Prius Outdoes Hummer

Quote:

Through a study by CNW Marketing called ?Dust to Dust,? the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

End Quote

When you consider how long most Landrovers have been around, this bit of not-new-news makes us look positivly Angelic, enviromentally.

Alex

Woah!

Be very careful of the ole 'how to lie with statistics' problem here.

Is a Prius really only going to last 100k miles and will a Hummer make it to 300k? If not, things change radically.

Assuming that both do 150k, which is much more realistic in today's climate (and mileage models must vary dramatically between countries in any case):

Hummer dust-to-dust: $3.90 Prius dust-to-dust: $2.17

I dislike both vehicles, TBH, but that's not the point. Everything depends on the view you take of longevity for the vehicles. It's not a very scientific assessment at all (unless they've got some really good data to back up their assertions on distance travelled).

I think there is a far stronger argument to back up the Land Rover/Defender's green credentials in all this, but even here it looks like the more recent models are scrapped earlier, bringing the range expectancy crashing down. A better argument still is that our vehicles tend in the main to be used for their designed purpose - supporting work on the land - whereas the Prius is *intended* for commuting and the Hummer is for the school run.

Er, sorry. I meant the Hummer is for... heck I don't know!

Regards,

Simonm.

It's this "lifetime of 100,000 miles" bit that does my nut in. The "Dust to dust" report relies on the expected lifespan figure to calculate the cost per mile. Out of my four cars, only one of them has done less than 100,000 miles, and that's the oldest one!

In the same report, a "Range Rover" (no other details given) has an expected lifespan of 206,000 miles and costs $3.775 per mile somewhere around 20th on the list, i.e. worse than the Prius. Fifth on the list is the Allroad Quattro at $5.595 per mile! The Allroad is followed by the A8 and A6.

The first four are listed as "Maybach", "Phaeton", "Rolls Royce" and "Bentley", hardly precisely named which is a problem throughout the list. "Ferrari" for example -- which bloody ferrari you nitwit! "Lamborghini"?? There are several you know...

The whole naming thing puts a dampner on the report IMHO, in some places it lists a model name but no manufacturer, e.g. "Prius", in others the model range, e.g. "SLK Class", and in others just the manufacturer, e.g. "Aston Martin". There doesn't seem to be a way to find out exactly which model they are referring to, and names change throughout the report even when they mention the manufacturer, e.g. in some tables the A4 and the S4 are listed separately, in others it's "Audi A4/S4".

Having said that, if you leaf through the (400 page) report it's quite interesting, although I can't be arsed to actually read it all. Most of it is tables though so the points could be read quite quickly and the lengthy tables skimmed. The most irritating thing is that it's published as a word document which makes it hard to read, I think I'll turn it into a PDF at some point and read some more of it.

This lifetimes figures are the manufacturers IIRC. They are a tad dodgy though.

Also, the hummer they appear to be referring to in the report is the brick shithouse one, not the crappy urban special. The army one I can believe would last a long time.

I think that the most important point has been missed. Does this report assume that the Prius will only need one set of batteries? What difference would a replacement set make to the figures? Apart from the actual 'cost' in financial terms, what is the environmental effect of recycling the nickel content? It seems to me that all the 'best' ideas for protecting the environment have hidden environmental costs. Typical of this age, when we seem to put more emphasis on what is seen to be done, rather than the consequences.

On or around Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:14:15 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

Maybach and Phaeton (assumed VW Phaeton) are distinct models. none of the rest are.

evidently the report is up to the usual standard, then. The author should be a shoe-in for editorship of the daily mail.

Maybach is a name that's been around since the early days of the automobile industry, even if you discount the early cars, even the mercs have had recent model changes so you still need at least model years.

The Phaeton could be a battleship, but assuming it's the VW, there's four engine options including a diesel, but no reference in the report to which one they were documenting.

More than just automobile. ISTR many Zeppelins had Maybach power units, though I doubt that the Zeppelins are the subject of the report.

Julian.