204
Plug-in hybrids use three times more fuel than manufacturers claim, analysis finds
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
204 points (93.2% liked)
World News
53971 readers
3410 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why are people so bizarrely defensive about this?
This isn't sensationalism. It's a scientific study of actual real-world fuel use based on data from thousands of vehicles (at least ten thousand, I assume, based on earlier studies). If, as the study author says, internal combustion engines are being used more frequently than estimated, should it not be addressed? Should we not be aiming for higher efficiency in these vehicles? If tests aren't accurately predicting usage, should we not develop more accurate tests?
This is about owner behavior, not the design of the vehicle. If I had a PHEV, for my commute, I would use no fuel if I charged overnight.
Idiots are paying extra for PHEVs, then not plugging in. What is the point.
Likely these owners actually have no idea how their cars work.
On the assumption phevs have the combustion engine off unless they are in hybrid or performance mode:
I think it's decisive because the article's focus is fuel consumption but fuel consumption in phevs is actually just a proxy for driver behaviour. (Once you factor out differences between models)
So while the study does show that phevs technically have worse fuel economy in real world usage, it doesn't show they use more fuel in either electric mode or in hybrid mode than previously believed.
The conclusion is useful for understanding the overall impact of phevs on petroleum consumption, air quality and global warming, but it's misleading when evaluating what kind of car you should buy.
Since you know how you drive, learning new information about average driver behaviour doesn't factor into your decision on what kind of car you buy.
The environmentally conscious answer is still no car if possible, electric if you need a car but most journeys fall within the range limit and phev if you need a car for frequent long range usage.
Tldr; it's contentious because the article reports information useful for policy decisions to a general public who are making individual consumer decisions where the information is misleading.
Its not defensiveness it's just recognizing the issue for what it really is. You can change the estimation calculation all you want, but it will always be wrong because the variables being used don't blend together well. You can make gas engines that get 100MPG or even 1000MPG but it won't make for an accurate estimation when averaged out with ∞MPG or 0GPM.
That's a problem with the estimation not with the manufacturers. The manufacturers tell you exactly what the electric range is and also what the ICE fuel economy is. It's trivial to apply these values to your driving habits to get an estimation for your use case.
As an example, I've been eyeballing the Prius PHEV with its 44 mile range (and 47MPG hwy). My commute is about 45 miles each way and I have access to chargers at work, so my daily fuel consumption would either be 0.04 gallons (charge at home and work) or 1 gallon (charge at home only) giving a 2400% variation in fuel economy for the exact same trip based solely off my actions alone, having absolutely nothing to do with the car itself.
Here you're conflating two separate issues and highlighting exactly why people are calling this misleading. You can change the calculation all you want but that isn't changing the efficiency of these vehicles and this study doesn't demonstrate that these vehicles are inefficient. All it shows is "your MPGe or l/100km is greatly effected by how often you stay on electric power" and that factor is solely dependent on the driver and ranges from near zero to infinity regardless of the vehicle chosen.
It doesn't get more accurate. We should just scrap the combined "MPGe" (and EU equivalent) and stick with "electric range" and "MPG". Both of those can be fairly accurately predicted as separate values. How they combine is entirely up to the individual.
I agree with everything you're saying, but this part. As you stated before, those are intended to allow for an apples to apples comparison and make it easier for the consumer to judge a car's funel economy, without having to do their own math (which - lets face it - most people suck at).
If the underlying usage pattern doesn't reflect a typical average use, that's an issue, that can be adressed. And when studies show that they don't why not take that as a call to improve upon the methodolooy?
There's always going to be the caveat that one's one usage pattern might deviate greatly from the standard, and absolutely it's a must, that the individual values are indicated, so people CAN do their own math. But having a standard combined measure is still a useful tool.
Addendum. I have to admit to really only having read the article just now.
This is the real underlying issue here. It's the EUs regulation on CO2 emissions reduction, that car manufacturers are abusing here. They are designing their car in such a way, that they look good on paper and can pass the requirements of the regulation, while their real-world emissions are much higher. (And in that regard, it's not too unlike Dieselgate. Minus the intentional technical manipulation ofc.)
While your claim, that it's the individuals responsibilty how they use their car is obviously true for an individual car's fuel consumption, that realization is also utterly useless as a basis for effective policy. There needs to be a standard, and that standard better reflect an empirical assessement of reality.
The issue isn't really that the estimate is wrong, it's that it's wrong by an enormous amount -- and one that's been increasing every year. I don't think that the study is trying to say that these vehicles are inefficient as some kind of absolute judgment, but that they're less efficient than estimated (although there are big differences based on vehicle make and model).
I don't think the problem really lies with manufacturers, it's that the current tests aren't accurate enough to predict real-world usage closely enough. Although, driver input is mediated by computer systems and if on-board systems are being too aggressive in switching over to ICE, I suppose that's a manufacturers problem.
Really, they've been doing these very large studies for a long time. The sample size is large enough to capture the full diversity of driving styles and it cannot be a few outliers skewing results. Since 2012, the disparity between estimated and observed fuel usage has grown every year. Why? Why is it changing and why is it always changing in the same direction?
It getting worse over time I would think is partially a function of customer mix changing.
You start with early adopters who are more eco conscious and then now entering mainstream, and also people choosing plug-ins for performance purposes.