It’s been a little more than two years since I chucked my 2016 Subaru Forester, which I didn’t love, for a 2024 Honda CR-V Hybrid AWD my family has nicknamed ‘Big Red.’ I’ve driven it almost 18,000 miles in that time, and have used a little under 500 gallons of fuel. While my decision wasn’t primarily motivated by saving fuel, I am curious how I’ve done so far.
If you missed the whole saga of my Forester, most of my issues revolved around small maintenance issues and overall disappointing quality. The CVT was underwhelming in the way most CVTs from that era are, and the fuel economy was an abysmal 24 MPG lifetime by the time I decided to sell it.
Now that I’ve had the CR-V for a while, I can do the math to determine whether or not this makes any economic sense purely on the basis of sipping gas.
The Subaru Forester Versus The Newer Hybrid CR-V
Above is what my Forester looked brand new and, as I remember it, what it looked like when I got rid of it. Just a totally decent crossover. What’s curious about Subaru is that it sort of gives off this vibe of being efficient, but many of its vehicles end up being a little below average. With the introduction of hybrids, Subaru has fixed a lot of its own issues in this regard (and the hybrid is definitely the one to get).
The goal, though, is to compare it to my older vehicle. With the CR-V Hybrid, I’ve tracked the fuel economy very closely since first getting the vehicle. The total number of vehicle miles driven since acquiring the car in the summer of 2024 has been 17,874, but the first 52 miles were before I started tracking, so my fuel economy estimate is based on 17,822.9 miles. In that time, I’ve used one gallon of gas for every 37.5 miles driven, for an MPG of 37.5 and a total fuel usage of 475.3 gallons. This is almost dead-on where the EPA estimate is. Assuming an average cost of $3.55, my total money spent on fuel was about $1,687.23.
I didn’t track fuel economy for the full life of the Subaru, but once I decided to start tracking it, I ended up with an average of 24 MPG. If I’d kept the Subaru and driven the same amount, that would have required 742.6 gallons of fuel, or $2,636.30, which means in a little more than two years I’ve saved about $949.07, or roughly a car payment each year.
That’s not nothing, but it’s not really a big enough savings in just gasoline to justfy getting rid of the Subaru. I did sell the car at a good time and got a high value for my resale (another nice thing I can say about my Forester), so there was a secondary benefit there. If fuel prices get closer to averaging $4.00, then that’s about $500 a year in savings. Gas prices would have to get to $6.00 a gallon before I’m saving enough money each year to feel like it made sense on fuel savings alone, and even then it’s a stretch.
A Non-Gas-Powered CR-V Versus A Hybrid
Ok, what if I’d have gotten a CR-V non-hybrid instead of a CR-V Hybrid? At the time, a CR-V non-hybrid got 29 MPG combined and cost about $3,000 less. At an average of $3.55 a gallon, that’s $494.53 saved. At an average fuel cost of $4.00 a gallon, it’s $557.22. Not great, not terrible. Because I don’t drive the exact same amount each year, it’s maybe easier to figure this out by looking at a per-mile cost.
At $4.00 a gallon, I spend about $0.107 per mile driven in my CR-V Hybrid. The non-hybrid CR-V is $0.138, and the Forester is $0.148. I’ve already made up $557.22 of my delta in this scenario, so I just need to make up $2,443. That comes to a break-even around 80,000 miles, which isn’t bad.
If gas prices go down, then it’ll be a little longer, but I plan to own this vehicle until at least 100,000 miles. At that distance, I’ll eventually be quite happy with my decision. My costs to maintain the CR-V have been lower so far and, at least in theory, I’ll spend less money on brakes than with a non-hybrid over the distance.
Climate Plays a Role as Well, Plus I Think I’m Driving Slower
Admittedly, the mild summer I’ve had in New York this year has played a big role. I reset the B trip meter when it gets cold, and reset it again when it gets warm. So far, I’ve put 4,422.7 miles on Big Red since it turned warm in roughly April of this year, and I’ve done an incredible 39.8 MPG over that period. At the end of a very cold winter, I saw the car’s MPG drop closer to 34 MPG.
Hybrids, like electric cars, tend to perform worse in the winter, and Big Red has not been an exception. If it’s a mild winter, I may luck out and improve, or at least maintain, my current high fuel economy.
I think I’m also driving more efficiently. As I wrote shortly after getting the CR-V, the game I play with myself is trying to see how long I can go just on battery power. That’s still something I do because of the car, so I think it gets credit.
I’m happier overall with the CR-V than the Forester, have spent less at my local Honda dealer than I did at the Subaru dealership, and don’t have to deal with CVT woes on account of the CR-V not really having a transmission. The Forester handled a little better, but the slightly softer ride in the Honda more than makes up for it in city driving.
With gas prices being where they are, getting more than 500 miles out of a tank of gas also just feels better, even if the economics of it don’t necessarily justify making the switch purely for fuel economy reasons.
All photos: Matt Hardigree
An interesting article Matt… thanks!
IM(uneducated)O, 24 MPG for the ten-year-old Subaru doesn’t seem that bad. I mean, it’s got AWD and that causes frictional losses and adds weight. I agree about how the CVT in older Subarus feel… I’ve driven them and am not a fan myself.
But of course 37.5 MPG is way better. 🙂
Is the engine in your new Honda covered by the warranty extension that The Autopian recently wrote about?
A very liberal friend of mine drives a mid-aughts second-generation Prius, mostly around town, and claims to get well over 40 mpg. I don’t doubt her. I drive a ’17 Accord V6. On the freeway it gets upper-30s to 40-41 mpg, depending on the flow of traffic and the speed we’re all moving at. Around town, it’s not great. Lifetime MPG is ~29.
She’s constantly on me to sell it and get a hybrid. “The planet’s health depends on it.” Here’s the thing. My Accord is paid in full (bought with cash when new). It only has 81K on the clock. I just did a TB/H2O pump on it. It could soldier on until long after I’m off the planet. To buy a newer (not necessarily NEW) hybrid will result in higher insurance and registration expenses. My car will still continue to be driven and excessively befouling the planet by someone else until it dies. And I won’t have the money to replace my heater, water heater and other appliances with more energy efficient options when their time comes.
Sure. There are things I wish were better with my current ride, but active safety things don’t matter to me. I drive conservatively. I can still swivel my head to make sure I am not going to hit or be hit by a car in the next lane etc.
My next car, if I ever need one, will certainly be a hybrid. Probably used. Smaller than the Accord because I don’t need room for four full-sized adults anymore. And I bought a scooter that’s been averaging 88 mpg for little trips to the store or a medical appointment. If I did the math about that decision, it might be depressing. But I like both vehicles I currently have. The Accord is reliable, comfortable and competent. The scooter is FUN. And at 69 years of age, that’s all I really need out of my conveyances.
Matt, I think the bigger picture is you’re not pissed off at something you drive nearly drive every day. That’s worth a lot in itself.
29MPG lifetime for a V6 Honda ain’t bad at all IMO. I’m sure you’ve done the math, but you might have to drive a long time/lotta miles to recoup the expense of a new hybrid vs. just keeping your current Accord.
Do you drive a lot of miles per year? If yes, then maybe it’d be worth the change, but I doubt it.
The old cliche ‘the cheapest car is the one you already own/paid for’ comes to mind. 😉
So you covered the opex side of things – but what was the capex of changing cars?
Unless it is a total hooptie that is at the absolute end of it’s life, the cheapest car is almost certainly the paid-for one you already own. Even if you luck out and aren’t boned TOO badly by depreciation.
But ultimately, my goal is to simply drive what makes me happy. Within reason(my Inner Yankee Cheapskate is a BIG influence on my life) I don’t really care what that costs per mile. The types of cars I enjoy do tend to be reasonably efficient though. My BMWs get 25 around town, 30 on a trip, and that is more than good enough for me. My gas hog is my Land Rover, at 16-18mpg no matter what, but at 500-1000 miles a year at most – who cares? Spitfire manages about 35mpg.
But as I have said before, I really should put the auto industry on my Christmas card list. I bought a brand new car every other year for quite a long time, simply because I could and there were interesting things to buy. Since that is no longer true, I am saving a TON of money. It’s been seven years since my last new car purchase and I really can’t see buying another one ever unless things change considerably. Not holding my breath.
1-wife’s 23 forester gets 30mpg. i put all gas in. miles/gallons real math and not the lying and always high by 2-3 mpg trip computer.
2-your delta IS NOT 80,000. the hybrid has better resale. you get most of the 3000 back
3-crv is a very fine motor car. cheers
Resale only matters if you sell it. The car I bought new that I still own I have now owned for 15 years, and I am at 30 years on another of my cars.
I’d rather walk than own either a Forester OR a CR-V. Life is too short for boring cars.
“With gas prices being where they are, getting more than 500 miles out of a tank of gas also just feels better, “
I’ve gotten as much as 2358km (1465 miles) on one fillup (about 45L or 11.9 US gallons) in my C-Max Energi.
I did/do that by taking FULL advantage of the plug-in/EV mode capability.
When I traded my Forester for a Prius and we started carpooling, our fuel costs dropped so much the hybrid was essentially free.
I liked the Forester when it was working, but it was not the most reliable car I have ever had – that title goes to the Prius and the truck. But even now I have to admit, I sure as hell did like the Forester. Not at the endless gas station visits and not at the shop for the nth time, but when it was good it was great.
“A Non-Gas-Powered CR-V Versus A Hybrid” – there’s a CRV EV now, or a diesel?
Doing the similar math for the Bolt over 126,000 miles, vs. the Audi A3 it replaced (35 mpg not driving like an ass) gives 3600 gallons of fuel savings, $14,400 at $4 gas in the boondocks, ~40 tons CO2. And ~$1500 in oil changes, maybe $500 in ignition components, $1000 in timing belt replacements, several hundred in brakes, etc.
The first 50,000 miles were basically entirely powered by solar on the roof before moving, and since then generally about 3 cents/mile for home charging (and some road trips at higher rates), so maybe $3000 in electricity cost. So total I’m probably close to $15,000 saved over the past almost 9 years, as insurance has been similar.
I’m just reading this article and noticed the same issue with the headline. FWIW, there were Gen 2 – Gen 4 diesel versions available in Europe and Asia. Never in the states.
Something not considered in this is registration and insurance.
I daily an ancient Camry. It gets 23 mpg with me driving it. I got a new Camry as a rental and with the same loose nut behind the wheel, I got 58 mpg.
This would save me $1300/year in gasoline. However, the car would cost about $300/year more to register because there’s a tax on car value. It would also cost an additional $100/month to keep insurance on it, because of the higher value. So, all told, I would likely LOSE money if I swapped the old Camry for a new one, even if someone gave me the car.
However, there’s more to car ownership than money, or this site wouldn’t exist. I can’t get the cool tech that the 2026 had in my 22 year old Camry. On the other hand, the old Camry had a dramatically more comfortable seat (maybe because it has form fit to me from years of service). If the tech was important to me, then upgrading would be worth it. If the lack of tech, but better seat is important to me, than keeping what I have makes sense (or perhaps looking at a higher optioned Camry or a ES).
Which gets to something I noticed in this article. Seems like Matt likes the CR-V better than the Forester. Which makes the decision to drive a CR-V the right one, with the better fuel economy being a bonus.
For me, since I can’t afford a new-to-me car right now, the decision is very easy. But even if I could, the better seat and easier to access trunk trumps the cooler tech in the new Camry and I would stick with what I have.. for now.
I expect you can get enough cool tech to make you happy if you swap the stock head unit for an aftermarket touchscreen SatNav unit. The standard double DIN unit is 7″ but some get much larger. I know for the gen7 Accord these could be had all the way up to a Tesla S like 12″ vertical screen while still offering physical HVAC controls.
Doing this gives you SatNav, android auto, music, satellite radio, backup/dash cams, and with an OBD2 scanner Torque to monitor systems and read codes. It won’t help the terrible by modern standards gas mileage but as far as bang for the buck upgrades go its a winner.
The tech I really liked was Blind Spot Monitoring, Rear Camera, and especially Adaptive Cruise. I can add rear Camera (and Carplay) pretty easily. But BSM and ACC? not going to happen.
I check the codes on my car, the problem is the gearing. It’s geared for 60-65 mph and the local speed limit is 70-75. The engine ends up right on the cam change for VVT. I can get it to 26 mpg for a short while with a clean on the MAS, but it fouls quickly because I have some blowby from the rings and everything gets greasy in there.
But BSM and ACC? not going to happen.
There are standalone BSM kits available:
https://www.caranddriver.com/car-accessories/a37283347/aftermarket-blind-spot-monitor/
Dunno about ACC but conceptually I don’t see why not if your car already has regular CC.
I’ve looked into those and from what I can tell, the are a LOT lamer than the factory ones.
Can I swap idiotic modern touchscreen bullshit for a simple 1990s CD player? Because THAT would make me happy in a car. I have found by having one of my 2011 BMWs without it that I don’t even particularly care about having Bluetooth in the car. Nice to have, but in no way a requirement.
The only tech that I wouldn’t mind adding to that car is a rear view camera, because top up the rear 3/4 visibility is typically convertible bad. But that display belongs in the rearview mirror anyway.
My phone does all of those other thing directly just fine, no interface to the car needed or wanted other than if I cared about sound (I don’t) a 3.5mm headphone cable.
AFAIK you can do whatever you want as long as there is a big enough hole behind that screen. It’d be a lot easier if that hole is double DIN shaped and there is an aftermarket bezel to clean up the look.
If we had this exchange a decade ago I could have given you an early 90’s Eclipse CD player I had laying around.
I have much nicer things than that sitting on my shelves.
Like what?
Early Nakamichi CD that I am saving for something special someday. Matching Nakamichi amp for it too, it’s a pre-amp only deck. A vintage and fully functional Blaupunkt Toronto I had rebuild years back. Both too nice to go in my Land Rover or Spitfire, so saving them for a rainy day. One would have gone into my 924S had I kept it. I’ll own something vintage and suitable eventually. Either would be fabulous in pretty much any 80s-90s European car with a DIN slot.
I spent WAAAAY too much money on car audio back in the day. To get results not really as good as the factory upgrade option H/K systems in my BMWs.
As did I. Thankfully I bought used and was able to recover some of that money when I sold it.
Home audio too – though at least for speakers I was lucky to have a local stereo shop that had a 1yr 100% value trade-up policy. Had a LOT of fun with that over a couple dozen hops, starting with a pair of Boston Acoustics A40s in my freshman year dorm room, and culminating in a lovely pair of Dahlquist DQ20’s. Which sadly I had to sell as I had no space for the enormous things.
Not so much of an audiophile either way anymore, perfectly happy with a Marantz HT receiver with a Jamo 5+1 surround setup here in GWR. Though once I move into the new house and have more space, I have a nice set of KEF floorstanding speakers and center channel I will upgrade to that have been sitting in thier boxes for a decade. Then use the current front channel Jamos as rear channel speakers.
I really prioritize ease of use at this point, the Marantz is good for that, the non-iDrive BMWs are near perfect.
Up until a few months ago I was rocking a 1965 HH Scott 348 (not the B model) that a friend gave to me after inheriting it from his dad. Too many painful memories for him so it had to go…to me. From what I understand HH Scott was a top tier brand in the 1960s.
It’s hooked up to a set of less excellent vinyl wrapped 1980’s era HH Scott bookshelf speakers and a powered Kenwood sub. What can I say? I got the Scotts a few months ago for $15, NIB but with rotted foam which I replaced. The Scotts fit on my shelf and their ability to make sounds exceeds my room’s acoustics and my ears.
Unfortunately despite a thorough going through all the contacts with DeOxit one of the channels on this 60 yo reciever has conked out. I am pretty sure its a hairline crack in a solder joint somewhere and at some point I will look into it but that is a battle for a different day.
That’s really cool! I had an even older HH Scott tube integrated amp, (can’t recall the model number). I actually got it for $10 at a thrift store near my office in MA when I first started 20 years ago. Beautiful cosmetic condition, worked “OK”, I eventually traded it to a friend (for my Kef center channel speaker) who replaced the tubes and some caps and completely restored it to like new working condition. I just didn’t really have a use for it. I also have a late 70s H/K 2-channel amp. I may use it to drive the Kefs with the Marantz, will have to see how much room I have in the new place for gear. Thinking about actually putting everything in the closet behind the “TV wall” and using an IR repeater, rather than having the gear in the living room.
I have an old Yamaha integrated amp and matching tuner that need to be restored, but like yours, a battle for someday. I also still have the very high-end Sony ES33 CD Player I bought back in the day. Still works perfectly, but all my CDs are in Maine, having ripped them all to mp3 years ago.
That’s quite a lucky buy! I have been eyeing tube amps since I saw that sweet McIntosh 240 on Bosch but I keep reading tales on the forums of tubes randomly exploding. There’s a reason the old gear kept the tubes in cages. Even when tubes work perfectly they use so much power they heat the room. And I dunno if tubes are such a good match for my tastes in music. But tube amps do have their fans.
“Thinking about actually putting everything in the closet behind the “TV wall” and using an IR repeater, rather than having the gear in the living room.”
Most people go the other way and proudly display their vintage gear, especially brushed aluminum 1970’s monster receivers with dancing analog VU meters. As long as the equipment is in good cosmetic shape that is. And I have to admit that’s my favorite aesthetic. 80’s+ black or silver plastic just isn’t the same.
Thankfully my Scott is in I think near showroom level shape, including the walnut cabinet because my friend was never allowed to touch it as a kid. No dancing VU meters though.
(Ironically one is supposed to spin the knobs and flip the switches once in a while to minimize contact corrosion. Take that DAD!)
“all my CDs are in Maine, having ripped them all to mp3 years ago.”
MP3 made sense when storage room was precious but with the size of today’s memory storage it may be worth reripping those CDs to a better format than lossy mp3. I prefer WAV since it’s the closest to the original format. My entire music collection in WAV doesn’t even come close to filling even a moderately sized modern hard drive but of course any lossless format should work.
Oh, if I had anything pretty like the Scott, I would definitely display it. The Marantz is just a boring modern black box. And the H/K amp is a boring silver box.
I can’t be bothered to re-rip them. Can’t tell the difference between MP3 and CD in the car, and that is where I do 98% of my music listening these days. Just classical in the house, and I never ripped those, just need to bring them down. Meant to this last trip, but forgot. I have a couple hundred classical CDs but a couple thousand not-classical, so re-ripping them is a *project*. And I like being able to have tons of music on a thumbdrive.
Gotcha. I have a hard time hearing any difference between 128kbps and WAV myself but some people insist they can. And maybe they can, who’s to say? I even saw a comparison of a very high 320mbps mp3 and the original uncompressed files. The max difference at any point was like -85dB which is like the sound of a pin dropping on the moon.
All that evidence, logic and reason STILL didn’t stop me from ripping my entire collection into WAV though. When it comes to music, especially music that brings nostalgia the heart wins every time ;).
” I have a couple hundred classical CDs but a couple thousand not-classical, so re-ripping them is a *project*. And I like being able to have tons of music on a thumbdrive.”
My collection is similar in size to yours and yeah, it’s been quite a project.
Side note: I read that in the 1960s Acoustic Research did a stunt where they showed their new AR3s were so good an audience couldn’t tell the difference between a live orchestra and a prerecorded track from that same orchestra played through those speakers. If true not only were those some amazing speakers but the recording and playback tech of the 1960s was also good enough.
I really shouldn’t look this stuff up – it was one of these, and every bit as nice cosmetic condition as this one. They legit seem to ask $800-900 these days. Yowsa. Looks like about the same vintage as yours, I thought is was a bit older.
https://community.klipsch.com/topic/184923-hh-scott-lk-72/
Nice! Gotta love thrift shops.
My Scott looks like this but with a slightly darker walnut finish and an even more ’60s vent grill:
https://auralhifi.com/products/vintage-hh-scott-stereomaster-348-solid-state-receiver-new-knob-caps-309452-2
(Notice yours and mine offer separate R/L bass and treble adjustments. I don’t see that very often)
“This would save me $1300/year in gasoline. However, the car would cost about $300/year more to register because there’s a tax on car value”
Yep… always get an insurance quote before buying a given car.
I did that when I was looking at buying a used Tesla Model S back in 2024.
The insurance quote was around CAD$4500/year
The insurance quote for a C-Max Energi or Prius Prime was around CAD$1500/year
Hence the reason why I drive a C-Max now instead of the Tesla.
It’s always interesting to me to hear this sort of thing. Across all the cars I have owned in my decade in Florida, from ’91 Volvo 940, Saab 9-5 Aero, 04 Volvo V70, my current ’11 BMW convertible, to brand-new GTI and Fiata to 8yo Mercedes wagon (the most valuable of them all when I bought it), my insurance has not varied by more than about $100. Roughly $1000/yr for full coverage with high limits and reasonable deductibles. Comp and collision add so little that even on the cheaper cars it’s not worth not carrying it. And Florida is allegedly one of the most expensive states in the country for car insurance. Even the Porsche Cayman I didn’t buy in 2019 (came to my senses and bought the Fiata instead) was only a couple hundred bucks more – and that was an $80K car. Mostly same experience in Maine too, though the price per car was MUCH lower – and got lower as I got older. New cars have never cost me any significant amount more than used cars, regardless of value. Which makes sense when the VAST majority of the cost is the liability coverage. People cost a lot more to fix than cars do.
I will admit to being basically an insurance company’s wet dream, being a middle-aging single male with a sky high credit score who owns multiple homes and a driving record so clean (in the past 27 years anyway) that is squeaks. And I live in boring suburban areas. My last speeding ticket that counted on my license was in 1999, though I did get a ticket in Montana in 2005 that never got reported to Maine.
saving money on fuel helps lessen the sting of buying a new car, taxes, insurence , oil changes cost how much now?? but yeah for that fuel savings to net you anything significant quickly you would need to drive like 30k miles a year +++
Replacing a car for fuel savings is rarely a good decision. However, if you are replacing a car anyway, then an EV can be a nobrainer if your life supports it.
For an example, take the Hyundai Ioniqs from the late ’10s early 20s. Using a random zip code on Carfax, I found 2 cars with prices and perfect carfaxs.
’19 HEV with 78k miles $14k
‘
’21 EV with 66k miles $13k
Assuming you can charge at home, the math doesn’t math to spend $1k more for a 2 year older vehicle that has 12k more miles and costs more to operate. (of course, if you can’t charge at home, then an EV doesn’t fit your needs at all)
Regarding economics, a CRV Sport Hybrid is a fraction of the price of comparable EV’s (or PHEV’s) and CRV’s are among the best at holding value. And we bought ours with a discount through the Costco buying service.
EV’s can’t compete in total cost/mile with an HEV, especially in the long run where EV battery replacement totals the vehicle.
It all depends on how you buy cars.
Since I can do an apples to apples comparison, lets’ look at RX and RZ Lexuses.
RX ICE Starting MSRP $52k 2 year old $48k (-$4k)
RX HEV Starting MSRP $55k 2 year old $52k (-$3k)
RZ EV Starting MSRP $48k 2 year old $38k (-$10k)
If I’m going to get a new car and drive it until the wheels fall of, the getting a HEV RX makes sense.
However, if I’m going to buy used.. the RZ stands out. That horrible resale makes it look like a bargain considering you would be looking a vehicle with 2-3 times the age/miles if you wanted to stick with the ICE/HEV RX for that price.
I see this with a lot of EVs. 2-3 years old, that horrible resale value makes them an interesting choice to get a car with some warranty left for a LOT less than anything even close to equivalent.
Of course, there are limitations with a EV over a ICE or HEV car that makes the decision to “just get a couple year old EV” not a slam dunk in many cases, but the horrible value holding makes them very interested on the used market, if you can handle their limitations.
i imagine that you’re on the interstate a lot. my dad has a maverick hybrid and is mid-40s MPG over about 45k miles, but he’s retired and mostly drives around town.
I got to say that MPG is a little disappointing when compared to that other Hybrid you wanted the Maverick.
I recently traded my Ecoboost Maverick with AWD for a hybrid FWD Maverick. My mileage just about doubled, from a combined 22.1 to a combined 42. I also like driving the truck a lot more as the electric/cvt combo is really easy to live with. No shuffling for gears, no clunks, just goes.
Yeah the Ford FWD based hybrid system is very transparent in its operation and super efficient too.
Gas is running at $2 a litre ($5.50/gallon), here in Montreal. I recently did the math comparing my truck to my EV.
My Sierra 1500 would use right around 10 litres of gas for my 100km round trip to work. That’s $20CDN per day. Charging my Equinox EV at home to get 100km of range costs me about $1.40.
I’m at the office an average of 3.5 days a week over 44 weeks a year, so 155 days,
That’s $3100 of gas vs. $200 in electricity. Plus 1-2 oil changes on the truck, just for work.
It’s encouraging to see so many people here who have woken up to the fact that EVs do the efficiency thing way, way better than any ICE or hybrid could ever dream!
Even more efficient is not driving so much. The real cost of a vehicle is depreciation, not fuel. EVs are REALLY not so good at that part. Driving less helps with that as well.