Civic Hybrid: Your Gas Mileage

[ray]

Originally Posted by Logan176

I'm no hypermiler by any means, but lately I have slowed down a lot and I'm getting 36-38 mpg with a best of 42.3. The price difference between the LX and the HCH is about $6,700... that's a lot of money to make up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my calculations, it would take almost 175,000 miles to break even when taking in the account of the price difference between the LX and the HCH. Here's what I did...

According to CarsDirect.com, an LX is $16,517 and a HCH is $23,235. That's a price difference of $6,718.

LX at 32mpg with gas at $4.25/gal will cost $132.80 per 1,000 miles
HCH at 45mpg with gas at $4.25/gal will cost $94.40 per 1,000 miles
HCH fuel savings per 1,000 miles is $38.40

Original cost difference of $6,718 divided by savings of $38.40 per 1,000 miles is 174.947. Now multiply that by 1,000 and you get... 174,947 miles!


I know that there are government rebates available and that as the price of gas goes up, so does the mpg savings return with the HCH. But I also know that batteries don't last forever, so the batteries in the HCH will need to be replaced eventually and they will be expensive. On the other hand, that $6,718 could make a small return in a high yield, online savings account or mutual fund.

Now, if going "green" for the environment's sake is your goal, I salute you. If my math is wrong please correct me, but if saving money is your main goal, based on these numbers the HCH doesn't seem like a good way to save.

And actually, in a fair comparison, hybrids save even less. A civic hybrid is a significantly less powerful car than is a convential gas-powered civic. What happens if you engineer the convential car to the power and speed levels the hybrid achieves? Gas mileage goes up, eroding or perhaps even eliminating the hybrid 'advantage'.

There is a historical precedent for this. The great oil embargo of 1973 produced a number of diesel-powered vehicles available for sale in the late 70's and early 80s. They produced better mileage, but had 50-60% the power of their gasoline-fired bretheren. Had the gas-powered version been engineered in a context where it needed only match the performance achieved by the diesel, the mileage would have essentially equalized.

The overall point here is that until this era of $4/gallon gas few of us were willing to settle for the diminished performance envelope produced by hybrids. That's why an R18 is what it its--we don't really want to settle for less than its 140hp output, even in a relatively small car like a civic. But design priorities are bound to change and mpg may finally hit the front burner priority-wise. We will see just how good today's gas-engine technology is in regard to efficiency, and perhaps that regenerative braking is a hybrid's only real advantage.

Another point to be noted here--a 'relatively small' car like a LX is pushing 3000lbs. these days. Weight savings technolgies are a big part of the current hybrid compact-car approach. This adds cost to a vehicle, cost that would be directly borne by the consumer in a car lacking any government production subsidy. Design a gas civic to the same performance level as the hybrid and apply the same sort of weight-reduction techniques, and hybrids start looking like a gimick, in my estimation.

[OrdnanceMarine]

Originally Posted by ray

And actually, in a fair comparison, hybrids save even less. A civic hybrid is a significantly less powerful car than is a convential gas-powered civic. What happens if you engineer the convential car to the power and speed levels the hybrid achieves? Gas mileage goes up, eroding or perhaps even eliminating the hybrid 'advantage'.

There is a historical precedent for this. The great oil embargo of 1973 produced a number of diesel-powered vehicles available for sale in the late 70's and early 80s. They produced better mileage, but had 50-60% the power of their gasoline-fired bretheren. Had the gas-powered version been engineered in a context where it needed only match the performance achieved by the diesel, the mileage would have essentially equalized.

The overall point here is that until this era of $4/gallon gas few of us were willing to settle for the diminished performance envelope produced by hybrids. That's why an R18 is what it its--we don't really want to settle for less than its 140hp output, even in a relatively small car like a civic. But design priorities are bound to change and mpg may finally hit the front burner priority-wise. We will see just how good today's gas-engine technology is in regard to efficiency, and perhaps that regenerative braking is a hybrid's only real advantage.

Another point to be noted here--a 'relatively small' car like a LX is pushing 3000lbs. these days. Weight savings technolgies are a big part of the current hybrid compact-car approach. This adds cost to a vehicle, cost that would be directly borne by the consumer in a car lacking any government production subsidy. Design a gas civic to the same performance level as the hybrid and apply the same sort of weight-reduction techniques, and hybrids start looking like a gimick, in my estimation.

I agree with your points. As soon as you migrate away from stop and go, around town, heavy traffic driving, the advantage of a hybrid narrows substantially. If you geared my Si down some more and gave it the same aerodynamics, wheels, tires, etc. I would bet the highway spread would be less than 10 MPG.

[spinner]

The Civic Hybrid is the second-heaviest in the line, coming right after the Si. Even the ATs are lighter.

10 years ago you would have been content to push a Civic EX sedan around with 109 hp. The Civic Hybrid has 93hp from the engine, which is useable but the average consumer would think is underpowered. The electric engine provides low end torque, which is where it is most useful for propulsion. But IMA does so much more; Things that can only be achieved with the advantage of energy caching: All four cylinders can be idled while driving with negligible resistance, which means halted fuel injection; The A/C can be run on the high-voltage battery pack and/or the engine; Auto idle stop of the engine with all utilities still active; And, starter-less starts. Yes, any other Civic could do these things, if only they had IMA. Hybrid technology has to move out of being a niche application and become the de facto engine system. It is years ahead of the efficiencies that can be dreamed up for just the engine alone.

[OrdnanceMarine]

Originally Posted by spinner

The Civic Hybrid is the second-heaviest in the line, coming right after the Si. Even the ATs are lighter.

10 years ago you would have been content to push a Civic EX sedan around with 109 hp. The Civic Hybrid has 93hp from the engine, which is useable but the average consumer would think is underpowered. The electric engine provides low end torque, which is where it is most useful for propulsion. But IMA does so much more; Things that can only be achieved with the advantage of energy caching: All four cylinders can be idled while driving with negligible resistance, which means halted fuel injection; The A/C can be run on the high-voltage battery pack and/or the engine; Auto idle stop of the engine with all utilities still active; And, starter-less starts. Yes, any other Civic could do these things, if only they had IMA. Hybrid technology has to move out of being a niche application and become the de facto engine system. It is years ahead of the efficiencies that can be dreamed up for just the engine alone.

I pushed my 1998 Civic Ex Sedan around with 127 HP, which was what the D16Y8 was rated for in the US (not sure about Canada)

[Logan176]

Originally Posted by OrdnanceMarine

I pushed my 1998 Civic Ex Sedan around with 127 HP, which was what the D16Y8 was rated for in the US (not sure about Canada)

I agree, my wife has the '02 EX w/ AT @128hp and I can easily live with that. I think more and more people will start buying the next gen Fit. Regular gas in the next town over just hit $4.50.

[ray]

Originally Posted by spinner

The Civic Hybrid is the second-heaviest in the line, coming right after the Si. Even the ATs are lighter.

Your forgetting one thing, the hybrid is hauling around a bunch 'o battery. Without serious effort (and extra cost) the things would weigh well over 3,000 pounds.

Originally Posted by spinner

10 years ago you would have been content to push a Civic EX sedan around with 109 hp. The Civic Hybrid has 93hp from the engine, which is useable but the average consumer would think is underpowered.

Yep, but as you pointed out the Hybrid is a heavier car. Less power and more weight, and that's after a bunch of government-subsidised weight reduction in the hybrid.

Originally Posted by spinner

Hybrid technology has to move out of being a niche application and become the de facto engine system. It is years ahead of the efficiencies that can be dreamed up for just the engine alone.

That remains to be seen. The thriftiest of the gas-powered vehicles availble can already approach the efficiencies being displayed by the hybrids if you normalize performance. You can bet that fuel efficiency is going to be priority one in the design of most car lines rather than continual advancements in specific output now that gas is expensive. And since the civic of today is nearly 50% heavier than one of 20 years ago and nearly twice the weight of a 30-year old civic the possiblity of a 10-20% lighter car exists should that become a similar priority.

[spinner]

Originally Posted by ray

That remains to be seen. The thriftiest of the gas-powered vehicles availble can already approach the efficiencies being displayed by the hybrids if you normalize performance.

What exactly are you trying to convince yourself of? That if someone drives a 15 year-old Geo Metro and says, "See, I can hypermile like the best of them," that that somehow forecasts what people could be driving in the future? You got another thing coming if you believe that. Honda leads the way in vehicle efficiency and if they can't do better, while still meeting safety and emissions standards, then no-one can.

Any ways, if someone gets better-than-rated fuel economy in a regular Civic, then they will also get better-than-rated fuel economy in the Hybrid. If you can't see the benefit of the hybrid, then you're another doubting Thomas. There are a million excuses at your disposal. No-one can -- and no-one has to -- convince you otherwise. Perhaps when gasoline is at $7/gal. you will see things in a different context, and postulating about what could be will take a back seat to the urgency of what is available.

Word on the street is that the 2008 Civic Hybrids are sold out for the year.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by ray

And actually, in a fair comparison, hybrids save even less. A civic hybrid is a significantly less powerful car than is a convential gas-powered civic. What happens if you engineer the convential car to the power and speed levels the hybrid achieves? Gas mileage goes up, eroding or perhaps even eliminating the hybrid 'advantage'.

There is a historical precedent for this. The great oil embargo of 1973 produced a number of diesel-powered vehicles available for sale in the late 70's and early 80s. They produced better mileage, but had 50-60% the power of their gasoline-fired bretheren. Had the gas-powered version been engineered in a context where it needed only match the performance achieved by the diesel, the mileage would have essentially equalized.

Unfortunatly that type of smaller engine movement isn't likely to happen here anytime soon.

Nobody wants to be the "first" to offer a subcompact with a 1.2 or similar small displacement engine. If the new Ford Fiesta came with a 1.2 it could likely reach 40+ mpg averages but every magazine and auto critic would cry foul as it being "underpowered" and "dangerous."

And besides. My bet would be by the time small engines reenter mainstreat hybrids will be pushing 70+ mpg or EV's will be out as well.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by spinner

regular Civic, then they will also get better-than-rated fuel economy in the Hybrid. If you can't see the benefit of the hybrid, then you're another doubting Thomas. There are a million excuses at your disposal. No-one can -- and no-one has to -- convince you otherwise. Perhaps when gasoline is at $7/gal. you will see things in a different context, and postulating about what could be will take a back seat to the urgency of what is available.

How right on you are!

It amazed me sometimes when people will talk up how far you can push a normal car while forgetting those same techniques work on any car, hybrids as well.

Like the owner over at cleanmpg. He can push near 50 mpg in a Accord sedan. Amazing! But give him an insight and he is near 100mpg!

[Logan176]

Originally Posted by spinner

What exactly are you trying to convince yourself of? That if someone drives a 15 year-old Geo Metro and says, "See, I can hypermile like the best of them," that that somehow forecasts what people could be driving in the future? You got another thing coming if you believe that. Honda leads the way in vehicle efficiency and if they can't do better, while still meeting safety and emissions standards, then no-one can.

Any ways, if someone gets better-than-rated fuel economy in a regular Civic, then they will also get better-than-rated fuel economy in the Hybrid. If you can't see the benefit of the hybrid, then you're another doubting Thomas. There are a million excuses at your disposal. No-one can -- and no-one has to -- convince you otherwise. Perhaps when gasoline is at $7/gal. you will see things in a different context, and postulating about what could be will take a back seat to the urgency of what is available.

Word on the street is that the 2008 Civic Hybrids are sold out for the year.

I agree that when all driving habits are equal you will get better fuel economy in a hybrid Civic, that's why when I compared the two vehicles I used 32 mpg for the LX and 45 mpg for the hybrid. Both cars can do better and both can do worse. My point is that after you do ALL the math, it takes way too long to actually save money. I mean come on... the hybrid is about $3,000 more than the EX and $5,000 more than the LX! You might be saving at the pump but Honda is laughing all the way to the bank.

Like I've said before, if you're buying the hybrid to help the environment, I salute you. But if you're doing it to save money, you'll have to drive about 175,000 miles to break even. Can a Honda go that long...we all know they can. But in today's society most people don't.

About the $7/gallon... yes, people would most definitely earn their money back faster.

I read that somewhere between 2010 and 2015 Honda might put a hybrid engine in the Fit with a price bump of $2,000 or less! Now that would be interesting. I'll just have to wait and crunch the numbers on that one.

[ray]

Originally Posted by spinner

What exactly are you trying to convince yourself of?

I don't require much in the way of convincing; I've been around long enough to see this kind of thing come and go. I'm just pointing out that you are not comparing apples to apples when you compare hybrids to conventional vehicles, just like when they were comparing full-size 80hp diesel cars to real cars in the 70s and 80s.

Originally Posted by spinner

Honda leads the way in vehicle efficiency and if they can't do better, while still meeting safety and emissions standards, then no-one can.

What you fail to grasp it that the production costs of hybrids are heavily subsidised by the federal government. Honda could and would do more if some of those subsidies were not conditioned on a hybrid powertrain.

Originally Posted by spinner

Any ways, if someone gets better-than-rated fuel economy in a regular Civic, then they will also get better-than-rated fuel economy in the Hybrid. If you can't see the benefit of the hybrid, then you're another doubting Thomas. There are a million excuses at your disposal. No-one can -- and no-one has to -- convince you otherwise. Perhaps when gasoline is at $7/gal. you will see things in a different context, and postulating about what could be will take a back seat to the urgency of what is available.

You entirely miss the point here, again. What is available is simply a product of the subsidies provided makers of hybrid cars. Without that, the hybrids would not be available, $7/gallon or not.

My other point here was that is people were willing to settle for gas-powered civic with as low a performance envelope as has the civic hybrid, much of the hybrid's 'advantage' would dissappear. You claim all this increased efficiency, but in reality all they have produced is a less powerful car that gets better mileage. That's not an increase in efficiency, for if it was the car would perform at a similar level and get significantly better mileage. As gas continues to spiral in cost the idea of a less powerful gas-powered car will become more palatable. An do remember, the Civic Hybrid was the slowest car tested by car and driver last year. The slowest.

Originally Posted by spinner

Word on the street is that the 2008 Civic Hybrids are sold out for the year.

No huge surprise, many are as technically naive as you and most don't mind the fact the tax dollars are financing the majority of their hybrid purchase.

And why don't you harp some more about the hybrid weighing as much as an Si? Oh, that's right, it's because the statement is meaningless once you appreciate even the most casual technical realities inherent in these vehicles.

[ray]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

It amazed me sometimes when people will talk up how far you can push a normal car while forgetting those same techniques work on any car, hybrids as well.

At least read the thread before attempting to pile on. The main thing being withheld here are production subsidies and the weight savings they can finance. But they are being witheld from the convential vehicles...

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

Like the owner over at cleanmpg. He can push near 50 mpg in a Accord sedan. Amazing! But give him an insight and he is near 100mpg!

This is no comparison of hybrid technology with that of convential cars. Make the Accord no bigger than an Insight, just as bog-slow as an Insight, and subsidise its developement and production to the degree that the government did the Insight. Then you have a meaningful comparison. But wait, there aren't any convential vehicles like that... and that may well change as the price of fuel continues to spiral upward. Technically, there are always many ways to seperate a feline from its skin.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by ray

What you fail to grasp it that the production costs of hybrids are heavily subsidised by the federal government. Honda could and would do more if some of those subsidies were not conditioned on a hybrid powertrain.

What exactly are these subsidies?

I'm aware of tax credits, but the most popular hybrid does without them.

I'm sorry but I'm not jumping on the government conspiracy boat here.... what exactly are these government programs and benefits?

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by ray

At least read the thread before attempting to pile on. The main thing being withheld here are production subsidies and the weight savings they can finance. But they are being witheld from the convential vehicles...

Most cars weight more this side of the pond because we have tougher safety and emissions regulations. Plus the American desire for bigger engines. Or is is just all a conspiracy?

Not to paint you a creationist or 9/11 beam weapon believer but evidence please?

This is no comparison of hybrid technology with that of convential cars. Make the Accord no bigger than an Insight, just as bog-slow as an Insight, and subsidise its developement and production to the degree that the government did the Insight. Then you have a meaningful comparison. But wait, there aren't any convential vehicles like that... and that may well change as the price of fuel continues to spiral upward. Technically, there are always many ways to seperate a feline from its skin.

Now your sounding like a Detroit Pundit. You make it seem like buying a hybrid is only hurting us. Let me guess, if we all bought just smaller normal cars and American at that we would be doing a better choice as to give GM, Ford, etc a chance to come out with better technologies?

[spinner]

Originally Posted by ray

No huge surprise, many are as technically naive as you and most don't mind the fact the tax dollars are financing the majority of their hybrid purchase.

I don't know what you're talking about with regards to subsidies (please make a citation), nor why this is the least bit important to the argument. It certainly doesn't to the end consumer. I pay taxes that support things that aren't applicable to me, and I have no cause to complain. Everyone benefits when city-driving car emissions are cut in half, and there are no standard ICE passenger vehicles that can do that. Only hybrids.

logan176: Pricing is what it is. Part of my decision to buy one at the time I did was that I would get up to $4000 back in rebates from a couple levels of governments. In Canada, while negotiating over $1000 off of MSRP, my final cost is slightly cheaper than an LX sedan with auto transmission. Keep in mind that while the Civic Hybrid is common with the LX, it also comes with added bits from the EX, Si and Acura CSX, like the second 12V socket, EPS, 6-speaker sound, auto climate control, and turn signals in the side mirrors. It is a slower car, and it really finds its place as a cruising vehicle, which I suppose is why it has to come with some of the creature comforts.


Does anyone else think that this stream of posts are detracting from the original topic? I wish it was split off.

[SuperRacerTypeR]

14 people with 64+ miles per gallon? very fuel efficient

[OrdnanceMarine]

Originally Posted by SuperRacerTypeR

14 people with 64+ miles per gallon? very fuel efficient

How many standard deviations from the mean are these 14 people? I think there are some "fliers" in all of the MPG polls

[spinner]

Originally Posted by psyshack

The HCHII will return great mpg when driven right. I would have bought one hands down if there had been a 5MT, rear disc brakes and no auto climate control.

Some say that manual transmission is no longer available because it was leading to premature battery failure under certain circumstances. Auto climate control benefits the temperature regulation of the battery pack because it receives cabin air. Still, auto climate control can be defeated if one wants to control it manually. And, as far as I know, the HCH-II has better stopping distance because of brake assist than its sibling models despite having rear drum brakes.

Then again, dedicated "hypermilers" tend to want to do everything in their abilities to circumvent the automated fuel efficiency provided by the vehicle. I'm a sensible driver who is relatively gentle on my vehicles (I don't much care for the cult of "hypermiling" appropriating traditional fuel-efficient driving techniques), and what you see for my fuel efficiency (low 40s MPG USA) is mostly city driving in off-peak traffic conditions with auto climate control set between 71 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit. It's comfortable driving, and I'm allowing the technology to do its job.

[Gene J]

I used to own a 1972 Fiat 128. It had 1.1L, weighed 1800 lbs, and I got about 34 MPG with it's 68 HP. Today I drive a 2006 Civic LX with 1.8L, weighing 2700 lbs, and I get about 36 MPG with it's 140 HP. Besides the better mileage, my Civic would run rings around the Fiat. I would love to see what the mileage and performance would be on an 1800 lb Civic, but unless we wish to give up on safety and emission standards that is not going to happen.

Note: I still have the logbook for the Fiat.

[OrdnanceMarine]

Originally Posted by Gene J

I would love to see what the mileage and performance would be on an 1800 lb Civic, but unless we wish to give up on safety and emission standards that is not going to happen.