Toyota Bigwig Defends Prius
July 10, 2007 by George Skentzos
Hybrid cars have been heavily criticised as of late. Yesterday we reported on a current law suit in the US regarding the Honda Civic Hybrid and its misleading mileage claims.
GoAuto reports Toyota’s US manager of Advanced Technologies Group, Bill Reinert has defended the Prius after a life cycle investigation conducted by CNW Marketing/Research revealed that the popular hybrid was less environmentally friendly than a Hummer H2. Reinert dismisses the report as “bull(other word)… so far outside the means of science”.
The report, a ‘dust-to-dust’ analysis of the hybrid investigates the environmental impact of the car from manufacture to disposal. Through this analysis, CNW have concluded that the Prius accumulates energy costs of $US3.25 over 100,000 miles, whilst the earth shattering Hummer H2 costs a mere $US1.95 over 300,000 miles.
Reinhert concludes by saying that Toyota’s status as the largest car manufacturer in the world has made them a prime target for negative press.
George Skentzos
Source: GoAuto
Print it: 
0 
0 
“CNW have concluded that the Prius accumulates running costs of $US3.25 over 100,000 miles, whilst the earth shattering Hummer H2 costs a mere $US1.95 over 300,000 miles.”
Of course the Prius will look worse off in this comparison… The Hummer is doing 3 times the kms, and thus further reduces the initial investment on the car per mile!!! Terrible use of statistics from CNW.. Poor form.
Justs goes to show Toyota have fooled the punters once again.
What’s even funnier is all those idiots driving them thinking they are saving the planet, what wankers !!!
Hybrid, see above comment to see how your comment is flawed.
hang on does this include depreciation? if so the claims about cost spread over more miles mean nothing.
and even if it does the hummer would cost more too so that would have a negative effect on the hummer.
and do the figures mean $3.25 per K when cycled over 100,000 miles. is that what they are getting at?
jbot, the Hummer is doing 3x the number of miles yet is still far MORE cost effective then the Prius. Hybrid is right in saying what he said.
To clarify, the figures represent the energy cost per mile. So it calculate the amount of energy required for the car to exist.
In other words, the Prius itself may be more fuel efficient than a H2, but the energy required to produce the car negates this efficiency. That is, manufacturing etc.
ah yes i see
the article is fair comment then.
i thought it was running costs
I’m assuming the values are supposed to be US$ per mile (or km, whatever), as if this is not the case we are talking about less than $2 over the life of a car! So, going on that assumption, let me continue:
From George (above): “the Prius itself may be more fuel efficient than a H2, but the energy required to produce the car negates this efficiency.”
Surely for this reason you can see that the vehicles must be compared over the same milage!! The Prius would improve on its $US3.25/mile if it was driven for 300,000 miles, as while its initial energy cost would be high, the ongoing fuel energy costs are low for the Prius (and thus its environmental cost/mile would decrease with an increased distance).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of current hybrids, and I know small diesels are currently environmentally better (this will change), but I just wanted to point out that the Prius has been unfairly compared to a Hummer in this situation. It may be that the Hummer is still more environmentally friendly than the Prius, but unless the life cycle analysis is taken over the same period, we cannot tell. Surely even the simple-minded of you would understand what I’ve just put forward.
Oh well thats made my mind up,off to the US end of this month were going to hire a Hertz Mustang for a little less than a Camry would cost to hire in the USA.Now I feel I must save the planet and rent a Hummer for $300 a day !!!!!!!!! F…k the planet I am not 9 years old any more not interested in looking like a pimp for 4 days,I will stay with the Stang!!
Statistics can be manipulated very easily, its questionable why they mention the Prius at 100,000miles and the Hummer at 300,000miles (apart from the fact that the Toyota has more chance of reaching that mileage) as said, because costs from initial outlays will go down over time as the Prius’ advantages (lower fuel consumption, less emissions) come to effect.
Agreed Paul, that’s what I was trying to get across.
i remember when the prius first went on sale in the states, the stocks ran out so quick, that owners of 1-2 yr old priuses could sell them for more than they bought them for! now that is value for money
Alborz, the Chrysler 300C in Australia got a bit like that too. It’s not still the case, but it was about 1 year ago when the waiting lists were massive, and supply was low. I think it might have just been the SRT8, not sure, but they were worth about 2k more once they rolled out of the dealership.
^
Lol only in America would that happen… with a Prius of all cars! Honda has a hydogen cell car coming out in the U.S around 2010, now that would be alittle more understandable given that it will consume no fuel at all (well it does, fuel meaning water!)
The 1:3 ratio in mileage emphasises the difference in energy consumption. If it instead read $0.65 per 100,000 miles for the H2, the data would be identical.
A nice metaphor for the Prius would be clearing a rainforest to build a wind farm. The intentions are good, but hybrid technology has not progressed enough to match the manufacturing efficiency of petrol cars.
At George: Those values will increase as distance travelled decreases for EVERY SINGLE CAR ON THE ROAD. It is because manufacturing process has a much, much larger impact on a vehicles “average” energy consumption/mile over a short life cycle (say 10,000 miles) when compared to a larger life cycle (say 300,000 miles). If you don’t understand that (and for that matter why you can’t just divide the Hummer’s value by 3), for your sake I hope you’re still in primary school, because only a VERY basic understanding of mathematics/logic is required.
Also I never said that hybrid technology had progressed enough to match the manufacturing efficiency of petrol cars. It said myself that small petrol/diesels engines are currently probably better for the environment than current hybrids. All I’m saying is that it is wrong to judge the Prius on this dodgy-as stats.
Yeah George your wrong… its simple and its been pointed out, the people who generated those statistics have manipulated them for a reason, to make the Prius look worse then a Hummer which is just ridiculous. As said its a poor statistical method to try and give those figures and compare them based on different miles travelled and over a short period like 100,000 miles given that the Prius does take time to recoup its ‘energy costs’. Not to mention their measuring of these energy costs is also questionable!
Was interesting to see the reaction of the Toyota manager in the original article, rather unprofessional from what I gathered and he should have looked abit further into it than just taking these false stats at face value.
Well he did say the stats were bull…., and he’s right there. Very strange reaction though from a manager in a large corporation.
I would also be fascinated to see how the values were so “accurately” calculated to 2 decimal places.
Ah now I see what you are trying to say jbot, Paul’s comment really cleared it up.
Basically beyond 100,000 miles the Prius comes into its element and efficiency takes a sharp incline, correct?
Forgive me if I can’t wrap my head around this, but is it fair to say 300,000 miles more than represents the lifetime of the car? There isn’t a limitless exponential increase in energy consumption, the car will be scrap metal long before its energy consumption reaches the point of absurdity. Which is most likely why they chose such a high mileage figure, so that it is likened to saying ‘by the end of a Hummer H2’s lifespan, energy costs would still be significantly lower than a Prius by 100,000 miles’.
From what I can see, you are instead interpreting it as ‘by 600,000 miles, the H2’s consumption will be exponentially higher than that of the Prius at the same mileage.’ The fact is the cars will not last long enough for that to be a factor, ergo a ‘dust-to-dust’ analysis.
Quote from the article
“This contrasts to the CNW report that claims Toyota buys 1000 tons of Nickel each year, then transports it from Canada to Wales and then to China and finally Japan, thus creating a globe-trotting trail of carbon-dioxide emissions”
The missing information here would be the carbon foot print of moving 4 times the amount of oil from the middle east to America to power the H2 compared to the prius. I’m guessing the H2 would have an average fuel consumption of about 16-18L/100 compared with the Prius 4.4L/100.
Yes Paul, Hydrogen is the way to go. But you need lots of electricity to separate the hydrogen from the water. This will be the biggest problem for Hydrogen.
George cars can last to 300,000miles… I think thats about 500,000kms, but it is alittle unlikely.
As for what you said, I think they want you to think thats why the used different intervals but thats not how you correctly compare something.
And as for what Im saying, I will explain in detail…
The point I (and maybe jbot if he agrees with how I have interpreted it) have been making is that initially there will be a high energy cost as they have to source all the materials for the hybrid, which may cost more then that of a Hummer. Now if you were to measure the Prius’ energey consumption and Hummer at a ridiculous interval say 10miles then the Prius would look REALLY bad because initial energy costs of a hybrid are more no doubt. Now this research wasnt going to give such a close interval, so they have gone for a longer interval but the same fundamental problem occurs, in that because its a shorter interval than a car will last for the Prius (100,000miles is like 160,000kms I think… cars last longer then that by a long shot) and a longer one for the Hummer, the Prius’ energy saving ability in regards to less fuel consumption (which should have a massive effect as shipping fuel would cost a fortunate as shown by Lazybones and over 200,000miles the difference between their intervals it would have a profound effect) and less emmissions dont have the length of time they need to have a sizeable impact. The point being, something like a Hummer is only going to decrease (maybe increase?) in energy costs very little when you average it out over 300,000miles because its ongong costs are high whereas the Prius over time DECREASES as its initial energy costs are high but ongoing substantially low.
I hope this provided some insight (and I hope its right!) but from how I interpret it, this is the problem with how the study concluded on their results. I dont doubt the stats are accurate, but its how the organisation has evaluated them that is highly suspect, which Im sure anyone could see given the difference in intervals in light of what Ive just explained and the effect it has. Might seem innocent why they have done it, just to show how the Hummer is better over a longer time, however I think not!
I can now definitely understand what you are now saying Paul, I don’t deny that the Prius is far more fuel-efficient than a Hummer H2, but I believe what the data reveals is that in the projected lifetime of the car, it will not recoup any sizeable amount of its energy costs. To put it in layman’s terms, the car’s lifespan will have to be drastically increased so that it travels the required mileage in which it begins to recoup its losses, which is HIGHLY unlikely.
If theoretically, it reaches this mileage, a battery replacement will most likely be necessary, effectively restarting the energy recouperation cycle.
Granted they have taken the example of the Hummer for its impact – I don’t deny that the statistics have been glorified to produce a controversial result, but compare it with a far more suitable rival such as the Toyota Echo and the results would be the same.
Sorry for spelling, I’m at work.
Paul, I agree with what you’re saying. George, I think you are still missing the fundamental point that when two vehicles are compared in this way, the variables must be constant for it to be a fair comparison. So, if the Prius needs a new battery every 100,000 miles (doesn’t, but anyway), the energy cost of new batteries would be included 3 times in the average energy consuption over 300,000 miles. The comparision should always have been for the Hummer and Prius over the same distance (300,000 miles for example).
All valid and well informed responses.. goodstuff > I learnt a thing or two must admit..
Bavarian Missle, I still have to ask , wth is it that you do in these discussions? Apart from seem to come across like a wet behind the ears teenager who has no sound knowledge of being able to put through an informed statement?
hmm
“but compare it with a far more suitable rival such as the Toyota Echo and the results would be the same.”
No, we would require an Echo sized prius for such a comparison. Comparing the US Camry (Hybrid) with the AU Camry 2.4L (4Cyl) petrol. Theres about a 30% improvement in consumption.
Also keep in mind the Hybrid technology offers more for future expansion than it does now. In the future you’ll see Hybrid/Bio-Diesel. There is a company who is retro-fitting the prius to be a ‘plug-in’ car! Yes plug it into the mains overnight and avoid petrol all together.
Then consider the improvements in battery technology. It seems almost every year batteries are getting smaller, but holding the same amount of charge.
Lazybones, I have no idea what you are trying to say, “echo sized prius”? By more suitable I mean something less controversial as the H2 was obviously chosen to write headlines.
jbot, you are right, the results are not fair, however they are in the favour of the Prius and not the H2. I don’t see how you can’t understand this. At 100,000 miles the energy cost is already substantially higher than that of the H2, and it will only get higher as the mileage increases – granted at a slower rate, but higher nevertheless, and it will still always remain higher than a Hummer by the end of its lifespan.
I will put this as simple as I can so you can understand, at 100,000 miles the Prius costs $3.25 (you still with me?) so at 300,000 miles it will cost MORE than this amount regardless which is already significantly HIGHER than the H2 at 300,000 miles. I really can’t put it any simpler than that.
George, do you really think it costs only $3.25 in energy consumption for a Prius to cover 100,000 miles! Idiot! It is $3.25/mile… Fuel doesn’t cost that much for 1 mile, so it will go DOWN as the distance travelled increases… Not going to reply again on this topic, if you can’t understand what Paul and I have tried to explain to you, you need help.
Mate you are dead set clueless – seek help, it has nothing to do with the fuel cost to travel 100,000 miles, its about the energy cost to build and run the car.
George I also thought it was averaged out like jbot, thus over more miles the lower fuel consumption will have a positive effect compared to less miles where the initial costs have a more profound impact. Just as the example I showed. Although I must say Im not 100% on any of this, I only thought logiclly it must be averaged or something because it couldnt only be $3.25 in energy costs over such a large interval!!!!
Paul, like I said you are not wrong. But its not just about fuel consumption. You are right in the fact that the low consumption will mean that the energy cost will slow over time – but not decrease – it will still increase but only at minute intervals. So by 300,000 miles it could only have cost $3.97 – hypothetically. (This is just an example)
The problem is because its initial energy costs were so high it will take a long time to regain those costs. Back to my metaphor of demolishing a forest to build a wind farm, the wind farm is environmentally friendly, but leaving the forest intact in the first place would have been better for the environment.
Im still alittle confused though at how they have measured this energy cost and also what hte $3.25 represents… is it yearly, per mile, per 100,000 mile etc? If it is an average, then George it has the possibility to decrease it, an example (figures completely made up)…
Initial Cost : $10
Yearly Cost : $2
So at say year 2 (could be measures in miles but for ease of understanding Im using years), the cost is $12/2 = $6…. whereas at year 3 it is $14/3 = $4.67… decrease! Thus if this is what they infact used, it explains why they used a longer interval for the hummer as unless its yearly cost is higher then its initial (impossible) its going to decrease, albeit slower then something like a Prius! This is my logic, I think the problem here is understanding what that actual energy cost figure is based on… which isnt provided (doubful its a total for the whole 100,000miles etc).
George, are you kidding me?
“the low consumption will mean that the energy cost will slow over time – but not decrease – it will still increase but only at minute intervals. So by 300,000 miles it could only have cost $3.97 – hypothetically.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. You yourself even said that it was $/mile in a previous post. The energy cost is $3.25 PER MILE!!!!!!!!!! NOT $3.25!!!!! So as the number of miles increases, the “average energy consumption” would decrease!!!!!
Do you really think only $3.25 of energy is required to build an run a car for 100,000 miles?? So as the number of miles increases, the “average energy consumption” would decrease!!!!!
How can you possibly not see that I’m right here. I know that the initial and final energy costs of building a hybrid are high, but their benefits lie in that fact that they have LOW ongoing costs.
If you were to look at the energy consumption of a car over 10 miles, it would be very high because the energy required to build the car is high, in comparison to running it. Obviously as the number of miles increases the average energy cost will decrease.
Not sure why I’m even bothering to reply to your downright stupid comments.
Ok reading it again, does say ‘accumulates’ energy costs suggesting my previous example isnt right. So $3.25 over 100,000miles… now I question how they measure it. How could it only cost that much, something minor if ommitted and included incorrectly could have a major effect on the outcome. Would have thought some form of scaling would be better to provide a more accurate indiction…
LOl jbot dont be to harsh on George Im getting confused with this as well… the problem isnt us here its the organisation that released this info, its very ambiguous, no doubt for a reason, because their stats are floored. Something like what its measured against isnt provided. Thats suspect in itself!
Ok now I know its 100% on a per mile basis, from another site:
“According to a new study by CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore., the Hummer H3, in terms of dust-to-dust energy costs, equates to $1.95 per mile—while the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid are almost $3.30 per mile.”
Now George, as I previously gave an example, now we know its a on per mile basis and the total costs over that period are average out, my demonstration is correct and the use of a shorter interval IS what distorts the truth. Recapping:
“An example (figures completely made up)…
Initial Cost : $10
Yearly Cost : $2
So at say year 2 (could be measures in miles but for ease of understanding Im using years), the cost is $12/2 = $6…. whereas at year 3 it is $14/3 = $4.67… decrease! Thus if this is what they infact used, it explains why they used a longer interval for the hummer as unless its yearly cost is higher then its initial (impossible) its going to decrease, albeit slower then something like a Prius! This is my logic, I think the problem here is understanding what that actual energy cost figure is based on… which isnt provided (doubful its a total for the whole 100,000miles etc).”
The research company justified the difference in interval because they say over the same time period (in years) a Prius would travel 100,000miles whereas a Hummer would travel 300,000miles, based on stats from consumers. This is totally floored logic, they are trying to say over that same period the costs will be higher in the Pruis which is right HOWEVER small minded given the Hummer has travelled further and will need to be replaced more earlier with the large outflow in intial cost before the Prius needs to! So as Ive said before, its now more clear then ever, they have manipulated statistics here.
So bascially the only issue is that I’m presuming its an accumulating cost, and your presuming its an average cost. With either of our logic being correct depending on which it is.
Which was the site that said it was per mile? Because I’m finding most sites seem inconclusive on this – being either average/accumulative.
At least we can agree that the data whether accurate or not, is certainly immoral.
Honestly jbot, if you can’t keep civil in your replies, don’t bother. Paul is being more then proper in his responses and yours seem to be the rambling of a rude and drunken teenager.
Im 99% sure the average idea is right and that example I gave is on the money. Here is the link:
http://www.hybridcars.com/envi.....costs.html
And here is a statement backing up our theory from the president of CNW (the people who published these manipulated stats):
“If you can drive the Prius 200,000 miles, and do the same levels of costs and repairs, the cost per mile obviously comes down dramatically.”
There you have it! Sad part is in the U.S this thing supposedly got alot of coverage and stupid journalists portrayed it as the Prius was a bad car energy wise when in fact its quite obvious the stats are one sided to make it look that way.
Well there we go, I gave them the benefit of the doubt presuming that if it was an average it would be so blatantly bias toward the H2. I guess it seems I gave them too much credit.
I would also like to thank you for your professional discussion Paul.
“Lazybones, I have no idea what you are trying to say, “echo sized prius”? By more suitable I mean something less controversial as the H2 was obviously chosen to write headlines”
I thought you meant why bother with a Prius/Hybrid if you can get the same enomony from an Echo.
The entire report has too many variables. It tries to put a footprint on running/Production costs. But then takes into account workers travelling to the plant. To me, these are items that our well outside the scope of the vehicles design.
Maybe CNW Marketing Research should consider the carbon created in producing such a useless report :)
Toyota and Honda have by far been the most successful with hybrid technology and taking the US industry by storm. Manufactuers like GM would be hating this because thier development to date has been relatively unsuccessful.
GM approached Toyota a couple of years ago for a joint adventure to access Toyota’s technology and help reduce their own costs but the ‘BIG T’ refused on the matter. However, Toyota now sells some of it’s ‘PATENT TECHNOLOGY’ to Ford while suppling Nissan with one of thier aged designs to assist Nissan with it’s first hybrid example on the US market which is called the Ultima.
The thing is, some people ctritise Toyota and Honda for thier hybrid development but they don’t acknowledge the fact that GM and Ford are trying also to muscle in on the boom. The differance is, Toyota and Honda have been successful whereas the America duo haven’t.
It’s clear this study saying the Hummer is greener than a Prius is false.
The study assumes the Prius only lasts for 100,000 miles before it is destroyed.
However, there are confirmed reports of Prius taxis that have clocked up more than 250,000 miles.
As of 2007 the Prius has been out for 10 years and Toyota has never replaced a battery except for one case in which an electrician accidentally drilled into the battery while trying to install a stereo.
The myth is popular because it is human instinct to want to believe something that goes against convention so that, when you tell it to your friends, you sound smart. It is called the appeal to rugged individualism.
Please re-read the 458 page report. The H2 was tested at an average life span of 197,000 miles while the Prius was 109,000.
Yes, this is still a difference, but the report uses Auto-Industry life span estimates for cars.
No where in the CNW report are the H2s tested at 300,000 miles. Go ahead and d/l the PDF from thier website.
Just wanted to clear up some mis-information being spread by some of the posters here. H2s are NOT tested at 300,000 miles, but at 197,000.
Get your facts straight people.
Follow up:
For you all who are still going to complain about the 88,000 mile difference in the H2 and Prius comparison, just look at another known gas-guzzler. The Dodge Viper. It was tested with the Auto-Industry estimated life cycle of 118,000 miles. Only a 9,000 mile difference.
It’s energy cost per mile? $2.17. Far lower than the $3.25 of the Prius.
Oh dear, more people being fooled into thinking that the Prius is actually environmentally friendly…
How long do the battery packs last, and what happens to them once they are exchanged? No-one wants to answer what the resale value of hybrids will be like when people find out how much a battery pack costs to replace…
I have had a “Jeremy Clarkson” moment recently (similar to what he said on a Top Gear episode about hybrid cars), wherein I was riding in my sister-in-laws 2007 Volkswagen Polo turbo diesel, and she was getting some rediculous fuel figure on the highway of 60-odd miles to the gallon. I then recalled that only days before, I had been reading an article in a magazine about the Prius and how it claimed an amazing fuel economy figure way below this amount, so if you wanna save the planet, go out and buy a diesel…