Prius a no, no – Peugeot, Citroen and Ford are all greener, says new study

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]518549[/snapback]</div>

Care to cite a peer reviewed scientific study that supports that proposition?

 

As noted by others, this is a European study. Small cars, usually diesel (VERY SMALL by U.S. standards) are the norm in France and Spain, at least as I saw this past spring. One PCer in the UK noted that a Prius is considered a LARGE car there.

The fact that they added size as a qualifier stings the Prius, even though it gets better mileage than at least some of the cars on the list. I don't have time to check them all. Most are diesels, not sold in the US, the Yaris's EPA MPG (from Toyota) is 29/36 at best. As sold here the Mini gets 32/40, the Mini S 29/36. Not all that impressive for a car that squeezes 4 people max and the 2 in the back better have REALLY short legs. You could have that 20 years ago with a Geo Metro.

The story does not apply in the USA.

This quote:
"The research, gleaned from publicly available data suggests that vast improvements have been made by car manufacturers, who are under great pressure from regulars to reduce emissions."
is a HUGE joke if applied to manufacturers selling cars in the USA.

Vermont, California and other states have adopted emission standards that the car companies say can not be met without increasing mileage. Saying it is not possible, that consumer choice would be curtailed, etc. The auto companies spend vast amounts of money fighting anything that would increase MPG, some dealers in VT say they would have to close up shop if the mileage got better because no one would buy the vehicles. i.e. "I sell Hummers and big pickup trucks to people who use them as passenger cars because they are REAL men".

We are, after all, AMERICANS and dammit, we should be able to buy ANYTHING we WANT!!! Why should WE consider altering how WE live our lives? Dubya didn't even bother going to the climate summit yesterday, he has his own today. But we aren't arrogant or anything. :blink:

I suspect if you opened a dealership in the states selling ONLY the 12 cars listed, you wouldn't need a big sales staff.

Look at the vehicle advertising in the U.S. - the majority shows "big or fast". Ads with footnotes like "shown on closed road". SUVs on top of mesas, put there by helicopters. Vehicles shown in situations that 99.9% of those sold will NEVER see. The VW ads with the guy and his little 'demon doll' ripping through the streets in the rain at night. GM ads that suggest anything that gets good mileage is inherently unsafe while being proud of their 30 vehicles that get 30 MPG or better on the highway. Funny how you don't see ads for THOSE cars very often.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 01:24 PM) [snapback]518549[/snapback]</div>

Gosh, you're so smart. I wish I was smart like you. Wow, you know weverything....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 27 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]518555[/snapback]</div>

It's true! The data from ice core analysis suggests that prior warming events of the Earth's atmosphere preceded the increase in CO2 by some hundreds of years. This leads to the scientific conclusion that CO2 increase is associated with global warming but might not be the cause. (The obvious conclusion is that they both result from some third cause).

When you plot the graph covering such a long period, as Al Gore did, the temperature/CO2 curves look synchronized, but they are not.

This does not mean that current warming might not be caused by human activity, but focusing on CO2 might be the wrong target. (What if it results from water vapor injected high in the atmosphere by jet aircraft, for example?) We'd look a bit stupid if we spent trillions of dollars reducing CO2 emissions to find that it was something else entirely.

Of course, if human activity is responsible for global warming, the logical response is to reduce the number of humans. Try selling that idea!

Mike

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Sep 27 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]518552[/snapback]</div>

Except that I am currently getting 20% better REAL mileage in my Prius than the 2008 ForTwo is supposed to get. And I live where the winter cold affects mileage a LOT. At least the 2008 has a reasonable starting price range ($11 to $14K) compared to the $25K it cost to make the prior Smart legal in the U.S. That was my biggest complaint about the (not so) Smart car in the past, WAY too expensive for a 2 seat commuter that didn't have outstanding mileage. Other than ease of parking, or for those who like really quirky looking vehicles, it had no value.
Reference

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Sep 27 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]518571[/snapback]</div>

I am still waiting for a reference to a peer reviewed scientific study that supports what you have written.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 27 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]518555[/snapback]</div>

Here:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

also, by looking at the Algore graph from the truth is inconvenient.

 

"Clutchless manual 5-speed tranny"?

What exactly does that mean for the Smart cars? Do I still shift it? Does it shift itself, but still in just 5 gears? will it auto-stop the engine? Diesel?

Sorry, maybe I need to google these...thought some "Smart" people here (get it, name of the car...smart...ok, just a bad pun) could answer in the usual PriusChat informed way.

PS Is it true there's an auto-stop engined Mini...but not is the US...diesel too? Please tell me no, as my sig other would trade her soul for a Mini...and I'd even consider it with the auto-stop function...maybe not the diesel option, but apparently the Mini just "purred" when she test drove one 2 years back.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 27 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]518439[/snapback]</div>

i'd like to know what are the differences between these two...
they are both made by the same manufacturer (PSA) and also Why the Toyota Aygo is not on the list..

 

Articles like this make me yawn. They are boring and just focussed on headline sensation.

ERV is an interesting principle, but needs to be backed by solid facts and datapoints. Not the smoke and mirrors of the CNW "study".

Would love to see the actual data behidn this study and rating. Or is it another "CNW special"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]518549[/snapback]</div>

Temperature increases also preceding a CO2 rise..... Well can't that easily be explained by positive feedback loops like: warmer temps leading to less ice, leading to more albedo, which leads to thawing tundra and/or more forest fires causing the release of even more CO2?

 

I didn't buy the car to be "green". I bought it to buy less gas. It cut my gas bills in half. As a 500 mile a week commuter, that's a big deal for me. No internal combustion powered vehicle is totally green. Green cars may be here one day, but why argue about who is "greener"? The Prius works for me. Cant even buy a Cirtoen or Puge here anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 27 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]518583[/snapback]</div>

Thank you.

By the way, your posts will appear more credible if you did not resort to taking cheap shots at politicians with whom your politics are at odds (i.e., Algore).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 27 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]518682[/snapback]</div>

There's an illuminating discussion of the CO2 ice-core data lag question at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...d-co2/#more-430

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Sep 27 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]518690[/snapback]</div>

Very interesting. Who would have guessed that DA got the cite for that article right from the global warming deniers' talking points? I should have known better than to accept the premise of that research at face value.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000 @ Sep 27 2007, 01:07 PM) [snapback]518574[/snapback]</div>

When I drove the 2008 Smart ForTwo during Smart USA's traveling tour, the representatives said that the vehicle is designed to get mid-40's combined on the 2008 EPA cycle. They wouldn't be any more specific than that until EPA testing is completed though the Smart get 50 mpg for the EU combined cycle. Since it costs $12,200 equipped to my specification, I'm not too worried even if it does get slightly less mileage than my Prius. (Lifetime of ~47 mpg) I can buy a lot of gas with $10,000. (About 3,333 gallons at $3.00 per gallon, which at even at a difference of 10 mpg combined would take 222,000 miles of driving to break even)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Sep 27 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]518589[/snapback]</div>

It means that the Smart ForTwo has a manual transmission but the clutch is controlled by a computer so there is no clutch pedal. It has 5 speeds + reverse. You allow the computer to shift gears automatically or you can shift it manually by moving the shift lever or by using paddle shifter mounted behind the steering wheel on "Passion" models. It does not auto-stop the engine on the US model but the Europeans get a version with auto-stop. No diesel will be offered in the US or Canadian market but again the Europeans have a diesel version.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Sep 27 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]518589[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it is true that the Europeans have both an auto-stop and diesel engined Mini. All of BMW's new diesel engines will have auto-stop feature.

 

Conventional technology? Soooo, that Ford Fusion will go from 22.7 mpg to 70 or so? Is there some double secret carburetor that they haven't told us about yet? That would be hard to believe given the automobile industry's fervent attempts at derailing improvements to mileage requirements. Perhaps they mean diesel? So diesel will somehow become the standard and everyone will switch to low-sulphur diesel and we'll get big gains in mileage without polluting the air with particulate matter? I wonder if diesel proponents realize that out of a barrel of oil, you get 19.5 gallons of gasoline and only 7 gallons of diesel. Wth do they mean when they say conventional technology will bypass the Prius? Again, another vague promise (like the Volt) of surpassing the Prius somehow. A promise doesn't get very good mpg, since you can't drive it to work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Sep 27 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]518717[/snapback]</div>

COnventional technology as in a much smaller and lighter vehicle with improved fuel consumption. Mostly using diesel engines to improve mileage. Diesel will be low sulphur and will include cats and other emissions equipment to drastically reduce PM and NOx, all of this will add quite a bit of expense (especially to these low budget mini vehicles). Thus diesel engines (mostly) in much smaller vehciles with lots of fancy emissins equipment to clean up seems to be their conventional technology.

Most of the planned new diesel technology should be able to meet Tier 2 Bin 5 levels of NOx, with the advantage of lower CO2 and CO compared to gas counterparts. SO far it seems that only much smaller vehicles can beat the Prius on a combined cycle though, even with all the new do-hickies.