http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...se,27542.shtml

Done right, this study should consign CNW Marketing's "Dust-to-dust" back to whence it came.

Bob Wilson

 

I like you welcome any assessment of hybrids. However, I'd like to suggest you define your acronyms/abreviations. EPRI refers to at least 3 different organizations.
And what's up with PHEV, and finally, what's CNW marketing?

Thanks for the article. I see the terms are defined in the 1st para.

 

The one missing is "CNW Marketing," an industry analysis company of dubious credibility. They published "Dust-to-dust," which turns out to have many errors in facts and a long list of anti-hybrid claims. I'd recommend searching the messages and/or fetching a copy of the original "Dust-to-dust" report to see what I mean.

Glad you got most of the definitions from the report. I'm looking forward to something based on fact.

Bob Wilson

 

OK. Read the article from CNW. "The Bandon, Oregon, auto research firm says in a news release that it 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.

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.

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, CNW claims."

Here's the URL for the complete article: http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyaut...efficiency.htm

 

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?
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

 

I guess I should stop driving my car, as I have acumulated over 6000 miles since getting it on 10/17/06. According to CNW, I am being foolish to drive my sports car to work everyday instead of driving my F250 that gets less than half the MPG and burns diesel that costs $0.40 a gallon more than the regular unleaded the camry burns. Maybee they should buy me a regular camry so I can leave the hybrid at the house; oh, and they can also pay the additional fuel bill that would result. What complete idiots.

 

No Bob, it doesn't make sense, the opposite is the case.

If hybrids are "secondary" they are in that they are the second vehicle purchased which allows it to be the primary mileage vehicle with the first and less thrifty vehicle left for hauling or towing etc.

If it a "style" issue you have to drive it to be stylin'.

On a slightly different aspect on this, I have read studies in the past that show a trend toward owners of fuel misers traveling more and farther just for enjoyment, potentially reducing the real saves by going places you wouldn't have gone. Probably a study done by CATO or Reason arguing that higher CAFE will lead to more fuel consumption.

I personally can say this has been true for me in the past. I was living in Garden City Kansas while driving a 74 Duster that got 17mph. Being in the middle of nowhere with little for entertainment I traveled to Wichita a few times but was stuck for the most part, Dodge City doesn't really count. Then I bought a 86 Colt that I averaged 38mpg with. Soon enough we were regularly driving to K.C., Denver, Colorado Springs, Amarillo, even Dallas a few times. I put on 50K in 2.5 years. I'm sure I wouldn't have done near that with the Duster, but getting out of Garden City on a regular basis may have saved my marriage. Overall I used more gas with the Colt, but life was much better.

CNW's logic makes no sense.

 

Since my contact with the report is quite minimal (being only from the Car and Driver article), I tend to be less critical. Nor does it matter to me that this article, in effect, said (and this is my assumption) that my wife's 1999 GMC pickup (V6) is in the long run cheaper to operate than my Prius.

I understand the authors looked at more than just the relative cost of mpg (or is it absolute). They also considered the cost of recycling (which I don't think is big in this country, but is in Europe), and that may indeed change the relative cost.

As to Steve's observation that as mpg increases, so does the length of trips, said observation is in line with our experience. I also think for us it is the newness of the transport. For example, a couple of years ago I drove from home in Long Beach, CA to Toronto, Canada in that 15 mpg GM truck. This year, we drove the Prius to Vancouver, Canada. I'm considering driving to Toronto again in 2007 in the Prius.

Oh, yes Steve, I know a little about Ks. Was stationed at Topeka (and frequently drove into Chicago). My wife is from Medora, Ks (crow capital), where her father still lives. Brother is in Wichita, and Sister is in Tulsa. Her grandparents farmed around Dodge. Pretty good Chinese restaurant once upon a time, long ago.

 

You're making me homesick for Kansas.

 

I'd be very interested in reading a peer-review of the CNW report. I have had great trouble finding anything as scholarly as what I've found right here, so if you know of anything, please let me know.