Hybrid car cost of ownership

Besides higher mileage I suspect there must be hidden costs or else there
would be hybrids on dealers' floors. Is there a significant cost due to
replacing batteries or something? Or are they just not ready for primetime?


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add
2 more zeros and remove the obvious.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

> Besides higher mileage I suspect there must be hidden costs or else there
> would be hybrids on dealers' floors. Is there a significant cost due to
> replacing batteries or something? Or are they just not ready for primetime?

The cost of batteries is unclear. The cost of NiMH rechargeable
batteries is going down, so the replacement costs could be lower
in the future. Right now they're for the early adopters. I
wouldn't say "not ready for primetime" but rather "a work in
progress". They seem to be fine vehicles, but the cost of
ownership is high compared to comparable size/performance gasoline
powered cars. You've got to really want one.

Certainly many of the electrics in recent years were sold at a net
loss. Remember the GM EV1, Toyota RAV4 Electric, or the Honda EV
Plus? GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 (a lie). The
real reason was because it was costing them $80,000 each to make
them

It's believed that the Toyota Prius is turning a profit now.

"y_p_w" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Certainly many of the electrics in recent years were sold at a net
> loss. Remember the GM EV1, Toyota RAV4 Electric, or the Honda EV
> Plus? GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 (a lie). The
> real reason was because it was costing them $80,000 each to make
> them
>
> It's believed that the Toyota Prius is turning a profit now.

Thanks, but it sounds like there was no lie, since there really was no
demand at the real price.

--

Reply in group, but if emailing add
2 more zeros and remove the obvious.

y_p_w wrote:

>
> Certainly many of the electrics in recent years were sold at a net
> loss. Remember the GM EV1, Toyota RAV4 Electric, or the Honda EV
> Plus? GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 (a lie). The
> real reason was because it was costing them $80,000 each to make
> them
>

The EV-1 was never intended to be sold to consumers. That
vehicle was only available under a lease program, GM used
that lease program to do long-term testing of electric
vehicle technology. It was a sad day indeed when the program
was terminated at the end of it's run and the cars were all
taken back. Every single lesee really liked the car and it
worked well for them. If it had been available in my area
I would have leased one in a heartbeat. The volatility and
the gaming going on in the gasoline industry is really
hurting people now, having an all-electric car would allow
someone who truly wanted to to step out of the game altogether.

BTW, the reason for the high production costs of the EV-1 was
because every one was a hand-built and hand-assembled car. If
GM had set up their usual mass-production assembly line for
the EV-1 it likely would sell for less than what a mid-level
SUV sells for now. Fundamentally, the only really expensive
part was the motor and the battery pack, but don't forget that
those costs were offset by elimination of expensive to design
and build transmission systems and complex emissions control
systems on gas engines. No fuel injectors, no catalyst, no
smog pumps or EGR systems, no exhaust system at all for that
matter, no fuel systems, no evaporative vapor recovery system,
no clutch system, no tranny cooler, no radiator, no antifreeze,
I could go on and on. Ultimately I would see an all-electric
direct-drive car being cheaper to make than a regular petro-fuel
vehicle.

Another plus of an all-E car is that it can use better
electrical sources, including reforming fuel cell technology,
and renewable non-carbon energy sources.


JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

JazzMan > wrote in article
>...
> y_p_w wrote:
>
> >
> > Certainly many of the electrics in recent years were sold at a net
> > loss. Remember the GM EV1, Toyota RAV4 Electric, or the Honda EV
> > Plus? GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 (a lie). The
> > real reason was because it was costing them $80,000 each to make
> > them
> >
>
> The EV-1 was never intended to be sold to consumers. That
> vehicle was only available under a lease program, GM used
> that lease program to do long-term testing of electric
> vehicle technology. It was a sad day indeed when the program
> was terminated at the end of it's run and the cars were all
> taken back. Every single lesee really liked the car and it
> worked well for them. If it had been available in my area
> I would have leased one in a heartbeat. The volatility and
> the gaming going on in the gasoline industry is really
> hurting people now, having an all-electric car would allow
> someone who truly wanted to to step out of the game altogether.
>
> BTW, the reason for the high production costs of the EV-1 was
> because every one was a hand-built and hand-assembled car. If
> GM had set up their usual mass-production assembly line for
> the EV-1 it likely would sell for less than what a mid-level
> SUV sells for now. Fundamentally, the only really expensive
> part was the motor and the battery pack, but don't forget that
> those costs were offset by elimination of expensive to design
> and build transmission systems and complex emissions control
> systems on gas engines. No fuel injectors, no catalyst, no
> smog pumps or EGR systems, no exhaust system at all for that
> matter, no fuel systems, no evaporative vapor recovery system,
> no clutch system, no tranny cooler, no radiator, no antifreeze,
> I could go on and on. Ultimately I would see an all-electric
> direct-drive car being cheaper to make than a regular petro-fuel
> vehicle.
>
> Another plus of an all-E car is that it can use better
> electrical sources, including reforming fuel cell technology,
> and renewable non-carbon energy sources.
>
>
> JazzMan
> --

Of course. now that it has been established that hybrids will use less fuel
- thus pay fewer fuel/road taxes - Big Brother has proposed that ALL cars
be equipped with spyware - er, monitoring devices - which will determine
how many miles have been driven in order to tax the car owner by-the-mile.

Of course, "absolutely nothing else" would ever be monitored - such as
speeds driven, locations driven to, etc., etc......

One has to wonder why the government is so enthuisiastic about hybrids.
When was the last time YOU heard ANY politician praise a program which will
result in fewer taxes collected?

Could such monitoring of the general population be but a single reason?

Bob Paulin wrote:

> Of course. now that it has been established that hybrids will use less fuel
> - thus pay fewer fuel/road taxes - Big Brother has proposed that ALL cars
> be equipped with spyware - er, monitoring devices - which will determine
> how many miles have been driven in order to tax the car owner by-the-mile.
>
> Of course, "absolutely nothing else" would ever be monitored - such as
> speeds driven, locations driven to, etc., etc......
>
> One has to wonder why the government is so enthuisiastic about hybrids.
> When was the last time YOU heard ANY politician praise a program which will
> result in fewer taxes collected?
>
> Could such monitoring of the general population be but a single reason?


What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
wealthiest people in the country. Follow the money, that's
the key, and the money goes to the hydrocarbon fuels industry.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

JazzMan > wrote in article
>...
>
>
> What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
> been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
> of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
> per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
> where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
> pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
> the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
> wealthiest people in the country. Follow the money, that's
> the key, and the money goes to the hydrocarbon fuels industry.
>


Or, perhaps, it will be siphoned off to pay for the disposal of of all the
hazardous waste contained in the batteries and computerized controls in
these hybrids and full-electrics....if such a fuel-tax surplus actually
DOES exist....which I doubt.

I'm afraid I AM following the money.......right down the toilet with these
hybrids....

JazzMan wrote:

> Bob Paulin wrote:
>
>
>>Of course. now that it has been established that hybrids will use less fuel
>>- thus pay fewer fuel/road taxes - Big Brother has proposed that ALL cars
>>be equipped with spyware - er, monitoring devices - which will determine
>>how many miles have been driven in order to tax the car owner by-the-mile.
>>
>>Of course, "absolutely nothing else" would ever be monitored - such as
>>speeds driven, locations driven to, etc., etc......
>>
>>One has to wonder why the government is so enthuisiastic about hybrids.
>>When was the last time YOU heard ANY politician praise a program which will
>>result in fewer taxes collected?
>>
>>Could such monitoring of the general population be but a single reason?
>
>
>
> What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
> been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
> of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
> per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
> where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
> pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
> the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
> wealthiest people in the country.

<coughBULL****cough>

JazzMan wrote:

> What's really funny is that because the CAFE standards have
> been frozen at 1980's levels and with the burgeoning sales
> of gas-sucking SUVs the actual amount of taxes being collected
> per vehicle mile are higher now than they ever have been. So,
> where's all the extra money going? It's being siphoned off to
> pay for invasions of other countries and trying to make up
> the shortfalls caused by the massive tax cuts awarded the
> wealthiest people in the country. Follow the money, that's
> the key, and the money goes to the hydrocarbon fuels industry.

From http://www.house.gov/mica/projhwygastax.htm :

"From December 1990 until October 1997, and in response
to large federal budget deficits, Congress returned a
portion of the gasoline excise tax to general revenues.
This meant that funds from the gas tax were being spent for
purposes other than transportation.

"Congress passed the Transportation Efficiency Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. This landmark
legislation "locked in" the Highway Trust Fund, meaning that
the federal gas tax revenues can only be spent on highway
and transit needs rather than on a myriad of other spending
items through the general fund.

"Currently the federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4
cents per gallon. One tenth of one cent (0.1 cents) per
gallon is dedicated to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund. 2.86 cents per gallon (about 15%) is allocated
for mass transit purposes and is earmarked to the Mass
Transit Account within the Highway Trust Fund. The balance,
15.44 cents per gallon, is earmarked to the Highway Account,
which is also within the Highway Trust Fund.

"Since fiscal year 1997, federal gasoline taxes have
generated over $20 billion per year for the Highway Trust
Fund. Through a formula set by Congress, a portion of the
Highway Trust Fund is returned to each state each year for
various transportation and infrastructure projects."

Ed

"JazzMan" > wrote in message
...
> y_p_w wrote:
>
> >
> > Certainly many of the electrics in recent years were sold at a net
> > loss. Remember the GM EV1, Toyota RAV4 Electric, or the Honda EV
> > Plus? GM claimed there was no demand for the EV1 (a lie). The
> > real reason was because it was costing them $80,000 each to make
> > them
> >
>
> The EV-1 was never intended to be sold to consumers. That
> vehicle was only available under a lease program, GM used
> that lease program to do long-term testing of electric
> vehicle technology. It was a sad day indeed when the program
> was terminated at the end of it's run and the cars were all
> taken back. Every single lesee really liked the car and it
> worked well for them. If it had been available in my area
> I would have leased one in a heartbeat. The volatility and
> the gaming going on in the gasoline industry is really
> hurting people now, having an all-electric car would allow
> someone who truly wanted to to step out of the game altogether.
>
> BTW, the reason for the high production costs of the EV-1 was
> because every one was a hand-built and hand-assembled car. If
> GM had set up their usual mass-production assembly line for
> the EV-1 it likely would sell for less than what a mid-level
> SUV sells for now. Fundamentally, the only really expensive
> part was the motor and the battery pack, but don't forget that
> those costs were offset by elimination of expensive to design
> and build transmission systems and complex emissions control
> systems on gas engines. No fuel injectors, no catalyst, no
> smog pumps or EGR systems, no exhaust system at all for that
> matter, no fuel systems, no evaporative vapor recovery system,
> no clutch system, no tranny cooler, no radiator, no antifreeze,
> I could go on and on. Ultimately I would see an all-electric
> direct-drive car being cheaper to make than a regular petro-fuel
> vehicle.
>
> Another plus of an all-E car is that it can use better
> electrical sources, including reforming fuel cell technology,
> and renewable non-carbon energy sources.
>
>
> JazzMan
> --
I love folks who preach how great electric cars are. They never take
into account that generating the power to charge that vehicle is doing
more damage than running an auto. It also seems to escape their notice
that electrics are only useful in large cities since they have such
terrible range they are impractical in the rest of the country. The only
real non good source for electrical power on a long term scale is
nuclear and the green folks scream when they hear that. But it's a fact.
No other power source is even close.
As for fuel cells they are a joke. Current cells fail in less than 10K
and are dependent on natural gas to produce the energy. Add in the fact
that they are an energy losing item as well and you see why they are not
really big sellers.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----