Do Hybrids Really Save Money?The upshot is that there is a $3K to $5K 'premium' to be payed for getting the hybrid. Interesting... The battery is definitely something to consider as it needs to be replaced every few years. I wonder how many people buy them because they are cool and they buy into the low-gas mileage mind-set (true for short hops, not true for long-distance driving). Posted by DaveH at July 8, 2005 5:44 PM
The convergence of electric and gasoline-powered motors under the hoods of some of today's most popular cars represents a real engineering achievement. The electric motor provides lots of torque at low speeds, virtually nil emissions and good fuel economy for driving that involves lots of stop-and-go activity - such as in cities. Meanwhile, the traditional internal combustion engine provides good performance at higher speeds and surplus energy to recharge the electric motor's batteries. The engineers who spent many years getting the two technologies to work well together as a hybrid vehicle certainly deserve a lot of credit.
Most people however, buy hybrids with the idea that they will save money over the cost of a traditionally gasoline-only powered vehicle over its useful life. But do they? The automobile research firm Edmunds has put the new hybrids to the economic test. Edmunds looked at the hybrids as well as the traditional vehicles that most closely fit the same passenger class, and compared their market value plus their costs of ownership. Here, in a nutshell, is the results of Edmunds' study:
I paid $21k for a new 2001 Prius , got a $2000 tax credit for a SULEV hybrid, paid $1000/year for insurance until 2005. 45 mpg for 50,000 miles with gas around 2.20 (the Prius uses regular) so around $2500 in gas.
Total outgo: 25.5k (Ignoring financing)
Then a 5mph collision with no airbag deployment rendered the car "totalled". Insurance (USAA) paid $17,000 to buy the car, which was interesting - we only owed $13,000 by that point.
I tried to access Edmund's full TCO article, but it dislikes my browser or something. Anyway, my personal anecdotal experience doesn't seem to match up with their numbers even vaguely. They may have configured their car differently (raising the base price) which would also raise the insurance rate - I dunno.
On the other hand, the 'total' was 2 to 3k of bodywork... and the power inverter's bracket was broken. (It looks _pristine_ other than the damage to the slots through which the nuts/bolts supported things.) This sucker is apparently $9k by itself. I don't have any data on reliability/repairs - mine had nothing but Jiffy Lubes and a couple of scheduled maintenances with nothing malfunctioning prior to its demise.
Toyota's std maintenance covers the _first_ battery replacement somewhere near 50k.
Posted by: Al at July 8, 2005 7:48 PM