[WayneBruce]

Newsweek article about why hybrids don't save money. The usual stuff. I don't mind it really. What I do mind is that he actually compared the regular Civic to the Accord Hybrid and other hybrid SUVs. He is comparing an econocar to a sports sedan and SUVs. Talk about apples to oranges! Even his comparison of Accord to Accord is off IMO, since he compared the hybrid V6 Accord to the 4 cylinder version.

Anyhow, I hope people really do take what he advocates to heart, and switch from their Avalanches and Escalades to the Fit and Yaris. You can save so much more money that way on gas. :roll:

 

[wstander]

Yeah, Newsweek and its ilk are SO much better at sex scandals and the like.... :lol: :lol:

 

[DanMan32]

The problem everyone forgets is that you get more horesepower for the same gas. So you may not save as much money at the pump, but if you equalize the horsepower, you'll find you may save more than you thought. Maybe not enough to offset the added aquisition cost, not yet anyway, but we have to start somewhere. Remember how expensive the first CD players were? You were better off buying 10 replacement vynal albums. Now, they are cheap.

 

[jeromep]

Excellent point Dan. But even the logic that many in the press have used to not justify hybrid purchases is just totally flawed from the getgo.

Makes me wonder what other flawed logic they, specifically Newsweek, use when they report on hard news? I'm sure plenty of flawed logic.

 

[Jonnycat26]

Makes me wonder what other flawed logic they, specifically Newsweek, use when they report on hard news? I'm sure plenty of flawed logic.

Well, given that they use the HiHy and the HAH as their examples, their logic is right on. Those cars will take many, many years for the savings to offset the extra purchase price.

 

[Streaks]

The problem everyone forgets is that you get more horesepower for the same gas. So you may not save as much money at the pump, but if you equalize the horsepower, you'll find you may save more than you thought.

My problem with these high performance hybrids is that they really are only attractive to those who are undecided on the issue of performance vs. fuel economy. So, they compromise with something that is only mediocre in both aspects with a high dollar tag attached to it. Sure, the technology is cool, but most fanatics will only be interested in the extremes of either issue and not a compromise. You will be hard pressed to find much in the advocacy of any of these as a "green" solution.

 

[hyperion]

Those high performance hybrids have just that, "the term hybrid" and most buyers associate hybrid because of the media as extremely high milage cars.

They would better spend their time explaining the differance in performance and price between the two newest Camry's. The standard new model and the hybrid. Well equipped Camry in this Sundays classified, Nineteen thousand and change MSRP, and well equipped Camry hybrid close to thirty thousand. That's a lot of extra bucks to go hybrid!

 

[rudiger]

The auto manufacturers (specifically Toyota and Honda) have done it to themselves because they went two ways with the hybrid technology. In the most practical applications (Prius and Civic), the EV systems were designed to maximize fuel economy. In vehicles like the Accord V6 hybrid and Lexus 400h, the EV systems were tuned for performance, taking the place of a much more traditional 'power-adder' (PA) like a turbocharger or supercharger.

So, yellow journalists in magazines like Newsweek jumped all over this paradox without pointing out the difference in engineering design. They neglect to mention that the hybrid versions of up-market, performance vehicles have fuel economy that isn't much greater than the same, non-hybrid vehicle because fuel economy was a secondary consideration in the first place.

The point is, utilizing an EV system to perform the same performance enhancement as a turbocharger or supercharger is just as cost effective when one considers the cost/benefit ratio of those other power-adding systems.

 

[BIF]

The problem everyone forgets is that you get more horesepower for the same gas. So you may not save as much money at the pump, but if you equalize the horsepower, you'll find you may save more than you thought. Maybe not enough to offset the added aquisition cost, not yet anyway, but we have to start somewhere. Remember how expensive the first CD players were? You were better off buying 10 replacement vynal albums. Now, they are cheap.

I remember having that argument when CD's first came out. I was in college and debating the issue with a student who must have been 20 years my senior. He kept saying "the human ear can't tell the difference."

I told him that I had musical experience and that MY ear heard an improvement. Now in retrospect, I believe I was hearing the improved CLARITY, which I interpreted as an improvement. I also mentioned that the media itself would last longer...for an unlimited number of plays.

I said that this was going to be an important new technology; digitizing audio signals as data and storing them on a reasonably durable plastic disc; it was FAR superior to vinyl which could become pitted, worn, or scratched, and it was FAR superior to cassette tapes, which would get worn, broken, tangled, and/or jammed.

He wouldn't have any of it.

One of my roommates had one of the first CD players; he had spent $999 on it. This was in 1982 or 83. Ouch! Several of my younger classmates overheard our debate and told me later they hadn't heard about this new technology and they wanted to learn more. One closed mind, but many more open ones.

Even so, it took close to 8 years for the technology to really take off and for most new "records" to become available in the CD form factor. I think it also took just about as long for sound engineers, producers, and mastering engineers to adapt to the new technology and to adjust their sound to compensate for digital's unforgiving clarity.

Hehe, at least the older student didn't use the words "cotton-pickin'" or "newfangled." I would have just busted a gut laughing.

On a serious note though, I often remember that argument and remind myself to keep my mind open to new possibilities.

 

[An04Prius]

Are those CD things you are talking about supposed to be the what is supposed to replace my 8-track ? I still like it, so I dont think I'll make the change, but it sure is getting harder & harder to find tapes.

 

[hyperion]

Are those CD things you are talking about supposed to be the what is supposed to replace my 8-track ? I still like it, so I dont think I'll make the change, but it sure is getting harder & harder to find tapes.

.
.
.
.Thank God for "E" bay. You will always be able to get them there just as you will with VHS tapes. (Of course they may be coming from Australia)
.
.
.

 

[DanMan32]

Actually some audiophiles can actually hear the digitizing artifacts and would rather hear a well maintained LP. But durability and clean sound compared to average use LP/tape is what 99% of us appreciate.

But back to the matter at hand. Again, something like an Accord or Camry hybrid gives more power and STILL gives you gas savings, even if it is only a few MPGs less. Consider what the gas savings would be if the power output was the same, or how much worse the mileage would be if the power was increased without the benefit of hybridization.

 

[wstander]

I looked up the advertised EPA numbers for the Camry and Accord:

Camry hybrid 43/[email protected] auto
4cyl 24/[email protected] auto
6cyl 22/[email protected] auto

Accord hybrid 25/[email protected] auto
4cyl 24/[email protected] auto
6cyl 20/[email protected] auto

I did not check on acceleration differences between them.

As another data point, my coworker is now considering the Accord hybrid as an alternative to the standard Accord, even with the additonal cost of the hybrid version on the front-end. He did not care for the small size of the Civics and the seats in the Prius were unacceptable to him, so the Accord strikes the balance. Anything is, of course, an MPG improvement on his Dodge RAM 1500 8)

 

[DanMan32]

Based on those numbers, looks like Camry hybrid is better in horsepower per MPG (whether that calculation means anything) in the city, whereas the Accord hybrid is better on the highway. But then one needs to factor whether they'll ever use the max horsepower.

 

[dod]

Almost always, the comparisons of hybrids to non-hybrids are spurious because the cars are not comparable. Hyperion compares the hybrid Camry to one $10,000 less. I just ordered a hybrid Camry to go with my Prius. In order to get leather and power seats, I had to order a package with everything, including items I didn't want like a moon roof and heated seats. Cost including taxes and delivery is $31.500. In order to get all the options coming on my hybrid, I would have had to order the 2007 Camry XLE V-6. With the complete package the MSRP was $30,840. DOD

 

[wstander]

Almost always, the comparisons of hybrids to non-hybrids are spurious because the cars are not comparable. Hyperion compares the hybrid Camry to one $10,000 less. I just ordered a hybrid Camry to go with my Prius. In order to get leather and power seats, I had to order a package with everything, including items I didn't want like a moon roof and heated seats. Cost including taxes and delivery is $31.500. In order to get all the options coming on my hybrid, I would have had to order the 2007 Camry XLE V-6. With the complete package the MSRP was $30,840. DOD

To reiterate then, the 'hybrid' version cost you only $660 more than an exact non-hybrid version of a 2007 Camry?

 

[An04Prius]

:wink:

 

[hyperion]

regardless of dods post, Sundays papers had "well equipped new Camrys advertised for 21,500 and "well equipped hybrid Camrys for $30,000.
That's a lot of gas money for a little more performance in the same car.
Almost the same with the Highlander ads. 26 for a standard and 39 for the hybrid. Those are almost Lexas prices. I'm sure if serious, much better deals could be found.

 

[WayneBruce]

come on now, hyp. you know better than to believe what paper advertisements say about their products! they can define "well equipped" to be anything they want! Used to be "Well Equipped" means AC and cassette deck. I've seen online sales of Prius advertising package 4s as Well Equipped, or even Fully Loaded. As well, the basic level of a higher cost model may already have standard trim levels that are options for a lower cost model. Maybe the hybrid will have knee airbags standard while the 4 cylinder has that as an option. So "Well equipped" for the 4 cylinder could be extra airbags, while the hybrid already has that, but get penalized for it in the comparison.

which is the grip of my initial post: just compare apples to apples, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[hyperion]

I really think you are stretching it here. I would never find this at the Chrysler dealer down the street and certainly do not expect Toyota to be any different. Maybe in California where I haven't read anything posted here in the past two years that would inspire confidence.
All car dealers in my area of the country would do nothing to lower their reputations which have taken many years to establish. Maybe that's why I have never heard of one dealer in New England who has sold a Prius over list.
All I really know is that the Camry hybrid is coming in at least $6,000 higher than the standard. My car goes in for it's 15,000 mile check tomorrow and I'll get a price comparismn while waiting the hour scheduled for the service.