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
I might add that there were plenty of diesel vehicles for a long time. Semis have always been diesel. Mercedes sold 80% of their cars as diesel in the 1980s. Every mfg company sold diesel cars last time there was a gas crunch. SO I also ask, why were they not concerned back then?
So one operative way to look at it (using the VW Jetta's. Given lower emissions for diesel; what is the rational for (now) 32 mpg vs 49 mpg? Why (@3.00 gas/diesel) .09375 cents per gal vs .061224?
Because we as a society got smart and started realizing that health costs cost us ALL more money. And the EPA started actually trying to keep the air clean.
Back in the old days of cigarettes, even the AMA Journals were allowing cigaretts advertising and letting doctors promote one brand or another !!
Then we got smart and realized the dangers of the chemicals in cigarettes.
Similary, we have gotten smart and realized the danger of diesel exhaust.
I'm all for a TRULY CLEAN diesel vehicle. Let's get one on the road in the USA, let the EPA rate it a 9.5 on air pollution, and let the MPG competition begin in earnest, with a level playing field. Right now the diesels are handicapped by the dirtiness of their exhaust.
We are about to see a very big one, though, as Jeep rolls out a Grand Cherokee with a Mercedes-Benz diesel engine. It's a 3.0-liter, turbocharged V-6 with 215 horsepower, and -- unlike the old, loud, Italian-built diesel four-cylinder engine offered in the Jeep Liberty -- this engine is the latest thing. Jeep is dropping the diesel Liberty because that diesel's exhaust is too dirty to meet new federal standards, but there is no such problem with the Grand Cherokee diesel, called the CRD, or common rail diesel, describing a method of delivering fuel into the engine.
The EPA rates the Grand Cherokee CRD at 19 miles per gallon in the city, 23 mpg on the highway, which hardly makes it a Toyota Prius. But keep in mind that those figures are for a four-wheel-drive, full-sized SUV that can tow up to 7,400 pounds. The smallest gas engine offered in the Grand Cherokee, the 210-horsepower, 3.7-liter V-6, is rated at 17 mpg city, 21 mpg highway, but can tow only 3,500 pounds. The diesel can tow as much as the 5.7-liter, 330-horsepower Hemi V-8.
The majority of GASSERS do not even come close to this goal!! So to say that 99% of the diesels need to meet this goal is disingenuous. Level playing field? The real reason this is made mentioned of is that it has not been for the purposes of discussion from the 1970's. So no, they are NOT handicapped by the exhaust. They are handicapped by market share and the resultant lack of (COST) R & D dollars that took gassers 30 plus years or at least a generation to get to. Want a parrallel example? Hydrogen power is ALREADY a reality! It gets 22 mpg in a Honda Civic. But at 18 dollars per gal (by weight), I think even you can acknowledge the realities behind these types of numbers. This is not even counting the expodentially greater use of oil fuels used in the processing of hydrogen fuel.
BOTH high mileage AND cleanliness of emissions.
Else the comparison is rigged in favor of one or the other.
ruking1 says "Hydrogen power is ALREADY a reality!"
Yes it is, in a million dollar car. That's what the FCX has cost thus far.
As to the engine being dirty, it is no more and no less dirty than most contemporary diesels. Fit it with a PM filter and it will be pretty clean. NOx will be an issue but unfortunately there is no way for me to retro fit a NOx reduction system. If I could I would.
As to your comment about having a diesel as clean as a gasser, that will happen in the next year or two. Gassers have taken 36 years to get to the point where they are now. Diesels will do it in only a very few years.
I would also like to address another comment you made concerning PZEV. You find a phony PZEV rating as acceptable as one that is truly genuine? Could you take a few moments to explain that to me?
This is truly a false construct.
Sure. This should be easy and fast.
PZEV is a measurement of tailpipe emissions. If those emission levels are low enough, the vehicle qualifies for the PZEV rating. This makes it a very clean car.
So:
Regardless of HOW the PZEV rating is achieved, a clean car is a clean car.
That's why it's going to be OK with me when the clean diesels hit the road - clean is clean is clean.
BOTH high mileage AND cleanliness of emissions.
Why?
I want the torque and range.
I’ll assume that the hybrid is lower in emissions I’ll take the slightly higher polluter that has a significantly longer life span and can be disposed of (eventually) cleaner.
I would expect the hybrids to do likewise. They need to be rated equal to the diesel SUV in towing capacity. None of the hybrids are able to pull much more than their own weight down the road. For that a bit of emissions should be given up.
I see a willingness to compromise if it is to the advantage of the person buying the hybrid. Not for the person buying a diesel. I do not see why a diesel of a given weight and size should be required to have any better emissions than the lowest rated gas vehicle in that class.
Everyone knows diesels are made for towing. As hybrids mature, they too will get higher towing ratings.
Hybrids are still about the idea of achieving higher MPG from a smaller ICE (thus less emissions) and doing it cleanly.
Towing is a "future consideration" right now.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I don't see any chance of HSD type hybrids having towing capability. That is probably why Toyota will come out with a diesel Tundra before a hybrid Tundra. They don't want their macho truck to get a wimpy image.
I'd like to see ALL the assumptions made in the analysis, not just a few of them.
I think it may be a lengthy read. I have to consider it valid in the fact that it agrees in part with Toyota's own Life Cycle Analysis. Toyota claims that the Prius in manufacturing puts out considerably more airborne emissions in 4 of 5 pollutants studied. Their claim is those pollutants are counteracted in the driving of the Prius vs the gas equivelant. car over the 100,000 mile life. Toyota left out some of the emissions such as NMOG & carbon monoxide. One important pollutant is mainly spewed out in manufacturing & Production. That is PM particulate matter. There the Prius is about 75% worse over the life of the car than the gas only version.
So until someone comes along with a valid study that refutes with science the one we have, I will consider it accurate. I don't see any bias. The top vehicle in the study was a Toyota. Just because the hybrids are so polluting in manufacture and visible makes them seem clean. I don't think they are. Are they building any of the high polluting parts in the USA? If not that should give us a clue as to the true facts.
It has nothing to do with the emotion some have for hybrids or diesels. I get emotional about the fuel savings and driveability of a diesel vehicle. That does not make it better. Only better in my mind. No matter what someone else may post negative about diesel cars & trucks I like them.
“If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high-fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. “But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.
Dust to Dust
Why would you think that the diesel can be disposed more cleanly than a hybrid? Just curious. It's 12v lead-acid battery is larger in many cases.
For example it assumes that all Toyota hybrids will die at 100,001 miles while some gassers will go 300,000 miles. Hardly a 'scientific' methodology.
Gary, you make me work too hard !!!
Do I have to AGAIN go look up the study I located which stated that the Prius, YES, INDEED, pollutes SLIGHTLY MORE during manufacturing, but that over the life of the vehicles, the gas equivalent vehicles pollute FAR MORE? Something like 37% more if I remember correctly.
The PM created during the manufacturing of the Prius has something to do with a diesel engine being used somewhere during the process, probably during the delivery of the parts. Once the "clean diesel" fuel is everywhere, this will go away, right Gary?
I have a Jeep Liberty CRD and the battery is about the same size (physical dimensions) as one found in a Toyota Highlander six cylinder. It does however, have 200-300 amps more cold cranking power.
SIZE per se does NOT matter. Indeed my Toyota Landcruiser has a (# 24) BIGGER) sized battery. (vs a 95H , smaller diesel). What will probably be of issue is the manufacturing, disposal and ultimately recycling (rebirth) procedures. So at issue is what is the gig for the hybrid batteries. The history channel had a recent program showing how hybrid batteries are made. It does not appear that the recycling procedure is an easy one.
Second: the mileage stated in the CNW report for the Prius is 109k miles. Toyota LCA is based on 100k miles. The odds on the average Prius NiMH battery lasting much over 100k miles is all speculation at this point. I have only heard of a very few Prii going past 100k miles. Out of 828 Prius owners reporting their mileage, only TWO Prius Classics are past 100k miles. A lot of weight has been given to one cabby in Vancouver that got 190k kilometers before Toyota gave him a new one. When we have dozens of happy Prius owners reporting in here that they have more than 109k trouble free miles, we should accept that number as valid. I am waiting for the first to post here.
Third: the pollution spewed into the air wherever the hybrid parts are manufactured is not Slightly more. It is on average 30-50% more than a conventional gas car. It is only after several years of driving does the ICE only car pass up the Prius for emissions. My question is will a PZEV ICE only car ever put out as much pollution as a hybrid? The report would lead me to believe NO.
Once the "clean diesel" fuel is everywhere, this will go away, right Gary?
It will be many years before clean diesel is mandated for the ships & trains delivering cars & parts from overseas. I am not sure that Toyota included transportation in the Manufacturing and Production of their Prius LCA.
I am absolutely amazed at these same environ types who TOTALLLY overlook these sources of MASSIVE pollution.
To my mind and I have said this upfront and unhedged that this has been a monumental mistake. and continues to be a monumental mistake. Yet it is totally glossed over by those very same "environ types."
Actually, it IS slightly more. ( Oy Veh, why do I have to keep repeating myself? )
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/publications/lightvehicles.html
See the PDF. See that chart at the top of Page 26. It shows the data FROM THE TOYOTA STUDY which shows the level of "Material and Vehicle Production" emission levels.
The Prius is at about 42 and 25, where the gas vehicle is at 35 and 22, respectively.
Then look at the last bar, which is the TOTAL EMISSIONS LIFETIME.
The Prius is at 170 and the gas vehicle is at 270.
So, during manufacturing, Prius is SLIGHTLY more polluting, that's true. But the Prius MORE THAN RECOVERS THAT DEFICIT by being far far less polluting by the end of the lifecycle.
The PDF article discusses diesels also. See later pages for diesel information, if you are interested.
I scanned and only found mention of "drive cycles."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GLAD YOU ASKED !!!
The Toyota study in the chart I mentioned above has the "recycle/disposal" level of the vehicles EXACTLY EVEN.
It's not more polluting at all to dispose of the Prius, because it's recycled at a higher percentage than the gasoline equivalent, by design.
So all that is left for the person buying the hybrid is will I be able to recoup the additional cost through a savings in gas and maintenance. If so it is a good car to own.
To address CO2/GHG global warming the Prius has not lived up to the claims of lower CO2 levels if it is not getting the EPA mileage. The person getting 50 MPG in his older Civic HF will be putting out less CO2 than the average Prius owner getting 47.6 MPG. And that Civic HF will have put out a SIGNIFICANTLY lower amount of CO2 in its manufacture & Production.
Also - does your study have MULTIPLE DATA POINTS, or is it only showing numbers based on mfg and production? In other words, what about the rest of the life of the vehicles, after production?
Life Cycle Analysis is very complicated, and always requires lots of assumptions.
I do agree that this type of analysis is the right approach to picking a "green" vehicle. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore LOCAL issues, such as air quality. Severly impacted air basins may need transportation approaches that decrease local air pollution while increasing pollution outside of the air basin. I breathe the air where I live, not where the Toyota factory is. And my first priority is to maintain some minimal level of air quality where I live. Some pollutants are essentially local issues (smog) whereas others are global issues (GHG). I believe you have to analyze them differently.
As an aside, if the Prius, for example, contains metals that are costly to manufacture (more costly than "steel"), those metals should (and do) bring a higher recovery value at the time of salvage. I wonder if that was figured in.
I would also say that since the average salvage age is at 8-8.5 years, there is probably a dearth of real world data for (specifically) the Prius and for obvious reasons. 2006-8/8.5 years= 1997/1998)
As a comparison, I fully expect my VW Jetta TDI to have as a min 200k- 213k miles. There is really no reason NOT to expect a min of a 20 year life cycle (current projection 500k). I also have two Toyota Landcruisers at the 11 /13 year mark and again see no problem with a min of 20 years.
and remember, this dust to dust study was paid for by GM. It also uses a 100K mile Prius versus a 300K mile Hummer, meaning many more Priuses will have to be recycled/destroyed/manufactured than Hummers, at a 3 to 1 ratio, thus the increase in "energy used".
It's hogwash basically.
A hybrid owner/driver is ONE PERSON. That one person SHOULD DO as much as he/she can do, and should not be expected to do more than that.
Cleaner air will take place when more PZEV cars hit the roads. And when CARB gets it's clean air programs all in place. And when the TRULY clean diesels start being sold new.
But remember, as Gary always says:
Most of the air pollution in that area is from cargo ships in the ocean, and the EPA and CARB have no control over that situation.
:-)
and don't forget, a lot of those Jettas are driven in the northeast and midwest, and no cars are lasting 300K miles out there
at least they don't rot out the way they used to
God, remember the pitting and rusting out of the 60s and 70s?
:-)
and don't forget, a lot of those Jettas are driven in the northeast and midwest, and no cars are lasting 300K miles out there
at least they don't rot out the way they used to
God, remember the pitting and rusting out of the 60s and 70s? "...
My upholsterer would hope that you are correct!!
Another: ya got me on whether or not the bodywork was galvanized on the 1970 VW Beetle (I am guessing not but I really don't remember or even made it a point to know or not); on which I put 250,000 miles with at least 5/8 years in Wash DC area, upstate NY and southern FL; AS is the VW Jetta TDI IS GALVANIZED. To boot the (TDI) car operates in NORCA. (Translation: low rust (no snow where it is run, and longer distances to almost anywhere one wants to go.)
Answer: All research is self-funded. We have subscribers who look for different types of results for various industries ranging from automotive to home improvements. Like a magazine, we use research as our “editorial content” and hope that the quality and comprehensiveness of that content is sufficient to generate subscribers.
In all we have thousands of subscribers in scores of industries ranging from publishing companies to Wall Street Brokerage Houses; from automakers and dealers to government agencies.
We are independent and as such have frequently offended some of our largest subscribers including virtually all of the automakers at one time or another. They do not, however, cancel subscriptions because unlike internal research that attempts to “prove” rather than analyze a point, we are trusted for (if nothing else) our independence.
Funding is the same as for Consumer Reports. I would like to see the documentation that claims that GM funded this report. You have also repeated the same incorrect data on the Prius and Hummer in prior posts. Have you even read the 458 page summary of the report?
Here is part of one answer in the report to another groundless accusation.
Since you feel it necessary to go "online" with your views, please feel free to do so. Note, however, that anyone who is interested in truth rather than perceptions, reality vs. wishes, clarity instead of myopia, conversation instead of blind rage, can and is encouraged to send legitimate questions which we will answer as thoroughly as possible. If the data is incorrect or if some of our calculations or assumptions are not accurate, we are more than willing to re-address the issue. Anything less would be a crime against society.
Warmest regards,
Art Spinella
President
CNW Marketing Research, Inc.
This answer along with the rather rude accusation is in that report. Along with dozens of others both positive and negative. If anyone is interested in the report and its findings it would behoove them to read the summary. Making false claims about the report does not give the poster any kind of credibility unless they can produce facts to refute what is in the report.
This is about the 500th time we've gone around this circle and it's really getting tiresome.
That is not true. They have complete control. They are not exerting it because of the politics involved. It is easier to make the masses pay the price than a few big corporations. Not only are they allowing ships to burn very dirty diesel, 3000 PPM sulfur, new ships being built are able to run on bunker oil. Bunker oil is the stuff left after crude is distilled. It is almost like tar. The newer designed engines will run the stuff. The advantage is it is very cheap. The disadvantage is it is very dirty. The current mandate for clean off-road diesel is 2012. A lot can get lobbied away in 6 years.
There is nothing incorrect about what I posted. The Hummer was given a 300,000 mile lifespan and the Prius a 100,000 mile lifespan. Ask your hero Mr. Spinella himself.
I do care that people supposedly put out "scientific studies" and do something totally anti-science like that. It gives hybrids an unnecessary and undeserved black eye.
But some interesting perspectives. (LONG ARTICLE (continues on app 3/4 of a full page, A6) so it is not necessarily a sound bite able piece.)
T WSJ, pg A1, Wed August 2, 2006, Reality Check "How California Failed in Efforts To Curb Its Addition to Oil" by Jefferey Ball
big mistakes and unintended consequences (my take)
..."California launched its alternative fuel drive as an energy-diversification effort following the 1979 global oil shock. When oil prices fell back, the state shifted its emphasis to fighting air pollution. Since then,California has rolled out mandates and subsidies for alternative fuel DEMONSTRATIONS (my sic) along with broader rules forcing the oil and auto industries to clean up their conventional fuels and internal-combustible engines. The ASSUMPTION (my caps) was the one-two policy punch would induce the industries to shift away from oil.
But the market hasn't responded the way California intended."... Meanwhile the industries made their conventional products clean enough to meet the states pollution limits.
The upshot: The alternative-fuel push has helped to scrub California's air, but it has done so by forcing improvements in fossil fuels and the cars that burn them. IT HAS'T CURBED CALIFORNIA'S OIL CONSUMPTION, BECAUSE IT HASN'T MEANINGFULLY DEPLOYED ALTERNATIVE FUELS."... (MY CAPS)...
..."In response, California officials repeatedly soften the rule. They ended up letting the industry comply largely with a COMPROMISED (my caps) technology: hybrid cars."....
..."but they still burn fossil fuel.
Still trying to salvage a poor policy decision (my take)
..."California regulators had turned their clean-air rule into a veiled attempt to improve fuel economy. And fuel economy, the auto companies noted, is something only the federal governmanet has the legal power to regulate."...
But purchase-intent data from CNW Marketing Research indicates that consumers might be losing interest in hybrids.
The price premium that consumers are willing to pay for gas/electric hybrids and the number of car-shoppers willing to consider buying a hybrid have both been dropping this year. CNW research shows that the average premium a new-car buyer is willing to pay for a hybrid peaked in the second half of September 2005 at $3,142. It has been declining ever since. The most recent figures from May put the average premium consumers are willing to pay for a hybrid at $1,957.
High fuel prices drove increases in the price premiums, Spinella said. The decline is likely a result of families having built higher gas prices into their household budgets and the availability of other fuel-efficient vehicles.
The number of new-car buyers willing to consider buying a hybrid vehicle peaked in the second half of November 2005 at 39 percent of those surveyed by CNW. As of May, that figure is down to 22 percent and it's certain that even fewer are actually buying hybrids. "Only about 60 out of a thousand people who consider a hybrid actually buy one," Spinella said. "To give you a reference point on that: Of every thousand people who consider a Toyota Camry Hybrid, about 350 buy them."
This reduced interest is one factor driving incentives for hybrid cars. While a year ago there were virtually no dealer incentives being offered on any hybrid model, according to CNW data, incentives for hybrids are rising quickly. Average out-the-door incentives (which include cash and other deals) in July 2006 for the Toyota Prius were $1,100; $1,400 for the Honda Accord Hybrid; $800 for the Honda Civic Hybrid; $1,600 for the Ford Escape Hybrid; and $1,900 for the Mercury Mariner Hybrid.
I know lots of hybrid owners, and none of them are getting any "out the door incentives" like Mr. Spinella describes.
I'd like him to do some REAL RESEARCH and FIND some of those hybrid buyers who are getting these incentives. They DO NOT EXIST !!!!
What about the sales number for Hybrids? Still UP UP UP, Mr. Spinella !!!
This man has an anti-hybrid agenda, and he has a way to get publicity, and he will be hurting the hybrid car movement.
This is bad for EVERYONE.
Just to keep the record straight: As estimated in the CNW report,
Hummer 1 average life expectancy 379,000 miles
Hummer 2 average life expectancy 197,000 miles
Prius average life expectancy 109,000 miles
The military H1 is built for many years of hard use. I don't find that mileage unreasonable.
So germane to the thread, does making three hybrids take more energy than making 1 Humvee? (or whatever) This should be an absolute no brainer, but I would not want to assume anything. So if I keep a Jetta 300k vs 3 Prius's, 100k each, that is 18k vs 75k. I would anticipate also, the per mile cost being lower for the Jetta than the Prius and that is with the required unscheduled maintanance on the Jetta.
Are they? The Prius sales through June are 10% behind last year at the same time. Even with the fat incentive offered this year. The TCH is new so no data to go by. The Accord and Insight are all but finished. The HCH is not selling real well. They are being discounted in some areas of the USA. The Hybrid SUV sales are down with all the other SUVs. My local Toyota dealer had 3 HHs on the front lot marked near invoice.