All,

I just received my Consumer Report annual Auto issue today and they had an article on Hybrid costs vs conventional cars - considering the Hybrid Tax Credits of 2006. While this topic has been beaten to death lately, the numbers they were coming up with just seemed wrong to me - for instance they state that it will cost $3700 MORE to own an 06 Civic Hybrid rather than an EX over 5 years, $10,250 (!!!) more to own an Accord hybrid vs an EX sedan, $13,300 more to own a Highlander Hybrid vs. a Highlander Ltd.... etc.. etc... Well after doing a bit of math with their numbers - they are just calculating the numbers incorrectly (I think)! I wrote them a letter explaining what I think is wrong. Their table in the article looks like this - forgive me for plagarizing!

Purchase price premium $4000 (Civic Hybrid vs. EX sedan Automatic)
Extra Sales Tax $300
Savings from hybrid tax credit $2100
Fuel savings $1700
Extra insurance cost (or savings) ($300)
Extra maint. cost (or savings) $100
Extra depreciation cost $2900
Extra financing cost $500

Total 5 year net extra costs $3700

To me - on a cash flow basis - I don't care about the purchase price premium and believe it is irrelevent to the calculation. The actual "cost" of owning a car is the amount you buy it for minus the amount you sell it for - or DEPRECIATION! They are double dipping with their costs I think. I believe you should exclude the first line item there - actually giving the Civic Hybrid a lower cost of ownership than the EX sedan. This is consistent with what intellichoice.com and edmunds.com (true cost of ownership) have taught me.

What do you guys think? Am I off my rocker or did CR screw up?

Eric