OT: Hybrid cars

[guy keren]

On 09/15/2013 11:50 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> 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.

actually, driving at 70-80kmh is usually MUCH MORE fuel-efficient then 
driving at 110kmh, in most cars and under most road conditions...

>
>> 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.
>