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.
Frankss - NO one has bought a replacement pack for a hybrid yet. They're all still under warranty, and Toyota reports no warranty claims.
The cost WAS $4-5k, but these costs are not stagnant. In the past year, the Prius battery pack list price has come down 40%. The current projections are for another 40% this year alone. That puts the price at $1800 while the battery is STILL under warranty for several more years and costs can come down more.
Shoot, when the 1996 Taurus was introduced, the rear window replacement cost was listed at the better part of $1,000. That doesn't mean that it costs anywhere near that today.
My ten grand (when brand spanking new), 94 tercel has been getting better mileage than any of those hybrid pieces of crap and at a fraction of their cost!
Hybrid owners will get really "emotional" when the factory warranties expire, and they'll have to drop 3 to 10k (depends on the model) just for the battery pack replacement, not to mention other repair and maintenance cost which are much higher for hybrids.
The true cost of owning and maintaining a hybrid over extended period of time is not known yet, since the hybrid ownership really kicked in in the last few years, I can image moaning and squealing when factory warranties expire... ooouch.
The way to go is small clean diesels and for city driving truly "electric" cars rechargeable overnight, not the hybrid nonsense.
Car manufacturers are pushing hybrids cause they are much more profitable at present point due to novelty and snobbish appeal and also limited competition, but those two factors will play off and play out soon.
And I do not buy the "environmental" factor touted by hybrid advocates, for the mere and questionable gas savings are offset by environmental impact of using more copper, and other materials needed to manufacture a hybrid car, how about environmental cost of producing those huge battery packs, how about disposal of the batteries?
Are they going to recycle all of it?
Yea right, hey environazis, let,s be honest here. (extreme sarcasm).
Something to do with a "law" of thermodynamics, as I understand it.
It's pretty simple really. The EPA measures tail pipe emissions and backs that number into how much fuel was burned. They put the car on a dyno that varies resistance in both start/stop(city) and long haul(highway). Since in low acceleration city driving, hybrids are running on battery, they produce, exactly 0 emissions and it skews the average way way up. Furthermore, hybrids come into the test with fully charged batteries, which consequently doesn't account for the gasoline that ultimately charged the batteries in the first place, further skewing the results.
Essentially, the parameters are known for the EPA tests and automakers came up with a beautiful and completely legal way to beat the test.
Forget the Tracker! My Scion XB gets 34-35 city or highway (2000 miles so far, I recorded every ounce of fuel I put into this thing), has more room than a Tracker and if the dang think didn't have aerodynamics of a shoe box it might get 45 or more.
Some Scion owners claim 40 mpg after a simple mods.
The best of all is the price: $16.400 delivered with tax, and all the options which are standart.
Oh, boy. Within a 250 mile radius of my home, there are 33 2005 Priuses for sale. There are also 566 Corollas, 495 Camrys, 1055 Tauruses, 223 Accords, and 176 Civics. Even considering the relative sales volumes of those cars, 33 is NOT a glut. That constitutes a scarcity of supply...
No, that will only give you a partial return. You still have to recharge eventually, otherwise you would have a perpetual motion machine.
You're either missing the point, or ignoring it. Yes, you will eventually have to get gas. Duh. It takes energy to stop a car too. Energy that is wasted in conventional cars, but in hybrids can be at least partially stored. In the same manner, hybrids' engines shut down when not needed to provide propulsion.
The box-shaped Scions are among the ugliest cars I have ever seen, but I'm married now and need the room. I will have the boss (my wife) give them look. We'er in the market for a car, and both space and gas mileage makes the top 4 - looks don't count!
Something to do with a "law" of thermodynamics, as I understand it.
Yes, that is true. I was just using 'tough' as an ironic version of 'impossible'.
The Weekly Standard is hardly the light of day. If this were the NYT I would be impressed.
bump
I averaged that in my 99 Integra GSR and the red line was 8100.
Since you didn't bother to quote from the several posts I made, I'm not even sure which original one you directed your comment to.
I know about regenerative breaking. Regenerative braking is best in stop and go traffic, but if you drive the freeway, your return is minimal when compared to the energy used in driving.
You said it takes energy to stop a car. It does not take a lot of energy to stop a car. Nowhere near the amount used to get it up to speed. Only that small amount used by power brakes for a few seconds. (With non-power brakes, it takes only energy from the driver's leg.)
Yes, when you stop, the conversion of the large kinetic energy of the car to heat by the brakes wastes that kinetic energy. Yes, some of that kinetic energy can be diverted to recharge the hybrid. Of course this is a positive for the hybrid in stop and go.
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said you wouldn't have to buy gas, though. When I mentioned perpetual motion machine to someone, I was joking.
You don't need the "Duh" if we're trying to have a civil conversation.
My memory says that I used to get about 45 mpg with a little Geo Metro I purchased back in about 1992.
It was a decent little run-about car....standard transmission.
One of the bigger energy wasters in conventional cars is the throttle. I wonder why more hasn't been done about that; delayed valve closure could control power without as much need for throttling as conventional designs, or an alternator powered by the throttle could be used to provide "better-than-free" energy (in normal designs, the energy wasted in the throttle is converted into heat in an area where increased temperatures reduce efficiency; putting something there to harness the energy would provide free energy in addition to cooling the intake air. To be sure, the amount of cooling probably wouldn't be enough to improve efficiency much, but the harnessed energy would still be "better than free".
When hubby fills up, he takes the miles from the last fill-up, and the gallons he puts in and calculates. This is not what the car calculates itself, but the actual mpg.
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.