? Absolutely not. They are certainly a step in the right direction though, and every little bit helps.

Google says:

[Roman Levin]

4 liters per 100 kilometers = 58.8036461 miles per gallon.

I guess that's pretty good.

MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. I have a civic HX coupe and it gets 37 in mixed driving (lots of stop and go).

Driving habits have a lot to do with mpg. If you drive either civic like a grandma you will get similar mileage. If you punch it you will probably get better mileage from the HX.

The energy comes from somewhere so there is no free lunch.

Oil is plentiful...
http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.h tm

www.infowars.com

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

42 and 44 MPG? That would be extremely good. Are you sure you have the original size tires on the car? Installing a smaller size tire will make the speedometer and odometer read higher than reality.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy his claim either. Maybe down hill both ways but not on a real road.

Re: MPG

[eht]

I get about 39 MPG from my Saturn SL and can likewise account for just about every drop of gas that goes into it, the gp poster doesn't mention where he drives, currently I'm driving in New Jersey, so most of it is highway, and some of it is backed up highway mileage, I also drive a bit faster than his 65 MPH when it isn't backed up, so his 42 and 44 aren't too far fetched.

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

I'm curious...are all ya'll so concerned about gas mileage due to increasing gas prices? Does gas price affect your home income THAT much? I only recently looked at the pump last week, and saw $2/gal. But, then again..with the cars I've driven, I've never been concerned with mileage, etc. I've always had perfomance cars growing up since HS...latest one only gets about 9-10 mpg...11-12 mpg if I keep my foot out of the turbo...but, man, does it ever get you those 10 miles quickly!! Talk about fun....

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, You think that is quick. I just got a 2004 Honda ST1300. I am averaging about 48 mpg, and can hit 0-60 in 4 seconds. 65-80 in about 2 seconds. Who need a hybrid. Get a bike. :-)

Re: MPG

[nsuccorso]

What they're probably worried about, and what you should be worried about (but obviously aren't, and probably can't be convinced to be, either) is the fact that the world is running out of oil, fast. We should be conserving what we have left while making an Apollo program-style push for alternative energy sources, instead of wasting it trying to beat the guy next to you off the start line.

Call me a enviro-wacko or whatever; sadly, we'll all be feeling the pain (badly) in a decade or so at the outside. Then no one will be laughing.

Re: MPG

[the_mad_poster]

To get that bad of gas mileage, and to have a turbo, you either have to be driving an exotic (high end Porsche, maybe?), driving a HIGHLY tuned vehicle, driving like a maniac, or driving a car with something wrong with it.

Care to pick the appropriate answer(s) for those inquiring minds out there?

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

"What they're probably worried about, and what you should be worried about (but obviously aren't, and probably can't be convinced to be, either) is the fact that the world is running out of oil, fast."

Well, I have a hard time believing we'll be out of 'oil' in a mere 10 years. There are TONS of reserves pretty much un-tapped in Russia, Canada, Mexico, and here in the US. Some of it isn't as easy to get out of the ground as what we're getting now, but, from what I've heard (I think it was a show on the Discovery Channel or something) ...there's plenty for quiet a long time to come.

While I'm highly in favor of them finding alternate fuels, I'm also not going to spend my short life on earth denying myself a fun time in a fun car. I don't think oil will be gone for generations to come from now, and I know it sounds selfish, but, frankly, I won't be around then......and I'm sure they'll not need gasoline by then....while I respect your views on this, it doesn't make them any better or mine any worse.

That's the nice thing about freedom...in this case..drive what you want as means of transporttion, and I'll drive mine for transportation, fun and excitement.

:-)

Re: MPG

[GreyPoopon]

Does gas price affect your home income THAT much?

I have a long commute. My current vehicle which is nearing the end of its lifespan gets about 20 mpg and at the moment costs me $35 / week in gasoline. This works out to more than $150 / month. With the current situation in gasoline prices, I expect it to rise to as much as $200 / month. If I had a vehicle that achieved 40 mpg, that would give me an extra $100 monthly to save or spend. Yes, it's worth it to me to sacrifice the "fun" car for $100 per month.

Now for the not-so-selfish argument. Imagine the environmental and resource impact if everybody changed to a new car that consumed half the fuel of their old one. For the United States alone, it would mean a drastic reduction in the need for foreign oil, and I submit that it would have a dramatic impact on foreign policy -- particularly that in the middle east.

Re: MPG

[skiflyer]

I am... I drive a 91 Mercedes 560 SEL, and I live in the city now... that's a big car with a 5.6liter V8 which won't run on anything less than premium gas. Given my old driving patterns (namely 2 people using the car for alot of 2-3 mile drives) with these new prices, I was spending around a hundred dollars a week on gas. (12 mpg in the city you see, much much better on the highway) So I take more public transportation, walk more, am considering changing cars, etc. etc. Problem is, I also do alot of distance driving, and I really don't want a different car for those 1000 mile hauls, the thing is so damn comfortable.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be far better for the environment if you shortened your commute. That would also cut your consumption in half, cut down on traffic, emmissions, road wear (and all of the bad stuff that goes into repairing the roads). The time you save would add to productivity.

Re: MPG

[0111 1110]

Last I heard we have at least another 40 years or so (although no one really knows) before the price of oil rises to a level where alternative energy sources become truly competitive.

What are you worried about anyway? Electric and solar electric cars are viable now if you are willing to live with the limitations and costs. So it's not the end of the world when oil becomes sufficiently scarce. We won't just all of a sudden run out. It doesn't work that way. We'll still have oil for applications that really need it.

In my view economics will do our conservation for us. When gas reaches $20/gallon, there will be quite a few of us waiting in line for "alternative" or extremely fuel efficent small engines.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

Probaly a combination with a v-8 1834 ford mustang.

1) HIGHLY <b>Self</b> tuned vehicle,
2) Driving like a maniac,
3) Something wrong with it. Refer to the bold in #1 as the cause.

Re: MPG

[stanmann]

So should he move closer to his job, or find a job closer to his residence?

Re: MPG

[GreyPoopon]

It would be far better for the environment if you shortened your commute.

I agree. However, that's not always an option. These days, employers are not very loyal to their employees and it doesn't make sense to pick up and move each time you change jobs. Other reasons include two spouses who have jobs in opposite directions and have to settle on a place to live somewhere between them, quality of school districts, and the prohibitive cost to live closer to the area where the job is. In my case, it is cost-prohibitive to live closer to the job. The costs for homes near where I work are 250 percent of the one I live in now.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your choice, but if I drive my car half the distance, I should be morally able to drive a vehicle that is half as efficient, right?

I take from the cost difference that you probably live in/near a major city. Does your city not have some kind of commuter rail or light rail system that could reduce your drive? I live 25 miles from work - I drive 10 miles to public transit and take rail the rest of the way in.

Re: MPG

[Carnildo]

Well, I have a hard time believing we'll be out of 'oil' in a mere 10 years. There are TONS of reserves pretty much un-tapped in Russia, Canada, Mexico, and here in the US. Some of it isn't as easy to get out of the ground as what we're getting now, but, from what I've heard (I think it was a show on the Discovery Channel or something) ...there's plenty for quiet a long time to come.

The only untapped reserve in the US is the North Slope Wildlife Preserve in Alaska, and that's only a nine-month supply, at best.

Yes, there's plenty of oil left, but it's in reserves that are hard or expensive to tap, or ones that take more energy to extract the oil than you can get from burning the oil. Yes, there's oil for decades to come, but between rising demand and falling supply, the price is going to start rising fast in the near future.

Think about it.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be his choice. It's also his choice to drive a fuel efficient car and drive the whole way. I'm just saying that someone can choose to drive a car that gets 20mpg rather than 35mpg and drive half as much and be doing better for the environment and economy than he is.

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

There's still a bunch of it offshore, still....tons of it untapped off shore here in LA.

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

Go do a google search on peak oil. While some of these sites are definitely overly alarmist, the basic information seems sound. The world will likely hit its peak oil production sometime this decade. We won't know until a few years after it happens because it'll take that long to be sure the trend is going down. After that point, oil production will decrease. At the same time consumption will increase as countries like China become more and more industrialized and their hunger for oil grows exponentially.

Unfortunately, new discoveries of oil reserves have been nowhere near the size needed to sustain current consumption, and especially not future consumption as the third world catches up to us. If alternative fuel sources aren't more actively sought, we may have a crisis in a couple decades. The problem is that people are lazy and short term thinkers. Nobody will do a damn thing about it until it becomes a crisis. It'll be fun!

I wish just one presidential candidate would talk about this and the importance it has NOW. No, they're more interested in lining the pockets of their big oil friends and going to war in order to gain control of more of the world's oil supply. They probably even think they're doing the noble thing by ensuring that the US will have more than its fair share of oil in the next few decades. Dick Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, was quoted in numerous presentations as saying that something needs to be done immediately. Yet his solution is to piss off the rest of the world and steal oil for the US. Fuck that shit. It ain't gonna work, and we'll be screwed by the backlash.

If any candidate proposes an increasing gas tax to help fund alternative fuel research, and aggressive programs to move our dependence off of oil, I'll vote for him/her in a heartbeat. I've always said we should increase the federal gasoline tax by $0.10 every month until it hits about $10.00/gallon. People will drive less due to the cost, and we can fund aggressive alternative fuel programs. But nobody will stand for it because everyone looks at the short term. Things are relatively good right now, how could they possibly get worse in the future?? The oil supply is INFINITE!!

Unfortunately your post illustrates that exact attitude. There are a lot of whackos out there professing doomsday bullshit, so it's easy to ignore the more realistic, but pessimistic information as the same stuff. And it's no fun to think about it, either, so people just ignore it and go happily along with their lives.

My hope is that if oil production really does become tighter in the next decade or two, prices will go up enough to wake us up before it's too late to implement an effective alternative fuel program. It's either that or wait until the crisis hits.

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

"To get that bad of gas mileage, and to have a turbo, you either have to be driving an exotic (high end Porsche, maybe?), driving a HIGHLY tuned vehicle, driving like a maniac, or driving a car with something wrong with it.

Care to pick the appropriate answer(s) for those inquiring minds out there?"

1986 911 Turbo Porsche. 2 owners back from me DID actually race the car. I saw it way back when it still had roll bars in it. But, has been de-tuned over the years to more closer to stock. Has slighly over sized tires on it...custom cam...I've replaced the turbo, new exhaust (Borla)...but, these replacements were what were on it originally when I bought it and had just worn out. I'm actually thinking of selling it, and buying a '94 or so used Viper. They can be found for a pretty reasonable price. They get a 'little' better mileage, and my insurance will go down by $0.48/mo...yea!.

And, to some, I might drive like a maniac....but, who owns a sports car and doesn't kick it up in them a bit? Besides...I know the car's limits...and try not to exceed them. But, it will do things other cars won't, and I do those things...

:-)

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

"I've always said we should increase the federal gasoline tax by $0.10 every month until it hits about $10.00/gallon. People will drive less due to the cost, and we can fund aggressive alternative fuel programs."

Trouble is...that isn't the ONLY affect it would have. The cost of goods would skyrocket....most stuff moved across this country is by ground.

I agree we should encourage alternate fuel research. But, I think we have PLENTY of taxes. Let's try cleaning up all the pork in the gov. bills of today...and that alone would provide plenty of funding. How about tax incentives to companies who actively produce from alternative fuel research?

I'm tired of paying the govt. for everything...stuff we don't need. Waste and handouts.....

I'm for the research....but, until then....I'll enjoy driving fun fast cars...

Re: MPG

[jazman_777]

Other reasons include two spouses who have jobs in opposite directions and have to settle on a place to live somewhere between them

There's the mistake: marrying two women. Now that's a drain on the finances...

Re: MPG

[bfischer]

They made mustang's in 1834?? Wow - I thought they started in 1964 1/2.

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

Not to mention, that your job site might NOT be on the best side of town...

If you want to live in the nicer, safer areas...and go to newest schools, etc...your jobsite USUALLY is not that close to them.

I think sometimes people in Europe and other places outside the US don't understand the great distances we generally have to travel to do anything...public transportation, for the most part, isn't a reasonable option for most things. To many people, only a 30 min drive to work is a short drive...many people commute 1-2 hours each day to work...housing and the vastness of the land we have over here dictates you pretty much MUST have a car to live decently and earn a living. You don't really have a choice in most cities.

Re: MPG

[GreyPoopon]

I take from the cost difference that you probably live in/near a major city. Does your city not have some kind of commuter rail or light rail system that could reduce your drive?

Actually, about 45 miles from the city, but unfortunately the rail and bus systems do not extend very far on my side of the city. If they did, I would strongly consider public transit, even if it were a bit more costly.

Re: MPG

[uxo]

I get about 30 MPG (city) in my Saturn SL1, and about 41 MPG highway. Original 14" tires.

Re: MPG

[p0knatcha]

This is just a guess, but look at his user name...

Cayenne

Re: MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, my tax would allow commercial vehicles to get gas either at current tax rates or even tax free. It'd just have to be tight enough that there wouldn't be loopholes for the average joe to get around the tax. That part may be tricky, though!

Oh, and I do agree about cleaning up monetary waste in other areas of the government. I have slightly libertarian leanings, and I just have a feeling the government is operating at a single digit percentage of its optimal cost efficiency. But such is the way of the bureaucrat. What're ya gonna do? :)

Re: MPG

[FreakWent]

Perhaps people in Europe and other places outside the US don't understand why you didn't think of this before you built the cities so big with such unnatractive centres and such huge blocks of land for each family which they seem to often either neglect or waste heaps fo fresh water on.

The size of the country has nothing to do with how far you have to drive. The problem is two fold:

1) All the "real" employment is in one spot in the centre of the city, it should be better dispersed, and

2) housing density is too low.

If the USA uses too much fuel per unit of economic output, or per person per year or whatever, it's a bit rich to say "oh but we're special". It makes you sound like a spoilt child.

Perhaps if you, as a society, made an earnest, sincere attempt to make the unnice unsafe areas nicer and safer and fixed the old schools that are there then you could work close to home.

Re: MPG

[WuphonsReach]

I take from the cost difference that you probably live in/near a major city. Does your city not have some kind of commuter rail or light rail system that could reduce your drive? I live 25 miles from work - I drive 10 miles to public transit and take rail the rest of the way in.

Mass transit is a joke in most US cities. Made worse by the fact that most MTAs run on spoke system that assumes that everyone commutes from the burbs to the center of the city. Which simply isn't the case for places like Baltimore / Philadelphia.

The only rail system that I've seen work, and that seems to work well is the LIRR for all the people who commute into the city from Long Island. Still sucks if you need to commute across the breadth of the isle instead of the length of the isle though. But LI has the advantages of high population density, combined with a large number of people moving in the same direction during the rush hour(s).

Owing to poor planning for metro areas like Baltimore (decades of poor planning)... a lot of folks commute from one suburb to another. Which makes it very difficult to have a mass-transit system to service what is almost brownian motion during rush hour.

Re: MPG

[Solstice]

Saab's have Turbocharged engines. They're not all that rare or exotic.

Also, there was an infatuation with Turbos in the mid-eighties - especially with Chrysler. They put out a lot of turbo charged cars, such as the Dodge Daytona. Unfotunately, the turbo units put out then had a horrible history of burning up and requiring more maintainence than non-turbo engines.

Re: MPG

[the_mad_poster]

1834 rings a bell actually.... it's 1834cc size engines, I assume... maybe that was the size of those stupid old I4 turbo Mustangs Ford made in the mid 80s when they tried to kill it off and replace it with the Probe.

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

Point is...employment is NOT in the centre of the city. It is spread out all over the place. And here...as far as housing density....it seems our most problematic areas are where the housing density is the highest....in the US, we believe in land ownership. Each house has a yard....it is just a different lifestyle. I think the density in Europe comes a great deal from it being so old...and the land mass is so much smaller...

Anyway, to suggest the changes you did at the end for the US or anywhere else....at this point with all the money and building invested already...would be pure fantasy....

Re: MPG

[cayenne8]

Actually....I was so pissed that first, Porsche put out an SUV....and then, used my long time nick for the thing...ARRRRuuggh....

I recently watched a show...

[GooberToo]

that talked about this...

It seems different countries experience different traffic patterns. In Japan, most traffic is stop-n-go with frequent stops and short trips where cruise speeds are in use. In such cases, hybrids get near ideal performance. Here, in America, while we do have lots of stop-n-go traffic, its ratio is greatly reduced compared to the amount of long distance cruising speed or faster driving. In other words, in America, we wind up disproportionally running off of the gas motor more than the electric motor. In countries like Japan, they are able to run mostly off of their electric motors. The show said you should expect something like twice the effeciency in countries like Japan compared to what most American's will see.

Savings and environmental friendliness are simply easier to realize in very cramped countries like Japan.

I guess if you have to drive in New York every day, it might be worth talking about, but I have a hard time seeing hybrids being accepted as swankie enough for your typical in-city New Yorker.

It's in the article.

[geeber]

From the article:

"Drivers rarely see the actual EPA-rated mileage in the real world, according to John DiPietro, road-test editor of automotive website Edmunds.com. DiPietro says most drivers will get between 75 to 87 percent of the rated mileage, with individual variations based on driving habits and traffic route. "If a new car gets less than 75 percent of its EPA rating, then it should be retested."

So yes, standard gaseline autos are also overated by the EPA test, but not as much as hybrids.

You don't get something for nothing

[Viol8]

Ultimately a hybrid is simply a car with a small petrol engine. Since all the energy comes from the engine whether it gets converted into electricity and stored in the batteries first or goes straight to the whells your max efficiency will only ever be related to the efficieny of the engine itself. No doubt being able to use regenerative braking and have the engine run at its optimal speed will add maybe 10mpg (I'm guessing) but at the end of the day the ultimate efficiency of that engine is what limits the car. The electric motor is no magic bullet I'm afraid. For that you need true battery power with the electricy being generated somewhere else first.

I own an Insight

[toadf00t]

I bought a used 2000 Insight (5 spd) and I've had it for about 7 months now.

In my experience, I've consistently gotten around 60 miles to the gallon . In the winter it dropped to ~59 (Missouri weather), but on my current tank of gas I have gotten 64.8 MPG over the last 240+ miles. I drive about 5 miles to work one way in city roads, with an max speed of around 40 mph and several stop lights. On weekends I drive it on the highways and my mpg figure usually rises even on a 5-10 mile trip on the highway, which I figure means that I've gotten significantly better mileage. My worst mileage was when i drove to Indiana last thanksgiving and I did 80 mph most of the way. I got 55 MPG then.

In my opinion, the hybrids need to be driven a certain way. You can't really drive them the way you drive a regular car (accelerate too fast / brake fast). Dont get me wrong, I still accelerate normally, but being able to anticipate stops better and using the regenerative braking and getting the engine into auto-stop faster when the batteries are charged works like a charm for me. Insight Central has some driving tips that helped me a lot.

I'd chalk this guys problems up to him not adjusting his driving style to fit the car. Thats my 2cents.

Remember, don't confuse efficiency with economy!

[Gadgetfreak]

Fuel efficiency and fuel economy are 2 very different things!!! Many more factors affect fuel economy (MPG). Think about it, they are not interchangeable words. An efficient car is one that will typically pollute less per gallon burned. An economic car will get more miles per gallon, but that's largely due to f=ma than engine efficiency.

Re:Honda Accord UK Diesel

[CommandNotFound]

I can't find an official Honda page, but Temple of VTEC has an article where an Accord diesel achieved 76.6 MPG over a real-world 419-mile trip. In endurance track tests it achieved an average 130MPH over a 24-hour period.

This pretty much blows away the hybrids with a single-engine system and a nearly full-size car with no drawbacks. It's too bad that US diesel is too dirty for engines like this.

Some things to think about?

[XryanX]

I'm not sure exactly what the conditions of Mr. Blackshaw's driving are, but it might have some influence.

I drive a 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer, with a city mpg rating of around 27 I believe. I live in Florida, so we have relatively mild winters, during which I can usually have the heat turned off.

We also have pretty light traffic, because Tallahassee isn't a very big city. This allows me to set my cruise to about 8-10mph over the posted speed limit.

With the ac/heat off, using cruise control, and my music still on relatively loud, I get 30mpg city. We've hit the hot months now though, so I'm getting about 27mpg city.

It's also important to know if he's driving through hilly areas, or if he's been punching it hard off the line at red lights. Quick acceleration eats gas more than some people think.

Don't Hate the Players....

[sampson7]

... Hate the Game.

So what can we take from this? EPA's mileage estimates are extremely flawed and based on 1970's technology. Duh.

But the real problem is that the article is completely ignores the driving habits of the person singled out in the article!!!

Are his tires properly inflated? If not, subtract about 10% from your estimated mileage.

Is he making short trips? If so, subtract about 30% from your estimated mileage. (This is because a hybrid's primary function is not to get the best gas mileage it can -- instead it's goal is to reduce emissions to the maximum extent it can. In order to reduce emissions, the catalytic converter must be hot -- and to get it hot, the engine has to run. So if your trip is less than 10 minutes, you are shutting off the car right when it has warmed up to reach its peak efficiency.)

Is it cold out? For the same reasons explained above, weather has a huge effect on efficiency (never mind the fact that battery efficiency also decreases with lower temperatures.)

To put this all in prespective - I've had my Prius for a couple of years now and have kept ridiculously detailed track of my mileage figures -- and they are all over the map depending how I drive.

When I went with the tires that came with the car, on hot days, with no air conditioning, and drove in a method to maximize efficiency, I could get 60+ miles per gallon. Turn on the air conditioner and drop that to 40.

During the winter, the best I can usually do is 45.

And when I recently switched the tires (for better handling and tread life), my mileage droped by about 10%.

Drive over 70 MPH, drop it to 40. Drive over 80? Drop it to about 35? (I've never gotten less than 38 for a whole tank average - and that was only when I abused the car.)

All I am saying is that mileage is highly subjective. This is true for all cars -- but with the hybrids, they keep such careful track of the mileage that it is always on people's minds.

My Honda Insight gets great mileage

[bigredradio]

When I first got my car, I was dissapointed that I did not get 65-70 MPG as the car was advertised. I was only getting around 50 MPG (still good). However, whenever my wife drove the car, she would get 65-70 MPG. It all depends in how you drive the car. I modeled my driving patterns to hers, (basically keep your foot steady on the gas instead of pushing on it then letting off), and I am now getting over 60 MPG. The trick is to remember that the hybrid is not like other cars and adjust accordingly.

Re:My Honda Insight gets great mileage

[Anonymous Coward]

basically keep your foot steady on the gas instead of pushing on it then letting off

ROFL

My celica outpaces a hybrid??

[dFaust]

Interestingly, my 2000 Celica GT, which is rated at around 24 city/33 highway, gets better mileage than this guy is claiming. On long highway trips, I've seen over 40mpg (even with a passenger)... on average, with a good combination of city and highway driving, I'll see mid-30's.

My Celica actually weighs in at around 200lbs less than the Civic Hybrid (actual difference is dependent on which model and transmision you get in the Civic). I didn't see mention of this guy's transmission (manual or CVT), but I've got a 5-speed manual.

This raises a few questions in my mind... first off, why exactly am I getting better mileage than this guy?? Is it largely the weight? Is it more efficient for my 140hp engine to do 70mph than for that 85-87hp engine to try to carry even more weight at that speed??

I'm thrilled I get the mileage that I do, but this just seems a little curious. Maybe I'm just too eager to believe the hype about hydrids.

Better Selling Point in the US!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exhaust smells like french fries!

Exhaust smells like freedom fries!

National Sugar Association

[uberdave]

You can have my cola when you pry it from my cold dead hands!

Quick Correction.... Manual vs. Auto

[sampson7]

Actually, the Insight was available as both an automatic and a manual - but only towards the end. And the manual got significantly better mileage.

All the other hybrids on the market are available only in automatic (actually, both Honda and Toyota use CVT or Continuously Variable Transmission.)

No, actually, the hybrids are well optimized...

[Dr. Zowie]

... for city driving. Your point is well taken for highway driving, but the fundamental idea of using the electric motor for load-leveling is a sound one. The way to tell is that most hybrids get better mileage in the city than on the highway.

If you think about it, city driving involves less aerodynamic drag, so it should require less energy to accomplish. Motorcycles (driven sanely) regularly do better in town than on the highway, largely because their aerodynamics are crap. Hybrids are typically designed with lots of efficient features (as you point out) and hence do OK on the highway -- but where they really shine is in city conditions, where they use less fuel per mile [and a regular car would use more fuel per mile].

Re:No, actually, the hybrids are well optimized...

[Locutus]

the fact that the originater of this thread seems to think that todays hybrid cars use Lead acid batteries should show you that he/she is clueless and too lazy to even attempt to understand what he/she is talking about.

They use NiMH batteries and the weight of the entire system is comparable.

MOD the parent down...

LoB

Hybrid Cars

[tsminor]

I owned the Honda Insight for almost 2 years and logged about 77k miles during that time. When I first got the car, I was ony getting 53 miles to the gallon in the city and 58 on the highway. Then I found www.insightcental.net. (http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/faq-quicktips.ht ml) On this site I found tips on how to drive the car to extract the best mileage. I was then able to drive from Oak Ridge, TN to Birmingham, AL getting 78mpg. That is 6mpg better than Honda claims. I got 76mpg on the return home. This was at speeds not exceeding 65mph except on downhills. After a while, I starting driving it like any other car and got 53mpg on the highway.

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[hypnagogue]

I get 37 mpg on every tank commuting in my Mazda Miata, and I regularly run it up to the rev limiter and drift the corners.

Your argument lacks merit. Any modern car can get good mileage if you drive "sedately". Hybrids claim to be more efficient by design... they are not.

My Experience with a Honda Insight

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

I have about 35k miles on my Honda Insight, and I am getting the mileage as advertised. It is rated, if memory serves, to get between 62 and 68 mpg. I am averaging about 63. Granted, because most of my miles are highway miles, you could argue that I should be getting 68, but I cannot exactly complain with 63.

One thing this car has taught me, however, is that I don't think any car will get the mileage as advertised if you do not drive it "correctly." Because the Insight gives me constant feedback about what sort of MPGs I am getting at any given time, I have learned and adopted different driving patterns to maximize MPGs. For example, when coming up to a red light, I tend to coast and slow down gradually, rather than accelerating right up to it, and braking more quickly. Anyone in the passenger seat does not notice the behavior as weird, and at this point I just do it naturally and without thinking. However, when I am in a friend's car with them driving, I do notice that they tend to accelerate right up until the light, and then break fairly quickly. Little behaviors like that affect what sort of MPGs you get, and unless you drive a car that gives you that sort of feedback, many people do not tend to think about such things as having a real effect on their mileage.

I have a friend that just bought a new car, and it is advertised as allegedly getting around 30mpgs... However, as he accelerates quickly on highways, passes other cars frequently, and brakes late at lights - I know he is not getting the mileage he thinks he is... Had he had a display on his dash, like the Insight, that told him his mileage, he might believe me ;)

Re:My Experience with a Honda Insight

[edsel]

Yeah, the FCD (Fuel Consumption Display) gives good feedback on how your driving habits affect the milage. Aside from less-aggressive driving, the factors that most affect the mileage are tire inflation and ambient temperature. The best mileage I've ever gotten in my 2000 Insight 5-speed is 81 mpg in mild weather and relatively flat terrain. The worst I've gotten was in bitter cold weather driving in the mountains (about 49 mpg).

Lifetime average is 62.9 mpg after 110,000 miles. It's starfted to drop a bit after getting new tires (not the low-rolling-resistance factory originals).

Re:My Experience with a Honda Insight

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this friend who drives like a maniac and gets horrible mileage the same one who got hit in the head by a train recently?

http://www.digmyfishy.org/article/54

Good suplement, poor replacement

[pavon]

Biodiesal is a good fuel for replacing some of our oil usage. The other main benifit that you forgot to mention is that it is carbon neutral since any CO2 put into the air from exhaust is balenced by the CO2 taken out of the air by the plants grown to create the biodiesel.

At the moment it is only twice as expensive as diesel here in the US (although what will all the agricultural tarriffs jacking prices up and subsidies bringing them down, it is damn near impossible to calculate the true economic cost of biodiesal). There is the kink that all of our fertilizers are fossil fuel based, so the cost of producing biodiesal will go up as the cost of fossil fuel goes up. The only other alternative is to go to crop cycling and other natural sustainable methods of fertalization, which are also less cost efficient.

However the real killer is that if you sit down and do the back of the envelope calculations, you will find that growing enough biofuel to replace all the world's oil usage would require all the arable land on the entire planet. In other words we would have to bulldoze all the woods, rainforests, plains, and marshes, and replace them with biomass crops. Not only will will destroy most of the natural habitats on the planet, but at this point we also loose the carbon neutral benifit because we are taking other plants out of the carbon cycle to put ours in.

So Biodiesal, like solar, is a good supplement to our enegry needs, but not a sustainable complete replacement.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

"growing enough biofuel to replace all the world's oil usage would require all the arable land on the entire planet."

Quite a claim. Where's the reference? I call BS. This sounds like pure FUD.

I bet those "studies", if there are any, are funded by certain interests, and have all kinds of ridiculous premises.

For one thing biodiesel can be made of used oils (e.g. cooking oil, presently a disposal problem). Some plants have higher oil-to-input returns. Some plants can give seed oils as a side-product of other desirable products. Etc. Etc. Biodiesal can be made of fish oil or chicken fat.

But the scope of this claim doesn't pass the smell test. I'd like to see those calculations, please.

Nice bracketing with reasonable sounding statements, too.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[butane_bob2003]

Biodiesel would be much much cheaper than petroleum based fuels if the ban on hemp farming is lifted. By some estimates, (www.biodiesel.org) 6% of land in the US could produce enough hemp based biodiesel to satisfy our energy needs. This would be completely sustainable farming, without chemical fertilizers, pesticides or the need for genetic modification. If 6% sound like a lot, consider that 35% or more of the land in North America is used for farming cattle for beef, which is certainly not sustainable by current practices.

Corn and Soy are probably not the best candidates for biodiesel production. Hemp, sunflower and other oilseed products are easier to manage.
You would not have to bulldoze any forests,plains, or marshes,just transition existing non sustainable farms to sustainable biodiesel production.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[pavon]

Wow, well our numbers are off by several orders of magnitude. I'll have to look at that hemp article you refered to. When I did my calculation a year or so ago I was looking at corn and rapeseed, and used the current biodiesel yeilds per acre of crop given on pro-biodiesel sites (I think it was a british site). This was after hearing someone else making the claims that I just did, and I wanted to check it out on my own. I don't have all the details (source links, actual math) with me, but you've tweaked my interest enough that I'm going to have to check this out again when I get home from work.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[asynchronous13]

At the moment it is only twice as expensive as diesel here in the US

bullshit.
In February of 2004 (the most recent date I could quickly find these figures), when regular diesel was selling for around $1.60 per gallon, biodiesel fuel was selling for about $1.80 per gallon (source) The current price of diesel is $1.74 in the US. I would call that slightly more expensive, not "twice as expensive". Additionally, some biodiesel facilities are beginning to use waste restaurant grease which will reduce the price further. Here is a book that teaches you how to make biodiesel in your own backyard for pennies per gallon. (of course, there's always the "how much is your time worth?" argument, but the amount of time actively working is low, most of the time commitment is waiting)

all of our fertilizers are fossil fuel based
bullshit.
No really, ever heard of 'manure' as fertilizer? or perhaps all of our manure producing livestock are now fed fossil fuels?

growing enough biofuel to replace all the world's oil usage would require all the arable land on the entire planet

bullshit.
I won't even bother explaining how rediculous this one is.

Vegenergy is a company starting up in Atlanta, GA to produce biodiesel from waste restaurant grease. They have some info on the website, like a some common myths about biodiesel. Look around for real information before just spouting garbage. No wait, this is slashdot, nevermind, continue spouting ...

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[pavon]

February of 2004 (the most recent date I could quickly find these figures), when regular diesel was selling for around $1.60 per gallon, biodiesel fuel was selling for about $1.80 per gallon (source)

That $1.80 per gallon is only for B20 fuel which is a blend of 80% regular diesel with only 20% biodiesal. That same source says the cost of plain biodiesel (B100) is $13.75 for five gallons or $2.75 per gallon. That is 1.7 times the cost of diesel, which is lower then when I last checked, probably mostly due to the fact that the price of oil has risen since then (I think regular diesel was around $1.45).

all of our fertilizers are fossil fuel based
bullshit.
Of course not all, I should have said most. But from what I recall, natural fertilizers only make up a small amount of the fertilzers used in US agriculture. Same with the waste grease for biodiesel. It is a great idea and will provide some fuel, but from the numbers I saw it wasn't significant in the grand scheme of things.

I checked that vegenergy site you linked and didn't see anything that contradicted the points that I made. However, there is always the chance that I am misinformed. My numbers and sources are at home on one of my backup drives. Hopefully, I will have time to dig them up and double check them this afternoon. Whenever I do I'll post them here.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[Dravik]

I thought that hemp was legal. It's just dope that is illegal.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[Mike Hicks]

Nope. All hemp is dope in the eyes of the law (in the U.S.).

It gets confusing listening to the hemp advocates in this country. A lot of people are genuinely interested in the utilitarian value of hemp (it was grown in mass quantities back during WWII, for instance, to make rope and other materials). However, enough people who are more interested in the, shall we say, "entertainment value" of certain varieties of hemp get mixed in with the groups and confuse the issue.

It is legal to import the non-narcotic products of hemp into the U.S. from other countries.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[Anonymous Coward]

growing enough biofuel to replace all the world's oil usage would require all the arable land on the entire planet

bullshit. I won't even bother explaining how rediculous this one is.

Let's do some of those back-o-the-envelope calculations:

A calorie is a calorie. It takes a lot more calories to make a car go than it does to make a person go. A gallon of gas contains ~124,000 BTU, which is equal to 31,248 dietary calories (a dietary calorie is = 1000 energy calories, and one BTU is equal to ~252 energy calories, or .252 dietary calories. To reduce confusion, I'll be using dietary calories from here on out), or enough energy to keep a person going for about a week and a half (12 days) at 2,500 cal/day. A good car (like my Civic) gets 30 miles to the gallon, or about 1/2 a person-day of food per mile. To keep it fed using food crops would mean that it would consume 31,248,000 calories per year @ 30,000 miles/year (about how much I drive) or enough calories to feed 34 people for a year.

There are ~600,000,000 automobiles world-wide. Assuming that they drive 1/10 of the distance I do every year, on average, and that their mileage is as good as mine (both enormously conservative estimates) they each consume 3,124,000 calories every year, or enough food for just over 3 people a year. Convert them all to biodiesel and you have added 2,054,663,13 mouths to feed. That's China *and* Europe (about). If folks drive more than 3,000 miles/year and/or don't get 30MPG, the numbers look a hell of a lot worse.

I don't think that improved efficiencies in the delivery of food could support 2 billon more people. I'm not saying that biodiesel isn't a good idea. Far from it. What I *am* saying is that it doesn't look like *enough* of a good idea. Especially since it will put people's cars in competition with people's stomachs if it catches on.

And before any of the mal-informed go on about how biodiesel can use biowaste - it can't. To make bio-diesel you need vegitable oil and alcohol. i.e. you need the parts of the plant that contain oil, not just any plant matter. It so happens that it's the oily parts of the plants in quesiton that provide those plant's nutritional value.

And before anyone comes back with 'Recycled reseraunt grease!' think about this:

- It's free now 'casue it's worthless. If lots of people start using it, it won't be worthless anymore.

- How much oil do you think resteraunts use? 10 gal of deep fat fryier oil every other day isn't gonna supply more than two or three cars. They ahve more empliees than that. What will the rest of us do?

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[boots@work]

I wonder if burning vegetable oil extracts more useful energy than human digestion?

To make bio-diesel you need vegitable oil and alcohol. i.e. you need the parts of the plant that contain oil, not just any plant matter.

Right, but the other parts of the plant can be put to other productive uses; for example burned to drive electricity generation.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[butane_bob2003]

In Canada you can get a permit to grow hemp, there are a few bigger commercial hemp farms and some smaller experimental farms (20 acres or so) where the owners are testing different harvesting and growning techinques.

In the US it's only _barely_ legal to import hemp products, and the govt. does not permit farmers to grow hemp in the US at all. There are small hemp fields in some parts of the US, but they are govt. owned and I have no idea what they do with them. You can't import raw hemp material (seeds, stalks, leaves, etc..) without a lot of trouble from the DEA, if at all. The DEA has adopted a policy of harassment towards legitimate businesses that make health food and hemp oil products. This is obviously a huge waste of taxpayer's money. The US govt. is slow to see the importance of hemp as a renewable resource. Canada is much more progressive on this, they are seeing possiblity of a lucrative and sustainable hemp economy.

Not sure about the UK or EU, but I think there are parts of europe where hemp is grown legally.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[butane_bob2003]

Some numbers from various sources: Gallons of oil per acre: Corn: 18
Hemp: 39
Soy: 48
Rapeseed: 127 (115 gal.biodiesel)
Oil Palm: 635 (258 gal. biodiesel)
Diesel usage (US, per year): 40 billon gallons Current biodiesel production: 20 million gallons 100% biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle, petrodiesel yeilds 0.83. It would take more than a billion acres of hemp to make around 40 billion gallons of biodiesel. So um, not sure where they are getting the 6%. That 40 billion is just diesel consumption, which includes boats,trucks,rvs,trains,generators.. Maybe we need to cut our energy consumption in general.. Diesel truck drag racing seems pretty unnecessary.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[pavon]

Thanks for responding! I couldn't find that paper on the biodiesel site (no responces on the normal search, too many on the report search). I posted my calculations and sources in another reply if you are interested in them.

I don't know how things are going to pan out. None of the fuel cell technologies look all that promising to me. They are either extremely expensive, dependant on petroleum, or dependant on crops and thus have the same limitation as biodiesel. The best option for most things still looks like plain ol' electricity, doesn't paint a pretty picture for the US. More densely populated first world countries like Japan and much of Europe are much better off as Electric rail is economical today and in many places already deployed.

Re:Good suplement, poor replacement

[butane_bob2003]

Thanks, those numbers are very informative. One thing is certain, more studies need to be done. Beyond replacing fossil fuels with sustainable alternatives, power consumption needs to be reduced by making engines more efficient. There really is no plan in place AFAIK for transitioning away from fossil fuels, even though the oil industry knows that we have already consumed 1/3 of the available petroleum. The industry seems to be more concerned with finding ways to extract petroleum that is currently unavailable.

What's the problem? It's just like any other car

[oogoliegoogolie]

Since when does any car get the advertised estimated MPG?

This website has lots of real-world data

[Anonymous Coward]

http://john1701a.com/

This website created by a Prius owner from Minnesota has tons of real-world data. While his milage certainly isn't what the EPA claims, I think his data is representative of what Prius drivers should expect once they learn how to drive the car in such a way as to achieve good milage.

2001 Prius: Lifetime MPG as of 59,827 miles was: 45.4

2001 Prius: MPG Average for April 2001,2002,2003 was: 46.1

2004 Prius: Lifetime MPG as of 12,487 miles was: 46.8

2004 Prius: Average MPG for April 2004 was: 50.7

I don't know about you, but I'd do anything for a car that gets 50 MPG at $2.06 per gallon.

I Drive '04 Prius, and ALWAYS Got more than 50mpg

[Sarvagya]

I got a '04 Prius in January, my starting mileage was 48.5, but since then have always got MORE than 50 and my last tank mileage was 52.4 and this tank will be more. So, as my car breaks in the mileage is increasing. And, this is when I don't baby-drive my car, if I did that I would be getting waaay more. However, I live in the SF Bay Area,CA where the temperatures are normally moderate, one thing that is experienced by all is that as the temperature drops, so does the mileage, so that is something to consider, however, again I do get more then 50mpg and and approaching 55mpg slowly which is EXACTLY what EPA numbers show.

Diesel

[nsayer]

I love my '96 Passatt TDI. No matter how or where I drive, with or without AC, I get 35 mpg. It never wavers at all. And it's got surprising pickup for something officially rated at 90 hp. Of course, the backside of that pickup is that you need to shift before the end of the intersection. :-)

It's exempt from emissions testing too, which is a big plus.

My next car will probably be a Beetle TDI as soon as they have factory installed XM radios.

Re:Diesel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and I really like closing off outside air when I following someone driving a fucking diesel powered car. Face it, your choice of car is like the choice to smoke cigarettes: it makes you feel good but annoys the rest of us.

efficiency is the key

[snarkasaurus]

Theoretically the hybrid is able to A) make use of energy regained by regenerative braking and coasting, and B) run its gas engine at the most efficient rpm rather than having to continuously vary engine speed as we normally do.

Those are the up-side. The down side is that electric generators do not convert 100% of the torque energy you put into them, electric motors do not give you 100% of the electric energy you put in back as torque, and batteries do not give back 100% of the energy you put it storage.

So you have all the losses normally associated with a gas engine PLUS all these electric drive train losses as well.

Consequently it is no surprise that highway mileage is worse with the hybrid than a standard engine, because the standard is tuned for highway driving. There's no energy lost to braking, so the hybrid's advantages are all neutralised.

In the city there is plenty of stop and go driving, with speeding up and slowing down, and this is where the hybrid has the advantage with regenerative braking and constant engine speed.

In concept all you are doing is using a smaller engine to wind up a big spring. Sometimes this is an advantage, sometimes it isn't.

If you are driving all in the city, chose a hybrid. If you are driving mostly on the highway, stick with the standard style.

By the way, the small difference in even city mileage is more of a testament to the superb design of modern engines and cars than a strike against the hybrid car. Cars these days are absolutely amazing.

I own a 2003 Prius and get 50 mpg in the city

[mopomi]

And a little less on the freeway. It took less than 11 gallons of gas to drive from Tucson to Los Angeles (500 miles), so we got better than 45 mpg on the freeway.

I get good gas mileage because I drive like an intelligent person. . . I don't need to accelerate all the way from one stop light to the next, in fact at the worst, I accelerate half way there and decellerate the other half. I drive at a constant speed when I don't need to be accelerating or decellerating--this allows the electric motor to take over because I don't need any extra power for acceleration.

However, I didn't buy it for the good gas mileage. I bought the Prius because 1) it's a SULEV (and sometimes ZEV) and 2) I wanted to support a technological change from the old, crusty, disgusting way of building individual transport that relies solely on fossil fuels. It's not the best technology imaginable, but it's currently the best mass produced technology.

Geek reviews of Insight and Civic Hybrid

[dFaust]

Courtesy of Ars-Tehnica

Honda Insight
2003 Honda Civic Hybrid

Civic Hybrid works

[Anonymous Coward]

my family's 2002 hybrid with about 22000 miles still gets between 42 and 44 mpg if it's driven CAREFULLY. this is not hard to do; in fact, i usually play a game with myself driving places, to see if i can run the battery charge up all the way. this requres gentle acceleration and gentle, early braking. in a city environment, this is an even beter diversion than a car with a big engine.

PS. whoever manages to get 30 mpg in this car is a fucking spaz

Re:Civic Hybrid works

[Little Brother]

In responce to your PS, there is one factor that could cause a legitimate driver to get much worse gas mpg than you do. The land. If you are driving on flat land you will get better mialage than if you live in hill-covered countryside or mountainous regions. If you live in the mountains, and regularly have to climb mountain grade roads, you will kill the efficiencey on any fuel efficient car. I'm not sure what area you live in, nor what areas someone reporting 30mpg would live in, but factors that arn't the driver's fault should be taken into consideration before calling someone a spaz.

Not that you don't generaly have a point or anything. I've driven a minivan and gotten 27MPG while when my brother borrowed it he got 19. (mostly Highway on both)

completely agreed

[rly2000]

it's a shame that the oil industry was able to put a lid on electric vehicle production by making them pretty much impossible to get.

• the charging infrastructure is already there, (as opposed to hydrogen)
• the range is already greater than hydrogen (~120 miles/charge on NmH, imagine what it'd be like with Lithium ion??)
• maintenance is minimal -- no oil changes, no transmission to worry about
• No oily messiness on your driveway
• no explosions
• no pollution
• single-person access to carpool lanes
• no contribution to the oil industry. (which is why the laws mandating EVs in California are gone)
• immunity to rising gas prices
• cost per mile in a EV is a small fraction of the cost per mile in an equivalent gas car

it's just a different paradigm for charging up that people aren't used to -- since the daily, overnight chargeup is more than sufficient for your daily commute, you actually save more time charging up than going to a gas station for your weekly gas up.

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/

By the way, I work with a couple of people who drive toyota Rav4 EVs with solar electric photovoltaic systems. Seems the right way to do things -- they're short-circuiting the use of non-renewable, polluting solar energy stored up from dead dinosaur flesh and instead, deriving it directly from the sun!

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[RobertB-DC]

I don't understand why there is so much anti-hybrid stuff in the news lately. The Prius and Insight both have quite good safety records and really excellent mileage.

Simple, really. The authors of the anti-hybrid articles are upset because there's a waiting list, and the only way they'll ever get one for themselves is to get rid of the demand. I wish them the best of luck, 'cause darn it, I want one too!

Bad headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you still reading these comments?

The headline "Hybrid Cars Don't Live Up to Mileage Claims" is too open-ended to not be taken anything but slanted. Expect articles like this for products competing so strongly in the market. As for the numbers, I am sure, if you drive lead-looted, you can drop the MPG numbers on any car.

Doesn't it make you wonder what the SUV's are getting?

Btw, my friend has a Honda Insight. He consistantly got within a mile or two of the milage stated.

When he changed the tires to Prius tires, he lost a few MPG. The tire comound must be softer or pressure lower, or more lossy tread.

BrendaEM

A few things to consider

[Oz0ne]

On combustion engines that use the standard rings to seal pistons, you're not going to see your optimum mileage for several thousand miles. Depends on tolerances and manufacturer of course, but I've had several cars that their mileage/power output increased steadily up till about 8000 miles.

Also, as everyone's already pointed out, how you drive plays a big role, as well as tire pressure, and where you're driving.

I'm trying to sell my neon currently. Great car but I've moved on. It's a 2.0 litre gas engine (manual transmission), and I've gotten 45 mpg on roadtrips with it. It dynos at about 140 hp. It's not all about the power, it's about how efficiently you make the power and definitely how you use it. People should have to take a class when they buy a hybrid as it's my experience that most people don't know how to drive a NORMAL car properly.

Re:Better than nothing - US or Imperial Gallons

[Anonymous Coward]

if I recall the US gallon is 5/6ths of the imperial gallon so be careful of any US/UK comparisons - maybe a better measure is litres/100km - however I drive MCC 600cc Smart cars - I get a little less than 11miles/litre when they are driven hard along Motorways (I average just under 70mph for 200 mile journies) - in town use (or if I could stick to 60mph !) I can get considerably better - over 12miles/litre

And....

[www.sorehands.com]

I calculate my milage by:

1. Filling the gastake with gas
2. Driving more than 300 miles
3. Filling the take with gas, again
4. Dividing the number of miles driven by the number of gallons it takes to refill the take.

I do try to fill the take to the same level each time.

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[syphax]

I rented an older Prius for the day from LAX last December (www.evrental.com), drove it all around with plenty of hills and stop-and-go traffic, and averaged 44 MPG. I drove it more or less like I would've a normal car.

The only difference I noticed from a regular car was that the power didn't kick in unless you really floored it- the power-to-throttle seemed a lot more non-linear than I was used to.

It depends a lot on driving conditions

[Anonymous Coward]

I own an '01 Toyota Prius and the actual mileage you get depends a lot on how far you drive.

When the car first starts up, it needs to run the gas engine to get things heated up. Depending on your outside temp, this can take a few minutes. If you trip is only a few minutes, then you're not going to see the high mileage. But if you spend a lot of time in your car, or most of your trips take 10+ minutes, you WILL see higher mileage.

I used to live the SF bay area and had daily 15 mile commutes on combination of freeways and surface streets and I regularly got around 50MPG.

I now live in an area where I usually only make short trips and my mileage has dropped to around 42MPG.

So in conclusion:
Long, bad commute = good hybrid mileage
Short, good commute = decent hybrid mileage

Sales

[Anonymous Coward]

By the sales figures, it appears that we have everyone who has bought a Prius or Insight here on this board. WOW!

My 2001 Prius

[Malkin]

My Prius, purchased in August 2000, averages around 47 mpg, right now. My typical driving patterns involve a 30 minute commute, which includes about ten minutes of slow surface road driving (with traffic lights) followed by a 50mph drive to a tunnel, a slowdown for the toll booth, a long drive through a tunnel at 45, another stretch of 50, and then highway driving the rest of the way.

I have seen my Prius do as well as 80, and as poorly as 27, depending on circumstances. It gets its best mileage when I'm driving at fairly steady speeds, below 60 mph, with my air conditioning off. During my typical commute, my very best mileage is during the tunnel segment of my trip, in spite of the climb at the end of it.

You have to understand, though, that unlike the Insight, the Prius is optimized for emissions, rather than gas mileage. The gas mileage is merely a fringe benefit. In 2000, the Prius was a SULEV, and the Insight was an ULEV (don't know whether this is still true). Part of why the Prius mileage suffers is because of tricks that are done to curb emissions on a cold start. The mileage for the first five minutes is nowhere near as good as a typical cross-section from partway through a trip. So, longer commutes will enjoy better mileage on average than shorter commutes.

As for the batteries, I can speak for the Prius: 1.) Toyota has a 8-year warranty on the entire Hybrid system, so you don't need to pay for a replacement, for at least seven years. 2.) I've had my car since August 2000, and there are absolutely no issues with my batteries. You do NOT have to replace these "every couple of years," as some people have suggested. They cost more than Dausha suggested (around $3500 retail; they're hoping to get them down to $1000 through economy of scale), but the normal lifespan is 8-10 years. 3.) Toyota and Honda both use a third-party recycler for the batteries. They are not just thrown in a junkyard, somewhere.

There's a lot of FUD out there about these cars, so I like to clear the air whenever I can (so to speak). :)

one reason ...

[buchanmilne]

is that one of the primary ways to improve the efficiency of petrol (ok, gasoline, or more technically, spark ignition engines) is to prevent your pumping losses (required since the air/fuel ratio must be constant, so at lower throttle settings you have to induce resistance in the intake to reduce the air going in). This is why you need to try and run the spark ignition engine at wide-open-throttle as much as possible (and stick the extra energy in something like a battery).

However, diesel engines don't have pumping losses (or, much less significant losses), so there isn't so much to gain making diesel hybrids (since with a diesel hybrid, you will lose most of the benefit to losses in your electro-mechanical transmission).

But, if there is a more efficient way to store the excess energy, it may become feasible.

Re:one reason ...

[ArsonSmith]

except that 90% of Hybrids recharge comes from braking and slowing down not from any inefficiency of the engine. Last I checked diesel engines haven't been able to overcome the need to slow down or stop occasionally.

Hybrid and Off Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only EPA requiring to change, so does DMV, autoshops, drivers ed., and used car salesman's "Hey, this baby can do 60 in 10" sales pitch... etc.

http://hybridbuzz.blogspot.com/
Is it me or just me, can't seem to view the damn blog with Mozilla...

wait.. let me try with IE... wait.. i have no IE. CRAP. wait... Hurray~ I have no IE~! wait.. I still can't view the blog... crap...

What are you talking about?

[A nonymous Coward]

Onboard electricity is generated by the onboard internal combustion engine. If it gets xx MPG, that is xx MPG including electricity generation. You don't plug it into a wall and get electricity from elsewhere.

Re:What are you talking about?

[drooling-dog]

Onboard electricity is generated by the onboard internal combustion engine. If it gets xx MPG, that is xx MPG including electricity generation.

My mistake.

Saturn MPG??

[thegameiam]

I have a 2000 Saturn SL2, and I get somewhere between 25-30 mpg regularly. How in the world are you getting > 40? If you've got any suggestions, I'd love to hear them...

Re:Saturn MPG??

[deanj]

Perhaps that's his mileage on the highway, where yours is mainly city driving?

Re:Saturn MPG??

[NuShrike]

My friend with a Saturn keeps it under 2K rpms as much as possible driving around. He also drives the speed limit (65mph), so he gets 40+ miles to the gallon.

I used to get that in my non-vtec Civic by driving slowly on the freeways, and drafting as much as possible behind other vehicles.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

I try drafting off of other vehicles, too. There are two problems with this, though: 1. A lot more rocks at the windshield, and 2. Not as safe in an emergency situation. Of course, if you're behind a truck, chances are you can stop much faster than he can. But you are still going to get a lot more rocks.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

He is driving an SL-1. That model has a SOHC engine and about 25% less HP than your SL-2 has. BTW do you keep your intake clean? Pull off the air intake hose and use Gumout to clean the insides. I use a tooth brush as well. Keeps the throttle from sticking and also improves performance.

Have you replaced your transmission filter? It is EASY! they screw on like an oil filter. Keep the magnet between the filter and transmission too.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[NineteenSixtyNine]

He probably has that Frederick Flintstoehne modification to the floorboard.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[ichimunki]

drafting as much as possible behind other vehicles.

Is that a euphemism for saying you tailgate a lot?

(and now to stay on topic...) I'm a anti-car zealot and I think these hybrid deals are some of the dumbest things ever. They cost what, twice as much as a regular car with no real advantage in terms of fuel efficiency? Even if they got what the claims are they don't look to me like the savings would really pay for the added expense of owning one of these contraptions.

Besides, if you care that much about efficiency get a bike! Bicycles use no fossil fuels for propulsion and are far more efficient in terms of energy expended. With a car you have to move around 2000 pounds just to get your butt to go somewhere... on a bike that becomes 50 pounds, if you've got a really heavy bike. Not only that, even the most expensive bikes cost a fraction of what it costs to own and operate a car.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Mantorp]

I have a 1997 Civic EX with 183,000 miles on it. I take lousy care of it, don't care about things like tire pressure or regular oil changes. I drive like a car thief and average about 36-38 mpg. Can't believe the Hybrids would get less than that. I've been eyeing the Turbo diesel Jetta, they get phenomenal mileage as well. Do they make a convertible? I wish I could get a Civic EX convertible.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[skiflyer]

Yes, sure, I'll use a bike for a fourty mile northern city suburban commute... no problem! Or, I'll ride my bike wearing a suit in a snowstorm on my way to a sales meeting.

To be fair, this isn't my situation, I have a 2 block walk... but as nice as bikes are, they're not a practical replacement for a car for most people. They're a wonderful supplement for most of us, and a replacement for about 3 of us.

As far as the hybrid being the dumbest thing ever because it's more expensive... this is the problem with being ecologically friendly in general, it costs more to do so... if you're buying a hybrid to save money, you're either a moron, or you drive hundreds of highway miles a day. If you're buying it to help the environment, kudos to you... at least based on the original claims.

To me that's pretty much the whole point of this article... the one reason there was to buy a hybrid has now gone out the window.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[bugsmalli]

My Solar Powered Saturn runs rings around all the saturns in this post put together. I get 29.46 Earth years per charge and it comes with its own moons. Just don't smell what it releases. could be hazardous to your health.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[ChrisMaple]

Manual transmission

Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)

Drive at a steady speed, about 40 mph, in top gear.

Choose a route that doesn't involve hills.

Don't use oxygenated gasoline. (as if you have a choice!) (15% efficiency loss)

Don't drive through snow. (It takes energy to push the snow aside.)

Don't drive in very cold weather. (Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power.)

If you can, adjust the spark timing for maximum efficiency. This setting may disagree with manufacturer's recommendations.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[pyrrhonist]

drafting as much as possible behind other vehicles

I live in Massachusetts. What's drafting?

What? Oh, it's the way everyone here drives. Nevermind.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're buying a hybrid for hundreds of miles of highway driving a day, you're not making use of the main savings, ie regenerative braking. Rather than just dissapating heat when you stop, you turn motion into battery charge. Freeways are designed not to have stops, quickly negating the immediate gain.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[tie_guy_matt]

You have an SL2, i.e. dual overhead cam model (more power less MPG) he (And I) have an SL; Cheaper lower power (and better gas mileage) single overhead cam model. Whenever I have tested the MPG on more car (2001 Saturn SL with manual 5 spd tranny) I get about 40 MPG too.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[caswelmo]

I've had both experiences. I had a '92 Saturn SL1 with a manual tranny that got 36-38 mpg, mixed highway/city. I also just got rid of a '97 Saturn SC2 with an automatic that only got 28-29 mpg, mixed driving.

My experiences with automatic transmissions have been pretty bad. That's why I just bought another manual, a 2004 Toyota Matrix. I've been getting 32 mpg with it, which is more than the highway rating even though I've been using it in town & hauling lots of stuff. And I drive like a bat out of hell.

Maybe automatics are especially bad for particular driving styles. Then again, while my '92 Saturn ran great, my '97 was a standard issue P.O.S.

Overall, though, my family has had great mileage from manual transmission SL1-series Saturns.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[crumley]

My guess is that besides engine size, he has a a manual tranmission, and you have automatic. A properly driven manual transmission is a great way to save gas.

I usually get about 35 mpg with my SC1, but that's with lots of small trips. When I take a longer trip, I get 40+ mpg as well, though I am impressed that an SL1 can do that well.

Of course, one of the best ways to save gas is to avoid needless acceleration/deceleration. You'd be surprised how much gasd you can save byslowing down by taking your foot of the accelerator, instead of using the brakes.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Carnildo]

As far as the hybrid being the dumbest thing ever because it's more expensive... this is the problem with being ecologically friendly in general, it costs more to do so... if you're buying a hybrid to save money, you're either a moron, or you drive hundreds of highway miles a day. If you're buying it to help the environment, kudos to you... at least based on the original claims.

To me that's pretty much the whole point of this article... the one reason there was to buy a hybrid has now gone out the window.

If you'd read the article, the hybrids really are more environmentally-friendly than conventional cars. The reason the mileage estimates are inflated is that they're based off of emissions, and hybrids have lower emissions per gallon of gas than conventional cars.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[jdray]

Furthermore, it has no perceivable impact on the Earth.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[vondo]

Not only that, even the most expensive bikes cost a fraction of what it costs to own and operate a car.

You've apparently never looked at really good bikes.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are not the most retarded person I have seen, you are still pretty retarded. I am debating adding you to my foe's list. Any comments?

Re:Saturn MPG??

[ichimunki]

And you've apparently never studied fractions. ;)

A new Prius costs $20,000. The most expensive bike I've ever seen was $5,000. This is one-fourth the price of the Prius. Clearly a "fraction" of the cost.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[jazman_777]

With a car you have to move around 2000 pounds just to get your butt to go somewhere... on a bike that becomes 50 pounds, if you've got a really heavy bike.

In America, that butt adds a lot of weight, too.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Gr8Apes]

Easy way: increase tire pressure to 95% or more of max tire pressure. This will reduce tire resistance, as the tires are harder. This will equate into as much as 4-6 mpg improvement.

I had an 88 Toyota Alltrac (rated 20/25 mpg) and managed to squeeze about 34 mpg hwy going an average of 90 mph. Speed had something to do with it, but that was in mountainous terrain during colder months (also had something to do with increased mpg as cold weather increases the efficiency of a turbo, and at those speeds in mountainous terrain, the turbo definitely is used)

Re:Saturn MPG??

[stanmann]

So, can you recommend a location where I can do all these things??

YOur ideas fascinate me do you have a mailing list?

Re:Saturn MPG??

[haruchai]

The Golf TDI is also a good buy, if you want a diesel engine. Great mileage and respectable torque. If you can, try using biodiesel to run it, unless the temperature falls to below 0 Celsius. B20 grade and up should work just fine. Note that petroleum-derived diesel emits significantly more pollutants than either regular gas or biodiesels.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[balloonpup]

*nods* They've addressed that to some extent -- I just bought a 2004 Saturn Ion.2 with the 5-speed auto, and it's doing roughly 40 mpg highway, and 34 mixed the way I drive. Then again, I drive like a trucker, so I don't have the sudden accelerations that most do...

The EPA test shows 33/25 if I remember right.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[cft_128]

Other than the manual transmission (Prius uses a CVT, keeps the gas engine in its 'sweep spot' all the time), you could do all that in a hybrid and theoretically improve the milage. I wonder what milage the hybrids would get if they were driven that way.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Cromac]

It's also illegal. If you're close enough to truely draft them you're tailgating. If you're following at anything close to a safe/legal distance you won't be getting any benifit from their draft.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Strider-BG]

I assume you're driving w/ the windows down then? You should double-check your math. Listening to Click and Clack on NPR, they confirmed a theory I had in that the mpg loss due to increased drag with the windows down is greater than the parasitic losses from the A/C compressor.

But as always, YMMV.

Chris

Re:Saturn MPG??

[cardshark2001]

Is it a manual transmission?

I drive a '99 Toyota Paseo, which has a fuel efficiency rating of 27 mpg in the city, but I consistently get about 35 mpg.

It is very hilly where I live, and I tend to speed on the highway. Why do I get such good mileage?

I think the answer is pretty simple. When I'm coming to a traffic light where I know I'm going to hit the light red, I take the car out of gear and coast. I try to make it to the light just in time to catch the light change so I don't have to brake (not always possible).

This makes impatient people behind me angry, but I don't let it bother me.

I do pretty much the same thing in bumper-to-bumper highway traffic. I leave plenty of room in front of me and try to drive at a constant speed that allows me to drive without braking. Sure, people jump in front of me sometimes, but it's really not a big deal, and it is a hell of a lot less aggravating than clutch shift clutch brake clutch shift, over and over again.

So many people drive really fast just to get to a red light, it continually amazes me. Not only have they not saved time, they waste gas. Take your car outta gear and coast when it makes sense to do that. Try to time your arrival at the light so that you don't have to brake at all, and you can use your inertia all the way through. Starting and stopping uses a LOT of gas. This principle also applies to an automatic transmission, but you won't see such a dramatic increase in efficiency with an automatic, but I'd bet you could get it up over 30.

My last car was an '95 SL2, and I got about 32 mpg. If I didn't speed all the time, I probably could have gotten 35-40.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the mileage estimates are inflated is that they're based off of emissions, and hybrids have lower emissions per gallon of gas than conventional cars.

Uh, they do? How? My understanding is that the hybrids still have to burn the gas to generate energy, in the same fashion that a normal automobile does. So how do the hybrids emit less pollution per gallon of gas?

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Guiness17]

Heh - I thought I was the only one that did this! I drive a BMW535, and manage mileage in the mid-30's like this. I've also had people comment that they find my driving very smooth. For me, it's simple...just look a little ahead, see what's coming, and make adjustments.

However, it does drive the wife nuts - but not as nuts as she drives me when she's behind the wheel and doesn't do it!

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Mantorp]

do they make those as a convertible? Not sure I've seen biodiesel anywhere around here (CT).

Re:Saturn MPG??

[djhertz]

You sir, are correct. I have read the same thing numerous times.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[ErikZ]

"Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power."

Er, what? So the most fuel efficent tires would be soft and squishy?

Just from that statement alone you're making me disregard everything else you've said.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

Manual transmission

Ok, fine.

Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)

Ok, so you either bake in your car with the windows up, or waste even more mileage with your windows down.

Drive at a steady speed, about 40 mph, in top gear.

Thats a great idea for all of the people that dont have stop signs, curves, turns, traffic, or 55 MPH freeways on their commute.

Choose a route that doesn't involve hills.

Ok, you can have better mileage then but you end up driving 50% more miles. Sounds like a great plan.

Don't use oxygenated gasoline. (as if you have a choice!) (15% efficiency loss)

As if you have a choice with any of the other moronic suggestions too...

Don't drive through snow. (It takes energy to push the snow aside.)

Don't drive in very cold weather. (Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power.)

Yeah, I think my employer will understand if I don't show up for work everytime it gets cold or snowy. I mean, he must understand how important gas mileage is...

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Cromac]

Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)

Better include don't roll down your windows either. The car loses a lot of it's aerodynamics when you do that, it's better to run the AC than roll down the windows, especially for highway driving.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a bike?

You don't live in Los Angeles, do you?

I do and my daily commute is 20 miles each direction on the freeway - nothing compared to the daily commute for lots of other Angelenos I know.

Furthermore, my new 'dumb hybrid contraption' of a Honday Civic did not cost 'twice as much' as its non-hybrid counterpart, although I'm sure the dealership would have been happy if that was the case. And it's already gone 110 miles on less than a quarter tank (holds 11 gallons).

But then, I guess you'd be the one on your bike pedaling madly over Angeles Crest Highway, now wouldn't you?

Re:Saturn MPG??

[3dr]

My wife and I have a '99 SL2 that rarely gets outside of the range 33-38 mpg. We've been very happy with the car and its mileage given its size.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Carnildo]

Uh, they do? How? My understanding is that the hybrids still have to burn the gas to generate energy, in the same fashion that a normal automobile does. So how do the hybrids emit less pollution per gallon of gas?

To put it in terms that even an idiot can understand:

1) A car engine can emit five types of pollution: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, soot, and unburned hydrocarbons.
2) The most benign of these is carbon dioxide. It is also present in the greatest quantities.
3) A properly-tuned car engine, when running at a constant speed, emits only carbon dioxide.
4) A car engine, when changing speeds, emits all five types of pollutant.
5) The engine of a hybrid-electric car runs at a constant speed.
6) The engine of a conventional car changes speed frequently

Therefore, the engine of a hybrid-electric car emits less pollution per gallon of gas than a conventional car.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[skiflyer]

So in short, it's the definition of pollution that's been screwing up so many slashdotter's today. (myself included)

Not that you used it consistently... but your point is taken, thanks for the explanation.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Mike Hicks]

I remember there were two or three engines available when my mom got her car (one or two 4-cyl versions and a V6 if I remember right), and, of course, two transmission options. The smallest engine plus a manual transmission was peppy enough for my family, though I'm sure many people instantly gravitated toward the more power-hungry options.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Firethorn]

On a pure electric-driven car (some hybrids hook the gas engine to the wheels), you don't need a transmission, and the gas engine operates at a constant speed to provide power. You can get by with a smaller constant speed gas engine (you get extra power from the batteries when needed).

The hills and stuff don't matter as much for an electric because of the difference in the way the motors work. Regenerative braking is a big bonus.

On the other hand, my Saturn SC2 gets about 30 mpg running around. I'm not a fuel-efficient driver, amd I'm only 1 mpg worse than what the guy is getting. He has a problem...

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

This also means that the difference in emissions should be lessened for traditional cars that do mostly highway miles

Re:Saturn MPG??

[cft_128]

The guy in the article has a honda, almost not a hybrid in my book.

There are two major hybrid techs out there, the honda and the toyota types (I believe that ford's is like the toyota one, dodge's was... bad and was dropped). The 2004 toyta uses a planetary gear that hooks up the gas engine and the generator together and also to the drive train, where the electric motor hooks up to it. This all acts like a CVT and a Power Split Device (PSD) to split the gas engine's output to both the wheels and to the generator. The gas engine only needs to be on when extra power is needed (high speeds or climbing hills where it gets sent directly to the wheels via the PSD) or when the batteries are low (power get sent to the generator) or a combination of the two. The electric motor does all the low speed low HP high torque work with the gas engine shutting down quite a bit of the time.

The honda ... well the honda has the gas engine as the main power and is always on (the newer civic does have a 'stop at light' mode but it rarely kicks in), the electric motor acts as supplementary to it and the whole thing goes through a normal transmission (which can be a CVT, but not the nifty PSD one that toyota uses, just a normal CVT).

The edmunds article on hybrids is misleading, check out the howstuffworks article for info on the prius

Re:Saturn MPG??

[nomel]

I leave plenty of room in front of me and try to drive at a constant speed that allows me to drive without braking.

You're helping everyone by smoothing the traffic waves! When in stop and go traffic, the people me always seem to realise what I'm doing after a while. Sure makes the drive nicer, especially since I have a manual and stop/go can get irritating ;)

It amazes me when people think they can go faster than the car in front of them by getting real close. You can't go faster than the car in front of you people!

Re:Saturn MPG??

[SaDan]

In my case, not even having A/C in my car ('88 Honda Civic LX) probably IS saving me fuel, because there that much less weight to lug around.

And I'm sure if you drive down the highway with all of your windows down, it does cause a measureable amount of drag.

I get over 40mpg in my Civic, windows up or down.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[elphkotm]

FYI: Increasing your tire pressure also reduces the amount of grip your car has (softer tires grip better), which is a safety concern in wet / slippery weather. Don't do this in the winter!

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC what Click and Clack actually said was that the car was smart enough to shut off the A/C when you were trying to accelerate rapidly, so that a car with the AC on and windows up would beat a car with the AC off and the windows down in a drag-race because the AC on the former would shutoff and stop sapping energy from the engine. I suppose you may be thinking of something else that they said, but that was the only AC comment I can remember them making.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

For a long time, I've thought that was just common sense... never had any confirmation though.

Of course, maybe the grandparent to this post was referring to not using A/C and just suffering terribly with the windows up on hot days. What's a little sweat (or heat stroke) if it helps save the environment? :)

Re:Saturn MPG??

[dreadlocks]

He just drives downhill with the wind at his back (each way).

Re:Saturn MPG??

[instarx]

I don't know where you thought you got your environmental engineering knowledge but I hope you didn't pay real money for it.

Your statement that an car engine running at constant speed emits only carbon dioxide is absurd and dumb.

As a simple example, there is an inverse-relationship between CO and NOx emissions, so it is impossible for both to be zero simultaneously. There is no free lunch and there is no magic internal combustion engine that only produces CO2.

You belong to the most irritating and pathetic group on slashdot: those who call other people idiots while at the same time managing to be morons about the topic under discussion.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Gr8Apes]

In wet weather, it's debatable, in snow, you're correct. Softer tires increase the footprint, thus increasing the traction. It should be noted that at the lower pressure required to get this effect, you should be driving slower, as the tires will get warm faster. Also, if you drive on dry pavement during the summer at these pressures, your tires tend to blow out, and they will wear much faster.

In wet weather, the type of tire, tread pattern, and rubber composition make more difference than pressure, unless you are seriously overpressurizing your tires.

The best way to truly tell if your tire pressure is correct is to examine the wear across your tires.

• More wear on the outside edges = too soft.
• More wear on the center treads, too hard.
• Rides rougher than you like, probably too hard (can be car design issue as well)
• Mushy feeling response, likely too soft (can be car design issue as well)

Hopefully that'll help a little.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Chacham]

Compared to my Escort....

Manual transmission

Yep. Manual is wonderful. (Except it gets annoying when driving someone else's automatic. I should take a fake clutch with me. :)

Anyway, it does seem to add about 5 miles/gallon.

Don't use air conditioning, ever. (2 to 4 mpg)

Nope. This is not true. When i got my car i decided to test this. I drove for a week (>60 miles a day) with the window open, and another week with the air on. Mostly ~70 miles/hr. They gas usage was negligible. I tried going a week with neither, but i began to feel highly uncomfortable. My result was, that window or air uses the same amount of gas, and that adds up to a loss of around 1 mile/gallon.

Considering i get between 30 and 35 miles a gallon, and my tank holds ~13 gallons, the loss per fillup is less than half a gallon. Not using the air would hardly make a difference, especially since the window would be openned.

Drive at a steady speed, about 40 mph, in top gear.

I just drove 600 miles (Detroit to New York) and averaged between 70 and 80 miles an hour. I believe i got over 400 miles on the tank. I don't see how going 40 would have been too much better.

Choose a route that doesn't involve hills.

You mean significant hills, like "the mountains" in New York where my ears pop. Standard roads are quite hilly on a small scale and hardly effect mileage.

Don't drive through snow. (It takes energy to push the snow aside.)

Duh!

Don't drive in very cold weather. (Cold makes rubber stiff, so tires absorb more power.)

And how would one avoid this?

--

Overall, there are ways to gas efficiency. But most will not help, and are probably outweighed by the convenience of not caring.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Asterisk]

The best way to maximise efficiency is to keep both the AC off and the windows closed. Just wear an oxygen mask and some copper clothes with a heat pipe going to the roof of the car and you should be all set.

Re:Saturn MPG??

[fingerfucker]

LMAO

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anthony Stuckey]

I have a 1998 SL1, and I get 35-38 mpg. How are you getting down to 25?!?!

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Richy_T]

Somewhere in Texas, a village has lost it's idiot.

And somewhere in Texas, a sentence has lost its apostrophe to supply the extraneous one in that sentence.

Rich

Re:Saturn MPG??

[instarx]

Your write, Ill re-pear it. :-)

Re:Saturn MPG??

[Anonymous Coward]

That...was amazing

Non hybrid car: 1999 Sentra GXE performance

[kyoko21]

Well, looking from the things that I have read so far for the hybrid cars is that you can definitely get better performance if you drive your car with care, i.e. don't over accelerate and slam on the breaks.

I for one already do do that with my 1999 Sentra GXE. It has a curb weight of approximately 2436 lbs. My weekly commute is just going to and from work of about 16 miles each way. Mind you that this is all city driving so I get the stop and go, though sometimes I do get the smooth ride of getting lots of green lights :-)

But driving like this, I've seen in the past that I get around 27-30MPGs. But when I go home, from DC to Va Beach, the mileage shoots up. The typical distance is about 210 miles and I can make that trip in less than half a tank of gas, which equates to about 40+ mpg. (I think I get around 42-45 but that is just a guesstimate).

Not bad though for a little tiny 1.6 liter that weighs almost 2500 lbs. Perhaps I should consider gutting the back seats and relieve it of some excess weight for more fuel efficency :-) hehehehe.

I bet I can probablly drive the Hybrid pretty well to max out its fuel efficency...anyone has one that I can borrow in the DC area? :-)

Re:Driving Insight 3 years, 60.3 MPG lifetime aver

[rjstanford]

Do you *really* think your 2004 BMW 3 Series 325Ci Coupe gets 20 MPG city/29 MPG highway? Really? I call bullshit!

You might be surprised. I had (until I started my own business) a nice, mildly modified '01 Corvette convertible. Big heavy sports car, and the ragtop doesn't help the mileage. I could hit 22/28mpg averages no problem, and that 28 was at 85+ mph with the top down - dropping to 65 would get me around 32mpg on the rare occasions that I drove that way. Of course, it helped that with the 6 speed the engine was running at around 1500rpm on the highway, just loafing along. That was a great roadtrip car...

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[LoudMusic]

The lesson to take is that good mileage requires both good tech and good habits.

Thank you! I was looking for someone to say this. My family actually gets better than the quoted milage on our vehicles. My manual `93 Accord is quoted at 24 / 31 and I get upwards of 35 with about an even mix of city / highway driving.

I think this argument is parallel with the argument that [insert manufacturer] makes crappy cars that break down. It all depends on how you treat your hardware.

Unrepresentative sample

[acomj]

Some guy in cincinatti not getting excellent fuel econmomy in first 1000 miles. This is when an engine hasn't even been broken in...This is news

I have a deisel which gets good millage (not as good as the epa test, but NOONE gets the epa millage, it allows you to kinda compare car to car). Hybrids especially the toyota which turns its gas engine off at stops in city driving will get better city than highway.

These hybrid owners are relegious about monitoring there gas millage, to the point of obsesion. Google for milage and you'll see.

Here is one site guys site that shows things aren't as bad as they would appear Prius . If you search you'll see details about millage.

Something fishy here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've driven nearly 50,000miles in my Prius, and so far I'm averaging 48mpg/winter and 50mpg/summer.
I wonder if Micro$soft funded the consumer reports study..... oh right, erm, wrong industry.

80 mpg with our Insight

[ToSeek]

My wife and I have an Insight. My best accomplishment so far has been to drive from the DC suburbs to Baltimore - about 20 miles of pure highway driving - and getting just over 80 miles per gallon. That was part of a road trip to northern New Jersey and back for which I got just under 70 mpg. (It would have been over if I hadn't done a bunch of in-town driving while there.)

The car gets around 55 mpg in mostly city driving with lots and lots of traffic lights.

I agree with those who say driving style makes a big difference. I have learned to take my time getting up to traffic lights that are red, while other people will go so far as to come up behind me, change lanes, rush past me, and get back in front of me just to get to the red light two seconds before I do.

weirdness w/ Pete's blog

[capt.mellow]

His page turns into xx-large gibberish midway through his March 31, 2004 post. Yet looking at the page source, it appears to be fine. I'm still using Firebird 0.6 on this particular computer.

Re:weirdness w/ Pete's blog

[capt.mellow]

. . . and now it is just an empty set of html & body tags. I have never personally witnessed a slashdotting before. It was a beautiful thing.

My Civic Hybrid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just my 0.02USD: I have a 2004 Civic Hybrid and my average MPG turns out to be about 49 MPG overall, so in my case the EPA estimate is pretty accurate.

That said, there are cases where it excels and cases where it doesn't. For long-distance highway milegage I can easily get 60MPG (I've been on a couple of trips where I averaged almost 70MPG). When I'm driving in the stop-and-go traffic of Boston in warmer (>45F) weather, the engine shut-off feature saves huge amounts of gas (I still get in the mid-to-low 40's while the few conventional cars I've kept track of have had their gas mileage typically cut in half or more).

Where is it not so hot? In the sort of in-between of stop-and-go city traffic and regular driving, or in stop-and-go traffic during cold weather (where the engine shut-off feature is disabled). It is also has mediocre mileage for short trips (it seems the best mileage is had once it warms up).

So, your mileage may vary -- it's clearly dependent on the driver and conditions, but variance in mileage seems quite high (at least with mine). I do still get noticably better mileage than my regular Civic (I've got one of those too) under the same conditions. Since the difference in price between the two was $1500, not counting the $2000 income tax credit I got, and the hybrid came with nicer interior and features and 90% the HP of my regular Civic, I think it was a fair deal, regardless.

Basically, I decided that the mileage wasn't any worse and probably better, the emissions were demonstrably better than a conventional car, the product was slightly nicer feature-wise, it was nicely high-tech, and the purchase sent a message to the auto-industry that there are people out there that want efficient cars -- AND THAT LAST PART IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT!

The average US driver gets ~20 MPG. Many people drive SUVs or trucks that regularly get 12-17 MPG in every day use. I'm perfectly happy with averaging 3x that at, effectively, no extra cost. And, next time I buy a car mileage I'll go for something innovative an efficient -- perhaps a newer diesel (though diesel fuel is hard to find in many areas around here).

TDI rocks!

[Publicus]

My best mileage on a tank of fuel with my Golf TDI is 49.1 miles per gallon. That's for an entire tank. Nearly 700 miles.

I rarely get fewer than 43 miles per gallon. I can easily go 500 miles before thinking about filling up.

That and diesel is $0.25 less than gasoline right now, which makes me happy. On top of that, I have the option of using biodiesel, which is a domestic fuel. Admittedly, I've never used biodiesel, because you can only find it at farmer Co-ops out in the country.

I've been a skeptic of hybrids for a long time, and this only serves to reinforce my skepticism.

Diesel is a good near term solution for fuel efficiency. Volkswagen has been doing a great job of it, and I hope the availability of diesel engines will increase in the future in the US.

Re:TDI rocks!

[Eccles]

Is there a technical reason they don't use diesel engines in these hybrids?

Re:TDI rocks!

[ElGuapoGolf]

I have a VW Jetta now, which is the cousin to the Golf. Same platform, different body.

You probably already know the car is complete and utter crap. Between failing window regulators, broken brake light sensors (check your mail for the recall notice, just got mine), bad ignition coils (not an issue for you diesel folks), bad airflow sensors, etc. it's the worst car you can buy for your money.

I'll never buy a VW/Audi product again.

Re:TDI rocks!

[LynchMan]

Well, those are all recalls, but none are really threatening the saftey of the driver/passengers. No exploding gas tanks, brake failure, etc. And they are all cheap and easy fixes you can easily do yourself. Plus almost all of these problems lie in the parts that VW purchased from other companies (Bosch, etc).

You could go with a Ford, but if you dislike recalls purchasing a car with one of the higest recall rates is probably not a good idea.

Sure, I'm a biased VW nut, but take your VW out for a spin and get broad-sided. When you realize you're alive and OK, you may change your mind. :o)

Re:TDI rocks!

[PCBman!]

I think it has to do with NOX and sulpher emissions and the laws in some states being too harsh for diesels (CA comes to mind). Several companies are working on fixing this situation--technologically. It's looking promising.

Re:TDI rocks!

[ArsonSmith]

Nope, Hybrid is just too new right now. This fall it is going into several sports cars and trucks. It wont be long before it goes into diesel. Personaly I think it is going to be a natural marrage. The low RPM efficiency of a diesel with the added acceleration of an electric motor they would complement each other well.

Re:TDI rocks!

[ElGuapoGolf]

but none are really threatening the saftey of the driver/passengers

You try driving on the NJ parkway without brake lights and see how safe you feel. What's worse is, it was really hard to tell that they weren't working, because it was an intermittent problem. Sometimes they would work fine, other times they wouldn't come on at all.

Second, my Jetta was in the neighborhood of 24K. Call me silly, but for that much money I expect some basic things... like the windows shouldn't fall into the body of the car on hot days.

I'll grant, it goes like a bat out of hell. It hangs on the corners great. But when you've got to get to work on a regular basis, and the car needs more shop time than it should, it starts to irritate the hell out of you.

Re:TDI rocks!

[Guipo]

I get 43 in my 97 passat tdi. 800 miles a tank. I rock

Re:TDI rocks!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Second, my Jetta was in the neighborhood of 24K. Call me silly, but for that much money I expect some basic things... like the windows shouldn't fall into the body of the car on hot days.

Hey, I had a '94 Jetta - it only got nasty towards the end, and I did buy it for $7200, but I don't think I want another one. For $24k, you can get a Subaru - it does all those things you like, and the windows work all the time.

Re:TDI rocks!

[Jon Abbott]

For $24k, you can get a Subaru - it does all those things you like, and the windows work all the time.

It's too bad that Subarus are known to leak oil after roughly 70k miles...

Re:TDI rocks!

[Publicus]

You must only fly Qantis Airlines, or have they had a plane crash yet?

Seriously though, I'm sorry you've had trouble with your Jetta.

I've heard that German cars are over-engineered. I haven't had any problems with my Golf, but maybe I'm just lucky. Basically, my attitude is that with all the bells and doodads, something is bound to go wrong. I try not to be too demanding of car companies. As long as the little things are fixed under warranty, then they're doing their due-diligence.

Re:TDI rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably already know the car is complete and utter crap. Between failing window regulators, broken brake light sensors (check your mail for the recall notice, just got mine), bad ignition coils (not an issue for you diesel folks), bad airflow sensors, etc. it's the worst car you can buy for your money.

Most of the problems you've listed have been addressed by VW. There was a new, stronger version of the window regulators released last year. MAF sensors have been improved, the part is cheaper, and VW extended the warranty for them (something like 7 years / 70,000 miles). I don't know about the coils, I drive a 4cyl, but I think the VR6 crowd used to complain about those.

Re:TDI rocks!

[Mr. Piddle]

...get a Subaru - it does all those things you like, and the windows work all the time.

Yes, while Subarus are awesome cars, are fun to drive, and verbally abuse snow as it passes, they also tend to get less than 25MPG in real-world conditions (at least the Legacies do), so I think your post needs to be modded offtopic (this thread is about high MPG, you see).

Regardless, I do challenge any station wagon out there under $50K to be as fun to drive as a Subaru wagon (i.e., BMW 540 wagons need not apply).

Re:TDI rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Diesel-electric hybrids are possible. I think you will see commercial diesel-electric hybrids in the USA once the US switches over to low-sulphur diesel (in 2006?). Do a google search on:

diesel-electric hybrid car

and you'll find more than a few links. Here is an interesting diesel-electric sports car research project (a one-off) that gets 80mpg on biodiesel:

http://www.l3research.com/vehicles/enigma/specif ic ations.htm

Also, FedEx is participating in a trial of hybrid diesel-electric delivery trucks in Sacramento, CA:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease .c fm?ContentID=3620

Meanwhile, my 5-speed 2001 Jetta TDI (non-hybrid) gets 40mpg in the city and 50 mpg on the highway (and it is fun to drive). Fuel is almost expensive enough now that biodiesel can compete on price.

-John Garnett

Re:TDI rocks!

[egghat]

No technical reason. The market just too small. Toyota sell sth. around 20.000 hybrids worldwide per year. Too few to justify a diesel and gasoline engine. Most of the hybrids are sold in the US, where Diesel is somewhat exotic (in sharp contrast to Europe, where nearly half the cars have Diesel engines).

The combination of Diesel/Hybrid would be absolutly wonderful.

bye egghat.

Correction: Emissions tests...

[sampson7]

Actually, you misunderstand a little... EPA does not do emissions tests. Your state does!

While they have to meet certain federal guidelines, the testing program is developed and administered at the state level pursuant to a grant of authority from EPA.

And not to burst your bubble, but when you say your car passes emissions test, it just means that it isn't so horrible that they feel the need to pull you off the road.

For instance, between 1981 and today, the amout of NOx allowed to be emitted was cut by two-thirds. CO2 by about 50%. The particulate matter even more so.

So even assuming your 1981 Corolla is in perfect condition, it emits several times more pollutants than a 2004 Corolla.

Advertisers: the real junk science

[kencurry]

His main problem is not the car, but the fact that he believed what he was sold from Honda Dealer would all be true.

Surely there were plenty of independent channels he could have turned to, including locals with the same type of car, for real-world independent info before he bought the car.

The recent junk-science story here lamented lack of critical thinking in everyday life: Believe TV advertisers at your own peril.

FWIW, EPA give plenty of caveats on their web site regarding lack of applicability of their mileage-rating model to individual performance, so calling them out for this also doesn't work.

My 1971 Honda 600 Coupe still beats them

[Anonymous Coward]

Consistently gets 50 mpg. Of course I have to rebuild the engine every 20,000 miles, but it's fun to drive.

VW Passat

[prpghandi]

I have a 2000 VW Passat with the 1.8 Turbo engine. I get average of 32-33 city/highway. If I do all highway I can get 35-38mpg. I would be very upset if I bought a hybrid and I didn't get way better gas milage for the sake of a sporty feeling car. My car isn't a sports car but the little thing can scoot pretty good for how fuel efficent it is.

Hybrids a Hoax...sort of...

[JawzX]

Hybrids ARE great for city driving, when the maximum power output of the drive line is almost never required. The batteries can happily slog through traffic for quite some time without needing to run the IC engine. However, high speed highway driving, merging, and passing will often require 100% of available drive line power, this is where hybrids fall down.

Running both the engine and the electrics drains the batteries, requiring the engine to continue to run even after 100% power is not required, the engine has to run fairly hard to charge the batteries back up, and of course there is a loss of efficiency in the conversion from mechanical to electric energy. If you drive like grandma, your hybrid *might* reach the claimed highway efficiency, but at the cost of speed, merging and passing.

Just for comparison my 1992 Alfa Romeo 164s has a 220hp fuel-injected 3 litre V6, asside from the BOSCH Motronic 5.1-ML injection, it is a decidedly low-tech engine. Single overhead cams, 12 valves, 60 degree, the valve train and geometry of this engine date from the mid 60s. The 164s weighs 3650 lbs, roughy TWICE what a Honda Insight weighs. The Alfa also features leather interior, kickin' sound system, very good aerodynamics, and a top speed in excess of 155 mph. If I take this beast on long highway drives, I can manage 31 mpg. The reason? Most the time the engine is using only a small fraction of it's possible power output.

When a hybrid, or for that matter, any underpowered vehicle gets out on the highway the conditions often require the drive line to run at maximum output. No mater how lean burning or smart a fuel injection system is, it has to deliver more fuel to produce more power. But if a 3650 lb luxury/sport sedan can get 30+ Mpg why can't an 1800 lb econo car get 60+? The answer is it CAN. And without the added weight, cost and expense of hybrid systems. Hybrids are *a* solution, they are not however in my oppinion the *best* solution.

What we need are high effiency small-ish engines in the 1.2 to 1.8 litre range put into light weight, aerodynamic bodies. The results would be affordable, reasonably fun to drive and just as efficient as hybrids for most American drivers. Those living in cities may want to consider a full electric solution, or *gasp* public transportation (which is, unfortuneately not really up to snuff in most American cities). In addition, a displacement on demand system could improve the efficiency of small cars in city driving as well. Who says only a V8 would bennefit from this technology? A small 4 cyl car could conceivably be set up to idle on only one cylinder at stop lights.

Hybrids may actualy be better suited to high performance applications than high efficiency applications. Witness the Toyota Volta. The Volta is efficient because it rarely uses 100% of it's available power, and since about 50% of that power is provided by electrics, it's IC engine is similar in efficiency to that of a vehicle with 1/2 the total drive-line power of the Volta. The result is a vehicle that rarely taps it's full potential, and operates at maximum efficiency most of the time rather than maximum output.

Re:Hybrids a Hoax...sort of...

[JawzX]

Adding to my own ramble...

RE: Those mentioning that hybrids are ment to be clean rather than efficient, and efficiency is a by-product of clean running...

A review by Popular Mechanics magazine several years back (I don't remember the issue or I'd tell you which one it was...) found that, at an emissions testing station a '99 Ferrari 550 Maranello (8-12 MPG on super *eek!*) Had one of the LOWEST emissions of any vehicle they had tested. The Maranello qualified for ULEV status! Proof that a well designed engine/emisions system can burn very clean, even if it's economy is somewhat on the *cough* low side.

Re:Hybrids a Hoax...sort of...

[john1701a]

> high speed highway driving, merging, and passing will often require 100% of available drive line power, this is where hybrids fall down.

That is just plain wrong.

In reality, the system in Prius has so much engine power available that most of the time while cruising at highway speeds it is also topping off the battery-pack.

100% engine is not needed for cruising, only for aggressive acceleration. But even then, you have a 50kW motor (capable of propelling the entire vehicle all by itself at about 60 MPH) available along with a full-charged battery-pack.

That's more than enough power. A quick test-drive is all that's needed to prove it.

Yeah, and...?

[superdan2k]

Christ, the claims for the mileage on my 2001 XTerra were off, too. What's the BFD? This kind of crap reeks of gas company crybaby marketing. Who did this study? Texaco?

That said, I'd still love to have a hybrid...and right now the 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid is looking like a winner, unless Nissan can get off it's collective ass and get me a 2006 XTerra Hybrid.

I've beat the EPA estimates...

[BlueCorvette]

...with a 1997 Corvette. :) Yes, the hybrids are great for city driving, but I've regularly gotten 30 mpg (EPA suggests 28) on the highway with the cruise set at 75+ MPH. I think that's darn good for a car with a 5.7L V8 engine. If you read all of the first link on Wired you'll notice that the LAW requires dealers to ONLY advertise the EPA fuel numbers. It isn't Honda/Toyota's fault if they're wrong!

I own a 2003 Prius...

[Natedog]

and live in Scotts Valley (Santa Cruz mountians just north of Santa Cruz). The driving is mixed (50% city, 50% highway). I, like many others (there are sites out there where people graph their milage) get about 46-47 mpg on average. The high epa rating was ~50 mpg, which puts me at 97%, and I don't drive like an old lady either.

My guess would be that either something is wrong with this guy's car, or (more likely), he drives way too fast. You aren't going to get anything near epa rating if you're driving 80mph, regardless of the car.

On driving too fast, it might be that he doesn't realize how fast he's going (I always had Fords, which are *loud* and when I got my Prius I was always speeding because the car is so quiet and smooth)

Why so much FUD about hybrids lately? I've noticed a knee-jerk recation from so many people when I tell them I own a hybrid ("oh, you have to plug it in" or "I heard they are really slow" -- all bull by the way). The Prius is just a very well engineered car and I've very happy with it.

But He lives in Cincinnati!

[GizmoToy]

As soon as I saw that I had to dismiss the entire article. The guy lives in Cincinnati. For those of you who've lived in Cincinnati, you know how incredibly hilly it is (Not San Fran. hilly, but still...). I have a '98 Civic EX I drive daily in Cincinnati... you know what kinda gas mileage it gets? 18Mpg. EIGHTEEN! I take it on trips and I get high twenties, low thirties.

They use this guy as an example, but make no mention of the driving conditions he usually deals with. The manufacturers MPG estimates are based on flat roads... its hardly surprising that he doesn't get the estimated mileage when he's constantly climbing hills.

I agree that there should be some oversight of the estimates, but its impossible to provide an accurate measurement for every kind of condition. I think the article fails to realize that all miles are not equal.

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[jridley]

I think this argument is parallel with the argument that [insert manufacturer] makes crappy cars that break down. It all depends on how you treat your hardware.

Good point. I recently was in an email discussion about the reliability of cars. I mentioned that my repair bills are almost nonexistant; I buy 70,000 mile tires and actually get that much out of them, brakes on my car typically last 80,000 miles or more, I've never burned out a clutch, etc, etc. Most people either didn't believe me, or thought I was just damn lucky.

But I drive pretty sedately; if the light is red a quarter mile up, I slow down early, so I can coast through at 25 MPH instead of going 50 to the light, braking hard, having to stop and then re-accellerate from zero. I tend to set the cruise a couple under the limit and relax in the right lane. etc.

I know a person at work who was complaining about how crappy brakes are these days, because she needed new ones every year. She was getting about 15,000 miles, and the brakes were worn to nothing. Turns out she drives like a nutcase.

High MPG figures are based on efficient driving!

[browman]

If I really hold back, my FTO gets 32mpg, if I drive it like it _can_ be driven, I'd be lucky to get 10mpg.

Mileage claims have never been accurate, every car has it's quirks, and no two drivers are the same. "Can get as low as 60%".... I'd say that was a generous margin for error.

Other handy tips for lowering your mileage:
* Leave loads of crap in the boot (tool kits, blankets, beer, etc).
* Eat lots of fast food
* Have lots of kids, and feed them fast food
* Attach weights to your right foot
* Push all the pedals at the same time
* Always use the lowest possible gear
* Open all the windows and hang your washing out of them
* Drive anything over 5 feet tall
* Open up the bonnet and play with every screw you can find
* Run your tyres at 25% of the recommended pressure

Now... go forth and complain to the manufacturer of your inneficient car.

Looking at every angle...

[L0neW0lf]

I will be buying a car in the next year most likely, and fuel efficiency has become very important (my `94 Acura Integra GS-R gets good mileage, but on premium fuel) as well as more space. I've seriously looked at hybrids, but the jury is still out for a number of reasons, all based on total cost of ownership.

A)Insurance cost. Cars with exotic parts (aluminum body panels, electric drive systems) cost more to repair. Insurance companies take this into account, and increase insurance costs on such vehicles.

B)Maintenance cost. Out-of-warranty, a hybrid will probably cost more for routine maintenance and be serviced at a limited number of repair facilities. Parts may also take longer to obtain (I found this out with my Acura; the standard versions have easy-to-find parts, the VTEC engine on mine often means my mechanic needs an extra day to get them).

C) Battery replacement. This doesn't happen often, but will likely remain expensive.

Over the long run, a Honda Civic (especially the lean burning HX version, with an EPA rating of 36/44) may prove to be better on total cost of ownership. I want to save money on gas and be gentle on the environment...but I'm not willing to do it at the expense of higher repair and insurance costs.

Lexus

[Donny Smith]

I read an article somewhere how Toyota figured that using both fuel and electricity for acceleration is excellent for sports cars.

I think the article mentioned how there will be a Lexus sports car that will use this technology for insanely fast acceleration.

Also the article mentioned that using per-wheel electric motors makes 4WD much more efficient because of low friction compared to fuel-powered 4WD, or something like that...

I drive an F150 all your base are belong2mytruck

[Anonymous Coward]

I use 14 mpg and I love the power har!

all your base are belong to my truck.

Most manufacturers overstate their milleage...

[jclagreca]

"Civic Hybrid owner Blackshaw" should do himself a favor if he removed his head from his a*$ and did a little research before buying a car. Everybody knows the civic hybrids aren't very good. Thats why Honda made their "Insight" hybrid, which in my opinion isn't very good either.

Prius milleage (http://randyrathbun.org/prius/prius_mileage/), is no different than the claims of regular cars. Scion claims 30mpg in town, but is actually getting 24 (that is only 70% of their claim). The same thing is true of a Toyota Camry. If a Prius were to only get 70% of their claimed 60mpg, it would only get 42mpg. However in moderate climates people should realistically expect 84% of the claim, or 45-55mpg. That actually makes Prius milleage better than the claims of normal cars.

Something that is conveniently forgotten by people disputing hyrbid milleage is how weather affects it (http://randyrathbun.org/prius/archives/2004_02.ht ml#000876 or http://www.winternet.com/~mr_n64/prius/pages/2004_ prius_mileage.htm) You can clearly see during the warmer months milleage increases.

In the article Consumer reports said:
"In Consumer Reports' real-world driving test, the Civic Hybrid averaged 26 mpg in the city, while the Toyota Prius averaged 35 mpg, much less than their respective EPA estimates of 47 and 60 mpg."

However the writer forgot to mention CR is located in:
Yonkers, NY 10703

Given most of California's moderate climate, and San Diegos specifically (http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?Cit y=San+Diego), I dont think local people here will have any of the milleage problems that others are running into. People in colder climates should consider these drawbacks before buying a hybrid.

This is not news...

[karlandtanya]

* claim by auto [manufacturer, salesperson] is false.

Hey, didja hear the latest? Fire is hot!

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[Anonymous Coward]

My fiancée and I rented a 2004 Prius for a few days and made the same observation (I got about ~ 10 MPG more than she did on the same roads under similar conditions and I believe that the primary difference was that I accelerated more slowly).

One thing that also shouldn't be forgotten is that mileage depends A LOT on driving conditions. In light city traffic, I got 40-50 MPG but in stop-and-go traffic on the freeway, instantaneous MPG actually got into triple digits and average MPG was around 80.

Incidentally, if you're thinking about buying one, I'd strongly recommend contacting a Toyota dealer to see if they have one you can rent for a day or two (Prius has a moderately cool / unusual ignition and gear shifting system as well as a LCD display for audio, fuel economy, performance and (optionally) GPS navigation).

I was interested in them before driving one but trying one out really sold me (my only real complaints were that the default sound system isn't very good (which is true of most cars) and that there was a bit more road noise than I'm used to).

City/Highway mileage not a result of transmission

[PackMan97]

... oddly, the fancy transmission hurts highway fuel efficiency, but it helps in the city.

It has nothing to do with the transmission, but with the gas/electric powerplant.

In the city you have a few things working for you...for example, the Toyota Prius accelerates on Electric only until it hits 15 mph when the gas engine turns on. Obviously, if you aren't using the gas engine, you'll get great gas mileage!

However, highway driving you are always running the gas engine and the high air resistance will mean you are pushing the engine pretty hard.

The CVT transmission is actually brilliant for gas mileage because it keeps engine running in a very narrow RPM band. This allows the engine to be tuned to deliver optimum output in that power band. Additionally, these hybrid gas engines have a low max-power RPM than other engines allowing some weight savings in the design of the engine.

I miss my Ford Probe

[pw1972]

Blame this on OCD. But I always fill up at the gas tank and always reset my trip odometer. So I have a good idea what kind of gas mileage Im getting. My little old '96 Ford Probe that I had(the tiny 4 cyl one), was getting 34mpg. It kind of blows my mind that my I was getting better mileage then a hybrid. The past two vehicles I bought both got within 90% of the MPG listed on the sticker. It sounds like I was in the minority. With gas prices the way they are now, I sure miss that Ford Probe. Though it is fun to drive a big honkin SUV with a bumper sticker that says "Global Warmer" and see the outrage on some of the people around me driving!

Re:Let me clarify my original post--still wrong

[mopomi]

And you're still wrong. The Prius uses the gasoline engine to charge its batteries when it needs to, and this typically happens while the engine is moving the vehicle. There is enough excess energy produced by the gasoline engine that it can turn the electric motor (now a generator), thus charging the battery, without any affect on the power sent to the wheels. This isn't possible in a conventional vehicle and the energy is simply wasted.

The braking not only charges the batteries by utilizing the electric motor as a generator, but it also means the gasoline engine IS NOT RUNNING at all! There is no need to waste energy while breaking, so it's not just that there's a little bit of a conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy, there's ZERO potential energy converted to thermal energy via the gasoline engine.

The other reason the mileage goes up is because the gasoline engine is only used when it's needed, not when you're sitting at a light or decellerating or going down a hill, or any other time that you would normally be wasting energy on running a gasoline engine in a conventional car. It's about letting the computer do the smart driving for you.

The "transmission" on the Prius is another example of how to increase the efficiency. Since it's known that as you increase the number of gears in a transmission, you increase the efficiency of the vehicle, Toyota went to the extreme and effectively put an infinite number of gears in the Prius. The transmission is continuously changing the "gear ratio" as the power requirements (and availability) change, and in doing so greatly increases fuel effeciency.

I regularly get 50 mpg in the city and > 45 on the freeway. I didn't buy it for its mileage, though. I bought it because it qualifies for the California SULEV and sometimes for the ZEV ratings.

Honda Insight does 75 mpg PLUS

[chriscmp]

I've had a honda insight for two years now, going on 25k miles. My lifetime mileage is about 64 mpg. and I can regularly use less than a gallon of gas to go 77 miles ( round trip to work). I've gotten as high as 85 mpg for trips of 30 miles.

Introducing the /. Civic mileage database

[Anonymous Coward]

2001 Civic EX: 33 average, 41 on long highway trips.

burn efficiency, controls etc...

[rebelcool]

They are most certainly not the same thing.

Most vehicles today are pretty clean emissions wise. Your average modern SUV that gets 15 mpg will put out less emissions than a 20 year old civic that gets 30 mpg, simply because the modern engine has better pollution controls and burns the fuel more completely.

Small engines tend to be big polluters because they don't burn the fuel completely. Early hybrids faced this - the first generation of the honda insight put out more than many 4 cylinder cars. They've largely fixed this, though.

Lawn equipment is notorious. You can drive an SUV 500 miles and it will put out less emissions than half an hour of running the average lawn mower. It's one reason many cities have put restrictions on the hours lawn equipment can be ran, in order to avoid having the pollution from them staying low in the air.

Re:burn efficiency, controls etc...

[molo]

We're talking about cars of the same generation here. A standard gasoline Civic versus a Civic hybrid, for example. They have the same internal combustion tech available to them - catalytic converters, fuel injection, electronic valve timing, etc.

Lets compare apples and apples please. In the above situation, MPG ~= emissions.

-molo

Re:burn efficiency, controls etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

standard gasoline Civic versus a Civic hybrid

They are going to have drastically different gasoline engines. Same technology doesn't matter much. The jobs they do are very different. It is apples and oranges.

Re:burn efficiency, controls etc...

[Anonymous Coward]

Still not even close. The hybrid makes use of the electric engine at times when the gas engine would be inefficient (taking off from a standing start, for instance). Indeed, this is really the whole point of a hybrid - to make use of the best of both worlds. The gas-only car doesn't have that option, so at times it labours and spews pollutants.

If you need evidence, just look at which cars meet the ULEV and SULEV ratings. And while you're there, look at the tax credits you can get for buying them in some parts of the US. It can be cheaper to buy a hybrid Civic than a gas-only one in some places.

EPA only, by law

[nuggz]

Federal law requires that auto manufacturers use only EPA estimates when promoting their vehicles' fuel economy, according to Toyota spokeswoman Nancy Hubbell.

They know they don't get that fuel efficiency, but they can't do anything about it. Any company that cares about customer satisfaction wants to set realistic expectations, unfortunately they are legally prohibited from doing so.

Try the Ford Focus PZEV - Practically Zero Emis.

[uqbar]

The Ford Focus PZEV has practically zero emmissions and will be widely available later this year. The gas mileage shouldn't be too much different from your regular Foci - or the above mentioned hybrids apparently...

missed one point

[supernova87a]

You're forgetting that a main benefit of these cars is the reduced emissions, on top of fuel savings. They don't pollute nearly as much as regular engines, which is important.

Also, suppose you're sitting in traffic on the highway bumper to bumper. A fleet of these cars is silent, burning absolutely *no* gas. Versus regular cars that burn no matter what they're doing, moving or still.

real results, and cleaner air

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2003 Prius is approaching 30K miles, and while I notice a seasonal change in MPG (due to the defroster or AC), my mileage ranges from 42-46 MPG over large bin sizes (2000-6000 miles). I am currently averaging 45.3 MPG over 6000 miles. While you may get peak MPG greater than that on some cars, I think you would be hard pressed to find many cars that can do that many miles, in that short of time, with that kind of a lifetime average. There are many things that you can do to ruin the mileage on a Prius: run with the defroster on all the time, drive with a lead foot, put the wrong kind of tires on, drive 75+ MPH, etc. I can only speculate what those drivers have been doing to get that kind of mileage, but I wonder what they were getting with a normal car.

The other great advantage of a hybrid is the low emissions that it does put out when it is running (not to mention the zero emissions it puts out when sitting at a stoplight in stealth mode). I have stuck behind enough stinky diesel high mileage Rabbits to not want to go with that solution for my transportation needs. So until we get a better solution (maybe Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles), I will continue to replace my old cars with hybrid alternatives.

His mileage means nothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless he drives a normal Honda Civic through the same cycles as his hybrid. He might have a combination of load that causes his gas engine to be on all the time.

Jay

Re:Because of CARB, and public image, that's why..

[otis wildflower]

You CANNOT buy a new passenger diesel car in 2004 in states which follow CARB regulations (instead of EPA regs) Those states are CA, NY, VT, MA, and ME.

Technically, you could buy a new diesel in NJ or CT and register it in NY if your original car was totaled or stolen. So, in theory, you could buy a cheap junker, drive it to jersey, have it 'stolen', walk to your MB or VW dealer and buy a nice new diesel...

Anti-hype hype

[srussell]

We have a Honda Civic Hybrid that we bought about 18 months ago. We don't get the 48MPG the EPA tests claim, but our average mileage since we bought the car -- and we've got about 30k on it -- is 43MPG. We have a lot of highway miles on this car; if we were doing mostly city driving, we'd be getting closer to 40MPG.

The mileage you get depends a lot on how you drive it. I doubt that most cars get what their EPA tests claim -- the only difference is that with the hybrids, you know what your mileage is, because all hybrids come with a gas mileage meter, so it is easier to notice that you're not getting the advertised results.

In any case, despite the hyperventalation about hybrids "not living up" to their claims, we've been very happy with ours, and with the gas mileage that we get.

Re:Driving Insight 3 years, 60.3 MPG lifetime aver

[Garion911]

Actaully... My 2004 A4 3.0 Quattro does get 27-29mpg highway... And thats with the extra drivetrain loss from quattro...... So I have no doubt that a 325Ci could get similar, if not better numbers...

--Garion

Toyota Prius

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the proud owner of a Prius. I was dissapointed that I only average 45 to 46 miles per gallon on the interstate instead of the advertised 51 miles per gallon. But at the same time I car pool with three other guys two of which are large guys (around 300 pounds each). If I am by myself then I get around 50 miles per gallon.

Also there is the fact that an escort is a smaller car while the Prius is a mid-sized car. You can't get a car with the amount of room that a Prius has and get the milage that I am getting.

Its all about the energy...

[gillbates]

What so many people don't understand is that the largest single factor determining fuel economy is the mass of the vehicle. This is even more pronounced in stop and go driving:

• Yes, reduced drag coefficient can improve fuel economy, but it's not by much. In the 80's, Ford was really big on aerodynamic styling, and they could only improve fuel economy by about 5 mpg. Even though motorcycles have horrible drag coefficients, they weigh only 1/3 to 1/4 what a subcompact does, and can easily get 40 or 50 mpg (Kawasaki Ninja 250's can reportedly get 80 mpg).
• Reducing rolling resistance may help a little, but it comes at the expense of safety. Given that hybrids have minimal protection, one really doesn't want to risk an accident.
• It takes a given amount of energy to travel a given distance; first, there's the acceleration, and then there's the air and rubber-pavement friction. The only manner in which one can reduce both the energy of acceleration and rolling resistance is to decrease the mass.

The problem with hybrids is that they use a gasoline engine - at best, these engines convert 25% of the combustion energy into mechanical output. Diesel engines, in contrast, convert nearly 40% of their energy into mechanical work. Even with regenerative braking, there is a certain inefficiency in both storing the energy as electricity, and as converting it back to mechanical energy. In addition to an engine and transmission, a hybrid must lug around batteries and an electric motor, which increases the size and mass of the vehicle, which increases the rolling resistance....

Hybrids are the worst of both worlds - they're dangerous in an accident, and their performance and fuel economy suffer.

Someone who wants to risk their life for better fuel economy would be better off with a motorcycle. Not only will they get better mileage, the insurance is substantially cheaper, and they are a lot more fun to drive than an underpowered econo-box.

Hybrid Performance Variables

[Joe Decker]

I'm a new owner of a 2004 Prius, have about 3K miles on the car, my average MPG so far is a bit over 55. My last tank came in at 57MPG. But I'm definitely working for those, I'm enjoying it, but I doubt everyone would. I'd probably be getting 40-45 if I drove it the way I drive my Toyota MR2.

There are a lot of variables which affect hybrid gasoline performance. First, the article is correct to ding the EPA for its tests, the "highway" speeds of those tests are just too low for the worldl I live in.

But there are some very large "how you drive" factors, too.

Speed is a big one. 60 MPH is a lot more efficient than 70 MPH on a flat surface in no wind.

Temperature is another one. I live in California, I'm getting the benefit of good weather. Easterners often see swings of over 10MPG between summer and winter driving, and most of that appears to be weather-related, not gas-forumlation-related. There are several effects hiding in here, including changes to combustion efficiency, tire pressure (and therefore rolling resistance), and air pressure (and therefore friction).

Driving habits are signficant. Driving at fixed speeds, even to the point of extensive use of cruise control, can help mileage signficantly. Gently breaking to stops. Brisk but not jackrabbity acceleration, just the slightest touch of breaking into necessary stops as opposed to driving faster and then breaking harder. One of the primary contributors to my good gas mileage is the real-time information on gas consumption--that information really does begin to affect behavior.

The enthusiasts tend to jack up their tire pressure, but I haven't done that.

(We won't talk about drafting big rigs, it's not safe, but even at two or three seconds in back of a semi at freeway speeds there is a detectable increase in mileage.)

Length of trips is important, too. The ICE runs full-time when the engine is cold, you need to assume that the first five minutes of any trip are going to have signficantly inferior gas mileage. If your trips tend toward the half-hour-long, you're a lot happier than if they tend toward the five-minute hop.

A lot of this stuff would probably help non-hybrids, but I never got a 57MPG tank in my old car.

"And it runs great on regular gas." --Elwood Blues

Rain eats my Hybrid

[sckeener]

I typically get 44mpg with my Honda Hybrid, but if it is raining I usually get 39 to 40mpg.

My wife however gets 47 to 51mpg with the same car!

Maybe we need drivers ed just for Hybrids...

I had a 62 valiant, and a...

[zogger]

...74 dart custom, both with the slant six. The valiant had three on the tree, the dart was auto, and my recollection was like yours, over 20 MPG averagee\ city/highway and enough oomph to get down the road at a reasonable speed and to climb hills and it had full bench seats and could accomodate plenty of people and cargo. Heh, once I floored my dart across tennessee in tandem with some dude piloting an old BMW I think a 1400 on the highway just because I could, indicated on the speedo 110 for a long time, I only slowed down when I saw the semi's slow down and pull over to the right to avoid smokies. Great little cars, well, medium sized, reliable as all get out, and start no matter how cold it got outside, to well below zero F. I actually could NOT give the dart a tune up, try as I might, it was a point system, and it was my usual deal back then to adjust & clean points and clean plugs at every oil change. The points were never burnt, never went out of adjustment, and the plugs stayed clean. The only thing I didn't like about the engine was the placement of the distributor,way down low,it was subject to getting wet and bork on on you if you were driving in rural areas and had to cross those cement pads that go under streams that they have some places in lieu of more expensive bridges, but besides that, always cranked and ran good, got great mileage.

I also had a 69 fiat rear engine spyder, that thing got a true 50 mpg or better,I wuz amazed really, but was slower than what you think of as sports car performance "normally", because it only had an 850 cc engine (that I built to - had to, it was a junker when I got it, a salvage yard worn out thing- over 900cc )with oversized forged pistons, a bore and polish job done at a racing shop by guys who cared about details, weight balanced to a couple grams of the lightest, tedious but effective on RPM gain, along with the rods and the other assorted normal engine hotrodding jazz on the intake runners and whatnot,and etc, etc), but still wicked fun to drive around, it would still be a nice commuter car. It would go around 70 tops, but it was a fun 70. Acceleration was "acceptable", that's it, 4 speed manual, with a transaxle arrangement and flex joints to the rear wheels, quite unusual really. I *think* it weighed in around 1200 or so lbs. Anyway, mucho easier to work on than even an air cooled beetle, and that's saying a lot.

Cars would get MUCH more mileage and power and run cleaner if people would be able to accept the bulk of the loot you pay for a car going into engineering the engine and drivetrain, instead of the paint job, the interior, the stereos, the climate zone control stuff, all the flash, etc.

You look to professional racing for real engineering advances in materials sciences and machining and configuration, because MO powah and MO mileage rules there, and that's where the number #1 engineering branes go get jobs, because they get paid better and it's more fun for them. Detroit and Stuttgart and Tokyo get the grade #2 guys designing and building, very roughly speaking.

It's also a factor of car companies have to keep lines open all the time, they COULD build cars that lasted 3 times as long and ran better all around, etc, but it would put them out of business shortly, so they don't do it.

We as a society don't demand more reliability and mileage near as much as we want luxury, comfort, sound systems, and whatnot. You take the same (just to pick a generic ball park figure)20 grand to spend on a car, put it into drivetrain engineering instead of flash and blinkenlights, it'll perform better all around, but people won't be as satisified with it, so they won't sell very well. You CAN have both, but it costs severely.

And the other deal with cars is, petroleum is just filthy stuff, it's incredibly hard to make it burn clean and efficiently*,it's BTU dense but filthy, it drives up the costs a lot. Merely switching liquid fuels to ethanol or methanol would solve a lot of problems of cost and complexity.

*

Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

I have owned a Honda Insight since they came out in 2000 and I LOVE it. Granted, I don't get the 60/70 MPG (I get about 58-60 MPG on average). Honda advertised but there are good reasons. The EPA tests are done on a flat smooth test course, the A/C is not on, and there is no traffic. When I drive my Insight in the real world I have to drive up hills. I like to use my A/C and I occaasionally have to pass people. All of these things will shave away your milage. There have been times when I tried to get good gas milage and I ended up getting 85 MPG on a 50 mile trip. It is possible to get the claimed milage it just isn't very practical. I hate to see such wonderful technology get bad press because some people dont know what the numbers actually reflect. ALL cars get less than the EPA tested milage. I imagine that if you did the math the milage difference on a hybrid would be right there with any other vehicle on a percentage basis. One tip to all hybrid drivers: conservation of momentum is the key to supurb milage.

My fuel economy.

[Sterling_Aug]

My 2001 Toyota Prius hybrid gets consistanly 48-50 miles per gallon. I have replaced the junk OEM tires with Goodyear Weatherhandlers rated for 65,000 miles. I have all four tires inflated to 50psi and I rarely get less than 520 miles per tank fillup.

If you drive with a lead foot, then of course your mileage will be significanly less than mine.

From my current experience...

[ii-v-i-head]

my wife's prius 2003 gets a combined avg of about 43Mpg (60 miles of highway + about 10miles of city /day). I have found that in the city, accellerating quickly into a higher gear then easing off the gas will increase the overall average by as much as 5Mpg.

Of course, please don't drive like me...

Finally the truth comes out

[vijayiyer]

As background, I have designed and built a hybrid vehicle in the past (hev.cornell.edu), so I have some familiarity with the subject. People see hybrid vehicles as the end-all of fuel economy, but hybrids cannot perform magic. As long as vehicles have high drag and are heavy, fuel economy will be relatively low. Hybrid vehicles save fuel primarily by two mechanisms: 1) regenerative braking - capture energy normally wasted as heat during braking and store it for future use 2) operate the engine at a more efficient speed-load point. Neither (1) nor (2) has much of an effect on the highway, which is why hybrids have a minimal benefit there. The reason Insights get good highway mileage is more due to their low drag than because it's a hybrid. Once you add cost into the equation, it becomes clear that hybrids are a waste of money. Thousands of dollars _per vehicle_ cannot be recouped easily by the customer, especially with low gas prices ($1.80/gallon is not historically high when adjusted for inflation). That same money is better spent on other technologies (diesels, lighter materials, etc.). However, as long as politicians feel that they are qualified as engineers, and dictate not only end results (fuel economy) but the means (through hybridization via tax incentives), the most efficient solutions will not be used.

Jetta TDI wins

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been asked by many why I prefer diesel over hybrid. This is a simple answer to the age (er years) old question... I owned a Jetta TDI and drove it for 138,000 miles and NEVER got under the EPA highway mileage (ok, maybe on one tank)! It was rated at 49 MPG and I consistently got 52 MPG and once got 56 MPG. That and its fun to drive, roomy and can go 750 miles before filling up again! The fuel is cheaper and you can use biodiesel if you want a true alternative fuel vehicle. My dad has a hitch on his and hauls stuff with it because it has great low-end torque! The new TDIs have 100HP engines (versus the old 90HP) and get about the same mileage.

Let's not forget safety. If you wreck your hybrid, rescuers are left wondering if th ehigh voltage line is cut off. Diesel has a high flashpoint meaning it won't blow up. Biodiesel is around 300F before things ignite.

Now I own a Jetta 1.8T and guess what? It gets 31 MPG! So why settle for a hybrid when you can have speed and mileage?

So, that's may rant. I hope it takes hold. You Europeans have the right idea... I only wish diesel will catch on a bit more in the states.

audi a6 quatrro

[pretygrrl]

my 96 audi gets about 24 miles per gallon. I feel pretty good about myself ;)

Re:The article is crap - not completely!!

[lcsjk]

"4. Do not accelerate when you know you will have to stop."

Actually, if you really follow suggestion number 4, you will not have any problems with low gas mileage.

It's not about the Environment, it's about CAFE!!!

[Paulrothrock]

CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is why so many companies are going into hybrids. The more hybrids they sell, the higher their average fuel economy and the more wasteful they can make their giant SUVs and luxury cars.

My mom routinely gets 45mpg out of her 2001 Prius, and that's with stop-and-go driving. I'm sure if she did exactly 55mph on the highway, she'd get more.

And besides, the Civic isn't a true hybrid. The Prius uses a much better system and a continously variable transmission that does a great job of keeping the engines at the rpms they were designed to be efficient at.

If you drive like you want to save gas, you will. I was able to squeeze 37mpg out of a 1990 Jetta by driving the speed limit, accelerating slowly, keeping RPMs down (shifting at 2000rpm) and turning off the engine on long, steep hills. Sure it pissed people off, but it saved me lots of money when I was a poor commuter college student.

Engineer off his rocker

[Doc Hopper]

The Toyota Prius uses an ICE system. It involves two electric motors, can operate "silently" (purely off the electric motor) at low speed, and can only be used in conjunction with an automatic transmission.

The Honda hybrids use a system called "IMA", that functions more like an electric turbocharger. If a Honda hybrid is moving, the gasoline engine is running. Well, OK, there is an exception to this if you're coasting to a stop at speeds below about 10 MPH (3 MPH in the CVT), with the brake pedal depressed, the engine goes into "auto idle stop" mode. The Honda design can be used with a manual transmission (leading to the extraordinary mileage of certain models) and is less complicated than the Toyota system, but otherwise seems to be a wash as far as advantages when comparing the two.

I have to admit some bias here: I think the Honda Insight is in a class by itself. It was a brand-new model introduced in Japan in 1999, engineered from the ground up to be the MPG king of the mass-produced world. It sacrifices a lot to be that: no rear seat, "unusual" design (my brother-in-law says "ugly", but I think it gives the car "character"), all-aluminum construction (painful, painful body repair bills), high insurance costs (on par with high-end rear-wheel-drive sports cars), a fairly stiff econo-box-like ride due to really hard little wheels, a crappy stereo (until 2004, when they put a much nicer model in), and hardly any selection of "options": if you have an Insight of a particular year, other than air conditioning and transmission type, your choices are extremely limited.

But I still love the car :) Now, back to responding to your post!

The engineer that talked about the Prius "running off batteries and not using gas" must have been off his rocker, if what you describe is correct. The energy has to come from somewhere, and in the case of these hybrids, that's from the gas tank. The gasoline motor must run to recharge those battery cells. And the chemical energy (gas tank) to kinetic energy (motor) to chemical energy (battery) transition wastes a good deal of that energy. Add to that kinetic energy to potential energy losses due to regenerative braking, actual brake pads being used in hard stops, and it's a recipe for poor efficiency.

The numbers back this up: in city driving, a hybrid frequently turns in extremely disappointing MPG numbers due to these inefficiencies. The Prius takes a hit in its highway MPG numbers, because it has to leech power off the gas engine to recharge the battery it depleted in city driving. The Honda cars take the hit from the gas motor occasionally idling (rather than going into auto-idle-stop), and acceleration from a stop draining nearly as much gas as a "normal" car.

That said, a hybrid will beat the pants off any similarly-driven traditional gasoline-powered vehicle for efficiency in those conditions. But when the EPA rates city mileage higher than highway mileage, it's not taking into account losses in the battery pack: the car ends the test with a battery pack lower than it started.

Sadly, you can't beat the laws of thermodynamics:

• You can't create or destroy energy
• You can't hope to ever do better than break even
• You can only break even at absolute zero

Sounds like my life sometimes...

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[Paulrothrock]

The engineer that talked about the Prius "running off batteries and not using gas" must have been off his rocker, if what you describe is correct. The energy has to come from somewhere, and in the case of these hybrids, that's from the gas tank.

Actually, the Prius also gets energy from regenerative braking, so if you stop suddenly you're going to use more gasoline than if you give yourself enough room and stop gradually, allowing the generator to bleed your kinetic energy into the batteries. It even shows up on the display inside the car, one little diamond for each kilowatt (I think) of electricity reclaimed from inertia. Additionally, regenerative braking helps to reduce wear on the brake pads.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[floatt]

The engineer that talked about the Prius "running off batteries and not using gas" must have been off his rocker, if what you describe is correct. The energy has to come from somewhere, and in the case of these hybrids, that's from the gas tank. The gasoline motor must run to recharge those battery cells. And the chemical energy (gas tank) to kinetic energy (motor) to chemical energy (battery) transition wastes a good deal of that energy. Add to that kinetic energy to potential energy losses due to regenerative braking, actual brake pads being used in hard stops, and it's a recipe for poor efficiency.

It's my understanding that city driving increases MPG in the Prius because the battery is being recharged at each stop as the car brakes. So the battery, after the city test, should have MORE of a charge, rather than less.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[Doc Hopper]

OK, yes, regenerative braking contributes some power back to the battery. Acceleration from a stop drains it again as the battery either assists the engine through the electric motor (IMA/Honda) or accelerates the car by itself with the electric motor (ICE/Toyota); regardless there are massive frictional losses all around :)

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[Joe Decker]

It's my understanding that city driving increases MPG in the Prius because the battery is being recharged at each stop as the car brakes.

Kind of. (I own a 2004 Prius.)

Since friction is non-linear with speed, it's rational to expect that fuel economy would be greater at lower speeds. This effect seems to mostly be signficant above 30-40 MPH, other forms of resistance are signficant below that.

Normal cars do fail this because a lot of energy is wasted into breaks. And the Prius does avoid this become some energy (but less than was put into accelerating the car) is recycled at stops. But on to the main point I wanted to make:

So the battery, after the city test, should have MORE of a charge, rather than less.

Below about 41MPH, the 2004 Prius can run without the internal combustion engine (ICE) running at all for periods of time. So, in city driving, you also get the benefit of not paying for the frictional losses from the ICE which also increases MPG. Because of this, you might end up (after running 'all-electric' for a while) with a lower battery charge.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[GooberToo]

I wish I could remember more of the details. The engineer that was interviewed was a Japanese engineer working for one of the car makers actually making hybrid cars.

Not that I doubting your information as it relates to some cars, but I sure that an engineer working on the dang things for a living knows what he's talking about.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[john1701a]

> is less complicated than the Toyota system

Unfamiliar does not mean more complicated.

In reality, the HSD system Toyota (built from scratch with no concern for resembling traditional design) is remarkably simple.

> The engineer that talked about the Prius "running off batteries and not using gas" must have been off his rocker, if what you describe is correct. The energy has to come from somewhere

That deceptive technique for redirecting focus won't work. Many of us are well aware of what he really said. The point was the vehicle can be driven without the need to run the engine. That means opportunities for conversation are greatly increased, delaying recharging until more efficient times.

> The numbers back this up: in city driving, a hybrid frequently turns in extremely disappointing MPG numbers due to these inefficiencies

Your "on paper" calculations, perhaps. But the real-world numbers prove otherwise. They clearly show outstanding efficiency for city driving. Heck, the last 10 minutes of my commute this morning in my 2004 Prius was in excess of 100 MPG. Virtaully all of the driving after getting off the highway was done using only electricity... hence my 54.3 MPG average right now.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[Doc Hopper]

That deceptive technique for redirecting focus won't work

I just quoted what the grandparent poster said. If indeed the engineer quoted had said the car was "running off batteries and not using gas", he was being disingenuous. Any educated hybrid owner will know that, compared to traditional vehicles, their vehicle excels at city MPG. But when you're driving in the city, you may be running off your battery, but you're still using gas. Yes, you're using gas you've already burned to charge the battery, and you're not going to refill your battery pack until it's either very depleted, or you're driving at a speed where it's more efficient to recharge it than at the low RPMs and stop-and-go of city driving.

But calling it a deceptive technique? I call saying that you're "not using gas" in a hybrid when driving around a city deceptive.

[The real-world numbers] clearly show outstanding efficiency for city driving

No, the real-world numbers clearly show that you pay later in the Prius. You pay now with the Honda system. Yes, a hybrid is more efficient than a traditional system in the city; there's no question about it. But it's not because you're "not using gas". I'm not interested in any holy war over hybrid systems -- the two top sellers seem to both be good, and I've driven several Prii (? plurl for Prius, Priusses sounds weird) -- but lifetime MPG averages, knowing the type of driving one predominantly does, are the surest indicator the overall efficiency of the vehicle. Stop-and-go, below-35 city driving results in lower MPG than 45MPH no-stops driving. That you pay the penalty in battery leeching later in a Prius is irrelevant. Your MPG may look really great if you reset your trip meter when starting to go around in stealth mode, but your battery meter will be lower at the end, and you still end up paying for it out of the gas tank.

If you're in the Salt Lake City, Utah, area (or any other Prius owners in the SLC area), I'd love to exchange vehicles for a week and do some decent long-term, hard-usage comparisons between the Insight and the Prius. I must admit some ignorance, since I've just driven some test drives in the Prius, and have read extensively regarding plusses and minusses of both systems. But the problem with city "real-world" numbers for a system that allows one to run exclusively off the electric motor in the city is that they simply aren't real-world numbers if they don't take into account the gas spent to replenish the batteries.

THAT IS, unless you're one of the guys that have rigged a system to charge the high-voltage system off the city grid. Now that's pretty cool, and you'll turn in some freaking impressive numbers with lower cost, since grid electricity is much less expensive to produce than electricity from your gas tank... (I think...). And you just can't do that little electrical engineering trick with a Honda :)

As far as complexity: there's no question. The Honda IMA system is considerably less complex than the Toyota system. That complexity doesn't mean Honda hybrids are necessarily any more efficient -- just not as complicated. They use a single electric motor sandwiched between the engine and the transmission. The Toyota system, in contrast, uses two electric motors and three driveshafts, with considerably larger and more powerful electric motors and battery pack. Add to that an elegant, geeky, but more complicated display... you get my drift. Familiarity makes it no less complicated, only better understood. I admit I've not been "under the hood" with a wrench and a manual on any Prius like I have with my Insight, but, still, the Prius seems to have a more complex system. When compared to CVT Hondas, the numbers are quite similar, but manual transmission Honda IMAs are, by nature of fewer frictional losses and reduced complexity, better still in the MPG dep't.

Then again, I probably wouldn't trade my CVT in for a manual. I get stuck in traffic way too often to enjoy a stick shift.

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[john1701a]

> Stop-and-go, below-35 city driving results in lower MPG than 45MPH no-stops riving.

Most people call both of those conditions "city", hence the difference of opinion.

> The Honda IMA system is considerably less complex than the Toyota system.

There is no basis for "considerably". Overall, Honda adds components to a traditional system, Toyota subtracts. Explain that.

Another perspective is looking at cost. Why doesn't HSD cost more?

Re:Engineer off his rocker

[IncohereD]

I think the point is that even an inefficient gain from braking is better than the NO gain in a traditional vehicle. So you are essentially getting more power 'for free', in traditional terms. Obviously it's going to be expended again...but it cuts down on the amount expended from fuel.

electric

[Anonymous Coward]

I shoudda had a V8!

Really doesn't seem worth it...

[DaveJay]

My family has two Nissan Sentra GXEs. My 2001 5-speed gets 30-32 mpg regularly, and that's in stop-and-go traffic on the 405 freeway in Los Angeles twice a day! It's surprisingly fast for such an efficient car, as well. Lots of low-end torque.

Before I bought the Sentras, I looked into the first-generation Toyota Prius and the Toyota Echo. The comments about both cars on Edmunds.com really surprised me -- Prius owners were complaining about low gas mileage, while the Echo owners (in a different forum) were raving about their fantastic mileage. Both the Prius owners and the Echo owners were getting mileage in the high 30s/low 40s. The difference? The Prius had a much higher EPA rating and cost $20,000, while the Echo had a LOWER EPA rating and cost $13,000.

Oh, and did I mention that the newest Sentras are considered very low-emission vehicles? (SULEV rating, I believe).

Makes the whole hybrid question sort of moot, at least for now...

Where do you think electricity comes from???

[theophilosophilus]

Based on primary energy source, coal-fired capacity represented 43 percent (260,990 megawatts) of the Nation's existing capacity (Figure 1). Gas-fired capacity accounted for 19 percent (117,845 megawatts); nuclear, 14 percent (86,163 megawatts); renewable energy sources,2 1
Inventory of Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States 2000

Photovoltaic Industry Statistics: Market Share

Try alchohol based oxygenates like ethonol.

LIES Central

[Doc Ruby]

How is it possible that every story of harm to the interests of the American public, to the benefit of global corporations, includes enabling lies by the Federal Government? Each story seems to be authentic, but how does this all add up, with common threads running through one organization?

Re:Post your total miles and MPG for your Hybrid h

[Anonymous Coward]

>2003 Toyota Prius

>21232 miles
>43.9 MPG

1968 Mustang, 302 4V Holley, 11MPG, 200-300,000 miles. But mine's prettier =]

Diesel sulphur content in US vs Europe

[Cousin Dupree]

The worst component of diesel exhaust is sulphur. Not only does it cause respitory diseases, it also makes it harder for the catalytic converter to do its work. Pn top of that, sulphur is harmful for the engine.

Diesel fuel in Europe is of much higher quality, with a sulphur content of 50ppm, against a sulphur content of up to 3,400ppm in the States. In my view it is the unwillingness of the US oil companies to do something about their sulphur content that is stopping modern diesel technology from really breaking into the US market.

You forgot a couple..

[shiftless]

Costs a shitload to make.
Uses rare metals.

Fuck hydrogen. Give me a diesel any day.

Different Car Requires Different Driving Habits

[penpendisarapen]

I have a 2004 Toyota Prius, and just love the car. The problem with many people who've complained about hybrid mileage is that they hardly bother to learn more about it. If you visit sites like priuschat.com or join the prius email groups, you'd find numerous examples of cars meeting or exceeding the EPA rating. To get these MPG rates however requires different driving habits. For example the faster you drive on the freeway, the less MPG you'll get. While this is true for regular cars, it supposedly has an even bigger effect on hybrids. The further form the speed limit you drive, the less efficient your fuel consumption will be. Many other driving tips and techniques are available on the internet that have shown to increase the car's fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, my mileage has dipped to around 43 MPG since I started my new job which requires a shorter commute. But when I used to have a 50 mile drive to work, I was able to average 50 MPG. The reason for the difference is that the car's warm up time affects the mileage, so the farther you drive, the more time for the MPG to recover. If you drive 20 minutes or less to work, you'd never get close to the EPA rating. Other factors that affect a hybrids MPG: - the warmer the weather, the better the mileage - improper tire pressure decreases mileage - sudden braking at stops For many hybrid owner though, it really isn't about the mileage but the lower emissions and less NOx.

partenan batteries 100x more power than zinc cells

[lkcl]

a one mr partenan claims to have successfully developed and patented a battery based on aluminium. unlike previous aluminium batteries, the aluminium compound in the partenan cell is the cathode rather than the anode (or is it vice-versa) and consequently the battery doesn't turn to sludge that needs expensive reprocessing.

instead mr partenan has managed to create a RECHARGEABLE SEALED cell. a 1.5volt D-size cell is capable of... get this: over 100Ah!!! in other words, an 80Kg bank of rechargeable aluminium cells would propel a car-sized vehicle SIX HUNDRED MILES.

now, this is totally revolutionary.

it makes a mockery of the need for these hybrid vehicles and also of the need for dependence on oil (which will, if it continues, cause in OUR lifetimes some even more serious world problems than we already have).

the reason why hybrid vehicles are necessary is because the batteries are so incredibly expensive and heavy.

a NiMh battery array capable of around 15,000Ah
(enough to get about... mmmm.. 150 to 200 miles) will weigh about 150 kg... and will cost you a staggering amount - around $10,000!

if you want a reasonable battery array, enough to get you any distance (600 miles?), you need to spend around $30,000 - JUST ON BATTERIES!

now, if you look at the cost of the cars... uhm... wasn't the Saturn EV1 about that much?

cars that have 75kW Fuel Cells such as the Toyota RAV4-EV were available until March 2003 for 30,000. ... have you _any_ idea how much the platinum is worth in a 75kW fuel cell???

well, it's roughly $1,500 per kilowatt. so that's about... mmm... $100,000 JUST FOR THE FUEL CELL!

no wonder Toyota and the other manufacturers stopped doing their EVs once people cottoned on to that: $30,000 for $100,000 worth of platinum?? BARGAIN! HA!

aluminium makes up about 8% of the earth's crust. it's an incredibly abundant material, and incredibly powerful. i never managed or dared to reproduce it, but did once manage to set fire to an aluminium pencil sharpener by holding it in a bunsen burner for half an hour in a bored chemistry class. it shot across the room like a rocket: i never did find it.

Some quick calculations

[Global-Lightning]

I found the fuel economy of the hybrids wasn't so much better that it warranted the significant price increase.

To check this, I did a comparison against the Honda Civic Hybrid versus the CIVIC LX Sedan. All data taken from Honda's website

MSRP:
Hybrid: $19,650
LX: $15,360
difference: $4,290

Average Fuel Economy: (EPA Highway + City / 2)
Hybrid: 48.5 MPG
LX: 35 MPG

Gas bill per year (estimating driven 15,000 miles/year, Fuel cost $2.00/gallon)
Hybrid: $618.56
LX: $857.14
difference: $238.59

Years to recoup price difference in gas savings:
17.98 years

Note this is using relatively high mileage and (until recently) gas costs, which work in favor of the hybrid. Similar comparison against the top-of-the-line Civic EX @ MSRP of $17,260, 34.5 avg MPG brings the recoupment time down to 9.5 years. Futhermore, it does not take into account any additional maintenance costs (if any) associated with the hybrid subsystems.
Thus, there is no motivation to buy a hybrid for strictly economic reasons, since the recoupment period probably exceeds the lifetime of the vehicle. The only reason someone should buy a hybrid is for environmental satisfaction.

Disclaimer: I drive a Honda Civic, get avg 38 MPG, am very satisfied with my car, but can't wait to get into hybrid once the prices are more rational...

Reliance on foreign fuel sources.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting this out is a sure way to a head of the game...

Bring Back the Mercedes Diesel

[mlrtime]

Who says you can't have luxury and fuel economy. The 98 300 E-Class Turbo Diesel will get >40MPH and ~1000Miles per tank. All that and the quality of Mercedes.

Too bad they stopped selling them. The turnover for diesels are too low, there aren't as many repeat buyers because the cars can run forever.

The turbo in the diesels help the acceleration immensely, however they still suffer from turbo lag.

Prius owner here

[MisterTeabag]

I've noticed my mileage usually hovers around 45-50 mpg in the summertime, but much lower, like 35-40 in the winter. I live in Seattle, so I can imagine someone living in a colder climate could complain that hybrid cars get much worse mileage than promised. On the other hand, if I lived in San Diego, I figure my mileage would be about what the EPA promised me in the first place (52/48mpg). As it stands, I'm happy with the mileage I get, and fact that I'm polluting less than the average car. And it helps if you don't speed too much, and accelerate gradually, but that applies to any car.

Re:Prius owner here

[kmassare]

I've been driving my 2004 Prius in the San Diego area for about 6 months now. My mileage typically varies between 46 and 49 mpg. The hilly terrain on my usual commute seems to keep these numbers down.

Re:Prius owner here

[john1701a]

The 59,827 miles with my 2001 Prius resulted in a 45.4 MPG lifetime average... in MINNESOTA! The extreme cold only forced the MPG down to around 40 during the winter. Last summer, I average 50 MPG the entire season.

Now in my 2004 Prius, the winter only pushed the MPG down to around 45. Now that it is finally warming and the car is broken-in, I'm averaging 52 MPG.

ALL THAT WAS ACHIEVED USING E10! That's a 10% ethanol blend with gas... which causes the efficiency to be about 3.4% lower than it would have been using 100% gas.

Anywho, my Prius is clearly living up to the mileage claim.

Insight Discontinued?

[Doc Hopper]

Well, Insight sales have been disappointing: it's only sold more than 5,000 units in the US two years out of the five it's been here. And Civic Hybrid and Prius sales have spectacularly blown it away. It's a two-seater, expensive compared to similarly-equipped conventional vehicles, looks a bit odd, and is all-aluminum. Recipe for a low-selling car, particularly when the Prius and Civic Hybrid come in with prices pretty close to similar conventional vehicles.

That said, it's been rumored to have been discontinued since 2002. You can still buy a new 2004, though :) It's just questionable whether there will be a 2005.

At least the law's on our side: manufacturers are required to stock parts for 10 years after the model year (or is it 15?) for parts that don't have a generic replacement. So yeah, I love the car, but it's gonna be rare as hell 10 years from now...

Maybe that would be good if I were collecting it instead of using it for my daily round-trip commute of 88 miles :)

Speed is the issue

[erostratus]

Maybe the fact that the EPA tests highway driving at a brisk 45 mph instead of 65-75 mph has something to do with it. I guess we need to all drive in the right lane with our hazard lights on if we want the mileage we see on the stickers.

Re:Speed is the issue

[nbahi15]

Well that may be true. The faster you travel the more fuel you are expending moving the air out of your way.

50,000 miles and still great!

[hedronist]

We have a 2001 Prius and just rolled past 50,0000 miles on it. We know (and love) this car -- not based on advertising claims or EPA estimates, but based on day-in, day-out, real-world use. Is it perfect? No. But then neither was my '88 535i or my wife's Audi, both of which cost a lot more to buy, and fix, than the Prius.

As many other hybrid owners have pointed out, driving a hybrid is different from driving a normal car. The way the various components of the drive train interact requires a change in driving habits. An earlier poster mentioned flooring it when the taking off from a light; I completely agree. I practice "goose, ghost, and feather-foot". Which means "get up to your desired cruising speed (plus a bit more) as quickly as possible, then back off for a moment and let the system shift into maximum cruise mode, and then make the smallest speed changes possible". It's true that driving at 85 does not help the mileage, but I do it anyway and I can live with the hit.

On the flats, playing maximum games, I can still average 54+ MPG. We now live in an area with more hills and I have noticed that the ups-and-downs really cause a hit on the mileage. Instead of the 48-52 overall that we used to get, we now get about 46-48 overall. I have no idea where these 31 MPG numbers are coming from, but our Prius was advertised as "52 city, 45 highway" and it has been doing exactly that for over 3 years.

Finally, we bought this car partly because we believe in the idea. Early Linux was not completely user-friendly, but you used it any way because you knew there had to be an alternative to the Dark Side. If you have the time/money to vote for new directions in the world, then you need to do it. Not everyone should drive a hybrid today, but the only way to move away from the world of the Ford Inexcusable is for some of us to be Early Adopters. We are and we're having a ball!

Peter & Maria

Re: My Insight 2000, rated at 70 mpg, lt 4 l/100km

[Tom in Boston]

The year 2000 Insight with manual transmission was rated at 70mpg. As the parent said, I also never get below 50mpg, ever, and don't ever get more than 78mpg, unless the trip I'm taking is all downhill.

I've found that keeping the speed around 60 max is a big factor, but even bigger is outside temperature. In the dead of winter on my 17 mi commute, I get 52mpg, and on nice warm days I can do 73-74. I suspect that temperature affects everyone's mpg. Also, as the article mentions, driving habits have big effects, and you can learn the right habits by watching the constant feedback on the dash.

For those reading outside the US who might be having trouble with miles and gallons, we're talking about under 4 liters per 100 km. (Isn't it interesting that time and distance are inverted?)

number of problems with diesel...

[mzs]

Some of the problems with diesel have been solved/reduced over time, but they are still there. Most of the problems are in comparison to gasoline (petrol). If you drive a diesel you will notice these problems.

Low performance - Diesel engines can produce a large amount of torque, this is because as the combustion is taking place, more fuel comes into the camber. This is like 'adding fuel to the fire'. The problem is that all of the torque and power is at much lower RPM than in a gasoline engine. This gives a very poor acceleration in particular. Some manufactures address this with turbo chargers.

ping ping ping ping - This is the sound of the diesel engine. It is particularly bad when you are starting-up and idling. This is caused by the diesel exploding in the cylinder. This has been alleviated in modern engines to some extent with electronic timing of the injection of the fuel, injection under higher pressure, more injectors spaced out strategically in the cylinder head, and 'combustion shaping'. What this all means is that now with computer simulations engineers have learned how to control the combustion better in the cylinder. For example a small amount of fuel is first injected then more. The small amount of fuel injected earlier first combusts lower down in the cylinder and the combustion 'grows-up' toward the fuel later injected. This reduces the explosion that is heard as a ping to some extent.

emissions - In fact you cannot buy a new diesel in states like CA and NY because of them not meeting emissions requirements in those states. The big deal is that diesel fuel in the USA is not low sulfur like in Europe. (sulfur oxides... sulfuric acid in atmosphere... acid rain....) That is to change for cars by the end of 2006 and by the end of 2010 for buses/trains, so maybe in a few years diesels will be able to be sold again in all states. The other thing is particulate emissions. It used to be that when driving a diesel a plum of black smoke followed the car. This has been reduced greatly but still even on modern diesels when you first start moving after the engine was off and under heavy acceleration you can still SEE the black smoke. These particulate emissions contribute to smog.

winter - The cold does not play well with diesel. You will miss how in the winter you can just expect a gasoline car to start. Diesel has a tendency to freeze in your gas lines. This is worse in the USA because at most filling stations the diesel fuel is not a hot commodity so early in the winter they still have summer blend in the tanks. Solutions like block heaters and glow plugs were used in the past but well formulated fuel and electronic ignition has helped a lot here. Regardlessly, if it ever does get really cold your fuel WILL freeze, period. Also, if you are like me in the winter you go out and start the car while getting everything ready to go out for work in the morning. Forget about idling a diesel to get the heater core all toasty warm for you when you get back. Diesels run COLD and idle even colder. Some manufactures are putting in electrically heated seats in both front and rear of the car to offset this!

Okay, there you go from someone that has had experience in the past with diesel. Those I think are the reasons that gasoline is much more 'convenient' than diesel. You will really miss gasoline if you ever go back to diesel for these reasons, I did when I took a trip to Europe last year and was driving diesels again... (Oh and after you filler-up, your hands will REALLY smell and be oily, I forgot about that wonderful diesel-ism....)

The methodology used matters

[nbahi15]

It is important to understand the numbers and how they arrived at them.

"The 19-year-old EPA tests for city and highway mileage actually gauge vehicle emissions and use that data to derive an estimated fuel-efficiency rating. The EPA tests pre-production vehicles in a lab to simulate vehicle starts and stops on crowded city streets and open road conditions. According to the EPA website, "The tests measure the waste substances emitted from consuming the fuel, not the actual fuel consumed. From the measurement of emissions, EPA can estimate the miles per gallon achieved by the vehicle on average."

In brief, if the car burns the fuel very efficiently with very little by-products, it gets a higher rating. So people take their daily commute and find that there use of fuel economy seems less efficient, but I would argue that you are still getting significantly better mileage and your putting out less harmful exhaust. It would be great if they had sensors and dashboard indicators that could indicate pollutants emitted from the tail pipe on cars. That might give a more complete picture, and show you how your driving effects your performance.

Re:Because of CARB, and public image, that's why..

[shiftless]

Which I why I live in Alabama. Fuck CARB.

My 2002 Saturn SL gets 29-42 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchased a Saturn SL (4 door, 5 seat, cruise control, air, 5-speed stick) in June of 2002. It now has 16K miles on it, mainly 3.27 miles to work and back.

In town I consistantly average around 29-32 mpg. My car is peppy, and I take advantage of it, but even in town cruise control is nice.

On the hiway/Interstate I'll average between 38-42 mpg. 38 if I run at 75mph or I've gotten as high as 42 if I run at 65mph, using cruise control of course.

Wind can effect my mileage by as much as 5mpg if the wind is stiff and coming head on, but the same wind on my tail gives about a 5mpg increase. All in all the wind cancels out.

Honda CRX

[bigjnsa500]

My 12 year old Honda CRX gets better mileage than these new hybrid cars. I average 42 in town and 55 on the highway. I was actually considering buying the Prius hybrid from Toyota, but was worried that the numbers didn't add up. Thanks for letting us know!

It's the stupid drivers.

[Jerk City Troll]

It looks like these cars are more hype than help in the battle against pollution and foreign fuel reliance.

Naturally, the technology, not the drivers, that is responsible for the poor fuel economy.

Nonsense. When I drive my 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid (yes, I actually own one, potentially unlike many other people posting here) on the highway, I am careful on the gas (I take a speed hit going up hills, I utilize descents, et cetera). On the Pittsburgh, PA - Washington, DC drive, I consistently average 51 MPG for the length of I76, I70, and I270. On the George Washington Memorial Highway along the Potomac, I can keep it above 53 going in and out of the city. For local traffic, I accelerate slowly and brake slowly (when possible) and that helps keep it above 48 MPG.

On the otherhand, when I feel like having some fun, the gas miliage can drop down into the low 40s (42-46 MPG). For my Civic, that is terrible, but still better than 90% of the cars on the road. I consistently score 575+ miles out of my 12.7 gallon tank.

A terrible driver could take an NSX and lose every race. An excellent driver can take a Kia and kick some serious ass. Likewise with fuel economy, a bad driver can make the most efficient vehicle guzzle gas while a good driver could get some decent range out of an SUV. The point is, a car's technology is only as good as the driver.

I think a lot of people out there get a gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle and assume that they don't have to think. That's not the case. There's a very good reason why the Prius and the Civic Hybrid show you whether the motor is assisting or charging and show you your instantaneous fuel economy. These tools help the driver alter their habits to get the best performance. If people are dumb enough to spend the money on one of these vehicles and then not use the technology correctly (understand how to drive with maximum efficienty and change their habits), it's not the fault of the engineering, it's the fault of the consumer.

Re:It's the stupid drivers.

[nbahi15]

It is so true. I watch people on 101 and 17 in the bay area and they are insane. People in regular cars are certainly getting much lower fuel economy because they don't drive well.

An important factor is how a single gallon of fuel efficiency in the automobile fleet has significant impacts on fleet fuel consumption. I would like to see a thumbsketch of how if everyone had anyone of the existing hybrids how that would effect US fuel consumption and overall pounds of pollution emitted.

Re:It's the stupid drivers.

[nbahi15]

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

Check out the gas mileage tips. According to this guide every 5 miles/hour you go over 60 is like spending $.10 extra per gallon of gas.

Consumer Reports

[klevin]

I might point out that the most recent road test on the Honda Civic Hybrid was back in 2002 and the Honda Insight back in 2000. So claiming that CR has made such claims, and thus implying they're for recent models, is hardly honest.

There is a new, May 2004, report for the Toyota Prius. In it, CR found its in City mileage to be ~35 and its highway mileage to be around ~50. I am dissappointed in those results. I'd heard much about how the Prius got even better mileage in town than on the road due to the fact that it shuts the gasoline engine off when stopped.

Ah well, I won't be able to afford a different car for some time to come. Hopefully Toyota & Honda will have worked out more of the kinks by then. I'm so disgusted with the "domestic" (AKA, made mostly in Mexico and final assembly in the US) auto makers in regards to acceptable mileage, that I'm very unlikely to buy anything they make, hybrid or not.

humor is moot on /.

[ElectricRook]

Dear Glonoinha,

When posting on "/.", one must remember most of the readers have no sense of humor. Any humor used is likely to be lost unless you use an excessive number of smiley faces and sarcasm hints. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you of this deficiency, but that is the local culture, or lack there-of.

What were they doing to those poor cars?!?

[vanyel]

I rented a Prius at the beginning of April and drove it to San Francisco from Portland (about 600 miles one way) and back, then commuted to a new job 90 miles one way for a few days until the 1 week minimum rental was up (the 90 mile commute was only for the first week!). Driving 75-80mph, I got 45 or so mpg. Short of flooring it at every stop light and slamming on the brakes to minimize regen, I can't imagine how someone could only get 30-35mpg out of one. My mother probably would get the full 60 out of it. It sounds to me like someone wants these things to look bad. Personally, after driving the Prius, I'm going to get on a hybrid waiting list, and will probably get a used one in the mean time.

Re:What were they doing to those poor cars?!?

[nbahi15]

It sounds like the article wants to appease the conscience of SUV owners, whom as we all know drive considerately and maximize fuel economy.

Re:What were they doing to those poor cars?!?

[vanyel]

As an SUV driver (my real car is an Explorer), I've been waiting for the hybrid Highlander and/or Escape to actually reach the market for years...

SUV drivers in general are just as (in)considerate as all the other drivers. They're just so popular that 1. they're more noticeable and 2. anything that's popular is automatically bad for some reason. I have some opinions on why that's so, but they'd probably get me modded "flamebait", which is probably what I'd do to the post I'm replying to if I weren't replying to it.

Re:What were they doing to those poor cars?!?

[Backov]

They're bad not because they're popular.

They're bad because they're huge, dangerous, tippy, vision-blocking, gas guzzling road hazards.

They're the 00's minivan for stupid people who think bigger=better.

No offense to you personally, you may be one of those SUV drivers who has it for a real reason, not because it's kewl.

Re:What were they doing to those poor cars?!?

[vanyel]

They're bad because they're huge, dangerous, tippy, vision-blocking, gas guzzling road hazards.

Huge? Compared to what, a Geo Metro? OK, an Excursion is huge, but most SUVs are of the much smaller variety.

Dangerous? Only in the hands of an incompetent driver, which is true of said Geo Metro too.

Tippy? Perhaps relatively speaking, but you still have to work at it to roll one. Even the famous Samurai took a fairly extreme maneuver to tip.

Vision blocking? Only if you're right next to it and trying to pull out to turn before it does, and in most cases, even that situation can be handled (e.g. there's generally room to nose out in front a little without sticking it out too far, if not, just wait for the light --- it won't happen that often).

Gas guzzling? Yup, that's the one legitimate drawback to them.

His car isn't even broken in yet

[fooguy]

The picture he has on his blog that shows the car only gets 32MPG also shows that it's only got 945 miles on it. Honda's come from the factory with special break-in oil that has to stay in for 7500 miles. After the first oil change, there tends to be a decent boost in milege. Will it be THAT significant? I don't know, but he hasn't even given it a chance yet.

CVT spooling

[NuShrike]

I have a 1996 Civic HX (high fuel efficiency) model.

A lot of the spooling up comes from the CVT itself where you have to give the tranny some time for it to get to the proper ratios for the target speed.

For passing, or racing, I shift into 'S' mode, let the engine spool up from 2-3K to 5K, and THEN I floor it.

Btw, I get 35mpg average.

Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[Sarvagya]

Before coming to your conclusion that they are not suited for highway driving? I drive a '04 Prius, have it since Jan, line in SF Bay Area, CA, drive it on freeway (101, 880, 280, 680 and even 87) everyday. I even took it from San Jose, CA to LA, CA, via 101, 152, and I-5, which goes through 2 fairly steep passes and the speed limit on I-5 is 70mpg. I had absolutly NO problem driving either way. What you call running the engine "fairly hard" is actually running it at "optimum RPM", since any engine runs best within a range and this is the range within which the engine on a hybrid runs most of the time, as compared to an ordinary car wherein the engine RPM varies all over the place. So, test drive one before you give your opinion based on imaginary and baseless perceptions.

Re:Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[JawzX]

Yes, I have driven an '04 Prius and an older Insight (not sure wich year it was really, either '01 or '02 I think) I was favorably impressed by the Insight, but the Prius felt heavy and sluggish to me. I realize that performance is not the FIRST thing many people look for in a car, but a diesel Jetta feels snappier than a Prius. I'm not actually trying to bash hybrids, just point out that there may be other solutions just as valid. Until those other solutions become avaiable hybrids are a step in the right direction. At least people care enough about this topic to argue over it, 4 years ago no one would have bothered, they'd just go out and buy a Yukon XXXXXL.

Re:Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[WushuJim]

"Before coming to your conclusion that they are not suited for highway driving? I drive a '04 Prius, have it since Jan, line in SF Bay Area, CA, drive it on freeway (101, 880, 280, 680 and even 87) everyday. I even took it from San Jose, CA to LA, CA, via 101, 152, and I-5, which goes through 2 fairly steep passes and the speed limit on I-5 is 70mpg." The speed limit is 70 miles per galon?!

Re:Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[Anonymous Coward]

"a diesel Jetta feels snappier than a Prius"

FYI, if I remember correctly, the 2004 Prius gets from 0-60mph in 10.9 seconds while the 2004 Jetta TDI is over 12 seconds. The main difference in is probably the acceleration from 0-25mph or so, where the Jetta TDI could probably drop most other cars.

Re:Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[JawzX]

Diesel tourque is hard to beat, even with electric tourque. And in city driving 0-25 is an important number...

*disclaimer* I do very little city driving as I live and work in a rural/suburban area.

Re:Have you EVER driven a hybrid????

[ipfwadm]

And in city driving 0-25 is an important number...

Why, so you can get to the next red light that much faster?

thats OBVIOUS

[NSupremo]

the usa does not care about its people
and the people of the usa dont fucking care either

HOW THE FUCK can a HIGH TECH 'hybrid' car, that should be ALL THE RAGE only get 45mpg?

thats pathetic and disgusting

there are 'regular' cars that get more than that

the turbo diesel JETTA from VW gets 58MPG.
(and fyi the diesel engine was invented and meant to use BIODEGRADALB AND NON-POLLUTING BIODIESEL)

but GO AMERICA GO - we're such fuck ups we have to let our corporations do whatever they want

and thats also why we are fighting a war (and losing)
because of all the idiots letting other idiots get away with evil deeds

- MUTHERFUCK!

worse than nothing

[Doc Ruby]

You can say what you want about how much you "care for the environment", but if it doesn't affect which car you buy, your most important decision about the environment, then you really don't care. Just being among millions who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk (preferring to drive) makes it *worse* for the environment, and we who live in it.

Re:Driving Insight 3 years, 60.3 MPG lifetime aver

[ncc74656]

Do you *really* think your 2004 BMW 3 Series 325Ci Coupe gets 20 MPG city/29 MPG highway? Really? I call bullshit!

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit...those numbers sound reasonable enough. When I was driving my grandparents' car briefly last fall (an '85 Olds 98), it was getting mid-to-upper 20s on the highway...and that was for an 18-year-old (at the time) car with a 50% larger (3.8L) engine in a substantially larger/heavier body. I was driving at 70-75 mph (when I could) and not taking any special measures to try to squeeze more mileage out of it. (Dunno about city mileage, as I mainly drove it from southeastern Virginia to NYC and back.)

Re:Bring Back the Mercedes Diesel - they did

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy a Mercedes Diesel right now. They brought them back. It is a 300 series full size and fast. Seems to me that it gets 50 MPG. My 1985 300SD gets around 27.

Oil Companies Want Your Gas Money

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing the oil/gas companies want you to do is get better mileage. They'd rather have you buy trucks and SUVs to increase their profits. They don't want you to buy hybrids, they want your gas money.

Unless you use nuclear power

[jmichaelg]

Therefore, it's actually more efficient to burn the fossil fuels directly.

You're right if you're burning or cracking fossil fuel to make the hydrogen. However, if you use nuclear power or windmills to generate the power to form the hydrogen, then hydrogen is cleaner.

Re: Cell safety and replacement

[Tom in Boston]

You have some good concerns about getting those batteries back for recycling.

For what it's worth, the battery pack on the Honda Insight is made up of 120 individual cells, so I would think that the chance of a large-scale spilling of the chemical contents is reduced.

And from what I understand, since this is new technology, Honda warranteed the electrical system, including the battery pack, for 8 years. After that I've heard it's around $1200 for a new one... We'll see! I hope not to have to putt around with just the three-cylinder 67-horsepower gas engine, if that's even possible.

I did hear a general concern (somewhere...) about rescue workers worried about cutting into vehicles that have large battery packs, hitting a wire, etc., but I also heard that the electrical lines are bright orange to alert them to that. Sorry - kinda off-topic.

I've been waiting for the Opal GT

[n2rjt]

In the early 1980's, Popular Mechanics featured an Opal GT with an electric starter-generator from a military aircraft, a bank of batteries, and a very small (lawn-mower) gas engine. They called it a "hybrid" and claimed that it got 75 miles/gallon. I drooled. I still drool. Such a beast doesn't exist yet. Maybe it never did.

Experience is a harsh teacher

[Ra5pu7in]

Last month I remembered reading an article on a hybrid subject to a "nightmare" road test in New York. It can be found here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/04 09_040409_hybridcars.html

This one wasn't yet given an EPA rating, but was expected to earn a rating of about 35-40MPG for city driving. The road test came down to 38MPG (city driving). It will be interesting to see what the actual EPA rating comes to.

In my 1995 car, I still get MPG equivalent to the original EPA rating (28MPG in the city). I'm not sure I would consider 10 more miles to each gallon worth the increased cost of a hybrid. This should mostly be a lesson to not believe the advertised numbers (3.4 GhZ anyone?) without real-word testing.

How Do You Drive?

[ackthpt]

How you drive has considerable influence over gas mileage. Aggressive, drive fast, fast accellerations, having to hit the breaks a lot because you're too close to the vehicle in front of you, all can degrade gas mileage heavily.

My sister's Prius averages 60 MPG. I was floored when I offered to fill the tank when visiting family and driving around in her car. All that driving and like $7.50 to top off the tank. I just filled up my pickup (2.5L which gets ~22 MPG) for over $30 a few days ago. I have to do this every few days, too, which is beginning to suck a lot. I'm sure glad i didn't go for the V6 pickup some salesman was doing everything he could to try to get me to buy, it would be getting even worse mileage.

My next vehicle will be a hybrid. They drive well, are extremely economical over the long run. And they're probably going to be fun to mod some day.

Toyota Prius EV - best of both worlds.

[nbahi15]

Did anyone else hear the NPR story this last weekend about owners that want their Prius to have the electric-only option in their car. Apparently this is the case in Japan. You can push a button and go electric only, and recharge the batteries with a plug or switch to the hybrid engine by the push of button.

Re:Toyota Prius EV - best of both worlds.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see that happening. What a great idea! I think it will happen though, when the batteries get more advanced.

Re:Toyota Prius EV - best of both worlds.

[nbahi15]

It is available in Japan, apparently the place for the button is on the dashboard, and there is an unused compartment under the trunk floorboard. Now all they need is an orange extension cord and you are good to go.

optimize your style and methods of driving

[danguyf]

I have an '04 Prius in which I commute 80 miles a day, 77 miles of that being highway. In the coldest weeks of winter my mpg was never below 50. Usually I could keep it just about 55mpg. Now that it's warmed up a bit, 55mpg is my minimum (like when I let my wife drive it) and I keep it above 60mpg. Thus far my best tank was 73mpg a few months ago. And this is primarily highway driving! I can only conjecture what I'd be getting if most of my commute was city driving. You just have to understand how the car works, pay attention to the indicators, and adjust your driving accordingly.

Speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

People usually don't realize just how much speed will make a difference. At highway speed on a flat road, 90% or so of the *useful* energy produced by the engine is used to fight the wind drag. The other 10 is for friction, etc.

Knowing that drag force is proportional to the square of the speed, going 65 instead of 55 will increase the drag (thus fuel consumption) by as much as 40%, but your speed is only about 20% faster.

Of course, I'm neglecting the fact that engines can be more efficient at a precise RPM, etc., but you get the idea.

Make me King of America and I will...

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) fill the southwest with federally controlled nuclear power plants, and flood the market with tons of cheap electricity. Nevada is particularly attractive, since the majority of the state offers next to nothing. This will be done with the urgency of the Manhatten Project, or the Moon shot. Bye bye private electric power plants - sorry - but you are in the way of progress. Of course, Texas oil companies will block the construction of nuclear powerplants in their state, but that's OK. I shall block their access to cheap federal electricity, and encourage Texas to suseed from the Union.

(2) as my policy becomes reality, electricity prices tumble, and natural economic incentives will push the automobile industry to mass-produce electric cars. In parallel, service station conversions to cater to electric cars: battery changes, quick charges, etc. Home/Work chargers will be cheap and easy to use. Taxes and tax subsidies will be applied/removed to nudge resistent industries in the right directions.

(3) other fossil-fuel industries, such as home hearing in the northeast, and Nascar, will be encouraged to convert to electricity by applying/removing taxes. There are some exceptions, such as the aviation industry. Aviation fuel production will be produced entirely in the United States, using U.S. crude oil reserves. Texas will argue that Nascar should also be an exempt industry, but I will overrule this arguement, further pushing Texas towards succession.

(4) as our dependence on foreign oil drops, I shall begin a pullout of american troops from the middle east. Like most of you (my subjects), I too would like to see a peaceful and democratic middle east, but it is not possible until the people there want it. As oil revenues declines, middle-eastern regiemes will be under duress. Texas will choose to suseed at this point, and will maintain millitary bases in Saudi Arabia until the bitter end, when Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt will join Iran and Iraq as Fundamentalist Islamic States. That place can GO TO HELL for all I care. Also, all Fundamentalist Christians will be deported from the United States to Texas.

(5) With the collapse of the middle-eastern oil market, will come the collapse of the Texan economy. Texas will be re-annexed by Mexico, who owned Texas to begin with.

Unfortunately, I will never be King. The right-wingers would never go for federalizing the electricity market, and the left-wingers would never go for nuclear power.

VW TDI

[Phurd Phlegm]

I also paid much less than the hybrids, have a much lower TCO than the hybrid cars

I have a VW TDI too. As for "lower TCO," the $50 oil changes (if you use the recommended full-synthetic with diesel additive package) make up for the fuel economy, and that's not counting the mandatory timing belt change at 60,000 miles. And the mandatory-but-not-discussed removal of the intake system to remove all the nasty carbon deposits around 80,000 miles. This is supposedly due to the aggressive exhaust recirculation coupled with that good ol' diesel soot, and can cost upwards of $400. The symptom is a very gradual loss of power, though the restoration following the repair is dramatic.

If you promise not to slashdot it, you can look at Fred's TDI Page for some interesting TDI facts and tips.

Re:VW TDI

[maddskillz]

To be fair, those $50 oil changes are only every 16000km, or 10000 Miles, which for me makes it the same as my Corolla was costing

Re:VW TDI

[fmaxwell]

I have a VW TDI too. As for "lower TCO," the $50 oil changes (if you use the recommended full-synthetic with diesel additive package) make up for the fuel economy

I own a 2002 Golf TDI and I just don't understand your math. The recommended oil changes are every 10,000 miles, or about $500 for 100,000 miles (using your $50 figure). During that 100,000 miles, you've probably had no trouble maintaining 45mpg -- even if you drive aggressively. Right now, diesel is about $1.80 average per gallon with regular gasoline being about $.10 higher. But let's call the two equal in price for simplicity.

In 100,000 miles at 45mpg, you've used 2,222 gallons of diesel fuel. Let's compare that to a Honda Civic, which you can figure about 35mpg in (I'm being generous). The Honda would have used 2,857 gallons of gasoline. At $1.80 per gallon, that's $4,000 of fuel for the VW TDI and $5,142 in fuel for the Honda -- a difference of over $1,100. The Honda calls for a timing belt at about 90K to 105K miles, so if it hasn't had a belt already, it will have one soon. Also consider that, while the cost of oil changes may be less on the Honda (by using a non-synthetic), the changes are made more frequently, probably about every 5,000 to 7,500 miles, probably. I don't know about you, but my time is worth something and filling up the tank less frequently and changing oil less frequently is worth $$$ to me.

Next, consider longevity. Because diesel fuel is basically an oil, it lubricates the cylinders rather than scouring the lubrication off of them. That leads to a much greater engine longevity, on average, than gasoline engines enjoy. If you keep your car long enough, you need to consider the cost of an engine overhaul happening sooner with a comparable gas engine. Even if you don't, it's a lot easier to sell a high-mileage diesel than it is to sell a high-mileage gasoline engine car. The TDI VWs tend to hold their resale value much better than their gasoline engined counterparts.

I think that the TDI is a great deal that only gets better with rising fuel prices.

Re:VW TDI

[Phurd Phlegm]

To be fair, those $50 oil changes are only every 16000km, or 10000 Miles, which for me makes it the same as my Corolla was costing

My mechanic (who I usually agree with) is of the opinion that auto manufacturers set oil change intervals unreasonably long. I change my oil every 5,000 miles, since I'd rather spend more on oil and less on an engine.

Don't think that I don't like my TDI--it's a great car with a lot of poop. However, it isn't the low-cost wonder I foolishly hoped for. I'd get 30 MPG instead of 44 with the gas engine, so over 100,000 miles I'd spend on the order of $7,000 on fuel and $500 on oil vs. $4,600 on fuel and $1000 on oil--and an extra $1,800 for the TDI. That puts my savings at around $100 and if I have to have the intake decarbonized I actually come out on the short end of the stick by a few hundred bucks.

If I believed the 10K oil change interval, I'd come out $1000 ahead over the life of the car, which I guess is better than brushing your teeth with a bench grinder.

Re:VW TDI

[maddskillz]

I haven't heard of any problems with using the recommended oil change, providing you are using a high quality full-synthetic oil, like Delvac 1. The oil looks dirty immediately, but that is the nature of the beast. If you check out TDI club, there has been numerous oil analysis done, and they all seem to agree with the recommendations.

But I totally agree, it's not a low cost car, if you want that, get an Echo or something like that

300D...

[mzs]

Where I grew-up ALL of the taxis were the venerable 300D. These cars just kept going and going...

Today's 'version' of the 300D: No ping, but plenty of zing in E320 CDI

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

See my note regarding nuclear power and making me king: Make me King of America and I will...

$4/gallon 100% biodiesel at Ventura Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that $10/bushel is for food-grade soybeans? The highest price for pure biodiesel in the Midwest seems to be about $3. In California, the Channel Islands state park has switched to biodiesel for their boats (protects the water quality). They report:

"Currently in California there are no manufacturing facilities producing biodiesel from used cooking oils. The fuel for this project will be shipped in small quantities from the midwest, which increases cost due to transportation charges. The cost for the fuel currently being used in this project is almost four dollars a gallon. However, if future market demands, bulk shipments will occur, or local production will commence and bring the price of this renewable fuel down to under two dollars a gallon, close to the cost of conventional petroleum fuels."

http://www.nps.gov/chis/press8800.htm

My 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid

[brj]

I'm getting about 50MPG in my Civic Hybrid. The trick is to not drive 75MPH in the fast lane with the SUVs, but to take your time and do 55 - 60MPH in the slow lane.

My city mileage is less than what is advertised, and I'm doing my very best with slow accelerations and maintaining constant speed where I can.

But overall, I'm pretty happy with getting my 50 MPG.

Re:My 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure there is a slow lane, buster.

Sucker!

[riffenator]

My 2001 GTI gets that milage on the highway and would zoom right past your pathetic little civic!

As someone who has taken chemistry.

[Inoshiro]

Your post is the most silly thing I've read in memory.

"Hydrogen doesn't exist freely, it has to be made from something."

Hydrogen is the most plentiful item on the planet. Rather than do something silly, like drill down into huge deposits of it and setup refineries and have huge pumps and so on and so on, all you really need is a big bunch of water (like any freshwater late, or a desalinizer and some ocean front), and some electricity. Suddenly you have more hydrogen than there was oil in the world hundreds of year before we started mining for oil. Plus, as you consume it, it's just returned to the same storage container form (water) which is very stable, easy to transport (we've centuries of experience with it), and easy to de-combine again with solar power (it easily evaporates the water to make it pure, then some solar cells give the electricity to separate it to H2 and O2).

"It is also the least dense element in the universe, so the storage tanks in a vehicle would have to be massive"

Hmm, have you ever heard of STP? H2 is a gas, an ideal gas at that. Storing it in large densities is easy -- just pour on some pressure. Because H2 is the least-dense molecule in the universe, you can compact more of it into a given space.

"Hydrogen also has the nasty ability to seep out of pretty much anything."

I doubt it. H2 is, as I said, an ideal gas. Gasoline's a solvent. Propane expands to 270 times its liquid volume when turning into a gas. One pinprick hole can lead to a rupture very quickly. Diesel also has solvent properties. H2 is the least of your concerns in a proper storage container.

"Fuel cells cost a lot of money and require exotic materials in many cases. They are also very fragile. People hope this will change, but it's hard to say if it will ever happen."

In the past 15 years, fuel cells have had remarkable advances. I doubt they'll stop anytime soon.

Re:As someone who has taken chemistry.

[Mike Hicks]

Okay, I may have gotten a bit silly with my arguments. I'm certainly an advocate of renewable fuel sources, so the "hydrogen doesn't exist freely" argument is a wash.

I understand that gases can be compressed, although H2 needs to be at something like 5000 or 10000 psi (roughly 35 or 70 MPa) to store enough fuel in a reasonably-sized container. I'm not exactly relishing the idea of having one of those in my backseat.

Hydrogen is also flammable in widely ranging concentrations and the flame is nearly invisible. Just a minor safety issue (not that gasoline is exactly safe, but something to think about)

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of neat hydrogen tech will come out in the next decade or so. I just wanted to point out that hydrogen isn't a catch-all solution. There are some big problems for handling it.

Re:As someone who has taken chemistry.

[boots@work]

Hmm, have you ever heard of STP?

Scientifically Treated Petroleum?

What we need is driver education

[PotatoHead]

and some options in the cars we have to make conservation easier.

My first high MPG car was one of those little Sprint things. It was possible to exceed 50 MPG in that car, provided the driver drives in a sane manner.

Currently I drive a 90 Toyota 4 door. I regularly get between 30 and 40 MPG, and that is mostly city driving.

The secrets every driver should know?

- Manual transmission

This one is a biggie because it allows the driver to conserve to a much greater degree than it possible with automatic trannies.

- Buy good high Octane fuel.

It will cost a bit more, but your car will perform much better in low RPM conditions if you have the better fuel.

- Quality tires

Make sure you are running the right tires at the right pressure for your climate.

So, how to save the gas?

Use your lower gears to reach speed, then use high gears to maintain that speed. Downhill? Consider freewheeling, if the slope is not too bad. Here in Portland, we have lots of hills, it is possible to roll the car around, or keep it in a high gear for in-town driving most of the time. All it takes is a slight slope to make coasting, or driving in high gear practical.

Pretend your brakes are wearing thin. Try to see how little you can stop on your way to work. Each start uses enough fuel for a few miles of at-speed driving.

Learn the limits of your car and use those to your advantage. Mine has fairly good low rpm performance. Using 4th gear @ 35mph works well and requires almost no gas to do. (This does sometimes mean an extra shift or two, depending on the traffic and other things...)

More about limits, my car runs best at about 63 Mph. Too bad my state sees 55 as the best speed. On the freeway, I seek this speed as often as I can to keep mileage up.

Why don't more cars have a consumption indicator so the drivers can see how much fuel they are spending at any given time? That simple change would save a ton of gas right there.

Don't start fast. Combine this with limiting your stops and you really save pretty big overall. You are doing well when you roll up to a group of cars all working hard to start fast, drop into second or third gear and lightly bring your car to speed, taking advantage of the speed you already have.

Personally, I would like my next car to have some gears aimed directly at conservation. The dodge colt did this with a rear-end gear --too bad the car itself was a pile...

For those that *have* to own an automatic, why not provide a couple of settings there as well that more closely reflect safe conservative driving?

Re:What we need is driver education

[photomic]

- Buy good high Octane fuel. It will cost a bit more, but your car will >perform much better in low RPM conditions if you >have the better fuel.

Only if your engine requires it. Buying hi-octane gas for your Toyota and expecting it to "run better" is wishful thinking. If it pings using the regular stuff, your engine has other problems, such as carbon buildup. Otherwise, you're just wasting money. BTW, there is no inherent "quality" difference in lo- and hi-octane fuel. Higher octanes are less prone to predetonation (pinging), and therefore are better suited for high-compression, high-performance, i.e., more expensive, engines.

Re:What we need is driver education

[MtViewGuy]

By the way, automatic transmissions have gotten a lot better in the last eight years.

I drive a Honda Civic HX CVT coupe and I get 34-37 mpg daily, thanks to the fact on a continuously-variable transmission you are more or less using the most efficient rev speed regardless of load you're applying (acceleration, cruise, and so on).

There are definitely two things you can do to improve fuel efficiency besides changing your driving style:

1. Change your air filter regularly. By changing the air filter at least twice a year you improve breathing of the engine, which means better fuel mileage.

2. Make sure the tires are properly inflated when cold. This means at least once a week check the inflation pressure of the tires in the morning before you drive the car for the day; make sure they match what the car manufacturer recommends (there's a sticker on the car either on the inside of the glove compartment box or on the door sill that recommends the cold inflation pressures). Properly inflated tires mean lower rolling resistance, and that can improve fuel efficiency by as much as four percent!

3. Keep the fuel delivery system reasonably clean. I'd recommend using something akin to Chevron's Techron additive about three times a year to keep the fuel injectors clean, and use something like Gumout to keep carbuerators on older cars clean on a regular schedule. Dirty fuel delivery systems can rob engine performance and fuel efficiency very quickly, to say the least.

author is also pushing fuel cell too...

[Locutus]

Look at the authors previous articles and you'll see he just wrote an article promoting fuel cells and hydrogen powered vehicles....

He looks/sounds more like a shock-jock than anything else. We're averaging about measured 45 MPG over 40,000 miles with a 2001 Toyota Prius(purchased in 2000).

IMO, the story headline should be more like this: "Car owners with poor driving habits get upset when shown actual MPG", or even "EPA rating is NOT REAL, it's a baseline for comparison dummy".

LoB

Again, Moore's Law does not apply to cars!

[BigBlockMopar]

A recent report shows that the trend is ALREADY towards more disposable cars due to all the high tech crap and tons of airbags and such in them. If the car is going to be "disposed" of anyway, perhaps it would be better if it were more efficient during its lifetime anyway?

Which requires more raw materials to manufacture batteries, controllers and electric motors, contributing only to a very slight increase in gas mileage.

Don't get me wrong - hybrids *are* neat, and they are a good idea. But I don't believe the technology has advanced to a point where the benefits outweigh the environmental costs of manufacturing it and replacing it more frequently (unserviceable, ill-suited materials like aluminum, etc.).

You have to start somewhere...automobile makers haven't capitalized on many of the low hanging fruits to improve fuel efficiency for DECADES.

That's complete bull. Detroit has always been interested in fuel efficiency, at least in their economy cars. Most of these features were also taken to performance and luxury cars, because most technical advances that increase fuel efficiency also increase performance.

Cases in point:

• Aerodynamic body design, 1930s.
• Overdrive transmissions, 1930s.
• Switch to overhead valve motors starting in the 1940s.
• Modern bearing design replacing babbit bearings, early 1950s.
• Commencement of unibody construction technique in economy car models, 1930s.
• Increased compression ratio in production cars, late 1950s.
• Adoption of a tunnel-ram intake manifold, notably on Chrysler Slant-6, 1960. Chrysler Slant-6 wins Mobil Economy Run (race promoting fuel efficiency), 1960-1964.
• Adoption of alternators instead of generators as silicon diodes became practical, early 1960s.
• Adoption of electronic voltage regulators (reduce the drag of shorting the armature windings during periods when battery voltage is good), late 1960s.
• Introduction of electronic ignition when suitable power transistors became available to drive ignition coils, late 1960s.
• Introduction of electronic fuel injection when integrated circuits became sufficiently advanced, late 1960s.
• Radial tires, late 1960s.

*ALL* of these features had their genesis before fuel economy laws or guidelines from the government. Almost all of these features are now standard on even the cheapest economy cars.

Just think where computer technology, or aircraft design, has gone in the same intervening period.

Moore's Law does not apply to cars. Mechanical engineering is a relatively mature discipline. Moore's Law ran its course in mechanical engineering soon after the invention of the wheel, during the Renaissance, or after the discovery of calculus - take your pick.

Aircraft design? Yeah, very nice. It's amazing how high-tech a car can be when you can sell it for several million dollars, arbitrarily tell buyers that it's going to run on whatever fuel you decide rather than what the local Mobil station pumps, and have it serviced every time it's driven. It's simply not comparable.

It is taking foreign car makers to pressure the US market to even begin this stuff>

No, it isn't. Detroit responds to what the market wants. The majority of American car buyers prefered big chrome-tipped tailfins and cars that got soft and cushy rides on inefficient bias-ply tires. You'll note that economy cars didn't sell very well until after 1974 (Arab oil embargo).

Why do you think we have SUVs now? (And I don't mean the Jeep Wagoneers, Dodge Ramchargers and Chevy Suburbans that have been around in small numbers in rural markets since at least the 1950s; I mean every soccer-mom and balding accountant driving a Ford Explorer or Grand Cherokee.)

Because the market still wants the big RWD full-frame V8-powered Caprice Estate station wagons. But Detroit can't make them anymore due to corporate average fuel economy standards. Noting that pickup trucks are exempt from CAF

Re:Again, Moore's Law does not apply to cars!

[Hard_Code]

Do you have any efficiency examples from 70s onward? Those are the "decades" I was specifically referencing. That average fuel efficiency (taking into account cars/trucks) has remained unchanged since 1980s doesn't smack of progress to me. I agree that the market responds to what consumers want, but it's not as if car makers weren't persuading people to buy SUVs, or lobbying against fuel efficiency standards. It's not as if they live in a vacuum and are /solely/ responding to the market. If you don't want the end-goal to be reduced fuel consumption (for geopolitical reasons) and reduced fuel emissions (for environmental reasons)... fine, then we shouldn't have standards at all. But I for one, as a citizen, do see a need for reduced fuel consumption and emissions, and furthermore as an independent economic agent, I would LIKE to have more than just TWO practical options (and imported at that!) when looking for a low-emission vehicle. Therefore I don't think it is unreasonable for government to incentivize vehicles with low fuel consumption and emissions and de-incentivize high fuel consumption and emissions. As an added bonus, I personally think that the "alternative fuel" industry is a great domestic economic opportunity for jobs and innovation (witness rural farmers selling wind power and bio-fuel).

I don't see doing NOTHING as an appropriate solution to the fact that some (very few relatively) people use high-performance equipment and vehicles. Is it your contention that if we just "wait" that the last few decades of non-progress and lethargy in the domestic car industry will just reverse itself? Do you WANT people like me to send my dollars out of country to buy foreign low emission vehicles? That doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Again, Moore's Law does not apply to cars!

[BigBlockMopar]

I don't see doing NOTHING as an appropriate solution to the fact that some (very few relatively) people use high-performance equipment and vehicles.

Detroit aggressively markets SUVs exactly the way they aggressively marketed full-size station wagons a mere 20 years ago. Why? That's what people really want. That's what people go into the showroom to buy. And that's also where the profit margins are.

When they discover they can't afford to pay for the new SUV/Station_Wagon_of_Days_Gone_By, the salesman talks them into the new Focus/Cavalier/Neon. The ads for expensive cars sell cheap cars.

Now, since gasoline is relatively inexpensive and incomes are relatively high, far more people can buy either what they *actually* want, or the compromise mid-size, without going to the raspy feels-like-a-buzzy-little-Honda econobox.

You can't run an ad campaign telling people they don't want small cars - it won't work. For one thing, at over 6' tall, I'm not driving around in *any* car where my head is touching the roof, and North Americans tend to be physically bigger than most people in other parts of the world. Next, an ad campaign that tells people "it's not cool to drive small cars" is going to sell big cars better than any ad campaign Detroit could ever come up with! (Think of public trends around anti-smoking and anti-marijuana ads.)

So, what do you do? Increase gas taxes? It's already taxed more than enough and going to silly pork-barrel projects (rather than building roads which would reduce congestion and therefore fuel consumption), you'll have a revolt against the government. On the other hand, leave it to the laws of supply and demand (and those crazy Arabs) and filling up a Navigator will become so exorbitant that only the rich do it.

Leave it alone. The economy will work it out on its own. And the more you tamper with it, the more it will somehow backfire in your face.

Re:Again, Moore's Law does not apply to cars!

[Hard_Code]

"Next, an ad campaign that tells people "it's not cool to drive small cars" is going to sell big cars better than any ad campaign Detroit could ever come up with! (Think of public trends around anti-smoking and anti-marijuana ads.)"

First it was my understanding that those ads were actually effective. But that's not the point because I don't generally like tax money spent wagging fingers at citizens. But really, if you want to drive such a car, then why not make the relative cost of doing so proportional? Such vehicles increase insurance risk and environmental responsibility for everyone. Can I get a tax credit if I'm not generating the pollution or accidents or consuming all the fuel (my vehicle doesn't use as much fuel, but when prices go up due to scarcity, I have to pay for it disproportionally), or putting the most wear on the road? Besides a "gas tax" that sort of use fee I think would at least be a more free market reform (you want it? you pay for it).

"Leave it alone. The economy will work it out on its own. And the more you tamper with it, the more it will somehow backfire in your face."

So then we should at least stop subsidizing the domestic automobile market, and drop import tarrifs on foreign cars, because that would allow the market "to work it out". I understand free markets generally DO work themselves out (I am not contradicting that principal), but there are certainly political and other costs of just letting the market muddle about itself (how much longer do we need to be involved with those "crazy Arabs" before the market "works itself out"? The sooner the better I think...)

Speaking of the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh.. "prisoner"? That electricity is partly recouped from energy that would otherwise be wasted (braking, etc). It's pretty cool technology, actually.

Try learning some facts before you spew, next time.

Talk about no-logic tactics...

Re:Speaking of the obvious

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Uhhh, sorry to point out the obvious (again), but in order for regenerative braking to be of any use, the car must first be in motion. What gets it in motion? Ah, we're back to that odd movement of electrons known to modern man as "electricity"...which brings me back to my original statement, namely that there is no energy in the car itself that isn't put there in the first place by either burning fossil fuels or splitting atoms.

Talk about no-logic responses...you take the cake.

protons, neutrons

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with transport of protons and neutrons?

Saturn

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Saturn Ion Manual. I get 30 MPG in mixed driving. The Ion handles very well for a cheaper car, has great leg room and can hold it's own against more horsepower darting in and out of traffic. I know all the 'experts' hate Saturns and the ION in paricular, but the it has a nice mix of efficiency, power, and comfort.

again, not necessarily

[rebelcool]

as i pointed out, the first generation of the insight was a 55mpg car, but got worse emissions ratings than other 4 cylinders that got 25-30 mpg.

You cannot solely base emissions on mpg. That is much too simplistic and inaccurate.

Mileage

[Nick Wilson]

Half of the mileage is based on driving style. I have a '99 Civic LX (Stock, no special airfilters/turbo-chargers/19" rims/lame rear spoilers) and I average about 45MPG during the summer, about 35MPG during winter with the snow tires on. Best Mileage Ever was an even 50MPG. I kept track for 2 years, every gallon used. BUT, I drive about 95% highway, for trips of over 100 miles at a time. Average speed is usually about 60 mph. Yes, I'm the guy that gets passed all the time, but with gas close to $2 gallon for regular unleaded, I only wish I could have afforded that Insight in the showroom!

Agreed -- hybrids can get good mileage

[mmurphy000]

I rented a Prius (2002 model, I think) for a week in the SF Bay Area from EVRentals (which might have turned into this site). Over that week, I got 50 MPG, with only "book learnin'" about how to drive a hybrid for maximum effect. Admittedly, this was a fairly small sample size, but still, I was suitably impressed.

Re:VW TDI additional costs

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the TDI info! am considering one so...

You might be interested in the report by a Michigan school district, that biodiesel ultimately saved them money *because they had to change the oil less often* -- sounds like the soot problem would be helped by biodiesel too.

report is at www.biodiesel.org

Re:The article is crap, at least for the Prius

[ProgressiveCynic]

My 2004 Prius got 45 MPG on the very first tank and 2000 miles later it's getting in the 50s consistantly. Current tanks avg = 54.7.

Check out this thread on a Prius users group to get some first hand, real world drivers experiences with the best car being manufactured right now!

Safety Cap is exactly right, you need to invest enough time and mental capacity to learn how to drive a hybrid (this is after all a very different system - it's not your father's Oldsmobile) but with just a little effort it is possible to beat the EPA figures.

Prius experience

[tit4tat]

My mother (who, BTW, is a lead-foot) has the first model year of the Toyota Prius. According to the running total in the car's computer, she's averaging 49.5 MPG.

I smell FUD.

Civic Hybrid, Hills, and High Speed

[LS]

I own a Civic Hybrid, and I've found that the way I drive severely affects the gas mileage, as others have already mentioned. A couple of things I'd like to add are:

* If you are driving uphill, never go above 55. The mileage up hills is much more related to speed than on flats.

* I drive to work every day 85 mph on the freeway, and through city traffic. Ok, so I get 42 MPG, which is not the advertise MPG, but so what - find any other car that gets 42 MPG under those conditions.

LS

Why don't we dump the bogus EPA

[multiplexo]

mileage determination standards and go for something easier?

We take a dozen of the cars, load them up with four people and a bunch of stuff, fill the gasoline tanks with a measured quantity of fuel and then drive them on city roads, country roads, highways, in good weather and bad until they run out of gas. Record the mileage on the odometer. Fill the tank again, repeat. Do this for a month or so for each car, add up the mileages, do the appropriate math and use the number as the mileage figure for the car.

This would have its own set of inaccuracies, but would probably be a lot closer to what most people experience in real life than the EPA numbers are.

Old news...

[atlacatl]

This is yesterday's news...It shouldn't appear on /. anymore...

Diesels are the answer

[Findus Krispy]

the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles

Not true. Direct injection diesels commonly do 60-70MPG without any foolishness like regenerative braking or automatic freewheeling. The Audi A2 for example can do 78MPG, and the VW Lupo 3L (special eco-car) does well over 100MPG. That's about what hybrids claim but never actually manage, plus direct injection diesels are quiet, more rapid and have greater torque than petrols. It's a win win! Take a look at this list of diesels and their MPGs, or this series of articles about why diesels aren't taken seriously in the US.

Only in the US where diesels aren't taken seriously (less than 1% of new cars are diesels in the US compared to about 40% in the EU) could hybrids ever be considered with a serious face.

Motorcycles

[b0s0z0ku]

A Kawasaki Ninja 250 is a fairly modern, water-cooled motorcycle. It does 0-60 in about 5.5 sec., which is better than 95% of the cars on the road, has a top speed of 100mph, and gets about 70mpg on the highway. It doesn't overheat in traffic like older aircooled motorcycle designs.

With a modern fuel injection system (new Ninjas still use carbs), and/or a hybrid drive system, this bike could probably get at least 10mpg more. Plus, it's more fun to drive than your average car. For the southern half of the country where it's above freezing most of the year, more bikes are a perfect solution. That, and better public transit, something which is sorely missed in many US "cities."

-Drew

Re:Motorcycles

[shrubsky]

I would _love_ to ride a motorcycle. I have to bicycles (one street, one mountain) which I ride on various trails around Atlanta (and once a year at an organized ride in Savannah). Having a motorcycle would be like biking to work, only a lot faster and without so much sweat. :-)

My problem with them is safety. I'm allergic to death. If only I didn't have to worry about people mowing me down on the roads.

Re:Motorcycles

[b0s0z0ku]

My problem with them is safety. I'm allergic to death. If only I didn't have to worry about people mowing me down on the roads.
Actually, you're probably less safe on a bicycle than a motorcycle on the street. A motorcycle is bigger and fairly well-lit, so it's more visible to people driving cages. It can also move with the flow of traffic(*) - it's not speed that kills, it's speed difference;-) Personally, I think that everyone should be required to start on a motorcycle when they get their license at age 17, and only be allowed to move up to a car after a year or two. That would give them some personal experience as to why driving like an idiot is bad.

-Drew

(*)-> I've actually moved faster than the flow of traffic on a bicycle, but that was during rush hour on a major 2-lane road in NJ, weaving along on the shoulder. This was sort of fun, but also sucked because breathing fumes ain't fun, and I also had to deal with glares from pissed-off cagers who were annoyed that I was somehow cheating at their game.

Re:Motorcycles

[shrubsky]

I mainly ride my bike on biking trails that have separate pavement from the roads for that very reason. Cars generally behave irrationally around bicycles.

And yes, speed difference is what kills, but the difference between the speed of a 65mph motorcycle and the pavement is 65mph. That's plenty to mess you up quite badly even if there weren't cars right behind you.

I Get Better W/ My Non-Hybrid Civic

[fire-eyes]

Damn, that really blows.

And I just picked up a used 98 civic LX, bastard gets 33 - 35 MPG city, 38+ freeway.

I imagine I paid 15 grand or more less, too...

What a stinker.

Shut up

[jsin]

and buy a motorcycle. My Ducati M750 gets 50-60MPG and it's primary design feature isn't efficiency.

If you really want to get crazy, pick up a 250 Nitehawk, I've ready claims of over 100MPG out of those things.

He's assuming it's hydrogen based...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this guy just doesn't understand what a hybrid is. He probably thinks it's using hydrogen, hence the "per gallon" without environmental damage.......

Honda Civic Data

[bender647]

Some data from a coworker who has owned a hybrid for 1-1/2 years:

• EPA rated: 48 mpg
• Real life summer mileage: 51-54
• Real life winter mileage: low 40's
• Break-in mileage (first 2,000 miles): low 30's
• AC operation: forget-about-it

Prius Mileage

[kmassare]

I have owned my 2004 Prius for about six months. During a typical week, where most of my driving consists of the commute to and from work, my gas mileage ranges from 46 to 49 mpg. I live in San Diego, California and the drive has a lot of up and down stretches which may tend to keep the numbers down. My best mileage is on the freeway during the rush hour commute. With speeds down around 15 mph, the car spends a significant part of the drive running on battery only. Unfortunately (or fortunately) my work schedule has me doing most of my commuting during non-rush hour times. During one week however, when I did have a 9 - 5 work schedule, I averaged 52 mpg as reported by the dashboard MPG readout. My wife and I have made one 840 mile round trip to Nevada since we have owned the car. We averaged 49 mpg on the trip with speeds in the 65 - 75 mph range. When I bought the car, I didn't expect to get the EPA mileage. Considering that I haven't changed many of my driving habits since I got the Prius, I am very happy with the mileage that I am getting.

satisfied Prius customer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, looks like I need to chime in here... For lack of a better way to put it, I'm a lead foot driver, and I get between 42-47 mpg on my 2004 Prius. The 47 is if I take the back roads to work with out using air conditioning or headlights and make a decent attempt to conserve fuel. The 42 is when I take the highway "like a bat out of hell" with air, headlights, sound system blasting away, and virtually every accessory in the car turned on!! If they arn't getting that kind of milage then something is wrong with their car !!! Just glad my Prius is doing well because with its current performance I don't miss my old high-test guzzeling V8 one bit. Now if they would just make a kit to help the cornering and let me reprogram the stability control I would be TRUELY happy! ;-)

Re:Try the Ford Focus PZEV - Practically Zero Emis

[HBPiper]

I was hoping to get the first shot in on the Focus PZEV, but it was actually nice to be beaten.

It has always seemed to me that Alternative Fueled vehicles are a lot like my favorite rule of statistics, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

How clean is clean? Road & Track had a great article about just that topic last year.

fueleconomy.gov, bluetooth, and tax breaks

[nbahi15]

For a full discussion on how fuel economy numbers work and a listing of every car check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov. They have a great PDF of all the fuel economy numbers.

They also reminded me that if you buy a 2004 Toyota Prius you get a $1500 federal tax deduction, and don't forget to get the bluetooth enabled version.

An Engine is just an air pump - PUMPS 101.

[BigBlockMopar]

Reciprocating piston engine concept been around a LONG time now, it fits the bill for the variable needs of cars, but still... it's ancient tech, and slamming something one way hard, then a microsecond later yanking it back the other way..well, I think we could do it better.

An engine is really just an air pump except it operates in reverse.

There are two kinds of pump. Positive displacement, and non-positive displacement.

A turbine engine - like a jet engine or a gas turbine - is not a positive displacement pump. As a result, not all of the expanding gases serve to drive the impeller (which eventually drives the wheels). Continuing the pump analogy, this would be equivalent to a centrifugal pump (think of centrifugal water pumps found in major appliances and "biscuit blowers" you can get for your computer) or a conventional axial fan (ship's propeller, cute little fan that keeps your computer's power supply from cooking).

A piston or vaned pump is positive displacement - the slip past the piston rings or vanes is minimal. A conventional reciprocating car engine is equivalent to a piston pump like you'd find in an air compressor, while a Wankel is more like a vaned pump like you'd find in industrial machinery and any place where you have to pump a fluid against a head (large rise). (My grey water toilet uses a Wolfcraft drill pump, which is a kind of vane pump.)

Gas turbines lose due to slip through the turbine. Also, I don't think most people are too keen on having super-hot exhaust gases. (One of the most recent turbine cars was the Chrysler Turbine car; it was an experimental car abandoned in the early 1960s because there was no way to make the gas mileage even remotely reasonable. There is precisely one still in operating condition, and I saw it driving on the show grounds at a car show - sounds like a vacuum cleaner! *HOT* blast as it drives slowly past.)

Wankel rotaries are beautiful, but by the time anyone had figured out how to make end seals for the rotors, emissions laws had demanded better control of combustion chamber shape. That was nearly impossible to do with a rotary motor, given that the combustion chamber's shape is dictated by the need to contact the end seals. I'd love to see how Mazda did it in the new RX-8.

Re:An Engine is just an air pump - PUMPS 101.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that the turbine car had mileage as low as 13, and as high as 24, and able to do 13 second quater miles, and 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.

That's probably not all that bad, for back then, with a car that was presumably run mostly on gasoline (lower energy content), since diesel wasn't extremely available... Not to mention being a gigantic four passenger steel monstrosity. Who knows how much the thing weighed.

Heck, most big blocks that could do that quater mile time certianly suck more gas than 13 mpg--whilst doing it, that is. My old 460 Ford got about 10, and the Back-aruda maybe got 13mpg with my driving habits.

I would say the mileage was right inline with what was available at the time, especially considering that it was an automatic, with torque converter, and all.

There was certianly room for improvement, I think. I don't see why a fuel efficient turbine car could not be made, the technology was pretty new back then.

I remember seeing one of the Chrysler turbine cars in my area. It did sound like a vacuum cleaner, but it was not loud. It just went down the street, whistling away, but I doubt the driver was stressing it any.

Re:An Engine is just an air pump - PUMPS 101.

[BigBlockMopar]

That's probably not all that bad, for back then, with a car that was presumably run mostly on gasoline (lower energy content), since diesel wasn't extremely available...

Completely on gasoline.

Not to mention being a gigantic four passenger steel monstrosity. Who knows how much the thing weighed.

Four-passenger is gigantic? Please. By your definition, therefore, a Civic Hybrid is gigantic.

How much did it weigh? 3,900 lbs, by a cursory Googling. About 700lbs more than a 2003 Honda Accord.

Heck, most big blocks that could do that quater mile time certianly suck more gas than 13 mpg--whilst doing it, that is. My old 460 Ford got about 10, and the Back-aruda maybe got 13mpg with my driving habits.

Gear ratios in the axle? Highway or city? You rebuilt the carb, or a professional carb builder?

I would say the mileage was right inline with what was available at the time, especially considering that it was an automatic, with torque converter, and all.

No, the power turbine (driven fan) was the torque converter. It did not have a conventional torque converter.

There was certianly room for improvement, I think. I don't see why a fuel efficient turbine car could not be made, the technology was pretty new back then.

Did you not read the article?

"Executive" Summary: Turbines are very efficient when they're operated continuously at wide open throttle. Car engines do not operate continuously at wide open throttle, because of such esoteric and irrelevent concerns as city traffic. You figure it out.

I remember seeing one of the Chrysler turbine cars in my area. It did sound like a vacuum cleaner, but it was not loud. It just went down the street, whistling away, but I doubt the driver was stressing it any.

I can't imagine seeing the one and only still-running Chrysler Turbine car anywhere but the grounds of a car show. And I certainly can't imagine an irreplacable and highly sought-after car, with an appraised value of over $2 million, driving around the streets of $BUTTFUCK_NOWHERE for you to see it as you walk into the $SUPERMARKET_CHAIN_IN_YOUR_AREA. The alternative, of course, is that you actually saw one of the original 50 of them driving around before the project was canned. Which I consider to be highly unlikely - there were a little over 2,000 DeLoreans made over each of the three years of production - about 8,000 total. How many DeLoreans do *you* see driving around the streets of $BUTTFUCK_NOWHERE? There are still more than two orders of magnitude more DeLoreans driving around than there *ever* were Chrysler Turbine cars.

So I think you're on crack. Or you're just an idiot. Take yer pick.

Re:An Engine is just an air pump - PUMPS 101.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, of course not. I did not see one recently..outside of WalMart, or in bumfuck nowhere.

I seen one in the early 1960s, in Denver, Colorado, if you need to know. I think I was about ten or twelve at the time, which would have made the year about 1962. I seen it on a couple occasions, going up Wadsworth Ave, and there was a blonde guy looking to be about twenty driving it. And I know for sure that our old Buick was a heck of a lot louder.

Really, I didn't know much about the car, except for some things I read AGES ago, so I just brushed up. You're right. No torque converter. My mistake. And it wasn't exactly the heaviest car, either. But it sure looked to be about as big as our Buick.

DeLoreans? I see 'em all the time. I seen four last month alone; I know one of the owners, the other was parked at a Fazolis (again on Wadsworth, in Arvada, CO), and was driven by two very greased up teenagers--it was their new project, come to find out.

Yet another one of them was at the junk yard with the engine tore out, the front missing, and the passenger compartment full junk parts about to be sent to the scrapper. It was _sad_ to see such a neat car in such bad shape, I'm sure Mr. DeLorean would have been heartbroken to see his creation used as a recycle bin. If it weren't in a state of such complete disrepair, I would have bought it and brought it back to life.

You'd probably be suprised at some of the cars that I see around here. Lotuses, Ferraris, Lamborghinis. I've seen all sorts of supercars flying down I-70 from Aspen, 'lo and behold that the drivers are fameous actors. Gee. Meat Loaf once cut me off in his Porsche. Only figured out it was him once I caught up to 'em. Dunno how he fit in that stupid little thing. Gave 'em the finger nonetheless.

biodiesel

[butane_bob2003]

Hybrids that use gasoline are __still using gasoline__. They don't even claim as good mileage as the Volkswagen diesels get. A small car running on biodiesel is a huge improvement over any of the gasoline hybrids currently available, in terms of dollars spent and environmental impact. Volkswagen claims their TDI engines can run any blend of biodiesel (b20-b100) without modification, and petroleum based diesel where biodiesel is not available. The Smart Car CDI engines should be able to run biodiesel, but I have not seen any mention of this. Smart Cars are not available in the US until 2006, but Canada and Mexico both import certain models. Smart cars are inexpensive and very fun to drive, and get probably the best mileage of any production car. Most diesels can run biodiesel without modification, it actually has better lubrication properties when compared to petroleum based diesels, without the need for added lubricants. see http://www.biodiesel.org/

It still matters

[Anonymous Coward]

We get the advertised mpg on our Honda Civic hybrid.

Why did we buy a hybrid? Because money talks. If buying a hybrid shows the automobile makers that people are willing to put money where their mouth is (alternate technology to dependency on oil), then it's worth it.

2WD leads to poor regeneration

[Animats]

The Honda Insight does have regenerative braking, but only on the front, driven, wheels. So it can't use regenerative braking very aggressively; the car would spin out. The friction brakes have to do most of the work.

The key to efficient driving is not to brake hard. Modern engines are relatively efficient in acceleration; you put fuel in, and you get kinetic energy out. All you get out of brakes is heat.

With 4WD, it might be different. More braking could be regenerative.

Small cars more efficient

[Ian Bicking]

If you really want an efficient car, a small car is the way to go. Things like the Smart car, I believe, have considerably better mileage than the current hybrids. It's unlikely that the complexity of a hybrid could make those cars any more efficient. Sure, not everyone can get by with a small car (or something a bit larger, like a Metro, which is also very efficient). But a lot of people could, especially if it's a second car for the household.

As a side benefit, small cars make the roads safer, and take up less space (which many people don't care about, but with tight street parking a small car is pretty sweet). And if you are really concerned about the environment, I suspect a small car has a lot less up-front environmental cost. I have a feeling a hybrid has significant costs above a typical gas car because of all the batteries (which are little bundles of toxicity, no doubt with many toxic byproducts during production).

Of course if you want real efficiency, a motorcycle beats them all.

Re:Small cars more efficient

[jgennick]

I tend to agree. My Geo Metro routinely gets 42MPG on trips. Hybrids don't claim to be enough better than that to really impress me.

Car & Driver got 121mpg out of an Insight!

[racer19]

Car & Driver got over 121MPG out of a Honda Insight.

thats settles it then

[bl8n8r]

I'm buying an H2.

Side note on the Neon

[jim_deane]

Side note: you should head over to www.neons.org, there are forums where you could post your car for sale. It sounds like you might have taken better care of it than the average driver, in which case some neons.org member may be interested.

Jim

And... [OT]

[Theaetetus]

... and it does cause permanent changes to the physiology and chemistry of the user's brain and spinal cord. Whether those changes are harmful or not has not been fully studied, but it is doing something.

Also, as parent pointed out, there is the ash - pot smokers do have a higher incidence of lung cancer than non-smokers. Nonetheless, it is a less-harmful drug than nearly all others out there (alcohol debatable - in small doses it seems to be highly beneficial).

-T

I wouldn't call 50 MPG "Bad"

[ibi]

My friend's 2004 Prius regularly gets 50 MPG or better. For a car with the interior room of a Camry and a zero to 60 of 10 secs, that's pretty excellent.

Plus we ran out of gas on a road trip and the battery carried us three miles to the next gas station - try that in a non-hybrid. (And yes, Toyota says you aren't supposed to do that...)

The Prius, btw, also has pretty excellent Bluetooth integration and the built in speaker phone is quite impressive.

How could a geek *not* like this car? lol...

Hybrids vs whatever

[gordguide]

I think the real issue is whether hybrids offer significant advantages over well-engineered conventional vehicles with regard to gas mileage (and indirectly, emissions).

Away from the hype, it does seem that there is still much work to do on the hybrids; Volkswagen Diesels come very close in EPA tests, do very good on road tests by people like Car & Driver, and users report great mileage (I know a few; they're happy). So, are hybrids the answer, or are the auto companies just getting people to pay for beta testing?

There are driving styles that promote and kill your mileage; but considering all the other issues over driving, period, I don't see much hope in converting anyone there. I see people every day who don't know how to make a left turn, let alone think about how they might want to apply power and preserve momentum on the road.

I do get good mileage on my vehicle, and it's not, by any means, the darling of the eco movement (I drive a 3/4 ton truck, and yes, I haul 1-2 thousand pounds of stuff in the box most of the time; yes, it's different stuff every day, and a great many miles are not on pavement).

City mileage is around 15 and I get better than 25 on the highway, with a large engine (using an undersized engine in a working truck uses more, not less, gas).

Basically with an automatic you maintain steady power up to speed, and predict traffic (look beyond the guy directly in front of you and coast rather than brake when you know you're going to have to slow/stop soon).

If I mention it to a passenger, they are usually pretty amazed at exactly how much time I spend in traffic with my foot completely off the accelerator; they are also amazed at how little you slow doing that; momentum is pretty high in a 6,000 pound (loaded) vehicle.

With a manual, I find it best to accelerate fairly quickly to your desired speed (ie faster than with an auto trans but smoothly on the throttle) and then shift to the highest gear you can run at that point. But whatever.

But few people will drive that way; for one it requires you leave a few car lengths between you and the next guy even in slower city traffic, and people are always trying to take that space in lane changes.

In other words, you let guys get in front of you, and not many drivers on the roads today can stand that, so they keep close and use the gas and brake a lot.

One question I have after reading about how the EPA test estimates mileage based on what is essentially an emissions test, and how the test is quite old, is this:

Does the EPA still test the highway portion at 55?

There is a huge difference in fuel efficiency between 55 and 65; the absolute most efficient speed a modern auto drives at (for fuel consumption) is somewhere between 50 and 55 MPH.

Since hybrids are, shall we say, high-speed challenged vehicles, it may well be that driving 70 or 75 is way out of their efficiency range compared to a conventional engine (at 70-75) that will do an honest 100 if asked.

So how do they REALLY compare?

[i love pineapples]

I was really excited about getting a Prius in a few months, but if it's going to eat up as much gas as a similar non-electric model, I won't bother. However, I'll still get one if they have a somewhat better mileage, even if they're not as high as the numbers advertised.

That being said, how much of an improvement are hybrids over conventional autos? Are the EPA ratings similarly unaccurate for regular cars, or just for the hybrids?

_no_ car lives up to it's EPA mileage claims

[lee n. field]

Remember the cynical geek-speek "your mileage may vary"? It comes from the observation that EPA mileage ratings have no necessarily close connection with reality.

('89 Chevy Caprice, consistant low 20s highway.)

Prius Method of Driving

[jpavel]

I have a 2002 Toyota Prius, and I consistently get above 50 mpg for both highway and city driving, which is a notch above the stated efficiency ratings. There are a number of factors that one needs to consider when reading a report like the one linked to:

1. The recommended PSI to which you inflate your tires has a lot of impact, perhaps 5-7 mpg, on the fuel efficiency, and Toyota recommends an inflation below what most efficiency-concerned Prius enthusiasts use.

2. One has to drive a hybrid differently than a normal car to get the best mileage. Almost counterintuitively, you have to accelerate quickly to get to your cruising speed, and then maintain that speed with very minor corrections. Or, in city driving with a lot of traffic, massage the accelerator so that you're mostly using the electric motor to start, and brake slowly so that the regenerative braking system can reclaim power, without needing the hydraulic brakes.
Someone who just sits in a hybrid without experience is going to get far worse mileage than a veteran driver.

Is your logic sound?

[jsimon12]

Huh? Are you doing the same math as the EPA? Yes diesel has more energy per gallon, it is cheaper, if used properly its cleaner and heck its safer too!!! So I will continue gloating.

As for MPG being misleading? Uh if I pay 1 dollar for a gallon of diesel and go farther then a gallon of gasoline, well you do the math cause last time I did I saved money which I can spend on solar panels (but that is something altogether differnt).

Re:Is your logic sound?

[pclminion]

Yes diesel has more energy per gallon, it is cheaper, if used properly its cleaner and heck its safer too!!!

This doesn't change the fact that a gallon of diesel burned emits more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline burned.

So I will continue gloating.

Please do. Your mileage is still impressive even when corrected to express it in terms of gasoline miles. I just said not to gloat quite so much :-)

As for MPG being misleading? Uh if I pay 1 dollar for a gallon of diesel and go farther then a gallon of gasoline, well you do the math

No, no, you are precisely right. Diesel will work out to be cheaper, at least in certain areas. But me personally, I'm not concerned with cheaper, I'm concerned with CO2 emissions. I haven't stated that diesel is either better or worse than gasoline, just that the MPG cannot be directly compared. When choosing a car I would base my decision on how much CO2 is emitted per gallon, without regard to whether one way is cheaper than the other.

But if you're only concerned with saving money, hell, diesel seems like a great idea.

Re:Is your logic sound?

[bpalmer]

Um, that's 100% incorrect. CO2 is much lower from diesel engines. NOx and particulates are higher, but CO2 is much lower.

Re:Is your logic sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 per gallon consumed is meaningless. CO2 per mile driven is much more meaningful.

Also, you are apparently not aware that you can get 20% more diesel than gasoline from a barrel of crude oil. This makes diesel vehicles 20% more efficient before you even start the engine.

And yes, I love my Jetta TDI (46.3 average lifetime MPG).

My Toyota Prius gets better than the rated mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

But it isn't free. You have to drive a little bit different than the way you otherwise would. Get up to speed fast so your electric booster kicks in. Once you are upto speed you have to maintain a constant velocity. Slow down by just taking your foot off the gas pedal and let the generator slow you down.

If you drive like a nimrod and slowly get up to speed, then constantly change speeds and hit your brake, and when you stop you just slam the brakes on each time, then you will get 60% of the rated mpg's. But these same nimrods would get bad gas milage in any car they drive. At least in the Prius they would still get better gas milage than they would otherwise, which is still a good thing.

no, it's the engine

[rmm4pi8]

electricity pays little attention to temperature, and while the chemical reaction in a battery could be highly temperature sensitive, it isnt.

the reason cars start harder when its cold is that the oil is thicker, and therefore the battery has to turn the engine over with more difficulty and for a longer period of time to get it up to starting speed.

what the warmer does is warm the engine oil, not the battery.

Re:no, it's the engine

[Rob Parkhill]

There are engine block heaters (to the Americans: no, not all cars in Canada are electric, that cord dangling from the front of our cars is the block heater cord), and then there are battery warmers. They are two seperate things. The battery warmer is basically an electric blanket you wrap around the battery.

At -270C (a somewhat chilly day here), the battery often needs some warming. Liquids turning to solid and all that.

I've never had a problem with a modern lead-acid battery getting too cold (in the last 10 years or so), but in my teens, my brother's car would not start on the coldest winter days unless the battery AND the block heater were warm.

Could have been due to it being a cheap, old, worn-out battery (anyone remember when you had to add distilled water to your battery every once in a while?) A $10 battery heater is cheaper than a new battery.

Re:no, it's the engine

[jafiwam]

Yeah, that's why resistors don't change resistance at different temperatures.

And also why there aren't dozens and dozens of models of car battery warmers for sale already!

[/sarcasm="off"]

You must live in a nice warm place, as I'll tell you that the outside temperature of a car has a lot to do with the power coming from a car battery.

Sure, engine resistance due to oil and part size and alternator reistance, etc. is part of it.

But the chemical reaction has an "activiation" energy (i.e. ambient heat) that's fixed; the lower the battery temp, the more energy is used for that activation, and the less available to send to the starter.

Re:no, it's the engine

[ColaMan]

while the chemical reaction in a battery could be highly temperature sensitive, it isnt.
Wrong.

Which is why starter batteries have a little number called "CCA" - Cold Crankng Amps? This is the amount of current it can supply at a certain voltage at -18 deg C. I can easily get 50% more than that figure when at room temperature with my battery tester.

The electrochemical reaction in pretty much any type of cell is limited by many factors, including temperature.

Re:no, it's the engine

[Jasin Natael]

At -270C (a somewhat chilly day here), the battery often needs some warming. Liquids turning to solid and all that.

That does sound a bit nippy. If I recall correctly, that's the ambient temperature of outer space... Even Canada doesn't get that cold very often! --Jasin Natael

Re:no, it's the engine

[Tweester]

E = E0 - (RT/ZF) ln Q

Batteries are sensitive to temperature.

(Nernst equation)

Re:no, it's the engine

[Firethorn]

while the chemical reaction in a battery could be highly temperature sensitive, it isnt

Here's a test for you:
1) Take some alkeline batteries for a flashlight.
2) Put them in the flashlight and observe the light level.
3) Remove batteries and place in freezer overnight
4) Remove batteries from freezer and replace in light
5) Turn on flashlight. Notice lower/no light is coming from flashlight.

Chemical reactions slow down in colder temperatures. It's just that lead-acid batteries for cars, especially in northern climates, are WAY overpowered, in order to deal with the cold (and to give them longer life). Cold cranking amps, it's what to check when you're buying a battery in the north.

Most warmers do warm the oil, but they keep the whole compartment a little warmer as well. Oil is the bigger problem first though.

I wouldn't want an electric when it hits -40 here. I'd use up the batteries just for the heater!

Re:no, it's the engine

[Anonymous Coward]

3.15 degrees above absolute zero, that really must be chilly!

Well, duh!

[AnswerIs42]

Think about it, Hybrids only use the electric motor up to 20mph. After that, it is a normal gas powered car. Also if you accellerate quickly, both motors are used.

The only time you get great millage is if your averaging 20mph with 30mph once and a while to keep the batteries charged up.

As for caculating the MPG. MPG is bassed on a set speed (55 highway and 30 City I beleive). So, they drive the car AT that speed. They are not factoring in any accerations or variances of speed. How? They use professional drivers that can keep the car going at 55mph till the gas tank is empty. And they don't start using gas in the tank till they hit 55mph (a fule vehicle keep the tank topped off till the speed is hit then they stop filling).

That is how 100% fule cars are done. As for these hybrids, I am not sure of the testing they do to caculate mph. It can't be a set speed.. because the electic part only goes to 20mph. So perhaps it is 20mph up to 55 and back down to 20..

NiMH batteries

[Veramocor]

The batteries can be recycled also.

They last longer then NiCd batteries.
Have higher energy densities.
No memory effect.
Plus they aren't toxic like NiCD

The big negative is that they discharge quickly.

Re:NiMH batteries

[karnal]

Actually, for the application in which we're talking about (electric motors) - the ability to discharge quickly is a plus....

or are you talking about self-discharge?

Of course, where your big negative came into my mind was in case of a short -- those puppies sure can get a wire smoking!

Re:NiMH batteries

[Dravik]

All geeks shoud know that electricity runs on the magic smoke in the wires. You should never ever let the magic smoke out. For those few doubters out there, just try letting the magic smoke out and see if your stuff keeps working.

Re:NiMH batteries

[karnal]

Just make sure you're not holding on to the NIMH battery(s) when you're trying to get the smoke out. You can cause burns.

Re:NiMH batteries

[Veramocor]

Talking about self-discharge which is quite high.

Well...

[PotatoHead]

It is a high mileage engine. Has been well taken care of, but it tends to ping on the lower octane fuel. It also performs a lot better in the low rpm, high drive gear condition I mentioned in my post.

Having owned several older cars, I find the octane does matter on the older engines just as much as it does for newer more expensive ones.

BTW, I do get about a 3-5 MPG mileage bump on the better fuel.

Diesel hybrid?

[JonTurner]

Everyone knows turbo diesels kick ass in terms of mileage, so let me ask the obvious question:

WHERE ARE THE TDI HYBRIDS?

Re:Diesel hybrid?

[haruchai]

A question best asked of Volkswagen.

Re:Diesel hybrid?

[miller701]

VW had a (nearly) 3L (3 liters/100 km) Lupo experimental car. It had a tiny (1 liter or smaller) TDI and hybrid electric system. I think I saw it on vwvortex a few years ago, but nothing since.

Re:Diesel hybrid?

[Mike Hicks]

Actually, the Lupo 3L gets that mileage without being a hybrid. Of course, the car is so lightweight, I wonder if trying to turn it into a hybrid would just make things worse ;-)

Re:Diesel hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: VW _has_ a 3L Lupo, which is actually available. Go check Volkswagens website. They had an experimental car with 2 people sitting behind each other, that was capable of burning less than 1 liter/100km - Diesel of course. They proved this last year, on an actual trip. Downside of this: it was a prototype, immensely expensive. Still immensely expensive when put in large scale production.

My Mercedes gets 33MPG HWY

[McSpew]

I live in the greater Phoenix area, and I get about 33MPG on the highway. My commute is about 80% HWY to work and about 50% HWY on the way home from work (I use an asymmetrical route thanks to traffic patterns). The net result is that I average about 27-28MPG overall (I use a fuel log program to calculate my mileage with every fill-up).

My car? A 2002 Mercedes C230K Sport Coupe. That's right--a luxury sporty car that's got almost 200 horsepower. The car weighs about 3300 pounds (about 500 pounds more than a Civic Hybrid and 400 more than a Prius). My mileage doesn't seem to change much when it gets hot out, either. I seem to get close to the same mileage, regardless of whether I'm using the air conditioner or running the car in "EC" (economy) mode (A/C compressor is off in EC mode).

Granted, when I first got the car, I drove like a madman with a leadfoot and got about 19MPG, but as I settled into the car and learned to drive it properly, I also learned how to maximize my fuel economy. Keep in mind that the HWY driving I do is on a freeway where the posted speed limit is 65 MPH, and the actual speed driven by traffic is usually 75 MPH, with speeds occasionally topping out over 80 MPH.

So if I can get 27-28 MPG overall in a fancy, high-ish-performance luxury car that's loaded to the gills with safety features, what's so great about getting 32 MPG in a hybrid? Granted, you're getting almost 38 MPG, and that's nice, but it's disappointing. I was planning to sell my Mercedes and get something more economical, but I'm not so certain that I'll actually save much money at this point. Yes, there is the fact that my car is supercharged, and as such, requires premium gas, while the hybrids almost certainly run standard 87 octane gas, but still, I'm disappointed in the numbers I'm seeing. I was surprised to discover that my wife's CR-V gets 20% worse mileage than my Mercedes (on my same commute), but now I'm not so surprised. Just disappointed.

Given that my commute is about 45 miles round-trip, I'd love to find something that sips gas at a more miserly rate than my Mercedes (and uses cheaper gas, to boot), but recent news (coupled with my own experience driving my wife's CR-V) makes me skeptical. I think at this point, I'd rather drive my fun car that's not as relatively uneconomical as I'd thought.

Re:My Mercedes gets 33MPG HWY

[ArsonSmith]

The only difference I see is that the Hybrid is very temperamental. Although the worst I have ever got has been the 37.4 and that is with a lot of AC and carrying 3 other people around town, by my self when weather is nice I get closer to 50MPG and average more like 45.

I do plan to trade my Civic in for an Accord Hybrid later this year. The Accord will be a performance sports care with a 240hp V6 and a 90hp electric Hybrid and still get 35+MPG.

I bought a Hybrid more to support the technology then to save on gas, although I do have quite a commute of 45 miles a day and the gas savings is nice, I think the technology needs to be available on all vehicles, of which I think it will be soon.

Re:My Mercedes gets 33MPG HWY

[igny]

My Audi A4 1.8T AWD automatic (yet another luxury car) gets ~18-20MPG in city traffic and ~27MPG on HWY using 87 octane gas. On average I get 24MPG in long term. The manual says to use 91 octane, but the guys at Audi dealership told me that 91 octane in Europe is ~87 in USA, and the premium gas does NOT give any extra MPG.

My 1992 Ford Escort consistently gives me 33MPG HWY, and when I drove cross country a few times, it gave me 36MPG! I have been using from 86(there is such gas in NM) to 88 octane gas on this car.

Some interesting fact: when I bought the Escort, its engine was black with dirt, oil and such. I had ~25MPG HWY at first. But when I cleaned the engine with high pressure watering (I recommend to use a station where they wash trucks, and do not turn the engine off when you wash it), and used [chemical] fuel injector cleaner, its mileage jumped to 35MPG HWY.

Compare to a regular Civic

[indros13]

The guy in the Wired story got just over 30mpg in his hybrid Civic. I have worse news for him. I drive a 1998 Civic EX and usually get just a touch under 30mpg. Which means he's getting at best a 10% boost in mileage for his hybrid car.

Not to mention, if you do the math on the gas savings, it takes nearly 150,000 miles of driving to make up the cost differential between the hybrid and conventional models of car, assuming that they get 50 and 30mpg respectively and that gas costs $2 a gallon (yay, USA).

It's worth a mention, though, that as far as the article is concerned, there doesn't seem to be much statistical data concerning lower mileage, only a few anecdotes. Consumer Reports (according to the article, not the posted story) apparently found hybrids to measure pretty close to their government rating.

I beat the EPA hwy figure in my regular commute

[Kernel Kludge]

Last I checked I was also getting 62.something lifetime mileage in our '02 commuting in Austin. (Hiya, neighbor.) 'Course I usually get between 68 and 76 commuting down Mopac every day, so it's been on the rise ever since we bought it. My best southbound was 80.3 and northbound was 83.4 mpg. The EPA rated the '02s at 61/68.

Re:I beat the EPA hwy figure in my regular commute

[Scorchio]

If you ever see a little red Insight zipping up and down Mopac, give us a wave! ;)

My experience with a Prius

[ksheff]

I rented a Prius a few weeks ago for a trip. The total mileage for the trip was a little over 1300 miles (interstate highway) and I averaged a little over 45mpg for the entire trip. This is 88% of what the EPA says that I should. It would have gotten even better mileage if I had driven 55 the entire way instead of 75 (and the stormy weather didn't help). Given the age of the EPA tests, I would guess that they use 55 or 60 for the highway speed. I didn't do much city driving, but when I did, it was on strictly battery power for a large portion of it.

Driving style has a great impact on what you actually get for mileage. Since the hybrids have a screen showing instaneous and current trip mpg, the driver is more aware of how your behavior affects it. Stomp on the throttle to get on an uphill expressway onramp, and sure, it will show that it's only doing 9mpg. The real question is: what would the driver get with a 'normal car' under the same circumstances? Unless more of them start shipping with a little computer that displays the same instaneous and current trip mpg, its difficult to determine how much better the hybrids are performing compared to regular cars.

After driving a Prius for that weekend, I just wish I had $20K to spend on one. It got 50% better mileage than my regular car, had more room, and more trunkspace.

Drafting ineffective

[aoteoroa]

I've tried drafting, too, as a method for saving gas and found no noticeable benefit. I believe one problem with this theory is that when you follow the car in front of you too closely you get stuck in accelerate ->decelerate -> accelerate ->decelerate.

The most effective method for saving gas for me is cruise control. I live out in the burbs with a 30km commute into town. About 2/3 of that distance is on the highway.

P.S. I had a '96 Saturn SL1 that got amazing highway economy too. ~9 litres per 100 kilometres.

Mitsubishi Eclipse Concept-E

[MachDelta]

Personally, I'm interested in hybrids but not for fuel efficiency reasons. I'd like to see auto makers combine the output from different energy sources into all-wheel acceleration of a normal car.

Have you seen the new Mitsubishi Eclipse concept car? Its a similiar V6 FWD powertrain from the 2000+ models, but they're looking at strapping a hybrid(ish) electric motor to the rear wheels to boost both performance and fuel economy. Mitsbishi is claiming a total of 470 "horsepower" for the car: 270 from the V6 (which seems overrated, considering the current Eclipses V6 only puts out 210hp/205lb-ft), and ~200hp from the electric motor. Personally i'd like to hear some torque specs on the electric motor instead of horsepower, but I can't find em anywhere. Anyways, the car is a bit outlandish (check out the groovy see-thru roof), and according to the rumour mill it won't ever make it into production, but its a pretty damn interesting concept nonetheless.

Myself though, I just wish Mitsu would ditch that overweight pile of junk they call a Grand Am - oops, I mean, Eclipse - and get back to the 1G/2G roots: AWD + Turbo'd 4G63 domination. It'll never happen, but I guess in the same vein i'll never forgive Mitsubishi for disgracing the DSM family. *Sigh*

low-cost alternative

[gstover]

If a hybrid gets gas mileage in the upper-30s or low-40s, it might be more cost-effective to buy a Geo metro or similar small, low-cost car. They get the same gas mileage, & they cost about 1/3 what a hybrid does.

gene

Transmissions & highway speeds

[Gigabit Switchman]

I own a 2003 Toyota Prius, so I thought I'd correct a misconception and make a comment. In the Prius, the electric motor *is* frequently used at highway speeds... the better-than-a-manual transmission design practically requires it, and it allows the car to trade unneeded engine torque for speed. For stop-and-go traffic, provided you're not driving binary (two speeds, stop and go), the ICE hardly ever starts (unless you've got the AC on.)

If you're an engineer, or can handle some gear ratios/math, do a google search for "prius transmission" - it's a damned nice design. Less than half the complexity of a typical automatic transmission, and more efficient than a manual transmission (though not by much.) Why? No clutch...indeed, no shifting! It varies the speed by varying the speed of the ICE between 1000 and 4500 RPM, and by varying the speed and sometimes the direction of the two electric motors. It's basically a standard planetary gear arrangement, with the small electric motor as the sun, the larger one driving the ring, and the ICE attached to the planetary carrier. The ring is also driving the wheels (through some gearing etc. as in regular gas vehicles.)

The Prius ECVT transmission is VERY different from previous CVT's. See discussion:
Prius ECVT discussion

If you want to be environmental friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you'll be getting a car period. Hybrid or otherwise.

If you're concerned you'll be on public transportation or self-propelled modes of transport.

These hybrids are just big geek projects.

Saturn SL

[Tristan7]

I was able to get ~30-31 mpg with my 2001 Saturn. I drive reasonably conservative, so I would be surprised that my driving would be so vastly different as to account for a 12 mpg difference.
I've been largely disappointed with the Saturn, as my mother's Passat drives much better, and gets ~36mpg

You clearly haven't driven a Prius.

[Dr. Zowie]

My Prius gets 41 MPG at 80MPH. It will also climb I-70 over the Rocky Mountains at the posted limit with no problem. It won't maintain 80 MPH all the way from Denver to the Eisenhower Tunnel (nearly a vertical mile), but it will maintain 70 MPH the whole way with no problem.

Incidentally, the point of a Prius is to give you the same mileage as a 1500 lb econobox, without the econobox's noise, flimsiness, or lack of features & comfort.

Re:You clearly haven't driven a Prius.

[JawzX]

Yes, I HAVE driven a Prius. maybe it's the ludite in me comming out (I also hate the new BMW 7) but its just a little too gizmo and gimick filled for my taste. I'd almost rather drive a stripped econo-can than have a power switch on the dash... Whatever happened to the hand crank starter damn it?!

conversions

[Anonymous Coward]

kilometres per mile = 1.60934
litres per gallon = 4.55

therefore:
9L == 9/4.55 == 1.98 gallons
100km == 100/1.60934 == 62 miles
62 miles/ 1.98 gallons == 31 miles per gallon.

Consumer Reports

[DrCode]

We used to subscribe, but I finally realized that I couldn't stand them, and couldn't put much trust in their recommendations. Among the things that annoyed me:

1. They always seemed to prefer big cars (which seemed strange, as they also seemed to be pretty left-wing politically).

2. They never indicated that computer users had any real choice other Windows. I'd have thought that a consumer magazine would have at least mentioned the existence of free software.

3. Their food ratings were really just a matter of taste, and they always seemed to prefer high-fat items.

My mental image of a CR writer is someone who drives to the anti-nuclear-plant rally in a super-size SUV while snacking on a triple-scoop Ben-and-Jerry's ice-cream-cone.

Alcohol and Tri-Fuel

[davekebab]

Yup the Brazilian sugarcane fuelled alcocars are still going strong but the latest innovation is the multi fuel car.

You can get a new Gasoline *and* Alcohol powered Fiat or VW or Chevy. Price for a Corsa 1.8 multifuel is $10,000 - just need to get that still up and running!

For another $500 you can get it to also accept Natual Gas.

Price per gallon at the pumps:

• Gasoline $2.28
• Alcohol $0.93
• Natual Gas (metre cubed)$0.26

Who needs electric when you can plant half the country in cane (and burn it off)

DK (in Sao Paulo)

my new 2004 civic hybrid

[watchd0g]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. According to the MPG display on my car, the average so far on the current tank of gas for about 250 miles of driving is 50.3 MPG. The average since I bought the car (~450 miles) is 48.3 MPG. These people that are complaining... how are they measuring their fuel economy? Could it be that the MPG display is inaccurate and you need to look at the amount that the pump at the gas station says and divide that by your trip odometer?

Also, how are these people driving? I don't floor my gas pedal, I drive 20% city / 80 % hwy and I typically drive 55 MPH.

Overall, I am very pleased with my new Honda civic, although I haven't had it for more than 3 weeks.

Corolla - same mileage, $6000 less.

[JonTurner]

>>the vehicles do get better gas mileage than standard automobiles
>31.5 isn't better than what one of the guys at work gets in his escort.

Dittos on that.
After 10,500 miles of driving, my 2004 Toyota Corolla LE is getting a consistent average 34mpg per tank in combined city+highway driving (30-mile commute to/from work, approximately 50% ~35mph +stop&go and 50% 70mph speeds, air conditioning on). I get 40+mpg on interstate-only driving.

Oh, and it cost at least $6000 less than the Prius.

>These cars are not hot rods, but they have plenty of power to climb hills at 65mph

Absolutely! The Corolla has 130hp. I wouldn't tow a ski boat with it, but that's plenty for a commuter car.

Re:Corolla - same mileage, $6000 less.

[elphkotm]

I had an automatic 2003 Toyota Corolla. I got about 35mpg on highway, 27mpg in the city on average. I had a 6 mile (one-way) commute to work, as well as a daily commute to somewhere (about 10 miles on average). The key to keeping the newer econoboxes with variable valve timing from using tons of gas is staying out of the range that the second set of camshafts kick in. The primary set of cam lobes that are active at what I believe to be less than 3500rpm on the Corolla are GREAT for gas mileage. The "high performance" cam lobes are designed to give the car good pulling power when accelerating, as well as give it a decent HP figure on the dyno (marketing). I'm a very aggressive driver, and this dropped my gas mileage to 25-28mpg, even on a 1.8L 130HP engine. I now have a 2000 Honda S2000, which serves me well at 21-22mpg even flooring it everywhere :).

I call bullshit!

[ttfkam]

I have a first generation Prius, 2001 model year. I constantly check mileage. I constantly get 45-52MPG averaged over the course of a fuel tank. If I'm constantly making short runs to the grocery store and it's cold, I'll see 38-42MPG. The only times I see 35MPG are when I've been going 85MPH on the highway for extended distances (although, it's usually closer to 40MPG), or when I'm going up long, moderate inclines.

Sure, if you gun the engine, try to accelerate to 75MPH as fast as you can, slam on the gas pedal after every stop sign, wait until the last minute to hit the brakes before coming to a light, you will get crappy gas mileage. Then again, if you do that in an SUV rated at 15MPG, you will get 7MPG.

News flash: When you drive aggressively, your mileage will suck.

I drove from Santa Cruz, CA (just north of Monterey) to Seattle, WA two summers ago. Straight shot up. 1,000 miles between the two points. Sometimes with traffic. Sometimes without. ~12 gallon tank. I filled up when I left Santa Cruz, I refuelled in Medford, OR, and I refuelled after I reached Seattle and checked into my hotel room. Granted, you should not do this. I should have topped the tank off more often instead of running it all of the way down, but that sure as shit doesn't work out to 35MPG.

And three years after I bought the car, it still performs the same.

I can't speak to the Civic though, and there's no way in hell that I'd trade my Prius in for a Civic.

Re:I call bullshit!

[z4ce]

38mpg is that impressive to me. I drive a six cylinder bmw 325i convertible, and I get 24mpg and I drive fast. I've done experiments where I baby the car (shift at low rpms, rolling stop, etc) and I can easily obtain 30mpg for a trip. I would think with batteries, a four cylinder, low hp or torque, low roll-resistant tires (I have high stick 235/40/17s) you could achieve some really impressive gas mileage (100+).

Hurray for 5th Gen Civics!!

[burbs]

I have a 1993 Honda Civic VX, and the motor in the, D15Z1, is phenemonal on fuel economy, and is one of the few Honda motors where the torque rating is higher than the horsepower rating.

A few years back, I was doing a cross-country drive with my car fully loaded with clothes and boxes, as well as my dog, with the air conditioner on, cruising at 75MPH on the Interstate, and I averaged 38MPG.

I still have the car, but I miss the fuel efficiency of that motor. I've swapped the engine and transmission over the past year since the car is being changed to an autocrossing vehicle.

It May Be How You Drive It

[guy99]

I have been driving my Toyota Prius for 27K miles and I have never gotten less than 43 mpg--and that was in the winter (mid-Atlantic version) when the average temp was below 30 degrees. Overall, I have averaged close to 48 mpg over many, many brutal bumper to bumper commutes. My last tank of gas got 52 mpg. You can drive the car like a nut or in hilly terrain and do much worse than my average experience. I'm not that careful a driver and still my mileage is just great.

1991 Honda CRX HF

[ForsakenRegex]

If you want good mileage, just buy a 13+ year old CRX HF. They get 50 miles to the gallon and you can pay cash after you save up for a month (probably a couple weeks for some of you). They also last forever if you take care of them.

Re: Generator

[hippycow]

The big savings I found for mine is as a standby generator.

This sounds insteresting, but somewhat suspect.

Could you provide a little more detail, such as how you got AC and the right voltage and how you avoid attempting to power the whole local grid? Do you have to first turn off all your breakers (or remove fuses)?

!@#$ it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... i'm sticking with my bicycle.

Depends on how you drive, I guess

[shrubsky]

I feel I can speak with some authority here since I bought a hybrid Civic very soon after they were available here in Atlanta, GA. I've gotten over 50mpg on every tank of gas since I bought the thing; right now it reads 53mpg. I think a lot of it has to do with how you drive. I am not an aggressive driver; I don't accelerate as quickly as I can and I stay in the second-from-the-right lane on the interstates. I've driven it 24,000 miles, mixed highway and city driving. I can't imagine how anyone can manage to get as poor a mileage as 35.

Hmm

[Pxtl]

I remember one odd discussion on the possibility of using some form of conventional (non-rechargeable) battery to power an electric car. Apparently there is some form of large scale battery that is very high in mass/energy efficiency and very cheap and clean to refurbish. The principle was that instead of gas stations you would be warehouses of batteries ready to load in new batteries and unload old ones. Unfortunately I don't remember what the technology was called.

Re:Hmm

[orasio]

Zinc Air??

Re:Hmm

[WalksOnDirt]

I've seen a similar proposal for an aluminum air "battery". An aluminum powder slurry was to be replaced, rathen than the whole battery (really more of a fuel cell).

This was maybe 30 years ago, and I've heard nothing since.

Passat TDI

[miller701]

Why not get the Passat TDI, long available in Europe, it's now available in the States (perhaps Canada too.)

Motor Trend also covered this

[DAtkins]

There was a Motor Trend article that talked about the flawed mileage issues and came up with some real world numbers of their own based upon their test results. They tested the 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid, the 2004 Toyota Prius, the 2004 Honda Insight, and the 2003 Toyota Prius.

Same with my 2001 SL

[SirAnodos]

I too have a Saturn 2001 SL, manual transmission (no automatic windows, no automatic locks, very very basic). I purchased it used (31,000 miles) one year ago at a Saturn dealer for $7500. It averages about 40-44 mpg on the highway and 32-34 mpg when doing lots of stop and go city driving. I have recorded every drop of gas I've ever put in this thing along with mileage, so I have pretty accurate mpg. I recently moved to the west coast, where gas is $2.25 locally. Since my other vehicle averages 16 mpg, I've started doing all my driving in the Saturn and this little baby is saving me quite a bit of $ at the moment. If a hybrid isn't going to do any better, why would I bother? Now, if they came out with a Ford Explorer that got 40 mpg, that would certainly tempt me. :-)

Emissions is the focus, not efficiency

[frdmfghtr]

(OK I may be redundant, but after 900+ commments, I'm bound to miss a few)

The focus of hybrids is not necessarily efficiency; it's EMISSIONS that, IMHO opinion, are the focus. Are there cars that get better mileage? Sure. A Geo can get better mileage than my car, but does it have the ride and comfort level? My 2003 Prius gets around 45-50 MPG in mixed driving (at a curb weight of about 2700 pounds mind you), with a recent tank pulling about 60MPG (570 miles and no matter what I did, I could only squeeze 9 gallons into the tank. Even tried a different pump).

The window sticker states 38-52 highway, and 44-60 city MPG. Driving conditions and habits are a MAJOR influence on driving habits. No technology can compensate for jackrabbit starting, long idling, speeding, or poor maintenance.

From the window sticker:
"Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits, and vehicle's condition. Results reported to EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 44 and 60 mpg in the city, and between 38 and 52 mpg on the highway."

Even hybrids idle the engine periodically, especially in winter. This is to keep the engine and catalytic converter warm, minimizing emissions. Yes, they will sacrifice a little gas to keep the components warm and operating at maximum emissions efficiency. The net emissions output is lower since all is kept warm vice allowing to cool an re-warming.

My Prius is rated at 45MPG highway, and I sure get that and then some. BUT...I shouldn't expect to get the same economy if I zip around at 75MPH as I do at 60 or 65MPH. I'm no EPA mileage expert, but I suspect that the test loop only has cars runnign at most 60MPH, windows closed, no A/C running, in other words, near optimal economy conditions. Anybody have better info?

Also, it needs to be known that short trips hurt the economy of ANY car, hybrid or not. Hybrids still take time to warm up, and during my car's 5-10 minute warm-up period the engine is always running, hurting efficiency.

In short: the EPA estimates are not gospel; hybrids do deliver efficiency, but focus on emissions at the first priority of the technology.

Prius

[McCrapDeluxe]

My family has a Prius. It is now getting 46 MPG-- not the claimed 55 MPG, but still quite good. EPA tests are under ideal conditions for all cars-- the lower fuel efficiency isn't a surprise, and shouldn't be to anyone.

Elatnra - same story.

[lindsayt]

Yeah, same story with my '04 Elantra GT. 138hp, ~35mpg on the highway, ~30mpg combined, and only $13,600. Oh, and it has leather.

Don't get me wrong, I think about how my friend with the Prius is environmentally conscious. I also genuinely like her car. But then I remember that my car is faster, accelerates better, has a leather interior, costs just over half as much, takes up far less space on the road and has more interior volume, and is still a ULEV (Ultra-low emissions vehicle). My gas mileage is not quite as good - she gets about 39-40mpg - but my car pollutes as little per mile as hers, so I feel pretty environmentally conscious too.

Of course, my car was probably built by laborers working for $.05/hour on an assembly line in South Korea so I probably shouldn't feel globally conscious...

camaro z28 ss

[bobsalt]

my camaro gets 28 MPG on the interstate....imagine my suprise when I bought a WRX subbie, it gets 25 MPH on highway..my v8 327hp camaro gets better mileage than the 4 banger(on the highway)

but the camaro only gets about 12 MPG in town -lol

Hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive a Jeep.
I would prefer a car that uses ZERO fossil fuel.
Until I can buy a decent one of those, I will continue to drive my SUV in style and comfort.

Get on it, Detroit!

I own a 2004 Prius

[Mr_Huber]

And I can say that the mileage, while not at the sticker level, is very good. For the last two months, I've been averageing 53 MPG. That is measured both by the onboard computer and hand calculations based on gallons of gas input and miles traveled. With the arrival of 100 degree weather here in Tucson, mileage has dropped to 50 MPG.

Another Case of Press BS!

[T_O_M]

Sorry folks but, once more, FUD is being spread by those having interests in seeing hybrid technology fail are squatting and grunting out "their" side of the story.
I have owned a 2001, 2003 and now a 2004 Toyota Prius - ALL of which met AND exceeded EPA highway estimates once they were thoroughly and properly broken in - about 6,000 to 7,000 miles.
Yes, in the winter with its colder, denser air, Prius is going to try like hell to give you 45 MPG at REASONABLE speeds. At 75 MPH and above I regularly saw 38 to 43 MPG. In the summer with its less dense air, I have seen 55 MPH at speed and as much as 63 MPH over a 50+ mile trip at 60 MPH.
Note 1: The EPA test is "driven" indoors, on a "rolling road" and does NOT represent reality. Google for the recent big stink about the validity of EPA estimates. Note 2: There is no such place as EPA "city"; you'd be hard pressed to recreate EPA "city" MPG on a bicycle! NOTE 3: Drive like the typical journalcritter: underinflated tires, with the AC on (or in Defrost which runs the AC constantly) or at high speeds with the windows down and MPG will suffer in ANY car.
Only time and miles will tell what my 04 will bless me with cause I'm 2 weeks into the original tank of gas and showing 47 MPG for mixed local and 75 MPH highway driving. Check back in another 6,000 miles for an update.
Finally - I wish the world would wake up and get off the MPG kick; Prius is ALL about it's lack of emissions. As a father of 2 boys with two grandsons, I'm concerned that there will be enough fresh air to carry them the rest of their lives. My Prius simply doesn't pollute enough to worry about! Here in the coal power-plant east, my 04 is actually cleaner than a grid-charged pure EV!
Now - I'd love to see an article "outing" GM's outright lies about their Silverado baby-killer non-"hybrid". The Old Man

Re: Generator

[Rich0]

Normally you need a swich on your mains in cases like this to avoid powering the local grid. I imagine that most breakers probably have a main switch which would do that job.

He apparently was running his house off of a generator before, so he was probably already wired up in that respect.

My father has a similar setup at home (just a regular gas generator though). He just flips a swich and has a heavy-duty power line to plug the whole house into a generator.

Doesn't match my experience

[Evert L. Pipkin]

I can't imagine what these people are doing to their cars that they're only getting 35 mpg. I average 43 in a 2002 Prius, which was EPA rated for 45/52, lower than the 2004's 51/60. So it is lower than the EPA ratings, but not nearly as bad as described in the article. And I usually go 75 mph on the freeway; the mileage goes way up if traffic forces me slower. I easily get 60 mpg if I'm going 35 mph in heavy traffic.

the Rosen bros....

[zogger]

..., guys from Compaq , got closer with their car, the turbine/electric/flywheel deal they tried a few years ago. I never followed it, I guess they stopped working on it after *some* initial successes, and some disappointments.

A friend of mine had a suzuki RE5 liquid cooled wankel engine way back in the day, quite a radical bike for the era, it sounded pretty spiffy, different, but nice. Ran fast, too.

Re:the Rosen bros....

[iminplaya]

Mazda put a Wankel into their pickups for a couple of years, and I got my hands on one. The thing went like a raped ape. It was FAST! But got horrible mileage. (between 15 and 18). At that time (1974), the apex seal problem was resolved. The engine mixes oil into the gas at the carb. The big problem was the rubber(!) o-rings(you'd think NASA would've learned from them on this) used between the housings (you may want to look at a cut away view to see what I'm talking about.) They would break down from age and let all the coolant into the combustion chamber. The seals would last about 8 or 9 years if you drove it one mile or a million miles. Big bummer considering the engine itself would probably last a milloin miles. Ever hear one without a muffler? These suckers are LOUD! I put a set of headers on mine and then drove down to Midas to weld the rest of the exhaust hardware. Inside the truck was deafening. Outside? Well, the kids were all covering their ears. Funny as hell. Well, obviously, the first cop I past stopped me, and I immediately told him I was on my way to the muffler shop. So, he let me off. No problem. But whenever I spun the engine above 1200 rpm, I thought the whole thing was coming apart like the "one hoss shay"(?). It was that bad. I miss my truck :-( I saw those Suzuki bikes. Too bad they made 'em so butt ugly. One of my dad's friends had a couple of Arctic Cat snowmobiles with Wankels in them. I believe there are Wankel diesels out in the wild somewhere. I'd love to see one of those.

Problem solved

[Chep]

The Peugeot FAP, initially mounted on the 607 and now trickling down to the 407 and, I think, some of the higher-end 307's, solves both the soot and the emptying. The soot, because it's a catalytic filter. The emptying, because every while and then, the engine runs a slightly different map, which causes the exhaust temperature to rise, and the soot to consume (into CO2, mostly).

Mercedes is now starting to mount similar stuff; I'd be surprised if it didn't originally come from Bosch (just as most first-gen high pressure common rails).

Correct - Low Sulfur diesel avail. in US in 2006

[Dragonfly]

California's passenger car diesel fuel is low(er) sulfer, but not as low as Euro diesel or the new standard.

In Europe, VW sells a diesel Passat that uses a baffled particulate filter to trap the soot-causing particles that are the part of diesel exhaust that is dirtier than gasoline emissions. When the filter gets full or particulate matter, an electrical heating element heats the filter to several thousand degrees C to burn off the particulate matter.

A modern direct-injection diesel engine with a particulate filter is a much better solution than a hybrid, IHMO. Simpler, more powerful, more fuel-efficient, and just as clean.

Correction (and then some)

[TamMan2000]

I posted this above so not all of the contained info is relavent...

Also the difference in compression ratios is only about 100-200%

Mercedes Diesels

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to stick with Mercedes but get even better mileage, consider a diesel. My 300TD gets about 26 to 29mpg. I can get the better figure when I'm not 'leadfooting'. In a TD (about 125 hp or so), this is going about 65-70 mph or about 3k rpm. I believe I get the better mileage at a lower speed (50mph) because of less wind resistance and lower rpm.

Gas is usually at least as cheap as regular although recently it's been about .10 cents below regular. Not bad.

I've heard the newer Mercedes diesels get 40-45mpg, quite good for a fairly large car, although not quite as good as the VW jettas and golfs.

The main thing about the diesel is the difficulty starting in cold temps (below 0F) but this doesn't seem to be an issue in your locale.

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[metamatic]

Yeah, we got >70mpg in San Francisco, and over 50mpg on the highways, driving a rented first generation Prius for a week.

Yabba Dabba Doo

[stress4dad]

You forgot Point 0: Wear rubber soled shoes instead of going barefoot when you stick your feet through the hole in the floorboard to get yourself moving. (Learned from watching Fred Flinstone get off the block a few times).

Seriously, why would anyone put up with having to do all this? Run the AC only when necessary...uh, right, that would be ALL the time the temperature is above the mid 80s, or anytime my wife is in the car and has her hair fixed up.

Re:Try the Ford Focus PZEV - Practically Zero Emis

[Dare nMc]

I think the prevailing point of the anti hybrids hype, here is true.

almost 0 emissions = FALSE
better for the environment = FALSE
better for your local environment = TRUE
(assuming you don't live in detroit/japan/china) wherever the steal/batteries/etc is manfg)

I claim this cause the cost of the car is related to how much energy/resources/etc is used to build the car.

With profit margins the lowest, or negative on Hybrid cars, they are probably worse for the environment than equivilent cars, today.

I do disagree with higher maintnance arguments. most of the componets (except possibly batteries) should live longer cheaper, etc, etc.

it is definitly much easier to build a engine that will live forever if it doesn't have to produce a wide varying torque range. it will last longer run more efficient, and be lighter duty.

all the other electric componets have a huge amount of experience in worse environmets (factories, fork lifts, golf carts, etc, etc) that they should be able to handle that design straight away.

in general probably the cheapest form of transportation is better for the total environment.
(but not necessary local environment)

Bingo!

[zeet]

I drive a 1995 VW Passat, with the VR6 and a manual transmission.

The EPA mileage for this car is 19 City, 25 Highway. I just ran through a tank that was 80% highway and averaged 27.7 MPG. The highway segments averaged 30.2 MPG. The worst tank I have ever gotten, with air conditioning, stop and go traffic (bridge construction locally) and all city driving was still 19.6 MPG. I do have a little fun and have been known to take jackrabbit starts, but I know that hurts my mileage because I can see it! You can't tell me that these folks are driving sanely - I drive the posted speed on the highway, 5 over in the city. I turn my car off whenever it's going to idle for more than 15 seconds. So far it's got 152k on it and I'm still using the original starter, and the second battery, so I don't think it's doing untold damage to anything.

I'm amazed anyone can idle their car when gas is $2.50/gallon! It's a total waste.

Diff between hybrids

[d0st03vsky]

One issue not brought up in the article, or any of the comment's I've sorted through, is that there are several different approaches to making a hybrid, and that will affect city vs. highway mileage and their ratios. The best known is the approach of the Prius, which uses an electric motor all the time, and a gasoline assist. This is a good (but from what I hear extremely complicated) approach. The Honda Insight (and I believe the Civic hybrid, but I could be wrong) has a gas engine as the main source, with an electric assist. So obviously in a city-driving comparison, the Prius is going to look better, since the Insight has its gas engine on all the time. (Unless it's at a complete stop, when the engine hibernates.) And my 2000 Insight with 25K miles is averaging 58MPG. :)

Prius Meets it's estimates

[rstovall]

I've owned and driven a 2004 Toyota Prius for 3 months now, and am currently in the middle of a trip from Kansas City to North Carolina, loaded with 4 people and a couple of weeks of clothes, across the Blue Ridge Mountains at 75 miles per hour. So far, it's averaged over 48 miles per gallon under these conditions up and down mountains and all. During my normal commutes at home (60 miles each day) it averages 53 to 55 mpg on each tank of gas.

The 2004 Prius does what it claims, at least in my experience (7500 miles so far). The Honda hybrids are a clearly inferior design, and it's not surprising that the Civics are failing to meet their EPA numbers. The newer Prius, however, is quite another story.

Re:Try the Ford Focus PZEV - Practically Zero Emis

[Dare nMc]

Don't forget the roads. I heard specifically in california it was more than $2 per mile driven, in cost to build and maintain the road over the life of the road. Even when divided by the number of car miles drivin on it in it's life. How much of that is due to the price of the land bought for the project, would that make CA more costly than say the salty roads of the midwest?

So your other tax's still paid $2 per mile for you to drive that hybrid, you only reduced your gas cost by $0.05 something less than a 2% reduction in the incremental cost of driving the car.

Also the other interesting thing, (local environment argument only) was that with the amount of older cars around. That newer car systems (after using a Air filter, then burning it , then catalizing it...) exhaust cleaner air than they intake. so if you stop your prius in rush hour traffic, and you engine shuts off, you are doing less to clean the air, than the guy who paid $5000 less for that same model year standard car, still running in front of you.

Hybrid vs. Traditional MPG Results

[Brackney]

And does anyone actually think that traditional vehicles actually get the fuel economy advertised on the sticker? How many people drive traditionally powered cars that make fuel economy as visible and obvious as the Prius? How many people rigorously compute their fuel economy at each fill up? Methinks if more vehicles actively reported their instantaneous and average fuel economy there would be lots of pissed off people driving "regular" cars as well. The bottom line? Fuel economy is CLOSELY tied to how the car is used. You can get really great fuel economy with an HEV or "crummy" fuel economy. And I use the word crummy very loosely since bad HEV economy is still much better than most contemporary alternatives.

Disclaimer - I'm a very satisfied 2002 Prius owner who sometimes gets awesome mileage and sometimes not - it depends on how I'm using the vehicle during a fill up. I track fuel economy on my webpage if anyone cares to see how much variability you get based on the drive cycle.

Re:Hybrid vs. Traditional MPG Results

[TheAwfulTruth]

Actally I do and on my conventional car the the highway milage is way above the EPA rating and on my city driving it varies from slightly below (100% 1 mile/10 traffic light trips) to well above (50/50 that and 5 mile trips onthe freeway).

I think the REAL lesson here is that driving methods affect fuel millage more than anyone probably thought, on ANY kind of vehicle. Try driving your regular car like everyone is saying you have to drive your hybred, I guarantee you you will see a signifigant improvement in your milage on your "HEV" as well.

Not necessarily

[ttfkam]

The Prius has batteries, four cylinders, medium torque for a car its size, and low roll-resistance tires. I think that 100MPG+ is a bit overly optimistic. Could it be done? Sure, but you'd end up with a car that has trouble carrying five adults or anything heavy in the trunk.

The Honda Insight was in that model. It only(!) got about 60-70MPG though. And it is a two-seater, three-cylinder, no trunk space, horrible acoustic, commuter vehicle.

"Five year" myth & actual Insight mileage.

[Elroy Jetson]

As a Honda Insight owner, I'm betting the "five year" battery life myth comes from length of warranty. It certainly doesn't come from the service department, sales reps, or owners manual. My owners manual's maintenance schedule for severe conditions (constant stop-n-go driving, 5 miles/trip, extreeme temps, etc.) says NOTHING about any maintenance to the 144V system what-so-ever for the first 10 years/120,000 miles.

I was averaging 59.4 lifetime mpg over 25,882 miles in a 2001 CVT Insight rated at "only" 57mpg city and 56mpg highway (yes, it's rated higher in the city). Unfortunately, on April 27th, some moron in a John Conti delivery truck slammed into my Insight while I was stopped in traffic, pushing me halfway under the F-250 in front of me.

2001 Insight #002205, R.I.P.

Re:"Five year" myth & actual Insight mileage.

[nilepoc]

I have the honda Civic hybrid, and have been told its a eight year warrantee.

My current mileage is 43.9 for the lifetime of the car. Thats over 18000 miles (minus the 1000 miles that my wife accidently cleared out of the trip odometer).

for free

[Anonymous Coward]

Pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics ("Young lady, on this highway..."). Whack yourself on the head with a Heinlein novel and you will be disabused of this notion.

The straight dope from a hybrid owner

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a lot of misinformation in this thread, so let me chip
in with what I have learned from driving a hybrid (Toyota
Prius) for the last three years. First, my car varies
greatly in its mileage depending on how you drive. I am sure
the mileage figures people have posted here for their
non-hybrids are not for short (1-2 miles) trips: all cars
get horrible mileage on short trips, and hybrids are no
exception. This is because internal combustion engines are
not efficient until they reach their operating
temperature. For all cars, this is made worse in cold
weather. Hybrids take a double hit in efficiency in cold
weather, because their batteries are also less efficient
when cold. On extremely cold days (below -10F or so) the
Prius won't even use the electric motor until the batteries
warm up some. Also, the Prius sometimes starts up the ICE
just to keep it or the batteries at optimal temperature, so
mileage is noticeably affected in the winter (especially for
those short trips). That said, the worst average winter
mileage I have gotten is around 35mpg. This is taking trips
which are barely long enough to warm up the system in very
cold weather. For trips which are long enough so the engine
is warm most of the way, the most important factor is
speed. If you think about it, a hybrid system is designed to
take the momentum built up by burning gas, and store it in
the batterys when you slow down. In a non-hybrid, this
momentum is lost as heat when you use the brakes. This only
one way to lose the energy in your momentum: there is also
wind resistance and rolling resistance, neither of which can
be recaptured by the hybrid system. With the Prius, at
speeds over approximately 60mph, you start to lose effiency
from the wind resistance. At 55mph, I get about 55 mpg. At
70mph, this drops to about 45 mpg. Altogether, I am very
happy with the car, and its mileage claims are not
exaggerated if you take the factors I mentioned into
account.

Primer on the subject - I own one

[divemaster]

A lot of junk floating around here. First as you read these quick corrections may add balance.

Honda Insight - Best milage - a typical # is 55, Alum body, two seats made for great MPG 1st and foremost.

Honda Hybrid Civic - At 15k I get 42mpg on the DC beltway and downtown DC. I drive hard but watch mpg - brake for max regenration and get it in lean drive mode on the highway at 70-75 mph.
Steel Civic body means milage is less but I feel safer putting my kids in it. Pete, who googles some interesting background, seems to have an axe to grind - amazing Wired can't be bother to do the same. My Hybrid Civic did get in the high 30's in the first 5k miles but improved quickly. I do use A/C. Fed and State (MD) bennies paid about 1/2 of the cost difference. The downside is it's not as good as my previous 91 CRX HF 2 seater on gas but I had no choice with two kids & wife. Also has side airbags but no curtain bags - bad news when scooting next to all the 16mpg H2's. Finally I know eventually replacing the battery will steal anything I save on gas, but to put my money with a choice of something other then single driver giant battleship SUV's that everyone has in my area - maybe it will keep the fuel efficency in the automakers sights.

Prius - Also full sized. Better milage numbers the Honda Civic - but not then the Insight 2 seater. Very worth a look - futuristic with center display and wifi keys.

Diesels - Since they are burning cleaner now they may not have the sex appeal but are a good choice. The gas up inconvience they made be easily made up by not replacing batteries. Not sure how available or cost.

Anyway this guy has a JPEG of 900 miles on the A trip odimeter with the low 30's. If it was his first 900 maybe - otherwise he was really stomping it or has a defective car. Or an agenda.

Dave

Civic Hybrids...

[IllogicalStudent]

Saved me $$$. I was driving a Hynundai Accent (1998), small car, roughly 50L tank; filled up every 5 days or so at a cost of about CDN$30. About CDN$190 a month

Switched to a Civic Hybrid, do the same amount of driving, costs me just shy of CDN$100 a month for gas nowadays.

Of course, YMMV.

Who modded this up?

[ttfkam]

Emissions and mileage are two distinct things -- even for the EPA. When testing, they put gasoline in, they drive it for a given distance, and then they see how much gasoline is left. It has absolutely nothing to do with emissions.

Emissions are a separate designation. This is the LEV (Low Emissions Vehicle), ULEV (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle), and PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). Each is something like a factor of five of each other. For point of reference, the original Civic is a LEV, the hybrid Civic is a ULEV, the original Prius is a SULEV, and the new Prius is a PZEV. It is in these designations that the EPA depicts vehicle emissions.

They have nothing to do with mileage. The sticker on my 2001 Prius says something like 52/47MPG. And you know what? After calculating how far I go relative to how much gas I put in, that's about right.

Re:Who modded this up?

[nate1138]

Did you even RTFA.

Re: Consumer Reports

[ttfkam]

Consumer Reports tests cars closer to actual driving styles. The EPA tests to optimum efficiency driving styles. Therein lies the discrepency.

My 2004 Prius meets expectations

[CaptainTylor]

I've owned a 2004 Prius since February, and it got 53 MPG on the last tank - with about 1/3 city driving and 2/3 highway driving.

So since the EPA city rating is 60, and the highway rating is 51, 53-54mpg is exactly what I would expect to get.

I make a point of driving the lesser of 65 mph or the speed limit (yes, even if it's 35 mph), and I find it helps massively because of the reduced wind resistance. It also helps me avoid having to clean my upholstery when I see a cop on the side of the road and has made me a calmer and better driver overall.

Those in the know call it the "Prizac" effect. :)

Re:This is classic FUD. My Prius gets 40-50 MPG.

[ttfkam]

Hmmm... Miata: two door, two-seater (the rear of that car doesn't really count as an extra seat in my opinion) and gets 37MPG. Prius: four door, five-seater and gets 40-50MPG. (I get closer to 50 than 40, but whatever.)

Looks more efficient by design to me.

Re:Oh, guess what ...

[sadomikeyism]

I've talked to people I know who are Prius owners. They all say that if you got less than EPA milage with your old car, it's gonna be even worse with the hybrid: i.e. if you are a lead foot, the problem isn't your car, it's you. Stop treating your car like the Ferrari it's not, stop road raging, and chill the hell out. Life isn't going to go by any faster with you freaking out on it and your car.

The point of HEVs, like EVs, is to change your lifestyle. If you aren't willing and able, you might as well just enjoy racking up the bad karma with your SUV.

(Only car people will get this)

[NEOtaku17]

The only Civic Hybred I would be caught dead in is one with a B18C swapped in.

Hot European VW Lupo action

[Propaganda13]

Lupo Action

The VW Lupo has received awards for being the most fuel efficient car, and records like this just add to the fact. 101.6MPG while averaging 50MPH

Re:What's going to pass them?

[Bastian]

Let's look at this from a clean air standpoint, since that's the big reason for the push for different car fuel technologies.

Aside from biodiesel, which doesn't seem to be getting any attention from auto manufacturers, our options are HEV, electric, and fuel cell. When weighing the differences among these, the big thing you have to remember is that in all three cases, you're burning fossil fuels to generate the energy that drives your car. That's right - the electricity that runs your electric car has to be generated somewhere, and the electricity that is used to produce the hydrogen that is used in your car also has to be generated somewhere. (From this standpoint, a hydrogen fuel cell isn't an energy source in itself so much as a fancy kind of battery.)

So if we're going to be burning fossil fuels no matter what, it seems that the most important thing to do would be to pick the cleanest fossil fuel to burn. In the case of HEVs, we're burning gasoline. In the case of electric and fuel cell cars, we're getting the electricity from lots of sources, but far and away the biggest source is burning coal.

Last I checked, coal is a hell of a lot dirtier than gasoline, which, contrary to popular belief, is one of the cleaner fossil fuels we have, and probably will be for a long time.

With that in mind I ask if the fuel reformer / fuel cell combo is really cleaner, or is it just cleaner if you only need 10 feet of space surrounding your car to be cleaner and not all the air you breathe day to day.

Hybrids

[ThunderShorts]

The saying "your mileage may vary" applies here. I've talked to other hybrid owners who whine about how the mileage sucks on their car compared to MFG claims, yet I can get FAR better mileage driving their car. You cannot expect to drive these cars like normal, and get these mileage figures. The cars use regenerative braking... think about that. It means you must conserve momentum whereever possible, learn to anticipate hills where you will get good returns, and set yourself up for it well in advance. Leave a good cushion between other drivers, so you do not have to constantly accelerate and overbrake, taking losses all the while. I live in a mountainous terrain area of Maine, and I am averaging 57.5 MPG on my Civic Hybrid... and that's the CVT model! Learn how it works... experiment, and pay attentiuon to your instrumentation, and with just a smattering of understanding about physics... you can do the same. It is true that cold weather performance blows... truthfully, my mileage drops at least 10 MPG in the coldest months, but comes back as soon as it gets above freezing. Been 50 to 70 here lately, and like I said... 57+ MPG, two years running. Like anything else, it's how you use it!

Re:Hybrids

[Tteddo]

How did the EPA test it properly? There is no mention of them driving differently. That was asked above... Their results are on par with yours..

Motorcycle!

[slashdot-me]

Motorcycles are great! I have a 1999 Suzuki SV650.

$3500 purchase price (used with 8k miles).
$300/yr insurance (24 year old male with 2 tickets)
45 mpg at 80 mph (87 octane).
12.2 second quarter mile (similar to previous generation Dodge Viper).

The current model year SV650 is fuel injected. It is much faster (about 12.0) and gets better mileage too. Also, motorcycles can use the HOV lanes and don't pay bridge tolls during commute hours (at least in California).

The only area where cars surpass motorcycles is comfort and safety. However, the demographics of sportbikes are really skewed toward young males. Because of this, safety statistics overstate the risk increase any particular person will experience.

Re:no, it's both

[theycallmeB]

When you first start your car's engine, most of the oil is sitting at the bottom of the crankcase below the level of most moving parts. What little oil that always remains up near the piston rings and such will be more viscous, but it makes little difference.

However, the ion mobility (and thus peak current) are very strong functions of temperature. Specifically, the electorlyte density and viscosity increase, which increases the internal resistance of the battery significantly. And while lead-acid batteries have a almost constant no-load voltage for any temperature, the increase in resistance severly limits the current available to the starter. The normal resistance of a discharging battery is ~0.001 ohm, normal starting current for a medium car can be ~50-60 amps, any significant increase greatly reduces the effective voltage and current.

A block heater in the car's engine bay will help heat the whole bay, but mostly serves to reduce the wear and tear on the piston rings and bearing races that would otherwise occur while the cold oil heats up and gets sloshed around the inside of the engine. Since the oil is already warmed, it can get into the moving parts more quickly. Large engines (think ships) use oil heaters even on hot days to protect the rings and bearings
.

not true

[lingqi]

a gallon burned is a gallon burned, that i grant. however the emissions are not necessarily the same. mentally compare an old dodge truck that gets incomplete combustion and burns oil and gets 20mpg, versus a modern BMW with variable just-about-everything engine control that also gets 20mpg.

too many of you are confusing between environmentally harmful emissions (CO, NOx, HC chains) and CO2 emissions, indeed CO2 is considered a culprit for global warming, but you won't get rid of it for a few years yet until we all switch to hydrogen - but even then you are still shifting the CO2 emission points to the powerplants.

in any case, due to the highly regulated load of the hybrid gasoline engine, the operating parameters can be finely controlled so you achieve optimum combustion and therefore low emissions, while a directly gas-driven car must deal with different driving conditions, and the engine computer cannot always keep the emissions down.

so you might get the same milage, but no, your emissions are most definitely not going to be the same. i realize the money you spend on gas might be the same, but just because of that it does not translate to the same amount of harm to the environment.

same problem with diesel, by the way.

Re:not true

[gfxguy]

But if you're comparing apples to apples, say a 2004 Civic hybrid with a 2004 Civic DX, the emmisions are going to be quite comparable. The only reason the hybrid is a marked as an SULEV and a regular Civic a ULEV is because it's supposed to be burning less fuel to accomplish the same thing.

Your point is mistaken, at the moment

[ishmaelflood]

Let's see,

1) reformers are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are 80% efficient. Fuel cells are slow to react to changes in operating conditions, so in town they will have to use stored energy in a battery to cover accelerations etc. So, assuming a 50% round trip efficiency for energy into the batery and out again, your oh so efficient fuel cell car is down to .8*.8*.5=32% efficiency in some conditions. This is rather less than a decent turbo diesel, or even, say, the internal combustion engine in the Prius (36% at typical accelerations).

2) Waste heat from the fuel cell is at 80 degrees C, so the size of radiator will have to be about 40% greater than if the waste heat were at 100 degrees C, assuming an ambient of 25 degrees. This means the drag of the vehicle will be worse than you were expecting.

3) weight. Reformers, motor, battery pack and fuel cells altogether weigh rather rather more than an ICE.

4) packaging. I haven't seen a picture of a mobile reformer that is any smaller than the engine it replaces. The fuel cells are large plastic assemblies about 3 feet long, 4 inches thick, and 2 feet wide (by eye). They will not fit in a conventional engine bay.

Reforming is a duff technology. I agree that hybrids are an interim fix, but I don't think a reformer based solution is much better.

Not better than diesel, even today...

[SaDan]

From what I understand, diesel powered vehicles are still less costly and have a smaller impact on the environment than gas/electric hybrid cars.

Diesel powered cars get almost the same MPG figures as the hybrids (sometimes better, depending how you drive), and take less energy/resources to manufacture. They also tend to last longer, and will require less maintenance for the life of the vehicles.

And on top of all of that, diesel is usually significantly cheaper than gasoline (obviously this will depend on where you live). Right now diesel is around $1.75/gallon, vs 87 octane @ 1.99/gallon where I live.

My next car is going to be a VW Golf TDI.

I used to drive an '84 Chevrolet K5 Blazer, with the 6.2L V8 diesel (no turbo). With the automatic overdrive transmission, I could reach 30MPG on the highway, and generally got 20-22MPG with combined city/highway driving. Not bad for a full-size truck with 4x4.

Don't mess with the ignition timing!

[SaDan]

Unless you are absolutely certian of what you are doing. Also, most newer cars have the capability to readjust the timing on the fly, so even if you manually advance the timing, the computer will set it back to normal.

Advancing the timing too much will make your engine knock, and possibly run hotter. This can cause failure in your valves, and very possibly damage the pistons.

You can also negatively affect your emissions, which may cause problems during testing (if you have to do that sort of thing).

The best thing you can do for your car is get regular tune ups (check timing, replace spark plugs, keep filters clean/changed, use good synthetic oils, keep tires in good condition), and drive smart.

Just read the sibling post BOZO

[tommck]

Make sure you're right before you start flinging stones, glass houses boy.

too bad there isn't a "-1: Wrong" moderation option :)

YMMV

[shark72]

Real-world MPG that's lower than the EPA estimate is a feature of all cars. This is where the phrase "your mileage may vary" -- comes from -- those car ads which are legally required to disclaim the EPA estimate. A common variant nowadays in car ads is "your mileage may vary, and will probably be less."

A quick Google on "your mileage may vary" is all it takes to show that this is a pervasive catch phrase in modern colloquial English. I'm not sure why everybody is so surprised when a car's mileage actually varies.

old vw, new tdi

[wahsapa]

vw's new tdi gets 40 mpg with 150+ lb-ft of torque @ 2000 rpm, im definately looking into swapping the newer tdi into an older rabbit/golf for very fuel effiecnt car

Re: My Insight 2000, rated at 70 mpg, lt 4 l/100km

[KnightStalker]

Isn't it interesting that time and distance are inverted?

I was just pondering that the other day. Do you think there might be a cognitive effect from stressing distance traveled rather than fuel consumed? One that affects, say, someone's decision to drive or walk, or what kind of car to buy? :-)

My 2004 Prius gets 49 MPG

[Noseghoul]

Typically I'm getting 48 to 49.5 MPG per tank. To get this I need to stick the the freeway speeds and not cruise above 65 MPH. I'm very happy with this performance.

Normally I'm gentle on the gas but for one or two tanks I've tried deliberately accelerated hard from most starts. At most this only dropped my efficiency by about 1 MPG.

A colleague at work also has the 2004 Prius but is only getting about 43 MPG. I think that the difference in elevation between his home and work is killing his efficiency.

I did a quick back-of-the-envelope on the batteries. The NiMH cells are 6.6 A-Hr at 201.6 V total, which is 1.33 kW-Hr. The car weighs 2890 lbs or 1,300 kg. The Prius charge control typically only cycles the batteries up or down by about 25% from the 75% capacity set point (if I can believe the battery level indicator). This means that the battery will typically only store enough energy to deal with an altitude change of about 92 metres, or 300 feet. Go outside this limit and you're outside the regenerative capacity of the system to "level out" the road.

I guess the moral here is that the Prius is well optimized for typical driving. Hard acceleration doesn't seem to be a problem, but driving above 65 MPH or long climbs will knock the efficiency down fairly quickly.

A solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy a BMW.

If you can't afford one, then please get off the road and make my commute a little quicker.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[blitziod]

you forgot the best option...smaller vehicles. Decreasing the size of cars and using conventional power is cheaper AND gets better MPG. Single driver vehicles( scooters, motorcycles) get better MPG than hybrids. Why drive a 5 person car to work alone?

Wrong

[Orne]

What the world is running out of is economical, pre-pressurized deposits that ooze oil just by digging a little below the surface. There will always be oil deposits, the question is at what cost.

But that's ok, we know we're not running out of oil anyways. And if we don't conserve any oil and don't make a single machine more efficient in the next 50 years, when we run out of the stuff in the ground, we can always just recycle ourselves some more.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[Vexar]

I wouldn't mind a discussion on the evasive "clean coal" technologies. In the US, when a gallon is peaking now at $2.00 in the Midwest, you better believe people are vainly hoping to get better fuel economy, saving money. If that's not the result, then there really is no advantage with an HEV over say a Dodge Colt, Pontiac Firefly/ Geo Metro (my Canadian friend swears it was called the Firefly and went by the Pontiac badge), or even a decent TurboDiesel.

Trains?

[newhoggy]

I was wondering ... isn't the most ideal application for regenerative braking to use them in trains? Electric powered trains are permanently connected to the grid and they can return power to the grid, by-passing the need for batteries altogether.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

You've got a very well reasoned argument. However, the one thing you may have neglected is the more noxious byproducts of burning gasoline. If it were perfectly combusted, things would be fine, but that never happens. Unburned hydrocarbons and NOx make their way out of the tailpipe in addition to CO2 and water vapor. Unburned hydrocarbons are particularly nasty when it comes to breathing.

You mention coal as being dirty. By all rights it is dirty, but your average power plant has an ungodly scrubber in place that can make the emissions from such a plant seem like a fragrant breeze compared to what's coming out of your average SUV tailpipe. Coal is plentiful and, when viewed in this context, provides cheap, relatively clean power.

I'm a big fan of the fuel cell concept, which you correctly identify as just a fancy kind of battery. I'd like it if these "batteries" were recharged with nuclear power plants, but that's unlikely to happen anywhere in the near future. The optimal solution would be for someone to build a solar power farm about the size of the entire southern California desert, and to pipe that power wherever it's needed. Or put solar stations on the moon and microwave the power here. Or put solar stations on Mercury to generate quantities of antimatter for shipment back to Earth. Admittedly, that's way-out-there thinking, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't do it in the next 100 years, leaving Earth essentially emissions-free when it comes to power generation.

Hopelessly out of date

[Anonymous Coward]

You apparently haven't seen any modern diesels.. The technology has been advancing rapidly...

See the new 2005 diesel sedan that Mercedes brought recently brought to the US (I don't know about its availability in the UK but I imagine diesels are more likely to show up there than here!)... A mid-size car (unlike the tiny Jetta, too small for me to fit in personally!) that gets nearly 40 mpg on the highway and has a 0 to 60 time of under 7 seconds! No smoke, very little noise. Maybe you have seen them and just never knew it!

Hell, even an old diesel shouldn't smoke much when tuned properly - my 1981 diesel Mercedes doesn't smoke at all even under hard acceleration at full throttle (they are noisy, however, and the 16 second 0-60 time isn't great but it's certainly acceptable). The problem seems to be that as these cars age they get far out of spec if not kept up properly, resulting in some pretty bad smoke.

Actual Numbers, Actual Owner

[Scot Seese]

You guys are all hitting the crack pipe.

I drove my 2002 Prius exactly 300 miles door-to-door from Canton Ohio to South Bend Indiana this past Monday with the cruise control set at 72 MPH and the A/C on the entire trip. My fuel economy, as reported to me right on the center console? 47.1 MPG.

I *ROUTINELY* get 49-52 MPG around town. ROUTINELY. These are NOT inflated sticker numbers. This is NOT granny driving. I briskly accellerate to 5 MPH over the posted limit and set the cruise control, even in town at speeds 30 MPH+. Doing this WILL deliver those window sticker numbers.

Nosir. The people posting "My XYZ car gets 44 MPG on the highway" are missing the point. Great. My car would do that with 3 passengers, 200 pounds of luggage and the heater running. What your XYZ car does NOT do:

-50+ MPG CITY.
-Shut the engine off at stops or very low forward speed

Hybrids are the perfect stop gap until practical hydrogen arrives.

My mileage doesn't vary.

Re:Actual Numbers, Actual Owner

[h311sp0n7]

I completely agree with you here. All this negativity from these people is absurd. Honestly, the Prius delivers what it says to deliver. It may not get 61mpg everytime you drive it and it sure doesn't get that all the time but it is within an acceptable 40-53 mpg range all the time.
My girlfriend bought her Prius last June and it has delivered to the letter. We have saved a ton of money regardless of the season.
These people not impressed with the Prius or the Honda Hybrid need to re-evaluated their driving habits and car maintenance skills. Foremost, you need to be buying second or first best gasoline. Not the 87 crap, the higher two. It may cost more but its much better for the engine. Secondly, re-evaluaute how you drive. Do you drive accelerate likes its a normal car? Do you ride people's asses in stop and go traffic continually riding the breaks? Are you carting around five passengers with tons of luggage? do you change the oil on time?
The Prius is a user friendly car and lives up to most of its advertisements. If you don't accelerate fast, roll instead of breaking all the time, make sure your tires are inflated, bring it in for service on-time, don't load it down, and don't feed it gas that includes ethanol and all that other mixed crap that hasn't been banned yet then you should be fine.
The goal of the Prius was to be fuel efficient and environmental friendly. I think it does both extremely well. Toyota has a winner here and I'm sorry to see that other car makers aren't on board like Toyoa.

More info.

[pavon]

As promised here are my numbers and sources. I couldn't find the backup with my original calculations or sources, so I redid them from scratch this evening. I even came up with about the same number as I remember from last time :)

How much bio-diesel is needed?
Worldwide gasoline consumption was 20 million barrels/day in 2001.
20,000,000 * 42 gallons/barrel * 365 days/year
= 307 billion gallons gasoline per year

Biodiesel has an energy content of about 35 MJ/liter while
Gasoline has an energy content of about 32 MJ/liter
so the amount of biodiesel needed to replace gasoline is:
307,000,000,000 gal gasoline / year * 32 gal gasoline / 35 gal biodiesal
= 280 billion gallons biodiesel per year

How much land will that take?
While different crops have different yields, rapeseed is a good example to look at because it is known to be feasable, can be grown in many climates, and has an above average yeild:
127 gal vegetable oil / acre rapeseed * 0.8 biodiesal/vegetable oil * 247 acres / km2
= 25100 gallons of biodiesel / km2

280,000,000,000 gal biodiesel / 25100 gallons of biodiesel / km2
= 11.2 million km2

For comparison:
42.0 million km2 : Land mass of Earth minus antartica, rivers and lakes
17.1 million km2 : size of Russia
9.6 million km2 : size of United States
13.6 million km2 : Land used for world crops in 2003? (couldn't find good info on this)

What about used vegetable oil?
In 2002 around 93 million metric tons of vegetable oil was produced.
93,000,000 tons * (1,000 kg/ton) / (0.9 kg/l veg oil) * 0.264 gallons / l
= 27 billion gallons of vegetable oil per year

Even if we were to recycle all of this into biodiesel it would only be enough to replace 10% of the world's gasoline use.

Conclusion
As I mentioned before, this is just a back of the envelope calculation, not a full study. There are several biodiesal sources with higher yeilds than rapeseed, but which are more particular about climate. A more thorough study would look at all of these and what amount of land is available for them. On the other hand this only looked at gasoline, which accounts for only a little over one quarter of refined petroleum products. I think worldwide diesel use is almost as high as gasoline.

Sources
Petro-oil Consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glan ce/petroleum.html
Biodiesel Yields: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
Fuel Energy Content: http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv. html
Crops Statistics: http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections
Vegeta ble Oil Stats: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/89 002/

If you see any obvious errors in this please let me know. I was getting tired toward the end and no-one has checked my arithmatic for stupid mistakes.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[newpath4com]

Perhaps combustion is what finished the dinosaurs...? A nitrogen-steam compression-expansion engine does no combusting whatsoever. The automakers know about my website. They ignore it apparently just as they do anything else that doesn't reek of BIG BUCKS worthy of their CEO's salary. Nitrogen or just plain air can be compressed by the weight of the automobile in turns, braking and acceleration. Compressors between the frame and the body, force-magnified by Leverage. Just do away with the springs and shock absorbers. Use the energy available from any moving 2-4,000 lb. vehicle to keep re-compressing the air or nitrogen, and use the engine to run a flash steam electric grid. It's all on my website: www.newpath4.com and www.newpath4.com/steamedheatengine.html . I didn't patent it because it was too important for Mankind for anyone to control. A backyard mechanic could convert a car now. Just pull the plugs & replace with injectors for the liquid nitrogen. Such an engine would run a lukewarm temperature at best as the nitrogen and steam temperatures cancel each other. So the entire cooling system can be trashed. No combustion? Let's see now. No coil, no starter, no battery, no shocks, no springs. www.newpath4.com/index.html#rocketscience if you all dare. Or keep buying the slop from Detroit. It's you all's dime, but your grandchildren have to eat cake.

Electrics have tons of torque!

[gshepherd]

Diesel tourque is hard to beat, even with electric tourque.

Electric vehicle motors have 100% torque available at stall and near-stall conditions. This is sometimes enough to break things like transmissions and drivelines in experimental vehicles. Facts

And in city driving 0-25 is an important number..

Agreed. There's a saying: horsepower sells engines, torque gets you there. I find the instant-on high-torque behavior of electric motors in both hybrids and pure EVs to make city driving rather fun.

PS

[pavon]

I forgot to mention this.

Last time I did the calculations, I remember getting a number that was somewhere between the landmass of the US and Russia, just like now. At the time I saw some sources that said that the amount of arable land mass of the earth was something like 10-14 million km2, which is about what I came up with. But now I don't know how much I trust those, and have been having a hard time finding good data on that, and also on how much of the arable land is already used for food. So the "entire arable land mass" claim may or may not be an exageration depending on ones definition of arable, and other factors but it is within the ballpark.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[Belly]

There is an additional point which should not be overlooked when considering the comparison of pollution due to electricity generation vs pollution due to use of gasoline:
Production and distribution of gasoline consumes a huge amount of electricity, which could be put to much better use. In electric vehicles, for example..
Coal may be dirtier than gasoline, but don't forget that at least there *are* clean ways to produce electricity. Use of gasoline still produces pollution, and on top of that eats up all that electricity getting it to the end user.

But what about temperature?

[boofums]

After reading multitudes of responses so far, I am surprised there has been no mention of temperature's impact on hybrid mpg. I am a Prius 2001 owner living on the California central coast which sees very moderate temperatures year round. I normally get only 47 mpg with mixed highway/city driving. An explanation I've heard from other Prius owners is to expect lower mileage in cooler temperatures (indeed southern CA drivers usually report better mpg than me). Until recently I haven't been able to personally confirm it because the temps just don't swing that much here, but a few weeks ago we had an unusual heat wave approaching 100 for a couple of days and my mileage jumped to 65-70mpg during the period. On one 20-minute city errand I managed to hit over 80mpg -- the only other time I'd done that is rolling downhill. This is with the AC off which most drivers wouldn't contemplate at those temps. This all promptly disappeared after the heat wave left. So where are the EPA tests conducted?

Re:What's going to pass them?

[An Ominous Cow Aired]

Coal *is* dirty... but power plants have HUGE filtration systems to clean the smoke up. Cars don't. So cars start out cleaner, but exh. don't get cleaned up much, while coal starts dirty but gets cleaned up a lot. I think I've heard that power plants are actually cleaner than internal combustion engines, for the amount of power produced. (I'm not sure when that was, could be modern engines are better...)

Re:What's going to pass them?

[horza]

Insightful?

When weighing the differences among these, the big thing you have to remember is that in all three cases, you're burning fossil fuels to generate the energy that drives your car. That's right - the electricity that runs your electric car has to be generated somewhere, and the electricity that is used to produce the hydrogen that is used in your car also has to be generated somewhere.

Generating electricity = burning fossil fuel? Not true. A small but rapidly growing portion is generated by renewable energy, including solar, wind and tidal.

So if we're going to be burning fossil fuels no matter what, it seems that the most important thing to do would be to pick the cleanest fossil fuel to burn. In the case of HEVs, we're burning gasoline. In the case of electric and fuel cell cars, we're getting the electricity from lots of sources, but far and away the biggest source is burning coal.

Ignoring your repetition of an assertion that isn't true (for instance here in France 80% of the electricity is generated by nuclear power), even with traditional fossil fuels you have to consider the location. Would you rather have one large burner stuck out on the countryside somewhere or hundreds of thousands of mini-burners outside your house and where you walk? Equipment degrades over time... would you rather maintain and upgrade with new technology a small number of power stations or monitor and upgrade millions of vehicles? If vehicles become dependent on hydrogen you can generate it however you want, and phase out unhealthy power sources such as coal over time (think of hydrogen as a well documented and stable API, and coal as some legacy code). I really don't think you are thinking far enough ahead.

Phillip.

My MPG Stank, Too, And Then I Was Rear-Ended

[ArizonaJer]

Pete is not alone in his experience of a Hybrid's disappointing MPG. I bought a Honda Hybrid in fall 2002. Aside from highway trips, I averaged 33 MPG. I discussed this with the local dealership. Got no help from them. So I went online and found the answer to my low MPG in a Yahoo discussion group on Hybrids: The individual trips I made were too short (2-3 miles, mostly). I was told that driving for such a short period of time didn't allow the "lean burn" to kick in. That didn't satisfy me, but the issue became a moot point six months after I bought the Hybrid when a Yukon rear-ended me at 40 MPH. I will say this for the Hybrid: They're very SAFE cars. Even though my trunk was turned into an accordion, I barely had a scratch on me. But I'd learned my lesson. I did NOT replace that Hybrid with another one. I was still tempted by the Toyota Prius, but instead I went with a conventional car, a Nissan Altima.

Re:What's going to pass them?

[fingerfucker]

Last I checked, coal is a hell of a lot dirtier than gasoline, which, contrary to popular belief, is one of the cleaner fossil fuels we have, and probably will be for a long time.

When you say 'long time', do you mean like 'for less than 30 years'?

Re:What's going to pass them?

[Fastolfe]

It would be nice to see some statistics regarding the amount of pollutants put into the atmosphere for a) burning gasoline; b) burning coal to produce hydrogen; and c) burning coal to produce electricity for a battery.

Sure, coal is far dirtier than gasoline, but if you're burning X times as much gasoline as you are coal for the same amount of work (distance travelled), which is actually better?

It depends on you not the car

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. I have a Prius and I always have lower gas milage when I let my b/f (who always drives really fast) drive or when I'm in a big hurry than when I don't speed much. When my b/f drives I get about 40 mpg. When I drive normally, I get around 46 mpg. My mom never speeds at all and she can get up to 55 mpg in my car.

Re: Generator

[Technician]

I'd be glad to explain.

I have a small subpannel. It's made by Square D. IT's the QO Generator panel series. Mine has 2 main 60A main breakers interlocked so only one can be on at a time. I feed 4 critical circuits off the panel, not the entire house. The circuits include the main living area lights, kitchen outlets (one of the 2 circuits), Computer den and living room entertainment center. Not having the whole house on the panel gives the advantage of knowing when the power comes back on. The hall lights come on.

My father has a similar setup at home (just a regular gas generator though). He just flips a swich and has a heavy-duty power line to plug the whole house into a generator.

This is exactly what I have except now I plug in the car.

SAFETY ALERT!!!! Most inverters hot nutral. Grounding the nutral of most inverters will damage it. They drive both sides of the plug. Do not ground the nutral. If feeding a house where nutral is grounded (all of them) the car through the inverter becomes HOT. Don't touch the car!!. It will be about 60 VAC hot.
I start the car, open the trunk, turn on the inverter, plug in the house not touching the car. Reverse the process to shut down. Do not touch the car while the house is connected to the inverter! You have been warned! As always read and follow the instructions that come with your inverter. I have to lift the ground wire between the car and house.

Auto Mechanic and Electrical Engineer Speak

[BigBlockMopar]

DISCLAIMER and WARNING: I am an electrical engineer. I wrote a practice Ontario mechanic's license exam for the fun of it and passed with flying colors but lack the apprenticeship hours to pursue it for a full license. However, my roommate and best friend *is* a licensed auto mechanic and former Toyota employee. He has asked me into the shop to diagnose and repair dozens of electrical problems on brand-new Toyota cars when the mechanics can't fix it. So, I welcome attempts to change my mind, but you'd better know what you're talking about.

The NiMH batteries are much better on the environment than NiCD and Lead-Acid batteries. FWIW NiMHs are not considered hazardous waste by the EPA. There is some concern about the nickel in them (nothing concrete yet) but normal car batteries have lead (bad heavy metal) and sulfuric acid... not the best things in the world.

So, what's the electrolyte in NiMH, and what's the pH, in order to produce the energy density which is substantially more than a lead-acid car battery?

In enough concentration, even acetic acid (ie. vinegar) is extremely dangerous. (For one thing, it's a weak acid, meaning that it doesn't dissociate completely once it reaches equilibrium in the solution, meaning that the more reactants you add, the more acid effect you get!)

I would be more worried by the lead acid battery in a normal car than the NiMH batteries on a hybrid.

I wouldn't. The greater the energy density in a battery, the more inherently nasty the internal chemisty must be. Didn't you take high school chemistry?

Then again, I might be speaking out of my ass. After all, I only took two years of electrochemistry in my electrical engineering courses in University. It can't compare with the high school chemistry you obviously didn't take - or the common sense you obviously don't have - to not understand the basics of how electrical energy density must correspond to chemical energy density.

Have you seen how the toyota hybrid works (not the honda)? It is incredible simple. It uses a planetary gear CVT/Power Split which simplifies the transmission. No torque converter or clutch and no complicated multi-speed gear boxes. Pretty nifty. Other things like generators (alternators) and electric motors (starters) already have equivalents in normal cars.

Yeah, but mechanics don't like wires, in case you haven't noticed. Buy one a beer sometime and chat with him (or her). If they liked wires, they'd be electricians or electronics technicians. Mechanics generally get into the trade because they like moving parts - sorry, it sucks, but that's the way it is. Stop by your local community college sometime. Net effect is that, to them, it's more complicated and more daunting. They don't want to work on it. Therefore, your labor rates go up, the car becomes too expensive to fix, and gets scrapped sooner.

Good question, but keep in mind that most of the old cars currently are the ones that are responsible most of the pollution, as time goes on we get new cars that run cleaner and more efficient.

Poorly maintained cars are responsible for most of the pollution; age doesn't matter. Loads of people in 3-4 year old cars are failing emissions tests because their EGR valves are stuck open, PCV valves are stuck closed, or because their timing belts have jumped a notch. The beaters tend to be driven by people who actually know how to fix them, and hear every little knock or click and know to check things out.

You're towing the Greenpeace line which isn't based in scientific or statistical reality.

We also need to ask what portion of cars that are made now will be used in 6-8 years? Normal cars can need expensive repairs (new transmissions, new clutches) too and how many get junked for that?

Absolutely true. Lots of cars get junked when blown expensive parts make the car undrivable. So, what's going to happen when you add another really expensive part to the car? What's going to happen when the lifespan of that expensive part is *very* fi

Re:Auto Mechanic and Electrical Engineer Speak

[cft_128]

I apoligize for stepping on your toes so badly...

So, what's the electrolyte in NiMH, and what's the pH, in order to produce the energy density which is substantially more than a lead-acid car battery?

I'll bow to your superior expertise in this area, but this is what information I had. I have never seen a reference that lists NiMH batteries as being toxic (of course most material is not for 500v car batteries), they all list lead acid as such. NiMH use potassium hydroxide as the main electrolyte, its MSDS lists its toxicology as: Corrosive - may cause serious burns. Harmful by ingestion, inhalation and in contact with skin. If the solid or solution comes into contact with the eyes, serious eye damage may result. and the MSDS for sulfuric acid lists is as:Extremely corrosive, causes serious burns. Highly toxic. Harmful by inhalation, ingestion and through skin contact. Ingestion may be fatal. Skin contact can lead to extensive and severe burns. Chronic exposure may result in lung damage and possibly cancer. That was concentrated sulpheric acid's MSDS, I haven't hada chance to look up the concentrations of the electrolytes in the batteries.

Then again, I might be speaking out of my ass. After all, I only took two years of electrochemistry in my electrical engineering courses in University. It can't compare with the high school chemistry you obviously didn't take - or the common sense you obviously don't have - to not understand the basics of how electrical energy density must correspond to chemical energy density.

Wow, I really must have said something that pissed you off. I'm sorry that I only took AP chem in high school and neglected it in college, but what does the energy density of the battery have to do with the long term toxic effects of lead and nickel? The acids are bad in both - that is true. If Toyota was using Li-Ion/Polymer batteries I would be much less enthusiastic with them, those batteries can be positively dangerous. I won't even use them in my remote control plane because of the risks that a crash can deliver. I've seen pictures of whole SUVs totaled because of a short in a Li-Ion pack that was in the trunk, and internal short was caused by a model airplane crash and the battery exploded 5 minutes later.

Yeah, but mechanics don't like wires, in case you haven't noticed. Buy one a beer sometime and chat with him (or her). If they liked wires, they'd be electricians or electronics technicians. Mechanics generally get into the trade because they like moving parts - sorry, it sucks,

That is a weak argument against hybrids, as you said "He [mechanic roomate] has asked me into the shop to diagnose and repair dozens of electrical problems on brand-new Toyota cars when the mechanics can't fix it." Pretty much every new car has plenty of wires and electronics in them, onboard computers, airbags; gone are the days of carburetors in cars. Shoot, the easiest upgrade and tune to my car is to reprogram the ECU. If they really hate wires that much they should get into the specialty market (e.g. classic cars, offroad racing or marine engine mechanic where many of the engines don't use fuel injection, I help my friend with his sand rail, loads of fun).

Poorly maintained cars are responsible for most of the pollution; age doesn't matter. Loads of people in 3-4 year old cars are failing emissions tests because their EGR valves are stuck open, PCV valves are stuck closed, or because their timing belts have jumped a notch. The beaters tend to be driven by people who actually know how to fix them, and hear every little knock or click and know to check things out.

I'd be curious to see the actual statistics on this - most of the obvious polluters (visible particulate exhaust) I've seen on the road are older than about 15 years, but most of the cars from before 1975 or so appear in good condition, being maintained by auto enthusiasts. Anecdotal I kno

I actually like pure electric...

[zogger]

... for road vehicles anyway, not for off road or like my work equipment.

I always thought you could solve the "range" problem with pure electrics quite easily, with a tow behind combo generator/fuel tank/ cargo trailer. Seems a natural, a lot of folks tow trailers on trips, and for just normal day to day commuting, cars like the EV1 were perfectly *fine*.

Eventually we'll have better engine choices. I am just tired of pistons. Ya they work, ya they got torque, but the physics with them is so limiting and 18th century.

And you KNOW they got much cooler stuff over to like area 51 places, the meanies, won't share! They probably GOT my flying car using electro gravitics and are probably GROWING my amazon hot babe robots -scratch- CYBORGS!

I need these tools for..uhh... research, ya, that-t-t-t's the ticket...re-search.....

Re:I actually like pure electric...

[iminplaya]

How 'bout good old steam? It can be solar powered. You've seen those 55 gal barrels cut in half length wise and the the tube running down the middle? And steam is powerful stuff. I'm also interested in Stirling engines. Have you been checking up on them? They run on anything.

Re:I actually like pure electric...

[zogger]

You mean the solar trough method, ya, I've seen those, big ones on the web anyway, then there's heliostats, which are sorta like focusing towers. I was thinking of building one of those from an old 3 meter dish that's in the junk yard here. hmm. good for stationary plants of course.

Stirlings, I've seen the tiny little kit motors, but never anything full size. I imagine they exist though.

Re:I actually like pure electric...

[iminplaya]

Here ya go. Check these guys out. Tiny example, but it's a start. Particularly cool because it's totally linear. The biggest generator they seem to have is "only" 3kw, but hey...

I like the CVT.

[PotatoHead]

It makes a lot of sense given the power curve engines have.

The sensation of speed is a bit wierd in one of those however... Everything feels right, but you don't get the same engine feedback expected.

The tires, filter and fuel system tips are all good ones. Most people I know almost completely ignore those things; thus, my education point again.

So far unmentioned: Plug-In Hybrids

[FelixCalCars]

Current hybrids are cleaner and more efficient, but ultimately all their power comes from gasoline. The next generation of hybrids are grid-connected, plug-optional. They combine the best features of electric cars with the unlimited range of gasoline vehicles. Car companies are skeptical there's a market for them, and journalists, pundits and even many environmental groups are so far following their lead. The nonprofit California Cars Initiative is aiming to prove the opposite...starting with conversions of a few 2004 Priuses. (Maybe you heard us on NPR's Living On Earth last week.) PHEVs are the logical transitional vehicle to hydrogen fuel-cell cars (if and when they are practical) because it's easier and cheaper to store and transmit electrons than molecules, so the hydrogen should be used only as a range extender. They're based entirely on proven technology. There's a lot more to say about them. Check out more at www.calcars.org or www.priusplus.org

like it... like it a lot

[zogger]

cool link, thanks, I'm going to look into these guys and run their products past my friend, see what he thinks about them. I really like the no maintenace aspects of it, and being multi fuel. Seems like a serious winner here. Electric or heat or cooling from the same unit...hmm, sounds like what joe homeowner needs, doesn't it?

Re:like it... like it a lot

[iminplaya]

Hope you catch this. I wonder why we don't use them for regular fridges. Too inefficient for the volume maybe? The freon industry probably doesn't like it. The stuff seems so unnecessary. Also I saw this thing once in Pop Mech that shows a flat metal plate being blasted with air. Do it at the right angle, and you get cold air in one direction and hot in the other. Maybe vortex generators do the same thing.

Don't know if it been pointed out yet.

[ScifiterX]

Odds are the EPA was basing their mileage figures on those used in Japan. (Hybrid cars are actually used over there.) If so then they made a critical mistake. They did not account for the difference in the Japanese traffic/road system and America's. American drivers tend to drive faster and on more uninterrupted stretches of road. At higher speeds the gasoline engines on hybrid vehicles are used and usually those are no more efficient that their counterparts on regular cars. Secondly, while energy return system built into the brakes is very efficient, it is not sufficient enough to keep the electric motors power cells charged if the number of times which one stops the car is significantly reduced. Once the power cell are depleted to a certain point the gasoline motor is forced to kick in and propel the vehicle and recharge the power cells until such time the electric motor can be reliably used again. Both these principles reduce the mileage these vehicles are capable of acheiving.

Good lord, no.

[Inoshiro]

Standard temperature and pressure, the property of a gas to take up different volumes of space dependant on temperature and pressure.

Re:Good lord, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have lost. Thankyou for playing.

Hybrids really are different

[Spamalamadingdong]

On the highway, a Hybrid engine is just a low-powered gasoline engine...

No they aren't. Hybrids typically use Atkinson-cycle engines, which use valve timing tricks to achieve an expansion ratio greater than their compression ratio. This reduces peak power (you cannot pull in as much mixture) but it recovers energy which is lost to the exhaust in the Otto cycle in addition to reducing the pumping losses caused by throttling a larger engine.

Octane

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I don't think a hybrid engine requires high octane. Does the engine knock with standard gas? If it doesn't, you don't need it and are getting zero benefit.

Octane ratings on gas simply measure the balance between octane and septane within the gasoline (87 octane means the balance is 87% octane/13% septane.) High octane fuel doesn't ignite as easily in the fuel-air mix that goes in your engine, and therefore is better suited for high performance cars. In fact, using higher octane than your manual says you need can make the engine dirtier, as the engine might not burn the fuel as completely as if it had more septane in the fuel to aid the process.

you CAN get much better fridges now...

[zogger]

...but they cost twice as much. I have two of them, smaller, they are dual fuel electric/propane, and use ammonia/absorption with no moving parts, as opposed to normal compressors types. The alternate energy market has a lot of them. RVs and remote weekend camps are the primary customers, or like for folks living completely off grid permanently. They just cost more, but are much better energy wise, and the added benefit of you can get a big ole propane tank installed, run on electric most of the time, and switch to propane if the grid poofs on ya. Mine are made by Dometic, but there are other brands. You can get kerosene models as well, and I don't think it would be all that hard to cob job some sort of solar (heat) powered ones, either.

As to why don't they use stirlings? Again, cost, no one knows about them, etc. We alreadyhave a trmendous amount of tech we could use with this whole energy problem, but people opt for what ever is cheapest and fastest, most people think short term with most of their decisions, even their homes they buy with 20 year notes-they only want to live there long enough to re-sell, make some profit and move on. There's no long term thinking going on much of any place now. If people can't get an immediate pay back, they don't want it. They will either wait for government to do it for them, or they are believing fools like rush limbeau and making like a professional ostrich. There's your two main types of folks now.

Re:you CAN get much better fridges now...

[iminplaya]

...I don't think it would be all that hard to cob job some sort of solar (heat) powered ones, either.

I saw a picture of Buckminster Fuller (my hero) standing next to a solar powered fridge with what looked like a crystal ball (probably to act like a magnifying glass) on top surrounded by what looked like glass tubing coiled around it. I couldn't find any info on it, And I was wondering how the hell the damn thing worked. Until your post...Ammonia, duh. Ever seen it? I think the picture was from the 30's or 40's. Are yours 12 volt dc? Or regular 115 ac? I heard 12vdc uses much less juice. I also heard that if you put a little bitty fan inside, it runs much more efficiently due to the air moving around constantly keeping constant temps top to bottom. True?

Prius 2004 MPG claims

[toyotavalues]

I think that simply allowing Toyota to hide behind the EPA claims is a big mistake. On their website they do calculations for fuel savings for you assuming 55 MPG. I have 4 Toyota cars and all but the Prius live up to the advertised MPG claims. Why is the Prius an exception? My 2004 model thus far reaches only 44 MPG at moderate temp, no A/C, no hills, no cargo, city driving, and no passengers. My dealer states that it takes about 1500 miles before the car is finally up to efficient performance. Did anyone hear similar complaints?