(granade pin pulled) Whats the point in the Prius?

[robchalmers]

Plus the IIRC the last gen Civic Hybrid that was on sale in the UK was removed roughly the same time as the insight II was released.... odd

I'm totally with you Arra on the size thing. I mean My polo is roomy compared to some of the cars I've owned and carried my family (2kids+missus) and assorted crap around in, It even doubles up as a camper when I do Enduro racing!

Put simply the 'new' mini was classed a huge and bulbous when many reviewing magazines put it next to its predecessor. I remember with great fondness driving my mates old Mini traveller(Wagon) with 3 other people in it, a fiesta gearbox and some camping stuff up the motorway from donnington to carlisle...... would have been boring in something as BIG as the polo!

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by tumnasgt

It's a fact that more resources go into making a hybrid than a standard car, how much more they use is hard to tell because no one has done a proper study.
I am surprised that Toyota hasn't funded research to counter the Hummer rubbish considering how much damage it did (I don't know about other countries, but here it got a lot of coverage, and a lot of people now think their V8 SUVs are better for the environment).

CNW Marketing generated a widely discredited report due to some severe errors in expected vehicle life-time. However, they were quoted on the amount of energy needed to produce different cars in this news report:
Takes more energy to make a hybrid than it does an SUV | The San Diego Union-Tribune

. . .
The study also found that the energy to produce that hybrid is 30 percent greater than the industry average to produce any vehicle.

Specifically, the Accord hybrid needs 144 percent more energy to produce than the industry average, Prius 142 percent more, and the Civic hybrid 141 percent more.

But the Suburban and Yukon took 137 percent, Expedition 134 percent, Hummer H2 132 percent, Tahoe 128 percent, Escalade 120 percent and Navigator 114 percent. And that Accord hybrid tops its gasoline-only counterpart in energy use.

A regular Accord, for example, requires 95 percent more energy to produce than the average vehicle, while the Accord hybrid requires 144 percent, or nearly 50 percent more than the gas version.
. . .

Now the usual response by hybrid skeptics is to propose 'setting ones hair on fire and jumping off the nearest building.'

There are more credible reports that:

• Operational energy ~= 3-4 times the manufacturing energy (Is it more efficient to drive your car into the ground or ditch it for a better one? | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk)
• 109,000 mile, 10 year life-span CNW Marketing used for Prius life-time has turned out to be inaccurate. NOTE: lowest traction battery warranty was 8 year, 100,000 miles.
• 350,000 mile, ~30 year, life-time of the Hummer (and all large SUVs) were as wrong on the optimistic side as the Prius and all hybrid estimates were wrong on the low side.

The consistent flaw in the CNW Marketing report was to cut every hybrid's expected life-time and annual mileage while showing the huge, SUVs as driving exceptional miles for double the life-time of the hybrids.

Reading the CNW Marketing report, if a family had a hybrid Camry and a gas Camry, they would choose to drive the less fuel efficient, gas Camry more than the hybrid. So do the mind experiment and walk to your driveway with a gas and hybrid equivalent vehicle . . . Only in a CNW Marketing world would you want to spend more money on fuel and take the less efficient vehicle.

Currently, my NHW11, 2003 Prius, has over 130,000 miles. Earlier this year, I helped replace the traction battery of a 2001 Prius with 250,000 miles ($1,700 built using battery modules from salvage Prius.) The highest mileage, NHW11 Prius in the USA had 350,000 miles when a Buick T-boned it in an intersection. It had never had the battery replaced and the transaxle oil had only been replaced at 300,000 miles.

Believing hybrid skeptics is like chastity, its own reward . . . and punishment.

Bob Wilson

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by bwilson4web

CNW Marketing generated a widely discredited report due to some severe errors in expected vehicle life-time. However, they were quoted on the amount of energy needed to produce different cars in this news report:
Takes more energy to make a hybrid than it does an SUV | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Now the usual response by hybrid skeptics is to propose 'setting ones hair on fire and jumping off the nearest building.'

There are more credible reports that:

• Operational energy ~= 3-4 times the manufacturing energy (Is it more efficient to drive your car into the ground or ditch it for a better one? | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk)
• 109,000 mile, 10 year life-span CNW Marketing used for Prius life-time has turned out to be inaccurate. NOTE: lowest traction battery warranty was 8 year, 100,000 miles.
• 350,000 mile, ~30 year, life-time of the Hummer (and all large SUVs) were as wrong on the optimistic side as the Prius and all hybrid estimates were wrong on the low side.

The consistent flaw in the CNW Marketing report was to cut every hybrid's expected life-time and annual mileage while showing the huge, SUVs as driving exceptional miles for double the life-time of the hybrids.

Reading the CNW Marketing report, if a family had a hybrid Camry and a gas Camry, they would choose to drive the less fuel efficient, gas Camry more than the hybrid. So do the mind experiment and walk to your driveway with a gas and hybrid equivalent vehicle . . . Only in a CNW Marketing world would you want to spend more money on fuel and take the less efficient vehicle.

Currently, my NHW11, 2003 Prius, has over 130,000 miles. Earlier this year, I helped replace the traction battery of a 2001 Prius with 250,000 miles ($1,700 built using battery modules from salvage Prius.) The highest mileage, NHW11 Prius in the USA had 350,000 miles when a Buick T-boned it in an intersection. It had never had the battery replaced and the transaxle oil had only been replaced at 300,000 miles.

Believing hybrid skeptics is like chastity, its own reward . . . and punishment.

Bob Wilson

Of course building something like a modernised 5th gen Civic - or even keeping one going these days - would take less resources than either.

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Of course building something like a modernised 5th gen Civic - or even keeping one going these days - would take less resources than either.

CNW Marketing did the same 'treatment' to the Civic:

Civic Hybrid - 113,000 miles (CNW claim) - 45.3 mpg (114 vehicles)
Civic - 178,000 miles (CNW claim) - 34.1 mpg (22 vehicles) or 31.5 (112 vehicles)

These were for the 2006 Civics. As long as the operational energy costs remain 3-4 times more than the build cost, the differences between vehicle construction energy becomes vanishingly small.

Bob Wilson

[Arragonis]

I kind of meant the input required against keeping an existing car going, but I get the point

EDIT - To Clarify - or indeed vs Honda making something much simpler like the 5th Gen Civic which is far less complex than the 2006 one.

[Frank Lee]

A regular Accord, for example, requires 95 percent more energy to produce than the average vehicle, while the Accord hybrid requires 144 percent, or nearly 50 percent more than the gas version.

Should say "of the energy used" instead of "more energy". There is no way the regular Accord is on the top side of 100.

[robchalmers]

what about the extra resources in and carbon produced be the extraction process of the battery ingredients and then shipment of them to the battery manufacturer etc ? are they included in these studies?

[Arragonis]

Rob - Has anyone studied the carbon footprint of carbon footprint studies on the overall carbon footprint of whatever the study was originally about ? I think it could be a factor.

[bwilson4web]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Should say "of the energy used" instead of "more energy". There is no way the regular Accord is on the top side of 100.

Good catch but I think it was the non-technical writers. I suspect they meant to say:

• 95% - Accord cost to build - $30,000 (est.)
• 144% - Accord hybrid cost to build - $45,000 (above + 50%)

So according to CNW Marketing, it takes 50% more energy to make an Accord Hybrid but it didn't cost $15,000 more dollars over the regular Accord. The internal inconsistencies of hybrid skeptics is a thing of both wonder and horror.

Bob Wilson

[tumnasgt]

Bob, thanks for that.

That guardian article really needs to consider the very reasonable option of replacing the Focus with a brand new Focus Diesel, which emits 99g/km (less than the Insight). It also has the major benefit it would save the buyer ~£5000.

That gets me these numbers for the three over 6 years (in kg, using 1.2 tonnes for the Focus manufacture, which is double the average reported in that article):
Focus - 1200+(79806*.099) = 9101kg or 9.1 metric tonnes
Prius - 4000+(79806*.089) = 11103kg or 11 metric tonnes
Insight - 2200+(79806*0.102) = 10340kg or 10.3 metric tonnes

and for making it more interesting - 10 years:
Focus - 1200+(133010*.099) = 14368kg or 13.4 metric tonnes
Prius - 4000+(133010*.089) = 15837kg or 15.8 metric tonnes
Insight - 2200+(133010*0.102) = 15767kg or 15.8 metric tonnes

It's amazing what happens when a diesel option is added.