It becomes difficult to generalize the “best” driving techniques when the terrain prevents it. You can’t drive like you have your foot on an egg when you’re climbing a steep hill with a heavy load. You can’t use the momentum you would like going down a hill through a residential area with 25 mph speed limits. When electric drive motors with regen. braking are the norm for trucks and larger SUVs, the traditional way to drive a car/truck may go out the window and the on/off switch begins to make sense as it does now in some areas., But, the kick scooter technique with it’s change in acceleration would drive passengers to drink, more.
I have not gone car shopping for a hybrid, but I can imagine that car sales folks today have a polished pitch that owning a hybrid will save the owner lots of money (from gas savings).
If that’s the case, then looking at the “cost of ownership” analysis of a hybrid, like the OP has tried to do, is very valid. Sure, you can always argue with some of the assumptions the OP has made, but if you haven’t done that type of critical analysis before car shopping, then you’re making it easier for the car sales force to get what they want.
It occurs to me that any forward estimate of future fuel cost savings MUST use at least $5, maybe $6, per gallon for use through 2017 (6 years).
I use http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/advancedSearch.htm or Find a Car http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
I have found a new source Real World MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
Shared MPG Estimates very useful comparing to sticker, there are differences ... "biases" ... vehicle ... beyond driver/driving style, according to work done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory ... just in case you did not already suspect it.
IF you would like to help make Shared Data more accurate ... you can track your miles / gallon (and if you wish, type of driving environment and style) at Your MPG. This will calculate your mpg and keep your vehicle history (for multiple vehicles ... IF you wish. For details see https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/help.html
This also a mobile APP so that you can update Your Garage while you are filling up. See https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?app=m
This would help EVERYONE have a better realistic picture.
IF ... you think this is a good idea ... please share with your friends and family.
@ JustDoIT45MPG,
With all respect, the fueleconomy.gov is unlikely to give a representative sample for MPG for any car. After all, any MPG data is compiled from people who (a) care enough about fuel economy to go to “fueleconomy.gov” in the first place, and (b) care even further to create a log of their personal fuel economy.
Such people are likely to get different results than the “average driver” of the same make/model.
(It’d be like trying to obtain Census data regarding income by sampling purchasers of fortified wines exclusively.)
I understand your concern about user input biasing the result, say like ... hypermilers.
That is why it is important for as many people as possible input their data ... average Joes & Janes.
You might be be interested to know that inputs are statistically screened for "outflyers".
You might want to study https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/help.html in detail BEFORE passing judgment.
Here is an interesting paper: Predicting Individual Fuel Economy [the original title was "Predicting Individual On-road Fuel Economy Using Simple Consumer and Vehicle Attributes"]
|
Date Published: 2011-04-12
Paper Number: 2011-01-0618
|
Here is a quote from the paper:
"In addition, the bias of the 2008 estimates is very similar to that of the 1984 estimates at the low end of vehicle efficiency but diverges at higher levels of efficiency. For hybrid vehicles, the 2008 estimates appear to have a 10% underestimation bias while the 1984 estimates have a 10% overestimation bias. For efficient gasoline vehicles, the 2008 estimates appear to underestimate the on-road fuel economy by nearly 20%. For relatively efficient diesel vehicles, the underestimation bias is about 25%. On average among all technologies, the 2008 estimates underestimate the on-road fuel economy by 14%-16% depending on efficiency level. These results are potentially important because the 2008 estimates imply decreasing benefits in reduced petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions from tighter fuel economy and emissions standards. If the results shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 can be confirmed by analysis of scientific random samples of on-road vehicles, that would indicate greater benefits from emissions and fuel economy standards than currently anticipated."
I hope this helps your concerns.
I wonder how many Toyota Priuses actually get 51 MPG?
You could ask that about ANY car. Does ANY vehicle actually get the EPA gas ratings??? If they used the same method of evaluation for each vehicle then it doesn’t matter because the relative position will be the same.
**** You may know a couple of Prius owners who aren't smug about their choice, I know a couple who are.*****
If there was no such thing as a Prius, those people would probably still be smug overbearing jerks. One of the Prius owners I know also owns a crew cab pickup truck so he can pull his bass boat to the lake. A big fancy bass boat that probably costed more than the Prius.
A truck and a bass boat would be a good reason I feel to own a Prius. You then only use the truck for play as well as the boat and put most of your miles and savings on the Hybrid. Now boats, that is where a huge jump in economic propulsion is needed. If we could just get everyone to paddle or sail…
"
I wonder how many Toyota Priuses actually get 51 MPG?
You
could ask that about ANY car. Does ANY vehicle actually get the EPA gas
ratings??? If they used the same method of evaluation for each vehicle
then it doesn’t matter because the relative position will be the same."
In my short time here, the people who complain about their “low” mileage consistently get told that their cars meet the EPA ratings.
From 2007 on, if I remember correctly, the EPA used a new driving procedure that yeilds more realistic gas mileage numbers. I routinely beat the EPA with my Yaris which is rated 29/36 by the EPA. I usually get 40+ even in the summer when I have to use the AC.
They still use the old prcedure to check emmisions compliance but the gas mileage estimates are now based on a new driving procedure that includes AC use and higher highway speeds.
According to Edmunds.com true-cost-to-own calculations, buying a new Prius vs. a new Corolla does cost more over the course of five years, by a margin of $3,220. However, I disagree that smugness is the only advantage. The difference in fuel expenditures over over the course of five years, averaging 15,000 miles per year, show the Prius owner spending $2,998 less on fuel than the Corolla owner. That means that over the course of the first five years of ownership, a Prius owner is putting almost $3,000 less in the pockets of Big Oil and the OPEC nations, and this helps us, as a country, be less dependent on oil as an energy source. Those are all worthy goals, even if they do cost more. Add to that the fact that the Prius is now built in American factories, and the Prius owner is using that extra $3,220 to support American jobs.
If the only advantage you can see is smugness, you lack an ability to see the big picture.
Motorcycle riders tend to do the same thing. They suggest you can save money riding a motorcycle, but really, when you calculate the per-mile cost of riding, it’s usually more expensive than driving a fuel efficient economy car. The truth is, riding a motorcycle, you save money on fuel, but just the additional cost and the shorter expected life of tires makes it hard to suggest riding saves you money.
For an apples-to-apples comparison, use a Camry vs. a Camry hybrid. For the 4-cyl, the price is about $3k higher for the hybrid, ‘TCO’ ends up about $2k higher. For the 6-cyl, the price is about $400 higher for the hybrid, TCO about $170 less for the hybrid. They have some major hits on the hybrid for depreciation, I wonder if that will happen. Just comparing price difference + fuel costs, the hybrid is $1182 more than the 4-cyl, and $4664 LESS than the v6. With performance between the two, the hybrid seems well worth its price.
Hybrid owners pay a premium for the dubious privelege of saving the earth. But the automotive marketing machine has convined them that they’re saving money. You’re raining on their parade. You cannot win an arguement of this type. The math is irrelevant. Your quest is folly. It’s analogous to trying to convince someone that their chosen faith is the wrng one.
"Hybrid owners pay a premium for the dubious privelege of saving the earth. "
I agree, and too;
as pointed out many times before, and forgive me for not giving credit, “saving the earth” means maximizing the use of the resources you have at hand. Running a heap into the ground that hasn’t been shown to be a major polution cause may do more for the environment then buying a new hybrid Camry when the old one had many more serviceable years. I tend to agree.
Whitey…"That means that over the course of the first five years of ownership, a
Prius owner is putting almost $3,000 less in the pockets of Big Oil and
the OPEC nations, and this helps us, as a country, be less dependent on
oil as an energy source."
This is where my cynicism gets in the way of your logic which probably makes me “wrong” but. I feel we may be saving more fuel (Prius owners) but the cost per gallon goes up and the energy corps have their pockets lined with the same profit margins. The stock share value goes up, not down in times of limited sales when oil is in short supply.
THE IS NO ALTERNATIVE to gasoline (oil) for the masses, market is not open and hybrids do nothing for that. They use less fuel which ultimately costs more. When all electrics are the norm and everyone has their own local electric source (wind,solar, tidal etc.) not affiliated with energy corps and NOT HYDROGEN, only then will we keep from lining the pockets of those you refer to. When we actually make alcohol and natural gas fueled vehicles common place with all their related problems solved, maybe then also.
When cynicism gets in the way of your ability to agree that using less fuel is a good thing, well, I am awestruck.
I don’t remember you being so cynical in the past. I hope nothing bad has happened in your personal life to lead to this change.
Even with your backward belief that decreasing demand makes prices increase (all I can say about that is “wow”), nothing you can say is going to convince me that bringing my personal consumption of gasoline down isn’t a good thing.
I NEVER CLAIMED THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE to gasoline. I only claimed using less is a good thing.
Wow.
A fool can be proud of his tool,
even if it’s the wrong one for the job.
I think the hybrid makes sense for a big-city cab.
Running 16 hours a day stop-and-go.
Whitey, I believe I was disagreeing with your idea that hybrids put less money in the pockets of big oil and OPEC and using less oil does little to change that. My assertion is that unless there is an alternative to oil which for transportation for the masses, we are still dependent upon oil and OPEC who are happy to supply less oil for a higher unit cost by artificially controlling supply . We benefit pollution wise but we are still dependent. I hope you can see the distinction. This is why I am not a huge hybrid supporter on a massive scale and see only electric cars with 100 mile range while operational with the same climate systems. Electricity is a democratic and flexible fuel source that can eliminate oil for most surface transportation needs. I believe I am not alone in this idea. Hydrogen fuel as controlled by these same energy corporations is a bogus attempt to keep “fuel” price control in the hands of big oil/energy.
There is a potential fuel station at every telephone pole, there is a potential electrical grid source in every rain drop, wave, tidal cycle and ray of sunshine. These are the developments that will bring big oil to their knees, not paying them more per barrel for fewer barrels.
I never claimed that decreasing the demand made energy prices decrease. Decreasing the supply does that. Eliminating the demand and making fuel a commodity and not a strategic necessity does that. My cynicism is well founded if you look at wars waged for energy while we see the increase in profits . This has happened while cars have gotten more efficient in the last three decades. We have made great strides in conservation, fuel economy and pollution whilethe middle east and big oil have still seen their profits and political influence grow with little effect. We invaded Iraq and plunged our selves into dept while giving tax cuts and subsidies to those who will profit the most and gain control of the second biggest oil reserves
ever.
Next, our corporate controlled congress may cut Medicare and ultimately we become a nation of third world laborers working for the “energy” store. All this and we still pretend that hybrids are a key when in reality they are a distraction. EVs are our automotive and “transportation salvation”.
Whitey… personal problems ? No. . Just using “cynicism” as a realization that we seldom if ever disagree but on this point I legitimately disagree on how worthwhile hybrids are. Toyota will ride the hybrid distraction and not build a functional electric car that is both inexpensive and range worthy. Reasonable EVs have been in existence since the early 90s running on NiMH batteries that are inexpensive to make, long lasting,energy dense enough, work well in cold climates and easily recycleable. It’s all about long term profit and the industry would have you believe that an electric EV was expensive to mass produce.
No such thing as an ‘inexpensive electric’ car. The batteries are still hugely expensive for the number needed in a practical EV. Hybrids are probably a better use of the batteries, get 10 economical hybrids instead of one very economical EV for the same number of batteries.
The NiMH battery used in the experimental EVs more than ten years ago had manufactured estimated cost equal to the transmission of cars of that day and comparably cheap considering they didn’t need a transmission. You my friend are still thinking of lithium with all it’s related problems, expensive metals and cooling which the car companies are now forced to use. Even though they argue they have more storage capacity, they don’t in the cold which the NiMH battery has no problem with whose Chevron subsidiary held patent is due to run out on or about 2015. It is hoped by then that people like you will have the “expensive battery” mentality engrained in by then. I guess you’re ahead of the game.