Hummer Greener Than Prius?

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.

wtf?

[crvtec]

Since when does manufacturing cost/cost over life equal friendly to the environment?

Re:wtf?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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?

[MindStalker]

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?

[Mistlefoot]

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:

[east coast]

I think this in miles.

But, yeah, if I bought a new car that only ran 75,000 miles and died I wouldn't buy the same thing again unless they were giving them out as free-bees with a carton of Camel Lights.

Re:

[SaDan]

Funniest thing I've seen all day. How many times do you plan on rebuilding the engine during those 350k miles? How about the trannie? A lot of complaints about the F350 not sure about the diesel cummings.

He'll never have to rebuild the engine if he performs regular maintenance. Diesels are hard to kill if you actually maintain them properly. I had an '84 Chevy K5 Blazer 4x4 with the 6.2L V8 diesel, and I sold it at 300,000 miles with the original engine and transmission (700R4 trans rebuilt once at 200K m

Re:wtf?

[Ucklak]

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.

Re:wtf?

[drinkypoo]

I went with a nissan my self... the Sentra uses a timing chain rather than a timing belt. My old car was a 79 corolla which required very little in terms of maintaince over it's 360,000+ miles. It reached the point where I "should" rebuild the head, but to be honest didn't want to muck around with such an old car.

I've got a 1989 Nissan 240SX that has about 320k on it. The head's been rebuilt twice, once at ~120k and once at ~240k. Bottom end is bone stock. It burns a little oil (I think it's just valve guides) but it pulls as hard as it ever did, which isn't all that hard since it has a truck motor in it.

I've got a 1981 Mercedes 300SD that I crashed, much to my chagrin, but it's repairable. Also about 320k miles, no engine work ever, runs like a champ. I've done some electrical on it and replaced the glow plugs.

What I'm driving now (I'm getting rid of the nissan, which has race suspension so I can't drive it around here, and possibly ditching the MBZ too, but possibly fixing it) is a 1993 Subaru Impreza. It's got about 250k mi, no engine work, runs like a CHAMP. And that's an engine with 9.5:1 compression, even. But then the mercedes is 22:1 before the 11 psi from the turbo...

But anyway what I really wanted to chip in with here is that my Subaru has a timing belt, but it also has a non-interference motor (all SOHC subaru motors are non-interference AFAIK.) The others have chains, and that's nice, but I don't really mind having a belt since if it breaks, the only thing that happens is I have to realign the crank and cams when I put the next one on.

Re:

[Sparr0]

They divided the Prius by 100k and the Hummer by ~300k.

Yellow Cab in Vancouver BC

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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?

[tftp]

Nobody knows because no battery failed yet due to old age. The clock is going for 8 years now. The battery on the new Prius is under warranty for either 8 or 10 years IIRC.

Re:wtf?

[tftp]

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.

Re: replacing the batteries at 100K?

[rossifer]

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?

[m_chan]

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?

[grub]

believed to be the remnants of a 1.85-billion year old meteorite impact crater.

Wikipedia lies. Everyone knows the earth was created 6,000 years ago!

Re:wtf?

[gordgekko]

I'm a Sudbury boy myself and attest to what bignickel says. If you were last here in 1980 you wouldn't even recognize the city today. I worked at Inco's Copper Cliff refinery during the early 1990s and even then the area around the plant had abundant plant and tree life.

Blast Inco as much as you want for the pollution that poured out of the smelting operations for decades, but you have to give them credit for reversing a lot of the local damage.

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

There was a good sketch (from the mid 80s, and Australian, but still holds true - hint, "GPO" = General Post Office, usually located in "central downtown") - I can't remember word for word, but includes priceless lines like:

"And then they and their family travel down to the national park for a Sunday barbeque. The national park is around about 5 mi from the GPO - so you can well understand why they need a 4WD to get there."

"And then round about 4pm, Dad will round up the kids and send them to the creek to

Re:300k isn't unrealistic for a Hummer

[ryanov]

Thirty years ago it was rare to expect any car, let alone a US built one, to last much more than 150k. Manufacturing has greatly improved. Even manufacturers that build ``below average'' vehicles are putting out product that lasts far longer than the bad old days. There is no prima facie reason that a Hummer wouldn't last for 300k miles given that, unlike the Prius, Hummers don't have uber-expensive batteries that will almost certainly need to be replaced at 100k miles.

Only you're totally wrong. Just one example: "Grant -- a one-time car salesman who, when he's not driving, is studying to be an executive business coach -- is on his third Prius now. (Toyota, seizing a chance to evaluate the car's durability, took his original back after he'd driven it 200,000 miles in 25 months and exchanged it with a 2003 model, fully outfitted for fares.) Compared to conventional taxis, his current 2004 Prius saves between $900 and $1,100 per month in fuel costs alone, and his repair bills -- thanks to automotive innovations such as regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear on the brake pads -- have been cut by more than half." ...from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/ [msn.com] .

No battery has ever been replaced so far due to age related failure, and there are certainly cars out there with more than 100k miles on them. Here are more:

http://newsdesk.inl.gov/press_releases/2004/06-23h ybrid_vehicle.htm [inl.gov]

Re:

[spun]

Energy, not cost. I think energy used equates pretty well with environmental cost, unless the Prius factory is using some cleaner form of energy.

I don't necessarily think the report is accurate, but it is a fact that current battery technology is not only energy intensive to manufacture, but environmentally burdensome as well.

The Prius was never for real environmentalists anyway. It's for lazy yuppies who want to put out an environmentally conscious image. Real environmentalists live close to work, bike, or

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Not that I disagree with living close to work and all, but have you every noticed how every time an environmentalist idea is debunked, someone points out that real environmentalists don't support that?

"If env's want to cut down on CO2 emissions, why don't they support nuclear?"
"Oh well, real env's are all about nuclear."

"Solar panels are often worse for the environment once you consider manufacturing and design life."
"Oh well, real env's can see through all the solar propaganda."

"Priuses are actually worse

Re:

[spun]

Where are you getting those ideas about environmentalists from? Who is saying those things?

Having been an environmental, labor, and political activist for many years, I can tell you the things that I have heard from people who put their money where their mouth is, environmentally speaking:

Nuclear power is less polluting, if the storage and safety issues can be worked out. You'll find the people who really oppose nuclear power are suburban NIMBYists who just don't want a nuke plant in THEIR backyard.

Solar pa

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Your CFL argument makes no sense, maybe you could explain it better? Because it sounds like you are saying that no one should ever try to reduce energy usage, as it will always be futile. Is that what you are saying?

What he's saying, which is absolutely true, is that it makes more sense to simply charge everyone for their emissions. If you are one of the ones buying alternative energy credits, then you don't have to pay them. Or at least, you pay less (building and maintaining the alternative energy source

Re:wtf?

[syphax]

It's becoming an old saw that anything that is energy efficient must take more energy to manufacture than it saves over its lifetime.

This is rarely accompanied by numbers.

Take CFLs: A good CFL lasts many times longer than an incandescent, but let's be conservative and say 3k hours for the CFL, 750 for the incandescent. That is conservative. Over that 3k hours, a 15W CFL will save 135 kWh compared to the incandescent. That's $13 at retail electricity rates, $6.50 at industrial rates. CFLs generally cost less than this to *buy*, so you can be damn sure the energy input is less than 135kWh. And that's not even considering the inputs to make, transport, etc. 4 incandescents.

There's no way the upfront energy costs of a CFL offset its savings. BTW same for PV; energy payback is ~2 years for something with a 20-50 lifetime. And that's with standard silicon; go thin-film or CIGS and its better. Wind turbines have a faster energy payback. And so on.

Re:

[syphax]

I did my research, now it's your turn. A quick search found that China's electrical prices were of the same order of magnitude- not enough to destroy my argument.

I rarely pay more than $5 for a GE or Philips CFL. And I would note that the energy cost between a good CFL and a cheap one is probably not material- you still build the ballast, twist the glass, etc. It's just you get more margin if you do it well.

I stand by my argument- there's no frickin way a CFL requires enough energy to manufacture than it

Re:wtf?

[ClassMyAss]

I take your point - many of the commonly accepted green ideas are currently not at the point of viability, especially once you consider the costs, both environmental and economic, that go into creating these "solutions." However, they tend to lie very close to the point where the costs are cancelled out by the benefits, and are extremely young technologies which by their nature are far less efficient and far more costly than they would be if they left the single digit percentages of adoption. Conventional means of energy production are extremely mature, and hence optimized to the point where further gains are almost impossible to envision.

Re:wtf?

[jimmyfergus]

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.

What does that make you?

[Petersko]

I bike to work *and* I own a Prius. What does that make me?

...never invited to parties?

(ba-dum-chi!)

Re:

[Seraphim1982]

There is a possible flaw in that reasoning. If I build my car plant next to a hydro-electric plant, I'm using energy from that plant. If I wasn't there then that energy would likely go onto the grid, and as a result another (likely fossil fuel) power plant somewhere wouldn't need to make electricity.

Not true

[UbuntuDupe]

Hummers may be more energy efficient, but how are they supposed to make you feel morally superior to others?

Think about it.

Re:

[mdm-adph]

It was a non-issue for the data, since the genital superiority factor effectively nullifies it.

Re:

[jmorris42]

> but how are they supposed to make you feel morally superior to others?

Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.

And who knows, perhaps enough will be learned by the widespread deployment of these current hybrids that future generat

I think it will

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Actually, they're hybrids whether they have batteries or not. But my point is that they don't traditionally have batteries. I have seen mention of locomotives with batteries coming out, although I don't know anything about them. I do have to wonder at the environmental cost of that; one would assume that they have a shitload of batteries in 'em.

Re:

[Chris Burke]

Exactly. The primary purpose of the current generation of hybrids is to make their smug owners FEEL like they are helping the environment. And since there was apparently a pretty big untapped market selling feel good cars to pompous greens, Toyota has made a killing with the Prius. Looks like good marketing to me.

Well of course it's mostly about image and Toyota's bank roll. Yet I think it's hard to argue that the Prius isn't more environmentally friendly. This study does it by assuming a Prius will only

Re:Not true

[MindStalker]

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

[ThosLives]

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 true

[try_anything]

Of course you have to assume a vacuum; they asked a physicist, not an engineer. The physicist also assumed a spherical Hummer....

Re:Not even close?

[illegalcortex]

Considering the Prius maximum lifetime was off by 3x, that's a pretty biased "correction" you're doing there. Plus, I'm not sure how "half-way-or-so wrong" turns $3.25 into $2 (a decrease of 60%) but only turns $1.95 into $2 (an increase of 2%). How is this meeting half-way? You're biasing it by assuming the Hummer estimate must be way 30x more accurate than the Prius estimate.

Anyway, using reversing their numbers:

Prius: $3.25 x 100,000 = $325,000
Hummer: $1.95 x 300,000 = $585,000

So, if the Prius gets 200,000, which seems more reasonable:
Prius: $325,000 / 200,000 = $1.625
Hummer: $585,000 / 300,000 = $1.95

That puts the Prius at 17% less. That's pretty significant.

And if you drop the Hummer down to 200,000?
Prius: $325,000 / 200,000 = $1.625
Hummer: $585,000 / 200,000 = $2.925

That puts the Prius at 56% less.

So really, the only way you could make the comparison look favorable to the Hummer was to use bullshit numbers. Which is what the study did. Very sad.

Re:Not even close?

[illegalcortex]

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.

Re:Not even close?

[Anonymous Freak]

That's insane. My 2004 Prius is already about to hit the 100,000 mile mark, and its nowhere near dying. There are reports (see other /. replies) of first-generation Priuses (Prii?) already over the 200,000 mile mark. I wonder if even a single consumer-use Hummer has hit that yet?

Unless they're willing to share their reasoning for 'expected life', then their arbitrary choice is bull-crap.

Toyota has a document called the [url=http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/ pgr_e.pdf]Prius Green Report[/url] that shows their analysis of the environmental impact of the Prius compared to an equivalent gas car (I believe they used their own Corolla,) over a 100,000 km (not mile,) lifespan. It doesn't say they only expect it to last 100,000 km, just that if you destroy the car at that point, what the impact is. It covers material production (mining, refining, etc, which would include the Nickel problem,) vehicle production, driving, maintenance, and disposal. The Prius is considered 'cleaner' with regard to CO2 emissions at about the 20,000 km mark. I'm sure the Hummer would be long blown out of the water in this comparison.

Now, if you convert an original diesel H1 Hummer to run on vegetable oil (a 'greasel' conversion,) then it becomes nearly as clean as a Prius for all categories OTHER than CO2. (Biodiesel and veggie oil conversions both have a 'lifecycle' CO2 emission about 60% less than petroleum diesel, but even that isn't enough to make an H1 emit less CO2 than a Prius.)

Re:Not even close?

[crunch_ca]

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

I was dubious. However, I actually read the source material. The guy is a crackpot.

Appendix B: An invitation to drive a XEBRA electric car
Appendix E: Some spam about a psychology professor and techniques for memorization.
Appendix UU: Cartoons
Appendix BBB: The lyrics to 90 Pounds SUV

There's more common sense at the Time Cube [timecube.com]

Well amount of Energy != Green

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:

[meringuoid]

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.

Actually, either way it's mostly CO2. However, humans come with free carbon-offsetting credit: since we're ultimately fuelled by carbon from plants, which got it by absorption from the atmosphere, then what we exhale we're simply putting back where we originally found it. Cars on the other hand are putting back into circulation carbon that has been b

Re:Well amount of Energy != Green

[spun]

since we're ultimately fuelled by carbon from plants,

Not my boss. He's such a tight-ass, he eats coal and shits diamonds.

Re:

[i_should_be_working]

Yeah. However the Prius is made, they're not the cars putting a coat of pollution on my tongue whenever I bike downtown or giving children and the elderly respiratory problems.

Now excuse me while I go smash my bike lock into some Hummer's tail-light.

BS

[fred fleenblat]

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:

[pete.com]

120,000 are you kidding? My Suburban has 220,000 on it now, still passes emissions, and runs like a champ. If properly maintained V-8 engines last a very long time.

That's not saying much.

[FatSean]

Remember, light trucks get a pass on pollution from the Auto-Industry-Friendly US government. Their emissions standards are much more lax than a passaenger car.

What year is your truck?

Re:BS

[2short]

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:

[e2d2]

You don't get 300,000 miles of use out of a hummer.

Tell that to the US Army. I was driving hummers in 92 in the Army and I'm pretty sure that although some are new, a lot are not. The Army won't throw away a lollipop stick if they think they can get just one more lick!

During the trials of the hummer it was driven by the DoD over 600k miles. With proper maintanence the hummer can last to 300k. But most people treat their vehicles like shit, hence they won't get the same lifetime mileage.

Hummer never impresse

Re:

[Billly Gates]

They are not the same hummers.

THe new ones today are just junky old cheverolet trucks with a hummer frame bolted on it. Got to love the beancounters who thought of this?

Re:

[frdmfghtr]

300,000 isn't a valid life expectancy for most cars, but it is at least possible for a gas engine to last that long. I've known such cars. On the other hand, you're _certainly_ replacing the battery pack in a Prius by 100,000 miles, and the battery pack is the nastiest thing to make.

Your source of this information?

My Prius is hitting the 100,000 mile mark. My dealer did a battery test at 90,000 miles, and it passed with flying colors. The WARRANTY is for 100,000 miles, but the battery is designed to be

Re:BS

[AaronW]

From the reports I have read, the battery pack on the Prius typically lasts far longer than 150K miles. That is just the minimum guaranteed (at least in CA). Also, if the battery pack does fail, it is recycled. NiMH batteries are not really all that nasty for the environment. The 2005 model is estimated to last 150K miles, though I have read numerous reports of them lasting longer. Replacement cost is reportedly around $2K, even though a new battery pack lists for close to $6K. My guess is that this is due to the fact that Toyota is able to rebuild defective batteries at their factory, thus avoiding the high cost of replacing the nickel. Reports of the classic Prius being used as taxis in New York show problems with batteries, even at 250K miles.

Re:BS

[bear_phillips]

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???

[Mendenhall]

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???

[j1m+5n0w]

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

[AnotherHiggins]

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

[TubeSteak]

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?

A nice rebuttal to this article

[RingDev]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/ 732 [grist.org]

-Rick

Good to see

[solevita]

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.

Is this still true?

[TubeSteak]

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

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm from Sudbury (hello from the land of good beer and snow, eh?) and Inco has instituted massive re-greening projects since back in the 70's. Also, a large amount of the damage done to the area has less to do with modern smelting, being the result of the old HUGE open-pit smelting (aka heap roasting) heated by many thousands or maybe even millions of trees cut from the local forest. As far as i know, that type of practice went out in the 20's. The sulfur-dioxide would then just float away as a cl

Not exactly true anymore

[freeweed]

As the AC said, INCO has done a heck of a clean-up job in the past 3 decades. The comment about moon rovers was true - in 1969. NASA hasn't built a moon rover in decades anyway, which shows just how old this info is.

I last drove through Sudbury in the mid 90s. The trees do get noticably shorter the closer you get to the smelter, but the 'dead zone' is history.

I actually took this story half-seriously until reading your comment. With disinformation like that, I think we can all dismiss this as .. well, stupi

nonsense

[rkww]

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.

Re:nonsense

[Associate]

Yes, but what if that object is grasping the husk of a coconut with it's talons? And what if it takes two of those objects grasping the husk of a coconut with their talons?

Re:nonsense

[ettlz]

African or European?

Another advantage of the Hummer . . .

[StefanJ]

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?

because all energy has the same environmental cost

[bigbigbison]

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.

not the CNW BS again.

[CapsaicinBoy]

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.

not a complete story

[jonniesmokes]

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

[diakka]

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.

who ever heard of a Hummer lasting 300K miles?

[gonar]

or any general motors product for that matter.

the article might have been interesting if the author wasn't pounding a drum and actually did an apples to apples comparison, i.e. prius to corolla or camry hybrid to camry regular...

Re:who ever heard of a Hummer lasting 300K miles?

[Vegeta99]

Ok, big guy.

Who's ever heard of a Prius lasting 300k miles?

I could name you at least ten people driving a GM vehicle with over 300k on it.

Re:

[matt21811]

http://www.hybridcars.com/component/option,com_joo mblog/Itemid,0/joomblog_task,blog_view/joomblog_co ntentid,12222/ [hybridcars.com]

This guy ran a prius as a taxi for 2 years and 300,000 kms with it before he sold it back to Toyota.
300,000 miles sounds do-able.

This has been debated

[Paulrothrock]

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?

My problem with Prius

[Brad1138]

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.

Re:

[Spoke]

What makes you think that a car comparable to the Prius is $10k less? Perhaps if you compare the Prius to the Yaris, but they aren't even in the same class of vehicle.

If you directly compare something like a Civic to a Civic hybrid, you will find that the price difference is much lower.

Re:

[zzyzx]

You forgot to subtract the $3150 tax refund they were giving last year.

I didn't buy the car to save money though, I bought it to use less of a declining resource.

Used car

[hlimethe3rd]

Just buy a used car. It's been known for a while that a Prius is a lot worse cost-wise and environment-wise at the manufacturing stage. If it's worse over it's whole lifetime than a different new car depends on the assumptions made. Those in this article seem pretty poor, but better assumptions don't always make the Prius come out ahead. Buying a used car avoids all that, and is by far the best choice for the environment. Which is better: spending $25k to bring yet another Prius into the world, or $5k on a 10-year old Civic that gets 70% the mpg. $20k buys a lot of carbon offsets.

Calculated Prius cost

[SheldonLinker]

I have a Prius with 46,000 miles it. I average 52MPG. Gas costs $3.13 today. Here are my total costs:

Purchase: $26,000 or so. That's 56.5 per mile.
Gas: 6 per mile.
Oil: 0.5 per mile.
Tires: 1 per mile.

TOTAL: 64 per mile, so far.

If I threw the thing away today, and bought a new one (which I'm not likely to do, so don't check my dumpster), that would still be 64 per mile. Assuming it will last 250,000 miles, like the rest of my Toyotas, the cost will be WAY lower.

Real 4x4 Vehicles ...

[mvea]

Any real 4x4 like a Jeep Wrangler or the Hummer H1 are greener than everything else on the road for one very obvious reason: neither vehicle requires the world be covered in asphalt. A Prius or any other eco-friendly, high MPG vehicle on the other hand isn't going to get very far without chopping down forests, blasting through mountain ranges and otherwise laying waste to the environment for a "road".

http://www.omninerd.com/ [omninerd.com]

Re Dust to Dust

[howard2004]

I am disappointed by the comments about this report - if you take time and read the original report "dust to dust" I believe it raises some very pertinent points. It does not say "Hummer good Prius bad", to quote Animal Farm, but rather it points out that the simple MPG figures are not the only environmental costs that we should consider. There is an environmental impact in manufacturing, maintaining and scrapping any vehicle that is also real and needs to be accounted for. The figures in the report may be wrong, but the logic is correct - it is feasible that a simple and easily repaired long life vehicle could have a lower environmental impact than a very high technology vehicle with a much shorter life span. On the subject of vehicles like the Prius, if I recall the document correctly, it highlights that it is an early example of hybrid technology which is still being developed. As a result currently they are not as environmentally friendly as the headlines would have us believe, but in future this will most certainly change. The report indicates that by their measurements the most environmentally friendly vehicles available today is a small Toyota car.

Re:Re Dust to Dust

[poot_rootbeer]

The report indicates that by their measurements the most environmentally friendly vehicles available today is a small Toyota car.

And what is a Prius, if not a small Toyota car?

CNW = FUD market research group

[doctor_no]

This is actually an incredibly old study from a CNW market research which is shady for-hire "market research" group that promotes the views of the client (Think about all those Microsoft-funded studies depicted Linux being incredibly expensive).

http://www.cnwmr.com/ [cnwmr.com]

http://www.cnwmarketingresearch.com/ [cnwmarketingresearch.com]

Re:Greener and manlier

[spun]

What woman wouldn't prefer a guy who already has a hummer, and thus doesn't need any from them?

Re:Greener and manlier

[drinkypoo]

I don't know, but the woman who wouldn't is invited to drop me an email...

Re:Greener and manlier

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Greener and manlier

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Greener and manlier

[cayenne8]

"You guys are dorks! Women aren't attracted to any of you who think you have to have a big dick!! Guess what?! Its not about that, obviously you haven't figured that out yet! HA!"

Yup...you are correct. It is all about money.

Re:Your joking right?

[MadUndergrad]

I think you're wife is spot on with that theory.

In an unrelated note, my car is approximately 4 feet high and weighs only 2200 pounds...

Re:Greener and manlier

[MikShapi]

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

Re:Greener and manlier

[stephentyrone]

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.

Re:Greener and manlier

[MikShapi]

>> but the vast majority of truck/suv owners don't do so
True, and I absolutely agree. Many of which, especially the crossovers/softroaders/whatever-you-call-them, are not diesel and offer no such option. Nevertheless this has no impact on the argument at hand.

>> I'm also not sure where "An average 4WD has a lifespan of 2-3 times that of a small private car" comes from

From the sheer numbers of older 4WD's on our roads as compared to the number of smaller cars of the same age. This is actually an official Aussie statistic I've seen quoted in a newspaper, I couldn't be bothered to dig it up. The gut feel I get by looking at the cars I see around me does confirm this though.
This does not, by the way, necessarily have to be the same in the states or anywhere else. A different mentality can easily dictate different consumer behavior.

>> 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 understand where you're coming from, even agree, but I think your way of going about it is altogether wrong.

Telling people they are idiots and dictating their needs will not make them do what you want (even if they are idiots). Even if it's for a once-a-year ski or family trip.

The constructive way of going about it is offering alternatives, not acting derogatory towards people who do not share your view.

A Prius is NOT an alternative, unless you're an idealist fanatic who is either shitting bricks of money or can't do math.

A car that runs on LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) is. Not a silver bullet, but it is (LPG is a byproduct of making petrol. As long as they'll be making petrol, running a car on it helps dispose of it cleanly, and runs your car cleaner than it would on petrol).

A 4WD, even if you never use it outside the suburbs, that runs Diesel, is an alternative. It offers a big family vehicle, and quite often runs on less fuel than a standard petrol sedan.

A European sedan that runs diesel is an excelent alternative. VERY little fuel consumption, very long mechanical life. As long as you can stomach paying the bigger import costs, more frequent servicing and more expensive parts.

Other alternatives like the Aussie bladerunner initiative (a gutted Toyota Starlet or Daihatsu Charade that runs on battery, charged off the mains, not regenerative breaking ala prius) and can go 60-100km per charge and ~60mph - a glorified golf-cart that can easily do what my second car does) is very promising.

The luxemburg-designed soon-to-be-indian-built compressed-air car all over wired yesterday is also an alternative.

Sorry for being too lazy to bring links, feel free to google. Karma whores welcome to do the work.

At the moment there is no silver bullet here in Australia. There are compromises, and there ARE non-perfect choices that are cleaner than others (and I'm making some such choices, even by owning a large 4WD). Green idealists don't like non-perfect choices, which is why I call them tree-hugging idiots. I much prefer the pragmatic approach of actually making a difference by voting with my consumer dollars for what the best compromise (and hopefully soon a win-win non-compromise product) between environmental and affordable.

The important thing to understand here, if you allow me to make an analogy, is that just because there's a VIA desktop processor that runs windows reasonably at 30Watts, doesn't make it immoral to own a Xeon or a high-end desktop CPU. Rather than point the finger at the consumers, hit your local government representative for government subsidies to encourage low-power alternatives, be they EDEN CPU's, LPG vehicles (installation is subsidized and LPG fuel is not/very-lightly taxed in Australia for this very reason), diesel or mains-powered vehicles.

And never forget, the math counts.
As long as Toyota keeps selling the Prius for nearly twice any other compatible car in the same category, I'll be eyeballing a Diesel VW Golf, maybe a diesel Alfa or even a second diesel 4WD, and, quite possibly if the bladerunner goes commercial, one of them.

Re:

[daveo0331]

Have you ever actually ridden in a Prius? They're surprisingly roomy.

Re:

[Undertaker43017]

Depends on the Hummer. The article doesn't say which Hummer they are comparing to, but a diesel H1 (which most H1's were) could easily go 300K. This would also explain why the 2006 comparison no longer contained a Hummer, since H1's stopped production in 2005.

Just because you don't see it...

[Kadin2048]

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

[dedazo]

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.

Re:

[marphod]

Even if you assume that the Prius has a 300,000 lifespan that puts its energy price per mile at $1.08 - far in excess of the Scion that is mentioned in the article that has a normal gasoline engine.

Well, actually, you can't simply divide-by-three. The Gasoline costs for that extra 200k miles runs you (assuming 50mpg and 2.50$/gallon) another 40,000$ dollars. So, total cost of ownership goes up to at least 364k$. or 1.21$ per mile. Plus additional repair costs, oil changes & filters, etc.

I'm still ver

Re:

[bcattwoo]

100k Miles in gas at US prices is about 20,000$. Even assuming some inflation, and that costs for maintenance runs the same as the gas costs, that's only a 50 - 60k$ premium on purchase price. That's only around 100,000$ for a Prius, all told. Where is the extra 200k$ cost coming from?

It's even worse than that because you are bad at math.

100k miles / 50 mpg = 2000 gallons * $2.50/gallon = $5000

Re:Dubious lifetime estimates

[MaWeiTao]

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.