Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 920 +-   Hummer Greener Than Prius? on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:20PM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:20PM
from the buy-a-Scion-xB dept.
power
hardware
An anonymous reader sends in a story from Central Connecticut State University, claiming that a Prius takes more energy to manufacture than a Hummer — 50% more. In addition, the article claims that the Prius costs $3.25 per mile over its expected lifespan of 100,000 miles compared to $1.95 per mile for the Hummer. The article gets its data from a study by CNW Marketing called Dust to Dust, which is an attempt to account for all the costs of vehicles, from manufacture through operation through repair and disposal. The $3.25/mile cost quoted for the Prius is the 2005 number; for 2006 it is $2.87. This improvement pulled the Prius below the straight industry average — all the other hybrids are still above that average. And the Hummer is not listed at all for 2006. Update: 03/21 00:44 GMT by J : You might want to take those figures with a grain of salt; I don't think anyone's seen the supporting data. Read on for details.

J adds:

The Prius's mediocre cost-per-mile is due mainly to CNW Research assigning the car a short expected lifetime: 109,000 miles. Nobody knows where this number comes from because CNW has not published details about its derivation. If a car will not last very long, then of course its energy cost per mile is high.

Back in July 2006, when CNW's study "Dust to Dust" had just been published (and which remains, unchanged, the original source for today's news), I emailed its president, Art Spinella:

Hello,

I'm with the tech news and discussion site Slashdot.org. One of our readers submitted a story about your Dust to Dust study.

According to Wikipedia, the Prius comes with a 150,000 mile warranty in California and a few other states; 100,000 elsewhere.

On p. 21 and p. 40 of your report I see that you estimate the average Prius will be "removed from the streets... and sent for disposal" at 109,000 miles. Can you explain how you arrived at this figure?

Thank you.

I did not receive a reply.

My question was about the cost-per-mile denominator; here's another critique questioning the numerator.

story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crvtec (921881) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:23PM (#18419143)
    Since when does manufacturing cost/cost over life equal friendly to the environment?
    • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by OwnedByTwoCats (124103) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:26PM (#18419197)
      Especially when the comparison assumes up front that the Hummer will last 3x longer than the Prius. Makes the Hummer's per mile figure a lot better than it would be in an honest comparison.
        • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Informative)

          by MindStalker (22827) <jlarsen@@@fsu...edu> on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:36PM (#18419413) Journal
          Its not honest because they pulled these numbers out of their ass. They produced these studies early in the life of the Prius back when there were fears of it only lasting 100K miles. This has been proved wrong as they all have lasted 200K or more and the clock is still going.
            • Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Mistlefoot (636417) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:55PM (#18419765)
              You've had three Honda's and they've only lasted for 75K, 120K and 90K and you still keep buying them? Those numbers translate to (approx) 45,000, 72,000 and 54,000 miles.

              Honda gives a 100,000 km warranty on all there cars (60,000 miles).

              You are either lying, exaggerating, or having yours cars survive for less then the warranty period and still buying the same brand again - which is pretty damn stupid if you ask me.
            • Re:wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Ucklak (755284) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:59PM (#18419871)
              I have a 95 Civic with 155,000+ miles. 2 timing belts, 1 air conditioner, oil filter and change every 7,500 miles and new air filter every year.
              I also had a 93 Eclipse that lasted well over 200,000 miles but had to get a 'family' car.

              I hate buying cars because they drop in value so fast. Forget getting a loan for a car beacuse you'll need devaulation (gap) insurance for that.
              You'll have negotiating room if (A) you pay in cash, (B) walk away. Dealers will not let you walk away from moving a car.
                • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:30PM (#18420429) Homepage Journal
                  They may be the first to have crossed 200K miles with a Prius. Taxi service is one of the hardest uses for a car. When Toyota bought it back for a teardown to study extended wear, it still had the factory battery and other drivetrain components.

                  As more normal service pushes others over 200K, the results have been mostly the same.

                  The Prius was also designed for (_relatively_) green manufacturing techniques, including a less nasty painting process.

                  The Prius is also an SULEV, news to me if the Hummer is as well.
                • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Informative)

                  by tftp (111690) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @04:01PM (#18421007) Homepage
                  No, they are NiMH batteries (LiIon planned for 2008 models). The batteries are kept between 20% and 80% SOC, so they are never fully discharged or fully charged - this increases their life enormously.
            • by rossifer (581396) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @06:19PM (#18422811) Journal
              NiMH batteries are almost entirely recycleable. The high-nickel product from currently primitive recycling processes can be used as an input to stainless steel manufacturing, but is only marginally economical for making new batteries. When used in making stainless steel, the recycled product displaces nickel that would be produced by new extraction, and IMHO, should be considered as a 100% offset to the environmental cost of the nickel used in the original construction of the battery.

              Nickel is already expensive enough that if nickel-based battery production ramps up, the economic value of the nickel will make battery remanufacturing fully cost-effective. Additional research on the manufacturing and recycling processes are also likely to provide substantial cost improvements from where we stand today. I wouldn't be suprised to find in 5-10 years that nickel-based batteries enjoy the same "near-100%" closed-loop recycling ability that lead-acid batteries currently enjoy.

              Regards,
              Ross
        • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Informative)

          by m_chan (95943) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:47PM (#18419625) Homepage
          And especially if the article tells outright lies to make its (dubious) case:

          From the article: "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. "

          Now compare that to Wikipedia's entry on Greater Sudbury [wikipedia.org]:

          "The ore deposits in Sudbury are part of a large geological structure known as the Sudbury Basin, believed to be the remnants of a 1.85-billion year old meteorite impact crater. Sudbury ore contains profitable amounts of many elements, especially transition metals, including platinum. It also contains an unusually high concentration of sulfur. When nickel-copper ore is smelted, this sulfur is released into the environment, where it is toxic to vegetation. Carried aloft, it combines with atmospheric water to form sulfuric acid. This contaminates atmospheric water, resulting in a phenomenon known as acid rain.

          As a result, Sudbury was widely, although not entirely accurately, known for many years as a wasteland. In parts of the city, vegetation was devastated, both by acid rain and by logging to provide fuel for early smelting techniques, as well as wood for the reconstruction of Chicago after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The resulting erosion exposed bedrock, which was charred in most places to a pitted, dark black appearance. There was not a complete lack of vegetation in the region, however. Paper birch and wild blueberry are notable examples of plants which thrived in the acidic soils, and even during the worst years of the city's environmental damage, not all parts of the city were equally affected.

          During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury, to become familiar with shatter cones, a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years.

          In the late 1970s, private, public, and commercial interests combined to establish an unprecedented "regreening" effort. Lime was spread over the charred soil of the Sudbury region by hand and by aircraft. Seeds of wild grasses and other vegetation were also spread. In twenty years, over three million trees were planted. The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices, and in 1992 the city was given the "Local Government Honours Award" by the United Nations, in honour of its innovative community-based strategies in environmental rehabilitation. More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees."
      • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jimmyfergus (726978) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:12PM (#18420095)

        The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image.

        I came to that conclusion when I did a calculation of the energy saved by turning off my computer when I wasn't at work. It's amazing how many people leave them on all night to save minor hassle (I know sometimes there good reasons, but not for most cases where I see it).

        I worked out turning my one work computer off as I leave the office keeps about 1 ton of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere (workings below), plus an amount of mercury and other pollution, assuming the electricity here comes from coal. It takes 100 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 ton of CO2. Please correct me if I'm wrong

        • My machine: a twin Xeon, draws 140W at idle. More efficient machines may draw little more than half of that. Laptops, significantly less again.
        • If it's off 15 hours at night and all weekend: 123 hours
        • Coal generation produces about 2.3lb CO2 per KW/h (reference [ornl.gov])

        0.140 * 123 * 52 * 2.3 = 2059lb

        • CO2 per gallon of gasoline: ~19.4lb (reference [epa.gov])

        therefore 2059 lb is produced by around 106 gallons of gasoline.

        That's about how much I'd save if I had a Prius (I do ~8000 miles/year). Sure, many people do more, and have more efficient computers, but it puts it in perspective.

  • Not true (Score:5, Funny)

    by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:23PM (#18419149) Journal
    Hummers may be more energy efficient, but how are they supposed to make you feel morally superior to others?

    Think about it.
    • Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MindStalker (22827) <jlarsen@@@fsu...edu> on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:34PM (#18419365) Journal
      They stated the Prius last 100K and that the Hummer last 300K miles.
      They then take energy cost of production and divide by these numbers to get cost per mile
      HAHA BULLSHIT! Reading the study they take very elaborate measure to get an exact accurate cost of each vehicle in terms of energy. Then they pull this shit. The Prius batteries are well known to last 200K miles and more. And only the military Hummers last 300K miles the commercial version doesn't even come close.

      Reading the data makes me laugh
      • Re:Not true (Score:4, Informative)

        by ThosLives (686517) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:40PM (#18419501) Journal

        I also like the fact that they say "any physicist will tell you it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving".

        So, what they're saying is, the majority of the tank of gas I use on a 400 mile trip is getting my car from a stop up to highway speed.

        I think I'm going to vomit now.

          • Re:Not even close? (Score:5, Informative)

            by illegalcortex (1007791) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @04:35PM (#18421559)
            Wow, following someone elses post I downloaded the full word doc of the supposed "study."

            Here is what they ACTUALLY used for the lifetimes:

            • Accord Hybrid - 117,000
            • Prius - 109,000
            • Civic Hybrid - 113,000
            • Escape Hybrid - 127,000
            • Insight - 109,000
            • Hummer H1 - 379,000

            So, not only did they lowball the Prius at 109k, they put the H1 down for 379,000 miles. If you read the explanation of expected life, the author says:

            Finally, the "Estimated Life in Miles" is based on historical data as well as manufacturer information and real-world life-cycle information that average the miles over comparable historic models as well as a CNW analysis of repair and replacement as well as scrappage records. In effect, the miles figure here is a realistic approximation of the likely life-cycle of the individual models. Note that there are clearly many consumers who have driven further and clocked more miles for some of these vehicles, but this information takes into account historic accident and disposal records for individual demographic groups and how long these vehicles are likely to last.

            So, basically, they have some kind of formula that they're not going to share with us. But just trust them.

            This paper is really a hoot. You can get it from http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Dust% 20Zip%20Folder.zip [cnwmr.com]
            The first 300 or so pages are the explanation and tables. Then there's another 60 pages of the author answering emails. Yet nowhere in those 60 pages can I find anyone apparently asking for hard evidence that the 109k/379k numbers are anywhere in the ballpark. You would think more than a couple of people asked that. But maybe I missed it. Did I mention this went on for 60 pages?

            And then the next 120 pages are disclosures, articles, correspondance, photos of cars, editorial cartoons and song lyrics. I am NOT joking.

      • I think it will (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:57PM (#18419811)
        And I'm a supporter of hybrids of that reason. I don't own one (my old car works fine) but I do think they are a technology that will be good for efficiency increases eventually. I mean we have to consider that this is essentially generation one technology. It will take time to get better. Look at the internal combustion engine to see the massive amount of progress there's been. While hybrids might not see as much, I think they will see large increases as the tech is refined.

        Also there's other factors that may end up being useful. Electric motors produce nearly 100% torque from the word go, whereas ICEs need to operate at a higher speed for maximum torque. So if we changed up the way a car worked and had electric motors directly drive the wheels and the engine drive a generator, you'd have a car (or truck) with tons of low end torque. Also that allows for the use of a smaller, single speed engine. You can make a much more optimised engine if it only need to run at a single RPM rather than being variable. Of course there's losses from the mechanical-electrical-mechanical conversion, so that's something that has to be overcome.

        That's actually how modern diesel trains work. Their power-plant doesn't drive the wheels, it drives a generator that powers electric motors. Hybrid locomotives seem to be quite a winner since there's already the conversion cycle, and adding 2000 pounds of batteries isn't really significant in the scope of a train weighing 5 million pounds or more.

        So I'm happy that this technology is being developed, but you are right that people need to have a big glass of perspective and soda. They are NOT more efficient over all. They aren't even cheaper to you. Get a Toyota Corolla 5-speed manual if you want efficiency. Even if gas were $4/gallon, it'd still be cheaper over the life of the car than a Prius. Or hell, if you can swing the smaller size, get a Smart Fortwo.

        If you want a hybrid that's great, I'm glad you are helping to support the research, but do be realistic about it.
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:26PM (#18419207)
    The question is what type of eneregy is used, and how much is producted from the energy source. Automobiles are a lot more energy effecient then say a human. But they give off polution that is less "green" or more difficult for the environment to handel.
  • BS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fred fleenblat (463628) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:26PM (#18419209) Homepage
    You don't get 300,000 miles of use out of a hummer.

    Correct that down to a more realistic 120,000 and the rest of the article's conclusions crumble.
      • Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 2short (466733) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:06PM (#18420007)
        What does being a V8 have to do with anything? My flat 4 has over 500K on it.

        In any case, the article assumes the Hummer will go 300K and the Prius 100K. Assuming the drivers have similar maintenance habits, etc. one of these assumptions is stupid. Given this basic level of rigging in their comparison, am I expected to beleive the many other numbers they throw about?
      • Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)

        by bear_phillips (165929) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:40PM (#18420637) Homepage
        Why exactly to you believe the Hummer's lifespan is limited to 120,000 miles? Consumer Reports has consistently ranked hummer low in reliability ratings. The Prius on the other hand has very good reliablity ratings.
  • $3.25/mile??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mendenhall (32321) * on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:29PM (#18419247)
    OK, this has got to be a seriously flawed study, for any car! $3.25/mile over 100,000 miles means I will have spent $325,000 on car maintenance in the lifetime of my Prius. Does anyone find this number just a bit untenable? Even for a Hummer, this number is untenable.

      • Re:$3.25/mile??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by j1m+5n0w (749199) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:00PM (#18419889) Homepage Journal

        That $3.25 per mile includes all energy and resources that went into the manufacturing of the vehicle as well, not just your cost per mile after purchasing. The energy required by the machinery at the nickel ore mines plus refining of said nickel for instance (when talking about the batteries it uses).
        So, let's say a prius costs $20,000 and it burns about $8,000 worth of fuel and costs $4,000 in maintenance (wild guess) in 100,000 miles. Where does the other $293,000 come from? The manufacturing energy costs should contribute to the final cost of the vehicle, unless they're heavily subsidized by someone. Toyota would not manufacture the car if they were taking that big of a loss. Are they including some ill-defined "environmental damage" cost in their calculations? If so, they ought to have said so in the article. $3.25 per mile sounds like a made-up number.
  • Old News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AnotherHiggins (925608) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:29PM (#18419261)
    A) I first read about this 'study' several months ago

    B) I couldn't find any information about "CNW Marketing" other than *suggestions* that they are a oil-funded group (nothing concrete, though).

    So who the fuck is CNW Marketing and why should their study be given any credence? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? (Not that BS doesn't ever make it into perr-reviewed journals....)

    • Re:Old News (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:55PM (#18419769) Journal

      So who the fuck is CNW Marketing and why should their study be given any credence?
      Well, they seem to be a big deal.
      Link [autonews.com]

      Art Spinella
      President
      CNW Marketing Research, Inc. ... Mr. Spinella is responsible for new areas of automotive research including the industry's most comprehensive minority market research, the company's monthly Retail Automotive Summary periodical, Month End Summary newsletter, Purchase Path studies, sales forecasting and industry analysis.
      ...
      Mr. Spinella served as director of the Nissan USA account for Bob Thomas and Associates Public Relations in Redondo Beach, CA where he wrote speeches for the company's Japanese president and was responsible for new-product introductions and business-story placements.[/end]

      And that's just from plugging their President's name into Google.
      Maybe you didn't look very hard?
  • Good to see (Score:4, Insightful)

    by solevita (967690) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:30PM (#18419269)
    It's good to see some comment on the (carbon) manufacturing costs of new cars. I heard some advice the other day that said if you wanted to help the environment, you should buy a new car, because they're more fuel efficient and produce less nasty chemicals. Great advice, if it wasn't for the facts that:

    1: Emissions are created during the manufacture of a car. And
    2: What happens to your old car? You're likely to sell it to someone that keeps using it, i.e. that car keeps producing harmful emissions, just for somebody else.

    If you wanted to help the environment, you wouldn't buy a new car, you'd keep an old one running as efficiently as you could and remember that there's more to carbon emissions than simply what you're doing right now. No man is an island, after all.
  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:31PM (#18419279) Journal

    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.
    I thought this was old news & that the situation on the ground had changed since the 1970's and 1980's.

    As an aside, the plant produce 130,000 tonnes (is that metric or imperial) annually.
    The 1,000 that goes towards Prius batteries is negligible
  • nonsense (Score:5, Funny)

    by rkww (675767) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:31PM (#18419285)

    As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving

    But I'm an engineering major, and I can tell you that that's only the case if you ignore air resistance.

  • by StefanJ (88986) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:32PM (#18419307) Homepage Journal
    When gasoline goes to $5.00 a gallon, it makes for a better garden shed than a Prius. Or a better place to sleep, if you bought your house with a interest-only loan.

    * * *

    So, is the Prius like a power plant in Sim City 2000? The second it hits 100,000 miles it falls apart?

    Who made this crap up, the Club For Growth, the American Enterprise Institute, or the Hummer Fans of America?
  • While the part about the manufacture of the batteries is interesting, to say that a Hummer uses less energy than a Prius is misleading at best and propaganda at worst. The mistake that is makes is to assume that all energy usage is the same when of course it isn't. When the issue is the environment, there are types of energy that are better for the environment than others. The article is acting as if burning old tires and solar energy were exactly the same when they aren't. Without more details on the environmental impact of the manufacturing processes used in each vehicle, this article is only useful for raising questions and making people who own Hummers feel good about themselves.
  • by CapsaicinBoy (208973) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:38PM (#18419453)
    Oh man, How many times do we need to go over the flawed assumptions and conclusions from the CNW Marketing analysis.

    First, it incorrectly assumes that hybrid batteries are not recycled. In reality, Toyota has very successful recycling program, including a $200 bounty on Prius batteries.

    Second, it is interesting that TFA mentions the Scion xB. Yet it fails to note that the CNW report data on the xA and xB don't make any sense. They are built on the same assembly line, have the same powertrains, only differ in weight by 50 lbs or so, and have similar efficiency (~35mpg), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to differ by 50 percent. How's that work?

    Third, the CNW report makes really bad assumptions about where the bulk of lifecycle energy use occurs (eg manufacturing vs operation).

    In short, it's misinformed at best and is more likely an intentional greenwash to assuage SUV owner dissonance in a post 9/11 world.

    Disclaimer: I drive a biodiesel powered Jetta TDI, not a hybrid.
  • by jonniesmokes (323978) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:40PM (#18419523)
    While some of the numbers might be arguable, the whole article misses the point of any new technology argument.

    -- First movers on new technology almost always are paying more and using more energy than their stick in the mud Hummer counterparts; the *hope* of the new technology is that with increased production efficiency it'll eventually become a good move. This is the argument of ethanol, bio-diesel, solar panels, hybrid cars, etc. The fact that they do more near term environmental damage than their conservative counterparts doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored on a low volume basis.

    I do agree with the article though that a truly economical car is better for the pocket book and the environment without having to bet on the environmental returns of a new technology. But what Prius owners are doing is spending all this money and subsidizing en masse Toyota's research of building hybrid cars. I applaud them for doing so. That's something the article misses entirely. In this sense, the Hummer is certainly not more environmentally friendly than a Prius (because the Prius is a search for a better solution).

    What the article doesn't mention is that mass transit and bicycles are way further down on the cost / mile and environmental damage than any of these cars. But that would be thinking outside the box.
  • Impossible Numbers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by diakka (2281) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:49PM (#18419669)
    TFA claims that the prius costs $3.25 per mile over the course of 100,000 miles. The car must therefore cost $325,000 to own over the lifetime of the car. That sounds pretty impossible to me. I think somebody miscounted a zero when they were doing the math.
  • by Paulrothrock (685079) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:00PM (#18419901) Homepage Journal

    Dozens of environmentalist blogs have picked apart this "study" and have found it to be lacking. Two [treehugger.com] responses [autobloggreen.com]. The gist of it is that they underestimated the Prius' lifespan and overestimated the amount of energy it takes.

    And a big red flag for every Slashdot reader is that CNW is a "market research" institute. Do you trust marketdroids to make engineering assessments?

  • by Brad1138 (590148) <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:03PM (#18419969)
    I was figuring this out a while back. If you keep your Prius for 100,000 miles at about 50mpg that is 2,000 gallons of gas. At $3.00/gal that's $6,000 in fuel. If a none Hybrid gets even 25 mpg (mine gets 30+) that's 4,000 gallons of gas or $12,000. So the Prius saves you $6,000 in gas and costs about $10,000 more than a comparable non-hybrid. I think I'll pass.
    • What woman wouldn't prefer a guy who already has a hummer, and thus doesn't need any from them?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2007, @02:38PM (#18419461)
      women prefer guys like me (hummer owner)

      It must be painful to admit you're not attractive to women without the truck. Sorry to hear that, shorty.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:17PM (#18420175)
        "guys who are trying to compensate for a tiny penis?"

        Get real. Some of us *need* a Hummer just so we can haul our huge penis around.
      • by MikShapi (681808) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @07:04PM (#18423213) Journal
        Sorry for deviating from the primary discussion topic of female-penis-attraction, and correlations between small genitals and large means of transportation, but this is actually a very good point.

        For the sake of perspective, I'm a 4-wheel-driving aussie, I drive a truck (... to places no Prius has gone before ...) and am quite exposed to some of the more bizzarre green movements, some of which, I daresay, are just a bunch of tree-hugging idiots.

        Now mind you, I like nature, spend time in nature and am all for preserving it. However, some tree-hugging truck-bashers are too resistant to common sense.

        For starters, most proper trucks run on Diesel engines, and do twice the mileage per volume of fuel compared to their similar-engine-sized petrol (aka 'gas' in American) brethren.

        Now I'd rather refer to human affordable practical vehicles such as Toyota Landcruisers and Nissan Patrols, not utterly-impractical overpriced-by-a-fucking-order-of-magnitude gimmicks for LA rappers ala Hummer H2/H3 or military-grade vehicles ala H1.

        This where both the parent comment and TFA touched on. An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car. Moreso even for a Prius that needs a 7000A$ - circa 5K US$ - at least that's what it costs here in Oz - battery change every so often.

        If you factor in the resource costs of making and recycling 2-3 times more cars to service the same amount of need, this sheds some unwelcome light on economic vehicles that last little.

        One argument that floats

        One point that comes
        • by stephentyrone (664894) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @08:03PM (#18423675)
          Maybe you actually use your truck for real off-road purposes, but the vast majority of truck/suv owners don't do so. I grew up in Vermont (about 80% unimproved dirt roads), and one of the most common sights was some idiot yuppie from connecticut slid off the road in his 4WD SUV as the natives drove happily past in beat-up 1987 Saabs, Subarus, and Hondas. Even in California, I see this all the time: big fancy trucks and SUVs struggling to stay on the road in conditions better than anything I've ever seen in the winter. You'd be surprised where you can get a Prius to go if you have some idea of what you're doing.

          I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from; My father and I drove an Accord to 427,000 miles with only oil changes and new belts. It would still be on the road and pushing 600k if he hadn't rolled it over, haha.

          I have nothing against people who genuinely use trucks / 4x4s where smaller cars wouldn't suffice. But I have big objections to idiots who live in the suburbs and "need a big SUV" because they go skiing once a year / need to carry stuff back from Home Depot / whatever.
    • I bet that's probably about right. If you exclude the number of them that are destroyed in accidents/fires/floods, etc., most modern cars last a lot longer than many people realize.

      You don't see cars at the end of their lifespan in the U.S., generally, because we export them. IIRC, used cars are one of our biggest exports to Mexico and Latin America.

      It would be interesting if someone wanted to trace the lifespan of an 'average vehicle' that didn't get offed by a bad driver before its time and was well maintained throughout. I suspect it's something like this:
      0 - 100 miles: Test drive at factory, sitting on dealer lot.
      100 - 30,000 miles: first owner, maybe on a 2 or 3 year lease.
      30,000 - 150,000 miles: Second owner, or maybe multiple owners. Eventually traded in, sold to wholesaler. If still in good condition, exported.
      150,000 - 300,000 miles: Mexican taxi. Parts get replaced as they wear out and break.
      300,000+ miles: When body finally rusts through, strip for parts. Scrap remainder.

      You don't see a ton of quarter-million-mile cars in Suburbia, USA, but in some places they're pretty desirable.
      • Not true (Score:5, Informative)

        by dedazo (737510) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:32PM (#18420457) Journal

        IIRC, used cars are one of our biggest exports to Mexico

        I can't talk about the rest of Latin America, but this is not true for Mexico. While the import rules are slowly being loosened, Mexico is extremely protective of its new car market (of course made up of American and Japanese cars) and importing a used car into the country is a nightmare, unless you are in one of their "free trade" zones right on the border. Even those have to be ~5 years old or so. Moving them further in is right damn near impossible unless you're willing to pay enough taxes to rival what you paid for the thing to begin with.

        The reason for this is of course to keep the "straight" auto importers and dealers happy by allowing them to set artificially high prices on new cars without any competition whatsoever.

        Your theory might be correct for other countries, maybe even outside of the Americas, but it's not for Mexico. The amount of cars in the free trade zones would not make a dent on the volume of vehicles that land on the "used" circuit here in the US every year. If you ever travel down to Mexico City or one of the larger cities in the interior of the country, keep your eyes open for a used Pontiac or Mercury. You won't find any.

    • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Tuesday March 20 2007, @03:15PM (#18420133)

      And the Hummer has an expected life of 300,000 miles? Oh, please. Look, my extended family has plenty of experience owning Toyotas and Nissans over the past two decades, and we have come to expect 200,000 miles or more.


      Well, I can't speak for Hummers. I can't say I like them much myself. However, the 100,000 miles estimate isn't for the vehicle itself, but for the expected life-expectancy of the batteries.

      Speaking of reliability, I have family members with GM cars, specifically Buick and Pontiac, which have well over 200,000 miles and are still running well. They aren't sticklers for maintenance either often going 10,000 to 15,000 miles between oil changes. There are quite a few vehicles nowadays with suggested oil change schedules in that range, but I'm talking about 10+ year old cars with 5,000 mile maintenance schedules.

      These cars have had as few problems as any Japanese car I know. American automobiles had terrible reliability in the 70s and 80s but they've improved considerably. The problem is the occasional lemon and the fact that they haven't been able to change public perception.

      I have a Honda myself. The real problem I see facing the American automakers is poor decision making. They seem incapable of producing the kinds of cars consumers are looking for. They also lack commitment to specific models. Instead of improving existing models and following a process of evolution they're quick to abandon what they have for something completely new. Then there's the ridiculous obsession with SUVs. They seem to exist in a vacuum. To this day they're stuck competing amongst each other instead of responding to foreign competition.

      Ford introduces the new Mustang with 60's style design cues. Despite not helping Ford overall the car sells reasonably well in the short-term. Chrysler and GM see this and rush to produce their own muscle cars with classic muscle car design cues. This doesn't help these companies in any meaningful way, but they invest untold resources into these vehicles anyway. It's like they've oblivious to what the foreign competition is doing. Those are the cars the Americans should be thinking about.

      The Americans have this expectation that a single vehicle will make enough of a dramatic impact that it will enable their companies to finally be successful. It's a stupid, short-sighted expectation. Something else I find funny is that the Americans need to move manufacturing overseas to be profitable while the Japanese and Europeans open new factories in the US and continue to be very successful. Of course, the Americans are crippled by unions. And that is a big hindrance to success on the part of the US automakers, but that's a whole other story. Suffice it to say that management can't be blamed for all the problems they're having.

      Reliability, however, is no longer a problem with US cars. In fact, American cars have been consistently shown to be more reliable than European cars. European cars may be better designed than the American counterparts, but that doesn't make them more reliable.

      I don't think hybrids are the wave of the future. They will never completely replace gasoline engines, another technology will arrive before that happens. I see hybrids merely as an overly complicated stopgap measure. They sell because it's a fad. Most people will never save enough in gasoline to make up the premium a hybrid costs over a standard model. And it's a fact that the manufacture and disposal of batteries is very polluting.

      The US would be better served driving diesels. Either that or automakers should start offering the same small displacement engines offered in Europe: 1 and 1.2 liter engines. The problem is that the American public is obsessed with the size of it's automotive penis. They need to drive around in vehicles putting out 300hp and more. God forbid a car feels a little sluggish. Then there's the obsession with over-sized SUVs which is another aspect of the same problem.
If man is only a little lower than the angels, the angels should reform. -- Mary Wilson Little