Forums | MacLife

Fried..
you live in the heart of texas.
mom needs the big SUV.
it's the texas way
big truck
big cost
big outside and inside
oh yeah.. teeny milage rating.
but you will look good filling a 25 gallon tank @$3/gallon which is what so dam many moms insist on doing.

I haven't read the last three pages of this thread, but I'm posting this anyway.

As most regulars here know, I'm in the car business.  I sell Hondas.  With that in mind, I see this every day.

If saving money by gas mileage is your only motivation, you're better off getting a non-hybrid vehicle.  The extra cost for hybrid technology will not equal the extra immediate cost in the price.

However...  Some of that cost will be recovered in resale value, but still not enough.

Some of that cost will be recovered in the form of a tax rebate, but still not enough.

If time is money, some of that cost will be recovered in the form of time saved by stopping less for fuel, and by driving in the carpool lane.  Whether or not that is enough, only you can decide.

If you're budget conscious, you may pay less on a monthly level, when adding your car payment, to your fuel expense, but this will cost you more in the long run.  Just as the least expensive way to purchase a vehicle is by paying cash, yet the most affordable way to purchase a car is to finance long term, this may fit more easily into your budget, but may cost you more.

If you are the "I want to save the world" type, hybrid vehicles are more environmentally friendly.

Each of those factors alone is pretty minor, but when added together they may be enough to take you over the edge.

Hybrids still need gas, so whether or not there's a rise in gas prices makes no difference, and according to the news i just heard, the cost of gas to hybrid owners is $100s of dollars more yearly than owners are led to believe.

Well, the non-hybrid Civic still gets really good mileage.  The Corolla and 4cyl Camry don't do too badly either.  You'll still get great mileage - and lower emissions.  There are lots of non-hybrid PZEV rated cars out there (especially if you live in CA, NY, MA, VT or ME).  PZEV applies mostly to the warranty.  To be a PZEV, the vehicle the vehicle has to meet SULEV emissions standards, but have no evaporative emissions and a longer warranty (info here).

Part of the problem is that the method used by the EPA to determine fuel efficiency is dated and not very accurate for hybrids.  Most people don't get the promised figures in actual driving.  For the Prius, to move in electric-only mode, you have to have an extremely light foot on the accelerator, otherwise it starts up the gas engine.  The tax deduction is also declining and will be gone soon.  Gas prices would have to skyrocket to realize any economic benefit.  CA hybrid owners still can't drive in the HOV lanes - the feds have to allow it first.  Oddly enough, owners of natural gas cars (like the Civic GX) can.

Yeah, a Corolla or Civic can get close to 40, so 50 is better, but it's not a huge jump.  With the hybrids, you have to make sure the HVAC controls are set so that it can kill the engine (and the A/C) during stops.  Allowing it to kill the engine at stops saves quite a bit of petrol.  Hybrids get better mileage because the engines don't rev as high, because of that, they can use lighter components.  You don't have to push the engine as hard because the electric motor is there to help out if more power is needed.

Most Prius drivers I know can't keep it in electric-only mode very long, you have to be on a flat (or downhill).  Here in SF, it's damn near impossible.  If you live in an area with cold weather, you won't get as good mileage with a hybrid in winter.

If most of your driving is city driving, then the fuel savings of a hybrid will be more significant.  However, one has to ask if using alternate transportation wouldn't be a better option in cities.  I'd rather take the MUNI across town than deal with city traffic.

Hybrids are still relatively new.  As battery technology improves, we'll see even more efficient models.

Read this about the true cost of ownership regarding hybrids. In addition, note how much gas would have to cost to recoup the premium you pay for a hybrid.

Hybrids are neat and techie, but the actual benefit of the whole system is misrepresented. Imagine you're in 1985, and you want a car that gets around 50 mpg city. You have the choice of a totally stripped down Honda CRX or some Korean microcar smurf. Not much fun, and you'll have trouble getting out of your own way.

Hybrids change the equation by essentially adding an electric supercharger to the engine. The Prius, for example, has a small and weak gasoline engine. However, the electric motor augments that, giving you extra power without a fuel efficiency penalty. A better example is the Accord hybrid. It is actually faster than the standard V6 Accord, but with better fuel efficiency. Normally if a company wants better engine performance they have to put in a bigger engine or do something else so the thing burns more fuel to make more power (turbos and superchargers, for example). Hybrids neatly sidestep that whole process, letting you have your cake and eat it too.

The better way to look at them, in my opinion, is to ignore all the PZEV and fuel saving bullsmurf and think of them as a power-enhancing device that doesn't reduce fuel economy.

dvpierce wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

Well, my mom is set on getting a hybrid, not just for the fuel savings, but also for the environment.

It's not paricularly any better for the environment - it will release a little less CO2, because a gallon of gas burned is going to release X amount of carbon no matter what, but any ULEV or Super-ultra-mega-micro-emission-whatever vehicle is basically producing exhaust that, except for the CO and CO2 content, you could breathe the stuff - it's cleaner that the actual air in many parts of the country.

ITS BETTER FOR THE ENVIROMENT. IT USES LESS GAS.

Slarty wrote:

Marc wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

It's not paricularly any better for the environment - it will release a little less CO2, because a gallon of gas burned is going to release X amount of carbon no matter what, but any ULEV or Super-ultra-mega-micro-emission-whatever vehicle is basically producing exhaust that, except for the CO and CO2 content, you could breathe the stuff - it's cleaner that the actual air in many parts of the country.

ITS BETTER FOR THE ENVIROMENT. IT USES LESS GAS.

It's no better for the environment than any other equally fuel efficient vehicle.

Fixed that for you.

Tria wrote:

I might be wrong here, but I don't recall seeing any non-hybrid car that has the same fuel economy as a hybrid.

No, but the hybrid version of the Civic for example, doesn't get vastly superior mileage compared to the non-hybrid version - which is classified as a SULEV.  If the goal is to save every drop of fuel possible, then yes, the hybrid does save more, just not a whole lot more.  40mpg v. 50mpg is good, but not great.

From an economic standpoint, there won't be enough fuel savings to justify the higher price of the hybrid version.  Gas prices would have to double to realize any financial benefit.  For now, people buy hybrids so they can drive in the HOV lane, because they're geeks or to soothe their conscience.

Marc wrote:

dvpierce wrote:

Fried Chicken wrote:

Well, my mom is set on getting a hybrid, not just for the fuel savings, but also for the environment.

It's not paricularly any better for the environment - it will release a little less CO2, because a gallon of gas burned is going to release X amount of carbon no matter what, but any ULEV or Super-ultra-mega-micro-emission-whatever vehicle is basically producing exhaust that, except for the CO and CO2 content, you could breathe the stuff - it's cleaner that the actual air in many parts of the country.

ITS BETTER FOR THE ENVIROMENT. IT USES LESS GAS.

That's not the same thing, and you know it.

Tria wrote:

robco wrote:

Tria wrote:

I might be wrong here, but I don't recall seeing any non-hybrid car that has the same fuel economy as a hybrid.

No, but the hybrid version of the Civic for example, doesn't get vastly superior mileage compared to the non-hybrid version - which is classified as a SULEV.  If the goal is to save every drop of fuel possible, then yes, the hybrid does save more, just not a whole lot more.  40mpg v. 50mpg is good, but not great.

From an economic standpoint, there won't be enough fuel savings to justify the higher price of the hybrid version.  Gas prices would have to double to realize any financial benefit.  For now, people buy hybrids so they can drive in the HOV lane, because they're geeks or to soothe their conscience.

Uhm, a 25% drop in fuel emissions across the board would be wonderful, I think.  Its not about the savings in fuel, it's about conserving oil and decreasing emissions.

There are better ways to do both than use hybrids.

Tria wrote:

Uhm, a 25% drop in fuel emissions across the board would be wonderful, I think.  Its not about the savings in fuel, it's about conserving oil and decreasing emissions.

Emissions, fuel consumption, or both?

I agree, just stating that PZEV vehicles will also meet the goal of lowering emissions.  If you really want to lower emissions, encourage people to get rid of their old cars and buy newer ones.  Biodiesel could help the trucking and rail industries.  Buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars over trucks and SUVs would help.  Either that or massively increase the tax deduction on hybrids to make them economically viable.

We seem to place much blame on individual motorists for pollution and fuel consumption, but fail to encourage better standards for commercial and industrial.  We also need more fuel efficient and cleaner locomotives, big rigs, etc.

The main problem area I can see is airplanes.  What sort of alternative fuel can they use?

jeff-o wrote:

The only other fuel I can think of that might be suitable for airplanes is hydrogen, burned in turbines like a fuel.  However, I don't think the range would be nearly as great as with petroleum-based fuel.

Not to mention the "hydrogen economy" is the biggest scam since enron.