 |
|

03-08-2007, 03:38 AM
|
Hummer Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 60
|
|
Re: Hybrids worse than Tahoe
Does anyone have any recent and reputable links on this subject? I have a battle to fight with a co-worker.
|

03-08-2007, 05:32 PM
|
 |
Hummer Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 131
|
|
Re: Hybrids worse than Tahoe
I really don't get it all
Example:
How can a $65k Hummer H2 be about the same money factor compared to a $30k Toyota Prius assuming they both last 200k miles (dust-to-dust)? Can somebody elaborate please.
In fact here's a question from one of my co-workers already. He owns an Infiniti FX-45:
"I think there is a big flaw in the analysis of this data.
I looked at a few Nissan products with the same power trains.
The, FX35/45 $3.029 most FX?s are 3.5 L but some are 4.5 L ,
Murano $2.510 has the 3.5 L V-6,
350Z $2.193 has the 3.5 L V-6
G35 $1.777 has the 3.5 L V-6
Some Altimas have 3.5 L V-6s and others have 2.5L 4 cyl Altima $1.381
There is some fuel economy differences, but not a whole lot.
I would like a table so we could see how much of this energy cost is fuel, batteries, waste disposal, and materials on each car.
The fuel costs have to be way out of line. At $3.00 per gallon and 15 mpg, I get $0.20 per mile.
Top cost on a $45,000 car over 150,000 miles is $0.30 for car plus $0.20 for fuel which is $0.50 per mile.
I suppose we could add a little for oil changes, tires, and parts over the car lifetime, but insurance and the like are not energy costs. Every energy cost per mile far exceeds my quick and dirty maximum cost analysis. I looked at total dollars spent that could be attributed to energy costs, so either I am missing something, this study is seriously flawed or is propaganda. There are a lot of flat earth society type reports, so it is hard to separate the truth from fiction."
__________________
HUMMER Like nothing else.
|

03-09-2007, 04:05 AM
|
 |
Hummer Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 139
|
|
Re: Hybrids worse than Tahoe
OK just my thoughts. I think people on welfare are the cause of global warming. I believe that since they cannot afford a car and have to take those smog spewing city buses back and forth everywhere that they are the direct cause of it. And with SO many welfare recipients taking the buses they are overloading the system and causing more buses to be put on the streets even spewing more pollution and smog into the air.
SO they should leave us Hummer owners alone and make these bus taking welfare people get jobs and stop taking the black smoke pouring public transportion system. Then they to could buy Hummers and lower my tax load, so that I could contribute more money to alternative fuel exploration.
Last edited by Gunzz : 03-09-2007 at 04:09 AM.
|

03-09-2007, 04:31 AM
|
Hummer Expert
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 8 Miles High
Posts: 725
|
|
Re: Hybrids worse than Tahoe
__________________
Now that I am officially retired,
I don wanna work, just wanna bang on the drum all day!
|

03-13-2007, 02:52 PM
|
Elcova Rookie
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gurnee, IL
Posts: 9
|
|
Re: Hybrids worse than Tahoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkaresh
Just think about those numbers posted earlier in the thread. Do you really think owners of everyday cars are spending $3 per mile to operate them? That's about $36,000 per year.
Clearly, the researchers engaged in some wild and crazy assumptions. Personally, seeing results like these would have sent me back to the drawing board.
My blog post on the study:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48
|
First, quoting and referencing yourself to prove your own point is "wild and crazy"... Try referencing a valid source of some kind to back up your assertions, otherwise it's all just hot air...
Second, your rebuttal completely misses the mark as to what the report is showing: The report calculates a TOTAL COST per driven mile of a vehicle. That is, the total cost to manufacture, operate, and dispose of the vehicle, amortized over the total life miles of the vehicle as reported by the manufacturer; they are not saying the vehicle costs $.492 per mile to OPERATE (the numbers you're reporting).
When you figure in the costs to manufacture the vehicle, and the costs to destroy the vehicle at the end of it's life, the number they came up with is $.492. As such, the miles driven per year is completely irrelevant, and you can't come up with a yearly cost of the vehicle, since that would be forcing the numbers into something they don't fit.
They are saying that if you built this vehicle yourself, from scratch (but using the manufacturers facilites and costs), drove this vehicle for it's entire lifetime miles, then had to destroy the vehicle yourself (back to scratch?). The cost to you would figure out to $.492 per mile.
Now, I'm not saying their figures are correct, I'm explaining what their figures show.
Last edited by Prelector : 03-13-2007 at 02:55 PM.
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 AM.
|