Hybrid vs diesel

How many CO2s does it take to build them?

Would be interesting to know how many CO2s it takes to build these cars. I bet thats where the hybrid is really let down!

And when the batteries fail in 5 years time, I bet they are really cheap to replace!

By JakeBtn on 12 August, 2010, 8:02am

What about NOx?

Why does AE only consider one exhaust component - CO2? What about NOx and HC? A hybrid wil surely be cleaner overall when genuine pollutants rather than just CO2 are considered.

By biggsy24 on 12 August, 2010, 8:33am

COwhat?

Jake, the point is that Toyota have the most efficient + greenest production plants in the world, therefore, if the production itself may be polluting, it would be compensated with the most environmental-friendly factories. Secondly, batteries come with an 8 year warranty and replacement costs around 1500€ but there are very few cases when the battery needed replacement since 1997. The maintenance costs in VW are much more expensive than those for Toyota apart from the fact that this bloody BlueMotion is a diesel and if you drive faster than 100 km/h, fuel consumption increases dramatically, and diesels are always more expensive to maintain. Last but no least, we are dealing with green cars and (here is the nonsense of all these articles which proclaim VW better than Toyota in stupid aspects such as appearence) the electric motor is combined with a non-diesel motor which DO NOT produce many of the negative emissions which diesels do...

By miguel117 on 12 August, 2010, 8:43am

Auris is greener...

First comment - I reckon that this result makes the Auris greener! Diesel fuel produces approx 10% more CO2 per litre when burnt, as it contains more carbon atoms. The Auris seems to get 6% worse MPG, but that's still less CO2 and much lessNOX, particulates and other nasties.

Second comment - how on earth do motoring journalists get such appalling mpg's from their cars? I drive a Prius - similar drivetrain to Auris - and I easily exceed 60mpg driving sensibly (mixed town / motorway driving). If I emulate Audi owners and drive aggressively, this might drop to 55mpg. Driving like a total t**t might get 50 .... but 41mpg??? Had he forgotten to release the parking prake?

By palber2 on 12 August, 2010, 9:51am

Which pollutants do you want to choose? Carcinogenic hydrocarbons (produced by petrol cars, and released when refuelling or even when standing still) or the small amounts of NOx and particulates (given the fitment of DPFs) from a diesel? More expensive to maintain? Both cars have engines, brakes etc. but the Auris requires a service every 10,000 miles, the VW on variable servicing typically every 18,000. And I've been driving diesel cars since 1994 simply because they are highly efficient at a constant-speed cruise of 70mph+, but even at 100mph+ (not kph!) fuel consumption does not "increase dramatically" any more than any other car. Apart from, presumably, the Priuses which I always see crawling along at 60mph in the slow lane. Unless you drive in town (in which case, why not get the bus?) then diesel is still, as this test demonstrates, the best.

By mark_brock on 12 August, 2010, 9:52am

VW

If its German its good if it isnt German then forget it.
Needless to say the Golf wins against everything, why?
Because its boxy,boring and totally bland. Thats why VW sell, and the quality very rarely gets in to any of the real best top 10 for reliability, so who is right and who is wrong? Me I would go for a long list of cars before a VW.

By knight1955 on 12 August, 2010, 6:26pm

Diesel running costs high, Yeah right!

I could never be a Prius or any other petrol/electric Hybrid owner. They tend to be heavy (battery) slow, and when driven with any form of normality, not fuel efficient. Diesel running and maintainance costs are less than petrol engined cars. Ideally, a diesel/electric hybrid will be the better solution, as the diesel produces far higher torque and far lower revs. The Toyota is a great solution, but it isn't the best!

By CyprusYid on 13 August, 2010, 10:35am