Hi folks,

For those quoted, please do not take this personal since it is a common myth that "<insert non-hybrid> can achieve the same performance as a hybrid." It is a myth that this week was claimed by one party suggesting a GEO gets 50 MPG, like my Prius or another party claimed a Civic hybrid CVT performance can be achieved by a Civic manual transmission vehicle. Here is another variation of that same myth:

Speaking from experience (see signature), I have both an Echo and Prius and have done a head-to-head comparision. The Prius weights ~2700 lbs and the Echo ~2150 lbs and both have automatic transmissions. But no matter how I drive the Echo, I can not achieve 85% of my Prius MPG. Now I can drive the Prius badly (aka., with parking brake set) and bring it down to within 85% of the Echo but I can not do the reverse, drive the Echo in some magical way to achieve 85% of the Prius MPG. But then I have taught myself how to drive a hybrid electric car.

There is a myth that a small enough (i.e., sacrifice of features) non-hybrid car can achieve the same or 'close enough' performance to a hybrid electric. But running those cars through the exact same driving test (aka., EPA mileage) shows this claim false. The city MGP and highway MPG when compared head-to-head for identical payload vehicles don't match.

Hybrid electrics have regenerative braking, a place where non-hybrids can never go. This preservation of braking energy instead of wasting it on heating and wearing out brake shoes and pads, does not exist in non-hybrids. But hybrid-electrics do have a cost premium.

The hybrid 'premium' is due in part to demand out stripping supply but there are efficiencies that mitigate the engineering and manufacturing costs. Today's hybrid transaxles are mechanically simpler and lighter weight than an equivalent sized, hydro-mechanical, automatic transmission. Furthermore, their mechanical efficiencies are closer to a manual transmission. There is a battery weight penalty but we are learning they can be a lot smaller and lighter than the NHW11 Prius pack and the trend is lower costs. Both the demand and manufacturing efficiencies lead to profits, something foreign to some non-hybrid manufacturers. But today, there are strategies to mitigate today's hybrid premium.

A new car has until the 3/36000 warrantee runs out, a 'drive off the lot' cost and the initial warrantee premium. Then from 3/36000 to 8/80000 (or the equivalent,) there is a hybrid drive train warrantee premium. In this phase, the infantile problems have been resolved and the 3/36000 warrantee is no longer needed. Then once all warrantees expire, the car is in self-maintenance and the price drops again but we have access to salvage parts and self or 3d party mechanics. These three phases reduce the hybrid premium to affordable levels.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

I've driven an Echo. It usually got about 31 city and 42 highway. That's *really good* for a non-hybrid. But my HCH not only accelerates *much* faster than the Echo, but gets 39 city and 51 highway. That's much more than 15%.

I applaud anyone who would choose an Echo over a SUV, however.

I believe it is true that someone could build a non-hybrid that gets hybrid mileage of 48-50mpg. In fact, it has been done: The Civic HF of the late 80s. With today's technology I think it could be done again, probably even better. So the poster whom you quote is not wrong, and there isn't a "myth" quite as you assert.

But the question isn't just good gas mileage. It's good gas mileage from a car that you can stand to drive every single day, with enough power in reserve just in case. That's what your hybrid power train buys you: the ability to couple fuel economy with normal driveability.

Yes, well said. Experimental cars have been built that get in excess of 100mpg without hybrid technology. However, they could not be compared to a HCH or Prius. If you took the Prius, and tore out all the hybrid components, and connected the same 73 hp ICE only via a manual tranny to the drive wheels, you could probably obtain the same or even better highway mileage. However, it would not be a practical car by todays standards, not having the power to pass, or to do fully loaded uphill climbs at reasonable speeds.

No single technology allows a car to get 50mpg or better. It's a combination of aerodynamics, lightweight construction, and an efficient engine.

The benefit of a hybrid is it's no longer necessary to build the ICE to have adequate acceleration to highway speed. Instead, it can be just a little bigger than necessary to cruise, saving fuel.

Hybrids are a better idea than in 1980 because people have heavier foots on the pedal. Average 0-60mpg time has gone from 15 to 10 seconds - the 55mph speed limit is gone.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

I'll second that in a big way. Economy cars with decent mileage have been around forever. However there's no chance I'm going to spend 10-12 hours a week in one. Hybrids allow you to have your cake and eat it to - regular sized cars, respectable power, modern conveniences, and still you get better mileage.

*** Retired after 65,000 outstanding miles ***

What about diesels?

And this seems to be doing rather well
If you're out to save money this guy wins hands down.

The 'elephant in the room' is regenerative braking. It provides a source of motive power non-hybrids do not have. Furthermore, it is important because the weekly commute, a twice-a-day, five day set of short trips will most likly to be 'city' driving.

As others have pointed out, the hybrid-electric does provide the reserve power needed to let a smaller engine perform like a larger one. This reserved accelleration gives the hybrid a performance advantage that an equivalent payload, non-hybrid can't match. Granted some are trying to make variable displacement engines by enabling and disabling the valves, their MPG is 'less bad' but the EPA results show they are not hybrid competitive.

Although faulted for not being "real world," the EPA tests are consistent across all vehicles. It remains a valuable tool for determing how effective a hybrid is (aka., identification of mock hybrids) and the degree that a hybrid supports efficient city driving.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Regarding Civic Hybrid versus Civic non-Hybrid MPG:

I have an HCH; my daughter has a non-hybrid Civic. We traveled in a caravan of the two versions of Civic from where we live down to her college, about five hours drive away. Two cars, side-by-side (actually, more like bumper-to-bumper), same speed, following each other down the highway.

The results:

Hybrid Civic: 49 MPG
Non-hybrd Civic: 36 MPG

ps: The non-hybrid is 100% stock and has 60K miles, for anybody who may be thinking that it is modified in some way that would effect mileage. You know kids these days... ;-)

There are a few examples I can think of where I've heard of prototype cars that get mileage as good as or better than a Prius, and scooters do as well. But none of those would legally be allowed on US highways.

It just seems like another one of those myths that PR companies spread (and when every news station in the country has their anti-hybrid story claiming the latest new myth, you'd better believe that there are PR firms behind that).

Now the truth is that there are probably calculations you could make BASED SOLELY ON COST that might say a Yaris or a Fit gives you better cost-per-mile over a certain number of years, but not the same mpg.