Ford's new hybrid Maverick: A 40 MPG pickup for $20,000.

[freebeard]

So what do you think of Vaughn Lin's MUUV concept?



vaughanling.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-honda

The bubble top results in a narrow bed, but it has removable bins over the wheels.

A hot-hatch mini-Ranchero/El Camino.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I have zero insight into the industry, simply my wild speculation. My hunch was that a hybrid truck made sense a decade ago, which is 2012. By then, Toyota was already working on their 4th gen Prius.

A mild hybrid doesn't really allow the engine to be downsized.

Truck marketing and truck buyers do not allow for engine downsizing.

There is a huge difference between what makes sense from an economical standpoint and what makes sense from a sales standpoint.

We are at a point today where hybrid technology is cheap enough it should logically be in every vehicle. However, for that to happen you have to:
A. Get buyers to want to buy a hybrid and stop believing the FUD about how complicated they are
B. Care about total costs instead of purchase price or monthly payments.

You also have to somehow get buyers away from the "bigger is better" mentality that goes through the entire US ethos. There is a running joke in the auto industry that Americans buy cars like they buy ground beef - by the pound. The lower the cost per pound the happier they are. They also aren't too choosing about the content - US buyers will almost always choose a larger car over a smaller but better equipped car just as most will take a larger cut of meat over a better but smaller cut of meat.

[redpoint5]

Well, now you're just playing to my personality. I like more beef in my beef.

All of that makes total sense though.

I've heard it said that we decide what we like first, and then afterwards use reasons to justify the choice.

It seems like a failure of marketing though, because they are supposed to be able to sell an ice box to an eskimo. People might want to hear "V8" when purchasing a truck, but wouldn't they rather hear "400 horsepower"? There's plenty of macho stuff to hype with regards to hybrid tech. "We engineered kilowatt technology to launch this truck zero to sixty in 5.6 seconds". Took me about 3 seconds to create that one, and I hate marketing.

As an aside, I am currently looking for the largest vehicle for the buck, which keeps coming back to the Pacifica PHEV.

[Ecky]

It's too bad there is literally only one choice in the minivan PHEV sector.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by Ecky

It's too bad there is literally only one choice in the minivan PHEV sector.

And some people that have had one of those haven't been happy with them.

Anywho, I don't know what opinion to have. All I know, if I were to get a brand new pickup, it would probably be a Maverick. But since I don't need or want a pickup, I guess it doesn't matter what I think on it.

Plug-in hybrids seem pretty neat. So do hybrids. But it does take more thinking as to whether the increased initial price (and possibly later battery replacement, if you keep it for +15 years) actually saves you money or not.

On the other hand, people don't seem to buy cars to save money. People who want to save money might not even buy a car. Cars are big people toys. The bigger they are, the better, apparently.

[redpoint5]

I've been on a few roadtrips with the PacHy and driven it for a stretch. Seemed great to me. I need to pick my friend's brain a bit more on it. He's got a family of 4 and a dog, and no truck (previously he borrowed my 4x8 trailer).

New car buyers don't need to be concerned with replacement costs of anything because they'll sell it by year 8.

Time and money are fungible. A car saves time, but costs money. People tend to buy them for more than simple transport though. Even freebeard is flirting with the FUV, and I assume a bit part of that is the 'F'. I'm always encouraging people to spend their money where it makes them happy (after covering the basics).

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm always encouraging people to spend their money where it makes them happy (after covering the basics).

So I need to buy more bacon...

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've been on a few roadtrips with the PacHy and driven it for a stretch. Seemed great to me. I need to pick my friend's brain a bit more on it. He's got a family of 4 and a dog, and no truck (previously he borrowed my 4x8 trailer).

A guy on Priuschat said he had something like 8 major problems with his within his first 6 months of ownership. I'm not sure what though, but it sounded like he was never going to get a Chrysler anything ever again.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

New car buyers don't need to be concerned with replacement costs of anything because they'll sell it by year 8.

Used buyers do. If all cars were hybrids and needed expensive battery replacements at 15 years then their value would decrease more quickly, possibly making car ownership more expensive for everyone.

It would be similar to how Nissan Leafs lost value quickly back before COVID, only the battery would have to be replaced although after a longer period of time.

And don't tell me that aftermarket batteries would make that a cheap fix. I don't believe aftermarket batteries will ever become a good idea. So far, the only ones that do work cost just as much as the OEM ones.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Plug-in hybrids seem pretty neat. So do hybrids. But it does take more thinking as to whether the increased initial price (and possibly later battery replacement, if you keep it for +15 years) actually saves you money or not.

Hybrids save money over the life of the vehicle. A Camry LE is $25,845 and rated at 32 mpg. A Camry Hybrid LE is $28,080 and rated at 52 mpg. FuelEconomy.gov tells me that is a savings of $550 per year with gas at $3 a gallon. That extra $2235 purchase price pays back in 4 years. At 15 years you are $6,000 in the black on fuel savings alone - not even taking into account that the Hybrid will have it's original brakes while the Standard Camry will likely be on it's 2nd to 3rd set of brakes / rotors.

At 15 years you are at 214K miles driving the average US mileage. At that point a car is pretty much fully depreciated. Prior to the current vehicle shortage we are talking value of a few thousand dollars. Any major failure will send a vehicle that old to the scrapyard. However, if you wanted to replace the battery an OEM Toyota pack is $3500 + about $500 in labor. Most people would put that $4K toward a new car - no different than if the engine or transmission needed to be replaced for thousands of dollars.

[redpoint5]

Good analysis of the situation.

Batteries are warrantied for 10 years and 150,000 miles (in CA). That means manufacturers are designing to exceed that criteria.

The average lifespan of a car is somewhere near 12 years. If an EV battery lasts 15, then it's lasted longer than a typical car.

I wouldn't be surprised if modern batteries start to extend that average somewhat.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Even freebeard is flirting with the FUV, and I assume a bit part of that is the 'F'.

Actually, the primary thing is personal safety. Riding a bike through intersections, and the Geo Metro deathtrap are all I have now. The Superbeetle is in storage.