July 02, 2008
Car Talk
Posted by Fred Tung

A couple of car-related items:

First, about hybrid cars . . . . 

Christine and Gordon's recent hybrid car postings (Highlander for Christine; Prius for Gordon) got me thinking. You see, my family lives in a Prius-rich environment.  Literally about a third of our friends have at least one Prius in the family, and one family has two--and they are Prius proselytizers as well.  We, on other hand, drive a couple of relatively old, relatively guzzly cars.  The efficient one is a 12-year-old Volvo, which gets about 15 mpg in city driving.  The other is a 10-year-old Lexus SUV (the big one), which gets about 10 mpg (with a tailwind).  When I get self-conscious about our old guzzlers, my defense mechanisms cause me to speculate about whether buying a new hybrid is as green as generally believed.  Specifically, the manufacture of a new car--even a really fuel-efficient one--must leave a pretty big carbon footprint, right?  All that steel and shipping!  Is it possible we'd be better off just keeping our old cars forever and repairing them as needed, as they do in Cuba?   

Turns out, building a new Prius requires 113 million BTUs of energy.  So compared to an existing car, in carbon footprint terms, a new Prius has already consumed 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it rolls off the showroom floor!  Instead of a new Prius, buy:

i. a 1998 Toyota Tercel, which gets about 35 mpg.  You'd have to drive the Prius 100,000 miles before you broke even with the old Tercel.

or

ii. a 1994 Geo Metro XFi, which gets the same 46 mpg as the new Prius, but without the carbon overhead.  In terms of carbon footprint, the Prius will never catch up.

Of course, odds are that you won't be getting that new-car smell.  As one analyst concludes, "You might feel better driving a hybrid, but you won't necessarily be greener."

Second, about road rage. . . .

Did you hear that bumper stickers cause road rageThis study's been out for a few weeks now, and actually that's not what it said.  Apparently, bumper stickers signal the driver's territoriality.  Bumper stickers personalize the car, marking the driver's territory.  These drivers are quicker to perceive a threat to their territory by the actions of other drivers, and they are correspondingly more lively at defending against these perceived incursions.  And this is independent of any substantive message on the bumper sticker:

It does not seem to matter whether the messages on the stickers are about peace and love -- "Visualize World Peace," "My Kid Is an Honor Student" -- or angry and in your face -- "Don't Mess With Texas," "My Kid Beat Up Your Honor Student."

So watch out for those bumper stickers!

Environment, Miscellany | Bookmark

TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38673/30821604

Links to weblogs that reference Car Talk:

Comments (6)

1. Posted by Anon on July 2, 2008 @ 16:02 | Permalink

Much of the pro and anti-hybrid "analysis" is either ideologically driven or designed to be contrarian to sell the story. You can always spin these facts. For example, it clearly would be worse for air quality and mileage to keep driving your gas guzzlers. But those cars are better than some cars left on the road that are even worse. Thus, the total effect of your getting a different car should also factor in the ability of your old car to be acquired by or transferred to someone who drives something much worse that should be taken off the road. Also, the used car market is great individually (although the price premiums have just about eliminated that given the repair and maintenance costs), but it's limited and can't satisfy demand. Buying better new cars also stimulates manufacturers to make better new cars, which increases the total number of cars on the road that are ecologically sound. Similarly, the price premium of a hybrid, for instance, has been overstated. Buying a Highlander and upgrading to a hybrid is probably wasteful. It costs a lot and the mileage advantage is quite small. On the other hand, very few Prius owners were in the market for a Civic or Corolla and decided to upgrade to a Prius. Instead, those are people who decided to ditch their Lexus or high-end SUV for a Prius. Thus, for them it is a clear cost-savings. They simply chose to buy smaller and cheaper.


2. Posted by Jason W. on July 2, 2008 @ 22:03 | Permalink

You also have to account for the fact that old mileage estimates were inflated, sometimes grossly so. That 35 mpg Corolla might really be 30, which increase the mpg difference between it and a Prius. Also consider that from car to car, you might get cars that have been better or worse maintained, so your particular Corolla might not get 30, but 25.

That's just one example of why, as Anon alludes to, these substitution stories aren't nearly so simple as would seem from this post. The interplay between new car manufacturing, the new car market, repair and maintenance costs, gas prices, and pollution is far too complex for simple comparisons between BTUs to manufacture new cars vs. mpg for old cars.


3. Posted by Fred Tung on July 3, 2008 @ 8:49 | Permalink

It's true that you can't control the acts of others, so total effects are out of any individual's hands. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that used car markets can't satisfy demand. Isn't the whole point to change consumer tastes? I get this same pushback from my two-Prius friends. If you're willing to give in to the idea that people like buying new cars, then the case for the hybrid is easy. But if sustainability matters, then isn't that concession a little too easy? For instance, it may be plausible that manufacturing replacement parts for existing cars is a superior strategy.

My point is not that used cars are the answer, or that I know the answer. Jason is right that simple comparisons abound, but most do not include the possibility of not building more new cars. Comparing BTUs is too simple, but no more simple than comparing mpg b/t a new Prius and a new Hummer.

OTOH, I'm not shopping for a Geo just yet either. . . .


4. Posted by Christine on July 3, 2008 @ 10:21 | Permalink

Fred, you're just upset because you know that I am better than you are because I'm a hybrid owner.


5. Posted by Fred Tung on July 3, 2008 @ 11:08 | Permalink

That's only one more reason you're better than me, Christine. So it's only marginally more upsetting. Just wait till I get my Geo. . .


6. Posted by Jason W. on July 5, 2008 @ 14:11 | Permalink

I'm not sure that the used car market can satisfy demand. I searched for Geo Metros within 300 miles of Los Angeles on AutoTrader. I found five. Tercels? 31. (That's not just from the years listed, but all Tercels, and all Metros.)

For comparison: I found four Rolls Royce Silver Spurs in the same area and 85 used Hummer H1's.

I don't want to overstate my disagreement: I agree with Fred that people looking into cars have to take things into account besides MPG, because construction and shipping costs are important (and they're overlooked, just as they are in the food market). I just wonder whether it's as easy to find reliable, low-mileage, low-emissions cars (ideally non-death-traps) on the used market as we'd like it to be.

(Oh, just one more number: I found 1,588 used Chevy Suburbans for sale.)

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Bloggers
Papers
Posts
Recent Comments
Random Walk
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Syndicate The Glom
Subscribe

The Glom's Blog Network on Facebook:

Miscellaneous Links