October 30, 2005Caveat Emptor, Hybrid ShoppersWhen gasoline hit 3 bucks a gallon the hype over "hybrid cars" really shifted into high gear. "More than half of US consumers see a hybrid in their future," one article reports. Americans surveyed had a generally dim view of U.S. automakers' efforts. Viewed most favorably for their hybrid plans were Toyota, with 41 percent of respondents, and Honda, with 40 percent. Ford's hybrid efforts got the nod of only 14 percent, GM's only 13 percent and Chrysler was last at 8 percent. Sales of the Toyota Prius hybrid grew 90 percent in September. But are hybrids really as superior in fuel efficiency as automakers claim in their multimillion dollar advertisements? Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, has thrown a half-bucket of cold water on that nouveau conventional wisdom. In an October cover article the magazine reveals how their own fuel economy test results compare to the "EPA estimates" behind the mileage claims of every automaker selling cars in the USA. Highlights of our study: Everyone who's ever computed his own gas mileage knows the EPA figures are unrealistically high, even after they were arbitrarily "adjusted" with a 10 percent reduction in 1984. But the government mandated test regimen for measuring fuel economy is still the same dinosaur it was when originally cobbled together in 1975. So how does it deal with these newfangled "hybrid" cars? They start their testing with a fully charged battery! If the test is long enough this advantage will be minimized, but the test protocol runs for only 31 minutes in the "city" test and 12.5 minutes for "highway." Consumer Reports, on the other hand, starts their hybrid tests "with the battery at the charge level you normally find--about half." Their "city" test is not as long at 16 minutes, but "highway" is longer at 37 minutes. Larger "real-world" discrepancies exist too, like the EPA test's professional driver following a prescribed speed and acceleration curve on a dyno vs. CU's two test drivers making 6 test runs on real roads, and EPA's variable "highway" speed of 30 to 60 mph, averaging 48 vs. CU's constant 65 mph. So what's the result? Here are the tallies for select cars from Honda and Toyota:
From the chart we can see that, if you believe Consumer Reports' "real world" tests, hybrid cars 'city' fuel economy is often no better than good old fashioned gas only cars from the same maker. And no expensive, complicated, heavy, limited lifetime battery/motor system is required to achieve it. Just lightweight, aerodynamic and underpowered - the classic japanese car formula. If you really want the best gas mileage try driving slower. I typically get 26 mpg while commuting in my 6 cylinder Audi "upscale car," mostly on an interstate highway. One day I tried driving at the speed limit on every street in my route and the on-board computer reported: 30 mpg. - We're from the government, and here to help. Posted by JohnGalt at October 30, 2005 10:03 AM |
John, thanks for that post.
Even though I "work" for an oil company, and a big one at that, I'm all for increased fuel efficiency.
In addition to driving the speed limit, (crazy idea, i know), you can also accelerate slower from a stop light, as well as use cruise control on highways.
My Hemi gets 14-16 around town, because I still get a kick out of jackrabbit starts... but when I kick it in cruise control my mileage improves to 24-26. Driving it with your foot at highway speeds is very inefficient.
Posted by: AlexC at October 30, 2005 4:51 PMHah! I get 35 in my MR2.
I think we're all for efficiency if it's not mandated. The trouble is, people will just drive more.
A million Priuses are not going to put AlexC or Shiek Yerbouti out of business. A real Schumpeterian gale in that industry will require a magnitude change in mileage or a different source.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2005 10:44 AM"The trouble is...?" What are you, a social engineer? Yeah, we sure don't want people to have more choices, or have more freedom, or to LIVE more.
But let's not get sidetracked in these comments. The important revelation here is that Hybrid gasoline-electric cars are tested by the government in such a way that they "f[a]ll short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent."
They are not "magicmobiles." They do not defy physics. Energy in is still equal to energy out, no matter how many times you convert it.
Now, IF nearly all of the energy content of gasoline can be losslessly extracted as hydrogen (and that's a very big IF) then hydrogen fuel cell powered electric vehicles could pose the revolution in transportation that JK presupposes. But they'll STILL be running on the demon fluid - gasoline!
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2005 2:28 PMJust to keep things interesting around here I am going to side with johngalt against JK and second his questioning your social engineering proclivities. People will just drive more if fuel economy is raised? I gauge how far I am willing to live from my job based on time not the cost of gas. Even at a moderate 20mpg and 60 mph that is only 3 gals/ hour or $9/hr at $3/gal. I am comfortable that my time will always be worth more than the cost of gasoline. This seems analogous to the argument that if you widen roads more people will drive and you will just have traffic again.
Interesting report on fuel economy though. A friend who has a Civic hybrid says she gets 43-46 mpg in a City/Hwy mix. I can readily see how battery charge level and driving style could have a bigger effect on a hybrid than a single fuel vehicle but the 35-50% lower values seem so excessive that I have to wonder about the test parameters. I do wonder about the long term viability of hybrids though, there is a weight, cost, and complexity issue with two power sources. I think the US automakers pinned their hopes on fuel cells and largely figured hybrids as a short term stop gap measure. This may still turn out to be true, even with the current high demand for hybrids only 88,000 were sold in 2004 or 0.52% of the total market according to J.D. Powers.
Johngalt is also right in that there is no substitute for weight in the energy equation. My suggestion to all the politicians now calling for energy legislation is that first stop should be at DOT. They should add a vehicle designation between car and motorcycle and eliminate or limit the safety and emissions regulations for this class of "commuter vehicles". Our average vehicle mileage has been going down and that is attributable to the American desire for "bigness", but increasingly stringent safety and emissions standards play their part in increasing weight and decreasing efficiencies as well. Americans love their boats, their campers and their Home Depot runs but they also increasingly have 3 car garages. Instead of trying to make large do everything high mileage vehicles, make them a small, 3rd vehicle option. In other words, change the vehicle to fit the market instead of the other way around.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 31, 2005 4:21 PMThe engineers are ganging up on me again, nothing ever changes...
1) Yup, jg, poor choice of words on "the problem is..." I'm not supporting social engineering but I would like less reliance on imported oil. I don't see hybrids getting us there.
2) A clarification, Silence. You may not commute longer distances but you might buy a bigger vehicle (the hybrid may ultimately save the SUV -- take THAT Arianna!), might take a driving vacation, might sign up for a machine-gun club in Bennett after "Scalito" is confirmed, &c. My point is that the conservation clamored for will not reduce demand or consumption.
3) Your suggestion for better tinkering in the market seems okay on the surface but Yeccch! On Planet jk, car companies just make what people want to buy without shoehorning it in to CAFE slots. Let's direct our efforts at getting the gub'mint out of the car biz.
4) An upscale Audi? When did this happen?
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2005 6:16 PM1) I know you're far from a social engineer JK, I just need to point it out whenever you sound like one. And here's another: "...less reliance on imported oil." Good grief, you sound like Bill Ford Jr! Nobody is RELIANT on any oil, much less IMPORTED oil. There are plenty of other fuels out there and anyone is free to use them (unless the government gets in your way). The fact of the matter is, the most economical motor fuel is gasoline/diesel oil. As for IMPORTED oil, how is it considered "reliance" when we choose to import it at a lower cost than domestic production? That sounds more like smart shopping to me.
2) Excellent observation JK. Thanks for the clarification: Conservation (in the form of more efficiency) will not reduce demand or consumption.
4) February, 2005.
Silence, I suspect your friend's city/hwy mix is really mostly hwy. The CR "overall" number is a simple average of the city and highway numbers. People often consider their driving habits to be "mixed" city/hwy because they use both kinds of road to get to work. The key is how many times you stop and re-start, and idle. My point was why pay more for the hybrid when it's highway economy number is only 5 mpg better than gas only (vs. the 9 mpg difference advertised) and the city number is 26 vs 21 mpg (compared to the 48 mpg advertised.) Or you could pay even less and get an Insight that gets 66 hwy, 36 city!
As for your suspicion of the test parameters, how do you explain JK's MR2 getting the same city mileage in both the CR and EPA tests? There's clearly a difference in the cars as well as the tests.
Posted by: johngalt at November 1, 2005 3:15 PMI just don't see the logic that conservation will not lower consumption or demand. Are you arguing that if my current SUV gets 25 mpg that instead of trading it in for an equivalent hybrid that gets 40 mpg that I will just buy a bigger hybrid SUV and still get my 25 mpg? If those two vehicles had the same sticker price I might see some effect there, but they don't. People may not budget for gas, but they do budget for car payments. That increase from 25 mpg to 40 mpg would net you around $40 a month which won't take your from a Jeep Liberty to a Grand Cherokee, but it would buy you some leather seats, rockin' stereo, or even a machine gun rack.
My point on the DOT classifications is that once a vehicle has 4 wheels it is a car and has all the regulations therein. This actively discourages lightweight vehicle development.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 1, 2005 3:33 PMNot you, Silence, so much as you, aggregate customer. I may not truck with all of John Maynard Keynes beliefs but aggregating supply and demand has its virtues. Conservation would lower prices, which would embolden consumers to disregard gasoline costs.
I'm a small car lover but I did consider a Saturn hybrid SUV (which is not even released yet). That would have put me in a 25mpg SUV instead of the 35mpg conventional car I bought. My wife saved me from myself, she hated it.
Posted by: jk at November 3, 2005 10:17 AM | What do you think? [8]