This of course has lead me to take a much stronger look at hybrid cars than I had initially planned. There still aren't too many hybrid cars on the market, and if you throw away the 2-seaters, performance hybrids, one insanely expensive Lexus and all the SUVs, you are left with three cars (not a very wide selection):
- the Honda Civic Hybrid,
- the Toyota Prius,
- and the new comer (that not too many people know about), the Toyota Camry Hybrid.
But all in all, I am really feeling the lack of "gotta have it" factor with the Civic Hybrid. I just don't want this car. So, I was looking forward to getting over to Toyota, to check out their two hybrid cars. Pitting the Prius and Camry would hopefully allow me to balance acceleration, interior dimensions, and fuel economy. In fact, I was really looking forward to driving the Camry, because it seems like it might be the closed of all of the hybrids to being a car that I would like to own.
Unfortunately, the helpful Toyota salesman (who pounced on me just about as soon as I parked my Saturn), informed me that the wait time for a Prius is at least 5 months. The Camry hybrid is apparently a little better - it only takes 2 months to get one of those. Even worse, you can't even test drive either car! Apparently, as soon as the Toyota deal gets a shipment of either the Prius or the Camry, they are immediately sold. The salesman took down my name and phone number, and offered to call me the next time they get a shipment. Apparently, there is a window of a few hours, where test drives can occur, before the new owner takes delivery of the car.
Sheesh.
I mean, I'm okay waiting 5 months for something, if I know that I really want it. But, I am not going to even think about buying a car without at least test driving it first. It seems like there is some "Irrational Exuberance" around hybrid cars in general, and the Prius specifically. I am really turned off by the idea of having to fight my way through the herd just to obtain one of these vehicles.
So, since I couldn't test drive anything at Toyota, I went back to my previous plan, and checked out Volvo. To my surprise, I found that the base model of the Volvo S40 (they call it the 2.4i) is actually rated as a PZEV (Partial Zero Emission Vehicle) car in California. That means that the emissions produced by the S40 are equivalent (or possibly even better) than what comes out of a Prius. This is really fantastic, because the S40 has insane amounts of "gotta have it" factor. The style of this car is incredible -- the interior minimalistic without compromising functionality. The exterior also looks great, and during the short test drive that I had, the car felt great on the road.
Plus, it has safety features up the wazoo, and Volvo seems to extend its care for the environment beyond what comes out of the tailpipe.
Unfortunately, there are two problems with the S40 2.4i (of course). The first is that the fuel economy stinks - it is rated at 22 MPG city and 30 MPG highway. At first, I thought that this was equivalent to my Saturn, but I did some digging, and it turns out my Saturn is actually rated at 24 MPG city and 34 MPG highway. This would explain why my napkin math tells me that I'm getting pretty close to 30 MPG with the Saturn. So, if I went with the Volvo, I would be making cleaner emissions per gallon of gas, but I would be consuming more gas than I am now (and far more than if I were to buy a Prius). :(
The second problem is that you cannot get the DVD navigation option on the 2.4i, only on the next model up, the T5 (which has a turbo, amongst other things). And of course, the T5, while it has slightly better fuel economy (up to 31 MPG city), isn't PZEV. :(
So, I'm pretty much back to square one, with no idea what I'm going to do. At this point, my options are:
- To fight my way into a hybrid car that is probably pretty far from the "car of my dreams", or
- To go with a conventional PZEV car, that has better emissions but worse fuel economy that what I have now, and doesn't quite have all of the features and power that I want, or
- To screw the environment, and get exactly what I want (which at this point, is probably either a Volvo S40 T5, BMW 325i, or Acura TSX).
-Andy.
"So, if I went with the Volvo, I would be making cleaner emissions per gallon of gas, but I would be consuming more gas than I am now"
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The number one factor in climate change is CO2. If you're burning more gas, you're contributing more. Period. Smog concerns are so very low on the environmental problem list that sulfur oxide emissions and such are a non issue. In fact, the smog and particulate matter in the air was probably responsible for the cooling trend from the 40s to the 70s when the Al Gores of the time were screaming about the oncoming ice age. There are actually geoengineering plans that actually involve boosting smog output (a harmless kind).
But back to hybrids, If I were you, I'd get a high-mileage regular car and save $3000 for the extra 5 mpg. Donate the cash to some CO2 credits or buy some vacant land in the sticks and grow trees or something if you really care about the environment. The demand is clearly there for hybrids so it's not like you're a bad guy for not voting with your dollar. By the time you need a new one they should have some better options like those hydraulic flywheel hybrids that don't require hundreds of pounds of batteries (not to mention the environmental impact of producing and disposing of those batteries).
Andy -- I'm sorry, I can't help but promote Zipcar at this point. We have about 30 brand new Priuses in our San Francisco fleet. People definitely join just to try out different kinds of cars. We also have S40s, Mini convertibles, Elements, Mazda 3s, 5s, and 6s, Toyota Matrices, etc, etc. We don't have any 325s on the west coast, yet...
http://www.zipcar.com/sf/find-cars
I like the Prius except for two things. The back window is at too steep of an angle, and it makes rear-viewing difficult. And when you put the car in reverse, it emits that annoying beep-beep-beep-beep... I think that's just a safety tradeoff because it would otherwise be silently reversing.
Other than that, I think it's a good car and well engineered. They have definitely worked the kinks out of it, which I can't say is true of the 325i: Karl and I had a 2006 325i for a while (borrowed from the fleet...) and it was a total lemon -- lots of odd bugs stemming from their big changes this year. I would give this car at least two more years of refinement by BMW before even thinking about it. Also, it's the ultimate yuppie valley car, so that should be enough for you to say no, right?
I also don't recommend the S40, but I think only because I first drove it immediately after we had to give the 325i back. And for all its yuppiness and quirkiness, it DID have fantastic handling.
I've only driven the Civic Hybrid a couple times and I think it's not bad. The Civics in general are really really reliable.
I'd second the vote for the Civic. It's the workhorse of the American fleet.
But back to my hybrid trepidations. I did some quick math. Based on Edmunds, a regular civic 4 door costs about $15k and a hybrid costs about $23k. There's a $1,500 tax deduction for 2006 (and there may not be one next year) but since it's a deduction and not a refund, let's just shave the price down to $22k for a difference of $7k.
The highway mileages are 40 mpg and 51 respectively. Let's assume that you do only highway driving and it's 12,000 miles per year. Let's also make the assumption that gas is $3 per gallon now and will rise an outrageous $1 per year indefinitely (next year $4, year after $5, etc.
Excel tells me that you would have to keep the car about 12.5 years to break even also assuming that maintenance costs are the same for each model. More reasonable expectations of gas price inflation extend that date out quite a bit (21 years in the case of a 25cent/year climb).
You would end up burning about 6,000 fewer gallons of gas and in environmental terms, that's 60 tons of CO2 (20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas).
If you want to keep Al Gore the expert climatologist happy and still not pay out the nose, get the regular gas burner and offset the 60 tons of CO2 by buying carbon credits for about $1,200 given current carbon credit market prices of about $20 per ton.
The numbers are bound to change based on model, your driving habits, gas prices, etc. but I think you're safe bypassing hybrids in both the financial and environmental senses. Too late for Kevin though.
Two words:
Acura
TL
Unfortunately, the emissions on all of the Acura's (including the TL) are terrible. I think they are just LEV. If they were at least SULEV, there would be a chance...
-Andy.
Mark,
I agree that in the current market, buying a hybrid in order to save money doesn't make a lot of sense (unless you're Kevin). What I'm looking to do with the next car is achieve some sort of balance of reducing my carbon emissions, and getting a car that is fun to drive.
But, as is the point of this post, it's not looking like that is possible. What I'm trying to do now is figure out the difference between SULEV and PZEV, and if the latter actually reduces carbon emissions or not.
Getting back to the cost issue, while I don't want to get ripped off, I don't mind paying a little bit more in order to achieve my stated goals.
Right now, all of the hybrids are going for *at least* MSRP. None of the dealers that I talked to on Sunday were selling over MSRP, but I'm sure that sort of thing is going on.
I have also thought about buying a "normal" car, and trying to offset the CO2 emissions some other way - but I really think that the point here is that *I* need to lower *my* CO2 emissions. America needs to start putting less CO2 in the air, and buying CO2 credits doesn't actually do that.
-Andy.
P.S. - Kevin is up to 34,000 miles on his Civic Hybrid, and he has had it for around 19 months. So clearly, he is on a pace to justify the amount of money that he spent on his hybrid. I probably drive less than half the amount per year that Kevin does.
Well if cap and trade Kyoto-style CO2 control is to be believed, buying C02 credits and sitting on them is as good as cutting your own emissions. It doesn't matter if its "your" CO2 or CO2 from Russia, it all is the same and it all mixes globally. Who cares if America (or anyone else for that matter) keeps adding CO2 as long as it falls on a global level and no one suffers for it? That's cap and trade.
Now whether the carbon credit market is on the level is another issue which calls into question the foundations of the Kyoto protocol but that's a different argument.
According to my magic spreadsheet, in a world where gas prices rise by $1 per year, Kevin will break even at year 9 based on his driving habits. I think that's kind of a reach on the idea that he's saving money. I really doubt prices will rise that fast that quick. In a twisted way, Kevin is getting more of his money's worth by driving more. If you drive half as much, it will take much longer to recoup your investment. All love to Kevin though.
Get an old school internal combustion engine. Find some other way to reduce your carbon footprint.
by the way, I've also made an evil calculation that if I kileed 3 people, that would compensate for my driving habits given the amount of CO2 that a person exhales.