if hybrid cars are designed to save on gas, why do they cost so much more? you'll just spend the same anyway

Question

what is the point on buying these cars? auto manufacturers say you will save so much money, but you are actually spending abotu 15 to 20 percent more on the vehicle, plus maintenance costs are way higher than a standard car. Why do auto manufacturers market them as good for the environment instead? the reason is obvious, cause no one cares!!

Answer 1

These questions have been around since the advent of Hybrids. I owned a 2002 Toyota Prius and found that as the car aged the gas mileage dropped to about the same as a Toyota Corolla of the same year. The dealer said this was caused by the battery pack aging and not being recharged as efficiently as it was when it was new. This happened at about 55 k, and prompted me to cancel my order for a 2004 Prius and buy a Mercedes Benz CLK 230 for only about two thousand more that the Prius. I have been very happy with the Mercedes and will never consider the hybrid approach again.

Answer 2

I agree with Tony. Another thing is that studies have shown that hybrid cars do not give you the same gas mileage as the stickers says. The EPA's system of testing doesn't take into consideration real-life terrain for driving (i.e. slopes, bumper to bumper stop-go traffic). The EPA simply places the car on a leveled dynamometer.

Another thing which I think is stupid is that they use a super-refined form of gasoline called Indolene clear, which will make a gas-guzzler look like a hybrid.

Actual tests of hybrid cars reveal that they get anywhere between 36-40 mpg, not 50.

In that case one would rather save money on an efficient gasoline engine car.

My '89 Buick regal (17 years old) has 205 hp and does around 36 mpg, and that's a six cylinder 2.8L engine! Very Cheap. Very efficient. High Quality. Proven technology.

Even the Camry, with an 4 cyl. doesn't yield such high mileage and such high hp.

Finally coming back to your question, companies supposedly charge a lot of money because the technology in the car is very advanced. bull****!

Answer 3

Why do dirty tree hugging hippies drive 1970's VW vans that spit out smoke while they spread the word to save the planet?

Answer 4

People care.....and I do agree with you....I also think if you buy a hybrid you should get some kind of govt kick back on your taxes or something.

Answer 5

price to manufacture also they get the mony instead of lets say 711

Answer 6

But I think some care.

Answer 7

becouse you care for enviroment.

Answer 8

The "hybrid car" (or, perhaps more accurately, the "hybrid automobile") movement capitalizes on the ignorance of people unable to appreciate the diversity of operational requirements among owners of superficially identical vehicles.

Direct Comparison of Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Cars

The non-hybrid 2007 Toyota Camry with an automatic transmission starts with an MSRP of $19,955; the '07 Toyota Camry Hybrid starts with an MSRP of $26,535 -- an increase of more than 32.97 percent over the cost of the non-hybrid. Since the hybrid only comes with an auto, I'm not using the m/t figures for comparison. Based on a $6580 difference in the costs of the cars (which will be greater after you calculate sales tax, etc.) and assuming the EPA figures are valid, and assuming no maintenance and/or repair costs for either vehicle:

If you drive 100% in the city and never on the highway, and if gasoline costs $3.000 per gallon, the Hybrid breaks even at 131,600 miles. If you drive 100% on the highway and never in the city, and if gasoline costs $3.000 per US gallon, the Hybrid breaks even at 550,088 miles. If gasoline increases to $5.000 per US gallon, these figures drop to 78,960 and 330,052.8 miles, respectively.

If you have so much money that you don't care how it is spent, and if you can afford to pay (and will pay) for the environmentally-friendly recycling of your car, buy a hybrid -- but don't try to apply the lessons you derive from your fantastic world to the lives of ordinary people.

For those interested in saving the environment, the $6580 could have been MUCH better spent investing in a local biodiesel or ethanol production business.

Hybrids in the Real World

Under actual operating conditions, hybrid cars tend to deliver, on average, 70-80 percent of the EPA economy. Perhaps oddly, hybrid trucks and SUVs tend -- under actual real world operating conditions -- to deliver slightly better (10-20 percent) than rated fuel economy.

From another site:

>> Consumer Reports found the Civic hybrid to get a paltry 26 mpg in the city. The Prius only got 35.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f04053.htm#how

"Fuel economy estimates are calculated from the emissions generated during the tests using a carbon balance equation. We know how much carbon is in the fuel, so by precisely measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust we can calculate the fuel economy."

Real world tests are always going to be more accurate. Consumer Reports and Edmunds give much better estimates of fuel efficiency than the EPA. <<

On that site, a Prius owner claimed 47-48 mpg based on the onboard electronic display (not on calculations made between fillups).

Toyota actually complained about the EPA test procedure, claiming it unfairly underestimated actual mpg by 32 percent (50 mpg vs 66 mpg); however, this claim was quickly dropped when owners of the Prius threatened (and maybe filed) a class action suit against Toyota. The owners were getting on average 36-38 mpg (24-28 percent LESS than EPA, and a whopping 74-84 percent less than Toyota claimed).

The "66-mpg Prius" was a 2000 model that derived its fuel economy figure from the Japanese "driving cycle test" (see http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Hybrids_Electrics/2000_Toyota_Prius.S274.A1416.html ); its EPA figures were 47/37.

By way of rebuttal, Toyota pointed to people that are getting 80+ (some getting 110+) mpg from their Prius cars; however, these people have devoted their lives to maximizing their mpg through the extraordinarily unusual operation of their respective vehicles, and their results are in no way representative of the realistic performance capabilities of the vehicle.

Toyota currently says regarding the Prius "2006 EPA-estimated 60 city/51 highway/55 combined mpg. Actual mileage may vary."

As long as we suffer the privations of tort reform, companies like Toyota will be able to hide behind the "your mileage may vary" shield, while simultaneously capitalizing on the effectiveness of their disinformation campaign.

Misleading the Elitists through Disinformation

Environmentalists fail to appreciate that they are victims of their own prejudices; they fail to understand that, in the economic war being waged by manufacturers of all sorts, the enemy (the manufacturer) will capitalize on the preconceptions and prejudices of the buying public -- and they especially fail to understand the goals of auto manufacturers.

An analogy regarding misinformation is the famous campaign of the Allies (primarily England) to decieve German war planners regarding the Allied invasion of Europe in WWII. The Germans WANTED to believe such an invasion would occur via the Pas de Calais, so the Allies spent lots of money feeding the Germans information that appealed to German prejudices, convincing the Germans that the Allies would do exactly what the Germans wanted to believe -- even though the Allies never intended to invade via the Pas de Calais, but through the beaches at Normandy. By the time the Germans realized what had happened, it was too late for them.

And so it is with those demonizing reliance on hydrocarbon fuels and/or private ownership and use of "luxury automobiles," vans, pickups and SUVs.

Some Real World Non-Hybrid Examples

And for what it's worth, calculated between fillups, my parents' '96 Lincoln Town Car got 32 mpg on long trips and 28 mpg in combined city & highway driving, despite its being driven more aggressively than my '93 Ford Crown Victoria LX (210 hp, 12/16 mpg actual). Obviously, I got rid of the Crown Vic'.

My parents had to get rid of their '96 Town Car when my mom became disabled; they now ride in an '03 Lincoln Town Car L (the long one; not the hideously bobbed version with the short rear doors) that consistently gets more than 25 mpg combined. They looked at a huge variety of vehicles, but nothing else met their needs.

My 1989 Ford Taurus SHO got 36 mpg twice, and averaged 32 mpg during my daily commutes; on a 388-mile round trip (in which a sustained top speed of 142 mph was observed, and I learned the cruise wouldn't set above 125 mph) made with 5 stops in 4:05, the SHO simultaneously averaged 28.3 mpg and just over 95.02 mph. My 1994 Chevy Astro (200 hp) Starcraft conversion van averages 25.2 mpg on long trips, 22.8 mpg combined; my parents' 1994 Chevy Astro EXT cargo van (V6, auto trans, a/c, p/s) has averaged almost 23 mpg for the past 530,000 miles!

If for my parents and me suitable replacement vehicles both existed and were within our respective means to afford (not only to purchase, but also to maintain and repair), and if such vehicles offered better fuel economy (and/or lower GHG emissions) than the vehicles we now own and operate, both they and I would purchase such vehicles. Moreover, I can't imagine anyone that wouldn't EAGERLY make such a trade.

There is no rational person eager to destroy the environment, no person who enjoys refueling his or her vehicle, no person that is proud for the fuel his or her vehicle consumes: all we alike yearn for better fuel economy and lament the damage caused by the production and operation of our respective vehicles.

However, it is an affront to human dignity that anyone would -- through the prescription or proscription of forms of conveyance (whether outright or by regulation), or by the unequal taxation thereof -- impose against another person a lifestyle more meager than the lifestyle already enjoyed by the latter person.

Greater Non-Fuel Operational Cost of Consumer Hybrids and EVs

Non-electric and non-hybrid "consumer" vehicles (not locomotives or earthmoving equipment) have very much greater reliability in terms of MTBF and MTBO (mean time between failures/overhaul), and very much lower maintenance and repair costs. Unfortunately, increasing the scale of hybrid and EV "consumer" vehicle production will not overcome this problem, but as non-electric and non-hybrid "consumer" vehicles are attritted, maintenance and repair will become increasingly reliant on highly-trained, skilled workers and "licensed/authorized" repair facilities that will effectively dominate the market.

For most people, this will directly translate to a significantly lower standard of living (and less opportunity for education, etc.) -- and, for civil libertarians, the threat is against the basic freedom provided by relatively simple and reliable equipment easily maintained, serviced and repaired by vehicle owners and operators.

Correspondingly, if repair parts (fuel cells, batteries, etc.) are readily available (meaning you can get them off the shelf at your local Wal-Mart and replace it yourself without reliance on any unusual or "special" tools -- not that you have to go to the dealer and/or wait for the factory to order one, have it built, have it shipped to your dealer and your dealer can then install it for you) and affordable, what is going to happen to the junk?

Fuel cells and batteries are MUCH greater hazards to the environment than gasoline and/or diesel fuel tanks (even if the content of such tanks is spilled) -- and they are more difficult to protect from damage in crashes (which both adds to the cost of the vehicle AND increases the rate at which they will have to be replaced).

Embracing the Environazi "Microcar Mandate"

For people that live within 10 miles of their place of employment, for people that are able to rely on public transportation, for normally-ambulatory persons of short stature and/or thin body form, for people that don't have any need to transport others and/or those that don't care about the comfort of their passengers -- small cars and "fuel efficient vehicles" are the sensible choice.

However, having been tortured for hundreds of miles in Camrys and Civics and a variety of other "FEVs" -- and having been tortured by the MUCH TOO SMALL rear seating areas of the Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, Ford Excursion, Ford F250/350 Crew Cab (and a host of others) -- I can say with absolute confidence that there is no vehicle currently manufactured with a passenger compartment of sufficiently large dimensions.

Dodge attempted to alleviate this problem by extending its Crew Cab, giving more knee and "legroom" in its MegaCab; however, the greater problem remains unchallenged: at each seating position, the seat height needs to be "chair high" (since I'm between 69" and 70" tall, for me, this means not closer than 19 inches from the floor when the seat cushion is fully compressed), and the upright portion of the seating surface ought to be about 29 inches from the dash or the nearest portion of the upright part of the seat in front thereof. The dimension measured verically from the uncompressed seating surface to the vehicle's ceiling should not be less than 42 inches. A comfortable width across the knees of a seated adult is 32 inches (16 inches R and L of the centerline).

At least one passenger door opening needs to be sufficiently large to permit the loading and unloading of a semi-rigid disabled adult (the '03 Lincoln Town Car L rear door is adequate for children and small adults, but inadequate for anyone taller than about 64 inches).

Sadly, for normally-ambulatory people, the 1957 Volkswagen Sunroof Sedan (ultimately created by Adolf and Ferdinand) had better ergonomics and more comfortable seating than any current automobile (at least with which I am familiar) -- but even it needed improvement.

Synopsis

Hybrid cars stroke the egos of elitists and feed the irrational beliefs of unthinking environmentalists -- making both categories of consumer easy prey for the automobile manufacturer: THAT is the point.