NYT: Volt take 27 years to break even

One bright spot, it at least doesn't compare the prius to a corola.

But, incredibly it does payback of a volt versus a cruze assuming the driver buy the volt and does not plug in - 27 years.

kind of insulting that hybrid owners don't "do the math" or just want to be seen driving a hybrid.

 

I'm still trying to work on the more important math ... the payoff for the Bugatti Veyron over other sport cars.



.

 

You know, sometimes folks buy a car just because they like it, or its technology!
Payback, cost of ownership, depreciation, yada yada yada, I don't care.
I bought what I want!
First I bought a Ford Econoline E-100, cause it was practical and 600 bucks. I next bought a Datsun F-10 new because it was simple and economical, I next got a Audi 4000S Quattro because I liked the idea of full time 4WD, and still do, Bought the 4Runner because it's a truck, and was great for "Road Trips", and Home Depot. I bought the Prius only because at the time it had the highest MPG numbers and the technology was cool!
Nowhere did any other factor come into play, I don't need it to, I want what I like.
It's the same for many thousands of others, sometimes payback is a bitch, sometimes nobody cares! I personally hope the Volt survives for at least 10 years, improving 10% each model year, Good idea, needs a better battery, the ICE is nice, but it should rely on the battery for at least 300 miles. When I give up the Gen II in 4 years or so I will buy what I find I like for Technology, Aesthetics, Cost, Battery Life, and how bloody much fun it is! Not worried about payback! Tesla also comes to mind.....

 

The porsch 918 looks better, will drive better, and has an ev button.
It looks like the 700,000 euro sports car phev is the better value

 

That *is* quite insulting. I most certainly did do the math, calculating the 20-year cost of ownership to include time value of money assuming different interest rates. And since many hybrid or electric owners have a healthy measure of "geek" about them, I would hazard that they are far likelier to have the skill and the desire to "do the math" than the average gasoline-only car buyer.

The article doesn't even include any details of the assumptions concerning interest rates, tax credits, or annual mileage.

There's no way I'm going to blindly accept what somebody at a firm says about the results of their analyses without me checking their numbers for myself. You don't have to believe what "Truecar.com" said just because the New York Times ran an article. :yell:

 

Actually, the article is born of the belief people will be 'turning over' their cars like an Apple Fanatic swapping Mac/iProducts like it was disposable wealth. There are people who hold onto vehicles well longer than some things. And while the Volt's initial cost is rather high, it is typical of 1st generation new tech that will make such things a bit harder to 'jump onto' until it has been around a bit longer to be a 'proven' tech.

 

You are mixing your metaphors, and confusing your prejudices. Apple fanatics have long argued that the TCO of Macintosh is lower than PC because the machines have a much longer useful life.

Moreover, and my experience mirrors this, IF the machine is not kept in the family until death it is sold rather than trashed.

:Apple fanatic:

 

If I am reading the article correctly the criticism of people buying hybrids in the mistaken belief they are saving money specifically excludes the Prius. I bet they are right for the GM hybrids, and I don't know about the Honda and HyCam alternatives.

I want to know why these articles never mention the public economic good of hybrids. Too difficult for the writers to grasp ? Irony

 

If a person wants to save a lot of money, they buy a really cheap car! If they want to save some money, plus their conscience, they buy a hybrid or plugin!

 

Did the original owners of the Ford Model T spend many hours wringing their hands wondering when it would break even or did they say "Hey this is new tech, it's better than the horse I used to own and I don't mind what it costs I just want one"?

To many people a car is a tool and break even points are important but there are a good number who do mind paying over the odds for something new. But this issue has been flogged to death in the past. When does a Merc pay off compared to a Hyundai etc etc etc.

Let's move on.

 

Without presenting the underlying data for review these a just words words...

 

These calculations are done using the EPA estimates. I would prefer that they do the calculations with averages from Fuelly. In the case of some competitors, real-world milage is a lot lower than the EPA estimates.

One more possibility to consider with respect to psychology: when people buy a car, they are mostly doing a comparison between their existing car (often a gas guzzler) and the hybrid. In this competition, the hybrid always wins.

 

Remind yourself that many of the "break even" analysis of the past treated everyone except hybrids owners as idiots. Hybrid owners took the time to consider the world around them. Everyone else was believing what they read without question.

It was mind-boggling that they'd use prices like $1.69 as the projected price of a gallon of gas in 2010. Even those those later analysis with revisions to $2.50 were so far off the mark, there was no reason to take them seriously.

Did they honestly think the United States would have cheap gas when the rest of the world was already paying so much more? Do they still think that?

Prius makes the math easy now... and it still has nothing to do with being seen. Years ago, Prius was the only midsize hatchback available... making it an extremely practical vehicle. That's difficult to deny now that the other automakers offer a midsize hatchback too.

There's a balance of priorities. Be weary of any analysis that focuses exclusively on a single trait. Consider the big picture, other factors like emissions rating, vehicle size, purchase price are important too. And remember, efficiency estimates generalize, which means the "your mileage may vary" reminder shouldn't be dismissed as these analysis reports often do.
.

 

My brief experience suggests a very high TCO, but part of that is due to life-shortening damage from repeated percussive blows.

:focus:

YMWV. These TCO comparisons are sometimes very silly, but the rest are simply inadequate since they don't use real-world data or present options. Individuals are much better served working it out for themselves.

 

Slightly off topic, you aren't an Apple Fanatic if you are keeping your machine longer than useful life, as Apple has designed their product with a disposable life expectancy, IE: their general next model expects users to buy all new versus maintain something older. Their iProducts also reflect that as well, as you are expected to replace the iPod/iPhone if the battery is bad, not replace the battery yourself. To me, the TCO is not calculated within reason as the fact that when a Mac user has to go from one Model to the next, you only look at the hardware, not the software which is also affected by the OS change. While the PC TCO takes into the hardware issues and viral issues, it seems weighted more on the fact that the more die hard PC users are also the ones who tweak their systems like car fanatics, where as the car fanatic type Mac users are fewer and the 'I just want to use' Mac users are greater. This, to me, skews the view dramatically because again, a Die hard Mac Fanatic would not hold onto a mac for a 'long time' in favor of the next model/OS which also affects, again the software some will need.

Back on topic though, the thing about cars is that, even 14 years ago, the prevailing winds were that some people also just simply like the lease option, that being you lease a car, at the end of the lease, you either own or go with a new lease on a new car. The leasing option is more expensive than just going 'all in', but people also want to enjoy the car they are in, and then get a 'whole new car' when their lease is up, hence why some go that way often. The only other thing that a TCO being 'high' would be to 'encourage' people to go with the leasing option versus buying straight out, which then makes more money for the automaker, as again, leasing is generally more than if you were financing to own.

 

Bingo.

Toyota is so smart just for putting smart key and push button start in Prius (hybrids) ....

How do you like grabbing a key fob and having to stuff it an ignition lock when running around town? ... so 30 seconds ago..

The numbers are a little small with Volt, but I hope it keeps going. I don't care if it outsells the PiP, which I don't think will happen, but every Volt sale is another electrified vehicle out there and btw,

Volt has the potential for much higher MPGs than PiP.

 

Yet another example of where "economic" has been confused with "fiinancial". I suspect that for most Volt owners, the car is worth the premium to put the chinga to gas/oil companies and despotic oil producing countries.

If economic decisions did not include a personal utility i.e. they were solely economic, then we would all be driving used Tercels.

 

Well, the article is not too awfully bad except 'being seen in a hybrid' is pretty ridiculous after all these years.

However, the truth still is ...

The US of A burns up about 1/4th the world's supply of oil per day and per year (as well as about 1/4th the world's supply of all energy resources) ....

No matter how one slices it, that crap above needs to change. We're using resources at 5 times our population's worth (5% global population).