GM Inside News Forum banner

Want Green ? Skip the Prius - buy used.

2K views 10 replies 7 participants last post by  khefer 
#1 · (Edited)
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr.html

Go Green -- Buy a Used Car. It's Better Than a Hybrid

By Chuck Squatriglia May 19, 2008 | 7:00:00 PM


Ditching your gas guzzler is a great way to reduce your carbon footprint, but if you really want to do something about global warming, get a used car. You'll be putting less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
As Matt Power notes in this month's issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius.
Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt -- one you won't pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.
There's an easy way to avoid that debt -- buy a used car. The debt has already been paid. But not just any used car will do.
It has to be something fuel efficient. Like, say, a 1998 Toyota Tercel that gets 27 mpg city / 35 mpg highway miles. The Prius will have to go 100,000 miles to achieve the same carbon savings as the 10-year-old Tercel. Get behind the wheel of a 1994 Geo Metro XFi, which matches the Prius' 46 mpg, and the Prius would never close the carbon gap, Power writes
We've undoubtedly left some off the list. But the point is, you don't need to buy a Prius -- or any other hybrid, for that matter -- to get great fuel economy and minimize your carbon footprint. You might feel better driving a hybrid, but you won't necessarily be greener.
Oooooh noooooo.........
 
#2 ·
Interesting - while the main point of the article is correct (buying a used car is more environmentally friendly than forcing another new one to be built, adding yet another car to the planet), you may want to also include the approximate energy required to produce vehicles other than the Prius. Because after all, without context the 113 million BTU number is completely meaningless. By the way, the site I got this from is one of the sources for the article linked above.

Source: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-time-to-get-a-new-car-002538.php

Using the GREET assumptions I will compare several vehicles, a Hummer H2, a Toyota Prius, and the Toyota Highlander (standard and hybrid). I will use the vehicle's published curb weight to determine the energy used in manufacturing, based on the mmBTU/lb factors above and I will use the average MPG (city and highway) to estimate fuel usage over a 160,000 mile lifespan. The energy required to manufacture the vehicles is:
  • Hummer H2: 200.717 mmBTU
  • Toyota Prius: 113.322 mmBTU
  • Toyota Highlander: 107.133 mmBTU
  • Toyota Highlander Hybrid: 155.18 mmBTU
Gasoline contains 113,500 BTU (0.1134 mmBTU) per gallon. By dividing the expected lifespan of a vehicle (160,000) by its average MPG we can determine the gallons of gasoline used over that lifetime. We can also multiply this by the energy content of the fuel to get the total energy used. The gallons used during a 160,000 mile lifespan and the energy contained therein is:
  • Hummer H2: 13,913 gallons ($44,800 at today's prices!), 1579.13 mmBTU
  • Toyota Prius: 2,883 gallons, 327.207 mmBTU
  • Toyota Highlander: 6,400, 726.4 mmBTU
  • Toyota Highlander Hybrid: 5,424, 615.593 mmBTU
So, in comparison, 89% of the energy consumed by a Hummer H2 is in burning fuel, whereas the Toyota Prius uses 74% of total energy on burning fuel. This means that, in relation to weight, the Prius requires more energy to manufacture, but the Hummer uses far more energy to operate. What we also learn is that a Hummer H2 uses more energy in the first 24,000 miles (roughly 2 years) than the Prius will in its entire lifetime.

Here is my advice, David: Continuing to drive an older car with poor fuel economy is less environmentally friendly than getting a new car that gets drastically better fuel economy. You can take my factors above and calculate the exact energy use for your old vehicle and a new vehicle to see the comparison. Keep in mind that these results are for the energy used, not the carbon dioxide emissions, but the two are highly correlated since most of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
Also, the environmental impact in this discussion so far seems to be focused mainly on energy consumption. At some point, an older car will pollute far more smog-forming emissions (unburned hydrocarbons, etc.) than will a newer car. Don't believe me? Stand behind a 2008 Malibu with the engine running and you'll barely smell anything. Do the same with a 1988 Grand Am and tell me how it smells.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Interesting - while the main point of the article is correct (buying a used car is more environmentally friendly than forcing another new one to be built, adding yet another car to the planet), you may want to also include the approximate energy required to produce vehicles other than the Prius. Because after all, without context the 113 million BTU number is completely meaningless. By the way, the site I got this from is one of the sources for the article linked above.

Source: http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/askpablo-time-to-get-a-new-car-002538.php


Also, the environmental impact in this discussion so far seems to be focused mainly on energy consumption. At some point, an older car will pollute far more smog-forming emissions (unburned hydrocarbons, etc.) than will a newer car. Don't believe me? Stand behind a 2008 Malibu with the engine running and you'll barely smell anything. Do the same with a 1988 Grand Am and tell me how it smells.
Hmmmm , where are the transportation energy costs to bring the Prius here ???

Thats more important than most realize as we now know that measured green house and pollution effects from heavy seaborne transport were previously understated by a factor of 5-7.

Again, since the used vehicle is already here its factor is zero - regardless of origination.

Also, the energy costs here for the Prius ( I think - not sure - check later ), - do not include the carbon/energy foot print for its rather unique pre assembly 'transport' requirements.

Where are the energy costs for either one - for recycling ???

Actually the 'energy costs' of other new vehicles are completely irrelevant - its used cars versus the Prius.

And as to pollution costs or footprints the article is limited to a carbon footprint comparison .

Having said that, yes I agree total environmental impact is an important part of the overall equation - one which only buttresses the argument made here against the Prius as the only green solution and calls into question if the Prius is 'really ' 'green' at all.

If you try and account for the total environmental impact of a Prius from cradle to grave no matter how you do it, its not even mid pack - amongst new and, obviously, is an even bigger loser against used.

As to standing behind a vehicle to sample the pipe and draw a conclusion.............. well, there are better ways to do that.

Other tailpipe emissions have to be measured very specifically to draw comparison values.

Since we're comparing used cars ...... and all kinds of drive cycles for both new and used.................. well good luck.

Also worth noting, its common now when comparing different emissions numbers to skew the argument to the point of absurdity by ignoring the total, operational count and over focus on next to useless rate remaining theoretical comparisons.

As the UK is finding out, you also need for obvious reasons real world FE numbers.

Its somewhat of an exercise in futility anyway.

Based on the molecule/compound 'type' count, most are not measured anyway.

Finally Argonne Lab's GREET model has been very controversial - no surprise, it appears somewhat biased against some and biased for others - like battery hybrid PT systems.

A revised version was recently released.
 
#4 ·
My head hurts ....
 
#7 ·
Blah blah, Toyota sucks, blah blah. I know something's going on with you when you break out the larger font to make your point.

This thread is on the fast track to the snake pit.

Like GM, Toyota is in the business of selling new cars. Their corporations make no money when used cars are sold (unless they get some sort of markup from CPO sales). As I am now saying in the third post in a row, that basic contention that buying a used fuel efficient car has a smaller environmental impact is correct.

The point of what I'm saying is that if you do want to buy a new car (personally, I don't plan on buying a 12 year old Geo Metro, or old Toyota Tercel (ick) even if they have far smaller carbon footprints than the cars I like), and are prepared to take the depreciation hit, there are cars far worse than the Prius from an environmental impact standpoint. A Yaris is probably much better, but a Hummer H2 is probably much worse. There really is no reason to single out the Prius other than the fact that many people - thanks in large part to Toyota's success in marketing the car - think the car is extremely low-impact on the environment when in fact, other than great fuel economy/CO2 emissions/smog-forming emissions (which it does do well), it's probably about average in terms of environmental impact. I'm sure you will argue all day that it's far worse than average, but I really don't care.

Your point, and I understand it, is that Toyota wraps themselves in a holier-than-thou persona when it comes to selling "environmentally responsible" products, when in fact they probably aren't any better than what anyone else offers. You're right...especially after spending the past few days driving a Sequoia to review and getting ~ 13 mpg.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top