The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Car Guy

A Honda Civic Lesson

By on 1.6.12 @ 6:07AM

All hybrid makers are now vulnerable to lawsuits for “false advertising.”

Heather Peters (no relation to this writer) is hopping mad at Honda. She says her ‘06 hybrid Civic’s actual mileage more than just varied: About 30 MPG vs. the EPA (and Honda) advertised 50 MPG. So she’s going after Honda in court — small claims court — for $10,000. Which is the maximum payday she can get there. Honda is concerned because if Peters wins, other hybrid owners may use the same tactic — and $10,000 times all the potentially unhappy Civic hybrid owners out there, of which there are hundreds of thousands, could add up to a lot more than $10,000 in no time at all.

Peters, a lawyer, estimates it could potentially add up to as much as $2 billion.

“I would not be surprised if she won,” Richard Cupp Jr., a product liability law professor at Pepperdine University, told the Associated Press. “The judge will have a lot of discretion and the evidentiary standards are relaxed in small claims court.”

So, Honda should be worried. In fact, so should every car company that’s ever sold a hybrid vehicle — because few, if any of them, deliver the promised fuel economy.

Often, they deliver much less.

But it’s not really the cars’ fault. Because they are capable of delivering the advertised mileage. Theoretically. The problem is that you have to drive them in a way that, for most people, is not only unrealistic but downright impossible.

To get a steady 40 MPG (let alone 50 MPG) out of any hybrid — and I have driven all of them, extensively — you must keep your speed under 50 MPH and treat the accelerator as if it were a Fabergé egg. This is enervating if you have any consideration for your fellow drivers — whose progress you will be constantly impeding — as well as downright dangerous for you. Merge lanes become suicide lanes; semis loom large in the rearview; you can feel the Hate all around you. So, you give it some pedal — and poof! — there goes your 50 MPG.

There are also hills.

Hybrids work best on a perfectly horizontal plane. Once rolling, it takes not much power to keep on rolling — and many hybrids can actually shut down the gas engine side of their hybrid powertrain entirely as you coast along.

But alas, the world is not — usually — flat.

Where I live, for instance, there are 6-8 percent grades. These grades pummel the MPG potential of hybrids as they struggle uphill, burning gas abundantly and also at the same time rapidly depleting the electricity stored in their battery packs, which in a hybrid is used to provide a supplemental boost when needed as well as to allow the car to operate on electricity alone.

And once the batteries are depleted, the car can no longer shut down its gas engine even when the road is flat once more — because there’s insufficient reserve power to run the electric motor. You can almost see the tongue of exhaustion hanging out the car’s grille.

I had a “state of the art” Chevy Volt recently and this is exactly what happened. Going up and down the mountain rapidly sucked the life out of the battery and so I was running exclusively on the gas engine — which never did better than 35 MPG. This is about 5 MPG worse than several non-hybrid 2012 cars, including the Mazda3 SkyActive and Ford Fiesta — cars that, it should be noted, cost about half what a new Volt costs.

GM better lawyer up, too.

Even when you get back to flat land, because the battery was depleted dealing with hills (or helping to provide adequate acceleration) the hybrid just becomes a heavier-than-usual (because of the added weight of the battery pack and electric motor) car burning gas just like any other car. And usually, more gas than an otherwise equivalent non-hybrid car — for two reasons:

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (218) |

Stuart Koehl| 1.6.12 @ 6:29AM

As Jeremy Clarkson said, "A hybrid is an ordinary car for a fool".

The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 12:23PM

Congratulations! Anyone who cites Jeremy Clarkson automatically wins my comment of the day award!

plm| 1.6.12 @ 6:49PM

ditto, what a great show.

kate| 1.7.12 @ 1:39PM

Government subsidized cars. Why? What a silly, little country we live in.

Polly| 1.9.12 @ 11:14AM

Kate, you put it so well. The absurdity just jumps out at you!

Old Soldier| 1.6.12 @ 6:58AM

Can the EPA just use the same diesel emissions rules as the Europeans? They actually get the advertised mileage.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 11:47AM

I love diesel, such efficient engines. Only downside being in cold weather areas you need to keep them plugged in so they stay warm, but that's about it. Much better mileage, and actually LESS polution than normal gas cars. People just don't realize it because of the occasional ugly puffs of smoke that get kicked out of semis.

It's just carbon and water people! You get more "pollution" in an afternoon using a charcoal grill.

J Baustian| 1.13.12 @ 12:48AM

With a strong battery and a starter in good condition, most any modern diesel-powered car will start quickly at -20°F or even colder. They don't have to be plugged in. ('03 Golf TDI driver)

J Baustian| 1.13.12 @ 12:50AM

Forgot to mention: over 40 mpg almost every tank, driving like a bat out of hell.

cowgirl| 1.6.12 @ 12:04PM

I have had Ford Diesel trucks for over 21 years. One of those trucks is a 1991 F250 one ton diesel. Runs like a charm even today. I also have a big F350 diesel dually that would eat a Toyota Prius for lunch if we tangled in an accident. I have to drive over a very high highway pass every day - about 1,000 feet at peak. I see people in their hybrids flying up this pass at 80 miles and hour while I cruise in my turbo-charged diesel at 70 - wonder who is getting the better mileage and more bang for the buck -- My F350 dually will be around in twenty years - doubt any hybrid could even last that long.

Ford makes a Focus-type 4-door vehicle with a diesel engine that gets about 65 miles per gallon - it is only sold in Europe - the EPA and Barack Baby won't let it be sold in the US - pity.

Bob Grant| 1.6.12 @ 5:29PM

Obama has plans to take your Dually away. And you will like driving your Hybrid Smart Car.

WikiTim| 1.7.12 @ 6:52PM

[ citation needed ]

Mender| 1.8.12 @ 6:21PM

+1

SC Mike| 1.6.12 @ 6:58AM

Once the battery is depleted the gas engine is lugging around a lot of weight that no longer contributes to the vehicle’s propulsion. $10K should be enough to replace that anchor with a new battery…

Gadfly| 1.6.12 @ 1:16PM

They're rechargeable. You don't have to replace the battery every time it drains (in fact, they won't let you drain the battery below something like 20-30%). Still the point remains that whenever you're using gas in a hybrid, the battery is just added dead weight.

Darin| 1.6.12 @ 7:01AM

Car manufacturers have been listing mileage ratings on their cars for decades. It's always been "actual mileage may vary." This isn't a hybrid-car issue. It's a car issue. Honda's attorneys can ask if Peters has never made a similiar claim in court for a gas-powered vehicle, what justification does she have to making such a claim for a hybrid vehicle? Does she believe the laws of physics do apply to gas-powered cars but not hybrids? This is a ridiculous lawsuit intended to get an out-of-court settlement. The judge would be required to provide a decision on how much "variance" in mileage is acceptable. No judge in their right mind would do this because it's completely subjective.

Jacob R| 1.6.12 @ 7:50AM

I don't think the gas cars are off by 20-30 mpg.

If you have to pay $400 more a year for gas than you thought the judge probably won't care. If you're on a budget and the car costs you $4000 more a year, it's a different story.

David W| 1.6.12 @ 10:14AM

My pickup is rated at 28 mpg on highway. Driving 360 miles home to visit I average about 27, doing the speed limit and on hills (manual). I don't drive like a maniac and I try to main constant speed (though, when I hit the steep hills I will normally coast down and go up them slower than others might, but I would do that regardless).

Saying "mileage may vary" does not cause one to think that the vary would be 20 to 30 mpg. I wonder how much government interference caused these auto makers to use such guestimates for their mileage claims.

TrueBlue | 1.6.12 @ 11:50AM

My Dodge Caravan actually gets greater mpg on the highway than it's listed for, even when it's fully loaded with a wife, two small children, and all their stuff. On city streets it only varies by a few mpg, definitely not 20-30.

Also, the Volt is subsidized by the government, otherwise people would be paying an extra $10k or so. Another example of the government picking a winner, and we all have to pay for it.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:36PM

I owned a 96 Grand Caravan--first and last non-Honda I ever buy. Had to put two transmissions in the beast before I sold it. Fit and finish sucked, too, and in comparison with the Odyssey it handled like a truck. On the other hand, on the highway it did get far better than the advertised mileage.

On the Volt, you're wrong--without the tax credits and subsidies, the sticker price would be north of $60,000, which is $20,000 over the price at which Chevy offers it. According to some sources, if you count all of the tax credits and subsidies tossed into the supply chain, the actual cost of every Volt sold is approximately $250,000.

chuck| 1.8.12 @ 10:42AM

Congrats to you! My '92 Caravan killed 4 transmissions! 2 under warranty, the 1 I paid to have replaced. It lasted 16 months, 14,000 miles when the torque converter blew up. 12 month, 12,000 mile warranty, and the manager at the Chrysler Main Office refused to do anything about it.

WILL NEVER, OWN ANOTHER DAMNED CHRYSLER PRODUCT IN MY LIFE!

Steven In CA| 1.10.12 @ 3:36AM

Your experience confirms what I have always thought. A Chrysler engine will keep running when even the laws of physics say it cannot. Mine ran - roughly - with no point gap for over a week before I found the problem. Every other part of the car will fall apart at the least provocation.

Josh Marihugh | 1.12.12 @ 12:58PM

Our Chrysler/Dodge products have been nothing short of phenomenal. Mom and Dad's 1995 Dodge Ram 1500 has over 250K miles on it and still going strong, their 2000 Chrysler T&C has over 300K and still rolling.

My 2000 LHS has over 215K on it (not running right now, but I think it's just the starter); our 1999 T&C is the baby of the bunch at 160K, and with some recent maintenance (new plugs and wires, air filter, transmission fluid/filter, oil/filter), it's still rolling down the highway.

jimbo999| 1.12.12 @ 1:17PM

Just think how much better Chrysler will be, now that they are owned by FIAT. I saw a FIAT a couple of years ago that was not rusted into a pile of iron oxide...it was in a museum and was never driven. Thank you Obama!

LadyNavyvet| 1.12.12 @ 3:52PM

First, in small claims court there are no lawyers allowed, period. The judge asks any questions he/she needs. Peters made a smart choice in choosing this venue. She stands a very good chance of winning there.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.6.12 @ 7:18AM

Once again, the obvious hand of central economic planning has ensured doom for all who shake it.

Honda only displayed the numbers that were required by federal and state laws.

In that sense, Honda is only to blame like most auto manufacturers for not fighting hard enough against the insanity inside the beltway.

Just the other day I was looking at a car sticker that had an EPA Global Warming rating. I couldn't believe it. Global Warming is a myth yet here was our government requiring or encouraging a Global Warming rating. Sheeesh! We are doomed.

PolishKnight| 1.6.12 @ 9:42AM

And that disclaimer is usually on the listings. I doubt that the woman kept any stickers or advertisements that failed to have it. The advertised mileage is what the government has certified the vehicle to be capable of. So her suit should be with the government (and good luck with that!)

Dave | 1.6.12 @ 9:54AM

BINGO to the above. Couldn't have made the point(s) better.

David| 1.7.12 @ 2:37PM

Global warming is only a myth in the minds of people that don't understand the scientific method.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:20PM

And the sheeple who listen to the likes of Glenn Beck. But I'm being redundant, aren't I?

Pete| 1.7.12 @ 9:13PM

The scientific method requires that scientist work to disprove a theory, offering alternate explanations. This has not happened in the AGW circles. Instead they talk of "consensus" which does not exist in the scientific method. They also talk of "skeptics" which is actually the proper role of a scientists. Problem is that AGW has turned into a Belief System and not Science.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.8.12 @ 7:43AM

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming:
http://www.globalwarminghyster.....l-warming/

Fred Fnord| 1.15.12 @ 1:57AM

Give up. The audience here, they could literally be under three feet of salt water from melting polar ice caps and they'd be denying to the end of their days that humans had anything to do with it.

And they'd even believe it. Self-delusion will turn out not to be the strongest thing in the universe — people still die when they only think that they're eating — but it certainly is the most powerful thing in many people's minds.

c. j. acworth| 1.6.12 @ 7:59AM

Mr. Peters says "Hybrids work best on a horizontal plane." Hey, I have a Ford F250 that gets 50 mpg at 65 mph with a 7foot Fisher plow on the front end! As long as I only drive downhill.

JimH| 1.6.12 @ 3:57PM

Someone above cited Top Gear. I will as well. 'Hybrids work best on a horizontal plane' was the quote. I bet it would get even better mileage on a vertical plane as when TG dropped a car from a helicopter.

L. Ross| 1.6.12 @ 8:02AM

Our family had a diesel VW Rabbit back in 1980. Got 48 MPG consistently. I've driven a bunch of diesels in Europe, and the minivans get 35mpg over there. Why are we wasting our time on hybrids, when diesel technology is cheaper and at least as good.

Indy| 1.6.12 @ 8:37AM

Simple, the EPA does not like diesel and we all know in today's world the environmentalists rule and they are in complete control of the EPA and DC.

Skippy| 1.6.12 @ 4:42PM

We have 5 litle diesel engines at Ford that we sell worldwide.
Except in the U.S.
Big Govt thinks they're bad, so no diesel for you!

emo| 1.7.12 @ 5:28PM

EPA doesnt like diesel because diesel actually works. EPA and the envirowackos like technology that is expensive and impracticle. That was said technology can receive billions in gov subsidies and wealth can be transferred from polluters to greenies. Diesel works in the free market, so we cant have any of that.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:28PM

The Honda Civic VX of the late 80s and early 90s consistently got better than 50mpg on an ordinary petrol engine.

The driving force behind hybrids and electric vehicles was never fuel efficiency, but rather California's "Zero Emissons" initiative. If the main objective was to improve CAFE ratings, we would simply switch to diesel power, which is much more efficient and also just as clean as petrol (maybe more, depending on petrol additives). Of course, we would have to change the structure of our fuel taxes to really have an impact. In Europe, diesel is cheaper than petrol (as one might expect, since it requires less refining); in the U.S., diesel is roughly 15% more expensive than regular unleaded because we tax it more.

One other thing I really like about diesels is the immense torque they develop, which makes driving standard transmission a dream. You never stall out, and you can let the RPMs drop way down before the engine starts to labor. You can be in third gear and let the speed bleed down to 15 mph, then put your foot down and accelerate to forty without any stuttering.

Matt| 1.10.12 @ 11:08AM

My first car, at 16, was a Honda Civic VX. 'Nice little car, but S-L-O-W and F-L-A-T. I get the better mpg in my hybrid Camry with the additional benefits of high performance, comfort, and a quiet purring engine. It's like a little Lexus. 'Best car I've ever owned.

Appleby| 1.6.12 @ 8:17AM

Anybody who believes advertising of any kind needs to get out more. Do we have to start putting disclaimers on stuff the way we see them on children's toys: "A superman costume will not make it possible for you to fly." "Do not load this supersoaker with perfume and shoot it at passing pedestrians; your Mommy may be sued." "Leapfrog electronic wand will not read library books." "Running an electronic wand along a specially prepared page is not reading." "Toys are much smaller than depicted."

Most of us have known since we were in kindergarten that advertising and truth have very little in common. What next, some guy is going to sue Axe Bodywash because he still can't get dates?

Leathersmith| 1.7.12 @ 11:21AM

When lawyers are not busy writing laws, they write disclaimers, so yes, we do need them on everything, lest we try to trim our hedges with our lawn mowers (one-handed, with a cold beer in the other).

As for Axe Bodywash, I looked outside after showering this morning, and there were no girls waiting for me on the front lawn. Look for Leathersmith v. Unilever soon, coming to a federal court near you. Thanks for the idea.

steve b| 1.6.12 @ 8:47AM

And then there's the puny Toyota hybrid tires(and others I'm sure) that last for 10,000 miles, if you're lucky, and cost more than real tires to replace. Hybrids are for the naive and the stupid.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:29PM

At some point, some personal injury lawyer will realize just how many accidents those skinny tires cause, particularly on wet roads, at which point we'll have another class action law suit.

roman v| 1.7.12 @ 12:55PM

That's weird since wider tires actually slip a lot more in wet and snow, since there's a less weight over a larger contact area.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:38PM

But also more tread area for more grip. Narrow tires also have higher pressure, which also equates to less grip.

Tim| 1.8.12 @ 6:36AM

Tire pressure not withstanding, there is more weight per square inch on a narrow tire than a wide tire. My MG Midget goes better in the snow than my wife's Mazda Miata.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 10:07AM

Tim,

No so in a flexible tire. Given that a tire has a structural component (steel or kevlar belts) and is not a balloon - which is to say the structure away from the contact patch is involved - it's not as simple as saying contact patch area = weight / PSI but they are functionally related. The contact patch area does increase with lower pressure and decrease with higher pressure. I suspect your Midget does better in the snow because the narrow tire does a better job of clearing snow and compressing what isn't cleared than the comparatively wider contact patch of your wife's Mazda.

Fred Fnord| 1.15.12 @ 2:06AM

Hm, no. Science says you're wrong.

I don't think links are allowed here, but check out the Wikipedia article entitled Tire_load_sensitivity. The first few sentences give you a clue:

Tire load sensitivity describes the behaviour of tires under load. Conventional pneumatic tires do not behave as classical friction theory would suggest. The load sensitivity of most real tires in their typical operating range is such that the coefficient of friction decreases as the vertical load, Fz, increases.

Which is to say, as you pile more load on the same tire, the coefficient of friction (the force holding you to the road) decreases. The more tire area you are distributing the load between, the less effect this has. Yes, it does sound counterintuitive, but think about where you see the thickest tires, and you'll see that it's where you need the best grip.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 8:42AM

roman v,

The contact area is a function of the weight being supported and the tire pressure. For the same tire pressure, a wider tire has contact patch which is comparatively wide and short (front to back) while a thin tire has a long and narrow contact patch. The contact patches are the same area. The first is better for dry cornering and the latter is better for shedding water and straight line breaking.

Ice and snow: narrow tire and take it easy in the corners.

The real issue is the pressure. With higher pressure you get less rolling resistance (less tire flexure) and a smaller contact patch. While an under-inflated tire can increase the risk of hydroplaning, once the water is shed (also a function of remaining tread) any more pressure only reduces the contact patch and limits braking force.

Ice and snow: You won't be rally driving, do not overinflate tires.

*name| 1.7.12 @ 12:55PM

Blanket statements are for the naive and stupid.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:54AM

Replaced my tires at 60,000 miles on Prius. If you care for them and do not lose alignment. And the cost to replace them is actually exactly the same as on our Sienna van.

And I'm naive and Stupid to save over $1500 per year on Gas and maintenance? I can take all the insults you throw at me and laugh all the way to the bank.

John Navratil| 1.6.12 @ 8:47AM

I'm not buying point (1). I'll admit you can get MORE power from a larger engine and can get to speed quicker with a larger engine. I'll stipulate that charging the batteries is an additional load which would require more work which can be spread over time - the essence of the hybrid design. Differences in engine efficiency aside, it does not take more gasoline to make the same amount of power. For point (1) to attain, Peter's must argue that the Civic hydrid in the "real world" he describes is constantly, or at least commonly, being operated in inefficient points of its operating range (i.e. being "lugged" or "red-lined"). I have not observed that in my limited experience with the Civic hybrid.

Gadfly| 1.6.12 @ 1:13PM

Agreed. By the same logic, my Mustang is more efficient than my wife's (non-hybrid) Civic because my Mustang has more horsepower and a significantly bigger engine. It's just a silly error that undercuts the rest of his argument.

John - TMF| 1.6.12 @ 9:05AM

What I believe:

1. Eventually hydrogen fuel cells will be developed to the point where it will be economically feasible to produce and distribute an automobile that uses a fuel cell as its main source of power. This electric car will have four motors, one on each wheel, a computerized control center with an autonomous navigation/operation system.

This car will be large enough to accommodate a family, its pets, and whatever is being ported... groceries, luggage, college dorm room furnishings... etc.

It will be quiet, safe, and effectively operate in all road/weather conditions.

2. This automobile will eventually be the standard, and over time will be the only "street legal" form of transportation. This will be a combined Government and Insurance Corporation demand. Self-driven automobiles will be uninsurable once the autonomous vehicle technology is fielded for general use.

What I know:

1. We aren't there, yet. It will be at least 20 years before that particular configuration of automobile is ready for the high end, luxury market, and at least another ten years before it is available to the general public. That's my guess as a high technology professional son of an automotive engineer (ok, tank designer - but who's gonna know?).

2. The current hybrid configuration is, frankly, silly. "I know!!! We'll save the planet by building impossibly heavy for their tiny size cars, sporting volatile battery technology, running inefficient centralized drive trains, driven by a single large electric motor!! To charge the batteries we'll take a small gasoline engine hooked to a generator (another electric motor run in reverse) and connect all of that to an impossibly complex trans-axle configuration! Then we will get the government to subsidize it for us!"

All of this insanity is intended to save the planet from a phenomenon that has not and cannot be proven; in short a HOAX.

The "hybrid" is an old configuration. It was arrived at to provide distributed consistent power to locomotives and to provide drive power to conventional submarines which needed to run on battery while submerged but still have power to operate when surfaced. Both systems were optimal compromises based on the advantages and limitations of their operating environments. Both are still in use today, more than a century after their invention.

You would think that if it was economically and mechanically feasible that this technology would have long since been standardized on the automobile... you would think... or over think as liberal central planners are wont to do. The fact is that in a century the market has not seen a need and frankly I don't see much of one, either.

Hybrids are a tragic joke forced on the market by government coercion for government purposes.

If you need a car, go out and buy the car that fits your needs and lifestyle, let the free market determine the choices.

r/John - TMF

wukong| 1.6.12 @ 9:31AM

"What I know:

1. We aren't there, yet. It will be at least 20 years before that particular configuration of automobile is ready for the high end, luxury market, and at least another ten years before it is available to the general public. That's my guess as a high technology professional son of an automotive engineer (ok, tank designer - but who's gonna know?)."

I would suggest you read this from an article in a 60's edition of Popular Science.

Skippy| 1.6.12 @ 4:51PM

Au contraire.
Today's Fords will put you back in your lane when you doze at the wheel; tell you who is in your blind spot; park themselves after they find an appropriately sized space; determine your location within inches; correct for roadway crown; pre-charge your brakes when you get too close; slow you down when cruise controlling your way into the next guy's trunk; and much more.
Add a few fixed sensors to roadways and you can say "San Diego" and step to the back to make a sandwich and take a little nap.
All this stuff is here.
Once they link it all together, autodriving will be commonplace.

Mike Hawk| 1.6.12 @ 3:23PM

WHere are you going to get your hydrogen?? You can't drill for it. It is a gas in the elemental state, not generally found in the pure state and highly explosive when it is. Not a very good idea in my book.

John-TMF| 1.6.12 @ 11:07PM

Hate to spoil your fun but I am hardly an eco-wacko. Hydrogen is abundant and easily electrolyzed tron sea water. Nuclear power would provide an infinite supply.

Fuel cell cars will eventually dominate the market just as hydrocarbon furled IC engines replaced the horse and buggy. Autonomous operation will come with it as a bonus.

We just need to get government out of the way and let the market and infrastructure develop on its own.

R/John - TMF


as

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:37PM

In order to obtain hydrogen through hydrolysis, one needs immense amounts of electrical power, such as can only be obtained through fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. Once you have gaseous H2, the question of distribution comes to mind. You can liquify it, but then you have the problem of keeping it cryogenically cooled as you move it--how? Through heavily insulated pipelines? Refrigerated tank cars and trucks? Once you get it to a distribution point, how do you store it? Hydrogen is squirrelly stuff, because of its low atomic weight and small molecular size. As NASA knows all too well, it's really hard to achieve an effective seal for hydrogen lines.

So, maybe we could convert water to high-test hydrogen peroxide? H2O2 has some nasty characteristics (ask the crew of the Kursk), but provided you use scrupulously clean tankage and pipes made from non-reactive materials, you can store it for a long time. Just don't get into any tank-shattering accidents.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 9:42AM

John-TMF,

Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an energy storage mechanism. Energy in to get it and energy out at conversion... and all the inefficiencies that entails.

I suspect it will have a place in fixed installations only where the energy available in the hot water is usable. It is not much more efficient than an internal combustion engine when half the energy is discarded in the hot water.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:49AM

Actually Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Just about 10 years away in technology and infrastructure. MIT and others are experimenting with converting water to Hydrogen gas. And there are already a few cars that use it, but limited.

I believe in California actually. About 20 Hydrogen stations are available.

Steven In CA| 1.10.12 @ 3:52AM

Questions: Where will we get all this hydrogen? How much energy will it cost to separate the hydrogen from the source compound so we can turn it back into water? Why put more energy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) into making hydrogen than we can get from the hydrogen when we could just use the original energy source directly?

VonMisesJr| 1.6.12 @ 9:20AM

Simple solution: Obama can have his EPA erase all numbers between 20 and 30 when considering gas milage.
This is how we got to 8.5% unemployment rate leading up to an election. Just say 2M workers no longer exist, and whammo, unemployment solved.

These will just be interim steps in Oceania. Once government is the one nationwide employer, everyone will have a job, like it or not. Pay will be at the descretion of Dear leader.
And then we can ban all cars except golf carts and have infinite MPG.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:26PM

And if you had a shred of evidence for any of these claims, you might be worth listening to. Unfortunately for you, the right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously. ;-)

Pete| 1.7.12 @ 9:09PM

As you should know.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 8:45AM

Paul,

You might want to look to the current labor participation rate which is at historic lows.

VonMisesJr| 1.8.12 @ 10:05AM

If the work force was the same as when Obama took office, the U3 as of today is 10.9%. U6 is about 15.9%.
I don't have time to explain. You must try to use your own brain and read Jimmy Pethokloukis at: http://www.gop.com/index.php/b....._promises/

Jose| 1.6.12 @ 9:32AM

I commute 100 miles a day in a VW diesel Jetta. Probably 80 miles of that is highway cruising at 75 mph. My average mileage is 42 mpg. The car prefers warmer weather - last summer my average was 48 mpg. Hybrids are just hype.

Ken in Tyler| 1.6.12 @ 9:33AM

If you think the current mileage rating system is unrealistic, imagine what we will be left with when the Kenyan's new CAFE standards go into effect. Pedal cars and mopeds.

Louis Jenkins| 1.6.12 @ 9:33AM

Hybrids-dream on. Like the atomic or the flying car that I read about in the Weekly Reader that was passed about when in the third grade. Everything, including the family pet, was going to be atomic powered. Now we've got hybrid cars that are supposed to save the world from pollution. When the world of science comes up with a fuel that's as reasonable and economic as gasoline or diesel, then I'll bite. Until then-I'd just as soon walk.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:38PM

I like Mr. Fusion, myself.

Mr. Knowitall| 1.6.12 @ 9:52AM

The MPG figures quoted are directly based on results from the legally mandated test procedure(s). NO OTHER MPG value can be officially quoted by a manufacturer. I seriously doubt if you have ever seen the speed-time trace for any of the several tests (there are a maximum of 5) which result in the City / Highway / Combined values found on the window sticker. There are portions which vary in speed, and rates of acceleration as well - which effectively serve as surrogates for hills in actual driving conditions. The manufacturers didn't design these tests - your federal government did. If the difference between real-world and label fuel economy figures is too large - why is that the fault of the manufacturer? They did nothing more that follow the letter-of-the-law by conducting the tests exactly the way they are required. Your other point is in error as well - just because an engine is of a smaller displacement, does not mean "it burns more gas" - it depends on a very complex characteristic known as the brake specific fuel consumption - which can differ greatly from engine-to-engine. By your logic, a larger engine would burn less fuel - make it large enough, and it wouldn't burn any fuel at all. Aside from that, nothing is more innaccurate than anecdotal over-the-road fuel economy figures from car owners. There is a remarkable level of inconsistency in vehicle re-fueling - which directly results in highly inacurate fuel economy figures - and the smaller the fuel tank (as in small, compact vehicles), the larger the potential error or variation in re-fueling. Obtaining a true, and accurate number is quite a bit more complex than balancing your checkbook. The cost for the measurement technology alone to get the "official result" is well into 6 figures - well beyond the pencil and notepad in the glovebox.

This appears to be yet another "journalist" operating out of their element.

Steven In CA| 1.10.12 @ 3:56AM

"The manufacturers didn't design these tests - your federal government did."

Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it?

Matthew| 1.6.12 @ 9:53AM

"To get a steady 40 MPG (let alone 50 MPG) out of any hybrid -- and I have driven all of them, extensively -- you must keep your speed under 50 MPH and treat the accelerator as if it were a Fabergé egg. "

Not true! I get above 50 mpg out of my Toyota Camry hybrid, and I tend to drive too fast (85 mph on the freeway.) What else isn't true in this article?

JoshuaH| 1.6.12 @ 12:53PM

Agreed, Matthew. I've had a Prius for 5 years, I drive with a lead foot, and I routinely get well over 40 mpg. This commentary takes what is a real problem (the fact that mileage sticker values will vary wildly in the real world based on season, terrain, driving style, etc.) and turns it into a useless anti-hybrid rant, which many even less well-informed commenters are happy to endorse and amplify.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:40PM

No anti-hybrid rant is useless.

A hybrid car is to a real car as a diesel-electric submarine is to a real (nuclear) submarine. Those of us who have experience with diesel-electric boats see all the same problems reemerging in hybrid cars.

Matt| 1.8.12 @ 8:30AM

You're misinformed. I've had a hybrid Camry for three years, and it's the most reliable car I've ever owned. Try to look at the facts rather than your own prejudices.

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:39AM

I've had a gas-powered Honda for 22 years. Call me in eighteen years, and tell me how your Camry hybrid is doing.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:29PM

Indeed. I routinely drive 55 and get 63 MPG from my Prius. That's 20 MPG higher than his claim of 40.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:44AM

Bull Hockey!!

Red Bubba| 1.6.12 @ 10:04AM

caveat emptor
Come clean, you bought a hybrid so you appear superior to the gas-burners around you. Now you don't feel so smug, sucker.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 12:41PM

Watch out for that huge smug cloud over San Francisco.

Crawler| 1.6.12 @ 10:25AM

Sadly, the real culprit in this can of worms is the federal government and its bureaucracies for bullying American auto/engine manufacturers' with ridiculous mileage and emissions mandates.

Reading this article, I was reminded of a recent quote from the CEO of Audi: Chevy Volts are for idiots. [I would add: And for government ideologues, too]...

D Jones| 1.6.12 @ 10:36AM

From everything I've read, it seems that hybrids DO have their place...big cities. Tests show them doing very well in gas mileage when it comes to stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper traffic scenarios...not so well when put on a open highway for a few hundred miles when everyone is driving 65+. Because of the mileage restrictions of cars like the Volt and Nissan Leaf, cities is where they thrive as well. And micro-cars like the Smart and Scion iQ have no replace in the world outside big cities.

The rest of America outside the large cities needs real cars, though. I'd be happy to see diesel get a wider adoption in the marketplace as it does provide wide-ranging mileage benefits and the engines tend to last longer, too. I have to say the VW Passat Diesel, built just 45 miles away from where I live, is definitely on the list to consider for our next car.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:43AM

15,000 miles a year traveling all over the country at 70-75. Averaging 46-50MPG.

I love it, all the way to the bank

Vlad the Impala| 1.14.12 @ 7:52AM

So, USNpops, how much has EVERYONE ELSE subsidized your little hunk of love?

Go ahead and slurp up the gravy, but at least wipe your chin before gloating at the people who really paid for it.

TL| 1.6.12 @ 10:39AM

I could also drive my twin turbo BMW under 50 mph, accelerate like a tortoise and avoid hills. Why doesn't the EPA rate my car on these absurd assumptions?

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:31PM

Doh! The EPA rates all cars under the SAME assumptions.

Moe Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 10:47AM

Regarding young Eric's comment referring to "semis looming large", is that statement intended to connote danger? All trucks loom large to a driver of an automobile, whether the truck is articulated or one unit. A professional truck driver will see that little hybrid floating down an on-ramp long before the other driver sees him. In such cases, the truck driver is obliged to move over one lane to allow the car to merge if another lane is open. Eric, do you feel intimidated by large trucks on the highway?

Tim| 1.8.12 @ 6:54AM

I concur. I feel very safe among trucks, on the highway, in my MG Midget. It's the other 4 wheelers that make me nervous.

Evan| 1.6.12 @ 10:58AM

I think the article is a bit of an oversimplification. As an owner (sucker?) of both a Honda Civic Hybrid and a Toyota Prius, I can tell you that Mr. Peters is incorrect about how you have to drive hybrids to achieve rated mileage. I drive my Prius like a normal car, and average between 44 and 48 MPG consistently, in hilly Southern California. I believe the sticker mileage is 46. Sounds about right. Now, I drive my Honda Civic Hybrid exactly the same way, and I get between 35-38 MPG. Sticker was higher than 46 MPG. So, what does that tell me:

1. Mr. Peters doesn't have a good feel for all hybrids out there, so the basis of this article is flawed.

2. The civic dramatically under performs in fuel economy. Not a minor variation, but a major disparity. The Civic was designed to be driven delicately, but that disclaimer wasn't made on the sticker.

Also, Mr. Peters left the part out about Honda taking steps to "upgrade" the hybrid software that basically handicapped the hybrid system in order to allow the battery to last longer. This made the car less safe to drive (no pickup), reduced the fuel economy, and, in my mind, means Honda realized their design flaw (too small a battery for too much required electric propulsion), and took steps to avoid premature vehicle failure, which made the hybrid component of the vehicle null and void. What a waste.

Let's continue this conversation with all the facts. I'm sure there are more out there.

Gary| 1.6.12 @ 11:05AM

Aren't you special. Give me my combustion engine any day and YOU drive these eco carts. I want dependability, power when needed, and not having to worry about charging a vehicle. By the way, how's the budget deficit going in Ca.? Are you regulating flatulence yet?

Evan| 1.6.12 @ 11:11AM

That isn't very nice Gary. Do you at least feel better?

Gadfly| 1.6.12 @ 1:27PM

Facts? Come on Evan, we just want to rant against stupid Hybrid owners. Why muck a good time with actual facts?

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:14PM

The simple truth is this: if Hybrids and Electrics were worthwhile, people would be lining up to buy them and the government would not have to offer market-distorting subsidies and tax credits.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:32PM

What have you been smoking, Gary? A Prius has dependability, power when needed, and you don't have to worry about charging the vehicle.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:40AM

0-60 in 9 seconds. 145 horsepower when the Computer says it's needed, and 48-50 MPG. Works for me and a Million other americans that own Prius's

MikeJ| 1.8.12 @ 1:54AM

Reading other articles about the lady with the Honda problem ... the real issue is the "upgrade". Honda had a batch of failing batteries and (per other news stories a year or more ago) fixed the problem by disabling the battery so you just have a 1.3L car hauling around dead weight. It's a warranty (probably multiple warranties) issue. As usual, the class action approach produced nice fees for the lawyers and a couple of hundred $$ (and no battery replacement) for the car owners. I don't blame her for going it alone since replacing the battery out of warranty will cost most of the $10K if not more.

I have a 07 Prius and, while no sports car, it does get out of its own way and keep up with traffic. I get low-mid 40s in practically all driving, so yes the 50mpg City claim is an EPA testing artifact (as is true with most cars) not something seen in real life. I do get mid-40s on the highway though which is about what's claimed, at normal freeway speeds not plodding along at 50.

Gary| 1.6.12 @ 11:00AM

These battery cars are a pipe dream in many areas. I live in a hilly and mountainous region of Arkansas and such a vehicle would be a joke here. Even in flat topography the acceleration issue renders these autos useless except as golf carts. The government should stay out of this and let free enterprise sort this out.

Evan| 1.6.12 @ 11:17AM

Sure, these vehicles aren't for everyone. But I'd like to encourage you to try the Prius or Fusion hybrid, I think you'll be surprised. Good ones don't have acceleration issues and work great in mountainous regions. Gary - go give one a test drive and get back to us.

The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 12:42PM

I haven't driven the Fusion Hybrid, but I have driven the Prius and it's just about the worst driving car I've ever driven. I've played video games with more road feel, and it seems that every person I know who owns one here (in the Blue Ridge Mountains of western NC) complains about their gas mileage.

I have driven a hybrid I liked, by the way, the original Honda Insight was a pretty neat car, was fun to drive, and I might have bought had it had a place to put my child.

Hybrids are not the future, they are a dead end technology which will be replaced by something more efficient in the long run (such hydrogen fuel cell powered electrics, for example).

Plus, in another ten years, when all those battery packs have reached the end of their useful lives, what will become of the cars dependent upon them? Will you want to plop down several thou for a replacement battery pack on a car which, due to the normal depreciation of automobiles, is only a grand at most?

In 1989 I bought a new Ford Festiva. It constantly returned 40 to 45 mpg in everyday driving, and on long trips, returned well over 50. 23 years later, I still see Festivas on the road. I know several folks who own them, and who claim that even at their now advanced age, they are still returning 30 to 35+ in normal driving - AND they didn't cost $25,000 to $30,000 to buy.

Reckon you'll see today's Priuses and other hybrids on the road in 23 years? I don't.

Reckon you'll see today's ICE powered cars on the road in 23 years? Count on it.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:34PM

Sorry, you have some EVIDENCE that battery packs reach the end of their useful lives after 10 years, or did you just pull that out of your butt while you were "reckoning?"

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:33AM

Again people speak out of ignorance. Dealer install on a Prius battery is now in the range of $1800. And you can DIY for less than $1000. Some now are at the 400,000 mark and still had no battery replacement. Taxicabs here in Seattle with 300,000 - 400,000 ar common.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:35AM

Interesting that if Prius is Dead that it is one of Toyota's top sellers, has 3 new models, and over a Million onthe road in the 10 years since they were introduced 10 years ago. Many with over 400,000 miles and still cruising.

Kind of seems like a successful project to me.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:37AM

Your hills in Arkansas are molehills in comparison to what we have here in the west. 9% grades for 15 miles are common, and my Prius seems to like it fine at 70-75 on cruise.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:38AM

0-60 in nine seconds. Thats pretty good for getting on a freeway I think.

Say Baptist| 1.6.12 @ 11:13AM

My friends drive Harleys and send their luggage by Fed-Ex. No problem.

malherbe| 1.6.12 @ 12:26PM

You obviously know nothing about cars, physics, or hybrids. I have a hybrid, 7 yrs and over 100,000 miles. I get very near the advertised MPG, and it improves in hilly regions! It has power to spare. The battery has never gone dead ( the replacement rate for those is near 0). If you run the a/c or heat in stopped traffic, the MPG's will be significantly less. She is trying to milk the system, and you are a lier. These cars love hills, and they have a significant power advantage to any similar non-hybrid vehicle.

Frank Drackman | 1.6.12 @ 1:37PM

"improves in hilly regions?"
sure, if you only go DOWN the hill.
Unless the 2d law of Thermodynamics isnt valid where you live, in which case your still a dumbass, cause you could be driving one of the perpetual motion models...

Frank

malherbe| 1.7.12 @ 10:33AM

On a flat road, the most efficient way to use a gas powered engine is to accelerate hard in the top gear and then coast with the engine off. With a hybrid on hilly terrain, this is done automaticly. Gas is only used going up hills. You obviously know nothing about the 2nd law or gasoline powered engines. This has nothing to do with perpetual motion, but everything to do with the internal combustion engine. Holding a steady speed burns more gas. If you had a hybrid you might understand. The author made many false claims in this article. He either is a lyier or a dumbass. And you are buying into his bullshit.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 9:32AM

malherbe,

Rubbish! It take a certain minimum fuel burn to provide the working pressure to keep the engine running. It's why engines idle at 800 (or so) RPM and not 400 or 0. This base load is consumed merely to have the engine available, is consumed whenever the engine is running and contributes nothing to moving the vehicle.

The peak energy extraction is a the stochiometric mix of 14.7 pounds of air (water vapor not include) to each pound of gasoline.

There is a point of peak efficiency in the RPM operating range of each engine. If you want to get the most efficiency from an engine you run it at that RPM with a proper stochiometric fuel mix at a constant speed. To vary power you vary the amount of fuel/air mixture introduced. That's what the throttle body does with a somewhat limited authority.

Your suggestion has you accelerating. Air resistance varies with the cube of velocity. It's why you can cruise at thirty MPH using (say) 10 HP, but driving a constant speed of 60 requires 30 HP. It's why you can't put a 10-speed transmission in and drive 250 MPH.

Taking an extreme example of your strategy and accelerating (at peak operating efficiency) from 0 to 60 to 0 in order to maintain an average speed of thirty MPH. You would consume twice the power getting to 60 MPH overcoming air resistance alone than in merely staying at a constant speed of 30. Ah, you say, but I get it back when I switch my engine off at 60 MPH and coast. Not quite, because your acceleration rate approaching sixty from below is exceeded by the deceleration rate from air friction when you coast (not to mention increased rolling resistance). In short, you will not coast as far as you drove and will actually have to exceed 60 MPH to make the 30 PMH average. Here that velocity-cubed term nails you dead. If all you have to do is get to 70 MPH you have not double, but TRIPLED the power consumption of staying at a constant 30 MPH. Pick you numbers, the ratios are all the same. The closer you get to the constant desired average speed, the less power you use. In any case, you have not added for the work needed to counter rolling resistance and the base work (power times time) needed to keep the engine operating.

Next time you are in a vehicle with an MPG guage do this experiment. Accelerate, as you suggest, to 60 MPH and observe the MPG. If it's as much as 10 MPG, I will be most surprised. Then drive a constant 30 MPH and observe that is it much more than double the rate you observed previously.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 10:18AM

I mis-typed in my example. If it takes 10 HP to counter air-resistance at 30 MPH it take 80 (not 30) at 60 MPH. Double the speed and the power goes up by 8. This does not affect the example although I invite anyone to double-check.

malherbe| 1.8.12 @ 7:56PM

I do it all the time and get 50+ mpg in a honda fit. 40+ in town. Many records have been set using this tachnique, 150 mpg in a prius by Wayne Gerdes. Also an old technique used in the mobile economy run. You have great knowledge of physics, but little knowledge of cars. The Idea is to accelerate, in the top gear, usually from 45 to 65 mph, then coast back down to 45. Hills allow one to do this with the assistance of gravity. It works well google hypermiling or ecodriving. Her car should not get 30 mpg unless she is not driving properly. The above techniques will retern mpgs far above any EPA estimate. The author reports less then the epa estemate, which also is false. I do not drive with the throtle on eggshells, I do not drive slower, ore accelerate like a granny, and I have never returned with less than the EPA. Go out and try it. Oh you do have to put the car in neutral....unless you drive a hybrid.

John Navratil| 1.9.12 @ 9:46AM

malherbe,

I took your suggestion and googled eco-driving and hypermiling and found nothing to discount my analysis.

You might be able to gain something from hills where you get to store energy at low speed (therefore drag) and coast downhill, but on flat roads I'll stand by my physics, forty years of paying for my own gas, rebuilding cars and engines as well as trying to get the most out of $5/gallon AvGas.

malherbe| 1.10.12 @ 9:22AM

Your physics are flayed by extreme speeds. Engenes are more efficient uner load. They are very inefficient at sustained steady speed.

malherbe| 1.9.12 @ 9:39PM

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums.....php?t=1510 Read about P&G pulse and glide. My mpg in a VW passat went from 17 to 28 in town. 24 when I was in a hurry.

Pat| 1.6.12 @ 12:43PM

There are two forms of Hybrid car owners: one group runs on lead free, battery assisted sanctimony, the other group on hi-octane “I’m saving a bundle on gas” greed. As usual, the Feeling Good about Myself, Saving the Earth types will resent the Where’s My 55 MPG? drones. This amusing dichotomy follows a long held American tradition where everyone must quickly form up for basketball, football, baseball, etc. into two groups and then aggressively attack each other, while remaining good sports about it. We’re what sociologists call a society of inward antagonism and don’t even realize we’re endlessly repeating this compulsion; in fact, we have no free will in the matter. For our professional politicians, this never changing American psychosis is useful in many ways. The Feeling Good about Myself crowd welcomes all new laws which vindicate their emotions and provides them with ongoing opportunities to feel superior to their neighbors. Lots of potential votes there if you position your campaign squarely on their side.

Eventually, however, reason takes hold, reality sets in and then our more savvy politicians subtly switch their support to the Where’s My 55 MPG? crowd. New laws are needed, they will tell us, which honestly inform the public as to what savings they can realistically achieve with Save the Earth technology. Lawyers start talking “Class Action Suit” against irresponsible automakers who were formerly environmental heroes and tend to spend their free time poring over high end real estate listings in anticipation of their enormous settlements.

Our elected politicians will demand a new government agency tasked with monitoring and policing automakers who exaggerate their energy saving claims. Carmakers, who were formally encouraged by these same politicians to develop Save the Earth technology, will now find themselves the target of lawmakers who claim they shamelessly bamboozled the American public. In the end, new automotive technology will be soundly defeated by our Model T politicians who thoroughly understand that basic technology powering a typical American voter.

PCC| 1.6.12 @ 1:30PM

Nice comment, Pat. Best of the thread.

Ron| 1.6.12 @ 12:46PM

I think I will stick with my 1997 Crown Victoria LX, V8 Police Pack, thank you very much!

Real car, real engine...Flies like an eagle...

Frank Drackman | 1.6.12 @ 1:32PM

got an 03' Vickie, cop tires, cop shocks, cop suspension...

Moe Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 8:22PM

Add the cop motor and you have something akin to the Bluesmobile.

Frank Drackman| 1.7.12 @ 7:08AM

Ironically, the Crown Vics 250hp 4.6 liter cranks out more Horsies than Jake & Elwoods smog-pumped 74 Monaco 440...
Now enough Torqe to jump the 96th Street Bridge? thats a different story

Moe Blotz| 1.8.12 @ 11:31AM

1974 high performance spec. Dodge 440 advertised 275 HP, police spec. cars were hotter and not advertised. No catalytic converter enabled the engine to run on regular leaded gas, but low compression and the air injection reactor hindered output.

wess| 1.6.12 @ 1:06PM

I am not a fan of electric cars or some of the other alternative concepts currently being pushed at great expense, but I believe you do a mis-service to hybirds in general. Admittedly the Volt is a fiasco, but I work in an office that operates multiple 2nd and 3rd generation Pruises in a mix of local and highway driving on mostly flat terrain. All of our vehicles routinely average 42-45 mpg while doing the legal speed limit. That is a bit short of the 50 mpg that gets advertised, but far better than your article would suggest.

Ed| 1.6.12 @ 1:10PM

1. Those little junk cars that supposedly get 40MPG will have the same problem on the hills you mention - nowhere near 40MPG.
2. I have a Ford Fusion Hybrid, and in highway driving (in Pennsylvania's hills) at 65MPH (cruise control), the car regularly returns 41MPG. that's 5MPG over it's highway rating.
3. I would challenge anyone to compare their actual MPG to what their car is advertised at - none will add up with "normal" driving. However, any car can be driven efficiently, or inefficiently.

I think your article is unfair to hybrids.

Matt| 1.7.12 @ 11:10AM

"I would challenge anyone to compare their actual MPG to what their car is advertised at - none will add up with "normal" driving. However, any car can be driven efficiently, or inefficiently."

This is just as much true of regular cars as it is of hybrids. Car manufacturers find the minimum mpg under perfect conditions.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:23PM

My 2002 Honda Odyssey (95,000 miles) regularly gets 26-27 mpg highway, and periodically something north of 28 mpg (down in South Carolina, where you can buy "real gas" sans ethanol), which is considerably more than the sticker says I should get.

Gadfly| 1.6.12 @ 1:22PM

Seems like this author endorsing a pretty frivolous lawsuit in order for scoring points against "environmental" cars. I'm not a hybrid driver, but I'm not prepared to endorse a crackpot suit like this.

Civic Hybrids aren't advertised as getting 50 mpg. It's more like 40 mpg. And even driving long distances at 70-80 mpg, my wife's civic gets nearly 35, so even though I've never driven a Civic Hybrid, I doubt you need to go sub-50 mph to get decent results. I wonder what the hell she's doing to her car to get it to give her less than 30 mpg.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:25PM

I get 35 mpg on my mom's old 1989 Honda Civic DX, which, even though it is old enough to buy liquor, can still push 80 on the highway.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:26PM

I would regularly get 35 mpg in my old 1985 Civic S (not even Si!), with the 1.5 liter carburetted engine. It was a sweet little car that handled like a dream.

Bob in PA| 1.6.12 @ 1:26PM

First thing, I hope this woman cannot sue Honda. I think she should sue the government, as another reader stated.
Second, I never bought into the hybrid car idea. If they delivered 100 MPG I might.

I have a 2001 Civic sedan. It is rated at 32 City/38 HW MPG. I've calculated as good as 42 MPG on a trip thru the Midwest with the AC on. I pondered getting a hybrid a few years ago. I did the math and figured for the extra $3000 sticker price above a traditional gas engine, it would take 7 to 10 years to re-coup the cost. I could not justify it. I've held onto the 2001 Civic and now have 240,000 miles on it. It does not get 42 MPG anymore but that is understandable. My MPG dropped big time when ethanol was introduced. That is when I really noticed a difference. I wonder if this new hybrid Civic would get closer to 50 MPG if the owner could put regular unleaded in it without the added ethanol. Just a thought.

J. C.| 1.6.12 @ 1:30PM

VW Jetta TDI!!!! I have owned it for three years and have had only three tanks of gas get below 40 mpg.

Frank Drackman | 1.6.12 @ 1:31PM

Hell Fire! My 76'Pinto would get 30 MPG, 32, if you had the balls to draft 5 ft behind Tractor Trailers...

Mow Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 8:25PM

You were damn lucky one of the "maypops" did not let go. Have you any idea what a truck tire tread peeling from the casing would do to a following vehicle?

Tim| 1.8.12 @ 7:10AM

If you draft 5 feet behind a tractor trailer in an MG Midget you can take it out of gear and let him pull you along. Been there, did that.

Roger| 1.6.12 @ 1:50PM

I drive a 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid and get 45 mpg over my 90 miles round trip to work every day. That's probably 5-10 mpg over what a standard Civic would do for me.

1. Yes, the window sticker said expected 50 mpg. At first, I was taking a slower, longer, flatter route to and from work and was averaging 48.5 mpg. (BTW the instrumentation panel mpg is off by 1 1/2 mpg against keeping track of gallons and mileage at fill up). I did some web searching and found that the sticker mpg come from federal tests of a standardardized route. If I remember correctly, the top speed for the highway route is 60 mph. Any actual driving will not be the same as the standard route - different speeds, hills, starts, stops, acceleration - so her claim is basically that she not driving a route that is close to the standard route in the same way the driver drove the standard route. Those numbers are valuable for relative comparision purposes only.
2. When I changed to a hillier, shorter route my mpg dropped instantly to 45 mpg. Same speeds - 60-70 mph with some slow congestion areas. Net cost of me of the change was to my benefit.
3. For the first year or so, I was curious about what impacted mpg on the hybrid. Speed and hilliness are major factors. Highway versus city driving makes a huge difference, like 10 mpg. This car is optimzed to steady highway driving. Headwind and tailwind can add/subtract 1-2 mpg. Temperature makes a difference. This car is optimized for 70-80 degrees F. Winter and summer knock of 2-3 mpg. Tire inflation about 1 mpg. Rain and wet roads knock 1-2 mpg. 60 versus 70 mph knocks off 3-4 mpg.
3. My best mileage was 52 mpg on a trip with a big tail wind at max of 60 mph through secondary roads in the flat praire of Illinois of a nice fall day.
4. If she bought a 2006, she got a federal $2000 tax credit (I think I'm remembering that right) in place at that time, which paid for the premimum price above the standard Civic. So, in effect, she's not injuried versus if she bought the standard Civic.
5. I'm at 130,000+ miles on my hybrid Civic. I'm a perfect case for this type of vehicle - high highway mileage to and from work, almost no city driving with paying a premimum for the hybrid version. I'm happy with the money I've saved, especially since all of you helped me pay for the car through your taxes to cover the tax credit. Thank you very much. (Just joking, I don't support the government favoring things through tax policy, but I'm not crazy enough to pass it up. Eliminate all tax loopholes!) For people who don't match this profile, hybrids are a poor investment.
6. You can get 50 mpg city mileage, but it must be perfect conditions, flat, lots of steady speed stretches and you have to really, really baby the gas. I've done it, but it would be stupid to do that any more than to just prove the point.

Roger - reader of AS since early 1980s.

malherbe| 1.7.12 @ 10:39AM

You can greatly improve your mpg by doing some mild hypermiling techniques. Flat terrain at steady speed should not be your best mpg. I can get 55 with my 04 prius in hilly city driving.

Slacker| 1.6.12 @ 1:53PM

The lady’s case should be thrown out of court. She got what she paid for: Conspicuous consumption and cultural posing of the green variety.

The foremost purpose of a hybrid is to display your green credentials and techno savvy.
Elementally the motivation to drive a hybrid is no different than the playboy in a Porsche, the redneck in a lifted truck, or the black guy with 22 inch rims. It is all cultural posing. I bet a hybrid get you laid in some circles.

Moe Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 8:30PM

Maybe Ms. Peters is a rare conservative lawyer whose goal is to make a mockery of the EPA fuel mileage estimates by making them irrelevant. Ifinfact the lawsuit opens the door for more of the same, think how that will trash the gummint's control over the cars we buy.

malherbe| 1.8.12 @ 8:02PM

At a slightly higher cost, a hybrid will provode more power, better acceleration, and beteer MPG than any gas counterpart.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:26AM

I drive a Hybrid as it keeps money in my pocket every time I fill the tank. Over $1500 per year over our old Minivan.

Tim| 1.6.12 @ 2:03PM

One part that often gets lost in the Honda story, is that they reprogrammed the 2006-08 models because they found that the batteries were dying before the warranty expired. Rather than replacing the worn batteries, they reprogrammed them so that they are used less, thus lasting longer. The result is that the consumer has to pay more for gas, rather than Honda paying for new batteries. I was happy with my Honda's 45 mgp (in hilly/cold Vermont) until the reprogram brought it down to 34 mpg. Very disappointed in Honda. I was a loyal customer.

Collin| 1.7.12 @ 5:24PM

Was hoping to see if somebody posted this.

All of the other postings (and the article's basis) about the lawsuit being about the Civic Hybrid not meeting up to the posted EPA mileage specs are off-base because that is not what the lawsuit is about. Everyone knows "Your Mileage May Vary." Instead, it is actually about Honda issuing a software update for the cars that had the effect of reducing effective mileage by using the batteries less. She is saying that they did this in order to reduce their warranty costs since the batteries were wearing out too soon. This is definitely a valid question for the lawsuit to settle.

Think about it this way: Let's say you paid for a energy-efficient refrigerator that said it would keep your food at 32 degrees, brought it home and two years later, the company comes by and changes the minimum temp to 40 degrees because the compressors are failing too fast. Or, maybe your bought 100W lightbulbs and they came by and modified them to 75W bulbs. Etc. These would be analogous to the situation with the Civics and most of us would be outraged and want some compensation as well.

ULy| 1.6.12 @ 2:53PM

2006 HCH Engine alone only has 90 HP, not 110. The extra 20 HP comes from electric motor, which adds up to 110HP.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:28PM

I got 110 hp from my first Honda, a Civic 1500 with Hondamatic transmission. It also got more than 35 mpg.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:24AM

With Prius it gets up to about 145 HP as needed.

Bill H| 1.6.12 @ 4:01PM

If you add in the spin of the earth my F350 gets great mileage. But only when I'm headed east.

JimH| 1.6.12 @ 4:13PM

A battery powered car does not eliminate pollution. It just relocates it to wherever the juice used to charge the battery comes from. In addition these batteries require expensive, exotic and toxic metals which must be refined and transported to the manufacturer. These cars have also been shown to pose a danger to rescuers attempting to cut into one of these vehicles. If you want an immediate mileage improvement, eliminate the ethanol from the fuel.

malherbe| 1.7.12 @ 10:44AM

It does decrease pollution by increasing mpg. Plugins, or pure ellectrics use electricity from the power plant which is a different story. The are not a significant risk to rescuers, that claim has been debunked. There is only so much crude oil, and if we do not take some measures to conserve it we will have major problems in short order.

Stuart Koehl| 1.7.12 @ 2:30PM

Diesel does this better. And a widespread diesel conversion effort would also reduce the cost of gasoline, since more petrol would have to be refined in order to meet the higher demand for diesel (fractional distillation, for those who are puzzled).

malherbe| 1.8.12 @ 8:06PM

Diesil needs more crude oil per gallon. They get more mpg, but Barrels per mile are nearly the same.

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:43AM

You ignored the fractional distillation issue: it takes more barrels of crude to make a barrel of diesel because first you have to take out the gasoline. As I said, more diesel fuel production will generate more gasoline production, driving down the cost of both.

Tim| 1.8.12 @ 7:16AM

I guess we are conserving so much that we are exporting the excess.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:40PM

Wow... you are SO misinformed. That crap you are spewing was debunked long ago. Try to keep up.

John Navratil| 1.8.12 @ 9:36AM

Paul,

Do tell! Don't keep us in suspense! What crap? What's wrong about it? What's right? Or are you just like Bill O'Reilly and just not buyin' in?

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:22AM

Do some research. Toyota recycles every part and particle of their batteries.

And Nimh and Lithium are nowhere as toxic as Lead Acid batteries that are in ever car on the road.

Jack Morrill| 1.6.12 @ 5:49PM

I have averaged 51.2 MPG from my 2005 Honda Civic for the last 112,203 miles. And, yes, I can prove it. I have actual photos of the odometer and the MPG computer. The car has been flawless, no problems. The only maintanence has been Mobile-1 0w-20 and a new oil filter every 7000 miles. And one new air filter.

Best car I have ever owned, and I have owned several Hondas and Acuras. The car has been all over the country. I live in Northwestern Montana, not exactly the High Sierra (where the car spent it's first two years) or Pikes Peak, but still definitely not flat. The rural, two-lane speed limits around here are 70 MPH. The car has visited about half of these 50 states in it's lifetime.

Last night, after reading this article at a friends place, I measured my mileage as I was returning back to my house, about 38 miles, slightly uphill (from 1888 feet to 2600 feet elevation). I got 55.6 MPG with the cruise control set at 60 (there are a LOT of moose, elk, deer, snow, ice, and the accessional grizzly on the roads around here, so 60 at night is prudent).

But I drove the car to Galveston Texas twice, averaging over 75 MPH, and averaged over 53 MPG going east, and 48 MPG going west both times. (At these speeds, wind really does matter.) The worst milage I have ever gotten in very mountainous country is 43 MPG, heading west from Denver through the Eisenhower Tunnel at 11,158 feet, with a good headwind.

The real problem is that 98.2% of the population don't have a clue on how to drive any vehicle. Most people I know, especially in California where I grew up, should not even be allowed to ride in a car, let alone drive one.

OF COURSE you have to drive with the goal of getting maximum mileage in mind. It is a skill. Is this lady an idiot?

Honda will probably settle out of court on this, but it's a shame.

Moe Blotz| 1.6.12 @ 8:33PM

Then there are those of us who know how to milk a vehicle for its most economic operation, but every once in awhile have to let 'er rip. Dropping the hammer relieves a great deal of frustration.

Bob Grant| 1.6.12 @ 5:57PM

No one's really mentioned the performance of these vehicles in extreme temperature conditions, say, Phoenix in August or Buffalo in January.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:19AM

Have driven my Prius in both 120 Degree Heat, and near Zero Cold in the mountains here in Washington. Drives like any other car. Mileage does go down in the winter when Ethanol is mandated, but then so does the MPG on my sons Honda Civic. And about the same 4-6 MPG.

OryGun| 1.6.12 @ 6:17PM

I bought a 2001 VW jetta with my money and without any assistance from all of you and it has averaged 48-50 mpg on the highway since then. It has plenty of power and is fun to drive. It has the fewest moving parts and electronics of anything out there which equates to less ownership costs and a proven longevity in the motor. The Gov has made these cars have to go almost underground to be sold. Their dislike and unrational push of a certain hybrid style flys in the face of reality.

In the last 20 years Ford and other small truck manufacturers have sold almost exclusively diesel pickups to people who need them to perform a job and return some mileage due to their proven power and efficiency under load. Yet, you never saw them advertise them in the media. Think back on all the Ford truck commercials and it is only recently that they talk about the diesel option. This government through it's battery of regulators have created a mess out of the free market. I am amazed that we have sat idly by and let this go on for so long.

David Boudreau| 1.6.12 @ 6:26PM

I had a Chevy 2009 Cobalt XFE, 5 speed, with a 2.5 litre 4 cylinder engine. It consistently got 32mpg at 77mph driving from Austin, TX to Houston, TX every week. On flat roads with the cruise control set at slower speeds it got way better mpg. for example it would get 45mpg at 60mph and about 52 mpg at 50mph. A well tuned gasoline car can get really good mileage, hybrid cars are new unproven technology and I don't believe they perform as well as those greenies want us to think they do.

malherbe| 1.8.12 @ 8:09PM

Old and proven and yes they do perform that well.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:16AM

Prius has been on the road for over 10 years, over a million sold, and some with over 400,000 miles and no major problems.

Kind of a tested product in my book.

Tony in Central PA| 1.6.12 @ 9:03PM

Hybrids have a couple of additional problems others have mentioned. In the case of the Honda Civic, you'll note the hybrid is more than 200 lbs heavier than the regular model. Where does the energy come from to move that 200+ lbs ?
The other is that the battery output drops off significantly as temperautres get colder. Hybrid mileage is often worse under real driving conditions of my home in central PA.

When the Honda Hybrid first came out, I asked my mechanic about it. He proceeded to tell me a story about three guys who traveled from Pittsburgh to Altoona in a hybrid. The normally two hour trip over hill and mountain took over four hours.

g.r.r.| 1.8.12 @ 12:51AM

Yup. Your mechanic told you a story. A whopper at that.

Tony in Central PA| 1.8.12 @ 9:46PM

I actually test drove the 2009 Civic LX vs. the hybrid. I drove them up the same mountain, which was more than 800 vertical feet in elevation rise. This was to simulate my daily commute. The hybrid performance was distinctly inferior to the conventional civic.
The other part of the argument against the hybrid is the battery cost. Who wants to replace a battery to the tune of several thousand dollars in a vehicle with maybe 1ooK miles on it ? Maybe nobody who buys one ever considers this annoying little eventuality.

malherbe| 1.9.12 @ 3:36PM

Almost never happens, less than 1 % after 10 years and most of those were flooded vehicles

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:11AM

Prius Batteries are waranted to 100,000 miles. And they actually last 2-3 times that mileage. Some used as taxicabs have over 400,000 miles on them with no battery replacement.
Dealer replacement is in the range of $1800 now, and going down. Plus if you are so inclined, yu can buy them for less than $1000 and replace them yourself.
And $1800 is a lot cheaper than a new Tranny which most cases go at about 100,000 and cost in the range of $3000 to replace. Or as on our Ford Van, the engine at 102,000 for over $4000.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:15AM

I agree. We have climbed the Rockies, the Cascades, and the Siskyous and never had any problem climbing. I usually set the Cruise for 75 MPH, and the Prius will climb any grade without dropping out.

We have a hill here that is a 21% grade coming out of the Kent Valley to the SeaTac Airport. Goe up it no problem.

Prius has available 150 HP when both Electric and gas are working together. Which onthat light car seems adequate.

PCP Smoker| 1.6.12 @ 9:05PM

To the writer: is she your sister?

Richard Baker| 1.6.12 @ 9:24PM

The people who buy hybrids see themselves as superior. I sold Ford Escape/Fusion Hybrids to people who had an insufferable attitude that they were more responsible than anyone else. That they paid a huge premium for the cars never seemed to enter their minds. They could have bought many other brands/models of cars and saved money and still have gotten great mileage. What was the old expression "a fool and his money are soon parted?"

malherbe| 1.8.12 @ 8:39PM

04 priors purchase price 20,000. current value 12,000. Cadillac CTS 04 purchase price 50,000. current value 12,000. More space, more mpg, significantly less power and less cost. Much better bargain. This works with any gas powered car. The hybrid will cost more to buy, much less to use, and comands a better resale price.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 4:04AM

Our Prius saves us over $1500 per year in Fuel and Maintenance over the MiniVan we used to own.

Considering that we have a 5 year contract, that means we will save over $7500 over the life of the contract.

Paid $25,999 3 years ago for it. So after 5 years, we will have actually, with the savings, paid about $18,500. Which is about the price of most Midsized cars that get about the same 18-24 MPG our Minivan got.

malherbe| 1.9.12 @ 3:46PM

04 escape (6 cyl) 23000, 04 escape hybrid 23000 Current resale value escape 10,000 (6 cylender) escape hybrid 14000. You do the math. The hybrid is always a better deal in the long run.

Barn Cat| 1.6.12 @ 9:24PM

So to quote Dilbert, it's not criminal fraud, it's marketing.

POST American| 1.6.12 @ 10:18PM

-----Great piece!

BTW ---check it out:

Seems the EUGENISTS of the corporate
capstone are at it again.

Forget the sterilant and cancer engendering
Bisphenol A in plastics, processed food,
cans, bottles, additives and packaging.

---That's yesterday's news.

Seems 'the boys' have managed to
saturate the enviornment much further
with the stuff through dyes, fabrics, printer
and other inks ---and paper ----all
kinds of paper ---esp. TOILET PAPER.

Gets you right in the membrane!
Right into the blood.

NOW we have close to 9O%
functional fertillity of western males.

Any doctor can tell you, they're treating
males in their 20's ---30's with lack of
ANY gender response at all!

This on top of puberty at the age of 7
--of 5 for girls!

SO, do monitor your estrogen and
fertility levels -----AS you get ready for

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

Keep Driving| 1.6.12 @ 10:40PM

2005 VW Jetta TDI: 75 mph at 43 mpg and enough torque to push to 90 if you want to. Fast, fun, economical.

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 3:57AM

We got our Prius up to 88 MPH between Reno and Vegas on the first long run we made with it to see if it could handle it. Guess What - It seemed to want to go faster. But the Cop said that was too fast.

Hate tickets.

glide| 1.7.12 @ 11:18AM

Most of you are comparing your peak highway MPG to the Civic H's combined average MPG...that's like comparing your time running a mile at 18 vs. walking it at 50.

Speaking from experience the Civic H's battery is a POS and that's disappointing and it's such a POS that it trims a few MPG off every tank and that's disappointing.
That being said, since June of this year averaging total miles driven by total gallons of gasoline purchased the result is 59.3 mpg in a (not so cold this year) northern state. Again that includes errands, commuting, family trips .... not just an idea trip on the interstate to grandma's house. Achieving that number takes a bit of skill and discipline: I keep my speed under 65, accelerate rapidly when safe and get the car into its software enabled glide mode with the go peddle when ever possible; drive it like a hybrid not a regular car, which obviously the author has yet learned to do.

Wayne| 1.7.12 @ 12:55PM

My 1984 Toyota Camry use to get 50 miles per gallon. My understanding is that after that year the Camry's were lucky to get 30 miles per gallon. The 1984 Camry may have been the best car ever made. But was it too good?

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:43PM

Thanks for the conspiracy theory... but the EPA estimate on the 84 Toyota Camry was NOT 50 miles per gallon. I suspect if YOU had driven an 85 Camry instead of just going by your "understanding" you would not have found it all that different.

Pete| 1.7.12 @ 9:07PM

I got 600 miles on 12 gallons of gas, that computes to 50 miles per gallon. I gave no conspiracy theory because we know conspiracies do not exists and never have.

Buck Ofama| 1.8.12 @ 6:18PM

I got 102 MPG on my 1984 celica with the 22R 4-banger. Really I did. And I got 82 MPG in my 1995 Honda Civic... really I did. I don't believe in conspiracies, and my hero Ovomit was really born in the USSA, too. Also, Ovomit gwine gimme a gubmint chek 2 pay 4 muh crib, , , no muh sayn.., , , sup wi dat shit?????

Chris Cox| 1.7.12 @ 1:26PM

I own a 06 Civic Hybrid. The car gets 40 mpg no matter how I drive it. If I drive it like a race car, I get 40 mpg, if I try to conserve, I get 40 mpg. That's in mostly city driving. I work 1 hr. away from home and have to travel through the DFW metroplex to get to work. With that said, the firmware updates made to the motor assist and hybrid operation sometimes make the car do "weird' things. So there are times when you'd think the battery and IMA would be "ok" and the system says "no" and then 3 seconds later, it's kicking in again. I imagine that most of the updates are done to protect the battery to help assure that it lasts for the whole period of the warranty.

The Civic Hybrid 06 did/does have another problem that isn't talked about. I can guarantee that every original 06 Hybrid had a faulty power distribution unit, yet no recall was ever made. I was without my car for over a month as it sat at the dealership waiting for the replacement part from Japan. And that's in the DFW area... not somewhere in the "boonies".

So... I get "ok" gas mileage. Is it what is advertised... no... but I no longer believe any advertised values with regards to mpg anyhow (does anyone?). Is Honda interested in giving me a good driving experience? Of course not. They are strictly interested in protecting their own interests... so all changes made to my car are really for their benefit, not mine. With that said, realize that it doesn't mean it doesn't benefit me, it's just NOT the prime motivation. Honda strictly wants to avoid lawsuits, etc. In all fairness, it's pretty much how all corporations in America work. The customer simply doesn't matter anymore. Just avoid any legal entanglements at all costs.

So... should I participate in the class action settlement? Certainly it is very true that you will not get the advertised mpg. But apart from the typical corporate America "to heck with the customer" style of operation, I like my Civic overall. For a hybrid, it's a huge car. It's as big as our 1994 Honda Accord was, which was considered a mid-size compact car and really isn't that much different from its contemporary counterpart you'd buy today. At 40mpg, this is significantly better than the max 30mpg you tend to get from the stock Civic. Does it make up for the additional cost? Probably not. However, living in hurricane central (where a hurricane in Houston means "no gas" sometimes for us), having a car that does 40 mpg can still be worth it.

So are they liars? Yes. Are they crooks? Maybe. Overall, I think Honda is "typical" in that the customer comes last and profit comes first at all costs. But for what it is, I'm ok with my purchase and like the car. Everytime I get shown something better (my friends like things like the VW TDi, etc), I find that my car is still better overall. But feel free to show me a quality car company that still cares about the customer... I will at least listen, but with a fair amount of skepticism.

Paul| 1.7.12 @ 3:44PM

Sheesh! Get a grip! No, they are not liars. They are reporting the numbers they are required to by law.

Pete| 1.7.12 @ 9:14PM

Of course ;-)

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:47AM

Has it occurred to you that the EPA has a vested interest in giving hybrids the highest possible mileage rating? Look at how they compute "miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) for electric vehicles, and you quickly realize either they have a very deficient understanding of physics and economics, or they have their thumb on the scale.

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:47AM

Has it occurred to you that the EPA has a vested interest in giving hybrids the highest possible mileage rating? Look at how they compute "miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) for electric vehicles, and you quickly realize either they have a very deficient understanding of physics and economics, or they have their thumb on the scale.

Dan| 1.7.12 @ 3:48PM

I have a 3rd generation Prius. I get between 40mpg (cold winter) and 60 mpg (summer) in the hills of NH, and consistently get above 50 mpg 9 months of the year, city, highway whatever. There isn't a single hatchback that comes close. The only exception would be diesels, but they require more expensive fuel, and have at least a $5000 premium over the gas equivalent model, and can get refueled in less places. Yes you need a lighter foot to achieve that mpg, but that is true of most cars, just more so in a hybrid. The Prius can get above 5o mpg at 65 mpg. Having said that I am truly amazed that the car companies don't produce non-hybrid cars that can achieve that kind fuel economy, when the old VW diesel Rabbit and Truck and the Honda Civic HF were great efficient cars 30 years ago.

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:49AM

In Europe, diesel is cheaper than gas, refueling points are ubiquitous, and diesels are found in a wide range of cars from econoboxes to full-size sedans and SUVs. Thus, the added cost of the diesel engine is quickly amortized, and there is no inconvenience with regard to fueling or service.

emo| 1.7.12 @ 5:30PM

In the summer I see Prius drivers driving around with all their windows rolled down

Stuart Koehl| 1.9.12 @ 6:51AM

The Prius conundrum: keeping the windows up would improve aerodynamics, but turning on the air conditioner would require more use of the gas engine. So, sweat and get marginally less mileage, or be comfortable and get radically less mileage?

Kingofthenet| 1.7.12 @ 5:39PM

Natural Gas would go a long way to making cars cleaner, but for the RIGHT person a Chevy Volt, could be awesome. Imagine you work 5-10 miles from home, you could conceivably NEVER buy gas, if you are efficient in your driving. Getting a Volt type car with a 100 mile initial electric range in real world conditions could handle better the 75% of commuters. That would be outstanding.

g.r.r.| 1.8.12 @ 12:42AM

the volt, like all parallel hybrids, is a piece of junk. The reason is that it is a gas car with loads of complexities and increased costs.

Matt| 1.8.12 @ 8:28AM

Yes, the Volt is a sweet car. I plan to buy a Nissan Leaf as soon as they become available in my state. It would handle the multitude of short trips we make around our neighborhood -- grocery shopping, taking kids to school or activities, trips to the dentist, etc., and be completely fueled by the solar panels on my roof. Clean, green, and cheap.

Buck Ofama| 1.8.12 @ 6:14PM

Another deluded slobbering Ovomit voting sycophant.

Mender| 1.8.12 @ 6:19PM

Have you ever tested one?

Thought not.

Matt| 1.10.12 @ 11:03AM

What a moronic response! Take you lithium, dude.

Mender| 1.8.12 @ 6:18PM

Or you could just cycle with a child carrier?

BigWu| 1.7.12 @ 8:47PM

The 1967 Chevy Camaro SS, with its 5.7L 295 HP engine, is bested in a 0-60 drag with the 2010+ Ford Fusion Hybrid (7.9 seconds vs 7.8 seconds). The '67 Camaro got all of 9 MPG. The Fusion Hybrid? 39 MPG Combined EPA (I've averaged just a tick lower at 37 MPG with my lead foot). Virtually identical performance, but the modern vehicle gets more than 4x the MPG.

The problem is that folks no longer want 60's era muscle car performance. They now believe they "need" 1990's era Ferrari performance... in an SUV.

not"buying"it| 1.8.12 @ 12:08AM

I mean reallly what is the incentive to go out there and blow 40-50k on one of these things? Especially the ones with batteries that yes indeed will need to be replaced some day.. At a cost that will make a motor replacement look like an oil change.....

Thanks but no thanks..

malherbe| 1.9.12 @ 9:49PM

Sonata has a lifetime warentee on the baterie. 99+ % of them last over 10 years. The extra initial cost is more then made-up in resale value, the extra cost of a batterie replacement is more then made up for by decreased cost of fuel.

g.r.r.| 1.8.12 @ 12:41AM

Sad that a car guy got so many things wrong.
All he speaks of, is the parallel hybrids.
In a serial hybrid, the engine is disconnected from the wheels, all together. It only drives a generator, nothing more. That is what the volt was SUPPOSED to be. But then the bean counters got a hold of it and changed it into the nightmare that it is. Anybody buying a hybrid in cars is a fool. However, buying a serial hybrid in SUV/Trucks/RV/Commericial vehicles makes PERFECT sense. In fact, with serial hybrid, you can add 200 HP motors for under 100 lbs. That means that for semis, you can actually add a motor to the rear wheels rather cheaply and easily. Makes perfect sense esp. for braking. Likewise, in a semi, you can actually use TWO engine/generators. Then gear those so that one is enough to run the tractor at cruise speed (say 80 miles). Since the engine runs a generator, it runs at a single constant EFFICIENT speed. If you are running all sorts of extra items (refrig, cabin with somebody in it, etc), then every so often the other generator kicks in to charge batteries.

But on a car, hybrids just do not make sense. EVs DO make sense for many situations, but not all (at least not yet). For the others, use gas/diesel.

Dr Memory | 1.8.12 @ 4:23AM

"1. In a hybrid, the gas engine is usually smaller and less powerful than the engine in an otherwise equivalent non-hybrid. For instance, in Peters' 2006 Civic hybrid, the gas engine is just 1.3 liters and makes only 110 hp. In the non-hybrid Civic, the engine is 1.8 liters and makes 140 hp. Result? The hybrid's smaller/weaker engine has to work harder to deliver comparable forward thrust -- which means it burns more fuel."

Wrong, higher efficiency. Big engines running partial throttle waste fuel. And engine at full throttle is much better.

Buck Ofama| 1.8.12 @ 6:12PM

All because these nanny gubmint c0cksuckers have to fvck around with CAFE bullshit standards, and no one will DRILL THE FVCKING USSA DIRT.

Alistair McDonald| 1.9.12 @ 4:07AM

I agree with everything you say, except one point. you have not made it clear that a smaller engine is always more efficient than a larger one of similar design. So your point (1) The hybrid's smaller/weaker engine has to work harder to deliver comparable forward thrust -- which means it burns more fuel. is wrong. The reason that more fuel is used must be due to increased weight, the engine should be more efficient than a larger one.

John Kurmann | 1.9.12 @ 4:57PM

Nonsense. I live in Kansas City, Missouri and own a 2002 Toyota Prius. It's rated at 42 City/41 Highway/41 Combined under the EPA's current testing procedure, which was applied retroactively to vehicles sold before it went into effect for the 2008 model year. I've averaged 46.2 MPG over the last 21 months, which isn't all that much below the original Combined MPG rating for the car of 48. Yes, I drive for fuel-efficiency, but it only makes sense to me to drive for fuel-efficiency after I've spent more money to buy a hybrid.

jimbo999| 1.12.12 @ 1:27PM

Oh yeah, John! you're that guy in KC who goes up hills at 15 mph and coasts down the other side at 75. Everybody hopes they don't get behind you going up or ahead of you going down. You'd get even better mileage if you pushed it off a cliff. It's so smart to pay more for a car that gives you less and makes you drive like Aunt Nancy.

jimbo999| 1.12.12 @ 1:21PM

I had a Honda hybrid that got 50 MPG once. The second half of the 300 miles, it was on a flatbed tow truck.

guthriej| 1.12.12 @ 2:31PM

Caveat emptor? WTF - who actually believes claimed MPG?

Reformed Trombonist | 1.13.12 @ 8:16AM

I'm a fan of big, unsophisticated cars, by and large -- I even own a Checker Marathon. When something doesn't work, I like to understand what went wrong. Nowadays, you need a Ph.D. in electronic engineering to understand cars. It didn't used to be that way.

And hybrids are among the worst offenders in that regard. The software by itself is highly sophisticated. The mechanism by which Prius recharges the batteries, via braking, is ingenious (though my understanding is that it's actually a very old idea), and who else but Toyota would have thought to store hot engine fluids in a thermos bottle to negate the extra energy required by a cold start?

All very neat stuff, but neat = sophisticated and sophisticated = complicated and complicated = expensive to maintain. In other words, the very opposite of Checker.

Having said that, a good friend of mine owns a Prius and I have to say, Toyota did a heck of a job. He is able to squeeze about 63 mpg on a long trip; when I've driven it, I only get about 53. Still, that's pretty darn good.

But the salient fact about a Prius is that all the fancy electronic gimcrackery only really buys you better city mileage. On the highway, what gets the high mileage for you is the shape of the car.

So I'm sitting here wondering, why mess with hybrids at all? Why doesn't Toyota or Honda -- heck, even Chevy has the competence to do this -- build a car shaped like a Prius but with a simple, inexpensive, and only slightly underpowered drivetrain?

Such a car would be cheaper than a hybrid, presumably easier to maintain, and would deliver about two-thirds on a hybrid's promises.

Brian Richard Allen | 1.13.12 @ 12:37PM

.... I had a "state of the art" Chevy Volt recently and this is exactly what happened. Going up and down the mountain rapidly sucked the life out of the battery and so I was running exclusively on the gas engine -- which never did better than 35 MPG. This is about 5 MPG worse than several non-hybrid 2012 cars, including the Mazda3 SkyActive and Ford Fiesta -- cars that, it should be noted, cost about half what a new Volt costs ....


Half?


That's a joke.


With subsidies every privately-purchased Volt cost its owner Forty-odd Thousand Dollars.


And the American Taxpayer One Million Dollars!


GM had, indeed, better lawyer-up, too ....

USNpops| 1.14.12 @ 3:48AM

I have a Prius, and it lives up to the 50 MPG most of the time. It does drop in the winter as soon as they put in more Ethanol, but in the warmer weather, we normally 4un the 48 - 50 MPG as advertised. And I drive the car as I would any other, often being held up by the non Hybrids.

But again as was stated, you do need to learn to drive more efficiently and take advantage of the available economy.

biomedlives| 1.14.12 @ 9:05AM

I have found that there's another factor that influences mileage in my '06 Civic Hybrid - the outside temperature. For an average mix of highway and city driving, the mileage is 5 to 10 mph better in the summer than in the winter.

For the record, I have never depleted the battery in six years of driving the hybrid.

sweeterjan| 5.29.12 @ 2:03AM

Even when you get back to flat land, because the battery was depleted dealing with hills (or helping to provide adequate acceleration) the hybrid just becomes a heavier-than-usual http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-r4-c-9.html (because of the added weight of the battery pack and electric motor) car burning gas just like any other car. And usually, more gas than an otherwise equivalent non-hybrid car -- for two reasons:

More Articles by Eric Peters

More Articles From Car Guy

You’re in the AutoZone

December 10, 2012 | Eric Peters

Sayonara, Suzuki

November 30, 2012 | Eric Peters

85 MPH: Almost a Speed Limit

November 16, 2012 | Eric Peters

Nano Seconds

October 24, 2012 | Eric Peters

Goodbye, V-8s, the Engines That Could

August 24, 2012 | Eric Peters

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/06/honda-civic-lesson

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|64 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|73 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|28 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|23 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|12 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|18 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein | 5.21.13

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord | 5.21.13

Wimps Versus Barbarians

Thomas Sowell | 5.21.13

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer | 5.21.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein | 5.21.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.