Ford versus Honda? Hybrid versus SUV? Does it make a difference?
by Peter BrayJanuary 27th, 2006 at 11:40:38
I “need” a new car.
Given the recent sad news of layoffs at Ford, I feel like buying one of theirs. A unionized workforce is a natural left-leaning ally. And as an American, I do feel that buying USA-made is increasingly important.
The Japanese imports, while occasionally produced State-side, are non-union. And the noticeable quality differences are partly due to this — after all, when you “Walmart” your workers and give them few benefits, you can focus more on the end-product.
Of course, it doesn’t all come down to unions. Ford has rallied against an increase in fuel-efficiency, CAFE increases (as have the imports). They are fighting California’s separate emissions standards (as have some imports). And, almost single-handedly, they began the whole SUV thing… (and now fail to recognize that it is coming to an end).
The imports have wonderful marketing and PR: the average consumer could be forgiven for believing that Toyota and Honda exhaust nothing more dangerous than apple seeds and sunflowers. And Larry David and others make their little hybrid Priuses centerpieces of Hollywood fare. Is it all just great greenwashing? You can’t ignore their collusion with the domestics on anti-efficiency measures. Is the LEED-certified Toyota HQ just a callous marketing ploy?
And Ford has hybrids too, including ones that even the Sierra Club curiously promotes.
As well, I am always highly suspicious of any commonly held belief. Are the differences in SUV versus hybrid that important?
The vast, vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions are from coal-fired power plants. Even if all the cars on earth suddenly stopped working, it would make only a fractional difference in overall emissions. So, really, could the high economic cost of, say, a 30% fleetwide reduction in emissions be used more profitably elsewhere? If that cost were used to modernize pollution controls in coal-fired plants, well, the savings would be considerably more impactful. Shoot, why not spend the money to decommission 2-stroke engines worldwide? After all, driving a 2-stroke snowmobile for a few hours equals the pollution output of 100,000 passenger car miles. Given this, perhaps the “environmental” factors between, say, Honda and Ford really aren’t that significant.
So… Honda or Ford?
January 27th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Hi Peter,
I am in the market for a new car too so it was nice to see your post. I don’t think it will change my mind but it did make me think about it more.
You say “the vast, vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions are from coal-fired power plants.” yet when I look at the statistics (albeit from wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
I see that petroleum outpaces coal. Where did you find the data to support your claim?
Also, I do agree with your buy USA/buy Union comment too. However, I wouldn’t call $15 an hour to start and $21 after 3 years Wal-Mart wages. Although when compared UAW wages you may have a point.
Thanks
January 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Hi Mike:
On trying to re-find the source for the petroleum versus coal carbon emissions, I came across quite a number of conflicting data. Suffice to say, however, that my “vast, vast” statement was probably too much. I did, however, find (see here) that oil accounts for 38% of US energy consumption, and this consumption accounts for 42% of US carbon emissions. However, parsing the data at this link finds that only 66% of US petroleum is used for transportation (the rest is used for industrial, residential, power, etc.), so the total US carbon emissions from petroleum used in transportation is even lower (indeed, this site suggests that transportation accounts for only 20% of total worldwide carbon emissions).
Peter
February 4th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Peter, the better choice, for significant reasons you should already know, is the Ford Escape. The Honda hybrid is class-series, the Ford class-parallel. Only the parallel hybrid can evolve into the ‘next generation’ Plug-in Hybrid. The Prius is a parallel hybrid. The GM Silverado and Saturn VUE (SUV) are series hybrids.
Series hybrids can achieve mileage gains of perhaps no more than 20% over conventional drivetrains. Parallel Plug-in hybrids have the potential to exceed 500mpg! This is why GM won’t build them.
LATimes did an article, “The 500 mpg Solution”, now archived, but probably still available for a price. The premise for this possibility is explained below in the paragraph beginning – Most important:
No doubt Exxon also dismisses the hybrid for their mileage gain, but that is not even the most important advantage, in a long list of advantages achievable with the Parallel Plug-in Hybrid.
The Plug-in Hybrid adds some 100-300 lbs of battery to store and utilize electricity for propulsion. They are a perfect match for rooftop photovoltiac solar panels. This formidable power supply duo will prove invaluable in an emergency grid failure. It offers an education in household electricity consumption and conservation. Public power will surely follow when enough of these systems are connected to the grid, whereby price gouging can be avoided. In your face, Ken Lay!
The batteries lower vehicle center-of-gravity, improving handling and stability, and reduces potential for accidental rollover, a perfect application for top-heavy SUVs. Ford should be congratulated for their leadership. Hybrids have several additional safety features. Claims that hybrid are fire-prone are bogus.
Most important: this homepower system creates an economic incentive to drive only the shorter distances that battery power alone provides (10-20 miles before needing a recharge). The greater problem is that we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes. And we transport goods too far. Choosing to patronize local economies, allows them to grow whereby more and more destinations are developed and become accessible without having to drive. Walking, bicycling and mass transit, all far more energy efficient means of travel, become viable options alongside driving when necessary. When local economies grow, they have less and less need for goods transported from afar. And they have more control over costs of living.
Get your act together and do the research. Bio-fuels only achieve highest fuel efficiency and emission reduction in a hybrid drivetrain. Hydrogen fuel cell technology cannot achieve even near hybrid potential.
GM’s corporate charter should be revoked.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
wookie bookie…
blasphemed chaplains cleaved complimenters barbarity lobes….