OK, a hybrid will only go a short distance in EV mode, but the point is that it will happen multiple times in a journey. Even on the motorway doing 70mph, when you get onto a level or down hill section and coast, it will often switch to EV mode. It does make a difference to the fuel economy. I did a short round trip of about 30 miles in my Jazz this morning, including a section of the M3 and the computer was showing over 70mpg by the time I got home.

With regards to self charging hybrids, how much benefit will depend on how you drive and the type of journeys you do. If you drive on the motorway for the most part, and regularly exceed the speed limit, any benefit would be minimal. Also, while they may not go very far on battery power alone, they will do that multiple times per journey, so it will build up and it does count. As for the weight, difficult to properly compare like for like because some cars are lighter or heavier than other cars in the same category. But, for an example, according to the figures in the reviews section of this website, the last of the previous shape Yaris, in hybrid Icon spec weighs only 25kg more than the n/a 1.5 CVT.

Sticking with the Yaris and going back to how it is driven, I've read owners reviews claiming 70mpg+ for the hybrid, where around 20mpg less seems to be the usual for the n/a 1.5. Taking that into account, and other owner reviews of hybrid cars, it does seem that the size of benefit can vary dramatically, with the highest benefit being achieved by folk who make a point in learning how to get the best out of a self charging hybrid system (which doesn't mean driving slow all the time)

PHEV's, if used for a short commute, and assuming you can charge at home, can result in phenomenal 'mpg' figures by way of the ICE never, or hardly, being used.

Ignoring the price differences, I'd be very happy to have a Yaris self charging hybrid. But including them?, much as they appeal, the price difference in combination with how little miles I cover (with the car) means it would probably take 20 years for the extra cost of the hybrid to be cancelled out by the better economy!.

Edited by mcb100 on 26/10/2021 at 14:47

Aussie motoring journo John Cadogan recent did a video on this subject, summed up by YMMV. It really depends on your driving pattern, where you drive and how long you intend to keep the car.

He also mentioned that it's nigh on impossible to get an accurate cradle-to grave carbon footprint on cars, especially as regards of all the mining, manufacture/assembly and disposal/recycling of parts, especially as it's difficult to check the mix of electricity production and fuel usage of every vehicle, piece of machinery and person responsible.

Note that many people have had serious difficulties owning hybrid vehciles who do low amounts of short-distance driving, because both the 'ICE' regular battery and the hybrid ones regularly go flat (especially the former) because there is little opportunity to charge them up, leading to vastly shorter lifespans.

As I often point out, those who advocate people buying EVs conveniently forget that many people in the aforementioned situation also are either not well off and/or live in homes (flats, terraced houses, etc) that fitting EV chargers is physically impossible, incredibly expensive or prohibitive due to high crime (vandalism) in their area.

In many cases, such cars are parked well away from the property and not in an 'allocated space', often on ordinary streets where there may not be a lamp-post that could take a charger - assuming one wasn't vandalised etc whilst unattended.

As such, for the moment at least, an ICE petrol car is still really the only viable option. Perhaps when EV and replacement battery pack prices come down significantly (noting that a large percentage of this groups will be buying cars in the [2021 prices] the under £5k price bracket (possibly under £2k) and where widespread, standardised and reliable fast-chargers are available can this large group be attracted away from ICE-only.

Standard hybrids and PHEVs are all well and good, but unless they are used as intended, all they are are under-powered, heavy cars dragging dead weight around with more and expensive components to go wrong and to replcae when they do.

To make best use of them, owners also need to keep them for a reasonable amount of time and do a significant amount of mileage - but mainly on roads which a conducive to their supposed green credentials - i.e. not longer trips and/or on motorways, but more urban driving.

I'm coming in a bit late on this discussion, but just thought I'd recount my experiences with our Honda CR-V AWD Hybrid, which we've now had for just over two years.

The CR-V has a 2 litre Atkinson cycle engine, plus a transmission which Honda call i-MMD (interactive multi mode drive). I don't believe it's a CVT, but I think Honda have recentl started referring to it as such. However it works, it's a very smooth drive, with no gearchanges, so you essentially just get a smooth build up of speed. It has a sport setting which with the instant torque from the electric motor gives it a good turn of speed from low down - I occasionally put it in sport just for fun :-)

It obviously has regenerative braking, but also flappy paddle paddles to increase or decrease regeneration, unlike the Jazz which has the B setting on the gearchange - I also believe the latest Jazz has an artificially induced changing of gear sensation.

Overall brim to brim MPG over 2 years, running virtually exclusively on E5, is 42mpg, with a best of 47mpg. It drops in the winter, but my theory is that the ICE runs more in the winter to provide heat to the passenger cabin. So respectable economy for a heavy 2-litre petrol SUV IMHO. We live in Austria and have done a couple of long distance motorway runs to the UK, and cruising between 130-160kph the fuel consumption dropped to a tad under 40mpg. Some of the time it was running on E10. The AWD version carries more weight around than the 2WD, so I'd expect the latter to be more economical.

On the motorway, it cruises well, although at higher speeds it picks up speed a little more slowly. It never really sounds frantic.

All in all, I accept we'll never recoup our outlay on choosing a hybrid over a normal ICE. The only other option when we bought ours was a 1.5 turbo, but we'd have wanted the auto anyway, so that slightly offset the price difference. We bought it for what we believe are better green credentials. There's too much emphasis on costs when comparisons are made between the two, but it's not always all about money is it?

To summarise, we love the car - it's relaxing to drive, and is probably as good as we'll get in terms of economy for a good-sized automatic SUV with a petrol engine. And being a Honda, we've had no glitches or problems to date.

This discussion can take in various side-issues without reaching any clear conclusions. But, reduced to basic essentials, any vehicle is a box on wheels with one or more means of propulsion. Propelling it requires energy which will depend mainly on physical factors such as weight, rolling and wind resistance, and other well-known variables which have little to do with how it is propelled.

The energy needed to propel can come from fuel carried on board (ICE) or stored in a large heavy battery charged by some external means. Claiming 70 or 80+ mpg is thus rather an illusion, as the calculated gallons represent only part of the energy actually used.

Using two forms of propulsion is 'inefficient' in the sense that it adds to the weight of the vehicle, and one or other motor is idle at any moment. The chief benefit is that some of the generated emissions appear at a place where fewer people are affected by them. The downside is that the hybrid car will be heavier, thus needing more energy to travel.