Hybrid car makers step up the acceleration over fuel efficiency

[Itsme]

Just crazy........will we ever learn?

================================================

Hybrid car makers step up the acceleration over fuel efficiency

By Matthew L. Wald
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

July 17, 2005

WASHINGTON – Mark Buford is happy with the Honda Accord hybrid that he bought six months ago, and he has already driven it 13,000 miles. He was determined to buy a hybrid electric car, he said, and this one is clean, "green" and accelerates faster than the nonhybrid version. He just cannot count on it to save much gasoline.

Many people concerned with oil consumption, including President Bush and members of Congress, are pointing to hybrids – vehicles with electric motors as well as internal combustion engines – as a way to reduce fuel use and dependence on imported oil.

The first ones to reach the market did that; the two-seat Honda Insight, introduced in December 1999, was rated at 70 miles per gallon and was followed by the five-seat Toyota Prius, also built for reduced fuel consumption. Those cars have no nonhybrid equivalents.

Then came the Civic hybrid, designed to perform almost as well as the original, only using a lot less gasoline.

But the pendulum has swung. The 2005 Honda Accord hybrid gets about the same miles per gallon as the basic four-cylinder model, according to a review by Consumer Reports, and it saves only about 2 mpg compared with the V-6 model on which it is based. Thanks to the hybrid technology, though, it accelerates better.

Hybrid technology, it seems, is being used in much the same way as other under-the-hood innovations that increased gasoline efficiency: to satisfy the American appetite for acceleration and bulk.

Despite the use of hybrids to achieve better performance with the same fuel economy, consumers who buy the cars continue to get a tax credit that the Internal Revenue Service allows under a "clean fuels" program that does not take fuel savings into account.

And the image of hybrids as fuel-stingy workhorses persists.

In a June 15 speech at an energy forum, Bush proposed a tax credit of up to $4,000 to "encourage people to make right choices in the marketplace that will make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil and to help improve our environment."

But some hybrids save hardly any fuel, energy efficiency advocates say.

"The new ones are all being used for power," said Kateri Callahan, the president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington.

Hybrids should be encouraged, Callahan said, because their electric components some day could be useful in an all-electric car, perhaps running on a fuel cell.

But she added that the government should be careful about which hybrids it subsidizes through tax benefits. Now, she said, the car companies are "building to the high-end market. They think people want performance."

The companies may have sized up their customers well. Buford, for example, bought his Accord hybrid in January, a month after the model came out, replacing a 2001 Accord coupe.

Buford, a telecommunications analyst at Kraft Foods who works in the Chicago area, said he decided on a hybrid because he wanted to "go green," although he added, "I wasn't willing to make any of the trade-offs normally associated with a hybrid."

Buford said he expected that when he files his taxes next April, the purchase will cut his tax bill by about $600. The tax credit will start being phased out in 2006.

[LPMiller]

yeah, the accord hybrid is a waste of the extra 10 grand it costs.

[bachviet]

yeah, the accord hybrid is a waste of the extra 10 grand it costs.
Where do you get the extra $10K from? Comparing to the Accord V6 EX, it costs about $3K more. :shrug:

[DarkFury]

Here's the question though... is the "hybrid" fuel cheaper than conventional gas?

If so... then ok, that's a good thing. You don't lose the performance you expect from a car and you don't burn as much "gas"... However if electricity costs equal or more than gas to put in the vehicle... then folks just ain't gonna go for it. :shrug:

[Bires]

Here's the question though... is the "hybrid" fuel cheaper than conventional gas?

If so... then ok, that's a good thing. You don't lose the performance you expect from a car and you don't burn as much "gas"... However if electricity costs equal or more than gas to put in the vehicle... then folks just ain't gonna go for it. :shrug:


What? :confused:

[Airencracken]

87 instead of 91

[Houdini]

I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. They're comparing the hybrid Accord to the 4 cyl and the 6 cyl Accord models. If the hybrid technology is being used to increase performance over the 6 cyl with only a modest fuel savings compared to a non-hybrid equivalent (competing model), wouldn't that make it more attractive than a non-hybrid with equal performance and worse fuel economy?

[LPMiller]

Where do you get the extra $10K from? Comparing to the Accord V6 EX, it costs about $3K more. :shrug:


Only the article is comparing it to the 4 cycl one, and that's a 10 grand difference at my dealer. They get the same gas milege, but the hybrid one has a little more accell off the line. The 4 banger sounds better though.


Here's the question though... is the "hybrid" fuel cheaper than conventional gas?

If so... then ok, that's a good thing. You don't lose the performance you expect from a car and you don't burn as much "gas"... However if electricity costs equal or more than gas to put in the vehicle... then folks just ain't gonna go for it. :shrug:


Uh, they both use gas, man.

[Airencracken]

87 instead of 91

Octane that is.

[DarkFury]

What? :confused:



Uh, they both use gas, man.

Yes.. but you'd think that the hybrid uses LESS gas than the conventional motor.

There is a difference if you go 300 miles on 15 gallons of gas versus 300 miles on 7.5 gallons of gas and 7.5 gallons of (gas equivalent) if the "gas equivalent" is cheaper/eco friendly compared to gas.

Do you guys understand where I am coming from now? :shrug:

[bachviet]

Only the article is comparing it to the 4 cycl one, and that's a 10 grand difference at my dealer. They get the same gas milege, but the hybrid one has a little more accell off the line. The 4 banger sounds better though.




Uh, they both use gas, man.

Comparing to the 4-cyl on gas but not the performance. It outperforms the regular automatic V6. It's a V6 hybrid so you can't compare it to a 4-cyl. You don't compare prices between a 4-cyl and a 6-cyl. :shrug:

[Houdini]

All the hybrids can do is offer better fuel (gas) efficiency via alternate power. If, by enhancing the performance of a car, making it much more powerful on the same or less amount of fuel, that's a good thing, no? Why should it matter if your target is performance or distance? The technology can be used for both. And as the technology progresses, the distance/gal winners will benefit from increased performance.

I guess my point is that the guy who buys the Accord hybrid b/c it offers superior performance to either the Accord 4cyl or V6 could just as easily buy a competing gas guzzling sportier car with the same performance stats. Now, thanks to the hybrid system, he can buy a car with better gas mileage than his ideal V8 racer while retaining performance. That sounds like a damn good use of the technology to me.

[InfiniteNothing]

I guess my point is that the guy who buys the Accord hybrid b/c it offers superior performance to either the Accord 4cyl or V6 could just as easily buy a competing gas guzzling sportier car with the same performance stats. Now, thanks to the hybrid system, he can buy a car with better gas mileage than his ideal V8 racer while retaining performance. That sounds like a damn good use of the technology to me.

He gets 2 mpg more in the hybrid over the V6 (25 vs 23 Source:CR). That will take a while to pay off the 3K price hike. The performance hike over the V6 is marginal: half a second in 0-60 (6.9 seconds). Not really anywhere close to a modern "gas guzzler" like the 350Z (22 MPG, 27K, 5.4 0-60)


Here's the question though... is the "hybrid" fuel cheaper than conventional gas?

If so... then ok, that's a good thing. You don't lose the performance you expect from a car and you don't burn as much "gas"... However if electricity costs equal or more than gas to put in the vehicle... then folks just ain't gonna go for it. :shrug:

Dude, the electricity is free... you don't plug current hybrids in (though that will be the way of the future).

[mcs328]

So the hybrid accord is based on a v6 model where it saves 2mpg and accelerates better. However compared to the 4 cyclinder the mpg are the same but it doesn't mention performace but I would guess be better?

hybrid > V6 = 3k more?
hybrid => 4 cyl = 10k more?

[InfiniteNothing]

So the hybrid accord is based on a v6 model where it saves 2mpg and accelerates better. However compared to the 4 cyclinder the mpg are the same but it doesn't mention performace but I would guess be better?

hybrid > V6 = 3k more?
hybrid => 4 cyl = 10k more?
Yeah $3,300 on the V6 and $7,100 for the I4 with similar options. Though the nonhybrid comes with XM radio apparently (I'm not sure how much that adds or if it's even an option on the hybrid)

[DarkFury]

Dude, the electricity is free... you don't plug current hybrids in (though that will be the way of the future).
So basically, you are backin' up what I was saying in relation to the 2 vehicles...

The hybrid still uses less "gas" to do the same thing as a regular conventional car.

[InfiniteNothing]

So basically, you are backin' up what I was saying in relation to the 2 vehicles...

The hybrid still uses less "gas" to do the same thing as a regular conventional car.

Yes. I just wanted to point out that the electricity to power the car is "free".

[InfiniteNothing]

Octane that is.

Both use 87

[Grimm]

So basically, you are backin' up what I was saying in relation to the 2 vehicles...

The hybrid still uses less "gas" to do the same thing as a regular conventional car.
No, you don't understand the article. All the electricity the car uses is generated by gasoline. What it does is capture energy that would normaly be wasted. For example, when braking, instead of using friction, it engages a motor that draws energy kinetic energy from the car, slowing it down. This energy is stored as electricity and used for acceleration.

The hybrid car gets the same, or close to the same gas mileage as the non-hybrid car. It burns the same amount of gasoline over the same distance that a non-hybrid would use.


Ok, here is where the real fuel savings come in. The people buying these hybrids want a certain amount of acceleration. They would not buy a similar non-hybrid car because it can not accelerate as well as they want. They would buy a less fuel efficent car than the comperable non-hybrid car.

[Houdini]

Ok, here is where the real fuel savings come in. The people buying these hybrids want a certain amount of acceleration. They would not buy a similar non-hybrid car because it can not accelerate as well as they want. They would buy a less fuel efficent car than the comperable non-hybrid car.

So they get better performance for the same amount of fuel. That sounds good to me. I like cars, and I like performance. If performance is more important to me than gas mileage, but I also don't want a gas guzzler, I may opt for a hybrid-enhanced system.

As far as plugging in cars, I'm not a fan. I think the hybrid idea is the way to go. While total-electric cars are very clean, the processes used to generate power for them aren't. If everyone plugged in their cars, the extra power demand would be tremendous. So pollution would summarily increase significantly. Electric cars don't stop pollution - they just move it.


He gets 2 mpg more in the hybrid over the V6 (25 vs 23 Source:CR). That will take a while to pay off the 3K price hike. The performance hike over the V6 is marginal: half a second in 0-60 (6.9 seconds). Not really anywhere close to a modern "gas guzzler" like the 350Z (22 MPG, 27K, 5.4 0-60)


No, it's not great, but it's definitely an improvement both in efficiency and performance. It's a step in the right direction, and not a bad showing for the first hybrid to stress performance. I'd expect less marginal improvements in the future.


Both use 87

That's cool. My current ride only drinks 91+. So I'm paying out the arse for premium. :(

[bachviet]

If I want a gas saving car, I would never go with a hybrid right now since I could get a 40 mpg Civic HX for $14K. It probably performs the same as the Prius without a $21K pricetag with a little lower mileage. I would never make the $7K difference on gas since I only drive around less than 10K miles a year.

[InfiniteNothing]

So they get better performance for the same amount of fuel. That sounds good to me. I like cars, and I like performance. If performance is more important to me than gas mileage, but I also don't want a gas guzzler, I may opt for a hybrid-enhanced system.

As far as plugging in cars, I'm not a fan. I think the hybrid idea is the way to go. While total-electric cars are very clean, the processes used to generate power for them aren't. If everyone plugged in their cars, the extra power demand would be tremendous. So pollution would summarily increase significantly. Electric cars don't stop pollution - they just move it.

There's this really neat program some places in Cali where you can opt for $.25 more or so (per kWh) for electricity and they provide a cleaner blend of electricity that comes from wind, nuclear, water, methane, etc. Seems like a good option for environmental reasons as global warming is going to become a bigger player 10 years down the road. I do, however, think hybrids are a great transition option for totally electric vehicles in the future.


No, it's not great, but it's definitely an improvement both in efficiency and performance. It's a step in the right direction, and not a bad showing for the first hybrid to stress performance. I'd expect less marginal improvements in the future.


I'd say, at this point, the marginal gains do not offset the not so marginal price tag increase at all. Certainly a good attempt though. I'd be quite interested in a hybrid only platform with better performance than the hybrid accord (think volta ;)... for now I'm thinking about a turbocharged insight)

[LPMiller]

Comparing to the 4-cyl on gas but not the performance. It outperforms the regular automatic V6. It's a V6 hybrid so you can't compare it to a 4-cyl. You don't compare prices between a 4-cyl and a 6-cyl. :shrug:


No, but you do compare prices on different models of accords. When you add in the maintence of a hybrid versus a standard model, spending the money to get 2 extra miles and a little more acell hardly seems worth it.

[DarkFury]

No, you don't understand the article. All the electricity the car uses is generated by gasoline. What it does is capture energy that would normaly be wasted. For example, when braking, instead of using friction, it engages a motor that draws energy kinetic energy from the car, slowing it down. This energy is stored as electricity and used for acceleration.

The hybrid car gets the same, or close to the same gas mileage as the non-hybrid car. It burns the same amount of gasoline over the same distance that a non-hybrid would use.


Ok, here is where the real fuel savings come in. The people buying these hybrids want a certain amount of acceleration. They would not buy a similar non-hybrid car because it can not accelerate as well as they want. They would buy a less fuel efficent car than the comperable non-hybrid car. I guess so... but honestly, even the Honda V6 conventional gets pretty good gas mileage in my opinion so using this technology to get more performance when normally you would have to go buy a much bigger engine probably would still justify the use of hybrid technology.

I still don't see what the fuss is about... People like fast cars. Now they have a fast, "somewhat eco friendly" option. :heh:

If the "penny pinchers" and "greenies" want their uber efficient versions... then they are still out there as well. :D

[Houdini]

I guess so... but honestly, even the Honda V6 conventional gets pretty good gas mileage in my opinion so using this technology to get more performance when normally you would have to go buy a much bigger engine probably would still justify the use of hybrid technology.

I still don't see what the fuss is about... People like fast cars. Now they have a fast, "somewhat eco friendly" option. :heh:

If the "penny pinchers" and "greenies" want their uber efficient versions... then they are still out there as well. :D

:stupid:

[bachviet]

No, but you do compare prices on different models of accords. When you add in the maintence of a hybrid versus a standard model, spending the money to get 2 extra miles and a little more acell hardly seems worth it.
What different maintenance are you speaking of beside the battery? The battery has an 8-year warranty so I don't even worry about that. :shrug:

BTW spending $3K more to get the car 0.5 sec faster and more mileage is worth the $$$.

[InfiniteNothing]

What different maintenance are you speaking of beside the battery? The battery has an 8-year warranty so I don't even worry about that. :shrug:

BTW spending $3K more to get the car 0.5 sec faster and more mileage is worth the $$$.
You have to take it into a hybrid specialist

2 mpg and .5 seconds :rolleyes: I guess it's your money to blow .

[bachviet]

You have to take it into a hybrid specialist

2 mpg and .5 seconds :rolleyes: I guess it's your money to blow .
Do you know how much it takes to get an automatic Honda Accord V6 0.5 seconds faster? Performance parts are not cheap and some parts will void the warranty. The hybrid offers better performance with better mileage with factory warranty. I would not sacrify performance for gas mileage so an 11-seconds-0-60 Prius is not going to do it.

[booger73]

I say go Diesel (or soon to be, biodiesel) - you can pick up your fuel at mcdonalds or help out soybean farmers:
http://www.biodiesel.com

Good power, long distances (49mpg+), and much more reliable than a hybrid (Diesel engine life = 200-300,000+ miles).

Mercedes E320 cdi diesel sedan: Very nice.

http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050520.003/mercedes/1.html