LC and Prius = about the same to mother Earth

[gil12]

This group calculates "dust to dust" cost per mile to design, too up, build, run, maintain, and dispose of vehicles. The
cheapest is .46 dollars a mile. The LC is about 3.35, the Prius is about the same at 2.87! (I suspect all those batteries are to blame.)

- Gil
Look at lines 101 for the Prius and 273 for the LC.

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/auto...nd%20sorts.xls

[hks3sgte]

Disposing of the batteries must be worse than anything else.

[gil12]

Originally Posted by hks3sgte

Disposing of the batteries must be worse than anything else.

Actually they say (in a document I found somewhere on their website) that making the batteries is a huge deal - including the freight from canada to wales to china and then back to us. Apparently purifying the nickle is a nasty process. I'm certain that disposing of them is also messy.

[M John Galt]

The rating is for an inefficient gasoline Landcruiser. One could expect the diesel to be half that.

[medtro]

Originally Posted by gil12

Actually they say (in a document I found somewhere on their website) that making the batteries is a huge deal - including the freight from canada to wales to china and then back to us. Apparently purifying the nickle is a nasty process. I'm certain that disposing of them is also messy.

Wondering what the disposal fee is going to be.

[NMuzj100]

Figuring that if you buy a new Prius ect.. then you have just added another vehicle to the planet. If you don't demolish your trade-in then someone else will drive it until it wears out. Basically from the moment the vehicle was built it was destined to use a certain amount of gasoline over it's life cycle. Just because you have traded it in doesn't mean that it's not in the environment.

I think the long term value/economy of hybrids is still an open question. Not sure about the batteries in the hybrids but I know that Lead-acid batteries are one of the most efficiently recycled products made so recycling the larger battery packs may not be too tough a task.

[M John Galt]

The energy to create a vehicle is approximately 1/3 of the amount of energy it will use in it's life
buying a good used vehicle and getting the most out of it is almost always better for the planet

[NMuzj100]

The Dust-to-Dust study is certainly interesting reading ... but seems mostly to be a case of too many data points obscuring the dominant factors.

Interesting points that stood out to me ...

- they assumed a lifecycle of 109k for the Prius (based on owner demographics not any mechanical assumptions) but 301k for the Land Cruiser (highest I saw in the study) and ~231k for the LX470

- total lifetime fuel costs for the LC = $71,414.24

The whole premise of breaking down the total energy use by model was off base when a major factor in that energy use was determined by owner demographics rather than any specific design or production aspect of the vehicle. This is obvious when you see identical vehicles (LX and LC) "score" so much differently. The fact that older drivers don't repair minor sheet metal damage and that younger driver's neglect routine maintenance were credited as "energy savers" to models favored by those groups.

The conversion of "Total Energy Used/mile" into a dollar figure calculated at gasoline prices is worthless. By their calculation my 100 at 119k miles would have cost $398,650 so far and will cost $1,008,300.50 in energy before the end of it's life cycle.

This study has several useful ideas but is basically misleading as presented. The useful ideas I saw ...
- New disposable 1st gen technology of any kind is inherently wasteful (Prius' or Videodiscs) because it will have a short useful life compared to a product based on proven/effcient/mature tech
- A Prius that isn't driven much doesn't save much gas and many of them are purchased as a status symbol by households that have larger than average fleets of cars
- Demographics and use of the vehicle dominate the total energy expenditure on a given vehicle. Size and class matter but so do other factors.
- "Total Energy" calculations can get complicated real fast (they attempted to calculate the energy expenditure of gasoline tanker maintenance operations)

[gearguywb]

I guess I can chime in as I just bought a Prius last week. Agree, I added a vehicle to the planet. Did not get rid of the 100 and will not. I have to think that the 50+ miles per gallon that I achieved in the Prius (and I will be driving a lot for work) has to be better for everyone than the 14 mpg that I was getting in the 100.

[NMuzj100]

The point of the D2D eval is that it may not be better if it took so much more energy to produce and eventually recycle the Prius that their net energy use for the total package of the two vehicles is actually closer than it may appear based on mpg figures.

That said, There appear to me to be some flaws in the analysis.

[socalsuv]

This is a very interesting topic. I've read studies that say energy expenditure during production is approximately 10% of the expected lifetime energy consumtion of a vehicle. They based it on an average lifespan of 17 years consuming 750 gallons per year. It worked out to be 27 barrels of oil to produce that one vehicle. This figure could be underestimated by the fact that the plastics in the vehicle are all derived from oil as well...I'm not sure if that was included in this study.

There may be many situations where buying the new efficient vehicle does make sense from a "green" perspective. It seems to me that the point of all these studies is to focus on the fact that we're an extremely consumptive society and that there are factors that most don't consider when making purchase decisions.

[hoser]

My NSX scored among the worst... 4.99! But it gets 21 mpg and aluminum is easily recyclable!

Also might be worth reading...

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr...r_vs_prius.pdf

[EdsCruisin]

Of course we all know that studies such as this are goal oriented - meaning that the author had a point to prove and found the data that could be manipulated and massaged to validate the pre-determined conclusion. That is not to say that all studies are biased, but they typically are, because somebody with a mission of one sort or another had to pay for the time, materials and effort to produce the study.

That being said, IMHO, we should use common sense. A large vehicle made of heavy metals, plastics and animal skins, uses a lot of resources, in the form of raw materials, processing, shipping weight and mass. Whether it has a longer life or not is important too, but obviously a small, simple car has a lower up-front cost and possibly uses less resources over it's lifetime, and then maybe it uses more. If you use an appraiser's method of comparing apples to apples, you will likely be surprised by some of the costs/adjustments associated with different vehicles.

When it comes down to it, usage styles should dictate the appropriate vehicle for an individual, rather than propaganda. For example, it is more efficient to put my whole family in one vehicle than two, or have to take two trips for common errands. Do I leave a small carbon footprint? Not with my LC, but I can compensate in other ways. How many of you leave outside lights on at your home all night? Or do you own a business that leaves lights on all night?

[NMuzj100]

Originally Posted by EdsCruisin

Of course we all know that studies such as this are goal oriented - meaning that the author had a point to prove and found the data that could be manipulated and massaged to validate the pre-determined conclusion.

I don't know that.

The fact that the Prius needs a new set of tires every 15k instead of the standard 40k is a good example of useful information that comes from a study like this.

That Hybrids as a group came out poorly in the study doesn't mean that the author(s) massaged the data to make them look poor. SUVs came out bad too, does this mean that SUVs were targeted as well ?

One thing I noticed was that Total Energy seemed to track well with Total cost.

[pint]

So if I drive 2 LC's do I get any extra points since they go for 301K before they need to replaced? Don't think I can drive a hybrid. Been thinking more about high mpg cars, but keep coming back to buying a 2nd newer LC?

[hoser]

I bet you these 4,700 Mazdas would have scored much, much lower (numerically higher) on the list.

A Crushing Issue: How to Destroy Brand-New Cars - WSJ.com

[roscoFJ73]

Ive long suspected that these comparisons were faulty. I know the Prius' good points are over rated ,but I doubt they are as inefficent as they say

http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integr...r_vs_prius.pdf

I suspect their surveys are playing to a certain demograhic to make themselves feel good

[hoser]

Excuse me, sir, the 70 section is back that way. Welcome to the 100 side.

I agree, the comparisons are faulty and I would not make any decision based on that "study."

[roscoFJ73]

Originally Posted by hoser

Excuse me, sir, the 70 section is back that way. Welcome to the 100 side.

I agree, the comparisons are faulty and I would not make any decision based on that "study."

The crappiest thing about the Prius is its crappy suspension. I had a Prius cab drive me to the pub last month,worst suspension on a new car ever IMO

I nearly bought a 105 series dual cab at an auction and missed out by a $100 but the dream is still alive