The plug in hybrids are nothing other than a tax fraud to reduce the BIK payments of high earners. What percentage of them are actually plugged in to charge them up rather than being driven round with empty batteries?

How can they run about with empty batteries? when the batteries reach a certain percentage the engine kicks in to charge them up, regardless of being plugged in, as that cant last long in winter too much load on electrics, like brake regen, can only partially recharge if the load is high

With a hybrid, if you never plug the car in to recharge it, then obviously the only cost of fuel is for what the engine uses.

If you always charge the car straight from the mains and the engine never runs, then work out the cost of the electricity. If it's a bit of both, work it out and add it up.

So what is wrong in making a direct comparison between that and a non-hybrid car?

I really don't get what this discussion is about.

I suppose what I really meant in my previous message is that mpg is hardly relevant. What you probably want to compare is "fuel cost per mile". With a non-hybrid you have mpg and factor in the cost of the fuel. With a hybrid you have either mpg plus electricity or just electricity, and you factor in the cost of electricity.

I have driven several hybrids - both slowly and quickly. Some of the comments above about speed and noise say more about the competence of teh driver than the car.

With the CVH transmission its simply a case of pressing foot down and hearing the noise. The driver, competent or not, cannot influence what happens when they floor it, it does not take any skill at all. Some acceleration eventually appears to take place but from what I experienced as a pasenger the need for it had long receded when it arrived. Time to give up and pull back in.

The driver hated the car as a car but as a low tax business device he loved it.

Not if you can manually chose the gears and override the thing - which I do about once a month.

Well the guy at work did not appear to know you could manually choose gears in the Auris hybrid. If you enlighten me I will pass the technique on.

Suppose he should RTFM.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it seems a lot of non-hybrid motorists don't seem to know how the Prius works.

The engine normally revs up to its most fuel efficient speed to maintain fuel economy when you accelerate normally, assisted by the electric drive motor. This seems excessive to manual car drivers, but anyone who has driven an ICE CVT automatic will relate to this.

When you give it some beans, the engine revs will go above this "efficient" speed, if requested by the driver and this shown on a gauge on the display as being in the inefficient range. This request for speed will be aided by the electric drive motor and although you can't manually change gears, you can make the engine revs drop by easing off the pedal a little after the initial surge (revs), this allows the electric motor to take up more of the share of the power requested and makes for a more economical (and more pleasant on the ears) acceleration, without a loss in power.

The advantage of a hybrid is diesel like torque at low revs due to the electric motor assistance, with petrol smoothness and better than petrol economy. I don't know of any 1.8 ltr petrol engine automatic car that does anywhere near the mpg of the Prius.

My petrol 1.0 VW Polo normally gives between 60 mpg and 70 mpg, a few times going below 60 mpg during mid winter, and hitting the peak in mid summer. Driving style and journey type are the key factors in fuel economy assuming a fuel efficient engine. Accelerate and brake lots and you'll burn fuel needlessly. Anticipate, and avoid heavy traffic and you'll get good economy.

I would hope that the Pius has more interior space than the Polo, but the former does cost a lot.

Before asserting the benefits of hybrids over full EV or ICE equivalents we need to be aware that they add considerable weight, cost and complexity - two motors + battery and fuel storage + the technology interfacing the two systems.

• they could, depending on criteria set, be capable of operating on battery only in urban environments reducing pollution - subject to use and range
• regenerative braking and optimising engine efficiency could compensate for the additional weight and cost.

But overall the mpg savings from hybrids are barely noteworthy - not dissimilar to equivalent cars driven with reasonable restraint. If my pattern of use was a normal daily commutes of 5-10 miles + (say) monthly trips of 200 miles, a plug in hybrid could operate as an EV (most of the time) without occasional range anxiety!

Overall I think they will prove to be short lived - as EV batteries and recharging technologies improve they will be rapidly consigned to history.

They (including the cost) will improve, but not at the rate most proponents say and it also has a lot of tax benefits still in its favour to make the picture look a look better than it is in reality.

The charging infrastructure and battery raw materials issues are going to be the real key ones to resolve to make it viable for everyone and all road transportation (including HGVs, buses, industrial and farm transport) not just the well off. Unfortunately these issues are currently being completely overlooked by policy-makers all the way through developers and industry.

An all electric tractor is a nightmare and inworkable in the real world.. (As anyone who knows a little about farming would realise)

As they already exist what makes them unworkable?

My petrol 1.0 VW Polo normally gives between 60 mpg and 70 mpg, a few times going below 60 mpg during mid winter, and hitting the peak in mid summer

I do not for one moment believe this based on the research we did before buying our Fabia 1.0 TSi 110PS and my experince in the 3 months of ownership.

What car had the 95 PS version on long term and achieved 46 mpg average. Autoexpress had and SE-L on long term but not sure which engine it was, average 45 mpg. If we had matched those I would have been happy, way better than the Focus 1.8 petrol had managed for 12 years.

Honest Johns "Real MPG" figure for the Polo 1.0 TSi 95 PS is 49.7 mpg and for the Fabia 110 PS 48.8 mpg. Since magazines tend to thrash cars more than owners in the real world that is what I would expect.

In the 3 months we have had the Fabia it has averaged 49 mpg, bang on the HJ figure and we are delighted. On a long run over Christmas to visit relatives on nice quiet Motorways and A roads it averaged 55 mpg which absolutely delighted us, it matched diesel cars we have owned previously.

So to suggest that the car will do 70 mpg is living in cloud cuckoo land I am afraid.

And its not just the Skoda and VW that produce those figures on Real MPG. The Audi A1 and Seat Ibiza with the 1.0 TSI engine had figures of approx 49 mpg.

"Most people approach a junction at speed, brake at the last minute, ..."

A style of driving ,I believe , which lends itself to accidents on snow. and ice.

(Another accident here this am - ambulance and police - on snowy road up to the moor - at same spot where a C1 overturned 18 months ago. 2 cms of snow: brake late and hard and suddenly you have no grip or steering)

I once had over 80 mpg for a 40 mile journey according to the on board computer, so somewhere round 75 mpg in reality.

Totally meaningless. I had about 100 mpg on the Focus once for a 30 mile trip.

We started off at Longshaw Estate on the Peak which is 368m above sea level. By the time we got to Calver at 132m about 4 miles away we had 3 dashes on the display which is over 200 mpg. By the time we got to Cromford at 81m above sea level and about 30 miles from Logshaw it had dropped to a shocking 100 mpg. By the time we got home, another 20 miles and at 190m above sea level it was back down to a normal 55 mpg.

If we had continued back to Longshaw it would have dropped even lower.

We could all choose routes that give magical figures but what do they prove, absolutely nothing. That Focus would average about 44 mpg over a year.

I totally ignore any claims using on board computers..

Drving involves cold starts, halts, queues etc in the real world. And those nasty things called hills.

A cold start usually means for the first 3-5 miles - depending on ambient temperatures - mpg may be half of normal.. or less. If I turn out of our drive uphill, my Jazz averages 13mpg for the first two miles.If I I turn downhill, then it's 35mpg..

Unless you do brim to brim calculations, any figures quoting are worthless.

Edited by madf on 26/02/2020 at 12:23

I once had over 80 mpg for a 40 mile journey according to the on board computer, so somewhere round 75 mpg in reality.

Totally meaningless. I had about 100 mpg on the Focus once for a 30 mile trip.

We started off at Longshaw Estate on the Peak which is 368m above sea level. By the time we got to Calver at 132m about 4 miles away we had 3 dashes on the display which is over 200 mpg. By the time we got to Cromford at 81m above sea level and about 30 miles from Logshaw it had dropped to a shocking 100 mpg. By the time we got home, another 20 miles and at 190m above sea level it was back down to a normal 55 mpg.

If we had continued back to Longshaw it would have dropped even lower.

We could all choose routes that give magical figures but what do they prove, absolutely nothing. That Focus would average about 44 mpg over a year.

I assumed it was obvious that I was referring to the average for the journey, and not the instantaneous reading which is meaningless. I have calibrated the on board computer and it overestimates the average for the journey by about 5%.

I once had over 80 mpg for a 40 mile journey according to the on board computer, so somewhere round 75 mpg in reality.

Totally meaningless. I had about 100 mpg on the Focus once for a 30 mile trip.

We started off at Longshaw Estate on the Peak which is 368m above sea level. By the time we got to Calver at 132m about 4 miles away we had 3 dashes on the display which is over 200 mpg. By the time we got to Cromford at 81m above sea level and about 30 miles from Logshaw it had dropped to a shocking 100 mpg. By the time we got home, another 20 miles and at 190m above sea level it was back down to a normal 55 mpg.

If we had continued back to Longshaw it would have dropped even lower.

We could all choose routes that give magical figures but what do they prove, absolutely nothing. That Focus would average about 44 mpg over a year.

I assumed it was obvious that I was referring to the average for the journey, and not the instantaneous reading which is meaningless. I have calibrated the on board computer and it overestimates the average for the journey by about 5%.

My figures were not the instantaneous ones which I agree are pointless but those from the "trip" average display i.e. from the time you start the car, like most cars the Focus had 3, instantaneous, trip and one which did the average for about the last 3000 miles. For the record it was inaccurate when compared to a calculated figure I too would say about 5% higher.

Sigh.Feel free not to apologise for your unpleasant comments on my post. I think you need to learn to read. :(

Sigh.Feel free not to apologise for your unpleasant comments on my post. I think you need to learn to read. :(

OK, lets start.

You said

I assumed it was obvious that I was referring to the average for the journey, and not the instantaneous reading which is meaningless.

and I replied

My figures were not the instantaneous ones which I agree are pointless but those from the "trip" average display

which to me looks like I am agreeing that the instantaneous figures are pointless and confirming they were form the trip average.

Looks to me like its you who needs to learn to read and then apologise.

Perhaps next time I should send a particularly nasty reply, you might understand that.

You made the following comments:

" do not for one moment believe this based on the research we did before buying our Fabia 1.0 TSi 110PS and my experince in the 3 months of ownership."

You are wrong.

"So to suggest that the car will do 70 mpg is living in cloud cuckoo land I am afraid."

And again, you are wrong.

Just agree to disagree, or I'll close the thread.

I find his tone of phrase rather confrontational and offensive. I don't like my integrity or judgement being questioned.

It's nothing to do with whether or not you can get 70 mpg from a 1.0 TSI (which depends on how and where you drive).

Closing the thread is appropriate when it degenerates to the stage where two supposedly adult people tell each other that they should learn to read.

Anything else like that and the thread goes.