Why buy a dirt cheap hybrid when dirt cheap traditional vehicles will always get mileage that is nearly as good for even less? Can't get rid of the extra weight and cost that hybrid equipment adds.
It is my belief that Hybrids are worse for the environment for this exact reason. There were far more fuel efficient vehicles prior to the introduction of Hybrids. Check out the 85 Sprint (55+ MPG) , 1992 Civic VX (72 MPG), or the 2000 Civic HX (had one and never once got below 45MPG regardless oh how hard I drove it). They discontinued making these traditional drive train high ferule efficiency models when Hybrids came around. Why on earth would anyone buy a Hybrid when you could get a cheaper, far more environmentally friendly (Lithium?) and somewhat safer vehicle that got better mileage.
Ultimately all the fuel used to power a typical hybrid comes from Gasoline. Due to conservation of energy principals, you cannot end up with more energy than what a gas car could. You just temporarily store it and use it in a more optimized manner. Well every conversion of that energy loses a bit of it to heat, etc. So instead of Gas -> Kinetic, you have Gas -> Kinetic -> Magnetic - > Electric -> Stored in Battery -.> Electric -> Magnetic -> Kinetic. With each arrow losing a bit of efficiency is it any wonder that Hybrids are dissapointing compared to their previously un-gimped conventional counterparts?
The question is then why on earth would the car companies do this? The answer may not be obvious, but it is simple. It is the law. Legislation was introduced requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold to be ZEV or ULEV (Zero Emissions Vehicles, or Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles). Conventional powered cars did not conform to this mandate, so the auto industry introduced Hybrids to fill the requirement. Note: Typical Hybrids do not actually output any less emissions overall under typical use than the discontinued high fuel efficiency models from yesteryear, but they are classified as such so they meet the requirement. Thus the companies were essentially mandated to sell the things and the only way to do that was to eliminate the conventional models that would prevent sales. Thus Efficiency has gone down, toxic elements used have gone up, and prices are outrageous (even though Hybrids are usually sold at a loss, since they need to sell a certain % by law)
Typical Hybrids are nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by car companies to get through a loophole mandated by the Government.
Plug-in Hybrids however, get their energy for the bulk of travel (short trips) from the grid and as such are not nearly as inefficient. For those, the negative aspects of toxic batteries, lugging around extra weight and all the energy conversions, can be outweighed by getting energy from the extremely optimized Power grid rather than a gas engine. I am all for Plug-in hybrids, especially the new Gas-Electric models such as the Volt where the drivetrain is essentially that of an electric car with a standby generator on board if the batteries get low.
Now if we can just get more capacity added to our power-grids so any additional load doesn't rely on coal....
Yes, your Civic and Spirit will get better mileage. Hell, a 1980s Honda Civic HF could pull almost 60 miles per gallon. However, the fatal flaw lies in their lack of safety equipment or amenities. Remember, we didn't have half as many safety devices back in 1992.
Wrong! My Civic HX was built in 2000, they continued that model until 2005. It had pretty much every standard safety item that the new Civic Hybrids do (well except for the mandatory power battery cutoff for Hybrids, since fireman were afraid to go near that much voltage with the jaws of life), and they consistently get better mileage than the Hybrid equivalent, and were faster. Even the 92 Civic VX came with airbags and ABS brakes. The safety equipment argument is utter BS. Hybrids are a scam to take advantage of people who don't actually stud the technology and are more concerned about appearing green that being green. I am as anti-hybrid (plug-in hybrid excepted) as they get, yet until I had children to cart around I never owned a car that got below 45 MPG. Now about the highest mileage non-hybrid is a Smart car. I have a brother that has one, and I can assure you it gets unimpressive mileage and is no safer/heavier than an 80s compact, let alone a 2005 civic coupe.
I forgot to address amenities, my 2000 Civic HX, had a sunroof, alloy rims, power everything cruise control and A/C. Sure it was missing heated leather power seats, but anyone who has those in a hybrid is a complete hypocrite.
The only option that was missing was that it was a two door. For some reason they don't make 2-door hybrids, or compact cars for that matter anymore.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why buy a dirt cheap hybrid when dirt cheap traditional vehicles will always get mileage that is nearly as good for even less? Can't get rid of the extra weight and cost that hybrid equipment adds.
It is my belief that Hybrids are worse for the environment for this exact reason. There were far more fuel efficient vehicles prior to the introduction of Hybrids. Check out the 85 Sprint (55+ MPG) , 1992 Civic VX (72 MPG), or the 2000 Civic HX (had one and never once got below 45MPG regardless oh how hard I drove it). They discontinued making these traditional drive train high ferule efficiency models when Hybrids came around. Why on earth would anyone buy a Hybrid when you could get a cheaper, far more environmentally friendly (Lithium?) and somewhat safer vehicle that got better mileage.
Ultimately all the fuel used to power a typical hybrid comes from Gasoline. Due to conservation of energy principals, you cannot end up with more energy than what a gas car could. You just temporarily store it and use it in a more optimized manner. Well every conversion of that energy loses a bit of it to heat, etc. So instead of Gas -> Kinetic, you have Gas -> Kinetic -> Magnetic - > Electric -> Stored in Battery -.> Electric -> Magnetic -> Kinetic. With each arrow losing a bit of efficiency is it any wonder that Hybrids are dissapointing compared to their previously un-gimped conventional counterparts?
The question is then why on earth would the car companies do this? The answer may not be obvious, but it is simple. It is the law. Legislation was introduced requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold to be ZEV or ULEV (Zero Emissions Vehicles, or Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles). Conventional powered cars did not conform to this mandate, so the auto industry introduced Hybrids to fill the requirement. Note: Typical Hybrids do not actually output any less emissions overall under typical use than the discontinued high fuel efficiency models from yesteryear, but they are classified as such so they meet the requirement. Thus the companies were essentially mandated to sell the things and the only way to do that was to eliminate the conventional models that would prevent sales. Thus Efficiency has gone down, toxic elements used have gone up, and prices are outrageous (even though Hybrids are usually sold at a loss, since they need to sell a certain % by law)
Typical Hybrids are nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by car companies to get through a loophole mandated by the Government.
Plug-in Hybrids however, get their energy for the bulk of travel (short trips) from the grid and as such are not nearly as inefficient. For those, the negative aspects of toxic batteries, lugging around extra weight and all the energy conversions, can be outweighed by getting energy from the extremely optimized Power grid rather than a gas engine. I am all for Plug-in hybrids, especially the new Gas-Electric models such as the Volt where the drivetrain is essentially that of an electric car with a standby generator on board if the batteries get low.
Now if we can just get more capacity added to our power-grids so any additional load doesn't rely on coal....
Yes, your Civic and Spirit will get better mileage. Hell, a 1980s Honda Civic HF could pull almost 60 miles per gallon. However, the fatal flaw lies in their lack of safety equipment or amenities. Remember, we didn't have half as many safety devices back in 1992.
Wrong! My Civic HX was built in 2000, they continued that model until 2005. It had pretty much every standard safety item that the new Civic Hybrids do (well except for the mandatory power battery cutoff for Hybrids, since fireman were afraid to go near that much voltage with the jaws of life), and they consistently get better mileage than the Hybrid equivalent, and were faster. Even the 92 Civic VX came with airbags and ABS brakes. The safety equipment argument is utter BS. Hybrids are a scam to take advantage of people who don't actually stud the technology and are more concerned about appearing green that being green. I am as anti-hybrid (plug-in hybrid excepted) as they get, yet until I had children to cart around I never owned a car that got below 45 MPG. Now about the highest mileage non-hybrid is a Smart car. I have a brother that has one, and I can assure you it gets unimpressive mileage and is no safer/heavier than an 80s compact, let alone a 2005 civic coupe.
Mileage has lowered, and safety isn't the reason.
I forgot to address amenities, my 2000 Civic HX, had a sunroof, alloy rims, power everything cruise control and A/C. Sure it was missing heated leather power seats, but anyone who has those in a hybrid is a complete hypocrite.
The only option that was missing was that it was a two door. For some reason they don't make 2-door hybrids, or compact cars for that matter anymore.