Comments on: The March Towards Fuel Efficiency: Trading Econoboxes for Hybrids

By: arthurarnold

arthurarnold — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:59:00 +0000

A positive balance is known as a trade surplus if it consists of exporting more than is imported; a negative balance is referred to as a trade deficit or, informally, a trade gap. The balance of trade is sometimes divided into a goods and a services balance. http://www.tradestool.co.uk/

By: simon@syd

simon@syd — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:51:40 +0000

Stiffness is essential. Without carbon fibre its going to add weight. I think if there was an econo car with the approach of simply losing weight (and what a good start that is!) then you’d have to do it with carbon fibre. And there goes the cheapness out of the equation.

By: ex-EV1 driver

ex-EV1 driver — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:55:56 +0000

One of the things I like most about hybrids and EVs is that they are truly better than the ICE. This way, we won’t be doomed to squeeze into little ecoboxes in order to be ecological.
I dread the thought of a future with nothing but the little junk that litters the streets of Europe.

By: Yegor

Yegor — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 02:46:59 +0000

Speaking about mini cars why not to take the smallest one - Smart fortwo:
Geo Metro 1993 - 1621 pounds vs Smart fortwo - 1808 pounds (just Smart fortwo 10% more

Geo Metro fuel economy 43/52 (manual)
Smart fortwo fuel economy 33/41 (automatic)
Smart fortwo 22% worse

Geo Metro Horsepower: 49 hp
Smart fortwo Horsepower: 70 hp
Smart fortwo 43% more

I guess smart fortwo fuel economy is worse because the engine is much more powerful.

By: Dave K.

Dave K. — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:47:34 +0000

I must comment because I owned many of these cars, the current hybrids are far superior to the old econoboxes(I now drive a Prius) my son had a Geo Metro for a while, 50hp, tiny and cheap, he kept breaking interior parts, window crank, vents ect. The point is everything was as small and light as possible, to the point that it barely worked, in contrast my Prius is very well appointed, much safer, and performs far better, it’s also the most reliable car I’ve ever seen! In 100K I’ve cleaned the throttle body and changed the oil and the tires once, that’s it! That Geo was always broke. Yegor is right, the dominant factor in city mileage is weight and the crash tests have made it impossible to build a light car that’s affordable, carbon fiber is expensive, also cars keep getting bigger, a 1980 Accord is about the size of a new Fit.

By: usbseawolf2000

usbseawolf2000 — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:55:14 +0000

2010 Prius is bigger, more powerful, better equipped, safer and much more refined than the 1986 Camry. Prius also double the Camry MPG. See the side-by-side comparison:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008seleeng2f.jsp?year=2010&make=Toyota&model=Prius

Prius is the engine of change that moved us forward.

By: Van

Van — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:29:21 +0000

I may be missing something here, but the 1993 Geo Metro mileage for the 5 speed manual, 3 cylinder engine was 38 MPG city, 45 highway (using the adjusted EPA numbers). and the Yaris gets 29 MPG city and 36 MPG highway. So the Metro got about 9 MPG more than today’s Yaris. Soon Toyota will bring out a small hybrid and it is expect to get more MPG than the Prius, so even with the additional weight, the car of 2012 will be better in every respect.

By: Dave - Phoenix

Dave - Phoenix — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 23:38:05 +0000

Amen.

The old compact eco-boxes have been dead for a long time (At least in the U.S.) Even the new compact versions of the old eco-boxes don't match up with the fuel efficiency from the 1980's version. (Example: A 2009 Volkswage Rabbit has an EPA rating of 20 mpg City and 29 mpg Highway. Shameful....)

True.... Hybrid is now what you buy when you want 40 mpg, but with the much higher cost, only a few hybrids are sold. The people who need 40 mpg the most, can't afford the vehicle.

Back in the 1980's those eco-boxes were priced so that "anybody" could afford one. A much larger percent of eco-boxes were on the road in the 80's compared to the percet of hybrids on the road today...

By: Yegor

Yegor — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:43:52 +0000

1) First of all Geo Metro 1993 is two! times lighter than Prius
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1993/geo/metro/10694/specs.html
Geo Metro 1993 – 1621 pounds vs Toyota Prius – 3042 pounds
2) Secondly Geo Metro is much smaller.
3) Thirdly Geo Metro is much less safer – some safety tests did not even existed back then, for example roof test.
4) Car manufacturers are trying to make and compete in small cars even today Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit. Toyota Yaris curb weight is 2311 pounds. This is how small you can go now while being a safe car.

Geo Metro today is Toyota Yaris but it is 1.5 times heavier because of safety standards.
Toyota Yaris fuel economy 29/36.
If you multiply by 1.5 it is 44/54
Geo Metro fuel economy 43/52

By: JF

JF — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:06:17 +0000

To elaborate on Jim H's point: I also feel the comparison made is somewhat unfair.

Aside from being small and light with a low power engine, that old econobox uses no "special" technology - none of the many non-hybrid advances in design & engineering of the past 20+ years from which the Prius also benefits.

Even minus a hybrid drivetrain, if that same econobox were built today with modern engine electronics, low friction internals, possibly employing direct injection or a small turbo, plus a proper transmission, good aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires, its fuel economy would probably be 20 or 30% better again than the old car.

Where decent fuel economy used to be almost a byproduct of buying an inexpensive car, automakers have since decided it's a "feature", and if you want it, you will pay for it.