Can gas savings make up for a hybrid's higher sticker price? L.A. Times

You are not even paying off the car's embodied energy in that time frame. So you are increasing oil use.

 

I'm putting high mileage cars on the road as fast as I can. Supporting the industrial effort for high technology, low oil use transportation. That is a national and international priority.

You never "payoff" the energy it takes to make the car. You seem to be confusing this topic with something else. How much oil used to make Prius vs. higher mileage car? Likely zero difference there.

Be interesting to have the government require "Greenhouse gases generated to make car" and put a surcharge on it.

 

Dear L.A. Times;

Please consider writing a more relevant 'Human Interst' story. Here's my suggestion:

" ... Does ½ of our Multi-Trillion Dollar Deficit Spending on Military make up for Lower Prices at the Gas Pump? ..."

 

Can any vehicle's fuel efficiency make up for its total sticker price?

If you can get a light motorcycle that gets about +80 mpg.. but you'd lose the passenger and cargo capacity...

The 100mpg X-prize car winners (and some of the losers too) get over 100 mpg - yet nobody is bringing to these vehicles to the auto market... which makes me wonder -- why?

Pushing this question to its extreme limit - let's look at the economic value of a vehicle that uses no fuel? For example, a $15,000 humancar is a hand pump rail road car converted to be used on regular roads. It has a fuel bill zero unless your counting that peanut butter and jelly sandwich you just ate. We could drop that cost down by going to $3000 recumbent bicycle or maybe a 2 wheeled mountain bike for $400?

At some point, other factors like safety, cargo capacity, speed, and range matter more than fuel cost or the sticker shock... most americans are not in very good physical condition and biking over 5 miles would be impossible for them without risking health problems from the physical trauma/shock.
Unsafe and risky driving norms in the USA make safety for lighter more fuel efficient vehicles problematic. Economic sprawling development makes cargo capacity, speed, and range more important than fuel efficiency to many living on the outskirts.

 

Haven't found too much to complain about with my new Prius 3 yet. My commute time hasn't changed significantly, I do a lot of coasting/eco driving when I go downhill and when traffic is light. I am looking forward to using 10 gallons of gas for about 2 and a half weeks. I do about 5o miles a day and went to the gas station once a week in the past.
Of course, the Prius might be a little light on power but you can always use the power driving option. Looking for a nice sticker for my rear bumper, like "Leave me alone!"

 

Actually, no. It's a chain. What matters is what gets cubed as a result of buying the new car.

 

And when it would otherwise have been cubed. Same thing.

 

How fast does a car need to go on a highway?

 

Given that life-cycle analysis shows energy consumption to be at least 75% in vehicle use and given that a cube-worthy car is liable to be both inefficient and costly to repair, adding a new Prius to the fleet and bumping a cube-worthy car is almost certainly going to reduce energy use.

If there's a criticism of frequent Prius purchase it would be that it's bad for the US economy.

 

You see, the article is a major "FAIL". The hidden truth is, how gas usage costs fail to realize their true costs.

EV WORLD CURRENTS: What's the TRUE Cost of Your ICE Age Automobile?

But (like the typical drug addict) ... since we'd rather worry about 'consequences' some time in the future, we're pretty much hosed.

 

Since a 3 year old Prius is not much different than a new one in fuel economy - actually exactly the same, its not doing the environment any good. I doubt it has much impact on the used market either. The odds are against it replacing a cubed car. Its fairly expensive used. What it does is allow the owner to drive a newer car. Since goods are shipped from china to japan to the US, it may take more energy than a new hybrid car built in north America. I would expect a negative energy balance. Higher resale value does push new cars, so it may actually be a drain on new hybrids bought.

Replacing an inefficient car with a prius, other efficient hybrid, phev or bev will reduce energy consumption.

 

That makes no sense.

Maybe if the statement was

In other words, their high-end oomph is a little lacking. Other than that, it's meaningless hyperbole.

 

What matters is not what an individual is replacing, but the effect on the fleet. When you sell a car it will remain in the fleet.

Freight is relatively efficient, so any significant difference in fuel economy will easily wipe out the initial shipping energy.

 

If hybrids are slower on highways than other cars, it is driver choice and not a car limit. I think journalists should be required to take the car they are reviewing for a spin, to avoid writing nonsense and looking like idiots.

His personal finance analysis of when the hybrid premium is paid back is equally poor. He understands that depreciation rates differ between cars, but is seemingly unable to add it to the break-even calculation.

Pathetic article

 

Or everyone on the highway is going 100+ mph.

 

True. A vehicle not built in the USA means the US economy didnot benefit that much from its construction -so USA car makers lose out. A vehicle that is very reliable means that it doesn't go to the repair shops - so USA repair shops lose out. A vehicle that is basically all there and does not have much to customize means there no big after market industry behind it - so USA third party car parts and accessory shops lose out. A gas vehicle that uses energy sparingly means that gas stations are not earning that much- so USA big oil and independent service stations make less money. If this vehicle lasts a very long time means all these economic impacts will exist for a very long time --Ah but when a vehicle's cost is amortized over a longer time, when a vehicle has very few repairs, when a vehicle doesn't need to be customized, and when a vehicle has a low fuel THEN a vehicle Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is that much affordable - which is not a bad thing for the owner/driver.

 

So when the TCO is more affordable, the owners have that much more to spend on discretionary income ... so hopefully the local economy wins out. I know this isn't necessarily true! Hopefully, they will use that money to keep out of debt.

I wonder what the people are doing with their money from their savings in gas? Has the sales of coffee gone up for Prius owners? They can have their mileage and coffee too! Basically, my savings in gas is almost buying me lunch every day.

 

Why bother talking about discretionary spending or repair cost or the extra energy to make a new car versus keeping an old car. Sorry if I beat a dead horse again. .. but the potential money and energy savings of less military needed in the oil producing countries . . . countries which typically hate us for being over there in the first place . . . and yet "being there" always seems to be necessary - just so we can continue extracting oil. Even if military oil intervention cost savings only saved 20 percent of our military budget - that amount would be in the 100's of billions . . . way more then the amount of savings that you can atribute to discretionary spending or for car repairs etc. Couple military savings potential with health care savings - and the savings difference is way out of the ballpark. Looking at costs at the pump is tunnel vision in the most extreme.

SGH-I717R ? 2

 

It was not the oil producing countries(aka OPEC) or the oil companies but speculation on oil future contracts that recently pushed up the price of oil. A significant activity of that oil speculation came from our own beloved Wall Street (but other global banking and venture capital firms are also doing the same thing too). Even if all the oil producing countries loved and were allied with the USA - it would not alter our current global environment where oil future contracts are suspectible to manipulation and speculation by very large financial concern. It's not just the USA who is suffering either - every other country has to deal with this too. It is a global problem. So US military intervention nor a successful Arab Spring will put a lid on top of the wild price swings in oil prices because it is not any particular foriegn country which is causing oil pricing instability - it is rather the global economic environment/mechanism for financing oil production that is at the root of the oil pricing instability. Weapons of war will not solve this problem. It can only be effectively addressed by altering commercial law and global market rules. However, seeing that no world leader has the guts to address the problem - using less oil is the only thing a regular joe can do - essentially - it's a duck and cover - CYA. The Prius is sort of like insurance that if gasoline rises to $8 per gallon -Driving will still be affordable ... Hopefully when gasoline does jumps to $8 per gallon all those non-Prius drivers will rise up and fix the problem..

 

Interesting argument, Walter, but I disagree.
Lots of commodities have world markets priced through exchanges. Why does speculation cause so much volatility in oil, compared to everything else ? My guess (I am not an economist) is that only oil has demand always on the precipice of insufficient supply.