A five-year ROI on energy-saving technology is par for the course, above average even. Why spin it as a negative? You're reducing our dependence on foreign oil without spending an extra dime. How is that anything other than something to celebrate?

Emailed and told them so...

 

I just sent this leter to MSNBC:

To the Editor,

Regarding story: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8975473/



Is a hybrid car worth the gas savings?

I'm writing to implore the journalistic staff at MSNBC to please produce a thoughtful, factual and well-researched article on hybrid cars. This article is incorrect on so many points it's difficult to know where to begin. Consumer Reports and Edmunds.com contain highly suspect results when it comes to the performance of hybrid vehicles. These results are not typical of any hybrid owner I know. There are many resources (such as greenhybrid.com) where real hybrid owners collect data and share results. These are the folks you need to be talking to when writing about how successful hybrid cars are.

I've driven a hybrid for approaching 3 years (2003 Honda Civic Hybrid, 40,000 miles). Here are the points of the article I would like to counter with my own experience.

"We found very similar results on the highway," said Champion, "But instead of 60 miles per gallon we only got 35 miles per gallon in the city. So it’s a huge difference." Most Prius owners would have to try very hard to get mileage this poor. It's not simply sufficient to own a hybrid - it's how you drive it. It requires a change in habits from conventional cars. Case in point: my wife drives my Civic and will get 40 MPG. I get 51. Same car, different driving habits. The bad driving habits of one Consumer Reports editor does not qualify as a valid data point to characterize the performance of all hybrids. The greenhybrid.com database for a Prius ranges from 45 - 48 MPG, with many getting consistent 50+ MPG.

"Automotive analysts say these green vehicles depreciate faster and, because they are more expensive, cost more to insure." I would seriously question both of these assertions as being outright false and very misleading. My Civic has held it's value extremely well. In fact, a Honda dealership recently offered me close to $15000 in trade for my 3-year old vehicle that I paid $21,000 for. I could probably sell it on the street for $1-2,000 more. Also, there is no noticeable difference in insurance rates.

"Hybrids make great sense if you want to make a statement," adds Champion. "If you purely want to save money, they’re a little less defensible." Absolutely false. They make a statement and save money (that is, the hybrids designed for fuel economy - Honda Insight and Civic, and the Toyota Prius). I save $40-$50 a month in gas depending on prices. In my almost 3 years of ownership, I've saved right around $1500 in gas, which officially paid for the extra cost of the Hybrid Civic over the standard Civic. From this point on, it's money in my pocket.

"In fact, after crunching the numbers, Edmunds.com found only the Prius saved the buyer money after five years — just $81 over a conventional Camry." Another highly suspect claim. This isn't the case for any Prius, Insight or Civic Hybrid owner I know. In order for this statistic to be remotely true, you'd have to drive only 5 miles a day, and drive the Prius like a race car to minimize the fuel economy. Most people who buy these will drive 30-100 miles a day, which will outperform a Camry or anything like it by 2 or 3 times.

My final point is that the media, in general, has really done a poor job fairly and objectively characterizing real-world hybrid success stories. These reports from Consumer Reports or Edmunds.com are likely people driving the car for 30 minutes one afternoon and using a very limited data sample. I've spent more than 1200 hours behind the wheel of my Civic Hybrid, and I routinely get better mileage than the 45-46 the car is rated for (I get 50-51 MPG). Hybrids are not an extravagance that only environmentalists drive. They are driven by people who have given up luxury cars and SUVs to not only save money, but reduce our dependency on oil, and generate less pollution. These are all real-world benefits that have been realized by every Hybrid owner I've been in contact with.

 

ROI is totally dependent on the amout you drive (and the type of hybrid you own). If you put 20,000 miles / year on your car, you'll break even in 18 - 24 months in a Prius/Civic/Insight. I broke even at about 40K / 30 months. 5 years is a bit long - would indicate something on the order of 8K per year driven, which is low (however, it would take that long in an SUV, Accord, etc.). I wouldn't call it "par", I'd call it on the long end of the spectrum. The negative is that it's misleading people into thinking that it takes all hybrids that long to recoup the cost, when there are clearly better numbers out there to draw upon.

 

Seriously, this may be the worst report I have ever seen on a hybrid.

The Detroit News ran an article about how not only are hybrids holding their value, but in some cases, appreciating rather than depreciating.

My insurance went down when I changed from a '95 Ford Explorer to the 2005 Escape Hybrid.

And of couse, we all know how atrocious that milage is, and what a joke the idea of not making your money back is, but seriously, I get over double the MPG that a regular Escape does, and they're going to say that I won't make the price difference up or end up with a profit in the long run?

Like I said, perhaps the worst reporting ever on a hybrid.


EDIT: I wrote a letter to the Editor, I couldn't help it.


Hello,

I am writing in response to the nightly news article, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8975473/ about hybrid cars. Frankly, I wonder how this can be called journalism, as there's no research and no facts being reported.

The article first mentions how hybrids don't perform up to EPA standards in real-world driving, and in fact, come up far short. Really? I'm a member of www.greenhybrid.com, a hybrid community where people share their fuel economy one tank at a time, and while not everyone is getting terrific MPGs and/or beating the EPA, it's a far cry from the giant gap the article reports. Even ignoring that, having one person give their results, probably after one afternoon of driving as your source when there's entire communities of people own and drive the vehicles in question, who could be easily reached and eager to share information about the hybrid is just plain lazy. (And for the record, my lifetime Fuel Economy is above the EPA numbers.)

The article goes on to mention that the vehicles depreciate faster and cost more to insure. Strange, you would think that if this were true, newspapers like the Detroit Free Press wouldn't run articles about how demand for them has been soaring causing them to not only minimally depreciate, but in some cases increase in value. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-197580.htm

As for the insurance, well, I can't really quote anything other than my own experience. I traded in my '95 Ford Explorer and got a 2006 4WD Escape Hybrid. My insurance went down, nearly $300 a year.

The article talks about not saving money with a hybrid. Well, that also seems just as absurd. Comparing, say the Escape Hybrid against an Escape, a far more direct comparison than a Prius against a Camry, the Escape Hybrid gets around 263% the Fuel Economy that a conventional Escape does. With gas prices on the rise, let alone at some static statistic price, the price difference between the two vehicles for anyone who comes even close to the miles the average American drives will not only make up the price difference, but will come out several thousand dollars ahead after a decade of driving.

I apologize for sounding so adversarial, but frankly, reporting opinions and outright falsehoods as news is far worse.

Anne Thompson should be ashamed of herself.

Thank you for your time,

-Richard Krueger

 

The nay-sayers just don't understand the mindset of the hybrid car owner. Personally, I didn't pay $4,000 more for an economy car because I was too cheap to pay for gasoline! Geeez!!

My insurance premium stayed the same, despite the fact that my HCH was $8,000 more than the car it replaced (a Toyota Echo). Yes, my car gets about 42 MPG instead of 48, but that's also after three years and 80,000 miles. I challenge you to find ANY car that's still up to factory spec after 80,000 miles. When it was brand new, it got 54 MPG. I really can't complain.

My choice of vehicle wasn't about being thrifty on gas. I bought this car because I wanted to say NO to foreign oil and I wanted a clean-burning, quiet, pretty car. And that's what I got in my 2003 Civic Hybrid. It's had exactly *one* unscheduled, emergency repair. That's not bad for 3 years and 80,000 miles. I had the IMA tested recently and it's still providing charge at 96% of original capacity.

Nothing burns me up more than lazy journalism. But you have to remember that the mainstream media also blew up a Ford Ranger by sticking explosives under the transmission so that they could film how *dangerous* that vehicle was too. ::sigh::

 

EXACTLY. And as a bonus, the environment benefits.