The 2017 Accord Hybrid is a real challenger to Toyota hybrid cars

Fuelly lists the following:

		2014	2015	2016
1	Accord	43.2	41.9
2	Camry	38.2	36.4	36.4
3	Fusion	39.5	43.1	41.7

No results for 2016 Accords of course, no results for the new Malibu hybrid. There may be Accord Plug-Ins and Fusion Energis mixed into those results.

And, EPA driver-reported results:

		2014	2015	2016
1	Accord	43.2	42.3
2	Camry LE	37.0	35.3	36.4
3	Camry XLE/SE	37.7	40.6
4	Fusion	42.2	42.0	46.0
5	Malibu			37.0

That's showing that it's not clear-cut that the Accord is actually better than the Fusion, although there's clearly an inefficiency showing up in the Toyota hybrid powertrain. (This makes sense, though, because the Gen 4 Prius's P610 improved greatly over the Gen 3's P410 (which was a downsized P310) in both mechanical and electrical efficiency, and the Ford HF35 is a very similar design to the P610.)

Also, the Malibu's results are only across one car, so that may not be representative.

However, the improved highway mode transmission losses may be offset by worsened engine thermal efficiency losses due to running at non-optimal RPM. Of course, if the thermal efficiency losses get worse than the serial mode transmission losses, they can always decouple, but they're going to have areas where their single ratio is less efficient than a sufficiently optimized power split hybrid, because they need to run less than optimum load. And, if they decouple and run serial to get better engine efficiency, they've got a new problem - their transmission losses become worse than a power split hybrid.

I'd say that the system they're using is a technically simple one, but it's not necessarily a cheap one (MG1 needs to be sized to take all engine output in serial mode, MG2 needs to be sized to provide all vehicle propulsion in serial mode), and it's not necessarily more efficient than a power split hybrid. (It is, however, worth noting that the tradeoffs are different between a PHEV and a plugless HEV - a PHEV is technically far easier to implement in this serial-plus-clutch approach, and a bit lower fuel efficiency in charge sustaining mode is fine, if it makes the charge depletion mode easier to implement. However, I suspect that this is a case of the Accord Hybrid suffering due to the Accord Plug-In Hybrid's requirements.) Granted, we are talking about Honda, and they know how to make an engine. And, it's a better idea than, say, a straight serial hybrid.

 

you have some misunderstanding on i-MMD system.
check document <development of SPORT HYBRID i-MMD Control System for 2014 Model Year Accord>，which shows in high speed cruising mode, accord hybrid can always work in very good efficiency area.
accord hybrid must be having better fuel economy, better performance. the only problem is higher cost.

 

I looked at Fuelly.com and couldn't find an entry for the new 2016 Malibu hybrid so that 37 mpg might be for a 4 cylinder 1.5L turbo non-hybrid model.

 

The 37 is not on Fuelly, it's on fueleconomy.gov: My MPG Estimates

 

maybe honda took the year off to find a way to reduce the cost.

 

if you know some basic about motor and invertor, you will know all those method honda used to reduce cost can be applied by toyota. the facts is toyota motor is much smaller than honda.

 

well, if toyota can't match their mpg's perhaps they can reduce the price. but a gen 3 hycam might have some surprises as well.

 

Gen 3 CamHybrid is predictable, toyota gain 10% mpg for each gen of Prius, Camhy probably reach 45mpg in Gen3.
honda reach 48 now, gen 3 camhy might be available in early 2018. honda has 3mpg better than Gen 3 camhy, the cost is bigger motor...

 

Oh, I see what they're doing, they're cycling the ICE.

Road speed sets RPM, the ICE is run at the most efficient load for that RPM, whatever isn't needed to propel the vehicle goes to the battery, then that accumulated energy is used to propel the vehicle.

So, basically, it's time-shifting the MG1 to MG2 torque flow by using the battery. Less efficient than running it through a purely electrical path (rather than Honda's electrochemical path) and dropping the engine RPM, but more efficient than running below optimal load...

 

toyota has more ability to reduce costs. consumers will be looking at $25,000. hycam at 45mpg vs $28,000. hyacc at $28,000. they will probably sell about equally.

 

Hey I am a skeptic of any MPG claim that says somebody else is better than Toyota Hybrids.

So I decided this was a good time to (carefully) use Consumer Reports actual road testing MPG data. In my opinion the Consumer Reports "city" MPG rating is questionable, but their "highway" rating seems OK and possibly provides a good way to compare vehicles.

Here is what I see:

Consumer Reports Highway MPG
Camry XLE Hybrid 2.5-liter 43MPG
Camry LE Hybrid 46 est. (No CR data- adding EPA's +3 MPG delta)

Accord Hybrid (2014MY@2-liter) 46 MPG

2016 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2-liter 41MPG

2016 Gen4 Prius Three 59 MPG

2010 Gen3 Prius 54 MPG

I do like Fuelly but am concerned their data are conflating hybrid and plug-in versions, and other possible issues.

 

any comparison or argument based on self-reported efficiency is inherently invalid.

EPA numbers vs EPA numbers are the only valid comparison - not because they are exactly what you will experience in real life, but because they are tested to the exact same sets of conditions and are comparable due to precision.

Measuring Fuel Economy

 

except that some cars are designed for the epa test, and then do much more poorly in real life. but i agree, it's really all we have.
although i do see some value in fuelly.

 

Any data that is true experimental data is worth looking at.
Consumer Reports is using real world fuels and their test is showing E10 results on real roads.
EPA is using crazy methods and crazy E0 test fuels and politically correct adjustment factors to come up. I do think EPA data is worthwhile, but so is the CR data that I presented and interpreted.

Bottom line we have a lack of real and good data so any snippet we get is important.

P.S.- An interesting data point would be if Consumer Reports tested Prius Gen4 2 "eco" vs. the Gen4 3 they did test. I bet CR won't go there as they probably do not want to contradict EPA.

 

think how different the world might be, if toyota had hacked the ice tripping epa test at 6 miles on the pip.

 

The CR results are also showing the impacts of real weather and real drivers without any disclosure of what the air temperature and wind direction and speed during the day of the test, or even a vague acceleration profile on how the cars are driven on their track. The fuel has ethanol, but readers aren't informed if it is summer of winter blend.

CR does these tests in Connecticut, not Southern California where the weather will be pleasant over 90% of time during the year. The climate with seasonal fuel blends will be a big variable, and all CR has stated is that they don't test when it is wet out. Without that info on weather, it makes comparisons between models pointless.

I don't think we'll see Eco mpg results from them, because it will highlight the flaws in their methodology.

Fuelly is a much better source that CR for in the wild results, because of the sample size over time. The initial search results it reports throw out the outliers. So the professional hypermilers and street racers aren't skewing the results. It will also lessen the impact of misidentified engines and hybrids. There should be a report button for any individual car entry that is placed in the wrong category or if you suspect the data is off, if you are going through it.

 

CT has mild winters. Those of us with true cold... like in MN... see it as pointless regardless.

 

brrrrrrrrrr...... frostbite falls... natasha...

 

at least we know CT is probably EPA reformulated gasoline