Dust to Dust Vehicle Energy Cost

[grahamfitter]

First post! Here goes…

I’ve been thinking about driving somewhere interesting but my 1997 Jeep Wrangler, stock except for 31x10.5 tires, gets lousy gas mileage. Back in the 20th century, gas was really cheap and 17 mpg was really irrelevant. Now my Ford Focus, which routinely gets 30 mpg, makes me routinely consider the financial and environmental cost of driving the Jeep anywhere. It’s a real guilt trip.

I stumbled on CNW’s "Dust to Dust" Automotive Energy Report: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

The dust to dust energy cost is the total energy used by a vehicle over its lifespan, including design, manufacture, use, maintenance and scrapping, calculated on a cost per mile basis. From what I can tell the motivation for doing this was to determine whether hybrids are any better for the environment than regular vehicles. The web site has a spreadsheet with all the rankings and a hefty PDF document with all the analysis.

Here’s the top ten lowest dust to dust energy cost vehicles in the USA:


xB
Neon
Tracker
Ion
Wrangler
Corolla
Aveo
Elantra
xA
S10

The Jeep Wrangler is in the top five. Better than my thirteenth place Focus! I skimmed through the analysis which suggests that the Wrangler is simple and robust, and the parts haven’t changed much over the model years. This decreases design and manufacturing costs, increases the availability of spares and makes the retired vehicle a likely organ donor. All this outweighs the increased fuel consumption.

Assuming these numbers are correct, I'm ahead in the total energy game, I'm an environmentalist and my guilt trip is over. On the other hand, being an environmentalist is getting more expensive by the gallon.

Cheers,
Graham

[Scott Brady]

I think you win the "Coolest First Post Award". Very good stuff. :beer:

[Scott Brady]

I thought it was interesting that they indicated a Toyota Land Cruiser would have over a 300,000 mile service life. Cool stuff.

[grahamfitter]

Thanks, Scott!

(What's the prize?)

Cheers,
Graham

[Scott Brady]

(What's the prize?)


I will find something equally cool :beer:

I compiled a top ten

Tracker $0.665
Wrangler $0.709
Ranger $0.961
Liberty $1.066
Canyon $1.116
Tacoma $1.123
B-Series $1.140
Dakota $1.229
Frontier $1.350
Grand Vitara $1.430

note: I removed redundant platforms and platforms no longer sold

[viter]

good point Graham!
I took 1 environmental engineering class while studying for my mechanical engineering degree and perhaps one main thing I got out of it is that "environmentally better" is not as simple as it might seem - one has to perform lifecycle analysis of the product or process to determine its true enivornmental impact (which they made us do for 1 commercial product and 1 industrial process as practice). Too bad, this becomes a major amount of work, but looks like somebody was brave enough to do it at least for vehicles! :clapsmile

[Christian P.]

I just spend 30 minutes browsing the whole article and files.

While the intend of the article is in the right direction (overall environmental cost of a car, not just fuel economy), the whole thing seems to be oriented against the Hybrid. It left aside some major points, like the fact the Hybrid is the first real technological mass-market advancement in years - you can't really put a value on this at this point.

They do state that it's not the goal of the article, but all the references/comparaisons are made against the Prius.

It left me really perplex.

Finally, the Estimated Life in Miles is based on historical data as well as manufacturer
information and real-world life-cycle information that average the miles over comparable
historic models as well as a CNW analysis of repair and replacement as well as scrappage
records. In effect, the miles figure here is a realistic approximation of the likely life-cycle of the
individual models

As much as I am an hardcore LandCruiser lover, I am having a hard time believing that they get 300000 miles on average - and only 100000 miles for the Prius. That means half of the Land Cruiser would have to get over 300000 miles (technically, that would be the median). For each Land Cruiser that crashed, get stolen, burned, get flooded, etc at 50000 miles, you would need another one which reach 550000 miles to balance that average.

This average mileage is a huge factor is that calculation. If you put the average to 200000 miles for the Prius, then it jumps to the top of the list.

I do believe that it's overall better to keep your Wrangler than to buy a new car - even a Prius. But if you have to buy a new car tomorrow, you'd have a hard time convincing me that buying a Hummer is better than buying a Prius.

okay...time to go packing...leaving for Panama tomorrow!!!

:sunny:

[DesertRose]

Welcome Graham - really great find, thank you for the post.

Had you seen my recent Quest posts down in the Expeditions Vehicles: Other subforum?

I recently did a lot of research but missed this great resource. I'll take the time later today to peruse it.

Early on I even asked if it was more ecological and economical to stick with a used high-quality vehicle than putting another new one in service, with all the attendant manufacturing costs.

Welcome to the Portal!

[DesertRose]

Okay, for a little balance here.

After looking at it and their website, and doing some google searching, I'm a little concerned about the CMR Research folks report and methodology, which has been questioned by the likes of MIT's Argonne labs. Hmm. And since CMR won't publish their methodology, well . . . before I pat myself on the back for driving an old Land Cruiser, I guess I'll have to just wait and see if some other verifiable studies come up.

Here's some stuff to chew on:

MIT Argonne Laboratories study on hybrids vs conventional (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/technology_analysis/cost_analysis.html)

Toyota responds to the CMR report
(http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3532239)

Apparently one of the biggest questions - which CMR won't answer - is that manufacturing costs factor the biggest in such equations, and some people are guessing - since the company won't tell - that they are factoring in research/development costs into the Prius and not the others. Also, CMR does state that the batteries aren't recycled, and this is clearly debunked by Toyota, which has had an electric RAV4 for almost 10 years and has a recycling program.

Some of the folks out there are claiming that GM funds CMR but that's not verifiable as far as I know and just sounds like sour (green) grapes.

Hmmph. Lots to chew, and good to do.

Best takehome lesson: nothing is clear-cut, just try to get the facts. Hard to do, for sure.

I also agree with 2aroundtheworld, by the way: we must take into account the need to find and support alternative fuels.

[DaveInDenver]

This average mileage is a huge factor is that calculation. If you put the average to 200000 miles for the Prius, then it jumps to the top of the list.

I haven't had time to read the whole thing, but one thing that jumps out at me is the mileage thing. Well that and that my truck is listed (pre-Tacoma, which is another point about longevity, eh). Anyway, Toyota expects 150,000 miles from a set of Prius batteries, which are NiMH and recyclable anyway. I guess it would be interesting to see how they weighted the R&D and manufacturing costs. I say that because it seems they are biased heavily towards vehicles that are either already designed or for some reason are particularly cheap to build initially. If a vehicle is a brand new design with significant cost to develop new technology, it gets dinked pretty bad.

[Christian P.]

Some of the folks out there are claiming that GM funds CMR but that's not verifiable as far as I know and just sounds like sour (green) grapes.

.

DesertRose,

I was trying to stay calm while reading this document and not expressed my true feelings on this forum, but I would be very curious to know who paid for this study.

This study seems to have only one goal -> discrediting the Hybrids.

Again, the mileage thing can't possibly be correct.
200000 miles average for a Land Rover Discovery? interesting to say the least...

okay, time to catch my flight. have a great weekend everyone, next time I write I should be in a different country...

:sombrero:

[teotwaki]

I would throw out for discussion that any Hybrid is so much more complex and has very new systems that have a much bigger chance of failure in the early years. I don't think that there is a danger of Hybrids being discontinued as the demand and profits are high.

I bought my full-sized 1989 Ford Bronco in January of 1990 for a killer price. It has the dumb/non-computer C-6 transmission which is a highly refined mechanical device. In 1990 the new Broncos had the E40D tranny with an ECU and there were lots of failures when it was first introduced. IIRC it was excessive clutch pack failures due to the ECU's tendancy to soft-shift, increasing wear and fluid temps that also lead to torque converter failures..

[DesertRose]

Yeah, the more I read this report the more fishy it smells.

One stinker is that they claim the average Prius will be "removed from the streets... and sent for disposal" at 109,000 miles.

Huh? A trip to the Toyota dealer replaces the batteries (they're warranteed up to 150,000 miles in CA and 100,000 elsewhere) and Toyota recycles them.

Too bad this stuff is out there. I think there is great value in understanding costs at all levels - but poor data or jiggered data is just bad for all involved and doesn't help things.

I still think we're better off when we can re-using our older vehicles provided we can keep moving forward with alternative, renewable, clean-burning fuels.

That's why I want to go with locally sourced high quality biodiesel.

[stevenmd]

To add even more fuel to the debate ~ pun intended ~ would diesel vehicles rank higher that petrol vehicles? Yes diesel does put out more pollutants but more miles are available per gallon than their petrol counterparts.

Would a 1962 diesel land rover still on the road with original equipment have less of a lifetime energy cost (including manufacturing & disposal) than the prius?

[grahamfitter]

These are all interesting and valid observations. I knew it was worth taking the first post plunge with something a little controversial!

It stands to reason that when you invent something (anything) completely new, it takes time and energy to do it, and there are going to be massive changes between early models as improvements are continually made. Early adopters bear the brunt of this. As time progresses, the technology stabilizes and becomes more widely used. It becomes cheaper, in all senses, to produce.

So it seems a little unfair for anyone to pick on hybrids when they're in these early rapidly advancing stages of commercial development. I wonder what criticisms the internal combustion engine faced when it was initially produced in significant numbers?

If we acknowledge that hybrids aren't being fairly represented and take them out of the equation completely, it would be interesting to know if the rest of the analysis make sense.

Can I still peer down from my Ivory Jeep Wrangler at those unfortunate souls driving Toyota Corollas and so on down the list? Or should I start calling it faded white again? Either way, I'm not going to be replacing it anytime soon so the answer only affects my state of mind.

But if you're actively looking at vehicles, even old ones, its got to play on your mind at least a little bit, that a top ranked Scion 4x4xB would be rather nifty.

Cheers,
Graham

[Lost Canadian]

Some of the folks out there are claiming that GM funds CMR but that's not verifiable as far as I know and just sounds like sour (green) grapes.

They may have a point. Just look at these estimated life cycles for pickups.

Frontier- 171,000 miles
Tacoma- 173,000
Mitsu. Raider- 175,000
Dodge Dakota 172,000

GMC Canyon 188,000
Chev. Colorado 184,000

First both the Mitsu Raider and Dodge Dakota are pretty much identical in terms of their running gear. Same goes for the Canyon/Colorado. Strange that the numbers differ. Also, all these trucks with the exception of the GM trucks fall below industry standard in terms of longevity. Biased?

[DesertRose]

Yeah, that is suspicious. I noticed the Tacoma right off, of course - mine's at 188K and feels just barely broken in, with about $800 over 7 years into it, including synth-oil. Hmmmm. Za plot thickens!

[DesertRose]

These are all interesting and valid observations. I knew it was worth taking the first post plunge with something a little controversial!

Absolutely! You are brave - most of us just started posting with lame things about cool modifications or trip reports!



Can I still peer down from my Ivory Jeep Wrangler at those unfortunate souls driving Toyota Corollas and so on down the list? Or should I start calling it faded white again? Either way, I'm not going to be replacing it anytime soon so the answer only affects my state of mind.

I'm still leaning toward thinking our older trucks being more economical and ecological in the end . . . but like you, wish there were better data (take a look at the MIT site). Member WD40 pointed out that modern composites in the newest vehicles are next to impossible to recycle at all - where the old metals can be compacted and re-utilized in some way.

Welcome to the fun mileu of ExPo - a great way to have fun when we can't be out exploring, or we'd rather not be working!:smiley_drive:

[Erick Lihme]

I'll follow and be brave like the first poster and speculate a bit.

Reduce performance requirements (speed and comfort to the level of a 90's Geo Metro, 3cyl. 1L) and the series-parallel type hybrid used in the Pirus could improve it's mpg greatly.
There's huge competition in hybrid market with a variety of different types of hybrids being developed not only to improve economy, but just as important, to allow the model to use THE 'hybrid' label. He who holds the right patents MAY dominate, yet an inherently inferior design if profitable, could be refined and survive, and possibly do well, allowing the manufacturer to stay in business. Different designs must be used to avoid patent infringement, and some are better than others. If you believe the first to market has the advantage, and is inherently the best possible design from which to succeed in the long run, in at least one segment, i.e. the Pirus, ATTACK IT, subvert it, down play it's importance, or whatever! Keep customers and investors on your side.

Vehicles are going though a radical change and ya gotta wonder how 4X's will be effected. I think it not so bad. I've watched the 'series'-hybrid diesels HUMV's develope. It's basically set up like a diesel/electric locomotive. The motor/generator only runs to recharge the batteries and provides no power directly to the drive train. Although with this type of hybrid, acceleration in the econo box might be unacceptable by today's standards, it appears to be the most efficient, just slow that's all. Battery technology will be a major factor in the improvement of these designs. It's mostly about weight.

Although I prefer something rugged and simple (read cheap and easy) to fix, hence an old 85' Toy, a series hybrid type diesel would be my choice. Imagine the useable low end torque of an electric motors on wheels, the control and power, and the ability to turn like a tank if you'd like. The electric motor(s) could drive the vehicle for 20 + min without the engine running, and the diesel/generator is built in ready to power all the toys, while doubling mpg or range! This HUMV is reported to get 16 mpg, over the previous 8. This improvement is huge for logistics.

I believe the series type of hybrid does best in large heavy vehicles because the batteries are heavy. The reason is that a higher GVWR truck can haul more weight efficiently than a smaller vehicle, even though it's mpg seems terrible. A tractor trailer (18 wheeler ) can get 8 to 12 mpg hauling 50,000lbs. That's allot of goodies.

There will be all kinds of flavors, but the diesel 'series' type of hybrid will have it's day. That's what I hope. It'll allow for some powerful and nimble rigs.

[dieselcruiserhead]

Not much to add but I was watching a documentary and one of the Ford execs was talking about vehicles and the environment and profitability.. And said it takes nearly 50,000 lbs of material to create the products to make a 3,000 lb car.. Saying if they could eliminate that, imagine the reduction of costs alone, yet alone the consumption...