OT: Hybrid cars

[Oleg Goldshmidt]

Mord Behar <mordbe0 at gmail.com> writes:

> Wow. Thank you for that, it was quite informative.
> You mentioned that small petrol European cars have a 20 km/l range.

I don't think I meant small. I rather meant what counts for mid-size or
larger in Europe, and what Americans call "compact" - think of our
family sedans or smaller "executive" models.

Most numbers I mentioned were for mixed driving. My last example was for
city driving and I found 9.6km/l for a 1.8L Corolla somewhere
(fueleconomy.gov seems to be high in Google searches) - that is much
worse than 17.8 mixed. None of the numbers were for highway driving,
IIRC. Cars are much more efficient today than, say, 10 years ago.

My European experiences are for mixed driving also. I drive intercity,
of course, but I also tend to drive a lot on small country roads (and
in hills/mountains) that are slow and often congested. The mix may be
different from what different manufacturers quote. Also, as mentioned,
in Europe most cars are diesels, and those are very efficient indeed.

> Right now I'm driving a Fiat Panda. It's small and it's efficient, but
> it comes at a price. The engine is tiny, and so is the gas tank (but
> being a tiny car it's easy to park in the city). The book says that it
> can get 20 km/l intercity, and 12 km/l in the city. From my experience
> I get 18-19 on the highways, and 10-11 in the city. 

So you are not far from the manufacturer's numbers. The car may not be
perfectly tuned, our petrol may be not as pure as the Italian one,
etc. And you may be not as good as the professional test drivers.

Recall that I mentioned that cheaper cars are frequently not as
efficient as more expensive ones. I am guessing your Panda may have a
1.2L engine. Today you can get a 1.2L VW Jetta that is *much* heavier,
but I will not be surprised if its mileage turns out to be comparable to
Panda's. It may use a fuel-air mix with a lot less fuel, and the mix may
burn better and generate more power. It may also accelerate as well or
better and be faster, despite the weight (thanks to the super-charger
and turbo). It will be in a different price category, too. ;-)
 
> So the figures you used are clearly for highway driving, where the
> increase in fuel economy is the greatest, across the board. 

As I said, I used mixed-driving numbers quoted by manufacturers, except
in my last example, which was pure city.

> But what about smaller commutes?

It should be clear from the exercises that shorter commute skews the
results in favor of (plug-in) hybrids. My last example was extreme
(short drives, with 0 fuel consumption for the hybrid at zero cost - you
cannot do better than that).

I did not give you The Answer To Life, The Universe, And Everything. All
I tried to do is give you a hint how to do a back-of-the-envelope cost
comparison. All your numbers will be different - you will get quoted
some specific prices (for a hybrid and for a normal car that you might
consider), you can research the fuel consumption numbers for your
driving pattern (e.g., if you mostly drive in the city then look up city
fuel consumption numbers). You can talk to certified mechanics to get a
better idea of post-purchase TCO in each case - the cost of service and
parts, etc. - and factor it in. Then you can repeat the exercise and
check which model is more worthwhile for you.

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | pub at goldshmidt.org