Bye-bye hybrid?

Wheels.ca ^ | Jul 11, 2007 | John Leblanc

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Rumblings in the automotive world suggest that Honda killing its Accord hybrid may have been just the canary in the over-hyped hybrid coal mine. Honda’s decision raises the question: Are hybrids just a fad -- a short-term solution to a long-term problem?

Until now, the big reason why people bought hybrids was the dual promise of frugal fuel consumption and zero emissions — save your money, save the Earth.

Trouble is, the media has generated enough hybrid hype that dealers are reluctant to negotiate on the purchase price. Beyond the current get-‘em-while-you-can government rebates, zero per cent financing or cash-back incentives on hybrids in Canada are about as rare as free gas.

Hybrid operating costs also need to be heeded.



Do you drive at the speed of traffic on the highway in less than ideal conditions (i.e., when it's windy and the road is hilly?) Or live in a climate where you use your car’s defroster or air conditioning (which, here in Ottawa, where we go from winter frost to summer humidity over lunch, is about 365 days of the year)? Using the condenser in the A/C system uses more power, which uses more fuel.

If this sounds like your driving lifestyle, you can pretty much forget about achieving the typically surreal fuel consumption estimates that most hybrids claim.

(In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of updating its fuel consumption testing for the first time in more than 40 years to include real-world conditions. Not surprisingly, hybrids — like all other cars — take a beating. Some experts are estimating a 20 per cent increase in consumption compared to the current EPA ratings.)

The final reason hybrids may end up as a passing fancy is that, in a traditional sense, they effectively remove the act of driving as a visceral experience.

So hybrids are expensive to own, don’t deliver on advertised fuel consumption and are about as exciting to drive as a Kenmore side-by-side. Yet hybrid fans can absolve their vehicles of all these sins by self-righteously claiming ownership of the low emissions crown, right?

Yes, up until now.

New car customers are demanding vehicles that are cleaner, and more fuel-efficient — without the extra costs and driving compromises that are inherent with hybrids. And automakers are responding.

One example is the very non-hybrid Mini D. Not planned for Canada (yet), it will arrive in Europe later this summer.

The “D” is for diesel. And if you’re thinking, “Oooo, a stinky, soot emitting diesel” you would be wrong. In addition to achieving a better-than-60 U.S. m.p.g. (3.9 L/100 km) rating, the Mini D’s carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions are 104 g/km — a figure that, not incidentally, matches the cleaner-than-thou Prius.

And it’s not just the Mini D that can achieve hybrid-like fuel consumption and emissions without asking owners to sacrifice traditional car ownership expectations.

By way of stop-and-start technologies, sophisticated aerodynamics or the use of low weight materials, European-only cars like BMW’s 118 D, Volkswagen’s Polo Bluemotion or Peugeot 107 are not only mean with fuel, but also green.

Hybrids have been perceived as a panacea to our planet’s non-renewable energy and dirty skies crisis. But they’re really only one solution. There needs to be a greater variety of “green” vehicles that can meet the diversity of people’s needs, which would have a further-reaching positive environmental impact.

As a more mainstream solution that’s cheaper to own, and more fun to drive, maybe we can look at what Honda will be replacing its Accord hybrid with in 2009: an ultra clean 2.2-litre D-I-E-S-E-L.

[bray]

Good riddance to the Prius and its Pius drivers. Who needs a car who’s zero to 60 is measured on a Sundial.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[paulcissa]

I really like the mini-cooper, but isn’t it really just another “status symbol” car? My daughter wants one of those mini-coopers, I couldn’t believe how expensive they were given how small they are.

I'll tell you this; for all the fanatics that own MINI's and rave endlessly about all their attributes, I decided to go drive one for myself. It's a well though-out commuter vehicle (2-seater; the rear seat is useless) with a long list of standard equipment in the base vehicle.

I shopped Honda, Toyota, Nissan, VW and Scion for a subcompact coupe. Drove `em all; stayed open minded and bought an `07 MINI Cooper S. I test drove this car last as it was last on my list. I come from an automotive family and worked the first half of my life in the industry and I honestly believe that BMW Group has done a wonderful thing with this car.

Trust me, I didn't buy it for "status"; I get mostly jeered and teased by my mates and the females just think it's cute. It's important to note that I just put my 5th tank of fuel through it and turned 37.5 mpg over 500 miles. With 175 hp and a snotty little turbo 1.6 liter, it's a hoot to drive.

[Old Professer]

I saw the future 40 years ago:

[Burma Jones]

I’ve enjoyed my Prius, but owning one does cause people to make assumptions about you. I don’t have a Bush-Cheney sticker on my Prius, but one day a few months ago my wife and I swapped vehicles for the day. My wife’s minivan does have a B-C ‘04 sticker (well, it did until I peeled it off during the shamnesty debate in the Senate). It was fun to see the faces of a couple of left-leaning female co-workers when they saw the sticker.

I have a long commute (live in an evil suburb, of course), so it’s about the money to me. The old truck got about 22 mpg, the Prius has gotten right at 49.5 for its first 22,000 miles.

[TommyUdo]

"Have you thought about putting a Bush/Cheney sticker on it?"

But then I'd get it from both sides...

But I do have a license plate frame that says... Farms? In Berkeley? Mooooooooooooo....

RIP Mel Blanc

[Gay State Conservative]

I actually test drove the MB more out of curiosity than anything.Massachusetts doesn't allow new diesels to be registered in the state and I've never been a big fan of used cars (which *can* be registered here).

As more US car makers produce diesels I may well give them a close look.

[Old Professer]

g/kg CO2 numbers are only a way of showing the gas mileage; they are inextricably linked, not independent, unless you count going downhill with a fouled spark plug.

[Poser]

My DL1000 gets 45 miles per gallon at 90 mph, has a top speed somewhere around 135 mph, will do 0-60 in 3 seconds and emits less than half as much nasty stuff as a Camry.

Oh... Sorry... It's a motorcycle.

[Old Professer]

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLXGIYsqmLI

[Centurion2000]

who makes that thing?

[Poser]

Suzuki. MSRP $8,999. I paid $7,999 out the door.

Ugly, ain’t it?

[xjcsa]

True enough, but it’s much easier to figure fuel cost from the MPG numbers.

[theBuckwheat]

I have a friend who is on a rescue crew, he has had the training, and he is scared to death of having to cut into a hybrid. He says some are ok and some were not built with any rescue issues in mind.

[DogByte6RER]

Sorry...I'm pro-Choice! I'll stick with my H2.

[Old Professer]

That’s hardly my point; what the writers are doing, either through ignorance or purposeful confusion, is to fix in the reader’s mind that there exists a way to manufacture an engine and car combination through better engineering that will produce less carbon dioxide from the same amount of fuel while at the same time going a greater distance.

That can’t be done without a non-carbon supplemental fuel, like hydrogen.

[xjcsa]

That’s hardly my point; what the writers are doing, either through ignorance or purposeful confusion, is to fix in the reader’s mind that there exists a way to manufacture an engine and car combination through better engineering that will produce less carbon dioxide from the same amount of fuel while at the same time going a greater distance.

Yes, I had missed that point, and it's a good one. I have a hard time thinking past my annoyance at the very notion of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

[Centurion2000]

Looks nice actually. I was looking at a Kaw Ninja 250 for 1800 just a little while ago.

[Squantos]

http://frybrid.com/

I bought a tank of diesel back in September of 2006........since then I use free fuel.

Driving a 2006 Dodge Diesel 2500 4x4 w/ a stock 34 gallon diesel tank and a 80 gallon frybrid bed tank. A Bully Dog programmer kept in the “performance” setting for the cummins 5.9L with AFE cold air intake and a 5 inch Borla exhaust.......it’s fast and ...........uses free fuel !

My little towns local burger joints and restaurants make me a deal. I haul off their old fryer grease and they feed me dinner when I haul it off.....

Add me to yer ping list please.......Stay safe !

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

The measure is g/km — diesel engines score better than gasoline engines, because they are more efficient — so they get more distance per unit of carbon consumed. That does sound like reducing CO2 through better engineering.

However, if the indicator doesn’t take into account real world conditions — then it wouldn’t account for the amount of fuel consumed while idling. Engines that turn off automatically at stops should have better numbers than those that keep on running — everything else being equal.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I should have added that I agree with you — given fuel with the same proportion of carbon, the g/km CO2 emission measure is just a complicated way of reporting mileage. The only advantage* that I can see to the measure is that it would reward use of fuels that contain higher proportions of hydrogen. (*”Advantage” to the extent that you believe that CO2 emissions are harmful.)