Who's fudging FE, hmm? - GreenHybrid

Freeze · #1 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 09:54 AM

Vent time:

I keep reading/hearing/seeing about disapointing FE of hybrids. You know the stuff: Varying sources stating unrealistic expectations about high gas milage.

I would like to present the following qoute, available via the attached link, showing real world milage of the H3. Please note also the comment about the thing being underpowered. http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...tid=ga11576532

Quote:

Short on power
If there's a shortcoming, it's under the H3's hood. The truck shares the same 3.5-liter, inline five-cylinder engine found in the Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon. It's rated at 220 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 225 pound-feet of torque at 2,800, which just isn't enough muscle in a truck this size. Although the engine feels more refined in the Hummer, the H3's 0-to-60-mph time of 11 seconds means a larger engine is needed.

The combo posts a combined EPA mpg rating of 17.5. Our number during a 500-mile test was a disappointing 13 mpg.

So, let's see...my TCH, (which can get to 60 in 8 seconds if needed), is getting nearly 38 MPG which IS the EPA estimate (current tank average is over 41, BTW.) The H3 is at 74% of its EPA estimate. Our Honda Odyssey is EPA estimated at 24, we're getting 20, which is 83%.

Thanks for letting me vent. I now return your forum to more constructive discussions.

Jason · #2 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 10:52 AM

I always wondered if the slow acceleration time in the Hummer is one of those ways marketting brilliantly makes people desire inferior products. Hummer owners want something big and heavy. Just like a real tank, which doesn't go 0-to-60 in 5 seconds, is it possible they get more satisfaction out of a vehicle that "needs" that extra time to pull its weight? Cheaper parts, happier customer, more profits.

Just a thought.

Pravus Prime · #3 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

I always wondered if the slow acceleration time in the Hummer is one of those ways marketting brilliantly makes people desire inferior products. Hummer owners want something big and heavy. Just like a real tank, which doesn't go 0-to-60 in 5 seconds, is it possible they get more satisfaction out of a vehicle that "needs" that extra time to pull its weight? Cheaper parts, happier customer, more profits.

Just a thought.

If that were the case, wouldn't we all be feathering our accelerators in an exagerated manner?

"Yeah, well it takes MY Tahoe 3 and a half hours to get up to 65 MPH!"

MikeT · #4 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 07:41 PM

11 seconds is FAST. My smart diesel takes almost another 8 seconds to hit 60. LOL

AshenGrey · #5 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 08:40 PM

My HCH reliably gets 42 MPG, which is 87% of the EPA estimate. Isn't 80%-90% pretty much the norm for most cars?

abowles · #6 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 08:44 PM

That's sounds about right.

martinjlm · #7 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeze

Vent time:

I keep reading/hearing/seeing about disapointing FE of hybrids. You know the stuff: Varying sources stating unrealistic expectations about high gas milage.

I would like to present the following qoute, available via the attached link, showing real world milage of the H3. Please note also the comment about the thing being underpowered. http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...tid=ga11576532

So, let's see...my TCH, (which can get to 60 in 8 seconds if needed), is getting nearly 38 MPG which IS the EPA estimate (current tank average is over 41, BTW.) The H3 is at 74% of its EPA estimate. Our Honda Odyssey is EPA estimated at 24, we're getting 20, which is 83%.

Thanks for letting me vent. I now return your forum to more constructive discussions.

Sample size of 1. Very valid for drawing concrete conlusions. I drove an H3 for 3 months. Turned it in with about 5,300 miles on it and averaged about 18.2 in combined driving. That's 10 times the mileage in the test you quote. And I do not baby anything that I drive.

I often switch cars with another guy in my office who has a longer drive and a lot more kids. In our last swap, I took his Cadillac SRX, in which he'd averaged 21.something in the two weeks he had it. I gave him my Cadillac Escalade ESV (8 passenger capability). He gave me the Escalade back last week with a combined average of 18.7. I gave him back the SRX averaging 17.9. Different drivers, different conditions, different results. He gets over 20 with the SRX. I get under 18 with it. I'd imagine he'd get better than the 18.2 I got out of the H3 had I swapped that one with him.

Peace,

Martin

martinjlm · #8 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

I always wondered if the slow acceleration time in the Hummer is one of those ways marketting brilliantly makes people desire inferior products. Hummer owners want something big and heavy. Just like a real tank, which doesn't go 0-to-60 in 5 seconds, is it possible they get more satisfaction out of a vehicle that "needs" that extra time to pull its weight? Cheaper parts, happier customer, more profits.

Just a thought.

Nope. Just basic and elementary physics at work. Because of its design, the Hummer (pick one) has a fairly higher co-efficient of drag. It takes more horsepower to get it moving and keep it moving. So now instead of providing scintillating acceleration, the horsepower is working to sustain basic acceleration and steady state speed. It's much easier for a dart to move through the air than it is for a brick to move through the air. It's easier to get a Corvette to accelerate with a given amount of hp than it is to get an H2 or H3 to accelerate. This would be true even if they weighed exactly the same and with identical hp capability.

Peace,

Martin

Jason · #9 (**permalink**) 07-22-2006, 09:56 PM

Oh, I realize the physics of it. I'm just saying GM may have deliberately underpowered the Hummer (considering the horses it needs to overcome the drag and weight issues) to make it seem even more heavy-duty.

CaptainObvious · #10 (**permalink**) 07-23-2006, 09:54 AM

Uh, I think that's a ridiculous theory. I think the obvious answer is that they were shooting for better fuel economy. Looking at the consumer reviews in Edmunds, it seems they've actually accomplished that. It seems a lot of people are averaging around 17MPG, and people are actually listing the fuel economy as a "pro" in different review sites.