Here is a interesting article talking about some of the “Environmentally Friendly” bullshit the public is spoon fed on a daily basis.
Specifically about the Toyota Prius.
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
Reminds me of all the E85 garbage. Misguided and uninformed efforts cause more damage then ever.
subscribed. 
I doubt most Hummers will last 300k, the H2/H3 versions anyway. It’s just a Tahoe, and I haven’t seen too many GM anythings go 300k.
But the rest of it sounds pretty much right on. Lots of car manufactures were reluctant to jump on the hybrid bandwagon for just these reasons, but by the same reasoning that kept them building full sized SUV’s, they have all come around to building hybrids. None of them really care about anything but providing what the customer wants to buy, which is how it should be in a capitalist society.
My favorite current “green hype” is the idea to ban the incandescent bulb. It sounds like a great idea, until you realize that the CFL lamps have a tiny amount of mercury. Individually it’s no big deal, but if you mandate them to a bunch of people who don’t give a shit about the environment, they’re just going to toss them in the garbage when they die and all that mercury will end up in landfills, leaching into the water table. Educating people so they WANT to buy them, and are willing to take on the responsibily of properly disposing of them will work, while forcing everyone to use them will only result in problems at some other level of the environmental chain.
:lol: I remember when the prius first came out, I worked at Northtown Toyota, and everyone that worked there used to laugh at the joke they were due to how much they actually cost to make!
Now with the environmental factor of the plant that produces them, they’re even funnier to me…
So, I take it that not just the Prius should be frowned upon, but ALL hybrids? Mass Production = less initial cost to produce. The article overstepping itself? It was written in May, 2007! So… it’s telling us that ALL hybrids are destructive and not cost efficient or even environmentally friendly…
thats a lot of vehicles
No what it is saying is the mine is an environmental disaster, then instead of doing all the processing here they send the nickel over Europe, then to Japan, then back to the US. So adding all the extra waste of shipping the batteries around the world.
So… a prius is going to last 100k and a hummer lasts 300k? haha…
i HATE the prius.
First of all…it does 0-60 in a weekend…
I’d rather save the money and buy a new rabbit with a tdi motor. 18 grand…50 mpg…
compared to the prius ~40mpg…and there +$25K sticker.
I see diesel going very far in the near future…the new diesels are now CLEANER than their gas siblings.
Well there is a easy fix to that problem, hold the plant to better clean air standards or buy the nickle elsewhere.
I think the biggest problem with hybrids is the battery is only good for 100K, and it cost to replace it outvalues the car.
+1
While I’m all for finding legit reasons to dislike the Prius, that article was sketchy at best.
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.
As mentioned, Hummers do not last 300k. I wonder what the number is at a more realistic 120-150k life. Also, I would bet that with a couple-thousand dollar battery change at 100k, the Prius would go to 200k without much trouble.
One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
Uhh, that claim is complety made up. It’s heavily dependent on miles driven, not time. The only way time factors into that is if you consider depreciation, where the Prius actually shines. In order to make that claim you would also have to specify what the premium is, meaning what your’e comparing it to.
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.
This reminds me of studies related to CARB and other groups pushing to destroy older cars that supposedly pollute the environment. It’s common in California. But it takes more energy, and causes more environmental damage to build one new “clean” car than it takes to keep your '72 Chevy running for decades. That is figuring that for every car crushed, a new one is produced and bought somewhere along the line. They conveniently leave this kind of stuff out.
+1 for the diesel.