Hybrids will stretch gas dollars, but cost more in the end

Link: By John McCormick / Special to The Detroit News

Poorly informed media hype about hybrid vehicles is leading to a distorted public view of the technology.

A new opinion poll from the Civil Society Institute, which bills itself as a nonpartisan think tank, claims that four of five Americans think U.S. automakers should follow Toyota Motor Corp.'s lead in developing hybrid vehicles.

A related survey from the institute suggests it is unpatriotic to buy larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Simple math

Here's the bottom line: You should consider buying a full hybrid vehicle (one that can run on its electric motor alone) if you want to reduce CO2 exhaust emissions, particularly if you do most of your driving in the city.

But if you want to save money, taking into account the purchase price of the vehicle, then you will be better off buying a conventional model, even at today's elevated gas prices.

How is this so? Currently, the most prominent hybrid models on the market -- the Toyota Prius, Honda Accord and Ford Escape -- cost several thousand dollars more than comparable conventional models.

Simple math tells you that even with gas at $5 a gallon, these vehicles will take as long as four years to pay for themselves.

And in doing the numbers on hybrids, it's important to realize the distorting effect of official fuel consumption figures from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Real world consumption figures, as evidenced by independent sources such as Consumer Reports, reveal these hybrid models are significantly less fuel efficient than the government figures suggest.

This is due mainly to the unrealistic nature of dated government consumption tests, which do not reflect current driving habits or speeds

Then there are market forces to consider. Go into your local dealer and you'll find the discounts available on gasoline-engine models do not apply to hybrids.

Being green

If being green is all-important to you, then sophisticated hybrid vehicles like the Prius can make a significant difference because of the time the car spends running solely on electric power.

But again, some caution is required. The reductions in CO2 emissions being bandied about for hybrids are based on the EPA's fuel consumption figures, which as mentioned, are misleading.

Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about the environmental impact of disposing of the large battery packs used in hybrid vehicles.

All of this is not to downplay the importance of Ford Motor Co.'s recent push to offer more hybrid vehicles in the U.S. market.

Driven carefully, hybrids will stretch a gallon further than a regular vehicle. And ultimately, reducing our reliance on imported fuel by moving to a more fuel-efficient vehicle fleet is important.

Just don't get sucked into believing you will see significant personal economic benefit from hybrids.

 

What's shocking is the ignorance of the public.

It's just one of many articles that point out that the EPA figures are exaggerated and the return of investment if at least four years, depending on the amount of driving. And again, it makes the safer NiMH batteries seem more toxic than the acid-lead and nickel batteries that have been used for decades.

It implies that the "mild-hybrids" such as the Insight don't help on the environment. Name another vehicle that emitts less than 3.1 tons of CO2 a year? SLEV is not the lowest rating, but it's not dirty either.

 

Blah blah blah. Sorry, I can't hear you, I'm too busy saving tons of cash.

 

I was being Sarcastic with the "Shocking" comment. What do you expect from the SUV capital of the world.

 

Actually, what I am finding is that the public is becoming more educated than the journalists who write this stuff. At least, that's true for the people I come in contact with.

It used to be (half a year ago) that my SUV guzzler friends would get a smirk when they found out I had a hybrid. And then say something about the toxic batteries, the poor mileage, etc. The same tripe that this guy is spewing.

Nowadays, however, they are genuinely interested, and impressed, and want to ride in the car and see the mileage. No more smirks. More of a quiet respect.

Maybe that's what happens to people who are exposed to hybrid owners -- they get more informed than the rest of the general public, who only get their information from articles like this.

My friends are more informed that these ridiculous journalists who keep rehashing the same stuff. This is making my very cynical of the current state of journalism today -- somebody says something interesting in 2003, and it keeps getting restated by other 'journalists' every month, claiming it as their own.

 

People often believe what they wish to believe. There were a lot of people that insisted that Elvis lived well beyond 1977 for instance. There are people that deceive themselves that because SUVs are bigger and macho, they are safer. Their very size makes them far more likely to rollover and rattle the occupants to death if they are unbuckled.

We all have our beliefs and we tend to try to mold reality to those beliefs - some get absurd to the extent they do this.

It's a guess on my part: mainstream journalists are probably anti-oil industry, yet for some reason loaths hybrids. The automotive media likey sees hybrids as the anthesis of the sports cars they love.

After reading these posts, I'm starting to think some people actually know better when they diss hybrids - it's deliberate misinformation. There is a lot of B.S. out there....

 

Personally I honestly find this type of article refreshing. In spite of the errors the main point of the article is true. At current gas prices most folks will be waiting a long time to see a break even point if money is the main concern. I'd rather have people be realistic about hybrids than dissapointed.

 

It always cracks me up that the media hacks never do a whit of research about how hybrids function or why people buy them. All they care about is the perceived ROI. Lemme tell ya: if ROI was all that mattered, then no one should ever buy a Lexus (which is really just a fancy Toyota with leather seats), and we should only buy used cars because of depreciation. Sounds silly, right?

 

"There were a lot of people that insisted that Elvis lived well beyond 1977"

Were? Ohmygosh, have I been dissed again?

 

Funny thing with me is that it was never a money issue when I bought my car. I looked at the epa numbers and compared it to my previous car (A geo metro) They were pretty much equal. I liked the car for what it was and how it drove. So I replaced my $10,000 metro with a $20,000 civic hybrid. I feel it was worth it. The metro was a nice car but was kind of barebones and small. The civic is an extension of what I had in the metro. Its a better car plain and simple. Its not an atm machine where I expect to withdraw money at every fill up.

If people want to save money then my advice to them is to drive their current car into the ground and get a new one when the car no longer runs.

My friend just replaced a ford escort with a mustang GT. Where is the return on investment between the two. Funny I've never seen that number in any Mustang GT reviews.