Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
What is the GREENEST car out there?
Many people tout the Prius as the greenest machine, while others belive the diesels are the way to go. But most of these arguments focus only on mpg. (see Guiltless Gas Sippers: 10 Cars That Deliver the Most Fun Per Gallon http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=107241) (see also all the threads in the Hybrid discussion area of this site.)
What about emissions? What about recycled content? Recyclability? Longevity?
And how does safety fit in to the green analysis? The Volvos may not have best mpg, but they seem to have great safety, for example.
And Ford seems to be giving more than just lip service to its sustainability ideas.
What is the most important element to you in choosing a green vehicle?
What about emissions? What about recycled content? Recyclability? Longevity?
And how does safety fit in to the green analysis? The Volvos may not have best mpg, but they seem to have great safety, for example.
And Ford seems to be giving more than just lip service to its sustainability ideas.
What is the most important element to you in choosing a green vehicle?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If driven from LA to DC, the car emits less pollution than spilling a
TEASPOON OF GASOLINE ON THE GROUND.
"Driven from California to Washington, D.C., the Honda Civic GX natural-gas vehicle would emit fewer reactive hydrocarbons than what would be released by spilling a single teaspoon of gasoline."
I can't see how any car can beat out the GX in that regard.
Actually this is a subject that has gotten hashed out pretty well in the past. Some of us contend that the pollution in manufacturing is more of a long term detriment than what comes out of the tailpipe. Others feel what is spewed in another country does not invade my nose, so it is no big deal.
Along that same line. I just found a law in the EPA website pertaining to imported cars. You can bring any 21 year or older car into the US without getting nailed by all the EPA regulations. There are probably a lot of well maintained low mileage Mercedes diesels in Europe that would be great to bring over and run on biodiesel.
Of course, if the 100,000 mile car is highly recyclable, and if emissions are lower, etc. then it is much more complicated.
Hasn't anyone done a "life cycle analysis" on cars (including manufacturing) and given us a report?
(gagrice: I assume this has been hashed out all over the place in this forum, but I didn't see one place where all the issues were discussed. Often this topic is Off-Topic in those other forums, so it gets shut down.)
I think the GMC truck hybrids are going to make a good case for being the most enviro vehicles out there. Not many vehicles can seat 7 and get 25 mpg (more?). And the ones with the power outlets will further reduce emissions because the truck is cleaner than the portable Honda generators.
:P
The Subaru Outback PZEV.
Huh?
Why?
Simple, it's the most powerful PZEV sold in this country, and it's room enough, practical enough, and with AWD, a good enough substitute for gross-polluting SUVs that it could potentially replace.
Sure, a Prius can replace...a Corolla! Wow, what an "improvement".
A CNG Civic can replace a regular Civic. Again, whoopee!
A PZEV Outback is a reasonable replacement for a Tahoe, at least one without a 3rd row. Or an Explorer. Or a TrailBlazer. Get a benemoth that guzzles gas and pollutes like crazy off the road and replace it with something that produces an output cleaner than most ambient air, and uses half the fuel in the process.
So, because it potentially provides the biggest improvement from the trucks that could be traded in for it, it gets my vote.
-juice
....that IS an odd-ball nomination. :P
BTW - in my opinion, whereas the Prius could be considered a direct replacement for a Corolla, in no way would an Outback be considered a direct replacement for a Tahoe.
For one thing, a Tahoe has SUBSTANTIALLY better towing capability.
If you want to say the PZEV Outback is a reasonable replacement for a Tahoe, then I would put it to you that a Prius is a 'reasonable' replacement for a Chevy Malibu.
So it's a suitable replacement for 90% of Tahoe owners.
Malibu, even with a V6, is reasonably efficient. Let's do some math, for fun.
Say you have a V6 Malibu, and trade for a Prius. Real-world mileage in the Malibu might be around 24mpg. EPA is 22/32 but that's not very realistic. Prius gets about 44 mpg in the real-time, again EPA is way off.
The average driver goes 12k miles per year. They would have been using 500 gallons in the 'bu. Now they will use 273 gallons. Overall gas savings is 227 gallons, which is great. Plus emissions are a little lower.
Now let's look at the Outback vs. TrailBlazer, to keep it fair, since Tahoe has more room inside. EPA for the Outback is 22/28 with auto, but again, let's call it 24 mpg for an easily obtainable real-world number. You'd use 500 gallons in the Subie.
The TB leaves much more room for improvement. Even the more efficient 6 cylinder 4wd gets 15/20, 16mpg is a fair number to expect. That's 750 gallons of gas, so you'd be saving 250 gallons. Not to mention the drop in emissions is far greater.
So depending upon the assumptions, my theory is not as wacky as you may think. In this situation the Outback actually saves more fuel and has the edge in emissions also.
Plus, the Prius would be a bigger sacrifice in terms of performance, as the V6 Malibu is a whole bunch quicker, but the TB performs similarly to the Outback PZEV.
I'm not so crazy after all. Actually, I am, but not for my nomination.
-juice
Going from a Malibu (500 gallons/year) to the Prius (273 gallons/year) is a savings of around 45%.
Going from a Trailblazer (750 gallons/year; the TB mileage is REALLY that bad??? Yarg.) to an Outback (500 gallons/year) is a savings of 'only' 33%.
So, based on percentages, you'll realize more savings by moving from the Malibu to the Prius than from the Trailblazer to the Outback. Not to mention the fact that you would only be actually USING the extra capabilities of an Outback over a Prius a very small percentage of the time. Wouldn't it be 'greener' to simply have a regular hybrid (Prius, HCH, etc.) and then RENT an Outback (or Trailblazer for that matter) for the few occasions when their extra capabilities are needed?
As far as performance goes; sure the V6 Malibu will get up and go quicker than a Prius. But if your interest is in economy, then this additional performance is essentially meaningless. The Prius has more than enough performance to be acceptable on the road (in fact, probably better performance than a mid-90's V6 Malibu).
You wacky Subie-lover.....
Comparing the 5 passenger Outback to the 9 passenger Tahoe is a real stretch. Even the Trailblazer is 7 passenger rated. You win on the MPG & PZEV. That will not make much of an argument for someone looking for a 6-9 passenger vehicle.
That PZEV rating is only in CA and the 4 wannabe states.
One last thing. You can get the Tahoe that burns E85. Isn't E85 supposed to be cleaner than any straight gas burning car?
For me I like the Suburban better than any SUV out there. I have spent more than enough time in everything from a sidekick to an Excursion. If you really want to be green ride a bicycle and don't exhale.
Let's look at the gas savings as a percentage
Why? Who cares? Isn't the bottom line how many gallons of gas are actually saved?
Otherwise, switch from a Prius to a bicycle and you're saving 100%! 100% of nothing is nothing.
Dunno about emissions, though, it would depend on your diet. :P
What matters is the amount of gas saved, not the percentage. Fewer barrels of oil.
The rent idea is not bad at all, in fact you can rent Outbacks in Colorado and some other places.
You might even say buy an econobox and then rent a truck when you need more capability.
I think we just solved the oil crisis and global warming in our 3 day conversation.
-juice
No wonder I feel like I need a nap......
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 23, 2005 12:08 pm)
So it's a suitable replacement for 90% of Tahoe owners.
Comparing the 5 passenger Outback to the 9 passenger Tahoe is a real stretch. Even the Trailblazer is 7 passenger rated. You win on the MPG & PZEV. That will not make much of an argument for someone looking for a 6-9 passenger vehicle...
If you really want to be green ride a bicycle and don't exhale
Well, I agree on the first point, but that last sentence reveals your true feelings. YOu don't really care about the environment, that's obvious. So don't pretend to be discussing this topic objectively - you just aren't. Obviously a person doesn't have to abandon driving or breathing to decrease your impact on the environment, public health, etc.
I appreciate juice's argument - that the best thing we can do from a gas consumption perspective is to get SUV into lower gas consumption vehicles. And gagrice is correct that for some people, they just want to be able to haul 6 or 7 people around fairly often. Accepting both of these arguments as valid, you then have to applaud GM for attacking fuel consumption in trucks and SUVs with hybrids, rather than in autos.
Still, is a Subaru really "greener" than an RX400H?
My Forester gets 25.1 mpg on average, and has lasted 8+ years with no dead batteries needing replacement. That's more than an RX owner will be saying 8 years from now.
-juice
no question the RX is going to have a higher cost to operate over 10 years than your Forester. ($.63/mile for the Subie vs. $.90/mile for the 400H)
But my enviro. cred. will be slightly higher than yours. As will my luxury quotient. Your fun quotient could be higher, however, as I'd rather be in your Forester than in a 400H when in the mountains.
I think the Forester is a great vehicle choice. If more people chose the Forester, it would be good for the world. I wish an American car company built something like the Forester that was also decent. Same with the 400H.
Having lived in LA from 1944 to 1958 I saw a big change in the air quality. When we moved to San Diego in 1958 I was able to breath without my chest hurting. Being young I had no idea what was causing the smog that impaired my breathing. I was very happy when steps were taken to clean up our air. We are a long ways from solving the problem. Drive down from Lake Arrowhead into San Bernardino and see the brown haze. That is not caused by cars. That is caused by ships and semi's. CARB and the EPA have squeezed the auto industry and our cars to where the exhaust is cleaner in many cases than the air it takes in. Our squabbling over the difference between a hybrid & a modern diesel car using ULSD is totally ridiculous. It disregards the real polluters in our land. I was watching the bulldozers & big dump trucks cutting the top off of the neighboring hill. Every piece of heavy equipment had a steady stream of black smoke pouring out of the stack. But good old CARB they act like they are doing their job by limiting diesel engines to 3/4 ton and larger vehicles. What a joke. Any car sold in the US, Europe or Japan is greener than the cleanest diesel bus or truck by many times over.
yes, your points are all very true
I'm not sure how much control CARB has over the port of LA. I know that's a monster polluter.
It's true that the American consumer has less lobbying clout with respect to CARB's actions than does the construction industry or the Port of LA.
I believe CARB recently passed a rule that you can't sit for hours with your semi's engine running. This has caused quite a stir, even prompting trucking advocates to say that our roads will be less safe, because truckers won't pull over and get a little shut eye in their nice warm cab. The only way to keep the cab running is to keep rolling. Still, the regulation was passed. And I think the port is even making some improvements. Once the port's ancillary (i.e. trucking) emissions are considered when analyzing, for example, a port's need for a permit when it wants to expand or replace facilities, the emissions from the entire facility can be improved. And, of course, if CARB makes it illegal to run the semi's engine when it is in line at the port, that means the semi manufacturers will have to turn to non-emitting technologies. I bet you can buy a semi, today, that has a hybrid syustem in it than will power a heater (or the AC) when the motor is off.
(I know the Port in Alameda/Oakland is undergoing some significant changes that may decrease the emissions there.)
I guess green SUV is a bit of an oxymoron, though. Imagine the mileage a Camry could get with that powertrain. Or on the Highlander, they could have gone with the 2.4l + electric, but I guess it would cost too much to develop two hybrid powertrains.
I'm not sure Lexus buyers would embrace a 4 cylinder anything.
-juice
I would imagine CARB only has as much clout as the state legislature gives them. The shipping industry is very powerful. They have blocked several attempts to force them to clean up their act. There has been progress with shutting the ships engines down and using shore power to maintain the ships while loading and unloading. The transportation industry and the off-road equipment users are far from "green".
that's for sure
The greenest car sold in Europe: The MDI Air Car.
The greenest car sold in Africa: The e.Volution.
If we want to discuss the greenest minivan, bus or whatever, another thread could be started, and numerous ingenious vehicles from all over the world could be brought in to that discussion as well.
Where are the brownest drivers? USA. Although Germans drive very fast, they don't compare with Americans when it comes to dispicably wasteful stomping (both on gas and brake pedals). And no matter how much you might think that your son drives like a racecar driver, you are probably fooling yourself, because many races are won or lost due to the number of refuelings, and so drivers must conserve as well as stay on course to win.
-juice
My new light weight NiMH battery Twike has pedal assist to be even more efficient yet can go 70 mpg and over 50 miles on a charge at 55. With newer lithium batteries it will be even better.
The T-Zero with lithium-ion batteries goes over 300 miles on a charge and is faster than a vet, Viper and Ferrari. It doesn't use any imported oil from terrorist countries that we now import over 60% of our oil.
Next greenest is plugin hybrids and then the Prius full hybrid.
Jim
Any how, doesn't the Sparrow have all kinds of electrical/fire problems? Weren't they recalled or something? I'm not even sure they're still sold.
Another thing is, when you plug them in, how can you know the electricity used to charge them comes from Wind or Solar or Hydro? It's actually probably coming from dirty Coal, come to think of it.
-juice
That may be a bit harsh as Canada and Mexico provide a very large portion of that 60%. Canada is our Number One oil import partner.
I have never seen either of those electric cars in CA. Are there any dealers in San Diego?
Most comparisons look only at mpgs and emissions of the automobile. They do not consider the fuel used to make the auto, the air pollution generated making and shipping the auto, the fuel used to recycle, etc.
Considering all this, and using a lifespan of 100,000 miles, GNX found the XB to use the least fuel.
The reason is not all that surprising, considering the light weight alloys used in hybrids and more sophisticated automobiles use considerably more fuel to mine, make, fabricate and recycle than humble steel. The batteries in hybrids use more fuel both to make and recycle.
Indeed, according to the study, the Hummer H3 is more fuel stingy over the 100,000 lifetime than the Civic. The Civic being packed with alloys, the H3, steel.
Interesting to think about, anyway.
That is a small segment of the whole story. I am glad a study as comprehensive as the CNW one has been done. It will get some people to questioning Who is, and who is not so green. You can download the Excel spreadsheet from the following site.
document1095.xls
i find it tough to beat a pzev focus. they are way cheap pricewise. maybe there is some weight saving, expensive technology in it.
If mpgs is your only Green measuring stick, then this is not the study for you. If you care about the whole energy and pollution situation, it is very interesting indeed.
A few examples to illustrate my point.
The SLK is rated as the least efficient in its class, yet the Crossfire is the most efficient. But in fact the cars are similar, the Crossfire being based on the outgoing model and surely having much in common with the Benz.
Yet the study says the Benz uses TRIPLE the energy over its lifetime. No way could that be true. I'd believe the Benz would use up, say, 30% extra, but not over 200% more energy.
Second example.
Why is the audi allroad so grossly inefficient? 5.595 compared to 1.529 for a Saab 9-5 (a similar euro luxury car).
Even clones like the Uplander 2.117 and Montana SV6 2.239 have significant differences. Montego 2.264 and Five Hundred 2.018 as well.
Big jump from a Mazda3 0.980 to a Volvo S40 1.897. Double the energy for a few extra features on the same chassis?
I dunno....
Yet the study says the Benz uses TRIPLE the energy over its lifetime. No way could that be true. I'd believe the Benz would use up, say, 30% extra, but not over 200% more energy.
We need a metalurgist to chime in.
Aluminum and titanium, the prime ingredients in lighter, stiffer more modern cars, are found deeper in the Earth, in more remote places, (meaning more energy to extract and ship), take more energy to convert to metal, more energy to fabricate (try cutting titanium), and more energy to recycle.
That is why you see the large but alloy laden vehicles such as the Maybach doing so horribly.
I was somewhat surprised, as you are, at how much a difference. But again, titanium and aluminum such up energy. Did GNX exaggerrate? Don't know. I don't make titanium rolled metal either though.
Funny about the H3 vs. Prius.
-juice
100k for an abused Ford Escort maybe, but your average Camry will last a lot longer.
-juice
The survery was not supposed to inform an individual how much energy they would use in any particular car, but rather how the industry as a whole uses energy.
They should have looked at Polk data to try to determine an average life span for each car.
-juice
Just did a quick search on Cars.com and found 26 LS400s within 30 miles of my zip code with over 100k miles. One had 244k miles.
-juice
-juice
Oh I agree Lexuses last a long time. I had a 93 I just got rid of and I still have a 2002. What I said is that they are very expensive to maintain after the intitial 4yr 50,000 mile warranty runs out. And even during the warranty period the service and maintenance costs are very high. That FREE LOANER car they give you isn't really free when a typical 5,000 mile maiantenance which is mostly an oil and filter change never costs less than $225.
Big deal that they last a long time. Lexus has a philisophy with dealer service of replacing parts rather than trying to fix.
I 'll give you another example. The heated left mirror broke off and cost $900 to replace.
If you want to talk about luxury cars being green and lasting a long time, you need to look at the Un-green: parts replacement.
You missed my point, I agree they last a long time and total replacement of parts more than likely extends it as you said. But two things: (1) total part replacement is costly and luxury brands are even more expensive and (2) replacement parts (new green cost) are less green than fixing existing parts ( sunk green cost). Whereby green cost is the pollution required to make and manufacture the part.
Shift-On,
MidCow
Substitute Lexus LS with Camry, they last longer than the average car and don't have those trade-offs.
-juice
I've been suprised at the lack of analysis of it.