Author Topic: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.  (Read 9687 times)

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« on: January 27, 2015, 09:40:18 PM »
So I went on a trip with a friend last weekend.  They drove their new hybrid.  Yipee!

$35-40k car based on what NADA thinks.   It has buttons and screens, and it has bluetooth so you can have phone conversations through it.  It is also a hybrid with a 4 cylinder, and its a fairly small car.  Gas mileage should be insane right?

So while we are driving they comment that this thing gets 40mpg.  Ok thats impressive... but still not worth 35-40k.  I comment thats what an old Honda Fit gets.  They ask if that is a hybrid.  No, and brand new they cost under 20k.  Ok... I made my friend mad.  : (

So this thing apparently has a button on it that tells you your current and average gas mileage, but my friend forgot how to get to this button.  I drive part of the trip, and I find how to get to that screen in the menu.  Holding my tongue was incredibly difficult.

Current MPG:   28.   This is while I'm driving going 65 in a 65 on the interstate on level ground.  I thought about slowing down to 55 just to see what it would say, but this would have been really unsafe given how fast everyone else was driving. 

Average MPG(since he got the car):  24MPG. 

Having driven an '08 Honda Fit with that same gas tracking function I remember doing 60mph on level ground and it saying I was getting about 44mpg, and the average per trip when I drove it was about 33mpg. 

Same friend complains about not having enough money.  This purchase was to save on gas......

CCCA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Location: Bay Area, California
  • born before the 80's
    • FI programming
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2015, 09:54:08 PM »
What kind of hybrid was it?  I know that ford got in some trouble because their hybrids weren't able to achieve the EPA rating.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7965
  • Location: United States
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2015, 07:40:40 AM »
Some companies use hybrid to supplement their engine power, so it is a gas savings compared to what it would be without the hybrid- but not compared to other hybrid vehicles which are really about fuel economy.

So the kind of hybrid makes a big difference here.  (I mean my husband's Hybrid Escape does WAY better than a normal Escape, but couldn't come close to my non-hybrid Civic.)


As for comparison to the Fit- fuel economy isn't the only reason to buy a vehicle. Was the hybrid the same size as the Fit? It was just too small for me to feel safe in- especially the distance from the bumper to the people sitting in the backseat!

fodder69

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2015, 07:48:32 AM »
Highway driving is worst case for hybrids and pure electric since at those speeds you aren't braking as much so you don't get the benefit of regenerative braking.

24 mpg is still pretty shameful though!

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2015, 07:59:12 AM »
thats around what my hybrid gets at highway speeds of 70+.  anything over 55 and it drops substantially.  but around 65 i would probably get 32mpgs still. 

around the city is where hybrid shine ... i get 45mpgs back and forth to work as long as the temperature is above 40 deg F.

Gone Fishing

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2741
  • So Close went fishing on April 1, 2016
    • Journal
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2015, 08:06:16 AM »
If it is way out of the range of other first hand accounts, it makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the battery or computer?

I have never been able to justify a hybrid over a basic 4 door, all gas, commuter type car.

Dimitri

  • Guest
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2015, 08:12:24 AM »
My wife has a Toyota Prius C.  Over 34K miles her average is 47.5mpg.  Best tank was 57.0mpg.  Worst was 39.8mpg (driving I-15 to Cali at 80+ mph).  Your milage may vary.

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2015, 09:29:34 AM »
I have a 2010 honda insight, averages 40mpg since I got it. Brand new I think it was about 22k.

Ecky

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 172
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2015, 09:30:23 AM »
You're definitely right in that hybrids aren't necessarily high-efficiency vehicles. All* hybrid systems are there to supplement engine power, and though some companies downsize their engines to keep a target power:weight, others just add power as lowajes said. Early hybrids were universally efficient cars to help build that perception, but there's no arguing with the laws of physics. If you're driving around 6,000lbs of steel shaped like a brick, you're going to get bad MPG regardless of what powertrain you have.

In my hybrid, I installed a switch that allows me to disable the hybrid functions, and interesting, I actually get better mileage when I do, it's just a slug to drive without the extra torque:




walkerjks

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2015, 09:37:47 AM »
Quite a few companies used hybrid technology to squeeze more horsepower out of the same MPG, rather than actually increasing MPG.   I don't get why that is attractive for the extra cost, but I guess some people do. 

MsPeacock

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: High COL
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2015, 10:06:44 AM »
Hybrids also get worse MPG in cold weather - not sure what part of the country you are in, and which car you were driving. In warmer weather the battery operates more efficiently and MPG would be better. That said, 24 MPG sounds a lot lower than the estimates and something isn't right there. (Cold weather would not have that much impact on MPG).

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7965
  • Location: United States
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2015, 10:25:07 AM »

around the city is where hybrid shine ... i get 45mpgs back and forth to work as long as the temperature is above 40 deg F.

City driving is fabulous in hybrids.  In addition to temperature though, I'd say we need to be going at least 5 miles.  Husband hasn't been thrilled with his car's performance on his short trips to work.  But he bikes when he can.

I also really like ours, just for smugness factor, when stuck in horrible traffic jams.  The longer we are stuck, the higher the MPG ticks, while everyone else is just wasting gas like crazy.  (Before someone tells me to just bike past the traffic jam- this situation almost always occurs to us in Oklahoma City midway through the 17 hour drive from Eastern Iowa to Central Texas.  I'm not biking that. there is jut no way to time to miss Des Moines, Kansas City, OKC, and DFW traffic, and we almost always hit it in OKC.)
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 10:27:35 AM by iowajes »

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2015, 10:46:10 AM »
The engine on mine turns off when I come to a complete stop. So in the summer when it is crazy hot and I have the ac on...if I come to a stop light I have to rev the engine to keep the cool air coming. I can only imagine how stupid it looks to other people.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2015, 10:50:48 AM »
Well if his goal is to use less gas and 24 MPG is more than the previous vehicle averaged then it'll be saving on gas. Of course buying a new vehicle that cost tens of thousands of dollars, your friend will likely not be saving any money. Not rocket science so surely he must be aware, but he didn't state that the goal was to save money.

As for monetary savings. I think for most people 20 MPG is a point of diminishing returns and anything over 30 MPG is not worth worrying about. For exmaple we'll use $2/gal gas price, higher than current prices but what I've heard and read over the years is a realistic price in a free market. While we likely will never have a free market on fuel, it's not impossible. 13,476 is the official government number for average miles per year, sounds a little high to me but not unreasonable. So take a look at some snipets of incremental cost per mile and annual savings:

MPG   $/mile   Change   $/yr              Savings
10   $0.2000   $0.0222   $2,695.20   $299.47
11   $0.1818   $0.0182   $2,450.18   $245.02
19   $0.1053   $0.0058   $1,418.53   $78.81
20   $0.1000   $0.0053   $1,347.60   $70.93
29   $0.0690   $0.0025   $929.38      $33.19
30   $0.0667   $0.0023   $898.40      $30.98
35   $0.0571   $0.0017   $770.06      $22.65
36   $0.0556   $0.0016   $748.67      $21.39
40   $0.0500   $0.0013   $673.80      $17.28
41   $0.0488   $0.0012   $657.37      $16.43

Annual savings from 10-20 MPG: $1,347.60
Annual savings from 20-30 MPG: $449.20
Annual savings from 30-40 MPG: $224.60
Annual savings from 40-50 MPG: $134.76

According to BLS the median income for full time individuals is $41,132 or $19.78/hr. So lets reframe those annual savings in terms of hours of labor for the median American:

Annual savings from 10-20 MPG: 68.13
Annual savings from 20-30 MPG: 22.71
Annual savings from 30-40 MPG: 11.35
Annual savings from 40-50 MPG: 6.81

I'm curious to keep going with this and figure net savings or loss in both dollars and hours for various actual scenarios of replacing paid for older less MPG car A with either used or new more MPG car B. Or plugging numbers for a more representative income and miles driven of those here, though I'm not sure the median income here but I suspect it is significantly higher than $41k/yr and I suspect the median miles driven is less than 13,476.

damize

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2015, 11:12:42 AM »
The engine on mine turns off when I come to a complete stop. So in the summer when it is crazy hot and I have the ac on...if I come to a stop light I have to rev the engine to keep the cool air coming. I can only imagine how stupid it looks to other people.

I don't want to be a troll here, but I'm struck by the dichotomy between this comment and your stoicism related quotes in your signature.

Back on topic, Top Gear, the most un-mustachian of car shows, ran an interesting test one time.  They had a Prius run around their track full out, max speed.  They had a BMW M3 following the Prius. Comparing the gas mileage from both cars, the Beemer was 1 MPG better than the Prius.  The lesson is how you drive the car is easily as important as what car you drive.  My Audi got 33 MPG on a recent road trip from southern Cali to Idaho.  But, in the city, I'm averaging 17 MPG on my short 5 mile commute (when I drive instead of bike).  I'd expect a hybrid to do the opposite: better in the city than the highway.


Ashyukun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 270
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2015, 11:46:40 AM »
My 2005 Prius with an admittedly worn-out hybrid battery gets in the 40's at highway speeds. Unfortunately it's a) pretty cold outside, which hits the efficiency hard and b) my most common drive is less than 4 miles which doesn't allow the car to warm up to its most efficient (I don't drive it that much, I bike as much as possible) so the average mileage is not as good as it's rated for. Still gets better average mileage than my 2000 Saturn SL2 did. But I bought it very used and dirt cheap- new I'm not sure they'd be worth the extra cost...

russianswinga

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Age: 36
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Truth is just an excuse for a lack of imagination
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2015, 12:54:35 PM »
Wow - 24mpg is what I get in my 2002 BMW 330ci - and that's only because I live in San Diego, which is all hills and traffic. On the freeway I average 29.5mpg.
That's with a powerful 6-cylinder, a fun 6-speed transmission, supple leather, 10-speaker sound system, and other bells and wistles of the sport and premium pack.
My BMW is worth about $5000 according to KBB right now, but you would have to pry it from my cold dead hands. Until gas hits $5 per gallon, it's much more mustachian keeping it on the road than getting any other car.
Your friend should have gotten the fit. I've driven them, they're fun (with a stickshift), but have zero power going uphill. If they live in a flat city though - the Fit is a no-brainer.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 12:56:21 PM by russianswinga »

trailrated

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1136
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Bay Area Ca
  • a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2015, 01:09:57 PM »
The engine on mine turns off when I come to a complete stop. So in the summer when it is crazy hot and I have the ac on...if I come to a stop light I have to rev the engine to keep the cool air coming. I can only imagine how stupid it looks to other people.

I don't want to be a troll here, but I'm struck by the dichotomy between this comment and your stoicism related quotes in your signature.

Quote is from a Bukowski poem, not that it makes much of a difference. I guess we all need to get called out sometimes, that did make me laugh though. :)


gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2015, 01:34:11 PM »
My car - 2000 model, almost two tons, large sedan - gets 27 mpg at 80mph over long distances. It's not very fuel efficient compared to new cars. What the hell is that hybrid doing? I don't know for sure, but I suspect I get more ponies out of it too...

enigmaT120

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2015, 02:23:07 PM »
The engine on mine turns off when I come to a complete stop. So in the summer when it is crazy hot and I have the ac on...if I come to a stop light I have to rev the engine to keep the cool air coming. I can only imagine how stupid it looks to other people.

My '04 Insight does that, but there's an "auto" mode that prevents that from happening.  I run it in eco mode if I have the AC on.  I need it to keep the inside of the car from fogging up when I get into it sopping wet.


Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1338
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2015, 07:04:01 PM »
Hybrids also get worse MPG in cold weather - not sure what part of the country you are in, and which car you were driving. In warmer weather the battery operates more efficiently and MPG would be better. That said, 24 MPG sounds a lot lower than the estimates and something isn't right there. (Cold weather would not have that much impact on MPG).

We were driving in the South. It was probably 60 outside.

For reference the car in question was a Buick Regal Hybrid.  As for horsepower... I didn't feel much.  The one time I had to punch it due to traffic conditions it didn't really 'punch'. 

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2015, 07:08:11 PM »
Funny that, I actually drive a 2000 buick regal.

Those cars are not meant for gas mileage. They are sleeper cars, or at least they're intended to be, or at least the GS model is intended to be.

Mine is the 3.8 V6, supercharged. It punches when it needs to be punched. The new model, non-hybrid, trades that to a 2-liter 4-cylinder turbo with more horsepower and more torque, through the entire rpm range.

The key to enjoying it, for me at least, is to only punch it when necessary. Drive like a normal human being, but when you're in a desert at 3am and the road's empty as far as the eye can see... punch it.

I am very surprised that there's a hybrid (why?) and also that it doesn't punch.

skyrefuge

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Location: Suburban Chicago, IL
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2015, 10:26:19 AM »
For reference the car in question was a Buick Regal Hybrid.

Ah, ok, it sounds like that's a car that's a "hybrid" for marketing reasons only. ("oh shit, consumers want to buy 'hybrids' now? Ok, let's quickly half-ass something and slap the 'hybrid' name on it so we can trick them into buying it!") Wikipedia refers to it as a Mild Hybrid, and unlike a real hybrid (Prius, etc.) the only purpose of its electric motor is to aid in starting and provide an extra boost when stomping on the gas pedal. It also does auto start/stop and regenerative braking. But since none of those things (start/stop, braking, stomping on the gas) are happening on the Interstate, the only thing the "hybrid technology" is doing is adding weight, which takes more gas to lug around.

Also, LOL at how lame Buick is; from their website http://www.buick.com/fuel-efficiency-without-sacrifice.html

There is also clever efficiency taking place even before you come to a complete stop. The lithium-ion battery that powers the eAssist motor, as any battery, needs to be charged. Unlike many hybrids, however, the battery is not charged solely by the engine; it is also charged by the brakes. (emphasis added)

LOLWUT? Is there *any* hybrid that doesn't do regenerative braking?! What an amazing innovative feature, Buick!

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2015, 02:05:58 PM »
If you want good fuel economy on the freeway, you want a diesel, not a hybrid.

(An exception may be made for the first-gen Honda Insight, just because it's so damn light and aerodynamically efficient that it makes up for the lack of engine efficiency.)

enigmaT120

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
  • Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2015, 02:38:44 PM »
If you want good fuel economy on the freeway, you want a diesel, not a hybrid.

(An exception may be made for the first-gen Honda Insight, just because it's so damn light and aerodynamically efficient that it makes up for the lack of engine efficiency.)

If I were brave/stupid enough to draft semis, I could easily get 100 mpg on the interstate in my '04 Insight.  I rarely drive on them, though.  My commute goes across the Willamette Valley, not lengthwise like most people's.  Without drafting it looked like it was averaging 60 - 70 in fairly warm weather.  Some diesel's can do that.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2015, 03:58:13 PM »
If you want good fuel economy on the freeway, you want a diesel, not a hybrid.

If you really want to save money with primarily highway miles a diesel may not be the way to go. With the current $.75/gal price premium for diesel it takes a lot more MPG to actually save any money. At current prices a diesel has to get over 50 MPG to cost less than a gas car at 35 MPG. Diesel prices are only higher than gas because the government mandates ULSD, otherwise diesel would be cheaper than gas.

Gas vehicles for the past several decades have got significantly worse MPG than they should if not burdened by EPA emissions mandates as well as DOT safety mandates. Heck, compact cars 50 years ago got over 30 MPG highway with larger engines, carburetors, and no overdrive. Diesel vehicles only recently were subject to this government insanity which decreases MPG, decreases reliability, increases initial cost as well as maintenance cost. Used to be able to get diesel cars getting 60+ MPG and burning fuel that cost less than gas, government put an end to that. Of course if you have an older diesel engine you can relatively easily burn just about any type of oil.

Scandium

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2015, 03:13:14 PM »
If you want good fuel economy on the freeway, you want a diesel, not a hybrid.

If you really want to save money with primarily highway miles a diesel may not be the way to go. With the current $.75/gal price premium for diesel it takes a lot more MPG to actually save any money. At current prices a diesel has to get over 50 MPG to cost less than a gas car at 35 MPG. Diesel prices are only higher than gas because the government mandates ULSD, otherwise diesel would be cheaper than gas.

Gas vehicles for the past several decades have got significantly worse MPG than they should if not burdened by EPA emissions mandates as well as DOT safety mandates. Heck, compact cars 50 years ago got over 30 MPG highway with larger engines, carburetors, and no overdrive. Diesel vehicles only recently were subject to this government insanity which decreases MPG, decreases reliability, increases initial cost as well as maintenance cost. Used to be able to get diesel cars getting 60+ MPG and burning fuel that cost less than gas, government put an end to that. Of course if you have an older diesel engine you can relatively easily burn just about any type of oil.

and all we got was less acid rain and cities that aren't full asthmatics.

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2015, 04:44:38 PM »
I have a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid.  I average around 40-41 mpg with it on the highway, but I get significantly higher fuel economy when using it for city driving -- around 50-55 mpg.  A lot of it has to do with how you drive the car.  If you are using hypermiling tricks, you can use it in electric mode almost the entire time you are driving in the city.  Highway driving is trickier, but you can still get decent numbers.

fodder69

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2015, 05:23:46 PM »
If you want good fuel economy on the freeway, you want a diesel, not a hybrid.

If you really want to save money with primarily highway miles a diesel may not be the way to go. With the current $.75/gal price premium for diesel it takes a lot more MPG to actually save any money. At current prices a diesel has to get over 50 MPG to cost less than a gas car at 35 MPG. Diesel prices are only higher than gas because the government mandates ULSD, otherwise diesel would be cheaper than gas.

Gas vehicles for the past several decades have got significantly worse MPG than they should if not burdened by EPA emissions mandates as well as DOT safety mandates. Heck, compact cars 50 years ago got over 30 MPG highway with larger engines, carburetors, and no overdrive. Diesel vehicles only recently were subject to this government insanity which decreases MPG, decreases reliability, increases initial cost as well as maintenance cost. Used to be able to get diesel cars getting 60+ MPG and burning fuel that cost less than gas, government put an end to that. Of course if you have an older diesel engine you can relatively easily burn just about any type of oil.

The biggest issue affecting gas (not diesel) mileage isn't "government insanity" (is that a technical engineering term?). Most of the EPA mandates don't actually hurt mileage, but they do cost money. Some actually help mileage (o2 sensors optimize fuel/air ratio, etc.).

The biggest thing to affect gas mileage is weight, plain and simple. A lot of that is because of safety features, doors that don't fold on you, air bags, etc. all of which you may not appreciate until about .5 seconds before you wreck your car. The other big factor is "luxury" features. When was the last time you saw a car that didn't have power windows? Power locks? AC!? Can you even buy one like that in america?

A 1987 civic wagon weighed 1900lbs, a 2014 civic sedan weighs 3000. Some of that is safety, and a lot of it is luxury features people "have" to have.

And if you want to drive those cars, you still can and get the gas mileage to go along with it, but my guess is you drive something a lot newer. Which has power windows :-)

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3310
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2015, 11:56:31 AM »
Having driven an '08 Honda Fit with that same gas tracking function I remember doing 60mph on level ground and it saying I was getting about 44mpg, and the average per trip when I drove it was about 33mpg. 

What generation Honda Fit was this, in what country? My '08 Honda Fit Sport (US Model, first generation) does not have this feature. (Also, on Fuelly.com I was getting 36mpg overall in the summer months but 33mpg in the winter / moved / changed commute.)

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2015, 01:06:29 PM »
The biggest issue affecting gas (not diesel) mileage isn't "government insanity" (is that a technical engineering term?). Most of the EPA mandates don't actually hurt mileage, but they do cost money. Some actually help mileage (o2 sensors optimize fuel/air ratio, etc.).

The biggest thing to affect gas mileage is weight, plain and simple. A lot of that is because of safety features, doors that don't fold on you, air bags, etc. all of which you may not appreciate until about .5 seconds before you wreck your car. The other big factor is "luxury" features. When was the last time you saw a car that didn't have power windows? Power locks? AC!? Can you even buy one like that in america?

A 1987 civic wagon weighed 1900lbs, a 2014 civic sedan weighs 3000. Some of that is safety, and a lot of it is luxury features people "have" to have.

It's a combination of the EPA reducing efficiency of engines and the DOT increasing the weight of cars... A two pronged approach of reducing MPG, forcing people to buy overpriced vehicles they would not purchase if lighter more efficient vehicles were legal to produce.

EPA limits on gasses such as NOx, produced in greater quantities with higher pressure and temperature in teh comustion chamber. An optimal ignition timing curve results in NOx levels bureaucrats outlaw, along with greater power output and more MPG. Result is a less than optimal timing curve and reduced MPG.

EPA CAFE requirements made it illegal for people with families to buy fuel efficient (20-25 MPG at the time) station wagons and replaced them with SUVs getting 10-15 MPG.

The DOT required safety mandates add tremendous amounts of weight to cars, reducing MPG and ironically safety as well. Bumpers, roofs, A/B/C pillars, etc. Drive an 80s or earlier vehicle then drive a vehicle made in the past 10 years. You'll notice you have very little visibility in any direction. Very wide pillars, front and rear head restraints, very tall (and now heavy) doors all infringing upon visibility through the tiny windows and tiny mirrors that magnify a tiny tunnel of space behind the car. So then teh DOT mandates even more weight and complex distracting (not to mention expensive) systems such as radar proximity indicators, cameras, fancy displays. It all adds up, to reduced chances of avoiding an accident altogether, decreased MPG, and of course increased cost.

Cars 50 years ago were getting mid 30s MPG without fuel injection with real time feedback and mixture adjustment from O2 sensors or overdrive transmissions. Imagine the fuel economy that is possible (and the low cost it can be done at) without the threat of government violence. Even 25 years ago you could buy a brand new cheap car that got 50+ MPG and that was still hindered by EPA and DOT mandates, whihc I suspect drop 10-20 MPG from what could be done.

http://blog.motorists.org/50-mpg-then-and-now-2/

And if you want to drive those cars, you still can and get the gas mileage to go along with it, but my guess is you drive something a lot newer. Which has power windows :-)

Yes, I still can drive those cars. You're guess is wrong because I still do drive those cars. Part of my criteria for cars I'll drive are no power accessories, no government mandated wide pillars restricting my field of view, no tiny government mandated mirrors restricting my view to the rear. I've also been in a few wrecks (all caused by other drivers) in vehicles over 30 years old, there's nothing to be afraid of. The government has also done tremendous harm to the poor and (truly) middle class with their cash for clunkers program which destroyed many perfectly good, cost effective, and reliable vehicles while tripling the price of cheap used cars by creating a sudden artificial scarcity.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2015, 08:06:34 PM »
I wonder what species of dinosaur we've just discovered here?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2015, 09:27:49 PM »
I've also been in a few wrecks (all caused by other drivers) in vehicles over 30 years old, there's nothing to be afraid of.

This is 100% false. Watch almost any crash test with a modern car compared to one 30 years old and it's obvious who would be more likely to walk away.


Tabaxus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2015, 07:43:00 PM »
The biggest issue affecting gas (not diesel) mileage isn't "government insanity" (is that a technical engineering term?). Most of the EPA mandates don't actually hurt mileage, but they do cost money. Some actually help mileage (o2 sensors optimize fuel/air ratio, etc.).

The biggest thing to affect gas mileage is weight, plain and simple. A lot of that is because of safety features, doors that don't fold on you, air bags, etc. all of which you may not appreciate until about .5 seconds before you wreck your car. The other big factor is "luxury" features. When was the last time you saw a car that didn't have power windows? Power locks? AC!? Can you even buy one like that in america?

A 1987 civic wagon weighed 1900lbs, a 2014 civic sedan weighs 3000. Some of that is safety, and a lot of it is luxury features people "have" to have.

It's a combination of the EPA reducing efficiency of engines and the DOT increasing the weight of cars... A two pronged approach of reducing MPG, forcing people to buy overpriced vehicles they would not purchase if lighter more efficient vehicles were legal to produce.

EPA limits on gasses such as NOx, produced in greater quantities with higher pressure and temperature in teh comustion chamber. An optimal ignition timing curve results in NOx levels bureaucrats outlaw, along with greater power output and more MPG. Result is a less than optimal timing curve and reduced MPG.

EPA CAFE requirements made it illegal for people with families to buy fuel efficient (20-25 MPG at the time) station wagons and replaced them with SUVs getting 10-15 MPG.

The DOT required safety mandates add tremendous amounts of weight to cars, reducing MPG and ironically safety as well. Bumpers, roofs, A/B/C pillars, etc. Drive an 80s or earlier vehicle then drive a vehicle made in the past 10 years. You'll notice you have very little visibility in any direction. Very wide pillars, front and rear head restraints, very tall (and now heavy) doors all infringing upon visibility through the tiny windows and tiny mirrors that magnify a tiny tunnel of space behind the car. So then teh DOT mandates even more weight and complex distracting (not to mention expensive) systems such as radar proximity indicators, cameras, fancy displays. It all adds up, to reduced chances of avoiding an accident altogether, decreased MPG, and of course increased cost.

Cars 50 years ago were getting mid 30s MPG without fuel injection with real time feedback and mixture adjustment from O2 sensors or overdrive transmissions. Imagine the fuel economy that is possible (and the low cost it can be done at) without the threat of government violence. Even 25 years ago you could buy a brand new cheap car that got 50+ MPG and that was still hindered by EPA and DOT mandates, whihc I suspect drop 10-20 MPG from what could be done.

http://blog.motorists.org/50-mpg-then-and-now-2/

And if you want to drive those cars, you still can and get the gas mileage to go along with it, but my guess is you drive something a lot newer. Which has power windows :-)

Yes, I still can drive those cars. You're guess is wrong because I still do drive those cars. Part of my criteria for cars I'll drive are no power accessories, no government mandated wide pillars restricting my field of view, no tiny government mandated mirrors restricting my view to the rear. I've also been in a few wrecks (all caused by other drivers) in vehicles over 30 years old, there's nothing to be afraid of. The government has also done tremendous harm to the poor and (truly) middle class with their cash for clunkers program which destroyed many perfectly good, cost effective, and reliable vehicles while tripling the price of cheap used cars by creating a sudden artificial scarcity.

Sir, I need you to put down the Ayn Rand and step away slowly.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2015, 08:07:23 AM »
I've also been in a few wrecks (all caused by other drivers) in vehicles over 30 years old, there's nothing to be afraid of.

This is 100% false. Watch almost any crash test with a modern car compared to one 30 years old and it's obvious who would be more likely to walk away.

In worst case scenarios most modern cars will fare much better for the occupant, I don't claim otherwise. My statement is that there is little to be concerned with so far as safety driving a 20-30-40-50 year old car in what in my experience are typical or more common accidents or crashes... Relatively low speed fender benders, deer strikes, etc. my experience has been that in vehicles over 30 years old I have suffered minimal injury (i.e. walk away a little sore) and also the vehicle is typically drivable afterwards or at least cheaply repaired whereas modern vehicles are totaled. Often even if there is minimal damage to a modern car but a myriad of air bags go off and it's cost prohibitive to replace the air bags vs buy the same or similar car.

If you're talking about major accidents like hitting a bridge abutment at highway speed, a head on strike with opposing traffic, or similar, I don't worry about crash survivability in those type of incidents as I believe most of those are entirely avoidable by being aware and always having an exit strategy, anecdotally I have avoided a few of these by being aware and reacting quickly whereas if I was inattentive. I am big on personal responsibility and accountability, to me it's not worth the added expense of a new car to have greater survivability in a very unlikely situation. It's exponential cost increase for marginal safety increase, somewhere along that curve is a point of diminishing returns and we each have to make a decision based on how risk averse we are.

Sir, I need you to put down the Ayn Rand and step away slowly.

Actually I've never read any of Ayn Rand's work. You have? Perhaps you could fill me in? I know she was pro free market anti communism and an atheist so she sounds like a reasonable person from the bits I've picked up.

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3067
  • Location: At the Barn
  • Horses: for sanity & poverty!
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2015, 10:03:25 AM »
Having driven an '08 Honda Fit with that same gas tracking function I remember doing 60mph on level ground and it saying I was getting about 44mpg, and the average per trip when I drove it was about 33mpg. 

What generation Honda Fit was this, in what country? My '08 Honda Fit Sport (US Model, first generation) does not have this feature. (Also, on Fuelly.com I was getting 36mpg overall in the summer months but 33mpg in the winter / moved / changed commute.)

My husband and I both had '09 Fit Sports for a couple years, and we constantly got 39 and 41 mpg with them (not sure if it was car differences or driving differences) throughout the year including commuting in Idaho in winter.

I think there is something wrong with the OP's friend's car or the driving.  Edmunds says the fuel economy should be 25/36, and they are averaging less than the low end there.  I'd be seriously pissed getting 24 mpg.

Current car is a 6-speed Honda CR-Z hybrid, which is one of the hybrids that gets less assistance from the electric motor.  The fuel economy is listed at 31/37, but I've never averaged worse than 36, during winter, with combined city and freeway driving.  With careful driving, I've averaged 46 mpg on a tank in summer, and pretty easily gotten 46 mpg on longer freeway trips running at 73 mph.  There was a recent recall to reset some of the computer settings, ostensibly improving fuel efficiency a bit more, though I haven't driven it enough to really tell since taking it in, though the gas motor does cut out while stopped at colder temps than before getting the recall work done.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3628
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2015, 06:51:40 AM »
In my experience, hybrid powertrains are the most sensitive to driving style of any car. I've been hypermiling for years - including a Durango, a Protege5, and an S2000 - and I had to take it to the next level to reach the EPA est. 50mpg in our 2010 Prius in real-world mixed driving. I've heard of Prius cabs in San Fran showing an average of 25mpg.

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3310
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2015, 08:12:27 AM »
Well my bigger question was about the "gas tracking feature." The only such item in my '08 is the fuel gauge :) Does the '09 and newer have real-time gas mileage estimate read-outs, history and remaining range? Do you track your gas mileage manually or just use that read-out?

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3067
  • Location: At the Barn
  • Horses: for sanity & poverty!
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2015, 08:39:18 AM »
Well my bigger question was about the "gas tracking feature." The only such item in my '08 is the fuel gauge :) Does the '09 and newer have real-time gas mileage estimate read-outs, history and remaining range? Do you track your gas mileage manually or just use that read-out?

We were tracking it manually.  The '09 just had a little digital gauge thing that moved back and forth with the real-time mileage.  I don't think it provided an overall mileage estimate.  With the CR-Z, it estimates trip mileage, so I try to remember to zero out the trip meter when I gas up, so I'm getting the estimate for each tank of gas.  It seems to track pretty closely to my manual estimates.

fodder69

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2015, 08:59:42 AM »
It's a combination of the EPA reducing efficiency of engines and the DOT increasing the weight of cars... A two pronged approach of reducing MPG, forcing people to buy overpriced vehicles they would not purchase if lighter more efficient vehicles were legal to produce.

EPA limits on gasses such as NOx, produced in greater quantities with higher pressure and temperature in teh comustion chamber. An optimal ignition timing curve results in NOx levels bureaucrats outlaw, along with greater power output and more MPG. Result is a less than optimal timing curve and reduced MPG.

EPA CAFE requirements made it illegal for people with families to buy fuel efficient (20-25 MPG at the time) station wagons and replaced them with SUVs getting 10-15 MPG.

The DOT required safety mandates add tremendous amounts of weight to cars, reducing MPG and ironically safety as well. Bumpers, roofs, A/B/C pillars, etc. Drive an 80s or earlier vehicle then drive a vehicle made in the past 10 years. You'll notice you have very little visibility in any direction. Very wide pillars, front and rear head restraints, very tall (and now heavy) doors all infringing upon visibility through the tiny windows and tiny mirrors that magnify a tiny tunnel of space behind the car. So then teh DOT mandates even more weight and complex distracting (not to mention expensive) systems such as radar proximity indicators, cameras, fancy displays. It all adds up, to reduced chances of avoiding an accident altogether, decreased MPG, and of course increased cost.

Cars 50 years ago were getting mid 30s MPG without fuel injection with real time feedback and mixture adjustment from O2 sensors or overdrive transmissions. Imagine the fuel economy that is possible (and the low cost it can be done at) without the threat of government violence. Even 25 years ago you could buy a brand new cheap car that got 50+ MPG and that was still hindered by EPA and DOT mandates, whihc I suspect drop 10-20 MPG from what could be done.

http://blog.motorists.org/50-mpg-then-and-now-2/

And if you want to drive those cars, you still can and get the gas mileage to go along with it, but my guess is you drive something a lot newer. Which has power windows :-)

Yes, I still can drive those cars. You're guess is wrong because I still do drive those cars. Part of my criteria for cars I'll drive are no power accessories, no government mandated wide pillars restricting my field of view, no tiny government mandated mirrors restricting my view to the rear. I've also been in a few wrecks (all caused by other drivers) in vehicles over 30 years old, there's nothing to be afraid of. The government has also done tremendous harm to the poor and (truly) middle class with their cash for clunkers program which destroyed many perfectly good, cost effective, and reliable vehicles while tripling the price of cheap used cars by creating a sudden artificial scarcity.

The article you posted says the exact same thing I said. And modern engines are incredibly more efficient at burning gasoline along with emitting almost no pollutants. A timing curve has very little to do with emissions and cars are now designed to optimize that curve right to the limit of over advancing it, as in, no you can't optimize it any more and get some magic 10-20 mpg. Cause there are ECU programs you could buy that would do that. They don't and you can't. Although I am sure you can find some huckster saying you could.

And I don't care what kind of car you drive, that was a joke. Hence the smiley face. To make it obviously a joke.


greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1129
Re: Hybrid doesn't mean good gas mileage.
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2015, 09:37:24 AM »
A lot of it has to do with the driver.   People think that you can still drive 75 mph and get insane mpg, it just doesn't work that way.   

We have an 07 Civic Hybrid, I could consistently get 52+mpg on a 160 mile round trip commute that I had to do 3-4 days a week for a year.    The key was to really think about energy management (not using brakes) and to maintain almost exactly 55mph.     

Now that I'm not the primary driver of this car the average has dropped down to about 39-42 mpg (I also got rid of the energy saving tires, they sucked in the snow or rain).     I've had other small cars, but I was never able to pull 52mpg out of them like I was able to do with the hybrid.    My Golf topped out in the mid 30s.

Think you can't drive that slow, I'd encourage you to do a little bit of arithmetic.   Driving faster than 55mph will generally only save you about 10 minutes on the average trip.    That's a buffer than can often be completely erased by things like hitting frequent traffic lights (traffic lights are often programmed to allow someone traveling at the speed limit to hit more greens than reds).