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
If (and that's a mighty big "if") we actually did reduce consumption, would the price of oil increase or decrease on the global market? If more oil was available on the global market, would there be more or less incentive for other countries to use oil or other technologies to meet their energy needs?
It has been pointed out elsewhere that OPEC is, in all likelihood, producing oil at or near their capacity. In other words, it is likely that world-wide demand for crude has started to exceed capacity. Which means that WHATEVER reduction we make in ourconsumption will be met by consumption elsewhere. The oil WILL be consumed. So one CAN'T reduce global pollution through a local reduction in consumption.
I'm all for developing cleaner technology (ie: reduce emissions per unit of oil consumed) but to think that we (in the US) can reduce global emmissions by reducing our consumption without acknowledging that any decrease of consumption in the US is offset by an increase in consumption overseas is naive.
.
Pollution is measured "grams per mile". So a 70mpg insight = a 30mpg nissan sentra. Same output of NOx, CO, HC, and PM (smog).
As for hybrids vs. gasoline, they are EQUAL in cleanliness. Hybrids rate either ULEV (accord/escape) or SULEV (civic,insight,prius). That's good, but there are also several non-hybrids that are just as clean:
SULEV NON-HYBRIDS: 325i, sebring, stratus, focus, accord, elantra, mazda 3, galant, altima, sentra, legacy, camry, jetta, s60, quattro, avant
Those are all equally clean to the hybrids.
troy
Not actually.....the tons of GHG gas emissions makes the Hybrids cleaner because those are lower for the hybrids.....
If all those cars were "as clean as the hybrids" then the hybrids would not be in everyone's top five "greenest cars" listings as they now are - it would be peppered with standard gas cars too, which it's not....
So, if the total amount of fuel consumed (globally) is unchanged, would hybrids make any difference in global pollution?
Well, that depends....:)
If you consider "green house gases" as pollution, which most people DO (but not all, huh Troy?) then the reduced tons of GHG emissions from the current high mileage hybrids is DEFINITELY helping.
If the total amount of fuel consumed globally is unchanged, would hybrids make any difference in global pollution?
Think about it another way:
Which generates more global GHG per barrel of oil: fuel consumed in a standard non-hybrid ULEV vehicle in the US or fuel consumed by a power plant in India? In other words, do we do the global environment any favors by transferring the consumption of oil from the relatively clean process in the US to a 'somewhat' dirtier process overseas?
How does it become more cost effective? In the case of the Prius it looks like Toyota has decided the most cost effective way to build them is in China. Just like many of the computer giants are getting their components built in China and their tech support supplied by India. Doesn't that add to the worldwide demand for oil along with more pollution. The reason the automakers are building factories in China is multifaceted. First they are under much less environmental constraints than in the USA, Germany or Japan. Of course the cheaper labor market. Then they are positioning themselves for the increase in auto sales in China. This all came about because we could not produce tennis shoes & toys at a reasonable cost in the USA.
The fact is, I can reduce the pollution I create.
Can You? How much pollution is generated each time you buy a new car? The manufacturing & ocean shipping pollution can be nearly as much or more than the car puts off on the road. The HC, PM & Sox spewed in the production of a Prius far outstrips the pollution generated during that cars 150k mile Life Cycle. That pollution may not be in Michigan or Ohio, it is going up into the atmosphere that circles the globe. I contend that a vehicle built under strict environmental guidelines in the USA will cause less pollution overall, even if the fuel consumption is not as good as a car built under less scrutiny.
LARS: "If you consider "green house gases" as pollution, which most people DO (but not all, huh Troy?) then the reduced tons of GHG emissions from the current high mileage hybrids is DEFINITELY helping."
.
The ~20,000 employees, researchers, and scientists who work for the EPA and CARB do *not* consider CO2 a pollutant. They define CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
20,000 *experts* to 1 Lars.
Majority rules, and CO2 = NOT a pollutant. (It's the same stuff WE put out!)
.
RORR:
Hybrids are good in stop-n-go regions
troy
??? I thought vegetation consumed CO2 and 'put out' O2.....
But I "do" know that the EPA tracks "green house gas emissions" for cars they test, and I DO KNOW that they measure green house gas emissions for the PURPOSE OF letting people know how much their cars are contributing to "global warming" which I DO KNOW is in part being blamed on/caused by Green house gas emissions.
No one disputes that....so, in essence, driving a car with a LOWER CO2 number is BETTER for the Global Warming problem.....
I read your post about your Civic. I do not understand it. Did you buy the hyrid Civic the new one ? Could you tell me how much you paid for it and do you get the mileage you indicate here in your message. Did you look at the Prius and if so why a Civic over it .
Thanks in advance
mltransue
Well, I'll certainly agree about the "blamed on" part.
"......so, in essence, driving a car with a LOWER CO2 number is BETTER for the Global Warming problem...."
Please at least TRY to follow my logic:
1. Quantity of global GHG emissions from fossil fuels consumed globally is based on two factors: quantity of fuel consumed and the degree/sophistication of pollution controls on whatever consumes the fuel.
2. We can use high-technology, expensive pollution controls in this country (and export the technology to emerging countries). However, in an effort to be economically competitive, other countries don't have to use (and won't use) these controls. The Kyoto treaty specifically exempted many countries from having to meet more stingent air pollution requirements. In other words, a barrel of oil consumed in the US will generate less (far less?) GHG than the same barrel of oil consumed in say India or China.
3. If we could reduce demand for oil in the US, the price of oil on the world markets would drop. Consumption of oil in overseas markets would increase and prices would rise again. The overall global demand for oil and the price for oil would again 'stabilize' with a significant difference; the % of oil burned relatively 'cleanly' in the US would be decreased and the % of oil burned under more lax controls overseas would be increased.
Does ANY of this make sense?
"US Hybrid Sales Rocket Upward in March
Combined sales of hybrids in the US in March zoomed upward to 16,619—the highest monthly sales results yet, and 59% higher than the now-second place month of December 2004, which posted 10,441 units.
Toyota led the surge, with the Prius alone breaking the 10,000 per month sales mark. Toyota sold 10,236 units of its market-leading hybrid, representing 61.6% of all hybrids sold in the month. This is down from the 68% of all hybrids sold in February, reflecting solid gains on the part of other automakers.
Honda also posted its best month ever for hybrid sales, moving 4,814 units between the Civic, Accord and Insight hybrids. The Accord hybrid had its best month to date, its 1,862 units more than doubling the results from the prior month.
The Ford Escape hybrid also had its best month ever, with 1,569 sales."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/us_hybrid_sales.html
The Green Car ratings include pollution generated in manufacturing and disposal.
I strongly suspect the Japanese have environmental regulation equal to if not better than what we have here, especially since the inaguration of the "clear skies initiative". Much of the worst pollution from automaking came from the paint shop, and since automakers have switched to water-based paints that's been dramatically reduced.
So, is buying a new car more polluting than keeping an old one? Probably. But if you're buying anyway, why not buy the cleanest overall, then keep it as long as reasonably possible?
FWIW Escape Hybrid is made in Claycomo, MO, not Michigan or Ohio.
The China situation will be self-limiting in the end because the very companies building up there are going to end up driving up their own costs. This is already starting to happen in India. Rising expectations of the workforce leads to demands for higher wages, which in turn reduces the cost advantage of offshoring.
It takes some very contorted logic to come up with the mythology about "burning all the oil to save the world" ... kind of like the parent smoking two packs a day to show the kids that smoking is a bad idea.
me: Starting yes; like the first 100 yards of a marathon. Why don't you look up in a U.N. report or some such and tell us how close the average Chinese or Indian wage is to ours. Then add up all those people and figure how many new factories it would take to employ those people and bring up their wages to ours. Let us know what you calcualte, to validate your theory. ;-)
you: But if you're buying anyway, why not buy the cleanest overall, then keep it as long as reasonably possible?
me: that would work and make sense if the barrel of oil you save wasn't used by someone else, somewhere else. If all those Indians and Chinese start making more money, those bicycles will be stored in favor of motorscooters/cycles and cars. And think of all the fuel that'll be used for electricity when those people all get refrigs, hot water heaters, and TV's !
The demand for energy worldwide will overwhelm ANY conservation that is attempted. Even if the whole U.S. converted to 50 mpg hybrids tomorrow, within a few years the world would be using more energy then it does today, and the same or more oil. Do you disagree? Do you understand that if the price of oil on a KW basis drops that it becomes more attractive to factories and powerplants which can use different fuels?
Personally if oil drops I would likely use more oil. I would be less inclined to go thru the trouble of heating my house with wood.
I would be interested in that study. According to Toyota in their Life Cycle Analysis of the Prius vs ICE vehicle the Prius produced considerably more CO2, PM, NOx & SOx. The paint pollution should be equal in the two cars. After 150k the Prius had less of these pollutants except the Particulate Matter. I would think the battery and electric motor must add a lot of pollution in the manufacturing process. If Toyota builds the Prius in China they don't have the restrictions they have in the US & at home.
The argument that "someone is going to use it so it might as well be me" is fallacious. For one thing, why use more than you need to given a fixed amount of work that needs to get done? If I'm using energy to do a certain amount of work (say drive 25 miles) and the amount of energy required to do that work changes, the amount of work to be done does not change.
We need to take incremental steps now for a couple of reasons:
1. to give us as much time as possible to figure out what the heck to do as this extractive method of energy recovery becomes unsustainable
2. To encourage the investment in additional technologies to achieve (1).
You can play with the numbers to get any answer you want. I'm interested in doing whatever can be practically done today to reduce emissions rather than shooting down every attempt as "not good enough". We'll wait forever, choking on our atmosphere, with that approach.
I am not disagreeing with your motives to clean the air. I am disagreeing with the execution. I believe there are vehicles made in the USA that get reasonably good mileage are PZEV rated and are built under more scrutiny than those built in Japan or other Pacific Rim countries. Japan DOES NOT have higher emission standards than the USA. They are good but not the highest standards. To disregard the pollution in the manufacturing process is like saying I don't want to know anything about the car prior to getting in and driving it. If the automaker told you that only 5 people died in the process of building your car would it make a difference? I would imagine it would. By not looking at the total picture on the hybrids we do not know what they are doing to our environment to build us a clean high mileage vehicle. When Japan starts building cars in this country, including the component manufacturing I will consider them a viable source for my car buying dollars.
me: If all you want is to do a Physics101 analysis of a problem, yes you might get that answer, as to what to buy. But it's not real-life, as a textbook problem is controlled and does not consider other variables. That sort of analysis should be only a small part of what you should consider.
In real-life you need to consider variables you can not control. You need to consider these because your health or life depends on them. You can't control whether you're in an accident (only reduce the odds); you can't control the weather, and you can't control what other people do.
Therefore people tend to buy 4WD, larger, and more powerful vehicles then they may otherwise need. Braking distance and better handling are also considerations - get the best you can to avoid accidents. Get a vehicle with a stronger structure - Volvo, full-frame trucks.
Make the case for us that saving 10mpg is more important than decreasing the odds of you being killed in an HCH - let's say 1 in 10,000, to someone who buys a Volvo and decreases their odds to 1 in 15,000. I can't see why someone would want higher odds of dieing or what is even more likely - be severely injured, in an auto-accident, when you had money in the bank to buy a larger/safer vehicle?
you: 1. to give us as much time as possible to figure out what the heck to do as this extractive method of energy recovery becomes unsustainable.
me: my answer to that is that if we want to live the good-life, you are going to have to compete for resources with everyone else. Energy will go to those who are willing and capable of purchasing it. I'm willing to work harder/smarter to earn it. I don't want to switch places with the poor in China or India. I will outbid them for the oil I want. I suggest you consider that E-Bay isn't a good mirror of microeconomics. There are resources out there, they are limited, and you need to compete for the rights to them.
Essentially consumers are getting a bargain on their goods like TV's and clothes and all that being made in China, or cars from Korea, instead of here in the U.S. But by doing that we give them the money to compete against us for oil, which drives up the cost. So who's responsible for a lot of the increase in the cost of gas - we the American consumer.
you: 2. To encourage the investment in additional technologies to achieve (1).
me: scarcity and high prices of energy will encourage investment in existing methods and new technologies. Conservation has the opposite effect of slightly lowering prices, which discourages investment and research. For example when oil was $15 or $20/barrel, no one was interested in drilling new wells, or starting up any biodiesel plants. How many less people would buy a hybrid if gas was $1.25/gal ?
If you don't want to die in an auto accident, don't drive. Anything else is going to be a trade-off. I'll accept certain risks in return for certain benefits. The problem we have as "American Consumers" is the MORE MORE MORE attitude encouraged by marketing people that hides the fact that we are, in fact making these trade-offs.
And I for one don't consider putting $75 down the black hole of a big fuel tank every week "living the good life".
We pay more for bottled water than we pay for gasoline. Do you believe if we consumed less bottled water the rest of the world would start buying more bottled water?
What I observe in this forum is a certain number of people who want nothing to do with increasing efficiency and decreasing pollution. So I ask again, why exactly are you spending so much time on the subject? Why is it necessary to talk down the technology and even the idea of trying to conserve if it's so obviously flawed?
me: If you're 1 of 10 hungry people at a dinner table and there are 10 rolls put on the table, and you don't grab 1, do you think that roll will be left?
you: We pay more for bottled water than we pay for gasoline. Do you believe if we consumed less bottled water the rest of the world would start buying more bottled water?
me: fresh water for bottling is continuing to fall from the sky; oil isn't. Fresh water is basically infinite because it is continually replenished; oil is finite. It is being created, but slowly, unless you buy into the abiogenic theory. We're about 25% of the oil market right now, so if reduce by 10% as you suggest, that means 2.5% oil consumption reduction and that's only if the price reduction does not increase demand. So if there is 40 years of oil left, your plan then stretches that to 41 years. Is that what you would say is a successful energy policy?
That is why efficiency and conservation aren't the answer, as I believe humans will be around for many hundreds or thousands of years. We will need to have new energy sources and technology to support the population and life-styles we have. You may have already heard my analogy that conservation is like bailing water on the Titantic - it helps, but it isn't the right strategy, and ends in the same result.
Now that doesn't mean I'm anti-conservation or efficiency, I'm simply pointing out the facts. If you think stretching out the oil supply from 40 to 41 years or make that 80 to 82 years if you think there is more oil, is the goal then you've found your philosophy. I conserve for personal economics, not with an idealistic fallacy of a notion, that it's going to save the world.
I have the 2004 model HCH with CVT.
I paid about $18,500 for it and I am averaging just under 60MPG.
I'm going to try my darndest this summer to finally reach my tank goal of 70MPG.
As for the Prius:
I went to the Toyota dealer but they didn't have a Prius to show, and said they knew little about it. Instead they tried to push me & my wife into a Corolla.
Pushing really hard we left there in a rush.
So in a way, yes we did look at a Prius.
After that we put off buying anything to see if the newly hybridized '03 Civic developed any problem trends. Since that proved to be a non-issue we purchased in Jan of 2004.
Another selling point is that I try to keep my cars for 10 years and at that time I'll have well over 300K miles on it.
If the battery goes bad before then I can still drive the car.
I also like the simpler enginerring.
The MPG I am getting is the result of my hypermilling and most folks will likely see about 46-47.
If bailing water keeps the ship afloat until the rescue vessel arrives, it helps quite a bit, thank you very much.
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Partially, yes. Some of the braking energy does go back into the battery where it can be used later for acceleration. This is one reason why many hybrids post higher CITY fuel economy than highway (since aerodynamic losses are substantially lower and energy ordinarily lost in constant start/stops can be at least partially recovered thru regenerative braking).
In general the current crop of hybrids (with the exception of the Insight to one extreme and the Accord at the other extreme) have engines which are only slightly smaller than their conventional brethren. Hybridization turns what would be an anemic powerplant into a more than adequate one. It also allows for design choices to be made in the hybrid that would not be practical in a conventional vehicle (example, Atkinson cycle instead of Otto).
Accord also gets a win from cylinder deactivation. At cruise you can run on three cylinders instead of 6.
.
Your theory is still correct. The Accord Hybrid is a 6-cylinder engine, that acts like a smaller 3-cylinder engine, because it turns off half the cylinders. Hence +7 mpg higher than its non-hybrid cousin.
Also, notice the gear ratios. The Accord Hybrid is using severe overdrive (like the Civic/Insight hybrids) to achieve its fuel-sipping economy.
I, 2.69 --- 6.5mph/1000rpm
II, 1.57 --- 11.1mph/1000
III, 1.02 --- 17.0mph/1000
IV, 0.73 --- 23.8mph/1000
V, 0.53 --- 32.8mph/1000
.
BTW, the regenerative braking is about equal to a thimble of gasoline. Sure it helps, but that amount of gas saved is trivial. Regen is not the main reason for the great fuel economy.
troy
Thanks, I should have read more on the HAH.
3-cylinder engine, because it turns off half the cylinders
Turning off the cylinders: It would be interesting to know how they do this. Obviously the injectors are off but what do they do with the valves if anything?
I presently own and enjoy my '04 baby blue Prius. I've had it nearly a yr & a half with 18 K miles AND trouble free. I trust Toyota's product and their warrantee says volumes as to their support of the buyer's who take the plunge
Is simplicity a thing of the past? Then again....is there a way to make repairs and/or replacment of components simply a snap to do with some basic training?
Any thoughts on the up coming and impending future?
p
i
I don't expect that the evolution of hybrids will be any different. "Simple" is today... relative to what we're going to be seeing in future tomorrows!
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Mania Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
me: that is a point many people have brought up regarding long-term reliability and cost to repair. Every part has a MTBF - mean Time Between Failures that can be determined. My company does that for the major components of their machines. Most parts fail in 1-2 years, and we offer a 6-month warranty.
The more parts a machine has the more failures you will eventually have, and the more probable it is you will breakdown at any time. Hence I would assume a Corolla is going to be more reliable and less costly to own long-term.
And it is not just the common consumer who is overwhelmed with complexity. Think about how much more complex the space shuttle is then the Saturn V / Apollo technology was. Look how much longer it takes to get a shuttle ready and turned around for another launch. They have 8 gazillion things that can go wrong and need checking, and most of the time they are delayed because there are things wrong.
Invest in auto repair centers I say. And send you're kids to Auto-tech schools if you want them to have good paying, steady jobs
The difference is that most of the "complexity" of the hybrids is in software and electronics, while the "complexity" of conventional vehicles is still more in mechanical devices. So, once you get the design down on the software, and the tolerances in the electronics, you can really reduce the failure rates.
Oh and if you're worried about software design causing vehicle failures, you'd better not buy anything made in the past 10 years or more...
.
The PSD still has a planetary-gear set that is still moving. And the torque converter was replaced with *two* motors that are constantly spinning & slowly but surely wearing out.
You haven't really simplified... you've just re-arranged the moving parts.
troy
me: Are you talking all hybrids, I'm not sure what models you're referring to. I thought the HAH was a regular auto. V-6 Accord with a hybrid system added? But, surely hybrids have moving parts, or else it wouldn't be much of a car would it? ;-)
you: So, once you get the design down on the software, and the tolerances in the electronics, you can really reduce the failure rates.
me: well I have a 4-yr old vehicle that just had to have the ABS sensors replaced because they were corroded. I guess the winter salt-baths that the vehicle takes, gets into everything. Do the hybrid systems have extra sensors?
And here at work I'm 1 of many worker-bees right now trying to get Oracle software to work. I won't get into what I think of SW projects other than to say I'm making contingency plans to run my dept. without it.
Talking to the salesman in Portland where I bought my new Passat, he told me their senior technicians all made over $100k last year. He said they lost one last week to the Cadillac dealer who offered him a big bonus to come to work for them. It is mostly computer diagnostics that they have to become familiar with. If they are used to older cars they may not adapt that well.
I'd bet the total parts count is lower...
kernick: Are you talking all hybrids, I'm not sure what models you're referring to. I thought the HAH was a regular auto. V-6 Accord with a hybrid system added? But, surely hybrids have moving parts, or else it wouldn't be much of a car would it?
Me: I'm talking about exactly what I said I was. The PSD (power split device) design hybrids being produced by Ford and Toyota. Honda's design is completely different, and does add net complexity in terms of parts count (they add the IMA motor and controller without removing any of the other parts).
kernick: well I have a 4-yr old vehicle that just had to have the ABS sensors replaced because they were corroded. I guess the winter salt-baths that the vehicle takes, gets into everything. Do the hybrid systems have extra sensors?
Me: not out in the elements. They have the same ABS sensors your car has. Inside the PSD transaxle they have sensors, mostly temperature sensors, but conventional transaxles have those too.
Comparing embedded systems work to a general purpose product like Oracle is also a non-starter. For one thing, the people writing the software for the vehicle computers have complete control over the implementation...they know exactly what the computer will be talking to, and under what conditions. They then write custom code to handle those situations. In many ways it's a whole lot easier than getting someone else's software to do your bidding.
That may be true. The problem as I see it is the availability of repair parts. As two posters with high mileage Prius vehicles have found out. Toyota is wanting $2100 to $2800 to replace the Catalytic Convertor. The reason they can do that is because no one is making an after market unit for the Prius. You can buy a Corolla Catalytic Convertor for $48. If it was me I would let it smoke. Hybrids are exempt from CA emissions tests. By charging so much money they are forcing people that want to be environmentally friendly to do the opposite. Toyota had it figured all along. Sell the car below our cost, then stick it to them in a couple years when they need parts. If that is the direction hybrids are taking it is not in the best interest of the American public. $2800 for a catalytic convertor & $400 for the small 12 volt battery, and we were worried about the traction battery.
That is an interesting observation. I have not found anyone with a 2004-2005 Passat diesel being towed because the car quit on them. I have seen numerous cases of the Prius II dying on the highway. Even a new Turbo on a diesel after is no more than a catalytic convertor for a Prius. Maybe I missed something on the TDI threads. Most are more than pleased with the performance and longevity. Actually there were not any hybrids that met my needs. Even the Passat wagon is not as much room as I would like for hauling. I doubt that I keep it close 4 years or 50k miles, so major repair costs are not a factor. The resale on used TDIs in CA rank up with the Prius if not higher. I paid under invoice so it should be easy to get my money back in a year or so before the flood of new diesel cars hit our shores.
That is funny that you forgot that you were a participant in the thread that is specifically devoted to the problems with Prius software. No less than 9 posters have had real problems with the Prius in just the last month. In case you missed them here is the link.
quote:
Service person told me "this has happened to almost all "Prius' they sell.
sunny9, "Toyota Prius Software Problems" #69, 12 Apr 2005 10:29 pm
I'm not sure where you live. In Oregon and CA the price is equal to regular unleaded. The highest I encountered was 10 cents more than regular unleaded here in San Diego. Driving from Portland to San Diego this week I never saw diesel as expensive as premium unleaded.