Prius outdoes Hummer in environmental damage

[TruckStuff]

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.

The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?

You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.

However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses. http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

[Cubsfan]

Oh good, this study again. Frankly, I don't care either way, for me it's all about saving money. But this study seemed to claim that over 100,000 miles, a Prius would cost $325,000. I can't figure out for the life of me how they came up with this.


It's also saying that a Hummer costs almost $600k to drive 300,000 miles. Again, I'm not sure what wacky numbers they use to come up with that, but that's a bit too high.

[VTGreg]

Oh good, this study again. Frankly, I don't care either way, for me it's all about saving money. But this study seemed to claim that over 100,000 miles, a Prius would cost $325,000. I can't figure out for the life of me how they came up with this.


It's also saying that a Hummer costs almost $600k to drive 300,000 miles. Again, I'm not sure what wacky numbers they use to come up with that, but that's a bit too high.

These numbers come from the total combined energy to build and operate the car. This isn't the cost to the end user but the total cost to operate that vehicle for one mile (Prius $3.25, Hummer $1.95).

There was another study published with this data about 6 months ago. It should be floating either around this or the automotive forum.

[Cubsfan]

These numbers come from the total combined energy to build and operate the car. This isn't the cost to the end user but the total cost to operate that vehicle for one mile (Prius $3.25, Hummer $1.95).

There was another study published with this data about 6 months ago. It should be floating either around this or the automotive forum.

This still makes no sense to me (unless we're factoring in some type of odd environmental cost). Shouldn't the cost to build the car be covered by the purchase price (plus any subsidies)?

[bachviet]

If you really wants to save $$$, get one of those small high-efficient/low-power cars.

[johnnymk]

Defintely a lot of distorted figures in that article.

[faither]

After two years my Prius is still averaging 55 MPG -- with a one-tank high of 61 MPG. So far the only maintenance is changing the oil and adding gas.

I'll keep the Prius.

[johnnymk]

After two years my Prius is still averaging 55 MPG -- with a one-tank high of 61 MPG. So far the only maintenance is changing the oil and adding gas.

I'll keep the Prius.

Well, you live in a warm climate with relatively few hills. Cars suffer in the winter wither fewer MPG. And it takes more fuel to traverse hills.

A friend of mine has a first generation Prius, lives in Pennsylvania and gets a lot less MPG than you do.

[Butch]

These numbers come from the total combined energy to build and operate the car. This isn't the cost to the end user but the total cost to operate that vehicle for one mile (Prius $3.25, Hummer $1.95).

There was another study published with this data about 6 months ago. It should be floating either around this or the automotive forum.

My guess is that those figures include R&D. There must have been a tremendous amount of up-front R&D to develop the technology for the Prius (depending on how you want to calculate it, it could probably get into the billions), whereas the Hummer likely had little/no new R&D. Therefore, as each new Prius (or each new car that utilizes the tech developed in the R&D comes on the road, the average cost of per car development will come down tremendously.

Basically, the figures are completely flawed because they doesn't look at the long-term impact of the investment.

[VTGreg]

My guess is that those figures include R&D. There must have been a tremendous amount of up-front R&D to develop the technology for the Prius (depending on how you want to calculate it, it could probably get into the billions), whereas the Hummer likely had little/no new R&D. Therefore, as each new Prius (or each new car that utilizes the tech developed in the R&D comes on the road, the average cost of per car development will come down tremendously.

Basically, the figures are completely flawed because they doesn't look at the long-term impact of the investment.

The numbers take into account the cost per mile of the energy used to create and operate these cars. Unless I am completely missing something in the article, it doesn't include any human development costs.

I don't understand how some have such a hard time believing that hybrid cars, while very good on gas once owned, have a huge upfront cost to the environment in terms of energy.

[Cubsfan]

I don't understand how some have such a hard time believing that hybrid cars, while very good on gas once owned, have a huge upfront cost to the environment in terms of energy.
Edit: I quoted the wrong section here. For the record, I don't really care if the hybrid is better or worse, I just think that the study's numbers are at best very tainted.


I don't understand the breakdown of the cost.

Purchase Price: $30k (a little high)
Gas to drive 100,000 miles (assuming 20 mpg and $3/gallon): $15,000
Random costs (insurance, repairs, etc...): $30,000

(yes, all of my estimates are way high)

That brings us to $75k. Who is paying the other $250,000?


(And for that matter, I think the Hummer's costs are way high too)

[DarkFury]

Heh... I'm just wondering how this ended up in Politics rather than the Automotive section. :shrug:

Well... it's possible that it will magically move that way eventually (when GAM gets wind of it.)


Honestly, I'm still waiting on those scientists to perfect that Hydrogen/water based engine. :D

[TruckStuff]

Heh... I'm just wondering how this ended up in Politics rather than the Automotive section. :shrug: Because I knew it would spark irrational arguments and blanket dismissal by certain folks. Looks like I was right. ;)

[zippyjuan]

The article looks at the production of the Prius battery and points out that it has one (the Hummer has a battery too, just not as large of one) and that it was shipped to different parts of the world to be manufactured. The Hummer also has parts made in and shipped through various places around the world. I would bet some of those come from China which now has five of the ten most poluted cities in the world. Half of their rivers are not even clean enough to swim in let alone drink out of or use to water crops. Was this article written by either the Hummer manufacturer or another US car maker supporting researcher?

The Hummer has larger tires which require more recources to make, they add more polution as they wear down (and they wear down quicker than Prius tires due to vehicle size and the fact that they have a larger contact area with the road). The Hummer being of a much larger size also causes more wear and tear on the roads it travels- requiring more labor and petroleum products to repair or replace. There are many factors not included in this article.

I just checked out the website of the company that issued the study- CNW Marketing http://www.cnwmr.com/ . It does not look like they are an experienced research organization. On their own FAQ page they admit :

We study how people spend the money they have available to them.

Within that context we look at five industries: Automotive, High-end home electronics, Single-family housing, Personal investments and In-home computers. We also have a political research office and recently performed some drug-related studies for a government agency.

While we are most known for our automotive research, we are NOT an automotive research company, per se. We look at the automobile business in the context of how it fits into consumer buying patterns with all the appropriate whys and wherefores.

This makes this report majorly suspect in its accuracy.

[DarkFury]

Because I knew it would spark irrational arguments and blanket dismissal by certain folks. Looks like I was right. ;)
Certainly you are not assuming that "I" am dismissing it...

I haven't really made a comment about it since that is an arguement I'll leave to others...

However, the thread is misplaced regardless... look up some of the other threads that Apex deemed "automotive" that were discussing non automotive issues but referenced cars in doing so. :D

[Napoleon54]

The stats are very iffy (I agree with CubsFan, where the hell are those numbers coming from???), and some guy from greenpeace is quoted. I'm taking this one with a whole bucketful of salt grains.

[LPMiller]

Because I knew it would spark irrational arguments and blanket dismissal by certain folks. Looks like I was right. ;)


where are the irrational arguments? How is math not adding up irrational to question? I mean, I don't even understand why one car is compared to 100,000, and the other 300,000. How long the car could potentially really isn't relevant, since it's guesswork.

environmental footprint is one of those moving target things too. the First Prius likely has a bigger footprint then the last one. Or it has a smaller one, because the production is ramped up. Same with the Hummer. This research is flawed because it's not quite apples to apples, and it makes some big assumptions, and I'm not even really sure what point it's really trying to make, since I don't think people are buying hybrids because they think it's better for the environment to build them, they just don't want to spend so much on gas.

[VTGreg]

environmental footprint is one of those moving target things too. the First Prius likely has a bigger footprint then the last one. Or it has a smaller one, because the production is ramped up. Same with the Hummer. This research is flawed because it's not quite apples to apples, and it makes some big assumptions, and I'm not even really sure what point it's really trying to make, since I don't think people are buying hybrids because they think it's better for the environment to build them, they just don't want to spend so much on gas.

I disagree. I think many buy hybrids to be green and help the environment. The cost benefit of owning a hybrid has a break even of around 5 to 6 years depending on the cost of gas.

I don't think many think about the possible environmental impact of the full lifecycle of many things, hybrids included. They just see that hybrids use less gas on the back end and say, "This is better for the environment."

Even if the numbers in the article are inflated, are they so inflated that they don't call into question how green hybrids really are?

[Cubsfan]

Even if the numbers in the article are inflated, are they so inflated that they don't call into question how green hybrids really are?

Yes. If they were even remotely reasonable, they might make a point. Given how pathetically wrong they are, you can't draw any conclusions at all from it. To me, they appear to be at very least triple what's reasonable. Given the fact that they aren't even in the right ballpark, any conclusions drawn from them are worthless.

(Now, frankly, I'm inclined to actually agree with what YOU are saying, but this study isn't a useful to make any point whatsoever.)

[gear02]

I think this study is a hatchet job sponsored by oil companies or something. With that said, there is something to be said about the increased cost of producing the materials in a hybrid car. I'm betting Toyota thought they could bank on this market and produced a car that was fuel efficient, not one that's green.

I do think those who take this study to hard are the ones who are looking for an excuse to point to those "green" folks and laugh really hard. Is there really a bad thing to try to be environmentally friendly?

I personally think the biggest farce are those companies who produce mild hybrid cars (cars that use a battery and regenerative braking to start/shutoff the gas engine or to power the electronics in a car) and call them hybrids thinking that customers are gullible enough to buy them. I'm going to put a 9V battery into a hummer and call that a hybrid (from top gear ;) ).

[thresher]

Honestly, the batteries are truly the blight of hybrids but they are getting better (this coming from a guy who gets 10mpg on his BETTER vehicle). I can see the build materials helping out on weight and smarter transmissions making up for the batteries' shortcomings. For my money, I would rather see my wife in something bigger and more crashworthy, but she's a lousy driver. ;)

[LPMiller]

bigger doesn't mean more crash worthy. But I get your point.

[shaggyucla]

I disagree. I think many buy hybrids to be green and help the environment. The cost benefit of owning a hybrid has a break even of around 5 to 6 years depending on the cost of gas.

i like the concept of the hybrid cars, my mom actually drives one of the first civic hybrids. I think also the study is taking in consideration that the battery system will need replacing every 5 to 6 years (of course depending on a lot of things)So the break even point gets pushed a bit back when you have to think of replacing the batteries..

[Houdini]

bigger doesn't mean more crash worthy. But I get your point.

Hummer vs. Prius. 60mph, any angle. Hummer wins. :shrug:

[LPMiller]

that's just stupid. No kidding. Still not my point.

Some cars implement their safety features better. Some cars have side impact bags. Some cars are safer in an accident when compared to a bigger car. That doesn't mean a prius will survive a semi. I would have thought that was a pretty obvious point.

[johnnymk]

Hummer vs. Prius. 60mph, any angle. Hummer wins. :shrug:

I guess if you're a redneck or a wrestler..Better yet, a redneck wrestler who drinks a carton of Bud every night.

[smeakim]

This argument will never be won.... It has been beaten to death here numerous times. I think my math is pretty straight forward but maybe someone can prove me wrong.

Chevy Cavalier $12,000
On Average 30-35 mpg.
Cost of Gas $2.5 mpg (i paid 2.46 yesterday)
Assume 15K a year in miles
Cost of Gas per year $1250 (at 30 mpg)
Cost over 6 years 12K + 7500 = 19500
Cost over 10 years 12K + 12500 = 24500

Prius $24,000
On Average lets Say 48 mpg
Cost of gas 2.50
Assume 15K a year in miles
Cost of Gas Per Year 781.25
Tax break $2000.00 (which I think no longer exists)
Cost over 6 years 24K + 4687 -2000 = 26687
Cost over 10 years 24K + 7812.50 - 2000 = 29812

Yes there are other factors such as style and other features but even after 10 years I don't see the math I will stick with my Cavalier. I hope we have better cars 10 years from now. I still am saving 5K and can buy a new better car in 10 years. IMHO.

[zippyjuan]

Government figures on a 1998 Cavelier with 15,000 miles per year driving (45% highway and 55% city) at $2.58 a gallon of gas shows an annual fuel cost of $1490. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/14059.shtml
and for the Pius, $704 using Regular fuel. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.shtml

The Pius has a tax credit depending on when you purchased it (it is phased out as more of the vehicle is sold up to 60,000 units). http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml Prior to Sept 30h 2006 this was $3150, until March 31st of this year it is $1575 and then it drops to $787. Figuring one purchased this year and a marginal tax rate of 25%, this could save you almost $400, but with rounding off the purchase price, probably not a dramatic change in the cost of the vehicle over its lifetime.

Costs should also include insurance rate differences, if any. Apparently, the Prius costs more to insure- due in part to its increased complexity. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_prius.html
Then there is the problem of disposing of the car and its batteries at the end of its lifetime.

I have to admit it, that the Prius, while a nice concept and nice that it uses less gasoline, may not be the environmental solution at this time. It does seem that even the out of pocket costs outweigh the gas bill savings (but that is probably not the main reason that people bought one- just like those who bought a Hummer did not buy it for its milage either). Even the environmental impact do not seem to be reduced by much compared with other vehicles.

I would still be in favor of requiring better gas mileage from SUVs and small trucks- which are presently excluded from those applied to other passenger vehicles. This can still be done and save a lot of oil consumption if we do.

[Houdini]

that's just stupid. No kidding. Still not my point.

Some cars implement their safety features better. Some cars have side impact bags. Some cars are safer in an accident when compared to a bigger car. That doesn't mean a prius will survive a semi. I would have thought that was a pretty obvious point.

Oh, I know. Still, I wonder about the actual safety features' effectiveness' are in most real-life situations. That and the fact that all the collapsible stuff makes a minor accident often very expensive to repair. Granted, I feel safe in my 3 series, and it's not big, but I also felt INCREDIBLY safe in my old '77 Volvo 240. Mainly because it was built like a tank. Wasn't terribly heavy, but had big tubular steel bars in the doors, etc. And about the only other feature besides seatbelts was the engine shearing breakaway thing that directed the engine under the car in a bad frontal impact.

All things considered, with cars, even though I like and will probably own smaller cars (love the Cayman.....someday...) and I plan to have a Countache in my garage within 10 years, I'd go for the heavier car. But I guess it's kind of like my preference for RWD cars and experience with seeing lots of car wrecks and patients from them. Hint - Dodge Neons are deathcans.

[Houdini]

I guess if you're a redneck or a wrestler..Better yet, a redneck wrestler who drinks a carton of Bud every night.

Err...didn't quite get that one.

H <---is maybe too tired to figure things out right now.:dead:

[InfiniteNothing]

This argument will never be won.... It has been beaten to death here numerous times. I think my math is pretty straight forward but maybe someone can prove me wrong.

Chevy Cavalier $12,000
On Average 30-35 mpg.
Cost of Gas $2.5 mpg (i paid 2.46 yesterday)
Assume 15K a year in miles
Cost of Gas per year $1250 (at 30 mpg)
Cost over 6 years 12K + 7500 = 19500
Cost over 10 years 12K + 12500 = 24500

Prius $24,000
On Average lets Say 48 mpg
Cost of gas 2.50
Assume 15K a year in miles
Cost of Gas Per Year 781.25
Tax break $2000.00 (which I think no longer exists)
Cost over 6 years 24K + 4687 -2000 = 26687
Cost over 10 years 24K + 7812.50 - 2000 = 29812

Yes there are other factors such as style and other features but even after 10 years I don't see the math I will stick with my Cavalier. I hope we have better cars 10 years from now. I still am saving 5K and can buy a new better car in 10 years. IMHO.

That's pure apples to oranges. Prius buyers are not considering a Cavalier just like cavalier buyers are not likely buying a 91 Toyota Tercel

[Jeffbx]

But he raises a good point, which is that there is really no reason whatsoever to buy a Prius (or any other hybrid) at this point in time given the alternatives available. You're not saving any money, that's for sure. Although emissions are lower, you have the battery disposal to contend with, so environmental impact is questionable. Handling, performance & comfort are clearly not priorities in hybrids. MPG is good, but you can get just as good or better with diesel.

You can get a MUCH nicer car for the same amount, and still meet whatever your need is for the hybrid. Cleaner emissions? Get a flexfuel. Higher MPG? VW diesel. Just want to drive a nerdy little car? Honda Fit. Tax break? Well, you got me there.

[InfiniteNothing]

First, what if you want to be clean and high MPG? second, how are flex fuels cleaner? Which VW gets higher gas milage?

[bachviet]

First, what if you want to be clean and high MPG?...
Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, and Nissan Versa would do.

[Jeffbx]

Which VW gets higher gas milage?

Just about any with the TDI engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/09/vw-beetle-wins-fuel-economy-prize-76.html


second, how are flex fuels cleaner?


Using corn based fuel ethanol production, E85 has a significant effect on total fossil fuel / energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As process efficiency increases over the coming years, these benefits are expected to continue to improve. A recent study by University of California at Berkeley estimates it cuts greenhouse-gas emissions by 13% over gasoline

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85)

I'm just saying that I don't buy into the hybrid hype as it exists today. If they were about $10k cheaper, then OK, I'd say it's a good alternative. But given the other options available, I'd go with something else.

[johnnymk]

Err...didn't quite get that one.

H <---is maybe too tired to figure things out right now.:dead:


Sorry,I just noticed the 60 MPH. I thought you meant styling or something else.

[InfiniteNothing]

Just about any with the TDI engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection
http://www.green-trust.org/2005/09/vw-beetle-wins-fuel-economy-prize-76.html

Jetta TDI gets 35/42 and is a LEV II/LEV; air pollution score of 1/10
Prius gets 60/51 MPG and is a SULEV EPA; air pollution score of 8/10 It's also quite a bit more reliable.

[Chgoman]

The funny thing when you get in to Hybrid conversations is that most people focus completely on the numbers. People don't buy any car just for the numbers. Do I like the fact that my Prius gets good mileage, absolutely. Is it the only reason I bought it? Of course not. For me, the $3,000 rebate offset a lot of the price. I can drive in the carpool lane by myself which saves me hours every week (that's worth a lot to me). At the time, it was hard to find a car for $19K after rebate that had the same features (integrated GPS/bluetooth, Smart entry & start system from the Lexus, premium sound system, ect.).

I could go on, but my main point is people don't buy Hybrids just for financial reasons, or just for enviromental reasons, just like people don't buy other cars, trucks, SUV's, ect. for just one reason. For some people Hybrids make sense, for others they don't. For some poeple trucks make sense, for other they don't. etc.etc.

[Napoleon54]

IMO it's kinda silly to be so critical of hybrids by comparing them to vehicles powered by a standard old school gas engine. Hybrid technology is a new and up-and-coming thing that's a far cry from reaching the peak of its potential. It's not at all reasonable to criticize it for not being the best thing around when it's so early on in develpment. Getting something like the Prius out into the marketplace is an essential step for hybrid technology. Cut the Prius a break, it's a step in the right direction.

[VTGreg]

IMO it's kinda silly to be so critical of hybrids by comparing them to vehicles powered by a standard old school gas engine. Hybrid technology is a new and up-and-coming thing that's a far cry from reaching the peak of its potential. It's not at all reasonable to criticize it for not being the best thing around when it's so early on in develpment. Getting something like the Prius out into the marketplace is an essential step for hybrid technology. Cut the Prius a break, it's a step in the right direction.

I understand your point and don't disagree that they are a step in the right direction. However, if one of the main selling points and one of the main reasons why people purchase hybrids is that they are better for the environment, isn't it fair to ask if they are actually better for the envrionment then the standard gas powered engines?

[Jeffbx]

Getting something like the Prius out into the marketplace is an essential step for hybrid technology. Cut the Prius a break, it's a step in the right direction.

I do agree with you 100% on this... SOMEONE has to be an early adopter, even if the technology isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I just hope people look closely at what they're buying, and realize what they're getting into.

[Chgoman]

I understand your point and don't disagree that they are a step in the right direction. However, if one of the main selling points and one of the main reasons why people purchase hybrids is that they are better for the environment, isn't it fair to ask if they are actually better for the envrionment then the standard gas powered engines?


I'm sure that there are some people who buy it because of the assertation that it is better for the environment, but I'd be willing to bet that isn't the primary reason most people buy one. Sure, you see the hollywood crowd using that for their image, but your average joe is probably looking more at price, features and mileage like everyone else.

[thresher]

As long as those suckers keep buying their hybrids the batteries will keep getting better and we'll eventually end up with a car that is more economical than this: http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/04/honda-fit.jpg
But you wouldn't catch me driving any of these tin-can death traps anyway since all too often I see this on the highway:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/photo/2003-09/9235139.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_86RuYXoJA&eurl= warning - graphic

[LPMiller]

someone should let you know where the highways are, so you can stop driving on the nascar track.

[thresher]

yeah yeah. you think that, but until December I lived in Daytona Beach. That WAS the highways! :) Actually, I was clumsily looking for a wreck and thought...hmmm...Nascar(!). ;) Nice Fit graphic though, ain't it?

[wallofcheese]

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

The original article is an opinion piece (i.e., no fact-checking) for a college newspaper that evidently desperately needs attention. In February, The Recorder published "Rape only hurts if you fight it" and now in March, "Prius outdoes hummer." This newspaper and this article are garbage.

1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."

2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/

And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies — early 1970’s) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury’s nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.

Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html

Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening (the acid rain problem David Martin of Greenpeace is talking about is the situation pre 1972):
http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm

In DeMorro's follow-up to this article, he recommends people buy a Tesla Roadster for 30k. The Tesla Roadster actually costs 92k. Seriously, this writer can't get even the simplest facts right.

[thresher]

Welcome to G|A, WallofCheese(!) Was this the article that sent you over the edge (lurking for a while?) or did you just find us? :) Either way, we're glad to have you!

[johnnymk]

"2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/"

The Hummers last that long?. From what I understand, they are built on a SUV chassis (Expedition) and have had numerous problems right from the start. Unless they are talking about the larger version. Isn't that called the HumVee?

[thresher]

Uh, Hummer = GM. Expedition = Ford. This much I do know. (check avatar) :)

[johnnymk]

Uh, Hummer = GM. Expedition = Ford. This much I do know. (check avatar) :)


OOPS..you're right..Where did I hear that the Hummer was built on a SUV chassis?
Or is there a larger vehicle in Ford's line than the Expedition?

[mechmike0034]

I do agree with you 100% on this... SOMEONE has to be an early adopter, even if the technology isn't all that it's cracked up to be. I just hope people look closely at what they're buying, and realize what they're getting into.

Are you prophetic, or what?

http://www.gotapex.com/1165150-post1.html

I hate it for Aren, but one of the things that keeps me away from hybrids is what happens in the long haul...

[mechmike0034]

OOPS..you're right..Where did I hear that the Hummer was built on a SUV chassis?
Or is there a larger vehicle in Ford's line than the Expedition?

The H2 is built on a Yukon/Tahoe (short-wheelbase Suburban) chassis, and the H3 is bulit on the Colorado/Canyon (small pickup) chassis...

[DarkFury]

OOPS..you're right..Where did I hear that the Hummer was built on a SUV chassis?
Or is there a larger vehicle in Ford's line than the Expedition?
Does Furd still make the Excursion? If so... that one is much bigger than the Expedition.

EDIT: Guess not... it was discontinued in 2005. :D

[Houdini]

I don't understand the fascination with flex-fuel, except for lessening dependence on foreign oil. Combustion still makes CO2 and some CO if incomplete, no matter what you burn (unless it's pure H2.) Seems like a lot of people, especially on talk radio, etc., seem to think ethanol = no CO2. Not much = low CO2. Breathing = CO2. Burning anything = CO2, etc.

Hydrogen would be great, if only it were cost effective to crack water. Right now it takes burning fossil fuels to crack water. Zero sum. Unless you go nuclear, but people in this country are scared of anything that says "nuclear" anywhere, no matter how safe the plant may be.

[johnnymk]

Are you prophetic, or what?

http://www.gotapex.com/1165150-post1.html

I hate it for Aren, but one of the things that keeps me away from hybrids is what happens in the long haul...

I use to hear "Don't buy a first generation vehicle from GM." Maybe it applies to every manufacturer.

[DarkFury]

I use to hear "Don't buy a first generation vehicle from GM." Maybe it applies to every manufacturer.
Honestly, I'm feelin' that kind of logic myself...

Too many things get "discovered" with the first model year of a vehicle. Let someone else take the hit on those and get one a few years later once they've worked out the issues.

[Houdini]

Honestly, I'm feelin' that kind of logic myself...

Too many things get "discovered" with the first model year of a vehicle. Let someone else take the hit on those and get one a few years later once they've worked out the issues.

Yeah, my brother bought a new Mustang last year. First of the new generation. Tons of trouble with the fuel system. Evidently the "saddle" tank is badly engineered. Keeps leaking gas, won't fill up, etc., even after multiple "repairs." He was last told to fill up his tank by holding the nozzle upside down. WTF? He's going after lemon law stuff now. WAAY too many problems. Supposedly fixed this year, but no retrofit available.