Brian,

If you want to call yourself a cynic, then go ahead. I only posted the
link to generate some discussion. Whether or not the report has any
value remains to be seen. I am still reading it. But unlike you (who
immediately dismisses it outright), I am looking for other sources that
either corroborates or disproves the information that is contained in
the report before I pass judgement on it. It may turn out that some, or
most of it isn't valid, or it may prove to have some good information
that people should be aware of before they decide to purchase a car.

I guess the first thing that interested me and started me thinking, was
that mere fuel mileage shouldn't be the first thing that one thinks
about when trying to reduce ones carbon footprint when purchasing a
vehicle. There are many other factors in the equation that contribute
greenhouse gases besides just the fuel that the car burns, wouldn't you
agree?

I am not advocating this report. When I learned of it I thought to
myself; "Here's something that I didn't think about before..." and
thought it would be something that might be read by others and discussed
rationally in this forum.

Steve Gregory    

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:57 AM
To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
Subject: Re: [EN] "Dust to Dust" Energy cost per mile study for
automobiles...

Well, if it's funded by their subscribers and not directly, I wonder
whether their subscribers might not be Mr Ford, Mr GM and Mr Chrysler? 
Or am I being cynical?

Would a report of this magnitude be started in the hopes that someone
will subscribe to it or do they have "captive" subscribers?

I have no experience of US cars, other than a few rentals in the USA,
but I do have a long experience of European and Japanese cars and I
concur that the longevity and reliability (hence maintenance costs) of
Japanese cars are much better than European ones. In terms of longevity,
I have no reason to believe that SOME of the US cars (the ones with
massive V8 engines that never need to turn faster than 3500 rpm) may
have sufficient lifetime. However, when I lived in Switzerland, I was a
member of the TCS (a kind of automobile association) and they published
annually their (and the German ADAC) statistics for breakdown calls by
model. Inevitably, the Japanese cars headed the list for proportionally
fewest calls, year after year. These were generally followed by Mercedes
(who slipped down a little each year) and other German quality cars with
BMW in the tail. Opel (German GM) rose in the tables (Opel happened to
be the only German auto maker who had Bosch clean their electronics, but
is that coincidental?) and overtook Mercedes. French cars were middling
and Italians were close to the bottom, where the pride of place was held
by US and UK cars. I've just e-mailed the TCS to ask whether they could
give me a copy of the latest statistics. I'll let you know the results.

Brian

Steve Gregory wrote:
> This is interesting. Link to the 458-page study is here:
>  
> http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf
>  
> 
> Doubts Cast on Hybrid Efficiency - Daily Auto Insider
> 
> 	
> 
> The Daily Auto Insider
> Monday, April 3, 2006
> 
> April 2006
> 
> Driving a hybrid vehicle costs more in terms of overall energy 
> consumed than comparable non-hybrid vehicles, according to CNW 
> Marketing Research Inc.
> 
> The Bandon, Oregon, auto research firm says in a news release that it 
> spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, 
> build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to
scrappage.
> This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee 
> driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in 
> each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables.
> 
> To put the data into understandable terms for consumers, it was 
> translated into a "dollars per lifetime mile" figure. That is, the 
> Energy Cost per mile driven.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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, CNW claims.
> 
> 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 Civics 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."
> 
> 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. "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."
>