Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Earth The Almighty Buck Technology

Just One Out of 16 Hybrids Pays Back In Gas Savings 762

thecarchik writes with this snippet from GreenCarReports: "One of the criticisms of hybrid cars has historically been that there's no payback, especially given the cheap gasoline prices in the US. The extra money you spend on a hybrid isn't returned in gas savings, say critics. Well, that may be true, especially when regular gasoline is averaging $2.77 a gallon this week. But as we often point out, most people don't buy hybrids for payback — they buy them to make a statement about wanting to drive green. Nevertheless, a Canadian study has now looked at the question of hybrid payback in a country whose gasoline is more expensive than ours (roughly $3.70 per gallon this week), with surprising results. The British Columbia Automobile Association projected the fuel costs of 16 hybrids over five years against their purchase price and financing fees. In a study released in late July, only a single one of the 16 hybrids cost less to buy and run than its gasoline counterpart." The one car that would save you money, according the study, is the Mercedes S400 Hybrid sedan — and it will only cost you $105,000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Just One Out of 16 Hybrids Pays Back In Gas Savings

Comments Filter:
  • by Lank ( 19922 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:34PM (#33194996)
    Look, is it so hard to believe that someone would buy a hybrid to make a statement not to others, but to the car manufacturers making these products? I own a Honda Civic hybrid. It's not much to look at and it certainly doesn't turn heads. On the other hand, I bought it new from a Honda dealer in California when they were trying to push a lot more expensive cars on me. Why? Because I want Honda to know that I'd rather be green than cool or hip or whatever. I want Honda to know that it's important to ME so in the future they'll make cars better-suited to ME.

    From one of the linked articles, "Translation: The kinds of people who buy Toyota Prius hybrids in the U.S. may indulge themselves in private, where no one else will see them, but want to be seen in public with less luxurious, greener products to bolster their reputation."

    I call bullshit. I didn't do it to bolster my reputation. I put my money where my mouth is and instead of getting on a soapbox and telling everyone to go out and buy a hybrid, I actually bought one.

    I don't care that I probably spent more than I'll recoup from the fuel-efficiency. For me, it wasn't about that.
  • by AvitarX ( 172628 ) <me@brandywinehund r e d .org> on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:34PM (#33195010) Journal

    I would use a corolla to compare it myself.

  • Other conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustinOpinion ( 1246824 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:42PM (#33195204)
    The actual numbers are quite interesting. [bcaa.com] The study seems to be doing a decent job of adjusting for other aspects of car quality and features. To do this, they directly compare hybrid and non-hybrid versions of various cars, or very similar cars by the same manufacturer when this is not possible.

    What's interesting, to me at least, is how small the "hybrid loss" actually is for many of the popular models. The extra cost to buy and operate a Toyota Prius, over the Toyota Matrix XR, is apparently $1,718 over 5 years, or $343/year. This isn't that much to a person who cares about the environment. Consider, for instance, that this will apparently reduct CO2 emissions by 1242 kg/year. This means that it "costs" the environmentally-conscious consumer about 28 cents per kg of CO2 reduced. Doesn't sound too bad.

    Also worth noting is that the vehicle costs were apparently based on MSRP. Thus any incentive program (e.g. government rebates) only have to be on the order of a few thousand dollars to make the hybrid cheaper overall. I would, personally, prefer it if the hybrid technology were cheaper no matter what (so that there was no excuse not to buy one), but the fact that the extra cost is so small makes it fairly reasonable to subsidize it in the name of environmental protection. (Or, conversely, taxing more-polluting vehicles or energy sources for the externality of environmental damage they cause.)

    Again, I think it's well-known that it's generally cheaper to do environmental damage, and more costly to protect the environment. But I see these numbers as being very encouraging: the technology is now at a point where the extra cost of hybrid technology can be made quite small. (For instance it's only $290 extra over 5-years to own and operate the Honda Civic Hybrid vs. the Honda Civic EX. That shows how close we are to hybrid vehicles being cost competitive with conventional vehicles, even without government rebates.)
  • by God'sDuck ( 837829 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:45PM (#33195268)

    ...there are benefits gained by riding on even a semi-regular basis (ie, fitness).

    Serious benefits. For all the biker-putty on the roads, the mortality stats I've seen show that even casual bikers have longer life expectancies, since the odds of getting roadkilled are so much lower than the odds of being killed by heart disease.

  • There are definitely folks out there who can afford to buy a hybrid without concern of gas savings, but most people are going to buy a vehicle that is within their financial means so the upfront cost has to face the reality of cost of ownership. I was one of those people who put enough miles on their car to warrant a hybrid. I did the math and it was cheaper to buy a brand new Prius than continue driving my paid off SUV, due to ongoing maintenance and fuel costs. Several years later, I opted to trade the Prius in for a "clean diesel" that delivers nearly the same MPG but with more comfort and space than the Prius offered. It costs me a bit more overall but due to my changing needs and cramped legroom I think its worth it. Environmentally speaking, I like having a vehicle that pollutes less, but I can't afford not to drive something as fuel efficient which is ultimately why I bought one.

  • Diesel? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:48PM (#33195338)

    Why oh why can't they do studies on how long it takes to pay back on a Diesel engine car?

    I did my reading, and Diesel engine cars are about as green as regular cars in their manufacturing process, and far greener based on the increased mileage and almost Nil emissions (with the new Bluetec engines).

    So, I bought a new VW Golf TDI, because I wanted a new car (although I seriously thought about the older TDI as well). In the right conditions (45mph, 75 degrees out, highway with no stops) I've seen it do as much as 56mpg. HOWEVER, mostly it averages closer to 37-40 between city/highway with the way I drive.

    Europe really has realized this, and has had lots of great Diesel options for years. The US really needs to get on board! Diesels are greener with comparable gas mileage to hybrids, and the gas generally isn't that much more expensive.

  • by wizkid ( 13692 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:51PM (#33195408) Homepage

    I'm willing to bet this doesn't take into consideration the higher resale value of hybrid's. That's one other factor to consider.

  • by vlm ( 69642 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:52PM (#33195426)

    The hybrids only cost more if you ignore the externalities.

    I'm used to the modern digital world, where everything is available for free and you only pay for something if you want to reward the folks whom made it.

    My buying choice was to either:

    1) Send $3000 to the Japanese, whom will spend the profit on formulaic movies about women and tentacles

    -or-

    2) Send $1000 to the Saudis, whom will bankroll their citizens into flying aircraft into our tall buildings.

    I'm much happier sending a little more to the Japanese than a little less to the Saudis.

  • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:53PM (#33195468) Homepage Journal

    I'm not in the least interested in buying a hybrid. I want an all-electric car. I want a normal-size car that can do 80 mph uphill, and has at least 300 miles of range at typical highway speeds. Get the price under 50g, and I'll buy it. With any luck it'd become a family heirloom. The only dealings I want with petroleum are for lubrication and manufacture of the plastic parts.

    I'd love to buy a Tesla, but it's just too small, and let's face it, a wee bit on the expensive side.

    Too bad EEStor turned out to be a bust... ultracapacitors could solve this whole battery mess pretty easily if they just had adequate energy capacities. Everyone else is in the "discovery" phase, which usually translates to "impractical." Not that manipulating a (very) high voltage energy source for use in low voltage, high current motors is all that easy anyway. That whole (E = CVV/2) thing is a cast-iron bitch on a number of fronts.

    Oh, well.

  • by Monkey_Genius ( 669908 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @04:55PM (#33195484)
    The reason you pay such high fuel prices in the U.K. is because your government is gouging the bloody hell out of its citizens with taxes [dailymail.co.uk]. The U.S. has historically had significantly lower taxes on fuel than the rest of the free world. That being said, crude oil and wholesale gasoline prices in the U.S. are inching their way back up despite record high inventory levels and reduced demand due to the prolonged recession. Those of you who are paying less than $3.00 USD per gallon here in the U.S. should consider yourselves fortunate.
    The pundits in the financial press attribute much of the recent run-up in prices to the falling value of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies such as the Euro. While this may account for some of the upward price pressure, much of the gains are due to hedging of currency risk by large firms such as Morgan Stanley -the same bastards that were responsible for bidding the price of crude to record highs in the summer of 2008 while that squint Bush was telling the world it was the Chinese and their demand that was responsible for the high prices.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:05PM (#33195762) Homepage

    Let's look at their numbers [bcaa.com] for the Prius comparison. Competitor: Toyota Matrix XR

    Matrix cost listed: $21,800 CAD
    Prius cost listed: $27,500 CAD
    Matrix total 5-year cost listed: $38,606 CAD
    Prius total 5-year cost listed: $40,324 CAD

    Assumptions: Total cost includes purchase price, financing, and fuel costs at $1.17/l ($4.43/gal CAD), less rebates. Does not include maintenance or insurance costs. Annual driving distance is 20,000 km (12,427 mi).

    Stats: I couldn't find a 2010 "Matrix XR". There's a "Matrix XRS". Heck, let's just assume that they mean the most efficient 2010 Matrix, which is a manual base model that gets 26/32mpg. The 2010 Prius gets 51/48mpg.

    Fuel consumption calculations: Given these numbers, the Matrix should consume 429 gallons per year at $1,898 for five years for a total of $9,492. The Prius should consume 251 gallons per year at $1,112/yr for five years for a total of $5,561. The difference, then, is $3,931 CAD. I don't know what "rebates" or "financing" costs they're assuming, but their combination of rebates and financing seems to be approximately a net zero, so the rebate value must be low and the financing costs high.

    To quote Billy Mays, however: "But wait, there's more!"

    Unlike in this study, a vehicle doesn't just vanish into thin air after five years. The average age of a vehicle on the road in the US today is over 9.5 years and rising. Hence, the projected lifespan until the vehicle hits the scrapheap is about 20 years. So the total fuel difference is actually $15,724 CAD. Some last longer, some shorter. And even if your argument is, "well, I'll just sell my car after five years" -- that leaves two options:

    1) The low cost of gas the Prius provides will be reflected in the resale price; OR
    2) The buyer of a new Prius may get a bum deal, but the buyer of a used Prius gets a correspondingly *excellent* deal.

  • by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:09PM (#33195834) Homepage Journal

    I too want an affordable electric car that gets decent speed and distance. Although, living in Canada where it's cold at least 4 months of the year, I'm thinking a plug-in hybrid may be a better solution so heating comes from burning fuel, instead of burning coal at the power plant.

  • Yeah, it was funny, when the 2004 Prius first came out, I thought "Man, that thing's just a design ripoff from the Honda Insight, made bigger!"

    How when I see the new Insight, I think just the opposite "Man, that thing's such a ripoff from the Prius, only smaller."

    If the original Insight had a disablable passenger-side airbag, I would have bought one in 2006 (its last year.) But I had a small child at the time, so no airbags allowed in front of the carseat. Now that she's older, I'm tempted to get a used one.

    (Doesn't it feel funny to call 45 MPG "terrible"? I find it funny when I catch myself feeling "guilty" for getting "only" 45 MPG sometimes.)

    And I wouldn't say the Prius has "great EV only range", it's about 2 miles at best. (As soon as my warranty expires, I'll be converting mine to a plug-in to get about 10 miles.)

  • Wait, what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boristdog ( 133725 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:19PM (#33196078)

    It says the Ford Escape Hybrid costs $35k?

    My wife bought her brand new 2007 Ford Escape Hybrid in Dec. 2006 for $24K. The non-hybrid model was about $20K. She averages about 32 MPG in it, about 12 MPG over the conventional model.

    At 22,000 miles/year, she saves about $1144/year at $2.77/gal. Plus we got the $1500 tax break. The "hybrid premium" was paid off sometime in late 2008. She now saves over $1100/year over the non-hybrid.

    I want to see some methodology on this study.

  • Re:Diesel? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haeger ( 85819 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:23PM (#33196172)

    Diesel is NOT greener. The only reason it's thought of as greener is because of the lower carbon (CO2) emissions due to lower consumption. That part is greener. Diesel does however produce NOx, which reacts with water and produces Nitric Acid, which is very bad for the environment and hurts the respiratory organs. Diesel engines produce 24 times the NOx of petrol engines.

    If you want to go "green" and still drive a car the best option at the moment is a CNG-car. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas. You can get it as a fossil fuel which is bad for the environment, but better than ANY of the other alternatives, or you can produce bio-methane from human waste which reduces the CO2 emissions with about 95%. A recent paper by scientists at Lund University [www.lu.se] pushes that up to 120%.

    It's easy to convert a "normal" car to a CNG-car, although the ones built as CNG-cars have better efficiency.

    These are the "greenest" cars you can get at the moment. Hybrids are nice, but they're not really green, and Diesel I'd classify as "red" (or whatever the opposite of green is).

  • by Maintenance Goof ( 1487053 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:28PM (#33196272)
    I think we see eye to eye on this. TANSTAAFM (There ain't no such thing as a free market.) Unless businesses are ready to give up lawsuits, copyrights, patents, liability protection and trade secrets, free trade just means someone wants a free ride.
  • by S-100 ( 1295224 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:32PM (#33196312)
    I hope in your "gravy" calculation you include your next battery change. And a worn-out battery will cost a hell of a lot more than $700 to replace. Also work the battery state into the depreciation of the vehicle. Like a worn set of tires, a half-used battery will also drive down resale value. And if/when better batteries are introduced in new vehicles, that will also notch down the resale value of your model.

    Current hybrids don't make economic sense except in extreme or lucky circumstances, or when your net benefit is based on government hand-outs.
  • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:38PM (#33196418) Homepage Journal

    It's cold here in NE Montana too, we see -40f pretty much every winter. The thing about burning anything at the power plant, even petroleum, is that it is actually far more efficient than burning anything in the car. And of course, once the car is electric, the grid itself can change to anything - nuclear, solar, hydro, whatever - in any combination - and the car is oblivious. So you get a double benefit: First, you gain efficiency, and you also get flexibility at the plant level.

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:49PM (#33196628)

    8-12 dollars a gallon?

    How the devil do you come up with that number?

    A barrel of Light Sweet Crude (55 gallons) will get you about 40-47 gallons of gasoline if thats what you are refining it for. A barrel of Light Sweet Crude closed today at 81.41 for a September delivery.

    The price of gasoline today for a US average is 2.78, so the gasoline alone from that barrel is worth 116 dollars.

    Other countries heavily subsidize fuel, Saudi Arabia is selling gas at $.45 a gallon right now.

  • by SkimTony ( 245337 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @06:09PM (#33196930)

    When I visited Ireland in 1999, my uncle told me that it was very difficult to find a car with an engine displacement of more than 2.0L, on account of the way road taxes were levied. To call a 3L engine "small displacement" just highlights the disparity between the US and Europe in terms of fuel prices/usage. I recognize your point; a mid-90's Buick LeSabre (not even one of the biggest ones) had a 3.8L V6; displacements close to 2.5L are a lot smaller than they used to be here, but really, they're still bigger than they need to be.

    That said, I saw a billboard yesterday advertising a new car model: apparently, Ford is bringing the Fiesta (back) to the US.

  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @06:11PM (#33196956) Homepage

    I drive a Matrix XR, so I was surprised to hear you say it didn't exist.

    I said "I couldn't find", not "it doesn't exist". See Toyota's own site [toyota.com], for example.

    And I get much better than 26/32 mpg.

    Sorry, but we don't play "And I get..." in this thread. ;) We use standardized drive cycles for a reason.

    As such, if you used the XRS numbers in your comparison, that would guarantee it's completely wrong.

    Did you miss where I said I chose the most efficient Matrix model listed? Which obviously was not an XRS. It was the one just listed as "Matrix".

  • by PeterM from Berkeley ( 15510 ) <petermardahl@@@yahoo...com> on Monday August 09, 2010 @06:27PM (#33197188) Journal

    Sir,

        You also forgot to factor in the cost of money. I.e., if you banked the $5000 instead, you'd have that much more money at the end of the car ownership period. In 10 years at 7%, that $5000 becomes almost $10,000 (depending on how you compound the interest.)

        And then, you also forgot to factor in the cost of externalities. How much is your reduced production of CO2 going to save in reduced damage to the environment?

    --PM

  • by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @08:00PM (#33198302) Journal

    Government also directly subsidizes oil and gas consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes, tax credits to oil companies, tax deductions on their revenue.

    Indeed. Any time the government doesn't heavily tax something, it amounts to a subsidy.

    Does anybody see this kind of lunatic mindset the way I do and get a little worked up?

  • Re:Not an accident (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Monday August 09, 2010 @10:30PM (#33199284)
    I know lot's of European countries tax the shit out of Petrol. I spent 3 years in Germany and occasionally ran short on my fuel ration and had to purchase fuel on the local economy. Wow! That hurt.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...