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
it happens pretty much any time he or his cohorts bring up the ridiculous "buying a hybrid is a bad financial decision" point
it happens about once a day
OWNAGE - it's what's for breakfast
(does it make any of you wonder whether he or his brethren are paid by someone to post here? If you check his post record, he has to be posting 8 hours/day, solid. That, my friends, is a JOB.)
But then you totally ignore my postings about not having anything against anyone buying a hybrid. If you look even farther back I even make references to considering a 2004 Prius.
Give it up!
I don't know what is making you so desperate!
I raise simple questions based on poor logic, and your response is rude, to say the least.
You guys raise the same issues day after day, running the same tired flag up the flagpole, in the hopes that some uninformed viewer is gonna say "oh, I never thought of that" all the while boring the rest of us to tears.
"Buying a hybrid does not save you any money"
over and over......
Really I am ok with you wanting to characterize the Toyota Prius as saving the western world as we know it, preserving it for untold future generations... yada yada..
Your point being?....
The 60,000 th Prius has been sold and so the tax credit will dilute and eventually will sunset!!
In CA, the Prius solo decals are capped at 75,000. Now it has me wondering if I get a 3 dollar free ride across the Bay Bridge, Dumbarton, San Mateo, and San Rafael Bridges? The Golden Gate Bridge is 5 bucks so that is almost most certainly a NO!!??
My personal CPA calls me up and asks me if I am considering a Prius?(gee I wonder if he reads what I write here?
I am tempted to call the business CPA and ask him if they have any Prius deals like they did last years $100,000 Hummer deals !!!
My CPA neighbor drives (you all will never guess this) a Honda Civic (non hybrid) !! I wonder what that means!!??
..."In our analysis, only two of the six hybrids we have tested recovered their price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership [and] that is only if buyers are able to take advantage of limited federal tax credits"...
So if we can connect the dots, while it SOUNDS like the feds give a 3,400 dollar tax credit for Prius's, the folks most likely and able to buy a Prius, the tax credit isnt allowed under tha AMT!!??
Let me see if I can operationalize this. IF you don't have a Prius, then the fed offers a 3,400 tax credit. If you actually can afford and can actually buy a Prius, when you go to file for the tax credit, the AMT disallows the 3,400 dollar tax credit. OK......I think I got it.
Hmmmmmmm, and some folks on this board accuse me of using smoke and mirrors.!!????
that's pretty far from my perspective
honestly, I agree with much of what you write here
So the fed tax credits or more directly disallowed under AMT makes the Consumer Reports 2/6, ZERO for six?
40,000+ miles annually x 5-6 yrs.
Camry 4c Fuel usage: 1335 gal / yr x 6 yrs @ 2.50/gal = $18,000 gas cost
Prius Fuel usage: 800 gal/yr x 6 yrs @ 2.50/gal = $12,000 gas cost
This ignores any tax incentives. The Prius cost just under $24000 vs a new LE Camry with the same features @$20,000.
It is an unusual situation but never say never
I understand through a prior post there is no way you'd get into a Jetta nor Civic.
So if we do a Jetta TDI $12,000 and Civic $15,795 FUEL
So with an 24,000 Prius, 18,000 Jetta TDI and 12,600 Civic cost.... The real question is the residual value or what you can sell it for in the 6th year with 240,000 miles on the clocks.
That leaves Prius, Camry, Accord, Sonata ( likely candidate due to it's super low price and improved reliability).
I assume that at 240,000 mi all of the above have a value of $2000 or less.
Be that as it may, if all have residual value of 2k (assumption or reality doesn't really matter) then in fact the Civic still comes out ahead. (15795 gas + 10,600= $26,395/240,000=) 11 cents per mile vs a Prius (22,000 gas + 12,000 fuel=34,000/240,000=) 14 cents per mile.
In regards to the Jetta TDI it is .0067 cents per mile more (.1167) expensive than the Civic. However once you go beyond the 240,000 mile mark, it is simply awesome. So in my case I had to evaluate the chances of it going to at leaast that mileage (500k-1m is the real goal)
I really had the same attitude toward VW. But after taking a long hard look at it obviously took the plunge. It has been a stellar performer. Except for a rear door lock pin strengthening recall, it has been simply flawless. The Honda for the same amount of mileage also has been also. However the brake pads and tires seem to wear WAY faster than the VW Jetta.
Except I have no interest in buying a Civic or Corolla .. or Jetta. The former two for size reasons, the latter because it's a VW.
It's the Prius, Sonata ( soon a likely option ), CamCord.
Size and comfort are the primary criteria. All the rest of the math is inconsequential because these are the only vehicles in the running. For another driver the 3-4 y.o. Civic/Corolla is a better choice no question.
I've been too brainwashed by the media to live with one car for that long, though I do keep a vehicle longer than any of my friends or colleagues.
Still, a car is essentially a power plant on wheels, and sometimes power plants should be retired. But if it's a better power plant than a decent % of the others on the road, I guess it's better to keep it on the road. Even if it's a smelly diesel, it might be doing less damage than a ten-year old Exploder. I dunno. You guys can do the math on that, I guess.
I would totally agree with your take. However on a business vehicle (1987) I put app 250,000 miles on a Toyota Landcruiser before selling it for - 44% loss or -3.14% per year. At app the 178,000 mile mark ( 10 years to be specific) it was directed by CA state DMV to the "SMOG ONLY" station (MUCH MORE STRINGENT inspection and testing procedures used) where they summarily hope to shoot those old horses in the head, send the rubble to the bone yard and ship the scrap off to be reconstituted into new Honda's and Toyota's
Again as mentioned, it was sold at the 14 year mark and at that time the body and frame easily had another 16 years of life left (30 years). Now, I do not know the design parameters on the life of a gasser power plant, but this one obviously had quite a bit of life left at the 250,000 mark (tested and verified, no guess here).
I have been able to ferret out the design life on the (diesel) VW Jetta TDI engine and it is 25,000 hours. So if the "avg speed" is between 45/50 mph, then we are talking a min of 1.1 M.
So as you can see, some of the reason for the 500k-1M goal is part history, part science, part projection, part reality, part seat of the pants, etc.
Don't forget V8 trucks and SUVs. V8 trucks from Ford and GM outsell the top 4 selling sedans combined, so far this year. I don't think gas prices are that much of a deterrent to buying larger vehicles. I want to have a PU truck and would give up owning a car long before giving up my truck. I just sold a 2005 Passat diesel. You ask why? several reasons. First, that was why I bought it, to make a few thousand on the demand for diesels. Second as much as I liked the little car, insurance alone would pay my gas bill for the PU truck. Why not a smaller truck. That is simple also. Small to midsize trucks sold in this country get lousy mileage. Give me a midsize with a 4 cylinder diesel engine and I will give up the larger more comfortable truck. I'm not squeezing into a Taco to gain a measly 4-6 MPG. I would downsize if offered 40+ MPG in a midsize truck. Not everyone thinks that cars are the way to go even with gas prices up a bit. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a new SUV or PU truck in my subdivision. They far out number cars.
When you have a $3500 a month mortgage, a $250 a month gas bill is nothing. I remember not too many years ago people were paying more than that a month for cell phone service. You cannot go out to a decent restaurant in this town and spend less than $250 with 4 people.
Personally, I don't believe cars the size and quality of the Echo or Yaris should be allowed on the freeways.
That difference is enough of an incentive to not buy a hybrid.
My issues with the Prius are:
1. They are not PZEV. You still have to run the ICE to produce electricity to charge the batteries that only give you a short time on straight electric power. To call a Prius a PZEV is misleading.
2. It uses a totally or near totally non-renewable resource. Can you run a Prius on straight ethanol which at this point costs more per gallon to produce than gasoline?
3. The use of E10 or E85 yields an interesting pollution issue. There is an increase in hydrocarbon emissions and you can add acetaldehyde to the equation too. Acetaldehyde is what gives you that wonderful hangover after drinking to much ethanol. In vapor form, it irritates your lungs, eyes and the upper respiratory tract. The increase in unburned HC adds to smog and has it's own problems.
The CA state regulators really do not want to own up to the fact that despite all scientific, economic and political studies, etc, indicated , not only did MTBE NOT do what it was pro ported to solve, but in fact cause even more costlier (to mitigate) and persistent pollution than the unleaded regular it seeked to mitigate !!!??? It almost permanently increased the cost per gal of unleaded regular. The FORCED adoption cost untold BILLIONS of dollars in regulatory compliance. Not only that but the now regulatory DE compliance costs continue to keep the price of unleaded regular higher than it needs to be. To their credit they did a 180. However they should have listen to the testing and testimony that indicated it was a bust before it was ram rodded through as law !!!
The truth is we need to be truly very skeptical, but as heaps of praise for ethanol and E85 indicate we are not as a whole!!
Another little detail. Ethanol does NOT travel well in oil pipelines that diesel and unleaded regular travel in. What this means in English is ethanol in up to 15% MORE quantity needs to be transported to the blending points. So you thought your highways are clogged with industrial traffic now!?...
Good point. They were also rated for emissions and GHG based on the combined 55 MPG. With an average user getting 47 MPG or less, that being an unknown, emissions are at least 15% higher than the EPA rating. If you want to make comparisons. The Civic hybrid gets much closer to EPA mileage than the Prius. Plus it is higher rated emissions than the Prius to start with.
You are right the EPA and CARB are handing out that PZEV rating to make certain cars look better than they really are. My truck should be PZEV rated as well. It shuts down to zero emissions at all stop lights and RR crossings.
I am still waiting to see emissions tests with ULSD. It is supposed to be at all stations in CA as of the first of this month. The tests are based on 500 PPM sulfur diesel. With less than 15 PPM those tests should be much better. Maybe better than many of the current gas cars.
How is Toyota getting around the 2007 mandate for ULEV selling the FJ Cruiser that is only LEV rated. Maybe the sale of the TCH white washes the dirtier FJ Cruiser. Toyota has it down. "Sell a clean car, so you can sell a dirty one".
What is going to hard for diesel is NOx. Since diesels are lean burn engines and lean burn environments promote NOx, therein lies the problem. Gassers have had all these years to get their emissions ducks in a row and now diesel is faced with getting their ducks in a row in a shorter time span with crappier fuel.
Kind of funny though, gassers are still dirtier than diesels in several respects and in order to make them really clean, they have to resort to hybrids.
Gagrice, your comment about Toyota selling a cleaner car like the Prius and dirty car like the FJ is not unique to Toyota. All of the manufacturers do this. They are allowed so many tons of emissions so they do a balancing act with the cleaner vehicles against the dirtier ones.
see. it's when you make comments like that that you lose quite a bit of credibility.
You can't go downhill forever, dude. Eventually you actually do have to come back up the hill.
do you expect readers here to just say "Yeah, there should be long downhills on the EPA test. Damn gubmint!!"???
As to motorcyclists, they are like every other person on the road. There are some good cyclists and some really crazy cyclists. The latter cause most of the problems and give the rest a bad name.
I never said anything on the E85 forum.
That was probably me. I have a 2005 GMC Sierra Hybrid. I like it though it does not get close to EPA estimates. I would not trade it for a smaller gas PU that is for sure. I am patient. I can wait for a diesel PU to make it to our shores.
I had two of my best friends that I raced Moto-Cross with get killed on the street. People in cars pulled out in front of both of them. My ex-boss is in a wheel chair at the Veterans Home in Boulder City. The result of a Motorcycle accident on his Harley. So no, I think it is a big risk riding a motorcycle on the highway. And I loved riding across the desert at high speed. Not on the road.
last time I checked, you should be blaming the guy who caused the collision
If I am walking down the street and you punch me in the head and cause a concussion, you are gonna blame me because I wasn't wearing a helmet????
You guys will go to all sorts of lengths to rationalize your behavior.
yes, yes, small cars are unsafe. Tell that to your insurer when you in your truck plow into one. I am sure yuor insurer will consider that when he raises your premium through the roof, as he should.
When a large car/SUV collides with a small car like a Yaris or an Echo, the small car is going to lose. It is a matter of physics. It does not matter who is at fault for causing the crash in the first place.
However, I am sure that my insurer will raise my rates when you plow into me because you drive a small car and I just happen to be there in my Jeep Liberty when you hit me.
However, I am sure that my insurer will raise my rates when you plow into me because you drive a small car and I just happen to be there in my Jeep Liberty when you hit me.
However, as per the insurance companies, those Support Usama Vehicles have way more injuries because they allways roll over off the road and kill it's inhabitants as well as others, so the bottom line for the insurance companies is, it's a wash as both cost them $.
hmmm... well, this isn't exactly the place for this discussion ... but "losing" is all relative.
The results of a crash depend on so many miniscule factors that it would make your head spin.
For instance, depending on exactly how they collide, a small car can be more apt to stop in its tracks and even rebound off of a large heavy object. Its sort of like dropping a stone and a cinderblock off a building. Because of its mass, the cinderblock impacts and crumbles, the stone bounces and maybe gets chipped. Plus, when we're talking about a Truck or SUV colliding with a much smaller vehicle, there is a chance, again depending on exactly how they collide, the larger vehicle may flip over due to being hit so low compared to its center of gravity.
All things considered, I feel safer in a smaller, more maneuverable car due to its inherent accident avoidance properties in the first place. I used to drive trucks exclusively up until I got into an accident that I could have easily avoided had the vehicle I was driving been lighter and more responsive.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Why do you care about importing oil?
I'm not really concerned about importation. I don't think our foreign policy is governed by how much oil we import. I think it IS governed by ensuring that the free market has access to cheap oil. Very different issues, though they both require a strong military presence by the US.
If we stopped importing oil do you think we'd have a smaller military?
I think there is value to consuming less oil, but I have no delusions that it will change our foreign policy objectives.
On the other hand our foreign policy is MOST definitely affected by ensuring the free market has access to cheap oil. And by how much oil we do import.
"If we stopped importing oil do you think we'd have a smaller military? "
You might want to ask this question in the context on why we are protecting Korean and other Asian interests and of course European interests, i.e. NATO. and "Cheap" 6/7/8/ dollar per gal European oil!!