If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mostly because American buyers want large vehicles (fat people can't fit
well in small cars, ya know) and to haul large (take it anyway you want) families around. If they made a hybrid SUV, then they will come - and kick the price of gas to $4-5 gallon too. Look at all the large vehicles sitting in used car lots, some '04 models even. I think the hybrid trend is coming later this summer, but the true cost of ownership (ergo, the $$$$ battery) remains to be seen. If Kalifornya goes to a mileage-based tax system at the pump there won't be much incentive either. B~ "Tom Del Rosso" > wrote in message ... > 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. > > |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 ************************************************** ******** |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"B. Peg" > wrote in message
... > Mostly because American buyers want large vehicles (fat people can't fit > well in small cars, ya know) I'm not fat, but I have found this is also true of tall people and people with elbows. > and to haul large (take it anyway you want) > families around. If they made a hybrid SUV, then they will come - and kick > the price of gas to $4-5 gallon too. I don't follow. It would raise the price if demand lowered? > Look at all the large vehicles sitting in used car lots, some '04 models > even. I think the hybrid trend is coming later this summer, but the true > cost of ownership (ergo, the $$$$ battery) remains to be seen. If > Kalifornya goes to a mileage-based tax system at the pump there won't be > much incentive either. Is their plan to tax gas more if the vehicle has high mileage??? That seems backwards even for them. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros and remove the obvious. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:26:32 GMT, "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? From what I've seen, not ready for Prime Time. Know of one lady, battery died after trip up from Kentucky. $150 minimum to service, and possibly not under warranty. Also saw one of these going down the highway. Bouncing around like a sardine can in a hurricane. While my 3,800 lb car never moved, except forward. My own opinion is a Hybrid is a motorcycle with a passenger compartment built over it. Lg |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 ************************************************** ******** |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =---- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lowest cost per cubic foot cargo space in passenger vans = Chevy Express Van | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 13th 05 02:59 PM |
Factors to consider when ordering Accord Hybrid? | stillsman | Honda | 13 | January 4th 05 05:56 AM |
Civic Hybrid | [email protected] | Honda | 8 | December 12th 04 04:38 PM |
Lower total ownership cost? (USA) | Mark Carroll | General | 0 | November 24th 04 05:25 AM |
Hybrid autos don't make economic sense | lgcharlot | General | 3 | October 16th 04 02:16 PM |