Actually, you have it reversed. The EPA "lab tests" just SIMULATE real driving.
Real drivers, and real owners, are not SIMULATING anything - their results are "real world" results - much closer to what a REAL driver will get.
People in the real world don't drive in a lab, the same way, with the same weather, the same route, same driver, same acceleration, speed, duration, same type of fuel.
It's the EPA numbers which should be taken with a grain of salt and the real-world numbers which are more realistic - not the other way around.
The EPA numbers are merely a basis of comparison to be used by car shoppers when comparing one or more potential cars to buy. That's all.
I didn't say the EPA tests were a good predictor of real world results. The point was comparing highway mileage of a hybrid with it's non hybrid counterpart. The ONLY way to do that type of comparison accurately is to test both vehicles under exactly the same circumstances. It doesn't matter whether it's a real world test or lab test as long as both vehicles are tested THE SAME EXACT WAY. Using anecdotal evidence from multiple different drivers in different areas who drive differently doesn't prove anything - there are way too many variables that could affect the outcome.
Like you said - the EPA test is for comparing vehicles, which is exactly what we were doing - comparing hybrid vs. non hybrid highway mileage. I think the FFH FE numbers will also show approximately 10% better highway mileage over the non hybrid I4.
At some point the weight of evidence begins to point out the truth. The fact is that while the current EPA tests are accurate metrics of driving under specific controlled circumstances those values coupled with significant real world results after millions of miles give a more accurate picture of what the likely outcome will be.
One could be considered hypothetical predictions and the other field testing of the hypothesis. It's pretty clear from millions of miles of field testing that the TCH will be able to exceed the non-hybrid version of the Camry and FHH the non-hybrid version of the Fusion by at least 20% on the highway. If you disagree then we'll leave it thusly...
I can make the TCH and the FHH exceed their non-hybrid siblings by 20% on the highway. I've done it already so I'm confident enough in my own personal results to believe that the results will be consitent. Therefore like everything else in life personal experience is far more important than hypothetical predictions. YRMV.
Unfortunately that evidence is anecdotal and dependent on individual circumstances. I'm glad you at least are pointing out that people's results may vary because there are some hybrid-lovers who insist they will solve all the ills of the world, including huge improvements in highway mileage. I haven't tried it, but given evidence of those who DO drive hybrids on my same commute, the major increase is only realized when the highways are slowed to stop/go traffic levels, so it really does depend.
It's absolutely possible for some people to get 20% better highway mileage - possibly even 30%. But it's also likely there are others who only get 10% better or less. You have no idea how these people reporting FE are driving or even if they're being honest.
There's a big difference in highway mileage depending on how fast you drive and whether you include getting on and off the highway or not, etc as well as whether you're using E-10 or not (which drops mileage noticeably in most vehicles). Your anecdotal evidence does not account for these differences - the EPA test does.
Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate.
Another skew in all this is that applying a particular lab test to a gasser, a hybrid and diesels does not control very well for the advantages/disadvantages each may have at a particular spot in the cycle...stuff unlikely to show up the same way in the real world. The EPA adjusted their tests for 2008 models for many reasons of course, one being hybrids were reading high..another being a lot of people weren't getting EPA numbers with their gassers either. Now they have a test that gives results almost anyone can beat with normal driving with any of the common propulsion systems. I do not know that this is any better than the yardstick we had before.
akirby says, "Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate. "
Actually, the gh.com website has 148,512,469 miles registered.
Even if you take into account that the number of "fudgers" in the group is 10%, which is probably about right based on societal norms, you still have a HUGE number of miles being reported accurately and honestly.
Until someone shows me another better source, that site is and should be the Bible of real-world mileage reference.
There are government fleet studies too which have registered real-world numbers. There are those at fueleconomy.gov which are real-world drivers. The various TDI forums have hundreds or thousands of real-world results.
The smallest sample of all is the EPA test. It should be the least likely to be correct regarding real-world mileage.
Repeat: the EPA is a baseline test of different cars using the EXACT SAME test under the EXACT same conditions and the EXACT same driving style. In other words, all else being equal, Car A will get x/y and Car B will get w/z .
it's impossible to compare Car A getting x/y using Test 26 while driving aggressively and Car B getting n/m using Test 34 while driving conservatively.
Yes we are in agreement with this but that's why I suggest that the EPA tests are hypothetical while the results being posted on various sites in huge volumes are the actual field tests in verification of the hypotheses.
I personally had no problem meeting the 'old' EPA test values with any vehicle I've owned since the 80's. I also understood that the values posted were hypothetical for controlled circumstances. Outside conditions could increase or decrease the real world results.
The weight of evidence supports the fact that today almost any driver can exceed the new EPA numbers by 5-15% in their daily usage. Going back to the original point that set off this discussion. The various hybrids on the road today are NOT solely intended for slow-and-go city or highway driving. That's an old and since-disproven misconception. Every one of the current hybrids is far better on the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.
I suggest that this 'far better' value runs from 20-30% better. You may have a different value and that's OK. Nonetheless it remains that the hybrids do outperform the non-hybrids significantly on the highway. When coupled with the phenomenal improvement of the worst case driving situation, i.e. slow-and-go traffic, then the hybrids are a solid economic decision for the appropriate buyer.
You guys are TOTALLY missing the point. The question is NOT whether the EPA tests are realistic. In this case it doesn't even matter. If you want to compare 2 different vehicles then you have to test them the same way - EXACTLY.
Now it's entirely possible that if you did a controlled test in the real world where both vehicles were driven the same way on the same route with everything being equal that the numbers would be different than the EPA test numbers. HOWEVER, until someone can find a test like that the only VALID comparison numbers are from the EPA tests.
This is basic science folks. The key to a valid test is repeatability. If you run the EPA test over and over you'll probably see only a very minor variation in the figures - I'm guessing 2 percent or less. Compare that with the owner reported fuel mileage which I'm guessing has a very wide range (someone mentioned 38-42 mpg). That alone should tell you how unscientific the measurements are.
If you're trying to figure out what your mileage may be in the real world then those measurements are fine. But you can't use them for comparisons.
My point is that that "better" ranges depending on driving conditions, the particular driving loop, traffic conditions, and driving style, and no two people are going to get the same result.
I'm thinking that the "better" ranges widely between 5% and 25% as far as highway. That's a very wide range because there's a huge amount of factors involved. Hybrids were primarily designed to improve city-cycle mileage anyway. So if, for example you have a highway drive that's turned into a traffic jam one day (or even regularly), that's going to skew the results, because it's more "city" driving, even though it's on a highway.
Notice I dropped the "far"...I disagree with "far better" though they do improve highway-style mileage. However, given the significant hybrid price premium, it's still not a cost-effective decision for many people who drive primarily (75% or more) highway (unless said highway is gridlocked much of the time, turning it into city driving, anyway).
Every one of the current hybrids is far better on the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.
Nobody disagrees with that, except maybe the "far" part. The EPA tests agree that hybrids get better highway mileage. YOU may get 20%-30% better but you can't prove that would be true for everyone else, on average.
As for the hybrid being cost effective, let's assume 15,000 miles per year with gas at $4/gallon. The Camry gets 25 mpg combined and the TCH gets 34 - that's a 9 mpg difference. The TC uses 600 gallons/yr and the TCH only uses 441 for a savings of 159 gallons. At $4/gallon that's an annual savings of $636. It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And double that if gas remains at $2 or less or if you drive significantly less than 15k/yr.
Drive a hybrid because you want to and stop trying to rationalize them as being cheaper.
akirby says, "Drive a hybrid because you want to and stop trying to rationalize them as being cheaper."
Quoted from an LA Times article a couple of years ago:
Pull out your calculators. Let's say I was interested in a 2006 Honda Civic — because, well, I am — and I was debating between the sedan and the hybrid. With a navigation system, the hybrid costs $23,350; a similarly equipped Civic EX sedan costs $20,560. The hybrid premium equals $2,790. The combined fuel economy of the non-hybrid is 35 mpg; the hybrid, 50 mpg, a theoretical difference of 15 mpg. In five years of average driving (15,000 miles per year), I would save 643 gallons, or $1,929 (assuming a gas price of $3 per gallon), with the hybrid. Combined with the current tax deduction (a savings of $580 in my tax bracket) I recoup 90% of the hybrid premium in five years. If I were to buy the Honda Civic hybrid in January 2006, the numbers look even better. The federal tax deduction becomes a credit worth $2,100. Combined with my fuel savings I actually come out about $1,200 ahead.
Many times it just depends on how you do the math.
I personally would rather pollute less and pay more for the vehicle up front and then pay less in fuel costs and be insulated from high gas prices in the future. Many buyers have that same idea.
To quote your last post and add pertinent info to it:
"It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And in the meantime, you are paying squat for gasoline costs."
Hybrids are not magic, are not the silver bullet, are not perfect, etc etc. But as far as most bang for your gasoline buck, they are surpassed only by the cheapest econobox cars.
Couple of questons. I wonder why the MKZ does not have a camera? What is the blind spot info system and cross traffic alert? Will SIRUS/XM really go out of business this year? They are on the corporate death watch list. What do folks think of the capless fuel cap? I would hope that at least the outside access panel locks.
FUNCTIONAL �� New: — Available Sony Audio System with 12 Speakers — Available BLIS™ (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert — Easy Fuel™ (Capless Refueling) — Available Rear-View Camera — Available Voice-activated Navigation System – In-dash screen and Single DVD/CD/MP3 Player, DVD-audio, DVD-video capability. Internal hard disk drive for map, POI storage and 10 GB Music Jukebox and Integrated SIRIUS® Travel Link. Includes 6-Month Pre-Paid Subscription (48 Continuous States). Service Not Available In AK/HI • Changed: — Available Mercury SYNC® Voice-activated Communications and Entertainment System includes 911 assist and vehicle health report PACKAGES �� New: — Driver's Vision Package o BLIS™ (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross Traffic Alert o Rear-View Camera (in Rearview Mirror unless Navigation is ordered
I am trying to figure out the price difference between the Fusion Hybrid, the Milian Hybrid, and the MKZ. Someone told me that the difference between the Fusion HB and Milian HB was a couple of hundred bucks. I find that hard to believe. I have read the interesting discussions about how many years it takes for pay back. I like gadgets and I like not polluting and not paying for sky resorts in the Middle East.
Just recently it came to me here in DC over the past few weeks with everyone on vacation and less cars on the road. For the first time that I can remember the sky was full of stars. It was beautiful and then it dawned on me how much our vehicles are polluting the air we breath. I no longer car about powerful engines etc. Give me a non-carbon based (as close as possible) product.
Did anyone see the video on the car powered by water?
If you really want to save money buy a cheap econobox. But that's not what most people want. If you want a Fusion or Camry with the best fuel mileage or it just makes you happy to drive a hybrid then go for it. I just don't like to hear people use cost savings as a justification. It's similar to people trading in SUVs and losing thousands in depreciation just to save a few hundred dollars in fuel. Or spending $25K on a new car to save spending $2,500 to fix an old one. You have to look at the big picture.
Someone told me that the difference between the Fusion HB and Milian HB was a couple of hundred bucks. I find that hard to believe.
Why is it hard to believe? The Fusion and Milan are almost identical except for minor styling differences. The price of a similarly equipped (key words) Fusion and Milan have always been within a couple of hundred dollars. No reason to expect different with the 2010 models - hybrid or otherwise.
There are only cosmetic differences between the Fusion and Milan. The Milan only exists to support the Lincoln/Mercury dealers that don't sell Fords. The MKZ gets a lot of upgrades and options not on the Fusion/Milan.
Drive a hybrid because you want to and stop trying to rationalize them as being cheaper.
I don't think all of us ARE rationalizing them as cheaper (even though above examples show the case can be made). For me it is also about doing my small part. I will pay more to know that I am less dependent on a dwindling resource. If more people think that way, my thinking actually will make a difference in overall fleet fuel use. It is not always just about me and my pocketbook. It's like switching off a light that doesn't really need to be on...it is easier to leave it on that keep switching it on and off, but by making a small effort and combining it with others' small efforts, it makes a real difference for all of us.
I'm not trying to discourage hybrid purchases and there are many valid reasons to buy a hybrid as you pointed out - and I agree with them. But if your main reason is to save money there are better alternatives starting with keeping a vehicle that's already paid for rather than buying a new one. Most buyers tend to focus on the cost of fuel and potential savings (which is only a few hundred dollars per year) and ignore all of the other costs like depreciation, insurance, etc. (which is thousands per year) to rationalize their purchase.
I say if you want one, get one - you don't need a reason or justification.
lars, i live in new england, it gets cold here. in the saturday car section of the local paper(same owner as la times), there have been several letters published regarding the underperforming gas mileage of HCH's. the HAH was a failure. the 2 front runners are now the TCH and the FFH as sedans. Honda better bring some game with the new Insight.
Wow, thats a ton of discussion. Anyway, my point way back still stands as mathematical, economic sense: If you drive more than 15,000 miles per year in city driving, then a hybrid will probably make economic sense. You probably have to raise that to 20,000 miles per year to justify a hybrid if you do a lot of highway driving, since hybrids really shine in city driving, and are only a little better in highway driving than non-hybrids. For example, you can get a Fusion for $20,000, and a hybrid version of the same vehicle for $27,000, very realistic cost numbers. I'm saying $7,000 buys a lot of gas, plus don't forget the insurance numbers are a little higher for the hybrid, too. Many people shopping are going to ask how much extra do I have to pay to get a Fusion hybrid over a regular Fusion? That said, hybrids are cool, and its nice to stick it to the Saudis and Chavez, too!!!!
bigt asked: "What happens when you run the air or heat in the Hybrid vehicle? I assume it runs the gasoline engine right?"
If the air conditioner runs off an electrical motor instead of off an engine drive belt, then you wouldn't necessarily have to run the engine when the air cond turned on. The heater could actually route battery heat (they do generate some heat) to the passengers. That being said, running the air conditioning will reduce your MPG just like any other vehicle. Running the heater in a hybrid hurts your MPG, while running the heater in a non-hybrid does not hurt MPG. I'm not sure what the hit in MPG is, but a hybrid will still do better than a non-hybrid overall. The EPA tests do take into account running the air conditioner a little, so you can use the EPA MPG numbers to compare between any vehicles with confidence.
The main reason the Prius got 60 mpg on the old EPA tests but only 45 in the real world was that the old EPA test never used the A/C and in the Prius using the A/C forced the engine to run. That was one thing they changed for the 2008 tests to make it more realistic. As was stated the newer models with electric A/C may not do that, although you could only run the A/C for a short time without the engine to recharge the battery.
The Accord hybrid was a failure because it was not designed for optimal fuel economy. It was designed for V6 performance at I4 fuel economy rather than I4 performance with much better fuel economy. That won't be the case for the insight - they've learned their lesson. I believe Lexus has the same problem with the LS hybrid.
I found this thread and am indeed interested in the Fusion Hybrid. I see a lot of the questions being asked here are generic about Hybrids. For really good answers to some of your questions perhaps you should stop over to the threads on the Toyota Camry Hybrid. Most of the concerns and questions you will have about the Ford/Mercury can be answered there.
BTW, as for the new EPA estimates, I believe they assumed an "inexperienced" driver, or at least one that drove the hybrid as if it was the first time they had driven one to do the test drives. The Camry estimated dropped drastically in the new rating system. Yet I drove my TCH for 65,000 miles and averaged 37.3 mpg.
I don't know how the Ford will be "tuned" but I'm guessing it's similar to the camry. The Prius is indeed a great city car. However my experience is that the Camry was more balanced. It's a great balanced car. I did very little city driving. When I did I got well in excess of 40mpg. And no, interstate driving is not it's best function, although I believe it still outshines the ICE only 4cy versions. Where I found it to really be the ultimate is on 2 lane, normal driving patterns. It's a good balance of FE and comfort. I believe the Ford will be patterned after this design (just a guess).
Will the economics justify the purchase? Probably not, at least not without tax credits, but once you get used to having the power you need and still getting 35 mpg, it's hard to go back to anything else. I recently purchased a Highlander Hybrid. can't justify it to anyone but myself, but getting 25 mpg all the time makes me more satisfied than getting 24 on the highway but knowing I'll only get 17 most of the time in a non-hybrid version.
Everyone quotes their Highway milage when in fact most people never average anywhere near that number (at least I never did in the 30+ vehicles I've owned over the last 35 years)
Thanks for such an elegant reply. I am really trying to sort all of this out. I love my MKZ but my mileage is an average of 17-18 in the city driving I do. Luckily I can work around the rush hours but still getting double what I am getting now is very appealing. Along with reduced carbon footprint.
Funny a buddy of mine and I were on the Toyota lot when the Camry HB showed up. It was bright red, I loved it and was about to trade in my 2006 Zephyr for it. I decided to show it to my girl the next day. When I got back my buddy already purchased it. So I sold my Zephyr to my girl and purchased a new MKZ bright red. He still got all of the attention because he had the Hybrid. Hmm, that is a interesting sales point.
Do people make a purchase decision on how much attention the car gets? I bet we do!
Do people make a purchase decision on how much attention the car gets? I bet we do!
We may not admit it but we do or else we'd all be driving around in gray Kia's.
FYI, if you're afraid of getting "bored" with a hybrid and you're some what interested in technology, then opt for the energy screens (included with the Nav system on the Toyota). I gave up horsepower in my Infiniti FX45 and found working with maximizing FE in the camry to be just as enjoyable of a driving experience.
Caution though, it will change you. I'm not a "green" person but I don't ever see myself buying a gas hog again. I recently went through the buying decision and just couldn't bring myself to buy something that didn't far exceed the competition in the same class. My TCH got better milage than my daughters Corolla. My wife loved it though because she only had to fill the tank every 550 miles. It's addictive.
The fact that Hybrids are green is a good consequence for me but I bought it for the FE in a large comfortable car.
Same here, the Milan's not any kind of an upgrade over the Fusion, wish they did an MKZ version. I'm looking at the hybrid this way - would I prefer an Avalon, or, for the same money, give up a little room and acceleration for the added mileage? I just might. Folks never are asked to justify an expensive radio or a handling suspension package, but the hybrid choice always seems to get put under the economics microscope!
Folks never are asked to justify an expensive radio or a handling suspension package, but the hybrid choice always seems to get put under the economics microscope!
That's because nobody buys a radio or suspension to save money, but most folks use cost savings (fuel) as a justification for buying a hybrid. Not saying they need to justify it, but that's what happens more often than not. Same reason people use the cost of upcoming repairs as a justification to buy a new vehicle.
texases said: "Folks never are asked to justify an expensive radio or a handling suspension package, but the hybrid choice always seems to get put under the economics microscope! "
When the hybrid costs 6 or 7 thousand dollars over the normal version of the car, yes, it might get a little scrutiny from most folks.
I do like your comments about giving up acceleration for fuel economy. If one is willing to do this, and, say is willing to get a vehicle with a 10 sec 0-60 mph time, then fuel economy gets really good. Take the '10 Fusion 4-cylinder, for example, as its going to get 34 MPG on the highway without being a hybrid and costing thousands more.
One aspect of the Fusion hybrid (and all nybrids) we haven't been talking about is the penalty you pay in safety and handling.
Safety: The hybrid is carrying an extra 400 lb set of 'slugs' under your butt. That is not good for collision performance.
Handling: High speed maneuvering can't be good with the extra weight of the hybrid.
Performance: Since AWD eats gas, you don't typically see this on the more serious hybrids like Prius and Fusion hybrids. A friend of mine with a Prius says it does crappy in the snow because the battery weight is over the back wheels. Acceleration of hybrids tends to be worse, due to the extra battery weight.
For my money, I would: Get a 4-cylinder, high-MPG, version of a car, and put the $6,000 bucks I save into an FDIC insured savings account. My choices are getting better as they add direct-injection, higher-compression (more efficient) engines and put CVTs or 6-speed automatics in more cars, increasing MPG of the basic 4-cylinder models of Malibu, Fusion, etc. With non-hybrids like that, I can still thumb my nose at the Saudis and Chavez, too, while driving something that doesn't have a ton of batteries attached to my butt.
Equally optioned, the difference is typically about $3000. Also, the Camry, Altima, and Fusion hybrids all have 0-60 under 9.0 sec, with the Altima at about 7.1 and the slowest (the Fusion) at 8.5. No different than my '96 ES300.
I guess I'm adding other factors into the purchase, like decreasing oil imports and having fun (I'm an engineer, so I may have a strange definition of fun) working with the hybrid technology.
I understand perfectly what the EPA tests are intended to do and I don't disagree.
The original post that set off this mini blaze stated that hybrids were not intended for highway driving. I disagree, that's all. They all do wonderfully on the highway.
As regards pricing that's far far more subjective. There is no right/wrong or good/bad barometer. If a person normally expects to spend $25000 - $35000 on a vehicle then the hybrids are simply the most economical choice. There is no 'premium', it doesn't exist for these buyers. In fact there's a discount, i.e. the amount of fuel saved.
Well said. We all know that hybrids often do better in the city than the highway cycle, but that said, the highway mileage numbers are still very good, and the combined numbers are impressively better than the already good 4 cylinder ICE-only counterpart.
Some people will pay more for newer tech, as well as for having a certain level of comfort while still knowing they are doing some small part to address dwindling resources and the need to burn less fuel to have cleaner air. The lower fuel cost is just a bonus, but one the hybrid owner gets to take advantage of each and every week of ownership. Actual "payback" is beside the point. If all vehicle purchases were made with a spreadsheet in mind, there would be a lot fewer choices out there.
There is a premium for a hybrid over the same non hybrid car. You don't get batteries, inverters, electric motors and displays for free. Go price a TC/TCH of FF/FFH similarly equipped.
Oh, come on Allen. Did you really not get his point? If a person plans to spend $25K to $35K on a car, where is the premium?? OF COURSE the hybrid version costs more than the ICE version, but it is more car, more tech, and consequently more flash, dash and sass in the marketplace. Compare the hybrid to a non-hybrid in the same price range, and what premium is anyone talking about?
I got the point and I don't agree with the way it was worded.
If a person normally expects to spend $25000 - $35000 on a vehicle then the hybrids are simply the most economical choice. There is no 'premium', it doesn't exist for these buyers. In fact there's a discount, i.e. the amount of fuel saved.
I agree that a person willing to spend that much may not care that the hybrid cost $3K more. Just like they may be willing to spend $3K on a DVD/NAV/Stereo option or $5K on a luxury package.
If a person plans to spend $25K to $35K on a car, where is the premium?
Well DUH - It's in the extra $3K cost of the hybrid over the non hybrid. If you're both saying that buyers won't PERCEIVE it as a premium then that I can agree with. They will also PERCEIVE that they're saving money overall based on lower fuel costs. But PERCEPTION is not REALITY.
I'm sorry but I'm a literal person. If you say there's no premium when there clearly is I have a problem with it. If you say there is a premium but nobody cares then that's fine.
There is a premium for a hybrid over the same non hybrid car. You don't get batteries, inverters, electric motors and displays for free. Go price a TC/TCH of FF/FFH similarly equipped.
Of course there is a difference in price. There is also a difference in price between the 4 cyl and the V6; between the base model and one with Navi and Leather.
The key point is that Ford and Toyota and Honda have discovered that there are whole swaths of buyers that will not even consider the base model of the Fusion or Camry or Civic under any circumstance. For these buyers those base models don't exist.
This isn't a theoretical beauty pagaent. It's about identifying buyers and what they want and what they don't want. For the ultra budget conscious the hybrids probably are NOT the best choice....a good used vehicle is a better choice. For those expecting to pay $25000 - $35000 for their next new vehicle any one of the hybrids is a great choice because they're less expensive overall than the other vehicles in that price range.
Buyers first of all classify themselves into price strata. A $40000 vehicle buyer will not consider a $14000 strippie outside of extraordinary circumstances. A $19000 buyer doesn't really 'shop' a Mercedes, he or she may look but they know that they don't belong there budget-wise.
Comments
Real drivers, and real owners, are not SIMULATING anything - their results are "real world" results - much closer to what a REAL driver will get.
People in the real world don't drive in a lab, the same way, with the same weather, the same route, same driver, same acceleration, speed, duration, same type of fuel.
It's the EPA numbers which should be taken with a grain of salt and the real-world numbers which are more realistic - not the other way around.
The EPA numbers are merely a basis of comparison to be used by car shoppers when comparing one or more potential cars to buy. That's all.
Like you said - the EPA test is for comparing vehicles, which is exactly what we were doing - comparing hybrid vs. non hybrid highway mileage. I think the FFH FE numbers will also show approximately 10% better highway mileage over the non hybrid I4.
One could be considered hypothetical predictions and the other field testing of the hypothesis. It's pretty clear from millions of miles of field testing that the TCH will be able to exceed the non-hybrid version of the Camry and FHH the non-hybrid version of the Fusion by at least 20% on the highway. If you disagree then we'll leave it thusly...
I can make the TCH and the FHH exceed their non-hybrid siblings by 20% on the highway. I've done it already so I'm confident enough in my own personal results to believe that the results will be consitent. Therefore like everything else in life personal experience is far more important than hypothetical predictions. YRMV.
There's a big difference in highway mileage depending on how fast you drive and whether you include getting on and off the highway or not, etc as well as whether you're using E-10 or not (which drops mileage noticeably in most vehicles). Your anecdotal evidence does not account for these differences - the EPA test does.
Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate.
Actually, the gh.com website has 148,512,469 miles registered.
Even if you take into account that the number of "fudgers" in the group is 10%, which is probably about right based on societal norms, you still have a HUGE number of miles being reported accurately and honestly.
Until someone shows me another better source, that site is and should be the Bible of real-world mileage reference.
There are government fleet studies too which have registered real-world numbers. There are those at fueleconomy.gov which are real-world drivers. The various TDI forums have hundreds or thousands of real-world results.
The smallest sample of all is the EPA test. It should be the least likely to be correct regarding real-world mileage.
it's impossible to compare Car A getting x/y using Test 26 while driving aggressively and Car B getting n/m using Test 34 while driving conservatively.
I personally had no problem meeting the 'old' EPA test values with any vehicle I've owned since the 80's. I also understood that the values posted were hypothetical for controlled circumstances. Outside conditions could increase or decrease the real world results.
The weight of evidence supports the fact that today almost any driver can exceed the new EPA numbers by 5-15% in their daily usage. Going back to the original point that set off this discussion. The various hybrids on the road today are NOT solely intended for slow-and-go city or highway driving. That's an old and since-disproven misconception. Every one of the current hybrids is far better on the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.
I suggest that this 'far better' value runs from 20-30% better. You may have a different value and that's OK. Nonetheless it remains that the hybrids do outperform the non-hybrids significantly on the highway. When coupled with the phenomenal improvement of the worst case driving situation, i.e. slow-and-go traffic, then the hybrids are a solid economic decision for the appropriate buyer.
Now it's entirely possible that if you did a controlled test in the real world where both vehicles were driven the same way on the same route with everything being equal that the numbers would be different than the EPA test numbers. HOWEVER, until someone can find a test like that the only VALID comparison numbers are from the EPA tests.
This is basic science folks. The key to a valid test is repeatability. If you run the EPA test over and over you'll probably see only a very minor variation in the figures - I'm guessing 2 percent or less. Compare that with the owner reported fuel mileage which I'm guessing has a very wide range (someone mentioned 38-42 mpg). That alone should tell you how unscientific the measurements are.
If you're trying to figure out what your mileage may be in the real world then those measurements are fine. But you can't use them for comparisons.
I'm thinking that the "better" ranges widely between 5% and 25% as far as highway. That's a very wide range because there's a huge amount of factors involved. Hybrids were primarily designed to improve city-cycle mileage anyway. So if, for example you have a highway drive that's turned into a traffic jam one day (or even regularly), that's going to skew the results, because it's more "city" driving, even though it's on a highway.
Notice I dropped the "far"...I disagree with "far better" though they do improve highway-style mileage. However, given the significant hybrid price premium, it's still not a cost-effective decision for many people who drive primarily (75% or more) highway (unless said highway is gridlocked much of the time, turning it into city driving, anyway).
Nobody disagrees with that, except maybe the "far" part. The EPA tests agree that hybrids get better highway mileage. YOU may get 20%-30% better but you can't prove that would be true for everyone else, on average.
As for the hybrid being cost effective, let's assume 15,000 miles per year with gas at $4/gallon. The Camry gets 25 mpg combined and the TCH gets 34 - that's a 9 mpg difference. The TC uses 600 gallons/yr and the TCH only uses 441 for a savings of 159 gallons. At $4/gallon that's an annual savings of $636. It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And double that if gas remains at $2 or less or if you drive significantly less than 15k/yr.
Drive a hybrid because you want to and stop trying to rationalize them as being cheaper.
Quoted from an LA Times article a couple of years ago:
Pull out your calculators. Let's say I was interested in a 2006 Honda Civic — because, well, I am — and I was debating between the sedan and the hybrid. With a navigation system, the hybrid costs $23,350; a similarly equipped Civic EX sedan costs $20,560. The hybrid premium equals $2,790.
The combined fuel economy of the non-hybrid is 35 mpg; the hybrid, 50 mpg, a theoretical difference of 15 mpg. In five years of average driving (15,000 miles per year), I would save 643 gallons, or $1,929 (assuming a gas price of $3 per gallon), with the hybrid. Combined with the current tax deduction (a savings of $580 in my tax bracket) I recoup 90% of the hybrid premium in five years. If I were to buy the Honda Civic hybrid in January 2006, the numbers look even better. The federal tax deduction becomes a credit worth $2,100. Combined with my fuel savings I actually come out about $1,200 ahead.
Many times it just depends on how you do the math.
I personally would rather pollute less and pay more for the vehicle up front and then pay less in fuel costs and be insulated from high gas prices in the future. Many buyers have that same idea.
To quote your last post and add pertinent info to it:
"It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And in the meantime, you are paying squat for gasoline costs."
Hybrids are not magic, are not the silver bullet, are not perfect, etc etc. But as far as most bang for your gasoline buck, they are surpassed only by the cheapest econobox cars.
And lastly, they are just SUPER COOL, dude !!!
MECHANICAL:
• Alternator – 150 Amp
• Battery – Low Maintenance 60-Amp
• Brakes – 4-wheel Disc Anti-lock Braking System (ABS)
• Drivetrain – Front Wheel Drive (FWD)
�� Engine – 2.5L I4 Engine
• Fuel Tank – 17.5 Gallon
• Steering – Variable Assist Power Steering, Rack and Pinion
�� Transmission – 6-Speed Manual Transmission
EXTERIOR:
• Door Handles – Body Color
• Exhaust – Dual Chrome Tips
• Front License Plate Bracket (Included In States Requiring Front
License Plates)
• Glass – Solar Tinted
• Grille – Satin Aluminum
• Headlamps – Bi-Functional Halogen
• Mirrors
— Body Colored Caps with Black Housing
— Power Adjustable, Heated Fixed
— Review Mirrors with Security Approach Lamps
• Molding
— Bright Beltline Molding
• Tail-lamps – LED
• Tires
• Wheels/Tires
— 16" Aluminum Wheel
— P205/60R16 All-Season
— Spare – T145/80D16 Mini-Spare and Steel Wheel
INTERIOR/COMFORT:
• Assist Handles – 2 Front and 2 Rear, Located In Headliner
• Chime – Safety Belt Reminder, Headlamp On, Door Open, Key
In Ignition
• Climate Control – Cabin Air Filter
• Climate Control – Single Zone Manual
• Consoles
— Front Row Center with 2 Tier Armrest Storage
— Overhead with Maplight and Sunglass Holder
• Cup Holders – 6 Total
• Door Locks – Power
• Illumination – Dome Lamp with Map Lights – 1st and 2nd Row
• Instrument Cluster with Message Center
• Mirror – Day/Night Interior Rearview
• Pedals – Fixed
• Power Points – 2, 12V, Located In Front of Vehicle
• Seats
— 1st Row – 6-Way Power Driver Seat with Manual Lumbar
— 1st Row – 4-Way Manual Passenger Seat with Manual
Lumbar
— 2nd Row – 60/40, Spring-Assisted, Split Bench with Center
Armrest and 2 Cupholders (Non Hybrid Seat)
— Premium Cloth Seating Surfaces
• Shifter Knob – Soft Feel
�� Steering Wheel
— Leather Wrapped
— Manual Tilt/Telescoping
— Speed Control and Secondary Audio Controls
FUNCTIONAL
�� New:
— Available Sony Audio System with 12 Speakers
— Available BLIS™ (Blind Spot Information System) with
Cross Traffic Alert
— Easy Fuel™ (Capless Refueling)
— Available Rear-View Camera
— Available Voice-activated Navigation System – In-dash
screen and Single DVD/CD/MP3 Player, DVD-audio,
DVD-video capability. Internal hard disk drive for map,
POI storage and 10 GB Music Jukebox and Integrated
SIRIUS® Travel Link. Includes 6-Month Pre-Paid
Subscription (48 Continuous States). Service Not
Available In AK/HI
• Changed:
— Available Mercury SYNC® Voice-activated
Communications and Entertainment System includes 911
assist and vehicle health report
PACKAGES
�� New:
— Driver's Vision Package
o BLIS™ (Blind Spot Information System) with
Cross Traffic Alert
o Rear-View Camera (in Rearview Mirror unless
Navigation is ordered
Just recently it came to me here in DC over the past few weeks with everyone on vacation and less cars on the road. For the first time that I can remember the sky was full of stars. It was beautiful and then it dawned on me how much our vehicles are polluting the air we breath. I no longer car about powerful engines etc. Give me a non-carbon based (as close as possible) product.
Did anyone see the video on the car powered by water?
Why is it hard to believe? The Fusion and Milan are almost identical except for minor styling differences. The price of a similarly equipped (key words) Fusion and Milan have always been within a couple of hundred dollars. No reason to expect different with the 2010 models - hybrid or otherwise.
I don't think all of us ARE rationalizing them as cheaper (even though above examples show the case can be made). For me it is also about doing my small part. I will pay more to know that I am less dependent on a dwindling resource. If more people think that way, my thinking actually will make a difference in overall fleet fuel use. It is not always just about me and my pocketbook. It's like switching off a light that doesn't really need to be on...it is easier to leave it on that keep switching it on and off, but by making a small effort and combining it with others' small efforts, it makes a real difference for all of us.
It does. What gave you the idea that it didn't?
I say if you want one, get one - you don't need a reason or justification.
i live in new england, it gets cold here. in the saturday car section of the local paper(same owner as la times), there have been several letters published regarding the underperforming gas mileage of HCH's.
the HAH was a failure.
the 2 front runners are now the TCH and the FFH as sedans.
Honda better bring some game with the new Insight.
The Insight will be attractive for 2 main reasons: 1) Cost will be lower than any other hybrid. 2) Honda's have a great reputation.
If the air conditioner runs off an electrical motor instead of off an engine drive belt, then you wouldn't necessarily have to run the engine when the air cond turned on. The heater could actually route battery heat (they do generate some heat) to the passengers. That being said, running the air conditioning will reduce your MPG just like any other vehicle. Running the heater in a hybrid hurts your MPG, while running the heater in a non-hybrid does not hurt MPG. I'm not sure what the hit in MPG is, but a hybrid will still do better than a non-hybrid overall. The EPA tests do take into account running the air conditioner a little, so you can use the EPA MPG numbers to compare between any vehicles with confidence.
new england has been a good market for honda, but they need new customers.
Thanks!
BTW, as for the new EPA estimates, I believe they assumed an "inexperienced" driver, or at least one that drove the hybrid as if it was the first time they had driven one to do the test drives. The Camry estimated dropped drastically in the new rating system. Yet I drove my TCH for 65,000 miles and averaged 37.3 mpg.
I don't know how the Ford will be "tuned" but I'm guessing it's similar to the camry. The Prius is indeed a great city car. However my experience is that the Camry was more balanced. It's a great balanced car. I did very little city driving. When I did I got well in excess of 40mpg. And no, interstate driving is not it's best function, although I believe it still outshines the ICE only 4cy versions. Where I found it to really be the ultimate is on 2 lane, normal driving patterns. It's a good balance of FE and comfort. I believe the Ford will be patterned after this design (just a guess).
Will the economics justify the purchase? Probably not, at least not without tax credits, but once you get used to having the power you need and still getting 35 mpg, it's hard to go back to anything else. I recently purchased a Highlander Hybrid. can't justify it to anyone but myself, but getting 25 mpg all the time makes me more satisfied than getting 24 on the highway but knowing I'll only get 17 most of the time in a non-hybrid version.
Everyone quotes their Highway milage when in fact most people never average anywhere near that number (at least I never did in the 30+ vehicles I've owned over the last 35 years)
Funny a buddy of mine and I were on the Toyota lot when the Camry HB showed up. It was bright red, I loved it and was about to trade in my 2006 Zephyr for it. I decided to show it to my girl the next day. When I got back my buddy already purchased it. So I sold my Zephyr to my girl and purchased a new MKZ bright red. He still got all of the attention because he had the Hybrid. Hmm, that is a interesting sales point.
Do people make a purchase decision on how much attention the car gets? I bet we do!
We may not admit it but we do or else we'd all be driving around in gray Kia's.
FYI, if you're afraid of getting "bored" with a hybrid and you're some what interested in technology, then opt for the energy screens (included with the Nav system on the Toyota). I gave up horsepower in my Infiniti FX45 and found working with maximizing FE in the camry to be just as enjoyable of a driving experience.
Caution though, it will change you. I'm not a "green" person but I don't ever see myself buying a gas hog again. I recently went through the buying decision and just couldn't bring myself to buy something that didn't far exceed the competition in the same class. My TCH got better milage than my daughters Corolla. My wife loved it though because she only had to fill the tank every 550 miles. It's addictive.
The fact that Hybrids are green is a good consequence for me but I bought it for the FE in a large comfortable car.
Why doesn't Lexus offer a ES hybrid? It's the same platform as the Camry.
That's because nobody buys a radio or suspension to save money, but most folks use cost savings (fuel) as a justification for buying a hybrid. Not saying they need to justify it, but that's what happens more often than not. Same reason people use the cost of upcoming repairs as a justification to buy a new vehicle.
When the hybrid costs 6 or 7 thousand dollars over the normal version of the car, yes, it might get a little scrutiny from most folks.
I do like your comments about giving up acceleration for fuel economy. If one is willing to do this, and, say is willing to get a vehicle with a 10 sec 0-60 mph time, then fuel economy gets really good. Take the '10 Fusion 4-cylinder, for example, as its going to get 34 MPG on the highway without being a hybrid and costing thousands more.
Safety: The hybrid is carrying an extra 400 lb set of 'slugs' under your butt. That is not good for collision performance.
Handling: High speed maneuvering can't be good with the extra weight of the hybrid.
Performance: Since AWD eats gas, you don't typically see this on the more serious hybrids like Prius and Fusion hybrids. A friend of mine with a Prius says it does crappy in the snow because the battery weight is over the back wheels. Acceleration of hybrids tends to be worse, due to the extra battery weight.
For my money, I would: Get a 4-cylinder, high-MPG, version of a car, and put the $6,000 bucks I save into an FDIC insured savings account. My choices are getting better as they add direct-injection, higher-compression (more efficient) engines and put CVTs or 6-speed automatics in more cars, increasing MPG of the basic 4-cylinder models of Malibu, Fusion, etc. With non-hybrids like that, I can still thumb my nose at the Saudis and Chavez, too, while driving something that doesn't have a ton of batteries attached to my butt.
I guess I'm adding other factors into the purchase, like decreasing oil imports and having fun (I'm an engineer, so I may have a strange definition of fun) working with the hybrid technology.
The original post that set off this mini blaze stated that hybrids were not intended for highway driving. I disagree, that's all. They all do wonderfully on the highway.
As regards pricing that's far far more subjective. There is no right/wrong or good/bad barometer. If a person normally expects to spend $25000 - $35000 on a vehicle then the hybrids are simply the most economical choice. There is no 'premium', it doesn't exist for these buyers. In fact there's a discount, i.e. the amount of fuel saved.
Some people will pay more for newer tech, as well as for having a certain level of comfort while still knowing they are doing some small part to address dwindling resources and the need to burn less fuel to have cleaner air. The lower fuel cost is just a bonus, but one the hybrid owner gets to take advantage of each and every week of ownership. Actual "payback" is beside the point. If all vehicle purchases were made with a spreadsheet in mind, there would be a lot fewer choices out there.
If a person normally expects to spend $25000 - $35000 on a vehicle then the hybrids are simply the most economical choice. There is no 'premium', it doesn't exist for these buyers. In fact there's a discount, i.e. the amount of fuel saved.
I agree that a person willing to spend that much may not care that the hybrid cost $3K more. Just like they may be willing to spend $3K on a DVD/NAV/Stereo option or $5K on a luxury package.
If a person plans to spend $25K to $35K on a car, where is the premium?
Well DUH - It's in the extra $3K cost of the hybrid over the non hybrid. If you're both saying that buyers won't PERCEIVE it as a premium then that I can agree with. They will also PERCEIVE that they're saving money overall based on lower fuel costs. But PERCEPTION is not REALITY.
I'm sorry but I'm a literal person. If you say there's no premium when there clearly is I have a problem with it. If you say there is a premium but nobody cares then that's fine.
Of course there is a difference in price. There is also a difference in price between the 4 cyl and the V6; between the base model and one with Navi and Leather.
The key point is that Ford and Toyota and Honda have discovered that there are whole swaths of buyers that will not even consider the base model of the Fusion or Camry or Civic under any circumstance. For these buyers those base models don't exist.
This isn't a theoretical beauty pagaent. It's about identifying buyers and what they want and what they don't want. For the ultra budget conscious the hybrids probably are NOT the best choice....a good used vehicle is a better choice. For those expecting to pay $25000 - $35000 for their next new vehicle any one of the hybrids is a great choice because they're less expensive overall than the other vehicles in that price range.
Buyers first of all classify themselves into price strata. A $40000 vehicle buyer will not consider a $14000 strippie outside of extraordinary circumstances. A $19000 buyer doesn't really 'shop' a Mercedes, he or she may look but they know that they don't belong there budget-wise.