Hybrid cars – one buyer’s thoughts


IMA-equipped Honda Civic Hybrid.
Image via Wikipedia

Back in 2009, my family bought a 2010 model year Honda Civic Hybrid. The chart in the dealership, which was produced by an independent tester, gave the Civic a rating of 60 miles per imperial gallon (mpg) in the city and 66 mpg on the highway. A review of the Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) website seems to confirm this rating.

NRCan’s site gives the “mileage” of every car sold in Canada by year. It is supposed to be based on testing that simulates a fuel economy for a car that is driven 20,000 km per year. Presumably the test would simulate real-life conditions including the number of occupants, and a variety of weather and geographical conditions, but it isn’t clear from their web site. The mileage for my car the 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid is given here: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/compare/compare-results.cfm and it confirms the 60/66 rating given at the dealer.

My question is, what drugs were the testers on when they came up with these figures? We have been using the Civic for almost two years now and we have never come close to those figures. I grant you, that the test figures are likely for the “average” driver, but even so, we have rarely got better than 6.1 l/100km. That works out to about 46.3 mpg. This is a far cry from the 63 mpg (combined city and highway) that we were supposed to get.

When I look at the United States government website I their numbers are closer to my results. they show 40 miles per US gallon (mpgUS) city and 45 mpgUS highway which is about 43mpgUS combined. That equates to about 51 miles per imperial gallon (or only 85% of the NRCan mileage estimates) which is getting better, but it still ends up being about 5 mpg high by my experience.

So what are these testers doing. I assume that they must have only a single driver, and that they must be always on a flat road, with no head-wind and they must be accelerating at a snail’s pace. If I want to approximate these ratings, I would need to get an 100 pound driver driving downhill with a tailwind and the car in neutral.

While I never really expected to get 60 mpg, I did expect better than the 43 mpg that we are getting. Am I expecting too much to ask for mileage approximating the promised rating? I don’t think so. I would likely have bought the car anyway, given that I am interested in the environment, but I don’t like being lied to. If the “independent” tests were to be even remotely useful they should be achievable by the majority of the drivers under normal conditions.

Now, I know I have ignored things like the benefits to the environment, but I have also ignored things like the total cost of ownership (maintenance of the batteries over time) and the cradle to grave costs of the car in terms of cost of building, cost of transportation, use by the consumer and cost of disposal.

But when it comes to strictly the way the cars are advertised, where is the truth of the situation? I sure don’t know? I do know that I feel ripped off! What about you?

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Hybrid cars – one buyer’s thoughts

  1. Just looked at the NRCan website again. They have adjusted the way they calculate fuel consumption and it is much better now than it was before. The older cars (2009 model year for example), still show the original fuel consumption (66mpg), but the fuel consumption for the newer models is far more accurate (42mpg for the 2014 model year).

  2. Another recent update to this article…Natural Resources Canada has decided to update the way they test fuel efficiency. See the articlea at

  3. A recent update to this article. It turns out that the battery array on our car is defective and Honda will be replacing it at their cost under warrantee. The array costs about $4,500 so it is a good thing that it is a free replacement. The batteries are approaching 2 years old now (we bought the car in January of 2010), so I hope that the problem is an anomalie rather than a foreshadowing of things to come. I will keep you informed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s