Hybrids - Long On Mileage, Short On Soul

nippononly · March 2006

no cars will have "soul". Not hybrids, not non-hybrids, none. You want proof, just look at the maker of the "ultimate driving machine" - BMW has been increasing the amount of control the machine (read: computer, mostly) exerts while concurrently squeezing the driver ever-so-slowly out of the equation for at least a decade now. These days, many of the BMWs above the base 325 and 330 in the line-up drive like very fancy video games that just happen to have very high limits for cornering and big engines with big power.

The Accord hybrid almost exactly matches the EPA rating of the 4-cylinder Accord (actually does a little better), although who knows how it actually does in the real world. But I bet it does 25% better than the regular V-6, and also beats Accords equipped with that engine by 0.6 seconds or more to 60 mph. On the same tires, with the same chassis components, so unlike some of the greener hybrids you don't have to sacrifice handling to drive it.

Heck, what portion of the fleet really has soul any more anyway? Cars are becoming so humdrum as the automakers continue their ever-increasing cost-cutting and rush to the center of the market, and as computers and smog emissions basically take over to dictate the final product.

Vehicles that generate any real excitement will be a tiny niche by 2025, you watch. :-(

robertsmx · March 2006

Seventy one owners that report their mileage to greenhybrid.com have contributed to suggest an average fuel economy of 29 mpg. Not bad at all, for an entry luxury family sedan with 253 HP on tap. Extracting more mileage can be a part of fun too, I have tried that myself, but that is in my 1998 Accord I-4.

boaz47 · March 2006

You are more than likely right. But I know it won't be people like you that speed the demise of cars with soul.

gagrice · March 2006

You got his number. He is a Manual Transmission man all the way. Not nearly as vocal as midcow. Just the same he goes for the control. No drive by wire BS for nippononly... You gotta love it...

jlawrence01 · March 2006

Seventy one owners that report their mileage to greenhybrid.com have contributed to suggest an average fuel economy of 29 mpg.

What does the gas Accord achieve??

gagrice · March 2006

What does the gas Accord achieve??

According to the EPA website the 2006 Accord 4C is getting 29.1 MPG combined by those posting. The 6 Grand gets you a faster Accord with decent mileage.

robertsmx · March 2006

From EPA's website ("mileage reported from drivers like you")
Accord I-4/5AT: 25.2 mpg
Accord V6/5AT : 23.7 mpg
Accord Hybrid : 28.5 mpg

These numbers are for MY2005.

jlawrence01 · March 2006

From EPA's website ("mileage reported from drivers like you")
Accord I-4/5AT: 25.2 mpg
Accord V6/5AT : 23.7 mpg

Whew, I did not know that the mileage on the gas models were that low.

gagrice · March 2006

There is an improvement in the 2006 Accord non hybrids.
4C Auto
Average User MPG 27.8 EPA posted is 28 MPG combined
6C Auto
Average User MPG 24.6 EPA posted is 23 MPG combined

For some unknown reason the Accord Hybrid had a drop in
the EPA combined rating from 2005 to 2006
The 2005 rating was 32 MPG combined. The average user was getting 28.5 MPG combined.
The 2006 rating is 28 MPG combined and no one is reporting mileage on the 2006 so far. It looks as though the ads from Honda are correct. They say V6 performance with 4C mileage.

robertsmx · March 2006

Honda probably "adjusted" the EPA estimate for its Hybrid to what people were actually receiving, as opposed to blindly following EPA standards. Or, it could be that Honda went proactive and adopted what could be the new EPA standard next year(?).

Regardless, to draw a fair comparison between gas models and the hybrid, I preferred the same source and same year. Mileage on the 2006 Hybrid shouldn't change just because Honda reduced the EPA estimate (28.5 mpg from EPA's website is very close to 29.2 mpg or so being reported at greenhybrid.org, so the number seems consistent, and about what one could expect from the new EPA estimate).

gagrice · March 2006

Or, it could be that Honda went proactive and adopted what could be the new EPA standard next year(?).

That is what I am thinking took place. I imagine the actual will now be as good or better than the EPA estimates. If you look at all the Honda cars they seem closer to the EPA estimates than comparable Toyota cars. Again I am only checking 2006 models as that is what are being sold now.

robertsmx · March 2006

If you look at all the Honda cars they seem closer to the EPA estimates than comparable Toyota cars.

I have noticed that too, in person, and in reviews.

stevedebi · March 2006

"Honda probably "adjusted" the EPA estimate for its Hybrid to what people were actually receiving, as opposed to blindly following EPA standards."

Lets hope not, they would be liable for millions of dollars in fines and penalties.

boaz47 · March 2006

EPA estimates anyway. I used to think it was an average between city and highway mileage but the first time I tried that I realized it was something else all together. I also realized that when I was commuting to LA from Riverside most of my mileage was highway so my reported average mileage would have been higher.

When I had my old Saturn SC-1 I would get 39-40 MPG on trips up to the Bay area from OC when taking my Sister up there to visit friends. And that was with three people in the car. No where on the sticker did the SC-1 list 40 MPG.

The only Hybrid that has totally impressed me with fuel mileage has been the Insight. Highway mileage on that car is truly impressive. But I am not a city dweller nor do I spend a lot of time driving in a large metropolitan area. I would bet for people living in such large Cities as LA, or NYC would find them useful. But for that they could have jumped on the Electric bandwagon and burned no fuel. Toyota RAV4 electrics would have been a true green machine for city living.
(rant alert) :mad:
To get on my soap box for a second that has always been a gripe of mine. The greenies have jumped on the compromise the auto industry offered and allowed the totally non polluting vehicles to fall by the wayside. I know the hybrids beat a sharp stick in the eye but they are "exactly" what the manufacturers offered California when CARB first came up with the idea of non polluting vehicles over 30 years ago. CARB insisted on vehicles that were totally green by 2001 or so and the manufacturers offered hybrids. CARB rejected that idea and 30 years later we have the manufacturers producing hybrids and Toyota, Ford, and GM have stopped offering any electric car. It simply goes to my assertion that CARB is staffed with political appointees that haven't a clue. It would be just as well if the EPA took over and CARB was abolished.

(end of rant)

robertsmx · March 2006

they would be liable for millions of dollars in fines and penalties.
Why would they be?

gagrice · March 2006

According to the EPA only 15% of the cars are tested by the government. The rest are tested by the manufacturer to EPA standards. It would be easy to fudge slightly either direction and still be in the loose parameters set out by the EPA. Honda wants credibility and opted to the lower figures. Toyota?????

Ford is also closer to reality on their hybrids than Toyota/Lexus.

kdhspyder · March 2006

Explain more precisely please.

The EPA tests are clear and published. If anyone wants they can get the testing parameters and drive according to the EPA standards. If you do this you will get EPA figures. I've done it.

As a matter of fact I can take any ICE or hybrid and closely replicate the EPA tests and obtain the same or better FE values than what is reported on the stickers.

Again using Greenhybrid's data as a measuring stick it confirms nearly all the individual reports and actual comparison tests done.

gagrice · March 2006

Explain more precisely please.

I wrote to the EPA and their response was that 85% of all models are tested by the manufacturers. Using the parameters published by the EPA. They would not give any information as to which vehicles they actually tested. That leaves room for error. Like maybe that car was slightly better than the average etc etc. According to greenhybrid records of individual cars, the 537 Prius II owners posting averaged 47.5 MPG combined. That is about 14% off of the 55 MPG combined that the EPA estimated or that Toyota estimated using the EPA prescribed tests.

We have hashed this all out before. The bottom line is Honda cars in real life get closer to the EPA estimates than Toyota Cars overall. Draw your own conclusions.

robertsmx · March 2006

Here is a good measuring stick as to how EPA Estimate (Overall), EPA Observed (Reported) and GreenHybrid.Com (Reported) numbers stack up for various hybrids:

Honda Insight CVT
EPA Estimate: 56.0 mpg
EPA Reported: NA
GreenHybrid : 54.0 mpg (-2 mpg/ 96% of the estimate)

Honda Civic CVT (2006)
EPA Estimate: 50.0 mpg
EPA Reported: 45.8 mpg (-4.2 mpg/92% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 45.7 mpg (-4.3 mpg/91% of the estimate)

Honda Accord 5AT (2005)*
EPA Estimate: 32.0 mpg
EPA Reported: 28.5 mpg (-3.5 mpg/89% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 29.4 mpg (-2.6 mpg/92% of the estimate)

Note: Honda revised the fuel economy estimate for 2006 Accord Hybrid. The new EPA Estimate: 28.0 mpg, which is about what people have reported to EPA (28.5 mpg), and 1.4 mpg less than what people at GreenHybrid have reported.

Toyota Prius II
EPA Estimate: 55.0 mpg
EPA Reported: 47.9 mpg (-7.1 mpg/87% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 47.5 mpg (-7.5 mpg/86% of the estimate)

Toyota Highlander FWD
EPA Estimate: 30.0 mpg (2006)
EPA Reported: 26.0 mpg (-4.0 mpg/87% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 23.6 mpg (-6.4 mpg/79% of the estimate)

Hondas have delivered closer to the EPA estimate as opposed to the Toyotas.

kdhspyder · March 2006

Honda Accord 5AT (2005)*
EPA Estimate: 32.0 mpg
EPA Reported: 28.5 mpg (-3.5 mpg/89% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 29.4 mpg (-2.6 mpg/92% of the estimate) 29.1 mean ..small diff

Toyota Highlander FWD
EPA Estimate: 30.0 mpg (2006)
EPA Reported: 26.0 mpg (-4.0 mpg/87% of the estimate)
GreenHybrid : 23.6 mpg (-6.4 mpg/79% of the estimate) 25.6 mean ..more of a difference

nippononly · March 2006

I suppose that with all the cars converging to mere transportation appliances in the near future, I would consider a hybrid, if they could get one with four real seats to do an honest 50 mpg plus in everyday driving. But NOT with an auto or a CVT. If it doesn't have a stick, I aint buying. Which is what I am sure will keep me out of hybrids for the remainder of my driving life.

After I lose my battle with the stars over the extermination of the manual transmission, I am going to wage a new battle on the growing obesity of the fleet. Hybrids are all guilty in this regard - we so desperately need better battery technology.

My desire for light cars that still feel connected to the road without 26 electronic aids and filters in between my hands and the pavement will probably limit my future purchases to small cheap cars, and likely not a hybrid in the bunch. :-/

rockylee · March 2006

What is the future engine ?

A DOD, Hybrid, Bio-Diesel that runs on Ethanol, Hydrogen, or McDonalds Grease. What's next, "Mr. Fusion" from back the future, where you can throw in a banana peels and a 1/4 full miller high life can :surprise:

Rocky

nippononly · March 2006

the self-appointed "experts" claim that HCCI is the future engine. But it won't be ready for some time.

robertsmx · March 2006

It comes from no "self appointed experts". The link...

...Significant Progess on HCCI Engine...

Rumor was that Honda will showcase an HCCI engine prototype sometime this year.

nippononly · March 2006

when I said "self-appointed experts" I was referring to folks just like the ones that wrote that article. Obviously, no-one can reliably predict the future. But this looks to be a big step forward for Honda on its hybrids. I hope they really can bring it to market in a year.

I am never one to get too enthusiastic about learning the technical details of every new powertrain that comes down the pike, but I think of HCCI as being sort of like a diesel engine, but using gasoline as the fuel, with a massive consequent reduction in NOx emissions.

And it uses no spark plugs. If we hadn't already said bye-bye to the tune-up pretty much, we certainly will when/if HCCI becomes widespread.

robertsmx · March 2006

I won't use the word "self appointed experts" because HCCI is being developed by a lot of companies. Certainly doesn't guarantee itself as THE design of the future, but then, nothing does.

BTW, HCCI is, at least in theory, said to be able to run on gasoline as well as diesel, bio etc. The design concepts certainly look like a diesel engine's, and if high rpm operation is a challenge, it may certainly hold more promise with hybrid implementation (Toyota and Ford ICE with hybrid technology aren't really designed to work at high rpm either).

hpmctorque · April 2006

The '07 Lexus LS 600 hL exhibited at the New York International Auto Show is interesting and impressive, for sure, but its weight and complexity are strong negatives for me.

rockylee · April 2006

It will be Hott !!!!! I am a GM car guy for sure, but respect the technology and even more so the gadgetology of the LS 600

WOW ! :shades:

Rocky

nippononly · April 2006

"V-12 performance with V-8 fuel economy"? Heavy weight is probably OK in a car like this, but it sure would have been nice if they could have lightened it by half a ton and achieved the performance and fuel economy increases without the hybrid powertrain, eh?

We have yet to see how true these claims by Toyota really are. They made similar claims for the GS450H, and it seems it isn't much faster than the GS430 gas, nor does it do much better than that model in fuel economy. These are only short-term tests so far though - I would like to see one of those 12-month tests where they average fuel economy over a large period of time/number of miles.

gagrice · April 2006

nor does it do much better than that model in fuel economy.

I don't think Lexus and economy have anything in common. That includes all the Lexus hybrids. If you spend $50k to $100k for a vehicle, cost of gas is of little importance.

PS
I think Lexus is trying to break into the High end Luxury car market without having to build an engine that is competitive.

nippononly · April 2006

well, very true, very true. For some time now, Toyota has been saying that the Lexus hybrids will strictly be for performance and not for gas savings, which makes it slightly confusing when they include the part about "...with V-8 fuel economy..." in their promotional stuff.

But they already have a V-12 engine, which they are proposing to put in their new $100K+ sports car, and perhaps another model too, so it's not like they don't want to build larger engines. I think they are trying to hold to some sense of environmental responsibility, but it is stretching it when they are already producing these large V-8s for the Lexus line (the new one for the LS to be a 5.0). That's not that good for the environment any way you cut it. I applaud the intent, but the execution doesn't really match it.

rockylee · May 2006

They make up 1% of the auto market

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060504/BUSINESS01/605040347/10- 14

Rocky

hpmctorque · September 2008

It'll be interesting to see if the Honda CR-Z, which may be the spiritual successor of the CRX, will be the first production hybrid that's fun to drive. Sportiness plus good fuel economy should be a winning combination, and attract imitators.

corvette · September 2008

That and the new Insight intrigue me, although I doubt if the new Insight will be fun to drive.

hpmctorque · September 2008

Yes, the new Insight interests me too, based on what I've read.

boaz47 · September 2008

Cars do not have soul anyway. They are machines and if one is designed simply for mileage that is what they should do best. To the driver that admires hyper mileage above hyper road holding a hybrid has more soul than a Porsche. Only the buyer has Soul. Unless the car is made in Korea.

hpmctorque · September 2008

"Cars do not have soul anyway."

It depends on how you define the term. Of course cars don't have soul in the human sense. Following that definition, music doesn't have soul either, but the word has more than one application.

In an automotive sense, a car that's a bit unique in the way it drives and responds, as opposed to generic, and one that has some character and is engaging to drive, can be described as having soul. Cars that drive like appliances, than deliver a bland driving experience, may have many positive attributes, but soul isn't one of them.

The capital of South Korea is Seoul.

boaz47 · September 2008

"The capital of South Korea is Seoul."
Hence the wink.

Soul is totally subjective and if the greatest joy a person can have is better fuel mileage hybrids can have that subjective soul.

Still there are no anthropomorphic qualities to cars. They are tools and nothing more. A car that had this elusive "soul" 20 years ago would either lack all of that "soul' or acquire character. My old Sprite might have had soul by some subjective qualification but what was it? Does skid pad holding ability equal soul? Slalom speeds? Race track credibility? Or the fact that one individual simply likes the way their car drives? No, it is nothing more than an attempt by some to give a reason why they like one vehicle over another. But it doesn't exist for the car without the driver.

The musical instrument doesn't have soul the human playing the music can impart something we call soul. Lucile in my hands has no soul, but for BB King? Cars are the same.

To someone from green peace a Prius would maybe show soul but to them a Porsche would be a soulless as a SUV.

hpmctorque · September 2010

The CRX had soul while the CR-V is an appliance, trying to masquerade as a, a, a. Just what does is the CR-V?

Mr_Shiftright · September 2010

the CR-Z will offer a 6 speed manual transmission, so I'm told---now that's something unique to hybrids as we know them.

Arguing about "soul" in a car would leave us all breathless but unfulfilled; however, it would be disingenuous to suggest that once around a high speed track in a professionally-driven Ferrari at 180 mph would be no different than in a Prius at a shopping mall, or that the sound of the V-12 engine right behind your head wouldn't have *some* titillating effect on most sentient beings. After all, in a Ferrari the engine vibrations and sounds are actually working your whole body over. Ferraris get into your brain :shades:

I've been reading some auto journalists from Japan who complain that "most" Japanese buyers these days have no real interest in cars anymore---the vast majority view them as appliances.

Essentially, what they are telling us is that Japanese automakers look to the USA to market their "interesting" cars, not to the domestic market.

If it hasn't been mentioned before, the main accomplishment of the Tesla, aside from burning up huge amounts of capital and showing no profits whatsoever, was to demonstrate that an alternative energy vehicle need not a) be boring or b) look boring.

To my mind, one of the main handicaps at the present time for hybrids is that they are either a) homely or b) indistinguishable from a regular vehicle.

VISITING HOST

larsb · September 2010

A few test drive reviews of the CR-Z:

link title

link title

link title

link title

Mr_Shiftright · September 2010

Shoot, for those mileage numbers you could buy a MINI and have 3Xs the fun and the same gas mileage.

Hmmm....body roll, eh? I do recall that driving the Prius would be a lot like taking Mom's sofa out for a spin, but body roll in itself does not inhibit a car from being fun or from handling well (I mean, look at French cars) ---it just won't be very balanced going to turns aggressively, so you'll have to drift through them---not the fastest way around a race track, to be sure.

Of course, if you add body roll to lack of power, a CVT and non-supportive seating, then it starts to get ugly.

Visiting Host

hpmctorque · September 2010

You're right about French cars, in that they could be fun to drive, in their own way. I wonder if the newer French cars are as softly sprung as the old ones.

iluvmysephia1 · September 2010

Essentially, what they are telling us is that Japanese automakers look to the USA to market their "interesting" cars, not to the domestic market.

I think that the most real car lovers exist in the U.S. And the reason for this is because the best cars come from the U.S. Think 60's cars here. What a design decade!

And there's plenty of us baby boomers who remember that decade well. I just think we still love the best cars from the best carmakers, and they used to be from the U.S. Ford is really strong again and some of GM is getting turned around. And from all the Charger's, Magnum's and Avengers I see around Arizona and Nevada,
I think a lot of people around here still love Chrysler. Maybe this new Fiatsler thing will really work out well for those two automakers.

So if Japanese carmakers are "testing" new rigs out on us I could really understand it as being true. I just love the stuff Mitsubishi is laying out these days, too. Their new "baby" Outlander, the Outlander Sport, is a fine new Outlander that I am going to have to take a closer look at. It would be perfect for these new cold environs I'm in in northeastern Nevada.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2010

Well the best cars USED to come from the USA but that hasn't been the case since the 1960s---with a few exceptions.

Most innovation in technology and design comes from abroad. US automakers can be clever, but they don't do their homework.

People don't want innovation for innovation's sake...they want cars that also work day after day.

lemko · October 2010

Forget about reducing emissions and fuel consumption. How about subtracting the driver?

Driverless Vans 8000 Mile Trip to China

Mr_Shiftright · October 2010

Only goes to remind me that the future of hybrids seems to include less and less driver participation. I suppose if you want maximum fuel efficiency, this is a given.

fintail · October 2010

I see driverless cars on the road around here all the time :shades: :sick:

hpmctorque · December 2010

Portions of release taken from AutoWeek...

"Honda is set to provide the CR-Z with an all-new four-cylinder gasoline-engine option as part of plans to broaden the compact coupe's appeal in key world markets, including North America.

With forced induction and Honda's patented VTEC-i fully variable camshaft-timing system, the new 1.6-liter engine is aimed at providing the performance of a typical 2.0-liter engine. sources in Japan say the new engine is likely to be offered in two guises: a standard version making about 160 hp and a highly tuned version aimed at matching the 200 hp of the discontinued 2.0-liter four-cylinder used in the Civic Type R. The latter engine is likely to form the basis of a CR-Z Type R tentatively due out in late 2011.

Plans to go beyond the single hybrid-engine option for the CR-Z come as sales of the coupe have begun to sag in Honda's all-important home market. The Japanese carmaker's intentions to add a gasoline engine to the lineup were first hinted at with the CR-Z Type R concept revealed at the recent SEMA show in Las Vegas. Unlike the proposed production version though, that car ran a turbocharged version of the CR-Z's existing 1.5-liter four-cylinder."

Hybrids - Long On Mileage, Short On Soul

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles