Hybrid vehicles isn't the answer....

[Haku]

I hope I am putting this in the right forum. However, if you are thinking about owning a hybrid, you might find this interesting. Not to mention the fact that they are currently not as cost-effective as a subcompact, cost more for regular maintanence, their rechargeable batteries will need to be replaced once or twice every ten years to the tune of thousands, AND it's a hazardous waste.

However, I do think it's long overdue to find some alternatives, and I'd love to see bio-diesel or ethanol based engines get adopted in subcompacts.

[Tree0164]

Interesting but this looks like a Press Release than maybe a fact finding article.

I am not sure who this research test was sponsered by. All those of things need to come into play.

It is a like Burger King sponsering a research test and the conclusion that French Fries are healthy food.

[DivaJen]

So it's cheaper to own a Hummer? I find that hard to fathom. There must be some underlying assumptions being made in the study/studies used. Wonder what they are? Interesting food for thought.

[starving_student]

Originally Posted by Haku

I hope I am putting this in the right forum. However, if you are thinking about owning a hybrid, you might find this interesting. Not to mention the fact that they are currently not as cost-effective as a subcompact, cost more for regular maintanence, their rechargeable batteries will need to be replaced once or twice every ten years to the tune of thousands, AND it's a hazardous waste.

However, I do think it's long overdue to find some alternatives, and I'd love to see bio-diesel or ethanol based engines get adopted in subcompacts.

Hybrid car are not going to save any money at all. But they do save gas and are at this point in time the most conveniently accessible environment friendly car around. So. On the overall batteries scale. I doubt that teh hybrid provide the bulk of toxic waste....

Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.

[abowers]

I agree with Starving Student -- I think we had a post on here about Hybrids earlier this year or back around December.

Hybrids don't save money, they just allow you to use a little less gas, and it's not as much of a gas-savings as you'd expect because their EPA mileage ratings are a little off (they have revised their test conditions that they use to come up with mileage on new cars, and new mileage figures will be coming out in 2007, I believe?)

The battery thing is an issue -- The batteries are expensive and they will take up a lot of space, wherever you end up needing to dispose of them. (there are 8 I believe, in the Prius). And you will definitely have a need to replace the batteries over the life of the car unless you are leasing it. Not sure how much those cost...

[Haku]

Yes, the only thing that bothers me greatly is that they've calculated that Hummers somehow cost less. That logic is simply lost on me. I for one would never own a SUV to begin with, much less a Hummer.

That said, I do believe that hybrids are still not the answer. The reviews available on the net suggests that their real life MPGs isn't as necessarily good as advertised relative to an affordable, low-end subcompact that also costs much less to own and maintain. The only vehicle that has truly delivered on the high MPG promise is still the Honda Insight.

Of course, the mileage varies depending on the owner's driving environment since hybrids rely on regenerative braking. City mileages will almost always be better than highway.

Yes, ethanol is currently not as cost-effective. Most alternatives right now are not, and partly the reason for our continued reliance on foreign oil. However, ethanol can be produced domestically, and that's a much, much more feasible alternative than fuel cells.

I am not suggesting that hybrids isn't a step in the right direction. I just think it doesn't go far enough.

[Fern]

Like any new technology, hybrid vehicles are an imperfect thing, but i have read that you will save money after driving one for 5 years. If you like to trade in vehicles every few years, it's not the car for you. Give the technology a few years to iron out the kinks.

More importantly, saving money is not always the end all most important issue. If we can't at least slow down global warming, life on this planet as we know it will cease to exist. Hopefully, global warming is not such an abstract concept for everyone anymore. It's here, it's real, and requires immediate action.

[Haku]

Believe me when I say that I completely agree about concerns about the environment, not just money (although they are all important to me).

My case is simply that, if subcompacts are getting MPGs that are almost as good as hybrids, why go hybrids then? Hybrids, besides have a much more complex engine, also operate on rechargeable batteries. All rechargeable batteries will eventually lose their "memory capacity", and like any other rechargeable batteries, they will have to be replaced eventually, perhaps a few times over the course of the its lifetime. While I do not have exact figures on hand, I have heard it mentioned that such batteries run to the tune of thousands. Disposal of such batteries still remain has a hazardous material.

Contrast that to a subcompact where, depending on the driving environment, may not generate any more green house emissions than hybrids.

The only exception to that, as stated before, is the Honda Insight.

Yes, I agree with everyone about the concerns to reduce green house emissions, dependence on foreign oil, and all the while save more money. At the risk of being stubborn, I honestly do not believe hybrids are the answer. That's all.

On a related note, it's also worth mentioning that President Bush has made a speech in the recent past promoting a plant that makes Lithium Ion polymer batteries (currently the type with the highest memory capacity proportionate to its size) as a supplemental source of energy for vehicles. Unfortunately, the unit is also at a tune of thousands, on top of cost for the original vehicle, all the while hauling this heavy set of batteries in your trunk (and thus reducing the vehicle's overall storage capacity and fuel efficiency). A sad stopgap measure at best, but at least it's not fuel cells.

[Fern]

Haku, good point about the batteries; they're a hazardous mateiral, but are they better than spewing more carbon dioxide into the air? I don't know.

From a cost/benefit analysis, i think most will agree that the slighlty lower mpg of a conventional vehicle will save more $$ than a hybrid eaking out about 10 mpg more.

I've been weighing these things on my mind for some time now, in preparation for the day about 5 years from now (i have a '99 Civic with 75K) when i'll need to decide which way to go. Right now, i'm leaning toward a Prius, despite the higher cost. It would tickle me to no end to get 60 mpg. I'm pretty sure that the right choice will become much clearer as hybrid tech either matures as a viable alternative or doesn't. I think it's here to stay.

[sakigt]

Id be curious to see what the MPG difference would be if the Prius was offered as a non-hybrid. The battery isnt the only thing unique about that vehicle.

The extremely low coefficient of drag (albeit an ugly design, imo) plus small engine and efficient transmission accounts for the majority of the fuel savings. If you arent in constant stop and go traffic the increase in value isnt as huge.

Ill be saving up for my small car Ill be buying in a few years. A used Toyota yaris, hopefully! That way I can keep my beautiful, but sadly inefficient 20mpg PT Cruiser for the weekends (not to mention save on the wear and tear).

[catlinye_maker]

Originally Posted by Haku

Yes, the only thing that bothers me greatly is that they've calculated that Hummers somehow cost less. That logic is simply lost on me. I for one would never own a SUV to begin with, much less a Hummer.

In looking at the article, I noticed that it said that the cost per mile was calculated including the cost to develop the vehicle and bring it to market: "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."

The hummer was very slightly modified from an existing military vehicle to civilian use. It makes sense that the overall cost would be less than for vehicles where some of the systems are being designed from scratch. I see this as one of those "lies, d***ed lies, and statistics" articles. If the cost of development for these cars was left off, I wonder how the cost per mile would shake out then?

[stngymama]

Great observations Catlinye_maker!
To even mention a Hummer and Prius in the same breath is ludicrous. The knowledge gained from the development of the Prius is being used industry wide, and the success of the Prius has driven the development of all other hybrids.I doubt that the Hummer folks have any expectation or hope of sharing!
We have a Prius, bought used, and love it. It is brilliantly designed and for the money, a real bargain. Check out mileage comparisons for all hybrids, the Prius is still the best. Of course some day, the battery will fail, but the overall lifespan of the engine/battery is greater than a purely mechanical/gas car (which of course has a battery) because of the lesser wear and tear on the physical components. Until we have a vehicle with no environmental impact, it makes sense to go with what is already a proven success!
I would not buy a Prius, just to have a hybrid, but if one needs a car......


Although ethanol is being touted now, one must remember all the peripheral costs to using it, especially the cost (financial and to our environment) of producing the corn. Needless to say, the Mega Farms are all in favor of Ethanol!

[abowers]

If you think this is a promotion -- I looked up the research group that those figures came from. Here is their website: http://www.cnwmr.com/

Being non-hybrid doesn't make a different, the Honda Civic (regular) costs $2.42/mile
And that article compares the Accord Hybrid ($3.29/mile) and the regular Accord ($2.19) as well.


And here are some of the more in-depth details...from the research group. If you click on document1095 and you can see a break down of each car's cost per mile over the lifetime of the car.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

I was happy to see my focus is only $.80/mile!

[PRICEPLUS]

Camry $1.95

Sienna $2.18

Not too shabby at all.

[stngymama]

Originally Posted by abowers

If you think this is a promotion -- I looked up the research group that those figures came from. Here is their website: http://www.cnwmr.com/...!

Look a little closer and see who their clients are:
http://www.cnwmr.com/sv001data/

[abowers]

" Through the years, clients and subscribers have spread from the Great Northwest to include every state of the union (except Alabama), Australia, Europe, Asia and Canada. Clients include major automobile manufacturers, banks and lending institutions, Wall Street brokerage firms and consultants. Besides publishing LTR/8+ (America's most quoted source of leasing information), CNW publishes new and used vehicle industry reference guides and study summaries, a monthly Retail Automotive Summary of sales and trends, as well as our online research distribution center, CNW by WEB."

While they list "major automobile manufactureres" as clients, their study does not bash one certain maker. While Prius is made by Toyota, so is the Scion xB (the car with the lowest cost per mile).

[debtfreeme]

my elantra is .72! but i have almost 104000 miles so i need to be careful for another 100000 or so! no way i can afford to replace my car.

[VJW]

Originally Posted by starving_student

Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides.

Not according to the US Department of Agriculture. They state there is a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. That is, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining actually has a negative energy balance. For every unit of energy expended in gasoline production, only 0.79 units of energy results in the form of gasoline.

Agriculture Dept PDF


Energy Dept PDF

#

[catlinye_maker]

0.79 units of energy as gasoline for every unit consumed, but gasoline production generates a number of other products which are also used as fuel or lubricating products (diesel, etc.). I wonder what the total energy units over all of that is. Not that I'm not all in favor of ethanol/fuel cell/battery powered cars, rather than gasoline powered.

It's just that right now I feel like those consumers faced with a choice between 8-track or cassettes, beta or vhs, or laser disks or dvds, just to name a few emerging technologies. Hate to pick the wrong one; it would be an expensive mistake.

[Haku]

For now, the easiest answer is to stick with subcompacts. The latest ones are the Honda Fit or the Toyota Yaris, but realistically, I'll probably end up going with a used Toyota Echo....