Looks like you can also thank the exiting Liberal Party for allowing co2 emissions 30% above your Kyoto promise. And New Boss Stephen Harper wants out of Kyoto. Most of the Kyoto signers are in the same "Failing to reach the Kyoto Target" charade as well.

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa...nadakyoto.html

As for my FE I've gone from 28-29 summer to 25-26 winter.

The pain is obviously worse if you commute is short, I'm only up to full 193F on my 10 mile commute if I don't run the heat or run it at lowest fan setting and at mid-temperature. I can watch the temperature plummet to 155-65 by blasting the heat. Fortunately I essentially work outdoors and therefore dress warm and really don't need the heat on, just have to crack the window and blow my hot air out.

Short answer is yes. I vary from 42 mpg in the winter to 50 in the summer. Here's my graph of the last 3 years.

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

In cold weather, the idle-stop feature on my 2003 HCH rarely engages. The engine seems to rev a little faster as well. Of course, it also just blew its *second* catalytic converter (never any other problems, however).

Any cars made noticeable difference in cold weather.
john1701a from Minnesota kept good record his 2001/2004 Prius mileage.
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=15323&st=6

Ken@Japan

Now... the real question is... Are any of you doing anything differently in winter to combat the cold?

Last winter I was getting about 33 MPG in a FEH. But it was brand new, not broken in, and neither was the driver.

This winter ( so far ) I'm a more experienced driver, the car is broken in, and I block my radiator with a combination of cardboard & styrofoam.
I think this gives faster warm-up times, and keeps things warmer, longer when in Electric Only Mode.

I'm in North Colorado, nights 10'F, days 45-50'F and am getting 37 MPG this winter.

I'm so tired of hearing about this hybrid 'winter penalty', I decided to run some numbers. On the basis of my results, I want to make a statement that you can take back to your salesman (and any other naysayers):

Hybrid cars save you more money in the winter than in the summer (over non-hybrids)

That's right - not less, not the same, but more! Not only that, but the colder it gets, the more you save!

My math follows, but first, some assumptions/notes:

• Gas costs $2.39/gallon (this is not even necessary to show the difference, but seeing $s is nice)
• Both the hybrid and the non-hybrid take the same percentage FE hit in the winter. (Most people seem to agree on this, but see comments following the calculations if you don't)
• I used a 20% winter FE hit for my calculations, as that is what I typically see. You may not take a 20% hit where you live, but you will take a hit (ok, unless you live in Hawaii), and my assertion above still holds true.
• Note that I did not use EPA figures for hybrid summer FE, just so that can't be held against me.
• The non-hybrid numbers are real numbers from my 1996 Pathfinder, which I have tracked for years. If you want to run your own numbers using, say, a hybrid Civic vs a non-hybrid Civic, be my guest. The statement above will still hold true (though the savings won't be as great, of course).

Okay, here's the math (it's easy, I promise):

Typical Hybrid 'Per Mile' Gas Cost
============================
Summer (45 mpg): $0.0531/mile (1/45 * $2.39)
Winter (36 mpg = 45 mpg - 20%): $0.0664/mile

Typical Non-Hybrid 'Per Mile' Gas Cost
===============================
Summer (20 mpg): $0.1195/mile
Winter (16 mpg = 20 mpg - 20%): $0.1494/mile

Summer Savings, Typical Hybrid Over Typical Non-Hybrid: $0.1195 - $0.0531 = $0.0664/mile
Winter Savings, Typical Hybrid Over Typical Non-Hybrid: $0.1494 - $0.0665 = $0.0829/mile

So there you have it - Where I live, a typical hybrid saves you 24.9% more (over a typical non-hybrid) in the winter than in the summer. Isn't math great?

I mentioned above that you may not agree with my assumption that all cars take the same percentage FE hit in the winter. If not, consider this: the calculations yield equal summer/winter savings when the hybrid 'achieves' 27mpg in the winter (a 40% hit, or double the non-hybrid hit). In other words, if you want to say that the example hybrid takes a 39% hit vs the non-hybrid's 20%, go right ahead - my assertion is still true.

Please spread the word so that we can put this nonsense to bed. Thank you.

(PS: You nit-picky types will have no doubt noted by now that my assertion should read:

Given two cars A and B, such that Car A achieves higher FE at a given temperature than Car B does at the same temperature, and assuming each car's FE is lowered by the same percentage as the temperature is decreased, it can be shown that the absolute differential savings in fuel costs, Car A over Car B, increases with decreasing temperature.

...or something like that. And to that I say, 'Yeah, whatever" )

Good post! It's amazing to me when you read reports of hybrids in the news. If you believe the reports:

• Hybrids are the first cars to get lower than EPA
• Hybrids are the first cars to get lower than expected FE in the winter
• Hybrids are the first cars where running the A/C hurts your FE
• .....

It's absolute nonsense. The only reason we know this stuff is because we PAY ATTENTION. If you analyzed the FE of ANY car the way we do our hybrids, you'd find the same thing. Amazing that anyone can conclude these drawbacks are specific to a hybrid, and actually blame the technology. I'm waiting for the, "boy, I'm sure glad I drive this Escalade in the winter because that hybrid sure doesn't live up to it's billing...."

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

Exactly! I actually did these calculations some time ago and have been fuming ever since. I was waiting to see if anyone else had pointed it out before, and, well, I never saw such a statement. Even among the hybrid faithful, the rebuttal seems more defensive than assertive ("Well, you know, regular cars don't do as good in the winter either...").

Oh, and by the way - I read somewhere that the 'new' EPA numbers will be, for the most part, an 'across-the-board' percentage reduction for all cars (ie more-or-less the same percentage for all cars, hybrid and non-hybrid). If that is true (and it seems reasonable to me), then the same calculations will show that hybrids look like an even better deal with the new numbers than the old. Keep that fact handy when the naysayers start in on you.