"Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
#21
07-31-2006, 12:10 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
*Grumble Grumble*
Well, I fired off some e-mails.
I feel a bit better.
I went to Betsy's own site and shared my letter with her as well.
Heh.
Well, I fired off some e-mails.
Originally Posted by The All Irked Pravus Prime
I'm rather disappointed by your recent article
by Betsy Hart, (I sent an email to ScrippsNews, and to Boston Herald, with the appropriate link here),
in that's the
kind of reporting I'd expect from a
failing high school journalism student.
I was always led to believe that one did
research before writing an article, so that they'd be
armed with the facts and solid information to form an
opinion rather than anything they felt like saying,
even if it's blatantly wrong.
I will freely admit at this point, I am a
hybrid owner, so I'm somewhat balanced the other way.
I do not have, however, any problems with reporting a
negative aspect of hybrids. I just have a problem
with inaccurate reports (negative or positive) about
hybrids.
"This feel-goodism has never felt quite right
to me. It's not just that until recently the cars were
so little and lacked power _ I prefer big, heavy and
safe _ it's that it's always been the case that the
market doesn't support them."
First of all, I find it rather laughable that
she believes hybrids need help, when it was the
monster SUVs and Hummers that required government
breaks to get them onto the roads to begin with. Now
look at them.
"They may be politically correct, but hybrids would
get nowhere without government and manufacturer
subsidies. (Car companies take losses on the cars.)
Hybrids cost about $6,000 more to make than similar
gas-powered car, and consumers won't shell that out _
whatever their politics _ and so buyers require the
subsidies, Reason magazine recently reported."
Actually, this is rather false. Secondary
sales which don't have rebates or incentives move
quickly, and new cars stay on the lots 15 times
shorter than non-hybrid equivalents. In addition, I
have no idea where that six thousand add on comes
from, it's between $1500-$4000 at the most.
"In fact, hybrid manufacturers are now doing
what car manufacturers always do, according to
National Geographic magazine _ trying to add
horsepower to the vehicles _ because that is what the
buyer wants. But that will, in turn, lower their fuel
efficiency."
Sadly, this is true, but it's to regular
vehicles, not hybrid vehicles. The finding has been
that hybrid sports cars outperform conventional sports
cars, and use less fuel at the same time. This isn't
a case of the manufacturers beefing up hybrids to get
them to sell, it's the manufacturers entering into a
*GASP* secondary market, those who want power more
than fuel economy. Yes, now you can pick the kind of
hybrid focus you'd like, fuel economy or power. Not
all hybrids are the same.
"Look, some folks just like the things and
saving some money on gas, and good for them. What I
object to is the myth that persists in the popular
culture that hybrids confer some kind of special
"pure" status on the driver."
While this is her pure opinion, I wonder why
people confer some sort of great status on people who
own road and environmentally damaging Hummers. (This
is shocking true, there's actual research on this!)
Or obnoxious Tahoes and Escalades.
"I wonder if once they grow nearly as big and
heavy as an SUV, if they will keep their halos? My bet
is "yes" _ some people just want to feel good about
feeling good about themselves, no matter the facts."
This shows just how uninformed the article is.
There are currently 4 hybrid SUV's on the market RIGHT
NOW. I happen to own a Ford Escape Hybrid, yes a
hybrid SUV for over a year! Why shouldn't I feel good
about that decision, I get over 38 miles to the gallon
with an All Wheel Drive SUV, and produce a scant
amount of Carbon Dioxide. My engine doesn't run much
of the time, and I'm very quiet on the road.
So, what are the facts? Hybrids are cleaner, by
their very function. They use less gas, and have
greater range. They're quieter, and produce less
greenhouse gases. Those are the facts.
Denial is a problem, not a fact.
"Even these: The well respected auto research
firm, CNW Marketing in Brandon, Ore., recently found
after a two-year study collecting data on the "dust to
dust" energy costs of the cars, meaning the "energy
necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose" of
them, that the hybrids don't stack up well against
their gas powered counterparts. That's in part because
they require such complicated computer systems and
hard-to-make, light-weight materials, and they don't
last nearly as long as gas-powered cars (around
100,000 vs. 300,000 miles).
CNW translated all that and more into "energy costs
per miles driven" and found that hybrids use more
total energy in their lifetime than their gasoline
powered cousins. Hear this _ even a Hummer, the
ultimate bane of the environmentalist world _ uses
less total energy over its lifetime than any currently
offered hybrid (including the halo-special, the
Prius), said Car and Driver magazine in reporting on
the study."
If there had been any real research done,
the writer would've known that this article was
debunked as crap, and that the President ordered this
done to make the Chevy Aveo look good in the reports.
That article was apparently just as biased as this
one. Though the CNW report was bribed, what's Betsy's
excuse?
I'm disappointed with the article, and you
for having run it.
-Richard Krueger
by Betsy Hart, (I sent an email to ScrippsNews, and to Boston Herald, with the appropriate link here),
in that's the
kind of reporting I'd expect from a
failing high school journalism student.
I was always led to believe that one did
research before writing an article, so that they'd be
armed with the facts and solid information to form an
opinion rather than anything they felt like saying,
even if it's blatantly wrong.
I will freely admit at this point, I am a
hybrid owner, so I'm somewhat balanced the other way.
I do not have, however, any problems with reporting a
negative aspect of hybrids. I just have a problem
with inaccurate reports (negative or positive) about
hybrids.
"This feel-goodism has never felt quite right
to me. It's not just that until recently the cars were
so little and lacked power _ I prefer big, heavy and
safe _ it's that it's always been the case that the
market doesn't support them."
First of all, I find it rather laughable that
she believes hybrids need help, when it was the
monster SUVs and Hummers that required government
breaks to get them onto the roads to begin with. Now
look at them.
"They may be politically correct, but hybrids would
get nowhere without government and manufacturer
subsidies. (Car companies take losses on the cars.)
Hybrids cost about $6,000 more to make than similar
gas-powered car, and consumers won't shell that out _
whatever their politics _ and so buyers require the
subsidies, Reason magazine recently reported."
Actually, this is rather false. Secondary
sales which don't have rebates or incentives move
quickly, and new cars stay on the lots 15 times
shorter than non-hybrid equivalents. In addition, I
have no idea where that six thousand add on comes
from, it's between $1500-$4000 at the most.
"In fact, hybrid manufacturers are now doing
what car manufacturers always do, according to
National Geographic magazine _ trying to add
horsepower to the vehicles _ because that is what the
buyer wants. But that will, in turn, lower their fuel
efficiency."
Sadly, this is true, but it's to regular
vehicles, not hybrid vehicles. The finding has been
that hybrid sports cars outperform conventional sports
cars, and use less fuel at the same time. This isn't
a case of the manufacturers beefing up hybrids to get
them to sell, it's the manufacturers entering into a
*GASP* secondary market, those who want power more
than fuel economy. Yes, now you can pick the kind of
hybrid focus you'd like, fuel economy or power. Not
all hybrids are the same.
"Look, some folks just like the things and
saving some money on gas, and good for them. What I
object to is the myth that persists in the popular
culture that hybrids confer some kind of special
"pure" status on the driver."
While this is her pure opinion, I wonder why
people confer some sort of great status on people who
own road and environmentally damaging Hummers. (This
is shocking true, there's actual research on this!)
Or obnoxious Tahoes and Escalades.
"I wonder if once they grow nearly as big and
heavy as an SUV, if they will keep their halos? My bet
is "yes" _ some people just want to feel good about
feeling good about themselves, no matter the facts."
This shows just how uninformed the article is.
There are currently 4 hybrid SUV's on the market RIGHT
NOW. I happen to own a Ford Escape Hybrid, yes a
hybrid SUV for over a year! Why shouldn't I feel good
about that decision, I get over 38 miles to the gallon
with an All Wheel Drive SUV, and produce a scant
amount of Carbon Dioxide. My engine doesn't run much
of the time, and I'm very quiet on the road.
So, what are the facts? Hybrids are cleaner, by
their very function. They use less gas, and have
greater range. They're quieter, and produce less
greenhouse gases. Those are the facts.
Denial is a problem, not a fact.
"Even these: The well respected auto research
firm, CNW Marketing in Brandon, Ore., recently found
after a two-year study collecting data on the "dust to
dust" energy costs of the cars, meaning the "energy
necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose" of
them, that the hybrids don't stack up well against
their gas powered counterparts. That's in part because
they require such complicated computer systems and
hard-to-make, light-weight materials, and they don't
last nearly as long as gas-powered cars (around
100,000 vs. 300,000 miles).
CNW translated all that and more into "energy costs
per miles driven" and found that hybrids use more
total energy in their lifetime than their gasoline
powered cousins. Hear this _ even a Hummer, the
ultimate bane of the environmentalist world _ uses
less total energy over its lifetime than any currently
offered hybrid (including the halo-special, the
Prius), said Car and Driver magazine in reporting on
the study."
If there had been any real research done,
the writer would've known that this article was
debunked as crap, and that the President ordered this
done to make the Chevy Aveo look good in the reports.
That article was apparently just as biased as this
one. Though the CNW report was bribed, what's Betsy's
excuse?
I'm disappointed with the article, and you
for having run it.
-Richard Krueger
I went to Betsy's own site and shared my letter with her as well.
Heh.
Last edited by Pravus Prime; 07-31-2006 at 12:13 PM.
#22
07-31-2006, 04:37 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by Pravus_Prime
*Grumble Grumble*
Well, I fired off some e-mails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The All Irked Pravus Prime
I'm rather disappointed by your recent article
by Betsy Hart, (I sent an email to ScrippsNews, and to Boston Herald, with the appropriate link here),
in that's the
kind of reporting I'd expect from a
failing high school journalism student.
Well, I fired off some e-mails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The All Irked Pravus Prime
I'm rather disappointed by your recent article
by Betsy Hart, (I sent an email to ScrippsNews, and to Boston Herald, with the appropriate link here),
in that's the
kind of reporting I'd expect from a
failing high school journalism student.
WELL DONE!
Bob Wilson
#23
07-31-2006, 05:36 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
"In addition, I have no idea where that six thousand add on comes from, it's between $1500-$4000 at the most."
You accused them of not doing research... where is yours?
"First of all, I find it rather laughable that
she believes hybrids need help, when it was the
monster SUVs and Hummers that required government
breaks to get them onto the roads to begin with. Now
look at them."
I think hybrid sales have been bolstered by HOV access and by the recent tax credits. I do agree that they don't NEED help though. I see monster SUVs aplenty here in Nebraska, and the majority aren't getting tax breaks AFAIK (Suburbans etc). In that light, I think your statement is simply inflamatory.
You also state that hybrids move off the lot 15x faster. They're on the lots here. But my main reason for bringing this up is that, once again, you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.
"This shows just how uninformed the article is.
There are currently 4 hybrid SUV's on the market RIGHT
NOW."
Ok, you said that in response to a statement about what happens when they get as big and heavy as SUVs. When most people think of SUVs (and particular when they describe them as BIG and HEAVY) I don't think they're thinking of the Escape. Verdict: Inflamatory.
In short, your response sounds reactionary and you don't provide any research or facts to back up your claims.
You accused them of not doing research... where is yours?
"First of all, I find it rather laughable that
she believes hybrids need help, when it was the
monster SUVs and Hummers that required government
breaks to get them onto the roads to begin with. Now
look at them."
I think hybrid sales have been bolstered by HOV access and by the recent tax credits. I do agree that they don't NEED help though. I see monster SUVs aplenty here in Nebraska, and the majority aren't getting tax breaks AFAIK (Suburbans etc). In that light, I think your statement is simply inflamatory.
You also state that hybrids move off the lot 15x faster. They're on the lots here. But my main reason for bringing this up is that, once again, you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.
"This shows just how uninformed the article is.
There are currently 4 hybrid SUV's on the market RIGHT
NOW."
Ok, you said that in response to a statement about what happens when they get as big and heavy as SUVs. When most people think of SUVs (and particular when they describe them as BIG and HEAVY) I don't think they're thinking of the Escape. Verdict: Inflamatory.
In short, your response sounds reactionary and you don't provide any research or facts to back up your claims.
#24
07-31-2006, 06:58 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious
"
You accused them of not doing research... where is yours?
I think hybrid sales have been bolstered by HOV access and by the recent tax credits. I do agree that they don't NEED help though. I see monster SUVs aplenty here in Nebraska, and the majority aren't getting tax breaks AFAIK (Suburbans etc). In that light, I think your statement is simply inflamatory.
You also state that hybrids move off the lot 15x faster. They're on the lots here. But my main reason for bringing this up is that, once again, you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.
Ok, you said that in response to a statement about what happens when they get as big and heavy as SUVs. When most people think of SUVs (and particular when they describe them as BIG and HEAVY) I don't think they're thinking of the Escape. Verdict: Inflamatory.
In short, your response sounds reactionary and you don't provide any research or facts to back up your claims.
You accused them of not doing research... where is yours?
I think hybrid sales have been bolstered by HOV access and by the recent tax credits. I do agree that they don't NEED help though. I see monster SUVs aplenty here in Nebraska, and the majority aren't getting tax breaks AFAIK (Suburbans etc). In that light, I think your statement is simply inflamatory.
You also state that hybrids move off the lot 15x faster. They're on the lots here. But my main reason for bringing this up is that, once again, you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.
Ok, you said that in response to a statement about what happens when they get as big and heavy as SUVs. When most people think of SUVs (and particular when they describe them as BIG and HEAVY) I don't think they're thinking of the Escape. Verdict: Inflamatory.
In short, your response sounds reactionary and you don't provide any research or facts to back up your claims.
Huh?
Gee, it must be that pita I ate.
Cheers;
MSantos
#25
07-31-2006, 09:15 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
I have a problem with using MSRP when comparing the difference in cost between Hybrid vs Non, here are 4 different models I compared. I have figured out which options must be added to get as close to apples-to-apples as I can. Some of the models were easier to get A-T-A, I certainly may have made mistakes. Here's my take, using the Kelly Blue Book price which reflects actual sales throughout the USA.
www.kbb.com
Ford Escape vs Escape XLT
The XLT has standard floor mats and power seats, the Hybrid price reflects floor mats added but no price added for power seats, they aren't available.
MSRP Hybrid = 29165 / XLT = 24900 / Difference = $4265
KBB Hybrid = 279882 / XLT = 23432 / Difference = $4550
Toyota Highlander Limited Hybrid vs Limited
The Hybrid is much more loaded than the Limited, I added Leather package, tow prep package, heated seats and moon roof to get very close. The Hybrid doesn't have the luggage rack that is standard on the limited, I didn't adjust the price, but it is probably available as a dealer option.
MSRP Hybrid = 39895 / Limited = 35025 / Difference = $4870
KBB Hybrid = 37772 / Limited = 31995 / Difference = $5770
Toyota Camry Hybrid vs Camry XLE
I am posting an earlier comparison that I believe still holds true, edited for brevity.
Honda Civic Hybrid vs Civic
This one isn't easily compared as Honda essentially has zero flexibility for adding options. All "options" are actually dealer installed accesories. The Hybrid can not be had with the moon roof that is standard on the EX, an $800+ value difference considering the Camry moonroof is $940. I don't include it in my comparison.
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX Auto = 19810 / Difference = $2890
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX Auto = 19520 / Difference = $3974
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX MT = 19010 / Difference = $3690
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX MT = 18742 / Difference = $4752
In this case there is an available MT and I personally would only consider the non-hybrid with the MT and included it even though the Hybrid is CVT. I don't see anything unfair about that comparison, I'd have to pay $4752 more than the comparable Hybrid and not have the moon roof. Why Honda doesn't choose to sell a MT hybrid for $800 less than the CVT, I don't understand. I don't know anything about the CVT, is it possible that it actually cost less to manufacture than either the Auto or MT? Why aren't they available on non-hybrids?
$6000 may not be correct but $4000 appears to be the minimum. Please critique.
Tax deductions and credits of course reduce these differences, but hopefully not for long.
www.kbb.com
Ford Escape vs Escape XLT
The XLT has standard floor mats and power seats, the Hybrid price reflects floor mats added but no price added for power seats, they aren't available.
MSRP Hybrid = 29165 / XLT = 24900 / Difference = $4265
KBB Hybrid = 279882 / XLT = 23432 / Difference = $4550
Toyota Highlander Limited Hybrid vs Limited
The Hybrid is much more loaded than the Limited, I added Leather package, tow prep package, heated seats and moon roof to get very close. The Hybrid doesn't have the luggage rack that is standard on the limited, I didn't adjust the price, but it is probably available as a dealer option.
MSRP Hybrid = 39895 / Limited = 35025 / Difference = $4870
KBB Hybrid = 37772 / Limited = 31995 / Difference = $5770
Toyota Camry Hybrid vs Camry XLE
I am posting an earlier comparison that I believe still holds true, edited for brevity.
Originally Posted by Worthywads
As for the Camry hybrid premium of $1,500, that indeed reflects the difference between a Hybrid and XLE ($1,475 actually)...the XLE has a standard moonroof, which is a $940 option on the hybrid. The only other differences I see from Kelly Blue Book is the Hybrid has a rear window defrost that isn't available on the XLE and the XLE has passenger side electric seat which isn't available on the Hybrid. Currently the KBB doesn't have data on the actual sale prices that people are paying for the 2007 models. There is data available for the XLE showing that the average purchaser paid $1884 under MSRP for the 2006 model.A more accurate premium could be 1475 + 940 + 1884 = $4299. From the TCH section of greenhybrid I didn't find much on what owners paid, but IMO assuming that the Hybrids are selling for straight MSRP is conservative. There were mentions of rejected deals from dealerships asking 1-4k over MSRP, presumably there are willing buyers.
Honda Civic Hybrid vs Civic
This one isn't easily compared as Honda essentially has zero flexibility for adding options. All "options" are actually dealer installed accesories. The Hybrid can not be had with the moon roof that is standard on the EX, an $800+ value difference considering the Camry moonroof is $940. I don't include it in my comparison.
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX Auto = 19810 / Difference = $2890
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX Auto = 19520 / Difference = $3974
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX MT = 19010 / Difference = $3690
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX MT = 18742 / Difference = $4752
In this case there is an available MT and I personally would only consider the non-hybrid with the MT and included it even though the Hybrid is CVT. I don't see anything unfair about that comparison, I'd have to pay $4752 more than the comparable Hybrid and not have the moon roof. Why Honda doesn't choose to sell a MT hybrid for $800 less than the CVT, I don't understand. I don't know anything about the CVT, is it possible that it actually cost less to manufacture than either the Auto or MT? Why aren't they available on non-hybrids?
$6000 may not be correct but $4000 appears to be the minimum. Please critique.
Tax deductions and credits of course reduce these differences, but hopefully not for long.
Last edited by Pravus Prime; 07-31-2006 at 10:14 PM. Reason: Wrong Button.
#26
07-31-2006, 09:35 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by worthywads
$6000 may not be correct but $4000 appears to be the minimum. Please critique.
I suppose the only possible add to make is (at least in the Civic's case), the hybrid does come with additional options compared to the non-hybrid version (other than the transmission). Probably not a large dollar amount, but may close the gap just a tad.
Last edited by Tim; 07-31-2006 at 09:37 PM.
#27
07-31-2006, 09:44 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Worthy,
My best guess is that the differences you posted are the minimum difference. I think it is quite likely that they are barely making a profit on the hybrids and making a nice profit on the top model gas only versions.
I doubt anyone is forecasting a stripped down Camry Hybrid for $20k. I think there would be (huge) demand for it (and a super cheap Corolla, Civic, Scion, etc.). I just don't think they could make a profit, or they would have done it.
So maybe the $6k in the original article is right, or close. I would guess Toyota's system costs more to implement than Honda's, and that may explain why you can buy a Honda hybrid for $22k, and the typical Prius costs at least a couple grand more.
My best guess is that the differences you posted are the minimum difference. I think it is quite likely that they are barely making a profit on the hybrids and making a nice profit on the top model gas only versions.
I doubt anyone is forecasting a stripped down Camry Hybrid for $20k. I think there would be (huge) demand for it (and a super cheap Corolla, Civic, Scion, etc.). I just don't think they could make a profit, or they would have done it.
So maybe the $6k in the original article is right, or close. I would guess Toyota's system costs more to implement than Honda's, and that may explain why you can buy a Honda hybrid for $22k, and the typical Prius costs at least a couple grand more.
#28
07-31-2006, 09:57 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by Tim
I wouldn't dare - great job with the data. I suppose the only possible add to make is (at least in the Civic's case), the hybrid does come with additional options compared to the non-hybrid version (other than the transmission). Probably not a large dollar amount, but may close the gap just a tad.
I suppose the only possible add to make is (at least in the Civic's case), the hybrid does come with additional options compared to the non-hybrid version (other than the transmission). Probably not a large dollar amount, but may close the gap just a tad.Please explain what I missed and we can try.
Thanks
#29
07-31-2006, 10:15 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by worthywads
I have a problem with using MSRP when comparing the difference in cost between Hybrid vs Non, here are 4 different models I compared. I have figured out which options must be added to get as close to apples-to-apples as I can. Some of the models were easier to get A-T-A, I certainly may have made mistakes. Here's my take, using the Kelly Blue Book price which reflects actual sales throughout the USA.
www.kbb.com
Ford Escape vs Escape XLT
The XLT has standard floor mats and power seats, the Hybrid price reflects floor mats added but no price added for power seats, they aren't available.
MSRP Hybrid = 29165 / XLT = 24900 / Difference = $4265
KBB Hybrid = 279882 / XLT = 23432 / Difference = $4550
www.kbb.com
Ford Escape vs Escape XLT
The XLT has standard floor mats and power seats, the Hybrid price reflects floor mats added but no price added for power seats, they aren't available.
MSRP Hybrid = 29165 / XLT = 24900 / Difference = $4265
KBB Hybrid = 279882 / XLT = 23432 / Difference = $4550
#30
07-31-2006, 11:10 PM
Re: "Swift boating" applied to hybrid electrics
Originally Posted by worthywads
Honda Civic Hybrid vs Civic
This one isn't easily compared as Honda essentially has zero flexibility for adding options. All "options" are actually dealer installed accesories. The Hybrid can not be had with the moon roof that is standard on the EX, an $800+ value difference considering the Camry moonroof is $940. I don't include it in my comparison.
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX Auto = 19810 / Difference = $2890
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX Auto = 19520 / Difference = $3974
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX MT = 19010 / Difference = $3690
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX MT = 18742 / Difference = $4752
In this case there is an available MT and I personally would only consider the non-hybrid with the MT and included it even though the Hybrid is CVT. I don't see anything unfair about that comparison, I'd have to pay $4752 more than the comparable Hybrid and not have the moon roof. Why Honda doesn't choose to sell a MT hybrid for $800 less than the CVT, I don't understand. I don't know anything about the CVT, is it possible that it actually cost less to manufacture than either the Auto or MT? Why aren't they available on non-hybrids?
$6000 may not be correct but $4000 appears to be the minimum. Please critique.
Tax deductions and credits of course reduce these differences, but hopefully not for long.
This one isn't easily compared as Honda essentially has zero flexibility for adding options. All "options" are actually dealer installed accesories. The Hybrid can not be had with the moon roof that is standard on the EX, an $800+ value difference considering the Camry moonroof is $940. I don't include it in my comparison.
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX Auto = 19810 / Difference = $2890
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX Auto = 19520 / Difference = $3974
MSRP Hybrid = 22700 / EX MT = 19010 / Difference = $3690
KBB Hybrid = 23494 / EX MT = 18742 / Difference = $4752
In this case there is an available MT and I personally would only consider the non-hybrid with the MT and included it even though the Hybrid is CVT. I don't see anything unfair about that comparison, I'd have to pay $4752 more than the comparable Hybrid and not have the moon roof. Why Honda doesn't choose to sell a MT hybrid for $800 less than the CVT, I don't understand. I don't know anything about the CVT, is it possible that it actually cost less to manufacture than either the Auto or MT? Why aren't they available on non-hybrids?
$6000 may not be correct but $4000 appears to be the minimum. Please critique.
Tax deductions and credits of course reduce these differences, but hopefully not for long.
In a personal financial assessment, I think using an MT to hybrid comparison is fine if that is what you prefer. However, the majority of people do not buy MTs and I share the frustrations of most of the people here when that comparison is used in a hybrid-bashing article to make generalizations. In my case, I would not have considered a manual transmission for this vehicle.
Also, I think using tax incentives are fine for a personal financial assessment. However, they are probably inappropriate for discussing long term viability of hybrids.
In my case, I will be getting back ~$4650 in tax credits and this easilty offsets the hybrid premium. I was able to get the vehicle for under MSRP and the tax credits made it much cheaper than the non-hybrid. In addition, I replaced a vehicle that had FE around 24-25mpg (I was very happy with the trade-in value on this vehicle--~$1500 over KBB and edmunds TMV).
Anyway, I didn't see anything that unfair about your assessment. I just thought I would throw in my own comments.
Last edited by Mr. Kite; 08-01-2006 at 09:34 PM.
