No problem. I did a compare on the Honda site with a Civic Hybrid and a Civic EX AT. Here's what showed up:

Price
Hybrid: $22,150
EX: $19,260

Suspension
Hybrid: (Front) Control-Link MacPherson Strut Front Suspension, (Rear) Reactive-Link Double Independent Wishbone Rear Suspension
EX: Independent

Automatic Climate Control
Hybrid: Standard
EX: Not Available

Radio
Hybrid: AM/FM Stereo with CD/MP3 Standard Player, 6 Speakers and XM Ready ®
EX: Standard

Beverage Holders
Hybrid: 2
EX: 4 (well, that tips it right there. )

Wheels
Hybrid: Alloy Wheels 15"
EX: Standard

I'm not good enough to put a $ on it...

 

You know, I'm not interested in starting an argument but for someone who one post ago criticized someone for lack of data, I'm a bit surprised you went here. Debating the "carbon cost" of manufacturing is guess work at best, and not really worth discussing.

 

I checked out honda site comparison and think you may have misunderstood a few of the differences.

The suspension and radio are the same. If you pick the EX first and then the Hybrid the Hybrid will be listed as Independent or Standard.

The EX has 16" Alloy wheels and the Hybrid has 15" alloy wheels.

I didn't see the rear deck spoiler mentioned, is this now standard on both?

I see the EX has rear disc brakes vs the Hybrids Drums.

I think Honda went to great lengths to prevent me from doing this comparison.

 

I suppose that just leaves the climate control...and the cup holders. So not as much a difference as I thought.

I think my 2003 HCH compared a bit more favorably - climate control and the spoiler at least.

 

 

I think it's common sense. In the case of steel, you have to mine and transport iron ore. You need coke. You need to transport it. You need massive energy inputs to melt it down. You need more energy to make steel. You need to transport it. You need to machine it. Transport again.

A simple google search for steel energy input will tell you more than you need to know, to realize I have a valid point. I'm confident that 50% of Honda's cost isn't someone else's profit. Unless you're talking about a rare substance, or some sort of cartel dominating a market, the majority of the cost of something is going to be the energy input into the product.


Everything you buy has CO2 emissions associated with it. Computers, house, car, toothbrush.

When considering the impact of a hybrid with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, you have to take the additional energy inputs into consideration. There's no way a Prius has a bigger impact than a Hummer, or you'd be paying for the energy input... and it's much less expensive. So I do think the "dust to dust" thing was wrong, or greatly exagerated.

If Honda says it costs them $2500 more to make a hybrid, I think it's reasonable to use that number. I have a hard time believing that they're paying someone 50% margins for anything. Drop it to $2000. Either way the fact remains, the hybrid version straight from the factory is responsible for substantially more greenhouse gas emissions than the standard model.

 

Define 'substantially'. Again you are making large assumptions. The Hybrid weighs 65 pounds more than the EX sedan. If you are talking energy to produce the raw materials that go into the production, a 2% weight difference would cause minimal, not 'substantial' greenhouse gas emissions in production. Sure the Hybrid has the extra electric engine and battery, but the EX has a heavier gas engine, along with heavier wheels/tires and a sunroof which surely takes some manufacturing energy.

Please understand that it is unfair to criticize others for a lack of facts, and then defend your claims with what you refer to as 'common sense'. Claims of 'common sense' as a source certainly doesn't hold up in the research world.

 

I'm offering up something I think is worth discussing in a forum. I'm not offering an inflamatory response to a published article. I think there's a difference.

Computer chips take a lot of energy to produce but they don't weigh much.

Are you suggesting that energy input for items at the wholesale level is not significant, or even the predominant pricing factor?

This is relevant and significant. At least I think it is, since if you cut off our oil supply, the the civilized world would be reduced to third world status and there would be mass starvation and disease. I don't think that would take more than 6 months.

People don't realize the importance of the energy situation. We're in the mideast for a reason, and it isn't WMDs.

 

Well duh,
Isn't that just common sense!

Mike

 

You took a bunch of assumptions and then passed it off as a fact. I have no problem discussing how much of the cost difference comes from energy. I also have no problem discussing how much of the cost difference comes from labor, supply/demand, etc. However, my "common sense" does not tell me that one of these is almost 100%. Also, my "common sense" does not tell me that a $1 in increased cost produces the same amount of CO2 as $1's worth of gasoline. Maybe they do, but you will have to provide some legitimate references for me to believe these things that my "common sense" does not provide.

Most likely, you just stated an inflammatory "fact" with no basis.