If you drive 20,000 miles per year and plan on keeping the vehicle for 7 years then get a diesel. The 140,000 miles after 7 years is about half of the life of a diesel engine where a gas engine is about done. My 2003 Jetta TDI 5 speed manual averages 50 mpg with 80% highway.
Hybrid anyone?
- Thread starter ebc
- Start date
- Status
Arrrggh....Must not turn thread into VW hating....Smack!
Wow, 50mpg is awesome!
Steve Forbes has a good track record....of being wrong! I have a bit more faith in the musings of T. Boone Pickens, since he is in the oil business and his prediction of last spring has happened- $3.00 gas by September.
Seems like a lot of people here really hate hybrids and will make any kind of calculation to prove they are a waste of money. Well, you can also make the same case for anyone who drives anything except a stripped down, used Yugo with pedals inside for an assist - but maybe not since that also would be a hybrid! The cheapest car with the biggest return on your investment is one you never bought. One thing I have learned here is that most any car will give you good years of service if you take care of it. The longevity of the ICE in a hybrid car may well match that of a diesel since it only runs part of the time and runs very cool in comparison to a full-time ICE. Time will tell. If hybrid vehicles have such liabilities to them, I wonder why GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, et al are in such a rush to get in the game? Honda and Toyota are WAY ahead of the rest but even they are scrambling to make more models available. The ICE-only cars will be with us a while longer, but as oil prices keep climbing and gas prices follow, the public will get the economic message and opt more and more for this fuel saving technology.
Seems like a lot of people here really hate hybrids and will make any kind of calculation to prove they are a waste of money. Well, you can also make the same case for anyone who drives anything except a stripped down, used Yugo with pedals inside for an assist - but maybe not since that also would be a hybrid! The cheapest car with the biggest return on your investment is one you never bought. One thing I have learned here is that most any car will give you good years of service if you take care of it. The longevity of the ICE in a hybrid car may well match that of a diesel since it only runs part of the time and runs very cool in comparison to a full-time ICE. Time will tell. If hybrid vehicles have such liabilities to them, I wonder why GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, et al are in such a rush to get in the game? Honda and Toyota are WAY ahead of the rest but even they are scrambling to make more models available. The ICE-only cars will be with us a while longer, but as oil prices keep climbing and gas prices follow, the public will get the economic message and opt more and more for this fuel saving technology.
Where's the savings with a hybrid? Or is everyone's math different than mine? As an example -
Hybrid vehicle fuel cost for 150,000 miles at 45 mpg and fuel at $3.00 per gallon = $10,000
Conventional vehicle fuel cost at 35 mpg for the same number of miles and cost per gallon = $12,857
All of $2,857 savings in 150K miles provided the cars cost the same initially and had the same maintenance costs.
What's the additional charge for the hybrid driveline again? Anyone think those batteries are going to last 150K miles? Obviously the manufacturers don't given the length of the warranties.
Hybrid vehicle fuel cost for 150,000 miles at 45 mpg and fuel at $3.00 per gallon = $10,000
Conventional vehicle fuel cost at 35 mpg for the same number of miles and cost per gallon = $12,857
All of $2,857 savings in 150K miles provided the cars cost the same initially and had the same maintenance costs.
What's the additional charge for the hybrid driveline again? Anyone think those batteries are going to last 150K miles? Obviously the manufacturers don't given the length of the warranties.
Ahh where do I begin.
Toyota warranties their batteries for exactly 150k miles.
Hybrid drive train costs $2400 (Civic EX vs hybrid)
Do you really believe gas with stagnate at $3 a gallon while you drive 150k miles?
Have you even considered resale value?
Hubrids have lower maintainace costs than a full gas car due to the smaller and less stressed internal combustion engine.
quote:
Originally posted by jtantare:
Ahh where do I begin.
Toyota warranties their batteries for exactly 150k miles.
Hybrid drive train costs $2400 (Civic EX vs hybrid)
Do you really believe gas with stagnate at $3 a gallon while you drive 150k miles?
Have you even considered resale value?
Hubrids have lower maintainace costs than a full gas car due to the smaller and less stressed internal combustion engine.
Well the Prius that I spent 500 miles in sure did not seem less stressed when it was trying to go down the freeway for 250 miles at a time.
In fact, The engine was more stressed than my Corolla's engine and his poor MPG proved that.
The Corolla cost almost TEN THOUSAND dollars less to buy than his outfit.
That buys alot of gas...
I just ran his car on Edmunds.com and his car is worth $19,071 and his out the door was right at $24k. So a little less than $5k less.
The Corolla was low $14k and is worth $10,796 so it's about $3,600 less (man talk about $$ hit on first year
MPG between both is real close since we drive the same type of miles. Durning the cold weather his MPG gets hit more than mine. Maybe the batteries not liking the cold weather?
I'll stay with a SIMPLE car thank you.
Take care, bill
PS: He does have ABS on his and I don't, But I put that in the Quote on Edmunds...
PPS: Lession learned? Don't sell your 1 year old car!
PPPS: I think TDI diesel is a much better and simpler way to go but does req more maint for now...
Perfect! Could not say it better!
Take care, Bill
To answer pa04prius and jtantare at the same time...quote:
Originally posted by jtantare:
Ahh where do I begin.
Toyota warranties their batteries for exactly 150k miles.
Hybrid drive train costs $2400 (Civic EX vs hybrid)
Do you really believe gas with stagnate at $3 a gallon while you drive 150k miles?
Have you even considered resale value?
Hubrids have lower maintainace costs than a full gas car due to the smaller and less stressed internal combustion engine.
I don't hate hybrids. I'm just trying to make $$ sense of them. A lot of people seem to think that a hybrid can somehow turn the laws of physics upside down and lets just say I'm skeptical.
On one had the hybrid typically has an engine that can run at it's most efficient point. OTOH, that engine has to overcome the larger driveline inefficiencies associated with the hybrid. Pull regenerative breaking out of the equation for a person who does little stop and go driving and the mileage doesn't look much better ( if any ) than the same vehicle with a gasoline engine and conventional manual transmission driveline. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make a person want to pay a premium for one does it.
As far as lower maintenance costs with a hybrid, I can't see it. The IC engine in a hybrid still has to produce the same amount of power over time as an engine in a car with a conventional driveline, less whatever we've gotten back from regenerative braking. No getting around the physics of that. Now we need to add the maintenance costs of the hybrid driveline and associated electronics vs. conventional parts. I don't see how that will be less. It's nice the Toyota battery warranty is so long. The Honda and Ford hybrid owners aren't so lucky.
Forbes is right about gas being overpriced. It's not so scarce it's actually worth $3 a gallon. It's being driven up by speculators and the price fixers at OPEC. I'm not sure I agree with him that it'll come down anytime soon though. It might well just stay at or around $3 per gallon for some time.
As far as why companies are in a rush to build hybrids, it's simple. People want to buy them right now. That's totally unrelated to if they make any economic sense...
Now you are just getting into the validity of EPA ratings because the Civic Hybrid is 50mpg HWY. The regular civic is 40MPG. That is a 25% increase. the city mpg is a 65% increase. All these theories are great, but fact is the EPA has already done the testing for us. And Hybrid Civic is significantly better hwy mpg than civic or corolla.quote:
Originally posted by Bill in Utah:
Perfect! Could not say it better!
Take care, Bill
And if you can't compare EPA ratings hybrid to ICE, the you can't compare across ICE's either and that is not the case.
[ September 09, 2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Jason Troxell ]
I don't follow your logic.
Hybrids are such that when comparing them to ICEs in terms of fuel economy, each time they stop their mileage improves compared to the ICE.
That difference does not exist from one ICE to another.
The EPA highway test involves several stops..it is not a test of pure non-stop highway driving.
(That could be one reason that many people get much better than EPA ratings on highway driving).
Apparently the EPA felt that if they added stops to the highway driving test, it would reduce the reported fuel economy and provide a more "real world" result.
It has the opposite effect on hybrids (compared to ICE engines). The same testing protocol that reduces the numbers on ICE engines increases the numbers on hybrids.
Hi,
Do a search on Google using the words Honda Civic Hybrid real MPG and you'll have a afternoon of reading REAL people and Consumer Reports stating that the Hybrids do NOT get close to their EPA mileage.
Some people may. But if you live in areas that don't have a lot of stop and go and drive long distances the batteries don't help you.
Plus here, we have mountains passes that go up quite a bit and the Hybrids little motor has to haul the heavy outfit up those grades.
Also, with a valley Floor of well over 4000 ft (4700 ft where I drive) your 100 hp (or what ever the hybrids gas engine puts out) is ALOT less.
I can only speak from my experience with my Toyota Corolla and my co-workers Prius driving the close to the same miles and on one trip the same route.
His car was underpowered to the point that on one mountain grade, its top speed was maybe 50 mph. The Corolla which had bigger load went up it around 60-62. Both were out of breath close to the top since it was topping out well over 6000 ft.
When it came to the gas pump, the Corolla got better MPG.
Over the short life of our cars, we are getting close the same Average MPG overall.
I have 10k less $$ in the car, less taxes paid, insurance is less, and the rock chips
And I'm still convinced that maintanence is going to cost you more on the hybrid when you keep the outfits for 250k or more miles. No matter how long it takes to rack those miles up. (8-10 years for both of us)
We will see! He commutes from the north and I'm from the south and both of us work the same shifts to traffic is close to the same. He does have a shorter commute but works 5 days compaired to my 4 days but total to date milage is very close.
For me, I'll go with simple, tried cheaper for a commuter outfit. I did and in two weeks the Corolla will be 1 year old and so far, I made an excellent buy IMO. (esp since gas has gone up almost a $1 per gallon in the year since I bought it)
Thanks for the reply and take care, Bill
Again, the makers do not set the mileage ratings, the EPA sets them and the makers must use them. They aren't real-world test based #s, they are calculated.
Toyota and Honda (and perhaps others?) have requested that the EPA's math be revised since it has some serious flaws in the Hybrid arena and they are getting tired of being accused of lying to their customers.
Using the EPA ratings for any comparison is going to give bad results.
Toyota and Honda (and perhaps others?) have requested that the EPA's math be revised since it has some serious flaws in the Hybrid arena and they are getting tired of being accused of lying to their customers.
Using the EPA ratings for any comparison is going to give bad results.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
I was not aware the HWY mileage was tested that way. That would definitely minimize the difference in constant speed driving.
Seems they need a better test method than bogusing things up to make customers feel good when they beat the numbers. Apparently someone was too dense to comprehend "highway" and realize they weren't at constant speed when they calculated theirs (or above the test speed).
I was not aware the HWY mileage was tested that way. That would definitely minimize the difference in constant speed driving.
Seems they need a better test method than bogusing things up to make customers feel good when they beat the numbers. Apparently someone was too dense to comprehend "highway" and realize they weren't at constant speed when they calculated theirs (or above the test speed).
The problem with the EPA mileage test is they don't actually drive the car. They don't even measure how much fuel goes into the engine. They measure the ammount of CO2 coming out of the exhaust during a bench test under load. Then they extrapalate fuel economy number from that and reduce it by about 10%. Why not just drive the stupid car?
There is an interesting article from Canadian Driver. They take 10 complact cars, put 50 litres of gas in each one and drive them untill they run out of gas. Some of the results are amazing. No hybrids in this one.
The CanadianDriver 50-litre Challenge
There is an interesting article from Canadian Driver. They take 10 complact cars, put 50 litres of gas in each one and drive them untill they run out of gas. Some of the results are amazing. No hybrids in this one.
The CanadianDriver 50-litre Challenge
The EPA reduces the highway fuel economy by 22%, 10% for city.
One reason, I suspect, that they don't drive the car is wind. It's an uncontrollable variable that will afffect the results.
The EPA says that measuring the amount of carbon (not CO2) in the exhaust is more accurate than measuring the amount of fuel going into the engine. Unless there's some destruction of matter taking place...is Mr. Fusion ready for prime-time yet?
One reason, I suspect, that they don't drive the car is wind. It's an uncontrollable variable that will afffect the results.
The EPA says that measuring the amount of carbon (not CO2) in the exhaust is more accurate than measuring the amount of fuel going into the engine. Unless there's some destruction of matter taking place...is Mr. Fusion ready for prime-time yet?
I was mistaken about this. I checked and the EPA highway test does not involve any stops, but it does involve a large amount of speed variation: I counted 21 decelerations in the 10-mile test, with the largest being a drop from 45 to 30MPH and then a very slow acceleration back up to 60MPH (which is the max speed). I think the speed variations would have a similar, though not as great, effect on the hybrid's fuel economy test results as would stops.
You can see the graph of the highway (and city) tests here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
I think the speed variation in the highway test exceeds that which is typical for most highway trips..unless you're talking about the beltway at rush hour or a driver who is dancing on the gas pedal.
Interesting article.
My own observations and comments from this test:
Suzuki are retards (or sandbagging) for entering an awd automatic.
Honda and Toyota are at least 5 years ahead of VW and GM.
That Civic would have gotten another MPG without the trunk spoiler (but was helped by the body kit).
The HHR in the photo didn't survive long enough to run out of gas.
Why would I want a hybrid Civic when I can get 58MPG hwy from a cheaper gasoline Civic?
Why didn't they test a hybrid Civic?
Sorry I forgot to mention they used imperial gallons which are larger than US gallons. Also the civic is the canadian version of the HX with the lean burn engine. Converted to US gallons the MPGs are as follows.
Civic 48 mpg
Corolla 43
Focus 37
Spectra 37
Sentra 37
Cobalt 36
Mazda3 35
Golf 35
ION 33
Aerio 30
Civic 48 mpg
Corolla 43
Focus 37
Spectra 37
Sentra 37
Cobalt 36
Mazda3 35
Golf 35
ION 33
Aerio 30
That magazine test is very scientific:
"The only way we could be sure all vehicles had the same amount of fuel would have been to run them dry - that is, burn over 500 litres of fuel, then fill them up again with 50 litres. Not only would this be time consuming it would be wasteful. Instead, we calculated how much fuel we needed to burn according to the Natural Resources Canada fuel consumption rating for city driving, then ran the cars enough kilometres to burn it off (give or take, of course, a few kilometres)."
If only the EPA tested cars like this...
"The only way we could be sure all vehicles had the same amount of fuel would have been to run them dry - that is, burn over 500 litres of fuel, then fill them up again with 50 litres. Not only would this be time consuming it would be wasteful. Instead, we calculated how much fuel we needed to burn according to the Natural Resources Canada fuel consumption rating for city driving, then ran the cars enough kilometres to burn it off (give or take, of course, a few kilometres)."
If only the EPA tested cars like this...
- Status
