Jeep Wrangler: greener car than the Prius
11-20-06, 11:15 AM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeep Wrangler: greener car than the Prius
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/fe...cle1959451.ece
Something to think about.
Something to think about.
Car magazine has been putting a few noses out of joint in the automotive trade. The latest edition features a report from an American outfit called CNW Marketing Research. It has put the Toyota Prius and other hybrid models in their place by declaring that the greenest car you can buy in Britain is - unbelievably - a Jeep Wrangler. Even a Range Rover Sport is greener than a Prius, according to CNW, as is the Toyota Yaris and, in the light of the recent Stern Report on climate change, it's probably worth taking a look at this startling piece of news.
The Jeep comes top of the green pile because CNW moves beyond the usual C02 emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction. Thus CNW takes account of just about everything - research and development, manufacture, cost of scrapping and recycling, fuel used and so on. Thus hybrid cars with their unusual componentry (battery packs, electric motors) and the expense and resources the car companies expend in designing them, score badly. The Wrangler, presumably, is pretty simple, doesn't cost much to make and, like a number of supposedly evil SUVs, should have a very long life ahead of it because of its rugged construction.
Of course, Toyota, maker of the biggest selling hybrid, the Prius, doesn't see things that way. It disputes the proportion of energy used to make a car compared with how much the vehicle uses during its life, mainly from burning fuel. The Americans say 80 per cent of the energy a car uses is accounted for by manufacture and 20 per cent in use: Toyota claims the reverse.
So much is disputed. However, it's an interesting counterpoint to the welter of anti-SUV comment. I still don't think you need a Land Rover, or a Jeep Wrangler in town.
The Jeep comes top of the green pile because CNW moves beyond the usual C02 emissions figures and uses a "dust-to-dust" calculation of a car's environmental impact, from its creation to its ultimate destruction. Thus CNW takes account of just about everything - research and development, manufacture, cost of scrapping and recycling, fuel used and so on. Thus hybrid cars with their unusual componentry (battery packs, electric motors) and the expense and resources the car companies expend in designing them, score badly. The Wrangler, presumably, is pretty simple, doesn't cost much to make and, like a number of supposedly evil SUVs, should have a very long life ahead of it because of its rugged construction.
Of course, Toyota, maker of the biggest selling hybrid, the Prius, doesn't see things that way. It disputes the proportion of energy used to make a car compared with how much the vehicle uses during its life, mainly from burning fuel. The Americans say 80 per cent of the energy a car uses is accounted for by manufacture and 20 per cent in use: Toyota claims the reverse.
So much is disputed. However, it's an interesting counterpoint to the welter of anti-SUV comment. I still don't think you need a Land Rover, or a Jeep Wrangler in town.
11-20-06, 01:23 PM
#2
Does the effort and expense needed to keep a Jeep running count in this calculation? I have several friends that own Wranglers, and while they are one the most fun vehicles to drive, none are reliable enough to be used as daily drivers. Having said that, I "steal" my friends' Wranglers every chance I get 
Javier
Javier
11-20-06, 02:27 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My fiance's 2002 Wrangler sucks just as much gas as my '93 V8 SC400.
A Prius gets 3 times the gas mileage.
But I can see their point in increased manufacturing costs / energies and a higher difficulty in disposing of Prius's / parts at the end of their life cycles.
I guess we can't have it both ways.
A Prius gets 3 times the gas mileage.
But I can see their point in increased manufacturing costs / energies and a higher difficulty in disposing of Prius's / parts at the end of their life cycles.
I guess we can't have it both ways.
11-20-06, 04:09 PM
#4
<shrug> A Wrangler is just bolted together as you can probably see from the exposed hinges and bolts. The hood is held down by two plastic clips and the roof is just a plastic cover so I don't see much "energy" used to make it anyway. Also, if the magazine is using what I think it's using, there were flaws in that survey company's calculation.
Of course, the Hummer is greener too according to that calculation.
Of course, the Hummer is greener too according to that calculation.
11-20-06, 04:16 PM
#5
Actually, you posted this before and people properly responded.
Toyota itself exposed that in this "rating" there is an huge difference between xA and xB (40%-50%) YET, cars are completly the same vehicles mechnanically, built in the same factory on the same lines, delivered by same ships and sold at the same dealers. MPG that they get is within 1 MPG of each other.
Yet this survey rated them at 40%-50% difference, which is quite hillarious.
Toyota itself exposed that in this "rating" there is an huge difference between xA and xB (40%-50%) YET, cars are completly the same vehicles mechnanically, built in the same factory on the same lines, delivered by same ships and sold at the same dealers. MPG that they get is within 1 MPG of each other.
Yet this survey rated them at 40%-50% difference, which is quite hillarious.
11-21-06, 05:02 AM
#7
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, useless. There's nothing to take away from it regarding the costs of development, manufacture, and disposal of these hybrid cars.
It's being pretty short-sighted to think that hybrid vehicles don't use up significantly more resources to develop and dispose of than regular vehicles. If you think they don't, then you're probably also the type of person that thought pure electric vehicles were a great solution to the pollution problem (where do you think the electricity comes from?).
You're free to form your own opinion, but just be aware that things are rarely as simple and free from environmental impact as the automakers will lead you to believe.
It's being pretty short-sighted to think that hybrid vehicles don't use up significantly more resources to develop and dispose of than regular vehicles. If you think they don't, then you're probably also the type of person that thought pure electric vehicles were a great solution to the pollution problem (where do you think the electricity comes from?).
You're free to form your own opinion, but just be aware that things are rarely as simple and free from environmental impact as the automakers will lead you to believe.
Trending Topics
11-21-06, 05:15 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
What has to be pointed out though, is that despite the relatively simple body and interior construction of the Wrangler, it uses some heavy parts underneath, with a lot of metal, particularly in the Rubicon model, which is designed for extreme off-roading conditions. ( That's one of the reasons why Wranglers have always had such miserable on-road ride and steering...the high level of unsprung weight pounding underneath the springs and shocks ).
So....like you say, the hood may be held on with lightweight pins, but underneath, the Wrangler is anything BUT lightweight.
So....like you say, the hood may be held on with lightweight pins, but underneath, the Wrangler is anything BUT lightweight.
11-21-06, 06:23 AM
#9
Yup, useless. There's nothing to take away from it regarding the costs of development, manufacture, and disposal of these hybrid cars.
It's being pretty short-sighted to think that hybrid vehicles don't use up significantly more resources to develop and dispose of than regular vehicles. If you think they don't, then you're probably also the type of person that thought pure electric vehicles were a great solution to the pollution problem (where do you think the electricity comes from?).
You're free to form your own opinion, but just be aware that things are rarely as simple and free from environmental impact as the automakers will lead you to believe.
It's being pretty short-sighted to think that hybrid vehicles don't use up significantly more resources to develop and dispose of than regular vehicles. If you think they don't, then you're probably also the type of person that thought pure electric vehicles were a great solution to the pollution problem (where do you think the electricity comes from?).
You're free to form your own opinion, but just be aware that things are rarely as simple and free from environmental impact as the automakers will lead you to believe.
they compare same cars and rate them 50% different. Obviously there is no "s" in their "scientific" methods...
11-21-06, 06:38 AM
#10
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether the study is scientific and accurate or not, the point was made so that people would start thinking about the bigger picture.
If the article had used a Honda in place of the Toyota Prius, you'd be ripping the Honda's reputation to shreds.
Blinders...
11-21-06, 10:43 PM
#11
So you're saying that there's no merit to the statement that hybrid cars cost a lot more in terms of environmental impact to develop and dispose of?
Whether the study is scientific and accurate or not, the point was made so that people would start thinking about the bigger picture.
If the article had used a Honda in place of the Toyota Prius, you'd be ripping the Honda's reputation to shreds.
Blinders...
Whether the study is scientific and accurate or not, the point was made so that people would start thinking about the bigger picture.
If the article had used a Honda in place of the Toyota Prius, you'd be ripping the Honda's reputation to shreds.
Blinders...
Seriously though, the Wrangler looks fairly basic and that's its purpose. You might as well say some cheap India (Tata) or chinese car is greener. Of course it is, they use half the material the rest of the world's carmakers use.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
