Are hybrids worth the extra cost?
Quote: treetopbuddyThe hybrid/green cars require more BTU's to produce that a Hummer. Shipping batteries half the way around the world in barges is not real efficient.
Say what? Any modern car has parts coming from dozens of countries. And marine shipping is the most efficient there is. Water transport is responsible for approximately 75% of world's annual ton-miles, but only 6.8% of emissions and fuel use.
The amount of fuel it takes to ship a hybrid car's battery by sea 3,000 miles between China and US is the same that it takes to drive the resulting car 12 miles, or a normal car 8 miles.
It often takes more fuel to deliver cargo between two factories in the same state by truck than it takes to ship it all the way to/from overseas.
Doesn't seem to be adding to them.Quote: treetopbuddyJust trying to freshen up discussions
Quote: P90Say what? Any modern car has parts coming from dozens of countries. And marine shipping is the most efficient there is. Water transport is responsible for approximately 75% of world's annual ton-miles, but only 6.8% of emissions and fuel use. The amount of fuel it takes to ship a hybrid car's battery by sea 3,000 miles between China and US is the same that it takes to drive the resulting car 12 miles, or a normal car 8 miles. It often takes more fuel to deliver cargo between two factories in the same state by truck than it takes to ship it all the way to/from overseas.
I'm very impressed. It's nice to see a response to gibberish with cold hard facts.
While it is true that some of the environmental savings of driving electric cars are lost because electricity must be produced (often using coal), simple logic tells you that it should be more efficient to generate energy at a single location, than for a two ton vehicle.
The problem is that batteries until recently cost $1,000-a-kilowatt-hour to purchase plus the 12 cents per kilowatt hour to run them. Electricity has a gasoline gallon equivalent of 33.40 kilowatt-hours. I don't think that it will be cheaper to drive an electric car or a hybrid than a really efficient gasoline powered car for decades.
Quote: WizardThis has been touched on before but has anybody ever done a study comparing the total waste and damage to the environment of electric vs. fossil fuel cars? I'm sure electric car drivers award themselves lots of green points for not consuming any gas. However, that electricity has to come from somewhere. Most of it probably came from burning coal -- and lots of it.
It's a fascinating question and still no consensus. The two biggest criticisms of the electric vehicle's green credentials are battery manufacturing and electricity source (coal).
A 2010 report from the American Chemical Society notes that the EV battery's copper and aluminum components are actually a bigger burden on the environment than the battery's lithium components. (Of course, gasoline powered cars contain plenty of copper, too.)
The coal question is a bit more subjective because the answer depends upon where you live. According to Tesla’s own emissions calculator, if you’re driving your Model S in West Virginia—where the power mix is 96 percent coal—you’re spewing some 27 pounds of CO2 in a typical 40-mile day, comparable to a gasoline Honda Accord. Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio aren’t much better. On the other hand, if you’re charging your Tesla in California, where natural gas supplies more than half the electricity—or, better yet, Idaho or Washington, where hydroelectricity reigns—your per-mile emissions are a fraction of that amount.
As for the ridiculous claim that an EV is as bad for the environment as a gas-guzzling Jeep Grand Cherokee or even a Toyota Highlander, that analysis focuses solely on the emissions from the Cherokee's tailpipe. But Jeeps don't run on raw crude oil! Jeeps need unleaded gasoline, and refining raw crude oil into gasoline is a dirty business.
Quote: reno
The coal question is a bit more subjective because the answer depends upon where you live. According to Tesla’s own emissions calculator, if you’re driving your Model S in West Virginia—where the power mix is 96 percent coal—you’re spewing some 27 pounds of CO2 in a typical 40-mile day, comparable to a gasoline Honda Accord. Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio aren’t much better. On the other hand, if you’re charging your Tesla in California, where natural gas supplies more than half the electricity—or, better yet, Idaho or Washington, where hydroelectricity reigns—your per-mile emissions are a fraction of that amount.
Even in Washington there are coal plants. Any additional load, such as EVs just ensures that these plants are used. Untill there is a surplus of green power all EVs should be considered coal powered.
As for the ridiculous claim that an EV is as bad for the environment as a gas-guzzling Jeep Grand Cherokee or even a Toyota Highlander, that analysis focuses solely on the emissions from the Cherokee's tailpipe. But Jeeps don't run on raw crude oil! Jeeps need unleaded gasoline, and refining raw crude oil into gasoline is a dirty business.
By the same criteria all environmental costs for the generating and tramsmitting of electricity must be included. This makes both sides very subjective and subject to manipulation.
Quote: reno
As for the ridiculous claim that an EV is as bad for the environment as a gas-guzzling Jeep Grand Cherokee or even a Toyota Highlander, that analysis focuses solely on the emissions from the Cherokee's tailpipe. But Jeeps don't run on raw crude oil! Jeeps need unleaded gasoline, and refining raw crude oil into gasoline is a dirty business.
This can be dug down forever. For example, if you live in an area with hydro-power you are still doing great damage to the environment because when you hook it up to the grid because you are displacing power usage and the utility must now replace the power you have used with probably coal-fired electricity so some other yuppie AGW-believer can power up their indoor compost maker.
The point that is trying to be made is these electric cars are sold as "enviro-friendly" when they are no such thing. They are sold that because simpletons look at it and say, "see, no tailpipe!" And the whole time they drive around acting like they are somehow better than me.
5 Year Cost To Own
Quote: AZDuffmanThey are sold that because simpletons look at it and say, "see, no tailpipe!" And the whole time they drive around acting like they are somehow better than me.
Yes, an ugly clunky Nissan Leaf will appeal to a self-righteous treehugger trying to save the dolphins.
But a Tesla Model S? For god's sakes, it can do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds! This is not a vehicle intended for vegan hippies shopping for hemp birkenstocks at the thrift store. This is a vehicle intended for wealthy Wall St hedge fund managers who love speed and new technology.
Quote: renoYes, an ugly clunky Nissan Leaf will appeal to a self-righteous treehugger trying to save the dolphins.
But a Tesla Model S? For god's sakes, it can do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds! This is not a vehicle intended for vegan hippies shopping for hemp birkenstocks at the thrift store. This is a vehicle intended for wealthy Wall St hedge fund managers who love speed and new technology.
I concede that an electric motor is a more efficient design than a gasoline engine. The electric motor makes the most torque at 0 rpm while the gas engine varies but is usually 2,000 or more. I heard many the story from the elders about how fast a streetcar could move, or a crane could lift.
But the problem is like any form of energy, electricity does not like to be sored. That is the downfall.
As to the Tesla I think the fund manager is looking for trendy and gadget-things as much as speed, as you mentioned with tech. I still wonder how long before Tesla stock gets back to reality.
Quote: AZDuffmanI still wonder how long before Tesla stock gets back to reality.
Some statistics from June 2013: in California, Tesla is outselling Buick, Lincoln, Porsche, Volvo, and Cadillac—and far outsold Jaguar and Land Rover combined. And the long-established, full-line luxury brand Infiniti only posted just 51 more registrations in the state than Tesla.
Tesla currently has no showrooms in Europe (well, except for Norway.) By the end of 2013 Tesla expects to have retail outlets in Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Stuttgart, Berlin, Paris, Cote d'Azur/Provence, Stavanger, Vienna, Amsterdam, Basel, Geneva, Rotterdam, Arnhem, Stockholm and London. Sounds like explosive exponential growth to me. Perhaps Tesla will be an embarrassing flop in Europe. But in the land of Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Porsche and German freeways without speed limits... Tesla should fit right in.
Quote: AZDuffmanI still wonder how long before Tesla stock gets back to reality.
Yeah, Tesla's stock is faddish and likely overpriced.
One explanation for the hype is the exponential growth of electric vehicle sales. The current numbers are barely a drop in the bucket for a nation with 15 million new cars & trucks sold annually. Of those 15 million, less than one percent are EV. And that's the point: there's huge potential for market share growth as EV technology gets better & cheaper.
Quote: renoYeah, Tesla's stock is faddish and likely overpriced.
One explanation for the hype is the exponential growth of electric vehicle sales. The current numbers are barely a drop in the bucket for a nation with 15 million new cars & trucks sold annually. Of those 15 million, less than one percent are EV. And that's the point: there's huge potential for market share growth as EV technology gets better & cheaper.
Electrics and hybrids actually are flattening out. What is going to happen is anyone who wants to be "green" will soon own one. Until electrics can be charged in less than 10 minutes they will be a no-go for most people.
Weirdly, I had no plans of purchasing a Hybrid when I was car searching in June. I just happened to take this one for a test drive and I loved it. I find most hybrids to be ugly. Prius? Yuck.
This doesn't feel like a Hybrid. Drives like a regular car. The best mileage I've gotten so far was like 50.1 mpg for a couple hour trip to our lake house.
Since I bought it in June I've only seen 3 other ones on the road. I like that it's rare. I see at least 3 Priuses a day.
Quote: renoSome statistics from June 2013: in California, Tesla is outselling Buick, Lincoln, Porsche, Volvo, and Cadillac—and far outsold Jaguar and Land Rover combined. And the long-established, full-line luxury brand Infiniti only posted just 51 more registrations in the state than Tesla.
California might have a tax credit for Teslas. Also, I'm pretty sure they are exempt from all diamond lane laws, and may even automatically qualify for carpool bridge toll exemptions.
Hasn't the price of a Tesla dropped somewhat significantly over the past few years? A few years ago, they had one on The Price is Right for something like $108,000; a few weeks ago, they had one for around $78,000.
BTW, I have been driving a Ford Fusion Hybrid since mid-2009, but not as much for efficiency or "green" reasons as because we need to start supporting alternative fuel technology - fracking notwithstanding, I don't think the oil supply is going to last too much longer. Somebody needs to get serious about solar/electric plane engine technology.
Quote: AZDuffmanElectrics and hybrids actually are flattening out.
Can you back this statement up with a source?
According to Forbes: for the first half of 2014, over 54,000 electric vehicles moved off the lot, compared with almost 41,000 for the first six months of 2013. In other words, sales increased by over 30 percent. In particular, sales soared in May & June 2014, showing over a 50% gain (almost 24,000 vs. under 16,000) over May & June last year.
Quote: renoCan you back this statement up with a source?
According to Forbes: for the first half of 2014, over 54,000 electric vehicles moved off the lot, compared with almost 41,000 for the first six months of 2013. In other words, sales increased by over 30 percent. In particular, sales soared in May & June 2014, showing over a 50% gain (almost 24,000 vs. under 16,000) over May & June last year.
Here is one recent article.
% gains mean little on such a low base. Add in that a large part of the sales of electrics are in California which mandates car makers to move a set amount of electrics. So if all sales go up the dealers will have electrics forced on their lot which they will do anything to move. So some unknown but positive part of sales is because a car maker(s) took enough of a loss that some customer found the deal too good to pass up but otherwise would have bought something else.
Quote: AZDuffmanSome of us were saying all of this before the government funded a study.
They gave zero information on the measured "full life cycle" of internal combustion cars. Only that EVs have cost measured from manufacture to death and it's not zero emission. That doesn't really say much, since one wants it directly compared to ICE.
Quote: AZDuffman
Thanks for the Time magazine article.
Quote: AZDuffman% gains mean little on such a low base.
Not sure I agree. The bottom line is whether sales in 2014 have increased over 2013, and whether that increase is substantial or merely negligible.
Total U.S. plug-in vehicle sales Jan 1-Sept 30, 2013: 68,439
Total U.S. plug-in vehicle sales Jan 1 -Sept 30, 2014: 87,337
Where did I get these figures? (68,439 & 87,337) From a link embedded in the Time magazine article, the same article which claims that EV sales are flat! (Facepalm!)
Note that Chevy's sales of the Volt are down... way down. Tesla's sales are trickier to interpret because while U.S. sales have fallen somewhat, they've been diverting inventory to accommadate waiting lists in overseas markets (read: China.) Tesla will aslo be closing their factory for a couple weeks to retool it in preparation for their new SUV due out in March 2015. Unlike Ford or Toyota with numerous factories around the world, Tesla is stuck with just one manufacturing plant.
Quote: renoQuote: AZDuffman
Thanks for the Time magazine article.
Not sure I agree. The bottom line is whether sales in 2014 have increased over 2013, and whether that increase is substantial or merely negligible.
Total U.S. plug-in vehicle sales Jan 1-Sept 30, 2013: 68,439
Total U.S. plug-in vehicle sales Jan 1 -Sept 30, 2014: 87,337
Where did I get these figures? (68,439 & 87,337) From a link embedded in the Time magazine article, the same article which claims that EV sales are flat! (Facepalm!)
Low volume markets have wide swings when you make it a %. Add in hybrids and such sales are flat. And low. Tesla is making a large part of their profit due to crony regs that let them sell credits to other automakers. Which makes me restate, an unknown but positive number of EV sales are "forced sales" due to same mandates.
Autoline on Youtube covers this fairly regular, which is where I am getting most of my info from. Been watching a few months and they keep reporting what I figured for years. EVs and Hybrids got a bump from greenies who wanted them. Once that market got saturated they became a harder sell. Only so many people will pay thousands more to "go green." Not that they are really "greener" in the first place.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhich makes me restate, an unknown but positive number of EV sales are "forced sales" due to same mandates.
Yes, this is true for most of the EV models for sale in California. Fiat loses $14,000 for every 500e they sell in California, but the state government is forcing them, they have no choice. Honda has no intention of making a profit on their Fit EV, it's merely a compliance car. Same with Mercedes' B Class Electric Drive. Those manufacturers aren't serious about electric, it's a joke.
It's not a joke to Nissan. Nissan's goal with the Leaf is profit. “We are getting there,” Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said on the question of LEAF profitability. “Are we amortising and deprecating everything we have spent? No. But if you look at the margin of profit — the direct cost of the car and the revenue of the car — we are getting into positive, which is good for this technology.”
What does this mean in real terms? To date, Nissan and its alliance partner Renault have invested more than $5 billion in electric car technology in order to lead the plug-in car marketplace, including the building of specialist facilities for the manufacturing of electric car battery packs and motors and equipping factories for electric vehicle production. While Renault-Nissan’s total electric vehicle program has not yet shown a return on its investment as a whole, the LEAF as a model is now profitable. In other words, Nissan is no-longer making a loss on each and every Leaf it makes, although there’s some hint that the wider electric car investment from the alliance will take longer to pay dividends.
Quote: reno
What does this mean in real terms? To date, Nissan and its alliance partner Renault have invested more than $5 billion in electric car technology in order to lead the plug-in car marketplace, including the building of specialist facilities for the manufacturing of electric car battery packs and motors and equipping factories for electric vehicle production. While Renault-Nissan’s total electric vehicle program has not yet shown a return on its investment as a whole, the LEAF as a model is now profitable. In other words, Nissan is no-longer making a loss on each and every Leaf it makes, although there’s some hint that the wider electric car investment from the alliance will take longer to pay dividends.
Carlos has TB when it comes to electrics. As long as his board believes in him that if fine, maybe he will make a go of it. The guy did save Nissan. OTOH the head of Fiat essentially said he didn't want to sell one more unit than he had to.
I see two maybe three electric models at best reaching the status of profitable. I do not see how the market gets to 5% of total sales. And I think what Nissan has achieved is dangerous. My guess is they will catch the common disease where they pushed the old tech to its best possible, then a new tech comes in after it and just crushes the old, an any investment in the old will never be recovered.
As always I will say, until you can charge for 300+ miles in less than 5 minutes the EV is a no-go for almost everybody.
Quote: AZDuffman
As always I will say, until you can charge for 300+ miles in less than 5 minutes the EV is a no-go for almost everybody.
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/batteryswap
Full Charge in 90 Seconds
Model S is designed to allow a fast battery swap, exchanging your battery for a fully charged battery in less than half the time it takes to refill a gas tank. This offers Model S drivers another, even faster option when recharging while driving long distances.
If properly executed, it could be great - if the swapping stations can carry a sufficient inventory of charged batteries that were always in excellent condition.
The pessimist in me thinks the batteries on hand would quickly become junk, though.
Quote: Dalex64I don't think I like the battery swap idea.
If properly executed, it could be great - if the swapping stations can carry a sufficient inventory of charged batteries that were always in excellent condition.
The pessimist in me thinks the batteries on hand would quickly become junk, though.
TESLA has shown it can be done......but so far has not opened a station where you can do it. Its all about getting credits for for zero emissions vehicles ... these credits are where their profits are....selling them off
Four months after Tesla showed how quickly it could swap a battery, the California Air Resources Board said it was going to reevaluate how it hands out Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits. Specifically, it was going to revise the "fast fueling" incentives that would grant an automaker seven ZEV credits to refuel to 285 miles with full pack in under 15 minutes – about the amount of time it would take to fill up a gas powered car (say, an Audi A8).
The current Model S gets five credits with its ability to charge with a Supercharger. Add in the capabilities of the battery swap, and Tesla gets another two credits per car sold, for a total of seven. Then it sells off those credits to automakers that aren't holding up their end of the Golden State's green-vehicle bargain.
http://jalopnik.com/where-the-hell-are-teslas-battery-swapping-stations-1585415460
Quote: coilmanhttp://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/batteryswap
Full Charge in 90 Seconds
Model S is designed to allow a fast battery swap, exchanging your battery for a fully charged battery in less than half the time it takes to refill a gas tank. This offers Model S drivers another, even faster option when recharging while driving long distances.
This is not a charge, it is a swap. I find it impractical that there would be many places to perform such a swap. Then there is that the swap is being done on a brand new car. Run the thing in the winter a few years. In the weather. You name it. Then see if those robots can just take the bolts on and off. What happens if you break a bolt? Your car might well be stuck. A dozen other things could go wrong.
IOW, Tesla wins the Rube Goldberg award for refueling.
Quote: pacomartin2014 Ford Fiesta (4 door) SFE FWD 1.0 L, 3 cyl, Manual 5-spd, Turbo MSRP starting at $13,865 requires $6,500 in fuel for 5 years. No hybrid is going to cost less over a 5 year period to run.
Yes. And obviously, no one drops $80,000 on a Tesla to save $6,500 on gas.
The real question is whether anyone buys a $30,000 Nissan Leaf to save money on gas. I suspect that the answer is no. Leaf sales have increased even while gasoline prices have plummeted. To be specific, Leaf sales in the U.S. are up 36% in 2014 over 2013. In September alone, sales were 47% higher than in September 2013. Which makes me wonder: how many more EVs would Nissan sell if gas were $4 or $4.50 or $5 per gallon?
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
Quote: renoYes. And obviously, no one drops $80,000 on a Tesla to save $6,500 on gas.
The real question is whether anyone buys a $30,000 Nissan Leaf to save money on gas. I suspect that the answer is no. Leaf sales have increased even while gasoline prices have plummeted. To be specific, Leaf sales in the U.S. are up 36% in 2014 over 2013. In September alone, sales were 47% higher than in September 2013. Which makes me wonder: how many more EVs would Nissan sell if gas were $4 or $4.50 or $5 per gallon?
I don't think that a higher gas price would make much of a difference at all. You can save money by buying a less expensive subcompact of the same size. And the gas subcompact will have far more versatility.
An EV is not a rational purchase at this time. Neither are many cars. A Mustang buyer buys because it is a sporty car. Leaf buyers want to think they are helping the environment. If they are or are not matters not, what matters is they think they are. A sale is made in the mind, not on the showroom floor.
Quote: AZDuffmanLeaf buyers want to think they are helping the environment.
Sure, Leaf customers are buying them for the environment. But most Tesla customers are buying them for performance-- speed, torque, handling, etc.
Quote: renoSure, Leaf customers are buying them for the environment. But most Tesla customers are buying them for performance-- speed, torque, handling, etc.
Quite probably. I freely admit an electric motor gives better performance than a gas engine. It is just that until recharging is solved to the point it can be done as fast as gassing up EVs are going nowhere beyond a niche.
Quote: pacomartin2014 Ford Fiesta (4 door) SFE FWD 1.0 L, 3 cyl, Manual 5-spd, Turbo MSRP starting at $13,865 requires $6,500 in fuel for 5 years. No hybrid is going to cost less over a 5 year period to run.
The Ford Fiesta is not a cheap car. It's actually an expensive car.
The December 2014 issue of Consumer Reports has a lengthy article rating vehicle reliability. For repairs & reliability, the Fiesta didn't just score bad, it scored really really bad. It was literally off the charts-- it came in dead last in its category, and second to last out of the 100+ models that C.R. rated.
Toyota's Prius scored well above average for repairs, and the cheaper Prius C actually scored even better than the regular Prius.
Repairs, tow trucks, time wasted in the mechanic's waiting room-- none of this is free, Paco.
Quote: renoThe Ford Fiesta is not a cheap car. It's actually an expensive car.
The December 2014 issue of Consumer Reports has a lengthy article rating vehicle reliability. For repairs & reliability, the Fiesta didn't just score bad, it scored really really bad. It was literally off the charts-- it came in dead last in its category, and second to last out of the 100+ models that C.R. rated.
I can't say anything about the current model, but I bought a Fiesta several years ago(2011?) because it appeared to have the lowest cost to own. I've been very happy with it, though I drive less than many people. Idk, maybe I'll have serious problems down the road.
Are the alleged "benefits" really worth the trade off?
I think not.
Quote: AZDuffman% gains mean little on such a low base.
Quote: AZDuffmanLow volume markets have wide swings when you make it a %.
I was thiinking about these statements when I read that EV sales in China jumped exponentially from 600 cars in January 2014 to 27,000 cars in December 2014. In my mind, that jump is extraordinary. In your mind, it's negligible. Every new technology (VCRs, DVDs, HDTVs) starts at 0 sales on day 1 and goes up from there.
Quote: AZDuffmanI see two maybe three electric models at best reaching the status of profitable. I do not see how the market gets to 5% of total sales.
Total U.S. electric car sales in 2014 comprised a mere 0.73 percent of the entire auto market. It's such a tiny number. People like myself who think that EVs are a great idea are mostly living in our own little bubble. We're completely out of step with reality: 99.27% of the cars sold in the U.S. in 2014 had a gas (or diesel) tank. We're delusional.
But then I read that the world's largest corporation (by market cap) plans to sell an electric car in 2020, which is only noteworthy because the world's largest corporation doesn't sell cars. Apple sees a tiny number like 0.73 percent and they see potential for massive exponential growth.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs always I will say, until you can charge for 300+ miles in less than 5 minutes the EV is a no-go for almost everybody.
"Almost nobody?" Huh? For a family with 2 cars, it's not necessary that both cars have 300+ range. One car (EV) for local trips around town. One car (gas) for that 700 mile trip to grandma's...
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't think that a higher gas price would make much of a difference at all.
I agree that this purchase is a lifestyle decision.
Quote: AZDuffmanAn EV is not a rational purchase at this time. Neither are many cars.
If you were totally unconcerned with how you appear to other people, and were just concerned with minimizing your impact on the environment, you would drive a subcompact gasoline car, and give money to the electric generation company that was using the greenest techniques even if it cost you a lot more per kilowatt.
Quote: pacomartinIf you were totally unconcerned with how you appear to other people, and were just concerned with minimizing your impact on the environment, you would drive a subcompact gasoline car...
I'm always surprised when people make this one-size-fits-all blanket statement, because its accuracy is entirely contingent upon where you live. Some U.S. states generate most of their electricity from coal. Some don't.
The biggest state in the nation consumes more electricity generated from wind (25,356 GWh) than from coal (23,193 GWh). Add up all of California's renewable energy sources (wind + solar + hydro + biomass + geothermal = 78,688 GWh) and coal's impact on California's electric grid isn't so great.
Maybe I'm cheating by choosing California (and not West Virginia) as my example, but since the Golden State is the largest market for electric vehicles, it seems like a fair example.
Quote: pacomartinIf you were totally unconcerned with how you appear to other people, and were just concerned with minimizing your impact on the environment, you would drive a subcompact gasoline car...
Paco- Do you have any data to back up this statement?
From Nissan's website:
Quote: NissanNissan uses the lifecycle assessment (LCA) method to evaluate and comprehensively assess environmental impact in all stages of the vehicle lifecycle, from resource extraction to production, transport, customer use and vehicle disposal... The company’s calculations show that over its lifecycle Nissan LEAF produces CO2 emissions up to 40% lower than gasoline-powered vehicles of the same class.
Obviously, Nissan is a biased source, since their goal is to sell Leafs. (Curiously, their own data does not reflect positively on all those Altimas, Maximas, Sentras, Pathfinders, etc they sell!) Nissan insists that their methodology has been endorsed by 2 separate third parties:
Quote: NissanIn 2010, this assessment was certified by a third-party LCA organization, the Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry....In December 2013, TUV Rheinland in Germany also certified Nissan’s LCA methodology. This certification is based on ISO 14040/14044 standards and guarantees the soundness of the environmental impact calculations in Nissan’s product LCAs.
Researchers at UCLA came to a similar conclusion:
Separately, the Automotive Science Group compared 1,300 car/truck models sold in the U.S. and Canada and determined that the Leaf had "the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any model year 2014 automobile available in the North American market (with minimum four person occupancy)."
Is anyone having more thoughts about hybrids, now that we are in the future? Wizard?
An interesting externality of efficient cars and alternative energy, is that their popularity decreases the cost of traditional modes of consumption. I have a car about as old as this thread that gets ~32mpg and am happy. I like the KISS principle, and the added complexity of a hybrid car just adds more risk of costs later in the car's life. But I do appreciate other people using hybrids and driving down energy costs :-P
Welcome to the forum! I bought my current car in 2012, when the SUV hybrids were premium-priced here and at a backlog, so I didn't really consider one. I also am a strong believer in having a fair amount of power under the hood for safe driving; I find that a lot of times having some acceleration and pep will get me out of an ugly situation (as opposed to braking). So I probably won't go hybrid until they make a car with both some size and some extra horses. Are there any particular models that have some acceleration at highway speeds?
Quote: clempops10Hybrids are the future and use almost no gas in city driving.
Welcome.
This may be true for plug-ins and short trips, most hybrids though are not yet at this stage. I would say though do not confuse "saving gas" with "saving money." Look at the entire life-cycle cost.
The dirty little secret remains that it is marketing. When GM started with hybrids they made the "mild hybrids" on larger vehicles that bumped mileage by 3-4 mpg. The press gave a big "meh" and said how great Toyota was with their 50 mph Prius. But it saves more gas getting a SUV getting mid-teens up by 4 mpg than to get a subcompact from 30 to 40. Once again a gullible USA public missed the point and efforts to save gas went to more of the wrong places.
Quote: SkittleCar1All this while driving 80mph. So, in my opinion, hybrids are overrated.
Since this was all highway driving the hybrid drive probably had minimal to no impact, and in fact the weight of the battery and said drive probably cost you 1mpg or so. I'm not saying, I'm just saying........
And I live in the Adirondack park. Hills everywhere! ;)
Quote: ncfatcatI started driving for UBER and bought a 2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid. I've put 30,000 miles on it in a year. No problem yet except you have to get an alignment every 20,000 miles and you have to use low rolling resistance tires to keep the mileage up. The gas engine cuts in when you step on the gas or go up a hill so the acceleration and torque are fine. I am currently getting 44 mpg in the city and 42 on the highway, which I consider pretty good considering I usually have 1-4 passengers. The odd thing is that last winter when it got cold my gas mileage went down. I think it's because the gas engine ran more to supply hot water to the heater core. Great technology. There are generator brushes in the front wheels and when you brake or coast you are recharging the battery. Toyota guarantees the battery for 100K mile and battery costs have dropped from $9,000 when hybrids first came out to $1,500 now. So it's basically an engine job every 100K or so.
Great update, thanks.
For price comparion, starting prices from http://www.toyota.com/camry/#!/models :
Camry LE: $22,970
Camry LE Hybrid: $26,790
Camry XLE: $26,150
Camry XLE Hybrid: $29,980
