Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan Hybrid Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Hybrid
1054 messages, Last post on Nov 01, 2009 at 2:52 PM
You are in the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan Hybrid Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jan 05, 2009 5:37 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jan 05, 2009 5:37 pm) There's a big difference in highway mileage depending on how fast you drive and whether you include getting on and off the highway or not, etc as well as whether you're using E-10 or not (which drops mileage noticeably in most vehicles). Your anecdotal evidence does not account for these differences - the EPA test does. Even with hundreds of online accounts, the sample size is still way too small and potentially skewed to be accurate.
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 06, 2009 6:04 am) |
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 06, 2009 6:04 am) Actually, the gh.com website has 148,512,469 miles registered. Even if you take into account that the number of "fudgers" in the group is 10%, which is probably about right based on societal norms, you still have a HUGE number of miles being reported accurately and honestly. Until someone shows me another better source, that site is and should be the Bible of real-world mileage reference. There are government fleet studies too which have registered real-world numbers. There are those at fueleconomy.gov which are real-world drivers. The various TDI forums have hundreds or thousands of real-world results. The smallest sample of all is the EPA test. It should be the least likely to be correct regarding real-world mileage.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 06, 2009 6:32 am) it's impossible to compare Car A getting x/y using Test 26 while driving aggressively and Car B getting n/m using Test 34 while driving conservatively.
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jan 06, 2009 7:41 am) I personally had no problem meeting the 'old' EPA test values with any vehicle I've owned since the 80's. I also understood that the values posted were hypothetical for controlled circumstances. Outside conditions could increase or decrease the real world results. The weight of evidence supports the fact that today almost any driver can exceed the new EPA numbers by 5-15% in their daily usage. Going back to the original point that set off this discussion. The various hybrids on the road today are NOT solely intended for slow-and-go city or highway driving. That's an old and since-disproven misconception. Every one of the current hybrids is far better on the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts. I suggest that this 'far better' value runs from 20-30% better. You may have a different value and that's OK. Nonetheless it remains that the hybrids do outperform the non-hybrids significantly on the highway. When coupled with the phenomenal improvement of the worst case driving situation, i.e. slow-and-go traffic, then the hybrids are a solid economic decision for the appropriate buyer.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 06, 2009 6:32 am) Now it's entirely possible that if you did a controlled test in the real world where both vehicles were driven the same way on the same route with everything being equal that the numbers would be different than the EPA test numbers. HOWEVER, until someone can find a test like that the only VALID comparison numbers are from the EPA tests. This is basic science folks. The key to a valid test is repeatability. If you run the EPA test over and over you'll probably see only a very minor variation in the figures - I'm guessing 2 percent or less. Compare that with the owner reported fuel mileage which I'm guessing has a very wide range (someone mentioned 38-42 mpg). That alone should tell you how unscientific the measurements are. If you're trying to figure out what your mileage may be in the real world then those measurements are fine. But you can't use them for comparisons. |
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jan 06, 2009 7:56 am) I'm thinking that the "better" ranges widely between 5% and 25% as far as highway. That's a very wide range because there's a huge amount of factors involved. Hybrids were primarily designed to improve city-cycle mileage anyway. So if, for example you have a highway drive that's turned into a traffic jam one day (or even regularly), that's going to skew the results, because it's more "city" driving, even though it's on a highway. Notice I dropped the "far"...I disagree with "far better" though they do improve highway-style mileage. However, given the significant hybrid price premium, it's still not a cost-effective decision for many people who drive primarily (75% or more) highway (unless said highway is gridlocked much of the time, turning it into city driving, anyway).
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Jan 06, 2009 7:56 am) Nobody disagrees with that, except maybe the "far" part. The EPA tests agree that hybrids get better highway mileage. YOU may get 20%-30% better but you can't prove that would be true for everyone else, on average. As for the hybrid being cost effective, let's assume 15,000 miles per year with gas at $4/gallon. The Camry gets 25 mpg combined and the TCH gets 34 - that's a 9 mpg difference. The TC uses 600 gallons/yr and the TCH only uses 441 for a savings of 159 gallons. At $4/gallon that's an annual savings of $636. It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And double that if gas remains at $2 or less or if you drive significantly less than 15k/yr. Drive a hybrid because you want to and stop trying to rationalize them as being cheaper.
|
|
|
Replying to: akirby (Jan 06, 2009 8:12 am) Quoted from an LA Times article a couple of years ago: Pull out your calculators. Let's say I was interested in a 2006 Honda Civic — because, well, I am — and I was debating between the sedan and the hybrid. With a navigation system, the hybrid costs $23,350; a similarly equipped Civic EX sedan costs $20,560. The hybrid premium equals $2,790. The combined fuel economy of the non-hybrid is 35 mpg; the hybrid, 50 mpg, a theoretical difference of 15 mpg. In five years of average driving (15,000 miles per year), I would save 643 gallons, or $1,929 (assuming a gas price of $3 per gallon), with the hybrid. Combined with the current tax deduction (a savings of $580 in my tax bracket) I recoup 90% of the hybrid premium in five years. If I were to buy the Honda Civic hybrid in January 2006, the numbers look even better. The federal tax deduction becomes a credit worth $2,100. Combined with my fuel savings I actually come out about $1,200 ahead. Many times it just depends on how you do the math. I personally would rather pollute less and pay more for the vehicle up front and then pay less in fuel costs and be insulated from high gas prices in the future. Many buyers have that same idea. To quote your last post and add pertinent info to it: "It would take anywhere from 5 to 8 years to recover the additional cost of the hybrid over it's non hybrid counterpart. And in the meantime, you are paying squat for gasoline costs." Hybrids are not magic, are not the silver bullet, are not perfect, etc etc. But as far as most bang for your gasoline buck, they are surpassed only by the cheapest econobox cars. And lastly, they are just SUPER COOL, dude !!! |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan Hybrid Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan Hybrid
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Ford Fusion
2010 Mercury Milan
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
