Ah, Texases, true, but the thrill of driving a Tesla every day would be worth it. If only I had that kind of play money…
It’s the number needed that’s the killer. VW had an EV version of a van, it had a 3,000 POUND BATTERY PACK! YIKES!
If batteries are, in fact, cheap, why aren’t new makers jumping all over them?
“Stanford R. Ovshinsky invented and patented the NiMH battery and founded Ovonic Battery Company in 1982. General Motors
purchased the patent from Ovonics in 1994. By the late 1990s, NiMH
batteries were being used successfully in many fully electric vehicles,
such as the General Motors EV1 and Dodge Caravan EPIC minivan. In October 2000, the patent was sold to Texaco and a week later Texaco was acquired by Chevron. Chevron’s Cobasys subsidiary will only provide these batteries to large OEM orders. General Motors shut down production of the EV1
citing lack of battery availability as one of their chief obstacles.
The Cobasys control of NiMH batteries has created a patent encumbrance
of large automotive NiMH batteries.[2”
Well it appears that no one can challenge my figures. so here are some selective replies
@keith - no i really don’t need to consider residual values, at 210,000 on either vehicle the values are not going to be enough different to make any difference in the calculation
@meanjoe75fan - i picked the middle of both. the lowest corrola is 14 and the highest was 19. the lowest prius is 21 and the highest 28 taking your ford fusion example:
a ford fusion SEL (middle of the pack) is 25k 23/33 splitting the difference at 28 mpg
the hybrid fusion is 28k 41/36 going with 41 to give it every advantage
Ford Fusion Ford Fusion H Miles to equalBase price 25000 28000 66230.76923
MPG (best) 28 41
Cost of Gas 4
it will take 66k miles before the hybrid fusion reaches breakeven.
@ mikeinnh - you unwittingly prove my point with your calculations.
no I'm really not. I gave the prius the best possible and the corolla less than the highway and more than the city in otherwords about average.
So lets do the MATH again....
Corolla Price - $17,000
Prius - $26,000
Price difference $9000.
If you keep the vehicle 9 years then that works out to $1000/yr.
If most of your driving is City (which it should be if you own a Prius) and you drive 20,000 miles a year.
Then the savings would be $1200/yr. - OK lets say i buy the fact that over 20K the difference is $1200 (i don't agree. i would say more like $900 but whatever) that means in order to overcome the $9000 you are talking roughly 8 years @20k a year which comes to 160,000 miles, which proves again that it is unlikely that you would ever break even. if you drove long distance in both cars you would bring the breakeven point even further out as you suggest and i would be suprised if (other than use as a taxi) you would drive 20,000 miles in a year at less than highway speeds and 30k in town not on a highway is even more unlikely
If you drive 30,000 miles a year....the saving is aprox $1900/yr. - 3 words Sunk Cost Fallacy you are not counting the fact that every month you own a prius you are paying higher payments which include interest which is offsetting the "saving" of money that you have to layout for gas. you start out $9k in the hole, you may eventually drive your way out of it but your initial cost in todays dollars is higher.
So lets do the MATH again....
Corolla Price - $17,000
Prius - $26,000
Price difference $9000.
If you keep the vehicle 9 years then that works out to $1000/yr.
If most of your driving is City (which it should be if you own a Prius) and you drive 20,000 miles a year.
Then the savings would be $1200/yr. - OK lets say i buy the fact that over 20K the difference is $1200 (i don't agree. i would say more like $900 but whatever) that means in order to overcome the $9000 you are talking roughly 8 years @20k a year which comes to 160,000 miles, which proves again that it is unlikely that you would ever break even. if you drove long distance in both cars you would bring the breakeven point even further out as you suggest and i would be suprised if (other than use as a taxi) you would drive 20,000 miles in a year at less than highway speeds and 30k in town not on a highway is even more unlikely
If you drive 30,000 miles a year....the saving is aprox $1900/yr. - 3 words Sunk Cost Fallacy you are not counting the fact that every month you own a prius you are paying higher payments which include interest which is offsetting the "saving" of money that you have to layout for gas. you start out $9k in the hole, you may eventually drive your way out of it but your initial cost in todays dollars is higher.
@semaster - were you a liberal arts major? if not explain how you are "saving" anything by having an initial outlay of 33% more
@BLE - I own an 86 honda civic hatchback that gets 37-50 mpg depending on how sustained my driving is, a 1988 Toyota LandCruiser (crusher) which gets 9-10 mpg in 4wd and 17-20 in 2wd, a 1998 subaru legacy outback wagon that gets 24 in AWD a 1999 toyota sienna that gets 18-26 depending on who's driving and a 2000 kia spectra. we drive around 40k a year total on all vehicles the kia gets most of the miles at about 25k a year, the subaru is a new purchase and it will probably be the winter car and take some of the miles away from the kia next winter, the TLC and sienna get about 4-6k a year each and the honda gets about 5k around town and some trips. I recently got an obd II device that gives me instant and average fuel economy for the kia for $60 and so far we have saved roughly $10 a tank for the past 2 months which has paid for it already. over 51k miles previous we were averaging 26 mpg and we are now at 32.3 mpg for the last 2 months (4k miles) driving as if you have no brakes and pulse / gliding are hypermiling tricks that can make a huge amount of difference but so many things (stop lights, stop signs, ect) conspire against you.
@dagosa- batteries need to be charged and the amount of electricity needed to be generated to provide for electric vehicle is 1 new nuke plant a year.http://theenergycollective.com/Home/66494 ask the Japanese, ask the Russians who live around Chernobyl, ask the neighbors of 3 Mile Island how that has worked out for them. show me a refinery or anything that oil has done that compares. would you rather eat a fish from the sea near Fukushima or a fish from Prince William Sound? i know which one would glow less.
@whitey - want to put less in the pockets of "big oil" try walking or biking everywhere. I would rather put less in the pockets of "big money" by not having to borrow so much for the same thing. 4 wheels and an engine.
before i got married and moved out of the town i work in, i used to bike everywhere when the weather permitted, in the summer i would put 400 or less miles on my car a month so i don't disagree about using less, only that a hybrid is a magical car that prints money. I said the typical person will never break even on it, and no one has come up with any empirical evidence that contradicts what i said originally
A Corolla isn’t a Prius. False comparison. Your whole premsie is bunk.
If you compare apples to apples, by comparing Edmunds true cost to own estimates, a Toyota Camry hybrid* costs approximately $3,181 less to own over a five year period than a Toyota Camry with a V6 and a six speed automatic transmission**. Perhaps you think I should compare the hybrid to a four cylinder Camry, but I have driven a hybrid Camry, and I can tell you they have enough power to be compared to the V6. According to Edmunds.com, the hybrid Camry has a sticker price of $31,174, and the V6 Camry has a sticker price of $31,647. The fuel for the hybrid will cost $7,416, while the fuel for the V6 will cost $10,628.
“OK lets say i buy the fact that over 20K the difference is $1200”…
Sleepy…it’s NOT a matter of if you believe it or not…I’m using YOUR estimates on gas prices…$1200 is very reasonable…
20k miles a year is probably the MINIMUM in order for you to break even…If you drive 30k miles a year like my wife does (but still less then I drive a year)…then the break-even is MUCH SOONER…You obviously have a little problem with Math…I suggest you re-take 8th and 9th grade math to do the calculations correctly.
This discussion of whether or not purchasing a hybrid car will save money over the long run as opposed to pruchasing an equivalent car without the hybrid feature reminds me of the discussion in the early 1950s as to whether or not one should opt for the Borg-Warner automatic overdrive that was offered on many cars. This overdrive was a $100 option and was offered on the Ford, Mercury and even Lincoln from 1949 and finally was discontinued as an option by 1969, Chrysler products beginning in 1952 (interestingly, it was also offered on some Chrysler cars before WW II), the 1955 through 1963 Chevrolet, the Nashes, Studebakers, Hudsons, Packards, Kaiser products and the Willys Jeep Station Wagon and Jeepster.
The argument was whether or not the overdrive would pay for itself. One would probably have to drive the vehicle 100,000 miles to realize any savings and in that day the car was probably worn out. Also, the rear axle ratio on overdrive cars was higher (lower gearing) than the ratio that came with the regular manual transmission, so the savings was primarily in highway driving. Around town, the overdrive equipped cars theoretically didn't do as well as the manual transmisson cars with the numerically higher rear axle ratio. Of course the opposite argument is given for the hybrid cars--the real advantage is in stop and start driving.
There were some theoretical benefits from the overdrive, The engine didn't turn as fast at highway speeds and presumably the piston rings would last longer. The overdrive equipped cars were quieter on the highway because the engine was not turning as fast. On the other hand, things did go wrong with the overdrive unit which required repairs. Does anyone see an analogy between whether or not the overdrive was worth it back in the old days as opposed to whether the hybrid car is worth it today?
Sleepy, if your point is that the least expensive way to own a car is to buy a cheap (non-hybrid) car, you’re right. But I’m guessing 80% of new car buyers are not looking for the cheapest car. For that great majority of car buyers, it’s more like 'I’m thinking of spending $X on a car, what should I get? As long as $X is greater than $25,000 or so, hybrids are absolutely reasonable choices.
The other thing sleepy you’re NOT comparing is OPTIONS…
Look at the hybrids being sold…they are FULLY loaded. You CAN’T compare price of a Hybrid Camry to a bare-bones NON-Hybrid Camry. And believe it or not MOST people don’t buy bare-bones vehicles. Now if you compare a comparably equipped Hybrid with the non-hybrid (let’s use the Camry as an example) then the cost difference is much much less. A Non-Hybrid Camry with all the options of the Hybrid Camry (minus the Hybrid) has a MSRP difference of about $1,000. You might not be able to negotiate the price down of the Hybrid much…so let’s say you pay full MSRP…but you’re able to negotiate the Non-Hybrid Camry down another $4,000 (which would be A LOT)…Then the cost difference is ONLY $5,000…And now the payback is less then 5 years if you drive 25k miles a year…
As I’ve said before (many many times in other threads)…Hybrids are NOT for everyone. And the cost savings will only be there if you have the right commute AND drive a minimum of a certain amount of miles each year…then an only then will you see the savings…but if you meet the criteria…then a Hybrid is a GREAT vehicle to have.
My wife’s commute and yearly mileage DOES meet the Hybrid Ownership savings criteria…We looked at the Camry Hybrid (Great car)…But the hybrid battery really at up a lot of the trunk space. And since we use the Camry for most of our family traveling (except when we camp) then the trunk was just way too small…
My commute is mostly highway…so buying a Hybrid isn’t going to save us anything.
I have one neighbor who owns a Civic Hybrid and another who owns a Prius Hybrid…both have almost perfect commutes for the hybrids…along with the minimum of 25k miles/year. They are saving a LOT more then $1,200/year…more like $2,500/yr. The Prius owner has had his for 4 years now…and hasn’t put a dime into beyond normal maintenance…Civic owner has had hers for I think 3 years now…and again hasn’t put a dime into it…She’s a teacher with 3 middle-school aged kids…so she drives a lot…I think she has over 100k miles on it now…and fills it up once a week (weather it needs it or not).
(Quote = Whitey)Even with your backward belief that decreasing demand makes prices increase (all I can say about that is “wow”),
Decreasing demand can make prices increase as long as whatever you’re selling has a population of people who are guaranteed to buy it no matter what you charge. Gas fits that premise. When demand goes down, oil companies would make less profit unless they charge more for the gas that they do sell - and fortunately for them people still need to drive to work, and the store, and the doctor’s office. So even though they gave up driving to their vacation, they’re still going to end up paying more when they do fill up for the driving that they have to do.
Or put another way, thanks to the decreasing number of R12 air conditioners out there, there is a decrease in demand for R12 refrigerant. But if I have to buy some because my car is set up for it, I’m going to pay a hell of a lot more than I would have when R12 was common.
nothing you can say is going to convince me that bringing my personal consumption of gasoline down isn’t a good thing.
I doubt anyone is trying to convince you of that. The trouble is that you’re in the minority. Most people don’t give a flying damn about saving gas. If they did, the SUV craze would never have happened. The ONLY reason SUV’s are falling out of favor is because it’s more expensive to drive them now. Environmentalism has nothing to do with it. It’s a trend based purely on economics. So, since people are buying smaller cars in order to save money, they’re not going to buy a Prius unless it can be demonstrated that it will save them money, or unless something else about the Prius (smug-factor?) convinces them to take the financial hit. (Full disclosure: I am for the purposes of this argument eliminating the small-but-significant population of idiots who believe anything they see advertised on TV and will buy a Prius without finding out if it will save them money or not).
Economists used to think the price of fuel was inelastic, but that isn’t proving to be the case anymore. People do buy less when the price goes up, as they do with everything. Raise the price of anything enough, and people will buy less.
R12 costs more because of heavy regulation. Is it even legal to get R12 anymore? How is this relevant to anything being discussed? If you want R12 these days, you would have to buy it on the black market.
“The trouble is that you’re in the minority. Most people don’t give a flying damn about saving gas.”
Oh sure they do…I own a SUV and I care about gas mileage…
But I have to buy a car that meets my needs also…A Prius doesn’t meet my needs…But show me a mid-size SUV (about the same size as my 4runner) and can tow 3300lbs…and gets 30mpg (when NOT towing)…I’ll be all over that sucker…
Our first priority is buying a car that meets our needs. Once we know that then we look at the cars that I think are going to be reliable…Then we look at gas mileage. At this point though…MOST of the vehicles have pretty much the same mpg…but it is a concern.
When gas prices go up…people adjust…For the poor…sometimes it means giving up food just so they can buy enough gas to commute to work…For others it means not taking that long vacation…or skipping a few trips to grammy’s…or adjusting their driving habits.
And you know full well that most people who bought SUVs during the height of the craze didn’t buy them because they needed to tow anything or because they needed to go off-road, but because they were cool.
BTW yes it’s legal to get R12. It’s not legal to make it. But it’s not illegal to buy what was already made before the cutoff date.
My suspicion is a conventional non hybrid car that uses all the fuel saving tricks as a hybrid such as aerodynamics low rolling resistance tires Atkinson cycle VVT engine etc… could get the same highway gas mileage if not more as a non plug in hybrid such as the current Prius. Maybe the hybrid would better its city mileage with possible 5 mileage better fuel mileage overall.
So the big Question is why are all the fuel mileage tricks saved for only Hybrid cars? Marketing? Not allowed to have your cake and eat it?
Does a car need to be saddled with both a gas and electric power train and big heavy environmentally unfriendly battery pack to get good fuel mileage. Really!
Don’t get me wrong I am for the environment, pro electric vehicles and hybrids that can be plunged in and run on all electric. Pro technology that could get us off oil.
Actually, the Atkinson cycle’s not a good one for non-hybrids, it’s low on torque at low rpms. But that’s right where the batteries and electric motor kick in, eliminating that problem. Most of the other tricks are used in the gas versions, compare the Camry and Fusion gas to hybrids.
For sure there are more good mpg cars at the small end, like the Mazda 2, Fiesta, Cruze, etc. But I’m not interested in that size of car.
"Actually, the Atkinson cycle’s not a good one for non-hybrids, it’s low on torque at low rpms"
Is not a Atkinson cycle engine just valve timing. Why cant a engine be both a standard and Atkinson through VVT?