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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Hybrids Consume More Energy in Lifetime Than Chevrolet's Tahoe SUV
Friday March 31, 2:10 pm ET


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.

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.

"If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles," says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. "But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.

"We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation," says Spinella. "Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue."

The goal of overall worldwide energy conservation and the cost to society in general -- not just the auto buyer -- can often be better addressed by being aware of a car or truck's "dust to dust" energy requirements, he said.

This study is not the end of the energy-usage discussion. "We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions," Spinella said. "We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world."

[shropshire 0]

Very interesting study.

What is the annual mileage figure that they use for each vehicle? (Higher mileages in the calculation would favour the more expensive to build, but cheaper to run cars).
What is the proportion of build cost to running cost?
.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Grav, man, you REALLY got to get a grip on what tripe you're reading and where it's coming from because honest to god it doesn't look like you can tell the difference between real news and PR bullshit.

PLEASE look at the by line; PRNewswire.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, then you really need an education about how publicity works in the world these days.

For a head start, go here; http://onthemedia.org/ and read or listen to the second story on the page. The one titled "The Ad That News Forgot".

I used to work -quite- closely in my old job with both PRNewswire and Medialink. In fact, the company I worked for was pretty much responsible for the entire VNR/SMT game as it's played today and pretty much was Medialink's first and most valuable client about 20 years ago. We helped to invent the game these guys play. Yes, I used to be heavily involved in the pure PR bullshit industry and I'm telling you this story is pure PR bullshit.

I can -guarantee- you that the story and study was bought and paid for by a company with a vested interest in competing against the current crop of hybrid vehicles and just by the looks of the headline on the piece, I would say that is Chevrolet.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airtwardo 7]

Killjoy!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Gravitymaster 0]

Thanks for the info. I never said the story was valid, that's why I made no comment on it. I posted it to see what others thought of it. I appreciate your input.

-

[AdD 1]

he's right in a way though, hybrid cars require more energy to produce at least.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[niolosoiale 0]

Quote

he's right in a way though, hybrid cars require more energy to produce at least.

Fact is though, people aren't going to by an H3 over a Prius if they want to save money on gas.

In the end, the numbers they throw out have no verifiably valid reference, and it's merely a "But if you look at it from this angle"

Sounds to me like GM trying to say "You should actually be buying an SUV! Because we say so!"

[mdrejhon 8]

This is a very interesting study; I'm curious how it translates to pollution though.

Say, for example, 3 times the energy from a more evironmentally friendly source (say, wind), would still end up being much better than the less energy from a dirty source (say, a 40 year old coal plant in a third world country).

What kind of energy is being used to manufacture a car? Dispose? Etc? How does it translate to pollution that affects today's and future's quality of life? It must vary from country to country, as different kinds of energies is used in the manufacture/disposal of different things in different countries. But what about specific places like North America?

[billvon 3,119]

>But what about specific places like North America?

For electricity:

Coal 49%
Nuclear 19%
Natural gas 19%
Hydro 6%
Oil 2%
Renewable 3%

[champu 1]

Quote

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.

[record scratch sound as needle is jerked off of turntable]

Wait a minute here. Are they trying to figure out which vehicles cost more money over their life or which vehicles impact the environment more over their life? You can't go back and forth all willy-nilly like this.

Of course an SUV that uses almost entirely off the shelf parts is going to be cheaper to develop, and require less manpower than a brand new hybrid design. But less expensive certainly doesn't mean better for the environment.

Paying a really smart person to come up with a way to properly dispose of batteries is a lot more expensive than paying an idiot to go bury them in a forest somewhere.

[quade 4]

Did I mention the article was PR bullshit?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Did I mention the article was PR bullshit?

Yes you did. What you didn't mention is why. Thats what we are discussing. Attacking only the source and not the science is a lazy way to debate.

-

[quade 4]

Champu points out one of the issues; the article itself isn't clear in its definition of terms. This was intentionally done to confuse the reader.

There's very little "science" involved.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[racer42 0]

Quote

Champu points out one of the issues; the article itself isn't clear in its definition of terms. This was intentionally done to confuse the reader.

There's very little "science" involved.

Science??

How do they compare a $300,000 gas guzzling Maybach to a Scion?

First, there will be maybe a 100 or so Maybach's imported into the US while there will be a cajillion Scion's built.

Secondly where do you think all the Psychology and Stats majors go to work?

It ain't for NASA.

L.A.S.T. #24
Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team
Electric Toaster #3
Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor
Co-Founder Team Happy Sock