This is why I like to combine great tweeters, woofer, and even a subwoofer in back….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

I would also like to thank you for your professional discussion Paul.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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 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.

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.