Slashdot Mirror


Hybrid Drivers Provide Real-World Mileage Data

Jason Siegel writes "Hybrid cars seem like the answer to rising gas prices, increased pollution and growing dependence on foreign oil, yet EPA tests have failed to produce reliable mileage estimations for consumers. Dependable fuel economy figures are now available at GreenHybrid.com, where hybrid owners have logged over 5,000,000 miles of driving information in real-world conditions. Unlike government tests and individual accounts, the database analyzes thousands of actual experiences to provide true mileage statistics." Read on for the rest.

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."

11 of 1,167 comments (clear)

  1. My 1978 Mini gets over 55 mpg by sirket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:My 1978 Mini gets over 55 mpg by NineNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer is simple: Americans like Big and Cheap. Look at any city in the US. Every town is full of the same giant strip malls *full* of Big Box Stores, filled with fat people eating giant portions of fast food from their gas guzzling, crappy Ford Explorers. I'm American. Sadly, it's true. Almost the whole country is now like this.

    2. Re:My 1978 Mini gets over 55 mpg by atrus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • Emission control systems eat power from engines and add weight.
      • People don't like small cars (not that this is acceptable or anything, just telling it how it is)
      • Most people want AC, power steering, and other standard luxuries
      • While the weight of the car drops as the engine gets smaller, people tend to get bigger. An extra 500 lbs of people can really put a dent in your performance
      • People can't drive standard transmissions worth their life anymore (and torque converters are only so efficient). Step-tronic ("robot shifted standard transmissions") transmissions just add to the weight.

      Some random reasons. I'm defending any one of them, but just adding fuel to the fire.

  2. Hybrids not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. One of the most useful things about the Prius... by tsangc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

  4. Hybrids not the answer by Leomania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. higher speed = lower accident rate by coyote-san · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:higher speed = lower accident rate by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "In fact the accident rate WENT DOWN." "That's why the death rate went down when the speed limits were raised."

      Not that I disagree at all, but there is a common assumption or mis-conception that you seem to be repeating here, unless you have a separate source. A lower accident rate does not mean a lower death rate or vice versa. It might be true in this case, I'm not sure.

      The argument about relative speeds being the problem probably has a lot of truth in it; I've read research in this area and it certainly seems to be a factor. However, reducing the disparity by raising the speed of the slower drivers means that there is much more kinetic energy on the roads, especially with kinetic energy increasing with the square of velocity. (20% faster speed means 44% more kinetic energy.) This is further exacerbated by a trend towards larger vehicles, such as SUVs, since kinetic energy is also proportional to mass. In an accident this energy must be dissipated and the amount of damage will generally be related to this energy.

      So, while accidents may happen less often, the average and total damage caused in an accident may increase, including death rates. Accident rate is only part of the equation. Again, the death rate may have indeed dropped, but it isn't a given just because the accident rate dropped.

  6. Re:Hybrid Cars and Electricity - Pollution? by miratim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't confuse hybrid cars (combining traditional gasoline with battery power) and pure-battery or pure-hydrogen cars. Hybrids generally don't need to be plugged in, since they have regenerative features that recharge the battery while running. For pure-electrical cars, which plug into the grid for juice, you are moving the pollution up the line to the power plant, as you say. But pollution from electrical production tends to be less at the power plant end. You can pack a lot more pollution-reducing devices and processes into a large powerplant than you can with a car trying to produce it's own energy directly from, say, gas.

    --
    ~ The Fudge Report @ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fudgereport/
  7. Re:Less Cars by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Everyone should have motorcycles and have less cars. Even though motorcycles are less efficient they take a lot less petrol/gasoline to run.

    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.
  8. Re:Stopping distance is another big lie. by -brazil- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damage caused on impact with a stationary object increases linearly with speed (well, at least, damage to you).

    Wrong. Please get a grip on basic physics.

    --

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
    --Henry Kissinger