Another hidden advantage of the hybrid car

We bought a 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid in the spring of 2007, and I have blogged on my experiences with it numerous times in the past (brand new feelings, disappointing mileage,  hypermiling, tire efficiency, taxes,).

One nice advantage is that some maintenance costs are reduced due to the use of the electric motor.  For one, the gas engine runs less and more efficiently than in a regular car, so one can stretch out oil changes a little.

The one that caught my attention recently, though, is brakes.  Our car now has 66,000 miles on it.  When I took it in for regular maintenance the front brake pads, which are still original, look great.  Since many of the hybrid cars on the road use regenerative braking, the brake pads are rarely employed to slow the car.  Instead, the energy to slow the car is used to charge the battery.

So not only do we enjoy the added efficiency of harvesting the brake energy, we also almost never have to purchase new brake pads.  Sweet!

Our Camry hybrid (sixth post)

We purchased our 2007 Toyota Hybrid Camry in March of 2007 and I have previously written about it five times (first, second, third, fourth, fifth postings). 

Now it's 3 1/2 years old, and we are still happy with it--notwithstanding the various stains that have appeared on the upholstery (not Toyota's fault).

Last winter it was time to replace the original tires.  During the Olympics there had been ads about certain tires that claimed they boosted fuel efficiency compared to standard tires.  Also, during the time I worked at EPA, I had a number of conversations about how EPA might help promote more efficient tires to the public.  So I was aware that not all tires are equal when it comes to fuel efficiency.  Tires have what is called "rolling resistance,"  a factor of friction with the road--lower rolling resistance equals less friction, which improves fuel efficiency.  Since we had to replace our tires anyway, it made good sense to look into ways we could boost the fuel efficiency of our car even more, and save some money and emissions at the same time. 


Prior to buying our new tires, the highest mileage we had ever experienced for a complete tank of gas had been about 39 mpg (no--we don't track this ourselves with pad and pencil; the car displays it for us).  Since we bought our new Michelin Energy Saver tires, on two occasions we have exceeded 40 mpg for a full tank.  I don't know for certain if it is because of the tires, since there are a lot of variables associated with driving, but not much else has changed, so it seems plausible that they are contributing to the better mileage.

I also need to brag that once, shortly after I filled up, I drove about 5 miles, and at the end of the trip, my mpg display showed this:



58.7 MPG!!!!  Okay, so it was only for a few miles, but still.

Because our car already gets pretty good mileage, our annual savings will likely be only about 10-20 gallons, saving us $25 - $60 (or more) depending on gas prices.  If they last us five years, we will probably save at least $150.  If gas prices go back up to $4 or more, then our savings will be more--perhaps as much as $350.  In the end, the savings will completely pay for one or two of the tires, and reduce greenhouse gases by 1000-2000 pounds.

Because of where we live, we have now saved almost $4000 on taxes by owning this car.  There are a variety of local and state incentives you will want to consider if you are in the market for a new car.

Used Car vs. New Car (Reprise)

A couple of weeks ago I posted my take on the environmental impact of buying new vs. used (see post here). I received a thoughtful email from a reader in Colorado:
-----------------------------

Steve:
I have been thinking about the same question. When buying/trading used cars does MPG matter to the environment?

Most people, rightfully, want to do the right thing for the environment and get more fuel efficient vehicles. But let's go in the opposite direction for the sake of argument.

Let's say that at a used car dealership I hand in my Honda Civic and purchase your Ford Behemoth (and you do the same in the opposite direction) was our transaction environmentally net-net?

I would think so since both cars are in use. Your article seems to point to the same conclusion. Does this abdicate used car buyers from considering fuel efficiency in their purchases and trades?

While I agree wholeheartedly that NEW car purchases need to be as environmentally friendly as possible, to guide manufacturers towards more fuel efficient vehicles. I think that used car purchases are just shuffling owners. The miles in each car need to be 'used up' prior to it's replacement in the U.S./Global fleet with a (hopefully) more fuel efficient model.

I might even go so far as to argue that if you maintain your Ford Guzzler you are doing the environment a favor by keeping it out of the hands of a secondary market. Many of our cars that are highly used end up auctioned and sent to Central and South America, where people may not be able to afford to keep them running as efficiently as possible - or where they would not be subject to stringent emissions monitoring. (A statement of economic inequality, not character.) Where I live near Denver you can watch them parade on Wednesdays from the Used Car Auctions down I-25 headed south towards Juarez, Mexico. Will their new owners have the means to optimally maintain the functioning of the vehicle to ensure minimal environmental impact?

Such thinking would also lead me to believe that a Cash-for-Clunkers would have a long term, net benefit by taking the guzzlers out of the total fleet faster. Obviously, such thinking then also points to the efficacy of raising CAFE standards.

Thanks - I enjoyed your article!
------------------------
And thanks for reading and commenting.
Here's one more twist to think about. I have a colleague who suggests that as long as CAFE standards are in effect and the manufacturer you purchase from is not exceeding CAFE, then by buying a fuel efficient car you are just allowing the manufacturer to sell another less efficient (and more profitable) one, because they can do so and still keep their fleet average above the limit. There's probably a bit of truth to that--CAFE regulates a fleet average, and your purchase is just part of that overall average. However, it's a pretty complicated system (details here), so I'm not confident of my opinion. And all in all, I think the economic signal sent by purchasing a more fuel efficient car is the right signal to send, so I'll stand by my original post.

Fuel Taxes/Price vs. Efficiency Standards

The Obama administration has thankfully changed course from the previous adminstration and is allowing California to set greenhouse gas requirements for cars (essentially creating fuel efficiency standards). Much of the reason cars have continued to be built so inefficiently is because fuel costs have been very low for a long time. I agree with the idea that increasing fuel prices will reduce miles driven and will also help drive the market for more efficient cars, but higher fuel prices (through taxes or other means) will not drive the market for more fuel efficient cars all by themselves. Efficiency requirements must be part of the policy, too.

Here's why.

• Decisions about fuel efficiency are made by car manufacturers.
• Car manufacturers sell their cars to new car buyers.
• New car buyers are wealthier than the population as a whole and fuel costs make up a smaller portion of their income and spending. ($85,000 avg. household income for new car buyers in 2003 according to J. D. Power)

Therefore new car buyers are less influenced by fuel prices than used car buyers and lower income households are--the ones who are most affected by higher fuel prices. New car buyers often consider other features: safety, GPS, style, perceived utility, etc. ahead of fuel efficiency--even at $4 or $5 per gallon. Cars that are built this year will exist for 13-17 years through several owners and their fuel efficiency is locked in for the life of the car.

If fuel prices are raised high enough (say, $7-$8 gallon) to affect the purchasing decisions of new car buyers, the buyers of used cars will be bearing the brunt of the high priced fuel, because they will own the less efficient, older cars.