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
The truth is either the truth or it isn't, no matter who utters it or where it appears, right?
So, my approach would be to investigate on my own research, the facts about energy reserves, or global warming, or the EPA's statements of MPG, and not worry who's presenting them. That only colors one's judgment IMO.
The nice thing about science is that ultimately it stands or falls on its own, and cannot actually be politicized for any length of time. Phony statistics just don't pan out in the real world.
The fact that he benefits from his twisted preaching is also an irritant. He operates like Michael Moore, trying to pass himself off as this poor commoner among us just gathering information for a "documentary." In reality he's far from that.
The media folks pick up his one-liners and present them giving him more credibility than he deserves. Information from real scientists, pro, con, and ambivalent, is ignored by them in _most_ cases.
Folks with global warming beliefs are forgetting the global cooling scares from only a couple of decades ago.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But again, who cares what Al Gore says or how he says it? I pay attention to the world's leading scientists from around the globe, in consortium.
99% of them say the same thing. And i don't think they are conspiring in some evil enterprise.
So I'm going to do my little part, hold up my own end.
Look at it this way: If we all end up conserving, or buying green, or petitioning politically for energy plans, what harm has been done, even IF somehow we were wrong.
If on the other hand, we all take cynical attitudes and fall into the delusion of conspiracies, and just waste and waste, what IF the scientists were RIGHT? :surprise:
Didn't Pascal use this reasoning about the existence of Heaven and Hell? (i.e., play the best odds because the consequences are too horrible).
Take away proof of the actual problem..., and the rest of the scare tactic falls apart. Global warming, global cooling, the globe is probably more affected by the increased heat output of the sun than by man's tiny bit.
As for $4 gas, I just keep my cars and save the impact of buying new devices with all the damage due to manufacturing new ones especially those with environment damaging chemicals used like hybrids. As long as mine get respectable mileage, I'm coming out ahead enviromentally.
A friend stopped to visit and exchange gifts with the distaff side of the family and her tires were all low when I looked. Her car has 3500 miles on it and they were all 20-22 pounds. So went with her to air them up at the local UDF fast mart.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If gas prices top $4.00 gallon I might consider walking the 1/2 mile to the hospital to work, then again, since I'm like Dagwood and his "Clear a path!" rushing to get out the door every morning I don't think that will work for me.
I'm seriously thinking an all EV for my next rig. A Tesla for 100 mph sounds nice but for only $98,000? Eeek! I'll stay ICE if that's the case.
The new ZENN mobiles are reaching in the right direction, but I need someone like Mitsubishi and their electrically-driven wheels to reach farther for me, then I'll be in some serious EV bidness. Still, I can get a gallon of 87 no-lead at the Mustang station downtown for only $2.89. What's wrong with those bananas?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Isn't that the same logic prehistoric tribes used to decide to throw a virgin in the volcano, just in case the god should get mad and destroy them all?
So I'm also sorry that I don't believe that GW is significantly caused by man. The Earth would continue to swing between tropical climate and snowball all on its own. And nature has and will continue to present cataclysmic events that make anything man does look like chicken-do.
So really if you look at the larger picture which science presents, these few millenium and mankind are nothing but a frame in a 2 hour movie, and it really isn't significant to nature's course. You are neither going to help or hurt nature, though some of us want to get the good-feeling, that we do make a difference.
But I thank you for making most of your post about your future gas saving plans. :shades:
Because he is one that keeps telling us to conserve and reduce our so called carbon foot print and is even pushing for legislation and treaties that would severely affect us. Because of that we should really look at what he says against what he does.
Gore is a perfect example of do as I say not as I do.
Now as I said before someone like Ed Begley Jr. his word carries a lot more weight simply because he walks his talk.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Maybe we should compare data because my research on the subject basically states that the major factor in global warming is the sun and that we have very little effect of the climate. FWIW I have read many studies warning of reduced solar activity and predicting global temperature drops of up to 1.5 degrees celsius.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not real global warming
Read the comments by those who had degrees in climatology. I find those much more valuable than a meteorologist named Heidi who seemed to be on a trip with her attitude or a son of an old school DC politician who is himself a politician.
Although people seem to be trying to tie this to another immediate emergency that needs "fixing" via legislation I don't believe it's real. I recall all the things needing fixed by the government adding controls or this or that and it doesn't work. We still have widespread need for welfare for those who don't or can't work; Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and Milk for Children was to stop that. It has evolved into the current welfare morasse we have. Oddly the other countries thinking we should quit this or that usually have their hands out and want exemptions for their own pollution.
Check back in 10 years and we'll have politicians touting Global Cooling and here's my cure which will benefit them and their kind. Meanwhile we'll have $10 gallon gas and the Alaskan reserves will still be untouched. We won't have wind turbin farms off the coast of Kennedy's Cape Cod View, etc., etc., etc.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For what I think needs to be done for $4 gas:
Global warming saviors aren't going to lessen the price of gas. If anything will lower the price, it's stopping the constant overuse of fuel by speeding vehicles of the type that gets 12 mpg when people drive their SUV and pickups as a commuter car at 75 mph where the speed limit is 65 and lower. That kind of legislation would have support if it were to lessen fuel use which will lower the price. That's real conservation.
Semis traveling at 75 mph in a 55 zone saying they can't drive 55 because their truck won't be efficient at that speed but the rules of physic have been repealed for those boxy shapes and they get better gas mileage at 75 than 55. Changing that will save fuel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think in some cases, an 18 wheeler travelling 75 mph might be more efficient than at 55, simply because of the momentum it builds up. Now on flat, level ground at a constant speed it's going to waste fuel, but if there's a long up-grade coming up, if they get a good running start they might be able to go up that hill more easily and using less fuel if they hit it at 75 mph versus, say, 55.
Of course, rolling 40 tons of steel death at higher speeds also increases the amount of carnage it can cause when it crashes...
Some overlap is normal, but let's try to stick to how gas prices affect your choice of ride, etc. in here. Thanks,
If CO2 levels are playing a part and controlling pollution and increasing car, jet, train and boat exhausts is required, I think that getting each and every nation to play fair and do their part would be about as easy as getting spittin' Bill Cowher to give Mike Holmgren his bought-off Super Bowl 40 ring. The Chinese have already hinted that they have no such intent of slowing their immense trucking and automotive massenings any time soon.
I do think that $4.00/gallon gas is a distinct possibility, though, partly because of those Chinese and Russian and Indian power build-ups. The rush to modernize and join the rest of us who have been driving cars for decades is going to keep pushing up demand and drive prices up. Meanwhile EV's will be gettin' my attention here from Geronimo's old playground here in the SW desert.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Go to a self-service gas station, put a quarter in the tire inflation machine and inflate them to whatever pressure you want. :confuse:
Also, if you use one of these you can usually get it done for free without having to purchase gas by asking the clerk inside for change. They've always turned it on for me for free from behind the counter instead of bothering to make change for a large bill. A bill with a pic of Andrew Jackson on the front will probably get you better results than a George Washington.
And your dealer may have inflated the tires to 36 PSI, as you requested. Depending on how much you had driven before getting there the tires heated up. Warmer tires will increase the tire pressure. They showed 32 PSI the next day after sitting overnight.
Wow, and I originally intended my reply to be just a one line wisecrack.
So we have the Big Picture.
Blaise Pascal was hardly prehistoric or non-scientific. He is one of the most brilliant thinkers in human history.
Not sure how I get from Pascal to $4 a gallon gasoline though--LOL!
QUESTION:
If higher fuel prices results in all of us using less gas for driving, how will that effect fuel prices do you think? Up or down?
Eventually I'll buy a high mileage simple car for myself to drive and retain our 30+ mpg full-sized car for longer highway travel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think in some cases, an 18 wheeler travelling 75 mph might be more efficient than at 55, simply because of the momentum it builds up. Now on flat, level ground at a constant speed it's going to waste fuel, but if there's a long up-grade coming up, if they get a good running start they might be able to go up that hill more easily and using less fuel if they hit it at 75 mph versus, say, 55.
Of course, rolling 40 tons of steel death at higher speeds also increases the amount of carnage it can cause when it crashes...
Aligning both points...over the road trucking for most items is a stupid concept. Moving bulk items in a raw material form (and even finished goods in a lot of cases) should be done by train. If our material planners were more efficient and the rail system was more effective, we wouldn't need nearly as many trucks as we have.
There's no stopping the problem now. A long time ago on here I made the statement that no one will ever again see ghastly for $2.00/gal. Now I'm starting to think that we'll never again see $2.50/gal ghastly. :surprise:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
It is a bit irritating to try to get somewhere leisurely only to find that the state highway has been merged into the interstate system, leaving one no choice for inter-city travel except for the 4 lanes, dominated by semis.
Trying to stay in that traffic flow without getting run over also uses up more of that $4 a gallon gas compared to Sunday driving along a blue highway.
Yet we are cooler now than we were say 1000 years ago. Go figure.
If higher fuel prices results in all of us using less gas for driving, how will that effect fuel prices do you think? Up or down?
What it will do is slow down the rate at which gas prices rise.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What passenger rail? You mean the Amtrak that makes you take a bus from San Luis Obispo station to Santa Barbara station to catch the train to San Diego? The US doesn't have passenger rail traffic (that said, I definitely did that SB to SD train ride enough, and my brother had great luck with the Wash DC to Orlando FL car-train).
Otherwise, things wouldn't arrive in time and/or might spoil. Our rail traffic right now is very very slow.
I am not talking about milk and eggs, I am talking about wood, steel, gravel (!?), etc, raw materials, and even household goods.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yes none of those causes apply today and guess what we are at least a degree and a half cooler then we were then. That should say something.
The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect".
Really then can they explain what graves in greenland that were dug about the year 1000 are dug to a depth below the perma frost? or grapes growing in northern europe?
There is plenty of evidence that the second half of the 20th century was cooler than the first half.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
There is no reason freight trains can't run like ABF or other freight trucking lines between hubs.
Here in southcentral Pennsylvania, which is near several population centers (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York City, Baltimore-Washington, D.C.), rail works for trips from Harrisburg to one of those cities. Most people, in fact, prefer to either take the train or bus to New York City to avoid having to drive in Manhattan.
For longer trips, air travel makes better sense from a time and convenience standpoint.
For trips to rural areas (say, northern Pennsylvania, upstate New York, West Virginia), rail travel is simply not feasible. There isn't the population density and demand to support regular rail service.
But for trips to metropolitan areas, rail travel does work, and the demand for it is, in fact, increasing. So I wouldn't go as far as to say that "the US doesn't have passenger rail traffic." For more densely populated regions, it does work. It just won't ever completely displace the automobile and air travel, as it will never be feasible in more rural areas, and most people will continue to prefer air travel for longer trips.
Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming.
Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.
This is unprecedented in geological history as far as I know about it.
We are getting warmer (and here's the key) and at an alarming rate.
It's real. It's happening.
I think I have a mental differentiation between commuter rail service (BART, METRO, the "L", etc) and passenger rail service (Amtrak). I agree that short run commuter rail should be dedicated, but Amtrak doesn't seem to have the traffic to support its own lines.
I agree about getting to cities and not needed a car. Ann Arbor to Chicago takes about the same time as driving and I can be working or safely chatting on my cell phone during that time. We have made that trip several times (Amtrak used to have $12 specials each way there and back for students).
Similarly, there was one train that went from SLO to SD the whole way (no bus) first thing in the morning and at the end of the day. I had great experiences taking that train to see my bride-to-be (though I didn't officially know it) at UCSD and her taking that train up to see me at Cal Poly.
Both AA to Chicago and SLO to SD are about the same time driving as they were on the train, and they were about the same as flying if you add in time to the airport, waiting at the airport, etc. I would love to see a practical expanded passenger rail service, but the infrastructure and interest just isn't there.
I'd like to see them, in my area, expand stuff like the DC Metro and the Baltimore Light Rail. Sure, it wouldn't help me any in my commute to work, which begins and ends in the suburbs. Heck, up until 1935, I would have been able to walk about 3 minutes up the street and catch the WB&A (Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis). And from that I could catch a "real" train and go practically anywhere in the country without a car. Funny how public transportation seems like it was better 70-80 years ago than it is today!
I was thinking about this yesterday when a Prius passed me on the freeway. I was doing 82 mph. Now what kind of fuel mileage do you think they are getting? I bet LESS than the car I was driving. This is the wrong car for that type of driver.
I can't believe that with your participation in an automotive site such as this and presumably with an interest in what's happening with vehicle technology that you'd have such a narrow and uninformed opinion still. It's amazing actually.
Do you have any idea what a Prius gets in fuel economy in normal weather at say 70-80 mph on the freeways? They hybrid Camry/Altima? If one were to say drive 25000 or 35000 or 45000 miles annually do you not think that they would benefit from getting 48 mpg iso of 33 mpg overall? How is it then that it's just for city fold and older people?
I'll repeat that I'm really shocked that you still hold such an outdated and uninformed opinion.
The problem with this short-sighted view point is that at a time soon in the future you may not have the choice of working a 2nd job or not to pay for your fuel. Yes it will be higher but also likely you will be limited to how much you can buy on a weekly basis. Emasculated? How would it feel to have your distance 'cut short' by say 200 mi per week because you chose drive one of the less efficient vehicles? Now that would be emasculated if you had to ask for rides due to lack of fuel.
Reduction in Arctic sea Ice will NOT raise the levels of the ocean. The alarmist that fill our children with misinformation that the oceans are going to raise and cover major cities is the reason I rebuke this political GW radicalism. I can accept that the earth is getting warmer. I can even buy that we may have some small affect over the climate. I just refuse to buy into the political agenda put forth in conferences like the one in Bali. And there are many legitimate scientists that DO NOT buy into the current hysterics. The real truth, it is a gigantic money maker for a lot of political hacks with no more scientific knowledge than the average joe on the street. The sooner the politicians and Hollywood stars move on to the next movement, the sooner real science can look at the situation without all the hoopla.
Re: Hybrids --- I was talking about the Prius specifically and specifically about the data I have from owners. I don't know diddley about the Altima hybrid or what mileage it will get at 80 mph. Once I start pollling Altima Hybrid owners whose data I trust I will report back on that. Right now, all I know is that my 7 Prius owners don't get ove 44 mpg on average city/freeway driving and that city mpg exceeds hwy mpg. Also that Edmunds road test and Road & Track road test revealed about the same.
That's all I got in my pot right now on hybrids. Never claimed to be an expert on these puppies.
Here is the basic concept. Vehicles are depreciating assets that just cost us money to own and operate over some period of life. The only valid comparison is to add up all the expenses over an expected lifetime and purchase the one that 'should' cost the least. This is what business owners do everyday when purchasing assets for use.
1. You must determine the period of use in order to do an accurate analysis. 3-5-7-10 yrs?
2. You have to gather some date from Edmunds or kbb as to the relative values of vehicles at 3-5-7-10 yrs ( 50% - 33% - 10% - 0% of MSRP? )
3. You have to realistically compare similar trim levels. Not a top trim to a base model. That's apples and oranges.
4. You now have to factor in some inflation factor for fuel over the period of ownership ( 3-5-7-10 yrs ). Not to do so is hiding from the boogy man.
Then extraneous items such as service and Federal and State tax credits need to be factored. This is usually a personal or local issue. CO, CT and WV have huge state incentives for purchasing hybrids in addition to any Federal benefits. Then there are company benefits as well, BoA and Google come to mind. I'm usre that there are others.
Summary: when you put these into a spreadsheet accurately the HCH costs less to own and operate than a Civic EX for any period from 2-15 yrs for just about any owner. In some cases it's ridiculously beneficial.
If one is so unfortunate as to drive that many miles in a year. I would say a hybrid may be practical. You know I am no fan of hybrids either. For those that average 12k mile per year hybrids make very little sense. As much as you downplay the complexity. It is still there and will raise its ugly head with aging hybrids more than ICE only vehicles. The current Prius is barely 4 years old. using the first Prius to give hybrids more age is not real smart, as the early ones are showing their age rather poorly.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My xA averaged 34.5 and the '95 Corolla averages 35.5, both driven REAL fast, about 3/4 hwy, 1/4 city. This is calculated over thousands of miles and under all possible conditions.
So for me, switching to a Prius makes little sense at this point. The ICE cars are still "too good".
But the hybrids are CLEANER of course.
Anecdotal results at best. There is much more data available at the EPA website and on the GreenHybrid website with from several hundred to over a thousand 'reporters' with most reults falling into a very narrow range of about 45-48 mpg over an extended period. It is nearly impossible to get under 40 mpg in a Prius unless the trips are less than 5 mi each.
I will state this categorically. I can take any of the 7 vehicles of your 7 reporters and get 45-50 mpg over an extended period of 1 day or 1 week or 1 month without a problem.
Looking at the EPA website they have it rated at 36 highway. Most of the people posting their economy at that website are posting sub 40 MPG so I will go out on a limb and say that if you are getting 40 MPG at 70 MPH you are lucky.
In addition, as I'm sure the lilengineerboy knows since the EPA does it's testing at an average of 55 mph that the effects of drag increase fourfold as speed doubles. It's impossible physically for a 36 mpg stock Civic ICE to attain 40 mpg when doing 75 mph. It's against the laws of physics. In addition the EPA tests are done in perfect conditions-indoors. Wind itself will cut fuel economy by at least 10% unless it's a tailing wind ( think riding a bike in a wind ). Rain, snow, sleet will cut another 10-15% off as well.
And that is tricky, is it a 3 yr lease, is it a 5 year purchase and a 60 month car note at a prevailing interest rate like 6-7% when conventional ICE vehicles are at 0.9%?
2. You have to gather some date from Edmunds or kbb as to the relative values of vehicles at 3-5-7-10 yrs ( 50% - 33% - 10% - 0% of MSRP? )
As well as the initial purchase price.
3. You have to realistically compare similar trim levels. Not a top trim to a base model. That's apples and oranges.
Yeah I would say HCH to Civic LX. No sunroof, similar sound systems etc.
4. You now have to factor in some inflation factor for fuel over the period of ownership ( 3-5-7-10 yrs ). Not to do so is hiding from the boogy man.
Yes, right in there with time value of the price differential between the two cars and the difference in available financing rates.
Then extraneous items such as service and Federal and State tax credits need to be factored. This is usually a personal or local issue. CO, CT and WV have huge state incentives for purchasing hybrids in addition to any Federal benefits. Then there are company benefits as well, BoA and Google come to mind. I'm usre that there are others.
Actually, I completely agree with you on this. If it requires huge government tax credits to make it attractive to consumers, thats not a very strong business case. I am kind of amused by that, actually.
Toyota has been selling Priuses for about 10 years now (just not in NA). It would be interesting to see some warranty claims numbers.
For long term costs of ownership, including fuel costs, Edmunds True Cost to Own tool will compare costs over 5 years for most recent makes and models.
Wow, a site sponsoring a government program and a fan site have info saying these cars are great. Thats like watching Fox to learn about the war in Iraq.
It is nearly impossible to get under 40 mpg in a Prius unless the trips are less than 5 mi each.
Actually I have gotten my best hybrid mileage on short trips where I can make the batteries do most of the work...allowing ambient temps are high enough.
Hmm as an engineer, I believe in data. Please show me the calculations and stipulate the laws being violated.
First Drive: 2006 Honda Civic
"Honda still makes the world's best four-cylinders. This engine is silky-smooth, fun to rev, and gets better mileage than the two smaller and less powerful engines it's replacing. With the optional five-speed automatic, the Civic is EPA rated at 30 mpg city and 40 mpg highway."
In addition the EPA tests are done in perfect conditions-indoors. Wind itself will cut fuel economy by at least 10% unless it's a tailing wind ( think riding a bike in a wind ). Rain, snow, sleet will cut another 10-15% off as well.
And your implication is that none of this applies to hybrids? I think its you who is confused on laws of physics. Further, cooler temperatures affect hybrids more adversely than ICE vehicles (the same reason the EV-1 was only available in mild climates). When temperatures reach the lower 30s on the west coast, its is almost impossible to get my MIL's '05 Prius to run on battery power.
I seriously doubt we would get an honest answer from Toyota on warranty claims for the 2001-2003 Prius. All you have to do is look at the NHTSA ODI website to find dozens of failures with the few 01-03 Prius that were sold. Multiple battery failures, control module failures, hybrid system failures, tire failures, air bag failures and several that just caught on fire for no good reason. So I don't see how Toyota would want to brag about their first go at building a hybrid car. The next generation is better but far from refined compared to most ICE only vehicles.
THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 TOYOTA PRIUS. THE CONTACT WALKED OUTSIDE AND NOTICED THAT THE VEHICLE'S WINDOWS WERE BLACK. SHE OPENED THE DOOR AND SMOKE BILLOWED OUT OF THE VEHICLE. SHE SHUT THE DOOR AND CALLED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE WEATHER WAS DRY AND SUNNY. THE PURCHASE DATE AND POWERTRAIN WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 79,000.
MY CAR (2001 PRIUS) WAS AT A DEALERSHIP (MARINA DEL REY TOYOTA) FOR SERVICE. WHILE PARKED, WITH NO ONE INSIDE AND THE IGNITION OFF, THE MAIN PROPULSION BATTERY CAUGHT FIRE AND BURNED
THROUGH THE VEHICLE INTERIOR, CAUSING A TOTAL LOSS. TOYOTA BLAMES THE FIRE ON A BATTERY DEFECT
WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH THE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE IN THE TRUNK WHERE THE BATTERY WAS LOCATED. CONSUMER WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROAD. THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED AND EXTINGUISH THE FIRE. THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE WAS DETERMINED TO BE AN ELECTRICAL SHORT. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED.*AK THE HYBRID BATTERY PACK CAUGHT ON FIRE.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/complaints/results.cfm
We decided to find out for ourselves. Since the $20,010 Honda Civic Hybrid in our long-term fleet had to be driven from our New York offices to Southern California, we thought we'd double our fun by sending a civilian, gas-powered Civic along with it. An $18,570 EX with a 5-speed just like our Hybrid's. The two would travel the same roads and experience the same weather and traffic conditions, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Here are our discoveries about the realities of the hybrid automobile.
refueling in Wheeling, W.Va., the EX has returned 38.8 mpg--better than its EPA highway rating. Surprisingly, the Hybrid gave us 45.4 mpg--worse, even, than its EPA city rating.
The long gentle grades of I-40 combined with a fierce head wind result in some of our worst mileage numbers: 32.5 mpg in the EX and 38.2 mpg in the Hybrid.
Hybrid is more unstable in these gale-force gusts. Since the two cars have virtually identical suspension systems, and weigh within 40 pounds of each other, the difference in stability must be in the Hybrid's 185/70R14 low rolling-resistance tires. The 185/65R15s on the EX put a bigger footprint down on the pavement and have a lower profile.
Another reality of the Hybrid is that sometimes, just when you need it most, the electric motor's nickel-metal-hydride battery pack runs out of juice and you're left running strictly on internal combustion. The Hybrid relies on deceleration and regenerative braking to recharge the pack. Nine times out of 10, you draw the full assistance of the electric motor by simply flooring the gas pedal. But when the grades are long, without any downhill sections, the battery can't recharge. Passing Peterbilts with 1.3 liters and no electric assist is harrowing. In the same situations, the EX is, comparatively, a Corvette. Still, in these less-than-ideal conditions, we manage 42.7 mpg in the Hybrid and 36.7 mpg in the EX.
Over the entire trip, the Civic EX averaged 33.8 mpg. The Hybrid averaged 42.0 mpg. So, the hybrid technology was worth 8.2 mpg for our run. That's a 24 percent fuel economy gain. At New York and California prices (at the time we made the drive), we spent $168 to keep the EX in gas and $135 on the Hybrid, or a savings of $33 for 3065 miles--that's a penny a mile.
All said and done, if you were driving the same route, at the same speeds, in the same conditions, it would take roughly 144,000 miles before the Hybrid paid back its $1440 premium over the Civic EX.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266881.html?page=1