Prius smackdown, round two

High gas prices make hybrids look even better

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry (Guest Contributor) at 11:04 AM on 07 Dec 2007

Prius 180 A couple of years ago, I ran some numbers trying to figure out which was the better buy for the planet -- a biodiesel Jetta or a hybrid Prius. And I came to the tentative, but perhaps counterintuitive, conclusion that the best buy was ... wait for it ... a Toyota Corolla.

The Corolla, you see, was thousands of dollars cheaper than the Prius (the runner-up), even after I accounted for all the savings on gas from driving a fuel-miser. And if you were a green-minded consumer -- someone whose top priority was reducing climate-warming emissions, say -- you could probably put those thousands to better use somewhere else. Depending on the circumstances, I figured that lots of other investments -- power-sipping appliances, say, or a furnace upgrade, or home insulation, or even donations to a worthy cause -- might all count as "better buys" than a brand-new Prius.

But with recent gas-price spikes, I wondered if my earlier calculations were still holding true. And I've got to admit it: if you're in the market for a new car, a Prius is looking better and better all the time.

Take, for example, the most recent figures from Intellichoice, an online car-buying and -rating service. They compiled figures on total ownership costs -- depreciation and financing, maintenance, repairs, fuel, insurance, yada-yada -- for a boatload of new cars. From that, they picked the best buy in each vehicle category: the car or truck that had the lowest overall ownership costs for the first five years after purchase.

On this measure, the Toyota Prius rates as the best overall value among all mid-sized cars. It holds its value well over five years; repairs aren't too costly; and the fuel costs are rock bottom. All in all, a pretty cheap car to own -- proof that treading more lightly on the planet doesn't have to lighten your wallet. Nice job, Prius!

But that's not the final word. A lot of people looking to buy a "greener" car purchase would be willing to consider a much smaller car than the Prius -- they may just want to get around town, and they don't care if their ride is roomy or stylish. And with a low-end Prius still going for at least $21,000, it's possible that a cheaper, smaller car would still have the edge -- if the buyer's willing to spend the difference on other green priorities.

So I looked at the best buy among subcompacts, which turned out to be the nonhybrid, two-door Toyota Yaris hatchback. (The Honda Civic Hybrid, by the way, won in the compact car category. Hybrids are now, quite clearly, a cheap car to own.) With a sales price almost $10,000 less than a Prius, I thought, surely the Yaris would be a contender as the better buy overall.

Only not so much. Intellichoice puts the total, five-year ownership costs of a Yaris at almost $20,800, counting depreciation, gas, insurance, repairs, etc. A Prius comes in at a little above $22,200 over the same span. So over five years, the difference isn't all that great.

But then, when I dove into the numbers a bit, I think that the Prius makes an even better case for itself. Total fuel costs for both vehicles were calculated at $2.19 per gallon. But actual prices at the pump haven't been that low in well over a year; these days, $3.00 seems cheap, at least to me. And when I bumped up the price of gas to a more reasonable level, the gap between the Prius and the Yaris narrowed even more.

Then, if you include all the "externalities" of gasoline -- including international security costs, which really don't figure in coal or natural gas -- the it looks like the five-year cost gap between the Prius and the Yaris is pretty negligible. (See p. 2 of this analysis of cafe standards for a description of the plausible range for gasoline externalities.)

This is a point worth repeating, so I'll say it again: based on this data, buying a new Prius, and driving it for five years, costs only a teensy bit more than buying a Yaris -- even though the sticker price of the Yaris is $10,000 less.

I don't have the data to extend this analysis past five years. It could be that, after year five, the Yaris starts doing better than the Prius -- perhaps the Yaris depreciates slower, since it's got less value to lose and no battery to replace. But at the same time, the fuel efficiency savings of the Prius will keep racking up; and if gas prices rise even a bit from where they are now, those will keep the Prius looking better and better.

Obviously, your mileage may vary. If you don't drive your car all that much, then the fuel-saving beneifts of the Prius shrink. Also, I haven't compared the manufacturing emissions of the two cars -- and on that score, the Prius batteries weigh against it, since they require a fair amount of energy to make.

Still, consider me chastened. Despite what I said a few years ago, if I had to recommend a new car right now, I'd probably shade towards the Prius; even if it winds up being a few hundred dollars more expensive than the Yaris, all things included, the hedge against gas price spikes could be worth it. So even if you don't need the roomier ride, or care about the extra features of the Prius, you could still come out ahead in the end -- and with a few spare nickels to spend on something far more worthy than a car.

Update: I'm still not sure how I feel about a new Prius vs. a good-quality used car. I'll let y'all know, if and when I run those numbers.

For story: Prius smackdown, round two
45 Comments | Post a Comment

that's food for thought

Nice to see some critical analysis of the assumptions around such purchase decisions.

I'm not sure I buy the argument you make initially that (given you have definitely decided to buy a new car) the money saved on the purchase of a cheaper, non-hybrid car will be spent on things that have a more beneficial effect than the extra fuel efficiency you are foregoing. Simple reason: the money will likely be spent on more consumer goods of some kind. Not buying at all is nearly always better than buying "green" products, unless any of those products are actually carbon negative (which seems unlikely). I suppose you could give all the remaining money to a (good) carbon offset scheme, but if you're the kind of deeply committed person who would do that, then you're probably going to find a way of avoiding car ownership altogether.

Does anyone know what the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is? Does it make a significant difference to the calculation?

And shouldn't we be comparing the overall cost (both in temrs of carbon and dollars) of joining a scheme such as zipcar, versus owning your own car?

by Easterbunny at 11:44 AM on 07 Dec 2007

repairs

Watch out, one popular and inexpensive German diesel shows up on a lot of "worst" reliability lists.

by odograph at 11:47 AM on 07 Dec 2007

Great analysis!

Glad someone's keeping an eye on the ever-changing numbers.

Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!

by TheGreenMiles at 11:53 AM on 07 Dec 2007

The carbon footprint

of the manufacturing process is harder to pin down than the energy balance of ethanol.

Odo, quit poking the other kids with your Prius. Diesel Jetta's get awesome mileage. They are great cars (as long as you don't burn food in them). Maintenance stats apply to groups, not individuals. Any given Jetta may run flawlessly for its entire life. But you know that already you incorrigible rascal.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 12:06 PM on 07 Dec 2007

Depends

A Diesel Jetta would actually be a pretty good option.

A BioDiesel Jetta on the other hand would entirely depend on what emissions study you choose, and what type of BioDiesel we are talking about.

It could range from Atmospheric Armageddon to almost as good as the normal Jetta.

by GreyFlcn at 1:55 PM on 07 Dec 2007

But frankly

At the moment
"It all depends on your driving habits"

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2007/11/08/index1.html

by GreyFlcn at 1:58 PM on 07 Dec 2007

you made me do it

best and worst used cars.

by odograph at 2:05 PM on 07 Dec 2007

or you could call hybrids-plus in boulder

and then you'd have a PHEV. as i will in one and a half months. which i will charge off our solar panel-led energy to the house (we have 2000 sq ft of panels being installed).

then i'll have a car that gets 100 mpg (tested and verifiable) and that gets its energy to run from the sun. all with readily available currently existing technology.

remind me why there is still a debate about what needs to be done?

by robertogreen at 7:01 PM on 07 Dec 2007

Intangibles

I think buying a Prius (if you can swing the upfront costs, which I couldn't) has two additional, intangible, but very real benefits:

You send a message to the automakers that you want a car that's very fuel-efficient and minimally pollutive. Yes, buying a Corolla, Yaris, Fit, conventional Civic, or other such car gets you good fuel efficiency and fairly low emissions at a significantly lower upfront cost, but they don't send a clear message to the automakers that you place a high priority on a car's ecological impact. For all they know, you could've bought such a car because it was relatively inexpensive but still well-made.
You help to build the critical mass necessary to hit a tipping point of social change. How? By sending a highly-visible message to other people that you are serious about reducing your energy use as well as your emissions of greenhouse gases and smog-forming air pollutants. You demonstrate that you were willing to pay more for a car upfront to get those benefits, taking a longer-term and deeper view of the cost of driving.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 9:19 PM on 07 Dec 2007

Manufacturing energy, and diesels

Easterbunny wrote: "Does anyone know what the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process is? Does it make a significant difference to the calculation?"

The Union of Concerned Scientists' hybrid blog addressed this issue last year: "A variety of reputable investigators have concluded that 85-90 percent of energy use and global warming emissions attributable to an average vehicle over its entire lifecycle come from operation. Only 10-15 percent is production and disposal. This is true for both hybrids and conventional vehicles." The rest of the post goes through some calculations to determine how much fuel economy improvement your new car would need to make up for the energy required to manufacture it.

On the subject of diesel cars, you should look for the new generation of diesels. Mercedes has at least one already, the VW Jetta will be released in mid- to late-2008, and later on we'll see other small diesels (including the Audi A4 and something from Honda). The next generation will be almost as clean as gasoline cars -- they will have particulate filters to capture the soot and NOx removal catalysts for the NOx. The cars will even be clean enough to sell in California. But you probably won't be able to run much biodiesel (I'm guessing that the warranty will allow up to 5% biodiesel blended with regular diesel; it could be zero, given the ultra-high precision injectors in the current diesels.)

In contrast, a pre-2008 diesel is far dirtier than a gasoline car. They emit toxic particulate matter at far higher rates; their NOx emissions are 10 to 40 times higher. For example, the EPA Green Vehicle Guide gives the 2006 diesel Jetta a 1 for air pollution (10 is best), while the gasoline model gets a 6 or a 9 (not sure why there are different scores -- one is a California model?).

I agree with the comment directly above mine. Buying a hybrid rewards good behavior and innovative thinking.

by meander at 11:27 PM on 07 Dec 2007

Heh

A 2006 Diesel Jetta is quite a different beast than what a 2008 Diesel Jetta will be.

October 2006 they removed Sulfur from Diesel
January 2007 they instituted nationwide standards for diesel emissions which are 3x more stringent than Europe.
Spring 2008 should expect to see a Diesel Jetta featuring a particulate filter, and a NOx filter which meets those stringent standards.

by GreyFlcn at 11:41 PM on 07 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

used Prius?

Next year when I consider buying a replacement vehicle, which for me is usually about a 2 year old used car, I will be looking for a used hybrid. I will be concerned about the usual issues with used cars, i.e. hidden damage from floods or accidents, previous owner's maintenance habits, non-smoker, etc. Are there any smokers who would drive a Prius? ;-)

by yorkriver1 at 7:10 AM on 08 Dec 2007

More about biodiesel

In my comment above I wrote that biodiesel will probably not be recommended for the new 'clean' diesels. But that might not true forever. As the biodiesel industry matures, the quality and consistency is improving, so engine manufacturers might be more open to the use of biodiesel in their engines. Furthermore, we can expect that the companies will be considering material compatibility with biodiesel during the design and validation process.

One example is New Holland, which makes agricultural, utility and construction equipment. A while ago they said that B5 (5% biodiesel, 95% petro-diesel) was acceptable. Then they upped it to another level. Last week they announced that B100 was acceptable for use in their engines.

by meander at 9:07 AM on 08 Dec 2007

How about a BUG comparison Clark?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/12/7/ ...

I realize it would be hard to compare a car yet to be made, or a used car converted to plugin battery electric rear wheel drive. But I believe it would be a clear winner as far as payback from fuel savings.

Compare a nice used diesel Jetta (or new generation VW BUG)converted to plugin hybrid by adding plugin battery/electric rear axle that Audi is usin in its plugin.

Used car, 5,000, plus 10,000 for the electric rear axle conversion. It could beat the others in pure economic terms, depending on what fuel prices do. I'm thinking 5 dollar gas for the US is a couple years away.

It is already over that in Europe. So a 5 year payback for even that premium one off conversion to plugin hybrid is probable. Imagine mass production/conversion bringing the new car plugin price point to around 20k, or the conversion down around 5k. It can happen with the right incentives for consumers.

The problem with expensive, complicated hybrids like the Prius is that they are diificult and expensive to convert to plugins. And without plugin power replacing 90% of gas use, the payback time for the extra cost of a current hybrid is way, way out there. They save fuel, but not enough to take the green family economics into the positive range quickly enough.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:38 AM on 08 Dec 2007

Meander

First: The new generation of diesels will be cleaner at the tail pipe than the old generation running on biodiesel.

Next: It won't matter if you use diesel or biodiesel in the new cars because the pollutants at the tail pipe will be low for both. One of the arguments for using biodiesel disappears in a puff of exhaust.

Last: If you accept the new science showing (for multiple independent reasons) that food crop based biodiesel is producing more GHG on a lifecycle basis than diesel, then another reason to use biodiesel has evaporated.

That leaves two remaining arguments supporting industrial monocrop agrodiesel. It will lead us to national security and it is a bridge to better forms of biodiesel. Both of these arguments are pretty easy to knock down (even without the backing of science).

There is no real reason left to use biodiesel made from food crops.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:42 AM on 08 Dec 2007

hypothetical diesels

Those are the best ;-), it's unfortunate when our actual choices are so limited, and yes, marred by bad service records.

That bites on two levels. It is pretty easy for one repair to eat the net fuel savings over a year, for an individual. But on the global scale, repairs and replacement parts have their own upstream carbon impact. A replacement water pump is not "free" either in the sense of dollars, or the CO2 put out by its foundry.

(In my v-dub owning days I was the happy purchaser of a couple water pumps.)

So I say compare in the real world, with those reliable and efficient models we have around us. If you want to be a (non-bicycling, non-mass-transit) carbon king, drive a used Echo.

by odograph at 10:16 AM on 08 Dec 2007

Best hypothetical

Well odo, that would have to be a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generator backed up plugin hypercar (1200 pounds, carbon fibre safety,aerodynamics). Runs on regular or alternative fuels. Acts as a distributed power generator when it is plugged into the grid via biogas from waste fuel. 400 mpg when driving? Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/23/ ...

The new war on GHG (WW 3, it's a green peacefull war to prevent oil war) version of the WW 2 jeep. Running on the Boeing fuel cell for extending range and A123 lithium ion batteries for the first 50 miles.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:56 AM on 08 Dec 2007

10 million

10 million of these cars connected to the grid at any one time ought to be enough generation power (at say 20 kw per car) to put a serious dent into coal and nuclear central power generation.

There are 200 million cars in the US? So make only 5% of those 200 million cars with this fuel cell/biogas vehicle to grid function and kill coal? It's possible.

Because every kw of this V2G source could be matched with 3 or 4 kw of wind, solar, wave, and water power. A perfectly stable renewable grid would only need these vehicles as backup, although there would be adequate, affordable conventional power plant capacity just in case. like natural gas/biogas turbine power plants.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 11:12 AM on 08 Dec 2007

Meanwhile...in Kent

I just took my 1991 Pontiac Grand Prix to The Tire Factory to get a high idle looked at. Turns out my EGR valve was toast. Great, I thought, put in that $40 valve and put me on the road.

$500 for parts and $200 for labor I getting my kicks on Route 66. But you know what? For me, that capital investment lets me avoid the $10,000 or $20,000 loan. I was getting 20mpg with the bad valve, and now I'm going to see how much I save with the repair.

Bottom line, the difference between the best performing car and a junker like mine, isn't that big. And there are so many other factors, such as, I bike to work a lot, and I tend not to use my car that much (even though I live in "sprawl").

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 11:20 AM on 08 Dec 2007

Frankly

Dr X

I don't think V2G is really going to happen until we REALLY move forward with battery technology to the point that the battery life is gignormous.

In the meantime where battery life is a limiting factor, someone isn't going to intentionally eat up their battery just to save a few cents on their electricity bill.

Whats far more likely is that electric cars can act as a "load following buffer". So when wind power is available they will charge, and when it's not available they will stop. Similarly they will be used to balance out peak loads in the electric generation grid. (This is also known and "Demand-Response")
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/12/tesla-pgande-part ...

(Kinda similar to this)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=486

If anything electric cars will only play into feeding the grid after the battery is already no longer worth it for transportation, it's still got enough kick left in it for grid storage, if you wire up multiples of em together.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5

by GreyFlcn at 1:39 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Yep Grey

I think better batteries are on the way, but not quite up to total grid support yet. Emergencies though, yes.

I sure like the solid oxide fuel cell running on biogas or natural gas supplying power on demand to the grid though. 10 millioon 20kw units, mounted in plugin hybrids, plugged into natural gas lines could be called upon by the smart grid when needed.

Car owners would be paid per kwh produced.

Boeing seems to be getting it smaller in size, and I think that with mass production new copper/ceramic fuel cell stacks could be affordable, versus complex computerized internal combustion/electric hybrids like the Prius system.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 1:47 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Load following

With a smart grid shutting demand on and off, plus that battery or fuel cell capacity in cars being able to feed or store power. Brownouts would not turn to blackouts.

In any crisis of supply, like no sun or wind at the same time over a large region, backup from the cars would ramp up and the smart grid would shut down enough demand selectively so as not to create any crisis situations. The hospital would keep running and your home lights and lower power equipment, essential equipment all over the grid would stay on.

Only high load devices that could afford to be shut down would be. Large freezer or air conditioning systems for instance, designed to store cold during peak energy time periods.

A fixed grid that always supplies any possible demand is not necessary. This fallacy of the anti-renewable crowd needs exposure to the solar renewable light of day.

Think always predictable, safe, reasillient, variable, distributed grid.. instead of centralized GHG breathing, storm outage, overload prone, coal eating, radiation spewing monster grid.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 2:01 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Yeah

I wouldn't really put much faith into solid oxide fuel cells either... Most likely the $/KW installed capacity is just insane.

Not to mention, the whole point of a backup engine which you run less than 10 times a year is that it's supposed to be as cheap and lightweight as possible.

Only reason Boeing is thinking of using them is because they are doing AIRCRAFT. Entirely different finance model, and vehicle size than solo passenger cars. (Not to mention are you factoring in the size/cost of the reformer?)

Also it's not so much for motive energy, but merely such that they can get auxiliary electricity from onboard liquid fuels, and use the excess heat for actual heating. (Not to mention, have a ready supply of cooling reserve, since it's so cold up there)

I'm sure Joseph Romm would have more to say on the subject.

But lemme just say SOFC's aren't likely to be much of any impact except for niche applications where they need combined heat and power, and have sufficient economies of scale.
Like Aircraft, and Hotels, etc.

by GreyFlcn at 2:36 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Other valid considerations

odo wrote:

If you want to be a (non-bicycling, non-mass-transit) carbon king, drive a used Echo.

Except that the Toyota Echo was a tiny subcompact car, which won't suffice for everyone's needs. It has no side airbags and its crash test ratings were mediocre, which is a valid concern given all the lumbering behemoths on the road--unless one hopes to become "carbon king" by getting killed in a collision (if you want a fuel-efficient, low-polluting, inexpensive subcompact car with good safety features and crash test ratings, try a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris, both of which you might be able to find used).

Moreover, under the EPA's new method for calculating fuel economy, an Echo with a manual transmission gets a combined rating of 33 mpg, 13 mpg below the Prius hatchback. With an automatic transmission, the Echo only gets a combined rating of 31. Also, an Echo, with an EPA air pollution score of only 2, will put out a lot more smog-forming air pollutants than a Prius, which scores 8 or 9.5 (depending on whether it was built for California and certain other states with higher air pollution regs or the rest of the nation), or a Civic Hybrid, which scores 9 or 9.5 (ditto).

In other words, a Prius gets almost 40%, or almost 50%, better fuel economy and emits much less smog-forming air pollutants than an Echo--all while being much roomier (it's classified as a midsize car), safer, and more versatile.

Finally, buying a used Echo does nothing to support the development of new, more fuel-efficient and less-polluting vehicle technologies or to help us build toward a tipping point of social change. The only message most people get from seeing you drive an Echo is that you couldn't afford anything better because Echos, though reliable, were entry-level cars subject to cost-cutting in materials and design.

For the record, I drive a 2000 Honda Insight I bought used 3 years ago. It is possible to find a used Prius, though they were all outside my budget.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 4:14 PM on 08 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

John makes a good point

Other than Odo and myself, other human beings have an insatiable urge to seek status, approval and prestige in the eyes of their peers. In our culture most (but not all) people will buy the most expensive car they can afford. Back in the late 70s' only low-life dirt balls who could not afford anything better drove Pintos, unless you were a senior in high school, in which case a new Pinto was way cool (different peer group).

There simply are not enough high mileage car options to let people differentiate themselves and compete. We need a car that gets 50 MPG for rednecks who wouldn't be caught dead in a Prius because they have associated it with liberals and environmentalists.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 4:40 PM on 08 Dec 2007

No reformer

No reformer needed on the copper/ceria cells. Comparing Boeing's cost to mass production for car, the prototype maybe 1000 times, the aircraft version, 100 times, the eventual cost of mass produced models for cars.

No expensive alloys and only a few moving parts, under 100, on the fuel cell/turbine generator compared to 1000s of parts and computer controls for internal combustion/electric hybrids like the prius. Nope, the real cost of mass production would likely be a lot lower than the alternative hybrid drives.

And if 10 or 20 million of these replaced 200 to 400 1000 mw nukes or coal plants. Eureka! The savings of trillions from upgrading the power grid and power plant upgrades for the centralized grid model, help justify some serious subsidies for these V2G vehicles, fuel cells, and interactive smart grid technology.

Not to mention all the GHG reduction.

But nickel batteries in V2G? I doubt it would be very effective. The latest lithium ion would be ok though. Their recharging lifespans are fairly long.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 4:49 PM on 08 Dec 2007

better, wait till 2010 and buy GMs Volt

with the 40 mile range between charges (for 80% of commutes) with a tiny gas ICE to charge the battery for crosscountry jaunts. Plus if all of us teehuggers bought green cars Detroit would be reborn as a sustainable industry.

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

by dotcommodity at 5:27 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Maybe the Volt will be that car

to fill the "I'm no stinking environmentalist" niche.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:33 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Audi might beat GM

http://jalopnik.com/cars/tokyo-auto-show/tokyo-auto-show- ...

I think this Audi is better than the Volt. Pretty much no one trusts GM after the EV-1 assasination.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:35 PM on 08 Dec 2007

A diesel beetle

http://jalopnik.com/cars/tokyo-auto-show/tokyo-auto-show- ...

A front wheel drive diesel beetle like this would make a great plugin conversion with a battery/electric rear axle like the Audi has. The car could be lightened with carbon fiber body parts to compensate for the extra weight.

Somebody ought to show VW the way forward, like the calcars guys tried to do for Toyota with the plugin Prius. Maybe VW would listen? Since they already have the Audi design.

Leapfrogging the complex parallel/series hybrid Prius design for the simple parallel Audi design is a big advantage in terms of capital investment.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 6:52 PM on 08 Dec 2007

Safety

There are a few ways to look at the safety issue. Some people think the Prius is "too small" etc.

A good place to start is:

Study: No Trade-Off Between Higher Fuel Economy and Vehicle Safety

though if you more raw data, there is (pdf):

An Analysis of Traffic Deaths by Vehicle Type and Model

Safety is very much a personal issue, and beyond that a qestion of how each person relates to his car. I'm much calmer driving my Prius than I was driving previous sports cars ... or for that matter than I am now on my mountain bike.

by odograph at 4:38 AM on 09 Dec 2007

On status

I don't know you or odo, biod, so maybe neither one of you does anything out of a desire to attain status in society. I think we're in agreement that the vast majority of people do act to seek status among those whose opinions matter to them. This is as true of punks as daytraders, and of goth kids as much as sorority girls and frat boys. What differs between those groups are the characteristics and behaviors to which status is ascribed, not the desire to attain status (though the strength of that desire surely varies from individual to individual).

In my case, I don't conform much to attain status in mainstream American culture (though I do feel the pressure to make more money, buy new clothes, get a respectable job, etc.), but I most definitely want status among my friends and activist colleagues.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 11:37 AM on 09 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Re: Safety

There are always tradeoffs in engineering any car, and one needs to consider both active (ability to avoid a crash) and passive (protection during a crash) safety. The Prius hatchback has Good (the highest possible) frontal offset and side impact crash test ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety when equipped with side airbags (optional 2004-6, standard after that) and has a low rollover risk while achieving an EPA combined fuel economy rating of 46 mpg--a good balance, it seems to me. Larger, more massive vehicles--a Chevy Tahoe hybrid for example--likely will protect the occupants better in a crash, but, because of their size and mass, they are harder to maneuver when you want to avoid a crash (active). Given that I value fuel economy highly, I'd take the Prius despite the mass disadvantage.

The Echo, in comparison, never offered any side airbags, had mediocre crash test ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is tiny (you can only fairly compare the crash test ratings of vehicles of similar size and weight), and is known for not handling very well when pushed to its limits, which makes it harder to avoid crashes.

I think you make a good point about feeling safer in your Prius than in sports cars. Sports cars tend to foster driving behavior that exploits their power and handling, leading to more dangerous driving. Whatever kudos the Prius may receive, I've never heard anyone say it's a car that driving enthusiasts love.

On the other hand, it seems to me that many SUV drivers feel they are so safe in their big, tall vehicles that they drive recklessly, not taking into account the greater rollover risk, longer stopping distances, and less-agile handling characteristics of such vehicles (generally speaking).

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 11:55 AM on 09 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

The funny thing being

At least superficially theres not much difference between a 4door-Echo and a Prius.

http://image.motortrend.com/f/editorial/seven-cars-that-s ...

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/10th_Anniversary_Pr ...

by GreyFlcn at 12:33 PM on 09 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Hybrid

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

A hybrid vehicle (HV) is a vehicle that uses two or more distinct power sources to propel the vehicle such as:

An on-board rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) and a fueled power source (internal combustion engine or fuel cell) for vehicle
propulsion

Air and internal combustion engines; it is also called a bi-energy vehicle.

Human powered bicycle with battery assist

A human-powered or sail boat with electric power.

The term most commonly refers to Hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) which includes internal combustion engines and electric motors (generally powered by electric batteries, other rechargeable energy storage system

The Prius has turned out to be a very reliable car even with its complexity. You can thank Toyota's penchant for quality. Not likely to be true for all manufacturers.

John,

I was kidding. Everyone seeks status inside their peer group (and everyone denies it mostly because they are not even aware of it). You can compete with a Rolls Royce in Trump's circle, or with a low carbon footprint in an environmentalist's circle. Trump laughs at what I drive, I laugh at what Trump drives. High mileage is rapidly becoming a status symbol for an ever expanding number of peer groups. This is what we need more of.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 1:32 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Prius and Echo similar?

GreyFlcn:

Well, such things are a matter of opinion, of course, but I don't think the Prius hatchback and the Echo sedan look much alike at all, and they're certainly much different in size. The Echo was classified as a subcompact while the Prius, though having relatively compact exterior dimensions, has the passenger room of a midsize car (larger than a Corolla, but not quite as large as a Camry) and very versatile interior space because of the hatch.

Now, if you want to compare the Echo to the first generation Prius, which was sold in the U.S. from 2001-3, then I see strong similarities. The 1stG Prius was a subcompact sedan like the Echo.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 9:39 PM on 09 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Idlers

After getting my EGR valve fixed, I'm immediately seeing fuel efficiency gains. I'll report back on the total when I fill up -- I'm tracking my miles.

But I was just thinking...the main efficiency of a hybrid seems to be that it's designed to be stuck in traffic. Because it can run the electric engine, it doesn't matter if it's not moving, because it's not "idling". However, the cost of that is that you have to have two engines, a gas and an electric.

Well...I thought...first off, does idling use a lot of energy?

Yes. Almost 18% -- and maybe more depending on driving habits:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=75

So, taking a fuel efficient regular gas car, at 35 mpg, if you could eliminate the idle, as a hybrid does, you then get nearly 42 mpg -- or hydrid level efficiency (maybe more).

There are some esoteric ideas:

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=75

But as one of the comments in the above article states, if we could just build a switch that turns the car off when its at a stop sign, we'd get the same efficiencies...maybe the same as a hybrid, but without all the complexity.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 10:00 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Re: Idlers

jabailo, you wrote:

But I was just thinking...the main efficiency of a hybrid seems to be that it's designed to be stuck in traffic. Because it can run the electric engine, it doesn't matter if it's not moving, because it's not "idling". However, the cost of that is that you have to have two engines, a gas and an electric.

Actually, no, I don't think that's correct. The main efficiency gain of a hybrid comes from the fact that the electric motor provides a significant portion of the energy needed to move the vehicle by capturing, storing, and then using energy generated during braking and while cruising that goes to waste in conventional cars. Some hybrids--those classified as full hybrids--even move using the electric motor and battery pack alone under certain circumstances, such as stop-and-go traffic. Full hybrids include all Toyota hybrids, Honda's 2nd-generation Civic Hybrid, Ford's Escape and Mariner Hybrids, and General Motors' upcoming 2-mode hybrids (hybrid versions of the Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon/Cadillac Escalade and the Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra pickup).

Mild hybrids, in contrast, derive a significant amount of their motive power from the electric motor and battery pack but cannot be driven on the electric motor alone. Mild hybrids include the 1st generation Civic Hybrid as well as the discontinued Honda Insight and Accord Hybrids.

Then there are vehicles which do receive a slight acceleration boost from their electric motors and battery packs, but their systems are so weak that the Union of Concerned Scientists classifies them as "hollow hybrids." Vehicles that fit this description include the Saturn Vue and Aura Greenline variants and the new Chevy Malibu "Hybrid."

It is true that meaningful fuel-savings can be achieved solely from a Stop/Start feature that shuts the engine off at stoplights, stop signs, and in stop-and-go traffic, then automatically restarts the engine when you are ready to go. Some automakers plan to introduce so-called "microhybrids" (I don't think that name is accurate) that have the Stop/Start feature but do not derive any motive power from their electric motors. Such systems could be added to pretty much any model for about $500 if I remember right.

You also wrote:

So, taking a fuel efficient regular gas car, at 35 mpg, if you could eliminate the idle, as a hybrid does, you then get nearly 42 mpg -- or hydrid level efficiency (maybe more).

One problem with that: The only vehicles currently being sold new in the U.S. that achieve a City EPA rating of 35 mpg or higher are the Prius and Civic Hybrids, and it's in the city that the fuel economy benefits of the Stop/Start feature occur. The conventional car with the highest City mpg rating is the Toyota Yaris at 29 mpg, followed by the Honda Fit and Toyota Corolla at 28 mpg (all equipped with manual transmissions). And, once again, it's important to keep in mind that the Yaris and Fit are itty-bitty subcompacts and the Corolla is a compact, significantly smaller than the Prius hatchback (though roughly the same size as the Civic Hybrid). The Yaris, Fit, and Corolla also appear to me to be less safe in a crash than the Prius and Civic Hybrid based on their crash test results and, in the case of the first 2, their much smaller size and lower weight.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 12:05 PM on 10 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

So how does

So how does a Diesel Mild Hybrid with Stop/Start compare to a Full Gasoline Hybrid.

by GreyFlcn at 1:09 PM on 10 Dec 2007

n

GreyFlcn,

Stop/Start would make little difference on a diesel, because diesels -- being non-throttled engines -- idle efficiently.

by Nucbuddy at 1:16 PM on 10 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Manual stop/start

If I know I'm going to be sitting at a red light for more than 60 seconds or so (love that DC traffic!) I just turn off the engine myself. I wonder how much of a difference that makes. Certainly when I do drive, I would say about 1/4 of my commute time is spent stopped at red lights.

by eriqa at 1:52 PM on 10 Dec 2007

Fuel cells

Bear in mind that solid oxide fuel cells (like molten carbonate and phosphorous cells) are poorly suited to pushing a car around. They tend to be large, heavy, hotter than hell (1000 C), and very slow to respond or follow loads. (I know these things are true for molten carbonate units; I'm pretty sure they are also true for the other technologies I mention.) As far as I know, PEM is the only fuel cell technology that is suitable for automobile use. And "suitable" here is a word used judiciously.

These big, hot, slow-responding cells are great for stationary applications, especially cogeneration in buildings. They might even be appropriate for ships and trains, which tend to have a fairly flat and consistent power demand (but what do you do with the excess heat?). Aircraft? Color me skeptical -- weight is at such a premium in that context. But for cars, forget about it.

by GreenEngineer at 4:29 PM on 10 Dec 2007

eriga

These guys did a test and improved gas mileage about 20% by shutting down for two minutes each time:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842 ...

Most cars need a surge of gas to get started or to accelerate via an accelerator pump. They also have to use gas to turn an alternator to recharge the power in the battery used to turn the engine to get it started.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 6:06 PM on 10 Dec 2007

Re: Mild diesel hybrid or gasoline full hybrid

GreyFlcn:

I'm not aware of any comparisons between a mild diesel hybrid and a full gasoline hybrid like the Prius. To my knowledge, there aren't any of the former on the market yet, though both BMW and Daimler have plans to introduce such a system on several of their models.

BMW has also begun offering the stop/start system by itself on at least one model, their 1 Series, and they have plans to introduce it in other models--but only in Europe as of now.

One obstacle to using a diesel engine in a hybrid system is cost: The air pollution control systems necessary to clean up diesel exhaust sufficiently to meet U.S. regulations (particularly California's) are expensive, so putting that additional cost on top of the additional cost of the electric motor and battery pack may prove cost-prohibitive, at least for most buyers.

Several automakers have plans to start selling so-called "clean" diesel vehicles in the U.S., including Honda, Nissan, VW, Audi, BMW, and Daimler. To my knowledge, none of them have plans to use a clean diesel engine in a hybrid.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 6:40 PM on 10 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

Re: Do-it-yourself stop/start

Regarding the fuel consumption effects of turning the engine off yourself with the key and restarting it when you're ready to go: My understanding is that it will save fuel to shut the engine off and restart if you expect to be idling for 30 seconds or more, which is applicable to situations like drive-through lanes and waiting for trains to pass. I'm not sure it would make sense to turn the engine off quite frequently, day-after-day, in stop-and-go traffic, though. The increased wear on the starter motor, shortening its lifespan (and maybe other components involved in starting, too), might outweigh the fuel savings. Vehicles that are equipped with automatic stop/start systems are engineered for frequent restarting.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

by John Fish Kurmann at 6:52 PM on 10 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.