Slashdot Mirror
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."
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....
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.
That CSS file that blocks ads
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.
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.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
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!
. . . 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.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
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.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
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.
mbbac
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.
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.
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.
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.
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
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.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
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
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.
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.
Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
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!
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
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.
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.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
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.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
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.
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.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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.
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.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
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.
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.
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.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
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).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
Blogging because I can...
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
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
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.
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.
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?
-- Wolfpup
"A man whose circumstances went beyond his control." -- Styx
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
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.
second society
Car & Driver got over 121MPG out of a Honda Insight.
Could someone please point out to me where in the Constitution, exactly, is the "Right To Not Be Offended"?
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.
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.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
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.
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.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
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.
U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
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.
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.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
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)
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
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.
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.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
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.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.