Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tochatihu
|
I'm not sure we have an ending yet - happy or otherwise.
In referencing the above link, I noticed some things with reference to the FEH:
1) the mileage given was 26 mpg. Even in the cold weather we have had here in Michigan, my tanks have never been below 30. In the summer I have gotten 40+ tanks. The article dropped the mileage from the EPA estimates for the FEH when it should have increased them. I'll bet they didn't discount the EPA estimates for the FEXLT.
2) The author(s) assume that the vehicle was bought in California in January 2006. How typical is a January 2006 purchase? I don't know and I'll bet the author(s) don't either. I think there is sufficient evidence that California, being a green state, is not typical.
3) The difference in vehicle purchase price for the FEH compared to the FEXLT is larger than actually occurs - at least here in the Great Lake State. I defy anyone to get a FEXLT for less that $25K in Michigan. The price of the FEH is approximately correct, (perhaps a little inflated) for Michigan.
4) The maintenence is estimated for a five year ownership period, but the FEH has only been available for two years. I fully expect the maintenence on my FEH to be substantially less (not by just a few %), in part because the hybrid components - including substantial parts of the power train - are covered for eight years. I believe that the rest of the FEH will prove to be more reliable than the FEXLT. I consider any claim that the maintence will be substantially the same for the two vehicles to be at odds with reasonable expectations.
5) The article claims that insurance is higher for the hybrid models, presumably reflecting their respective replacement costs. But some insurance carriers are offering discounts for hybrids, and I don't know of any which charge higher rates for a hybrid. I would also expect that hybrid drivers are less likely to be involved in accidents - and the ones they do get into will tend to be less severe in terms of injury and property damage. This would also tend to reduce insurance rates.
The above specifically refer to Michigan. This is the only state for which I have direct information. Perhaps it is atypical and the article (as corrected) is spot on - but I doubt it.