Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the cost effectiveness of a hybrid is in direct proportion to the distance the car is driven. When I got my HCH, I drove 2000 miles per month on business. Now I drive 4.1 miles downtown to work. My partner used to work at a library very close to home, but now works at a branch much further away.

So... When we trade our cars in, he's getting a Prius and I'm getting a Honda FIT. It's not because I don't want a hybrid anymore, but even a Hummer doesn't make much environmental impact with a 4.1 mile drive!

 

Capt Obvious,

Thank you for clarifying you drive/drove a Mercedes. You lose the point of this forum by using a Toyota Echo in your arguements, as it's nothing like what you drive from ameties, performance, or budget standpoint. One of the purposes of GH is for members to discuss their experiences, not solely hypotheticals.

At this point I'm really speaking more to everyone else, as they have more of an open mind - sorry.

I will maintain that comparing the Honda CRX HF to Insight is the next best thing to comparing a non-hybrid Insight that never existed to a stock Insight. The still have this in common:

• Both are built by Honda
• Both weigh 1,800 pounds
• Both have near identical shape and aerodynamics
• Both are two-seaters with 5-speeds

At www.fueleconomy.gov, the 1988 Honda CRX HF SIL (i.e. 5-speed) produces 3.5 tons of CO2 annually - the 2000 Insight 2.9 tons. The CRX HF I had produced 0.6 more tons of CO2 annually than my Insight. This should be common sense - a 995cc engine should be cleaner than a similar 1500cc engine.

Note: The EPA is projecting this on driving 15,000 miles annually - I drive about 18,000.

This is one of Captain Obvious' assertions: Over the last six years, my Insight has emitted six tons less CO2 than my CRX HF would have. The production of the Insight hybrid components emitted over six tons of CO2 over what it would take to build a non-hybrid such as a CRX HF. Sound plausible?

To avoid the need to dig it up, I drove that CRX HF rough much of the time. I also had an incompetent tune up that very nearly destroyed the engine. It lost coolant and freon - should have had a lawyer on hand as it lost about 30% of both fuel economy and performance. Instead of a lifetime mpg of around 48mpg according to the EPA, it was more like 33-35mpg after that disasterous tune up. The 60mpg lifetime real world estimate for the Insight by the EPA is close to my lmpg of 58.5.

I do wish I'd treated that 88' CRX HF better as it got 50mpg when it was in good condition. Even by today's standards, it is relatively green. It was still good for 250,000 miles.

 

P.S. A Toyota Echo with a standard emits 5.0 tons of CO2 annually vs. 2.9 for an Insight.

6 years * 2.1 CO2 difference = 12.6 tons of CO2

So does that mean the hybrid components of the Insight used over 12.6 tons of CO2 to make?

 

Until someone can provide a credible link on the CO2 emissions generated on producing battery packs or a hybrid automobile, the assertions it takes massive amounts should be considered dubious.

 

I agree with Delta: you can't quote the Echo experience when you own a Merdedes Benz.

I've had the Echo experience. It wasn't a *terrible* car, but every hybrid in production blows it away in terms of features, performance, comfort, and overall user satisfaction. The other thing to consider is that my Echo was totally shot at 100k, but my HCH shows no signs of mechanical deterioration at 105k. Ccosmetically, my car is in pretty terrible shape, but it's as reliable as the day I bought it. The Echo wasn't designed to be a road warrior, while hybrids are extravagantly over-engineered to the task.

 

What are all of these magical hybrid components that supposedly cost all of this extra energy to make? Really, what is it but a battery and an electric motor? Does anyone think that producing these two items uses significantly more CO2 than it does to make a normal vehicle? I mean, we should also take into consideration how much more CO2 it takes to make a V6 as compared to the 4 cyl engine in the Hybrid. I'm sure someone could find data to determine how much CO2 is produced to make a NiMH battery....and we've got what 180 of them in the back?

 

Off-topic for a moment: Why doesn't Honda try to make the Fit look more like a Mini Cooper? Maybe a little larger, with removable seats, a performance version, a hybrid version.

 

Well since they are two completely different cars, it might be possible that production of the entire Insight did use over 12.6 tons of CO2 vs the Echo. Maybe it didn't. I don't know.

The point is, the manufacturer's don't publish this stuff. Therefore, you don't know how green the car really is. I wish they would make the info available, but I also realize that it would be a difficult number to compute. The manufacturers are only partially responsible for the actual CO2 output. How do they account for all the steel, plastics, and everything else?

If people really want to cut down on the carbon footprint, they'll buy smaller houses (how much energy input goes into production of a $250k house and all of its materials?), eat less (I probably spend $5k on food each year), live closer to work, and in general buy less of everything... and then the economy will colapse. Being green isn't really consistent with economic growth. This country is about making as much money as you can, buying as much junk as you can. Massive unnecessary consumption is what makes the wheels go around. Is it sustainable? No way.

Am I green? Not really. I'm not saying it's bad to be green or not. I'm just trying to illustrate that unless you know the CO2 emitted during the production of a vehicle, you can't really compare it to something else. In the absense of that info, I think actual dealer cost is the best indication we have to determine how much CO2 was produced... because CO2 is produced from using energy, energy they paid for, and energy you have to pay for. So I don't have the formula for how much CO2 was released for a particular price, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if one non-luxury car costs twice as much as another, it probably had close to twice the energy input.

I am not convinced that current generation hybrids are very green because it's obvious they aren't cheap to produce, particularly, the Toyota systems. There are more green non-hybrid vechicles available, but that would require sacrifice. But the thing is, hybrid owners want SUV owners to sacrifice and buy a smaller car, but hybrid owners don't want to sacrifice and buy an Echo.

(FYI, I hate SUVs for safety reasons, but I love that they spend $5k a year in gasoline so they can look cool LOL)

Back on the original topic, hybrids will certainly save some people money. The question is, will they save most people money? At this point I don't think they will, but they seem to be getting closer. And as I said before, if you weren't already planning to buy a top of the line Civic or Camry, the price gap widens substantially to the point where the car won't save you money unless gas goes a lot higher.

I don't know why anyone should be upset about that point of view. I didn't buy my car to save money. And if I buy a hybrid, fun factor will have a lot to do with it. A hybrid might be a real money saver for one person, and more of a toy for another person. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Six months on the forum of showing no intent of getting a hybrid and implying to those that do it was a waste...how could that upseting?

 

Captain obvious: I wholeheartedly disagree with you that the American economy would collapse if people stopped buying cheap plastic crap. I argue that the average American probably had a higher effective wage prior to the Walmartization of this country.

With that said, if people conserved more, the economy would shift from cheap/disposable items to expensive/durable items. Life would go on, and it would be better.