« Schmack Biogas and Partners to Build Europe’s Largest Biogas Plant | Main | Hyundai Bringing NGVs to East Africa »
Study: Percentage of US New-Vehicle Shoppers Considering Hybrids Declines, While Diesel Consideration Climbs
16 July 2007
The percentage of new-vehicle shoppers who are considering a hybrid has declined as consumers become more realistic about the fuel efficiency capabilities of hybrid vehicles, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2007 Alternative Powertrain Study.
However, actual sales of hybrid vehicles in the first half of 2007 increased more than 56% over aggregate sales in the first half of 2006, climbing to more than 181,000 units.
The J.D. Power study finds that 50% of new-vehicle shoppers are considering a hybrid—down from 57% in the 2006 study. While a general decline can be observed across all age groups, in particular younger vehicle shoppers, those 16 to 25 years old, appear less interested in the powertrain technology, with 60% considering a hybrid in 2007, down from 73% in 2006.
The average additional price hybrid considerers are willing to pay for this powertrain is $2,396, with the expectation of receiving an improvement of 18.5 miles per gallon (MPG) over a traditional vehicle of similar size.
In the 2006 study, we found consumers often overestimated the fuel efficiency of hybrid-electric vehicles, and the decrease in consideration of hybrids in 2007 may be a result of their more realistic understanding of the actual fuel economy capabilities. While hybrid sales are steadily increasing, they continue to face competition for market share against an increasing offering of other alternative powertrains and fuels options.
—Mike Marshall, director of automotive emerging technologies at J.D. Power and Associates
The study also finds that consumer consideration for purchasing clean diesel vehicles, which were newly introduced to the market in 2007, is at 23%. In 2006, only 12% of shoppers considered purchasing diesel vehicles. On average, considerers of this powertrain are willing to pay an additional $1,491 for the clean diesel option and expect an average additional fuel economy of 15 mpg.
As the automotive industry steadily offers more alternative powertrain/fuel options to consumers, buyer preferences will continue to shift the market in the coming years. With high fuel prices, perceived dependency on foreign oil and an increased focus on environmental issues all being top of mind among consumers, manufacturers will not only have to continuously make efforts to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, but also to diversify the range of options.
—Mike Marshall
The 2007 Alternative Powertrain Study includes responses from more than 4,000 consumers in May and June 2007 who plan to purchase a new vehicle within the next two years.
July 16, 2007 in Diesel, Hybrids, Sales | Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20079244
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study: Percentage of US New-Vehicle Shoppers Considering Hybrids Declines, While Diesel Consideration Climbs:
Comments
Folks are starting to get it! Current gasoline-electric hybrids can't quite match the real-world efficiency gains per dollar available from newer, clean-diesels.
Of course, until hi-tech battery costs come down, clean-diesel-electric hybrids are the among the lowest hanging fruit that could get us +80mpg real-world cars.
However, I fervently applaud all efforts on all fronts to increase efficiency and decrease consumption of foreign oil.
Ride a bicycle and/or take mass transit when able!
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Jul 16, 2007 11:32:10 AM
I think some of the decline is the result of the article printed by idiots at Consumers Reports that (through a really elementary accounting error) concluded in big splashy headlines that hybrids don't pay for themselves. When they were shown their error, the retraction was buried in the middle of the next issue in fine print. Damage done.
Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 16, 2007 11:46:40 AM
I own a hybrid, and I get EPA number every day.... hmmm, I guess that doesn't make the sensational news. On the other hand, I read long term reports about "real world" diesel cars only getting a fraction of their promised mileage. Yet, since diesel isn't a mainstream read just yet, I guess we'll have to wait when same headlines will come again, only time time its diesels instead of hybrids.
I also have to laugh at this blurb:
"On average, considerers of this powertrain are willing to pay an additional $1,491 for the clean diesel option and expect an average additional fuel economy of 15 mpg."
None of the BlueTEC vehicles will come close to either numbers. I'd wait and see if new VWs can meet that requirement.
By all means, I think Americans SHOULD buy more diesels, especially for people who really need diesels for trucks. I do question the availability of biodiesels in the coming years, and I also doubt that diesels will stay cheap for long. I don't think hybrids are the cure, but I believe that hybrids bridges that gap toward electric cars, and diesels are best reserved for industrial purposes.
Posted by: Charles S | Jul 16, 2007 12:05:04 PM
the Daily Telegraph recently printed a two page expose of the Toyota
Prius , listing all its faults ,none of which held any water , I know two
people who have purchased this car this year and both are delighted
and returning better mileage than advertised !
Why is it that this car stirs up such hatred among the motoring
press , could it be that the Prius is the first step in the evolutionary chain
to a cleaner and more responsable motoring future , I say long live the
Prius !
As an inhabitant of europe I can assure you all there is no such
thing as a clean diesel Bluetec or not , over here you see six month old
diesel cars emiting huge clouds of black smoke , Fords are particually
bad , diesels quite simply are not a solution !
Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 16, 2007 12:07:23 PM
If they could clean the smug emissions coming from hybrids as well as they've cleaned up what comes from diesels, hybrid consideration might go back up.
I'm really not interested in associating myself with the hairshirt environmental movement, which is why I won't consider a Prius, and I don't want to overpay to merely *look* clean, hence no Lexus hybrid. Most of the rest of the hybrid market suffers from some form of lameness.
That's why my next car is going to be a diesel.
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 16, 2007 12:12:31 PM
Umm.... hybrid diesel?
Posted by: CT | Jul 16, 2007 12:15:25 PM
Never sure about these polls. Depending on how they're worded, they can easily become push polls. Remember back, when all the competition told Toyota they were full of beans with their Prius. Having completely missed the hybrid boat, they stressed the superiority of diesel (coincidently the technology they had chosen).
If diesel technology is the best, put in hybrids. If diesel engines are capable of running on biodiesel, make them into biodiesel hybrids. But make them all plug-in hybrids.
The argument missing is the argument for plug-in hybrids. A current Prius derives 100% of its energy from gasoline. The most efficient all diesel vehicle in the world will still get 100% of its power from diesel fuel.
When either one of these internal combustion variants is slapped into a plug-in hybrid, everything changes. Then JD Powers can ask people if they'd like to plug their cars in to the grid for the equivalent of $.60 per gallon. Then JD Powers can ask if people would like to commute back and forth using power from their photovoltaics or wind turbines or micro Hydro setups.
If any company in the world ever makes a series hybrid, it should help people realize that the diesel, gasoline, alcohol, hydrogen, natural gas, butanol, biodiesel etc. etc., debates are all secondary because they're all just different methods of generating electricity.
Posted by: Lee | Jul 16, 2007 12:23:20 PM
"...which is why I won't consider a Prius..."
Ok, so why not buy a Civic Hybrid or an Escape Hybrid and remove the "hybrid" badge? I'm not trying to shame you, but just because you hate Prius for its image, then I don't see why you should exclude ALL hybrids.
Posted by: Charles S | Jul 16, 2007 12:35:00 PM
It's hard to imagine the average person actually cares to any non-negligible degree about this. Polls are more about measuring the "bounce" from a PR campaign than they are a measurement of anyone's considered opinion.
Kind of pathetic the diesel lobby is so bent on this "other white meat" PR strategy; the thinking is very much "for diesel to win, hybrids have to lose." But, as Matthew's comment suggests, there's no law of the universe that says we couldn't have both.
Posted by: Jim G | Jul 16, 2007 12:56:13 PM
No Car builder has yet to come out with a vehicle that will be the next giant leap forward. Whatever the body style it will have to be light. This means building with currently exotic materials.
It will employ Lithium-Ion batteries and have an on-board gen-set to keep the batteries charged when you exceed the battery storage range.
Currently, it looks like India or China will produce it first. The necessary technology already exists.
Posted by: Lucas | Jul 16, 2007 12:59:34 PM
Ok, so why not buy a Civic Hybrid or an Escape Hybrid and remove the "hybrid" badge? I'm not trying to shame you, but just because you hate Prius for its image, then I don't see why you should exclude ALL hybrids.
Don't worry - I am not easily shamed. :)
The Civic and the Escape have problems unrelated to their hybrid nature - the Civic is a smaller vehicle than I want, and the Escape is a Ford *and* an SUV. I have an SUV now and don't particularly want another one, for reasons unrelated to gas mileage. The Camry hybrid might otherwise be good, except I loathe the styling.
I haven't driven one yet, but I'm pretty convinced that the diesel Jetta wagon is the way to go.
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 16, 2007 1:04:59 PM
I think some of you are missing the point. Diesel's offer better mileage over gas engines of the same displacement. My 8,000 lb. diesel truck gets 15 mpg in town driving, a comprible gas engine gets 10 mpg. Run B100 and you have a very green vehicle. Also, diesel engines have a much longer life, you can easily go 200k to 300k before a rebuild. For me, a longer lasting engine keeps 2 trucks out of the landfill and keeps some green in my wallet.
Posted by: T. Beard | Jul 16, 2007 1:27:51 PM
Sounds like hybrid manufacturers need to go plug in or go home.
Posted by: Elliot | Jul 16, 2007 1:40:55 PM
I wouldn't be too sure about that. 50% of new car buyers are considering the purchase of a hybrid, while only 2% of new car sales are hybrids. That means there's a huge upside for hybrid sales.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 16, 2007 2:09:52 PM
This diesel-mpg vs. gasoling-mpg comparison is mood...
By nature of the fuel, a diesel has to be at least 15% less consuming than a gasoline engine (or, turned another way, mpg has to be de-rated by about 15-18%, depending on exact fuel composition).
Also, the highly praised "clean" diesels merely meet T2B5-8 limits - and are not to be sold anyplace CAFE rules are implemented.
Typically, a gasoline hybrid gets are better CO2 footage (less CO2 per mile over a diesel, not necessarily mpg), and meets or exceeds T2B2 / AT-PZEV / SULEV, which no "clean" diesel will achive.
Of course, one could trade diesel efficiency vs. exhaust emissions (by putting even more expensive aftertreatment systems in, over the expensive and complex auxiliary systems required to get a diesel to operate anywhere near the maximum tolerable exhaust thresholds (high-pressure injection pump, AGR, Turbo, Soot filer, Urea-Denox, etc).
For economic reasons, with more stringent emissions requirements, diesels will come to a dead stop.
For economic reasons, when fuels are taxed by fossil carbon content, the artificial price benefit of diesel fuel will reverse, so that people will be stuck with a car, for which they have payed a hefty premium, to be filled up with expensive fuel, and get the honor to pay a premium on emissions-related car taxes...
(In europe, with diesel share of new cars more than 2/3, the tax regime is about to change - now it pays off for the governments to have that many diesel drivers in the population - and as others pointed out, even driving the most modern diesel cars, they cann't hide. One decent touch of the gas pedal, and the smoke plume will be the giveaway.
Anyone ever wondered, why light-duty vehicles are never tested with their engines under high transient load... (ie. decent start off a green traffic light)...
Posted by: realarms | Jul 16, 2007 2:15:24 PM
Light duty vehicles are tested under load in California. I don't know the specifics of how the chassis dyno is setup though. Sometimes in Washington as well...but I don't know when this applies since they just scanned for diagnostic trouble codes and didn't put me on a tailpipe sniffer for my 1999 vehicle.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 16, 2007 2:35:00 PM
realarms -- your analysis could be a little deeper. It could, for instance, include the fact that EROEI for gasoline is lower than that for diesel. It could recognize that dealing with NOx in the exhaust (as it is done with Otto engines) instead of just lowering the flame temperature could let diesel run more efficiently (Toyota claim peak thermodynamic efficiency for the current Prius is 37%; for their D4D 45%). It could recognize that one of the most promising approaches to increasing gasoline efficiency (lean burn GDI) has the exact same NOx problem diesel has. It could recognize that the Tier/Bin ratings have their own biases (eg, EPA knows that PM number is even more important than PM mass -- but they won't count number). The real problem with diesel emissions is that it took us so freaking long to deal with the sulfur in it (as it is, our cetane number is the lowest in the developed world). Emissions can be dealt with, even though we're starting so late. Initial costs will be high (same objections we heard back in the 70s with the catalytic converter); but the efficiency advantages are great enough that we should certainly encourage its use until we can get off fossil fuels altogether.
Posted by: cidi | Jul 16, 2007 3:18:29 PM
Typically, a gasoline hybrid...meets or exceeds T2B2 / AT-PZEV / SULEV, which no "clean" diesel will achive.
realarms - don't know to what time frame you're referring, but Mike recently posted a blog entry here on GCC about light-duty diesel vehicles being developed capable of meeting T2B2/SULEV/PZEV (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/08/ricardo_develop.html#more), so it appears technically feasible.
Also, please explain why you don't think the much higher evaporative emissions for which gasoline vehicles (hybrids or otherwise) are responsible are not an air quality concern.
Posted by: Carl | Jul 16, 2007 3:22:08 PM
"...Don't worry - I am not easily shamed."
Great! So I'm curious, if VW makes a hybrid, which they say they have plans in development, would you still buy a Jetta Wagon Hybrid?
The focus here is that there are a lot of excuses about why hybrid is evil and bad, but in the end, it's still just a drivetrain. The rest are just branding and advertisement.
Too often, people are mixed with emotional projections when it comes to vehicle purchases. That may be fine in the past. But now, I'd rather see the public be more interested in getting off fossil fuels and start moving toward electric cars. The investments into hybrids also means investment into electric motors and automotive batteries. Diesel will still be around for a LONG LONG time, and it's better used in industrial applications than passenger cars.
Lastly, the argument for a supposed "longer life" of a diesel truck is weak at best. The value of a 20-years old VW Golf TDI is no more than $500. Old engines always pollute more and less efficient. Contrary to popular beliefs, most cars do NOT go to landfills. Anything metal probably will get recycled.
In my opinion, if an old diesel engines are so great, I think pro-diesel people need tell people NOT to buy any new diesel vehicles, but to hold onto their old diesels to prove the point.
Posted by: Charles S | Jul 16, 2007 4:40:27 PM
I think the disenchantment with Hybrids is partly due to inaccurate claims of high mileage. The Prius gets about 45 gpm overall, and so those expecting near 60 MPH are disappointed. The hybrids in name only vehicles offered by some add only about 2 MPG, and that is not enough to support a highter resale value to recoupe the initial hybrid premium. And some folks like me may be waiting for the first OEM to bring out a lithium battery PHEV. When it hits the market, I think walk-in interest will skyrocket.
Posted by: Van | Jul 16, 2007 5:50:51 PM
Sorry, in the above post, I wrote gpm when I meant miles per gallon, and I wrote MPH when I meant miles per gallon.
Posted by: Van | Jul 16, 2007 5:53:35 PM
T2B3 and T2B2 SULEV PZEV are all possible for diesels. But Europe won't promulgate a T2B5 standard until at least 2017 and it's really not T2B5, its more like T2B6+ for the EU6 rating.
God only knows when they will get around to a real T2B5 or T2B3 or T2B2 diesel standards 2030? 2040? 2050?
The Greens always TALK a good show, but don't really DO anything. That is why the East Bloc is still such an environmnetal wasteland.
European Cities STINK of diesel.
It is like being stuck behind a smelly smoke emitting "mass transit" bus spewing diesel soot in the USA. But it is around the clock and everywhere!
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jul 16, 2007 6:00:29 PM
WTF?
In my opinion, if an old diesel engines are so great, I think pro-diesel people need tell people NOT to buy any new diesel vehicles, but to hold onto their old diesels to prove the point.
Posted by: T. Beard | Jul 16, 2007 6:32:04 PM
So I'm curious, if VW makes a hybrid, which they say they have plans in development, would you still buy a Jetta Wagon Hybrid?
Depends on whether they also still offer the diesel version as well, along with the price differential between hybrid (I'm assuming a gasoline hybrid) and diesel.
All other things being equal, I'd probably still stick with the diesel. If I can get most or all of the efficiency of a hybrid without either the complexity of a hybrid drivetrain or a passing association with the holier-than-thou green crowd, that's fine by me.
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 16, 2007 6:37:44 PM
"...or a passing association with the holier-than-thou green crowd..."
Uh huh. That's a really great thing to base a car purchase on.
Posted by: George | Jul 16, 2007 7:24:38 PM
Consumer Reports is a magazine that is not always right on
the money. If you have any experience with other products
that they review, you will see that they see value on their
own terms. I value not having to purchase a product that
is not renewable (gasoline) and from a foreign monarchy that
teaches hate in their madrasas(schools). This business
model is to only reduce the value of our currency(buying power)
abroad, and to make this nation dependent on the stability of
other nations with which we have no ability to secure. Who are
we kidding? Are the "War of the Waters" next?
Posted by: William | Jul 16, 2007 10:48:42 PM
Ok, I'll admit i'm smug about the 72.6 miles per US gallon I've achieved over the last 40,000 miles. (2002 Insight) Please forgive me for smiling at the pumps, or laughing outloud when recounting how my 500 dollar VW turbo Diesel blew up, or being pissed off that the Quebec government closed the refueling stations for my GNC converted vehicles.
As for J.D. Powers: they predicted two years ago that hybrid market penetration would max out at 2.5 to 3 percent around 2015. Infact, we reached that milestone earlier this year! Weren't they also predicting oil would return to the 20 to 30 dollar a barrel range, or am I confusing them with another group of well funded prognosticators?
Their current pronouncements are likely just as accurate as their former. :P
Posted by: Kip Munro | Jul 16, 2007 11:16:18 PM
"Of course, until hi-tech battery costs come down, clean-diesel-electric hybrids are the among the lowest hanging fruit that could get us +80mpg real-world cars."
Hi Diesel-Hybrid we have had that allready in Germany in the Year 2000 ( Audi A2 1.2 78,4 mpg even without Hybrid The Toyota Prius2 has 104 G CO2 / KM in Europe ratings The Audi A2 1.2 has 81 G CO2 / KM in Europe ratings without hybrid / about equal size)
Spangenberg
Posted by: C. Spangenberg | Jul 17, 2007 4:57:34 AM
Rumors abound: Hybrids cost $14,000.00 more than a conventional car, a Prius uses more energy than a Hummer to manufacture, The batteries don't last and the landfills will be awash with dead batteries, The Prius only gets 39 MPG, and not the 60 MPG advertised, hybrids are just a flash in the pan, diesels are better, etc, etc, etc.
Poppycock! Some people should get a life.
Posted by: shigley | Jul 17, 2007 5:06:25 AM
Nice to hear a growing number of consumers would at least consider a clean diesel rather than perpetuate antiquated perceptions of 1980s technology.
Depending on displacement, the premium for the diesel engine alone will be $1000-$2000 extra in the MRSP. On top of that will come the additional expense for cleaning up the exhaust gases to the T2B5/LEV II level, figure at least as much again - if not more.
As for the 15MPG bump, the European experience suggests that is easily within the realm of possibility - iff you compare gallons of gasoline to gallons of diesel. However, the latter is denser and therefore contains 10% more energy by volume. In the US, fuel taxes are structured such that over the long haul (i.e. not in the middle of summer), national average prices at the pump for both fuels roughly reflect energy content. On a cost/mile basis, the benefit will be smaller than it may appear at first.
Depreciation, insurance and - in some states - fees/taxes are tied to residual value. All will likely be higher for clean diesels, as will spare parts for the drivetrain.
Ergo, clean diesel will likely win market share only in large sedans, station wagons, minivans, SUVs and trucks. The vast majority of mid-size and smaller cars will continue to be powered by gasoline engines. Fortunately, between variable valve trains, downsizing w/ turbocharging, GDI and various levels of hybridization, Japanese and European manufacturers are figuring out how to improve their fuel economy as well. By and large, US manufacturers are still playing catch-up.
Conclusion: clean diesel is a useful complement to other fuel-saving technologies, but for the US market, it is no panacea.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jul 17, 2007 5:41:24 AM
For me it is simple - hybrids are too complicated.
A solution needs to be simple. The more complex, the more can go wrong. So - my next care will be either 1) a clean t2b5 diesel or 2) Electric drive with ICE genset/range extender.
Both are simple solutions - #2 removes all complexity from the system. The Electric motor drives the wheels, the ICE can be set to run at an optimal rpm and stay there. You loose a ton of weight (probably not exactly a ton or even a tonne, but it was meant metaphorically anyway). And you can do adjustments in software, drive by wire etc... So you could give a car multiple personalities - Power, Efficient, Blended etc... that can be selected at will... And without any impact on weight. I am by no means a GM fan, but if they deliver on the Volt - IT WILL save that company. Now if my current civic doesn't last until then... I will opt for a clean t2b5 diesel from either Honda or VW.
Posted by: Dustin in Ohio | Jul 17, 2007 6:13:41 AM
Uh huh. That's a really great thing to base a car purchase on.
Like it or not, people make assumptions about you based on the car you drive - just consider what people here think about people who drive Hummers if you don't believe me.
Right now hybrids are associated with the we're-all-gonna-die global warming crowd, an association that I want no part of. That'll change over time as hybrids increase market penetration, but for now that's just one reason among several that I'm not interested in buying one.
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 17, 2007 6:57:44 AM
Lot of "if this" and "if that" and "when ...."
This deals with people making decisions NOW. There is no question that Prius DOES pay for any initial cost difference between it and cheaper gas based models. Also it is clear that NiMH batteries can last a long time. The problem is that Prius owner ends up more or less even compared to cheaper gas engine cars. Moreover, we have a huge choice of used conventional cars and small choice of used hybrids. For a student or a young family that cannot afford a new car, much less an expensive hybrid they don't really have a choice.
Diesels are not all the same. Some like VWs are not much better than gasoline versions. However, there are others like turbo charged smaller engines, say Smart car, that is equal or better than many hybrids. For instance the new Smart model is about 60 or 70 mpg. Granted Prius is bigger, but I spend most of my driving time commuting when I don't need 4 seats. So my choice is a $30K Prius or $18K Smart for commuting (for longer trips I can rent or do something else). That is why it is so easy to pick a diesel instead of a hybrid.
Long term hybrids and later pure electric wins. Which brings us to PHEV. When Prius is designed to hold more electricity AND be able to charge from grid, THEN the fuel cost savings become high enough that I may want hybrid instead of diesel.
In my case kWh is about $0.05, so for a buck I get 20 kWh. I am guessing that a 100km commute to work (round trip) would require, just guessing say 40 kWh = $2
Now I am paying about $10 worth of gasoline.
That is where the BIG savings are. Hubrid technology is nice, but replacing gasoline with electricity is much better. Only THEN will diesel be less interesting and PHEVs will be all the rage.
Posted by: q | Jul 17, 2007 8:19:59 AM
"WTF"
Well, seriously. The argument about diesel is that it lasts longer. If so, DO NOT BUY A NEW DIESEL vehicle!
WHY should people who believe that diesels are more reliable and more durable should they tell others to buy a new diesel car? Go look in the classified ads and I can promise you that you can buy yourself a used, polluting diesel vehicle on the cheap!
Since longevity and simplicity is such an ideal for purchasing an engine choice, then pro-diesel crowds need to avoid all the fancy technology such as TURBO-CHARGERS and UREA-Injectors that boost mileage and reduce emissions. With all the add-ons, it sure only makes it's easier to break.
I find it ironic that buying a hybrid is considered a liberal agenda, but I consider blind faith in the unshakable myth of diesel being the holy grail is just as absurd.
I personally find diesels to be a distraction in the passenger automotive market. I don't care if people believe in Global Warming or if they think the world is awash with oil. However, I hope we all can agree that liquid fossil fuels is mired with such complexities, this is why we are discussing about fuel-efficiencies. No doubt that diesel are needed and will be around for a long time. The question is if there is shortage or a need to lower consumption to reduce high prices, who should diesel fuels be diverted to? Industrial applications (Long-haulers, locomotives, remote travels), or passenger cars who do short commutes most times of the year?
If we waste time on diesels for passengers vehicles, then it's just takes resources away from electric vehicles developments. Leave diesels for our industrial infrastructures and be proactive and look toward EVs instead, which hybrids will pave the way.
Posted by: Charles S | Jul 17, 2007 9:07:17 AM
Speaking for myself, I am not bashing hybrids. I’m just pointing out some considerations about environmental impacts of diesel and gasoline/hybrid vehicles that need to be put into perspective. Everyone seems to jump to a conclusion about how “dirty” diesels are based on, as Rafael points out, antiquated perceptions.
The point of my previous post is that more than just what comes out of a vehicle’s tailpipe need to be taken into consideration. As I mentioned in another thread, the U.S. EPA estimates that 475,000 TONS of gasoline vapors are emitted in the U.S. each year JUST from the distribution of gasoline to gas stations – the filling of gasoline tankers at a terminal, the transportation of that fuel to the gas station, and the off-loading of the fuel at the station. That doesn’t include evaporative emissions from the production, bulk storage, and distribution of the gasoline to the pipeline terminals. A quick calculation of 475K tons is over 150 MILLION gallons of gasoline that are not only wasted, the vapors oxidize in the atmosphere and contribute to ambient ozone (smog), formaldehyde, and secondary organic particulate matter (SOA). The current hybrids still use highly volatile gasoline as their fuel and indirectly contribute to these VOC emissions. This source of VOCs could be virtually eliminated in the U.S. by switching the light-duty fleet to diesel.
Furthermore, the emission standards themselves aren’t the “magic bullet” for improving air quality than most seem to assume. For example, according to EPA’s own data, as of October 2006, 15.5 million people live in areas that are designated non-attainment with the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. On top of that, CO is also an ozone precursor. Yet the regulators turn around and do virtually nothing about CO emissions in the Tier 2/LEV II regs (the emission rate remains UNCHANGED not only from Tier 1, but from regulations promulgated in 1981; only the “useful life” provision has been extended). Can someone explain the logic of that?
I acknowledge that there are legitimate advantages of gas-hybrids over diesels. The “dirty” aspect is not one of them, in my opinion.
Posted by: Carl | Jul 17, 2007 9:15:12 AM
@Dustbin:
I disagree with you about the hybrids complexity.
To put it more bluntly: you are dead wrong. The transmission of a Prius is mutch simpler compared to the clutch and gearbox you find in ordinary cars. Modern gearboxes are very complex pieces of engineering. And clutches are guaranteed to wear out. The moving parts the Prius has instead of those are a planetary gearset and two electric motors, both of which are extremely simple and reliable.
Apart from this, the Prius has the power electronics and battery. Electronics in general are more reliable than mechanical systems. Remains the only potential weak point of the Prius: the battery. Googling for ‘Prius battery problems’ brings up nothing.
Of course, there are more hybrids than the Prius, but one example is enough to disprove your claim that more can go wrong with hybrids because they are too complex. Because it has fewer moving parts than a conventional car, I am convinced that the Prius will prove to be one of the most reliable and durable cars ever built.
Posted by: Anne | Jul 17, 2007 9:52:03 AM
Sorry, Dustin :-)
Posted by: Anne | Jul 17, 2007 9:52:58 AM
Sorry, Dustin :-)
Posted by: Anne | Jul 17, 2007 10:01:29 AM
Anne ,
totally agree with you , there is too much focus on the hybrid cars
suppossed complexity , as you point out this is plainly not true, in fact the
prius does away with the traditional separate starter motor -generater layout
building them both into one highly reliable motor , as far as I can find out there
have been next to no failures of this unit , in my experiance generater/alternater
failures are amongst the most common breakdowns.
another advantage of the prius is low brake wear , it is not unknown for
a prius to do 100,000 km on a set of pads , this of course saves a lot of cash
in the long run, not to mention the reduction of airbourne particles from heavy
braking , a big plus in built up areas.
last but not least is the attention given to the prius electronics , most ICE
cars today have very complex engine managment systems which often give
costly and hard to rectify problems, as yet I have not heard of a failure .
The prius is a victim of its own sucess , and is possibly the first step to
a more responsable future
Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 17, 2007 1:56:28 PM
I'm pretty sure you cannot add an entire additional subsystem to a vehicle (in this case, the battery, charging system, and control electronics) and end up with overall increased reliability. With the exception of the transmission as Anne described, the Prius has all the failure modes of an ordinary car, PLUS whatever failure modes the unique systems bring to the party.
Posted by: Matthew | Jul 17, 2007 3:11:09 PM
"So my choice is a $30K Prius or $18K Smart for commuting."
Posted by: q | Jul 17, 2007 8:19:59 AM
A $30K Prius? Maybe you don't mean US dollars? The base-model Prius is under $22K US. Even with all the options, I don't think you can spend $30K US on a Prius.
I don't know what the Smart car costs/will cost in the United States.
Posted by: John L. | Jul 17, 2007 5:07:51 PM
"Googling for ‘Prius battery problems’ brings up nothing."
Posted by: Anne | Jul 17, 2007 9:52:03 AM
Indeed. I know a taxi cab driver who just replaced the battery on his 2001 Prius, at 130,000 miles. Another guy at his cab company has gone 150,000 miles without replacing his battery.
My 2004 Prius only has 29,000 miles on it, so I have a long way to go. :^)
"another advantage of the prius is low brake wear , it is not unknown for a prius to do 100,000 km on a set of pads."
Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 17, 2007 1:56:28 PM
Indeed. With my last car, a 1989 Mercury Tracer, I did about five brake jobs over the car's 163,000-mile life. It was about $300 each time -- probably more in today's money. Thus brake maintenance on the Prius costs you about 40% what it would cost you on a regular car -- saving you perhaps an extra $1,200 in the time it takes to burn out a battery.
I'm not automatically against Diesels, but from this report I would conclude that the Diesel people are making some inroads with their F.U.D. campaign -- that's "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt." The phony hybrids that have been released recently don't help -- I'm taking about the "performance" hybrids which add power instead of efficiency, like the V6 Accord; and the "mild" hybrids from GM which are simply cheap and only improve the fuel economy by 10%.
Posted by: John L. | Jul 17, 2007 5:20:39 PM
Carl,
I own a Corolla diesel (in Europe, of course). I like my car for silence at cruising (it is silencer that gasoline Corolla) and for range. At technical inspection the technician sayed that it could be Euro5 compliant, very low soot, much lower thar Euro4 (and I don't have DPF filter).
But... Toyota and Honda are the exception in this area. VW, Mercedes and other well-known diesel makers don't build diesel aluminium engines (like Toyota and Honda for the entire range) and a new car even with DPF is MUCH more polutant (you will see clouds of soot at start or speeding). And nobody cares, they also pass Euro4 and will pass Euro5, so there is no real benefit for a clean/good diesel engine (which of course will cost more).
And for your information, polution for diesel is much harder to combat: it depends on fuel quality, on driving habits, on car's age, on temperature...
A hybrid (a good one) is the way to go, if they solve the battery recicling problem. Much cleaner (gasoline problems can be solved much easier), much reliable (electric motor can be much reliable) and much closer to future car (may I say no to combustion engine?).
From this point diesel is a departure and a dead-end (how if everybody will dump research on EV and focus on diesel?-say Hello to oil companies).
Posted by: Mircea | Jul 18, 2007 6:22:53 AM
I can't wait for the new diesels to get here, for the press to fully vette them out, etc. And for Americans to see what they really are. I'm tired of all these idiots that have no idea what theyre talking about. I was going to respond to a lot of the BS above, but it's too daunting (as there is so much). For one, Mircea, a DPF equipped small diesel will not emit any visible soot under any condition (I'm sure youre checking cars on the motorway to verify the cloud-emitters have DPFs right?) That you base your estimate of pollution on what you *see* out of a tail pipe says a lot, nevermind the rest of your faulty observations and worthless conclusions. BTW, there are several production aluminum diesel engines available in Europe. BMW's new 2.0L diesel making 200hp+ is aluminum block. As for EV getting us away from oil companies? Yeah, I guess you prefer to just shift your loyalties to energy companies, that get vast majority of their energy from other limited resources fuels. Great solution.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 18, 2007 9:38:40 AM
Let me be clear. The ONLY meaningful inherent engineering disadvantages to diesel is NOx and soot MASS. DPF is not terribly expensive and essentially solves any soot disparity versus gasser (if not giving diesel the advantage in soot). NOx issue has questionable merit anyway at this juncture.
In virtually EVERY OTHER WAY diesels are superior to gasoline SI engines for light duty applications (peak power per engine weight is SI's only other advantage, but the difference is not a huge consideration for passenger vehicles). This is NOT hyperbole. Diesel is the SUPERIOR technical solution.
Diesels dont create a huge evaporative emissions problem as gassers do.
Diesels have inherently low CO emissions, compared to gassers which have inherently high CO (which EPA has heavily neglected, as mentioned above)
Diesels can/will quite easily achieve PZEV/SULEV status.
Heavy fuels are safer; diesel vehicles more readily accept biofuels that are less harmful to the environment, both pre- and post-combustion.
Diesels DO last longer, mostly because they spend much of their life spinning at much lower revs than gas (typically 1/2 to 1/3 as many revs). At this point, with emissions so low to start, there is no worry about a new diesel vehicle lasting 50 years, because their emissions are so damned low anyway - better to remove the need for construction of one more new vehicle. Relatedly, diesels maintain their emissions performance much better than gas/SI engines, staying essentially flat where gasoline get's progressively worse with age. For example, my 1981 Rabbit diesel emits very little compared to any gas Rabbit of the same age.
Diesels are simpler. No ignition system (dead batteries are less of a problem, especially with manual tranny). Inherently better thermal efficiency. Quieter at cruise. Can run all sorts of fuels compared to gassers/SI, bio and otherwise.
Right now the only disadvantage to consumers with a diesel vehicle will be the added cost of emissions controls (main added cost of engine is the turbo; many gas are going turbo, and more to come). This is as much to do with our regulatory agencies' questionable priorities (political and otherwise) as anything else. But in short time, these costs will come down without question. Already new NOx cat technology that is superior to SCR is undergoing testing, certification and licensing.
And I've been to many European cities in recent years - they DO NOT stink of diesel. I am so sick of these mindless, dubious anti-diesel punk freaks.
Posted by: joe blow | Jul 18, 2007 10:02:06 AM
Mircea,
You're still not addressing the indirect evaporative emissions for which gasoline vehicles are responsible. I mentioned above that according to the U.S. EPA, 475,000 tons of evaporative emissions come just from the distribution of gasoline to gas stations.
Based on the 2002 U.S. National Emission Inventory (NEI), the best that I can tell, over one million tons (1,014,000 tons actually) of evaporative emissions came from the "handing" of gasoline in 2002. Not only is this a complete waste of what is becoming a more and more precious resource, it significantly contributes to air pollution.
For your information, longer chain hydrocarbons like gasoline oxidize in the atmosphere once released, contributing to ambient ozone and formaldehyde as they are oxidized, to increasingly lower vapor pressure products that tend to partition to the solid phase (organic particles), mostly in the "nucleation" mode (nanoparticles).
Studies indicate that the particle yield may be 10% or greater by mass, meaning that those million+ tons of gasoline vapors could potentially produce over 100,000 tons of fine PM (PM2.5).
To put this into perspective, the direct emissions of PM2.5 from all U.S. on-highway diesel sources in 2002 was 99,000 tons according to the NEI.
Furthermore, according to EPA, direct on-highway diesel sources PM 2.5 contribution will fall to about 10,000 tons by 2030 just from the regulations that are currently in effect.
Meanwhile, direct PM2.5 emissions from "non-diesel highway sources" (i.e., mostly gasoline) will rise to almost 60,000 tons. Add to this the indirect SOA contribution of gasoline sources, and diesel sources become essentially trivial in comparison.
Again, not bashing hybrids (I think the technology has a great deal of promise), just trying to put this "dirty diesel" perception into perspective.
Posted by: Carl | Jul 18, 2007 10:58:13 AM
How about if auto makers produce many good options and the consumer can pick what meets thier needs the best. I currently own an older VW TDI becasue it meets my needs best - if I I drove more short tips, and didn't live in an area where I can get BioDiesel, I probably would have gone with a Prius.
Here are some other options for people. An older Honda CRX - 1986 through 1988 HF model gets excellent fuel efficiency. The mid 1990's Saturn SL1 with a 5 speed transmission does nicely and is considered a very "safe" car, with airbags and safety cage. Look these cars up on autos.msn.com - the '88 Honda CRX HF is going to supprise you!
I for one am fairly dissapointed in most auto manufacturer's current efforts.
1. GM deserves to be in thier current financial situation since thier best efficiency is with thier Daewoo Designed Chevy Aveo at 37 MPG Highway. A 10 year old Saturn SL1 5sp is a nicer car, and can get 39 on the freeway. They haven't put a diesel engine in a Suburban or 1/2 ton pickup since 1999. Shame on them.
Thier only noteworthy work has been on hybrid Metro Busses.
2. Kudos to Daimler-Chrysler to bringing the Dodge Sprinter (Freightliner, MB) to the US - Small contractors and airport shuttles have saved a lot of fuel with the 5 cylinder Diesel.
3. Kudos to BMW with some of their new advances with mini-hybrid (like some regenerative braking and take-off assist from the alternator)
4. Kudos to Toyota for bringing us the Prius- may not meet my neeeds, but a lot of people with disposable income in the Seattle area are buying them in droves and at least it is better than if they wasted thier money on multiple SUVs - many now have an SUV for when then need it and a Prius for commuting.
5. I am neutral on Ford, but give them credit for thier hybrids. Would like to see them putting a small diesel in the 1/2 ton ford pickups and thier SUV Counterparts.
7. Kudos to VW for continuing to support Diesel in the US Car market. It is a tough road, as dealer service is not good, and the overall quality of the vehicles is poor, but for those willing to be thier own mechanic, there is a lot of good support on the Internet.
Posted by: Spokane Walt | Jul 18, 2007 12:43:46 PM
If you believe we have a free and open auto market, you must also accept the concept of flying reindeers. It is apparent that the auto companies and the oil companies have agreed to bring diesel ICEs back to the American market. The evidence is the development of "light block" direct high pressure cylinder injection, expensive particulate filters and the reduction of the sulfur content of diesel from 500 parts per million to ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) at 15 parts per million by ultra refining the oil. Additionally, Audi has for sometime now publicized its winning diesel powered race cars. And, indeed Honda and others have already announced their up coming diesel ICEs. If you like diesels, the stage has been set and in the next few years, you will have the opportunity to purchase them from several companies. These diesels will be more expensive because the companies expect to recover their investments in cleaning up the technology. And, I believe the attention paid to diesel ICEs will delay the electrification of the U.S. personal transportation systems(cars). For various reasons, or excuses, no company is ready to risk mass marking PHEVs or BEVs yet. But, I believe diesels will be placeholders until PHEVs and BEVs become the car of choice. So the plan is: Gasoline and Diesel ICEs and HEVs for now and the near future, followed by a mixing in of PHEVs and then BEVs will be added to the PHEVS as diesel and gasoline ICEs fade from use. I think this is the evolution process planned by the automobile manufacturers as coordinated by their alliance lobbyist, the AAM.
Posted by: Lad | Jul 18, 2007 10:35:13 PM
The MPG Record-Holder until today was the Audi A2 1.2 a Diesel . And he did it in the Year 2000 without Hybrid .
( about same size as the Prius2 with 78,4 mpg and 81 G / KM CO2 where a 2007 Prius2 gets only 104 G / KM )
But if fossil fuel is finished you are better of with an electric Car .
Spangenberg
Posted by: Spangenberg | Jul 19, 2007 6:13:56 AM
Fuel taxes are based on volume here in the U.S., not carbon content (don't expect that to change anytime soon)
Currently diesel here costs less than the cheapest grade of petrol, and I wouldn't expect that to change soon either.
Since it has a higher BTU content per volume than petrol, and a more efficient combustion cycle, I'm very much looking forward to clean diesels over the next 24 months.
Those will be 50 state approved diesels, with VW/Audi next spring, Asian automakers a year later (e.g., U.K. diesel Accord, 53 mpg imperial combined cycle)
Series hybrids (if anyone can get them to market) could give diesels a run for their money.
It will be a long time before PHEV are anything but toys for the rich, given the costs of the battery pack alone (currently $25,000 for Tesla's, $75,000 for Altair's NanoSafe)
Posted by: Bill | Jul 19, 2007 6:50:08 PM
joe blow,
next time you vist europe, take time out in the northern suburbs
of Milan Italy , particually the area with the six lane highway running through
it , that will soon cure you of your love for the diesel engine , you might also
share a thought for the poor souls who live on top of this highway and have
to breathe the foul air every day of their lives !
Posted by: andrichrose | Jul 20, 2007 6:06:42 AM
Joe blow,
You amaze me with you good knowledge of diesel cars.
1. ,,Diesel last longer because low rpm". Myth, many problems are not related to engine, but to turbocharger (like over 100 000 rpm?). Please search NHTSA for oil leakage, or Google and you will find more problems on diesel.
2. ,,A DPF equipped small diesel will not emit any visible soot under any condition" - myth. I don't check cars on motorway but every new Passat 2.0TDI, Mercedes HAS DPF. Did you hear about DPF contamination? Or some methods to eliminate the extra soot.
3. ,,No ignition system (dead batteries are less of a problem, especially with manual tranny)" - myth. Try to start a diesel engine in very cold winters...
4. BTW, there are several production aluminum diesel engines available in Europe - I also sayed that this is not the rule and only Toyota and Honda build aluminium diesel engine for ENTIRE line. Everybody when thinks about diesel thinks about VW. For instance Renault build better some diesel engines (refined, aluminium) but who cares?
5. ,,And I've been to many European cities in recent years - they DO NOT stink of diesel. I am so sick of these mindless, dubious anti-diesel punk freaks" well, speak for yourself. I own a diesel and maybe here in Europe my next car will be a diesel, but I will cha.nge anytime for a hybrid or EV
Posted by: Mircea | Jul 27, 2007 11:16:19 AM
