Re: Hybrids: Don't buy the hype
My boys love the movie Napoleon Dynamite, and it was Napoleon that I thought of when I read the article Hybrids: Don't buy the hype.
"Idiots."
"There may be reasons to buy a hybrid vehicle right now, but they aren't financial reasons," says Peter Valdes-Dapena .
Really, Peter?
"A hybrid Honda Accord costs about $3,800 more than the comparable non-hybrid version. Over five years, you'll make up that cost in gasoline money if the price of gas goes up immediately to $9.20 a gallon."
Nice one, Peter, the Accord hybrid? First, the Accord hybrid isn't a top selling hybrid. Second, it's a performance hybrid, not a hybrid built for fuel efficiency. Third, there is a huge difference between Honda hybrids and Toyota hybrids. In city driving, Toyota hybrids offer far more fuel efficiency because of their ability to function on electric power only.
"For the Ford Escape hybrid, the difference is less stark. To make up the difference between the Escape hybrid and a Ford Escape SLD, gas prices would have to rise to $5.60 immediately after you purchase the vehicle or you would have to drive 37,000 miles a year. Still an unlikely scenario." At least based on Edmunds.com data, Peter notes.
How about some investigative journalism, Peter?
The Edmund's study was largely based on EPA data, and is therefore unreliable and over-generalized. For example, in city driving, the EPA is off by as much as 50 percent in its fuel economy ratings according to Consumer Reports (more on this). Additionally, Edmunds, like the EPA, assumes that most drivers drive mostly on the highway.
Not me, Peter, and not millions and millions of other Americans that live in cities and suburbs.
Then you mention diesel as a more viable option. Peter, did you know that according to CR, the Jeep Liberty Diesel, estimated to achieve 22 MPG in the city, actually only achieves 11 MPG. Is that the kind of real money savings you are talking about Peter?
Then you state that "driving more gently" can save up to the 30 percent.
C'mon, Peter, driving more gently can also make the Ford Escape hybrid more fuel efficient as well as the Toyota Highlander hybrid and the Toyota Prius - of course that wasn't how Edmunds tested their hybrids, was it Peter?
And why didn't you cover the Toyota Prius in your article, since it is by far the best selling hybrid vehicle? Instead, you chose the least 'hybrid' of the hybrids to make your argument. Nice objectivity.
Since the Department of Transportation and numerous University studies claim that city driving, or congestion, is not only the new American norm, but a major American problem, shouldn't that be the standard for testing fuel efficiency?
According to Consumer Reports, not only are 3 hybrids the most fuel efficient vehicles available, but in city driving - the new American norm - the Prius is without rival. For example, the Prius is more than 150% more fuel efficient than the Ford Focus in congestion.
Hmm, Peter. So 45 MPG versus 17 MPG isn't good enough? And if I drive "gently" in the city, my Prius can achieve even 50 or 60 MPG. Still, not worth it, huh, Peter?
More important, hybrid vehicles are an emerging technology and the best is yet to come. Plug-in hybrids and experimental hybrids have been demonstrated to achieve as much as 250 MPG.
Not worth the investment Peter? Instead, we should drive more "gently"?
Buying a hybrid can save money, more important; however, it can help fund a technological revolution that can significantly help the environment and end foreign oil dependency - without finding some miracle to make million dollar fuel cell vehicles more cost effective.
Of course I guess we could just drive more "gently" to fix these problems, huh, Peter?
"Idiots."
"There may be reasons to buy a hybrid vehicle right now, but they aren't financial reasons," says Peter Valdes-Dapena .
Really, Peter?
"A hybrid Honda Accord costs about $3,800 more than the comparable non-hybrid version. Over five years, you'll make up that cost in gasoline money if the price of gas goes up immediately to $9.20 a gallon."
Nice one, Peter, the Accord hybrid? First, the Accord hybrid isn't a top selling hybrid. Second, it's a performance hybrid, not a hybrid built for fuel efficiency. Third, there is a huge difference between Honda hybrids and Toyota hybrids. In city driving, Toyota hybrids offer far more fuel efficiency because of their ability to function on electric power only.
"For the Ford Escape hybrid, the difference is less stark. To make up the difference between the Escape hybrid and a Ford Escape SLD, gas prices would have to rise to $5.60 immediately after you purchase the vehicle or you would have to drive 37,000 miles a year. Still an unlikely scenario." At least based on Edmunds.com data, Peter notes.
How about some investigative journalism, Peter?
The Edmund's study was largely based on EPA data, and is therefore unreliable and over-generalized. For example, in city driving, the EPA is off by as much as 50 percent in its fuel economy ratings according to Consumer Reports (more on this). Additionally, Edmunds, like the EPA, assumes that most drivers drive mostly on the highway.
Not me, Peter, and not millions and millions of other Americans that live in cities and suburbs.
Then you mention diesel as a more viable option. Peter, did you know that according to CR, the Jeep Liberty Diesel, estimated to achieve 22 MPG in the city, actually only achieves 11 MPG. Is that the kind of real money savings you are talking about Peter?
Then you state that "driving more gently" can save up to the 30 percent.
C'mon, Peter, driving more gently can also make the Ford Escape hybrid more fuel efficient as well as the Toyota Highlander hybrid and the Toyota Prius - of course that wasn't how Edmunds tested their hybrids, was it Peter?
And why didn't you cover the Toyota Prius in your article, since it is by far the best selling hybrid vehicle? Instead, you chose the least 'hybrid' of the hybrids to make your argument. Nice objectivity.
Since the Department of Transportation and numerous University studies claim that city driving, or congestion, is not only the new American norm, but a major American problem, shouldn't that be the standard for testing fuel efficiency?
According to Consumer Reports, not only are 3 hybrids the most fuel efficient vehicles available, but in city driving - the new American norm - the Prius is without rival. For example, the Prius is more than 150% more fuel efficient than the Ford Focus in congestion.
Hmm, Peter. So 45 MPG versus 17 MPG isn't good enough? And if I drive "gently" in the city, my Prius can achieve even 50 or 60 MPG. Still, not worth it, huh, Peter?
More important, hybrid vehicles are an emerging technology and the best is yet to come. Plug-in hybrids and experimental hybrids have been demonstrated to achieve as much as 250 MPG.
Not worth the investment Peter? Instead, we should drive more "gently"?
Buying a hybrid can save money, more important; however, it can help fund a technological revolution that can significantly help the environment and end foreign oil dependency - without finding some miracle to make million dollar fuel cell vehicles more cost effective.
Of course I guess we could just drive more "gently" to fix these problems, huh, Peter?
Labels: Accord hybrid, clean diesel, electric cars, Escape hybrid, Ford, Ford Escape hybrid, Foreign Oil Dependency, fuel efficiency, Highlander hybrid, Honda, Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrids, prius, toyota
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:56 AM
12 Comments:
I am thrilled to see hybrid cars becoming more popular, and I agree that increased demand will drive more availability and a wider selection. I just don't want to fund the revolution. If you and other hybrid owners are buying the cars to make a statement and show Detroit that these cars are the wave of the future, more (alternative) power to you. If you're doing it because you think that you're saving tons of money on gas, then at least make sure you have the right numbers.
I'll grant you that I'd take CR test numbers over EPA estimates. Given those numbers, what's your breakeven point? Do you have the CR numbers to compare the Prius against the Camry, its closest cousin? Maybe Consumer Reports already did this, but since I no longer subscribe I don't have access to the numbers. I do know that when I looked at cars last July the Prius wasn't making a compelling case for itself, balancing cost, performance, and availability. Those are the real drivers for a car purchase decision, along with the aesthetics: do I like it, is it comfortable to drive, can I fit my family in it? I don't fully agree with the CNN article (though I had fun with it), but it raises the point that anyone buying a hybrid needs to look more closely at the numbers rather than just assuming that they'll save money in the long run.
Of course, given the choice, I'll still take the train or ride my bike the nine miles to work, so I have the luxury of making this an academic conversation most days.
I'm not really worried about breakeven points. I guess helping fight foreign oil dependency and cleaning the environment are priceless choices to me.
The point I am making is not about making money, it's about whether hybrid technology is hype - which it is not.
According to the CR numbers, if you drive in the city everyday, as I do, the Prius would save $4500.00 in gasoline per year compared to the Ford Focus. I'm sure that the Camry does worse than the Focus in city driving.
I'd say $4500.00 is a pretty significant sum.
Nonetheless, the question of whether a hybrid can save money is very relative, it largely depends upon your driving conditions.
Still, hybrid technology is only just emerging. As both congestion and gasoline consumption increase significantly EVERY year, it is very important that America begins making progress now.
Even with just today's technology plug-in hybrids can achieve 80 - 100 mpg. Experimental hybrids achieve 250 mpg. Technology requires investment. If people hadn't invested in computers, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Yet, often that technology - in the short term - wasn't cost effective.
You have academic arguments about whether hybrids save money. How about some academic arguments about why GM is focusing on its largest fleets of vehicles at a time when the President has asked the Nation to conserve gasoline.
How much does increased foreign oil consumption cost America? Even before Iraq I or II, America has had to have a large military presence in the Middle East, why?
How much has that presence cost America?
I, for one, don't mind buying an expensive vehicle now than wait for gas prices to sky-rocket in the near future. I believe in hybrids as they can help save on gas and on the air we breathe. Saving money is a priority, and the way I see it, buying a hybrid car is a good way to invest in the future.
(Moved from Soultek.com/blog)
I bought a Prius about six months ago, after much agonizing, and I haven't regretted it. It may be a tough justification financially, but lots of people seem to be able to rationalize a 4x4 SUV over a minivan, so why not something environmentally-friendly on an emotional basis?
Economy for me is 48 on long trips, and 54 for the typical commuter driving. I don't drive especially gently, either, and living in the sun belt, the AC is always cranked, too.
Yes, I could have bought a Corolla or something similar and might come out ahead in the long run. But, believe or not, the Prius for me is fun to drive, with the computer display and the keyless ignition. It just feels different, futuristic. When I ride in other cars now, it seems crazy to me that the engine keeps running at a stoplight.
Its about putting less pollution in the air, and if there were severe gas shortages, or the prices continue to climb, then it will only make more sense.
(Moved from Soultek.com/blog)
In my response to wickedsmaht I meant to say GM's most gas guzzling fleets, not largest fleets.
GM is focusing on its largest, most gas-guzzling vehicles - even at the short term expense of some of its more fuel efficient sedans
Don't buy the hybrid hype. If you are serious about ridding society of our foreign dependence on oil, then buy a diesel car and put biodiesel in it. With some of the TDIs from VW, you get nearly the same fuel mileage as a hyperid with nearly no harmful emissions and no black stuff needed from the ground. Soon, with the emergence of algae based biodiesel and biodiesel from cheaply produced rapeseed not meant for human consumption, the costs of biodiesel should fall well below $3.00/gallon in the next couple of years. Judge for yourself, cars running biodiesel offer a much better solution to the current oil crisis then hybrid cars all while giving the environment a break and buyers better options for styling and comfort (Mercedes makes diesel cars for the American market) + giving American farmers incentives to bring more fallow land out of retirement.
Stefan-
It takes energy to convert grain into biodiesel, which makes it much less efficient than at first site - though still better than petroleum.
It will also take huge amounts of land to create enough biodiesel to end oil dependency - huge amounts of land that will be polluted with pesticides and fertilizers.
Ultimately, who do you think would own bio-diesel farms - it will be agri-business, not small, independent farmers.
What if locusts, wipe out a huge percentage of the crop?
Also, VW TDI's get almost the same fuel efficiency as some hybrids on the highway. In city driving, in short commutes, in stop-and-go traffic - in any type of congestion, the performance of VW TDI's and ALL diesels drops significantly.
It is city driving and congestion which are becoming the norm and more of a problem year after year.
In real world daily driving the Prius is far superiour to diesel.
It's just basic science, Stefan. In city driving a hybrid can run on ONLY electric power. That means NO GASOLINE, NO EMISSIONS.
Does a diesel suddenly stop burning diesel in these conditions?
NO!
According to Consumer Reports the Jeep Liberty Diesel is supposed to achieve 22 mpg in city driving, but actually achieves just 11.
Biodiesel does offer some potential, but it cannot meet all the needs of the future.
Hybrids offer much more upside. Experimental hybrids already achieve 250 mpg.
What experimental diesels achieve that kind of fuel efficiency?
Only a hybrid biodiesel will achieve that kind of efficiency.
Biodiesel competes with hybrids in the short term, but not in the long term. I commend those using biodiesel, but to think it holds the key to ending oil dependence is silly.
Finally to say hybrids are hype is equivalent to saying computers were hype twenty years ago. Ironically, it is much of the same technology in computers that drives hybrids.
From : Dr. Jon
VanGerpen of Iowa State University on gasoline vs. biodiesel
"If you set a modern gasoline engine and a modern diesel engine with equal
power side-by-side and measure the emissions coming from the engine, this
is what you will find. The gasoline engine will produce much more carbon
monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons, the diesel will produce more
particulate matter, and the oxides of nitrogen will be about the same
(those are the 4 regulated pollutants). Now, when the catalytic converter
is added to the gasoline engine, it greatly reduces the carbon monoxide,
unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. So, the gasoline engine
becomes very clean. ( Note by pjs: A catalytic converter and particulate matter (PM) filters can be added to diesel cars that strictly use a sulphur free fuel such as biodiesel reducing PM by 90%). Today, most passenger car emissions come from the
first 20 seconds of operation when the catalytic converter is warming up or
from older cars that were built before strict emissions controls. Modern
gasoline-powered car engines, when they are running properly, are actually
very clean. So, if you are making your decision based only on tailpipe
emissions, then the gasoline engine will win. Even when biodiesel is added
to the diesel engine to reduce carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and
particulates, the NOx will still be higher than the gasoline vehicle. When
only comparing tailpipe emissions, and only looking at ozone production, a
gasoline-powered vehicle will produce less ozone.
If this is the case, you might ask why diesels are considered to be "the
Green option" in Europe? It is because they are looking at more than
tailpipe emissions and ozone. Another major source of emissions from
gasoline vehicles is from the evaporation of the gasoline during refueling,
from spills, and even while the engine is running. These emissions do not
exist for diesel engines since the fuel is not volatile. Since ozone
comes from reactions between oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons,
the gasoline vehicle can be a contributor to ozone production even when its
tailpipe is clean. The Europeans also believe strongly in diesels because
they are much more efficient that gasoline cars. You should get 30-50%
better mileage with a diesel-powered vehicle than with a gasoline-powered
car. The mileage with biodiesel will be slightly less than with diesel
because of its lower energy content, but still much better than
gasoline. This means that you are emitting less carbon dioxide,
contributing less to global warming, and consuming fewer fossil
resources. Add to this the fact that the carbon in biodiesel originates
from carbon dioxide in the air instead of from petroleum, and you have a
major environmental advantage. Most researchers have concluded that when
you look at the total environmental impact, that diesels are a better
choice than gasoline engines. And, as noted before, the emissions from a
biodiesel-fueled diesel are less than a diesel fueled with conventional
diesel fuel.
I'm sorry this answer is so long. I've never had someone ask the emissions
question this way. Most people are interested in comparisons between
regular diesel and biodiesel, not between gasoline and biodiesel. Good
luck with your decision making!"
I think biodiesel is an excellent alternative fuel. That said, I don't believe alternative fuels are the key to oil dependency. Ultimatley, the laws of supply and demand, I believe, will catch up to each and every fuel, other than, possibly, hydrogen.
I think that all alternative fuels should be explored, however, I think it is even more important the fuel efficient technologies are developed.
When I read stories of Americans that use solar power to power not only their homes, but electric vehices as well - at a discount - I know there is a better way.
The by product of running an electric motor is ozone. Has any one done an evaluation on how much ozone is created during the normal operation of the hybrid electric motor?
I love my VW diesel Beetle. I get 48 mpg diesel & 45 mpg bio. I burn bio-diesel and at 45 mpg I believe it has the smallest foot print avaliable. After 200,000 runs like new.
"Dahcredyns said...
The point I am making is not about making money, it's about whether hybrid technology is hype - which it is not.
According to the CR numbers, if you drive in the city everyday, as I do, the Prius would save $4500.00 in gasoline per year compared to the Ford Focus. I'm sure that the Camry does worse than the Focus in city driving.
I'd say $4500.00 is a pretty significant sum."
My total budget for the year is for fuel is 3200.00. So I get money back if I drive a Hybrid?
What is the comparison between? An 8 mpg large frame SUV?
Definitely not a car getting 33 mpg or better.
Post a Comment
<< Home