Posted on 01/20/2006 10:58:08 AM PST by RWR8189
Detroit
WHEN TREASURY SECRETARY John Snow announced guidelines for a new tax cut for the rich here last week, liberals did not denounce him. That's because the proposed tax breaks were for gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, the favorite ride of environmentalists this side of bicycles. But the dirty secret about hybrids is that, even as the government continues to fuel their growth with tax subsidies, they don't deliver the gas savings they promise.
Most cars and trucks don't achieve the gas mileage they advertise, according to Consumer Reports. But hybrids do a far worse job than conventional vehicles in meeting their Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy ratings, especially in city driving.
Hybrids, which typically claim to get 32 to 60 miles per gallon, ended up delivering an average of 19 miles per gallon less than their EPA ratings under real-world driving conditions (which reflect more stop-and-go traffic and Americans' penchant for heavy accelerating) according to a Consumer Reports investigation in October 2005.
For example, a 2004 Toyota Prius got 35 miles per gallon in city driving, off 42 percent from its EPA rating of 60 mpg. The 2003 Honda Civic averaged 26 mpg, off 46 percent from its advertised 48 mpg. And the Ford Escape small sport utility vehicle managed 22 mpg, falling 33 percent short of its 33 mpg rating.
"City traffic is supposed to be the hybrids' strong suit, but their shortfall amounted to a 40 percent deficit on average," Consumer Reports said.
The hybrid failed another real world test in 2004 when a USA Today reporter compared a Toyota Prius hybrid with a Volkswagen Jetta diesel, driving both between his home in Ann Arbor, Michigan and the Washington, D.C. area. Both should have made the 500-mile trip on one tank of gas.
"Jetta lived up to its one-tank billing," reporter David Kiley wrote. "Prius did not."
Kiley had to stop to refill the Prius, which ended up averaging 38 miles per gallon, compared with 44 miles per gallon for the Jetta (which met its fuel economy rating). And this occurred during spring weather without the extra drain on a hybrid battery caused by winter weather--which would have favored the diesel Jetta even more.
Customers complain about the failure to meet fuel savings expectations. There are web sites such as hybridbuzz.com and chat rooms of hybrid fanatics who bemoan their lackluster fuel economy. About 58 percent of hybrid drivers say they aren't happy with their fuel economy (compared with 27 percent of conventional vehicle drivers), according to CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Oregon.
It's gotten to the point where Ford is giving hybrid owners special lessons on how to improve fuel economy, according to USA Today. They teach drivers how to brake sooner, which helps recharge the battery. But they also drill owners with the same tips that help conventional vehicle owners improve gas mileage: Accelerate slowly. Inflate your tires. Plan your errands better. And this eye-opener: Don't set the air conditioner on maximum. "That prevents the electric motor from engaging," USA Today says.
HYBRIDS ARE ALSO failing to pay for themselves in gas savings. A study by the car-buying website Edmunds.com calculates gasoline would have to cost $5.60 a gallon over five years for a Ford Escape hybrid to break even with the costs of driving a non-hybrid vehicle. The break-even number was $9.60 a gallon for a Honda Civic hybrid.
Hybrid automakers and their supporters have their defenses. They quibble with how some studies are done. They point out that even with their fuel economy shortcomings, hybrids achieve the best gas mileage in three of five vehicle categories rated by Consumer Reports. Hybrids are still far lower-polluting than diesels. Their sales are growing fast, even though they make up a small 1 percent of America's annual sales of 17 million vehicles.
Then there's the ultimate defense: They are just like conventional cars because drivers buy them for many reasons other than fuel savings and cost. There's the "prestige of owning such a vehicle," says Dave Hermance, an executive engineer for environmental engineering at Toyota, the leading seller of hybrids. After all, many vehicle purchases are emotional decisions, he says.
SO, HYBRIDS have become the environmental equivalent of driving an Escalade or Mustang. Who cares if they deliver on their promises as long as they make a social statement?
Taxpayers should. The federal government subsidizes hybrid fashion statements with tax breaks that benefit the rich. The average household income of a Civic hybrid owner ranges between $65,000 to $85,000 a year; it's more than $100,000 for the owner of an Accord. The median income of a Toyota Prius owner is $92,000; for a Highlander SUV owner $121,000; and for a luxury Lexus SUV owner it's over $200,000.
This year the government will offer tax credits for hybrid purchases ranging up to $3,400, with owners getting a dollar-for-dollar benefit on their tax forms. This beats last year's $2,000 tax deduction, which amounted up to a $700 benefit, depending on the driver's tax bracket.
JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, liberals criticized the Bush administration for allowing professionals to get tax breaks on large SUVs if they were purchased for business purposes. But evidently it's okay to subsidize under-performing hybrids.
Perhaps with more technological advances, hybrids will some day deliver on their fuel economy promise and truly be worth the extra cost. But the tax credits have become just one more welfare program for the wealthy. Let the fast-growing hybrids show that they can pay for themselves.
After all, when Snoop Dogg makes a fashion statement by buying a Chrysler 300 C with a Hemi engine, taxpayers aren't footing part of the bill.
Richard Burr is associate editor of the Detroit News editorial page.
In a number of states, you're not allowed to buy a diesel passenger vehicle, thanks to federal mandates.
How did you manage 46-50 mpg with your '89 Civic Si? I could only manage 36 or so highway with mine. That was still better than what the EPA sticker said, however.
Alas, they're not as fuel-efficient as you think. Remember, those cars have pretty ancient engine technology with carburetors and not really that high compression ratios, and as such you'll be lucky if you can get 33+ mpg unless you drive with a really light foot on the accelerator. The 2006 Honda Civic, on the other hand, has a modern engine with very precise fuel delivery, electronic trottle controls, variable-timing four-valve per cylinder heads, and electronic control of spark timing. As such, 35+ mpg is easily achieveable on steady freeway driving on a much bigger car with way more interior space than the cars you described.
I have owned all the cars I named, and many more.
They were what I drove during the phony "oil crises" of '74.
The Bug-Eye and Fiat 850 got the best mileage, real world, not some contrived EPA estimate.
Whatever shortcoming they may have had verse the modern econo-box's they more than made up for in fun driving.
I filled my tank at least 1/3 less often than anybody else in town.
Currently have a Spitfire as our economy car.
Fascinating. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation.
I agree. But the same moonbat shriekers who want to pollute my rural countryside so they can feel good about driving in their lesser polluted cityscape in their hybrid cars won't let the Feds approve any more nuke plants.
I wish they would keep their pollution in theur own back yard or just stay out of the whole energy policy discussion.
Also, Arianna Huffington, Bill Maher, Norman Lear, Robert Redford and all can kiss my butt on this subject. I get extremely angry when that type preach hybrids but don't consider who's sucking down their pollution a few hundred miles away on their behalf.
My hybrid has a 110 outlet in the console.
"But if you plug it in to charge it up, aren't you displacing the pollution rather than eliminating it? Displacing it to the predominantly rural areas where power plants are located.
Why should those folks breathe the additional pollutants to reduce the same in the more urban area?"
"How much does it cost to replace the batteries? What price would you pay for a used hybrid knowing that you soon had to replace its batteries?"
What cost? The batteries are warranteed for eight years or 100,000 miles. I doubt I will have it that long anyway; already having owned 54 cars in my lifetime. But in any event, I studied this matter and they simply are not failing. And if they are not failing, they would be dirt cheap in the scrap yards. I saw one on ebay and it sold for $455 with 4 miles on the odometer. And with costs coming down they are likely to become cheaper yet.
"The Accord Hybrid one seems awfully low. They also managed something like 18 mpg with a Jeep Liberty CRD. Maybe they test cars with the parking brake set."
The CU results may in fact be correct if, as I believe, the Accord is not a "true hybrid." There is a big distinction. Only a true hybrid can run solely on the electric motor. My Escape has a 94 hp electric motor that can actually run up to 20 miles before the battery is discharged. Sometimes the gasoline engine doesn't kick in until it is going about 38-40 mph if the grade is downhill. Typically, it comes on at about 25 mph. But I just drive it like my old 2003 Escape. If I do not eventually achieve 40 mpg I will be surprised. If I eventually achieve 50 mpg in the mountains (coming down), I won't be surprised.
Anyone knocking this technology is blowing smoke. They simply don't know what they are talking about.
But remember the key words, "true hybrid." There is a difference. A puny 15 hp motor coupled to a gasoline engine is not a "true hybrid." It is a marketing ploy.
Cool. Can you plug it in to recharge the batteries from utility power overnite if you choose to?
Mea culpa. I was reading regarding plans for hybrids to become plug-ins in the near future. Seems as though that is the direction the cars may be going soon.
I typed that assuming that was common knowledge. After more research, it seems that may not be the case.
The 46-50+ MPG with the '89 Civic SI was at the 55-60MPH range. It dropped closer to 42 when I cruised at 75 and hit the high 30s at higher rates. It was a sweet running car and would cruise at 95 all day, if you could find a place to do it, like northern highway 65 in Alabama after dark. When I souped it up (cam/header/k&N air filter and a performance chip) it would really scoot, but the highway mileage started averaging in the mid to upper 30s. I got rid of it at 178,000 and I still trusted it at red-line and a tad above. The guy who bought it moved from S. MS to the northeast and put another 72,000 on it before selling it again. The '89s were one of the best, all-around Civic hatchbacks they made.
Performance is optional if I know that the people whom I am buying my fuel from (indirectly) are the same people who want to kill me.
"Of course, since the Japanese did it, nobody says a word"
No, our own EPA puts the bogus mpg ratings on vehicles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.