Comparing gas vs hybrid?

[Jus-A-CMax]

So my wife brought up to me a story that one of our family friend who owns a Prii is no longer wanting a hybrid. He does a lot of freeway driving, at least 80 miles a day and up/down the 14 freeway. For those who live in LA, you know THAT freeway. Says, hes going to buy a gas car.

 

So...that started a discussion on the  :airquote:  cheaper gas car vs the CMax. 

 

I found one site that seem pretty relevant:

http://www.money-zine.com/calculators/auto-loan-calculators/hybrid-car-calculator/http://www.money-zine.com/calculators/auto-loan-calculators/hybrid-car-calculator/

 

Are there any others worth looking at? This may be a good topic for those seeking to buy a hybrid as well (CMax, Prii or otherwise).

 

I pumped my values in and it worked out like $4,700 odd dollars after 5 years. Since the CMax is not avaiable in gas, I used a Titanium Escape since its close in features with the niceties of Maxine. Gas is around $3.95 here in San Fernando and 5 year ownership and my Lifetime MPG (which has not been reset on Gas tank #2 and reflects how I drive for work and play). Should be convincing...but then again, shes the wifey...

 

 

So discuss away and lets see what would you save or not save going from a gas to hybrid? 

[kostby]

According to the Monroney stickers, the average new car gets 23 miles per gallon. Current brochures, list the various engine options of 2014 Ford Escape at 24, 25, or 26 mpg combined.

 

The oft-updated 40-overall 42 city/37 highway C-MAX Monroney sticker now affixed to current C-MAX dealer inventory still claims $4850 (2013) to $5000 (2014) savings on gas over 5 years at $3.55 (2013) or $3.50(2014) per gallon if you drive 15,000 miles per year, so your calculations seem right in the ballpark.

 

For historical accuracy, $5850 savings was the original claim for the 47/47/47 2013 C-MAX models, then $5350 savings for the 45/43/40 version on 2013 models. 

[Smiling Jack]

 

Jus said.............

".............................., I used a Titanium Escape since its close in features with the niceties of Maxine.........................

....................."

 

At time of my purchase, I also looked at 2 Escapes for price comparison.

 

I bought a 2013 C-Max Energi (SEL) with roof.  The same dealer had an Escape Titaniuim and another had an Escape SEL.  Both of the Escapes were similarly equipped to the C-max, and both had asking prices slightly higher than the C-max - and that was BEFORE consideration of the $4007 Federal tax credit!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I suppose that the calculator would have told me that my break-even gas price was negative.  Right?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Smiling Jack

[Jus-A-CMax]

No incentive for the hybrid at the time I bought mine in 2012. The NRG yeah but they were out of my budget range at the time. I think I need to tell our friends to buy a diesel since they are better for the freeway (which is what he does anyway). Whats that Jetta ad that claims 795 miles a tank?!?!?

[Wnuk]

Diesel is better for pure freeway. But you would then need to factor the higher cost of diesel fuel to that. And if Hwy 14 is slow moving (guessing it usually is?), there goes that diesel advantage.

 

Another question I thought of recently. Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is 20.67 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). There are more fuel efficient engines than that out there so why this choice for the hybrid? I'm no engineer but would guess they opted for more HP with the hybrid system than better fuel economy?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Wnuk

[SnowStorm]

.... buy a diesel since they are better for the freeway ....

Why?  The comparable VW to the C-Max is the Sportwagon.  39 mpg highway versus 37 for C-Max.  (But $1750 / yr versus $1300 for C-Max.)  Now for CA:

 

C-Max cost per mile = $3.89/37 + 0                       = 10.5 cents

VW fuel cost per mile = $4.10/39 + $1100/100,000 = 11.6 cents

 

Why another 1.1 cents per mile?  Mandatory timing belt at 100,000.  Plus any extra repair cost for turbo and complex automatic tranny plus occasional hassle looking for diesel.  In VA the per mile difference is 1.9 cents in favor of C-Max.

 

Tell your friends to get a C-Max.  Save some :spend:

[kostby]

Diesel is better for pure freeway. But you would then need to factor the higher cost of diesel fuel to that. And if Hwy 14 is slow moving (guessing it usually is?), there goes that diesel advantage.

 

Another question I thought of recently. Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is just under 20 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). There are more fuel efficient engines than that out there so why this choice for the hybrid? I'm no engineer but would guess they opted for more HP with the hybrid system than better fuel economy?

 

The short answer is that a modern Atkinson-cycle engine is more fuel-efficient at higher rpms than a traditional Otto-cycle, but the Atkinson lacks low end torque to get the car rolling.

An electric motor has the most torque at 0 rpm start-up, but fades as rpms increase. 

 

So the low-torque-at-low-rpm Atkinson-cycle engine is well-matched to work in combination with the most- torque-at-low-rpm electric traction motor.

 

There's a pretty thorough 5-web-page explanation of the Atkinson engine and how it is implemented in modern hybrids in layman's terms here.

Edited August 19, 2014 by kostby

[plus 3 golfer]

Why?  The comparable VW to the C-Max is the Sportwagon.  39 mpg highway versus 37 for C-Max.  (But $1750 / yr versus $1300 for C-Max.)  Now for CA:

 

C-Max cost per mile = $3.89/37 + 0                       = 10.5 cents

VW fuel cost per mile = $4.10/39 + $1100/100,000 = 11.6 cents

 

Why another 1.1 cents per mile?  Mandatory timing belt at 100,000.  Plus any extra repair cost for turbo and complex automatic tranny plus occasional hassle looking for diesel.  In VA the per mile difference is 1.9 cents in favor of C-Max.

 

Tell your friends to get a C-Max.  Save some :spend:

 

 

Diesel is better for pure freeway. But you would then need to factor the higher cost of diesel fuel to that. And if Hwy 14 is slow moving (guessing it usually is?), there goes that diesel advantage.

 

Another question I thought of recently. Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is 20.67 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). There are more fuel efficient engines than that out there so why this choice for the hybrid? I'm no engineer but would guess they opted for more HP with the hybrid system than better fuel economy?

 

From one who has owned two VW diesels, the VW CR TDIs  will get significantly better highway FE than the EPA estimate.  What I found is that the higher FE of the TDIs offsets the higher price of diesel fuel such that highway fuel costs are virtually a wash at freeway speeds.  My cross county trip in my C-Max averaged about 39+ mpg at an average moving time speed (4035 miles door to door round trip) of about 69+ mph.   My TDI averaged about 43+ mpg for the same round trip.

 

But overall I'm at 41 mpg in my C-Max and averaged 42 mpg overall in my TDI.  So, the C-Max fuel costs are slightly less overall.  The timing belt maintenance is 120 k miles not 100 k miles and finding diesel has never ever been a hassle for me since I purchased my first diesel in Dec.1976.   Routine maintenance will be more on a TDI.  The VW DSG transmissions appear to be holding up very well but do require service every 40 k miles.  We still don't know what major failures might occur on the C-Max.  I never had a turbo fail on a diesel. 

 

If I had a long  (say over 15 k miles a year) highway commute with higher speed limits like 70+ mph (which likely means going 75-80 mph), I'd buy a TDI. 

 

Wnuk, ICE engines are not very efficient.  I'd say about 35% for the newer direct gas injection engines. Toyota is testing a new Atkinson cycle engine that is claimed to be about 37% efficient.  Atkinson cycle engines have poor lower range torque performance but are a good fit for hybrids which use the electric motor for starts where high torque is required.

 

Also, remember when ICE runs, some of it's power is likely going to propel the car and some of the power is likely going to charge the HVB. So, trying to compute the FE of ICE is generally meaningless.   There are times (negative split mode operation aka "high ICE" mode), when one can look at the FE gauge and get a fairly good idea of the FE being provided by ICE as the HVB is not being charged. 

[obob]

I miss manual transmission.  It would be great to be able to buy the C-Max with a 4 cylinder gas engine and a manual trans for less money.  I know that would not appeal to the vast majority of people.

 

I would consider a manual Focus.  If I didn't want an American car, I might have ended up with a manual transmission Nissan Cube.  I did test drive a manual Chevy Sonic but my feet were too big for the clutch and the stuff around it.

[C-MaxSea]

Diesel is better for pure freeway. But you would then need to factor the higher cost of diesel fuel to that. And if Hwy 14 is slow moving (guessing it usually is?), there goes that diesel advantage.

+1, Diesel is only good for 'pure freeway' in my book.  Congestion, or mixed off freeway use - C-Max, hands down for so many reasons beyond MPGs & costs.

 

Another question I thought of recently. Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is 20.67 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). There are more fuel efficient engines than that out there so why this choice for the hybrid? I'm no engineer but would guess they opted for more HP with the hybrid system than better fuel economy?

Nyet, per P3G post above, not 20, guessing 30-35 'unencumbered' (???).  Atkinson was chosen precisely for it's compatibility & efficiency.  Big plus to C-Max.

Edit; We love our Atkinson because it enables us to get 46-50 MPG 'encumbered' with the 'hybrid' system.

 

Why another 1.1 cents per mile?  Mandatory timing belt at 100,000.  Plus any extra repair cost for turbo and complex automatic tranny plus occasional hassle looking for diesel.  In VA the per mile difference is 1.9 cents in favor of C-Max.

 

Tell your friends to get a C-Max.  Save some :spend:

+1 in my book again.  Unless one is booking 70-80 mph freeway runs almost exclusively, why buy all of that noise, ..............? (Yeah, I know they are quieter now)

 

 Also, remember when ICE runs, some of it's power is likely going to propel the car and some of the power is likely going to charge the HVB. So, trying to compute the FE of ICE is generally meaningless.   There are times (negative split mode operation aka "high ICE" mode), when one can look at the FE gauge and get a fairly good idea of the FE being provided by ICE as the HVB is not being charged.

+1, Thanks for jumping in again on this P3G.  Edit; Generally meaningless because it does not account for the miles driven via the 'hybrid' system it is encumbered with.  (Juxtaposed with that data, as Frank has below, very meaningful - the lower the better! ;))

 

Finally,  another 160 mile run for me today mostly freeway and 49 MPG.  Was 'secret saucing' it for a few miles at 48.7 MPG (did not budge at 48.7, so likely 45+ 'instantaneous' - Trip 2 out 110+- miles). What's not to like there.  Big meh to diesels for me.  Our C-Max, Lifetime 48.4 & rising (hate the pressure of the impending retreat), Trip 1 for 'tank' at 50 regularly, Trip 2 for 'daily runs' - can't seem to get much less than 50 these days.

 

Swiss army knifing all roads successfully with our C-Max, freeways too,

 

Nick

(60-62 in 60mph zones, 65-68 in 70 mph zones with 3 or more lanes)

Edited August 19, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[jdbob]

I miss manual transmission.  It would be great to be able to buy the C-Max with a 4 cylinder gas engine and a manual trans for less money.  I know that would not appeal to the vast majority of people.

 

Simple, all you have to do is to move to Europe.

[Jus-A-CMax]

I'll have to get him to check out this thread...great discussion guys. He can drive Maxine anytime...

[drdiesel1]

If he already owns a Prii, why get rid of it to get another car that gets less mileage and will cost extra money ?

Continuing to driving the Prii would be the best way to go. Even if it's a POS. Any savings will be lost to replace it :spend:

[hybridbear]

So my wife brought up to me a story that one of our family friend who owns a Prii is no longer wanting a hybrid. He does a lot of freeway driving, at least 80 miles a day and up/down the 14 freeway. For those who live in LA, you know THAT freeway. Says, hes going to buy a gas car. 

I think the key question is: why does he no longer want a hybrid? That's really at the crux of this whole discussion.

[fbov]

Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is 20.67 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). ...

 

...So, trying to compute the FE of ICE is generally meaningless.  

I compute ICEmpg = (ICE miles) / (gal used) for every logged trip. Since june 30, 2014...

- in highway driving (55-65 mph speed limit), I get 46.7 mpg, but 27.2 ICEmpg with 41.6% EV miles (ICE on 58.4% of the miles)

- in my rural route (35-45 mph speed limit), I get 56.8 mpg, by dropping to 15.3 ICEmpg and increasing to 72.9% EV miles

 

So, computing ICE FE is not meaningless, it's a measure of how well the driver succeeds in using the ICE under optimum conditions. Gas engine efficiency is described by brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), expressed in terms of fuel used per unit energy, typically grams per kilowatt-hour. As you can see from the chart in the link, low RPM and high load are key to high BSFC operating points... and Atkinson gas engines are the next best thing to diesels.

 

On the highway, I have to run ICE to maintain speed, as the battery is quickly drained, regardless the terrain. On my rural route, I run the engine up-hill whenever the opportunity presents and SOC requires, the "pulse" followed by a downhill/flat glide, straight P&G. Fine tuning a route, for me, is just finding when I can store energy in the most places - speed, height and SOC - maximizing load at a given RPM.

 

That's what makes ICE FE meaningful. I've done the calculation for Jus, and his "secret" is both ICEmpg in the high teens, and regen approaching 15% (I'm at 9.1% rural, 2.1% highway)

 

Have fun,

Frank

[Jus-A-CMax]

If he already owns a Prii, why get rid of it to get another car that gets less mileage and will cost extra money ?

Continuing to driving the Prii would be the best way to go. Even if it's a POS. Any savings will be lost to replace it :spend:

dd, his car is getting old with the miles. they both have cars with lots of miles on it and his job requires him to travel on the freeway and mountains and I am talking steep long grades here. Suxs to drive east but very nice going west.

 

 

I think the key question is: why does he no longer want a hybrid? That's really at the crux of this whole discussion.

He just feels that the more money he pays for a hybrid is too much above a comparable gas car. For the more freeway driving and the terrain, he needs power. He may err on the AWD since his family and our family ski together at Mammoth. I'll see.

 

My wife felt the same as well which was why I posted this thread. Last time I did this research was before I bought my CMax in Nov 2012 and its only now (which a decent 30K and 50.4 Lifetime) I can see the rewards of owning a hybrid in the sense that I did not know what I would truly get in MPGs. Yeah, we were all adament this was a 47MPG car back then and thus far, its driver and terrain dependent...if that makes sense.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Jus-A-CMax

[drdiesel1]

I just did this when I purchased my new truck. I sold my C-Max NRG to buy the truck and turned around

and purchased a 2014 Buick Verano (standard gas car) and drove it for 4 months. What a terrible car

and idea that was. I got rid of it and repurchased another NRG.  My 2014 NRG wound up costing me

4K more than the Buick. IMO, it was worth every penny. Money isn't everything in this case. I absolutly

hated that car and it's poor MPG numbers. 17.5 mpg from a 2.4L and it never got better as it was breaking in.

 

 

I think the 4K can be recouped pretty quickly...

Edited August 19, 2014 by drdiesel1

[Jus-A-CMax]

lol dd, I think so too...

[fbov]

...He just feels that the more money he pays for a hybrid is too much above a comparable gas car. ...My wife felt the same... its only now... I can see the rewards of owning a hybrid

 

...Money isn't everything in this case....

 

Intangibles.

 

My wife bought a 2012 Elantra in July, 2011, and while it's been a good car at the right time, it also had EPA rating issues. She doesn't get near the rated mileage even after downgrade, albeit better than her '95 Volvo 945. All the advice in 2011 was to get a conventional, high-mileage drivetrain, a sensible approach given the available alternatives (Prii, partial hybrids), immature technology (NiMH vs. Li-ion) and limited longevity data. Her unwillingness to change driving styles just exacerbates things, not that it favors a hybrid either.

 

My Father-in-law did well by us with his choice of the C-Max. It drives like a gas guzzler if you want, (thus the CR experience) but it's a very refined, non-luxury car with some real intangible advantages. It's easy to compare specs, but hard to compare how a car feels. I drove Volvos for 35 years, yet this short, fat grape fits me like a glove, even if I was frustrated at first (stuffing my FIL's rolling walker and wife's conventional walker in the back with a pre-recall kick tailgate that's still not happy with manual operation) and found my spot in the back seat very Toyota-ish (Volvo's seats are hard to beat, even in back).

 

Now, I can't see myself driving anything but a hybrid, and our next car better be as good as this one! Granted, mine's been reliable, but it's the intangibles... the quiet (hard to hear when ICE starts)... the lackadaisical attitude one gets when fuel stops occur monthly instead of weekly... the handling (RSC not withstanding)... the cargo capacity! Headroom... good radio reception (I listen to a low-power station)... cold AC and warm heat, albeit with a fuel use penalty. The only real downside is my wife's inability to get in and out easily with a bad hip joint, but she prefers her Elantra, purchased before she needed a walker.

 

OK, the color's on the spec sheet, but who knew it was metameric! Just another intangible...

 

HAVe fun,

Frank

[Adrian_L]

Sorry I can't get my head around this post. 

 

While the C-max is not a luxury car, it isn't an economy box, either.  There are a handful of those that cost around 10 grand and get 30 mpg.  Much cheaper than the C-max in total operating costs.  Probably much cheaper to insure as well.

 

Previously having a gas guzzler definitely helped push me towards the hybrid market, but I never thought "OK, in the next ten years how do I spend as little as possible on a new car and gas to run it".  If that had been the case I would probably have bought a Nissan Versa or Toyota Yaris.

[nsteblay]

Diesel is better for pure freeway. But you would then need to factor the higher cost of diesel fuel to that. And if Hwy 14 is slow moving (guessing it usually is?), there goes that diesel advantage.

 

Another question I thought of recently. Just how efficient is the 2.0 Atkins we have anyway? A rough look shows the avg MPG on ICE alone is 20.67 for me. (miles drive with ICE divided by gallons used). There are more fuel efficient engines than that out there so why this choice for the hybrid? I'm no engineer but would guess they opted for more HP with the hybrid system than better fuel economy?

The Atkins is probably pretty efficient.  I think the reason most get in the low 20's is the weight of the C-Max and its lack of aerodynamics.  I believe one of the reasons the Prius performs better from an MPG perspective is because they've kept the weight down, have a smaller ICE, have made the car more aerodynamic and hence, leverage Negative Split Mode more effectively.  The C-Max didn't want to compromise on style and comfort so less aerodynamic, and didn't want to compromise on power (larger ICE, EV and batteries) hence the heavier weight.  To get the higher MPG they allow EV at higher MPH.  Because the CMax can't optimize Negative Split Mode as effectively (ICE size, weight and aerodynamics again) MPG drops off for high speed freeway driving.  If the CMax ICE runs a high percent of the time because of driving style or cold weather the MPG falls precipitously - why there is such variability between drivers. 

Edited August 20, 2014 by nsteblay

[shinytop]

Keep in mind when you are seeing that 20 MPG range on ICE the ICE is using part of the power to charge the big battery.

[Wnuk]

Lot of great explanations to my question. Some things I hadn't thought of. This is a great group to be a part of.

Living in a fairly mountainous area, a lot of my ICE time is used to accelerate on the climbs, making the MPG in ICE mode suffer.

[nsteblay]

Keep in mind when you are seeing that 20 MPG range on ICE the ICE is using part of the power to charge the big battery.

Yes, agree.

[SnowStorm]

.... his job requires him to travel on the freeway and mountains and I am talking steep long grades here....

He should at least consider an NRG.  I'd just about die if I had to go back to conventional cars for mountain driving.  The C-Max goes up mountains like they aren't there - no down-shifting - no audible engine revving - a total breeze.  I would buy the C-Max just for the way it doesn't shift even if it didn't get better mileage.  Sometimes the intangibles steal the show!  Sort of like those of you who said you didn't care about the "kick-gate" but now wouldn't be without it.  I can't imagine going back to a car that doesn't sail over mountains like they aren't there!  Bugs me every time the Lexus down-shifts!

 

The only problem with the "hybrid" version is that you can't control battery charge so you often get to the top with little room to charge on the way down.  I understand the NRG lets you control battery use so it sounds like a better match to mountain driving.  Ford should really add the same control to all hybrids.  Or better, just link it to your GPS route, add altitude to the maps and do it automatically!