9 ms·

This list includes frankenstein hybrids like the Mercedes GLE 450 Hybrid [1], there's nothing environmentally friendly about that vehicle. [1] https://www.moto

This list includes frankenstein hybrids like the Mercedes GLE 450 Hybrid [1], there's nothing environmentally friendly about that vehicle. [1] https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/gle-class/2020/2020-mercedes-benz-gle450-interior-review/ https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mercedes-benz/gle-class/2020...

paol 6y ago
Yes, this is important. As soon as you start counting hybrids the statistics become somewhat meaningless, not all hybrids are created equal. Some almost seem to just amount to greenwashing, but maybe I'm just cynical.
- cjrp 6y ago
  Some aren't even about greenwashing, they're actually about increasing performance; I'd say that's worse from an environmental point of view.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    Why do you think that increasing performance in itself bad for the environment?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - cjrp 6y ago
      Not so much increasing performance, but what's required for that, e.g. the extra weight of the battery and motors to provide ~10km of electric-only range on the McLaren P1.
    - crispyporkbites 6y ago
      Faster you go the more fuel you burn per mile above around 50-60mph depending on the car The faster you accelerate the more you’re going to braking to slow back down again (unless you’re accelerating onto open roads) Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such. Tires wear out faster ...
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such. I think the success of Tesla says otherwise. There are lots of us who enjoy performance cars who care about emissions. Even someone who drives an Audi v8 car is doing less damage than the single person cruising in a huge truck/suv.
        crispyporkbites 6y ago
        It’s relative- the high performance Tesla’s are worse for the environment than the low performance ones. EVs are a different category to ICE cars so comparing across them is strange
        r00fus 6y ago
        This is quite silly - a Tesla X or e-Hummer are still better for the environment than any ICE car.
        samoa42 6y ago
        i doubt that very much
        quotemstr 6y ago
        Are we supposed to accept your profession of doubt as a form of evidence or argumentation?
        samoa42 6y ago
        no
        markvdb 6y ago
        That probably holds true in case they have the same usage patterns. Does your theory still hold if I drive only 2000km/year in an older car versus a Tesla X or e-Hummer? I don't pretend to have the answer to that question, but there is an environmental cost to producing a car too...
    - kortilla 6y ago
      If it’s just a way to gain the ability to consume even more energy per launch from a stop light, it’s bad. And when most ICE setups (including hybrids that use electric to boost ICE peak output) talk about increasing performance, it’s about acceleration, not efficiency.
    - leipert 6y ago
      Because we don’t need to increase performance, if we think if performance as horse powers and speed. Cars are fast enough, even too fast for private vehicles. Living in Germany it is quite ridiculous that we don’t have speed limits on certain parts of the Autobahn, nobody needs to drive 200 km/h. You won’t get faster from A to B, it’s dangerous, it’s stressful, you need more energy. If you want to race, go on a race track. I assume it even costs us more to maintain roads so that you are able to drive more than 140 km/h.
      - pritovido 6y ago
        The great thing about Autobahns is freedom. If I travel in Spain, the speed limit is 120km/h. Now they have removed the 20 kms/h extra you could do for overtaking other cars. It is ludicrous. Everybody goes over the limit, and hence everybody goes against the law, and everybody could be fined with 300 euros, like my father 1 month ago. In cities, they are putting limits under 30km/h. Politicians love the fines because it is an extra tax of an extra billion euros nobody controls.
        usrusr 6y ago
        The great thing isn't freedom, it's that the huge speed differences between cars help a lot with keeping drivers focused. People drive instead of just waiting out the time until their exit pops up on the nav. This effect has quite a bit of inertia so that even the speed-limited parts benefit from it so that a blanket speed limit would likely make the already limited sections less safe, after adapting to the relative ease of blanket speed limits. Chances are that overall safety would still increase, but I'm not sure of that (short term it would definitely increase, but that effect could quickly erode as people get used to it).
        crispyporkbites 6y ago
        Reducing the speed limit saves lives and reduces overall traffic as people switch to alternative modes of transport. Do you object to seatbelt laws under the premise of "Freedom"? What about car safety standards? Isn't it more "Free" if we can make whatever car I want and sell it to whomever wants to buy it, even if it kills millions every year? The truth is that we need to look at improving society holistically, which means implementing and designing society in a way that benefits humankind over the long term. Civilization isn't very "Free" but it's a trade off we make to live in a fair and progressive society, and allows us to combat things like covid, natural disasters, growing populations and other challenges that face the human race.
    - corty 6y ago
      The usual argument basically boils down to "gluttony and pride are deadly sins". You shall only consume/have/want the necessary minimum, any more is morally suspect, even absent objectively apparent problems.
      - quotemstr 6y ago
        "The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators"
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      It's kind of funny how comments like this get downvoted into oblivion. Too many ideologically-motivated HN users have access to the downvote button and they use it to suppress anything that threatens certain sacred narratives. This place is a lot less open to intellectual curiosity than it says on the tin.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    There was a fun segment on this in an old Top Gear. A race to see how far you can get on a single tank of gas. Clarkson thought the challenge was dumb and picked a big comfy car with a massive engine. He might not win but at least he’s gonna enjoy himself. Ended up winning. The massively overpowered engine was chilling at highway speeds so much it barely used any gas. Another fun comparison was when they took a Prius and a M5. When the M5 was chilling at a slightly fun speed, the Prius was struggling so hard that it had double the fuel consumption of the M5. Cruising speed matters.
    - crispyporkbites 6y ago
      I wouldn’t take environmental advice from top gear. I seriously doubt the accuracy of this
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        I agree. It's automotive themed entertainment. While not totally scripted they have a plot picked out. But you're among an online community that thinks the Hilux episode was a scientifically controlled experiment so that's gonna be an uphill battle.
      - dagw 6y ago
        The original poster is slightly mis-remembering the episodes in question. In the first scenario much of it was down to the big car having a really big gas tank and thus going further on a single tank of gas than the smaller, more economical, cars. In the second case they where driving the Prius around a race track as fast as they could make it go (ie nothing like cruising on normal roads) while with the M5 following at the same pace. And in those conditions the M5 did use less gas, but I don't recall it being half as much.
        usrusr 6y ago
        Did the M5 happen to follow in the slipstream? That basically nullifies energy demand at high speed...
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Full EVs are always more performant so if it’s for performance then it’s fine the petrol cars will eventually lose out.
    - logifail 6y ago
      > Full EVs are always more performant [..] Q: Would any of us consider "range" as a performance characteristic? If not, why not?
      - g8oz 6y ago
        Range doesn't get the ladies attention.
pcurve 6y ago
good point. The report does say "electrified" vehicle vs "electric"
Iv 6y ago
The general trend means more charging stations, more acceptance, a soon to come second hand market for EVs, more investment in batteries, etc... Overall good, even if hybrids are terrible.
senko 6y ago
People buying that (kind of) car don't care, and I doubt there's so many of them that it would significantly skew the numbers (GLE class is not even in the list - assuming GLC and GLE are similar enough for this particular list, even GLC are modest numbers and they're plug-in hybrid, which is better than a mild hybrid). However I do agree with you that many of the cars - essentially the entire milid-hybrid (MHEV) segment, IMO - is there just to get the numbers (electric motor kicks in just enough to lower the max CO2 in special cases). Locally (Croatia, HR), virtually all new cars have at least a MHEV option and some have no non-e option at all. They're really pushing it hard. Even though MHEV could be considered "lipstick on a pig", it still has two useful effects: - If it does lower CO2 emission in worst cases (start, overtake, etc), it still means it lowers the overall CO2 at least somewhat - every little bit helps. - It normalizes electric vehicles. There are a people here who have extremely negative (subjective) opinions on them, and I'm talking general public, not petrolheads. Once you get a Slav to understand his (it's always his) beloved Golf running on batteries is not an abomination, the floodgates are open Due to high gas prices, main impediment to switching to fully electric cars is not cost but infrastructure. In Croatia there's very little of it and it's often vandalized or gas-powered cars are parked in charging spots, etc. Thus a pleasant road-trip to the country or the coast turns into a logistical nightmare. Similarly, for plug-hybrids, a lot of people that would have the means to buy such a car usually live in apartment buildings, often without dedicated parking spots so you have to hunt for a space around the block and you can't just plug in your car overnight.
- whatever1 6y ago
  Btw, expect huge taxes to hit electric cars in Europe. The European governments have a significant part of their budget coming from gas tax and they are not happy with that revenue stream going away. For those not from Europe: It is pretty common for us to have to pay $4-5 tax per gallon of fuel.
  - jblok 6y ago
    The UK government is doing the complete opposite in fact. They’ll give you a grant towards the cost of a new EV, a grant for a wall box to be installed at you home, 0% tax on company car benefits if it’s an EV, 0% road tax, etc. They’ve even just moved The ban on new petrol and diesel sales forward to 2030. Fuel duties help to offset the negative externalities to society of driving, namely CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion. With EVs tou don’t have emissions and pollutions and the health problems they bring so there’s no negatives to offset (ie fuel duty revenue will go down, but so will spending on health and environmental related issues) There’s still the congestion any vehicle can cause and I think we’ll move to a much different form of vehicle taxation over the next 20 years, perhaps with more toll roads or even surge pricing style taxation for usage of roads.
sod 6y ago
Can you elaborate on "nothing environmentally friendly about that vehicle"? I thought hybrid is the only sane approach as you can cover 90% of your trips electric with a small battery. Or is the fuel motor always on in this car?
- rad_gruchalski 6y ago
  This popped up recently on the news: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-emissions-scandal-tests-show-higher-pollution-claimed https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-...

paol 6y ago

Yes, this is important. As soon as you start counting hybrids the statistics become somewhat meaningless, not all hybrids are created equal. Some almost seem to just amount to greenwashing, but maybe I'm just cynical.

cjrp 6y ago
Some aren't even about greenwashing, they're actually about increasing performance; I'd say that's worse from an environmental point of view.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  Why do you think that increasing performance in itself bad for the environment?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cjrp 6y ago
    Not so much increasing performance, but what's required for that, e.g. the extra weight of the battery and motors to provide ~10km of electric-only range on the McLaren P1.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    Faster you go the more fuel you burn per mile above around 50-60mph depending on the car The faster you accelerate the more you’re going to braking to slow back down again (unless you’re accelerating onto open roads) Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such. Tires wear out faster ...
    - kortilla 6y ago
      > Performance cars are more likely to be driven by people who don’t care about the environment and drive as such. I think the success of Tesla says otherwise. There are lots of us who enjoy performance cars who care about emissions. Even someone who drives an Audi v8 car is doing less damage than the single person cruising in a huge truck/suv.
      - crispyporkbites 6y ago
        It’s relative- the high performance Tesla’s are worse for the environment than the low performance ones. EVs are a different category to ICE cars so comparing across them is strange
        r00fus 6y ago
        This is quite silly - a Tesla X or e-Hummer are still better for the environment than any ICE car.
        samoa42 6y ago
        i doubt that very much
        quotemstr 6y ago
        Are we supposed to accept your profession of doubt as a form of evidence or argumentation?
        samoa42 6y ago
        no
        markvdb 6y ago
        That probably holds true in case they have the same usage patterns. Does your theory still hold if I drive only 2000km/year in an older car versus a Tesla X or e-Hummer? I don't pretend to have the answer to that question, but there is an environmental cost to producing a car too...
  - kortilla 6y ago
    If it’s just a way to gain the ability to consume even more energy per launch from a stop light, it’s bad. And when most ICE setups (including hybrids that use electric to boost ICE peak output) talk about increasing performance, it’s about acceleration, not efficiency.
  - leipert 6y ago
    Because we don’t need to increase performance, if we think if performance as horse powers and speed. Cars are fast enough, even too fast for private vehicles. Living in Germany it is quite ridiculous that we don’t have speed limits on certain parts of the Autobahn, nobody needs to drive 200 km/h. You won’t get faster from A to B, it’s dangerous, it’s stressful, you need more energy. If you want to race, go on a race track. I assume it even costs us more to maintain roads so that you are able to drive more than 140 km/h.
    - pritovido 6y ago
      The great thing about Autobahns is freedom. If I travel in Spain, the speed limit is 120km/h. Now they have removed the 20 kms/h extra you could do for overtaking other cars. It is ludicrous. Everybody goes over the limit, and hence everybody goes against the law, and everybody could be fined with 300 euros, like my father 1 month ago. In cities, they are putting limits under 30km/h. Politicians love the fines because it is an extra tax of an extra billion euros nobody controls.
      - usrusr 6y ago
        The great thing isn't freedom, it's that the huge speed differences between cars help a lot with keeping drivers focused. People drive instead of just waiting out the time until their exit pops up on the nav. This effect has quite a bit of inertia so that even the speed-limited parts benefit from it so that a blanket speed limit would likely make the already limited sections less safe, after adapting to the relative ease of blanket speed limits. Chances are that overall safety would still increase, but I'm not sure of that (short term it would definitely increase, but that effect could quickly erode as people get used to it).
      - crispyporkbites 6y ago
        Reducing the speed limit saves lives and reduces overall traffic as people switch to alternative modes of transport. Do you object to seatbelt laws under the premise of "Freedom"? What about car safety standards? Isn't it more "Free" if we can make whatever car I want and sell it to whomever wants to buy it, even if it kills millions every year? The truth is that we need to look at improving society holistically, which means implementing and designing society in a way that benefits humankind over the long term. Civilization isn't very "Free" but it's a trade off we make to live in a fair and progressive society, and allows us to combat things like covid, natural disasters, growing populations and other challenges that face the human race.
  - corty 6y ago
    The usual argument basically boils down to "gluttony and pride are deadly sins". You shall only consume/have/want the necessary minimum, any more is morally suspect, even absent objectively apparent problems.
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      "The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators"
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    It's kind of funny how comments like this get downvoted into oblivion. Too many ideologically-motivated HN users have access to the downvote button and they use it to suppress anything that threatens certain sacred narratives. This place is a lot less open to intellectual curiosity than it says on the tin.
- Swizec 6y ago
  There was a fun segment on this in an old Top Gear. A race to see how far you can get on a single tank of gas. Clarkson thought the challenge was dumb and picked a big comfy car with a massive engine. He might not win but at least he’s gonna enjoy himself. Ended up winning. The massively overpowered engine was chilling at highway speeds so much it barely used any gas. Another fun comparison was when they took a Prius and a M5. When the M5 was chilling at a slightly fun speed, the Prius was struggling so hard that it had double the fuel consumption of the M5. Cruising speed matters.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    I wouldn’t take environmental advice from top gear. I seriously doubt the accuracy of this
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      I agree. It's automotive themed entertainment. While not totally scripted they have a plot picked out. But you're among an online community that thinks the Hilux episode was a scientifically controlled experiment so that's gonna be an uphill battle.
    - dagw 6y ago
      The original poster is slightly mis-remembering the episodes in question. In the first scenario much of it was down to the big car having a really big gas tank and thus going further on a single tank of gas than the smaller, more economical, cars. In the second case they where driving the Prius around a race track as fast as they could make it go (ie nothing like cruising on normal roads) while with the M5 following at the same pace. And in those conditions the M5 did use less gas, but I don't recall it being half as much.
      - usrusr 6y ago
        Did the M5 happen to follow in the slipstream? That basically nullifies energy demand at high speed...
- r00fus 6y ago
  Full EVs are always more performant so if it’s for performance then it’s fine the petrol cars will eventually lose out.
  - logifail 6y ago
    > Full EVs are always more performant [..] Q: Would any of us consider "range" as a performance characteristic? If not, why not?
    - g8oz 6y ago
      Range doesn't get the ladies attention.

pcurve 6y ago

good point. The report does say "electrified" vehicle vs "electric"

Iv 6y ago

The general trend means more charging stations, more acceptance, a soon to come second hand market for EVs, more investment in batteries, etc... Overall good, even if hybrids are terrible.

senko 6y ago

People buying that (kind of) car don't care, and I doubt there's so many of them that it would significantly skew the numbers (GLE class is not even in the list - assuming GLC and GLE are similar enough for this particular list, even GLC are modest numbers and they're plug-in hybrid, which is better than a mild hybrid). However I do agree with you that many of the cars - essentially the entire milid-hybrid (MHEV) segment, IMO - is there just to get the numbers (electric motor kicks in just enough to lower the max CO2 in special cases). Locally (Croatia, HR), virtually all new cars have at least a MHEV option and some have no non-e option at all. They're really pushing it hard. Even though MHEV could be considered "lipstick on a pig", it still has two useful effects: - If it does lower CO2 emission in worst cases (start, overtake, etc), it still means it lowers the overall CO2 at least somewhat - every little bit helps. - It normalizes electric vehicles. There are a people here who have extremely negative (subjective) opinions on them, and I'm talking general public, not petrolheads. Once you get a Slav to understand his (it's always his) beloved Golf running on batteries is not an abomination, the floodgates are open Due to high gas prices, main impediment to switching to fully electric cars is not cost but infrastructure. In Croatia there's very little of it and it's often vandalized or gas-powered cars are parked in charging spots, etc. Thus a pleasant road-trip to the country or the coast turns into a logistical nightmare. Similarly, for plug-hybrids, a lot of people that would have the means to buy such a car usually live in apartment buildings, often without dedicated parking spots so you have to hunt for a space around the block and you can't just plug in your car overnight.

whatever1 6y ago
Btw, expect huge taxes to hit electric cars in Europe. The European governments have a significant part of their budget coming from gas tax and they are not happy with that revenue stream going away. For those not from Europe: It is pretty common for us to have to pay $4-5 tax per gallon of fuel.
- jblok 6y ago
  The UK government is doing the complete opposite in fact. They’ll give you a grant towards the cost of a new EV, a grant for a wall box to be installed at you home, 0% tax on company car benefits if it’s an EV, 0% road tax, etc. They’ve even just moved The ban on new petrol and diesel sales forward to 2030. Fuel duties help to offset the negative externalities to society of driving, namely CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion. With EVs tou don’t have emissions and pollutions and the health problems they bring so there’s no negatives to offset (ie fuel duty revenue will go down, but so will spending on health and environmental related issues) There’s still the congestion any vehicle can cause and I think we’ll move to a much different form of vehicle taxation over the next 20 years, perhaps with more toll roads or even surge pricing style taxation for usage of roads.

sod 6y ago

Can you elaborate on "nothing environmentally friendly about that vehicle"? I thought hybrid is the only sane approach as you can cover 90% of your trips electric with a small battery. Or is the fuel motor always on in this car?

rad_gruchalski 6y ago
This popped up recently on the news: https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-emissions-scandal-tests-show-higher-pollution-claimed https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-...