By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Unfortunately, no, I wish that were true, but they were comparing Civic to Civic. Here is the quote from the article (not used by permission:)
"An automatic Honda (HMC) 2005 Civic hybrid has a starting MSRP of $20,650 and gets up to 48 mpg in city driving. A regular automatic Civic costs $14,560 and gets up to 29 mpg in city driving."
So they point out a $6,090 difference. Well OF COURSE that would be a ridiculously excessive purchase, if those were your two choices !! Problem is, no one in REALITY will be comparing those two versions of the Civic and trying to decide between buying those two versions - see one of my previous posts for my take on that.
And it's agreed that the Prius is a far more techno-savvy vehicle than the HCH, and is a larger car in terms of interior space, is faster, gets better EPA MPG, etc, etc.
Comparing base price of the Civic Hybrid and the Prius (only a few hundred dollars diff) are very close - problem is, you cannot get a base model Prius for anywhere near MSRP right now, and are not likely to be able to do so in the near future either....
http://www.smartmoney.com/consumer/index.cfm?story=20031126
Comparing HCH to Civic EX...
quote- it would take you 21 1/2 years in gas savings to pay back the extra money you initially laid out for the hybrid, -end
Buyers remorse larsb? Some people just love the technology and will say ANYTHING to justify it.
Hybrids are wonderful for their low emissions and high mpg, however, their high initial cost outweighs their fuel savings.
And another article
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Saveonacar/P372- 72.asp
Once again, for those who have problems remembering my points, let me say this:
EX Styles (MSRP: $17,750 - $18,800)
Hybrid Styles (MSRP: $20,140 - $21,140)
My "faulty math" shows a difference of $1,340 between the highest priced EX and the lowest priced Hybrid, and a largest possible difference of $3,390.
So, once again, even with the numbers in front of him, let the record show that moparbad said "Hybrids are wonderful for their low emissions and high mpg, however, their high initial cost outweighs their fuel savings."
I would say $1340 is not considered "high initial costs" which might outweigh the savings.
Anyone else want to disagree and be proven wrong?
If someone needs only a small sedan and doesn't need all the features Prius offers and is happy with typical small-car fuel economy, sure, buy the Civic or Corolla or Elantra or Spectra or whatever and spend a few thousand dollars less. Don't buy more car than you need.
quote from article-A recent study by Consumer Reports magazine predicted that it would take 12 years of gas savings at $2 a gallon to recoup the extra cost of a Civic Hybrid. That's considerably longer than most people own their car, making the hybrid system essentially money out of pocket for an option that made the driver feel good, but provided no genuine economic benefit.
No automaker has disclosed the cost of its hybrid system, but the consensus is that they add around $2,400 to the sticker price.-end
larsb- the problems with your points are that they make no sense. 5 articles and multiple posts to help illustrate this, and you are still unable to grasp it.
kirstie_h "The future of Hybrid Vehicles" Sep 8, 2004 3:49pm Being an early adopter is expensive! $300 to pop corn, nice analogy!
Well, the Honda site shows the (highest price) Civic EX at 17410 and the Hybrid at 19650, which is $2240, a bit more than your $1340. However, people can opt for the lower cost LX ($15510, or even the "value package" ($14560). Additionally, I don't think you are factoring in the capability of getting the ICE Civic at closer to Invoice cost, whereas no one is discounting Hybrids below MSRP.
Another factor is that maybe people just want reliable transportation, and don't want all the extras; with the Hybrid Civic, they have no choice in the matter. If Honda offered the hybrid drivetrain as an option instead of a model option, it would be a slam dunk deal.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your math, but people are comparing high MPG vehicles when they talk of value; these vehicles tend to be much cheaper than the EX, and admittedly have fewer options. But if the point is to save gas, then then even the Civic hybrid will not recoup extra costs over cheaper sedans.
quote- it would take you 21 1/2 years in gas savings to pay back the extra money you initially laid out for the hybrid, -end
Talk about perpetuating a fantasy - that statement puts the "F" in Fantasy. What moparbad CONVENIENTLY left out of this "news" article is the full text of the point. Here it is in full, not sliced up to fit my needs:
"Consumer Reports compared the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid model, which gets 36 miles per gallon and sells for roughly $21,000, with the 2003 Honda Civic EX, which gets 29 miles per gallon and sells for an average of $18,500. The results? Not including the tax break (which would vary depending on one's income), it would take you 21 1/2 years in gas savings to pay back the extra money you initially laid out for the hybrid, says Consumer Reports' Shenhar. With the tax break, it would still take four years to break even."
So, even with a LARGE difference of $2500 between the EX and Hybrid models, which smart shoppers like myself could cut down to as low as $1340 (see the MSRP on Edmunds.com), the fuel savings combined with the tax savings allow you to break even in 4 years. And even SOONER if you learn how to drive your Hybrid for max MPG using the on-board computer mpg displays, which the EX models DO NOT HAVE.
So again, "Hybrids in the News" are getting bad raps for incorrect reasons.
The tax break is scheduled to expire, and is decreasing every year until it is gone in 2007.
Sorry, I have to disagree. Yes, the values are closer with the EX, but then the EX isn't designed for pure economy. You have to go to a manual transmission for that, which is cheaper yet. And don't blame the consumer for Honda's failure to put a trip computer on the other Civic models.
RE: Driving for MPG. Personally, I like to tell my cars what to do, not take directions from them (except for GPS directions, that is)...
So I think by finding it in two different websites, including using two REAL cars for sale today on autotrader.com, we can safely assume that the $1340 is fairly accurate, can we not?
I got my used 2004 HCH for $800 off the "stickered" price and the price which was listed on autotrader.com, so I wouldn't say EVERYONE is paying MSRP or higher on Civic Hybrids.
Emphasis on "used" 2004 HCH. I think new ones sell for MSRP, and I doubt that one can haggle that down. The Civic EX can be haggled towards Invoice.
But again, the news articles (to get back on topic) are emphaiszing that for fuel economy, cheaper cars are available, and it would take a long time to recoup the cost of the hybrid against a car like that. Not everyone wants the bells and whistles. After all, the whole point of hybrid is MPG...
You have a good point there in that if you just want your basic 32-35 mpg small car, a Civic DX would be fine for you, and you do not need a Hybrid. But what about people who want 50+ mpg and do not want a Jetta TDI? Their options are limited.
I would venture to guess that most people who are accustomed to the creature comforts of higher-end autos like large SUVs or even a good Camry LX will not downgrade to a plain vanilla Civic DX JUST for the gas mileage. But you MIGHT downgrade to a Civic Hybrid, if the price difference between getting 48 mpg and 35 mpg is only $1340, which I have PROVEN in previous posts that it can be.
Where is THAT information in these news atricles? What I disagree with in those news articles is how they go out of their way to point out that some "experts" say that the Hybrids are a totally nonsensible purchase if you are merely trying to save gas money, compared to other non-Hybrid cars. Like the comparison they made that pointed out a $6,090 difference between those Civic models - THEY ARE NOT COMPARABLE CARS !!
The Honda Civic Hybrid is not basic vanilla transporation - it is equipped with many advanced options only available to the EX model or the Hybrid model. The extra added cost of $1340 is not a huge outlay of cash for the added benefit of possibly 15 more miles per gallon than a comparable EX model.
Actually, the hybrid has factory options not offered on the EX, like computer and alloy wheels.
"The Honda Civic Hybrid is not basic vanilla transporation - it is equipped with many advanced options only available to the EX model or the Hybrid model."
I should have separated it into two sentences,or done this:
The Honda Civic Hybrid is not basic vanilla transporation - it is equipped with many advanced options (some only available to the EX model) some of which are only availble on the Hybrid model.
Thanks for pointing that out and making me clarify...............
Laterz........
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15550
quote-A survey by J.D. Powers and Associates released earlier this year found very few purchasers of the popular Honda Civic or Toyota Prius hybrids would keep their vehicles long enough to save more on fuel than they paid extra for the hybrid vehicle. (See "Hybrids' Disappointing Mileage Confounding State Laws," Environment & Climate News, July 2004.)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5830015/site/newsweek/
quote-When Toyota first introduced the Prius, it was reportedly losing $3,000 on each car. The company now says the line is profitable, but analysts aren't convinced. "I know engineers at rival carmakers who've done total teardowns of the Prius—comprehensive, bolt-by-bolt cost analysis," says Brooke. "Toyota is getting close to breaking even," probably within the next five years.-end
Wow! larsb is not the only one losing money on a hybrid. Even Toyota loses money on hybrids according to this article. At least Toyota will be breaking even within 5 years.
quote-As gasoline prices soar to record highs, researchers and technicians across the Ann Arbor area are working to bring a host of new automotive propulsion technologies to market, each promising to reduce our dependence on oil or, in some cases, eliminate it entirely. -end
Very promising.
quote- Honda dealerships in York Region sell only one or two of the Civic Hybrid (a modified version of Canada's best-selling car) a year, since, even with a provincial rebate, buyers must pay $7,000 more than for a no-frills regular Civic-end
http://www.yorkregion.com/yr/newscentre/erabanner/story/2131232p-- 2469011c.html
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/article/0,12543,690590,00.html
quote larsb -The extra added cost of $1340 is not a huge outlay of cash for the added benefit of possibly 15 more miles per gallon than a comparable EX model.-end
Added benefit??? You might see some benefit with HCH after 140,000 miles.
quote CR- You’d have to drive the Honda Civic Hybrid more than 140,000 miles just to break even with the cheaper Civic EX. -end
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/27021/story.ht- m
Are hybrids the bellweather of auto market?
The reason that there are SO MANY articles with subject of hybrids not having an economic payback is the reality that hybrid purchase price is so much higher than a similar models. Hybrids simply do not make economic sense at this time when the goal is to save money.
The same is true for some diesels. Cost of diesel option on a 3/4 ton truck outweighs future fuel savings. A VW TDI will offset higher purchase price with future fuel savings when compared to a gas version VW, however, VW TDI does not make economic sense when compared to similar models from other manufacturers when goal is to save money.
Compared to conventional autos the hybrids have lower emissions, higher mpg and much higher price. That will not change until the pricing on hybrids changes.
EX- Manual sells for 15564
HCH - Manual sells for 20140
Real world difference $4576
EX - Auto sells for 16294
HCH - CVT sells for 21140
Real world difference $4846
As MOPARBAD said about 20 years return on investment. Yes, the HCH makes no economic sense at all. Buy it because you like it, but it cannot be justified by costs. Period.
Hybrids obtain great mpg, even if they obtain close to EPA mpg the previously quoted articles maintain credibility.
Toyota and Honda refused.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7502&sid=17- 3&n=156
0-60 in 8.5 seconds. Fast Prius. Toyota tuning and tweaking to 147 hp.
The D-4D diesel is notable too (The NOx and particle emission will be respectively 50 and 80 percent below the Euro IV emission standard.). Clean power and achieved without a particulate trap. I'll have to post it in the diesel section. Toyota is on a roll!
MPG obtained on Prius: 60
MPG of car (truck) Prius replaced: 20
Weekly gas costs with Prius: $10
Weekly gas cost with other car: $30
Annual gas savings: $1560
Savings over ten years (if gas price remains constant): $15,600
This shows how dangerous gross generalizations such as, drivers would need at least 10 years and 100,000 miles to recoup $2,000-3,000 in gas savings, are. They may be true for some drivers, but clearly not for all. (Who are those unnamed "analysts" who are making those assertions, anyway?)
You guys can yak all you want about how much you believe Hybrids are not cost effective, but if and when you ignore the facts, you lose points. Time to break out the FACTS again for you.
Do you not trust the MSRP numbers listed on Edmunds.com? Is that not a good source of correct data?
INDISPUTABLE FACT: Surf yourself over to autotrader.com and search for 2004 Civics in Zip code 85034. Look at the top seven or eight vehicles. The top cars are Hybrids selling for $22,130 and the next most expensive listed are EX models selling for $20,790.
Here is a link to the search for the lazier ones:
http://www.autotrader.com/findacar/newcar_search/newcar_searchres- - ults.jtmpl?&make=HONDA&distance=25&model_year=2004&am- p;am- p;lang=en&model=CIVIC&address=85034&search_type=new
22130 minus 20790 = One Thousand Three Hundred Forty Dollars.
Which will be recouped in gas costs and the tax benefit within 4 years of ownership, FASTER if you drive smart and get 48+ MPG for your hybrid.
Right now my 2004 HCH is sitting at 52.6 mpg for the current tank after 405 miles. I'd say that's paying my gas money back pretty fast for the $1524 I spent choosing my HCH over the EX I could have purchased the same night.
So this is the FACT: Just because SOME people pay WAY more for a Hybrid than a comparable car DOES NOT MEAN that EVERYONE MUST DO SO. I am living proof that REAL WORLD PRICES can be as little as $1524 different, and the Autotrader ads FROM TODAY show that asking prices are $1340 apart.
So are you willing to dispute these facts? Because if so, you will be shown to be stubborn and unable to learn new information when presented to you. Not a personal attack, but just a logical presumption for someone who cannot accept facts when presented to them.
MPG obtained on Prius: 60
MPG of car (truck) Prius replaced: 20
Weekly gas costs with Prius: $10
Weekly gas cost with other car: $30
Annual gas savings: $1560
Savings over ten years (if gas price remains constant): $15,600
This shows how dangerous gross generalizations such as, drivers would need at least 10 years and 100,000 miles to recoup $2,000-3,000 in gas savings, are. They may be true for some drivers, but clearly not for all. (Who are those unnamed "analysts" who are making those assertions, anyway?)-end
Praise the Lord for this intelligent post !! Comparing Hybrids to the cars you replace is a usually a HUGE monetary incentive for buying a Hybrid. This is a little different than the discussion about an EX versus a Hybrid, but it is applicable to people who are replacing another car with a hybrid.
In my case I replaced a 2002 Avalanche that pulled in a SOLID 13.5 miles per gallon. I went back through my bank account for the last year before I got my Hybrid and my ACTUAL cost for gas from July 2003 to July 2004 was $2200, which is an average of six dollars per day for gas.
I have had my HCH for about 58 days, and have spent about $99 on gas, which comes out to about $1.72 per day, on pace to spend $627.80 for the year.
2200 minus 628 = $1,572 in annual savings.
Plus, I reduced my monthly payment by $300 also. My personal total annual savings: $5,172, plus my tax benefit in year 1.
So am I smiling all the way to the bank? Darn right....
It may be true that the people who post mileage numbers are BIASED toward Hybrids, but that assumption alone DOES NOT invalidate their 1.8 million miles of mileage data.
Honest people can buy a Hybrid also.
You could have saved even more if you had a Hummer to replace with the HCH. Or if you had replaced your Avalanche with an Echo/Civic/Corolla.
Here's what Car and Driver had to say on driving an ECHO vs. a HCH or Prius in their recent comparo:
ECHO - 3 points (no, that's not a misprint)
Prius - 90 points
HCH - 91 points
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article- _id=8427
I'm 41 years old with two small kids still in booster seats, and I cannot drive a bottom of the line car and worry about things like manual locks and windows and tiny back seats.
And I do like my 45-48 mpg average, which also cannot be achieved by those other cars.
So each case is different. But I think saving $5,172 a year is a pretty darn healthy number.
Hummer H1 $117000 and 10.7 mpg (avg)
Toyota Prius $20810 and 50 mpg (avg)
miles driven per week 250
fuel cost $2.00 gallon
$36.00 a week saved on fuel
With fuel savings and lower purchase price, over $98,000 would be saved in first year!
Yes the above example is ridiculous. The examples contained in articles are not.
Please do the math and post how much you would have saved with a civic EX instead of the HCH.
Exclude the Echo. Please do not be vague when referring to "creature comforts".
Are JBL stereo, leather interior, stability control, sunroof, ABS brakes and other equipment that is available on Corolla the type of creature comforts that are not available on Corolla/Civic?
That's really not applicable to my situation, because the Civic EX did not meet my needs, i.e. the 45-48 mpg.
But for the sake of discussion, the EX would have been about $21 less per month in car payment and would have cost about $15 more per month in gas (using 48 mpg versus 34) for a total savings just based on price paid and gas cost of $6 per month, or $72 per year. That's not figuring in the tax benefit from the HCH, which in year one might come to $150-$200.
But remember this part of the equation also: at trade-in time, I will receive higher value than what I would have received had I bought the EX too - the history of the American auto industry has proven that "cars in the same line (DX, LX, EX, Hybrid) maintain a higher resale value through their life, just as they do at first sale date."
I.E., a 2004 DX in similar condition and equal miles to a 2004 EX will bring a smaller amount at trade-in or resale than the EX. The same will certainly hold true for the EX versus the Hybrid, if the last 30 years of history mean anything.
Even if I only get $300 more dollars at trade-in time for the Hybrid than the EX if I were to trade in 4 years, when the EX cost $1524 less, the Hybrid has been more cost effective than the EX.
72 x 4 = $288 is the total savings for the EX versus the Hybrid MERELY BASED ON gas purchases and purchase price difference.
Tax benefit year 1 = AT LEAST $150, plus trade-in difference of $300 totals $450.
Net gain after four years taking EVERYTHING into account, including taking the LOWBALL END of the tax benefit, including losing $1200 of my purchase price difference at trade-in time (which will be much less probably), so this is the WORST case scenario for MY PARTICULAR CASE:
$162.00 net gain by purchasing the Hybrid over the EX.
So it's not much, but it is in the black, and the more miles I drive, the blacker it gets. I can understand how MANY people will NOT be in the black after 4 years, but I certainly will be.
MPG of car (truck) Prius replaced: 20"
OK, here goes. First, many people do not achieve 60 MPG, but rather mid 40's. Most people don't want to change their driving habits.
Second, you can't compare a Prius with a truck. It has to be compared with a similar class car, such as a Civic or even an Accord 4 cyl. You are talking MPG in the 30's on the road.
The combination of these two factors means the Prius might have an advantage of 10-12 MPG, depending upon how much driving was done in the city, when the HSD has the advantage.
Forget cost advantages, it is unlikely you will make up the difference in purchase price. Just enjoy your hybrid - it is a nice piece of technology. Within 5 years we will begin to know how well they will hold their value at resale...
I.E., a 2004 DX in similar condition and equal miles to a 2004 EX will bring a smaller amount at trade-in or resale than the EX. The same will certainly hold true for the EX versus the Hybrid, if the last 30 years of history mean anything."
Sorry, I have to disagree. The Hybrid Civic is not the top of the line - it is a new technology, with unknown costs down the line. It costs more than the EX, but this is due to expensive technology that has not yet been proven over real world ownership. This is particularly true of the belt driven CVT, and the in line electric motor, which complicates the transmission. Resale value is a whole new ballgame, and it (quite frankly) unknown at this time.
I went and "built my Toyota" on toyota.com and tried to build as close as I could to the 2004 Civic Hybrid I bought - this would have been the Corolla I could have lived with had I wanted to accept fewer MPG:
Model: LE 4-Speed Automatic Transmission (1822) $15,690
Delivery, Handling and Processing Fee:** $515
Options: $2,060
50 state emissions, All weather guard package, Anti-lock brake system, Audio value package includes:, Sunroof and side curtain airbag
Accessories: $831
Carpet floor mats (4pc. set) (CF) $87
Rear spoiler (RF) $425
V.i.p rs3200 plus security system (V5) $319
Total MSRP:*** $19,096
With decent bargaining, I might could have gotten this car for $17,500.
I paid $19,324 for my HCH, a difference of $1,824, which would mean I most likely would have broken even over four years, driving normal miles.
But I like my 45-48 mpg too much to settle for 32-34....
People do not and should not buy hybrids to save money! They buy them to save precious non-renewable resources, to reduce emissions, and/or just because they are cool!
However, you should get used to increasing fuel prices. Oil discovery rates peeked in 1962, there were no significant discoveries in the last 3 years, and all indications are that oil production peaked in the last year. Meanwhile demand growth is accelerating with countries like China starting to buy cars by the million.
Simple supply and demand math says that fuel prices will keep increasing, and the increases will probably accelerate.
But MY transaction WILL be a money saving endeavor in the long run - not EVERYONE'S will be, but mine will be.
I'm done with this discussion....Thanks for the logical, sensible posts by those who did so...Enjoyed the "Spirit of Debate"
Even the Edmunds TMV prices are 3000-3200 apart for the EX to HCH comparison. $1340, it is hard to stop laughing at that one.
OK, I said I was done, but someone is still laughing, so I must step back in to help them....
It is VERY EASY to OVERPAY for a Hybrid - people do it every day. But it is not REQUIRED in every case.....
See my previous post with the link to autotrader.com where there are ACTUAL CARS FOR SALE TODAY with the $1340 difference, and maybe you can get over that laughing problem.