February 12, 2006 6:00 AM PST
Buy a hybrid, save a guzzler
- Related Stories
-
Behind GE's clean-energy push
January 27, 2006 -
Better batteries for hybrid cars?
January 17, 2006 -
Biodiesel guru sees fuel joining mainstream
January 10, 2006 -
Software glitch stalls some Toyota hybrids
October 14, 2005 -
Powering a new generation of cars
September 2, 2005
The more time one spends looking at the economics of hybrid cars, the less comfortable one gets.
The New York Times
The story "Buy a hybrid, save a guzzler" published February 12, 2006 at 6:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
119 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
Additionally, the Prius is not only engineered to use less gas, it has significantly less emissions that most vehicles. This factor is equally important to most Prius owners who care about global warming.
Having owned a Prius for over 2 years, I can tell you my average mileage is about 51 MPG. There is a known learning curve in driving hybrids and for the author to state his mileage after a weekend of test driving does not reflect its true mileage.
Any increase is mileage is a good thing and without the Prius we would not even be having this discussion.
That said, the EPA does REALLY need to revise their ratings tests. They are designed for regular cars and make hybrids appear "even better" than they realyl are. This is leading to articles (like this one) where people say hyrids are over-hyped. It's not the manufacturers fault, its the EPA. Manufacturers are FORBIDDEN to publish any estimates other than the EPA's.
everything, every issue, as to how it will benefit me. The first
person. If everyone drove a car that got 100% increase in city
driving mileage. Think of how much less energy we would be
dependant on the middle east for. Think of how the cumulative
effect on the entire society would be. Don't think of how it
necessarily effects each individual, but all of us. Don't believe
the propoganda. Getting America as a whole off their addiction
to oil is a good thing. Auto makers improving fuel efficiency is a
good thing. Stop spreading non-sense. Use that thing between
your ears Mr. Leonhardt, don't just spread what you're told to
spread. Use your talent for good, and for the good of the entire
United States and world.
product of madison avenue marketing, the DNC morning memo,
and TV?
just curious, because if it wasn't for the Right Wingers, you'd
either be British with no Rights, or speaking German or Russian
right now.
in other words, don't post on a topic in the forum and go totally
off topic, it doesn't further the development of the topic any. so,
do you care to re-respond to something in the article about
hybrid cars or not?
Sorry that you are "amazed" by these "idiots." In America, personal freedom is important. If *I* want to help the environment, I have the right and freedom to do so. If *I* want to drive a Hummer, I have the right and freedom to do so. This is freedom in America, and it is beautiful.
The liberal agenda is more often to *force* people into specific behaviors and consumer patterns. Freedom is the key... as Americans, if we *want* to clean up the environment, we can. And when American's *want* to do something, there are few countries that can compete.
Let freedom reign... and thank goodness for people who view things from a personal perspective. Those are called voters, and they are concerned about their personal freedoms. They reject being controlled by the government in the name of somebody's elses image of the greater good... and rightly so. We are not locked into a Socialistic or Communistic regime. Thank goodness.
As would the battery in just about every other motor vehicle on earth. What's your point?
but the battery packs are deigned to be
remanufactured. They will never be "buried".
Moreover, each battery pack is warrantteed for 8
years, so it won't occur that often. By
comparison, each American is likely to dispose
of 3x that mass in AA batteries and lead-acid
car batteries in the same time frame. The AAs
will be buried, the lead-acid ones are generally
remanufactured.
Of course the automakers will use the millage boost to help their overall fleet millage. That trick is as old as dirt. But were Hybrids a fad, Toyota and Ford wouldn't be working to bring so many of them out onto the market. The basic improvements far outweigh the problems with batteries and the millage of SUVs that people are not buying in as great numbers as before. People said recycling was a marketing fad when it got started, and it has evolved rapidly into something profitable for a good many, to say nothing of a generally expected part of cooperate policy which is an example of market forces winning the day. Somebody will quickly figure out what to do with the batteries and worn-out hybrids soon enough.
If people can still buy gas hogs like the Navigator, so be it. There are far fewer of them, and someday technology will catch-up with them anyway. At some point, somebody might point-out that auto industry lease terms do more to hurt hybrid users, by locking them into driving fewer miles, thus hurting the appeal. I personally would realize a far bigger gain from a hybrid because I drive far and beyond the numbers the media uses to calculate their value. That is why I don't lease to boot. I'd be curious to know what difference, if any, there might be for people leasing vs. buying hybrids.
NWLB
**
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.NWLB.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.NWLB.net</a>
coasts, we still have a problem: no oil. It's
not like there's simply oil under every square
foot of earth -- it's just not evenly
distributed around the planet. Alaska has some,
the Gulf of Mexico has some, but if we tapped
every deposit and could pump it to keep up with
demand, we'd exhaust our domestic oil supply in
just a few years (obviously, it's not physically
possible to drill or pump that fast, so we'll
have a much smaller yield over the course of a
few decades).
That said, hybrid or even hydrogen-based
passenger cars, while still a good idea, are a
small slice of the pie. Most of our oil
consumption goes to commercial transportation
and electricity generation.
We have to come up with something because our
elected officials are pissing in the pool and
doing their best to cut us off from foreign oil,
but they are doing so without a backup plan.
Laying waste to Alaska isn't a plan -- forget
the cute little animals, even int he best case
scenario it simply doesn't have enough oil to
make a difference.
No need to relinquish you Hummer. It's a poor
value: expensive, impractically large,
inefficient, not as reliable as one might hope,
and handles poorly, but for an SUV it's nearly
as safe as smaller car, and you can go off-road
it. Like the guy in the ad says, "Hummer -- it
says 'I have more dollars than sense'."
learning curve with the Prius. We have owned two, a 2003 which
was replaced late last year with a 2005. Bottom line, we have
gotten exactly what the ratings would suggest: 56 in commuter
situations, 53 on the open road at 70mph. We have also
recorded every tank of gas that went through both of these
vehicles and can thus back up these claims. If the author of the
original article had done his homework he would have
discovered that the Prius does in fact take a hit in the winter.
Our mileage for both vehicles dropped around 10mpg in the
winter. I have always been at a loss to explain why reviews and
owners get less mileage, initially I thought maybe we got lucky
with the 2003. However, since we are getting even better
average mileage with the 2005...? You don't drive these things
like a non-hybrid, but you don't need to "baby" them to get the
claimed mileage either. One thing my wife and I have
discovered is that mileage is effected by load more than non-
hybrids. Maybe another reason for overweight Americans to
consider a diet or a wee bit of exercise?
There is no oil shortage! We have more that enough for ourselves if we'd just drill for it. And global warming caused by people is a myth. I'll be the first to admit this planet is warming, it just does that on it's own. Humans have no control over the climate on this planet, period.
Our forefathers fought a war back in the 1700's so we wouldn't be "Europe".
What we are looking forward to, is a country with a cleaner environment... which means changes in the energy market and the automobile market.
Giving money to the government does not promote change within these markets. The market is driven by consumer demand and dollars.
Demand is now in place. Americans pass their dollars into the energy and automobile markets, and we are going to have to rely on those markets to capitalize upon the demand for greener solutions.
Taxation is merely interference with progress. It hurts the poor the most, promotes administrative waste, and diverts money away from the industries that will need it in order to redefine the way we think about energy.
Increased taxation is a foolish plan that you appear to be promoting in an effort to take away American's freedom to choose the vehicles and energy sources they want. Under your plan, the rich would have choices... and the poor would be taxed into specific category of consumer. Poor planning.
Beautiful! That is EXACTLY the way I want to go! To live and die in a country of excess is a beautiful thing that just makes the rest of the world so jealous.
hey... it beats dying of malnutrition in the desert sun with no water and a scorpion up your butt.
Some people just think the whole world should suffer, I guess.
America rules!
43 mile commute each way, part of which is heavy DC traffic.
I compute my mileage with each tank. It is never less than 44
MPG and has been as high as 52 on a highway trip. No one
would ever accuse me of babying the car.
One learning experience has been finding out that diesel fuel
has a completely different market price pattern than gasoline.
Since it is almost exactly the same as heating oil, its price goes
up in the winter instead of during the summer driving season.
Over the course of a year, the price can be as much as 20 cents
per gallon less than regular and 20 cents per gallon more than
premium.
My passengers normally do not know that they are in a diesel
unless I mention it.
Obviously you watch too Fox news and don't understand facts, just fiction.
50mpg? Big deal, my 72 CVCC, the granddaddy of the economy car, still gets 55 on the highway, and it's going on 300k miles. The bonus is it will run circles around it's hybrid descendants. You should see me slide my 300+ pound American, undertaxed, overpaid teamster butt into the little beast, it's quite funny I've been told. Of course, my performance cars are much more fun to drive, so the CVCC sits alot.
It's sort of like how the oil industry conned the railroads into using diesel electromotives, everybody knew steamers could make more power and more efficiently at that, but they demonised the lumber industry to the point where the railroads just gave in to shut them up.
Europeans need to realise that on the whole, Americans think they are stupid for allowing themselves to be taxed into oblivion and continuing to live by a failed socialist theory, and we really don't care what they think of us. We threw off the yoke of european thought 200 years ago, maybe those left behind are just jealous.
or "redneck" or ... (sticks and stones)
What relevance does it have now? Europeans aren't trying to rule you. But it's quite tiring us struggling to reduce the damage we're doing to the environment, at the expense of our economy, when you guys just screw it up anyway. It's like having one kid in the swimming pool that keeps wetting themselves. And then justifies themselves by saying they once won a war so they didn't have to do as they were told.
As i am sure most people who have responded to your article will agree. Guns kill people not people so my bad capitilization, grammer, and spelleng is all my keyboard's fault.
And don't get me started on those damn scientists. Going on about global warming, who needs science when I have my Bible!
The writer has an entirely valid point that tax incentives are a reasonable way to effect change. I don't know how "liberal" he may be, but I DO know how conservative I am, and I (generally) agree with him on the taxes point. I would just argue that a straight increase in the gas tax would be less helpful (also more traumatic and vehemently opposed) than the more creative approach of providing a tax credit to all Americans for the "first $500" of gas they buy each year, or some such. Just let people deduct from their 1040 form ONLY the first $x and you'll suddenly get a LOT of people just like myself who think: "You know, that hybrid SUV is VERY similar to the Blazer I'm already driving. I don't need to freeze in the dark, drive a roller-skate, or ride the bus to save gas, I can live exactly like I did before and yet DRAMATICALLY cut back my gas usage."
I think his title for the piece, and the suggestion to raise taxes, are unfortunate because that places a "negative emphasis" on what is really a positive opportunity for us all to improve.
I get a personal sense of pride and patriotism from looking at my dashboard info center and knowing I drive exactly the same places, at the same speed, and yet now get in the neighborhood of twice the mileage I had on my old SUV. That means half as much of my money is going to our enemies.
People can say "I'm an American and it's my right to drive anything no matter how low my mileage is." They may be right, but they're not being particularly wise. I lost a friend in Iraq.
Now I'm ready to buy anything that tweaks the mileage up. I'm waiting for the "plug-in hybrid" kits to become available for the Escape. You charge the car batteries on your wall outlet each night and drive the next day on "pure electric power" for the first 20-30 miles. Remember that since the average American only drives maybe 50-60 miles a day, once we get plug-in hybrids, we'll be able to drive all week without using ANY gas, just electricity. It will only be on the days we take longer trips over 60 miles that we then need to burn some gas. We really are on the verge of RADICALLY reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
Please note that even IF charging Plug-In Hybrid batteries "from the grid" generated the same amount of pollution as burning gas (which it DOES NOT) I still wouldn't care. This is about security, not the environment for me. But, the good news is it IS good for the environment too! For once there is an issue that the most left-wing liberal, and a right-wing conservative capitalist like me can completely agree on!
So having said that, I'd be fine with the CAFE standards being raised, and I'm normally as anti-tax, anti-regulation as anyone gets. I'm a California boy who LOVES his car. I'm a University of Chicago Economics major who HATES taxes. And I'm also enough of a grown-up to recognize we need to change. And the "end of the market" that needs to change the most is the Ford Excursion/Chevy Suburban side. Sure they have every "right" to drive the car, but the "real cost" (both security and environment) are much higher on those types. I'd be the first to say "everyone NEEDS a car" (how's that for a car-culture Californian?) but few people NEED a car that gets 12 MPG. So frankly they SHOULD pay DISPROPORTIONALY more for the privilege of burning gas as some sort of status symbol.
People who are buying these cars that get horrible gas mileage are not concerned by the price of gas - it is easily affordable. So making gas more expensive across the board through taxes will only make driving more expensive for those who can least afford it. Do you really think that the guy who just bought that Hummer cares about gas mileage? The whole point, as far as I can tell, is to have bragging rights that, "I can afford it and you can't!" It's arrogant, but true.
The only solution is to forcefully reduce the availability of these vehicles - they have to become unavailable at any price, because those buying Navigators have little environtmental conscience.
The article is right: Detroit is not building hybrids out of environmental concern. They a) know that the cars will be subsidized, and b) for every one sold, they get to offer another huge SUV for which they will make an obscene profit. The auto industry is not motivated by good will.
One solution would be to exempt hybrids from the CAFE computation, so that that each company must maintain the CAFE w/o the hybrids. But if this was done, just watch how quickly they abandon their hybrid programs.
Another solution is to raise the CAFE altogether. This is the only way to decrease overall fuel consumption. If you don't raise the average, you still get the same results. Socially conscience buyers who get the hybrids will otherwise have no effect on the average fuel consumption in this nation.
The whole good for the planet thing I personaly think is blown out of perportion but that's just me. I mean global warming never makes it to the major news agencies anymore. It's like the NASA scientists know they got it wrong and don't want to admit it they just hope everyone forgets about it and it becomes a non issue before the deadline for disaster. I can remember more than five years ago they preached disaster in the next five years and it has come and gone with nothing, so they extended it another ten years and promptly quit talking about it.
according the memoirs Lost Moon by Jim Lovell about the failed
Apollo 13 mission to the Moon, NASA contracted the
development of small, safe nuclear fission reactors to power the
LEM and various components of the Apollo capsules.
I don't care what anybody's politics are, according to Lost Moon,
it'll take over 500 yrs to use up the nuke's power in the LEM, so
why not create cars that never need to be refueled?
oh, wait, money.
so which battery companies have the car companies invested in
for the hyrids?
what's in it for the oil companies? is it cheaper for them to refine
less oil overseas for import?
frankly, i don't give a damn.
KM
The problem is that it is not being applied equally between cars and "trucks". When I bought my GTO, I had to pay $1300 guzzler tax because it was rated for 16 mpg city (17 mpg missed the tax). Whereas, if I had purchased an SUV with the same gas mileage, I would have paid no tax at all!
It's time we get real about the separation of "car" and "truck": Anything that has more than a single front bench seat (a basic pickup) should be classified as a passenger vehicle, and be subjected to the same CAFE and tax requirements. Navigator's and Hummer's are passenger vehicles - period.
There is NO NEED to punish companies or people for excersizing their right to buy the car of their choice. More taxes does not solve the problem, it only hurts people.
Encourage, don't punish.
Build up, don't tear down.
They only way the economics of hybrids will improve is if more people by them. The people buying them right now are paving the way to a greener future for the rest of us.
The author lacks vision just like all the other idiots that bought all of those gas guzzling SUV's during the nineties.
My thanks to all of the hybrid owners with the vision to pave the way to a cleaner, more fuel efficient future for the rest of us!
Buy a hybrid and you 'allow' the auto company to continue to
market gas guzzlers and still meet the required MPG average.
Another point ... Also bad
The fuel savings from driving a hybrid don't cover the
premium cost of the hybrid.
Another point ... Also bad
The hybrid's consumption of extra resources for batteries
and the subsequent disposal problem is not solved.
So they are cute little cars. But if you are serious about the
ecology, skip the hybrid and buy a high MPG gas powered car.
what the Prius is based on than the 29mpb Corolla.
So it saves even less gas. The other problem with the EPA is that they don't want you to plug your car in over night. That really messes up the
bizarre mileage calculations.
The author is right, in that the big SUVs have
more potential savings than the Honda Insight
could provide. The small business man that needs to drive all over and occasionally carry a load,
The soccer mom, that does carry 6 kids around, oh
and wants to survive a crash, need to have more
options.
is generally LOWER in an SUV than a car. The
SUVs typically have a much higher mass and
higher center of gravity while maintaining the
same cabin integrity standards of a conventional
car. As such, the SUVs are more prone to
rolling / flipping and the cab more susceptible
to catastrophic structural failure when
impacting a rigid or semi-rigid object.
SUVs primarily have an advantage at low-speed
vehicle-vehicle collisions where there's no
injury. Their height typically means that
smaller cars suffer more damage through
submarining.
You can look up extensive safety information for
various SUVs compared to regular sedans on the
web, particularly the Insurance Institute of
Highway Safety information. Most SUVs score
pretty low for safety. The Hummer is really the
only SUV with wheelbase that compensates for the
center of gravity, but the consumer models do
not have the same structural reinforcement of
the cab as a military model.
Here's the reason - the amount I would save on gas with the Hybrid (based on my mileage) did not compensate for the additional price/payments on the more expensive hybrid - even with a tax credit. Unless you are going to drive over 15,000 miles per year, and live in one of the most expensive gas markets, you are incented to skip the hybrid.
Just my two cents...
David
designed to make more efficient use of the power
plant to yield more power, not greater mileage.
Note the difference in HP output and
acceleration rating for the hybrid versus the
standard Accord. You're paying a premium for a
peppier car.
I bought a Civic Hybrid a few years back (long
enough ago to get a $2000 tax credit). I was
looking to get a Civic and got a hybrid model
because I could get it for just $1500 over the
cost of the non-hybrid at the time (same
options). I have both a hybrid and non-hybrid
Civic right now. The hybrid typically yields
48MPG on my commute, the non-hybrid about 36MPG,
so about 33% better for the hybrid (mind you,
I've been driving it a while -- when I first
started I got in the low-to-mid 40's). The
power's a bit more in the non-hybrid, but
acceleration is smoother in the hybrid.
So, in that scenario, I got $700 off my taxes
and have saved about $600 on gas so far -- about
$1300 of the $1500 premium. I still have
emissions that barely register, and I chalked up
one more vote for fuel efficient cars in the
process. Honestly, there's no technical reason
we shouldn't be driving cars twice as efficient
as what we have today. It's a matter of money --
arguably, the only vote that will ever count.
Do you really think we haven't invented better carbeurators/engines? It's out there, but in hiding.
30 years ago my uncle bought a Ford pickup off the dealer lot and it amazingly got nearly 100 mpg. Stupidly he bragged about it and of course one night someone came by and stole his carbeurator.
He believes it was the FORD factory who accidentally let a test part go out the door and that later had to reclaim their part.
How many millions do you think the oil companies would pay to an inventor to keep their product off the market?
Believe me, we have the ability to get way over 100mpg on the largest SUV's without hybrids. Imagine what we really have the ability to produce.
2nd Begin reducing the weight of all non-comercial vehicles. People buy heaver cars because they feel saver in them. Reduce the weight and everyone is safer.
This is a simple idea that would start us in the right direction, but I doubt even this would get thru congress.
And ethanol has just over half of the energy per gallon of gasoline, so you can't directly compare cost-per-gallon of gas to ethanol - you have to multiply the ethanol by about 2x because you only get half as much out of it.
Just like hydrogen, diesel, and hybrid/gas, each technology needs to be researched further before a winner is declared. The only way to accomplish that is to push some of each of these into the market and see what floats to the top. :)