Does fuel economy matter to you at all?

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Shannow
So, what's the facts and data thanks Bill?


You're welcome.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/why-hybrids-and-diesels-dont-always-save-you-money.html


NOTE : "and why you shouldn't cross them off your shopping list"

Per your link, buying VW diesels is a waste of time...but any rational person got that anyway.
If you keep your car for 3 years or more (I know some guy reckons his Camry is the last car ever), then the diesels (not VW) make complete sense...per your link.

Re the (Unique) hybrids...
All but the Prius 2 pass the 6 year test.
And ACE the last car of my life test.

Hybrid equivalent vehicles...
Camry doesn't make the 6 year test.
Rest make it comfortably.
Keep it forever, and they again win.

So if you are a "conservative", both of money, and of fuel, then per your link, and the "and why you shouldn't cross them off your shopping list" is worth understanding, even if the headlight grabs one's moth like attention span.

Both my diesels use 30% less fuel per gallon than their petrol counterparts, while using a fuel that's the same as RUG.

RUG - $1.369/L
Premium 98 - $1.527/L
Diesel - $1.357/L

On the Colorado I don't need any DEF, as it's not required to meet any "Govt Conspiracy" in OZ requiring DEF in Colorados.

Captiva doesn't need any either, but we bought that used.

 

[billt460]

Per the provided link in my above post:.... "The Toyota Prius doesn't have a direct gas-only equivalent, but when compared to the Corolla, it would take about 10.3 years to break even."

The Toyota Prius is the best selling Hybrid vehicle in this country today by far. People purchase them because of the added fuel economy they think they're getting. The fact is when compared to the much lower cost, similar size, gas only Corolla, you would have to keep it on average 10.3 YEARS to break even on fuel cost over the Prius. This before you start "saving" anything on fuel.

https://www.westborotoyota.com/toyota-owners-keep-their-vehicles-longer/

This list shows that only 32% of Toyota Prius owners keep their cars over 10 years. Which simply means only 68% of Prius owners are actually saving anything on fuel during the period they keep their vehicles. And that is going to be actually lower because it doesn't factor in the added maintenance cost of the complex Hybrid system once it is out of warranty.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Per the provided link in my above post:.... "The Toyota Prius doesn't have a direct gas-only equivalent, but when compared to the Corolla, it would take about 10.3 years to break even."

The Toyota Prius is the best selling Hybrid vehicle in this country today by far. People purchase them because of the added fuel economy they think they're getting. The fact is when compared to the much lower cost, similar size, gas only Corolla, you would have to keep it on average 10.3 YEARS to break even on fuel cost over the Prius.

https://www.westborotoyota.com/toyota-owners-keep-their-vehicles-longer/

This list shows that only 32% of Toyota Prius owners keep their cars over 10 years. Which simply means only 68% of Prius owners are actually saving anything on fuel during the period they keep their vehicles. And that is going to be actually lower because it doesn't factor in the added maintenance cost of the complex Hybrid system once it is out of warranty.


LOL, first you cherry picked the headline...than you agreed with me that that particular car was a bad deal.

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Re the (Unique) hybrids...
All but the Prius 2 pass the 6 year test.
And ACE the last car of my life test.

 

[billt460]

I guess I'll have to concede, due to your excellent analysis and fact finding. So the next time I pull up next to a 13 year old Prius in my brand new Camry, I'll hang my head in shame as I exclaim, Oh how I wish I had the money that guy is saving on fuel over my 41.3 MPG gas guzzler!

 

[billt460]

And then there is this: "So, how much can you expect to pay for a replacement hybrid battery? "The best ballpark figure is between $2,000 and $3,000".

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-battery-cost1.htm

From the same link: "With that said, Toyota's hybrid batteries and all other hybrid specific parts normally have a warranty of eight years or 100,000 miles."

But we have already proven you have to run them 10.3 YEARS, and over 150,000 miles just to break even in fuel cost. And that is using a 15,000 mile per year model. Or well over 2 years and 50,000 miles beyond the warranty and life expectancy of the battery pack. Not to mention everything else associated with the complex Hybrid electrical system. This before you start saving penny one in fuel. And when the battery pack finally does take a dump out of warranty, you're going to spend between $2K and $3K to replace it. Deducting yet another $3,000.00 in "fuel savings" just to keep the thing running.

 

[Shannow]

You "happily" provided a link to your end game...now as usual, Backpedal Bullt

 

[javacontour]

I think it also depends on HOW you use your vehicle. Lots of highway driving lends itself more to the diesel than the hybrid. Lots of stop and start in town, the reverse.

I do think hybrids have other means of saving. They can be much easier on brakes as they try to recoup the energy that would be lost to friction braking with regenerative braking.

But, as has been noted, the costs of a replacement battery pack can more than offset the savings on brake maintenance, when doing a like for like comparison such as DIY or Dealership service for each service activity.

Bottom line, I'm not for or against any technology. I'm just against the automatic assumption that a technology is the lowest cost means of accomplishing the task.

Hybrid or diesel may work for some. For others, they are better off spending less on the vehicle and going with something more conventional, as fuel is a relatively small component of operating costs in the US. Especially when looking at new car costs/mile.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ducked
I slow traffic when a single lane means they can't pass me and I dont want to push my ancient 3-cyl over 100 and possibly risk blowing the head gasket again.


Again? You would be better served to stop whining about, "moral high ground", and "environmental self defense", and buy a car that can keep up with traffic without coming apart.


Yeh, thought that might come up.

My car is legal, I'm driving at a legal speed, and I'm (more or less unavoidably) slowing down people who would be speeding if I wasn't there and do so as soon as they can pass me.

I don't need to keep up with traffic nor do I particularly want to, (nor am I engaged in "environmental self defense" though my cars economic and environmental credentials are pretty good) so "better served" doesn't particularly apply.

Unless you mean Porsche Cayenne drivers would be "better served" by my buying a car that can more quickly get out of their way.

That would at least make sense.

Hmm...nope....that's just not making me a very motivated purchaser, somehow.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
....... But, as has been noted, the costs of a replacement battery pack can more than offset the savings on brake maintenance, when doing a like for like comparison such as DIY or Dealership service for each service activity.

Bottom line, I'm not for or against any technology. I'm just against the automatic assumption that a technology is the lowest cost means of accomplishing the task.

Hybrid or diesel may work for some. For others, they are better off spending less on the vehicle and going with something more conventional, as fuel is a relatively small component of operating costs in the US. Especially when looking at new car costs/mile.


I agree. And that's my whole argument. You have to rely on much more expensive and complex technology, over a very long period of time, to save what? Little to nothing for most drivers once you factor everything into it. You can juggle numbers to make Hybrids and Diesel vehicles look like they're paying off. But the reality for most drivers is they won't and don't. You are forced to drive much longer distances, over a very long period of time, and in the process push the vehicle well beyond the warranty, before you start to realize ANY actual fuel savings.

And after you deduct the out of warranty, added repair cost of the expensive technology associated with these vehicles, that do not exist on a gas only vehicle, it's just doesn't add up for most drivers. As I said, it's a false economy.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: billt460
This list shows that only 32% of Toyota Prius owners keep their cars over 10 years. Which simply means only 68% of Prius owners are actually saving anything on fuel during the period they keep their vehicles. And that is going to be actually lower because it doesn't factor in the added maintenance cost of the complex Hybrid system once it is out of warranty.


That's a typo I got reversed, and need to correct. The fact is only 32% of Prius owners keep their cars beyond the 10.3 year period, to even begin to see ANY fuel savings. While 68% dump them long before ANY fuel savings can be actually realized. Which means in reality, 7 out of 10 Prius owners are paying for an overly complex vehicle that costs them more to purchase. And in the process are not saving a dime in fuel costs during the period they own the thing.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: billt460
And then there is this: "So, how much can you expect to pay for a replacement hybrid battery? "The best ballpark figure is between $2,000 and $3,000".

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-battery-cost1.htm

From the same link: "With that said, Toyota's hybrid batteries and all other hybrid specific parts normally have a warranty of eight years or 100,000 miles."

But we have already proven you have to run them 10.3 YEARS, and over 150,000 miles just to break even in fuel cost. And that is using a 15,000 mile per year model. Or well over 2 years and 50,000 miles beyond the warranty and life expectancy of the battery pack. Not to mention everything else associated with the complex Hybrid electrical system. This before you start saving penny one in fuel. And when the battery pack finally does take a dump out of warranty, you're going to spend between $2K and $3K to replace it. Deducting yet another $3,000.00 in "fuel savings" just to keep the thing running.

Just because the warranty on the batteries is 8 years/100k miles, doesn't mean that they will have to be replaced at that mileage. That's like saying because a car has a 60k powertrain warranty, the engine is going to take a dump at 61k. There are plenty of Priuses that have over 150-200k miles on their original batteries. And they can absolutely be fixed for way less than $3k. Eljefino recently bought an old Prius with battery problems and fixed it cheap:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4507340/1

 

[KrisZ]

A hybrid, just like diesel can and will save the owner money on fuel costs, and will make sense pin specific situations. Those that want to save money, really save money, will sit down and start crunching the numbers. It probably is not a large number of people.

Most people will buy based on an impulse, trends, looks and a bunch of other subjective criteria. Their choices don't negate the technology though.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
A hybrid, just like diesel can and will save the owner money on fuel costs, and will make sense pin specific situations. Those that want to save money, really save money, will sit down and start crunching the numbers. It probably is not a large number of people.

Most people will buy based on an impulse, trends, looks and a bunch of other subjective criteria. Their choices don't negate the technology though.


If you want to save money, really save money, and/or minimise your environmental impact, you really would'nt/shouldn't be looking at a new car.

Perhaps somebody has to buy them, but it doesn't have to be you.

 

[zzyzzx]

Yes, MPG matters! It's one of the reasons why I continue to drive my 1995 Escort.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
A hybrid, just like diesel can and will save the owner money on fuel costs, and will make sense pin specific situations. Those that want to save money, really save money, will sit down and start crunching the numbers. It probably is not a large number of people.

Most people will buy based on an impulse, trends, looks and a bunch of other subjective criteria. Their choices don't negate the technology though.


If you want to save money, really save money, and/or minimise your environmental impact, you really would'nt/shouldn't be looking at a new car.

Perhaps somebody has to buy them, but it doesn't have to be you.


If you really, really, really want to save money you can skip car ownership alltogether.

 

[eljefino]

I fixed my wifes' Prius battery at 235k for $30 with simple hand tools from Harbor Freight.

Even if the battery were taken out of the equation, the Atkinson cycle engine and teardrop shape make it a nice commuter. And it came with enough gadgets to be a status symbol for its era... so it could have been purchased instead of a Lexus vs its more obvious competitor the Corolla.

 

[funkymonkey1111]

i'm blessed to own 4 vehicles. a 1994 Land Cruiser that gets 12 mpg with a tail wind, two turbo Subarus that get 20 with all around driving (maybe 26-27 at highway only speeds), and a Nissan 350 that will get 28 on good highway driving. All but the cruiser take premium

It would be nice to have a vehicle that got over 40, but no, it's not a priority for me at all

 

[THORROMIG]

I am farrrrrrrrr from rich/wealthy --- YES it matters!!!



Dale

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ducked
But now you mention it, don't US citizens have the right to uphold the law? No citizens arrest provision? All the "defensive ammo" jive on here at least suggests a right to self-defense, and a case (moral if not legal) could be made here for self defence via protection of the shared environment.


Let me get this straight. Now you want to compare tree huggers running blocker on the freeway to save gas, with concealed carry to defend your life?


Correct. That is what I wanted to do, and that is what I did. (Except the "gas" bit. I did once refer to petrol as "gas" but I punched myself in the mouth so I wouldn't do it again)

See? Not so difficult to understand if you take your time and don't skip the boring bits.

I'd guess considering what comes out of your tail pipe as a matter of life and death strikes you as ridiculous, perhaps because you havn't thought about it.

OTOH, refering to ammunition as "defensive" strikes me as ridiculous, perhaps because I have.

Doing a relative moral value judgement on it would be tricky and I'd prefer not to attempt it.

Evaluation from a practical self-interest perspective (the clear, if narrow, focus of this thread) is much easier.

The tree huggers action is a clear benefit to me and inconveniences me not at all, so thats a win-win.

With concealed carry self defense, its a bit more complicated.

For example if it was concealed carry by the tree hugger, and they defended themselves in a road rage incident by shooting and killing the Porsche Cayenne driver, thats, by my count

win-win-win-win

If, OTOH, the Porsche Cayenne driver shot and killed the tree hugger, which is probably more likely (Might isn't usually right but it is usually the way to bet) thats less clear, but probably still a net benefit.

So it depends.

 

[B320i]

Fuel economy on the old BMW only matters to me in the sense that I keep track of it and if it changes, I'll know something isn't quite right with the vehicle.

I certainly don't complain - the old horse gets a consistent 7.5L/100km or 31mpg on the highway with the air-conditioning on, and anything from no luggage to fairly laden. In all city driving with air-conditioning, it can sink as low as 10.5L/100km or 22mpg, but usually hangs around the 8-9.5L/100km (24-27mpg) area.
Were I driving the car a lot more, I would certainly consider an LPG (Propane) conversion, as the savings would certainly pay off when one considers I fill up with 98RON petrol, which can be close to double the cost of LPG.

The car is due replacement of the oxygen sensor per the OE recommendation. I'm looking forward to seeing what difference this makes to performance and fuel economy.