Posted on 06/06/2006 6:16:07 PM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
A Camry hybrid costs about $5,000 more than it's nonhybrid brother, or is it sister?
If a driver goes 15,000 miles a year with an efficiency of 39mpg s/he will save about $500/yr. Easy math. It will take 10 years to get your money back.
The good news is a Toyota will last 10 years and 150,000 miles. The bad news is Americans won't drive the same car for that long. But then neither will anybody else in any other country. The Japanese will change cars every 3-5 years.
This is one of the reasons why the hybrid market only makes up 1.2% of US vehicle sales.
So, does that mean hybrids aren't worth it?
Hardly...what it means is if more people bought them the price would go down.
It also means that money is spent in making cars rather than consuming gasoline... and there is a different kind of savings there.
The question - are there trade-offs worth it?
I took a walk out to that used car lot. It was a wake up allright. Toyota gets more money for their used cars than they do for new.
I'm starting to come to the same conclusion. The hybrids are nice, but I think turbo diesel, or perhaps even diesel electric are technologies that have a solid track record and would be easier to implement.
Too bad the envirowackos seem to have it out for diesel. My friend in California had to practically pull teeth to find a Jetta TDI a few years ago.
I've heard Mercedes is working on a new BlueTec diesel technology. I'd be personally interested in a C-class with a turbodiesel in a few years if it was available. I think the interest is out there among Americans.
There was never a GTO SS (That was Chevy's performance package). Plus, the 350/389/400 were smallblocks; the 396 was a big block.
The smallblock 400 was introduced in the 1967 model year, which was a bored out 389. You could perhaps bore out a 400 an additional .030 over before the cylinder wall be came too thin in the area of the water jackets.
Maybe it would make you feel better that most hybrid owners, like me, were subject to the AMT. Meaning, no tax credit.
The soldiers have their own rides and I leave the artillery in the garage if it is snowing. However, my Dodge Ram 2500 will tow the gun and limber over most reasonable terrain.
Here's some specifics from other citations:
Grass Cutting Beats Driving in Making Air Pollution : Cites EPA statement: 1 hour mowing=650 miles in 1992 car.
Lawn Mowers May Account for Five Percent of U.S. Air Pollution, EPA Says
Several of the sources site a swedish study saying 1-hour mowing is like a 100-mile car ride, so there are widely varying estimates. Sweden could well have been comparing to European diesel, which has different pollution properties.
If the question regarded the relative pollution of electric power plants, I don't have the research at my fingertips, but I don't remember ever having an argument about that -- the electric plants, even those burning coal or oil, have economies of scale to spend money on pollution controls that you couldn't put into every automobile.
However, I've seen some writings indicating that hybrid cars like the Prius rival oil and coal-fired plants for pollution control. I don't have an opinion on that.
I generally like using financial comparisons as a good proxy for "efficiency", but that isn't true for pollution, because individuals do not at this time pay for their pollution. Power plants do, to some degree, but not individual users. If the state imposed a "pollution tax" on products, the price of products use would be a good proxy for their pollution value.
Using this proxy, Electricity costs me about $0.12 per KWH this equates to about $5.63 for the equivalent energy in a gallon of gasoline. That's why I asked.
"An 8 year old car that needs $7K is more likely to be junked than fixed (unless it's Rolls or some such)"
Got to agree. I don't see much of a resale value.
THat's right, but as I said, your electricity cost includes the cost of pollution, as they must meet standards, while the cost of gasoline does not. The cost of your CAR included some of that price.
"I don't know if it is still true, but a year ago the hybrids were actually appreciating if value. A supply and demand thing, but a car that holds its value is definitely worth it."
Who in their right mind is going to buy a 3 or 4 year old used hybrid with 40-50,000 miles on it knowing they will have to replace the $7K battery in a few years? That is like buying a used car knowing the engine will need replacement.
Maybe you need to move closer to where you work.
I'm not 80, I'm 56 and I have 65,000 miles on my 1998 Nissan. I drive 10 miles to the train everyday. 10 miles back and on vacation a couple times a year. I drive it all weekend as well.
Who the hell drives only 15,000 miles a year except for the 80-year-old grandmother who only goes to church on Sundays? I drive 15,000 miles a year just going to work.
This 67 year old grandma drives less than 15,000 miles and would buy a hybrid if they'd build a plug in hybrid. Most of my miles are short errand type runs less than 30 miles. Would someone explain to me why plug-ins aren't on the market yet? My bridge playing granny types all would be interested. We'd almost never have to use gas. We seniors are a huge % of the population and soon will even be bigger.
I've held off buying a new car for 2 years now hoping for a plug-in hybrid to come out. I'm determined to wait until my present 4 cylinder subaru or I go to the slab at the morgue. Hurry up Toyota, I can't wait forever.
very noisy and very wet.
Agreed TDI is more economical and greener than anything hybrid.. but government has latched on to Hybrids... which is stupid.
Between advances in what we know now about longevity (humans & cars) it behooves us to wait.
Us oldsters can show the market a ting or too as well.
F'um, we're keepin' our older cars running.
A. Because we love'm.
B. Because the new upsidedown bathtubs with wheels suck & are too expensive!
My 20 year old Toyota is practically free transportation, it's comfy and lovable.
Toyota's of that era were built like guns, they had a lot to prove back then and they did.
Since that time, the fickle bean counters invaded the boardrooms and cut way back on production expenses.
Car companies have decided they can have their cake and eat it too.
"We can cut way back on costs & charge more at the same time"
Hopefully, more of the buying public will keep their old cars running as a way of saying "E A T ~ T H I S ! "
Great thanks for pissing away yet more of my money Uncle Sam.
Greenie WEENIE alert!
You do realize that Mount Saint Helens put more particulate matter into the atmosphere in a day than all the cars on the earth have EVER.
Yep. Why, I have an interview tomorrow morning over at Spacely Space Sprockets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.