backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 109 comment(s) - last by typo101.. on Jan 23 at 8:56 PM

2007 Toyota Prius Touring Edition
New IntelliChoice study shows Toyota Prius as top-ranking hybrid

Gasoline-electric hybrid technology in automobiles is a very touchy subject for many people. On one side you have consumers who champion the increased efficiency and reduced emissions afforded by being able to shut down the engine when stopped and run on battery power at low speeds. The other side argues that the mileage gains aren't worth the added upfront costs associated with purchasing a hybrid.

According to new research released by IntelliChoice, naysayers may have less to argue about when it comes to the costs of owning a hybrid vehicle. The research showed that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over a span of five years or 70,000 miles of hybrid vehicles is actually less than that of competing gasoline-only vehicles.

IntelliChoice based their results on seven criteria: depreciation, fuel costs, finance costs, insurance, repairs, maintenance and applicable state fees. Factors that allowed hybrids to come out on top include better than expected resale value and depreciation, lower repair/maintenance costs and lower fuel costs.

Of the 22 hybrid vehicles evaluated by IntelliChoice the Prius was rated as the top performer. Comparable vehicles in the Prius' class have a 5-year TCO of $33,305, but the actual costs for the Prius came in at just under $20,000. “The Prius has been the darling of the hybrid set, and it remains our highest rated value for hybrid vehicles. But this survey validates the cost performance of the other many hybrid models that are currently on the market. All of the hybrids in our study have achieved ‘Excellent’ ratings in their respective classes from IntelliChoice.com,” said James Bell of IntelliChoice.

Such findings are sure to delight manufacturers like Toyota and General Motors. Toyota is gearing up to sell as many as one million hybrid vehicles globally per year by the beginning of the next decade and GM is betting on highly efficient plug-in gasoline-electric hybrid technology.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Let the flogging begin...
By rtrski on 1/15/2007 11:53:09 AM , Rating: 5
I remember the last hybrid-related news posting got a ton of hate-commentary about how they weren't cheaper at all due to battery replacement, up-front costs, etc unless you drove umpteen million miles a year.

[Disclaimer: I've been quite happy with my Prius, and I do drive about 30-35k miles a year due to a 110 mile round trip work commute (and if you do the math, you might guess I do that mileage even WITH also riding public transport a couple of days a week)]

Just curious if we'll see the same naysayers flogging this news article.

In all fairness though, I bet the factors such as 'lower than average deprecation and higher resale' are probably transient, and -- with wider adoption of hybrid technology into a wider variety of cars -- will neither stay constant with time nor across all hybrid models universally. So I do quite honestly believe that there can be hybrids that are (due to upfront costs or shoddy engineering) less economical than standards. I just don't agree the Prius has been one of them to date.

Hybrid technology is not the be-all, end-all of "alternative" transportation. But it doesn't do bad, and reduces emissions in the meantime even relative to an equivalent mileage vehicle, so it ain't a bad start.




By NoSoftwarePatents on 1/15/2007 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 1
I hope Toyota will make a hybrid version of the RAV4 when my current one (2004) gets old (5 years from now). It's a nice mini-SUV that can easily transport me to my favorite snowboard places, since I like 4WD. Otherwise, I'll likely get another gasoline version...



RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/15/2007 12:18:24 PM , Rating: 4
However, both are equally ugly :-)


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By rtrski on 1/17/2007 11:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
heh heh....

It's a matter of taste I guess. I actually like the look of the Prius (and the VW's, too, for that matter...they've got that slightly chic boxy old-Audi or BMW look, and I still always associate convertible Golf's with blonde ponytailed sorority girls in my mind. ;) )


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By nurbsenvi on 1/15/2007 12:25:35 PM , Rating: 2
2.0 TDI?
try beating Prius in the city.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Ringold on 1/15/2007 12:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Except that most white collar folk live in the suburbs and spend most of their daily mileage on the highway instead of inner-city highways, making the Prius gain in the city less a factor for a lot of peoples situations.

It's give and take. Living in the inner city, it might be worth it to get a Prius over a Jetta TDI. (Assuming it didn't get stolen, depending on what your inner city is like of course :P) Living on the outskirts of town it's much less clear.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2007 12:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
There is a high theft rate of Prius's? They are plenty of them in NYC, have even seen some cabbies driving them now.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Ringold on 1/15/2007 1:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
I was refering more to the higher-crime areas you find in inner city areas, where the person I was replying to said Prius operates best. Instead, I pointed out a popular place for white collar folk that can afford the extra cash on a Prius are likely in the suburbs and drive a good distance to work, with 'white flight' and all.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By rtrski on 1/17/2007 11:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
...and yet, you always see Escalades and the like which cost WAY more in supposedly 'poor' areas of town.

$31k isn't that much for a car these days, so I don't think the argument that only suburban yuppies can 'afford' Prius's has much validity. I see many other popular 'subcultures' worship expensive cars as much or more - just in different ways (mod wheels and spinners, custom paint, gold trim, monster truck lift jobs, whatever - not pointing at any one ethnic or social group, but they all cost as much or more as the up front 'price premium' to buy a hybrid).

But maybe the eco-freak classification is found more in the white-collar 'burbs? <wry grin>


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2007 12:49:11 PM , Rating: 3
2006 US Spec 1.9

All around real world the TDI wins; including both mixed city and highway/urban and extra urban. Both rtrski and I have about 110-120 mile commute. What mileage counts more, the 30 minutes stuck in gridlock or the other 45 minutes you are doing 75mph? Its the combined average that counts. The overall combined real world mileage that most American's drive gives the VW TDI a slight edge.

Here is an honest question for Prius owners in NYC area; is the mileage worse on the way home sitting 30 minutes or more in NYC gridlock and then driving 75mph compared to driving in doing 75mph and then sitting in gridlock? Would think the recharge time would be longer on way home and would have less fuel economy.

The UK Spec Honda Accord CTDI blows away both in mileage and performance (known in US as the TSX) with a combined average of 51mpg and 39/ 62 split and 0-60 in 9.3. 2009 is supposedly the date Honda will produce diesel vehicles for US market.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Sureshot324 on 1/15/2007 1:31:13 PM , Rating: 3
It isn't fair to compare diesel and gasoline vehicles by their mpg alone. Diesel fuel is much more dense, so there are a lot more CO2 emissions per gallon of diesel.

As far as the environment is concerned, a Jetta TDI pollutes much more than a Prius, though the TOC of the Jetta will be lower.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2007 1:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that is incorrect, diesel emits lower CO2. However, diesel puts out higher NOx. Reducing the sulphur content from 500ppm to 15ppm was the first step to reducing NOx emissions. BluTech and Honda's dual stage exhust system are the current solutions to further reducing NOx and meeting DEP's 2008 requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Souka on 1/15/2007 3:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
and lets not forget that E85 will become much more prevelant in the near future....

Cars not built for E85 get much lower MPG than "regular" gas... and even E85 designed vehicles don't do as well.
(I don't recall actual differences, but I seem to recall more than one political talk show discussing the pro & cons of E85.... pros being less emmisions per mile...cons being lower MPG and higher cost/mile)

So the diesel option I suspect will become even a better option....and how long until a diesel-hybrid comes out???


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Chernobyl68 on 1/15/2007 11:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
You get lower mileage with E85 because there's less energy in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of gasoline.

Cars that aren't specifically built to run on E85 should never use it because of the damage the fuel can do to the engine. It eats the seals.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By jak3676 on 1/16/2007 10:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
So long as we're discussing E85, we also need to get more biodiesel into the market. Its easier/cheaper to produce than ethanol and has similar benifits.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By rtrski on 1/17/2007 11:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
A well-adjusted diesel needn't pollute that much. But I do believe I've read that while its a "cheaper" process to refine diesel, you get less diesel from a barrel of crude than you get gasoline, hence the refineries end up producing less which helps keep the price of diesel a bit higher, so there are other tradeoffs.

I agree you can't compare the different fuels on a purely per-gallon-mileage basis or even a fuel-cost basis, since economies of scale and market demand factor into the price of both fuels. Which is why I never tried to start that whole argument, just wondered whether the "hybrids suck compared to conventionals" crowd would be back to this thread. Frankly I didn't even see the "mine is bigger" argument from the diesel crowd as relavant, but to each their own. ;)

I guess the only relevant overall comparison should be the mileage total you get relative to the raw product (crude) with some factor for the cost of refinement added in, and the total emission quantities you output while moving that distance. But this is all entirely off topic to the original article, which was that TCO for hybrids is indeed cheaper than for 'conventional' gas cars.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Samus on 1/16/2007 8:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
have you ever driven a deisel powered car? its like driving a car with an extra thousand pounds in the back seat.

turbo or whatever, even modern deisel's dont have the rev's that make it feel like a normal engine. they're sluggish accelerating, no matter how hi tech they are, and when it comes time to maintain it internally, you're spending big bucks. and environmentally, even the cleanest deisel doesn't burn as clean as a comparable petrol engine.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 10:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "have you ever driven a deisel [sic] powered car? its like driving a car with an extra thousand pounds in the back seat..."

That's roughly comparable to driving your average hybrid.

> "when it comes time to maintain it internally, you're spending big bucks..."

Ah, but you have to do engine maintenance far less with a diesel. Any way you slice it, overall manintenance costs are reduced with diesel engines.

> "environmentally, even the cleanest deisel doesn't burn as clean as a comparable petrol engine"

Burning ULS diesel (which is the only type sold throughout most of Europe and, as of sometime last year, most of what is now sold in the US), NOX emissions are comparable to a petrol engine and CO2 emissions are lower.



RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/16/2007 7:03:09 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe if you are driving a 1982 diesel Rabbit, but not modern engines made in the 21st century.

Some examples:

1. MB US Spec CDI E320: 0-60 in 6.7 and averages 37mpg

2. Honda UK Spec Accord: 0-62 in 9.3 and averages 51mpg

3. Honda UK Spec CR-V: 0-62 in 10.6 and averages 42mpg. The petrol four cylinder does 0-62 in 13.1

4. Audi R8: Sports car diesel
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/...

5. BMW European Spec 535D Wagon: 0-62 in 6.6 and averages 34.4mpg.

Conversely, Honda US does not list the 0-60mph for the Civic Hybrid anywhere on its site. Check out the "performance" at http://honda.co.uk/cars .... its 12.1 seconds for 0-62mph


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By isaacmacdonald on 1/15/2007 1:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect commuters in my locale would fare better with a Prius. In addition to excellent mileage it's ultra-low emissions status earns it access to the car-pool lane here--something which can easily save 20-30 minutes a day, given current congestion. Unless the TDI has comparably low emissions (rather than just relatively low emissions for a diesel), I suspect it will lose out anywhere in which programs to subsidize low-emissions vehicles exist.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2007 1:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
In 2008, diesel passenger vehicles will qualify for both a federal tax credit and HOV permit access.

Agreed about the HOV lane access being a nice perk.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By nurbsenvi on 1/15/2007 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
Only idiots say no to Hybrids.

But I still think that the price of hybrids should come down or the efficiency should improve by some margin to really justify it's price premium.

It will be very nice if electric cars took over before Hybrids but seems like people needs smooth transition rather than a revolutionary one.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 12:33:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Only idiots say no to Hybrids.
Only idiots make absolute statements. My wife and I don't need a hybrid. We have a two new cars, one is two years old (truck) and the other is a month old. My previous car was two years old when I sold it. The only maintenance we've done is oil changes to both cars. How can the TCO on a hybrid be any lower than that? I'll answer that. It can't be unless you own a POS car. Predicted future maintenance on both cars would be differential fluid replacement, timing belts, and tranny fluid for the truck. Unless the hybrid uses a timing chain, it will have those same maintenance requirements also. So how is the TCO lower?


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By nurbsenvi on 1/15/2007 12:42:50 PM , Rating: 1
Well I didn't say EVERYONE needs Hybrid
I was answering to the first post where it says there are naysayers to hybrid's obvious potential.

Please go and buy your truck and enjoy driving it.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 5:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well I didn't say EVERYONE needs Hybrid
No, you said that EVERYONE that thinks hybrids aren't a good idea are idiots. Do you even know anything about hybrids or are you one of those jump on the bandwagon sheeple types?


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By nurbsenvi on 1/20/2007 4:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Do I know what Hybrid car is?

I can talk about pros an cons of Hybrid all day long.


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/15/2007 12:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't the comparison been done with vehicles in the same price range?


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By TechIsGr8 on 1/15/2007 12:49:02 PM , Rating: 5
if you're buying a car every two years, then you're flushing money down the potty. Your cost of ownership is primarily the depreciation from your purchase price to the time you sell, which is huge during the first few years of ownership. Second, you need to factor in fuel costs, which should be 50% less with the Prius than with most other gas-only vehicles. You also neglect to factor in insurance costs, which will always be a premium if you are buying a new car every two years. TCO is made up of much more than just oil changes and routine maintenance.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Xenoterranos on 1/15/2007 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair, there are no hybrid truck alternatives. No one who's driven a truck as their main vehicle would pass up on better gass mileage. I've driven nothing but trucks (4 of them) since I was 16 (family business) and would kill for a true hybrid truck. With the ammount of torque electric motors provide, they would be awsome it trucks. Let alone the fact that there are TONS of places on a truck to put some massive battery packs...like say between the rear wheels so my truck actually behaves in the ice and rain?!


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By montgom on 1/15/2007 4:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Chevy Silverado is a hybrid truck.
Bob


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/15/2007 4:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
The Silverado hybrid is not a "true" hybrid. It has no electric drive motors, thus it cannot travel under electric-only power or under an electric-gas combination. The only fuel-saving benefits from the Silverado hybrid come from the ability to shut off the engine when at a complete stop in traffic.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Silverado hybrid is not a "true" hybrid.
I MIGHT be interested in a "true" hybrid truck if the battery replacement costs were under $200. But more than likely my next truck will be a diesel. I need to be able tow more weight and I'm pretty close to the max GCWR on my truck right now.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By jarman on 1/15/2007 6:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
The E85 GM vehicles may not be true gas/electric hybrids but the 85% ETOH that they burn is produced from a more environmentally friendly resource than the coal/petro/nuke that produce the energy for electric vehicles use to charge (probably at comparable price) and hybrids are still using fossil fuels regardless of volume reductions.

IMHO, hybrids, diesels, and everything else up to this point sucks. Bring on pure hydrogen or pure ETOH please.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 7:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
Nuclear is a far more environmentally-friendly resource than is ethanol production...especially when one considers the vast amounts of oil required to grow corn. Fertilizer and some pesticides are directly made from it, farm machinery requires it, and transporting and converting it requires still more.

Let's not even mention that to convert even a small fraction of the nation's fleet to E85 would consume our entire corn crop, leaving none whatsoever for food. Of course, we could clear a few million more acres of forests to increase our cultivated acreage, but that seems like a poor solution also.

> "Bring on pure hydrogen ..."

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. With today's technology, the only practical way to produce large amounts of hydrogen is by building several more nuclear power plants.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Lord 666 on 1/15/2007 8:34:35 PM , Rating: 3
An ethanol plant will also consume 2 million gallons of water daily to produce this ethanol.



RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Grast on 1/16/2007 10:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
Masher,

You are my hero. I have posted numerous times about the conversion of the U.S. energy enconomy to a hydrogen economy. We need to leverage current technology and build many more fission nuclear plants. Lets start the conversion to a hydrogen economy now.

In addition, we need to put billions of dollars into fusion research and test facilities. Fusion power generation will forever remove the use of fossil fuels for over 90% of the U.S. needs.

Of course we will still need fossil fuels for items such as plastics, organic chemistry and other industries.

Later..


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 10:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "Lets start the conversion to a hydrogen economy now."

Sounds good...I'll build the nuclear plants and you shoot the environmentalists standing in the way.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By MrBungle123 on 1/16/2007 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Bah! I have a better idea, instead of dumping billions into powerplants to make hydrogen we could dump billions into cloning research and clone dinosaurs... Then we breed them by the millions and bury them all alive at the bottom of one of those huge open pit copper mines! Give it a few years and punch a well into our new oil field! We cant fail! :)


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/16/2007 4:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of genetating electricity (which has limited efficency due to the "boiling water-turning a generator" thing) with power plants, why dont we use them to drive chemical reactions?

Burning hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide, water and energy. So why not use energy, water and carbon dioxide to synthesize hydrocarbons? It would be carbon neutral since it uses CO2 as a raw material.

:)


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 5:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Burning hydrocarbons results in carbon dioxide, water and energy. So why not use energy, water and carbon dioxide to synthesize hydrocarbons? It would be carbon neutral since it uses CO2 as a raw material..."

Actually, I wrote a blog here a while back, suggesting just this, claiming that it would allow us to "never" run out of oil. Its a simple hydrocarbon, easy enough to synthesize if one has access to cheap energy.

However, environmentalists have said on many occasions that they don't WANT access to cheap, clean energy. They feel it would lead to more industrialization (which it would) and thus be bad for us (which it wouldn't).


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By drwho9437 on 1/15/2007 8:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
The TOC could be lower if you get 2x the miles and still only need those maintenances. All auto's efficiency can be improved by installing at least basic 'hybrid' items (IE at least a fly wheel and turning off the engine).

Unless you need a truck for your daily work, then I am of the opinion you shouldn't be driving one. Plenty of people need light trucks for work so that's ok, but otherwise, they endanger people on the road and are less efficient as a whole. (That is their rigid frame may make them safer to you if you hit a car with lots of crumple zones, but more people get hurt by trucks in total).


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/16/2007 6:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you need a truck for your daily work, then I am of the opinion you shouldn't be driving one.
What about the people out there that own horses or other livestock? How are you supposed to move animals that weigh 1000 lbs plus around? How about amateur racecar drivers? There are quite a number of uses for a truck at home.


By StevoLincolnite on 1/15/2007 8:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Only idiots say no to Hybrids.

But I still think that the price of hybrids should come down or the efficiency should improve by some margin to really justify it's price premium.

It will be very nice if electric cars took over before Hybrids but seems like people needs smooth transition rather than a revolutionary one."

Some people like to hear they're engine ROAR! Not "Squeeeeel".

And I have dual fuel, LPG Gas, And Petrol.
And thats on my Holden Commodore VN SS Group A Replica.
On a tank of LPG I can do about... 500kms. Which isn't all that much different from a friend 4 cylinder P.O.S. (Piece of shite) - Most of the economy goes with your driving style, You accelerate slowly, Fuel economy increases. And Maintenance? If You know the right people to get the parts off of, And do it yourself, You will realize it doesn't cost all that much.
I for one, refuse to have a Hybrid car of any sorts, LPG is more environmentally friendly than Petrol, So I stick to that, Plus its cheap at only 64.9 cents a liter. (Petrol is currently 125.5 cents a liter) - Multiply that by 3.7 And you have gallons.
And with all things with a dramatic shift in technology, there is a process of transition.

And seriously, I would never trade my Holden Commodore, For something electric... With electricity prices rising in the land down under, (Australia) Its slowly becoming less viable.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/15/2007 12:45:19 PM , Rating: 3
It is not hate commentary to point out that hybrids do not make environmental or economic sense. The consumption of fossil fuels in thier manufacture far exceeds what they will ever save in thier lifetime, and thier gas savings never pays for battery replacements and the extra up front expense. Issues like 'depreciation' only matter if you are a person who replaces your car every few years.

As pointed out elsewhere however, a TDI will beat a Prius for typical driving patterns, does not require building two power plants and uses less electronics and plastics resulting in an overall lower total energy cost. Furthermore, it will drive half a million to a million miles, marks I highly doubt your average hybrid will ever make, which extends the energy investment much further as well.

Its not that hybrids are bad. Its that they do not achieve the goals claimed by many and there are better technologies around today.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Xenoterranos on 1/15/2007 1:25:49 PM , Rating: 1
Get over yourself. Less plastics and electronics! Puh-lease.
Drive over a million miles? Plausable, sure, but realistically, I just couldn't see it. At least, not without significant re-investment in the car.

Oh, and electric motors can see average life spans of 10's of years or so.
http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/factsh...
And that's just the first one I saw in the google search.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/15/2007 6:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
If you do not believe that diesel engines hit a million miles regularly, then you need to go check out Mercedes diesels from the 70's and 80's. Typically the car body dies before the engine does. Thats the major benefit to diesel, it lasts forever as long as its maintained properly. Gas engines live 150-250k miles.

That said, its possible that due to the reduction in use of the gas engine in a hybrid that the life will be extended, however that is replaced by having a second motor on board, which will have its own maintinence headaches. And yes, some electric motors can last a long time, but that does not prove that the one in the Prius and other hybrids will.

BTW, the link you posted is about energy ratings for electric motors, it says nothing about how long electric engines last in a Prius or other hybrid.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By protosv on 1/15/2007 6:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, it will drive half a million to a million miles


What?!?!?! You're telling me there's a car today that will last at least 500,000 miles??? Please...


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 8:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What?!?!?! You're telling me there's a car today that will last at least 500,000 miles??? Please...
You can't read, can you? The ENGINE will go that long with proper maintenance. The rest of the car will require extensive maintenance to last that long.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/15/2007 8:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the clarification, yes the engine is what I was reffering to. Obviously with that many miles the transmission and other subsystems will need to be rebuilt, probably a few times. But a well maintained diesel vehicle basically can run forever. The same cannot be said about gas engines of any sort. Gasoline is a solvent and it will destroy the engine slowly over time. The higher RPM's also wear gas engines out faster. They are also not built to the same high standard that diesel engines are as they do not use nearly as high a compression ratio.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By mindless1 on 1/16/2007 11:49:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is fairly irrelevant. What a hypothetical or isolated examples of engines could do, and what is actually happening are two different things. We can as easily say it is pointless to think about the engine being able to last longer than the rest of the car because in the end, the engine ISN'T going to accumulate that many miles on average.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/16/2007 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing hypothetical about it. I am not theorizing that they will last longer, it is a known fact to any mechanic that a diesel will last at least twice as long as a similiar gas engine, minimum. If you think this is purely hypothetical, go talk to a mechanic.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 5:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
> If you think this is purely hypothetical, go talk to a mechanic..."

Agreed. The contractor who just completed my media room had a diesel truck. He took the time to brag to me that it had over 750K miles on it..with no major repairs needed other than a water pump.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/16/2007 6:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think this is purely hypothetical, go talk to a mechanic.
Don't even need to do that. Just one of the "big rig" drivers how many miles he has on his truck. Pick an old looking diesel.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 3
This study also factors in, for hybrids, federal tax credits on their ownership. This was enough, I assume, to swing the balance in their favor.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 1:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
You know better than that. The cost difference claimed in this report was around $12000, and the federal tax credits were only around $3000 even at their peak (which the Prius no longer gets).

A fairer complaint would involve depreciation. The extremely low depreciation for a Prius is almost certainly due to supply & demand issues, and not due to any expectation that a Prius will last almost forever, as the resale value seems to suggest.

Likewise, the Prius is almost certainly priced too low so that Toyota can bolster their image as a green company, and as a company with the most cutting edge technology.

Perhaps a combination of tax credits, excessively low depreciation, and underpricing by Toyota may explain most of the cost difference.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 3:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "The cost difference claimed in this report was around $12000..."

That's the difference between the Prius and the class average...NOT the difference between the Prius and the best non-hybrid.

> "were only around $3000 even at their peak (which the Prius no longer gets)...

As of last year, the Prius credit was $3150. I'm sure it was fully claimed in this analysis.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As of last year, the Prius credit was $3150.

Again, nowhere near enough to make a difference (the credit is now $1575, to drop to $787 in about 3 more months, but they almost certainly used the full $3150 figure).

quote:
That's the difference between the Prius and the class average.

If you want to make a "same class" comparison then it is also worth noting that many negative evaluations of the Prius have made a comparison to the Toyota Corolla, which is not the same class as the Prius. Perhaps the best in class (compact wagon?) would be the Toyota Matrix or Pontiac Vibe (which is the same car). The Prius will certainly do quite well in such a comparison (although to be fair the Matrix/Vibe is slightly larger).

Anyways, there are too many unknowns at the moment for any comparison to be particularly legitimate.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 4:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, nowhere near enough to make a difference..."

Depends on how you define what that difference is. Without the credit, the Prius would still have exceeded the class average. But would it have won? The article suspiciously fails to list the best-in-class non hybrids.

Furthermore, you have to consider what you're comparing the Prius to. Toyota rates it a "midsize" vehicle, though I'd certainly call it a compact. The midsize rating puts it in the same class as much larger vehicles, such as Toyota's own Avalon. Is that an apples-to-apples comparison? I certainly don't think so.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/15/2007 4:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
The mid-sized classification comes from the fact that the Prius has roughly the same interior space as the previous generation Camry ('02 - '06) and only two cubes less trunk space. The Prius actually has more rear legroom than the aforementioned Camry.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 1/15/2007 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 1
This isn't a very fair comparison. The resale value shouldn't be factored in, it is higher for hybrids because people are still fooled into paying more for them. Also, a 5 year study most likey would finish before the first battery replacement.

I haven't done the math on hybrids for a while, but they do not save you money. I believe that most hybrids cost around $6,000 more than the normal versions. With the improved gas millage it will take 10-12 years worth of gas savings to cover your $6,000. You will need to replace the batteries after 5-7 years, adding another $2,000 - $3,000 to your costs. Bringing you to around 16-18 years worth of gas savings to break even. Which can't happen without replacing batteries at least 1 more time. Good luck ever catching up to the batty expenses.

If you want to buy a hybrid to save the enviroment or donate to Hybrid R&D that is one thing. But, it is just foolish if people think they save you money.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By typo101 on 1/15/2007 5:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, it is just foolish if people think they save you money.


That may be true. Personally, I don't have a problem with a possibly biased study that might fool some people to help improve air quality and advance the technology.

I think its great that the prius became trendy, so all those air headed impulse buyers accidentally do some good with their money.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 5:33:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Personally, I don't have a problem with a possibly biased study that might fool some people ..."

I find most environmentalists agree with your viewpoint. The truth doesn't matter as much as the objective. Who cares if its not really true or not, as long as it convinces people to do what you want them to do?


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 6:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares if its not really true or not, as long as it convinces people to do what you want them to do?
You would think that an environmentalist would only be concerned with things that actually work to clean up and improve the environment and not get caught up in band aids and feels goods.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 6:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
While the term "fool" in his comment makes one wonder if he was perhaps promoting fraudulent research, it probably just means that even if this ends up being biased research the commenter feels it was still good that the study made people consider environmental issues.

There's plenty of biased research to go around. Read anything published by the Heritage Foundation for instance. I grew up on a diet of one-sided Focus on the Family articles, so I am quite aware of how truthful statements can be used by a biased writer to give a false impression.

And on environmental topics, how many anti-government types are willing to consider that markets do not take into account externalities such as asthma and premature death caused at least in part by the older dirty diesel? Plenty of commentators on Dailytech clearly believe that 99.999% of regulation is misguided.

In keeping with your tone of wildly absurd accusations, when you drove your Hummer did you enjoy knowing that your oil money was funding terrorists in the Mideast who are killing American soldiers? Do you like authoritarians like Chavez? Isn't it delightful that Sudan massacres people in Darfur so that China can get its oil and you can have lower gas prices? I just love that smell of blood, corruption and rape going into my gas tank!

In fact, I find that most anti-environmentalist types feel the same. Who cares who suffers and dies, as long as it gets us cheap gas then what's the big deal?

PS. Yes, I am ranting, going off topic, and throwing around wild accusations. But then again, anytime there's a semi-environmental topic on Dailytech most of the comments end up giving one-sided arguments accusing the other side of ignoring facts. And that's when they don't degrade to saying "I find that most (liberals / conservatives) are hopeless liars who are fools and want to destroy everything by (ruining the economy / ruining the globe)." Anyways, have a good day.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 6:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just love that smell of blood, corruption and rape going into my gas tank!
Sucks, doesn't it.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 7:19:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "when you drove your Hummer did you enjoy knowing that your oil money was funding terrorists in the Mideast ..."

I am confident that my Hummer consumed less oil than did your Prius. How much one drives matters far more than the mileage one gets while driving.

> "Yes, I am ranting, going off topic, and throwing around wild accusations..."

Well, you saved me the trouble of typing it. :p


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By RogueSpear on 1/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let the flogging begin...
By creathir on 1/16/2007 1:00:26 AM , Rating: 3
He is thinking with LOGIC, and tossing in sarcasm.

As far as a shill for the nuclear industry, may I ask what is WRONG with nuclear energy? This is one of the most amazing technologies we as a human race have EVER developed, and we turn our backs on it? What is the concern exactly? With computers able to monitor what they can today, and provide safety margins, risk of meltdown is just about zero now. All that is left over, is the spent bars, which we now have a VAST facility to store them in, complete with a transportation system to get them there. We use NO oil to create the energy, and the stuff lasts for years. I suspect you have actually convinced YOURSELF that YOU are right about it being dangerous...

Opposing sides can always be looked upon with a fair shake, but their logical validity always trumps whatever agenda they may be pushing.

- Creathir


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/16/2007 2:05:46 AM , Rating: 4
The paranoia surrounding nuclear power is really too bad, it is holding us back from a truly environmentally friendly solution. Small scale nuclear power has been successfully accomplished for decades without incident in the Navy, its really not a big deal. Imagine what kind of forces your average submarine or aircraft carrier has to handle and then realize that even in the worst storms of the past forty years not a single one has had any sort of a critical incident.

We could easily handle large scale nuclear power. Especially with the technology available today. If everyone wants electric cars we are going to have to use nuclear, after all if we trade in for electric cars, how will we get the electricity? Right now most of our electric grid is coal and oil based, which means we'd just be moving the pollution from the city to the generation sites(and doing nothing for CO2).


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By RogueSpear on 1/16/2007 10:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The paranoia surrounding nuclear power is really too bad, it is holding us back from a truly environmentally friendly solution


This must be the quote of the year. I never stated that my concern is with meltdown, though it should not be completely dismissed either. My main concern and objection to nuclear is the waste. You can go on all day long about how spent fuel from a reactor is just as safe as the very air we breathe, but I'm not buying it. I am not a nuclear scientist, but I don't believe you need to be one in order to understand the risks and dangers. Just the same as you don't need to be a physicist to realize what gravity is.

Nuclear has some compelling arguments, particularly if you aren't thinking long term (hundreds of years), but I hardly think that you'd like us to abandon Yucca mountain in favor of your locality either.

There are many other technologies for energy production which are renewable and if not perfect, at least far more desirable than nuclear. If we wanted to we could invest our time, money, and efforts into those. But that could possibly involve some short term sacrifice in the form of higher prices, etc. Long term however, a serious investment in renewable and responsible energy production could also result in a lot of jobs for those new sectors and if we stop shooting ourselves in the foot, possibly even something to export.

I would feel far more comfortable if we were exporting something like that to India rather than nuclear fuel in exchange for mangoes. Mangoes are fine but honestly I can live without them.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 10:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "My main concern and objection to nuclear is the waste..."

Waste is a nonissue. If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain State, odds are you already have a few thousand pounds of nuclear waste in your own backyard...all of it left over from when the earth was created. There are countless millions of tons of radioactive thorium, radium, and uranium floating in the ocean...again, all of it natural. Your average coal-fired power plant emits a kilo or two of uranium every day...right into the air we breath. All from the uranium found naturally in coal.

There are no issues to disposing of nuclear waste. Sites like Yucca Mountain are unbelievable safe. Easier still is simply to glassify it and drop it in a deep trench somewhere in the ocean itself. Compared to all the natural nuclear waste found there, we could dump our own in for thousands of years and not even make a measurable dent.

Environmentalists like to scare people with talk of nuclear waste being dangerous for "thousands of years". The fact is most toxic wastes are dangerous forever. Nuclear waste decays...and the more radioactive a substance is, the faster it decays. The very air you breath has radioactive components with half-lives measured in the billions of years. It's the very long life-span that makes it safe.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By Reflex on 1/16/2007 1:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Waste really dosen't exist in nuclear power, and is another misunderstood 'problem'. Today's nuclear waste is tommorrow's nuclear fuel. Right now there exists waste reprocessing methods that convert the waste into fuel for new generation nuclear plants designed to run on it, France and China are both building and have in operation such plants. The nuclear fuel used in traditional reactors still has 96% of its potential energy intact by the time it is considered 'waste', leaving a huge amount left for future use.

The only reason we have a buildup of nuclear waste in the US is because we have old and outdated nuclear plants, other nations are eliminating this problem using newer types of nuclear plants and reprocessing technologies.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By hubajube on 1/16/2007 6:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Waste really dosen't exist in nuclear power, and is another misunderstood 'problem'. Today's nuclear waste is tommorrow's nuclear fuel.
I hate it when I learn something. It always pisses me off.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2007 10:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "You are truly the most warped individual that I've seen comment on here..."

You should see me in my leather chaps and pink flamingo hat.

> "I can always count on you to be the perfect shill for the nuclear industry..."

There is no nuclear industry in the US. That's part of the problem. There is simply a power industry, that doesn't really care how efficiently they generate power...they get guaranteed profits regardless, courtesy of government regulation.


RE: Let the flogging begin...
By typo101 on 1/23/2007 8:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
I love the truth, I seek the truth... unfortunately its nearly impossible to find (even through personal experience).

There may not be a single study that is objectively true. I, like most readers of DT, put a lot of faith in science. I am aware, however, that even science is subjective. In the past hundred years countless scientific findings have shown to be products of the scientist's paradigm. Everything we know fits into our paradigm, and everything that fits into our paradigm we are likely to believe.

With that said, I like my studies to do more harm than good. Like when I heard the on the news one time that milk contains carcinogens... great work, make people fear milk. :S

For those masher-bashers: even though he refutes just about everything I say, I have a lot of respect for him. He is obviously an intelligent, reasonable person. He just doesn't share my perspective. He might be a little stubborn (read closed minded), but that happens to a lot of people who know they're smart.


Actual costs
By Oregonian2 on 1/15/2007 1:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more interested in the total cost of ownership from when the car is new until it hits the junkyard crusher, including any fees for getting rid of the batteries at the end. Seems like a more fair comparison when judging them as a whole "to society" as well as for people like me who buy cars that way (buy new and run'm until they just about don't run anymore). And for me that's a long time. I average maybe 8K/year and my wife on her car is substantially less than that.




RE: Actual costs
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 2:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Alas, any such figure would be pure speculation, as the Prius is not old enough to predict even something as simple as its expected lifespan. Likewise, most Prius' are still under warranty for their electrical systems, and so who knows how long that will last and what the repair costs will look like when electrical components start failing.


RE: Actual costs
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/15/2007 3:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure there has been at least ONE hybrid involved in an accident that totalled the car. That should give a ballpark figure, no?


RE: Actual costs
By masher2 (blog) on 1/15/2007 3:38:04 PM , Rating: 3
The most important factor in mean repair costs isn't the replacement cost of the parts themselves, but their likelihood of failure in a given time period. A post-accident repair bill won't give you that.


RE: Actual costs
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 3:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
If the car were totaled then the value would probably be based roughly on the blue book value, which is roughly the re-sale value. If the car were repaired then it still won't provide a very useful figure because the cost will be excessively high due to the currently very low number of Prius repairs going on. In either case this doesn't tell us much about what repair costs will be once large numbers of Prius' start getting after-warranty repairs. For instance, if 100000 Prius batteries are replaced each year then it will cost substantially less to do than if you're one of the first people to ever have an out of warranty battery replacement.


RE: Actual costs
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 1/15/2007 6:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
So, if there is no reliable repair information now, how did the writers of the article come up with thier numbers?

Comparing a car with no repair history against every other gasoline engine car does not make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not for or against hybrid cars, but it seems that the article in question was either shoddily researched or written by someone with an agenda.

Comparing a $30k car to a $12k car is silly


RE: Actual costs
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 6:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
The article should be legit given the period of time it claims to cover. I wonder if anyone bothered to find the original article on which is based the summary article which Dailytech further summarized (was that confusing?). If so they would find that the Civic and Civic Hybrid have similar costs of ownership, and it is explicitly stated that the main reason the Prius does so well is because the re-sale value is too high (because supply is still too low).

So I don't think their is any raw deception in the research, but rather in the way people have chosen to pick and choose their summaries of the conclusions.


RE: Actual costs
By Souka on 1/15/2007 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
after 5 years, 70,000 miles I doubt the batteries would be under warranty.


So.... how does TOC look for owning a car for 10 years (If I recall right the typical life span of a car in the US is 10-12 years)



RE: Actual costs
By Kuroyama on 1/15/2007 3:46:07 PM , Rating: 3
A quick Google search reports that:
quote:
The Prius has an 8-yr./100000-mi. warranty on the battery and hybrid systems, plus a three-year/36000-mile warranty on everything else

And more significantly, given that most Prius sales are in states following the California emissions rules:
quote:
The warranty is extended to 150,000 miles or 10 years for Prius in California and several other states that adopted the Californian emission control standards.


RE: Actual costs
By kpb on 1/15/2007 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what that warranty covers? IE is a battery system that only holds half the charge it's suppose to working or considered reason for replacement? I could easily see them trying to pass off a battery with majorly reduced life as still working and require total failure for a warranty replacement at least until the bad pr starts rolling in.


RE: Actual costs
By hubajube on 1/15/2007 6:27:11 PM , Rating: 3
This is from the 2004-2006 Prius Users Guide:

quote:
Lab testing has demonstrated that the battery-pack will last an equivalent of 180,000 miles (290,000 km) of driving without any deterioration. And the preliminary real-world data now available is confirming those findings. The battery-pack is expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle. With normal wear & tear, Prius owners should not expect to ever have to replacement it. (The US distance record as of July 2006 from a Classic model Prius was an amazing 243,000 miles!)


Link: http://john1701a.com/prius/documents/Prius_User-Gu...

Can't find anything yet on whether the warranty only covers total failure or if it also covers degraded batteries too.


70,000?