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."

10 of 1,167 comments (clear)

  1. MPG science by suso · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You know, I'm starting to wonder if some of those gas saving tips like "start and stop slowly" have been backed up with real world testing. I just spent the last three weeks testing the hypothesis that "driving smoothly" (ie, starting up slowly and anticipating stoplights, etc. saves a lot of gas. Here was my test. By the way, I have a 2004 Honda CR-V that gets a rated 24 MPG Highway:

    • Fill up tank with gas (til the auto stop turns off)
    • Drive smoothly for the whole tank (tried to never let RPMs go above 2500)
    • At end of tank, calculate gallons to fill back up and miles traveled
    • Drive through another tank of gas, but this time very agreessively.
      Basically, I floored it when taking off and took the car to the max.
    • Make same MPG calculation at end of tank.


    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?
    1. Re:MPG science by avalys · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing that does make a difference is how fast you drive on the highway. I know I get much worse mileage driving at 80-90 than I do at 60-70.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:MPG science by barawn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is exactly why the speed limit when from 70 to 55 durring the oil crisis. Someone will correct me, but wind resistance is cubed every time you double your speed. Our old '84 caddilac with trip computer got 25mpg at 64mph, but got 17-19mpg at 70mph. Closer to 28mpg at 55mph.

      Every time you double your speed, wind resistance quadruples. It goes with the square of the velocity.

      However, that's not the whole story by a long shot, which should be obvious. If the slower you go, the better gas mileage you get, you might think you get infinite gas mileage at a standstill. Of course, you don't.

      What makes the difference, then? Gears. See, your engine is extremely efficient in an RPM band - around the torque peak (called the power band). It's most efficient at the bottom of that power band. The gears don't actually help anything - as you learn in basic physics, simple machines don't change the amount of work that needs to be done. What they do is allow the engine to run at a more efficient RPM for a given speed.

      So what gears do is put peaks in the fuel efficiency curve. Depending on how a car is geared, 55 mph can be very inefficient, because it could be at the worst spot below the power band, which it is on my 93 Mazda. 55 mph gets me 28 mpg, whereas 65 gets me 30, and 70 gets me 34. 75 gets me about 32, and 80 gets me about 30 again (this is all measured).

      It's not just as simple as slowing down. You have to know how your car is geared - if it's got an overdrive, it's very possible that going 55 could hurt your gas mileage via engine inefficiency more than it helps via aerodynamics.

      That doesn't mean that 34 is the best gas mileage I get, of course. My peak gas mileage is in the mid-40s, in the peak of the previous gear (if I lock it into 3rd via the shift lock), where it's about 36-37 mpg. At lower speeds, aerodynamics losses are well below rolling resistance, so going slower doesn't help.

  2. But... by TheOtherAgentM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you have to pay $5000 over the sticker price because of demand, are you really saving money? The demand is ridiculous.

  3. In defense of EPA estimates by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:need independent testing by pycnanthemum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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.

    P.S. - I paid under MSRP for my Prius and got it in a week.

  5. Re:seems sort of a waste by Cromac · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A diesel electric built along the lines of a locomotive would be interesting.

    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.

  6. Re:Hybrids not the answer by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:higher speed = lower accident rate by Afrosheen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Actually, it's not so simple by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.