Hybrid hype

[gkainz]

I'm curious about the hybrid hype... the numbers just don't make sense to me.
I'm driving a diesel truck owned free and clear that gets 20 mpg. Using 10,000 annual miles and $3.00 per gallon for diesel fuel for easy comparisons, my 10,000 miles cost me $1500 for fuel. A buddy just bought the Toyota Highlander, and, IIRC, told me that the hybrid option costs about $4000 extra. If he gets 50 mpg and drives those same 10,000 miles at $3.00 per gallon, his annual fuel cost is $600, for a $900 per year savings. So, just in fuel cost savings alone it would take over 4 years to pay for just the hybrid option, not even considering the payment on the new vehicle and increased insurance and license costs for the newer vehicle.

Seems to me that I'm WAY better off to continue to drive my truck. On a side note, I am now driving my son's Saturn, at 30 mpg while he's away at school. Since I already own it, license and insure it, that does save money.

So, is hybrid a hype?

 

[Dean]

Its not a money issue, the Hybrid is aimed at lowering exhaust emissions, and becoming less dependent of fossil fuels. Better for the environment!!!!

 

[Greebo]

Actually the Highlander Hybrid doesnt get anywhere near 50 mpg. Its listed at 28-32 but in reality its closer to 25. However, for a fair comparison, you should compare identical fuel consumption type vehicles. By comparison the Highander standard model gets 18mpg, so a 7 mpg difference.

So lets see... $4000 at $3 a gallon is 1333.33 gallons to break even. If I'm doing the math right here...
7 mpg diff between standard and hybrid - so for every gallon consumed, the hybrid is getting 7 more miles. 1333.33 gallons * 7 miles is 9333.3333_

Am I doing this right? It would seem to me that by the time the vehicle rolls over 10,000 miles, you'ld have saved buying enough gas to make up the difference?

Anyway is it hype? Maybe a little bit - but you know there are other factors...
Manuf recommended oil changes are at 5,000 miles, not 3,000 - a small savings but a savings
I'm buying regular gas now, vs premium for my 20mpg lexus of last year. Big $ savings per tank - especially now as gas prices climb higher.

And of course, the environmental impact of the hybrids is significantly less. Maybe that doesn't amount for much in the grand scheme of things but, hey, it makes me feel a little better about my car.

Now with the smaller hybrids like the prius, the 50 mpg vs. 30 mpg difference - well I think the math shows a lot of sense behind it...especially when you consider the week to week costs.

 

[Anthony]

Hybrids should not be bought on economic decision making. You're right Greg, keep the truck. Hybrids make people feel better about the environment and should be bought with that in mind. I don't believe hybrids will have a significant impact on gas savings or lowering emissions.

 

[astanley]

Hybrids should not be bought on economic decision making. You're right Greg, keep the truck. Hybrids make people feel better about the environment and should be bought with that in mind. I don't believe hybrids will have a significant impact on gas savings or lowering emissions.

I think they may lower vehicle emissions, but I doubt that the technology and disposal plans are in place for when those batteries go Tango Uniform... lots o lead acid to be disposed of.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Bill]

So lets see... $4000 at $3 a gallon is 1333.33 gallons to break even. If I'm doing the math right here...
7 mpg diff between standard and hybrid - so for every gallon consumed, the hybrid is getting 7 more miles. 1333.33 gallons * 7 miles is 9333.3333_

Hmmm.

Don't know about you, but we normally finance cars, and Toyota doesn't give away 0 finance. So, that $4k really costs you $4800 financed. We also keep our vehicles 100kmi normally, so in that 100k:

The hybrid uses 4000gal gas. The standard uses 5556gal gas. Gas saved is 1556gal. At $3/gal, that is $4666, so you're close to breaking even. At $5/gal, you win, saving $2980. Depends on where the price of gas goes.

Me, I'm in the same boat as Greg. I have a 4 year old paid for F-150 Supercrew with only 33kmi on it. So, free driving for a good number of years car payment and repairs wise. But, it gets 13.5mpg. Sucky. Running the numbers, if I were to trade for a Honda Accord (minimum vehicle size I feel safe driving), it would take 12 years for the gas savings to break even on the cost of trading vehicles.

Net result: suck it up, its still the cheapest solution. And, ride my 40mpg motorcyle as much as possible.

 

[Greebo]

I don't do dealer financing, but I see your point.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Am I doing this right? It would seem to me that by the time the vehicle rolls over 10,000 miles, you'ld have saved buying enough gas to make up the difference?

I don't think so, Chuck. A vehicle that gets 25 miles per gallon will use 400 gallons of fuel. At $3 per that is $1,200.

A vehicle that gets 18 mpg will use 550 gallons in round numbers. At $3 per that is $1,650 for a difference of $450 in that 10,000 miles. At a $4,000 premium, it would take 88,888 miles to break even.

If you buy and drive til they die, it might make sense in the very long run, but not that much.

Hybrids are a feel good thing, I guess, but not a very good economical thing.

 

[SCCutler]

Actually the Highlander Hybrid doesnt get anywhere near 50 mpg. Its listed at 28-32 but in reality its closer to 25. However, for a fair comparison, you should compare identical fuel consumption type vehicles. By comparison the Highander standard model gets 18mpg, so a 7 mpg difference.

So lets see... $4000 at $3 a gallon is 1333.33 gallons to break even. If I'm doing the math right here...
7 mpg diff between standard and hybrid - so for every gallon consumed, the hybrid is getting 7 more miles. 1333.33 gallons * 7 miles is 9333.3333_

Am I doing this right? It would seem to me that by the time the vehicle rolls over 10,000 miles, you'ld have saved buying enough gas to make up the difference?

Anyway is it hype? Maybe a little bit - but you know there are other factors...
Manuf recommended oil changes are at 5,000 miles, not 3,000 - a small savings but a savings
I'm buying regular gas now, vs premium for my 20mpg lexus of last year. Big $ savings per tank - especially now as gas prices climb higher.

And of course, the environmental impact of the hybrids is significantly less. Maybe that doesn't amount for much in the grand scheme of things but, hey, it makes me feel a little better about my car.

Now with the smaller hybrids like the prius, the 50 mpg vs. 30 mpg difference - well I think the math shows a lot of sense behind it...especially when you consider the week to week costs.

No, Chuck, while your math is accurate, your analysis is not. All you have calculated is how much farther that many gallons would carry you.

The cost per mile (at $3.00/gallon) is $0.12 at 25mpg, $0.1666 for 18mpg, making your breakeven for a $4,000.00 premium approximately 85,715 miles. At 85,715 miles, you will have saved enough to cover the $4,000.00; of course, you will also have lost the opportunity cost of that money (interest or investment value).

Hybrids also have other, less-apparent costs; how much to replace batteries (estimates in the $5,000.00 range); added cost for tires based upon added weight of vehicle to tote batteries; unproven added maintenance cost becaus eof added hardware and complexity; and who pays to dispose of the batteries and the hazardous waste that they represent.

*edit* That's the risk of long-delayed posts. Sorry to be duplicative, but I still remember the funny sound on the line when my leftie friend in West Hollywood was chimig up about how smart she was because she bought a Toyota Prius "...and it was only $5,000.00 over sticker!" I went through the analysis with her, comparing to a Corolla (and better car in every discernible way), and (iirc) breakeven (assuming nothing broke, even, ha ha) was somewhere around 260,000 miles. And that's with a sticker price supported by tax incentives...

 

[Bill]

I don't do dealer financing, but I see your point.

No matter where you get your money, there is lost opportunity. Finance=finance charges. Cash=lost investment income on that $4k.

 

[MSmith]

I think they may lower vehicle emissions, but I doubt that the technology and disposal plans are in place for when those batteries go Tango Uniform... lots o lead acid to be disposed of.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Actually, they're NiMH batteries. No heavy metals.

 

[MSmith]

Hybrids also have other, less-apparent costs; how much to replace batteries (estimates in the $5,000.00 range); added cost for tires based upon added weight of vehicle to tote batteries; unproven added maintenance cost becaus eof added hardware and complexity; and who pays to dispose of the batteries and the hazardous waste that they represent.

As I said before - the batteries are NiMH - any landfill will take them.

On the other side of the equation:

Longer brake life (regeneration is doing some of the braking)
Shorter/fewer belts (power steering/brakes and air conditioning are electric)
Fewer hoses to replace for power steering/AC/heat
The engine runs on a more steady cycle, allowing much longer maintenance intervals (spark plugs are good until 100K miles)
I don't think there's added hardware as much as different hardware.

 

[SCCutler]

As I said before - the batteries are NiMH - any landfill will take them.

On the other side of the equation:

Longer brake life (regeneration is doing some of the braking)
Shorter/fewer belts (power steering/brakes and air conditioning are electric)
Fewer hoses to replace for power steering/AC/heat
The engine runs on a more steady cycle, allowing much longer maintenance intervals (spark plugs are good until 100K miles)
I don't think there's added hardware as much as different hardware.

All good points, and there is also the intangible benefit of, essentially, moving the technology forward in the marketplace. One cannot help but find this sort of development appealing, especially as it approaches commercial rationalization.

But I still would not pay over sticker for one, and I still believe there should not be government money funding them.

 

[Bill]

Shorter/fewer belts (power steering/brakes and air conditioning are electric)
Fewer hoses to replace for power steering/AC/heat
The engine runs on a more steady cycle, allowing much longer maintenance intervals (spark plugs are good until 100K miles)
I don't think there's added hardware as much as different hardware.

Belts/hoses on most modern cars go 100k now without much difficulty. Likewise, the recommended replacement invervals of the plugs in our car and truck is 100kmi.

No plus or minus there.

 

[Missa]

And the real Hybrid kicker is: it may cost the consumer $4000 dollars but it costs the automaker much more then that to make the hybrid with all the additional components and controllers it takes to make the vehicle. When I was working in that area the Prius just came out and Toyota was LOOSING money on each Prius sold. It more important to Toyota to have to first hybrid on the market then to break even. I'm betting by now they may have reduced costs a bit, but the gap to net zero was substantial.

Remember when you calculate your cost you also have to look into the tax breaks that you can claim since you have just bought a ULEV. The Guvm't will give you some of the money back if you ask for it.

Missa

 

[Brian Austin]

Manuf recommended oil changes are at 5,000 miles, not 3,000 - a small savings but a savings

The only people that have regularly recommended 3,000 mile oil changes are oil companies, not auto manufacturers.

 

[Everskyward]

Running the numbers, if I were to trade for a Honda Accord (minimum vehicle size I feel safe driving), it would take 12 years for the gas savings to break even on the cost of trading vehicles.

Net result: suck it up, its still the cheapest solution. And, ride my 40mpg motorcyle as much as possible.

Heh. You don't feel safe driving anything smaller than a Honda Accord but a motorcycle is OK?

Just giving you a hard time.

I used to have a motorcycle too but gave it up years ago for being too impractical.

 

[Missa]

But I still would not pay over sticker for one, and I still believe there should not be government money funding them.

If you wouldn't pay for one and you don't think the government should fund the research, who will?

I attended several lectures on clean vehicles given by people in academia that were basically a slam fest on the auto companies. The lecturer said he could build a clean car NOW for less then what the big three charge for their gas guzzling monsters. My only thought was, so why aren't you? It's the reality of our capitalist society that companies produce only what the population will buy, or the company will go out of business. Research is expensive and if the company can not realize a profit off the research it's not worth the expenditure. The only real philanthropic research entity is the government which is willing to pay for research that may increase the greater good of it's citizenship. Remember, you get what you pay for; if you want lower emissions and less dependence on foreign oil... you need to pay for the research in some fashion either by paying more for the vehicle or though tax funded research.

Missa

 

[Greebo]

I wouldn't pay over sticker either. And I didn't. I paid sticker for mine, and that's plenty.

Paying over sticker is just foolish - Missa NO research gets funded by any money paid over sticker. EVERYTHING over invoice cost to the dealer goes to the dealer. I'd say even PAYING sticker is foolish, but with hybrids you don't have much choice right now.

Toyota got the money for the car before the car ever made it to the Dealer lot.

Perhaps the hybrid savings is a bit of hype - compared to the base cost. But even if it takes me 6 years to break even, or even if I don't - I'm ok with that. I like the technology, and I think the technology is where we're headed - and with the gas prices going where they're going right now, I think it wont take nearly as long to break even as it would have had Katrina not happened.

Does anyone really think gas prices will go back to < $3.00 a gallon? I just can't.

 

[wsuffa]

Missa, absolutely true.

Consumer attitudes are a big part of the reason that foreign car company sales (Toyota, Nissan, etc) have held up without discounting, while the US companies (Ford, GM, Chrysler) have had to discount a lot. The market has put a substantial premium on the foreign cars (despite the fact that they are, in many cases, built in the US).

I suspect that contributed to Toyota's decision to take a loss on the Prius. I'd bet that they make it up on their other models. 25 years ago, folks considered the Japanese products "cr^p"... the 70's oil crisis changed things.

I think we're on the verge of another change, caused by the current energy situation.

 

[Greebo]

Bill - I repeat - NO money paid over invoice goes to research and development - it just goes to the dealers.

 

[Everskyward]

Bill - I repeat - NO money paid over invoice goes to research and development - it just goes to the dealers.

But if the manufacturers notice there is a demand for these kinds of products shown by the fact that people will pay a premium for them, they'll produce more of the same.

 

[Missa]

Bill - I repeat - NO money paid over invoice goes to research and development - it just goes to the dealers.

I may have read that wrong. When I saw over invoice, I was taking it for the money paid over the standard vehicle invoice or the hybrid premium. Paying over sticker wether it be the Prius or the new beetle just shows you have no paticence. It's more of a having more money then brains problem then paying extra for a hybrid.

Missa

 

[Bill]

Heh. You don't feel safe driving anything smaller than a Honda Accord but a motorcycle is OK?

Just giving you a hard time.

A valid point, but, I'm the only one I put at risk when I ride the bike. (direct risk, anyway)

My 3 year old daughter isn't old enough to decide risk for herself, and its my job to keep her safe until she can. I even think an Accord to be on the small side, but continued high gas prices could push me that way.

 

[Greebo]

I may have read that wrong. When I saw over invoice, I was taking it for the money paid over the standard vehicle invoice or the hybrid premium. Paying over invoice weather it be the Prius or the new beetle just shows you have no paticence. It's more of a having more money then brains problem then paying extra for a hybrid.

Missa

Perhaps we need to clarify terms:

Invoice: What the dealer pays for the car. The invoice price (not shown to you by the dealer, usually but available online) + the destination charge (typically $650) = what the dealer paid to get the car on the lot. The factory gets that money and thats all they get. (Sometimes less with incentives, etc for the dealers)

Sticker: or MSRP - the sticker price on the car. Always higher than invoice. MSRP - (Invoice + Destination charge) = Dealer's cut. The more you pay over Invoice & Destination, the more the dealer makes.

Over Invoice: Really stupid.

USUALLY when I shop for a new car, I aim for 2-3% over invoice. With the hybrid, I settled for MSRP (and got way more than my old car was really worth in trade). I would never go over MSRP.

 

[Missa]

But if the manufacturers notice there is a demand for these kinds of products shown by the fact that people will pay a premium for them, they'll produce more of the same.

If you can sell lots at a $4000 dollar premium but you are still losing $10000+/vehicle. This makes you want to produce more how? I wonder how much demand there would be for the Hybrids if their true cost was passed onto the consumer? People would go through the gas mileage calculation in this tread and realize they would never pay off the investment and choose the other car. This is why the Prius has such a restricted volume. It's not that they can't make more, it's that they can't afford to make more.

Melissa

 

[mikea]

The only people that have regularly recommended 3,000 mile oil changes are oil companies, not auto manufacturers.

It's recommended more by quick lube shops and car mechanics. A lot of mechanics change their own oil at 3000 miles. They "believe in it."

The manufacturers also recommend a shorter interval for "rough duty" use like driving a city or in dusty environs.

 

[wsuffa]

Bill - I repeat - NO money paid over invoice goes to research and development - it just goes to the dealers.

I'm not talking about dealer premium. I'm saying that Toyota, et al, did not participate in the round of "employee pricing" discounts that the US folks did this summer. Toyota, et al, still sold as many cars as they had been, even without the discounts. Ergo, Toyota was able to command a premium over US brands. (by my logic, a discount is a temporary price reduction; if folks pay full price for another brand, the other brand commands a premium).

 

[Anthony]

I think they may lower vehicle emissions, but I doubt that the technology and disposal plans are in place for when those batteries go Tango Uniform... lots o lead acid to be disposed of.

I just don't think the delta in mileage between hybrid and non-hybrid is significant, nor is the number of hybrids now or anytime in the future large enough to matter.

I've got my money riding on Di-Lithium crystals or at the minimum Impulse Power.

Hey Chuck, that $4K could have bought a lot of flying time.

 

[wsuffa]

Perhaps we need to clarify terms:

Invoice: What the dealer pays for the car. The invoice price (not shown to you by the dealer, usually but available online) + the destination charge (typically $650) = what the dealer paid to get the car on the lot. The factory gets that money and thats all they get. (Sometimes less with incentives, etc for the dealers)

Sticker: or MSRP - the sticker price on the car. Always higher than invoice. MSRP - (Invoice + Destination charge) = Dealer's cut. The more you pay over Invoice & Destination, the more the dealer makes.

Over Invoice: Really stupid.

USUALLY when I shop for a new car, I aim for 2-3% over invoice. With the hybrid, I settled for MSRP (and got way more than my old car was really worth in trade). I would never go over MSRP.

FWIW, the "employee" pricing is below invoice. If you've paid invoice price, you've paid a premium relative to "employee" pricing.

 

[Anthony]

No, Chuck, while your math is accurate, your analysis is not. All you have calculated is how much farther that many gallons would carry you.

The cost per mile (at $3.00/gallon) is $0.12 at 25mpg, $0.1666 for 18mpg, making your breakeven for a $4,000.00 premium approximately 85,715 miles. At 85,715 miles, you will have saved enough to cover the $4,000.00; of course, you will also have lost the opportunity cost of that money (interest or investment value).

Hybrids also have other, less-apparent costs; how much to replace batteries (estimates in the $5,000.00 range); added cost for tires based upon added weight of vehicle to tote batteries; unproven added maintenance cost becaus eof added hardware and complexity; and who pays to dispose of the batteries and the hazardous waste that they represent.

*edit* That's the risk of long-delayed posts. Sorry to be duplicative, but I still remember the funny sound on the line when my leftie friend in West Hollywood was chimig up about how smart she was because she bought a Toyota Prius "...and it was only $5,000.00 over sticker!" I went through the analysis with her, comparing to a Corolla (and better car in every discernible way), and (iirc) breakeven (assuming nothing broke, even, ha ha) was somewhere around 260,000 miles. And that's with a sticker price supported by tax incentives...

And actual savings is less considering the Opportunity Cost of the $4K PLUS the cost savings of gas has to be Present Valued back over the time period to today at a discount rate, so the savings are actually less.

 

[Greebo]

True but - I don't think GM's "employee pricing" bodes well for them. They're seeming somewhat desparate for business right now. As one who has sworn off American (as in Detroit) cars I have my own opinions as to why that might be.

 

[gkainz]

...Perhaps the hybrid savings is a bit of hype - compared to the base cost. But even if it takes me 6 years to break even, or even if I don't - I'm ok with that. I like the technology, and I think the technology is where we're headed...

That's the best point - drive what you want because you like it...the rest is fluff. I drive a Cummins diesel because I love the Cummins diesel - even if it does only come packaged in a Dodge truck.

 

[Bill]

It's recommended more by quick lube shops and car mechanics. A lot of mechanics change their own oil at 3000 miles. They "believe in it."

The manufacturers also recommend a shorter interval for "rough duty" use like driving a city or in dusty environs.

Hmmm. During the warranty, I observe the 5kmi oil change intervals in my owners manual. After that, I double it with synthetic, done it on a few cars, and experienced no oil related problems or failures.

My bike manufacturer recommends 6kmi intervals with plain old dead dino. A few riders I know did an experiment, and put synthetic in the bikes. At 6k, the oil was sampled and sent for analysis. Result, oil in specification and usable for another interval. Same oil pulled at 12kmi, same results. Same oil pulled at 18kmi, analysis results showed the oil to still be in specification, but likely would not stay in specification over the next 6k interval.

People change their oil way too often, putting more money into the pockets of oil companies and creating far more hazardous waste.

 

[Missa]

Hmmm. During the warranty, I observe the 5kmi oil change intervals in my owners manual. After that, I double it with synthetic, done it on a few cars, and experienced no oil related problems or failures.

My bike manufacturer recommends 6kmi intervals with plain old dead dino. A few riders I know did an experiment, and put synthetic in the bikes. At 6k, the oil was sampled and sent for analysis. Result, oil in specification and usable for another interval. Same oil pulled at 12kmi, same results. Same oil pulled at 18kmi, analysis results showed the oil to still be in specification, but likely would not stay in specification over the next 6k interval.

People change their oil way too often, putting more money into the pockets of oil companies and creating far more hazardous waste.

Having seen some reasearch from back in my g-pa's days of desiging cars and engines, changing your oil actually is worse for your engine then not changing your oil. The breakdown of the new oil is actually harder on the engine. The key is drain and filter the oil for contaminates at regular intervals then re-use the same oil with new addidion of oil only for loss of volume. In his time at GM tech they did some reasearch where they drove 3 vehicles, one vehicle's oil was changed every 5,000 miles, one where it was changes every 10,000 miles and one that was never changed. The third vehicle lasted the longest. The auto companies are in the business of selling vehicles, the sooner your vehicle breaks the sooner you will be buying another one!

Missa
Changing oil bad, changing oil filter good
(too lazy to do it myself so I do have the oil changed but at a higher mileage then suggested)

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Having seen some reasearch from back in my g-pa's days of desiging cars and engines, changing your oil actually is worse for your engine then not changing your oil. The breakdown of the new oil is actually harder on the engine. The key is drain and filter the oil for contaminates at regular intervals then re-use the same oil with new addidion of oil only for loss of volume. In his time at GM tech they did some reasearch where they drove 3 vehicles, one vehicle's oil was changed every 5,000 miles, one where it was changes every 10,000 miles and one that was never changed. The third vehicle lasted the longest. The auto companies are in the business of selling vehicles, the sooner your vehicle breaks the sooner you will be buying another one!

Missa
Changing oil bad, changing oil filter good
(too lazy to do it myself so I do have the oil changed but at a higher mileage then suggested)

Missa, do you think oil technology has remaind static over the last 50 or 60 years? I think not. While that may have been true in the 40s and 50s, I don't think that study has any validity today.

 

[Bill]

Missa, do you think oil technology has remaind static over the last 50 or 60 years? I think not. While that may have been true in the 40s and 50s, I don't think that study has any validity today.

If anything, the results should exceed her Granpap's results. Oils are much better, filtration media is much better, engines are machined to better tolerances, and they are run-in much more scientifically.

That, and the cars of the 40's and 50's spent a good amount of time on dirt roads, while today cars rarely see dusty operations.

 

[wsuffa]

True but - I don't think GM's "employee pricing" bodes well for them. They're seeming somewhat desparate for business right now. As one who has sworn off American (as in Detroit) cars I have my own opinions as to why that might be.

Me, too. GM lost my business 18 years ago. Never again.

Ford is the only domestic I'd even consider, and even then, I'd probably choose their Mazda or Volvo product. 'Though if I were to do a Mazda 3, I might choose the (nearly identical) Ford Focus if it were substantially lower priced.

 

[wsuffa]

My bike manufacturer recommends 6kmi intervals with plain old dead dino.

You dont' use Aeroshell in the bike? Lots of folks do (that's why Sam's Club carried Aeroshell 100).

 

[Bill]

Me, too. GM lost my business 18 years ago. Never again.

Ford is the only domestic I'd even consider, and even then, I'd probably choose their Mazda or Volvo product. 'Though if I were to do a Mazda 3, I might choose the (nearly identical) Ford Focus if it were substantially lower priced.

Not to delve into religious auto wars, but I've owned Japanese, German, and American vehicles. I've found the overall cost of maint/repairs of the American cars to be on par with the BEST of the Japanese cars I've owned. The Germans are not even in the competition, best for driving feel, fun, and experience, but maint/repairs costs are almost another order of magnitude.

American cars MAY (model choice is more important) break down a little more than the Japanese cars, but the dirt cheap parts and maint keep them on an even level. IMHO, YMMV.