When you consider all variables, according to this study, driving an xB has the lowest impact on the environment...

Who knew?

Paul
Allscion -- an e-commerce Website with news and accessories for your Scion vehicles
http://www.allscion.com/store

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech.../31hybrids.htm

 

Lately I've been wondering if I should trade in my tC for an xB. Hmmm... I'll wait to see the concept "FUSE" released in New York in two weeks.

 

So when people sneer at the xB and say that is just an econobox, we can laugh and point out it is also an envirobox. Good grief.....saving money.....saving the planet......and having fun. Could almost make you pinch yourself!

 

If the Xa shares the same powertrain how can it be so much more to operate than an Xb???

 

Thats not accurate for one the xA gets better gas mileage than the xB and it has the same engine- therefore the xB is NOT as efficient as the xA, or the echo for that matter. Also, they list "Bentley" and "Rolls Royce" not even listed a model. These seems bogus to me.

 

probably the reason they used the xb was cause of its popularity over the xa?

 

well the xA's on the list, so i dont think that could be the reason.

 

could the xB be higher on the list because of the larger usable interior volumne?

 

So there is a 54% difference between the xB and the xA?????

I thought the xA weighed less than the xB and had the EXACT same drivetrain. . .
. . . and the Toyota Echo has a taller final drive, better MPG, and a greater difference in weight. . . that and they both COST LESS than the xB!!!!

My hypothesis? They tested an auto xB, a manual xA, and who knows for the Echo, and they priced out the other models to exaggerate the difference. . .

And I assume they tested it using long distance highway miles, which would further limit the benefit of hybrids. This whole test stinks of shoddy statistics and sloppy calculations. I'd be willing to bet money that they are trying to slander hybrids, and rigged the test in such a way as to unfairly exaggerate their point.

Hello! Regenerative braking doesn't help on the highway! And I wonder if they calculated resale into this equation. Since retail often varies by THOUSANDS of dollars, it definitely counts in the cost equation. My conclusion? Usanews.com is just as bad as any other news agency. . . they post up anything shocking, without checking on the accuracy of the article. There is no way there is that great of a difference between the xA and xB.

Lesson learned? Never ever trust anything you read or hear from any news agency. . . or even me. . . I'm just stating my opinion.

 

The study includes the energy required to manufacture the vehicle, and the energy required to dismantle it at the junkyard. The mileage that the vehicle gets was only one of many considerations that went into it, although the article does not exactly say what all went into it. So basically there's not enough information to argue this one way or the other.

If they are going to include the energy of manufacture and at the junkyard, it seems to me the overall longevity of the car would matter. After all, if a car only lasts on the road 10 years before it has to be junked, and another makes it 20 years, that's half as much energy right there.

And why stop with manufacture? Why not include the energy required to mine the iron ore out of the earth, process it into steel, ship it to the factory... after all, a car with less metal in it (either by content or by being a smaller car) isn't going to need as much energy...

Seems like there's a million ways this study could be spun to make it have whatever result the author's agenda wanted...

 

And whoever created the article probably knew that. . . and if they didn't they need to be expelled from the scientific community. Articles like this make me sick. . .

 

Looks like Toyota is doing something right in having four cars on the most efficient list. It makes up for them being the only manufaturer on both lists. Chrystler has two cars, the Wranger and the Neon, but the Neon's already seen their last model year. The only other company with multiple entries are GM with the Tracker and the Ion.
So now not only are toyotas in general probably more reliable than most cars, their also becoming more engergy efficient from beginning to end. Neato

 

I dont think dismantling the car at the junkyard is relevant. The article is clearly interested in cost per mile... implying that it is comparing varibles while you own the car. This would include 1. How much it costs brand new and 2. How much gas it consumes. and possibly 3. Repair/Maintenience costs.
This article is lame..

 

And don't forget insurance

 

Yup, but I think xB and xA are very similair... both are considered wagons I believe.

 

No, the "dust to dust" energy cost is exactly what the study is about. The cost per mile they calculated is a meta-number; it doesn't infer that the owner pays that much. Obviously, a Prius owners out-of-pocket costs are much lower than the ones listed in the study.

The question being addressed here is the total ecological impact of a given model car, something that environmentalists profess to be concerned about. It should matter that you're buying something that wastes natural resources to design, manufacture, ship, and dispose of, even if you don't directly pay those costs out of your own pocket.

What the stydy doesn't seem to address is the specific issue of emissions, of generating particulates and greenhouse gasses. A car might have been energyu intensive to design and build, but where did that energy come from -- nukes? hydro? wind? coal? It would be hard to determine.

If it's true that the xB is the least energy-costly car over its lifetime, great, and I'm proud to own one. But I still drive it as little as possible, and ride my bike as much as I can instead, not only because I'll live longer and pay less, but also because global warming is real, and vehicle emissions are the top contributor.

RichC

 

Agreed! ^

 

me thinks the spin doctors had a hand in this
I just bought a box..plain jane w/stick shift and cruise

270 mile commute to work.
if it ain't pretty gotta be loud!
baby moons,fuzzy dice and lake pipes

 

Not that I think you're wrong, as I don't have all the details on this one, but why are you so convinced that global warming is real? I want to know, in case you know something I don't.

I know that scientists have discovered warming trends in global temperature, and that the ice caps are starting to melt, but how do they know global warming is the culprit? The earth has historically had warming and cooling trends. . . all before the advent of the automobile. Scientifically speaking, it's illogical to assume that the earth is going to stay the same temperature forever. And how do we know what percentage of the warming is due to pollution.

I've heard (from scientists) the arguement that all of our pollution (as much as it is) is about as significant as throwing a grain of salt into an ocean. . . as our atmosphere is simply enormous.

 

doh