GM and Toyota into Hybrids Just for Show, Not for Environment

Interesting comments by Toyota and GM: basically what they are saying is that the hundreds of thousands of people who have purchased the Prius, etc. are basically suckers who have thrown their money out of the window.

People are buying so they can show off that they have a environmentally friendly car. Really there are several tests that prove that these cars really don't get that much more favorable in terms of money savings, because of the premium that is paid over the regular versions. So it is cool to have a Hybrid car - the show factor.

Finally....LOL

I've been saying this for years. Anybody with first grade math could tell you that a Prius makes no economical sense at all.

Where are the thickheaded Toylex boys now? JT, Huuhuu, Lexusadmirer, Will, etc.

I can't wait to hear your excuses.

Is there a segment of our population *cough* celebrities *cough* that tool around Beverly Hills in a Prius yet take private jets hither and yon, you betcha. They are into it for show factor.

But, just because an owner of a hybrid doesn't recoup the premium charged for the technology by correspondingly lower fuel costs does not make them a sucker. If they assume they are doing it for monetary reasons then, yes, they are cognitively challenged, but I imagine most hybrind owners just want to use less fossil fuel, decrease the U.S.'s addiction to oil, and reduce emissions. Not every decision is a monetary one.

The real question, imo, is whether it takes more fossil fuels, or other forms of energy for that matter, to MAKE a hybrid than will be saved during its useful lifetime. I have no answer to that question, but it's certainly possible that the toll on the enviornment to create these vehicles is greater than the benefit of their use.

By way of disclosure...I don't have a hybrid, but do like the idea of them.

Sixxfive - search Autospies for "have you hugged a Hummer" the article goes in to detail, that it takes more energy to produce and dispose of a typical hybrid than it saves over 300,000 miles. Plus the production of these vehicles are in countries where there are less stringent pollution laws and the earth via greenhouse gases and disposal of toxins is actually harmed more by the production of Hybrids vs. a Hummer overall.

It is not simply about gas mileage or the emissions is gives out over the lifespan. It whole point is: It is from raw materials to disposal that is the TOTAL issue to be concerned with. Too many tree hugger don't look at that, they see a reduction or greenhouse gases and fuel mileage and say “I am doing my part”. Very short sighted. While we all can agree that something must be done the Hybrid is not the way to go.

Basically you have been duped by the marketing dept. They earned their keep if you bought a hybrid.

They don't make ECONOMIC sense (right now) for the consumer. The point behind Priuses and other eco-cars is that they are good for the planet, you know EARTH. The Toyota statement is taken out of context, they are not de-valuing the car, but letting comsumers know that if the goal is to just save cash, a hybrid is not the way to go. Neither is upgrading to leather or a V-8, but consumers do that too. The goal is to make a serious attempt to tread lightly on our fragile planet.

And as for the Hummer article, let me debunk that again. The premise is that because the Hummer is based on existing vehicle architecture, it is less damaging to the environment to build one. Well, other that the Prius, the hybrid system is featured in 4 other existing US Toyota vehicles (plus more in Japan, and more to come). So that argument is a lie, pure propaganda.

Finally, as hybrids become prevalent, the R&D gets paid off and the price goes down. A Camry hybrid is about 2500 more than a comparable Camry XLE. Mileage and efficiency will only increase with the next generation and price will go down, so the economics will make as much sense as the ecologic value. Does anyone remember how much microwaves used to be. Surely there was an argument that it made more economic sense to use the old oven, but we all have microwaves now, dont we.

1970toyotamark - Please read the article and the report (all 450 pages). You have to consider the energy used in research, raw materials, development, production and disposal. Then combine these costs associated and the energy required to run the vehicle and then factor the savings incurred. The logical to the report is very sound. All the author did was do a total environmental impact study to determine the shortcomings of the Hybrid. They will NEVER make up the difference, it is a proven fact, the main reason of the criticism.

Would your buy an organic apple vs a normal one that was marginally better for you if the organic polluted the environment 10 times in disposal and required an elaborate process that consumed 5 times the energy and grow and transport? Same concept.

I am not saying nothing needs to be done. But by and large the industry (even Toyota) all says that Hybrids are a waste. They are a marketing dream and spin. Spend the resources in a renewable source and concentrate on cost effectiveness and environmental. Lexus use of Hybrid technology, is an example of pure marketing, no claim of environmental savings are made even though it is a “Hybrid”. They expect the Hybrid buzz to make a difference. Basically in my opinion it tarnishes the name of the Hybrid, totally irresponsible.

I agree with 1970toyotamarc I think as technology does advance system’s will become cheaper. And to advance in technology it takes sacrifices. I’m sure hybrids aren’t the final solution, it’s just an interim solution until the ultimate fuel efficient vehicle becomes available. But until then auto manufacturers are releasing whatever they have available at this time. If alternative methods of transportation weren’t researched we’d still be driving Model T’s.

The next couple questions are for Plano04:
So with the apple reference we are saying that organic apples are bad for the environment because they may take more pollution to produce and dispose of. So we should all eat normal apples that have been heavily treated with pesticides, preservatives, and all that junk. Yum! Wow look at that kid with the third eyeball. He may be a freak, but he must be rich saving all that money.

On the Hummer issue I thought cars like the Prius, Camry hybrid, Lexus hybrid, are produced in Japan and the U.S. And don’t these two countries have some of the most stringent pollution standards. So why do they say that they are produced in countries that have less stringent pollution laws.

Finally, so what you are saying is if hybrids were never brought out by Toyota or any company for that matter, our world would be cleaner than it is now? Damn those fuel efficient vehicles harming the environment an all. I think congress should take a serious look into this issue and ban all these vehicles, since they are a huge environmental hazard As a taxpayer I demand a full investigation, exhausting all the taxpayers money into why we don’t get rid of this fuel efficient vehicle that is destroying our precious environment.

huu76 - Well I feel honored that my name was in the same sentence as gentlemen. BMW is bowing to public pressure no doubt. When in Rome you do as Romans. The problem is all of the European makers who have been struggling with the issues, that we are just coming to know, have sided away from Gas/Hybrids. They have looked into Diesel/Hybrids however. The Japanese are taking a ill-fated slanted idea and romanticizing it, and marketing it.

Gas/Hybrid is a formula that scores exceptionally well in the EPA economy cycles under controlled situations. In real life without any special driving technique the results are far different.

Huu I give you the challenge to prove me wrong. I have misquoted before, and have gladly eaten crow, you know as well as I do I back up my arguments with documentation. I challenge you to do so. I have produced independent studies by renowned sources debunking the myth of Hybrids and Ethanol. In this case the report is over 400 pages of detailed documentation. I can’t ever recall you producing a shred of evidence to the contrary. So I guess in the most respectful terms, pony up the gospel, the world is waiting.

huu- Forgot to mention Wagoner is a fool indeed. He epitomizes all of the management problems GM has. Ineffective and has no nads. I am not a fan of Carlos, but Gohsn would eat him for lunch

Plano, I don't need to read the 450 pages to know the logic is flawed and propaganda. Let me sum it up for you. The premise is that it takes less energy to produce a Hummer because the technology already existed (It's based on an existing SUV). By this logic, no company should ever invest in new technology because it will be expensive. Also, I already pointed out the fact that hybrid technology is being used in existing platforms (Camry,RX Highlander ect), seriously debunking that lie of extreme beginning costs. Further, technology is always expensive in the beginning, it is the price of progress. Back to my microwave analogy. My last one cost 80 bucks, how bout yours?

Second, disposal costs. The original article claimed tht a Hummer was more efficient because it would last 300,000 miles, while apparently Toyota is out admitting that its Priuses will die at 100,000 miles. This is a bold faced lie. The premises are not only false, but are propagandist lies. So don't talk to me about your fake apple analogy. I'm tired of the lies and misinformation. Let's hear it for facts and truth.

Finally, the Prius, and hybrid technology, is good for this planet, and that is the green that I believe in, not the green of money.

mkk21 apples - I am saying that why eat the apple when the by products of the apple will offset the benefits.

In other words I can eat the apple and live one year longer potentially through better nutrition (makes sense). However the by products of producing the apple will now give me terminal cancer three years sooner. So the end result is I ate healthier, however my choice of food also killed me sooner because of non-notional factors.

The Hybrid is the apple, it saves me while it is around (10 years max avg.) but the environmental impact of the production and disposal are the more important factors, and they kill me faster in the long run.

In reference to “Are Hybrid a valuable step?” As strange as it seems. I think they are a step, but were rushed to market without environmental impact studies to realize the long term impact. A step that never should have made production. There is no doubt in my mind that technology has advanced with Hybrids, it is very clear. But at what long term price are they being implemented?

huu76- first of all a lot of people changed their ID's when the system moved over (I did too). In reference to "Ben", if you look at the 3rd post you will see he is back on the site as "Ben55".

Here is the link to the ENTIRE 450 page report from “Dust to Dust” It is very clear and concise and gives the details you crave.
.
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

As far as life expentency of the Hummer at 300K and the Prius is 100K

Based on the average mileage and life expectancy, there is a wide range of years that certain models will be on the road before being scrapped. This ranges from a low of 10 years to as much as 20-plus years. As segments, the lowest number of years are Hybrid models as a group (12.1 years) while the highest segment is Premium SUVs such as the Range Rover and Hummer H2 (22.2 years).
You have to read the article before you make bold comments, or you get shot down. These are ACTUAL industry figures not skewed statistics so the point stands. If you differ, think how about how many 1970’s circa Suburbans are still on the road? Plenty. The biggest problem is the life expectancy of the hybrid and this leads to escalated production (to replace) and disposal costs vs the Hummer segment.

Huu - I think you asked where the Euro Hybrids are? Here is an example They went straight to Diesel why waste time with plain gas?

http://www.hybridcarnews.org/entry/diesel-electric-bluetec-e320-first-hybrid-from-mercedes/

hybrids in town do not have zero emissions. they have no emissions for about 2 miles, then the petrol motor has to kick in.
more environmentally friendly over its life? if you want to buy the most environmentally friendly car today over it's life, buy a mercedes s-550. it won an award recently due to recycled materials, reuseable bits etc.
1970toyotamarc, "They don't make ECONOMIC sense (right now) for the consumer. The point behind Priuses and other eco-cars is that they are good for the planet, you know EARTH"
they are not good for the planet. they still emit co2 and no2 and hydrocarbons and stuff, just less of it. the only thing that is good for the planet is a tree, really.

Rupert - Lets take Emissions and Fuel consumption of the vehicle out of the equation.

Other factors to consider:

The type of materials used other than major panels or understructures have important impact (albeit seemingly small overall) such as chrome. It is one of the most difficult and expensive to make and dispose of. The pollution and clean-up cost for such material far outweigh its seemingly insignificant contribution to a vehicle’s appearance or cost

Some portion of the worker transportation to and from work at all levels of the auto design/develop to disposal can be a critical component in the overall energy expense. This relates in part to where those manufacturing plants are located be it in China or Tennessee and what the infrastructure demands are to support that manufacturing plant.

Shipping costs from the home country are also factored in. (Something tells me that a tanker trip costs quite a bit)

Manufacturing energy consumption from robotic assembly lines and general Energy consumption all of the suppliers..

Huu also stated correctly that Japan has very stringent factory pollution controls. The only issue with this is the core components are typically made abroad, outside Japan, and are imported back for assembly in Japan. These outside countries typically are developing nations with little or no controls (IE: China) the pollution is simply exported to those regions of the world.

As you can see this is a VERY complex topic. This report took over 2 years of analysis and is a close to accurate as can be in this type of report.

being environmentally conscious is way too hard

Rupert - Doing ANYTHING seems to be too hard now a days!

I wish it was as simple as you "buy this and you save the world" and I wish Hybrids were the answer. I was on the bandwagon until I read through the marketing and discovered the truth. We will always pollute, but we need to do so in the most responsible manner possible.

Plano, I dont even know how to argue with your apple analogy. It just makes no sense. The organic apple doesnt cause more environmental damage to create. You are creating an argument based on a lie, just like the author of the Hummer study. No Prius has been aournd 12 years for you to prove that they are in a class of vehicle that lasts only 12 years, or (as the article claims), 100,000 miles. And no Hummer has lasted 22 years. There are very few '70's Suburbans still on the road, where do you see them? For you to ASSUME that the Hummer will last 300,000 miles is presumptuous and merely throwing out an opinion as a fact. Without facts, you have no theory, and certainly no truth.

Fact 1: The Prius may have been a new vehicle on its own platform when it was created, but the technology used in it is used in at least 5 US Toyotas, and more in Japan, meaning its environmental costs are being shared. Just like the Hummer (H2), Toyota technology is shared amongst cars and platforms.

Fact 2: Prius is one of the most reliable cars on the road, even scoring higher than other Toyotas in quality. Logic says
a) Toyotas have high quality
b) Toyotas regularly last 2-300,000 miles with few problems
c) The Prius has demonstrated even higher quality than most other Toyotas.
therefore
The Prius can be predicted to last as long, or longer than other Toyotas.
(Thats how you construct an argument. One not based on opinions, but facts.)

These are the two main premises that explain how a Hummer (and only an H2 at that) can be less damaging than a Prius, and I believe I have adequatley shown how they are lies. If the premises are lies, I will not read 450 pages of concoted research to support the lies.

Also Plano, disposing of your Hummer is going to take twice as much space on Earth as the Prius due to its size. And your chrome comment, there's a lot more chrome to be disposed of on a Hummer. And shipping costs, wow you're really grasping now. Right now hybrid Camrys are scheduled to begin production in the US. I guess we shouldnt ever export Hummers or any other products due to the pollution from ships, not that any other countries want 'em.

Rupert, hybrids have almost no emissions in town, and continue to have extremely low emissions even when the gasoline engine kicks in. Again, a fact. Do your research. And hopefully from reputable sources, not the crap, like Reason Foundation, that Autospies has been referencing lately. Even this referenced article from Hybrid News is poor journalism, it's not even journalism, it was just a blog entry that someone with an agenda is passing off as news.

I'm sure to your relief, I am done on this topic. But I'll keep vigilant for the next round of lies and propaganda.

1970toyotamarc - If you had read any portion of the report (obviously you did not) you would have read that the only research ever performed has been broken down by segment category. The Prius falls into the small car segment and is performing exactly as the rest of the category as far as useful lifespan goes. Again as you have stated you have not read the report in any manner or you would have seen the environmental issues of actual production of these vehicles. These long-term environmental issues of production and disposal are far greater than the ecological savings of the vehicle during its typical lifespan.

So again is the simplest term (I seem to have to resort to simple with you). If the cure kills you faster than the disease then why are you taking the cure?

On the flipside...Using the Authors calculations it is possible that hybrids in fleets might really favorably impact the environment (such as taxis). These vehicles spend a larger portion of their time in stop and go traffic with the engine off. They also typically are driven in the 200,000+ mile range before retirement. Demographics currently are showing that most Hybrids are bought as second vehicles, and are driven proportionally less overall, this lessens their impact even further. So I guess, if you buy a Hybrid drive at least 200,000 miles before selling it to really save the earth.

1970toyotamarc - Oops I missed a point of two of you comments (didn't want you to feel neglected).

“Fact one- The Prius may have been a new vehicle on its own platform when it was created, but the technology used in it is used in at least 5 US Toyotas, and more in Japan, meaning its environmental costs are being shared. Just like the Hummer (H2), Toyota technology is shared amongst cars and platforms”

While this may be a true statement, the VIN numbers being reported as salvage indicate the Prius is being retired at the same rate as the segment it is categorized in. So 100K is the norm for the category.

“Fact 2: Prius is one of the most reliable cars on the road, even scoring higher than other Toyotas in quality. Logic says
a) Toyotas have high quality
b) Toyotas regularly last 2-300,000 miles with few problems
c) The Prius has demonstrated even higher quality than most other Toyotas.
therefore
The Prius can be predicted to last as long, or longer than other Toyotas.
(That’s how you construct an argument. One not based on opinions, but facts.)”

Again they are being retired at the same overall rate as the segment they are categorized in.
So the quality is irrelevant.

BUT you do have a point in repair materials in the hummer might be higher However that aspect is probably insignificant to the ecological equation but always is a factor to consider.

huu76, i think i heard the news on 5th gear. it wasn't the engine specifically, it was the overall car and its use of recyclable materials and the eco-friendly tree plantations they get the wood from.
diesels emit less co2 than their petrol counterparts.
in reference to hybrid diesel economy. similar to your story but from new york to san fran with an ml320cdi and rx400h
http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=474924
the ml wins by about 3 mpg.

huu76 - knock yourself out on the links if you want. VW and BMW and Audi are all working with the diesel hybrid concept to a degree. VW is actually looking into the twincharger diesel hybrid concept. The point is they don't turn their backs on any technology because they didn't market it. They however do see the hybrid/gasoline concept as short sighted vs diesel hybrid.

As far as marketing the hybrid as a performance option? Not at this time they clearly don’t offer enough advantage over the added weight. Simply develop a better gas motor with better technology. Basically it appears they were searching the existing parts and created another marketing gimmick.

Again back to the point, since the Prius fails to have the added durability to set itself apart from the classmates, it appear that the report is indeed as accurate as can be. It is both economically and ecologically unfeasible to justify it on a rational level. It is destine to go the way of the AMC Pacer.

huu76- Clarification: I do agree fully with the fact that the Prius does emmit far less pollutants and delivers better mileage. My contention is it causes far more pollutants and ecololgical issue to produce and dispose than it saves in the time it is in service.

When it comes to SUV's, "straigtline performance" is totally irrelevant to me, and probably many other buyers.

Lexus RX Hybrid against the Benz ML320 CDI? Give me the ML320 CDI.

1) Offroad capable
2) Torquey diesel, efficient outdoors

I am not bashing the RX, but the design first of all doesn't appeal to me. Second, I would only buy SUV's, if ever, that were at least offroad capable, even if it is a luxury SUV. Third, a diesel engine is perfectly suited for cruising, especially with that 7-speed A/T from MB. The RX uses what, a 3.3 or 3.5 V6? It's going to be a gas-guzzler outside the city. Oh, but it's faster in a straightline. Not enough to convince me. Sorry, straightline SUV performance is like comparing the comfort levels of an F1 car... ;)

I also think Toyota is marketing their hybrids in a wrong way. They claim that the Prius get's 50 mpg (???), but in practice, it might only achieve 40 mpg. Toyota's results were probably based on city driving, were a hybrid setup excels. If you include daily driving, urban and rural etc., then the Prius cannot possibly deliver the 50 mpg it is claimed to do. I also think the 1.5-l engine might be a bit underpowered, since the Prius weighs something too. Wasn't there a lawsuit threat by some Prius owners? Because they didn't get the claimed fuel economy?

BMW530i - Toyota gas estimates are based off the EPA test cycles. The in town cycles to tend to favor the hybrid in estimates. The problem is the real world city driving differs quite a bit. This is where the descrepencies occur. The Hybrid's mileage also seems to be more affected by individual driving style than the gasoline models. This accounts for their dismal results in publications like Consumer Reports.

huu76 Speaking of links:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/105503/article.html

Notice the Prius is rated at 60 mpg in the city, real world average as tested was 41.2 mpg A full 32% LESS than the EPA Estimate.

A HUGE Nissan titan was also tested EPA 14, real world was 13.7 or only 3% difference.

They test other cars and found that the EPA estimates are not indicative of actual mileage in real world for Hybrids.

Now in a best case effort they did test a full tank using special driving techniques not typically in use by drivers on the road. The result was 54 mpg, much better. The worst tank was 31 mpg a full 20 mpg under any estimate from the EPA.

These results are very similar to many road tests by car magazines.

huu76 -
oops another link for ya.
http://www.mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=274

From a bonafide Hybrid source stating the Prius must be driven over 144,000 miles over 14 years, to break even economically. Using the Dust to Dust report we see the typical Prius typical lifespan is a bit over 109,000 miles. This it is 35,000 miles short of a break even point. I know a Toyota will last longer than 109,000 miles, but the problem is they are being salvaged at the same rate as other cars in their class, which means the typical Prius will be salvaged at 109,000 miles. They are no more durable than any car in their class,

Let me repeat. I do not believe the authors when they state a Prius is only going to last 100,000 miles, while a Hummer is going to last 300,000 miles. Plano, you say that salvage yards can prove this. Then show me the data, prove me wrong.

Even you admit "So I guess, if you buy a Hybrid drive at least 200,000 miles before selling it to really save the earth" Tell me anyone who doesnt plan on operating the vehicle for 200,000 miles. Its a Toyota, after all. And who says that the majority are being driven as second vehicles? Have you driven around LA lately?

Faulty supppositions forming the framework for the argument. The article is from a libertarian think tank, with an AGENDA. Any data can be skewed to support an agenda, especially if the argument is set up with lies to begin with.

re american diesel
this article is about half a year old and it does mention the introduction of euro-grade diesel