Hybrid repeat buyers

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The mileage didn't disappoint me for two reasons, I didn't think the car would actually do 53 mpg and, in consumption terms, 40 mpg vs 50 mpg is almost trivial. That's two dollars difference in a 100 mile trip. I'd gladly pay two dollars per hundred miles in order to drive something nice. I'm shocked that the Civic HF was slower than the Insight. I thought Insights were some of the slowest cars ever made. I'm also surprised you say it handles better - the CRX is something of a handling highwater mark.

But you're not getting 50 mpg in the city and the Hybrid is. You don't buy a hybrid for the highway mileage, you buy one for the city mileage.

The difference between 40 mpg and 50 mpg is almost trivial. MPG is a game of diminishing returns. Honestly, 30 to 50 isn't even that big a difference.

In a 100 mile journey, whether it be city or highway or moonscape, going from 40 to 50 mpg is only going to save you half a gallon. Going from 33 to 50 is only going to save you one gallon. By comparison, going from 15 (a typical SUV) to 25 (a gently driven Corvette) will save you 2.5 gallons, more than if you go from a Corvette to the EPA rating on a Prius.

In terms of efficiency, it's much more important to not suck than it is to be the pack leader, which is why I wasn't disappointed when the Prius C "only" got 41 mpg in mostly gentle mixed hwy/city driving.

It's also a big part of the reason I wouldn't pay extra for the privilege of getting 2 extra mpg, getting a less practical, less comfortable and infinitely less competent Prius C when I could have a Golf TDI instead. I know the Prius C has a cheaper base price, but the decked out one I drove was still nowhere near as nice as the cheaper, base model VW. The big Prius is no cheaper in any form and 2 grand more expensive than a Jetta TDI.

e_pie wrote: The Insight isn't as slow as you would think, it has about the same power to weight as a CRX Si. It's by no means fast but it's more than enough to get out of its own way, and it'll do 80 down the highway all day long while getting 55-60mpg. 85hp goes a long way when you have aero and 1850lbs on your side. If you like the CRX you will like the Insight, my Insight reminds me so much of my old 89 Si, it's just a great all around car.

This Insight (which I'd be interested in)

or this Insight (absolutely hell no)

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The mileage didn't disappoint me for two reasons, I didn't think the car would actually do 53 mpg and, in consumption terms, 40 mpg vs 50 mpg is almost trivial. That's two dollars difference in a 100 mile trip. I'd gladly pay two dollars per hundred miles in order to drive something nice. I'm shocked that the Civic HF was slower than the Insight. I thought Insights were some of the slowest cars ever made. I'm also surprised you say it handles better - the CRX is something of a handling highwater mark.

But you're not getting 50 mpg in the city and the Hybrid is. You don't buy a hybrid for the highway mileage, you buy one for the city mileage.

The difference between 40 mpg and 50 mpg is almost trivial. MPG is a game of diminishing returns. Honestly, 30 to 50 isn't even that big a difference. In a 100 mile journey, whether it be city or highway or moonscape, going from 40 to 50 mpg is only going to save you half a gallon. Going from 33 to 50 is only going to save you one gallon. By comparison, going from 15 (a typical SUV) to 25 (a gently driven Corvette) will save you 2.5 gallons, more than if you go from a Corvette to the EPA rating on a Prius. In terms of efficiency, it's much more important to not suck than it is to be the pack leader, which is why I wasn't disappointed when the Prius C "only" got 41 mpg in mostly gentle mixed hwy/city driving. It's also a big part of the reason I wouldn't pay extra for the privilege of getting 2 extra mpg, getting a less practical, less comfortable and infinitely less competent Prius C when I could have a Golf TDI instead. I know the Prius C has a cheaper base price, but the decked out one I drove was still nowhere near as nice as the cheaper, base model VW. The big Prius is no cheaper in any form and 2 grand more expensive than a Jetta TDI.

OK so by your own own math your saving half a gallon per 100 miles, which is $2 per 100 miles. $20 per 1,000 miles, $200 per 10,000 miles, $2,000 per 100k miles. We're racers here so the ounces make pounds idea isn't a new one.

We average 50 mpg + out of our normal Prius (some trips are over 60mpg when I'm trying), which would lead me to believe you weren't driving the C "mostly gently".

I find few benefits for the Volkswagen, especially given their reliability. In fact the Passat diesel is under a recall as we speak.

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The mileage didn't disappoint me for two reasons, I didn't think the car would actually do 53 mpg and, in consumption terms, 40 mpg vs 50 mpg is almost trivial. That's two dollars difference in a 100 mile trip. I'd gladly pay two dollars per hundred miles in order to drive something nice. I'm shocked that the Civic HF was slower than the Insight. I thought Insights were some of the slowest cars ever made. I'm also surprised you say it handles better - the CRX is something of a handling highwater mark.

But you're not getting 50 mpg in the city and the Hybrid is. You don't buy a hybrid for the highway mileage, you buy one for the city mileage.

The difference between 40 mpg and 50 mpg is almost trivial. MPG is a game of diminishing returns. Honestly, 30 to 50 isn't even that big a difference. In a 100 mile journey, whether it be city or highway or moonscape, going from 40 to 50 mpg is only going to save you half a gallon. Going from 33 to 50 is only going to save you one gallon. By comparison, going from 15 (a typical SUV) to 25 (a gently driven Corvette) will save you 2.5 gallons, more than if you go from a Corvette to the EPA rating on a Prius. In terms of efficiency, it's much more important to not suck than it is to be the pack leader, which is why I wasn't disappointed when the Prius C "only" got 41 mpg in mostly gentle mixed hwy/city driving. It's also a big part of the reason I wouldn't pay extra for the privilege of getting 2 extra mpg, getting a less practical, less comfortable and infinitely less competent Prius C when I could have a Golf TDI instead. I know the Prius C has a cheaper base price, but the decked out one I drove was still nowhere near as nice as the cheaper, base model VW. The big Prius is no cheaper in any form and 2 grand more expensive than a Jetta TDI.

OK so by your own own math your saving half a gallon per 100 miles, which is $2 per 100 miles. $20 per 1,000 miles, $200 per 10,000 miles, $2,000 per 100k miles. We're racers here so the ounces make pounds idea isn't a new one. We average 50 mpg + out of our normal Prius (some trips are over 60mpg when I'm trying), which would lead me to believe you weren't driving the C "mostly gently". I find few benefits for the Volkswagen, especially given their reliability. In fact the Passat diesel is under a recall as we speak.

$2,000 over 100,000 miles isn't much. Especially when you consider the fact the VW is much more car and costs less up front.

Benefits of the VW: It's a million times faster. It rides better. It's more comfortable. It's more refined. It's fun to drive. The interior is miles better. The brakes are better. It's more spacious. It's better in town. You can see out. It's leagues better on the highway. The handling is worlds better. The steering is better. The throttle response is better. Other than city mpg, I can't think of anything it ISN'T better at. I literally just drove the two, back to back, so this is fresh in my mind.

BTW - I think real world mpg is actually better with the normal Prius over the Prius C.

I have no idea how to hypermile a hybrid with CVT, so I didn't. That said, I never exceeded 65 mph, used EV mode as much as possible, left it in eco mode the entire time, mostly kept it in "B" and used full throttle exactly twice in the course of an hour. Once because I had to (on ramp) and once because I wanted to, going up a hill. I promise I didn't thrash it. The other people didn't do much better. It had a computer menu for the top three economy drives of all time and the best was 44 mpg.

DaewooOfDeath, we're talking about 1st gen. As far i know, nobody talks about or likes the 2nd gen.

Because, you know, it's pretty much Honda's Prius C.

I thought my Insight was horrendously slow until i figured out you can ALWAYS go into 3rd gear on the highway. 3rd gear goes to top speed (~110 on level ground) and does a pretty decent job of getting there. I can get around almost anything that's not WOT, and some stuff that is.

Now, i will say that 2nd gear is hell on earth in an insight. I dont understand why, but somehow, in the context of what you EXPECT each gear to feel like, 1st and 3rd feel way better than 2nd.

Neither the insight nor the CRX HF hande well, i would say. They both lean like a mofo, transition weight all over the damn place. But, since they are light, you can bolt traction to them and turn pretty hard without doing anything else. That kept me happy with my Insight for over a year. Now im moving on to 'real' suspension mods.

Just to clarify, if you judge "hybrid" cars after having driven only one that is the absolute cheapest hybrid ever sold, you're doing it wrong. Would you judge "convertible" cars if the only one you ever drove was a Geo Metro?

Branch out...according to fueleconomy.gov, there are 46 (!!!) different hybrid vehicle configurations sold right now. Seriously...I play with hybrids as often as I can find time to and I still haven't driven about half of them. They all have quirks, tuning, features, etc. that others don't. Come to think of it that way, I'm due for a bunch of test drives this summer. There are even more on the horizon, including plug ins and of course pure EVs. I'm pretty excited about the more sporty ones on the way, a modern, not-hacked-together equivalent to my $2009 Fiero would be friggin' awesome.

Bryce

I personally don't think hybrids are the wave of the future, I view them as a stop-gap. I could be wrong. I've driven a few and they are interesting, but I don't see buying one in their current form. I do however think they will get more interesting as time goes on.

Interestingly, my dad was car shopping recently to replace his 5 series, and a Camry hybrid was at the top of his list. He owned an original Camry year ago and always like it, but has been a BMW owner only since then.

So, off he goes to the Toyota dealer and drives a couple. He hates the salesman, and the car is only ok. And, it is pretty expensive at 38k. He could order one and get that down to the 34k mark with what options he wants, and the fuel mileage is about 38-42 in real world conditions.

Next stop, BMW. For 35k he can get a new 3 series with almost as good mpg ratings. Highway rating is 37, and that is where he spends most of his time. And of course, it's in a totally different league in terms of driving dynamics. It is so far upscale than the Toyota there is no comparison.

One guess which one he ordered. Right now there are better options out there than hybrids. I also would like to see more european style turbo diesels in the US. Some of these are truly excellent cars and would offer another choice if you want higher mpg figures.

In reply to racerdave600:

I think cars like the new 3 series are more of a threat to diesels than hybrids. The new 328 is rated at 23/34. Suddenly last year's 335d offering 23/36 for a ton more money seems pretty irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are mainly a city driver, the Camry Hybrids 43 MPG city rating starts looking pretty sweet.

I don't know Otto, maybe for the small hybrids. If you're talking mid-sized hybrids they are a direct competitor. My dad is not the only cross shopper I know. He had a 328 loaner the last time his car was in the shop, and it averaged 35.6 over that period. Except for the engine shutting off at stops (which takes a few days to adjust to, but there is a switch for that not to happen), it was a seriously nice, normal car.

I personally don't think hybrids are the wave of the future, I view them as a stop-gap

I think hybrids that cant do much without running the gas engine are a stop gap. I think cars like the Volt that allow some users to go weeks or months without burning gas are an end in and of themselves, not a stop gap.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The mileage didn't disappoint me for two reasons, I didn't think the car would actually do 53 mpg and, in consumption terms, 40 mpg vs 50 mpg is almost trivial. That's two dollars difference in a 100 mile trip. I'd gladly pay two dollars per hundred miles in order to drive something nice. I'm shocked that the Civic HF was slower than the Insight. I thought Insights were some of the slowest cars ever made. I'm also surprised you say it handles better - the CRX is something of a handling highwater mark.

But you're not getting 50 mpg in the city and the Hybrid is. You don't buy a hybrid for the highway mileage, you buy one for the city mileage.

The difference between 40 mpg and 50 mpg is almost trivial. MPG is a game of diminishing returns. Honestly, 30 to 50 isn't even that big a difference. In a 100 mile journey, whether it be city or highway or moonscape, going from 40 to 50 mpg is only going to save you half a gallon. Going from 33 to 50 is only going to save you one gallon. By comparison, going from 15 (a typical SUV) to 25 (a gently driven Corvette) will save you 2.5 gallons, more than if you go from a Corvette to the EPA rating on a Prius. In terms of efficiency, it's much more important to not suck than it is to be the pack leader, which is why I wasn't disappointed when the Prius C "only" got 41 mpg in mostly gentle mixed hwy/city driving. It's also a big part of the reason I wouldn't pay extra for the privilege of getting 2 extra mpg, getting a less practical, less comfortable and infinitely less competent Prius C when I could have a Golf TDI instead. I know the Prius C has a cheaper base price, but the decked out one I drove was still nowhere near as nice as the cheaper, base model VW. The big Prius is no cheaper in any form and 2 grand more expensive than a Jetta TDI.

OK so by your own own math your saving half a gallon per 100 miles, which is $2 per 100 miles. $20 per 1,000 miles, $200 per 10,000 miles, $2,000 per 100k miles. We're racers here so the ounces make pounds idea isn't a new one. We average 50 mpg + out of our normal Prius (some trips are over 60mpg when I'm trying), which would lead me to believe you weren't driving the C "mostly gently". I find few benefits for the Volkswagen, especially given their reliability. In fact the Passat diesel is under a recall as we speak.

I have no idea how to hypermile a hybrid with CVT, so I didn't. That said, I never exceeded 65 mph, used EV mode as much as possible, left it in eco mode the entire time, mostly kept it in "B" and used full throttle exactly twice in the course of an hour.

There's your problem. B uses engine braking, which means you weren't getting your full power regeneration. You only use B for long declines to avoid using the brakes. It also keeps the engine running rather than shutting off when it's not needed while moving.

The new 328 is a pretty promising car. What I feel like you are overlooking is that there is a significant portion of the country that will never see those mileage figures. While the highway numbers may be close, the city numbers are worlds apart. Many people are likely to see more like upper 20s from the BMW and upper 30s from a Camry Hybrid. Same applies to the Jetta TDI vs. Prius scenario... I'd be more likely to see 50mph from the Prius/C, and mid 30s from the TDI (and a quick check on Fuelly shows the '12 prius returning around 49mpg, '12 Jetta TDI about 37).

Unlike most, I view $2000/100k miles as significant, especially when you realize that figure is likely to continually increase. The difference in cost over the lifetime of the vehicle between a 45mpg hybrid and a 35mpg normal car is actually pretty significant - >$1000 a year in my current usage. Like most of the non-GRM public, my daily driver is simply an appliance. From an appliance standpoint, cheaper to operate = better.

In reply to ProDarwin:

In my personal situation, going from a Pilot to a Prius will save us close to $3K a year. That is some big bucks.

In my case, I went from about 20 to about 35mpg and estimate it will save close to 2k a year. Granted I would have done the swap anyway, but it's a nice added bonus.

Vigo wrote:

I personally don't think hybrids are the wave of the future, I view them as a stop-gap

I think hybrids that cant do much without running the gas engine are a stop gap. I think cars like the Volt that allow some users to go weeks or months without burning gas are an end in and of themselves, not a stop gap.

Me too. The Volt makes perfect sense to me (if they can get the price down), the Prius really doesn't.

The basic problem I see is that batteries suck, and, objectively, we can't do much more with them now than we could 100 years ago. See my 1912 Baker Coupe comparison.

The obvious way around the suckiness of batteries is the limit the amount of battery you use. Seems to me a small battery bank (in the order of 100 lbs) that is constantly fed by either a fuel cell or a small, quiet engine that has no mechanical linkage to the rest of the car would be ideal. In fact, I think you'd effectively have the same drivetrain they use on the most fuel efficient vehicles on earth ... freight trains.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: In my personal situation, going from a Pilot to a Prius will save us close to $3K a year. That is some big bucks.

Going from a Pilot to a conservatively driven Corvette would save you about $2000. This is why I think the current hybrid market isn't really all that hot.

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

DaveEstey wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The mileage didn't disappoint me for two reasons, I didn't think the car would actually do 53 mpg and, in consumption terms, 40 mpg vs 50 mpg is almost trivial. That's two dollars difference in a 100 mile trip. I'd gladly pay two dollars per hundred miles in order to drive something nice. I'm shocked that the Civic HF was slower than the Insight. I thought Insights were some of the slowest cars ever made. I'm also surprised you say it handles better - the CRX is something of a handling highwater mark.

But you're not getting 50 mpg in the city and the Hybrid is. You don't buy a hybrid for the highway mileage, you buy one for the city mileage.

The difference between 40 mpg and 50 mpg is almost trivial. MPG is a game of diminishing returns. Honestly, 30 to 50 isn't even that big a difference. In a 100 mile journey, whether it be city or highway or moonscape, going from 40 to 50 mpg is only going to save you half a gallon. Going from 33 to 50 is only going to save you one gallon. By comparison, going from 15 (a typical SUV) to 25 (a gently driven Corvette) will save you 2.5 gallons, more than if you go from a Corvette to the EPA rating on a Prius. In terms of efficiency, it's much more important to not suck than it is to be the pack leader, which is why I wasn't disappointed when the Prius C "only" got 41 mpg in mostly gentle mixed hwy/city driving. It's also a big part of the reason I wouldn't pay extra for the privilege of getting 2 extra mpg, getting a less practical, less comfortable and infinitely less competent Prius C when I could have a Golf TDI instead. I know the Prius C has a cheaper base price, but the decked out one I drove was still nowhere near as nice as the cheaper, base model VW. The big Prius is no cheaper in any form and 2 grand more expensive than a Jetta TDI.

OK so by your own own math your saving half a gallon per 100 miles, which is $2 per 100 miles. $20 per 1,000 miles, $200 per 10,000 miles, $2,000 per 100k miles. We're racers here so the ounces make pounds idea isn't a new one. We average 50 mpg + out of our normal Prius (some trips are over 60mpg when I'm trying), which would lead me to believe you weren't driving the C "mostly gently". I find few benefits for the Volkswagen, especially given their reliability. In fact the Passat diesel is under a recall as we speak.

I have no idea how to hypermile a hybrid with CVT, so I didn't. That said, I never exceeded 65 mph, used EV mode as much as possible, left it in eco mode the entire time, mostly kept it in "B" and used full throttle exactly twice in the course of an hour.

There's your problem. B uses engine braking, which means you weren't getting your full power regeneration. You only use B for long declines to avoid using the brakes. It also keeps the engine running rather than shutting off when it's not needed while moving.

Sales guy said it was for charging the batteries so you could use less of the gasoline engine.

Sales guy is wrong.

ProDarwin wrote: The new 328 is a pretty promising car. What I feel like you are overlooking is that there is a significant portion of the country that will never see those mileage figures. While the highway numbers may be close, the city numbers are worlds apart. Many people are likely to see more like upper 20s from the BMW and upper 30s from a Camry Hybrid. Same applies to the Jetta TDI vs. Prius scenario... I'd be more likely to see 50mph from the Prius/C, and mid 30s from the TDI (and a quick check on Fuelly shows the '12 prius returning around 49mpg, '12 Jetta TDI about 37). Unlike most, I view $2000/100k miles as significant, especially when you realize that figure is likely to continually increase. The difference in cost over the lifetime of the vehicle between a 45mpg hybrid and a 35mpg normal car is actually pretty significant - >$1000 a year in my current usage. Like most of the non-GRM public, my daily driver is simply an appliance. From an appliance standpoint, cheaper to operate = better.

If this was true, you'd drive an 89 Geo Metro for your daily, am I right?

Most people, you included I suspect, will gladly pay more to get more. The small mpg gap between the Jetta and the Prius would not exist if VW decided to make the Jetta TDI painfully slow, ultra aero optimized, and full of low friction/high efficiency stuff that makes a car miserable to drive. Hell, Dave Coleman is getting 80 mpg out of an aero optimized old Golf TDI using backyard engineering. You're also forgetting that you get significantly more car for significantly LESS money than the Prius.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to ProDarwin: In my personal situation, going from a Pilot to a Prius will save us close to $3K a year. That is some big bucks.

Going from a Pilot to a conservatively driven Corvette would save you about $2000. This is why I think the current hybrid market isn't really all that hot.

Now that is just silly. The parameters were all city driving and an auto transmission. That would be 16 MPG in her Pilot and 15 MPG in a new Corvette.

The wife does 17,500 miles at 16 MPG average, the exact city EPA rating. At $4 a gallon, that is $4,375 a year in gas. By the city rating of 51 MPG in a Prius, that would be $1,373, saving me $3,002. To me, that is huge. A Jetta Wagon TDi offers 29 MPG city with more expensive fuel. At 40 cents more a gallon for diesel, I'd spend $2,655 and save $1,720.

So, a Prius would save me $1,282 over a Jetta Sportswagen TDi. That is still some decent scratch.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: The new 328 is a pretty promising car. What I feel like you are overlooking is that there is a significant portion of the country that will never see those mileage figures. While the highway numbers may be close, the city numbers are worlds apart. Many people are likely to see more like upper 20s from the BMW and upper 30s from a Camry Hybrid. Same applies to the Jetta TDI vs. Prius scenario... I'd be more likely to see 50mph from the Prius/C, and mid 30s from the TDI (and a quick check on Fuelly shows the '12 prius returning around 49mpg, '12 Jetta TDI about 37). Unlike most, I view $2000/100k miles as significant, especially when you realize that figure is likely to continually increase. The difference in cost over the lifetime of the vehicle between a 45mpg hybrid and a 35mpg normal car is actually pretty significant - >$1000 a year in my current usage. Like most of the non-GRM public, my daily driver is simply an appliance. From an appliance standpoint, cheaper to operate = better.

If this was true, you'd drive an 89 Geo Metro for your daily, am I right? Most people, you included I suspect, will gladly pay more to get more. The small mpg gap between the Jetta and the Prius would not exist if VW decided to make the Jetta TDI painfully slow, ultra aero optimized, and full of low friction/high efficiency stuff that makes a car miserable to drive. Hell, Dave Coleman is getting 80 mpg out of an aero optimized old Golf TDI using backyard engineering. You're also forgetting that you get significantly more car for significantly LESS money than the Prius.

The TDI and Prius are a couple hundred dollars apart in price.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: The new 328 is a pretty promising car. What I feel like you are overlooking is that there is a significant portion of the country that will never see those mileage figures. While the highway numbers may be close, the city numbers are worlds apart. Many people are likely to see more like upper 20s from the BMW and upper 30s from a Camry Hybrid. Same applies to the Jetta TDI vs. Prius scenario... I'd be more likely to see 50mph from the Prius/C, and mid 30s from the TDI (and a quick check on Fuelly shows the '12 prius returning around 49mpg, '12 Jetta TDI about 37). Unlike most, I view $2000/100k miles as significant, especially when you realize that figure is likely to continually increase. The difference in cost over the lifetime of the vehicle between a 45mpg hybrid and a 35mpg normal car is actually pretty significant - >$1000 a year in my current usage. Like most of the non-GRM public, my daily driver is simply an appliance. From an appliance standpoint, cheaper to operate = better.

If this was true, you'd drive an 89 Geo Metro for your daily, am I right? Most people, you included I suspect, will gladly pay more to get more. The small mpg gap between the Jetta and the Prius would not exist if VW decided to make the Jetta TDI painfully slow, ultra aero optimized, and full of low friction/high efficiency stuff that makes a car miserable to drive. Hell, Dave Coleman is getting 80 mpg out of an aero optimized old Golf TDI using backyard engineering. You're also forgetting that you get significantly more car for significantly LESS money than the Prius.

VW Diesels were about slow as a Prius until recently. Both of them have decent low end torque and not much else.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: If this was true, you'd drive an 89 Geo Metro for your daily, am I right? Most people, you included I suspect, will gladly pay more to get more. The small mpg gap between the Jetta and the Prius would not exist if VW decided to make the Jetta TDI painfully slow, ultra aero optimized, and full of low friction/high efficiency stuff that makes a car miserable to drive. Hell, Dave Coleman is getting 80 mpg out of an aero optimized old Golf TDI using backyard engineering. You're also forgetting that you get significantly more car for significantly LESS money than the Prius.

You are correct, cost is not the only concern - other appliance concerns weigh in as well: safety, reliability, etc. I would have certainly considered one were it safer. I even looked at the late 90s options, but they don't meet my needs. The early Prius was on my short-list as well as the 1st gen Civic Hybrids and early 2000 TDIs. In the end, I chose the car I did because A) I am very familiar with it and B) the depreciation amount will be so low it offsets the (relatively) low fuel economy if I only keep it for 2 years. And recently I haven't been able to hang onto a car for more than 2 years anyway.

Yes, I would pay more to get more. Coleman's car is an oddball in that its an incredibly unsafe (by today's standards) early 80s rabbit, and his "80 mpg" claim is steady state on the highway, where many cars will return crazy mpg numbers. It wouldn't surprise me to see a Prius driver meet or exceed his city driving numbers - in a safer, more comfortable, quieter, more reliable car.

DaewooOfDeath wrote: The basic problem I see is that batteries suck, and, objectively, we can't do much more with them now than we could 100 years ago. See my 1912 Baker Coupe comparison.

You are so far off from reality I can't tell if you're being serious or not. If you are not, well, use a winky face or something. If you are...consider the speed, reliability, cost, acceleration, driveability, legislation, frequency of use, safety, user friendliness, serviceability, etc. etc. etc. differences between a car 100 years ago and today.

New cars go much faster, more reliably, for less money, get there quicker, have extremely long warranty periods, are used way more often, are extremely safe, are nearly idiot proof, can be serviced at hundreds of locations, etc. etc. etc. compared to 100 years ago. Just comparing a 20 year old battery (EV1) to a modern battery (Volt), there's leaps forward.

Bryce