Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
What type of hybrid should I buy?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I've seen a graph that compares emissions during manufacture and operation of an average ICE car to that of the Prius. I haven't seen figures comparing ICE cars in general to hybrids in general.
Hybrid powertrains are a technology, like manual transmissions. Putting your statement into this context is like saying, "The connotation of a manual transmission is greater fuel economy, not to make the car more fun to drive and getting quicker acceleration. You should only buy a car with a manual transmission if it offers greater fuel economy than cars with automatic transmissions."
Every hybrid for sale today gets greater fuel economy than its closest ICE counterpart. People who buy these hybrids save gas. What's the problem?
That is not so. The Escape is not close to the 33 combined mileage it is rated for. I have not seen anyone with as many miles as the Edmund's Escape and they are at 25.5 combined. The 4 cylinder Escape gets 26 combined. Everyone knows the Prius is at least 15% below the EPA estimates. The Insight and HCH are the only ones in the ballpark.
The added impact on the environment in the manufacturing of a hybrid is a fact. Without a significant increase in fuel economy and much lower emissions, the benefit to the environment is lost. In my mind cars like the Escape and Accord hybrid will never be as clean as their ICE counterparts. Their slight gain in mileage and emissions will not overcome the much higher amounts of SOx, NOx, CO2 & PM created during their manufacturing process.
As for the Prius, even in the mid-40s it gets about 20 mpg more than the average automatic mid-sized sedan (compare for example CR's test of 44 with the Prius vs. mid-20s of other midsized sedans it has tested).
What is the closest ICE car to the Insight? Recall that I was comparing hybrid cars to their closest ICE counterpart.
The Escape hybrid is a PZEV-emissions vehicle. Do you have some data comparing the lifetime emissions of the Escape hybrid to the V6 Escape, which is the closest ICE counterpart to the hybrid?
Anyway, I thought this discussion was all about discussing which hybrid is the best fit for someone's needs--not arguing (again) about the suitability of hybrid technology in general.
The upcoming SUV hybrid applications actually offers a simplified AWD system, obviating the need for mechanical drive shafts and transfer cases to the rear. So the incremental manufacturing cost will be drasticly reduced when a hybrid is compared to an ICE AWD.
The logic behind hybrid SUV is quite simple:
Replacing a 30mpg tin can with a 40mpg hybrid saves 100 gallons over 12k miles; replacing an 18mpg SUV with a 25mpg hybrid saves 187 gallons over 12k miles, at 30mpg saves 267 gallons, and a 35mpg hybrid would save 324 gallons!
As to why SUV owners have to own SUVs to begin with, that's an entirely different topic, and those who are not commuting on two wheels or a pair of sneakers probably should not cast the first stone. For what it's worth, I telecommute, 30 paces from my bedroom to my office, in slipers, so I am holier than thou :-)
That would be the best solution. Can you imagine how much gas can be saved if everybody could work from home ? I am sure we might have to come to that in the not so distant future.
And the main purpose of cars is for rich guys to race horses on weekends :-)
Although the first commercial hybrid application was marketted as fuel mizers, hybrid technology was first used in car races until it was banned because it gave the haves "an unfair advantage" over the have-nots. The whole situaiton is a bit like Honda's VTEC a decade ago; first introduced commercially as a fuel saver (VTEC-E Civics) after racing sucess, before high performance VTEC engines tuned for power really catching the imagination of consumers. The later VTEC-E powered Civic HX never sold nearly as well as high performance Integras and RSX's despite being gobs cheaper.
I agree with your choices and would add the Insight as the best solo or two person commuter available in the USA.
I would argue with the assertion that the hybrid will cause less pollution in the manufacture of AWD. It is the electric motors and batteries that increase the manufacturing emissions. So far the only Life Cycle Assessment I have found came from Toyota for the New Prius. It clearly shows that airborne pollutants created during the manufacturing process of the hybrid to be much higher than the equivalent ICE car. That imbalance will not be in favor of the Prius until they both have been driven close to 100k miles. My conclusion is that the imbalance of the LCA for a car like a RX400h or HAH, could be considerably more than 100k miles. I believe that is much of the holdup with Toyota and the other automakers. Diminishing returns both financially and ecologically.
All regulators at EPA & CARB are worried about is the emissions on the finished product. Most of the manufacturing pollution is dumped in another country. Try to build that Prius in CA from raw materials. I'll bet it would never happen.
As to LCA (life-time cycle assessment), I think the break-even time/mileage horizon will be much shorter on big heavy hybrids like the RX400H than on light showcase vehicles, due to simple math:
The battery and motors in RX400H is only roughly 50% heavier than that of the Prius; to off set that:
replacing a Camry/Corolla with a Prius bumps gas mileage from 30mpg to 40 mpg, saving 100 gallons over a 12k mile year. Replacing a RX330 with an RX400H bumps 18mpg to 30-35mpg, that's anywhere between 270-324 gallons over the same 12k mile year; even at 25mpg, there is a saving of close to 200 gallons.
So you have the simple math of 200-300% incremental savings in gas to offset 50% or less incremental manufacturing cost. Notice, it's the gallon count that matters not per centage increase in MPG per se.
And I too have a 30-odd step commute to work. When I go into the office, I try to take the bus whenever possible. My car is going to sue me for abandoning it!
That seems logical. I wonder if Toyota will publish any kind of LCA on the RX400h as they did on some of their other vehicles. Following that train of thought. The person that buys an Accord V6 and drives 50k miles in 5 years would produce less overall pollution than the person that buys an Accord hybrid and drives 100k miles in the same 5 years.
That brings me to the last post. If you are a high mileage driver the hybrid is a logical choice over a comparable vehicle. If you do not put a lot of miles on a car in it's life cycle you may be polluting more with a hybrid than a conventional vehicle.
The way I see this hybrid choice. If you drive a lot our planet is better off if you drive one of the smaller hybrids than the larger ones. If you walk to work and put less than 10k miles per year on your car you are not helping the environment or your pocket book by getting a hybrid.
I say Insight, Prius and HCH are not environmentally sound choices, where the bicycle and sneakers are. Not everyone's transportational requirement can be met with Prius, HCH, and certainly not Insight.
If you do not put a lot of miles on a car in it's life cycle you may be polluting more with a hybrid than a conventional vehicle.
The threshold must be extreme because the batteries will in all likelihood be recycled. NiMH is not exactly cheap; even dirt cheap lead acid batteries are recycled.
The way I see this hybrid choice. If you drive a lot our planet is better off if you drive one of the smaller hybrids than the larger ones. If you walk to work and put less than 10k miles per year on your car you are not helping the environment or your pocket book by getting a hybrid.
What if it is one of the most common type of vehicle ownership in America: the car that has to do everything? Do the distance and carry the load, sometimes at the same time but often at different times? As we know, owning two additional small cars just for commute is incredibly wasteful when manufacturing cost is factored in. People are no dummies; most people would not get large vehicles if a smaller one would suffice in their own estimation, even SUV owners (that's why Suburbans only constitute a small minority even among SUVs). Given a vehicle size, hybrid is a great way of economizing gas consumption without giving up utility or performance (so we are promised :-) Besides, helping the environment is not the only reason for getting hybrid, although it's a nice side effect; just like VTEC and EFI, both help the environment and deliver performance in spades.
Just because you only drive a hybrid for a fraction of its expected life doesn't mean the clock stops on savings when you sell it.
In most cases the life-span of vehicles these days is measured in total miles, not years, and there's no indication that hybrids will have a shorter life-span than their non-hybrid counterparts.
Most cars, hybrid or not, will run for their average life-span even if they are driven by multiple people along the way.
If a Hybrid has a lower environmental footprint from a Life-Cycle standpoint compared to an alternative vehicle, that benefit will accrue to the world whether you drive it or some future used car buyer drives it.
___Escape HEV’s in the real world
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/table.php?cat=escape
___Brightness04, telecommuting and those 30 steps to your work station to save the environment is a great idea except for the fact it takes a China or India based citizen the same 30 steps to his workstation to replace your job and for ~ 1/10 of your wage Just some food for thought.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
The fact that the HAH gets 29%-42% more MPG than a comparable Accord V6 is just gravy.
Don't buy the HAH if you are looking to get 45 MPG out of a car - it's not THAT kind of Hybrid.
___Damn, you have me all figured out :-D
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
Thanks
I can recommend the CR-V if the vehicle fits your style (drive one and you'll know). It gets about 22 in town and 27 highway, with lots of standard safety features.
I think that is AWFUL advice to give someone. If we ALL did that, we'd still be driving Horse and Buggy or the Model T !! No car company would continue making new models if no one bought one for two years - and how would the "kinks" get worked out if not out in the Real World ???
Be an early adopter, help promote the technology, and buy a warranty or car insurance that includes Rental Car coverage for when your car is in the shop......
I stand by my statement. If you prefer to be an "early adoptor", feel free. I say this about a Ford product; I would have little problems with a first year model from Honda, for example.
Warranties don't reimburse me for the cost of my time if the vehicle has to go back and forth to the shop, or for time spent on the freeway during a breakdown. Or for the frustration levels. The Ford drivetrain is unproven, in my opinion. How would you feel if you were one of the "early adopters" of the Saturn Vue CVT?
It is up to the reader to decide if he/she wishes to embark into the unknown...
If everyone was "smart" and waited two years to buy a newly developed car, what would be the REAL result?
What would happen is that the car makers would realize this, and make only about 20 cars in year one, since they knew NO ONE would buy one. So all these "test drive only" cars would be sitting at dealer lots, right? They would get driven maybe 5,000 miles in two years.
Would that REALLY be enough to work out all the supposed "first two years kinks" and get the engineers enough knowledge and road testing to know about and solve all the possible design problems?
I don't think so. Waiting two years is not "smart" but is merely "unfounded old school paranoia."
YES! I agree 100%. ALL cars have "issues" regardless if its the first year of a particular model or the 3rd year. Beleive me there's no way a auto manufacturer can identify a problem, develop a solution, and have it implemented in 1 year. Let's take an imaginary scenario- lets say its 1999 and honda rolls out a newly developed minivan. Suddenly in 2000, a few reports come in about some cars having transmission problems. Is it a problem or a freak statistical anomoly? hmmm lets look into it some more. then it's 2001, and even more transmission problems are reported. By now the population is large enough to see that the transmission is more than a statistical fluke. Time to further investigate and develop a solution. now it's 2002 and we have a solution, BUT the tooling for the 2002 is already in place and the changes can't go into effect until the 2003 model year. (remember the previous generation mustang? that platform was like 20 years old. By this myth, the mustang should have been perfect)
Auto manufacturers always have a few "refinements" every couple of years on a model cycle- but this has more to do with marketing than it does engineering. Certainly "simple" glitches may be fixed in a very short time frame- but these are usually things, that while I don't like, I can live with.
Some problems don't show up until 4 or 5 years. How is buying the 3rd year going to magically erase these "hidden" issues? stevedebi should have rephrased his original statement to: "I'd stay away from the Escape Hybrid because Ford does not have a proven track record of quality control as other manufacturers do" (he did later clarify his point to this effect)
Now to get back on track- If you want 'new' and you want 'hybrid' consider the HH. It doesn't cost that much more and I think you get more for your money. if you want strict economy, get a used CRV.
Your scenerio will never exist. If Hydrogen cars came out next year would I buy one? not a chance. I waited 5 years to buy a hybrid.
Railroadjames(Why aren't there Senior Discounts @ Car Dealerships?)(They've tried everything else!) :confuse:
P.S. *This unique starting system has got to be a pretty good theft deterent. Don't you think? ALSO ...For those that think Hybrids are new to the scene...NOT...Toyota has been building them for over 11 yrs. Get It?
THAT scenario is the unrealistic one. My point exactly, which leads to my major point:
Don't wait to buy a hybrid because it's NEW - that's a faulty position to take.
Yeah, look at you- you bought a prius :P
I'm just kidding- I'm not bashing you or the prius- i actually really like the prius. But what's an appropriate amount of time to wait? if 5 years is better than 2 years- does this mean 10 years is better than 5 as well? by your logic, you should have waited another 5 years to see if there was any truth to this "battery issue." I'd say if you like what you see, the price is right, you've done your homework, and you think the company has a proven track record rolling out new technology, then go for it. Waiting 1, 2, or 10 years wont hedge your bet in terms of reliability.
OK, now new technology. I am a conservative guy. When I first heard about Hybrid technology I realized how brilliant it was. Obviously electric wasn't going to work until there was a breakthrough in battery technology. When new technology comes out, the large car companies don't expect to sell a large number of them, they have other agendas. They will subsidize all the testing and put the cars through its paces. Do you really think they let the public find all the problems? Some people will buy the new technology, just like they bought the EV1. People will buy the car when it is ready, just like Prius is ready and Civic is ready. Look at the sales.
You can't tell the public "buy new technology", and expect them to do it. Some people will buy it early, some people will buy it later. When the car is ready, that is when I will buy it, and most of America agrees with me. Look at the sales.
I will tell you what, when that first hydrogen car rolls off the assembly line, you run and buy it, support them all you want. I don't have the money to blow on a hunk of @#$@%&.
larsb - THAT scenario is the unrealistic one. My point exactly, which leads to my major point:
larsb - Don't wait to buy a hybrid because it's NEW - that's a faulty position to take."
Do you realize how that sounds? You don't understand what I mean by an unrealistic scenario? What I mean is a scenario that is not within the realm of possibility. You are the one that came up with the scenario saying that this could happen, now you agree with me that it is not possible? Think about what you are saying before you say it.
I never said don't buy a hybrid because it's new. I say wait to buy new technology until it is ready. That is a free economy, sellers have to prove their products to us.
well put mirth. exactly.
P.S. I couldn't afford my 1st (used) Corvette till I was in my 40's. It had special meaning cuzz I did alot of dreaming of the day when I'd be in the driver's seat.
It's NOT what I want.....The "unrealistic scenario" was the one which I pointed out to THEM is what would happen if they got their way.....It was not "me" presenting an unrealistic scenario which I then agreed with - not at all.
I pointed out that the ridiculous "wait until a car has been on the road two years before buying it" crowd is doing a disservice to us all, and how, if they got their way, things would THEN become unrealistic.
Does everyone else understand what I was doing?
As far as the SlickWill's statement "I never said don't buy a hybrid because it's new. I say wait to buy new technology until it is ready." -
To that I say, "when it reaches the car lot it is REAL WORLD ROAD ready." If not, the carmaker would not put it on the road. Any new car is driven hundreds of thousands of miles in the R&D phase, and put through tremendous testing phases. That does not mean that they are PERFECT when they hit the showroom floor for the first time, but car makers do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to make sure the car is safe, reliable, and road tested before Joe Consumer ever test drives it......The Hybrid technology in cars on the road today is all at least second generation stuff which has been on the road for millions of miles by now....The first Prius cars were tested on the road in Japan about 1994, and developed earlier than that....
This technology is NOT new by any stretch, unless you are comparing it to the lifetime of the Earth or something !!
Given the increasing number of people who are upside-down on their rides, and are financing for 84 (+) months, I'd say budgets are getting thrown right outside the window, lol.
Since your are uninformed on the 2nd Generation CR-V, I will enlighten you.
There was nothing wrong with the 2nd Gen CR-V. In the second year of that model, someone changed the manufacturor of the oil filter gaskets. These gaskets stuck to the engine block pretty easily. If the oil change was done correctly by the dealer (the service rep has to visually check for the filter gasket coming off with the filter), there was no problem. If the service rep didn't check, it was possible to have the new filter double gasketed, causing an oil leak and possible fire.
However, it wasn't the 2nd gen, it was the filter. It is a little known fact that many newer model cars put the catalytic converter as close as possible to the engine to increase the heat. Hence the possibility of having oil leak onto hot parts.
I hope this clarifies the situation for you. I can't imagine where you got the idea it was a 2nd generation CR-V problem.
I'm on my 5th oil change without problems. But then I have a really good dealer service department.
Sorry to get a bit off of the topic, but I hate having bad facts just left standing there in a forum.
I should also note that the NHTSB has no reports of CR-Vs stalling at highway speeds.