Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Hybrids not enviro-friendly?! Looking for credibility of this study...

2

Comments

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,456
    what's the big deal about 'peer review'? it just means you give jealous others a chance to rip your original idea. :P
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    I can't help getting into the middle of this. I own no hybrid, have considered them, but payout is extended. These results make no sense. I can conceive of no possible way for an Expedition and Hummer to have more lifetime energy use than the hybrids, unless the study takes them to different total miles, which would automatically classify the results as useless. An how can a Tacoma and Liberty do twice as well as the Accord and Camry?

    Maybach - $11.582 - *HIGHEST*
    Honda Accord Hybrid - $3.295
    Toyota Prius - $3.239
    Honda Civic Hybrid - $3.238
    Ford Expedition - $3.058 :surprise:
    Hummer H2 - $3.027 :surprise:
    Honda Civic (non-hybrid) - $2.420

    INDUSTRY STRAIGHT AVERAGE - $2.281

    Honda Accord (non-hybrid) - $2.180
    Toyota Camry (non-hybrid) - $1.954
    Toyota Tacoma - $1.147 :surprise:
    Jeep Liberty - $1.099 :surprise:
    Scion xB - $0.478 - *LOWEST*
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    I agree. When was the last time you tried getting any information from CR? They guard their source material and test procedures also.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,456
    maybe there is an 'off road' component that is not spelled out. :)
  • dreasdaddreasdad Posts: 276
    these guys(CNW) are off thier rocker. A while back they said that incentive trips that the Manuf award to the delears
    add over 3,000 to the price off each and every car. I am at a delear and have been waiting for my trip to the moon ever since. S as I sold over as I sold over 220 new cars last year my trip should be worth $660,000.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,456
    life is not fair, ask your boss how he liked his trips. :surprise:
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    Well if you looked in depth at this report it is based on false premises leading to faulty conclusions.

    As larsb stated there is no one taking this report seriously. Not to demean your position but GM ignored it and went full force into hybrids right after it was published.

    Now the Europeans have decided that they at least need a hybrid option to their already efficient diesels. Even the skeptics are ignoring the study as trash basket food.

    Next subject. Batteries dying at 101,000 miles?
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Posts: 7,160
    The study may be going by the manufacturers own LCA that considers the Prius a 150k mile throw-away. Until we have more data on the hybrids and longevity we have to accept that the life of the hybrid is equal to the life of the most expensive component, the battery. This generation of Prius is barely 3 years old. You cannot base a longevity study on only 3 years. Every time we point out problems with the first Prius that was sold here, you poo poo that as the old hybrid model. Well until the current Prius proves itself for 8 or more years we have no data to go on.

    You've ignored the several posts that Toyota has done bench testing on the battery system and found that at 180,000 miles ( 20% longer than the longest warranty ) that there is no deterioration in the performance of tghe batteries.

    The batteries are a non-issue except for the 'flat-worlders' that are concerned about falling off the edge of the earth if they go too far. There is no data to support a Maximum 100,000 mile life of a hybrid ( CNW's idiotic presumption ). There is no data to support that the vehicle life will end with the warranty period either ( 150K miles in the CARB states ). There is data to state that the batteries will last the expected life of the vehicle which should be 200K to 250K miles as with most vehicles. Those who drive less miles can expect 10 years minimum and most likely 12-15 years if they so desire.

    Now plug those numbers into the CNW study and there is an entirely different conclusion. Reality.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    You are totally ignoring your own companies LCA. So I was wrong it is not 100k miles only 100k kilometers. Toyota states in their LCA of the Prius the following.

    *Assumes a lifetime travel distance of 100,000km
    (10 years) and calculations based on the 10-15
    Japanese test cycle.


    LCA
  • gdub1973gdub1973 Posts: 3
    Wow.

    I wasn't expecting this much feedback so quickly! It's taken a while, but I have also found more feedback and opinions on this study at other locations online as well.

    Although I do not feel 100% confident in the conclusions reported by this, and other comparable studies, I do feel better about our decision.

    We feel the need to proceed with our instincts telling us the right thing to do is buy a hybrid - Camry Hybrid, here we come!

    Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this conversation, specifically 'larsb' and 'gagrice' for your passionate responses. :)
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    You are very welcome, and you will enjoy that TCH I'm sure.

    I know I love mine.....Leaving for a driving trip to San Fran from Phoenix next week....

    Good Luck !!!
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    The pleasure was all ours and I hope you enjoy your new car.
  • gdub1973gdub1973 Posts: 3
    Thanks again! We certainly feel much better about our decision. :)
  • kkerlkkerl Posts: 1
    CNW's counter-intuitive 'Dust to Dust' study raised my curiosity on any possible biases I could find in the company. Here is what I found after a quick search. Draw your own conclusions.
    ______________________________________________________
    Company Background

    Founded in 1984, CNW Marketing/Research began as Coastal NW Publishing Company. Through the years, clients and subscribers have spread from the Great Northwest to include every state of the union (except Alabama), Australia, Europe, Asia and Canada. Clients include major automobile manufacturers, banks and lending institutions, Wall Street brokerage firms and consultants. Besides publishing LTR/8+ (America's most quoted source of leasing information), CNW publishes new and used vehicle industry reference guides and study summaries, a monthly Retail Automotive Summary of sales and trends, as well as our online research distribution center, CNW by WEB. CNW holds an annual conference in Los Angeles in connection with Time Inc. Mr. Spinella is available for Executive Sessions for a limited number of clients.
    ________________________________________________________________________________- ________

    This is very interesting aspect of CNW, catering to US Auto industry executives at a conference and golf club; not a good sign for unbiased research:

    CNW's Conference Center



    CNW Marketing Research's Vista del Lago conference center has hosted executive sessions for automotive executives. While some major renovations continue, the Center is accepting Session dates for 2007.

    Sessions now include golf outings at one of the country's best golf courses, Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes. Click here to go to Bandon Dunes' web site.

    This is the view at dawn from its deck overlooking Ten Mile Lake in Lakeside Oregon.

    Click for details.
    ________________________________________________________________________________- __________________
    PaCIFIC iNSTITUTE, an unbiased CA reserch group, did a May, 2007 study on CNW; this is their conclusion:

    The Lack of Transparency in Regard to Funding
    As of May 2007, the company continues to refuse to provide information on the sources of
    funding for the analysis, other than to say that the report was “self-funded.” What this appears to
    mean is that funds from other clients (or profits from those funds) must have been used. By
    itself, this is certainly not evidence of error, but it violates fundamental principles requiring the
    transparency of research funding.

    Conclusion
    This (our) short review and analysis calls into question the unsubstantiated conclusions of the CNW
    “Dust to Dust” report – it appears that the report suffers from fatal flaws. Indeed, correcting only
    a few of these flaws completely changes the conclusions. A full analysis, however, would require
    more information about the data, assumptions, methods, and calculations used in the report.
    CNW has not released this information for independent review. We call on them to do so. At that
    time, it may be possible to accurately review and assess the important question of life-cycle
    energy for automobiles.

    Until then, substantial peer-reviewed and verifiable research indicates
    that the only reliable ways to cut the use of fossil fuels in the transportation sector are to build
    more efficient automobiles, develop cars that use alternative energy sources, and drive fewer
    miles.

    For more information about the Pacific Institute, visit www.pacinst.org.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    The conclusion of Pacinst relate to who paid for the CNW study. How is this study any different than CR. Will CR tell you how much and who donates money? Who supports all the folks at Pacific Institute? Are they funded by folks that have an agenda? In this day and age ALL studies are suspect. The best advice is follow the money.

    If Pacific Institute is that interested in the Dust to Dust report, they should do their own study. See what they come up with. The truth is it is a huge undertaking and it is easier to undermine someone else's research than to do your own.

    I eagerly await their study on the subject. No one else has come forth with a study that disputes the CNW report with facts.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Calling a Big Ole', TEXAS-SIZED "NOT" on this statement: "No one else has come forth with a study that disputes the CNW report with facts."

    In point of fact, Gary, ALL the other studies prior to CNW dispute it with facts:

    The results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

    · Example 1: These scientifically PEER-REVIEWED (something CNW has refused to allow) studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.

    · Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).

    · Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota’s internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.

    There are also basic factual errors in the report, for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.

    * The 2001 MIT study called "On the Road in 2020: An Assessment of the Future of Transportation Technology" (.pdf) used a life cycle analysis that concluded that increasing fuel efficiency with hybrid technology, is a net energy and global warming pollution winner.
    * Andrew Burnham, Michael Wang, and Paula Moon at the Center for Transportation Research of Argonne National Labs recently gave presentation called “Energy and Emission Effects of the Vehicle Cycle” at the 2006 SAE World Congress. One of the key the conclusions is “Total energy cycle energy use decreases for advanced powertrains & lightweight vehicles… Improved fuel economy offsets increase in vehicle cycle energy.”
    * Heather L. MacLean and Lester B. Lave of Carnegie Mellon University published a 1998 life-cycle assessment which concluded that 85 percent of energy use associated with a conventional vehicle’s life cycle is attributable to operation. Only 15 percent is attributable to manufacturing and disposal. Given that, it seems implausible that a 50 mpg rated Honda Civic Hybrid could be worse for the environment than a 17 mpg rated Hummer H3, even if it took twice as much energy to make the hybrid and it is driven half as much before it is replaced.

    Using CNW's logic, America's answer to foreign oil dependency and to pollution is simply to do nothing, as every experimental vehicle, such as hybrids or fuel cell vehicles, will always take more energy to produce in the short term. Obviously, since there are fewer hybrid suppliers, for example, chances are those hybrid supplies will have to be shipped further - taking more energy.

    Using CNW's logic, invention and technological advancement are evil things. Since supply chains for new technologies seldom exist, their creation will ALWAYS, INITIALLY, be less efficient. Therefore, the status quo is always best, well, at least in the short term, but who really cares about the future?

    Face the facts - the CNW study is a bunch of hooey.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    I am not going to waste my time refuting each of your examples. Let's just take number ONE.

    Example 1: These scientifically PEER-REVIEWED (something CNW has refused to allow) studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.

    Energy used will parallel pollution in almost every instance. According to Toyota and the chart I will post for the umpteenth time, clearly shows that most pollution is expelled during manufacturing of the vehicle. In this case the Prius. That means the CNW report is closer to the Toyota report than these other questionable reports. Now you can have it your way or Toyota's way, not both.

    Look very closely at this graph. The largest percentage of Hydrocarbons, Sulfur Oxides, Particulate Matter and Nox are emitted during the manufacture of the Prius. The only one close to 50% is NoX. PM is about 99% put out in MFG.

    image

    I am not sure I agree with the CNW report. I would like to see some other group do a similar report that would give us something to compare. NONE of the studies you offered are even close to as extensive as the CNW report. You just don't like the results so you discredit the data. I don't like the way CR does their flaky surveys so I discredit their rag.

    That does not make either of us RIGHT or Wrong.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Gary, I'm not the one discrediting their data. It's the other studies which do that. REAL studies by REAL SCIENTISTS, not a MARKET research company, which CNW is.

    And there is no disputing that the Prius is more polluting DURING THE TINY, SMALL LITTLE MANUFACTURING PHASE. That fact amounts to a "big freakin WHOOP" when you look at the "lifetime emissions" of the Prius versus comparable gasoline cars !!!

    Concerning your chart that you love so much: If someone put the Prius on that chart versus the Hummer, both with EQUAL LIFESPANS (which CNW did not do), which pollution line would a reasonable, logical, thinking person think would be shorter?

    You know the answer.

    There are degrees of wrong, and this CNW study is just SO FAR from right it's not even funny.

    If they are so confident in their numbers, they would allow scientific peer review - and the have not allowed that. This little fact should tell you that they know what the result would be if a NON-BIASED group of REAL SCIENTISTS looked at their data and methodology.

    The points I have already mentioned refute their data - the Scion issue for example, and the fact that the vehicles were compared with different life spans. Those mistakes ALONE invalidate the data.

    From Wiki:

    David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists commented that the study "has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs, and Carnegie Mellon's Lifecycle Assessment Group."

    An article on the Better World Club website investigates the source of the statement "a Hummer is more energy efficient over its lifetime than a Prius", which it characterizes as an urban legend.

    When your data is so lowly respected and doubted that your number one newsworthy conclusion becomes an "Urban Legend," that's pretty sad.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 28,684
    Simple question. How can studies from 1998 and 2001 discredit a study from 2005? Show me a current study that backs up your suppositions. How can a study from 2001 be at all credible concerning hybrid cars, when so few were even on the road?

    I see no difference in your arguments against CNW than my arguments against CR. Both are based on feelings rather than facts. At least I have a few facts to back up my distrust of CR. Yours is based on emotions.

    The only hybrid so far that disproves the CNW study is a LONE cab in Vancouver BC. When we see 100s of Prius with 150k miles and no big issues on the road it will be a good case against CNW. Until then CNW is the only comprehensive "dust to dust" study to go by.
2
This discussion has been closed.