By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Yes, there's no reality stretched in THAT statement. :confuse: If we all had fairy wings and could fly to work, the air would be cleaner too.
More fuel burned = more pollution, and nothing we have yet in the arsenal can make that fact go away.
lame comeback - try again - fairy wings are not real; hybrids are
Toyota's balance sheet and income statement look better because they sell a lot of SUV's and mid-size cars, not hybrids (if anything, the hybrids are likely subtracting from the balance sheet). They also have a government who pays for their workers' health care and manipulates the local currency to artificially depress it against the dollar/euro.
They have not crippled their cashflow by making ridiculous retirement plans like GM has.
And they were smart enough business people to see that the era of the SUV was on it's way out. While GM was investing in larger and more ridiculous SUVs (Hummer et al) Toyota was developing and selling Hybrids worldwide.
I think the statement I was refuting began with "if we could wave a magic wand...", but let me rephrase. If we all drove small econoboxes with PZEV ICE engines (and there are a few), the air would be better too, and we wouldn't have a huge number of chemical batteries to clean up either. As a statement, it's stupid because it won't happen. But what Toyota is really trying to make consumers think in this commercial is that if they buy a Toyota hybrid the world's air will get measurably better RIGHT NOW. And that's unmitigated, uh, bull-puckey.
Anyway, as always, it's merely IMHO.
OK, "what if" Toyota were to build a hybrid full size truck in the new factory in San Antonio? That would have given a much clearer picture of their intent to build HSD into every vehicle they make. Instead they chose to build more big polluters. This factory is being built to double the large PU truck manufacturing capability. What happened to the talk of a Prius plant in the USA? We are the biggest buyers of the Prius world wide. Yet they are just finishing up a new Prius plant in China. In fact it looks like ALL the 2006 Prius will be built in China by the end of this year. It may be the only way they can build them at a profit. I guess you would not fault them on that.
You can rest assured that if they decide, from a business standpoint, that it makes sense to them financially to build Priuses in the USA, they will most assuredly do so.
With Toyota's pledge to build Hybridization as an option in ALL OF THEIR VEHICLES by 2010, well, chances are good that they might indeed build a full size Hybrid pickup in San Antonio - time will tell.
Nobody who sees that commercial thinks that if they buy a hybrid the air is going to be cleaner. Nobody is that stupid.
If millions of us bought Prius cars, the result would be greater.
That's one of the points of the commerical campaign, and it's not incorrect.
That is a Toyota controlled situation. At this time they are selling all they bring over. Maybe a million people would buy them. Maybe Toyota does not want to sell that many. They seem to have enough batteries to build other hybrids so what is the holdup on more Prii being built? They seem to be able to build enough of the other vehicles in the lineup to satisfy demand.
PS
The Civic GX is cleaner than the Prius according to the EPA. If GHG was an issue the enviro community would get behind diesel cars using biodiesel.
And as far as supply goes, Toyota is putting finishing touches on upgrading aTokyo City plant that can put out ONE PRIUS PER MINUTE. That will handle any supply issues.
PS
Unfortunately, the well-known problems with the practicality of the Honda GX make it unsuitable for a vast majority of USA drivers. Unless Honda starts offering PHILL for free, the sales of that car will remain super low.
And although cleaner, it still only gets mid 30s in MPG, nothing near what the Prius is capable of.
That is totally, completely false.
The production plant in China will be used to make Prius for their own country... much like that plant they will be building later in the United States for Prius. But right now, they are busy prepping the location in Kentucky for Camry-Hybrid.
JOHN
Why doesn't Toyota offer the hybrid option free under that perspective. First I don't think the GX is offered outside CA. Some parts of CA offer big incentives to put in PHILL. I would be curious how that compares to an equivalent hybrid. The 30 MPG is a relative figure. Natural gas, up until Rita shortened supply, was less than half the cost of using unleaded gas. No car is perfect for every need. The GX can fill the needs of a CA commuter the same as the hydrogen Civic that is in test trials. The GX for the foreseeable future is a practical commuter for many people.
By the way some of the posters here would argue with your assessment that the Prius is easy to find on the dealers lots.
That's probably really true only in California, where CNG stations can be found relatively easily.
The 150-200 mile limitation between fillups is the major thing that handicaps the Civic GX. Most people who can afford both a "weekend trip car" and a "Commuter only car" do not want to deal with the CNG limited range issue.
But the GX as a "commuter car offered to the public" is relatively new, far newer than the Hybrids.
http://tinyurl.com/8qmwm
use bugmenot if want to avoid registering
In my travels in other countrys it became apparent that practical cars are the norm. Cars that serve all practical purposes and don't gulp expensive gas excessively. The gravy train is over!! Gas hogs are the dinosaurs that WILL be left behind as it should be. Yes there will be trucks and SUV's but they will be designed with adaptation to hybriding & economy.
I even think attitudes will become evident that show if someone is driving a Hummer, Navigator, Excursion or the like, they will be looked upon as wastefull, self-indulgent morons who will also eventually be considered out of touch with common sense.
Remember: First and foremost, car manufacturers are in business to make money.
If they can be green along the way, fine. See Toyota with more than 400,000 Hybrids on the road worldwide, and possibly hitting a million on the road in three more years.
Gm has what so far: a few hundred "semi-hybrid" Trucks?
So who is doing more for the enviroment?
If you want to be "green," then you have to be green across the board: in hybrid cars; in small cars; in mid-size and large cars; and in trucks. If your trucks are gas-guzzlers and spew crap, you aren't "green"
(of course, this is all relative - anyone's trucks are greener today than 20 years ago)
Well, not exactly. According to Toyota's own figures it uses more pollution to create the Prius than a conventional ICE only car. Over the life of the car, the Prius will emit less pollutants. However, the air is already dirtier because the Prius was built instead of a (for example) Corolla.
Over the lifetime of the vehicles, I think that the Prius may be somewhat cleaner than a similar sized vehicle with a small engine. However, I have not seen any studies or Toyota comments on the environmental cost of "junking" a hybrid, vs. "junking" a conventional car of similar size. Without knowing the environmental end-of-life-cycle costs, an actual statement as to which car is cleaner is problematical. I suspect you would find that the Toyota Echo (with it's mid 40's MPG) might actually be environmentally friendlier than the Prius, due to the Prius' up front environmental costs in the manufacturing process. But unfortunately, an Echo isn't "cool", and doesn't have the techno gadgets of the Prius. The question is - which one is better for the environment?
Of course, if you compare the Prius with a Sequoia, it is cleaner, but that is not a fair comparison, since they are different vehicle classes.
But the bottom line is always "who cares?" You like that Prius (and I would consider one myself if I were in the market for that size of a car) and the other person likes that SUV. Best of luck to both of you, and enjoy your cars! :shades:
The "extra pollution at manufacture time" is minimal. Over the lifetime of the Prius versus a gasoline-only similar car, the Prius is far cleaner.
I'll try to find the thread which details all the data I found on this subject a few months ago.
Look at the chart on page 18 which totals "lifetime pollution amounts" for Hybrids versus non Hybrids:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/pubs/lightvehicles.pdf
Sure, the Hybrid is "slightly higher" for the manufacturing process, but MUCH LOWER when you get to the lifetime totals.
So I think we can put the "hybrids pollute more because of the manufacturing process" argument to rest as an UNTRUTH.
"V. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRIUS
Although the production of the Prius generates more CO2 released into the atmosphere than a gasoline car, the use of the Prius over a life cycle creates significantly less CO2 emissions. If you drive a Prius for 10 years or for a total of 100,000km, you will decrease CO2 release into the atmosphere by 7.5 tons. To put this into context, the Japanese cedar tree absorbs 14kg of CO2 annually, so you will do the annual workload of 536 trees."
http://jove.eng.yale.edu/twiki/pub/Experimentalproduct/ToyotaPriu s/HowThePriusIsMade_fullreport.doc
I found the charts on the Toyota website, though I don't have a book mark for it. The extra pollution was not "minimal"; the charts gave a time frame in which the "costs" would be recouped by gas savings, but I don't remember what the figure was. 75K miles is in my mind, but I would not swear to it.
And if you can find any information on the "end-of-life-cycle" costs of the hybrid vs. conventional small car, I would sure like to have more information. Thanks.
if the Prius is MADE in Kentucky and causes pollution there, I don't care, as long as the Prius emits less pollution where I drive it
the people who live in Kentucky can whine about the pollutin caused there, but they are getting the job/wage/tax benefits. They can also push for better controls at the factory.
But MY issue is where I BREATHE.
Many cities in the U.S. ahve air pollution problems caused by auto emissions. Cars are not being manufactured in those cities. Decreasing auto emissions in those cities, where millions of people live is a good thing, even if it means the air in Kentucky gets worse.
Larsb,
Check the report, it appears they were talking about Gen 1 Prius. Those charts don't reflect what I saw on the Toyota Website.
BTW, I wasn't talking about CO2.
Have you found anything about the disposal "costs"? That would help complete the picture.
battery factories
which right now are all in Japan.
Nothing about "assembling the Prius versus the Corolla" is more polluting. It's the hybrids battery stuff which creates the extra pollution..
"The Lifetime pollution figure of the non-hybrid car VASTLY overtakes the hybrid (by about 35% ) when the entire lifetime of the two cars (including recycle) is taken into account."
Larsb,
did you confirm they were using Gen 2 Prius information, and I didn't see specific comparison numbers for end of life cycle.
I was correct in my guess. New Prius even cleaner over life cycle than Gen 1:
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/03/0901a.html
"Reduction of environmental impact over the entire lifecycle
Life Cycle Assessment
Besides achieving targets in the use and disposal stage, emissions of CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants have been reduced over the entire life cycle of the new Prius, including in the development stage."
http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=718
"Driving a new Prius saves roughly 1 tonne of CO2 per year as compared to a diesel vehicle or 1.9 tonnes compared to petrol vehicles, based on average driving patterns. Global sales of the new Prius totalled 132,703 in 2004; considering that one tree absorbs around 14kg of CO2 each year, Prius drivers in 2004 alone did the job of some 9,478,800 trees."
It sounds like most people around here would say the VW is better because it gets better gas mileage.
But, in fact it has more emissions than the Audi. I just hope people understand that good gas mileage (especially from Diesels) does not necessarily equal "environmentally friendly".
Not enough manufacturers are offering hybrids. Maybe they feel it's just a passing fancy. Maybe it is. Frankly, I'd prefer more diesel offerings. But, hybrid seems to be the craze du jour. As with everything else, time will tell.
Larry
most people spend their time debating the mpg issue and ignore all other attributes of a given vehicle
The fact is that it is a value judgement. Are you more concerned about particulates or greenhouse gasses? Is CO less desirable than NO2? I'm not sure what the batteries emit, but you might not like that stuff either, especially if they aren't disposed of properly. You have to make a value judgement to answer these questions, but I agree with you that mileage does not tell the whole story.
Actually, a PZEV of just about any type can can clean the air through which it travels if that air is heavily smog laydened in the first place. A PZEV based Ford Focus, Honda Accord, HCH, Nissan Sentra, Toyota Prius II, etc. can and does clean the air in some of our more heavily polluted locales.
In regards to pack disposal hazards and emissions, Toyota encourages that Prius I and II owners and dealerships have the Ni-MH’s recycled through their own supply system when/if their useful life has expired. The Honda Insight packs that have been replaced are recycled through Honda’s manufacturing network but I have heard of only two or three Prius I/II packs that have needed to be replaced as of this writing
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes