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."
Basically, I floored it when taking off and took the car to the max.
You know what I found, I got 25 MPG in BOTH cases. In fact, I got slightly better milage when I was agreessive. Granted, this was not completely scientific, but it made me wonder about doing more accurate testing. I expected to see a 5-10 MPG difference. To follow up, I drove the last tank at a normal "in-between pace".
I was talking to someone at work about it and they thought that maybe today's engines are tuned so well and change with different environments that it doesn't make a difference. It only makes a difference if you are stopped a lot like in traffic jams.
Anyone in Central Indiana want to join me for some more scientific testing?
If you have to pay $5000 over the sticker price because of demand, are you really saving money? The demand is ridiculous.
EPA estimates have never been really useful indicators of real-world results, nor were they intended to be.
What they do provide is a car-to-car comparison that is consistent regardless of driving style, load, weather or other conditions. When you compare EPA mileage statistics, you're comparing apples to apples.
Hybrids throw a monkeywrench into the mix, so we'll probably see an adjustment to the EPA methodology at some point.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
While I'm all in favor of gas economy, I have to wonder how much more unbiased fans of these cars are than (potential) opponents of them. As it is in the government's best interest for us to keep buying gas, they have an incentive to understate fuel economy in very efficient cars. This is not to say that they actually do it; merely that they have a reason to. However, fans/drivers of the cars might be rounding their numbers or interpolating them from memory, for example. This is not a scientific study, and it is important to remember that.
I get about 8-10 mpg improvement by using the cruise control at any speed. I have a 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid and get about 38-41 mpg on average.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Putting the flaming comment about people lying to make themselves feel better aside, the ROI for a Prius is decent. A Prius starts at about $20K so if someone "downgrades" from a larger, lower mpg car like say, a Nissan Maxima SE, s/he could feasibly save a lot of money.
:-P.
We are getting 50mpg instead of 20mpg, and we no longer have to buy premium gas...we are saving $1200 a year, not counting the lower loan payments for the car we traded in.
I would go on, but I am starting to feel way, way too good about myself
P.S. - I paid under MSRP for my Prius and got it in a week.
or are those numbers pretty piss-poor for hybrids? I remember when the Insight was pimped as having 70mpg and the Prius 60. Nobody comes close to those figures now. 30 mpg for a V6 Accord? The normal Accord gets only 7 mpg less (ajusted from vendor inflation. Hybrid:37 Normal:30). The variance in the Escape is less than that.
How can these cars be touted as environmentally friendly when you could easily increase your gas mileage by driving a 4-cylinder instead. That way, you get the gas savings and you aren't throwing away a huge battery full of toxic waste when you're done.
Calling the Ford, Lexus, and Honda Accord "environmentally friendly" hybrids is disingenuous. They aren't helping the gas problem whatsoever.
Cheap, basic transportation. I'll buy my own seat covers, floor mats, stereo, etc.
I hate the inflated prices car makers charge, getting people to buy on credit what they can't really afford to own. I guess I'm the only one, though.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
For those who don't know in this case the diesel engine is basically just an electric generator that powers the electric motor. Because as a generator it can run at a constant speed it's even more efficient than a traditional diesel. It works for trains, I'd guess it would work for cars/trucks/SUV as well. GM/Allison has built buses this way that see a 60% MPG increase vs conventional diesel buses. If a Chevy heavy duty pickup sees a similar increase that would put it near 40 mpg on the highway. Pretty good for a 1 ton truck.
No flame intended, it's just simple truth.
Here's a quote from a Car and Driver article that summarizes what I was getting at: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id =15&article_id=8427&page_number=1/
Self awareness - try it!
15 years of innovation and a completely new engine design, and we end up with a somewhat safer version of the Geo Metro (40% heavier... and with half the cargo space.)
1990 Geo Metro XFI Specs & Mileage
Weight: 1694 lbs
Cargo Volume: 31.4 cu. ft.
Front leg room (Max): 42.5 in.
Rear leg room (Min): 32.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver ***, Passenger ****
City: 53 MPG
Highway: 58 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG
2005 Toyota Prius Specs & Mileage
Weight: 2890 lbs
Cargo Volume: 16.1 cu. ft.
Front leg Room (Max): 41.9 in.
Rear leg Room (Min): 38.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver *****, Passenger ****
City: 60 MPG
Highway: 51 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG
In 20 years, the whole world will be like that, minus the gas guzzling because most other countries tax gas at a high enough rate to affect consumption. Obeisity rates for Europe are nearing US levels. Australia is almost there as well. As soon as the Asian middle class gets into full swing they too will want the Big Gulp lifestyle. The US just got here first, nothing really special or unique about it.
Actually, talk to any auto mechanic and he can give you a pretty good idea of what will happen to these vehicle's in 5-7 years. They will be to expensive to fix, this trend started several years ago with the more expensive cars. I cannot see many of these cars will be around in even 10 years.
I wonder what the plan is for all the old batteries? Chances are you will be charged a disposal fee like most states currently do with tires.
The thing that really irks me about new vehicles is the fuel mileage. I remember when the Volkswagon Rabbits came out. The gas version got 35mpg and I had a friend with a diesel model that would get 78-80mpg at 75-85 mph.
I now drive a Dodge RAM pickup that gets 16 city and 16.5 highway. In the past I had a 1981 Chevy 4x4 that after some minor changes got 24 mpg on the highway and did better on emmission tests available at the time. I also currently have an 84 Trans Am that gets 24 city and over 30 highway and it has 169,000 miles on it, and still beats most new cars in emmission tests. You would think that with all the advancements in fuel and ignition technology that they could improve on the old carburator's. The only improvement I have seen is that I don't have to change points anymore (anyone else remember them) and messing with the carburator choke that never seemed to work properly. Oh, and on the 40 yr old cars, obviously you have never worked on one. They are built like tanks. The crumple zones were not needed for protection until about the last 20 years when builders switched to unibody construction. I would much rather be in an old Pontiac Bonneville than in anything rolled out of a plant lately. And talk about the leg room.
Leo,
Toyota is doing what GM and Ford couldn't do. It's letting it's customers help fund it's R&D related to the transition from gas to electric.
Future cars are going to be all electric. That's all there is too it. Why? Simplicity. It takes a great deal of effort to design a mechanical structure that can transmit anywhere from 200-600 bhp from the front of the car to the back. You lose efficiency on the drive shaft, at the transmission, etc.
The end game of cars is going to be where the motors are built into the wheels. The power plant is interchangeable (and inconsequential). When you brake, all four wheels will capture the energy into some sort of temporary energy storage device.
Toyota knows this. The Prius is subsidized R&D. Personally, I think it's a fabulous idea.
I think you have a point about reliability for the Ford... but given Toyota's reliability reputation, and the Consumer Reports rating which put Prius #1 in customer satisfaction, I think the Prius is a pretty safe bet.
Toyota gives the batteries a 10 year warranty. The gas engine is the same as the engine in a Corolla, just adjusted to run on a different combustion cycle. There's no gearbox, so that leaves the transaxle and computer to worry about... Personally, I'll take that bet.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I drive an '88 Honda Civic LX, 261,000+ miles on the original engine and manual transmission (body's starting to look like hell, though), and I get 35-40mpg on average per tank every week (800-1000 miles a week, mostly highway around Chicago).
I get the same mileage as you out of a 17 year old car, with no electric assist.
I was looking at a Honda Civic Hybrid, but it doesn't look like there is any advantage to switching to a hybrid version of my 17 year old car.
I totally agree, TDIs are quite efficient.
Another thing we haven't seen quite yet is the turbine hybrid vehicle. We've had turbine powered vehicles in the past, but rather than gearing-down the turbine, I believe that you should be able to gain power from the rotating part in the turbine -- just by itself. I would assume that the unit would maintain it's rotation, and fuel/air ratios. I think capacitors come more into play than just batteries, as other electric-only cars have had.
Granted, I am not an engineer, but I've been inspired by things like this.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
with GBW in power there will be another oil shock - that's why I bought a Prius (and I had no waiting and paid under MSRP too) - he has his eyes on Iran, I have mine on my pocket book
Something like this is really hard to qualify because there are so many factors involved.
;)
Due to structural crush zones in cars, additional airbags, antilock braking systems, door beams, and other safety features in even cheap cars, accidents are much more survivable than they were even 20 years ago. However, with the trend in this country towards gigantic SUVs for every soccer mom, it may be equally counterbalanced.
The US DOT would have you believe that slower is safer, which it may be in densely populated urban areas. However, in mind-numbing interstate travel (I just made a 742 mile trip last Tuesday and again on last Saturday), you want to go as fast as your car feels safe traveling. This does increase your attention and focus, because you are forced to react to changing terrain more frequently and you realize the margin of error shrinks at higher speeds. I.e. you achieve a slightly higher 'pucker factor'.
There is a limit as to how fast you can safely travel which is mainly governed by how quickly you can stop. Sport Compact Car magazine recently reviewed a race-ready Mitsubishi Evolution 8 with upgraded everything including a beefed up braking system. The stopping distance from 60-0 was an unheard of 98 feet. From 70-0 it increased slightly to 135 feet. Now, from 80-0 we see a shocking increase to 179 feet. 20 mph, 33% faster and you effectively double your braking distance! Keep in mind this is on an exceptional car, real world, average cars come nowhere close to these numbers. Stopping from 60mph in 98 feet would sling the snot out of most people's noses.
Perhaps you're right about 20% faster speed nearly doubling kinetic energy, as that's what the braking system is being forced to deal with and would definitely cause those numbers to nearly double.
Here's how to build a cheap, 50mpg+ car.
Hybrid benefits are overrated because of the weight of the vehicles. This decreases much of the benefit.
Take a 1992 honda civic chassis. Look for one of the efficient models (Vx, others). You want a 5spd. They are very easy to work on, and very common. Engine reliabilty is great.
These cars were commonly available with no power steering, and no AC. Power locks and windows? Ha!
Strip the car bare. Gut it. Install some lightweight racing seats. You just saved a lot of weight. And gained a lot of cargo room!
Have the engine reworked. Lots of manuals for this; it can be done in a weekend, with a weekend of preparation. You'll need to clean all the fuel filters, injectors, and install all new ignition components.
Install a wideband o2 sensor with a car monitor. Consider an EGT meter as well. This will let you track your mixture inside the car to see if you're running rich and/or overheating your exhaust valves.
Install a VAFC, a small computer that tweaks the fuel settings. Most of the time these are used for power, but you're going to use it to dial out as much gas as you can without running too lean.
Voila. Plus it's cheap to insure.
..don't panic
Sometimes an indicator may be misleading.
The army started issuing kevlar helments. The number of injured in the hospital went up.
(jump to the wrong conclusion here)
The soldiers survived attacks and went to the hospital instead of the morgue.
The truth shall set you free!
I don't measure mileage because I use my bike to get just about everywhere. I usually run about 2.5 miles per 100 (nutritional - for you pedants) calories (@20 MPH). I do have a big gas-guzzling SUV, but I don't whine about spending $50 to fill it up because I only buy gas about once every two months.
Bicycling in the US is seeing a huge explosion in the number of riders, which is a great thing because as more people turn to cycling as an alternative to burning gas, we are solving not only the gas "crisis" but also helping with our obesity problem and consequently part of the public healthcare problem.
1. Electric engines and direct coupling are good and fine, but the problem nowadays is that, basically, batteries suck. They don't come anywhere _near_ the energy density of gasoline or diesel.
Which doesn't just limit your range in an all-electric car, but also makes the whole car heavier. It means you actually need more energy to move at the same speed and over the same distance.
Hybrids acknowledge that reality. The electricity in a hybrid ultimately comes from gasoline too, and is only used so often.
I.e., expect to see hybrids instead of all-electric cars for a long time.
2. The whole "waah, but oil is going to end" premise is bogus anyway.
Yes, fossil reserves will eventually end. But here's the fun part: we already know how to produce synthetic oil. We've known it for a long time. And not just theoretically: Germany's WW2 tank warfare was _based_ on synthetised fuel. It wasn't cheap, but it did keep the panzers rolling nevertheless.
That's really the only thing that keeps us using fossil fuels right now: it's cheaper than making synthetic fuel. If fossil reserves start running low, whoppee, we'll just start making synthetic fuel. And all those gasoline or diesel cars will keep running just the same.
In fact, doing that is probably a more economical and viable way to store energy than a ton of batteries in a car.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...see subject...
". You can be 60 feet away from the car in front of you going 100 miles an hour and still stop in time."
This is true unless the car in front of you hits a stationary object (e.g. some wall) and slows down extremely fast.
You (as a driver) just have to hope stuff like that rarely happens and the risk*impact is worth it, otherwise you'd leave a much greater gap between the cars.
That said apparently some cars have very good occupant survivability for typical 60 mph crashes.
"what makes 55mph the best limit? Why not 40, or 25, or 10?"
I don't know the exact values for the best limit, but here's what I think people should consider:
1) Humans have limited lifespans.
2) Most keep a 24 hour cycle, with approx 16 hours awake. And spend maybe 1.5-2 hours of that on other self-maintenance (and other overheads) - grooming, cleaning, eating etc.
Now if you set a speed limit too low, you'd end up with humans spending lots of time travelling from A to B, and typically back from B to A.
If a commute is 1 hour from A to B and 1 hour back, that's two hours. And that's about 12% of your waking life gone. If by setting a stupid speed limit you increase the commute to 4 hours, that's 12.5% _more_ of your waking life gone.
That's like reducing the average life expectancy of everyone by about 10 years more.
Remember you are doing this for practically ALL the drivers - if just one driver slows down significantly, almost all drivers have to slow down.
That is a LOT of man-years gone
While driving fast kills the unlucky and the careless/ignorant/stupid, driving way too slow kills the unlucky, the careless/ignorant/stupid (by effectively creating a road obstruction/obstacle) AND also reduces the effective lifespan of almost everyone else on the same road.
I'm not saying we should all drive fast (set it too fast and some crash and everyone ends up moving really slowly). But I'm saying there really is such a thing as too slow. Most people have other things they want to do with their lives than spending it on the same road everyday.
Feel free to disagree - maybe most people would/do enjoy driving at a very slow pace to and fro work every working day.