Lord love a duck, but sometimes the most idiotic things surface on the internet. And a certain piece favorably comparing Ferrari’s environmental impact to that of the Prius doesn’t have the excuse of coming from some blogspot-based Private Snafu in the Army of Davids. No, it comes from Car And Driver. Print Media. The Big Boys. Etcetera. And since they don’t have the decency to expose their own baldfaced disingenuousness and sensationalist ignorance-peddling until after the jump, we’ll return the favor. Car And Driver’s Steve Siler is an idiot, and that’s all we’ll say unless you bump our page views by hitting the jump.
C&D titles this piece of moron, uh, I mean Digg-bait “Save The Earth, Drive A Ferrari.” To highlight the bold investigative qualities of the piece, they subtitle it “How’s this for a convenient truth? Priuses spew out 78 times as much CO2 as Ferraris.” Of course, the idiocy of the entire argument is made abundantly clear by the second paragraph. Subtitled “The Math,” it qualifies the page view-grabbing sensationlism with the revalation that the 7900 Ferraris sold since the Prius’s 2004 introduction will generate about 23m kg of CO2 and consume 2.5m gallons of gas next year. Then comes the jump, and you can probably guess what comes next.
Thanks to the brilliant investigative work of C&D, we now know that the Prius “is pillaging Mother Earth,” in comparison to Ferrari. Why? Because since 2004, Toyota has delivered 609,625 Priora. Sure, each one holds four people, but since there are so many of them on the road and people drive them more than 5k miles per year, the total Prius fleet should emit 1.7 billion kg and 200m gallons of gas. That’s 79 percent as much as the Ferrari fleet! Damn the Prius! Bless the Ferrari! And all praise to the enlightening influence of C&D reportage!
Of course Siler eventually admits that his argument isn’t worth the pixels it was written with. “Okay, we’re totally not serious. Suggesting that, between a Ferrari and a Prius, the premium-swilling prancing horse would be the most environmentally responsible option would be journalistically irresponsible, despite the 1.7 billion kilograms of CO2 that today’s Priuses will pump into the atmosphere over the next year, the 200 million gallons of gas they will consume, and the innumerable quantities of raw materials required to build them and their bespoke metal-heavy hybrid battery packs,” rambles Siler. In other words, Car And Driver practices irresponsible journalism. And run-on sentences. Manfully admitted.
But really, there’s a point to this. You see, Siler’s real aim is made clear in a tacked-on opinion paragraph at the very end of the piece. After admitting the obvious: “if every Prius driver switched into a Ferrari and drove it 15,000 miles per year, the overall picture would be far less green,” he turns this abortion of an editorial towards an impassioned plea to “Save the Enzos.”
“We hope this fact is not lost on our lawmakers as they further their green-car agendas, the results of which could result in a de facto ban of exotics and super-luxury cars in many states, or at least exorbitant fines being slapped on them. Certainly, buyers of these cars are accustomed to exorbitant fines (six-to-seven-figure MSRPs and gas-guzzler taxes) already. But the added cost may be just enough of a deterrent to keep some customers away—particularly with the economy in the shape it’s in—and that could prompt Ferrari, Lamborghini, and other high-end makes out of the U.S. altogether… we hope that the folks in Washington D.C., Sacramento, and the EU keep things in perspective as they enact legislation that could quite possibly erase the most colorful and beautiful cars in the world from the automotive landscape.”
And a well-made argument it is, too.
Sounds about as Creditable as the “Hummers are greener that a Prius” BS that was marking the rounds earlier this year.
Wasn’t someone trying to peddle some similar kind of crap using the Hummer when gas prices were at a high earlier this year? Seems to me the story actually gained some traction in the MSM.
People will believe what they want to believe and there are always those who will exploit this. I’ll bet most C&D readers didn’t get past the first paragraph.
I thought for sure this would be an article about the harmful heavy metal mining for the Prius batteries and all the global sourcing of materials, i.e. “embodied energy” in the final product.
That argument I can see and would love to see a reputable breakdown of all the CO2 emmitted in the manufacture of one Prius vs. a comparable non-hybrid, then see if the CO2 emmitted over 100k miles makes up that difference.
I’m a skeptic of the hybrid when it comes to total “greenhouse gas emissions.” That said, I’d buy one if it made economic sense ($5 gasoline and such), environment be damned.
We also oft forget how much energy it takes to produce the fuel we put in our tanks. Cheap to extract west Texas crude doesn’t come close the the same environmental footprint of Canadian “tar sands” or deep water offshore rigs or mideast crude riding on tankers 1/2 way around the world. There are literally millions of variables that go into determining environmental impact and many that can very credibly trash talk the hybrid whipping boy.
Instead we get an editorial that makes me glad I haven’t spend a dime on the mainstream auto journalism for well over a decade. By C&D standards any super exotic luxury car has lower emissions than a fleet of over half a million Prius. Stupid argument.
I see his point, although he makes it poorly.
He’s arguing that if we all drove less, there would be no need to regulate what we drive with policies such as CAFE, because the impact of an exotic gas guzzler is minimal in the big picture. It’s better to take the bus the work, drive your Ferrari on Saturday and ride a bike on Sunday that to drive your Prius every day.
That’s all true. But the reality is that most Americans are going to drive every day, no matter how much the writer may want us to change our behavior.
Mr. Siler is worried that higher CAFE fines could drive the likes of Ferrari from the US. Fortunately for Car and Driver, the US has a market large enough that companies such as Ferrari won’t be abandoning us any time soon. They make enough money here to make it worth their while to stick around.
Based on the completely worthless measure of units sold x miles driven per year I present the most environmentally friendly car in the world (also much less lame than a Ferrari):
http://jalopnik.com/384146/blastolene-b702
My god has Car and Driver become a horrible magazine. This is how it is done, Steve Siler, whoever you are:
http://www.hyundaiperformance.com/forums/off-topic/51471-car-driver-s-best-review-ever.html (The Phillips Escalade EXT Review)
As someone who loves poking fun at the hybrid car craze, I am always interested in hearing intelligent arguments about why all hybrids should be run through a crusher and fed to vegetarians. Unfortunately this is not one of them. This article is so asinine that it almost makes me want to buy a Prius just to spite Car & Driver.
What Siler seems to be trying to say is that WHAT one drives is less important than how MUCH one drives it. I can agree with that, having moved my family closer to downtown and started working from a home office myself. We cut our annual driving by at least 2/3. How many suburban Prius Poseurs are that dedicated to the environment?
I am always interested in hearing intelligent arguments about why all hybrids should be run through a crusher and fed to vegetarians. Unfortunately this is not one of them.
Again, he’s not trying to bash the Prius, he’s asking the feds to exempt the low volume car makers from CAFE. He didn’t make the point very well, but that’s what he’s trying to advocate.
Pch101:
It looks like companies that have less than a .4 % share of the US marketplace (40,000 cars at 10 million annual sales) are exempt. Ferrari, and much larger companies, are safe.
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:pJVj41nUNN4J:www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/%3Fq%3Dnode/77531%26id%3D8533688+CAFE+low+volume+manufacturers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Whatever Siler’s point, he made a poor argument. I think many Hybrid drivers are suckers, but to each his own. I’m sure they dislike me for idling my car when I stop at a convenience stores.
200K-min, Start with the amount of energy to refine the stell that went into each. This will be roughly proportional to the weight. Advantage Prius. Of course, the Prius falls in that measure to a Geo Metro… but it is a better car.
I don’t recall specifics but Toyota also made considerable effort to build the car out of more recyclable and renewable materials than is the norm.
Why do so many rag on about hybrids? Instead of using gas to accelerate to speed and then throwing all that beautiful kinetic energy away as heat from your brake rotors at the next stoplight – recycle it into a battery and use it again when the light turns green. No more wasteful idling at a light. A downsized engine plus battery moves the car along OK (I’m not that fussy – 10 secs to 60 is better than the first few cars I owned).
In some respects, yes, it’s very complex (so is a Geo Metro, compared to a Tin Lizie). In effect, though, it’s fairly elegant.
As someone who loves poking fun at the hybrid car craze
Don, I’m very thankful to the people who are willing to pay premium prices to change more efficient vehicles from a craze to real-world practicality.
As for me, I prefer my auto technology a little more proven. Maybe next car for the hybrid.
I think you missed some humor here. I don’t think Mr Siler’s post was to be taken seriously.
I for one believe that Hummers are more “green” than the Prius. I’m not going to believe otherwise.
(One argument that the Prius faithful have against the report is that the report says the Prius will average 100K miles and a HUMMER 300K. I believe this because typically large trucks are kept running until the frame rusts through where a car is junked as soon as the tranny/engine is fried.)
A small regular simple gas powered car would be the most “green” by far. Something made in the US or Canada with common materials. Ford Focus, Chevy Cobalt, Toyota Corolla
Isn’t animal farming by far the largest producer of green house gasses? Lets eat more veggies while we drive more testarossa’s!
davey49: “One argument that the Prius faithful have against the report is that the report says the Prius will average 100K miles and a HUMMER 300K. I believe this because typically large trucks are kept running until the frame rusts through where a car is junked as soon as the tranny/engine is fried.”
Do you have anything besides feelings to support this claim? Because, clearly, you’ve never encountered a Volvo 240 owner.
My personal experience argues against your feelings. All my Detroiters were sold off or scrapped long before 100K. Out of my various foreign cars, 3 have or had well over 100K miles on them (one reached 200K and died of a design defect) and most the ones that haven’t reached 100K just haven’t gotten there, yet. I’m keeping them until they do. They’re better cars.
Disposing of the Hummer at 100K miles and the Prius at 200K miles seems much more realistic to me.
I think the whole “in my experience” arguement is a bit silly. My 1995 Saturn SW1 has 240,000 + miles and 1995 is a notoriously bad year for Saturns. It is soldiering on in the Fort Drum winters. Prior to that I drove a 1988 Ford Bronco II (a vehicle notorious for cracked heads) that is still on the road with 350,000 + miles on it (original motor, my father drove it off the showroom floor). I had a 92 Saturn with over 200,000 miles. I have had a few imports that weren’t so good. A 1992 318I wagon that blew 2 headgaskets by 80,000 (not miles in that case, kms. A Jetta of the same year that was a total piece of garbage and a Fiat Punto, the less said the better. Thus I find the 200k truck arguement very plausible.
KixStart- I had a 240, my parents had 4, my brothers had 5 . All of them bought used with over 100K on them and driven to over 200K.
There’s one sitting in the backyard now.
To think the magazine got rid of Brock Yates for this.
davey49: “I think you missed some humor here. I don’t think Mr Siler’s post was to be taken seriously.”The problem is that the days of C&D’s off-the-wall ‘gonzo’ journalism that was so biting and satirical have long since passed. Back then, it would have been patently clear that an article of this nature was tongue-in-cheek. These days, the writing is so poor, it’s not nearly as apparent.
Someone said something bad (though obviously untrue) about the Holy, Almighty Prius?!?! Quick! Everyone get your torches and pitchforks! We’ll meet at Car and Driver HQ and hurl smug, self righteous hellfire upon them! How dare they speak about a Prius without first bashing something from Detroit first? HOW DARE THEY?!
don 1967 makes a good point. He’s cut his driving miles by two-thirds and thus made an enormous difference in how many emissions he produces. Increasingly long commutes are largely responsible for our ever-increasing gas consumption. So an “economy” car is not necesarily one that gets the best gas mileage; rather, it’s the one that’s driven least. Make sense?
Its “Tabloid Journalism” – write a piece that (as this editorial states) has a “Digg-Worthy” headline, while the gist of the article is just a verbose rehash of common sense – move along.