Hard to argue with those choices.
Just consider the Accord 4-cylinder cars too, though. Not the V6; not worth it.
There will always be consumers and buyers who make sub-optimal economic decisions. In marketing we have pioneers, early adopters, mainstream adopters, laggards, and “never will buy” types.
Where I live most buyers of hybrids and the new Smart Car are people with enough money to not really need those savings, whatever value they are. Those same folks have solar panels to heat their indoor swimming pools; there’s one just down the street from me.
When large flat screen TVs first came out they cost around $10,000. Now that same set is down to $1995 or so at Best Buy, with much better reliability.
I hope we will always have those pioneers who collectively will buy enough of a new product to get the market moving. If the product fails, then it deserves to fail.
Toyota, mmeanwhile has a concerted effort underway to reduce the cost of hybrids. I’m sure they will succeed in making the option much less expensive.
Both excellent choices, but the Accord is a very good choice as well, as mentioned.
I know you said your minivan has died. Is it really “most sincerely dead?” I ask, because if you can hold out to the end of the year I think VW will be bringing back the diesel Passat. Maybe even a wagon version.
I know you’re trying to be green, so let me suggest one more thing. Some of these cars mentioned will have some sort of an ultra-low emission option that takes additional measures above and beyond what is required by law. These are usually no-cost options, and in their rush to sell you a car, the salesman may not point out this option to you. You probably have to specifically request (demand?) it.
I know the Honda has that option. And the VW competitor offers a “PZEV” – Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle – option.
Just another tidbit to confuse you even more!
Japan is on very short list where paying, sober Aferican Americans are not welcome in restrants.
Is that Restaurant…or Restraint???
I agree Most African Americans don’t like being in Restraints…no matter what country they’re in.
MikeM95831 has good advice about pursuing improved emissions equipment, if possible - this is how you can get a Ford Focus with particulate emissions per mile equal to a Toyota Prius… in fact most cars if you can get them CARB certified are much cleaner.
Also, remember that fuel efficiency ratings are just ballpark estimates, and that a couple mpg variation is normal, so just because a car is rated lower doesn’t mean it actually IS lower in fuel economy.
For example, the 4 cylinder 5spd automatic Ford Fusion is rated 1-3 mpg lower than the 4 cylinder 5 spd automatic Toyota Camry, but owners at fueleconomy.gov are actually reporting 1-2 mpg higher in the Fusion. Considering they have the same EPA ratings for particulate emissions, the only environmental difference is in CO2 emissions, which is directly tied to mpg. With the EPA ratings, the Fusion looks worse for carbon footprint, but if you actually get better mileage, as the average owners are getting, your carbon footprint is actually lower.
There’s no real easy answer to finding the most environmentally friendly vehicle - other than to just not buy more vehicle or power than you truly need…
Well, the price difference between a comparably-equipped Altima Hybrid and Altima 2.5S is about $4,000. According to fueleconomy.gov, the Altima will save you about $400/year in gasoline.
That’s a HUGH difference. Last year when wife was looking for new car…the price difference between the Camry Hybrid and a comperably equipped Camry was less then $1200. The Hybrid comes fully loaded…The stripped down Camry was about $4000 difference…But add all the other options to make it compatible the price difference was a lot less.
I suggest that you test drive both and the new Malibu (not the Classic), Accord, and Sonata. All are excellent choices. Don’t limit yourself to 2 cars just yet. I will even predict that you will enjoy the Malibu at least as much as the other cars. BTW, I drive an Accord and I like it a lot.
Definitely try a Ford Focus. It meets all your requirements and is definitely worth at least a test drive.
Argeed, all these cars are good choices. I will add one thing that I have not seen mentioned, if I intended to keep a car for a long time, as you stated, I would avoid a hybrid like the plague. These may be great as long as the warranty, of any extended warranty lasts, but once you are paying for repairs on your own there is an awful lot of expensive machinery and batteries to keep going. Even though some have a great reputation for reliability does not mean you will not be faced with a multi thousand dollar repair bill later in the life of the car.
“Going Green” seems so simple, yet is a very complicated puzzle. To me, the greenest green would be that set of circumstances that leaves the smallest carbon footprint as I traverse through my life.
If you have the given that a vehicle is a necessity, then the greenest green would be that vehicle that leaves the smallest carbon footprint
in its lifetime. The criterias of MPG, emissions, and the like are not the best indicators of a small carbon footprint. There are many examples but one is this: is a Honda Civic better for the environment than a Mercedes E350? The Civic gets 30% better MPG, but the E350 has lower emissions.
The Civic is likely to be crushed into scrap a few years before the E350,
and therefore it could be that TWO Civics need to be manufactured for ONE E350. And heaven only knows how much carbon is wasted in manufacturing a vehicle. And the E350’s leather seat coving may be much better for the environment than the petrolium-based synthetic seat coverings in the Civic.
I’m unaware of any comprehensive studies done to really get a handle on the true, life-cycle impact of vehicles. But, I suspect that the E350 may well be a better car for the environment than the Civic.
So, this leads me to suggest that you consider changing your criteria to first include safety (without that, nothing else is worth anything), reliability, long life, THEN MPG and emissions, THEN enjoyable to drive.
With that, I suggest a two to ten year old Mercedes-Benz E class wagon.
Settle down! the sky is not falling no matter what Al Gore says. The earth was made for man, man will survive like they have for millions of years and there is no sense in fighting evolution. What are we going to do with all these spent batteries from “Green” cars? Right, back into the environment eventually. Yes, it will be great when we don’t have to rely on foreign oil to power cars, heat homes, etc. For now, just buy a car that YOU want (Not the car that Al Gore wants you to have). Let all the scabs who are making money off of “Going green” make their money while the auto industry irons out all the bugs of “Pedal-after-you-stop” cars. Try not to be a victim of the media.
The Society of Automtive Engineers (SAE) did a life cycle study of energy used by various materials of construction, comparing steel, carbon fiber, and other materials as to the total energy consumed including Manufacture, Parts, Operation (fuel), and disposal.
They also compared Electric Vehicles (EV) with Internal Combustion Vehicles (ICV).
The overall life cycle energy consumption, in Gigajoules, was as follows, with the manufacturing energy in brackets:
- Compact ICV (steel) 729.1 GJ (67GJ)
- Compact EV (steel) 551.4 GJ (123.1)
- Standard size ICV (steel)888.1 GJ (80.8 GJ)
- Standard ICV (recycled Aluminum) 743.4 GJ (109.2 GJ)
- Standard ICV (Fiberglass) 809.0 GJ (85.8 GJ)
- Standard ICV (Carbon Fiber) 745.4 GJ (139.2 GJ)
What this tells us is that the manufacturing of a standard car takes 9.1% of the total life cycle energy, and operation takes 89.1%!! So, if the car last twice as long you only save about 9% or so. Fuel consumption, however, is 89.1% for both compact and standard cars, since the weight ratios are the same as the fuel consumption ratios.
But the compact car (steel) uses only 729.1 GJ compared to 888.8 for the standard size car. So you save about 18% in overall energy with a compact car.
The electric car provides significant savings in overall energy use; 551.4 GJ compared to 729.1 GJ for a gasoline compact. This assumes the elctricity is genarated by a mix of coal, gas, nuclear and hydro.
Using exotic materials, such as carbon fibre, produces only a 16% savings in lifetime energy consumption. But the cost would more than double!
The study was conducted in 1996 when gas prices were still low and fuel economy was not a big issue. From the above you can conclude that reducing the 89% of fuel used during the life of the vehicle offers the best opportunity to make a positive impact on the environment. A very effecient diesel or a good hybrid will make the most impact. Reducing vehicle weight (std to compact) has an average impact of 18% improvement.
This does not mean that you should get rid of a good, old car. But it is worth considering when you buy a new vehicle, the lightest car with the smallest engine is best, but a diesel is even better, until GM launches the VOLT electric car.
“The earth was made for man, man will survive like they have for millions of years and there is no sense in fighting evolution.”
Wow, that’s an interesting sentence including both “The earth was made for man” and “no sense in fighting evolution.”
I was also surprised to learn that modern humans have been around for “millions of years” (it’s actually about 200,000 years). Folks who believe that “the earth was made for man” will be even more surprised than the sane people.
You might be right, Beefy, and maybe not. Whether we are experiencing man-made global warming is a very difficult question to answer. Year-to-year temperature variations are wider than the average increase required to cover much of the ocean coast, including most of Florida, with ocean water. A few degree increase on average can change the climate and we don’t really understand how. I don’t have a solution. But I am concerned that increasing population and drought in the western US could drain Lake Meade and Lake Powell. That means there will be no more Colorado River. All this as soon as 13 years. Sure, we can desalinate ocean water, but that costs more than using runoff from the Rockies as we do now. I can’t tell you when it will happen or even that it will for sure, but probabilities above 5% or 10% are frightening. Remember that nature is relentless, uncaring, and incomprehensibly huge.
There was a good program recently on one of the knowledge channels, oulining the drying up of the South West. Not only are we using up the surface runoff, the Ogalalla? Aquifer is also being depleted.
Anyone retiring at age 55 in the South West will be paying dearly for water in the next 20 years. Part of this is due to global warming, part due to normal climate cycles. The South West was once a relatively very productive area, long before Columbus set foot in the New World. The current drying further increases a process already underway.
The South West has in the past never been able to support a large population. So today’s cities like Phoenix are artificial from an environmental point of view.
In the Middle East they use their abundant gas supplies to desalinate water; in Abu Dhabi they even spray this water on the grass and flowers in the public parks. Southern california will within 10 years have to start desalination in a big way. Arizona would need somthing to desalinate in the first place!