backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by nglessner.. on Mar 2 at 2:29 PM


Toyota Prius

Honda Civic Hybrid
Hybrids are the big losers with the EPA's new testing

DailyTech reported in mid-December that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised its testing procedures to give buyers a more realistic estimate of fuel economy figures for cars, trucks and SUVs. The EPA has now posted a tool on its website that lets you compare the "old" EPA ratings of your vehicle with the new ratings based on revised testing procedures.

The new testing methodology takes into account higher freeway speeds, more aggressive driving behavior, A/C usage and the effects of traffic jams on fuel economy. The EPA testing procedures were last updated back in 1984.

Hybrids take the biggest hit with the new 2008 model year EPA changes. The Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid and Honda Civic Hybrid drop from 60/51 (city/highway), 40/38 and 49/55 to 48/45, 33/34 and 40/45 respectively. That's a pretty tough pill to swallow for potential hybrid buyers.

Conventional gasoline vehicles can't escape the wrath of the EPA either with the new 2008 guidelines. Autoblog notes that of the 23 vehicles General Motors touts in TV advertising that achieve 30MPG or better on the highway, 14 fail with the new EPA testing.



Comments     Threshold


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

Good
By Brainonska511 on 2/24/2007 12:06:05 AM , Rating: 5
Good to see that we will start to see some reality in mileage numbers instead of these fantasy numbers that are currently on vehicles.




RE: Good
By jondevelops on 2/24/2007 12:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
Can anyone explain to me why the hybrids look so ugly. If they really want to help the environment, at least make buyers feel good about it. Especially with the heavy price tag. These cars don't even appeal to my liking. The only hybrid with some taste is one of the Scions by Toyota.

Otherwise I would think they make them ugly because gas companies pay them to.


RE: Good
By Brainonska511 on 2/24/2007 12:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
They make them so ugly so people can stand out when they drive their hybrid cars, spreading smug wherever they go.


RE: Good
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 3:54:28 AM , Rating: 5
Every time I see hybrid car people I am reminded of this South Park clip: http://thatvideosite.com/video/2052


RE: Good
By WhipperSnapper on 2/25/2007 3:14:20 AM , Rating: 2
SMUG! ROFL! I saw that South Park episode too...the one where the hybrid owners were so smug they loved the smell of their own farts. The smug from the hybrids was going to collide with a smug cloud from George Clooney at the Oscars and cause an environmental disaster.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 2/24/2007 12:46:47 AM , Rating: 5
Scions aren't hybrids.


RE: Good
By Trippytiger on 2/24/2007 1:13:08 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the only hybrid car on the market that exists only as a hybrid is the Prius (which I think looks pretty nice, actually). All of the others available began life as cars with conventional ICE-only drivetrains, so what you should be asking is why modern cars look so ugly.

I don't have any particular complaints about them myself, though.


RE: Good
By Kuroyama on 2/24/2007 2:08:07 AM , Rating: 3
The Prius and Insight are the only distinctive looking ones and it is allegedly for aerodynamics. If you don't mind losing a few mpg then get a "normal" looking hybrid like the Ford Escape, Toyota Highlander, Civic, Accord, Camry, and a few Lexus models.


RE: Good
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 4:03:16 AM , Rating: 3
Right, there is a hybrid badge on the car but most of the fuel savings come from other design decisions like low vehicle weight, low coefficient drag, smooth tires etc.

People tend to believe aerodynamics just means making the front end pointy, but better methods have shown that a sudden drop off in the back (like a van) creates a low pressure system behind the vehicle which creates suction slowing it down. This is why some of the cars designed for super efficient MPG have point back ends as well (and consequently people consider them ugly).

The hybrid badge actually stuck to the car is actually a little bit like stone soup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup).

The truth is that if you made many of the same design decisions in a small gas powered car that the MPG estimates would not be that different from a Prius, and would be significantly cheaper.

For these reasons I believe one of the larger reason people buy hybrids is because they want the hybrid badge. (see South Park video linked above for that :)


RE: Good
By mjrpes3 on 2/24/2007 4:16:42 PM , Rating: 1
Where are you getting this information from?

I looked at the honda civic, hybrid and non-hybrid. I wasn't able to find a site that compares the exterior and aerodynamics of both, yet viewed side by side they both have the same short hood, sloping front, and curved back. Truthfully, I can't tell a difference between them.

Yet there is a 13 MPG difference between the non-hybrid (29 MPG) and the hybrid (42 MPG). This contradicts what you are saying... unless you think 13MPG is insignificant.


RE: Good
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 6:16:25 PM , Rating: 5
The Civic makes a good case for Hybrid, but the Hybrid has a combined (gas/electric) HP of 100, but you are not usually going to be running both engines. The gas powered civic is 130 HP with just the one engine. They have also shaved some corners to reduce the weight of the hybrid to make room for the added weight of the batteries and electric motor/components. Things like special light weight alloy wheels not seen on the gas version. (try hitting a pot hole with those).

Lets look at another example though. Toyota Prius vs Yarus. Both vehicles are about the same size. The Yaris costs about $12,000 compared to $23,000 for the Prius and I have read that Toyota is selling the Prius at cost to get the product on the market. Toyota typically makes about $2,000 per vehicle, so the actual cost of the Prius should be closer to $25,000.

So we have 2 cars similar in size and features but the one with the hybrid drive train costs almost another ~$12,000 to make.

EPA gives the 2 cars 32 and 46 MPG, which looks good at first for the Prius, but the user submitted “real world” results on the site paint a more dire picture of the Hybrid giving them 36.1 and 43.6, or a difference of 7.5 MPG for the extra ~$12,000.

That extra 7.5 MPG means that at $2.50/gallon, if you drive 500,000 miles you will save about $2,500 in gas with the Prius. This is also overlooking the more expensive repair/replacement costs with the hybrid.

Most people already agree that the reason to buy a hybrid is not long term costs savings, but even the argument that using $2,500 worth of less gas over the lifetime of the vehicle is good for the environment is partially offset by the extra pollution created manufacturing the car or disposal of all the batteries.

I still stand by my original statement that the best reason to drive a hybrid is to snub your nose at other people like the south park vid: http://thatvideosite.com/video/2052


RE: Good
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/24/2007 6:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the Prius is closer in size (passenger space, trunk room) to a Camry than it is to a Yaris.


RE: Good
By Kuroyama on 2/25/2007 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
While the South Park clip is admittedly funny, you are strongly overstating the rest of the case.

As mentioned by Brandon, the Prius and Yaris are not at all similar sizes. If you bothered to go to Toyota's web site you would find that the Prius has 143hp (gas+electric), weighs 2932 lb, and has a volume of 96.2 cubic feet, whereas the Yaris hatchback has 106hp, weighs 2300 lb, and has a volume of 84.6 cubic feet. So, the Prius has more hp, weighs significantly more, and is much larger inside, and yet if we look at the new and improved EPA ratings it still gets 48/45 city/hwy mpg vs. 29/35 for the Yaris automatic.

So, tell me again how the Yaris and Prius are comparable?


RE: Good
By nglessner on 3/2/2007 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
How in the heck do these posts get rated?? The parent spouts a few numbers, most of which are very incorrect, and gets a rating of 5. Where the grandparent gives an honest comparison (albeit no numbers) and gets a rating of 1.

Something is wrong with the rating system. To me that's scary, as a person who usually will read only the highest rated posts, in this case i would have been completely mis-informed.


RE: Good
By ElJefe69 on 2/25/2007 12:34:09 AM , Rating: 1
yeah. well it is like those people who were losers all their life and now have cash. they wear clothes that show they are ugly yetthey cost a lot. it is like the pseudo-intellectual thing. black horn rimmed glasses, big brown shoes, dumb sideburns, you know.

hybrid people enjoy feeling above other "common" folk.

jeez. if they only knew the severe waste of the environment and polution that it took to create a hybrid. a real environmentalist would modify a 1.6 litre 1980's compact car. it was already built so no detriment to the environment in terms of manufacturing and development. They get better gas mileage than current cars too. I always wondered what could be done to clean up a 80's VW rabbit diesal car. they got way over 45 miles per gallon in traffic.


RE: Good
By theapparition on 2/25/2007 10:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
For the Prius, at least, styling took a back seat to aerodymanics (<--yes, even though it looks like a egg with wheels). If anyone remembers GM's EV1, it looked very similar. It's also no coincidence that GM and Toyota have a partnership to share hybrid and electric vehicule technology.


RE: Good
By isaacmacdonald on 2/24/2007 12:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. In my experience the city estimates have been particularly generous, and the HWY ratings inaccurate. For example, my 06' XB has a lawn mower engine, and only weighs about 15 lbs, yet consistently gets 27 mpg around town (EPA rating: 30). I have driven it like a grandma just for the purposes of improving mileage and it stays virtually the same. On the other hand, on the highway, even at high speeds it gets around 38mpg (EPA rating: 32). My last car (a Chrysler) performed similarly in respect to EPA estimates.

I'm pleased that they've decided to improve their methodology, though there's still some question in my mind about applicability of their HWY ratings.


RE: Good
By Runiteshark on 2/24/2007 6:05:16 AM , Rating: 4
I dont understand, I have a 2005 Chevy Malibu, and I constantly get about 32 miles to the gallon. With a headwind only about 30, but in the begenning miles (low 10ks) I had all the way up to 37 miles.

I think that some of these cars can really do what they claim, if people don't drive like total idiots and slam their pedals down to be like all the cool kids with the neon lights. Most drivers these days don't really account for their driving using up gas, and this is why some of them have such horrible real "efficiency". And some can argue against my point, but we've all seen the weaving idiot that speeds up slows down and tries to win the race.

I find it hard to believe that my Chevy Malibu, which is V6 and has pretty decent power, can get higher milage to a normal driving hybrid user.


RE: Good
By Davelo on 2/25/2007 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Runiteshark, you are exactly correct. What's happened is the EPA has finally caved in and admitted that most drivers in the USA are morons. I drive my vehicle with common sense and I always did beat the old EPA rating.


RE: Good
By The Boston Dangler on 2/24/2007 2:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but we need to do away with averaging mileage across a product family. Example: Small trucks built on car chassis allow huge SUV's to meet emissions and economy standards.


RE: Good
By Charlemain on 2/24/2007 3:03:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Good to see that we will start to see some reality in mileage numbers instead of these fantasy numbers that are currently on vehicles

Agreed...EPA mileage has always been one of my pet peeves.


RE: Good
By Jedi2155 on 2/24/2007 7:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know....I get better than EPA mileage in my car....I never minded the EPA ratings.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorCompareSi...

According to that I should be getting 28, but over the period of the past year I've been tallying up my gas use and mileage driving and I averaged around 31 MPG in Southern California in mostly freeway driving.

The new ratings make it seem even worse!


RE: Good
By blaster5k on 2/24/2007 10:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
I usually get better mileage than the current EPA estimates too. Too many people make quick starts and stops and that can reduce fuel economy by something like 30%, then complain that the figures don't match up for them.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 2/24/2007 3:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
The point of EPA estimates is to be able to compare between different makes and models, based on the ideal that all manufacturers run the tests in the same way. There is no use for EPA estimates beyond that.

Actually, the EPA should just normalize all those numbers so that people get the point more clearly that "your mileage may vary."


RE: Good
By Icepick on 2/24/2007 9:04:58 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

Off topic - why can I no longer rate posts? I used to enjoy that and was able to back when this site first started. What to I have to do to have this fixed?


RE: Good
By Spivonious on 2/24/2007 11:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
You can only rate posts until you've replied. Then the option goes away and all your ratings disappear.


RE: Good
By johnsonx on 2/24/2007 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
You only have 12 posts. You need more than that now to be able to vote; I don't know how many, but it's more.


RE: Good
By Souka on 2/25/2007 11:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
Consumer Reports pointed this out on more than one occasion.... pointed out that their "real world" testing could NEVER achive the EPA ratings published for these hybrids....except under very very conserative and optimal driving conditions.


RE: Good
By leexgx on 2/25/2007 6:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
like doing 30 mph all the time (purus 1.5 engine kicks in at 30 MPH or higher below 29-30 mph the elicy motors are used )

topgear tested one out and he got 35-40 mpg (uk) but i am guessing he is foot happy alot tho :)


RE: Good
By leexgx on 2/25/2007 6:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota Prius

as this link shows the car is better at City driveing then highway driveing as the elicy motors are used as most traffic will not alow you to get passed 30MPH in some cases so the car be running more off the batt then the engine (thay used to have an cool Flash demo on Toyota web site {uk one only USA one to slow to find it})

in London this car is free to drive no conjeston charges that is norm £5 an day about £1500 saved an yr on that + saveing on gas from the Big company cars that are norm used

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.sht...

quote:
Oooops! Something went wrong, we've sent the details to the webmaster. Click here to return to the website.


that is starting to be realy gay FIX it please


RE: Good
By Martin Blank on 2/25/2007 11:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
The higher city mileage has more to do with regenerative braking than the use of electric for motive power, as the energy from slowing is fed back into the system to recharge.


Well
By GhandiInstinct on 2/24/2007 12:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
I said it once I'll say it again, hybrids aren't worth the price premium, unless you can afford it.




RE: Well
By Bonrock on 2/24/2007 12:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
People don't always buy hybrids just to save money on gas. Believe it or not, many people buy them because they actually have a sense of environmental responsibility.

I don't have a hybrid myself, but the next car I buy will almost definitely be a hybrid. And I'm doing it for the environment, not for the money.


RE: Well
By thebrown13 on 2/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Charlemain on 2/24/2007 3:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
many people buy them because they actually have a sense of environmental responsibility

If it burns the same amount of gas, how is it more environmentally responsible? It's still dumping the same amount of carbon in the air...


RE: Well
By Jedi2155 on 2/24/2007 7:49:25 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If it burns the same amount of gas, how is it more environmentally responsible? It's still dumping the same amount of carbon in the air...


But it doesn't burn the same amount of gas...which is why hybrids are better. Being more efficient means less gas burned. Not only that but the Prius was designed with envriomentalism in mind that it has many other features besides being more efficient in order to reduce smog emissions such as its use of a gas bladder rather than just a normal metal tank.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.sht...


RE: Well
By GhandiInstinct on 2/24/2007 3:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
many people buy them because they actually have a sense of environmental responsibility


I don't have the luxury of affording a car to be "environmentally responsible" sorry pal but these cars are not worth the price for the little fuel efficiency and eco friendly traits that they have.


RE: Well
By Lonyo on 2/24/2007 4:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
Buy a cheaper second hand car, instead of a hybrid.
Use the money you save to plant a forest.
Sorted!


RE: Well
By jay401 on 2/24/2007 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
seriously, that's about how ridiculous it all is.


RE: Well
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 4:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
That comment reminds me of something: http://thatvideosite.com/video/2052


RE: Well
By jay401 on 2/24/2007 12:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
ahahah, wow, that's right on point. =)


RE: Well
By Sceptor on 2/24/2007 7:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
If a "sense of environmental responsibility" means getting very similar mileage as typical cars and wasting resources and pollution to create those batteries you need to lug around everywhere...

It seems everyone forgets the hazardous materials and pollution that goes into manufacturing and disposal of batteries...especially hundreds of pounds per car.


RE: Well
By semo on 2/24/2007 7:49:29 AM , Rating: 3
german diesel cars have a comparable fuel efficiency and you also have bigger range of designs. also, you recharge those batteries in hybrids mostly through the engine (the thing that provides as much usable power as useless heat).

if you really wanted to help the environment and have to have a car, the best thing is to find a gas station that provides biodiesel (and not the 5% crap) or put your money where your mouth is and get a single tank svo system: http://www.elsbett.com/. or if you want to fool yourself that petrol hybrids are good for the environment then go ahead and buy yourself some clean conscience.

i'm personally a lot less concerned for the global environment but more for street level pollution (where i usually breathe my air) and there is no mainstream vehicle that can solve that problem.


RE: Well
By derwin on 2/24/2007 9:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids recharge their batteries through the engine, you are correct. However, the point you are missing is that an ICE opperates more and more effiencently at higher RPMs. The reason this is not true in cars is because of air drag (the faster you go, the stronger the force the engine has to overcome to keep your car just from slowing down). Eventually you reach a maximum where the effiency gains of higher RPMs are counteracted by the air drag (this is like 58 MPH or something, hence all those 55 mph SLs). However, in a hybrid, when the gasoline engine is not the drive force, it can operate at whatever RPM it wants to to recharge the battery. Thus, you can acheive maximum effiecieny from your gasoline engine at all times, at not only at 55 mph. Therefore, in a hybrid, the gasoline is used more efficiently to power the car (thus, higher Mileage per Gallon). So, in short, No, you are not burning the same amount of gas. You are burning less gas to acheive the same result.


RE: Well
By michal1980 on 2/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By semo on 2/25/2007 8:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
and that brings us to the next point of why today's hybrids are not revolutionary (in terms of efficiency).

the engine should have been solely used to make electricity (and warm up the cabin in cold weather of course). also the batteries should have been small and only used to harness the braking power since they become a dead weight on the highway (and are a nasty cocktail of harmful chemicals).

diesel hybrid trains have been using this principle for a long time by keeping the ice run at a constant rpm and let the electric motors do the hard work.


RE: Well
By theapparition on 2/25/2007 11:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, While your points are true, your explanation is so far off I have to comment.

It is true that ICE's are more efficient at high RPM's, but this has nothing to do with vehicule speed. I can design a car with a max speed of 40mph (or run first gear in any current production car for that matter) and it doesn't make it more fuel efficient.

Here are the facts. What you are refering to is pumping force. When the intake valves open, the cylinder is compressed and begins uncompressing, which "sucks" the air-fuel mixture in. It becomes most efficient at doing this when the trottle is wide open (WOT). If the trottle is partially closed, the force required is higher and the engine is robbed of power. The best way to look at an ICE, it is an air pumping device, not a fuel pumping one. The easier you get air into the engine, the more power it will have.

Hybrids by nature are NOT more efficient. This may come as a blow to everyone but it is true. Going back to basic thermodynamics, nothing is 100% efficient. In a hybrid, an engine turns a generator (loss of energy), which produces electricity (loss of energy), which stores in a battery (slight loss), and then powers a motor (loss), though a transmission, etc. A standard gas powered car does away with the intermediate steps and is inherently more efficient.

In a flat out MPG race at max speed, the gas powered car will beat a similar hybrid in MPG any day. The gas powered car falls on its face, however, due to factors such as the engine must run constantly, it runs though its power band rather than running at most efficient WOT, and doesn't benifit from regenerative braking. This makes the Hybid better for stop and go traffic, and not many people run everywere at wide open trottle.

So while the hybrid is an improvement for everyday driving, it is not that great. I applaud the EPA for changing there testing methodology to better match real world conditions. I everyone was really that concerned, the best way to reduce gas comsumption in this company is to move closer to your place of employment, carpool (or better yet, public transportation), or buy 3 cylinder cars with 40hp that got better gas milage in 1990 than current hybrids do.

None of that is acceptable for most people, particuarly Americans. We love our cars. They have become status symbols as well as means for transportation. Personally, I don't care about gas milage as evident by the cars in my garage. All 8 cylinders with none less than 350hp.

2000 TransAm WS6 520 RWHP
2002 Corvette C5 stock 350hp
2006 Trailblazer SS stock 391hp
2007 Corvette C6 Z06 stock 505hp (and friggin scary fast...)

You may also be surprised that I usually get over 25mpg on both vettes. So you can call me an ignorant wastefull fool if you want, but at least I planted some trees in my yard.


RE: Well
By Hoser McMoose on 2/27/2007 2:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is true that ICE's are more efficient at high RPM's, but this has nothing to do with vehicule speed.

Uhh, speed and RPM are quite closely related. Engine speed (RPMs) is directly related to your vehicle speed through your transmission.

You're explanation about 'sucking' air into the engine doesn't quite apply anymore with today's fuel injection cars. The concepts are still similar but not identical to old carburetor engines, and as such the old "wide open throttle" rule isn't always true. The trick now is usually keeping an ideal fuel-to-air ratio and balancing a few factors like getting the air into the engine in the first place, friction from the cylinders, temperature and probably a dozen or so other factors.

The result is that new internal combustion engines have a peak power/fuel use efficiency level. That level is going to vary from one engine to the next and even within an existing engine based on what the ECU is doing.

Now, knowing that, we get to one of the real tricks with hybrids, and it's not either the ICE or electric engine, but rather the transmission. Basically all hybrids use a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). This allows the engine to run at or near it's peak efficiency level regardless of what the speed of the vehicle is. It also allows the ECU to rev up the power to charge batteries while still staying near that peak engine efficiency level.

As you state, nothing is 100% efficient, but in car terms most things are more like 25-30% efficient, so there's LOTS of room for improvement. Using a CVT and smart electronics can help improve efficiency for all cars, but it makes a bigger difference in hybrids where you can use it to charge batteries, thereby giving you more power for electric motors and allowing you to downsize your ICE. Now add in regenerative breaking, which is using energy that is otherwise 100% lost, and you're off to the races.

quote:
In a flat out MPG race at max speed, the gas powered car will beat a similar hybrid in MPG any day.


And given that all our cars can run at WELL beyond the speed limit, this is of relevance how exactly? If you're looking to build a drag racing car, a hybrid is going to be a poor idea from a fuel economy standpoint... However that's about the only situation in which your statement has much meaning.

Of course, even current hybrids have a long way to go. Diesel hybrids are an obvious choice since your peak efficiency level for a diesel engine is about 30% better (per volume of fuel) then gasoline. The next step is to use an all electric drive and JUST use the engine to charge the batteries. This concept, already in widespread use for trains, lets you keep the diesel engine right at it's peak power/fuel efficiency rate while it should greatly reduce the particulate emissions common from diesel engines. And since electric engines can get very good efficiencies across a wide range of speeds they are better suited to the stop and go of driving.


RE: Well
By masher2 (blog) on 2/24/2007 12:32:15 PM , Rating: 1
> "I don't have a hybrid myself, but the next car I buy will almost definitely be a hybrid..."

Why not just eat one less burger a week instead? You'll cut down on greenhouse emissions even more than the switch to a hybrid.


RE: Well
By glenn8 on 2/24/2007 1:32:41 PM , Rating: 1
Why not do both (eat less burgers and get a hybrid)? I can't stand people with that attitude that it's all or nothing. Every little bit counts.


RE: Well
By masher2 (blog) on 2/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Tamale on 2/24/2007 5:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
don't confuse his attack on your all-or-nothing mentality with your retaliation of over-exaggeration


RE: Well
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 11:06:19 PM , Rating: 3
He has a poor way of stating it, but his point holds merit.

The truth is that if you used some of your savings to buy a bicycle and a backback to handle quick trips to the store to grab a few things or short commutes on nice days here and there, you would probably do more for the environment than owning a Prius.

Most people are too tied to 40 lb mountain bikes with full suspension, big tread, and low air pressure to notice that you can actually make very good time on a proper bicycle.

A decent road bicycle may cost upwards of $400 or $500 but they offer the ability to average ~15 MPH instead of ~8 using about the same level of effort.

A gallon of gasoline contains about 31 million calories (this is why it is so hard to replace).

A car that get 31 MPG, uses 1 million calories for 1 mile.
A human on a decent bicycle consumes closer to about 20.

So a hybrid costs thousands more and is maybe ~20% more efficient, and a human+bicycle is 50,000 times more efficient for a mere $500 with the added benefit of getting in better shape.


RE: Well
By masher2 (blog) on 2/25/2007 2:16:41 PM , Rating: 1
The differential isn't quite that large. The "Calories" we eat are actually kilocalories which (assuming your caloric figures for bicycling are correct) makes the bike roughly 50X more efficient than a 31MPG car.


RE: Well
By glenn8 on 2/25/2007 4:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So a hybrid costs thousands more and is maybe ~20% more efficient, and a human+bicycle is 50,000 times more efficient for a mere $500 with the added benefit of getting in better shape.


True... but why not human + bicycle + hybrid? I don't get what the argument is here. These things aren't mutually exclusive people! You're going to eventually need a car for something whether it's long distance travel or transporting people and cargo. Since people are going to use a car anyways.. isn't a hybrid still a good choice?


RE: Well
By iollmann on 2/24/2007 6:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Consumers would actually make all these rational choices and more, if gas cost a lot more. Cheap prices encourage wasteful use of resources.

The *best* thing you could do for the environment would be to insist on higher gas prices, probably via some sort of value added tax. Wasting time worrying about burgers and plant a tree day invites ridicule.


RE: Well
By Grast on 2/26/2007 12:12:40 PM , Rating: 1
iollmann,

I can see by your statement you are probably a european. Keep your socialistic views out of my country! Unlike you, I do not need my country legislating my rights away from me.

My country was founded on the principal of preventing taxation without representation. The artifical raising of taxes to increase gas prices for the effect of limiting usage is exactly the type of taxation I will oppose.

My country is about personal freedom. Until driving a ICE vehicle is illegal, the free market should determine fuel prices not the ramblings of a global warming alarmest with no connection to reality.


RE: Well
By Hoser McMoose on 2/27/2007 4:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
How about then a cost that better reflects the FULL life-cycle cost of gasoline? Oil is currently VASTLY under priced because we are treating it like an unlimited resource. However that's not quite accurate, oil is created much more slowly then it's extracted and used.

The costs associated with air and water pollution are also not being worked into the costs of gasoline, but instead are either being ignored outright or they are being filtered back to you through higher general taxes (to cover public health care spending) and higher medical costs/medical insurance.

The result is that people who do not drive at all or drive very little are subsidizing the true cost of gasoline for those that drive a lot.

Taxation without representation indeed.


RE: Well
By glenn8 on 2/25/2007 4:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why stop there? Why not ride a bike everywhere, become a vegetarian, and refuse to use electricity in your home?

Given how crucial you think the situation is, how do you condone wasting electricity by using your computer to post to Internet forums? Turn it off, and help save the planet!


That's pretty weak logic there. In fact you are proving that you have this "all or nothing" attitude I was pointing out.

So let's go with your reasoning... so because I use the computer I probably shouldn't recycle either right? I mean what's the point in recycling when electricity generation produces far more pollution than any amount of recycling can help. In fact doesn't recycling itself cause pollution? Maybe I shouldn't bathe either to save water.. am I right?

The world isn't black and white as you see it... is it not better to at least be helpful when you can be?


RE: Well
By masher2 (blog) on 2/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By theapparition on 2/25/2007 11:11:30 PM , Rating: 1
I particurly love the pseudo-science used to prove the sky-is-falling (earth-is-warming) position. Makes for better comedy than old saturday night live (back when that was also funny).

What is you data based on?
They're our figures and models
Have they been critically peer reviewed?
No
Why not?
Well, we think there accurate.

Did you happen to catch the simulation of New York under water? It was positioned so everyone got the impression it happened in a few hours, and people leaving work were suddenly caught with 20ft of water.


RE: Well
By glenn8 on 2/26/2007 12:02:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You've misunderstood the logic. The point is that thinking you're "doing your bit" by driving a hybrid is wishful thinking. Driving a hybrid doesn't "help" global warming. Even if we replaced every car in the country with one, global warming would still continue unchecked. Even doing that and a few dozen other things (recycling, eating less meat, etc) doesn't help. You're not stopping global warming; you're not even reducing emissions enough to measureably slow it down.


Sorry but your logic is still flawed. You seem to think the only way to help the environment is by preventing global warming... but is it so wrong to want to breathe clean air? How about a little less crap in the water? Please do a little thinking and stop trying to think you're somehow right all the time.


RE: Well
By masher2 (blog) on 2/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By glenn8 on 2/26/2007 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have just admitted one of the dirty secrets of environmentalism. You don't really care whether global warming is happening; you support the belief in it because you feel it's valuable for other reasons entirely. As famed environmentalist Steven Schneider said, "we have to choose the right balance between being effective and honest."


No there's no dirty secret here actually. The only problem I see is you assertion that everyone thinks one way or another. Please stop trying to project a stance on me that I never claimed to have (global warming) just to support your weak arguments. What do you think environmentalist cared about before global warming became a fad? Once again the world isn't black and white good sir. Thanks.


RE: Well
By RogueSpear on 2/26/2007 1:51:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The point is that thinking you're "doing your bit" by driving a hybrid is wishful thinking.

I'm certainly doing more than you are. I do drive a Prius and I think that it is a part of my "doing your bit", though it is certainly not all of it. I bought a Prius for many reasons really. But I also do many other things that the majority of people probably do not do. I'm not a vegetarian, but I do not consume a lot of meat. Most of the "meat" I get is actually fish (I know some people like to think fish is not meat especially during lent). Toilet paper, paper towels, napkins - all recycled paper. I try to buy a lot of food from local farmer markets hoping that it didn't need to travel 3,000 miles or more to get to me.

While you kind of make a point that we cannot stop global warming.. well we can help. The difference we make may not be noticeable in our lifetime but does that make it a waste of time? I don't have children and most likely never will have children, but if you do have children wouldn't you want the best for their future? Or your grandchildren's future?

I realize we could all get taken out at any moment by an asteroid, a super-volcano, or any number of other things. But this is something were we can make a difference even it will take decades. So what's so wrong about that?

At worst Exxon only makes 40 billion in profits next quarter.


RE: Well
By jarman on 2/25/2007 2:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's noble of you and it's the attitude that all consumers should have if they want to push manufacturers to actually sell green vehicles. There wouldn't be one vehicle produced in this country with a fuel economy rating of less than 40 mpg if people would stop buying them.

Screw government regulation, hit them where it really hurts, their bottom line.


Are They Racing Them?
By etriky on 2/24/2007 8:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
I just went and checked my car - 98 Jetta 2.0L gas manual. Old - 26 combined. New 24 - combined. WTF! Are they racing these things? I've kept track of the mileage since I bought the car. It's been 29-33MPG the whole time. I run AC most of the year, I'm in a traffic jam 20 min a day, drive 10K miles a year, highway speeds are 75-80 mph and like to accelerate as hard as I can. The only time I ever got 25MPG is when I spent 2hrs at 110 in the desert. Gee. I wouldn't put any faith in those tests - old or new.




RE: Are They Racing Them?
By Hulk on 2/24/2007 9:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
2 hours at 110 means 220 miles of your tank of gas was spent at that speed. Probably a third of it. 25mpg sound awful high when you consider the aerodynamic drag at that speed is tremendously higher than at 65.

In addition it's hard to believe your engine could even maintain that speed for 2 hours as I think you'd almost be pedal to the metal. No less in the hot desert. Unless you're crazy enough to drive for 2 hours at 110mph at night.

I'm sorry but that story seems unbelievable unless the rest of the tank was spent doing a constant 35mph with the tires inflated to about 60psi.


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 10:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
I believe him. I had a 89 Ford Escort hatchback when I was in high school, and one summer spent quite a bit of time driving to and from a lake ~55 miles from my house.

I don't know if it was modified, but it was a 5 speed manual and it would maintain over 100 MPH at only 3,500 RPM's.

It was an unpatrolled open road so I didn't bother slowing down till I got where I was going.

You wouldn't think a 89, 4cl hatchback would hold those kinds of speeds under 4,000 RPM's but it did, and my mileage doing it was almost definitely over 30 MPG.

(The highest I ever saw the RPM's was ~3,750 and I believe I was traveling at about 130 MPH)

Sure there is drag, but when you consider not having traffic, not needing to use the brakes, not using any of the lower 4 gears, and having a high 5th gear I believe it is very possible to still get high MPG at high speeds.

I have owned tons of beat up cars, most of them were geared too low to see numbers like that.


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By TomZ on 2/24/2007 9:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
30MPG @ 100MPH - I personally don't believe that. You might need to show your math. :o)


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By Milliamp on 2/25/2007 6:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
It is OK, your skepticism is valid. I have now owned a total of 12 cars now and none of the others have come close.

I looked up the EPA estimates for the 89 Escort and the 4 speed manual was rated at 42 MPG highway and was reduced to 38 under the new standard.

I drove a 5 speed, which is geared higher, but this would make sense becasue I was driving it faster.

Additionally, the EPA estimate likely accounts for at least some slowing, braking, etc. and I stated earlier I did nothing of the sort :)

So, could a car that will get
42 MPG at 65 MPH in some traffic get 30 MPG in no traffic at 100 MPH if geared higher?

Suddenly, it doesn't seem quite so hard to believe.


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By MonkeyPaw on 2/26/2007 11:54:02 AM , Rating: 2
If what you say is true, then your Escort was violating the laws of physics! I think a reasonable answer might be that your Escort spedometer did not measure velocity well at higher speeds, especially considering your RPMs and engine size. Fuel economy drops way off as you go faster than roughly 60mph, since you run into increasingly more wind resistance and are traveling beyond the normal design lmits of the car (tires and gearing, mainly). Besides, it's not uncommon for cars to misreport speeds in excess of 70MPH. My friend's 2006 Altima is actually doing about 85MPH when it claims to be doing just over 90MPH. I trust 2005's Nissan engineers over mid-80s Ford employees anyday. ;)


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By Milliamp on 3/1/2007 5:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
You didn't bother to offer up any coherent data disproving the numbers I posted but you used the term "laws of physics" so I guess I must be wrong.

As I said, given the EPA highway estimate probably accounts for "normal" highway driving with gas consuming acceleration, traffic, and braking and what not. I would guess that if you tested the car without adjusting speed from point A to point B at 65 MPG that the average MPG would likely be significantly higher than the EPA estimate.

Just like when you drive somewhere, your top speed and average speed tend to be very different numbers even if you only stop or slow down for brief periods.

Considering highway driving is a 10 MPG improvement over city, it would probably reasonable to expect that in that A - B scenario it could average maybe 4 or 5 more MPG under those conditions.

This would be 46 or 47 MPG at about 65 MPH, this allows for an additional 16 or 17 MPG loss to gear it higher and speed up only another 35 MPH.

Sure drag will slow it down, but it isn't the only factor and I don't think it is going to take a 27 MPH hit becasue it sped up another 35 MPH when gas mileage improves all the way up to 60 - 65+ depending on the car and gearing.

Hardly "violating the laws of physics".


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By AlexWade on 2/24/2007 9:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
My vehicle, 2004 350z roadster, says 24 HWY. The "old" was 26 HWY. But when I bought it, the sticker said 28 HWY. What gives? Actually, I get about 26 MPG at 75 MPH with the AC on. If I put a little bit of acetone in the tank, I get 28 MPG at 75 MPG with the AC running. I tested it on a long drive. When I started drafting a SUV, I got 29. Drafting a semi-truck, 30. Not too bad for a sports car.


RE: Are They Racing Them?
By jay401 on 2/24/2007 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
did you check whether you were looking at Manual or Automatic transmission model mpg numbers? They're usually slightly different.


Old News
By Saist on 2/24/2007 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 3
This is old news to anyone whose ever watched Top Gear (BBC). It's not secret that most diesel engine cars are far more fuel efficient in realistic use than hybrids, not to mention much cheaper and much more plentiful.

I would also note that the DT article seems to miss a fact. While 14 of GM's vehicles don't get 30mpg under the 2007 standards... 9 of them do still top 30mpg under the 2007 standards.

I wonder... how many other manufacturers have 9 or more cars that can say that?




RE: Old News
By jay401 on 2/24/2007 12:40:41 PM , Rating: 3
Thing is many people have a negative stereotype of diesel, whether being noisy or being smelly or being harder to find stations that offer it. Those are some of the most common negative stereotypes of diesel.

What this means is that the majority of people will probably need to see a mainstream offering coordinated by all car manufacturers to replace the gasoline engine mainline production cars, not simply an alternative like hybrid or diesel, both of which (when it comes to environmental concerns) are really stop-gaps.


RE: Old News
By EnderJ on 2/24/2007 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Around where I live only 1/4 of the gas stations offer diesel, and there is usually always a truck sitting there.

You think the wait is bad when you are stuck waiting for some guy to fill his SUV? Try waiting for someone to finish filling the 2 100-150 gallon fuel tanks on their Truck.


RE: Old News
By A5 on 2/24/2007 2:50:19 PM , Rating: 1
How many other manufacturers can sell the same car as 3+ different models?


RE: Old News
By NegativeEntropy on 2/24/2007 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
All those on their way out of business. (read: Ford, and to a lesser extent, the Chrysler piece of DCX)


RE: Old News
By Hoser McMoose on 2/27/2007 5:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder... how many other manufacturers have 9 or more cars that can say that?

The main reason why GM has so many models that get 30mpg+ is that they sell the same car as two or three models, eg. the Chevy Cobalt, Pontiac G5 and the Saturn Ion get counted as three separate models (all with 30mpg+ on highways), even though they are all using the same basic platform and same drivetrain.

For similar reasons GM also sells the most models that DO NOT get 30mpg or better.


Driving habits
By Ben on 2/24/2007 3:51:30 AM , Rating: 1
Funny thing is, if you drive line a sane person, the old estimates weren't too far off, possibly even obtainable. Of course, no one can seem to do that, and would rather drive as fast as physically possible at any given second.

I don't know why they bother with cruise control any more. More people would be happy with a device that adjusts your speed to leave one car length to the person in front of you.




RE: Driving habits
By Messudieh on 2/24/2007 9:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
Basically, yes, that's what I've found too. I live in the NW Chicago Suburbs, so I see a lot of the worst of it. I can totally understand why just about everything loses some mileage; because the way most people drive is far from optimal. Including myself sometimes for sure.


RE: Driving habits
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/24/2007 12:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with that. If you're driving normal city streets you're going from a dead stop to 50-60 and then back to a stop for the next light. If you're on any of the interstate you're either going 90, or you're parked.

I checked the EPA website, and the numbers there agree with my average MPG I get driving around the burbs. One thing that might actually help gas mileage in vehicles is better street planning. Traffic lights are of course a necessary evil, but if you get them too close together you not only create problems with traffic, but you also induce more stop and go driving.


RE: Driving habits
By jay401 on 2/24/2007 12:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
the old estimates were off for most recent cars, actually. It's one of THE most common complaints on car forums that no matter how gently you drive a given car, it almost never matches the (old) EPA estimates. These new ones seem much closer to reality, at least based on checking the changed numbers for cars I have recently owned.


Messed up cars
By EnderJ on 2/24/2007 3:21:51 AM , Rating: 3
They seem to have almost everything on there.

2006 > Cadillac > Armored DTS?
2006 > Cadillac > Funeral Coach/Hearse?

Where can I buy that Armored DTS?




RE: Messed up cars
By Milliamp on 2/24/2007 4:28:21 AM , Rating: 3
Where can I buy that Armored DTS?

Just keep paying your taxes, or were you interested in driving it too?


only to collect more gas guzzler taxes
By slawless on 2/24/2007 5:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
I went to the epa site to see thier new milage listed for my car (2003 BMW M3). Old 16/19/24, new 15/17/22. I have had the car for 4 years now. The car get a consistent 19 mpg (1 tank average) with uusual driving. I took it in the highway, put the cruse on 55, and measured the milage over 10 miles, 34mpg. I have never had 17 mpg (1 tank average) never did 15 mpg they quote for city driving. I have had over 26 mpg(1 tank average) with alot of highway driving. I enjoy the car, I dont drive it gently.

I use a 1 tank average because instantanous milage is useless. I think it is a good all around indicator of true milage. the 10 mile/cruse average i quote is real, but only useful for ideal comparison.

I do think the milage for the hybrids was too high. If you drive them veeerrry genlty mayby.

Also, the M3 had $1000 gas guzzle tax. yet I can go buy a suburban that gets 12 mpg and not pay a gas guzzler tax because it is a "truck". (correct me if I am wrong)

final story, One day I was going home from a remote office, doing 75 to 80. I see this idiot comming up on me weaving in and out. it was a prius. I didnt think they went that fast. the first generation would not do a sustained 75. The thought occured to me. my M3 will do about 31 (10 mile average) at 75. How much better milage was the prius getting? probably not much.




By ElJefe69 on 2/25/2007 12:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
chances are it was getting worse gas mileage as it had to blow away fuel in its miniscule pathetic engine.

i would have side swiped him/her.

Yes, bush is THE man for this job. He, and it was him, not congress, all him, yay, that made SUV trucks cars in terms of rights to highways and any other car only status, yet in terms of emissions he let them have utility, commercial truck emmisions. Many/most people lobbying for years wanted trucks as trucks only and suv's to be forced to get emission regulations like cars if they were to be treated like cars. Bush rox!

suburbans can get below 6-7 miles per gallon around town. Fact from the... dealership I went to. doh. they dont care, its more bragging rights how much you destroy and dont care about. wealthy people love to show how wasteful they can be and "dont notice it".


Retested all vehicles?
By Sureshot324 on 2/24/2007 1:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
So did they retest all vehicles all the way back to 1985, or did they just estimate what the difference would be? With some vehicles the difference in mpg with the new ratings is much greater than others, so I have to wonder where these numbers came from if they didn't retest them all.




RE: Retested all vehicles?
By TomZ on 2/24/2007 3:39:01 PM , Rating: 1
I believe auto manufacturers have to submit new test results for each model year.


Stupid, Stupid people!!!
By Alexstarfire on 2/24/2007 9:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
I never thought that I would, at least seem, to know more than a vast majority of you people about cars.

First, I would like to point out that while new Priuses (sp?) may be expensive you have to look at EVERYTHING. That means all the gas ICE cars that people buy that cost MUCH MUCH more than a hybrid, as well as all the costs/pollution going into making the cars.

I've seen a list, on here I believe, that shows how much it costs per mile based on the production of the car, fuel costs, car and maintinence costs, etc.. While it showed the Prius being very high, in front of a Hummer, they made one flaw and that was how many miles they put on it. They said that at 109,000 miles that it costs $3.24, or very close, per mile to drive a Prius, while they used like 250,000 miles on the rest of the cars, including the Hummer, which got like $.15 less per mile than the Prius. They did that based on the warranty on the hybrid battery, but I've also read that Toyota has yet to replace a battery because it died of "natural causes." If that milage were changed to 250,000 like the rest of the cars, that it would have cost a hell of a lot less.

Also, the EPA estimates may have been off, but the new ones are off way more than the old ones. In my USED '02 Prius I get about 57MPG during the summer, and 53MPG during the winter. This includes city driving and highway driving. That's almost the estimate that they gave for the '06 Prius. I actually get much better milage than they rate my '02 Prius for. BTW, on the highway going 65MPH I average 50-53MPG. It'll be less for going 75MPH, but you pay the price for getting there faster. If you compare that to my Isuzu Rodeo that it replaced, due to it being totaled in an accident (not my fault), that got MAYBE 18MPG if I'm lucky, then it's one hell of an improvement. My milage on that Rodeo never really changed no matter what I did, unless it was highway driving. I got about 23MPG on the highway. That makes my Prius at least 2x more efficient than my Rodeo. BTW, I only used the Rodeo cause my parents gave it to me for free, it was their old car.

Ohh yea, and I've heard, so no actual proof, that maintaining hybrids, like the Prius, is no more expensive than a regular car, and that in-fact, the Prius is rated as needed one of the cars that needs the least maintinance.

It may be true that desiels are more effeceint than gas per gallon, but what I've always wondered is how much more oil goes into desiel than gas. It does use more oil, correct? I've never looked it up, but even if it's only like 15-20% more then it's not worth it, pollution wise.

I'd still like to have a desiel engine, though. Any of you seen the Loremo that can supposedly get 150 MPG? Granted it uses a very small engine and isn't very fast, or quick, it's till interesting because it's a car.




This Is Great News
By zerocool84 on 2/25/2007 12:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
This is great news for everyone because they are more realistic. Likewise my car which is not a hybrid did drop MPG but not much. From 22/30 to 19/28, it seems like all the great mileage we all thought we would get is different if you drive in the city cus stop and go driving kills it.




Well..
By Merry on 2/26/2007 2:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
I've never really bought into the whole hybrid hype thing. I think the key is to buy a smaller car, or indeed a lighter car. I have a '96 1.1 litre Fiat Punto 55 and I get 40-45mpg out of it on my regular 200 mile trip from Cardiff to Manchester (via Wolverhampton), and thats with an average speed of 70-75mph. I always disregard mileage info. manufacturers, or indeed anyone gives, mainly because they can never take into account your own personal driving style etc. I think the key to good mileage is to keep an eye on your tyre pressures and just generally keep the car in good order, it surprised me how much of a difference an under inflated tyre can make!

And before you Americans start saying 'small cars are not practical' etc i'll have you know i've actually moved all of my sisters stuff from Oxford (+bike) with it, i've also took 4 other people a fair few miles in it, with no complaints.

I really fail to buy into this whole I like cars, so I like powerful cars mentality. I like cars and even if I could afford a 'better' car I doubt i would buy one, my little car just keeps going, indeed i've put over 30,000 miles on it since I learnt to drive in it and i wouldnt want to replace it until it literally falls apart! I know you can say the same about bigger cars,but all i'm trying to say is try out a smaller car, you might find its actually as enjoyable as any other car (depending on which you get, of course).




By jskirwin on 2/26/2007 10:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
40/45 for a Civic hybrid?
I used to get close to that (35mpg/average) with my 1998 Honda Civic 5 speed. And it didn't cost me several grand more.

Granted, it made drinking coffee in traffic a challenge, but that's what knees are for, right?




i love my prius
By saechaka on 2/26/2007 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
i don't know why there is such hate for hybrids esp. on a techie site. i, consider myself a techie, think that any true techie would love the technology behind hybrids esp. the prius. i didn't like how my old civic hybrid worked cause i couldn't go on electric only, but boy do i love my prius. i've installed an ev switch where i can switch to run on battery only, although it won't run for long or fast w/it but it's really cool. this has to be one of the geekiest cars around. anyways on to the mileage. i say rent a prius for a week and drive your normal routes and see what mileage you get. you'll be surprised.

as for me, i live in federal way and drive to seattle daily and around to different schools on a daily basis. 25miles to and from work mostly freeway miles. during summers w/temps between 60-90deg i get about 50-54mpg. i drive at least 5mph over the speed limit and usually go 10mph over, esp. during the morning. i'm the black hybrid that passes everyone during the morning commute, which i admit i aver. 80mph if all those people would just get out of my way. even w/this agg. driving i still aver. 50s during warmer temps. during winters, i aver. mid 40s lowest being 45 and highest being 49mpg. if i drive only freeway to another state, i usually use cruise and leave it at 5mph over the speed limit. w/this strategy i got 47mpg going down to exetur, CA from seattle, wa. w/the exception of 50mpg when i hit the flatlands of CA. by the way, i keep my tire pressure at 42/40 and was doing oil change every 5000 miles. now i do it every 10000 miles b/c i'm past the warranty. i'm at 82000 miles on my 2005 prius and still haven't changed my original brakes yet. i'll let you figure how that works. can't wait till the plug in hybrids come out.




scam
By walk2k on 2/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: scam
By porkpie on 2/24/2007 4:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
Congrats on the most idiotic post of the day award.


RE: scam
By ElJefe69 on 2/25/2007 12:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
read my post about this. I agree actually. it is half marketing. Ugly to self righteous geeks = superiority and intellect.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki