The point I'm trying to make is if you need a Suburban just a few times a year, don't make that the daily commute vehicle - use if only when it's really needed.

 

You state this as if it is fact when it is actually false. I recently detailed how after a $1950 federal and $500 state tax credit, the difference is a whopping $1,150. I don't think my experience is all that unusual. Just to take the driver out of the equation lets work with real world numbers for an average driver. I'm taking my fuel estimates for the Hybrid from reviews and posted numbers in other vehicle forums for the V6 version.

Let's assume (based on the numbers I read) that for the average driver their results equate to about 78% of the EPA #'s. For a 50/50 driver of an AWD Hybrid Mariner that would be about 24mpg (33/29). For a 50/50 driver of an AWD V6 Mariner that would be about 16mpg (19/23). Let's assume 12,000 mi per year with gas prices at an even $3.00. The Hybrid driver would use 500 gallons per year, the V6 driver 750 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon the Hybrid driver just saved $750 in the first year. I'm not math genius, but at $750/yr it isn't going to take me 4 years to pay off that difference.....even with a larger premium it won't take 4 years considering the tax credits.

 

How come the media never blasts diesels the same way they blast hybrids? Like hybrids, diesels also cost more and consume less than a standard gasolone vehicle. Is it the whole "battery assist" concept that spooks the nay-sayers?

 

It's because diesels have been around a lot longer than hybrids. Hybrids are the new kids on the block so everyone is kicking the tires so to speak.

Diesels got a bad rap for years.

 

A couple of counter points.

First off I don't think comparing the MMH to the V6 version is fair. I think the better comparison is back to the same 4 cyclinder engine that paired with the hybrid. This is apples to apples. By doing this you are factoring only the cost of the hybrid option? If you start comparing the Hybrid to the V6 I think it clouds the waters and you can make to many arguements one way or the other towards validity. Yes I understand the hybrid gives you more power

Please keep in mind that my below statements regarding cost will be a generalization. some are able find really good deals on Hybrids.. For instance I only paid $300 over invoice for my HiHy. That being said. Most people are going to be paying very close to MSRP for their Hybrid while the are probably looking at something very close to invoice for a non-hybrid. So for lack of a better resource here are some numbers from Edmunds. I believe this at least gives a realistic market value number.

TMV for a 2007 MMH AWD with no package is $28,340
TMV for a 2007 MM 4 cyl AWD with every selectable option is $24,459

This makes the price difference at $3881 before tax credits. After your credits you are now at $1431. If you get a state tax credit which not everyone does.

MMH (33/29) => 78% of average = 24 mpg
4-cyl MM (21/24) => 78% of average = 18 mpg

So we have a 6 mpg difference. Over 12,000 miles MMH uses 500 gallons the MM uses 667 gallons for a savings of 167 gallons at $3 is $501 a year.

This means you take app 3 yers to recoups you cost in gas savings. If you live in a state that does not provide a $500 tax credit then you are now at 4 years. So you are correct that I was off by a year, but it takes more than the 1.5 years you are suggesting.

The issue isn't with the math. The question is which comparison is more valid. comparing the MMH to the V6 or the identical engine without the hybrid. If you are simply trying to answer the question how long does it take me to pay for the hybrid option then the comparison needs to be made using the same engine sans hybrid. Then you can strictly talk discuss how much fuel do I save by adding a hybrid option to my existing platform, and how long must I own the vehicle to recoupe the upfront cost.

I still stand by my statement that if you are ONLY buying a hybrid to save money on gas, you will have to be committed to owning the vehicle around 5+ years to break even.

 

I think in all likelyhood Hybrids will ultimately cost more. You can't just say "oh, look at my gas savings during this narrow window of time".

1. The cars cost quite a bit more to buy. Look at a Civic LX vs Civic Hybrid. Or Camry LE vs Camry Hybrid.
2. You haven't factored in battery replacement, and frankly, that is an unknown. But almost certainly it will need to be replaced at some point.
3. Once we find out when batteries need to be replaced, the depreciation schedule will adjust to compensate for that. If it needs replacing typically at the 7 year mark, you'll have to subtract the battery cost from the value, and that's a direct expense to you.

Regarding point 1... I don't care what the price of the hybrid is compared to the top model if I would have never bought the top model. Ever wonder why they're only sold in the top of the line trim? I think it is absurd that most people on this board think that someone TRULY interested in watching costs is going to buy the most expensive model + hybrid fees. Hybrid tech shouldn't be a luxury feature, and right now it is... and that is telling about the cost to the manufacturer. Even on cars with huge profit margins like the Lexus models, they only put the hybrid in as the top, most luxurious model.

At this point, it isn't even clear if the additional cost of the hybrid system over the life of the vehicle will lower total expenses by the owner, or even reduce greenhouse gases. Some of the data is unknown at this point (battery life, CVT reliability).

Oh, and saying that it almost pays for itself with a tax credit means it doesn't pay for itself. The tax credit should be squashed. These things should stand on their own if they make sense.

When I can buy a Honda LX Hybrid for $1500 more than a normal LX, I'll believe the hybrid makes sense. But after several months of reading posts here and doing the math, I don't think they do from strictly a consumer cost or emissions standpoint.

 

Unlike the previous poster, I have a hybrid and can definitively say my 2000 5-speed Insight has required less maintainence than the 1988 CRX HF that came before it. Furthermore, I've about broken even on fuel savings, assuming that fuzzy $3,000 hybrid premium. With today's gas prices, breaking even in my instance would be much quicker. The computations are using 58.5mpg - today I'm getting in the 70s.



The detail of my experiences

 

I don't know why people keep insisting on comparing the Hybrid combo to the 4 cylinder engine. That is not an apples to apples comparison. Would you price compare the V6 to the 4 Cylinder of the same model? The 4WD to the 2WD? The answer is no. To be fair, we need to compare similarly equipped vehicle performance-wise. Go drive a 4cyl and a hybrid and tell me they are comparable in performance.

The Hybrid 4cyl/electric combo offers performance closer to the V6 and that is what it should be compared to.


CaptainObvious, you seem to be missing the obvious. Comments about replacing the battery at 5 or 7 years, and increased service costs are irrelevant as the entire Hybrid system on every vehicle is warranted for at least 8 years, 10 in some places. Furthermore, it could be argued that Hybrid drivers actually have fewer costs than the comparable ICE only vehicles. Regenerative braking reduces the usage of brakes thereby saving wear on pads and rotors. Electric only and assisted drive means less wear on the ICE, less frequent oil and filter changes as well. Those savings are as real as the fuel savings.

 

When a skeptic offers speculation, the best answer are the facts and data. Their opinion versus what is documented and known:

Sources:
http://www.hybridexperience.ca/Toyot...erformance.htm
http://avt.inel.gov/hev.html - INL/EXT-06-01262

For example, to answer the battery boogie man:

"Although SAE J1634 testing was performed with a small sample size, the data demonstrated no distinct correlation between battery degradation (reduction in battery capacity) and fuel efficiency loss (reduction in fuel efficiency). The data indicated that the power demand on the batteries had increased, their capacity (to hold charge) had diminished, and yet fuel efficiency degradation was not directly proportional to either of these factors." - INL/EXT-06-01262

Then there are the fraudlent claims about a short vehicle life:

"The end-of-life (160,000 miles) Phase II SAE J1634 fuel efficiency tests show decreases in fuel economies in five of six tests (three with the AC on and three with it off) for the three HEVs in end-of-life Phase II testing (Figures 1 and 2). The Honda Insights had decreases of 4.9 mpg with the AC on and 6.2 mpg with the AC off, the Honda Civics had decreases of 1.5 mpg with the AC on and off, and the Priuses had an increase of 1.2 mpg without AC and a decrease of 2.0 mpg with AC. These findings do not indicate any appreciable fuel efficiency loss with the exception of the Honda Insight, which demonstrated a slight decrease even when considering the use of different drivers between baseline and Phase II testing." - INL/EXT-06-01262

Some folks prefer to spout unsupported nonsense . . . "don't confuse me with the facts." Nothing will change their minds but we don't have to. But we can use them as the 'straight man' to once again, bring forth the facts and data . . . like I just did. They continue to put that nail out there and we can continue to pound it down with the hammer of truth.

When you have the facts and data on your side, use them. We don't have to convence every skeptic. When they come here, just have the 'cut and paste' answer ready. As Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time" and Proverbs has a lot of good advice for those who are like the dog that returns to its own . . .

Bob Wilson

 

Captain Obvious,
I would hope and imagine that hybrids will be offered on more trim lines in the future. They are still pretty new. As it stands now, they are making them as fast as they can and selling them easily--for the most part. From their perspective, it makes perfect since to me (I would go so far as to call it obvious) that they are only including them on higher trim levels. If the manufacturers know they are going to be bought regardless, they will make more money if they require all the extras of the higher trim levels.

As for comparing the high-end hybrid to the low-end nonhybrid, this makes sense coming from you. You have repeatedly argued that essentially the entire cost of a car comes from energy. I would assume that you would only drive a relatively cheap car since this seems to be such a concern for you. Is this correct? Please tell me what kind of car you drive and how much it cost?

Regarding battery life, this is hard to speculate on. Many people who try to bash hybrids just make the assumption that they will not last very long. It is still pretty early and there is not a lot of data out there, but here is an interesting article I found on the topic:

http://auto.consumerguide.com/articl...batteries.html