News Report re: Hybrid Accords

gotta agree. I have a 97 t+C as well as my 89 civic. Its a lot easier to track milage with the van, since its got the display right there, so there goes. Its the 3.8, and the sheet in the glove box (yep, still there, pristine) shows 18/24 EPa. It was a work vehicle for 3 months, carrying crates of merchendise up and down georgia for merchendise racks. Even loadd down most of the time, it was averaging 26mpg. Around town, if I put the front and rear AC on, and drive 'spiritidly' I'll maybe get 16. I did a trip from atlanta to talahassee, and was back in georgia before having to fill up, something like 32mpg overall. The trick is how you drive. Be smooth, look ahead and anticipate, and you'll get much better figures. If you see a red light ahead, slow gently from a long way, odds are then that it'll change before you get there and you don't have to stop. WE've debated coasting endlessly, and down hills, the maths disproved the myth about it making your brakes fail. of course, conversely, if you're comming to a stop, leave it in gear, you'll use less fuel then.

There are slightly smaller things too to boost your milage, like refuel at the coldest time possible, or get a diesel (and not a nasty smokey old engine as is available in trucks, but nice modern ones such as in the VW golf/jetta or the dodge [mercedies] sprinter for commercial vehicles) I again repeat the feat of the BBC driver who got over 40mpg from a 4l twin turbo Audi A8 diesel (which also has a

Such as the highly specialised control systems possibly sensing the conditions of an EPA test, and reacting accordingly?

Because how else will the poseurs driving them convay to everyone how 'enviromentally hip' they are (omitting that it'll take some 100,000 miles to offset the pollution caused by the battery production, however many miles the disposal of the batteries will take, and how they could probably get similar performance and economy if the heavy electrical system was taken out anyway (acceleration = force/mass, reduce the mass, you need less force - same as a car with 4 boss hawg's in will have to work much harder than if there were 4 japanese schoolgirls, all in very light clothes in there)

not so much spin on it, and no celbrity endorsements. Cars sell on coolness, nothing else. If its not cool, it won't sell. Thats why motorsports are so important to manufacturers. Rallying, touring cars, movies etc. all help sell the cars by making them cool. look at wht the Italian job did for the mini's. I get in one, I sure want to race around Turin. gone n 60 seconds helped make the mustang iconic. Jackie chan and mitsubishi... the list is endless.

flobert, I agreed with every word. I could not have said it better. Jason

A week ago Sunday I did an 850-mile trip with my '02 Accord. Fuel economy worked out to 39.5 (measured by topping of the tank at fuel stops). I probably could've gotten 40mpg (as I have before), but I was driving 75mph with the AC on and had the car pretty heavily loaded.

Mpg is much worse in cold weather, something like 28mpg around town. Warm weather, I average 34mpg around town.

BTW, it is a 4-cyl. 5-spd LX coupe.

Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though the safety aspect concerns me. If fuel costs continue to rise we can expect to see a run on these things. Folks who can afford it will keep a little car for their commuter vehicle and perhaps something more comfortable/capable for weekends and vacations.

In general I think that hybrid technology as currently implemented results in too much cost and too much added complexity for too little benefit.

A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!

John

Obviously agressive driving styles will result in worse than EPA test number economy.

John

Not at all. We get very close to the EPA numbers in town (upper 40s instead of 52) and at 65 mph (same: upper 40s) on highways with our hybrid. At 75 mph the economy drops a lot. Most people report numbers in the 40s, and fuel consumption in the 30s means either the driver is doing something wrong (like leaving the defroster on) or there is a defect.

The problem is that the EPA tests are a benchmark for operation without short trips, without gridlock and without running the heater or A/C on high. It is not possible to add those losses and keep the same numbers the EPA gets. The notion that the error is unique to hybrids is a recent one - the complaint has been with all cars since the rating system started.

Mike

OTOH, anybody who gets only 33/38 in a hybrid complains bitterly - especially that city rating. If a Prius gets below 40 in any weather short of snowy roads there is something wrong - our first generation has *never* dropped below 40, in town or on the highway (round trip where applicable). Combine that with the improved performance of hybrids, especially off-the-line, plus the spectacularly smooth power delivery of Toyota's system, and it's easy to see why cheap cars are cheap. I wouldn't buy an economy car if I can afford better.

Mike

There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work truck is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels and most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred Flintstone thing. But the advantages are more important. It gets right at twice the fuel economy of the old gasser (at least on the highway... dunno about in town), yielding twice the range with the same size tank - important when crossing the largest indian reservation in the US at odd hours. On the highway, with only a slight turbo lag, the power is phenomenal... as I would expect with more than 20 lbs boost. And off-road it crawls along much better than the gasser did, as long as I don't let the turbo come in.

Mike

My wife test drove the Accord and Civic hybrids and the Prius. She went with the accord because she did not want to give up so many creature comforts. The Toyota hybrid SUV gets mediocre gas mileage too at a high sticker price. That fancy interior in the Acura will never pay for itself either. Hybrid is just one more feature. If you pay for it in the Accord you are rewarded with a little more power and better gas mileage.

What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?

too true. They're for show only. Its the automotive equivilent of recycling drinks cans.

too true,

Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.

You're not paying for better physics, or golden engines. cheap cars are cheap because they don't pack in the luxuries. I've been in plenty of cheap cars with smooth power delivery. i've been in expensive cars with terrible power delivery (Jaguar s-type diesel for starters, any USDM diesel except the sprinter, and a buick I rented back in 03 spring to mind.)

Friend had a bottom of the range [but new] ford fiesta, power delivery was a lot smoother than in my [then] 8yo volvo, despite the volvo costing about 3.5x more when new (this was in 98)

cost and smoothness are two different things. The price between my 360 and his fiesta was not in smoothness, but in other areas, like how I could get in my boot almost everything he could get in his car with the rear seat down too, i had more power, RWD to his FWD, and heaters, wipers and other severe weather gear everywhere (oh, and I be hit by another car at 40-50mph, and still be able to tow them home, very important that!)

My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.

All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to the occupants in a crash.

John

I hear that all the time, but my Swedish friend tells me the diesels in Europe are the exact same way. Certainly the turbo lag will be identical - you can't get 20 psi boost from thin air.

Mike

actually, the disadvantage is often to the bigger one. its not so much a factor of size of impacting vehicle, as energy anyway. being hit with a 2ton vehicle at a closing speed of 90mph is the same as a 4ton vehicle at 40mph. They're designed to absor those loads. the bigger car, however, will have a tendency to go up and over the smaller one, andwill dissipate the energy more dramatically, lots of rolling etc. Its another situation where only one side of the equation is considered. plus, with the big vehicle more liekly to be deflected up and over, its less energy imparted to the small vehicle.

Small vehicles are also more resistant nowadays. There's the video on google showing the swatch smart car crashing into a concrete barrier at wither 40 or 50mph, the drivers cabin is barely touched. This is a vehicle designed to be as long as a normal car is wide (so you can park 3 or so nose-in in a standard parallel parking space)

As I said, thats a misconception based on non-complete examination of all the componants. Theres a video around that shows this graphically

- a mitsubishi shogun hitting the side of a civic, I think. The shogun comes off just as bad, as it went up, over and carried on rolling.

It depends on the type of accident. For example, if it's a high speed accident on the freeway or interstate, the huge SUVs and pickups could easily turn over and cause those inside the huge SUVs and huge pickups to be injured or killed. The small cars such as the Fit would be less likely to turn over or upside down in such a crash. However, most accidents take place at low speeds such as in towns and cities--usually at intersections. In those sorts of accidents--neither vehicle is likely to turn over or upside down. In those cases, it's more likely that the people inside small cars such as the Fit will be injured than people inside monster sized SUVs and monster size pick-up trucks. Jason

says who? go look at some actual accidents E=1/2 MV^2 - no getting away from it, in an eleastic colision, energyis absorbed by both vehicles in a ratio determined by their elasticity (which in this case is the deformation values). The image you paint is based on the rather more simplistic 'inelastic colission' view taught at schools. real accidents are not inelastic. Thers no 2 force and simple extrapolation of energies. A light car will more likely slide on its tyres than a heavy one, thats energy there, if a cars deflected up, energy there, and you'll have to get your trig tables out to work out how much. see it gets plenty complex.

The 'small cars are dangerous' thing isn't so true now as it was 20 years ago. cars are built differently, and have many ifferent design regs now. If you were in a, ooh, 1980 accord-size car, you're going to be seriously injured than in a modern small car, like the BMW 'mini' if both took part in the same accident. cars are not all that stable as we'd like to think. I'm struggling to remembe the rule of thumb for rolling a car without a ram, but it evades me. a 2inchh lip will roll pretty much any car sliding sideways at an initial speed of 40mph, i remmeber that much. (well, not your long, wide low cars like a zonda etc.

Hello, I believe that monster sized pick-up trucks and SUVs are more likely to turn over in a high speed accident than most cars such as the Accord or Toyota Camry. The reason is simple: The monster size pick-up trucks and SUVs are "top-heavy". I know that some cars (due to their design are also "top heavy"-eg Toyota Echo). However, most cars are NOT top heavy. I should note that some monster size SUV's are NOT top heavy. For example, the Hummer does not appear to me to be top heavy. However, most cars are not likely to turn over in a high speed accident because they are NOT top heavy. Do you see my point? Jason