Are gas prices fueling your pain?

nippononly

Yeah, one of the last-gen 4Runners, V-6 4WD. While its fuel mileage average of 20 mpg was better than the 17-mpg 1990 model it replaced, it was nothing to write home about.

And it wasn't fully paid for yet. As gas prices went up it was relegated to occasional use for things I couldn't or wouldn't do in the Echo, which didn't come along that often. I began thinking to myself, "Self, why would you go on paying for full insurance plus the bank loan to keep this vehicle you hardly ever use, and which costs you a mint in gas money whenever it DOES leave the driveway?". Well, Self had no good answer! :-P

blufz1

Yeah,but with a diesel you get both torque and economy!

pat84

I did a cost benefit study by figuring what an additional 3 years of car payments balanced against trading in my 15 MPG V-8 4 Runner which, will be paid of in a year and a half, on a 40 mpg Camry hybrid now.
I figured gas at $4 a gallon average for the additional 3 years of payments.
Using the reduced monthly car payments and monthly savings in gas for the miles I drive in a month, balanced against the additional 3 years of car payments on the Camry came out as a wash.
If gas goes over $4 a gallon for those additional 3 years of payments, the Camry is more cost effective.

As an aside, a friend who owns his own transmission repair shop once told me, "GM has managed to give diesel engines a bad reputation." He had an 80's diesel engined GM car when he said it.

nippononly

I wonder how much different the analysis would look just comparing with a regular old 4-cylinder Camry, which would probably cost about $5K less than the hybrid you were comparing, and would still pull 30 mpg, using half as much gas as your V-8.

Mr_Shiftright

pat, you should factor in repairs on the old truck as well. The Camry will have warranty. I think you should add at least $75 a month on the 4Runner side to be more realistic as to what would probably happen.

To give you an EXTREME example...when I was pushing around old Porsches, I knew what the monthly average repairs/maintenance bills were per month (over the course of a few years) and when I traded the last old tired Porsche in, with its 15 mpg, against a gas-sipping car under warranty, basically I got the new car for "free", per month. (e.g. $175 per month to keep the old Porsche on the road, with excellent maintenance professionally done, + the gas savings at 35-40 mpg, equaled the car payment of $257 a month on the subcompact).

Not the typical case of course, but enough to motivate me to switch to a subcompact and get my thrills on motorcycles and cheap project cars on the side.

andre1969

I know I've thrown this example around before, but here's my experience in going from a 1989 Gran Fury copcar to a 2000 Intrepid back in 1999.

Now I didn't do this to save gas. In fact, that day I was driving my uncle down to the dealer to get his truck, which was having some work done on it. While we were down there, he said "let's look at the new cars". Well, before I knew it, I was driving out the door in a new 2000 Intrepid with 0.9% financing that kept the 5 year payment to about $347 per month.

At the time, the Gran Fury got 13 mpg on a good day, and really needed 93 octane. The Intrepid got 20 mpg on a bad day, and was fine on 87. Back then I delivered pizzas and could put an easy 3,000 miles monthly on the car (at my peak, I averaged about 4,000 miles monthly, but I was slowly phasing that job out by this time).

Here's how I justified the Intrepid being almost "free". I had just refinanced my condo a few months before, knocking about $230 per month off the payment. I estimated the Intrepid would save me about $125-150 monthly in fuel. So put the two of them together, and that pretty much covers the $347 car payment. Now it doesn't factor in increased insurance ($600 yearly for the Intrepid versus $300 for the Gran Fury), or the tax savings I lost when I refinanced to a lower rate. But it was enough to make the car worthwhile, in my book.

Plus, that was around the time gas prices were just starting to shoot up. I remember the first time I put gas in the Intrepid, in November, 1999, I paid about $1.399 per gallon, and thought that was high. I think by the summer of 2000, some places were pushing $2.00 per gallon.

If I had kept up my 3,000 mile per month pace, that switch would've ultimately saved me a lot more than $125-150 per month! Seems so funny now, to think back on $1.399 per gallon as being "high". :sick:

1stpik

I see post after post snubbing hybrids. Some say that their buddy's car once got 45 mpg on a highway trip. Others say that hybrids never pay back the money they cost.

Here's the number on my Civic Hybrid -- not the "one highway trip, best all-time number" but the average mpg with mixed city/hwy driving for more than 500 miles:

http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?p=439724#post439724

The hybrid cost $3,100 more than the regular Civic. Now do the math on that.

texases

Sure - assume regular Civic gets, at worst, 30 mpg, you get, on average 45 mpg. You'll use 22.2 gallons/1000 miles, other guy 33.3, 11.1 gallons difference, assume $3/gallon, that's $33.33/1000 miles. $3,100/$33.33/1000 miles = 93,000 mile payout, same answer you'll find elsewhere. The 30 mpg # is really low, my brother (not some buddy) never gets below 35mpg. Only point, hybrids are an option choice, like a nav system or fancy tires, wheels, not a money making proposition. There are MANY non-monetary reasons to get one, for sure.

Mr_Shiftright

I'd rather see your log book for 6 months than your trip computer for one trip. I still think your results on this trip are outside the norm for this car --- for all drivers in all Civic hybrids all the time in all seasons, I mean.

I don't think folks here are "snubbing" the hybrids at all. I sense a great deal of respect for the *technology* but a certain skepticism that they actually "pay for themselves".

No one can dispute that they use *less* fuel than most other cars.

chuckhoy

Here is some math for you:

$3100 / $4/gal = 775 gallons

My car = 30 mpg
Hybrid = 50 mpg
difference 20 mpg

20 miles/gallon * 775 gallon = 15,500 miles

You would have to drive 15,500 miles to just make up the difference between the hybrid and a normal civic. IF you were buying a new car anyway, that would be a good reason to get the hybrid over a 30 mpg car. The difference in price is easily overcome in about a years worth of driving.

Now lets say I was not looking for a new car because mine runs fine. I want to buy a hybrid to SAVE MONEY.

Price to buy hybrid $25,000
Price to buy mine $0
Difference: $25,000

$25,000 / $4/gal = 6250 gallons

My car 20 mpg
hybrid 50 mpg
difference 30 mpg

30 mile/gallon * 6250 gallons = 187,500 miles! :surprise:

So, if I was not in the market to buy a car anyway, I would not even sniff a cent of savings until after 187,500 miles of hybrid driving. This assumes $4 gas, my car gets 20 mpg and the hybrid will average 50 mpg. I think those are all favorable assumptions for the hybrid.

Bottom line: hybrids make sense if you are already in the market for a new car. If you are years away from buying a ne car, bite the bullet and make lifestyle changes rather than buy a new car to save gas. You will save gas but you won't save money.

texases

Chukhoy - agree with your general points, but you have to do the math a little different - one can't subtract mpgs and then use the difference. You can convert them to gallons/1000miles, then subtract, and use the difference. For your first example:
30mpg = 33.33 g/1000mi
50mpg = 20 g/1000mi
difference = 13.33 gal/1000mi
$4/g X 13.33 g/1000mi = $53.32/1000mi
$3100/$53.32/1000mi = 58,140 miles to recover difference in cost for going from 30 to 50 mpg with $4/gallon gas.

Mr_Shiftright

Is there really a hybrid out there now that delivers 50 mpg 365/24/7? Sounds optimistic to me. Why don't we use 45 mpg for the calculations?

jefferyg

Another consideration in the cost of hybrids is that they still require all the same maintenance that non-hybrids require PLUS the batteries will eventually wear out adding to usual maintenance costs.

I personally think buying a hybrid is still more about image than saving money. Some people want the latest gadgets, and gadgets always cost $$$$.

nippononly

Hybrids are also about reducing oil consumption, regardless of personal cost savings to the driver, which is a pretty good reason to have one, IMHO. Especially when you factor in the "oil imports from hostile/warring foreign countries" aspect.

blufz1

Dude, Occam's Razor! Plus you omitted the time value of the $3100 and the cost of a new flashlight battery.

bumpy

Is there really a hybrid out there now that delivers 50 mpg 365/24/7?

How quickly we forget.

Hybrids don't pay off economically versus a comparable gasoline vehicle, but some people are willing to pay a premium for reduced gasoline consumption and emissions, regenerative braking, and start-stop systems (even though the latter two are beginning to work their way into nonhybrid vehicles).

nippononly

I should have bought an Insight. They came with a stick and everything! :-(

chuckhoy

Is there really a hybrid out there now that delivers 50 mpg 365/24/7? Sounds optimistic to me. Why don't we use 45 mpg for the calculations?

There were three reasons why I used 50 vs. 45 mpg. Firstly, I like round numbers. Secondly, I was trying to swing all the variables to the side of the hybrid to prove my point more clearly. Lastly, I don't think it makes a lick of difference in the outcome of the exercise.

I also did not take into consideration the cost of higher insurance, variable interest rates, maintenence costs and sun spots. I still think my conclusion that hybrids (or other high mpg vehicles) make sense if you are looking for a new car, but make no economical sense if you aren't looking for a new car anyway.

Mr_Shiftright

fair enough, chuckhoy, fair enough. However, you are comparing a new Civic hybrid vs. a new Civic gas. If you compared the hybrid to say a TDI diesel, or a MINI base model, it might not even make sense as a new car.

Honda Insight: I don't believe the 70 mpg claim, nor maybe not even a 50 mpg claim, as a 365/24/7 reality for say 25 random drivers on 25 random highways. That is, one car might do that 50 mpg for one person, but the fleet probably wouldn't.

chuckhoy

Chukhoy - agree with your general points, but you have to do the math a little different - one can't subtract mpgs and then use the difference. You can convert them to gallons/1000miles, then subtract, and use the difference. For your first example:
30mpg = 33.33 g/1000mi
50mpg = 20 g/1000mi
difference = 13.33 gal/1000mi
$4/g X 13.33 g/1000mi = $53.32/1000mi
$3100/$53.32/1000mi = 58,140 miles to recover difference in cost for going from 30 to 50 mpg with $4/gallon gas.

I still can't see how we are coming up with different numbers. Gallons per 1000 miles are still miles per gallon inversed and then multiplied by 1000.

Any math wizzes out there that want to chime in?

chuckhoy

Exactly. I think the debate is really between high mpg vs lower mpg. I don't really think it matters how one achieves the high mpg, just that you do it.

Personally, after driving a hybrid I think it is easier to achieve the high mpg numbers with a hybrid than either a diesel or conventional gas engine because the non-hybrid options still give you the right-foot fun option. Most of the fun has been stripped out of the hybrids. When the place I used to work at let us test out some Priuses before they became fleet vehicles, we tried to get as low a mpg as we could out of them to see how bad we could get the mpg. We did things like drive it around in low gear on the highway, floored it at each stoplight, no coasting, etc... We drew two conclusions: First, they really are no fun to drive, even when driving like a maniac and secondly, they still got around 40 mpg. Doubt other, more conventional, high mpg cars can say that.

larsb

Looked at some fleet numbers for some organizations and entities who used Insights for fleet vehicles:

160,000 miles, cumulative MPG 44.98
18,612 miles, cumulative MPG 49.36
7,111 miles, cumulative MPG 59.00
73,000 miles, cumulative MPG 48.70

So I'm quite surprised. I thought you could get 50 MPG out of an Insight even when being a leadfoot. I guess not.

daysailer

This is REALLY getting silly! The advantage of hybrids and the real reason behind their high fuel economy is that they're NOT fun to drive!!???? So to save the planet, all we need to do is make all cars as dull and sloppy handling as a Prius? That's sure to pack the showrooms!

Mr_Shiftright

I think he meant to say (if I may be his spokeperson) is that the hybrid's lack of fun-factor is an *unintentional* advantage (unintended by the manufacturer). Driving a hybrid will definitely cure your aggression (you simply can't "beat anybody out") and definitely discourage you from being frisky (the car doesn't like it).

I got 29 mpg out of my friend's Prius hybrid and I'm proud of that :P All I did basically was drive it at 80-85 mph all day and floor it at stoplights....which is how I normally drive anyway. He has the "touring" model so it wasn't quite so clumsy.

texases

You could do the math in mpg, just don't subtract until the end. A 50 mpg car minus a 30 mpg car does not equal a 20 mpg car, right?

chuckhoy

Yes, that is what I intended to say. They are, simply, no fun to drive unless you derive fun from trying to beat your own personal best mpg.

29 mpg from a Prius?! :surprise: You are my hero. I grovel before your superior (reckless) driving skills. Going 85 mph in a Prius is fun if you think scary = fun.

texases

Not only can hybrids be 'no fun', they can be unpleasant, with odd/irritating braking and acceleration. More here on the (soon deceased) Accord Hybrid Edmunds long term HAH test

chuckhoy

My formula:

$3100 * (50 - 30)miles/gal
---------------------------
$4/gal

That gives you miles

His formula:

$3100 * 1000 miles
--------------------------
(33.33 - 20) gal * $4/gal

You get two different answers, what one is correct?

texases

Your formula give the difference in miles driven by each car while using $3100 in gas. What we want is how many additional miles do you have to drive to save $3100, right? To do that, you calculate the cost/mile for each, subtract the two to get the savings/mile, then divide $3100 by the savings/mile to get the required miles.

nippononly

on the news today that gasoline inventory in the U.S. has experienced another "surprising increase", despite it being summer and whatnot.

It got me to thinking that maybe peoples' cumulative conservation efforts, however small, are beginning to have an effect (or maybe I am just being optimistic based on my own behavior). But if gasoline and crude inventories continue to rise, gas prices will fall, and the premise of this thread ($4 gas) will take a few more years to materialize.

It just blows my mind that people sit around grousing so much about the price of gas, when the tool for reducing those prices is right in their own hands (gas conservation in all its many facets).

tpe

The bottom formula is correct.

andres3

buy a better bicycle and get a 4 banger Honda?

plekto

30mpg = 33.33 g/1000mi
50mpg = 20 g/1000mi
difference = 13.33 gal/1000mi
$4/g X 13.33 g/1000mi = $53.32/1000mi
****
CNG
30mpg.
$1/g equivalent.
$4000 device in your garage to fill up at that low price.

The number of miles you need to drive to pay off that $4000 at $4 a gallon gas is... $4000/$3x30mpg=40,000 miles. That's versus a normal car. Against a hybrid, which costs 3K more, that's $1000 extra for the CNG vehicle, or a payoff of about 10K miles. Oh - but there's a tax rebate on the device of $2K, so it's a payoff of however long it is until your rebate check comes in.

:P

Everyone that I know of who is trying to save fuel is astounded at the economic and environmental sense of a CNG powered vehicle once I run the numbers by them. And the car is as reliable as a typical turbine-generator. Nothing fails for years at a time. Plus, you can add the price of the device into your payment last I checked, which means it's definitely a better option that then Prius.

texases

CNG has always seemed like a good idea, except for long trips. But for a commuter car, it's clean, low tech (no batteries/motors/etc) and available. My only concern - refilling 1,000s of vehicles over night might not be a problem, but if we end up with 1,000,000s, gas supplies in the middle of winter at night (heating time) could be tight. That, as they say, is way down the road....

chuckhoy

Yes, it is.

Sorry about that. I should have been converting to $/mile from the get go.

So, assuming the following:

Price difference = $3100
Car A gets 30 mpg
Car B gets 50 mpg
Gas = $4/gal

The formula should be:

Miles = $3100
--------------------------------------------
$4/gal * (gal/30 miles - gal/50 miles)

Miles = 58,000 or so.

This changes things for me...

chuckhoy

You still have to account for the base price of the vehicles to compare apples to apples. You must look at total "sticker" price of equivalent vehicles.

plekto

My only concern - refilling 1,000s of vehicles over night might not be a problem, but if we end up with 1,000,000s, gas supplies in the middle of winter at night (heating time) could be tight.

But, that's the beautiful thing here. Gas prices are heavily subsidized and controlled to be very low.(like Milk and similar items are kept in line) If there was an increase in natural gas prices beyond 10-20%, fifty million elderly people would unload their ire on Congress and effectively shut it down in a firestorm of calls and letters.

Compare this to oil companies and their wanton greed. Gas could go to $5 a gallon at some time, and probably will. Getting away from the automotive equivalent of a drug dealer is a good thing.

tpe

Everyone that I know of who is trying to save fuel is astounded at the economic and environmental sense of a CNG powered vehicle once I run the numbers by them

I guess they would be. For some reason you conveniently left out the price premium for this vehicle and also ignored the potential tax break for traditional hybrids and finally assumed that all comparison cars would get no better mileage. Try these numbers instead.

http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/12727/first-drive-2007-honda-civic-gx-how-far-is-too-far-to-recoup-the-costs-page3.html

texases

If only - used to be price controls on natural gas, no more. Prices have spiked during tight periods, and are relatively high now. The overall deliverability of the system is limited, with the cold snap last winter testing max rates.

plekto

That has three problem with it as well. If you want a normal car, get a normal car. If you want a hybrid or other similar vehicle, then the CNG Civic is a great option.

The other problem is that the Civic Hybrid is comparable to a fully loaded Civic EX/automatic with Nav. MSRP on that is $21,950 - only a few thousand less than the Hybrid Civic or Civic CNG. The article is obviously using a stripped-down LX as a comparison point, since if the person trying to impress his editor and get paid for the story came up with 30-40K as a result... oops - no headline story.

Oh, and the Fill device is $3995, not $5K. And the tax rebate is $1000 or so over several years, PLUS there is a $1200 or so rebate on the car from the govt. itself as an alternative fuel vehicle - same as the Prius and other hybrids. Except that since it's based upon number of that model sold to date, the CNG civic will *get* that rebate.

That right there drops the effective price of the device to $2000 or so, OR...

You can not get the device and fill up at the local municipality lot. All of them are required by federal law to allow filling. The average rate is about $1.60 a gallon(equivalent). That's 100K miles of driving to make up the difference. But then again, having to never, ever go to a gas station... that's worth something as well.

But most people don't get the device and "suffer" with $1.60 a gallon prices.

That drops the price difference to $3K more minus $1200 in tax incentives(let's say $1000 to keep it simple), or a paltry $2K over a normal Civic. That's $30-35K at worst to break even, even at $1.60.

Oh - the range on it is about 220 miles. That's a typical 5 day work week for most people.

bumpy

Of course, all that is dependent on having access to natural gas in the first place.

kernick

One problem with CNG, is that it is very volatile, and the shipping (via tanker) and storage are a major security concern.

When a tanker comes into Everett (Boston) the bridge over the sealane is closed, there are numerous Coast Guard boats and helicopters surrounding the ship. If terrorists pack a boat or small plane with a few hundred lb of explosive and crash into it, you'd have a disaster much larger than 9/11.

So needless to say, there are not many places volunteering to bring in CNG tankers (in New England). I think the best chances have been some Indian tribe land along a remote stretch of the Maine coast.

I also heard that the year before we were nearly "running on empty" on CNG-supply because of cold weather, and the prices were skyrocketing. So I don't see CNG being available to the masses for auto-transportation anytime soon.

tpe

That has three problem with it as well. If you want a normal car, get a normal car. If you want a hybrid or other similar vehicle, then the CNG Civic is a great option.

I guess it's time for a little memory refresher. You were the one that compared the GX to a normal car or have you forgotten this post?

The number of miles you need to drive to pay off that $4000 at $4 a gallon gas is... $4000/$3x30mpg=40,000 miles. That's versus a normal car. Against a hybrid, which costs 3K more, that's $1000 extra for the CNG vehicle, or a payoff of about 10K miles. Oh - but there's a tax rebate on the device of $2K, so it's a payoff of however long it is until your rebate check comes in.

Where is the $3k premium in a Civic Hybrid over a Civic GX? Actually you pay a $2k premium by getting the GX over the hybrid and I'm not including the nav system on the hybrid since it isn't on the GX. In fact the Civic Hybrid w/o the nav is still slightly better appointed than the GX.

The Civic Hybrid still qualifies for the full tax break so that's a wash. What's left is the $3995 you pay for the home filling station plus the $2000 extra in sticker price. That's $5995. Let's subtract the $1000 tax break for this filling station and you've got a $4995 difference. How long does that take to recoup when the hybrid is rated at mid 40's mpg and the GX is rated at 30 mpg? If you can do this in a 5 day work week then you must have been an accountant for Enron.

snakeweasel

Don't forget the time value of money (i.e. a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow). Remember if you finance the extra $3,100 then not only will you pay the $3,100 you will also pay the interest on that $3,100. If you pay the $3,100 cash you will lose the interest you would have gotten by investing it (or lost what you could have bought for that $3,100). That would make the real pay back well over 93K miles.

snakeweasel

I still think my conclusion that hybrids (or other high mpg vehicles) make sense if you are looking for a new car,

That would depend on what you are looking for in that new vehicle. If you are looking for economics sorry the hybrid doesn't cut it.

tpe

The new EPA ratings have the Civic GX at 28 mpg and the Civic Hybrid at 42 mpg. If residential CNG is the equivalent of $1/gallon that works out to 3.6 cents per mile. Even though gas is currently only $3 I'll use $4/gallon gas since that's the title of this thread. That comes out to 9.5 cents per mile for the Civic hybrid. So you are saving 5.9 cents per mile by driving the Civic GX. But as I pointed out earlier there is a $4,995 premium paid if you get the home fueling system, which you need if you expect to pay $1/gallon for CNG. So 499,500 cents at 5.9 cents per mile will take 84,661 miles to break even, but after that it's all gravy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that because the tanks to store this gas are fairly large the Civic GX only has 6 cubic feet of trunk space. To put that in perspective the Mazda Miata has 5.3 cubic feet, the Civic Hybrid has 10.4 cubic feet.

And finally, don't think you are sticking it to the oil companies by using natural gas. Guess who produces and sells this gas?

1stpik

When I bought my HCH last month, I put ZERO down, and financed the "extra" $3,100 (along with the rest of the price) at 2.9% interest. Annual rate of inflation is currently 3.3%, http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp. So Honda essentially gave me an interest-free loan.

The $3,100 premium costs me $90/month, but the hybrid saves me $50/month in gas over the regular Civic. That extra $90 will end in 36 months, but the $50 savings will go on forever. That's a 56% return on my investment for the first three years, then FREE MONEY after that!

Also, don't forget to factor the $2,100 tax credit into the payback calculation.

snakeweasel

First you will be spending $40/month more for the car ($90 extra payment less $50 gas saving which I find hard to believe). That means ignoring the time value of money you will have to go another 30 months after you pay off the vehicle to make up the difference. Add to that the interest you could have earned on investing would add a few more months to it. So your looking at about five years for a pay back.

pat84

I drive 9,000 miles a year. This is 750 miles a month.
My 4 Runner gets 15 miles per gallon. 750 divided by 15 is 50 gallons a month.
750 miles divided by a Hybrid getting 40 mpg is 750 divided by 40 is 18.75 gallons a month.
at $4 a gallon the 4 Runner will use $200 a month. A Hybrid at 18.75 gallon, the hybrid will use $75 month
At $4 a gallon. the 4 Runner will need $200.
The Hybrid will need $75.
The net savings is $200 minus $75 or $125 a month.
Since most car payments are by month, this makes car payments as useful for comparison to potential gas savings.

blufz1

Yes,but the point is,you don't have to get a Hybrid to get 40 mpg. Soon,you can get a diesel to get similar mileage with a simple,proven powerplant. Now,doesn't that seem more,well,logical?