Do Hybrids Really Make Sense?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The only part I don't believe is that the $40K price of the Gen1 Insight in Australia wasn't due to taxes, import duties, or some such.

Nail on the head.

It isn't a 'cost' of the Insight itself as a vehicle ... it is an artificially inflated price ... only seen in Australia... It isn't what the rest of the world pays.

Link

The same Site also shows that the 1997 Honda Civic went for $35,000 MSRP in Austriala ... Link ... etc ... etc ...

A 2000 Toyota Camery is Listed in Austraila as an MSRP of $43,670 Link

Now if we look at other places in the world ... that don't impose that kind of an additional artificial mark up cost (like Austraila) ... We see the Gen1 Insight was no where near that as the vehicle itself... the Gen1 Insight started at a far more reasonable price... even brand new.

Link
Invoice $ 17,438

Link
Invoice $ 17,439

Link
Invoice $ 17,438

Link
Invoice $ 17,439

[Xist]

Amid much controversy, I believe that deep down, all of us agree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsNgRmsx-14

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

If we are to compare Insights and Civics, lets take the current ones.

What I note from the Spritmonitor figures is that the best Civic beats the best Insight by over half a litre. There are also 6 Civic's beating your own Insight. Of the Insights, there are only three cars beating your Insight.

This is what I said right at the start, hybrids make less sense to hypermilers as ICEs leave more on the table. Hybrids make more sense to regular joe's who only know how to mash one pedal or the other. Personally, my T5 TDI beats the NEDC city cycle by 35% even with a commute that can be as slow as 14km/h. This is without turning off the engine at all, no EOC, no mods, unless you count a cracked cylinder head (the cracked head looses about 1/2 litre of diesel per tank). I have no doubt that most of us would beat the official numbers of the Civic by some margin.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by IamIan

It isn't a 'cost' of the Insight itself as a vehicle ... it is an artificially inflated price ... only seen in Australia... It isn't what the rest of the world pays.

Cherry picking in the extreme. The Autoblog article refers to the Luxury car tax of ~50%. This tax affects cars over a certain price only. At the time of the 1st Gen I beleive the threshold was $47K, so the Insight buyer would have been slugged the tax only on the proportion over that amount. I also would imagine that if Honda could have kept the cars' price below that threshold, they would have.

It's easy to post the most expensive 'Sports/ Luxury' versions and say look how expensive they are.

Used Car Research - Used Car Prices - Compare Cars - RedBook.com.au

2004 Civic, $20,000, more expensive than the US? No doubt. By 100%? Not remotely.

http://www.redbook.com.au/cars/resea...idx=124&eapi=2

2000 Camry, $26,000, more expensive than the US? No doubt, By 100%? Not remotely. Worth noting that the Camry was locally built, and so NO IMPORT DUTY. It's higher price is at least partly due to higher Australian wages. It's hard to compare to to a US built car (with lots of parts from Mexico?).

We do tend to get slugged for factory options as these cars have to be specially ordered straight from the factory, shipped over etc. In the case of Porsche and Lexus, imagine the cost of building/ maintaining a dealership that might only sell 1000 cars a year. Pretty sure Honda didn't have this problem.

Keep in mind a 2014 Mirage is cheaper than in the US. Adjusted for currency that's US$9,200:

http://www.redbook.com.au/cars/resea...&Ridx=0&eapi=2

I think we can agree that at $17k, the first Gen Insight was far too cheap for an alloy bodied hybrid, particularly since at the time neither was mainstream for mass produced vehicles. I'd love to know exactly what they were 'worth', no doubt it's somewhere between what you guys paid and what they tried to charge us.

And bare in mind the current Insight costs $30k here, about on par with it's global price.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That's true, but face it: there are a lot of cars out there that a) cost more than even the $40K Australian Insight; and b) get far worse mpg. For instance

• Cadillac Escalade: $72,970 - $91,875
• Porsche Cayenne: $49,600 - $146,000
• Range Rover: $69,220 - $102,920

The companies that make these seem to stay in business, so the cars must be economically viable, no?

When people buy one of the above, cost of ownership isn't on the radar, and at a wild guess, they're not sold at a loss. The Gen 1 perhaps could best be compared to the VW XL1, very economical, but only appealing to a handful that wanted to, and could afford to, make a different kind of statement. A main stream hybrid/Eco car has to address cost of ownership, profitability, desirability etc.

[redpoint5]

I wonder if the fact that hybrids don't make economic sense when buying new is the reason why hybrid owners are seen as smug, preachy, or pious. Perhaps there is some truth to that generalization, and those owners need something other than economics to justify their decision to purchase a hybrid. The mindset being; if I'm altruistic minded, then you should be too.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I wonder if the fact that hybrids don't make economic sense when buying new is the reason why hybrid owners are seen as smug, preachy, or pious. Perhaps there is some truth to that generalization, and those owners need something other than economics to justify their decision to purchase a hybrid.

Some people bought them just to have access to a carpool lane even while not carpooling, that's why you may eventually see a hybrid full-size SUV for example...

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Some people bought them just to have access to a carpool lane even while not carpooling, that's why you may eventually see a hybrid full-size SUV for example...

I'll use this as a segue into my rant about carpool lanes; they're a waste. Why spend money to expand an infrastructure and then underutilize it? Do they actually increase carpool adoption by a significant amount? I doubt it.

If carpool lanes exist for environmental reasons, then it should be the big-rigs, trucks, and SUVs that should be occupying them since those are the big fuel wasters. You don't want those vehicles to reach their destination with a minimum of braking and idling.

Carpool lanes are dumb. Making it available to people who were already going to travel with multiple occupants instead of large trucks is dumb. Allowing the most efficient vehicles that don't even idle when stopped in traffic to utilize the HOV lanes is even dumber.

I'm sure some corrupt politician made a fortune when he cut a deal with some weasely lobbyist under the guise of "helping the environment".

Politicians should do less, not more. I'd vote for a president promised they would golf all year instead of think of new ways to screw with the economy and remove personal responsibility and freedom.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Cherry picking in the extreme.

Cherry picking .. cries the person who only sites the highest price example he can find on the planet for the Insight ??? Than proceeds to make broad generalizations about the Insight and Hybrids everywhere ... based on that highest most extreme price he could find ... that's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it.

For the record .. I intended no cherry picking... But Honestly .. I also made no effort to do an extensive search... they were intended to show what they did show ... that Australia artificially raises the price of vehicles compares to the rest of the world .. 2x or even 3x is not unheard of , nor uncommon.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I also would imagine that if Honda could have kept the cars' price below that threshold, they would have.

They did keep it bellow that .. everywhere else on the planet.

Australia is one and AFAIK only exception ... Occam's razor ... the most likely reason ... that only Australia saw that price is because of Australian market itself ... and NOT because of the vehicle itself.

It is well known that Australia artificially jacks up their car prices compared to what the rest of the world pays... The I1 is not the only time Australia has 2x or even 3x the price of a car compared to everywhere else on the planet.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I think we can agree that at $17k, the first Gen Insight was far too cheap for an alloy bodied hybrid, particularly since at the time neither was mainstream for mass produced vehicles.

Nope.

As I already posted .. AFAIK ... If (as it 'should be') ... R&D and such .. are distributed across all models that benefited ... than the Invoice price of the Gen-1 Insight turned a profit for Honda to make it even at ~$18k.

We can discuss that in more depth if you wish.

Further .. Cost to me .. is the relevant cost for my finances ... I know people who've bought used I1 for $2,500 ... he is getting 3x the MPG , of what he was driving ... that paid for itself very quickly.

If you want to talk new .. fine ... use the new price people paid .. which is still ~$19k... for about ~99% of the planet.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I'd love to know exactly what they were 'worth', no doubt it's somewhere between what you guys paid and what they tried to charge us.

'worth' ... is another very subjective term.

I know what it's 'worth' to me ... because I know the cost to me .. for the value to me... It paid for itself to me a long time ago... And I still have additional value in the car itself.

For what I want from a vehicle ... Any other (non-I1) would either cost me more to get roughly the same end result ... or give me less than what I want as an end result ... or both... but that's just me... YMMV... use the right tool for the job .. the I1 is the right tool for my job... someone else for different wants/need/jobs ... may need a different tool.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Cherry picking .. cries the person who only sites the highest price example he can find on the planet for the Insight ?

It's Autoblog that picked the cherries in this case

It's as relevant to me as the $17k Insight is to you. It's not cherry picking, it's the most relevant example I have (and why I've long held this opinion of G1's). If I wanted to cherry pick, I'd have gone straight to Singapore where the current Jazz/Fit sells for US$93,000. They don't seem to sell Insights there.

http://www.sgcarmart.com/new_cars/pr...2015-03-10.pdf

For the record .. I intended no cherry picking... But Honestly .. I also made no effort to do an extensive search... they were intended to show what they did show ... that Australia artificially raises the price of vehicles compares to the rest of the world .. 2x or even 3x is not unheard of , nor uncommon.

I believe this to be true, but it bares no impact on the discussion at hand, particularly since I've posted over and over that most cars are roughly on par with the US and some even cheaper.

They did keep it bellow that .. everywhere else on the planet.

Clearly not.

Invoice price of the Gen-1 Insight turned a profit for Honda to make it even at ~$18k.

Honda themselves have stated the cars sold at a loss. I can't believe you don't know that. The only question is how much of a loss. Even the current Japan built Hondas sell at a loss in the US.

Honda "losing money" on Japan-built cars like Fit, CR-Z and Insight

Toyota have also stated the Prius sold at a loss (Even the million dollar plus Bugatti Veyron sold at a loss- selling at a loss isn't uncommon in the car industry - that's why GM & Chrysler had to be bailed out).