wrote:

> In alt.autos.ford John Horner > wrote:
>
>>I doubt that the reduction in emissions is any greater than the
>>improvement in fuel economy. The logic seems to be fundamentally
>>flawed. Burning fuel is where emissions start in the first place. If
>>you aren't burning significantly less fuel, how are you generating
>>significantly fewer emissions?
>
>
> The efficiency of an engine lugging away from a stop is decidely less than
> that same engine at cruising speed. The hybrid assist makes a substantial
> difference there. I think of the hybrid as the opposite of a turbocharger
> in that it has zero boost lag, and provides less power at higher RPM.
>
> Comments in the California EPA test doucments indicate that the current
> hybrids are at the extremes of the ability of the testing to judge certain
> pollutants. Modifications had to be made to the test processes to avoid
> showing zero emissions during the city cycle.
>
> The EPA charts show that the California Escape Hybrid is an improvement
> over the California four cylinder.
>
> Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4
> Standard 6cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:3, 18/22mpg, Greenhouse:4
> Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8
> http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/E-F...capeHEV-05.htm

Ah - but there's a problem with that math. It's parts per million.
That means it's in relation to how much fuel is being burnt, and
if the one vehicle uses 2/3 the fuel, that's 2/3 the net effect
over time. So ist comes in at closer to 5 and 5 if you adjust for
the amount of fuel being consumed.