Hybrid Cars to Get New Mileage Ratings

Skidge writes "Wired is running a piece showing the drastically reduced mileage ratings for hybrids after the upcoming changes in gas mileage calculations by the EPA. While the cars themselves aren't changing, plugging these new numbers in to the equation makes a hybrid much less cost effective: "The two top-selling hybrid vehicles, the Prius and Honda's Civic Hybrid, will lose 12 and 11 miles per gallon respectively from their city driving estimates." The new values come from more realistic testing; the old, over-inflated ratings were higher in part because the cars idled a lot, allowing the hybrids to completely turn off their engines. The new ratings should be more in line with what hybrid drivers are actually seeing."

Comments

Sampling?

[powerpants]

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it. Why do they try to estimate instead of just sampling?

Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database. Problem solved.

Re:Sampling?

[kannibal_klown]

Catch-22. They like to have a "real" number before the car starts selling, but via your method they'd need to sell enough to get an accurate sample.

Re:Sampling?

[aug24]

Simple: because that would skew the sample towards mileage of people who either pay to have their oil changed or have it changed more regularly.

Estimation is intended to produce a balanced result. Heavy on the 'intended', of course ;-)

J.

Re:Sampling?

[div_2n]

While technically a valid approach, this opens the door for red flags from privacy advocates. I'm not as paranoid as the most ardent advocates, but I can see where the slope starts getting slippery.

Remember that the more avenues you open up for the government to have information about you, the more you open up the possibility of them doing things with it that you will not be happy about. History has shown that once you put more power and information in the government's hands, the likelihood of removing it is very slim.

Re:Sampling?

[CrazyTalk]

Well that will tell them the mileage, but it wont tell them how many gallons of gas were used to achieve that mileage - unless you have to input your VIN every time you buy gas to track that as well.

Re:Sampling?

[michrech]

Catch-22. They like to have a "real" number before the car starts selling, but via your method they'd need to sell enough to get an accurate sample.

Many cars are driven around in "normal situations" by test drivers. Many car magazine photographers do their best to try to get snaps of these cars.. They could use the data from these cars to do their estimates. For cars that aren't test driven, they could start.

My car (an '07 Caliber) was rated at "28 to 32 MPG". I consistently get 26 or less. :(

Re:Sampling?

[TheNinjaroach]

Their estimates ARE based on sampling of test model mileage. The "estimation" comes in guessing how close YOU will drive like the conditions used in sampling. Unfortunately, the driving conditions don't represent those of real life conditions. As an added bonus: manufacturers are allowed to hand pick which models they send to the EPA for testing. This allows them to bend the rules a bit by tweaking the cars they send in as opposed to picking them off the production line just as they are shipped to dealers.

Re:Sampling?

[Insightfill]

Well that will tell them the mileage, but it wont tell them how many gallons of gas were used to achieve that mileage - unless you have to input your VIN every time you buy gas to track that as well.

I think the parent is referring to those computers with built-in MPG displays. The oil-change computer would grab THAT displayed number, which is readily available.

That would still leave the question as to whether it reflects a city or highway cycle, but just clarifying for the parent.

Re:Sampling?

[guruevi]

My car (Buick) and a lot of other cars that I've seen keep a mileage rating in the dashboard. Currently an avg. of 27,4 mpg. But still, it would be skewed since I drive a lot and I drive fast (80mph+) making it to use more gas than the average person that buys said car.

Re:Sampling?

[rrkap]

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it. Why do they try to estimate instead of just sampling?

Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database. Problem solved.

I think the main reason for a test is so it can be applied to new or modified designs; it's hard to sample the fuel economy of a car that isn't in use yet. Additionally I think that having a standardized test is useful because different cars attract different types of drivers and having a standardized methodology allows people to estimate for themselves how good their gas millage will be. For example, I consistently get BETTER fuel economy than is projected on the EPA sticker and would assume that to be the case in general. Also, people who hire someone to change their oil are a different sort than those who do it themselves so that may also bias the sample.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say it had to include your vehicles VIN, your name, or any other identifying information. But thanks for your FUD anyway...

Re:Sampling?

[ArcherB]

I think the parent is referring to those computers with built-in MPG displays. The oil-change computer would grab THAT displayed number, which is readily available.

Unfortunately, I can't say how accurate those things are. My wife's minivan as well as her last vehicle (a 4-runner), both have this display. Both pad the average gas mileage by a mile or two. I know this because we always reset the trip meter after every fill up. Whenever we get gas, we divide the number on the trip meter by the number of gallons we used to fill the tank. While the display usually reads about 21 mpg, we calculate 19-20 mpg. These differences are consistent across both vehicles and have been consistently off at every fill-up.

So either the car miscalculates the average mpg or the odometer is wrong.

Re:Sampling?

[slart42]

[quote]Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database. Problem solved.[/quote]

This probably won't lead to comparable numbers - small microcars might be mostly used in citys whereas big cars might rather be used for long distance travel, thus resulting in numbers you can't exactly compare.

But here's a consumer-built site which does what you propose (in German):
http://www.spritmonitor.de/

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that engine consumption data is already read when car comes to maintenance.

And I bet it is stored in car manufacturers database.

Also I really fail to see the privacy aspect. This data would have only miles travelled and fuel consumed.
And the distance data is already being read and put to database.

Re:Sampling?

[klubar]

The computer-based MPG aren't that accurate because they don't account for evaporative loss. E

Re:Sampling?

[Renraku]

The insurance companies would be happy to pay a few bucks per oil change to make sure those numbers get sent to them along with the VINs.

Re:Sampling?

[Raistlin77]

Your method of dividing the displayed MPG by the gallons of gas you just filled it up with is slightly flawed. Those systems are not always accurate about the exact amount of gas that is in your tank, so unless you run it bone dry, you'll never get an accurate result. Getting a result within 1-2MPG is about as close as you will ever get.

Re:Sampling?

[Raistlin77]

It's not necessarily the speed at which you drive, but how you get to that speed. If you normally accelerate to 80MPH, you will burn less gas than if you floor it until you get to 80MPH.

Re:Sampling?

[Sporkinum]

My 2000 Saturn LS was rated at 24/32. I averaged 28 driving aggressively in mixed city/hiway commuting. Now with expensive gas, I have eased off, and now I average 31. Typical highway driving nets 34, but I have gotten as much at 39.

I think the main reason people get lousy mileage, is the way they drive. The EPA taking that into consideration makes a lot more sense, in my opinion.

Re:Sampling?

[pkcs11]

Yeah my Civic was listed as 51MPG, but it really gets around 44MPG.
I only see 50+mpg on long road trips.

Re:Sampling?

[homer_ca]

The EPA test is actually pretty accurate if you drive exactly like the test cycle, but the test conditions are nothing like real world driving. The city cycle averages about 21mph with very mild acceleration. The cold start occurs at 75 deg F (cold starts in colder weather burn much more gas). The A/C and heater are not used. The highway test has a similar leisurely pace. It averages 48mph with mild acceleration. Anyone merging and driving in freeway traffic that slowly would be a serious road hazard.

See here for more info about it.

Re:Sampling?

[c_forq]

Could the difference be due to idling time? Maybe the car doesn't account for time in park and idle, while your calculations take into effect the gas used during this time.

Re:Sampling?

[whmac33]

It's a closed system, there should be minimal evaporative loss these days.

Re:Sampling?

[robpoe]

The EPA doesn't actually test the cars under real situations.

The car manufacturers test their OWN cars, but not in real-world. They put them on a Dynamometer, drive it in varying conditions, and collect the carbon it produced. From that, they calculate how much fuel the car burned and then derive the MPG from that.

Of COURSE a hybrid would SHOW a huge MPG rating by that government standard. A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass (pun intended)

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

Re:Sampling?

[OptimusPaul]

how do we know this isn't already happening?

Re:Sampling?

[Fozzyuw]

My car (an '07 Caliber) was rated at "28 to 32 MPG". I consistently get 26 or less. :(

Manual or Stick? Driving habits effect the ratings. Do you drive 65mph on a 65mph freeway or do you drive 75mph-80mph? Do you accelerate fast? Do you find yourself braking often? Think about it the next time you approach a stop-sign. Does your foot move from the accelerator directly to the brake when you want to stop? Or are you 'coasting' and letting your momentum slow you down before you start to brake? Do you speed quickly the the next red light just to stop, or do you slowly coast to it, even if all the other cars are 'rushing' to the red? Do you drive with your windows down or the air-conditioner on a lot (it creates more drag or needs more energy to use)?

I bought a 2006 Pontiac Vibe (new) and just recently a 2007 Toyota Corolla (both awesome cars, though, I do wish the Vibe had a little more 'pep'). The Vibe was rated at 28-36 MPG if I remember right. I'm currently getting ~35MPG (mostly) highway (though it was closer to 31 MPG in the winter). The Corolla (while only having it for about a month now) is getting about 38 MPG (mostly) highway.

Both of these are manual "stick" transitions. The fiancee drives the Corolla, I drive the Vibe. While I don't usually drive aggressively, I don't pussy-foot the cars when accelerating to highway speeds (winding out the RPMs pretty high). However, I do kick in the cruise control at speed limit speeds, occasionally 5-over. What I do try to do, and what I'm getting better at recognizing, is that I try not to 'waist' energy by having the car do more than it needs to do, particularly in braking. Lets put it this way, the more you use your brakes, the more energy you're waisting. (which is the theory behind Hybrids, to turn the brake heat/energy back into car energy). Better braking habits will not only help save some gas but also extend the life of your breaks.

If your car is significantly getting much lower MPG than the rated amount, I would 1st) get it checked out by the dealership. 2nd) look at your own driving habits. If you're getting 26 MPG and you do pretty much all city driving, then I would say you're right on schedule (You can usually take off 1-2 MPG from the rating for 'real' estimates). If you want to raise your MPG, take a longer route in the city that makes you stop much less frequently. Stop/Go is the hardest on an engine and your millage efficiency.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Sampling?

[Joe Decker]

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it. In terms of the way they do studies, it's because the way the car is driven is such a huge factor in performance (as are environmental factors.) I actually get near-EPA mileage on my Prius. But then, I'm a freak. Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database. Because of what I just said. The average driver of a Prius is likely to drive a little differently than the average driver of a Pontiac Trans Am. While sampling might give a customer a better somewhat better estimate of what he or she might get in a given car they were going to buy, since they'd be more likely to be in the demographic of that car, sampling gives a worse answer to what most purchasers are actually asking, which is "which of these two cars gives me better gas mileage--and is that by a little, or by a lot?" Sampling also runs into strange questions as to where you sample geographically. I'd expect Priuses to be rare in Alaska, would you include Alaska in the area you sample? Temperature has a large influence on observed gas mileage, etc.

Re:Sampling?

[Frosty Piss]

Simple: because that would skew the sample towards mileage of people who either pay to have their oil changed or have it changed more regularly.

We're talking new cars here. Most "new" car owners have their oil done at the dealership or a dealership authorized chain. Most car owners (period) don't changer their own oil anymore. Note I said "most", so if you are the one car geek in 1000 that changers your own oil, adjusts your own belts, gaps your own plugs, YOU ARE NOT THE NORM.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

A government entity inefficient/slow/inaccurate/lazy???

COLOR ME SHOCKED!

Re:Sampling?

[dknj]

If you want to raise your MPG, take a longer route in the city that makes you stop much less frequently. Stop/Go is the hardest on an engine and your millage efficiency.

i debate this with my father often. if you take a longer route, your mileage efficiency will go up but you may have just tacked on an additional 5-10 miles to your commute thereby nullifying any gains. if you want to raise your mpg, switch to public transportation.

Re:Sampling?

[Bassman59]

Manual or Stick?

Methinks you mean "manual or automatic."

What I do try to do, and what I'm getting better at recognizing, is that I try not to 'waist' energy by having the car do more than it needs to do, particularly in braking.

It's good that you put the word 'waist' in quotes, because it's the wrong word. perhaps you mean "waste?"

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true- there are vents for when gas heats up and people who have overfilled need a place for their gas to go, as well as the air in the tank.

Re:Sampling?

[Smidge204]

This is a rather important point many people don't understand. Driving the speed limit and driving defensively save gas.

Some anecdotal evidence of mine... I drive a '93 Dodge van with over 220K miles on it. It has an onboard computer that tells me both instantaneous and average MPG, so I decided to experiment.

Driving "normally" I got 11.3 MPG average over two weeks. Then I started using cruise control, whenever possible, set at the speed limit. Coasting whenever possible (I'm never in a hurry to get up to a red light anyway), not accelerating as hard and trying to avoid accelerating up hills. My next two-week average was 14.7 MPG.

Since my average commute is a little over 5 miles, I'm nearly 2 gallons of gas per week less than before... or about $7/week at current prices. That's worth it IMHO.
=Smidge=

Re:Sampling?

[malcomvetter]

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it.

Well, because they're not driving the cars on the road at all when they test for fuel economy. How can any of the numbers be accurate in such an unrealistic testing environment?

Re:Sampling?

[gregleimbeck]

A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself.

That would be a good reason not to measure the MPG on a car that does not run on gasoline.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, which roads are these you drive on where 80+mph is a legally allowed speed?

Re:Sampling?

[drinkypoo]

This is a rather important point many people don't understand. Driving the speed limit and driving defensively save gas.

What you apparently don't understand is that this varies from vehicle to vehicle.

I have owned two vehicles now which get their best mileage around 80 mph. 1989 Nissan 240SX, which is one of the most aerodynamic vehicles on the planet (0.26cD) and a 1981 Mercedes 300SD Turbo Diesel.

Aerodynamics, gearing, and torque curve combine to define the most efficient point. For some vehicles, especially trucks and vans, they are most efficient around 55 mph. Most passenger vehicles are most efficient from 60-65 mph.

These numbers have actually changed over time as speed limits have changed, but there are occasional freak cars that don't seem to correspond to anything.

In any car, the way to save the most fuel is to press the accelerator as little as possible. Actually, that's not precisely true; the most efficient way is to accelerate at about 3/4 throttle, then drop into neutral and coast, bouncing back and forth between about 35 and 65 miles per. But that's generally unsafe on public roads.

Re:Sampling?

[drinkypoo]

When the system is being run the evap is put through a charcoal canister in which vapors are concentrated and returned to the tank. I don't know if any systems vent through the canister, but if they don't, they're lame. (Not a fuel systems expert, sorry.)

Re:Sampling?

[letxa2000]

Lets put it this way, the more you use your brakes, the more energy you're waisting. (which is the theory behind Hybrids, to turn the brake heat/energy back into car energy). Better braking habits will not only help save some gas but also extend the life of your breaks.

Can you please explain to me how "better braking habits" will save some gas? Braking doesn't consume any gas.

That said, I agree that easing off the gas when you anticipate braking in the near future will save a small amount of gas since you're not burning gas that's giving you speed that you're about to eliminate with the brake anyway. But that's really more of an acceleration habit than a braking habit. In other words, don't punch the gas when you don't have to.

But how does changing your braking habits make any difference on the gas? Unless, of course, you omit braking for a stoplight, get in an accident, and total your car. Then you will be saving on gas because your car is in the shop.

Re:Sampling?

[MarcoAtWork]

I do kick in the cruise control at speed limit speeds

that's one thing you can do to save gas: NOT use the cruise control, it's counter-intuitive but usually c/cs are a lot more aggressive than you'd be in mantaining the speed on rolling terrain and using more gas. I was thinking about getting a c/c myself and decided not to after reading up on it...

Re:Sampling?

[whmac33]

You should notice when you fill up your car with gas, when the cap is removed it is under pressure and you can hear the pressure release.

There is no ventilation of the fuel to the atmosphere. That's why when you go through emissions they make sure your gas cap seals tight.

I found this which explains it a little http://www.familycar.com/Classroom/emission.htm#EV APORATIVE%20CONTROLS

An older car that predates all the emissions controls will vent the gas tank to the atmosphere I believe.

Re:Sampling?

[Achromatic1978]

The inside of your tank has a bladder so there can be expansion due to heating without this. The tank itself can expand with heat. My car (a Prius, as it happens), does all sorts of stuff too related to fuel evaporation detection/prevention, that I won't even claim to know the specifics of.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's one thing you can do to save gas: NOT use the cruise control, it's counter-intuitive but usually c/cs are a lot more aggressive than you'd be in mantaining the speed on rolling terrain and using more gas. I was thinking about getting a c/c myself and decided not to after reading up on it...

Well, I'd say that's a reason for judicious use of cruise control, rather than a reason to not buy a vehicle which has that feature. If you have a long trip over flat terrain, CC does very well; not so much over a hilly route.

- T

Re:Sampling?

[SoCalChris]

If so few people are changing their own oil, why does WalMart have an entire isle of nothing but oil filters and oil? If they were selling that little of oil change supplies, they wouldn't have so much floor space dedicated to it.

Re:Sampling?

[letxa2000]

Are you suggesting a Grease Monkey conspiracy? Seriously, it's ok to be suspicious of government and companies, etc. but when you're rhetorical question suggesting a conspiracy involving probably hundreds of thousands of auto mechanics, I have to draw the line.

Re:Sampling?

[Rei]

The big problem with public transport, in my opinion, is delays. Here in Iowa City (which has one of the best bus systems in the area) most busses show up every half hour during the daytime (some busy routes are 15-20 minutes at peak times only), and every hour in the evening. So, in short, we're to compare getting in a car and driving across town in 5-10 minutes or waiting half an hour or so for the bus, then riding it across town which, due to its stops, will take ~20 minutes.

The same goes for people whose solution is "bike" or "jog" more. The length of time is just unacceptable. I have things to do, and I don't want to have to deal with perhaps an hour and a half cut out of every day of my life for an self-imposed transportation delay. That's more than the length of time I spend gardening and playing with my parrot combined (although somewhat less time than I spend writing FOSS)

Re:Sampling?

[DrEldarion]

It's basically doing more costing and anticipation instead of braking then accelerating then braking then accelerating. If you notice yourself coming up to someone on the freeway, take your foot off the gas and coast to a slower speed rather than keeping it on the gas until you're close and then hitting the brake.

Re:Sampling?

[geekinaseat]

The point is not how much you brake but rather how much energy you need to use to get back up to the speed you were going before you had to brake.

For example if you drive straight up to a red light and brake to a stop you have to accelerate right back up to 30 or whatever you were doing when you continue. Whereas if you anticipate the light and slow down to a point where you might not have to stop at the light... ie by the time you get there it has changed back to green, you do not have to accelerate as much to get back up to speed.

Re:Sampling?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"Braking doesn't consume any gas."

Directly, you're right. But think about what your brakes do. You wasted gas accelerating to the point that you needed to use your brakes, or you kept in the gas too long so you need to use your brakes.

Re:Sampling?

[OptimusPaul]

I'm not suggesting hundreds of thousands of auto mechanics... to be honest I don't believe it's happening. I would guess that is this kind of thing is happening it's happening at larger chains and/or dealerships. And honestly my comment was a jab at the "conspiracy" nuts... personally I could care less if someone knows my driving habits, I'll tell you now... I drive a little fast from time to time, and about once a week I get the urge to drive under the speed limit, which tends to piss people off, but I think I get high on that; I also tend to stray to the right, even though my tires are balanced and aligned, I think it's fear of commitment; when I get gas I like to top it off until a little bit spills over the top, I like a little bit of danger. Oh and I like to pass cops on the freeway and pull in front of them and tap on my breaks.

Re:Sampling?

[xenocide2]

I call shenanigans. We've got solar cars that show severe drops going from 55 to 50, with arguably far better aerodynamics than the 240SX (at considerable expense). Throwing out numbers is not a substitute for automotive engineering expertise.

Re:Sampling?

[FragHARD]

Strange how it is always an import company that gets away with this kind of playful advertising long enough to get entrenched in first place against the local competitors???

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any highway in the midwest/plains? I-25 in northern colorado is 75 posted, traffic flow average is about 90-95. I go past cops at 85-90 all the time and they don't bat an eye.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your most efficient speed depends on the overhead energy use of the car too.

If the AC, radio, onboard navigation, lighting etc are using more energy than the than actual movement of the car, your mileage will be lower.

If all of that is using less energy than the actual propulsion of the car, you could save energy by slowing down. You want to hit that minimal energy consumption with maximum energy going into forward momentum.

If you have your AC, radio, navigation, headlights etc all off you can get better mileage by going slower. If you have all of that on, you'll have lower mileage but must travel faster to keep the majority of the energy from being all of the accessories and instead have an equal amount going into sustaining the forward movement of the car.

That's actually why the mileage ratings are changing. Comparatively, hybrids tend to consume very little energy in forward momentum of the car. If you use all of the accessories, they'll hit optimal efficiency at well above highway speeds. Most likely they aren't even capable of traveling quickly enough to hit that magic optimal efficiency point.

However, they'll benefit hugely from energy reduction of the accessories. Conventional ICE will actually lose even more ground to the hybrids when this happens since they operate on the other end of the curve.

Re:Sampling?

[Undertaker43017]

It largely depends on the terrain and the person driving.

CC's have a hard time with hilly terrain, since it has no way to know when a hill is coming and gradually build up speed before it, instead having to over compensate after it starts to loose speed.

The bigger problem, IMO, is that most drivers don't have fine enough touch on the accelerator to be more fuel efficient than a CC. I have tested this several times and I can routinely do 3-4MPG better than the CC, but it takes more concentration and over a 8-10 hour trip can result in higher fatigue.

Re:Sampling?

[sacrilicious]

Driving the speed limit and driving defensively save gas.... not accelerating as hard and trying to avoid accelerating up hills.

Note that "driving the speed limit" is different from "not accelerating as hard", and I suspect it's the latter from which your anecdotal savings are coming. Driving at the speed limit and not accelerating hard may be somewhat related where there are frequent stops, but they're unrelated for longer distance driving. Driving interstates at 55 does *not* save gas. And driving 25 in a residential zone probably doesn't either.

Re:Sampling?

[powerpants]

If you are implying that Toyota and Honda were exploiting the mileage test, you're off-base and should RTFA. It was the American hybrids whose ratings went down the most.

Re:Sampling?

[shmlco]

Ethanol? Diesel?

Or just convert. How many electrons are in a gallon, anyway.... ;)

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically speaking, all of the energy you remove by braking was put there by accelerating. Every time you touch the brakes, you are sapping off energy that could have been used to move the car. The less energy that goes into braking, the more energy went into moving the car and therefore better mileage.

Re:Sampling?

[stanmann]

Because the people who do that sort of thing own cars that need it more often than new cars.

Re:Sampling?

[spirit of reason]

I don't actually know as much about the ICE side of things, but it's quite likely that electric motors have a much different efficiency curve. Most motors don't really vary that much in efficiency at sufficiently high RPM levels. So your energy losses are going to be from all of the external frictional forces (drag and rolling resistance, which depend on the cube and square of velocity, respectively). So in general, going faster causes more external energy loss per distance traveled. To get the total loss from your storage, though, you'd have to divide by the efficiency of the engine or motor. If the engine's efficiency increased significantly by traveling at a higher speed, it's plausible that you actually consume less fuel when you're driving faster.

Re:Sampling?

[steevc]

I drive a diesel manual Vauxhall Zafira 1.9L, 120ps. The quoted economy is Urban 37.2, Extra-Urban 55.4, Combined 47.1mpg (UK). I have averaged 46mpg over the last 3 years, so that's pretty accurate. My daily commute is 25 miles of motorway that always slows to a crawl in places with the rest in variable London traffic. I drive for economy, anticipating when I need to slow down and not accelerating too hard. Recently I've taken to keeping to around 65mph on the motorway rather than around 70mph when traffic allows. For the last couple of tanks I've averaged almost 50mpg. That's about 41mpg (US). I don't think that's bad for a car that can carry seven people.

The time is coming when we will replace our old Rover 1.6 manual petrol (37mpg). I'll be looking for something that uses less than the Zafira to use for my commute. With the price of fuel rising again in the UK it has the potential to save me a heap of cash. Diesel looks likely to go over a pound soon.

Re:Sampling?

[Bandman]

If there were a form of public transportation which could get you to the neighborhood where you were going in less time, would you take it, if it cost you more money than driving?

Re:Sampling?

[spirit of reason]

I should mention I neglected to include the energy loss from the acceleration and from any inclines, so really not all of the energy losses are from frictional forces...

Re:Sampling?

[stix213]

I agree fully. I have a 2007 Prius, and with my normal driving habits (75mph highway, and lots of stop and go in city) I average 48mpg overall. When I have tried my best to get good gas mileage, meaning I try to keep the car in electric mode as often as possible and drive the speed limit or less, basically how your grandma drives, I average 55mpg overall with a 50-50% mix of highway and city driving. I don't really see where the EPA was that far off, just a normal person (other than grandma) doesn't drive a car optimally for gas mileage.

Re:Sampling?

[smithmc]

  Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database. Problem solved.

Is that "city" or "highway"? Does the guy beat on his car or baby it? How will that number be any better or more useful than the numbers the EPA comes up with now, which at least have some attempt at rigor behind them?

Re:Sampling?

[The_Wilschon]

The GP said that most people don't change their own oil, not that very few people do change their own oil. Most people not changing their own oil and Walmart having a large amount of floorspace dedicated to oil-changing products are not incompatible. Very few people do change their own oil, compared to the number that do not.

Re:Sampling?

[drinkypoo]

Throwing out numbers is not a substitute for automotive engineering expertise.

Pulling platitudes out of your ass is no substitute for real-world experience, either.

Re:Sampling?

[cayenne8]

"... if you want to raise your mpg, switch to public transportation."

Not that I'm interested in doing this...I like performance cars, and I never look at the price of gas when I fill up (just the price of my form of entertainment).

However, if I was concerned...not really practical in my part of the country. I live in the SE of the US, and it is the part of the country where you turn on the AC in April, and you don't really turn it off again till about mid Nov. Hell, I've been outside deep frying a T-Day turkey in shorts and a t-shirt. And while I get to wear business casual...I can't come in to work soaked with sweat, or drenched by heavy rains. It isn't like those busses run right up to the door (or less than 2 blocks from it) at either your origin or destination. That, and they don't run every few minutes..so would make my already long day, even longer.

Hell, you can get pretty sweaty just from the parking lot to the office...from a bus drop off would leave you totally soaked.

Re:Sampling?

[russ1337]

When I was a teenager I recall a few cars having vacuum gauges which showed manifold vacuum. It was a good way to see how much gas you're using. If you were heavy footed the gauge would go sky high, and but if you kept it below the 'yellow' you'd still speed up but a little more efficiently.

Not sure how you'd go with a vacuum gauge on a fuel injected car, but how about a fuel flow gauge? Perhaps measured in $/min.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of M&S that takes place for estimating fuel economy numbers. Using engine models (fuel maps), transmission models, driveshaft models, powersteering models, etc the fuel economy and emmissions are calculated. This was approved by the Dept. of Energy, because they created the software. Many times the simulations were posted as the genuine numbers.

the software WAS free but was then sold and is now licensed software... oh well. you can still find the older free version online.

http://www.avl.com/wo/webobsession.servlet.go/enco ded/YXBwPWJjbXMmcGFnZT12aWV3Jm1hc2s9dmlldyZub2RldG l0bGVpZD0zMjc0Mw_3D_3D.html

Re:Sampling?

[Firethorn]

On the other hand, while you're coasting your vehicle is using a minimum amount of gas, not enough to maintain speed. This is less than the amount needed to maintain the vehicle at speed.

Over time, this can add up to a small increase in milage.

If you're going to have to stop anyways, it's the most efficient to spend your momentum getting to the stopping point than to use gas to get there at speed, only to bleed it away as heat with the brakes.

Re:Sampling?

[cayenne8]

"That's why when you go through emissions they make sure your gas cap seals tight."

Thankfully....I've never lived in a state that did emissions testing. What all states do this?

I'm going pretty soon for a swap out of my air intake, downpipe, midpipe and exhaust...basically everything before and after the turbo. Glad no one from the govt. will be sticking his nose in my business. It may decrease my mileage a bit, but, I'll be gaining a good 50 HP at the rear wheels with this little investment...not too bad.

Re:Sampling?

[schon]

Of COURSE a hybrid would SHOW a huge MPG rating by that government standard. A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself. Sorry, are you implying that the test is flawed for hybrids because they have an electric component?

If so, here's your cluebat: Unless the electric component is bringing in power from outside the system, the test is completely valid, because all the power comes from the gasoline in the tank. Turning the engine into a generator which powers and electric drive-train doesn't change this simple fact.

Re:Sampling?

[itof500]

"Driving interstates at 55 does *not* save gas. "

Actually, driving 55 on the interstate does save fuel. I keep complete records of every tank of fuel, miles per gallon (US) and driving conditions. My ride is a 1997 Jetta diesel (manual) that I bought new and still drive (140k miles). Each figure comes from a long trip on the interstate where I was able to maintain the listed speed for the full tank. Test drives are all in the summer and repeated (over the years) with an N of at least 3.

70 mph - 45 mpg
65 mph - 52 mpg
60 mph - 56 mpg

I've not had the opportunity to do a whole tank at 55 mph, but I think that the trend is clear that driving slower than 70 mph does save fuel.

duke out

Re:Sampling?

[Nethead]

So we'll all breath worse air so you can pimp your car. Go Go Speed Racer!

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its likely that English isn't his first language. Give the guy a brake.

Re:Sampling?

[SPickett]

Where do you get the gallons of gas used? Is that stored in the on-board computer and is it accurate?

Re:Sampling?

[lowrydr310]

I have a 9 mile commute to work. I would love to bike when the weather permits (more than 2/3 of the year - I don't mind cold but rain and snow are no fun) however the route is so bicycle unfriendly. Try sharing a narrow no shoulder 2 lane road with crazed NJ drivers going 50MPH on winding roads.

Re:Sampling?

[tftp]

You'd need to better define 'less time' and 'more money' to get a valid answer. However I know many people who live in large cities where public transportation is available in plenty (a bus or a streetcar every couple of minutes), and for some $30/mo they can ride any of them anywhere, as much as they care.

However there is always a catch of bags, boxes and stuff that one can easily carry in a car, and not so easily in a public transport. Even a mere notebook computer, loaded with batteries and a projector and some other gear would make you very unhappy if you have to carry it in your hands all the way to the public transport and during transfers; with a car you only put it in, and take it out once there.

Another obvious issue is with short trips around the neighborhood - food, laundry, clothes, mail, movies, etc. If you don't have a universal pass, and need to pay for each trip, the costs go up fast - you can easily spend $10-15 just doing daily errands. In a car you'd travel maybe 20 miles total, at cost of 1 gallon of fuel, which would be $3.50 at most.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a rather important point many people don't understand. Driving the speed limit and driving defensively save gas.

The speed limit has absolutely no connection to fuel efficiency whatsoever; that is just another cover excuse for weak drivers who are speed limit literalists instead of exercising judgement in determining safe/efficient speeds. Your fuel efficiency at 60mph is the same on a 70MPH interstate or a 35mph back road.

The second point is right in a bassackwards way, in that the main way to save gas while driving is to maxmimize coasting, which means as little driver-induced speed change as possible -- light on the accelerator, and light on the brakes. You need a lot of space around you, and a very long range of vision to anticipate traffic flow changes, obstacles etc to make that work -- and what do you know, all those things also give you the awareness and wide margin of error you need to avoid accidents!

The optimal speed for fuel efficiency purposes is between 35-55 MPH (depending on gear ratios/internal friction, and coefficient of drag). This means that the 25mph speed limit on certain roads in the Nevada desert around Las Vegas are too low, while the 75MPH interstate speeds in that same state are too high. (If you want fuel efficiency in Nevada, stay off the interstates, use the mostly-empty two-lane back roads, HELP faster drivers overtake you by backing off a bit when the other lane is clear (so you can stick to your target speed without hassle), and use your radar detector on those asinine 25mph roads.)

In my case, the small engine and relatively aerodynamic shape of my Civic Hybrid (relative to an Element, at least) mean that my F/E optimum is up near 50-55mph. Seeing as driving that slow usually causes trouble in and around Los Angeles, I usually stay between 60-65mph, sacrificing a small bit of efficiency in return for not causing accidents or being shot at. With this approach, I have averaged almost exactly 50MPG over the 35000 miles of ownership so far, with 54-55MPG on freeways, and 40-45 in town. Worst-case is about 30mpg with lots of stop-and-go and AC on. Best overall tank was 55.5 MPG calculated.

Re:Sampling?

[CrazyTalk]

I would think those things are next to useless for this type of application, since they can be reset by the user (i.e. the driver). For example, if I reset my mpg indicator at the top of a hill on a highway and take my foot off of the accelerator, I can easily peg the meter at 99 mpg until I reach the bottom of the hill or step on the gas. Resetting it while spending a lot of time in the city versus during a long highway trip can also skew the results (albeit in less dramatic fashion)

Re:Sampling?

[NeverVotedBush]

Try different grades of gas too. For me it makes about a 4 mpg difference - which more than covers the cost of mid-grade compared to regular.

My Civic Hybrid has also got a since-new (aka ~38,000 mile) average of right at 50 mpg. But in town I get closer to 48-49 mpg and on the highway get 52-54 mpg. My best tank average was 54.something.

Re:Sampling?

[Nimey]

You *do* know it's illegal to screw with your catalytic converters, right? That includes bypassing or removing them.

Re:Sampling?

[drinkypoo]

If the AC, radio, onboard navigation, lighting etc are using more energy than the than actual movement of the car, your mileage will be lower.

The AC is by far the biggest power-using accessory in the vehicle, with the possible exception of power steering which uses a very high-pressure hydraulic system (Except in some new cars which use electric power assist.) At higher RPMs the AC system can use as much as five horsepower - about 3.8kW or 316W. In other words there's no point in even mentioning anything but the AC - which draws maybe 1/4 as much as the amount of power it takes to keep an aerodynamic vehicle moving down the road at freeway speeds. This is why you might as well use your A/C if you're on the freeway - opening your windows destroys your aerodynamics and increases drag remarkably.

But anyway, it is nearly impossible to have accessories consuming more power than motion... Unless you're parked, or going so slowly that you're wasting more power idling than moving.

Re:Sampling?

[Jaysyn]

Imperial or American gallons?

Re:Sampling?

[lowrydr310]

That's a nice car - too bad it (or any other compact diesel) isn't available in the USA. I'm still waiting for Toyota to give me a diesel Hilux. I need a small pickup and I love the torque the Hilux diesel has (drove one in the Philippines recently).

Instead Toyota decides to make the compact pickup in the USA (Tacoma) BIGGER - wider and longer, with similar fuel economy to the previous years' models.

Re:Sampling?

[Bandman]

You're right. Most places don't have the population density necessary for effective public transportation.

Re:Sampling?

[dbIII]

The figures were not over inflated from the description above and the testing is actually more unrealistic. Why? One of the major reasons to use a hybrid in a city is becuase it CAN turn the engine off when another vehicle would be idling and then it can turn it back on when required. Measuring fuel used under exactly the same conditions is the only way to do it - changing the criteria to running time is either a skewed test designed to make these things look bad or a failure to adequately design the test. I would go so far as to suspect corruption from a "donor".

Real testing is far better than some numbers gathered in wildly different circumstances that cannot be easily compared. Comparing recorded milage to fuel used in the same area makes a lot more sense than the article.

Re:Sampling?

[eugene ts wong]

I agree with you. I think that it is time for auto manufacturers to start placing precise measuring tools in the car, that indicate how much gas is consumed. People want to conserve gas. So, put them in.

Re:Sampling?

[cayenne8]

"You *do* know it's illegal to screw with your catalytic converters, right? That includes bypassing or removing them."

Yup...actually, while I considered going with a straight pipe...I'm doing one with a cat. converter on it...it is street legal for that.

However, like I said, I've never lived anywhere they do an emissions check...and it isn't like the cops are going to randomly pull you over to check for a cat. converter...even if any of them knew what one looked like is it?

I've known people that took them off...never got caught. The states I registered cars in that inspected them (not all even inspect cars at all) only look at horn, headlights, wipers and brakes, and that it. So, it isn't like anyone is ever gonna even LOOK for any modifications where I live.

I 99% sure my new set up is gonna be legal in all states but CA...but, since I don't get checked...why care?

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

It is a common misconception that octane ratings are somehow connected to increased mileage and/or increased performance. The octane rating actually refers to how far the fuel-air mixture in the cylinder can be compressed before spontaneous (knocking) combustion occurs. Many performance-oriented engines operate a higher compression ratios, and with lower octane fuels, the compressed fuel-air mixture in the cylinder may ignite early, before the spark plug fires.

In other words, putting a higher octane fuel in your car than the compression ratio of your engine requires is a complete and utter waste of money.

Reference http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm.

Re:Sampling?

[ray-auch]

I don't really see where the EPA was that far off, just a normal person (other than grandma) doesn't drive a car optimally for gas mileage.


The ratings are supposed to be what a normal person would get - not an economy driver.

Someone who drives a car "optimally for gas mileage" should get a lot _better_ than the official figures - and in conventional vehicles, they do. If you have to drive hybrids "optimally for gas mileage" just to _match_ the official figures, then using the figures for comparison clearly _is_ unfair.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course a total electric would show infinity, it doesn't use any gas at all. You can't divide something by 0.

Re:Sampling?

[dfn_deux]

1989 Nissan 240SX, which is one of the most aerodynamic vehicles on the planet (0.26cD) cD isn't even close to the whole story on aerodynamics, it is a totally meaningless measure unless you also know the frontal area of the car as well as the rolling resistance. Even the slipperiest of vehicles is going to have significant aerodynamic resistance if it present a large area; likewise any motorcycle is going to have a cD much higher than almost any passenger car however it will also have about 1/8 the frontal surface...

Now you know!
And knowing is some fractional portion of some sort of battle, or so I've been told.

Re:Sampling?

[serbanp]

LOL

Re:Sampling?

[Danga]

Any highway in the midwest/plains?

I grew up in the midwest (Chicago area) and if you go past the speed limit (65 mph) and a cop is there they WILL give you a ticket. I have noticed that most of the flat states west of IL do have higher speed limits which is nice but other midwest states such as Indiana and Ohio usually have 65 as a max speed limit and lots of state troopers out enforcing that limit.

I-25 in northern colorado is 75 posted, traffic flow average is about 90-95. I go past cops at 85-90 all the time and they don't bat an eye.

I now live in Phoenix and in southern Arizona there are quite a few highways with 75 posted and lots of people going 85-90 mph but when there are police out clocking people they will pull people over who are speeding that excessively. I highly doubt the cops anywhere in the US would not bat an eye to people going 15 mph over the speed limit, it's too much of an easy source of revenue.

Re:Sampling?

[gumbi west]

If you really are getting the best mileage around 80 miles per hour, you might want to consider not using the top gear. The simple fact is that wind resistance increases as the square of velocity while velocity only increases linearly in velocity (divide the two and you get that you have increasing wind resistance).

What makes you think that you are getting this kind of efficiency in a well controlled experiment. How did you test?

Re:Sampling?

[gumbi west]

This method would take into account how people who own the car like to drive too. Bad if you are a-typical or a manufacturer who sells cars to aggressive drivers. Good if you are a consumer and want to know what you might get conditional on the kind of car you are actually buying.

Also, a family member has a civic hybrid and said she got less than the EPA the first year and then better the second year and beyond (it taught her how to drive efficiently). Not sure how to capture that.

Re:Sampling?

[Doppler00]

One word: Repeatability.

If a new car model comes out claiming improved efficiently how do you test it? You'd have to do a huge sample test again. Also, the driving habbits of say a soccer mom in a minivan are not going to match a sports car for weekends or a econobox commuter vehicle.

The best way would be to do a sampled test of all drivers, of all vehicles (or a class of vehicles) to generate a driving behavior profile. Then, create an automated test based on that profile. Done!

Re:Sampling?

[Doppler00]

Coasting to the red light would be nice if it wasn't for all those jerks that think they have to accelerate, pass me, and slam their brakes in front of me all while the light is still red. And I'm afraid that around where I live, if you don't drive aggressively enough you might be shot for making those jerks mad at you.

Re:Sampling?

[Fozzyuw]

Can you please explain to me how "better braking habits" will save some gas?

By getting in the 'habit' of 'breaking less'. I admit, it's a bit of a backwards way of thinking of it, but that's the way it came out when I wrote it. But I appreciate /. for it's nit-pickers. It helps keep me on my toes.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Sampling?

[WilliamSChips]

Imperial galleons.

Re:Sampling?

[magicchex]

Here in Michigan, at speeds up to 80mph, you better be in the slow lane and cops won't look twice, sometimes all the way up to 90mph.

Re:Sampling?

[jafiwam]

Mythbusters did an episode on this issue using Mountaineer vehicles, a track, a steady speed, etc.

It came out that open windows beat air conditioning by something like 10 miles on a full tank of gas. In other words, the windows open vehicle went an additional 30 laps after the air conditioned one ran out of gas.

The "computer estimate" model gaging air flow to the engine indicated about 11 mpg for both, air and windows open, but that won't catch the computer running a richer mixture to push more... only a difference in RPM and gearing ratios.

Something might have gone wrong on their test, but my experience also reflects that air conditioning sucks up way more gas than open windows at least in my car.

Whomever started saying that air conditioning is more efficient didn't TEST it, and if they did, one a vehicle that had super-efficient air conditioning and not an SUV, or maybe they did use the gearing (but then leave that out) "some vehicles at X gear and Y rpm are more efficient with air on and closed windows".

Either way, I don't believe the air conditioning thing anymore.

Re:Sampling?

[Smidge204]

You're right, driving conservatively can not, in any way shape or form, improve fuel economy. If it does it's clearly a fluke of the vehicle.

My apologies.
=Smidge=

Re:Sampling?

[cheezedawg]

Do you drive with your windows down or the air-conditioner on a lot (it creates more drag or needs more energy to use)?

According to this recent article, this is a myth. To quote:

There's the old saw that leaving your windows rolled down creates an aerodynamic drag on your car, cutting down on fuel efficiency. And there's the notion that the fastest way to drain your gas tank is by running your air conditioning.

Don't believe either one.

In two separate studies conducted in 2005, the automotive Web site Edmunds.com and Consumer Reports compared the fuel economy of both a sedan and an SUV at highway speeds with and without air conditioning and how open windows affected gas usage.

What they found was no significant difference in fuel economy in either sedan or SUV under either condition.

Re:Sampling?

[j-turkey]

I highly doubt the cops anywhere in the US would not bat an eye to people going 15 mph over the speed limit, it's too much of an easy source of revenue.

I used to make the same generalization about fines being a significant source of revenue until I read that it doesn't work like that everywhere.

It may well be the case that many police departments are required to aggressively enforce traffic laws in order to generate revenue for the state or municipality. However, I was very surprised to find out that in Fairfax County, VA, fines and forfeitures only account for 0.5% of revenues (see pie-chart on page 2). This is by far the most populous county in the state of Virginia, and traffic enforcement by county police is very heavy.

Obviously, this is only one example. However, it shows that not all police departments enforce traffic laws for revenue enhancement.

Re:Sampling?

[boingo82]

FYI, there are plugins that you can get for any car with an OBD-II system (everything after 1996, by law, but available on some earlier cars), which will give you a live fuel economy readout.

I would like to get one of these myself when I have a few spare hundred dollars, but just haven't bought one yet.

Re:Sampling?

[CavemanKiwi]

Some cars can detect the octane level and adjust accordingly. I believe some BMWs do this.

Re:Sampling?

[toddestan]

Some cars that are designed for premium fuel, such as the Nissan Maxima, have the computer adjust the timings if it detects that you have put non-premium fuel in the car to protect the engine. This lowers the efficiency of the engine, as well as reduces the power. My experience with a 1997 Maxima was that the money saved by not putting premium in the tank was pretty much offset by the reduced mileage.

Re:Sampling?

[arminw]

....Jetta diesel ........

Diesel engine efficiency goes down with increasing RPM, whereas this is not the case with gasoline cars. Gas engines peak efficiency curve is not nearly as flat and it is quite possible to have better efficiency at 65-70 mph than at 45-55.

Re:Sampling?

[Stormy Dragon]

Ever read the constitution? Especially the fourth ammendment?

Re:Sampling?

[toddestan]

If so, here's your cluebat: Unless the electric component is bringing in power from outside the system, the test is completely valid, because all the power comes from the gasoline in the tank. Turning the engine into a generator which powers and electric drive-train doesn't change this simple fact.

Actually, it's not that simple. If the hybrid goes into the test with a mostly charged battery pack, and at the end of the test the battery pack is depleted, then the hybrid "cheated" by using stored up energy that it generated before the test began. Naturally, the effect would get worse the shorter the mileage test is. Of course, the hybrid could also be penalized if it goes into the test with a depleted battery pack, and by the end of the test had burned extra gasoline to charge it up. The only way to be fair would be to end the test with the battery pack at the same state as when the test began, or to run the test long enough (several hours?) that the effects from residual charge in the battery can be ignored.

Though my impression is the reasons hybrids do so well is that they are able to kill the gasoline engine and emit no carbon during parts of the test when a normal car would be idling its engine.

Re:Sampling?

[Rei]

Yes.

Re:Sampling?

[MSBob]

The fundamental problem is that in North America (it applies to Canada as much as the US) is that we created an unsustainable living arrangement. The partitioning of land to residential, industrial and commercial zones resulted in a habitat that is not conducive to walking, biking or public transportation. We are going to be in a lot of pain over the next few decades as the supplies of fossil fuels begin to dwindle. James Kunstler has called this "The greatest misallocation of resources in modern history of mankind"

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Catch-22. They like to have a "real" number before the car starts selling,
> but via your method they'd need to sell enough to get an accurate sample.

Why not do both? An initial pre-sale estimate, which then gets updated post-sale with real-life numbers.

Aside from that, I looked up my Hyundai Accent and it too went down a couple MPG's. Highway, for example, was 33 and is now rated at 31 MPG. Meanwhile, I got over 40 MPG average over the entire year. That's why I think, a database with actual road-derived numbers makes a lot of sense for people to make informed decisions.

Re:Sampling?

[xenocide2]

Wind resistance is the primary reason you have peak efficiencies in geared motors, like you mentioned. The solar cars my roommate built had some pretty good aerodynamics, but they were seeing huge drops in power usage at 55 vs 50 which makes a hell of a lot of sense. As I understand it, ICE has a torque curve complete with a peak, while electrics are pretty much constant.

It's very difficult for me to imagine how going faster would increase engine efficiency past say 40 miles an hour. Peak efficiency at 80 mph just seems like a lousy excuse to tell your mom.

Re:Sampling?

[ncc74656]

Here's a simple approach: When a car comes in for an oil change, read the mileage rating stored inthe on-board computer and upload it to an EPA database.

That's going to be an indeterminate mix of city and highway driving, which is somewhat less than useless for their purposes. There are also those of us who do our own maintenance, so if getting everybody's stats is your goal, that isn't going to work either.

Re:Sampling?

[ncc74656]

Not sure how you'd go with a vacuum gauge on a fuel injected car

Same as it would with a carburetor. A throttle body has the same effect on manifold vacuum as a carburetor.

Re:Sampling?

[frdmfghtr]

And this blow my mind, the way the fuel use is estimated:

"A hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust.

The amount of carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel used during the test.

This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge."

How is this more accurate? You cover x miles, burning y gallons of fuel. Thus, your fuel economy for that test is x/y miles per gallon.

Leave it to the government to find a overly complicated means of conducting a simple test. I'd like to know why metered fuel use over a measured distance isn't very accurate.

(BTW...my '03 Prius, rated at 45 MPG highway, is currently hitting 55 MPG over the last 200+ miles of nearly exclusively highway driving.)

Re:Sampling?

[cjsm]

Do you speed quickly the the next red light just to stop, or do you slowly coast to it, even if all the other cars are 'rushing' to the red?

This comment made me laugh. When I approach a red light, I alway take my foot of the gas and coast to the light, but most people seem to speed towards the red light at top speed. People always ride my bumber when I coast to a red light. I get the feeling they're irritated at me.

Re:Sampling?

[Guntram Shatterhand,]

I tried that last week and noticed that I didn't need to fuel up for a few more days. It does work: I drive a 1993 Olds 88 (one of the best cars I have ever, EVER had) and I saved a few more gallons, from 21-22 to about 23.5 mpg. It does work...plus after I lost my job, I got a part-time one which requires far less stop-and-go and less time dealing with urbanized traffic. Solution? For now, better gas mileage. But since a factor in wasting gas is stopping your vehicle, perhaps we need more inventive public transportation.

Re:Sampling?

[JonathanR]

The carbon canister is purged at particular engine speed/load conditions (normally cruise). The captured vapours are drawn off by pulling air through the canister using inlet manifold vacuum. They are then burnt during normal combusion process. They cannot be returned to the tank.

Re:Sampling?

[steevc]

There seems to be a general trend to make cars bigger. It seems that each time a model gets updated it grows. Eventually they have to introduce a new smallest model to fill the niche for those who want a really small car. It always strikes me how big all the cars are when I'm in the US. As for the pickups... When I see something like a Dodge Ram over here it looks so out of place.

I think this article was originally about hybrids. I'll only buy one of those if it can really give me better economy and doesn't cost a fortune.

Re:Sampling?

[aug24]

Me? God no. I gave up on all that when the contents of the bonnet turned to plastic boxes instead of hoses and belts and hunks of metal. (Prior to that I did).

However, I did understand that it was a *lot* more common 'over there'. Perhaps I've seen too many films/episodes of My Name is Earl ;-)

J.

Re:Sampling?

[bensch128]

Stop/Go is the hardest on an engine and your millage efficiency.

Isn't that why hybrids are so much better in city/traffic driving then convential cars? The electric motor has 100% torque when stopped as opposed to the ICE which has 0 torque.

Ben

Re:Sampling?

[AP31R0N]

If you are worried about excess waist, you could wear a belt or do some crunches.

Re:Sampling?

[borizz]

My parents (I don't own a car) drive a 2001 Opel Zafira 2.0 Diesel manual. It's the same car. It gets a bit worse mileage than yours gets (more than the 0.1L of extra displacement would suggest). Is yours newer?

Re:Sampling?

[TheRealNecator]

But now, you 're neglecting the energy stored in the movement. Even if it needs a little (and yes, it could only be very little) this is faar less than the energy stored in the movement, which you have to spend to get back to cruising speed.

So getting from 0 to 14m/s (about 50km/h) with a car with a weight of 1t, you'll most probably need
1000kg*(14m/s)^2=196kJ
Assuming a average engine efficiency of about 20% yields to 5*196kJ = 980kJ (approx 1MJ) which is about 31ml of gasoline. No friction and other consuptors included. Just an energetic view on the matter.
Going from 0 to 130km/h takes at least 200ml.

BTW: I used the metric system :-P

Hopefully, I did no wrong calculations, since I'm just a IT-Nerd.

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, and then car Insurance companies will want to do the same thing to set rates for policy owners. As soon as you open people up to audits like this all business will see is "added value" for their customers.

Re:Sampling?

[ivan256]

Come drive on I-495 in Massachusetts. The speed limit is 65, but you can go 85-90 without any fear of getting a ticket. The state troopers are kept plenty busy by people driving over 100mph to be worried about people in the double digits.

Re:Sampling?

[Fozzyuw]

that's one thing you can do to save gas: NOT use the cruise control

That's informative. Not something I would have really thought about, maybe due to my area of Wisconsin is not exceptionally hilly. There's some things, but not a lot.

One thing I would question is the cost/comfort trade off? Is the MPG worth the easy of not having to think about your speed? Actually, my Corolla replaced a '93 Ford Escort (college beater) which didn't have Cruise. Often, I could find myself going much faster/slower than expected. It wasn't a big deal not having it, but it's definitely a nice comfort feature. (particularly the future wife, whom lived without C.C. in France for her whole life who's now addicted to it here in the US, despite her original complaint that it would make driving too boring.)

I suppose it's just one more thing to get into a good habit with. Although, probably a more reasonable suggestion than driving on the 'inside' lane for turns (if it's safe to do so) on multi-lane roads.

Good Tip!

Cheers,
Fozzy

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Sampling?

[justthinkit]

First of all, when you bike somewhere you also exercise. Is this not worth something to you, or do you plan to die before your time?

As to length of time, this is not a linear thing. If your distance is say 2 blocks or less then the fastest way is probably to walk. 3 to 10 blocks, then a bike ties with a car. Beyond a mile, the car wins. So a simple bit of analysis leads to the logical need for all 3 forms of transportation.

For me the ideal cycling distance is .LE. 5 miles. If I work closer than that I am a happy biker. If not, I probably drive (I've got the knees of a 70-year-old). Those 5 miles, at my glacial cycling pace, take under half an hour -- one hour total for the day. If I drove it would probably take 10 minutes each way, heading toward 15 -- so let's say 25 minutes driving per day. Total time difference is 35 minutes. Call that half an hour. So you are whining about losing time, when (in my example) only a half hour is "lost"...to exercise no less.

I'm just curious, do you drive to the gym for an hour long workout? I just don't get the attitude. Of course, I grew up in a cycling family -- my dad rode to work (and to Saturday shopping, and across the country in his 60s) for as long as I can remember.

Re:Sampling?

[Firethorn]

Hopefully, I did no wrong calculations, since I'm just a IT-Nerd.

Nothing against your calculations, but they don't apply to this situation.

I was talking about when you have to stop anyways, such as a stop sign or parking.

The benefit of making a green light by slowing down is simply a side benefit.

Re:Sampling?

[SenseiLeNoir]

I get 80mpg, out of my Jaguar X-Type deisel (Manual 6-speed), when I am driving at 60mph on cruise, and in the slip stream of a lorry.

This drops to 40mpg when I am at 75mph using my foot to control speed.

Re:Sampling?

[Alioth]

Some cars are different to others. My A4 gets the same mileage regardless of whether I drive it like a granny or drive it aggressively. I tried different driving styles over a period of 4 months or so - and got roughly the same fuel economy whatever I did. When discussing this, people said, "perhaps you need a tune up", but the engine is all electronic controls, so it tunes itself up all the time. It also gets the fuel economy that the car's manual says it should, so according to that, the engine is running perfectly already. The only convincing explanation is my normal drive has only one set of traffic lights (in 12.5 miles) and therefore, regardless of whether I drive it fast or slow, there's not many places where there's braking or accelerating.

I also found that it made no difference what grade of fuel I used, either (either to perceived performance or fuel economy).

Re:Sampling?

[SenseiLeNoir]

Also try being in the slipstream of a Lorry (I do that often on my Jaguar Diesel, and get approx 80mpg (British) at 60mph.

Re:Sampling?

[Alioth]

For many "bike" is actually viable. It's not for everyone, but I know a few people who spend several hours doing cardio exercise at the gym even during the summer months, when they can get better value out of their bike.

Now my normal drive to work takes 25 minutes each way. On a bicycle, it takes 50 minutes each way (so driving is 50 minutes per day, and cycling is 100 minutes per day). If I cycle, the first 50 minutes of the round trip is "free exercise" - it's time I otherwise would have spent travelling in the car anyway. Only the remaining 50 minutes is a time cost.

But in the summer, I drop my gym membership. I usually try to cycle to work three times a week. In the winter, I normally go to the gym for an hour three times a week - so during the summer, I'm actually getting much more cardio exercise in, yet the time cost is lower - only 150 minutes a week on the bike (while actually getting 300 minutes a week of exercise) vs the gym which is 180 minutes a week.

So the bike does work for some of us. Not to mention it saves a gym membership during the summer months, and on top of that saves a noticable amount of money on running the car (fuel is expensive in Rightpondia, at current exchange rates approximately US$8 per USG). But for many people who the bike would work, they still seem to rather use the gym (and therefore spend more time and money) during the summer months! (And then whitter on about how much energy they are saving with the CFLs they just installed.)

Re:Sampling?

[SenseiLeNoir]

Well thoguht out gearing makes a LOT of difference, together with modern Deisel Technology

I don't know about the type of Diesel engine his Jetta uses, but here in Europe, Diesel has come a LONG way from old. Common rail high pressure delivery, direct injection, variable vane geometry turbochargers (effective on both low and high RPMs), 16 valve engines, and smart gearing, have pretty much eliminated all the past issues with diesel engines.

My own car, is a Jaguar X-Type 2.2 Diesel Sports Premium, with a 6 speed gearbox, and Maximum speed of 135mph.

The 6 speed gearbox keeps the engine in a sweet RPM spot right up to 75mph (highest speed limit in the UK is 70mph) at 1800 - 2200 RPM.

Together with the effective turbos, the car starts pulling like crazy at 1500, and doesn't start tapering off until 3900 (redline is at 4500).

Sure it doesnt have the insane high RPM of petrol, but considering a petrol needs at least about 3500 to start showing muscle, in reality both work out the same.

Re:Sampling?

[Rei]

My exercise? I garden regularly (even, to a lesser extent, in the winter)**, and occasionally camp or hike. Which puts me in better standing than 7 out of 10 Americans. This isn't the percent of Americans who don't go to the gym; this is the percent who *don't get regular exercise* of any kind. Saying "bike in the time that you would normally have gone to the gym" only addresses a very small percentage of the country. You'd be asking *me* to give up my garden and my parrot. Sorry, not going to happen. Not going to give up writing FOSS, either.

** If you think gardening isn't exercise, just for example: this year I hauled 30-50 40# bags of soil just to resurface my garden's path with roman chamomile. This was after I brought in and cut up cardboard to place beneath, and tilled. Tilling is another thing -- tillers aren't lightweight, and I have to repeatedly lift it over 4' rabbit fencing and path fencing. Then there's the continual standing up and sitting involved in weeding, the energy spent in hoeing, building various garden fixtures (fences, paths, buried hoses etc), carrying around 12" stepping stones and rocks for lining the path, bush pruning and branch collection, building my greenhouse, emptying the compost bins and spreading the compost, planting potted plants, and on and on. Gets me my exercise, my vitamin D, fresh organic produce, a great view from my deck, and that wonderful "getting back to nature/making something grow" feeling.

Re:Sampling?

[stonecypher]

A small heads-up: after college I lived with a mechanic for a roommate, and he told me that it was helpful to accelerate hard once in a while to burn off carbon deposits in the engine.

Re:Sampling?

[sacrilicious]

driving 55 on the interstate does save fuel

I've found statements to the contrary, though I admit I've been accepting them on an unchallenged basis. Your experiments have gotten my curiosity up... I'm now motivated to do some similar experimentation.

Re:Sampling?

[drinkypoo]

Mythbusters did an episode on this issue using Mountaineer vehicles, a track, a steady speed, etc.

Mountaineer vehicles? You mean the SUV? That has all the aerodynamics of a fucking brick! Perhaps we should look into cars actually built to be aerodynamic. You have to be an extra-special idiot to believe that what mythbusters does is science. Every single experiment they have ever done has been fatally flawed. It's done to look good on TV. And in some cases, they actually deliberately did things that looked good for TV that gave a bad result.

Something might have gone wrong on their test, but my experience also reflects that air conditioning sucks up way more gas than open windows at least in my car.

What do you drive? That's kind of relevant, you know.

Re:Sampling?

[ahodgson]

I get the feeling they're irritated at me.

They are. Driving differently than everyone else around you causes them to take special notice of you; they are anticipating you doing something stupid, which causes irritation and alarm. Not that what you're doing is bad, but remember that everyone is driving around in multi-ton weapons and are very alarmed at any sign that someone is not doing so well.

Re:Sampling?

[guruevi]

NY and PA. It's not legal, but who cares. I have a very good RD and the cops in this area are generally dumb with the use of both RADAR and LIDAR allowing me to slow down in time.

Re:Sampling?

[Fozzyuw]

i debate this with my father often. if you take a longer route, your mileage efficiency will go up but you may have just tacked on an additional 5-10 miles to your commute thereby nullifying any gains.

Of course, it will depend on a persons individual situation. Some people only have 1 real option for driving. Others will have multiple routes to the same place that only add, maybe, 1-2 more miles total. If one has to add an extra 5-10 miles, then of course it's not going to add up.

The more interesting debate would instead be to argue that you're adding more miles to the engine which is a cost that's not immediate tangible (until something wears down and breaks). This is a good argument but likewise, the stop/go of traffic is harder on an engine than smooth highway mileage, which is why you'll always hear that a car with high mileage that was 'highway miles' is not a bad sell.

if you want to raise your mpg, switch to public transportation.

Of course, it would be the best if the U.S. actually had a train system. Alas, as history has proven, the car companies bought out the train companies back and shut them down so they could sell more cars.

I dream all the time of having a major commuting system here in Wisconsin that could connect high-speed trains between the major cities of Green Bay, Manitiwoc, Sheboygan, Port Washington, Milwaukee, Madison, Fund du Lac, Oshkosh, Appleton, etc. with other trains that make more stops but are slower. Coupled with a decent bus system to get you to your place of business from a train station. This was even more evident as both my fiancee and I are commuters. When one of our cars broke down, it cause a huge problem as it pretty much stranded one of us as we commute in opposite direction (to save one person from having to drive 2 hours a day).

Of course, it's even evident of America's "driving culture" just trying to walk 1 block to some local big-box retailer. We have to either walk on a soft shoulder of a 55mph road, or through a small field that's often muddy after a rain. After that, there's a sidewalk, but yet, it's still not connect to other sidewalks or major intersections are not properly built with pedestrian buttons.

Ah, it makes me dream of being back in Twickenham England, a suburb of London. 20-min train ride to Waterloo station, which was within a short walk to pretty much most of the entertainment in London. Even walking .5 mile to school was comfortable. Plenty of sidewalk space (usually). I spent plenty of time walking from city to city. Sure, maybe it was 5-10-20-45min walks, but it was enjoyable. On the weekends when I had plenty of free time, it was real nice. No need for a car. If I wanted to travel, I could hop a train to Paris and the rest of Europe or to plenty of major airports.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Sampling?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I realize I'm beating a dead horse here, but the engine isn't detecting the octane of the fuel. Rather, it's detecting that detonation is happening and attempts to adjust the timing to compensate. I'd be very surprised if the car got better mileage under these conditions, and the performance will certainly suck. The point I wanted to make is that using higher octane fuel than the compression of your engine is designed for _will not result in an improvement of either mileage or performance_.

Re:Sampling?

[justthinkit]

Gardening is definitely exercise. My wife and I moved compost onto the garden, etc. this weekend and it wiped us out.

Take care.

Re:Sampling?

[fractoid]

Modern electric drives are highly (90%+) efficient over a wide range of speeds, whereas Otto-cycle ICEs are terrible at low throttle and most efficient at high throttle. Your friend's solar cars would be showing that power required to move drops by a large amount when you go from 55mph down to 50mph. On the other hand, the GGP with the 240SX is merely demonstrating that the overall efficiency of the system is higher at 80mph with his particular car. This is most likely due to the fact that, like most sports cars, the 240SX is designed for acceleration and so is overpowered with regards to its required power for constant-speed driving. I've observed a similar effect with my car (1989 Toyota Supra). Maximum mileage seems to occur around 130-140km/h, which is simply because the engine is running at higher enough efficiency at that speed to counteract the extra aerodynamic drag. This effect will obviously be more pronounced with more aerodynamic ICE cars, since a small power increase will result in a larger speed increase.

Also, people who talk about taking off slowly are wrong. Accelerate firmly, at about 3/4 throttle (but keeping revs low, I stick to about 2000-3000rpm unless I need more acceleration to change lanes etc). It takes the same amount of energy to get to the limit regardless of how fast you accelerate, and your engine is most efficient at about 3/4 throttle. Once you hit the speed limit, of course, the rest of common-sense 'efficent driving' is correct. Coasting to traffic lights, trying to maintain momentum around corners, braking gently.

Of course, there's the odd time when one simply must ask oneself if it's worth the 50c worth of fuel it'd take to wipe the smirk off the face of the guy next to you in his riced up lancer. And put that way the answer's always 'yes'. :)

Re:Sampling?

[Ben Hutchings]

I believe the VW Polo diesel is available in the US.

Re:Sampling?

[mink]

My generation 1 Prius (2002 model) gets on average 41-45 MPG (highway, I never am able to do "city" driving long enough to track) over the time between oil changes. It seems the cause of the fluctuation is mostly weather conditions.

If I end up driving against a lot of wind, I get lower mileage. If it's so hot I need to open the windows or run the air conditioning I get lower Mileage. If there is so much snow on the highway (Ohio interstates and local roads suck for days after major snow storms) that I am plowing through 4 or more inches of snow I get lower mileage.

One thing I have found is that there is no difference (as far as I can tell) in MPG between having the windows down and turning the air conditioning on. This seems to be because opening the windows causes the car to have a less aerodynamic profile or something, while if the air conditioning is on the engine only has to work a little more.

Re:Sampling?

[NuShrike]

You can sample this instantly if the vehicle has MPG feedback displays (which takes in account

This is why trucks generally drive at 55mph.

Realistic Ratings

[lessthanjakejohn]

So how does this compare with what drivers are actually getting?

Re:Realistic Ratings

[jandrese]

The problem is that there are a lot of factors that go into your gas mileage beyond just the design and features of your car. There's also maintenance (the guy who's tires are always 10psi under pressure because he never checks them will get worse mileage than the guy who keeps them properly inflated), driving style (aggressive drivers get worse mileage), and even location (hot vs. cold, hilly vs. flat, lots of traffic on the road vs. empty roads).

I hear people complain all of the time about how they don't get as much mileage as the sticker said they would, but personally I tend to exceed the sticker's rating, especially in the city. I don't have a hybrid though. I also think it's odd that the hybrids aren't getting the MPG they said because the EPA's testing involves a lot of sitting at red lights? Everybody's MPG is 0 when sitting at a light (well, I guess it's undefined with a Hybrid because the engine is off). I can see where regular cars would be lowballed by that assumption, but I'm not sure why it was giving such a massive advantage to hybrids.

Re:Realistic Ratings

[imaginaryelf]

Imagine a hypothetical test where the cars idled for 2 hours and then drove for 1 mile.

For 2 hours, the gas guzzler is using up gas, but the hybird is using nothing - no electricity and no gas since it's shut off.

MPG = miles divided by gallons. If the gallons used is 0 in the hybrid for the idle period, then it is already way ahead. For a hybrid, the longer the idle period, the smaller the divisor, and therefore, the larger the MPG.

Re:Realistic Ratings

[plaincorgi]

The only vehicle i have driven where i actually get the Advertised fuel economy, or better is my Smart Fortwo CDI which i have been averaging at around 4.1 L/100km (advertised as 4.2L/100km) and that is driving fairly aggressively.

Re:Realistic Ratings

[plaincorgi]

I should have clarified, that's an average of 55mpg, dipping as low as 68mpg on the highway

Re:Realistic Ratings

[HerringFlavoredFowl]

The new numbers are close to what I get with my '05 prius. Which gets (gen III prius) marginally better mileage than my old '02 (gen II prius).

The mileage completely depends on how and where you drive, and I'm glad to see the new highway mileage very closely matches what I get on very long trips.

Re:Realistic Ratings

[maraist]

In a micro-test sure.. But you can not scale this test out, as your battery will eventually die. Hybrids now are retarded in that they don't facilitate low-cost power-grid refilling. Instead you MUST use the gas to recharge the battery (no, we do not live in a perpetual motion world where 100% of the regenerative breaking recoups the power lost from acceleration, let alone power expended in coasting-friction).

In all likelihood, 100% city driving is probably significantly worse than a mixture of highway and city driving (where the highway provides an ideal operating environment for recharging the battery).

Re:Realistic Ratings

[imaginaryelf]

The post that I responded to asked how is it that idling can make much difference to the mpg calculation.

I just used an example to demonstrate that it can make a significant difference.

If idling, cummulatively, makes up a significant portion of the old mpg test as compared to the new mpg test (as the article states), then it makes sense that hybrids will do worse in the new mpg test.

Re:Realistic Ratings

[jandrese]

Yes, like I said before, it makes sense that the regular car would see a boost in it's MPG in that secenario, but the Hybrid should be getting exactly the same results. They Hybrid doesn't care how long you sit idle, it's perfectly willing to leave the engine off for as long as it takes.

In any case, the MPG ratings aren't measured against other cars, they're only measured on the car you are testing. The fact that some other car gains or loses on the MPG ratings means nothing for your own car's ratings.

In other news...

[shakestheclown]

In other news, the miles per gallon rating of the bicycle was also drastically reduced today by the US government.

But on the brighter side of things, the Hummer is now rated at 75mpg on the highway.

Re:In other news...

[UbuntuDupe]

In other news, the miles per gallon rating of the bicycle was also drastically reduced today by the US government.

Yeah, I heard on the Discovery Channel that a bicycle gets infinite mpg, but now the EPA says it's only *countably* infinite mpg.

Re:In other news...

[Dorceon]

Bikes get infinite MPG because drinking any non-zero amount of gasoline is almost certainly fatal, and at the very least will leave you unable to ride a bike for a while. The real question is how many miles per gallon of orange juice (which is more expensive than gasoline still, but is at least renewable).

Re:In other news...

[brian0918]

"But on the brighter side of things, the Hummer is now rated at 75mpg on the highway."

Is that miles or meters per gallon?

Re:In other news...

[twistedsymphony]

they got it mixed up... they rate the Hummer in gallons per mile.

Re:In other news...

[Minwee]

the Hummer is now rated at 75mpg on the highway.

For more information about the All New 2007 Mileage Ratings, contact the newly renamed Department of General Motors Vehicles.

Re:In other news...

[davburns]

I can do 30-40 miles on my first 1.5 liters of water + .5 liters of gatoraid. That works out to 57-76 mpg. (calm, cool day, moderate hills)

(But then, that's probably only comparable to cars using up coolant and motor oil; the energy for the trip generally does not come in liquid form, and I don't know the volumentric measurements of bannanas and begals..)

Re:In other news...

[NatasRevol]

Gatorade has quite a lot of calories

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/88302.h tml

Even when compared to Beagles...

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is how many miles per gallon of orange juice

Given:

• 8 ounce glass of orange juice has 110 calories (http://www.usc.edu/health/usccare/services/health _tips/calcium.html)
  
• A gallon of orange juice has 110 calories/8 fl. oz * 128 fl. oz/gallon = 1760 calories/gallon
  
• A 195 lb person biking @ 20mph (highway) expends 1416 calories/hour(http://www.nutristrategy.com/fitness /cycling.htm)
  
• A 140 lb person biking @ 20mpg expends 1017 calories/hour
  
• A 195 lb person biking @ 10mph (city)expends 531 calories/hour
  
• A 140 lb person biking @ 10mph expends 381 calories/hour
  

So for a 195 lb person, the average for city/highway work out to: 28/33MPG
So for a 140 lb person, the average for city/highway work out to: 34/46MPG

Re:In other news...

[ArsonSmith]

Yea and unfortunately even when I'm not riding my bick I still have to continuously feed it bananas and bagels.

Organic power sources are not very good and are the most inefficient when not used constantly.

Re:In other news...

[Jarjarthejedi]

Beagles have way more than 310 calories, it's more like 2400 easy, you can have beagle meat for lunch and then the leftovers for dinner and breakfast the next day, and that's not counting the fat beagles, then you've got 3000 no problem.

Uh...not that I have any real world experience...>.> .

(Actually looking at the facts I would think that a humans MpG (of food) on your average bike would be a little less than 50, in line with these cars. Of course one is a biodegradable substance with many other uses (and whose byproduct is also biodegradable) and the other is oil but hey)

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/calories/kcal/

Re:In other news...

[MalHavoc]

But on the brighter side of things, the Hummer is now rated at 75mpg on the highway.

Hummers while driving on the highway? Outstanding! Where do I sign up?

Re:In other news...

[alx5000]

* Note: mpg ratings measured while car is being towed

Re:In other news...

[iamacat]

I would think that, if you compare apples to apples (that is, if you could make an Apple-powered car), humans would get an MPG of like 500. Ignoring the supreme efficiency of biological systems over internal combustion engines, a human weighs around 200 pounds, while a car is around 3000 pounds. Humans travel at like 15MPH and most of us have a much slimmer profile than a Prius, futher reducing the aerodynamic drag. Humans still consume a big fraction of biking energy while driving cars and need an air conditioner in closed space, decreasing the effective fuel efficiency. Humans who regularly bike tend to consume significantly less oil per day than those who drive SUVs.

Re:In other news...

[xero314]

So for a 195 lb person, the average for city/highway work out to: 28/33MPG
So for a 140 lb person, the average for city/highway work out to: 34/46MPG You must be using the old EPA standards since your calculation does not take into account the number of calories that would be used wether biking or not. Remember then when driving a Vehicle, or even being a passenger, a certain number of calories are being expended and this is not calculated into the efficient of the car so it should also not be calculated into the efficiency of a bicycle. So to calculate correctly you should subtract the number of calories just being used to maintain typical body function which is around 150 for a 140 pound person, which makes their city biking expenditure down to 231 calories/hr or 23.1 calories per mile or 76MPG.

Re:In other news...

[autophile]

and I don't know the volumentric measurements of bannanas and begals

The volumentric measurement of one bannana is approximately 17.8 cubic thoughts per misspelled fruit.

For one begal, it's 14.2 cubic thoughts per panhandler.

For comparison:

1 begal = 14.2 per panhandler.
1 bengal = 29.3 per loud meow.
1 beagle = 2.3 per dog's breath (1 dog's breath ~ 2.3 hog's heads)

--Rob

Re:In other news...

[shakestheclown]

The volumentric measurement of one bannana is approximately 17.8 cubic thoughts per misspelled fruit. For one begal, it's 14.2 cubic thoughts per panhandler. For comparison: 1 begal = 14.2 per panhandler. 1 bengal = 29.3 per loud meow. 1 beagle = 2.3 per dog's breath (1 dog's breath ~ 2.3 hog's heads) --Rob

For some reason, this makes perfect sense.

But, I think what we are all forgetting is that "Begal" and "Bannana" and "volumentric" are all trademarked entities of Wal-Mart. These are the Sam's Choice version of the old, tired products that everyone is used to. Wal-mart is providing these at a great discount of cost compared to the original, with preservatives that are guaranteed to keep the product fresh until 3007. And the technology...if I even told you the technology involved you would become a cyborg simply by listening.

WARNING: Begals contain less than 1% of bagel materials, 97-99% begal filler, and 0-2% dangerous glass shards. This product is created on a machine that also processes glass shards, and some glass shards may be in this product.

Excuse me I think I got some shards stuck in my throat, I'm going to go to the kitchen and wash it down with a nice glass of Oranj Joose.

---

Now, if only I could mod and post in the same thread, you would be set for life.

How to drive a hybrid

[Anarchysoft]

I thought the key to getting good mileage with a hybrid was understanding how to drive it properly and, when that was done, folks were getting close to the listed mileage.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[mdm-adph]

Problem is... NOBODY drives "properly." The new numbers released by the EPA are much, much closer to what 90% of drivers are going to get when it comes to fuel consumption.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[powerpants]

That's the key to getting good mileage in any car, hybrid or otherwise.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[pete.com]

It has a lot to do with where (and when) in the city you are driving. If you use all non-interstate, or very congested interstate roads with lower speeds, the gas milage is very good. If you travel a lot on interstate roads with average 65 - 70 MPH speed the gas milage is much, much lower.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[BendingSpoons]

I thought the key to getting good mileage with a hybrid was understanding how to drive it properly and, when that was done, folks were getting close to the listed mileage.

Not really. I drive an '06 Civic Hybrid, which is listed at 49mpg city/50mpg highway. I am a very fuel-efficient driver and I get - at the most - 42 mpg when I drive around Philadelphia. And that's when I'm pissing off every driver behind me by accelerating slowly/coasting/etc. And under optimal weather conditions.

The highway estimate is a little more accurate. Cruising at 65-68 mph under optimal conditions (no AC, etc.) I usually get around 47 mph.

It's also kind of funny how much the weather affects my MPG. Cold weather drops me down at least 5 MPG. I'm not sure if that's particular to hybrids, or if that's every car.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Seraphim1982]

It's also kind of funny how much the weather affects my MPG. Cold weather drops me down at least 5 MPG. I'm not sure if that's particular to hybrids, or if that's every car.

When you say the cold affects your MPG, are you taking into account that the gas you get in the summer isn't the same as the gas you get in the winter? The different formulations of gas can have a measurable effect on MPG.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[pilgrim23]

Park?

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Red Flayer]

Temperature also affects tire pressure. Until you've driven quite a bit on a cold day, your tires are probably underinflated, thus decreasing your fuel efficiency.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[stuff-n-things]

I've learned. I now get +/-5 MPG from the 48/47 estimates on my '05 Civic Hybrid. The - numbers (42 or 43 MPG) come in the winter when the car doesn't shut off at lights much at all to heat the car. The + numbers (52 or 53 MPG) come in the spring and fall when neither the AC or heat is on. I get close to the estimates in the summer when I have the AC on for the commute home in the afternoon.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[NewKimAll]

Getting less miles per gallon in the winter versus summer should happen to everybody. I certainly notice it on my vehicle. It's probably due to air resistance. The air should be more dense in the winter because it's cold, hence a slightly lower mileage rating for everybody.
--
Global warming: Allowing better fuel economy for everybody.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Nimey]

Also cool, dense air has more oxygen, and so the computer has to increase the fuel usage to maintain the correct mixture.

I also have less efficiency on my '05 Civic hybrid when it's cold. Best for me is ~60 to 70 Fahrenheit: warm, but not so warm that I want the aircon running.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[rolfwind]

Season/temperature affects different things.

In the summer, many cities and surrounding counties mandate a 85%/15% gas/ethanol mixture in order to reduce pollution. This has the effect of making the gas more expensive, but Consumer Reports also found that in regular cars - it kills the MPG by up to 30% because of ethanol's lower energy potential making it actually worse than pure gas.

That, however, does not explain your lower MPG in the winter. This is actually pretty easy - the colder your engine is on start-up, it will take more fuel until it heats up. I am not just talking about idling while waiting for the car to heat up. The gas/air mixture just doesn't burn as efficiently in a cold cylinder/piston. Part of the reason is the fuel/air mixture does not atomize as easily as in warm weather, and so this is an effect that will be through driving as the air will be always delivered cold.

The cold weather/cold start effect is partly eliminated by the Toyota Prius as it stores the radiator fluid (once the car is turned off) in a insulated thermos type of device, to heat the engine up as rapidly as possible on start up.

You also have to figure that all the ball bearings in your car are greased up, and thus they have more drag in the cold weather. That a little thing. Then tire pressure may be too low, as air is denser - on a typical sedan you need about 32 psi to get optimal fuel efficiency. And a tire that is at 32 in 70+ degree weather may be below 29 in the freezing cold.

Cold weather can also be a positive - the air is denser, and that gives a small effect (like free low pressure supercharging/turbocharging) that can increase the horse power of your engine. But the effect is small.

Lots of factors.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[pebs]

I thought the key to getting good mileage with a hybrid was understanding how to drive it properly and, when that was done, folks were getting close to the listed mileage.

The current (old) EPA tests are flawed in that they give hybrids an unfair advantage and aren't realistic. The simple fact of the matter is that the current EPA tests are far from real-world driving conditions. The new tests will be closer to real-world and will cause lower MPG numbers for ALL cars.

Yes, you can get better mileage in a hybrid (or any car) by driving to maximize MPG (and with special techniques for a car like the Prius), but the EPA numbers were just unrealistic for real-world driving, even with a little bit of effort to improve MPG.

60 MPG for the Prius for city driving is just way off. There may be a few people who can get 60 on occasion, but they have their tires inflated near maximum, they drive on flat terrain only, use the "Pulse and Glide" technique frequently (which is a nuisance if done in traffic), and drive dangerously slow. The EPA tests should reflect what normal drives do, not people obsessed with their MPG numbers.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[skurtz]

I have an '05 Prius. How you drive definitely makes a difference. Jack rabbit starts kill MPG. The Prius (because of regeneration) pays less for stop & go than a traditional car, but it still pays. Using the cruise helps a lot. Short trips hurt.

What surprises me, though, is the role of outside temperature in determining MPG. In the winter (Chicago), my MPG is usually well under 40. During the spring and fall, I'm usually around 50 MPG. In the summer, with the A/C, I'm in the low 40s. Turning off the A/C and opening the windows makes it worse.

But under ideal circumstances -- ambient air temps of 68-72 degrees, longer trips, modest speeds (45-55), few starts & stops -- 60 MPG is not only possible, I've exceeded it (averaged over a full tank).

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[whmac33]

The throttle is held open slightly less to provide the proper power to go the speed needed. It doesn't matter how dense the air is, your foot adjusts accordingly.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[JayClements]

You are correct; 2005 prius. I average 49mpg, my wife gets 51 mpg, my 16 year old son gets 36 mpg

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[AaronW]

I can get 60MPG in city driving if I drive at a fixed 35-40MPH with no stops and use cruise control. The magic number in the Prius is 42MPH. Above this speed, the gasoline engine must run or one of the motors will spin too fast. At or below this speed, it can run pure electric. The other part is everything must be warmed up which usually takes 5 minutes or so according to the graph. Not only the engine has to warm up, but so does the transmission and electric motors (which have oil in them). A couple of very useful documents I found are http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/890029-WI fqPO/890029.PDF and http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/12258 6.pdf. These documents are great for geeks like me since they show detailed pictures and graphs of what's inside the hybrid system.

I think if Toyota put in more powerful motors, bigger batteries, and a more powerful engine they could actually improve milage further since the electric only system could run better at higher speeds and help more during acceleration. This is what Toyota is doing for the 2009 model, changing to Lithium Ion batteries, more powerful motors, and making it so you can plug it in as well.

I find it impressive how efficient the electric hybrid system is, with the inverter getting 95%+ efficiency and the motor also getting over 90% efficiency. Their simple CVT design also is fairly efficient as well.

I agree that the old EPA tests were severely flawed, though. Car manufacturers could by law not give any other numbers other than the EPA ones.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Astro Dr Dave]

I have a 2005 Prius, which is EPA rated at 51 hwy, 60 city.

In actual driving, I get lower mileage around town... but that is probably not a fair representation, since I live in a small town and my driving distances are typically very short. The engine never gets fully warmed up. When I lived in California, the heavy traffic and longer drives often left me with much higher mileage (70 mpg in heavy traffic!).

Mostly I do highway driving, where I often get 53 mpg if I drive 65 mph. If I slow down to 55 mph, I can get 63 mpg.

I love my Prius... and the EPA is nuts for downgrading the official mileage.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Doctor Memory]

cool, dense air has more oxygen, and so the computer has to increase the fuel usage to maintain the correct mixture. But then aren't you making more power? So wouldn't you be driving at a slightly lower throttle setting, thereby offsetting the increase in mixture? The whole point of forced induction is to get more air into the cylinder so you can mix in more fuel and make more power, how is this really different, apart from the scale? I'd be more inclined to think it's the fuel formulation (more ethanol, which has less energy per unit than gasoline).

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[AK Marc]

It's also kind of funny how much the weather affects my MPG. Cold weather drops me down at least 5 MPG. I'm not sure if that's particular to hybrids, or if that's every car.

It is every car, to some extent. Hybrids are affected more because the batteries are less efficient at cooler temperatures. But all cars lose power when cold because they are heating up the coolant and such rather than powering the wheels. But when warmed up, cars generally get better mileage when cooler. The expansion of gases that powers an internal combustion engine is a greater ratio the cooler the air and fuel coming in. Of course, other minor things (tire resistance, air resistance) are affected by temperature as well. Some of the temperature factors cancel out, others don't, and much of it is vehicle dependent. I get worse mileage in in my non-hybrid in the winter than summer (and there is no "reformulated" gas here (MTBE or ethanol), but for small temperature changes, I don't see the difference you describe. Perhaps the on/off action of a hybrid makes the engine cool off more while driving and increases loss due to heat, in addition to the reduced efficiency of the batteries. I don't know, but I'm tossing out some ideas and you can pick the one you like best and claim it's the answer. The reality is really boring and quite lengthy.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Servo]

Gas mileage is also heavily affected by gasoline quality. My '07 Prius is rated 70 city / 51 highway. Typically with a better brand name gasoline vendor I am getting an average somewhere between 49MPG and 52MPG on each fill up. If I use a less quality gasoline my mileage drops noticeably.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's when I'm pissing off every driver behind me by accelerating slowly/coasting/etc.

And all those drivers who follow too close can kiss my ass.

I love living in a state lacking no-fault insurance: whoever hits me from behind because they can wait the 2 extra seconds to get to the red light gets the ticket and I get a new car.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[qval]

Funny how your replied to a topic "How to drive a hybrid" with this:

"I get - at the most - 42 mpg when I drive around Philadelphia. And that's when I'm pissing off every driver behind me by accelerating slowly"

Use some common sense!

You're supposed to accelerate briskly with a hybrid, so that you get the drive train to offer you extra torque from the electric motor. This allows you to get up to speed quickly and efficiently. Then you simply maintain speed.

I'm not telling you to slam your pedal to the carpet. I'm telling you to accelerate at a reasonable to quick rate. Jack rabbit start it's not, but it is quick.

Try this for a tank or two, You'll probably get better mileage and piss off the others on the road a bit less.

Oh, and another point. Coasting isn't the best either. You should brake slowly coming to a stop so you fill up your batteries again. then the quick start you're about to do is almost free!

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 2006 Civic Hybrid too (in the bay area, driving it for almost a year now). I get an average of 42mpg when I'm not trying, and was at 46-47mpg when I was trying really hard. A week ago I realized that slow starts aren't good, because you're keeping your engine on longer. Instead, a quick start hits your engine the same amount but for less time. Thus, you're at a high speed sooner which uses your battery to sustain it. I've only started that style this week, but Prius owners tell me it makes a big impact on their efficency.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[tftp]

I also have a 2005 model, and your measurements match what I see. First 5 minutes (until the first bar shows up) is about 30 mph, the second may be 50, and the 3rd could be easily 75, depending on where you are. I had a whole bar stuck at 99 once, on an empty road at night, at 40 mph. The whole bar was done with ICE off.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Akaihiryuu]

I have a 2004 Prius, and I have to say the new MPG ratings are pretty accurate overall. The whole 60/51/55 numbers are just plain not even remotely possible unless you're talking 70-80F temperatures, low wind, near perfect outdoor conditions, and little traffic. I live 3.8 miles from work, my drive to work involves going on roads with 35mph speed limits and lots of stop and go. The highest average (even for pure city driving) I've ever gotten consistently over a week is around 56mpg. This week (70-80 degree temps, near perfect outdoor conditions)...thus far I'm averaging 53mpg. That's about 50% city/50% highway (I've been some places other than work). All fine so far, sounds at least close to the original EPA estimates. However, these numbers do not continue throughout the year. In wintertime I'm extremely lucky if I can get 45mpg. Last winter when we had snow, my average dropped to 37mpg. So yes, Prius's CAN get 55mpg, but you have to drive them right and the conditions have to be perfect. If it's raining outside I drop about 5mpg (water on the road adds resistance). So the original EPA numbers are basically the theoretical maximum based on perfect conditions that don't always exist, thus I agree with revising them. In 20-degree clear conditions, I'm happy if I can get 40-45mpg. In 70-80 degree clear conditions I expect 50+ and usually average around 52-53. I've always done all the maintenance the car needs when it needs it, and I always keep an eye on my tire pressure.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Software]

The Wikipedia article on hypermiling has more useful tips. I have a 2005 Prius and use some techniques (pulse-and-glide), but manage only about 45 (US) miles per (US) gallon. Keeping the tire pressure up helps a lot (darn oil-change people bump me down to 32 psi, though).

Somewhat OT, it's Bike to Work Week in California. I'm trying to keep the Prius in the driveway this week.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[DragonGolem]

I was going to post something about "not this BS again" (article title implies that non-hybrids are magically not affected by the new ratings), but instead - THANK YOU for posting some common sense tips. Use them in your daily commutes and watch your mileage increase. Get a real-time mileage readout gauge, if your car doesn't have one. If you're not driving in snow, inflate your tires to the max sidewall pressure (on the tire itself) and see better traction and another mileage bump. Learn the timing of stoplights on your common routes so you hit as many as possible all green. There's more, but these plus the ones posted above are the big ones. And most can be applied to any car, hybrid or otherwise.

Full disclosure: I am a Prius owner, currently 400 miles into a tank.... at 75 MPG. EPA ratings don't mean squat if people put some effort into driving efficiently.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[dr_davel]

Um, no. While it's true that hybrids do offer good low-end torque, great for snappy starts, the existence for a feature is not the same the feature providing a more fuel efficient way to drive. An easy start allows a hybrid to do a mostly-electric motor acceleration, while a faster acceleration requires more gas engine power at higher RPMs, which are less efficient. The whole idea of a hybrid is to avoid inefficient high power operation of the gas engine.

For braking, you're also wrong. While it's true that hybrids do recover some energy through regenerative braking, it's more fuel efficient to not spend the gas to create the energy that needs to be recovered in the first place. You make it sound like the car is a perpetual motion machine, that recovers more energy that was put in with the gas engine.

Unless you were trolling, you have completely confused hybrid features with measures to improve mileage.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[Panzergheist]

And it also affects the batteries and their ability to charge and discharge their cells. And it affects the intake air temperature, which also affects the intake air density, which affects... fuel efficiency.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[ben there...]

I'd bet that most of the inefficiency in winter has to do with the oil and much lower viscosity when cold. This means your engine has to work harder and is much less efficient. It's the reason people let their cars warm up in the morning. But they should really start their drive slowly, instead, so as not to waste gas and to also prevent the extra wear on an engine from idling, especially in the cold.

Re:How to drive a hybrid

[spike2131]

I find the momentum conserved by coasting far outweighs the benefit of having the battery recharged. Most of the time my battery is pretty well charged anyway.

I drive an '03 Civic Hybrid.... it might be different with the Prius, that drive train is actually quite a bit different than the Honda's.

I do generally get mileage in the ballpark of my EPA ratings... high 40s, and occasionally a tank of 50+. The one thing that really kills my mileage is rain. Wet roads cause a lot of drag on the tires.

Not just for hybrids

[PaisteUser]

It's important to note that these new ratings also change the mileage estimates for pure gasoline engines as well.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[aichpvee]

So a Hummer is getting -10mpg now?

Re:Not just for hybrids

[mdm-adph]

From what I've heard, it would almost seem like it.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[cabinetsoft]

It's important to note that these new ratings also change the mileage estimates for pure gasoline engines as well.

Not quite true considering "the old, over-inflated ratings were higher in part because the cars idled a lot, allowing the hybrids to completely turn off their engines". A petrol / diesel still eats up quite a lot of gas when idling... idling less and doing the same distance will result in a better MPG.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[Altus]

This is true, but its not going to have as significant an impact on those cars as it does on hybrids because the test was heavily biased to the hybrids. I mean the test has been around for a long time and all cars used to be pretty much the same.

Its not like the old estimates were that far off for gas vehicles (in my experience) but hybrids did something that the test was not designed to measure and it ended up giving an edge case result that was way off of what drivers were actually seeing in the cars. Its not surprising that the EPA tests didnt handle a new type of vehicle very well.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tylernt]

A petrol / diesel still eats up quite a lot of gas when idling...

Acutally, diesels idle at less than a 100:1 air/fuel ratio, and modern stratified charge gasoline engines also run incredibly lean at idle. Assuming you're not running the A/C and a bunch of electrical accessories, you car is barely sipping fuel at idle.

Older cars certainly waste a lot of fuel at idle though.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[zCyl]

It's important to note that these new ratings also change the mileage estimates for pure gasoline engines as well.

And not only that, if you check the table in the linked article, not only does it change the estimates for pure gasoline engines, but the changes are proportional. The relative difference between the hybrid and pure gasoline cars is almost exactly the same under the new system as under the old. This raises the total estimated gasoline cost of driving both types of cars, which if anything, makes the hybrid cars MORE financially attractive, as gasoline cost is then estimated as a bigger fraction of the total cost of ownership.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tpet]

Apparently it wasn't important enough for whoever wrote the headline...

Seriously, this story is totally bogus. Given the nonlinearity of the MPG measure, the drop in mileage ratings for hybrids and nonhybrids are basically the same in terms of percentage change, they just look like bigger changes for hybrids because their numbers are higher to begin with.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[Shadowlore]

And funny thing is, look at the differences.

The Hummer's change is 1-2MPG. Only the Saturn Vue (on the list in TFA) has as small a change. Look at what is changing the most. It's Hybrids followed by "economy" cars. This is true for both raw numbers as well as percentage change. So yes while all vehicles are affected, the hybrids take the biggest hit by far. This may point back to the fact that hybrids are a "gimmick" in that reduction of mass is where true performance lies.

Lower mass vehicles will get better economy (halving the weight doubles the MPG), and if done by reducing weight of components not size of vehicle are safer for occupants, pedestrians, and occupants of other vehicles. They handle far better, require smaller engines and fewer parts. If you really want to reduce fuel consumption you should be pushing for much lighter vehicles. It isn't so much a matter of driving it in a way to get what you are told you can get, but simple laws of physics. Take a sedan, halve it's weight through design for light weight, and anybody driving it will get about double the economy of the same vehicle prior to the diet.

To put it another way, Hybrids are hacks. The real solution is to cut the bloat and fat from vehicles. There is no reason anything smaller than a mid-sized SUV should weigh more than 850 kilos.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[onemorechip]

Lower mass vehicles will get better economy (halving the weight doubles the MPG)

The first part is true (if no other factors come into play). The second part is true only if your fuel consumption is 100% due to kinetic energy dissipation (energy exhausted through friction braking and engine braking) and hill climbing -- IOW, it isn't true at all, since things like drag and accessory usage have nothing to do with the vehicle's weight. At highway speeds on moderate grades, without a lot of stop-and-go, drag is the dominant factor.

I'm not sure what "bloat" you would propose cutting, unless it's comfort things like air conditioning and stereo. Not safety features such as reinforced doors, I hope. Could you be more specific?

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tepples]

Assuming you're not running the A/C and a bunch of electrical accessories, you car is barely sipping fuel at idle. But the United States summer driving season is starting, and drivers especially in the hotter parts of the country will be running the air conditioner. Is there a way to control temperature inside a car without using excessive fuel?

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tylernt]

Is there a way to control temperature inside a car without using excessive fuel?

Well, I just roll my windows down. ;) Though I suppose that in some really hot places that's not much of an option. An evaporative cooler may be effective in dryer climates (just have to top off the water once in a while) but for the humid South... A/C is probably the only solution.

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tepples]

Well, I just roll my windows down. ;) Opening a car's windows increases drag. It's disputed whether the impact of open-window drag on fuel consumption is less than the impact of a decent air conditioner, especially one set on recirculate (or "MAX" on some cars).

Re:Not just for hybrids

[tylernt]

It depends on the car, but I believe that below 60mph or so windows are more efficient and at higher speeds the A/C is more efficient. Since my commute never exceeds 45MPH (and averages closer to 35MPH), windows come out ahead.

Which is just as well, as I've never owned a vehicle with working A/C. ;)

No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testing

[jkerman]

Far as i know they still test EPA mileage ratings by using an exhaust sniffer and rollers.... indoors.... it fails to account for AIR RESISTANCE!

far as im concerned they should require someone to /actually drive/ the damn car through an /actual city/ and average the results to get the fuel rating.

not just hybrids

[Chris Chiasson]

As I understood it (a few years ago), the tests were not changed for a long time for several reasons, among them were easy comparisons to old data. Also, AFAIK, the test MPG numbers were already automatically scaled back by 20% (for all cars) before being placed on window stickers. By the way, I think all cars were benefiting from the tests (because the tests didn't reflect real world driving and tended to overestimate the MPG) - it is just that hybrid cars were really able to abuse the tests.

Re:not just hybrids

[edunbar93]

I really don't see how lower fuel consumption due to turning off the engine while stopped (or driving slow) in traffic constitutes "abuse". In the end, it's still a lower gas bill.

Re:not just hybrids

[Chris Chiasson]

IMO: Abuse isn't possible if the test accurately portrays real world driving. With the old tests, accelerations were too slow and average speed was too low. Normal driver behavior was just more difficult to handle than the tests, thus we had over-optimistic fuel economy figures. In the case of hybrid cars, the tests were even worse because the cars were mostly able to use their electrical motors to handle the transients, instead of requiring their internal combustion engines to move out of their efficient operating ranges.

Re:not just hybrids

[wolrahnaes]

It's not necessarily "abuse", just doesn't really provide a real-world number unless you spend a lot of time sitting in traffic and/or get passed regularly by bluehairs in their Grand Marquis.

Real people accelerate quick enough to actually cause things on the dashboard to slide off, tend to go 5-10 MPH over the speed limit (that's a whole different area of government automotive silliness), and for the most part choose routes that avoid 6 lane parking lots.

Online consumer MPG submited database

[RingDev]

For 'real world' numbers: http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/

-Rick

Re:Online consumer MPG submited database

[onemorechip]

For "real world anecdotal numbers", don't you mean? That's pretty much a self-selected group you've linked to.

not about payback time

[Stoertebeker]

It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!
It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way rather than spending it on finding ways to allow every Joe to accelerate a 7 ton monster truck 0-60 in under 4 seconds!

Re:not about payback time

[dpilot]

Maybe it's not about payback time, but...

Even with the degraded mileage figures for both Prius and Camry, (non-hybrid) they suggest that it will take 1.2 years to break even, using some sort of "average" driving and mileage statistics. But at the front of the article, they specify this at $2.70/gal gasoline. Prices right now are well above that, and it seems to me that $2.70/gal is closer to a low figure for the past year than any sort of average.

I keep gasoline records for my vehicles, I guess it's a family idiosyncrasy. But the other day someone looked at the book for our 2000 Toyota Sienna, and noticed that over its life the price of gasoline has more than doubled. Does anyone believe that that isn't going to continue to happen? So any vehicle bought now and kept for 7 years, count on paying upwards of $6.00/gal later in its life. That changes the break-even point, just a little.

BTW, the Prius just doesn't have the necessary headroom for tall people. In the efficient vehicle category that you can wrap around a tall person, the Honda Accord looks pretty good. Some of the VWs look good too, as well as having TDI engines. But Consumer Reports hates them for long-term.

Re:not about payback time

[Altus]

remember that things are usually more expensive because they require more energy (and that means burned fuel unfortunately) then the cheaper version. Those batteries don't just cost money, they have a very real environmental impact. I'm not saying its a 1:1 ratio but people who love hybrids are usually loathe to think about that just as much as people who hate them like to talk about how many years it will take to make up the cost difference.

Re:not about payback time

[PHAEDRU5]

I'm afraid it actually *is* about how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car.

When the green movement can give me technology that at least maintains my current lifestyle, while showing savings on the bottom line within a year or two, I'll go for it. Until then, well, it can keep selling to the true believers.

Re:not about payback time

[Dan Ost]

Some of the VWs look good too, as well as having TDI engines. But Consumer Reports hates them for long-term.

Out of curiosity, what's Consumer Reports' complaint with the VW TDI?

Re:not about payback time

[Ngarrang]

It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!
It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way rather than spending it on finding ways to allow every Joe to accelerate a 7 ton monster truck 0-60 in under 4 seconds!

What is wrong with Joe wanting to accelrate a 7-ton monster from zero to 60 in under 4 seconds? Instead of dictating to these folks how they should drive, how about improving the technology to make such driving more efficient? Pair up electric motors with a few batteries on these 7-ton monsters that charge up specifically for the purpose of helping the vehicle accelerate its mass more efficiently than just the motor alone.

Here is my solution for all current and future cars. Nearly all car engines are now computer-controlled. The computer controls the air flow, fuel mix, timing, everything! Continue to market the cars with the big HP numbers, but on every dashboard, have a multi-mode selector. High MPG Mode would tell the computer to lean out the fuel mix. You get lower HP, but you get improved MPG for that commute. Need to tow something now? Switch to High HP Mode. Such a device would cost all of 10 cents to install since the engine already does this number trickery during its learning process.

Re:not about payback time

[PHAEDRU5]

Oh, and BTW, is it at all possible that gas prices in other countries are *artificially* *high*?

I mean, how much tax is there on a gallon of gas in, say, the UK? I lived in the UK for a couple of years in the 80's, have loads of relatives there, and visit regularly. I know for a fact that government policy is to keep gas prices as high as possible (just right below where the peasants start to rebel) in order to encourage people to use public transport.

Re:not about payback time

[Mike Van Pelt]

I don't know about gas prices in the U.S. "being held artificially low". A good chunk of what you pay at the pump is gasoline taxes, plus sales taxes on the gas taxes. Rather, in many other countries, the gas taxes are much higher. Just try to get someone elected on a platform of adding several dollars per gallon of gas taxes. Or getting them re-elected if they ever try it.

That said, by "years to recoup investment in a hybrid" standards, current hybrids aren't a good investment. But I'd like to see them do well, because once a market in hybrids and pure electric vehicles is established, it's very likely to lead to vehicles which do make direct economic sense.

Re:not about payback time

[maddskillz]

They have a tonne of electrical gremlins (trust me, I have one and still love it in spite of that)
They also don't take into account how it actually drives...I can't see anyone not loving the low end torque (for a car with such good mileage)

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!
It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way rather than spending it on finding ways to allow every Joe to accelerate a 7 ton monster truck 0-60 in under 4 seconds!

It's not even about fuel usage at all. It's about emissions. I don't understand why no one gets this. Lower fuel usage is secondary to the purpose of a hybrid gas-electric car. The pure electric car is ideal because it has zero emissions (as well as allow for economies of scale with where you get your electricity from). Same thing with hydrogen fuel-cell technology, its emissions are just water.

Say it with me everyone:

EMISSIONS! EMISSIONS! EMISSIONS! EMISSIONS!

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

"Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!"

Beg pardon? There are no, as in ZERO subsidies on gasoline in the US. (Excluding E85, which is heavily subsidized, but also not available in most places.) It's hardly "artificially low". The reason that gasoline is less expensive in the US is because other countries are taxing gasoline at over 100%. The simple fact is that gasoline prices in the US are actually artificially HIGH, it's just less so than in other countries. In fact, most US states have minimum prices for gasoline, making it illegal to sell gasoline at less than about a 10% profit for the station. (Ranges from about 8% minimum profit to about 12% minimum profit.)

Re:not about payback time

[Catbeller]

Gas engines are inefficent, and making them bigger and badder always wastes fuel.

If you want a fast takeoff that doesn't waste power, you want an electric car.

Re:not about payback time

[Tran]

They are not concerned about the TDI specifically. It is reliability and cost of ownership across the brand that kncoks it down. ( in the recent speciall all auto issue they did say that if it wheren't for reliabilty issues, VW probbaly would be eaily the top car brand).

As an owner of a 2002 VW Passat Wagon ( with a 1.8 turbo engine, manual stick) that I have driven 70,000 miles, I concur with their asessment. It is the first car I have owned that is designed to wear out. Every 30K miles one has to replace the rear brake rotors, every 60K miles the front rotors. I just had to have the clutch replaced - worn out after 70,000 miles!

In contrast I have driven 2 other manual cars 150,000+ miles and never had to replace clutches nor brake rotors.

I haven't had the issue others seem to have with the engine, particularly the 1.8t. Since the beginning the dealer has only put in synthetic oil - so no sludging issues for me.

And to get back on the article's topic - the gas mileage for me has been pretty close to the listed mileage ( 22/31). On extended highway trips with the family (2 adults, a tween, and a now 4 year old and luggage). I get just over 29mpg over a 400 mile mostly interestate trip. And that is with a cruising speed of about 80mph all the way. On the way back I usually only get about 28mpg, and often the return trip is also slower. Mixed driving ( my 7 mile drive to work, 3-4 lights) seems to yield between 25-26mpg, just about what is expected.

I am already starting to eye new cars - and right now Hondas in general are really the only ones that appeal to me in terms of relaibilty and Hybrids. Though it would probably be a bit small for the family the Honda Civic Hybrids seem to fit my bill. The Accord Hybrid may be a bit pricey for me..

Re:not about payback time

[Stoertebeker]

What is wrong with Joe wanting to accelrate a 7-ton monster from zero to 60 in under 4 seconds?

The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals. Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal. Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?

Re:not about payback time

[JimBobJoe]

It's about how much more we could do by using technology in a sensible way

A friend of mine sold used cars and was terribly frustrated by the used hybrid/diesel market. Why? He said that the biggest demand for fuel efficient diesels and hybrids was always coming from the people who drove the least. From an environmental and efficiency point of view, it makes the most sense that the limited quantity of highly efficient vehicles should be in the hands of those people who drive the most. However, my friend noted that it's the well-off urbanites and "aging professor" types who would bid up the resale price of the cars, and had the money to buy them in the end. But what does it matter if someone has a hybrid if they only drive 8000 miles a year? Let someone who will drive 30,000 miles a year have the hybrid.

Re:not about payback time

[DragonWriter]

But at the front of the article, they specify this at $2.70/gal gasoline. Prices right now are well above that, and it seems to me that $2.70/gal is closer to a low figure for the past year than any sort of average.

I think $2.70 is about the national average for the past year, though regional and local variations are extremely significant, and commuters around any of the big cities (i.e., the main market for the Prius) are paying much higher prices (and doing much more city driving, so likely to have shorter payback time even at the same gas price.)

BTW, the Prius just doesn't have the necessary headroom for tall people.

Since when? The early ones were probably the only midsize car I've found tolerable even in the back seat (I'm 6'4"), haven't been in the newer ones but they look like they don't seem smaller.

Re:not about payback time

[dpilot]

My wife and I were on the Honda lot recently looking around, after the place was closed. The Honda Accord Hybrid looked like it turned a $20k car into a $30k one, and added 1 or 2 mpg to city and highway mileage.

I had an '86 Golf, rated at 28/40 mpg. On my ~10mi commute with 5 lights, I routinely got 37-38 mpg. Once or twice a year I take a 640 mi trip, and routinely got 38-39 mpg with a high point of 41 mpg. Though a generally decent vehicle it had it's share of bugs.

Re:not about payback time

[Hatta]

No one can guarantee you can maintain your current lifestyle indefinitely. Growth curves are sigmoidal. We are in the exponential phase right now, but that doesn't last forever. Resources are finite, and growth must eventually approach an asymptote. You can stick your fingers in your ears and deny it, but that doesn't change anything.

Re:not about payback time

[treeves]

The pure electric car is ideal because it has zero emissions (as well as allow for economies of scale with where you get your electricity from). Same thing with hydrogen fuel-cell technology, its emissions are just water.

Nonsense. These is no zero emission vehicle. You just move the emissions somewhere else. Unless you've got a solar-powered car. Or a sailboat with no auxiliary.

Re:not about payback time

[PHAEDRU5]

Indeed. However, back in 1900, or thereabouts, there was a report that, by the end of the century, everyone in the world would have to be a telephone operator...

I really can't accept your picture of scarcity and want. I have enough faith in human ingenuity to believe that not only will my lifestyle continue, it will get better and better.

Re:not about payback time

[Paradise Pete]

It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about! Especially not if you use the gas prices in a country where said price is held artificially low!

For it to really take off it's got to be economically attractive. And I don't think gas prices are artificially low in the US, they are just less artificially high than other places.

Re:not about payback time

[drinkypoo]

Your total energy consumption will be less if you stick with and repair a car that gets 20 mpg than if you buy a prius, because of the immense energy cost of creating the vehicle, especially the batteries. Buying a prius to replace your existing, working car is actually harmful to the environment. Buying a prius instead of something else when you're going to buy SOME kind of new car is the only time it makes sense. If you really want to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions, stick with used cars, and repair them instead of disposing of them.

Re:not about payback time

[joebok]

What if your current lifestyle is not sustainable?

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

get a diesel VW or Benz - you'll be glad you did, you can use biodiesel if you want, and you'll get the same mileage as a hybrid but have a car that will last several hundred thousand miles if you want it to, instead of 80K + $1500 battery pack. And if you run biodiesel, you need not enhance Dick Cheney's retirement fund, either!

amigaboy

Re:not about payback time

[Dog-Cow]

What country keeps the price artificially low? I know much of Europe keeps it artifically high.

Re:not about payback time

[AK Marc]

Your total energy consumption will be less if you stick with and repair a car that gets 20 mpg than if you buy a prius, because of the immense energy cost of creating the vehicle, especially the batteries.

Batteries do not take that much energy to create. You use less energy to buy a hybrid than keep the old car.

But wait, you had to create the new car, and that takes energy. Yes, I understand the economics of it. The question is, do you? What happens to the old car? Do you buy a hybrid and send the old car to the crusher? If so, then yes, you are increasing the total energy consumption. If you make the old car available for someone else's use, perhaps by selling it used, trading it in or such, then you are not increasing your total energy usage. This is one of those cases where the people that hate hybrids and the environment count everything against them, but never count the things for them. And, guessing from your battery comment, you appear to be a hybrid hater than doesn't care about facts, unless they are the few that appear to support your emotional reaction.

Re:not about payback time

[AK Marc]

There are no, as in ZERO subsidies on gasoline in the US.

The oil companies are paid billions in tax breaks, guaranteed loans, and cut-rate mining/drilling leases, even while pulling in record high profits. You must have a different definition of "zero" than I do. Not to mention that the meaning of the poster you are responding to is the correct statement that gas taxes do not pay for all the infrastructure of the gasoline users. When additional taxes are raised to support the gasoline users, that comes across as a cross-subsidy (income makers support gasoline users).

Re:not about payback time

[xelah]

What is wrong with Joe wanting to accelrate a 7-ton monster from zero to 60 in under 4 seconds? Instead of dictating to these folks how they should drive, how about improving the technology to make such driving more efficient?

There's nothing wrong with it as long as he's prepared to pay the full economic cost of doing so. That includes all of the internal costs (the ones he pays when he buys stuff) - oil extraction, car maintenance, etc - and all of the external ones - local pollution (think health, building damage and loss of crops), accident risk, policing, noise, global pollution, road wear etc. I can't find any summaries right now (but http://www.belspo.be/belspo/home/publ/pub_ostc/mob il/rapp04_en.pdf appears to be an interesting study in to these costs, which I don't have time to read now). However, IIRC, global warming is less than half of the total external costs on average and the external cost is VERY sensitive to the population densities where you drive.

Practically, this means substantial taxes on fuel, and ideally congestion charges in major cities as well (these, of course, should be used to offset other taxes). I don't remember the figures, but I think it comes out in the few dollars per litre range.

Re:not about payback time

[dpilot]

I'm 6'4", and my head just touches the roof liner. Most of the sedans from Honda and Toyota are right in the same ballpark for headroom, and the Honda Accord has almost 1.5" more.

Back to $2.70/gal... And do you think that will hold for the next year or past? The break-even point is a constantly changing thing - in the direction that favors technology.

Re:not about payback time

[DragonWriter]

Back to $2.70/gal... And do you think that will hold for the next year or past?

Not at all, the annual price peaks are, as I recall, getting both higher and broader, and the valleys narrower and also higher. The idea that break-even can be calculated reasonably based on a fixed, current cost is, I'd agree, pretty silly.

Re:not about payback time

[klausboop]

Bah. Fuel efficient cars (including hybrids) reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I'll happily pony up the extra $$ for that, even if I'll never "regain" the expenditure with savings at the gas pump.

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, how much tax is there on a gallon of gas in, say, the UK?

Couldn't tell you. They use some savage device called litres instead of gallons.

Re:not about payback time

[evilviper]

It's sad how every article about hybrids always focuses on how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. That's not what it is about!

Yes it is.

The thing about money... It's not a renewable resource. It's not environmentally friendly to spend lots of it. You make it somewhere, and chances are that SOMEWHERE happens to either directly or indirectly pollute, use petroleum, etc.

Not to mention that the cost of the product you're buying is usually a good indication of how much energy was spent to build it, and therefore how much pollution is created in its construction.

Money is usually a pretty good indication of whether something is environmentally friendly, or not.

Re:not about payback time

[rhizome]

When the green movement can give me technology that at least maintains my current lifestyle, while showing savings on the bottom line within a year or two, I'll go for it.

So you not only require your green technology to surpass existing technology, but it has to save you money as well?

Re:not about payback time

[Tran]

Yeah, that price escalation is the problem with the Accord (and the Camry).

Your comment regarding headroom on the Civic will be coming into play for me as well.

The rest of my family as had no problems with Hondas at all, nor have has anyone that I know that drives/has driven a Honda.

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the 'green movement' is about selling you new technology so you can maintain your current lifestyle with less environmental impact.

You might consider moving closer to work, telecommuting, walking, riding a bike, etc. All things that can actually improve the quality of your life, are easily obtainable, and cheaper than developing new tech (with the exception that real estate close to work can be prohibitively expensive in some communities).

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid it actually *is* about how many years it takes to save enough gas to pay fro the added cost of the car. For you, perhaps. Lose any friends or relatives to lung cancer? The Prius has around 90% fewer cancer-causing emissions at the tailpipe than comparable cars. How much is that worth to you?

When the green movement can give me technology that at least maintains my current lifestyle, while showing savings on the bottom line within a year or two, I'll go for it. Heh. By looking a little longer term than that, I now have more assets than people with twice my income. I bought a Prius in '02, a hyper-efficient furnace, air conditioner and water heater, and I don't have a cell phone or premium cable (I wouldn't have cable at all, but that's how I get my Internet service). Calculations like yours are weak at best, since they contain too many implicit assumptions about the future.

Until then, well, it can keep selling to the true believers. Are you sure you aren't a "true believer"? Sounds like your belief system is interfering with your decision making to me. Anything that permanently eliminates an ongoing cost is worth any initial capital outlay you can afford. Things that decrease ongoing costs are worth quite significant outlays. "It takes gold to breed gold" as they say... did you ever notice, the self-made ultra-rich are cheapskates on some things but will spend enormously on others?

Re:not about payback time

[dpilot]

Still, the mileage isn't bad on either car.

The headroom wasn't that hot on the Civic, though for that I'm going from numbers on the web. It's the Accord that had the extra headroom. The Civic was right on par with the Camry and Prius. I'm only 6'4", my son is a bit over 2" taller. But then again he's 21, so I'm not too worried about him driving this car, whenever we buy,

Re:not about payback time

[Tran]

Only 6'4"? heh, then i have nothing to worry about at 6'0".

Re:not about payback time

[quenda]

back in 1900, or thereabouts, there was a report that, by the end of the century, everyone in the world would have to be a telephone operator...

It must have been after 1900, as I can't imagine that much growth within one year.

Re:not about payback time

[PayPaI]

Venezuela

Re:not about payback time

[An Onerous Coward]

Every indication is that we are already above the planet's carrying capacity, and if we try to bring the rest of the world up to a European lifestyle (or godforbid, an American one), we'll have to set our human ingenuity to the task of reducing the number of ingenious humans.

Anyhow, most of what people describe as 'the good life' means jack all to me.

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

Every indication is that we are already above the planet's carrying capacity

We so are not. This planet could easily sustain up to 10 billion people if governments in third world countries got their heads out of their asses and started seriously investing in farming technologies or even just using the already existing technologies.

Quote: "only 17% of cultivable land produces 90% of the world's food crops". Imagine if the production capacity of the remaining 83% of farming land was increased to the level of the other 17%. We could feed the population of the Earth five times over. Hell, we could even reduce the amount of farmland and replant forests, thus also reducing CO2 from the atmosphere.

But hey, why would 3rd world countries do that when they can simply leech off from Western countries (who are more than happy to supply "humanitarian aid" because of their guilt over past colonialism) and spend that money instead on weaponry to fight their pathetic tribal wars with their neighbors.

Re:not about payback time

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. These is no zero emission vehicle. You just move the emissions somewhere else. Unless you've got a solar-powered car. Or a sailboat with no auxiliary.

You just contradicted yourself by pointing out how to get zero emission electricity sources. An electric car whose battery is charged by electricity from solar-panels and/or windmills would have zero emissions overall.

The point is that the car itself produces zero emissions, hence it can be labeled a "ZEV" (zero-emissions vehicle). Even if you are getting your electricity from a power-plant, the efficiency of that power-plant is orders of magnitude better than that of a gas-powered car, even if it is burning oil or coal.

In other news

[Fear the Clam]

The smug cloud that's been threatening San Francisco appears to be dispersing.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, but at least we can see through our smug cloud.

My actual results

[Anonymous Coward]

As of yesterday for the most recent tank of gas, my 2005 Prius averaged 58 mpg over 210 miles. So there.

Re:My actual results

[Stoertebeker]

Lifetime average over 107000 miles on my Insight (EPA rating 68/60): 68.3

Re:My actual results

[dfoulger]

That's amazingly good. My average, over 104,000, is 61.8 mpg. I'm not complaining at all, as my easily fall inside the range that I could expect under the "old" EPA rating system. I suspect that the new EPA estimates will more correctly project the mileage of regular cars and somewhat underestimate the mileage of hybrids.

Re:My actual results

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it looks like the Insight is no longer available on the Honda website. There's a shock!

Re:My actual results

[dfoulger]

The Insight was always a limited production testbed. The entire Honda hybrid lineup is built on the technology it demonstrated, and with its task accomplished, Honda has moved on to other limited production vehicles. Those of us lucky enough to have them get the best mileage of any car on the road. Those of you who don't have one are, how to say this, out of luck.

Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[f0dder]

Help me out.. my understanding of a hybrid system was to bring performance to what are normally gutless high mpg 5spd low HP gas engines. If we only focused on high MPG then your 3cyl Geo Metro should of sufficed. But they sold poorly because they're gutless and for many reasons the market are not receptive to driving stick. A lot of folks keep bringing up the VW TDI diesels. But I looked at the performance numbers (ie 0-70 from consumer reports and the prius has better numbers). Are we to only focus on MPG becuase in the past they didn't sell well. Then again that was when gas was cheap. Will the market forgo performance for high MPG?

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[RingDev]

A very solid point! A gutless IC engine can be pushed really far for efficiency. You can lean out the mixture and drop the power output (you'll get more NOx I believe though). A hybrid does a few things for ya, it will recoup power from braking, it will allow a better fuel:air mixture (less NOx emissions), and it will augment your power on acceleration to make up for the gutlessness of the IC engine. If performance isn't an issue, then yes, a mid 80's civic can probably be pushed to 60mpg it you're willing to drive it.

As for the VW TDI, I have one, I love it. I get 600-700 miles per tank, I average around 43mpg. It's not a rocket, but it's peppy, enough for quick highway merges and passing. The only downside is that in 2k8 there's going to be like 10 new Diesels on the market in the US (Honda, Toyota, the new VWs, and I'm sure some more), and Diesel demand is going to jump. Increasing Diesel prices means higher shipping costs, which will lead directly to inflation. On the bright side though, there are more and more biodiesel plants coming online. There's a soy->BD plant being built just a few miles from my house, and I keep hearing little news bits about algae farms making progress. Provided those farms become a reality, BD100 > E85.

-Rick

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[evil_Tak]

I didn't see the performance numbers in consumer reports, but my fiancee and I drive a Jetta TDI. The mileage is outstanding (we're moderately aggressive drivers), and performance is perfectly adequate (not once has acceleration been a problem), but it's a 5-speed manual.

The market may not be receptive to driving stick, but in that case it had better be receptive to higher price, reduced performance, and lower gas mileage, because that's the tradeoff for the go-kart convenience of not actually having to learn to drive.

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[Cadallin]

Actually, you can't do that in 'States legally. Modifying the fuel:air mix that way kills the ability of a Catalytic converter to do its job. Which obviously screws with the mandatory emissions tests and standards. Whether that means Catalytic converters are a good idea or not is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[maddskillz]

Drive the car, rather then reading the numbers...it will suprise you. With a TDI, you don't have to rev it up to have lots of power, unlike a typical 4 cylinder. It moves pretty quick under normal driving, due to the torque.
If you try and race it, the performance won't be so hot...you have to shift too early, and too often for a 0-60 or quarter mile. But if you drive like most people, you will probably be pretty happy with the performance.
The only car I have driven with close to the same mileage is the corolla. Under *hard* acceleration, they would be pretty even...but under normal driving the TDI feels so much better.

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[Anonymous Coward]

Help me out.. my understanding of a hybrid system was to bring performance to what are normally gutless high mpg 5spd low HP gas engines.

The purpose of hybrid systems is to reduce emissions. That's it. Not performance, not fuel economy, but emissions. Emissions, emissions, emissions. Got it?

Electric vehicle and hydrogen fuel cell cars also have this as their main purpose and actually reduce emissions to zero.

Hybrids are NOT about performance (as in being fast) and they shouldn't be. Just look at how poorly "performance hybrids" like the Accord Hybrid are selling. The hybrids with the lowest emissions are selling the best. MPG does have to do with this, as consumers only seem to focus on MPG and not emissions, but MPG is somewhat related to emissions in that you burn fuel more efficiently and you should have fewer emissions (if done correctly).

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[compro01]

BS is only really optimal in warn climates. BD has trouble with turning to wax at colder temperatures (below 5C i think), necessitating either fuel tank/fuel line heating or mixing it with petro diesel (i think 50% petro/BD mix is the magic number to prevent this).

still, cutting oil use/emissions by 50% is very considerable.

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[RingDev]

Winterizing Diesel is already a standard practice. BD100 will Gel right around freezing, and will start giving clogging issues a bit below freezing. On most diesels this is only an issue at start up, once the engine is running the fuel pump constantly cycles excess fuel up to the hot engine, and back into the tank where it melts and other gelled fuel. Mixing with Diesel #1 or Diesel #2 with an anti-gel component will keep you safe well below freezing. BD80 for sub-freezing climates, and BD50 for the 'OMG my nuts froze to the car seat' climates. And for the most part, most refineries do that work for ya. I've never had to do anything beyond pump fuel into my car, and I don't anticipate having to do more once we get these BD plants up and running.

-Rick

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[ben there...]

With a TDI, you don't have to rev it up to have lots of power, unlike a typical 4 cylinder. It moves pretty quick under normal driving, due to the torque.
If you try and race it, the performance won't be so hot...you have to shift too early, and too often for a 0-60 or quarter mile. But if you drive like most people, you will probably be pretty happy with the performance.

Sounds like the TDI is completely different from every other VW Jetta/Golf then, which is surprising. I would have thought their gearing would have been the same. Every VW I have heard of gets peak torque around 5500 RPMs.

Where they fail at the 0-60 is the especially weak torque they get off the line until they hit 4500-5500 RPMs.

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[maddskillz]

Ya..the TDI is a really flat curve. It peaks around 1700 RPM. Redline is 4500 RPM.
This is the same engine as in the VW:
http://www.skoda-auto.com/newoctavia/images/card/c ard_techdata_0_4.jpg

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[compro01]

Mixing with Diesel #1 or Diesel #2 with an anti-gel component will keep you safe well below freezing. BD80 for sub-freezing climates, and BD50 for the 'OMG my nuts froze to the car seat' climates

which was what i was saying is necessary. not a major issue, but BD isn't really an end-all-be-all solution, but it makes a very good fill in until we get something better (fuel cells, fusion, et all).

Re:Hybrid are about performance not just MP

[RingDev]

I disagree. If there is one power source that isn't going to be replaced any time soon, it's Coal. The US has such huge reserves of coal that there is virtually no way for alternative grid power to compete unsubsidized. So as long as we're burning coal, we're going to need a way to clean it. Enter algae farms. Algae farms and coal-plant algae scrubbing gives us a huge and renewable power source (OK, so coal will run out some day in a few millenniums, but for all practical purposes, it is sustainable). It is carbon neutral in that we are still releasing the same pollution the power plant would have spit out, but we are not adding any more emissions from transportation.

While I love the idea of fuel cells, they have a few major drawbacks. 1) They are not currently attainable for wide scale use. 2) They are extremely expensive. 3) They require a completely new fuel delivery infrastructure. 4) There are still massive technical issues.

I think Hydrogen and Fuel cell power trains are in our future. But I don't think they will ever become as ubiquitous as the gasoline internal combustion engine. Truth be told, I don't think any drive train will ever be as standard as the current gas engine. There is no magic bullet to our transportation needs. But there are lots of options. Bio-Diesel, ethanol, plug-in electric, fuel cell, hydrogen combustion, etc... some blend of all of them will make up the future of our transportation needs. Each with their own benefits and drawbacks. I think Bio-Diesel will enjoy the largest segment growth to start with though, as we already have the engines, delivery, and systems to handle it, all we need is for more refineries and algae farms to come online.

-Rick

You must be new here.

[AltGrendel]

The US automakers have been fighting to keep the current standards for decades so that they can tout the "Great Milage" that their cars have. Now that something has come along that looks even better that the standard (read fossil fuel only) autos look worse, they probably have done some back door lobbying to change over to this new formula.

Re:You must be new here.

[operagost]

Don't mind the fact that the fuel efficiency estimates have gone down for ALL vehicles, not just hybrids. Also please continue to ignore the existence of several hybrid and E85 models from US automakers.

Re:You must be new here.

[GreyPoopon]

The US automakers have been fighting to keep the current standards for decades so that they can tout the "Great Milage" that their cars have. Now that something has come along that looks even better that the standard (read fossil fuel only) autos look worse, they probably have done some back door lobbying to change over to this new formula.

I'm not sure this is completely true. For normal gas automobiles, I have encountered fuel economy very close to the EPA estimates, so I don't think there was any reason for the US automakers to "fight" the current standards; they seemed to be adequate. Now, the US manufacturers were "late" to market with Hybrid vehicles, and I can think that for the last several years, they would have been fighting hard to CHANGE the standard rather than keep them the same. Perhaps that's what you meant (IE, fighting the last few years and finally getting success) But as we all know from actual performance of Hybrid vehicles, there has been significant reason to change the ratings process. I can tell you from my experience buying cars (and looking at both Toyotas and Hondas) that, at least from the perspective of the dealerships I visited, they have been hoping and praying for change. They were very well aware that Hybrid cars were not achieving the stated EPA ratings. And they were also aware that even though the short term effect was a boost in sales, the long term effect was a dissatisfied customer. Any good dealership is highly interested in repeat customers, and they know they have to balance that with selling the car for the highest price they can. They don't want something like false fuel economy ratings to interfere with the customer relationship. I know that in the case of two dealerships that I visited, when I expressed some interest in a Hybrid vehicle, one of the first things that the sales people told me was that although the fuel economy was significantly better, in most cases it would not be nearly as good as the EPA rating indicated. In fact, one of the sales people told me that he would like to remove the EPA ratings from the car sticker, but that they weren't allowed to do so.

So actually, I think that ever since Hybrid vehicles hit the market, it has been in EVERYBODY'S best interest to adjust the rating standards, but the EPA has been slow to respond with improvements. But don't go blaming the EPA either. Keep in mind that they had to come up with one standard that applies to both conventional and Hybrid vehicles. The basics of that might be simple, but the effort to come up with something that all the manufacturers will agree with was probably a lot more involved.

Re:You must be new here.

[morgan_greywolf]

The US automakers have been fighting to keep the current standards for decades so that they can tout the "Great Milage" that their cars have. Now that something has come along that looks even better that the standard (read fossil fuel only) autos look worse, they probably have done some back door lobbying to change over to this new formula.

No, this is clearly not the case as mileage has gone down across the board.

Actually, as someone who, until very recently, worked in the U.S. auto industry for several years, I can tell you that the automakers did fight for decades to keep the current standards because they made all their cars look good. But they lobbied hard against the change to the new formula, not just because it ruins their marketing, but also because these ratings are used to compute CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). Automakers are mandated by Congress to meet a CAFE quota, which is the average fuel economy of all of their cars and trucks sold in the U.S., year after year. If they fail to do so, they have to make up for it by pushing more small vehicles, which they make less money on -- and on many small cars, they actually lose money rather than make a profit.

Re:You must be new here.

[Sporkinum]

Good thing they didn't include ratings for E85. Mileage would go down another 15% or so. Less energy in a gallon of alcohol vs gasoline.

Re:You must be new here.

[jridley]

E85 cars are mainly a gimmick. The auto manufacturers love it because they get to make a practically free change (some extra computer firmware and maybe a specific gravity detector for the fuel) and they get to count it as a vastly higher mileage car; I think they get to rate it as though it was only burning the 15% of gas that it does (IE 20 MPG / 0.15 = 133 mpg), even though the vast majority of E85 cars that are sold will never see a drop of E85, and even though burning ethanol releases even more greenhouse gases than burning gasoline does; you burn 80% as much fossil fuels to make a unit of ethanol as the amount of energy that's in the ethanol, then you have to actually burn the ethanol.

Don't even get me started on hydrogen.

I'm waiting for a good electric, myself. The could make a damn sweet one for a decent price if they wanted to. I have friends who are driving electrics made 10 or more years ago that would work fine for many people, but they're expensive because not many are made. Electrics at least have the POTENTIAL to be really clean.

Re:You must be new here.

[Gordonjcp]

maybe a specific gravity detector for the fuel

You probably wouldn't need anything that complicated. Just keep winding the mixture in until the lambda sensor reads about right. A lot of older cars with lambda sensors will run on ethanol fuels with little or no adjustment. You've got to make sure that the pipes aren't attacked by the fuel though.

Re:You must be new here.

[jac89]

The whole point of ethanol is that the carbon released when you burn it was taken out of the system when the corn/sugar was grown.

Re:You must be new here.

[drinkypoo]

I'm waiting for a good electric, myself. The could make a damn sweet one for a decent price if they wanted to.

Just to buy the batteries to convert a Corbin Sparrow (teensy electric three-wheeler) to water-cooled lithium-ion cost over ten grand. I know, because I know a guy who designed the system and does the conversions. He also drives a W126 300SD, which is how I met him in the first place (I have one also.)

Also, the energy cost of making and recycling batteries, plus the environmental cost, is quite steep.

I would be more than happy with a series hybrid with a turbine engine and a generator, which would probably have a lower energy usage over its lifetime counting production and later recycling. Plus, you could make it highly multifuel.

Re:You must be new here.

[tepples]

The whole point of ethanol is that the carbon released when you burn it was taken out of the system when the corn/sugar was grown. Including the petrochemical fertilizers, petrochemical pesticides, petro-fuels for planting equipment, and petro-fuels for harvesting equipment?

Re:You must be new here.

[wheresmymomma]

Unfortunately this doesn't change the manufacturers' required average fuel economy across their entire fleet (CAFE standards since that calculation is measured differently than what the EPA uses to put on the window sticker. EVERY car's fuel economy will go down, but this in no way is going to lead to a rise in fuel economy standards -- it's just appearances.

Also, does anyone else think it a bit silly that manufacturers advertise subcompacts as fuel efficient when they get an average of 30+ mpg (pre-EPA change)? Whereas in Europe cars AVERAGE 33 mpg? Manufacturers say that people don't want little fuel efficient cars over gas guzzling sedans, but honestly when the difference in economy is 30 mpg vs. 25 mpg it makes no difference!

Just a thought: it seems to me that many people who would likely buy a small, gas sipping car are the same cheapos (like me) who would keep their current car as long as they can. So they tend to buy fewer cars (and therefore fewer fuel-efficient cars) in general. Whereas the folks who don't care for gas mileage may buy gas guzzling cars more frequently...

And a gripe: Why do people keep using any dollar figure less than $3.00 for fuel estimates in comparing the recovery costs of hybrids? Gas prices have tripled in the past 8 years -- what makes people think that we will pay $2.60/gal for gas over the next 10 years? Take the bus! Tell your kids to bike to soccer practice! That's what I did as a kid, uphill both ways.

Re:You must be new here.

[cayenne8]

If they could get this sucker down to the price of a Vette....I'd be owning one soon.

:-)

Trouble with these are...the lack of SOUND. I mean, the rumble of the engine is half the fun, my old 911 Turbo with the Borla exhaust used to set off the car alarms of cars I drove past...was kinda funny.

Re:You must be new here.

[jridley]

Any moron can make something loud. Just look at Harleys (I mean what the owners do to them, not how they come from the factories). It takes brains and work and technology to make things quiet, and it takes intelligence to recognize that.
All the noise in the world is a serious problem. If I had to choose between two identical houses, I'd pay a ton of extra money for the one that was in a much quieter area.
Teenagers like to make a lot of noise; they have a lot of hormones and no brains, and think that being the one with the loudest whatever will get them laid. Some of them grow out of it.

Re:You must be new here.

[jridley]

OK, given that, you are only releasing something like 80-90% as much carbon; all the petrochemicals that are used in the production and transport of the ethanol.

If we could direct the money logically, rather than how the corn lobbiests want, we'd be making ethanol from switchgrass or something where you get something like a 12:1 payback, and the crops grow on lands that are not suitable for food crops.

Re:You must be new here.

[cayenne8]

"Any moron can make something loud. Just look at Harleys..."

Actually...the Porsche wasn't all THAT loud until the turbo was on at WOT....when going slow or idling....it has a very, very low resonant bass note from the exhaust. If someone had their alarm on too high of motion sensitivy, off it would go.

I like to live in a quiet place too...I've outgrown blasting the neighbors at 3am with the stereo...but, during normal waking hours...loud things are still sometimes fun.

I imagine that loud, powerful handguns turn you off too?

Re:You must be new here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hybrid cars were not achieving the stated EPA ratings.

Well then, explain how I've got 57mpg on my 2001 Prius when it's rated for 52 city / 48 highway. That is exceeding the EPA's estimates.

Re:You must be new here.

[GreyPoopon]

Whereas in Europe cars AVERAGE 33 mpg?

A couple things...first off, which gallon is this based on? 33 mpg using UK gallons would be only 27.5 mpg when using US gallons. Second, Europe has very few SUVs, and there are a lot of SMART cars and other small vehicles (like Citroen) that are only one step above a motorcycle that help skew the average. Most people would consider these cars unsafe to drive (although that's mostly because of the skill [or lack thereof] of the average American driver). In addition, are you including diesel cars in that average? We have precious few of those in the US. What's the average fuel economy of a European car that uses regular gasoline and isn't an underpowered two-seater? Look, if there were a better selection of diesel fuel vehicles available in the US, and the cost of diesel wasn't fifteen percent higher than unleaded gasoline, many of us would be opting for them.

Re:You must be new here.

[An Onerous Coward]

Two solutions:

1) Get yourself the latest album from "Vroom-o and the Amazingly Loud Engine Noises". Play it full blast.

2) Make the vrooming noises yourself. And the squealing tire noises when you go around corners.

Re:You must be new here.

[JonathanR]

I wonder how long till car stereos will have the inputs from engine speed and throttle position? You could synthesize any kind of noise you want... ...I'll have ferrari.mp3 today, in my Geo Metro electric conversion. :)

Re:You must be new here.

[WilliamSChips]

That's what a car stereo is for.

Re:You must be new here.

[jridley]

I'm ambivalent to the sound of guns. I like the occasional hour of target practice, but I don't really care how much noise the weapon makes. It could be totally silent, that'd be cool, but I don't really care.

Huh?

[shoptroll]

I knew this was coming, and I'm a recent owner of a 2007 Prius. I'm currently averaging about 48 mpg on mainly highway driving, so I guess I'm doing better than most people out there driving these? Anybody who pays attention to the screen should be able to figure out to get the car running efficiently without needing to read up on hypermiling techniques (which will help if you want to go beyond some simple adjustments).

So how are other cars faring with the new calculations? I'd imagine it should be proportional to the current numbers?

Re:Huh?

[banesong]

I am also a Prius owner (2004). I have routinely averaged 49 - 53 mpg on a weekly basis once I had the car for a month or so. It took a little getting used to some of the driving quirks to get the higher mpg (e.g. jackrabbiting of the light is actually a good thing), but overall, my driving style hasn't really changed from my previous vehicle (a Subaru wagon I totaled). I will admit, that I didn't really purchase this vehicle to be part of the Green movement, as I get open access to HOV with a single person, but I have become more conscious of my consumption the longer I have driven it.

Re:Huh?

[Altus]

From what I have heard your results are in line with the revised estimates so you are probably driving reasonably efficiently and you are getting reasonable results. you could probably do better than the EPA if you were extra careful and worse if you were extra careless. Some people do both of those things.

If you are happy with your car at 48 MPG then that is a good thing for you and you would probalby still have bought it with a sticker that said 48MPG in the window instead of whatever it used to say.... which I gather is quite a bit more.

Re:Huh?

[mjbinon]

I just recently purchased a 2006 Pontiac G6 (the 6cyl model, not the 4), and have found that when driving pure highway, the mileage peaks out around 31 mpg, and overall averages around 27-28. Which is actually even a few points higher than the new results given for this car in TFA.

Though, in fairness, TFA does not specify between 4 and 6 cylinder engines, so we don't know for sure which car they are reporting on there.

Re:Huh?

[petehead]

Anybody who pays attention to the screen should be able to figure out to get the car running efficiently

The most inefficient driving is in conditions with a lot of traffic. Please don't stare at your screen when you are following me in traffic.

Re:Huh?

[another_neophyte]

I have a 2002 Prius and have gotten 42/43 mpg over the past couple of years. Never did get better than 45 mpg. On highways we get 50+ mpg, with the average coming down because most driving is on rolling hills in suburban areas.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know why my 2002 (and 1998) Saturn SL1s were getting 35 to 38 mpg while costing less than $10k and now we're supposed to be super impressed with a $22.5k (base) Prius only getting ~45 to 48 and requiring an additional $5k+ investment after 5-7 years for new batteries?

The cost difference in these automobiles is not recovered by fuel economy.

Re:Huh?

[drinkypoo]

The most inefficient driving is in conditions with a lot of traffic. Please don't stare at your screen when you are following me in traffic.

Well, I live in California where if you rear-end someone, it's almost impossible for them to be found at fault.

So it's okay to stare at the screen when you're following me in traffic, but please, pay attention to the road when you're in front of me...

Re:Huh?

[holomorph]

e.g. jackrabbiting of the light is actually a good thing By "jackrabbiting" you mean really stepping on the gas to get up to speed as fast as possible? I haven't tried this as I assumed it wouldn't be as efficient (plus it's not really my driving style), but you really found it gave you *better* millage? Have you noticed other things that would go against intuition? I've got a 2007 Prius and usually average more like 44 (mix of highway and city - usually a bit higher for highway, though stop and go traffic jams are where the car really thrives :p).

Re:Huh?

[banesong]

Yes, that is exactly what I meant by jackrabbiting. If you get up to speed quickly, you can then allow yourself to lightly maintain that speed or coast with little or no use of the battery. You end up using approximately the same amount of gas (eg if you go slowly to speed, you suck the battery down and need to recharge), but save as the battery impact is less and will reduce the gasoline engine recharge need, as you can use the kinetic energy more. I might add, this is good for larger streets where you have a fairly clear stretch of a mile or two ahead of you. Less space, you run into serious braking issues, more, and you end up having momentum issues. Bottom line, it took me a fairly long time to fully develop my technique. Check out any of the prius topic websites for more driving styles. Priuschat.com and toyotanation.com both have fairly good forums.

GreenHybrid

[mnemonic_]

Looks like these numbers agree pretty well with GreenHybrid's data, which is composed of self-reported mileage numbers from hybrid owners. I'd still probably rely on GreenHybrid more because the EPA testing is just that, testing, not real world use.

Re:GreenHybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that site is has a number of junk figures.

Realistically

[bahwi]

Realistically you do idle a lot. Red lights, idiot drivers, and traffic, and you're spending a lot of time idling. Not idling is not realistic. Even on highways you have some idling time, between dallas/houston(abt 4 hrs to 5 hrs) I idle about 30-45 minutes because of traffic and construction, and that's between the cities, where you can have even more traffic depending on what time. Traffic sucks, but it's a part of life. And yes, if you know how to drive a hybrid, you'll get mileage over what the EPA currently says(and drastically that over what it will say soon).

And with the tax credits (I think ending this year or ended) it's been typically cost effective depending on what type of hybrid you get. A civic hybrid from last year would have paid for itself within 8 months with my level of driving, a 3000 premium over regular civics with 2000-2500(I forget where it was last year) back from the gov't means a difference of 500-1000 to make up, which is pretty easy with how gas prices went last summer.

I hate these people who run the numbers and leave out other numbers. Tax Credits on IRS page

Yeah, they aren't guaranteed, but if you buy early you can get them pretty easily. Or who say "Batteries are expensive" when they have very long warranties that cover it. If you want to pretend to know what you're talking about, then do the proper research. If you want the most cost effective vehicle, gas wise, get a bike. You have to be comfortable with your car, hybrid or not, and if you don't like them don't get them. But don't make up fake reasons.

Re:Realistically

[ScentCone]

I hate these people who run the numbers and leave out other numbers.

And I can't stand it when people talk as if getting tax credits reduces costs. It transfers costs to someone else. Ironically, even the guy who takes his bicycle or public transportation to work is going to have to shoulder some of the federal income tax burden that you - as a driver of your own personal vehicle - are able to shrug off because of the flavor of engine you bought. Unless you can demonstrate how your purchase of that vehicle is going to reduce the federal government's cost of doing business by the amount of your tax credit, you're just asking everyone else in the country to write you a rebate check out of their own income.

Re:Realistically

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. By reducing pollution we reduce the need for medical services related to said pollution. All too often, side costs are ignored. If we could all drive more efficient less crap generating vehicles, you can bet over time a number of respiratory issues will start to drop. Of course, we won't change and asthma cases will continue to rise.

Re:Realistically

[antifoidulus]

Actually, IIRC there is a tax break for taking public transport too. At least my old employer had something you could fill out to get one(you had to present your receipts etc). I ride a bike and legally don't pay taxes(long story, but I am earning 65k/yr) so I never really worried about it, but its there if you look for it.

Re:Realistically

[ArsonSmith]

But then the hybrid owner is also lowering the cleanup costs from impact to the environment. Those will be shared by all as well.

Re:Realistically

[lubricated]

There's an interest in the government to subsidize new technologies with the potential for greater societal good. As to why, look up externality on wikipedia.

Re:Realistically

[ScentCone]

There's an interest in the government to subsidize new technologies with the potential for greater societal good.

Note that I'm not suggesting that investment in new technologies is a bad thing, or that tax money - when spent - shouldn't be spent on things that, given a choice, spur on more competition to produce efficient technologies. My point is that the GP is suggesting that his Hybrid really doesn't cost him as much as some people would suggest, because he also gets tax breaks for driving it... but he's deliberately ignoring that fact that the vast majority of us who haven't yet (or can't, etc) buy a hybrid are the ones subsidizing his cheaper price. It's that classic disconnect, wherein people refer to "the government" (and it's spending or crediting of money) as if it's somehow not the rest of us... but it is the rest of us. He's getting a tax credit, and thus the rest of us are getting a tax increase. I'm not weighing in on whether the investment is good, I'm weighing in on whether or not he's characterizing it correctly, and/or being more than a little disengenuous.

Re:Realistically

[DragonWriter]

And I can't stand it when people talk as if getting tax credits reduces costs.

It reduces the cost to the purchaser.

It transfers costs to someone else.

Yes, so does burning gasoline, since it imposes substantial costs on people outside of the transaction. If you don't include the externalized costs of the gasoline when analyzing what saves money (and you shouldn't, if you are considering what saves the purchaser money), why would you include the costs of the tax credits to others?

Re:Realistically

[AK Marc]

Ironically, even the guy who takes his bicycle or public transportation to work is going to have to shoulder some of the federal income tax burden that you - as a driver of your own personal vehicle - are able to shrug off because of the flavor of engine you bought.

Ironically, the public transportation systems are run at a loss and I am fleeced for other people's ability to take the bus/train. And the bicycle riders use roads paid for from gasoline taxes, but yet don't pay the gasoline taxes, making me pay for them as well.

There is no universally equitable way to pay for shared resources, as the use of anything shared will never be divided perfectly evenly. As such, you must learn to accept such minor inequities, as they exist in all current, past, and conceived possible future governing systems.

Re:Realistically

[drinkypoo]

But then the hybrid owner is also lowering the cleanup costs from impact to the environment. Those will be shared by all as well.

Except that the batteries are expensive (in terms of energy and pollution) to produce. Sure, that study that said the hummer was actually greener than the prius was full of shit in many ways, but it raised some excellent points, and that is one of them.

Regardless of hummer vs. prius, if you repair a used compact import instead of buying a new prius, you will be saving a crapload of energy even if the prius gets twice the mileage. What you might do is reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but if you're trying to minimize your lifetime energy consumption, you should just continue to repair a car that gets decent mileage.

Re:Realistically

[Shadowlore]

As much as it may suprise you, most people do not idle most of the time. Most people do not sit in bumper to bumper traffic. If you do, you should look at a full-on electric. That way you don't use any gasoline on your trip. Especially if you drive less than 100-200 miles per day.

IMO if you are driving primarily in bumper to bumper traffic, and use your car almost or even exclusively under traffic conditions, you should be driving a full-electric instead of patting yourself on the back for the half-measure of the hybrid. An electric will even work in conditions where a bicycle will not (like slick, cold roads).

And yes, if you know how to drive well you will get better mileage than EPA on any vehicle. The EPA doesn't test actual mileage.

Re:Realistically

[delcielo]

This whole "hybrids aren't as good as people say they are" thing is getting tiresome, isn't it?

First, let's concede that they're not as good as the real patriots say. They won't save the world, or cook your breakfast, or supplant the SUV.

Second, let's acknowledge that their benefits are real. My '03 Civic Hybrid averages about 43 mpg in town (start/stop, not many traffic jams; but lots of lights and I don't pay attention to how I drive it) and gets on average about 48 on the highway. In real terms, I fill it less than half as often as I used to fill my old Nissan Altima in the same driving conditions. I know some of you are going trot out the "not equal comparison" thing; but there is no equal comparison. Even civic-to-hybrid-civic will draw complaints about the difference of their construction, etc.

I get twice the mileage with my hybrid that I historically got with any of my previous cars.

You like the VW Golf instead? Great. I'm happy for you. You like your Accord? Good for you. Love your Hummer H2? Excellent. I don't begrudge you a thing, and I find the people who do to be childish. But don't begrudge me either.

I live in Northeast Kansas and I drive to Paducah Kentucky on a tank of gas. Tucumcari New Mexico on a tank of gas (these aren't computations, they're actual experience). Oklahoma City? Half a tank of gas. Admittedly, it was downhill and downwind; but I once drove from Espanola, NM to El Dorado, KS on a tank of gas. Had 1.5 gallons left in my 13.4 gallon tank. That's about 640 miles.

I have 80k miles on the car without a lick of trouble.

I don't care what the sticker says. I pay a lot less at the pump. No matter how you slice it, my hybrid is the real deal. Do whatever you want with numbers, arguments etc. I don't care. My car gets what it gets.

Re:Realistically

[DerangedAlchemist]

You are forgetting pollution is an externalized cost (spread around the entire world) that the non-hybrid is getting subsidized by the population of the world. There are additional medical costs from smog, food costs (crop failures), losses due to extreme weather, reduced economies of fisheries, etc. Putting a real dollar value on these things is hard, but the effects are real. You will pay them in increased food prices, increased insurance rates, reduced quality of life, etc. instead of paying additional taxes.

To judge this properly would take a great deal of effort and is even more complicated because environmental costs might extend a long way into the future. I don't think your comparison is any more fair.

One measure might be to compare the cost of sequestering the additional pollutants emitted to the subsidy given to the hybrid. That would require the costs of pollution to be greater than the costs of sequestering the pollution, however. That may well not be the case.

Re:Realistically

[zenkonami]

Well, realistically you are correct for the majority of drivers. However, you clearly do not live in Los Angeles!

I'm surprised we haven't turned "idling" into some kind of quasi-religious liturgy. Or maybe we have...

Re:Realistically

[Anonymous Coward]

I ride my bike to work 3 times a week...where's my tax credit?

The logic for tax credits is flawed. Rather than incent people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles with tax credits, you should impose additional taxes (registration fees, gas taxes, etc) to punish those who don't choose fuel-efficient vehicles. Taxes in other areas can be lowered to keep the current level of taxation. If the vehicle registration fee for a Hummer-style SUV was $10,000/year, a minivan $1000 and a hybrid $200, there'd be no need to offer a tax credit.

Gas taxes make even more sense because you want to discourage the use of gas in any form. It's far more fuel-efficient to drive a Hummer to work for 3 miles away than it is to drive a hybrid to work from 40 miles away.

Re:Realistically

[ScentCone]

I like your second choice. I own a large SUV, but hardly ever drive it, since I telecommute all but perhaps two days a month. But when I do use the SUV, it's a very suitable vehicle (to seat 6+ people and a large payload, etc). So, gallons-per-month-wise, I've got a very light touch. It shouldn't be OWNING a vehicle that stabs you with fees, it should be using it in a wasteful way that does so.

Re:Realistically

[demonlapin]

Too bad you're anon, this is a good point. If you want less of a specific behavior, make it more expensive. Don't raise CAFE standards, or do dumb stuff like charge special fees - make the gas expensive and you'll get the desired result right away.

It's far more fuel-efficient to drive a Hummer to work for 3 miles away than it is to drive a hybrid to work from 40 miles away.

It's a Tahoe, and the alternative would only be about 15 miles... but that's my wife right there. And we've got a large vehicle to transport large objects when we need it.

Re:Realistically

[Nimey]

What about poor people who can only afford old cars with poor mileage?

Out here in the mid-USA, there's little-to-no mass transit, and our cities/towns are spread out enough that walking isn't an option.

Re:Realistically

[tepples]

Simple. By reducing pollution we reduce the need for medical services related to said pollution. ScentCone's question is why don't bikers like myself get the same tax break?

Re:Realistically

[tepples]

But then the hybrid owner is also lowering the cleanup costs from impact to the environment. So is the bike owner, but what tax break is he getting?

Re:Realistically

[crashfrog]

Unless you can demonstrate how your purchase of that vehicle is going to reduce the federal government's cost of doing business by the amount of your tax credit, you're just asking everyone else in the country to write you a rebate check out of their own income.

You fail accounting. Reducing your tax liability is reducing costs, and it's not a "rebate check from everybody else" for two reasons:

1) The government's expenditures are not limited to tax revenue.
2) We wouldn't describe me using a coupon to reduce my cable bill "getting a rebate check from the CEO of Time Warner."

Other people's taxes don't go up because you buy a Prius, because government tax rates are determined by legislature, not by government expenditure.

Re:Realistically

[ScentCone]

We wouldn't describe me using a coupon to reduce my cable bill "getting a rebate check from the CEO of Time Warner."

And that's because the people creating and providing your cable service are producing a valuable service. Their actions create the thing that you value, and if you are more inclined to do business with them by taking the producer/provider of those services up on a competitive offer, then that means they've made a shrewd marketing decision. On this, you've drawn a non-working analogy.

The government's expenditures are not limited to tax revenue.

Sure they are. Just not necessarily current tax revenue. Why do you think we have to pay so much interest on money that congress has elected to spend, in the absence of adequate taxes? It really does cost something if congress doesn't reduce expenditure when it reduces what it collects. You reduce someone's taxes by $100 and don't reduce expenditures by that much? You get to start paying interest, instead. That makes this even MORE offensive.

Re:Realistically

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked they got a break at the vehicle registration tax and they don't have to pay the gas tax either.

Re:Realistically

[ArsonSmith]

Then you should move to a big city and live in a small apartment with other people living on top of you. In fact get a room mate or two and make sure your job is walking distance. Eventually you could just reject all individuality and do nothing more than walk back and forth to work and watch TV.

Ohh, make sure there is a park within walking distance so you can get out side and see the real, err manufactured, world.

Re:Realistically

[onemorechip]

I thought they were just being phased out by gradually, not that this is the last year. I could be wrong, though. But the thing to watch out for is this: If you are subject to AMT, or are close to being subject to it, you lose eligibility for all or part of the credit. That's because the credit doesn't reduce the minimum tax calculation; it just reduces the regular tax calculation. If the reduced regular tax falls below the minimum tax, then you become subject to AMT, canceling the portion of the credit equaling the difference. These days, many engineering and IT professionals could be affected by AMT, especially in states with high state income tax. Lots of people got burned by that catch last year, and since it's still not widely known, I suspect a lot will be burned by it this year.

Re:Realistically

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, but maybe we ought to factor in the price the community pays to subsidize your gas consumption -- like overseas military operations, health care costs relating to pollution ... fuel itself is tax subsidized by the oil depletion allowance and other tax provisions, and there is direct government support of oil company operations too. The tax credit for efficient vehicles may be just evening the playing field. In fact it might be more efficient just to mandate much higher gas mileage and make the car companies get over the bar.

Re:Realistically

[demonlapin]

That's why it will never pass. I'm aware of the problem; I live in a (mostly) rural state.

Re:Realistically

[justthinkit]

Realistically you do idle a lot. Red lights, idiot drivers, and traffic, and you're spending a lot of time idling.

This is the part of driving I hate the most. One idiot who doesn't know how to inch out into the intersection to turn left, and everybody behind suffers. Too many people use the road, and everyone suffers. User pay system indeed.

So this is yet another good point for a hybrid. When you are stopped, your transportation costs are zero, you have tunes, you are secure, life is good. We (those of us with families anyway) have precious few moments in our day when we can truly relax and hybrids give us more "us" time, without a downside. I'm all for that.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[Turn-X Alphonse]

And exactly how is this fair?

To test everything evenly you need a constant situation that will not change without you manually changing it, a "real city" is the complete opposite of this. So if Tuesday you get stuck behind a bus and on Wednesday you've got the rad to yourself, the results are clearly quite different.

Strange but true

[SheldonLinker]

Unlike most cars, the Prius gives enough feedback to actually help. By learning how the car works, I'm actually getting 2 MPG better than the posted ratings for city driving.

On the flip side of this, I just got back from a trip, Irvine to Phoenix and back, and the actual MPG was 3 MPG less than the posted ratings. However, that was with the air conditioner set at 72F and High.

Re:Strange but true

[AKAImBatman]

Alright, time for a reality check here. The Prius is doing such a damn good job on mileage not because it's a hybrid, but because it's an exceptionally well-designed car. Your own experiences with highway driving demonstrate that. Hybrid vehicles should actually get worse highway mileage because of their design. But the Prius doesn't. Why?

The answer lies in more than just its batteries. There are plenty of auto manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon by battery-backing their existing engine designs. That won't do much. Toyota took a different approach. For one, the engine of the Prius was replaced with a more efficient Atkinson Cycle engine. This engine would normally not be viable in a car, as its peak output is quite poor. However, the Prius uses stored battery power to provide maximum torque when accelerating. This makes up for the engine's poor peak power output. Furthermore, the torque delivered by electrical power is more fuel efficient than driving an Otto-cycle engine to sudden, peak power-output conditions.

But the engineers didn't stop there. They used the research behind Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT) to develop a transmission that can evenly split the power between the electrical and gasoline powered components of the car. This transmission can smoothly transfer power between different sources and outputs, avoiding the limitations and excess power consumption of the traditional geared transmission. This transmission (which Toyota calls a "Power Split Transmission") is only workable in a small car like the Prius, due to the torque limitations of most CVT designs.

Finally, Toyota further hedged the car's bets with computer control and tuning over the entire power system, a low air-resistance body design, lightweight aluminum construction, and vacuum flask coolant storage for fast warm-up times.

What you're looking at is the modern equivalent of a Chevy Sprint. Those three bangers got great mileage at the expense of power and comfort. (My mother had one and managed to get 58 MPG on the highway!) The Prius uses modern technology to provide similar returns, but without the drawbacks that made the Sprint so unpopular in the first place.

Re:Strange but true

[Hard_Code]

"The Prius uses modern technology to provide similar returns, but without the drawbacks that made the Sprint so unpopular in the first place."

What drawbacks were those? I would actually like to find a geo metro, chevy sprint, suzuki swift, etc. I have an Echo, which is a great car. Unfortunately Toyota DISCONTINUED it. I don't understand this. We CAN make small fuel-efficient cars...why DON'T we? (if I recall correctly American companies do indeed make small cars, they just sell them over in Europe and refuse to sell them domestically) Sure hybrids are neat and maybe there is some net gain after you factor in the extra construction complexity and recycling cost, but wouldn't it make sense to ALSO just make more cars that are freakin fuel efficient? Speaking of the Echo, even THAT is bigger than I actually need. For personal commuting I don't need the back seat or trunk which are completely empty 90% of the time. That car could be 2/3rds the size. Where are these cars?? I would much rather buy a small, simple, fuel-efficient American car and put dollars back in American manufacturing than buy a large foreign over-complicated hybrid with LCD screens and bells and whistles. The US automobile industry needs to get with the program.

Re:Strange but true

[AKAImBatman]

Number 1, my dear coward, you have an interesting definition of a "puff piece". A puff piece would contain lots of hype and little hard information. I think you'll find that my post contains the exact opposite.

Number 2, I just compared a Toyota Prius to a 3-cylinder Chevy Sprint. (The car that eventually became the Geo Metro.) Considering the overall unpopularity of the vehicle (right up there with the Chevette), I don't think that such a comparison would make for a very good "sales brochure".

Number 3, I don't own a Prius, nor am I all that interested in owning one. I don't even like Toyotas. But good engineering is good engineering. And good engineering is why the Prius is a superior vehicle to nearly every other car in its class. Owners love their Priuses, and there is good reason for that.

Now please be a good troll and nip off to somewhere else. That's right. One foot after another. That's a goooood trolley, wolley.

Re:Strange but true

[shdwtek]

Whoo! Chevy Sprint! I had one in Blue. It's a handy little car. Suzuki made the engine I believe.

Re:Strange but true

[AKAImBatman]

We CAN make small, [underpowered, cramped, and unreliable] fuel-efficient cars

I hope that answers your question?

I'm not against the idea of bringing back a sub-compact vehicle, but I'm afraid that the general American market isn't. The average consumer associates such vehicles with insufficient acceleration to use for interstate merging, uncomfortable seating that's not so great for long car trips, and cheap construction that will eventually cause maintenance problems. There are also the emotional issues that American drivers have related to the acceleration of their vehicles.

The problem is that these impressions aren't necessarily wrong. For one thing, you don't see many old Sprints still on the road, do you? I was actually driving a used Chevette long after my mother's Sprint was dead. (Though arguably, she did get her 100,000 miles out of it.) This is because no one will pay for high-quality construction of such a vehicle. It only has a 3 cylinder engine, so why should it be expensive? (Which belies the fact that smaller engineering often gets more difficult.)

Speaking of the engine, a 3 banger is NOT going to give you much acceleration. With one person in the car it won't do too bad. But it won't do great either. You get enough people freaking out during interstate merges ("I can't get up to speed fast enough! OMG, we're all going to DIE!"), and the reputation of the vehicle drops like a rock. Not to mention that people don't feel very safe in a Sprint when an SUV is bearing down on them.

Finally, Americans are used to a minimal standard of comfort. Sub-compacts suck at comfort. There just isn't a whole lot of room to work with. In order to keep the vehicle light, you have to sacrifice something. Very few drivers have wanted to make the sacrifice when a comparatively spacious Chevy Cavalier is only a few thousand more.

Priuses eliminate these problems. They're zippy, they're cool, they're high tech, they're not too shabby on space, and they still get good mileage. Ergo, Americans who wouldn't accept a Sprint will accept the Prius.

Re:Strange but true

[cens0r]

They didn't discontinue the echo, they just renamed it. Get a Scion or a Yaris and you end up with the same car.

Re:Strange but true

[Achromatic1978]

if I recall correctly American companies do indeed make small cars, they just sell them over in Europe and refuse to sell them domestically

Supply and demand. Even at $3+ a gallon, American's generally don't WANT that small car, for various reasons:

• penis size issues
• petrified of the effect that the 5000 lb land yacht that arises out of aforementioned penis size issues will have on their subcompact
• unable to carry the entire tribe (as dutifully pushed out by Mom, because the Church/American Government says "condoms are bad, mmmkay?")
• status symbol of having a tricked out, mag wheeled, black tinted window Escalade that never sees so much as the interstate, let alone offroad
• and so on and so forth

Inflammatory, maybe, but true. They're not sold here becase those of us who might want them are a much smaller segment than those who want a multi-ton SUV with single digit MPG.

Re:Strange but true

[TheSwampDweller]

It looks like the Echo was replaced by the Yaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaris , which also gets up to 40mpg.

Re:Strange but true

[jabuzz]

Perhaps, but a bog standard Audi A2 diesel makes a Prius look ordinary and the special 3L version makes it look completely rubbish. Yep that is 94mpg Imperial, or 78mpg US. What is the point in spending all that money on a hybrid, when you could just drive an ordinary car?

Re:Strange but true

[HungWeiLo]

I have an Echo, which is a great car. Unfortunately Toyota DISCONTINUED it.

and reincarnated as the Yaris.

Re:Strange but true

[AK Marc]

Hybrid vehicles should actually get worse highway mileage because of their design.

That is an incorrect statement. A hybrid with the same power as another vehicle should have better mileage cruising because it will be constantly using a smaller gasoline engine at higher throttle. That is more efficient than the larger engine at the same energy output.

For one, the engine of the Prius was replaced with a more efficient Atkinson Cycle engine. This engine would normally not be viable in a car, as its peak output is quite poor.

Well, tell that to Mazda. The engine did just fine in the Millenia. However, they did mate it to a supercharger in that application. But it's just one point where the engine was used in a modern non-hybrid application.

Re:Strange but true

[v01d]

Penis obsession?

While shopping for my car I don't really recall thinking about my penis. Of course, if it needed an adjustment I probably won't recall at this point anyway.

Just out of curiousity what do you drive and how does it relate to your penis? Assuming of course you're male and have a penis.

Re:Strange but true

[Anonymous Coward]

- Back problems, and a subcompact is painful after about 20 minutes
- have 2 kids in carseats and can't fit them into the compact
- want a vehicle that lasts more then 10 years
- want to be able to carry more then a briefcase

Yup, I have a 94 F-150. 160,000 miles and it's still running fine. It gets about 16.2 MPG, a very reasonable 0-60 time, holds the tribe, and I can carry whatever I need, be it a new door for the house, or luggage for the tribe. It's comfortable, though not the best, and payments on a new prius are more then I spend on fuel and insurance put gother,

Re:Strange but true

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that a significant point missed by a lot of people is that the Prius is not a subcompact, but a true mid-sized car. We transitioned from an Accord to the Prius last year, and have had at least as much ability to cram stuff into the Prius as the Accord, if not more due to the hatchback design. Think kid in large carseat, several bags of groceries, an unassembled kid's bed from Ikea, the mattress included, assorted other Ikea crap, assorted diaper bags etc., and two larger adults, comfortably fitting. Seriously. Try that in a GEO or Sprint or whatever. Comparisons of the Prius to subcompact cars are missing this pretty significant point.

And yes we get 43-51MPG most of the year (not 55-60), but that's hampered by a lot of VERY short trips (8minutes) during which the engine hardly has time to warm up. A non-hybrid would see a big hit in milage there too, though perhaps not as profound. When the short trips are at a minimum we can get the EPA numbers or there-abouts. However, you must drive sensibly to do this (not accelerate up to a red light etc.), and frankly I think most of the driving changes and tech advances might apply pretty well without the battery, and the weight reduction would do a lot... in other words I'm a little curious what a non-hybrid version of the prius would be like (keep CVT, perhaps do something to the engine... make twice the size, but be able to start half at a time?). Also, I'd love to see the effects of the instantaneous milage computer on SUV drivers...

My memory on the different engine format was not that peak power was so much less, just that it wasn't great at wide ranges of RPM, better in particular bands of rpm, thus pairing it with a CVT makes sense.

The biggest concern I have about the Prius right now is that it is quite adversely affected by cold weather. We had a cold snap a while back (in texas... so this'll be MUCH worse somewhere that actually gets cold) and our milage dropped 10-15MPG... more or less because the division between short trip (not fully warmed up) and long trip (where its warmed up for most the trip) was considerably longer... on the order of 15 minutes.

-sk

Re:Strange but true

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a ford escape hybrid. Ford developped almost the same technology as the prius that you described. Atkitson engine cycle, CVT transmission, dual power input ( gas engine AND electrical at the same time), energy recycling trough the breaking system. The end result was so much similar that frod paid a liscence to toyota just to come clean about it.

I Tried every other hybrid out there, and the escape hybrid was simply the best for my need, and IMHO the best one period. A AWD that can take a lot of punishement on poor road with great winter capability, better handling and performance than the "normal" gasoline escape ( the battery pack add weight, but shift the center of gravity toward the lower center of the vehicule, dramatically lowering the rollover chance) , and the millage of a regular small car like a civic instead of the depressing low millage of any regular SUV.

Before someone tell me that "nobody really need a SUV", i would gladly invite them for a beer at home next january and see if they can even navigate our poor canadian road.... not everyone live in a city you know!

But like with all car, you must sit down and make a list of what YOU are looking for and go look at that is avaliable on the market that most fulfill your needs. If someone would had told me 3 year ago i was going to own a ford , i would had laugh at them....

Re:Strange but true

[OldAndSlow]

Ford developped almost the same technology as the prius
Look a little closer and you will find that Ford licensed their hybrid technology from Toyota.

Re:Strange but true

[mink]

I live up in Ohio. We sometimes get days where when I start up the car it tells me it's -15 out.
So far I have only seen the hybrid system "too cold" indicator (turtle) once since 2002 when I purchased the car (gen 1 model).

In our cold winters I am not noticing the huge mileage drop you see during yours. But my trips are all over 10-20 miles except for the occasional (once or twice a week) 5 mile trip.

The car seems to be warmed up to operating temp (the blue thermometer light turns off) before I make it 3 miles up the road in the above winter conditions.

Accurate for my single data point, anyway

[raygundan]

My wife's Prius is averaging right around 47mpg in mixed city/highway driving after about two years. She doesn't do anything special while driving-- just treats it like any other car. Since the new rating is 48/45/46, it sounds like they're right on the money.

It's about damn time the EPA revised their ridiculously inaccurate tests. The data has been off for years, for all cars.

Re:Accurate for my single data point, anyway

[sheldon]

My experience... the EPA fuel economy standards have historically been measured in a weird way.

For city driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 35 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.

for highway driving, they record fuel usage of a car running at 55 mph on a 70 degree day with no wind, and no need to stop.

Once you add stop lights and weather into the mix, it's not so good. But regardless, the key is that since every car was measured in the same way they were still an accurate way to compare one car with another.

So what if the hybrids get reduces, so will every other car. And 48 mpg is still better than 30, or the 17 mpg most cars get in city traffic.

Re:Accurate for my single data point, anyway

[shiffman]

But wildly inaccurate for mine. I have just over 20k miles on my Camry Hybrid, and I've never seen results as low as these new figures. I've gotten 40 MPG on longer trips, and 38-39 in my usual mix of highway and around-town driving.

Re:Accurate for my single data point, anyway

[QAChaos]

the new numbers seem more accurate with what my display shows - at one time I had the overall mpg @ 50 or so but it usually sits at around 46.5.
Also I just got my $3000+ tax refund check - thanks to my prius
but the reason I got it was because it is pretty roomy inside and it really feels like a spaceship when you take off.

Re:Accurate for my single data point, anyway

[Slugster]

...It's about damn time the EPA revised their ridiculously inaccurate tests. The data has been off for years, for all cars.

As I read it--the EPA tests were never intended to indicate the exact mileage you would get with any car. Their only purpose was to apply a standard test across all cars available, so that buyers could make informed choices about their relative fuel efficiencies.

Once the tests were in place, the EPA was loathe to change them for fear of breaking the standardization.
It was not until hybrids came along that they decided to, and only because hybrids were staying on their batteries too much during the tests (the hybrids tended to drain their batteries at rates that were higher than the recharge rates, so therefore the EPA people concluded that the test was not indicating the hybrids' true overall efficiencies).

-------

What I'm wondering is--what speed did the EPA test highway MPG at during the "national-55-mph limit" years? The first cars on it were during the 70-MPH era.... I think...? And now of course many states have gone back up to 70-MPH.... ~

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[mrchaotica]

Or at least do the test in a wind tunnel with a moving floor...

Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[HappySqurriel]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?

There are three factors which determine how ecconomical (and environmental) your transportation is:

1) What you drive
2) How much you drive
3) How you drive

Personally, I don't drive a Hummer nor do I drive a prius (I don't want to own either car because they do not suit my needs or wants) but I'm positive I have better "Fuel Ecconomy" than either car. My feet get me far greater mileage than any car and I use them far more than my car; I end up using transit a lot too.

I used to get a lot of negative comments about the truck I used to drive (15 year old F150) even though I filled it up every 6 weeks whereas most of the "environmental" civic drivers were filling up their cars 1 or 2 times a week.

The car matters far less than the driver

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[aichpvee]

It's probably because they're three lanes wide, weigh six tons, and get about five-miles-per-gallon highway. Doesn't hurt that they're ugly and most people who drive them drive like dicks.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?

They are shit 'cars' for a sick society. If you 'drive' a Hummer, you are - almost by definition - a total asshole with no aesthetic taste, no interest in cars, no basic grasp of physics and no financial sense. You are, for all intets and purposes, an American idiot.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[robogun]

AC remarked: They are shit 'cars' for a sick society. If you 'drive' a Hummer, you are - almost by definition - a total asshole with no aesthetic taste, no interest in cars, no basic grasp of physics and no financial sense. You are, for all intets and purposes, an American idiot.

I doubt it has anything to do with Americans being the way they are. Hummer driving, like driving V12 Benzes and BWMs 200kph on the autobahn, is conspicuous consumption. This is a species-wide phenomenon which proves they have the resources to burn & some like Freud would say, proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Paradise Pete]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?

It's too damn big. You youngsters probably don't remember this, but there was a time when you could actually see what's going on ahead of you in traffic.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[kalel666]

they're three lanes wide, weigh six tons, and get about five-miles-per-gallon

Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
smells like a steak and seats thirty-five...

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down,
It's the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown!

Canyonero! (Yah!) Canyonero!
[Krusty:] Hey Hey

The Federal Highway comission has ruled the
Canyonero unsafe for highway or city driving.

Canyonero!

12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She's a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

Canyonero!-oh woah, Canyonero! (Yah!)

Drive Canyonero!

Woah Canyonero!

Woah!

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[tshak]

Hummer driving, like driving V12 Benzes and BWMs 200kph on the autobahn, is conspicuous consumption.

At least the latter do so in style.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[myth24601]

"It's too damn big. You youngsters probably don't remember this, but there was a time when you could actually see what's going on ahead of you in traffic."

That's because everyone drove big cars.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[lunartik]

Now I want to buy a Hummer just to piss everyone off.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Listen Up]

"This is a species-wide phenomenon which proves they have the resources to burn & some like Freud would say, proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species."

No, it is simply a matter of some people loving driving, especially at high speed. Goddamn boring worker bees/drones can just take the bus/subway/etc. It is something I love in life. Given the choice I prefer to drive my sports car, I don't care about the cost.

Honestly, it is also not about getting women, it is most annoying to drive with women in the car (unless they are one hell of a great woman).

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Nimey]

...and when you could see around other cars in the parking lot. Now I have to back up slowly and hope some idiot isn't going by at 20+mph, because I can't see past all these damn trucks and minivans.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

...becase the intelligence of the driver is in inverse relation to the height of the vehicle...

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[mobby_6kl]

It's just that the hippies are insecure about their penis size.

Girl [looks down] - "Hey, is it.. is it supposed to be so small?"
Hippie - "Huh...? Did I tell you about my neighbour who drives a Hummer?
H - "It probably only uses 10 gallons per mile! Har har. He's obviously compensating for something. Yeah..."

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[JesseL]

Have you seen what cars looked like before the 1970s gas crisis?

If you take the long view, small/fuel efficient cars weren't much more than a passing fad lasting from the mid '70s to the mid '90s.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Moofie]

Why is it harder to see around than a Suburban? Or a minivan?

I assume you're talking about the H2, because that's what everybody has because it looks tough and is "affordable". The H1, which is actually a capable vehicle, is much more uncommon.

I wouldn't drive a full-size SUV, because they don't suit my needs. I also don't get the knee-jerk hatred thing that seems oh-so-fashionable.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a short history of SUV's for those who think it's all about status. The status climbers (i.e. niggers) were the last ones to come on board.

Once upon a time, the only "SUVs" you could get were Jeep Cherokees, and a couple of glorified pickup trucks like Broncos and Suburbans.

Then we had a couple of bad winters. Eight, ten, twelve inches of snow. Middle-class folk said, what can we do about these awful road conditions? They bought Jeep Cherokees in droves.

After that, we never had a bad winter again. But once middle class women - soccer moms and trophy wives - got behind the wheel, they realized how much fun it was to drive their own toddler-crushing, curb-leaping personal battleship.

Carmakers listened. Each and every car maker came out with an SUV of their own. Even Hyundai (!)

But there was something else going on, a $100,000 federal tax refund for purchasing an SUV for "business use."

The husbands of these trophy wives filled out the paperwork. Plenty of them had personal businesses anyway, contruction, home repair, rounding up the mexicans to mow lawns, etc. And corporate business fleets, well that's an easy one.

Pretty soon you had 3 types of drivers on the road:

People who paid full price for a normal working vehicle.

Second, people who settled for a shitbox truck, because Uncle Sam was giving it away.

And finally, the American idiot, who paid full price for a shitbox truck that everyone else got for free.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[bataras]

I think there are 2 factors which determine how economical (and environmental) your transportation is:

1) What you drive
2) How you drive

"How much you drive" is not relevant to how economical and environmental you are while you're driving.

"How much you drive" is related to how environmental you are overall.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Paradise Pete]

Have you seen what cars looked like before the 1970s gas crisis?

Yes, that's when I learned to drive. They were big, but they weren't elevated, and you could see through the glass. The mental picture of the road one could construct was *much* clearer than it is today.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[pebs]

No, it is simply a matter of some people loving driving, especially at high speed. Goddamn boring worker bees/drones can just take the bus/subway/etc. It is something I love in life. Given the choice I prefer to drive my sports car, I don't care about the cost.

The discussion was about Hummers which are definitely not fast cars and handle like shit. I can understand the appeal of a fast sports car, but not a Hummer.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[pyrbrand]

The point is, regardless of your driving habits (how much you drive), if you get a vehicle with higher fuel efficiency, you will be reducing your impact by the same % as you increase fuel efficiency. This is true whether you drive 1 mile a month or 1,000. If you drive a Hummer (10-15 mgp effective), you are automatically increasing your impact several times over what it would be if you drove a Prius (45 mpg effective).

If everyone in America did not change their driving habits and switched to Prii, the amount of gas we use would decrease dramatically. If everyone in America changed their driving habits to match yours, they could still decrease their fuel usage by the same percentage as before by switching to Prii.

Also, we're mostly just pissed at you for blocking in our Prii by parking in the compact spot a**hole :P.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

My feet get me far greater mileage than any car

Yes, but how's your range? By dividing my bicycling distances by ethanol consumption during the same time period, I compute my own mileage to be nearly a thousand miles per gallon, but when I tried to use that calculation to prepare for an interstate trip I just ended up passed out naked on the floor.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you want one so bad you can taste it. Don't lie.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[EastCoastSurfer]

I think people hate the H2s because people only buy them are jerks who want to feel big or cool. I have no problem with people buying gas guzzling cars or expensive cars, but at least do some research first. If you need an SUV, the H2 is probably the worst one to get in terms of towing, ride, comforts, etc... I remember reading a review in one of the car mags, where they destroyed the H2 as an SUV. If you're wanting a luxury SUV in a similar price range the Escalade is a much better car. If you don't mind price, then a Range Rover is the way to go. If you simply need to pull stuff, then either a truck or one of the other cheaper SUVs can get it done.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[gathas]

The thing I hate most about SUVs is their impact on road safety (to others). Since these are all classified as trucks, they are not required to be bumper compatible with automobiles. Lot of people I know buy them because they want "the safest thing on the road", but it certainly seems at the expense of everyone else. Barrelling down road by oneself in a 1+ ton death machine seems incredibly selfish.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Paradise Pete]

Why is it harder to see around than a Suburban? Or a minivan?

Those are too big also. I didn't mean to imply that Hummers are the only ones.
I'm not advocating any sort of ban, I'm just saying back in the old days one used to be able to see the road. And you kids get off my lawn, too.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[kabocox]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?
It's too damn big. You youngsters probably don't remember this, but there was a time when you could actually see what's going on ahead of you in traffic.

I don't have anything against the Hummer or SUVs. If I use "too big" as an excuse, I can hate semis, all trucks, SUVs, minivans, and large cars all because they block my vision. Can I then use that excuse to say we should ban fat and tall people because I'm short and they block my vision?

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[drinkypoo]

The discussion was about Hummers which are definitely not fast cars and handle like shit.

On the terrain which the Hummer is designed to cover, there is little that will outhandle it. Or actually be able to cover it without being destroyed in one way or another. The Hummer is designed for sand and brush at relatively high speeds.

I can understand the appeal of a fast sports car, but not a Hummer.

So because you can understand the sports car, that's okay, but the Hummer is wrong?

Pre-C5 Corvettes and all Vipers handle like dogshit... are those not okay because they don't handle?

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[smchris]

Because they trumpet that you are a bully and a coward with too much money and you're too self-centered to realize that's what you are broadcasting? Came to me one day when I saw a Hummer in one lane and a guy without a helmet or a shirt on his Harley in the other lane side-by-side at a stop light. The guy in the Hummer apparently thought he needed an armored vehicle to be safe and thought he was cool displaying it. The guy on the Harley wearing only a pair of shorts was the _real_ macho man. Stupid. But fearless!

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[kabocox]

I doubt it has anything to do with Americans being the way they are. Hummer driving, like driving V12 Benzes and BWMs 200kph on the autobahn, is conspicuous consumption. This is a species-wide phenomenon which proves they have the resources to burn & some like Freud would say, proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species.

You know I've never thought of it like that. So if I invent a car that runs off burning hundred dollar bills, then the ultra rich should be using that as the ulimate status symbol saying basically, "I've got soo much damn money, that I can burn it and not care." It's one thing for us little people to want a 100 mpg vehicle because we can't afford gas; it's entirely another when you can drive around in 5 mpg vehicle to show off your relative wealth and not even notice the fuel expense.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[lag00natic]

People hate Hummers because they represent opulence with a complete disregard for conserving gas when our country becomes more and more dependent on it. The truth is, there are many other trucks/SUVs that are equally bad w/r/t gas mileage (like Range Rover, Lincoln/Ford, Chevy/GMC, VW, etc). The Hummer just became the icon for this class of vehicles and is the whipping boy of the environmental movement. I own a Chevy Suburban that is probably one of the top 5 gas guzzlers on the market. However, I am fortunate to live in the Midwest where E85 gas stations are more abundant than the left or right coasts. Personally, I think hybrids in many ways have become the anti-Hummer icon for environmentalists. Unfortunately as this article observes hybrids don't exactly live up to the hype. Hybrids are the media darling and unfortunately hog the alternative fuel spotlight. I know that the benefits to E85 have been debated on /. before but I for one am glad to see companies like GM and Ford make investments in flex-fuel technology. I take some comfort in knowing that when I fill up my Suburban with E85, at least the majority of the proceeds go to local Midwest farmers who can reinvest in newer processing methods that will one day reduce the production and distribution costs of Ethanol.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Steve525]

If I use "too big" as an excuse, I can hate semis, all trucks, SUVs, minivans, and large cars all because they block my vision.

Actually, I hate SUV's, and some trucks for the same reason. Semis and trucks that are actually used to haul stuff are OK. Yes, they block my vision, but they serve a useful purpose, so I'm OK with it. Many trucks and SUVs are only driven because of fashion/image reasons. It's conspicuous consumption with a safety hazard, to boot.

I'm on the fence with minivans. They pretty much serve the same purpose as a station wagon, except they are less efficient (and block my view). However, they really are more comfortable for the passangers then a station wagon, so there is a valid reason (by my estimation) to choose them.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

...proves their fitness for reproduction in attracting the female of the species.

I use a neat trick to get laid. I live frugally and help people with the extra money. It takes women a while to figure out but once they find out I actually care about other people I'm in like Flynn.

Works like a charm. And I have the side benefits of not being an asshole, and of attracting a much higher grade of woman. Try it!

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[DrEldarion]

Barrelling down road by oneself in a 1+ ton death machine seems incredibly selfish. So you hate 99.9% of people on the road?

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[DrEldarion]

The original Hummer is actually a pretty awesome machine. The H2, on the other hand, is pretty much worthless offroad. It's the equivalent of a riced-up Civic - all show, no go.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Mattintosh]

Except most UAV (Urban Assault Vehicle, a.k.a. SUV) drivers don't drive a real Hummer (a military HUMMV, or the commercially available "H1" Hummer). They drive a whored (not pimped) version of a GMC Denali (Chevy Suburban) called "H2". Or even a shrink-ray-victim version of the H2 called "H3", also available in a "fake truck" version (see also: El Camino or Ford-Explorer-with-an-open-truck-bed).

If you want to join a dick-waving contest, at the very least, bring a dick to wave. H2's don't count. In fact, I mostly see women driving H2's, and everyone knows they don't have a dick to wave (hopefully...).

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Now if we're talking about an actual Hummer or Hum-V then I'm okay with that. People buy those to do extreme off roading and even if they don't at least they bought a car that was good at what it's supposed to be good at. When most people say Hummer nowadays though they are talking about an H2, which when it comes to SUVs is a 50k POS.

And Vettes (although the newest ones are finally getting better) and Vipers are shit IMHO. Give me nearly any Euro sports car over either of them. If price is an issue, then take a look at the Infiniti G35s (may just be G now).

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[xenocide2]

I've never seen a Hummer for to civilians driven in that manner. I have however taken a National Guard one out for a spin offroad, and it's a bit painful (maybe sand and brush nicer than unused farmland...). I can only imagine the one you can buy is less equipped to handle that mission. They were a bit amusing when you couldn't buy one off the dealership lot, but when I see stretch Hummers I cant help but think of Eisenhower's warning.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Ogive17]

It's too damn big. You youngsters probably don't remember this, but there was a time when you could actually see what's going on ahead of you in traffic. Um.... have you seen the cars from the 50s, 60s, and 70s? The hood alone on cars from those decades were longer than my 2006 Civic.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

On the terrain which the Hummer is designed to cover, there is little that will outhandle it. Or actually be able to cover it without being destroyed in one way or another. The Hummer is designed for sand and brush at relatively high speeds.

And how many Hx do you see on that terrain, as opposed to paved roads?

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[maraist]

I hate cock-roaches too.. Would you assume that this is a knee-jerk follow-the-fad reaction because everyone else hates them? Or might it be because of repeated personal bad experiences with them?

As others' have posted.. The extra width/height of the car makes them more of a driving hazzard for other vehicles.. I treat them almost with as much anxiety as when I pass a Mac Truck. Similar wind-sheer effect on smaller cars, similar lack of visibility, high degree of 'kick-up' of road debris. Similar lane-edge-sharing problems.

Parking-lot is trouble-some to A) pull up next to B) pull up in front of C) see around when pulling out.

There is a safety arms race.. Your SUV is safer than my mid-size because of greater innertia and (depending on the direction) crush-zone. Your higher car means you'll drive over my car - barely touching you, but guaranteeing my squashedness. So now nobody with any 9/11 fear-factor is willing to drive the smaller cars - not because they're not safe - they are (can take a brick wall head-on with no problems).. They just aren't designed to take a side collision with a tank doing 90.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[sjames]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?

A pickup is one thing. While too many who drive one would never actually haul anything in it (God forbid they might scratch the paint), at laest SOME pickup drivers have a genuine use for it. OTOH, I have yet to see a hummer that shows any sign whatsoever of being used for anything like it's designed purpose (God for. bid it might get mud on it or even dented).

While given your (lack of) driving habits it might not matter much either way, most Americans drive to work 5 days a week. In a Hummer, that's a huge waste.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[raitchison]

If you are traveling 200KPH on the autobahn at least you are getting some sort of theoretically tangible benefit out of it, you are moving at a high rate of speed which means you spend less time traveling. Now granted unless your time is a whole lot more valuable than most people you don't gain enough saved time to offset to wasted resources but it's still better than the untold thousands of "HUMMER" drivers don't even have that, as the vehicles they drive (excluding the poor selling and now canceled original "H1" which had superior off-road vehicle capability) offer nothing in the way of tangible benefits or advantages over other, less costly and/or more capable vehicles.

Of course most of the people driving around 500HP sports cars don't need them and will never use them, but at least there are a few who will use them. For the "HUMMER" it's pure image and status and absolutely no substance.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[R3d M3rcury]

Different appeal.

I'm an old Jeeper. I grew up driving a CJ-3a and I bought a Wrangler several years ago. I like the Jeep's ability to go pretty much anywhere. Back when I was a kid in Vermont, I had an old map of the area and I would follow roads that no longer existed (eg, the town had decided 70 years ago that nobody lived on the road and it wasn't worth maintaining). The roads were still sort of there--you could see where they had been but sometimes trees had grown up in the middle or part of the road had been washed out by some rainstorm.

Out here in California, I went and explored a lot of the "off road trails" in my Wrangler. It was lots of fun.

I don't own the Jeep anymore. I have a cute little roadster that gets better gas mileage and is lots of fun to drive on roads. I do miss the Jeep from time to time, though.

That said, I have my own pet theory in the popularity of SUVs in America. It has mostly to do with the image of the vehicle.

Way back when, families bought minivans. They were practical vehicles--you could put a lot of stuff or a lot of people in them. Minivans were marketed on this practicality. You could haul your two kids and bikes and have room left over. Perfect "Family" vehicle.

Problem? Not macho.

Minivan commercials generally showed women driving the kids around. Any guy driving a minivan was seen as being forced into getting one by his wife (ie, "Whipped"). Any guy having a minivan was obviously married, had 2.4 kids, a dog, lived in the suburbs, etc. There was no way you were a single, devil-may-care, adventurous sort. You were humdrum. You were boring.

SUVs solved this problem. Marketed as vehicles for the adventurous soul who climbs mountains and kayaks rivers, they also fit in well with the hauling the kids and picking up groceries. It was a car that Dad could drive without feeling less-than-manly but was practical for transporting the kids, dog, toys, etc.

That's why I refer to most SUVs as "macho minivans."

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Moofie]

Look, my preferred mode of transportation is a Miata. There aren't cars that aren't bigger than that. If you've mistaken me for some sort of macho SUV-driving goon, well, that's your mistake, not mine.

I just don't understand why Hummers particularly get everybody exercised. I think they're silly, I think they're bought by people who don't know what good cars are supposed to be like, and I think they're a gussied-up 30 year old truck design.

But I don't really care about them one way or the other.

I DO think that we should get rid of the artificial distinction between "trucks" and "passenger cars", and I do think that we should have bumper height and performance criteria that are the same across all road-going vehicles. But I don't care if somebody else wants to drive a gas-guzzler. They're just a slightly-faster-moving chicane.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[raitchison]

At my last job my boss had an original HUMMER (AKA "H1") and he regularly (once a month or so) drove it on some hairy off-road treks. He even took a 2 week vacation to some godforsaken spot in Utah or Idaho or something for the off road trails they had there..

He had lots of pictures but it was quite rare for him to drive it to the office, maybe once a month or so, I think he mostly did it to keep everything working mechanics wise or if his regular car was in the shop.

Of course for every one of him there are probably 200 soccer moms using "HUMMER" H2s to drive to the mall and take little Timmy to the game.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with all the Hummer Hatred?

They are shit 'cars' for a sick society. If you 'drive' a Hummer, you are - almost by definition - a total asshole with no aesthetic taste, no interest in cars, no basic grasp of physics and no financial sense. You are, for all intets and purposes, an American idiot.

Nothing like jealously and class hatred to rear its ugly head.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[drinkypoo]

The original hummer is called the hummer and was always called the hummer. The H2 is called the H2, and it's a fucked-over Tahoe. They added locking diffs and some other similar crap, and substantially increased the weight. The H2 gets something liek 7mpg less than the Tahoe. The H3 is also a pile of crap; it gets inexplicably poor gas mileage. It's supposed to be a fairly credible offroad vehicle, however, unlike the H2. The original hummer is actually not a very good rock crawler etc; the best vehicles to take on the rubicon are still jeeps. But anyway, I'm only talking about the hummer vehicle, not the overall hummer brand.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[jafac]

So; on the one hand, you're afraid of a little fender-bender in the parking lot every once in a while, then, on the other hand (in your .sig), you are enthusiastic about mayhem and mischief.

curious. Maybe you just like mayhem and mischief when it's not inconvenient for you.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no jealousy or class hatred here. When people complain about BMWs, Caddies and the Benz drivers - then you've made the correct observation. There's even respect out there for people who drive real Hummers - y'know, the ones not built on the limp-wristed Chevy Tahoe frame.

No, the AC OP has it right - the standard Hummer H2 and H3 models are stupid, ugly autos for stupid, ugly people. There is no status involved.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[pebs]

On the terrain which the Hummer is designed to cover, there is little that will outhandle it. Or actually be able to cover it without being destroyed in one way or another. The Hummer is designed for sand and brush at relatively high speeds.

True, but most people with Hummers are not using it for those purposes.

So because you can understand the sports car, that's okay, but the Hummer is wrong?

Pre-C5 Corvettes and all Vipers handle like dogshit... are those not okay because they don't handle?

I would say, even though I understand why people buy sports cars, they should take one for the team and get a low-emission vehicle for their next car purchase, as should everyone who is in the position to do this.

With Hummers, I just don't understand why anyone would want one, unless they are seriously using it for its purpose which most of them aren't. Even if they are, they should have another low-emission vehicle for city driving. Most people are just commuting to work in these things (especially those that bought them as company vehicles to get a tax break).

Then there is the whole H2 thing, but I think the rest of this thread has that covered.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference there is that when you're behind one of those cars in traffic, you can still see the traffic in front of those cars. Semis and super-sized SUVs both cause the problem of not being able to see *anything* directly in front of you *except* that vehicle. The situation is vastly improved if you're driving one of those vehicles, because you can see *over* just about everything else on the road, but for people in normal-height vehicles, it's a real concern.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Nimey]

+1 for creative misunderstanding.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[drinkypoo]

I would say, even though I understand why people buy sports cars, they should take one for the team and get a low-emission vehicle for their next car purchase, as should everyone who is in the position to do this.

Well, sure, I agree. I think everyone should do so! The only people who should have big engines are people hauling loads etc. Everyone else should be in a smaller vehicle with a smaller motor.

Toyota claims they have been kicking around the idea of releasing their hybrid performance concept; celica-like mileage, corvette-like performance, except it should almost handle (if it were a nissan, then it would handle) :P

With Hummers, I just don't understand why anyone would want one, unless they are seriously using it for its purpose which most of them aren't. Even if they are, they should have another low-emission vehicle for city driving. Most people are just commuting to work in these things (especially those that bought them as company vehicles to get a tax break).

Well, you pretty much said it. The tax break is major. The penis substitute factor is also major.

If you want to eliminate H1s, all you have to do is enforce certain things which are already part of law, at least in California. To wit, people who drive hummers would (due to the gross vehicle weight) be required to have a commercial driver's license. This license is easier to lose, costs more, and involves higher fines in the case of tickets. The other thing would be to enforce maximum weight limits, which would for example completely ban H1s from certain streets in San Francisco.

Both state and federal governments are complicit in making the H1 profitable to drive via subsidy and thus causing negative environmental impact, similar to the situation with corn subsidies and using corn for biofuels (a stupid fucking idea if ever I've heard one, and believe me, I have.)

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Nethead]

Then don't follow so close. 99.999% of rear ending accidents are caused by following too close. It's also bad for congestion. see: http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/trafexp.htm

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[metlin]

See, that's a personal judgement call - I do not work out so that I can eat rabbit food.

Similarly, when I do save gas through other means (for instance, I live in downtown and walk to work) and fill my SUV up only once a month or so, it is so that I can let myself have that luxury.

Of course, I have a fairly genuine reason for wanting an SUV - I do a lot of outdoor stuff (most cars cannot carry camping + climbing equipment or a set of whitewater rafts and kayaks) and we drive to see the lass' parents a couple of times a year, who quite literally live in the middle of nowhere, Oklahoma. Good luck getting on those dirt roads with anything other than a 4WD.

So, I save a lot on gas consumption, and I use the car only for groceries, travel and outdoorsy stuff. Compared to the gas conscious Prius driving person living 30 miles from work, I most certainly do save a lot.

In which case, why should it matter? Besides, it's not like we live in a socialist society where everybody has to give something up equally, right? :)

And oh, besides, the Prius is *ugly* and has absolutely no space whatsoever. You can't even fit the damn oars inside, let alone the kayak. I love my Envoy, thank you very much!

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

A pal of mine bought a Hummer years ago, so he could visit parts of his property that his other vehicles couldn't reach.

To his credit... when he came back the next week, the hummer was scratched all to hell. He actually DROVE that thing. That was a sweet looking ride... A Hummer that's actually been used.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Akaihiryuu]

I definitely have to agree there. One time I was looking through the classifieds, and I saw an ad for a big Chevy truck...dual rear end, 1-ton capacity, full towing package, everything. In the description: "Physician owned...never towed or hauled anything". My first thought was wtf, why did they even have it? Trucks like that are useful vehicles for some people. There are people who legitimately need to drive something like that for towing and hauling purposes (construction workers come to mind). But buying something like that and not using it for its intended purpose is just blatant waste. I personally own a 2004 Prius, though I definitely wouldn't mind having a small pickup truck also (not to drive back and forth to work, but to use to carry stuff during the times I need to). I'm actually surprised at how much I can fit in the back of my car if I put the seats down...but it wasn't intended for cargo, and if I need to move something like a washer and drier, I can't do it without renting a Uhaul or something.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[pyrbrand]

Ok, I wouldn't normally respond, but I own a Prius and I do rock climbing, biking, hiking camping. I also live very close to work, fill up my tank once a month (11 galons), and use alternative means of transportation with frequency. Heck, I'm moving next month to an apartment where I can walk to groceries, movies etc and bus to work. I regularly drive on dirt and gravel and can easily fit my extra large bicycle (I'm 6'3") in the back of the Prius without even taking the wheels off (hatchback + the back seats folded down). I'm trying to imagine the length of kayak oars and can't imagine they wouldn't fit with the back seats down.

I guess I can see your point about requiring an SUV if you regularly travel severely rutted and rained out roads or have to do some fording (the last time I've had to do that was in the Missouri Breaks in Montana and would never want to try that in a Prius). However, size wise unless you're packing 4 people, you can easily fit climbing and backpacking gear inside. If you are bringing 4, or need to bring the kayak and canoe and bicycles, just buy a roofrack.

I don't really have an issue with your driving an SUV (although if "downtown" is the downtown of a city that sounds incredibly impractical), nor do I think you should feel obligated or be forced to obtain a fuel efficient vehicle. I also admire your efforts to maintain a low impact by living close to work.

However, I think you're kidding yourself if you pretend that your life requires you not have a hybrid. Even if you really do require more space than the Prius offers, you're setting up a straw man by attacking the Prius in terms of space and aesthetics considering there are many hybrid options. While the SUVs have a lower mpg than a compact like the Prius, they do increase fuel efficiency while maintaining a large size. There are also many "car sized" options aside from the Prius including the Civic, the Camry and many more coming down the pipes. Basically, you just end up paying the price premium for the hybrid tech (which I've heard estimated at about $3k for a new car) which, as gas prices approach (and will probably surpass) $4 a gallon, is going to start seeming like a wiser and wiser investment.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Doesn't hurt that they're ugly and most people who drive them drive like dicks."

I dunno, but most Prius drivers I've encountered fall into the same camp. A lot of Prius drivers around here are pretty arrogant in their driving (dangerous skipping all 3 lanes in one swoop to the carpool lane, tail gating, weaving in-out traffic, driving 85+mph...). As someone mentioned, it's not the car, it's the driver.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally do not hate Hummers -- in fact I love most SUV's because of their size...

I do not own or drive my own car -- I walk on two crutches and do not use a wheelchair. I HATE small cars -- because they have door and entry way structures built for an F-ing dwarf or midget. A full size pickup truck or SUV is at a height and has a wide enough doorway for me to get into and out of easily...small cars tend to be much lower to the ground and are not easy to get into or out of at all... 60's and 70's full size sedans are fairly easy to manuever...but still a pain because of ride height...but ride height can be tricky -- a really beefed up 4x4 will be jacked up so high as to be near impossible to lift myself into...People who mandate a one size fits all approach to vehicles for any reason -- suffer from ID10T errors...

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[shalmaneser1]

some monetary reasons:

• it ( and other large suvs ) wear down roads quicker due to extra weight -- thus diverting yet still more money to road construction / repair, effectively raising taxes for everyone else
• it ( and other large suvs ) is not crash compatible with cars -- thus causing more damage to other cars ( and the people inside ) raising insurance rates for everyone else
• it ( and other large suvs ) disproportionately raise demand for gasoline -- thus raising gas prices for everyone else

being the largest of the large, being so visible different from the other suvs, having been introduced right at the time we were entering wars with countries who were only strategically important because of their oil -- have made the hummer a target for people's general gas/oil/suv anger.

and b/c

they're ugly and most people who drive them drive like dicks.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Paradise Pete]

Can I then use that excuse to say we should ban fat and tall people because I'm short and they block my vision?

I didn't advocate banning large passenger vehicles. I just explained why I don't like them. However, to go with your tortured analogy, if people could buy their bodies like they can buy their cars, then I wouldn't like large people, either. But probably not for the reasons you're thinking.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Bo'Bob'O]

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the H2 just a different body styling on top of a Chevy Tahoe frame, engine and drive train? The price tag to me seems just a bit high for what's only comparable to any midrange full size SUV, on top of the decreased fuel economy for it's extra weight.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[MagusSlurpy]

most people who drive them are dicks. Fixed that for you.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[bnlrules]

You obviously have never spent any time in a 1972 Chrysler New Yorker...

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[stonecypher]

Rent one and go to the club. Then you'll understand. Young people are easily impressed by large expensive pointless things. They're not called cockmobiles because they're used to transport chickens.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[stonecypher]

That explains why Hawking is in a wheelchair. Quick, find me a programmer with a skateboard.

Re:Why so much Hummer Hatred?

[Ogive17]

Oh, you mean see in front of other vehicles.. I interpreted it as seeing in front of your own vehicle.

My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg ..

[Jerry]

in town and on the interstate at 75mph, respectively, after 50,000 miles of travel. My best, so far, is 33 mpg in town and 43.5 mpg on the interstate.

It is a 4 door, five speed stick shift with air and cruise control, which I use when ever my speed goes over 30 mph. I run unleaded 87 octane Shell gasoline, found anywhere. I've often wondered about the "hybrids" that boasted of 35 - 40 mpg rates but cost $25K or more when my Saturn cost $17K (five years ago).

Does it really matter?

[Monoman]

Who cares? It all depends on your driving style. If you run around do an excessive amount of speeding, accelerating, and delayed braking then you probably aren't going to get close to the EPA MPG ratings in ANY kind of vehicle.

I see it every day during my commute. SUVs speeding along, tailgating, braking, accelerating back up to speeding .... lather, rinse, repeat.

Our new car shows current MPG and MPG for each trip meter. It has done wonders for how we drive every day. It turns into a little game.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... because it is just SUV's that do this. You do relize that people do have reasons for driving SUV's so why don't you keep the bashing down and just make fun of soccermoms instead.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Penguinoflight]

The only problem with calling all the "aggressive" drivers stupid, is that you're going to get stuck behind 30% more lights if you don't go 15mph over the limit. Then again, if you're driving aggressively in a SUV you're still going to get stuck behind all the lights, thanks to all of them being slower than molasses.

RE: Hybrids

[ShrapnelFace]

I used to be the Customer Relationship Manager at a Toytota dealership- I was happy enough to have a job given that I graduated college just as the bubble burst out here in Silicon Valley.

Here are a few things that I have always known about Hybrids:

#1 The best milage comes from the most conservative driving.
#2 The batteries are more toxic than those in a normal car- and with each hybrid carrying between 5 and 7 of those batteries, they are not better for the environment.
#3 The total energy used to manufacter a hybrid vehicle is higher than what it is for a regular vehilce of same size.
#4 The depreciation rate is held up by popular opinion. This is true in all vehicles, but the steep cliff at year 6 is going to make most people unhappy, and the battery replacement at year 8 will be a very large cost to shoulder and may drive many people out of this market all togeather.
#5 There is currently no plan for the recycling of these batteries.

Most hybrids I see on the freeway are exceeding 70mph and are changing lanes frequently.
What is on the window is irrelevant given the way that most people here in the US jump in their car and blindly drive these cars with the pedal on the floor.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[Junior J. Junior III]

far as im concerned they should require someone to /actually drive/ the damn car through an /actual city/ and average the results to get the fuel rating.

How can you do this in a way that will result in reproducible results? If I want to contest the findings, I'd need to be able to verify them independently by performing a controlled experiment. Real driving does not offer any controls to the experiment -- you'll get too many variables and won't have a clear picture of what you're actually observing.

Detail is important...

[L0neW0lf]

As others have said, the new tests lower mileage on standard gasoline vehicles too.

More importantly though, there's a lot of details that get glossed over in hybrid/standard comparisons. They skip over the lower emissions of partial-zero emissions vehicles, how cost factors might even out sooner if gasoline prices continue to rise, and how if you're a high-mileage driver (especially a city driver) you may even out sooner in your purchase than others.

On the other hand, I bought a fuel-efficient gasoline car (Honda Civic EX sedan) two years back instead. I was able to buy it slightly used from a third-party and saved myself the depreciation (a used Prius, when you can find one, is still expensive due to the low depreciation of the vehicle). I can rely on non-dealer mechanics being able to service it, costing me less. And it's still an Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle, and gets reasonable gas mileage, something I need considering I have an 80 mile round-trip commute.

From Personal Experience

[tarlos25]

As an owner of a 2005 Prius, I think they're full of crap. I regularly get an average (city/highway mix) of about 55 MPG. In the summer, it goes over 60 MPG for the AVERAGE, not just the city. If I only did city driving, it would be even higher. I'm not driving very conservatively, my driving habits are about the same as they were when I started driving. I keep up with the traffic around me, and sometimes go a little faster.

Of course, when they lower the estimates, I'll just be beating their estimates by that much more.

Re:From Personal Experience

[repetty]

Chiming in...

I bought a 2007 model Prius a the end of this last December.

I get 50MPG. I get about 51MPG on the highway. I don't drive any differently than I did when I was driving my '98 Cadillac Sedan Deville.

I'm starting to think that the government mileage ratings are doing more harm than good. Everyone: want to know how much gas a car consumes? Ask someone who drives one... a real person in the real world.

--Richard

Re:From Personal Experience

[Catbeller]

Do they, and you, factor in hilly terrain? Flatlanders will get better mpg than San Franciscans, for example.

Re:From Personal Experience

[xzqx]

I've had an '06 Prius for a year now, and I'm getting around 45 MPG. However, I have a shortish commute -- about 20 minutes -- that's quite hilly. I'm curious, what kind of trips are you usually taking? How hilly is your area?

Re:From Personal Experience

[tarlos25]

I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas, so yes, I am accounting for hilly terrain.

Re:From Personal Experience

[tarlos25]

My standard commute is 15 miles each way, start in residential area for about 3 miles, then highway for about 8 miles, and city roads for 4 miles, reverse coming home. Traffic usually moves along well, not busy enough to get many traffic jams. As for hills, I go over climbs of about 600 or so feet at some of the hills I drive over, with about a 5-6% grade, but my standard commute isn't all that bad. Driving up to Lake Tahoe is approximately a 2500 ft. climb, and going up only drops my mileage to around 45 MPG average.

Anybody Else?

[blankmange]

Anybody else out there with a big, fat, 'told you so'? The automobile testers have been stating this very thing for years - that EPA ratings are out of whack.. and anyone who has ever purchased a car and tried to achieve the EPA ratings can attest to this as well... so all these poor reviews of hybrids are now validated...

Re:Anybody Else?

[iggymanz]

I get 3 mpg better than the EPA estimate for my '99 Camry with 2.2L 4 cylinder. what's your problem, leadfoot?

Re:Anybody Else?

[Dan Ost]

I regularly meet or exceed the EPA ratings for my 2004 Honda Civic. Especially if we're talking highway driving.

Re:Anybody Else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me. I have always gotten results very close to the old EPA estimates on every car I've owned. That would be about 10 different cars.

This is absurdly stupid

[gelfling]

Anyone with eyes and a brain can see these numbers are junk. I own a 2004 Camry. With two people in the car, on the highway, on cruise control @79mph I get 33mpg all day everyday. Anyone who tells me I'm really getting several mpg less than that is simply being a paid shill for Detroit.

What lobbyist paid 'science' are they going to discover next? The fumes from my neighbor's custom built F-450 (yes FOUR fifty) SUV is health food? C'mon people at least learn to know when they're humping your leg.

Re:This is absurdly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

EPA highway mileage doesn't meaure driving a constant 79MPH, because that is not realistic.

          The *old* EPA test was supposed to simlulate 1960's era Los Angeles, and I imagine the new one is based also off LA, but modern day. The old test had people driving something unrealistic like 45MPH on the highway, with a 55MPH maximum. Yeah right. The new one I think maxes at 80MPH for a bit, but it includes speed variations etc. like realistic highway driving does (there's really not that many wide-open roads around...) City, similar -- the old one had an unrealistic number of stops... noone is going to go 3 or 4 miles *in town* without hitting a red light or stop sign. The new one includes more realistic acceleration and stops, matching realistic modern driving conditions.

My Ford Escape Mileage

[tiedyejeremy]

while the EPA estimates are 36/31, my reality is about 36/29.5, unless I'm on the highway on a roadtrip with my car-top carrrier and in a hurry...
then my highway mileage will drop off to about 23. That hurts.

Pleased with the new numbers

[ericzundel]

I own a 2003 Civic Hybrid and the new numbers presented are very close to my observed mileage after driving it for 2 years. I am a somewhat careful driver, but I'm not one of those going for extreme mileage either.

I love owning a hybrid because driving this car has less impact on the environment as a whole. Less expenditures on fuel is another plus. Having to fill up less often is convenient, too.

I feel it is just as unfair to judge the hybrid technology or any fuel saving technology as not 'economically effective' when there is a very high degree of uncertainty about future fuel prices or the behaviors of other factors. If, for example, many others drive larger and larger vehicles, then the cost of gas will increase, and it will have very little to do with my choice to buy a hybrid. Another thing that could happen is that manufacturers switch to diesel. Will diesel still be economical 10 years down the road if consumption of diesel fuel increases significantly? Today spewing carbon dioxide into the air is free. What if we begin paying for carbon offset credits at the pump?

In summary, using less fuel and emitting less pollutants makes sense for our driving culture. It is a shame we can't convince ourselves it makes sense at an individual level.

Re:Pleased with the new numbers

[Cyphertube]

I would push for more diesel vehicles, anyway. When I was in California, I drove on biodiesel all the time. No need to pay carbon offset credits for that. Of course, without enough diesel vehicles, biodiesel doesn't get everywhere, which is a shame, especially since itout 75 costs so little to produce, and there are a number of methods being developed which will allow producing ethanol and biodiesel from the same crops (whee! cracking a plant instead of a barrel).

What really cracks me up is that my 99 Jetta TDI with over 200k miles gets about the EPA estimates, even on biodiesel. Driving about 80 mph with the AC on, I still got about 42-43 mpg.

Best thing is that my POS only cost about $6k.

Re:Pleased with the new numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

I love owning a hybrid because driving this car has less impact on the environment as a whole.

Myth.

Re:Pleased with the new numbers

[ericzundel]

I don't know what the myth part you are referring to is, I'd like to hear more about it. I used to own a small pickup truck that got around 22 miles per gallon. What I was referring to:

• My car is smaller than 'most cars', although this is not a fact about hybrid technology in general.
• My car has a better emissions rating than 'most cars' SULEV or something like that.
• My car uses less fuel than most cars. I get around 40 miles per gallon, and I never drive on the highway. It is a bit more during the winter when I don't run the A/C.
• Because it burns less fuel, my car therefore emits less carbon dioxide on a daily basis than most cars. When I stop at a stop light the engine turns off, for example.

Sure there is the energy and wastes from creating the car, but again, I think the are in proportion with the size of the vehicle, which again, is less than average. A hybrid isn't a silver bullet for environmental problems, but I still stand by the fact that it is more environmentally friendly to drive this kind of car compared to the average vehicle, or even compared to an identical vehicle without the fuel saving modification.

There are alternatives to the EPA numbers

[delirium28]

There's a hybrid database that I've been scanning over the past year or so to see exactly which hybrid is "worth" the extra cost (ignoring the environmental impacts of course, since I'm a greedy capitalist pig ;-))

Hybrid Mileage Database

So far the EPA numbers in TFA seem to line up well for the Prius at least, but I haven't looked at any of the other numbers.

Re:There are alternatives to the EPA numbers

[halcyon1234]

Unfortunately, you don't save any money using a Hybrid at current, when you look at the overall costs.

First, the actual purchase cost of the Hybrid is greater than a comparable gas-based car. (See the cost of a Hybrid Civic vs. Regular Civic for example).

Second, the cost to insure a Hybrid car is significantly higher than a comparable gas-based car. (Insurance companies don't like new things, or hard to fix things, or imported things.)

Third, the cost to repair a Hyrbid car is significantly higher than a comparable gas-based car. The parts are more expensive, the labour is more expensive. Some mechanics won't touch (or don't know how to touch) a Hybrid, which puts it in the hands of the dealer's "mechanic" (and they're a bunch of cost effective, honest folk, aren't they?)

Fourth, there's the battery itself. Somewhere around the 4 year mark, the battery will need to be replaced, at a cost of roughly $4-8K US.

So yes, the Hybrid is much better on gas. But as an overall money saver, it isn't. And this is the main problem. If you want everyone to drive an alternate fuel car (Hybrid, hydrogen, electric)-- as they should be-- well, it has to be cost effective for Joe and Jane Average. Environmental impact will be attractive to a lot of folks, some who can even afford the higher costs of the Hybrid-- but for most, they can't justify or affrod spending $10K extra. If some smart auto manufacture manages to roll out an effective and affordable line of AF cars (ie: A car that costs $10K to buy, can be maintained by the average mechanic, and won't cost a week's salary per month to insure), they'll sell like hotcakes and kill off the petrolium based cars.

Re:There are alternatives to the EPA numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

My 2000 Honda Insight got 75.2 mpg over my 166.3 mile commute today. Mostly highway, with a couple towns in between. You won't see me in a Hummer/HMMV unless I spend another year in Iraq.

Re:There are alternatives to the EPA numbers

[onemorechip]

Got any hard data on the insurance? Insurance repairs are almost always all body and chassis work; changing to a hybrid shouldn't increase collision repair costs much. Our two hybrids are slightly higher insurance-wise than what we paid pre-hybrid, but the previous vehicles were different body types (minivan, SUV) so it would be an apples to oranges comparison if I just looked at past insurance bills.

You're way off base about the battery. 10 years is closer to the mark. $3K is the approximate price I've heard for a Prius battery.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm not so sure. By driving through an "actual city", you open up the test to biases about what that particular voyage had to deal with (more/less traffic, stops, having to go different speeds), etc. The reason for the test method is not so much that it simulates real driving, but to have an apples-to-apples comparison between the various cars. Even if it doesn't match the gas mileage you actually get, it's still useful for knowing how it compares. So don't think "I will get 25 mpg with this car"; instead think, "I will get 25% better gas mileage than this other car rated at 20 mpg".

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[tiedyejeremy]

When I put my 21.5cu foot cargo carrier on top of my hybrid Ford Escape, my highway mileage drops of dramatically.

I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[PHAEDRU5]

I own a 1997 Ford Explorer. Love this car.

On carmax.com, right now, I can buy a two-year-old Ford Explorer, nicely equipped, for @22k. A decently-equipped Prius (sorry, no hairshirt for me) is going to run around $30k. There are no second-hand Prii for sale at Carmax.

Paying $8k more for a car with a much smaller load-carrying capacity doesn't cut it for me. I can offset current spending on gasoline against the principal and interest on $8k, and easily carry five people, all their luggage, and four bikes to the beach (e.g., Atlanta to Pensacola), and know that the technology under me is fairly well-understood and easily-maintainable.

My next car will be an Explorer as well.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[ziesemer]

You should consider a Mercury Mountaineer or a Lincoln Navigator or something of the sort instead - otherwise, good luck ever trying to rent from U-Haul. Their short-sighted corporate-wide policy prohibits renting for any Ford Explorer, whether it be a 1997 or a 2008... I'd just buy my own trailer, but finding the space to keep it is the only hold-up. (References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Haul#Ford_Explorer and http://www.michaelworth.com/loser_uhaul.shtml)

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[Agilus]

Really?

I just bought a new Prius with most of the luxury features for $21,470 straight from the Toyota dealer. The package I got included:

Smart Key system
Auto climate control
7-speaker system with CD player and aux in jack

(package 2 I believe) - basically all of the good stuff and none of the waste (in my opinion)

When I fold down the seats I have tons of room - transported a new crib this last week.

And this doesn't even take into account that I got an extra $400 paid for by Toyota (college student financing) to finance the $5000 I didn't pay in cash (but will pay off next month), as well as the ~ $750 tax credit I'm going to be able to claim at the end of the year.

I have averaged 50 mpg since I got it, so I feel like I got a darn good deal.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[PHAEDRU5]

I just priced the touring model at Edmunds with all the stuff *I* want, and it came to just under $30k. Same result at toyota.com. I don't have student discounts, or anything, and I do have to transport 5 adults or near adults, plus associated impedimenta. No folding or spindling of seats or passengers allowed.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[PHAEDRU5]

Gotcha, thanks. I do have a hitch, so I can carry four bicycles.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[Bigboote66]

Why on earth would you compare the utility of these two vehicles? They fill completely different niches. Why not compare the Explorer to a Subaru Forester, which is faster, gets better gas mileage, handles better, is more reliable, has more features, and costs less (both new and used)? It's slightly smaller than the explorer, but if you were even considering a Prius, you seemed to already be open to the idea of a smaller car. The Forester is a far better compromise.

-BbT

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[pebs]

On carmax.com, right now, I can buy a two-year-old Ford Explorer, nicely equipped, for @22k. A decently-equipped Prius (sorry, no hairshirt for me) is going to run around $30k. There are no second-hand Prii for sale at Carmax.

Who is paying $30k for a Prius these days? A fully loaded Prius (Touring edition w/ Package #6) has a MSRP of $27,865, invoice of $21,791, and Edmunds says people are currently paying $26,497. There was even a $2000 rebate on that package last month (don't know if its still available). How can you compare the price of a two year old car with a new car? Carmax in my area has used Priuses. There is a 2005 model for about $22k. Maybe this is just a problem with your area.

Paying $8k more for a car with a much smaller load-carrying capacity doesn't cut it for me. I can offset current spending on gasoline against the principal and interest on $8k, and easily carry five people, all their luggage, and four bikes to the beach (e.g., Atlanta to Pensacola), and know that the technology under me is fairly well-understood and easily-maintainable.

Does that scenario (5 people and four bikes) actually occur very often? If not, you can always rent a larger vehicle when you really need to do that. The Prius is not a small car, and can actually fit quite a bit of cargo. You can fit 2 people + 2 bikes easily and that's IN the car, no bike carier. Five very tall people will have no problem fitting (the rear seating is very spacious), and with a bike rack you could do 4 bikes with no problem. There is even a trailer hitch available that will support a bike rack. It's not the monstrosity that an Explorer is, but it does have a very usable cargo area.

My next car will be an Explorer as well.

And you next car, unless its a hybrid or uses alternative fuels, will probably put out 10-11 tons of greenhouse gases a year (compared to the 3.4 tons a Prius puts out). See this site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodel NF.shtml

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[pebs]

I just priced the touring model at Edmunds with all the stuff *I* want, and it came to just under $30k

I don't understand how you are getting it to $30k. As in my other reply, I priced it on Edmunds with the most expensive package (#6) along with the touring edition and it wasn't even close to $30k. What other options are you adding?

I don't have student discounts, or anything, and I do have to transport 5 adults or near adults, plus associated impedimenta. No folding or spindling of seats or passengers allowed.

The Prius is not a small car and 5 tall adults fit easily. I'm 6'3" and I have room to spare in the back seat, even with the front seat pushed all the way back. Trunk space is not huge, but its adequate.

You can install a trailer hitch for use with a bike rack.

If you actually care about emissions, there is of course SUV hybrids that are available now or will be available soon. The Prius is not the only option and if you must drive an SUV, a hybrid SUV is a great compromise.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[PHAEDRU5]

http://www.toyozone.com/inventory/vehicleDetail.as px

Base $23,070
Options $4,890
Manuf. Delv, Proc & Hndlg $675
Subtotal $28,635
Dealer Fees $593
Total $29,228

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[An Onerous Coward]

I see how your comparison would be accurate... if carmax.com was the only place in the world to find used cars. And calling the single most expensive options package for the Prius "decently equipped"? The only difference between the package you selected and the $1000 cheaper package is... leather seats and steering wheel.

So, either you consider a leather interior a necessity, or you only chose it to make the price comparison turn out worse. Either way, that's just pathetic.

The $2500 you're claiming you'd have to plunk down to get the 6 CD changer, integrated bluetooth, and "a voice activated DVD navigation system" doesn't make you look much better. Try dumping the DVD player altogether, and actually engaging your passengers in some sort of conversation.

Re:I'll take the Ford Explorer...

[pacalis]

Clearly if you want to play this game... Here's the price of the explorer with the options I would want... And I did read your first post.

http://www86.forddirect.fordvehicles.com/

Base $35,365
Options $7,450
Manuf. Delv, Proc & Hndlg $735
Subtotal $43,550
Dealer Fees $500 EST
Total $44,050

Odd.

[Irvu]

So this part:

the old, over-inflated ratings were higher in part because the cars idled a lot, allowing the hybrids to completely turn off their engines. The new ratings should be more in line with what hybrid drivers are actually seeing.

seems particularly odd.

How would, excess idle be the issue? When driving in the city the very thing that you do a lot is idle (unless you run red lights, traffic jams, etc). Indeed much of the time is really spent starting, stopping, idling, speeding up, swearing, etc. All of which reduces gas mileage. Unless they leave the cars idling for days it makes no sense to me that this would be the core issue.

Also, unless they have been arbitrarily adding 10 to all totals or weren't counting the use of battery acid for hybrids there is no reason why a change in calculations should affect hybrids alone so the title is quite misleading.

Re:Odd.

[Mr. Underbridge]

How would, excess idle be the issue? When driving in the city the very thing that you do a lot is idle (unless you run red lights, traffic jams, etc). Indeed much of the time is really spent starting, stopping, idling, speeding up, swearing, etc. All of which reduces gas mileage. Unless they leave the cars idling for days it makes no sense to me that this would be the core issue.

Yup. I'm wondering if there was some lobbying pressure here. Hell, they should add a new 'traffic jam' category, or they should add more idling time to the 'city' driving part to reflect the realities of modern traffic. Watch the Prius stay at 50 mpg while regular cars go to 10.

Re:Odd.

[Gilatrout]

The interesting thing though is that the tests are both right and wrong. The assertion that the old tests do not reflect how people drive is true, and that applies to all vehicles regardless of whether or not it is a hybrid. What they got wrong is that after driving a hybrid, I found that I changed the way I drive. Because of the feedback I get from the car, it becomes a game to see just how good mileage I can get. So what the new tests will get wrong is that the test might better reflect the way people drive in general, it still won't get the hybrid numbers right.

This is my real world experience. I drive an '02 Prius on the highway to work about 15 miles each way. I have a Thule roof top box and a kayak rack on top. In the summer months my milage is ~38 to 40 mpg, In the winter it drops to ~34-36 mpg depending upon how I drive. Speed seriously matters. If I drive over 65mph I would cut my milage to ~34-35 mpg in the summer. If I drive the speed limit (55mph in my commute) I get the better numbers. If I drive 70mph then I drop to around 28-30mpg. When I drive just around town and stay off the highway, I easily get above 50mpg in the summer.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[edunbar93]

The entire point of the EPA milage guide is to provide a comparison between different cars. Even if they were to do an actual drive through an actual city for their fuel ratings, it will still be different from what *you* get. If you test every car in exactly the same way under controlled conditions, then you will get an even comparison for its fuel usage. It's like taking every model car produced for the American market for exactly the same drive at exactly the same time to determine which one gets better milage. You'd have to violate some laws of space and time to do that in the real world.

Re:Not just for hybrids Yaris

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, and I get between 44 and 48 mpg on my Yaris, which is better than the old ratings.

Diesel!

[spud603]

We have a 2003 VW Jetta TDI, and we consistently get 40-45 MPG. If I drive very conscientiously I get over 50 MPG. As I understand it, the main reason that diesels aren't picking up in the US is that the EPA restricts their sale: car companies can only sell up to a certain percentage of their fleet as diesels. Demand for them cannot legally be satisfied, so they are not marketed at all.
Add to this the facts that diesel fuel requires less energy to produce, and can be made (mostly) renewably from just about anything that grows, and diesels blow hybrids out of the water in terms of fuel efficiency.
Maybe this change in rating schemes will take some of the marketability out of hybrids and raise awareness for diesel... though more likely it will just encourage people to say fuck it and buy an RV to drive their kids to soccer practice.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a good point. The restrictions on the sale of Diesel cars are ridiculous. It's a much better option than a hybrid, and the engines last a long time. Maybe too long. If there is one thing the manufacturers don't want it's a car that runs 300,000 miles.

We allow a seemingly unlimited number of Diesel trucks on the road; I see no reason why the cars are so heavily regulated. I suspect that if more than just the German manufacturers were making Diesel cars, the EPA regulations would vaporize faster than a Ford Pinto gas tank. Are we interested in fuel economy or not? I really wonder.

If US consumers had to pay the same fuel prices as Europeans, they would warm up to Diesel in a hurry.

Re:Diesel!

[gaspar ilom]

"Diesel" and "Hybrid" are not mutually exclusive.

...regardless of the fact that the market has not created *consumer* "diesel hybrids" for sale in North America, yet. (There are diesel-electric trains and busses, however.)

So, imagine you Jetta as a *diesel*-electric hybrid.

Re:Diesel!

[sunking2]

The reason that diesels haven't kicked in is because they don't pass the emissions standards in any state that follow "California Emissions." Has nothing to do with the EPA at all. The fact that this includes California, NY, and all of New England reduces the number of potential buys so much that it's simply not worth pushing to market in the US.

Hopefully within a few years the auto manufacturers will produce vehicles that do pass and they'll become available. Juat about every automaker has new engines coming to market that do meet the requirements, so things should change soon

Re:Diesel!

[IkeTo]

March 2007 issue of Scientific American has an article "Diesels come Clean", suggesting that a number of models of SUVs are being manufactured to changed that (with improved Diesel and engine design). So things might change in the (not so distant) future.

Re:Diesel!

[Catbeller]

New diesel technology has been available for years that clean up the old problems. Europe is replete with diesel cars. Detroit just doesn't like diesel. The executives are gasoline fans, always will be.

Re:Diesel!

[sunking2]

Right or wrong, the typical euro diesel car won't pass the emission standards here. Different set of rules in Europe than in the US. In Europe gas is expensive so they worry more about gallons used, in the US where gas was cheaper it was about NOx polutants.

On business I've spent quite a bit of time in Rouen, France of the last year. When I first went there they Cathedral in the center of town was black as night from grime. Now this is like 800 years of grime so I'm not blaming it all on disel. A month or so later I went back and was amazed that the entire front was almost ivory white compared to what it had been. Then about 2 months later I went back and guess what, it was already starting to lose its shine. Everyone that was with my made the same comment. How much of it was from diesel cars? No idea, but it certainly doesn't help. I've been to NYC, Boston, and many other large US cities and guess what, none of them have the diesel smell of European cities. Just my observations

Detroit sells plenty of diesels, both domestically in larger trucks where the emissions restrictions are less limited and in their overseas division (Opel after all is a GM company and has a full line of diesels). SCR systems require an additive (usually urea) to be sprayed into the fuel. This requires filling, which requires some sort of infrastructure and maintenance plus the cost of refill. Other NOx absorbing systems are still new and fairly expensive (I believe the new TDIs use this, which I think was the first diesel car approved for sale in the US that meets CA emission standards?). As these problems are solved you'll start to see diesels. Depending on what their cost of ownership is.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right or wrong, the typical euro diesel car won't pass the emission standards here. Different set of rules in Europe than in the US. In Europe gas is expensive so they worry more about gallons used, in the US where gas was cheaper it was about NOx polutants.

As a European I've always found it strange that a small diesel would be considered more polluting than a 6 litre gas engine. I suppose the high sulphur content in your diesel fuel is being sorted out, and once you add one of the increasingly common (over here anyway) particulate traps to the exhaust, it might fare a lot better.

Re:Diesel!

[drinkypoo]

The reason that diesels haven't kicked in is because they don't pass the emissions standards in any state that follow "California Emissions." Has nothing to do with the EPA at all. The fact that this includes California, NY, and all of New England reduces the number of potential buys so much that it's simply not worth pushing to market in the US.

Volkswagen is selling brand new TDIs in California right now.

I believe the low-sulfur mandate doesn't come true until next year, but you can get it now. Biodiesel can of course be run, and all Shell fuel is no-MTBE and the diesel is low-sulfur. I believe at least one other major fuel retailer has gone low-sulfur.

Re:Diesel!

[kabocox]

Maybe this change in rating schemes will take some of the marketability out of hybrids and raise awareness for diesel... though more likely it will just encourage people to say fuck it and buy an RV to drive their kids to soccer practice.

Don't give them ideas.

Re:Diesel!

[Copperhamster]

As I understand it, diesel engines work best (most efficiently) within a narrow range of RPM. Advances in the last 20-30 years have significantly increased the range and overall effectiveness of the diesel engine, but it occurs to me (and in fact occured to me when I first ran across mention of hybrids) that the optimal engine for a hybrid is probably a diesel engine. It's too bad they will never be adopted as such. At least I seriously doubt it.

Re:Diesel!

[sunking2]

Yah, I mentioned this in another post. It's probably the first, and is using a fairly new and expensive NOx absorber. Nothing like another new technology to add to the already super reliable VW :)

Half kidding here, I'm just not a VW fan, I do hope it works out for them and helps things move along.

Re:Diesel!

[drinkypoo]

On one hand, Volkswagen, Audi, and Skoda are all the same company now (along with Lamborghini). Reliability is at an all-time low. On the other hand, VW has the sexiest, cleanest diesels around. They actually have a Touareg (or however you spell that pile of crap) with a TDI V10 with something like 350 HP and 550 ft-lb. I don't want the vehicle, just the motor, in a 4x4 Chevy :)

Re:Diesel!

[sunking2]

The problem with all of the above is that a minor garage visit now has your extra costs exceeding your ~20% fuel savings for the next few years.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

/me creams pants

Re:Diesel!

[mikelieman]

Diesel/Electric is the way big ships and trains operate, and for a good reason.

Efficiency. Run the diesel at it's most efficient range, and use electric motors to do the work.

Re:Diesel!

[sunking2]

As an American I find it strange that the Europeans don't seem to mind eating at outside cafe's that smell like you just inhaled from the back end of a bus :). Just a little teasing here, I actually enjoy my stays in Europ. But it isn't all perfect.

Don't kid yourself, Europe has mostly diesels because gas is taxed up the yahoo and its cheaper to run, not because it's better for the environment. If you do an even comparison, like sized gas engines are much more than 20% cleaner than a traditional diesel, producing less smut from point A to B. So as new engines are allowed in the US, the % of nice clean running diesels will start off at 100% and remain there. Europe will have 15+ years of cars to get rid of, shipping a lot of the problem to Eastern Europe to keep up their poluting in someone elses back yard. You have to remember, the vast majority of the population does not drive brand new Audis and BWMs and Mercedes, they drive lower end cars and a great many don't even buy new. How clean is the current low end Citroen diesel that the general populace would be? Are these cars also 'clean'? I have no idea, it's really a general question. I'm personally glad that the US has held out as long as possible until they get the Diesels right.

Re:Diesel!

[Mattintosh]

All-electric drivetrain + diesel recharge powerplant = hosed auto-dealer mechanics and oil industry.

That's why it won't happen. The diesel powerplant would be too reliable, too cheap to fuel and maintain. The electric drivetrain would effectively remove 90% of the most common failure points in an engine and would conserve fuel by brake-recharging, removing inefficiency of mechanical energy transfer, and removing weight.

Pipe-dream++.

Re:Diesel!

[Shadowlore]

Actually there is half-truth to what you say, The production and sale of diesel is limited, but indirectly. You see, diesel is nasty on the environment. It's filthy with emissions the EPA has said are too much. Thus the technology required to bring the diesels in line with the EPA is more than most automakers are willing to go with. Now, there is work being done on essentially a consumable scrubbing agent, but there is much legal contention over that as well because a tank of the stuff will only run you about 15,000 miles and the EPA has a requirement that emission related stuff work for 100000 miles.

But again, even that system is expensive.

And no biodiesel doesn't change the matter. Better on some emissions, worse on others. Mainly the ones the EPA is currently obsessed with.

As far as diesel blowing "hybrids out of the water", you must pay attention to what is being hybridized. I've seen diesel-electric hybrids that are simply awesome in terms of fuel economy. Of course, there were many other issues.

Re:Diesel!

[drinkypoo]

Garage visit? You mean you expect me to let someone else work on my car? Fuck that. Every time I do that they fuck it up. If I want my car fixed right, I have to do it myself. This is one of the best things about it if we ever go full-electric; there will be a lot less visits to corrupt garages (hint: nearly all of them) to be overcharged for a crap "repair". This doesn't affect me of course, but apparently, it affects you.

Re:Diesel!

[jafac]

Heh - how 'bout an A4 Quattro convertible - Diesel hybrid?

Re:Diesel!

[jafac]

I didn't know you could still get non-ULSD. I thought that the high-sulfur stuff was banned starting 1/2007. I know Exxon has ULSD.

Re:Diesel!

[ballpoint]

Diesel, while more efficient, is not a panacea:

First, there's currently a very big fuzz in Europe over small particulate matter (PM10 or less). The EU has imposed stringent limits on the amount allowed in the air instantly and averaged over a year. Ironically, the improved combustion of modern diesels now causes the emission of dangerous PM instead of the ugly but slightly less dangerous black soot of yore. Particulate filters have little effect on small PM, and other techniques will be required to meet the upcoming EURO-V norm that limits the amount of PM allowed to 5mg/km.

Secondly, diesel has a higher carbon content than gasoline by volume. Instead of a MPG rating the emission of CO2 per mile should be measured. The higher production costs and weight of a diesel engine over a similarly rated gasoline engine also reflect a higher embedded energy cost. If everything is accounted for, the energetic advantage of a diesel becomes minor in vehicular applications.

Finally, the shaking and rattling of a diesel engine, while vastly improved over the last 20 years, is still very noticable both on the inside and outside of the vehicle. Not classy :(

Sell me a pure electric vehicle that's practical, affordable and durable.

Re:Diesel!

[demonlapin]

Particulate emissions are much worse with diesel, and particulates have always been high on the EPA list of no-nos.

Re:Diesel!

[kir]

> If you do an even comparison, like sized gas engines are much more than 20%
> cleaner than a traditional diesel, producing less smut from point A to B.

If I knew a diesel engines produced more smut, I would have switched years ago. My gasoline based engine isn't putting out nearly enough low budget pr0n to satisfy.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The higher production costs and weight of a diesel engine over a similarly rated gasoline engine also reflect a higher embedded energy cost. If everything is accounted for, the energetic advantage of a diesel becomes minor in vehicular applications.

Finally, the shaking and rattling of a diesel engine, while vastly improved over the last 20 years, is still very noticable both on the inside and outside of the vehicle. Not classy :("

You don't know what you are talking about. It is clear you have not driven a diesel produced in the past 5 years. It is also clear that you lack any knowledge of the costs of production asscociated with passenger car diesels.

Your "wish" for an all - electric car is the worst kind of naive idiocy, and proves you know nothing about the situation in a macro sense.

In other words : shut the fuck up, until you know what you're talking about.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Particulate emissions are much worse with diesel

That's why there are now particle filters that get rid of it to astounding levels. And yes, in the (european) market you can get that option already for your new car. Adds some extra cost vs. vehicle without a particle filter but might pay off in the long-run for emissions-based taxes/registration etc. and last but not least your lungs will be grateful. Worth it IMHO. Looking forward to the US debut of these vehicles: clean, well-performing diesels with great gas mileage.

Re:Diesel!

[Hodr]

I think part of the lack of adoption of newer technology diesel cars has to do with tere still being people alive in the US who remember the VW Rabbit. No person who ever drove on of these, or knew someone who did, will ever consider diesel a clean fuel.

Re:Diesel!

[clonmult]

There is a massive drive, at the very least in the UK, around CO2 emissions (which is the main focus atm).

The biggest surprise is the the Prius is not at the top of the list. There are only two zero rated cars in the UK - the Honda Insight (which isn't available) and the Smart Diesel (90g/km).

The Prius is 3rd on the list, at 104g/km. Then its closely followed by the Citroen C2 diesel (108) and the base petrol smart (113g).

I'm willing to put money on both the Smart and Citroen diesels being considerably better on fuel usage compared to the Prius in the real world (at least in english driving). So, similar emissions, considerably lower fuel usage, initial purchase price, etc. The advantages of the Prius over here have pretty much disappeared.

Re:Diesel!

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. The Diesel Rabbit was (and still is!) a wildly popular car with its owners. Go check out eBay if you don't believe me. My grandparents had one when it was new and loved it. I've met several other people in the same camp. The reason that diesel passenger cars are in the situation they are in today are due to two major reasons... the soiled reputation that GM foisted on it with its converted gas engine cars and the BTU tax of the 90's.

Most people that have a negative view of diesels remember cars like the Olds Delta 88 which was a truly smoggy looking, smelly beast. Couple this with the decreased engine lifespan. European and Japanese engined counterparts (both of which my parents owned, some domestic and some foreign cars) were very nice vehicles.

The Clinton-era BTU tax is the other thing. Before that, diesel was routinely $.10/gal less than regular unleaded. After the tax went into effect, the cost of diesel shot up to about mid-grade price. Now, thanks to increased demand and more aggressive refining and boutique fuels for different grades of unleaded, diesel is now at or cheaper than regular unleaded. I think that this may help spur diesel's resurgence in the US starting next year for the '09 model year. Most manufacturers have not committed to diesel until that time.

Currently Diesel powered passenger cars are required to meet the same emission standards as gasoline powered engines for the first time in the US' history. Once car manufacturers settle on their preferred method of NOx catalyst (Mercedes' Blutec looks best to me), they will run with it.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[sunking2]

Simple, you get a big track. First you do laps where you vary the speed on each lap but dont stop. Then you turn on traffic lights on the track that you have to obey. there's no need to actually enter traffic to simulate it. You just need a set of rules to behave by.

Or, you just stick the think in a wind tunnel and determine some drag values and add them to the calculation, or make the manufacturer who surely has already done this turn over some data. This is probably the better solution at it completely removes how people drive.

Re: Hybrids

[Stoertebeker]

#1 very true. For every vehicle, hybrid or otherwise. #2 What do you base this on? There is liquid sulfuric acid in every traditional car battery that can spill if the battery is ruptured in an accident. The NiMH batteries of hybrids are dry and nonspillable. Nickel is less toxic than lead, btw. #3 True, but how does it compare to the energy saved during its service life? #4 True, it also depends on gas prices. Since those can only go up, it bodes pretty well for hybrids. How do you know about the cliff after 6 years? The oldest hybrids around are just getting there, and I haven't seen their values plummet... #5 This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Recycling of NiMH is as well established a process as it is for lead-acid.

Consumer reports tests this way.

[guidryp]

CR does a city loop and a HW loop and they get much more realistic numbers for both tests. Their city numbers are much lower than old EPA, while the highway numbers are generally a bit higher.

I also like Edmunds.com long term tests. They drive a car for months/years and you get a averaged over many tanks number back. They get fairly low numbers and tend to make hybrid/diesel owners whine that the mileage can't be that bad...

Cost effective is not just what you spend on gas

[Gilatrout]

For me, one of the benefits of owning a Prius, or hybrid is not just the fact I fill up every 2.5-3weeks instead of weekly with my past car (a 4Runner) but also in the fact that the Prius and hybrids produce a lot less emissions than standard cars. Less emissions mean less pollution which mean less health issues. So any cost benefit analysis that is just about the cost of fuel leaves out a huge cost savings to society if everyone drove a hybrid. I still want my hydrogen powered rocket car.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[hador_nyc]

I had a standard 2000 Honda civic, and got the same results. I found that weekly checking of my tire pressure, and regular maintenance; tune-ups, tire rotation, etc; kept those numbers up for the 5 years I owned it. I averaged 37-38 highway; between Ohio and NYC, and around 32-35 town/city; NYC and Ohio.

For the record, I sold it a year after moving to Manhattan, where I don't need it.

Tenuous grasp on cause and effect

[Xaroth]

My favorite line from the article has to be this one:
"The new mileage estimates mean it will take longer to recoup that extra cost in money saved on gas."

...as though magically everyone's car suddenly starts eating up more gasoline just because the EPA changed their ratings system. It suggests to me that they should just revise their estimates upwards, so that everyone can save that money they'd be spending on gas. If we made it high enough, we could eliminate our dependance on foreign oil! Clearly, the EPA is in it with big oil to keep the little man down. Jerks.

The article is full of lines like this. For example, they have some random guy quoted in an email as saying that he didn't trust the Prius ratings and that a Corolla got just as good of mileage. They have a table listing various MPG ratings from the EPA, so one might think that including the Corolla to corroborate this random guy's story would be a good idea. Not this author, though. I mean, that aside from picking some random guy from the internet to use as a key quote to support the idea that the EPA guidelines aren't precisely commensurate with people's actual results.

All that said, I suppose I'm just expecting too much from Wired. ;)

Re:Tenuous grasp on cause and effect

[vga_init]

The problem that you are having with that line is because there is an implicit statement that you are not seeing or choosing to ignore because the sentence is unjustifiably ambiguous. When he says "longer", there is a reference to some other measurement. What you're reading is "longer in reality" rather than the intended "longer than we originally believed."

So I would rewrite the sentence, "The new mileage estimates mean it will take longer than previously estimated to recoup that extra cost in money saved on gas."

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Timesprout]

Yeah, the earlier model Saturns were more economical. I have a Saturn V and it burns about 3 tons of fuel a second.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[laffer1]

Yes, the later SL models had great gas millage. However, the IONs which according to wikipedia will be discontinued soon, get at best 35 MPG highway. My wife has a 2005 ION 2. My 1996 SL2 gets 33 MPG these days on the expressway. GM does not make efficient cars anymore and they certainly don't care about some of their customers. I'm hoping to replace my car in the next year and there isn't an offering from GM for car buyers who want an efficient, small car. They only care about expensive, large vehicles that have high profit margins. I'm not sure what to buy since I don't like Toyota that much. Price is a big factor and car prices have increased with gas prices.

Cost Effectiveness

[Thabenksta]

While I was disappointed that my Prius averaged about 50 mpg, as opposed to the advertised 60, I didn't not feel ripped off for a couple reasons. First, 50 mpg is still damn good, but more importantly it's just a nice car.

I really don't understand when people say that "It takes 10 years to pay off the difference". Difference from what? Are these people comparing the Prius to a Ford Escort?

I paid more for the Prius than I did for the Matrix before it, but it's a lot nicer car. It handles better, it's got a super cool touch screen with all kinds of goodies like bluetooth hands-free, and a backup camera. It's got a better sound system, and IMO just looks like a nicer car. I've got the smart-key with the push button starter, and security system.

That's not even counting the tax deductions.

Plus, it's not just about MPG, the emissions are obviously much lower.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sniffing my own farts here. I'm just saying that as a Prius owner, the cost was worth it, hybrid or not.

Re:Cost Effectiveness

[Agilus]

I have to agree with you. I just bought a Prius and have the same experience.

We were comparing the Prius to the Toyota Matrix / Pontiac Vibe (same car) and the Mazda 3, and at $2000 more we decided we would not only be getting a hybrid with great gas mileage, but an all-around better car.

It's a mid size car, not a dinky Geo metro (although I used to love my Geo metro for its gas mileage), and has lots of space. We wanted something bigger since we have a kid on the way, but we didn't want to go the SUV route that our parents were encouraging us to take. It helped that it got great reviews by Consumer Reports.

Plus, the ~ $750 tax credit at the end of the year effectively means it was $750 cheaper than what we actually paid.

Re:Cost Effectiveness

[holomorph]

I'm going to have to add my agreement here as well. The hatchback w/ the flat fold down seats was a big plus for me. Also, it's much roomier inside than I expected; I mostly notice this when I get into other people's cars that didn't used to feel cramped, but now do. The keyless entry and start are probably my favorite features though. Overall, it's a very impressive piece of engineering.

Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[illegalcortex]

I've always wondered why every car doesn't have a mileage display. If you're unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, some cars have a display on the dashboard showing the current (real-time) mileage, trip mileage and lifetime mileage. I first saw this at least fifteen years ago. And now when I rent a car, it usually has this display. And I rent the cheapest car they carry.

Are these sensors worthless? I can see how the current mileage might be a bit suspect, but the trip mileage and lifetime mileage should be good. They can't be expensive, considering I always find them in the cheapest cars. This is one area where I've thought a government mandate would be a good thing. If it's a $5 sensor, they should require them to be put in all new cars. Then you'd actually have a lot better idea of what mileage you are getting in real world conditions (without having to keep a log every time you fill up). Maybe one of these days I'll actually get around to contacting my Congressmen and see if they'll give the suggestion a chance. Maybe I'd have the best luck finding a rep whose district makes the sensors...

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[cdrguru]

What kind of sensor would that be? A mileage sensor?

What you are seeing is the result of a calculation by a trip computer that is tied into the engine computer to get the amount of gasoline being fed to the engine. Using this with the odometer sensor gets you feet-per-droplet which after applying the proper scale factors gets you miles per gallon (or kilometers per liter).

The trip computer is the expensive part. It usually also shows miles-to-empty and a bunch of other timers and such. Raw mileage isn't that hard to get, but you need a new computer because the engine computer isn't connected to the odometer.

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[illegalcortex]

I'm talking about the sensor combined with the display, which is all driven by the computer. Sorry if my shorthand was confusing. I'm guessing it's cheap and commodified by this point, much like cheap digital wristwatches.

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think mpg displays are like $130.

What they really need is a fuel gauge that knows exactly how much is in the tank. That would be sweet.

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[illegalcortex]

Are you talking about add-on mpg displays like this one? It used to be $130, so that's probably true. While searching for this, I also turned up a post that said the law required any cars sold after 1996 to have an on board diagnostic computer connection in the dash. So these things just plug into that connection. This means the gap between the current law and what I'm talking about is even lower than I expected. And while these are $170, I'm sure that's not the actual cost and is especially not the cost of the generic MPG one that I always see in the cheapo cars.

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an 88 BMW with a mileage guage -- a needle showing the current rate. By watching this needle I learned to drive the car at 25 mpg while driving at high speed, and doing a lot of acceleration between periods of slow-going or idling. I think every car should have an MPG display, so that everyone can see what behaviors are costly (in terms of mileage) and which are cheap. Of course, it helps to have a manual transmission (as opposed to the ladie's automatic).

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[illegalcortex]

I'm assuming you went for the non-ABS brakes and removed the power-steering pump. Wouldn't want people questioning your manhood. ;)

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[clonmult]

One things for sure, the sensors and kit cannot be that expensive now.

I mean, I had all those gizmos on my mid 80s Volvo 480ES. Surely with 20+ years of experience the technology should have matured?

And as long as I can remember (which is a similar time frame), BMWs have had their "economy" gauge on the dash. Whilst having a continual MPG reading doesn't help you calculate average MPG, having something there showing that your slight touch of the throttle has dropped you from 40mpg to sub 30mpg makes a major difference in your driving style.

Re:Why doesn't every car have a mileage display?

[illegalcortex]

Right. And, like I was saying, even the cheapo rental had trip MPG and lifetime MPG displays you could toggle through.

Not Downrating the Traditional Gas Engines

[Doc Ruby]

EPA MPG stats on regular gasonline engine cars are often inflated. I don't see them making those "more realistic", even though their inaccuracy has been known for years. Funny how prompt they are to reduce hybrid ratings.

And how is it more accurate to reduce ratings for hybrids because they shut off while "idling"? Gas engines burn gas while idling but getting nowhere. Which is part of the real efficiency of hybrids, especially in city driving.

Why must the inaccurate ratings that favor gas combustion force more economical (short term fuel prices, and longterm environmental/warfare costs) to look worse?

Re:Not Downrating the Traditional Gas Engines

[Catbeller]

Well done. They won't move at all when it comes to adjusting those inaccurate mileage figures for IC engine cars, but they were pretty snappy redoing those hybrid numbers! Bush really helped the efficiency along when he appointed nothing but industry lobbyists to the regulatory agencies they once lobbied. That was FAST. His administration can do useful work; it just matters who they think their customers are. They lost a billion in foreign aid for New Orleans because they couldn't be bothered to set up an organization to dole it out, but Shazam! they can haul ass for oil and automobiles.

I imagine claims for electric cars will be *closely regulated* these next two years. Wouldn't want misinformation to bother those IC engine buyers.

Re:Not Downrating the Traditional Gas Engines

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Troll
    50% Interesting

TrollMods want worse mileage and more lies. And are dying for pollution and warfare to keep it all.

Re:Not Downrating the Traditional Gas Engines

[destrowolffe]

As usual the slashdot tag line is misleading at best. The EPA is adjusting the MPG rating for ALL NEW CARS IN 2008. The system will take into account cold engine starts, increased stop and go traffic, the use of AC, and higher speed limits than the old 70s 55MPH national standard. ALL CARS will see their fuel ratings drop in 2008, but hybrids will be affected the most. So you can create and believe as many conspiracy theories as you want, but know that all cars are effected.

Re:Not Downrating the Traditional Gas Engines

[Doc Ruby]

In America, everyone, rich and poor alike, is free to sleep under bridges.

The usual credulity lets you believe that this EPA adjustment really targets all cars, not the hybrids that it most affects, while leaving less affected the gas guzzlers the administration loves the most. The inflated MPG was A-OK with the EPA until hybrids started outselling gas guzzlers. Then the "accuracy" quickly became a priority, but somehow the new "accuracy" cheats hybrids of actual savings, like not wasting fuel while idling.

BTW, the "55MPH national standard" was a Reagan policy, from the 1980s, enforced by withholding highway funding.

You can believe as many coincidence theories as you like. But every Bush mistake and "correction" has benefited their patrons, mainly the oil industry. Especially in the EPA, which is run by polluters, mainly from the oil industry. How many actual conspiracies to rob and kill Americans to benefit the oil corps do you need before you see that conspiracy is the default policy process for the Bush admin?

Re: Hybrids

[TooMuchToDo]

#1 The best milage comes from the most conservative driving.

True. Buy you also see significant gains in mileage vs. gas-only vehicles when not driving conservatively all the time.

#2 The batteries are more toxic than those in a normal car- and with each hybrid carrying between 5 and 7 of those batteries, they are not better for the environment.

False. The batteries in a Prius are no more toxic than any other battery. Also, they can be **completely** recycled at end of life.

#3 The total energy used to manufacter a hybrid vehicle is higher than what it is for a regular vehilce of same size. Perhaps slightly. But luckily that energy is most likely electricty which is being generated at a plant with strict emissions control in Japan. That extra energy used offsets the petroleum energy that would be used by a gas-only vehicle, as well as the pollution said gas-only vehicle would cause (you have to take into account that the Prius is a SULEV vehicle).

#4 The depreciation rate is held up by popular opinion. This is true in all vehicles, but the steep cliff at year 6 is going to make most people unhappy, and the battery replacement at year 8 will be a very large cost to shoulder and may drive many people out of this market all togeather.

Can you prove this steep drop off in value at year 6? If not, than why state it? Let's assume for a moment that this year 6 valuation drop-off occurs. How much is that going to matter to someone who has held the car for 6 years? Probably little at that point.

#5 There is currently no plan for the recycling of these batteries.

Now you're simply sputtering off nonsense. Don't spout bullshit unless you know someone isn't going to catch you:

http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology /2004/hybrid.html

Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?

Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[gstoddart]

I've often wondered about the "hybrids" that boasted of 35 - 40 mpg rates but cost $25K or more when my Saturn cost $17K (five years ago).

Unfortunately, the manufacturers of hybrids had no choice -- it would be illegal to claim any milage rating based on anything different than the mandatory EPA guidelines. They were based on a theoretical model which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual mileage -- so the manufacturers report numbers which are completely out of whack; that much has been known for quite a while.

This is at least the first step -- the EPA updating their models to actually have anything to do with reality. This might give consumers a little more information to be able to decide if the premium cost for all of that technology will represent an actual savings (either in total cost or volumetric consumption) over the lifetime of the vehicle.

It's what happens when you use a model that is around 30 years old or so.

Cheers

Re:Cost effective is not just what you spend on ga

[Anonymous Coward]

But what's the cost to manufacture and dispose of that hybrid car, compared to a standard car?

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[compro01]

far as im concerned they should require someone to /actually drive/ the damn car through an /actual city/ and average the results to get the fuel rating.

which raises the issue of repeatability. city traffic is not gonna be the same every day.

a good idea would be to create an average model of city and highway driving, created from a few days/weeks of actual driving by a number of people (average joes. pay them $500 or something to monitor their driving habits for a month or so), then run everything through that model, along with mathmatical correction to account for the wind resistance, based on numbers from wind tunnel testing.

Just bought one! :(

[stgben]

We just purchased a Honda Civic this weekend. Darn.

How does this make the cars less cost effective?

[edunbar93]

plugging these new numbers in to the equation makes a hybrid much less cost effective

No, plugging these new numbers in makes the cars *appear* much less cost effective. The fact of the matter is that plenty of hybrid owners were actually reaching their posted fuel efficiency ratings, unlike gas-only cars which do not. And whether the car is stopped in traffic or not, a non-hybrid car is still consuming fuel while a hybrid is not. In fact, hybrids do much better in heavy traffic because under a certain speed (35 Km/h for the Prius for instance) it's just running on batteries.

I think the EPA just changed the way these cars are rated because other carmakers complained that the numbers were "unfair".

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[Red Flayer]

and on Wednesday you've got the rad to yourself

Son, I've got the rad, the gnarly, and the tubular to myself every day of the week, yet my gas mileage still sucks.

Seriously, though, OP has a point -- but it's easily possible to factor in wind resistance while maintaining constant test conditions across models. If you want to include wind resistance (since aerodynamics affect gas mileage, why not use an exhaust sniffer + rollers in a wind tunnel?

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

Now compare the EMISSIONS of your car versus a prius. Your car is going to be shitting out probably about 100x the fumes that a prius, even with exactly the same mileage, is putting out.

MPG for a bicycle

[Anonymous Coward]

A bicycle will get you anywhere between 300 and 1000 MPG. Sounds good, until you realize that for every single calorie of food you ingest, almost 10 calories (derived mostly from oil) are put in during the production, storage and transportation. So a more real number is 30 to 100 MPG. Doesn't sound that good.

So what happens when

[zappepcs]

10% or more cars in the US are fully electric? What kind of mileage will they be rated at? The MPG rating works when all vehicles use only gasoline engines. Now that we have hybrids we'll have to start using something else, not just adjusted MPG.

It might be miles per charge, where charge could be batteries charged to full, or a full tank of gasoline/diesel.

The point of the mileage rating was to allow the consumer to determine how cars compare in an apples to apples kind of way. The net effect was simply to allow the consumer to know how much it will cost to drive to work and back. The net effect of hybrids is to increase effective mileage. If you can (in your normal traffic driving) get 315 miles per tank full in a Honda (non-hybrid) and 375 miles per tank full/battery charge you have managed to increase the effective mileage per charge. If the overall cost of that charge up is cheaper, and you still gain 60 miles per charge up, the effective cost of operating the vehicle has been substantially decreased based on an assumption that all else is equal.

The 0 mpg while stopped/idling at a light is in actuality a negative miles per charge effect regardless of how little fuel is used at idle. The hybrid vehicles see this time as a net positive miles per charge.

In this instance and many others, perspective matters. Miles per charge, not miles per gallon.

Re:So what happens when

[Catbeller]

Watts per mile.

Re:So what happens when

[homeslice3]

Dollars per mile. That's all that matters.

Re:So what happens when

[spatley]

wouldn't that be watt-hours per mile? (or more likely kilowatt-hours like the power company charges us)

Re:So what happens when

[Catbeller]

We generally don't fight wars to run our power plants. Cost accounting is a tricky thing. Who is being charged what? If we charged a ten dollar a gallon Iraq War tax, then you'd internalize how much a gas car really costs. Right now we make our judgements based on a cost structure designed to finance the cost of oil from as many pockets as possible. Not to mention, how much does the gas actually cost, compared to the refinery/supply Enroning that gives the oil companies 30 billion dollars of profit every fiscal quarter?

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[MightyYar]

I also had a Saturn with similar numbers. The problem is that it only had a 99HP engine. The hybrids can get the same efficiency as the Saturn, and still be able to comfortably merge onto the Schuylkill Expressway. Putting a little tiny engine into a little tiny car is not exactly a new way to save fuel, but Americans have not exactly gone bonkers over little tiny cars with no guts.

pollution islands

[zogger]

Mileage claims are only one part of the total economic picture. Another one is from the health angle from tons of cars with their engines constantly running stopped at traffic lights or creeping along at 2 miles an hour in traffic jams. Urban areas are big heat and pollution air traps, islands. This causes a LOT of long term expensive health problems, plus it actually hurts the trees and buildings themselves inside of cities. Hard to put an accurate financial number to it, but it is safe to assume it is a rather large number. Hybrids running in town on batteries with their ICE turned off help to mitigate this islanding effect to a large degree. So even if they have new reduced overall mileage figures, they still will be better than comparable mileage pure ICE machines because they don't contribute to the concentrated pollution islanding effect, something you are still paying for one way or the other (both really). And pure electrics will be better still, especially if they are being recharged using the cleaner renewable sources, such as solar and wind power, etc.

I think in time you might see entire chunks of major cities made off limits to pure ICE machines from this reason, no matter what mileage they get. That's a guess, but bet I'm right on that.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[guaigean]

How about closed circuit testing? Private tracks are used for all sorts of testing... why not for this? You could regulate stop frequency to every 1/4, 1/2, or 1 mile, or take it for a 50-100 mile stretch without stops, and without traffic. Sure, you still have the issue of different amounts of wind on different days, but it'd be far closer to reality than sitting on rollers.

Shenanigans

[EgoWumpus]

The mileages cited by the article do not indicate that non-hybrid cars are really gaining a lot of ground. Sure, some ground is gained - about 6% on the Honda Civic v Civic Hybrid - but the hybrids still outpace the regular gasoline cars by a long shot. The article makes it sound like the high mileages on hybrids were total puff. This strikes me as a reaction to a fad movement; namely that a lot of people are into the idea of hybrids, and some people are therefore against it, waiting to knock those people off their pedestal. Hybrids are not the end-all be-all of cars, but this article is still a stretch.

Re:Shenanigans

[Altus]

I dont know, the first one on that list is the Pirus. Its new rating is a respectable 48MPG highway but its old rating was a whoping 60MPG. Sure, 48 is still better than your going to get elsewhere, but its certainly not the 60MPG we were being sold.

Also, I have often exceeded the EPA estimates on the highway for my car (the old estimates) but you don't hear about that happening with hybrids so I wonder how close any of these estimates are to actual real world numbers. Of course there really isn't a good way to find out since everyone drives differently and in different places.

Re:Shenanigans

[EgoWumpus]

Hybrids don't claim much superiority on the highways; at least not on a theoretical level. Their engines are the same; they just utilize the power you waste when braking - which in proper highway driving you shouldn't be doing. So I'm not surprised that you can exceed a regular engine's mpg on the highway and not with a hybrid; all it takes is a good pilot.

But the key thing to remember is that while 48 is 80% of 60, 25 is only 83% of 30, and 21 is 87.5% of 24. When I buy a regular Honda Civic, and they tell me I get 30 highway miles per gallon they are cheating me nearly as much when I only get 25. Now, this may be a problem with metrics - maybe Civics actually get 35 gallons per mile - but if the issue is being lied to, then the anecdotal mileages can't apply. A common baseline must be used; and in the revised baselines regular engines are nearly as bad.

It is also worth pointing out that even if you're being lied to, and civics get 35 miles per gallon, and the Prius only 40, it's still better. Economically you'll probably want the civic, but that isn't proof that the hybrids aren't more efficient. It's just that they're not enough more efficient.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[myth24601]

Or, you just stick the think in a wind tunnel and determine some drag values and add them to the calculation, or make the manufacturer who surely has already done this turn over some data. This is probably the better solution at it completely removes how people drive.

I wonder if they should include some local variables? In the Northeast you have the change in wind resistance from having the window down a lot with your arm sticking out to make obscene gestures while in the South you have your hunting dog in the back seat with it's head sticking out the window.

I am not sure what they do out west.

Some rather large nitpicks

[raygundan]

#1 The best milage comes from the most conservative driving.

True. But the biggest mileage improvement happens for people who drive aggressively. Only a hybrid or a pure electric car can recover some of the energy wasted in hard acceleration when you brake.

#2 The batteries are more toxic than those in a normal car- and with each hybrid carrying between 5 and 7 of those batteries, they are not better for the environment.

I don't know where you got 5-7 batteries. They have one pack. It's about 3x the weight of a normal car battery in the Prius. And who cares if it's toxic when they're all being recycled completely? Were you planning on eating it?

#3 The total energy used to manufacter a hybrid vehicle is higher than what it is for a regular vehilce of same size.

This is also true, but it takes only a few months to reach the break-even point again-- after which, it's all net energy saved.

#4 The depreciation rate is held up by popular opinion. This is true in all vehicles, but the steep cliff at year 6 is going to make most people unhappy, and the battery replacement at year 8 will be a very large cost to shoulder and may drive many people out of this market all togeather.

Depending on who you ask, the battery pack should never need replacing. Of course, some will break-- just like some cars need replacement engines or transmissions. Do you expect them all to fail immediately at the end of the 100k mile warranty?

#5 There is currently no plan for the recycling of these batteries.

This one is complete and utter bullshit. Toyota, for example, recycles ALL of their hybrid battery packs, right down to the plastic case and wiring. To ensure that they are returned for recycling, there's a 1-800 number printed on the pack and there's $200 bounty for each battery returned. This program has been in place since the RAV-4 EV in 1998. How you could even begin to think "there's no recycling plan" when there is, in fact, an extremely comprehensive plan is beyond me. Did you actually check?

Re:Some rather large nitpicks

[gnasher719]

'' This one is complete and utter bullshit. Toyota, for example, recycles ALL of their hybrid battery packs, right down to the plastic case and wiring. ''

Could that be one of these "Greenpeace_they_got_no_plan" things? Like Toyota recycles all their hybrid battery packs, therefore they have _no plans_ to start recycling them at some point in the future, so Greenpeace says "they've got no plan! they've got no plan! They must be dirty polluters because they've got no plan!"?

Wouldn't be the first company...

Re: Hybrids

[_14k4]

#2 The batteries are more toxic than those in a normal car- and with each hybrid carrying between 5 and 7 of those batteries, they are not better for the environment.

But, the batteries do not leak like lead-acid (current car) batteries do or will.

Re:Cost effective is not just what you spend on ga

[Gilatrout]

Id be surprised if it costs a much if any more to recycle a Hybrid as opposed to a standard car. Who knows, those batteries might actually make it more desirable for an auto recycler to salvage a hybrid.

Numbers seem realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

The revised numbers are in line with my real world experience. My wife drives a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid. She's got a pretty light foot and mostly get around 43 MPG in primarily city driving, maybe 46 or 47 highway. I've got more of a lead foot and get around 39-40 MPG in city driving and around 45 on the highway.

It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[Kadin2048]

Although not perfectly accurate, computing your mileage using the reading from the gas pump and the odometer doesn't rely on running the gas tank "bone dry." All that it relies on, is that you fill the gas tank back up to the same level as you did the previous fillup. Since gas nozzles are basically standardized and tend to click off at the same point, this isn't a terrible assumption. It's probably accurate at least to a few tenths of a gallon, in my experience of doing it in a small car.

Basically you fill the tank until the pump shuts it off, and reset the odo. This is your start point. You drive for a while, generally until you need gas again, and then you refill the gas tank until it again shuts off automatically, and note the amount of fuel added. You look at the odometer, and simply take the mileage there, and divide by the reading on the pump.

As long as you never fill your tank halfway, and you don't top off or otherwise force the gas pump to keep going after it shuts off automatically, and you reset the odo every time you fill up, you can get pretty good mileage estimates this way.

It's a different method than what I assume the car's computer is using (I'd think it's using some sort of reading from the engine's sensors) but it's not an inherently terrible methodology. If you use the same gas pump/nozzle to fill up each time, I'd imagine it could probably be quite accurate. At no time does it require you to run your car out of gas.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[Raistlin77]

Yeah you're right - I misread the method they used.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[toleraen]

Since gas nozzles are basically standardized and tend to click off at the same point, this isn't a terrible assumption.

That's not necessarily a good way to do it either. Half the time the pump clicks off after ~8-10 gallons pumped, which I then have to top off the remaining 4-6 gallons. Sometimes is makes it closer to the 13 gallon mark before clicking off. I pretty much use the same gas station every time I fill up too.

It'd probably be more accurate to 'top off' as much as possible. Your tank can only hold so much, so ensuring it's completely full every time should provide more consistent results.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[drinkypoo]

Since gas nozzles are basically standardized and tend to click off at the same point, this isn't a terrible assumption. It's probably accurate at least to a few tenths of a gallon, in my experience of doing it in a small car.

Yes, but a few tenths of a gallon is a big difference in a small car, where you probably have a small tank.

In order to get any kind of accuracy this way, you must do multiple tests on the same pump, because they are very much NOT standardized from pump to pump let alone station to station, and average the results.

The pressure cutoff is adjusted directly on the nozzle. Most of the time there's an easily-visible screw and you can adjust it with a standard screwdriver. I've done it myself when the nozzle was clicking off too readily.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[Tiber]

Since gas nozzles are basically standardized and tend to click off at the same point, this isn't a terrible assumption

Actually that's incorrect. The pump relies on the air pressure in the tank to figure out when it's full. As you're filling the gas tank, the pump is pulling the vapors out of your tank. When the pump has a hard enough time pulling the vapors out, it assumes the gasoline is moving slower down the fill neck because the level of the gas in the tank is higher. Obviously this is going to totally be botch depending on the tempeture of the fuel in your tank, the tempeture of the air, the difference between the tempeture inside and outside your tank, the altitude you last filled your tank at, and how safe the owner of the pump wants to be in terms of aggressively filling your tank.

Short of filling your tank until you see gas spraying out, you have no idea what the level of gas in the tank is when it "clicks off".

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[Technician]

As long as you never fill your tank halfway, and you don't top off or otherwise force the gas pump to keep going after it shuts off automatically, and you reset the odo every time you fill up, you can get pretty good mileage estimates this way.

Tank to tank gives a noisy result. Keep a milage / gas log. Varations caused by various top off levels average out over the long term. A half filled tank doesn't have much to do with the results if you are computing over the last 20,000 miles and 1,000 gallons. A + or - 5 gallons will not change the long term trend in the example much from 20 MPG. Many cars average the last 5 minutes of driving. This often gives false impressions of economy. Going down the hill creeping in traffic to town may show over 60 MPG over 5 minutes. In reality that 5 minutes may only be 2 miles. Leaving town going 8 MPG back up the hill does not equal an average of 26 MPG. You need a longer sample size.

My long term average over 6 months is 44.8 MPG. From the article you should be able to figure out what I drive.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Prius has bladdered fuel tank. So it clicks of + or - 0.5 gallons apart.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[Anonymous Coward]

temperature.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[SEAL]

That's not necessarily a good way to do it either. Half the time the pump clicks off after ~8-10 gallons pumped, which I then have to top off the remaining 4-6 gallons. Sometimes is makes it closer to the 13 gallon mark before clicking off. I pretty much use the same gas station every time I fill up too.

I'm curious what vehicle you drive. The problem of a pump clicking off too early is usually due to the gas tank itself. I used to have an '87 Malibu Skier and that boat was a royal pain to fill from the pump for that very reason.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[toleraen]

'05 Taurus. Every once in a while it gets all awesome and clicks off every 1/3 gallon unless I pump the first few gallons on that third ultra slow setting. My '01 kia spectra did the same thing

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[dAzED1]

serious? I'm going to start taking a screwdriver with me then, because though the total bill is always low, I still get annoyed at gas pumps because they click off for me when I'm trying to fill the tank on my bike. Some pumps wont even freakin do anything at all.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[gumbi west]

It may be that for any one fill-up, I'm off by as much as 1/2 gallon (I doubt it given that I always get the same calculated mpg) but it's not possible for the long run average to be botched because the total error remains the same. i.e. if I fill up 10 times, the total error on the amount of gas I've put it is still just one fill-up's error (say, 1/2 gallon again). Also, if you get a consistent result, then you know your doing it right.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[An Onerous Coward]

Isn't the solution obvious? Just fill the tank until it overflows.

Re:It uses the full tank as a baseline, not empty.

[N3Z]

You can eliminate this variability by keeping longer term averages. Four or more tank fills should be close enough. Keep in mind that the time of year (cold start temperature and driving conditions) can make a significant difference in MPG.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[joshv]

Maybe it's a geek thing you guys have goin on, but I have no flippin' idea what kinda mileage my non-hybrid car gets. I mean, seriously - who the heck cares? I get regular maintenance, make sure the tires are inflated, and fill it up when its low on gas. What exactly would I do with this mileage number if I took the time and effort to log my miles at every fillup? Brag about it? Post it on slashdot? Worry about why it is 5mpg below what was on the sticker? I have better things to do with my time.

Takes more gas to warm up the system in winter

[Medievalist]

It's also kind of funny how much the weather affects my MPG. Cold weather drops me down at least 5 MPG. I'm not sure if that's particular to hybrids, or if that's every car. All cars perform differently under extremely different weather conditions - some cars get better MPG in the rain (Maybelline! Why can't you be true?).

My Prius has to "warm up" longer to get to operating temps in the winter; since the drive train contains many different materials with differing coefficients of heat expansion, the engine controller wants to reach the optimum operating temperature before doing those near-instantaneous engine cut-ins and cut-outs. This is noticeably reflected in miles per gallon.

Similarly, if the AC is on the high current draw of the blower and the mechanical load of the compressor will cause the motor to run in situations where it would otherwise cut out; this is more than compensated for at highway speeds, when you've got lots of available power, but it kicks your mpg pretty hard in stop-an-go traffic situations where the system would normally shine.

I get around 47 mpg in my 2002 Prius, but real world mileage will always be highly dependent on your driving requirements (city, highway, congestion, run time, other factors). I'm sure I'd get high in the 50s in a modern Prius, because my working commute is pretty optimal for a hybrid system.

I think it's funny that the ratings (which were never believed by anyone with an ounce of sense) are getting modified to counter the rating-whoring of hybrids. If you look at what the rating authority did, they basically dropped part of the idling requirement - does this mean Americans are spending less time idling their engines? Seems to me the opposite is true!

Re:Takes more gas to warm up the system in winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, if the AC is on the high current draw of the blower and the mechanical load of the compressor will cause the motor to run in situations where it would otherwise cut out; this is more than compensated for at highway speeds, when you've got lots of available power, but it kicks your mpg pretty hard in stop-an-go traffic situations where the system would normally shine.

so in Fl where I run the AC 10 months a year I am not likly to get better milage with a highbreed if I drive in a lot of stop and go traffic?

Re:Takes more gas to warm up the system in winter

[Medievalist]

Similarly, if the AC is on the high current draw of the blower and the mechanical load of the compressor will cause the motor to run in situations where it would otherwise cut out; this is more than compensated for at highway speeds, when you've got lots of available power, but it kicks your mpg pretty hard in stop-an-go traffic situations where the system would normally shine.

so in Fl where I run the AC 10 months a year I am not likly to get better milage with a highbreed if I drive in a lot of stop and go traffic? You will get better mileage than you would in a non-hybrid, but you will not get the EPA rated mileage. You also won't get the EPA rated mileage in a non-hybrid, of course. With either type of car, stop-an-go traffic with the AC on will definitely punish your mileage, simply because it takes more energy (and thus more gas) to run the compressor and blower that maintain the forced draft of cold air inside the car. But yeah, I think you've got pretty close to the worst case scenario there. The hybrid will not be able to shut down the internal combustion engine very often, and total ICE shutdown is your big gas saver.

Re: Hybrids

[DrewFish]

Hey, I drive 70mph and change lanes frequently, and get 43mpg :) (2001 Prius)

Milage on My 2006 Civic Hybrid

[bkedersha]

Only twice did I get the current advertised mileage. Usually I just get 40 or so MPG.

As I pointed out in another thread...

[sean.peters]

I don't know about gas prices in the U.S. "being held artificially low". A good chunk of what you pay at the pump is gasoline taxes, plus sales taxes on the gas taxes. Rather, in many other countries, the gas taxes are much higher.

As I pointed out in another thread, gasoline taxes in the US still don't reflect the actual costs of providing gasoline to US drivers. There's an enormous "defense subsidy": we pay for a gigantic military, one of whose main missions is to defend the middle east... which, in turn, is done to ensure a steady supply of oil. Currently, motorists are paying gas taxes primarily to fund transportation improvements and maintenance (and not even all of that - a lot of highway construction is funded from general revenue). If motorists had to pay a gas tax that fully paid for that part of the military budget devoted to USCENTCOM, you'd see significantly higher prices at the pump, and high-mileage technologies would look a lot more attractive.

Re:As I pointed out in another thread...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that CENTCOM exists only to ensure oil supply and nothing else, then perhaps I can interest you in this hat. It's lined with genuine Reynold's aluminum foil.

More accurate?

[DragonWriter]

The new ratings should be more in line with what hybrid drivers are actually seeing.

Prius owners I known have always reported that their actual measured mileage was around 50mpg or a little over. That's pretty close to what you'd expect overall from the old ratings, and much higher than even the best (city) rating in the new ratings. Certainly, I'm unconvinced that the new ratings are more accurate.

But, its interesting to note that even with the changes, the the total hybrid models with comparable non-hybrids (Civic, Camry, Escape) on the list still get, in every case, better than 1.5 times the mileage of the equivalent non-hybrid in the city, and only a shade less than that overall.

Re: Hybrids

[jsupreston]

Don't know for sure if the parent is completely correct, but this article sure makes an interesting read: http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_ite m.asp?NewsID=188

Redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah... cut a poor guy some slack. The post was only a few minutes behind the other one, and I took the time to check my facts. How was I supposed to know he was typing up a nearly identical post at the same time?

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[ArsonSmith]

That's why the call it an average. You take readings for a month of driving from lots of different people and combine the statistics together. Then you have an average MPG. Otherwise you just have a benchmarked MPG that may or may not reflect reality.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[ArsonSmith]

We combine both of those but also run the A/C on max.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[DragonWriter]

To test everything evenly you need a constant situation that will not change without you manually changing it, a "real city" is the complete opposite of this. So if Tuesday you get stuck behind a bus and on Wednesday you've got the rad to yourself, the results are clearly quite different.

So you use a closed circuit that simulates city conditions in a repeatedable manner, and you have a number of different drivers and average the results. You use telemetry to make sure that the manner of driving is within certain prescribed limits for each run through the course, and discard runs outside of the range and have them re-run.

If your car isn't moving through the air, you aren't testing its mileage, since effects from air (both drag and lift) are fairly significant effects on the performance of cars, and something that real-world vehicles differ in features designed to address.

(Relatively speaking, sports cars are probably getting gypped on highway mileage from this, since lift and drag are both factors that are more significant with higher speed, and sports cars are more designed with attention to them.)

Your comparison is flawed

[pacalis]

The MSRP of an explorer is $26,100. The Prius MSRP is $22,175 with $2K potential bonus. So what are you talking about? BTW, I would never buy an Explorer. Too many AWFUL re-calls - spontaneous combusion and exploding tires several years back. Buy a Honda Pilot. Seats 8 and you can get into it at $24K.

Re:Your comparison is flawed

[PHAEDRU5]

I appreciate your opinion. That said, I don't think you actually read my original post, where I made the basis of my comparison quite plain.

Mileage has not improved in 10 years!

[ehud42]

My needs in a car are:

a) wheels, roof, motor
b) highway speed capable
c) 4 seats and small storage
d) low TCO

So, I drive a 1996 Geo Metro which based on the new tests is listed at 40MPG (which based on my records, I'm actually getting year round - over 45 in summer, about 35 in winter).

Compare this to the 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid which is rated at an astounding 42MPG and I'm really hoping to get many many more miles out of my Metro before I'm force to down grade to a newer car....

Re:Mileage has not improved in 10 years!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and Oranges, man. A civic is MUCH bigger than your Metro. That's like comparing a KIA Sephia to a Hummer. They aren't the same.

Re:Mileage has not improved in 10 years!

[nicholasjay]

Not to mention safety. The Civic comes with what, six air bags? Not to mention more technology put into other safety areas, such as crumple zones. I used to drive a '95 Ford Aspire. It regularly got over 40 mpg, but I was always so scared of a side collision. The doors are so thin, I think I could've punched right through them with my fist. Not to mention that having 63 hp, the car could barely get out of its own way, even if it did weigh only 2000 pounds.

Very bad idea

[WindBourne]

To much variance the way that you suggest due to the drivers. As long as the cars are submitted to the same tests (and preferably several different tests) under the same conditions, then you have a way to rate cars. It is known that you will NOT get the same as what is reported. These are just ways to determine what to buy.

Re: Hybrids

[cdrguru]

I believe the point #6 is that Toyota has no recycling in place and no plans. Sure, you could lug the battery pack to Radio Shack and put it in their recycling container... where it would be trashed just as well.

Yes, NiMH batteries can be recycled. That doesn't mean they are. Or that there is any value to attempting to do so.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

I have better things to do with my time.

Like posting to slashdot bitching about other people's driving habits. Very coherent on your behalf.

OMG TISNF!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been my experience that the EPA is great at throwing out propaganda to protect the environment... but... not so good at coming up with accurate statistics. People have known for YEARS that the mileage ratings on cars were ridiculous. The only reason this is news is because the darlings of the environmentalists - the hybrids - are the hardest hit by these new numbers. TISNF.

You mean to tell me that the environmental protection agency's numbers were wrong and they were skewed towards hybrids!? SHOCKING! Hybrids have always been hype. Some only get a few more miles per gallon. It's a joke. There are obvious exceptions, like the Prius. But vehicles like the Saturn Vue Hybrid are just plain silly.

I'm going add a handle bar to the back of a car and start selling it for $10,000 more. It'll get 1 gazillion EPA MPG. I'll call it the Hummer Human Hybrid. Just tell your kids to grab the bar and start pushing. You'll never even need to stop for gas!

As an aside, that table on Wired's site is jacked. How does 24 City and 33 Highway become 37 Combined on the Toyota Camry? Must be magic.

Interesting... Doesn't match experience...

[FellowConspirator]

I have a 2003 Civic Hybrid and I almost never see 50 mpg when commuting. When I drive long distances on the Interstate, I generally get about 60 mpg (Boston to Bangor). Perhaps the EPA drivers drive like they're in NASCAR...

Re:Interesting... Doesn't match experience...

[FellowConspirator]

Should read "I never see LESS THAN 50mpg"... Slashdot took out the less-than sign...

Still waiting for sane *units* from the EPA.

[eh2o]

"Miles per gallon" isn't a linear scale with respect to efficiency of the vehicle, and its misleading to the public who don't realize that the difference between 10-13 MPG is three times larger than the difference between 30-33 MPG.

"Gallons per mile" is the correct unit for what the customer needs to know, and better still would be an estimated cost of gasoline per year under typical driving conditions and pounds of greenhouse gases expelled.

Until the EPA fixes this misleading system we can only conclude that they don't really have the customer's best interest in mind.

Re:Still waiting for sane *units* from the EPA.

[Overzeetop]

Well, actually, gallons per mile is difficult to determine as well, since you'll be dealing with small decimals all the time.

Litres per 100km makes for nice numbers, but it's metric, and we Americans can't understand metric. I think it's biological.

Also, how could I figure out how many miles my car can go on a tank of gas if I didn't have a mpg number? Remember, we've stopped teaching our children math, so there's no possible way we could invert the gal/100mi figure and get anything close to the right answer. Even worse, if I found out my truck used 8gal/100mi, I'd suddenly realize that a simple 25 mile round-trip to the discount mega-mart would cost me almost $6 in fuel. That just doesn't seem right to spend $6 to save a nickel on a pack of gum. The whole American society might collapse under the weight of it all.

Re:Still waiting for sane *units* from the EPA.

[eh2o]

The whole American society might collapse under the weight of it all.

Precisely.

Re:How does this make the cars less cost effective

[Redbaran]

No, plugging these new numbers in makes the cars *appear* much less cost effective. The fact of the matter is that plenty of hybrid owners were actually reaching their posted fuel efficiency ratings, unlike gas-only cars which do not. Just like most generalizations, you aren't completely correct. My car is listed as 21 city, 29 highway. I don't do much city driving, but on the highway, I get 29mpg doing 85mph. I've reached as much as 34mpg doing the sweaty grandma routine (AKA: slow with no AC).

I suppose it all balances out though (as far as ratings "honesty" at least)... I "lost" 12 hp when the SAE standards changed and Acura had to redo the rating for my TL. At least they were correct on the mpg one (which is more important in my opinion).

For you

[tknd]

For you that's realistic. For me that's not. I do very little highway driving and mostly city. I'm only on the freeway for about 1 mile. Even so, I don't idle much because I have several options to tailor my 10-15 minute route to work. I usually pick the one where I have the best possibility of not stopping. That means avoiding long signal lights, especially busy left turn ones. Even when I do wait on a light, I only sit for a few seconds to maybe 10 to 15 seconds max. There's no parking lot traffic in my route either. Given that, these new ratings match my actual mpg I've seen with my Honda Civic. Previously the ratings were far too high for me and I had a lot of trouble even coming close on a normal drive around town.

Now, I suppose I could alter my route to include lots of long idles, but then it'd take 5 to 10 more minutes to get to and from work.

More realistic testing?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this testing any more realistic? In the city cars DO spend a fair amount of time stopped. Not only that, but time spent at a stop with the engine off does NOT inflate the mpg rating, as you aren't spending any fuel, but you also aren't moving any more miles.

A/C versus open windows

[name_already_taken]

Do you drive with your windows down or the air-conditioner on a lot (it creates more drag or needs more energy to use)?

I've read that modern car air conditioning uses less energy than the additional aerodynamic drag created by driving with the windows open - although if the car is moving at low speed or sitting still then the economical choice is the windows, although they don't work as well to cool the interior of a car stopped or moving at low speed, unless it there is a good wind.

Air conditioning systems have undergone steady improvements in efficiency (cycling clutch, better temperature and pressure controls, variable displacement compressors, etc), whereas open windows (as a cooling device) have generally not been made more efficient.

Re:A/C versus open windows

[SoCalChris]

I would argue that windows have become far less efficient at cooling car interiors than in the past.

Have you ever driven an older car that has wing windows? Or how about one that has vents that you can open, that let fresh air blow right on your lap/torso area.

My first car was a 57 Ford sedan that had both of those, and growing up in a desert area of Southern California, it did a good enough job of keeping me cool that I never wished for a car with air conditioning.

Modern cars are very noisy with their windows open, and don't provide a good stream of fresh air moving through the cabin without using the climate control system.

Re:A/C versus open windows

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, AC can be more efficient than opening the windows. However, every car I've owned, including the convertible I own now, is more efficient when I have the top down/windows open. It really isn't even close (~10-15% difference). There may be other factors that add to it, but just try it yourself. I'm sure most people will find the same thing.

Re:A/C versus open windows

[autophile]

I would argue that windows have become far less efficient at cooling car interiors than in the past.

Oh, Slashdot. Must you always bash Microsoft?

--Rob

Those "new" stats are also junk

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

Those new EPA ratings are just as worthless as the old ones. My wifes 06 Civic (non Hybrid) gets 40MPG easy in the city. Everyone I know who owns one sees the same kind of mileage. So, I'd have to not trust those numbers just as much as the old ones.

Dude, I poured in an extra gallon last night...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funnier than you think when done to the right person.

And few college friends and I actually did that to a real anal-retentive guy who lived near us and had just bought a new car and liked to brag about how it got great gas mileage. So every week or so for about two months we poured some extra gas into his tank at night. He went around telling everyone how great his new car was.

Then we stopped.

He went absolutely bat-shit-crazy trying to figure out what was "wrong" with his car - he took it to back to the dealer a bunch of times and called them all kind of names when they didn't find anything wrong. Then he started taking his car to some "specialist".

All because his gas mileage dropped from 42 MPG to 31 or somesuch. :-)

Is it really worse?

[madsheep]

I know I am bit late here as there's already like 200 replies but here we go anyway. First, if the system has been flawed this whole time, it will also reduce the estimate mileage for a non-hybrid vehicle. So if a Hybrid rated at 60 mpg loses 10 mpg.. that's at 16.6% drop. If a car rated at 20 mpg loses 3 mpg tha's a 15% drop. You're looking at about the same cost-efficiency at this point.

In any event, why do people always complaina bout the EPA rating. You've known how it's been done for a while. You basically have a comparison of cars at their same "unrealistic" measurement. So you know your car Y is X-times better/worse than car Z in this test. Who relies on a single set of tests for their data anyway. EPA updating it to be more realistic is great, as it will probably more accurately report the mileage. But it still won't be perfect, so what? Guess how long it takes to test your gas mileage yourself? I don't know.. a week on average? How long does it takes you to fill up all the way, reset the meter, and wait for the gas light to be on for a while? Not rocket science and there's plenty of websites of car owners that report what they're actually getting.

Re:Is it really worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though the old EPA mileage was precise enough to compare two vehicles, its lack of accuracy caused car manufacturers to design the car around the test. For example, transmissions are designed around the EPA's test speed of 48-60 mph in order to get the best mileage possible. Many expressways in the U.S. have speed limits in excess of 70 mph penalizing drivers' fuel economy. This new set of standards will force automotive designers to design around more realistic driving conditions.

Re:Is it really worse?

[dspyder]

I think you're missing the point. This test is significantly worse for hybrids. You can argue if it was designed to target them specifically or not, but the fact is that the numbers coming out of it are so far more in line with real-world reports... for whatever reason...

Global Warming is bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your sticker for your V8 before it's too late - http://www.justgofaster.com/

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

With a 5 speed, the 99 hp is more than enough to pull the 2300lb car during normal driving. The automatic is a sluggish boat, though.

Setbacks for the uber-green agenda

[mi]

This comes as a second setback to the uber-greens in so many months. First their much-touted ethanol turns out to be not just more expensive, but also more polluting than gasoline. I mean, just they as seemed to have prevailed over the vast right-wing — err, scratch that for a second — vast oil-companies' conspiracy against ethanol, out come these nasty findings, and — to add a good insult to the injury — that awesome fella on the island near Florida comes out raging against using food (corn) to run cars. Not that the fella or his island are going to get hurt any more than they are already hurting, mind you, but a good friend of his, who can't be talking on these issues himself due to, uhm, a conflict of interest, certainly appreciates any sympathetic concern.

And now the, supposedly, ultra-efficient hybrid cars turn out to be along the lines of the decent non-hybrid gasoline and diesel ones in fuel economy, while lagging in internal space and ease of maintenance, and being thousands of dollars more expensive...

Not that I don't share their concerns for the environment, mind you, but many of these people's methods and other goals make it rather hard not to gloat.

Re:Setbacks for the uber-green agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

FINALLY... the word is getting out about this. It takes more energy to make ethonal than it creates! If you really care about the environment then you should recognize that ethonal is absolute crap. Protecting the environment is great; but these people need to stop doing it so blindly. Movement for the sake of movement isn't progress - if greenies want to be taken seriously they need to do some serious research and start supporting technologies that actually work. Like the new Tesla electric car, that thing is amazing. I'd drive one.

Re:Setbacks for the uber-green agenda

[Speedracer1870]

It seems to me that in this country all cars MUST make some kind of statement about you. "I drive a Hummer so I'm overcompensating." "I drive a soybean-electric-solar car that gets 200 mpg so that makes me a better person than you." Why not just get a reasonable vehicle for adequate transportation and put your statement on a bumber sticker?

Re:Setbacks for the uber-green agenda

[mi]

It seems to me that in this country all cars MUST make some kind of statement about you. "I drive a Hummer so I'm overcompensating." "I drive a soybean-electric-solar car that gets 200 mpg so that makes me a better person than you." Why not just get a reasonable vehicle for adequate transportation and put your statement on a bumber sticker?

And what's wrong with using one's car to make a statement? I mean, using hair is Ok, using clothing is Ok. Piercing — sure, my dear libertine? But cars — no?

Our country is only "unique" in this, because we have, on average, more disposable income for this sort of thing :-)

I, for one, being a Unix-person, insisted on manual-transmission cars for years. When the even more Unixish cars with Diesel engines were (re)introduced, I switched to those (until the above-mentioned uber-greens have persuaded my State to ban the diesels as too polluting)...

Bumper-sticker? Eeewww... Have you ever seen a car with only one of those? Me neither...

test procedure

[cwerdna]

Yep. Also, the tests would need to be repeatable.

For a summary of the test procedure, see:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

One can also compare old and new MPG estimates at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYea r.jsp.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[pebs]

Maybe it's a geek thing you guys have goin on, but I have no flippin' idea what kinda mileage my non-hybrid car gets. I mean, seriously - who the heck cares? I get regular maintenance, make sure the tires are inflated, and fill it up when its low on gas. What exactly would I do with this mileage number if I took the time and effort to log my miles at every fillup? Brag about it? Post it on slashdot? Worry about why it is 5mpg below what was on the sticker? I have better things to do with my time.

Well for one thing, I want to make sure there is nothing wrong with my car that I am getting much worse mileage than expected. I don't check it every time, but I do check it periodically to make sure its consistent. I also care about the environmental effect, so I want to make sure my car isn't burning up excess gas and thus putting out more emissions than it normally should. Sure, regular maintenance should take care of most things, but other things can and do go wrong with peoples' vehicles that adversely affect their fuel consumption.

I mean, is it really that hard to divide two numbers with a calculator? Does it really take that much of your time to write down your miles traveled on your gas receipt and then calculate it later with a calculator? It takes me all of 30 seconds maybe. Is 30 seconds really such a huge chunk of your important time?

Weird engine warm-up period?

[zooblethorpe]

I thought the key to getting good mileage with a hybrid was understanding how to drive it properly and, when that was done, folks were getting close to the listed mileage.

Just for the record, we bought a 2005 Prius in June '05, and have had plenty of time to learn how to drive it. And we're getting pretty much exactly the revised mileage figures, and *not* the older 60-55mpg EPA estimates. Frankly, I've never seen a full-tank average of better than 52mpg, and that we got on a road trip when we spent the bulk of one full day driving gradually downhill from altitude. Most regular in-town driving gives us full-tank averages of ~45mpg.

One oddity that makes me scratch my head is how it takes a while for the engine to "warm up". I'll be toodling around and spending a lot of time on the electric, getting 50+mpg, but as soon as I turn the engine off and turn it back on, even if it's just off and on again immediately, the computer control system likes to run heavy on the gas for about 5-10 minutes before I'll start seeing more time using the electric again. This sure doesn't look like any temperature issue, but more something to do with how the computer parameters are set up.

Anyway, just my $0.02.

Blow job?

[Das Auge]

You seem to be knowledgeable about the Hummer. Please, can you tell me why they named a car after a blow job?

And, more importantly, when can I expect the Intercourse model?

Re:Blow job?

[Mattintosh]

Google knows all.

HUMMV -> Humvee -> Hummer is the approximate progression of acronym-to-slang-to-brand-name over the past 20 years or so.

Diesel and Detroit

[JimBobJoe]

Detroit just doesn't like diesel. The executives are gasoline fans, always will be.

You will find that Detroit had a massive experiment with Diesels in the 1970s and it was a total disaster (badly designed engines.) Because of that, the American consumer was quite scarred and wouldn't touch Diesel for decades.

Chances are those scars are gone now and Diesels can be re-entertained. Low-sulphur diesel is finally here stateside, and GM has plenty of experience with diesels in its European divisions (Opel, Saab, etc.)

FTA: "...could even surpass the EPA ratings"

[bastia]

I found that last comment from the article a bit odd. They've dropped the rating on the Prius to 48/45/46. I suppose that I do a mix of driving: some local start and stop around 35 MPH, a lot of commuting on interstates (65 - 80 MPH) and state highways (50 - 60 MPH).

Over the past two years, I generally average much closer to 50 MPG. During the winter (worse battery efficiency), it's closer to 45 MPG. During the the rest of the year, it's generally more like 52 MPG. I don't drive like a maniac, but I'm not super careful about squeezing every last bit of efficiency out of the car. I'm not sure what you'd need to drive like to pull the Prius numbers much below the new figures.

But, yeah, the new numbers look more realistic than the old numbers. :-)

Driving Habits Driving Habits Driving Habits!

[mvea]

I actually find it quite amusing that some people feel like they're getting "great mileage" on their hybrid Priuses when they break the 40mpg barrier. I was able to do 44mpg on the highway and just shy of 40mpg city pretty regularly in my '98 Camry (regular 4 cylinder version). It really boils down to how driving habits affect fuel efficiency. The only reason I lost that performance was putting the roof rack on which drastically impaired my coefficient of drag. All you hybrid owners had better be breaking 60mpg ... otherwise it tells me you just mash your accelerator and hope the technology saves you the gas. Gas savings comes from both ends - both the engineered technology AND efficient driving. Just as everyone likes to deride those who offset their living with "Carbon Credits", so do the rest of us when we see someone driving a hybrid like a moron.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[onemorechip]

rollers

It's called a dynamometer and it presents a controlled load. The air resistance is determined from the drag coefficient (which can be gotten by wind tunnel testing) and the cross-sectional area, and this load is applied to the engine via the dynamometer. It's accurate as far as modeling real-world no-wind conditions. Head- and tail-winds can also be modeled, in principle, although the EPA tests don't do that. Crosswinds seriously change the effective drag coefficient and cross-sectional area so modeling this would require additional data.

data is off

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about damn time the EPA revised their ridiculously inaccurate tests. The data has been off for years, for all cars.

Yep, for my 2006 Dodge Grand Caravan (yes, slightly off-topic, thus posted AC) the rating is apparently:

EPA Fuel Economy: City: 18 - 19 Highway: 25 - 26

Here in Toronto I average about 15-16 MPG, it's dropped as low as 12 MPG. Took a long road-trip and it did get up into the 25's for ONE tank, out of a dozen or so, with an average more like 24.

For the record, it's virtually brand-new, the tire pressure is perfect, it gets regular oil-changes, and even after a good thorough break-in, upon returning to Toronto we're back around 16 MPG.

I'd love to drive something more efficient, but we needed the caravan in order to install a ramp, as my son needs a wheelchair.

What's Saturn doing wrong?

[wift]

It also leads to the question why Saturn hybrid mileage so poor in comparison to the other's.

A 4 mpg difference from the hybrid to the gas-only one??

Re:What's Saturn doing wrong?

[Planesdragon]

GM's hybrid is a simple matter -- just a few accessory bits added on to the extant drive train.

This is done intentionally, as GM has again and again looked at hybrids as "boondoggles" -- an awful lot of additional parts and fault-points for not all that much gain.

Mod parent troll

[dharbee]

"The same thing that's wrong about wanting to club baby seals."

Wait, so burning some fuel is equivalent to thoughtlessly mangling defenseless animals. Yeah I can see that you've spent some time thinking about this one...

"Some distorted minds may consider it fun, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be supported or even legal."

Well, based on your previous comment, you're a pretty piss-poor judge. I think equating clubbing baby seals with burning fuel to be far more of a sign of a "distorted mind", therefore, you should not share your opinion ever again.

"Why does Joe need to get his kicks on the back of everyone else, including the environment? Can't he go to a gym and punch a bag for a while?"

No. Why should he have to? Because irrational trolls like you are so disconnected from reality that hey equate driving a car with CLUBBING BABY SEALS?

WTF is wrong with you...

Re:Mod parent troll

[Stoertebeker]

Wait, so burning some fuel is equivalent to thoughtlessly mangling defenseless animals.

Exactly!

Thoughtlessly burning fuel _is_ mangling defenseless animals. Just not quite so directly and dramatically as clubbing the baby seal.

I was trying to make a point by an overdrawn analogy. Apparently you missed that. I could have made it more clear.

You can't go around doing anything you want to just because you want to. There is a cost associated with anything you do. And with burning gasoline, it is far more than just the cost you pay for the gas! (acid rain, global warming, respiratory diseases, that sort of stuff) This affects everybody, not just Joe. So if Joe wants to have fun, he should do it without hurting anybody.

Now, I understand that in todays society, everybody needs to burn fuel for lots of things (i.e. heating, getting to work, etc). But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!

Re:Mod parent troll

[demonlapin]

You're both wrong, you know; the baby seals are clubbed specifically so that they won't be mangled. Pelt's more valuable that way.

running away very very fast...

Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money...

[Slugster]

...Also I just got my $3000+ tax refund check - thanks to my prius...

Here's a fun question:

If hybrid cars are so much more fuel-efficient than regular cars, then why does the government need to pay you $3000 to buy one?
Presumably a car that's more fuel-efficient would cost less to operate, right?


I'm generally for polluting less and less foreign oil dependency and all, but I tend to wonder--why did some (-okay, a couple-) states think they had to hide the true cost of ownership?...
~

Re:Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money...

[mink]

The tax refund (the one I am thinking of anyway) is Federal, not state.

As for why it's there, I guess it's there for the same reason buying an SUV (over 6K Lbs.) can get you a $25K tax credit.

ObFuturama

[Greyfox]

You seem to be leaking coolant at an alarming rate. Here, let me seal that for you with my hot glue gun...

It's not just about MPG

[gilesjuk]

It's about inner city pollution and noise pollution.

It's not good having cars sitting there ticking over chugging out emissions.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[AK Marc]

It's called a dynamometer and it presents a controlled load.

The test uses rollers. One specific type of rollers is a dynamometer. However, the one and only one function of a dyno is measuring power/torque. If you aren't measuring power, but instead are introducing some pre-programmed load and measuring fuel consumption, it is no longer a dyno. The rollers of a dyno then are just plain rollers.

The sky is not quite falling

[foxtrot]

The real numbers probably won't be as bad as the article implies.

a) Current EPA tests were designed a while ago, back when the national speed limit was 55 mph.
b) Manufacturers currently design vehicles to do well on the EPA test, not in everyday use. This means the drivetrain is geared so that the engine is at its optimal efficiency at about 50mph (the EPA's highway test averages 48 mph!)

This means, yes, your 2006 Prius will probably get similar numbers to what's in this article-- it's designed to beat the old test, but being driven under real-world conditions that the new test intends to replicate.

This means a 2009 Prius will probably do better than the numbers in this article: It will have a higher top gear, and thus won't spin the engine nearly as fast to tool along at normal highway speeds.

The best thing about this test isn't that we'll get accurate fuel economy figures out of it. The best thing about this new test is the auto manufacturers will now be designing vehicles to get their best fuel economy in conditions that more closely match what we really do out there on the roads.

-F

Re:The sky is not quite falling

[foxtrot]

Of course, I should note: While test _more closely_ match reality, they're still not there yet. For example, the new "high-speed" test does hit 80 MPH. It also _still_ averages 48 mph...

-F

Geek Fight!! Lightning Bolt! Lightning bolt!!

[Slugster]

SLEEP!!!.....

...I can do 30-40 miles on my first 1.5 liters of water + .5 liters of gatoraid. That works out to 57-76 mpg....

Yes but you see--Gatorade costs more than gasoline (at least today, anyway).
A motorized bicycle with a 25cc 4-cycle engine would get around 200 to 225 or so MPG.
A half-liter of Gatorade costs what, $1.30? At the moment (on the US Gas Temperature Map) most of the US is between about $3.05 and $3.31/gal... so $1.30 would buy about 40% of a gallon of regular.
That should get you at least around 80 miles on the motorized bike, and the motorized bike will be cruising at 25+ MPH. If you held it down to 18-20 MPH (a typical bicycle speed) the MPG of the motor-bicycle would be even somewhat higher....
~

Except for a few errors

[Flying pig]

It isn't really an Atkinson cycle engine, just an ordinary crankshaft SI engine with asymmetric valve timing.

The European Mitsubishi Colt gets about the same real world MPG as the Prius. It has a 94BHP 3-cylinder advanced turbodiesel engine with no batteries to lug about, a Tiptronic gearbox, conventional steel construction and still gets 121g CO2 per mile. The dust to dust cost is far lower than a Prius because (a) steel needs less energy to make than aluminum and (b) it only needs a small lead acid starter battery. And it will cruise all day at 90+mph where legal.

The Prius is largely the consequence of the strange meteorology of Los Angeles, the Californian approach to emission control, and the Japanese coming late to advanced Diesel development.

Re:Except for a few errors

[AKAImBatman]

It isn't really an Atkinson cycle engine, just an ordinary crankshaft SI engine with asymmetric valve timing.

That's not what just about every source of info on the 1NZ-FXE engine states, including Toyota's press releases.

http://www.pressroom.com.au/pressroom/sample/press kits/priuskit.htm#2
http://www.pressroom.com.au/pressroom/sample/press kits/priuskit.htm#8
http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-petrol-e ngine
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en/petrol_engine .html
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/Hybrid04.pdf

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but everyone else is calling it Atkinson's cycle. And if I understand the Atkinson cycle correctly, an "engine with asymmetric timings" is exactly what that cycle entails.

The European Mitsubishi Colt gets about the same real world MPG as the Prius. It has a 94BHP 3-cylinder advanced turbodiesel engine with no batteries to lug about, a Tiptronic gearbox, conventional steel construction and still gets 121g CO2 per mile. The dust to dust cost is far lower than a Prius because (a) steel needs less energy to make than aluminum and (b) it only needs a small lead acid starter battery. And it will cruise all day at 90+mph where legal.

*Ahem* "Diesel". Diesel almost always gets better mileage than gasoline. Unfortunately, there are eco-laws that make turbo-diesels impractical here in the states. That's why we need technologically sophisticated vehicles like the Prius.

Re:Except for a few errors

[jafac]

AFAIK - the eco-law situation about diesels was represented by a HOLE in the EPA emissions laws, and the mandate for manufacturers to switch to ULSD (Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel). Between about 2003 and 2007, diesels could not meet emissions standards without adding new controls equipment; which could not operate on the crappy-quality diesel fuel in the US. (sulfur would poison the catalyst - just like Lead additives did in the 1970's to gasoline catalytic converters). . . until 2007, when manufacturers were forced (by law) to improve the quality of their diesel fuel.

Now that ULSD is available (by mandate) diesels with advance emissions controls can be sold. And a new era of diesel cars in the US is being born.

Unfortunately, it's made Biodiesel nearly impossible to find since Jan 2007. (yes, you *can* find it, but not as readily available as it used to be - and a lot more expensive too.)

Diesel is PART of the solution to the problem. Hybrid technology is another VERY important part of the solution. Newer battery technologies - I think, are probably going to figure-in heavily in the near future.

Electric/Hydrogen cars, GO!

[TheDarkener]

That's something we won't have to worry about with a MPG smearing campaign.

Or oil, at all.

Time to make a change!!

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[maxume]

They could add a 'real world' set of numbers by driving at different speeds and stopping and starting on a track. It's a bit harder though, as the driver has to pay attention 100% of the time.

Real, real world numbers

[LoudMusic]

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/

They've got a pretty impressive database of information going. I'd say lowering those two cars 11 and 12 miles per gallon is a bit aggressive.

40 MPG in a Diesel VW Jetta TDI

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought a US 2006 VW Jetta TDI diesel. I have only driven it 200 miles. The car computer shows me about 40 MPG at 75 MPH on a flat, no wind trip. The simplicity of the turbo diesel over a Prius hybrid is another selling point. I suspect more diesels will be hitting the market soon as they can meet the low sulfur requirements.

Re:40 MPG in a Diesel VW Jetta TDI

[pclminion]

And you're burning biodiesel in it, right?

Re:40 MPG in a Diesel VW Jetta TDI

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an owner of a 2002 diesel jetta tdi, I just got +/- 42 mpg. thats a combination of mostly highway driving and my daily commute to work (8 miles one way). I manage to drive 75-85 on the highway, no ac and its an auto. I highly recommend a tdi to anyone.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I got 37 miles per gallon on the highway with my 87 honda accord 5spd. I miss that car...... I want a fully electric car though. I almost never drive more than 10 miles at a time these days, and when I do, it's rarely more than 130-140 miles. *sigh* Maybe someday they'll make a Tesla sedan that isn't 92k?

Re: Hybrids

[pavera]

While you debunked most of his arguments, you failed to mention the battery replacement issue. I went shopping for a hybrid and decided against it for this very reason. All of the money you save in gas plus some more gets eaten up when you replace the batteries. I had a toyota dealership tell me "The batteries are rated for 8 years, but we've had people have them go bad and need to be replaced after just 2. And the batteries aren't covered under any warranty beyond 1 year." The same dealership told me the price for the battery pack was $4500. That is not acceptable, that is like replacing the engine every 2-8 years.

Now let's fix the other issues.

[kinglink]

Ok this is an improvement, but allow me to point out another blotch on the EPA testing...

Information available http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm

Apparently the highway test is done at a maximum of 60 miles and hour and an average of 48 miles an hour? I don't know anyone who drives on the highway like that.

Apparently they also have all accessories off. AC? nope. Radio? Nope. Weather? 75 degrees.

Let's face facts, the EPA mileage estimates are bubcas. We have manufactures tailoring their cars to tests rather then the way ACTUAL people drive. I think it's time to demand the EPA revamp their entire testing procedures and not just trying to randomly estimate.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

To do a comparison between two IONs is nice, and to compare the Ion to the SL may seem somewhat reasonable, but really isn't.

First, look at the power output of the two engines: 1.9L 124hp SL to 2.2L 145hp ION for the base engines.
Now what about the vehicle weight? The ION is heavier too.
Gear ratios? My best guess is that the ION has a lower final drive ratio to help with highway driving.

So let's add up the difference. More power + heavier + slightly better final drive ratio.
I think you're lucky you get the milage you're getting. GM does make efficient cars and they are getting better - you may not think so because you only see that one car gets better milage than another but don't stop to think about why.

Seems fairly close

[smchris]

We aren't getting the legendary city mileage with our Prius so those new numbers are still a little high for us. But the highway numbers are equally low. So: about right.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[bcattwoo]

Far as i know they still test EPA mileage ratings by using an exhaust sniffer and rollers.... indoors.... it fails to account for AIR RESISTANCE! Apparently, the air resistance and weight of that car is accounted for in the resistance of the rollers. Obviously, if they didn't do this their numbers would be even more wildly off, i.e. SUVs and cars with the same engine would give the same numbers, which they don't.

Driving cars on different days, at different weather and traffic conditions would never pass QA. The indoor, well-controlled tests provide a standardized way of comparing one car to another. The EPA needs to have well-controlled experiments to cover its ass. Real world numbers can be obtained from the site linked above.

Hybrids and Compact Fluorescents; An anology

[Borland]

For myself, my approach to Hybrids is the same as my approach to CF bulbs. I view them as a benefit to me on a selfish level. A CF bulb uses 1/3 to 1/4 the power and provides the same amount of Lumens. I don't have to bestir my ass for 5-7 years to change them unless there is a manufacturing flaw.

My next car will be a hybrid. Not because I think the change will save the Earth, but because I don't have to fuel up as often. Like CFs, the cost premium for this choice is decreasing over time. But I'm not going back to a lawn mower on wheels ('89 Tercel) like my last car before my Civic. I want my hybrid to provide the same experience, but use less gas.

There are reasons for people to avoid CF bulbs: Some feel headaches or see flicker. Those reasons I accept. But I think it's perfectly fine to evangelize to people that couldn't tell the difference. I think eschewing equal benefits for less cost is silly and I'll probably say so in a conversation about it.

But zealots of any stripe have to learn that civilization entails waste. And unless you want to employ violence, you probably will not get someone to change by personal insults.
Just because Hummer drivers have small dicks, doesn't mean they will respond favorably to that observation. Go for the "what's in it for me" angle, if you actually wish to change minds. Unless your cause is retarded, there usually is a benefit to following it. Failing that, get Congress to pass a law raising the CAFE standard and loop SUVs in with cars.

Hard as that might sound, it's infinitely easier than spouting high minded ideals and expecting people to follow them.

Prime Minister's Question Time

[PHAEDRU5]

"I refer you to my comments of some moments ago."

Re:Prime Minister's Question Time

[pebs]

Wondering if you are just trolling here, I looked at your comment history and discovered you are disbeliever of the whole man-made global warming thing. That's fine, I'm actually a skeptic of that myself. But with vehicle emissions I am more worried about local air pollution than a global threat. I live in a city that does have poor air, and in these areas we do need vehicles that produce lower emissions. In my city at least half the people here drive huge trucks or SUVs so its especially disgusting.

Re:Prime Minister's Question Time

[stratjakt]

I don't live in that city, neither does the large majority of the American population.

Why does the farmer in Oklahoma have to drive the same vehicle as the hippie in LA?

I don't think people realize that the USA is a big country. Bigger than what they've seen. Most people assume that their experience is the "norm", and fail to realize there is no "norm". Different people have different needs.

OT, I'd love to see the clown-car prius with 5 guys and their bikes riding inside.

Re:Prime Minister's Question Time

[pebs]

I don't live in that city, neither does the large majority of the American population.

Why does the farmer in Oklahoma have to drive the same vehicle as the hippie in LA?

That's why I was talking about MY city, dipshit. Not everyone's situation is the same. And I don't live in California.

OT, I'd love to see the clown-car prius with 5 guys and their bikes riding inside.

If you have 5 guys in a Prius, you would use a bike rack to hold the bikes (not inside). Which you would have understood if you had read my posts in this thread.

Re:Prime Minister's Question Time

[stratjakt]

So everything you said was irrelevant. My bad. I thought you were trying to add to the discussion, instead you were bragging about your (COMPLETELY LAME) car.

"SSSSttthaaanks.. I do my part for mother earth. (snifffff)"

Re:Prime Minister's Question Time

[pebs]

So everything you said was irrelevant. My bad. I thought you were trying to add to the discussion, instead you were bragging about your (COMPLETELY LAME) car.

"SSSSttthaaanks.. I do my part for mother earth. (snifffff)"

Where did I say I own one? I don't own a Prius (or any hybrid for that matter), though I've done plenty of research on it including renting and driving them. I'd take a Prius over a fucking Ford Explorer any day of the week, even if I had to pay $30k for one.

I think the OP's argument for owning an Explorer and not a hybrid are not particularly compelling (poor excuses rather than valid reasons). Sure, there are valid reasons, but he didn't list any.

For someone who posts as frequently as you do, I expected a better rip on the Prius than "COMPLETELY LAME". I mean, come on, you can do better than that. And, yeah, we've all seen that South Park episode.

In any case, the OP was talking about Atlanta where my comments about air pollution would apply.

Re: Hybrids

[AK Marc]

battery replacement at year 8
There is currently no plan for the recycling of these batteries.

My understanding is (from the consumer point of view) that the batteries are all standard batteries (NiMH and such) that are all easily recyclable at any regular recycling facility. Also, Honda is currently replacing all the batteries for free. Perhaps the problem isn't hybrids, but a problem with Toyota. Honda had plans for the batteries before bringing the cars to market.

Most hybrids I see on the freeway are exceeding 70mph and are changing lanes frequently.

Most cars I see of any type I see on the freeway are exceeding 70 mph and changing lanes frequently. Or are you somehow claiming that in your area, no one drives over 70 mph or changes lanes frequently unless they are in a hybrid.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[MightyYar]

I had the 5-speed - and the three-door. Face it, man, that car is a pig :) I loved it as my commuting car, but I didn't relish fighting my way through the SUVs on the highway. My point wasn't to disparage your car, but to point out that you have always been able to buy a tiny little car with a tiny little engine. The appeal of the hybrids is that you can have performance AND efficiency. Seriously, when you can get 40MPG around town in an Escape hybrid while you only get 28MPG in the Saturn... that's pretty good!

Re: Hybrids

[drinkypoo]

False. The batteries in a Prius are no more toxic than any other battery. Also, they can be **completely** recycled at end of life.

You are simply wrong about this. An ordinary car battery contains plates of lead covered in lead phosphate and submerged in sulfuric acid. Pretty toxic, but it doesn't take much energy to make. The nickel metal batteries have a nickel electrode and contain a more complex and even more toxic electrolyte. In particular the mining and refining of Nickel is a horribly energy-intensive and polluting process. The Prius batteries are both more toxic and require more energy for production than a common lead-acid battery found in an average car.

Anything can be completely recycled, but sometimes it is not profitable to do so. It will be interesting to find out what actually happens with the prius batteries.

Amen! Let me tell you about my Prius.

[Weaselmancer]

I own an '07 Prius and I can tell you that you're 100% on target with your whole post.

Mine is currently getting an overall average of 53mpg. That number is about 80/20 highway/city driving. That isn't too far off from the numbers Toyota advertises for the Prius. And I don't drive any particular way, either. I just drive. Usually about 5mph over the speed limit.

Took my wife on vacation a week or so ago. Drove I77 both ways through the Virginias, through the mountains. My mpg dropped to 49. To cross mountains with an Atkinson engine! Not too bad at all.

My Prius is quick, clean, and whisper quiet. When it wears out, I'm buying another one. It really is the best engineered car I've ever been in.

I take your point...

[PHAEDRU5]

I do take your point.

The reason I'm so hot against the Prius is that one night when I was leaving a meeting of Atlanta Freenet, I found that two of the granola types at the meeting had parked their Prii on either side of my Explorer. As we were leaving, they heaped scorn on it, while sniffing their farts, until I said "Good night!", got in, and drove away.

I confess, I won't buy a Prius because I simply can't stand the smell of my farts.

I will take a look at the Subaru. That said, I've had the ford 10 years, and it has served me well. All I do is keep changing the fluids and tires.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[bhmit1]

Being aware of suddenly lower mileage has caught a cracked temp sensor and a battery that was starting to leak acid. If you want to make less of a negative impact on the world and like to catch problems with your car before you're broken down on the side of the highway, it's a good thing to check. It's easy, always fill the tank all the way up, reset your trip counter as you drive off, and at the first stop light out of the station divide a few numbers (lots of cell phones have a calculator). I don't see any time wasted or lost.

Conversion from electric joules to petrol gallons?

[tepples]

A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself. But how much carbon does the generator that recharges a total electric vehicle produce? Electric vehicles are not zero-emission vehicles but emission-displacing vehicles. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as economies of scale allow efficient control of emissions that are displaced to a single acre.) Is there a useful conversion from charging joules to petrol gallons that would give a reasonable estimate of the emission impact of an electric vehicle in familiar units (that is, mi/gal or cL/km)?

You missed a spot

[Overzeetop]

1. A recent study (I'm not going to like it, it was on /. last week) noted that conservative driving resulted in mileage similar to most hybrids, and comes primarily from reducing the use of brakes. By not using brakes in a hybrid, you rob the batteries of the energy from regenrative breaking. Not driving at high speeds, and not maximizing your acceleration also helps. In otherwords, smart driving will always help, but it helps a hybrid driver far less (becuase they already conserve that energy - you don't get to double dip)

2. The batteries ARE more toxic than those in a normal car. Automobiles use lead-acid batteries, which are bad; Hybrids use Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries, which are worse. And they use more of them, to boot. All batteries should be recycled, so that size is somewhat equal.

3. IF the vehicle has lots of aluminum (vs steel) then the energy cost of manufacturing is higher. Also, I wasn't aware that all these manufacturers created parts in Japan. I thought they mostly came from China and Mexico, and were shipped to the US for assembly - at least that's what the country-of-origin stickers say.

4. GPcould be lying about the drop off in year 6, but why would he bother? The fact is that all of the warranties are gone (including Fed mandated emissions components), and the batteries will need to be replaced soon. Since each battery has a $200 "bounty" built into the price, you're looking at a cash outlay larger than a new transmission to keep the car running.

5. Recycling is good.

What if your current lifestyle is not sustainable?

[PHAEDRU5]

"Earth First! We can log the other planets later!"

Re: Hybrids

[PatrickThomson]

Damn, thanks man. I was just going to carry on skimming the comments, and in a week all I'd remember is that hybrids are ironically worse than regular cars.

This could be an accident of writing, but I'm calling it for astroturf. The grandparent is too eloquent and literate to have been from a troll or a moron who'd genuinely make these mistakes.

Keep the old numbers

[PPH]

the old, over-inflated ratings were higher in part because the cars idled a lot, allowing the hybrids to completely turn off their engines

But that's real world driving where I live. Our city planners have taken to de-synchronizing traffic lights in order to calm traffic and make streets more pedestrian friendly (Bad move. Some locals have figured that they can make it through the greens at 60 MPH in a 35 zone). This is where hybrids do their best and it is becoming realistic as well.

New Prius Numbers Are About Right

[kmassare]

I do a 20 mile daily commute, mostly on the freeway, and typically get around 48 MPG in my 2004 Prius. My wife's typical drive ranges between 3-7 miles in a 50-50 freeway/in town environment and she normally gets about 42 MPG in her 2006 Prius. I believe that her lower mileage is mostly due to the computer running the gasoline engine almost continuously for the first 5 minute of operation in order to heat up the catalytic converter. During longer road trips she averages closer to 47 MPG. All-in-all I think that the new EPA calculations are much more realistic. Incidentally, my Prius' cost was about $1500 more than a comparably equipped Toyota Camry and I believe that I have already recovered the cost difference on the 2004.

Yup

[Gorimek]

Also, due to global warming, the outside air just doesn't cool as well these days.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're being sarcastic, because the difference between 90 and 92 degrees fahrenheit is not much. goddamn smelly hippies.

Re:Yup

[Eternauta3k]

I hope you're being sarcastic, because the difference between 90 and 92 degrees fahrenheit is not much.

Phileas Fogg would disagree.

Re:Yup

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just referring to a possible difference in temperature (relative to the situation of sitting in a car with the windows rolled down.) Why should we care about a man who doesn't even understand earth rotation.

Fuel efficiency isn't everything.

[tepples]

if you compare apples to apples (that is, if you could make an Apple-powered car) At least it's better than a Microsoft-powered car.

a human weighs around 200 pounds, while a car is around 3000 pounds. Humans travel at like 15MPH However, the slower speed and the smaller mass translate into a big disadvantage in collisions. How much of the energy spent on a bike is spent on anxiety when being repeatedly passed on a road with a 40 mph (65 km/h) limit and without a dedicated bike lane that is the only nearby road that crosses a given river? And how much cargo (e.g. groceries) can a bike carry? And aren't most bikes unsuitable for carrying passengers (e.g. children who are not yet old enough to watch themselves at home)?

Humans still consume a big fraction of biking energy while driving cars and need an air conditioner in closed space, decreasing the effective fuel efficiency.

But bikes don't have much climate control at all, especially when I have to bike to work under both 30 deg F (-1 deg C) and 90 deg F (32 deg C) conditions during various parts of the year.

True, bicycles are more fuel efficient than automobiles in situations where they are appropriate, but they're not right for every situation.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Pontiac]

Hey man nobody made you get a 180,000,000 HP vehicle
You just had to have something better than your neighbors corvette didn't ya?

Honey can you fire up the LOX generator? I need to go to the store..
No I won't drive the $%#$ minivan!

Idling?

[regular_gonzalez]

I fail to see how the engine turning off during idling increases mileage or how lessening that factor will decrease the estimated MPG. Sure, you're not using any gas, but you're also not going anywhere! Using that logic, a Humvee that is never started would have better fuel efficiency then my wife's 3 cylinder Geo Metro.

Where the name Hummer comes from

[tepples]

Please, can you tell me why they named a car after a blow job? I don't know whether GM had sexual slang in mind, but at least the H, M, and M in "Hummer" stand for High Mobility Multipurpose.

*ALL* cars to get new ratings.

[Anonymous Freak]

It's not just hybrids. All 2008 model year cars will use the new testing scheme. The vast majority of cars will drop in MPG. Hybrids will drop a slightly higher percentage because the old test really was done in such a way as to 'unfairly' favor hybrids. The whole point of the new ratings is to match reality. The old ones were so far off reality, they took the raw data, and subtracted 15% to get the final numbers. The new test is supposedly good enough that they are just using the raw numbers the testing gives.

Under the old system, 3 of the 4 cars I have owned got worse gas mileage than the EPA estimates. The fourth actually got better. (Although it turns out that the fourth had a smaller engine than was advertised, and the manufacturer had to offer compensation to avoid a class action lawsuit about the deception.) I have checked the EPA's estimates for the same cars under the new system, and the 3 that were lower than the old numbers match almost exactly the new numbers.

Yes, one of them is a Prius. I get 45-50 MPG in it, depending on the season. (Worse in cooler weather, better in warmer.) So my real-world mileage should match the EPA's new numbers. Am I going to be upset because the sticker says a lower number? No. I'll be happy that I can finally reasonably rely on the sticker to tell me a reasonable estimate. Not some pie-in-the-sky number.

I also wonder about what this will do for CAFE standards... And car companies that advertise being environmentally friendly because x number of their models get 35 MPG or better, that will now have half those models drop below 35 MPG... Will they actually improve the cars? Will they just change their advertising to "30 MPG or better"? Or will they just give up and remove the newly degraded models from the list?

Highway is highway

[gelfling]

Of course it's realistic. Either it's a congestion/construction zone or you're moving. For the most part. And if traffic is traffic then every single car sitting at an intersection is getting exactly zero miles per gallon regardless. Hard to understand how that F250 next to you suffers less of a degradation of efficiency than a Prius.

But - aren't hybrids of two different basic designs? Don't some run on electric until they need extra power then the gasoline motor kicks in while others run on the gasoline motor until they add electric motor power? Seems to me that they're ignoring this critical difference.

mpg

[Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who has an 05 prius, (BTW they all are automatic, there is no stick avliable). The best they have gotten is about 47, thats pretty good but its rated about 60.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[Mattintosh]

But I doubt the GP's Saturn could reach escape velocity at all, at any rate of burn within its mechanical capabilities.

How's the 0-60 on that thing, anyway?

Re: Hybrids

[ShrapnelFace]

From the bottom up:

Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?
Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery.

Uh yeah. And then what? Just because they say its there doesn't mean it exists. The reality check is on you- I know for a fact that there will be piles of this just sitting around. The entire reason they discontinued the Rav4 is because they felt that it cost too much money to produce this vehicle and it was centered entirely around the batteries you quote.

Steep value in 6? I sure can being that car manufacturers innovate every 5 years, and the technology gets better. So you are trying to tell me that you want a shelf life 7 yr hybrid battery in a car with 100k + miles? Who would buy that? Where would you find a vehicle marketplace for that product? Granted I am not speaking to the person who drives 8k or less a year in miles, but a majority of drivers are in the 12-18k miles per year. So yes, I can prove this given the out-mode model, the battery expiration date of year 7, and the driver depreciation rate per mile.

Thanks for agreeing with #3

#2- All batteries are toxic. Its a high concentration of chemicals- and if it isnt, then why dont you plant one in your vegetable garden and feed yourself for a year on the plants you grow there (if they grow at all).

#1 on miles- I held back one fact. The original prius was designed on a maximum speed to efficiency of 55 mph ( I think it was something like 55.8 but I am not exactly sure what tenths it was). The recent prius was designed in much the same manner. The highest rate of efficiency was found at 30-40 mph, and the cliff of efficiency declined for every mile above that. Freeway speeds such as 70mph will IN FACT put you into the SUV mpg territory. And that is a single person no load condition. Load 4 passengers and all their gear for a 4 day weekend- and you are in fact at SUV MPG.

You Americans are so funny

[presidenteloco]

Why fix a problem (American cars SUCK (gas and in other ways),
when you can fix the perception of the problem way cheaper.

I'm sure this way of thinking (and clever lobbying of
politicians and government agencies) will definitely make
your auto industry get competitive again. Yup. Definitely gonna work.

Now excuse me while I step up into my beefy steroidal-looking TR-U-U-C-K!

And moving averages

[wsanders]

Or just run a moving average - add the mileage and gallons consumed up for the last 5 fill-ups and you will iron out any variations.

Useless data: 1999 Honda CR-V, varies from 21 to 25 MPG or so, the moving average is consistently 23.5, except when I go on a long trip that burns more than one tank.

But since when have people cared?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the EPA is changing the testing method. I know a lot of folks here drive hybrids, and they are popular, and they're probably a bit better on the environment AND the wallet. But a lot of people still buy Tahoes, and Hummers, and a bunch of TERRIBLE cars, even as gas prices are going above $3.00 per galon. I'm guessing that a lot of people will STILL buy these cars, even as gas prices approach those of Europe. Last week in Munich, I saw regular octane gas going for 1.35EUR / liter. That's more than (very rough calculation) US$6.50 per galon. Back in college (in the U.S.) I used to fill up my Mazda 626 for around $10. Doing the same in Europe today would cost me over $65.

Due to the way hybrids operate, it's probably time that the EPA changed the rules. But I think the change needs to be more drastic, as driving habbits will change the fuel economy so drastically. Not just for those that have a heavy foot on both the gas and brakes, but for people doing a lot of highway miles on a small engine, or a lot of urban miles on a big engine. My Alfa Romeo 145 absolutely SUCKS on the highway. It's ungodly! That's mainly because I'm above 3,000RPM the whole damn time. (And exactly why I rarely use it on the highway.) It's pretty tollerable in urban areas, since it's a stick shift and light weight compared to engine power. My Porsche 928 is the other way around. It is terrible in urban areas, but once on clear highway, it's amazing how many miles it gets to the galon, you'd never think it's a 5.0L V8. But that's because it's gently purring at 1,500RPM even at speeds above the limit. As for my Range Rover... well, actually, in hind sight I think that fits into the "idiots will buy anything" category... and why I seriously think that people that care about the EPA ratings are a minority... That was the sound of me kicking myself.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[onemorechip]

That's just plain wrong. A dyno has a controllable load, because you can't measure power without a load; you'd just be measuring the RPM of the wheels. The load is important, whether you are measuring power or fuel economy, and that is why the EPA uses dynamometers instead of ordinary rollers.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[onemorechip]

You'd also have variable air temperatures to deal with; that affects mileage, too. Since the dynamometer used in the test models the effect of drag, the indoor test in a controlled environment is far more reliable.

The problem is CARB and EPA, not detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with adopting diesel in the US is NOT Detroit. The problem is the clean-air standards from EPA and CARB. The current standards are already FAR stricter for diesels than those in the EU. Furthermore, the standards in the US are going to get even tougher in the near future.

Diesel engines sold in the EU won't meet the existing US standards, let alone the upcoming standards. That's why Daimler-Chrysler is having to resort to urea-injection.

Detroit is working on diesels for the US market, and they already sell diesels in the EU market.

It isn't Detroit, its California

[Shivetya]

Detroit doesn't care what engine goes in it, its about making money. If they could make money selling diesels they would be available, the trouble is awhile back California nixed that idea. Since California is such a big market it made no sense to sell diesels, you would have models not available for nationwide sale which costs more as you have to keep more parts on hand based on each configuration you sell.

Funny how the environmentalists of California cannot agree with Europes on this. Because we had higher sulfur diesel fuel there wasn't a way to have cleaner engines here. Because we didn't sell diesels in volume there wasn't incentive in making cleaner fuel. The old chicken and egg.

I would love a diesel powered version of my vehicle (Murano). If I could find a nice diesel convertible I would probably take the loss in trade and get one. I want the option but the varying laws across the country mean I am stuck with whatever will sell in the 48 states.

Re:How does this make the cars less cost effective

[Technician]

In fact, hybrids do much better in heavy traffic because under a certain speed (35 Km/h for the Prius for instance) it's just running on batteries.

In the escape Katrina traffic which was at a standstill much of the time, many people ran out of gas within 60 miles of New Orleans because they were traveling at less than 2 MPH. At 2 MPH a Prius can run for days (literaly) on a tank of gas. (keep the AC off)

I know this is possible as I have put an inverter in mine and use it for emergency power. In an ice storm here in the Pacific NW, we ran off the car running the fridge, TV, some lights, the blower on the wood stove, and the computer for 3 days. Dial-up internet still worked. We used less than a half tank of gas. Sitting in traffic not moving much, we would have had about the same gas consumption rate.

Mod parent troll, again

[dharbee]

"But there's a difference between burning fuel for a bonafide purpose and just for the heck of it!"

And that, ultimately is the point you fail to grasp. Entertainment IS a bona fide purpose.

And because of your inability to understand that, you make pointless pronouncements of what other people "should" do because you think it's acceptable, while completely failing to comprehend how insane your pronouncements are.

By the way, didn't we already establish that your opinion is no longer allowed to be expressed? Why am I not surprised that you're willing to dictate to others what they are allowed to do while totally ignoring your own harmful activities...

Re:Mod parent troll, again

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't we already establish that your opinion is no longer allowed

you're willing to dictate to others what they are allowed

This is all the funnier because I would bet real money that you do not perceive the irony here.

Also, who is "we"?

Ok, I'll bite...

[sean.peters]

What, pray tell, does it exist for? Without oil, the Mideast looks a lot like Bangladesh... lots of people, no particular reason to be there.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[AK Marc]

That's just plain wrong.

Nope, it's 100 % correct.

A dyno has a controllable load, because you can't measure power without a load; you'd just be measuring the RPM of the wheels.

Most dynos do not have a controllable load. They have a fixed load, and yes, all they do measure is RPM and nothing else. They calculate (but do not measure) HP and torque from the known fixed inertia of the rollers. Yes, there are more expensive ones with variable loads, but the most common are the cheaper ones that just do ROM from a fixed load.

The load is important, whether you are measuring power or fuel economy, and that is why the EPA uses dynamometers instead of ordinary rollers.

You are wrong. The EPA site is wrong. They went to a dynamometer company, bought a dynamometer, and are using it to measure fuel economy, not power. That means it is necessarily *NOT* a dynanometer. If I took a tachometer, hooked it up like a speedometer, changed the numbering on the gauge so that it read speed, and not RPM, would it be a speedometer or a tachometer? I'll give you a little hint, if it measures speed, it doesn't matter if it was sold as a tachometer, it is a speedometer. A dynamomter that measures something other than HP/torque (or RPMs) is not a dynamometer. Next you'll be telling me that if I take a barometer that measures mmHg and use the mm scale to measure something, that I'm properly using a barometer to measure distance. That's not what a barometer is for, and if you are using it for anything other than air pressure, it is no longer a barometer, no matter what the label on the side says.

FI cars have 'instant milleage'

[FatSean]

The car computer counts how often and for how long the fuel injectors are opened and factors in the injector flow rate and the distance traveled.

Pretty simple and effect. The one on my 9 year old VW still works great. If anything, it reads a bit high compared to calculations done with the Odometer and the gas pump. I suppose the injectors are flowing a bit less and must be opened longer for the same fuel delivery.

Old news, and TFA still wrong

[onemorechip]

The new mileage ratings were posted some weeks or months ago, so this article is late to the party. But it still gets it wrong on a few counts. Mostly not factually wrong, just wrong on interpretation. For instance:

Hybrid vehicle performance was previously overestimated partly because the tests included vehicles' idling for long periods, causing many hybrids to shut down their engines to conserve fuel. The old testing methodology registered "a higher fuel economy for hybrid vehicles than is achieved under typical driving conditions," according to EPA documents.

Linking these two statements into one paragraph suggests that shutting down the engine while stopped causes the hybrid to perform better in the test than in the real world. That's not true; the same benefit is derived by the hybrid in real-world driving (most of the stops in the old EPA test were briefer than a typical traffic light stop -- not "long periods", a factual error in the article). In reality, a full hybrid such as the Prius also stops the engine while coasting (if the speed is low enough to allow this), but the EPA didn't seem to think it needed to do anything to remove this advantage from the tests.

The earlier test methodology ran the cars through a certain speed profile (one profile for "city", the other for "highway"). The results were known to be optimistic because (1) A/C was not on during the test; (2) most people drive faster than the profiles; (3) in many people's "city" driving there are more frequent stops than in the test, although this varies with location; (4) probably a host of other reasons. To compensate for these factors, the EPA applied fudge factors to the result, derating the MPG to better match real-world conditions. The same derating was applied regardless of the type of vehicle, so some cars get more optimistic ratings than others.

The fix to this inequality was to change the test so that the derating factors could be eliminated. The profiles were changed, and things like cold engine starts and the use of A/C were taken into account.

But, if you change the amount of time the car is stopped during the test, this would have no effect on the outcome for a Prius or similar hybrid (I'm not sure if the Civic hybrid shuts off the engine while stopped; I seem to remember reading that it doesn't). It doesn't use any gas while stopped, so the denominator is not increased, but it doesn't go anywhere during the same period, so the numerator is not increased. For a non-hybrid, there is a definite increase in measured MPG if there is less time when the engine is idling, so the ratings gap between hybrids and non-hybrids is reduced.

Consider a hypothetical example. Car A is a hybrid and gets 65 MPG under the old city test; with the derating factor applied, it gets 60 MPG (roughly the numbers for a Prius). Car B is a non-hybrid that gets 32.5 MPG on the cith test, derated to 30 MPG. Under the new test, the conditions are tougher (higher speeds, A/C is on part of the time, etc.), so both cars see a drop in measured MPG. Say Car A now gets 48 MPG and Car B gets 27 MPG (Car B sees a lesser drop because, although the test is tougher in other ways, it doesn't have to idle as much, a benefit that is meaningless to Car A). No derating is applied, so these are the published numbers. Car A's EPA rating drops by 20% from the previous method, and Car B's drops by 10%.

Another factor is that running the A/C takes up a bigger percentage of the fuel consumption in a car with higher fuel economy. That's not hybrid-specific; any non-hybrid that is in the 35-MPG and higher territory is going to see a big difference between A/C and non-A/C operation.

My Prius loves stop-and-go

[apsmith]

stop/go traffic lets the Prius run purely off the battery. If the top speed is not too high, the ground is flat, and you don't have much in the way of accessories, you can go through a lot of traffic without the gasoline engine turning on at all - effectively very high mpg, though it gradually drains the battery. The braking system does more than "capture heat" - it runs the electric motor in reverse, doing just the opposite of what the motor did to get the car moving. Not quite a perpetual motion machine, but far far better efficiency-wise than anything you can do by burning gasoline.

their own numbers prove them wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem seems to be strange comparisons. Looking at an apples to apples comparison, the Camry hybrid in combined driving actually does much better with these numbers than they did before. The regular Camry goes from 37 to 24 MPG, whereas the Camry hybrid goes from 39 to 34. In others words, the hybrid goes from 2MPG better to 10 MPG better. I'm too lazy to do that calculation, but that would make it much easier to justify the cost.

Comparing the Prius hybrid to the non-Hybrid Camry seems silly to me, I can't see a Camry driver happy with the much smaller Prius.

So Clarkson WAS right after all?

[SpaghettiPattern]

So Clarkson WAS right after all?

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[Anonymous Coward]

What....

From like 8mpg to 4?

EPA testing was NEVER about mileage.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It's important to have accurate mileage ratings on cars, and it's hard to understand how the EPA could be so bad at it.

EPA testing was NEVER about estimating mileage. (That was something convenient that fell out of it for free.)

EPA testing was, and still is, about POLLUTION CONTROL: Establishing standardized emissions test procedures to affordably test engine/powertrain/aerodynamic performance and determining whether each of a manufacturer's products achieved the congress-mandated targets.

The test needed to be able to inform the engineers on how they were doing - giving them a comparison between performance with and without some modification, telling them whether they've met the year's targets, and letting them know how their products do compared to their competitors (so if a competitor does a bunch better they can work harder to match them, rather than claim it's undoable and petition congress for a relaxation of the standards).

To meet this purpose the test did NOT have to be an extremely accurate match to how cars, on the average, were used. It just had to be close enough that test-driven improvements in auto emissions mapped to a similar improvement in actual air quality, rather than having a big miss because the test didn't cover something important.

To do this they did some research on how cars were actually used, and created a test based on it. The test started with the engine cold, which means the car sat overnight. It only had ONE warmup cycle (with both "driving with engine cold" and "idling with engine cold"), so a car can be tested in a single day, in a single run, rather than having to "cold soak" overnight multiple times. And while it contained a mix of stop-and-go "city" driving and freeway speed "highway" driving, (along with other modes) it was biased toward having a large component of each mode, so engineers would have feedback on all of them, and regulatory approval would require adequate performance on all of them. This met its mix of "highway" vs. "city" wasn't typical of actual driving.

Back in the '70s (when I was writing software to capture and analyze the data from these tests), the story in the labs was that the EPA had developed the test by:
- Instrumenting a car to record its speed and distance moment-by-moment (along with "event" markers, like "started the engine").
- Covertly parking behind citizens in a "location near one of their field offices with a mix of city, suburb, and country roads" (Denver CO?) and following these people through actual start-drive-park cycles.
- Analyzing the results from a number of these runs,
- Picking one trip that contained a balanced mix of all the major cycles, each roughly typical of its type, and
- Making that particular captured trip the canonical test.

The tests ran on a dynamometer with drag and inertia-flywheels set to model the car's aerodynamics and mass, and included continuous measurements of mass-air-flow and levels of unburned hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, and NOx. A simple computation on all but NOx gives you the amount of carbon in the exhaust and thus the amount of gasoline into the engine. Ratioing that with the distance traveled gives you a good measure of gas mileage achieved - IN THE TEST'S DRIVING CYCLE.

As long as this mileage estimate was available "for free" from the analysis software, when the oil crunch hit a government bureau decided that it would be a good idea to require the manufacturers to print this "EPA estimate" of mileage on the stickers, so car buyers could compare gas mileage of different models when shopping. They knew it would be off for any individual driver, due to his actual driving style and a host of other factors. But because it was measured in a standard way it should still give a good comparison between cars. And it should be "in the ballpark" so the customer could estimate his gasoline costs while comparing prices.

Of course, once a LARGE number of people were driving their cars an

Re:EPA testing was NEVER about mileage.

[SuperQ]

It would be interesting to know exactly what the drive cycles were/will be.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[bcattwoo]

You are correct. A dynamometer is not used to measure fuel economy and the EPA is not using it to do so. The dynamometer is being used to measure HP and keep it constant at a level equivalent to what would be required to maintain a certain speed. The carbon content of the exhaust is then determined to calculate the gas consumption. The dyno may be just a component of a larger system but it is still a dyno.

Interesting

[leabre]

I've had my Civic '06 Hybrid now for 11 months. I live in an area with lots of hills and lots of lights. It is not unusual to spend 10-15 minutes on a 2.9 mile commute from my house to the freeway simply because of the ill-timed traffic lights (in both directions). My commute is 31 miles highway (lots of hills but not too much traffic) and 3 miles city driving (each direction).

After 19,000 miles in this car, I'm very accustomed to 52 MPG tanks. Since the dash displayed its calculated MPG and the number of miles traveled since the meter was reset, I usually reset each tank and refill at the MPG x12 rule. The car, having 12.3 gallon capacity, I figure that is a good rule. Usually, when I do refil at or about the MPG x12 rule (sometimes MPG x12.5 rule), I usually only fill 11.1 gallons or so, so I could have travelled further.

My whole point in all this, is that I have "learned" how to drive this car, and how not to drive it. There are thing you do, and don't do. Far and wide, the most useful thing to know is that this car will not win any races, so don't try. When you see a red up ahead (or can anticipate it), don't accelerate to get to the red quicker, just "glide" you'r away there and then break when needed. That really helps fuel efficiency because if it goes green, you don't have to do a full accelerate which can kill FE. However, when you must accelerate all over again 10 times each mile because you have that many lights, I follow the 0-35 MPH in 25-45 seconds rule, and from there to 50-65 (if need be) about 5 seconds later. When going up slopes (overpasses, bridges, small hills), don't accelerate, merely apply enough gas to maintain as best as possible the current speed within about 3 MPH. When you acclerate up the hills, you easily can lose over 2 MPG on my commute, when maintaining the speed instead, I actually gain about 0.2 MPH. Use cruise control when it makes sense to do so. It can do better than you sometimes.

Anyway, my co-workers drive their hybrids like its a racecar. They get about 38-42 on average between all three of them. I get 52. So I take their cars sometimes on city commutes, sometimes highway, during lunch. I've brought their cars from 38 to 47 for 7 miles sometimes (city driving). But it does require discipline at first. After about 6,000 miles, its second nature.

In the end, 50 MPG in the Civic Hybrids should not be a fairy tale. I usually travel for about 630 miles before filling up my tanks. While the dash says its about 52.5 +/- MPG or so, I usually fill only 11 gallons, which makes it accurately 54 MPG.

My previous truck I replaced was getting me 16 MPG on a 15 Gal tank. I travel 1,500 or so each month work and back and misc. I'me saving serious gas money and I paid for the car in cash so I don't have payments. If people drive the cars "properly", they would do much better. At the least, 45 MPG should be very easily attained in most terrains.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[onemorechip]

Thanks for your insight. You should edit the wikipedia article I previously linked, and correct this statement: An absorbing dynamometer acts as a load that is driven by the prime mover that is under test. The dyno must be able to operate at any speed, and load the prime mover to any level of torque that the test requires.

Don't forget to cite your references.

Re: Hybrids

[buraianto]

Don't know where you're getting your information. The batteries are warrantied for 8 years/100,000 miles.

From http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/faq.html :

Toyota has extreme faith in our hybrid technology, so Prius comes standard with the following coverage:

Basic: 36 months/36,000 miles (all components other than normal wear and maintenance items).

Hybrid-Related Component Coverage: Hybrid-related components, including the HV battery, battery control module, hybrid control module and inverter with converter, are covered for 8 years/100,000 miles. The HV battery may have longer coverage under emissions warranty. Refer to applicable Owner's Warranty Information booklet for details.

Powertrain: 60 months/60,000 miles (engine, transmission/transaxle, front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, seatbelts and airbags).

Rust-Through: 60 months/unlimited miles (corrosion perforation of sheet metal).

Re: Hybrids

[buraianto]

Sorry. I should say I don't know where that Toyota dealership was getting its information. And the URL above can be changed from 2005 to 2007 and the battery warranty information holds.

buy a used car mr thrifty

[Anonymous Coward]

buy a used car mr thrifty. youd think nothing of paying a few extra thousand for a car with extra gizmos you barely understand, or because its a different color or shape, or because the sales person smiled a certain way. but oh my god, 3 grand extra to save the planet, oh the horror.

Interesting change

[cgreentx]

In 15 years I've never owned a vehicle capable of achieving the rated mileage. Now, its the other way around. I have a Camry Hybrid and I've yet to pull of a tank with anything less than 35-36 MPG. I even averaged 38 MPG on a tank. Don't write off hybrids completely. Just as with everything else there is a ton of FUD. The Camry hybrid costs less than the v6 version of the XLE. Everyone who attacks the Camry hybrid likes to compare it to an LE or CE which is not even a comparable car. Compared to a 4 cylinder XLE its about a $1000 premium for the hybrid, and at 25,000-30,000 miles per year I expect a full return on my investment.

Re: Hybrids

[metamatic]

Freeway speeds such as 70mph will IN FACT put you into the SUV mpg territory. And that is a single person no load condition. Load 4 passengers and all their gear for a 4 day weekend- and you are in fact at SUV MPG.

Utter horsehit. I drove a Prius from MA to TX, it was almost all freeway driving at 55-70 mph. Not only that, there were two of us in the car, and the back was entirely filled with cargo, seats folded flat. (We were moving.)

We averaged 47mpg.

Take your Detroit astroturf FUD elsewhere.

Re:Sampling? (just bought new honda civic)

[Psyberian]

Ok, so I just traded in my Mazda b2300 pickup for a 2007 Civic Coupe. I put on about 4000 highway miles every three months and maybe another 500 city miles on my vehicle. The highway miles are in 80 mile stretches. I also check my MPG ever time I fill up. So far I have come up with some interesting numbers. My truck was getting an average of 26mpg combined with an average of 70 to 75 mph on the highway. I tried slowing down a bit to 65, but saw little change. Pretty good for a truck.

Going the same on my civic which now only has 300 miles on it, I got around 31mpg. However, I dropped my highway speed down to 65, set the cruise control and let it go, 37.5mpg on the highway. So it appears it depends on the vehicle. It appears different vehicles have different sweet spots for mpg. The Honda's seem to be 65mph. I am wondering if that is more computer controlled. Can I adjust my timing to get maybe not as good mileage at 65, but maybe get 35 at 70 or 75 mph?

How to save money on gas.

[$criptah]

I live in a highly populated area with many stop lights and traffic jams that see no end. It is a pretty bad place to be, especially if you love big SUVs. For example, my Xterra barely gets 20mpg on highway. Yet, I spend only $80/month on gas. What's the secret? Get out and walk, bike or take public transportation! I get a car that I want to drive without any pains at the gas pump. Has anybody tried that yet?

Re: Hybrids

[Psyberian]

#4 The depreciation rate is held up by popular opinion. This is true in all vehicles, but the steep cliff at year 6 is going to make most people unhappy, and the battery replacement at year 8 will be a very large cost to shoulder and may drive many people out of this market all togeather.

Can you prove this steep drop off in value at year 6? If not, than why state it? Let's assume for a moment that this year 6 valuation drop-off occurs. How much is that going to matter to someone who has held the car for 6 years? Probably little at that point.

Actually having just purchased a new car and looked into a hybrid I do have answers to this. After talking to various Honda dealers they will not take trades in on the early hybrids unless the batteries have been changed after year four. Toyota currently claims to not have taken any batteries in yet in their dealerships. But I have my doubts on that. I myself choose to not go with a hybrid but with a very efficient and clean burning civic coupe. There is also issues with early hybrids and safety to emergency crews. If they are unfamiliar with them, and again this is from a dealer, the early ones had high voltage running near the frame. When cutting through the car to get someone out, they could get electrocuted. Again, only on the early models.

Did someone lobby to get this to happen?

[God of Lemmings]

Why do I for some reason think that this may have been motivated by the
American auto industry, which has for some reason neglected to keep its
standards as high as the imports.

Re: Hybrids

[TooMuchToDo]

Thank you for the info. Good to know. I attended a seminar hosted by Toyota for EMS personnel on the proper method for chopping into their hybrids to get people out. In theory, when an accident occurs, the battery is supposed to disengage itself entirely from the electrical system to prevent injury to anyone. Also, Toyota provided materials highlighting the large orange high-voltage cables that run along the frame near the bottom of the doors and to not cut through them if at all possible.

Miles per pseudo-gallon

[tepples]

10% or more cars in the US are fully electric? What kind of mileage will they be rated at? Burning a gallon of petrol in a conventional car adds x moles of COx and NOx pollutants to the air. Creating y joules of electric power in a power plant adds the same amount of pollutants. So an electric car that gets z miles per "gallon" actually gets z miles per y joules.

It might be miles per charge, where charge could be batteries charged to full, or a full tank of gasoline/diesel. But a "charge" depends on the total capacity of the vehicle's battery system. The definition of a "charge" would have to be standardized at a specific amount of energy to make large and small battery systems comparable. So you'd either have distance per kWh or distance per some sort of pseudo-gallon.

What really sucks gasoline? Wind resistance!

[FractalZone]

If you want to raise your MPG, take a longer route in the city that makes you stop much less frequently. Stop/Go is the hardest on an engine and your millage efficiency.

My brand new car gets pretty good mileage for a performance car, but I am amused by your suggestion that stop/go is the worst factor as far as reduced gas mileage goes. Try driving at 110+MPH for a couple of hours on end...you can practically see the gas gauge drop as you drive. This is especially true if you are trying to keep up with a maniac (defined as someone who drives faster than I normally would under given conditions), as you better determine exactly what the actual top end of your new car's performance is over sustained periods of time. Wringing out a new car is obligatory. I had to do it. I think it is also mandatory after every oil change or something, too.

My car will get 24MPG or better if I keep it down to 65MPH on the freeway, but that drops to about 16MPG if I keep it above 100MPH as much as possible. It is rated by the EPA at 20MPG city and 27MPH Highway. I tend to be a bit of a gear head...

Wind resistance sucks...specifically: it sucks fuel!

Ha!

[PHAEDRU5]

This "litre" thing sounds like an innovation from vile France.

If you're British,

  - Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly?

  - Do you want to call that raggedy arse Bonaparte your king?

  - Do you want your children to sing the Marseillaise?

  - Do you want to wipe your backside with wax toilet paper?

No to all, obviously.

Then pass on this litre thing as well.

Not trolling

[PHAEDRU5]

Your original post similar to one I'd received a couple of minutes ago. I answered it, and was referring you there. Being a big fan of Prime Minister's Question Time, I went with that great stock answer.

A tip stolen from a paper route driver of 30 years

[ben there...]

You need to make sure the car is level when you "fill up." Using the same gas pump, parked in exactly the same position is best. He keeps a log book of every fill up with MPG calculations and basically never uses his brakes. Driving paper routes at night in the country has its advantages. He's easily the best driver I've ever met, managing to drive standard and still fill paper tubes without taking his arm off while still moving. He goes so far as to calculate how many years he'll get out of a new car, how long the brakes will last with his driving method, basically every "hidden" expense that comes out of his paycheck by driving a paper route. Interesting guy. He's almost 70, and still going strong.

Prius

[mike3k]

I've had my Prius for a little less than a year and I wouldn't drive anything else. Even with the new standards, the relative mileage is still better than any other car. I find that I get the best mileage on longer trips. Taking lots of short trips will reduce the effective mileage. For the first 5 minutes, I average only about 25 MPG, but after that I average 50 or better, often around 75 MPG. My overall average is around 45, though, since I take lots of short rides.

There are a lot of other things I like about the Prius besides the mileage. It's comfortable, has lots of room, has the smoothest & quietest ride of any car I've driven, and it has the most advanced features like push button start with a smart key system, backup camera, and stability control. I'm driving a regular car this week, thanks to one of my neighbors hitting my Prius, and I can't wait to get it back in a few days. After driving a Prius, using a key to start the car, hearing engine noise and feeling the transmission shifting jolt seems strange.

Re: How the ECU computes Instantaneous MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

The ECU (Electronic Control Unit) controls the fuel injectors on pretty much all vehicles built after 1985. The ECU is programmed with the volumetric flow of the factory injectors and it also is aware of how many times it is cycling the injectors and for what duration. Thus, the ECU knows exactly the volume of fuel it dispenses for a given period of time. Then, simply integrating the current speed of the vehicle, the ECU arrives at your MPG estimate.

Re:Sampling? (just bought new honda civic)

[robogun]

If your car is new, it will take a couple thousand miles before the engine loosens up, it should pick up some MPG once it breaks in. The truck might have been running at peak volumetric efficiency (torque peak) at 75mph in top gear whereas for your Honda might be at 65 in top. You can change the final drive ratio to 4.40:1 to give your car longer "legs", it will accelerate slower however.

Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric is what I want.

Hybrids were always last centuries technology. Why would I pay money for that? I have a pair of Scion Xa's that run at nearly 40mpg (and I do a Bay Area daily commute at very high speeds).

Make mine a Tesla...

Re: Cold Weather affects your ECU

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: simplification. Cold air is more dense, it provides more oxygen per liter inducted into the engine (please don't go into partial-pressures). If the oxygen to fuel ratio in the engine become too high (above 14:1), the fuel mixture will prematurely ignite, which causes the engine to breakdown. To prevent this situation, the ECU adds more fuel when the intake air temperature is cold, to prevent breaking the engine.

Diesels pwn Hybrids

[cephal0p0d]

I've been volunteering at a biofuel co op in Madison for the last year or so.

Probably half the users of our biodiesel, and about a quarter of the conversion kits we sell to run Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO), are VW TDI owners, from Bugs to Passats.

The TDI engine consistently gets between 40 and 50 mpg, whether running petro or bio diesel.

Add to this the fact that the Co2 was in the air months prior to burning (NO NET CO2 GAIN) and that all of the money for said fuel went to farmers and local businesses, not to petrofascist states propped up by our tax dollars in the form of aid, and the choice becomes clear:

Diesels pwn Hybrids.

44 mpg Civic DX '01

[hunter Peddicord]

I've been cleaning hot tubs at rental vacation homes for 3 years, year-round. That means starting my car about 20 times a day, driving a couple miles or less to the next house with a few hundred pounds of hoses and chemicals in the trunk, and often hard acceleration/braking. It also means tons of dusty roads, sometimes spinning the wheels too much to get out of snow up to the bumper, and cringe-worthy miles. With my 2001 Civix DX manual couple, I've got 160,000 miles, mostly short miles. It's got a 10 gallon tank with a 1 gal reserve. I've reset the trip meter every time i fill up from empty, so i've kept religious track of mpg for 5 years. Somehow, it's always been above 40, no matter how i drive, how i long i idle to thaw me out in the winter, or how much cargo I have. It gets up to 46 when I empty my trunk or i take a highway trip, even though it's rated at 30/38. Maybe I drive efficiently at mostly low RPMs, barely use the clutch, and keep a constant speed, but it's always been surprising. It made me assume for years that EPA ratings were conservative, but I guess not - maybe it's my driving style. BTW, that machine has required almost no maintenance - we've spent more on my dog's vet bills than the honda since it was paid off.

Estimate is as good as it can get

[WebCowboy]

My car (an '07 Caliber) was rated at "28 to 32 MPG". I consistently get 26 or less. :(

I have the same car (2L engine with CVT transaxle--no gears at all, just automatically adjusting variable-ratio). I assume you are American and that you are talking American gallons. I'm Canadian and we've never used US gallons (used to be Imperial/British Gallon, now it's all metric) so a little mathematics translates 26 miles per US gallon to 9.25 litres per 100 kilometres. Canada does not use EPA guidelines--the numbers we use come from EnerGuide and are based upon testing methods mandated by Transport Canada. The Canadian numbers are 9.0 l/100km for city and 7.3 for highway (because the units are flipped from mpg, smaller number means more fuel efficient--this is why they are not technically called "mileage" in Canada, but instead "fuel consumption" or "fuel economy").

I get similar fuel consumption to your 9.25 number--this is not that far off from the EnerGuide city estimate of 9.0. I normally drive almost exclusively in the city and it looks like you must do so to. I attribute my slightly-higher fuel consumption number to the nature of the daily commuter rush traffic where I live (average speed on my daily commute is 30 km/h--about 19 mph, and I believe the test methods assume a 50 km/h, or 32 mph, average speed). Perhaps you drive in a similar environment as I do. If that is the best you are getting then you may also be driving more aggressively than what is called for by Transport Canada (or the US equivalent, though historically Canadian fuel economy estimates have historically been closer to reality).

Here are some observations I've made about improving fuel consumption numbers in the Caliber (apples to most cars actually)

* Do not "punch the pedal" to the floor--gradually/smoothly press the accelerator down over a 1 to 2 second period. The CVT in the Caliber does not respond with a "kick-down" because it has no gears like a normal automatic (nor does the latest Nissan Sentra, which uses the same kind CVT as the Caliber, but tuned to be even more "elastic"), so all you're doing is revving your engine a bit faster and using a bit more gas--you get no extra acceleration out of it and merely a bit more noise.

* Similarly, don't depress the pedal right to the floor when on the highway merging or passing. You get very little extra acceleration by pushing the RPMS to near redline, only more noise. The best acceleration is to get to a constant engine speed around 4000 RPM and let the CVT ramp the ratio up to speed, then ease off the pedal until it adjusts the ratio to get about 2200 RPM at cruising speed. Best fuel economy is to accelerate in the 3000 to 3500 RPM range it seems so far.

* ALWAYS use cruise control on the highway (if you are getting a Caliber or a Sentra with the CVT I REALLY RECOMMEND the cruise control option) because it really improves fuel economy. I was amazed how far ont tank took me on a road trip compared to my daily commute--and it was even better than my first road trip when I forgot about the cruise because my old car didn't have it).

* Avoid driving at speeds over 50 km/h (32 mph) with windows rolled down; use A/C instead if you have it. The reverse is true at low speeds.

I think a lot of why people complain about poor fuel economy has to do with aggressive starts and stops--and this is even worse in a car with CVT. Driving a car with a CVT is like driving a motorboat--the engine revs up to a high RPM and sits there as the speed keeps increasing. Because the engine noise is not ramping up in speed between shifts as it does in a transaxle with gears it initially gives the impression that you are not accelerating very quickly, when in fact you are accelerating the quickest at the point the engine RPMs are steady or even slowly declining! I know that when I first car that the slowly climbing tachometer needle and lazily-accelerating engine RPMs made me want to floor the accelerator to try and get that "kickdown

Its absolutly about the payback period

[spike2131]

I drive a hybrid, and its not because of the environmental benefits. While I appreciate that it pollutes less and reduces reliance on foreign oil, my primary motivation is that I am a cheap bastard. I ran the math and the payback period on my car is under 5 years. Given that I'll probably own the car for 8 or 9 years, this was pretty simple economic choice for me.

I feel the same way about solar panels. I'd love to get some for my house, but I'm not going to do it until its cheaper then buying electricity from the utility.

Really, its all about conservation of resources. Conserving gasoline is a good thing, but ultimately the resource I am interested in conserving is my paycheck.

Re:Its absolutly about the payback period

[Anonymous Coward]

but ultimately the resource I am interested in conserving is my paycheck

And what a fine human being you are. You must have a lot of friends.

Re:No... the invalid ratings are due to poor testi

[Julian352]

The speed for which MPG are computed for would probably have very limited amount of lift and drag forces. The computations are supposed to be for 55mph highway and 35mph city speeds. At those speeds the lift created is fairly neglible compared to friction and other forces.

Re: Hybrids

[wolrahnaes]

How do you know about the cliff after 6 years? The oldest hybrids around are just getting there, and I haven't seen their values plummet... FYI, the Prius is 10 years old in Japan (6 elsewhere) and the Insight is 8 everywhere. I know nothing about the values, but hybrids have existed for longer than you think.

Re: Hybrids

[Anonymous Coward]

Just you try completely recycling a candle.

Re: How the ECU computes Instantaneous MPG

[rabiddeity]

Please mod parent informative. The ECU knows how much fuel goes into the engine because... it's the one injecting precise measurements of fuel into the engine!

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[rabiddeity]

Damn. The fuel costs on that must be astronomical!

Re: Hybrids

[onemorechip]

In California, it's longer: 10 years and 150000 miles, IIRC. California imposed those requirements on the sale of hybrid and electric vehicles years ago.

Partially offsetting the battery cost is the fact that the brakes wear a lot slower, since most of the stopping power is from regenerative braking.

48mpg winter, 55mpg+ summer

[Hebetsubeach]

I've had a Prius for over two years now and I average 48 mpg during the winter months and 55 mpg and more during the spring-summer-fall months. At times I get 65 mpg on 15 mile trips. When we've taken the Prius on long trips (1,000 miles plus) with mostly freeway driving we usually get 50 to 60 mpg. What is really great about the car is how quiet it is.

highway driving and flamebait

[cwerdna]

You must be doing mostly highway driving...

The summary that's been posted is also just flamebait. The EPA rating for ALL vehicles are changing for model year 2008 and beyond, not just hybrids. The cars themselves ARE NOT changing. The inherent mileage they get IS NOT changing. Changing the numbers that go on a sticker has NOTHING to do w/cost effectiveness or lack of as the cars HAVE NOT changed.

Consumer Reports has their own mileage testing and found "Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models... The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."

On my former 02 Nissan Maxima, I've exceeded the highway rating of 20/26 before (from manual calculations, not its 2-4 mpg too high trip computer). However, when I lived in an area where I did lots of shorts drives and city driving, I was mostly in the 16 to 17 mpg range. Example of an above shortfall, 1.8L 06 non-hybrid AT Civic is EPA rated 30/40, 33 combined. CR got *18*/43, 28 combined per http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/hon da/civic/model-overview-4748-5732.htm (you need a subscription to see it).

Why? They use the test procedure below (for 07 model year and earlier) - run it on a dyno (not on a real road) in specific conditions, don't run any accessories and measure carbon in the exhaust and not fuel usage. The figures are then adjusted downward 10% for city and 22% for highway, then that number goes on your sticker. For 2008, they're adding some additional tests that make the numbers more realistic.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s html

Diesel-electric hybrids?

[popoutman]

Something that I have not seen at all is any real-world implementation of a diesel-electric hybrid car.

Simple thermodynamics states that a Diesel cycle engine is significantly more efficient than the Otto cycle engine in mose standard gasoline cars. Combine this with the higher energy density of diesel fuel, and you have the main reason why diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines.

If you replace the gasoline engine in a hybrid car with a correctly specified diesel engine, the increase in efficiency should be very noticable.

(off-the-cuff figures, taken from European context, mpg figures are Imperial)
Regular gasoline engine, 1.6L 4 cylinder 90bhp, average family hatchback would give c.40mpg.
Regular diesel engine 1.9l 4-cylinder 90bhp average family 4-door saloon would give c.55mpg in the same useage pattern.
If a hybrid of similar size and power was using gasoline and gave 55mpg, then a diesel hybrid should give 68 in the same useage pattern. The diesel engine would be more suitable to recharge the batteries with the better torque curve.

I know that there are fuel supply quality issues for diesel in the States, and it is taking time for the real diesel cars to be allowed entry to the markets, but there should be no reason to supply a gasoline hybrid in a market where low sulphur diesel is available.

Is the gasoline hybrid just a marketing phenomenon, or is it a step to a better design of hybrid with better fuels?

Re:Diesel-electric hybrids?

[clonmult]

Could be even better with the latest generation of direct injection/multivalve/extra clever diesels.

Some of the current VW and Audi diesels can return considerably better fuel figures.

Although in the same driving patterns, a VW Lupo TDi gives much better economy over here than a Prius. And is apparently more fun to drive.

Re:Diesel-electric hybrids?

[NuShrike]

The increase in efficiency is already noticeable with the small liter Atkinson pseudo-Miller cycle engine the Prius(1.5L)/Civic(1.3L) hybrids use.

Combined with running the engine at optimum RPM and storing HP overflow into the battery, plus the occasional recovery from regenerative braking, it's ludicrous to argue that gas hybrids are just marketing.

Don't forget, these gas-hybrids aren't small and low-weight as those high MPG diesels are.

Re:Diesel-electric hybrids?

[popoutman]

There's no getting away from the fact that any otto-cycle based engine/generator combination will not be better than an equivalent diesel-electric when using any of the following metrics:

• power output per volume of fuel used
• volume of fuel used per distance
• CO2 emissions per distance travelled

Even factoring in the extra weight of the diesel engine, it is still more efficient in every way than an otto cycle engine.
Of course a gasoline hybrid car is more efficient that a purely gasoline-fueled car, but a gasoline hybrid isn't as efficient as a purely diesel-fueled engine, and comes nowhere near the efficiency possiblities of a diesel hybrid. There's no escaping these facts.

Why do you think that the car companies have devoted time and money to the gasoline hybrid, when there are better options out there? Marketing choices? Poor diesel fuel or high-sulphur diesel in the US? Poor experiences in the past with poor-quality diesel engines in the US?

You think 14.7MPG is good??

[Viol8]

How much does your van weigh?? 5 tons?? Here in europe the diesel powered Ford Transit gets an average of about 30mpg and I doubt its much smaller than your Dodge. I knew american vehicles always have poor mileage but 14mpg is just a joke.

Re:You think 14.7MPG is good??

[Smidge204]

I don't recall saying 14.7 MPG was good... but it's definitely an improvement over 11.3 MPG. I'll take what I can get. This is also "city miles" if that makes a difference.

To say the vehicle is in po0r repair would be something of an understatement. A little over 220,000 miles, V6 engine with all-wheel-drive. Antilock brake system is shot. power steering is iffy. The bearing on one of the serpentine belt pulleys is nearly dead. Front suspension is shot (I fully expect the wheel to fall off one day). There's some very sporadic but severe oil leak (it'll be fine for two weeks then magically be a quart low one morning). I guess you could say it's more of a death trap...

Basically if anything happens that costs more than $30 and a few hours to fix by myself, I'll declare it totaled and scrap it. Meh.
=Smidge=

NOT TRUE

[nicholasjay]

I really feel the need to reply to this. If you read the article, you'll notice that /all/ cars are getting their EPA ratings adjusted, not just hybrids. They use the same rating procedures on all cars. There isn't a special way of rating hybrids that differs from regular IC cars.

Re:NOT TRUE

[Doc Ruby]

No, the generic new methods just happen to reduce hybrid MPG much more than they reduce IC MPG. Even though some of the reductions cheat hybrids of marks for actual savings, like not wasting fuel while idling.

Re:My 2002 Saturn 2SL still averages 30 and 40 mpg

[clonmult]

Okay, being a european, whats the spec of your car - engine, etc.?

I'm running a '99 BMW 318iS, and after converting my economy to US variants, its generally well ahead of the EPA levels.

Its officially rated at 23 city, 32 highway, 26 combined. The absolute worst I've got is 25, after caning the balls off it around town for a couple of weeks. Best so far was on a long run, doing between 80 and 90mph, when I got a 34mpg average.

Maybe this is also partly down to octane ratings? We're typically running 95 octane gas out of the forecourts, with 97/99 getting more regular (and also 101 available in a few places). Next tank will be filled with 99, and once the engine management gets its mind around the bigger bang, either I'll see myself getting better MPG, or get myself wrapped around a tree on the exit from the next roundabout.

Biggest surprise was that I've never before tried UK to US MPG conversions. Jeepers, 42mpg works out as 34 american miles per gallon?

1987 Honda Civic HF 52/67MPG

[EmagGeek]

No hybrid... no diesel.. no nothing.. just a 1.5L engine, a 3bbl carb, 57bhp, and up to 74mpg with a tailwind...

Fuel Economy

[MM_LONEWOLF]

Forget hybrids. If I want good mileage, I'll drive a GEO. Plus, if I get in a crash, I can find a replacement for less than $1,000.

my current MPG on my 2005 Prius

[MobiMax]

just wanted to share my current MPG with everyone. my Prius calculates i'm getting 55.9, but i'm positive it's at least 2 or 3 MPG higher than that because the Prius calculates it's average MPG by assuming that electric driving = 100 MPG, although it's technically 0 MPG because you're not using any gas. i push the electric pretty hard, and i usually end up in the high 50s or low 60s (i calculate my exact MPG by dividing how many miles i drive in between tanks by the gallons i fill up). i employ a lot of "hypermiling" techniques to get such good mileage, such as pulse-and-glide, no jack-rabbit starts, and when nobody's around i go sssslllllooooowwwwww. here's proof: http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/7325/0515071843 oe6.jpg ..... i'll easily pull 500 miles out of this tank, and i could go all the way to 560 or 570 if i really pushed it.

Re: Hybrids

[ShrapnelFace]

Late response on this but in fact- the training from TMS (Toyota Motor Sales for people who have never worked there) states:

"If you touch one of those exposed cables and a live current rolls through, the current will find the weakest joint and explode it. You will likely lose an arm in addition to being severely electrocuted."

I remember this vividly but it is good to know that EMS training is now occuring on this. I used to always wonder how emergency response teams would know any better.

Re: Hybrids

[ShrapnelFace]

Tell you what- upload the data to a website and lets confirm the hearsay on your trip from MA to TX.

Oh thats right! You were just taling because you knew no one would be able to check on your information.

I was at least willing to argue my point, and as you can see I may be a little bit off in my data, I am still more closer to the truth than you are.

The thing is, my knowledge comes from actual experience- that is, manufacturer experience from the years 2001 - 2003. The latest Hybrid improvements, such as warranties for 8 years now, is about the only thing I may have been wrong about.

I cite the volumes of complaints on people not getting MPG promised as my data for proof.
I also cite the experience I had handling complaints and field testing as well as submitting the reccomendation for driver education courses by TMS to combat this problem.

I worked for a dealership that sold more Prius's in the United States than any other. You can go ahead with your pop-culture assessment which is based on your 25 man Prius club, plus your single variable day to day driving experience.

I on the other hand had a large volume of data feedback, factory response, and internal conversations that your public mouth would never be privy to.

I enjoy the name calling - its where most people go when they have lost their ability to reason and debate, as do most who have liberal minds.

Re: Hybrids

[metamatic]

Actually, I have mileage data for the entire life of the car. I could easily upload the data, but you'd just dismiss it as made up, so what's the point?

You have provided no more data than I have provided, and your attempts to smokescreen are pretty transparent.