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
You will have more mercury in a hybrid than an equal ICE or diesel, owing to more electronics and the NiMH batteries using some mercury.
You are right about mercury. It is a very mobile substance. It does not matter where it is worked, it finds its way all over the world.
Especially when it is being worked in unsophisticated and poorly monitored facilities in China and India.
That is one of my gripes. According to the EPA they DO NOT test 85% of new model vehicles. They depend on the manufacturer to test and give them the results. Sounds shaky to me. The kicker on CO2 is that it is directly related to the amount of fuel burnt. If a Prius gets the EPA 55 MPG then the CO2 figure is accurate. Most don't, so that means they are emitting more CO2 than people assume. Two cars one hybrid, one not, both getting 45 MPG, both are emitting the same amount of GHG.
Whoa there my friend! If both are gassers, then I could agree, but if one of those is a diesel, then the diesel emits less GHG than the gasser.
Not true. If the hybrid achieves the 45 MPG by using ELECTRIC POWER some of the time, then the gas engine is not running the whole time like in the non-hybrid gasser.
Every second the car is running on elec power means no GHG being emitted.
Regardless of whether the EPA or the car maker publishes the emission levels of the car, the EPA stamps it as "approved."
The EPA is not perfect, but they do a very good job of helping keep the air clean.
http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
Primarily this product ends up being refined by western (states) refiners. The western refiners are NOT set up to refine the most common types of oil (other than) light sweet crude. Light Sweet Crude is relatively scarce (in relation to other than light sweet crude) and sells at a 30-40% premium. Another reason why fuel in the west costs more than in most of the rest of the USA.
Knowing that something is a good idea is FAR DIFFERENT than being able to EXECUTE that idea in a productive way.
I mean, if I could switch my car to Solar Power today I would. If we could have E85 and Biodiesel at every gas station we would.
Having those grand ideas and getting them in practice are two separate matters indeed.
(to use your vernacular) Everyone with a brain already knows that execution is (almost) non existent. This has been my consistent take. Hot air is one thing, reality IS different and I am glad you acknowledge you are still at the hot air stage. This is really the point. Your continued emphasis on gasser/hybrids, advocates continued unleaded regular use. Continued unleaded regular use, will NOT lessen the dependence on unleaded regular!!!!????
E85 while an alternative fuel, follows the oxymoronic concept/principle of "use more (ethanol) to use less (unleaded regular), with the resultant much higher cost per gal, cost per mle driven, higher per mileage TAXATION, AND higher profits (too but that might not be germane to this discussion). Being as how environmentalists raise the issue of EXCESS C02 emissions you might want to come to terms with E85's burning more or getting less mpg than say unleaded regular or diesel, in fact emitting more C02.
Actually you can thank the 2.9% of diesel users that have actually EXECUTED. The current scenario would be FAR worse if 100% of the passenger vehicle population was still on unleaded regular.
So that I am clear, using the 12% SUV population as an example (as discussed in almost unending and agonizing detail in) I Hate SUV's Why Don't You? a (shorter term) target of 12-15% diesel products would go a very long way to lessen the dependence on unleaded regular.
Burning LESS FUEL is better than burning MORE FUEL.
myth: all countries otehr than the US alllow willy nilly pollution. The facts do not bear this out. I'm not sure where you think Toyota sources its components from, but just becuase the air wquality is lousy in Beijing or Mexico City, that does not mean that either Beijing or Mexico City allow manufacturers to simly dump pollution into the environment.
myth 2: Mercury. What are you guys talking about? The mercury in the environment in the US has nothing to do with exporting mercury recycling. Mercury has been used in the US for years, and has been dumped, willy-nilly, into the environment in the US for years. It was only recently that fluorescent light bulbs became regulated. You used to throw them in your household garbage (and the mercury would leak out of the bottom or landfills). Lots of electronics have mercury in them. That use of mercury is being phased out, worldwide (NOT just in the US).
myth 3: The unpolluting diesel car. Can we PLEASE talk about cars that are ACTUALLY on the market in the US of A?
I never said that diesels wouldn't be part of the picture. I only said that the environment woudl be improved if consumers bought a new car every two or three years. It would force the older technology off the road. Plain and simple.
Of course, the best thing we could all do is drive less, but no one wants tochange their lifestyle, so there we are.
I think the public health risk from SUVs' inherent instability far outweighs the public health risk of air pollution from SUVs.
I think in the next twenty years we will see a true revolution in motoring. People who can afford it will be driving HUGE vehicles: diesel powered living rooms on wheels. The poor will be driving very small cars. And many poor people will die when their cars collide with the huge ones. I'm waiting for the first law suit against the parents of a teen who rolls an SUV and who was not trained how to drive such a vehicle. It's reckless to allow your unexperienced driver to drive such a beast.
Might be part of the reason some folks (including myself) see ethanol as a more "stopgap" measure.
Wrong. Mexico is better than China. Chinese environmental laws are virtually unintelligible and easily circumvented. Electronics recycling is done in China because it is not allowed almost anywhere else, owing to the pollution it causes.
myth 2: Mercury. What are you guys talking about? The mercury in the environment in the US has nothing to do with exporting mercury recycling. Mercury has been used in the US for years, and has been dumped, willy-nilly, into the environment in the US for years. It was only recently that fluorescent light bulbs became regulated. You used to throw them in your household garbage (and the mercury would leak out of the bottom or landfills). Lots of electronics have mercury in them. That use of mercury is being phased out, worldwide (NOT just in the US).
Wrong again - or at least your conclusion. The US posted strict laws on mercury recycling, mercury recycling moved overseas. Mercury is coming back to the US through air and water currents:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608080099aug08,1,3489462.sto- ry?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Does this have anything to do with hybrids being duds and diesels being sent from above?
are you guys really that easily convinced? A newspaper article throws ONE LINE at you, and you just accept it as fact?
Electronics is only done in China? Interesting, considering that I just signed a contract for electronics recyling IN the EU. (France and Italy - which last time I checked is not in China)
What do you really know about China? Just what you read in the Trib? China HAS regulations. Yes, they are unintelligible, but not to the Chinese. Many Chinese regulations are, GASP, stricter than those in California (and the rest of the US).
There are facts and there are myths.
Not all non-US countries are environmentally "backward," but that country was/is.
Where is Colombia, again?
Sure China has regulations! Might be why they are categorically less restrictive than even Europe's. And WAY below the 49 states and even CA!? Might be why the environmentalists vilified Bush with regard to the Kyoto Accords. The Kyoto Accords pretty much gave carte blanche to nations like China (among many others) for UNLIMITED carbon and etc., emissions and of course restricted the USA's.
To echo a quote: ..."There are facts and there are myths."
The posting of the Toyota chart made me think. If you buy a used car, does that mean that your energy consumption analysis does not need to include the manufacturing "pollution" numbers? I think the used car buyer gets a pass on that. Yet another reason to buy used.
(or maybe you divide the production impact of the car by the number of miles it gets driven, and then each driver gets his share)
I don't disagree that we should consider ALL the costs of a vehicle when buying it. Causing pollution in China is a concern to me in California (or wherever I happen to live). And I don't think we should simply allow highly-polluting activities to get shipped off shore to the lowest bidder. Not sure how to stop it, but giving consumers the information is helpful. Provided we have alternatives, of course.
It is an interesting analysis, whether it is better to continue driving the car you are driving versus selling it and buying new. It's complicated enough from a pure economic perspective, but it's VERY complicated if you incorporate impact to the environment. You can't simply say, "My new car has better emissions control equipment and gets better MPG than my old car, so I am making the environment better." Of CAN you?
Gads, most people can't even decide if they care that their car is assembled in Mexico, now you want them to care about whether the local pollution control at that plant is good? We can't even figure out if our underwear is made using slave labor!
The article is one of many. The article refers other more scholarly sources.
Electronics is only done in China? Interesting, considering that I just signed a contract for electronics recyling IN the EU. (France and Italy - which last time I checked is not in China)
Said most. What percentage of the recycling does your contract represent? Also, you know for a fact the recycling will be done?
What do you really know about China? Just what you read in the Trib? China HAS regulations. Yes, they are unintelligible, but not to the Chinese. Many Chinese regulations are, GASP, stricter than those in California (and the rest of the US).
Well, seeing as I lived in China, I would say no, my facts are not just from reading the newspaper. I have seen Chinese rivers as black as raw sewerage. I have breathed Chinese air as thick with smog as if I were standing over an open fire.
China has regulations. Regulations mean little without enforcement. China is slowly getting there, but has a long, long way to go. You are kidding yourself if you think the Chinese environment is as clean as the US.
Long story short - and bringing this into topic - start recylcing electrical and NiMH batteries at acceptable standards, and the price of electrical products and NiMH batteries will go up well over what it is now.
On the other hand, the cost of recyling a steel or aluminum engine is well known even with the acceptable clean standards the mini-mills in the US and EU adhere to.
There are facts and there is obfuscation.
Sure we have alternatives. We can pay the true cost of owning the product - including cleaning up the manufacturing process.
Case in point: the US made amplifiers in my stereo system each cost more (often several times more) than entire surround sound units people are running off and buying at Best Buy.
But I know for a fact that the stereo components I buy were made in the US under US regulation and subject to US enforcement per my post above more important - really -than regulations themselves.
Same with a car. You can know what you are getting in some cases. If you don't, I suggest you do like me and go without one.
Yes.
And mercury recycling is done in nations other than China as well.
As China slowly improves enforcement, you will see more high risk recycling moving to South America as well as other Asian countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Chinese industries have been agressively moving into Africa as well. Expect to see many Chinese companies outsourcing filth to Africa as well.
I agree that China has a long way to go. It is going to be interesting to see the transition from the ultimate command and control centralized bureaucratic approach to a new future.
and while the Chinese rivers run thick with sewerage, the rainwater that hits the roof of our factory must be retained and the pollutants removed before it can be discharged from our property!!
talk about screwy (that standard is higher than the US)
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Expanding on the concept of enforcement, the Chinese do a much better job policing the foreign ventures than putting their own in line.
The US could use similar laws - and consistent enforcement, I should think.
Using 5 models: comparing MPG city/highway of unleaded regular vs ethanol.
Here are TWO CARS,
Chevrolet Impala 21/31 vs 16/23 (-5 to -8 mpg)
Ford Crown Victoria 17/25 vs 12/18 (-5 to -7 mpg)
Honda states "There are multiple solutions to the environmental challenge...and the answer is not necessarily hybrids for all model types".
Step one:
Honda smaller hybrids, midsized diesels
Toyota smaller diesels, midsized hybrids
Step two:
???
???
???
???
???
???
???
???
Step two - Diesel Hybrids, Ethanol Hybrids, CNG Hybrids, Electric.
or any incentives vis a vis protecting the environment?
I think it was removed from the main hybrid group. It is harder to find now.
Probably will offer the dual phase hybrids more for lifestyle pick up buyers (people who tow boats, haul motorcycles, camping gear and the like) and the diesels for work pick up buyers who need simple strength but want decent fuel economy as well.
The real problem that has been resolved in the past and will be evolving or resolved going forward is whether or not folks will make the SEGMENT shifts. So for example 25% of the vehicle fleet are indeed small cars, with the other 75% almost by definition BIGGER cars, light trucks and suvs. etc. Or more than likely, see diesel (with the corresponding app 37% fuel advantage)as a very viable and cost effective product(rather than switching segments).
So I am thinking if the holy grail for a suv is 30 mpg (gasser) then 37% better (diesel) or 35-40 mpg would be a real hit.
The other practical aspect is the utiity of say a SUV(which happens to be 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet population). Again, if it is true that the AVG USA driver drives 12-15k yearly, it makes almost no economic sense for someone to buy a "small" and/or fuel efficient car to drive a lower % of the AVG yearly miles (12-15k) . Upshot most folks will NOT buy another vehicle when ONE will do.
it's amazing how few vehicles get 30 mpg
unless you tow or go off-road, SUVs have no more utility than minivans or station wagons, which average better MPG across the segment than do SUVs
50% of SUV owners bought the SUV for image, alone (and I'd bet the number is closer to 90%, but I thought I'd be conservative so as to avoid the inevitable flame)
Imagine is a perfectly valid reason to buy a vehicle. We all do it, so I am not criticizing.
I understand the person who says, "I don't want to be seen in a minivan," but I have no sympathy for them. It's like the woman in the high heels who cries that her feet hurt. But you LOOK marvelous.
;-)
More on point, if you are correct and 30 mpg IS the real holy grail, IF or as it is becoming apparrent WHEN the oems can deliver on the MPG issue, it should make those affected segments less of a liability. For as much as an SUV or mini van does fulfill needs.
Let's pay attention to the topics please. We simply cannot go into any subject matter you feel like in every topic.
So for ANOTHER example the Dodge (MB) Sprinter with the MB TDI engine really sets the bar/standards very very high. This vehicle gets (ask Gagrice for the real world figures) 25-30 mpg !!! It is a work van, business van, conversion van, airport transporter, commute van, mini (LARGE) RV. It is very very versatile. Current gasser only vehicles like the Dodge Sprinter get 10-12 mpg TOPS !!! So all other things being equal why would you want to get an engine that gets 10-12 mpg when you can get a diesel that gets 25-30 mpg?
On the highway a diesel makes the most sense were you are on the open road and wringing out where that vehicle is most efficient (when was the last gasoline semi truck...) The hybrid is better matched to city driving when the braking can re-charge the batteries.
Cost will likely be the biggest driver to adoption of either one. $5.00 gas like Europe might drive some behavior.
I have to express some puzzlement at those that say paying a huge premium for a hybrid makes good sense yet wring their hands when fuel inches up past 3 per gal. So lets say one gets 30 per gal which will come to 400 and 500 gal respectively. At 3 per gal this is app 1200 to 1500 per year. So I think given the 12-15k USA driver avg, hybrids are primarily bought for "other reasons".
for me, the holy-grail for mpg is 30 mpg for an SUV, yes.
for a car, it's 40 mpg. i looked a a VUE AWD v6 to get an idea for the vue green line hybrid that is on a train now.
i liked everything about the VUE except that it has no stability control. that's a deal-breaker for me - especially for an SUV. maybe they'll add stability control for 2008.
so i'll look at jeep cherokee bluetec next.
one reason we can downsize to a 2-row SUV is now my #1 son is big enough to ride in front seat.
the saturn green line VUE does not look like a dud to me - GM estimates 27 mpg city 32 highway.
07 Camry Hyb -- City 40 /Hwy 38
07 Highldr Hyb -- City 31-33/Hwy 27-28
07 Prius -- City 60/Hwy 51
07 Civic -- City 49/Hwy 51
07 Vue GrnLine -- City 27/ Hwy 32
07 Escape Hyb -- City 33-36/Hwy 29-31
Even given the gaps in the EPA guidelines there definitely favors the city. I just traded a '03 Vue 4WD 4cyl last December that was consistently 20mpg in town, it was rated at 23 mpg / 28 mpg.
That is about it. The best I got on our trip with the MB Cruiser was 24.8 MPG. That is a loaded conversion van that I am sure weighs close to 8000 lbs. The worst mileage was 20 MPG driving 70+ MPH against the desert wind. I think a delivery van version could do slightly better unloaded. The point is you are not going to find a vehicle using gas that heavy getting anywhere close to that kind of mileage. Even if it was a hybrid. Even Toyota that was saying they would have out a Tundra hybrid is switching to a diesel Tundra to gain market share. I think the HSD system has reached its peak potential in the Camry hybrid. You will see many full size diesel SUVs and PU trucks getting 30+ MPG very soon in the USA.
http://www.hybridcars.com/saturn-vue-hybrid.html
...G.M. is calling the "mild hybrid" version of the VUE a 12-15 percent improvement in fuel economy, for a few hundred dollars over the base price...
Will be interesting to see how many they sell, looks like a better deal that a "pure" Hybrid.
..."I think the key is if I put 15-20K in town I can make the justification for the Hybrid. Agree that for most the "other reasons" is the biggest driver. Now...15-20K all on the Hwy and the diesel is the deal (unless you are afraid to fuel up at truck stops). "...
If I had to put 15-20k around town, I would consider that tough sledding. I would also think that there is a VERY small minority of folks who do roll like that, ie, a salesperson who has metro Boston as his territory, etc) So for them, a hybrid would indeed be the ticket.