The argument against hybrids is analogous to being against wall insulation. Sure, someone without wall insulation could have the same utility cost as someone with wall insulation, but they would have to use
directed heat lamps for warmth like Frank Lee. Likewise, you could spend a similar amount on fuel buying a regular gasoline powered vehicle as a hybrid if you are wiling to sacrifice acceleration, utility, modern conveniences...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird
So what about the article I posted before comparing the fiesta to the prius c? that is pretty even. Comparing the htbird version of the same car to the non-hybrid always looks better because they hide the cost of the hybrid with lots of other options and possibly even sell the hybrid at a loss on the back of the profitable normal version.
If you want a new car to go from A to B for the least impact on your wallet no hybrids are the best choice.
|
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?
As iterated before, hybrid technology is a long term investment. If someone wants to trade in vehicles every 3 years, they will save money by getting non-hybrid cars. Those people really aren't interested in saving money in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile
You're still cherry picking. The question behind this thread is whether hybrids actually make sense. You're comparing a run of the mill standard car with a fully optimised hybrid. As we all know, simply adding some of the features of a hybrid like aero tweaks, stop start, LRR tyres etc to a normal car will show that the hybrid does indeed NOT make sense.
Mercedes E220 BlueTec 51.4/74.3/64.2 (Imperial)
Mercedes E300 Bluetec Hybrid 70.6/68.9/68.9 (Imperial)
Both use the same 2.1l diesel, both have all the eco tweaks. The hybrid costs $10K more yet does worse on the highway and is basically the same combined. Even the big advantage on the city cycle doesn't really help it's cause because the monetary gains of 50mpg vs 70mpg are actually pretty slim. Yes the hybrid is faster, but it's also 100kg heavier.
If you don't like my using a Mercedes as an example, find another ECO car with a hybrid option to compare to.
|
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.