Hey

I resemble that remark!

 

I want to sort out the multitude of perspectives.

From the planet's perspective (which does not care about cost), operating a hybrid is absolutely and quantifiably cleaner (less gas, less emissions). On the manufacturing, I'm not buying into your "more CO2" to produce theory. Sure, it might be more simply because the hybrid has two things an equivalent LX does not - the electric motor and battery pack. However I don't think the CO2 cost anywhere near what you're dramatizing it to be. It's more likely a very minor upper. And since you seem to be focused on the financial aspects of ownership, I can't believe this is a very significant buying decision for you anyway. Your Mercedes would likely have a higher CO2 cost to manufacture than either the LX or hybrid. Anyway you seem to think the burden of proof is on hybrid owners, and it's not. Maybe I live in a tent as opposed to a house, so my net CO2 footprint is less and more than offsets my hybrid and easily justifies it. I don't know anyone who evaluates their life by that measure, because there is so little data. Even if there were, it's not a point worth debating.

From the buyer's perspective, return on investment is a relative question. Hybrids, when compared to cars we we were previously driving, often times reclaim their "hybrid cost" in 2-4 years. I reclaimed mine in 3, over a 1994 Infiniti G20 (at 25 MPG). Since the LX was not a car I would have considered, for me it's saving me money. BTW, since I plan to own this car for 10 years (at least), I'll save about $6000 in gas. Since you are choosing between an LX and a Hybrid, it's fair to make the comparison to decide if you'll come out ahead - or at least how long it takes. At 8K miles / year, my simple estimate put the break even out at 10 years. So sure, enjoy the LX. I wouldn't argue if $ was your bottom line.

However, because that's your situation does not make ours invalid. Everyone's buying decision is different. We're not stupid because we chose a hybrid over an LX. Let me put it another way. My "hybrid" premium was $1800. In a 5 year car loan, that's $360 per year, or $6.92 a week. So the way I see it, for the cost of a mocha latte and a bagel I can drive a hybrid instead of the LX, and in 5 years it's all savings to me. To me if you're going to sweat $7 a week you need to be looking at a much less expensive car to begin with. It's just not that big a deal. Decide how you like, but don't project your situation on me as if we had the same choice to make. We didn't. Enjoy your purchase just the same.

 

Private,

The facts and data remain:

1) Dept. of Energy fleet usage showed over 160,000 miles
2) Hybrid taxis are saving $6,000/yr.
3) The batteries aren't failing
4) Hybrids have a lot of creature comforts
5) Hybrids get excellent mileage compared to simular vehicles
6) Hybrid premium is already down to $1,500 for equivalent models

You have already dismissed facts that disagree with your fantasies so it doesn't matter. But these facts remain:

1) Dept. of Energy fleet usage showed over 160,000 miles
2) Hybrid taxis are saving $6,000/yr.
3) The batteries aren't failing
4) Hybrids have a lot of creature comforts
5) Hybrids get excellent mileage compared to simular vehicles
6) Hybrid premium is already down to $1,500 for equivalent models

Eventually, you'll tire of getting the same old facts and data. Cut and paste is easy and simple, private.

Bob Wilson

 

Excellent post, Tim! I know you started into this against your better judgment (like most of us, I suspect), but you always make solid contributions.

It's not like we ALL tout ourselves as being SO GREEN. If so, then maybe the CO2 argument could apply. Maybe, but the data is tough to come by, and everyone that HAS done a study had an agenda, so those few reports cannot be trusted. I would not let any dust-to-dust environmental costs thoughts keep me from buying a car. These reports are speculating also with a good portion of the data, and use statistics to lie (er, tell the story as they WANT you to see it).
So those that believe in being GREEN above all else , typically look at the KNOWN variables, like the CO2 emissions coming out of their tailpipes, & gallons of gas saved at the pump. The unknowns are just that, unknown.

Others buy cars that make financial sense to THEM and for THEIR situations. For me, the HCH-II certainly makes sense. I'm saving enough money in gas alone to break even with the Civic EX (yes, EX) in about 85,000 miles. I got a good deal on my HCH-II ($516 over invoice). Break-even is sooner if gas prices go up. I've done a lot of calculations to ensure that I am NOT going to take a money-bath on this purchase.

Still others buy simply what strikes their fancy at the moment. This used to be me. I have no problem with that, you pay the price for it and it's yours. If it's a gas-hog (and I still own one), you pay for it at the pump (although I'd prefer fueling less terrorism these days).

Capt. - Just don't go off telling us how YOU know that we made bad financial and ecological decisions. You don't know.

I agree with Tim's assessment of 10 years/80,000 or so miles to break even for the Capt. This depends on how good a deal the Capt. can get on each. Limiting the cost-payback-scenario to only 5 years implies 40,000 miles for the Capt. Does he REALLY think the hybrid battery and/or the CVT transmission are going to die that soon? The battery would still be under warranty, even! This is a ridiculous assumption and I shall not comment on his comparisons any more. I know he's not, but his comments have the markings of a troll, just trying to stir us up. It's not worth it to reply anymore.

I am interested in others' opinions, especially dissenting ones. It makes me think. Too much of the "hybrid love fest" is really not constructive for people trying to decide if one is right for them. Just don't toss out disparaging remarks without anything to back it up, and then ignore counter-evidence. In fact, 2 years ago, I would never have considered buying a hybrid. I thought the technology was not quite far enough along (I had the battery fear, the lack-of-performance fear, the poor-trade-in-value fear, the reliability fear, etc). I researched enough to convince myself otherwise. I feel we've recently crossed that threshold (maybe in 2003 with the HCH, or 2004 with the Prius II), but we're there now. The next generation will just be that much better (and hopefully, affordable).

The "hybrids are expensive and don't pay off" myth is NOT a myth to the general population - it's a fact. They typically buy or lease a new car every 3-4 years (if not sooner), which does NOT make financial sense in and of itself. The hybrid premium will NOT pay you back in gas savings until 50-100,000 miles, depending on which one you get, and your typical drive-type.
It is unfortunate that the media mostly look at the short-term payoff, which isn't there. They MAY take this approach simply because most people do not keep a car long enough for it to make sense, and the extra cost of a hybrid makes this practice even more costly.

 

Funny! My partner is wavering between a Prius and a yuppie mobile for his next car (he drives a conservative Accord (i4) right now). As much of a die-hard hybrid fan that I am (HCH w/ 105k), I'm feeling the siren call of the Honda FIT (ultra cute, inexpensive, gets almost 40 MPG, LEV rated).

It's too bad there's not a forum for "tiny cute compact cars", since I'm drawn to the Smart, Yaris, and (of COURSE) the Insight. I wanted a Ford Aspire when they were out, but my credit score was totally hosed at the time, so I didn't get the loan.

Satisfaction with my HCH: 90%

 

1. Yes, and with a sample of 2 Insights, one needed so many repairs that they scrapped it before it could reach 160,000 miles.
2. If I had a taxi, I'd probably buy a hybrid. Duh. Never argued that point. Doesn't have a lot to do with the average consumer.
4. Hybrids have a lot of creature comforts. So what? They do that to maximize (or frankly, preserve) profit.
6. Hybrid Premium isn't only $1500. Honda says it COSTS THEM $2500.

You're ignoring the fact that you have no idea how much extra CO2 (and other pollutants) are generated in the production of the hybrid vs comparable gas only model. You're also making it clear that you don't want to know, because you would have to get off your soap box.

You're also ignoring the fact that at present, hybrids still cost a lot more money to produce, and without the tax credits, the potential money savings for most consumers is not that great, and perhaps not worth the risk of needing to maintain additonal mechanical systems.

And one more thing from my buying perspective. The Civic Hybrid tires do not have good traction. They howl at moderate cornering speeds on dry pavement. For the winter, I'd have to put a different set on there. That's another expense that I would have to pay for. Modern all season tires today on FWD cars are fine in the snow.

 

Gumby, the HCHI had CVT issues that Honda is NOT owning up to, and owners are having to perform costly repairs. Since there is now a 5 year warranty, I'd view the car as a 5 year purchase. I'd view an EX/LX as a 10 year purchase. However, if I did buy the HCHII, I'd be poking around the boards to see if anyone is having tranny problems in 4 years, since most people would hit them long before me. If I didn't perceive an unusually high incidence of failure, I'd keep the car past the warranty period.

But I consider the reliability to be an unknown for the CVT. Am I just supposed to ignore the past?

I don't have all the data to prove that a hybrid is less green than a gas model, which means you can't prove that it is more green.

 

Captain Obvious,

You are BENT on ignoring that GH is a place for hybrid drivers and others considering it. It's safe to say your body of posts since you have joined assert you are hostile to anyone having a hybrid. A moderator and at least two other members have said that much in the last 12 hours.

So where are you on your process of getting a hybrid? If not a hybrid, why haven't you gone to a non-hybrid forum then?

We know in a court of law that constantly shifting arguements will lose a case. Captain Obvious' position is intelluctually bankrupt because he is unable to jump all over the place. Someone else might have the capacity of a credible opposing view, but not like this.

Watch him dodge the question and argue simply for the joy of disruption.

 

Twenty years ago, we were just starting to count cholestrol, transfats, etc. Today we are just starting to count CO2. I doubt there is much documentation on the amount of CO2 emitted to produce most anything. The government does not require that documentaton.

Even without that, the energy to produce electric motors and batteries is unlikely to be enormous, so it's doubtful there is a lot of CO2 generated.

 

Yes, people might come here to research hybrids. And in fact the title says it is an "online resource". It doesn't say "Hybrid Enthusiasts", or "Hybrid Fanatics". It says it is a resource. So I thought this would be a good place to discuss these things. I don't think asking how much CO2 emission there is in the production of a hybrid is attacking anyone.

Frankly, I'm convinced that you would continue to be super pro hybrid even if history proves that hybrids were much worse overall for the environment than a gas only model. Maybe you should go join a support group Delta. I'm trying to learn and discuss topics in an "online resource".

If you think your car is greener, then prove it. Am I to believe that an entire community of people just assumed their cars were greener because they use less gasoline while they own them?