Hybrids in the News

bigdave2

Dewey: But V8s don't make economic sense.

still, people buy V8s......

dewey

Show me a hybrid that is as fun to drive as a V8 BMW M5 and I will graciously accept your argument.

dewey

My bad, I was thinking of a prior generation M5. The new BMW M5 has a 500hp V10 and not a V8.

tagman

Ha! You're funny. You've been around long enough to know how to compare apples to apples. Few cars at ANY price or category will compare to that one, even if it is a V10, and not a V8.

But, your earlier point about the price difference between the hybrid and non-hybrid version of the same car when it arrives . . . it goes like this:

Many cars have engine options anyway, with the larger one usually being more expensive. What's the value to pay the larger engine premium, other than HP? And the result is poorer fuel economy and usually insignificant resale value difference.

Instead pay for the hybrid difference and what do you get? BETTER fuel economy and HIGHER resale, so you DO recapture a large portion of the initial difference. So far, hybrid resale values are excellent!

And as gas prices continue upwards, the less efficient engines will LOSE resale value. The difference in the initial cost IS VERY LIKELY to benefit you later, as well as the SIGNIFICANT savings at the pump, which will even improve over time as gas prices rise.

The clean air benefit? Tax advantages? That matters to some and others don't care it seems, but I look at them as icing on the cake.

TagMan

kdhspyder

IMO 'Yota has already identified who is going to buy the TCH. They are nothing if not methodical. In that presentation Dave Hermance, I believe, stated that this Gen6 camry would go from 80+% 4c to about 60+% 4c.

It seems that they are going after the V6 buyer now in order to grow. The 4c mudfight is a loser moneywise. There is not going to be any growth as long as Hyundai has the $16-19K market locked up with the sonata.

Thus keep the 4c buyers that always come back to the Camry and look for 'conquest sales' with an over-the-top ICE V6 and the TCH. If they plan to grow to 450000+ units that's 180,000 V6's and Hybrids.

Future distribution of models assuming 450-500K units?
300K 4c
100K TCH
80 K ICE V6

bamacar

Wards review after driving the 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder, and TCH says that the 4 or 6 are great and the performance of the TCH does not compare. The TCH is 352 pounds heavier than the 4 cylinder manual, and even 130 pounds more than the V6 Honda Accord Hybrid. They also expect the cost to be in the upper 20's which in my opinion doesn't make any sense when you can get an LE 4 cylinder for 17-19k any day of the week.

kdhspyder

Timely article.

http://www.jinbn.com/2006/02/08154227.html

At 100000 Y = ~$845 The extra cost seems to be ~ $3200. It seems in typical 'Yota fashion that this issue is not being shunted to the rear. It is being kept in the forefront by keeping it in the press.

Coming from a Big Business background, companies usually dont like to put themselves in the glare of the public spotlight unless they already know the answer to the questions that will be asked.

tagman

Good point!!!!!!!!!!

gagrice

who says hardware prices don't come down, but software prices do?

that's a load of crap

I think the biggest problem will be the cost of batteries. If anyone has sold enough batteries to get the price down it is Dell Computers. In a year and a half the price for my Li-ion laptop battery went from $99 to $143. Li-ion is supposed to be the hybrid battery of the future. I don't think they will come down in price.

snakeweasel

The hybrid haters never address the issue of paying a premium for a HEMI. Makes you want to go hmmmmm?

That could very well be because the topic of conversation isn't about Hemi's but about hybrids. There is a forum where people have actually addressed the folly of paying more for a high horsepower car (me being one of them).

As for me I look at my pocket book first so the premium on a hybrid simply is not worth it, but then again neither is the premium for a Hemi.

Also just because someone doesn't think paying the premium on a hybrid is worth it doesn't mean they are hybrid haters. Nor does it mean that someone hate Hemi's because they wouldn't pay that premium.

tagman

just because someone doesn't think paying the premium on a hybrid is worth it doesn't mean they are hybrid haters. Nor does it mean that someone hate Hemi's because they wouldn't pay that premium.

Exactly . . . It's about personal preference, and the hybrid is just as legitimate an upgrade as is the bigger and more powerful ICE. It is a viable and acceptable alternative with benefits that do not need to be justified to EVERYONE.

Personally, I like BOTH at different times. Sometimes, raw power is what I'm after, and at others I like the idea of decent performance that delivers 40 - 50 mpg.

Anyway, I agree with your post.

TagMan

mirth

Yet another Camry review, very positive, but...

Among the gauges on the zippy-looking, two-tone gray dashboard is one marked "MPG Consumption." It lets you know when you're being efficient and when you're being clumsy. Trying to keep it happy, I found myself driving 65 mph on the freeway instead of 70, accelerating more slowly from red lights, and generally acting as though I was trying to squeeze the final dollop from a tube of automotive Crest.
...
Early EPA estimates said the hybrid would get 43 mpg in the city and 37 on the freeway. In 240 miles, about a third of them on surface streets, I averaged a more modest 30.

So, not a lead-footed driver, yet still only 30 MPG.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/OPINION03/602080411/1- - 283

kdhspyder

I'm looking forward to getting my own hands on one in June or so to see how it performs.

dewey

So, not a lead-footed driver, yet still only 30 MPG.

The virtue of buying a 4 cylinder car is beginning to sound compelling. In Canada the tax incentives for buying a hybrid are a joke. So that leaves my concern for emissions as the most compelling reason to buy a hybrid Camry.

Unfortunately I am an emissions sociopath. My wife and I continue driving a 83 MB300 diesel without sleepless nights of guilt. In fact we may continue driving this environment killer until the arrival of the upcoming Prius 3 fuel miser.

mirth

I'm looking forward to getting my own hands on one in June or so to see how it performs.

Let us know. It's definitely a more interesting entry than the HAH.

tagman

dewey - as you know I do NOT like the Prius, while I do think the HCH has an overflowing "cool" factor. The Prius's off-center focus on information is weird, while the Civic's, in stark contrast, has that award-winning two-tier approach that is a terrific design. But, the Prius certainly deserves tremendous respect for a variety of reasons.

The main point I want to make here, though, is that there is no "non-hybrid" Prius . . . so unlike the Camry, Highlander, Civic, or Escape, there really is no hybrid "premium" in the typical sense. The car is priced very well, even with the HSD, when you consider all the features that are included with the vehicle, especially when comparing it to other vehicles, whether hybrid or non-hybrid. It's resale is great, it is reliable, and it delivers fantastic REAL-LIFE fuel economy. Only problem . . . it looks ugly and has the off-center dash ergonomics. But, some people LIKE that look. So, what's the argument against it?

Also, I'll bet that ANYONE can get at least 30-35 mpg in the new Camry hybrid sedan, and that's nothing to be spitting at. What's the other REAL-LIFE alternative that gets that kind of mileage? Forget the emissions thing. What else will TRULY get conservatively 30-35 MPG, and offer your family that kind of comfort and convenience?

Guess I'm just curious.

TagMan

snakeweasel

There is nothing wrong with two or more people getting together to discuss two sides (or more) of an issue. It can lead to the discovery of undiscovered truths. The problem comes when people on one side of the issue start calling people on the other side narrow minded idiots who need to get a life.

kdhspyder

Since you just joined today. I think a little consideration might be in order for a longtime poster with many valid points to discuss. I'd think the moderator might have a say in this also... starting with your alias.

Your data on the hybrids is all wrong also. Trolls belong under bridges out of sight.

dewey

1) So why a Prius over a hybrid Camry? Because technologically the Camry is not as sophisticated in terms of hybrid features as the Prius. The following is from a Green Car Congress article I linked a few days ago:

Although Toyota’s newest hybrid does not incorporate the broad array of fuel-sipping technologies employed by the Prius—for example, its 244.8V battery is heavier and it does not use a coolant heat storage system to keep hot engine coolant available for up to three days, as does the Prius—this Camry is Toyota’s first HEV that is arguably positioned close enough to the Prius to compete for some of its market share.

Also my wife and I love the practicality of hatchbacks (they are popular here in Canada). Leg space in a Prius is ample for my kids. I read somewhere that the interior space of a Prius is equivalent to that of the Camry(not the upcoming generation of Camrys). My wife's current 83 MB300D is very fuel efficient and the fuel savings of a hybrid Camry would be minimal And last but not least the MPG of a Prius is far more superior than what can be achieved with a hybrid Camry.

2) So I guess the next question is why wait for the Prius 3. My answer can best be summed up with the same article I referenced above:

Asked by Green Car Congress if the hybrid Camry’s introduction now paves the way for a redesign of the Prius with even more radical technologies, Hermance replied, “Absolutely.”

A quick look at hybrid vehicle technologies under consideration throughout the industry gives an indication of the potential improvements that Toyota might consider. Assuming that safety concerns can be satisfied, a lithium-ion battery pack is an obvious consideration; however, as some Green Car Congress readers have noted in the past, it’s possible that the battery pack could be combined with a smaller set of ultracapacitors to handle short bursts of acceleration.

Secondary battery pack charging systems, using either photovoltaic solar panels on the roof of the vehicle or a thermoelectric device to recapture some of the internal combustion engine’s waste heat, are also increasingly popular on the motor show circuit. Toyota themselves recently displayed a version of its Japan-only Estima hybrid minivan with a thermoelectric device built in to the vehicle’s engine exhaust system.

Given that flex-fuel vehicles seem to be gaining traction almost daily, the Prius is an obvious candidate for such treatment, as long as it does not interfere with the vehicle’s coveted California AT-PZEV certification. Finally, the Prius remains a heavier vehicle than most comparably-sized non-hybrid vehicles—and that’s a data point that Toyota is almost certainly anxious to reduce, as long as it can do so without significantly affecting the cost of the vehicle.

The Prius is scheduled for replacement in 2008, with the next generation to be sold as a 2009 model-year vehicle.

IMHO The Prius 3 certainly does sound like a potentially impressive car!

tagman

IMHO The Prius 3 certainly does sound like a potentially impressive car!

Impressive indeed. The Prius 2 is already impressive, and would make a great trade-in for someone that doesn't want to wait two full model years. It's kind of like computers . . . they get faster and more powerful and more incredible all the time . . . and cars that use a lot of technology will have the same situation.

You can wait forever, or jump in at some point, cause the next one will always be better!

TagMan

explorerx4

one of the questions is, in the real world how much more efficient are hybrid vehicles than the alternatives?
where is my hybrid station wagon, other than the ford escape? an explorer has a better smog rating than an accord hybrid. it is not all cut and dry.

dewey

You can wait forever, or jump in at some point, cause the next one will always be better!

I guess that is why my wife still drives her 83 Benz. In order to prevent a "forever" scenario we have set a 2008 deadline for purchasing a new car. And it is not mere coincidence that our deadline coincides with the intro of the Prius 3.

It's kind of like computers . . . they get faster and more powerful and more incredible all the time . . . and cars that use a lot of technology will have the same situation.

Except we dont need a new computer now. Why replace it unless there is a compelling reason to replace it. The same applies to hybrids.

tagman

Sound reasoning. You DO have a computer already . . . and 2008 is a great target for a Prius 3, without any coincidence on your part. Your '83 Benz will go forever, anyway!

Besides, you'll get to watch even MORE juicy developments before you take delivery of the nex-gen Prius!

TagMan

tagman

in the real world how much more efficient are hybrid vehicles than the alternatives?

Great question, but isn't too much made of it? Let me explain why I ask that . . . consider all the other engine choices out there. Do any of us really work so hard at trying to figure out why we only get 12-14 real-life mpg's out of our big SUV's instead of the awful 17 or 18 EPA rating? It's pathetic. Even typical cars have mediocre ratings. Look at the EPA chart and see the ratings for vehicles. It's fairly pathetic.

Consumers have been getting 15-20 real-life mpg in typical vehicles for YEARS. Now we have hybrid technology that DOUBLES that easily in REAL LIFE, and people are freaked out that they don't actually get the FULL EPA ratings of 40-60 MPG. Gee, what a shame.

Many, if not MOST, cars get around 20% LESS real-life mpg's than the EPA ratings. But, suddenly we place these TREMENDOUS demands on the hybrids, as though they have to live up to some better standard, and as though the fact that they double our mileage (cut the costs of our fuel in HALF) is not good enough. Some folks are NEVER pleased.

where is my hybrid station wagon

A station wagon is not exactly the hot ticket out there, is it? So to spend the money and put a hybrid in a station wagon would be . . . well . . . you know.

The selection is growing. But, if the current selection is not good enough for you . . . and if 30-40 or more REAL-LIFE MPG's are not enough . . . don't buy one!

TagMan

kdhspyder

Consumers have been getting 15-20 real-life mpg in typical vehicles for YEARS. Now we have hybrid technology that DOUBLES that easily in REAL LIFE, and people are freaked out that they don't actually get the FULL EPA ratings of 40-60 MPG. Gee, what a shame.

Many, if not MOST, cars get around 20% LESS real-life mpg's than the EPA ratings. But, suddenly we place these TREMENDOUS demands on the hybrids, as though they have to live up to some better standard, and as though the fact that they double our mileage (cut the costs of our fuel in HALF) is not good enough. Some folks are NEVER pleased.

One important side benfit to the Prius and hybrids in general is that they have increased the body of knowledge of all of us as consumers. Auto engineers and likely a few specialists knew all about the EPA limitations and all the factors that effect Fuel Economy. Now lots of us do and it's all over the news.

It's such an issue that the EPA has to revise it's ratings.

Specifically the MFD in the Prius, HH, TCH is a fantastic tool for learning about the variations FE. If all vehicles had one of these imagine the uproar and imagine the savings that would result.

Hop in the 3 ton SUV and deliver the children and neighbors to school - get 8 mi/gal for the 5 min trip; get 12 mpg coming home.

Hybrid station wagon = Hybrid Highlander.

or... possibly in the near future.. a Hybrid Corolla/Matrix. Why not?

snakeweasel

Consumers have been getting 15-20 real-life mpg in typical vehicles for YEARS. Now we have hybrid technology that DOUBLES that easily in REAL LIFE, and people are freaked out that they don't actually get the FULL EPA ratings of 40-60 MPG. Gee, what a shame.

Most cars I have driven have gotten anywhere from around 95% to about 110% of the EPA estimate. Now if I would have paid a premium to buy a car that is supposed to get great mileage and only gets 85% of what is promised I would be upset too.

kdhspyder

The difficulty is that, I'm guessing here, you never really knew what your city FE rating was. There was no real way to measure it unless by chance you happened to drive entirely within the 'city' for a full tank of gas. In addition each person's 'City' driving may not be the same as another's. A stay-at-home Mom who lives in the suburbs actually doesnt live in a city but her daily trips are just as much city driving for her vehicle as a commuter in NYC. City driving real world values are harder to pin down.

OTOH Hwy driving is much more standard. Since most people tend to get on the highways as much as possible then it's fairly simple, especially on long trips, to know what the real world Hwy FE value is. Pretty much every vehicle gets about 95% of it's Hwy rating. And the main reason they do not is that the EPA test is done at an avg speed of 48 mph and most of us drive 60+ mpg. ( disregarding terrain, weather, fuel, etc ). If we all drove at an avg of 48 mph on the Hwy we'd all get EPA values.

snakeweasel

The difficulty is that, I'm guessing here, you never really knew what your city FE rating was.

The last time I filled up was after driving 100% stop and go city driving and calculated I got 2 MPG more than what the EPA says I should get in the city. On long trips where its been 100% highway driving I have done about 3 MPG over EPA estimates.

In addition each person's 'City' driving may not be the same as another's.

This is true driving habits and environments do affect MPG. Plus each engine off the assembly line isn't exactly the same and one may get slightly higher fuel economy then the next.

And the main reason they do not is that the EPA test is done at an avg speed of 48 mph and most of us drive 60+ mpg.

I did a trip across the UP (upper peninsular of Michigan) once with the cruise control set at 60MPH, I beat EPA estimates that time by almost 4 MPG.

Now all this is in a Hyundai Elantra Station wagon with an automatic transmission, I am getting what the EPA says a Elantra Sedan gets with a manual transmission.

Now with my other car, the one I use for special things like the wife and I going out, gets about 1 or 2 MPG less than the EPA estimates. I can't tell you what my wifes daily drive does.

tagman

Most cars I have driven have gotten anywhere from around 95% to about 110% of the EPA estimate

The vast majority of drivers do NOT get that close to the EPA estimates . . . even the EPA website has statistics to indicate this.

tagman

Most, but certainly not all, drivers have enough of a mix of city driving to ultimately deteriorate the overall mpg potential.

BTW, you had mentioned the Highlander . . . and yes it is a hybrid "wagon" style consideration . . . but the Highlander is very expensive in the hybrid format and the vehicle has been axed, and will only live out the rest of its production schedule. It will be TOTALLY replaced, not just re-designed, so I personally wouldn't recommend it.

snakeweasel

I did some spot checking at the epa website, most were getting about 90-95%, with some as low as 80% and a few above 100%.

tagman

Yes, OVERALL, the average is worse than you had indicated. And, IMO, real-life fuel economy is shameful and should be a LOT better than it is. That's why I support hybrid technology. People deserve vehicles that are more efficient.

Given your efficient driving habits, however, it would seem that you are an exceptional driver.

snakeweasel

While I do try to drive effeciently I do gun it enough and I do my share of inefficient driving. Also I don't get EPA estimates on the Caddy, but thats no my daily drive.

And while I do support the hybrid technology I think that it is still to much cutting edge and not economically viable. Hopefully that will change in the next several years as more and more choices get out there and drive down prices.

tagman

And while I do support the hybrid technology I think that it is still to much cutting edge and not economically viable

I actually felt that way until THIS model year. I now know that we are definately far enough along this hybrid path to accept and appreciate it.

The 2006 HCH gets EPA rating of 50 MPG!!!! It is a NEW generation car with tremendous achievements. The overall line-up is the Motor Trend Car of the Year, and the North American Car of the Year, and several other awards, even in Canada. The reviews came in to show real-life MPG a little less than rated, but most of them still in the 40's!!! The vehicle uses a very simple IMA system with the usual regenerative braking. The saying, "Honda keeps it simple" applies.

Many years have passed already since the first Insight hybrid from Honda, and then the earlier generation HCH. You say that hybrid is cutting edge, BUT Toyota is soon to go into generation THREE Prius, and Honda is FAR into this already with this '06 model. As I've said, there will ALWAYS be engine improvements. Even the diesel, which is age old, is still undergoing improvements.

The real question is whether or not it is good ENOUGH at this point, and while you do not think so, I ABSOLUTELY think so . . . and I applaud all the people that have patiently waited for months to get the benefits that they also see from hybrid technology, and I applaud them for moving forward and realizing that the technology is good enough to embrace. When a significant advance comes, all the better.

Hybrid owners will be even happier as gas prices rise again and again and again.

I respect your opinion, however . . . just don't agree with it (anymore).

TagMan

tagman

One more point . . . I had mentioned the diesel engine as a good example of improvement. I'll bet you there are MANY diesel engine owners that have OLD diesels that still run very well, even though they are now certainly not the latest and greatest. The point is that they were good ENOUGH, and still ARE good enough for many folks.

Drive today's Mercedes or VW's diesels and discover the improvements. Should people have waited TWENTY years or more to buy these diesels? Are they sorry or glad they jumped in and made the purchase? I'll bet most are glad.

TagMan

gagrice

If we all drove at an avg of 48 mph on the Hwy we'd all get EPA values.

I have never had a problem getting EPA estimates except with my Hybrid GMC PU. It is a good thing that the tests are being updated. The 18 MPG city rating is a joke. I can get 14 MPG if I never go over 35 MPH and do the PnG trick. We took one trip and got 19 MPG on the highway. I always got 13-14 MPG with short trips in town not trying to save gas with my 1999 Suburban 4WD.

The Passat TDI driving a constant 60 MPH will yield an easy 44 MPG way over the EPA 38 MPG. The average Passat TDI owner on the EPA website is getting a Combined 35.5 MPG.

I agree with those that like the idea of hybrids, just not the current ones offered. Maybe in time some company will get it right. I would say the HCH comes the closest to a practical solution. If Honda has solved the CVT failure problem.

tagman

I would say the HCH comes the closest to a practical solution. If Honda has solved the CVT failure problem.

AGREE! The HCH is awesome. It truly deserves all the awards. Previous CVT problem has supposedly been addressed with the '06.

Diesels are GREAT, aren't they? Noisey, stinky, polluters that they are, there is something about them that I love. The newest ones are cleaner burning and somewhat quieter, and there is considerable pressure to improve them even more as time goes. The strange thing about the diesels is that some reviewers indicate DREADFUL real-life mpg while others indicate respectful real-life mpg. I wonder why?
TagMan

snakeweasel

The 2006 HCH gets EPA rating of 50 MPG!!!! It is a NEW generation car with tremendous achievements.

But the problem in my eye is that while it gets 50MPG as opposed to the 24 city the 4 banger non-hybrid gets it still cost thousands more, more than $5,000 more. Adjusting the figures for the tax advantage (if you qualify for it, the tax credit starts to run out after a set number of units are sold) and the time value of money it would be 4 or 5 years (or more) to recoup your investment. Thats why I said it is cutting edge and not economically viable.

Many years have passed already since the first Insight hybrid from Honda, and then the earlier generation HCH. You say that hybrid is cutting edge, BUT Toyota is soon to go into generation THREE Prius, and Honda is FAR into this already with this '06 model.

Thats why I used the term "cutting edge" and not "bleeding edge" which I would have used a few years ago.

I have high hopes for hybrid technology, but I wouldn't buy one today. Maybe 3-5 years from now, I would.

tagman

But the problem in my eye is that while it gets 50MPG as opposed to the 24 city the 4 banger non-hybrid gets it still cost thousands more, more than $5,000 more. Adjusting the figures for the tax advantage (if you qualify for it, the tax credit starts to run out after a set number of units are sold) and the time value of money it would be 4 or 5 years (or more) to recoup your investment. Thats why I said it is cutting edge and not economically viable.

NO! The math is BETTER than that. The price difference of an otherwise similar hybrid and non-hybrid is EXACTLY $3590. The tax incentive is most likely $2100 which will probably go ALL year, due to the 28,000 limited production schedule. That leaves only $1490 which will EASILY come back to the driver in fuel savings AND RESALE. The '06 HCH owner will be AHEAD, NOT behind. That's why I say, I changed my mind THIS model year, particularly with THIS vehicle.

TagMan

gagrice

The strange thing about the diesels is that some reviewers indicate DREADFUL real-life mpg while others indicate respectful real-life mpg. I wonder why?

It is all in the driver and his skills. I also think that with a diesel if you try to drive it like a gas car winding through the gears you will get much worse mileage than if you just let the torque pull you up to highway speed. Similar to the way you would drive a hybrid for better mileage. I rarely get over 2500 RPM with my TDI.

snakeweasel

NO! The math is BETTER than that.

I priced out an EX 4 door with leather and Nav on Edmunds and got $25,831 TMV, the Hybrid without Nav came to $31,540. Last time I checked the difference between those two was $5,709.

The tax incentive is most likely $2100 which will probably go ALL year, due to the 28,000 limited production schedule.

Doesn't the tax incentive drop after 60k hybrids are sold by a manufacturer, not just the make? and doesn't Honda have another Hybrid.

which will EASILY come back to the driver in fuel savings AND RESALE.

I think the events that will come over the next 3-5 years most likely will have a negative effect on resale value so I wouldn't bank on that.

tagman

Hold on . . . I didn't add for the automatic transmission in the non-hybrid. Doing so makes the cars MUCH closer in price! The difference in price for the hybrid model is only $2790!!!! That's it!!!! Then, if you want to take it a step further and deduct the tax incentive of $2100, you get a difference of only $690 !!!!!!! That $690 WILL come back to the owner in real life fuel savings the VERY FIRST YEAR. The following years will pay back even MORE!!!!! Holy Smokes . . . this is even BETTER than I had thought!

WOW! WELCOME '06 Honda Civic Hybrid!!!!!

TagMan

tagman

Go to the Honda website. The price for a Civic EX w/ automatic is $19,060. The price for the hybrid is $21,850. That difference is $2790. That's all.

Regarding the tax incentive, yes there is a 60,000 limit, but Honda won't manufacture much more than 28,000 to 30,000 HCH's this entire year! Any other models, if considered, won't hurt the threshhold. So, there you have it.

If you add leather or nav to either model it will be the same for both and the difference will not change!!!!

Further if a an owner drives 14,000 miles per year, then at an average fuel cost of 3.00 per gallon of gas (a 5-year projected average) the savings will be based upon a difference of 20 mpg in real life . . .

so bottom line is that a non hybrid driver in the 25 mpg range would spend $1680 EVERY YEAR. The hybrid driver, however, in the 45 mpg range would spend $ 933.33 annually. That is a difference of $746.67 every year. If the ownership is for 5 years, then the fuel savings projection is $3,733.35. This is a LARGER SAVINGS than the cost difference, which means that even if resale isn't higher, which it probably would be, the savings is STILL THERE. If the resale DOES become higher, then the savings are even LARGER. If fuel gets even more expensive, then the savings are again EVEN LARGER.

So . . . we are already mathematically AHEAD with the hybrid starting with THIS model year and with the '06 HCH.

What more do you need????????????

TagMan

snakeweasel

Not sure how your figuring those figures out but the EX 4door 4 banger with leather and Nav is $5,709 less expensive than the Hybrid without Nav. Add the Nave and the difference gets worse.

tagman

Go to my post above yours. I have given you all the numbers.

gagrice

I think you are looking at the Accord Hybrid and tagman the Civic hybrid.

tagman

I thought I made it clear that I was referring to the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid . . . one of four versions of the Motor Trend Car of The Year. Yes, you are correct . . .

2006 Honda Civic Hybrid.

The point here is that the hybrid technology IS A TRUE VIABLE alternative NOW . . . and that a buyer doesn't have to wait years and years as snakeweasel was indicating. This particular model PROVES that the waiting time is over and that the financial benefits of hybrid technology have finally arrived with THIS model year!

As I said, WELCOME 2006 HONDA CIVIC HYBRID!!

Thanks for the clarification.

TagMan

snakeweasel

Ok I was thinking Accord. But looking at the Civic it is anywhere from $3,000 to $6,643 more than the regular Civic and for a whole 10-15 more MPG. But thats a moot point for me as I can't drive a civic.

gagrice

I can't drive a civic

The 2006 Civic Hybrid I sat in had more headroom than the 2005 Accord Hybrid I sat in. Did not get to test drive either one.

At Poway Honda the HCH with NAV had a $2000 markup, making it just about $5000 over the EX with NAV. I think the dealers are greedy and want the whole tax credit for themselves.

tagman

The difference between a similarly-equipped non-hybrid and a hybrid Civic is EXACTLY $2790. Period.

The size of the '06 Civic is so much larger than the '05 that it is now about as large as the original Accord!!!

Since the Civic has gotten so large, and a bit pricier, with SO MANY standard features, Honda will introduce the Honda Fit as an all-new entry model this Spring.

Perhaps the '06 HCH doesn't meet your needs, but it DOES PROVE that hybrid technology IS a LEGITAMATE MATHEMATICAL and FINANCIAL alternative FINALLY with this model.

TagMan