Do Hybrids Really Make Sense?

[RedDevil]

I cannot deny that hybrid versions of the same car have aero tweeks and LRR tires and such, but they seldom make for mare than 5% difference in their specific field.
The overall gain would be less than that, certainly not the 30% that these examples display.

Give a normal car all the eco goodies the hybrid version of that car has and it will still use 25% more than that hybrid.

Put the same engine and drivetrain in as the hybrid has. It will still use 15% more and drive like a pig to boot.

Hybrids make sense, but not everyone is prepared to take sense (ducks ).

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Hybrids are not my cup of tea, and the only hybrid I would ever consider to buy (Peugeot 508 Hybrid4) is not legal in my country, but I think the Koenigsegg Regera sounds promising

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Hybrids have a downsized ICE vs. a comparable non-hybrid = more efficient when running

What about the Chevy Tahoe and Silverado hybrids with a 6.0L when the Silverado could be had with a 4.8L and the Tahoe with a 5.3L?

And what about the 1.6L Ecoboost in the current Ford Fusion (or even further, the 1.0L 3-cyl Ecoboost in its European equivalent, the Mondeo) while the hybrid relies on a 2.0L naturally-aspirated engine?

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You accuse me of cherry picking examples? I merely picked the first 2 vehicles that came to mind; the ones that also happen to be the best selling cars in the US. In your own example you even concede that Mercedes built the hybrid to improve acceleration. If that isn't a cherry-picked example, then I guess I don't know what the phrase means.

I'll provide the very next car that came to mind. This one built for fuel economy in both versions, and both having start-stop technology. The Ford Fusion. 29 vs 42 MPG.

I too went with the first example that came to mind. I don't know that Mercedes built the hybrid to improve performance, it's improved acceleration comes from having an extra motor to power it along, given the same ICE, it's impossible for it not to outperform the ICE only version. I maintain that it's the most valid comparison posted so far, same engine, same ECO tyres and aero tweaks etc. If you can find something as close, post it.

We don't get the Fusion, but you're comparing two very different engines. Small capacity turbos are not known for economy.

For me personally, I don't like hybrids because you still have all the ICE maintenance issues and you get a ticking lithium expense bomb. For me it's full EV or ICE.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

For me personally, I don't like hybrids because you still have all the ICE maintenance issues and you get a ticking lithium expense bomb.

So how much real-world experience will it take to convince you that your so-called lithium expense bomb is really a wet firecracker?

[RedDevil]

Most hybrids don't use lithium but NiMH batteries, like mine.
Now some earlier hybrids do have battery trouble, others don't.
It is entirely possible to make a hybrid with the battery lasting for 300 K miles or more, as several Prius and 2nd gen Insight owners have experienced.

The wear on the ICE should be less, just like brakes etc so less maintenance on those.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

You mean these 2 cars? 36 vs 50 MPG.

Using the example you provided me, the Prius c and the Fiests SFE, I ran the numbers through the cost of ownership spreadsheet. I found the Prius c would have an overall cost about $1,000 less than the Ford after 10 years of ownership.

Did you run the numbers and arrive at a different conclusion?

I don't need a spread sheet. Take 10 years x 15,000 miles per year and you get 150,000 miles. So to drive 150,000 at 50 mpg you use 3000 gallons of gas. To drive 150,000 miles at 36 mpg you use 4167 gallons a difference of 1167 gallons. Even at $4/gallon (which it is 1/2 that right now you only save $4667 in 10 years but spent $5000 more in the first place. Don't get into resale because then I get to take that $5000 and invest it at least doubling the money in 10 years if not doubling it twice.

[cowmeat]

don't need a spread sheet. Take 10 years x 15,000 miles per year and you get 150,000 miles. So to drive 150,000 at 50 mpg you use 3000 gallons of gas. To drive 150,000 miles at 36 mpg you use 4167 gallons a difference of 1167 gallons. Even at $4/gallon (which it is 1/2 that right now you only save $4667 in 10 years but spent $5000 more in the first place. Don't get into resale because then I get to take that $5000 and invest it at least doubling the money in 10 years if not doubling it twice.

Now take that a step further and compare the used market.

I paid 4,500 bucks for my Insight, it has 111,000 miles on it and a new battery. Say you can get a used (name your brand here) that comes within twenty miles a gallon of what my Insight gets with that mileage (good luck) and re-do the math for let's say a five year period of ownership.

I'd like to see that spreadsheet, cause that's my plan.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by cowmeat

Now take that a step further and compare the used market.

I paid 4,500 bucks for my Insight, it has 111,000 miles on it and a new battery. Say you can get a used (name your brand here) that comes within twenty miles a gallon of what my Insight gets with that mileage (good luck) and re-do the math for let's say a five year period of ownership.

I'd like to see that spreadsheet, cause that's my plan.

Problem is there aren't enough first gen Insights with just replaced IMA batteries to go around. Presented with such a deal I would have absolutely jumped. It's a bit like a lottery winner saying it's easy to make a million bucks

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I don't like hybrids because you still have all the ICE maintenance issues and you get a ticking lithium expense bomb. For me it's full EV or ICE.

I appreciate that concern and agree that it's silly to have 2 propulsion systems to maintain. That's why I'm looking to replace my TSX with a full EV. I want at least 1 car that requires no maintenance.

Originally Posted by cowmeat

I'd like to see that spreadsheet, cause that's my plan.

It's linked in my signature as a Google Sheet. I have it setup so that 2 cars can be compared side by side, and it works with EVs, as long as you have an estimate of how many miles per kWh the car will average and your utility rate. Let me know if I need to clarify something.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by cowmeat

Now take that a step further and compare the used market.

I paid 4,500 bucks for my Insight, it has 111,000 miles on it and a new battery. Say you can get a used (name your brand here) that comes within twenty miles a gallon of what my Insight gets with that mileage (good luck) and re-do the math for let's say a five year period of ownership.

I'd like to see that spreadsheet, cause that's my plan.

Used to used would be all over the map based good deals that come along. To be fair you should compare NADA values to eliminate the special deals that come along. That said yours is not a crazy good deal, but solid. The spreadsheet posted has a lot of guessing involved. Future resale can change a lot if something turns out to not be so reliable after all. Repairs are a crap shoot sometimes, I've had cars that are supposed to be the biggest pieces of junk solider on and on year after year with zero problems while the big red circle consumer reports job is just one thing after another. So let's just stick to MPG based on average 15,000 miles per year.

How about a 1996-1999 Neon 5-speed, a common under $2000 car, some as low as $500 with a bit of crust. But say a nice 111,000 mile one for $2000. To be fair I'll use the updated EPA combined ratings for the Insight and Neon. Yes you can get more with the Insight, but I bet a hypermiler would get an even bigger gain (compared to EPA) with the Neon as you yourself have proven with your Ford. So over 75,000 miles the Insight uses 1415 gallons and the Neon uses 2586 gallons, 1171 more. At $3/gal a savings of $3500. So with only a $2100 higher price you save $1400 over 5 years with the Insight. So it works. I would bet that is the only hybrid that does and you are talking about living with a 2 seater.

Plug in a used 2001 Prius with less MPG and you get 1829 gallons used, a 757 gallon savings. Pretty much even with a $2100 less price of a Neon.

A 1998 Civic compares pretty well also using 2206 gallons or 377 gallons more then a Prius and 791 more then a Insight and but is more like a $3000 car so the $4100 Insight still wins by $1273.