Since i commute to work during peak time and with congestion inevitable, is hybrid cars is really worth the money? Say Toyota Camry Hybrid for example and other cars in the town what are the pros and cons of these hybrid cars?
Your thoughts please.
Pros and Cons of Hybrid Cars?
mkar18 on 10/11/2017 - 10:41
Last edited 10/11/2017 - 10:43
Last edited 10/11/2017 - 10:43
Comments
e: Sure, some lipos contain nickel, but they are not nickel based batteries. Nicad and nimh are nickel based batteries.
99: So f**king what. What difference does any of this nonsense make in terms of the destruction of the environment to get raw materials for electric car batteries ?
Does changing the label really make a difference to the gross amount of nickel that will be required for all future cars ?
This is so f**king stupid, you should be ashamed of your stupidity.
e: Your link to nickel based batteries has nothing to do with lipo batteries, they would be lithium based batteries, to which I provided a link.
99: Which link, speak in complete sentences im lost what link you are referring too here.
@ninetyNineCents: In summary, leaving out all the rhetoric.
ICE are not efficient, around 30-40% efficiency.
Electric motors are efficient, around 80-90%
Batteries are different types and suit different operations.Lead acid batteries are heavy, do not like to be fully discharged, have approx 85% efficiency in charging (ie 85% of the energy you put in can be got back out). They also self discharge around 5% per month. They can be recycled quite easily, over 50% of the worlds lead production is from recycled batteries.
NiCad batteries are bad. Toxic to dispose, memory effect if not fully discharged, difficult to recycle. Have been banned in EU since 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93cadmium_battery
NiMH batteries are OK, but not best suited to electric vehicles. They do get a memory effect, but it can be corrected with full charging. There are low self discharge types available that lose around 15% per year.They are recycleable and contain only mildy toxic materials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93metal_hydride_b… After 300-400 cycles their self discharge will increase. NiMH batteries have been shown to retain up to 85% capacity after 250,000km in hybrid cars, averaging 63% (links previously)
Li-ion and Li-po batteries have much higher energy density. So more power and less weight than other types. You can get up to 99% charge efficiency from them, Self discharge is lower than other types. Different types of lithium based batteries have different applications. They are also suited to higher power applications.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_…
Lithium batteries can have 70-100% recyclability (links previously)LiCoO2 is great for phones, high capacity, but shorter life.
LiNiMnCoO2, LiFePO4, LiMn2O4 are better for higher power and putting up with abuse.
LiNiCoAlO2 is good for electric powertrain. but has lower specific energy (less power storage, but up to 5000 cycles.
Li4Ti5O12 is expensive but can last up to 10,000cycles and has lower capacity.Lithium based batteries can have 10x the cycles of NiMh batteries.
For one, or a few cars, the efficiency of an electric drive train is far and above the efficiency of a petrol/diesel vehicle. The new batteries will last what most would consider a suitable lifetime for a vehicle (10 years) and the batteries are more readily recyclable than they used to be. Most of the materials for the batteries are already being mined in far greater quantities for other purposes, so the impact of a few electric vehicles is minimal.
Now, when you start thinking about millions of vehicles running on batteries there will be an environmental impact of mining for the metals on a much larger scale. The energy efficiency of the vehicles will be increased and there wont be any immediate tailpipe emissions. The golden question is will fossil fuel powered vehicles create more of an environmental impact that battery powered vehicles. Heavy metals aren't good for the environment in a localised area - for a long time. CO2 emissions affect the whole planet. This is a serious concern for all of us and the reason that some people don't believe that electric vehicles are the right solution.
e: ICE are not efficient, around 30-40% efficiency.
Electric motors are efficient, around 80-90%
Batteries are different types and suit different operations.99: Here we go again with your bullshit incomplete comparisons. Yet again you skipped the energy cost of just making the battery which is significant.
e: Now, when you start thinking about millions of vehicles running on batteries there will be an environmental impact of mining for the metals on a much larger scale. The energy efficiency of the vehicles will be increased and there wont be any immediate tailpipe emissions.
99: You just said electric cars are 80-90% more efficient, even if they were 100% efficient that doesnt negate the toxic effect of mining.
e: The golden question is will fossil fuel powered vehicles create more of an environmental impact that battery powered vehicles
99: Its not what damage petrol cars will create, they have been running for 100 years we already have enough evidence to determine that cost.
e: Heavy metals aren't good for the environment in a localised area - for a long time. CO2 emissions affect the whole planet.
99: The environmental cost is not localised, heavy metals stay in water and animals move about.
Fish that absorb heavy metals in a bay in China travel and get eaten by other animals and eventually humans eat some of those. Your statement here is fundamentally wrong.
Yet again you are downplaying one points which are extremely important.
Here we go again with your bullshit incomplete comparisons. Yet again you skipped the energy cost of just making the battery which is significant.
You provided a link which mentioned the energy cost of a prius was recovered in 46000miles, and that is purely saving from the fuel efficiency difference. If the electric drivetrain is in the order of 40% more efficient than ICE, the energy cost will be quickly recovered, even quicker if charged with renewable energy. But, that comment was based on the efficiency of the drivetrain, not the power source. Please don't switch between energy costs and environmental costs in any reply. I was commenting purely on the energy requirements to move a vehicle, one part of the complex equation.
You just said electric cars are 80-90% more efficient, even if they were 100% efficient that doesnt negate the toxic effect of mining.
What? The energy consumption will be much lower for an electric fleet. The toxic effects of mining were raised as part of my golden question about the overall environmental effects. I do not know which is better, I'll admit it, but lower energy consumption is an important part of that equation.
The environmental cost is not localised, heavy metals stay in water and animals move about.
Yep, I'll admit that I didn't comment on that, and it is a concern especially with huge corporations that don't care about local areas while mining and processing metals.Yet again you are playing up the environmental impacts of batteries and ignoring the potential energy savings. Two can play at your game.
e: You provided a link which mentioned the energy cost of a prius was recovered in 46000miles, and that is purely saving from the fuel efficiency difference.
99: I think you missed the point yet again that your claims mentioning efficiency for electric cars is a bit more complicated than just mentioning the motors efficiency.
When you factor the energy just to manufacture the battery as 46K miles which is 70k kms, and a lifetime of 250k the figure of 80% isnt accurate at all. A loss of 70 ignoring all other factors for 250k travelled is a loss of close to 30%. Now add this 30% to the 20% of motor ineifficiencies you previously mentioned your electric motor is now running at 50%, and there are other costs.
e: Yet again you are playing up the environmental impacts of batteries and ignoring the potential energy savings. Two can play at your game.
99: Thats because the energy savings arent as perfect as you claim as i showed a few lines up but the environmental costs are very real.
Go eat a fish caught swimming near a toxic mine, and ask yourself what happens when thesetoxic metals are everywhere. You dont understand what you are trading.
@ninetyNineCents:
e: You provided a link which mentioned the energy cost of a prius was recovered in 46000miles, and that is purely saving from the fuel efficiency difference.I think you missed the point yet again that your claims mentioning efficiency for electric cars is a bit more complicated than just mentioning the motors efficiency.
When you factor the energy just to manufacture the battery as 46K miles which is 70k kms, and a lifetime of 250k the figure of 80% isnt accurate at all. A loss of 70 ignoring all other factors for 250k travelled is a loss of close to 30%. Now add this 30% to the 20% of motor inefficiencies you previously mentioned your electric motor is now running at 50%, and there are other costs.
The electric motor will always be at least 40% more efficient than an ICE. The rest of the drivetrain/ancilleries will be similar in efficiency if the vehicle is constructed and used in a similar way.
E: The electric motor will always be at least 40% more efficient than an ICE.
99:
Strange 5 hours ago you said… (below)… so is it 40% or 300% ?
More complete and utter bullshit of course from you, your own bullshit is different by a factor of 10.
Euphemistic 5 hours 20 min ago
@ninetyNineCents: In summary, leaving out all the rhetoric.ICE are not efficient, around 30-40% efficiency.
Electric motors are efficient, around 80-90%
Batteries are different types and suit different operations.You really showed your true colours this time…i really wonder how you are going to explain these contradictions by a factor of 10.
@ninetyNineCents: yeah you got me. ICE is max 40% efficient. Electric motor is max 80-90% efficient. That’s a difference of 40% in favour of the electric motor. My bad for using the wrong wording. Doesn’t change the facts though:
Put 100joules of energy into an ICE and get max 40joules out. Put 100joules of energy into an electric motor and get max 90koules out. That is a lot of power lost in the ICE. A lot of power (energy) wasted when burning petrol and diesel.
Put 100joules of energy into an ICE and get max 40joules out. Put 100joules of energy into an electric motor and get max 90koules out. That is a lot of power lost in the ICE. A lot of power (energy) wasted when burning petrol and diesel.
I never denied or challenged those figures, you have oversimplified, there are probably other amounts you are missing, which has been my point all along. You are simplifying things way too much. Life and the universe isnt that simple.
yeah you got me. ICE is max 40% efficient. Electric motor is max 80-90% efficient.
Wow, after all your stink about my statement that certain batteries fade to 50% and the report we used gave a figure of 63%, while you were out by 200+ and thats the best you can come up with ?
yeah you got me. ICE is max 40% efficient. Electric motor is max 80-90% efficient. That’s a difference of 40% in favour of the electric motor. My bad for using the wrong wording. Doesn’t change the facts though:
The difference between those two figures is 40% points not 40%. 40% of 40% is 16% points.
Wow, after all your stink about my statement that certain batteries fade to 50% and the report we used gave a figure of 63%, while you were out by 200+ and that’s the best you can come up with ?
Yes, I made an error in the phrase describing the difference, but you were comparing apples and oranges and stating that a 26% difference is close enough. You still can’t see the difference either apparently.
The difference between those two figures is 40% points not 40%. 40% of 40% is 16% points.
100joules in, 40 or 80 out. 80 is 100% more than 40.
E: Yes, I made an error in the phrase describing the difference, but you were comparing apples and oranges and stating that a 26% difference is close enough.
99: You must be blind, how could you not see the value "300%" ?
E: 100joules in, 40 or 80 out. 80 is 100% more than 40.
99: Problem is thats not what you said…Yet again it shows how "flexible" you are with numbers and the truth.
You still dont understand the concept of telling the truth. The truth is telling EVERYTHING not small selective highlights.
but you were comparing apples and oranges and stating that a 26% difference is close enough.
Here we go yet the general claim without a quote. I never used the value "26%", pretty easy to verify that by "searching" for "26%" this is the first time those glyphs have appeared anywhere on this page.
E: 100joules in, 40 or 80 out. 80 is 100% more than 40.
99: Problem is thats not what you said…Yet again it shows how "flexible" you are with numbers and the truth.
Now I'm using the original efficiency percentage with an example based on energy input to derive an answer that you should be able to understand.
99: You must be blind, how could you not see the value "300%" ?
I let that slide because I couldn't see where the 300% came from (still can't). I admitted my error in description, and have corrected it using the example showing the energy expected in and out. Do what you want with the percentages from there. 80 out is 100% better than 40 out. 40 out is 50% of 80. 40 out is stilll 40% efficiency as 80out is 80% efficiency. Note I have also been using best case for the ICE and worst for the electric motor.
The difference between those two figures is 40% points not 40%. 40% of 40% is 16% points
And here is an example of you being flexible with numbers.
Here we go yet the general claim without a quote. I never used the value "26%", pretty easy to verify that by "searching" for "26%" this is the first time those glyphs have appeared anywhere on this page
True, you haven't used the value of 26%. Add 26% of 50 to 50 and you will come up with 63. I'm using simple mathematics to demonstrate that there is a significant difference between your 63% and 50% which are both easily searchable.
99: I admitted my error in description, and have corrected it using the example showing the energy expected in and out.
E: But thats precisely the point, you must have seen the absurdity in the claim and you are either dishonest or stupid to let it remain.
99: The difference between those two figures is 40% points not 40%. 40% of 40% is 16% points
E: And here is an example of you being flexible with numbers.
99: No the problem is you dont understand how to express and compare percentages. and use the correct terminology
—
E: Add 26% of 50 to 50 and you will come up with 63.
99: You dont "add" you "multiply"…more basic mistakes…
—
E: I'm using simple mathematics to demonstrate that there is a significant difference between your 63% and 50% which are both easily searchable.
99: Of course there is a difference, i never denied that ( you can try and find a quote of mine where i did if you wish to call me names). You dont see the hypocracy ? You jump about an "error" of 26% but you are blind and write bullshit like 300% ? The article we are using was very basic, 63% is close enough to 50% for the purposes of our discussion. The problem is you dont understand how to be graceful and shutup because you are stupid. I have shown that multiple times you have far less clues about the many aspects of the subject.
How stupid do you have to be to write 300% and not see it ?
@ninetyNineCents: @ninetyNineCents: Your first two lines are attributed to the wrong person there.
E: Add 26% of 50 to 50 and you will come up with 63.
99: You dont "add" you "multiply"…more basic mistakes…
Let me help. 26% of 50 is 13. Add 13 to 50 and get 63. 126%x50=63. 100+26=126. You can do it both ways. Maths is good like that.
How stupid do you have to be to write 300% and not see it ?
Tried to find it, but you were the first to mention 300%. 12 matches on this page, yours is the first.
99: The difference between those two figures is 40% points not 40%. 40% of 40% is 16% points
I wasn't going to comment on this before as being strange maths, but go ahead, call me stupid for not understanding how you can get a 16% difference out of the difference between 40% efficiency and 80% efficiency.
The article we are using was very basic, 63% is close enough to 50% for the purposes of our discussion.
Still disagree that 63% is 'close enough' to 50%, but be that as it may. You were referring to a study of nimh batteries when talking about losses in lipo batteries. Apples and oranges.
When you factor the energy just to manufacture the battery as 46K miles which is 70k kms, and a lifetime of 250k the figure of 80% isnt accurate at all. A loss of 70 ignoring all other factors for 250k travelled is a loss of close to 30%. Now add this 30% to the 20% of motor ineifficiencies you previously mentioned your electric motor is now running at 50%, and there are other costs.
You are not reading properly. 80% is about motor efficiency, not drivetrain/vehicle. The electric motor will continue running at 80-90% efficiency. You can't add an energy deficit to a motor efficiency rating and say the whole thing is now 50% efficient. The period of time to pay back the energy deficit will be affected by the motor efficiency but the energy deficit does not affect the motor efficiency. The batteries capacity will change over time for storing energy, but will not effect the output or efficiency of the motor. The vehicle yes, motor no.
Only a tiny proportion of the petrol used is from being stationary with the engine idling, the vast majority is from accelerating, so engines turning off doesn't really solve the issue.
nail on the head!!! well said.
and electric cars dont accelerate ?
Doesn't solve the issue, but it does he reduce fuel consumption. You can choose convenience of the engine running while idling, or you can choose to to use fuel during that time. And the more you sit in traffic , the more you could save. My commute I couldn't save much at all, others in peak hour bumper to bumper could save more.
Well most modern cars, turn their engine off, so yet again you are overplaying the advantages of electric/hybrid systems.
@ninetyNineCents: In this case I never said this was an advantage of electric/hybrid systems. This point was purely made to say that turning off the engine does save fuel at idle, might not be much, but you cannot question that turning off the engine does not burn fuel.
And as for 'most modern cars' turning off their engines? No. Not most. Some, but not most.
It probably does cost something (turning off engine during red lights) but considering the total fuel cost of any trip, who really cares about the "cost" of turning stuff off.
Past studies revealed that, it is better to stop the engine, if the idling is more then 30 seconds.
https://www.motoring.com.au/how-it-works-idle-stop-51963/
"Since 2010 idle-stop has become a commonly used feature in most European and Japanese cars. Australian, American and Korean models have been slower to adopt the technology" and looking at the comments I see why Australian have been slower in adopting
https://www.edf.org/climate/reports/idling
"Turn off your ignition if you’re waiting more than 10 seconds. Contrary to popular belief, restarting your car does not burn more fuel than leaving it idling. In fact, idling for just 10 seconds wastes more gas than restarting the engine."
Actually playswithfire, some car companies now are getting rid of this annoying little idea, such as Mazda with the new CX-9, you need to have a much stronger starter motor and a special sensor on the crankshaft to get it to work and the benefits aren't really worth it. I think this will disappear pretty soon.
I always thought mazdas never used the started motor to restart, they stop the engine on the compression stroke and then when is time to restart they fire the spark plug which restarts the engine.
Porsche Cayenne Diesel model even has it. These engines run on the small of an oily rag at idle. I can see only one reason they put in this complication - it will eventually wear our and need servicing - at very high cost at a Porsche service centre.
Hyundai never implemented it. They knew it's bullshit.
@Ken1977: Then you certainly swallowed the bullshit flavoured cool-aide that Mazda was pushing…
Stopping on the compression stroke was to assist with faster starting and to take load off the starter motor. That’s all.
It just sounded cooler and made people feel better about buying mazda.
You save costs on fuel but initial outlay is more than conventional petrol cars.
Family member recently purchased a Hybrid Corolla, I was surprised how affordable they are compared to say Prius.
You pay more for a hybrid car; what I meant is that they are much more reasonably priced compared to what you'd pay 5-10 years ago for a Hybrid.
It's good that Hybrids are becoming more affordable.
camry is $4k extra to get the hybrid, over the EQUAL spec'd non hybrid.
Even 10 years ago the prius was very good value for money. They had lots of new tech you just couldn't get in a car that size. Back then, cruise control, ESC, climate, sat nav had been all things you couldn't get in a car of that size and they had been one of the first with true keyless entry/start.
camry is $4k extra to get the hybrid, over the EQUAL spec'd non hybrid.
Hybrid gets keyless entry/start, and dual zone climate control. Regular altise does not.
Stop spreading bs
Yes they do get all those things. But you do know what EQUAL spec means right?
As the base hybrid spec isn't equal to the BASE model altise and the base model altise price is a LOT lower than $4k less than the base hybrid.
So, back to what I said spack, camry is $4k extra to get the hybrid, over the EQUAL spec'd non hybrid.
the base hybrid spec isn't equal to the BASE model altise
And then this:
over the EQUAL spec'd non hybrid.
Do you even know what you're saying? Because you contradicted yourself in the same post.
Camry Altise doesn't have the same spec as Camry Hybrid Altise. They can't be directly compared. No Camry model is equal in spec to the Hybrid Altise.
@JimmyF: i think I can settle this, Spackbace and I both read you comment to mean that the hybrid is 4k more than the base model Altise, which happens to have the same specs. It's clear to me now that you mean to say that of you spec up the base model Altise to match the hybrid, the hybrid is still 4k more, it's just didn't come out that way. I am sure Spackbace would agree with me that's the issue?
And if I am wrong and you can't spec up the Altise with key less entry and the rest then I'm afraid I have no idea what you were getting at
And if I am wrong and you can't spec up the Altise with key less entry and the rest then I'm afraid I have no idea what you were getting at
Yeah, you can't factory option those extras to a base model Altise, so trying to put a dollar figure on them is like plucking a number out of thin air.
Can potential save more money on fuel but repairs might be more expensive. Car parts might also be very expensive if they need a replacement. Failure rates might also be higher due to electrical components although it can depend on many factors. Also might need to change the main battery when it reaches a certain km interval.
I used to own a hybrid car before and this was my experience. I now drive a regular car and my next car would most likely be a non-hybrid car as well.
what did you drive and what were your faults?
I've had two hybrids now, done near 300k in them over 13 years. I haven't had a SINGLE hybrid related failure with the car.
Battery replacement is a myth, unless you're doing 40k a year, the average user will only be at around 200k after 10 years and these batteries will do way more than that.
Toyota was claiming only a few batteries have ever been replaced in OZ, and they quote under $3k for battery replacement out of the 8 yr warranty period.
It was the toyota prius. There was a factory recall on all prius models relating to some electrical system inside the car and I had to bring it to toyota to fix.
Also, there was some problems with the engine where it was making some weird noise but I just sold the car without fixing the problem. I'm sure it would've cost a few thousands to fix it. Bought the car second hand at 48,000 km and sold it at 79,000km and it was already having so much problems. I also remember that time when somebody swiped the driver side mirror and I had to pay a lot of money including parts to replace.
About the battery I don't know exactly but there was something in the manual or service book saying that it must be replaced after a certain number of kilometres but I don't know if that is true.
The best thing about driving it was the savings on petrol and $100 discount on registration! But if you factor in all the other costs on servicing and repairs it wasn't worth the trouble. It might even be more expensive and stressful despite the savings. I might've got a bad one but I'm much happier that I'm not driving a hybrid right now.
All cars have recalls. At least they fixed it. The recall was a battery check. Better to fix it now than have it fail down the track. I had it done, it was part of the serviving.
Engine noise, from the non hybrid part of the car. could be anything and applies to all cars.
Side mirrors on all cars are costly to replace, not a hybrid fault.
Yeah nah, nothing in the owners manual about the battery being replaced after so many kms. Source, I owned one and read the manual!
But if you factor in all the other costs on servicing and repairs it wasn't worth
What servicing? Toyota charges the same as a 4cyc car. There is no extra costs for being a hybrid.
And well repairs, they apply to all cars if you go around ripping the mirror off!
It was a battery check but also something about the electrical water pump system or something like that. I don't remember now.
I do know that the hybrid cars do have some distinct noise but this was a different noise. There were a lot of vibrations from the engine even if the car is running idle and I can tell it's not normal because I wasn't having this problem the first 10,000 km.
That may be true about the side mirror being expensive but I remember having to pay more because it was hard to find the spare part to replace and also they charged more for servicing and repairs because it was a hybrid car and contain electrical components which means more time spent on labour to disassemble and reassemble. It wouldn't have cost me that much if I had a normal car.
Things may have changed now because people might be driving more hybrid and spare parts are not hard to find but I'm still more satisfied with driving a normal car now.
@armdrags: > I do know that the hybrid cars do have some distinct noise but this was a different noise. There were a lot of vibrations from the engine even if the car is running idle and I can tell it's not normal because I wasn't having this problem the first 10,000 km.
You have no idea what it was, but assume it was going to cost thousands? It might have been something simple and very cheap. As already pointed out, could happen to a non hybrid too.
End of day, it's your choice. But by the sounds of things, you'd be a dream for a dodgy mechanic. Ever had your blinker fluid replaced?
@Euphemistic:
Too right. Our fleet of diesel vw's have had about 6 recalls each so far, nothing unusual these days unfortunately.
Mirrors are always going to be expensive when they're electric, especially if they have heaters/indicators built in.
The rest doesnt really sound like an issue, sounds like he told himself it was more expensive, even though it's all par for the course of owning a car!
All assumptions, I have a hybrid and been driving it since 2013. No issues whatsoever.
I'm saving around 1500 litters of petrol annually compared to my old car with 1.6 liter engine.Failure rates might also be higher due to electrical components
And non hybrid cars, have no electrical components? It's all fly by wire, right ?
is hybrid cars is really worth the money? Say Toyota Camry Hybrid
Like all things, it depends.
The Camry hybrid, for example, is about $4k extra when new, compared to a EQUAL spec'd camry.
The fuel usage in the CITY for the camry hybrid is around 6-7l/100km. A non hybrid is pushing 10-12l/100km depending on how you drive.
So straight up you're saving around 5l per 100 or $5-7 in fuel. It also uses std unleaded. So no cost prem stuff.
Hybrids also get $100 off rego each year, a gift that keeps on giving.
It depends on how many KMs you drive etc, to the payback period.
The battery will last the life of the car. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Toyota gives a 8yr warranty on it as well. The cars life is 10-14 years.
Taxis drive hybrid camrys now, just saying. Read what you like in that.
Camry hybrid has more go than the non hybrid version ;)
Hybrids also get $100 off rego each year, a gift that keeps on giving.
is this automatically applies to the rego or need to apply for it? never realise any discount for my Prius V
is this automatically applies to the rego or need to apply for it? never realise any discount for my Prius V
automatically applied in VIC.
Just want to clarify
The fuel usage in the CITY for the camry hybrid is around 6-7l/100km. A non hybrid is pushing 10-12l/100km depending on how you drive.
If you do a lot of highway driving, a hybrid will NOT reduce your fuel consumption.
On top of that, lugging around an electric motor on the highway which is practically doing nothing will be detrimental to your fuel consumption.
So basically, good for City, bad for Highway.
If you do a lot of highway driving, a hybrid will NOT reduce your fuel consumption.
Lies….. My camry hybrid gets a pretty flat 6-6.5l per 100kms regardless of driving in the city or the highway. I often drive melbourne to adelaide and back. It doesn't get any more 'highway' than that.
Hwy is about 6.5l, still less than a normal camry, but not by massive amounts on the hwy, but still less by about 1l. Still a saving ;)
On top of that, lugging around an electric motor on the highway which is practically doing nothing will be detrimental to your fuel consumption.
Again you have no idea what you're talking about. Even with all that 'weight' it still gets better fuel eco.
So basically, good for City, bad for Highway.
Yeah nah
I agree to everything you said, a lot of bassing comments about hybrid but half of it doesn't even what they are talking about. Most of the information is from google
yeah but another point is that if you do a lot of highway driving, the benefit will not be as great comparable to a standard car, because on highway driving, even petrol cars have good economy.
I have a petrol car and it gets about 7L/100km on the highway, but probably at least 11L/100km if I'm driving it around town.
So if I did a lot of highway driving, it wouldn't make sense to get a hybrid because I would only be getting 1L for every 100km I drove. However, if I did a lot of city driving, I would be saving 5L per 100kms.
@witsa: A saving is a saving and it will depend on how many kms you do really.
And no one does 100% hwy usage, country people come close. But even those that only drive in 'towns' will see fuel usage like those in the city. So a saving is to be hand.
Put it this way. You had the choices between two cars (both non-hybrid), the differences are one is $4k extra, but usees 1l per 100kms less fuel. would you buy it?
How about if one that is is $4k extra uses 5l per 100kms less fuel. would you buy that instead?
a saving is sometimes a false economy. I agree with you - you have to work it out and there's a million factors you can go into. You have to also take into account there's more to buying a car than finance - a car is a consumable - not a investment.
In answer to those scenarios - 1L saving for $4000 extra - at petrol being $1.30 - you would save $1.30 per 100kms, which means you need to drive 300k to break even. Yeah that's probably not worth it - that would probably take me 15-20 years to do that - in which case if I had kept the $4000 in my mortgage offset, I would've probably saved that much in interest alone.
However, at 5L/100km saving, yeah that would be a good deal. You would break even at 60-70km.
@witsa: That one litre better economy on road must be due to economies in the petrol engine for this model. From what I understand only the petrol engine is used when cruising. Better economy due to tuning for economy rather than performance perhaps, stuff like that. I would only consider a hybrid if I drove urban / city, although generally I would avoid driving in that environment. Bikes along backroads, alley ways and little tracks are much more fun, even adventurous, and give that sense of exploration and being familiar with your area like kids are (or used to be)
@witsa: If you can afford it get a hybrid or even electric because for mine getting in one of those vehicles isn't so much about how much it saves you, its about how much better it is for the environment and everyone else. Need to start looking past 1st order consequences, problem is most people are all about the me me me me me
CMH is correct that for some hybrids there is no benefit for highway driving as the electric drivetrain is only used under 40kph.
However, the slight extra weight of the electric motor should not make too much difference to fuel economy since you will not be accelerating much and the fuel economy will mostly be dominated by drag, not vehicle weight.@qvinto: nope - elec drivetrain is used above 40kms.
@ooohduck you understand wrong. The elec motor can and IS used at all speeds depending on requirements. You can have the petrol motor disengage at 100kms if the road is slightly downhill, and the elec motor will add assistance while cruising on and off as required, rather than raise the engine rpms for slight changes in road gradient.
So much misinformation in this thread from non hybrid owners. Its amazing.
lugging around an electric moto
People really should start losing weight instead of Lugging around all that overweight. And that includes me !
Walking more also helps to save petrol, but don't see that happen here.
Also not having the engine on when waiting ( parked ) for someone, helps reduce the petrol consumption and CO2 production, another bad habit I see to often.
Hybrids are perfect for start-stop traffic because a normal engine would be running and burning fuel whereas an electric motor would only use the energy actually required.
Normal engine these days would be starting and stopping thanks to engine cutoff incorporated with most new cars. Hybrids of course would probably only use the batteries between movements assuming the gradient is not extreme.
Yes, but still nowhere close to the efficiency of a hybrid. Plus - and this is a random side-effect, in any like that, the aircon is driven by the engine. When the engine is OFF in stop-start traffic, your aircon also turns off… which if you're stuck in traffic is pretty non-ideal.
The air-con does not switch off; it's driven by the auxiliary power supply.
@coxjon: Yeh it depends on the load. In most cases the air-con continues to run unless it is really demanding the amps.
Hang on, thats not what you original said. YOu said petrol cars run during traffic lights which is clearly WRONG.
Not worth it at this point in time.
Cons
The cost of buying a Hybrid far outstrips the costs of fuel saved over the life of the car.
The batteries still wear down just like other batteries and are expensive to replace.
The environmental load is actually greater than driving a petrol car AND the batteries have to be disposed of (or ideally recycled?) somewhere.Pros:
Nice and quiet.
Less petrol.
Give you an environmental 'feel good' (until you look into it more).https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/5-di…
Pretty crappy article you've linked to there. Mentions plugging in pointless for this conversation), winter etc. I would've though a local, more recent article might help get your point across.
Pretty crappy article you've linked to there
Dammit I was going to link yahoo answers…
Fair enough, I didn't actually read it TBH, just wanted to provide some extra info. That'll learn me. :)
You didn't read it, you just wanted to spread FUD around. Nice….
Bugger. Now you'll have to live with this forever. I hope you can somehow hide it from your offspring etc :(
@wozz: It'll be a tough few years but with some professional help and lots of love and support from my freinds I think I can come out the other side stronger and more mindful in the future of how my actions effect the lives of others.
yeah nah, lots of FUD in that article
Your conclusions of based on other than the terriblly written article are baseless.
The savings in fuel for typical city drivers is massive and far outstrips even the harshest maintenance costs.
Thanks JimmyF for your comments… To be honest I don't a little extra investment on Hybrid Cars as it saves fuel, at the moment I am just burning it for nothing in traffic… and it saves $100 on Rego year after year…which is a added bonus for customers…
All cars actually do have stop start technology. You can stop the engine at any time using the key/button. Saves fuel when stationary, but doesn't save any while crawling in traffic. Plus, you'll miss some radio/music while you restart (my pet hate with restarting in traffic, the radio rebooting).
A hybrid that can run on pure electric power (not the original Prius) will save fuel in slow stop start traffic though and the ones that will run for 30-50km on pure electric will save a lot on a short drive twice a day.
You mean all cars ??
Starting a conventional engine (feature no start stop) eats more fuel than idling for 5 minutes.
No it doesn't.
Edit: This link estimates more than 10s idling uses more fuel than restarting
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/which_is_gre…
Modern EFI cars use very little fuel when starting, especially when already warm. Restarting an already warm causes virtually no extra wear than keeping it running as everything is already up to temp and there is oil where it is meant to be.
WUT? which state got rebate on hybrid Rego ?
I found it is actually more expensive in NSW, the Rego calculated by the weight of the car, the Camery for a hybird is actually in the next categories then a normal Camery.
Just found this out when renewing the company cars rego.
I was under the impression lets say the battery would last for certain Kms… is there anything like that?
Ok before deciding, it's best if we know more info about you:
- How many kms do you do each year?
- What sort of driving do you do? Majority city or highway? Stop-Start or free-flowing?
- Is this for personal use, or Uber?
- Are you looking at new or used?
Kms are roughly 12000 - 14000 a year…
80% is in traffic and 20% is free flowing…
Personal Use…
Used Vehicle for Sure…12000 - 14000 a year…
Ok so lets say you save 3L/100km on average on hybrid, you're only saving $360-$420/year on fuel
But you have to weigh up the additional purchase costs of getting the hybrid.
What sort of price range are you looking at for the car?
@Spackbace: Plus $100 on Rego if it is still allowed…
My Budget is <20000 dollars for a used Hybrid….@mkar18: I'd be very careful buying used Hybrids though, because the most expensive part of that car - in parts, replacements, servicing - is the battery. And in hybrids, that's the first thing to have issues. Not an issue in a new car because it'd easily last 5-7years (iirc) but buying used? Eh…
If the budget stretches, $26-27k would buy you a demo Corolla or Camry Hybrid. Factory warranty, no tyres or brakes or anything to worry about.
@Euphemistic:
E: I've done that several times. You can't compare Li-Po with NiMh
99c: Says who ?
All batteries of all kinds fade, thats fact we have both seen the paper, its just a question of amounts. You can be pedantic about precise figures but most cars will need their batteries replaced eventually just above and as you mention 8 years is a reasonable approximation.
E: A few times I've tried to explain that there are different types of lipo batteries.
99: I fail to see why yet again you introduce make a big thing out of a minor issue. I NEVER said all types of batteries are exactly the same, but they do share common strengths and weaknesses.
All batteries fade, thats the far more important point to learn from this, not the bullshit you are pulling here crying about a non issue that nimh are different from lipo and they are different lions. So (profanity) what.
E: Batteries for vehicles are designed for longevity and can have up to 8yr life and 5000 cycles under ideal conditions. It is easier to manage the conditions with modern battery controllers/chargers.
99c: And that was exactly my point when i said batteries fade to 50% after a couple of years.