# Toyota prius a guzzler?



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

Apples and oranges! Compare a Diesel, higher price by 14-20% for fuel, and 6,500 british pounds higher priced. Run at 75 mph for 545 miles, not in the real world!
My Prius gets as high as 60 mpg avg and its only a little over two months old. They tend to improve as they "break-in" according to other prius owners. Lets test it against a Ferrari next and see if we can knock its for lack of sports car thrill!


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

oldtimer said:


> Run at 75 mph for 545 miles, not in the real world!


Doesn't get much more real world than this . That route is 812 miles long, includes 70-80 mph freeways and never leaves Texas.

I've made that trip. In the real world!


----------



## e_canuck (May 8, 2008)

Hi Tx.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=d&sadd...576526,-84.550781&spn=13.550191,28.300781&z=5

never leaves Ontario. Did that twice driving from MOntréal to Winnipeg.

Ontario is 1.54 time bigger than Texas.

Sorry,

DP


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

So what MPGs did you guys get with your trips?


----------



## e_canuck (May 8, 2008)

I have no idea.

I was going anyway. With the wife three kids and everything that comes with that. Now thats a real life trip. In a Toyota Van. Big hills around lake Superior. I do'nt think there is a single flat spot. Probably no better than 8 litres per 100km.

DP


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Oh, so you were not in a prius. I understood from your reply that you had one.

No long road trips that I've done yet. But this is my trip every week normally:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Average 22 MPG empty and 15 towing at a constant 70 MPH

I guess that works out to 10.69L/100KM empty and 15.68 L/100KM towing at a speed of 114.6 KPH.

Its given me the rare opportunity to fine tune the vehicle and the powertrain configuration to see what works best to stretch every liter (messing with timing curve at the moment). I average my fuel economy over both directions to get the accurate average. Wind tends to blow generally north and heading home I have touched 25 MPG once.

And yeah, lots of hills here too. There is no real flat ground, just long shallow hills.

EDIT: never mind the link, It would seem that google maps are beyond my ability at the moment.

The trip is 360KM combined from campbell river to south nanaimo and back.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

Okay, so we've all made a long haul every once in a while, but in the "real world" the average driver drives less than 40 miles a day, and average mileage, acccording to N.A.D.A. is still 12,000 miles a year. To make a 812 mile daily commute, you would have to average 67.67 mph for 24 hour straight, non stop - not for fuel, food, bathrooms, driver changes,sleep, etc., and you would put over 420,000 miles a year on your vehicle(s), based on a 5 day week, 52 weeks a year.
You don't need a car, you need a private jet!


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> So what MPGs did you guys get with your trips?


Oh, I'd say approximately 17. 

(Sorry, couldn't resist. See it the good way, now noone else has to loose 'cause I've already taken that place...)


----------



## Jeremy (Jul 12, 2008)

The snag with comparisons like this is that they miss the point, by making an inherently flawed choice of vehicles to compare and not realising that the type of journey has a major impact on hybrid performance.

I owned a Prius for three years. For the commute I was doing (average speed 40mph, average journey length about 40 miles, 20,000 miles+ per year) the Prius was a real money saver.

The saving didn't come wholly from fuel consumption though.

The road tax for it was £15 (~$30) per year, whereas my current diesel is £170 (~$340) per year, so the Prius saved me around £155 (~$310) per year in tax.

Every trip into London in the Prius was free, as it's congestion charge exempt. This saves £8 (~$16) per day for each trip.

My average fuel consumption in the Prius was around 58mpg, in a diesel it would have been approximately the same, but because diesel is approximately 10% more expensive than petrol there was a significant saving in fuel costs.

Overall, the Prius saved me around £800 (~$1600) per year compared with the costs I'd have incurred with a similar performance diesel.

Now that my commute has changed to a very much shorter trip, with no excursions into London, the Prius simply doesn't make sense economically, so I've traded it in for a diesel.

Jeremy


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

david85 said:


> As I've said before, cities, advantage hybrids.
> Highways, advantage diesels.


Saying it doesn't make it true. Not all hybrids are the same. The Prius does better in the city than it does on the highway because of its low speed electric-only mode. Honda's IMA system is very different than Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive, and as a result, Honda hybrids do very well on the highway. The Civic Hybrid has a combined EPA score that is lower than the Prius, but if you look at "real world" figures at greenhybrid.com you see the Civic matches the Prius. And they're both in the range of the diesels for MPG but produce much less pollution.



oldtimer said:


> Lets test it against a Ferrari next and see if we can knock its for lack of sports car thrill!


Indeed! Let's flip this one around. Drive that Bimmer under 65mph, pull out some ecodriving techniques such as driving with load up hills, coasting and moderate accelleration and see if it can "hang with" the Prius which will get 60-something MPG (US) in those conditions.

Show me a small Diesel that does 0-60 in 10 seconds or less, gets 70+ MPG (US) at 65 MPH and produces less pollution than my Honda Insight, and I'll trade.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

oldtimer said:


> Okay, so we've all made a long haul every once in a while, but in the "real world" the average driver drives less than 40 miles a day, and average mileage, acccording to N.A.D.A. is still 12,000 miles a year. To make a 812 mile daily commute, you would have to average 67.67 mph for 24 hour straight, non stop - not for fuel, food, bathrooms, driver changes,sleep, etc., and you would put over 420,000 miles a year on your vehicle(s), based on a 5 day week, 52 weeks a year.
> You don't need a car, you need a private jet!


Correct, the average driver actually drives less than 30 miles a day, based on figures I've seen for years.

Until earlier this year, I spent the last 3 years driving about 60 miles a day, drove about 25,000 miles in my truck alone last year- not counting motorcycle miles. Drove about 35,000 miles the year before, counting motorcycle miles.

And truck drivers have a "daily commute" of 500-800 miles daily, on a good day... And they get far worse mileage than a Prius.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

now your comparison is more like apples to zuchini! What difference does LD Truckers in big rigs have to a daily commuter? If you want to add to a discussion, try to stay on track, please. If you just like to argue, no problem, I'll put you in touch with the Missus, she never concedes a point, right or wrong! LOL


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

oldtimer said:


> now your comparison is more like apples to zuchini! What difference does LD Truckers in big rigs have to a daily commuter? If you want to add to a discussion, try to stay on track, please. If you just like to argue, no problem, I'll put you in touch with the Missus, she never concedes a point, right or wrong! LOL


You can argue it in many ways. The most obvious way is to base it on raw MPGs and only consider one fuel type. But thats not the whole picture, and no, we are not trying to argue.

Consider a toyota prius rinning at 60 MPH on the highway. Say its getting 60 MPG. The car weighs 2921lbs (give or take).

Now consider a highway rig thats traveling the same speed fully loaded to 80 000 lbs worth of fuel, trailer and cargo Getting 5 MPG.

Which one is more fuel efficient?

The truck is moving far more weight and pushing far more air out of its way, equivalent weight of 27 hybrid prius cars, but the raw MPGs are always going to be better with a prius on a 1 to 1 vehicle ratio. However.....

27 prius hybrids would get only 2.2222...... MPG to have enough of them on the road to match the mass that the big rig is moving. If the prius was in fact as efficient as the highway rig, it would get 135 MPG instead of 60.

Yes the rig uses diesel fuel, but the difference in fuel price and BTUs/gallon does not make up that much of the difference. I feel a hybrid should be able to do better than this yet it doesn't. This is why I have limited respect for the prius as an advanced car.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

And that's kind-of my point, David... Sure, that 80k lbs semi @ 5 mpg is only carrying 1 or 2 people, but it's carrying loads of goods as well, and for what it is and what it weighs, it's actually more efficient than a Prius.

And while we're getting tangential on hybrids... Anyone seen Peterbilt's hybrid lineup? I think they're due to ship the first models any day now... I think they're supposed to get about 10 mpg.

Even still, Pete used to make a great tractor back in the day that would get 11 mpg @ full 80k lbs... but it was "ugly" and "unusual" being a rounded-nose cab-over, and most people didn't like them... SO that kind-of leads us into the "prius is just hype because other non-hybrids in history have had far better mileage" such as the original CRX or the Metro Xi or whatever it was called... the latter two would get 54-56 mpg on the freeway, without big price tags and flashy technology.


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

david85 said:


> I feel a hybrid should be able to do better than this yet it doesn't. This is why I have limited respect for the prius as an advanced car.


*Hybrid and Prius are not synonymous.* My hybrid does much better MPG-wise on the highway than a Prius. And since when is MPG the measuring stick for automobile technology? If only...

Besides, your analysis is flawed. You counted the curb weight of the Prii, but used the "fully loaded" weight of the truck.

Freight trains, the majority of which are Diesel-electric series hybrids, are probably much more efficient than tractor trailers, but I haven't found MPG figures on them yet.



TX_Dj said:


> SO that kind-of leads us into the "prius is just hype because other non-hybrids in history have had far better mileage" such as the original CRX or the Metro Xi or whatever it was called... the latter two would get 54-56 mpg on the freeway, without big price tags and flashy technology.


Neither the CRX, nor the Metro would seat 5 with room for luggage like the Prius does. Neither had air bags, ABS, navigation system, etc. etc. etc. that the Prius has. Neither would get to 60 MPH in under 11 seconds like the Prius can, and the Metro would be spewing plumes of black smoke if you tried. Also, the CRX and Metro probably would not meet current emmisions regulations.

Find a fair comparison, guys.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Rolls Kinardly said:


> Besides, your analysis is flawed. You counted the curb weight of the Prii, but used the "fully loaded" weight of the truck.


Alright then, lets assume the prius is 3795lbs instead. http://autos.aol.com/cars-Toyota-Prius-2007/specs

That means the rig weighs as much as 21.08 fully loaded prius cars.

It still only brings the equivalent MPG up to 2.84635 MPG instead of 5 or 10 if you believe the claims of the manufacturer.

You are also correct about diesel locomotives being a better design. Indeed they are usually equipped with EMD powertrains which in my opinion is more a hybrid system than parallel hybrid cars we are being sold right now. If offers an infinitely variable gear ratio, and transfers energy to the wheels more efficiently than gears and shafts like in a car or hybrid car. Net efficiency from the crank shaft to the rails is said to be over 35%.

I remember reading that a locomotive pulling 5 loaded cars can get around 5 MPG, but thats not very specific, If you know more I'd like to learn about it. Also, the steel wheels reduce rolling resistance compared to rubber wheels, so its not really a fair comparison. Emissions regulations are also different on a locomotive. But highway rigs are now held to the same standards as gasoline cars. Particulate emissions must be zero on all new highway diesels legal sold in north america, even Nox will have to be scrubbed in the next couple of years.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Rolls Kinardly said:


> Neither the CRX, nor the Metro would seat 5 with room for luggage like the Prius does. Neither had air bags, ABS, navigation system, etc. etc. etc. that the Prius has. Neither would get to 60 MPH in under 11 seconds like the Prius can, and the Metro would be spewing plumes of black smoke if you tried. Also, the CRX and Metro probably would not meet current emmisions regulations.
> 
> Find a fair comparison, guys.


When was the last time someone seated 5 in a vehicle capable of such? My Tacoma is technically capable of seating 5, and in the 30,000 miles on its clock, about 8 of that was spent carrying 5 people. Most of the time it just carries myself and the dog, or a friend and 2 dogs.

How many people on the road today drive vehicles capable of carrying 5+ people yet spend so little time actually doing so? It doesn't negate the fact that there is something that would be more efficient out there.

As for mandatory safety equipment - The CRX stopped production in 1992, and was required as of 1989 to have either automatic seat belts or drivers side air bags. The Geo Metro began manufacture in 1989 and ended in 2001. It is a safe bet that they had sufficient safety equipment to meet the year of manufacture requirements, and that they could meet them if produced today.

I have no need for ABS (actually hate it, except on motorcycles) nor navigation systems, etc etc etc... Nor do I really need to go 0-60 in zippy-fast fashion either.

I'm comparing a day-one brand new Prius to a day-one brand new (whatever), not something that has been ill-maintained and "spewing black smoke."

Fact still remains- there are non-hybrids that have been produced that were more economical than today's hybrids... But I guess nobody wants to hear about pure gas-powered vehicles which were reasonably priced when new that can compete with grossly overpriced high-tech hybrids, so I'll check out now.

Like I remind the people who park in the EV parking at Fry's Electronics with their hybrids... if you put gas in it, it's not an electric vehicle.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

if you want hauling capacity as a point to measure by, why not just go straight to a Boeing 777 or larger?
the original discussion was Prius vs Diesel automobiles on a road test. I think the test was skewed toward the diesel but thats just my opinion.
As to what perfection might be, we aren't dealing with what might be in the future, we're (or at I am) concerned with whats available TODAY! For now the Prius is the hands down, U.S. EPA certified mileage leader for consumer automobiles. And since I live in the U.S. thats what I'm interested in, not whats available in EUR or Japan or China, etc.,. If and when someone brings out an auto that makes financial sense for me over the Prius, I'll sell the Prius ( it will probably still bring list price) and buy it.
If we are just yacking about best, cheapest transportation, why not walk? or Bike, or ride a horse, donkey, mule, etc,.? And with the animals you get free fertilizer, although some of us seem to have a goodly supply already. LOL


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I regret that this discussion has taken a personal turn. 

This was not my intention and I have done my best to explain why I feel the way I do by trying to back up my points with evidence. Diesel engines in fact do produce more power for the amount of fuel burned than gasoline engines, they are capable of matching the fuel economy of hybrids and they will compete with them in the near future at the same emission standards.

The point I was trying to make is that the best combination would be a diesel series hybrid (similar to EMD locomotives), but as TX_Dj has also found with his own points, it would seem that others do not want to hear the other view and would rather mock or dismiss other ideas instead.

I was glad to have views from people that have driven the vehicle in question. It was my hope that this could be an exchange of ideas, but thats not how it turned out.


----------



## mark1030 (Jul 28, 2008)

Rolls Kinardly said:


> Freight trains, the majority of which are Diesel-electric series hybrids, are probably much more efficient than tractor trailers, but I haven't found MPG figures on them yet.


Looks like it's something along the lines of 436 MPG:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_freight_train_really_move_a.html



excerpt said:


> According to our calculations, which match the AAR's tally exactly, the nation's seven major railroad companies reported the following for 2007:
> 
> 
> Moving 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight
> ...


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

TX_Dj said:


> When was the last time someone seated 5 in a vehicle capable of such?


Whether people use the capabilities is beside my point. You compared the Prius to a CRX, saying they got basically the same MPG. True, but the Prius gets that MPG while providing much better performance, safety and comfort. Not a fair comparison. And if you've ever driven a Metro, you know that, black smoke or not, a Prius is a sports car by comparison.




TX_Dj said:


> As for mandatory safety equipment - The CRX stopped production in 1992, and was required as of 1989 to have either automatic seat belts or drivers side air bags. The Geo Metro began manufacture in 1989 and ended in 2001. It is a safe bet that they had sufficient safety equipment to meet the year of manufacture requirements, and that they could meet them if produced today.


They could be updated to meet today's standards, but the point I was trying to make is that doing so increases the weight and energy requirements of the car, thus lowering the MPG.



TX_Dj said:


> I have no need for ABS (actually hate it, except on motorcycles) nor navigation systems, etc etc etc... Nor do I really need to go 0-60 in zippy-fast fashion either.
> 
> I'm comparing a day-one brand new Prius to a day-one brand new (whatever), not something that has been ill-maintained and "spewing black smoke."


Yes, and this is an unfair comparison. A scooter gets better mileage than a Prius- why not compare those? Because they are not functionally equivalent. The CRX and Metro come closer, but the Prius is still a Jaguar by comparison. You may not need the bells and whistles, and neither do I, but many people do consider those things when purchasing a vehicle. The Prius compares to other modern models in this regard, whereas yesterday's fuel misers do not, making this an apples-to-oranges comparison yet again.



TX_Dj said:


> Fact still remains- there are non-hybrids that have been produced that were more economical than today's hybrids... But I guess nobody wants to hear about pure gas-powered vehicles which were reasonably priced when new that can compete with grossly overpriced high-tech hybrids, so I'll check out now.


Yeah, and it is sad that 28 MPG is considered great mileage by the sheeple today. But you refuse to see that if an auto manufacturer came out with a new model that was no better than the CRX or Metro of yesteryear, it wouldn't sell. People expect to get to 60 MPH in less than 15 seconds. They want room for their fast food gut. They want to tower over other vehicles, and have suspension so cushy they can't tell whether the road is asphalt or gravel. I agree that the things the sheeple value in a vehicle are mostly stupid and unnecessary. But 20 year old cars, high MPG or not, are not desirable by most people today. Today's cars are much better. People don't want to give up so much for high MPGs and with the Prius, they don't have to. That's why Toyota can't make them fast enough.



TX_Dj said:


> Like I remind the people who park in the EV parking at Fry's Electronics with their hybrids... if you put gas in it, it's not an electric vehicle.


I'll ignore your stereotyping of hybrid drivers and say this is absolutely true. Toyota is fond of saying that they sell the only "full hybrids" on the market today, which won't be true until they start selling PHEVs. But this is irrelevant to the present topic.



david85 said:


> Diesel engines in fact do produce more power for the amount of fuel burned than gasoline engines, they are capable of matching the fuel economy of hybrids and they will compete with them in the near future at the same emission standards.


Diesel fuel contains more energy per unit than gasoline. But the comparison is between a Diesel engine and a hybrid, which uses energy more efficiently than an ordinary gasoline engine. And when the task is the EPA test cycles, the Prius beats any Diesel car currently sold in the US. You don't seem to want to recognize this, and choose to dismiss the EPA figures as not being "real world". Fine, then come up with your own test cycles and prove once and for all that Diesel is king. You also choose to ignore the substantially higher emissions of Diesels. This is improving, but gasoline engines currently burn cleaner, and hybrids are cleaner still. Some of us are still concerned with air and water quality.

I'm amazed at the amount of anti-hybrid rhetoric there is on this EV forum. I suppose I come across as a hybrid evangelist. Actually I'm for anything that is very efficient and very clean. A hybrid is the best I can do right now, but I want to do better, which is why I intend to build an EV. I hate the fact that I still have an ICE. But I also hate hearing Diesel zealots spreading half-truths about hybrids. 

I'm still consistently getting better than 70 MPG at highway speeds in my certified LEV hybrid. Show me a Diesel available in the US today that compares. Or quit with the hybrid bashing already.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

well, I said I was going to check out... but so long as I'm making apples-to-oranges comparisons ... I might as well point this out...

The SMART Diesel gets 70 mpg or better, and is available to a select few people in the US that can manage to smuggle them in from Canada.

Yet EPA won't permit them to be "legally" imported, nor many other diesels, so it's a moot point. I just make your counter argument, so there's no reason to come back.


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

The Smart ForTwo vs the Insight is a reasonable comparison, as they're both small two-seaters. But the Smart Diesel gets 70 on EEC test cycles, which IIRC are not as aggressive as EPA test cycles. And the reason the Smart Diesel isn't available in the US is because it does not meet emissions regs. Also the Insight is bigger and faster.

So I'm still looking for this mythical Diesel car that beats hybrids.


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Well, there was one that was built by a highschool design team several years back. I don't know how to find info about it now, but it was a Geo Metro with a 20 horse 2-cyl diesel, and it got 80 or better iirc...

but then again it's a metro, a diesel, and spews black clouds of smoke... so it's somehow irrelevant.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

Metro is old, obsolete and no longer available, and the highschoolers only built one, so why would we care. I'm over 60 yrs old and I'm just not too interested in "future" autos. I've been promised them for 50 yrs or so and still waiting! What is AVAILABLE now, in my country, at a realistic price, is what I base my purchase decisions on. And yes, I just bought a 2008 Prius, new, got it right off the truck, same day I bought it too! Is it the Ultimate Auto? Hardly, but its the best offered in today's market for anyone wanting a reasonably comfortable, 4 plus passenger, sedan with outstanding mileage (by today's standards). The Smart gets 70 mpg on diesel, based on diesel prices where I live, it would have to get 72 mpg to have same price per mile as my Prius averages. and two plus people would have to stay home! We like to take our grandchildren with us on trips (that 2-3 child seats) or we take my wife's parents with us, so a 4 seater is an absolute minimum for our needs.
I also had decided enough was enough on this thread, since some evidently mistook humor for personal attack. I try to use humor instead of personal commentary in forums, but I have been told before that I have a strange sense of humor! If anyone thinks I'm guilty of a personal attack, I apologize, it was not intended as such.


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

How clean was that Diesel Metro? Not very, I would guess. And could it even reach highway speeds? Hardly a comparison to a hybrid. 

C'mon, you made is seem like hybrids were no match for Diesel. So where is it? Where's the Diesel car that is available in the US (meets emission standards in all 50 states), gets 65 MPG or better on EPA test cycles, and accelerates to 60 in 11 seconds or less?


----------



## TX_Dj (Jul 25, 2008)

Right... because the Insight meets everyones needs, even those who only need a Metro.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

This discussion was started to discuss the potential for technology. Not so much what is available right this very instant. But if you want to take this to a different level, than I can do that too.

Electric cars out numbered hybrids not so long ago, but because of the way events happened, we have hybrids instead of EVs. Both have a role to play in a time of imperfect batteries. But I feel its worth noting that the rise of the hybrid cars like prius, insight and the not so fuel efficient accord and camry sedans has set electric cars back by at least 10 years. Even the cars that are slated for sale in 2010 (volt) cannot match the electric range of the ones built on 20-30 year old technology. Yes, hybrids are the best option right now for the environment, but overall the auto makers have done better in the past and should do better now.

If you want to settle for what they have now, than that is your choice to make and no one else's. But you should also realize that automakers have stalled the progress of the automobile for decades based on the willingness for consumers to settle for an imperfect product.

When toyota was taken to court over its Rav4 EV and forced to stop building them because of the battery they were using, they were still allowed to make the same type of battery only so small as to make pure battery powered cars impossible. The success of the prius and other toyota hybrids has meant that far more batteries have been built by toyota than under its older EV program. The owner of the patent for the NiMh battery is chevron/texaco, 

Hybrids still burn gas, and are not as efficient as they could be so they are a lesser of two evils for oil companies like this. Think about it.....


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

TX_Dj said:


> Right... because the Insight meets everyones needs, even those who only need a Metro.


I don't believe I said anything like this. Please don't put words in my mouth. You brought up the Metro and CRX as getting similar mileage to the Prius, as if to suggest these cars suited the needs of Prius drivers when the Prius is obviously a much more capable car. Comparing them to the Insight makes much more sense because the Insight is a two-seater. In fact, Insight vs CRX HF is an excellent comparison since the Insight is loosly based on the CRX. But it is faster, safer and more fuel efficient. Also runs cleaner. You chose to ignore the fact that the most fuel efficient production car ever sold in the US is a hybrid. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you.



david85 said:


> This discussion was started to discuss the potential for technology. Not so much what is available right this very instant. But if you want to take this to a different level, than I can do that too.


It sure looks to me like this is another Prius bashing thread. The article you opened this thread with treated a Prius like a Diesel and then balked when it got slightly less MPG than the Diesel. The basic premise appears to me to be that Diesel beats hybrid, ignoring the higher pollution and the fact that not all hybrids are like the Prius.



david85 said:


> Electric cars out numbered hybrids not so long ago, but because of the way events happened, we have hybrids instead of EVs. Both have a role to play in a time of imperfect batteries. But I feel its worth noting that the rise of the hybrid cars like prius, insight and the not so fuel efficient accord and camry sedans has set electric cars back by at least 10 years. Even the cars that are slated for sale in 2010 (volt) cannot match the electric range of the ones built on 20-30 year old technology. Yes, hybrids are the best option right now for the environment, but overall the auto makers have done better in the past and should do better now.


I know the history, and I don't disagree with you, except about hybrids setting back the electric car. I think the opposite. Hybrids are a way for the fickle public to get used to having batteries and electric motors in cars. In the case of Toyota HSD and similar systems, it gets people used to cars that make no engine noise. Hybrids are a stepping block to full EVs, both for the automakers and the public. *Thank you for acknowledging two of my points: that hybrids have a lower environmental impact than Diesels, and that not all hybrids are the same.
* 


david85 said:


> If you want to settle for what they have now, than that is your choice to make and no one else's. But you should also realize that automakers have stalled the progress of the automobile for decades based on the willingness for consumers to settle for an imperfect product.


I too feel the industry teased us with EVs, then gave us these gas-powered cousins. As I have stated before, I am not satisfied with an ICE, which is why I intend to build an EV.

I don't understand why self-proclaimed EV enthusiasts don't see any kinship with hybrids. 144V? Brushless DC? Regenerative braking? Is this sounding at all familiar? Where are the DIY PHEV guys?

You can say that the EPA test cycles don't represent "the real world" but I don't see how it is possible to produce such a test. Driving conditions and techniques vary greatly, and there simply isn't a way to attach a score to a vehicle that is accurate in all situations. But the EPA scores are good for comparing models. A vehicle with a higher EPA mileage rating can be expected to beat one with a lower rating in most situations, but not all. I think the fact that a Prius can be driven at 75 to 80 MPH with little attention paid to efficient driving technique and still get into the high 40s is impressive.

I've been wasting too much time in this forum, and this pro-Diesel, anti-hybrid sentiment has left a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'll come back when I begin my conversion project.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The article was based on the prius, since it is the most fuel efficient hybrid available after the insight was canceled. I never said all hybrids were the same, but all have disappointed me in terms of their MPG performance including the prius. Hybrids like the vue, escape and other so called "light hybrids" are very disappointing. The addition of a large alternator seems to be the only thing that really makes it a hybrid. So I agree, not all hybrids are equal, but at the same time, even the best of them could have and should have been better than they are.

The only blanket statement I made was that hybrids are not as fuel efficient on the open highway at constant speed than diesels are. I stand by this. Once you set the cruise control in a car like the prius or your insight on flat ground, its no longer a hybrid because things like regenerative breaking no longer play a role. The MPGs would be the same as if the car had a run of the mill 5 speed manual transmission. The engine becomes mechanically fixed to the road speed and, like any other ICE powered car.

Under these condition, diesel powered cars will get better MPGs, hence my statement that diesel is better for the highway and hybrids are better for urban conditions.

Diesels like the 2006 VWs can still throw a puff of smoke but this has more to do with driving style. I've seen plenty that bought the 5 speed manual instead of the automatic to get the best fuel economy but don't know how to drive them. They simply tromp it and expect it to move with no regard for the turbo lag. Once the diesel is under more steady load and at cruising speed, the nature of the engine design produces less incomplete fuel burn or efficiency loss than a gasoline engine, and by default, less emissions (provided both have equivalent emission control devices). Driving style will affect emissions greatly in older diesel engines.

Diesels produced from now on will be held to the same emission standards as any other gas engine, deployed to a hybrid or not.

Regenerative breaking throws the balance in favor of hybrids once you enter city limits and even allows more aggressive driving style for the same fuel economy as a diesel powered car. Combining a diesel engine with a hybrid powertrain would yield the best results for urban conditions AND long haul trips on the freeway. But even the auto industry admits that hybrids offer little benafit at high, constant speed.

If you want, you can dismiss diesels as being too "stinky" and not believe anything else, but they are projected to compete with hybrids in the future for all the reasons I have stated. Emissions are important, but thats not the only thing to consider, I put fuel economy fairly high on the priority list.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

You still don't seem to get it. "In the future" is your one constant statement about diesels. Well, the future is NOW! And the Prius can and does match your diesel mpg if driven properly. As for the future, Toyota claims improved gas mileage and more power from the 1.8L ICE that they are putting in new Prius', also, they were predicting near 100 mpg for the PHEV version due to be released, (but recently delayed) based on the average driving requirements of U.S. drivers. So, when diesels can meet EPA requirements and deliver more than 70 mpg in a 4 passenger auto, then maybe another comparison can be attempted. But for now, I'll keep my Prius, and maybe buy a second one if I ever unload my wife's Grand Cherokee! Altough I have given some thought to buying an older diesel truck to convert to WVO???


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

david85 said:


> The only blanket statement I made was that hybrids are not as fuel efficient on the open highway at constant speed than diesels are. I stand by this.


Untrue. You said "highway, advantage Diesel. City, advantage hybrid." The Prius gets better city MPG than it does highway, but Honda hybrids do better on the highway. Again today I'm over 70 MPG on my highway commute. Where's the Diesel that does this today?!? 


david85 said:


> Once you set the cruise control in a car like the prius or your insight on flat ground, its no longer a hybrid because things like regenerative breaking no longer play a role. The MPGs would be the same as if the car had a run of the mill 5 speed manual transmission. The engine becomes mechanically fixed to the road speed and, like any other ICE powered car.


Untrue, untrue, untrue. Please do some research on how Hybrid Synergy Drive works before passing your knowledge off as fact. As I said in another Prius bashing thread here, engine speed and wheel speed are decoupled in HSD. And my Insight does have a run-of-the-mill 5 speed manual transmission, and the ability to reduce the air/fuel ratio to as low as 25:1. It can do this up to at least 70 miles an hour.



david85 said:


> Under these condition, diesel powered cars will get better MPGs, hence my statement that diesel is better for the highway and hybrids are better for urban conditions.


And yet you cannot come up with a Diesel car sold in the US that beats my Insight's highway mileage.



david85 said:


> Diesels produced from now on will be held to the same emission standards as any other gas engine, deployed to a hybrid or not.


Yes, and the emissions systems required to do this (i.e. Bluetec) are expensive. Pretty soon people will be complaining about the "Diesel premium" like they do the "hybrid premium".



david85 said:


> Regenerative breaking throws the balance in favor of hybrids once you enter city limits and even allows more aggressive driving style for the same fuel economy as a diesel powered car.


I don't understand why you think regenerative braking only works in the city. Highways have hills. You don't actually have to press the brake pedal for a hybrid to engage regen- the car will do this as needed, seamlessly, on low rolling hills, at any speed. 


david85 said:


> Combining a diesel engine with a hybrid powertrain would yield the best results for urban conditions AND long haul trips on the freeway. But even the auto industry admits that hybrids offer little benafit at high, constant speed.


Yes, a Diesel-electric hybrid would be the best of both worlds. It would also be more expensive than today's hybrids because Diesel engines are more expensive and it would require more expensive emissions equipment. And the auto industry also dismisses electric cars as impractical. I don't listen to them. Do you?



david85 said:


> If you want, you can dismiss diesels as being too "stinky" and not believe anything else, but they are projected to compete with hybrids in the future for all the reasons I have stated. Emissions are important, but thats not the only thing to consider, I put fuel economy fairly high on the priority list.


So you admit that Diesels will compete with hybrids _in the near future_? Look at that- WE AGREE!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

No we do not agree, and I now have my doubts that we ever will. You can have the last word.

I'm done.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Hey, at least you guys are fighting nicely. 

I think that we might see ethanol-optimized PHEVs, biodiesel PHEVs, maybe even some wort of fuel cell PHEVs. The important thing is that the majority of commuting be done with efficiently stored electrical energy. The way we're using energy now is too wasteful to remain practical.


----------

