By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
DRIVE SLOWER. NOOOO FASTER THAN 55.
my mph has gone up as well as other drivers that think i'm number one.
well thats my view. ;- )))
Just how do you get your money back from an offshore website when you realize you have been RIPPED OFF? You need to go advertise on Moveon.org. They are all big suckers over there.
I don't think it's a given that that will work with every car, though. With an older, boxier vehicle that's geared for it, perhaps. For instance, last October I took my '85 Silverado on a trip up to PA, and averaged about 18 mpg. I drove pretty gently, ranging from 55-60 for the most part. Normally I'd be more like 65-70 or more and be lucky to crack 15 on the highway.
Ditto my '79 New Yorker. I got forced into hypermiling it two weekends ago when my Intrepid died on me just before going up to Carlisle. Normally I'd be doing 70 or more, and mpg would be around 15 or so. It's a lot quieter than the truck and feels stronger at highway speeds, so it gets up to those higher speeds a bit more easily. This last time though, the weather was nasty, and I was limited to mainly 45-55 mph, with rare romps to 60. MPG jumped to 18.
I don't think that newer cars would see that kind of mpg boost though. In the case above, going faster ended up using about 20% more fuel. However, those cars are not very aerodynamic, and only have 3-speed automatics. They also have enough power at 45-60 mph to stay in top gear in most situations, so running at those low speeds or running at 70+, they're still in top gear. But I don't think most newer 4, 5, 6+ speed trannies let the engine have enough power at those speeds, in all but the gentlest circumstances. Put any kind of stress on them and they'll downshift. But at higher speeds, they might get the revs up to have enough hp in higher gear to stay there.
I think other habits, such as gentle acceleration, trying to time traffic lights, planning ahead and coasting to a stop, etc, save more fuel than just driving slower.
Yeah, I read about her comments. I'm scared to see how that will pan out. That could make the 70's oil embargo look like a walk in the park. She is flat out scary. No doubt she'll say anything to get people to vote for her.
My pro-hybrid post drew dozens of heated responses. Good. And I'm especially happy to see so many people running the numbers.
A quick point regarding my original post:
I said that people in the market for a new car should buy a hybrid. Those NOT needing a new car should definitely keep the old one. Driving a paid-for car is always cheaper than driving one with payments. And, from an environmental standpoint, keeping the old car as long as possible is the responsible decision, as opposed to using all the materials and industrial processes required to manufacture a new car.
And, most of all, you should always buy the car that makes you happy. Even if it's a Hummer. After all, it's your money, not mine, or Greenpeace's.
One thing I've noticed over the past few years is that the rising price of gas has squelched a lot of the debate over hybrids. When gas was $2, a lot of people thought hybrids were the province of tree huggers. When gas hit $3, many of those people began to get interested in hybrids. Now with gas at $4, people are looking for any way to save money on gas.
I think this trend will continue -- both the rising price of gas, and the appeal of hybrids. So the arguments we're seeing today will be rendered moot in a few years.
Yep the heavier vehicle will do better unless it hits an even heavier vehicle like an 18 wheeler or huge dump truck. All is relative.
In the case where an SUV hits a huge dump truck head on or a Civic hits an Impreza head on, I'd rather be in the Civic / Impreza collision.
http://www.speedace.info/japanese_world_solar_rally.htm
Any credibility you had just flew out the window. Alex Jones? The guy who found rust at ground zero and claimed it was magnetic paint?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And yes if you were able to drive 100% of your time on the Highway, living within a quarter mile of the on/off ramp and never leaving the highway then over the 6 year period and about 150,000 miles you'd save about $1500 to $2500. That was the only point I was making. In total costs the hybrids do cost less for most drivers at today's normal 15000 mi driving cycle.
They cost A LOT less for those driving mostly in the City.
They cost significantly less for those driving a balanced combined cycle.
They cost a little bit less for those driving exclusively on the Highway.
As the annual miles driven increase the savings increase. As the annual mileages decrease the savings all but disappear.
That's all that can be said. Each person's preferences will dictate their choice. So we are in agreement.
So is this guy accurate, or blowing smoke?
Aren't the new ones only rated something like 33/41?
yeah but most people are reporting mileage 10-15% higher.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
So yesterday she bought a used Harley. I kid you not. A little one with trike wheels. Instead of $55 fillups once a week she's now looking at $12 fillups. The Highlander remains for inclement weather and the wintertime.
Neat little car but personally, I don't think it would be comfortable for me to drive. Still, I gotta give them credit. There are plenty of bigger cars that are just as uncomfortable or worse for me!
That is 75 MPG US. I spoke with an owner in Victoria that loves his. Has gotten 90 MPG US. They also have lower CO2 emissions than the Prius. Will we ever get a vehicle that gets that kind of mileage in the US. I doubt it. Too much lobby money fighting against them. The Smart sold now in the US is a joke. NO better mileage than a regular Civic. About the same price. Easy to park is the only advantage I can think of for the gas TwoFor.
Money Saving Reasons:
* No Road Tax to pay - EVER!
* Low Insurance (Group 2)
* Fuel economy of 90 mpg+
* Plans in 2008 to introduce NO congestion charges in London for vehicles with super low CO2 emissions
* Plus much more!!!
Environmental Reasons:
* Super low CO2 Emissions of 90 (average car has 150)
* Fuel economy of 90 mpg+
* Smart Car Fortwo's are 85% recyclable
* Potential to run on Bio Diesel
* Plus much more!!!
http://www.thesmartpeople.co.uk/
The only really comfortable small car I have driven is the VW New Beetle. I have a friend that would never drive anything but a Town Car. He is 6' 8" and is now driving a Beetle He can sit upright in it.
My 2005 Diesel F-350 gets 15.7 MPG at best.
Have we really gained anything?
Given that, I MIGHT save $1500 over the course of 6 years dependent on pricing changes and any possible new tax rebates, etc...as you said, that's very little benefit, and it takes a significant amount of time to get there. Given that, and the significant price premium initially (which means extra interest that eats into that $1500) a hybrid is not appealing. Besides which, I prefer hatchbacks, and the Prius would be more expensive (and less effective on the highway).
Overall, as I mentioned, hybrids have the same problem many other green technologies have, and that's the initial price premium. It costs extra "up front" to save money (and the world, heh) later. Some people are unwilling to choose that path, others are unable to do so, because their money is tied up in such frivolous things as rent, food, and electricity.
And I agree about their value in the city yes...in fact, I recommend hybrids to those who do a lot of city or mixed driving. However, I do tend to tell my friends in the Westchester Commuter Club (ok I just invented it) to seek other options, as hybrids gain a minimal benefit on the highway at best. So the bottom line is for each person to look at their individual situation.
I like how you explained it, though I'd change "little" to "tiny" depending on the model. There's LOTS of dealers, greenies, and others out there who are trying to hold up hybrids as the end all and be all to cure all of our ills and everyone should get one or they'll be beaten by the Hybrid Association of America or something. They're not. They're GREAT for city driving...replace cabs with hybrids and one goes a LONG way toward burning less oil. Or MTA busses, possibly schoolbusses. Good for city and local commuters, they'll burn a lot less. This is how they're designed, for city-type stop-go driving...the hybrid system is based specifically around the constant stopping and going. But the magic Prius Pill is significantly less effective on the highway, and some hybrids literally do maybe 1 or 2 mpg better than their regular gas version (Camry and Altima come to mind).
Register it in CT (
Scott
really? Maybe you should tell that to the EPA the Civic is rated 25 city 36 highway and the Smart is 33 city 41 highway. Thats 32% better in the city (Smarts are mostly city cars).
About the same price.
The Civic starts at $14,800, Smart $11,600 again big difference.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Unfortunately, all of those hybrids are freaking expensive, especially compared to their non-hybrid versions. Which they make difficult because the hybrids sometimes have some extra equipment but are missing other equipment.
Well in your case, going from a '62 Falcon to an '05 F350, it sounds like you picked up an extra 5000 lb or so, the ability to tow a house, the ability to sit three Roseanne Barrs across (and three more in the back if it's a crew cab), and you've probably cut your 0-60 time in half if not more, and probably have a considerably higher top end.
Oh, and you also no longer have the potential of having that thing turned into a carbeque if someone taps your rear. It's a good thing for Ford that the gov't didn't pay that much attention to how the Americans built cars in the early 60's, because the Falcons, especially the early ones, had a "drop in" gas tank mounted about two inches from the beercan-thin rear bumper, and it would pop open like clam in the gentlest of impacts, spilling its load inside the car.
But why would you compare a Falcon to an F350? Those are practically polar opposites. I bet if you compared a 2005 F350 to a 1950's or 1960's 1-ton truck, you'd see a dramatic improvement in fuel economy, performance, and towing capacity. Maybe not bed payload, though, although I could be wrong.
As for a Falcon? Well, they were compacts of their era, but by today's standards I'd put them roughly in between a Focus and a Fusion.
As for going from a cool-looking vehicle like a Chrysler 300 to an uber-dorky looking vehicle like a Prius....
Now, if the hybrid the company had in mind was a Lexus LS460h...
You don't have to plug in a hybrid vehicle. It's just that for some reason, my mind went off on a different tangent and I was thinking "plug in hybrid", where you can plug them in overnight to charge up the battery, so that the gasoline engine won't have to run as much. But they're not on the market yet, at least not directly from the manufacturers.
And yeah, I guess going from a Chrysler 300 to a Prius would be a bit of an adjustment!
spyder's basic point is very narrow and you seem too be trying to expand it. The original point was that in most scenarios, the total cost of ownership of a hybrid vehicle will be lower than a conventional ICE vehicle, all things being as close as reasonably possible. Even when you reworked the numbers to more accurately reflect your real world situation, that point still held. The difference was smaller, but the TCO of the hybrid was still lower.
Of course, predicting TCO is notoriously tricky. I don't know about yours, but my crystal ball is consistently inconsistent. I would like to see some historic TCO numbers, but I'm not sure anyone is really tracking them. How long has hybrid technology been available?
Crystal balls and silver bullets. We keep looking for them.
I'm not sure yet. It's still out in the parking lot behind my building at work. I drove my '79 5th Ave to work this morning. When I get off this evening, I'm going to try starting it, and if it fires up, I'm taking it straight to the mechanic and see if he can figure it out. If it's too expensive to fix, I'm just going to unload it. But I haven't come to an exact dollar threshold that would make that determination just yet.
I dunno how hard it would be to get a tow truck driver onto the premises here, so if I can't get it started, I'll probably just come up here late at night when there's no traffic around, tie it to one of my other vehicles, and at least get it outside the main gate so the tow truck can get it.
No there are no plans for a hybrid Malibu...the one Chevy is selling wasn't planned at all. :shades:
Edit...hey, andre beat me to it! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Still that is less than half the mileage of the diesel Smart at 75 MPG combined. I was going by posters that claim they get 40 with the Civic. I stand by my statement that the gas Smart is a joke. I would seriously consider a little runabout that would get 60-70 MPG.
I had one of those 3/4 ton Ford 390 with 4 speed trucks. It was all I could do driving at 55 MPH to hit 10 MPG. Most tanks were 8-9 MPG. Worst vehicle I ever owned for gas. It did pull our big fifth wheel cattle trailer with ease.
Then you should seriously consider moving to Europe, because that's the only place you can get one.
Unless you want to try to import one.
Different forms of hybrid drive systems have been around for 100 years or more. The current Prius hybrid system has not been on our highways for 5 years. So you are right. There is no legitimate TCO for the current hybrids. One thing I have observed in watching used auto prices. The older hybrids getting close to 100k miles have poor resale. and trade-in value. For those that buy them new I would recommend running them till the wheels fall off.
Toyota sold the first Prius in Japan in 1997. There are no reports of those vehicles dying like flies since then. From that we can deduce that a Prius can be expected to genuinely last at least 10 years. And the technology in the current Prius is considerably more advanced than that 1997 model.
And I think Gary is mistaken about hybrids over 100K or close to 100K losing their value more rapidly than non-hybrids.
See for yourself: Go to cars.com and search for all Priuses. You will see many with more than 95000 miles and less than 105000 miles which are priced just about equally. I don't think 100K is a magic "drop-off number" with hybrids any more than it is with regular cars.
As with all cars, running hybrid till the wheels fall off is the best way to save money long-term.
hey, it's a free country and you can choose as you wish.
and I'm free to say that your comments show how many people will resist change and improving the environment for the meer sake of vanity. sad.
Lucky for your and your argument that there aren't any people out their driving hybrids for reasons of vanity.
Well, there would probably still be some real fuel savings. That 24/32 for the Malibu hybrid is using a new calculation that they just started in 2007. The Malibu Maxx, with the 3.5, is rated at 19/28 using that new formula.
Now the window sticker on the Maxx read 22/30. The Malibu Hybid is too new to have ever been rated under that older system, but the similar Saturn Aura was. It was rated 28/35.
So, I wouldn't trade a perfectly running '04 Maxx on a Malibu hybrid just to get better fuel economy. For one thing, you'd lose the versatility of that hatchback design. But, when the time comes to retire that Maxx, the hybrid Malibu might not be a bad choice if you want to stay with GM.
FWIW, that 3.5 V-6 that the Malibu had been using could be very efficient for its size. I think Consumer Reports did a test a few years back, and found that the 3.5 V-6 in a Malibu was actually getting them better fuel economy than the 4-cyl, and was getting close to the same mpg as the 4-cyl Camry and Accord!
How I long for the days of the CRX - fun to fling around and 50 mpg! I maintain that automakers just aren't trying any more, or else we would have a 50 mpg Fit today, better yet 60 mpg Fit, as well as similar competing models from other automakers.
Of course they are suddenly trying again NOW, as sales of all their guzzler models go to hell in a hand basket. But the fruits of their current efforts won't really be on the road for another 5 years or more.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)