I ran across this article this morning. I don't agree with their analysis, it is just another example skewing the truth. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...sts-usat_x.htm

Billy

Yep, same here, disagree mostly with their analysis.

It's interesting in that most 'industry analysts' keep harping on this point: "hybrids don't make economics sense, why are people buying them?". I think they are simply sticking their heads in the sand about one of the most obvious reasons many people are interested in or buying hybrids: they want to do something less damaging to the environment while maintaining mobility. With the current crop of hybrids, the market finally has some options of functional, attractive cars that allow users to do just that, and that's why they are flying off the shelf, not because people are intent on saving money. If they were intent on that, they would not pay msrp, or even premiums for used cars!
The industry analysts just don't get it.

Not only are their heads in the sand, but they are operating in a vacuum, too.

When one determines the feasibility of purchasing a hybrid for their use, they take into account the current environment they are working in. When I purchased my HCH, I didn't take into account what the EX cost, I compared it to what I was currenly driving.

Since May of 2004, I have put over 30K miles on my hybrid. The vehicle I retired (still in use for special purposes), was a 1993 Ford F150 truck, which got 15 MPG. It had 195K miles and a lot of little things were going wrong. I had gotten stuck once last year when a tensioner pulley broke and the power windows were becoming balky in warm weather.

In a gas only comparison, I would have spend approximately $2,717 more for gasoline during that time. Granted, I put that $2,717 (plus some) into car payments, but I have avoided paying for the needed repairs on the truck, I have not had to stop as often for gas (the F150 had a crusing range of 225 miles compared to the 600-700 on the HCH), and I can carry my golf clubs in the trunk.

Oh, BTW, using less gas feels good.

When someone else tries to tell you what makes sense, shake them out of their oblivious state. What makes sense to one person, doesn't necessarily make sens to another person. That's what makes us individuals.

::gets off soap box before someone kicks it out from underneath him::

-Charlie...

I think there are a bunch or reasons that folks buy hybrids. Doing good for the environment is definitely one of them. I personally like how quiet the car is, and knowing that I can drive 550 miles on a tank, or in my case the entire week, without filling up. If I drove our dodge Pick-up I'd have to fill up twice in that 550 mile run and kick out 80 bucks a week in gas! I kick out about 26-28 dollars per week. I don't need a truck all the time. People keep comparing the Hybrid with its non-hybrid counterparts. My Civics counterparts are boring. The HCH is a lot of fun to drive.
I get around 45 mpg. This is my very rough formula.

Civic CVT averages 47.5
Civic LX auto averages 35
If I drive 550 miles, I use 11.6 gallons in the HCH
If I drive 550 miles, I use 15.7 in the LX, and have to stop for gas sometime during the week.
That is about $32. a month saved on gas.

My payment is $366.00 per month.

LX would be about $300.00 per month.

Economic sense, absolutely. Those short sited writers don't seem to grasp that a hybrid isn't the only car most of us own. I love my truck, but I can't stand dumping $45.00 a pop at the pump.

We drive the truck a total of 200 miles per week these days compared to the 350 miles per week we did drive it. That other 150 has been taken over by the HCH.
"not figured in above".
In that 150 mile drive, I spend $20.00 in gas for the truck for 10 gallons.
when I drive the Civic I spend $7.00. That is $13.00 per week saved, or $52.00 per month.
We really like driving the HCH. If we had a standard Civic, we would keep using the truck all the time. I can't explain why, but we just would.

By driving a hybrid, I hope that I am helping to drive down demand for fuel, and doing something good for the environment. I still like all the technology though. It is just fun to drive.

Hi All:

___I wonder if the writers graduating from today’s universities are being programmed to a single train of thought. If I did not know any better, most appear to be mindless minions? We have all seen this kind of write up hundreds of times in the past yet the same old cliché pops up again and again.

___Maybe these so called writer’s need to evaluate why many purchase the V6 instead of the I4 or the V8 instead of the 6 in many vehicles today at the average hit of ~ $2,000? Maybe they need to consider those that purchased a Prius II one + year ago for $23K are sitting on a vehicle still worth $21 - $25K after one + year of use vs. a Camry buyer who lost maybe $5,000 over that same period not including the extra gas they had to place in the tank to drive the same distance! Do any of these writers have a single unique though in their head?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

Lets have some fun shall we? If anyone finds any errors let me know.

Humm lets compare economy of a v8. v8 premium $1000, 10 stops per day, average wage for owner $35/hr. V8 acceleration 0-60 = 5 seconds, I4 0-60 acceleratation 10 seconds


Number of times needed to accelerate from a stop light = 10 (just a random number.)

Time saved = 10(stops) *5(seconds) = 50 seconds per day
50 seconds per day * 365 = 18250 seconds or 304.17 minutes a year or 5.07 hours a year

5.07 hours * $35/hour = 177.45

It will take over 5 1/2 years to make up the cost of the premium for the V8.

This assumes a) the car only has a $1000 premium for the v8 and b) the person buying it makes $35/hr, and c) we don't deduct for the added fuel cost of a car getting 18 miles per gallon vs 30 miles per gallon.

Boy, V8s are a real waste of money. No wonder there are so few on the road.

There we go. Thats my fake article evaluating the worthyness of V8 vehicles.

My hydroponics experiment

You ever notice how hard it is to lip read cartoon characters?
"Crazy is what the sane call Delta Flyer"

Tom, I'm not even joking when I say you should write an article saying exactly that. I know you hate writing -- maybe you could ask someone else to do it. But that would make one awesome comparison.

Visit my newly-acquired website, Volconvo Debate Forums!

I fudged with my assumptions to make the numbers look worse. Thats what journalists do right? I still need to find ways to make the numbers look reasonable and get the payback out to around 10 years. Any ideas?

My hydroponics experiment

You ever notice how hard it is to lip read cartoon characters?
"Crazy is what the sane call Delta Flyer"

I don't dispute that a segment of the population exists that buys a car with immediate out of pocket cost as a important consideration.

If cost is the overiding consideration however, then *used* cars are the way to go, and this discussion is irrelevant.

For the group that buys new, but does not ignore value, I always ask a somewhat different question: if you could pollute less, and contribute less to US dependence on middle-east oil without it costing you *anything*, would you be interested ? Any reasonable person would answer "of course !" Millions of people would view 25 cents/day tremendous value in return for no dependence on middle-east oil, and less CO2 pollution.

Then, the question becomes how much the person drives, what fraction of city vs HWy driving, what they expect to pay for gas, and how long they anticipate keeping the car. This gives a matrix that is much more valid than the small print ***-umptions the article makes. 3% gas price increase/year might be true, but the stock market sure does not think so. Why pick 1/3 city driving -- other than to skew the results against hybrids ?

Then they compound the bias by not mentioning tax deductions and credits that can be up to $3500, depending on the state the car is purchased in. This might be offset by lower than MSRP market prices for non-hybrid choices, but I could not tell from the article what prices were used.

The jist of the article is moronic: if your cannot be assured HUGE savings, then the best thing to do is pollute more, send kids to Iraq, and contribute to climate change. Huhh ????

All y'all make some good points but personally I think that it is a good idea to provide a realistic economic assessment of cost vs savings. Lots of folks are all crabby because they are not getting their EPA mileage, which is giving hybrids a bad name. It is better to be realistic and let the customer decide. Promote gas savings and lower polution and the "feel good" aspect of the hybrid but don't sell em on false hope.