Another blow to the GW crowd - hybrids not as fuel efficient as predicted

[fossten]

New ratings slash hybrids’ mileage figures


February 25, 2007

Fuel-saving gasoline-electric hybrid cars don't save as much fuel as thought, according to new government fuel-economy ratings available to the public for the first time.

The new ratings go into effect beginning with 2008 models. But now it's possible to tell what rating 2007 and older models would get using the '08 standards.

The government's fuel-economy Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, has a program than makes the comparison. Click on the button that says "Compare Old and New MPG Ratings." It shows that vehicles typically bought for their fuel efficiency use significantly more fuel than the previous ratings have said.

Toyota's Prius, the best-known and best-selling gas-electric car in the United States, drops to 48 miles per gallon in the city from a 60 m.p.g. rating under the current system -- a 20% decline. Its highway mileage rating falls about 12% to 45 m.p.g.

By James Healy, USA Today

 

[daves2000ls]

higher rating in the city than on the highway? thats something i didnt expect.

 

[Calabrio]

The batteries can charge through the process of braking.

If you do any highway driving, it makes far more sense to just buy something like a Honda Civic. 40mpg, easier to repair, no giant batteries need disposal, and safety workers don't get electrocuted using the jaws of life on the car.

 

[Joeychgo]

Personally, I think we are looking in the wrong direction for fuel savings.

Imagine if the fleet of trucks, buses and trains in the US today were converted to a non petroluem product....

Imagine also if we made electric energy so cheap, that people would / could pay to convert to electric heating systems instead of oil / natural gas heating. Add to this the petroleum savings of heating the factories, retail stores and warehouses with electric heat.

I dont understand why we dont better harness electric power plants. Its true, that Nuclear power plants, for example, have other issues, but they are no less a problem then using gas / oil for so many things.

 

[fossten]

Personally, I think we are looking in the wrong direction for fuel savings.

Imagine if the fleet of trucks, buses and trains in the US today were converted to a non petroluem product....

Imagine also if we made electric energy so cheap, that people would / could pay to convert to electric heating systems instead of oil / natural gas heating. Add to this the petroleum savings of heating the factories, retail stores and warehouses with electric heat.

I dont understand why we dont better harness electric power plants. Its true, that Nuclear power plants, for example, have other issues, but they are no less a problem then using gas / oil for so many things.

It's your envirochondriac friends in the Democrat party who won't allow us to build and make use of nuclear power. Nor will these same wackos allow us to drill for our own oil, which would all but fix this "problem."

You like the parts you buy for your Mark VIII? You like the food you eat, the toilet paper you wipe your arse with? Say goodbye to it if we get rid of trucks and trains. And what's the deal about buses? I thought all environmentalists were in favor of mass transit.

Stop whimsically dreaming this pie-in-the-sky, bhong-laden crap. Get real. Oil is the cheapest, most plentiful energy source we have available today. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't use it.

 

[MonsterMark]

Oil is the cheapest, most plentiful energy source we have available today. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't use it.

Wind and solar are our best long term bets. In fact, I studied solar in engineering school going back 25 years. I was decades too soon into it. I am strongly considering starting a solar/wind company. If my wifey allows, our new house is going to run on solar/wind.

As far as the internal combustion engine, we need to crack the water code. I see electrolysis as a huge key to our energy equation. I am not too keen on going after all the available oil as we need the molecular structure of oil to make way too many products within our society at this time.

Ethanol...? Total joke, just like the Goracle on global warming.

 

[Marcus]

How exactly is this a blow to the "GW crowd"? The fact that the testing method has changed doesn't change how often you have to fill the tank. Hybrids still get better gas mileage than non-hybrids. This doesn't change a thing except the sticker on the window.

 

[Calabrio]

How exactly is this a blow to the "GW crowd"? The fact that the testing method has changed doesn't change how often you have to fill the tank. Hybrids still get better gas mileage than non-hybrids. This doesn't change a thing except the sticker on the window.

I'm not onboard with the global warming hype, however I do think that green technology is something to strive for. Global climate increase isn't the only motivation to improve emissions and conserve the environment. I do take offense when it's used as a scare tactic.

They hybrids however, seem like the worst scenario possible. They still burn fossil fuels, they aren't much more efficient than a high efficiency compact car. They are incredibly expensive to fix. They aren't as safe. They aren't as comfortable. What happens with those giant lead batteries in 10 years? And blind people are likely to get hit because they can't hear the cars coming.

 

[rmac694203]

I read something on a website, maybe Car and Driver, how they tested two Civics, one a hybrid and one was normal, and they drove them each across the country in varying conditions. On average, the hybrid got only like 10 mpg better, maybe less. They added up the extra cost for buying the hybrid, and expected repairs related to the batteries, etc, and it came out that you would have to drive the car well over 100,000 miles to even see any money savings.

 

[Joeychgo]

It's your envirochondriac friends in the Democrat party who won't allow us to build and make use of nuclear power. Nor will these same wackos allow us to drill for our own oil, which would all but fix this "problem."

You like the parts you buy for your Mark VIII? You like the food you eat, the toilet paper you wipe your arse with? Say goodbye to it if we get rid of trucks and trains. And what's the deal about buses? I thought all environmentalists were in favor of mass transit.

Stop whimsically dreaming this pie-in-the-sky, bhong-laden crap. Get real. Oil is the cheapest, most plentiful energy source we have available today. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't use it.

Because using it enriches our enemies. If we got off foreign oil, the world's oil markets would collapse, and our enemies would be in financial crisis and might have a few problems financing their jihad against americans.

BTW - I dont know a single democrat politician, and wouldnt call any of them friends. And until the last congressional election, I voted for the republican in my district, Henry Hyde, for the last 20 years. SO dont act like you know me or anything about me, and dont lump me into any group. Im no enviromentalist, and believe we should drill for our own oil. (although, I would much rather find an alternative source besides oil, not for enviromental reasons, but I dont want to be completely over a barrel someday should our oil run out) Of course I also believe the trillion dollars spent on Iraq might have been better spent developing an alternative to natural oil.

Further, read what I posted originally. I said nothing about getting rid of trucks trains or buses. However, since you blindly disagree with me at almost every turn, Ill say it one more time. Maybe you can read it this time.

Imagine if the fleet of trucks, buses and trains in the US today were converted to a non petroluem product....

Clear enough for you now? Nowhere did I say "get rid of"

Learn to read before you type. Then maybe we can discuss the issue instead of your blind hatred, your stupidity and your "know it all" but really know little attitude.

 

[Joeychgo]

Wind and solar are our best long term bets. In fact, I studied solar in engineering school going back 25 years. I was decades too soon into it. I am strongly considering starting a solar/wind company. If my wifey allows, our new house is going to run on solar/wind.

As far as the internal combustion engine, we need to crack the water code. I see electrolysis as a huge key to our energy equation. I am not too keen on going after all the available oil as we need the molecular structure of oil to make way too many products within our society at this time.

Ethanol...? Total joke, just like the Goracle on global warming.

I agree completely. I wish the cost of solar would come down to more reasonable levels. Wind is a PITA from what I understand, unless you have just the right location.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

How exactly is this a blow to the "GW crowd"? The fact that the testing method has changed doesn't change how often you have to fill the tank. Hybrids still get better gas mileage than non-hybrids. This doesn't change a thing except the sticker on the window.

Werd.

I read something on a website, maybe Car and Driver, how they tested two Civics, one a hybrid and one was normal, and they drove them each across the country in varying conditions. On average, the hybrid got only like 10 mpg better, maybe less. They added up the extra cost for buying the hybrid, and expected repairs related to the batteries, etc, and it came out that you would have to drive the car well over 100,000 miles to even see any money savings.

I like C&D, but you have to admit their editorials are somewhat biased. The beauty of a Hybrid lies SOLELY with it's ability to recover energy from regenerative dynamic braking (slowing the car by turning a generator that recharges batteries instead of wasting that energy in the form of heat). Therefore, the ONLY place they have an advantage over a non-hybrid is in city traffic conditions where there is constant stop-and-go traffic. Once on a highway, that advantage disappears, therefore it should come as no surprize that in a cross-country trip a hybrid's advantage is nil. If they had based their cost calculations on a test that was performed only on city driving, the pay-back time for the hybrid would be significantly less.

The hybrids other disadvantage lies with the energy storage device (battery), which due to lacking technology advancements that should've been started decades ago, is very expensive and toxic. I think hybrid drivetrains would be great though in things like city busses, garbage trucks (stop-and-go every 50 feet) and any fleet-type vehicle that spends it's primary life in the city. Once outside the city though, hybrids are not an appropriate solution.

I agree that if you have to run a tractor to "farm" product to make ethanol, it's cost and environmental advantages over oil deminish rapidly. Thus, as much as I'd hate to admit for my fellow Hosier farmers, corn-based ethanol is not the miriacle answer.

IMO, in an "ideal" case that minimizes environmental impact and maximizes independance from foreign oil, all our transportation needs would be provided by purely electric vehicles that are re-charged by a beefy electric grid that is fed purely by solar, wind, hydroelectric, neuclear or clean-coal-fired power plants. For this to happen, we must also develop a safe, inexpensive electrical energy storage device (battery). Fuel cells might just be that technology, but there may also be some other un-discovered chemistry that provides the solution. Localized (home / buisness) based solar & wind generators will also help distribute the energy needs.

 

[MonsterMark]

I agree completely. I wish the cost of solar would come down to more reasonable levels. Wind is a PITA from what I understand, unless you have just the right location.

The United States has more wind blowing across it that any other nation on earth.

 

[Iszi]

I like C&D, but you have to admit their editorials are somewhat biased. The beauty of a Hybrid lies SOLELY with it's ability to recover energy from regenerative dynamic braking (slowing the car by turning a generator that recharges batteries instead of wasting that energy in the form of heat). Therefore, the ONLY place they have an advantage over a non-hybrid is in city traffic conditions where there is constant stop-and-go traffic. Once on a highway, that advantage disappears, therefore it should come as no surprize that in a cross-country trip a hybrid's advantage is nil. If they had based their cost calculations on a test that was performed only on city driving, the pay-back time for the hybrid would be significantly less.

Would you prefer they ran comparisons in both city and highway traffic separately, or maybe one comparison that ran equal time/distance in city and highway driving? Either way, the fact that a hybrid's "advantage" is eliminated in what is for many people normal driving conditions shows to me that hybrids are not going to be the final answer or even close to it in the near or near-distant future.

I personally drive 15600 highway miles a year, just going to and from work. That's not counting church on the weekends or other trips that I make (which I do more often than not) that are primarily on 50+ MPH roads. And I "only" live 30 miles from work! I recall reading an article not too long ago about how more people are living much farther away than that, and having to travel much longer than my 30-45 minute cruise to get to their jobs!

My "city" driving is pretty well limited to short (within 3 miles or less) jogs to and from the store, and on rare occasion a trip downtown on the weekend. Even on those weekend trips, I probably only make 10-20 miles of city driving each trip, which pales in comparison to the 300+ miles of highway done that week.

So, there are many a common American that cannot begin to reap the "benefits" supposedly gained by switching to a hybrid vehicle. Add to those the numerous companies using road vehicles to transport things across the country, and you've got a very huge part of the economy that stands to gain nothing from this "solution".

I agree with Joey. If we can crack water/hydrogen as a primary fuel source, we'll be good to go for a long while.

 

[Iszi]

The United States has more wind blowing across it that any other nation on earth.

That's only because we're among the (if not THE) youngest nations of our size. Where most other countries have had millennia to build upon and overcrowd the land they occupy, we've only had a few centuries. Give us time. It won't be that far down the road before most of the wind blowing across the USA is being stopped or slowed by large buildings popping up everywhere. Heck, I'm only turning 25 this year and already I can tell my 3 year old "I remember when that shopping plaza used to be nothing but trees" when we pass by almost ANYTHING near our neighborhood.

Wind is a nice answer, but probably only short-term in relation to any other solution that might be proposed.

 

[fossten]

That's only because we're among the (if not THE) youngest nations of our size. Where most other countries have had millennia to build upon and overcrowd the land they occupy, we've only had a few centuries. Give us time. It won't be that far down the road before most of the wind blowing across the USA is being stopped or slowed by large buildings popping up everywhere. Heck, I'm only turning 25 this year and already I can tell my 3 year old "I remember when that shopping plaza used to be nothing but trees" when we pass by almost ANYTHING near our neighborhood.

Wind is a nice answer, but probably only short-term in relation to any other solution that might be proposed.

Excellent point. I never thought of that.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

That's only because we're among the (if not THE) youngest nations of our size. Where most other countries have had millennia to build upon and overcrowd the land they occupy, we've only had a few centuries. Give us time. It won't be that far down the road before most of the wind blowing across the USA is being stopped or slowed by large buildings popping up everywhere. Heck, I'm only turning 25 this year and already I can tell my 3 year old "I remember when that shopping plaza used to be nothing but trees" when we pass by almost ANYTHING near our neighborhood.

Wind is a nice answer, but probably only short-term in relation to any other solution that might be proposed.

Excellent point. I never thought of that.

Uh, NO. If that was true, the Chicago would've never gotten the nickname "The Windy City". :bowrofl: Additionally, as those big buildings that pop up from coast to coast are built, what do you think the majority of them are replacing? Tall tress maybe? Ever stand next to a redwood or a sequoia?

The reason north america is more windy than other contenents has more to do with how the jet streams flow, which are guided by temperature currents and ocean currents/temperarture. Do you really think that the wind currents at 10,000 feet are affected by obsticals that are within 1000 feet of the ground surface??

 

[fossten]

Uh, NO. If that was true, the Chicago would've never gotten the nickname "The Windy City". :bowrofl: Additionally, as those big buildings that pop up from coast to coast are built, what do you think the majority of them are replacing? Tall tress maybe? Ever stand next to a redwood or a sequoia?

The reason north america is more windy than other contenents has more to do with how the jet streams flow, which are guided by temperature currents and ocean currents/temperarture. Do you really think that the wind currents at 10,000 feet are affected by obsticals that are within 1000 feet of the ground surface??

I don't know, ahmadinejohnny, tress [sic] can be pretty big obsticals [sic]. :bowrofl: Science expert my a$$.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Would you prefer they ran comparisons in both city and highway traffic separately, or maybe one comparison that ran equal time/distance in city and highway driving? Either way, the fact that a hybrid's "advantage" is eliminated in what is for many people normal driving conditions shows to me that hybrids are not going to be the final answer or even close to it in the near or near-distant future.

In order to illustrate WHERE the hybrid has it's advantages and dis-advantages, you'd have to run both comparisions seperately (city driving study seperately from a highway driving study), and allow the consumer to make up his own mind based on their individual needs. C&D deliberately decided to bias their study by taking a cross-country trip, which is primarly highway driving, which did not allow the hybrid to "show its stuff". Therefore they made false conclusions by performing a biased study. But like ANY study or test on ANY type of vehicle, YMMV (your mileage may vary) because YOU don't have the same driving pattern (% of city vs % of hwy) or habits (leadfoot vs. pussyfoot) as everyone else.

So, there are many a common American that cannot begin to reap the "benefits" supposedly gained by switching to a hybrid vehicle. Add to those the numerous companies using road vehicles to transport things across the country, and you've got a very huge part of the economy that stands to gain nothing from this "solution".

No disagreement there, hybrids are NOT for everyone. And if this new test method is "another blow to" anyone, it would be to the hybrid manufacturers (primarily Honda & Toyota) and their marketing depts who probably falsely led the public into thinking a hybrid would be a good solution for EVERYONE, when the fact of the matter is they only benefit people who primarily drive in the city. No one in the "GW crowd" has claimed hybrids are the "miracle solution to all that ails ALL of us" as some folks here seem contend. The only claims made by the "GW crowd" were that hybrids HELP (not WILL) save the environment by burning less fuel, which is TRUE, especially if you drive primarily in the city. And guess where the majority of the population of this country live?? Any country dweller or highway commuter buying a hybrid thinking they are saving the environment or will be saving significant fuel costs haven't done their own research sufficiently. Buyer beware.

 

[MonsterMark]

My God, stop the presses. Johnny and I finally agree on something.

The world has the 'potential capacity' to provide 72 terawatts of electricity with wind power, over 5 times current worldwide demand.

Damn, the more I talk about this, the more excited I get to start a business doing it.

 

[MonsterMark]

In order to illustrate WHERE the hybrid has it's advantages and dis-advantages,

Current hybrids can run about 2 miles on electric alone. I don't know about you but that gets me about one way to the grocery store. Guess I'm walking or pushing that p.o.s. back.

 

[fossten]

My God, stop the presses. Johnny and I finally agree on something.

The world has the 'potential capacity' to provide 72 terawatts of electricity with wind power, over 5 times current worldwide demand.

Damn, the more I talk about this, the more excited I get to start a business doing it.

Bruce Berman tried to do something like this in the 90s, he went bankrupt when a defect was found in the manufacturing.

Besides, you get in somebody's way like Ted Kennedy, you'll wait decades for him to die off before you can build the farm.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I don't know, ahmadinejohnny, tress [sic] can be pretty big obsticals [sic]. :bowrofl: Science expert my a$$.

So now you are a spelling critic. Well bully for you. Go back to capitalizing on the jobless.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him.

-Proverbs 26:4

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

My God, stop the presses. Johnny and I finally agree on something.

The world has the 'potential capacity' to provide 72 terawatts of electricity with wind power, over 5 times current worldwide demand.

Damn, the more I talk about this, the more excited I get to start a business doing it.

Dang! Look at 'dat 'dere ternado alley! Looks like 'ders WIND in dem dere plains!

"The Wind Rush of the 21st Century"

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Current hybrids can run about 2 miles on electric alone. I don't know about you but that gets me about one way to the grocery store. Guess I'm walking or pushing that p.o.s. back.

Right there you've doubled your MPG. SEE??