Does a hybrid save you money?

So let's see then, over the course of 150,000 miles the cost is essentially a wash. And in some places you can get a tax break for buying a hybrid.

are you saving anything?

Yes, you'll be saving gas, and the environment. You may not be saving money, but you won't be spending a significant extra amount for the privilege of helping reduce both the US' dependence on oil and the amount of pollutants being produced.

And batteries, even old depleted ones, can be recycled. That's tough to do with gas.

I think you missed the point- yes, it is basically a wash until you get over 150,000 miles (unless you count the cost of a battery during that).  That is not *saving* you money.  Don't buy a hybrid expecting it to save you money.  And, the vast majority of cars are pretty much shot at 150,000.

The article is about the savings of a hybrid.  If you want to get about the environmental aspects of it, that is a totally different topic.  And, trust me, there is a *huge* debate about that once you look at the big picture of that.  (Both my husband and brother in law work in engineering of engines, one with a diesel company, the other at one of the big 3).

This article is not about the environment, it's about the actual cost of cars.

No, I was trying to make a different point, that the actual cost of the car itself is not necessarily the only thing that should be considered. If that were the case we'd all be driving Yugos or Pacers. Or riding bikes.
And I was pointing out that while you may not save money, you won't (according to the numbers presented) be spending anything extra either. ($200 out of $25,000 = less than 1% difference.)

Also, the main reason a "vast majority" of cars are shot at 150,000 is that people don't take good enough care of them.

I am interested to hear what you (or your brother or husband) have to say about the actual environmental impact of a hybrid car.

 

No, I was trying to make a different point, that the actual cost of the car itself is not necessarily the only thing that should be considered

no, but it is an apples to apples comparison.  Yes, there are "cheaper" cars out there.  But, the comparison was that the hybrid "savings" is not really there.

Also, the main reason a "vast majority" of cars are shot at 150,000 is that people don't take good enough care of them.

No, it is because modern day engines run extremely hot and actually wear out faster.  The suspension parts are also typically shot at that point, and it is most likely rusted if you live in any of the snow belt States.

I am interested to hear what you (or your brother or husband) have to say about the actual environmental impact of a hybrid car.

 

As I said, this is about the actual "savings" that people are talking about with hybrids.  It's not going to turn into an environmental debate.

Hence why the government adds those tax breaks for buying hybrids...the savings comes in when you can write off some more money.

My temptation for getting a Hybrid has nothing to do with saving money and everythign to do with putting out fewer emissions. Sure, one car won't make a big difference but I would like to do my part.

shades, those tax breaks sound great, but a $1500 "deduction" (which is what it currently is) is not $1500 in hand.  Even if you were in the 35% tax bracket, that *real* amount back is $525.  By 2006 that deduction will be lowered to $500.  By that time, the deduction is pretty much pocket change in real money.  There really is no significant difference between the cost of a hybrid and the cost of a standard gas engine car when comparing apples to apples.  You also can't take a deduction on a used one.  Only the original owner can.

My temptation for getting a Hybrid has nothing to do with saving money and everythign to do with putting out fewer emissions. Sure, one car won't make a big difference but I would like to do my part.

Civics are already LEV's (low emission vehicle).  The hybrids aren't actually that much better.  They are actually so close that it is a tough call in if the manufacturing and disposal of the chemicals in their batteries are actually worse.

As an example, there is an "annual greenhouse gas emission" rating for all cars.  The Honda Civic hybrid rates at 4.1 tons, the standard gas Civic rates at 4.9 tons.

The scale is from 15.3 (worst) to 3.1 (best).  A 2 door chevy blazer rates at 10.5 in comparison, and a Super Charged Pontiac Bonneville rates at 8.7.

The size of the car has a lot to do with how much fuel it burns (which cause emissions).  It takes a lot of power to propel large masses.  The other thing to keep in mind with the hybrids is that they have less hp.  It would be interesting to see what a standard gas engine at 85hp would rate in the Civic.

Crap...now I've been sucked into the environmental side of it......

Still, what you've said here, KarmaGirl, is that over the life of the vehicle, for the factors considered, a hybrid costs the essentially same as a regular car. You seem to be painting this as reason not to get a hybrid, but since the apples-to-apples comparison comes up even, other factors will have to be used to make the final decision.

Still, what you've said here, KarmaGirl, is that over the life of the vehicle, for the factors considered, a hybrid costs the essentially same as a regular car.

Finally, you got the point.  The point was that there is not a savings.

I have never said that I was against hybrids (that you assumed).  I just think that people shouldn't kid themselves in thinking that it will save them money.

Oh, and on the "environmental" side.  People always say that diesels are bad on emissions as a reason not to buy them (even though they have been getting 50mpg with the VW engines).  The Jetta TDI rate 5.1 versus the 7.1 of it's gas counterpart.

I don't want any hybrid at all. I want Link

This is one of few cars that truly save envorment AND save money too. You don't need to buy anything if you got good sun power around your home.

shades, those tax breaks sound great, but a $1500 "deduction" (which is what it currently is) is not $1500 in hand. Even if you were in the 35% tax bracket, that *real* amount back is $525. By 2006 that deduction will be lowered to $500. By that time, the deduction is pretty much pocket change in real money. There really is no significant difference between the cost of a hybrid and the cost of a standard gas engine car when comparing apples to apples. You also can't take a deduction on a used one. Only the original owner can.

If I am successful at my job, those deductions will be extended at the current level, not reduced. But when you lobby congress for a living, success is all relative.

Interesting article, btw.

I have never said that I was against hybrids (that you assumed)

Hence my use of hedging words, saying that "you seem to be...". However, the editorial slant of your article clearly implies that you are against hybrids, especially the last paragraph.

The point was that there is not a savings.

In strict monetary terms, no. But neither is there an extra monetary cost.
Hence my interest in whether the reduction in gas consumption (which is destroying an essentially irreplaceable resource) is outweighed by the other environmental factors that you mentioned (battery production and recycling efforts).

However, the editorial slant of your article clearly implies that you are against hybrids, especially the last paragraph.

There is a place for hybrids, though- SUV's.

I'm against them, but I think they have a place in SUVs?  I'm missing how that "clearly implies" anything.

Again, the point of the article (man I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall) is that there is not a savings.  They cost the same.  no difference.  Don't buy it so save money.  Doesn't save money.  Both versions end up costing the same.  This is not saying to buy or not to buy a hybrid.  It has nothing to do with environmental factors.  It's about plain old cash.  Don't buy it because it saves you money.  Has nothing to do with saving the earth or any other reason to buy or not to buy it.  Are you getting the point of the article yet?

Yes, you've reiterated that point several times. (Needlessly, I might add, since I got it the first time, in the very first sentence of my initial reply, even.)

To expound upon the remaining point of contention, then, what your last paragraph clearly implies to me is that there is ONLY one place where you should bother to consider putting hybrid technology. And even there, you state that the horsepower loss may be prohibitive.

It doesn't matter what you *think* I believe or how I view it.  This article is not about hybrid technology, in what ways it lacks, if it is a "cleaner" way of running a car, etc.  It is simply about if it actually saves money or not.  I'm not sure why you keep responding with telling me what I think (which you don't know, because I haven't said- you simple read into a couple comments I made) when I keep saying that that is not what this article is about.  And, no, it's not needless to keep repeating that as you keep commenting on off topic points.

The hybrid doesn't save you money.

if it saves the world or not is a totally different topic.

If you feel so strongly about hybrid technology, why not write your own article giving sources for your research on how much better it is?  Research for yourself on the battery issues (which, I admit, will be hard since they don't like to publicly talk about it- but you should be able to find some non-US sources).  And find out what impact driving an 85hp gas engine has over driving an 85hp hybrid in the same car.  Research how catalytic technology differs per manufacturer and why Honda has such low emissions.  Find out how long hybrids have been in engineering, how much the government has paid for research, and why there aren't more hybrids available.

BTW, if any SUV drivers are interested, if you haven't heard, the Ford Escape will have a hybrid out for the 2005 model year.  It gets 31 - 36mpg (a standard gas one gets 20-25mpg )  It is a 133hp is a V-6 hybrid (standard gas is 200hp)  And they warranty the battery for 100,000 miles.  The towing rating is drastically reduced, but I doubt that a lot of people tow with that little of an SUV, anyway.

The rest of the debate aside (which is also interesting), the original article was quite enlightening KarmaGirl. Thanks for writing this. I still like the notion of a hybird car (though certainly am not going to be in the market for a new car for a long time), but it is interesting to see some real numbers.

All right, I apologize for trying to take your discussion and expand it beyond your narrowly defined bounds and for drawing conclusions based upon what you wrote instead of simply sticking to the bare facts that you presented.

So now if I may present a point related to hybrids etc. and their monetary costs: in general, doing something or buying a product that is "environmentally friendly" involves paying a monetary premium over the "standard" model. This is true from toilet paper ($3.50/12 pack of 70% recycled newsprint vs. $2.50/12 pack of Charmin, for example [not real prices, I pulled those numbers out of my ass (so to speak)]) through major appliances and high-end consumer electronics, if they even make anything environmentally friendly in that area. It has been bandied about by marketing people (and unfortunately I don't have sources, nor will I put forth the effort to find any) that people will generally be willing to consider the environmentally friendly option when the premium paid for it is 10% or less above the standard product.

So the fact that a hybrid, "environmentally friendly" vehicle has NO premium over its standard counterpart when the consumables cost over the life of the vehicle is taken into account represents a major step forward in the hybrid car's potential for widespread adoption. And one can presume that the (currently non-existent) cost differential is only going to shift in the hybrid's favor, as hybrid technology matures, mass production drives costs down, and fuel economy takes further steps forward.

You assume that a car will need major maintenance after 150,000 miles. However, in my experience, Honda's last much longer than that. My mom's car lasted until it had 230,000 miles before it needed major work, and after that, last until it had 260,000 before it died. if you add in even an extra 50,000 miles for the expected life of the cars, that would put the hybrid at a lower cost. Plus, a hybrid engine will most likely show less wear after time due to lower horsepower and the electric motor that takes some of the load. While we won't know that for sure until some hybrids begin reaching the end of their driving lives, lower horsepower endines generally do last longer than ones with more horsepower, and the electric motor can only help. Also, other hybrids such as the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius get much better mileage than the Civic hybrid.

So the fact that a hybrid, "environmentally friendly" vehicle has NO premium over its standard counterpart when the consumables cost over the life of the vehicle

How did you come up with that the hybrid doesn't end up costing more over the life of the vehicle?  The $1,000 battery only lasts 100,000 miles.  All parts relating to the hybrid powertrain cost more because there is not as big of a market yet.  So, over the life of the car, it will end up costing you more because the maintenance costs more than you can save in fuel mileage.

people will generally be willing to consider the environmentally friendly option when the premium paid for it is 10% or less above the standard product.

But, the original price paid is more than 10%.  Over the life of the car, you will end up paying moe than 10% more in maintenance. So, that theory really wouldn't hold water in this example.

Hybrids will evolve.  As time goes on, you will see the prices drop.  The number one factor in that will be EPA standards that car companies have to reach.  (the way car companies reach EPA standards is by factoring their entire line.  If they have a top seller that is bad on emissions, they have to have another vehicle that is low emissions to balance it out).

You assume that a car will need major maintenance after 150,000 miles

The battery is only good for 100,000 miles and cost $1,000.  Most people will see that as "major"

lower horsepower endines generally do last longer than ones with more horsepower, and the electric motor can only help

That will be true for the gas component of the engine, but what about the electric component?  Electric engines don't last as long, and if you are a city driver, it's going to get a lot of wear.

Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius get much better mileage than the Civic hybrid.

True, but they don't have a standard gas engine to compare them with, and how do you transport you family in them?

The hybrids haven't been around enough to know too much about them.  In engineering studies (where they do dyno testing for load tolerances, life expectancy, etc.) the results are not as good for the hybrid as they are the standard gas.  That means that there is a more likely need for more mechanical failure.

How did you come up with that the hybrid doesn't end up costing more over the life of the vehicle?

First of all, that's what I've been saying the entire time. And you've agreed with it on several occasions. Including this one:

yes, it is basically a wash until you get over 150,000 miles

And then later, when I said (and then you replied):

...over the life of the vehicle, for the factors considered, a hybrid costs the essentially same as a regular car. Finally, you got the point.

Of course you did go on to say in the first reply

(unless you count the cost of a battery during that)

Which I missed the first time around and which, using rounded figures, drives the total lifetime cost from $25,000 to $26,000.
However, if you get the $500 tax break, that pulls the cost back to $25,500. This is compared to the $25,000 cost of the regular vehicle, which gives you a 2% premium. Which I will agree is not actually "no premium." And without the tax break, then it's a 4% premium.

But I will claim (and you are free to rebut if you so choose) that a 2% premium is small enough to be essentially negligible, hardly worth mentioning. And 4%, while not negligible, clearly falls within the range of my posited 10% spread.

You also said

But, the original price paid is more than 10%. Over the life of the car, you will end up paying moe than 10% more in maintenance.

Who ever said anything (until just now) about the cost of maintenance? I refer you back to where I said "FOR THE FACTORS CONSIDERED" and "OVER THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLE". Those factors, from your post, were: Initial cost and fuel consumption for 150,000 miles,with battery replacement thrown in as an optional consideration I have now included the battery replacement factor and the total cost difference is still less than 5%, even without a tax break.
You have not provided me with any other data to make calculations from, so I have to ignore for the time being your claim that you'll pay an extra premium for maintenance.

You have not provided me with any other data to make calculations from, so I have to ignore for the time being your claim that you'll pay an extra premium for maintenance

Actually, I did provide other facts that will show the hybrids costing more, but I tried to ignore all of it because I am not trying to make the hybrid out to costing more (that is why I have been saying that is basically a wash, but since you keep posting about it......).  Look at my calculations again.  I took the *worst* gas mileage in the standard gas and the *best* in the hybrid.  I Did that so that the 150,000 miles (which is the standard life expectancy of a car in todays market) seems like a wash.  If you take the the average mileage (which means equal highway and city) the numbers aren't as good.

Hybrid: It's 85hp gets you 46 to 51mpg-- average 48.5
Standard:  It's 115hp gets you 32 to 38mpg-- average 35

Hybrid (48.5 mpg): 3093 gallons
Standard (35 mpg): 4286 gallons

Dollar value of that gas (at $1.89):
Hybrid: $5845.77
Standard: $8100.54

Difference: $1245.77 (that is a $2055.23 difference from the other way of presenting it- which is the hybrid costing that much more...ouch)

Also, that $500 deduction, is if you are in the 35% tax bracket.  The most common tax bracket will only see about $300.

Lets look at this another way (not the way I wanted to present it, because it doesn't look the best for hybrids).  So, you buy the cars at the cost stated in the beginning.  You drive both cars for 250,000 and neither needs anything but their battery changed twice (since both cars would need that- it's just the way batteries are).  Say the regular battery costs $150 (which is probably high, but we're pretending here) and the hybrid goes down in price to $800 versus the current $1,000 because they have become popular.

The standard gas car will cost you originally $16,000, plus 7143 gallons of gas (average mileage x 250,000 miles) which is $13500.27 plus $300 in batteries for a total of $29800.27

The hybrid will cost you $19,500, plus 5155 gallons of gas ($9742.95) plus $1600 in batteries, minus the $400 rebate because you are higher than the average tax bracket and feeling groovy for a total of:  $30442.95

So, even after 250,000 miles the hybrid will still not be cheaper (yes, that is only $624 difference, but it will still cost more).  And, considering that it has a lot more electrical (ie: DC motor, which I shudder to think what that poor relay in it will do with a driver who likes to brake a lot....) you *will* have more maintenance.  Learn about how hybrids are actually constructed, it's quite interesting and will give you a better understanding on how the maintenance will differ. 

And, I stick to the fact that "the original price paid is more than 10%".  And, also, I am pretty sure that the 10% that people are easily willing to pay is for cheap items.  10% of a car is a much higher consideration than paying 10% more for toilet paper.  I don't think that paying $3 for a $2 is quite the same as paying $1,000 or more for something. Actually, the only articles that I have read mentioning 10% with green living was asking people to consider green products even if they cost up to 10% to give funding to the companies.  It wasn't that people were OK with it, though.  And, you also have to realize that there are *many* people who don't care (If they cared, there wouldn't be the extreme high demand for SUVs, mini-vans and trucks).

You also have to consider something else.  Those prices I stated are based on $1.89 a gallon.  Want to know the real cost is if we go down to $1.65 per gallon for 250,000 miles?   The hybrid costs you $1100 more.

And, what about the 150,000 miles at the same assumptions ($1.89/gallon, 400 rebate, average mileage, but, with one battery, not two for each)?  The hybrid costs $1495.23 more (which is about 5.5% higher than the standard gas engine). 

To a lot of people, $1500 is a lot to consider.  (And, that is assuming that you paid cash for the car and there is no financing costs )

A good question to ponder- why does a technology that was financially backed by the government to help pollution cost more to the consumer? 

I am really confused about the whole thing, frankly.

I heard someone on TV bragging about hybrids, yatta, yatta, and they were talking about getting a whopping 45mpg.

When I graduated from high school in 1989, my friend bought a new Geo Metro. He was very "green", and spent a lot of time figuring his gas mileage. He found that on his trips to work he got 51mpg city and 57 mpg highway.

For anyone that is dubious, here's the government rating of the 1989 Geo Metro.

My point is, that was 15 years ago, and that was a low-average priced car. Now, 15 years later, we are talking about 40mpg like it was some shockingly great gas mileage, and we somehow need alien technology to do it. I think it is all crap. I hate to sound like a paranoid conspiracy freak, but the fact is there ahve been cars that got on or above 40mpg for the last 30 years. Now, we are somehow in awe that a MORE expensive car, using basically untried and terribly wear-sucueptable technology.

Does this stink to anyone else?