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
I doubt this is ever the case, I would have to see the facts on that.
I don't know of any company selling products for less than what they make them for...
Asking price is retail.
This inst what the dealership pays for it.
Your trying to tell me that a vehicle retailing for $25k is costing the manufacture more than that?
They would be loosing their butts on these cars and there wouldn't be any point in producing them.
Can happen. Ford's been said to lose money on each Focus it sells, but it has to to meet CAFE regs. And any year a company posts a loss, like the Big 3 have done lately, they're, in effect, losing money on each car they sell, on average. As to hybrids, GM has been forced by Toyota to pour lots of R&D into the Tahoe hybrid, so if you include that money, I'm sure they'll be in the hole on the hybrid effort for several years, at least. But it is great PR for them.
Though the Prius may be profitable by now. Not sure about the Camry Hybrid...maybe, since it's an add-on technology to an existing vehicle.
Where did i read this?
Its no wonder people are losing their jobs and the industry is in the dirt right now.
How is anyone going to sustain a living when they are losing money everyday?
Now there we don't know that guys physical condition, he may not be able to make that walk or it may be very difficult for him (her?) to do so. People do have physical conditions that limit how far the can walk.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I just paid $3.95/gallon for regular. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And where do you think those trackers placed their money just before they made that prediction?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The math for the 2-Modes is easy to do since GM already gave us the variables.
For the Toyota's it's just as easy to do the math when you look at the big picture.
For example what is a Prius? It's a 1.5L ICE 5 door hatch with some geegaws..... and a battery pack, wiring, two motors, inverter, converter, and a simplified transmission. Are there any other vehicles like it to compare it with? Yep the Matrix is also a 5 door hatch but with a 1.8L engine and a traditional transmission. A non-hybrid Prius ( if such a thing existed ) would be a Matrix in a different shape selling for about $20,000 +/-.
How much did the Prius cost to develop? Pick a number.... $1 Billion? $2 Billion? $4 Billion? $4 Billion ???????? that's a lot of money. Here's the comparison. GM in it's announcement said that the total R&D cost for the 2-Modes was $1 Billion...and they split that with Daimler and BMW.
As of the end of 2006 Toyta had announced that it had sold 1 million hybrids ( that figure is probably closer to 1.4 million by now ). IF..... Toyota's hybrid development cost was $3 Billion or 3 times as much as GM, Daimler and BMW spent then when divided over 1 million units the cost per vehicle was $3000. But when 1 million vehicles was reached that initial cost was fully recouped. Well that makes sense because in May of 2007 Toyota reduced the price of the top trim Prius' by $2000 and kept the discount in place til the present.
Why? Because the VOLUME necessary to amortize the initial expense was reached. Volume, volume, volume. So at what volume does GM have to be in order to reach its full amortization point. Well if the initial press realease is to be believed and the cost of R&D was $1 Billion split three ways, then assuming GM took the lead and also took most of the most cost then it's share would be say $500 Million.
Divide $500,000,000 / 150,000 units and the cost per vehicle becomes...$3333.
At 200,000 units the cost per vehicle drops to $2500 per unit. At 200,001 units the cost is $0. Fully recouped. All it takes is volume.
True the U.S. has moved beyond the old industry type metal pollution, or at least we have laws that try to limit discharges and emissions. But, the U.S. just moved on to the next phase:
Nanoparticles http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/nanotechnologies/l-2/6-health-effects-na- noparticles.htm
Genetically modified (GM) foods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
Invasive species
http://invasivespecies.blogspot.com/
Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams
http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/FS-027-02/
It was also interesting to see the piece at ENN regarding the introduction of the Tata Nano.
http://www.enn.com/business/article/29401
When gas hits $4 a gallon I'll be buying a Nano - Nano as Robin Williams would say.
I hope someone has heard that and remembers. I believe it was in the 20 acre range. That's a lot of corn not available for food or a lot of land not growning wheat or beans...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The US manufacturers will produce electric cars. Chrysler has concept electric cars in development right now similar to the Tesla car, see the Dodge Zeo sports car.
Electric cars as well as any alternative fuel car will play a vital role in our future when gas prices become astronomically high or we run out of oil completely.
Imagine if every household was somewhat self-sufficient and had solar panels to power heating and cooling systems,electric appliances and recharge your electric car battery. It is being done today and is a reality. The technology will be further developed and the distance factor (to go to Vegas:) will be overcome, perhaps with solar panels on the roof and hood of the electric cars, or some other energy source such as an added hydrogen cell as seen in the Chrysler EcoVoyager concept car.
Dupont just developed a kind of paint that is electrolytic and that it absorbs light and transfers the energy to metal rods in the form of electricity, which they are using right now to put on rooftops instead of installing solar panels.
One day we may have no choice, our children will definately inherit the problems we have today and they will have to deal with it better than we ever did. No doubt we will figure a way to make the battery technology more environmentally friendly and built in the US to our standards !
I wonder if research into cold fusion will start up again.
The time is right for new energy sources.
I am still waiting for that Solar Satellite technology to become a reality and theoretically provide enough energy to meet the worlds needs (see European Space agency, and Space Island Group, Money magazine March 2006) and there is no danger from the narrow focused beam of microwaves that will be collected by microwave recievers on earth ! You will not get fried, although I can think of a few people who deserve to for not being open minded
GM's stated plan for the 2-Modes are
Tahoe / Yukon
Escalade
Silverado / Sierra
Vue
Aura / Malibu
It's best use though would be in the Lambda crossovers, the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook where it would jump the fuel economy from the low 20's to the high 20's or even 30 mpg. It's just like the HSD in the Highlander. It's just as capable and probably costs the same.
For GM to reach 200,000 units of 2-Modes it should be a snap. As soon as that happens the system becomes $2500 cheaper ( Toyota method ) or that $2500 becomes pretax profit ( GM needs this ).
Those are excellent opportunities for random sprint intervals - makes a great workout. You can get the same effect by riding on country roads with lots of farm dogs.
Not to mention the fact that the increased speed will cut down on your ride commute, although the added weight of the Beretta might slow you down.
The car is FLAWED and poorly engineered. Now they have disgruntled customers that were promised cars last year. They are being sued for millions owed suppliers. It may have been a good idea. Just not good timing.
Tables turned: Tesla Motors sued by transmission supplier Magna
Posted Apr 16th 2008 1:58PM by Dan Roth
Magna doesn't seem upset that it was just a stepping stone – that's business. What the company would like, however, is to get paid for the work it performed. Magna is also telling Tesla "told you so" by claiming to have suggested a single-speed unit back in 2006. To recover its $5.6 million, Magna has filed suit in San Mateo to force the issue, which coincidentally comes not long after Tesla filed suit against Fisker, which it initially hired to designs its next product, the WhiteStar sedan. What goes around comes around, we guess. The legal wranglings haven't yet made a dent in Tesla's operations, but Magna's lawsuit could bolster the case of frustrated buyers who have yet to receive their cars, should those customers decide to also take to the courts.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/matieres-premieres/2008/04/28/04012-20080428ARTFIG00395-p- etrole-proche-des-dollars-.php
(in French)
OTOH, he estimates the prices may drop down to $80 (from the current $120 a barrel) if the USD value increases by 10%.
A few months ago, I made a guess that the barrel would reach $200. This proved too conservative, and I therefore increase it to 250$ within 30 months.
I estimate that within the same time frame, the US Gallon price will increase by 2,5 to 3 USD, so I would not be surprised to see 6,5 USD as a standard street price. In Europe, prices should easily shoot past the 10USD/Gal barrier at current USD/EUR rates.
The peak oil price is still in front of us. Let us enjoy our Caddy Escalade as much as we can now.
how does paying $4 per gallon make you selfish if other countries decide to over tax their fuel to $5.
Nobody is stopping you from taking that extra $1 and sending it to the government.
If you do this you'll personally have the effect of higher gas tax and reduce your consumption; thereby alleviating your selfishness.
This will in turn leave more fuel on the market for us V8 drivers
Thanks for taking one for the team :shades:
I ran the numbers too, and this is what I get.
EPA lists the 92 Honda CRX manual at 36/46 or 39/49 under the new system.
The 08 Honda fit manual was 28/34 under the new system.
The curb weight for the HF was 1713 according to this site.
http://kumo.swcp.com/synth/crx/specs.html
Wiki says the weight of the new Fit is 2390.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Fit
2390 - 1713 = 677 pounds (this is a huge difference for such a small car)
677/1713 x 100 = 39.5% increase in weight (Fit over CRX)
28 x 1.395 = 39.06 (Fit estimated mpg if you reduce the weight to 1713 )
34 x 1.395 = 47.43
The new Fit does not appear to be that much different. (F=MA & 0.5xMxVsquared) :shades:
The Fit has tighter emission controls. I wonder what the mpg penalty is? I also wonder if the cd (air resistance) is different. The CRX tires were only 165/70 13s, that has got to be worth 20 mpg right there
One notable difference between that '92 Civic and the Fit is that their test Civic didn't have a/c, while it comes standard on a Fit. Now, I don't know how much that really matters these days, but a/c will put a drag on the engine, even when it's not turned on. Back in the day, they used to say that buying a car with a/c was like adding the weight of an adult male passenger, but they've shrunken all those components down over the years and lightened them, so it's probably not that much of a difference these days.
I wonder what the overall top gear ratios are for the '92 Civic and Fit? It could just be something as simple as the Civic having a really tall overdrive gear, so while they both have aggressive enough lower gears for similar acceleration, the Civic might pull lower revs at highway speeds?
The standard CRX produced 92 horsepower, and got 32/35 mpg.
The CRX Si produced 108 horsepower, and got 28/33 mpg.
So, when comparing apples to apples, the 08 Fit is equal to or better than the CRX.
You can see the specs for both cars here:
http://allhonda.tripod.com/crxspecs.htm
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/honda/fit/100924410/specs.html
.
IMO, to make the assumption that automakers just aren't trying to improve mileage is invalid. Today's Prius and Civic hybrid don't get much better mileage than the the '92 CRX HF. These cars are designed to maximize mpg. Why would Toyota and Honda be leaving something on the design table that could improve fuel efficiency? I believe that the reality is that a functional vehicle that could transport 4 adults needs to weigh at least 2400 lbs and without some hybrid technology a car of this size won't be getting over 40 mpg, maybe with a diesel.
ADM profits
I routinely get 18-19mpg in regular driving. I've taken it on highway trips and have achieved 28mpg (doing the speed limit) and have had 25.x mpg for a total trip.
It's not great; but not terrible.
I recently had a PT Cruiser as a rental; not great mpg either...buzzy 4 cyl for only a couple more mpg in average driving.
But you may be right...at $7 a gallon it may be Jetta Blue Tech for me
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080429_Elmer_Smith__That_stimulus_- rebate_check__It_s_in_the_mail_____and_you_ll_be_eating_it.html
Oooh, an electric E30 could be a sweet ride, especially if you outfit it for performance driving. There are some E30s in here: http://www.evalbum.com/type/BMW
I don't commute and my wife who does hasn't mentioned anything, but it seems like the pace of the 4 lane near me is a bit more relaxed. And I got stuck behind a hypermiler a couple of weeks ago but that was a Prius with Oregon plates so I'm not sure if that trend has actually hit Boise.
My in-laws have been snowbirds for the last 5 or so years but just put their Florida house on the market to retire permanently to Michigan where most of their support network is. They made their last drive north last week and said it was the easiest drive they've had - traffic was lighter than the other trips.
Anecdotal, but there it is.
So since R&D has nothing to do with the manufacturing costs of actually producing a hybrid vehicle or anything for that matter...
How much does a total vehicle cost to produce with the added cost of R&D?
Lets say for example a Prius?
Haha, well I wish I could be a part of that list... But really if I had the money to blow a $100k on a sports car right now, I think I would get something that could make it to Las Vegas or the river.
Where are the vehicles that are affordable and look half way decent... What if they took a Saturn Sky, Opel GT, or Pontiac Solstice (all the same platform, and would save them money) and put a hybrid motor in it?
I mean, it might not be performance oriented... But it looks pretty cool and would save a hell of alot of fuel. I wouldn't mind commuting in something like this and I think that if they had a sports looking hybrid company's would really benefit from this.
"even at $4-a-gallon, gas still doesn't cost "too much."
Well if Tesla ditched 2/3rds of it's 50 kWh, 900 lb battery pack and replaced it with an 80 hp ICE generator, i.e. Volt configuration, you could have all the performance at a lower price and lower vehicle weight. Range would no longer be a factor and you'd still be getting exceptional mileage.
The Tahoe Hybrid is not a $20k option. The current bunch of Tahoe Hybrid include a long list of options. A comparably equipped gas-only costs around $5,000 less. When production picks up, they will include be making hybrid Tahoe with fewer options and eventually stripped down models. It's just that they new they would sell every single one they made, so they made the first run with all the options so they would have a higher profit margin.
Also, a Tahoe hybrid vs. a gas Tahoe saves way more gallons of gas in a year than switching from a Toyota Camry to a Camry Hybrid (or from a Camry to a Prius for that matter). Hybrid Tahoes still get horrible mileage, but percentage wise and gallon wise, they save a lot more. If all the SUV drivers switched to Hybrid SUV, it would do way more good than all the compact drivers switching to a comparable-sized hybrid.
I doubt this is ever the case, I would have to see the facts on that. "
I think what they were saying was regarding only the hybrid technology and how it can cost more than they ask for it. Meaning if a Toyota Camry costs $5,000 more than a non-hybrid camry, the hybrid technology might be costing Toyota more than $5,000. Basically, they might still be making a profit on the entire car, but less than on a non-hybrid. There is a pricepoint that people are willing to pay extra for a hybrid, so they have to ensure it falls within that threshold. That being said, that is the way it used to be. I'm not sure if that has changed now that their technology has been out a while.
Thats a really good point, I didnt think of it that way... So really you would be saving alot more money by having the SUV hybrid even if you are using more fuel.
How much does a total vehicle cost to produce with the added cost of R&D?
Lets say for example a Prius?
That's a good question. It's the reason that I referenced the fact that the Prius is nothing more than an 4c ICE 5 door hatch like the Matrix with the addition of...
... a battery pack @ ~$2000-$2500 ( OEM cost )
... two e-motors @ ~$500
... inverter & converter @ ~$500
... no transmission @ ~$1500 savings ( OEM cost )
... Power Split Device @ ~$1000 ( ?)
The Prius is built on the same lines as other midsized autos in Japan so no additional investments were needed there.
But basically the Prius is the same as a Matrix which sells for about $19000-$20000. The Prius has the additional technology noted above which probably amounts to about $3000 and the Pruis had somewhere about $2000 to $3000 in special R&D costs that the Matrix did not have.
Today the Prius R&D is fully paid off so the only difference between the Matrix and the Prius is the hybrid components. Toyota's stated intention is to get the additional manufacturing cost down to about $1000.
You would save about $785 a year in fuel costs by choosing the Tahoe Hybrid over the 5.3 liter Tahoe 1500 2wd.
You would save about $558 a year in fuel costs by choosing a Camry Hybrid over a 4-cyl Camry.
So it IS less, but not "way more." The difference is about $19 a month.
The latest figures would tend to disagree:
Housing prices drop at fastest pace ever
Pace of foreclosures more than doubles from same quarter in 2007
Vacant homes for sale hit new record high
Housing slump may exceed Depression
So R&D was a very important step.
My Camry Hybrid is a little more than the 4 cylinder Camry 4 cylinder. But the 4 Cylinder does not offer the GPS or a few other options I got on my Hybrid. So the costs are now comparable.
What yearly mileage are you using and what cost per gallon?
Also, an interesting fact is the number of gallons a year one would save, which is the more for the Tahoe. Then it's easier to compare that for future gas prices rather than current.
You can NOT become the Eagle without earning the merit badges along the path.
"If your monthly gas bill is somewhere between $50 and $100 a month then it costs somewhere between your monthly DSL charge and your premium cable/satellite charge to keep your car full."
What's this guy smoking? We probably spend that in a week easily. $100 is only a bit more than 25 gallons. A couple of cars and that gets gigantic in a hurry.
And while that graph shows that what's going on isn't as bad in terms of constant dollars it does NOT show that gas prices have been stable since 1979 (a particularly bad year for an example anyway). The price right now is still the highest in that time frame and shows no signs of letting up.
If you exclude the individuals, developers, lenders who were merely gambling on the housing market then the situation doesn't look so grim or deserving of all that much sympathy..