I love the comment about battery replacement and "maximum efficiency".

I'm not into "cost-benefit analysis". I make major purchases of a car and a house to use, not for investment. We bought the Prius in June (1) because our Taurus was starting to cost repair money and (2) gas was spiking around $4 a gallon. The Taurus was taking about $30-$40 a fillup. Now, even though gas is about $1.80 here, we're going longer between fills and we still only pay $12-$13 a fill. We are nearing 17,000 miles and spend only half of what we would have spent with the Taurus. It's all personal preference, isn't it?

All you would get right now is that warm fuzzy feeling of actually making a difference.
Mother earth still thinks Prius is kinda cool...

While the article is larded with anti-hybrid baloney, the main point about consumer demand seemed about right to me. Cars are assets that typically last more than a decade, but consumers won't think beyond today's gasoline price.

The incredible whipsawing of the price of oil over the last year means that production planning for cars is now grossly out-of-synch with the cost of fuel and (probably) with trends in consumer demand. And automakers are going to pay the price for it, I think. This is what Ford CEO Mulaley (SP?) was talking about when he pressed for the Congress to use tax policy to set some floor on the price of gasoline, so that automakers could reasonably plan their vehicle mix. If you want to move to a more efficient transportation fleet, then back that up by insuring that automakers' plans to sell more fuel-efficient cars aren't shot down by cheap gasoline. Which they surely are going to be, at today's prices.

But nope, instead, we have the inconsistency of the Congress pressing the US makers for a more efficient vehicle mix, while gas is (and is likely to remain) cheap. Not enough backbone to do the hard thing and mess with the price of gasoline. So it's going to be a hard sell to move those more efficient cars off the lot. Even with the ludicrous loopholes in the CAFE standards, I'm betting that the Congress will be forced to back down, and slow down the imposition of the higher CAFE standards. Because automakers won't be able to sell enough small cars when gas is cheap.

Right and buying a winter coat on sale in the summer is stupid. You should wait till winter and pay full retail.

I had missed that somehow. Thats a surprisingly rational suggestion, coming from an American automaker. I hope we will see action in that arena in the months to come, but I fear you are correct about its likelihood.

Rob

Excellent analogy!

We PriusChat people see these sorts of articles all the time. The common underlying theme results from short-sighted, non-scientific journalism. They easily forget (or choose to ignore) the fact that a large percentage of the things people buy doesn't make much economic sense, and doesn't need to make economic sense. A night out at the club or bar buying those make-you-happy drinks doesn't make any economic sense. Buying a Ferrari doesn't make any economic sense. Some of the clothes we buy and food we eat doesn't make economic sense.

People buy a particular car because they like the car. For many reasons, they've chosen it over other cars. Economics is part of the equation, but is not the only element. Maybe, just maybe, some people buy a Prius because they like the technology, and/or they want to do their best to minimize pollution. And for many reasons, they've chosen the Prius as the best overall vehicle to suit specific needs. That's their choice and their right.

I'm really getting tired of these articles that imply that it's a poor decision to buy a Prius because they make "no economic sense". Yet, I'm sure I haven't seen the last of them!

What are the odds of fuel prices going up... 100 percent? Of course they will. That's what happens when recovering from a recession.

It's the same old story. They anti-hybrid argument places no value whatsoever on doing your part to reduce emissions & consumption.

Lastly, don't you love how they refuse to acknowledge that Prius MPG will be going up with the new model?
.

Right!

Equally stupid . . . leaving the beach / heading for high ground when the tsunami warning says the wave won't hit until after dark. Poor slob, probably doesn't know the benefit of having a set of road flares in the glove box either.

I, too, want to know where I can get a safe 7% return on my money every year for over a decade. Sign me up! I've been happy with my investments shifted into fixed returns of 4 to 5% for the past two years...beats the heck out of losing 40+% (maybe 20% annually) which is what is likely to have happened to those with the author's approach.

But there is also no mention of the "hybrid premium" being recovered, which it almost certainly will be, even with gas prices this low. This is the fatal flaw in 99% of the hybrid cost analyses.

As others have said, now is the perfect time to buy a hybrid, while gasoline prices are depressed. Fuel taxes will be going up for one (state and federal). They have to as we've not even come close to keeping pace at paying for maintenance of our road infrastructure. Might not happen for a year, but it is coming when governments begin reckoning with their budget shortfalls going forward.

And gasoline prices will almost certainly recover, barring a really apocolyptic depression.

One could write the same article,

"While 0-60 in under 5 seconds may be nice, Corvettes just don't add up ...."

"While carrying 9 passengers may be nice, SUVs just don't add up ... "

"While squashing everything in its way may be nice, Hummers just don't add up ..."

Is anybody else tired of this nonsense? Different cars for different uses, and/or desires. Geez, get over it already. There is cost to everything we do. I don't need 5 sec. 0-60, 9 passengers, or squashing everything I come up to; the Prius works for me. I saw a bumper sticker on a Hummer looking for a parking space at a mall "Yes I know. I don't care." I wonder where she got it?, the sticker I mean.

If you're going to buy a car for economic sense buy a used compact car like a corolla or geo metro or something that you can find dirt cheap.

On the other hand, sometimes people buy cars... just because they're new, and you want to buy a car.

I really don't get how buying a fuel efficient car needs to be about saving money.

He did:

When we PriusChatters hear 'hybrid', we think Prius - which does make financial sense, as opposed to 'hybrid' like Malibu which makes no sense at all given it gets, at best, 2 MPG more than the non hybrid Maibu. If the govt didn't give hybrid Malibu buyers an undeserved (since they don't save much gas) tax credit, none would be sold.

While the author mentioned the Prius and other 'hybrids', his article could have been better titled "While 48 mpg may be nice, most hybrids don't add up right now". I bought my Prius in Sept 2004, gas prices were about the same as they are now. Gas prices went up and they will again. The trend has always been UP, even with some slides back for periods of time. I have saved over $6K on gas (83K miles) since I bought my car (compared to the 19-22 MPG average I got in my '95 Odyssey). A hybrid Malibu would make sense only if it cost the same as a non hybrid. The same is true, to a lessor extent, for the Camry Hybrid and Altima Hybrid. They do get better mileage than the non hybrid equivalent (but not nearly as much as the similarly sized Prius) but they cost a LOT more than the non hybrid versions.

I wonder where she got the ATTITUDE!

I guess my problem is that I can't go with a "Me first, screw everyone else" attitude. My parent's brought me up better than that.

Not really rational for consumers. Setting a floor for gas prices means no one would be able to sell for less than that figure. So the consumer likely would have to pay more than he would have if the free market ruled, and gas producers actually would have less incentive to produce more fuel.

It's called socialism.

No, he did not and the quote you used doesn't support it. It talks only of recovering the upfront costs via operating cost reduction.

You recoup the premium when you sell or your car is totalled. That's because buyers also realize the difference in operating cost and it is re-credited to the vehicle. That is one of the things that can be confirmed in looking at the used car market values.

Any author who neglects to factor this in is kidding him/herself about the economics.

No one wants them to "produce" more fuel. In the long term a very bad plan.
Oil companies don't "produce" fuel, they refine the fuel they extract from the earth.

I think you need to do some research on the meaning of the word socialism Fraser. You might also tell us the pros and cons of socialism, it it all evil? The goal is to have society consume less fuel, higher energy prices provide the incentive to do just that.

Any ROI analysis of a car that does not include residual values is worthless.

Example:
Sedan $22k
Hybrid $25k

Which did you pay more for? If the 5 year residual looks like this...

Sedan $7k
Hybrid $10k

Now which did you pay more for?

After selling the vehicles, the cost ends up being a wash ($15k). Now you can compare gas expenditures, maintenance, etc.

That is why I cringe when someone I know brags about saving $1-2k when buying a Kia or Hyundai. They don't realize they will end up paying the same (or more!) for getting a cheaper vehicle that depreciates at a higher rate.

I don't want to quibble on fine points, but oil companies do indeed produce fuel, which is done by refining crude oil -- crude oil can't efficiently be burned in internal combustion engines.

I disagree that "no one" wants oil companies to produce more fuel. Of course, many do want just that, if only to generate lower costs vis a vis supply and demand. Me, for one. Oil companies, for others.

I'm not going to conduct a seminar on the meaning of "socialism". Plenty of dictionaries have that covered. I will say that it is the antithesis of democracy, which used to be the form of government in the United States but which in all practicality no longer exists.