Car and Driver gets in on the "Ferrari's are greener than Priuses" myth
Way back in October at the Paris Motor Show, Ferrari CEO Amedeo Felisa raised a few eyebrows when he asserted that Ferraris produce fewer emissions than Priuses. On the surface, it's true - the total amount of fuel used in and all the emissions from every Ferrari in the world combined is less than those of all Priuses combined. Sadly, many people seem to stop right there, forgetting that mile-by-mile, the Prius is vastly more efficient. On average, Ferrari's aren't driven all the much, so of course they don't burn that much fuel. When they are running, though, they are anything but green.Car and Driver waited a few months to pick up the story, but here it is on their pages today with the title, "Save the Earth: Drive a Ferrari." We're not fans of perpetuating an obvious myth, and this seems like one of those stories that's set to pop back up once every few months, much like the HUMMER versus Prius myth that still infects the internet from time to time. Shouldn't C&D be above this?
[Source: Car and Driver]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
sally 2:40PM (1/02/2009)
When you add the emissions associated with cradle to grave ownership I would wager the Ferrari is greener than the Prius.
Reply
LaughingMan 5:25PM (1/02/2009)
You'd wager that, and you'd lose that wager.
If you drove the Ferrari and the Prius both 100000 miles, the Prius would consume far less fuel, and have a better cradle to grave energy consumption.
It is absolutely a myth that the Prius and other hybrid cars cost 1000% more in energy to make than a regular car. They are more complex to create, but not so much that it outweighs the savings amortized over the lifetime of the car. The vast majority of the energy used cradle to grave for any car is FUEL CONSUMPTION during the car's lifetime.
Every single car on the road, be it a Ferrari or a Prius, consumes the vast majority of the energy on the road in the form of fuel, somewhere between 70 and 90% of the cradle to grave energy.
Max 6:45PM (1/02/2009)
Dumest comment of the week, good job.
Pure nonsense, the Prius is far cleaner cradle to grave than a Ferrari, no matter how you spin it.
Arthur 2:33AM (1/03/2009)
It's a bit of overblown hype on both sides if you ask me. There's no point to putting in a carbon cap on supercars like the Ferrari the way Europe wants to do it. Ferrari owners just don't drive their cars very much. They can't be posing around with the cars if they're actually moving around in them, and the mileage numbers reported prove this. You can probably save the earth more by letting them have their Ferraris because they'll actually spend less time driving. =P
The flip side is that Ferraris are NOT green. They gulp gas like a car twice their size. C&D is just being annoying lame when they perpetuate that kind of myth.
Jharlan 2:46PM (1/02/2009)
Some people will believe anything they read. They aren't capable or are too lazy for original thought. I doubt many of these sheep read AutoblogGreen.
We need to question everything, especially if it comes from governmental sources or sources selling something, (like Al Gore's book). If it can't pass your BS test, it shouldn't be accepted as fact. What kind of person would believe that a Ferrari is greener than a Prius? Think about it.
Ferraris are not the cause of our problems, however, there will never be enough of them to make a significant difference. Priuses on the other hand are a pretty good interim solution.
There are those who believe that we working poor should only use mass transit, and automobiles should be reserved for the Illuminati, those by right of birth should be annointed to rule. These are the same people who want to raise fuel taxes, to force us into the dam city bus. It would be rough on us, however, since we are 85 miles from the nearest traffic signal. I guess they never thought of that.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 3:28PM (1/02/2009)
Shouldn't it be "Save the Earth: Don't drive a Ferrari"?
Because part of the argument of Ferrari's greenness is that they aren't driven very often, right?
Better yet, just shorten it to "Save the Earth: Don't drive".
Reply
JMK 3:58PM (1/02/2009)
Well the next question I have on the Ferrari v Prius debate is what about overall carbon footprint? What is the overall damage to the environment done by manufacturing, distributing, and supporting (repairs etc) these vehicles?
I think the question, the whole question, we should be asking is what is the simplest and overall least harmful alternative or technology. Am I not right here?
Reply
John Metcalf 7:36PM (1/02/2009)
walking?
pelzauto 5:05PM (1/02/2009)
Car and Driver writes these silly articles because the magazine is geared toward their high school kid subscribers and because controversy means more 'clicks' to their website, meaning more ad revenue. It's like "The National Enquirer" or any of those other supermarket tabloids things making claims that grab attention and have little if any relevant 'news'.
If you don't want to support C and D and such shenanigans, don't go to their website. Period.
As someone who once subscribed to C and D, I can tell you the annual cost was super cheap (wonder why?). Today, I receive much better and more timely info from this site as well as Autoblog, Leftlane News, Jalopnik...etc.
If you want a well-written print car magazine, check out "Automobile". They have intelligent writers and wonderful photos.
Reply
pelzauto 5:22PM (1/02/2009)
If we're pointed concerned about "cradle to grave" questions and
"I think the question, the whole question, we should be asking is what is the simplest and overall least harmful alternative or technology. Am I not right here"
then let's return to real horse power, and walk. But Americans won't do that.
Why are airplanes made out of aluminum instead of cheaper and less environmentally polluting steel? Shall we make airplanes out of steel now, too? Or, even better, make airplanes out of sustainably harvested woods and plant fibers?
Just like Americans won't walk more, or use a bicycle, Americans won't change their diet to more sustainable (plant) proteins. You'll have a greater impact on reducing greenhouse gases if you stop eating beef than stop driving.
Lots of sources for this stuff:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2051364.ece
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 6:35PM (1/02/2009)
Cow farts do not contribute to global warming, as they are from renewable sources.
Scatter 8:43PM (1/02/2009)
with cows it's not the farts, it's the burps. and while they eat plants which recently removed CO2 from the atmosphere, they burp methane which is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 so yes, they definitely do contribute to climate change, and in a massive way.
noz 11:16PM (1/02/2009)
Compared to CO2 and water vapor, Methane is a very small contributor to the greenhouse gas issue.
So this myth that cows are adding to greatly to the problem is overblown.
The most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Dave 11:40AM (1/07/2009)
By eating beef we are helping eliminate harmful cows from burping and warming the globe. We should be eating more beef in order to lessen the number of these dangerous animals not less.
RPM 3:24AM (1/08/2009)
@ Dave
:-) I'm doing my part..as much as I can...Slap another 2" thick T bone on the grille ...mmmm
All you pasty vegetarians don't know what your missing!!
Scatter 8:44AM (1/03/2009)
You're confusing the greenhouse effect with climate change.
Water vapour does not force climate change (it's a feedback effect) but CO2 and methane do force it.
It is absolutely not a myth that livestock is a huge contributor to climate change:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
Cutting down on meat consumption, especially beef, is a very good step to lowering your impact.
Reply
noz 2:47AM (1/06/2009)
While livestock do contribute, their amount is tiny compared to other sources.
I agree, cutting down on meat consumption is a good thing all around. Because it also affects the damaging effects of clearing precious forest for morons to eat steaks and burgers.
Water vapor actually does force climate change. It reduces outgoing radiation or on a negative side, can hinder incoming radiation.
This in turn alters weather pattern flow, heating of the oceans, etc.
RPM 3:04AM (1/08/2009)
I seem to remember reading how in the early years of this country the buffalo herds were so thick they covered the great plains as far as the eye could see.. wonder if they had to worry about cutting down on eating them to prevent "Global Warming" ..heck lets put a tax on burping ...*shakes head*
MikeW 12:56PM (1/04/2009)
Hell why don't you just commit suicide?
That would make the queen happy, right?
AGW is a terrible myth.
Reply
Scatter 4:03PM (1/04/2009)
Yeah because cutting down on meat consumption is pretty much akin to taking your own life. If you're not eating beef it's pretty much the same as not living.
Queen happy? what the fuck are you on about?
You just keep trucking on as you are - pretend it's not happening. Just sleep now...