Edmunds has done a study to determine which hybrids will allow you to recover the hybrid premium in fuel savings the fastest. Anything that will allow you to recover the cost within five years makes sense financially. Most interesting is that the Prius is a bad financial choice, taking 13.6 years to recover the price difference between it and a Corolla if you drive 15,000 miles per year.
When compared with small conventional non-hybrid cars, no hybrids are fost effective within five years unless you drive 25,000 per year, and even then the Prius fails against the Corolla, coming in at 8.2 years to break even.
You can read the results of the study at http://www…ticle.html
It looks like it will be some time before Hybrids make financial sense.
I never really bought into the hype surrounding hybrid, and the Prius is fugly looking. Since a lot of people lease, or trade in every few years, they will NEVER recover their loss. some celebrities drive them, so the sheeple follow and buy them as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDNdH9pVdsE <-- posted it before, but it’s still interesting to see.
A little while ago we had an extensive post on hybrids, since a lady was shopping for a new car and asked us the fundamental question of cost-effectiveness. Comparing a Honda Fit with a Prius, it would take me 22 years to make it cost effectve, not counting the new battery the Prius would likely need. Also, many Americans live in areas with cold winters; the fuel mileage penalty for a hybrid is severe in winter driving. We did conclude that a Prius would be an ideal taxi in Seattle, Portland, or any coastal city with a mild climate. The payback on taxi service at 100,000 miles a year of driving is great.
bscar:
I don’t know how you found that video but it was great. I am still laughing!!! I also agree with your opinion on the styling of this car.
~Michael
Just search for Top Gear on Youttube. I posted a few videos of them trying to kill off an older Toyota Hilux diesel they bought just just $1000, they drowned it, set it on fire, set it on top of a 260ft building that was being imploded, it was bent up, but it still ran.
new episode of top gear on now 8 pm on the BBC
Thanks americar!
~Michael
Hopefully, these silly things will disappear before too many more folks are suckered into buying them. If you want a cost effective car, just buy the late model used econo-box of your choice.
Most efficient hybrid. gasoline/peddle AKA Moped! (:
Unless they just forgot to mention it, Edmunds left out one more factor which works against hybrids. It is the “opportunity cost”, that is, the money you could have earned by investing the difference in price between a hybrid and the equivalent conventional model.
Consumer reports some time back did a life cycle cost comparison, in which they allowed for the “opportunity cost” and came to the same concluisons. Hybrids, at today’s gas prices, make sense for only a few people, mostly doing a lot of city driving in a mild climate. However, Toyota has economists on their staff who forecast $4-$5/gallon gas, and they want to be a household word in hybrisds when that time comes. In poorer countries with high gas prices, the route to economy is; smaller engines, smaller cars, almost no automatics, few gas robbing options, such as A/C, diesel engines.
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks hybrids are currently cost effective, however I’ve nothing against them and am glad the investment is being made to develop the technology. First, I think that those who are concerned about environmental friendliness should have options available to them. Second, I think it’s inevitable that some type of alternative technology will become necessary, and Id prefer that the technology be developed under less pressure than a mandate.
I liked the Honda Pilot. In the near future there should be cool sporty hybrid technology cars out too. Some were previewed at the Japan auto show. Personally, I’d like to see plug in 100% electric sports cars. Like the Tesla, only affordable, based perhaps on a Civic chassis like the Del Sol was rather than a Lotus chassis.
Shouldn’t we look at the big picture? It’s not about whether we can recover the cost, it’s about burning less fossil fuel. Hybrids may not make financial sense for many of us, but let’s think in terms of our impact on global warming. If you can afford the higher price, and you need a car, you should do the right thing.
From that perspective, just go buy a small conventional diesel. You will probably generate less CO2 in real world conditions and it is likely to last much longer than one of these toys, which will reduce the energy consumption associated with disposing of and replacing the car. This is little more than very effective marketing to folks with way too much guilt and disposable income. These folks should really get the all-time “selling ice cubes to Eskimos” award.
Considering the type of driving (city vs Highway) is far more important that the number of miles per year I would say without even seeing it that the study if flawed due to a poor premise.
While I don’t rule out the hybrid idea, frankly I get better real life mileage with my non-hybrid than any hybrid is rated.
So why can’t we get the VW LUPO here in the states? I followed a few links from the interesting topics here on mpg and found the Lupo getting as high as 100 mpg, the lowest I saw was 63 mpg. Why can’t VW sell it here? Rocketman
Interesting responses; when Hybrids first came out I posted up on this forum about how it would take 200-250K miles to break even when compared to a similarly equipped econobox. I got flamed hardcore for that little synopsis. It seams sentiments have changed a little:)
Define the “right thing.” I agree with you to some degree. I am just saying that based on a financial analysis, you will only save money by buying a hybrid in very specific circumstances. Also, if you can get 40 miles per gallon with a non-hybrid economy car, you are already doing the right thing without spending thousands of extra dollars.
Let’s say, for example, you own a Ford F-150 and drive about 10,000 miles per year. You decide to buy a Honda Civic Hybrid. Then you sell your Ford F-150 to a guy that drives 25,000 miles per year. In this case, you have not done the environment a favor. In another example, if you drive 25,000 miles per year and sell the F-150 to someone who drives 10,000 miles per year, you have done something that is good for the environment.
This is not a black and white issue if you look at the big picture.
It’s now marketed as the Fox. The Fox is a city car. That translates to small and underpowered for highways. It has about 70 HP. Would you go out on the highway in that? It has limited appeal, and they will consider selling it when the Rabbit and New Beetle become their largest sellers here.
Why aren’t they able to make more efficient hybrids? My regular 1997 Honda Civic Manual transmission car can get 43 miles per gallon on the highway, and given that most hybrids are supposed to get around 50 miles per gallon, it would be crazy for me to replace my Civic with one. But if the technology for 43 miles per gallon existed in regular gas cars in 1997, shouldn’t they be able to make Honda Civic type hybrids (not just tiny city cars) that are getting 80 mpg by now?