Some aren't even about greenwashing, they're actually about increasing performance; I'd say that's worse from an environmental point of view.

Full EVs are always more performant so if it’s for performance then it’s fine the petrol cars will eventually lose out.

> Full EVs are always more performant [..]

Q: Would any of us consider "range" as a performance characteristic? If not, why not?

Range doesn't get the ladies attention.

There was a fun segment on this in an old Top Gear. A race to see how far you can get on a single tank of gas.

Clarkson thought the challenge was dumb and picked a big comfy car with a massive engine. He might not win but at least he’s gonna enjoy himself.

Ended up winning. The massively overpowered engine was chilling at highway speeds so much it barely used any gas.

Another fun comparison was when they took a Prius and a M5. When the M5 was chilling at a slightly fun speed, the Prius was struggling so hard that it had double the fuel consumption of the M5.

Cruising speed matters.

A single tank of gas: isn't that then mostly a matter of the size of the tank? My friend with his Jeep can go very far, no issues, but filling the tank costs an arm, a leg and a kidney. Gas consumption is horrible, it just has a huge tank.

That said hybrid systems are basically KERS: they matter when slowing down (charging the battery instead of warming up brakes), and at very low to low speeds (better efficiency of the electric engine compared to a gasoline engine). I would not expect a trip on the highway without traffic to be better at all with a hybrid car than with a gasoline car.

But, within Europe, most of the driving is done under 50km/h and within the cities, where hybrids shine.

I agree that hybrids are a stupid solution, a full EV is way to go, but, for example, there are only two superchargers for Tesla in whole Berlin, which has almost 4 million population. The infrastructure has to be improved and the batteries needs to get larger or more efficient, because I find stopping every 2hrs to charge your car for 30 minutes stupid.

Hybrids are just a band-aid solution until we have proper (and cheap) EVs.

Fast charging is not really needed in cities where daily driving distances comfortably fit into almost all EV-s ranges. What is needed is parking space in residential areas with access to Type2 charging.

Access to a parking space with charging, any kind of charging, is the reason I don't own an EV yet. Japan is really lagging behind here: the building I live in was finished in March 2020, it's not even one year old, and there's no way to charge an EV car in the parking spots!

> I would not expect a trip on the highway without traffic to be better at all with a hybrid car than with a gasoline car.

Hybrid systems allow the gas engine to (essentially) always run at its ideal speed if it is running at all, storing extra energy when less is needed and drawing power from the battery when more is needed. On an idealized highway drive, with cruising speed at exactly the pure gas car engine’s ideal speed, with no variations due to turns, hills, traffic, etc., this is no benefit, but real highway driving tends to differ from this ideal enough that hybrid cars have benefits even in freeway driving.

This is true of a second-generation hybrid, like the BMW i3 (with range extender). A first-gen hybrid, which is most hybrids (including the Infiniti QX60, the BMW 3-series (not i), the Mercedes E-class) still power the wheels primarily with the gas engine, and only use the electric engine in certain reduced circumstances. With the gas engine directly driving the wheels, you don't get a lot of benefit from the hybrid except in start-stop conditions.

The first-gen/second-gen language is a bit odd. More common would be “mild” vs. “full” hybrid, but most hybrid cars sold, in the US at least, are full hybrids (what you call “second-generation” hybrids); Toyota Prius nameplates alone account for almost half of all hybrids that have been sold in the US, and all of those are full hybrids.) It may be that mild hybrids dominate if you are counting individual models, but certainly not if you are counting vehicles.

While cruising speed matters, the reason manufacturers of "economical" cars, like the Prius in your example, optimise for lower speeds is because that's where the vast majority of your time will be spent.

Top Gear's challenges were very entertaining, but they were very far from being scientifically meaningful in any way.

You’re right. Different cars are designed for different places. You want a small efficient car in the city, and a comfy cruising car on the highway.

I’ve driven both types on their home turf and in the wrong environment and it makes a huge difference.

The only truly bad type of car is an SUV. Bad everywhere.

My Ford Expedition is perfect for hauling a trailer, my family and our dogs. It has third row seating so my three kids aren’t all squished on one bench while the second heater/blower in the back is an absolute godsend when it’s -25F, as is the 4x4 when (not if) I get stuck

> hauling a trailer, my family and our dogs

vs. how often are you driving alone in that monster truck?

It’s about 50/50

Was the challenge done with a single tank of gas or a specific amount of gas? I'm guessing a car with a massive engine has a much larger tank.

Top Gear is entertainment and not car journalism. It's scary to see how people take it seriously.

I wouldn’t take environmental advice from top gear. I seriously doubt the accuracy of this

The original poster is slightly mis-remembering the episodes in question. In the first scenario much of it was down to the big car having a really big gas tank and thus going further on a single tank of gas than the smaller, more economical, cars.

In the second case they where driving the Prius around a race track as fast as they could make it go (ie nothing like cruising on normal roads) while with the M5 following at the same pace. And in those conditions the M5 did use less gas, but I don't recall it being half as much.

Did the M5 happen to follow in the slipstream? That basically nullifies energy demand at high speed...

This kind of test is mostly for showmanship. There's even a chance that an M5 will get better fuel consumption than a Prius due to the way the test was designed: making the Prius run at the absolute limit in circumstances that cannot be replicated in any reasonably legal setup on a public road, like racing. Even when "cruising" at top speed the Prius should be more efficient than the M5 at the same speed.

An M5 won't have better fuel consumption than a "normal" small car in any situation that you could reasonably see on the road.

I agree. It's automotive themed entertainment. While not totally scripted they have a plot picked out.

But you're among an online community that thinks the Hilux episode was a scientifically controlled experiment so that's gonna be an uphill battle.

Why do you think that increasing performance in itself bad for the environment?

Not so much increasing performance, but what's required for that, e.g. the extra weight of the battery and motors to provide ~10km of electric-only range on the McLaren P1.

If it’s just a way to gain the ability to consume even more energy per launch from a stop light, it’s bad. And when most ICE setups (including hybrids that use electric to boost ICE peak output) talk about increasing performance, it’s about acceleration, not efficiency.

Faster you go the more fuel you burn per mile above around 50-60mph depending on the car

The faster you accelerate the more you’re going to braking to slow back down again (unless you’re accelerating onto open roads)

Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such.

Tires wear out faster

...

> Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such.

I think the success of Tesla says otherwise. There are lots of us who enjoy performance cars who care about emissions. Even someone who drives an Audi v8 car is doing less damage than the single person cruising in a huge truck/suv.

It’s relative- the high performance Tesla’s are worse for the environment than the low performance ones.

EVs are a different category to ICE cars so comparing across them is strange

This is quite silly - a Tesla X or e-Hummer are still better for the environment than any ICE car.

That probably holds true in case they have the same usage patterns.

Does your theory still hold if I drive only 2000km/year in an older car versus a Tesla X or e-Hummer? I don't pretend to have the answer to that question, but there is an environmental cost to producing a car too...

i doubt that very much

Are we supposed to accept your profession of doubt as a form of evidence or argumentation?

no

Most people buying new vehicles have to (well they don't have to but it's the reasonable thing to do) consult their spouse. This is why certain outlier models are so popular. They facilitate "everyone wins" compromises.

One person wants a practical crossover because that's what is most practical for the situation. The other wants a fun convertible. They buy a 4dr Wrangler because it's both. Everyone goes home happy.

Same thing happens with Tesla.

One person wants to buy a fuel sipping subcompact because that's what makes practical sense for the situation. The other wants a high performance sedan. Tesla checks both boxes so that's what they get. Everyone goes home happy.

Edit: I know you all are recoiling in horror at the thought of having to run your car purchasing decisions by the other decision maker in your household but if you're gonna click the WrongThink(TM) button why don't you at least humor me and tell me why I'm so wrong.

The usual argument basically boils down to "gluttony and pride are deadly sins". You shall only consume/have/want the necessary minimum, any more is morally suspect, even absent objectively apparent problems.

"The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators"

Because we don’t need to increase performance, if we think if performance as horse powers and speed. Cars are fast enough, even too fast for private vehicles.

Living in Germany it is quite ridiculous that we don’t have speed limits on certain parts of the Autobahn, nobody needs to drive 200 km/h. You won’t get faster from A to B, it’s dangerous, it’s stressful, you need more energy. If you want to race, go on a race track. I assume it even costs us more to maintain roads so that you are able to drive more than 140 km/h.

Nobody needs to have sex more than a few times in their lives. You wanna limit the sex lives as well?

Basically, your morality is all wrong. The point of life (for humans, at least) isn't to do what we need - that's only the lowest, most basic level of Maslow's pyramid. It's self-actualization, which essentially means fulfilling autonomously chosen goals. You might see no reason to drive 200km/h, but others might - why limit them? The only potential reason is safety, but hey, people enjoy plenty of extreme(-ly dangerous) sports, so clearly there are reasons to trade off safety as well.

In addition, an appeal to safety doesn't actually make sense in this instance - why would 120km/h be better than 200km/h? I mean, it's slightly safer but still incredibly unsafe! If we prioritized safety over all else, we'd all be driving at most 30km/h! So clearly "safety" isn't a good, objective reason - at best, it's a subjective, arbitrary threshold, but then we ought to recognize that diifferent people will make different tradeoffs regarding safety.

If it's your hobby and like driving 200 km/h, sure please do, on a separate track where it is as safe as possible. But driving it on _public_ roads is inherently dangerous to others. Our society has all kind of rules around protection of others. There are laws and rules around food safety, gun safety, distribution of drugs, hunting, using heavy equipment, operating boats and planes. Often you need a license to do these things.

Noone trains for driving at high speeds in driving school. Also a lot of folks do not understand the relationship between velocity and the time you need to come to a stop. So 120km/h is way better than 200km/h. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0

> If it's your hobby and like driving 200 km/h

This is just so wrong. Have you actually ever done that? For example between Jena and Chemnitz, when traffic is light it is so incredibly safe and relaxing.

Don’t confuse fast driving with reckless driving. No speed limits will stop reckless drivers. Even so, it’s totally possible to drive recklessly at 140 kph. Just go figure around Leverkusen literally every day.

I chose a dangerous sport on my own. The car speeding with 200km/h into your car, will have an impact on your life even if you stick to 120km/h

See my edit, it addresses your point: "speeding with 120km/h will have an impact even if you stick to 60km/h".

“Because we don’t need to increase performance, if we think if performance as horse powers and speed. Cars are fast enough, even too fast for private vehicles.”

This is like trying to sell people on veganism by arguing that food doesn’t need to taste good.

The great thing about Autobahns is freedom.

If I travel in Spain, the speed limit is 120km/h. Now they have removed the 20 kms/h extra you could do for overtaking other cars. It is ludicrous.

Everybody goes over the limit, and hence everybody goes against the law, and everybody could be fined with 300 euros, like my father 1 month ago.

In cities, they are putting limits under 30km/h.

Politicians love the fines because it is an extra tax of an extra billion euros nobody controls.

The great thing isn't freedom, it's that the huge speed differences between cars help a lot with keeping drivers focused. People drive instead of just waiting out the time until their exit pops up on the nav. This effect has quite a bit of inertia so that even the speed-limited parts benefit from it so that a blanket speed limit would likely make the already limited sections less safe, after adapting to the relative ease of blanket speed limits. Chances are that overall safety would still increase, but I'm not sure of that (short term it would definitely increase, but that effect could quickly erode as people get used to it).

Reducing the speed limit saves lives and reduces overall traffic as people switch to alternative modes of transport.

Do you object to seatbelt laws under the premise of "Freedom"? What about car safety standards? Isn't it more "Free" if we can make whatever car I want and sell it to whomever wants to buy it, even if it kills millions every year?

The truth is that we need to look at improving society holistically, which means implementing and designing society in a way that benefits humankind over the long term. Civilization isn't very "Free" but it's a trade off we make to live in a fair and progressive society, and allows us to combat things like covid, natural disasters, growing populations and other challenges that face the human race.

i naively support the argument for speed limits concerning safety and emissions.

at the same time i know that the freedom to drive fast does not really impact crash or efficiancy metrics very much and having been to countries with universal speed limits i can confirm that it is an agonizing drive if everybody is going slow (120kph) to the point that i wonder if the resulting boredom is causing a lot more accidents.

> Living in Germany it is quite ridiculous that we don’t have speed limits on certain parts of the Autobahn, nobody needs to drive 200 km/h.

Why? Did you ever have to drive 1000 km for work in one day?

"Nobody needs to..." - always such a pathetic argument

Agreed. It's a variation on the old "Stop having fun!" complaint that people who lead lives of quiet desperation trot out every so often.

Guess we should all eat the most environmentally friendly food too. No one needs to ever eat meat or almonds or anything of the sort because it’s just not efficient.

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of heating past 60 F. You can always wear a sweater or a thicker blanket. It’s not like it’ll be a great inconvenience like not having any heating would be, you’ll still be able to do all the necessary tasks.

Your argument is “people don’t deserve to enjoy anything.”

It's kind of funny how comments like this get downvoted into oblivion. Too many ideologically-motivated HN users have access to the downvote button and they use it to suppress anything that threatens certain sacred narratives. This place is a lot less open to intellectual curiosity than it says on the tin.