Do Hybrids Really Make Sense?

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So why do you think cost of ownership is on the radar for those of us who bought the Gen1 Insight, or the early Prius &c? Not to brag or anything, but if it weren't for my ingrained frugality (and lack of any desire to look like a complete prat), I could likely buy any of those luxury SUVs, and keep them fueled. I didn't buy the Insight to save money, much though I appreciate what it has saved me (frugality again :-)): I did it to cut my use of gasoline, for political & environmental reasons.

Another reason is that by being an early adopter of new technology, I can help bring the cost down and allow its widespread adoption. Same reason I had (and still have) some of the first CFLs (before they all became the modern curly style), and why I'm gradually replacing those with LEDs.

If that were true of the majority of G1 buyers then they would have sold well here too.

My motivation is actually similar to yours. I don't really look at ROI personally, but from what I've learned on here 99% of members are here to save money first and foremost. If the ROI investment isn't reasonable the technology will remain in the niche market.

I already have LEDs everywhere, I never really jumped on the CFL bandwagon since they're full of mercury and technically require a Hazmat suit to dispose of a broken one.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That's just the problem, from my point of view. I don't want to hear diesels going by - I have enough of that from the dickhead neighbor's diesel pickup. Not that I particularly want to hear petrol engines going by, either, but unless de-mufflered they seem to run a lot quieter than diesels.

But going back to somewhere near the beginning of this, diesel and hybrid aren't mutually exclusive.

I think modern Euro diesels are pretty quiet, the diesel Kangoo was the quietest car I've ever driven. Deathly silent at freeway speeds. Very impressive for a van.

I posted figures for Mercedes Diesel Hybrid some pages ago.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

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.

Makes sense. Environmentally-wise it would be more effective to use them as BRT lanes, allowing not just transit buses but also charter buses.

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.

Even with such president in office, you should still watch out for the congressmen. These ones may also pose a threat to economy, personal responsibility and freedom.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

It wasn't Australia that penalized the G1, it was Honda Australia. Keep in mind it cost over double the Civic.

I think it is a shame that Australia imposed a penalty soo large it was double the cost of the Civic.

- - - - -

The data previously shown to you disagrees with this PoV / Hypothesis of yours.

If you don't feel like going back to review the data already shown I'll give a brief summary of top 3 points bellow:

• Numerous other examples given (that you acknowledged Australia does) of an Australian imposed financial penalty on sales of a vehicle... 2x or even 3x Australian imposed price penalty in some known cases.
• You yourself admitted to a common 30% Australian imposed penalty on other imports.
  "The usual mark up for a Japanese car is around 30%"
• At least 4 known examples of other markets that Honda was able to keep the MSRP down around $18~$19k... Even with their own import duties , taxes , shipping costs , all adding costs on to the price... ie Australia penalized much worse than these others did.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I think it is a shame that Australia imposed a penalty soo large it was double the cost of the Civic.

Yes it is a shame Honda Australia decided to impose this penalty.

They import a Japanese built 2004 Acura RSX US$20,025, add taxes and duties and currency conversion, becomes AU$37,950, the local list price.

They import a Japanese built 2004 G1 US$18,980, add taxes and duties and currency conversion, at the same percentage, it should become AU$35,969.

Somehow, there's an extra AU$12,930 tacked on by Honda Australia. I will continue to put this down to the car being unprofitable at the ~$36k price. Taxes or duties or whatever cannot account for the difference, in fact, the Insight should have a lower tax and duty burden if the US price is any guide.

I've not compared to Civic as yours was locally built(?), ours was imported.

[user removed]

It cost me 8.2 cents a mile for insurance and fuel in Sinatra (6.1 fuel and 2.1 ins) based on 1000 miles a month. Including every expense since purchase 8-14, 20 cents a mile, with that up front cost diluted every day I drive the car. Insurance is $254.28 a year, $25 for tag renewal, $17 a year for inspection. Last expense was $40 for a rock auto blower motor which replaced the crap replacement that was blowing a fuse if I went to max speed directly.

That's with fresh tires and struts and the cost of the trailer hitch (including labor) which eliminates the pickup truck altogether.

The monthly gas and insurance cost (1000 miles) was almost identical to the Fiesta's depreciation at $83.33 a month. No interest paid on anything.

regards
mech

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

They import a Japanese built 2004 Acura RSX US$20,025, add taxes and duties and currency conversion, becomes AU$37,950, the local list price.

They import a Japanese built 2004 G1 US$18,980, add taxes and duties and currency conversion, at the same percentage, it should become AU$35,969.

Somehow, there's an extra AU$12,930 tacked on by Honda Australia.

Progress:
Thanks for admitting to Australia's penalty of at least a minimum of $16,989 (an 85% Australia penalty) .. That Australia added to the I1 price.

Now .. if you would be so kind ... Please site your source .. if you have one ... that it was Honda that did that much ($12,930) of the rest .. and not Australia?

We already have proven data showing Australia has in other cases imposed a financial penalty on some vehicles by ~300% MSRP.

We have evidence of Australia doing this already on more than one occasion.

What evidence do you have that this time (with the I1) is an exception ... that this time (unlike those others) ... it was not Australia adding that $12,930 ?

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I will continue to put this down to the car being unprofitable at the ~$36k price.

And what about the $18-$19k paid by other markets that didn't impose as much of a penalty as Australia did?

Is it also unprofitable to the Australian who was going to by a $36k car anyway ?? ... By all means ... Tell me what $36k (in Australia) car gets better MPG (driven same conditions) ? .. I don't know of any that do... not even at $36k.

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Taxes or duties or whatever cannot account for the difference

Why not?

There are other examples we've already seen of that very kind of thing adding even more than this to the price... What is the source of your thinking it did not also happen in this case?

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

the Insight should have a lower tax and duty burden if the US price is any guide.

I agree Australia should have penalized the I1 less than they did... even the 85% Australian penalty would have been excessive.

[Hersbird]

Honda themselves is the one who said they were selling the Insight in the US for $20,000 at a loss. It was you who came up with a theory with no proof to the contrary.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I never really jumped on the CFL bandwagon since they're full of mercury and technically require a Hazmat suit to dispose of a broken one.

Well, that explains a lot, as it evidences a tendency to believe hysterical baloney rather than checking out the facts.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Honda themselves is the one who said they were selling the Insight in the US for $20,000 at a loss.

Certainly, because it was essentially an R&D prototype, intended to test the hybrid powertrain (and other fuel-saving technologies) in the real-world, and also as green advertising. Just as GM probably hasn't yet recouped all its R&D costs for the Volt, and Tesla may not yet be turning a profit overall. That's the way the development of any new product works: the first X items sell at a loss.