TO further illustrate the absurdity of the "study". According to the study, after 100,000 miles, a total of $325,000 dollars worth of energy will have gone into the Prius.
The Prius gets around 40 mpg, so over 100,000 miles will use about 2500 gallons of gas, at $3 a gallon that is $7500 in gas.
Assume the entire cost of all replacement parts is "energy cost". In 100,000 miles, you will replace the tires twice, at 400 bucks a set, thats about $1000.
Let's assume the entire cost of scheduled maintenance is "energy cost". The 30,000 checkup is $400 bucks, that's another $1200.
Let's say you replace one major part during the 100,000 miles (I have over 100,000 on my two cars, and have replaced nothing of value yet on either of them). Let's say that's another $2000.
The original cost is $25,000. So the total cost to the owner over 100,000 miles is 25,000+1200+7500+1000+2000=$37,700 dollars. Round up to $40,000.
According to the article, the total cost of energy expended for that privilege of owning the prius for those 100,000 was $325,000. But if you only spent $40,000 total, that means that, in energy alone, someone has subsidized you for $285,000 worth of energy.
Do you believe Toyota will pay you $285,000 to own their car?
BTW, the Hummer cost is what, $85,000. It gets say 15 mpg, over 325,000 miles that is 20,000 gallons of gas, or about $60,000 in gas. Assume you replace the tires every 50,000 miles, at 500 a set, that's another $3000. I don't know what the maintenance is, but let's say it's $2000 per 100,000 miles, that's another $6000.
Total cost, completely guessed at: $150,000. Their listed cost? about $620,000.
I don't believe you are going to spend $620,000 on your Hummer over the life of the car, even if it DOES last 325,000 miles.
You make a good argument that the study is absurd. What's interesting is that it's hard to see the ideological agenda of these guys. The top-rated cars were small cars like the Corolla. The worst cars were the luxury cars. Both Japanese and American cars can be found on the top ten list. There's no obvious backer of this study.
Of course, they may just have done a bad study with good intentions. I'm leaning that way.