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

[GMFreak8]

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.

Article continues ...

[dygituljunky]

It'd be interesting to see their figures. I'd bet that it's FUD.

Basically, what they're saying is that over the entire lifetime of the car, the fuel savings for a hybrid (which could be 10, 15, or 20 years) don't out-do the initial build energy requirements.

I wonder if their example of Honda Accord differs much from the Toyota Prius (or apples-to-apples the Civic and the Prius) since Honda uses a mild hybrid and Toyota uses a full hybrid.


dyg

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by dygituljunky

It'd be interesting to see their figures. I'd bet that it's FUD.

Basically, what they're saying is that over the entire lifetime of the car, the fuel savings for a hybrid (which could be 10, 15, or 20 years) don't out-do the initial build energy requirements.

I wonder if their example of Honda Accord differs much from the Toyota Prius (or apples-to-apples the Civic and the Prius) since Honda uses a mild hybrid and Toyota uses a full hybrid.


dyg

Fuel is not the only energy that a car "consumes," or else I think they would have said fuel and not energy.

[logansowner]

Well, it's not much, but it's nice to see an article finally put in print what we've known all along. It's just a Toyota marketing scheme, if you notice, GM hybrids don't get nearly the press that Toyota does, regardless of hwo good either is.

Do they still have the $2000 or whatever tax rebate on hybrids? If anything, hopefully this will get rid of that.

[free_energy0]

Someone told me there is more energy used in building a car than the energy that will be used to propel the car over its lifetime. This cant be true of course. Also, if hybrid are bad think about the ethanol-using cars.

[roteague]

"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.

...


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."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060331/sff031.html?.v=38

[CobaltSScrazy]

Originally Posted by logansowner

Well, it's not much, but it's nice to see an article finally put in print what we've known all along. It's just a Toyota marketing scheme, if you notice, GM hybrids don't get nearly the press that Toyota does, regardless of hwo good either is.

Do they still have the $2000 or whatever tax rebate on hybrids? If anything, hopefully this will get rid of that.

agreed i totally agree. whats the point of all this hybrid stuff anyways, its just like a refresh until we can get hydrogen cars.

[Gm786]

WOW! So cool for the new 2007 Chevy Tahoe!

[vanshmack]

Originally Posted by Gm786

WOW! So cool for the new 2007 Chevy Tahoe!

Yup!

[ChevroletRevived]

Very good news for the 2007 Chevy Tahoe.

[JeffS]

This is something I have said all along. Unfortunately, the tree-hugger-granola-munchers think they are doing all a favor when in fact they are doing everyone a big disservice.

[Jeffff]

I'll be the first to admit that when I first saw this thread title, I thought it was an April Fools joke.

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by logansowner

Well, it's not much, but it's nice to see an article finally put in print what we've known all along. It's just a Toyota marketing scheme, if you notice, GM hybrids don't get nearly the press that Toyota does, regardless of hwo good either is.

Do they still have the $2000 or whatever tax rebate on hybrids? If anything, hopefully this will get rid of that.

Current hybrids are not just a Toyota marketing scheme. Like just about any other technology, they will get MUCH better in the future as the technology progresses.

This study is good for what it is..a snapshot of the current situation. I'll bet that in 5-10 years from now...the findings will no longer be true. The problem is, with a new technology, you have to go through the initial stages where it is less efficient and less cost effective to get to the point where it is.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not buying a current hybrid at their price and efficiency level....but I am sure glad there are those who are buying them. It is those people who will make it a better product for me int he future, when I might buy one.

[Whirling_Dervish]

Originally Posted by dygituljunky

It'd be interesting to see their figures. I'd bet that it's FUD.

Basically, what they're saying is that over the entire lifetime of the car, the fuel savings for a hybrid (which could be 10, 15, or 20 years) don't out-do the initial build energy requirements.

I wonder if their example of Honda Accord differs much from the Toyota Prius (or apples-to-apples the Civic and the Prius) since Honda uses a mild hybrid and Toyota uses a full hybrid.


dyg

No, they are saying from conception to destruction. To which I say, no ***** sherlock.

Its a new technology. Of course it will cost more energy to plan it. Of course it will cost more energy to build, at least until economies of scale bring the costs down. And of course it costs more energy to dispose of them. Afterall many parts get recycled. These cars aren't just sent to the crusher, which requires very little energy. This is another of those no news articles. But I'm sure some will run with it.

[Martino_z]

To whoever mentioned 10, 15, 20 years talking about hybrids I have to say something. Show me these vehicles after 15 years. My kind estimate is that in the world there will be no 'normally' driven hybrid cars built now out there with the same main components. Guaranteed!