Just one more log for the fire - I did a quick comparison of the 2006 HCH II CVT with a Civic EX 5-sp AT (both non-Nav) on Honda's own website. They have a "Comparably Equipped Price" to (I assume) account for the fact the Hybrid comes standard with a few gadgets the EX does not. From their site:

Comparably Equipped Prices:

HCH: $22,400
EX: $19,610

Difference: $2790 - That, to me, is the "hybrid premium", NOT $4000. You'd think they'd have considered the fact the HCH has more standard equipment. What HCH has that the EX does not:

- Automatic Climate Control
- Electric Hybrid Engine ( )
- Electronic Brake Assist
- Radio Anti-Theft
- Rear Spoiler
- Trip Computer

Also, the HCH has 2.5 more cubic feet of passenger space and 1.3" more headroom.

Now that took all of 5 minutes to look up. What are these CR editors doing with their time?

 

Toaster testing

I have a subscription to CR but I only use it for reliability ratings.

 

The math mistakes in this thread are making my head swim a little bit, but I'm still pretty certain that if the Prius lost 55% of its original value then according to your numbers the Echo lost 52% of its original value, NOT 48%.

Doing quick mental math as I read along, it's apparent that six thousand something is always less than half of fourteen thousand something, for a loss of more than half its value. Noticing things like this always forces me to get a calculator and determine the real answer (it's a mania, what can I say). It probably makes no real difference to your conclusion, however, just like the $10,500 v. $11,500 mistake in Bob's post. But if you're going to all the trouble to give us numbers to crunch (I love numbers! More numbers, please!) you may as well correct this mistake. Gracias!

 

leahbeatle,

You are quite correct. I have edited the result in the post you quoted.

I think I did the same as others and confused value lost with remaining value.

Thanks for picking this up.

 

Not defending CR as they clearly screwed up with the depreciation, but they say they used Vincentric as a source and that site uses "Market Price" not the MSRP. I think they are saying that HCHs are selling for full MSRP and EXs are getting an average $1200 under MSRP. I haven't exhaustively verified this

http://db.theautochannel.com/db/tota...ng_costs.phtml

Key in the EX and Hybrid on that site and they give Market Prices of $18,299 and $22,400 respectively, difference $4101.

One thing I'd say for Vincentric is they are very positive on Hybrids, I tend to think they would giving the benefit of the doubt to Hybrids not Gas Only in their analysis.

 

LIBRARY RESEARCH RESULTS:

I went through the 2001 Consumer Reports and only found two brief references to the Prius or any other hybrid. One was "Toyota Prius tested December 2000 . . ."

The December 2000 Consumer Reports issue has a seven page report titled "The new fuel misers" that covers the Volkswagen Golf TDI, Toyota Prius, Toyota Echo and Honda Insight. It would be a remarkable advertisement that covered vehicles from three competing car makers. Needless to say, there was no "Paid Advertisement" text on any of the pages.

I then checked Popular Science and found the March 2001 issue, pp. 76-79 had a nice write up on two hybrid-electrics: Prius and Insight. Again, two competing car makers and no "Paid Advertisement" text.

Most libraries have a periodical reference section where past issues can be reviewed. Post the specific issue and no doubt someone will be willing to go look it up. Of course it would be a great practical joke to have a "Paid Advertisement" stamp . . .

Bob Wilson

 

Thanks bwilson4web for running this down and refuting the bogus claims about CR taking paid advertisements. I have exhausted myself previously stating that they did not, and never will, accept such things, but it fell on deaf ears.

Thanks for taking the time to expose this misinformation.

As you and others have pointed out, there is "Consumer's Guide", and "Consumer Digest", and no doubt others, which do take advertisements. They benefit from the ignorance or inattentiveness of people, who confuse them with Consumer Reports.

Irregardless of our feelings about this particular article, it only makes us look bad when we misstate facts and repeat innuendo. Hopefully your good work will stifle that aspect of this discussion so we can talk about the real issue here.

 

Sending me to the library is like sending a kid to the candy factory. <grins> I was about to go through the rest of the stacks but my wife via the cell phone reminded me of other duties.

One minor problem with the article was use of a 1770 cc Corolla instead of a 1500 cc Echo like they did in the December 2000 article "The new fuel misers." At a minimum, they should have used a 1500 cc Scion.

In engineering, we like to vary as few elements as possible when making a head-to-head comparision. Use of the 1770 cc Corolla was an unnecessary difference since Toyota still sells the Echo, now called Yaris, and two 1500 cc Scion models. I may write a second letter asking why.

Bob Wilson

 

Good point. Missed that one. Thanks!

 

LOL, Are we beating the perverbial dead horse?

The article was screwed up, they 2nd guessed them selves and now it comes around to huant them...