Considering the negative coverage of hybrids in today’s BBC, I am wondering why manufacturers even bother. Why don’t they just sink their efforts exclusively in electrics?
Not sure if serious, or living under a bridge and snacking on Billy Goats... 🤔
Wouldn't be without one. Compromised for sure, but has a foot on many different worlds.
Has your post been stuck for 5 years?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54170207
If the survey is based on data from...
drivers who have chosen to record their mileage and fuel consumption for surveys or who drive company or leased vehicles whose fuel efficiency is recorded.
... then it's going to be skewed as loads of execs got them as company cars to offset their tax liability (as discussed in a previous STW episode).
The emissions from ours (when it arrives next month) will be 0 Monday to Friday as Mrs Dubs will charge it at work once a week or so.
Until the council dig up the tiny grass patch outside our house and turn it into EV parking, a BEV alone isn't going to cut it for us and buying two cars isn't really an option...
The main point of a hybrid (like the original Pious) was to reduce emissions in city centres. Plug-in hybrids are different - if most of your journeys are short you can almost avoid using the ICE at all, but still have the range for the rare occasions you need it. A recent Harry's garage video explains it quite well -
<edit> That BBC article is an idiotic statement of the bleeding obvious.
Plug in hybrids work well for a lot of people - plug it in regularly, do much of your local driving or commuting on electric, but have the ability to do the big journeys without hassle.
The problem is that because our taxation (particularly around company cars) is based on official CO2 figures, plenty of people got them to pay less tax but never bothered with the plugging in bit.
I've read the paper behind that coverage, they cherry-pick the Kia Niro PHEV which is one of the worst for running it's engine when it doesn't really need to. The Golf GTE we had could be run as a short range EV in all conditions without running the engine at all.
The CO2 emissions from a typical PHEV are about 117g CO2/km on the road only slightly better than from a conventional hybrid car like a Toyota Prius 135g CO2/km. A conventional new ICE car has emissions of 164-167g CO2/km on the road (diesel and petrol respectively)
So they're not perfect but do better. And the majority of PHEVs sold are larger cars like the Outlander so not a good comparison to a Prius.
As for why manufacturers bother? Fleet CO2 averages, and the fines they get if they're too high. It's a way to go on selling big SUVs without the big fines. What I find even more pointless are the "mild hybrid" systems they're fitting to everything in sight - 48v and not enough power to even move the car on electric alone.
I love proper EVs, I drive one despite the compromises, but PHEVs will have their place for the coming decade or so.
A comfortable, upright riding position, reasonably quick, and can take panniers.
I have a Countryman PHEV. By coincidence I had just filled the 36L tank before lockdown. I refilled the tank again 1750 miles later. Mine is plugged in whenever it is parked at home. So for me, a hybrid makes sense.
Admittedly it is a bit more rubbish on long runs though...
I go round in circles.
From:
The companies need to reduce their average co2 blah blah blah....
To:
I could drive all week and cover 3000miles year on leccy.
And then I remember you still need to maintain the engine and you have to charge it every single day!
Very little point. they are greenwash. well there would be a bit more point if they made them smaller and lighter but as it stands lifetime co2 emissions are not significantly decreased ( far greater emissions in production and disposal)
Guy I sit next to at work had a Merc estate hybrid for 3 years as a company car. Hated it. When he first got it the battery range was 25 miles from fully charged. When he handed it back after 3 years the range was down to 13 miles.
And he reckoned it cost far more on long journeys as had to carry the weight of the batteries around. Just a tax dodge really.
Company Passat GTE here. Always charge it, always empty the battery every working day and get around 55mpg overall. Weekends are nearly all on battery. Long journeys across the continent have still consistently seen 44mpg, fully laden. So with lower BIK it works well for me compared to a diesel, still contemplating the practicalities of a BEV next year though.
So like just about everything else, ever, it depends. Who'd have thought?
They're really just a stepping stone to get people out of ICE cars and on the way to full EV. Once there is a half decent charging network in the country and fast charging then there is no point to hybrids. For example if you could have a Tesla and wanted one then why would you consider a Hybrid? But for non Tesla BEV's the national charging network is woeful so Hybrids still have a place.
But even BEV's are not the answer. Hydrogen fuel celled EV's have to be. Convenience of filling up like an ICE car, can utilise excess electric generated from windmills when the wind is up but small levels of demand, so use that to create the hydrogen and you've killed two birds with one stone.
They are a tax dodge. I owned a outlander phev for three years and it started out as a good idea but was hopelessly compromised.
25 mile real world EV range, 25-35mpg using ICE. And that was when new.
By the end it was 17 mile EV range. Yes we managed with one car for everything but in hindsight it wasn’t worth it
Plenty of us can't viably run electrics, as much as we would like to.
HTH
Very little point
So because i only have onstreet parking i should just buy a diesel/petrol. Or are you suggesting i should drape a cable across the pavement?
Company Passat GTE here. Always charge it, always empty the battery every working day and get around 55mpg overall. Weekends are nearly all on battery. Long journeys across the continent have still consistently seen 44mpg, fully laden.
You do realise you could get miles better economy from a diesel right? I mean, if you're city driving then fine but otherwise that's pretty poor.
I have been looking into getting a Passat/superb PHEV however the skoda is that new they are 10 grand dearer than the petrol equivalent (7000 litres petrol/ 50000 miles?) plus you still have a cost charging it up so are we looking at one hundred thousand miles before it is breaking even with the petrol/diesel. Doesn't seem to make sense financially
Very little point. they are greenwash. well there would be a bit more point if they made them smaller and lighter but as it stands lifetime co2 emissions are not significantly decreased ( far greater emissions in production and disposal)
Don't listen to TJ, he really does not know what he's talking about. He was unable to back any of this up satisfactorily ten years ago when we were arguing constantly about it.
I have an old hybrid. It has the fuel economy and CO2 of a diesel, but far less NOx - almost none in fact. And it's a lot more economical in town than my diesel. The battery is nickel and really not that big.
Today's plug-in hybrids are a good solution - their batteries are a lot smaller than full electric cars which makes them affordable and , but for most trips they can run electric only. But they can still be used for long trips on petrol so range anxiety is not an issue.
You do realise you could get miles better economy from a diesel right? I mean, if you’re city driving then fine but otherwise that’s pretty poor.
That depends on his mileage. The perfect usage for that Passat GTE is a short commute < 30 miles, with the occasional long trip. If you do 200 miles a day and use your battery during that then yes it's less efficient than a diesel overall. However it's also petrol so let's not forget 55mpg from a petrol with negligible NOx or particulates in a big car is pretty good.
I'm not a fan compromised on both side though the technology is now minimising this.
Futures on full electric or very efficient engines and CVT boxes to keep them in the clean zone. Some hybrids will have the small high boost ICE to run a charging system but still not convinced.
Molgrips - I proved you wrong then and nothing has changed. You need to look at the complete lifetime emmissions. Hybrids do not reduce this. what they do is reduce in town emissions. they do not reduce lifetime environmental penalty even plug in ones by any significant amount.
You are carrying a lot of parasitic weight which increases emmissions totals as you need more energy to move that weith. manufacture of the batteries is highly toxic and produces its own emmissions.
simple greenwash to make folk driving think they are doing something
You need to look at total lifetime environmental costs not tailpipe emmissions.
According to the Fraunhoffer institute hybrids are a bit better than their equivalent diesel or petrol stablemates over lifetime in terms of CO2, full electrics are better still even with the Germany electricity generating mix. Charge at night in the UK and you're into very low CO2 figures.
In terms of lifetime vehicle environemental cost it's the same but the payback mileage can be very long.
In CO2 terms hydrogen is a disaster, several times the electricty consumption of a battery electric if the H comes from electricty (which given the generation mix in most of Europe means it's worse than burning petrol/diesel) and far worse than running on natural gas if the H comes from natrual gas.
I’ve had my Golf GTE for 3 years the range when I got it was 26 miles after 3 years that has dropped to 26 miles.
I’ve been testing a hybrid today at work. The biggest complaint from those before me was the MPG was only 30mpg, I asked how they were charging it. They had been letting the car charge the battery, by the end if today I had the MPG over 60mpg.
well there would be a bit more point if they made them smaller and lighter
They come in many forms including small.
Oh, cars. I very nearly moved this thread into the bike forum.
Also, my colleague has a new model Prius. His long term average driving around Hampshire is low to mid 70s MPG, and it's not even a plug-in. So that's not bad for a decent sized car.
@wobbliscott you love your acronyms
ICE to me is In Car Entertainment. totally confused
It reduces the chance of heritable disease over a pedigree stock
This thread is missing photos.
You need to look at total lifetime environmental costs not tailpipe emmissions
TJ, don't agree with a somethings you say, but this is spot on.
Molgrips – I proved you wrong then and nothing has changed.
Lol in your head you did, but none of your arguments had any substance. Your faith in your own argument is not enough, I'm afraid 🙂
You are carrying a lot of parasitic weight
How much extra weight? The battery in my car is about 30kg, the entire car is around 1300kg, which in 2006 was pretty light for a family car. It's 200kg less than my other car which is a similar size inside. You say 'a lot of weight' but it's not a heavy car so you're just plain wrong.
Futures on full electric or very efficient engines and CVT boxes
So the Prius is both of those things. The petrol engine is a pseudo-Atkinson cycle engine which is more thermodynamically efficient than a normal petrol engine (but less than a diesel). It is full electric when driving slowly. The battery is charged from energy that would otherwise be wasted in a normal petrol engine, as well as braking.
You could equally ask what's the point in lugging 250 miles worth of batteries around town when you are only driving 10 miles to work. The hybrid solves that issue.
TJ, don’t agree with a somethings you say, but this is spot on.
This is not a radical viewpoint, basically everyone already knows this although TJ thinks he's a genius for uncovering it.
He hasn't managed to prove to me that the lifetime costs of a hybrid are actually greater. As far as I can tell, no-one has, and I tried quite hard to find a definitive answer back when we did this last time.
Your friend is getting better than the official figures out of his Prius, Molgrips. That's unrealistic. I suspect if he did brim to brim checks and corrected his mileage it would be nearer 60 mpg over a long period.
I did some proper checking on my Dacia and found I could just match the best official figures driving really carefully on country roads (with a lower limit than the UK, don't want to be anti-social slow do we) in Summer. Driving up and down to the ski resort in Winter was another matter.
Same with the electric, at this time of the year I'm getting very close to the WLTP numbers - 385km. Going up to the ski resort on a snowy day takes nearly half the battery, there's no regeneration on the descent because the battery is too cold and by the time I'm home it's down to 45% after only 110km.
Buy a car to suit your use. If you live in a town house with no outside plug and no handy public charger there's not much point going electric, but if you have a long commute from a house with a drive and have a two-car household then having at least one elctric is a no brainer.
Lots of motorway miles, not much point in a hybrid. Lots of town miles then a hybrid, plug-in hybrid or better still electric means you'll poison your fellow citizens less.
ICE to me is In Car Entertainment. totally confused
Institute of Civil Engineers to me!
Ah, this article is dross click bate, backed up by a pathetic I'll informed ngo and an "expert" that has made a living out of presenting data with no Context.
For others, there are valid points everywhere. Electric has a large long term future to play In emission reduction, but is not without its downsides. Where major gains can be had quickly is fixing existing fleets and what they burn, in the name of sustainable fuels, there are a number of names associated with this, but it is in effect carbon cycling.. There are vehicles and liquid fuels tha make a pure ev look bad In the whole Life cycle, the converse is also true.
It is also very true, that some pure ICE vehicles do/ can emit similar emissions over the life of a vehicle that EV s can, this can be further bettered by fixing what goes in them
PHEVs and at a minimum Hybrids must and will prevail for the next 20 years as a way to keep economies ticking over, and at the same time help to fix the mess we've all created.
At some point over the next few years we will all be asked to put a price on our image and the environment, and that will be the cost of swapping out fossil for renewables, but until people's mindsets change it will be slow.
These articals and those peddled by a number of NGOs are stifling progression in the transport sector as they are too short sighted and often biased towards individuals who have a knack of shouting loudest or affiliations with dubious intentions..
Back to the point, PHEVs have a good point, if you as an owner can be bothered to use them correctly...
Also to add, Pure EVs are still about 3-10K more expensive than an ICE alternative, every ev on the market is heavily subsidised, to the point where most OEMs still don't make a single £/€ from them.. Its a false economy at the moment.
Totally agree with tj about needing to consider the whole life cost but (as is usual for a lot of debates) the whole thing around EV, Hybrid, PHEV, Petrol, Diesel is always framed in such a depressingly one dimensional manner.
BEV's are not the answer for everyone
Diesels are not the answer for everyone
etc.
We need to get away from this binary, tribal(?) and overly simple approach to complex issues whether its method of propulsion, Brexit, climate change or bloody Covid.
Zero-emission at point of use vehicles bring big advantages to air quality in populated areas but they come with downsides for long-haul/heavily loaded work (weight, range, ability to tow) and real unanswered questions about whole life environmental (and carbon) cost.
We also need to remember that they still generate particles (tyres and brakes), BEV's more likely to weigh more (size for size) and they're silent which isn't massively helpful to cyclists and or the partially sighted.
Whenever you read behind the marketing spin and think about real world use most of the BEV and PHEV stuff seems to be a bit compromised for "heavy lifting" whether it's weight, economy, lack of towing or roof rack capacity, shape and/or interior space compromises to fit the batteries in. Some of those big PHEV/BEV's can barely pull the same as a 1.0l Ford Focus. Those that manage more seem to need to have certain energy saving systems shut down for the sake of train stability so the ranges presumably take a disproportionate knock.
The smart money for long distance work or towing with electric seems to be on hybrids right now but the choice is really limited because not all are homologated for tow bars - that also means no tow bar bike racks and potentially no lighting socket for a strap on rack either - not sure I'd clip in on a hybrid, you'd want the dedicated wiring kit.
Then there's a heap of other issues:
What goes into batteries and where does it come from - some of the rare minerals are mined in countries where (shall we say) Health & Safety is a secondary consideration? What is the environmental cost of extraction - not just CO2 but destruction of the natural environment? I know oil's pretty rubbish for this too by the way.
Where's your electricity come from? Nuclear, hydro, coal, biomass, wind, gas? What are the environmental consequences of that?
More mass means more energy - but balanced with regenerative technology what is the net position?
Bulky batteries have led to some tall designs => poorer aerodynamics/range impact.
It seems to me the point of the hybrid is to combine the torque delivery of an electric motor, the benefits of regenerative braking and an efficient drivetrain. Whether whole life wise that's better or worse than a BEV, PHEV or ICE will be user dependent and what we really lack is guidance and options that get the consumer and fleet user to the right vehicle that takes into account whole life environmental and actual costs.
I didn't realise the tests had changed. From Autotrader:
The Prius certainly delivers impressive mpg and emissions figures, although the latest WLTP tests have pegged the official figures back. Originally combined economy wasclaimed at 94.1mpg on cars with 15-inch wheels while 17-inch alloys return a claimed 85.6mpg. These figures are now 68.4mpg and 59.6mpg respectively. That's more of a reflection of the new test structure putting an emphasis on driving with the engine running rather than the Prius doing anything badly, and these figures are more likely to be achieved in everyday running than the older NEDC consumption figures.
So the old tests, with which I'm more familiar, suggested 94mpg combined, and he got around 73. That's a reasonable ratio.
It seems to me the point of the hybrid is to combine the torque delivery of an electric motor, the benefits of regenerative braking and an efficient drivetrain.
It's about harvesting the energy that would otherwise be wasted in inefficiencies. Petrol engines are very inefficient at low load because of pumping losses in the throttle. By charging the battery at the same time, you need to throttle the engine less - the speed is controlled by the power you divert to the battery. And you can use a smaller engine which has the throttle more open when cruising - because the electricity you saved can be used to add power for acceleration.
Also it's a myth that they are poor on motorways. My Prius is at its most efficient on motorways like most cars, low 60s MPG - similar to my diesel. The difference is that the diesel drops to about 38mpg in city traffic, whereas the Prius goes down to about 55. This is a 2006 car and two models ago - the new ones are much better in economy and vastly better cars.
Toyotas view on hybrids is interesting. There is a certain amount of battery manufacturing capacity at the moment. If you put all that capacity into 300m range cars you might get a million of them, but you could have 10 million phevs. The phevs will do a lot more miles on electric, and have a much larger environmental impact as there is so many of them.
The mild hybrids exist due to ease. You just replace the alternator and starter with another box of similar size and attach a 2kg battery. Total cost is something like £200 but it drops the co2 by a gram or 2 scan make a difference (even work out cheaper than the penalties for the extra emmisions)
BEV’s more likely to weigh more (size for size) and they’re silent which isn’t massively helpful to cyclists and or the partially sighted.
AVAS (acoustic vehicle alerting systems) requirements on vehicles should address the low speed Noise scenario, at higher speeds other noises are still present.
There’s nothing wrong with the principle of PHEVs, I just think that the design and execution of some of them, especially some earlier models was cynical and flawed, and enabled by outdated official measures of assessment.
And I’m not knocking them from the sidelines, we actually owned on and tried to use it efficiently. We now have a full EV and an economic diesel.
I don't know, there are 7 billion people on the planet and most are potential customers for a car, a hot tub, a 4000 sq ft eco house, a meaty lunch with excess calories, tech with all the consumption of electrical power and a what do want for Christmas bonanza.
I have enjoyed reading all the blinkered above though.
See you all in Hell.
Thats the point. HYbrids make a miniscule reduction in overall admissions. its just fiddling round the edges. The only answer is to drive less - a lot less.
Thats why its a greenwash. It allows folk to feel they are doing something to help the climate crisis but in actual fact it does nothing of significance.
I think the mild hybrid idea sounds like a good way toe gain some significant gain at low speed / start stop driving. If you could up the motor to. 72v pm motor I think this would work even better and allow to run the ICE at a more efficient load.
For van and larger cars I can see a retrofit system with pancake motors on rear hubs to offer additional torque and low speed movement working well. It would all rest on the control system and battery / charge management.
As that Harry's garage video explains, they can be used to limit use of fossil fuels, or to limit use in built-up areas. They require a determined user to realize that, firstly by plugging it in, and secondly by switching to the correct mode at the appropriate time. They're popularity is mostly from greenwash and a favorable taxation system.
Surely it depends how the PHEV is used. If it's just used a tax dodge and someone drives it 100 miles a day using the engine then of course it's not going to be any better for lifetime emissions than a ICE car, probably even worse as you're carting the batteries around.
However someone that does 95% of their driving in sub 10 mile journeys, running entirely on the battery charge they go from plugging it in overnight then surely it's a lot better in emissions-wise, even factoring in the generation emissions.
Sure you could argue someone that does 95% of their journeys sub 10 miles should have an EV but we're still transitioning from ICE and PHEV is a transitional technology. Once attitudes and infrastructure have caught up I'm guessing a lot of people buying PHEVs now will be buying EVs next.
Anything that needs to run an onboard engine to charge a battery no matter how sporadically is not an environmentally friendly device. It a fossil fuel burning machine not an electrically powered vehicle.
Greenwash writ large.
However someone that does 95% of their driving in sub 10 mile journeys, running entirely on the battery charge they go from plugging it in overnight then surely it’s a lot better in emissions-wise, even factoring in the generation emissions.
Depends on the source of the electricity but even if its fossil fuel electricity the total emmissions are less from driving - but that is countered by the increased emmissions from manufacture and disposal of the car. You are also lugging parasitic weight about - either the electric motor if driving under ICE or the ICE if driving electric. This wastes energy.
You also get the particulates from tyre and brake wear - again increased because of the parasitic weight.
There is some quote about not throwing away the good in search of the perfect. They offer an improvement, it's a journey.
If petrol was £5+ a litre we would get far greater improvements in efficiency. after all we had 50+ mpg cars that could carry 4 adults in the 40s.
The key is to reduce the total energy usage by reducing size and weight of cars and of course reducing how much they are used. Modern cars are bloated with huge parasitic weight
Hybrids because people think they are doing their bit and because of the parasitic weight do nothing to reduce usage and energy consumption
Sure you could argue someone that does 95% of their journeys sub 10 miles should have an EV but we’re still transitioning from ICE and PHEV is a transitional technology. Once attitudes and infrastructure have caught up I’m guessing a lot of people buying PHEVs now will be buying EVs next.
and not forgetting the cost. My parents fit the model you describe - retired so spend most of their life pottering about locally, but occasionally do a 230m drive to see me or one of my siblings. They bought a plug-in hybrid - the full electric model was £20k more (xc40) and may not have been able to do the long drives in one hit - they didnt want the stress of not knowing they'd get there, which is fair enough.
You also get the particulates from tyre and brake wear – again increased because of the parasitic weight.
you generally get a lot less wear on brakes due to the regenerative braking. Most electrics offer one-pedal driving these days (as in, back off the accelerator and you end up with the car regenerating as hard as possible and slowing you down) - you can get around 0.3g of braking force that way which is as much as you want in day-to-day driving - you basically only need to use the brakes when someone's messed up.
Tyre wear will possibly be ever-so-slightly slightly increased due to extra weight but its minimal - an electric car may weigh 20% more than an ICE, which probably leads to 5% more tyre wear - lets say thats 5.25mm vs 5mm rubber over 25,000 miles - the amount being turned into particles is tiny
Thats the point. HYbrids make a miniscule reduction in overall admissions.
Numbers or stfu
Modern cars are bloated with huge parasitic weight
While there's probs. a bunch of stuff you could take out of any modern car, I'd imagine a lot is going to be safety equipment though isn't it? I mean sure, a Mk2 Escort was 875kg, and it's modern Focus equivalent is 1200kg or so. But I'd bet 50p that the newer car is a bunch more safe and less polluting and gets better MPG than it's predecessor. I know which one I'd rather have an accident in.
edit: I'd even make the claim that even if say the Sat-Nav system weighed .5kg it's still probably worth it for carrying an onboard system that directs you straight to where you want to go via the most economic route while avoiding traffic delays and using less fuel, over the lifetime of a car more than compensates for the extra weight.
Modern cars are bloated with huge parasitic weight
Unless you are talking about SUV's that weight is to make them safer. You're making a lot of sweeping statements, are you an engineer?
Look at the weight of say a golf in the 90s compared to now.
cars are 50% heavier (ish) all that extra weight requires energy to move it and to manufacture it. the new model needs to be faster. so you add a more powerful engine. But then you need bigger tyres and brakes - more weight. etc etc parasitic weight. Hybrids require two engines - parasitic weight. Batteries - parasitic weight.
Molgrips - the numbers are out there - how about you provide some for your outlandish claims.
So safety equipment, is that parasitic weight in your example? Have a rollover accident in the 90's golf, and guess what, it'll crush you, in the new model, you'll still be able to open the doors.
I live in a Victorian house, on a street of similar houses. As no one has drives then a PHEV or pure EV would not be that practical. The best we can go for is a Hybrid like a Prius.
If people want electric cars to be mass market then central and local Gov need to do something about infrastructure. I'd love a pure EV car but it's not practical. So I'll soldier on with my 6 year old diesel Octavia for the time being.
Hopefully in a few years time with autonomous vehicles we won't have this concept of owning a vehicle, we'll just hire one that fits the needs of the journey and does the driving for us. So small EV for driving in the city centre, big PHEV for towing a speedboat half way across the country.
Loads of hybrids used as taxi's/private hire for short stop-start journeys in town where the benefits of lower exhaust emissions are most noticeable, and regenerative braking means that brake wear is lower. Not much seems to go wrong with Toyota hybrids and they often rack up big mileages.
I’d imagine a lot is going to be safety equipment though isn’t it?
We don't need safety features though, right TJ? They give us a false sense of security which leads to complacency etc etc.. 😉
Molgrips – the numbers are out there – how about you provide some for your outlandish claims.
My outlandish claim is that you don't know what you are talking about. So you bring some numbers. I've said (which you'd know if you were reading properly) that we don't know if the energy cost of the battery in a mild hybrid outweighs the increased FE and/or local air quality benefits. You're saying that it does - so back that up.
cars are 50% heavier
Golf Mk3 2.0 petrol 113bhp was 1035kg and is quoted at 32.8mpg.
Golf 8 1.0 TSI petrol 116 bhp is 1264kg and combined fuel consumption on the new WTLP test of 53mpg and 49.7 'real world' mpg on Honest John
So it's 22% heavier, roughly 50% more fuel efficient, and MUCH safer.
Honestly if you're going to wade in guns blazing you REALLY need to prepare your argument better or you're just going to a) look like a nobber, b) get shot down and c) trash your own credibility.
I had a 94 Passat for a while (as a second car) after owning more modern cars. I felt very vulnerable. My nose felt like it was on the windscreen, and the tiny little A pillars were noticeably very flimsy indeed, and close to my head.
Look at the weight of say a golf in the 90s compared to now.
Look at the crash test safety videos of a golf in the 90s compared to now...
I suppose it would reduce the load on the NHS because 50% more accidents would result in a death at the scene.
Indeed. Safety matters:
The highest peacetime death rate was in 1966, when traffic was much much lower than it is now - anyone got a graph for that?
We don’t need safety features though, right TJ? They give us a false sense of security which leads to complacency etc etc..
What we need is electric Citroen 2CVs - that will absolutely not lead to countless firey deaths from 40mph crashes at all.
2cvs are cool though so on balance...
Cool from the outside, not when inside a moving one :puke:
that we don’t know if the energy cost of the battery in a mild hybrid outweighs the increased FE and/or local air quality benefits. You’re saying that it does – so back that up.
RThat is not what I have said. its easy to demolish an argument if you mischarectarise it
what i said is any savings are insignificant because it does not alter behaviour thus energy usage is not significantly reduced.
the answer to vehicle polution is to drive less. thats the only answer. Hybrids do not help as they givbe peiople a fig leaf to cover the fact they are still using massive amounts of eneregy to move a 1.5 tonne machine around to move one person
Ok =- i am out of this. Its making me and others cross
the answer to vehicle polution is to drive less. thats the only answer.
In complete agreement but good luck with that post Covid!
You really think all that extra weight is about safety? I accept a little bit is but the rest of it is extra equipment
Imagine how much better fuel economy you would get in the modern golf was the same weight as the 90s one? Weight also increased wear and tear on infrastructure.
You really think all that extra weight is about safety? I accept a little bit is but the rest of it is extra equipment
Numbers please!
Park a Golf 3 next to a Golf 8 - the chassis and frame on the latter are far more bulky, it's clear to see that a lot of weight has gone into that.
Then there's a dozen airbags, big tyres, ABS and ESP kit, bigger brakes and so on. If we're in the business of guessing, I'd guess that most of the extra non-safety gadgets on the modern car don't weigh all that much.
Imagine how much better fuel economy you would get in the modern golf was the same weight as the 90s one?
Imagine? Why don't you have a go at calculating it?
Also, if you want a modern car that's light, get a Citroen C3 - similar size to the old Golf, and the basic 80ps version is 980kg. And fuel economy still around 50mpg.
You really think all that extra weight is about safety? I accept a little bit is but the rest of it is extra equipment
Imagine how much better fuel economy you would get in the modern golf was the same weight as the 90s one? Weight also increased wear and tear on infrastructure.
Increasing the size of the crumple zones and intrusion protection on the front, side and rear added significant amounts of weight to cars. You won't remove 300kg from a car by removing the speakers, satnav and aircon.
To drop that kind of weight and keep the safety you're talking about having carbon fibre safety cells in every family car and thinning the glass used using something like the automotive gorilla glass.
To drop that kind of weight and keep the safety you’re talking about having carbon fibre safety cells in every family car and thinning the glass used.
I dunno, as above Citroen seem to have managed it.
C3 only scored 4 stars in the crash ratings didn't it - and it was outright piss poor for pedestrian safety!
What is the point of hybrids?
I depends on the owner/user.
For the Company Car driver, like diesel before, it's taxation. It's not their 'fault' taxation is this respect is supposed to drive good behaviour and the emissions tests are supposed to drive better emissions, but the manufacturers tailor them to the tests and not the best emissions - do we really think a 2300Kgs, 440Bhp Porsche Panamera hybrid gets 99mpg?
It's no different to the last gen of 'Green' cars, the super-eco Diesels, Company Car drivers seemed to love the Passat CC Bluemotion because the tax was cheap, it was supposed to do 58mpg, but most of the ones I saw got beat to death by their drivers.
For the emissions conscious it's a tentative, baby step towards a EV, if you do plug them in and you do drive well they can be very efficient and at the same time they don't cost £50k+ and they will let you do that theoretical 1000+ mile journey people worry about. I might argue that if they really care about the environment, they'd be better of keeping the car they have in good shape for as long as possible and buying half as many cars and driving them half as often.
They're no longer a magnet for virtue signalling, people into that have migrated to Teslas.
Facts-schmacts You're all missing the point; TJ has a new phrase...and that's the important thing.
I'm going to try to shoehorn "parasitic weight" into all my conversations from now on. I expect I'll just win all internet arguments from now on with it as well.
Looking at some of the comments I also think some posters are getting mixed up with hybrid types...
A PHEV can be plugged in as well using its ICE to charge the battery. This is how I managed 1750 miles on 36L of petrol. Most of the mileage was using energy supplied by national grid.
I do have some sympathy with the greenwash comment (mine is a company car so I fully admit tax rates are a factor).
One point that hasn't been raised is that, in my case, I actually drive it differently - I actively try to drive further before the petrol engine kicks in meaning I'm tending to drive more slowly.
Maybe every other PHEV is never plugged in as the click bait stories say and I'm an outlier though.
Company Car drivers seemed to love the Passat CC Bluemotion because the tax was cheap, it was supposed to do 58mpg, but most of the ones I saw got beat to death by their drivers.
That's not the car's fault though.
That’s not the car’s fault though.
Not sure it's a fault thing.
The point of them was to reduce BIK liabilities for their drivers, if VW really wanted to make the most environmentally sound Passat they could, they could have made it less powerful, limited the top speed, fitted smaller wheels and tyres etc etc etc, but they knew that it wouldn't sell.
Many of the drivers picked them entirely on taxation.
There's a argument, or maybe a stereotype that the very people who ordered the Bluemotion version were the last people to give much of a shit about emissions and frustrated by the Bluemotion aspects actually drove them harder. I know the reps that worked across the road from me at the time certainly did.
