Neil_Oz

Here's an article in the "Economist" that surprised me.

Did you know that from factory floor to scrapheap, petrol/electric hybrids consume more energy than a Hummer H3?

Or that European makers, the world leaders in diesel technology, expect that diesel cars will soon be more fuel-efficient than hybrids and give them a close run for their money in terms of emissions?

http://www.economist.com/daily/colum...ory_id=8686992

LoveItaly

Hi Neil, interesting article. I remember the diesel vehicles from years ago, they were noisy and most people we knew got rid of them after a few years. BTW, for awhile there seemed to be a lot of Hummers in my city but your post made me realize I don't think I have seen a Hummer here for over the past year. I wonder if most owners turned theirs in and purchased some other kind of vehicle.

artlover

We already bought a Prius and I'm not totally thrilled with it--am only getting 34.4...hardly the 60 they advertise! (But we live in a very hilly area and don't do a lot of driving.) However, we felt it was the most responsible choice at the time and we needed to get a car right away 'cause I had too much trouble getting 2 BIG German shepherds into the back seat of my Saub. At least having a 4 door works for this! And they LOVE the car!

samschack

My wife just got a new MB "Bluetech" and it is amazingly good on fuel economy--40mpg on highway and very clean on emissions. Not your father's diesel.

Orcas

The article states: "The dirty little secret about hybrids is that their batteries and extensive use of aluminium parts make them costly to build in energy terms as well as financial terms. One life-cycle assessment claims that, from factory floor to scrap heap, a Prius consumes more energy even than a Hummer H3." Hmm. Wonder who did that particular life-cycle assessment. The article was slanted to promoting cars with diesel fuel and I would be skeptical that the research cited is widely accepted. You can google this subject and read a lot of different results from the same type of analysis. Toyota has found their hybrids are their most energy efficient vehicles, from manufacture to use. I wouldn't go out and buy a Hummer to save the earth.

Neil_Oz

I have difficulty imagining anyone buying a Hummer at all, but I'm sure that wasn't what the writer was promoting. Let's face it, if saving the planet were the only criterion we probably wouldn't buy any sort of car.

You'd need to know how Toyota is defining "energy efficiency" in that analysis, and "from manufacture to use" isn't as broad a definition as that used by the Economist's writer. There's also the possibility that Toyota has a pressing need to recoup its investment in its hybrid technology.

Whatever the case, it seems to me that the message we can take from this is that the argument for hybrid cars isn't necessarily an open-and-shut case. When I come to replace my ageing Camry I'll certainly be considering diesel.

I doubt that hybrid is an option, as a lot of our driving is in uncongested 80-120 km/hr urban and highway conditions. I understand that hybrids offer little or no advantage in such conditions.

On the advisability of Hummers - a friend in Far North Queensland tells me that a local tour operator bought a large Hummer to take tourists into the Daintree Rain Forest. On its first day out it got bogged and had to be towed out by a Toyota Landcruiser.

walkinaround

the economist often looks at things from different angles. for example, they recently had an article stating that local food, organic food and the concept of 'food miles' was all rubbish and mass market, large supermarket selling fertilised food model is the best for the earth for various reasons (look up the article if you are interested).

for me, i take this as just questioning the assumptions that many people make about things. i don't think it should be taken as an absolute. one point is that a food mile is not a food mile...it depends how much food is in the shipment. obviously, the more food being shipped the less energy/pollution per single food item.

the prious is not very popular here in europe because of the diesel alternatives. although there seems to be more around all the time.

i have to be honest that in north america, i find the prious 'movement' a bit annoying. many people buy it to make a statement rather than to really save energy. it's often just an elitist badge to try to show that you are 'enlightened'. many of these same people (in my experience) are so caught up in showing everyone that they are environmentalists that they can't even be bothered to turn off a light switch when they leave a room or take other basic measures to conserve (combining trips, etc). i think it is harmful as these people don't think they are part of the problem when they are.

trippinkpj

FYI, we average upper 40's/ low 50's with our Prius.

mikemo

And E-85 is so inefficient you may expect 29+% less miles per gallon.
M

artlover

trippinkpj,
Most people I speak to here are getting that--maybe I just managed to get a lemon. But I guess 34 is still better than most cars.

trippinkpj

I think I would get it checked out artlover. That doesn't sound right, even in a hilly area.

Orcas

Agree with trippinkpj. Your mileage in the Prius should be better. My sister has one and gets close to 50 mpg regularly. She has observed her fuel economy goes down in winter. We believe this is because of the gas mix, which is different in winter.

Samsaf

I average between 45 and 49 mpg in my Prius (more toward 45 in summer, when I use the air-conditioning a lot -- I live in Atlanta area). And I love it!

artlover

Yes, I think I'm going to have to check it out. What fun