Hybrid Cars Aren’t That Good
Regular internal combustion cars are the devil, and hybrid vehicles are guilt-free driving. This is the message the auto industry is telling us right now. Oddly though, there was a plethora of regular gasoline engines which got better gas mileage than even the best hybrid vehicles (thanks to Fark for the inspiration) available today, and they cost less. For example:

1980s Honda Civic CRX
V.S.

2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid
The Camry has the best gas mileage out of the hybrid cars at 41mpg (5.7L/100km) combined. Sounds pretty good. The 1989 Honda Civic CRX has a gas mileage of 44mpg (5.3L/100km) combined. What the fuck?
Why would the auto industry spend billions of dollars over the last 10 years to develop “gas efficient” (hybrid) cars, when they already had cars that were more gas efficient in the 80s? I’ll tell you why:
1. Weight. Over the years, cars have increased in weight. One reason for this is that the safety regulations over the years have changed, and it requires better and heavier safety equipment to meet. However, if the auto industry was willing to spend billions into developing an entire and very complicated new engine type, why were they not willing to spend the money into weight reduction?
2. Manual Transmission. Manual transmissions were more popular in the past, and manual allows drivers to be far more gas conscious. If you’re accelerating towards a red light, you’re doing it wrong.
3. Consumer Greed. Let’s be serious here, power windows, DVD players for your offspring, and sunroofs are not necessary in a car. While I’m sure the auto industry could put effort into making this items weigh less, the real problem is that the consumer became greedy.
4. Auto Industry Greed. This is the biggest one. The original price of the 1989 Honda Civic was $6,385. Price adjusted to 2010, this would be $11,082. Why would the auto industry want you to pay such a low price for high gas mileage, when instead they they can charge a lot more for a hybrid?
We have gone backwards with cars, and yet the industry calls it progression. How embarassing.
World needs a practical hemp fiber body from University of Alberta Canada, with a diesel/electric hybrid energy plant from Volkswagen. This outfit must have rechargeable batteries on board, and be designed for minimum weight, maximum practical use, lowest cost possible. Europe falls, as the American economy faces a controlled demolition, even by its own banksters. Folks will need very cheap every economical perhaps even 3 wheeled (to avoid car codes) construction – no fancies, no chrome, no wild eyed and costly styles, just a plain serviceable durable form of conveyance for one or two passengers at a time. Dark Clouds on America’s horizons as the Pan Eurasian Empire displaces even the u.S. Dollar. Time is now to hunker down and get real. We need a conveyance for that purpose, not more.
I have to call BS on no. 4. Hybrids are not nearly as profitable as gassers. Sticker price has nothing to do with profitability.
Just a few years back the Big3 were being chastised for building too many SUVs, which consumers were buying in droves before oil prices tripled.
Now bigauto is scrambling to produce HEV and EV drivetrains as loss leaders. Bottom line is that car makers make what consumers want. There is a few year development curve, sure, but billion $ companies do respond to market data.
BigAuto does understand that hybrid technology is not ready for mass-needs too. This is why Ford is discontinuing the Escape Hybrid and replacing with small displacement EcoBoost engines (supercharger) technology and Mazda is re branding with the SkyAvtive drivetrain
technology.
you might be right, but i can only say that because i don’t have access to the profit margin numbers for automobile manufacturers for hybrid vehicles. that said, the admission must be there: it is very odd that the auto industry would take such a risk on hybrids, especially even as you say they are not really ready for mass-needs, when they could have just used smaller cars like before.
perhaps it is partially consumer demand, but it can’t be *all* consumer demand.
But they are building smaller cars !
Ford’s Fiesta, Nissan’s Versa, and BMW’s 1 Series are all Euro market cars brought to the US markets for efficiency and to meet consumer demands.
there is a bit of a fundamental flaw in the argument here; first of all, according to the link in the post, the Toyota Camry Hybrid is not *THE* most fuel efficient hybrid, it’s the most fuel efficient “mid-size sedan” hybrid. To compare a 1908s CRX to a modern Camry is not really fair. For example, according to these data the Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius Hybrid (still not really fair comparisions to the CRX) are churning out 44 and 50 mpg respectively. The Honda CRZ, two seater update on the CRX, gets 37, and even the “midsize station wagon” Prius V gets 42.
Further, the safety issue cannot be entirely glossed over. Cars simply have more safety products (yes, and vanity products like DVD players and sunroofs) and features, and are therefore safer. My 1991 Toyota Tercel didn’t have a passenger side mirror- because at the time, they weren’t mandatory and were considered an “upgrade.” They are now mandatory on all new vehicles… just a small example but illustratitive… t’weren’t no airbags on that bitch, neither. Despite a certain neccessity in cars bulking up, I do agree that minimizing the weight gain should be a focus.
As for big auto and the mystery as to why they would waste their time on hybrids that are less efficient, I just want to play Alexander and solve this knot with one clean stroke: sometimes, even giant companies get it wrong. For example, the entire North American auto industry almost self-immolated through their insistence on using large cars, SUVs, and trucks as their focus for decades- and when they started getting on board with fuel efficiency, they tried to wedge these hybrid platforms into already highly inefficient SUVs. As Kmadd pointed out, we are now seeing a diversification in the fuel-efficiency business: smaller cars, smaller-but-supercharged engines, full-electric drive systems… It wasn’t that long ago, a lot of people really thought we were going to build hydrogen fuelling stations everywhere and have cars that only emit water. Actually, the last line in that commercial sums it all up: ‘Ready for the world, when the world is ready.’ It’s not like hybrid drives are the only solution, but the industry really thought it could be a big part of it, and aggressively developed the tech. They also developed hydrogen drive systems; despite a lack of hydrogen powered cars on the road, they probably learned a lot just by making them. Same deal with the hybrids, and the hybrids were easier to actually get onto the road.
tldr?
that’s a definite big blog of text. but i’ll reply with something simple:
your examples of hybrid cars are probably better than mine, more accurate. but, even your examples are around, or barely better than the ’80 CRX.
your point about safety is also true, but i think my point still is valid. the answer to more weight isn’t necessarily to built a hybrid engine, it should be to make the car lighter.
another thing they should do is, for each option someone can add to a car, show the gas mileage going down, and by how much. why don’t they do this?
i’m not questioning whether or not the car industry messed it up; we know they did. i’m questioning why they messed it up, because i feel they did it on purpose.
hrmm… the answer to weight isn’t hybrid engine; it seems hybrid engine is trying to answer the question of fuel economy. i’m not sure weight is the answer to fuel economy either, but it’s certainly a part of it, you are right about that. I just feel that there is something unavoidable about the cars getting heavier over time- maybe it’s your 3rd point, consumer greed- but it’d be tough to sell a car in this market by hyping its lack of dvd players, radios, power windows, airbags, etc. I’m sure some companies do (Lotus maybe?) but… although, lol, I imagine the commercials being pretty funny
But messed it up on purpose? I don’t know… holding it up, or delaying available technologies, or making cars that don’t last as long / planned obselesense (sp?! wtf)- maybe.. but actually just making crappier cars than they used to, and doing it intentionally? that’s as plausible as fixing the world series
hmm