Hybrids Consume More Energy Than SUVs?

[CameronJr9]

Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevrolet's Tahoe SUV

BANDON, Ore., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions.

But many of those choices aren't actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck.

CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.

To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.

The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents.

While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.

For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the "Dust to Dust" lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.

One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.

And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.

For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.

"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.

"We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue."

The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general -- not just the auto buyer -- can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck's "dust to dust" energy requirements, he said.

This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. "We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world."

Source: CNW Marketing Research, Inc.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060331/sff031.html?.v=38

[letsgoflyers81]

I read this article posted from another forum and it's BS. Nowhere in the article is any imperical evidence that something like a HCH or Prius costs more to drive per mile than a Tahoe. They just through dollars and and cents out and don't explain how they came to the conclusion. I'm sure whoever did that "study" has an agenda and the results are anything but honest.

[CameronJr9]

Originally Posted by letsgoflyers81

I read this article posted from another forum and it's BS. Nowhere in the article is any imperical evidence that something like a HCH or Prius costs more to drive per mile than a Tahoe. They just through dollars and and cents out and don't explain how they came to the conclusion. I'm sure whoever did that "study" has an agenda and the results are anything but honest.

Good point. It's like cell phone studies funded by cell phone companies that say they aren't bad for you or they don't cause accidents while driving, etc.

[8thgenuser]

Originally Posted by letsgoflyers81

I read this article posted from another forum and it's BS. Nowhere in the article is any imperical evidence that something like a HCH or Prius costs more to drive per mile than a Tahoe. They just through dollars and and cents out and don't explain how they came to the conclusion. I'm sure whoever did that "study" has an agenda and the results are anything but honest.

I think you've misinterpreted the article. This article accounts for total energy from initial conception to disposal/scrappage of vehicles. The article doesn't focus about expenditure and consumption of gasoline, which is only part of the total energy that goes into making and operating a vehicle.

Energy cost per mile per vehicle for SUVs is less than hybrids because there are so many more SUVs out there...the more you make of them the cheaper per unit they're going to be. There aren't very many hybrids right now, so the energy cost per unit is going to be a bit higher. If you're accounting for TOTAL energy of ALL new SUVs compared to ALL new hybrids, then you'll find that the SUV total energy usage is much greater than that of hybrids.

The article is taking a different point of view on the social aspects of hybrid/high mileage vehicles. We all are familiar with the ecological aspects of hybrids. We think we know about the economic aspects, but this article is just pointing out that there's more to it than what we think.

CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.

To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the Energy Cost per mile driven.

[letsgoflyers81]

Originally Posted by 8thgenuser

I think you've misinterpreted the article. This article accounts for total energy from initial conception to disposal/scrappage of vehicles. The article doesn't focus about expenditure and consumption of gasoline, which is only part of the total energy that goes into making and operating a vehicle.

Energy cost per mile per vehicle for SUVs is less than hybrids because there are so many more SUVs out there...the more you make of them the cheaper per unit they're going to be. There aren't very many hybrids right now, so the energy cost per unit is going to be a bit higher. If you're accounting for TOTAL energy of ALL new SUVs compared to ALL new hybrids, then you'll find that the SUV total energy usage is much greater than that of hybrids.

The article is taking a different point of view on the social aspects of hybrid/high mileage vehicles. We all are familiar with the ecological aspects of hybrids. We think we know about the economic aspects, but this article is just pointing out that there's more to it than what we think.

I see what you're saying and you're right. I mean if you think about it, there's no way a car getting 40 - 50 mpg could use more energy to maintain then an SUV that gets 15 mpg. However the way the article is written, it comes off sounding like it's trying to get impressional people giving it a casual read the idea that hybrids are pointless right now and SUV's use less energy. That's simply not true.

Meh, the whole thing just makes me think of South Park when Kyle's dad got the hybrid. Anyone else see that?

[CameronJr9]

Originally Posted by letsgoflyers81

Meh, the whole thing just makes me think of South Park when Kyle's dad got the hybrid. Anyone else see that?

Ha. I saw the end of it. My roommate was watching it, and I thought I kept hearing "Hybrid," so I checked it out. It didn't make much sense just seeing the last two minutes or so.

[skittleslegend]

Not all Hybrids are worth the money. Some people think you'll automatically save money on Hybrids over a petrol only vehicle but it depends on the cost of the vehicle. For example, both the Civic and Prius offer decent incentives and a marginally cost of ownership. However, vehicles like the Lexus RX400h and Toyota Highlander Hybrid, will NEVER and I do mean, NEVER, save you money over their petrol only counterparts. The cost of ownership is totally not worth it.

Besides, Hybrids are a "in the meantime" part of the transportation world. The big fish is fuel cell technology. Expensive as hell, but should cut back on us relying so much on fossil fuels. Hybrids, in a way, are the half way point to that.

[letsgoflyers81]

Originally Posted by CameronJr9

Ha. I saw the end of it. My roommate was watching it, and I thought I kept hearing "Hybrid," so I checked it out. It didn't make much sense just seeing the last two minutes or so.

Here's the synopsis:

Kyle's dad gets a hybrid called the Pious that looked just like the Prius. He got a holier than thou attitude and thought he was more progressive than everyone else with their SUV's. He then started giving out fake tickets to people. He decided that South Park wasn't progressive enough so he made the family move to San Francisco where everyone has hybrids. Stan wanted Kyle to move back so he wrote a song telling people to buy hybrids, and they did. Everyone got hybrids. There were Piouses and Hindsights and looked like Honda Insights. Everyone was so smug that a big cloud of smug grew over South Park and merged with the coud over San Francisco. Also, the hybrid owners started smelling their own farts all the time. Eventually a cloud of smug from George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech joined the rest of the smug and it wiped San Francisco off the map and decimated South Park. Cartman saved Kyle and his family because he realized he was miserable without him to make fun of. When everyone realized it wasn't the hybrids that caused the disaster but their attitudes from driving the hybrids, they realized they weren't ready to handle it yet and everyone went back to SUV's.

If you're a fan of South Park at all it actually makes sense. Funny as hell too.

[letsgoflyers81]

Originally Posted by skittleslegend

Not all Hybrids are worth the money. Some people think you'll automatically save money on Hybrids over a petrol only vehicle but it depends on the cost of the vehicle. For example, both the Civic and Prius offer decent incentives and a marginally cost of ownership. However, vehicles like the Lexus RX400h and Toyota Highlander Hybrid, will NEVER and I do mean, NEVER, save you money over their petrol only counterparts. The cost of ownership is totally not worth it.

Besides, Hybrids are a "in the meantime" part of the transportation world. The big fish is fuel cell technology. Expensive as hell, but should cut back on us relying so much on fossil fuels. Hybrids, in a way, are the half way point to that.

You're right, it depends on the car. Take a look at the HCH. It costs roughly $4000 more than an LX and $2000 more than an EX. Considering what you get it falls somewhere between the two trim levels. Considering there's a $2100 tax credit for a HCH bought in 2006, that erases most of that extra cost. So now it doesn't take nearly as long to make that money back. Now that's assuming the only reason you want a hybrid is to save money on gas. My wife wanted a hybrid to help the environment. Gas usege aside, it pollutes the air a lot less than comparable normal cars. So depending on the hybrid and your reasons for getting one, it may or may not be a good idea. For us, it worked out.

[8thgenuser]

I saw parts of that episode of South Park...it was funny as hell. Hybrids creating "smug" is a play-on of regular gasoline only cars creating smog. I didn't realized they called the Prius a Pious...that's hilarious. I think it's great that the writers aren't very discriminating in the people they poke fun at. No one is safe.

Anyhow, I'm not yet buying into the hybrid craze...automakers seem to be making big bucks for selling them at a price that's more than a hefty chunk of change for a techology that really hasn't been perfected (i.e. real world gas mileage don't live up to their claims). But props to those who are purchasing hybrids...you're paving the way to a cleaner, healthier enviroment in the future.

[letsgoflyers81]

Oh yeah, this article is a good read. Car and Driver took a Toyota Echo, VW Jetta GLS TDI (diesel), Toyota Prius, and Honda Civic Hybrid and did a pretty interesting comparo. In the end they ranked them HCH first, then Prius, Jetta, and Echo last. They based it on more than raw mpg numbers, weighing heavily on driving excitement.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8427

[CameronJr9]

Here's an answer to the original article I posted. It's a blog by a special interest group, so I'd say whoever wrote this is about as credible as any of us in here...Enjoy.

http://cascadiascorecard.typepad.com..._whiplash.html