If you’re looking for something green or something mean, these are evidently your options.
While the industry on the whole is moving toward more fuel-efficient vehicles, there are obviously plenty of models out there that take the notions of “green” and “economical” and throw them off a cliff. Whether you love these sorts of vehicles or hate them, people are in some cases spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a bold, brash, gas-guzzling statement. Or, on the flip side, folks are trying their damndest to buy their next vehicle as conscientiously as possible.
Either way, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) published a list of the “Greenest” and “Meanest” vehicles on the market. To create this report, the ACEEE looked at the lifecycle of a vehicle, from greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants produced during its production to actual tailpipe emissions to the eventual disposal of a vehicle (i.e. how much of it is recyclable).
Naturally, those on the “Meanest” list comprise some of the worst-offending gas swillers, while the other end of the spectrum comprises vehicles that are altogether far kinder to the environment. Each list’s number one vehicle is something you’d totally expect, though there is still one electric vehicle that made the mean team, despite not actually using any fossil fuels in its operation.
The methodology
In coming together with each list, the ACEEE also published its methodology, which you can read in greater detail on Greenercars.org:
“We analyze automakers’ test results for fuel economy and emissions as reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, along with other specifications reported by automakers. We estimate pollution from vehicle manufacturing, from the production and distribution of fuel and from vehicle tailpipes. We count air pollution, such as fine particles, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and other pollutants according to the health problems caused by each pollutant. We then factor in greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and combine the emissions estimates into a Green Score that runs on a scale from 0 to 100. The top vehicle this year scores a 67, the average is 43 and the worst gas-guzzlers score a 17.”
Before we finally get into each side of the ACEEE report’s coin here, there are a few things worth mentioning. Of course, this particular organization explicitly states its goals to drive energy efficiency from a policy standpoint and, through doing so, lower greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the council says it “commits to serve as a catalyst and agent for the systemic transformation necessary to address climate change.” And, on reading those last two words, some of you may well click out right there, while others lean hard against the “meanest” cars for basically turning our planet into a melting, burning, haze-filled hellscape.
It’s extremely difficult if not impossible to present this information without the conversation getting political, whether we aim to or not. So, whichever perspective you have, you’re certainly free to have it, and you can certainly argue ACEEE’s methodology for its potential flaws. Nonetheless, it caught our eye as an interesting conversation piece.
The “Meanest List”
Leading the pack of the least efficient, biggest gas-guzzlers is the Mercedes-AMG G63 — is anyone surprised? Despite saying the lowest-scoring vehicle earned a 17, this one scored a 20, with an estimated annual fuel cost of $4,242. Couple that with an (average) MSRP of $180,150, and there’s no denying this is definitely not the most efficient use of money.
Surprisingly, the EV on the list is none other than…the GMC Hummer EV SUV. According to ACEEE, at least, it’s still not an environmentally-friendly option despite being electric and having an average “fuel” cost under $1,800 a year. Mind you, the GMC Hummer EV obviously uses a lot of material that may not come from the greenest sources, and wear items like tires will ensure this vehicle still has something of an environmental impact over the years, even if it’s not burning tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline. The GMC Hummer EV SUV earned a score of 29 out of 100. The pickup, weirdly, is not on the list, suggesting the SUV is somehow worse than its truck counterpart. (Again, we’re not citing this as gospel truth, but a conversation-worthy reference point, so please do take the information with a grain of salt.)
| Rank | Make/Model | Green Score | MSRP* | Annual Fuel Cost (Estimated)** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mercedes-AMG G63 | 20 | $180,050 | $4,242 |
| 2 | Ram 1500 TRX | 22 | $98,335 | $3,819 |
| 3 | Ford F-150 Raptor R | 24 | $109,990 | $3,777 |
| 4 | Cadillac Escalade-V | 26 | $154,290 | $3,388 |
| 5 | Dodge Durango SRT 392 | 26 | $76,590 | $3,332 |
| 6 | Jeep Wrangler | 27 | $38,390 (4-door) | $3,260 |
| 7 | Jeep Grand Wagoneer | 28 | $91,190 | $3,058 |
| 8 | Mercedes-Benz G550 | 28 | $144,150 | $3,186 |
| 9 | GMC Hummer EV SUV | 29 | $98,845 | $1,746 |
| 10 | GMC Sierra 1500 | 29 | $39,695 | $3,069 |
| 11 | Chevrolet Corvette Z06 | 30 | $114,395 | $3,169 |
| 12 | Mercedes-Maybach S680 | 30 | $230,150 | $3,031 |
A couple other technical points: We corrected MSRPs here from the ACEEE’s list for a few reasons. Some were flat-out incorrect, while others were slightly off because they did not include destination, mentioned the wrong version of a vehicle or did not pick up the latest pricing. It’s also worth noting the report does not always specify which powertrain of a specific model we’re talking about. For the purposes of this list, we can safely assume the worst in each case, like the “worst” Jeep Wrangler would obviously be the 6.4-liter Rubicon 392, rather than the 2.0-liter turbo, the base V6 or the 4xe.
On the same token, no one is going to call the Dodge Durango SRT 392 a polar bear-friendly family hauler…but can we agree that the supercharged Hellcat is probably worse? The SRT does at least get 15 mpg combined, compared to the Hellcat’s, ahem, 13.
The ACEEE’s full report is accessible here.
