Slashdot Mirror
Hybrid Drivers Provide Real-World Mileage Data
The hot-selling Toyota Prius averages 48 miles per gallon among over 150 cars from across the country, with most drivers achieving between 45 and 51. The V-6 Honda Accord Hybrid delivers 30 miles per gallon while Ford's Escape Hybrid SUV averages 28. All hybrid owners are encouraged to post their data for these and other cars on the Internet's largest hybrid mileage database.
Reliable fuel economy figures are increasingly important as consumers explore their options in an emerging hybrid car market. Hybrids, like the new Lexus RX 400h, pair combustion engines with electric motors that recharge while driving to improve gas efficiency. "Until lately," said GreenHybrid creator Jason Siegel, "consumers have associated hybrid vehicles with a small niche of fuel-conscious environmentalists, but today's hybrids offer the best combination of high performance, great mileage and luxury features of any cars on the market."
A lot depends on how much time you spent on the highway and what the weather conditions were. Also, how often is someone ahead of you at the light? For me, it's rare to be first in line, and you can't accelerate any faster than the car ahead of you does...
People who buy hybrids will be inclined to submit exaggerated mileage claims in order to make themselves feel better about spending more money for a hybrid. This is the same phenomenon as people on a diet who under report/underestimate their calorie intake.
Hybrids will only make economic sense if gas prices reach $5 or $6/gallon (in the US). As it is now, the return on investment is awful. Only buy a hybrid if you want to feel good about yourself.
Self awareness - try it!
I have a 1978 British Mini (the old ones) and the gas mileage is anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Here we are almost 30 years later and we are getting- lower gas mileage?
:)
Granted the Mini does not weigh anything and lacks AC- still. The 1 liter engine kicking out 55HP (in my slightly modified engine) is more than adequate to move such a light vehicle. Add to that a suprisingly roomy interior (it will seat 4 people comfortably despite being only 10 feet long) and a car that will corner like a go kart and you have to ask yourself what the auto industry is thinking. Not to mention being able to park _anywhere_
We have materials today that Alec Issigonis (the guy who created the Mini back in the 50's) could only dream of- lighter, stronger and easier to shape- and yet cars today are far heavier. We get worse gas mileage- sure the cars are more powerful but then again they have to be. I realize some of this weight is the result of safety improvements and the like but it just feels like there has to be a middle ground.
-sirket
You are right, where I live you have order them and wait months for them to come in. To save $5000+ in gas you would need to drive so much. The only reason to really buy them now is if you are really concerned for the environment and have to own a car.
I've actually heard that it may be better to accelerate quickly, if you know you're going to get to your target speed and stay there for a while (As opposed to stopping at another red light in 500 yards).
I'll second the driver that said higher speeds make a huge difference. The Utah desert at 95-100 gave me terrible gas mileage, but it sure was a fun way to get to Vegas.
The amount of energy used by an average automobile over its lifetime (manufacture, operation, maintenance and disposal) that comes from the gasoline used to drive it is only a fraction (around 1/5 to 1/3) of the total.
A hybrid does reduce the total energy consumption of a car over its lifetime compared to a conventional car, but not by all that much. It still takes all the same materials and manufacturing processes to build, and poses the same disposal problem once it wears out.
The answer is a combination of fewer, longer-lasting, more-efficient cars, and less driving.
The cost savings is almost non-existant. I can get(I HAD one) a standard civic that gets me 30-40mpg, and without the extra initial cost. $5000 = 2000 gallons of gas at $2.50/gal. 35mpg * 2000 = 70000. So if you drive 18,000 miles per year, you start to break even around year 4 of owning the car.
Conservation? The amount of energy and oil in the plastics and other materials used in the production of a car, and where does the OLD car go? Its SO wastefull to buy a new car. Not to mention it still uses gas to operate and oil to lube. Conservation my ass.
I can't believe anyone wants a hybrid....
...is the visual display which tells you the target mileage given your current acceleration.
I drove a 04 Prius for a few months and found that the display which tells you the fuel economy you're getting is very helpful. After about a day you realize that speeding up hills eats at your economy and braking appropriately helps too.
If all cars had this feature, fuel economy would be increased. Regardless of the fact the Prius has a hybrid engine, low rolling resistance tires, etc, this simple display is a big psychological factor.
Most people never realize their driving habits affect fuel economy because it only hits them every two weeks at the pump. By that time they never link it to how they brake or accelerate. By closing the feedback loop, you start to change your driving habits.
Only expensive cars seem to have this feature, yet it's ridiculously simple to implement off a modern ECU. I wish they'd make it standard equipment and not a luxury feature.
The problem with hybrids isn't their short-term fuel efficiency (which we didn't need 150 folks to document, out of tens of thousands sold). The problems are:
1. Premium cost over traditional fuel combustion engine (ranging from $3,000 - $5,000 over the same non-hybrid car).
2. Long-term reliability and replacement costs of hybrid system (especially the batteries). 5 or 10 years from now, are these cars going to be proven as reliable as their traditional combustion-engine brethern? Or are they going to be visiting the shop more often to fix issues in their hybrid systems, replace their batteries (which do have a pre-determined lifetime), or whatever??
The answers will come in time, but not from the data of 150 measly vehicles.
PS - The dork who compared a 40-year old car to a modern vehicle just doesn't get it. Modern vehicles meet modern safety standards, including such luxuries as airbags, enhanced structures that help prevent serious bodily injuries, and a little more leg room. Yes, if I built a go-cart, I could probably also get 50-60 MPG. But I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive it on I-95.
--
D'oh
My Porsche 3L Porsche 968 (at 11 years and 91,000 miles old) gets 32+ MPG on the freeway, and mid-20s in city traffic. My BMW motorcycle gets over 70MPG. (Granted, those of you who don't live in SoCal probably can't motorcycle commute 49 weeks out of the year the way we can ;) I expected a lot more out of the Accord. (I don't expect anything from Ford, except maybe mechanical problems. ;)
geek. lawyer.
When you're haggling at a dealership, it works both ways. It doesn't matter how good a negotiator you are if there's a waiting list to buy a popular car. You don't have any leverage when the five guys behind you will snap it up at full price if you don't.
Hybrid cars seem like the answer to rising gas prices, increased pollution and growing dependence on foreign oil
Although I am the proud owner of a new Toyota Prius, I can unoquivically say that hybrid cars are not the answer; they are a stop-gap measure that may extend the period of time that oil is a primary fuel on the planet Earth. However, they are too little too late; I have the income to allow me to "do the right thing" but really, I should either move closer to where I work or take public transportation to really do the right thing. I'm not going to do that, and my neighbors are going to bitch about how much it costs to drive their SUVs but they don't look like they're selling them anytime soon.
So who cares what the mileage figures are? The hybrids are far better than the other cars on the road, but they won't amount to any appreciable percentage of the cars on the road until gasoline is priced high enough to force it, or the government mandates it. Neither is going to happen, so unless there's some miraculous breakthrough that provides a cheap source of hydrogen pretty damned soon, it's all moot.
Yeah, I'm kinda pessimistic about energy usage in the U.S. We're kinda like the guy who jumped off the really tall building saying, "Nothing will happen!" who could be heard saying as he fell past each floor "So far, so good!"
Still, I bought a Prius to support the company that made the R&D investment to give us a stop-gap solution, even if we're not moving to a viable alternate energy source with the urgency we should. Meaning, I don't know if my partial gesture will matter, but it's better than driving the car it replaced at half the mileage.
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
I think the idea behind increasing gas mileage by stoping slowly is based on the thought that if you stop slowly while approaching a light, you may not need to fully stop at all.
If you reach a stop light quickly and convert all of your kinetic energy into heat, you need to burn a bunch of fuel again to return to speed, but if you approach a red slowly and it changes to green in the meantime you don't have to expend as much fuel to return to speed.
This is what I find most surprising about the parent poster's report of no fuel savings. If he was doing a good job of anticipating reds he should have seen some savings.
See this comment
Mass carnage was predicted when the double nickle speed limit was dropped. In fact the accident rate WENT DOWN.
There were several reasons for this. N.B., all of these were predicted by the proponents for the change, but dismissed by the safety "experts."
First, anyone with a clue knows that the biggest threat on the highway is traffic traveling at different speeds, not the absolute speed. People tend to stay in their own lanes - and can even comfortably stay in the right hand lane - if everyone is travelling at about the same speed. But if there's a 20 mph range (which was common in the interurban areas of the square states) there will be a lot of lane changes even when traffic is relatively light. At those speeds just tapping a car may be enough to cause the driver to lose control.
Second, a realistic speed limit actually lowered the speed of the fastest drivers. A driver going 20 mph over the posted speed limit doesn't have much motivation to avoid going 30 mph over the posted speed limit. But the same driver at the same original speed, if it's the speed limit, will often stay at that speed.
Finally, these roads were designed for traffic going at ~70 mph. At those speeds the road has just enough variability to keep the driver's attention. At the slower speeds the roads are mindnumbingly boring and the driver's attention tends to wander. You wouldn't think it would make that much of a difference, but I've driven between Denver and Seattle at both 55 and 75 and there is absolutely no comparison. (I-80 thru Wyoming and the Columbia River Gorge still suck because they were long, straight flat segments.)
That's why the death rate went down when the speed limits were raised. The annual death rate is climbing again, but that reflects more passenger-miles.
P.S., the Colorado Dept of Transportation will actually adjust the speed limit to match the drivers, not the other way around. They feel, reasonably, that thousands of drivers will make an informed decision about the best speed for a segment of road. Sometimes their hands are tied because of regulations, but I've seen them change the speed limit on other segments.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Take, for instance, one type of hybrid vehicle that must plugin to a local grid: that power must be produced at a power plant, which also pollutes the environment.
For cars that run off of battery packs, if those batteries are disposed, do they pollute the environment, also?
Basically, does anyone have any information on how much pollution is given off as a byproduct of the electricity required to run a hybrid vehicle? Is it more or less than a combustion engine only? Or is this energy produced in a way that is friendly with the environment? Where might I search for this information>
Thanks!
Kris Kerwin
kkerwin@insi__REMOVE_ME__ghtbb.com
Kris Kerwin kkerwin@insi__REMOVE_ME__ghtbb.com
Because "environmentally friendly" is not the same as "economical".
The Prius sacrifices some efficiency in order to get lower emissions. Specifically, emissions less than a tenth of what's allowed by California's standards.
It's also 90% recyclable, recycled materials are used in its construction.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
wow! you are very misled. the electric motors in hybrids are powered by the gasoline engine. hybrids never need "charged" like pure electric vehicles.
[insert lame joke here]
Fortunately, the Prius has had a CVT since it was released in 2001, so you don't have those peaks.
Smooth or not smooth, that best mileage is in 5th gear not at idle.
Thank you for that stunning report captain obvious!
Let me tell you a little secret the EPA doesn't want you to know... at idle, you're NOT MOVING. When you're not moving, all the gas your burning is not taking you anywhere. So if you sit in your driveway with the car idling with a full tank of gas, and wait till you have enough gas to drive one mile, then you drive that mile and run out. Your car was just getting (assuming it's a 14 gallon tank) 14 gallons to the mile! When you're doing 80 on the highway, yes you're getting better mileage than if YOU WEREN'T MOVING. But if your in 5th gear and your RPMs are at 4,000, doing 55 would give you MUCH better gas mileage. You're using less gas to fight against wind resistance, plus your RPMs are going to be much lower so your car's not going to use as much gas (like if your idle was 4,000 RPMs, you'd waste a tank of gas a lot quicker than if it was 700 RPMs.)
I think at 80 my car gets around 22-24 MPG, at 55 it gets around 30-32 (2004 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V) and rolling down a very large hill on the way to NY from AZ I watch my MPG reach 100 (it wasn't very accurate for long but I just wanted to see the number reach 100.)
Part of it has to do with the number of people on the road, sure. I doubt that a lot of them are illegals, though. They usually carpool better than those of us who feel we own the place.
My problem with LA drivers is that they're assholes. Driving is a lot like the internet; people can't see or talk to the other drivers, so they don't treat them as human. Tailgating, cutting off, speeding, rubbernecking, merging out of turn, changing into a merging lane so as to pass one or two cars in front of you, swerving across three lanes to get to an offramp. People are in such a hurry to get to work 10 seconds sooner that they cause traffic which costs them hours. Even worse, they consider it some sort of competition, so if you don't let them get their way they will only escalate the situation until they win or crash.
We need much better traffic enforcement. It's fun listening to people whine when they get fined for breaking the law. Because they can usually get away with it, that means it's not wrong, right?
Either that or just make road rage legal. That might help the population problem, too.
And it doesn't need a ton of lead for the batteries, that you would need to dispose of when the car is "retired".
That isn't nearly the issue that you think it is. Lead-acid batteries in industrial use (and, make no mistake, the batteries in hybrid cars count as industrial use) are recycled almost 100%. Realistically, probably about 98%.
Ditto with the lead-acid batteries in your UPS. Instead of throwing them away when the UPS dies, take the batteries to a local machinery shop, they'll likely take them off your hands and send them in for recycling.
So, what's the point of having a hybrid?
It makes people feel good.
That's about it, really. (Oh, and it lets some people drive in the HOV lane.)
If you think about them seriously... hybrids make most of their efficiency gains in stop-n-go city traffic with regenerative braking and electric-assist starts. The difference in initial cost ($3000-5000 extra for a hybrid version of the same vehicle) is such that you have to drive a lot of miles to make up that initial extra cost (somewhere around 150,000 to 300,000 depending on gas prices) and the fastest way to make up that is with highway miles, where the hybrid does less for you.
They don't come close to paying for themselves. But they make people feel good.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I have 700 grams of stainless steel in my left leg that says that the potential price of a motorcycle is much higher than any amount of fuel efficiency.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I worked for a Los Angeles area politician who drove the biggest SUV that Ford made - and he tried to make this argument in Sacramento on the floor of the legislture.
He got laughed at. But at least you know that there are people in government that are on your side.
I drive a 2002 Honda Civic, and when I hit 55 mph, I get awesome fuel efficiency (for my car) of around 40 mpg. Additionally, I leave a large gap between myself and other drivers. This allows me to continuously maintain an optimum speed (it is also a safer way to drive).
I would argue that reducing L.A.'s immigrant population will not significantly reduce traffic. In order to survive, in L.A., you must drive a car. A better designed city, and better public transportation infrastructure, will take drivers off the roads. Owning a car is an expensive, and physically dangerous, neccessity of life in this city.
Instead of asking Congress to "stop immigration" for our local traffic problem, we can take steps to solve it locally through better advocacy for higher density housing and commercial sites near large public transit corridors, through re-zoning of parcels of land in high traffic areas, and other measures at the City, County, and State level.
One of the great traffic safety myths is stopping distance. Who cares if your stopping distance is 200 feet or 300 feet?
Personally, I think putting so much emphasis on stopping distance is a mistake. We spend a lot of time teaching drivers that they need to be able to stop before they hit something, and that's not true. You need to be able to STEER to AVOID the accident. I've witnessed on more than one occasion a driver get into an accident that could have been avoided by NOT braking and turning (doing both increases the chances you lose control of the car) because all the driver knows how to do is slam on the brakes.
Now, more speed is obviously more dangerous than less speed, but only linearly so for anything that matters. Damage caused on impact with a stationary object increases linearly with speed (well, at least, damage to you). Time to avoid an accident decreases linearly - going twice as fast, you'll have half as much time to avoid an accident.
Anyway, if roads with turns and blind corners are safe to drive at 30 miles per hour, roads with 2 miles of visibility are safe to drive at 100. Anything that's not moving that you need to avoid you're going to see at least 12 seconds in advance, which is the only things you'll need to stop for. Anything else, if the speed limit is set correctly, will be travelling at roughly the same speed as you, so hitting it isn't a big deal. You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time.
The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of expressway accidents/injuries/deaths occur in conditions of incliment weather.
Lower base speed limits are not the answer for road safety. What we need is two speed limits: 85 or 90 when it's dry, and 45 when it's raining.
paintball
I believe you'll use less fuel if you walk, bicycle or take public transportation. Besides,this will mean fewer cars on the road for the rest of us.
I agree, though I need to vent...
Firstly, public transportation was ruined by the automotive industry. Our goverment let them buy out the public transportation, and shut them down, thus forcing everyone to buy cars. Then, the goverment promoted the urban sprawl problem by developing highways going into employment locations, all while encouraging housing developments far distances away from the employment areas (mostly right after WWII). So, the American dream could then be obtained, but required a lot of driving/commuting. Now it has sadly become the American way of life.
Secondly, walking and bicycle riding would require exercise. How would us Americans choke ourselves on our hotdogs and twinkies if we were too busy walking to work? Besides, our shortened life expectancy should help reduce fuel consumption, except that cars now need to haul around bigger and bigger asses.
Thirdly, I am just upset because our local politicians refuse to encourage the bicycling tourism that is HUGE in my area. Instead they insist on spending the money on adding parking spaces where bike lanes once existed.
Fourthly, those of you that consider this to be troll are probably part of the problem. Have another ding dong as you sit in rush hour traffic in your SUV complaining about gas prices. I wonder what kind of "mileage" bicycles recieve if you look at just plain Energy as the fuel measure.
What is funny, is that I drive I 2003 Ford F-350 Crew Cab Dually with the powerstroke diesel. However, I live less than two miles from my office- I often drive to work (winter as I live in Ohio), but the thing is, with my huge truck, I personally consume less fuel than a lot of economy/hybrid drivers. Commuting 130 miles a day is insanity- that is a waste of resources, even in a hybrid. I live, shop and work in a very small radius. I keep my thermostat low in the winter, and high in the summer. Our whole energy consumption needs to be considered- a hollywood actress who brags about her Prius but flies on a Gulfstream and air conditions a 15,000 sq ft house is not saving energy. P.S.- I was at the supermarket this spring, and some guy started yelling at me about my "gas guzzling truck," I walked him around to the front of it and showed him the Boss Plow mount, and had a talk with him about how to make extra money I work nights in the winter plowing, and that his Honda Civic couldn't even leave his garage in the winter if the parking lots/drives weren't plowed as in NE Ohio, you either need 4 wheel drive or you aren't going anywhere until the plows have been out. He apologized... I have never seen a Prius or a Hybrid CRV out plowing snow... But still, all this self righteousness needs to stop.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
That's true for wind resistance from weather-related wind, but actually, small fuel-efficient streamlined cars are quite sensitive to increased wind resistance, moreso than larger vehicles, at least when it comes to added wind resistance from bikes or luggage on the roof, for example. Even roof racks without anything on them can affect mileage noticably- I remember an old friend's 83 Honda Civic which got 38 MPG with empty roof racks installed and 44 MPG with them off the car or inside. That was far more than the 5-10% we had guessed before performing the experiment. When I see a car with Colorado plates in Maine with a large bulky souvenir lobster trap attached to their roof, I wonder if they realize that the lobster trap that cost $20 to buy may also add $50 to their fuel bill on the ride home (2000 miles,30MPG vs 22MPG, gas $2/gallon, rough calculation...)
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
True there are many times you could steer out of an accident. However there are many more times when you cannot.
A habit of hitting the breaks hard may sometimes result in an accident that is avoidable. However it will never result in an accident much worse than the one you were trying to avoid.
When you steer you have to prevent a rollover. You also have to have a clear place to go. Searing into oncoming traffic changes a 'simple' read end to a head on. Steering into a ditch may often mean hitting something hidden but immobile in the ditch. (Not to mention rollover). In heavy traffic there may not no safe way to get into the other lane.