Not all hybrids are bad, LaFerrarri looks ok !

Hardly rubbish economy the Prius for example is a similar size , performance and economy to a 1.6CR Octavia with similar CO2 levels so BIK tax levels are similar also so hardly unfair

 

Its not fair to ignore the battery if that can power the car for 25% of the time or more if you have a plug in.  

 

I dont think most company cars are going up and down the motorway all the time, I would think most sit in the office car park all day

 

Personally though after all that I'd much rather have rfl on fuel especially especially after forking out £485 for a car that does 3000 miles per year 

Thanks for the explanation. The best I have manged from a tankful in my Greenline Estate is 69mpg, with 74 on one long trip, but it requires careful driving. Without trying I seem to get around 65mpg.

 

Rob

Hello.

 

This is my historical consumption. Until September walked leisurely back roads. Since then I circle highway and a much stronger pace. I think it shows quite

 

Engine 2.0 tdi.

 

1- I agree about hybrid. They screw the figures massively, and this is unfair. It catches people out. They need to have ahealth warning. No good except for short commutes to work where you never actually use the engine. I just ignore hybrid when it comes to these arguments, rightly or wrongly. If I remember rightly, I once saw figures for one hybrid, which clearly showed the extra urban figures worse than the urban figures. That should set peoples alarm bells ringing, but unfortunately it doesn't. I don't know what their individual figures all show now as I usually don't look at them.

 

 

Actually that's true about Hybrids.

 

We used to have a company Toyota Prius. It has a 1.8L Atkinson-cycle petrol engine and a small electric motor and battery pack. Combined this gives about 135bhp. Driving on the motorway, you would be lucky to get 40 to 45mpg. But start driving around town and you can easily see this go up to 50-60mpg or better. Overall we got about 45mpg on average for the runs we do.

 

But the company stopped the scheme and so it no longer made sense to have a car with crazy claimed MPG (and hence very low company car tax). We now have an Octavia 3 4x4 TDI 2.0 with 150bhp. We're getting about 40mpg from this, on a good run maybe up to about 46mpg. But it is a LOT more fun to drive, has much better handling and has nearly as many toys. 

 

Especially for company cars. If they are being purchased as company cars, then the chances are they will be bombing up and down the motorway most of the time, using an inefficient petrol engine, and getting rubbish MPG (especially if they are trying to charge the battery at the same time).

 

Our Prius was hardly ever used for motorway trips, mostly 60mph A & B roads, dual carriageways and occasional in-town driving.

 

But even on a motorway the Prius will still easily beat an equivalent petrol-only car in terms of economy. It has a very clever transmission (one of the reasons it's so expensive) which is better than the transmission fitted to most other hybrids, and will run the engine at whatever RPM/output is most efficient. If that gives more than is needed to drive the wheels at 70mph on the motorway, it will divert some of the engine's power to the wheels and some to the motor/generator which either provides additional motive force or puts the power into the battery.

A colleague had a Pious used mostly for long distance motorway journeys and he got respectable economy. Not earth shattering at about 50mpg, and no better than a similar sized diesel but he still got the benefits of a very low BIK. It certainly wasn't the disaster that some people would have you believe.

Just picked up my vRS TSI yesterday and averaged 23 mpg on the 100 miles I've done so far. I hope that improves...

For now I still think the diesel engine just about shades anything else for best overall economy; though the capabilities and performance of hybrid cars is getting better and better.

What often gets overlooked with hybrids.....often the tech involved particularly the batteries are VERY heavy...a large part of the efficiency gain in reality is gone through the drivechain having to haul around anothet few hundred KGs of motor and battery pack.

Also the production and recycling process for the battery pack creates almost as much polution as a regular car would generate through its entire lifecycle...or so I am sure I have heard (though could be urban myth) but makes these cars not so clean.

I think really we should be fair to diesels....growing up in the times where diesels really started to make a change...particularly the early 1.9 turbo PSA motor and also VAG 1.9 TDI that for the first time produced better real world performance than their 1.8/2.0 petrol counterparts with stonking efficiency...soemthing that only really before powered boats, tractors, lorries and trains becamw fashionable in cars too.

If anything they have only continued to improve....OK so even VAGs current 2.0 TDi 150/184 motor is a bit agricultural when cold but when warm (which occurs quickly) its both smooth (for a diesel), relatively petrol-like in its delivery with the stereotypical diesel low-end and most impressively you now benefit from the sort of mid-range go that wouldnt have shamed a hot hatch so long ago and no matter how its driven will still return 40+ mpg.

I agree the official figures are generally rubbish...ive only seen late 50's from mine on a few occasions and often difficult to replicate..the frequent DPF regens also hurt overall average economy but its still considerably better than any petrol car ive run past and present in that regard.

For now I still think the diesel engine just about shades anything else for best overall economy; though the capabilities and performance of hybrid cars is getting better and better.

What often gets overlooked with hybrids.....often the tech involved particularly the batteries are VERY heavy...a large part of the efficiency gain in reality is gone through the drivechain having to haul around anothet few hundred KGs of motor and battery pack.

Also the production and recycling process for the battery pack creates almost as much polution as a regular car would generate through its entire lifecycle...or so I am sure I have heard (though could be urban myth) but makes these cars not so clean.

I think really we should be fair to diesels....growing up in the times where diesels really started to make a change...particularly the early 1.9 turbo PSA motor and also VAG 1.9 TDI that for the first time produced better real world performance than their 1.8/2.0 petrol counterparts with stonking efficiency...soemthing that only really before powered boats, tractors, lorries and trains becamw fashionable in cars too.

If anything they have only continued to improve....OK so even VAGs current 2.0 TDi 150/184 motor is a bit agricultural when cold but when warm (which occurs quickly) its both smooth (for a diesel), relatively petrol-like in its delivery with the stereotypical diesel low-end and most impressively you now benefit from the sort of mid-range go that wouldnt have shamed a hot hatch so long ago and no matter how its driven will still return 40+ mpg.

I agree the official figures are generally rubbish...ive only seen late 50's from mine on a few occasions and often difficult to replicate..the frequent DPF regens also hurt overall average economy but its still considerably better than any petrol car ive run past and present in that regard.

The Prius is lighter than the 2.0 CR 184 Octavia about the same as a Golf GTD , so much for being lardy eh?

 

Yes its a myth about the carbon impact of the batteries, thats dropping all the time as well

 

Lot of rubbish said about the Prius and hybrids in general, they arent going to save the planet but they are a step in the right direction, unlike DPF technology, I guess it suits the agenda of some people to slate cars like this, I now find myself in the same position defending a brand as I was with Skoda 10 years ago

 

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cdnlive.toyotaretail.co.uk/Environment-PDF/priusEnvironment.pdf

 

Haters gonna hate though

The Prius is lighter than the 2.0 CR 184 Octavia about the same as a Golf GTD , so much for being lardy eh?

Yes its a myth about the carbon impact of the batteries, thats dropping all the time as well

Lot of rubbish said about the Prius and hybrids in general, they arent going to save the planet but they are a step in the right direction, unlike DPF technology, I guess it suits the agenda of some people to slate cars like this, I now find myself in the same position defending a brand as I was with Skoda 10 years ago

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cdnlive.toyotaretail.co.uk/Environment-PDF/priusEnvironment.pdf

Haters gonna hate though

I dont hate the Prius..its a perfectly good car....for someone who drives for the sake of driving and is happy to sacrifice having a fun/relatively quick car for something that does its bit for the environment.

A Prius honestly does nothing for me....a Golf GTE on the other hand would be of interest.

However...even with the 5k Government grant its still 1k or so more expensive than a GTD. Its also slightly slower (despite its 17 hp advantage) and I doubt driven as nature intended it will work out to be as economical as the GTD....which given its lighter kerb weight is probably a little better to drive in the first place.

I also expect if you dont charge it up all the time, you'll end up driving around in a GT 150 TSI equivalent thats boh slower and less efficient than that model.

Really the only place a GTE makes absolute sense at the moment is as a company vehicle where the very low tax rate makes it attractive despite its high list price.

My own money Id still buy a GTD. DPF's are better than theyve ever been and not an issue in my mind. Catalysts fail in petrol cars and can be very expensive to replace, diesels arent so disimilar in this regard....also when a DPF does eventually fail the cars likely to be a good number of years old, with probably a fair amount of mileage....I dont doubt a DPF replacement could be had at reasonable cost at a regular garage/specialist opposed to main dealer charges.

I dont hate the Prius..its a perfectly good car....for someone who drives for the sake of driving and is happy to sacrifice having a fun/relatively quick car for something that does its bit for the environment.

A Prius honestly does nothing for me....a Golf GTE on the other hand would be of interest.

However...even with the 5k Government grant its still 1k or so more expensive than a GTD. Its also slightly slower (despite its 17 hp advantage) and I doubt driven as nature intended it will work out to be as economical as the GTD....which given its lighter kerb weight is probably a little better to drive in the first place.

I also expect if you dont charge it up all the time, you'll end up driving around in a GT 150 TSI equivalent thats boh slower and less efficient than that model.

Really the only place a GTE makes absolute sense at the moment is as a company vehicle where the very low tax rate makes it attractive despite its high list price.

My own money Id still buy a GTD. DPF's are better than theyve ever been and not an issue in my mind. Catalysts fail in petrol cars and can be very expensive to replace, diesels arent so disimilar in this regard....also when a DPF does eventually fail the cars likely to be a good number of years old, with probably a fair amount of mileage....I dont doubt a DPF replacement could be had at reasonable cost at a regular garage/specialist opposed to main dealer charges.

I wasnt comparing the Golf GT-D with the Prius its although hardly a fair comparison since the Prius is larger (Octavia sized) and better equipped.

 

I wouldn't suggest that anyone buys a diesel as a fun/relatively quick car either. I certainly wouldn't want a Prius as my only car, wouldn't want a diesel equally as much

 

The difference between a dpf and a catalyst (Diesels have them in addition to the dpf) is that the latter isnt a service item , its not a case that it might fail , a dpf WILL fail, however that isnt my issue with them , my issue is that the dpf is used to reduce the emissions for testing yet release higher emissions during regeneration. Replacing a £1.2k dpf at perhaps the 5 year point whilst annoying is just another cost of car ownership

I think I may have been the one that brought hybrids into this discussion. I don't hate them and I wasn't saying that they were no good, my point is that they are treated in an unfair manner by the standard EU fuel economy test. This is not the fault of the manufacturer but a failure in the legislation (or more specifically the regulatory test regime). In my opinion these tests should be designed in such a way that the vehicle should be forced to leave any and all batteries with the exact same state of charge at the end of the test as when they started. For an older, fixed output alternator type electrical system the charge in the battery is neither here nor there. For the Octavia with its variable output energy recuperation technique the difference will be small, although I would still like to see the battery charge equalised. For a full hybrid system with partial electric drive it is simply unrepresentative and unscientific to quote mpg figures when the net energy into or out of the battery is not accounted for.

 

The idea that Clarkson can drive that BMW like......well, like Clarkson I suppose, and still do 30mpg is actually quite impressive. The notion that it can do 150mpg is, in the real world, faintly ridiculous.

Top Gear have an i8 on long term test and it's averaging 40MPG in normal "journalist driving" which is probably less efficient than most of us would manage if it was our own fuel.

Top Gear have an i8 on long term test and it's averaging 40MPG in normal "journalist driving" which is probably less efficient than most of us would manage if it was our own fuel.

Yup,its not for nothing that insurance companies rate journalists as amongst the highest risk drivers on the road.

It certainly wasn't the disaster that some people would have you believe.

Oh no, I've seen it, its a disaster all right

Sorry are the rental charges on the batteries included in the cost of owenership on a hybrid ?

 

A few Polar Bear & Penguins survial ain't really my motivator I only want know, what its cost to Buy, Run and how much Fun its gonna be to drive when the wife and kids ain't in the car, if thats wrong, so be it.

Top Gear have an i8 on long term test and it's averaging 40MPG in normal "journalist driving" which is probably less efficient than most of us would manage if it was our own fuel.

 

So in the real world it gets within 10% of my 1.4TSi for fuel economy. Given the performance available I'd say that the car is impressive, but the MPG claims are utter tosh (again, it's not BMW that I'm aiming this at).

I wasnt comparing the Golf GT-D with the Prius its although hardly a fair comparison since the Prius is larger (Octavia sized) and better equipped.

I wouldn't suggest that anyone buys a diesel as a fun/relatively quick car either. I certainly wouldn't want a Prius as my only car, wouldn't want a diesel equally as much

The difference between a dpf and a catalyst (Diesels have them in addition to the dpf) is that the latter isnt a service item , its not a case that it might fail , a dpf WILL fail, however that isnt my issue with them , my issue is that the dpf is used to reduce the emissions for testing yet release higher emissions during regeneration. Replacing a £1.2k dpf at perhaps the 5 year point whilst annoying is just another cost of car ownership

Understood RichF. Sorry I dont think i got my point across as clearly as Id have liked.

100% appreciate that DPFs are service items and will eventually fail, but they most definitely arent the scary things they once were (PD injected TDI's for example).

I do think Hybrid technology is paving the way for a better future and sure one day they may well do away with all pure petrol/diesel driven cars altogether....but for me they are still rather too compromised, expensive or just plain ugly (thinking BMW i3 here) to be a consideration for me at the moment.

Diesel power isnt perfect, but until such time they have better range, considerably less charging time and in most cases better dynamics (that arent spoilt or entirely ruined by carrying around heavy electric motors and battery packs) they wont be for me.

I'm thoroughly bored of my 2.0 Elegance now (stuck with it thanks to its very poor 1 year residual values) but i really cant fault how it goes or drives for a realitively plain regular estate car.

I think all electric power still is the one to watch.....as soon as the infrastructure gets better....ultra rapid charging that charges cells in a similar time as it takes to pump gas into a tank, charging points at most parking bays, inductive charging at that.....all things that will be possible in the course of time.....

Im intrigued to see what the Tesla Model E will be like, probably 3 series money.....hopefully a 300+ mile range and will undoubtedly drive well for an electric vehicle. Now though all id worry about is finding somewhere suitable to plug it in!

Im intrigued to see what the Tesla Model E will be like, probably 3 series money.....hopefully a 300+ mile range and will undoubtedly drive well for an electric vehicle. Now though all id worry about is finding somewhere suitable to plug it in!

I'm really looking forward to the Model ≡. If it's anything like the Model S it'll be a whoot to drive. Luckily I have the charging issue sorted already, since I have a garage, but the Model S is just way out of my budget...and pretty huge as well.

Utopia no need for official mpg figures as all cars will be electric plug ins driven by nuclear power plants.

Now there's clean energy. [emoji45]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't understand the downer on nuclear power.

Nuclear generation and batteries or electrochemical methanol creation is the way of the future.

Banish all thoughts of 50 year old plutonium factories and look at new plants. Thorium fuel cycle is an interesting new development.

Other than wind/sun/wave power, there is nothing cleaner than modern nuclear.

The death rate from respiratory disease and climate change from burning fossil fuels dwarfs nuclear hazards.

Thorium does look very interesting

Thorium does look very interesting

 

Wasn't he the leader of the dwarves in The Hobbit ?

Thorium isn't new, was developed as early as uranium tech, but much harder to proliferate weapons with, or use to build weapons, hence it not being developed like uranium tech. Remember there military has spent the vast majority of the development money for nuclear, which is why we are where we are today.

In any case, replacing old plants with modern nuclear plants would be a great step forward. Remove fuel reprocessing restrictions (enforcing mandatory reprocessing for all waste) and creating safe, viable waste storage locations would be a huge step forward for both safety and fears for people. Problem is if you do everything right, nuclear isn't cheap but the reality is, emissions and 'caring for the environment' has a cost associated with it and people don't want what's right, they just want to feel like they are doing 'something' regardless if that's the right thing long term.