On page-346, back in the Q & A section of the report the question was
raised about funding:

Question: Dear Mr. Spinella,

Interesting report!
Can you tell us for which client you carried out the 2-year
investigation?
At least what industry that client is in?

Regards, Bob

Answer: This was not done for any client or subscriber or organization
outside of CNW. We
funded the research ourselves without the knowledge of or input from any
outside group,
organization or company.

Thanks for writing. As you can imagine, we've received hundreds of
emails and letters about the
Dust to Dust report.

To your question: We funded the research ourselves. In fact, no outside
organization was aware
of the goal of the research until we announced the initial findings. It
was a year in the planning
and two years in execution with updated data completed on cy2005 sales
in January.

An expanded report will be issued to subscribers in about a week with
public access (no charge)
by mid-May or so.

Like all of our research, we perform it and make it available to
subscribers. So technically, they
fund the work. The nub of this idea began in the middle 1970s when I was
publishing an electric
vehicle newsletter in Los Angeles and drove an battery-powered Renault
to and from work on
LA freeways. (26 miles in each direction; top speed around 70 mph.
Unfortunately, not
simultaneously.) Photos attached. Note that there's a Chevette in the
garage, as well. Egads,
what was I thinking.

At that time, many engineers I interviewed talked about the energy costs
of manufacturing
conventional ICE powered vehicles vs. battery powered. In virtually all
cases, the energy
argument was fully against battery power. Needless to say, that notion
stuck and lo these many
years later, I thought it was time to visit the issue again, only on as
large a scale as possible.
In all there were nearly 4,000 data points per vehicle that needed to be
addressed in a useful
"dust to dust" energy-use comparison. For obvious reasons, we needed to
reduce this information
into bite-size pieces and put the comparisons into something average
consumers could relate to.
(Gigajuelles certainly wasn't the answer.) We selected "dollars per
mile." More on that in the
report.

I've put you on the list to be notified when the expanded report is
published.


-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pratap Singh
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] "Dust to Dust" Energy cost per mile study for
automobiles...

Gordon,

 

CNW marketing did not disclose the source of their funding and or the
sponsor(s) of their research.  Also reading the Consumer Reports data on
auto reliability and durability for the last 20 years, it is clear that
Japanese makes outlast American made cars. In other words 'Expected Life
Miles' for Japanese cars is higher than American Cars.

 

My own experience with Japanese cars (Toyota Tercel, Mitsubishi Galant,
and each lasting > 200,000 miles) has been good when compared to (Ford
Econoline Van, GM Oldsmobile Cutlass, and each lasting < 120,000 miles).
This is based on average driving of 15K miles/year that is cars were
driven 13 years
(imports) vs. 8 years (domestics).

 

My question is based on Consumer Reports data and own driving experience
with both domestic and imported cars. 

 

Being in the Reliability field, I welcome all opinions (true, false,
absurd, half truths....) but make decisions on valid data and analysis
and stated assumptions. It is also well known that Statistics (valid
data) do not lie; it is the liars who twist statistics (data) to support
their agenda. When one looks at the data stated in Table (pages 28- 32),
it is obvious the 'Expected life miles' of Japanese cars is lower than
American makes in most of the classes..... hmmm!! What gives? May be
some person has an explanation of this statistics. Have a good day.

 

 

pratap singh

___________________________________

Tel/Fax: 512-255-6820; Cell: 512-663-8903

email: [log in to unmask]