So let's see then, over the course of 150,000 miles the cost is essentially a wash. And in some places you can get a tax break for buying a hybrid.

are you saving anything?

Yes, you'll be saving gas, and the environment. You may not be saving money, but you won't be spending a significant extra amount for the privilege of helping reduce both the US' dependence on oil and the amount of pollutants being produced.

And batteries, even old depleted ones, can be recycled. That's tough to do with gas.

I think you missed the point- yes, it is basically a wash until you get over 150,000 miles (unless you count the cost of a battery during that).  That is not *saving* you money.  Don't buy a hybrid expecting it to save you money.  And, the vast majority of cars are pretty much shot at 150,000.

The article is about the savings of a hybrid.  If you want to get about the environmental aspects of it, that is a totally different topic.  And, trust me, there is a *huge* debate about that once you look at the big picture of that.  (Both my husband and brother in law work in engineering of engines, one with a diesel company, the other at one of the big 3).

This article is not about the environment, it's about the actual cost of cars.

No, I was trying to make a different point, that the actual cost of the car itself is not necessarily the only thing that should be considered. If that were the case we'd all be driving Yugos or Pacers. Or riding bikes.
And I was pointing out that while you may not save money, you won't (according to the numbers presented) be spending anything extra either. ($200 out of $25,000 = less than 1% difference.)

Also, the main reason a "vast majority" of cars are shot at 150,000 is that people don't take good enough care of them.

I am interested to hear what you (or your brother or husband) have to say about the actual environmental impact of a hybrid car.

 

No, I was trying to make a different point, that the actual cost of the car itself is not necessarily the only thing that should be considered

no, but it is an apples to apples comparison.  Yes, there are "cheaper" cars out there.  But, the comparison was that the hybrid "savings" is not really there.

Also, the main reason a "vast majority" of cars are shot at 150,000 is that people don't take good enough care of them.

No, it is because modern day engines run extremely hot and actually wear out faster.  The suspension parts are also typically shot at that point, and it is most likely rusted if you live in any of the snow belt States.

I am interested to hear what you (or your brother or husband) have to say about the actual environmental impact of a hybrid car.

 

As I said, this is about the actual "savings" that people are talking about with hybrids.  It's not going to turn into an environmental debate.

Hence why the government adds those tax breaks for buying hybrids...the savings comes in when you can write off some more money.

My temptation for getting a Hybrid has nothing to do with saving money and everythign to do with putting out fewer emissions. Sure, one car won't make a big difference but I would like to do my part.

shades, those tax breaks sound great, but a $1500 "deduction" (which is what it currently is) is not $1500 in hand.  Even if you were in the 35% tax bracket, that *real* amount back is $525.  By 2006 that deduction will be lowered to $500.  By that time, the deduction is pretty much pocket change in real money.  There really is no significant difference between the cost of a hybrid and the cost of a standard gas engine car when comparing apples to apples.  You also can't take a deduction on a used one.  Only the original owner can.

My temptation for getting a Hybrid has nothing to do with saving money and everythign to do with putting out fewer emissions. Sure, one car won't make a big difference but I would like to do my part.

Civics are already LEV's (low emission vehicle).  The hybrids aren't actually that much better.  They are actually so close that it is a tough call in if the manufacturing and disposal of the chemicals in their batteries are actually worse.

As an example, there is an "annual greenhouse gas emission" rating for all cars.  The Honda Civic hybrid rates at 4.1 tons, the standard gas Civic rates at 4.9 tons.

The scale is from 15.3 (worst) to 3.1 (best).  A 2 door chevy blazer rates at 10.5 in comparison, and a Super Charged Pontiac Bonneville rates at 8.7.

The size of the car has a lot to do with how much fuel it burns (which cause emissions).  It takes a lot of power to propel large masses.  The other thing to keep in mind with the hybrids is that they have less hp.  It would be interesting to see what a standard gas engine at 85hp would rate in the Civic.

Crap...now I've been sucked into the environmental side of it......

Still, what you've said here, KarmaGirl, is that over the life of the vehicle, for the factors considered, a hybrid costs the essentially same as a regular car. You seem to be painting this as reason not to get a hybrid, but since the apples-to-apples comparison comes up even, other factors will have to be used to make the final decision.

Still, what you've said here, KarmaGirl, is that over the life of the vehicle, for the factors considered, a hybrid costs the essentially same as a regular car.

Finally, you got the point.  The point was that there is not a savings.

I have never said that I was against hybrids (that you assumed).  I just think that people shouldn't kid themselves in thinking that it will save them money.

Oh, and on the "environmental" side.  People always say that diesels are bad on emissions as a reason not to buy them (even though they have been getting 50mpg with the VW engines).  The Jetta TDI rate 5.1 versus the 7.1 of it's gas counterpart.

I don't want any hybrid at all. I want Link

This is one of few cars that truly save envorment AND save money too. You don't need to buy anything if you got good sun power around your home.

shades, those tax breaks sound great, but a $1500 "deduction" (which is what it currently is) is not $1500 in hand. Even if you were in the 35% tax bracket, that *real* amount back is $525. By 2006 that deduction will be lowered to $500. By that time, the deduction is pretty much pocket change in real money. There really is no significant difference between the cost of a hybrid and the cost of a standard gas engine car when comparing apples to apples. You also can't take a deduction on a used one. Only the original owner can.

If I am successful at my job, those deductions will be extended at the current level, not reduced. But when you lobby congress for a living, success is all relative.

Interesting article, btw.

I have never said that I was against hybrids (that you assumed)

Hence my use of hedging words, saying that "you seem to be...". However, the editorial slant of your article clearly implies that you are against hybrids, especially the last paragraph.

The point was that there is not a savings.

In strict monetary terms, no. But neither is there an extra monetary cost.
Hence my interest in whether the reduction in gas consumption (which is destroying an essentially irreplaceable resource) is outweighed by the other environmental factors that you mentioned (battery production and recycling efforts).

However, the editorial slant of your article clearly implies that you are against hybrids, especially the last paragraph.

There is a place for hybrids, though- SUV's.

I'm against them, but I think they have a place in SUVs?  I'm missing how that "clearly implies" anything.

Again, the point of the article (man I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall) is that there is not a savings.  They cost the same.  no difference.  Don't buy it so save money.  Doesn't save money.  Both versions end up costing the same.  This is not saying to buy or not to buy a hybrid.  It has nothing to do with environmental factors.  It's about plain old cash.  Don't buy it because it saves you money.  Has nothing to do with saving the earth or any other reason to buy or not to buy it.  Are you getting the point of the article yet?