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
EIA graphs illustrate that unleaded regular is not refined without a big % of diesel (various forms) being produced. For discussion purposes, out of a 42 gal barrel of light sweet crude, 19.3 gals of unleaded regular and "diesel" 9.83 gals 45.95% and 23.4% respectively.
http://www.sanjosegasprices.com/crude_products.aspx
However light sweet crude is NOT the main part of the market!!! So the other than light sweet crude can be bought for app 30-40% CHEAPER than light sweet crude. So at 2.99 per gal how many folks would rather pay 2.09 to 1.79 ?? Don't know which line folks would be standing in but I know which line I would be standing in.
So indeed not counting the 37% advantage over unleaded regular going to 23% of the passenger vehicle fleet will reduce light sweet crude importation a min of 23% !!!!
I think it would also be instructive to point out how narrowly focused this discussion thread is. Small cars (passenger vehicle fleet population) are a minority of app 25%. Diesel is 2.9% and hybrids are less than 1%. So in terms of mpg consumption and like for like mpg consumption we are so called "cutting edged"
---------
Well, most modern trains in the US used diesel-electric engines... which is, essentially, a diesel version of a hybrid engine. So it stands to reason that if companies can make giant-sized versions of it for trains, then they can miniaturize it for cars.
:P
...but that drivers, should they drive in the same manner that is applicable to standard gasoline vehicles, tend to get a dramatically lower MPG fuel efficiency than what the EPA reports.
Whereas diesel vehicles tend to get a MPG fuel efficiency that is higher than EPA estimates. And that is gained WHILE driving as you would a standard gasoline vehicle.
:shades:
PS:
(I tend to see hybrids selling at a higher premium than diesels. Though, the price premium discussed here is really overdone.)
So for example, what is not to like about a 50 mpg/60 mpg diesel/hybrid; that might consistently exceed EPA MPG?
FACT: A Camry you could buy for $19,000 is NOT COMPARABLE to a Camry Hybrid.
I am going to disagree. First when a person is looking for a given size/type vehicle he will look at several to find what he wants. Many folks these days will want to know about hybrids. They go to Honda or Toyota and find that they can buy a Civic for $13k and a Civic Hybrid is $22k. Same scenario works at Toyota with a Camry or Highlander.
IF what you are saying is totally accurate there would be a Camry or Civic avalilable with only the Hybrid option. How many stripped HCHs, Prii or TCHs have you seen for sale? Just because they add a $2000 NAV does not exempt that car from comparison to a non-NAV car.
What Toyota and Honda have done with full knowledge is price the hybrids out of mainstream buyers range. That makes the Premium as has been stated as much as $9k or even more. If you just want a good transportation hybrid you are out of luck. Because Toyota and Honda are not going to sell you one. To you salesmen in the audience. When was the last base model Prius on your lot. I have not heard of anyone buying a $22,305 MSRP Prius. In San Diego if you could find one it would have a TMV of $24,229. Try to find a stripped TCH in San Diego for less than $27,500. To me that makes the Premium on a stripped Camry Hybrid $9362. That is what it would look like to the person shopping for a basic hybrid car. They don't exist. But that does not mean you cannot use what is offered as a comparison to a stripped Camry.
All the doodads that are added to the hybrids are part of the hybrid PREMIUM. If you have some facts that I missed please feel free to respond. Oh and the $9300 premium on the base TCH over the base Camry is before trying to beat the dealer down on the base model. I can see an easy $10k difference.
if u can't figure out how to compare apples to apples, then don't attempt it
an apple with NAV and hybrid system costs $2500
an apple without NAV and without hybrid system costs $500
the NAV costs $2000? OK, then the hybrid premium is $500.
If we can not agree on this basic rule of comparisons, then we really need to know that. IMO, your approach is worthless.
If your support of diesels only survives based on your approach, then you really need to re-think your support of diesels. It's standing on VERY thin ice.
This isn't borne out by the data being generated daily at GreenHybrid. The middle 50% of all Prius II drivers is in the range of 45-51 mpg combined. Some are as high as 65+ mpg combined. It's very dependent on individual conditions.
Actually this issue is in the past somewhat with the new HCH and the new TCH both of which seem to be achieving exactly their EPA values - or better.
Part of the problem is that the components of an individual's driving equation are not normally well known..
.. how much of a daily drive is on the Hwy?
.. at what speeds on the Hwy?
.. in what type of terrain?
.. in what type of weather? cold? wind? rain?
.. how much of a daily drive is in the City?
.. what type of 'City' driving? Stop and Go or crawling @ 10 mph?
.. how long is each drive?
Based on these and a factors like passengers, cargo, tires, etc. one can create an individual weighted average EPA Fuel Economy value for each driver/vehicle pair. Mine should be 51.5 mpg which is exactly what I am getting at present. It will fall to about 47 mpg in winter.
Here is the curious point, the basic models of the Prius and TCH are not in demand as much as the more equipped models. We have 3 basic TCH's in stock that people drive then place an order for a more loaded up one. We have 4 unfilled orders for the $30600 model yet 3 unsold basic ones. Now it's early in the life of the TCH's so everything is still shaking out but it is similar to the Prius situation during the last two years where 75% of all of them were the fully loaded ones ... and they still were over-suscribed.
When a basic Prius with package 3 or 4 comes in it lasts maybe a week while 3-5 more loaded models will be delivered.
While a basic Prius sells pretty much at $24K ( except in DC ) there are plenty of HCH's at $22K or less with the Fit hybrid soon to be lower than that. If a buyer wants a hybrid there soon will be one for every budget from about $16K up to $60K.
I have no problem with apples to apples. I like Fujis better than Galas. I like golden delicious over red delicious.
So what is your position on buying a hybrid for basic transportation? What is Joe average to use as a comparison. No matter what vehicle is compared to a hybrid we get this same apples to apples rhetoric.
It is much easier with diesel cars. I can get a basic E320 or E320 CDI for about $800 more. If I drive 15k miles per year I save approximately $450 per year. I also get a slightly faster Mercedes with the diesel. You see they don't force you to buy a $2000 widget when you buy the diesel. You can just get what you want.
If I see one common complaint on the hybrid board it is getting the car they want with the options they want. You got to have a moonroof if you want sliding armrests etc, etc. No I forgot you have to buy the XLE to get sliding armrests. Toyota & Honda have decided what you should or should not have in the car they sell. Not much room for the individual in their cookie cutter way of building cars.
but I still think you have to compare apples to apples if the POINT of the discussion is "Are hybrids worth it?"
One discussion is a marketing discussion. The other is a technical analysis that requres an apples to apples approach.
I guess that can be taken several ways. Either the basic TCH is way over priced compared to a basic Camry, or the demographic for hybrids is still the wealthier citizens of America.
I think our resident salesman has answered that question. The basic TCH is over priced while the loaded one appeals to those that are interested in the hybrid technology at whatever the price. It does not sound like many people looking at a Camry are interested in buying the hybrid version. In other words if they come in and look at an XLE and it is only slightly less than the comparably equipped TCH, I would think they may opt for the latest innovation. I don't think that is happening.
The Camry hybrid is effectively at an inventory level of zero, so that assessment isn't accurate.
Toyota is not having any problems selling its hybrid cars. They are in high demand at current supply levels, the sales volumes are strong, and the inventories are scarce. Prius sales are effectively at mainstream levels, so the car appears to be transitioning from geekdom to the mainstream. Overall, TMC is firing on all cylinders here, I'd be pretty happy if I was an executive there.
Same with the Camry line. A low-end Camry does not have near the "creature comfort" items of the TCH.
If you are going to properly compare prices, then compare cars of "similar equipment" or the comparison is null and void.
As you can see in the midsized sedan forum here it seems to range from $17K up to $32K depending on one's own perception of what is an acceptable level of pricing.
It is not a slam dunk on the hybrids certainly. Just as there is here, skepticism is still strong about the whole concept of hybrids. Wait til we have to 're-educate' the public about how clean diesels really are.
In addition IMO Toyota is moving the product line into new territory where most Camry's were pretty basic at $20000 to $22000 now they seem to be looking for the $22000 to $27000 buyer wanting more features or performance.
I'm not denying that fact. I am saying the difference in price between the bottom dwelling Civic and cheapest Civic hybrid is a LOT of money. So if a person on a budget was so moved to buy a hybrid they would find they could get a plain vanilla Civic for about $9k less. That makes the premium $9k for a hybrid Civic. You are assuming that this person looking for a hybrid wants all those $7k worth of amenities that are added to the hybrid.
This is where we really differ. I don't think that Toyota or Honda want those people to buy a hybrid. They are not interested in selling any more hybrids than they have to for the "Green" glow to hang over their heads.
If they are able to sell them, then it would be a pretty good indication that enough people want those features to include them.
Hybrid production is limited in comparison to demand, so of course the automakers will equip many of the cars with as many options as possibie, because the options add profits for the manufacturer. As production expands, you'll see cars with less equipment, as the top of the buyer pool becomes saturated, which will prompt the automakers to shift to capture the lower price buyer.
They better be watching their dealers closer. At least in CA. I have visited 3 different dealerships in the last month. Only one where a sales person asked if they could help me. Maybe it was the new GMC I was driving. They knew they could not compete. I don't know you tell me. I think they have peaked and are headed for a fall. Just an observation from my own perception of their dealers as a whole. That does not include our GOOD friend and salesman kdhspyder
Compete with what exactly? Honestly, I don't follow where you're going with that.
TYVM
While this quote purports to convey information, perhaps your answer conveys more of what the buying public's sentiments are. So for example, cost per mile wise the Civic gives me a commute at lower cost and in case of accident, costs less to repair, not to mention lower over cost, and if one pays per mo, lower payments. I am sure the insurance is also cheaper. So in a manner of speaking, way way less cost is way better.
I'd say it's the opposite. If anything, the public tends to prefer well-equipped cars, and will pay a premium to avoid the plastic seats and AM radio. The market for low-cost new cars certainly exists, but sales figures show that it doesn't comprise the majority of buyers in the market, by any means.
(Hey, did you just add that emoticon?...)
Here's a marketing trick for you: Many products are created with three tiers, specifically to encourage you to purchase the middle-priced option. The lowest priced product is often used to provide a low quotable starter price that helps to make the mid-level product seem superior, while the high-priced product helps the mid-priced product appear to be more sensible, because it's a bit cheaper.
Many consumers look at cars in terms of monthly payments, so it isn't that tough to convince many of them to buy an upgraded model. Not many folks want the cheapo base model.
I would not disagree with what you are saying. If you look at the Honda and Toyota line, trying to decide on a line can leave one pretty "numbered out."
I do know that I buy kind of middle to top level amenities. I would like to see a break down on the 4 top selling sedans. Because of the way Honda & Toyota market those cars it would be easy to verify which sells the best. I would go for the XLE or EX models myself. Only because I know from experience it is easier to resell a well equipped used vehicle. Just like it is easier to sell a 4WD SUV than a 2WD, even though most will never use the 4WD.
I still feel that after 7 years on the market that Toyota is not interested in selling a lot of Prii. Last I checked the numbers are still well below last year this time. Yet there are waiting lists.
Interesting article concerning ethanol. They state biodiesel is a better alternative. More energy return for the investment.
This is the same rationale by which Lexus' are purchased over Toyota's or Audi's over VW's.
It's neither right nor wrong it's just personal preference.
Honestly, we've gone over this point so many times that it's becoming a head banging exercise:
-Firstly, TMC sold about 107,000 Priuses in the US last year. Those numbers are in mainstream territory, which hints that this technology is ready to gain widespread acceptance.
-Secondly, TMC has made no secret that it is diverting hybrid drivetrains toward Camrys. Obviously, TMC sees the high Prius sales numbers, and sees an opportunity to migrate it to its bread-and-butter sedan.
-Therefore, the declining sales of Prlus is the direct result of the shift of production to the Camry. If you aggregate all of TMC's hybrid sales (Lexus GS and RX, Prius and Camry), you'll see growing sales numbers and short inventories.
The Prius was meant to break hybrid technology among the innovators and the early adoptors. Now that seems to be working, TMC is testing whether the conservative buyers are ready to buy. If you were a smart product planner trying to prove a market, you'd do the same.
Bill Ford pledges xxx,ooo hybrids from Ford.
Bill Ford complains that Toyota is hogging all the hybrid components.
Bill Ford says that hybrids are not really the major thrust of Ford's longterm strategy, flex fuel vehicles are.
What this mean:
With 6 HSD vehicles currently being sold in the US alone and potentially 2 more soon to debut there are a lot of components needed.
With the Prius at a rate of about 8000/mo.
With the TCH planned to reach 8000/mo.
With the Rx400h/HH reaching 5000/mo.
That's roughly 250,000 HSD vehicles annually for the US market alone. It's small potatos overall in this huge market but it's also huge for a single company. In fact that's about the same as the entire sales from Mazda.
Now factor in a Tundra and a Sienna somewhere and the 300,000 unit mark is reached aiming for 400,000.
TMC has invested millions pioneering the technology and creating the market, and now it wants to reap the returns of its investment, not to give it away to anyone else. It's a big bet, and experimenting now to see whether Camry buyers will take to the idea is a critical test for its expansion plans.
I'll bet that Toyota sees this as its key differentiator to conquer GM and Ford once and for all. It's not just an optional motor, it's integral to the company's plan to become the world market leader.
I don't think so.
Toyota is smarter than that.
That's not any different than comparing the bottom dwelling Civic to the highest end Civic EX. The difference in those two means merely "additional equipment", right?
Similarly: The only difference between the high end EX and the HCH is the hybridization option.
That's the only "hybrid premium" - actually having a car with the hybrid portion of the drivetrain on the car.
It's completely incorrect to state that "because the Hybrid is xxxx dollars more expensive than the LOWEST PRICED non-hybrid counterpart that every bit of the xxxx dollar difference is because of hybrid parts." That's just not true. It's all the OTHER, non-hybrid related equipment that makes up the vast majority of the price difference.
> "because the Hybrid is xxxx dollars more
> expensive than the LOWEST PRICED non-hybrid
> counterpart that every bit of the xxxx
> dollar difference is because of hybrid parts."
Agreed. However, shouldn't we also count the US$8K or so it will cost to replace the batteries sometime mid-life of the car?
No not at all. A moonroof or a NAV is a comfort amenity. The hybrid drive is to give better fuel consumption and lover emissions. So the person that does not want more than a basic hybrid there is no choice but to buy all the doodads. How many people since we started this hybrid thread wanted a basic Prius or HCH? A lot as I recall. They are not available because of one reason. Honda and Toyota are only wanting to look green not really push the green agenda.
It's all the OTHER, non-hybrid related equipment that makes up the vast majority of the price difference.
That is exactly my point. If you are looking for a cheap high mileage Civic. The hybrid is way more expensive than the entry level Civic. I don't know why that is such a hard concept to understand. If I can buy an entry level Civic for $13k and the cheapest Civic hybrid is $22k as is the case in San Diego, I have to pay a $9k premium to buy a hybrid. Pure and simple. If I wanted a hybrid I have to have all the crap that goes with it making the PREMIUM on the hybrid $9,000. Unless of course the dealer would remove all the "vast majority" of unwanted garbage. Not likely.
How much does this limit the hybrid market to those that would be interested in furthering the technology? Do you see any hybrid coming up from Toyota or Honda that will make the technology more affordable for folks making under $85k per year? Every new one that comes along goes higher and higher. I see reference to a Fit hybrid on this board. Nothing from Honda that I have read. Not sure if I would fit in a Fit. I know the Yaris is about the size of my shoe. Buy two and have roller skates.
Why should they make a stripped model?
If sales on their hybrids start to decline, then I bet you'll see more variety in the way they are equipped. But, until then, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
ON TOP OF THIS, I want to say that, in my opinion, they sell them loaded to better spread out the costs of the hybrid system. Obviously, manufacturers make more profit on cars with more features. If they sold a stripped down hybrid, I bet there would be a bigger price difference between a basic civic and a basic civic hybrid then there is between loaded up models.
'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
From this page:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS/606290314/100- 6/BUSINESS
That should allay any fears about no one making a cheaper hybrid.
And when I said:
"The difference in those two means merely "additional equipment", right? "
and you disagreed, Gary, that is just silly.
Anything that makes a car more expensive is "additional equipment." Moonroof, NAV system, whatever.
None of that equipment has ANYTHING TO DO with the so-called hybrid premium.
If a person wants a "base HCH" or a "base TCH" it can be done. I got a manual tranny HCH for $19,324 and a "base level" TCH for $26,759 myself, personally.
I think the list of people who want a "hybrid" with manual roll down windows, no alarm, no A/C, no CD player, et al is probably about enough people to fit into a 5-passenger van.
These car companies spend MILLIONS of dollars a year doing market research and developing cars which are configured and can be configured in ways which the VAST MAJORITY of NORMAL people would want to buy them.
Right now, the only people who want the hybrids (with the exception of a VERY FEW PEOPLE) ALSO want the amenities that the cars come with. If you don't then buy a base model like I did. I don't need or want leather seats or a NAV system or a moonroof, and I got my TCH without those options.
There are also base Priuses available too - Railroad James got his as a base model. So it's not impossible, and please don't act like it is.
What if Honda has been delegated the small efficient hybrid market segment where Toyota has been delegated the midsized segment. It might be natural selection in that Honda's IMA is less expensive to produce and works really well on smaller vehicles but not so well on midsized vehicles like the Accord. OTOH the HSD system is more complex and expensive and works better ( more power and better efficiency ) on midsized vehicles but might overprice lower cost vehicles.
Each realizes that the other has an 'inherent' advantage so they implicitly agree not to tread on the other's turf; c.f. Honda announces a goal of 100K small 4c efficient hybrids by 2009 while Toyota brings out the Estima ( Sienna ) hybrid minivan in Japan.
Diesel is another whole war.
Well then you tell me the actual price difference between a plain jane Civic and a Hybrid Civic. I am not arguing the fact that Toyota and Honda are able to sell a doodad loaded hybrid. That should be obvious. I am saying you can paint the hybrid option as any price you want by adding stuff that is not necessary to the entry level buyer.
But that doesn't mean that hybrids aren't "worth it" which is the point of this thread, no?
I guess I have to disagree. I still don't think the hybrids are worth it. The only way I can see justifying a hybrid is for those that have very long commutes. They may or may not pay off even then. I guess that makes me stupid to you. I would have to say the same thing about a Jetta TDI. They are good for long commutes. Not sure I would own one otherwise. Unless I was buying to make money on it.
I would take the risk on a VW TDI to make money than any of the current hybrids.
So is your issue with the drivetrain or with the options? Is your argument essentially that you don't like hybrids because they include NAV systems and A/C?
No, my argument is that Toyota is only trying to look green for mainstream America, while they only offer their hybrids to the wealthier clientele.
There are those here that think that hybrids are for everybody. I say they are only for the upper middle class & the rich. It may come as a shock to all you fat cats that there are people that have a hard time affording a $15k car. Most younger Americans are not making the demographic $85k that the Prius was aimed at. If you want to admit the hybrids are expensive then we agree. If you want to admit that they are not for the average mainstream buyer then we agree. If you think they are priced for the middle to lower middle class, we disagree.
I don't see anybody, including Toyota, doing any such thing.
Do you really think that Toyota is trying to convince us that the Lexus GS hybrid is being marketed to entry-level buyers? As for the Prius, it was marketed to innovators and early adoptors, not to the price conscious. The Camry is its recent plunge into the mainstream middle-class audience, and it is not being positioned as a budget alternative.
This is how disruptive technologies are marketed -- the innovators, who are largely insensitive to price, pave the way. This should be easy to understand, and you're fighting windmills of your own creation.
I will be VERY interested in seeing how well the Honda "low cost" hybrid car does in the USA, and at what price point they have it sitting.
The car companies do their research and they KNOW who will buy a certain car and a certain type of car. Why do you think Ford sells so many F-150 trucks? It's because the market told them what drivers of a truck want, and they made that truck. (It also helps that Ford has more dealerships than anyone else)
I never said Toyota or Honda are marketing hybrids to poor or young people.
you are making a marketing argument, but trying to pass it off as a technological superiority argument - that diesels are better and more cost effective.
Diesels MAY BE both, but your comparo does not prove your point.
Why does this even matter? The vehicles appeal to two different segments of buyers. It's not a homogenous market. The products are designed to sell to the buyer most likely to buy it.
A $14-$16K buyer might prefer the base Civic or the hybrid Fit @ say $18K but doesn't want his/her transportation to cost more than $20K. A Prius/HCH shopper thinks the $22K HCH is a bargain.
That price difference is available from Edmunds and other sources. But it does not support your argument that hybrid technology is too expensive. It does support an argument that "You can't get into a hybrid unless you spend $X, and you CAN get into a car for less than that."
but it's not a very useful comparo
I do not disagree with your marketing argument. I do disagree with the leap that you make from that argument.
I do agree with Toyota (and Honda) that middle and upper income people are more likely to spend disposable income on technology that decreases pollution.
ps I am also NOT saying that hybrids are a smart economic decision. But we are all kidding ourselves if we claim to be making smart economic decisions through our car buying, especially those of us who only buy new cars. You are throwing plenty of money in the gutter when you buy ANY new car, so let's not get all high and mighty about stupid economic decisions that Prius owners make, when our own car buying decisions are motivated by many facotrs beyond economics (style, horsepower, image, etc., all of which are valid)
You're absolutely right, it really doesn't matter. We don't have enough apples here to bake a pie, but we sure have a hell of a lot of fruit salad...