ICE vs Hybrid Vehicle

Miles traveled ÷ gallons of gasoline used = miles per gallon.

.

Just make sure you are traveling the same course at about the same time after a similar warm up period, similar tire inflation, etc., or if that is not possible, the same course with nearly the same environmental condition, warm up, tires, etc.

.

Fueleconomy.gov might also be helpful. Also, ecomodder.com may be of interest, for different but related reasons.

Why would you "compensate" one vehicle with added weight ? Arent apples and oranges good enough you have to add lead to the orange ? Both vehicles are designed to carry load, and if you add anything to one basic vehicle you must add the same to the other. As in driver and passenger or other payload.

As to a formula, it is most likely as you said, run them and compare. Choose a gas vehicle that has the same load carrying ability as the Electric, or you will be stacking the deck there as well.

Good Luck. Tell us what your results are :))

I totally agree. Equivalent mpg is definitely misleading. You have to consider the full operating costs. (With the tax write off, the rest of us taxpayers are subsidizing your operating costs if you buy a hybrid.)

...which vehicle would go further on a gallon of gas?

I don't know that comparing which one goes further on a gallon of gas is a fair comparison. That only shows which one is more efficient at moving a vehicle so far on gas. The hybrid has an unfair advantage as it has energy stored in it's battery as well as it's gas....the ICE only has energy stored in it's gas.

The hybrid can utilize the energy in it's battery to help propel the vehicle thus offloading the gas engine and making it appear to operate more efficiently (used less gas).

As long as it is not a plug in hybrid, then the fuel expense and the energy is still all via gallons of gas originally.

I don't understand what you mean.

As I see it, you just have to gather the cost of the fuel put in via the pump and the outlet. The hybrid can run on battery power alone or gasoline. So the cost of energy from both sources should be accounted for.

Most hybrids are not plug in hybrids. If the car is not a plug in hybrid, or it is a plug in hybrid, but that option is not used, then any energy in the battery was put there as a result of the hydrocarbon fuel being burned.

.

Plug-in hybrids, when utilizing outlet supplied electricity, are a different scenario, but I don't think it is a very common scenario yet.

Okay, I understand what you mean.

Regardless, being plug in or not is moot when comparing the life cycle costs.

Okay, it is my turn....now, I don't understand what you mean.

.

How can you consider 'being a plug-in' (or not) moot when comparing the life cycle costs? Cost to regularly purchase the energy necessary to power the travel that is essential to the purpose of a vehicle is a significant portion of the life cycle cost. Energy purchased as electricity from utilities is typically far less expensive than fuel purchased as gas stations on the basis of what is supplied to the rear wheel (at pretty much any rate/power). Use as a plug-in (which necessitates being a plug-in) profoundly effects life cycle costs in my comparison. Please help me understand how it is moot in your comparison.

I am not saying that there are no differences between plug in or not plug in regarding life cycle costs. I'm saying that the comparison of life cycle costs should be sufficient to indicate which (ICEs or hybrids) are lower cost.

My response was based on the fact that I took your comment #9 as critical of life cycle analysis to compare ICE to hybrids vehicles as I suggested in comment #3, thus defending my position. When in fact #9 was in response to my #4 and and upon re-reading it, appears to clarify.

Okay, got it. Plug in or not is not an option that makes a meaningful difference to the calculation used for comparison of life cycle costs, Gathering the data would be different; you need to be able to monitor the cost of the electricity used to charge the plug in hybrid separate from other electricity which for people who charge at home might not be apparent. I also suspect that the data itself show significant differences.

.

I just got confused and thought you were talking about the likely results of the data instead of the appropriateness of using user life cycle costs as a model for the costs of the tech. I agree that life cycle costs as seen by a person purchasing the vehicle and using for a typical number of years and miles then selling the vehicle is a good approximation of real total costs, and although imperfect on the grand scheme, is appropriate for considerations like that of someone considering buying a new car and trying to weigh the costs and benefits of various alternatives.

Agreed

I've tried figuring out a figure of merit for the same comparison. So let's say your not making the decision for the "apparent green" irrational thought process where you pay 2x more for a lesser comfort vehicle.

Example: compare a base price Toyota Prius at $24200@51MPG (EPA est.), and a Nissan Versa at $11990@36MPG. One figure of merit is how many more miles do you have to drive the expensive vehicle (in fuel savings cost) to recover just the original expense ignoring maintenance and financing costs.

Assume fuel at $3.50/gallon, the price difference of these cars is $12210. 15MPG difference, so 4.28 miles/$ (15/3.5). And at the $12210 price difference, you have to drive 52328 miles further (4.28*12210) to "break even". Maybe you can get 200Kmiles (my vehicles rust out before 90Kmiles @10 mile work commute, one way) from a car for it's useful life, but remember the whole idea of a hybrid is for city operation, as the battery system is there for fast acceleration with an underpowered ICE.

You also have to maintain 2 systems, the ICE, and the battery/motor/charge. And there's a 8 year battery life (and it was $8K replacement a few years ago). I don't have a value to append for this increased complexity maintenance cost.

I don't see a payback, other then the good feeling you might get being the new hippie.

"....Assume fuel at $3.50/gallon, the price difference of these cars is $12210. 15MPG difference, so 4.28 miles/$ (15/3.5). And at the $12210 price difference, you have to drive 52328 miles further (4.28*12210) to "break even"...."

.

You have to drive 52328 miles further? Further than what?

.

Attempting to treat a difference in MPG as you have doesn't work.

.

Consider that the distance you quote would require a little over 1000 gallons at 51 MPG, and a little over 1400 gallons at 36 MPG.

.

So....roughly 400 gallons difference. Which when converted to dollars is less than the new vehicle purchase price difference by roughly an order of magnitude.

The 52328 miles is the mileage you can drive the Versa for the extra cost of the Prius. Ya, probably not a good figure of merit. But I look at all the extra costs of the hybrid. Like the insurance now requiring a fee for hazardous waist treatment after an accident. I just don't see the benefit of the additional complexity (which is all for lead footed acceleration), as well folks driving these are always passing me. They are not getting the EPA rated mileage at 75+ MPH. They really only make sense if your in stop and go traffic for many miles a day. And if your of tall stature, sit in the Prius, sit in the back seat. Then sit in the Versa Sedan back seat (front seats all the way back), better then many full size cars/SUVs. The CVT gets better mileage, but I dislike it's complexity, and expected early failure (I doubt if you can get 150K miles). And my test drive, it had mushy performance. I like operating a machine, so MT is preferred for it's simplicity and long life (assuming you know how to use a clutch).

I'm not arguing for the hybrids or against. My personal preference is a manual transmission turbo diesel.

.

You say 52328 is the mileage you can drive the Versa for the extra cost of the Prius....but I'm still not sure how that works out.

.

If the Prius costs $12,000 more, even with gas at $4 a gallon, that still equates to 3000 gallons of fuel. If the Versa gets 36 MPG with those 3000 gallons, that is 108,000 miles the Versa can drive for the extra cost of the Prius.

.

I realize the Prius gets better mileage, but there would have to be some base assumption about a number of miles driven over some arbitrary time to allow the Prius's better mileage begin to offset the mileage calculation above...and I didn't see anything like that.

At $3.50 per gallon and 51 mpg the Prius uses about $0.069 of fuel per mile.

At $3.50 per gallon and 36 mpg the Versa uses about $0.097 of fuel per mile.

If you consider fuel cost alone you would save about $.028 per mile.

You would have to drive about 436,000 miles to break even.

If you recalculate for $4.00 fuel, you would only have to drive 370,000 miles to break even.

Of course, that is fuel cost only and not true lifetime costs.

'....Most brands' hybrid component warranties are for eight years, and Hyundai offers a lifetime warranty.....'

.

Hmmm. Lifetime warranty....wonder what the amp hour rating is, and if anyone is considering mobile battery back-up for their home solar power system.

Great answer SE -

Extremely good info SE

Power Averaging - not yet used - allows for a significant reduction in ICE max HP requirements - read this as reduced mass and volume fractions dedicated to the prime mover.

Regenerative Braking allows for the recovery of braking energy - a very significant variable in stop and go commuting.

The technology is still evolving. The cost of the related technologies are coming down and the efficiencies are going up.

Try this for a briefer -

Here are some links to an article that explains "The Three Fundamental Efficiencies of Hybrid Technology."

http://www.bestsyndication.com/Articles/2006/c/carter_mark/031206_hybrid_cars.htm

or

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/37460/The-Three-Fundamental-Efficiencies-of-Hybrid-Technology

WOW!!!

What a fascinating blog. Many thanks to all concerned.

One point that I did not see mentioned, is that some hybrids can also be charged very cheaply, for short runs at least, from the mains I believe...

Someone making full usage of this each day might reduce his needs for "normal" fuel considerably.

Has anyone added this into the equation?

Does it need to be considered separately, or ignored as just being a plus of hybrids?

Thanks again for a stunning blog!!!

You raise a great point Andy. This is a huge benefit of plug-in hybrids, that seems to be significantly underused so far.

.

The price of power delivered from the commercial grid is a small fraction of the cost of developing it from the ICE in the automobile.

An added point that has also been missed in this excellent thread is how the vehicle will be used should impact the comparison. Local (stop and go) driving will utilize the advantages of a hybrid vehicle's regenerative braking. This will save both fuel and brake parts.

I cannot speak for electric vehicle,as far as consumer level, but regarding industrial fork lifts: diesel,vs gasoline,vs propane,vs electric the total cost to operate over the life of the vehicle is much less for the electric,due to a simpler construction, less moving parts,etc.This is assuming properly charging of the batteries at appropriate times.

If the Ev is manufactured to the proper standard,it should have less operating costs overall,but I am betting they will not be up to the industrial standard.

I'm not sure I'm expressing myself clearly. Based on the law "Conservation of Energy", I feel that we end up using more energy and costing more by going hybrid. We may save on fossil fuel with hybrid, but more fossil fuel will be used in producing alternative fuels as in producing batteries and building the electrics and infrastructure needed. That is why I mentioned the comparison of apples to oranges. There is just no way to compare any two vehicles. You can't compare a Smart-for-two with a Tahoe ATV. It is my feeling that taking my original statement of two vehicles identical in every way except for one being hybrid and the other, ICE with compensating weight added, that the overall energy consumption would be equal and the cost would be greater for the hybrid. So what I'm ultimately saying is; hybrids won't save on energy and will cost you more to own, therefore why do we need them?

I meant SUV, not ATV.

I think you aren't far from a just comparison. I think some of your assumptions may need reconsideration though.

.

The idea that hybrid technology necessarily yields a significant weight penalty, probably deserves the most attention. While the electric motors and batteries are indeed heavy components, a good portion of that weight can be offset because the power provided by the electric drive allows a smaller, lighter ICE to be used. Additionally, the greater efficiency allows for a reduction in the amount of fuel necessary to carry for the same trip....saving weight and also space.

.

Providing some support for this idea is the fact that the 2013 civic hybrid is within about 100 lbs of the 2013 civic non-hybrid, so less than 4% heavier.

.

.

The other thing that might deserve reconsideration is the idea that more fuel will be expended on building the hybrid technology than will be saved utilizing it. Distortions are not in short supply in today's markets, but there is some correlation between cost of items and the total energy necessary for producing, marketing, delivering, warranting, and servicing that item.

.

It stands to reason that the lifetime cost of a vehicle might be a decent place to begin when attempting to compare total energy expended over the lifetime of that vehicle. There are obviously some distortions that need to be considered. For example, the cost of gasoline for miles driven is far higher than the fuel costs or even the total costs for gallon-of-gas-equivalent amount of electricity used in the manufacture of the hybrid components. It might be appropriate though to allow much of that distortion though, since burning gasoline in an ICE typically isn't a very high efficiency way to utilize fuel, and as such any distortion for higher prices as the effect of accounting for the disparity in efficiency.

.

Anyway, although it isn't perfect, I think comparing lifetime costs of vehicles is a good place to begin to consider lifetime fuel costs (not just at the pump).

You make good points, but I still maintain that it will expend more energy than it will save, maybe not to you or me personally, but at the overall global energy expenditure picture. It would be impossible to reduce the equation to a common term. This is just my gut feeling.

This may assume the same basic source for the energy, but with EV it should not be assumed so.

Fossil fuel generation of electric current to charge the EV is only one way to do it; and most likely the energy for the EV would be best gotten from SOLAR power stations.

So the one time cost and low maintenance of solar power would eventually show a savings against Fossil fuel energy for the EV as opposed to Fossil impact on the environment and finite resources.

I have driven a Corolla for 6 years, and averaged 35 mpg.

I now have a Prius, and have averaged 51 mpg for 5 tanks (same driving agenda).

The formula is 51/35 = 1.457. So it is close to 50 % cheaper to operate. For every $ 145 spent last year, I need only spend $ 100 this year.

That is a significant benefit, and depending on how many miles you drive annually and a number of other factors may be worth the extra investment.

.

It is important not to overlook other factors though....like the danger presented by hybrids of increased levels of smug.

.

.

Excessive smug (and it effects, like driving with your eyes closed) can have some nasty consequences.

Traditional ICE's reach full power output at maximum RPM, while same ICE, in Hybrid vehicle, is typically configured to reach its' full power at much lower RPMs.

I don't think that actually works out.

.

ICE typically reaches maximum power output somewhere less than redline. It isn't uncommon for max power to be around 1000 RPM less than redline.

.

Also, depending on the way the hybrid is arranged, the electric motor and the ICE might not share the same RPM.

.

In some hybrids, the electric motors only put out a small fraction off the power of the ICE, so even if the hybrid is arranged so that the electric motor and ICE always turn at the same speed and the electric motor develops max power at 1/2 max RPM, the RPM for the maximum combined power might not be much lower.

I've written about my son's early experience with his Chevy Volt and here's an update. He leased the Volt from Chevy who kept the $7,500 in rebates to lower the lease cost which includes a 3year all-inclusive warranty. Around 4,315 miles driven, 20.8 gallons consumed, electric bill went up around 80kWh per month, "electric mileage" is about 4-5 cents per mile, on average.

Unlike the EPA estimates, there's no real way to compare the costs between drivers, the only valid comparison is between vehicles driven by the same driver over the same route. His daily routine is 30 miles roundtrip to work, recharge at night, use no gas during the day unless it's so cold out that the computer automatically starts the ICE to keep the batteries warm.

A Prius would have used 4315/52= 83 gallons or 4 times as much fuel. What's missing of course is the end to end cost of the batteries, something that his lease protects him from.

"What's missing of course is the end to end cost of the batteries, something that his lease protects him from."

And throughput efficiencies; which make electric vehicles look pretty sad when the power is sourced from a thermal power plant.

The best comparison is to use a Toyota Camry 4 Cyl. with or without Hybrid.

I owned and drove (a lot) a 2007 Camry Hybrid (older technology than today) and consistently got 38-40 MPG in town and- although it is NOT supposed to work this way- I got about 44-46 MPG on the highway (at 70-75 MPH)- peak recorded was 47.4 on a very smooth trip with no stops.

My son has a brand new 2014 Camry 4 Cyl. that is "pure" ICE. He gets about 26-28 MPG in town and about 42-44 MPH on the highway. He drives very similar to me- a little aggressive but not a lead foot or street racer. His car is rated for better mileage than the 2007 pure ICE Camry because of push for better numbers to satisfy Washington.