Consumer Reports on the Jetta Hybrid & Prius Plug-in

I would consider looking at another vehicle model before asking a car company to design a global car according to my specifications. The seating position with steering & seat adjustments hopes to accommodate a 4'10"(85 lbs) person to a 6' 7" (300 lbs)ballplayer as much as possible.

Also, I never squeezed the dash material in any of my cars to see if it is or is not "Hard Plastics" that brilliant car reviewers like to warn us about.

 

I'm not sure how CU got such poor mileage. We consistently got a steady summer mileage average of 46mpg with the 06 Prius. This was mostly short trips of 6-10 miles with large down and uphill runs every time. On hwy driving it was easy to achieve 50+mpg. I will agree that the Jetta is more fun to drive and quieter . We liked it a lot when trying out new cars, but ultimately settled on the Volt. Now we're spending more on lawn mowing gas than on driving fuel.

 

A quick cross country drive at > 60 mpg finds the Prius PHEV-11 at the worlds largest truck stop in Iowa!
441_-_504_-_609_miles_-_64-_65_-_66_mpg_-_59_-_58_-_55_mph.jpg

 

I have long questioned whether the CR mileage estimations are very meaningful for hybrids in which gas and electric propulsion are used the way an ordinary Prius driver operates. For example, CR gives a combined figure of 44 mpg. I have never ever seen anything lower than 51 mpg city or highway and average 54-58 combined. In the city they showed 32 (!) mpg. I would have to drive like a demented maniac to get mileage that low.

 

That's another minus against their efficiency testing. While trying to keep it 'real world' they employ drivers that aren't the typical one on the world. Instead they seem to use driving enthusiasts.

 

CR uses driving enthusiasts? That is Road and Track, Car and Driver, etc who do that and get 50% less than EPA mileage.

For real world estimates, I go to fuelly where real people post their results as opposed to test drivers. I suppose there is some self selection going on but I post on it to see the results, not to show off how good or bad a eco-driver I am because I already know the answer, not so good because I don't try. My mileage varies from 38 to 62 in the same car but I can generally guess the result from knowing where I've driven by the time I'm into 20 fullups. And my results seem to match up with the averages so I'm thinking there is some credibility in the averages posted on fuelly.

 

Fuelly PiP averages.
Toyota Prius Plug-in MPG Reports | Fuelly

 

I think the issue with the CR measurements is that they are designed for single mode cars, with very specific rates of acceleration and braking, both of which most drivers change drastically when driving a a dual-mode parallel hybrid. I strongly suspect that their tests use the ICE almost continuously and there is very little gliding or use of the motor generators by themselves. I think the prius results are largely what you would get if the car could run with no electric motors, or if the car were driven by someone who drives it like a sports car (e.g. Car and Driver etc).

 

I don't remember any description of following any acceleration or braking rates for the CR test. It's done on their track with a target speed. The test is the average of at least two drivers, and they toss results that deviate too much from the rest. I called the drivers enthusiasts because they apparantly drive more aggressively than the average American driver. It's not just hybrids getting results on the low side, and you have to drive the Prius like a rented mule in order to get city mpg that low.

 

What's interesting is that the government would grossly exaggerate the MPG, but these magazines always give you a number so low that you would think they let Burt Reynolds test drive their cars. I'm sure most people are smart enough to realize that driving with lights on, A/C cranked up, stereo loud, and road-rage manuevers are a one-way ticket to ridiculously low MPG. We're not all stupid enough to push our vehicles to their limits every second we drive them, because we actually need to keep them running for more than a week.

 

The problem with publications, review sites online, and even the EPA estimates is that few of them seem to mimic real world driving. The EPA doesn't even do the testing for government ratings, they let the auto makers do their own tests and report it as EPA work. I don't know why that is allowed, but it allows auto makers to always report more-than-ideal driving conditions for most vehicles (look at what Ford did with the ridiculously over-rated C-MAX mpg rating).

Then you have magazines - or reviewers like Jeremy Clarkson (I actually like Top Gear, even if I hate his anti-hybrid attitude) - who absolutely hit the pedal to the medal on race tracks and don't even attempt real world driving just so they can prove that a hybrid isn't fuel efficient.

The one thing even "weak" hybrids like the Jetta Hybrid or C-MAX achieve against traditional gasoline only engines is when they are at a stoplight, the engine can turn off and the electric motors keep components like A/C and the drivetrain active. This is a huge benefit to driving hybrid vehicles. So even less fuel efficient hybrids - such as the Jetta, or the Camry hybrid, the C-MAX, or even the Sonata Hybrid - get to claim considerably better MPG than their gas only brothers with similar form factor.

What you commonly hear from anti-electric or anti-hybrid people is that the mpg's aren't that different, but it simply is not true. The Ford Fusion with the new 1.6L Ecoboost engine, slated for arrival this fall, has a reported 37MPG highway, which is impressive. But overall tank average fuel economy really is in the 20's, nearly 10mpg less, because it has no hybrid drivetrain to supplement the engine when the car stops or other tasks. So even if the Ford Fusion Hybrid "only" averages upper 30's for fuel economy, that is still 10mpg better overall, and a significant increase.

This is just one example, you can go down the list and find the same issue over and over. Sonata standard 2.4L engine has peak, theoretical highway performance of 35mpg. Sounds impressive, but owners report averages in the 20mpg range (upper 20's I should say) from beginning of tank to end of tank. Sonata Hybrid owners? Well, they are averaging in the mid to upper 30's. Just do the math... If a Sonata Hybrid owner averages 37mpg, full tank mixed driving, and a Sonata standard engine averages 28mpg for full tank, mixed driving, you're talking about 9 mpg average difference, which is more than a whopping 30% increase in efficiency. That adds up quickly at the gas pump over a year's time, yet these uninformed reviewers keep peddling misinformation on peak gasoline highway driving vs average hybrid mpg performance!

2013 Hyundai Sonata MPG Reports | Fuelly

That's my source, the numbers are all over the map based on driving habits, but one thing is clear: the Sonata Hybrid clearly gets 10mpg on average more than its gasoline only Sonata model.

Instead of going through a list of cars, the point is that most anti-hybrid reviewers are getting good at ignoring the real world performance, they tout the peak mpg highway performance of select gasoline only cars then slight hybrids by quoting their real world, beginning to end full tank averages in mixed driving scenarios.

Hybrids indeed are getting massively more efficient numbers right across the board. There are a few badly designed hybrids (particularly some of the SUV hybrids the American auto makers have churned out that are just hybrid in name only for the most part), but most sedans indeed get incredible fuel economy over their gasoline only counterparts. 37/38 mpg overall fuel efficiency may not seem like a lot to a Prius owner who can easily get 50mpg, but compared to the standard Sonata getting 27/28 mpg its a big change and upgrade in fuel economy for that same type of car.

 

CR rates products based on what they believe their readers consider important.
No reviewer is going to focus on what each individual considers the most important issue. It simply isn't possible unless they write a different review for every reader. They touch on each aspect. If you think they should pay more attention to fuel economy, write them and let them know.

As for their mpg rating, as long as they use the same test for each vehicle they are completely valid as a comparative measure to their other results.
However, they are worthless to what mpg you will get unless you drive like they do (and I see plenty of maniac drivers out there on the highways).

 

It is done that way purely because of the EPA's resources for the testing. It isn't exactly a high priority for Congress. Even if we went with a similar to USDA meat inspections where the company would pay the EPA to do the testing, the EPA simply doesn't have the facilities and man power to handle all the testing. A few years ago the EPA didn't even have dynamometer that could test a AWD vehicle. They had to 'fake' it on a car with a disconnected AWD system and use math to represent the AWD drag on efficiency.

The EPA does double checks 10% to 15% of the vehicles tested. It's probably on the lower end now thanks to the sequester.

Part of the problem in Ford's case is that the new tests established in 2008 don't have to actually be ran on new cars. Instead a method similar to what was used to revise pre-2008 models' fuel economy numbers can be used. Apparantly Ford did this with their new hybrids. Again, this is allowed to save money and time.

I agree with this in regards to Chevy's first hybrid truck. That was a robust start stop system that could be used as a generator. In regards to the Two-mode system, you are doing what you accused the anti-hybrid articles of; ignoring city mpg. The Tahoe hybrid only got a couple more mpg on the highway. In the city it got 5 more mpg. It doesn't sound like much in the world car hybrids, but when it's a vehicle that has a rating in the teens, it is huge.

Two-mode could have done better on fuel economy if mated to GM's 5something liter V8 with cylinder deactivation. Which is what the non-hybrid Tahoe had. Instead, they used the older design and thirstier 6.2L. Cost probably played a part, but I believe it was so they could hit a 3 ton tow rating. It's failure was that the models were loaded up with features. Whether to subsidize the hybrid system cost, or for profit, only GM accountants know.

As I pointed out, CR doesn't control for variables in their test. The difference achieved between winter and summer blend gasoline alone leads to guessing on how close or far apart between a model tested in the summer and one in the fall. Then you have the affect of differing temperatures on top of that.

Going back to, sometimes vague, recollections of what I got in fuel economy during my pre-hypermiling days, the new EPA numbers are pretty close to what I got. Aside: another tactic of anti-hybrid articles is to use the unadjusted pre-2008 EPA numbers with older car examples. The best way to judge what you will get in terms of fuel efficiency with a new car is to keep accurate records of what you get with your current car. There are multiple sites in addition to fuelly that let a user set up a fuel log. Knowing what percentage of what you currently get of EPA tends to be a good judge what you'll get in a different car.

 

The GM two-mode vehicles use a 6.0 engine that has active fuel management and an Atkinson style valve timing like the Prius engine.

 

I'm going to guess you are thinking of the Cadillac Escalade hybrid.

Here are the percentage improvements in city, combined, and highway EPA estimates for the 2013 Cadillac Escalade vs. the 2013 Hyundai Sonata.

Escalade 43% 31% 28%
Sonata 50% 36% 14%

Compare Side-by-Side

 

I never followed it closely, but they could have done the same with a smaller block. The only apparent reason for a larger one is to keep up the power output.

I hope something comes out of the Ford/Toyota partnership for a truck hybrid. So far, the electric hybrid systems appear to sacrifice towing ability. It all could be simply CYA on their part with the zero to lower tow ratings than the gasoline only counter parts.

 

Even better is to compare the reduction in gas used..

Hybrid Escalde 4.8 Gallons/100 mi, Regular 6.2/100 mi, Savings 1.4/100mi or 168G for a 12000/year
Sonata Hybrid 2.6 gallons/100 mi, Regular 3.6/100 mis, savings 1 gallon/100miles, or 120G for 12000/year.

The use of the hybrid on the escale saves more 40% more gallons of gas per year than its use on a Sonata..
(The increase in MPG is non-linear which is why the improvement in MPG does not seem as large even when the actual gas savings is.)

Of course both are using way more than a Prius or the Volt.. but different customers have different needs.

 

It could also be to keep the revs down, like when the Prius engine went from a 1.5 to a 1.8 engine.

 

I just got back from a 425-mile vacation, without ever plugging in. 270 of those miles were with 2 bikes on back, 2 people inside, and a bunch of cargo. The A/C was on the entire time. The other 155 miles were driving around, sight-seeing and stuff. The A/C was on the entire time. 8.87 gallons were used. 47.9 MPG was the end result.

Even that extreme example delivered better fuel economy.

It's frustrating to read such reviews that mislead & confuse. They clearly don't have an informative method of comparison established yet.