You'd think so, but yet another reason to buy a Prius is that the 2004-2009 model is substantially the most reliable car in Consumer Reports surveys. Appliance on wheels indeed.

 Reply

Your first logical error here is that, because Consumers Reports generates these data by problems reported over time, newer vehicles have smaller numbers, and thus less statistical reliability in their assessments.

Your second logical error, is assuming that anyone on JALOPNIK cares that much about Consumers Reports data. We are a quite DIFFERENT population. Rather than NOT buy a notoriously unreliable vehicle, we are actually LIKELY to buy it, fix it in our own special way, and drive it proudly, to display our car geek credential.

 Reply

The key point is all studies show around 90% of the lifecycle pollution from a car occurs in its operation (see footnotes on p.4 here), so if you made a 60 mpg car from lead, acid, and dolphin foreskins it could still be a net win for the environment. The fuel efficiency gain over comparable new cars is real, therefore prima facie a hybrid is better for the environment. The burden of proof is on people who claim otherwise.

Those European diesels people keep mentioning are smaller and slower than these hybrids. What is your point exactly?

 Reply

To put it succinctly, you are being a hybrid booster, and not presenting the honest cost of their implementation. Since you appear to be trying to use science to make your points, I figured that i would point out some of your errors. (And yes, I am a scientist by profession, but a hoon by avocation.)

"..Nobody claims hybrids are green to make..."

Of course not, because it is common knowledge that copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, etc., etc. mining, smelting and recycling is toxic. It uses toxic ores, toxic reagents, and produces tons and tons of toxic waste, only some of which can be recycled. Yet you seem to think that doing a lot more of this is a GOOD idea. Illogically.

"..it's based on environmental devastation in Sudbury 30 years ago and neglects to point out the chrome in other cars is full of nickel..."

Actually, the medical research on the biological effects of ore mining, smelting, and environmental contamination, or direct poisoning, by heavy metals, is extraordinarily more complex than a single instance, however grim, of poor decisions that people made on metals processing, and their longitudinal effects. You again misrepresent the facts.

"..The key point is all studies show around 90% of the lifecycle pollution from a car occurs in its operation..."

This is simply incorrect. Even looking merely at the article you reference, it only claims 80-90%, ON AVERAGE of the lifetime pollution OF ICE CARS IN PRODUCTION comes from their operation. Your errors here are multiple.

First, any hybrid, with batteries containing any of the currently available technologies, will produce huge pollution in production of the battery packs, which can only partly be ameliorated by intelligent design of recycling facilities. This will up the percentage of total lifetime pollution coming from manufacture of hybrids to a point that not ALL vehicle will rationally benefit from this design. Only larger vehicles, with very very long operational lives, could benefit in toto from this type of design. In other words, the era of disposable, built in obsolescence, and buying new cars every 4-10 years, simply CANNOT occur with hybrids. Paradigm shift. Look out manufacturers, this is NOT gonna be helpful to you. You need rapid cycling if you are building cars based on 'style' and changing it every year or two.

The second error here, is taking lifetime studies based on older technology as indicative of the realities of new fuels, new production, new construction, and changes in patterns of purchase. It's a brave new world. None of the patterns that have pre-existed this era are going to apply here. How they change, and the magnitude of that change, are not really clear yet. And if you are honest, you know this to be the case.

The third error you make with this statement, is that you assume that energy storage via battery is superior to storage via some alternative storage methodology. The jury is still out on that one. There may be some other kinetic recapture method that works more efficiently than electrical regenerative braking, such as flywheels, compressed air, etc, that combined with an engineered liquid fuel, will produce less total environmental impact.

"..The fuel efficiency gain over comparable new cars is real, therefore prima facie a hybrid is better for the environment.."

No, it's not real. See above. Fuel efficiency per se is only PART of the total environmental impact. And frankly, it's not the most important. It's not the one we even really care the most about.

We use MPG of gasoline as proxy for deciding WHICH CAR USES LESS RESOURCES; both individually and as a society. With other fuel systems, the equation is more global, and simple MPG is inadequate as an indicator of that usage.

"..The burden of proof is on people who claim otherwise.."

No, no it's not. The burden of proof, is on manufacturers who wish to sell these machines. If consumers choose to buy one, then they buy the argument that hybrid is green. And in some circumstances, they really are the better choice. However, they come with a downside. And that IS NOT being discussed. Consumers without multiple degrees may not be able to sort it all out. But they will still be stuck with that downside once they buy the cars. And we all will be stuck with that downside, if the total number of these units goes so high that the mining, smelting, recycling etc. start to degrade our environment.

I emphasize these points, not because I don't like hybrids. I have mentioned that I think they are appropriate in stop and go traffic in larger vehicles. But there are other times that direct drive with engineered fuel ICE's or diesels or turbines are going to be better.

"..Those European diesels people keep mentioning are smaller and slower than these hybrids..."

Yeah. That Audi R15 TDi sure is slow, isn't it?

That's why it keeps winning all the races.

"..What is your point exactly..?"

That you are showing a bit less that stellar intellect here.

And by the way, thanks for the troll.

It's helped me make a few points.

 Reply

Disclaimer: I don't drive a hybrid, or a diesel. I need an AWD car, and the Ford Escape hybrid doesn't do it for me and vw.com won't configure a Jetta TDi Sportwagon 4Motion. I'm not that excited about hybrids compared with the Volt or a battery-electric vehicle with a range-extender diesel running on algae. But right now the Prius is a flat-out amazing achievement, and the hate for it at Jalopnik is unjustified and on shaky foundations.

it is common knowledge that copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, etc., etc. mining, smelting and recycling is toxic. It uses toxic ores, toxic reagents, and produces tons and tons of toxic waste, only some of which can be recycled. Yet you seem to think that doing a lot more of this is a GOOD idea. Illogically.

All of those materials already go into internal combustion cars. The increase in materials production (which we agree is BAD) for a hybrid version of a vehicle is primarily the additional 500 pounds or so of weight to make a NiMh (some day Lithium) battery pack, plus electric motors, controllers, etc.

The reason it's a GOOD idea to make more pollution and add those 500 pounds of materials into a car is that the increased MPG reduces the lifetime emissions of the car, by literally TONS. Many tons less greenhouse gases vs additional localized pollution from materials production. As you yourself say We use MPG of gasoline as proxy for deciding WHICH CAR USES LESS RESOURCES; both individually and as a society.

People have tried to factor in the increased materials pollution of a hybrid. From a WSJ article:

"The Prius, a hybrid gasoline-and-electric car that averages 42 miles per gallon, has a lifetime carbon footprint of 44 metric tons, according to the updated computer model done for Toyota by Kreider & Associates, a consultant based in Boulder, Colo. The Corolla, a small sedan with a conventional gasoline engine rated at 29 miles per gallon, has a footprint of 64 tons."

Now carbon footprint is itself a proxy for overall pollution. But even if you, apparently, think greenhouse gas pollution (a global problem) is somehow less bad than toxic materials production pollution (sucks to live near the plant if environmental laws are weak), bear in mind that emitting CO2 by burning fossil fuels also creates a lot of "conventional" toxic byproducts. They're both dirty businesses.

So I repeat, the burden of proof falls on people denigrating hybrid technology to show the pollution from the extra bad materials is worse than the immense lifetime CO2 reduction. You haven't cited a single study that does this. Handwaving about huge pollution in production of the battery packs and hidden and direct costs associated with the hybrid just isn't compelling. About 12 more MPG over the lifetime of the car is!

I don't understand what you're saying about disposable cars and obsolescence, it seems it applies to any vehicle and a high-MPG car is probably going to remain on the road longer than a gas guzzler.

we need to concentrate more on increasing algae/sewage biodiesel... Turbodiesels will readily be able to be converted to almost any engineered fuels.

I completely agree, gasoline-powered hybrids are far from the ideal. Battery electric vehicles are the most efficient, but it's hard to see a battery technology that will get me 200 miles over mountains, so the range-extender engine needs to move past gasoline.

Thus, a turbodiesel has a higher likelihood of decreasing CO2 output than hybrids, in sum, over their likely lifespan.

Maybe. Buying a car that gets worse mileage now because you might be able to fill it with a better fuel is a leap of faith. If you're the one driver out of a hundred who can run off restaurant grease right now, you're my hero and I love you.

And the warranties don't mean that [batteries] will last 100K miles.

Yes they do. Toyota isn't stupid, they're not taking a $3000 warranty charge on many Prius. The link I provided cites a tiny warranty rate, and there are anecdotal reports of them lasting way beyond that.

The "smaller and slower" European diesels I referred to are the ones that get better MPG than the Prius, sorry I was unclear. Claiming the Prius, a mid-size peppy car that gets 50MPG, is fail! because a European 1.1 liter 3-door hatchback gets better MPG is unfair. I'd still love to see small Euro diesels sold in the USA; the flipside of "It's unbelievable the highest MPG car in America is a mid-size" is "Why the hell can't buyers opt for a smaller slower car and get even better MPG?"

Regards!

 Reply

You write:

"..But right now the Prius is a flat-out amazing achievement..."

This is true. The gas/hybrid type vehicle which Toyota, Honda, and Ford have put into production is in fact the best alternative for people that have to commute long distances, in stop and go traffic. You know, the kind of traffic in most metro areas these days.

But they are far from ideal. For the reasons which I have already illuminated. And therefore, they shouldn't be sold with such glowing language. At best, they are a stopgap solution.

"..the hate for it at Jalopnik is unjustified and on shaky foundations..."

There's not hate here, just intelligent, educated discussion about gas/hybrid vehicles' many problems and disadvantages. That you choose to see this as hate merely identifies you as irrational, and incapable of civilized debate, without resorting to accusations of base emotion. Also, your inablity to see this simple point, appears to be symptomatic of a more general inability to objectively evaluate these technologies, which makes your opinion about them little better than a sales brochure. In other words: disposable.

I wrote:

"..it is common knowledge that copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium, etc., etc. mining, smelting and recycling is toxic. It uses toxic ores, toxic reagents, and produces tons and tons of toxic waste, only some of which can be recycled. Yet you seem to think that doing a lot more of this is a GOOD idea. Illogically..."

To which you replied:

"..All of those materials already go into internal combustion cars..."

True, but in nowhere near the volumes. As a simple exercise to illustrate my point, open any hard rock mining text, and look at how many tons of rock have to be mined to obtain a single ton of nickel, or copper, or chromium. Every pound of these metals we avoid using, translates to TONS less rock waste and less fuel to mine it. You are totally ignoring that fact.

You continue:

"..The reason it's a GOOD idea to make more pollution and add those 500 pounds of materials into a car is that the increased MPG reduces the lifetime emissions of the car, by literally TONS...

Two errors here. If you use vegetable oil in a diesel, you reduce that figure to almost ZERO. Which is still less than a gas/hybrid. The second, is that you completely fail to add in the CO2 and tons upon tons of toxic wastes released in the mining of that 500 pounds of battery. This is why you open yourself up to accusations of being unable to do mathematics. Which makes your arguments even more suspect. Few people are really buying them.

You then say:

"..But even if you, apparently, think greenhouse gas pollution (a global problem) is somehow less bad than toxic materials production pollution..."

Are you a native English speaker? Because this sentence shows incredible lack of comprehension. Diesels burning vegetable derived or sewage derived oils are essentially CO2 neutral. Which is BETTER THAN HYBRIDS. You are merely making my argument for me. And once again, showing your poor understanding of the carbon cycle, thermodynamics, and materials science. Not someone that anyone who is educated is going to listen to.

"..So I repeat, the burden of proof falls on people denigrating hybrid technology to show the pollution from the extra bad materials is worse than the immense lifetime CO2 reduction...

Actually, again, the burden of proof is on any manufacturer who produces these systems, in trying to convince the public to buy them. Simple as that. And the 'savings' of CO2 you claim, haven't accounted for the mining and manufacture of the batteries, which I specify above. And diesels burning vegetable/sewage diesel produce less CO2 than gas/hybrids burning petroleum products anyway. No matter how you slice it, you are just WRONG.

"..I don't understand what you're saying about disposable cars and obsolescence, it seems it applies to any vehicle and a high-MPG car is probably going to remain on the road longer than a gas guzzler..."

OK. Simply, manufacturers of durable goods expect a certain useful life on that product before it breaks and needs to be replaced. So they want lower purchase price in order for consumers to be able to afford to complete the cycle more frequently, and sell more of whatever that durable good is. This hybrid technology increases the unit cost sufficiently, so that the average consumer will not be able to purchase a vehicle based on style changes anymore. They will have to look at vehicles as a longer term investment, and buy less of them, in total, over any given unit of time. This is bad for manufacturers, because they will thus sell less of them in that unit of time.

"..Handwaving about huge pollution in production of the battery packs and hidden and direct costs associated with the hybrid just isn't compelling..."

I'm not waving my hands. I'm pointing out your lack of consideration of factors which are very important to me, my neighbors, and society as a whole. And I'm afraid that this argument IS INDEED compelling. Just ask anyone on JALOPNIK. They aren't convinced by your 'handwaving'. Aand this, you interpret as 'hate'. I find that reaction amusing. Which is why I am continuing this explanation. It serves the purpose of showing how illogical your argument is, and entertains me.

"..If you're the one driver out of a hundred who can run off restaurant grease right now, you're my hero and I love you...

Let's do a little math.

I live about 3-4 miles from where I work. I have to take the kids to school, and pick them up on the way back home. Total daily cycle less than 10 miles. If I buy a 2009 jetta TDi, I will be getting a vehicle with EPA rated MPG of 30/41. Now I live in a place where there is never a traffic jam, so I don't need hybrid. It also never gets really cold here, so I don't need to worry about biodiesel coagulating. Let's say I get a 64 fluid ounce bottle of vegetable oil every day as I go past the grocery store. Just put it in the tank. That means I have, conservatively, 30 miles a day on zero net CO2 output. And since I don't drive very far, that gives me plenty for when I need to take a longer drive. And the only petroleum used, is on the lube products.

So that beats the sh*t out of your gas/hybrid, and doesn't need a McDonalds grease pit, or toxic metals mining. Just add it up. Facts is facts, as they say.

And remember, diesels were INVENTED to run on peanut oil. It's easy to change to an algae/sewage supply, but you DON'T NEED IT RIGHT NOW, to beat hybrids.

 Reply

Nobody does the math themselves anymore. The teller gives back change, and who bothers to count? Here I am trying to illustrate a point, and I got no takers. Not a bite. Not a nibble. I give up....

 Reply

"That means we got to continue investing in hybrid batteries. Ours is a country where many people live in urban centers, like Washington, D.C., and it's possible to have a hybrid battery breakthrough which says that the first 40 miles of an automobile can be used by electricity alone. Right now the hybrid vehicles, as you know, switch between gasoline and electrical power. But that consumes gasoline, which means we're still reliant upon oil. The idea is to get off of oil."

Some of this was a smokescreen: since hybrids were already available, this justified Bush ending the Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles and switching research dollars to the long-range (pie-in-the-sky?) hydrogen economy — ensuring oil companies continued relevance when electric motors move cars.

 Reply

Which is why we need to concentrate more on increasing algae/sewage biodiesel, and less on just producing gasoline hybrids.

 Reply

As you're not a liberal soap-box moron, please tell us all what will be the long-term results of mankind's activities increasing the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from %.0285 to today's .0385% ? And why should anyone pay attention to you rather than a climate scientist?

 Reply

Algae based biodiesel is CO2 neutral. All current North American hybrids still use gasoline, and even when engineered fuels become more widely available, they are not going to be able to use them.

Turbodiesels will readily be able to be converted to almost any engineered fuels.

Thus, a turbodiesel has a higher likelihood of decreasing CO2 output than hybrids, in sum, over their likely lifespan.

 Reply

Any part that doesn't exist on a regular vehicle, that costs between 3-5K dollars, is going to make that vehicle more expensive. Period. And the warranties don't mean that they will last 100K miles. They won't. It means they will be replaced. And that has economic and environmental costs, EVEN IF THE CONSUMER DOESN'T PAY IT. And the batteries can't be fully recycled. There will be toxic waste from every one of those battery packs. So let's make hundreds of thousands of them!!!

 Reply

Uh... I mean... hey, good advice, thanks, I'll do that!

 Reply

Some people want their new car to pollute less and are willing to pay for it. It's a happy coincidence that this feature they value might save them money. Every other car feature costs money! Where are all the smug commenters pointing out to people who want a bitchin' sound system, V8 Hemi, or monster rims that the "economics don't make sense"?

 Reply

It's unlikely to save them money. In fact the cost of the hybrid system is unlikely to EVER be recovered by the consumer, by most analyses I've seen. With regard to the hemi, if you actually had been participating in the conversation here on JALOPNIK, instead of just playing the social media tool , you would know that most commenting here is indeed critical of that.

But you don't know that. Just like you don't know many things, apparently.

 Reply

The Sprint was able to muster upwards of 80, but not much more. I wouldn't have been able to tell anyway as the speedo was government-mandated to top out at 85 (thanks Joan). It was a fun little car for kicking around town, but anything over a couple of hours would be pretty harsh.

 Reply

Guess I'm waiting for the next cage match.

 Reply

How much would you like a diesel hybrid Tempo (AWD)?

 Reply

They could call it the Ford Locutus.

 Reply

@f0rge: Yeah, what you said.

 Reply

Is it worth the extra money, weight, complexity? I don't know...I'd probably still choose the Accord.

 Reply