Can an older Hybrid run without its battery after it dies?
 

I have a long term Civic Hybrid question in case I buy one and drive the
wheels off of it -

Maintenance you would do on a 3 year old car is a bit more extensive than
what is worth the trouble when it is 10 years old with 150k miles.

Suppose, on a Civic Hybrid with 150k miles, you want to NOT replace the big
battery after it dies. With the little engine alone, its power to weight
ratio is still better than certain Geo Metros. It may be less fun to drive
and less efficient, and I may need to ignore/remove some warning lights, but
is this possible?

regards,
KL

With the little engine alone, its power to weight
> ratio is still better than certain Geo Metros. It may be less fun to drive
> and less efficient, and I may need to ignore/remove some warning lights, but
> is this possible?
>
> regards,
> KL


Hey, you, get out of my way! ;^)

Yes you can still drive it, but where are you going with your logic?

It makes NO ECONOMIC SENSE to buy this car. It is for treehuggers.
You will not recoup the extra cost by saving gas. If you a person who
drives the wheels off a car because it is frugal, then just get a
standard Civic.

> wrote
OP wrote
> With the little engine alone, its power to weight
> > ratio is still better than certain Geo Metros. It may be less fun to
drive
> > and less efficient, and I may need to ignore/remove some warning lights,
but
> > is this possible?

> Yes you can still drive it, but where are you going with your logic?
>
> It makes NO ECONOMIC SENSE to buy this car. It is for treehuggers.
> You will not recoup the extra cost by saving gas. If you a person who
> drives the wheels off a car because it is frugal, then just get a
> standard Civic.

I thought it was a lot closer to making economic sense, and might actually
be rational choice lately, as gas prices approach $3 a gallon and/or one
takes advantage of certain tax credits.

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_afv.shtml for a description of this
(up to $2000 for hybrids purchased in 1992-05) federal tax deduction. If one
is in the 28% tax bracket and can write off $2000, then this is a savings of
$560 on the car. Some states and municipalities also offer financial
incentives for buying a hybrid.

True cost to own, according to www.edmunds.com , 2005 models:
Civic Hybrid $0.39/mile
Toyota Prius $0.42/mile
Toyota Corolla $0.36/mile

These don't take into account the tax break. Also, it appears they're
assuming fuel costs around $2.50 a gallon.

So if one thinks fuel going higher in price, the hybrid might be something
to run further numbers on and so consider.

Googling indicates these are drivable without the battery and without any
major adjustments, and in fact there seems to be some anticipation of having
to deal with "clapped out hybrids" (that is, hybrids that have no battery
boost) as hybrids age. But the fuel efficiency of such cars will be awful. I
would investigate how deleterious to performance driving sans battery will
be, too.

The economic payback thing has held me back from buying this car up until
now. However, now that there are a few Insights and Civics that are 2-5
years old, it may make sense as a used car purchase.

If you assume a Civic EX is the equivalent non-hybrid, and I have little use
for the back seat anyway, then the hybrid civic premium becomes very small
on a used model.

Treating the Insight as equivalent to the used Civic EX, they are about the
same.

I may replace the battery at ~100k miles, but that second battery will
likely not be replaced if it dies. This is my conundrum. Can the car run
from 150k miles to 200k miles with no big battery, just a little car with a
little motor?

Elle > wrote:
> boost) as hybrids age. But the fuel efficiency of such cars will be awful. I
> would investigate how deleterious to performance driving sans battery will

Why would the economy be awful? Running on the freeway, there is little or
no electric charge/assist at cruise.

Some hypermilers try to maintain a "boost" of less than three bars. I find
about six to be normal. If one can deliberately run with three bars, 0
bars wouldn't be far away.

I thought the reason that a 1300cc motor wasn't available on a standard
Civic had more to do with lack of acceptable power than an inability to
deliver high mileage.

> True cost to own, according to www.edmunds.com , 2005 models:

According to Edmunds, the fuel savings is depleted, not in maintenance, but
depreciation. If I look at used 2003 Civics, the Hybrids seem to be priced
$1000 over the EX, and sitting around 18-19,000, far above the Edmunds
prediction of $12,000 (my price of $20,000 - 8800 depreciation).

I spent $1005.8 for 478.9 gallons over 21083 miles in the last 12 months.
If I use the fuel ratio of 1068/799 from Edmunds, that would give me a fuel
savings of $338 last year. That's at an average of $2.10 per gallon, which
might be a thing of the past.

I think I'll recoup my costs during the life of the car. I don't believe I
will ever replace the battery, and if I do, the cost will be under $1000,
because I can already do that with a set of D-Cells off the internet, and
there's no automotive aftermarket for the batteries yet.

And all along, I get to hug the trees, and drive a car that is much nicer
to drive than the conventional Civics.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

> wrote
> Elle > wrote:
> > boost) as hybrids age. But the fuel efficiency of such cars will be
awful. I
> > would investigate how deleterious to performance driving sans battery
will
>
> Why would the economy be awful? Running on the freeway, there is little
or
> no electric charge/assist at cruise.

No dispute, if memory serves me correctly. It's non-highway driving where
the effects should be most noticeable. (Isn't it so that the hybrid cars
biggest fuel econ advantage occurs when driving in the city? The battery
boost occurs on those quick accelerations from a stoplight? Too lazy to
review it all now. Someone else can fill in the blanks. Whence I'll double
check, so be precise and ready with the cuss words. ;-))

> Some hypermilers try to maintain a "boost" of less than three bars. I
find
> about six to be normal. If one can deliberately run with three bars, 0
> bars wouldn't be far away.

I don't know what you mean here. Bars of pressure at some point in the
engine's cycle of operation?

I'm not a goddarned shadetree mechanic. I don't speak colloquialisms.

> I thought the reason that a 1300cc motor wasn't available on a standard
> Civic had more to do with lack of acceptable power than an inability to
> deliver high mileage.

Absolutely, but that lack of power is only unacceptable to stinkin'
Americans.

Some thirty percent of whom are obese, I read yesterday, so it all makes
sense. People can't even squeeze into a friggin' small engine Honda or
Toyota, in the first place...

'course the industry probably makes more profit from biggah cars, too, and
so isn't keen on even offering the Honda Jazz to stinkin' suckah Americans
anyway. Biggah everything.

<Diatribe over.>

> > True cost to own, according to www.edmunds.com , 2005 models:
>
> According to Edmunds, the fuel savings is depleted, not in maintenance,
but
> depreciation. If I look at used 2003 Civics, the Hybrids seem to be
priced
> $1000 over the EX, and sitting around 18-19,000, far above the Edmunds
> prediction of $12,000 (my price of $20,000 - 8800 depreciation).
>
> I spent $1005.8 for 478.9 gallons over 21083 miles in the last 12 months.
> If I use the fuel ratio of 1068/799 from Edmunds, that would give me a
fuel
> savings of $338 last year. That's at an average of $2.10 per gallon,
which
> might be a thing of the past.
>
> I think I'll recoup my costs during the life of the car. I don't believe
I
> will ever replace the battery, and if I do, the cost will be under $1000,
> because I can already do that with a set of D-Cells off the internet, and
> there's no automotive aftermarket for the batteries yet.
>
> And all along, I get to hug the trees, and drive a car that is much nicer
> to drive than the conventional Civics.

I agree one should customize these analysese as you have done. And as you
also say, include the jeux de vivre (that's for George MacDonald) that comes
from saving lives in Iraq as well as trees.

And don't forget the tax credit. :-)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> With the little engine alone, its power to weight
> > ratio is still better than certain Geo Metros. It may be less fun to
drive
> > and less efficient, and I may need to ignore/remove some warning lights,
but
> > is this possible?
> >
> > regards,
> > KL
>
>
> Hey, you, get out of my way! ;^)
>
> Yes you can still drive it, but where are you going with your logic?
>
> It makes NO ECONOMIC SENSE to buy this car. It is for treehuggers.
> You will not recoup the extra cost by saving gas. If you a person who
> drives the wheels off a car because it is frugal, then just get a
> standard Civic.
>
You have a point I agree with. We have a standard Civic LX (03) as a third
car I drive on I 75 several times a week to work. Get right at 37-38 per
gallon of regular running 75 to 80. From what I understand the hybrid Civic
does not do much better than that.

Elle > wrote:
> No dispute, if memory serves me correctly. It's non-highway driving where
> the effects should be most noticeable. (Isn't it so that the hybrid cars
> biggest fuel econ advantage occurs when driving in the city? The battery

The Toyota/Ford-style Hybrid is the one that gets better mileage in the city
than on the highway. They would be unable to operate normally without a
battery. The Civic would be relatively unaffected in the city, I think.

My 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid gets 39 in heavy city driving, 53 at 70 mpg, and
44 overall.
My 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid gets 39 in heavy city driving, 32 at 70 mpg, and
27 overall.

> I don't know what you mean here. Bars of pressure at some point in the
> engine's cycle of operation?

The Honda is very simple to understand. There's a little electric motor
sandwiched between the engine and transmission. The charge/assist gauge
has about 10 "bars" on either side of zero. Full throttle heads over to
the right, braking heads over to the left.

>> I thought the reason that a 1300cc motor wasn't available on a standard
>> Civic had more to do with lack of acceptable power than an inability to
>> deliver high mileage.

> Absolutely, but that lack of power is only unacceptable to stinkin'
> Americans.

For some reason, the underpowered cars that have appeared here were not
very satisfactory for reasons other than their power. They were the
cheapest of the cheap. A startling exception would be a Mercedes 240D, way
underpowered, but otherwise similar to higher powered siblings.

> And don't forget the tax credit. :-)

Tax deduction, not credit. The rich get a better break than the poor.
If there is a $2000 deduction, that could be worth $1700 to someone in the
highest bracket in California, down to $200 for someone in lower brackets.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

TWW > wrote:
> You have a point I agree with. We have a standard Civic LX (03) as a third
> car I drive on I 75 several times a week to work. Get right at 37-38 per
> gallon of regular running 75 to 80. From what I understand the hybrid Civic
> does not do much better than that.

42mpg at 80mph with automatic and air, two passengers, in a Civic Hybrid.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5