It's a down economy, and a hybird costs more than a 'regular' car. Hybrid's also have the potential to be confusing, like how many REAL miles can the Leaf do? I still don't trust batteries to keep a full charge after 6 months, just ask my cell phone. (I realize there are other hybrids, just an example).
Plus those regular cars do a lot better on gas nowadays than they ever have.
Has anyone done a real break-even analysis on these cars (based on real life performance numbers), including maintenance costs and assuming various fuel prices? Even with subsidies, my hybrid-driving friends end up shelling out more money than I do.
Every statistic I've seen is concocted (including the chevy volt's "infinite" mpg claims way back when).
Haha they are stop and go drivers in NYC. I'd presume they would have an edge especially given the poor fuel economy of most cars when sitting in traffic
I am one of those in the article. A few years ago I needed a new car, running the math it wasn't a fantastic deal and I could get a much nicer car (performance, looks, style, sound, features) for the same total price. I also said "maybe the next one with be a hybrid/electric".
My math said the opposite, actually. Factoring in the $50 (minimum) a month saved in gas, and my payment was about the same for a Prius or a Corolla/Civic. Plus, fluctuations in the price of gas effect me far less and in the end, my car is still worth more than a non-hybrid car, if I were to sell it.
A car is an investment. A lousy one, but you still can't think of it only based total price vs features. You have to consider depreciation and operating costs more than upfront price.
Back in 2008 when I bought my car the used Prius's were going for almost the price of a new one. This seemed like a short term fad of near zero depreciation and unwise to bet that it would stay that way. The Prius was really the only game in town at the time, gas prices were high, but it was clear that there would be plenty of new hybrids in the coming years.
After hunting around for less than the price as a Prius (used or new) I got a barely used 6 speed manual G35 with all of the bells and whistles (15K miles, very clean engine, good find). The fact that it only gets ~22MPG in the peek of expensive gas might have been part of the reason I got it for so cheap. There is no debate that a G35 beats the pants of of a Civic or Corolla any day. Doing the math of $500 savings in gas a year I still have a few more years before it would have been cheaper to buy a Prius based upon the price difference.
I have had no garage work on my G35 other than the standard oil change etc. To make things simple I will assume that the Prius would have been just as good. (How often do you have to change the battery?)
I just looked up on kbb A brand new 2008 Prius would only be worth ~$400 more than my used G35 if I sold it today. So the math no matter how I look at it worked out for me and I got a nicer car to drive the past few years.
But the real lesson I have seen over and over which is that any time someone runs the math they have different variables. If I were to buy a car today the used Prius's have actually dropped in price so that estimate is completely different that a few years ago, gas is now cheaper, I probably couldn't find that G35 again, and now there are other hybrids to compare against.
Well, you're comparing new to used. Used is _always_ a better financial decision when you're buying a car (unless, I suppose, gas spikes and you want a hybrid, haha). But even with that working against you, the Prius would be worth more now and you would have saved thousands in gas.
I live in Ann Arbor (pretty green area) and drive a hybrid Camry so my data may be way off-but around here I see plenty of hybrids. Not as many large cars as my Camry (which btw is a fantastic vehicle only made better by being a hybrid) but loads of Priuses (Prii?) and Honda Civic hybrids. A physcian I know even drives one of those monster Toyota Sequoia hybrids.
I made this choice just recently. It came down to the civic hybrid vs the standard civic. The hybrid was about $10,000 more. A quick calculation showed that I'd have to drive the hybrid 584,795 miles to break even on the extra cost at today's fuel cost.
Put another way, I only plan to keep the car to around 100,000 miles. If the hybrid cost more than $1717 above the standard, I'm losing out.
In some ways, hybrids are large-scale social/economic insurance. If gas prices really spike, consumers will have a (relatively) rapid substitution for conventional cars.
Plus, a lot of people claim to care about the environment. At least cars offer a modestly tangible way normal people in normal circumstances can show whether they actually do enough to spend modestly more to do some minor good for said environment.
Plus (part two) a lot of jingoistic America-first types can decide whether they really want to help stick it to those people who jingoistic types don't like but who are selling lots of oil or whether those jingoistic types are all hat and no cattle. I find the number of people who favor or favored U.S. intervention in Iraq but who drive pickup trucks to be somewhat puzzling.
I purchased my Civic hybrid as insurance. At the time, gas was $4.65/gal, so I decided to take the chance. Turns out that it was the peak in 2008. You win some, you lose some. The Civic is still a nice low maintenance car with a 10 year, 100k mile battery warranty.
When we needed a second car last year, I went for a VW Jetta TDI, and it has been a very good decision. The car averages 34 MPG with my mixed highway and arterial road commute.
No, you don't have to drive half a million miles, the car just has to have an overall lifetime of at least that. Otherwise, you're saying that all your investment would be used up by the time you sell it after 100,000 miles, which will hardly be the case; the used hybrid will still be worth considerably more than a used non-hybrid.
I just did a price check for a 2008 Camry SE and 2008 Prius. They both cost about the same new ($23000), but the Prius is now worth about $500 more. Not only would you not have lost your initial investment in a hybrid power train, but it depreciated slower.
But, let's say in 2008 you thought that hybrids were all hype and bought a Corolla instead. According to KBB, you paid $16000 for your Corolla and I paid $23000 for my Prius. My Prius is now worth $15000, so I lost $8000 to depreciation. But your Corolla is now worth $9500, so you lost $6500. The difference in the depreciation numbers is about the same ratio as the difference in initial price, so the argument isn't really against hybrids, per say, but that when you pay more for a car, you lose more in depreciation.
Of course, in 3+ years I've probably saved a couple grand in gas, which pushes my operating costs _below_ yours, even though you bought a very cheap, economical car and didn't buy into all the hybrid hype.
And as to battery pack replacement... well, who knows. But there are plenty of original Priuses on the road right now on the original packs; which makes them over 10 years old. It's just a maintenance cost. When a car is 10 years old, you pay a lot for maintenance. Replacing a timing belt is not cheap either!
I never quite understood hybrid cars other than buying them as an indirect donation to pursue hybrid technology. Hybrids are worse for the environment than regular plain-ole' ICE cars and don't really give you much of an efficiency boost.
Diesel engines are right up there with hybrids in the fuel efficiency game. Take for instance to VW Polo BlueMotion which is rated 70mpg+ Highway. The Passat BlueMotion is worse but still an impressive 57mpg+ Highway.
Also consider that some biodiesel fuels are near 100% carbon neutral (such as hemp-based biodiesels), in that they sequester as much carbon dioxide from the air as they will eventually burn into once combusted.
I second the vote for diesel cars/minivans. Much simpler internals than hybrids with comparable (if not better fuel economy). I'd also venture to guess that the total environmental impact including the manufacturing processes is much less too. I wish VW/Audi/BMW/Mercedes sold a decent minivan with a diesel engine here in the US and I'd be a buyer. The VW Sharan gets 43MPG+ (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/07/sharan-20100701.html)
It's no coincidence that nearly half of the European cars have diesel engines.
Hey, I've heard that claim that hybrids are worse for the environment than pure internal combustion engines. Honestly I don't see how that's possible and I've never seen read anything that supports it. But I'm not an expert - do you have a source or can you explain it?
Must be referring to the manufacture of the hybrids batteries. I think there was concern a while back they caused a lot of pollution. I never heard anything definitive one way or the other.
I did google it already (and found some of those links, though I appreciate you passing them along). I know a fair amount about the subject matter, I was just looking for a real expert (maybe an electric/chemical/industrial engineer that worked in the area) here, in case my conclusions were incorrect.
The internet is great and all, but it breeds altogether too many fake wikipedia SMEs :)
I have engineering training. But to really tell you whether the Prius is an improvement or not over a non-hybrid Corolla -- I'd need engineering data Toyota isn't going to release.
And just narrowing it to that comparison is going to turn off a lot of people.
hey.. I haven't done extensive research, but I have read several articles claiming that saying that mining the materials that go into batteries is a very very dirty process and pollutes the entire area around the mining operation, and the energy cost of producing a battery is very high.
I have a feeling that once the technology has been around for awhile it will get cleaner, but who knows...
I would love to know more if anyone else has done more research.
On the other hand, a small number of fixed pollution sources can be better overall for the environment than a large number of mobile sites spread all over, even if the former emit more total pollution.
Diesel is about 20% more energy dense (and corrospondingly more expensive) than petrol, so it's no great surprise that diesel cars get 20% better mileage. Besides, matching a hybrid on the freeway is not nearly as difficult as in the city. Those numbers you quoted are both highway, but both those cars get under 30 in the city.
Hybrids look even less attractive in Europe. For example a VW Golf Bluemotion consumes actually less fuel on the average with highway consumption being significantly less and top of that diesel is still slightly cheaper than gasoline. Even with a vehicle tax rebate meaning 300-500 euros less per year the Prius doesn't seem such a great buy.
I really thought there would be more all electric cars on the roads by now. The pace of car tech is excrutiating. 5 years ago there was all hype that hybrids were just temporary transition models. And here they're still trying to sell these over-engineered luxury green cars.
Where are the affordable, small, city-oriented all electric commuting cars that would actually make a difference?
"Where are the affordable, small, city-oriented all electric commuting cars that would actually make a difference?"
Two things: Batteries, and regulations. Battery technology remains obstinate, and regulations put a lower bound on how light you can make the car before it starts failing a variety of tests in exciting ways, especially collision tests.
I've seen a "car" that gets 100mpg, even at reasonable speeds (~55 mph), on straight-up gasoline. But you would not want to ride that thing into a wall at 55 mph. There was wood where you'd expect metal, for instance...
I've continued to speculate about the signaling aspect. That is, a hybrid (specifically, a Prius) being a way to purchase a small car without looking "unsuccessful". Unfortunately, I live and work in an area where such reactions can negatively influence your ability to "get things done".
More recently, the new Mini's have started appearing, possibly as another small car that avoids undesired "signaling". They are not that cheap, and they are "fun"; small is ok, if it's "fun".
Some years back, the BMW 3 series straddled this signaling line, to some extent. It was a small, less expensive Beamer (not quite there, yet?), but it was a Beamer and also made a certain sense for the sole commuter.
40 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 99.4 ms ] threadPlus those regular cars do a lot better on gas nowadays than they ever have.
Every statistic I've seen is concocted (including the chevy volt's "infinite" mpg claims way back when).
A car is an investment. A lousy one, but you still can't think of it only based total price vs features. You have to consider depreciation and operating costs more than upfront price.
After hunting around for less than the price as a Prius (used or new) I got a barely used 6 speed manual G35 with all of the bells and whistles (15K miles, very clean engine, good find). The fact that it only gets ~22MPG in the peek of expensive gas might have been part of the reason I got it for so cheap. There is no debate that a G35 beats the pants of of a Civic or Corolla any day. Doing the math of $500 savings in gas a year I still have a few more years before it would have been cheaper to buy a Prius based upon the price difference.
I have had no garage work on my G35 other than the standard oil change etc. To make things simple I will assume that the Prius would have been just as good. (How often do you have to change the battery?)
I just looked up on kbb A brand new 2008 Prius would only be worth ~$400 more than my used G35 if I sold it today. So the math no matter how I look at it worked out for me and I got a nicer car to drive the past few years.
But the real lesson I have seen over and over which is that any time someone runs the math they have different variables. If I were to buy a car today the used Prius's have actually dropped in price so that estimate is completely different that a few years ago, gas is now cheaper, I probably couldn't find that G35 again, and now there are other hybrids to compare against.
Put another way, I only plan to keep the car to around 100,000 miles. If the hybrid cost more than $1717 above the standard, I'm losing out.
Put me in the hybrids are hype column.
In some ways, hybrids are large-scale social/economic insurance. If gas prices really spike, consumers will have a (relatively) rapid substitution for conventional cars.
Plus, a lot of people claim to care about the environment. At least cars offer a modestly tangible way normal people in normal circumstances can show whether they actually do enough to spend modestly more to do some minor good for said environment.
Plus (part two) a lot of jingoistic America-first types can decide whether they really want to help stick it to those people who jingoistic types don't like but who are selling lots of oil or whether those jingoistic types are all hat and no cattle. I find the number of people who favor or favored U.S. intervention in Iraq but who drive pickup trucks to be somewhat puzzling.
When we needed a second car last year, I went for a VW Jetta TDI, and it has been a very good decision. The car averages 34 MPG with my mixed highway and arterial road commute.
But, let's say in 2008 you thought that hybrids were all hype and bought a Corolla instead. According to KBB, you paid $16000 for your Corolla and I paid $23000 for my Prius. My Prius is now worth $15000, so I lost $8000 to depreciation. But your Corolla is now worth $9500, so you lost $6500. The difference in the depreciation numbers is about the same ratio as the difference in initial price, so the argument isn't really against hybrids, per say, but that when you pay more for a car, you lose more in depreciation.
Of course, in 3+ years I've probably saved a couple grand in gas, which pushes my operating costs _below_ yours, even though you bought a very cheap, economical car and didn't buy into all the hybrid hype.
And as to battery pack replacement... well, who knows. But there are plenty of original Priuses on the road right now on the original packs; which makes them over 10 years old. It's just a maintenance cost. When a car is 10 years old, you pay a lot for maintenance. Replacing a timing belt is not cheap either!
Diesel engines are right up there with hybrids in the fuel efficiency game. Take for instance to VW Polo BlueMotion which is rated 70mpg+ Highway. The Passat BlueMotion is worse but still an impressive 57mpg+ Highway.
Also consider that some biodiesel fuels are near 100% carbon neutral (such as hemp-based biodiesels), in that they sequester as much carbon dioxide from the air as they will eventually burn into once combusted.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090419130916AA...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071028204335AA...
http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html
The internet is great and all, but it breeds altogether too many fake wikipedia SMEs :)
And just narrowing it to that comparison is going to turn off a lot of people.
I have a feeling that once the technology has been around for awhile it will get cleaner, but who knows...
I would love to know more if anyone else has done more research.
I was recently in Ireland and diesel was .10c cheaper a liter.
Where are the affordable, small, city-oriented all electric commuting cars that would actually make a difference?
Two things: Batteries, and regulations. Battery technology remains obstinate, and regulations put a lower bound on how light you can make the car before it starts failing a variety of tests in exciting ways, especially collision tests.
I've seen a "car" that gets 100mpg, even at reasonable speeds (~55 mph), on straight-up gasoline. But you would not want to ride that thing into a wall at 55 mph. There was wood where you'd expect metal, for instance...
More recently, the new Mini's have started appearing, possibly as another small car that avoids undesired "signaling". They are not that cheap, and they are "fun"; small is ok, if it's "fun".
Some years back, the BMW 3 series straddled this signaling line, to some extent. It was a small, less expensive Beamer (not quite there, yet?), but it was a Beamer and also made a certain sense for the sole commuter.