Oh that wasn't being a smart a$$. It was at the same time I guess agreeing and objecting with you.

Sometimes I find myself getting way to **** about this car. When I was first figuring out the justification for getting ride of my perfectly running premium gas guzzling vehicle I figured I needed to average 35 mpg to come out ahead. I never thought I would get riled up if I didn't get at least 45mpg.

It will be interesting to drive it this winter and see the mileage go down..down...down. I wonder how low it will go.

Haroldo sometimes your words are like a wake up call.

As long as I can keep up a good LIFETIME AVG I will be satisfied.

 

LOL...
When I was a new dad, I took videos of my daughter's dance recital (she might have been 3 or 4). The first day was rehearsal and we were allowed to shoot movies, the second day was the performance and videos weren't allowed.
Needless to say on the first day, I only saw her through a 1 inch square black and white view finder.
The second day I saw the full view with my eyes wide open.
Needless to say, the second day was a far more meaningful and memorable event (we watched the video two or three times since then).
I thought to myself...it's time to put down the camcorder and enjoy life.
When I fixate on mileage, I feel like I am staring at the view finder.
Or am I being too philosophical?

 

I think more people need to be philosophical. Maybe things in this world might be a little different. I personally don't run into many deep thinkers....people just charge forward deeper into the rat race.

 

So who was the "Best at Dancing" at the recital? Would you agree with the dance instructor, Miss CR, that student #___ was the best? I guess my point is that if we look at the TCH as one of many vehicles that are good at saving $. Then there is no need to "fixate on mileage". But if that parent in the back row is going to exclaim that their kid is the best and Miss CR said so..... It might be nice to have that video to refute (or agree with) the parent.

Your advice about video taping is very sound and comes a little too late for me . If you can't capture most of the "action" on a tripod, it isn't worth missing your kids performance (piano, baseball, football, etc in my case) for the chance of capturing the moment. Videos make wonderful mementos, but they never replace the experience.

FWIW, I HATE! HATE! HATE! that ever journalist out there slips into a cost analysis / justification whenever the subject of hybrids come up. Maybe that is were all the angst/fixation comes from.

 

If you are living pay check to pay check you should NOT be buying a $30,000 car! Although I am sure many people do... You should be buying an $8,000 used car and saving the rest of your money so that you are no longer living pay check to pay check. You do not buy a new Camry Hybrid to save on gas money, you buy it because you like the car and like promoting clean and efficient technology.

If you are in the market for an inexpensive car, I happen to be selling by 2002 Rav4 with only 57,000 to make way for my brand new Camry Hybrid. Ive been getting fantastic millage on the Rav (around 26 MPG)

 

I don't live paycheck to paycheck but I disagree with you. Many people buy the base model of this car which is I believe $23000 or so. I got an '07 with 11k miles on it for just under $26k and it is fully loaded. I bought mine to save on gas money so are you telling me I am wrong for buying it for that reason? That was my MAIN reason. Since 3/9/08 I have saved $1476 in gas. To travel as far in my Bonneville SSEi as I have in my TCH I would have had to buy 333.8 gallons of premium fuel.

A secondary benefit to me is that it is clean technology. This was a large purchase for me. I would not have considered keeping my Bonneville for 8yrs or more. Unless something revolutionary comes around I plan on keeping my TCH that long. Like I said it was primarily a monetary decision to purchase it.

 

If the decision was about money then you would still be ahead if you had held on to your Bonneville. The Bonneville would have cost you $1476 but the Camry Hybrid cost you $26,000.

If the decision was about the environment then holding on to the Bonneville wins again. It is far better for the environment to stick with what you have so that there is one less car manufactured. As for emissions, it is not like the Bonneville will be donated to the Smithsonian, someone else will probably be driving it, someone who is genuinely interested in saving money.

The ONLY rational reason you get the Camry Hybrid is because you want to support clean/efficient technology or because you were going to get a Toyota Camry or a similar new car anyway and the Camry Hybrid will save you money in gas as compared to getting any other new mid-sized sedan.

 

I have to disagree again. I was making payments on the Boneville and would be for several more years. Also the Boneville will still be used by someone else who could be possibly be getting worse mileage with their current vehicle or purchasing after they totaled their vehicle or even a first time vehicle for someone else. When I bought the Boneville I went from an Expedition getting 12-14 mpg. I was looking at getting rid of the Boneville and was looking at non-hybrid cars before I purchased it. The vehicles that I found in the price range that I got the TCH for didn't get as good of mileage or have as many features. So it was primarily an economical purchase for me.

Like I have said before my payment was slightly lower with the Boneville but my savings more than makes up for it and puts money in my pocket. Just because YOU say that the only rational reason to get a TCH is to support clean/efficient technology doesn't mean that is the reason for everyone.

 

FWIW, price of a barrel of oil has fallen in excess of 50% since these posts were made.


Three months ago people were eyeing $200/bbl...now they are guessing at ~$60/bbl (assuming a severe global recession)


I am not trying to show anyone up, nor predict where oil prices will go.
Rather I'd like to point out that over the long term, oil has been an extremely inexpensive commodity.
Overall auto efficiency makes the effective price even less.
In 1978, I spent $1.40/gallon to fill up my '74 Caprice Classic. The car got ~15 MPG. The cost to drive 100 miles is $9.33 (100 miles/15 MPG is 6.6 gallons @ $1.40 = $9.33).
Today the average midsized car gets 25 MPG. Assuming an average pump price of $3.20, the cost to drive 100 miles is $12.80 (100 miles/25 MPG is 4 gallons @ $3.20 = $12.80).
That's a 37% increase in 'effective cost' (factoring in efficiency) over 30 years...significantly less than the rate of inflation.
If we extrapolate this to the average hybrid (33 MPG) the cost to drive 100 miles drops to $9.60 (100 miles/33 MPG is 3 gallons @ $3.20 = $9.60), effectively unchanged over 30 years!

Sure, anyone can manipulate any set of statistics to prove any argument that they want to promote.
My point is... compared to the cost of a cup of coffee ($0.30 in 1978), soda ($0.25/can in 1978), water (people drink it free in 1978), watching television (free in 1978), going to a ball game ($5 in 1978) or buying a pair of sneakers ($10 in 1978), the price of gas, over the last 30 years, without a doubt, has witnessed the least price inflation of them all.
In fact, I defy anyone to produce a regularly used commodity (other that RAM) that has shown less price inflation than the price of gas.
By the way, people earn 5-10 times (or more) than they earned back then.
It would be comical to extend the price comparisons to 40 or 50 years, but it would prove the same point.

 

Actually based on your argument, all that you can say is the cost to drive 100 miles has changed relatively little because of an increase in fuel efficiency. The cost of gas has changed and will change as supply shrinks and global demand increases. If cars become even more fuel efficient, and keeps up with increase in oil cost, then you might be able to say that the cost to drive 100 miles will stay relatively flat.