• Go to page :
  • 1 234
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I am debating between a Prius plugin vs a Camry as I got a job about 60 mins from home (Nice easy highway) and I will travel 4 times a week (Round trip 120 miles).
As per my calculations, the yearly cost difference I will pay ( both are offered at 0% for 60 mths at this time) is the same as the gas savings I will do making me 'save' at least after 5 years or when this is paid.
Wanted to see what others think about this and if its worth going 'eco' for my pocket.
Thanks

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
That's a pretty weak argument... chocolate chip cookies have more energy for their mass than TNT... so what's your point... (more)

Dus10 (Dec. 04, 2012 @ 9:27p) |

Peak oil is a myth propagated by those who profit most by oil's artificial scarcity.

delzy (Dec. 11, 2012 @ 2:01p) |

We get more than a third from our domestic production. As a matter of fact, even a seemingly counter-biased source (NPR... (more)

Dus10 (Dec. 11, 2012 @ 7:56p) |


Are you including in your calculation how superior you will feel to everyone who doesn't own a Prius?

What do you own now? Chances are that it will be cheaper to just keep whatever you have right now, even if it gets "bad" gas mileage. It will take a LONG time to break even on a $32,000 purchase. $32,000 buys a lot of gas.

are you going to plug in at work to recharge? there will be very little benefit if you dont

The best thing for your pocket is to move closer to work or find a job closer to where you live. Then you won't have to waste 2 hours a day and a mortgage payment on commuting expenses.

How long are you going to be at this job? 5 years is a long time for some poeple.

deleted

Thanks for the reply.
This job is going to be for ~2 years as spouse is finishing her studies and will move to another city when we both are ready
Currently own a 97 Corolla - Its started to shake a little on the highway although still gives a decent mileage (28 on highway) also many other mechanical probs - leaking windshield etc makes it very unreliable for such a long commute.
Good point SIS - am going to check if they have plugin facility available. My guess is that they do..
I dont care much about the looks. But in the test drive felt Prius to have lesser power than Camry..

Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.

those miles add up quick. buy a beater civic or corolla for $3k

ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.

I want to give you green for going a step further than 99% of people in this thinking. In a sense, the tail pipe of the car is simply moved from your car to a power plant. You're also correct about the efficiency loss. You could have even mentioned that unless we have good disposal of the battery chemicals, they are damaging to the environment.

Despite those items, I think we should remember that burning coal in a power plant is going to likely (I am no expert and haven't looked up numbers) to be more efficient than a person who uses an engine to convert fuel (which has to be delivered via semi vs coal via rail) into energy and heat. I believe the efficiency is roughly close to 30% for a standard gasoline engine.

In addition, the electric motor is supposed to be significantly more efficient.

I think there are a ton of arguments in both directions, and this is before we even get into the actual numbers behind it. I think the OP, if we assume that externalities are already priced in, will be better off going with whatever the numbers tell him. He actually benefits in one way very easily, because roads are paid for by taxes on gas, and by driving an electric car, other people will pick up his portion of road use costs.

Good job actually having an opinion - I don't think we need to analyze the environment this much when purchasing a car though. If there is a major issue, a change needs to be made elsewhere, not by convincing people online to drive a gasoline engine based car in order to save the environment.

crownvic

ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.


Ignore this advice. I run an environmental organization and this info is just blatantly inaccurate. On my phone so I can't write a full response.

This is right opinion.
ankitgu said:   ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.

I want to give you green for going a step further than 99% of people in this thinking. In a sense, the tail pipe of the car is simply moved from your car to a power plant. You're also correct about the efficiency loss. You could have even mentioned that unless we have good disposal of the battery chemicals, they are damaging to the environment.

Despite those items, I think we should remember that burning coal in a power plant is going to likely (I am no expert and haven't looked up numbers) to be more efficient than a person who uses an engine to convert fuel (which has to be delivered via semi vs coal via rail) into energy and heat. I believe the efficiency is roughly close to 30% for a standard gasoline engine.

In addition, the electric motor is supposed to be significantly more efficient.

I think there are a ton of arguments in both directions, and this is before we even get into the actual numbers behind it. I think the OP, if we assume that externalities are already priced in, will be better off going with whatever the numbers tell him. He actually benefits in one way very easily, because roads are paid for by taxes on gas, and by driving an electric car, other people will pick up his portion of road use costs.

Good job actually having an opinion - I don't think we need to analyze the environment this much when purchasing a car though. If there is a major issue, a change needs to be made elsewhere, not by convincing people online to drive a gasoline engine based car in order to save the environment.

Why aren't you considering any other cars? You can just get a new Corolla or Civic - that would be a better purchase form a financial stand point.

ankitgu said:   ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.

I want to give you green for going a step further than 99% of people in this thinking. In a sense, the tail pipe of the car is simply moved from your car to a power plant. You're also correct about the efficiency loss. You could have even mentioned that unless we have good disposal of the battery chemicals, they are damaging to the environment.

Despite those items, I think we should remember that burning coal in a power plant is going to likely (I am no expert and haven't looked up numbers) to be more efficient than a person who uses an engine to convert fuel (which has to be delivered via semi vs coal via rail) into energy and heat. I believe the efficiency is roughly close to 30% for a standard gasoline engine.

In addition, the electric motor is supposed to be significantly more efficient.

I think there are a ton of arguments in both directions, and this is before we even get into the actual numbers behind it. I think the OP, if we assume that externalities are already priced in, will be better off going with whatever the numbers tell him. He actually benefits in one way very easily, because roads are paid for by taxes on gas, and by driving an electric car, other people will pick up his portion of road use costs.

Good job actually having an opinion - I don't think we need to analyze the environment this much when purchasing a car though. If there is a major issue, a change needs to be made elsewhere, not by convincing people online to drive a gasoline engine based car in order to save the environment.


Putting environmental issues to the side, what about dollar cost? It's less of an issue with the plug-in Prius since you're still going to be using your ICE and regen braking for much of your drive, but i was annoyed after watching Chevy Volt commercials all week. "I can't remember the last time I went to the gas station." And they keep talking about how no gas means cheaper -- with no information about the electricity usage and what that costs. I admit I didnt look too hard, but It's definitely not free... I would assume it would come out cheaper (probably a lot due to a lower power electric motor versus the ICE in a "regular car") but if that were true I would have expected them to quantify that and push it in your face. Since they avoid any attempt at putting a cost on electric energy used, my pessimistic side says that's because whatever they've figured out is not good.

Back to the Prius plugin - I saw the window sticker that estimated it at equivalent to something like 95 mpg with the extra battery boost. Sounds great, but again -- no figures about what the plug-in electricity usage would be (and its cost) to achieve that number.

To the OP the Camry and Prius are quite different vehicles. What are you looking for besides cost? Toyota does have some cash incentives on the plugin right now, if you weren't aware. I believe they went up to $5,000.

GreenMD said:   Currently own a 97 Corolla...
[problems]
...started to shake a little on the highway
...[other unnamed mechanical issues]
...leaking windshield etc makes it very unreliable for such a long commute.

So, you're getting rid of a car that
1) shakes on the highway and can likely be fixed with a proper alignment/tire balance/tie rod
2) has a leaky windshield that if not broken, can be fixed for under $20 DIY or under $100 professionally.
3) has other mechanical issues that apparently aren't worth mentioning.

This is a dopey decision.

You could also look at other non-hybrid cars that get good mileage. Even after correcting Hyundai's earlier inflated MPG numbers, they still get pretty good gas mileage with a 100,000 warranty.

This is simply not true. It's utter hogwash. Even if the electricity comes from a coal plant, much fewer emissions are produced to make that electricity than emissions from a gasoline powered car. Even if all the electric cars on the road were powered from coal-burning plants, emissions would still be lower.


ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.

I fixed a leaky rear window (which let water into the trunk) with some silicone goop I bought in the store for a few dollars. At first, I tried to do a real fine inconspicuous job but it still leaked slightly after very heavy rains, so then I just lathered it on because the car was 15 years old. I made darn sure it wouldn't be leaking anymore from those spots.

ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.


This does appear to be wrong. Here's some calculations:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080927100559AAq4lTM

Show the FWF community something shiny - and they completely will ignore the question. Triple B's gay alterego seems to be pretty shiny these days.

I bought a Camry over a Prius for pure comfort - fit more people - and fit them more comfortably. Ultimately, anytime you see one of these debates, you have the purists who don't believe in new cars for any reason and will drive CrownVics and Honda Civics into the ground - and others who aren't as frugal but enjoy a little more of the creature comforts of life while still looking for the best deal.

I would assume you're that second person or you would have already bought a used car. So to that end - Prius doesn't do nearly as well on the highway as it does in the city if I recall - so perhaps factor in your percentage of driving conditions as opposed to the factory stuff.

People think of moving from gas to electric cars in a mindset devoid of dynamic principles. If a large influx of people start running their cars on electricity instead of gasoline, electricity rates will increase and gasoline prices will decrease. Then there are all the second order effects on prices of running appliances, food prices, electric rates based on time of usage, etc. Everything is interconnected. To do this on the back of a napkin doesn't give respect to the true complexity of the problem.

RedCelicaGT said:   GreenMD said:   Currently own a 97 Corolla...
[problems]
...started to shake a little on the highway
...[other unnamed mechanical issues]
...leaking windshield etc makes it very unreliable for such a long commute.

So, you're getting rid of a car that
1) shakes on the highway and can likely be fixed with a proper alignment/tire balance/tie rod
2) has a leaky windshield that if not broken, can be fixed for under $20 DIY or under $100 professionally.
3) has other mechanical issues that apparently aren't worth mentioning.

This is a dopey decision.


I was thinking the same thing. A lot of the time we talk ourself into getting what we want (a new purchase of nice new shiny things with that great new smell) with the rationale that it will somehow save us money. The other common mention is reliability, which holds some merit, but is often overstated.

Obviously you want a new car, and no one here can talk you out of that. The only thing I could add here is that, although the Prius wins after the break even point (at 5 years), the Camry has a slightly greater functionality in being a little roomier in addition to most likely having lower maintenance costs. The cost of maintenance on hybrids should become more clear with time, but I haven't heard anything concrete yet.

I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but I think the answer is just get a regular Prius (my first choice given what's known so far). ROI on the plug-in is too long in most cases, especially if you can't charge at work. There's a large difference in MSRP at time of purchase that's reflective of the purchase cost difference, not taking into account which one is more popular. Now often forgotten is the "residual" value at the end of the usage period, which could be substantial, that offsets some of the front end cost. If you take this into account the ROI might be justifiable in 5 years (pulled number from the air).

Now if you could charge at work, then a Chevy Volt (my second choice assuming charging at work is possible) may actually be more economical. And ultimately, there's the Nissan Leaf if you can live with the all electric range, and you'd definitely have to charge at work. Not only that, but your on the way to work errands will be severely limited.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/09/a-reader-explains-why-i-b...

Let me repose the question, making some hypothetical assumptions about OP. OP currently doesn't have a car and needs one to commute 120 miles a trip. He can afford $500/month for a car payment and has $5000 extra cash that he could use to pay for a car (down payment on new or maybe cash for old). He wants to be frugal, and doesn't want to spend too much. OP is a doctor and can't afford to have his car break down, nor does he have the time to fix it all the time. Although OP can afford more for a car now, he does have a mortgage and medical school loans he'd like to pay off sooner. OP drives 30,000 miles a year. Should he buy:

A) Crown Vic
B) 97 Corolla from a friend for $2000 that tells him that it has some problems
C) XX Used car for up to $5000 (please name your favorite car/price under $5k)
C) Prius Plug in
D) Prius II
E) Nissan Leaf
F) Chevy Volt
G) Nice Luxury car with $499 monthly payment
H) Hyundai Sonata Hybrid

I added that last one as a compromise between G and the other new electric/hybrids.

seylerc said:   The cost of maintenance on hybrids should become more clear with time, but I haven't heard anything concrete yet.
One of the big worries about buying a hybrid car like the Toyota Prius is the possibility that the big, expensive battery pack will have to be replaced after a few thousand miles.

Recent tests and owner surveys by Consumer Reports magazine indicate that Prius owners don't need to worry about that too much.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/04/autos/toyota_prius_battery_life/...

Horseymen said:   
So to that end - Prius doesn't do nearly as well on the highway as it does in the city if I recall - so perhaps factor in your percentage of driving conditions as opposed to the factory stuff.

For longer trips, the prius hybrid may be more economical than the plug-in version. Plug-ins perform best when a large portion of the driving is in shorter trips to make use of the battery-only driving.

There's also the Ford Fusion Hybrid under 30k that I'd suggest someone to look at if considering the Corolla/Prius hybrids and the fusion hybrid gets 47/47 and is not a tiny compact like a Prius. Toyota's current hybrid and plug-in offerings are all worse MPG/MPGe than Ford's except for the Prius which Ford has no competing vehicle (There's a Focus all-Electric, but not a Focus hybrid to directly compete with the Prius hybrid). However, if you like the "look" of the Prius, that would be the dealbreaker turning you away from a vehicle that looks like a car.

I drove both a Prius and the Fusion hybrid as well as other gas-only vehicles when I was car-shopping in 2010 Model Year, and it was completely different between Prius and Fusion Hybrid IMO. I started out not looking at any hybrid vehicles, then was leaning toward seriously planning to price and buy a Prius based on some cost calculations... until I test-drove one. Prius felt like a golf-cart to me whereas the Fusion was like a car except no noticeable automatic engine gear-shifts because it's a CVT transmission . It also was even difficult to tell when the ICE cut in or off except if you were going very slowly and windows up (it lets in very little road noise) and no radio and paid attention very closely. Personally I also liked the two-LCDs (only Speedometer is analog) dashboard in the Fusion which was unlike any other manufacturer's offerings at the time. The lower maintenance vs gas-version has been nice.... Only 1 oil change every 12mo/10000 miles is the only regular maintenance for the first 50,000 miles, and I fill up gas only once every 3 weeks or so driving ~200+ miles a week. The only main negatives Ford's newer models get from reviewers is the optional touch-screen "Infotainment" system is too complicated or confusing for some of them --> I have not used the newer version so I can't directly comment on this, but the version of sync in my 2010 w/ nav is not complicated at all to me and it was already getting dinged by reviewers such as "consumer" reports. My main complaints with the sync system is they never released any Apps or Applink for the version in my car.


Costs of maintenance for hybrids should most definitely be lower compared to non-hybrid vehicles. The ICE engine gets less hours (and the atkinson-cycle engines in some hybrids are different in other ways), and therefore there are more miles between oil changes or other service (alternator, etc) on the ICE. Regenerative breaking means the break-pads are nearly impossible to wear, so they very rarely would need to be changed. There are significant differences if you look at the manufacturer's regular service schedules from the manuals -- Although you do need to be sure not to go to a random dealer and ask THEM what they suggest you do for regular service, as they'll suggest all sorts of unnecessary things as well as much shorter oil change than manufacturer's specifications.

The brand new fusion looks like a nice sedan
The Prius looks like - a Prius

But the Prius is one of the few under $30k vehicles that is socially acceptable in any economic class- so if you're competing with doctors and their new Porsches , Benz and BMW , the prius fits in but a fusion will not

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   But the Prius is one of the few under $30k vehicles that is socially acceptable in any economic class- so if you're competing with doctors and their new Porsches , Benz and BMW , the prius fits in but a fusion will not

That is the sole reason I own one. In my profession there are times I can not show up in a crown vic and not be judged (which could impact me financially). I picked up a gently used Prius and don't get looked down upon by those driving $60-$100k vehicles, which I have no desire to spend my money on.

I don't care what people think of me. I park my Crown Vic next to the Bentley in the physician lot at the hospital. Everyone there thinks I'm cheap.

macosx said:   seylerc said:   The cost of maintenance on hybrids should become more clear with time, but I haven't heard anything concrete yet.
One of the big worries about buying a hybrid car like the Toyota Prius is the possibility that the big, expensive battery pack will have to be replaced after a few thousand miles.

Recent tests and owner surveys by Consumer Reports magazine indicate that Prius owners don't need to worry about that too much.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/04/autos/toyota_prius_battery_life/...


"...after a few thousand miles...."? I thought the battery packs were warrantied for 100,000 miles.

ubermichaelthomas said:   Does your local electricity come from burning coal or is it nuclear energy? Most electricity in the US is generated from burning coal, which essentially means you're damaging the environment much more than if you simply burned gas in your car because extra coal has to be burned to compensate for the loss of energy going through the power lines and more energy loss when the batteries in the car are charged.

Essentially, you're doing more damage to the environment than if you simply used a gas vehicle. Unless you have nuclear power in your city, in which case nuclear energy is just wonderful for the environment.


In this part of the country corn is being diverted to make E85 fuel and driving the cost up for third world countries as food, local for human consumption, plus the extra Fossil fuel to cultivate and convert it into gasoline. I tried it in my company car with flex engine and it got lousy MPG even though it is cheaper. I stepped on the gas and well, the car feels wimpy. I have to make a living and don't want to be green.

Bend3r said:   Horseymen said:   
So to that end - Prius doesn't do nearly as well on the highway as it does in the city if I recall - so perhaps factor in your percentage of driving conditions as opposed to the factory stuff.

For longer trips, the prius hybrid may be more economical than the plug-in version. Plug-ins perform best when a large portion of the driving is in shorter trips to make use of the battery-only driving.

There's also the Ford Fusion Hybrid under 30k that I'd suggest someone to look at if considering the Corolla/Prius hybrids and the fusion hybrid gets 47/47 and is not a tiny compact like a Prius. Toyota's current hybrid and plug-in offerings are all worse MPG/MPGe than Ford's except for the Prius which Ford has no competing vehicle (There's a Focus all-Electric, but not a Focus hybrid to directly compete with the Prius hybrid). However, if you like the "look" of the Prius, that would be the dealbreaker turning you away from a vehicle that looks like a car.

I drove both a Prius and the Fusion hybrid as well as other gas-only vehicles when I was car-shopping in 2010 Model Year, and it was completely different between Prius and Fusion Hybrid IMO. I started out not looking at any hybrid vehicles, then was leaning toward seriously planning to price and buy a Prius based on some cost calculations... until I test-drove one. Prius felt like a golf-cart to me whereas the Fusion was like a car except no noticeable automatic engine gear-shifts because it's a CVT transmission . It also was even difficult to tell when the ICE cut in or off except if you were going very slowly and windows up (it lets in very little road noise) and no radio and paid attention very closely. Personally I also liked the two-LCDs (only Speedometer is analog) dashboard in the Fusion which was unlike any other manufacturer's offerings at the time. The lower maintenance vs gas-version has been nice.... Only 1 oil change every 12mo/10000 miles is the only regular maintenance for the first 50,000 miles, and I fill up gas only once every 3 weeks or so driving ~200+ miles a week. The only main negatives Ford's newer models get from reviewers is the optional touch-screen "Infotainment" system is too complicated or confusing for some of them --> I have not used the newer version so I can't directly comment on this, but the version of sync in my 2010 w/ nav is not complicated at all to me and it was already getting dinged by reviewers such as "consumer" reports. My main complaints with the sync system is they never released any Apps or Applink for the version in my car.


Costs of maintenance for hybrids should most definitely be lower compared to non-hybrid vehicles. The ICE engine gets less hours (and the atkinson-cycle engines in some hybrids are different in other ways), and therefore there are more miles between oil changes or other service (alternator, etc) on the ICE. Regenerative breaking means the break-pads are nearly impossible to wear, so they very rarely would need to be changed. There are significant differences if you look at the manufacturer's regular service schedules from the manuals -- Although you do need to be sure not to go to a random dealer and ask THEM what they suggest you do for regular service, as they'll suggest all sorts of unnecessary things as well as much shorter oil change than manufacturer's specifications.


Nice overview of the two hybrid models as I am looking at a Prius V as a small SUV. The only issue I have is the lack of track record of the Fusion hybrid at this point. Granted, Prius V is new too but the regular one has been around for awhile now.

hkgfnt said:   In this part of the country corn is being diverted to make E85 fuel and driving the cost up for third world countries as food, local for human consumption, plus the extra Fossil fuel to cultivate and convert it into gasoline. I tried it in my company car with flex engine and it got lousy MPG even though it is cheaper. I stepped on the gas and well, the car feels wimpy. I have to make a living and don't want to be green.

E85 actually has less btu per gallon (about 33%) than gasoline so that's why MPG is lower. Depending on what they charge, E95 may or may not be cheaper than gasoline on a per btu basis.

GreenMD said:   I dont care much about the looks. But in the test drive felt Prius to have lesser power than Camry..

Umm yes, that's why they get better mileage, less powerful engine. In the old days, people would say that there's no replacement for displacement, but that was when gas was less than $1 a gallon. As a driver, the only problem with all the prius's on the road is that they tend to drive slow so they can give you that smug smile. The only benefit to other drivers is that they're easy to cut off as they don't tend to keep up with traffic.

RedCelicaGT said:   People think of moving from gas to electric cars in a mindset devoid of dynamic principles. If a large influx of people start running their cars on electricity instead of gasoline, electricity rates will increase and gasoline prices will decrease. Then there are all the second order effects on prices of running appliances, food prices, electric rates based on time of usage, etc. Everything is interconnected. To do this on the back of a napkin doesn't give respect to the true complexity of the problem.

A somewhat simplistic view of things. Sales of hybrid cars are actually down over the years as people who first bought them got tired of them and didn't buy a hybrid to replace them. Electricity rates are made up of a number of factors, there's baseload plants like nuclear power that run all the time and then there are peakers that only run when there's peak demand. The price of natural gas has fallen due to fracking and more coal plants are switching to gas. Charging a car at night isn't really going to increase the demand on the electric network, but maybe during the day in the summer it would. Also according to Wiki, hybrids make up 1.28% of US sales from 1999-2012. Sales were 2.79% in 2009, 2.37% in 2010 and 2.11% in 2011.

henry33 said:   

Umm yes, that's why they get better mileage, less powerful engine. In the old days, people would say that there's no replacement for displacement, but that was when gas was less than $1 a gallon. As a driver, the only problem with all the prius's on the road is that they tend to drive slow so they can give you that smug smile. The only benefit to other drivers is that they're easy to cut off as they don't tend to keep up with traffic.


You can also say it is fine for people who would set the cruise at, say, 75 and stay on the slow lane in a Prius. People like myself that sometimes drive up to 200 miles a day and are older are looking for a way to save a few more $$ in gas money. We know a Prius is not going to get you anywhere sooner. It's all relative depending on your age and needs.

henry33 said:   [ The price of natural gas has fallen due to fracking and more coal plants are switching to gas. Charging a car at night isn't really going to increase the demand on the electric network, but maybe during the day in the summer it would.

Something else to (possibly) factor into the overall cost comparison. 'round these parts (DFW), there's an energy company that touts free electricity at night. I think it's 10pm-7am. If one could always charge their plug-in Prius during this time, that would certainly effect calculations.

Don't buy the Prius. I regret it.

Get the Fusion hybrid, it is much better.

get a Diesel

hkgfnt said:   
Nice overview of the two hybrid models as I am looking at a Prius V as a small SUV. The only issue I have is the lack of track record of the Fusion hybrid at this point. Granted, Prius V
is new too but the regular one has been around for awhile now.

The new Fusion/other F hybrids this year are the third-gen of F's hybrid systems. The escape hybrid has been around for a while before there was a Fusion hybrid. (I think the first Escape Hybrid came out 8 years ago).

well I also haven't seen in person or driven a C-Max or the V's (The first V's came out just after I bought my vehicle) so I can't comment on which is better or not, but it's compared with the V as a small SUV.. C-Max = 47/47, Prius V = 44/40. C-Max = 188 horsepower, Prius V = 134 horsepower. Base Price C-Max = 24,995, C-Max Energi/plug-in version ~$34k. The V does have more Cargo space, but passenger space and headroom(front and rear seats) is larger in the C-Max. Test drives are usually a good idea.

A possible caveat to the 47 Hwy is that the C-Max/Fusion (and any other new F hybrids) can be in EV-only mode up to 62mph. I don't know the official specifications for the Hwy testing, if it's at 60 then it maybe be different at 65/70.

Skipping 85 Messages...
naas said:   By "Most" do you mean "a third?" Regardless, you're conflating income (a rate) with savings (a quantity). Push comes to shove over how much they will ultimately have to give, not how fast they are currently giving it.

We get more than a third from our domestic production. As a matter of fact, even a seemingly counter-biased source (NPR) supports my statement: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-o...

38.8% USA (not even imported... and correct me if I am wrong, 38.8% is greater than 33.33%, or one-third... all by itself).
15.1% Canada
7.5% Mexico
-----
61.4% of US consumed oil is from North America.
=====

Way to go there!

EDIT: I will concede that the logistics of oil should be included in considerations, but that is why oil companies and folks are trying to put in a pipeline... it would make the equation even better. Apparently a few folks in charge don't want to improve the equation.

LATER EDIT: Oh, and rate vs. quantity? Really? The US is slated to surpass the Saudis by 2025... and we are supposed to be a net exporter of energy.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014