muzz wrote:
> Yes - I've had it back to the dealer twice - computer showed no
> problem - the second time the service manager asked me
> "well, just what mileage would you expect anyway?" I told him
> I didn't expect 48 but thought low 40s should be expected.
> He had no answer to that - as far as how the car is driven, when
> it says 48 city, most people would assume normal around the
> town driving would do. I did get 40 on a 2000 mile round trip
> on the interstate last summer, just to see what it would do - of
> course we don't usually take the civic on long trips, so that
> figure is pretty redundant.
>

Dissapointing to say the least.... :-(

>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 07:05:20 -0700, "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> muzz wrote:
>>> It might help you to be aware that even tho the Honda people
>>> advertise 48 mpg on the civic hybrid, mine gets 33 in the summer
>>> and 34 in the winter after 18 months of conservative driving.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any info on the long-term reliability of hybrids.
>>>> Any brand. Batteries?
>>
>> Are you sure? One can get that with a regular Civic. Not
>> impressive at all. Maybe there is something qrong?

 

In article <d90v81pj7lfaa52m6c77lc032chs02d51b@4ax.com>, muzz
<jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:

> Yes - I've had it back to the dealer twice - computer showed no
> problem - the second time the service manager asked me
> "well, just what mileage would you expect anyway?" I told him
> I didn't expect 48 but thought low 40s should be expected.
> He had no answer to that - as far as how the car is driven, when
> it says 48 city, most people would assume normal around the
> town driving would do. I did get 40 on a 2000 mile round trip
> on the interstate last summer, just to see what it would do - of
> course we don't usually take the civic on long trips, so that
> figure is pretty redundant.


Hello,
I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years. Each of the staff members
that used the car (for free) for trips had to write a report related to
problems and miles per gallon. The consensus was that gas mileage was
great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
driving. The reporter that wrote the story indicated that the electric
engine kicks in quite a lot in low speed stop and go driving but rarely
kicks in on interstate and freeway driving. It was his opinion that this
was the reason for the differences in the miles per gallon. The
conclusion: If you plan to do a lot of city driving--buy a hybrid. If you
plan to use the vehicle for lots of freeway and interstate driving--don't
buy a hybrid.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <d90v81pj7lfaa52m6c77lc032chs02d51b@4ax.com>, muzz
<jmuzz@charter.net> wrote:

> Yes - I've had it back to the dealer twice - computer showed no
> problem - the second time the service manager asked me
> "well, just what mileage would you expect anyway?" I told him
> I didn't expect 48 but thought low 40s should be expected.
> He had no answer to that - as far as how the car is driven, when
> it says 48 city, most people would assume normal around the
> town driving would do. I did get 40 on a 2000 mile round trip
> on the interstate last summer, just to see what it would do - of
> course we don't usually take the civic on long trips, so that
> figure is pretty redundant.


Hello,
I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years. Each of the staff members
that used the car (for free) for trips had to write a report related to
problems and miles per gallon. The consensus was that gas mileage was
great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
driving. The reporter that wrote the story indicated that the electric
engine kicks in quite a lot in low speed stop and go driving but rarely
kicks in on interstate and freeway driving. It was his opinion that this
was the reason for the differences in the miles per gallon. The
conclusion: If you plan to do a lot of city driving--buy a hybrid. If you
plan to use the vehicle for lots of freeway and interstate driving--don't
buy a hybrid.

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <jason-2105051805230001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years.

Which kind? The series hybrid type such as what Honda does, or the
incredibly complex parallel hybrid type such as what Toyota does (and
licenses to Ford)?



> The consensus was that gas mileage was
> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
> driving.

If you understand what a hybrid does, and what problem it's trying to
solve, this is no surprise at all.

 

In article <jason-2105051805230001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years.

Which kind? The series hybrid type such as what Honda does, or the
incredibly complex parallel hybrid type such as what Toyota does (and
licenses to Ford)?



> The consensus was that gas mileage was
> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
> driving.

If you understand what a hybrid does, and what problem it's trying to
solve, this is no surprise at all.

 

"K`Tetch" <no.email@here.for.you> wrote in message
news:sakv8153ef517808rqvsiu060ek6r110ic@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:59 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>Battery life is most strongly dependent on operating conditions. The
>>flooded
>>lead-acids in our communication sites at work have a typical life of 20-30
>>years, and most of those are taken out of service with the capacity still
>>within specs (our battery guys load test them twice a year).
>
> Then you have a very low level requirement. Its slightly erring on the
> cautious side to say that lead acid capacity decreases at 10%/year
> However, after 10 years, you're left at 35% capacity. oh, the load
> will still be ok, but the caacity will be shot to hell. The growing
> terminals are the exact same reason that the capacity drops - chemical
> action.That 35% is also some eavy rounding. after 20 years, you're at
> 11-12% capacity. This is, as i remind you, keeping th batteries in
> their optimum condition.treat them sub-optimally and they won't do
> half as well.
>
>
20 years is the standard design life for communications lead-acid batteries,
although cell sites often go for the quick and dirty versions with 12 year
design life or less:
http://industrialenergy.exide.com/index.asp?gnb=2 and select "Flooded"
technologies
The load test is a complete capacity test; loss of 20% capacity is the
trigger for replacement. Most have less than 10% loss in capacity after 20
years and are usually budgeted for replacement within 30 years - earlier if
they show signs of case failure or (more rarely) loss of capacity.

Mike

 

"K`Tetch" <no.email@here.for.you> wrote in message
news:sakv8153ef517808rqvsiu060ek6r110ic@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:44:59 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>>Battery life is most strongly dependent on operating conditions. The
>>flooded
>>lead-acids in our communication sites at work have a typical life of 20-30
>>years, and most of those are taken out of service with the capacity still
>>within specs (our battery guys load test them twice a year).
>
> Then you have a very low level requirement. Its slightly erring on the
> cautious side to say that lead acid capacity decreases at 10%/year
> However, after 10 years, you're left at 35% capacity. oh, the load
> will still be ok, but the caacity will be shot to hell. The growing
> terminals are the exact same reason that the capacity drops - chemical
> action.That 35% is also some eavy rounding. after 20 years, you're at
> 11-12% capacity. This is, as i remind you, keeping th batteries in
> their optimum condition.treat them sub-optimally and they won't do
> half as well.
>
>
20 years is the standard design life for communications lead-acid batteries,
although cell sites often go for the quick and dirty versions with 12 year
design life or less:
http://industrialenergy.exide.com/index.asp?gnb=2 and select "Flooded"
technologies
The load test is a complete capacity test; loss of 20% capacity is the
trigger for replacement. Most have less than 10% loss in capacity after 20
years and are usually budgeted for replacement within 30 years - earlier if
they show signs of case failure or (more rarely) loss of capacity.

Mike

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-E84911.21535321052005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <jason-2105051805230001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
> jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
>> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years.
>
> Which kind? The series hybrid type such as what Honda does, or the
> incredibly complex parallel hybrid type such as what Toyota does (and
> licenses to Ford)?
>
From the description it would have to be Toyota's series/parallel Prius.
>
>
>> The consensus was that gas mileage was
>> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
>> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
>> driving.
>
> If you understand what a hybrid does, and what problem it's trying to
> solve, this is no surprise at all.

Exactly. In theory, a serial hybrid could be made with a very low power
engine and using just the electric storage for acceleration, and in that way
get a measurable improvement in freeway economy. But for the forseeable
future hybrids just don't have a significant advantage at freeway speeds.
Cars like the Civic are pretty efficient at that already and there is little
room for improvement.

Mike

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-E84911.21535321052005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <jason-2105051805230001@pm1-broad-91.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
> jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
>> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years.
>
> Which kind? The series hybrid type such as what Honda does, or the
> incredibly complex parallel hybrid type such as what Toyota does (and
> licenses to Ford)?
>
From the description it would have to be Toyota's series/parallel Prius.
>
>
>> The consensus was that gas mileage was
>> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
>> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
>> driving.
>
> If you understand what a hybrid does, and what problem it's trying to
> solve, this is no surprise at all.

Exactly. In theory, a serial hybrid could be made with a very low power
engine and using just the electric storage for acceleration, and in that way
get a measurable improvement in freeway economy. But for the forseeable
future hybrids just don't have a significant advantage at freeway speeds.
Cars like the Civic are pretty efficient at that already and there is little
room for improvement.

Mike

 

L Alpert wrote:
> muzz wrote:
>
>>It might help you to be aware that even tho the Honda people advertise
>>48 mpg on the civic hybrid, mine gets 33 in the summer and 34 in the
>>winter after 18 months of conservative driving.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone have any info on the long-term reliability of hybrids.
>>>Any brand. Batteries?
>
>
> Are you sure? One can get that with a regular Civic. Not impressive at
> all. Maybe there is something qrong?
>
>

Count me as a hybrid skeptic right now. Most people seem to be
reporting real world fuel economy much lower than the EPA published numbers.

Long term running costs including battery replacements, controller
problems, etc. are all still to be seen.

Fuel economy wise, diesel engines make vastly more sense than do complex
hybrid powertrains.

John

 

L Alpert wrote:
> muzz wrote:
>
>>It might help you to be aware that even tho the Honda people advertise
>>48 mpg on the civic hybrid, mine gets 33 in the summer and 34 in the
>>winter after 18 months of conservative driving.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone have any info on the long-term reliability of hybrids.
>>>Any brand. Batteries?
>
>
> Are you sure? One can get that with a regular Civic. Not impressive at
> all. Maybe there is something qrong?
>
>

Count me as a hybrid skeptic right now. Most people seem to be
reporting real world fuel economy much lower than the EPA published numbers.

Long term running costs including battery replacements, controller
problems, etc. are all still to be seen.

Fuel economy wise, diesel engines make vastly more sense than do complex
hybrid powertrains.

John

 

Michael Pardee wrote:

> Much of the disappointment comes from design considerations. Honda wanted to
> compete in fuel economy, and to get the very best economy they started with
> a base model that did well to start with. They could have taken the other
> path, economical power, as they did with their DualNote concept car... but
> I'm sure cost would have popped up on that adventure!
>

The problem as I see it is that hybrids flunk the basic keep it simple
principle. They have far more components than their conventional
counterparts and weigh more as well. More complexity and more weight.
Not good general starting point to achieve better efficiency.

Many of the hybrid vehicles are also using other tricks to get some of
the fuel economy, which tricks do not require the hybrid powertrain.
Smaller engines as you mentioned are one trick. Narrow, high pressure
tires are another trick. Cylinder deactivation is another (as used on
the V-6 hybrid Accord).

Marketing and hype are clouding many of the facts.

John

 

Michael Pardee wrote:

> Much of the disappointment comes from design considerations. Honda wanted to
> compete in fuel economy, and to get the very best economy they started with
> a base model that did well to start with. They could have taken the other
> path, economical power, as they did with their DualNote concept car... but
> I'm sure cost would have popped up on that adventure!
>

The problem as I see it is that hybrids flunk the basic keep it simple
principle. They have far more components than their conventional
counterparts and weigh more as well. More complexity and more weight.
Not good general starting point to achieve better efficiency.

Many of the hybrid vehicles are also using other tricks to get some of
the fuel economy, which tricks do not require the hybrid powertrain.
Smaller engines as you mentioned are one trick. Narrow, high pressure
tires are another trick. Cylinder deactivation is another (as used on
the V-6 hybrid Accord).

Marketing and hype are clouding many of the facts.

John

 

> Hello,
> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years. Each of the staff members
> that used the car (for free) for trips had to write a report related to
> problems and miles per gallon. The consensus was that gas mileage was
> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
> driving. The reporter that wrote the story indicated that the electric
> engine kicks in quite a lot in low speed stop and go driving but rarely
> kicks in on interstate and freeway driving. It was his opinion that this
> was the reason for the differences in the miles per gallon. The
> conclusion: If you plan to do a lot of city driving--buy a hybrid. If you
> plan to use the vehicle for lots of freeway and interstate driving--don't
> buy a hybrid.
>

The main advantage a hybrid has is it's ability to recapture some of the
energy which would otherwise be lost to heat by conventional braking.
On the open road this is a non-issue.

The second potential advantage of a hybrid is that the gasoline powered
engine can be shut down when the car is stopped and the stored energy in
the batteries can be used to keep the A/C, radio and other systems alive.

The biggest disadvantage a hybrid has is that it is heavier than the
same vehicle without the added batteries and electics. The work done in
moving and object from one point to another is a function of the
distance and the weights (ok, mass). All other things being equal, a
heavier vehicle gets lower fuel economy than a lighter one.

Oddly enough, GM may have the idea more "right" in their limited
production pickup truck hybrid system where the electrics are small and
light and really only have anough capacity to enable the shut down of
the gasoline engine at a dead stop.

John

 

> Hello,
> I read an article about Hybrid vehicles in a car magazine. The magazine
> staff used a Hybrid vehicle for about two years. Each of the staff members
> that used the car (for free) for trips had to write a report related to
> problems and miles per gallon. The consensus was that gas mileage was
> great when the trip involved lots of city (aka stop and go) driving but
> was very poor when the trip involved lots of freeway and interstate
> driving. The reporter that wrote the story indicated that the electric
> engine kicks in quite a lot in low speed stop and go driving but rarely
> kicks in on interstate and freeway driving. It was his opinion that this
> was the reason for the differences in the miles per gallon. The
> conclusion: If you plan to do a lot of city driving--buy a hybrid. If you
> plan to use the vehicle for lots of freeway and interstate driving--don't
> buy a hybrid.
>

The main advantage a hybrid has is it's ability to recapture some of the
energy which would otherwise be lost to heat by conventional braking.
On the open road this is a non-issue.

The second potential advantage of a hybrid is that the gasoline powered
engine can be shut down when the car is stopped and the stored energy in
the batteries can be used to keep the A/C, radio and other systems alive.

The biggest disadvantage a hybrid has is that it is heavier than the
same vehicle without the added batteries and electics. The work done in
moving and object from one point to another is a function of the
distance and the weights (ok, mass). All other things being equal, a
heavier vehicle gets lower fuel economy than a lighter one.

Oddly enough, GM may have the idea more "right" in their limited
production pickup truck hybrid system where the electrics are small and
light and really only have anough capacity to enable the shut down of
the gasoline engine at a dead stop.

John