High gas prices.

[southsider2k5]

I wouldn't be surprised - considering it only has 35 cents to go for the 87 octane gas by me.

 

Where I am we are just pennies under $3 per gallon. We are going to see another dime increase by this weekend with the way the futures have traded, the rest of it will come soon.

[StrangeSox]

I just paid 3.19 for gas today up in Morton Grove, same prices down in Downers Grove.

 

I take the train to work usually, but its somewhat of a pain because I have to go into Union Station on the BSNF line and then take the Mil-N line out to Morton Grove. Luckily, the train station is less than a mile from my work, but I can see how it isn't an option for most people.

 

And Hybrids aren't the answer to save money for yourself. Short-term you're looking at several thousand dollars more than a normal car to get one, and long term you've got $7k battery packs, electric motors, starters, etc. to replace. One thing that is really helping is the new technology that many companies are coming out with that shuts down half the engine while cruising at highway speeds.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just paid 3.19 for gas today up in Morton Grove, same prices down in Downers Grove.

 

I take the train to work usually, but its somewhat of a pain because I have to go into Union Station on the BSNF line and then take the Mil-N line out to Morton Grove. Luckily, the train station is less than a mile from my work, but I can see how it isn't an option for most people.

 

And Hybrids aren't the answer to save money for yourself. Short-term you're looking at several thousand dollars more than a normal car to get one, and long term you've got $7k battery packs, electric motors, starters, etc. to replace. One thing that is really helping is the new technology that many companies are coming out with that shuts down half the engine while cruising at highway speeds.

Hybrids will be an answer, at some point soon. The price differential for manufacturing over a regular engine is going down (as with all new technologies), and the price of gas is going up. By some calculations (depending on what cars you compare, etc.), some changeovers are already down to 3 years for net savings. For others, its still 6 or 8. Give it a year or two, and it will be a viable option by all accounts.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Hybrids will be an answer, at some point soon. The price differential for manufacturing over a regular engine is going down (as with all new technologies), and the price of gas is going up. By some calculations (depending on what cars you compare, etc.), some changeovers are already down to 3 years for net savings. For others, its still 6 or 8. Give it a year or two, and it will be a viable option by all accounts.

 

Out here in the corn belt ( Kansas ) gas is holding around 2.80-2.85 depending on where you go. I only fill up my Cherokee twice a month though so Im still not feeling much in the way of pain.

[santo=dorf]

SS2K5, will gas ever go down below $2.00 again?

[southsider2k5]

SS2K5, will gas ever go down below $2.00 again?

 

I can't see it happening, except maybe on a temporary basis. There is just way too much growth on the demand side in places like China and India, not to mention we are fighting two wars right now, plus our own growth. Granted the whole $75 bbp thing is just stupid economically, but $50 is pretty legitimate given just the pure demand that exsists.

[DBAHO]

It's almost up to $1.50 a litre down here. Only about 5 years back, you could probably get it for about half that price.

[NorthSideSox72]

Out here in the corn belt ( Kansas ) gas is holding around 2.80-2.85 depending on where you go. I only fill up my Cherokee twice a month though so Im still not feeling much in the way of pain.

Yeah, I don't drive much either. I live in a part of the city where I can get around to most places on foot, train or bus. We drive to get out to the 'burbs on occasion, and a few other things, but I bet we put less than 500 miles a month on the car.

[StrangeSox]

Hybrids will be an answer, at some point soon. The price differential for manufacturing over a regular engine is going down (as with all new technologies), and the price of gas is going up. By some calculations (depending on what cars you compare, etc.), some changeovers are already down to 3 years for net savings. For others, its still 6 or 8. Give it a year or two, and it will be a viable option by all accounts.

 

I don't think those figures factor in excessivly expensive future maintainance costs, just initial manufacturing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think those figures factor in excessivly expensive future maintainance costs, just initial manufacturing.

Those costs will go down as well. Just like with any other technology, as it matures.

 

And I am not sure what you mean by "excessively expensive", but from what I have read, things have gone pretty well so far for those hybrids on the market. Of course, the real test will be in the next couple years, when the first gens all get a little older. But aside from a few recalls (which are free of charge) on some of the very early models, the articles I've read here and there (Motor Trend, regular newspapers) seem to indicate that hybrids have had a decent track record.

[StrangeSox]

Those costs will go down as well. Just like with any other technology, as it matures.

 

And I am not sure what you mean by "excessively expensive", but from what I have read, things have gone pretty well so far for those hybrids on the market. Of course, the real test will be in the next couple years, when the first gens all get a little older. But aside from a few recalls (which are free of charge) on some of the very early models, the articles I've read here and there (Motor Trend, regular newspapers) seem to indicate that hybrids have had a decent track record.

 

I'm referring specifically to the battery packs that are about 7k, a piece that will eventually need to be replaced. That, or throw away the car and get a new one.

 

From a forbes article:

"A 30% fuel improvement from a hybrid truck, which at one time Chrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ) talked about, would bring the big trucks up to 20 to 21 miles per gallon. On a large pickup or SUV, that means savings of $300 to $400 per year (based on driving 12,000 miles per year) on a system that might cost $3,000 to $5,000 to install. But GM says even this really doesn't happen, not if the hybrid version is made to perform as well as the conventional vehicle in things like towing capacity."

Edited July 6, 2006 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Another option out there, which GM is premiering in the Saturn VUE this year, is the "Light Hybrid"...

 

http://www.hybridcars.com/saturn-vue-hybrid.html

 

It costs a lot less than a true hybrid engine (differential cost is only a few hundred dollars), but saves a significant amount on gas (15% or so).

[NorthSideSox72]

I can't see it happening, except maybe on a temporary basis. There is just way too much growth on the demand side in places like China and India, not to mention we are fighting two wars right now, plus our own growth. Granted the whole $75 bbp thing is just stupid economically, but $50 is pretty legitimate given just the pure demand that exsists.

I realize that certain economic indicators may show that $75 is too high, but there are factors not in there. The market for oil, even though it is traded on spot and futures markets with great fluidity, is still stilted in a few places. Too few countries, who exercise power via a cartel, control the bulk of the supply. Plus, there is currently no reasonable alternative for many of its uses. In desperation, certain demands can be cut - people use mass transit, buy more efficient vehicles, and use less heat in winter, companies do less with plastic and do different things with their pollution credits, etc. But there are definite bottoms to those flexibilities, and those bottoms aren't much lower than current levels.

 

Therefore, I think the only real ceiling I see is closer to the $80-$100 range, in long range residence. If the prices stay in that range for a good while, then many of the less-efficiently refined oil sources become viable and will start pumping again. But O think the $75-$80 range is probably likely to be the center point, technically, for some time to come.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'm referring specifically to the battery packs that are about 7k, a piece that will eventually need to be replaced. That, or throw away the car and get a new one.

 

From a forbes article:

"A 30% fuel improvement from a hybrid truck, which at one time Chrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ) talked about, would bring the big trucks up to 20 to 21 miles per gallon. On a large pickup or SUV, that means savings of $300 to $400 per year (based on driving 12,000 miles per year) on a system that might cost $3,000 to $5,000 to install. But GM says even this really doesn't happen, not if the hybrid version is made to perform as well as the conventional vehicle in things like towing capacity."

 

 

My non-hybrid Jeep Cherokee gets 21 MPG on the highway ( about 95% of my driving is highway ) so where is my incentive to buy a hybrid?

[SoxFan1]

BLAH! VOTE FOR AJ!

[NorthSideSox72]

My non-hybrid Jeep Cherokee gets 21 MPG on the highway ( about 95% of my driving is highway ) so where is my incentive to buy a hybrid?

For you, barely driving and with a not-bad car anyway? None. Except maybe the environmental angle.

 

For someone who commutes 50-100 miles RT every day, and has a 15-MPG gas-guzzler? Maybe. In a year or two? Heck yeah, in that case.

 

Remember too, for many consumers, it doesn't need to be cheaper than regular gas engines. If it is similar, or even just a bit more, then that will cause a big tilt on the environmental and global/war angles. Plus the techie factor. Otherwise, no one would be buying them now - and yet, they are, in numbers that double every year.

 

 

BLAH! VOTE FOR AJ!

 

[Rex Kickass]

When I upgrade my car in a year or two, I'm looking for a minimum 40 MPG highway rating.

[StrangeSox]

For you, barely driving and with a not-bad car anyway? None. Except maybe the environmental angle.

 

For someone who commutes 50-100 miles RT every day, and has a 15-MPG gas-guzzler? Maybe. In a year or two? Heck yeah, in that case.

 

Remember too, for many consumers, it doesn't need to be cheaper than regular gas engines. If it is similar, or even just a bit more, then that will cause a big tilt on the environmental and global/war angles. Plus the techie factor. Otherwise, no one would be buying them now - and yet, they are, in numbers that double every year.

 

 

I just don't see a 10-15% increase in MPG (to a whopping 17MPG in your example) as being able to offset the additional costs, both upfront and in the long run. Even having to go 100 miles RT a day, you'd only save ~.8 gallons of gas, or $2.50 a day with gas at $3.20 per gallon (that doesn't take into account that MPG increases are typically much less for highway driving, which, if you're going 100 RT is probably going to be the majority of it). That adds up to less than $600 a year in savings on gas. Just the initial difference in price alone would take several years and and probably 100k miles to make up, and then you're into higher maintainance costs.

 

Leasing might provide some savings because you avoid maintainance costs. But then again, you've got limited mileage on a lease so your gas savings aren't going to be nearly as much. When I look for a car next year, I'll certainly consider a deisel, but I won't give a hybrid a second thought.

Edited July 7, 2006 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I just don't see a 10-15% increase in MPG (to a whopping 17MPG in your example) as being able to offset the additional costs, both upfront and in the long run. Even having to go 100 miles RT a day, you'd only save ~.8 gallons of gas, or $2.50 a day with gas at $3.20 per gallon (that doesn't take into account that MPG increases are typically much less for highway driving, which, if you're going 100 RT is probably going to be the majority of it). That adds up to less than $600 a year in savings on gas. Just the initial difference in price alone would take several years and and probably 100k miles to make up, and then you're into higher maintainance costs.

 

Leasing might provide some savings because you avoid maintainance costs. But then again, you've got limited mileage on a lease so your gas savings aren't going to be nearly as much. When I look for a car next year, I'll certainly consider a deisel, but I won't give a hybrid a second thought.

You lumped two technologies together, so your math isn't correct.

 

The 10-15% is the light hybrid, with a differential cost of only about $500 in retail price. At 80 miles RT per work day, 20 work days a month, that is 1600 miles. If the hybrid gets 23 MPG, versus a previous 20 (for example), that is a ten gallon difference, give or take. At $3.00 a gallon (its more than that here), that is $30 a month. You make up the cost differential in a little over a year. And I used more conservative use numbers than you did.

 

The full hybrid is of course much more pricey - a few thousand dollars more than the normal car. I don't have the differential numbers there, but the crossover threshold on those is still quite a few years - more than 5, I think. But as stated, that won't stay that way. Technology is not stagnant. Gas will go up, hybrids will go down.

 

There will be some people, aparrently you included, who simply will not be willing to accept new technologies until they are more proven. Fair enough. But I think you are missing out on an opportunity, potentially (if a hybrid car is even available in what you are looking for). Similarly, there are people who jumped on the very first hybrids at huge expense, because they had other reasons for it. Your choice. If you look at the trends, its pretty obvious that hybrids will continue to gain market share and more models will come equiped with it.

[Queen Prawn]

Up to 3.25 by me for 87 octane. :puke

[StrangeSox]

You lumped two technologies together, so your math isn't correct.

 

The 10-15% is the light hybrid, with a differential cost of only about $500 in retail price. At 80 miles RT per work day, 20 work days a month, that is 1600 miles. If the hybrid gets 23 MPG, versus a previous 20 (for example), that is a ten gallon difference, give or take. At $3.00 a gallon (its more than that here), that is $30 a month. You make up the cost differential in a little over a year. And I used more conservative use numbers than you did.

 

The full hybrid is of course much more pricey - a few thousand dollars more than the normal car. I don't have the differential numbers there, but the crossover threshold on those is still quite a few years - more than 5, I think. But as stated, that won't stay that way. Technology is not stagnant. Gas will go up, hybrids will go down.

 

There will be some people, aparrently you included, who simply will not be willing to accept new technologies until they are more proven. Fair enough. But I think you are missing out on an opportunity, potentially (if a hybrid car is even available in what you are looking for). Similarly, there are people who jumped on the very first hybrids at huge expense, because they had other reasons for it. Your choice. If you look at the trends, its pretty obvious that hybrids will continue to gain market share and more models will come equiped with it.

 

I based my math on this forbes.com article, http://www.forbes.com/2002/06/03/0603flint.html, and several other reports indicating that people aren't seem nearly as good of mileage as the automakers are claiming for hybrids, especially if they are putting on a bunch of highway miles.

 

Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference.

 

Again, there's much more to make up than the initial purchase price differences. Hybrids are going to be much more expensive to maintain and more prone to failure; there's no way around this. Anytime you make a system a lot more complex than it was, failures WILL increase, and will usually be expensive. Control circuits, sensors, starters electric motors, charging systems, batteries, etc. can all fail and need to be replaced. Yes, the costs will declince, but I still do not see it as economically advantageous for quite a while.

 

Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference.

 

Also, the performance isn't up to par on "true" hybrids. That may not be important to an average Civic driver, but a hybrid truck or SUV doesn't have near the towing capabilities as a similar gas or deisel model.

 

I'm more than willing to accept new technologies when they show proven benefits. Environmental effects aside, a hybrid isn't going to help my pocket book any time soon, especially since an overwhelming majority of my miles are highway, where the gas engine is used. If I really want to save on gas, I'll buy a smaller, lighter car or a motorcycle, not a hybrid.

[NorthSideSox72]

I based my math on this forbes.com article, http://www.forbes.com/2002/06/03/0603flint.html, and several other reports indicating that people aren't seem nearly as good of mileage as the automakers are claiming for hybrids, especially if they are putting on a bunch of highway miles.

 

Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference.

 

Again, there's much more to make up than the initial purchase price differences. Hybrids are going to be much more expensive to maintain and more prone to failure; there's no way around this. Anytime you make a system a lot more complex than it was, failures WILL increase, and will usually be expensive. Control circuits, sensors, starters electric motors, charging systems, batteries, etc. can all fail and need to be replaced. Yes, the costs will declince, but I still do not see it as economically advantageous for quite a while.

 

Lets look at the Honda Civic. The Sedan LX (highest trim level) is 18500, Hybrid is 22000. That's a difference of 3500. Average combined MPG is 35 and 50, respectively. At $3/gallon, that leaves a $41/month difference. That would take over 7 years to make up the difference. Even at $4 a gallon, it still takes over 5 years to make up that initial difference.

 

Also, the performance isn't up to par on "true" hybrids. That may not be important to an average Civic driver, but a hybrid truck or SUV doesn't have near the towing capabilities as a similar gas or deisel model.

 

I'm more than willing to accept new technologies when they show proven benefits. Environmental effects aside, a hybrid isn't going to help my pocket book any time soon, especially since an overwhelming majority of my miles are highway, where the gas engine is used. If I really want to save on gas, I'll buy a smaller, lighter car or a motorcycle, not a hybrid.

 

Performance isn't up to par on true hybrids? I think you have been misled. Go look up the numbers on the Accord hybrid, versus its predecessor. Its quicker, substantially. Lexus hybrid SUV? Same. Performance is actually better for most hybrids, not worse. They did that intentionally, in part because they figured people would THINK the hybrids would be slower, and they wanted to counter the negative view. It was a marketing decision, leading to engineering improvements.

 

And the Civic is pretty much as I thought - 6 or 7 years to save right now. So, assuming the unit decreases in expense by a quarter or a third in a couple years (which would seem logical for such technologies, as they grow in market), that period is 4-5 years. Add in higher gas prices, like $3.50, and its 3-4 years or so. Suddenly, worthwhile. Voila. And the gap keeps decreasing.

 

And as stated, the light hybrid is already a money saver within 2 years. AND, none of this includes the tax rebates you get for buying a hybrid - what is it, $1000 federal now? And some states add more?

 

Do you what you want. But it sounds to me like you have a this idea that hybrids are a stagnant, underperforming technology that will never be worthwhile. Evidence suggests otherwise.

[BigSqwert]

I love my hybrid. Bianchi hybrid bycycle that is. Costs me nada to get to work.

[NorthSideSox72]

I love my hybrid. Bianchi hybrid bycycle that is. Costs me nada to get to work.

 

My Gary Fisher is a full MTB, with knobbies, and it gets me to work a few days a week. I get passed like a grandma on the Autobahn by road bikers, but I don't care. I get a workout in, and it takes about the same time as my train/walk commute.

[StrangeSox]

Performance isn't up to par on true hybrids? I think you have been misled. Go look up the numbers on the Accord hybrid, versus its predecessor. Its quicker, substantially. Lexus hybrid SUV? Same. Performance is actually better for most hybrids, not worse. They did that intentionally, in part because they figured people would THINK the hybrids would be slower, and they wanted to counter the negative view. It was a marketing decision, leading to engineering improvements.

 

The accord hybrid uses a new, more powerful GAS motor; not exactly a fair comparison to say the hybrids perform better. And, on the Accord, you're looking at a 10k difference in price. Over two decades to make that up. The Lexus SUV performs about equally with its gasoline counterpart. Here, there's a $6k price difference and you're looking at over a decade to make up the difference.

 

And this STILL doesn't address substiantially more expensive maintainance costs, especially if you're keeping the car 7+ years to make it worthwhile.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/23/Autos/hybr...tives/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/14/Autos/tips...rries/index.htm

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Saving...car/P148868.asp

Edited July 7, 2006 by StrangeSox