At the end of "Meet The Press," there was a commercial of some native people building a limb, stick and leaf Prius while the camera circled around the build site. Then there was a brief wind suggesting a real Prius was under the leaves followed by the slow, falling apart of the native built, Prius. At the end, the camera stops circling pointing at the last sticks and a beautiful shot of a fjord. The narrative was about how green a car company and their products could be.

CNW Marketing: mission accomplished

Toyota has spent a boatload of money on a commercial that does not sell the efficiency of Prius ownership and operation. IMHO, that is the least effective message compared to the real problem of $3/gal permanent and soon enough $3.50-$4.00/gal gas.

If I wanted to be maximum green, I would have an electric motor scooter and a bloat load of home technologies. This is a good for the soul but not the reason my neighbors ask about my vanity tag, "C-52MPG."

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Perhaps Toyotoa had a think tank meeting and determined selling cars by green appeal rather than gas savings appeal will make more money?

Well anyone who buys a Prius for the gas savings only is out to lunch. You will NOT recover the extra cost just in gas savings. Just buy a very small, efficient car, such as a Fit or Yaris. Your 5-10 year costs will be the same or less. Sure, you'll own a tiny car that you will often have to jamb things into, but you'll save money!

Now, if you want to be environmentally responsible, yet still own a comfortable reasonably sized car that can actually carry lots of things, then consider the Prius. It's efficient with fuel, efficient in cabin usage, and generates very little "effluent" per gallon of fuel burned. And you won't have to buy a second vehicle just to carry lots of "things".

I think their message is right on.

Pearl is a
2007 Driftwood Pearl Prius
Package "B" (everything but leather, nav, and rear camera)

Actually, this is the type of commercial that appeals to m:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mlffr3e5P4

One thing I've noticed is how many of the 'payback' analysis depend upon two assumptions: (1) standard miles/year, and (2) today's gas prices. The first simply sets the middle and ignores those of us who do more than 15,000 miles per year . . . power drivers. The second ignores reality of oil production.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

It still shocks me to watch how shallow the thought process is on anyone who tries to consider the "payback" on buying a hybrid.

By figuring out "how long it will take", these people are saying the same thing as... "if I don't buy a hybrid I will burn the difference of vehicle prices in FUEL, in this many years".

The wording is different, but if you don't want to pay $3000.00 extra for a hybrid because based on your driving you figure that it will take you three years to "recoup" your money... you have also just said that to save $3000.00 on the price of a car and buy a less fuel efficient non-hybrid, you are willing to burn $3000.00 of extra fuel in just three years....



08FEH

I have this same issue but it's repeated 10-20 times a week. I sell them.

I've changed my response. Now I just counter that there is no such concept as a 'payback' period. What should be looked at is the total cost of transportation:
vehicle cost
fuel
insurance
maintenance
resale value

TCoT = ( Veh Cost - Resale ) + ( Veh fuel usage * Avg fuel cost * ann mi * lifespan ) + (( Ann Ins + Ann Maint )*lifespan ))

Fuel Cost Est: $3/gal + increases of $.50 a year from now on.

Decide like any business owner how long you plan to keep this asset and how many miles you might drive over that lifetime then make your decision. Of course as Bob noted plugging in unrealistic numbers will not do much to develop a logical conclusion. Saying fuel will fall back to $2 a gallon and stay there is a fantasy; not factoring in reasonable increases in the price of fuel over the next 10 yrs is hiding from the boogeyman.

I've done this analysis on a spreadsheet for every major hybrid on the road today. In every case the conclusion is that the hybrid version ( vs the ICE version ) costs less to own and operate for any 3 or 5 or 7 or 10 yr period. However this only applies to comparable vehicles new Prius vs new Matrix; preowned HCH vs preowned Civic ICE; etc.

The best way for someone on a limitied budget to reduce the cost of transportation on a personal basis is to buy an older preowned vehicle. The cost of the vehicle is usually the largest part of the 'Total Cost of Transportation'.

You have added one brilliant factor that I've ignored the past two years:

Resale

I had ignored this because we are one of those families who drive a car until 'the wheels fall off.' Yet if we look at the resale value of hybrids, all of these b*llsh*t payback analysis suddenly deflate.

Thanks!
Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Maybe Toyota feels if it has a range of commercials it will reach a range of potential customers.

People vary.
Different approaches appeal to different people.

Not everyone thinks like I do.

Need fewer troops to support.
Drive a hybrid.
Best tank 71.65 MPG.

Before this car I spent two years learning hypermiling on my 2004 HCH1.