I think everyone has made good points here.

Case in point:
Last night I filled my tank after crossing more than 900 miles.
I've never been a sports car guy but was a big fan of agressive, poor driving and I suspect I'm not the only one who has changed his ways.
But to doubt that anyone can reach EPA is just bad journalism due to lack of research.

But on the other hand something else happened last night.
I've been nursing a slow leaking tire for a few days until I have my 45K maintenance, when the dealer will likely replace them.
Anyway at 2:00AM it was completely flat to the rim. I used my 12v pump and re-inflated but wasn't sure how much time I had.

So after filling the tank I didn't want to get stuck so I did something highly unusual.
I drove like everyone else for a trip.

I set the AC to auto, 74 degreese (3:00 position), and since I no longer can volunterily drive like that I used cruise control.
Set at 65 in a 55 zone
74 in a 65
78 in a 70 limit and did not use my usual highway route and noticed what it did.

The first thing I noticed was the wild, agressive swings on the IMA. Except for braking, I'm used to seeing 4 bars either way.
Going those speeds on just a moderate hill required almost full Assist and caused the SOC to drop to the point of charging several times.

Anyway back to the article and my point, my experiment only yielded 36.2MPG which is worse than the LA report.

Wow! I should have parked with 68-71 on the dash.
I have to admit that after driving for efficiency since Jan'04 the higher speed seemed pretty dangerous.
Tomorrow I take my car in and have the tires fixed but have to say the challenge for efficiency is much more enjoyable, in my opinion.
I guess the reporter doesn't have a clue about this?

 

That's a great point, he's probably clueless that there's a different way to drive a car. There's also the simple fact that the drivers who post tanks and share advice at forums and sites like this may not be fanatics, but we certainly care about our hybrid-exclusive characteristics more than those who don't. Naturally our FE will be higher, our techniques better suited, and so on. Given the writer had probably never considered buying a hybrid from long before he wrote his piece, his interest in the capabilities we take great pride in will and did suffer.

 

Funny, that review was written in the same pissy tone I've come to expect from the LA Times. The car is certainly not sporty but I would certainly call it nimble and fun...in a Civic way. I made a huge change. I traded my 350Z for the HCH. It was more than about gas, however. VS the Z (and 'like' cars) the value of the HCH is also found in the low cost of ownership. While the Z type drivers are paying for new tires, breaks, premimum gas and alignments at a break-neck pace, I'm happy to dart around effeciently. Oh yes, there are still days when I see a Z glide by me with little effort and I miss the throaty power, but I don't miss looking at my Z knowing that big bills are only a few thousand miles away. Now, if I can find a 'Drill Alaska, now' bumper sticker, I'll be all set.

 

Not to get off topic - but I was under the impression that the 'Z' cars were pretty standard with regards to maintenance costs for a japanese sports car? I hope they aren't charging Porsche-type fees for the parts and work on those cars?

 

Well, the actual labor cost of the Z are in keeping with 'typical'....it's really a matter of of how OFTEN those things need a complete reworking....brakes, tires, and alignment all in about 20K.....only to do it again another 20K down the road.