Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
In the vast majority of posts on this thread, 'sense' is implicitly replaced by 'fuel cost per mile'.
To make sense we need to look at the whole picture, right?]
|
For a car to make sense it needs to be economically viable. History is littered with interesting cars and concepts that were too expensive to make it in the market ( you can probably think of at least a dozen ECO cars alone).
Hybrids are only just starting to be viable. In future, as ICE regs drive ever greater engine complexity, Hybrids may well become a way to keep engines simple and reliable.
There's a problem with the way Hybrids are tested for emissions though. Presently, cars are tested over a ~20km total to arrive at their emissions ratings. The mfg's fully charge the battery (when I drove the Prius C it started with 50% charge and charged as I drove it - very little came from wasted regen energy) and every hybrid even from Ferrari and big SUV's, gets 90g or less CO2 per 100km. Once that charge is depleted, those CO2 outputs skyrocket.
Certainly for many people in Europe, where cars are taxed into the thousands of dollars per year you can see how someone with a ICE Golf sized car pays thousands a year in tax, while mr Hybrid SUV in some cases pays nothing, even though in all likelihood he's putting out more CO2.
ROI is an easy way to compare approximate energy use over the car's lifetime. That's why I feel you need to use the true cost of a vehicle not 'what you pay', that's why 1st Gens don't make sense.
If we want to look at the whole picture, sure, I think I have another 170 pages in me
