Toyota's "Hybrid Math"

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
The real nonsense is the amount of effort people who don't like the car will go to to malign the vehicle, even tho there is a 10+ solid track record behind it.


Lets look at at the owner loyalties numbers:

35% of hybrid owners buy another one; let compare that to 51% Ford owner loyalty or Chevy's 52% owner loyalty. For whatever the reasons, the people who have the most experience with hybrids do not want another one.


Pretty tough to get around those facts! I don't see meanness or agenda in questioning present Hybrid cars.

 

[Shannow]

Maybe they haven't had to replace them as yet, there being no hybrids fro the '70s, 80, and most of the '90s to have worn out.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
The real nonsense is the amount of effort people who don't like the car will go to to malign the vehicle, even tho there is a 10+ solid track record behind it.


Lets look at at the owner loyalties numbers:

35% of hybrid owners buy another one; let compare that to 51% Ford owner loyalty or Chevy's 52% owner loyalty. For whatever the reasons, the people who have the most experience with hybrids do not want another one.


Pretty tough to get around those facts! I don't see meanness or agenda in questioning present Hybrid cars.


Hogwash! I don't need 2 hybrid cars. It will take a while to wear one out to have it replaced.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: neevers

After doing a lot of research and math, I've found that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT, is actually more environmentally friendly than the Prius, until about 120,000 miles. Believe it or not.


So, what happens with the calculation after 120,000 miles? Does Ford turns into a pile of junk?

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

Cost of ownership is mostly monthly payment plus cost of gas.


Cost of ownership = cost of vehicle payments made+ cost of fuel + cost of insurance + cost of financing + cost of repairs + cost of maintenance and parts.

Minus amount of resale dollars recouped.


I don't know how much you pay for your insurance, how often you trade in your cars, and how much your cars brake down, but in my case, total cost is MOSTLY car payment and fuel.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: sentra
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek


I don't see any nonsense. Cost of ownership is mostly monthly payment plus cost of gas.

The real nonsense is how people try to prove that Hammers are more eco friendly than Prius. There you have some really creative math. Somehow, I don't see many of those eco friendly Hammers driving around. I wonder why that is?


Without the "creative math," as you have put it, the case to purchase a hybrid as opposed to a non-hybrid simply isn't there. I am critical of the figures and assumptions used by Toyota in the advertisement, not the environmental and/or social impact of a hybrid, which is completely different debate.

To make the numbers work for the hybrid, Toyota has assumed one would be driving the Mazda and the Fusion for about 24,000 kms per year, which is 4000 kms more than the basic kilometer per year lease allowance offered by Mazda here in BC.

I would like to sell a very profitable investment to the person who makes their decision to purchase a Toyota hybrid based on those numbers.



Look, there are actually people who DO drive more 24,000 km per year. The fact that you don't, doesn't give you a right to call other people idiots. As far as I can see you are just trolling here.

 

[KrisZ]

The math for hybrids is the same as for diesels, for daily commuters of course, and it will work for some people while not for others.
Some like hybrids, just like some like diesels, just for the technology itself and they're not concerned whether it saves them money or not.

At the end of the day I really don't care what everybody else drives, as long as I am extended the same courtesy and can drive what I like.
But the moment certain technologies become a "mandate" or are labeled with certain agendas in mind, that's a problem.

 

[PF52]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
As far as I can see you are just trolling here.


Troll or not, at least he didn't call another vehicle a "Hammer".

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

Cost of ownership is mostly monthly payment plus cost of gas.


Cost of ownership = cost of vehicle payments made+ cost of fuel + cost of insurance + cost of financing + cost of repairs + cost of maintenance and parts.

Minus amount of resale dollars recouped.


I don't know how much you pay for your insurance, how often you trade in your cars, and how much your cars brake down, but in my case, total cost is MOSTLY car payment and fuel.


If you just choose to ignore the other costs then your whole theory goes out the window and you are simply promoting an idea that fits your agenda. That is your choice but Hybrid cars cost more than their counterparts on average in the long term. Then when they are done you have a huge poisonous battery pack to dispose of. That expense is again hidden because it goes aginst the narrative of the greenies who believe they are endowed by the master of the universe whom they don't believe in. But they want to believe they are saving the planet.

 

[badtlc]

every used car on the market is a more environmentally friendly choice than buying a new hybrid. The only justification for a hybrid is if you like the car itself and/or the technology. There is no environmental reason and no financial reason.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Doog



If you just choose to ignore the other costs then your whole theory goes out the window and you are simply promoting an idea that fits your agenda. That is your choice but Hybrid cars cost more than their counterparts on average in the long term. Then when they are done you have a huge poisonous battery pack to dispose of. That expense is again hidden because it goes aginst the narrative of the greenies who believe they are endowed by the master of the universe whom they don't believe in. But they want to believe they are saving the planet.


There's a lot of irony in this post, as you're accusing others of having an agenda; your own is pretty clear...

Overall, cost of ownership of most hybrids is very good. The higher fuel prices are and more you drive, the better deal they become. Your "huge cost of disposing of poisonous battery back" nonsense is just that, nonsense. They're a huge financial incentive for them to be recycled, which is exactly what happens to them. I realize that doesn't fit your own narrative, but that's reality.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
every used car on the market is a more environmentally friendly choice than buying a new hybrid.


That's definitely not true. About 90% of the energy of a car is used to operate it during its lifetime. And "every" is a big number... Of course, one can always buy a used hybrid, so I'm not sure I get your point?


Originally Posted By: badtlc
The only justification for a hybrid is if you like the car itself and/or the technology. There is no environmental reason and no financial reason.


That's not true either. It depends a lot on the cost of fuel and how much you drive.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
every used car on the market is a more environmentally friendly choice than buying a new one. The only justification for a new one is if you like the car itself and/or the technology. There is no environmental reason and no financial reason.


You made one glaring omission and I fixed it for you.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

Cost of ownership is mostly monthly payment plus cost of gas.


Cost of ownership = cost of vehicle payments made+ cost of fuel + cost of insurance + cost of financing + cost of repairs + cost of maintenance and parts.

Minus amount of resale dollars recouped.


I don't know how much you pay for your insurance, how often you trade in your cars, and how much your cars brake down, but in my case, total cost is MOSTLY car payment and fuel.


If you just choose to ignore the other costs then your whole theory goes out the window and you are simply promoting an idea that fits your agenda. That is your choice but Hybrid cars cost more than their counterparts on average in the long term. Then when they are done you have a huge poisonous battery pack to dispose of. That expense is again hidden because it goes aginst the narrative of the greenies who believe they are endowed by the master of the universe whom they don't believe in. But they want to believe they are saving the planet.


There is no agenda, simply you don't get I'm I'm saying. I'm saying that my insurance cost is very reasonable and I have no repair or maintenance costs with my hybrid yet (maintenance paid for 2 years). Historically, Prius is very cheap to maintain if you bothered to check (of course you didn't). So, if one includes those "ignored" costs, the cost of owning hybrid is even better.

Coming back to the "poisonous" battery, how come you are not worried about the lead acid battery in your own car? One word: hypocrisy.

 

[neevers]

Originally Posted By: stephen9666
Originally Posted By: neevers


They aren't, especially if it's shipped over from Japan, like the Prius are.

After doing a lot of research and math, I've found that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT, is actually more environmentally friendly than the Prius, until about 120,000 miles. Believe it or not.


Can you share any of this research and math with us?


It's all on my old computer.

But all you have to do is find out NYK Lines numbers for their best ship, divide by the number of cars it carries, and then figure out the co2 grams per mile from each of the cars.

It's really not that hard. And yes it's true, espscially when you consider this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/23/1618229/one-giant-cargo-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50m-cars

Shipping stuff, anything over the sea is a huge waste.

I don't have an agenda, I just bought a hybrid.....

 

[neevers]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: neevers

After doing a lot of research and math, I've found that the 2011 Ford Mustang GT, is actually more environmentally friendly than the Prius, until about 120,000 miles. Believe it or not.


So, what happens with the calculation after 120,000 miles? Does Ford turns into a pile of junk?


No, the Prius then wins the co2 grams per mile race, which is the point of it's existence.

I'm not saying a Mustang GT is a more environmentally sound car in the long run, it's not, assuming they both go to 300k without any major breakdowns the prius will win by a lot. However, I find it interesting how shipping a car over from Japan can really hurt it.

 

[friendly_jacek]

OK, I will bait. Distance from Japan to USA 5,133 miles: http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_San_Francisco_US_and_Tokyo_JA.html

Using slow speed 17 knots, it will take 10 days of sailing non-stop and will consume slightly over 1000 tons of fuel according to this fuel consumption chart: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html

Now, container ships can load up to 18,000 containers:
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-ships-energy-efficient.html

Each container can house up to 4 sedans: http://www.ts-export.com/faq.php#75

That 1000 ton divided by 72,000 cars amounts to under 14 kg of fuel or 31 lbs per car. That amounts to about 4 galons of fuel oil per car. How exactly is this a problem?

I do realize the calculation is far from exact, but the amount of fuel to import cars doesn't seem to be a great deal.

 

[neevers]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
OK, I will bait. Distance from Japan to USA 5,133 miles: http://www.mapcrow.info/Distance_between_San_Francisco_US_and_Tokyo_JA.html

Using slow speed 17 knots, it will take 10 days of sailing non-stop and will consume slightly over 1000 tons of fuel according to this fuel consumption chart: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/fuel_consumption_containerships.html

Now, container ships can load up to 18,000 containers:
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-ships-energy-efficient.html

Each container can house up to 4 sedans: http://www.ts-export.com/faq.php#75

That 1000 ton divided by 72,000 cars amounts to under 14 kg of fuel or 31 lbs per car. That amounts to about 4 galons of fuel oil per car. How exactly is this a problem?

I do realize the calculation is far from exact, but the amount of fuel to import cars doesn't seem to be a great deal.


Actually they use RORO ships..... Try again. They hold about 300 cars, if my memory is correct.

Also they use bunker fuel not gasoline, you'll find the CO2 per gram per mile much higher for bunker fuel.

 

[sciphi]

Hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles make a ton of sense for folks who drive a lot. If one is driving back and forth in Los Angeles, a hybrid makes all kinds of sense for a car that will spend most of its life stuck in traffic. A diesel might make more sense for a Midwest farmer 50 miles from town who has to use on-road diesel for on-road trucks and buys diesel 1000 gallons at a time.

I got my car because I might spend 2-3 hours every day in it for work, doing between 30 and 60 mph with few stops. I've already mostly recouped the "green car premium" over the base model, and after 5 years it'll have saved me all kinds of money over a cheaper-to-buy car.

It was also made in Ohio 6 hours by road away from me, and most of the big assemblies were also made here in the States. So not as much transportation footprint, either.

There are all sorts of fuel-friendly cars out there that aren't hybrids. As long as they're selected for the right application, that is.

 

[JHZR2]

Yeah that owner loyalty thing is questionable. Is it truly hybrid as a lumped segment versus brand loyalty? That is apples to oranges. Its kind of like saying would the owner of a coupe buy another coupe versus a chevy or ford of any type.