Is a hybrid car still the most ecologically friendly vehicle?

[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.