Was going to edit the previous but someone already posted ahead.

Here's my inpression of the Prius from a value standpoint. People say you pay a huge premium for hybrids, but I actually think you get a very nice and well equipped car for the money. I recently priced one out at just under $25K, and it included everything from stability control, steering wheel climate controls (which I've never even heard of), back up camera and tons more.

I recently got my frist ride in the Prius from Philly to New Brunswick, NJ. I rode mostly in the back seat. Earlier that day I made the same trip (in reverse) in the back of a 06 Nissan Altima, and found the Prius to have a roomier back seat. It had a nice ride and was very quiet. I also enjoyed the big central computer screen. The onwer I was riding with drives pretty conservatively, and reports 43mpg in winter and about 50mpg in the warmer months.

Personally, I think the Prius is actually a very nice car for the money.

 

Prius only pays off if you like to drive, then slam on your brakes every once in awhile. I can't deny that they are very handy in traffic though. So everyone jam up traffic so we can all buy hybrids to be more fuel efficient!

 

I knew ppl would say I'm comparing apples and oranges, but am I? What is green? Fuel consumption/addiction/import. Global warming molecules?

The thing is, cars only pollute when driven. This is obvious, but people underestimate the implications of this. A "green" car driven so much is worse than a truck that drives little.

My point was people never consider this stuff. They look at EPA mileage numbers, and think those two numbers tells the entire green destiny of the car.
Even if a 1 mile commuter walks (assuming that walking is greener than a Hummer. I believe so despite those "articles"), the amount of CO2 you save is so negligible it almost makes no impact. Even if a hummer pollutes 10x the amount of a walker, when we're talking about one mile, that amount is overshadowed by what the millions of other vehicles are doing.

No. It's like saying if youre rich and your monthly expenses are 10,000$ a month, does it make you frugal when you saved 50% off on a 10$ shirt? 50% for a guy with such huge expenses only matters if the item was like 2,000$. The same is with mileage savings. A high mileage car only makes a difference when the distance is significantly enough.

A guy who pays 1,000$ for a 2000$ computer, a good deal or not, still paid more than a guy who paid full price for 800$ crappy computer, right? The same logic is true for mileages and the distance a driver drives.

 

thats a shoddy way to reason.
rly. "just because other cars are polluting it doesn't matter if I add to it".
read my last few posts.
it'll clear up a few things that I dont feel like restating.
or if you want to save time. the hummer pollutes far more than the prius, IF the prius is driven in pure battery. end of story

 

First, dont' take that AT-PZEV thing seriously. You know a fusion, heck even a 20 mpg camry, both get PZEVs? The "AT" prefix is boloney as well. You don't even "earn" that rating. If it's a hybrid, it gets a freebie AT prefix. I really don't know what they're measuring, but I know they're not measuring CO2. I think they're measuring how clean fuel burns, and gasoline in the air is not a global warming molecule. It does cause cancer and stuff.

Well, as I said in the post above, cars only pollute when driven. If my example wasn't exaggerating enough, what if a person only buys a Hummer as a show car? Humvees are not street legal anyway. If all he does is decorate it for car shows, then a prius driver will always spit out more CO2 than this Humvee owner.

If people wondering why I started this thread, it's because sometimes I question whether I'm hurting the environment driving 70 miles with my fit a day. I have been biking and taking the train, so that is definitely greener. My mom drives an 19 mpg RDX 10 miles a day, and I pay more per month on gas than she (I pay almost 300$ a month if gas is 3.10$. She pays less per month.)

When my mom really wanted the RDX, I initially was gonna convince her to get a "green" car like a CRV or a Prius, but I thought whatever; she drives short distances anyway. I'll let her be happy--the RDX is our family's first luxury car after all.

 

Gordio,
I put no value in the ratings for the Prius... VW's 2.5l i5 gets a PZEV rating and that engine is a complete terd (and gets far worse MPG than the engine it replaced). There may be some way that you could compare a Prius and a Hummer and have the Hummer come out "greener"... probably with regard to end-of-life disposal issues with the batteries. However, your original post wasn't comparing apples and oranges... it wasn't comparing anything at all... you made a statement about a Prius and a completely unrelated statement about a Hummer.
When making a comparison, you have to look at the values for the same attribute... you can't compare the length of item A with the width of item B and conclude that A is larger than B... it just doesn't work.

 

Ok, the only way I would agree it's "greener" to drive a Hummer over a Prius is if the Hummer is carting around 4-5 people who would normally have to drive seperately in their Prius's.

 

Blah! This thread is like nails on a chalkboard to my ears.

You butchered your point and did yourself a disfavor using this analogy. At the same time you have spun the issue so that people who are environmentally ignorant may use your quote to justify their convoluted logic.

You should have said:

 

totally off topic, but this is totally wrong. you actually only loose about 1-2 mpg and gain A LOT of power in the tradeoff. check your numbers man. the 2.5 actually does just as good if not better than engines of the same size.

 

all cars have carbon dioxide coming out of their butts, its inevitable. but some have a larger amount of it than others.

with this basic principal on hand, saying a hummer is 'greener' is just silly.

on a second note, if you look at wasting less gas as an environmentally responsible thing to do, then AGAIN, the prius takes the cake. the prius would take the cake even if your comparison was less extreme, and you compared it to any fuel efficent sport compact, including our fits.


"I really don't know what they're measuring, but i know they are not measuring Co2. I think they are measuring how clean fuel burns....it does cause cancer and stuff."


if you don't even really know what they are measuring...how can you give us educated commentary on it?

No, it does not measure Co2, but its not really measuring how 'clean' the fuel is buring either. Emissions are measured in 'tiers' and they limit how much of the following a car can produce (as its not just gas molecules and Co2 that they spit out):
carbon monoxide
formaldehyde
non methane hydrocarbons or organic gases
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter.

The level of this crap that your car puts out is what gives it its rating...so yes you SHOULD belive the rating your car has, as the ratings are tailored for different levels of this stuff. (LEV, SULEV, PZEV etc).


i'll give you a hint...even at its worst, the prius is spitting out A LOT less of this stuff, even being driven as often as you quoted over the hummer. plus its wasting less gas, cost less to own than a hummer, even on car payments alone (this whole 'premium for a hybrid thing is silly, you can get a prius for what you would pay for a civic ex-l, and even cheaper than a civic hybrid.) and gives off less emissions as well. (last time i checked, none of these things are good to inhale either.) Do you know how much more harmful carbon monoxide is over carbon dioxide? even inhaling major major MAJOR amounts of Co2 is less harmful than the effects of being poisones with Co...hell, the bubbles in soda are carbon dioxide!


that pretty much sums it up. sorry, but that battle was over for the hummer before it even started.

 

An interesting discussion going on here!

Perhaps names like "Prius" and "Hummer" are too emotionally charged to discuss completely rationally. Kinda like "Jesus" and "Satan." Whoops. I may have betrayed my hidden inclination....

I will limit my part of this thread to the carbon footprint directly tied to the operation of a motor vehicle. There are many other factors that have implications to the environment, but I am not smart enough to cover all those. <sign>

Is the Hummer always bad in terms of the carbon footprint, if compared with the Prius? Let's, instead of the Hummer, take a Greyhound bus. Now, one of those MCI buses is, as we all know, huge, much bigger than even an H1, smokes like hell from its diesel engine, and gets a terrible gas mileage. It must therefore be automatically bad for the environment, right?

Well, not necessarily if it is carrying 40 passengers. The carbon footprint per person now drops significantly, and below the Hummer's for sure, and likely even below the Prius'.

But if a Greyhound driver alone takes the same MCI bus to go shopping at a Target a mile down the street, well, that would be a whole 'nother story of the per-capita carbon contribution.

My point is that stuff like emissions must be understood in its proper context, and it is not really possible to argue everything in a vacuum, e.g., the Prius is always cleaner than a Hummer. After all, a Hummer that is just sitting there with its engine off is a lot cleaner than a Prius that's been driven 50,000 miles per year. Kinda like a riddle about the safest driver which says that the safest driver in the world is one who never drives.

Again, in this discussion I am not taking into consideration of such carbon output factors as the manufacturing process, shipping methods, etc., all of which are doubtlessly very important factors.

 

correct, emissions needs to be understood in its proper context, but we still have to do without extreme comparisons: i know a LOT of cars that are cleaner when they are off compared to ones that are driven all the time...but thats a moot point, any car can be efficient then. we are talking about driving them, not leaving them parked and then using that as a crutch to say its 'cleaner.'.


But if i'm not mistaken, gordio was talking about 'being green' which encompasses MUCH more than just what your carbon footprint is...and remember, the shorter distance you drive a car, the worse mileage you get, and thats the situation that gordio claims that makes the hummer (an h1 no less) 'greener'. but the facts point totally against it.

 

I agree with you eldaino. My point in using a Greyhound bus illustration is to simply show that we leave some parameters out when we pose a simplistic question like "which is greener, a Prius or a Hummer?" It should be countered with a question, "In what context?" Then we can start discussing the matter because, once the context is agreed upon, we can now talk in terms of "given all things equal in this context, which is greener?"

However, there is no doubt at all that, if given the same distance driven (driven is the operative word), no matter what that distance is, with everything else equal, e.g., the driver, the road condition, the Prius is always greener in terms of the environmental impact than an H1. Even if resource costs for building these cars are added in, this conclusion is not going to change.

 

I want to strangle the idiot who wrote that original "Hummers are greener than Priuses" article. STRANGLE. He/she is an idiot of the highest degree because now, millions of SUV drivers can read that article and suddenly feel great about their horrible energy consumption habits. Your next door neighbor probably read that article and thought, "Wow, and I only drive a Suburban. I must be a @#$%ing saint!"

I also want to kill the people who constantly tell everyone how Priuses get 35mpg on the highway because "the electric motor relies on regeneration". If that is so, then why are the vast majorities of Prius drivers getting 45mpg+? Even when you are on the highway, you do not drive at a constant speed or elevation.

Another case in point: Global warming. Scientists around the globe have comprehensive evidence that it is happening and it will affect our way of life. However, if Joe Sixpack hears one little (likely Exxon-Mobil funded) study that refutes global warming, suddenly it's 100% OK to continue polluting.

I remember when I used to work for a clean air campaign, I talked to this guy who must have cut down 5 acres of pristine forest to build his house. He said to me while we were standing on his uber-fertilized mutant lawn, "Look buddy, I'm doing my part. I have modern insulation."

People will do anything to justify their flaws and excess. It's like doublethink. They see a gaping hole in their logic, yet through some extraordinary willpower, are able to block it out. That way they don't have to change their lifestyles.

Phew.

 

Come come now. I can understand your indignation, but let's not become ecoterrorists by murdering people!

 

...some wise words

 

No way. That's edited statement true, but so was my hummer statement. You really think a prius driving 50 miles/day is greener than a hummer driving one mile a day? As I said before, a car only pollutes when driven. A barely driven hummer is greener than a long distance commuting prius

About the emissions ratings. I know pollutants are bad, but almost any modern gasoline car is so clean nowadays it would be a while before we worry about acid rain or blue fog. Right now, global warming (CO2) is the focus.

However, diesels still struggle to pass emissions so emissions ratings still do matter in the general sense. But when talking about gasoline engines, almost all modern gasoline cars the rating is good enough. The fit's "dirty" LEV rating is not as bad as it sounds, b/c LEV is still not going to cause acid rain or blue fog.

 

It just seems like a totally pointless thing to say. Driving less is cleaner than driving more.

Let's all move out of the suburbs and back into denser town-type, pedestrian friendly areas. Problem solved, and we'll probably be less fat too.

 

It would be nice if we could quantify a carbon footprint (or NOx or what have you) per mile per vehicle. That way we would be able to isolate the relative versus absolute emission outputs.

For instance, if we could gauge that the H1 puts out five times as much (I'm just picking a number - I don't know whether this is the case in reality) NOx or other pollutants per mile as the Prius, in terms of absolute output, then we would say that the Prius would have to travel five times as far as the H1 to become equally polluting.

Of course, I don't know how to compute any of the above.

I am not sure, though, whether the formula is as simplistic as saying, "The more you drive, the more polluting you will always be, regardless of what you drive."

Does anyone here have a degree in environmental science?

 

I think as far as being green goes a high efficiency gas engine is still the best way even over hybrids. The least impact in creating and disposing as those systems have been in place for decades now, plus the added advantage of having a lower initial cost and I would presume a lower maintenance cost considering we only have to replace one expensive battery instead of a couple dozen every so often.

lol, this is the best counter point I have seen Nice one

Basically Gordio is trying to say we should drive less to be green.... Well I don't have a choice, so I am sticking with the Fit

Booooo, I hate this trendy new carbon footprint.... People are ruining the world with this carbon footprint crap!!