This is news reposted from Autoblog. What do you think of the following? Is it credible? Is the metric "total lifetime cost per mile" a rational metric for comparisons? Is the source company unbiased? (Seems to be.) I know there are a lot of experts here. I am new to GreenHybrid. TIA.

New study: Full-size SUVs consume less energy over lifetime than hybrids


The results of a new study conducted by CNW Marketing Research Inc. is sure to generate some arched eyebrows. The firm's report stems from their two-year effort to collect and analyze data on the "energy neessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." CNW then assigned their findings a new comparative metric - "dollars per lifetime mile" - or, said another way, total energy cost per mile driven.

The findings? America's most expensive vehicle in calendar 2005 was the Maybach (presumably a 62), tallying up at a staggering $11.58/mile. The thriftiest? Scion's boxy xB, just $.48 cents/mile.

But here's where it gets interesting: CNW's findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model. It judged showed that the Honda Accord Hybrid rang up an Energy Costs Per Mile of $3.29, while a gas-powered Accord was significantly cheaper at $2.18/mile. The study concludes that the average of all 2005 U.S. market vehicles was $2.28/mile.

The reasoning goes that hybrids use up more energy to manufacture, as well as consume more resources in terms of the assembly (and eventual disposal) of things like batteries and motors. By CNW's reckoning, the intrinsically lower complexity of, say, a Hummer H3 ($1.949/mile) actually results in lower total energy usage than any hybrid currently on the market, and even a standard Honda Civic ($2.42).

While the study's findings don't take issue with what vehicles are more financially economical to own (read: those with better mileage), it does pose some interesting questions about total energy usage in hybrids.

Obviously, in order to best judge the merit of CNW's findings, a clearer explanation of the study's criteria and processes is in order.

[Sources: CNW via Yahoo Business, QCNetwork.com]

That article didn't really seem to make sense to me either. They don't give any facts or break down of how/why hybrids use more energy over their lifetime. I think in some weird way they're just saying hybrids use more energy because they cost more. Duh theres a small premium for the extra hybrid components. Even still, it doesn't make much sense to me what they're trying to say. It's not a very thought out or clear piece.

Since you answered your own question, (no.) It is not credible. Their cost per mile is not based upon real money from real recepts. Bias doesn't matter since their methodology is fatally flawed.


An excellent first post, very SMUG.

This understates the obvious. In contrast, we have fleet performance data from the US Department of energy for two Prius:

• "$0.15/mile"
• "$0.26/mile"

The US Department of Energy bought these vehicles; put them in fleet usage; measured the costs; and then sold them. They used real dollars and came up with real pennies per mile. Many folks here are conducting the same experiment with the same methodology.

I bought my 2003 Prius for $17,300 and the NADA blue book value is $16,375. I've put 10,000 miles on this car for $0.10/mile depreciation. I've gotten 50 MPG, or less than $0.05/mile for gas or roughly $0.15/mile. I am conducting this experiment with real dollars, a real car, and getting simular numbers to the Dept. of Energy.

In contrast, "CNW" did not buy, operate and sell their vehicles with real money. "CNW" hasn't done the experiment. Worse, their numbers don't match what either the IRS or any ordinary form of accounting would accept.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

I think the point is that not all such costs are borne by the buyer/operator of the vehicle - indeed many of them are not; most of these are hidden costs, externalized upon society at large and perhaps even to some degree on the manufacturer, if they're selling these cars at a very low profit.

It's along the same lines at the ecological footrint research being done by Bill Rees and Matthias Wackernagel at UBC.

Whether or not this particular study is credible, it does raise the importance of looking at all costs (including externalized ones) that any product we buy actually has. Regular cars are notoriously bad too.....

2008 Mercedes-Benz B 200
2005 smart fortwo cdi pulse cabriolet
1966 Peugeot 404 Coupé Injection
1989 Peugeot 405 DL

Being new I did not know how to interpret this statement:
An excellent first post, very SMUG.

Does SMUG have a metameaning or alternate meaning beyond the common usage? I am not sure if I am being complimented and criticized in the same sentence or not. I did not post this article to offend anyone. I am not an SUV owner trying to bait someone.

I don't currently own a hybrid but am planning to purchase the 07 Camry Hybrid as soon as they come out. My current car is a 1993 Camry. Also, I am a research scientist. Although I work in occupational/public health now, my degrees are in environmental health science and chemistry. So I am interested in the impact on the environment of my purchasing and consumption choices. I am aware that I can save money by buying a 4-cyl camry rather than the hybrid, at my annual mileage, for the frst 6-7 years. My decision to buy a hybrid had more to do with a desire to do my part to consume less oil even if it cost me more than my neighbor who weighs every decision ONLY by bottom line dollar cost out of his pocket. It seems like a reasonable cost-shifting to me: I pay more, the environment suffers less.

But this news item makes me ask the question: does the environment REALLY suffer less in the long run? It seems like the CNW analysis broadened the timeframe and scope of the economic analysis. I can't find the actual report on the web to get the details, just news items referring to it. So my simplistic analogy of what they seem to be computing is something comparable to the Edmunds "total cost of ownership" as opposed to "true market value", except instead of dollar cost to consumer they look at cost of the energy used to create the entire car over it's lifetime (including end-of-life parts recycling) instead of the more narrow performance metric of fuel efficiency today.

Thanks again.

Check out some of the "am I SMUG" threads in the General and Journalism categories. This conversaion got started because of a recent South Park episode, who essentially poked fun at how some hybrid drivers can be "smug" towards other drivers (essentially making non-hybrid drivers out to be destroyers of the planet and general enemies of the environment). I think it's just related to your comment about finding "expert" opinions here (maybe it's smug that we think we're experts ) - my take it was in jest, or at least poking fun at us, not you.

On to the original post. This smells of a very non-scientific, non-research based opinion piece that has almost no merrit, aside from the intent to look at a total "environmental footprint". In a "study" like this, you can cook up any amount of assumptions and adjust them until it's made your point. Everyone seems so alarmed about these batteries. Um, every car has batteries that require special treatment. So a hybrid essentially has two instead of one (OK, a pack and one, but...). Big deal. But a study like this will make it out to be some unreasonable cost like $5000 to 'dispose' of the packs. Yeah, right. You can see the how unreasonable their assumption is in the Accord comparison. The only difference between the two cars is the presence of an electric motor and the batteries, yet that somehow translated to a 50% increase in cost per mile????? This article is pure fiction. They ought to be ashamed trying to pass it off as a "study".

*** Retired after 65,000 outstanding miles ***

Thanks Martha. I'll sell my HCH and get me one of them Hummers.

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

It was an 'inside' joke that came from a recent South Park program about the "SMUG" hybrid owners. As a suggestion, when joining a new forum, it makes a lot of sense to first read what is currently going on to determine if this forum is really the place a particular posting belongs. Listen first before posting is a wise approach.

A choice I'll be looking at too.

Excellent. Then you understand how research, studies and experiments are conducted. Many of us were initially disappointed with our MPG performance because hybrid-electric technology is different. But knowing the potential, those before me, figured out most of the easy answers which we enjoy sharing with new hybrid owners. We look forward to welcoming you to the club.

When you get a chance, search our forums for "hybrid myths", especially the "Journalism" forum. Having transitioned from potential to real owners, some of us are pretty sensitive about speculative papers and reports that don't match our real world experience. That is why my answer to the 'study' was the Dept. of Energy study that used real dollars and vehicles. Then I added my current vehicle performance, another data point.

One of the hybrid myths, simular to the claim of this 'study', is that hybrids use more resources to manufacture than a non-hybrid car. Yet this claim often comes without backup data or data that uses grossly wrong assumptions. For example, someone claiming NiCd battery chemistry hazards whereas the hybrid electrics use NiMH battery chemistry. Another example from the archives was the 'exploding hybrid battery' thread ("batteries have hydrogen and it explodes").

In the case of "hybrid total energy" report, they didn't use an energy unit of measure, BTUs or calories, but "dollars per mile." So either the title is misleading or the units are wrong. Both strongly suggest fundimental flaws even before even trying to find the report.

So first, welcome and when you get your hybrid Camry, we look forward to your experience with the vehicle. Take a look at the "Comparison" tab and you'll see what members have been doing to track performance. As for the 'hybrid total energy' report, post a URL to the report and we'll have something more accurate to discuss.

BTW, is that report published in a peer review journal?

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

I don't believe this article for a minute. If it really cost $3.29 to drive a vehicle one mile you better believe that every cent of that would be passed on to the consumer. Does the government absorb $300,000 every 100K miles? How about Honda? Absolutely not. This is common sense.

Kind of sounds like Captain Ahab is out to "get" that Great Green Hybrid.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated