Is a hybrid car still the most ecologically friendly vehicle?

[Ilsa]

I'm looking at a Ford Fusion hybrid, 47mpg. Need a new car soon. How often are the batteries replaced?

[longship]

1. Will R&K for more visibility.

I would love to have a hybrid, but I could never afford a new car, let alone a recent one. But this question still interests me.

[Ilsa]

2. Thank you. I get mixed messages among

Friends and coworkers.

I'm giving up the Big vehicle since I don't have to haul kids' equipment everywhere, etc. But I need a vehicle with enough leg room for two tall teenagers. The smaller sedans won't work. A mid-size is the smallest we can go, hence the Fusion.

I also like doing business with American car companies.

[longship]

3. I know you want to buy American.

But the Prius is apparently one helluva car which has a long track record. Also, the Prius back seat is very roomy.

Maybe you could at least use that as a comparison as you are intent on buying US.

[Ilsa]

9. Thank you very much!

A friend has a Prius and he raved about it. I'll keep it in mind, but it's the long-shot.

[longship]

11. Well, hybrids are expensive.

When I test drove a Prius, I was astounded by two things.

1. It was as quiet as a library, even at speed on a SoCal expressway in traffic. There was so little engine noise that I could hardly detect when the engine started and stopped. Next to no wind noise.

2. It is deceptively faster than you think. The constant velocity transmission slides between ratios so no shifting. I hit an on ramp and pushed the accelerator. By the time I got to the end of the ramp I was booking, and all in near silence.

If you're looking at the Ford, which I understand is a very good car, I recommend test driving it against a Prius.

Another thing, the Prius has a very long history which its reliability can be evaluated, including battery life. Whether such records can be extended to the Ford is uncertain, but certainly the technology is similar. But it sounds like you've already decided on a hybrid. But more info certainly can't hurt. They are damned expensive. IMHO, worth it if they're within reach.

Good luck. You may have to wait a while.

[kestrel91316]

4. I have been very happy and comfy riding in a Prius, whether back or front seat, FWIW.

But the new all-electric cars are even more environmentally friendly.

[Ilsa]

10. Yeah, I have a teen and husband with

long legs, and they are my fuss-budgets.

Thank you so much for your input.

The new cars with smaller engines are really great with gas mileage and acceleration. I'll probably go that route.

[Nihil]

24. FWIW ...

Whilst I'm not in the US and have never tried the Ford, I am 6' and my two sons are both
taller than me and we went for a Prius (> 6 years ago) partly because they could both sit
in the back.

Still happy with it too


ETA:
Agree with the posters downthread though: How you drive makes a real difference.
I will almost always get several mpg better than my wife even though I tend to drive faster
as I am more gradual on acceleration & braking.

[caraher]

5. There's not enough information to answer

What driving do you plan to do? If you don't have a "range anxiety" problem a full electric would be better.

Battery replacement is not cheap and can vary a lot. Read the fine print on any warranty. I know the owner of a Honda hybrid (I forget which model) whose battery is at about 20% of its original capacity, and the dealer refuses to replace it under the warranty until the onboard computer gives some specific indication. He's a few thousand miles short of the warranty expiration and he's basically trying not to drive it very much in hopes that the battery will get bad enough for a warranty replacement before he hits the mileage limit (he has plenty of time, I think it was a 10-year warranty). His gas mileage is half what it was originally.

[Ilsa]

8. Thank you!!! That's wonderful information and

you've given me additional things to think about.

My driving situation is city driving, but stops are usually several miles apart at speeds of 40-50mph. For that reason, my current vehicle is getting better mileage than when I lived in a city with much more frequent stops where I used less gas because everything was closer, but got horrible mileage.

[happyslug]

6. In theory or in practice?

Traditional batteries have a known shelf life in an automobile, but most makers of such cars provide a warranty for the batteries that would lead to replacement while before that shelf life is meet. Others on this board has reported no problems even with 5 years old batteries (about the end of life of most batteries) thus seems to be a theoretical problem then a real one.

As to the Volt and other electric cars, they are to new, but roughly have the same type of warranty. They also use Lithium batteries which appear to have much longer shelf life then lead-acid batteries.

The real issue is the EPA tests:

In December 2012, Motor Trend reported that Consumer Reports and Green Car Reports have found that the 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid and 2013 Ford Fusion Hybrid, which share the same powertrain, do not deliver their triple 47 mpg-US (5.0 L/100 km; 56 mpg-imp) EPA ratings in real-world use. After running both vehicles through Consumer Reports real-world tests, the magazine found that 2013 Fusion hybrid achieved a combined fuel economy average of 39 mpg-US (6.0 L/100 km; 47 mpg-imp), with 35 mpg-US (6.7 L/100 km; 42 mpg-imp) and 41 mpg-US (5.7 L/100 km; 49 mpg-imp) for city and highway.[59] Consumer Reports concluded that the overall fuel economy for the Fusion Hybrid is off by 8 mpg, representing a deviation of about 20%. The consumer magazine said that their overall fuel economy results are usually close to the EPA's combined-mpg estimate, and among current models tested, more than 80% fall within 2 mpg margin. The largest discrepancy the magazine has previously found was 7 and 6 mpg for the Toyota Prius C and the Prius hatchback, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fusion_Hybrid

Basically, the EPA test tends to favor Hybrids by about 20% over conventional cars. At the same time the EPA test tends to disfavor small engine cars about 10% (Thus the SMART car gets only 47 mpg on the EPA tests, due to the need to over rev the engine to get it up to 50 mph). Thus alternatives to Hybrids and electric cars are NOT that uncompetitive in the real world.

The reason for this is the EPA tests assumes 50 mph speed. If you have a car with a small engine and drive slower then that (and thus get better fuel economy due to the slower speed) your fuel economy may match if not exceed what a Hybrid does (Which due to its use of two engines, an electric motor to drive the vehicle and a conventional motor to provide power when the batteries discharge do NOT get the same level of energy saving by going slower as if you opt for small conventional engine vehicle).

The 2000 VW Lupo achieved 100 KM for one liter of fuel using stop and go small engines tied in with a computer controlled automated manual transmission. My Chevrolet Cruize has done over 50 mpg at times (and had done 42 mpg since I purchased it last year), The Cruize is a mid size car (EPA definition of Mid Size) but with only a 1.4 liter engine (The same engine as on the Chevrolet Volt, but the Cruize's 1.4 liter is turbo charged). I avoid going over 60 (Through on a recent trip I did in the Mid West I did 70 mph constantly and achieved 50 mpg, the key was the lack of stop and go traffic, flat terrain and a manual transmission).

Hybrids are an attempt to produce something that can get high EPA mileage AND achieve over 50 mph. VW complained, when the Prius first came out, that its LUPO beat out the Prius in fuel econom.. Toyota only made the claim the Prius was the best in fuel economy in the US (Where VW refused to export the LUPO) thus VW had no case in the US since Toyota said its claim was for cars made for sale in the US not the world.

Electric cars are to provide an alternative to gasoline powered cars, but restricted to areas where it can be charged, generally over night. Both at the price over twice as expensive as a conventional automobiles (and there are some question as to that price, the Volt and Cruize were designed at the same time to same many parts and thus spread the cost of making those parts over a lot more cars, GM makes about 30,000 Volts but over 300,000 Cruizes for example, thus Volts tend to be subsidizes by Cruizes when it comes to the price of the parts NOT tied in with the actual drive train).

I hate to say this, but the better option is a small engine conventional car. I remember reading in either Popular Mechanics of Popular Science in the 1970s that they was no need at that time for any car to have an engine larger then 2.5 liters. With the technology of today, they is no need for an engine larger then 2.0 in any automobile (and most people could live with a 1.5 liter engine, even in a full size car). The 1.0 liter engine of a SMART car is competitive in urban situation (when most people live). It is fast enough to even operate on the interstates (My Cruise with its 1.4 liter turbo charged engine had no problems getting up to 70 mph on the interstates).

Side note: The Ford Fusion uses a "Continuous Transmission" in its conventional format. This is NOT a conventional Automatic, nor an automated manual transmission as used on the SMART car. Scooters and off road ATVs have used "Continuous Transmissions" for years (In these uses the higher noise level of a "Continuously variable transmission" can be ignored). "Continuously variable transmissions" tend to be very fuel efficient (at times beating out Manual Transmissions in fuel economy) but suffer from several problems, including:

1. a lack of rapid acceleration (Do not use them in racing) and
2. problems with speeds outside its speed range (Very good at speeds it is design to operate at, rapid drop off at higher speeds, more noticeable then in conventional automatics and manual transmissions),
3. Increase noise of the transmission
4. Unreliability in the larger transmissions needed in an automobile as oppose to a ATV.

Now the lack of rapid acceleration is more a theoretically restriction then a real one. In most cases you just do NOT need it. "Continuous Transmission" also are poor in hauling situations. They can pull light loads on a trailer but nothing close to what people can haul with a car with a Manual or conventional Automatic transmission. A "Continuous Transmission" is a good transmission, but remember it is NOT a conventional Automatic, nor a Manual transmission.

[Ilsa]

7. Thank you so much. That's a lot of great

information.
I'm shying away from the Fusion Hybrid now. I doubt I could make up the price differential in fuel savings. I'll look at the other Fusion options.
I very much appreciate your reply.

[happyslug]

17. I did look at the Fusion, when I looked for a new car last year, decided on the Cruize

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I liked the Cruize for several reasons:

1. It is USA made, the Fusion are made in Mexico (Through the engines for the Fusion are made in the US). Please note while the Engine for the Cruize and the Cruize itself is made in the US, if you opt for the ECO manual transmission that is made in Austria (Automatics and other manuals transmissions are made in the USA for the Cruize). The six speed manual transmission for the ECO is design to maximize fuel efficiency in sixth gear, to a noticeable higher level then the regular sixth gear on the regular Cruizes.

2. United Auto Workers made (I am a UAW member, but that is because the UAW help organized Legal Service organization throughout the US). Here is the List of UAW Union Made Cars:
http://www.uaw.org/sites/default/files/2013vehicles.pdf

3. 42 mpg on the Highway in a Manual Transmission.

4. A Manual transmission (I hate Automatics, I can hear the gear switch while after I would have shifted if it was a manual).

I did look at the Fusion, other then the above it meet my expectation for a new car, thus the Fusion may be the right option for you.

I did drive a regular Cruise with its 1.8 liter engine and and a Standard Transmission, and I liked it. I live in the Mountains of Pennsylvania and took it up a steep hill near the dealer, no problems taking the hill. When I opt for the ECO, I expected a weaker performance, but the Turbo charger more then made up for the smaller engine. In fact with the Turbo charger the ECO with its 1.4 liter engine can produce more horse power then the larger 1.8 liter engine.

Please note the 1,4 liter engine used in the ECO is the same as used in the Chevrolet Volt (Through the Volt's engine, being just a generator does NOT have nor needs a Turbo Charger).

A 2.0 liter Diesel option for the Cruise is available in May 2013 with 46 mpg:

http://www.automoblog.net/2013/04/22/chevy-cruze-diesel-vs-vw-jetta-tdi/

Now, I have a prejudice against diesels, since I drove them in the Army. Compared to a Gasoline engine, they get better fuel economy and last longer (and when "done" mostly just need some parts replace and then a "new" engine unlike a gasoline engine which has to be overhauled inside and out). The down side is their produce more noise, the fuel tends to freeze if the weather goes below the freezing point of water (and thus the engine need to be "heated" before you start it in cold weather) and you have to be careful about water in the system (The fuel tends to collect in Diesels more then in Gasoline, and if the water gets into the engine it can do some real damage).

Diesel not only need a more extensive fuel filter then a Gasoline Engine it needs a more extensive Air Filter. As to the Fuel Filter, in my old 2 1/2 ton Diesel Army trucks we had three filters on the fuel system that we had to drain of water every day, mostly the first filter caught most of the water and the other filters, when drained, had no water in them, and if all three filters had water coming out of them, the Truck had to go to the shop. The Air Filter could also be a problem, but rarely was for it was huge. In an car the size of the Cruize where do to put the Fuel Filters and the Air Filters given you are talking about a 2,0 liter engine in place of a 1.8 liter engine? When the Army switched from Gasoline to Diesel in 1959 (With the Adoption of the M60 tank), the M113 Armored Personal Carrier (APC) had the room to have installed a larger Diesel engine to replace the Gasoline Engine that equipped the first M113s. The M114 tracked Scout Vehicles adopted about the same time did NOT have the room and thus remained Gasoline engined till retired in 1973 (and not replaced by a track vehicle till the M3 Bradley Scout Vehicle was adopted in 1981, through M113s were used in the role of being a Scout Vehicle in addition to being an APC).

You need a larger diesel then a gasoline engine to produce the same level of low end torque to get a vehicle started. Thus when the Army replaced the Gasoline engined 2 1/2 tons trucks with Diesel engines, the Diesel engines were about 25% larger then the Gasoline engines they replaced.. This was the same with Tanks, APC and any other Vehicle the Army decided to re-engined from a Gasoline to a Diesel engine. I bring it up just to point out why the Diesel has to be 2.0 to substitute for a 1.8 and a 1.4 liter gasoline engine in the Cruize.

My old National Guard Unit in the 1980s, had all three types of post WWII M35 2 1/2 ton trucks, Gasoline jobs from the late 1940s. "Multifuel" M35s and Diesel M35s.

Here is the Wikipedia site on the M35, please note it states the M35 production started in 1949, but I drove M35s with Manufacturer date plates from 1946 and 1948 (These were used ONLY on the early Gasoline models, the later "Multifuel" M35s and Diesel M35s did not have the date plates). Thus the 1949 date is in error, but the rest of the article seems to be on correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD_ton_cargo_truck

We hated the "Multifuel" M35s being unreliable, the Diesels were the best, for most of them were less then 20 years old and thus newer then the older gasoline M35s we had. The Gasoline M35s actually outlasted the "Multifuels" in my old unit. When the Gas Jobs ran, they ran very good, you good sense the greater ability to go cross country with the more powerful, smaller and lighter, Gasoline engine. The only problem is the engines were at least 40 years old and thus long past the time they should have been replaced (Thus the reliability issue with the Gas jobs, or I should say the lack of reliability when I was driving them). Diesels had more low end power, but the Gas jobs had better acceleration and just did better cross country then the Diesels.

Now the M35s "Multifuels" were Diesels designed that in a pinch you could use gasoline mixed with oil in them. I think the ratio was two quarts of oil for every 20 gallons of Gasoline. The Army adopted the "Multifuel" M35s during the early 1960s and justified the use of the "Multifuels" M35s in situations when you had gasoline but no Diesel for the trucks. The down side is they were still Diesels but with this additional potential problem of having been run on gasoline (and the redesign of the engine so gasoline could be used). My unit did have to use the system once, we ran out of Diesel on the way to Summer camp, but by the 1980s it was clear gasoline was on the way out and since the 1970s the Army had switched to plain diesels given that with the switch to Diesels for tanks, it was gasoline that was going to be in short supply not diesel. The Additional parts for the "Multifuel" M35s made them less reliable then the older Gasoline Jobs, and thus most were rebuilt with diesel engines even as we retained Gasoline engined M35s (Through we finally turned in out last Gasoline powered M35 2 1/2 ton truck sometime before I left the National Guard in 1991, but not that much before, i.e. at best two years before but we still had then in 1988 when my National Guard Division had a "Full Mobilization" and we had to take them with us for out two week camp).

My point, if you had a Gasoline M35 2 1/2 ton truck that was running in top notch condition (a rare thing even in my days in the National Guard), you had a better cross country vehicle then the Diesel version. Both were slow on Highways (the transmission was design for cross country use NOT highway use) the gasoline, when they ran, just were nicer cross country.

Diesels tend to be less perky then even a smaller gasoline engine. When you switch from a Gasoline to a Diesel engine you have to accept that situation and adjust your driving around it. This is why you do NOT hear of Diesel powered Airplanes or Motorcycles (Both have been made, but in those applications the greater power of the smaller and lighter Gasoline engine wins out).

[FogerRox]

16. Assumes 50mph? I doubt that

Unless the test for a gas car is different than a hybrid.

The new test metrics in 2008 are based on real driving conditions of 65 mph and the use of air conditioning. The Toyota Echo saw about a 5mpg drop on the hiway test, Hyper miling got 52mpg, 48mpg old test, 44mpg new test. The only way to get 44mpg hiway in an Echo is to 65-70mph on the hiway.

The Dodge Grand Caravan hiway mpg was 25mpg prior to 2008, it dropped to 23mpg. I've gotten 29.7 on the hiway. The only way to get 23mpg with this minivan is do 70-75mph with the air on.

[happyslug]

19. In 2008 three additional tests were added by the EPA, but the older tests are still the same

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Average Speed in the Highway test is still 48.3 mph
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

The Average Speed for City Driving is still 21.2:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

All five tests, including the three new tests added in 2008:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Thus the tests still rely on 50 mph average speed for highway mileage (OK to be accurate 48.3mph). The 2008 changes did NOT change the City and Highway testing given those are used by Congress when setting Average Fleet mileage and thus to change them today would take an Act of Congress. Thus EPA could ADD tests, but still had to do and use the older tests.

[FogerRox]

20. From the bottom link

three additional tests will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures.

[happyslug]

22. AND all of them still average UNDER 50 mph.

Yes, The High Speed test goes to 80 mph, but even that test's AVERAGE speed is only 48.4 mph.

Remember Corporate Fleet Average is based on the combined City - Highway tests of pre-2008, thus still part of the mix.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

[Yo_Mama]

12. It depends on your usage.

As to battery life, I think the 2013 warranty in most states is 8 years or 100,000 miles. The battery will gradually lose ability to charge, which happens with all these batteries, but you may not notice much of a difference. The battery warranty only covers failure rather than loss of maximum charge. However actual expected time until battery failure is a lot longer than the warranty - well over 150,000 miles.

A lot of people don't seem to be getting the 47 mpg, but I think it kind of depends on how quickly you accelerate and how fast you normally drive. Leadfoot drivers seem to get lower mileage.

I know that people say the brakes last forever on these vehicles.

Ford may be revising its mileage rating. If you have to drive a lot at speeds above 60, you may see a pretty big average loss. If you have to strongly accelerate a lot, you may see a loss. If you have to drive a lot in very cold weather, it's not realistic to expect anything above about 42. A lot of the testers were coming up with around 39.

There are lawsuits pending about the mileage rating, but people really do seem to like driving this car.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/03/ford-being-sued-over-c-max-hybrid-fusion-hybrid-mpg-claims.html'

As the battery ages and maximum charge in the battery declines, you may see your mileage decline somewhat, but usually not that much. If you test drive it and watch the leafy indicator thingie, you'll get an idea of how your driving style matches the car.

[Yo_Mama]

13. PS: Fuelly

It really is how you drive, and where, that makes a huge difference in MPG. At this link you can pull reports for actual driver-reported mileage on a range of different vehicles, and you'll be surprised at the variance:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/fusion/2013/hybrid%20l4/sedan

[FogerRox]

18. Same minivan 2 different drivers

My Dodge Minivan has gotten as much as 29.7 mpg hiway.

A friend had the same van and never got more than 26 mpg hiway.

So one day my friend asked my to join him in picking up some campaign signs at a warehouse. He gets on the entrance ramp for the hiway, and leaves me in the dust, accelerating to 65 mph, and does as much as 70. Then brakes repeatedly when approaching a group of cars, and brakes heavily when exiting.

I knew 2 guys that both drove a Toyota Echo, one got 52mpg, the other got 46mpg on the hiway. It really is how you drive, and where, that makes a huge difference in MPG.

[happyslug]

21. I once had a 1982 3/4 ton GMC Pickup with a 350 Cubic Inch Engine get 25 mpg.

Now I was driving from Houston to New Orleans late at night, no traffic and I wanted to see how much fuel I could save on that flat piece of highway with a slight slope downward (It was to flat to call it down hill). When I used the truck normally it would get about 10-12 mpg, on that trip I did 25 mpg. Now, the interstate had no minimum speed so I went 25 mph, but I double my fuel mileage by going that slow. I would have tried to go slower, but the Truck was a three speed manual and if I went under 25 mph on that highway I would have had to down shift and lose what fuel economy I was getting.

I did it once, never did it afterward, speeds was just to slow and in the 1980s the price of gasoline was dropping. The GMC gave me 10-12 mpg afterward till I traded it in, in 1990.

[tinrobot]

14. Ford is under fire for overreporting gas mileage

That 47mpg may not be the case in practice.

I have a Ford Escape Hybrid that is 7 years old with 100k miles. It is still doing well, though the battery is showing its age in mpg. I'm down to 30 mpg from the 36 mpg I got when the car was new.

Outside of pure EV, the best option now is a plug-in hybrid like the Volt, C-Max Energi, or Prius. You get electric for the first 15-40 miles, depending on the vehicle. Some people using those cars fill up only a few times per year.

[hunter]

15. My best practice is to own an old car and rarely drive it.

It seems at this point I'll never be able to afford a newer car anyways, even if I wanted one.

Fortunately I don't.

In my imaginary utopia there are no cars.

Cars are mind control devices just like television. They limit the places our minds can wander, they confine us to the streets and highways and our jobs. Cars force us to identify ourselves as we travel. Cars isolate us from our fellow travelers. Cars divide us.

My wife and I have managed to avoid commuting since the mid 'eighties, but we still own cars.

Sometimes cars are a necessity and I resent that.

[Ilsa]

23. I don't have public transportation and we

live out in the country. Unfortunately, we have to have one good vehicle working.

I wish communities were built better, like in hubs or something, so we would never be very far from the necessities or work, or that good mass transit was available to everyone.