At present, even defenders of hybrids seem to admit that over all cost savings from higher gas mileage - and apart from subsidies - mean you have to run them for 15 years or rack up an extreme amount of odometer mileage. Maintenance costs on such a new technology are likely to high , as well. - although constant speed gas engine might do very well as to lifetime between rebuilds. For God's sake, somebody throw a diesel in here! ( given the extreme longevity of some truck engines)
The premium over the price of a regular car is a problem. I sincerely hope that it follows the path of VCRs - which dropped from $2000+ ( Cartivision from Sears) down to the present $80-90 at Walmart. If it doesn't drop, we've got a problem. When I see more "energy" used in the manufacture of hybrids, I mean all the costs of manufacture from raw materials upward , into finished parts - and I don't trust any academic estimates in this - only free markets can tell us the answer. ( Old Soviet joke: Gorbachev said that when Communism takes over the world, they will have to leave New Zealand alone, to get some idea of what prices should be!) What do we "save" in hybrid manufacture? No mechanical powertrain. What extra do we pay for? More batteries, more complex controls ( Asian factories can bring the cost down) , a big electric motor ( possibly combined with some braking generation). You still need an engine big enough to power the car up long hills, after the batteries give out. ( if this is not provided, I expect to see stalled hybrids on the shoulders of highways around Scranton, Pennsylvania - any one remember "30,000 lbs. Of Bananas" by Harry Chapin?) If anyone can make this work ( $ -wise), I think Toyota can. Good Lord, is copper $4 a pound today? Jed Rothwell wrote: > Zell, Chris wrote: > >> Consumer Reports claims hybrid gas mileage is 19 mpg lower than the >> EPA says and are among the worst in mileage exaggeration. >> >> http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4023460 > > But they are the best in mileage! According to the Consumer Reports > list on this page! I think it's also worth noting that CU admits that they made a *mistake* in their comparison of hybrids with other cars. The added the extra depreciation _and_ the extra initial purchase cost to the cost of owning a hybrid, and so concluded that overall the hybrid was more expensive. In a response to a letter in a recent issue they stated that by erroneously double-counting the higher price they skewed it toward conventional vehicles; without the double-counting, the hybrids came out cheaper. I don't have the details but I might be able to find the issue if anyone cares. (And if I actually saw this in someone else's letter to Vortex, rather than in CU itself, then I will apologize and will feel intense embarrassment as penance.)
