You are saying that regular cars dont cause pollution during manufacturing, they all do.

I think they are referring to the hazardous wastes that are involved with the battery production and/or disposal.

No hybrid has been on the US market for 15 years yet, but for the sake of argument why don't we see what has happened in the past 12?

Let's compare: my 2000 Insight vs. a typical small car of the same model year. Lets go with a baseline 2000 Ford Focus, which was a small, cheap and popular non-hybrid that year. 2.0L engine, 4-speed automatic.

Insight curb weight: 1880lbs. The Focus: 2564. There are 684 extra lbs of raw material in the Focus.

Construction materials: Insight is primarily aluminum (frame, engine, transmission, suspension) and plastic. The Focus is primarily steel, aluminum, and plastic. I have a hard time believing the Insight would have more non-recyclable matierial in it despite being 684lbs lighter.

Battery: This is probably the category brendan-4 was hinting at in his post, as hybrids obviously need much larger batteries. The Insight uses banks of "D" sized NiMH to make up the 144V "hybrid" battery and a small lead-acid motorcycle battery as the "normal" battery. The Focus uses a standard-sized lead-acid battery. Lead acid batteries are acutally much more toxic than NiMH. However, neither should have a large impact if recycled properly (also, new hybrids like the Volt use Litium-ion batteries which are even less toxic than NiMH).

Hydrocarbon fuel usage: 100,000 miles in an Insight at 60MPG =1,667 gallons of gas. 100,000 miles in a Focus at 28MPG = 3,571 gallons of gas. The Insight saved about 1,900 gallons of gas. All of which had to be drilled, shipped, refined, and burned. Which brings us to...

Emissions: My Insight is California ULEV certified. I have no data on emissions of a 2000 Focus, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it is significantly higher than my 0.2g/mi of CO and 0.05g/mi of hydrocarbons.

So... how exactly is the Insight making more pollution than a Focus? If I'm as "ignorant" as you say, please enlighten me.

No, untoryodi, what brendan-4 is trying to say is that comparing the overall pollution, from creation of car to disposal of same car, the hybrid is more of a polluter.

Now, I know my comment will induce more comments, with some probably wanting to compare their diesel truck to a Prius, or their motorcycle to a Honda hybrid, etc. That's not the same comparison.

Hybrid cars use Rare Earth magnets in the electric motor portion of them. Why? Because it allows more torque from an electric motor in a smaller physical size.

Rare Earth magnets have their own inherent problems. #1) They are rare, thus the name. They are not in abundant on this planet, with most of the natural resources in China. #2) Not really easy to manufacture at a cost effective manner and with a low "carbon footprint". #3) Not easy to dispose of, again, in a low "carbon footprint".

Now that's not to say I am against Hybrids. No. I am against the ones you have to plug in to charge overnight. Those only add drainage to the (old) US Electrical Grid, and force more fossil fuel consumption.

In my humble opinion, the US Auto Industry had it right in the early 90s. The small cars then had a perfect balance of fuel mileage, purchase price, electronics, etc. Most were comfortable. Most got over 30mpg, and if you had a manual transmission car, you could approach 35mpg if you drove smoothly.

But we abandoned them. Why?

crisisboom.com/2011/02/10/rare-earth-metals/ some facts help

The funniest thing is that the people that knock hybrids are usually the same ones that vote for more nuclear power plants.

The point? Less money spent at the pump. The green that counts for me is the one that comes out of my pocket. I may be smug and ignorant, but you are dumb and poor(er).

The insight only seats two, so if you only have one friend you are fine.

If you feel good about it that is fine. You also should have compared it to the two seat little honda the CRX, that would have been a better comparison. Also when the focus first came out it had two motor options, i am not sure which one you are comparing too. both where the same size, but one had more power.

Lead acid batteries are a lot easier to recycle than rechargable batteries. Most new 4 door hybrids weigh quite a bit more than a comparable gas car.

Yes, the first Insight, the one 234r has, is a 2-seater, but current ones are not.

Studies have shown that hybrids and EVs have a greater environmental impact during manufacturing, but that overall they have a smaller environmental footprint than conventional cars.

Yea, why isn't the Ford Fusion Hybrid included? I now do almost 100% city driving with my 2010 Fusion Hybrid. I am getting over 51 mpg and over 800 miles between fill ups. I have over 61,000 miles on it. Zero problems. It really can comfortably seat 5 since it is a mid-sized vehicle. It is an awesome product!!

Notice the title of the article. The Fusion is hardly a budget hybrid. Base with no options is over $28,000. Typical price on the lot is well over $30K. A better question to ask is, why isn't the regular Prius on there if the Optima and Sonata are. The Prius II is cheaper.

Yes, this story should have highlighted the 2010-2012 Prius model (51mpg) instead of the puny Prius C. Toyota's new larger and smaller Prius models are simply not as good as the third generation Prius.

I just gave my daughter my 2007 Civic Hybrid w/ 95,000 miles on, 46 mpg average fuel efficiency since purchase (tracked using a spreadsheet, not guesstimated), no repairs ever. bought a 2012 CRZ; 45 mpg average so far; fun to drive, only 2 seats, but hey - my daughter has her own car now.

point source pollution can & should be curtailed at rare earth metals mining sites, refractories/refineries, battery production factories, etc. and battery materials can be recycled. tail pipe emmisions are much more problematic. and reducing fossil fuel consumption is the right thing to do; the carbon can not (yet) be recovered from automobile exhaust fumes.

Perhaps you missed the prominent "hybrid" theme in the article.

The Hi-Lux diesel will never be produced or sold in the US. The EPA has already stated they will not allow it.

well i believe epa tested some of the Priuses from 2002 and they still performed well around 80%. so far so good

What they obviously omitted from this article is that the batteries in all these hybrids will cost around $10,000 to replace every five years.

False.

Of course, you are going to get absolutely nothing for a trade in as you approach that five year mark

Also, false.

You have a pretty bad average for accuracy.

That's not a hybrid.

Do you have sources for this?

Most of these Hybrids are a poor investment. Most won't go over 50mph on the electric engines so every time you hit the highway you are on a gutless combustion engine.

The electric motor not being the main propulsion in highway speeds has no bearing on a hybrid's value as an investment. The motor does however still provide support. Perhaps you have not noticed that hybrids still getting higher mpg than conventional engines even at highway speeds. Many hybrids also have greater aerodynamics than most conventional cars, further increasing their mpg gains especially at highway speeds.

You also need to drive the car for years just to recoup the price difference to break even on the gas savings over the extra cost of the car over a lower priced milage efficient combustion car. Most people would be trading the car in at around the point they would have recouped the extra cost.

If you're going to be changing out your car every 2-5 years, you're not interested in value, so going from that angle is moot. However, this is not only moot, but false. The average age of cars on the road is 10.8 years. Hybrids will pay themselves off well ahead of that mark.

The smaller hybrids like the Prius etc are also death traps with very little steel on the car so they can save weight so a cheezy electric motor will drive the car.

Also false, the Prius gets stellar crash ratings.

Your post was a 12 pack of fail.

The "higher milage" does not offset the increased cost of a hybrid. You are simply paying your milage "up front" when you buy the car instead of at the pump over years.

That depends on which hybrid you buy. Many hybrids are considered "mild hybrids" which only shut off the engine when at idle. These get only about a 2-3MPG gain over their non-"hybrid" siblings (same make/model), but can cost more than $2,000 more. These shouldn't even be counted as hybrids, since they don't have electric motor propulsion at any point.

This is not even counting cost of ownership differences.

Cost of ownership on (true) hybrids is typically lower than comparable conventional cars. You seem misguided on this point.

Also a 10.8 year payoff is plain stupid.

You only see what you want to see. I never said it takes 10.8 years to pay off a hybrid. Do you have reading comprehension problems, or are you just trolling?

Take a look at this link below. Compared to the Corolla, the Prius pays for itself in just one year. There is a lot more than just gas savings that lowers the cost of ownership of hybrids.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/hybrids-diesels-do-they-save-money/index.htm

The "aerodynamics" you speak of I just don't see. When you look at an Elantra next to a Prius I simply see no greater aerodynamics.

You also fail to mention that you don't understand aerodynamics, and certainly won't understand when I point out what their coefficient drag is. Small changes in coefficient drag have noticeable changes in fuel economy. The Prius has a cD of 0.25, the Elantra has a cD of .32. The bulky-looking Toyota Matrix and those new Ford Fiestas that have a cD of .33. Many SUVs have a cD of .5 to .6. Those small-looking differences translate to noticeable real-world savings.

As far as crash tests go I will take a comparably priced combustion engine car in a head on with an SUV and you take your tin can Prius.

Comparably-priced conventional cars would not be any safer, as there would not be major differences in their mass. Any person in a non-SUV crashing head-on into an SUV is going to have a bad time. Why not just go for the gold and use a tractor-trailer as an example?

You still don't understand the "petrodollar" and why there will not be a viable substitute for an oil driven vehicle.

The real issue is that you don't understand it. I see that your comments parrot many blogs. Tell me, do you even know who Ibrahim Oweiss is? I'll wait while you Google him.

Stay off the blogs, and stick to reputable sources. I didn't bother acknowledging the petrodollar since it is not directly relevant to this conversation.

Your argument goes from falsehoods into irrelevance. Your thoughts on hybrid viability compared with conventional cars are not grounded in reality, nor are they supported in reputable literature. The biggest problem with interpreting studies is that most people, like you, don't have a clue whether or not the study is conducted correctly. You see the result you want to see, and never look at the methods.

As an exercise to test your critical thinking skills, take a look at this 3 minute video (MythBusters) and tell me your analysis of their method. Did they do everything correctly, or did they do anything incorrectly?

I show you this to see if you can properly understand the studies that you read.

Keep flogging your dead "hybrid" philosophy. If "the consumers" wanted them they would sweep the industry based on simple supply and demand. All the information you babble about is right at their fingertips and they all still "pass". There is simply little interest in them despite being around since the early 1900's.

The investors don't care, manufacturer engineering doesn't care, marketing departments don't, lenders don't, consumers don't..... Nobody but you and a handful of misguided people.

You still do not understand the federal governments need to keep us dependent on foreign oil and to keep both demand and supply high. If any of that changes the federal government is financially screwed. They won't financially screw themselves so hybrids will remain a novelty item. If the federal government and global bankers don't want it...... it is doomed.

Keep driving your ugly little overpriced gutless car and trying to rationalize why you do it. Knock yourself out.

Take a look at this link below. Compared to the Corolla, the Prius pays for itself in just one year. There is a lot more than just gas savings that lowers the cost of ownership of hybrids.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/01/hybrids-diesels-do-they-save-money/index.htm

I have to say that's kinda cool, my wife's conventional gas-powered Honda Fit is the only one to beat the Prius in 5 year ownership costs according to their calculations. I know that since the difference is only $250 at 5 years the cost difference will favor the Prius past the 5 year mark, but still cool that we wound up picking a winner amongst the non-hybrid cars. Personally I hate driving the Fit (my wife loves it though), and I really didn't care to drive my parent's Prius when they let me, but they are cheap.

newgov101 said:

Keep flogging your dead "hybrid" philosophy.

I accept your admittance of defeat.

The investors don't care, manufacturer engineering doesn't care, marketing departments don't, lenders don't, consumers don't..... Nobody but you and a handful of misguided people.

Hopefully one day you'll wake up and realize that you have done nothing worth being proud of and stop trolling.

To be honest, you're a pretty lame troll.