Also, if size is a factor that counts against the Prius, since it is about twice the size of many of the other cars on that list. I might argue that being small -in and of itself- is not an environmental boon, though it IMPLIES advantages like requiring less material and energy for construction and lower fuel consumption.

I would counter that since the Prius can match many of those smaller cars in terms of energy consumption and emissions, while seating 5 with 2 dogs in the back, it is a much greater achievement in green transportation.

I would also argue that the only metrics that really make sense are
-total vehicle lifetime energy cost per passenger mile (including energy used in construction) and
-total vehicle lifetime disposables per passenger mile (including tailpipe emissions and any non-recyclable parts of the vehicle.

These are similar metrics to that used by "The Infamous Paper", though their analysis was fatally flawed (as has been discussed to death).
The problem is that passenger miles depend very strongly on how many people ride in the car, which is not really something over which the manufacturers have any control.

Reply

↓↑report

I agree. The Prius is a much larger more capable vehicle and still has better performance while delivering very close fuel economy.

I mean the smart seats 2, has no luggage space, and takes 20 seconds to hit 60MPH.

You might as well compare a bicycle the Prius.

Reply

↓↑report

Once again, I have to laugh at the Prius owners who get so righteously indigniant about the extension of their "halo technology" to the big SUVs and pickups favored by those *other* people. That is, people who might dare to hold different religious, political or ethical beliefs than self-styled "progressives"

They don't realize that hybrid technology was invented specifically for making big cars more fuel-efficient--and that the Prius is, in fact, a pretty big car. The Prius is a four-person family sedan, about the smallest kind of vehicle most middle-class people with kids will buy.

If you really wanted to minimize your carbon footprint, you'd arrange your life so as to not need a car. If you couldn't do that you'd just get the smallest, simplest vehicle that would do what you needed a car to do, in which case you wouldn't need to purchase a hybrid.

If you're not willing to do either of these things, then just accept the fact that you're trading off environmental costs in order to have what you want in life. Best to choose, among the things you want, those things which will do the least damage.

This is the reasoning that produced both the hybrid Prius and hybrid SUVs, and the purchasers of both vehicles subscribe to it.

The only thing that divides them is advertising--and ideology, which is just advertising that asks you to pay all you've got for something you'll never receive.

Reply

↓↑report

I don't own a Prius and have no interest in one. I just wanted to point out that the cars were in a different class. I will note NONE of the other cars that made the list are available in North America.

It should be obvious that drastically smaller cars are easier on the environment. Hybrids are not a panacea by any means. People should realize that they just make it more efficient compared to other vehicle in the "Same class".

In the best case, people look at the smallest vehicle class they can get by with and then look at getting one of the more efficient vehicles within that class. By that token a Prius is very efficient within it's class.

Things like new Hybrid Taho make me cringe, yet on autoblog they cheer about getting 20MPG out of it. I really think most families could get by with a station wagon instead.

Reply

↓↑report

All I can say is, if you live in Florida or Mississippi or near a Nuclear plant you want a Prius today, or a Volt in 2011, because you need a car capable of sitting in traffic for 8 to 12 hours.

Reply

↓↑report

Quote: I mean the smart seats 2, has no luggage space, and takes 20 seconds to hit 60MPH.

Do your research first. The Smart roadster achieves 0-60 in around 10 seconds. The Smart forTwo a touch more, not a lot. 20 seconds was the original 600cc LHD version, you might spot the odd one on an X-plate, but they're rare.

2 seats. Pick a motorway, pick a bridge over it, count the number of cars passing under during rush hour with more than two people in.

Luggage space in a fortwo is surprisingly large, and even in a roadster it is too. My roadster (which is now the greenest and best handling car I know) has had loads of space to fit everything I need in it.

If Toyota want to be green, why are they still selling Chelsea tractors? Doesn't make sense. Farmers and country folk who need 4x4 don't need carpets and other nonsense.

Reply

↓↑report

As far as I can tell the smart roadster is out of production(why included). The current smart fortwo specs from the Smart Canada (I am Canadian) web page:

Acceleration, 0-100 km/h 19.8 seconds

Unless you have a second car for commuting only, most of us occasionally carry more than two people. To do a study that penalizes a four seat car for being larger than a two seat car is silly.

Reply

↓↑report

I have a Roadster and it easily does 0-60 within 10 seconds, does 55MPG and only emits 121g C/km. Not bad for a fun sports car (unlike the other more "conventional" cars on the list). OK, it's not the fastest car in the world, but it corners like a dream and is the match of many faster cars on a twisty B-road.
There is also plenty of room for the weekly shop, the once or twice a week I drive to work, and even a 9 day holiday in mid France!
The only question is why have they stopped making it? Oh yeah, Smart's marketing was so poor that nobody even knew about it until it was too late!

Reply

↓↑report