http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fuelec...3/article.html

"Edmunds Study: Do Hybrids Make Financial Sense Yet?
There are many good reasons to buy a hybrid. Saving money still isn't one of them.
Date Posted 08-17-2006 With rising gas prices and attractive tax credits, many consumers feel they are making a frugal choice when they buy a hybrid car or SUV. Right? Well, not exactly.

Sure, there are a lot of good reasons to buy a hybrid, such as reduced emissions and the conservation of limited oil reserves. However, from a strictly financial point of view it will take years before a hybrid will save a consumer enough money to pay for the added expense of buying one.

Edmunds has crunched the numbers, and has determined just how long it would take for buyers of new hybrids to break even (save enough money on gas to offset the additional expense of buying a hybrid). The results are surprising: Of vehicles that have an equivalent hybrid version, the 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid has the earliest break-even point. However, it still takes 2.9 years to save an Escape Hybrid's owner enough money to break even when compared to the cost of a four-cylinder 2007 Escape XLT. Other highlights show the Toyota Camry Hybrid takes 8.2 years to break even compared to the powerful six-cylinder Camry LE and 5.8 years with the loaded four-cylinder Camry XLE. The Lexus RX 400h takes a whopping 13.6 years to break even with the Lexus RX 350.

Calculations were based on Edmunds' True Market Value for each vehicle, 15,000 miles per year combined city and highway driving, the average national price of gas ($3 per gallon on August 14), rebates and 2006 federal tax credits. We sought the most equivalent model from within the carmakers' lineups. Where necessary, we added options, such as leather or a sunroof in the 2006 Toyota Highlander Limited, in order to make the hybrid-to-gas model comparison as close as possible.

What about the 2006 Toyota Prius? This category creator doesn't have an equivalent gas-only version, so we compared it to both the 2006 Toyota Corolla LE and the gas-only Camry LE. This comparison skews the numbers dramatically: It takes the Prius a shocking 13.6 years to catch up with the Corolla. Comparing the Prius to the Camry LE, though, makes it a scene-stealer: only 2.1 years to break even, the shortest of any of our comparisons. But beware: The numbers here include the Prius' gigantic $3,150 federal tax credit, which will drop to $1,575 in October, because the number of total Toyota hybrids sold has reached a 60,000-unit-per-manufacturer cap.

Commuters who put an average 25,000 miles on their vehicle will find their break-even times dramatically shortened (see chart below); those who drive significantly less than 15,000 miles per year will find it takes even longer to reach the break-even point. . . ."At last, a fair report.

Sure, payback depends upon what is compared to what but at least they made an honest attempt to compare Apples and Apples. Of course, who ever makes a payback analysis of vehicle 'eye candy?' What is the payback for alloy wheels?

Bob Wilson

 

I don't think they get it at all, I did not buy my Accord Hybrid for the reasons they are listing.

I do not want a 4 cylinder car, I want a 6 cylinder, I want it fully loaded, it is stupid to compare all of these hybrids with entry level cars from each model line and then try to say that the buyer was not to bright, why they could have bought the 4 cylinder model instead for less money.

Time for Edmund's and the rest to get a clue, I don't want the cheapest car in the line up, if I did I would have bought the stripper Accord, I happen to feel I have one hell of a deal and car in the fully loaded Accord Hybrid and could care less what the 4 cylinder Accord would have cost me.

By the way my Accord is averaging 29.7 mpg in the city right now with only 1300 miles on it. The Diamonte I traded in was only getting 18 mpg in the city and only able to pull 24 mpg on the highway.

I don't know about you but I think my new Accord Hybrid is doing a darn fine job of saving me money on fuel.

In summary it is stupid to compare Hybrids against the bottom of the line cars in each model line up, I would have never bought the bottom line Accord.

Following Edmund's reasoning anyone buying a full tilt Lexus should be compared the same way as they could have bought a stripper Avalon or Camry and saved tens of thousands of dollars, now how many years do you think it would take the owner of a 75,000 Lexus to break even against a 35,000 Avalon?

Pretty stupid to even compare, but that is what Edmund's and others are doing with Hybrids.

 

I feel that no matter what car you buy the bottom line is that at some point in time in the not too distant future, hybrid cars/trucks will be the only choice we have. Current hybrid technology will be the bridge to the next generation EV culture. Then the tune will be why buy an EV when I can still buy a hybrid until all that's available will be EV's. If people still feel comfortable with a nonhybrid so be it. They will be available for years to come but change is in the wind.

 

Edmunds didn't compare to the "bottom of the line", or "stripper", or "cheapest", did you read the report?

Your Accord Hybrid simply won't save you gas money until you rack up 175K compared to the comparably equipped V6 EX, not the stripper. What's stupid about that comparison?

I think the Accord was dropped because it didn't make much sense to most buyers. If you want the quickest Accord it does work, but saving money on fuel doesn't offset the premium you paid.

 

Please let me say that Hybrids are not the best dollar for mile deal out there. There are many base line cars MSRP for $9-$14,000 range that get good mileage, and is what Edmunds loved to compare with in the past.

Personally when I was in the new car market I was looking for:
1. Safety rating
2. Maximumuel economy
3. Nice fully loaded compact car

If I'd taken Edmunds suggestions would have ignored my #3 requirement, ended up with a car I didn't like, driving it like my last car and hating it to death...but the staff and most members at Edmunds would have been convinced I made the right decision and cheer me on because it wouldn't be a hybrid Civic.

Regarding the AHA the fact that it's clearly the fastsest Accord is only a foot note to its FE capability, as if those numbers don't exist.

 

Edmunds was not alone. In private conversations, it usually didn't take much to turn the comparison to a real 'piece of dung' rolling junkers. Usually that was enough to wake folks up to the dishonesty of comparing a loaded hybrid to some bare, metal, bottom of the barrel, rust bucket. Invariably, the biggest ticket mismatch was the automatic transmission.

Automatic transmissions usually add at least $1,000 and a 10-15% MPG hit. They also prevent driver tricks such as shifting outside of normal operating ranges (i.e., lugging the engine and 'clutch in' coasting for MPG and high RPM operation for performance.) But there are parts on hybrids, standard parts, that are extra cost on non-hybrids:

1) alloy wheels
2) spoiler(s)
3) electric locks and windows
4) premium sound system
5) GPS navigation
6) bluetooth, cell phone or MP3/iPod interface
7) automated AC / temperature controls
8) power mirrors

I appreciate that Edmunds is finally including these extra cost items in the comparison vehicles. That is a good start. Now if we can just whack the rest of the automotive press everytime with these facts and data, we'll start getting something usable.

Bob Wilson

 

A few random thoughts generated by this thread:

Wouldn't it be nice if hybrids could be available without so many options and frills so that more people could afford them and so they could pay off sooner? Then we'd stop seeing so many articles about how they aren't cost efficient.

It also would be nice if Edmunds and other sources could focus on near-zero emissions, a gift that hybrid owners give ourselves and the rest of the world.