Luxury Performance Sedans

esf · February 2006

Okay, I understand now- thanks.

This A4 looks unbelievable, by the way.

It takes the best attributes of the current A4 and A6 and puts them together, while looking even more stylish and athletic than the current one.

Should give the new C-Class and the 3 Series a scare

.

nvbanker · February 2006

"Not much love here on the LPS forum about the STS's -- perhaps it is the "sale of the century" or something, but here in Cincinnapolis, there has been a proliferation of sightings of STS's -- and, frankly MOST of them have been the AWD flavors (as you might guess, I notice the little indication on the right rear decklid."

Probably because so many of them are 6 cylinders - which may be ok for the CTS, but the Seville replacement should never have less than the Northstar. I've lost all respect for most Cadillacs anymore.

markcincinnati · February 2006

I "assumed" the STS's I mentioned (AWD) were V8's.

I guess I don't know exactly how to determine what's under the hood, I just see the "4" on the rear and know it is an AWD version (which is somewhat odd here even in Cincinnati what with our really mild winter.)

A couple of weeks or so back I did get on the Cadillac website and although I thought the STS V6 could be had with AWD, I couldn't in a quick look-see find out any info on it.

And, in a back to back "Car & Driver" magazine test (I participated in), an STS with "all the sport options" was quicker, faster and more nimble than a "standard" BMW 530i (they were both 2005 models which means to the informed, that the Cadillac was 255HP and the BMW was 225.)

I know, it defied my expectations too.

In contradiction to your statement, I never had almost any respect for Cadillacs, now, at least, I have some.

This is progress, in an odd way of reckoning. :confuse:

lexusguy · February 2006

At least the Seville replacement has proper RWD, V6 or not. The V8 powered, FWD Seville was a threat to no one but Lincoln. Clearly some people at GM still think the V8\FWD combo works, but they are the only ones.

bdr127 · February 2006

Do you guys think that if so many cars go over to a diesel system that diesel fuel prices will shoot up so that the economic benefits are lost? I can seriously see oil companies pulling that on us... Just look at last years record profits from Exxon, et al! If diesel becomes widespread, I just fear that, although we'd get 40+ mpg, we'll end up with diesel prices over $4/g!

nebraskaguy · February 2006

Do you guys think that if so many cars go over to a diesel system that diesel fuel prices will shoot up so that the economic benefits are lost?

I don't know what you consider to be "shooting up", but in the DC area, diesel is already $.30-$.40 over premium at many gas stations I've noticed. I'm not sure at what point you lose the economic benefits, but it seems well on the way to that point here, if not already past it.

cdnpinhead · February 2006

The amount of diesel fuel used by automobiles, even with the most optomistic (large) future projections, will be a small shred of the total, given the amount used by the trucking, marine, railroad & construction industries.

In fact, that's why diesel fuel presently costs more than gasoline most places. When the price goes up on gasoline, people use a bit less & the price comes back down (somewhat) over time. With diesel fuel, it's a cost of doing business, and the increased price is absorbed (passed on to the consumer) and consumption continues at the same rate.

qbrozen · February 2006

i think that's really going to depend on the area. Diesel is still cheaper than premium in my area, for instance.

and, no, bdr, i don't see it ever being so much more expensive that it counteracts its mileage advantage. If the oil companies wanted more of a profit from diesel, they could have jacked up the prices long ago and taken advantage of the trucking industry. Not to mention diesels are not going to gain a large market share for a LONG time to come. Gas hybrids now have a foothold, but are still a small percentage of car sales. Buyers are just not quick to accept a big change like this.

markcincinnati · February 2006

My 3.2 Audi A6 with the 18" wheels/tires inflated to 38F 35R shows a mileage (trip computer) maximum of 26MPG. The A6 is not a small car, but if you've been in an A8L, well, the "8" it just seems sooo much bigger, 'specially the leg room in the back.

The "stock" 4.2TDI available in 2005 was offered in this A8 version. A TV test of this Audi (14 minute video, I believe I linked here several weeks ago) was undertaken and filmed after the A8L was filled up in London and driven to Wales and back (800 miles.) The driver drove in "normal" UK traffic. The mileage returned for this trip was over 40MPG's.

The driver did things most of us would never do to maximize MPG's, e.g., didn't use any climate control, didn't use the cruise control, inflated the tires to their max pressure, filled up the car when it was REALLY cold outside -- and other tiny impact "tricks" to get the most out of every drop of diesel.

The engine -- a 4.2 liter V8 diesel. The car -- Audi's longest wheelbase, biggest, most poshly equipped car.

Extrapolation. What if my 3.2 liter gasoline engine was replaced with a 3.0TDI Audi engine in an otherwise fully decked out A6? Would exceeding 45MPG under an "all the tricks" scenario be likely (I think yes.)

If such an engine in such a car could return 36mpg vs the gasoline's 26mpg (under "more normal" circumstances) I would assume such a version would be a brisk seller once you could get prospective customers to drive the car where they would find, faster acceleration, significantly longer times between fill ups and fuel prices (diesel) about the same as Premium Gasoline (at least here in SW Ohio.)

Diesel is often somewhat more than regular gasoline, but usually pennies more, not 50 percent more.

There are no batteries to replace or dispose of.

The power borders on "hot rod."

The mileage should be some 25% more.

Here in the US we need the clean cleaner cleanest diesel to get this off the ground. Instead we talk about hybrids as if they are the holy grail of fuel milage.

Increasingly companies are using hybrids to boost the power and acceleration of the vehicle over the one with just the gas engine.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Diesel, today, is a kind of "have your cake and eat it too" technology. Perhaps hybrids make sense because we have offered tax breaks on them.

When the tax credits recede and the first wave of hybrids start to require their first set of replacement batteries -- only a couple years from now -- and assuming we don't go to $5/gallon regular gasoline, the love affair (if you can call it that) with the hybrid will probably fade away.

I am not agin' bein' green, feller's -- I am confused that we haven't jumped on the diesel solution.

Hybrids, according to one author are not a progressive or evolutionary technology. Diesel already is.

What better place to get the ball rolling, big time, than diesels in LPS (emphasis on P) cars. :shades:

tagman · February 2006

Do you guys think that if so many cars go over to a diesel system that diesel fuel prices will shoot up so that the economic benefits are lost?

The higher the price of fuel in general creates a HIGHER economic advantage for engines that are more efficient, such as hybrid or diesel.

The issue with diesel is when its price is higher than the gas alternatives, then it reduces some of the engines fuel-efficient benefits.

However, this price issue has mostly to do with supply/demand due to the major use of diesel fuel by the commercial trucking industry.

Diesel engines still have a tremendous potential that is yet to be completely realized. They offer even more potential efficiency than has been extracted. I strongly believe in hybrid technology and diesel engines as alternatives to the traditional ICE.

TagMan

dewey · February 2006

Diesels are far more superior to hybrids at this day and age. The problem with hybrids is weight. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are just too heavy and their weight kills fuel efficiency. Is it any wonder why so many driving hybrid versions of Highlanders, RXs, and Accords cannot get significantly better mileage than non-hybrid versions of their cars? In contrast the real world mileage of diesel Benz Es and Jetta TDIs are significantly better than what can be achieved with a Jetta 2.5L and a MB E350.

My wife postponed replacing her 83 MB300D with a hybrid Camry. I have read 8 reviews and on average the MPG of a Camry hybrid is in the low 30s IMO that is not very impressive especially when my wife's MB300D already gets that kind of mileage.

We will wait until there are hybrids that are powered by lithium-ion batteries. Lithium-ion batteries have about 25 percent of the weight of nickel-metal cabride batteries. Such a relativlely lighter battery would improve hybrid MPG quite significantly.

And I will have to patiently wait for a replacement of my 99 BMW 3 series(hopefully in the guise of a Audi A4 TDI or a BMW330D/535D)

dan339g · February 2006

If there is a dramatic increase in demand for diesel fuel, would it require significant changes to the refinery infrastructure, or can gasoline refineries be easily switched over to diesel? Also, is the availability of the raw crude that is the basis for diesel different and/or more scarce than that of gasoline? It seems these factors would influence price as well.

tagman · February 2006

dewey - you know this argument went on and on in the hybrid forum. There are HUGE benefits to the hybrid technology. The upcoming Lexus LS600hL will be an ultimate hybrid vehicle, and the 2006 Civic hybrid which is one of the "fantastic four" Civics, as Motor Trend Car of the Year, is the first true hybrid to actually have a small enough price difference to the regular ICE model to give the buyer a mathematical financial BENEFIT to selecting it. And some of the other models, such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape are very worthy vehicles.

Read this new Edmunds article about hybrids. They are definately a great and legitimate alternative until hydrogen finally makes its way.

link title

It is a great perspective on hybrids. The future is finally here and it will get even better.

TagMan

bdr127 · February 2006

...first true hybrid to actually have a small enough price difference to the regular ICE model to give the buyer a mathematical financial BENEFIT to selecting it.

The difference is that even the few diesel cars on the market have been about the same price as the gasoline versions. There isn't that huge financial burden to overcome as there is, and has been, with hybrids.

tagman · February 2006

I disagree. Most of the time, when choosing engines on a similarly-equipped model, the larger ICE option, or diesel option costs more, sometimes considerably more than the standard ICE.

But, is the diesel worth the extra cost? I think sometimes it is well worth it. I love diesels as another alternative to the standard ICE's. But diesels generally do cost more.

kdshapiro · February 2006

"But diesels generally do cost more."

As do hybrids, but diesels also have an advantage of being almost maintenance free. With diesels there aren't going to be millions of batteries polluting the environment.

tagman · February 2006

but diesels also have an advantage of being almost maintenance free

Diesels have no "traditional" ignition system . . . but traditional ignition systems are now practically maintenance-free anyway, with 100,000 mile spark plugs, etc.

The latest diesels have HUGE pressure at the injectors, and generally do NOT have the very best reliability ratings, in spite of the fact that they are diesels.

I do like diesels, however, and I AGREE that diesels have certain advantages, and down the road, as they clean them up, and increase their efficiency a little more, they will be an even better alternative than they are now.

I think it is entirely possible within a few more years for diesels to become an even better alternative than the hybrid, but at this moment, the fuel-efficiency of the hybrid is superior. Additionally there are fuel supply and price issues, the nature of diesel fuel itself, and the challenges to clean it up enough for California and other states that have serious restrictions on the emissions.

Further, in a few more years, as the diesels continue to improve, so will the hybrids, so it will be interesting to see which one comes out on top. Quite possibly, and more likely, they will co-exist . . . each offering unique benefits. Perhaps they will even exist together as a diesel hybrid. We will see.

. . . next stop after that? . . . the hydrogen fuel-cells finally become the next BIG solution.

TagMan

markcincinnati · February 2006

. . .hybrids have a higher TCO even with the tax incentives. As these incentives decrease, the TCO actually increases to the point that we would need over $90 a bbl as the base price of oil.

As we push and remain above $70 a bbl, the reserves we already have in the US (triple the known Arabian reserves according to the Rand Corporation) become even more likely to be tapped as a source for fuel for, one would imagine, at least 30 years. According to the Rand study we have enough known oil to satisfy 100% of our own consumption without importing a drop for 100 years. Put another way, we have the resources to go 400 years assuming we need to bring in "forever" 25% of our petrol from foreign sources.

The number of authors decrying the push toward hybrids either are all left or right wing wackos (it is hard to tell which) or "thoughtful" folks who are apparently going unlistened to. Maybe they're all lying or wrong or, like me, believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

A 4.2 liter V8 engine running diesel fuel pushes an Audi A8L down the highway sipping the fuel at a rate of 40+MPG's -- it seems that without any extraordinary push to improve diesel's efficiency, we will continue to improve its capabilities and capacities to extend our use of fossil fuels.

Now, the argument for cleaner operation does favor the hybrid UNTIL the batteries need to be replaced then what? Land fills?

The possible wackos I alluded to above suggest that hybrid's main adoption will be for performance not efficiency and certainly not positive ecological impacts.

I dunno, maybe these folks own stock in companies that make diesel; but, their arguments are that diesel is a progressive use of natural resources that can be used to simultaneously improve performance, decrease consumption and be cleaner than current technology hybrids.

Hydrogen fuel-cells, they continue are perhaps being delayed by the funneling of resources into development of a dead end technology.

Now, in all fairness, I have read several other contrary articles that suggest the use of hybrids to improve performance is a good thing. Of course even these folks claim that current batteries are too heavy and pose a problem 3 - 7 years down the road when it comes time to replace them. The problems, which they suggest will be successfully dealt with (but haven't yet) include, cost, and toxic land fill proliferation.

Yet there's Bill Ford talking about hybrids as if they alone will save the US auto industry.

Another point of view with respect to saving the US auto industry has more to do with "building attractive cars" (beauty being, as usual, in the eye of the beholder.)

Styling, not hybrid technologies, would do more for the US automakers, that is. Of course, cutting costs plus styling plus doing whatever it takes with respect to engineering and efficiency would seem to be both a more effective and quicker (and probably less costly) means to that end, wouldn't it?

Style, utility, safety and features (probably in that order but certainly style is #1) sell before efficiency -- at least this appears to be historically the case and also the case in the LPS and near premium class.

Had I not driven an A4 2.5TDI with a 6speed manual and today's equivalent of SLine back in 2002, I probably wouldn't be so adamant in this regard -- but Audi AG let the kitty out of der bag when they gave 40 Americans the use of these cars for 2 days.

The gasoline versions, good as they are and have become, just don't even come close to the rush of driving a car with this much low end torque -- stump pulling, locomotive breath, weapons grade torque. And the heck of it is, the car is providing such a forward rush all the while sipping fuel, diesel fuel. I'd like to place my order now, please.

:shades:

tagman · February 2006

. . .hybrids have a higher TCO even with the tax incentives.

Some do, some don't. It depends on the comparison. The EXTRA lofty price for a diesel engine, coupled with the average HIGHER fuel price, and the LACK of tax incentives, and the LOWER fuel efficiency ALL add up together to become a much higher TCO, sometimes higher than the hybrid as well.

I have shown the mathematical formula, and it is also verifiable in numerous articles, that the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid actually is the first hybrid to place the buyer AHEAD in TCO than in the similarly-equipped ICE.

A 4.2 liter V8 engine running diesel fuel pushes an Audi A8L down the highway sipping the fuel at a rate of 40+MPG's

Totally unreal number. Go to www.fueleconomy.gov and get the EPA ratings for ALL vehicles and the REAL-LIFE reported ratings from actual users. NO diesel, even the tiniest beats the Honda Hybrid. Further, even the TINIEST diesels do not get the real-life mpg that you suggest with a 4.2 liter V8. There is no REAL data to support that.

current batteries are too heavy and pose a problem 3 - 7 years down the road when it comes time to replace them.

Again, REAL-LIFE shows that the batteries are lasting over 10 years and are warranted for 8-10 years and about 100,000 miles or more. They are lasting so long that there is no end of life for them that has been determined.

As I have indicated, diesels are a GREAT alternative, and diesels improve fuel economy compared to ICE's, as do the hybrids. But hybrids also have definate advantages, and DO FINALLY offer a LOWER TCO, particularly with the new 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid. Both engines are merely a transition at this point until hydrigen fuel-cell technology is in place. THAT is the BIGGER picture that will come within this DECADE.

TagMan

tagman · February 2006

One other minor point about TCO . . . it is a general rule that upgrades of all types will increase the TCO of a vehicle as the price of the vehicle climbs. Those upgrades can be convenience options and accessories or engine choices. Even larger ICE's generally follow that rule. The pricier the engine, the higher the TCO. And diesel and hybrid engines fall into the engine upgrade category. The difference is that the diesel will pay back some of its extra premium, and the hybrid will pay back even more, therefore making the increase in TCO have less of an impact, but one that was preferred as a choice by the buyer. The exception to this is the 2006 Honda Civic hybrid which LOWERS the TCO, and the Toyota Prius in base versions has a low TCO, but a non-hybrid Prius does not exist, so a comparison to another model vehicle becomes arbitrary.

TagMan

dewey · February 2006

Good questions, unfortunately I dont know the answers to your questions.

dewey · February 2006

So how good are diesels? What I find interesting is that there are very few diesel owners who complain about their mileage compared to EPA. The feelings among many if not most hybrid owners is that of disappointment, especially if they expected anything close to EPA.The following is from a Toronto Star article about the Audi Q7 TDI linked below:

But what's amazing is the Audi Q7's fuel economy  almost twice that of the gas engine (it works out to a nice round 1,000 km per tank of diesel fuel or an average consumption of 10.5 L/100 km). This motor is quiet, pulls hard and at idle barely gives away its identity in a whisper of sound.

AUDI Q7 TDI 3.0L

markcincinnati · February 2006

. . .listen, I am not against any new technology; and, despite what I have written, I am not anti-hybrid.

I am, however, against "withholding" information which does to a certain extent seem to be the case here in the US.

Check this out:

800 miles to go

This is ~13 minutes long, but it is entertaining especially when the review concludes Audi has come up with a car that actually seems to run on air.

:shades:

lexusguy · February 2006

Right, but what could a hybrid do if driven like that? Use a feather light touch on the gas, keep the car in electric mode as long as absolutely possible, and brake just enough for maximum regenerative efficiency, and a Prius could probably pull down 65mpg+

tagman · February 2006

Terrific video of the Audi V8 diesel getting about 40+ mpg. Lots of fun to watch.

The tach never above 1250 rpm!!! Who drives like that!!!???

Remember what jeremy said would happen if it ran out of fuel . . . bleed the lines!!!!!! Nothing too appealing about that. No climate control, of course . . . and windows must be up!!! Lots of joy.

Cool video, but such an extreme attempt to demonstrate a potential that no one in real life would ever come close to. But, still amazing.

Diesels are great, but again, hybrid technology is still at the top of the EPA charts. And when they change those rating procedures, they'll still be on top.

Close, but no cigar. At least not yet.

TagMan

dewey · February 2006

Right, but what could a hybrid do if driven like that? Use a feather light touch on the gas, keep the car in electric mode as long as absolutely possible, and brake just enough for maximum regenerative efficiency, and a Prius could probably pull down 65mpg+

Feather light touching a pedal and slow and non-accelerative driving like a great- great-grand mother sounds very exciting, indeed. IMO diesels are more fun to drive with the bonus of saving fuel.

dewey · February 2006

Diesels are great, but again, hybrid technology is still at the top of the EPA charts. And when they change those rating procedures, they'll still be on top.

Close, but no cigar. At least not yet.

Too early to say that. Please refer to some hybrid forums and listen to the many dissatisfied owners. The cigars are already being smoked by diesel owners.

dewey · February 2006

To clarify my point in post 6200, you dont have to drive like the timid with a diesel in order to gain fuel savings. Gas efficiency with hybrids is achieved primarily with timidity.

I challenge any forum member here to prove to me that a hybrd RX or Highlander can accomplish double the mileage of their non-hybrid siblings. The fact that a Audi Q7 can accomplish such fuel efficiency is amazing.

grandaddy · February 2006

Anyone who believes the current hybrid epa ratings has been smoking something that is illegal!

People are being ripped off big time on these things. My neighbor bought his wife a new Lexus 400H thinking she would get around 40 mpg around town. After 6 months the best she has done is 22mpg. All around town and hardly nothing over 40mph. He paid a $10,000. premium for this?

After people catch on to this how do you think it will affect the resale of these white elephants? Plug that into your TCO equation!! Give me a good diesel any day.

markcincinnati · February 2006

. . .someone here must know the weight of the A8L, perhaps someone here knows the weight of the cameras and other equipment used to produce the video and other things such as wind speed, etc. Despite the "tricks" played to wring every last inch out of every molecule of fuel, the point (to me) was all about the potential.

The close up of the rear deck lid showed an engine of 4.0 liters (it is essentially the 4.2 Audi V8 morphed into a diesel, after all.) And, aluminum or not, the A8L is a whale of a car. Most of us even if we could buy one of them would pause and consider buying the A8 (SWB) or A6 or -- fill-in-the-blank -- [smaller sized] brand auto.

Most of us probably don't go for Audis, BMWs, Lexus, etc V8 equipped cars -- some folks probably don't go for the extra two cylinders because of the increased fuel requirements or because in many of the urban (and suburban) areas in the US (at least) there is much congestion and not all that much room to accelerate with gleeful, reckless abandon.

My point, I assumed the point of the video, too, was to extrapolate and project what could happen if we continued along a path of normal and customary refinement of the diesel technology in cars other than those high-zoot, high-buck, land-yachts that most folks never buy and only seldom ride in.

Forget the brand -- the fact that it was a TV show and they could use "an attractive" car (attractive to both the rich and famous and lesser mortals) isn't/wasn't the point. Using my favorite sociologist's concept, "The Sociological Imagination," imagine what might happen, where we might be, etc. if we did NOT abandon hybrids but, in addition, embraced rather than shunned diesels on this side of the Atlantic.

Let's use the LPS segment and wonder if instead of our 3.5, 3.2 and 3.0 liter gasoline engines we were also offered otherwise identical cars with similar sized turbo diesels.

Mileage and performance would improve.

Possibly MSRP would rise (but would it have to with widespread availability?) but I suspect not as much as the price difference between a gas/electric hybrid vs a gas only version.

And, if we seem to want to argue one vs the other rather than co-existence, how about a diesel/electric hybrid with those rumored light weight (coming soon?) batteries powering the electric motor side?

Perhaps it would've been "boring tv," but what would have been the possible outcome if the exact same test would've been undertaken with an Audi A4 or A6 and the smaller TD engines offered "over there?"

TODAY, gasoline, PREMIUM gasoline, in Cincinnati is $2.07 & 9/10's per gallon. After Katrina it was as high as $3.49. Where will it be a year from now?

We know now that a big-hulk-luxury car driven in a way most of us would not ever drive exceeded 40MPG's -- and they did this show on normal highways, not limited access not "no traffic jams guaranteed," etc. It seems to me that if Audi, BMW, Mercedes and others from all over the world were given a "challenge" (a contest?) to take another step up in efficiency, that it might be possible to repeat this test in the future with the headlights on, the climate control on and allow a stop for the poor driver to pee, too -- all the while achieving similar results.

Now if we could get 60 minutes or someone here to broadcast that show or recreate it -- perhaps we could stop going down the path of "hybrids are the answer" rather than perhaps a more sagacious path of "hybrids are one answer" [of several] for today.

Diesels as depicted in the link posted above are here and now. :surprise:

tagman · February 2006

perhaps we could stop going down the path of "hybrids are the answer" rather than perhaps a more sagacious path of "hybrids are one answer" [of several] for today.

Practically every post I have made has referred to the hybrid AND diesel as great alternatives. BOTH of them! The only point beyond that is that the hybrids have near ZERO emissions, and while diesels have great attributes, they still need a bit of tweaking to be as clean. Check the data on this. It's true.

Further, the diesel can NOT, by it's nature perform as well in city driving as the hybrid. Unfortunately for the diesel, it is CITY driving that is the bulk of most of the population's driving. This is another fact. The hybrid is clearly on top in city driving, even when the new EPA ratings focus MORE on stop and go driving when they are revised.

Again, diesels are a GREAT alternative. But hybrids are the CLEANEST and MOST EFFICIENT alternative. So, given that achievement, they deserve tremendous credit. That clearly makes them a GREAT alternative as well.

So . . . just to be clear on this . . . they are BOTH, without any doubt, terrific alternatives to the conventional ICE.

And, remember, the whole game changes soon when the HYDROGEN fuel cells come in large numbers. And they will.

TagMan

grandaddy · February 2006

There is a good tool to figure this for yourself on the Edmunds main page. Down near the bottom. I compared the RX400h with the non hybrid version. Hybrid had a much higher cost to own.

I also compared the regular Civic LX automatic to the Civic Hybrid. Total cost for the hybrid was $33,112. and total for the regular was just a little over $30,000. This is over a 5 year period. Hybrid worked out to $.44 per mile and the non-hybrid $.40 per mile.

tagman · February 2006

Regarding the Civic . . . there is a $2790 difference in price, EXACTLY. There is also $2100 as a tax incentive which MAY apply. This leaves $690. Calculating a projected average of 3.00 /gallon after 5 years, and at 15,000 miles per year, the national average, and using the city EPA figures which are generally the real-life averages anyway, the non-hybrid will use $7,500 of fuel over 5 years. The hybrid version will use $4,500 of fuel over 5 years. That difference is $3,000, which is actually $210.00 AHEAD of the non hybrid, if you account for the original price differences. Add in the potential tax benefit and the hybrid owner would then be AHEAD by $2,310. If gas prices go even higher, then the savings are even more. Further, depreciating the vehicles at even the same rate leaves a HIGHER trade-in for the hybrid, which adds considerably MORE to the $2,310.00 benefit of the hybrid, possibly well over $3,000.00 BENEFIT to the 2006 Honda Civic HYBRID owner.

These differences are not massive, but the 2006 Honda Civic hybrid represents the first TRUE financial benefit that is likely to be realized by the hybrid vehicles. The other benefits are cleaner air, of course, and a contribution to less energy consumption. And these are IMPORTANT benefits as well. What are those worth?

BTW, this topic is probably better suited to the hybrid forum.

TagMan

grandaddy · February 2006

Sorry, you've got too many ifs and buts. I'll put my money on Edmund's calculations, not yours. Hybrids have their place if you don't mind spending more money. I could start throwing in all sorts of things like invest the difference up front cost, etc. You have to stop somewhere. Edmunds has done the work for you.

warthog · February 2006

Tax incentives should not be considered in a debate of the relative virtues of hybrid and non-hybrid. Tax incentives skew the economic reality and are subject to repeal or revision at any time. Obviously, a potential buyer would take the incentive into account but it has no place in a policy discussion of which technology should be pursued as promising the best improvement over the conventional ICE.

lexusguy · February 2006

Is the E320 CDI vs. the GS450h. Everything else is either not in this class, or irrelevant hypotheticals. Somebody needs to road test these cars, and see who comes out on top.

tagman · February 2006

The 2006 Civic hybrid is ahead of the non-hybrid WITHOUT the tax incentives. Admittedly,it is a rare case, however. The tax incentives are icing on the cake. I agree they should not be generally used to compare the two alternatives, but since they exist, and the hybrid (Civic) is ahead anyway, it is merely a bonus to at least consider. Also, I am aware that there is generally an up front cost that is hard to retrieve with many hybrid vehicles.

The reason I chose the 2006 Honda Civic hybrid as an example is that is has FINALLY broken the financial calculation problems, and it is the FIRST time a hybrid actually comes out ahead by comparing it to its non-hybrid counterpart. Other hybrids will not generally come out ahead necessarily. The Prius is an interesting calculation because it is ONLY a hybrid, and it either has value on its own merits or not, depending upon one's point of view.

The value of clean emissions and energy efficiency is something that the hybrid haters seem to overlook. It has a value that EVERYONE benefits from. It is a good thing.

For those wanting a more fuel-efficient and cleaner-burning vehicle, the hybrid DOES represent a legitimate alternative . . . sometimes at a premium, but not always . . . as is the rare case with the '06 Civic hybrid.

In California, another advantage of owning a hybrid is the State's permission to use the car-pool lanes, at least for the next two years for now. Add that to the tax incentives, and it's no wonder that it looks attractive to many out here.

Again, I agree that diesel is a fantastic alternative . . . in fact, I am waiting for the new Mercedes GL to be released with a diesel. I think it will be a terrific way to get fuel efficiency and power in a large SUV.

TagMan

tagman · February 2006

The only fair comparison is the E320 CDI vs. the GS450h. Everything else is either not in this class, or irrelevant hypotheticals. Somebody needs to road test these cars, and see who comes out on top.

YES, that is an EXCELLENT idea that I would love to see.

grandaddy · February 2006

Tagman, the only "proof" you offer that you are right are your own rather ridiculous assumptions. All your supposed "savings" are in your ficticious fuel costs and your equally ficticious mpg estimates for the two cars.

First, you used an average of 50 mpg for the hybrid. Not even the city epa mileage for the hybrid civic is 50 mpg. They show a range of 40 to 50. We all know that even this is ridiculously high. In the real world you might get 30 mpg.

Second, you used an average of $3.00 a gallon over 5 years for the cost of gasoline. Another crystal ball assumption. Will probably be more like $2.25.

Third, you insist on using only city epa estimates. Of course this gives a big advantage to the hybrid and a big disadvantage to the non hybrid.

Edmunds' more realistic assumptions showed a savings in fuel costs over the five years as $1590. for the hybrid. Your very skewed assumptions showed a savings of $3,000.

Again, sorry but your assertion is false.

markcincinnati · February 2006

Well this 5 year stuff is fine, but the articles I have read say at 7 (or 8) years --CURRENTLY-- the cost both financially and ecologically demonstrates an even stronger case against hybrids.

Something to do with batteries and their known replacement costs and their speculated disposal costs.

Right now the case for hybrids is a future case, not that that is a bad thing.

My only issue is the fact that diesels are here right now and able, if applied, to be of real help on almost all fronts.

I heard a talk show the other day and the host alleged the expense and environmental impact of a [current] massive switch to hybrids that was ugly, expensive and dirty.

Of course, the good news, I guess, is the probability of this happening is slim to none and slim is already heading out of town.

I wonder what Bill Ford knows that we don't?

tagman · February 2006

Not even the city epa mileage for the hybrid civic is 50 mpg.

Excuse me . . . but it IS IN FACT 49 MPG . . . I have no reason to make up data. I beg your pardon . . . look it up at www.fueleconomy.gov That is the official EPA mpg ratings website.

I don't know WHERE you are getting your data.

Also, take a good look at the recent years of gasoline prices and tell me the percentage increases, and then see who's paying attention and who isn't.

Further, for an example, if you had owned a Prius in the last couple of years, and sold it right now, you would have experienced TREMENDOUS resale AND TREMENDOUS MPG's while you owned it . . . much better TCO than many other vehicles. No crystal ball needed to see this.

Are you suggesting that a price upgrade for a larger ICE is somehow smarter? How does THAT pay back at ALL?!!

This isn't about "right" or "wrong" as you seem to put it. It's about preferences. I simply would prefer to choose a diesel or hybrid over a conventional ICE. Beyond that, they each have their own unique advantages . . . including the hybrid. And they will even improve. Credit where credit is due.

Sorry, gramps, but in today's world I now believe that a more fuel efficient engine is a better choice . . . you don't have to agree . . . but I think I would find you making the same case against fuel cell technology in the not-to-distant future.

You remind me of the days when pollution control systems were considered "too expensive" for American Industry . . . or when "recycling" was too expensive, due to the initial costs. But, after a while, the initial costs were finally overcome and there were big REWARDS for being EFFICIENT.

Believe me, there IS a REWARD for all of us to be fuel-efficient. Disagree if you want to, but I GUARANTEE you that you will continue to see more fuel-efficient vehicles over the next decades, including hybrid technology, like it or not.

For you, it seems to be ONLY about the MONEY . . . and unless you can justify the expense TODAY, you would rather stay the same old course. Maybe you can't see the benefit TOMORROW . . . but it WILL be there.

TagMan

grandaddy · February 2006

Thanks for helping to prove yourself wrong. Your web site backs up everything I have said. The difference in the 5 year fuel cost is $1650. NOT $3000. They have a nice side by side comparison tool.

Once proven wrong about the Civic Hybrid you attempt to change the subject and start talking about the Prius and what might happen in the future. And by the way, it was you who brought up the money or cost aspect.

Rather than stand up like a man and admit you were wrong, you just continue to whine and squirm. To avoid further embarrassment in the future, I suggest that you have your facts straight before you shoot your mouth off. Sorry, but you have been nailed. Now get over it.

turnbowm · February 2006

There seems to be divided opinion on which technology is better and the discussions have become somewhat "lively."

IMHO, the best technology is the one which substantially reduces or eliminates the requirement for fossil fuel.

One technology that looks particularly promising is biodiesel..... a vehicle that runs on vegetable oil (or peanut oil as originally planned by Rudolf Diesel).
Even more interesting would be a pairing of technologies; i.e., a biodiesel-hybrid. That might really shake up the "oil interests."

tagman · February 2006

Rather than stand up like a man and admit you were wrong, you just continue to whine and squirm

It was YOU who incorrectly quoted the Civic hybrid city MPG at 40 instead of the correct 49. I think you could do a little "standing up like a man" yourself, as you say. Your whole concept of "whining and squirming" is irrelevant to me.

I only post what is my opinion. If I use data, I make every attempt to be accurate. I will not be engaged in personal attacks because someone disagrees with me.

Additionally, your rather unkind and unecessary remarks violate the spirit of the posting guidelines for the Edmunds forums.

It is my opinion that based on the current prices of the vehicles we have discussed, that when one factors in the resale and the fuel efficiency, the REAL price of gasoline, particularly in California, and further considers the benefits of cleaner emissions, and optionally the potential tax benefits, as well as HOV car-pool benefits in California, there is enough data to suggest that the hybrid is a legitimate alternative (and not the only alternative) to the conventional ICE, particularly, but not only, in California.

I find nothing embarassing about that opinion. Some will agree and others will not. That is what this forum is all about.

If you would like to dig deeper into the hybrid discussion, may I suggest the hybrid forum from this point forward? Some of your posts can be quite engaging, if you will just keep out the personal attacks.

TagMan

tagman · February 2006

IMHO, the best technology is the one which substantially reduces or eliminates the requirement for fossil fuel.

Welcome words. I agree. You may find this little piece of data interesting:

link title

WOW! Don't you think?

TagMan

turnbowm · February 2006

Indeed, the money spent in importing fossil fuel is mind-boggling! Unfortunately, the situation will get worse before it gets better.

markcincinnati · February 2006

It is, I suspect, all about money. It is somewhat unfortunate that our President used the term addicted, since that is perhaps a bit more negative than other words. But no matter how we look at it, the world depends upon energy to move forward in virtually all areas of human endeavor.

As long as "gasoline" remains relatively inexpensive, what is the economic incentive to develop alternatives? It could be argued that we should place some cost on pollution, but until it is too expensive to pollute, we will continue, I suspect, to do so.

Yep, I am pretty much a follower, if not a disciple of Adam Smith.

And, with the following as food for thought, I suspect we will work to continue to support our "addiction" when we are "forced" to economically:

"The largest known oil shale deposits in the world are in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable. For potentially recoverable oil shale resources, we roughly derive an upper bound of 1.1 trillion barrels of oil and a lower bound of about 500 billion barrels.

For policy planning purposes, it is enough to know that any amount in this range is very high. For example, the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, 800 billion barrels
of recoverable resources would last for more than 400 years." - Rand Corp. study

Or if oil shale were used exclusively to satisfy present demand, our recoverable resources would last for more than 100 years -- if we used ONLY these resources.

You can imagine we will continue our "addiction" based first on the "economics" involved in doing so, then on more, shall we say, altruistic motives.

Our lust for the L and the P in our LPS cars will, I would imagine, continue unabated -- and grow, in fact -- until or unless it becomes impractical and/or unaffordable to continue. Diesels, Hybrids and eventually fuel cells will (or can) "fuel" this lust well beyond our lifetimes, apparently. Only if the ecological impact becomes an economic inconvenience will there be much impetus to change as long as we have a near and long term supply of "oil" the likes of suggested by the Rand study.

I'd love to have the turbo diesel for its performance and mileage improvements -- in that order.

And, running my A6 TDI on bio-diesel would be hunky dory too -- and I understand the car would smell like french fries too! :shades:

grandaddy · February 2006

Great post Mark. Not everyone is aware of the tremendous oil reserves this country has, but we do have them. Apparently we want to keep our reserves and use up the other reserves from around the world. Actually this is not a bad plan.

I can't wait to get my hands on a good modern diesel in a year or two. I am partial to Lexus rather than European cars so I hope Toyota is working overtime on diesel technology.

lexusguy · February 2006

We'll they built a 2.2L turbo diesel specifically for the European IS. There are no plans to bring it to the states though.

tagman · February 2006

I can't wait to get my hands on a good modern diesel in a year or two. I am partial to Lexus rather than European cars so I hope Toyota is working overtime on diesel technology.

In my opinion, if your desire is within one year or two, as you stated, your best bet for purchasing a diesel in THIS country will probably come from Audi, VW, or Mercedes Benz . . . all definately German.

I am looking forward, as I have mentioned on other posts, to the new Mercedes GL SUV with the diesel engine. Possible wrench in the gear is that it may not meet the strict California emissions requirement. A new one can not be bought out of state for the purposes of importing it into the State. The State of California will not register it unless it becomes a used car, previously registered, and has a minimum of 7,500 miles. This is how the E-Class diesel has been handled. So, hopefully the new GL will be cleaner, but the current predictions are that it will not be clean enough.

Regarding our fuel reserves, the primary reason for using the other reserves from around the world has not, IMO, been a "plan" as you put it . . . but has mostly, IMO, been a matter of politics and market price. Do you in fact know of a "plan" that you could elaborate upon?

Luxury Performance Sedans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles