I think that, while true of the Prius...Escapes, Mariners, and other Hybrids are not as in demand and do not command MSRP pricing. I only paid $700 over invoice for mine. I don't think either MSRP or TMV is an accurate number to work with. I used actual vehicle prices in my area.

 

I'm not sure I agree that the sale price is inflated because of the incentives. It could play out that way for the most in demand hybrids.

If it is correct, it translates into the dealership receiving the majority of the taxpayers money on the deal, with the hybrid purchaser getting very little benefit. Assuming that every hybrid that can be made is being sold, is the incentive really accomplishing anything besides lining dealers pockets. We'll see soon enough what happens to Prius prices with no Fed incentive. Will there be a shift to HCHs and TCHs as well?

High profile, status owners will still choose the Prius over anything else IMO.

 

It's amazing what CA drivers will pay for the incentives. They are paying thousands over MSRP and they don't seem to mind because they get HOV lane access. However, the HOV passes are about to run out. I would imagine that prices will drop when the HOV passes are gone.

For my hybrid purchase, I paid the most (relative to MSRP) that I have paid for a vehicle. I did not mind since I knew I would be getting huge tax credits and I still got a relatively good deal. I probably would not have bought a hybrid at this point without the tax credits. I am actually surprised that hybrids are not selling for more here in CO. The state credits are even bigger than the federal credits, so a hybrid ends up being cheaper than its non-hybrid counterpart.

I do see your point that the tax credits are not as necessary on the high demand vehicles (if at all), but it was there and I took advantage of it. It's hard to say how much of the benefit goes to the manufacturer, dealer, or hybrid purchaser. In my case, I got the high demand hybrid for just under MSRP, so I would say the benefit went to me. In general, I do not mind the government using tax dollars to kick start hybrid technology. Even if the money ends up with the dealer/manufacturer, I would say I have witnessed much poorer uses of my tax dollars.

By the way, the limits on tax credits are by manufacturer, so the Prius and TCH are grouped together. When the credit on the Prius is gone, it will also be gone on the TCH.

 

Private O,

Such fictions exist for those who don't use the available empirical data such as the Dept. of Energy fleet report, INL/EXT-06-01262.

Yeap, nobody is making any profits or paying any taxes or paying any mortgages . . .

Wrong analysis. It is the cost of ownership that matters since no one is making a profit off of any car.

Actually, you can take the Dept. of Energy report, INL/EXT-06-01262, an actual measurement, and adjust the "Dust-to-dust" report and voila, the hybrids have lower lifecycle cost. It is the magic of using available emprical data.

Actually, the problem is much more focused on one private speculator. Ignoring empirical data is always done at risk.

Bob Wilson

 

LOL.

I now realize that I had seen that report before and completely discounted it.

1. They had to end-of-life an Insight at 146,000 miles because repairs were to expensive.
2. Wow Bob, two of each vehicle. That's quite a sample.
3. 160,000miles in 2 years != 160,000 miles in 15 years.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some answers... like how much extra CO2 was produced in making the hybrid drivetrain on a Prius.

But for the sake of staying on topic, you're welcome to explain to me how a Civic Hybrid is going to save me money over 5 years vs a Civic LX with manual transmission. Because other than MPG (and some extra frustration driving the hybrid), the hybrid offers nothing else that I consider worth having. Dorky wheels, a $15 wing, a couple speakers worth $50, and a tranny that breaks (which is why I limit this to 5 years... warranty).

 

This is where you assume that every dollar goes to energy, assume that energy is all coal generated electricity, and convert that to CO2. I have repeatedly asked you to back this stuff up with facts, but you always skirt the issue. Try something new as this stuff is getting old.

If all you want is a very basic car and given your take on energy, please tell me why you drive a BMW. You really do not make any sense to me.

 

Have you seen what happens to an ECHO when it is rear-ended!!! Yikes!!!
Not a pretty sight!!! :-O

 

I didn't assume anything. I asked (anyone) to give me an estimate of how much extra CO2 was generated in the production of the Prius Hybrid system. I don't know, but nobody else does either. The point is, if you don't know, you can't claim the car is greener than a non-hybrid. Period.

I don't drive a BMW, I drive a Mercedes. I used to drive a BMW and I had a lot of fun trying to squeeze out the most miles per tank on more than one occasion. But I don't see how that is relevant. This isn't about what I drive. I could drive a stretch Hummer and that doesn't change the facts being discussed.

My interest in this discussion is that many members here seem to think it is outrageous that one could draw the conclusion that a hybrid won't offer lower ownership costs over x years. The fact is, many people make that decision every day. If they didn't, there wouldn't be hybrids on the car lots where I live. For me, I think the Civic LX fits my requirements best, and that's what I'll probably buy. If I thought the hybrid would save me money, I'd buy it. But my best guess is that it won't. I want a car that will last me more than 5 years, and given the HCH track record, I wouldn't want to own it out of warranty (wouldn't own a Mercedes out of warranty either). Civic LX with 5 speed? No fear.

I really think hybrids are smart in that they:
1. Allow you to have a smaller ICE yet have reasonable performance.
2. Reclaim a lot of energy that is typically lost in braking.

I just don't think they are at the point where it is completely cost effective yet though. The manufacturers know this and are both (Honda and Toyota) on record saying that they are working really hard to reduce costs of hybrid systems. With gas at its current pricing, I think the additional complexity of the hybrid overshadows any fuel savings potential for me. I'm an 8000 mile per year driver though.

 

This is the key. Each user has to do their own analysis. What works for one person may not work for another.

However, owning and operating a motor vehicle is hardly what anyone would call "cost effective" in any sense of the word, no matter what vehicle you drive.

I get 29 mpg with my Highlander Hybrid. My previous vehicle got 17 mpg (on a good day). Assume a 100,000 mile/8 year life of each vehicle, and the mileage figures that I just listed, the HiHy would use approximately 3448 gallons of fuel to travel 100,000 miles. My previous vehicle would use approximately 5882 gallons of fuel to travel the same distance. So my Hybrid is saving 2434 gallons of fuel, and assuming a cost per gallon of $3, saving me a total of $7302 dollars in fuel costs. I also receive a total tax credit of $4100 ($2600 federal and $1500 state) making my total savings about $11,400. The HiHy costs about $4000 more than the comparable Highlander, so even after subtracting that amount it still makes dollars and sense for me to drive a Hybrid, about $7400 worth. One can reasonably assume that the Hybrid will be worth more than it's gasoline counterpart at the end of the 100,000 miles and 8 years, so that will also contribute additional $$dollars to my Hybrid advantage. My insurance is also less expensive - I pay about $80 less per year to insure my HiHy than my previous vehicle. Over 8 years that is $640 additional savings.

And this is before we even begin to discuss the much lower greenhouse gas emissions from driving a Hybrid.

Yes a Hybrid is a more complex vehicle. It's not more complex to drive, but from a manufacturing standpoint it is more complicated to build. The additional warranties offered by the manufacturers on the Hybrids minimize an owners exposure to possible additional repair costs so even if you did an analysis similar to mine I'm predicting that you would also come out ahead by driving a Hybrid.

 

Your following take on CO2 is what I was referring to.




I understand that the economics of hybrids do not work for everybody. If this is your basis, it is fine if a Civic LX manual better fits your personal needs and that is what you decide to buy. However, this is not fair for general comparisons to spin your argument and say that hybrids do not make any sense for the general public.

You get very frustrated when people make unfair comparisons that spin the argument in their favor. (I have challenged claims like these too.) Your response is to make unfair comparisons that spin the argument in your favor. When challenged, you truly seem oblivious to the questions and repeatedly ignore them. Responding to any of your claims seems a waste of time.