Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Toyota Highlander Toyota Highlander Real World MPG
209 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Toyota Highlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: mdhutton (Aug 25, 2008 3:29 pm) http://www.iaff.org/HS/Alerts/051306%20Hybrid%20Vehicles.asp |
|
|
ecotrklvr, help me understand your math / logic better. Using your assumptions, you invest an extra $10K into a car instead of savings. After 5 years you sell it and get $5K of the $10K back in extra resale value. Now, based on your assumptions, you would have made back the other $5K in fuel savings after 6 years to get you to break-even on your extra up-front $10K investment. But since you sold after 5 years, you didn’t quite make it to break-even, let alone get ahead on your fuel charges versus the up-front investment. So how does that translate to a 13-14% rate of return on your $10K investment? Using your figures, it seems like you spent $10K and got back $5K + $4.1K in fuel savings to equal $9.1K. Hardly a 13-14% rate of return. For your logic to work you need to demonstrate a sweet spot between the time of resale and the time owned to assure you more than make up the initial investment and your current example doesn’t seem to do this. Also, the math is currently around $13K in extra up-front investment and the years to recover on 15K/miles-a-year at current fuel rates is closer to 20 years…
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Sep 03, 2008 10:42 am) So your math shows $4100 saved in 5 years. If you only spend half of $6700, or $3350, and get back $4100, that's $750 on a $3350 investment. That's over 20% return. That's four times the best CD rates I see out there. Not sure where your $13k upfront differential comes from. You comparing Base vs Hybrid Limited? Is that all they have on lots? This technology really ends up being great for the high-mileage driver in stop and go traffic. Think taxicab. I agree that the usual folks who drive a lot, drive a lot on the freeway, where this investment makes no sense. That's why I bought my 2007 Highlander with a four-cylinder. Then, it had the same freeway mileage as the Hybrid, and a smaller difference in city mileage as now, and a much higher price spread. Can't wait to see what the 2009 Hybrid ratings will be, and what price they ask for the new 2.5L Dual VVT-i vs. the 3.3L in the Hybrid. Heck, the 2.7L Base model may be they way to go (again).
|
|
|
Replying to: ecotrklvr (Sep 05, 2008 5:56 am) 1. Toyota intentionally obscured the price difference by converting essential features to extra-cost options in the Hybrids. For example, comparing the Limited to the Hybrid Limited, auto air is standard in the Limited but all that is standard in the Limited Hybrid is manual air in the front row only (serious, we’re talking no AC at all standard in the back two rows of the Hybrid Limited, not base). Now Toyota knows no one is going to accept no AC in the rear and makes it a standard factory installed option in virtually all the Hybrids they ship. But by the time you get done adding the rear AC, climate control for the front and auto-AC upgrade for the rear to get to comparable for the non-Hybrid Limited, you’ve added several $K just to get apples-to-apples. 2. The other major delta is Hybrids sell near-to or at full MSRP and have no incentive program). The non-hybrids are typically selling below dealer invoice after you factor in the current Toyota incentive program. This gap has only grown bigger over time which is why the average delta has grown from $11K to $13K. You still didn’t answer the questions about how you came you your positive return based on the assumptions in your original email. The $4,100 was based on your math, not mine. In your reply you mixed-and-matched, taking the savings rate based on one set of assumptions and applying the to your hypothetical reduced delta cost between the up-front purchases based on a different set of assumptions. That doesn’t make any sense. I would really like you to explan the logic, per my previous questions, based on the asusmptions you laid out in your first email. Doing any assumptions based on a $6.7K is useless because you can’t get a comparably –equipped Hybrid anywhere near that. You don’t have to believe me. Believe the WSJ or USA Today or Edmunds or whatever credible third party source you want.
|
|
|
Replying to: citivas (Sep 06, 2008 9:07 am) There are three elements to the hybrid economic viability, really. Initial cost, resale recaptured, and fuel saved. The first is controlled my the supply chain, the second by the marketplace, and the third by the technology. At this stage of the product lifecycle, the initial cost is higher than it will become, Time will tell about he resale value as well. The technology of recapturing braking energy and expending for acceleration is now well proven. The economic viability is the question. My point is that in judging this viability, don't forget about two key elements: the initial cost is offset by the higher trade-in (or resale value); and the payback period, whatever it is, must compared to the alternatives for investment. If I could find a 5-year CD that paid 10% for $11-13k initial investment, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Tens of thousands people would. Heck, a 6% CD would be a winner. The extra 4% may be judged as a cover for the non-FDIC aspect. Over a million people have already bought hybrids. Many of them (and I know several) have done it, in large measure, just to be green. Making economic sense has to be part of this for me. Right now, it's not bad, and getting better all the time. More and more capital is being invested to bring the cost of it down. While this is going on, no one is asking you to buy one. But every incremental one that is sold is helping to lower the cost for me any everyone (and possibly you as well). Please don't discourage them by implying that a multi-year payback is a bad thing. It simply isn't. At a time when other historically good investments offer such low yields, such as US T-bills, (see link title), investment will and should move to alternatives.
|
|
|
Replying to: ecotrklvr (Sep 06, 2008 1:54 pm) So, they cost a lot more and are not exactly "Green". Gotta love marketing spin.
|
|
|
Replying to: toyseeker (Sep 15, 2008 8:16 am) Is it spin if that is what the customers want?  tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
|
|
Replying to: tidester (Sep 15, 2008 8:43 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: toyseeker (Sep 15, 2008 1:40 pm) tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
|
|
Replying to: tidester (Sep 15, 2008 2:21 pm) Sure, there's a few people that seem bent on burning as much gas as they can in their lifetime, because the planet isn't gong to explode in their lifetime. They neglect the fact that wars are fought for oil and resources. And that their tax dollars and fellow countrymen and women are spent in the process. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Toyota Highlander Toyota Highlander Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Highlander
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
