So with the lack of info about release date for the sport hybrid, I've been perusing numbers on the Acura web site.

Did you know that the fuel tank for the PAWS RLX is 18.5 gallons and the hybrid 15.1 gallons?

This means that for me, with 60/40 highway/city, range is approximately the same for PAWS or hybrid. For long trips, which I do on a regular basis, the potential range of the PAWS, at 573 miles, far trumps the hybrid, at 483 miles. In short, on my standard 1350 mile Cleveland to Colorado road trip, I'd only have to refill twice with either model, but I'd have 2/3 of the second tank left upon arrival in Colorado Springs with the PAWS.

The only fuel economy advantage for me with the hybrid would come if I did more city travel, which I don't.

Hmmmmmmm.......I am thinking about jumping into a cheap lease for an Advance or Tech.....while the getting's good.....

 

9,000 miles on mine now. I don't have much bad to say about it.

23.3 mpg overall.

I could probably do better, except I don't exactly baby a car.

 

That fuel economy is pretty impressive considering that my TSX is only just hitting it's 24 mpg overall rating. Although, I drive a lot more city and tend to push the car more than most.

 

wow - that surprises me. Making my decision to get the PAWS better and better

 

Just to keep things in perspective:

My CTS-V's mileage is typically 14 in the same driving cycle I describe above. The tank is only 17 gallons. Max freeway range is 323 miles at 19 mpg. Typical range in my current driving cycle is 200-230 miles.

Smiles per mile: Infinity. Which is why I'm daily driving it currently.

 

Back in 1968 my Firebird 400 got about the same mpg as your V. I would have expected some improvements over that time span. ;-)

 

Was the small tank a necessity for hybrid system hardware? Or did Acura do what MB did with their new C-Class in Europe....installing a smaller tank to obtain better fuel efficiency claims by ruthlessly cutting weight out of the car.........(same reason why a lot of hybrids have no jack or spare, yet their non-hybrid sibling do include spare and jack)

 

I would bet it is additional space for batteries. I can't see cutting 3 gallons doing much for mileage

 

Yes, but in combination with other weight saving measures it would. I worked as a supplier to the auto industry and they (at least GM) were almost as ruthless with weight savings as cost savings (although there is plenty of ongoing evidence and data to show GM was and is beyond ruthless with cost cutting relative to other OEM's!).

 

Here is the MB C-Class article on weight savings from fuel tank capacity cut:


http://www.carscoops.com/2014/02/mer...andard-41.html

 

It can't be the batteries since they're in the trunk. There is a "Power Drive Unit" that sits centrally next to the exhaust route that may intrude into the area under the rear seats. This may necessitate a smaller tank. 3 gallons is 'only' ~19.5 lbs so it's doubtful there is much to be gained in weight savings.

 

I do 70 miles a day when I drive, about 50:50 surface street/L.A. freeway (slowway), and have averaged about 27 mpg since December. The uphill incline driving really makes a dent in the mileage. If my trips were flat, the milage would be closer to 33!