TruckStuff

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

__________________
DISCLAIMER
The preceding statements are meant to be taken as a whole, in their entirety. They may not be quoted in part and then used to flame me. They also do not imply that I believe the exact opposite of their meaning. They do not make any implication about any group, race, ethnicity, age group, or other cohort beyond what is stated above. They do not make any implications at all. They have no "tone" or "attitude." They are words. Nothing more.

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

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.

__________________
It only ends once... Anything that happens before that is just progress.

Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.

Cubsfan

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.

__________________
Dell Dimension 9200 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz) | 4x1GB DDR2 | 256MB nVidia GeForce 8800GT

Dell Studio 17 | Intel Core i7-720QM (1.6GHz) | 2x2GB DDR3 1066MHz | 1GHz ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650

Intel P4-C 3.0GHz | ECS 865PE-A | 3x512MB PC3200 | 128MB PNY GeForce 6600GT

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

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

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.

__________________
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and beastiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse

VTGreg

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

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.

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.

__________________


DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)

TruckStuff

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 :
This makes this report majorly suspect in its accuracy.

__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz

DarkFury

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.

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.

__________________
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

LPMiller

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.

__________________
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature

"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes

VTGreg

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

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.

__________________
Wait a second... you're telling me Sixpac Shakur is a CHICK?

LPMiller

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

shaggyucla

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..

__________________
..and you know this..mannn

Houdini

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

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

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/autom...ota_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

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

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

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