Now, given the sort of rolling road apples the examples above were, can you really blame them? Especially since some of the SUVs could get about the same MPG as a Pinto? You may be too young to recall, but a late 70's Pinto wagon was hard-pressed to to break 20 MPG in 'normal' use. And was bog slow, uncomfortable, and a disaster in any crash situation. And a mid 70's 6 cylinder Gremmy was doing good to do 17/22 in city/highway, with mid teens in the 0-60 derby. Now, the few VW engined ones could do a bit better, but they were even slower.

One thing that most folks neglect in 'consumers have short memories' rubric is the very real fact that consumer populations are far from static, with folks that never lived through an event coming in and those that did going out. A typical 20-something or 30-something was barely alive and certainly blissfully unaware of economic realities back when the first and second 70's gas crisis came around. They came to driving age in the era of relatively inexpensive and readily available fuel. People of all stripes are notoriously weak on history, especially when they didn't live through it.

 

Unfortunately, I'm old enough to remember those cars, as well as the Dart, the Pacer and the Yugo. I also recall that these cars that were breaking 20 MPG were getting much better than average mileage back then, so it's all relative. Yesterday's Pintos might be today's Yaris, Fits or Aveos.
The newer generation will make the same mistakes as all the previous ones, since people only learn from experience.
It's not only the next generation who will be shortsighted. Look at the the TCH, for example as an economical option. Most here have calculated their 'break even point', where the fuel cost savings is greater than the price paid for the hybrid premium. How many would buy a TCH if they would never be able to realize the cost savings?
Let's assume that the average hybrid was ~$3500 over the gas version. If the average gas car got 25 MPG and the TCH gets 33 MPG (yes, I know there are those that push their cars and get better mileage, but this is only for the average driver). Let's assume that the consumer keeps his car 150,000 miles. That's a lifetime fuel savings of 1455 gallons. At $4/gallon, you save $5820. At $1.50/gallon, you save $2910.
Would the TCH be as popular if the buyer was convinced he'd never recoup the savings?
People, including today's generation who've lived through the current price spike (and survived), will soon forget and make economic choices with a short term mentality (it's in our nature).
You can argue that there's a lot more to the hybrid than fuel savings, such as environmental issues, but answer these questions:

• If the TCH was $5,000 more than the gas Camry and the lifetime the lifetime fuel savings were $3,000, would you buy the hybrid?
• Would you pay $8,000 more for the hybrid if the fuel cost were only $2000.
• Would you pay $10,000 more if the fuel cost were exactly the same (but it was still environmentally friendly)?
• Would you pay $50,000, or more, for a Chevy Volt (100% battery up to 40 miles)?

I'll argue that no one (outside of a few people in Hollywood) would answer yes to all four of these questions. I'll bet that most, if not all, would make the decision on the short term cost.
All of us, fully aware of last summer's gas prices will have a hard time saying yes to the second, third and fourth questions. We all love the hybrid, but if gas stays at $1.50 for a few years (and who knows if it will or wont) most would have a hard time justifying anything more than a $4000 premium on replacement. At $4.50 a gallon the answers to my questions change, don't they?
So, in conclusion (and yes, I know I'm rambling) we all have very short memories.

 

It is also true at the other end of the spectrum. At a 0-60 time of 7.7 secs. the TCH can outrun many of the so-called "muscle cars" of that era as well.

 

I doubt too many here race off the line. We're all too busy looking at the efficiency meter trying to make sure the ICE doesn't kick in too quickly!

 

I drove and maintained most of the above. I still remember the 'joys' of the Carter YF when the metering rod pitted from the fuel and you couldn't control the mixture. Points that went at 12-15K intervals. Ballast resistors that burned out and left you stranded (Dart) And EGR valves that were hard-pressed to live 30K miles. And AIR pumps that howled like banshees and froze up, with manifold fitting that leaked and tooted.

As far as the cost - The TCH fuel savings over the 4 cylinder are gravy for me - the car addresses the big annoyance I find in 4 cylinder vehicles, which is the 4-bang tingle at idle. The regular Camry isn't that bad in that regard, but you can still feel the tingle with the car in gear and A/C on. Which makes the V6 mandatory for me, as I end up sitting enough in slow-and slower traffic for that to get really annoying. The TCH avoids that by not 'idling'; the min RPM is ~1000 or so, avoiding the 'tingle zone'. Now, is the V6 'worth' the price premium? Does it save enough time to return the $2500 or so price premium?

In some ways, Toyota (and Ford and Nissan based on the planetary design) have missed a marketing opportunity in not highlighting the smoothness advantage - the continuous ratios of the HSD provide a much smoother drive than any conventional automatic can provide. By almost exclusive emphasis on fuel consumption, you end with that as the sole cost justification, rather than the other advantages. Like trying to sell a Nav system based on how much you'll save on trip-tickets from AAA. Or leather on how much you can save on upholstery cleaning and detailing. None of those are even close in any cost-justification.

Rambling aside, my point is that that we all buy cars for many complex reasons, of which fuel consumption is just one. There is a 'way-cool' factor for being able to do 600+ miles on a tank without trying hard.

 

Hi Larry,

I think you hit the nail on the head with this point in particular. There are a lot of drivers in these forums that derive a great deal of pleasure (perhaps somewhat perversely) by doing what they can to squeeze every last drop of FE out of their driving. While I'm not one myself (as I just don't have the patience), I have no trouble understanding those that do. The absolute value of the savings just isn't as relevant as the fact that they are saving everything they can. In short, saving gas can be pleasurable.

 

Another point to ponder.

I believe the current low price of gas will be a short lived event because China and India will be demanding more of their share of the world's oil reserves over the next few years. $6.00 gas will seem like a bargain and your TCH or Prius will be the smartest purchase you ever made if you have to drive.

 

I bought my TCh when gas is at $4.50. I figure if gas drop down to $3, I can still recoup the premium in 6 years. With $1.70, it will never happen.

I would not have bought the TCH if I know gas will be below $2 for a while.

 

I just hope ppl don’t become complacent because oil prices have come down, once the world economies start improving watch the price of crude sky rocket again

We must continue to support fuel efficient cars, hybrids, smaller 4 cyclinders etc

We cannot be held hostage to the world oil markets again!!!

 

Thanks for your honesty!

But, sadly, we will.
Would you buy a hybrid without any possibility of payback from fuel savings?

I set up a new thread with this topic as a survey