According to the April 2013 issue of Consumer Reports, its readers say the Honda Civic Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) hybrids are not among them.

“The Civic Hybrid, which has been a reliable car overall in most years, has a big problem with its drive battery,” say the report. ”The 2009 model was the worst: Almost one in five owners needed a replacement hybrid battery in our 12-month survey period.”

Continuing, the report says other years averaged poorly as well.

“But more than 10 percent of owners of the 2003, 2004, and 2010 models also needed one,” it says.

This news came via AutoGuide.com which also contacted Honda for a response and was not given a direct one. Instead, a copy of the letter sent in response to CR was given.

“We are sorry to read that some of your Honda Civic Hybrid subscribers have experienced IMA battery issues during their ownership,” it reads. “While the majority of Honda owners experience very few problems with their vehicles, we regret the inconvenience that any repair imposes on our customers.”

To make amends, Honda did issue a software update for some older Civic Hybrids.

“Honda provided a software update to owners of 2006-2008 Civic Hybrids to help extend the life of the IMA battery and will continue to provide the most updated technology to our customers as it becomes available,” continues the email.

The company has also extended the hybrid powertrain warranty which depending on which state it is in, may be 8 years, 100,000 miles or 10 years/100,000 miles. In late 2012, it issued a technical service bulletin upping coverage for the shoter warranties to 9 years, 96,000 miles, and the longer to 11 years, 137,000 miles.

The cost of a new battery is estimated at between $2,000 to $4,000 if it is not covered.

In 2012, the company also switched to a lithium-ion chemistry pack instead of a nickel-metal hydride as was used for all previous Civic Hybrids in question.

AutoGuide

The post Consumer Reports Reader Report Frowns On Civic Hybrids’ Battery Reliability appeared first on HybridCars.com.

Small, battery and electric-motor-free solutions tend to be less costly to produce, and have been hyped a good bit in certain quarters, but the consumer watchdog publication today announced its tests have found such offerings by Ford, GM, Kia, and Hyundai are not living up to claims in the real world.

“While these engines may look better on paper with impressive EPA numbers, in reality they are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines,” said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports.

Top on CR’s list of over-rated vehicles is the 2013 Ford Fusion with EcoBoost. The EcoBoost line of engines has been well spoken of in other circles, but CR notes nothing to write home about regarding the turbocharged 1.6-liter four sold as a $795 option over the 2.5 liter four-cylinder-equipped version.

Consumer Reports found the EcoBoost variant, while costing more, and boasted of by marketers, returned slower 0-60 mph times compared to competitive family sedans and delivered just 25 mpg, “placing it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans,” said CR.

Another American car, the Cruze by Chevrolet, is in a similar boat, but not quite as bad, said the consumer publication. Compared to a 1.8-liter version, the 1.4-liter turbo variant felt a tad bit faster to 60 mph, but did not return any better fuel economy than the 1.8.

Why would a smaller engine not return better fuel economy? Simple, it’s because the turbo is doing what it is supposed to do – it crams more air-fuel mixture into the engine.

The increased ability to burn more fuel makes more power, but may not net out to any improved mpg to speak of, proving yet again, there is no such thing as a free lunch, or so it would seem in some cases.

Likewise, this was found to be the situation with four-cylinder engines in other vehicles including the Hyundai Sonata Turbo, Kia Sportage Turbo, and Ford Escape 2.0T. These all returned less fuel mileage than naturally aspirated (non-turbo) six cylinder versions.

But lest you think CR is saying the smaller-is-better concept is utter malarky, Consumer Reports did see improved results in small turbo engines when equipped in two German makers’ cars.

One is BMW’s new 2.0-liter turbocharged four, which got 28 mpg in the new 328i Sedan. The engine also gave improved mileage in the 2012 X3 SUV by one mpg, and power and acceleration were reported as “essentially identical.”

Another reported is Volkswagen’s 2.0-liter turbo which returned impressive mileage as well, though CR hasn’t tested any model variations with other engines that are directly comparable.

Further Qualification

We’ll note that in addition to Consumer Reports’ findings, in general, advertised EPA-rated fuel economy must always be understood to be a qualified number. In fact mileage varies entirely depending on how the driver operates the vehicle.

Just because a vehicle lets you drive it fast – as many of you already know but we’ll mention it anyway, as it bears repeating – one cannot expect advertised mileage under such conditions.

The EPA tests do not allow for breaking the law by speeding, constant jackrabbit starts, and other herky jerky driving behaviors that use up more fuel and create more emissions.

Furthermore, in many regions of the U.S. where it often seems like everyone has to get somewhere now, and where the pace is quick and pushing the limits of law enforcement tolerance and safety, advertised mileage will not often be achieved.

It can be stress inducing too, because if you want to drive sedately, and maximize economy, you risk having someone ride your tail, effectively pushing you, or becoming annoyed because you are not “going with the flow.”

At least this is the case in many parts of the country. It is a push-pull dichotomy of dueling opposite desires. Some drivers want to hurry up and get there, while others wish to take it easier on their vehicles, save fuel, money and spare the environment as much as possible.

And onward we go.

Consumer Reports

The post Consumer Reports Finds Small Turbo Gas Engines Over-Rated appeared first on HybridCars.com.

There’s no telling who is Volt fan number one, but one of the more ardent ones is MrEnergyCzar, a peak oil advocate who spends his own time and money to raise awareness for the Volt as one part of his arsenal of preparedness for the effects of oil production having crested past its prime.

Based in New England, MrEnergyCzar has actually converted his entire household and lifestyle in response to the peaking of cheap easy oil which he says may result in rising fuel prices, and potentially rude awakenings upon the social and economic landscape of America – and the world.

Now, not unlike Paul Revere – albeit with communication tools not dreamed of by that alarm-raising New England silversmith and patriot – MrEnergyCzar is sounding a consistent message to a less homogenous audience on Facebook, Twitter, his own Web site, other social media, and YouTube.

This said, he is a “practical prepper,” not wishing to portray a fanatic’s stance in awaiting the coming of doomsday. Rather, more like someone following the scout’s motto of “be prepared,” he has adjusted where he sees necessary in order to adapt to living in the vulnerable oil-dependent suburbs while staying insulated in the face of changing times.

“I’m more self-reliant and energy insulated than an extreme survivalist,” says MrEnergyCzar.

Anyone familiar with his story knows he was an early adopter of the Volt in 2011, which he powers by energy generated by his home photovoltaic solar array – and fortunately for him – a no-cost charger at work.

His reason for liking the Volt is it’s an electric vehicle for the most part, able to travel up to 40 or 50 miles without needing gasoline, but it has a range-extending generator too, so – unlike a pure EV – longer distances are as practical to contemplate as they would be for any gas car.

We’ve embedded three of the latest samples of his attempts at consciousness raising in a world where, frankly, so much information and misinformation is competing to be heard that some people do not know what to think.

Having no such ambiguity in his worldview, MrEnergyCzar has begun his own news channel on YouTube in addition to other efforts. His out-of-pocket endeavor is a strong indicator that he means what he says, and he is refining his message as he goes.

Also included are a sample of his regular question-and-answer session as well as a tutorial on an aspect of the Volt as part of his work to inform and engage with a rising following.

Nor are we the only ones to notice, as Clean Technica also grabbed some of his videos recently and made a post out of them.

MrEnergyCzar is not sponsored by anyone including General Motors, and we do not know if GM would be open to that, but there’s little doubt this is a character with more than average plausibility.

And for now, the Volt is his favorite car for the money. No doubt he likes other fuel-saving vehicles too, such as Tesla’s Model S all-electric car, but for well under that car’s price, the Volt can meet his needs.

As GM planned it, the Volt anticipates average daily driving needs based on surveys that said a 40-mile or shorter daily trip distance was sufficient for the majority of Americans.

The car has had its share of detractors as well, and MrEnergyCzar often gets to field harsh critics for daring to champion such a vehicle.

To us, this is just one more proof he is a person who means what he says. You can check out his videos, and let him know what you think, and if you like any of the messages, feel free to share with others who may benefit.

The post MrEnergyCzar: Chevy Volt Can Help Cope With Peak Oil appeared first on HybridCars.com.

Ford has been clamoring from one press release to another that this duo of hybrid vehicles is rated at “47 city/47 highway/47 combined mpg.”

Consumer Reports has doubts as it has not been able to get close to these claims.

Among current models, more than 80 percent of the vehicles the magazine tested are within 2 mpg of the official EPA figures.

As Consumer Reports stated, “The largest discrepancy we’ve previously seen was 7 and 6 mpg for the Toyota Prius C subcompact and Prius hatchback, respectively.”

But now, in its tests, the magazine saw numbers being close to 20 percent off.

In the magazine’s own words: “the Fusion Hybrid delivered 39 mpg overall and 35 and 41 in city and highway conditions, respectively. For the C-Max Hybrid, we got 37 mpg overall, with 35 and 38 for city and highway. These two vehicles have the largest discrepancy between our overall-mpg results and the estimates published by the EPA that we’ve seen among any current models.”

How the magazine measures a vehicle’s mpg can be found here. In short, they buy a car off a dealership lot and drive it for at least 2,000 miles before doing any testing. Then they install a precise fuel meter and follow a set driving route on their test track.

While the magazine’s staff praises both vehicles, they can’t understand the discrepancy between the official EPA figures and their results. While it is clear that by their nature, hybrid vehicles show more difference in their fuel consumption depending on the driver, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking the issue seriously and will be reviewing the magazine’s data.

This fuel consumption controversy comes not long after the Hyundai / Kia duo has been forced by the EPA to adjust the mpg ratings of many of its models.

Consumer Reports, Automotive News

The post Consumer Reports Can’t Reach 47 MPG With Fusion And C-Max Hybrid appeared first on HybridCars.com.