New Article: The True Cost of owning a Hybrid

[V8Cobrakid]

Nobody said computer systems were dead accurate. They simple have a set number of equations to work with to calculate these things. They are all off by a certain percentage.

[daniel]

They left out an important cost-savings item, perhaps because it applies only to the Prius, and not to the Hondas:

The Prius has no transmission and no clutch. Those are major repair items in old-fashioned cars. The PSD is constructed like a differential, and should be as reliable. And there is nothing in the way of a clutch. Never having to repair or replace these should be included in the long-term costs of ownership.

[prius04]

Plus, the "transmission" (for lack of a better term) is part of the hybrid technology. Thus it qualifies for the extra hybrid warranty to 8 years/100,000 miles.

[fyaeger]

I found the article missing one aspect about "true cost" that I find missing from any discussion or article that I have read anywhere (although I'll admit I dont spend hours reading forums here or in car mags etc).

*** Emissions/pollution costs ***

What is the "true cost" of emissions, or more accurately, what is the true SAVINGS due to the LOWER level of emissions that a hybrid produces?

I scoured the US government websites fairly thoroughly for such a cost/savings estimate and found one research article that attempted to delve into this, but it got very complicated very fast and did not "roll up" the details into a simple-to-understand number that people could easily relate to.

*IF* the cost/savings of pollution could be described in terms readily understandable by Joe/Joan Q. Public, I expect there would be an even stronger move to/demand for hybrids. Isnt the pollution/emissions of a Prius about 10% of that of a non-hybrid similar-sized car? My spouse and I each own a Prius and the bigger factor (than fuel savings) for us was the pollution/emissions savings, not the mileage savings which one can obtain in a small number of non-hybrid vehicles for a lot less money.

Fuel savings are often cited instead of emission/pollution savings even though (as I understand it) the emission/pollution reduction expressed as a percentage of a non-hybrid's pollution is much greater than the fuel savings percentage.

If anyone knows of research that attempts to "simply" quantify the cost/savings of emissions of automobiles (or of a "ton" of emissions, the metric used at www.fueleconomy.gov), I'd like to know.

[daniel]

fyaeger: I agree with you completely (as will most, if not all, here at PC). However, the American frontier/individualist mentality is only concerned with direct costs to the individual. Collectively, pollution costs us all. But if I cut my own personal pollution by 90%, it does not actually save me, personally, any money. I pay at the pump for my gas. I do not pay directly for my own pollution.

And that's all the mainstream analysts care about.

One thing about us tree-huggers: we do care about the economic and health effects of pollution. And when people find out that you care about that also, you'll be branded by the SUV crowd as a tree-hugger, and by extension a godless anti-American commie pinko.

[bruceha_2000]

The Prius has no transmission and no clutch. Those are major repair items in old-fashioned cars.

Yes, and No. :-) In the 4 vehicles I have owned, all driven ~90-100K miles, the only one that required transmission work was my last one. And that was MY fault. I tried to rock it out when I got stuck trying to crash a snow plow drift onto a side street. I didn't know one shouldn't/can't rock an automatic transmission. Stripped out reverse and had to have the tranny rebuilt.

Now, that isn't to say that whowever bought the cars used might not have had to do transmission work however many more miles down the road. My point, is that for most people, transmission work is probably not an issue on cars they buy new since most don't drive them beyond the initial lifespan of the tranny.

[DuncanNixon2004]

Clothes washer died last year.

Choice of top loader at CDN$600 or front loader at CDN$1,000. Difference in electricity usage was 600kwh for the top and 186kwh for the front. Front also uses less water, less detergent and spins faster thereby clothes dry faster in the drier (when one doesn't hang them outside or inside to dry - weather dependent ).

Put in a fish pond. Choice of in-pond pump or out-of-ground pump. Out of ground more expensive, harder to install but uses less electricity and is repairable. In-pond pump dies and it goes to the land-fill.

New fridge coming up soon. Determining factor will be "How Energy Star efficient is it?"

At some point in time, in every factor of our lives we will have to make choices for the future.

The Prius is the future. We are all beta testers.

[V8Cobrakid]

DuncanNixon2004 Do you mind if i print that? at first i was a little lost.. but i like the whole point. I think it breaks things down a little easier for some people.

[priusenvy]

What i don't understand is, if I only get 8 to 17 mpg going up the hill, why going down the hill at 99 mpg doesn't result in more of an average.

The effect on average mpg you get by getting infinite mileage on the return part of a trip is to double the mileage of the other leg. Think about it. If one-way is M miles and takes N gallons of gas, and you use no gas on the way back, your mileage improves from M/N to 2M/N. So 20mpg on the way out, and infinite mpg on the way back results in 40mpg. No way for it to go any higher, unless your car is able to create fuel in the tank.

[LewLasher]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bruceha_2000\";p=\"53491)</div>

In the 4 vehicles I have owned, all driven ~90-100K miles, the only one that required transmission work was my last one...  My point, is that for most people, transmission work is probably not an issue on cars they buy new since most don't drive them beyond the initial lifespan of the tranny.
[/b]

Right, if you're going to treat a car like a disposable item that you throw out after only 100 kilomiles.

My experience with Toyotas is that I would not expect any major component to fail within the first 100 kmiles. On my 1985 Camry, the original transmission failed at 168 Kmiles (and the replacement at 250 Kmiles); on my 1994 Camry, the original transmission failed at about 205 Kmiles.

So I'll be watching carefully, optimistic that the Power Split Device is more durable than conventional transmissions. (After I eventually give up on the '94, now at 243 kilomiles ...)