Our Honda Civic (not a hybrid, and it's a manual trans) gets 38 to 40 mpg most of the year (a bit less in the summer, probably due to AC). I can't imagine that the slight increase in mileage is worth the extra price of a hybrid, especially with the concurrent loss in power and room.
I used to own a nonhybrid Civic and the room is about the same.
When I factor in what CA gas prices are, along with my ability come Jan. to ride as a single in the carpool lane (about the only thing I'm glad Der Governator has done), it makes financial sense to me.
*shrug* Some folx think that SUVs make financial sense. I happen not to be one.
It really is all in what is important to you, I suppose. Most of my driving is in stop-and-go commuter traffic,so anything that cuts down on my drivetime and/or my gas bills is okie-day by me.
And who says we Angelenos don't live in our cars? :>
Consumer Reports says that the highway MPG is closer to the EPA reported MPG than the city driving. Given that most of your commute isn't quite as stop&go as city driving, I don't know that you have much confirmation about the eventual mileage of your car. Also, I have the impression based on the WIRED story that the issue is that the car had decreasing efficiency as the guy owned and drove it for longer.
Meanwhile, just to amuse myself, doing some math: 4x110=440miles, 440/11=40mpg. Advertised hwy mpg is 47.
remember also, that bad driving habits can lower the gas mileage *big time*... as can the stupid lights on the 45 and 50 mph roads around here. Having to do that much speed up and the slowdown in a short time, rather than over a distance makes a *huge* difference.
Lately we've been running between 47-50 mpg on a combination of 55 and 65 mph highways with a bit of slow stuff with lights on either end. But it's not unusual to get pretty close to 30-35 if I'm just driving it around Columbia... and it was worse, because of the combination of where the hills, off/on ramps and lights are, when I used it to take one kid to pre-school last year... much worse.
Hm... IIRC, the trip out to Chicago and back was somewhere between 45 and 48 mpg overall. And that included a few "backroad detours" for fun, and two "stuck in traffics for 45-70 minutes" and driving in rain or at least wet pavement (which also kills mileage a bit) almost the entire way home.
Pretty close to their advertised numbers. Though I'll agree that their city numbers are messed up... mostly because stop lights kill the mileage more than just about anything else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:32 pm (UTC)When I factor in what CA gas prices are, along with my ability come Jan. to ride as a single in the carpool lane (about the only thing I'm glad Der Governator has done), it makes financial sense to me.
*shrug* Some folx think that SUVs make financial sense. I happen not to be one.
It really is all in what is important to you, I suppose. Most of my driving is in stop-and-go commuter traffic,so anything that cuts down on my drivetime and/or my gas bills is okie-day by me.
And who says we Angelenos don't live in our cars? :>
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:54 pm (UTC)Meanwhile, just to amuse myself, doing some math: 4x110=440miles, 440/11=40mpg. Advertised hwy mpg is 47.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 03:34 pm (UTC)As for older hybrids being less efficient - older *cars* are less efficient.
I certainly don't expect my car to hit that magic 47 for ever and ever.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 03:57 pm (UTC)OK, a 2003 shouldn't be that low on mpg, granted.
But if he is having this much trouble and his state has a 'lemon law,' it seems to me that he should take advantage of that.
I just don't think one bad car should taint the entire line of cars.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 09:30 pm (UTC)Lately we've been running between 47-50 mpg on a combination of 55 and 65 mph highways with a bit of slow stuff with lights on either end. But it's not unusual to get pretty close to 30-35 if I'm just driving it around Columbia... and it was worse, because of the combination of where the hills, off/on ramps and lights are, when I used it to take one kid to pre-school last year... much worse.
Hm... IIRC, the trip out to Chicago and back was somewhere between 45 and 48 mpg overall. And that included a few "backroad detours" for fun, and two "stuck in traffics for 45-70 minutes" and driving in rain or at least wet pavement (which also kills mileage a bit) almost the entire way home.
Pretty close to their advertised numbers. Though I'll agree that their city numbers are messed up... mostly because stop lights kill the mileage more than just about anything else.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 08:52 am (UTC)