Somewhat in Livvie's defense the OP did use an apples-to-oranges comparison and then compare that to an unsourced apples-to-apples study that may also be true.

There is nothing wrong with apples-to-oranges as that is the savings you can see directly, especially after the purchase has been made. But there is also merit in know whether you could have gotten a different directly comparable vehicle that may have been more beneficial over a different time frame.

 

The point of my multiple choice test on Page 1 of this thread was to illustrate that any comparison may be valid, whether apples, kiwi, and yes... even passion fruit... AS LONG AS THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPARISON IS PRESENT, i.e., "compared to [what]? From that point on, the reader can decide if the comparison may have interest or merit for himself/herself.

I believe that it's more economical to pick my nose in public than to drive a hybrid. But then, so what?

 

I personally veiw my saving in regards to what vehicle I whould have gotten if i had not got the TCH.

I would have gotten a V-6 Camry or a sports car. Both of those cost about the same as the TCH, so there was no "hybrid penelty" for me.

Day 1 was gas savings for me.

No need to confuse the issue with fruit, as I can't run my car on fruit. If I could, I would move to California as it seems there are plenty of fruits out there.