The trend of making a regular car more efficient, by fitting it with various systems and gadgets in order to increase its fuel economy isn’t a new thing. The ball was put in motion by Volkswagen with their 2006 Polo BlueMotion, which was followed the next year by the Passat BlueMotion.
The VW Polo’s 1.4-liter three-cylinder diesel engine, along with the low rolling resistance tires, more aerodynamic mirrors and grille, coupled with a slightly lower ride height and optimized gear ratios really made a positive impact on its fuel efficiency, allowing it to achieve 3.9 l/100km (72 UK mpg / 60 US mpg) - these figures would make a ‘green’ Toyota Prius fidget in its seat with anxiety, even the latest one.
Since then, other manufacturers have adopted the trend and are now offering more efficient versions of their cars, for slightly more money. However, as Consumer Reports points out, none of the ‘ECO’ versions tested by them made any financial sense, with the Ford Focus SFE and the Honda Civic HF getting a modest 3 mpg improvement and the Cruze Eco getting only 1 mpg improvement over the standard version.
Furthermore, factoring in the Ford’s SFE package coming in at $495 (€397), you’d actually need to run the car for at least 3 years, as the yearly savings offered by the package are very poor, at only $145 (€116). However, the Focus’ performance is actually a good one, when compared to Honda’s Civic HF which demands an $800 (€642) premium over the standard car, while offering minimal yearly savings of just $135 (€105), thus you’d have to run the car for 6 years to make the HF pack worth the money.
The Cruze’s ECO trim, despite costing $770 (€618), with its minimal improvement in efficiency, it would save you only $20 (€16), thus taking you 38 years (yes, 38 years!) to make it financially viable. So, to sum up, if you want a small decently-economical sedan, just buy the standard version and add a sunroof or sat-nav. Don’t buy the SFE, HF or ECO, no matter what you do, as it’s completely pointless.
Since then, other manufacturers have adopted the trend and are now offering more efficient versions of their cars, for slightly more money. However, as Consumer Reports points out, none of the ‘ECO’ versions tested by them made any financial sense, with the Ford Focus SFE and the Honda Civic HF getting a modest 3 mpg improvement and the Cruze Eco getting only 1 mpg improvement over the standard version.
Furthermore, factoring in the Ford’s SFE package coming in at $495 (€397), you’d actually need to run the car for at least 3 years, as the yearly savings offered by the package are very poor, at only $145 (€116). However, the Focus’ performance is actually a good one, when compared to Honda’s Civic HF which demands an $800 (€642) premium over the standard car, while offering minimal yearly savings of just $135 (€105), thus you’d have to run the car for 6 years to make the HF pack worth the money.
The Cruze’s ECO trim, despite costing $770 (€618), with its minimal improvement in efficiency, it would save you only $20 (€16), thus taking you 38 years (yes, 38 years!) to make it financially viable. So, to sum up, if you want a small decently-economical sedan, just buy the standard version and add a sunroof or sat-nav. Don’t buy the SFE, HF or ECO, no matter what you do, as it’s completely pointless.
Google News