Here's something I think that most people don't think about when they decide to buy a hybrid to save money on gas. While they are correct in that they are conserving gas, they really aren't saving any money, because the cost of hybrids is significantly higher than the cost of gas-powered vehicles. Here's a quick comparison between two Toyota vehicles, of similar size, one hybrid, one all gas:

All Gas: Corolla - average mpg - 41.
Hybrid: Prius - average mpg - 60

Cost: Corolla - $17,780 - that's fully loaded - leather interior, sun-roof - the whole nine yards. You could get a nicely equipped Corolla for $15,215.
Prius: $21,275 - they only offer the single type of Prius, and this is much closer to the options you get on the $15K model, but I'm going to use the most expensive Corolla, just for sake of comparison.

Difference: Prius is $3,495 more expensive.

So how far do you have to drive to make up this price differential? About 150,000 miles (250,000 km), assuming an average gas price of $3 per gallon. To use the more realistic comparison of the $15,215 Corolla, you'd have to drive 260,000 miles (430,000 km) to make up the price difference.

This doesn't factor in the extra money you may have to pay in interest on a more expensive vehicle if you took out a car loan.

Now, while it is arguable that the average Toyota Corolla can go over 150,000 miles with proper maintenance, and possibly even go 260,000 miles, I do not think the average person owns a vehicle long enough to put that kind of mileage on it. And even if you did, the vast majority of time you owned your car, it would actually be more expensive to own the hybrid.

So what gives here? We all want to conserve gas, so why aren't hybrid vehicles comparably priced to gas powered?

You partly answered your own question. Hybrid vehicles are popular now, so most are selling for premiums over the sticker.

But more to the point, the cost of making a hybrid is more expensive because you have everything a gas vehicle has plus all the extras to make it a hybrid.

So what is the incentive then? Unless you are very ecologically minded (using the political not, scientific definition of ecologically), then what sense does it make? If there was really an interest in lowering dependency on oil, they'd have to offer a tax break on hybrid vehicles, or something of the like.

So how far do you have to drive to make up this price differential? About 150,000 miles (250,000 km)Divide that by 2+ for most European countries. Even at its highest, gas is still dirt cheap in the US compared to Europe. But here the prices have gone through the roof ages ago.

The US is a pretty bad example when it comes to hybrids and conservation, considering hardly anyone there right now needs to worry about gas conservation considering how cheap it is there. Not even enough to be bothered not to buy an SUV when a regular car would do, let alone a hybrid.

Exactly right Aldeth: Those who believe in efficiency as its own reward, and who want to personally do what they can to reduce their gas consumption. You can also factor in the time spent going and filling your tank into the equation... time and inconvenience is worth something to most.

There are many reasons people spend more on a car; a hybrid just gives one more difference to put into the equation.

And like I said they're pretty popular now. So much so that demand is higher than supply and the dealers can charge a premium over the STICKER.

The US is a pretty bad example when it comes to hybrids and conservation, considering hardly anyone there right now needs to worry about gas conservation considering how cheap it is there. I don't think it's a bad example when one considers that the U.S. is by far the biggest consumer of oil (both total and per capita) on the planet. Granted, this may be due to having cheap gas prices, but you cannot argue that any attempt to reduce oil consumption worldwide is going to have to start with the U.S. to make a serious difference.

Um, you pretty much negate your own view there. The US *is* the largest consumer of oil on the planet because you get it so cheap compared with the rest of the world (minus the largest oil-producing countries). It's a very simple logic. So much of the US population drives truck-like vehicles because the price of gas is not an issue, not because they'd really need them.

I'm not arguing that it'll have to start with the US to make a difference; I'm arguing that it won't happen en masse until the price of gas in the US is significantly higher than it has been since - well, forever. The only question is how high the price of gas has to get in the US for people in general to consider it to be so expensive to consider alternatives. The current high prices will go down, and I'm quite convinced that there'll suddenly be much less talk about hybrids in the US again. It's basic human nature to abuse any resource in abundance until it becomes too costly to do so any more - either monetarily, environmentally, politically, etc.

I see your point. However, it's a vicious cycle in the U.S. There are very few mass transit systems that are convenient enough to use to get where you need to be - which is very different from my admittedly limited experience in Europe. It seems like in major European cities, you can get a subway or train to just about anywhere, and get there relatively quickly. Not so in the U.S.

You see, the reason gas prices are low in the U.S. compared to Europe is not because we're getting some type of sweetheart deal from the Middle East oil producers, it's because it's not taxed out the wazoo like it is Europe. That tax is then used to pay for a great myriad of things, including a very functional mass transit system.

So really, it's not so much an issue of cost in the U.S., it's the ability to use other forms of transportation that are very limited. Even if the price of gas doubled in the next year to bring it to near European levels, people would still drive as no functional alternative transportation method exists.

Well, I'd say that the lack of decent public transportation stems from the same root... gas cheap enough that everyone can afford to drive with their own car everywhere. And it's not just gas, from what I know the yearly expenses for owning a car (all sorts of various fees for the usage of roads, technical check-ups, registration, etc.) in the US are negligible compared to the EU, for example. I'm paying four times what my car's worth on the market (which admittedly is very little since it's a 20-year old car, but still) EVERY YEAR if I want to keep my license plates. Add to that expensive gas and owning and using a car on a regular basis becomes a significant expense in regular person's budget. I believe it's far less so in the US from what I hear.

I know why the gas prices are lower in the US, and yes, it has mostly to do with not taxing it to high heaven, but having it available locally as well as getting it on the cheap from the various Middle East countries also helps. Bush isn't being so friendly with Saudi Arabia & Co. just because he likes their dress code.

Ah, I used to audit some Toyota dealerships in Canada and if you compared the Prius to the Echo which was pretty much the same car but with a normal engine the difference in price at the same level of options was roughly $10,000 Cdn.

I just about died when I saw that figure - even if you don't factor in the interest on that $10,000 the amount of driving required to pay for the difference was absurdly large - I think the breakeven point was somewhere in the 250,000-300,000 kilometer range. The price of gas has gone up considerable since then but it would still take an absurdly long time to recover the cost of that engine.

You also didn't factor in the cost of replacing the batteries. I've heard it could be 1-3K every three to four years. That may be incorrect so don't quote me on that. :)

One of the main factors in the lack of public transportation in the U.S. is that the federal government decided to use subsidies to develop the highway system instead of the rail system. IIRC, this was done expressly to facilitate the ability to move troops around the country in time of war.

As to foppy Aldeth's post: Whoa! I had no idea the difference was so great. I think Blackthorne TA hit the nail on the head, though. Hybrids, like light trucks and SUVs, are expensive because there is great demand for them. When I bought a light truck back in 2000, they picked me up at the subway station in a Prius. The salesman told me that they already had a huge waiting list for them, and this was back when Toyota was only leasing them.

Another reason why mass transit rail systems are having such a hard time catching on in many major US cities who could certainly use them (Houston being a prime example) is that the lobbies protecting the auto industry, and especially local auto dealerships, have very deep pockets. They spend a staggering amount of time and money trying to shoot down initiatives to install mass-railway systems in major cities, even when public support for such a system is high.

I agree with Aldeth's points about the hybrids, as I've looked into them myself and found they were a little too expensive to make real economic sense to someone in my financial situation. I'd love to have a car that gets double the milage of a normal car, even if it's a little more expensive, because I think in the long run the difference would even itself out in the gas you save. But at the state the technology is at the moment, that's not really the case. The cost/benefit ratio is just to extreme at the moment, but it won't be so high for long. In the next 5-10 years, more efficient hybrid systems will be introduced, and as the popularity of these cars rises the cost to mass-produce them will decrease as well. So I'll wait and see how they go.

In the mean time, I'm doing the best I can to conserve gas on my own, which everyone should be doing anyway. I ride my bike and days when the weathers nice (I do this as much for the exercise and the damn fine summer weather in Chicago), and try to avoid unnecessary trips, like planning all my weekly errends in one day, etc. But sadly, most people just don't give a damn. It's all about their own comfort and wants. New innovations like hybrid cars help, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to the individual.

I guess we just have to do what we can. Some people believe that "doing what they can" means driving a hybrid car. They'll be more and more correct as the technology progresses.

In some cases consumption can be helped, and in others it can't. I probably released more toxins into the air driving my relatively fuel-efficient Pontiac Grand Am (about 36 miles/gal highway) 80 miles round-trip every day to commute to work for 2.5 years, than did the idiot WASP housewife who lived down the street from me who just HAD to have a Hummer (about 10 miles/gal) to drive her kids to soccer practice and go get her nails done. But it's the a**holes who drive Hummers 80 miles each way to commute to work alone (like my former co-worker) who help make the problem worse for everybody in several respects. And no, he didn't give a damn about its impact either - he just had to have his big bad "whatever takes the focus off my tiny penis" Hummer. :shake:

Hmmm. I'm not sure we should be talking about penises and hummers in the same sentence. This is a family-friendly board after all! :lol:

@ BTA :lol: I thought the exact same thing when reading DR's post, but you beat me to the punch line.

One thing that Tal brings up that I was unaware of, is the possibility of maintenance and operating cost of a vehicle being much higher in Europe beyond the price of gasoline. Keep in mind that how much you need to pay varies greatly from state to state in the US. Your annual driver's license, vehicle registration, and driver's license fees are much higher in New York as opposed to North Dakota. That having been said, I have lived in several states, and all of these things cost about $50-$100 to get, and most of them don't have to be renewed annually, but rather every two or three years. License plates are pretty expensive, but once purchased you only have to renew them every year or so, for $60 a pop. The operating costs probably do not exceed $100 annually, if you averaged the costs over the life of the vehicle, with more paid out when the vehicle is first purchased, but considerably less in subsequent years.

Maintenance of cars is quite expensive though. I just took my Honda in for it's 45,000 mile recommended service, and that cost me $300. The highest indirect expense is car insurance. My wife and I together pay about $1900 per year to insure our vehicles with full coverage (not just collision), and keep in mind that since we're both over 30 and married, our premiums are actually pretty low.

Having never owned a vehicle anywhere in Europe, I cannot possibly guess at what it costs to operate vehicles there (beyond cost of gas), so if anyone wants to provide this insight, that would help. Of course, regardless of the price, there would be no benefit (that I can see) that owning a hybrid would provide.

I still think that some type of tax break is going to be necessary to get people into hybrids. It doesn't matter right now, because as BTA correctly points out, there's a waiting list in many areas of the country, so they can't even build them fast enough to keep up with the current demand. The other issue is that even if your vehicle is a gas guzzler, the price of gas is never going to get to the point where it is cheaper to buy a new vehicle if your current vehicle is paid off and functional for your needs than it is to keep paying for the gas. Why would someone who has a paid off SUV consider trading it in for a hybrid? Sure, he may be spending a ton on gas, but a new car payment is certainly going to cost him more. So tax breaks in the future would help in the sense they would make people more inclined to purchase a hybrid when the time comes that they decide they want a new vehicle.

Some cross-water confusion here. By "Gas" do you mean petrol? Because Gas in the UK usually refers to LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) which is what you'd find in a hybrid vehicle. Or by hybrid are you refering to a petrol/electric hybrid car?

You can get your normal car converted to petrol/gas in the UK, my girlfriends brother in law had both his previous cars (A land-rover discovery and a Audi 8-series) converted.

Brit's from London and the South East are now starting to take their cars to France in order to get them serviced. It's cheaper, even with the ferry crossing, and gives the added advantage of Calais supermarkets. Rip off Britain.

@Aldeth:
My wife and I together pay about $1900 per year to insure our vehicles with full coverage'Vehicles' imply that you have more than one car. If I'm calculating the exchange rate correctly, that's what my girlfriend and I started to pay for a single car (a tiny 1.2l Ford K) in Ireland three years ago.

It hasn't reduced much, tough. And then there's taxation.

EDIT: checked the conversion rates.

Having never owned a vehicle anywhere in Europe, I cannot possibly guess at what it costs to operate vehicles there (beyond cost of gas), so if anyone wants to provide this insight, that would help. Of course, regardless of the price, there would be no benefit (that I can see) that owning a hybrid would provide. The two basic things that we pay annualy in order to operate a car are the traffic tax and the insurance. The cost for both of them depends on the cubic capacity of the car. I pay for my 1.4 cc Opel 140 euros for traffic tax and 750 euros for insurance (full coverage).

In the U.S. we say "gas" to mean what Brits call "petrol." For what you call "gas" we say "natural gas" or "propane" according to the variety.

There is absolutely no need to give tax breaks for hybrids -- although in general I am in favor of tax breaks for any reason whatsoever. People are already demanding them. If that demand goes away, it will be because gas has become extremely cheap or because someone has found that -- for example -- hybrid vehicles explode randomly.

If either of those things happen, then there is no advantage to putting people in hybrid vehicles.

i pay $800 every six months for my car insurance alone...but then im 16 =/...and thats only liablility

@Carcaroth - yes, what we call gas, most Europeans call petrol.

@Colthrun - yes, my wife and I have two cars. We work in different locations, which are in opposite directions from where we live, and I start work an hour earlier than her, so two vehicles are quite necessary.

That having been said, insurance is heavily dependent upon how old you are (under 30 is more expensive, and under 21 is REALLY expensive) and whether or not you are married. Take LoS as an example. He's 16, and I'm guessing he's probably not married, so for just basic liability coverage (much less than full coverage) he's paying almost as much annually as my wife and I combined.

Believe it or not, statistics show that married people are lower risks than unmarried people, even after accounting for age and previous driving records, so you get a discount once you get married. Not only do you get a the deduction for being married, but most insurance companies give you a break if you are insuring two people on the same policy. Truth be told, my wife and I are only paying about an additional $40 more per month now that we are married than we were paying individiually before. So, since you said girlfriend, I'm assuming you aren't married either, and if it works the same way in Ireland, you may save quite a bit of money if you get hitched some day.

Here in California (at least the LA area), hybrids carry a benefit far in excess of any mere tax break -- they are allowed in the carpool/HOV lane with only one occupant. If you've ever been stuck on the 405 at 6:00 pm, you know what that means.

(For those not conversant with California's driving situation, the 405 is otherwise known as the San Diego Freeway and, during rush hour, traffic travels along at the average speed of roughly three meters a minute [or so it seems]. HOV stands for high occupancy vehicle, which generally means more than one person in the car. We have pitiful mass transit for reasons already explained above plus the added benefit of random earthquakes making subways less than ideal.)

@Aldeth: My girlfriend's dad is a tax inspector, and is been trying to convince us to get married for quite a while now :D

I know that particular conditions help to lower one's policy, but still. I've had a clean driving license for nearly ten years, I have a tiny little car with a low accident rate, and I still can't get cheap insurance here. No one can, as insurance companies are not regulated properly by the State. Thus, prices are sky-high. If I were in Spain, I would be paying around $700 per annum, maximum. My dad's policy, for instance, costs him around $450 a year, it's fully comprehensive, and includes my sister and me. And we both are still below 30.
/me does dance of sweet youth :banana:

Anyway, I'm losing track. I wanted to point out the difference in how expensive car maintenance is in some countries, and that still, people tend to buy cars and drive, rather than using public transportation. As Taluntain mentioned earlier, the lack of an effective, and reasonably priced public transportation system forces people to get their own vehicles. When you have had to wait for forty minutes under the rain for a bus to go anywhere, you consider never taking it again. Even more, if the two-way ticket costs you more than the petrol (gas) you'd use in the car.

So, if you are forced to drive a car, which one to get? I agree with you that at the moment, hybrid cars are way too expensive to buy, and to maintain, to be considered a better alternative. Petrol prices should get ridiculously high before your everyday driver would consider getting one.

the lack of an effective, and reasonably priced public transportation system forces people to get their own vehicles. Even more, if the two-way ticket costs you more than the petrol (gas) you'd use in the car. And that is precisely the problem in the U.S. Public transportation in the U.S. is largely ineffective, inconvenient, and not reasonably priced. Like I said, the closest any mass transit system can get me to work is more than 3 miles away. However, even if I were willing to walk three miles from the train station to work, and then another 3 miles from work to the train station at the end of the day, a round trip ticket costs $10, which is more than what it costs in gasoline prices for me to drive to and from work in my car. So the option of taking mass transit to work for me is inconvenient, very time consuming, and more expensive than simply driving!

@ Aldeth & BTA - Get your minds out of the gutter. I would never!...

:p

"Cost-effective" can mean different things for a consumer than for society as a whole.

Imagine if, instantly, 50% of US cars were hybrids. What would that do to demand for oil, pollution levels, etc?

Of course, if prices fell due to lower demand, people would want to buy SUVs again. Unless, say, the gov't added enough of a "pollution tax", like a sin tax, to discourage people from driving non-fuel-efficient cars...

U.S. gasoline = gas (for short)

(Since no one's pointed it out specifically.)

I used "gas" in my posts since everyone before me did also, though normally I'd use the UK variant.

California 405 Freeway = longest, linear parking lot in the world.

Anyone who buys a hybrid isn't buying it for economy sake...it's for personal reasons, curiosity or vanity. Hybrids are so un-economical because there is so little competition in the hybrid vehicle arena.

Within the next few years there will be significantly more competition. Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Kia and others all are about to jump into the market. With more realistic choices, the price of hybrids should fall into a more normal realm vs. gasoline only powered vehicles.

Colthrun...in response to your question, I would base my vehicle selection on which car pleased me aesthetically, offered a comprehensive warranty, was not in it's first two years of production, has a good safety rating and met my financial limitations.

All considered, a typical driver (@ 15K miles per year) will be out around $750 more per year fuel cost with a 20 mpg vehicle vs. a 30 mpg vehicle. Compared to your insurance and payments over the year, the fuel cost difference is rather minor...especially if the 30 mpg vehicle makes you feel like a sardine waiting for the tenderizing hammer to strike.

More news! Now it appears that starting in 2006, you can get a tax break if you purchase a hybrid of up to $3,400! That makes it more cost effective to own one as well!

You can find that information, along with the best and worst vehicles for fuel efficiency right here. (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P132552.asp?GT1=7162)

I rather hope the demand on hybrid vehicles continues to increase to the point where companies offer trucks and SUVs that are hybrid. I use my truck far too much to trade it in on a car, but I'd trade in for a hybrid truck.

Honda is releasing a hybrid SUV next year, and it actually gets pretty good gas milage. It's 31mpg city, and 34 mpg highway, which is better than a lot of cars. I imagine trucks can't be too far behind.

I rather hope the demand on hybrid vehicles continues to increase to the point where companies offer trucks and SUVs that are hybrid.You're kidding right? IIRC, when I saw an article about the upcoming new hybrid vehicles, the list was almost exclusively trucks and SUVs.

So, no need to hope, it's already happened.

an english show made a test on the toyota prius, and it drove LESS on a Gallon, than the golf...


furthermoore it's ugly ass hell! and gay