What's the Greenest Car on the Road?

[bluedigger]

"Environmentalists have flocked to the Toyota Prius and other hybrids with the intention of "doing their part" to combat global warming by reducing their carbon footprint. But according to the its "Dust to Dust" study, CNW Marketing Research insists that hybrids aren't the most energy-efficient vehicles on the road, not by a long shot.
In the newest version of the study, CNW says it measured the cradle-to-grave energy cost of each vehicle model, from the first CAD drawings, through manufacturing, all the way to final recycling and disposal. CNW has distilled those factors down to a single figure for individual models, the total energy cost of a vehicle per mile driven, ranging from a low of about 55 cents to a high of $11...

...Improbable as it may seem, front-runners in the study's rankings also include the Ford Ranger and the Jeep Wrangler."

http://translogic.aolautos.com/2010/10/21/what-s-the-greenest-vehicle-on-the-road/

From now on, I'm calling my Jeep "Bunny Hugger"! :rofl:

[Swede]

1. Probably the Green Hornets'

:shrug:

[bluedigger]

2. The Black Beauty?

[HopeHoops]

3. The neighbor's old Ford Taurus. Yep. It is green. REALLY green. Not pretty, just green.

I've got a Sable wagon that's about the same age but it is silver. We call it "The Bullet" because that's what my late father-in-law called it when it belonged to him.

[LeftinOH]

4. This one:

[rug]

5. Yay! I'm calling my Wrangler the Rainbow Warrior.

[AngryAmish]

6. I always thought turbodiesels were the greenest

[bluedigger]

21. I don't know about that...

My brothers uncle in law has a 4cyl turbodiesel Scout. It's one of two known to survive, I think, out of four original. Rare, but not exceptionally valuable. But it's orange.

[TZ]

7. "CNW's conclusions were "lame scuttlebutt masquerading as science."

I think that about sums up what I think about this "study". Oy I hate crap like this.

[bluedigger]

8. I know there is a lot of rancor about their findings.

But you have to start somewhere. If there are more "valid" studies of vehicle life cycle costs I would be interested to see them.

[TZ]

24. Just from the little I read

It sounds like cherry picked and manipulated data to make a political point. And believe me, I'm no stranger to that--when you empahsize some non standard type of data (like this cost analysis) its usually done because its giving better results/findings for a point. Like someone who has a vested interest in people buying their not too traditionally green types of cars. Since having something labelled "green" is kind of faddish now, I'm not surprised to see stuff like this. Color me extremely skeptical.

[bluedigger]

29. You are probably right.

I am skeptical too. I just think its worth looking at All assumptions. And when I see a trade group vs. a MNC it makes me curious where the truth lies. :shrug:

[flvegan]

9. Do they take into account how the individual drives?

An aggressive driver behind the wheel of a Prius is far less efficient than a driver of a BMW M3 (as shown by Top Gear).

As for construction, I'd have to guess that the more a car is made of carbon fiber, the better.

[bluedigger]

13. I knew you'd show up, lol!

:hi:

Driving style? I don't think there is any way to account for this. You have to assume an average driver, same payload, similar usage, terrain, climate, etc... in order to attempt any comparison at all, don't you? Without certain fixed input values, the studies results would have no validity (which of course is what we are really debating) and be truly meaningless.

I do understand your point about there being more appropriate cars for different drivers - that's why we demand the variety. But they would have to determine the best cars for passive and average drivers as well as aggressive ones, and I don't think that would be too Top Gearish...:boring:

Carbon fiber is very high tech and resource intensive. I know you are a fan of the exotics - haven't there been some all carbon fiber chassis? I'm not sure I would say they are ready or viable for mass production yet. :shrug:

[flvegan]

16. I agree.

To really figure in "green" as it relates to mpg/emissions you'd need to have an individual (or 10, or 100, whatever the test demands) drive each car for say a week, the same route, carrying the same payload, in the same weather, at the same time, etc. Little things like air temp (not only better for the engine when it's cool, but also maybe no a/c running) and the amount of gas in the tank and how new the oil is can all come into play. Seriously, the guy commuting to work in rush hour in a Jetta TDI is going to get the same mileage as the guy commuting at 4am in a Lamborghini.

As for the carbon fiber chassis, I believe Porsche built the first all fiber chassis several years ago. Many of the exotics incorporate some/all now into their models, and I believe it's the standard for F1 cars (though I may be wrong there). Mass production? Sure, if we want an $80k Hyundai Accent.

Obviously, and I know this is a touchy subject for lots of folks, any argument about how "green" a car is can be torn down with whatever downside there is to that same car. Both electric and petrol (including diesel) still involve utilizing dwindling natural resources. Where do the cars (or their parts for that matter) get shipped in from? What resources are used to build them in the first place (those factories need electricity too, and what kind of pollution control does the airbag factory in China have?).

The debate over "what is the greenest car?" just needs to be over. Once everyone tossed the idea of viable hydrogen powered transportation, the race was dead.

[bluedigger]

18. I'm with you.

The poster in the forum I found this on claimed that the study even factored in the commutes of the factory workers!

To me driving "green" is behavioral, as much as technological. If I minimize my consumption as much as practical, then I am a "green" driver.

I think that the study is really attempting to point out that easy assumptions about individual vehicles are foolish. It really is about the driver and their needs, and if they have made a good choice. Of course, Hummers and Excursions and Escalades suck!:rofl:
(Unless you own a ranch...:blush:)

[jmowreader]

34. Yes, it's the standard for F1 cars

There ain't exactly a CHASSIS on one of those things, though, unless "the entire car" counts as chassis.

I wouldn't call carbon fiber all that green, though. They start with a plastic called polyacrylonitrile, which is made from oil. It's heated until everything but the carbon is burned off, which takes energy. After weaving it into cloth, it's then got to be impregnated with epoxy (nothing else works), and that's made from oil. So...

[krispos42]

36. It's generally assumed that "greener" cars use less fuel per mile driven

And with modern emissions controls, that bears a pretty much relates directly to pollution output.



But the design and tooling costs are pretty much fixed, and there's a lot of steel and a lot of machining to do for production set-up.

[zipplewrath]

10. Unbalanced analysis

They fold in the development and tooling impacts over only the vehicles sold to date. So "newer" designs are automatically overburdened as compared to older models that have sold more vehicles. As an enhancement, they ought to compare only the "recurring" costs.

But much of that is very silly. The purpose of a hybrid isn't to address what they are measuring. Hybrids are a "stepping stone". Develop the technology to have electrically powered cars. The gas motor is a "crutch" so to speak. Once it is no longer needed, it will just be gone. Until then, it handles the situations that haven't been solved yet. But as each problem is solved, it can go directly into production. Companies and investors only like to pay to develop technologies that can be "on the market" within 2 years. Longer development cycles involve much more risk.

As we get more and more "plug in hybrids" we will see a decreasing need for the gas motor. At some point, many people will not feel the necessity of having one. Then compare the "carbon foot print" of an electric to a regular automobile.

[hayu_lol]

11. How many new coal-fired generating plants will be needed...

to keep the electrics charged up? Have to charge those to the 'green' footprint.

[zipplewrath]

27. Go ahead

The coal fired plants work at much higher temperatures than your car engine. Energy efficiency is a direct function of combustion temperature. Those coal and oil plants are vastly more efficient in a carbon foot print sense than your tail pipe, especially considering they don't "idle".

[bluedigger]

15. Unbalanced interpretation perhaps.

They are attempting, I believe, to present a picture of current anticipated costs of individual vehicle models now existing. There is no way to predict future sales of existing models, with yet to be introduced competition in an uncertain future. Furthermore, to excuse development costs of new products and technologies is unfair to vehicles such as the Wrangler with a long history.

You seem to want to debate the technologies rather than the actual vehicle costs. The trend away from gas and to electric is clear. I don't disagree with any of your points on that.

[zipplewrath]

28. There are better ways to handle the development burden

Instead of presuming that no more vehicles would ever be sold, it would be better to generate some "typical" development burden charge for newer vehicles, that presume some sort of life cycle for vehicles of that size and class. That would still favor "established" vehicles in that ultimately they would begin to actually exceed those "averages". Furthermore, the ones that do tend to exceed them would come from sizes and classes, so even their "presumed values" would be an advantage.

The way they do it now, ANY new vehicle, regardless of technology or performance, would be KILLED by the development costs for the first couple years.

[bluedigger]

31. But isn't development part of the problem?

I always thought that the anti-American car mantra was "They build for three year obsolescence". Short life cycles driving consumerism. Now the current rapid development cycles are trumpeted for bringing new and needed models rapidly to the market. I know cars actually last far longer than they used to, but it seems as if the development process really hasn't changed, and it is costly. What is needed is more long-term designs, like the VW Bug, and Jeep, for example. I am not convinced that the high tech approach is necessarily the only way to go, because technology has a tendency to become rapidly obsolete at the cutting edge...

Your idea reminds me of that new baseball statistic that measure a player vs his avg. replacement value or somesuch. Interesting stuff.:thumbsup:

[jobycom]

19. I'd say biased, agendaed analysis.

Your points are right, and add to that the fact that the Prius hasn't been out long enough to have any "cradle to grave" stats on it. Prius motors get about half the wear of regular engines because they only operate half the time, meaning the Prius will probably last much longer than, say, a Jeep Cherokee, and with much less wear that burns oil and reduces efficiency. My ex's 2004 Prius has 150K or so on it, and it gets the same mileage it did when I bought it. The brakes have been changed once on it, because the braking system uses the engine more than the pads, and we can change the oil at 10K miles or more with no real sign of it being dirty. I doubt the study took all that into account. And in the early days there was a fear that the batteries would give out after a few years, but that's turned out to not be true, either.

The study had an agenda, I think.

[bluedigger]

22. No argument there.

I always say "Follow the money". Somebody "trade association?" paid for the study. The Prius is moving up the rankings regardless. I drove a rental for a few days and didn't care for it. But I did get "used" to it. Meh. So who's funding the study? Big oil?

[NickB79]

12. Ah, good ole CNW and their BS "studies"

This is the same research company that claimed the Hummer was greener than the Prius, but fell apart after a little digging was done: http://green.autoblog.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

How did they arrive at such a claim? Well, it helps to (illogically) allocate the Hummer a 300,000 mile lifespan, and only 100,000 for the Prius, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[bluedigger]

17. Thanks for posting Toyota's response to their previous study!

They seemed to have some good points, but I saw nothing about Hummers in your link. Even so, I have seen a lot of Hummers and Prius' on the streets of New Orleans, and I'll take the Hummer on the over, and I hate Hummers! :rofl:

[jobycom]

25. Yeah, that's ridiculous. Priuses are used by couriers and taxis and often get well over

300K miles. The gas and electric motors only run half the time, so both have much longer lives than the average car.

[Xithras]

26. The previous study was correct at the time.

The original study includes pollution generated by the development and production startup for that model. It's not a measure of the individual car, but of the relative pollution of that model in its entirety.

There are five times as many Priuses running around today as there were in 2006, so those high startup numbers can be spread over a larger number of vehicles, lowering the overall pollution level for the model. The article acknowledges this.

And the lifespans they used in the original were based on the manufacturers own claims. Toyota's original claims for the first-gen Priuses were for a 100k lifespan. They really didn't know how the batteries would hold up in diverse real world conditions, so they covered themselves by lowballing the original battery life claims. The study could only use the numbers that Toyota provided them.

The new article takes all of this into account, uses Toyota's current numbers, and the hybrids score much better as a result.

[bluedigger]

30. Good points, Xithras.

It is easy to be unreceptive to the new data based on prior experience with the study, but the Prius is moving up the scale, based on the factors they chose to include. If those include information provided by the manufacturer, that would have to be the best data available. We all know what common sense tells us, but it is hard to make the data fit our facts sometimes...

[siligut]

14. Tesla...want

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster OK, here: http://www.thegreencarco.com/

[spinbaby]

20. This one

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:2wJ-3nsgFSrK1M:&t=1

[bluedigger]

23. That's a twofer!

No need for costly bridge infrastructure when your car floats! :rofl:

[Bucky]

32. This one's greener.

It even breathes oxygen back out into the environment.

[hunter]

33. Citroen 2cv recycled tin can car.

http://www.naturalcollection.com/products/shared-earth/citroen-2cv-recycled-tin-can-car

This and a pair of shoes.

[flvegan]

35. Actually, the greenest car is called simply...Geoff.

a/k/a the Hammerhead Eagle iThrust.