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
A new car should be problem free (or more so than a used car could be) and I can run the thing into the ground and if kept up can be 200K plus these days.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We finally retired my grandmother's '85 LeSabre at 157,000 miles. Honestly, it could have gone further, but it got handed down to me with about 145,000 miles, and it would only get driven sporadically, and we started slacking off on maintenance. After about 3 years, my uncle thought about driving it to work to keep the miles off of his truck, which was getting up there. So I took it to the mechanic, and he found about $1200 worth of work that needed to be done. My grandmother actually offered to pay for it. I had about half of the work done, and damn if my uncle didn't go buy a brand-new Corolla about a week later! :mad: So at that point, I figured I'd wait until the next emissions test came around, and see how the car did, and use that as the deciding factor of whether to keep it. I didn't have to wait that long, though. One morning, I had that car out at my condo (sometimes I'd keep it out there, sometimes we'd keep it at Grandma's), and was going to drive it to work. Hopped it, fired it up, and when I went to shift into gear and put my foot on the brake, it went right to the floor...no pressure whatsoever.
If that thing had been my only car, I probably would have put the money into it to keep it going. The engine and transmisison were still going strong, and the body was still solid. The rear bumper was rusting though, and the paint was faded, and the vinyl top was shredding. Interior was actually still in good shape, except for the felt headliner which had been threatening to pull loose for several years, but never took the plunge. But it was just a spare car that nobody really needed. Plus, my Mom was thinking about getting rid of her pickup truck, and I figured I'd get more use out of a pickup truck than a full-sized sedan. It was kind of hard to bring home plywood on the roof of that LeSabre!
My 2000 Intrepid has a bit over 137,000 miles on it. I've had to sink about $2000 into it this year, which included some front suspension work, two new tires, recharging the a/c, new coolant/hoses, new front brake pads, new transmission cooling lines, and some other odds and ends. My mechanic used factory parts for a lot of that stuff, which probably inflated the costs a bit.
It'll probably need new rear brakes around 150,000 miles, and should probably get new spark plugs around that time. And definitely a transmission servicing...afte all, it IS an Intrepid! :P
It would be nice to see it get to 200,000 miles, but I wonder if old age might get to it before the wear-and-tear of mileage does? It averaged 20,000 miles per year in its first 5 years, but down to around 12-13K in these past three. And lately it's been getting used a lot less. I figure it'll probably take about 6 more years to get it to 200,000 miles. And a lot can happen in six years!
Anyway my Elantra is pushing 150K miles and is still doing pretty good. I plan on keeping it to see how long it will go without nickeling and diming me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I talked with her last nite, and she asked me if I'd want it, or knew anybody who would be interested. I told her that I'd be REALLY leery of picking up a modern car with that many miles..even if it's running fine, at that mileage it's really a toss of the dice. You could hit the jackpot or you could crap out.
Now, I did buy a 1968 Dodge Dart that had 253,000 miles on it when I bought it. But Dodge Darts don't come with $2000+ transmissions, $1000 catastrophic converters, complex electronics, tape drive windows just waiting to chew up, etc. And they don't crumple like a tin can when you look at them the wrong way. Sure, they might kill you if you get into a high-speed accident, but at least you don't have to worry about parking lot encounters that leave you with thousands of bucks worth of damage!
I also bought a '79 Newport from the junkyard that I thought only had 134,000 miles on it. Until I got to see the title. Turns out the previous owner bought it about 11 years earlier, with 110,000 miles on it. So either it went 2400 miles per year, or it was more like 234,000. :surprise: But, I paid $250 for it, so I can't complain. In retrospect, it wasn't the most reliable thing in the world. Over the course of about 20,000 miles, I probably put around $2400 total into it, including the purchase, inspection, a transmission, and varoius repairs.
I finally got fed up with it when the water pump went out, and bought an '89 Gran Fury. I figured that a 10 year newer car with less than 1/3 the miles (73K versus 250K) would be more reliable and cheaper to run. It wasn't.
Manufacturers make dubious mileage claims (Fox TV)
Study Finds Carcinogens in Water Near Alberta Oil Sands Projects (NY Times)
Actually corn-based ethanol does virtually nothing to decrease oil imports. In 2005 we produced 10.25 billion bushels of corn. Each bushel is equivalent to about 2.7 gallons of ethanol which means that the entire year's corn crop would provide about 28 billion gallons of ethanol. Ethanol has about 70% of the energy of a gallon of gas, so you end up with about 19.5 billion gallons of gas equivalents with ethanol. The energy inputs to create the ethanol, which consist of fertilizers, mechanized farming, transportation, and processing drop the energy return on energy invested to 1 input for about 1.25 out the other end: 19.5 billion gallons * 0.2 equals 3.9 billion gallons net energy gain.
We use about 145 gallons of gas a year. Three point nine billion gallons of ethanol is less than 3% of the total and now we'd have to import corn :P
Just gimme a car that weighs less than 3000 lb, looks like an Audi R8, uses a turbo diesel hooked up to a manual transmission and I'll shut up.
Yeah, I've heard that corn-based ethanol really does nothing, except make the price of corn and other foods go up. :mad:
I'd be tempted by it if it REALLY helped reduce overall oil consumption, but as it stands, it seems like Ethanol is more of a shell game designed to make the sheeple feel good.
I'm a little more intrigued by stuff like hybrids, though. Vehicles where the fuel economy improvements may never offset the purchase price, but they still end up using less fuel. Unless, I guess, if it takes a lot more fuel to manufacture them in the first place.
That is the dirty little secret that those pushing hybrids do not want you to know. Hybrids do take more energy and pollute more in the manufacturing than a comparable ICE only vehicle. The claim, without a lot of data to back it up, is over the life of the hybrid it will pollute less than the ICE only vehicle. Those that question the claims in favor of hybrids are castigated and branded heretics.
If hybrids are so clean in manufacture. Why are the NiMH batteries all built in 3rd world countries.
Hmmm, does that mean they have roofies in them? :surprise:
There are too many new technologies coming into North America in the next 13 months to settle on a 25-28mpg car right now. Toyota is even talking about a 94 mpg Prius next year to blow away the new diesels!
Last I read Toyota shelved the plug in hybrid Prius. The batteries are still not ready for prime time. I would not look for such a vehicle before 2010.
I doubt it's only in America. My health club is about a mile away I guess takes me 6 mins by car. Probably would take me 20 to walk. It. I have a wife and 4 kids man and my time is valuable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
[quote]
According to Edmunds.com, you'd have to drive a Camry hybrid roughly eight years to make up the extra purchase cost. You'd have to drive a Ford Escape hybrid roughly three years to break even. [unquote]
Oh really? The article says that this data comes from Edmunds. Would you like to point out from where they drew this data. Either the writer of the article in Tampa is stupid or the analyst at Edmunds..... well let's see first.
By the way for every hybrid on the road now, no matter the make, it is less expensive to drive the hybrid version over the non-hybrid version if similar vehicles are being compared. If dissimilar vehicles are being compared then it's always less expensive to drive a lesser, smaller or Used vehicle. But that's always been the case.
There is no such concept as 'payback period' ( correct and accurate analysis available upon request, pick a hybrid pair of siblings ).
If hybrids are so clean in manufacture. Why are the NiMH batteries all built in 3rd world countries.
Because you have no proof to support your hypothesis. :P What is proven is the lower fuel consumption and lower emissions once the vehicle is complete. There is definite proof of that. The rest is 'slung mud' in the hope that something dirty and sticky will tarnish the hybrids, all of them. The fact that you can disassemble a NiMH battery in your garage without causing any environmental issues should assuage your worried concerns about the environment.
Now do they cost more to manufacture? Probably, yes. Here are the tradeoffs in equipment for say a Camry vs hybrid Camry for exampl..
..............ICE vs HSD,
traditional tranny vs simpler transaxel
no drive motors vs MG1 + MG2
no inverter vs inverter
no traction battery vs NiMH battery
traditional Pb-acid battery vs smaller Pb-acid battery
That's it, plus programming. None of these can be seen as a HUGE additional usage of fuel/energy when considering that none of these 5 items are any more than a minor part of the total cost of the vehicle. ( I'm leaving a hidden logic trap for the unsuspecting to fall into. It's the one CNW Marketing created for himself then jumped in impaling himself on the petard of his illogical thought processes. ).
Mowing the yard for me consists of riding around on a tractor for about an hour and a half. About the only real excercise I get is if the blades jam up and I have to lift the thing up on its side to pull the grass out. Or run over a yellow jacket nest, get them miffed enough at me, and then have to hop off the tractor and haul [non-permissible content removed] out of there! (thankfully, that one hasn't happened...yet. I've run over a few nests, but they never come after me. I'm just lucky enough that on the next pass around, I see them buzzing around in a frenzy and stay clear!)
Ford Escape 4dr SUV AWD (2.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) Five Year Total $45,252
2008 Ford Escape XLT 4dr SUV (3.0L 6cyl 4A) Five Year Total $41,825
Advantage ICE
2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid Hybrid 4dr Sedan (2.4L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) Five Year Total $40,451
2008 Toyota Camry XLE 4dr Sedan (2.4L 4cyl 5A) Five Year Total $40,803
Advantage? Toss up for these two trims.
Sorry to disappoint you. It comes right off the Toyota website. It is plain to see that the manufacturing of the Prius produces a lot more pollution. It will only be mitigated with high mileage. For those buying a hybrid for a long time and low mileage the pollution will be higher for the hybrid than the ICE only. It takes nearly 150k miles to mitigate the NoX and Sox produced in the manufacture of the Prius. It will never have lower particulate matter than the ICE. You know the stuff people claim makes smog.
These people are nuts, I agree, but there you go.
Part of the problem is that MINI buyers and Impala buyers live in different galaxies and will never inter-breed.
Hmmm, that sounds like a killer deal on an Impala! If I could get one that cheap, I'd almost be tempted. Almost. I don't want to get back into a car payment again, though. I'd buy a new Impala before I'd buy a used Mini, but then the Mini's just not my type of car. Still, I don't besmirch anyone for choosing a Mini, if that's their preference. (besmirch, that IS a word, right? :P )
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the 1st year depreciation begins at the new, discounted price, not the fantasy MSRP. If anyone can walk in off the street and buy a "$22K car" for $16K, then the truth is that it's a $16K car. Next year, it'll be worth much less than that, because no one will buy a used one for anywhere near the price of a new one. Simple market economics.
Such car dealer double-talk reminds me of the current complaints from property tax agencies nationwide -- they're all whining that houses are selling at"below-market prices."
Wrong.
Houses ALWAYS sell for market prices. "The market" is simply the price at which a buyer and seller agree to do business. Markets go up and down. The fact that a down market prevents the tax man from jacking up everyone's rates (again) might be disappointing to the tax man, but it doesn't create some sort of Alice in Wonderland scenario where everything is "below market." That's just more double-talk.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration said the recent jump in crude oil prices has not yet been reflected in motor fuel costs. Gasoline costs $3 a gallon in many parts of the country, about 80 cents more than a year ago.
"We haven't seen the full pass-through (of high oil prices) yet," an agency spokesman said. "What's in the pipe right now (for gasoline) is about another 20 cents."
If the projected gasoline price materializes it would be the most consumers have ever paid to fill up at Thanksgiving and could break the all-time high of $3.22 a gallon set last May.
The national average retail pump price has already jumped by 25 cents since mid-October, reflecting soaring crude oil costs, which for U.S. oil hit a record $98.62 a barrel last week.
The price of crude accounts for about half the cost of making gasoline.
Here are photos of recent MPG readouts on my 07 Civic Hybrid:
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?p=506063#post506063
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?p=474108#post474108
http://www.elementownersclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35956
You can use these numbers to figure "payback period" or "break-even point" or whatever you want to call it. But here's how I see it;
I pay $80/month MORE for the hybrid vs. the regular Civic (zero down, 36 month term), and the hybrid saves me $60/month in gasoline costs (2K mi./month @ $3/gal. gas, 50 mpg hybrid vs. 35 mpg i.c.e.).
So, since an extra $20 per month net cost is essentially nothing, I "broke even" the day I bought it.
Paying 40% less money to OPEC is a bonus.
Thank you.
There are at least 5 different CUV hybrids on the market. My objection to hybrids is the added complexity is not justified by the savings in fuel. I would say hybrids are a kneejerk reaction to a need for more fuel efficient vehicles. The truth about hybrids will not be played out for another 5 years or so.
On another note, but related - I went to a new Condo. complex Open House this past weekend. As most properties here in NH, the house uses oil or propane for heat. These new condos each had their 275gal tanks and furnaces ready to fire-up and add to the demand for oil. And I guess they'll be burning oil year after year after year.
If we don't do anything to control growth whether it is housing or # of autos on the roads, then you've lost most of the battle.
If as a nation we were seriously interested in saving or reducing oil and gasoline usage, why wouldn't there be a halt to new building or conversion to oil-heat? why would we not restrict private plane and boat use and purchase? I think we all know there is no political will to do so. So we will continue along as we are, and if you have the money as the price goes up, you can burn a smuch as you want for whatever you want.
If I do buy a place, it'll hopefully be within a few miles of work, like my current apartment, and I really won't be directly affected transportation-wise by the price of oil/gasoline.
The solution: The Oregonboy Energy Conservation Tax Credit Incentive.
(Doesn't that just roll off the tongue?)
Good-bye CAFE standards. Good-bye wasteful driving practices.
Hello personal responsibility and freedom of choice!!!
(Cue the patriotic music)
I'm working on a blog, but I will be gone for a week. I guess the world will have to muddle through until then.
james
There is no such thing as a 'payback period'. It's a headline grabbing construct of the press ( of which Edmunds is part ) that doesn't look at the problem correctly.
Here is the correct analysis which applies to ALL the latest hybrids on the road.
First: The vehicles being compared must be roughly equivalent. Comparing a Tahoe hybrid to a Civic is useless. Tahoe 2-M to Tahoe ICE with the same equipment.
Second: The vehicles being compared must both be NEW. A new Prius vs a 3 yr old Elantra always favors the USED vehicle.
Third: Fuel Costs are NOT going to fall back to $2/gal or less. In fact to do the analysis in the manner that any normal business would in purchasing an asset you have to factor in inflation of costs. In the case of fuel estimating a $.50 per gal increase over the next 10+ yrs seems conservative.
Fourth: And this is one of the key misconceptions by all the 'knowledgable' [cough, cough ] writers, you have to make an estimate of the normal useful life of this asset for you personally. When a business purchases an asset they estimate that they will use if for 3, 5, 7, 10 or 15 yrs. So should we.
Fifth: An estimate must be made on the eventual resale value of that asset, even if it's ZERO at 10 or 15 yrs.
What this leads to is the following correct analysis.
A person or a business is going to buy an asset ( vehicle ) fill it with fuel, insure it, maintain it and possibly resell it at the end of it's useful life. I am intentionally ignoring taxes and interest.
If you personally had the choice to purchase two similar NEW vehicles, one a hybrid and one not, then drive them for 3, 5, 7, 10+ yrs ( you pick the life span ) then at every interval the hybrid costs less then the non-hybrid to own and drive.
There is no 'payback'. You're going to purchase a vehicle - hybrid or not - drive it, trade or sell it after a period of time. The only question is which one costs less over that time frame.
The math:
[(Veh Cost - Resale)] + [ (Ann Mi driven * Ann Fuel Usage * Ann Avg Cost of Fuel) * Lifespan ] + [(Ann Maint + Ins) * Lifespan]
Resales Values: ( 3 yrs 50% of MSRP; 5 yrs 33%; 7 yrs 10%; 10+ yrs $0 )
Avg Cost of Fuel ( 3 yrs $3.50; 5 yrs $4.00; 7 yrs 4.50; 10 yrs $5.25 )
2007 ~ $3.00 / gal
2008 ~ $3.50
2009 ~ $4.00
2010 ~ $4.50
2011 ~ $5.00
2012 ~ $5.50
2013 ~ $6.00
2014 ~ $6.50
2015 ~ $7.00
2016 ~ $7.50
There are the assumptons: Pick any two pairs and any two different lifespans and in every case the hybrid costs less to own and drive than it's ICE counterpart. Notice also that I ignored any Fed or State tax credits which skew the analyses far in favor of the hybrids.
Let's use 5 years since that's the longest that Edmunds goes out with the True Cost to Own tool. It accounts for gas, depreciation and all that stuff, so that accounts for how much your car is worth after 5 years. And if you revisit my earlier links, they were comparing similar cars (Civic to Civic Hybrid, etc.).
So, let's assume you have a Hummer and (to keep it topical), you are going to trade that in on a Civic to ease the transition to $4 a gallon gas.
Which is the cheaper Civic to own and drive at every interval over that 5 year period?
I'm not up on Civics and how the sedan trims compare but here's the TCO:
2008 Honda Civic Hybrid 4dr Sedan (1.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) 5 year total: $33,869 (fuel $5,620)
2008 Honda Civic EX-L 4dr Sedan (1.8L 4cyl 5A) $34,282 (fuel $7,741)
Advantage hybrid ($413 difference)
Same exercise with the Escape with the same qualms about picking a comparable trim:
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid 4dr SUV AWD (2.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) 5 year total: $45,252 (fuel $$8,793)
2008 Ford Escape XLT 4dr SUV AWD (2.3L 4cyl 4A) $41,144 (fuel $11,010)
Advantage gasser ($4,108 difference).
Here's the True Cost to Own link to plug your own car selection in. All of Edmunds' assumptions are in the About TCO link.
I find this the least feasible element to your argument. In 1979 when oil was over $30 per barrel, there were people such as yourself making the same claims that it would NEVER go down in price. Well 19 years later it had gone down to $9 per barrel. Your projection of 16% inflation would send this country into a nose dive depression the likes of which we have never experienced. People would be giving their hybrids back to the lenders.
The biggest flaw in your comparison of hybrid to non hybrid is the 33% more parts that are available for failure in the hybrid vs non-hybrid. When the warranty is gone you have a much higher chance of expensive failure with the hybrid vs non-hybrid. You also have less availability of after market parts and independent repair facilities.
Even with a few hundred thousand Prius on our highways, can you find an after market catalytic convertor for less than $1000. I can get one for my new Sequoia for $86. The hybrids are money makers for the manufacturers. The owners are a captive market to the dealerships. To me that is a glaring issue not being added into the equation. With Prius owners already complaining of catalytic convertor failures and subsequent $2000+ repair bills from the dealer, makes them a poor choice in my book.
I have e-mailed you my address I will expect a monthly check from you in the amount of $20.
Oh I would check your math. At 2 K a month you would use 40 gallons getting 50 MPG or just over 57 gallons at 35 MPG. At $3/gallon you spend $120 getting 50 MPG and 171.43 getting 35 MPG. That is a savings of just over $50. Take that off the $80 more that the hybrid costs you are spending about $30 a month.
So on second thought I will be expecting $30 a month from you.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I know your skepticism about the long term viability of the hybrids. Outside of your concern that these parts 'might' fail in the tuture there is no data currently to support that fear. This might change in 3-5 yrs as the hybrids reach 8-12 yrs old but then again I'm predicting that all vehicles at 10 yrs have $0 Resale value ( nominal is more likely ). However at 10 yrs you've saved SO much money in fuel that it doesn't matter.
I'm not up on Civics and how the sedan trims compare but here's the TCO:
2008 Honda Civic Hybrid 4dr Sedan (1.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) 5 year total: $33,869 (fuel $5,620)
2008 Honda Civic EX-L 4dr Sedan (1.8L 4cyl 5A) $34,282 (fuel $7,741)
Advantage hybrid ($413 difference)
Same exercise with the Escape with the same qualms about picking a comparable trim:
2008 Ford Escape Hybrid 4dr SUV AWD (2.3L 4cyl gas/electric hybrid CVT) 5 year total: $45,252 (fuel $$8,793)
2008 Ford Escape XLT 4dr SUV AWD (2.3L 4cyl 4A) $41,144 (fuel $11,010)
Advantage gasser ($4,108 difference).
Here's the True Cost to Own link to plug your own car selection in. All of Edmunds' assumptions are in the About TCO link.
Two key issues:
I don't believe Edmunds facrors in an inflation in the cost of fuel and that is a key missing that we all will have to address from now on, IMO admittedly. But if I owned my own transportation business I'd be factoring it in starting now.
There has to be a significant Equipment different or Trim level to account for such a HUGE initial premium on the FEH vs the ICE version. More data is needed on the respective trims. brb.