Slashdot Mirror

In fact, the case for all the hybrids near the top (Civic, Prius, Insight) is very close, and several assumptions in the study are fairly arbitrary. It seems clear we are within a year or two of a new headline, "non-hybrids fail to provide savings." At that moment will everybody not driving a hybrid be accused of wasting money just to project an image of wanton wastefulness and pollution? I find the argument rather silly. People spend $1500 on leather upholstery and another $1200 on a fancy stereo system, and nobody complains. But spend an extra $290 to avoid emitting thousands of pounds of CO2, and suddenly you're some kind of leftist rebel.

The study (that is about 4 clicks away from the summary - direct link http://www.bcaa.com/downloads/BCAA_Hybrid_Cost_Analysis_2010.pdf) completely ignores the fact that your car doesn't cease to exist after 5 years - you either keep driving it or sell it used. Looking at one of the examples (Prius vs Matrix) the resale value of the car according to Kelley Blue Book was $2000 higher for the hybrid (5 years old, 100k kilometers, good condition).

In fact it even says "Long-term depreciation and resale values remain unknown so are assumed to be neutral" - complete BS in this kind of study. So when you really factor this in, you find that the TCO for the hybrid is indeed lower than for the non-hybrid. Of course this isn't going to make up for the larger differences, but certainly for anything with less than $2k difference you'll probably see your money back from the hybrid.

Let's look at their numbers for the Prius comparison. Competitor: Toyota Matrix XR

Matrix cost listed: $21,800 CAD
Prius cost listed: $27,500 CAD
Matrix total 5-year cost listed: $38,606 CAD
Prius total 5-year cost listed: $40,324 CAD

Assumptions: Total cost includes purchase price, financing, and fuel costs at $1.17/l ($4.43/gal CAD), less rebates. Does not include maintenance or insurance costs. Annual driving distance is 20,000 km (12,427 mi).

Stats: I couldn't find a 2010 "Matrix XR". There's a "Matrix XRS". Heck, let's just assume that they mean the most efficient 2010 Matrix, which is a manual base model that gets 26/32mpg. The 2010 Prius gets 51/48mpg.

Fuel consumption calculations: Given these numbers, the Matrix should consume 429 gallons per year at $1,898 for five years for a total of $9,492. The Prius should consume 251 gallons per year at $1,112/yr for five years for a total of $5,561. The difference, then, is $3,931 CAD. I don't know what "rebates" or "financing" costs they're assuming, but their combination of rebates and financing seems to be approximately a net zero, so the rebate value must be low and the financing costs high.

To quote Billy Mays, however: "But wait, there's more!"

Unlike in this study, a vehicle doesn't just vanish into thin air after five years. The average age of a vehicle on the road in the US today is over 9.5 years and rising. Hence, the projected lifespan until the vehicle hits the scrapheap is about 20 years. So the total fuel difference is actually $15,724 CAD. Some last longer, some shorter. And even if your argument is, "well, I'll just sell my car after five years" -- that leaves two options:

1) The low cost of gas the Prius provides will be reflected in the resale price; OR
2) The buyer of a new Prius may get a bum deal, but the buyer of a used Prius gets a correspondingly *excellent* deal.

• Total 5-year cost includes initial purchase price, financing and fuel costs at $1.17 per litre, less applicable tax rebates. Does not include maintenance or insurance costs.
• Annual driving distance is 20,000 kilometres.
• Long-term depreciation and resale values remain unknown so are assumed to be neutral.
• The Toyota Matrix/Prius comparison was used due to similar design and specifications.
• MSRP and PDI information obtained from CanadianDriver.com or direct from manufacturers.
• Financing rates assumed to be the same on both vehicles. Monthly payment calculated using Loan Payment Calculator on Coast Capital Savings website.
• Fuel consumption data from National Resources Canada - 2009 Fuel Consumption Guide or direct from manufacturers.
• The full results of the Hybrid Cost Study, with all 36 vehicles and more details, is available at: www.BCAA.com

Seems reasonable. It would be interesting to know how things would pan out if they extended the time horizon further, to 7.5 years or 10 years, which would de-emphasize the capital cost difference and enhance the fuel savings. While it was prudent to leave it out due to a lack of data, it would have been nice if the depreciation or resale value could have been factored in. I have heard that hybrids tend to have higher resale value, but that could just be anecdotal.

It would also be interesting to see how the distance traveled influences things. The 20 km/year figure is a decent average to work from. At first blush, I would guess that more distance driven would give an advantage to more fuel efficient vehicles. Of course, the breakdown in city vs highway miles makes a big difference.

In other words, it would have been nice if, in addition to the summary results, they could have made the full calculations available for others to tinker with.

The actual numbers are quite interesting. The study seems to be doing a decent job of adjusting for other aspects of car quality and features. To do this, they directly compare hybrid and non-hybrid versions of various cars, or very similar cars by the same manufacturer when this is not possible.

What's interesting, to me at least, is how small the "hybrid loss" actually is for many of the popular models. The extra cost to buy and operate a Toyota Prius, over the Toyota Matrix XR, is apparently $1,718 over 5 years, or $343/year. This isn't that much to a person who cares about the environment. Consider, for instance, that this will apparently reduct CO2 emissions by 1242 kg/year. This means that it "costs" the environmentally-conscious consumer about 28 cents per kg of CO2 reduced. Doesn't sound too bad.

Also worth noting is that the vehicle costs were apparently based on MSRP. Thus any incentive program (e.g. government rebates) only have to be on the order of a few thousand dollars to make the hybrid cheaper overall. I would, personally, prefer it if the hybrid technology were cheaper no matter what (so that there was no excuse not to buy one), but the fact that the extra cost is so small makes it fairly reasonable to subsidize it in the name of environmental protection. (Or, conversely, taxing more-polluting vehicles or energy sources for the externality of environmental damage they cause.)

Again, I think it's well-known that it's generally cheaper to do environmental damage, and more costly to protect the environment. But I see these numbers as being very encouraging: the technology is now at a point where the extra cost of hybrid technology can be made quite small. (For instance it's only $290 extra over 5-years to own and operate the Honda Civic Hybrid vs. the Honda Civic EX. That shows how close we are to hybrid vehicles being cost competitive with conventional vehicles, even without government rebates.)

Who said they aren't a factor in safety? According to this (and I've heard this before on NPR I believe) other occupants are a major cause of accidents (according to this statistic 10.9% as opposed to 1.5% for cell phone use). Adjusting the radio or other things on the dash account for 11.4% of accidents. So really, cell phone use isn't as dangerous as common perception percieves it. I knew a guy in high school who crashed 3 times within 2 years while talking to other occupants in his car while driving (he wasn't drunk, just a bad driver). An aunt of mine had a roll over accident 10 years ago or so when looking behind her to tell her kids to shut up (everyone had seat belts on so fortunately no one was hurt).