While 48 mpg may be nice, hybrids don't add up right now

So what part of socialism involves fixing a minimum price on energy?
Can't have a socialist democracy? Interesting.

I guess socialism and capitalism(I think you meant capitalism not democracy) can only exist at the extremes and there is a void in the middle?

The opposite of a democracy is a dictatorship. Just because you don't agree with the outcome of an election doesn't make it a dictatorship, up to 50% of the people can be unhappy with the results, even more if people don't vote.

I guess the only engines in this world are internal combustion engines?
Crude oil is a fuel, made usable in you car through refining. All the hydrocarbons are in the crude oil.

 

Oh brother. You don't seem to understand the difference between market systems and forms of government. Too much Talk Radio or FarceNews perhaps? The antithesis of democracy would be an unelected authoritarian state such as a dictatorship. As far as I can tell we will still be electing representatives every 2 years and they have to approve the budgets, etc. so we remain a representative democracy. We tried a sort of inherited constitutional monarchy with the Bushes and that didn't turn out so well.

The current administration was elected with a 7% margin and the greatest voter turnout since at least 1968 (difficult to compare going back further since the voting age was higher, and there are fewer disenfranchised since the Civil Rights Act--though the GOP keeps trying to reverse that. ) So you will have a hard time making a case for this not being democratic.

Unfortunately, unregulated markets tend to result in failure. Regulating them doesn't make them socialist. It is the free market failure of self regulation that is unfortunately requiring bailouts and partial national ownership (hopefully temporary.) The alternative unfortunately would be to allow them to completely collapse. The banks could instead refuse the funds and collapse as a result of their own failures to understand the market in which they operated.

 

What we are currently experiencing is extreme price volatility - both up and down. This is an expected and predicted result of the onset of the so called "Peak Oil" phenomenon. I'm sure some will pooh pooh the idea, but it is inevitable. Oil is finite and production will decline over time. This is already happening and is well documented. So yes, it will go up again - maybe even more than it did recently. To me, a high mileage car is a hedge against the now unpredictable nature of oil pricing. I keep cars for a very long time and the Prius is a Toyota after all. When I finally get my Prius (had to cancel my order when my salary got cut 31%) I feel there is a 100% chance that over the long term it will be a wise decision - on many levels. The quality, low cost of ownership, efficiency, safety all add up to win for me. And a hedge against, well, almost everything.

 

All I can think to say is -

When 2010 Prius, Insight, and apparently 2009 Prius are all for sale this Summer, their 1,2,3 punch is going to deal a heavy blow to the paltry offerings of smaller US-made cars.

Mark my words folks, the line to get a 2010 Prius is going to be quite long.

The people that kinda thought about buying a 2009- Prius, but something was a little 'off' for them will be back for a 2010+ , soon as the stellar reviews roll in.

Barring an excess price increase, I see the 2010+ Prius exceeding the Gen2's success by a wide margin.

 

If we are going to talk economic sense, where is the economic justification of buying a $100,000 Mercedes or BMW? Or for that matter a $300,000 Rolls or Lambo? Why would you buy a $50,000 Cadillac when a $3,000 used car will get you where you want to go? Cars appeal to different people for different reasons.

People also talk about hybrids getting less than advertised, but noone mentions that under the same circumstaces where hybrids get less mileage, regular cars would also get a similar decrease in mileage.

 

Prius offers (and has always offered) some attractions to new-car buyers. They use less fuel than their counterparts, which always reduces oil imports and refueling expenses. The latter is much more obvious at $4/gallon, but it never goes away.

It produces less pollution than almost all of its counterparts, but I freely acknowledge that many other sedans are quite 'clean' as well. Separate from clean, the CO2 emissions are lower (directly tied to mpg advantage) and those never go away.

As a Toyota its reliability and manufacturer support are hard to beat. I have little doubt that the US manufacturers could compete there if they took it as a high priority. But can we really say that they have?

The technological aspects of the hybrid drivetrain are appealing to many. To others they cause fear, but fortunately for them, many other vehicle choices are available.

The high resale value has already been mentioned. The relatively low maintenance and service costs have not been mentioned in this thread, but they have received much comment in PriusChat and elsewhere. Combine the dollar issues above and find that the total cost of ownership in cents per mile is hard to beat with any other vehicle purchased new.

However if cents per mile is your primary criterion, there are many compact cars (new or used) that compete well with Prius. They may not offer as much in terms of CO2 reduction, pollutant reduction, ride quality or overall technology, but many of them are fine cars.

If your primary criteria relate to styling, raw horsepower, large hauling capacity or thrilling noises that some cars make, then Prius might not be your next car. Fine by me.

 

Maybe my problem is that I don't use the correct word. I would prefer "communism" but it has an emotional connotation, so I have settled for "socialism". The actions (not of this president but of most of them back as far as FDR) of government have been repressive, and I would prefer that word, I suppose, but the conversation then might lead to details which might obscure the main issue -- that America is no longer as free as many of its citizens believe -- and I hear the non-ICE political engines revving up).

As for opposites of democracy, I don't think that's a valid comparison. A monarchy is not democratic by its nature and it may or may not be repressive (depends on the monarch, I suppose). But I don't think there is a void between socialism and democracy; there can be a merging of the factors, but democracy tends to be overshadowed by socialism. So a socialist democracy (or democdratic socialism) is possible, as England has a monarchical socialism (understanding the monarchy is more of a figurehead now).

Finally, capitalism to my mind is not the opposite of socialism; they just can't co-exist where socialists run things.

At any rate, thanks for helping to tweak my thoughts; I appreciate it.

 

You left out the Ford Fusion.

These stories are always so simplistic, assuming the only reason to buy the hybrid is to save $ on gas, and ignoring other factors like proven better reliability, interesting technology, less environmental impact, the political implications of lessening oil imports, and the fact this is no different than choosing to get a bigger engine or an auto transmission. There is almost no hybrid premium at all in the HyCam, if you compare it to the V6 model.

 

Please forgive my reaction, I just read this thread and see a drift towards a polarization that won't be solved. So I figured another penny's worth wouldn't hurt at this point.

The free market is beginng to work. U.S. oild producers are closing and cutting back oil well production (guess they really don't need all the new public lands they requested 2 months ago) so far by 20% because they're not getting enough return on their investments. A recent wire story reports that a young 21 year old man lost his job and $2000 per week salary working the oil fields in Texas and now is struggling to survive on a few hundred a week while trying to pay a $500/mo truck payment.

I predict $3.00+ per gal by Labor Day.
A good old dictator like Chavez would open those wells and solve "our" problem...until the wells run dry.
A good Republican led government would give the oil companies more land to drill.
A good Democrat led government would bailout the oil companies for their losses and give the boy a minimum wage job.
A good American, in my opinion, would try to protect our environment and conserve our limited resouces, allow the oil co to seek a fair return on investment, support fair wages and health care for for all.
Pure dictatorships don't work...IMHO.
Pure socilaism won't work...IMHO.
Pure unregulated Capitalsim won't work...see ENRON, housing market and stock markets...IMHO.
Common sense and caring for our environment and therefore ourselves will include a mix of whatever works to save this nation we all love.
Let's express our "opinions" then GET ON WITH THE TASKS AT HAND ! :cheer2:

 

All the anti-hybrid articles state that hybrids make no sense because the R.O.I. for the hybrid system does not work.

What is the R.O.I. for a fully loaded Cadillac SUV with lots of chrome that depreciates 20% when you drive it off the new car sales lot?

I did not buy my Prius for R.O.I. I bought my car to last 10+ years and am more concerned with gas prices 5 years from now then today's dip in prices.

 

You sir/madam have placed it in a brilliantly engineered, high efficiency nutshell.

 

You are the one with the correct attitude for buying a hybrid.
But not all the people has the same kind of thinking, otherwise there won't be hundreds of models of cars for sale, or political elections.

The math to calculate the payoff of the premium is nothing wrong.
Don't say there is no premium, the DoE has analyzed how much it cost more for a hybrid system than a ICE only system.

It is just one's view point of how to spend your money. Some people like BMWs over Toyotas, some like Mercedes over Cadillacs. It is just happened that you like your Prius, you would defend it when someone pointed out some weakness of the Prius just like you will defend your kids when someone said your kids are rude in public.

 

The problem with this 'analysis' is that it's just a snapshot. It has no bearing nor any meaning beyond 3 months.

The major reason why this is a fault is that people don't buy vehicles for the next 3 months.

Now if the writer were realisitic he would have written it with a couple of different scenarios and let the readers choose for themselves which scenario made the most sense.

• Fuel remaining at the same price forever, yeah sure :lol:
• Fuel varying in price but steadily upward, most likely IMO.
• Fuel going through the roof with shortages ocassionally within the next 5-7 yrs.

That's what businesses do, they create scenarios and put estimates of occurance next to each. Then they make a decision. Basing large purchases on 'snapshot economics' is stupid.

There is another completely different factor that this writer ignored because he is not involved in the auto business. This escapes nearly everyone including til recently the detroiters.

The typical buyer going to shop for a vehicle has already classified himself or herself into a relatively narrow price stratum.

This 'stratum' may actually be +/- a price level or two but it's almost never greater than $5000 for the bulk of the population. Certain well-to-do buyers have a much wider range available to themselves but not the bulk of the buying population. As a result when a $15000 buyer goes to shop the vehicle purchased will be very close to $15000. Not $20000, and definitely not $30000. Similarly when a buyer expects to pay about $30000 for the next vehicle then that's what he or she will buy. Landing by chance in a Yaris or Versa just doesn't happen.

ROI for the budget-conscious buyer becomes readily apparent. A new $25000 Prius is really not 'worthwhile' for a $15000 buyer. A Corolla or Yaris is a better choice. However for a $30000 buyer the loaded $29000 Prius is immediately +ROI. This is the brilliant marketing discovery that Toyota stumbled upon after the Prius landed. The huge number of well-to-do or economically-comfortable buyers in the world see the immediate value in the Prius.

The writer doesn't understand this concept, so it's ignored.

 

What if your Prius is rude in public, would you defend it?

 

I wish more people would be concerned about air pollution.

 

I'd put mine on "reduced gas portions" and drain its battery.

 

Let me expand on my comment about Ford's president raising the issue of using tax policy to set a minimum price for gasoline. You don't have to get sidetracked into namecalling about various -isms in order to understand the basic issues.

The actual cost of an oil-powered transportation fleet has several components. Some costs are private costs, paid directly by the user, some are public, borne by us collectively. Let me try to list the public costs.

The cost of building and maintaining the road network.

The health costs of air pollution (well documented in the public health literature).

The environmental costs (excluding global warming). For example, about half the excess nitrogen load in the Chesapeake Bay comes from NOx washed out of the air, where the NOx had largely been put there by car exhaust. As we get ready to shut down crabbing in the Bay, that's something to think about.

The eventual cost of global warming (to be borne almost entirely by far future generations, not by those current driving).

The cost of maintaining and expanding access to world oil supplies. Much of our military investment in that are stems from doctrines dating back to WWII, and expressed in the modern era by President Carter, that we maintain the right to intervene in the Middle East to maintain world access to that oil.

The cost in our international terms of trade, from purchasing so much oil (ie., the dollar is worth less due to oil's contribution to the trade deficit).

The cost created by the instability of that commodity price (e.g., the truly horrific 1974 recession, and the current issue of commodity price variation that is far more rapid than can reasonably be accommodated by auto engineers).

I could go on.

None of these costs are trivial, all can be quantified to some degree.

But the real joker in the deck is that gas taxes do not even cover the cost of the roads.

So it's not as if somebody raising the "T" word with respect to gasoline is out of line/socialism/communism, or whatever. On net, we don't tax the use of oil, we subsidize out of general tax revenues. And we charge not a cent to try to offset the other costs listed above. So, setting a tax policy that both began to cover those costs and would dampen commodity price variation seems fairly reasonable to me.

For gas taxes relative to road costs, here's a nice chart, from a random internet source:

Provocateur: Big Myth Busted: Gas Tax Doesn't Cover Road Costs

If you want to see the underlying data, the US DOT estimated that in 2004, the US spent $148B on highways. Total vehicle-related revenues (taxes, tolls, license fees) amounted to $106B.

FHWA - 2006 Conditions and Performance Report: Chapter 6 Executive Summary - Finance: Highways

So we do not, on net, tax the use of gasoline. On net, we subsidize it.

 

I think a gigantic big factor we're not talking about (after all, we are a pro-hybrid forum here! :biggrin1: ) is the fact conventional small cars are getting much more fuel efficient nowadays.

Take for example the upcoming next-generation Ford Fiesta, where the US model will be arriving around January 2010 (Ford has begun work to completely retool its Cuautitlán Assembly Plant just north of Mexico City to build this model). Thanks to the use of a modern fuel-injected engine with variable-valve timing (Ford's latest version of its Sigma I-4 engine) and the use of Ford's new Powershift dual-clutch transmission, the new Fiesta could get around 40 miles per US gallon fuel economy on the highway based on the EPA 2008 test, a major achievement given the stringency of the EPA 2008 test.

This right there means the new Fiesta is approaching hybrid vehicle fuel efficiency, and the initial cost of the Fiesta is going to be at least US$3,000 to US$4,000 less that most hybrid vehicles. Given the very positive reception to the new Fiesta in Europe so far, the new model will be guaranteed a hot seller in the USA.

And the fuel efficiency could be even higher. I'm sure Ford is working on ways to improve deNOx catalytic converters so it can tolerate 15 parts per million sulfur content and reduce its cost; that could open the way for direct fuel injection with lean-burn operation, which could add another 10%-12% better fuel economy. Since Ford has access to Mazda's technology portfolio, Ford could also integrate the Mazda-developed Smart Idle Stop System (SISS) to improve urban fuel economy quite a bit. The combination of gasoline direct injection (GDI) plus lean burn with SISS could push the new Fiesta into 35 mpg city/44 mpg highway rating based on the EPA 2008 test, a major achievement indeed. :nod:

In short, there's still a lot of life left for conventional gasoline engines to meet President Obama's goal of better fuel efficiency. And I haven't even talked about a promising technology called homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) that could push gasoline engines to diesel-car like fuel economy!

 

A vehicle is an expense NOT an investment. I haven't quite figured out why everyone jumps on this bandwagon with a prius pro/con deal but never considers it with a Vette, Miata, Jeep, etc. Payback? Nope....expense. ALL vehicles. Oh, there's a few crazy exceptions out there but not everyone buys a Prius because they want to make money, save the environment, etc, etc. Some people just like the car. I am quite comfortable with the vehicle & would be if it was straight gasoline & got 35mpg or so. The extra is a plus, but I like the highway and city handling & performance. I cannot say that I dislike filling up for less than $20 for 500 miles of driving, but the car stands on what it is as a whole for me. Hybrid is interesting to some degree but I don't care how it does it, just do it. I know when gas was higher & I was driving my pickup, I better have $100 bucks in my pocket when it was time to fill up! Not quite as rough now, but I still drive my Prius over my pickup unless I need a pickup (hauling, pulling a trailer, etc).

The hatchback vehicle has never really been a big hit in the US but liked very well in Europe. I personally like it & was a key point for purchase for me. One key factor that very important to me besides mileage is reliability & overall more important to me than mileage. I went for a car that was reliable, gets good mileage & has features I like. The Prius does that very well for me.

I can guarantee that it will look even better when gasoline prices go back up. Nice thing about Amercia, you can drive whatever you can afford.

 

Your post was very good. I learned a very new point of view. One that may be tested by the new Honda Insight's success (or not).

I have one minor quibble with the terminology "stumbled upon". Toyota did not commit to a massive Hybrid commitment unaware that a market existed, only to find out that "luckily", there was one. I will agree that the success was probably greater than expected, but they knew they were onto the next real advance in gas cars.