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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[klubar]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[shmlco]

Ethanol? Diesel?

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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)

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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.

Online consumer MPG submited database

[RingDev]

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

-Rick

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

In other news

[Fear the Clam]

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

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

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?

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.

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

[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

[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: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

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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...).

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.

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.

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!

[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: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.

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: 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.

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: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: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: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.

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.

[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: Hybrids

[DrewFish]

Hey, I drive 70mph and change lanes frequently, and get 43mpg :) (2001 Prius)

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: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.

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....

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.

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.

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. :-)

Yup

[Gorimek]

Also, due to global warming, the outside air just doesn't cool as well these days.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.