backtop


Print 143 comment(s) - last by teamhonda81.. on Jul 11 at 3:58 PM


Honda Civic Hybrid
Civic Hybrid owner upset over averaging 32MPG

This past December, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would revise its fuel economy ratings to reflect current real-world conditions. EPA ratings at the time didn't take into account stop-and-go traffic, cold weather environments or posted speeds of 65MPH or 70MPH currently found today's highways (EPA testing maxed out at 55MPH).

In February, the EPA rolled out its revised testing procedures for 2008 model year vehicles and included a tool on its website that would take old EPA estimates and convert them to the new testing methodology. Not surprisingly, hybrids were some of the big losers with the 2008 EPA estimates.

Popular hybrid models including the Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid and Honda Civic Hybrid drop from 60/51 (city/highway), 40/38 and 49/51 to 48/45, 33/34 and 40/45 respectively.

John True, an Ontario, California native, wasn’t amused with the latest MPG mash-ups. True purchased his Civic Hybrid last year when the stated EPA mileage ratings were 49/51. True averaged 32MPG in his Civic Hybrid over the course of 6,000 miles -- even lower than the revised 2008 EPA ratings of 40/55. Consumer Reports also tested a Civic Hybrid in 2005 and averaged just 26MPG in the city.

The poor fuel economy led True to file a class-action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Company. True claims that Honda has misled buyers with false advertising.

"This case does seek relief for tens of thousands of consumers like Mr. True, who purchased the HCH expecting to benefit from its 'remarkable' fuel efficiency, and paid thousands of dollars extra for an HCH that looks identical and performs basically the same as the non-hybrid Honda Civic," said a June 4 court filing.

Even though the suit goes after Honda, the actual party responsible for MPG ratings is the EPA. "I can tell you that the 49/51 figures are EPA numbers, not Honda numbers," said Sage Marie, a Honda spokesman. "Some customers achieve the EPA mpg figures and some don't, as fuel economy performance is a function of conditions, traffic, driving style, load, etc."

Manufacturers have no control over what rating the EPA will give a particular vehicle once it has completed for regular production. It just so happens that hybrid manufacturers like Honda and Toyota have been able to use the inflated EPA scores to entice buyers over the years.

Honda already acknowledged that its Accord Hybrid wasn't up to snuff. Honda promised performance greater than a V6 Accord with fuel economy comparable to a 4-cylinder Accord. Edmunds, however, showed that its Accord Hybrid only managed 23.8MPG after two years and 30,000 miles of driving.

Honda is dropping the hybrid model from the 2008 Accord redesign and instead will go with a 2.2 liter i-CTDi clean diesel.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By KeithTalent on 7/6/2007 11:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
If you are not happy with your car, just freaking sell it and buy something else.

These are EPA numbers and I am sure nobody gets exactly what the posted numbers are anyway.

I hate stupid crap lawsuits like this. What a waste of everyone's time and money.

KT




RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By joemoedee on 7/6/2007 11:38:32 AM , Rating: 5
I don't think it's much of a crap lawsuit.

Now if he was getting like, 1-2 mpg off... then yeah, it's pretty frivolous. But if he's that far off, and as was Consumer Reports... I definitely think it has some legs to it.

If you paid more for a product based upon it's performance, and it turned out to get less performance... significantly less... than I'm certain you'd be upset as well.

Some people buy hybrids for the "environment". Some buy them for the "status". This guy clearly bought it for the gas mileage, and it turns out he spent much more money for a vehicle that does not deliver the promise of gas mileage.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By LogicallyGenius on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Kuroyama on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Cobra Commander on 7/6/2007 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 4
It's crap because HONDA is using a federal standard - how can Honda get sued for something the federal government is quoted as stating???


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By chsh1ca on 7/6/2007 12:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's crap because HONDA is using a federal standard - how can Honda get sued for something the federal government is quoted as stating???


If they took something that was wrong and used it in their advertising, even if it was someone else's numbers, they're still at fault.

Clearly the EPA needs to review their procedure for testing gas mileage if it's as much as 35-40mpg off.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Slaimus on 7/6/2007 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
It is against the law to post something other than the EPA MPG numbers.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
By Oregonian2 on 7/6/2007 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 4
If their ads specify that it's EPA numbers, then they're perfectly right to advertise that if they so choose. If someone doesn't understand what EPA number mean (or don't) then it's just their fault. Who runs the test isn't relevant so long as it's the EPA that defines the test (unless their contention is that the car's advertised EPA numbers aren't that what one gets with the EPA testing methods). This also is true for Consumer Report values, they need to be specified as the source because they have their standard of measuring that also may not match up with anybody else.

Else it's like suing a computer company for selling a really slow computer that was advertised with some high dhrystone ver 1.2 rating (that it gets). It's a not-so-good benchmark, but it's well defined.

The EPA has been sued in the past, I recall, for having misleading numbers for MPG. I think this is a permanent situation. Anybody recall how those turned out, I don't remember.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/6/2007 1:01:25 PM , Rating: 1
Honda can get sued because they advertised the federally tested figures within their marketing literature as a sales point or feature. Billboards were everywhere (I work in NYC) focusing on the fuel economy of the new Civic Hybrid.

But my question is, why would anyone buy the Civic Hybrid after a test drive? I test drove one, it was a poor implementation of a hybrid. The transition between electric to gas was too noticeable, brakes were poor performing, and the accerlation was too slow. The Prius honestly performs much better than the Civic Hybrid, but I still question crash safety along with long term radition effects.

Bring on the diesels for 2008.

Disclaimer: Lord 666 owns a 2006 Jetta TDI


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
The EPA and CARB are working extra hard to make sure that diesel is not viable in the U.S. The new 2007 and 2010 emissions standards for diesels are a huge challenge for automakers and are resulting in more complicated and expensive emissions reduction equipment.

Diesels are able to be popular in Europe because they have relatively less stringent emissions standards, despite the perception of being more "green" than the Americans. The reality is the opposite in this case.


By Lord 666 on 7/6/2007 2:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
In the past 6 months or so, I have seen a huge increase in the number of old MB 300Ds on the road. You can always benefit from the increased fuel economy by buying a used diesel. The current EPA rules allow for a car to be legal on the road as long as it meets emmissions requirements of model year, I am not concerned of tighter emission controls.

It begs to question the timing of the new diesel restrictions in conjunction with the current GWB administration and rise in fuel prices. Diesel passenger cars currently only have 1% of the market. It would be a greater public service to ban smoking entirely than restrict diesel emissions to the level the US government is.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Amiga500 on 7/6/2007 3:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Diesels emit more particulates and NOx.

It has lower CO, CO2 and hydrocarbon emissions.

In my opinion, the effect of particulates are negligible compared to other hazards of everyday life.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 4:41:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In my opinion, the effect of particulates are negligible compared to other hazards of everyday life

Particulate emissions have a direct immediate nevative impact on human respiratory health, compared with CO2 which is naturally occurring in our atmosphere and can't even be rightly considered a pollutant, except for if you buy into the global warming hype.

If you believe that CO2 is causing global warming, then you're going to have to explain how CO2 causes global warming since historically CO2 level increases lag temperature increases. I'm having a hard time with that one myself.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By erple2 on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
By Kuroyama on 7/6/2007 6:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I was hoping for some good talking points, the New Scientist article is very weak. There are a few good rebuttals in there, but for the most part the counterarguments in the article amounts to repeated statements that "although there is some truth to their claim, on the balance scientists say that they are wrong". While this may or may not be true, such a weak discussion is hardly worthy being the cover story. Wasted $5 buying it when I saw it on the newsstand too.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By LogicallyGenius on 7/8/2007 12:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
Must be painful being voted down on an important true point

Capitalist's rule here


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/8/2007 9:58:53 PM , Rating: 3
I'm used to it. Ratings are a popularity contest, and sometimes facts appeal and sometimes they don't. And when I am speaking my opinions, I don't care if they earn a good or poor popularity rating.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Pete84 on 7/8/2007 10:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see DT put up a poll asking its readers what percentage believe the global warming ideology and what percent do not. In culture it appears to be split (at least to a measurable degree) between 'conservatives' and 'liberals', and it would be fascinating to see what DT readers think.

A poll "on the internet" I've seen before and I think is stupid as teenyboppers frequent the internet and have trouble figuring out DVRs. Lets see some reasonably informed (as far as that goes) people give their opine.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 6:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
According to http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels_5.html

Toyota Prius 2.0 (2004) beats diesel based Citroen C1 1.4L HDi/Toyota Aygo 1.4L D-4D in PM, CO2, NOx.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Spoelie on 7/7/2007 2:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
European diesel and gasoline is of much higher quality than what they serve up there in the US. Also, diesel engines can run practically unmodified on a variety of bio-diesels that for the most part do not have nasty other particles.

Lastly, the economy is still a large beneficial factor, as well as reduced co2/greenhouse gases. Using the right filter systems/fuel gets rid of most of the rest.

The reality is thus not the opposite, the average american consumes almost twice as much carbon fuels than the average european.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By FITCamaro on 7/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/8/2007 9:53:01 PM , Rating: 3
You're right to challenge that, since the exact opposite is the case.

Aside from sulfur content, American diesel fuel has a much lower cetane (a measure of the fuel's resistance to predetonation) count than European diesel fuel. This means American consumers will receive diesel engines that are detuned to account for low-quality fuel. These engines will deliver poor power and less fuel-efficiency than European counterparts.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_200...


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By IGoodwin on 7/9/2007 1:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just have to reply.

Your post states that American Diesel cars need to be de-tuned to accept low-quality fuel and have less power. Therefore, this clearly indicates that Europe has higher quality Diesel. Less cetane means that American Diesel is prone to predetonation, which si a bad thing.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/9/2007 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out!


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By AsicsNow on 7/6/2007 1:31:20 PM , Rating: 3
Radition effects huh? Aside from the humorous misspelling, what in the hybrid system is radioactive?


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/6/2007 2:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
Honda specifically moved the antenna from the back window tape style antenna to roof mounted post antenna on the Accord and Civic Hybrid. Why? Because of the electromagnetic radiation was interfering with the radio reception.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 2:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
What does that have to do with health? Are you saying your body is susceptable to radio-frequency interference? Maybe if you have a pacemaker, but it is harmless otherwise.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:04:20 PM , Rating: 3
So you're equating the antenna for picking up radio waves (doesn't transmit them, only receives them) as dangerous? Or are you suggesting that the fact we have antennas means that there will be radio stations which correspondingly emit radio waves?

I'm not seeing your logic.

Smoking health concerns were specifically covered up by a few extremely wealthy and powerful lobbyists for many years. Saccharine was shown to increase chances of cancer in laboratory rats by independent research. Fen-Phen was rushed to market and received Rapid FDA approval through lobbying

Low level radiation research has been ongoing for a VERY long time (compared with the other things mentioned). None of the research has shown that there is any link between exposure to Radio Antennas and any health concerns. Granted, none of the research has shown an inverse relationship either.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I misunderstood...

It would be an interesting study to see what the effects are. However, if we were going to look at that, we may also want to consider cell phones. Those have actual microwave transmitters in them. I can tell when my cell phone is about to ring - every speaker within about 3 feet suddenly gets a thudding regular pulsing noise in it.

I'm not convinced (I haven't seen any research suggesting it) that the battery pack gives off enough EMI to hurt humans.

Oh, stop watching TV, by the way... :)


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Durrr on 7/6/2007 5:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
I work around turbine generators that produce A LOT of electromagnetic radiation due to magnetic fields. We have people that work around them for 30+ years with zero effects. EMI will not affect you negatively, ionization due to scattering/absorption reactions from particles, aka, alpha/beta/gamma/neutron radiation, that will harm you.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 4:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
Bodies are a very poor receiver of RF energy - especially compared to an antenna.

Car manufacturers don't publish RFI/EMI specifications because it is not a health concern. And automotive electronics and/or power systems are already designed to reduce RFI/EMI so that your car radio works. Hybrid vehicles would be designed to follow similar standards. Not a concern.

But feel free to worry about it, if you wish!


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 1:57:58 AM , Rating: 1
Note that heat (inferred) and visible light are examples of electromagnetic radiation.


By tcsenter on 7/7/2007 11:57:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Smoking health concerns were specifically covered up by a few extremely wealthy and powerful lobbyists for many years. Saccharine was shown to increase chances of cancer in laboratory rats by independent research. Fen-Phen was rushed to market and received Rapid FDA approval through lobbying
Well...sorta. The health risks of smoking were well known even in the 1800s (and before). Mark Twain repeatedly commented on his disdain for the 'Moral Statisticians' who were "always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured...in the fatal practice of smoking..." Of course, Twain never disputed the health risks of smoking. He was arguing 'big deal', being alive is the greatest risk factor for death (i.e. life is full of risks), and that many people including himself found smoking to be a pleasurable activity with certain social and/or cultural benefits, health risks aside.

Though most ordinances, statutes, and decrees banning tobacco use in numerous places around the world dating back to the 1700s were influenced by religious beliefs that viewed smoking as immoral or sinful, it was viewed as immoral or sinful precisely because smoking was widely believed to be injurious to one's health. Many such laws or decrees in the 18th and 19th century expressly cited health reasons rather than religious or moral. The information was readily available and has been for over a century, but people tend to pick and choose what they want to hear or believe, anyway.

As for Fen-Phen, it was hardly 'rushed' to market, whether from lobbying or other influence. Fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine were developed by a French company (Servier Labs). Fenfluramine was approved in Australia seven years before it was approved in the United States; 1966 vs. 1973. Dexfenfluramine was approved in Australia three years before the United States, 1993 vs. 1996. Dexfenfluramine (e.g. Redux) was approved in Europe nearly 10 years before the United States and was very popular there, but the dangers went undetected in these countries until US researchers at the Mayo Clinic and FDA sounded the alarm.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By IceTron on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 2:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Has anyone seen any warnings about pacemakers and hybrids within sales literature or owner's manuals?


To quote Toyota concerning the current model Prius and pacemakers;

"With the Prius’ high use of onboard computers and electrical propulsion, the designers had to ensure that there was no electromagnetic interference with pacemakers."

Refer to
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/treehugger...


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 2:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
Extra information.

Not specific to the Prius…

"The Smart Key System may interfere with some pacemakers or cardiac defibrillators. If you have one of these medical devices, please talk to your doctor to see if you should deactivate this system." - Toyota Hawaii

PS; Based model Prius doesn't include Smart Key System.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By iNGEN on 7/8/2007 12:06:15 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, and I glued a thermal barrier to the firewall in my Jeep to reduce radiation into the passenger compartment. What's your point?


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 1:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
One could use a normal compass to test for electromagnetic fields. Note that Earths’s has it’s own magnetic fields.

Note that Prius II’s electric drive train is fundamentally like a large golf buggy or suburban electric trains.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 7:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I still question crash safety

2006 Jetta TDI has it’s own crash safety issues for it's front passengers.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 7:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I still question crash safety

According to http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.as...

Jetta scored four stars out of five in frontal crash testing by the European New Car Assessment Program.

In http://www.euroncap.com/tests/toyota_prius_2004/19...
Prius 2.0 scored five stars out of five in frontal crash.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/8/2007 10:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Within the www.drive.com.au piece, there is contradicting information.

"Three 30 second video clips focusing on the five-star crash safety of Volkswagen's latest Jetta compact sedan are being considered for Australian audiences." But it then later states it scored 4 stars.

While the EuroNCAP appears to be more comprehensive than the United States testing since it accounts for child safety (my principle concern) it does not list the Jetta on the list below, not even as the Bora. http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?make=60df67...

When comparing the Jetta vs the Prius, I have admitted in previous posts about being biased to rear seat safety above all other metrics. The Prius does not offer rear torso airbags yet and its safety cage was rated as "adequate" by IIHS vs Jetta's "good."

Take a look at the Motor Trend figures. For rear safety, the Jetta gets 5/5 vs. the Prius of 4/5. The forces exerted on the crash dummies was higher for the front seat passengers in the Jetta, but I would "take it on the chin" to walk on crutches for 8 weeks with a broken femur so there is a reduced possibility of my child being paralyzed due to side impact injury. http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2007/toyota/prius/s...

vs. the Jetta's http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2007/volkswagen/jet...

As you also might not be aware, the Prius only has rear drum brakes in the US, but the overseas models have four disc brakes. The Jetta comes standard with four wheel discs in the US. Why have reduce braking ability in the US, but have it offered overseas?

Crash Videos

YouTube Video of EuroNCAP Prius test: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GkJ109Z3iOg

vs. YouTube Video of IIHS Jetta (couldn't find ANCP or EuroNCAP of Bora or Jetta within a reasonable amount of time):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GkJ109Z3iOg

Notice the roof and door crinkles on the Prius. None are visible on the Jetta. The narrator on the Jetta video also notes how the structure of the Jetta held up well without exhibiting crinkles. But he also states that the femur forces was the limiting factor from making the Jetta "Best Pick."


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/8/2007 10:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Within the www.drive.com.au piece, there is contradicting information.

4 stars was for frontal crash.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By encia on 7/10/2007 7:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As you also might not be aware, the Prius only has rear drum brakes in the US, but the overseas models have four disc brakes. The Jetta comes standard with four wheel discs in the US. Why have reduce braking ability in the US, but have it offered overseas?

The rear drum brakes includes ABS...

I’m aware that the USA Prius are "dumb down" compared to international models e.g. 4 disk brakes, parking assist, seat height adjuster, EV (pure electric drive) mode and 'etc'.

Luckily, I don’t live in the US.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Lord 666 on 7/10/2007 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't already, you should get a job working at Toyota in some form; either corporate, sales level, or somewhere in between.

Agreed, in the US we have half-ass options at times for vehicles compared to the rest of the world. The Audi Q7 V12 TDI should be offered here, but its not. Same with the diesel Honda Accord/TSX and CR-V currently being sold in the UK


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By walk2k on 7/6/2007 11:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
He's also suing the wrong guys. The EPA makes up the mileage figures, the automakers have no control or say in what they come up with.

He should be suing the EPA, if anyone.

Also he should stop driving like a lead-foot.

Every day I watch idiots in huge trucks and SUVs floor it and peel out of parking lots, treating every stop light-to-stop light like a fuxing drag race, and then they complain they only get 8 MPG. Idiots.

I have an Acura RSX-S and have gotten 36 MPG on long highway trips (6-speed). Normally around town it's more like 18. I believe it was rated 24/34 or so. Oh gosh, I should sue! NOT!!


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By joemoedee on 7/6/2007 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree, on both parts. The EPA does have to take some responsibility. However, the testing is performed by the manufacturers themselves.

"EPA estimates are based on laboratory tests conducted by manufacturers according to federal regulations. EPA re-tests about 10% of vehicle models to confirm manufacturer's results."

Now are these vehicles the EPA gets off the lot, or are they supplied by the manufacturers themselves. Are these cars "cherry picked", or randomly chosen?

We can get into 100s of conspiracy theories on the subject. The fact remains, the gas mileage is significantly less than advertised and I know if I as a consumer bought it in order to achieve X amount of gas mileage, and I was 10-15 mpg less than advertised consistently, I'd be upset.

I personally have a full size truck. 5.3l of V8 goodness under the hood. However, I don't drive like an idiot. EPA rates it at 14/19 mpg... I get 19-21 mpg driving in Atlanta traffic.

It doesn't take much effort to get the truck up to highway speeds, whereas a smaller engine does take more effort. I've had 4 cylinder Accord, same drive... 22 mpg. 4 Cylinder Altima, same drive... 21 mpg. Twice the displacement, twice the horsepower, almost three times the torque, and I'm very comparable. Why? I don't have to floor it to make it move.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 1:35:14 PM , Rating: 3
I work in the automotive industry, and most of what you say is correct. The automakers are responsible for doing their testing, according to published EPA standards/regulations, and the EPA does audit some of the results. The vehicles are randomly chosen.

Automakers go through a lot of trouble to optimize the results of the EPA testing - the engine control calibration is routinely optimized to deliver good MPG and emissions results specifically for the EPA tests, at the expense of delivering sometimes poor results at other operating conditions. This is just another case of "what you measure, they will optimize for," and this explains why normally you don't get as good of results as the EPA estimates.

But as mentioned elsewhere, EPA did recently change their tests to be more realistic, so hopefully this situation will improve in the future.


By theapparition on 7/7/2007 10:19:12 PM , Rating: 3
I also do a lot of business with the auto industy and TomZ is completely correct in how the auto industry tests and how they optimize the vehicule to meet epa standards. Remember, as far as manufacturers are considered EPA requirements are first, everything else comes secondary.

In gerneral, the Japanese do a much better job of optimizing, which is unfortunate for us (the consumer) since it is harder to obtain those numbers real life. Before everyone starts flaming back, just remember I'm talking about generalities based on experience and data, and not your specific case. That's also why the OP's big heavy truck can routinely approach the fuel economy of those small 4-bangers. And this is not uncommon in real life.

But on topic, if the manufacturer is testing according to EPA guidelines, then the EPA is the one that should be pressured for a new testing procedure. If the manufacture is not, then they should be held to the fire.


By GotDiesel on 7/6/2007 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
I do that with my Jetta TDI.. and I stil get > 48 MPG..


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By FastLaneTX on 7/6/2007 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
My S2000 was rated for 24/31, and I get 29/33. This is my fifth Honda, and I've always gotten better mileage than the EPA rating, even under the old system. The numbers are very conservative for a person who knows how to drive smoothly. If you drive like an idiot, or spend a couple hours per day parked on a "freeway", you're going to get worse numbers no matter what you do.

With gas prices what they are, I'm spending most of my time on my Suzuki Katana and getting over 60mpg -- and I don't ride conservatively at all, in contrast to how I drive a car. It drives my friends nuts that I spend less than $10/wk on gas and I look cooler than they do in their lame hybrids.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By IceTron on 7/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 10:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
Chill out, dude!


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By bob661 on 7/7/2007 7:18:02 PM , Rating: 1
It's not motorcyclists that kill people it's usually assholes like yourself that kill the motorcyclists with your inattention, road rage, or just general carelessness.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By mindless1 on 7/6/2007 10:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
YOu're missing the point, that if you want to take extra measures to be especially fuel efficient, you should achieve higher than the rating, but given the expected actual use of a typical customer, the number can only be useful if meant as a realized goal.

Also, you don't have to drive like an idiot to get worse fuel economy. Some things are just common courtesy, like not dragging your ass when your sitting at a short-timed stop light so at least a few people can get through that light instead of only the two people who felt like accelerating from 0-40 in 25 seconds.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By TomZ on 7/7/2007 12:15:06 AM , Rating: 1
I don't where you get from that post that he/she drives "like an idiot." Stating that you don't drive conservatively doesn't directly imply the exact opposite.


By Amiga500 on 7/6/2007 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - far too many people are sue-happy these days.

Probably related to the amount of (beneath) pond-scum lawyers there are floating around.

Anyway, according to the article, he is suing the wrong party - Honda did not make the figures.

Also, the mpgs that you see are highly dependant on the eagerness of your right foot - I can get over 40 or under 20 mpg in my motor if I wanted.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Cygni on 7/6/2007 2:19:33 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with the op, this lawsuit is shit.

Did anyone notice where this guy lives? Ontraio, CA. Ontario is a traffic hell hole, for anyone not familiar with the Los Angeles area. Oh, you dont get great gass mileage when you are in stop and go for 3 hours a day? Im shocked! What a joke.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By DigitalFreak on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Cygni on 7/6/2007 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you knew anything about the technology, you would know that this isnt true. A hybrid will get its best gas mileage when maintaining a constant speed. City ratings, and city gas mileage, are not given for true stop and go traffic scenarios. Sitting in the same spot with the AC on for 2 hours isnt exactly MPG friendly.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's true, however, the Hybrids are based on a fixed reserve of power - the assumption is that the gas engine (and to s lesser extent the braking) will recharge the battery over time. Generally, the Hybrid will have substantially better mileage in short stop and go traffic, but once the charge on the battery has worn out (which will occur relatively quickly in stop and go traffic, particularly if you're in it for hours at a time), you're still stuck with a gas engine. Granted, it's a tiny gas engine, and a relatively efficient gas engine.

However, I suspect that one of the issues is exactly that - driving habits. I'd like to see some research in many many differing driving habits of people (measurable ones) to see exactly what the effects on fuel consumption really is. Pick several stop and go traffic situations - one where you are trying very hard to be right on the person in front of you's behind, one where you let a little more space between you and the person in front of you (aka not accelerating quickly to "close the gap" and one where you just drive very slowly nearly never changing speeds. Then do the same for moderate speeds (30-40) then one for highway speeds (55-75) with all 3 driving modes. The results of THAT study, I suspect, would be incredibly telling, if not completely unexpected.

I'd bet that hybrids are MUCH more sensitive to the style of driving within a given speed than other cars..


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By Chadder007 on 7/6/2007 2:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't he be suing the EPA instead of Honda?? They are the ones that came up with the mileage numbers for the car after all....


By DigitalFreak on 7/6/2007 3:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
The manufacturers do their own testing, following EPA guidelines. The EPA does not do the actual testing.


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By osalcido on 7/7/2007 2:48:01 AM , Rating: 1
um... you do realize there's a steep value loss once you drive a new car off the lot, right?

Also, who in their right mind would spend any good amount of money on a car that gets 23.8mpg....


RE: Good lord, this is ridiculous.
By bob661 on 7/7/2007 7:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, who in their right mind would spend any good amount of money on a car that gets 23.8mpg....
Most V8 trucks don't get much over 20 let alone 23-24 mpg. And there IS a purpose for these vehicles. They just suck as commuters even though some like to use them as such.


By andrinoaa on 7/8/2007 5:12:18 AM , Rating: 1
bob661, you do realise I am pissing my self with laughter?
There is a fool moon (freudian slip ) out tonight.


Cult of Prius
By Spyvie on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Cult of Prius
By Anh Huynh on 7/6/2007 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
The city has a couple Priuses here as well. Thank god most of the people in town have regular Civics or Subarus (nearby mountainous areas). I'm content with my '95 Saturn, it burns one part oil for every two parts gas ;).


RE: Cult of Prius
By Kuroyama on 7/6/2007 1:32:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
close to useless for interstate driving

On my last interstate trip, a 500 mile drive from central PA to Boston, my Prius got 53mpg driving 75mph on the interstate, despite the hilly Appalachian terrain. Even in the dead of winter when the mileage is the worst possible I get 45mpg on the highway. Either way the figures are comparable to the EPA numbers.

Actually, despite the widespread belief, the Prius does its worst when you have to accelerate and decelerate regularly. On city streets in bad stop&go traffic I can average below 30mpg, which is much farther off the EPA figures than the highway values (although still better than any "normal" car in comparable traffic). The Consumer Report figures were likely also derived in a high traffic environment.

Just in case you are suggesting the Prius is not fast enough for the interstate, remember that Al Gore's son got pulled over driving 100mph in a Prius. Basically, other than your brilliant observation that the Prius runs on gas, you don't know wtf you are talking about.


RE: Cult of Prius
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 1:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
The perception about city mileage for a hybrid is not that it gets better mileage than highway, but that it is relatively much more efficient than a traditional IC engine alone in city driving.

On the highway, the difference between the two technologies is negligible, with differences related to other effects like vehicle weight, aerodynamics, and tire rolling resistance.


RE: Cult of Prius
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Naw, the trick is that to maintain a constant speed on the highway takes surprisingly little actual engine power - I'd estimate less than 20 horsepower for a car the size (and shape) of a Prius. It's tiny gas engine (which puts out 80 hp?) runs more efficiently generating that 20 necessary hp than a 150 hp engine would to generate the same 20 hp.

Parent is spot on. Physics (and mechanics) tells us that an engine puts out it's highest efficiency right at hp peak. The closer your necessary hp (ie "Power Required") is to that peak number, generally, the more efficient the engine will be at generating that amount of power. The fact that the Prius has a tiny engine in it means that on relatively level ground (or some relatively short hills where you need less than 80 hp), the Prius is going to get better gas mileage than any 150+ hp car.

The point of the electric engine is for those cases where your Power Required is more than what the gas engine can deliver - if your current driving condition calls for 100 hp (say accelerating quickly), it has to kick in the electric motor to give you that extra power. However, that extra power kick has a limited supply - when the batteries are done, you don't get that power any more, and the gas engine has to recharge them.

It's the same effect as if you had 2 gas engines in your car - if you can optimize your usage patters so that you rarely need the second engine, just shut it off, and run off the first engine. You'll get better gas mileage than a single engine that provides equivalent power as both smaller gas engines combined - PROVIDED - you optimize your driving requirements for rarely needing the second engine.


RE: Cult of Prius
By Durrr on 7/8/2007 2:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
Physics (and mechanics) tells us that an engine puts out it's highest efficiency right at hp peak.

It's peak torque, not hp.


RE: Cult of Prius
By Kuroyama on 7/6/2007 4:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
The rated mileage on city streets is higher than on the highway for most if not all hybrids. Likewise journalists regularly claim that hybrids get better mileage on city streets than on the highway.

Regarding hwy fuel economy, certainly aerodynamics and such play a role in the Prius' efficiency, but the much mocked small engine gives hybrids a further advantage. If say the Prius' engine were replaced with a non-hybrid one then the hybrid version would still do better, since thanks to the electric motor providing acceleration, you can pair it with a smaller gas motor optimized to run at a constant highway speed. The V6 Accord Hybrid had only negligibly better mileage than the regular V6 Accord because they paired the electric motor with a regular large gas engine, which was kind of pointless (which is also why reviews for the new $100K Lexus hybrid have been so poor).


RE: Cult of Prius
By walk2k on 7/7/2007 12:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
The Prius gets better mileage than other vehicles in most any circumstance because it's a small, aerodynamic, light weight car. Take the same drive train and put it into a Ford Explorer and it would get much much worse mileage.

Stop and go traffic isn't good for any vehicle's mileage, the Prius is no exception. However the Prius does better than other non-hybrids (and better than most hybrids for that matter) because it has a couple of advantages - #1 it can turn off the ICE when standing in traffic, and #2 regenerative braking makes use of all that energy which is normally just wasted in a standard vehicle.


RE: Cult of Prius
By Kuroyama on 7/7/2007 10:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Prius uses an Atkinson cycle engine which achieves 34% efficiency at only 13.5hp, which is why it is so efficient at highway cruising speeds, a very low hp situation. An Otto cycle engine does not achieve this efficiency even at its peak efficiency. You can find more info at:

http://www.ecrostech.com/prius/original/Understand...

The following paragraph is particularly relevant:
quote:
Ideally, then, [with an Otto cycle engine] we would like to size the engine in a car so that in the most common driving situations, we use about 40% of the maximum power the engine can deliver. Unfortunately, such a car would not be able to accelerate according to our expectations and would not be able to climb hills very well. It takes only about 15 hp to drive a car like the Echo at 65 m.p.h. on a level road and considerably less at lower speeds. But if we gave the car a 30 hp engine, it would take more than 30 seconds to accelerate to 60 m.p.h. and would slow to 30 m.p.h. on a 10% slope. So, the Echo has a 108 hp engine for acceleration and climbing hills. This means that most of the time the power demand is well below the efficiency "sweet spot" and fuel economy suffers as a result.


RE: Cult of Prius
By encia on 7/9/2007 9:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
No, Prius uses both conventional valve timing and Atkinson cycle valve timing.

quote:
The 1NZ-FXE is one of two power sources for the Prius. The 1NZ-FXE
is a 1.5 liter inline 4-cylinder engine with VVT-i (Variable Valve Timing
with intelligence) and ETCS-i (Electric Throttle Control System with
intelligence). The 1NZ-FXE includes a number of modifications that
help balance performance, fuel economy and clean emissions in hybrid
vehicles.
- from Official Toyota's Technical Training "Hybrid System Overview" Page 75.


RE: Cult of Prius
By encia on 7/9/2007 9:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
The required quote.

quote:
VVT-i allows the engine control system to independently adjust intake
valve timing. The 1NZ-FXE uses this ability to move between
conventional valve timing and Atkinson cycle valve timing
, varying the
effective displacement of the engine.
from Official Toyota's Technical Training "Hybrid System Overview" Page 77.


RE: Cult of Prius
By Kuroyama on 7/10/2007 10:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
I was not aware it could change timing, but in any case I was responding to the claim that on highway driving the improvements were merely due to the car being light and aerodynamic. It seems we both agree that the Prius engine has different timing dynamics than a "regular" engine.


RE: Cult of Prius
By SmokeRngs on 7/9/2007 9:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On my last interstate trip, a 500 mile drive from central PA to Boston, my Prius got 53mpg driving 75mph on the interstate, despite the hilly Appalachian terrain. Even in the dead of winter when the mileage is the worst possible I get 45mpg on the highway. Either way the figures are comparable to the EPA numbers.


I used to get 50 mpg out of a 1990 Ford Escort Pony on a highway trip. Dinky little 4 cylinder as the only power with a four speed manual. This was with myself as the driver and two or three passengers with the extra stuff needed for a couple night stay somewhere. One of the passengers was a baby/toddler while the others were adults. That's a good bit of extra weight added in there.

The interstate I would run on was mostly straight but half the trip was on a hilly and curvy two lane highway. I would do 65-70 mph on the highway and 80-85 on the interstate and I would manage to get the mileage I did with that weight.

I still don't see the use of a hybrid as I would get mileage as good or better than what hybrids get now. That car is no longer in service (RIP)but up until it's death it got damn good mileage especially considering its age. Even with heavy city driving mixed in, I don't think I ever got less than 40 mpg out of that car. I confess that I did not figure the mileage on each and every tank of gas, though.

quote:
Just in case you are suggesting the Prius is not fast enough for the interstate, remember that Al Gore's son got pulled over driving 100mph in a Prius. Basically, other than your brilliant observation that the Prius runs on gas, you don't know wtf you are talking about.


Getting up to 100 mph is not difficult. The aforementioned Escort was clocked at 110 as well as an '87 Escort with three speed auto that I had. It took a while to get up to those speeds and the engines were rather loud at that high RPM, but it wasn't difficult to do. Yet, neither one of those cars would be considered race cars or powerhouses by any means.

I would be surprised if there is hardly a newer car model in the US which can't hit 100 mph. I'm sure there are a few that can't while there are others which aren't safe at all to get anywhere near that speed, but it would still be possible otherwise.


RE: Cult of Prius
By encia on 7/8/2007 6:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
I get an average of 4.5L per 100Km (~52MPG) from Melbourne (State of Victoria) to Sydney (State of NSW) in Australia.


I do believe this may have merit...
By Reflex on 7/7/2007 3:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
In my area(Seattle area) Honda has clearly been advertising thier cars as having the posted mileage without stating that its EPA tested. I have seen ads claiming that they are the only company with cars that get 60+MPG and calling themselves the mileage leader. The Prius has even in the past few months been advertised with the 2006 EPA numbers rather than the revised 2008 numbers. If they are doing the same in this guys' location then I would say he has a valid reason to sue since they clearly do not perform that well for most drivers.

Furthermore, the Microsoft campus shuttles are almost all Prius' now, and they average 34-36mpg in stop and go operation(building to building on campus), which I have always been lead to believe was the sweet spot for such vehicles. Thats only slightly more than half the advertised mileage on the window stickers. Deceptive indeed.

Thanks, but I'll take a diesel instead. I enjoy my Liberty CRD, and were I to buy a car it would likely be an older Mercedes 300TD or Jetta TDI. You can easily get 40-55mpg with those vehicles, depending on the model. Plus no concerns about 100k mile batteries.




RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By encia on 7/8/2007 7:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
Refer to http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science...

100k mile batteries claim was debunked.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By Reflex on 7/8/2007 8:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. If you read it, they have not 'proven' otherwise, they are simply saying that such bias in the study they are critiquing is unsubstantiated. That is true, and I am not arguing with it. However I also know that the battery capacity of the systems in use diminishes over time, and that yes, around 100k you will get less and less bang for the buck. The vehicle will continue to operate of course, but your mileage will decline until you get around to replacing the batteries.

Keep in mind that that is assuming average usage pattern. Battery life is based on age and the pattern of discharge/recharge, not on actual miles. So someone who drives one extensively daily for a few years is not going to see the same problem as someone uses one in a more typical pattern over the course of a longer time frame. That is why taxis in Canada can go 250k miles, they are running up that mileage in a very short peroid of time due to the usage pattern. A typical owner will never get 250k miles out of one and have any sort of reasonable battery life left.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By encia on 7/8/2007 6:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Refer to http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-battery-...

"Toyota have lab data showing the Prius battery can do 180,000 miles (290,000km) of normal driving with absolutely no degradation of the battery’s performance. This long life is largely due to the computers control of the Battery pack."


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By Reflex on 7/9/2007 2:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with that estimate is that the average person puts about 12k miles on their vehicle per year. For that claim to be accurate, the Prius battery would have to be good for 15 years, which is highly unlikely. As I stated beforehand, mileage is not the real way to measure a battery's lifespan. Discharge pattern and time are. There are no rechargable batteries on the market today that will retain thier performance for 15 years. Roughly half that time is more likely, with some degredation in performance by the 7 year mark.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By encia on 7/9/2007 7:47:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are no rechargable batteries on the market today that will retain thier performance for 15 years

There’s also the operational margin/zone. Factor in that Prius's HV battery is protected by a computer management system.

quote:
Roughly half that time is more likely, with some degredation in performance by the 7 year mark

Prius 1.x is already more than 7 years old.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By Reflex on 7/9/2007 5:05:32 PM , Rating: 3
Correct, and from what I have read the batteries have had degraded performance.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By encia on 7/9/2007 6:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
39 percent charge HV battery will not compromise Prius’s fuel efficiency.


RE: I do believe this may have merit...
By Reflex on 7/10/2007 1:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it does. If it did not, then they would ship from the factory with 39% less battery capacity to start with, making them significantly cheaper.


By encia on 7/10/2007 6:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Of course it does. If it did not, then they would ship from the factory with 39% less battery capacity to start with, making them significantly cheaper.

For reliability and reserve performance for expected battery degradation.

Prius 1.x (160,000 Miles or 256,000Km) still reaches high MPG @39 percent battery capacity i.e. lost 2 MPG with aircon, gain 1 MPG without aircon. Again, one should factor in the Atkinson cycle based ICE and CVT.

Refer to http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/hev/end_of_life_test_1.pdf
This alone debunks your claims for 100,000 mile life limit. Unlike Prius 2.0, Prius 1.x doesn't have the electric driven aircon nor the same level of battery protection.

For Prius 2.0, most of the drive electric motor’s 50kilowatts comes from the Atkinson based ICE i.e. HV battery only provides 20kilo-watts peak. The electric motor fixes the car accleration and torque issues with Atkinson cycle based ICE.


By encia on 7/9/2007 7:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep in mind that that is assuming average usage pattern.
,

Keep in mind that there's a computer that manages battery's usage pattern. The computer will never fully charge nor fully depletes nor it will stress the HV battery.

Deep discharges (almost completely empty) are what shorten the life of a battery.

For the Prius, the operational zone for HV battery discharge is between ~45 to ~75 percent of the battery’s capacity.

Prius’s efficiency can also be attribute from Atkinson cycle based ICE.
Refer to
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-...

Toyota further claims that the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery packs used in all Prius models are expected to last the life of the car with very little to no degradation in power capability.


RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By Jackyl on 7/6/2007 12:53:54 PM , Rating: 1
Whatever happened to the Renault brand of cars? They were available for a short time in the USA. These cars were small, but some got up to [b]53MPG[/b]. All of this 35mpg maximum is a bunch of bullshit. If Renault could build something twenty years ago that made 53MPG, then we should have at least this with Hybrids.




RE: RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By Slaimus on 7/6/2007 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
Ask anyone in Europe. Although French cars are very safe and efficient, they are still extremely unreliable.


By otispunkmeyer on 7/9/2007 4:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
they are not extremely unreliable at all

yes they do have a bigger share of problems than most, but its not like its a mega huge difference from the likes of audi, ford, bmw etc

french cars are generally good in all respects. though some of the lesser models fit n finish is a little questionable.

but when you see how they drive these cars in france...you'll understand why. the core of a french car is solid, the outer stuff like the trim is simply designed to fall off lol because it gets battered to death with day to day driving anyway. it wouldnt matter how well they built them...theyd still get tatty.

however, the french makers usually languish at the bottom of the TopGear customer satisfaction surveys.


RE: RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By TomZ on 7/6/2007 1:25:06 PM , Rating: 3
There is no market in the U.S. for French-made cars, which is why they're not available here.


RE: RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By rcc on 7/6/2007 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
ah, well. They could build this car. The problem is that the American public in general is not happy with 45 second 0-60 times. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's the issue.

Combine that with shoe box styling and it's a tough sell.


By Anh Huynh on 7/6/2007 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Renault owns part of Nissan now ;)


RE: RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By Durrr on 7/6/2007 5:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
My parents owned one when I was younger. Bought it brand new and within 6 months, had nearly 2000 bucks in repair bills in 1985. Quality car lemme tell you...


By otispunkmeyer on 7/9/2007 4:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
what an you think they are still the same 20 years on?

what a joke.


RE: RENAULT cars achieved better MPG
By Johnmcl7 on 7/7/2007 10:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
It's not just Renault, it's the same with most of the European manufacturers as they all pretty much produce fuel efficient diesel engines. You see very few hybrids over here but diesels have been rapidly increasing in popularity over the last couple of years.

The Renault diesels are nothing special, if anything they seem better known for their lack of reliability these days as they seem to have had quite a few issues with the turbocharger on some of their engines. Then again it is a French car, Peugeot and Citroen also have generally poor reliability. I'm not just bashing french cars, I seriously considered a C5 but the problem is if you pack a car with lots of quirky gadgets you're far more likely to run into trouble. I ended up with a Seat (same car as a Mk IV Golf) which doesn't have much in the way of gadgets or toys but a much better record for reliability.

John


By Merry on 7/9/2007 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would take a Fiat Multijet Diesel over any Renault Diesel any day. If i had a choice i'd have that engine in the new Fiat 500 :) . but then i dont have that kind of money.

As i've said before i'll take a well sorted supermini over a hybrid any day. I prefer to own something I can actually fix myself if/when it goes wrong.


Hybrid?
By myhipsi on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hybrid?
By omnicronx on 7/6/2007 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 1
The idea of a hybrid car is very smart, the implementations car companies are using are not. The prius although an ugly POS is a smart hybrid, aerodynamic, lowest gas milage you can get. Something like a ford escape hybrid is just plain stupid, any car not specifically designed to be a hybrid car and just a normal design with a hybrid engine dropped in is going to be shit. There is just no point paying that much more for a car that will take you 5-6 years to get that money back.
also i would like to point out we havnt reached the point where the batteries in these cars start to die, what are we going to do with thousands of 200-300lbs lithium-ion batteries that are more toxic to the environment than then few mpg you are saving.
all of this said, i think eventually hybrid will be the way to go until we can totally get off of our gasoline addiction. when better smaller batteries are developed hybrids will be a great alternative, but the technology can not develop unless car markers spend their money where it counts!! DEVELOP THE DAMN BATTERIES!! NOT A MAKE BELIEVE ENGINE THAT CAN TURN SMUGNESS INTO FUEL!


RE: Hybrid?
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the batteries are Li-Ion. Those are too expensive for now...


RE: Hybrid?
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Bah. The idea is pretty good, the implementation is kind of shaky...

There has to be a reason why Freight Trains in the US operate as giant generators - the diesel engines generate electricity for the engines...

Also, the reason we don't have good electric cars is that battery technology isn't really anywhere interesting - enough batteries to drive a car for 200 miles in a package that didn't weigh 40 tons costs a LOT of money, just for the batteries. You're pretty much stuck with Li-Ion batteries for that, and one of the only manufacturers of that battery type in any capacity that would be reasonable for a car is China (do the research, and you'll see). Those batteries are NOT cheap. Expect the battery pack to cost you approximately 8000 dollars per 100 miles, JUST FOR THE BATTERIES. Plus you have problems with LiIon batteries about dis/charge speed (limiting how fast you can get energy out of them, into them) to deal with. It's not a simple matter.

GM spent approximately 1 billion (yes, with a "B") in research on the EV-1. If you were to sell each of those electric cars they made, the cost would be over 1 million per car (they made close to 1000 of them).

Solar tech isn't good enough, because the sun just doesn't provide that much energy for a car, particularly one with leadfoot people.

The IC engine hasn't really changed much in over 100 years (other than better machining to make less friction) - I can't imagine that anyone really cares to spend the multi billion dollars it'll take to improve on the design, particularly when gas is so cheap, and has so much energy in it.

Hybrids are a step in the right direction - but not really for the reason you'd think. I think that the real value in the Hybrid cars is to get the public comfortable with the speed/performance of the vehicles, so that will pave the way for lighter, smaller, slower ordinary cars (which will also have really good gas mileage).


RE: Hybrid?
By Reflex on 7/7/2007 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 2
The reason freight trains are electric with diesel generators is not efficiency. The reason is that they need as much torque as possible to get things moving due to the thousands of tons of weight in the cars they pull. Electric engines excel at torque.

It is always less efficient to convert energy from one form to another before using it than it is to use that energy directly, so a completely diesel train engine would be more efficient than the current diesel/electric design, however it would not have the ability to pull as much weight due to the torque reduction.


RE: Hybrid?
By myhipsi on 7/7/2007 4:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
You took the words right out of my mouth :)

quote:
There has to be a reason why Freight Trains in the US operate as giant generators - the diesel engines generate electricity for the engines...


To add to what reflex said, electric motors produce their full torque potential throughout the rpm range, no matter if the motor is at 1 or 4000rpm, whereas any combustion engine has to build torque as rpm increases (to a point).

quote:
It is always less efficient to convert energy from one form to another before using it than it is to use that energy directly, so a completely diesel train engine would be more efficient than the current diesel/electric design


My point exactly. That's why I think hybrids are simply a crude alternative to slightly better fuel economy.

I'm not against the development of better, cleaner alternatives to power vehicles, but we need economically viable options that will actually work well. So far, fossil fuels provide the best power to weight ratio and cost per mile than any other alternative. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if these auto makers are going to dump R&D money into more economical propulsion then they should look at something a bit better than a generator and an electric motor.


Damn
By TimberJon on 7/6/2007 11:32:02 AM , Rating: 2
I gotta 3rd gen max and I average 19/26. Sad thing is it is a full 3.0 DOHC, the same iron block as the 300ZX engine.

Im really eyeballing the current RL and the top Lexus LS.




RE: Damn
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/6/2007 11:38:49 AM , Rating: 1
The current RL looks like a bloody Accord. It looks nothing like a flagship.

Sales numbers seem to suggest the same.


RE: Damn
By mdogs444 on 7/6/2007 11:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
My best friend has one. Before you knock the exterior styling for looking "similar" to another car - you ought to do research on the features, powertrain, and experience the ride. Its very fast, all wheel drive, almost silent, and every available option in it. Its a wonderful car.


RE: Damn
By darkpaw on 7/6/2007 12:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think what the issue most people spending that much money is that they want something that looks "special". They don't want to look like the rest of us, even if inside the car is still better.

I had a boss several years ago that bought a $100k Mercedes just to look fancy. He hated driving the thing and thought it was very uncomfortable to sit in for long periods, but had had to "look sucessful".


werd
By jay401 on 7/6/2007 10:54:30 AM , Rating: 4
This is why I bought the EX model (because the mpg numbers for hybrid vehicles have been overhyped). I get roughly 32mpg in mixed city/highway driving, about 30mpg when the AC is on.
EX is cheaper, still an ultra low emissions vehicle, no extra hardware to worry about replacing/repairing, etc.




RE: werd
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/6/2007 11:24:49 AM , Rating: 2
I drive an Acura 2.5TL from 1996. (It only has 65,000 miles on it, dont ask) and I'm averaging 32-35MPG city/highway. Love it, will eventually replace it with something that can show me comparable milage.


Folks, you can get whatever mileage you want.
By littleprince on 7/6/2007 12:20:38 PM , Rating: 4
I get over 40% the EPA Estimates on my daily commute in my RSX. There's people on gassavers.org that get close to 100mpg. I can take any fuel efficient car, whether it be gas, diesel, or hybrid and get crap mileage out of it. If your not happy with your fuel economy get the lead weights off your left foot.




By omnicronx on 7/6/2007 12:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If your not happy with your fuel economy get the lead weights off your left foot.


well ya.. if you are holding the break (left foot) while accelerating (right foot) then I am sure your millage would be crap ;)... that is unless you drive with your legs crossed.


By kenji4life on 7/6/2007 1:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
New Zero Calorie Salad!

Eat as much as you want and never gain a pound!

This delicious salad includes delicious leafy greens and vegetables with a full load of grilled or crispy chicken and a shredded three cheese blend. Top it off with Ranch, Blue Cheese, Italian, French, or Vinegerette. Finish it off with croutons!

fine print:

Zero Calorie salad includes only iceberg lettuce. Zero calorie is based on estimates and not FDA certified. Additional toppings such as chicken, cheese, vegetables, dressing and croutons may add calories. Side effects may include Diarrhea, nausea, constipation, runny nose, sore throat, skin cancer, syphalis, e.coli, leprosy, upset stomach, more diarrhea, and eventually death. Zero Calorie Salad is not responsible for injury caused by plastic utensils, kodiak bear attacks, salad shooter incidents, angry employees with automatic weapons, or natural disaster in result of, during, or in the same planet of or vicinity of salad consumption. If you experience an extended erection that lasts longer than 4 hours, please call 1-900-lamb-fun
*a $23 dollar per microsecond fee applies*
additional fees may apply.




By kenji4life on 7/6/2007 1:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
and the next commercial was for the new fuel efficient ford lineup:

New fuel efficient fords!

Expedition now achieving up to 80 MPG!!
Excursion with up to 65 MPG
*note: not an EPA estimate*

*all MPG ratings based on rolling car downhill with tailwind and engine with manual transmission in neutral while engine not actually running. YMMV.*


Owner of 2 2007 Civic non hybrid sedans
By Rage187 on 7/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Owner of 2 2007 Civic non hybrid sedans
By erple2 on 7/6/2007 4:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
50%? Really? So you'd get about 23 mpg in the West? Exact same driving conditions/styles/speeds?

I got much better fuel economy in Colorado than I get here in Washington DC. I think it has something to do with the lack of traffic in Colorado compared to DC...

While it is true that Ethanol has a bit less energy in it than gasoline (15% less energy? 20%?), I dont' think that it's 33% less...

Also, unless your car was a flex fuel car, anything more than about 10-15% ethanol and your engine wouldn't really run at all. Which I guess would mean you'd get stunning MPG. What's 0 miles driven consuming 0 Gallons in MPG?

:)


By encia on 7/8/2007 7:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
unless your car was a flex fuel car, anything more than about 10-15% ethanol and your engine wouldn't really run at all

According to http://www.greenenergynetwork.com/media/studies/pr...

Prius 1.x was shown to run on E85 (with engine check light).


The NEW figures will be right.
By bobdeer1965 on 7/6/2007 5:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is an idiot. I drive my girlfriends 2007 hybrid Civic all the time. And I don't drive slow. I usually get at least 40 MPG according to the cars computer. Going from Portland to Seattle and hauling ass 80 minimun and 90 a lot of the time when traffic allows I get over 40 MPG. BUT contrary to the EPA estimates the city driving MPG is less than freeway driving. But still 40 in the city driving like an idiot is not bad. This guy must be what I call a pedal pumper. He either is pushing the gas pedal down or hard on the brakes ALL the time. In any car and traffic situation there is a time to accelerate, brake and COAST. But some drivers think they are on a race track. Which means either use Full brake oe Full throttle. Period. Like I said. This guy is a dork. He needs to be taken out back and thrashed. A lawsuit just to earn money is a bad lawsuit.




By bobdeer1965 on 7/6/2007 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
There is one spelling error in my post but some idiot WILL NOT put in an edit button. Which others ask for ALL the time on this site.


what a surprise
By derdon on 7/7/2007 4:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
Some people expect too much of technology. They think they buy something and then everything will be good... Sorry that we're living in the 21st century and not the 50s...




RE: what a surprise
By Jrouss on 7/7/2007 10:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is so amamzing the incredible bias against lawyers and using the court systems. Most bad claims never go anywhere unless they get settled. The cost to bring a case like this to trial is signifigant so unless there is merit to this claim it won't go anywhere. BTW most cases plaintiffs win make sense when you actually read the details of the case.



By otispunkmeyer on 7/9/2007 3:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
hybrids are hyped too much, about the only good thing they can do is not havin the engine running when stationary in traffic, but last i checked this dynamic engine on/off can be done on a normal IC engine car without hybrids

next was to believe the manufacturers claimes...which if renault are anything to go by are seriously inflated

after that the EPA numbers... for all their good intentions, simulations and tests =| real world driving and individual habits.

at the end of the day, economic driving depends just as much on the driver and his/her style as it does the car. just because its got hybrid on the side doesnt mean it'll work magic.

you cant even buy a hybrid and then drive it like its a rental thinking "hey im doing 60mpg!". if you do that it'll almost be as bad as any other similar engined car.

you gotta adapt, gentle acceleration, high gears all the time, keeping your engine in top condition with regular servicing etc etc. (although if VW are to be believed its actually more efficient to blast thru all the gears with heavy acceleration than gently coming up to speed when merging to a motorway)

theres simply more to getting good MPG than having a hybrid drive system.

i can get well over 45MPG on my 1.4 focus on the motorway (english gallon btw, 4.5 liter) with some smart driving and sticking to 70. (well when i say smart, i mean slightly dodgey....like drafting national express coaches because they seem to be able to do 70mph unlike our HGV's)




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/9/2007 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
"about the only good thing they can do is not havin the engine running when stationary in traffic"

Actually, they can also run totally electric with all features powered up when the car is under low load and moving less than 45 mph. I frequently travel for long stretches around town with the gas motor shut off. Even though my Camry weighs 3700 lbs with ful leather and nav options, I get around 38 mpg overall. So perhaps they do more than turn off the gas engine at idle.

BTW, General Motors "hybrids" don't even do that since they can't figure out how to make a smooth transition between power sources and have the gas engine running all the time - even at idle.


By RyanVM on 7/7/2007 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 3
Been getting 45-48mpg on average. Diesel FTW :-)




Some people just love to sue
By 05SilverGT on 7/6/2007 12:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I should write a check to Ford because I get better then EPA mileage from my 05 Mustang GT. It's rated at 17/23 and I average 20/26. Sometimes close to 30 on long trips.




This guy is a moron
By pauldovi on 7/6/2007 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
I own a 2005 V6 Accord and I average around 25-28 city and 31-34 highway. If I can do that with a V6 Accord, I am sure that his Civic can do much better. It isn't Honda's fault he drivers like a moron.




I own one of these....
By Domicinator on 7/6/2007 1:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
And we get MUCH better gas mileage than what this guy is getting. There may actually be something wrong with his car. 2 out of the top 3 hybrids in the country right now are Honda Civics. (#1 is obviously the Prius.) The other two are the standard Honda Civic and the gas/natural gas Honda Civic that is not commercially available.

We average about 43 mpg city/highway in our Civic Hybrid and we're very happy with that. I think it's usually at about 40 on the highway and 50 in the city. I may be a little off, but not much. I think this guy should take his car to the Honda dealer before jumping the gun and suing Honda.




My car
By Chadder007 on 7/6/2007 2:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Ive been very happy with my little car. Its a BMW '95 318ti. It still gets around 28mpg average for the whole tank. :)




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/6/2007 3:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Those mileage numbers are not magic. I have a Camry Hybrid and I get 38 mpg on average. A long highway trip with AC is around 40 mpg. I have driven north and south on 95 in all weather and gotten about 40 in all cases.

The fact is, I don't drive it like my last car, which was a Toyota Solara V6, which still got about 28 mpg and more than 30 mpg on trips.

Those Road and Track geeks do this too. They stomp on the pedal all the time and get 32 mpg in the Camry, and then say Toyota is full of something.

And although it is gas only, it is still a PZEV, which is more than you can say for the so-called GM hybrids, which aren't. They ALWAYS have the gas motor running, whereas the Toyotas can travel in either gas or electric or both.




Even in a Chrysler...
By Hearse04 on 7/6/2007 6:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
I've managed to beat the 2008 EPA MPG estimates (City 19/Highway 25/combined 21) on my 2004 Chrysler Sebring sedan with the 2.7L V-6. Since I changed my driving pattern (less aggresive driving, speeding, and losing the lead foot syndrome) I've managed to increase my average from about 21-22 MPG to about 24-25 MPG.

Maybe I should sue Chrysler over the crappy transmissions they build.




The fellow is a fool
By montgom on 7/8/2007 9:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
This fellow can sue, but is not bright enough to understand what he is doing. Car mileage varies all over the map and is based upon so many factors that to sue the Auto-industry is absurd.

Maybe Honda and everyone else need to place a disclaimer "all idiots and fools should understand that the mileage estimates may not reflect real world use, they are just best guesses based upon ideal and artificial conditions".




Ironic?
By spluurfg on 7/9/2007 2:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one who finds it amusing/ironic that a guy named Mr. True is the plaintiff in a misleading advertising suit?




This guy burning money!!
By Carter777 on 7/10/2007 4:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
First off I drive a Civic Hybrid and get between 40-47MPG, a little less than I was led to believe when I bought the car. Initially I had a short "city" commute and was only getting about 36MPG. I was a little pissed. Once I started my longer commute aprox 40mi each way/each day my MPG began to work it's way up to the 40-47MPG I mentioned earlier. I've also found that your fuel econ has a lot to do with how you operate your car; you can set the econ setting in the HCH that essentially shuts the engine off while stopped also cutting off your A/C will save you MPG. Those two items combined with setting the cruise control to 62MPG have eventually gotten me close to 50MPG. Bottom line is that you have to drive a hybrid a little differently than you drive your hot rod to gain the bennies. Last though is that suing any car MFG based on an outside party's (EPA's) essesment of fuel econ is simply a losing battle and a waste of time.




dumb
By ninjaquick on 7/10/2007 5:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Honda should sue this guy for wasting their time.




Other Factors
By teamhonda81 on 7/11/2007 3:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I wish the article would have stated the mans driving habits. Like how fast is he cruising on the highway, how much stop and go driving he is doing, and if he has the ac running. One other reason could be his tires aren't even inflatted to the proper levels which also lower the mpg. The point is the article wasn't very specific and everyone is rushing to this mans defense without hearing all the facts.




What's really scary.....
By jabber on 7/9/2007 10:03:58 AM , Rating: 1
...is that I hope thats not the current style of Civic you guys get in the USA?

If so they look terrible compared to the versions we get in Europe. I'd sue if I had a car that bland. Not only does it not give the MPG is boasted its no sex on wheels either.

Current R-Type Civic Mmmmmmm.




"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki