Prius VS Hummer

[Huck BB62]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Sorry, but if this is the CNW study then it's BS. They've clearly engaged in some untenable discussions.

My critique:

http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

You're quoting yourself to prove your own point? Brilliant! (reminds me of the awkward Austin Powers moment "I'd like to introduce.... myself."

I think you're ignoring the main points of the above article. Sum total, the hybrids don't make sense. I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone that driving a 10mpg vehicle is the best way to handle things but by the same token, the hybrids aren't the answer for the above givens too. The fanaticism and piousness of the ignorant Pious drivers drives many people bonkers. Every time I see a Pious owner cooking down the highway in the fast lane at 80mph, I chuckle at their hypocrisy.

The hybrid scam is over, evidenced by the 0% financing to try to unload them.

Or just buy an H3, right size for many of us.

[Boar-Ral]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Where do you read environmental impact into these figures? They supposedly represent the sum total of the energy used to develop, manufacture, operate, and dispose of a vehicle, converted into a dollar figure based on the cost of energy.

But it does not indicate in any way that this is what an owner would be expected to pay per year. That is the only issue I have with your rebuttal, because it sounded like we should ignore the entire article because it suggested we pay such an outrageous amount of money per year, which is obviously false, so the article and research was false. But since that isn't what it is proposing, I thought that it should be mentioned.

[Prelector]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

Where do you read environmental impact into these figures? They supposedly represent the sum total of the energy used to develop, manufacture, operate, and dispose of a vehicle, converted into a dollar figure based on the cost of energy.

The price of the Porsche is relevant because prices will reflect the amount of energy used to develop and manufacture a vehicle, which is the subject of the report. If you buy a low volume vehicle, the energy used to sustain the engineers and designers who developed the vehicle (one of the things allegedly measured by the CNW report) is divided over fewer units. Ditto a vehicle that requires many labor hours to manufacture. Both are true of the Porsche.

The environmental impact is in reference to hybrid owners statements that hybrids are better for the environment, because they use less energy. Based on the study, they don't use less energy, therefore they are LESS environmentally friendly. It's merely turning their own logic back on them...

As to your second point regarding developmental and manufacturing costs: I would disagree that the MSRP cost of a vehicle affects volume of sales. The Yugo was a very cheap vehicle, but didn't sell very much. (as an example only). I would agree though that units sold DOES affect the development and manufacturing costs as amortized in the study.

But, saying that just supports the study! The hybrid vehicles haven't had a large sales base yet, so all that development and manufacturing cost is divided across a comparitively small sales base, as compared to the other vehicles. Now, might these figures change as more hybrids are sold, and development of the technology continues? probably. But, that's in the future, not today. TODAY, the total cost of the vehicle is cheaper for a conventional combustion engine than for a hybrid "synergy" engine. That's what the report is showing.

I'm all for alternative energy technologies in vehicles, and I don't have a problem with initial technologies costing more, to fund future research... But don't tell me that your first generation Hybrid vehicle is better for the environment today, than my H3 is, and then bash me for my vehicle choice...

Finally, I don't see the point of bashing these folks for trying to put some perspective and research around the true numbers... how many Blogs have you done bashing the "Green" comments and arguements? For years, we've been "taking it" from the green zealots, suffering looks, gestures, and worse, because they fell for the "cult of gaia" BS, and are too mindless to do their own research. I, for one, am glad to see someone trying to put some facts and study into the "real picture".

[Alan06SUT]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I'm not bashing anyone for their vehicle choices.

I just get annoyed when people measure the quality of research based on whether it agrees with their point of view. This happens often, especially within big business and government, sometimes with disastrous results.

I see your point about how they might have allocated all the costs of developing hybrid technology to those hybrids already on the road. But, as you also note, this isn't a productive point of view, because these costs will clearly end up being spread across hundreds of thousands, even millions of future vehicles.

But even this cannot explain the findings of their research, for it does not explain how the "energy cost" of everyday cars are allegedly so high.

I don't disagree that looking at total energy cost could be informative. But CNW has clearly done a very poor job of it.

Your argument and the repiles expose your ignorance. The dust to dust cost is a total of all energy costs associated with the vehicle over its life cycle, not just the cost to the consumer. Keep driving your prius and feel good about how your are "saving the environment". What are you going to do with your batteries? We all know that gas is not the future source of energy. Economics will drive the transition to the next type of fuel. PERIOD. So wheter you drive a hummer or a prius, both will be dinosaurs within the next 25-50 years. And the price of gas, or the alternative fuel will drive the transition, and the speed of the transition, not a bunch of leaf lickers who didn't give a rats ass about pollution until the gas prices rose! Actually, you should be happy that gas prices are high because it gives viable alternatives a better shot at the market.

[KenP]

Damn, I wasn't going to read another comparison article of these two vehicles again, but now that my buddy Mike has chimmed in, I guess I'll read the damn article.

Thanks Mike.

[KenP]

Ok, I'm back after reading the article, your blog, and the responses.

First off, these are my favorites from the article:

The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles

We spend twice as much, but get three times more life expectancy!!! WOW!!! That means three hybrids are built for every one H2 built. Now, common sense tells me that's not very eco-friendly. There's no way the production and disposal of one Hummer is worse than three of the Toyota's.

Now, I'm not as intelligent as Mike, but I have to agree when you see some of those numbers drawn out 3 decimal places, it really has to make you wonder about the precision.

My opinion, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the numbers, but I do believe the hybrids, using current technology, have a larger carbon footproint and I've been saying that since the Prius came out with all it's hi-tech junk in it.

Hi Mike!

[Beau]

I'm sorry but believing that the CNW report is true just supports the stereotype that you have a to be a complete moron to buy a Hummer and help kill the earth.

A REAL research institute looked at the CNW report and published this http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr...r_vs_prius.pdf