How SUVs screwed up the idea of hybrids
I was excited to read an estimate that there will be 65 hybrid models by 2009 (there are only 10 2008 model year hybrids). 65 is a lot, but are all these new hybrids really that great? Not in the opinion of ABC News. Why else would the editors title an article Overhyped Hybrids: Green Cars That Guzzle Gas? ABC News says that the annual fuel cost of most hybrids is quite high, because many don't really get better mileage than a standard vehicle. ABC News is right, and the reason is all those new SUV hybrids.
Take a look at the fueleconomy.gov page for hybrids sorted by model year. In 2000-2003, hybrids had an average annual fuel costs of, at most, $1,000 and got 40 MPG on average. Suddenly, in 2005, there are four new hybrids with annual fuel costs of about $2,500. The cars with the higher annual costs? The GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado
In 2006, you have 9 hybrids with an overall $1,500 average annual fuel cost. Again, thanks to SUVs like the Mercury Mariner and Toyota Highlander that get less than 30 MPG. 2007, there are larger cars like the Honda Accord and Saturn Aura with fuel costs of $1,500 with MPG averages just slightly over 30 MPG. Okay, those are not really SUVs but the higher fuel cost and lower MPG is mostly due to SUVs. The increase in "mild" hybrids does not help much either.
The public is right to be upset to find that hybrids don't automatically improve mileage by 20 MPG. Most hybrids now, compared with the market just a few years ago, are a bunch of SUVs with only slight improvements in mileage and very high annual fuel costs. The SUV fad began dying, so SUV makers looked to cost cuts, switched to crossovers, and added hybrid systems to hang on for dear life. We'll see how much they tarnish the public's perception of hybrids in the future.
[Source: ABC News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Gouranga 3:12PM (4/09/2008)
I think the idiots who subscribe to wasting money on "green" power rather than optimizing the fuels we have should have a stupid tax imposed on them. Oh, wait, they're already doing that to all the rest of us. How about rather then screwing around with hydrogen fuel cells and sending more of our money to the chinese we concentrate on turning coal to fuel and putting more Co2 into the air to help our plants grow better and stronger? Environmentalists? More like Environmentalretardists.
Reply
Kardax 5:30PM (9/25/2007)
This will cause people to focus more on miles per gallon, rather than the hybrid label.
This bodes well for diesels and high-mileage cars in general.
Reply
Mr. E 5:40PM (9/25/2007)
Sadly, there is no technology to cure mindless consumption. Why should hybrid cars be an exception?
Reply
Murc 6:54PM (9/25/2007)
What do you have agianst SUV's and bigger vehicles? Theres nothing wrong with wanting to drive a SUV even if 95% of the time, only 1 person is in it. Big vehicles are comfy(er).
Reply
kballs 6:48PM (9/25/2007)
What about gallons of fuel saved? Everyone focuses on a hybrid bumping MPG from 30MPG to 60MPG, but nobody talks about a bump from 10MPG to 14MPG in a work truck saving more gallons of fuel per year than the Civic hybrid saves over a regular Civic (maybe even more in a year than the Civic saves in its lifetime).
Reply
Paul 9:23PM (9/25/2007)
Do people get PAID to blog on this site?
Wow, you sir are IGNORANT. Yeah, sure, if everyone suddenly dropped their desire to drive SUV's and wanted to drive Prius's BUT were stuck with a shortage because of all of those pesky hybrid SUV's sucking up all of the batteries then PERHAPS your whining would hold some water. But give me a break...
Hybrid SUV's DO reduce fuel consumption dramatically.
For a comparable 07 Toyota Highlander
V6 --> 19MPG combined
Hybrid --> 26MPG combined
a 36% increase in economy
For a comparable 07 Mercury Mariner
V6 --> 19MPG combined
Hybrid --> 27MPG combined
a 42% increase in economy
Sure, you aren't seeing 40+ MPG, but you are seeing a huge reduction in fuel consumption. And since consumers haven't decided that SUV's are the anti-Christ, any way of reducing consumption is good.
BTW, a Civic vs. Civic Hybrid is 29MPG vs. 42MPG or a 50% increase...not that much more of an improvement than you got with the SUV's and for those who wouldn't be caught dead in a Civic (me for one) or for families needing to cart around kids and 100 pounds of kid crap the point is moot. Reduced fuel consumption is reduced fuel consumption any way you can get it.
Seriously, do you get paid or is this just a bad hobby...
Reply
Paul 9:28PM (9/25/2007)
"BTW, a Civic vs. Civic Hybrid is 29MPG vs. 42MPG or a 50% increase"
Actually I meant 45% increase: math fart...so the difference is even less. Civic drivers can save 45% by switching to a hybrid and Mariner drivers can save 42%. Maybe one day consumer sentiment and needs will change, but for now this is a pretty darned good start.
Reply
sammo 11:52PM (9/25/2007)
Yes, a hybrid SUV can save gas versus a conventional SUV. But SUVs in general don't make much sense, considering the way they're used, and this remains true even with hybrid powertrains.
How many people are going to justify wasting gas by saying, 'But it's a hybrid, so I'm doing my part?' Our environment, and our security, are impacted by our addiction to oil, but some of us can't be bothered to make any changes in our lifestyles. We just want to keep buying the same things, follow the same fashions. The vehemence with which some argue for the status quo is truly puzzling.
Reply
davidt70 7:20AM (9/26/2007)
so if i needed a car to lug crap around and i was looking at a station wagon, subaru outback (combined 22 mpg) or a mercury mariner hybrid (combined 28), it seems that i should get the subaru because it's not a suv. Way to go on saving gas. Lets find something else to put a negative label on and let people make the best choices they can.
Reply
MarkR 8:31AM (9/26/2007)
I truly love this debate. I to agree the "spin" on the story is, role your eyes, funny. Any vehicle that adds a hybrid is great for the environment no matter if it is a suburban or a Prius. Just think how many billions of gallons of oil we would save if ALL large vehicles were hybrids and received a 30-50% increase in fuel efficiency. It would be huge and I'd consider it a successful win until all green option is widely available and acceptable to the general public.
And like I've said before where is my Tacoma 4x4 hybrid? Because the only way I'll get rid of my Tacoma.
Sammo get over it, not everyone has your lifestyle when it comes to the need for a small car. Just be happy the new technologies are being developed and adopted all around, including suv's.
Reply
motorman 10:28AM (9/26/2007)
since most americans are over weight and their bodies don't fit well into these small cars like a prius they will go for vehicles that are more comfortable like SUVs. these 200+ pound soccer moms need more room to sit
Reply
dean 11:35AM (9/26/2007)
YEah, it looks to be a consensus that the journalism on this story is mediocre at best...and its not even that.
Anywho, yes, I agree that SUV hybrids are kind of lame, b/c hybrid drivetrains are best used on lighter vehicles. A diesel is more suited for getting those mpg's at a better cost in SUVs.
The issue that this writer is grinding his/her teeth at is one that is not addressed: you can't instantly change the minds of millions of Americans! While some people truly tow with their SUVs and may go off-road sometimes, many SUVs are bought b/c they are safe in a crash, more so than a Civic hybrid. 3 tons of steel does that. So people will continue to buy them.
Making a hybrid is expensive. Manufacturers are making SUVs hybrids so that they can more quickly recoup that cost (SUVs offer more profit than cars). Then they will go on to mid-size sedans and sub-compact cars, where there is less profit margin. If they did it the other way around, the whole thing would financially fall.
GM is evidence of this. First the Yukon/Tahoe hybrids, where they can recoup costs better, then on to the Malibu/Aura, when the cost of making a hybrid goes down some and they can afford it. Economics. Its not always affordable to be instantly green.
Reply
mike m 11:45AM (9/26/2007)
Paul, Paul, Paul, you crack me up - in a retarded kind of way! Your simplistic view that saving fuel is saving fuel - irrespective of the actual quantity shows your ignorance. So, using your flawed logic, it would be a great improvement if a car went from 10mpg to 15mpg!!! I mean, that's a 50% increase in efficiency!! That's huge!!!! Let's get that pig!
You know who's laughing at idiots like you - well besides myself - the manufacturers!! They have figured out a way to further fool people in thinking that SUVs are GOOD! All that the manufacturers have done is kept their gas guzzlers, slapped in an electric motor and TA DA...you got yourself a Green SUV! Now you can park in the Hybrid parking spot at Ikea!!! Sure it has a better fuel economy than before, but seriously, it's still nothing to brag about. A marginal improvement on garbage still gives garbage. The manufacturers' best tool is to throw out increased efficiency numbers in terms of %. Why? Because the vast amount of people don't really understand what percentage means! They just see a number and bigger means better. To go from 1mpg to 2mpg....WOW, that 100% increase!!!! I'll take it!! The bottom line is that the SUVs used to get piss-poor mileage, now they get poor mileage...but according to your logic, that's an improvement, so that's good. HAHAHA
Reply
Lascelles Linton 11:57AM (9/26/2007)
I am sorry, I could have been clearer. I don't have a problem with SUV hybrids. I have a problem with car companies trying to fix the "SUV has bad mileage" problem by flooding the market with bad SUV hybrids. For example, GM released a "MILD" hybrid in an SUV. Really, what's the point in that?
Once they catch up in hybrid tech, do you really think any GM car will have a mild hybrid? When is GM going to release a full hybrid for a normal family car? SUV hybrids out number regular hybrids. If you want into a car dealership today and say "show me the hybrid," odds are, they show you an SUV which get 20 MPG. A few years ago, it was a Prius that got 40 MPG. A few more years of this and people will think hybrids is just that feature that adds 4 MPGs to your SUV. It's NOT!
AND I think you can do better that just sticking a hybrid on a regular SUV too for a few more MPGs! The Prius is not better because it looks different. It's better because they did everything they could to improve mileage. They need to do that to an SUV.
Reply
GoodCheer 3:05PM (9/26/2007)
mike m: As much as I love bashing SUV, I have to disagree with you. The average car in America is driven 15000 miles. If you were getting 15 mpg and are now getting 18, a 20% improvement, you save 167 gallons of gas (15000/15 = 1000, 15000/18 = 833).
In contrast, I get about 38mpg in my civic, so burn ~(15000/38=)395 gallons*. To save the same 167 gallons I would need to get (15000/(395-167) 66mpg, a 74% improvement.
Basically the question is whether we are content to use technology to achieve the ends "we" want (like lower fuel consumption) while providing "the people" with what they want (like SUVs), or whether we insist that people should want what we want them to want (like driving more sensible cars). For my part, while it is true that I am smarter than everybody and they SHOULD all want what I want them to want, I don't have the power to make that happen, so I'm content to be excited about improving the mileage of their blunder-mobiles. Given that consumption trends are much slower to change even then Detroit's technology, Hybrid SUVs will actually reduce GHG emissions, reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, and all the rest of that good stuff.
* I actually only drive about 5000 miles/year, since I commute by bicycle but that's beside the point.
Reply
Paul 8:28PM (9/26/2007)
mike_m, what GoodCheer said. If you want to dictate what people choose to drive, move to North Korea or Iran or change your last name to Chavez. If you want to make a difference, get real.
Lascelles, thanks for your clarification. I agree that calling the mild Hybrids "green" would be a travesty, but I don't think the driving public is so stupid as to think they are "doing their part" by buying a "hybrid" that was mostly intended just to provide a power outlet.
And come on, have you been to a dealer and asked to see "the hybrid"?? Perhaps SUVs (will) outnumber cars in the number of vehicle types, but I can guarantee you that you'll find more Prius and Civic Hybrid drivers than the rest combined many times over--and that won't change soon.
Finally, aside from the powertrain, CD, rolling resistance and weight are the factors affecting fuel economy. CD and rolling resistance are minor relative to weight. SUV's are heavy. Period. Sure, Ford could do better than the Escape in terms of CV (perhaps give it more of an Edge-like profile). You MIGHT be able to reduce the rolling resistance with special tires, but probably not much because of the requirements of the added weight. Weight, however, is very costly to reduce. Sure, they could go with an aluminum parts (costly and environmentally worse than steel) or carbon fiber (WAY expensive), but that would make it inaccessible to the buying public. Me, I'd rather see them do what they can at a price point that people can actually afford. Again, reduce consumption when and how they can instead of trying immediately (and forever failing) to come up with the one perfect solution. BTW, the Prius is nothing special in terms of weight savings. It's just small, which is something that an SUV can never be.
Incidentally, I'm driving a relatively sensible, light weight, 4 cylinder, 2L vehicle (Audi A3) and getting considerably worse mileage than I'd get in a new Escape Hybrid FWD (25 vs. 32). I think there's more 'splainin' for Audi (and VW who claims to be green but ain't) to do than there is for Ford.
Reply
UH2L 11:13AM (9/27/2007)
Davidt70,
Instead of getting a Subaru with wasteful and usually unnecessary 4WD, get a Saab or Volvo wagon which will get you better combined fuel economy than most SUV's, not far from hybrid SUVs (which take more energy and materials to build, not sure about energy to ship). I have averaged 28+ mpg on my Saab 9-3 SportCombi with 40% city driving and my vehicle is not a hybrid. The 72.3 cubic ft of cargo volume is better than many SUV's including the BMW X3, and Ford Edge which probably weighs 800 lbs more! Cargo volume doesn't tell the whole story. Wagons tend to have longer cargo areas whereas SUV's have taller cargo areas. Most stuff I carry needs horizontal space, not vertical space. With horizontal space, less stacking and visual obstruction is required.
so if i needed a car to lug crap around and i was looking at a station wagon, subaru outback (combined 22 mpg) or a mercury mariner hybrid (combined 28), it seems that i should get the subaru because it's not a suv. Way to go on saving gas. Lets find something else to put a negative label on and let people make the best choices they can.
Reply
mike m 2:56PM (9/27/2007)
Paul, you are doing it again!! How is aluminum more environmentally unfriendly than steel??? Now I'm convinced that you really don't know what you are talking about! I'm not going to try and lecture you about physics or mechanics - as this will certainly go over your head - but let me explain one thing to you. The consumption of a vehicle is in a large part related to it's weight . There are numerous areas manufacturers can reduce losses, such as the engine and transmission as well as reducing vehicle load requirements. These however, are greater challenges with actual physical limitations - ie a powertrain's efficiency can only be increase limitedly. Weight, on the other hand can, in theory, be reduced unlimitedly. By using diecast aluminum or magnesium parts, a car's weight can be significantly reduced. These are not expensive parts, like you think! Besides, your A3 is a poster boy wrt. using light weight materials. What do you think the frame is made of? Steel? Diecast and extruded aluminum components that are welded together! This is just one simple example of what's in your car...there's plenty more. Designing towards a certain price point, while disregarding good engineering is the typical NA way of doing business. I'm surprised you are driving an Audi. I don't think their philosophy fits yours!
One of the fundamental flaws of NA designed vehicles is that they are not designed with as many of these light weight materials as they should until they discover that the vehicle is going to get too heavy. Then they begin the re-engineering work to see where they can use aluminum or magnesium.
Reply
Paul 6:55PM (9/27/2007)
Uhh, the production of Aluminum is considerably more energy intensive than the production of steel. The amount of CO2 produced in this process varies depending on the source of the energy, but the same variation applies to steel so it will always (well, at least with current tech) be less environmentally sound to PRODUCE aluminum than steel.
Aluminum is also a lot more expensive pound for pound, and even accounting for the fact that you'll need less gross weight of aluminum than steel, you're still looking at a significant increase in cost.
Over the lifetime of the car, it is likely that using aluminum parts (especially if recycled) will have a net positive impact on the environment and perhaps even on the pocketbook, but the upfront costs are still going to be significantly higher.
http://www.secat.net/docs/resources/Aluminum_vs_Steel_in_Passenger_Cars07.pdf
The above link is to a decent paper examining the lifetime economic and environmental impact of the use of aluminum in passenger cars. It is a bit unrealistic, however, in that it assumes a use of 90% recycled metals, which simply couldn't be realized if all manufacturers started replacing steel with aluminum. It also misses the retooling, redesign, and other associated costs of switching from steel to aluminum. Still, as a goal, it isn't bad at all. I'm all for using aluminum and other light weight materials so long as they can be done in an economically (and environmentally) feasible way.
I think you grossly misunderstand my "philosophy." I hate SUVs as a concept for 90% of SUV drivers. If I were dictator of the world I'd require people to demonstrate a need for them before allowing them to unnecessarily suck the fuel required to run them. For 90% of the drivers 95% of the time, they are ridiculous. However, my "philosophy" is one of realism. I can't control consumer behavior (much less preferences). Nor can manufacturers. We and they have to work within the bounds of what we are faced with. My philosophy is one of setting an example of more sensible living (without major sacrifice) and hoping others will follow (seeing no major sacrifice, of course). Until the lemmings start following me, let's use technology in the most sensible ways to reduce the impact of their idiotic ways. (oh, and a little legislation here and there won't hurt, either)
With regard to my lack of understanding of physics and mechanics, you also obviously didn't read my response above (except for seeing my last paragraph about the A3...more below). I fully acknowledged the primacy of weight in the energy use equation (also including drivetrain efficiency (which encompasses both engine (power) and transmission (transfer)) and drag--both rolling resistance (somewhat related to weight) and wind resistance (or coefficient of drag or CD)). I simply pointed out that dramatically reducing weight (while maintaining equivalent real and perceived quality and safety) is currently expensive--prohibitively so for most vehicles. One could argue (rightly so) that the cost differential of significantly lightening a vehicle is no different than that required to implement a hybrid drivetrain, but it is far easier to sell $6000 in electric motors and batteries than it is to sell $6000 in "light weight" (which of course is equated to unsafe in most consumers' light witted minds...pun intended). I'd guess the "bang for the buck" is better with a "simple" drivetrain swap, as well. Sure both would be best, but one is better than none.
Ask Audi about the marketability of "light" to the average consumer (even Euro consumers). Their all aluminum A2 outpriced the market and didn't sell well at all. On that point, check your facts (or provide facts to counter mine if you think you are correct). Steel is still the largest component of all North American Audi's with the exception of the A8 which uses the ASF (Audi Space Frame). Other models have some aluminum components, but retain a large amount of forged steel. The new 2008 TT is one other exception, but, though touted as espousing the ASF concept, is still 33% steel.
Anyway, enough on this. The thread is stale. I'm off to get myself one of those keen new Yukon Hybrids...
Reply
Paul 7:49PM (9/27/2007)
Ah, I reread the article I referenced and I retract one statement. They assume that 90% of the metals can be recycled at EOL for the car, not in its construction. The study actually examines differing levels of recycled materials usage for construction. My other limitations still apply, though. They also tout a 1 year break-even point for CO2 emissions, which makes aluminum not seem all that bad even in the mid-term. I'm a little wary of their calculations, but I'll take their word for it. Regardless, even with their calculations it takes a lot of years to recoup the additional cost for a consumer, and their calculations assume a higher scrap value at EOL for aluminum which may or may not impact the consumer at all. Plus, the 22% weight reduction only improved fuel economy by 10%, which is far less than is realized by introducing a more efficient drivetrain (we've been seeing 30%-50% improvement). Anyway, bottom line is hybrid=good, diesel=good, EV=good, lightweight=good. Let's keep adding up as many "goods" as we can in as many vehicle types as we can while acknowledging that improved efficiency (mostly) comes at a cost and thus must be addressed deliberately and differently for different markets and market segments. And, of course, stop whining about consumer choices which are exceedingly difficult and very slow to change.
Reply