Quote:
Originally Posted by centrider
OK. Read the article from CNW. "The Bandon, Oregon, auto research firm says . . .
|
The full report is massive, 15 MB, 475 pages. The errors are found in reading the report, not CNW's rosy description of the report. For example, key to the conclusions was the relative life-time miles of the different vehicles:
You will notice that when there is a hybrid and non-hybrid version of identical vehicles, CNW arbitrarily gives the hybrid a shorter life. Yet the Toyota hybrids, the Atkinson engine is a derated, lower power version of the gas only engine. Our hybrid engines are loafing and that gives them unusually long legs along with battery management that keeps them in the 40-80% charge range.
In fact, the Dept. of Energy fleet reports show hybrids easily achieving 160,000 miles (~250,000 km.) but CNW marketing has them lasting only 100,000 miles. Every year, the hybrids get another year older yet they are still rolling.
The tone of the report starts with the cover page where CNW graphicly sees car purchases as a question of 'style.' In the report you find CNW claims hybrid drivers are using them for 'show'. So if someone had both the gas and hybrid model, two cars, CNW claims the hybrid would get fewer miles per year . . . even though the hybrid is cheaper to operate. Does this make sense?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CNW_pp52
One thing is clear. The typical hybrid small vehicle such as the Prius is driven far fewer miles each year than a comparably sized budget car. And for good reason. Like Upper Premium Sports cars, these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods. . . .
|
We have both a Prius and Echo and both cars have the same 1500 cc engine. But I commute to and from work in the Prius because it would be foolish to do anything else. But CNW marketing doesn't see hybrid owners as capable of making such a distinction.
One of the better responses is from Toyota Europe who pointed out that every 'peer reviewed' total energy paper reports ~80% of the energy usage occurs in operation. The CNW paper, which has yet to be presented in a peer review forum, is alone in making these inflated energy claims.
So I welcome every serious study including the one announced. Having the facts and data makes it easier it is to dismiss CNW's foolishness.
Bob Wilson