# Oil Hits $55/Barrel: Time To Trade In That SUV? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2005, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067 "2005-03-05T09:26:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/101 "2005-03-09T20:03:14Z")
Sorry, one more thing, I mispoke when I said “small car.” I was talking in reference to SUV’s where cars are, well, small, even though they are classified by the DOT as a medium or large car. Sorry if that was confusing, and again, you’re right, a very small or small car according to the DOT classification system is not safer than an SUV, but even a medium size passenger car is safer than most SUV’s. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/102 "2005-03-09T21:08:28Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re confusing “need to drive over snowy roads” with “overestimating their vehicle’s safety and abilities,” well I think that’s an inherent risk of SUV’s. Though I’m sure overestimating the SUV’s abilities are a factor, I was really pointing out that people who will/must drive in poor weather are more likely to get into a accident. And if you are one who will/must drive in bad weather you will be more willing to get a car w/ 4/AWD which really means a SUV. This does not mean by itself that SUV’s are a factor. > [@](#): > > these statistics have been adjusted or pro-rated for driver age, gender, urban/rural driving, and "other factors. Fatalities have been adjusted per billion miles driven, I can accept the statement, but don’t know what it means for the numbers you cited. It is somewhat of a surprise to see that small SUV’s did better then mid size SUV’s ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/103 "2005-03-09T22:22:28Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > We’re still not to Arab-oil-embargo-level of pricing yet. Nowhere close. [Actually, that’s not quite so](http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm); it just depends on **which** embargo we’re talking about. But the linked graph shows that current prices, adjusted for inflation, are above those of the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo that followed the Yom Kippur war. (Assume current prices just over $2/gallon, and ~3% inflation between 2003 and 2005.) But gas prices are still well below where they were in the post-Shah oil crisis of 1979-80; if that’s what you were specifically thinking about, you’re absolutely right. [Here’s an interesting little graphic](http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/chemistry/petroleum/knowl/4/2index.htm?oilcost.html) about where a barrel of oil goes. This stuff is probably old news to **Una** , but it’s stuff I’d had little exposure to. Apparently a typical barrel of crude oil is separated out into several different products by a high-temperature distilling process; gasoline is just one of those products. About 19.5 gallons of the 42-gallon barrel gets turned into gasoline; the rest gets turned into kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, lubricants, and other fun stuff. If the cost of a barrel goes up by $10, and that cost hike is evenly distributed amongst the various petroleum products, then the price of gasoline should go up by about 24¢ as a result, ignoring increases in energy costs involved in transport and refining. So the difference between last year’s $30/barrel oil and this year’s $55/barrel oil, should theoretically be about 60¢ at the pump. IOW, enough to cause last year’s $1.40/gallon to jump to this year’s $2/gallon. [Theoretical blather] However, it’s safe to say that demand for some products and not others will drive the demand to pump more crude out of the ground. And, let’s face it, gasoline seems to be the driver. If that’s the case, then increased oil prices are responding to increased gasoline demand, which drives production, which potentially creates gluts of (or at least eases demand pressures for) the other petroleum products. If the world already has enough kerosene, and refining oil produces still more, kerosene prices will go _down_, not up, and gasoline prices will make up the difference. If the prices of all the other products of a barrel of oil stayed fixed, then 100% of the price increase in a 42-gallon barrel of oil would have to show up in the pump price of those 19.5 gallons of gas. Which would mean a $10/barrel hike would translate into 51¢ at the pump. You’d need someone knowledgeable in this particular marketplace to tell you how (un)evenly the price increase of a barrel of oil will be spread over its component products. I’m not that person. [/Theoretical blather] Now, let’s talk about that SUV. **Balthisar** , again: > [@](#): > > Generally people that can afford an SUV can afford the gasoline for one. Makes sense to me. Suppose that SUV cost you $30K, which translates into, say, payments of $650 a month, or $7800/year. And let’s say you’re paying another $1,367/year (to make our later arithmetic nicer) in insurance, tags, and routine maintenance. And let’s suppose it gets a puny 15mpg (I know, most SUVs do better than this - but if I prove the point for the worst case, it’ll be true for all the others) and you drive it 25,000 miles a year, which means buying 1,666.66… gallons of gas a year. If you were paying $1.40/gallon last year, and now you’re paying $2/gallon, that’s an increase in your gasoline costs from $2,333 to $3,333. So your total annual cost of owning the SUV just skyrocketed 😛 from $11,500 to $12,500 annually. That’s an 8.7% increase, as a result of the cost of oil nearly doubling. So unless you could only barely afford the SUV last year, you shouldn’t be terribly distressed this year; there’s no point in getting rid of your Ford Expedition before its time. But if gas prices keep going up, then whenever it’s ready to die anyway, you might want to replace it with something that gets better mileage, to the extent that your lifestyle allows. A Honda Element can carry that 4x8 sheet of plywood. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/104 "2005-03-09T23:08:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles > > Minivans 2.76 > Large 4-door cars 3.30 > Large 4-door SUVs 3.79 > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07 > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26 > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73 > Compact pickup trucks 6.82 > Small 4-door cars 7.85 > Very small 4-door cars 11.56 I don’t understand how we quote the same information, and you draw completely different conclusions from it. I’ve rearranged the above table in order of least to greatest driver fatalities. Besides your appeal to emotion regarding how you _care_ about other people, it is disingenuous to hold to your claim that data somehow supports your original claim that an “SUV simply isn’t safer than a small car”. From the above list, the top 5 of the top 7 are large vehicles (the minivan) or SUVs. The top category is a minivan, also generally considered a larger vehicle. Only 2 of the top 7 is a sedan. Your claim that SUVs are not safer is wrong. Only Large 4 doors have a lower fatality risk than SUVs, where a large SUV outperforms very small, small, and midsize 4 doors. > [@](#): > > you at least managed to read what I posted. > [@](#): > > Truly, the ability to read a government report and cherry pick half arguments that seem to support SUV-safety is amazing. > [@](#): > > silly me, placing value on the human lives outside of your own vehicle > [@](#): > > I know that thinking about others safety and not killing other people is crazy to some people, but it doesn’t seem that wild to me. > [@](#): > > Assuming it won’t totally destroy your manhood,… First the accusation of cherry picking, and now you’re questioning my manhood? What are you, 8 years old? I wonder if you can make a post without childish sarcasm or petty jabs. Here are your claims: > [@](#): > > … SUV drivers are actually at a higher fatalaty risk than car drivers due to the SUV’s role-over risk, how exactly do you justify this stupidity. > [@](#): > > At any rate,\*\* the added roll-over risk of SUV’s makes them less safe than regular sedans\*\*, although they are indeed better off in direct collisions. > [@](#): > > … that doesn’t negate the fact that you’re still less safe in an SUV. The actual fatalaty rates are simply higher. > [@](#): > > …but the fact is that **the SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car**. It may feel that way, but the actual fatality rates simply don’t back it up. Based on the cited information, are you standing behind those claims? Makes you look rather silly, if you ask me. What’s next, my mother wears army boots? ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/105 "2005-03-10T00:14:36Z")
Look, don’t get all huffy and take this to personally because the actual fatality rates don’t support your assertion. The comments about the minivans were tongue in cheek and not directed towards you. Honestly, I wouldn’t buy a minivan either, just, well, because. The cherry-picking assertion was perhaps a bit unfounded, but I still don’t understand how you can look at this information and see that SUV’s clear safety advantage for the driver is worth the added risk they pose to other individuals. The comments about you disregard for the safety of others stand. You’re right, a large SUV is better than a medium or small sized sedan, but not as good as a large sedan. When comparing across similarly sized vehicles, the sedans come ahead in safety. I’m sorry if I’ve come off as to personal, it just really irks me that there are people that treat others safety as so unimportant in choosing a vehicle. If you do choose an SUV for safety reasons, at least make it from a manufacturer like Volvo or some other newer designs that take into thought “crash compatibility” by adding structural elements at the lowest points along the bumpers so that clearance isn’t harmed but you’ll present less of a risk to other drivers. I’m going to rearrange this data one last time by comparing similarly sized cars and SUV’s and fatality rates. Adjusted driver fatalities per billion miles: Car SUV Large: 3.30 3.79 Car wins Medium: 5.26 6.73 Car wins Small: 7.85 5.68 SUV wins ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/106 "2005-03-10T01:14:30Z")
> [@](#): > > If the world already has enough kerosene, and refining oil produces still more, kerosene prices will go down, not up, and gasoline prices will make up the difference. hmmm. Kerosene = Jet fuel. Retrofit time 😃 . With the added benifit of keeping the cars windshield behind me free from snow and ice. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/107 "2005-03-10T01:43:24Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > …but the fact is that the **SUV simply isn’t any safer than a small car**. It may feel that way, but the actual fatality rates simply don’t back it up. [quote=threemae] > [@threemae](#): > > Small: 7.85 5.68 SUV wins Is this your way of retracting your erroneous statement? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/108 "2005-03-10T01:50:20Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > hmmm. Kerosene = Jet fuel. Ya learn something new every day! (With ‘Ya’ = ‘me’ in this particular instance. :)) I knew jet fuel had to be _somewhere_ in that mix, but kerosene calls to mind (at least to mine) kerosene stoves, kerosene lanterns…kinda nineteenth-century images. Now I know better. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/109 "2005-03-10T02:15:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I knew jet fuel had to be somewhere in that mix, but kerosene calls to mind (at least to mine) kerosene stoves, kerosene lanterns…kinda nineteenth-century images. Now I know better. Surprised me too. Sort of like running a microwave oven on candle wax. 🙂 In an odd kind of turn about, higher fuel prices may actually help me in the short 5 to 10 year term, since higher fuel prices may bring down SUV prices. I will be needing a new SUV in 1-3 years. The lower cost of the vehical will help offset the increased fuel prices. At least to some degree. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/110 "2005-03-10T02:33:15Z")
[Because if he’s a reputable source, he’s got some interesting things to say.](http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/238338932.shtml) He sure looks like the real thing: > [@](#): > > Simmons knows whereof he speaks. He views the world oil supply picture from the vantage point of 30 years’ experience as founder of Simmons & Company International, Houston, which today is one of the world’s largest energy investment banking groups. Since opening the company’s first office in Houston back in 1974, Simmons and his group have guided a broad client base to complete more than 500 oil and gas investment banking projects with a combined dollar value of some $58 billion. So if he is all that, this carries some weight: > [@](#): > > But if he’s right in his belief that Saudi Arabia’s giant oil fields might already have peaked and could start into rapid decline in as few as three years, somebody better have a “Plan B” ready or there’s no way, he says — absolutely no way — to avoid a world energy cataclysm. In a nutshell, he points out that, despite Aramco claims that Saudi Arabia has lots of oilfields, and plenty of untapped ones, six oilfields produce essentially all of S.A.'s output, they all date back to the 1960s or earlier, and he claims that S.A.'s been pumping water into them to keep being able to produce at full capacity. And he points out that other oilfields that have used this trick have seen production peter out. Another thing he points out is that all we really have to go on about S.A.'s reserves is the word of Aramco’s management. They say the oil’s there; believe them or not. I’m of the “trust, but verify” school, personally. [And then there’s this piece, authored by Simmons](http://www.worldoil.com/Magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2486): > [@](#): > > Lack of spare capacity exists at every step of the supply chain. From drilling and producing, to transportation, and on to processing, there is little or no spare capacity available to accommodate demand growth similar to that in 2004. > > If any spare wellhead capacity still exists, it is for crude that is both heavy and sour. The refineries that are equipped to refine this type of crude are currently operating at 100% capacity. Compounding this problem is the fact that the world’s light sweet crude supply is also in decline. Almost 90% of new oil projects produce oil that is either sour, heavy, or both. > > The world’s network of crude oil pipelines also is now operating at virtually 100% capacity. For most of 2004, the world’s tanker system operated at full capacity, too. This sparked an unprecedented rise in tanker rates, which added up to $5 to $6 per barrel to the wellhead price of oil in some key long-haul export routes. > > The fleet of high-quality drilling rigs is now close to 100% utilized, even though utilization remains soft in drilling markets like the Gulf of Mexico, Venezuela and the North Sea. A high percentage of the offshore drilling fleet is approaching an age that used to signal obsolescence, yet the global capacity to replace even 10% to 15% of the existing fleet over the next five years is almost non-existent. Many of these capacity bottlenecks can be corrected over time, assuming sufficient investment is made. The industry must begin replacing the aging rig fleet, but fleet expansion is also required to drill more wells and fight the growing decline curve. > > A lack of qualified manpower is looming high on the list of capacity problems. In addition to the many layoffs and downsizing events that our industry has endured, we’ve only been hiring a handful of entry level employees each year. As a consequence, we now have an aging workforce at a time when the technical intensity of the industry is increasing each year. This manpower issue is an industry-wide problem and there is little evidence that anyone is creating a plan for resolving the problem. Food for thought. ---
**Author:** ![pmwgreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@pmwgreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pmwgreen)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/111 "2005-03-10T03:01:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Very small 4-door cars 11.56 I came in late and maybe other people have made this point… I drive 20 miles a day. If I’m driving the worst car on the list, I am to expect a fatality 11.56 times in a billion miles, which is … let me see… every 11,800 years…approx. That’s assuming I don’t go on any long car trips. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/112 "2005-03-10T05:38:00Z")
But a fatality is guaranteed on your next road trip to Saturn in your Saturn. My advise would be to bring a disposable passenger should the need arise. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/113 "2005-03-11T02:22:46Z")
**pmwgreen** : I wouldn’t be too sanguine about it. The numbers work out to be that in the U.S., the number of deaths caused by motor vehicles is about 2% of all deaths. When you consider the fact that a lot of the other deaths are associated with diseases strongly linked to age, motor vehicle deaths are really quite an important cause of significantly premature deaths in this country…Certainly, something worth worrying about a lot more than many of the things people actually do worry about (like dying in the crash of a commercial airliner). And, of course, for every person killed in an automobile accident, I imagine there are many more people who are quite severely injured. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/114 "2005-03-11T02:25:32Z")
Or…Another way to look at it is that since September 11th, 2001, about 40X as many people have been killed (and many more injured) in automobile accidents than died in the terrorist attacks of that day. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/115 "2005-03-11T02:43:04Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > But you’re right about hybrid SUVs and pickups. And in a lot of ways, they are even more practical than small hybrid cars, because a small hybrid car does not represent a quantum leap in mileage over equivalent non-hybrid compact cars. A Prius is not substantially better in gas mileage than, say, a Toyota Echo. But a hybrid Ford Escape gets almost double the mileage of a non-hybrid version. The new [Lexus RX-400h](http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/suvs/0503_lexus_rx400h/) not only gets 30mpg in the city, but it has over 400hp available, making it one hell of a performer as well. > > … > > Vehicles like the Prius are not the future of hybrids. They are niche vehicles that require compromises in performance or size to achieve their high mileage, and therefore will generally appeal only to a small subset of the car buying public. Woah…Why are you comparing the Prius to an Echo but then comparing the Escape to its non-hybrid version? Are you aware that the 2004 Prius has almost the same interior room as a Camry…and similar performance to the Camry. If you compare these two vehicles then the mileage numbers (based on Consumer Reports real world driving tests, not EPA figures) is 24mpg for the Camry and 44mpg for the Prius and you are giving up, at most, a tiny bit in terms of interior space and acceleration. (The 0-60mph acceleration of the Prius is a little slower according to CR, but my guess is that something like the 0-30 or 0-40 acceleration might actually be quicker as the Prius is really peppy in that range.) And, by the way, the 2004 Prius is #1 in Consumer Report’s survey on owner satisfaction…94% of the 1640 survey respondents who own or less a 2004 Prius said they would definitely get one again. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/116 "2005-03-11T03:09:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > A > One of the hybrid issues pointed out is the heater/a/c caused a big drop in mpg (BTW pneumatic systems could be used for heating and a/c). This may require a redesign of such systems from the ground up. Heating might be converted to heat pumps and there may be a phase change heat (or ‘cold’) storage device Actually, the 2004 Prius has an electrical compressor and I didn’t really find the a/c caused a significant drop in gas mileage (although admittedly it doesn’t get as strong a workout here in Rochester as it would if I lived in hotter climes). On the other hand, driving in the Rochester winter does cause a substantial drop in mileage, especially if, like me, you seldom drive more than 15 or 20 minutes, which is barely enough time for it to really warm up. My mileage has gone from ~50-52mpg in the summer down to ~37-38mpg in the dead of winter. I think some of the problem is due to the heater. However, there are other issues too…The engine also has to run more just to keep itself and the catalytic converter warmed up so the car can get its very low SULEV emissions. But, some of it may be due to factors that affect all cars…My Plymouth Colt used to drop in mileage from upper 30s in the summer to lower 30s in the winter (although that also included a switch from all-season to snow tires). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/117 "2005-03-11T03:58:44Z")
A regular car will also loose mileage in winter but not nearly to the extent that you are experiencing. It’s still good gas mileage however you look at it. What I don’t understand are the Prius owners who don’t get anything near 50 mpg. I’m guessing it involves a certain driving situation such as hilly terrain. The only thing I don’t like about the car is the steer-by-wire system. According to the salesman I talked with, there is no direct connection between the steering wheel and the road wheels. Toyota sold the first generation hybrid technology to GM so maybe we’ll see more of it. Ford has a hybrid SUV but that’s something of an oxymoron. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/118 "2005-03-11T04:00:51Z")
I don’t know about the Prius/Camry comparison. The Prius does 0-60 in just under 11 seconds. The Camry with its 157 HP engine does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. That’s not a small difference - it’s a HUGE difference. The Camry with that engine gets 32/23 city/hwy mileage. From this cite - [Why the Prius Mileage may differ from the manufacturer’s estimate](http://www.idealog.us/2004/05/why_your_toyota.html): > [@](#): > > Drivers rarely see the actual EPA-rated mileage in the real world, according to John DiPietro, road-test editor of automotive website [Edmunds.com](http://Edmunds.com). DiPietro says most drivers will get between 75 to 87 percent of the rated mileage, with individual variations based on driving habits and traffic route. “If a new car gets less than 75 percent of its EPA rating, then it should be retested.” > > Data from independent product-testing organization Consumer Reports indicates that hybrid cars get less than 60 percent of EPA estimates while navigating city streets. In Consumer Reports’ real-world driving test, the Civic Hybrid averaged 26 mpg in the city, while the Toyota Prius averaged 35 mpg, much less than their respective EPA estimates of 47 and 60 mpg. Hybrid cars performed much closer to EPA estimates in Consumer Reports’ highway tests. Don’t get me wrong - I think the Prius is a great vehicle. But it’s an example of making quite a few compromizes to extract the best mileage it can - it rolls on small wheels, its shape is optimized for low drag and looks a bit strange (or beautiful, depending on your POV). It’s a niche car like a sports car is, appealing to people who take extra pride or joy in owning a state-of-the-art efficient car. But the masses don’t really care about that stuff. If you want to sell them on the vehicle’s mileage, you have to convince them that what they are giving up in price or features is worth it. That’s a pretty hard sell for a lot of people. That’s why I think the future of hybrids is the fact that you can make a hybrid that’s better in almost every way than a conventional car. You don’t NEED to make compromises, as long as you’re not shooting for ultimate gas mileage. Take that Lexus RX-400h - It gets around 30 mpg in the city. They could have gotten more out of it by making it lighter, leaving out the premium sound system, the electric seat heaters, and all the fancy bits that add weight and consume power. But the way it is now, it’s better in every measurable way than the RX-300. It’s faster, it’s got more bells and whistles, AND almost twice the mileage. That’s a winning combination. The reason the Ford Escape hybrid has drawn so much attention is because of that very reason - average people want hybrid efficiency, but they don’t want to drive a strange looking car with sub-par acceleration to get it. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Hybrids allow for that, which is why they are so damned good. My prediction is that within five years 25% of the new cars sold will be hybrids, and plug-in hybrids will be the cutting edge like the Prius is now. Within ten years, probably 3/4 of new vehicles will be hybrids. And that’s a great development. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/119 "2005-03-11T04:11:19Z")
I should add that the RX-400h probably suffers from the same mileage-inflation as other hybrids, so maybe it only gets low 20’s in the city. That’s still way better than the conventional vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067/120 "2005-03-11T04:13:18Z")
WOW. A civic hybrid gets 26 in town. That’s terrible. My 2000 Saturn with an automatic gets 33 around town and 36/37 on the highway and I do not drive in the slow lane. Maybe Saturn should slap a hybrid sticker on it. If gas goes over $3 gallon I expect the hybrids will become more popular and thus cheaper as competition kicks in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oil-hits-55-barrel-time-to-trade-in-that-suv/293067.md?page=7)