What?! You have to own a hybrid FIVE WHOLE YEARS before you break even on the price differential? The horror! The horror!

 

Fortunately, it looks like I'll reach break even in the first year of ownership. My non-hybrid alternative was a Scion xB and the 03 Prius cost me only $824 more. I've already saved $250 in annual insurance. BTW, the cost of fuel has shortened my payback interval.

Compared to our 2001 Echo, the Prius has more interior space; the same five passenger seats; better low speed accelleration; more luxury built into the standard configuration; more air bags and anti-lock brakes. The Echo goes faster but the ride if noisier and rougher.

He has facts and experience, which trumps 'argument absurdum.'

Fantasies are a wonderful thing until you try to live in one.

Without subsidy, the payback appears to be about 100,000 miles, well within the expected vehicle lifetime of even the most ardent skeptic. BTW, I haven't gotten that HCH1 replacement bill, have you?

The hybrid taxi cabs are saving about $6,000 in fuel every year. Not bad!

Bob Wilson

 

Since this argument has already reached the **** stage...

Why not say the performance of the MMH is (8.9-8.1)/(9.1-8.1)*100% = 80% closer to the 4 cyl than the 6 cyl and therefore use 20% of the price difference as an add to the 4 cyl price for the comparison?

OK, that would be way too ****. Sorry. Back to the not too **** arguments...

In my case, a Camry hybrid, ignoring the 0-60 performance numbers, or the HP numbers, there is still the issue of standard features on the hybrid that are not available on the LE (and some not available on the XLE) as well as standard features on the XLE not available on the hybrid. I would have been more likely to buy a V6 XLE for performance and to get those other features, but preferred having a clean burning hybrid. I am COMPLETELY satisfied with the performance and smoothness of the hybrid, both of which are inadequate for me in the 4 cyl, and I paid less for a loaded Camry hybrid than what the XLE V6 lists for. Nor could I have gotten a good enough deal on the V6 XLE to make it significantly cheaper than my hybrid. For this fair-to-me comparison, my hybrid will have paid for itself within a year, before consideration of the $2600 tax credit I will get. The hybrid is a complete win for my pocketbook. My over $600 annual gas savings will easily pay for my expected battery replacement in 15 years (design life of the pack, which is how Toyota can afford the 100K mi warranty on them).

Can anyone verify that it is still true (as it was last year) that Toyota has not had a single warranty claim for NiMH battery packs in any of the US sold hybrids in the last six years?

-- Alan

 

I don't know why the Echo keep coming up as an alternative gas miser. At 32.1 Bob that's not that much better than my Tacoma. My last tank was 601 miles and 33.5mpg, the one before 607 miles and 31.3 mpg. Give me a few more tanks and I should be over 30 average.

Let's use the Tacoma as an alternative miser, with some serious functionality, I paid $18,131.

 

Bob, was your alternate vehicle a used 2003 Scion XB?

Who said anything about a Prius, Bob? I'm talking about an Insight. Since you are an expert though, what is the break-even point on a Prius or Insight if you have to buy a new battery? I know Honda was being nice and giving Insight owners new batteries, but I'm talking about if you have to buy one.

How much have the HCH CVTs cost me? Are you really asking that question?

How do cabs have anything to do with people commuting 100 miles per day?

Worthy, fueleconomy.gov shows people getting 38 to 40MPG with the Echo, not 32. But even at 32, it would still smoke the Prius or the Insight in ownership costs. I think the Prius is probably a nicer car though.

 

About batteries...why should the consumer have to pay for it when there were software glitches? It (2000 model year) was the first year hybrids were sold in America. Things have improved in the past few years. I'd suspect most problems are in 5-speed hybrids, and some other identifyable conditions, but the point here is the automaker acknowledged it needed tweaking up and did so.

In other words, the battery pack will last a long time if the driver takes good care of it - even in a non-automatic hybrid.

 

There is just no convincing those that do not wish to be convinced. Facts be dam*ned.

There are uncertainties with any new technology. The gas-electric hybrid is no different. Confusing facts with fears is what the naysayers like to do, when they have no compelling argument. They refuse facts (like ZERO Prius batteries have been replaced due to failure - only accident replacements. This is directly from Toyota.) And some of these hybrids are taxis, with 200K or more miles on them.
Captain Obvious and others want to spread this fear as it is mostly an unknown to the general public. And it sounds rational. Most people think (including me, until I RESEARCHED IT A LITTLE!) that since these batteries are NiMH, just like our cell phones, that they will die rather quickly - just like our cell phone batteries. The similarity ends with the NiMH, though, as the charge cycling is carefully and FULLY controlled specifically to prolong the hybrid battery for 150K or more miles. This is IN THE DESIGN OF THESE VEHICLES. And they are warranted for a minimum of 8yr/80K miles, and many more in 5 or 6 states. If Toyota or Honda didn't design them to last at least this long, they wouldn't sell them here in the Us, as they'd take a bath on all the covered replacements (not to mention soiling their reputation).

STOP spreading a totally unfounded fear.
Find a REAL fear (I'm not giving you any help ).

Now it is possible, even probable, that a few of us hybrid owners will have a bad hybrid-battery experience (early failure). Just like a TV designed for 10-20 years of service - one occasionally flips out early. This doesn't make them all LIKELY to flip out early. So it is with hybrid batteries, and hybrid technology in general.

my .02

 

`

I never said having to own the vehicle for 5 years was a bad thing. I was simply answering the question as to why the media continually mentions why the extra expense of a hybrid does not necessarily pay for itself with gas savings.

I will say it again. There are numerous reasons for purchasing a hybrid that are justified. But if your ONLY goal in owning a hybrid is to save money in gas, then you need to be prepared to own the vehicle for a while.

Obviously this didn't keep me from purchasing my HiHy.

 

I'm not spreading fear. I'm saying battery replacement is an unknown factor at this point.

I'm glad you're so smart. Maybe someone can educate me in one single response and impress me with all the facts they knew before they made a purchasing decision (because obviously they wouldn't just get defensive because they already bought a hybrid):

1. How much extra CO2 and other pollutants were released into the atmosphere in designing and producing your hybrid drivetrain components?
2. How much does it really cost Toyota to put a hybrid system in a vehicle? (remember, no speculation, we need facts).
3. What will the future reliability of the Honda and Toyota designs be, including the battery.
4. Based on number 3, what will the depreciation of these vehicles be.
5. Based on number 3, will there be even more CO2 and other pollutants added to the environment in the production of another battery? Or the new transmissions?
6. What will the real servicable life of these cars be?
7. What will the future price of gas be?
8. Are better batteries that cost less than current batteries on the horizon? What is the CO2 output for the production of these new batteries?

The answers to those questions (and I'm sure others I haven't thought of) will determine the real ownership cost, the real greenhouse gas contribution, and whether these hybrids will continue to be produced over the next 20 years.

Nobody here knows the answers. Which means you can't sit on your pedastal and say your vehicle saves the average customer money over the long run, or if it is greener than an equivalent non-hybrid.

It's unknown. So you can't rightly say people (the big bad media) is flat out wrong about their conclusions. It is quite possible there will be no payback with a HCHII. It's also quite possible gas will double, and you will most definitely save money on gas, and your car won't depreciate much. Only time will tell. It's speculation at this point.

 

I am not disagreeing with you. And for you there were other reasons for purchasing the hybrid other than cost savings.

Significant performance increase compared to 4 cyl.
More options.
Reduced emmissions (Big in my book)

I agree all of these reasons are GREAT reasons to by a hybrid.

I am simply trying to quantify "How much money do you save by pairing a hybrid drive to the ICE." All other factors are irrelevant to THIS question. They ARE relevant to the purchase decision, and I am not arguing that they are not.

To anser the above question you need to compare identical engines with and without the hybrid. Yes the hybrid gives you other benefits, no argument, but if you do a proper comparison, it takes about 5 years to recoupe the initial cost. This doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. It just means that if you do buy one, strictly to save money, you should be prepared to own your vehicle for longer than the average lease.

I am starting to get the impression that a certain portion of people are trying to justify thier purchase by convincing themselves they actually saved money. From the numbers I have crunched this doesn't pan out.

Hopefully people bought their hybrids for the same reasons I did. It made sense to them and it was the vehicle that best fit their needs and wants. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a perfectly acceptable answer.