Find Reviews by Make:
Yesterday, we talked about a new gasoline-powered Daihatsu car that gets 70 mpg (non-EPA). After The Nikkei [sub] broke that story, the phone rang in Tokyo and several other manufacturers said “watashi tachi mo!” (Us too!) And today, The Nikkei [sub] is out with the story that other manufacturers “are mounting a challenge by launching gasoline-powered models that can compete with hybrids on fuel economy.” Not only that, they severely beat the pricey hybrids on price. Buy the car, and you can start saving right away.
- Daihatsu’s fuel-miser will cost around $10,000 when it is out in September. Rightly or wrongly, it expects to be “the most fuel-efficient gasoline vehicle on the market.”
- Mazda reminded The Nikkei that it has a 59 mpg (non-EPA) Demio subcompact that costs 1.4 million yen ($17,700).
- Suzuki is not sitting idle and “is developing an offering whose fuel economy will equal or surpass the competition’s,” The Nikkei says.
10 Comments on “Introducing Fuel-Saving Cars People Can Afford...”
Read all comments
By the way, speaking of fuel saving cars that people can’t afford (to bring into production), I’m surprised nobody commented on the electric car company out in California (sorry, I forget the name) intending to build a 3-wheel plug-in electric vehicle, into which a city (sorry I forgot that too, something like Saucilito maybe) sunk like 500k+350k USD. Seems a couple of days ago, the CEO called it quits due to the fact that they were under capitalized and unable to attract further investment.
Could it be Aptera? They have been flacking a “tadpole” 3-wheeler, but, of course, need to have all kinds of exemptions from safety requirements for autos to bring it into production. Also, IIRC, for a variety of reasons the prototype working car was significantly different from the mock-up they were showing people.
I’m really curious to see how Mazda’s SkyActiv strategy works out. If it succeeds in improving efficiency as much as they claim while still preserving performance, then this could be revolutionary for Mazda, and could very well push them to the head of the pack in a relatively quick period (I’m serious!). By dedicating their research to conventional fuels (instead of ev’s, hybrids, and so on) Mazda has most certainly chosen to walk a radically different path from most manufacturers, and so still remain under most people’s radar for now. It’s definitely an interesting strategy, and one that has really caught my eye. Of course we won’t know for sure until the new vehicles are actually released, but if they actually perform as well as they claim, watch out!
Mazda’s strategy does make sense in light of some of the basic limitations on hybrid technology: complexity (cost), weight (the battery) and the limitations of batteries themselves. I have always found it significant that the most “successful” in terms of dramatic fuel economy numbers are hybrids that have significantly reduced performance envelopes compared to the gasoline only cars they purport to replace. Put differently: imagine a Prius with a state-of-the art gasoline-only engine (direct injection; maybe a turbo) which produced the same performance envelope as the current vehicle. Add the trick CVT transmission and start-stop technology along with all-electric accessory drive (power steering, a/c, water, etc.). How much less would that car cost, assuming the same margins? What kind of fuel economy would it attain?
Its interesting that Toytota’s less stripped-out Prius-sized “luxury hybrid” (HS 250) achieves less than impressive fuel economy, and other large hybrids without a performance penalty achieve most of their gains over similar gasoline-powered versions in the city cycle, no doubt due in part to stop-start. And the diesel version, where available, is just about a toss-up: (Audi Q5).
If you took out the “hybrid” from a prius, you wouldn’t need the trick planetary CVT, and the all-electric accessory drive would make less sense (you wouldn’t want to run the AC compressor off of a 12V lead acid battery).
Without an electric motor to compensate for the lower low-rpm torque output of the gas engine, you’d probably have to use the conventional otto cycle.
You could probably shave $2k off the sticker price, maybe 200 lbs.
Say:
201x Prius-nohybrid: $21.5k MSRP, 2800 lbs, (say) 32/45 mpg, 38 combined
2012 Civic HF: $19.5k MSRP, 2700 lbs, 29/41 mpg
2012 Cruze Eco: $18.5k MSRP, 2800 lbs, 28/42 mpg
I suspect it wouldn’t be a huge improvement over the existing line of subcompacts.
With these entirely fabricated figures, at $3/gal gas the hybrid model would need to save 700 gallons of gas to break even. Should happen around 110k miles (hybrid: 2200 gal, non-hybrid: 2900 gal).
You need to base your car monthly allowance on your salary and your usage. It also matters what you want to have in the car as far as tech goes. Basically, you have three choices.
#1 Buy a used car that gets decent gas mileage – so you save up front costs on financing.
#2 Buy an inexpensive new car that gets good gas mileage – even though it will cost more to finance than the used.
or:
#3 Buy an expensive hybrid car that gets better gas mileage.
It makes no sense to buy an expensive Hybrid car just to get 40mpg. I tested a KIA OPTIMA HYBRID and felt I’d do better saving the $5000 premium between the hybrid and the regular car if I had to shop in that segment.
http://www.epinions.com/review/2011_Kia_Optima_epi/content_554427059844
I am sure the Optima makes more economic sense than your S550 and breaks down less often.
Exactly who in his right mind would use a Optima hybrid to do a pay-back calculation?
First of all, I never said anything about my cars in this post.
Secondly, My S550 HASN’T BROKEN DOWN OR HAD A SINGLE MAINTENANCE ISSUE IN THE LAST 3 YEARS so HAHAHAHA ! :P
Pretty sad when a gas engine is getting more mileage than a hybrid…
Prius on JC08 driving cycle returns 63 mpg. 70 mpg from a kei car is indeed an improvement, though a small one.
Kei cars are smaller, much slower, much lighter, and likely have very limited safety equipment. Make them cheap enough and they’d no doubt sell well in the US — except for the safety regulations.