http://www.jeep.co.uk/jeep/pdf/greenjeep.pdf

The D in DCX stands for dumb.

Actually, Toyota UK has the best answer, 'No peer reviewed study supports the CNW report.' All peer reviewed papers report that 80% of the energy used occurs in operation, not during manufacturing and disposal. But we are faced with a 'sales critter' making a false claim . . .

STOP THE PRESSES!!

IMHO, the right thing to do is identify any legitmate papers that cite this web source and send a letter to the editor with the facts and data. We can't do much about lying web pages (that is a much bigger problem) BUT we can make sure that all ordinary forms of communication have an answer.

Now as for the Internet, we do need to check the ranking of the Jeep web site with the major search engines. If Jeep 'bought' advertizing, there comes a business decision. But I believe there are techniques that can increase the probability of a counter-claim web site.

Certainly, we need to check Wiki and see what they have on this CNW junk. The key is to make sure any lay people have equal access to the facts and data. Then point out the obvious, "claim by a car salesman."

For my part, I am begining to doubt that CNW actually conducted the 'research' they claimed. I'm begining to wonder if they received some 'unpublished research' from one or more major vehicle manufacturers. Some of the data claimed would have required unusual access to upper layers of manufacturing management including Toyota. This would be company proprietary information. That CNW Marketing got the data 'free' does not wash the obvious lack of quality.

Then one last comment -- buyer beware!

There are folks who are willing and will always be willing to believe in fables. For such folks, there is nothing we can do to separate them from the theives of the world.

Now if I remember correctly, UK libel laws are less restrictive than USA libel laws. It occurs to me that Toyota UK may have an actionable lawsuit. That means they could drag UK Jeep into court and make them answer, under threat of purjury, some difficult questions. A few expert witnesses, an award and damages and suddenly, CNW Marketing's reputation overseas has evaporated.

Sure, they'll be in buisness in the USA but having a judgement against them would go a long way to slapping them with a 'clue by four.'

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.

Like the adage goes:

"There are lies, **** lies, and statistics."

Add surveys.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

I like this line:

"It’s because vehicles like Jeeps use established technologies which use less energy in manufacture and which share many parts among other vehicles."

Jeez. I could have sworn that about 98% of the parts in my Mariner Hybrid are not only based on exisiting technologies but are exactly the same as in the regular Mariners, Escapes and Tributes. Let's see....HV battery, CVT transmission, Electric motors, electric power steering pump, and battery cooling system are all "new" while the rest of the hundreds of parts are exactly the same. I suppose there is an added cost to those Hybrid badges on the outside and I have 3 of them!

The same can be said for all of the other Hybrids except the Prius which, as a new vehicle shares far fewer parts.

-Tim

2006 Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD
Black with Pebble interior
Premium Package with Nav & Moonroof



Current ODO: 26,152
Typical Drive: 20 min crosstown in heavy traffic (3.5mi there and back twice a day)


532 Gallons of gas saved
That's 10,642 lbs less CO2 emitted

The whole key to the CNW results was that they assumed ridiculously short service lives for hybrids and so-called 'economy cars' compared to vehicles like Jeeps and Hummers. For example, the Accord Hybrid had a typical lifespan of 100,000 miles compared to 200,000 for a standard Accord (I don't remember the exact numbers but these are close). Based on these assumptions, I really don't see how they can be justified), it's no wonder hybrids look bad.

I would also be astonished if fuel consumption wasn't the largest component of vehicle lifetime energy consumption.

This is like the myth that keeps going around about how solar panels generate less electricity over their useful life than the energy used to make them. In reality, even in places like New England, it takes less than 3 years for a solar array to generate enough electricity to offset that used in its manufacture. Solar panels have a typical lifespan of 20 years so the EROEI is nearly 7 to 1, which is close to that of the Canadian tar sands or deep water oil recovery.

That's a shock A company with little interest and no expertise in hybrids commissioning a hatchetjob on hybrids? Say it isn't so!