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.
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?
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?.
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!
From what I understand, nickel (used in Prius batteries) mining is much more polluting than burning hydrocarbons. (Which the Prius still does occasionally)
There is more to enviromental impact than what comes out of the tailpipe...
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
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.)
Sigh. Personally, I think it is about saving money and using less fossil fuels.
I bought a 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid after running the numbers. I broke even at around 27,000 miles and it's been gravy since then.
I didn't take the price difference as between the base Civic and the HCH because the HCH was much closer to the EX version in terms of features. I got a $1500 tax rebate, did not have to pay excise tax, and until I switched to Michelin tires, was getting 50-54 mpg. The closest I came to that mileage before was with the Civic HX where I got 42-44 mpg.
This was also through the time that gas creeped up over $3.50/gallon and such, but it worked for me.
In fairness, my hybrid battery did need to be replaced at 67,000 miles but that was done under warranty and didn't cost me a penny. Spooked me a little though since the repair cost would have been $5000 instead of the $1500 the dealer had told me a replacement pack would cost at the time I bought the car. On the other hand, there are rebuilders out there who will take a bad pack apart, replace the dead cells, match all the other cells, and give it back to you for around $700.
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.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
I want a spaceship that runs on my kitchen garbage that can fly to Mars in 3 hours. I want it to cost 500 bucks and generate gold and platinum as waste products.
I figured if we're going to fantasize, I might as well go for broke.
The study assumed several things and was way too narrow in scope.
I bought a 2002 Prius at 1 year of age. The purchase cost covered all maintenance for the first 100,000 miles. Some other cars do that too. I commute 30 miles one way to work. The study was limited to the first 5 years of a new car purchase. This covers the depreciation of driving it off the showroom floor which I have never purchased.
Now for some stats, I'm averaging 46 MPG. I have driven 135,000 miles. I'm well into the gas payback as this purchase was planned to be kept until the wheels fall off. The payback not covered in the study has been maintenance.
I have had to buy the usual replacement sets of tires. No savings there. Oil changes are less frequent. Some savings there. I have had to replace the small 12 volt battery twice, about the norm for a car that age.
Now compared to cars the same age I used to drive.. I have had no need to change any belts, hoses, starters, water pumps, brake pads, etc. The sum total of items failed has been the bulb in the dome light.
Due to the lack of a starter motor, this is won't ever be a repair bill. The car has only one belt, the AC belt. The new model eliminated that belt. There is no belt driven water pump. The electric pump has been very reliable. The regenerative breaking drastically reduces brake wear. At my 80,000 miles tire change I checked the brakes and had 80% remaining. They will need changed at about 200,000 miles. The car has a linear electric motor for the power steering assistance, not hydraulic. Hose and pump failure won't happen.
The mechanical portion of the transmission has less than 10 moving parts, none of which is a clutch, band, or disk, or friction part. A mechanical transmission failure is very unlikely. If the hybrid battery pack fails, it is less expensive than most transmission replacements. I will be unlikely to need to replace the entire pack. Replacing a failed 7.2 volt module from the 36 module pack is much more likely. The modules are recyclable. Finding a used one at the same age of the rest of the pack won't be too difficult.
I am well into the payback period and loving it. My wife's car of the same age has already been in for a couple repairs exceeding $300 each.
I bought the car knowing that low repair bills was part of the payback. I figured the payback for 100,000 miles at the time I bought it. The gas prices then was at the 2003 gas prices.
The short sighted report listed a 5 year ownership. It did not list a 100,000+ mile study. I did my study when gas was under $2/gallon. Over the life of my car ownership, the gas prices were higher as anticipated and the payback period started well before 100,000 miles. The Prius replaced another smaller 4 cylinder car, not a large gas hog.
If you counted the first five years of my car's ownership, the study would have been correct as the payback period was just being reached.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
Very, very wrong.
Rolling resistance is not related to the coefficient of friction of the rubber. It is primarily related to the suppleness of the tyre casing allowing it to roll over minor variations in the road surface without giving up lots of energy in heat associated with the deformation of the tyre. (It is also related to inflation pressure - which is one reason why car manufacturers recommend you maintain your tyres at optimum pressure.)
These sorts of tyres are well know for bicycles and the effects can be dramatic and noticeable when it is your own legs supplying the power rather than an engine. Indeed, the tyres with the lowest rolling resistance also tend to have the stickiest rubber. When I ungraded my bike tyres I got: lower rolling resistance, better cornering, and better wet weather performance. On a bike at least, they also give a more comfortable ride because you are not bouncing over the micro-contours of the road nearly as much.