New study: Full-size SUVs consume less energy over lifetime than hybrids

[The Straight Story]

New study: Full-size SUVs consume less energy over lifetime than hybrids

Posted Apr 1st 2006 11:33AM by Chris Paukert


The results of a new study conducted by CNW Marketing Research Inc. is sure to generate some arched eyebrows. The firm's report stems from their two-year effort to collect and analyze data on the "energy neessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage." CNW then assigned their findings a new comparative metric - "dollars per lifetime mile" - or, said another way, total energy cost per mile driven.

The findings? America's most expensive vehicle in calendar 2005 was the Maybach (presumably a 62), tallying up at a staggering $11.58/mile. The thriftiest? Scion's boxy xB, just $.48 cents/mile.

But here's where it gets interesting: CNW's findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model. It judged showed that the Honda Accord Hybrid rang up an Energy Costs Per Mile of $3.29, while a gas-powered Accord was significantly cheaper at $2.18/mile. The study concludes that the average of all 2005 U.S. market vehicles was $2.28/mile.

The reasoning goes that hybrids use up more energy to manufacture, as well as consume more resources in terms of the assembly (and eventual disposal) of things like batteries and motors. By CNW's reckoning, the intrinsically lower complexity of, say, a Hummer H3 ($1.949/mile) actually results in lower total energy usage than any hybrid currently on the market, and even a standard Honda Civic ($2.42).

While the study's findings don't take issue with what vehicles are more financially economical to own (read: those with better mileage), it does pose some interesting questions about total energy usage in hybrids.

http://la-auto-show.autoblog.com/2006/04/01/new-study-full-size-suvs-consume-less-energy-over-lifetime-than/

Well, I guess I am off to buy a hummer now....not.

[shenmue]

1. Sponsored by a *marketing firm*

Not a group of scientists or engineers.

Makes you think.

[The Straight Story]

5. One thing I do wonder about though

is TCO (total cost of ownership). One of my engineers has a pria (I think it is called). His cost was roughly 25k. Factor in interest and that goes up a bit over the loan time.

I bought a used Jeep for 4k from a trusted friend (and it has run great for 2 years with only problems being muffler went bad and steering fluid leak which I am fixing today). Over 5 years (length of engineer's loan) he saves more on gas but overall is out more money.

The other thing of interest is we were discussing this about 3 weeks ago (hybrids, gas, etc and so on) and he mentioned with better gas mileage he is now traveling more because he can get further for the dollar. While he has saved a ton on driving to work he said it was not as much as he had budgeted because now he finds himself traveling more to do things.

I must say, I love the new hybrids and if I can afford one will get it (trying not to go in debt for another auto as I am clear on all mine now - the jeep and my mini-van which I got when mom passed away as she did not need to drive it much anymore...).

I guess my point is that they are not for everyone - I do hope though we go to all hybrids of some sort over the years. Drive the costs down, save on fuel usage, and make life generally better.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Hired by Hummer? or SUV's for Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way?

[wordpix2]

24. if you're hired to market it, you're working for SUV makers or whomever &

not for the consumer.

[rman]

2. Next up: smoking is good for your health.

[GeorgeGist]

15. It is cheaper in the long run...

on health care costs.

[wordpix2]

25. LOL

[cornermouse]

3. I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale at a basement

bargain price. Want the opportunity to buy some of it?

[w13rd0]

4. As with alternative energy...

...in a capitalist society that emphasizes and rewards consumption, market economies apply. As the vehicles become more popular, they will become cheaper to manufacture. This "study" is based on erroneous assumptions. Early adopters of any new technology pay a premium to be early adopters. That's the way the market works. What this study tells me is that these researchers are anti-American, since they obviously despise the way our economy functions.

[The Straight Story]

6. Then too they like us to be dependent on oil more and more

Hopefully some people in congress and auto industry will get some guts and make it a law that all vehicles are some form of hybrid - america and americans win, and so does rest of world.

As a guy who sometimes drives across the US (2264 miles one way) I can attest to better mileage and how it affects things. In my old cavalier I made the trip cheap, with my jeep it would kill me. I still have my records of previous trips - cheapest I did was in the 90's, $88 in gas one way (from OH to CA).

[ClintonTyree]

7. If this isn't an April Fool's release.........

it should be. I don't know what sort of "science" was behind this study but it's shaky at best. Just a way to justify the purchase of a gas guzzling SUV to the freeper types, as if they need justification. The world in their toilet.

[Ian David]

9. Did they figure in the high rate at which Hummers are vandalized? n/t

[glitch]

10. Or all the energy it takes to flip them off? It all adds up. nt

[leveymg]

11. There's always an energy trade-off with new vehicles. But, at a

certain point in its life, replacing a vehicle with higher MPG car or truck makes sense. The problem is that average vehicle MPG today is no more than it was in the late 1980s, and in many cases has actually declined.

That's why it's important for EPA to start raising fleet total MPG standards again, and to raise the gas-guzzler tax.

Hummers? Draft 'em all into the Army, along with their Republican owners. Peace would break out all over.

[napi21]

12. Even IF this group tried to do a fair study, I think it nearly

impossible to have enough information to accomplish that. The hybrids are relatively new to the market, so how much information is available on "life expectancy"? The hybrid is obviously going to cost more to produce because they are not yet as widely produced as gas powered vehicles. There is much higher costs involved in engineering and design BECAUSE they are still evolving.

[Dawgs]

16. I agree with you more than anyone.

They are including the cost to manufacture, which will be significantly more with a product that is new. The equipment, techniques, and procedures of the car manufacture have been designed around the building of a gas-powered vehicle. It has been perfected because of years of work and practice. When you introduce new production procedures it sometimes takes a long time to establish best techniques and practices.

This study looks like a propaganda piece by promoters of large SUV's. This study is bogus.

[wordpix2]

22. good points

[ThoughtCriminal]

13. I would have to see how they are calculating

The energy cost of manufacturing. If they assume that the cost of en erg produced by a powerplant is the same as the cost per erg produced by gasoline, the numbers are way outside reality.

A missing comparison - lifetime energy cost of a SUV vs a non-hybrid sedan.

[farmbo]

14. "Intrinsically lower complexity of the Hummer..." They're kidding. Right?

While the study shows none of its raw data-- a dead giveaway that it's industry funded junk science--it bases it's audacious conclusions on the "lower complexity" of the Hummer.: i.e., since the Hummer is using Nineteenth century technology (instead of Twenty first century hybrid technology), they don't have to factor any costs of R & D into the comparison.

Sound the Bu**s%!t claxons!!

[happyslug]

17. Lets look at the life history of a typical SUV

A suv is purchased new by a Yuppie (Prior to the mid-1980s Suburbans and large vans were purchased as large hauling vehicles for lager than average families, then for people who wanted to haul large boats and/or trailers, it is only in the mid-1980s that people started to buy SUVs as their personal car, justified by the above rationales but after 1980s decreasingly used either way).

Anyway, today (and since the 1980s) SUV are purchased by Yuppies as a statement they had made it(just like the purchased of the McMansions and other signs of wealth). After the SUV is paid for in about 4years it is sold used. Here it it is purchased by a second buyer who wants to use it for hauling, generally people but also items. Thus under this second owner the person per mile (Unlike the first owner the Second owner tends to use it hauling more than himself). This continue as the SUV is sold a Third or fourth time (The Fourth owner tend to be Mexico or other third world country when the engine can be used with heavier grade of oil AND prolute more than in the USA).

Thus it is possible OVER the life-time of a SUV for it to be used to haul a large number of people and thus improve its cost per mile.

A Secondary group of SUV buyers are rural Companies (Oil rig workers for example) who want an four wheel drive vehicle for use on dirt roads to haul people from one place to another (In the oil industry from one well to another to work on them, in the Railroad industry form one work site on the Railroad to another, through the Rail roads tend to use large two wheel drive vans for this work, but in area of the railroad IS NOT paved road accessible Suburbans are used). After the company is done with the SUV after 3-4 years it is sold and follows the same history as SUV sold by Yuppies
These SUVs will start out with a higher person per mile hauled than the SUV owned by Yuppies and stay steady on that basis when it is sold.

On the other hand the Hybrids have a HUGE problems with their batteries (Which must be recycled which will increase the costs of usage). Furthermore who will buy the Hybrids as the car ages? Remember right now Toyota says it will replace the Betteries during the warranty time but what about afterward (i.e. to the Second and third owners 5-10 years from now?). Presently Second and Third owners buy used vehicles for they can work on them themselves (and thus cut costs of repairs permitting them to keep the cars running at much lower cost than if the work was done by the dealers). The problem is in the hybrids the BIG cost is NOT new Engines or Transmissions but the Battery Pack. Will these be able to be repairs by the do it your selfer? IF NOT then the car is unsellable and must be scrape after 4-5 years (unlike the 10-15 years cars are used today through ALL of its owners). Given that the main repair will NOT be rebuilding an engine or rebuilding a transmission but replacing the used up Batteries, I can see the cost of the Hybrid having to be spread over 4 years instead of 10.

Now I do not want to sound like I an Anti-Hybrid, but after four years (and the expiration of the Warranty) will the Hybrids be re-sell able as a used car (at about $5-6,000 Dollars) or will they be worth Scrape value (i.e. $25 Dollars)? This is the big question and that depends on how easy and cheaply it will be to replace the Batteries when the Warranty on those batteries had expired.

Thus for this group all you have to do is concentrate on the re-sellability of SUV till they are 10-15 years old against the possibility of Hybrids being Unsellable once they are 5 years old. Thus you TRIPLE the usage by the SUV over the Hybrid and come out with the results they do, but still does NOT address the issue, what will happen when the Hybrids are 5-10 years old, what will they market value be? We will only know it when the cars are five years old the original buyers want to trade them in on a newer hybrid.

[spanone]

18. It's got to be an April fools joke. This is total bullshit.

[radwriter0555]

19. And aspartame isn't cancer causing either.

I got a bridge to sell.

[Deja Q]

20. Cost of battery, the power of the battery... replacement of the battery.

The article is still skewed, and deliberately so. Hybrids' use of oil-based gas is much lower. But if we're talking "cheap energy" as en entity, hybrids are far from cheap.

I won't buy a hummer either.

Maybe a decent gas-only vehicle that gets 30MPG next time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I have a Scion Xa and I love it

So far, it seems very economical.

[wordpix2]

23. how many mpg does your Scion get? My 5 spd. Civic gets 39 mpg on hwy &

after 61,000 mi, so far I've only paid for reg. oil changes and new tires.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. 30 to 35 mpg

But I haven't had it on the highway yet. I am anxious to see what kind of mileage I get when I go to Crawford next week.

[DS1]

26. April Fools. anyone?

[dansolo]

28. So which is it, energy cost or monetary cost?

"Energy usage" and "Energy Costs" are not the same thing. Look at the conclusion: "CNW's findings indicate that a hybrid consumes more energy overall than a comparable conventionally powered model." But that is *NOT* what the rest of the article is talking about. Classic misdirection.