Hybrid Cars' Fantasy Mileage Ratings Drive Into the Sunset -

What I find kind of baffling is the pervasive idea that people buy and drive hybrids for the sole purpose of saving money. While I grant that it's the major factor for many drivers, there's no question that a very real subset of the market are willing to pay more money to burn less fuel.

The new EPA tests factor in real-world conditions such as speeding, varying weather and lead-footed driving. Vehicles like hybrids with smaller engines pay a higher penalty during the acceleration test, as well as the tests that simulate going up a hill and maintaining highway speeds.

Agreed. Cash savings is a huge reason why I'm considering a hybrid for my next car purchase, but definitely not the only reason. Hybrid owners do pay a cost to pollute less and save fuel, not just offset the cost of the extra gear that comes along with the higher price tag. But the main reason is to know you're doing something good for the environment, for drivers around you, and even for national security.

What I find kind of baffling is the pervasive idea that people buy and drive hybrids for the sole purpose of saving money. While I grant that it's the major factor for many drivers, there's no question that a very real subset of the market are willing to pay more money to burn less fuel.

I would take that further and say burning less fuel is the primary concern for the majority of hybrid owners. The few people I know that drive hybrids all did it to burn less fuel and produce fewer emissions. Cost/money was not a factor.

If you REALLY want to save money, go buy a mid-90s Honda Civic VX. Since it's 10 years old, purchase cost will be super low and the mileage easily equals or trumps the hybrids with 47 city and 56 on the highway.

Plus, you don't have to worry about having to pay for thousands of dollars worth of batteries down the road (or the resulting lead/acid pollution), or the fact that that hybrids use more energy to manufacture...

Fact is, gas mileage has taken a nasty turn for the worse over the past 10 years, and hybrids are just a fashionable band-aid over an ugly trend.

If you REALLY want to save money, go buy a mid-90s Honda Civic VX.

Good point. The notion of people buying new cars but worrying about "saving money" does have a hilarious double-think character to it.

Checking out the local craigslist for Hondas, looks like the majority of them from the mid-90s run around $3000, and get around 35mpg city and 40-45mpg highway. Of course, these vehicles all have varying degrees of care taken of them, so some work done up front would probably improve the fuel efficiency.

With gas prices what they are, I don't think anyone is going to find a low-priced Honda getting 50mpg combined. I couldn't find one after checking out several sites. I would note that the ones I did find (mentioned above) equal the fuel efficiency of my brand new Toyota Yaris. If Toyota gets its act together an starts exporting the Yaris diesel to the US, that'll be a vehicle getting around 60-65mpg combined.

But yeah, it sucks that automakers haven't done much to improve gas mileage over the last few decades.

iarnuocon, you want the Civic VX. VX mileage quoted above comes straight from fueleconomy.gov.

If the VX is too hard to find, the Civic HX is close. It's newer, but it's fatter and the mileage suffered.

The CRX HF is another high-mileage wonder, but there's no back seat and it's impossible to find a good one anymore in most parts of the country.

Didn't the old VW Jetta TDI get something like 46mpg? Those diesel engines require less maintenance and have better longevity than their gasoline counterparts. Plus, the Jetta is a good sized car for hauling people and/or stuff around.

Jay, yes... VW has been selling high-mpg diesels for decades. But some folks are anti-diesel.

The point is, there's more than a few cars out there that seat 4, haul stuff, are perfectly reliable AND use no more gas than a hybrid.

Even my old Neon R/T would easily do better than 35 mpg in mixed driving, and it had a 150-horse motor and a 7.5 sec 0-60 time. Not hybrid numbers, but a mixture of thrifitness and performance you just can't find now. Shoulda kept it.

Didn't the old VW Jetta TDI get something like 46mpg?

VW currently has several TDI models with mgp in the high 40's...

I do not think that VW is selling any TDI cars this model year. The only diesel in their lineup is the Touareg V10 TDI. The European manufacturers all have plenty of diesel motors, but the US regulations are diesel unfriendly. The Europeans has one set of regulations for diesel (that allow more NOx and less CO) and gasoline (that allows less NOx but more CO). Plus, the US only introduced clean diesel fuel at the end of 2006.

Maybe in 2008, they European manufacturers will start importing a few more diesels. Better yet, maybe a few of those will be diesel-electric hybrids.

a very real subset of the market are willing to pay more money to burn less fuel.

There are two hybrid owners where I work, and that is precisely why they bought their cars. One of them is a struggling grad student, so the expense was not trivial to her...though I see you can get an older Insight for around $8K.

Her parents were in town to visit, and they tried for a week to drive the tank dry and failed, so either it has a very large tank, or it gets pretty good mileage in our local conditions.

I do not think that VW is selling any TDI cars this model year. The only diesel in their lineup is the Touareg V10 TDI.

They are, but they're calling them 2006 special editions:

From Aaron Gold,
Your Guide to Cars.

2006 Volkswagen Jetta TDI continues on into 2007

2006 Volkswagen Jetta TDIThere's been a lot of speculation about the future of the diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta TDI here in the US. Changes in regulations related to our switch-over to lower-sulfer diesel fuel are making it more difficult for car companies to sell diesels in 2007, so VW has found an innovative (and legal) way around the problem: Sell them as 2006 models. In the 45 states where diesel Jettas are currently sold, buyers will find "special edition" 2006 Jetta TDIs selling side-by-side with the 2007 gasoline-powered cars. Meanwhile, Volkswagen is apparently working on a new common-rail turbodiesel engine which will appear in US-market cars in calendar year 2008.

My Dad has a 2.2 litre diesel Toyota Avensis (the T-Spirit). He does a LOT of miles, and it's a lease car.

He regularly achieves 60mpg or more, proof positive that even with a big engine so long as it's efficient, and you have a sensible driving style, you can easily save money. When he had his old Peugeot 407, he got just under a thousand miles from one tank of petrol once! The Avensis' tank is smaller though, the most he's ever gotten from it is about 750miles. Given that diesel is almost £1 a litre again, this is really important.

Most people I know only own Hybrids for 1) the tax cut and 2) the lack of congestion charging when they drive into London. The Prius is actually very average for fuel consumption and you don't save that much petrol anyway as by default the ECU brings the engine into play when you go above 25mph or something stupidly low, anyway - hence why people mod their ECUs to keep the Prius running on batteries for longer and get better fuel economy.

It's a butt-ugly car too, I'd hate to own a Prius. And putting it into reverse? You need a separate manual on how to do that! Such an utterly mind-boggling design when compared against the regular manual gearbox concept (and if it ain't broke, why bother changing? Oh yeah, cause it's for the American market, heh).

(sorry, bored this evening ;)

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate the advice. The Yaris will do me for now-- it's nice to own a vehicle that's covered by a warranty, and since it's a 100% improvement over my old vehicle (a Chevy Tahoe) it's making me quite happy.

Besides, I'm still hoping to see that Venture One make the market in the next year or so-- those things look pretty cool.

tcervo, some local guys bought a 2006 TDI and are making their own diesel out of fryer grease from a local restaurant. There was an article about it in the local paper. They say they're getting 52mpg for the cost of about $.60/gallon. But I gotta think that sooner or later the government is going to step in and regulate that sort of thing.

At $3/gallon for gas, you have to think that some car company is going to realize that offering a decent fuel efficient vehicle is going to make them a mint, especially if they can beat everyone else to market.

2.2 liters is a big engine? I guess that just shows the difference in attitude between America and Europe. That's just one notch above tiny here in America.

I drove a Renault Twingo around Germany and France for a few days, and was extremely impressed by its low gas consumption. Both the gas guage and the odometer were out of commission (no, it wasn't a rental), and my girlfriend was in constant fear of running out of gas, so every two hours I had to top the tank off...usually about a liter.

Exactly. Just because the EPA decided to put the pedal to the metal while driving doesn't mean hybrids are any less efficient all of a sudden. Everyday people's driving habits aren't going to change just because the sticker says something different. The civic and the prius are going to average around 50, and some people will get closer to 60.

Does anybody know how this is calculated?

I'm not sure if they factor in maintenance costs and such. My guess is that they simply calculate how many miles an average person drives (let's say 12,000/year), figure out the difference in MPG between a comparable car (let's say 20mpg better over a $2,000 more expensive car), and the cost of gas at the time ($3/gal) and there you go.

In that equation, you'd save $640 in one year, and it'd take just over 3 years to 'equal' a comparable car. (i assumed one car gets 45mpg and one gets 25mpg)

Hybrid: 12,000 miles / 45 miles/gallon = 266 gallons of gas a year x $3/gallon = $800/year in gas
Regular 12,000 miles / 25 miles/gallon = 480 gallons of gas a year x $3/gallon = $1440/year in gas.

Will the rising cost of gas change this timeline significantly?

Yes. As the variable for gas increases, the savings for the hybrid would go up, and thus make it take less time to 'equal' a comparable car.

They state in the article that the estimates were made using an average gas price of $2.70. As gas prices climb, the shorter the break-even point becomes.

Daniel: Your comparison is not really apples-to-apples. What 45mpg hybrid has an equivalent gasoline car that gets 25mpg? You are tilting the playing field.

Look at the Camry. Assuming that the article is stating numbers for the four-cylinder, it gets a combined 24mpg and costs between $18,470 and $24,900 (depending on trim). The Camry Hybrid will get 34mpg combined and costs $26,200 (only one trim level). So, the purchase price of the hybrid will be between $7,730 and $1,300 more.

So, using your calculation, this hybrid's annual fuel cost will be $1,058. The gasoline model's will be $1,500. The delta usage is about 147 gallons of gasoline.

The purchase price delta is even greater if you compare the Prius to the Corolla. There is no true equivalent to the Prius, but the Corolla is a lot closer to it than the Camry. A top end Corolla will run $15,515 while a base Prius is $22,175.

Or another apples-to-apples comparison -

A 2007 Civic (with auto) is rated at 30/40 (city/highway) mpg, for an annual fuel cost of $1386 (at $3.05)
A Honda Civic Hybrid is rated at 49/51, or an annual fuel cost of $915.

So, the Hybrid saves $471 per year on gas. (and note that it actually has inferior highway mileage to the 10 or 15 year old Civic VX mentioned earlier).

The Hybrid MSRP is $22,600-$24,350. The regular Civic MSRP is $15,010-$21,260, for a price differential of 1,340 - 9,340, so it would take somewhere between 3 and 19 years, depending on options, to make up the difference.

And meanwhile, that 10-year-old Civic would save more than either one of them.

Your comparison is not really apples-to-apples

I was simply showing how the math was done.

To be clear, you will NEVER break even if you are comparing a new car to an older car which is paid off. My friend and I ran the numbers, and buying a hybrid to save money only makes sense if you are looking to spend approximately the same amount of money (low 20's) for a new car. You can get smaller cars which get good mileage (the Yaris comes to mind) which run in the low teens for cost and those will slaughter the price/gas mileage ratio every time.

That said, I was willing to pay the slight premium for the car for several reasons, including the tax credit, and the fact that the car has 10% of the emmissions of any other standard car. I was completely sold on the Prius when I took it for a test drive too, finding it very responsive, roomy, and with a ton of little gadgets that made the geek in me happy (I love the wireless key entry and touch screen controls for everything).

It's all about choice, so consider it on par with someone dropping a retarded amount of money on a Hummer or a BMW. People do that regularly despite the fact that you can get a perfectly good car in a Hyundai or something cheaper. I like what the Prius represents, which is a willingness to explore alternatives even if they're not perfect yet. So yes, for some people it's all about the money you save for gas, for me it wasn't.

And meanwhile, that 10-year-old Civic would save more than either one of them.

But the 10-year old Civic also pumps out a lot more emission than the hybrids. It's already said above the most buyers are not placing the saving as the major reason to go hybrids. The Hybrids are also the lowest-emission vehicles on the market right now.

Some people do actually care about others and want to do good.

We already established that, when the discussion began with, "If you really want to save money.."

Now, if you're really buying a hybrid for envirnomental reasons, I'm still a bit leery, mostly because of all those batteries. I fear we're trading air pollution for soil and water pollution. Personally, I'd go with an ULEV gas-powered car, if environmental concerns were my main motivation.

Found a list ranking 2007 cars by "environmental friendliness"; can't vouch for its accuracy, though.

Hybrids use NiMH batteries...rumor has it that a burned out NiMH battery is actually more valuable than a fresh one, because the nickel is concentrated into easily retrievable form. The fact that Toyota will buy the old batteries back for $200 lends creedence to the rumor.

It's called transition, nothing happens over night. Frankly I'm quite happy getting 400-450 miles to the gas tank out of my prius, and I'm definitely a lead foot driver. The new estimates completely jibe with my realworld experience.

It is surprising, however, that there isn't a bio-diesel hybrid out there yet, as that would be even more fuel-efficient.

I agree a bio-diesel hybrid seems like a no brainer, but so do electric cars!

I think there is a big difference between a whole hearted transition and the current state of transition, which is one of stubbornness to change. We have the money and technology to push to that next level, but people in charge are not willing to take the necessary actions, because they are already in the comfy positions of bureaucracy.

but so do electric cars!

Electric cars are (currently) highly inefficient. It takes far more energy produced to power an all-electric car than it does to power a fossil fuel or hybrid car. Electricity doesn't grow on trees...it has to be produced, somehow.

Do you have credible sources for that? I'd be very interested in seeing them.

I was under the impression that electricity is much cheaper to produce, and that it is much more efficient for vehicles than anything oil based. For example, the new Tesla Roadster, all electric sports car, gets the equivalent of 135mpg.

Plus, electricity can be produced through MANY different renewable methods.

Mikael: the hot hack for hybrids is to install a charger, so that they are full-electric for the first 40 miles or so of driving. If you only do city driving, they are essentially an electric car, with a gasoline backup for the few times you make longer or higher-speed trips.

Wow, I've never heard of that. Thanks Jimmy!

So, Jimmy, does this mean that if all your driving is short hops, the electric component never kicks in? It would seem so.

I have wondered about that.

Electric cars are (currently) highly inefficient.

It depends on what "efficiency" you are talking about. Electric motors are incredibly more energy efficient, across the motor component, then internal combustion motors:

Most gasoline fueled internal combustion engines, even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, have a mechanical efficiency of about 20%.

Most of it is lost as heat, unburned exhaust, and friction. 20% is ridiculous, and when I was (briefly) a part of at team at my university that was building a hydrogen fuel-cell car, they scoffed at that number, and would boast about the power and acceleration their motor could attain.

Now the electricity has to come from somewhere, which is what I believe you were refering to. But, like a battery, oil is simply an energy carrier, and much energy is required simply to obtain, refine, ship, and manage it. In the practical sense, energy is only "created" by renewable sources, particularly the sun. When we learn to harness, and store this energy efficiently, it has far greater potential than gas ever did. In fact, internal combustion engines are at the limit of their potential: we have them pretty much as good/efficient as we are ever going to get, and what person wants to end at just "good", when we could do so much more, so much faster, and so much better?

As well, I am almost positive I could badly beat 20% efficiency creating a electric generator that uses the same amount of gasoline (without the constraints of a vehicle), and then I would have more energy than before, in electric form. Thus, the efficiency is still higher with an electric root.

Exactly, thank you drulff. I have already heard of prototype electric cars capable of 350+ miles on a single charge, plus the charging time of only 10 minutes! Plus, you can't just go refine your own oil in your backyard, but you CAN put up solar panels! If you charged your car with electricity made through renewable sources, you've eliminated almost all waste, except for the initial manufacturing and the later disposal of the car. Also, electric engines are very low maintenance. Most of the initial models do not require maintenance for the first 100k miles or so. Some of these electric cars are in the 50-70k price range.

This may still be a little high, but think if Toyota made their camry or prius completely electric. They CAN do it, they SHOULD do it, but they aren't.

Once again, I am not impressed with the "Pollution Solution" (which a local billboard says) of Hybrids. Its a JOKE!

Make your own fuel at home:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070512/NEWS01/705120347/1001/NEWS

Imagine having your roof covered with a cyanobacteria bioreactor that produces a steady supply of ethanol to fuel your car.

Isn't that tax credit going away (quickly)? The Prius has already hit the sales volume number that triggers the phase out of that credit. I think that its credit is down to about $700. And, it may be completely gone by year's end.

If you are looking to increase the bang for the buck with that tax credit, you would be better off looking at a lower volume car that has not hit the trigger point yet. I believe that those volume triggers are by manufacturer (and Toyota is the only one to have hit the trigger).

which really doesn't apply anymore

That's what I meant by that. However, my tax credit was over $3000 since I got in early, which took my Prius (with a midgrade package) down to about $21K.

Could you build 2? :)

Thats kind of my previous point. I just don't see why they aren't taking those steps immediately. People WANT that and we really need it.

why they aren't taking those steps immediately

Costs? Maybe all those components would increase the cost of the car by some amount that would make selling it profitably impossible. How many people want it enough to be willing to pay the increased costs?

Depends on what they're driving. Oddly, quite a few 10-15 year old cars will easily do 40 mpg on the highway.

If I could just find a good Honda CRX, I'd drop one of those VX motors in and have an extremely fun car I could take to the autocross AND get more than 50 mpg in the city... and I could do the whole thing for maybe $5000.

On the other hand, a lot of newer car owners - suv owners in particular - are going to be hurting. I now $40 fill-ups on my Subaru are getting old.

If you could switch to a comparable, energy efficient SUV, would you do it? Thats what really matters.

I have two cars and an SUV. My wife will not drive any of my cars. But, if there were a way to get better efficiency out of the truck, we would certainly consider it. That said, her commute is insanely short as she drives to the train station to go into the city. I, on the other hand, always seem to end up at client sites in the suburbs where my commute is quite a bit longer.

I would love to see BMW import the 335d diesel to the USA. As far as fuel economy goes, it would outperform my gasoline version of the car by about 50%. I see an average economy of about 24mpg in that car; the diesel is reported to get about 37mpg.

What about global warming don't you believe?

My monthly fuel expense weigh more heavily on my mind than any thoughts of global warming. Pitch to me on the basis of saving money and you've got my attention. Pitch to me based on global warming and I'll walk away.

What about global warming don't you believe?

I'm curious as well.

I will be more convinced of global warming (or should it be termed abrupt climate change?) if the modeling tools we have 10-15 years from now predict it. I just think we're the blind men examining different parts of the elephant and trying to extrapolate the whole right now. Saving money is real and it's now. Global warming is still a matter of debate. If it turns out we're extrapolating from an incomplete dataset we would have taken a lot of measures for nothing. If the pitch for moving away from gas-guzzling vehicles is made in the area of saving money people can see that in their bank accounts. If we can get better performance and save money, it's a no-brainer. Why should we try to scare people into making decisions that are, in the end, good for them?