Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Obviously congress disagrees; the tax credit was intended to move manufacturers towards building more hybrids, not towards consumers. Hence the 60K limit per manufacturer.
Prius 19,156
Camry 5,144
Highlander 2,501
Rx400 1,471
Gs450 181
Toyota Total - 28,453
Accord 385
Civic 2813
Honda Total - 3,198
Total of 2 companies - 31,651
Still the sales of Ford and Nissan are to come.
Those who claimed that hybrid sales are falling will keep quiet now.
Toyota
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-03-200- 7/0004559051&EDATE=
Honda
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/04/03/042389.html
"Record U.S. sales of Toyota and Lexus
hybrids have now topped the half-million mark."
As one poster on another thread was opining... 'Toyota's hybrid sales seem to be struggling'....Huh???
The media has picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Hummer is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.
As with any scientific model, it is critical that the methodology is valid, that the assumptions are sound, and the data accurate. The CNW study makes several assumptions which undermine the conclusions arrived at. Without a scientific peer review, it is impossible to comment on any of these factors. And CNW has REPEATEDLY refused to allow peer review and access to their methods.
What is clear, however, is that the conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
· Example 1: These studies conclude that the majority (80-85%) of the total lifetime energy use of a vehicle comes from the driving stage, with the remainder coming from the remaining stages of a vehicle life, whereas the CNW study shows these percentages to be reversed.
· Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
· Example 3: The CNW study states that hybrids require more lifetime energy than even large SUVs. Toyota’s internal analysis does conclude that there is more energy required in the materials production stage for a hybrid, but that this is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage (the 80-85% stage), causing the hybrid to have a significantly lower lifetime energy use.
There are also basic factual errors in the report; for example CNW claim that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.
In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling programm in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information.
Toyota and other environmentally conscious car makers have been using life cycle assessment for many years to evaluate various advanced vehicle technologies. Toyota, along with many others, believes that the best way to judge the environmental impact of a vehicle is to do a full evaluation of all the inputs and outputs in every stage of its life. The lifetime energy use is just one of the many things to look at.
The environment and the role of the car in CO2 emissions are rightly a very important subject for debate. Toyota welcomes such debate. However, the debate is not helped by sensationalistic reporting of an uncorroborated and unrepresentative piece of marketing research carried out in North America.
On the nickel issue:
- The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
- The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds
- Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids
- Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006.
- The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel.
- The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip.
The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972.
25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997.
So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Pruis on the road, not vice-versa.
The media has picked up on one particularly eye catching claim, namely that the Hummer is cleaner than a Toyota Prius hybrid. This result runs contrary to all other research in the area.
So reporters need to REALLY check the facts before doing something like this. The world is far better off with hybrids like the Pruis on the road, not vice-versa.
Are you implying that the article is incorrect to state that the "Hummer is Greener than Prius" is urban myth?
The CNW Research study is garbage. They refuse to let scientific peers review their methodology, which is on the surface clearly flawed.
They compared apples to oranges when they compared the "energy used" of a 100,000 mile Prius to that of a (excuse me while I snicker at the concept of a Hummer making 300,000 miles........) 300,000 mile Hummer.
OF COURSE in that FANTASY comparison, the Hummer will win. DUH.
And their other glaring mistake:
Example 2: Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
You see the glaring errors?
I agree that hybrids have many faults and are not the answer to all our problems. But I cannot stand by while some mysterious "study" (which will not allow peer review) tells me that driving a vehicle that gets 9 MPG is good for the environment. It's not. Try as one might, you can't reason your way out of that simple fact - much less the OTHER factual problems.
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
If you watch vehicle sales, as I do, you will see many Prius being offered that look fine. Yet they carry a Salvage title. Why is that you may ask? It costs more to fix a minor accident in a Prius than to just total it. That would account for a longer lifespan in a larger stronger built vehicle such as a Hummer. If gas mileage was the only criteria on which to base our vehicle purchases the Prius may be a good choice. For me it is being built to hold up for many years not just 150k miles, which is of little importance to someone that limits driving to under 7500 miles per year.
Article says:
"Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius." - A re-stating of the CNW "apples to oranges" comparison of 300,000 mile Hummer to a 100,000 Prius.
Article says:
"The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles. The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually." A re-stating of the nickel plant situation which I have already debunked in previous posts, which I will repeat for the newbies:
The typical non-hybrid car uses 50 pounds of nickel
- The Prius battery pack uses 22 pounds
- Electronic appliances such as cell phones use way more nickel in their NiMH batteries worldwide than hybrids
- Toyota is not a primary customer of this factory - 1,000 tons of nickel is far too little to keep it in business. That Inco plant produced 267,500 tons of nickel in 2006.
- The 1,000 tons of nickel is not dedicated to the Prius, but Toyota. Tundra probably uses more nickel.
- The plant is not owned by Toyota or joined at the hip.
The studies are reported on two small lakes at Sudbury, Ontario located close to a nickel-copper smelter which closed in 1972. 25 years later, Toyota Prius was introduced in Japan in 1997.
All that article shows is a more wordy interpretation of already flawed information.
Where are the "University studies" which concur with CNW? Still waiting on that.
PS
Cannot find a TCO for the Scion.
I ALREADY presented Numerous CONTRARY FACTS BASED ON THEIR RELEASED DATA.
It's not "opinion" that:
Two Toyota models mentioned in the report, the Scion xA and xB sold only in the USA, are engineered with the same processes, built on the same assembly line, transported and shipped together, distributed through the same dealer network, have the same engines and transmissions, are about the same weight (within 50 lbs.), and have very similar fuel consumption ratings (one just over 35 mpg combined, the other just below 35), yet the CNW study shows the lifetime energy use of these vehicles to be very different (53 per cent).
It's not "opinion" that:
They compared apples to oranges when they compared the "energy used" of a 100,000 mile Prius to that of a 300,000 mile Hummer.
It's not "opinion" that:
CNW refuses to allow peer review of their data and methodology.
It's not "opinion" that:
The CNW conclusions appear to be very different from the results of several other rigorous, scientifically-reviewed studies of the lifecycle impact of vehicles (e.g. Argonne National Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
It's not "opinion" that:
CNW claims that the hybrid batteries are not recycled.
In truth Toyota and sister brand Lexus have a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case, and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information.
It's not "opinion" that:
CNW said on an energy basis, vehicles cost an energy-equivalent average of $119,000 to recycle, while hybrids average $140,000. But CNW later says that it calculates the Prius's battery as costing $93 in energy to recycle.
It's not "opinion" that:
David Friedman, research director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, thinks that CNW's results and apparent methodology bring red flags. "This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon's Lifecycle Assessment Group. The reality is hybrids can significantly cut global warming pollution, reduce energy use, and save drivers thousands at the pump," commented Friedman.
CNW's figures, for example, show that the Civic Hybrid can cost nearly $165,000 more over its lifetime, "dust to dust," than the standard Civic, which is a difficult figure to swallow, even considering the extra development, materials, and disposal of the Hybrid variant. Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) system is a mild hybrid system and many engineers have admired its elegant and simple design and function, considering the efficiency gains.
STOP for a second:
CNW says a Civic Hybrid costs $165,000 more over it's lifetime than a non-hybrid Civic.
Does that sound reasonable, or even MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE?
The data points we know about are completely ridiculous.
So how can the final results be anything but?
Until there is a history of the average life of a hybrid how can you really dispute the arguments. There are so few Prii with more than 100k miles that we are just guessing on the average life cycle. Toyota is gambling that the parts they are forced to warranty hold up for the warranty period. It will be 6 more years on the current model Prius.
In their study, the Prius is rated for 100kmiles, and the Hummer rated for 300kmiles. I would argue they have it backwards, especially with regard to the engine. A Prius engine only runs half the time the car is moving, and almost never runs when the car is stopped at a red light. I can't ever recall an American car living to see 300kmiles of road without some major overhauls, yet I frequently hear of Japanese and German cars gracefully achieving those distances. I need a more convincing argument with verifiable facts to believe their mileage expectancy claims.
The data backing up the cost per mile is insufficient. Yes, I can believe the raw materials may actually travel a long way to get a Ni-MH battery into a Hybrid, but what is the true cost of that per vehicle? Are they discounting all the other supplies and goods that a cargo ship carries from A to B? A ship isn't going to carry a few tons of one product and set sail. A lot of materials can travel a long way to get into a car, even the iron to make the steel (which the Hummer has twice the amount as the Prius).
The average Prius gets 48 miles to the gallon (www.greenhybrid.com). That's $0.0625/mile for gas at $3.00/gallon. Subtracting that out of the $3.25 per mile for the total cost of the vehicle leaves $3.19 per mile, or $319,000 for your "100,000 mile Prius". Last I checked, a Prius doesn't cost a tenth of that, nor would the maintenance over 8 years. So Toyota must be eating over $200,000 per Prius sold. Or, the Japanese government is subsidizing 90% of the cost to build a Prius! Or, the companies delivering the raw materials to build the Prius are giving them away! Yeah, right! And I was born yesterday.
I don't see much validity to the numbers, rather, it appears CNW is twisting the truth just like the media and lawyers can twist statistics and facts to suit their agenda.
C Zito
I just did some math on that statement Gary.
At $2.50 gas, here's what JUST THE GASOLINE COSTS ALONE are to drive each car 300,000 miles. This is with a generous estimate of 11 miles per gallon for the Hummer and only 42 miles per gallon with the Prius:
Hummer gas for 300,000 miles: $68,181.82
Prius gas for 300,000 miles: $17,857.14
Assuming insurance is about the same, since they are both "unique vehicles" as far as repair goes, then the Prius would have to have
$50,324.69
more dollars worth of repairs in order to cost more than the Hummer for the 300,000 miles.
Even if you had to buy 2 replacement HSD batteries, get three HSD system computers replaced, get 5 NAV systems replaced, get two electric motors replaced, and 5 catalytic converters replaced, and get NOTHING replaced on the Hummer, the Prius would STILL be cheaper.
And the CNW conclusion that the Prius costs $319,000 for 100K miles ? C'mon now Gary......anyone can see the fallacy in that number.....
He could just as well written about proof that Elvis is alive in Sudbury because aliens had moved his remains and resurrected him ( proof: National Enquirer ).
If you watch vehicle sales, as I do, you will see many Prius being offered that look fine. Yet they carry a Salvage title. Why is that you may ask? It costs more to fix a minor accident in a Prius than to just total it. That would account for a longer lifespan in a larger stronger built vehicle such as a Hummer.
This is only supposition on your part. I know this for a fact because my own Prius was been hit 3 times - just this year!!! Even while waiting for the body shop to open a slot for the repairs I drove it damaged with no loss whatsoever in FE and no effect on the driving except the alignment was out. The last accident was a woman hitting the rear door/quarter panel right where the battery pack is located.
Result: $5000 in damages from three separate events within 60 days. This includes 10 days of shop labor time ( ~40 hrs ) at $75/hr.
Your contention fails in the light of actual fact, Gary.
LARSB you are assuming also that your cost of replacement parts is less than the cost of the whole. I dare say it would be easy to put $50k in repair parts, for the Prius. The only mention I remember on the HSD/PSD transmission alone was $11k. if not covered by warranty. 10 years ago my wife paid over $2300 to have the AC pump in her Lexus replaced with a rebuilt from Lexus. How much do you think that little part would cost for a Prius today?
To you my friend KDHSPYDER. I do not pretend to understand this study. I have gone over the document lightly and found it very confusing. It would be nice to have an unbiased dissemination to read. If you were in a Hummer1 when hit 3 times over the last few months, do you think the damage would have been as expensive to repair? Or would you even be able to tell that you were hit? I have seen many accidents where the crumple zone was severely damaged while the truck bumper was still in good shape. Cars such as the Prius are designed to protect by folding under impact. This is good for the occupants and the body shop. Not the pocket book. I think this study is trying to say just that. Not very clearly for sure.
I guess that they would have been right, had hybrids not caught on and had the technology not been carried to different models and even been licensed to other manufacturers.
I read every word of the dust to dust report (to make sure i didn't overlook any good info), and it is filled with wild assumptions like this. The report is even worse then useless, because a completely ignorant person would have a better grip on reality than a person who believed every word of the CNW report.
It s-t-r-a-i-n-s credibility to think there might even be ONE Prius in the entire world in the history of the Prius name which would EVER require 50 thousand dollars of repair work in it's life.
Let's not waste any more time on that ridiculosity.
On the Hummer issue, I assumed you knew the press articles were talking about the American gasoline-powered H2 and H3 Hummer as the vehicles comparing to the Prius, not the old-school diesel H1.
I'm not saying the diesel can't make 300,000 miles, but I am saying "Ba-Ha" to the thought of the gasoline model making that many miles.
You are probably correct that no one in their right mind would spend $50k to keep a Prius going. To say that you could not spend that much replacing parts is not being realistic. If added up I imagine there are at least $50k worth of parts not counting the labor to install them.
OF COURSE there are $50K worth of repair and labor POSSIBLE on ANY CAR.
But no car is going to break that often without falling under Lemon status !!!
It might be even higher.
Repair items:
#1) 2 Wheels and lower control arm
#2) Windshield, front qtr panel, OS rearview mirror ( still looking for the deer that stole the original )
#3) Rear door, lower rocker panel and rear qtr panel
Of the approx $5000 cost for these three incidents probably $3000+ is just for shop labor 40 hrs x $75/hr.
The report mentions that they are showing energy dollars needed for repair, not the cost of the repairs. In other words, they are trying to show the "societal" cost, not the cost to the consumer out of pocket.
And this is supposed to be, in the words of CNW, "a general-consumer report, not a technical document per se"? If so, it fails pretty miserably. Heck, I find technical documents easier to understand. If nothing else, putting those charts listing every model in every chart was a piss-poor design idea--they should have all been put in an appendix, to make the document more readable. A marketing company should know better.
Of course, CNW don't indicate how they figure out the energy cost. There is some talk about all of the factors they need to consider, but then there's nothing about they actually use all of these different factors. The end of the report includes a lengthy quote full of citations from Google Answers about the energy cost of manufacturing a single car; the CNW people put in a note that says "There are no calculations in any of the aforementioned articles related to the energy requirements for supplier industries". Which is like the pot calling the marshmallow black, because the CNW report contains absolutely no calculations.
Here's an example of something that CNW gets consistently wrong: they figure out averages the wrong way, for the purposes of their study. Let's say you're shopping for a new car, and you're curious what the average new car buyer is paying. Your dealer tells you "well, here's our tiny econobox model for $15k, here's our mid-range sedan for $30k, and you can get our wonderful luxury SUV for $$55k. 15 + 30 + 55 = 100, divided by 3 different models, so our average new car buyer is paying $33,333." Well, yes, if you want a "straight" average. It assumes that the same number of people buy each car.
But what if only one person out of 100 is buying the SUV, 29 out of 100 are buying the sedan, and the remaining 70 get the economy car? Clearly, the average new car buyer is paying far less than $33k for a car (in fact, they're paying $19,750 on average in my example). This is the "weighted" average. It's especially important when you're considering situations where you have lots of people buying one type of car (say, a Toyota Camry), and very few people buying another type (like a Ferrari).
That CNW study, with very few exceptions, uses "straight" averages. One trivial example pulled from their paper: they can't even figure out how to calculate lifetime fuel efficiency (MPG). They have all these nice tables showing the fuel efficiency for each car model when the car is aged 1-5 years, then for cars aged 6-10 years, and then for cars over 10 years. So, CNW should be able to use their data for how long a car lasts and figure out the lifetime MPG.
Sadly, they can't. They use a straight average rather than the weighted.
They may write at the start of the report that "The information contained is as accurate as we could make it", but they seem to have absolutely no idea how to do any analysis.
Note that these objections apply to every single car mentioned in the CNW study. In other words, the study's conclusions mean nothing, because they are based on totally faulty analysis. Even if the study's conclusions said that we should all immediately go out and buy hybrids, I'd still say that it didn't have a leg to stand on.
What it boils down to in my eyes is this:
For some reason, who knows why, Art Spinella is in political bed with SOME sort of anti-hybrid, anti-environmental, anti-Japanese, or at the very least pro-GM group.
And he was paid to try to put a gobbledygook study together that shone on hybrids in a negative light.
Only he knows the truth.
But those people who can do math and can read have valid issues with the conclusions in his report.
You are really grasping for straws on that statement. 4 out of 10 of the least costly vehicles in the study are from Toyota. That would lead one to believe that he was in bed with Toyota. Maybe they would like to undermine the hybrid and get out from under the burden of a continued loss and potential bombshell.
I think we are all missing something in this report. No one spends that much time and effort on a study that has no basis. I do not know who he was working for or why. If it was done to be controversial it was successful. If the premise was to bring to light the long term negatives surrounding the hybrid vehicles offered for sale, I agree. I wish I understood his methodology.
I also find technical documents much easier to read. I don't see that as a basis to discount something if we do not understand it. I worked for 45 years with electronics. I cannot say I understand how an electron moves through a wire. I just accepted the results of current flow. I have a hard time reading most legal documents. That does not mean they are at fault. There is a discussion between the author of the CNW report and David Friedman. If the director of Union of Concerned Scientists was willing to go on TV with this person, he must have considered him a credible scientist or statistician.
I guess I could understand if it was done to get a government grant. There are thousands of those studies that mean absolutely nothing. This was done for the sake of learning and I am willing to learn more about this subject of energy costs. I would say that Art Spinella's credentials are as good as any of the poster's on Edmund's. He has a history in the automotive field.
Gary, credentials don't mean DIDDLY SQUAT if you say or do something STUPID.
See Jimmy The Greek.
See Don Imus.
See OJ Simpson.
See Pete Rose.
If you have "credentials" and you do or say something that is incredibly ridiculous, no amount of those credentials are going to allow you get away with it.
Such is this garbage study with Art Spinella. He lost a lot of ground with a lot of people with this, you can bet. And he probably made a few friends, like you for example Gary.
But when common sense and basic math are thrown into his results, the study results start looking moronic, as myself and other posters have shown. $300,000+ for a Prius for 109K miles - Puh-Leeze.
Let's stop the barbs and keep this thing from escalating now.
In the appendix of the report, the authors of the report mention several times that they were self-funded. They are a for-profit private company, not a scientific or engineering research laboratory.
I also find technical documents much easier to read. I don't see that as a basis to discount something if we do not understand it.
The authors of the report start out by saying that there are other technical reports on end-to-end energy costs of vehicles, but that they are written for a technical audience. They then follow this by saying that the CNW report is different, that it is meant specifically to be a genera-consumer report, yada yada, that it does not include "unfriendly to consumers terms". (They then mispell gigajoules as gigajuelles, which means they're either totally unfamiliar with a very basic engineering word, or they didn't run spell check on their final product). Keep in mind this is a marketing firm. Their expertise is supposed to be in making things understandable. They have failed in their stated purpose for this document.
There is a discussion between the author of the CNW report and David Friedman. If the director of Union of Concerned Scientists was willing to go on TV with this person, he must have considered him a credible scientist or statistician.
The description of the video clip (which is no longer available) is that the two men discuss the idea that hybrid vehicles are bad for the environment. People often appear in TV interviews with people that they think are wrong about a specific issue, in order to explain to other people why their opponent's ideas are wrong.
We shall see......
Hybrids on the way Out !!!
Container capacity is measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).
A 40-ft standard shipping container (2 TEU) can hold 26,500 kg.
A Prius battery pack weighs 68kg (06).
389 battery packs could fit in each container by weight. (26,500/68)
Prius sales in 2006 were 107,000.
Divide 107,000 by 389 battery packs per container and we get 275 containers. (550 TEU)
We would only need 275 forty foot containers to ship all the battery packs needed for 2006.
The world's largest container ship the Ebba Maersk can hold 14,500 TEU. (151,687 GT)
The 275 containers add up to less than 4% of the ships capacity.
The H3 on the other hand uses 13.9 more barrels of oil per year than a Prius. (EPA)
107,000 H3s would use an additional 1.5 million barrels of oil per year. (13.9*107,000)
A Suezmax tanker (160,000 GT) can carry up to about 1.2 million barrels.
We would need at least one extra Suezmax tanker shipment every year if those 107,000 Prius owners had bought H3s.
You might need to ship another set of batteries mid way through the 15 year life cycle. The H3 on the other hand would need at least 15 Suezmax tanker shipments.
Prius 1, H3 0 CNW -1 :shades:
“Other components on the Prius, such as tires, are less distance-mileage friendly than non-hybrids of the same size and weight.....But the typical replacement tire for a Prius will not likely be the OEM specialty variety, cutting both fuel economy and distance-per-battery charge of the Prius.”
At tirerack.com you will see that the 2007 Prius OEM tire costs about $65 and has a 460 treadwear rating. The H3 tire, also made by Goodyear, costs $102 on special and has a treadwear rating of only 340. Goodyear is saying the Prius tire will last longer. The Prius OEM tire (185/65-15) from Goodyear weighs 17 pounds. The H3 OEM tire (265/75-16) weighs 42 pounds. It takes more raw material and bigger equipment to make the H3 tire. Transportation costs for the H3 tire will be higher (both as a product and when it is sent to recycling). I wonder if CNW even added in the energy cost of the H3 tires. Prius 2 H3 0 CNW -10
By Roland Jones
Associate editor
MSNBC
Updated: 4:44 p.m. MT April 18, 2007
Roland Jones
Associate editor
Spring is getting a late start in the United States this year,with mid-April snow blanketing parts of the nation. But the month of March still saw a burst of green for Japanese automaker Toyota.
Even as the Big Three automakers saw their sales drop, Toyota’s U.S. sales soared to a record in March, thanks partly to soaring demand for its eco-friendly, hybrid gasoline-electric powered vehicles. Sales of Toyota’s Prius, the best-selling hybrid model, jumped to 19,156, more than double the 7,922 sold a year ago.
Are lots of American car buyers turning “green”? Not necessarily. Part of the reason for Toyota’s sales jump was a series of discounts it has offered on the Prius — a strong favorite among environmentalists that this year celebrates its 10th anniversary of production — in a bid to broaden its appeal to more mainstream car shoppers.
Yes, by all means, let's not give any Prius sales credit to the fact that the Prius is a
GREAT CAR..........
We sure do have about 500,000 doofuses in the USA who have bought hybrid cars.........man those Toyota liars are SLICK !!
(OK tongue out of cheek now)
Regardless of WHY Priuses are selling well, we should all be happy that these clean and efficient cars are on the road in place of cars that MORE THAN LIKELY would be worse polluters.
If Toyota wants to make less money on the Priuses with the goal of getting more of them on the road, that also is a praiseworthy event.
Maybe it is. It does offer good mileage and utility. If it can be bought under invoice it can be practical. It still has a lot of competition selling below $21k. The complexity would be a killer for me. I will never succumb to that trap again. Main reason I am looking at used truck based SUVs with low mileage. I want a vehicle I can keep for 10 or more years without spending a ton on repairs. Hybrids will never fill that need. As you have pointed out, most new cars are overly complex and prone to high repair costs after the warranty expires. Planned obsolescence.
AUBURN HILLS, MI, April 30 /CNW/ - That new Chrysler Aspen Hybrid got a HEMI(R)?
Yes, it does - as does the new Dodge Durango Hybrid. Both vehicles - powered by Chrysler Group's all-new 5.7-liter HEMI Hybrid powertrain - debut next year as the first volume-production hybrid offerings from the Chrysler
Group and the first vehicles to feature DaimlerChrysler's advanced two-mode hybrid technology.
"The all-new Chrysler Group HEMI Hybrid will offer our customers the best of both worlds: renowned performance and significantly improved fuel economy," said Frank Klegon, Executive Vice President - Product Development, Chrysler
Group. "With the new HEMI-powered Chrysler Aspen Hybrid, we are delivering the ultimate combination of fuel efficiency, overall performance and capability in a premium full-size SUV."
The new 5.7-liter HEMI Hybrid is expected to deliver an overall fuel economy improvement of more than 25 percent, including an improvement of nearly 40 percent in the city.
The HEMI powerplant, in hybrid form, will continue to feature Chrysler Group's Multi-displacement System (MDS), which allows the engine to seamlessly alternate between four-cylinder mode when less power is needed and V-8 mode
when more power is in demand. For the fifth year in a row - and every year since its 2003 re-introduction -- Chrysler Group's famous 5.7-liter HEMI engine has earned a place on Ward's 10 Best Engines list.
The new Chrysler Aspen Hybrid and Dodge Durango Hybrid vehicles represent a bold change in what is generally a "me too" category. Chrysler Group's full-size hybrid vehicles will deliver seamless dependable power on demand in an efficient package. With an electrically variable transmission (featuring two electric motors), two full hybrid modes of operation, and four fixed mechanical gear ratios, the drive system improves fuel economy around town and at highway speeds.
Incentive bonus
Buying a hybrid car makes more economic sense today
By Andrea Coombes, MarketWatch
Last Update: 7:13 PM ET Apr 29, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- If you've been toying with the idea of buying a hybrid car, the cost equation is tilting in your favor.
Until recently buying a hybrid meant you were willing to shell out for a pricier car because you believe in helping the environment or because you like to own the latest high-tech gadget. Auto-research firms found it could take up to 15 years, depending on the model, of gas-pump savings to offset hybrids' higher sticker price.
But now it's taking less time to break even, thanks to carmakers' new deals on hybrids. Right now, the average incentive for all hybrid models is about $1,638, according to Edmunds.com.
"Up until maybe a year or so ago, we were paying over sticker prices for hybrids," said Philip Reed, consumer-advice editor with Edmunds.com.
But now, "there are hybrids on car lots and they're being discounted. That's unusual. And it's also at a time when gas prices are ... high so people are going to want these cars," Reed said.
Repair costs
Another cost consideration is maintenance and repair.
There's good news for hybrids on that front, Reed said.
"People are really worried about the batteries and it's proven to be much less of a problem than anybody ever thought," Reed said. "Plus, nearly all the manufacturers have very long and strong warranties to protect you," he said, as long as eight years and 100,000 miles or even 10 years and 110,000 miles for the hybrid components.
Plus, brake repair costs may be less than on a standard car. Because of hybrids' braking systems, "you don't have to do brake jobs as often," he said. "That's a savings that a lot of people don't consider."
At first there were valid concerns about longevity, durability, cost of ownership and performance.
Performance was answered quickly. Those wanting 'zoom' have several options, hybrid or not. Those wanting the best fuel economy without sacrificing vehicle content have several options.
As the vehicles being to enter their 7th year on the road data is being accumulated showing that problems are few and far between while the cost of operation is amazingly low ( maintenance, fuel, insurance, brakes, etc ).
So...the vehicle pricing is much more affordable than before; the vehicles ( all of them ) have little or no issues of durability; the cost of keeping them on the road is far lower than other vehicles;...
...Oh and gas is at $3/gal for the third year in a row now.
'What if we really only had to spend $30 to go 500 miles?'
Toyota Motor expects to cut costs for hybrid cars enough to be able to make as much money on them as it does on conventional gasoline cars by around 2010, a top executive said Thursday.
Japan's top automaker has been keen to see the fuel-saving power train enter the mainstream since launching the Prius, the world's first hybrid car, in 1997, but sales have come at the expense of profitability, given their high production costs.
But Masatami Takimoto, executive vice president in charge of power train development, said cost-cutting efforts on the system's motor, battery and inverter were bearing fruit and that the cost structure would improve drastically by the time Toyota reaches its sales goal of a million hybrids annually in 2010 or soon after.
"By then, we expect margins to be equal to gasoline cars," he told Reuters in an interview at Toyota's headquarters in Toyota City, central Japan.
If it succeeds, Toyota would be removing the main hurdle preventing rivals from pushing the expensive power train, which twins a conventional engine with an electric motor, and likely widening its sales lead as more consumers seek better mileage amid rising fuel costs.
That was money well spent. Thank you Toyota for bringing hybrids to the masses. Keep it up...
No matter what type of vehicle you choose, smaller is better, a lesson Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't yet learned: California's partially green Governator has five Hummers in his driveway
Hardly. They are still the play toys of the High paid techno geeks in the USA. The complexity will catch up and bite Toyota in the back side. They are far from mainstream vehicles.
May 17, 2007
Traction control problems continue to plague the electronically-sophisticated Toyota Prius, at times stranding owners of the little hybrid at the bottom of a hill or driveway.
Toyota has addressed a similar problem in other of its models including the new 2007 Tundra pickup truck and the Scion xB and xD.
If you’ve been waiting for an all-new Prius, get ready to wait an extra six months. According to news reports, Toyota has delayed the launch of the third-generation hybrid to the spring of 2009.
This comes after the announcement in May that early versions of the new Prius will not be equipped with lithium-ion batteries. Toyota and battery supplier Panasonic EV claim issues pertaining to initial cost and thermal safety (read: fire hazard) have yet to be addressed.-end