As Americans become increasingly interested in fuel economy and global warming, they are beginning to make choices about the vehicles they drive based on fuel economy and to a lesser degree emissions. But many of those choices aren’t actually the best in terms of vehicle lifetime energy usage and the cost to society over the full lifetime of a car or truck, according to a report by CNW Marketing Research. The firm spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was translated into a “dollars per lifetime mile” figure. The most Energy Expensive vehicle sold in the U.S. in calendar year 2005: Maybach at $11.58 per mile. The least expensive: Scion xB at $0.48 cents. While neither of those figures is surprising, it is interesting that driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles.
For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version.
One of the reasons hybrids cost more than non-hybrids is the manufacture, replacement and disposal of such items as batteries, electric motors (in addition to the conventional engine), lighter weight materials and complexity of the power package.
And while many consumers and environmentalists have targeted sport utility vehicles because of their lower fuel economy and/or perceived inefficiency as a means of transportation, the energy cost per mile shows at least some of that disdain is misplaced.
For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civic at $2.42 per mile.
“If a consumer is concerned about fuel economy because of family budgets or depleting oil supplies, it is perfectly logical to consider buying high- fuel-economy vehicles,” says Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, Inc. “But if the concern is the broader issues such as environmental impact of energy usage, some high-mileage vehicles actually cost society more than conventional or even larger models over their lifetime.
“We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer’s selection of transportation,” says Spinella. “Basing purchase decisions solely on fuel economy or vehicle size does not get to the heart of the energy usage issue.”
“We hope to see a dialog begin that puts educated and aware consumers into energy policy decisions,” Spinella said. “We undertook this research to see if perceptions (about energy efficiency) were true in the real world.”
04/03, 9:07 AM
posted by:
Anonymous
Damn – it’s about time someone explains; your cost isn’t simply what it takes to fill your car this week. it’s like all this blather about Ethanol – you can pretend all day; it appears like magic at the Exxon station at no cost to you beyond your Visa bill.
jim
04/03, 9:11 AM
posted by:
Madcapp
Hybrids have always sucked, and been a poor choice. Only stupid people don’t get it.
04/03, 9:16 AM
posted by:
Northeasterner
This is why none of the Euro manufacturers are heavily invested in hybrids. Diesel and hydrogen seem to be better alternatives. (Or check out VW’s turbo- and supercharged 1.4L that delivers 48 mpg while boasting 170hp!)
04/03, 11:19 AM
posted by:
peter g
This is interesting and suggests that hybrids as we know them today are only 1. generation and that research is very much needed as no one can deny the fact that someday we are going to run out of fossile fuels. Guess we need to rethink the concept of cars and transportation?
04/03, 11:47 AM
posted by:
duncan
hmmm i wonder if when airbags first appeared it was more expensive to produce them? of course hybrids cost more to manufacture at the moment, and of course their TCO/TCM are going to be more than a hummer which is based on design, manufacturing, fuel and power plant technologies that are decades old.
04/03, 12:38 PM
posted by:
Anonymous
Dunc: You’re probably right – but the productin cost diff. between first Gen. and second Gen. air bags is quite small. The leaps in this hybrid stuff will make a Prius look older than a 40yr old Studebaker in 10yrs and nobody will support it.
I have a 1957 tractor, ‘62 Mil ambulance and a ‘69 Intl. that I can get parts for – even some NOS. Betcha your current hybrid will be equal to a Kaypro 2000 computer in much less than half that time…
jim
04/03, 1:12 PM
posted by:
87 635CSI
hmmm… as an old car driver I’ve been thinking similarly. Most people will turn in their vehicles after 5-6 years for another one. I would think the constant production of new vehicles is far more damaging to the environment than the proper maintenance of an old one. After all, if the eol of a vehicle is determined by a wreck rather than an “expensive” repair then how would those numbers look? And I put expensive in quotes because int he larger scheme of things no repair costs as much as a new equivalent model vehicle.
04/03, 1:13 PM
posted by:
87 635CSI
hmmm… as an old car driver I’ve been thinking similarly. Most people will turn in their vehicles after 5-6 years for another one. I would think the constant production of new vehicles is far more damaging to the environment than the proper maintenance of an old one. After all, if the eol of a vehicle is determined by a wreck rather than an “expensive” repair then how would those numbers look? And I put expensive in quotes because int he larger scheme of things no repair costs as much as a new equivalent model vehicle.
It may actually be the case that consumerism itself is the most costly thing on the planet.
04/03, 1:57 PM
posted by:
choicefunction
“$0.48 cents” etc, when there is already a dollar sign makes no sense. Either 48 cents or $0.48.
04/03, 7:20 PM
posted by:
Piablo
Hybrids as we know them today (gas/electric) will slowly disappear as new combustion engines are designed. Electric power in cars is just not intuitive. What it IS, is something they slapped together in a pinch because they saw the opportunity to make a buck amidst another social outcry. Greeny weenies love these things because they make themselves feel good. But what happens when they are in a car accident and those 2000 pounds of nickel-metal-hydride batteries spill all over the highway? Besides a $25000 HAZMAT clean up bill that insurance won’t cover, you are left with polution to the same precious environment that you bought the car for in the first place. Hydrogen is a possibility, just as ethanol is. Somehow they need to come up with a simple, safe solution that everyday Joes can use and not blow up the 20,000 psi hydrogen tank. Fender bender anyone? Try a bomb that would register with the US military. Ethanol, yes is too expensive to bring to market. But BOTH are renewable and BOTH can be mass produced right here in the good ol’ USA.
04/03, 7:43 PM
posted by:
junkie
Oh, rejoice.
Let the hybrid bashing begin.
04/04, 2:24 AM
posted by:
Mark
Hm. I’m liking Saab’s 100% Ethanol/electric hybrid working concept. Petrol/electric hybrids don’t really solve any problems– they still depend on a limited resource. But Saab seems to have reduced the number electric parts in the vehicle (from what current electric hybrids use) to make it more viable.
Electric motors do have some nice features in and of themselves (e.g., torque and quiet), and it seems inevitable that they’ll be at least somewhat popular in the future. More research will be done on them, and they will become safer.
Most any bleeding-edge technology costs more to produce; if much of the world, or at least the US, will choose a renewable fuel and commit to it, that fuel will become much less expensive over time.
The idea of cars that work on renewable resources is rather nice. Just 2¢.
04/04, 6:08 AM
posted by:
Adult Blog
Adult toys
My blog
04/04, 12:00 PM
posted by:
Adam
Hybrida are not without there flaws, but lets remeber that simialr arguments were made against seatbelts and halogen headlamps. I would be curius to see who funded this. Hybrida are more expensve now because the infrastructure is not in place yet. However, I think that diesle (or bio diesel) and/or diesel hybrids will be where this goes. we will see I suppose. Oh, and to all the idots on hear talking about “greenies” and “liberals” and such in response to this keep on listening to Rush you lemmings.
04/18, 6:14 PM
posted by:
ben
Adam… you must have been reading something else, you’re the only one who has said “greenie” or “liberal”
05/11, 7:45 PM
posted by:
Dave
I find it interesting that this article i unsigned. I wonder what the cost per mile was for the first gasoline powered cars at the beginning of the last century, in todays dollars, corrected for inflation, etc. I’ll bet its higher than the Hummer. Besides, one reason for owning a Prius is that it is a truly elegant piece of engineering, with a lot more thought and REAL RESEARCH put into it than GM has put into any car in the last 50 years.
It is correct that gasoline hybrids are only a stopgap measure, but at least it is a step in the right direction. And as soon as a practical fuel cell car is available, I will buy one. It is interesting to note that it is likely that the first practicle fuel cell vehicles will come from Honda or Toyota. They are already planing to build plants to produce them here, and should be doing so around 2010. Where are the US automakers in this equation? I personally do not want to encourage stupidity or laziness by rewarding it monetarily, which is why I do not buy cars that do not show engineering advancement.
06/04, 8:56 AM
posted by:
Hummers Consume Less Energy Than a Hybrid » Hootride! Hummer H1, H2 and H3 News Source
[...] Read more Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]