I mailed the following letter to Consumer Reports about the blunder they made in their Hybrid Car versus All-gas Car Cost Comparison article in April 2006 issue and am posting it here because of potential interest of the greenhybrid members.

 

I think you've got them, Arun. Hope you get an answer to the message.

DAS

 

Good point if they were looking at cost of ownership, not the total cost of the cars. I haven't actually seen the article so I don't know which they were trying to do.

Welcome to GreenHybrid!

 

I saw that article just this weekend. I glanced over it in the few minutes I had and I was bothered by their calculations, though I couldn't put my finger on it, and put it aside to look at more closely when I had more time. I'm glad you are taking them to task about their error.

I had thought that the error was in the tax deductions. I thought they added, rather than subtracted them. Figuring in my $2000 deduction when I first bought my HCH as well as the ~$750 savings in Gas each year for 2 years starts to make up for the extra cost of buying the Hybrid rather than the standard Civic.

Also, I have heard from dealers that some used Priuses (Prii?) actually sell for MORE than their original purchase prices; instead of DEpreciating, they actually Apreciate. Although this is hearsay (and I did see an article on his wall to the same effect), it could indicate that the standard depriciation that Consumer Reports uses needs to be reconsidered for the Prius, and maybe for other Hybrids as well. That could affect their calculations as well.

--A

 

A lot of people seem to think all hybrids cost atleast $4k more than same car in a non-hybrid trim (I even had one girl ask why I would spend $40k on a car just to save gas for other people). I like to point out that an '06 Civic Hybrid's MSRP is $2,790 more than the MSRP of a Civic EX sedan w/automatic transmission. You could subtract about $500 from $2,790 if you want to include the HCH's standard rear spoiler and floormats (and automatic climate control), but I don't since theres no sunroof on the hybrid. Anyway, $2,790 minus the $2,100 federal income tax credit bring it down to just $690. Let's round down and say the average person drives 12k miles per year and gas is only $2.25 cents per gallon, and the hybrid gets 50mpg vs the EX's 35mpg...you'd save $231 per year in fuel costs. $690 divided by $231...3 years to recoup the costs of upgrading to the Hybrid version of the Civic.

I also remind people that the second generation Prius is a midsize car like the Camry and not a compact like the corolla...and that the prius starts at $22,955, a lot of people think it's a $30k car.

 

Busted! Consumer Reports recants:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/14041566.htm

Bask in it, me hearties.

DAS

 

Yes, it admits the computational error. But how about the hidden assumptions?

 

Mistakes happen and I take no schadenfreude. What seperates responsible, trustable journalism from propaganda is admitting mistakes and correcting the record. This is their strength and it makes them worth reading time and time again.

Bob Wilson

 

I'm not sure it is malicious to enjoy a happy ending. Meanwhile, searching CR website for depreciation will lead one here:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...m=depreciation

Where the error persists. But they'll get around to it, no doubt.

DAS

 

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.