Great Point made again. The Civix EX is the most comparable Civic to the HCH, and has been from day one.
I had this extended argument with the "hybrid haters" back in 2004-2005. They kept trying to compare the HCH to the DX or the LX and I was furious about it.
Where can you get a 7 passenger, AWD, vehicle that excels @ freeway speeds and is capable of 28 MPG? Did I forget to mention very decent 0 – 60 MPH times, huge cargo carrying capability, and that its loaded with safety features? Toyota's Highlander. Ours is an '06 Hh.
We even got slightly over 22 MPG with a full load and a Thule Evolution cargo box up top driving 70 – 80 MPH w/ AC on. Durango’s, V8 Trailblazers, and Explorers would be nearly 10 MPG lower in the same conditions.
Fantastic in the snow and navigates ski area parking lots with ease. The SUV hybrids GM is offering have quite a ways to go to approach Toyota/Lexus success w/ first gen SUV hybrid systems. .
My Hh was loaded MSRP 41K. The hybrid package only added about 5K to ours. A Car & Driver editor recently admitted [on the Today Show] the payback periods were skewed. And plenty of people spend way more on BMW, Mercedes, etc. luxo SUVs that get awful mileage [Porsche is preparing a hybrid SUV for market]. We like being green too.
"And plenty of people spend way more on BMW, Mercedes, etc. luxo SUVs that get awful mileage"
You don't understand - every other option, like sunroofs, entertainment systems, nav, big wheels, or fancy leather are just that - options. Hybrids, on the other hand, are economic/political statements, and must be justified though MBA-sanctioned economic programs! Here's how I look at it - I'm looking at about a $30k new car. Avalon or TCH with leather? Tradeoffs are obvious, and I'll just have to decide which way to go. I do have a better feeling about the $$ going to Tokyo rather than OPEC.
Where can you get a 7 passenger, AWD, vehicle that excels freeway speeds and is capable of 28 MPG? Did I forget to mention very decent 0 – 60 MPH times, huge cargo carrying capability, and that its loaded with safety features?
The GL320 CDI fits all those criteria and more. It has 40% more cargo room with 7 passengers. and will tow 4000 lbs more than the HH. Plus over 200 more mile range out on the highway. A friend drove his from Portland to San Diego last winter. Rarely got under 75 MPH and averaged 27.9 MPG for the whole trip.
Last October I sat in the HH and felt cramped. I ended up buying the Sequoia Limited 4X4 loaded. The loaded HH was $41k. I got $10k off the $51k MSRP on the Sequoia. I would not even consider trading for the Highlander. Even with the high priced gas. Would I like to get 28 MPG on the highway? Of course I would. Just not willing to give up the comfort and overall build quality of the Sequoia for the cheaper built HH.
I was told that more Toyota sales managers drive Sequoias than any other model. Could be a lie it came from a sales manager after I bought mine.
...which so many other news outlets pick up as gospel; e.g. the WSJ chart references the Edmunds analysis.
One: There is an error in logic in every one of these analyses which Edmunds refuses to address, that being that they estimate a 'payback period' ( that is a length of time into the future ) but they only use today's fuel prices. They did the last one for the WSJ based on fuel being $4.01 / gal as noted by larsb. The one that they did for the press last Fall was based on fuel being $2.85 per gallon. IOW last Fall they suggested to the world that fuel was going to be $2.85 per gallon forever ( ?? ).. or at least the life of the vehicle. Well we all know that that assumption was faulty. Basing it on $4.01 is just as faulty. Why cannot they create a range of scenarios? I'm guessing that it's too complicated for the average reader that's likely overly-challenged in doing basic analyses themselves.
Two: In every analysis by Edmunds they ignore completely the question of resale values. This is shocking because it's one of the key features on their Home Page. For those not in the auto business now used hybrids are being bought at auction for prices in excess of their original sticker price! That means that not only is there no depeciation but there is an actual appreciation. Stupid as it sounds it's true on a daily basis. As fuel begins to become more and more important to the population in general the demand far exceeds the supply, ergo hybrids are commanding greater premiums.
OK so it's a weird situation now, weirder than I've ever seen it. But priorly when sanity ruled, the hybrids all returned higher prices at resale than their non-hybrid partners. Even at 6 or 7 yrs after ownership and 100,000+ miles a Prius returns substantially more than a Matrix, the HCH more than the Civic.
The net result is that part of the 'hybrid premium' is recovered at time of resale or trade-in. Only when the two vehicles to be compared are kept forever ( 10-12 yrs ) does the hybrid = the nonhybrid at resale.
Why Edmunds refuses to use this easily quantified variable is beyond me frankly.
Finally, and this irks me the most, there is no such thing as a 'payback period'. Vehicles do not 'pay you back' unless you use them in a business to generate revenue. All vehicles just cost you money. With very few exceptions they are sinkholes for money. At time of purchase you put out a significant part of this expense then thereafter they just cost more and more the longer you hold them. Eventually the vehicle itself is worthless and the owner(s) have spent 'x' amount in addition ( fuel, insurance, maintenance, repairs ) to keep the vehicle in use.
The ONLY valid comparison is to add up all the costs for two or more vehicles over a specific period of usage and then compare them to see which one costs the least to own. Amazingly this is another of Edmund's key features on its website ( TCO )....and they ignore it in favor of dumbing down the analyses for the common reader.... even the WSJ readers who are lumped in with the the USA Today readers as being overly-challenged by analyses.
The "payback" term irks me too. Was there ever talk of a "stereo system upgrade PAYBACK" or an "ABS system PAYBACK" or a "chrome rim PAYBACK?"
The term "hybrid payback" came from all the people trying to discredit the hybrids back in the beginning. And it has unfortunately hung on way past it's usable lifespan.
Don't call it a payback then. Call it the bottom line. If vehicle A prices start at $21,000 and vehicle B prices start at $13,000, and I'm going to own the vehicle for 10 years driving 15,000 miles per year, if the gas savings of the higher mileage vehicle don't work out to $8,000 less then I've spent more money to own the vehicle and do the job I need it to do.
Now I KNOW the comeback will be "but vehicle B isn't in the same class", but that's an opinion. I'm talking about two vehicles that are virually identical in size, hold the same number of passengers, and get me from point A to B at the same level of comfort. Either one will do the job for me.
What's my motivation to buy the more expensive vehicle? At 33 mpg highway, vehicle B will use 454 gallons of fuel per year, vehicle A at 45 highway will use 333 gallons. So B will cost me (at the moment) about $500 more per year in gas. So after 10 years of ownership, I would still have paid $3000 more to own vehicle A.
I'm not talking about payback, I'm far more concerned with what I'm paying OUT.
I just saw a post from a Nissan Altima hybrid owner reporting on his mileage. He's getting just over 33 mpg after 10,000 miles. I own a regular Altima that averages about 32 mpg.
What would be the point of me paying roughly $5000 more for the hybrid version?
What that means to me is that he is not a very good "efficiency driver" and you probably are. My guess is that you would probably get better MPG than he does in his NAH if you were to trade cars with him.
It could also be that his commute is not favorable to the NAH and yours is favorable to the non-hybrid Altima you drive.
Just because Wayne can get 95 MPG from his Insight and Susie only got 66 MPG does not mean Susie made a bad choice.
It's not just semantics, the whole analysis is logically flawed resulting in the wrong conclusions every time. TCO is the correct analysis. I agree that the key issue is the total outlay for transportation.
However, the analyses we've been discussing are published articles comparing hybrids to the non-hybrid version of same. The way it's presented is simplified in order to be easy to understand but not necessarily accurate.
As to comparing different vehicles of different classes that's an easy analysis that really doesn't need much explanation. It's the same equation or speadsheet analysis listing cost of purchase ..less: resale ..less: tax incentive, if any
plus: ..cost of fuel ( adjusted ) ..cost of insurance ..cost of maintenance ..cost of repairs
The opportunity cost of money spent or not spent has to be factored in as well. This is especially important in the case of comparing vehicles of widely differing prices, such as the case of the $13000 vehicle versus the $21000 vehicle.
When considering the analysis of 'how to minimize the total cost of transportation' it's generally true that the hierarchy ( from the least to the most expensive ) is.. walking biking mass transit carpooling older used vehicle newer used vehicle small basic new vehicle small new vehicle midsized new vehicle etc.
The first 6 options are nearly always the least costly. After that regarding NEW vehicles it's just numbers. Add them all up and see which one costs the least. Probably a $13000 vehicle driven for 75000 miles in 5 yrs will end up costing less than an $18000 vehicle or a $24000 vehicle.
But...when comparing two new vehicles that are similar in equipment and $4000 apart in price it's not at all certain that the non-hybrid will cost less than the hybrid version of same. In fact, I'll contend that in every 3-5-7-10-15 yr interval the hybrid costs less to purchase and operate than the non-hybrid....when the analysis is done correctly.
Actually, for two new like cars, for Total Cost of Ownership, you need to run various scenarios out thru a spreadsheet. When doing so, you'll find for midsize SUV's, that the TCO for the Highlander Hybrid doesn't drop below that of some similar pure gas powered vehicles until one owns for approx 5 years, has significant milage over the usual top 15k/yr 3 yr lease, or gas breaks well over $5 gallon.
For example, in comparing for 2008's the Highlander Hybrid Limited vs. Subaru Tribecca 7-seater Limted vs. Audi Q7 3.7L (6 Cyl) Premium, for all categories of gas ($2, $3, $4, $5 per gallon) and normal 3 year leases (10k, 12k, 15k miles per year), the Subaru Tribecca still has a lower TCO then the Highlander Hybrid.
That said, this study doesn't take into effect the Carbon Footprint of each vehicle, where gas-only generally have a lower CF to manufactuer, but higher to operate (gas), and hybrids have a higher CF to manufactuer (big batteries with heavy metals in them make big carbon imprint), but have a lower CF to operate (less gas).
The luxury SUV's like Audi, of course, were more expensive all around: up front, to maintain, and on gas ==> to higher TCO.
In the end, if you plan on owning for more than 4-5 years, plan on even higher gas prices (>$6), or have very heavy milage, then SUV hybrids definately pay for themselves.
If don't care about the cool 'green' factor, then similar gas-only cars like the Subaru Tribecca are actually cheaper over a 3 yr lease in all scenarios.
Disclaimer: My lease is up in 2 months and I still haven't made a decision either way. But in the end, both Highlander Hybrid Limited and Subaru Tribecca Limited had a close enough TCO (range from ~$1000-4400 difference), that it could swing either way. This is for SUV's only - two new compact cars for hybrid/gas may well come to different conclusions.
My personal opinion is that diesel prices are about to start coming down. Almost all the airlines have started cutting back on flights due to the high cost of fuel. I've got to believe that the airlines use a significant chunk of the available distillates. Then you've got a warming climate, which should, over time, reduce the need for heating oil. In the near term I can definitely see diesel fuel prices going down. However if the US embraces diesel automobiles that trend will probably reverse itself.
Part of any "payback" equation has to be the residual value of the car -- what you get for it on trade in or sale.
Edmunds.com list of "Top 10 cars with best residual value" includes two versions of the Mini Cooper, then BMW, Lexus, even a Scion ..... but no hybrids. The Minis at the top retain 50% of their new price after 5 years (15K mi. per year).
However, a quick check of KBB.com shows that the residual value of a 2004 Prius is $17,875 "private party" value, and $15,850 "trade-in" value. Although that's only four years (not five), it's still 75% and 65% respectively. That blows away the Mini, and every other car on the top 10 list for residual value.
However, a quick check of KBB.com shows that the residual value of a 2004 Prius
I can tell you from experience that KBB means little when you go into trade your vehicle. I took my 2005 GMC Hybrid PU in to the GMC dealer to trade for a new 2007 Denali Yukon when it was just a year old. The KBB in good condition with 7000 miles listed a trade-in value of $22k+. The dealer offered my $17k. Of course I walked out on him. This was the same dealer that had sold me the truck the year before. I listed it on Craigslist for 6 months and finally sold it for $23k. I added 5k more miles in the meantime. So yes I got what I wanted out of my hybrid. I would have not gotten it from a dealer. There have been several people trading their Prius in on a new one and being offered WAY below KBB. One I remember posting on Edmund's, was offered $9k for a 2004 Prius trading to a 2007. She was crushed that her car was not worth more than that.
My advice is patience and sell it yourself. YOU WILL GET TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS BY A DEALER.
I believe the Camry hybrid is going away after next year. Toyota intends to make Prius their hybrid brand with several models to choose from. None of these hybrid models will have a traditional counterpart. That might be a good marketing move on Toyota's part because a lot of people that buy hybrids want people to know they're driving a hybrid. The current Prius definitely accomplishes that and the new Prius brand will feature models with distinctive styles. From what I've read these should be available by late next year.
"I believe the Camry hybrid is going away after next year. "
Really? I hadn't heard. I had heard about the new Prius 'brand', it'll be interesting to see what it includes. I'd go for a RAV4 with the Camry drive train today.
Unless I see something from 'Yota, I can't believe the TCH will be put to bed. 'Yota has consistently said the hybrid option will be made available to almost every vehicle they sell. I can't see them killing any of them like Honda killed two of theirs.
pur·port Audio Help /v. pərˈpɔrt, -ˈpoʊrt, ˈpɜrpɔrt, -poʊrt; n. ˈpɜrpɔrt, -poʊrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. per-pawrt, -pohrt, pur-pawrt, -pohrt; n. pur-pawrt, -pohrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1. to present, esp. deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely: a document purporting to be official.
They can "purport" all they want. Until 'Yota says it, or even HINTS that they are taking back their "we will make hybrid an option in EVERY vehicle we sell" mantra, I'm going to put my faith in 'Yota to do the right thing.
The Automobile Magazine article also purports that cars like the current Camry Hybrid will no longer exist, instead being replaced by a new range of stylish and spacious Prius hybrid cars.
I'd bet my bottom and top dollar that the TCH "hybrid option" will survive as long as 'Yota is selling hybrids.
Maybe Toyota is not seeing the kind of numbers on the hybrids that they are used to. They have not been able to match last years production. I think it is safe to say they have cut production on the hybrids with the desire to phase out all but the Prius line.
Sales of Toyota's Prius, the top-selling hybrid in the U.S. market, fell 26 percent as dealers ran short of inventory and customers faced a six-month waiting list. Toyota said it would only partly be able to satisfy the backlog of demand from its dedicated Prius factory in Japan this year.
Hybrids command about a $5,000 price premium compared with equivalent vehicles without the expensive battery.
"It is very doubtful that there is going to be a lot of recovery this year to be able to satisfy consumer demand and that is very unfortunate," said Jim Lentz, Toyota's head of North American sales, referring to the Prius.
That from the man at Toyota. He says they are not going to keep up with demand. So it is not likely they will offer additional models. From what I can find the TCH is not setting the sales records they hoped for.
It could be as simple as the rise in the price of Nickel for the batteries. Also the platinum needed to get that PZEV rating.
Gary says, "I think it is safe to say they have cut production on the hybrids with the desire to phase out all but the Prius line. "
If, by using the word "safe" you meant to use the word "ridiculous", then YES, that is a correct statement.
No way in Hades that is happening.
How many times do I have to repeat it? Toyota has said MANY MANY times (and I have posted their statements verbatim many times) that their goal is to sell 1 million hybrids in a year and to make the hybrid option available in almost every vehicle they sell.
Your misinterpretation of the current battery crisis is kinda laughable, unless people know you are serious. Try to keep it as a joke and you might can pull it off................:)
Hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Toyota’s goal is to have hybrid models for all its vehicle series by 2020. Achieving that will require ongoing reduction in the size and weight of the component technology, Takimoto said.
With its most recent electric motor (in the LS600h), Toyota is delivering output density of 3x that of the current generation Prius. Likewise, the inverter output density ratio has also increased 3x from the current Prius generation.
Toyota is also increasing the output density of its NiMH battery packs. Although Toyota has Li-ion work under development, NiMH will remain a major chemistry for its hybrids, Takimoto said. Toyota plans differentiated usage of NiMH and Li-ion, with the lithium-ion packs heading initially to plug-in hybrid vehicles and to small, short-distance electric vehicles. Future, larger EVs will be based on a next-generation battery chemistry.
The plug-in hybrid, Takimoto said, “is the most realistic option for utilizing electricity [as an alternative fuel] at the present time.”
He re-affirmed that Toyota will introduce a Li-ion-based plug-in by 2010 geared toward. Toyota, which is also researching photovoltaic power generation and biofuels, suggests that supplying PV electricity to a biofuel plug-in is a means of completely eliminating CO2 emissions.
So can you drop that unreasonable, unsupported argument please now Gary?
The dip in TCH sales is related to the battery shortage, not lacking demand. As kdh said earlier, 8-15 days on the lot for the TCH. That's moving pretty fast.
The dip in TCH sales is related to the battery shortage
And what is your take on that. We know the HH & RH are not selling worth a hoot. The TCH is down The Prius is less than last year at this time. Did Panasonic have a fire in the battery factory. Or as the Toyota boss says. We are not going to meet the demand for hybrids this year. That tells me they do not make enough money to sell all they can. They are hoping if you don't buy a Prius you will buy a Camry or Matrix.
One of these days when I have time to kill I will find where Toyota claimed they would have a full sized hybrid PU by 2009. Yes Toto, Yota makes lots of promises. Just like Amelican politician.
Oh and that green article was so vague from Toyota, I don't think you can glean anything of importance from it. Yes they are going to work on every technology known to man between now and 2020...
The plug-in hybrid, Takimoto said, “is the most realistic option for utilizing electricity [as an alternative fuel] at the present time.”
I think that's a pretty clear example of how Toyota can change it's position 180 degrees within the course of a year. Nothing wrong with that. A company needs to be open-minded and flexible in changing times. That being the case you really can't take anything said today as absolute confirmation of what Toyota's game plan will be a year or two from now. If the next generation Prius really is bigger and more powerful common sense would lead you to believe that will negatively impact sales of the TCH. Do you believe that Toyota will continue to produce a model regardless of sales numbers? Then why did they kill the Celica (twice), the Echo, the Tercel, the Supra, etc.?
Toyota can say whatever they want about their future plans to produce hybrid versions of all their models but I don't buy it. For instance I believe it would be sheer lunacy for them to introduce a hybrid Corolla as long as they are producing something similar to today's Prius.
I believe it would be sheer lunacy for them to introduce a hybrid Corolla
It would be crazy to produce a hybrid of any more in their line-up outside of the Sienna and maybe the RAV4. If they did the RAV4 they could dump the overpriced Highlander Hybrid. The RH is the only hybrid in the Lexus line that sells at all. I am sure once they wipe the egg off their faces they will dump that LS600h and the GS450h.
This is very true. while today's resale market is skewed by fear, the fact that one and two year old Prius' are selling above their original sticker price...at auction..not to mention retail MSRP... means that Edmunds own evaluations are at best inaccurate or skewed ( intentionally / semi-intentionally? ).
Nevertheless I use a standard rule of thumb for all used vehicles which takes away any bias. 1 y.o. is 85% of retail 2 y.o. is 75% 3 y.o. is 65% 4 y.o. is 55% 5 y.o. is 45% 6 y.o. is 35% 7 y.o. is 25% 8 y.o. is 15% 9 y.o. is 10% 10 y.o. is 5% 11+ y.o. is $1000 flat 15+ y.o. is $500 flat
In this way all vehicles at 6 yrs old are valued at 35% of original MSRP, whatever that originally was.
I don't think we'll see a hybrid RAV from Toyota because it would intrude on the Escape hybrid. We may see some larger Prius 'utility' vehicle or small Prius minivan but not something that competes with the FEH.
Ditto. The TCH is a huge winner. Actually next decade I see it as the standard model getting above 40 mpg all day long ( new HSD technology ). CAFE 35 is still out there so every maker will have to be sure to have all it's vehicles in line with the 2015 then 2020 regs.
There is NO future for a gas-only midsizer that 'only' gets high 20's in FE. First it would never sell in the world of $6 or $7 or $8 fuel.
This is really weird IMO except that I see the shadow of battery capacity in the background.
When Toyota came out with the new 08 HH in Oct it was WAY WAY more expensive than the prior model. Too it only offered a 4WD option not a less expensive FWD option. This added $2500 to the already high price. To me they were saying .... 'Only for the ones who really want one'.... Another way of interpreting it is that currency issues and limited battery capacity made the HH not so attractive as a high volume model. It's there if one really wants it... and lots do. The few being shipped don't last longer than 15-30 days in stock.
This de-emphasis of the HH opens up battery capacity for the Prius and the TCH.
Now about the full sized pickup hybrid, I too saw that but it's gone away. Since you are naturally the suspicious type.. try these two scenarios out.
Toyota and Honda and Ford and now GM have all decided to make hybrids that do NOT compete against each other. None of them do. That's one reason why there is no RAV hybrid....there's an FEH out already. But Ford has no Edge hybrid....there's an HH out already. None of them make a full sized hybrid...except now GM. Coincidental that none of the hybrids compete directly against each other? I don't believe in coincidences in Big Business.
I too remember the initial statements of 'yota on the Tundra hybrid......then nothing. Suddenly GM announces that it has the T2M and Y2M developed and ready for market. Daimler and BMW sign on board. I'm sure GM did all of the development work on this themselves. I'm also sure that 'yota did not [ahem] sell it's technology because it realized that unless GM was on board no one would ever buy a 'yota full-sized hybrid. But GM could sell the hell out of it. That's its strength. Nahhh that's way too out there.
Big Business if so much fun when seen from a distance.
This de-emphasis of the HH opens up battery capacity for the Prius and the TCH.
It does make sense in the light of your prior example of the Sequoia and the 3 Corollas. Why have one HH on the lot for 30 days when you can move two Prii in two days? I just about choked when I saw the price on the HH while buying my Sequoia last October. I think it was $5k more than I paid for the Sequoia. It ain't as nice anyway you cut it, except at the pump.
What's it's competition? It doesn't have any as far as I can tell. If the reports of the next generation Priuses are correct then that will no longer be the case.
"The closest competition for the TCH right now is the Saturn Aura Hybrid.
Originally, the Honda Accord Hybrid was in the game too. "
True, for size, but none get/got the mpgs. I'll be looking for whatever Toyotas making in about a year in that size range. The Prius is too tight (narrow) for my needs, and I'll forgo that last 10 mpg for better performance.
Yes I agree that the TCH is better due to the extra comfort and quietude while driving. It has a lot more power than the Prius but somehole the Prius seems 'quicker'. There's no comparison though in the ride. The TCH is a lot nicer.
Why can't anyone focus on the cost of battery replacement in hybrids and the incremental cost in the electricity bill of the unlucky owner of a "plug-in" hybrid? What about the ability of the electricity grid to cope with a large amount of these appliances recharging? Wouldn't that entail an increased use in fossil fuel accross the board and increase the price of oil?
There is no cost of battery replacement. Have you been playing Rip Van Winkle these past 8 years? Did you not read the study Business week did several weeks ago.
If not you might want to enter the 21st Century.
The DOE estimated that the current energy grid could easily handle many millions of vehicle plugged in over night with no stress at all. Again this has been published and research is your friend. The answer to your last two questions is NO. Burning petro-fuel in vehicles is far less efficient than fueling a power plant.
"Burning petro-fuel in vehicles is far less efficient than fueling a power plant. "
Yep, came across some #s on that - regular car engines are about 18% thermally efficient - the other 82% of energy released by the burning gas goes out the radiator or exhaust pipe as heat. Modern power plants are about twice as efficient (36%), and they're aiming at 40%.
The DOE estimated that the current energy grid could easily handle many millions of vehicle plugged in over night with no stress at all.
California has mandated many utilities to switch to alternatives such as Solar or Wind. Solar will be useless after sunset. That would negate the value of a plug-in hybrid. I would not foresee a problem for a few more years as the Feds are holding up new Solar farms with environmental studies.
More along the lines of this thread. I don't think you could ever have a payback on the current crop of after market Plug-in hybrids. A $60k+ Prius will never pay for itself.
Comments
I had this extended argument with the "hybrid haters" back in 2004-2005. They kept trying to compare the HCH to the DX or the LX and I was furious about it.
Where can you get a 7 passenger, AWD, vehicle that excels @ freeway speeds and is capable of 28 MPG? Did I forget to mention very decent 0 – 60 MPH times, huge cargo carrying capability, and that its loaded with safety features?
Toyota's Highlander. Ours is an '06 Hh.
We even got slightly over 22 MPG with a full load and a Thule Evolution cargo box up top driving 70 – 80 MPH w/ AC on. Durango’s, V8 Trailblazers, and Explorers would be nearly 10 MPG lower in the same conditions.
Fantastic in the snow and navigates ski area parking lots with ease.
The SUV hybrids GM is offering have quite a ways to go to approach Toyota/Lexus success w/ first gen SUV hybrid systems.
.
My Hh was loaded MSRP 41K.
The hybrid package only added about 5K to ours.
A Car & Driver editor recently admitted [on the Today Show] the payback periods were skewed.
And plenty of people spend way more on BMW, Mercedes, etc. luxo SUVs that get awful mileage [Porsche is preparing a hybrid SUV for market].
We like being green too.
You don't understand - every other option, like sunroofs, entertainment systems, nav, big wheels, or fancy leather are just that - options. Hybrids, on the other hand, are economic/political statements, and must be justified though MBA-sanctioned economic programs! Here's how I look at it - I'm looking at about a $30k new car. Avalon or TCH with leather? Tradeoffs are obvious, and I'll just have to decide which way to go. I do have a better feeling about the $$ going to Tokyo rather than OPEC.
The GL320 CDI fits all those criteria and more. It has 40% more cargo room with 7 passengers. and will tow 4000 lbs more than the HH. Plus over 200 more mile range out on the highway. A friend drove his from Portland to San Diego last winter. Rarely got under 75 MPH and averaged 27.9 MPG for the whole trip.
Last October I sat in the HH and felt cramped. I ended up buying the Sequoia Limited 4X4 loaded. The loaded HH was $41k. I got $10k off the $51k MSRP on the Sequoia. I would not even consider trading for the Highlander. Even with the high priced gas. Would I like to get 28 MPG on the highway? Of course I would. Just not willing to give up the comfort and overall build quality of the Sequoia for the cheaper built HH.
I was told that more Toyota sales managers drive Sequoias than any other model. Could be a lie it came from a sales manager after I bought mine.
One: There is an error in logic in every one of these analyses which Edmunds refuses to address, that being that they estimate a 'payback period' ( that is a length of time into the future ) but they only use today's fuel prices. They did the last one for the WSJ based on fuel being $4.01 / gal as noted by larsb. The one that they did for the press last Fall was based on fuel being $2.85 per gallon. IOW last Fall they suggested to the world that fuel was going to be $2.85 per gallon forever ( ?? ).. or at least the life of the vehicle. Well we all know that that assumption was faulty. Basing it on $4.01 is just as faulty. Why cannot they create a range of scenarios? I'm guessing that it's too complicated for the average reader that's likely overly-challenged in doing basic analyses themselves.
Two: In every analysis by Edmunds they ignore completely the question of resale values. This is shocking because it's one of the key features on their Home Page. For those not in the auto business now used hybrids are being bought at auction for prices in excess of their original sticker price! That means that not only is there no depeciation but there is an actual appreciation. Stupid as it sounds it's true on a daily basis. As fuel begins to become more and more important to the population in general the demand far exceeds the supply, ergo hybrids are commanding greater premiums.
OK so it's a weird situation now, weirder than I've ever seen it. But priorly when sanity ruled, the hybrids all returned higher prices at resale than their non-hybrid partners. Even at 6 or 7 yrs after ownership and 100,000+ miles a Prius returns substantially more than a Matrix, the HCH more than the Civic.
The net result is that part of the 'hybrid premium' is recovered at time of resale or trade-in. Only when the two vehicles to be compared are kept forever ( 10-12 yrs ) does the hybrid = the nonhybrid at resale.
Why Edmunds refuses to use this easily quantified variable is beyond me frankly.
Finally, and this irks me the most, there is no such thing as a 'payback period'. Vehicles do not 'pay you back' unless you use them in a business to generate revenue. All vehicles just cost you money. With very few exceptions they are sinkholes for money. At time of purchase you put out a significant part of this expense then thereafter they just cost more and more the longer you hold them. Eventually the vehicle itself is worthless and the owner(s) have spent 'x' amount in addition ( fuel, insurance, maintenance, repairs ) to keep the vehicle in use.
The ONLY valid comparison is to add up all the costs for two or more vehicles over a specific period of usage and then compare them to see which one costs the least to own. Amazingly this is another of Edmund's key features on its website ( TCO )....and they ignore it in favor of dumbing down the analyses for the common reader....
The "payback" term irks me too. Was there ever talk of a "stereo system upgrade PAYBACK" or an "ABS system PAYBACK" or a "chrome rim PAYBACK?"
The term "hybrid payback" came from all the people trying to discredit the hybrids back in the beginning. And it has unfortunately hung on way past it's usable lifespan.
Now I KNOW the comeback will be "but vehicle B isn't in the same class", but that's an opinion. I'm talking about two vehicles that are virually identical in size, hold the same number of passengers, and get me from point A to B at the same level of comfort. Either one will do the job for me.
What's my motivation to buy the more expensive vehicle? At 33 mpg highway, vehicle B will use 454 gallons of fuel per year, vehicle A at 45 highway will use 333 gallons. So B will cost me (at the moment) about $500 more per year in gas. So after 10 years of ownership, I would still have paid $3000 more to own vehicle A.
I'm not talking about payback, I'm far more concerned with what I'm paying OUT.
What would be the point of me paying roughly $5000 more for the hybrid version?
It could also be that his commute is not favorable to the NAH and yours is favorable to the non-hybrid Altima you drive.
Just because Wayne can get 95 MPG from his Insight and Susie only got 66 MPG does not mean Susie made a bad choice.
However, the analyses we've been discussing are published articles comparing hybrids to the non-hybrid version of same. The way it's presented is simplified in order to be easy to understand but not necessarily accurate.
As to comparing different vehicles of different classes that's an easy analysis that really doesn't need much explanation. It's the same equation or speadsheet analysis listing
cost of purchase
..less: resale
..less: tax incentive, if any
plus:
..cost of fuel ( adjusted )
..cost of insurance
..cost of maintenance
..cost of repairs
The opportunity cost of money spent or not spent has to be factored in as well. This is especially important in the case of comparing vehicles of widely differing prices, such as the case of the $13000 vehicle versus the $21000 vehicle.
When considering the analysis of 'how to minimize the total cost of transportation' it's generally true that the hierarchy ( from the least to the most expensive ) is..
walking
biking
mass transit
carpooling
older used vehicle
newer used vehicle
small basic new vehicle
small new vehicle
midsized new vehicle
etc.
The first 6 options are nearly always the least costly. After that regarding NEW vehicles it's just numbers. Add them all up and see which one costs the least. Probably a $13000 vehicle driven for 75000 miles in 5 yrs will end up costing less than an $18000 vehicle or a $24000 vehicle.
But...when comparing two new vehicles that are similar in equipment and $4000 apart in price it's not at all certain that the non-hybrid will cost less than the hybrid version of same. In fact, I'll contend that in every 3-5-7-10-15 yr interval the hybrid costs less to purchase and operate than the non-hybrid....when the analysis is done correctly.
For example, in comparing for 2008's the Highlander Hybrid Limited vs. Subaru Tribecca 7-seater Limted vs. Audi Q7 3.7L (6 Cyl) Premium, for all categories of gas ($2, $3, $4, $5 per gallon) and normal 3 year leases (10k, 12k, 15k miles per year), the Subaru Tribecca still has a lower TCO then the Highlander Hybrid.
That said, this study doesn't take into effect the Carbon Footprint of each vehicle, where gas-only generally have a lower CF to manufactuer, but higher to operate (gas), and hybrids have a higher CF to manufactuer (big batteries with heavy metals in them make big carbon imprint), but have a lower CF to operate (less gas).
The luxury SUV's like Audi, of course, were more expensive all around: up front, to maintain, and on gas ==> to higher TCO.
In the end, if you plan on owning for more than 4-5 years, plan on even higher gas prices (>$6), or have very heavy milage, then SUV hybrids definately pay for themselves.
If don't care about the cool 'green' factor, then similar gas-only cars like the Subaru Tribecca are actually cheaper over a 3 yr lease in all scenarios.
Disclaimer: My lease is up in 2 months and I still haven't made a decision either way. But in the end, both Highlander Hybrid Limited and Subaru Tribecca Limited had a close enough TCO (range from ~$1000-4400 difference), that it could swing either way. This is for SUV's only - two new compact cars for hybrid/gas may well come to different conclusions.
The Q7 will have a diesel engine within a few months. That will get better mileage than any of the others without any compromising.
I like your optimism on gas prices. Not much of a doom and gloom person myself.
Edmunds.com list of "Top 10 cars with best residual value" includes two versions of the Mini Cooper, then BMW, Lexus, even a Scion ..... but no hybrids. The Minis at the top retain 50% of their new price after 5 years (15K mi. per year).
However, a quick check of KBB.com shows that the residual value of a 2004 Prius is $17,875 "private party" value, and $15,850 "trade-in" value. Although that's only four years (not five), it's still 75% and 65% respectively. That blows away the Mini, and every other car on the top 10 list for residual value.
Wonder why Edmunds doesn't include hybrids?
I can tell you from experience that KBB means little when you go into trade your vehicle. I took my 2005 GMC Hybrid PU in to the GMC dealer to trade for a new 2007 Denali Yukon when it was just a year old. The KBB in good condition with 7000 miles listed a trade-in value of $22k+. The dealer offered my $17k. Of course I walked out on him. This was the same dealer that had sold me the truck the year before. I listed it on Craigslist for 6 months and finally sold it for $23k. I added 5k more miles in the meantime. So yes I got what I wanted out of my hybrid. I would have not gotten it from a dealer. There have been several people trading their Prius in on a new one and being offered WAY below KBB. One I remember posting on Edmund's, was offered $9k for a 2004 Prius trading to a 2007. She was crushed that her car was not worth more than that.
My advice is patience and sell it yourself. YOU WILL GET TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS BY A DEALER.
Hybrid Comparo
Really? I hadn't heard. I had heard about the new Prius 'brand', it'll be interesting to see what it includes. I'd go for a RAV4 with the Camry drive train today.
I've seen this same information posted on other sites.
–verb (used with object)
1. to present, esp. deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely: a document purporting to be official.
They can "purport" all they want. Until 'Yota says it, or even HINTS that they are taking back their "we will make hybrid an option in EVERY vehicle we sell" mantra, I'm going to put my faith in 'Yota to do the right thing.
The Automobile Magazine article also purports that cars like the current Camry Hybrid will no longer exist, instead being replaced by a new range of stylish and spacious Prius hybrid cars.
I'd bet my bottom and top dollar that the TCH "hybrid option" will survive as long as 'Yota is selling hybrids.
Sales of Toyota's Prius, the top-selling hybrid in the U.S. market, fell 26 percent as dealers ran short of inventory and customers faced a six-month waiting list. Toyota said it would only partly be able to satisfy the backlog of demand from its dedicated Prius factory in Japan this year.
Hybrids command about a $5,000 price premium compared with equivalent vehicles without the expensive battery.
"It is very doubtful that there is going to be a lot of recovery this year to be able to satisfy consumer demand and that is very unfortunate," said Jim Lentz, Toyota's head of North American sales, referring to the Prius.
That from the man at Toyota. He says they are not going to keep up with demand. So it is not likely they will offer additional models. From what I can find the TCH is not setting the sales records they hoped for.
It could be as simple as the rise in the price of Nickel for the batteries. Also the platinum needed to get that PZEV rating.
If, by using the word "safe" you meant to use the word "ridiculous", then YES, that is a correct statement.
No way in Hades that is happening.
How many times do I have to repeat it? Toyota has said MANY MANY times (and I have posted their statements verbatim many times) that their goal is to sell 1 million hybrids in a year and to make the hybrid option available in almost every vehicle they sell.
Your misinterpretation of the current battery crisis is kinda laughable, unless people know you are serious. Try to keep it as a joke and you might can pull it off................:)
I do read and have read all or most of the articles related to Toyota hybrids and Toyota's future plans.
I do not ever recall them setting a public sales goal for the TCH. So to say it was intended to set "sales records" is pure speculation on your part.
I think it is doing just fine in the current "low battery stock" situation.
As you can see, there is no "phase out" of the TCH or any other hybrid. There are EXPANSION plans, no phase-out plans.
Toyota outlines future plans
Hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Toyota’s goal is to have hybrid models for all its vehicle series by 2020. Achieving that will require ongoing reduction in the size and weight of the component technology, Takimoto said.
With its most recent electric motor (in the LS600h), Toyota is delivering output density of 3x that of the current generation Prius. Likewise, the inverter output density ratio has also increased 3x from the current Prius generation.
Toyota is also increasing the output density of its NiMH battery packs. Although Toyota has Li-ion work under development, NiMH will remain a major chemistry for its hybrids, Takimoto said. Toyota plans differentiated usage of NiMH and Li-ion, with the lithium-ion packs heading initially to plug-in hybrid vehicles and to small, short-distance electric vehicles. Future, larger EVs will be based on a next-generation battery chemistry.
The plug-in hybrid, Takimoto said, “is the most realistic option for utilizing electricity [as an alternative fuel] at the present time.”
He re-affirmed that Toyota will introduce a Li-ion-based plug-in by 2010 geared toward. Toyota, which is also researching photovoltaic power generation and biofuels, suggests that supplying PV electricity to a biofuel plug-in is a means of completely eliminating CO2 emissions.
So can you drop that unreasonable, unsupported argument please now Gary?
And what is your take on that. We know the HH & RH are not selling worth a hoot. The TCH is down The Prius is less than last year at this time. Did Panasonic have a fire in the battery factory. Or as the Toyota boss says. We are not going to meet the demand for hybrids this year. That tells me they do not make enough money to sell all they can. They are hoping if you don't buy a Prius you will buy a Camry or Matrix.
One of these days when I have time to kill I will find where Toyota claimed they would have a full sized hybrid PU by 2009. Yes Toto, Yota makes lots of promises. Just like Amelican politician.
Oh and that green article was so vague from Toyota, I don't think you can glean anything of importance from it. Yes they are going to work on every technology known to man between now and 2020...
Gary says, "That tells me they do not make enough money to sell all they can."
I must bust a "ha-Ha" out for that one !!!! ROFLMTO !!!
Just like every car company known to man, 'Yota got caught with more demand for small cars and hybrids than they expected.
I think that's a pretty clear example of how Toyota can change it's position 180 degrees within the course of a year. Nothing wrong with that. A company needs to be open-minded and flexible in changing times. That being the case you really can't take anything said today as absolute confirmation of what Toyota's game plan will be a year or two from now. If the next generation Prius really is bigger and more powerful common sense would lead you to believe that will negatively impact sales of the TCH. Do you believe that Toyota will continue to produce a model regardless of sales numbers? Then why did they kill the Celica (twice), the Echo, the Tercel, the Supra, etc.?
Toyota can say whatever they want about their future plans to produce hybrid versions of all their models but I don't buy it. For instance I believe it would be sheer lunacy for them to introduce a hybrid Corolla as long as they are producing something similar to today's Prius.
It would be crazy to produce a hybrid of any more in their line-up outside of the Sienna and maybe the RAV4. If they did the RAV4 they could dump the overpriced Highlander Hybrid. The RH is the only hybrid in the Lexus line that sells at all. I am sure once they wipe the egg off their faces they will dump that LS600h and the GS450h.
Nevertheless I use a standard rule of thumb for all used vehicles which takes away any bias.
1 y.o. is 85% of retail
2 y.o. is 75%
3 y.o. is 65%
4 y.o. is 55%
5 y.o. is 45%
6 y.o. is 35%
7 y.o. is 25%
8 y.o. is 15%
9 y.o. is 10%
10 y.o. is 5%
11+ y.o. is $1000 flat
15+ y.o. is $500 flat
In this way all vehicles at 6 yrs old are valued at 35% of original MSRP, whatever that originally was.
There is NO future for a gas-only midsizer that 'only' gets high 20's in FE. First it would never sell in the world of $6 or $7 or $8 fuel.
When Toyota came out with the new 08 HH in Oct it was WAY WAY more expensive than the prior model. Too it only offered a 4WD option not a less expensive FWD option. This added $2500 to the already high price. To me they were saying .... 'Only for the ones who really want one'.... Another way of interpreting it is that currency issues and limited battery capacity made the HH not so attractive as a high volume model. It's there if one really wants it... and lots do. The few being shipped don't last longer than 15-30 days in stock.
This de-emphasis of the HH opens up battery capacity for the Prius and the TCH.
Now about the full sized pickup hybrid, I too saw that but it's gone away. Since you are naturally the suspicious type..
Toyota and Honda and Ford and now GM have all decided to make hybrids that do NOT compete against each other. None of them do. That's one reason why there is no RAV hybrid....there's an FEH out already. But Ford has no Edge hybrid....there's an HH out already. None of them make a full sized hybrid...except now GM. Coincidental that none of the hybrids compete directly against each other? I don't believe in coincidences in Big Business.
I too remember the initial statements of 'yota on the Tundra hybrid......then nothing. Suddenly GM announces that it has the T2M and Y2M developed and ready for market. Daimler and BMW sign on board. I'm sure GM did all of the development work on this themselves. I'm also sure that 'yota did not [ahem] sell it's technology because it realized that unless GM was on board no one would ever buy a 'yota full-sized hybrid. But GM could sell the hell out of it. That's its strength. Nahhh that's way too out there.
Big Business if so much fun when seen from a distance.
Hadn't thought of that, you may be right - too bad. Wonder if they would have some kind of agreement on that?
It does make sense in the light of your prior example of the Sequoia and the 3 Corollas. Why have one HH on the lot for 30 days when you can move two Prii in two days? I just about choked when I saw the price on the HH while buying my Sequoia last October. I think it was $5k more than I paid for the Sequoia. It ain't as nice anyway you cut it, except at the pump.
What's it's competition? It doesn't have any as far as I can tell. If the reports of the next generation Priuses are correct then that will no longer be the case.
Originally, the Honda Accord Hybrid was in the game too.
Originally, the Honda Accord Hybrid was in the game too. "
True, for size, but none get/got the mpgs. I'll be looking for whatever Toyotas making in about a year in that size range. The Prius is too tight (narrow) for my needs, and I'll forgo that last 10 mpg for better performance.
For City driving that's completely true. For Highway driving, it's almost a wash:
SAH: 32
TCH: 34
HAH: 31
And the HAH was a 6-cylinder.
You're correct, of course. I'd only be getting it to use for commuting, 90% of my driving, so I don't pay much attention to the highway mpgs.
If not you might want to enter the 21st Century.
The DOE estimated that the current energy grid could easily handle many millions of vehicle plugged in over night with no stress at all. Again this has been published and research is your friend. The answer to your last two questions is NO. Burning petro-fuel in vehicles is far less efficient than fueling a power plant.
Yep, came across some #s on that - regular car engines are about 18% thermally efficient - the other 82% of energy released by the burning gas goes out the radiator or exhaust pipe as heat. Modern power plants are about twice as efficient (36%), and they're aiming at 40%.
California has mandated many utilities to switch to alternatives such as Solar or Wind. Solar will be useless after sunset. That would negate the value of a plug-in hybrid. I would not foresee a problem for a few more years as the Feds are holding up new Solar farms with environmental studies.
More along the lines of this thread. I don't think you could ever have a payback on the current crop of after market Plug-in hybrids. A $60k+ Prius will never pay for itself.