I think there are a few hare brained flaws in the Consumer Reports analysis.
Looking at the Civic Hybrid, they calculate a $4000 price premium. Okay, I won;t argue with that. The MSRP difference is less but you can probably negotiate a better deal on an EX than on a Hybrid.
But then what's with the depreciation cost? Is a Hybrid going to sell for $2900 less than a EX after five years? I don't think so. And if not, then they're double counting the depreciation. You either lose when you buy the car, or you lose when you sell it. You don't lose the same dollar twice.
Next is the finance cost. Did you buy the car for cash or did you finance it? If you bought for cash you already paid $4000 extra. You have no financing cost. If you financed it, you have an extra financing cost but you didn't pay out $4000 extra up front. Again, double counting.
Finally there's the matter of fuel economy and saving on gas. Consumer Reports uses 37 MPG for the hybrid and 28 MPG for the EX. That's 32% more miles per gallon for the hybrid.
The EPA numbers are 50 MPG vs. 34 MPG respectively. That's 47% more miles per gallon for the hybrid.
Reports from actual drivers at
http://www.fueleconomy.gov show 46.3 vs. 31.5. That's also 47% more miles per gallon for the hybrid.
Whatever mileage figure we use, I think it's disingenuous for CU to assume that all published mileage figures for the hybrid are less realistic than those for the EX. The mileage advantage of the hybrid is 47%, not 32%. Translated into dollars, the CU figure of $1700 should be corrected to about $2500.
If I remove the depreciation and financing cost from their table, and add $700 in fuel savings, I end up with a 5 year cost advantage of $500 for the hybrid.
The Consumer Reports cover headline says "Hybrid Hype?" (Talk about biased headlining
). My answer is no. There is no hype. At least in the case of the Civic Hybrid the economics are just about break-even. And we get the bonus of environmental and macro-economic benefits.