They are "double dipping", in a sense. Or at least they've erred in a big way. The "extra depreciation cost" is ONLY there if you assume that the hybrid will depreciate at the same RATE as a non-hybrid, i.e., because it costs more, it will lose more value per year if you are "depreciating" on paper (as for tax purposes - the government doesn't care how much value the item ACTUALLY loses, it makes an assumption based on the type of item), using straight-line or accelerated depreciation, which are measured as a percentage of cost basis lost each year for a set period. So if you are straight-line depreciating over 10 years, a $10,000 car would be presumed to lose 10% of its value, or $1,000, each year. A $20,000 car would be presumed to lose the same 10%, or $2,000, each year. So CR would say you have $1,000 "extra depreciation" each year with the $20,000 car. I think that must be what they are doing.

BUT the only REAL cost (as opposed to theoretical, or tax-based, cost - which is actually a BENEFIT, because it provides more of a tax deduction IF you can take the depreciation, for example if the car is used for business purposes) is the ACTUAL amount of value lost each year, in terms of resale value. And that is, for hybrids, much LESS than a typical car (I think). So there is actually a double benefit (if you can deduct your auto expenses on taxes; wouldn't apply for the typical non-business vehicle) - the INCREASED chargeable depreciation (i.e., you can deduct $2,000 per year rather than $1,000, so you get a bigger deduction and less tax to pay), and the DECREASED loss in actual value!

They are treating it as if the theoretical, paper loss is a REAL cost (when, if anything, it would be a benefit), and ignoring the actual benefit from the greater resale value.

And why do they have increased maintenance cost, when oil changes are only needed 1/3 as often? I'd think you'd at least break even on that, even if the maintenance costs a bit more when it is necessary.

What is it with these people??? WHY do they want SO much to "prove" that hybrids aren't "worth it"??? It's like they're paid off by Exxon or something. I mean, I can see slanting their perspective a bit, but it's like they're working really hard to MAKE the math work out this way, even if they have to LIE. I just don't get it.