Consumer Reports Retracts flawed Hybrid
Created March 12, 2006, at 12:44 pm by Anonymous
Consumer Reports Retracts flawed Hybrid Data
(I was wondering about this -- I saw their issue where they said the hybrids will never pay for themselves). They now admit their data was wrong, and will issue a retraction in the next issue. They show that in fact the HCH will save $317 and Prius $406 over the first 5 years. And that (I assume) is a "normal" driver. For those of us who do a lot of driving, that definitely goes up (not to mention all the other perks such as carpool lane for a couple years).
Here's an article on their retraction:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11637968/
advertisement
Free Email Newsletter Sign-up
All the latest news in a free and engaging bundle. Totally free!
One PS:
I read the actual article online:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/high-cost-of-hybrid-vehicles-406/overview.htm
But it's interesting. They say in their "real-world" tests they get 37mpg from the Honda Civic Hybrid.
Well I drive in the real world, and after over 2 months now, the lowest I've had filling up the tank with the number of miles driven (the real measure of mpg) is 42.9 -- and that was while carpooling for a week with three heavy guys in the car. Otherwise it's been in the 43-44 range consistantly for each fill-up. I don't see how they only got 37mpg unless they were driving it like crazy, or maybe in the snow or maybe just mostly city driving. All I can say is, I do a good mix of city and highway, and I've haven't gotten lower than 42.9 (while doing a double carpool) and I don't drive particularly slow either. No, I don't get 65mpg, but 44mpg for an average by myself is not 37, and that means a lot more savings than Consumer Reports is saying.
Hmm.
You do have to wonder what their "real-world" driving entails. I have over 16K miles on an 05 HCH, and the WORST mileage I ever got was 39.4 mpg - cruising at 80 to 85 in 98 degree weather with the AC on. My overall average, including snow, slush, rain, mountain passes, winter tires, etc. is 45.99 mpg. That is 24% higher than CR's real-world experience.
For most people, the payback analysis is based on flawed logic in any event, as it compares buying a hybrid to buying the non-hybrid version of the same or similar model. In my experience, and there are a lot of hybrid drivers in my area, that is not the choice that the typical hybrid driver makes. There is no way that I would have considered buying a conventional Civic or Corolla. I bought the hybrid because its a hybrid. In fact, I traded in a Subaru WRX (MSRP around 25K), so I started out by saving $5000 or more over what I might have bought otherwise and will pocket about $2600 in tax savings on top of that.
This sort of thing really bugs me. People don't even bat an eyelash when it comes to dropping a few extra grand on leather seats, power windows or a sunroof. But to do something good for the environment? No way, Jack!
What's the "payback" on the creature comforts of a Range Rover or a Bentley?
I think they should also throw in the "time factor". In states where the HOV lanes allow hybrids, you save time because you are not stuck in traffic. If you save yourself even 10 mins each way to work, etc, then there is more than 1 hour a week. To me that real quality time. WHO WANTS TO SIT IN TRAFFIC WHEN THEY CAN ZIP ALONG?
Agreed, Mark.
I "justify" the extra cost of my HCH with the increased tax refund plus the difference in my gasoline bills (about $50/month), which just about closes the gap with a regular civic.
But when I multiply the half hour I get each day (by getting on the HOV's during rush hour) by my hourly salary, it pretty much negates my car payment!
I noticed an article in the Chicago Trib about the CR retraction. Didn't their retraction also take the Federal tax credit into account? I've had my '06 HCH about a month now, driving relatively conservatively with no defroster, and am only gettting 37-39 mpg. My commute is 30-40 minutes highway, minimal to no stop/go. I still beleive in and support the use of hybrid technology but I hope I get a better reurn on my investment int he summer.
Looks to me that CR is not the culprit...rather it is Vincentric's data.
I've had an '05 Prius now for 28,000 miles (Dayton, OH). I drive mostly highway, 30 miles one-way to work, and then errands on weekends. My overall mileage is 48.8 mpg. I get about 45-46mpg in the winter and 51-52 or so in the summer with the A/C on. This spring, without A/C, and only driving 65 mph for a few weeks (as a test) I was averaging 54 mpg. I generally set the cruise control at 70 mph.
As for payback, I agree with earlier comments: what's the payback for leather seats? DVD player? It is cheaper to buy efficiency than it is to buy energy.
Savings in gasoline costs is only part of the total savings. I am also saving health care costs from asthma and other bronchial diseases, global-warming costs by reduced CO2 emissions, and national security costs by reducing our need to fight wars over natural resources. I don't see these savings directly, but the country as a whole does.
Please notice that the "True Hybrids," (minus the Honda Insight): The Honda Civic Hybrid and the Toyota Prius, were the cars that saved in costs. Not like the Preformance Hybrids, which are a complete waste of money, and "fool" the driver into thinking they're driving green and with preformance.
But I do agree with the person who said that no one thinks about dumping a few grand on leather seating, sunroofs, and power windows, yet they say that a Civic Hybrid powertrain (the IMA system) or a Toyota Prius over a similar-sized car isn't worth it.
By the way...My HCH is averaging 46mpg overall, almost 10mpg higher than the CR rating, and that is with "minimal" mild driving.
I just thought I'd add, that my MPG has improved a little since my initial post. Now I'm getting about 47 average, and actually had two tanks (mix of city and freeway) that got over 50 (51.1 and 50.4). These are REAL MPG numbers (figured from the gas pump not from the onboard display), though to get those numbers in the 50s, I had to be careful not to drive over 70. If I drive up to 75 (normal driving) it goes to about 46-47 average. Still not bad at all.
I don’t think that Consumer Reports is flawed. I drive a 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid and after 60K miles, average just between 34-35 mpg these past 2 years! My mileage is based directly from the odometer. My HCH always carries about 10 pounds of my "office" supplies around and a Yakima bike rack on top. I do a lot of mixed driving, city and highway, and don't accelerate fast. I usually keep at 70-80 mph on the freeway. I only use 87 gasoline. I've tried different oils, a new air filter and tried so many different ways to get the most fuel efficiency out of my hybrid, but still at get about 35 miles per gallon at best. Do I have a lemon? Or is the truth really an average of 37 mpg?
Don't ever expect to meet anywhere near EPA numbers with a bike rack on the roof. When I put a bike rack on top of our Jetta diesel wagon, I can lose up to 5 mpg. Put actual bikes up there and I've lost more than 10 mpg.
Therefore I never put the rack on unless I plan to carry more than one bike. For most of my bike carrying, I need to only carry one bike with myself or at most one passenger, so I fold down the back seat and pop the bike into the cargo area, but I guess you can't do that on a Civic hybrid.
Roof carriers are better for the bikes (and the car's paint job), but a hitch mount will not harm your fuel economy.
Oh, and another thing...80 mph, is not really the best speed for fuel economy. Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of the speed. Plus you have that bike rack.
You don't have a lemon. Lose the rack and drive at 65 mph and I'm sure you'll gain a good 10 mpg if not more.
Cars, even hybrids, are not capable of miracles.
I truly wonder how both Consumer Reports and the EPA do their tests. Both say you'll never exceed your EPA ratings, but my 1996 Celica (rated 28/34) routinely gets 35-37 mpg on road trips. On one trip, I kept it under 60 mph the entire time and got 40 mpg!
Similarly, my father got a new Prius, and after a couple of tanks of gas at 42 mpg, he kept it exactly at the speed limit for an entire tank of gas. The result: 62 mpg on a tank, mostly on the highway!
Speed kills gas mileage far more than any of us would care to admit. My 2000 Echo has never exceeded 35 mpg, but it's a tall box and I routinely drive it at 70-75 mph.
The EPA tests are fairly unrealistic compared with my personal driving as well as the driving described by most who don't achieve EPA estimates. The maximum speed for the EPA highway test is 60 mph and the average is 48.3 with no stops ( the exact speed profile is at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml ). Now I don't know where you may live but I'd have a very hard time finding any place where I can average 48 mph with no stops and not get run over driving only 60 mph.
Another thing about hybrids is that the electric portion of the drive train can be optimized to provide anywhere from zero benefit over the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) to the full capability of a pure Electric (~150 mpg), depending on the amount of battery and the expected power that the electric motor is designed for. Since the test they were designed for is the EPA test, it is highly likely that they optimized the design for those tests. I would expect performance to drop off significantly outside those test parameters and the evidence clearly shows this is true.
"Roof carriers are better for the bikes (and the car's paint job), but a hitch mount will not harm your fuel economy."
A hitch mount will harm your fuel economy. It will be less than the effect of a roof rack, and will vary somewhat depending on the shape and aerodynamics of the vehicle, but it will reduce your mileage somewhat.
The roof rack is a killer, especially for a relatively small vehicle with good aero, e.g., HCH or Prius. If I only need to carry one bike, it rides in the back seat, where it fits nicely with the front wheel removed. No impact on mileage, and a bug-free bike. The Yakima goes on the roof if multiple bikes must be carried, but stays off at all other times.
Expect a 10% higher MPG on the EPA estimates than what you get. And this is for all vehicles, not just hybrids.
Why?
1. The AUTO COMPANIES actually test their vehicles, and the EPA does random checks of a few vehicles every few years. So you guessed it, the auto companies most likely "fudge" the tests alittle to make their vehicles look more efficient.
2. The test are done in labs, so the conditions can be perfect (ie. No idiot drivers, good temperatures, etc...), unlike the real world.
I saw this on both the internet and a local television newscast.
So this is, in effect, a problem with all vehicles, not just hybrids. But the only reason why hybrid cars get more negative attention is that hybrids were designed for high mileage, so they are expected to get their EPA estimates.
I'd just like to say to Consumer Reports, try an MPG check using the same conditions on a gas-guzzling SUV, and tell me how it compares with its EPA estimates.
Umm, I just completed 450 km in my Passat from Springfield Mass. to home in Canada. The US EPA numbers say I should have gotten 38 mpg on the highway. The Canadian government tests state 42 mpg.
I got exactly 42 mpg, with the cruise control set at 70 mph, through the Green Mountains.
Some cars CAN meet EPA in "normal" driving. I happen to own two: VW TDI diesels.
Mike,
I actually get about 51 mpg on the HCH on flat-land driving like the Green Mountains :-) if I can just lock the cruise at 70 mph. This is a bit (25%) better than you report with your VW, it meets EPA estimates AND I actually can fit in the Civic while the VW is quite cramped.
The Passat is not cramped. I had a rare opportunity to ride in the back seat and I had plenty of room (I'm 5"11").
Our Jetta is rated by the Canadian gov't for 51.5 mpg on the highway and it can and does meet that. It is a better comparison to your Civic as the Passat weights 3500 lb.
On top of that, it's a station wagon which is very handy, though I admit rear seat space is a bit tight.
In my daily commuting, if I'm not lead-footed, it can give me over 800 miles per tank of fuel.
I might add that our Passat sedan also has a fold-down rear seat, something the HCH lacks. This would be a major inconvenience for me.
Post a new comment