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

[K. E. Loyd]

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

 

[jmattis]

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.

 

[dold]

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.

Ah, but what about buying a used one after the batteries dies, and the first owner decides to sell it at a loss, instead of replacing the batteries?

Now you have a nicely appointed car that can get 50mpg on the highway. Maybe more, after taking the dead weight out of the trunk.

 

[Elle (3)]

With the little engine alone, its power to weight

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.

 

[K. E. Loyd]

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?

 

[dold]

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.

 

[Elle (3)]

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.

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.

 

[TWW]

With the little engine alone, its power to weight

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.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

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?

No.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

With the little engine alone, its power to weight

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

Yes you can still drive it,

No, he can't.

Look for the starter. Not there. Why? IMA is the starter.

There are a lot of gotchas invovled here.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Ah, but what about buying a used one after the batteries dies, and the first owner decides to sell it at a loss, instead of replacing the batteries?

Now you have a nicely appointed car that can get 50mpg on the highway. Maybe more, after taking the dead weight out of the trunk.

Can't push start it, can you?

It'll get GREAT mileage sitting in your driveway--because that's all it can do.

 

[dold]

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.

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.

 

[dold]

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.

 

[dold]

Can't push start it, can you?

It'll get GREAT mileage sitting in your driveway--because that's all it can do.

Sorry, Elmo, I just don't believe you know what you are talking about.

 

[dold]

No, he can't.

Look for the starter. Not there. Why? IMA is the starter.

The starter is a little hard to spot, but it is there, on the front side of the engine, down low.

There are a lot of gotchas invovled here.

Lack of a "normal" starter motor not being one of them.

 

[dold]

No.

Why is that?

 

[Elle (3)]

wrote: snip

No, he can't.

Look for the starter. Not there. Why? IMA is the starter.

There are a lot of gotchas invovled here.

But then there are reports like the following:

"The Honda IMA system allows cars to drive without battery assist at all.....for example, I drive a 2004 Civic Hybrid and I ran my battery all the way down to the last bar this week, and the car drove fine...I lost "battery assisted power" so that it if I had been racing someone I might have been in trouble, but the car drove just fine and did not fail in any fashion." Posted April, 2005 at http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef22e54

Another poster backed this point up, saying the Prius would fail if the big battery failed, but the Honda Civic Hybrid would still run.

Same point made at
http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/hsd-vs-ima-vs.2535.html?page=2

"f the IMA dies (or with age-the battery is weak), it doesn't matter. The Honda can still operate as a pure gasoline car. You can avoid an expensive ~$2000 repair bill, and still use your car."

Lastly, from http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enrestart.html , on the Honda Insight, which also has an IMA system:
Under most conditions, the Insight engine is started by the IMA motor, which instantly spins the engine to 1000 rpm.

The Insight also has a conventional 12v auxiliary starter motor that is used in the following situations:

The state of charge of the Battery Module is too low.
The ambient temperature is too high or too low.
There is a failure of the IMA system.
Because the Insight won't enter idle stop mode in any of the above situations, all engine starts other than the initial start will always be done using the IMA motor.

To test the 12v auxiliary starting system, first disable the IMA starting system by removing fuse #2 from the under-dash fusebox.
-----

 

[Elle (3)]

The Toyota/Ford-style Hybrid is the one that gets better mileage in the city than on the highway.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the _increase_ in fuel mileage that results from driving a Hybrid instead of a non-hybrid, in both city and highway conditions. The increase is greater in the city, by my recollection.

They would be unable to operate normally without a
battery. The Civic would be relatively unaffected in the city, I think.

I was just perusing some reviews of the Civic hybrid, where stuff like the following is noted:

"The weirdest sensation is when you stop at traffic lights and the engine automatically shuts off to save fuel. As soon as you put the car in gear and touch the gas pedal the engine fires up without any hesitation. A small icon in the left-hand gauge indicates when the engine has shut off.

It's important to remember that this is first and foremost a gasoline-powered car. Under normal driving conditions, the gas engine is the primary source of power. The electric motor only provides power when extra oomph is needed for passing, accelerating or climbing a grade. (This is the opposite of how many people think it operates.) At other times (when decelerating and under braking) the electric motor turns into a generator to recharge the 144-volt battery pack. The mode of the electric motor is indicated in a bar graph in the right hand gauge in the instrument cluster."

http://honda.jbcarpages.com/Civic/2003Hybrid/index2.php

To me, this means that the hybrid performs much better in the city, as far as fuel mileage is concerned, compared to the non-hybrid. Cruising, the hybrid should be more similar to the non-hybrid.

And, yes, I see now what the "bar" terminology means. Gawd, talk about "car vocabulary for dummies... " All right, most car drivers are dummies when it comes to how their car engine systems work.

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

Yes, but the big improvement over a conventional Civic is the city driving fuel mileage. That's what I was trying to say, anyway.

 

[dold]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the _increase_ in fuel mileage that results from driving a Hybrid instead of a non-hybrid, in both city and highway conditions. The increase is greater in the city, by my recollection.

Right. At cruising speeds, the Honda is just a gas engine, with the electric IMA available.

The biggest difference is in the Ford/Toyota style, in the city. There, the difference could be double.

Yes, but the big improvement over a conventional Civic is the city driving fuel mileage. That's what I was trying to say, anyway.

The Honda City EPA is 47 hybrid, 31 non, a 51% boost
The Honda Hiwy EPA is 48 hybrid, 38 non, a 25% boost
The highway mileage estimate is pretty good, The city seems high, so I don't know how that really ranks compared to the non-hybrid.

The Ford/Toyota Hybrid is dramatically different in the city, and might be disappointing on the highway. The Ford 4wd automatic Hybrid/V6/I4 city is 33/18/19, 83%. The Ford 4wd automatic Hybrid/V6/I4 hiwy is 29/22/22, 33%. Comparing the 2wd Hybrid CVT to normal 4 cyl, manual trans City is 36/24, 50%. Highway is 31/29, only 7%.

In order to recoup the premium, it needs lots of miles, but on the highway, it might not be the best choice. The Yellow Cab fleet in San Francisco should come out okay.

 

[MAT]

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?

Get the Jazz next year and be done with it. If I was to consider such a zany idea, I would get a motorcycle and take the bus when I couldn't ride.