Hybrid Cars -- a scam

[August1991]

I've been abroad in Europe for the past few weeks and I have had a rental hybrid. (Not my choice, I usually prefer diesel but this Toyota was presented as an "upgrade". Too tired to argue, I took it in part to see what these cars are like... )

Well, IMHO, they're a scam. Let me make this more clear: hybrid cars are a SCAM.

Why? Well, I'm not getting better mileage. I'm averaging around 5.2 l per 100 km. And that makes sense because I'm dragging around several bags of cement in the car: a heavy battery and an electric motor. Which is also to say, this hybrid Toyota Yaris has no acceleration. The cruise control whines going uphill - then gives up. In addition, there is no trunk space - because of the "bags of cement".

The car is boring to drive because it is an automatic. (I prefer manual.). I suppose this is because of the sophisticated torque required from gas to electric.

So where is the scam? The whole point of these cars is the silent departure from a parking space. People (kids in particular) stare at you and the car as it silently glides away. They look at the car and then the driver - and you feel like a rock star. The fact that it's a crappy small boring car with no trunk space and consumes more gas than a good diesel is irrelevant.

Something else: To lower weight, the car is fitted with a smaller gas tank - about 30 l. With a diesel, I can do 1000 km on a tank. With this mosquito-monstrosity, I stop less than half that - to buy expensive regular gasoline.

One fun thing that I have discovered (as I watched the TDI Polos go by on the hills) is that when a hybrid coasts down a hill, it charges the battery. Wow.

Edited June 10, 2014 by August1991

[TimG]

Better mileage isn't the only thing that matters:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-05/london-leads-eu-in-car-pollution-diesel-fuel-blamed

London has a dirty secret: Levels of the air pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2), as measured by a monitoring station in the central city, are the highest in Europe. Concentrations of the compound are greater even than in Beijing, where smog alerts are common.

The European Union’s fight against climate change has favored diesel over gasoline, because diesel engines burn fuel more efficiently and emit less carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading cause of global warming. But a byproduct of burning diesel is NO2. “Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their anti-CO2 agenda,” says Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word.”

I personally don't think hybrid are worth the cost given the hypothetical fuel savings today. However, in the long term hybrid technology will be key to limiting demand for oil.

Edited June 10, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The Yaris is one of the most compact of compact cars. Half the problems you complain about are due to that.

[Derek 2.0]

The wife got a Tesla sedan last summer………great car, lots of leg room and fast…Once we’ve factored in the slight increase in our hydro bill, the monthly fuel savings based on what it replaced (Cadillac ESV) halve the bi-monthly car payments……

Great higher end luxury car…….I hope the inventor becomes a zillionaire!!

[Bonam]

Great higher end luxury car…….I hope the inventor becomes a zillionaire!!

He already is (rightfully so).

[Moonlight Graham]

Any decent hybrid gets significantly better gas mileage than its all-gas counterpart.

[overthere]

Hybrids cannot save the planet because all their forward motion comes from burning hydrocarbons. All electric- like the Tesla- is the only way to go, assuming that the energy source for the charging station is not polluting or Earthraping like hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas etc.

I looked at a Toyota Highlander Hybrid recently. Research showed that the hybrid costs about $6 or $7 thousand more than the same conventional gas engine. That is about an eight year payback over normal use. Not worth it.

[GostHacked]

Any decent hybrid gets significantly better gas mileage than its all-gas counterpart.

They don't seem to get the same mileage in norther climates as it would in warm climates. Batteries don't deal with the cold very well.

[overthere]

I'm not sure why anybody would buy, fior example a Toyota Prius instead of a Corolla.

The Prius is quite a bit more costly to buy despite using much the same resources to build, and does not get much better fuel economy relatively.

[Derek 2.0]

Hybrids cannot save the planet because all their forward motion comes from burning hydrocarbons. All electric- like the Tesla- is the only way to go, assuming that the energy source for the charging station is not polluting or Earthraping like hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas etc.

Do you have any data, up or down, to prove that assertion that charging a Tesla with hydroelectricity has no net “Green benefit”?

Even with the inclusion of the eventual replacement of the batteries, I’d very much like to see the net impact on the environment of running a Tesla versus a Cadillac SUV for say a 5-10 year period

[overthere]

Do you have any data, up or down, to prove that assertion that charging a Tesla with hydroelectricity has no net “Green benefit”?

Even with the inclusion of the eventual replacement of the batteries, I’d very much like to see the net impact on the environment of running a Tesla versus a Cadillac SUV for say a 5-10 year period

I said polluting or Earthraping. Hydro produces no GHG, but the damage to the ecosystems up and downstream from dams is substantial.

[dre]

Do you have any data, up or down, to prove that assertion that charging a Tesla with hydroelectricity has no net “Green benefit”?

Even with the inclusion of the eventual replacement of the batteries, I’d very much like to see the net impact on the environment of running a Tesla versus a Cadillac SUV for say a 5-10 year period

Of course he doesnt... And hes ignoring the fact that even relatively dirty centralized energy plants produce much less pollution per unit of energy generated than an internal combustion engine.

Environmental Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

The other thing people ignore is that hybrid and electric cars can make use of off-peak production, and would also represent a significant grid-storage component. Even if electric cars saw widespread adoption we would not necessarily have to build a single new plant to power them.

The thing to keep in mind is that EV's are only one component of a bigger system. They need to be properly integrated into the grid to get the full advantage.

Never mind the fact that electric motors produce a much more utilitarian torque curve. In most applications a 10hp electric motor can replace a 15hp gasoline motor. And they only have a single moving part compared to a ICE that has hundreds of them. Once perfected these engines will last much longer, and require a lot less maintenance and repairs.

Edited June 12, 2014 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

The short and mid term (negative) environmental impact of new automobile manufacturing (hybrid or otherwise) is greater than the impact of an existing LEV or ULEV gasoline/diesel car. The "greenest" solution is a used, high mpg automobile in good working order.

[Moonbox]

I said polluting or Earthraping. Hydro produces no GHG, but the damage to the ecosystems up and downstream from dams is substantial.

but still so far ahead of any other available technology in providing clean energy that it's barely even worth mentioning.

[The_Squid]

The wife got a Tesla sedan last summer………great car, lots of leg room and fast…Once we’ve factored in the slight increase in our hydro bill, the monthly fuel savings based on what it replaced (Cadillac ESV) halve the bi-monthly car payments……

Great higher end luxury car…….I hope the inventor becomes a zillionaire!!

I'm jealous! Sweet car... and no one can hear you coming!

[August1991]

The Yaris is one of the most compact of compact cars. Half the problems you complain about are due to that.

I once thought that there were 2 distinct Yaris models: sedan and hatchback. I drove a 5-door Yaris and liked it. The sightlines were good: no blindspots. The car was not the problem.

Any decent hybrid gets significantly better gas mileage than its all-gas counterpart.

MG, other posters have asked you for supporting data. I have no data to that you are wrong except my own genuine, experience of driving a hybrid. I got about 5.2 litres / 100 km with a mix of highway/city driving. (More highway than city). The car was newish: about 12,000 km.

Before driving the car, I was intrigued with this technology. Now I realize that it's a fraud.

[August1991]

...but the damage to the ecosystems up and downstream from dams is substantial.

So according to you, overthere, the various blockages (eg. Niagara Falls) left by the last ice age harms the environment.

Ontario has lakes; Quebec has rivers. This is an accident of receding glaciers some 15,000 years ago.

The Great Lakes are hydro dams by any other name.

[dre]

The short and mid term (negative) environmental impact of new automobile manufacturing (hybrid or otherwise) is greater than the impact of an existing LEV or ULEV gasoline/diesel car. The "greenest" solution is a used, high mpg automobile in good working order.

No the greenest solution is to help advance the development of greener technologies.

[dre]

I once thought that there were 2 distinct Yaris models: sedan and hatchback. I drove a 5-door Yaris and liked it. The sightlines were good: no blindspots. The car was not the problem.

MG, other posters have asked you for supporting data. I have no data to that you are wrong except my own genuine, experience of driving a hybrid. I got about 5.2 litres / 100 km with a mix of highway/city driving. (More highway than city). The car was newish: about 12,000 km.

Before driving the car, I was intrigued with this technology. Now I realize that it's a fraud.

I dont think your experience is geniune at all. And your juvenile usage of terms like "scam" and "fraud" suggest to me you already had your mind made up going in. Its pretty clear that you havent done any of the analysis and hard work that would be required to make any credible conclusions about hybrid cars.

[Moonlight Graham]

I once thought that there were 2 distinct Yaris models: sedan and hatchback. I drove a 5-door Yaris and liked it. The sightlines were good: no blindspots. The car was not the problem.

MG, other posters have asked you for supporting data. I have no data to that you are wrong except my own genuine, experience of driving a hybrid. I got about 5.2 litres / 100 km with a mix of highway/city driving. (More highway than city). The car was newish: about 12,000 km.

Before driving the car, I was intrigued with this technology. Now I realize that it's a fraud.

Compare the 2014 Honda Accord 4-cylinder regular engine to the 2014 Accord Hybrid 4 cylinder model: Link

Also compare the 2014 Ford Fusion 4-cylinder regular gas engine model to the 2014 Fusion 4-cylinder hybrid model: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Ford_Fusion.shtml

Some cars don't get quite the same results, including the Yaris it seems. Toyota's website says their 2014 Yaris 1.5L Hybrid gets 3.5 L/100km while the 1.4L non-hybrid 2014 Yaris gets 4.0 L/100km. (can't link to it, just go on their site and try to build a car with those options). I wouldn't say that difference is all that impressive, but the hybrid does have a 1.5L engine compared to the 1.4L for whatever reason (there's no 2014 1.5L non-Hybrid Yaris so that might account for a bit of difference (or lack of). Maybe a car so small and fuel efficient as a Yaris isn't going to see as much benefit when "upgrading" to its hybrid counterpart.

[Bonam]

Some cars don't get quite the same results, including the Yaris it seems. Toyota's website says their 2014 Yaris 1.5L Hybrid gets 3.5 L/100km while the 1.4L non-hybrid 2014 Yaris gets 4.0 L/100km. (can't link to it, just go on their site and try to build a car with those options). I wouldn't say that difference is all that impressive, but the hybrid does have a 1.5L engine compared to the 1.4L for whatever reason (there's no 2014 1.5L non-Hybrid Yaris so that might account for a bit of difference (or lack of). Maybe a car so small and fuel efficient as a Yaris isn't going to see as much benefit when "upgrading" to its hybrid counterpart.

Where do you get those numbers? Everything I see stated about the Yaris is closer to 6 L/100km.

http://www.toyota.ca/toyota/en/vehicles/yaris-hatchback/features/benefits/performance

"When you're talking performance, you also have to look at how a vehicle performs at the pumps. Here as well, Yaris Hatchback truly shines – with a fuel efficiency rating of 6.6L/100 km city, 5.2L/100 km highway (manual), or 6.8L/100 km city, 5.5L/100 km highway (automatic).^"

[TimG]

Where do you get those numbers? Everything I see stated about the Yaris is closer to 6 L/100km.

He is talking about the UK version which appears to have a different way to be measure:

http://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/yaris-specs-prices

On the same page you can see the hybrid about 40% better.

Edited June 12, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

He is talking about the UK version which appears to have a different way to be measure:

http://www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/yaris-specs-prices

On the same page you can see the hybrid about 40% better.

Hmm whatever method they are using to measure must be pretty wrong and useless since they never get anywhere close to that kind of efficiency in practice. Even reaching the efficiency claimed on the Canadian or US sites (which is supposed to be a real life fuel efficiency) is far from assured.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Bonam

[TimG]

Hmm whatever method they are using to measure must be pretty wrong and useless since they never get anywhere close to that kind of efficiency in practice. Even reaching the efficiency claimed on the Canadian or US sites (which is supposed to be a real life fuel efficiency) is far from assured.

It does not really matter as long as it is consistent and allows comparisons between cars. No matter what the test it will not represent reality 3+ years later as normal use takes its toll.

[Bonam]

It does not really matter as long as it is consistent and allows comparisons between cars. No matter what the test it will not represent reality 3+ years later as normal use takes its toll.

As long as there is a correlation between the test and real life usage... sure. But if the test does not correlate well with real usage, then some models that do better in the test may actually be less efficient in real use than others that did worse on the test, and that is problematic for obvious reasons. Also issuing a rating like 3.5 L / 100 km for a car that is almost never under any circumstance going to see a better efficiency than maybe 5 L / 100 km just seems like a dishonest and incorrect rating.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Bonam