Slashdot Mirror
Just One Out of 16 Hybrids Pays Back In Gas Savings
thecarchik writes with this snippet from GreenCarReports:
"One of the criticisms of hybrid cars has historically been that there's no payback, especially given the cheap gasoline prices in the US. The extra money you spend on a hybrid isn't returned in gas savings, say critics. Well, that may be true, especially when regular gasoline is averaging $2.77 a gallon this week. But as we often point out, most people don't buy hybrids for payback — they buy them to make a statement about wanting to drive green. Nevertheless, a Canadian study has now looked at the question of hybrid payback in a country whose gasoline is more expensive than ours (roughly $3.70 per gallon this week), with surprising results. The British Columbia Automobile Association projected the fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years against their purchase price and financing fees. In a study released in late July, only a single one of the 16 hybrids cost less to buy and run than its gasoline counterpart."
The one car that would save you money, according the study, is the Mercedes S400 Hybrid sedan — and it will only cost you $105,000.
That's how the market is supposed to work.
Ideally, the invisible hand of the market would price the hybrid vehicles higher than their non-hybrid counterparts, to such a degree that the hybrid's price discounts the future value of the gasoline saved over the vehicle's lifetime. If the market didn't do this, an arbitrage opportunity would exist... and arbitrageurs would act upon it, which would have the effect of raising the price of the hybrids anyway.
Obviously this will never work out perfectly outside of academia, but if you had a crystal ball and all future prices were knowable by all parties in the present, this is how the pricing would work out, all other variables held constant.
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
And that's why I bought a Saturn.
The one car that would save you money, according the study, is the Mercedes S400 Hybrid sedan — and it will only cost you $105,000.
The retail price of that car seems to be ~$80k. The given figure includes gasoline costs over time.
Not if you buy a used hybrid.
It's reasonable to consider the total cost of ownership (including fuel) of a (for example) Prius vs. a Camry.
But the dollar-cost is only relevant to the environmental issues, insofar as it affects uptake of hybrid vehicles.
A more important issue for us, long term, is how much polution is produced for the creation an use of (for example) a Prius vs. a Camry.
Well here in the UK my local garage is selling petrol/gasoline at 1.20 GBP / litre, there are 3.79 litres to 1 US gallon = 4.55 GBP / gallon, x 1.45 (pounds to dollars) so we're at $6.60 /US gallon. You can probably find it for 1.17, a few pennies cheaper, but probably it's around the 1.20 mark give or take a tiny bit across the country. Rest of Europe probably similar.
So quite a difference from the 2.77 you pay in the USA and so hybrids perhaps more economically viable here.
so that we can feel good about being green?
Don't forget that hat $7000 credit has a greenhouse gas carbon footprint, too.
So the time frame is only over 5 years? Cars can and do last longer than that. Also the comparisons are against the non-hybrid equivalent (Camry Hybrid v Camry, Fusion Hybrid v Fusion). What did they compare the Prius to since it does not have a conventional equivalent?
Ask Doug Stanhope
Perhaps if hybrids offered payback, some number of people who currently don't buy them would?
Fuel prices aren't static and are likely to go up. Then again, considering the length of ownership, the increase may not make a difference.
The truth is you should not be buying a car on any "gimmicks", but rather on figures that match your driving pattern. For example some cars probably do better doing long distance, while others are better in the city. While manufacturer's figures aren't always accurate, they are probably accurate enough to decide whether you are making a energy consumption saving, no matter the energy source. The only question, beyond dollar cost, how can you establish which vehicle is more economical in terms of impact to the environment when they may use different fuel types (electricity, LPG, diesel, petrol, etc).
Note, that I consider a hybrid engine a gimmick, if it is not actually achieving what it is was marketed to do.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Why the 5 year limit on the study? Seems an odd period of time. A hybrid doesn't seem like the type of car you buy then sell off early. I would expect them to be more for the type of person that keeps a car for ~10 years.
Or a sportscar?
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities. That is, if you conveniently ignore the cost of our climate warming up, and the cost in blood and treasure of maintaining access to oil, then sure, the hybrid costs more. Bicycles are even cheaper, if you ignore the cost of your time and of becoming a smear on the expressway. How about hitchhiking?.
My 2007 Prius was $13500 used with 45000 miles, which is about $1500 more than a similarly equipped Corolla with similar mileage and age.
I bought it from out of state, so I qualify for a tax credit. Even if I did not, it works out to be cheaper long term than a Corolla.
Well, it usually takes over 100,000 miles to break even, so the study, which only considers 5 years, is fairly useless. On a thread last week, someone calculated that a Prius will take 320,000 miles to to break even (and I checked the math, as we all like to do!). And the average Prius will last longer than 5 years - especially since those with a "greener" lifestyle know how bad buying a new car is for the environment.
I'd imagine about half of the cars pay back the owner in fuel costs. And it's obviously variable as gas prices are fairly volatile lately...
I'm dealing with this issue now as my battery pack on my Honda civic just died and I'm looking at $3,000 to replace it.
It's only 6 years old and they are supposed to last 10 years.
When you think about all the toxic metals/chemicals in those batteries, it makes you wonder if they really are better for the environment than my 20 year old jeep that refuses to die.
Real SUV's don't have cupholders
It's 5:42 A.M., do you know where your stack pointer is?
They are comparing the vehicles to their gasoline counterparts...easy for a Camry vs Camry Hybrid...
but what did they compare the Prius to? A Corolla? a Camry? a Matrix?
One has to wonder how Canadian dealers' sustained massive price premiums - despite the rise in value of the Canadian dollar - play into this study. If you could purchase a hybrid at the American price, which tends to be much easier on the car buyer in general, the difference might be more pronounced.
Outside the US we are buying more and more (hybrid) and (turbo diesel with particle filters).
Given the state of the US car industry, you're bound to follow in a few years. Petrol non hybrid card might get a lease of life with FSI and likewise tech, but it is going bye bye in the coming years.
Think of today's Hybrids as the equivalent of the first iPod. "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." It's the 3rd and 4th gen of these vehicles that will blow everything else out off the road, in a matter of speaking.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I drive 36,000+ miles a year on average - I would have killed for a VW Diesel GTI but they were not selling them in 2008. I was getting around 15-18MPG in a van with no AC or heating and I had my break-even threshold set at $2.37 a gallon. My plan has always been to drive the Prius until the wheels fall off and the battery stops charging, and even then I might do an after-market mod to make it plug-in. I get tired of people making me defend my purchase all the time. TFA based the miles driven at 20,000km - I drive 3x that. Plus I paid just $28k for the car not $40k as in TFA (might be a difference in USD/loonies there though).
Look, is it so hard to believe that someone would buy a hybrid to make a statement not to others, but to the car manufacturers making these products? I own a Honda Civic hybrid. It's not much to look at and it certainly doesn't turn heads. On the other hand, I bought it new from a Honda dealer in California when they were trying to push a lot more expensive cars on me. Why? Because I want Honda to know that I'd rather be green than cool or hip or whatever. I want Honda to know that it's important to ME so in the future they'll make cars better-suited to ME.
From one of the linked articles, "Translation: The kinds of people who buy Toyota Prius hybrids in the U.S. may indulge themselves in private, where no one else will see them, but want to be seen in public with less luxurious, greener products to bolster their reputation."
I call bullshit. I didn't do it to bolster my reputation. I put my money where my mouth is and instead of getting on a soapbox and telling everyone to go out and buy a hybrid, I actually bought one.
I don't care that I probably spent more than I'll recoup from the fuel-efficiency. For me, it wasn't about that.
Gotta get me one of these!
A more important issue for us, long term, is how much polution is produced for the creation an use of (for example) a Prius vs. a Camry.
With modern emission controls, that Camry is not putting out much in the way of emissions. And because the batteries are pretty limited on a Prius, it's going to be running the engine pretty often.
You also have to factor in the environmental cost of the batteries in the Prius, both manufacture and whatever is lost in reclamation.
In the end, just because of the batteries alone, I am really hoping we shift to hydrogen for green cars, as California started to do. There are already some driving around today, and if we devoted as much money researching hydrogen creation and storage I think we'd have a hydrogen Prius equivalent by now that got even better milage, and had a far better range on a purely hydrogen powered car (as opposed to the really low ranges we are seeing on practical battery powered cars).
If the government wants to back green technologies, I'd like a see a proposal to have hydrogen filling stations on at least one coast to coast route within five years. The first person to cross the coast in a mass market all alternative fuel vehicle is the same time as a gas car could - that would be something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They have flawed comparisons in their "hybrid-only" cars.
They compare the Prius to the slightly smaller and noticeably less well appointed Matrix XR. The Prius has a unique spot in Toyota's lineup, falling between the Corolla and Camry. The Matrix may be closest - being basically a Corolla wagon, but it is still smaller. The $1700-over-5-years buys you more than a $1700 upgrade in car size and appointment.
Same with the Honda Civic DX-G vs. Insight. The Civic is a smaller, less well appointed vehicle, the upgrade to an Insight is more than worth the $1200-over-5-years difference.
Not to mention they quote some of the hybrids at higher-than-base packages, while the conventional equivalents are base. (Or they compare versions that have higher-than-base stock to the base conventional, such as all the Lexus models - which all come at higher-than-base packages compared to their non-hybrid equivalents. The LS coming at 'fully loaded' as the only choice on the hybrid.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Here is the actual study (took a few clicks to find it):
http://www.bcaa.com/downloads/BCAA_Hybrid_Cost_Analysis_2010.pdf
A car lasts a lot longer than 5 years. If you want to calculate the cost over 5 years you'll need to subtract the resale value of the car, which will be higher for a hybrid. It doesn't appear they've done that.
While I agree that cost savings of a hybrid vehicle are overblown, this study is misleading. Also, another benefit of buying a hybrid vehicle was that until recently you could drive one in a commuter lane (in California at least), even without a passanger.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Oil is cheaper, more efficient, better for the economy, for the country, for jobs, more "American" (whatever that means). Oil might even be more ecological. I cannot fathom what motivates such conclusions. I just wonder if it has anything to do with money, and the the term "petro-dollars", and prices and profits and stuff. And I assume "yes", and I have no friggen clue why, other than my own brain seems to say so.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Not if you buy a used hybrid.
And you factored in the replacement battery costs after five years of owning a used one?
There's a reason people sell them off after a while.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why would they choose 5 years when the standard warranty length for hybrid components from most OEMs is eight years?
fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years
Really? 5 Years? Is that really the lifetime of a car?
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
I live fifteen minutes walking from my own tiny shop. I have no car. I wonder how many MPG my shoes get and what's the payback rate I get on them after five years. The subway takes me to the movies on Saturday. I wonder how many MPG and five-year payback rates that gets, too.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
A college roommate of mine had a '92 tercel, not unlike this one:
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/ssd/cto/1887281413.html
We measured 41MPG on a road trip once, and 34MPG around town when using a light foot. The cars MSRP was around $13k.
To contrast, another friend bought a '08 prius hybrid a couple years ago for a little over $34,000. The car gets around the same gas milage, maybe a littel worse the the '92 tercel got. Go figure.
The first obvious problem is that while most of their comparisons seem superficially, at least, apples-to-apples comparisons (comparing hybrid and conventional versions of the same base vehicle), the Prius-to-Matrix comparison is apples-to-grapes. OR, specifically, "midsize to compact".
The second obvious problem is they combine a short time window (5 years) with the assumption that the depreciation will be equal for all vehicles over the time period. There's actually two problems with that: 5 years is an artificially short term to consider fuel cost differences over, and 5 years is definitely a term of which depreciation will vary significantly vehicle-to-vehicle, and make a huge difference in terms of total cost. The only reason a 5 year comparison of fuel costs would be the right term is if the assumption is that the car will be flipped for a new one in that time period, in which case the depreciation in resale value is critical.
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.)
I didn't buy it because it tastes different. I bought it to use my money to create a demand for products like that, because of the benefit I see in those practices. The same applies for most people who buy hybrids. The rest are just being sanctimonious.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
The point is when a car is in the rush hour in a city it's average speed is often 10mph or below. Electric motors are better as they don't consume fuel when idle. They don't produce CO2 and other pollution when idle.
In fact, if all you want to do was drive around a city all the time then forget the combustion engine and just drive electric.
Most people won't have their cay paid off for 7-10 years, MINIMUM.
Why anyone in their right mind would expect a 5 year payoff is beyond me. You don't even get that kind of payback with a ground-source heat pump.
Oh - and also, the study has a massive flaw:
"The analysis assumes a constant gas price of $1.17 per litre and a driving distance of 20,000 kms a year"
Constant gas price? Hilarious. The price of gas in Canada was already around $1.30+ / litre when Katrina hit. Wait until the next disaster strikes and it is > $1.50 / L. Then we will see who is lucky enough to be driving a hybrid.
My civic hybrid cost $4000 more than the non-hybrid version. I figured I would have to put about 100,000 miles on it to reach break-even, even with $3/gallon gas. However, I now have over 120,000 miles on it, so it is now actually saving me money. (There have not yet been any additional maintenance expenses because if it being a hybrid, but the IMA light on the dash is now on all the time.) Of coarse buying fuel-efficiency now partially protects you from future volatility in the fuel markets -- I'd be willing to pay extra for a true multi-fueler if one was available.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The reason why I bought one was a hedge against $4.00/gal or greater. Sure $2.77 may not seem like a lot, but if the world economy recovers, oil prices will rise and then how much time will it take for prices to reach $4.00/gal? Will it pass that mark? There's a lot of uncertainty in where it could go, so I'd rather lock in some measure of certainty by buying a hybrid and knowing that I won't get hit by a gasoline price shock. I am willing to pay more up front as a form of insurance, plus I expect to use my car for 15 years.
There are definitely folks out there who can afford to buy a hybrid without concern of gas savings, but most people are going to buy a vehicle that is within their financial means so the upfront cost has to face the reality of cost of ownership. I was one of those people who put enough miles on their car to warrant a hybrid. I did the math and it was cheaper to buy a brand new Prius than continue driving my paid off SUV, due to ongoing maintenance and fuel costs. Several years later, I opted to trade the Prius in for a "clean diesel" that delivers nearly the same MPG but with more comfort and space than the Prius offered. It costs me a bit more overall but due to my changing needs and cramped legroom I think its worth it. Environmentally speaking, I like having a vehicle that pollutes less, but I can't afford not to drive something as fuel efficient which is ultimately why I bought one.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
There's a reason that gas cars are cheaper. The oil companies are not stupid. They know the price point at which alternative fuels become competitive with gas and they keep the price a little below that. The price of oil is not high enough for anything else to compete....and it'll stay that way barring government interference. It's good for oil companies, they're rolling in the dough. It's good for consumers, gas is cheap and plentiful. It's good for politicians, their voters are happy with them. When glitches happen to the fuel supply and price drives high then all sorts of alternative power supply comes out of the woodwork. The price never stays high for long though. No one wants expensive fuel.
Why oh why can't they do studies on how long it takes to pay back on a Diesel engine car?
I did my reading, and Diesel engine cars are about as green as regular cars in their manufacturing process, and far greener based on the increased mileage and almost Nil emissions (with the new Bluetec engines).
So, I bought a new VW Golf TDI, because I wanted a new car (although I seriously thought about the older TDI as well). In the right conditions (45mph, 75 degrees out, highway with no stops) I've seen it do as much as 56mpg. HOWEVER, mostly it averages closer to 37-40 between city/highway with the way I drive.
Europe really has realized this, and has had lots of great Diesel options for years. The US really needs to get on board! Diesels are greener with comparable gas mileage to hybrids, and the gas generally isn't that much more expensive.
I've had a Prius for 7 years. Couldn't care less about it being "green". Bought it for three reasons:
1) Fuel economy (I drive 100-150 miles a day for work).
2) HOV (the time I save by being able to drive in HOV is very valuable)
3) $2K federal tax credit.
Has the expense of the hybrid engine paid for itself? Oh, yes, especially counting the period of time that gas was ~$4 a gallon and the hundreds (maybe thousands) of hours I've saved via HOV.
For me, it made sense and I've been exceedingly happy.
The cost analysis sheet lists a Ford Escape Hybrid at retail of $34,899. That's all well and good, but the five-year ownership number (including purchase price, fuel, and financing, but NOT maintenance/repair) somehow makes it to $54,388. Even assuming their numbers of 12,000 miles and fuel at $4/gallon and a (conservative) 30mpg assumption, that's only $8000 for fuel. So what the hell is the other $12,000 for? Even accounting for sales tax, that's still $8000-10000 in finance charges. That's like 10% interest.
Pro tip: if you're paying $10,000 in financing on a $35,000 loan, you're doing something horribly wrong (although you're also making some banker somewhere really happy.)
[Disclaimer: I own (and am still paying for an Escape Hybrid)]
Most hybrids are only a couple of years old, and will be on the road for at least another decade. At the moment, my Prius is an environmental statement and a fun engineering toy, but beginning around 2012-2013, I expect it to start looking like a very good investment.
As with all economics related to energy, we're not factoring any of the environmental costs in. So a hybrid might cost more, or it might be saving thousands of dollars. Without factoring in things like pollution, and destructive weather caused by climate change it's really hard to know.
I'm not in the least interested in buying a hybrid. I want an all-electric car. I want a normal-size car that can do 80 mph uphill, and has at least 300 miles of range at typical highway speeds. Get the price under 50g, and I'll buy it. With any luck it'd become a family heirloom. The only dealings I want with petroleum are for lubrication and manufacture of the plastic parts.
I'd love to buy a Tesla, but it's just too small, and let's face it, a wee bit on the expensive side.
Too bad EEStor turned out to be a bust... ultracapacitors could solve this whole battery mess pretty easily if they just had adequate energy capacities. Everyone else is in the "discovery" phase, which usually translates to "impractical." Not that manipulating a (very) high voltage energy source for use in low voltage, high current motors is all that easy anyway. That whole (E = CVV/2) thing is a cast-iron bitch on a number of fronts.
Oh, well.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
second story on slashdot abought this and the second one to ignore the cars that are cheap and get even better millage then the big 3 hybrids. they all like to forget the 35k aptera that gets 150mpg. or the piggio mp3 hybred scooter hell even the non hybred ones get more mpg then all of the big 3 hybred cars. its very easy concept people seem to forget. if you what more mpg drive a small car. drive a small bike. 250cc is more then enough power to get you anywhere fast but piggio does make small and larger displacements for those that what it. of course the usa still has the issue of the roads still dominated by large cars and suvs and people having no respect for a smaller car or bike on there road.
Arguably the prius is not directly comparable to either the corolla or the camry (which has its own hybrid model). The price differential from the base Camry to the base Camry hybrid is about 3K, but the base Corolla to the base Prius is more like 12K.
The 37K prius is interesting...radar cruise control, pre-collision system, parking assist, voice activated navigation.
It goes against the grain of sales and business to make things that help people save. Massive waste and consumption = sales. Efficiency, reuse, no waste = no sales. "Ecological", in business terms, mean convincing the consumer he is ecological. Perhaps reducing the waste some small percentage, while raising prices of course. But never, never eliminating waste, that means eliminating sales. Real ecological, economic and production efficiency will mean a revolution in products, thinking, distribution and types of labor. Reducing 99% of waste, not 5%, is a real change. The no-energy tiny solar drone showed recently was a real example.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
When they calculated the cost of oil did they take into account this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Consequences
And what about the next spill; will it last also for more than one hundred days? Will it have similar consequences?
I think there is a third option in addition to "making a statement about how green I am", and "recovering cost in fuel savings"--driving the most fuel-efficient car because the thought of wasting energy bothers me. I personally like thinking that I get more distance per gallon of gas than does the guy in the standard internal combustion engine. A fourth option might be simple technophilia, which I'd guess /.ers would embrace.
I am really hoping we shift to hydrogen for green cars, as California started to do.
I have some issues with this. Hydrogen is an energy storage system, there are no hydrogen 'mines'. With that in mind, I'll point out some problems -
1. Hydrogen has lower energy by volume even at quite high pressures - you suffer the same problem as with batteries, the containment system weighs more than the fuel.
2. The most common method of obtaining hydrogen today is by cracking natural gas
2a. It's more efficient to just burn the natural gas. And they even have fuel cells for it
2b. NG is more power dense volume wise, and only slightly less by weight. LNG doesn't require quite the pressure vessel, so probably weighs a vehicle down less as well.
3. To my knowledge we still don't have a hydrogen tight valve.
I don't read AC A human right
1) I bought a used diesel car last month. It cost me $2000.
2) The diesel averages 44mpg. My old gas car averaged 26mpg, which in real-world terms is not too shabby for a gas powered car.
3) Assuming I drive 30,000 miles per year, which is less than I actually drive, and assuming fuel costs $3 per US gallon ( this IS the current
cost for fuel where I live, for both diesel and premium gas ), then :
4) in 1.4 years if I drive the diesel alone the fuel savings alone will PAY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE DIESEL CAR. The math excludes
costs of maintenance, which based on my experience should be a wash because both my cars cost close to the same to maintain.
I look at the people who drive hybrid cars and I just laugh. They are paying a lot more for their cars, and they are making a fashion statement.
But they are not engaging in economically optimal behavior in terms of their driving costs, not even close.
As far as electric cars being "better for the environment", that depends on where the power comes from. Of course most of you
geeks aren't willing to take a realistic look at the entire chain of events in which a car is involved.
By the way, I run my diesel on waste vegetable oil, so you who would blame me for being a co-conspirator in the BP oil spill need to
think again.
The new Insight has terrible gas mileage, and this is coming from a G1 Insight owner who averages 60mpg on regular 900 mile trips across mountain passes, etc.
This isn't doing any extreme hypermiling B.S. either, I'm driving a comfortable speed thank you...
My Insight was $11,000 used with 48k miles, and its over 160k miles now and has way more than paid for itself.
I test drove the new one as a loaner on a 100 mile trip and could barely get 45mpg out of it.
Ugh
For city scenarios, I'd choose a current model Prius (used, if possible) due to its great EV only range
For highway, nothing, I repeat absolutely NOTHING can touch the G1 Insight for fuel economy.
Too bad Honda stopped making them.
Do you save more carbon buying a new Hybrid vehicle that takes energy to manufacture, or keeping your old clunker on the road?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you want to be green, don't buy a vehicle that still runs on gasoline and combine it with many toxic chemicals. Try using a bicycle or public transportation if you really do care about using less fossil fuels.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Good points. And they also only account for gasoline costs. Hybrids have additional parts, but on the whole, this allows everything to operate optimally and with less strain: most braking is regenerative, the "transmission" is dramatically simpler, the gasoline engine runs cooler and for considerably less time, etc, etc. There are more savings than just gas.
I bought my hybrid because it's tall enough for me to sit in it comfortably, my double bass fits in the back easily, and I can drive in the carpool lane by myself. Also, it's been perfectly reliable. The fact that it costs a pittance to fill the tank is a nice bonus.
Maybe it's to make the hybrids look better; a lot of figures I've seen have a hybrid's battery lasting ~5-7 years.
Even if you drop the cost of replacing the battery with a recycled one to $3k, that's a significant expense and often a deal breaker.
I don't read AC A human right
who drove cars?
rich guys
did they save money over a stage coach or a railroad according to any measurements of cost effectiveness?
of course not. why the hell does anyone think that is the fucking point?
this is new tech. well, old tech (the original rich guy gas powered hobby cars were competing with electrical and steam powered models), but "new" in the sense that it is getting a serious look again because of gas price volatility and geopolitical costs of being so dependent on gasoline
please stop making stupid comparisons folks. currently, owning an electric or hybrid is stupid in comparison to a regular gas powered vehicle according to only economic or technical comparison. no fucking shit. big obvious fucking so what
but when you involve passion: passion for urban air quality, passion for mitigating environmental change, passion in sticking it to gulf raping poor country raping oil conglomerates, passion in not funding religious fundamentalist every time you fill up your automobile...
add up all these passions, and you find a large group of people who are happy to spend their money to supplement the growth of an economic sector of technicological tinkering that will deliver you, eventually, the model t of our generation: the first low cost no brainer better alternative to a gasoline powered car
are these people idiots? no. they're technological pioneers, motivated by passion, who are paving way for a better world, that you will benefit from eventually. go ahead and call them airheaded environemtalists or rich guys with too much cash to burn. you're really awesome in the way you have no fucking clue as to kinds of challenges we face in the world and the better place we need to go to. you're awesome in your willfully ignorant love of stasis, be damned the costs of our current love affair with the gas powered automobile
but go ahead and nitpick, imaginationless bean counters, as if your static economic bullshit is supposed to be any sort of persuasive argument, except for the brain dead. you aren't in the least considering all of the valid motivations for buying something more expensive yet something other than your traditional gas guzzling, religious fundamentalist funding, air quality destroying, corporate behemoth building, climate changing traditional fucking car
death to the internal combustion engine, and a big fuck you to those who resist progress out of smallmindedness
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Explain to me how spending $105k on the Benz would save me money, please? I'm looking at houses (albeit fixers) in that range. Of course, if such housing was in the city as opposed to the sticks, that would save even more gas. Dream on!
A very nice new car can be had for $30k. Heck, even a decent used Benz can be had for that price. Buy 5 econoboxes or 3 used Benz for that price. I don't care if it runs on mind power. It won't save you money.
What about the Obama Volt? As long as you live less than 20 miles from work, and replace your batteries frequently enough so that your range doesn't diminish too much with age, and never forget to plug it in when you get home, and drive it every single day, you could get a maximum of 40 * 365 * 5 = 73,000 miles out of it over 5 years! I guess that's one way to make sure you don't put too many miles on it.
How does that stack up against a hybrid? Would most people require a second car for when they actually need to go somewhere? How much would the power cost per year?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I seriously doubt buying a new car is ever cheaper than maintaining a working used car, ever. Especially compared against buying a $20 - $30k new car.
I drive a car that needs $2,000 of maintenance each year and it is STILL a better deal than buying a $10k car that will fall apart in 5 years, or a $20k car that falls apart in 10. You might ask why, and the answer is we pay for smog inspections here and once your car hits a certain age you don't have to pay for them. So you're better off keeping a belching monster on the road than replacing it after a certain tipping point.
I bought an Altima Hybrid, for three reasons:
1. Longer range. Instead of filling up every 400-500 miles, I can do 600-700. This is a luxury that not many people think of.
2. More power at lower torque = better acceleration
3. Rebates. Honda and Toyota ran out years ago, but Nissan didn't. My car cost ~1,500 more than the non-Hybrid, but came with more standard options.
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.
Yeah, it was funny, when the 2004 Prius first came out, I thought "Man, that thing's just a design ripoff from the Honda Insight, made bigger!"
How when I see the new Insight, I think just the opposite "Man, that thing's such a ripoff from the Prius, only smaller."
If the original Insight had a disablable passenger-side airbag, I would have bought one in 2006 (its last year.) But I had a small child at the time, so no airbags allowed in front of the carseat. Now that she's older, I'm tempted to get a used one.
(Doesn't it feel funny to call 45 MPG "terrible"? I find it funny when I catch myself feeling "guilty" for getting "only" 45 MPG sometimes.)
And I wouldn't say the Prius has "great EV only range", it's about 2 miles at best. (As soon as my warranty expires, I'll be converting mine to a plug-in to get about 10 miles.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
The batteries are still a problem. The batteries could be solved with eletrical rails. That would be some kind of train or subway. We have those already... And they work FINE.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
E.g.: The manufacture of the car may well produce more emissions that the running of the car will produce in it's lifetime. So the best "green" statement is likely to be keeping your car running with a well tuned engine for as long as you can. In this context, the batteries of hybrids are pretty much of an unknown. Building them costs and unknown, but large, amount of pollution. How long will they last? Will they be recycled into new batteries? What's the replacement cost? What are the failure modes? (Do they just start not holding a charge?)
For now, I'll continue with a 1990's Toyota Corona. (I think that's the name, I can never keep straight between the Corona and the Corolla. I use whichever is the smaller of the two.) It's only 15 years old so far.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing ---
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh) - 0.16 USD/Liter- 0.61 USD/Gallon
Denmark - 1.85 USD/Liter - 7.00 USD/Gallon
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
It says the Ford Escape Hybrid costs $35k?
My wife bought her brand new 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid in Dec. 2006 for $24K. The non-hybrid model was about $20K. She averages about 32 MPG in it, about 12 MPG over the conventional model.
At 22,000 miles/year, she saves about $1144/year at $2.77/gal. Plus we got the $1500 tax break. The "hybrid premium" was paid off sometime in late 2008. She now saves over $1100/year over the non-hybrid.
I want to see some methodology on this study.
So naysayers of global warming can't bring themselves to accept that "misinformed liberals" will put their money where their mouth is and by a more fuel-efficient car and reduce CO2 emissions. Instead, they are still only able to see the world through their lens of assigning a dollar value to everything. Nothing can be worth doing if it doesn't make money. Instead of accepting that there are other people don't share the same motivations, they resort to claiming that people who don't value everything in the world with dollars are morons. Good job assholes.
I have to say, maybe the Matrix is smaller than the Prius, but comparing the two as people and cargo carriers leads to a solution of "no contest".
I test-drove the Prius back in 2002 when I bought my Jetta Diesel, and my wife currently owns a Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix with a badge change). The new Prius models look a tad roomier, but they don't look nearly as roomy as even my Jetta is today, 8 years later.
The Vibe is the only car in that weight/price I've ever seen that can handle three child seats across the back seat row without complaints about crowding, or carry 5 real-sized adults without problems. The roof continues straight back, so even my 6' 4" body can sit in the back seat of the Vibe for hours with no complaints.
The Prius and the Matrix might both be built on the Corolla frame, but don't discount the amount of space and weight the hybrid engine system and the shorter roofline uses up in terms of useful car space and capacity.
Sure, it only gets about 35MPG, but we got it brand new for $16,000. So the price differential is even bigger when you discover that you can't work out a deal on a Prius (sometimes you have to pay extra to get one), so you have to use its sticker price as a real-life price, but you can usually get a discount on just about anything else.
If you want to compare money saved on fuel versus the price differential, it's probably better to not compare the Prius against a Toyota model at all, but to pick a similarly-sized small sedan or an average of a few in its size/room class, and not artificially limit the comparison to Toyota models. Then take the real-world average price of the other car and compare it to the average real-world price of the Prius.
Unless gasoline gets very expensive, that comparison is going to get pretty ugly.
Of course, if your main goal is to save fuel at all dollar costs, these studies are meaningless - pick the hybrid, small gasser, or Diesel that is the smallest and most efficient that meets your needs, and go for it.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
I used Edmunds Cost of ownership list.
At my office everyone was trying to out-hybrid each other, and talking about all the money they would save. At 5 dollars a gallon it really seemed worth it to them to buy brand new hybrids.
I showed that at 10 dollars a gallon the civic hybrid finally paid for itself in the typical 5 year ownership term over the non-hybrid, nothing else even came close until you modeled gas at 11 dollars a gallon.
For kicks I modeled a 1976 Chevy Monte Carlo - a Giant Gas-wasting monster of a 2-seater. And showed that assuming you needed 150/month for ongoing maintenance, You could buy another one each year, fill it with 5 dollar gas all year, then set it on fire, using 10 gallons of gasoline before buying a new one... and it would still be significantly cheaper to own than a prius.
I get it, it's about conspicuous conservation. But Faux Green is pretty played out.
One of the flaws in this study is that the models that they chose to compare against the hybrids have different specs and performance levels. For the ones that I've looked at in the past (Toyota Highlander, Lexus RX400h, Lexus GS450h), while they have compared the models that are 'closest', all of these are compared with models that have both lower standard specification and lower performance. Given that after 'brand image' the biggest factors in car pricing are spec and performance it seems a little unfair not to adjust for these.
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
This is the same flawed logic that allowed businesses to pump crap out of smokestacks for decades. There are savings that don't involve money - like public health and clean air.
"The one car that would save you money, according the study, is the Mercedes S400 Hybrid sedan -- and it will only cost you $105,000."
Nice one, soulskill. What an asinine teaser summary. I wouldn't be surprised if this "thecarchik" is actually an overweight balding geezer making living by driving website traffic.
1. Hydrogen has lower energy by volume even at quite high pressures - you suffer the same problem as with batteries, the containment system weighs more than the fuel.
Yes, that doesn't work well. Which is why research is being done on better binding agents:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227145.600-chicken-feathers-could-make-cheap-hydrogen-store.html
2. The most common method of obtaining hydrogen today is by cracking natural gas
Which is expensive. Which is why research is important to make that much cheaper:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/2936846
Don't forget that if you make hydrogen generation cheap enough you can have many local plants instead of shipping fuel all over or running more electric lines to hand increased load.
NG is more power dense volume wise, and only slightly less by weight. LNG doesn't require quite the pressure vessel, so probably weighs a vehicle down less as well.
But if you can find a way to get hydrogen out of water that's far more plentiful and easier to create locally.
3. To my knowledge we still don't have a hydrogen tight valve.
Which is why binding solutions are important, so the hydrogen "wants" to stay.
Yes I agree these solutions are still a ways off, but again think of what we might be able to do if the same amount of money was funneled into hydrogen research as we push into battery research today. Not that battery research is not important too, but if you can get hydrogen to work right as a transportation fuel it has a ton of benefits. To me it makes a lot more sense to examine what benefits you can derive from a system when you overcome the limitations, rather than focusing on what limitations a system has today.
Battery systems I think have had a ton of research put into them already, so we can only see marginal gains going forward. Hydrogen still has a lot of research headroom for interesting developments.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I drive a diesel VW that routinely gives me 700+ miles per tank. As a result, I only need to go to the station once every few weeks. Contrast this to some 15 mpg SUV where you're gassing up weekly, or worse. What's your time worth to you?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I'm in Northern CA and I just paid $3.799 for the 89 Octane. Last year at this time I was living in Southern Nevada and it was about the same pricing there.
Where the hell is $277/gallon?
Ave Molech Setting
Total Bullshit. they estimate 5 years to pay back, based on 20,000 KM year. Total for 5 years is 63,000 miles. The warranty on hybrid components here in California is 150,000 Miles. Assuming you drive the car until they stop repairing it for free, you'll get a payback that is 2.3 times great than their reporting.
Matrix Vs. Prius is 16,800 and 12,800 to maintain over 63,000 miles, to hit 150,00 miles, multiply by 2.3, you get 38,640 for the matrix, 29,440 for the Prius, which is still at this point under warranty
You've saved $9,200 in fuel over the warranty period
MSRP for Matrix is 16,700 base
MSRP for Prius is 21,400 base
total savings is Matrix Base cost+Extra fuel cost-Prius base cost= $4500 Not a lot, but Nothing to scoff at either, plus, the Prius has better resale value, more standard options than the Matrix, is bigger, safer, and better rated.
Prius fun factor is 0 though. :-(
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
I worked as a hotel valet for about three years. I never got to really "drive" many cars, but I sure parked a lot of different ones. Let me tell you, my favorite cars to park were hybrid Lexuses. Those suckers are incredibly comfortable and whisper quiet. Somebody actually got some comfort for their money when they bought one of those things.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
A large factor helping me decide to buy a hybrid was the rising cost of fuel. I ran the spreadsheets, and knew the payoff scenarios, and the insurance hedge seemed like a very good idea. I bought at the U.S. peak 2 years ago, and while gas will never be free, I see nothing stopping it from doubling within the next three years. So, I take some credit for reducing demand and lowering everyone else's cost.
I also made a conscious decision with this purchase to make major changes to my carbon-consuming lifestyle, and I drive my Civic Hybrid like a science experiment. The instantaneous fuel consumption indicators, combined with record keeping that goes beyond obsessive, and a competitive personality have resulted in much more than a steady improvement in gas mileage. I now make conscious decisions to give up mileage on some trips (a result of the way the car performs given environmental conditions and whether or not the engine is warmed up) to reduce total fuel consumed. I doubt I would be this engaged with a non-hybrid (I seriously considered the Fit).
All of this is in contrast to my youth, where I was paid to fly conversion missions, where we transformed jet fuel into noise. I can't unburn any of that fuel, and my consumption is still closer to the American average than my goal, but the "hybrid penalty" has been a smaller price to pay.
The second generation Prius is only a scoche smaller than a Camry of the same era. The third generation Prius is even larger than the second. When our family of five (two adults and 3 kids in carseats), we take our 2007 Prius.
are a scam.
There is NOW WAY I am telling you that they are going to permit any sort of car that invalidates gas in _any_ way.
Not going to happen.
It is not a technology problem it is a political problem and a class warfare problem.
You can't have the executives of GM on the Board of Shell/BP Oil, and vice versa. It won't work.
Surprise, you get crap cars that cost a ton of money to maintain and only can be maintained at dealerships.
The other scam most people have no idea about is the fact that every major hybrid is subsidized by US tax dollars.
They won't tell how much either, but some of the leaked documents from the secretive deals that went under the table during the bailout of the auto makers puts the subsidation as high as $5K per car.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
You are correct, the 2002 Jetta is *WAY* bigger than the 2002 Prius.
The 2004 Prius, on the other hand, is larger than the 2004 Jetta for everything except raw cargo capacity. (And even then, it's close.)
The Jetta and the Hyundai Elantra GT (hatchback) were the two other cars we considered when we bought our Prius.
My wife ruled the Jetta out for some reason I can't remember, so I did calculations comparing the Prius to the Elantra GT. By 80,000 miles, the Prius had "won" financially; and on features and size, it won right up front.
(I was aiming for the Jetta TDI, so I could convert it to run on grease. The TDI would have won over the Prius on fuel prices over 80k miles, too; especially converted to nearly-free grease.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
An all electric car in most places would mean you are getting all your fuel from Coal Power Plants...I'd rather just burn petrol with the proven exhaust filters. My car exhaust looks much cleaner then the crap I see coming out of power plants.
I just had a look at their study and found several flaws. I own two priuses by the way a 2002 and a 2010.
First of all, they are comparing a toyota matrix with a toyota prius. These two vehicles are not remotely equivalent. The only thing they have in common is the fact that they are both built on the same platform. This same platform also encludes the echo and the corolla. The prius also has a lot more combinations of features and models. They didn't identify whether it was a Prius 1 package 1 or a Prius 5 package 4. They arbitrarily look one at $27K and compared it to a $21K matrix. They should have taken a Prius 1 Model 1 ($21,000) and compared that to a Matrix or specified the features so that a direct comparison could be made.
Second, they assumed 20,000 KM which is roughly 12,400 miles a year in driving. Maybe in Canada they can get away with driving that many miles but in California, I drive at least 15,000 miles a year. I see at least a 20 mpg discrepance between the two cars. 3000 miles / 20 mpg X $4.68 per gallon ($1.17 per litre assumption in study) = $702.00 a year savings in fuel. I have had my prius for 8 years and 120,000 miles on my 2002 which translates to at least $5600 saved in fuel over the matrix.
Third, they haven't taken maintenace into account. Hybrids suffer a lot less wear and tear on the engine than normal vehicles. Services that you get at 30,000 miles transmission filter, brake fluid flush, throttle and fuel injection flush, etc don't need to be done until 90,000 miles on a prius. That was my experience and I took the car to the dealer for everything.
I know they included 5 year estimates, but even if you looked at 5 year estimate using an apples to apples comparison here in the United States you would see they hybrid is much more cost effective. The devil is in the details.
I used to drive a 2003 Civic Hybrid before it got totaled in a crash. I did the math to see if the gas I saved made up for the extra I paid for it. It didn't.
And I did do it again. I replaced the 2003 Civic Hybrid with a 2007.
icta is a nutty organization. From their mission statement:
"Using legal petitions, comments, and litigation ICTA is at the forefront of the battles to limit genetic engineering, end the patenting of life, address greenhouse gas emissions, protect animals from abuse in research and agriculture, and halt deforestation. "
Effectively, they're against the use of fossil fuel, therefore, they will demonstrate they really cost lot more than you think.
So you move closer to work, give up the stand alone home with a real yard and garage, pay twice as much for a townhome or apartment, with half the square footage..to save a little on gas mileage? And then in the future, say you wanted to go solar PV because now you are more responsible about things..whoops..no PV panels allowed, violates covenants or living in an apartment, you don't own the roof. Or..you want to grow more of your own food, to be more responsible about things and help to eliminate the thousand mile salad..whoops..limited to one tomato plant in a pot in a window.
There are potential benefits that can be expanded on in suburbia, that you just can't do very well living sardine can style just to be closer to work. Instead of fixating on what some other people drive, why not lobby for more telecommuting and for basic nationwide good fiber to everywhere so this could be possible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZvyYvbXjEM
note: I am not entirely in favor of hybrids (until they make a diesel electric work truck I could use), but I recognize they are good transitory step to all electric. Some of the benefits are, in stop and go traffic, the dang ICE shuts *off*, instead of you being part of the herd sitting there with an engine idling for no reason. This helps reduce smog in the downtown heat island effect areas, and maybe help all those millions of urban kids who have bad asthma all the time, and the other health ailments people get soaking in smog. Hybrids also have regenerative braking**, regular vehicles do not.
**Hydraulic regenerative braking might be a much cheaper option for most sedans rather than being gas/electric hybrids. Just enough of a boost to get you going again after each stop without really having to hit the throttle heavy.
Ok, I looked this up again - I though the hybrid batteries had to be replaced after five years, it's seems more like it's around 150k miles or so - I also thought the replacement cost was more like $4k, when actually currently it seems to be around $1500. While that's still a lot there's easy some mechanical systems on cars that may have to be replaced that might run that much too... so I guess used costs are not that much different.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the UK the average petrol price is £1.16.6p/litre (according to http://www.petrolprices.com/ ).
Google tells me that 1 US gallon = 3.78541178 litres and 1 British pound = 1.5943 U.S. dollars
So gas (petrol) is $7.04 per US gallon over here.
For 100000km at mfr's figures my Prius would cost approx. $7250 (More like $8-10k)
For a typical car of that ilk, look at $14k+ for fuel. So saving $7k in fuel cost alone by the figures (or $4-6k or perhaps more, in real life).
Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
For some reason, no one ever seems to mention that the Prius goes roughly twice as long between fill-ups as your conventional sedan. Most people who can afford hybrids are well-off enough to not have to worry all that much about money, and if this helps them spend half as much time tooling around at gas stations, that ends up becoming a major time savings.
I don't have a hybrid myself, but I really enjoy renting them on business travel, even when The Company covers the gas bill. There's nothing more boring to me than the generic midsize V6.
The 2001-2003 Prius was a 4-door compact sedan, the subsequent two generations of Prius's have been midsize hatchbacks. They are much roomier(I've ridden quite a bit in the 2001-2003 models, and own a 2008.)
The 2002 Prius you test drove was smaller than the contemporary Corolla, 2004 and later models are larger than the Corolla.
Except that the Prius isn't built on the Corolla frame (or any shared frame, to the best of my knowledge.)
My Lexus hybrid also has substantially less pollution (Super-low emissions = no emissions tests), pours some battery power into improved performance, and has a shiftless transmission vs. its gas counterpart.
The main differences between the 2010 and 2009 cost studies are the elimination of the provincial sales tax rebate
A rebate doesn't lower the price of anything, it just transfers the cost to someone else. If you really want to save fossil fuel drive a diesel
Think about the time I saved by dodging the traffic twice a day, five days a week.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Why does the study only project a 5-year lifespan for the hybrids in working out whether they break even?
(This is not a sarcastic question; there may be a reason to assume a 5-year lifespan... but until they tell us what that reason is, it makes it sound like a bogus study.)
The study tries a basic price comparison of hybrid ownership. The study itself is not biased; it is not trying to convince you to buy a conventional car. To do a proper comparision they need appropriate base-lines, and since the oil companies aren't likely to give us an exact oil-price listing for the next 5 years, they have to make assumptions. Also, while 5 years isn't a perfect estimate on car lifetimes, but it does take into account advancing technology. Hybrids haven't even been around commercially for 5 years, and so they certainly haven't reached their market peak. As with any technology, the early adopters are going to be paying more, and in 5 years, hybrid might not be a fringe portion of the market, but a much larger percentage with lower price-to-purchase. In fact, this in pretty much guaranteed.
And as nearly everyone has pointed out, gas prices are likely going to increase, and so past 5 years would make any assumptions worthless. With other techonologies we might beat peak oil, electric cars might even become the norm, or oil becomes so precious that we'll have to kill over it. What you can get from a 5 years estimate is how the car might do for you. Some people buy cars every 2 years, and some people run them into the ground, and drive to the dealership with the last putt. This shows you have the car will do in the first 5 years of purchase, and the result is only a few thousand dollars over 5 years, with a strong likelyhood that keeping it longer will resolve in complete payout for a longer term.
The Prius certainly does not cost $27,000, I bought mine brand new 2008 in late 2007 for $21,000. Ok so it doesn't have Sat-Nav or leather seats.
I've driven about 55,000 miles.
- Brakes are 15% used, will never have to replace them.
- The Prius brakes don't leave dirty and ugly brake dust on the wheels.
- Tires are still stock, will replace them in a year or so.
- Oil service is *very* cheap as the engine is 1.3 liter.
- No battery changes, ever... until 120,000.
- My Prius does 58MPG highway, therefore contributing less to pollution and I am breathing less harmful gases.
- I don't have to worry about keeping my Prius spic-and-span in order to keep a certain image, a quick $4 wash at the local car wash is sufficient.
I'd really like to see the price that Mercedes charges for those services and replacement, tires? Oil changes? Brakes? Car detail? Forget about it.....Once the warranty runs out on a Mercedes, a simply oil change or transmission oil change will run you hundreds of dollars.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
...it will cost you 10x more to repair it.
Mercedes is what you buy when you're high on positive bank account balance and low on common sense.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I have a 2010 VW Golf TDI Diesel. 45mpg. No stinking hybrid stuff.
The decision to buy a hybrid is usually emotional, not rational. A 2007 survey indicates that most (57%) Prius owners' primary motivation for purchasing the vehicle is because "it makes a statement about me". As other posters (and a South Park episode) have commented, buying a hybrid is just a new way to be smug.
As I have said before, the "total gas saved" isn't the point. The reduction in pollution added to the near parity of dollars was my purchase metric.
"Green-ness" isn't just a measure of miles-per-gallon. That is a strong indicator, but burning slightly more gas in some situations (like climbing hills) so that the engine can run in a more efficient (clean) configuration, and then recovering some of that energy in the battery for later represents a loss of overall drive. The cost of going from kinetic energy to battery and back again does take its toll. The reduction of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide (etc) emissions in favor of the higher mpg was a known. I put my money where my sensibilities were, and consequently paid-forward to skew the market in a "Greener" direction.
As an early adopter I knew that I wouldn't necessarily recoup my expense before I got to an expensive battery change. That wasn't the point.
Though if gas goes back to $4.00+ usd I might so recoup.
[In more "Internet Friendly" jargon, I wouldn't be able to emit so much Smug if I made back all my money... 8-)]
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
That statement being, "I don't understand what fungible means!"
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-02-19/
Now, just to be clear, I'm a pickup person myself.
I couple of years ago I needed to purchase a 3/4 ton truck to do a little hauling and had to choose between a big Gasoline engine (which from Ford and Dodge was a V10 gasoline engine and with GM was a Big-Block V8) or a Diesel.
At the end of the day, even considering the much better mileage of the diesel (both hauling and just driving) I ultimately chose the big Gasoline engine because (and this was pretty universal) it only added about $500 to the total price whereas the Diesel added about $5000+.
It simply would have taken me too long to have made up the price.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
This is true. I drive a used pick-up that I bought for a grand and drive around 450 miles a month, usually costs me less than $90 to fill up both tanks. Even with some heavy rounding the math comes out pretty nicely: 1200/yr for gas, 900/yr for liability insurance, 400/yr maintenance = 2500/yr for transportation. In other words about a decade's worth of driving for the up front cost of the cheapest of these hybrids. It's not going to save the environment but, at least for my relatively light driving requirements, it certainly saves money to drive used.
If I drove more I would probably substitute something lighter but the utility of a pick-up truck tends to make up for itself more than you'd expect. No hiring movers, any free furniture on the road is yours and friends will frequently fill the tank to borrow it for a day.
the $1300 tax credit will certainly help me achieve pay back sooner. Throw in averaging 42mpg on my commute and it surely beats my previous cars, too include a Murano (20 avg), G35 (22 avg), and even a Miata (30 avg)
Now the only way to save more on fuel would be to live closer, but the property and local sales taxes eat up any savings I could hope to gain. Fuel prices would have to take a serious jump before living closer to work would make up for the differences in tax, let alone the peace of life I have in the edges of suburbia
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A Prius does not hold my hockey gear very well, much less parts and such for home improvement projects.
Seriously, I will love it when a solid, workable, hybrid / electric pickup is available, that will not have battery death because the cold winters kill the batteries.
But that's just me.
"The invisible hand sometimes gives you the finger"
Alternately, the increased hybrid-car cost could in part be a case of internalizing a negative externality of environmental damage
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Only 1 out of 16 hybrids pays back in gas savings, but every Jeep pays back its entire cost, in full, the first time you extract yourself from a nasty traffic jam by wheeling across the median while those pompous hybrid drivers sit stuck in traffic, the next exit 3 miles down the road.
The Prius might make some feel-good environmental statement that all the DC greenies love, but my old Jeep makes a statement that I love: Screw You, and Get Out Of My Way.
If I use half the gas, then it's that many more tanks of gas for the next person, that much longer for the finite supply to last, that much less emissions, fewer imports of fuel, and more time to figure out and build alternatives. I'm willing to pay more for that without it having to completely pay off financially. The analysis was done only over 5 years (I usually keep a car for 10) and assumes that prices will remain roughly the same over the lifetime of the car (they only added a little over current price). The odds prices will go up significantly in the next 5-10 years are much better than the odds they will go down. I'd be satisfied if it was within 20% of break-even with current numbers. That could still pay out over the long term if fuel prices go up modestly. The Toyota Prius, for example, has a premium of $1718 with a MSRP of $27500. Over 5 years: close enough.
The real unknown, because they didn't consider it in the analysis, is maintenance. I don't know how that compares and it could easily break the deal.
One thing is pretty clear -- the hybrid versions of "heavy" SUVs and trucks (e.g., Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid SUV, GM Tahoe/Yukon Hybrid SUV) are a joke. What a waste. Just drive an ordinary and far cheaper passenger car and you're saving as much or more fuel than these "hybrid" beasts.
It very much depends on where you are, mainly because of differences in how both car and fuel are taxed. In my case, I drive a hybrid because I get a whole lot more car for the same money than I would have gotten otherwise. Fuel savings don't figure into it, because the company I work for pays for all the fuel I use.
The monetary incentives don't actually work towards the most environmentally friendly option, but they do give me a very nice car _and_ money left over compared to what would otherwise have been my preferred solution (diesel car converted to run on straight vegetable oil), which I invest in projects I feel will bring us a more environmentally friendly future.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I suspect regional bias in data. In New Zealand we pay equivelent of $4.50-5.00* per gallon of petrol (what 'gasoline' is properly called everywhere outside United States)... re-run the numbers and suddenly all those hybrids are well worth while. We have cheaper running costs than Japan and most of Europe.
(*Yet we choose cars and drive them like juice is cheap and then complain at the pump.)
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Seriously, most people never figure it out. DON'T BORROW MONEY IF THE COST TO BORROW IT IS MORE THAN THE COST OF INFLATION. Now go back and recalculate your payback period. (and if you start using NPV in your calculations, then I'll just tell you not to drive)
Even after revising the 1985-2007 mpg estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 mpg estimates, the 1989 Honda CRX-HF is rated at 41 city and 50 highway mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml
After 20 years of technological innovation, and four years of sky-rocketing fuel costs, shouldn't a new car model get at least 41/50 mpg before that car is considered to be ecologically friendly? Yet greencar.com features the 2008 Nissan Rouge (22 city/27 highway mpg) as a "Top 2008 Fuel Economy Faves." The 2008 Nissan Rouge also has a sticker price of $19,250.
http://www.greencar.com/features/fuel-economy/
Seems to me that true economy cars been pulled from the market, and replaces with the new hybrids. Major car manufacturers want us to think that 30+ mpg is something miraculous, and requires an expensive, heavy, complicated, hard-to-maintain, hybrid.
In my opinion there is more to ecological friendliness than just mpg (although the present line-up fails at even that). Hybrids have huge batteries, and disposing of those batteries is never ecologically friendly. Then there is the ecological impact of manufacturing and shipping these huge, heavy, vehicles. Furthermore, recent road tests carried out by Auto Express show that hybrids often have worse CO2 emissions than standard autos.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3958376.ece
To have a real impact on fuel consumption, and emissions, new vehicles need to be affordable. Hybrids are about the most expensive vehicles on the market. How can hybrids have a positive effect of the environment, if practically nobody can afford the beasts? Even if you can afford the steep sticker price, what about the cost of maintenance? Hybrids have two engines, and use a complicated system to charge their huge batteries. I hate to even think about the cost of maintenance and repair.
It used to be common that most fuel efficient cars also had the lowest sticker price, and lowest maintenance costs. The cars where simply smaller, lighter, and required more manual operations. With smaller, cheaper, parts, and a less complicated design, the cars were cheaper to maintain. When I bought my 1992 Ford Festiva, the 30/37 mpg rating was the least of my criteria, I was also concerned with sticker price, and maintenance costs.
Why can't we do as well now, as we did 16 to 35 years ago?
1973 Honda Civic rated 35/40 mpg
1986 VW Golf Diesel rated 31/40 mpg *
1989 Geo Metro was rated 43/51 mpg
1989 Honda CRX-HF was rated 41/50 mpg
1992 Ford Festiva rated 30/37 mpg
* I got over 50mpg driving from Florida to New Jersey, while running the air conditioner.
Related:
57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Want to drive a cheap car that gets eye-popping mileage? In 1987 you could - and it wasn't even a hybrid.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
Efficiency? Think Racing Cars, Not Hybridso
A renowned racing car designer has said that car manufacturers should be looking at making cars lighter to improve efficiency, rather than adding complex drive trains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387432.stm
Hot Cars Best Gas Milage
Welcome to hi-mpg.org. We are automotive enthusiasts and travel aficionados who also love the environment. We appreciate both form and function, all while striving to leave future generations a legacy of clean air, scenic grandeur and a continuum of natural resources. In addition: the freedom to drive.
http://hi-mpg.org/best-cars-with-high-gas-mileage.phtml
Yes - I rented a Prius for a couple of weeks while I was between cars, and liked it quite a bit, so much that I looked fairly earnestly for a used one. Unfortunately there were very few used Priuses available, and they were about twice my budget.
Overall I was surprised by how comfortable and roomy the car was, and how well it went on the freeway - I often see Priuses putting along in the slow lane, and assumed that they were gutless. I was wrong - they step out OK, and they can keep up on the freeway just fine. I think the snazzy dashboard display showing the moment-to-moment fuel consumption changes the driver's 'race' motive from speed to economy - it's a challenge to try to get the average up from 44 to 45, then to 46, ... So I think this feature by itself would have a good effect on most driver's habits.
The one thing I didn't like in the car was that the seats are too short front to back for my long legs. I always felt like I was falling out.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I have a long commute, 50+ miles one way. I see lots of hybrids and many of them are driving well over 70mph on the highway. No way they are getting the fuel savings doing that. I checked around and read that a Prius takes a fuel savings hit past 68 cause the gas engine has to rev up to assist. Drops well below 40 mpg. I'm practically even with them in my American "gas guzzler" that I probably bought for half the price.
If you buy Green, you should drive Green.
Not to keep repeating myself, but read this- the comparison I did was for a feature-for-feature equivalent model. While I don't know how or why they picked what they did for the study -- but the point remains valid even. My math was for used prices - it's much more pronounced for new.
There is another dimension to this discussion.
Forget the cost for now.
Forget the environment for now.
If we focus on the fact that we are running out of petroleum oil, it's clear that if we reduce consumption that our supplies will last longer. We take the easiest oil from the ground first, followed by the next easiest, etc. As oil becomes more rare, we have to do more expensive and riskier things to get it. Prices will go up from here. Note that the BP spill was because it was an extremely deep well, which was permitted even without the proper studies because we are desperate for oil to keep the appearance of a good economy. If we reduced consumption, we wouldn't be so desperate to get the riskier oil.
When oil gets extremely expensive, many of us will look back on our decisions today with regret and know for sure that the smart thing would have been to do what it takes to conserve oil. We are acting like those short-sighted executives that only look at the next quarter and can't see the fallout from their decisions.
Next point is that the most important use for oil is in plastics, pharmaceuticals and chemistry in general. Using them to propel our cars is a ridiculous waste of resources.
Last point is that I wanted a 4dr hatchback that gets 50mpg. There's only one...the Prius. It's an excellent car- well built, a pleasure to drive (except windy roads) and very reliable. As others mentioned, repair costs are low. In the future, when batteries are improved, a replacement will be cheaper and store more energy. In fact, I think Toyota recently halved the replacement cost of the Prius battery.
To answer those who claim people buy it because it makes them holy, I have a hard time believing many people actually think this way.
I think the decision is a no-brainer.
CNG cars leave as very unpleasant stench when they drive by.
Sorry, but CNG is not better for the environment. If anything is just a substitution of one fossil for another with its own negative environmental impact.
Last thing we need is more underwater aquifers contaminated by drilling for natural gas.
A Neon? A Prius is a hatchback. Try fitting a 12" Dobsonian in a Neon.
Stupid, sloppy little rumour of an article.
The amount of energy and resources and toxic chemicals involved in the car manufacturing process FAR outweighs any "statement" you make with a hybrid.
Not true, no matter how worked up you get.
If you drive a 50mpg Prius, over 120,000 miles you'll consume 3 TONS less gasoline and put 10 TONS less CO2 in the air compared with a 35mpg car (here's the math). The gas savings are more than the car weighs! And producing,spilling, refining, and distributing that gasoline is itself resource-intensive and highly polluting. There's no credible evidence that manufacturing a car is on a pound-for-pound basis more polluting than the oil business. Instead, all reputable lifecycle studies (footnoted here) conclude 75-90% of the pollution from a car occurs in its operation.
Also this doesn't consider the follow-on effect of replacing your car. If you replaced your old car before it fell apart and it got decent mpg, then it's going to wind up in the hands of someone who can finally junk her gas guzzler.
It's a fact that one significant way you can help the environment is to increase the fuel efficiency of the car fleet by acquiring a more fuel-efficient car. There are others — there's always some way to be greener still, ranging from driving less to killing yourself.
=S
Nickel isn't polluting, it just sits there. Presumably you mean the production of a few hundred pounds of NiMH batteries, containing (if I recall correctly) about 20 pounds of nickel. Note that the chrome and steel in a regular car already contains nickel, and that the real toxic villain is the lead-ACID battery in a conventional car
So what makes you think the pollution from manufacturing a few hundred pounds of recyclable batteries is remotely comparable to the TONS of gasoline and CO2 saved over 100,000 miles by driving a more fuel-efficient car? Repeating crap you've heard doesn't make it true.
=S
These analyses make me laugh. Every other car features COSTS MONEY, so why do people expect this one to pay for itself?! Whip your calculator out for leather seats and satnav and see how far you get. Anyone not driving a 1983 Geo Metro XFi is a chump in purely economic terms, yet lazy journalists don't waste time breathlessly informing BMW drivers of their losses.
It's nice that a well-engineered hybrid reduces your gasoline expenditures. But anyone who expects the hybrid car feature to pay for itself can go stand way at the back of the line behind people who value it for emitting less CO2 (about 10 tons less over 120,000 miles), being quieter, not polluting at a standstill, etc.
=S
I really hope this research doesn't discourage people from purchasing hybrid cars. Even if they aren't more cost efficent at least by buying one you are telling the auto industry that consumers are ready and want for this type of technology.
I bought a hybrid to show I'm better than you. Even if my parents were a disaster, my grades are bad and my job is so boring a RealDoll would quit, I've now got proof that I'm better than you. Look out there, in the driveway. I'm fighting global warming. And what do YOU do, again?
Yeah, I thought so. I'm much cooler.
Futurist Traditionalism
A Prius has approximately the same MSRP as a midrange Honda Accord or Camry, so it is not even clearly more expensive than the nonhybrid cars. (sure it's smaller, but it's still bigger than the compacts like Corolla). I personally really like the Prius, and not just because of fuel economy. First, this is one of the slickest and futuristic looking cars on the road. Second, hatchback design. Finally, this is one of the most technologically advanced cars on the road. You can switch cars throttle between several modes (sports, economy, etc), monitor fuel economy in many ways, use the navigation system. All for a price in the mid-20s. On top of that, you get 50mpg in city. It's absolutely worth its price if you ask me. It's the Apple of cars as of now IMHO.
Will save you thousands on gas... & costs less than $800
Oh but its got no AC, no power steering, No power brakes, no electric windows, rides like a boxcar & you may have to learn to drive a stick.
Yes, all you Prius owners going slow at the green lights, quit wasting my time trying to get your MPG above 50.
I drive a fast car to work. Over a Prius it saves me easily 20 minutes a day (I've timed it on numerous occasion). at 200 commute days a year, that's 4,000 minutes, or 67 hours.
At $100 / hour for a fully burdened SW dev or IT manageer that's $6,700 per year of wasted time in a Prius. Even if you get paid $20 hour fully burdened that's still $1300 a year.
So all you Prius drivers. Get the hell out of my way. My goal in life is to cut you off and make you run into a curb for wasting my precious time.
Don't even get me started on the bus.
I used to own a hybrid... the gas savings over the regular model is minimal, atleast in the Camry range. There are plenty of non hybrid vehicles (read: diesel) that get great mileage.
Also.... I bought the hybrid so I can use the HOV lanes in VA :)
Now.. I drive a C63... if I am going to be stuck in a car for 3 to 4 hours a day.. I damn well am going to have a fun car.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Actually, the Civic CDTI gets around 60 MPG highway. Too bad it isn't sold in the US. Thanks, CARB.
Surely you're joking? You think CNG smells bad so you prefer Diesel? Really? I think most people would disagree with you. Not saying that fumes smell good or anything, but diesel fumes are among the foulest imho.
CNG is not a replacement of one fossil fuel for another. Biomethane is not a fossil fuel. No drilling required. And currently the natural gas that are found together with oil is in many cases just set on fire and burned off to get to the oil. Using it to power cars would be better, albeit not good for the environment.
But I agree with you. Natural gas is not a good option. It's just better than most alternatives.
Seriously I admit, I'm obsessed with MPG. You want the best combo of efficiency/cost get a mid 90's >2L five speed.
Not only will they best all but the most expensive new car, you can get them for a steal. Below is my current crop.
97 Saturn sw1(wagon) 1.9L 34mpg combined, fits the kids and dogs paid $700 (140k) still running great (210k)
92 Honda Civic 1.5L 36mpg combined. paid $1200 (120k) Starting to show it's age (275k)
82 VW Rabbit Diesel 1.6L, paid $300 (325k!) 48mpg combined I rebuild the motor, running great on wvo bio-diesel. Can haul my 5th wheel with custom hitch i welded on. (i now, not mid 90's Fing better then anything the make now though)
Not only is the efficiency great, the cost great but your helping the environment by not having something new produced.
A 50K hybrid is just a status symbol. In the game of consumption your little better then the Escalade driver
This study makes the same, simplistic logical flaw that all my dumb coworkers make. There IS no equivalent gas vehicle to compare against the Toyota Hybrid because there's no gas hybrid model to compare it to. You can't compare the Hybrid to a Camry, or a Corolla, or anything else, because there is nothing in the same class (other than perhaps the Honda Hybrid).
The Fusion is the only realistic car to compare (against itself) because it has a "real" hybrid model and a gas model (with different sized engines too).
Out of fear of what happened in the 1970s, our government is spending an awful lot of tax dollars to keep the price of gasoline low. By keeping the price of gas low, many more fuel efficient technologies or even alternative energy sources are not developed or not as fully developed because they are not economically viable.
Obviously, the government of Canada doesn't do as much to suppress gasoline prices and even so this particular technology is not economically viable per se, but with so many billions of dollars in tax breaks and direct subsidies, you can not say this is the free market at work because government policy is driving what is happening.