Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys The Almighty Buck Science

When Hybrids Do (And Don't) Make Sense 720

Posted by Zonk from the gas-is-really-expensive dept.
prostoalex writes "Recently NPR, CNN Money and Wall Street Journal Online have all dedicated some time and space to discussing hybrid vehicle pros and cons. It seems that hybrids do not make much financial sense if (a) you're buying after getting yourself into a debt with not really good interest on a car loan, (b) your battery requires replacement after being out of warranty, (c) your daily commute is not too long, so the price markup you pay for a hybrid does not translate into long-term gas savings." From the CNN article: "They may make a social statement you're interested in, but if you want to save money because of rising gas prices, you're heading down the wrong road, at least for now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When Hybrids Do (And Don't) Make Sense More

When Hybrids Do (And Don't) Make Sense

Comments Filter:

  • Some key points missed on NPR discussion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dfn_deux ( 535506 ) * <datsun510&gmail,com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:36PM (#13689580) Homepage
    (c) your daily commute is not too long, so the price markup you pay for a hybrid does not translate into long-term gas savings.
    Well considering that AFAICT all the currently available gas/electric hybrids on the market get considerably worse mileage on the freeway than they do in stop and go traffic, I doubt that the argument of a long commute equaling a greater total savings always holds true. It seems that the break even point is quite a bit longer of a commute than the article would imply and also a prius is much much more expensive than other gas vehicles that make considerably more sense for long distance commuters I.E. nearly any production motorcycle or a number of used subcompact models such as a Honda CRX HX, or Geo Metro. The comparison gets even worse when the inaccuracy of the EPA estimated mileage ratings come into play. Some sources [autoblog.com] are reporting that the EPA estimated mileage for the current generations of hybrids is as much as 42% more than the real world mileage, while the margin of error for compact gas only vehicles is only about %30.
    The main advantages of owning a hybrid now are that early adopters will drive the market to create a demand for innovation in the marketplace. The NPR discussion did point this out, but failed to hilight (at least some of) the reasons I have noted above, though I must admit I was too busy pay attention to the road on my *really long* commute to be sure that I didn't miss some of the speakers' points.
    • I heard (and it was briefly mentioned in one of the articles) that hybrid cars don't work well in the cold. Is this true?

      Where I live it gets a bit nippy in the winter. Hell, it gets a bit nippy in the summer. There's nothing like a good ol' fashion 28%-efficient infernal combustion engine to keep the warm air blasting through the vents. I wonder how well a hybrid vehicle would do?

      And if you think that's a minor point, you don't understand what a real winter is.

      • My guess is badly. Batteries are far less effecient in the cold. My only concern would be how to keep the heater going steadily. Powering it off the batteries would be horribly ineffecient.

      • Hybrids work fine in the cold (Score:4, Informative)

        by LiamQ ( 110676 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:16PM (#13689971)
        I've gone through four Canadian winters with my Honda Insight, and it has fared just fine, even with temperatures below -30 degrees Celsius. The fuel economy is noticeably worse in cold weather, but the same is true of any car.

        The Honda Insight in brutally cold weather is still better for fuel economy than almost any non-hybrid in ideal driving weather.

        • Re:Hybrids work fine in the cold (Score:4, Informative)

          by Dhrakar ( 32366 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @09:32PM (#13690845)
          I live in Fairbanks Alaska. While out driving around, my Prius does just fine. The only problem is that I have to play the which-vent-does-the-air-come-out game (eg; push the button for the window defrost wait till the toes get cold, push the Auto button again until the widow starts to frost over ... rinse/repeat) however, this is only when the outside temperature is colder than about -35 to -40. At -50 the heater just can't keep up -- but then neither could my Ford Tempo :-)
              Luckily, I have a heated garage for it. Otherwise I would be worried about the 12v battery freezing (since it is in the back of the car and I did not want to drill any holes to install a battery blanket on it) when it gets down to -40. I do have a frost-plug heater and oil-pan heater (which get plugged in when the car is parked and it's colder then -10F).
           
    • Motorcycles only make sense in environments where there's no or very little snow. Here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, you simply can't get by with a motorcycle as your sole means of transportation. By the middle or end of October, you can't ride it any more. Not until probably May.

    • Re:Some key points missed on NPR discussion (Score:4, Interesting)

      by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:59PM (#13689796) Homepage
      It's not street vs highway mileage. It's "stop and go" versus running free. Hybrids are great in stop and go traffic, because you're running off the battery. If you drive an open road, a Corolla or similar small car would make more sense.

      Part of the perceived problem is that the traditional mileage ratings don't apply to hybrids very well. Hybird drivers fleeing from the Hurricanes (on the ultra-congested roads) got much further away than the others, because their fuel supply was lasting 12-13 hours, IIRC.

      • Re:Some key points missed on NPR discussion (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Technician ( 215283 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:52PM (#13690248)
        Part of the perceived problem is that the traditional mileage ratings don't apply to hybrids very well. Hybird drivers fleeing from the Hurricanes (on the ultra-congested roads) got much further away than the others, because their fuel supply was lasting 12-13 hours, IIRC

        I can second the slow no go gas time. I put an inverter in mine. I used it last summer camping to run lights and a fridge by locking a key in the car and leaving it running. Over a 3 day campout I used less than a quarter tank of gas. If I was running from a storm, and stuck in traffic, I could go a long ways by ditching the AC.

        EPA does not provide a listing of how much gas a car burns sitting at idle. This the the rate that that got people about 50 miles to a tank of gas leaving Houston. I wish the EPA sticker listed gallons/hour for all the driving done by not touching the gas, but pressing and releasing the brake. With the Prius, and the AC off, I believe it could go for days. Most other vehicles overheat and suck the tank dry in less than a half day.

        If I had to flee a storm, I would much rather do it in a Prius.

    • Myth: all hybrids worse on highway than in city (Score:5, Informative)

      by LiamQ ( 110676 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:09PM (#13689891)

      Well considering that AFAICT all the currently available gas/electric hybrids on the market get considerably worse mileage on the freeway than they do in stop and go traffic [...]

      Honda's hybrids all get better gas mileage on the highway than in the city:

      • Honda Insight: 60mpg city, 66mpg highway (source [edmunds.com])
      • Honda Civic Hybrid: 46mpg city, 51mpg highway (source [edmunds.com])
      • Honda Accord Hybrid: 29mpg city, 37mpg highway (source [edmunds.com])

      I've been very happy with the Honda Insight that I bought in 2001.

    • This is not true. I have owned a CIVIC Hybrid for 2 years. Most of the miles I drive are rural, 50MPH roads with very little breaking and I get 48.4 MPG. The car is rated at 51 MPG highway. So, it is a little below the EPA estimate, but not that much. In fact, I bet if I consistently drove the speed limit, I'm sure I could get up to 51 MPG. Not only does breaking charge the batteries, but going down hills charges them too, more than going up hills depletes them.

      Also, I have not had ANY problems in cold
    • I've owned a Prius for over a year now, and I can say that even under the worst circumstances it gets better gas mileage than my last car did under the best circumstances. Gas mileage is a bit lower on the highway than in the city (electric only is only good up to 34mph), but it's not *that* bad. I consistently get 45-50mpg on the highway, and I consistently get 50-55mpg average city/highway. The lowest my weekly average has ever gotten, during the dead of winter, with the heater blasting (which makes it
    • 1. Actually, only the Prius gets worse highway mileage than city. The Honda hybrids all get better highway than city. I don't actually know about the newer hybrid SUVs and whatnot.
      2. However: The Prius still gets better highway mileage than any other internal-combustion gas car out there (there are diesels and cars you can buy in other countries that get better, though)
      3. To clear up some misconceptions I've noticed, the reason the Prius gets better mileage with stop-and-go driving is that there's a lot les

    • How length of commute affects a Prius (Score:4, Informative)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @08:51PM (#13690661) Journal
      One point people miss is that the designers of the Prius, at least, were pursuing low emissions with fuel economy being a nice side effect.

      When the exhaust system is cold, there's a tradeoff between fuel economy and emission control. The car's software chooses emission control. Drive a Prius for 15 minutes and look at the central display's bar graph of fuel economy over time. It looks like a staicase, where each 5-minute average is much higher than the one before. Until you get the catalytic converter fully warmed up(*) you won't see the advertised mileage. In a five or ten minute commute you can even get a Prius to average less than 40 mpg.

      (*) The car's software is so determined to keep the catalytic converter at its most effective temperature that it will start the gas engine even if the car is stopped and the battery is charged, just to keep the catalytic converter warm.

      If all your trips are under 10-15 minutes then buy a Prius for the reliability, comfort, or low pollution -- you won't get the gas mileage.

    • Re:Some key points missed on NPR discussion (Score:4, Informative)

      by Spoke ( 6112 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @09:07PM (#13690749)
      Some sources are reporting that the EPA estimated mileage for the current generations of hybrids is as much as 42% more than the real world mileage, while the margin of error for compact gas only vehicles is only about %30.
      These people who are getting crappy mileage in their cars are bad drivers.

      They are the people you see constantly speeding up and down, speeding on the freeway at 80mph+, are hard on the accelerator and hard on the brakes and zipping from stoplight to stoplight.

      I've yet to find a car which doesn't meet it's EPA mileage estimates when driven even only somewhat smoothly.

      Tips to improve your Gas Mileage [fueleconomy.gov] really should be tought in basic drivers ed as they would make driving a lot less stressful as well as being more fuel efficient.

  • Or maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Frizzle Fry ( 149026 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:37PM (#13689586) Homepage
    Maybe for some people, buying a car that pollutes less is about trying to harm our environment less so that we don't end up like LA rather than saving money or "making a statement".

    • Re:Or maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PhotoJim ( 813785 )
      There is more to a car's social responsibility case than how much fuel it consumes. The manufacturing cost and harm to the environment in making it are also issues. The batteries in hybrid cars are quite toxic, something not to be understated. It is possible that for low usage, a gasoline car could be proven to be more environmentally friendly than a hybrid.

      • Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Informative)

        by mfarver ( 43681 ) * on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:03PM (#13689836) Journal
        "The batteries in hybrid cars are quite toxic"

        Not at all. The current generation of hybrids are all running Nickel Metal Hydride "D" batteries, which are pretty safe overall. See Panasonic's disclosure [panasonic.com]. The worst chemical in them is the Potassium Hydroxide... which you should avoid contact with but which is not generally considered toxic. (Like the lead used in convential starter batteries)

        You can simple toss NiMH batteries in the standard municipal waste stream, although recycling them is always a good idea.

        The batteries carry an extended warrenty, 7-8 years IIRC. Accelerated testing has shown that they will probably last considerably longer and the price for replacements has already fallen to about $1500.

        Buying a hybrid might be hard to justify financially (since the gas savings are unlikely to offset the price premium for a long while) but its still a good thing environmentally.

        • Re:Or maybe... (Score:3, Informative)

          by cagle_.25 ( 715952 )
          I respectfully disagree; the most hazardous chemical is the nickel. From a longevity standpoint, the KOH will be neutralized relatively quickly, while the nickel atoms will be around in some form or another for eternity.

          From a hazard standpoint, see the EPA's page on nickel [epa.gov]. As metals go, it's not amazingly toxic, but it's not benign, either -- note that the RfD is 0.02mg/kg.

          The Panasonic page was interesting; I'm not sure how they got the batteries classified as "safe for disposal in the normal municip

    • Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dfn_deux ( 535506 ) * <datsun510&gmail,com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:41PM (#13689639) Homepage
      I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that on a whole buying a used car which gets decent mileage is going to have a greater enviromental impact than is put forth just in energy production to manufacture a new vehicle (of any power train type) let alone the impact of getting the raw materials from which the vehicle is to be composed from. The sweet spot right now is buying a compact car built in the past 10 years which has had good regular maintainence. This will provide nearly all the creature comforts as are found in newer cars (with a few extravagant exceptions I.E. GPS, DVD, back up radar, and the like) along with the lion's share of modern emissions equipment and reasonably low fuel economy with known (basis for estimate of) future maintainence costs and reliability.
    • I have a Volkwagen Golf TDI (turbodiesel) that averages 40 mpg per tank in the summer and 46 in the winter - the difference being the running of the a/c. Diesel is cheaper than gas right now, and the VW diesels are relatively clean. When the low-suphur diesel fuel is more readily available, things should get even better. VWs in general are unreliable, but I have had no problems. I wish Toyota or Honda could get their diesels clean enough to run here.
    • The affect of plant/tree removal must be considered when considering our impact on the world.

      Perhaps the worse thing that could happen is the invention of fuel that is basically FREE, and perhaps even a zero emission fuel. Because such an event would cause the parking lots and roads to expand at an even faster rate, causing more destruction of more plants and tree, and thus causing arguably more enviromental damage than a expensive ( and perhaps dirty ) fuel.

      More expensive fuel would be good for the environ

    • Re:Or maybe... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by n9891q ( 863780 )
      It all depends on the problem you're trying to solve. For maximum gas mileage, get a bicycle. For good mileage, take the bus. If, however, you need a vehicle that can take the Boy Scouts camping or skiing on weekends and still get reasonable gas mileage for a daily commute in the city, a Ford Escape Hybrid can make sense. If you're looking for a sedan-like vehicle that produces geographically dispersed pollution, a plug-in variant of a Toyota Prius can make sense. If you own your vehicles for ten years

    • You are missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ogemaniac ( 841129 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:56PM (#13689777)
      You can help the enviroment far more with the same money. For example, for around $75 a year, several companies will buy pollution credits on your behalf, negating the emissions by your regular vehicle. In most states, the same amount of money can also be used to have your electricity come from "green" sources. Therefore, if you had two cars and a home, you could negate ALL of your primary emissions for about $225/year, which is far less than the cost of owning a hybrid.

      Hybrids, at this point in time, are nothing but a wasteful political statement. There is almost no circumstance where they are socially beneficial, nor beneficial to the owner in any other respect than his or her ability to feel righteous.

    • Re:Or maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )
      Maybe for some people, buying a car that pollutes less is about trying to harm our environment less so that we don't end up like LA rather than saving money or "making a statement".

      I think the articles are about the concrete results of buying and driving a hybrid. They're not about "trying", or about intentions, or about fear of "end[ing] up like LA".

      The articles aren't about how you feel. They're about measurable costs and benefits.

  • if you want to save money because of rising prices (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:38PM (#13689603) Homepage Journal
    What would be the right 'road' to go down? (assuming that because of job or where you live cutting out driving altogether is unrealistic).
    • A small diesel engine does very well from a fuel economy standpoint. Unfortunately small diesel cars tend to be either very expensive or not very reliable when compared to their gas counterparts.
    • two wheels

      bicycles get incredible gas mileage...zero gallons of gas will run it forever!

      in all seriousness, my 22 year old motorcycle gets better gas mileage than just about any car out there. properly tuned it gets somewhere between 45 and 50 mpg. newer smaller engine bikes (the little 250cc ninjas and stuff) get even better. i've heard of bikes getting around 70mpg

  • short distance? charge it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:39PM (#13689613) Homepage
    Several people have been charging their hybrid's batteries overnight from the AC mains, and for a situation where the commuting distance is short, this makes plenty of sense. You may never even have to start the engine, which will still of course be available for longer trips.

  • FIN 101 (Score:3)

    by mikejz84 ( 771717 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:40PM (#13689619)
    Google some basic concepts of capital budgeting like Internal Rate of Return or Net Present Value and figure out if a hybrid is the right financial decision for you. For me it was not.

  • If you're after better fuel efficiency (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kafka_Canada ( 106443 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:40PM (#13689620)
    Buy a diesel. And if it's hard or impossible in your region, petition your idiot politicians to loosen up the emissions regulations (diesel emissions, even on older diesels, are generally speaking a lot better than gas emissions, yet diesel's more highly regulated).

    Better efficiency (often) than hybrids overall, it's good on highways too, and it's far more cost-effective, too.
    • only if the car manufacturers wise up and start importing them: every time I go and visit my parents in Europe it's amazing just how many cheap and extremely fuel efficient diesel cars are available, while here in North America unless you want to overspend for a VW Passat for example, you're pretty much SOL.

    • Re:If you're after better fuel efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dfn_deux ( 535506 ) * <datsun510&gmail,com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:56PM (#13689771) Homepage
      I don't know where you are located, but here in California diesels aren't subject to any emissions or equipment testing for registration, while gasoline vehicles are subject to frequent and increasingly difficult testing standards. Also, the claim that diesel is cleaner only holds true when using more cleanly refined diesel than is currently widely available in the US and even then only holds true when speaking of CO2 or HC emissions and quickly falls flat when particulate emissions are taken into account...

      • Re:If you're after better fuel efficiency (Score:4, Informative)

        by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:39PM (#13690156)
        In 2007, a big set of new federal regulations will come into play for road diesel, cutting the sulfur content drastically and requiring catalytic converters in new cars. That will drop diesel emmisions per gallon burned to right around that of gas.

        The problem that won't go away in 2007 is the winter demand for heating oil, which cuts into the diesel supply, since they're refined from similar weight crude content. Further natural gas development would help, but too many people are paranoid about it.

    • Diesel efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)

      by andyross ( 48228 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:13PM (#13689940)
      Buy a diesel. [...] Better efficiency

      This is a very common misconception. Diesel fuel is denser than gasoline. When you correct for mileage per fuel mass or (even better) per carbon output, much of their advantage on paper fades.

      Diesel engines are still slightly more efficient than typical gasoline engines, owing to the higher compression ratios used by the Diesel ignition process. The higher combustion temperatures, however, produce nitrogen oxides, which are a local pollutant. And of course a poorly tuned Diesel (or, often, just a cold one) generates a ton of particulate ("soot") emissions -- another local pollutant.

      And remember that Diesels idle very inefficiently (they have bigger and heavier pistons, and a finicky ignition mechanism that can't be run as lean as gasoline), whereas a hybird will shut down the engine and idle with no emissions whatsoever (well, minus battery drain due to the air conditioner, etc...).

      The best general advice that I've read is that a Diesel makes the best environmental choice for a long-haul vehicle that rarely idles, or for rural areas with little sensitivity to local pollution. They make rather poorer choices in the urban commute environment.

      Disclaimer: I love my Prius, and it just smells better than the Diesels cars I've known.

      • Re:Diesel efficiency (Score:3, Informative)

        by xs650 ( 741277 )
        Diesels are still more efficient even considering the higher density of diesel fuel. About 15 to 20% more efficient based on the mass of fuel consumed.

        That is at high power levels, at lower power levels the diesel advantage gets even bigger. Gas engine lose because the air flow is throttled. It takes power to suck the air past a partly closed throttle and that's a loss.

        Diesels consume far less fuel at idle than gas engines, partly because of the lack of power loss sucking the air past the throttle plate and
    • As everyone will mention bio-diesel now, I'd like to play devil's advocate instead.

      If I want to buy a new car right now then certain hybrids make sense in their own ways.

      First is price. What diesel powered car is available in the US for $20,000? The Jetta isn't. Most other economy cars aren't available as diesel. However, both the Prius and the new Civic hybrid are right at that $20k mark. I'd have to pay almost $2,000 more to get into a Jetta TDI.

      Second is interior. Have you ever been in a Prius? It h

  • You get 33 MPG city and 36 HWY.

    not bad for a non hybrid.

  • Cryogenics? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:41PM (#13689633) Homepage Journal
    http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?s=3390503 [kfor.com]

    Was reading about how this guy gets 120MPG. Was going to submit it to /. but didn't get around to it.

    Is the cost of a hybrid versus other ideas worth it? Anyone look into this freezing method?

  • How convenient does the "right thing" have to be? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmason ( 16123 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:45PM (#13689675) Homepage

    a Kung Fu Monkey [blogspot.com] blog entry from a month ago said this:

    Kevin Drum recently quoted a study which re-iterated that there's no "real" advantage to buying a hybrid. It's only just as convenient - so if you're driving a hybrid, you're doing it for some other reason than financial incentive.

    That made me think: what a perfect example of just how fucking useless as a society we've become. We can't even bring ourselves to do the right thing when it's only JUST as convenient as doing the wrong thing. And that's not even considered odd. Even sadder.

    • People don't like when other people have higher moral/ethical/work standards than they do.

      So, if you choose the considerate option, you're some kind of moralizing freak or tree-hugging anti-american socialist.

      The only thing they can accept is when the option you choose has the better appeal to the basest instincts, money, sex, power, etc.

  • when they do: evacuating New Orleans (Score:5, Interesting)

    by danharan ( 714822 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:46PM (#13689677) Journal
    See Why you want a hybrid [chron.com]:
    FYI, Renee and I finally got to Palestine, TX at about 5:45 AM -- 30 hours after leaving our house in Clear Lake. The Prius still has about 1/4 tank of gas...
    And if you're at least of the opinion that adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere might be making these storms worse you can appreciate the poetic beauty. Not all returns are financial.
  • If you wait until Jan. 1st of next year (in the US), the federal government will give you a fat tax credit with the purchase of a hybrid vehicle. This changes the financial equation considerably. My understanding is the tax credit won't cover the full incremental cost of moving up to a hybrid, but is usually more than half of it.

  • I bought my hybrid five years ago when they first came out. I was on the waiting list for the first of the Honda Insights. At the time gas was just over $1 per gallon. With the sticker shock over what I would pay for a simlar non-hybrid and with $5000 battery replacement, I calculated that gas would need to average about $5 a gallon while I owned the car for it to make sense. I bought the hybrid because:

    • I wanted to be a good environmental citizen
    • I wanted something different and cool to drive
    • I was s
  • I live in the mountains, meaning that my car needs to "go up hills." Wanting a more fuel efficient car, I test drove the range of hybrids, but eventually settled on VWs TDI. Why? Because every hybrid I drove absolutely labored to go up the slightest inclines, and gas mileage went down right along with it.

    The mother of a friend of mine recently purchased a hybrid SUV. When it switches from gas to battery, it jerks the whole vehicle, which they find incredibly annoying.

    Hybrids are still in the early a

  • i decided against a hybrid (prius) (Score:4, Insightful)

    by farble1670 ( 803356 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:54PM (#13689757)
    i looked seriously at getting into a toyota prius earlier this year ... here is my conclusion. the car was way overpriced for the quality. i was browsing the top of the line prius, which went for $27k. no discounts because it's in such high demand. honestly, the quality of the car was of something much less expensive. i think a $15k honda civic (gas) would wear much better. what really got me was the upholstery. it felt very cheap.

    so then you calculate the real cost. say the civic gets 30mpg, and the prius 60mpg (this is really giving the prius to much credit, but just for the sake of discussion). say you spend $40/week in gas on the civic, you'd then spend $20/week on the prius. you save $20/week on gas with the prius. but, you paid $12,000 more for the prius. divide 10,000 by 20, and you get 500, which is the number of weeks you'd need to drive the prius to break even. 500 weeks ~ 9.61 years. now factor in the possible battery replacement.

    i understand that at least part of this conclusion is based on the fact that the prius is in high demand, and therefore overpriced right now.

    • If comparing a Civic and Prius based solely on economic reasons, then yes, the Civic is a better buy than the Prius.

      If comparing a Civic and Prius based fuel consumption, emissions output (think greenhouse gasses), the Prius wins hands down.

      There's a lot more reasons to buy a Prius than any potential $$$ savings, which is why they are still selling as fast as they can make them.

  • Journalistic Meandering (Score:3, Informative)

    by jonniesmokes ( 323978 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:55PM (#13689758)
    I read the WSJ article and the author was comparing buying a new Prius with keeping his old car (can you say Apples to Oranges). When you compare buying a new car (say a 2006 Honda Civic) with a Prius the comparison comes out more favorable for the Prius.

    I ran my own numbers and found the Prius to be about $4100 more expensive, but with the $2000 tax credit and driving about 10,000miles/year you would break even in about 7.5 years assuming $3/gallon gas. Of course a bicycle is about $16400 less than the Honda and gas isn't an issue.

    The Prius has a nice 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on the power train (batteries included) so you'd be OK with the Prius instead of the Honda. But you'd be rich with the bike.

  • Owning a Hybrid certainly made financial sense for me. I bought a Prius early on, and sold it recently. Between what I got for selling it and the tax breaks I got when I bought it, I paid $1000 to own it for four years, including all maintenance.

    Of course, figuratively and litteraly, YMMV.

  • What happened to progress? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by B5_geek ( 638928 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:55PM (#13689767)
    My first car was a 1993 Honda Civic CX (Hatchback). Driving it modestly netted me ~60mpg.
    I paid $12,000 (Canadian).
    Today to find a car that get that kind of mileage will cost me $25k-$30k.

    WTF is going on? Are economy cars the "next-big-price-gouge"?
    Why are not all Standard cars getting 40+mpg?
    We have more platics in our cars then we did 12 years ago. We have smarter computers that manage fuel consumption better.

    If my company didn't require a car for my job, I would cycle to work everyday.

    To recline is devine.
    I love my recumbent!
    • Tall, wide tires. Cars are much bigger. Engines are much more powerful. And cars have many more safety features on there. Safety features add weight.

      And just so you know, plastic weighs more than metal much of the time. For example, the plastic panels on Saturns add significant weight. Basically plastic just isn't as strong under much except impact, so it adds a lot of weight when you make it thick enough to have the characteristics you need.

      Think of it this way, look at a race car. Weight matters a lot on

  • Prius vs. Corolla; up-front vs. marginal cost (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr. Zowie ( 109983 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMdeforest.org> on Friday September 30, 2005 @06:57PM (#13689781)
    When I bought my Prius, the price difference between a Corolla and a Prius (cars that are comparable except for the powertrain) was about $6,000. In 100,000 miles the corolla will burn about 4,000 gallons of gas; the Prius will burn about 2,000 gallons. Hence purchasing the Prius makes sense from a fuel-only standpoint at about $3.00/gallon. That price point seemed unlikely to happen when I bought the car and fuel was about $1.80/gallon in Colorado. Now that fuel is close to $2.80/gallon (and I'm 30,000 miles into that 100,000 mile amortization) it's doesn't seem so unlikely.

    But in the debate over pricing most people forget the all-important motivating difference between up-front and marginal pricing. When each mile costs a lot, you tend not to drive as much as when you pay for them all up front! This is the reason I buy a ski pass every year: although I may or may not get my "money's worth" from the pass over the whole year, I'm more likely to ski more times with the pass -- it's a no-brainer to head up the mountain. That convenience, for me, makes the pass worthwhile.

    Similarly, having a very fuel-efficient car makes it more likely that I'll actually use and enjoy the convenience of my car. If it cost me $50 every 200 or 250 miles, I might think more about hopping in the car -- but at $30 every 400 miles, I don't really think about the price of fuel when i'm deciding whether to zip off somewhere to go hiking.

  • I suspect hybrid cars will never take off until the day that their TCO is lower than those of petrol or diesel. Environmental statements are all very well and good for the few, but impact requires the masses and the masses follow the money (that's not necessarily a bad thing; I do it too).

    If petrol wasn't so ridiculously cheap, hybrid cars would make more sense financially. Financial sense leads to adoption. The tax $$$s might help the budget deficit too ;o)

  • I'm getting kinda fed up of people... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:07PM (#13689875) Journal
    ...telling me a product isn't for me. People telling me why I shouldn't buy an iPod nano (you can't store all your music on it, a mini is better...) or a GBA Micro (It's too small, it doesn't play games you can't play on another console, it's too expensive...) and now hybrids. The fact is, there are billions of people in this world and they all live in different niches with different needs, economic constraints and tastes. For any of these products there are probably thousands or millions of people whose needs are satisfied by them. The same is true of /. comments. They are often of the form "this product is of no use" rather than "it doesn't satisfy my particular requirements".

  • Also not if you mainly drive freeway (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Colonel Panic ( 15235 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:07PM (#13689878)
    Since hybrids make use of regenerative breaking (capturing energy during breaking to recharge batteries) they tend to get very good milage in city driving when compared to other vehicles. However, on the Freeway where you're doing little stop&go (well, I suppose that depends on how bad traffic is where you are :) they don't make much sense.

    Personally, I wish we could buy some of the smaller non-hybrid European or Asian cars here in the US. Many of these cars get 50+MPG without hybrid technology (no heavy, expensive batteries to carry around and replace). Cars in this category include the new Fiat Grande Punte and the SmartCar.

    Also, you can 'simulate' a hybrid if you're willing to drive like an old geezer: Drive as if physics matters. Coast to red lights (why are people so much in a hurry to get to a red light?). Since starting and stopping are the main impacts on gas milage, you can learn to drive in such a way as to avoid stopping as much as possible. Sure, you're going to be driving much less aggressively, but it works. I'm getting 31MPG in city driving in an '87 Acura Integra which is rated at 26MPG in the city. Not only does it save on gas, it'll save on breaks as well.
    • Good point about regenerative braking. But wait, there's more.

      Gas engines have one speed and power setting where they're most efficient. This setting is almost certainly not identical to your freeway cruising speed. A hybrid can cycle the gas engine between most-efficient and turned-off using the battery to keep your speed constant.

      Good point about driving technique too. Another way to put it is that every time you hit the brakes in a 20th-century car you have just pumped oil from a war zone and burned it t

  • Adaptive Fuel Economy (Score:3, Informative)

    by PDoc ( 841773 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:09PM (#13689903) Homepage
    An interesting trend is that fuel economies tend to be set by the price of the fuel. In other words, car manufacturers only put the effort into improving efficiency when they need to, and that's when people won't take any more. US readers might not believe me on this one, but their fuel is cheap, at least when compared to European prices. And thus, lumbering goliaths (aka SUVs) are still a reasonable proposition. It astounds me when I look at the performance/economy figures for American cars. An example is the new Ford Mustang (a tasty looking car, BTW). The 4L model gets around 200bhp, and about 19/28mpg. My Fiat Coupe is comparible, but gets 260bhp from a 2L engine, and more than 50mpg outside town (I don't live in a city). Hybrids are only there to keep the PR good. Whats needed is a fundamental modernisation of US cars.

  • Hybrid Price Premium == Guilt Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @07:13PM (#13689939)
    The price people pay for hybrids represents something of a guilt tax paid by the affluent. While they'll probably never recoup the price of the hybrid in gasoline savings, they will, in fact, be reducing their usage of the stuff, which is not a bad thing.

    Prices will need to be no higher, preferably lower, than current car prices if hybrids or any other similar alternative technologies are to have a lasting environmental impact. Only the economically privileged can afford to spend more to use less energy.

  • Diesel (Score:3, Informative)

    by tacocat ( 527354 ) <tallison1&twmi,rr,com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @08:15PM (#13690415)

    I have a VW Diesel Golf.

    It holds four adults such that a one hour drive is not uncomfortable but I wouldn't go cross-country.

    I get 600 miles to a 13 gallon tank of gas.

    It holds all my scuba gear without dropping the seats.

    Now if I could get Bio-Diesel it would be damn near perfect! No sulfur, very clean, biodegradable fuel and the Oil Cronies don't get a friggin' dime.

  • Where are the turbine-electric hybrids? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gm a i l.com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @10:01PM (#13690973) Journal
    Turbines have several advantages over piston engines:
    - less noise (almost none)
    - much better efficiency (double IIRC)
    - can burn anything (vegetable oil, natural gas, jet fuel ...)
    - less pollution (they burn better IIRC)

    They also have issues that make it impractical for regular cars:
    - must turn very fast to achieve the best efficiency
    - short range of usable speeds
    - high temperature (requires expensive materials)

    Those issues (except the last one) are automagically solved when the turbine is connected to an alternator instead of a car transmission.

    So why not just build a turbine-electric hybrid? The efficiency would be way above any existing car.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close