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
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrids - News, Reviews and Views in the Press
567 messages, Last post on Oct 30, 2009 at 9:21 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 18, 2007 7:23 am) You are probably correct that no one in their right mind would spend $50k to keep a Prius going. To say that you could not spend that much replacing parts is not being realistic. If added up I imagine there are at least $50k worth of parts not counting the labor to install them.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 18, 2007 7:58 am) OF COURSE there are $50K worth of repair and labor POSSIBLE on ANY CAR. But no car is going to break that often without falling under Lemon status !!! |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 18, 2007 6:18 am) It might be even higher. Repair items: #1) 2 Wheels and lower control arm #2) Windshield, front qtr panel, OS rearview mirror ( still looking for the deer that stole the original ) #3) Rear door, lower rocker panel and rear qtr panel Of the approx $5000 cost for these three incidents probably $3000+ is just for shop labor 40 hrs x $75/hr. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 17, 2007 4:17 pm) The report mentions that they are showing energy dollars needed for repair, not the cost of the repairs. In other words, they are trying to show the "societal" cost, not the cost to the consumer out of pocket. And this is supposed to be, in the words of CNW, "a general-consumer report, not a technical document per se"? If so, it fails pretty miserably. Heck, I find technical documents easier to understand. If nothing else, putting those charts listing every model in every chart was a piss-poor design idea--they should have all been put in an appendix, to make the document more readable. A marketing company should know better. Of course, CNW don't indicate how they figure out the energy cost. There is some talk about all of the factors they need to consider, but then there's nothing about they actually use all of these different factors. The end of the report includes a lengthy quote full of citations from Google Answers about the energy cost of manufacturing a single car; the CNW people put in a note that says "There are no calculations in any of the aforementioned articles related to the energy requirements for supplier industries". Which is like the pot calling the marshmallow black, because the CNW report contains absolutely no calculations. Here's an example of something that CNW gets consistently wrong: they figure out averages the wrong way, for the purposes of their study. Let's say you're shopping for a new car, and you're curious what the average new car buyer is paying. Your dealer tells you "well, here's our tiny econobox model for $15k, here's our mid-range sedan for $30k, and you can get our wonderful luxury SUV for $$55k. 15 + 30 + 55 = 100, divided by 3 different models, so our average new car buyer is paying $33,333." Well, yes, if you want a "straight" average. It assumes that the same number of people buy each car. But what if only one person out of 100 is buying the SUV, 29 out of 100 are buying the sedan, and the remaining 70 get the economy car? Clearly, the average new car buyer is paying far less than $33k for a car (in fact, they're paying $19,750 on average in my example). This is the "weighted" average. It's especially important when you're considering situations where you have lots of people buying one type of car (say, a Toyota Camry), and very few people buying another type (like a Ferrari). That CNW study, with very few exceptions, uses "straight" averages. One trivial example pulled from their paper: they can't even figure out how to calculate lifetime fuel efficiency (MPG). They have all these nice tables showing the fuel efficiency for each car model when the car is aged 1-5 years, then for cars aged 6-10 years, and then for cars over 10 years. So, CNW should be able to use their data for how long a car lasts and figure out the lifetime MPG. Sadly, they can't. They use a straight average rather than the weighted. They may write at the start of the report that "The information contained is as accurate as we could make it", but they seem to have absolutely no idea how to do any analysis. Note that these objections apply to every single car mentioned in the CNW study. In other words, the study's conclusions mean nothing, because they are based on totally faulty analysis. Even if the study's conclusions said that we should all immediately go out and buy hybrids, I'd still say that it didn't have a leg to stand on. |
|
|
Replying to: kermit4 (Apr 18, 2007 11:34 am) What it boils down to in my eyes is this: For some reason, who knows why, Art Spinella is in political bed with SOME sort of anti-hybrid, anti-environmental, anti-Japanese, or at the very least pro-GM group. And he was paid to try to put a gobbledygook study together that shone on hybrids in a negative light. Only he knows the truth. But those people who can do math and can read have valid issues with the conclusions in his report.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Apr 18, 2007 11:40 am) You are really grasping for straws on that statement. 4 out of 10 of the least costly vehicles in the study are from Toyota. That would lead one to believe that he was in bed with Toyota. Maybe they would like to undermine the hybrid and get out from under the burden of a continued loss and potential bombshell. I think we are all missing something in this report. No one spends that much time and effort on a study that has no basis. I do not know who he was working for or why. If it was done to be controversial it was successful. If the premise was to bring to light the long term negatives surrounding the hybrid vehicles offered for sale, I agree. I wish I understood his methodology.
|
|
|
Replying to: kermit4 (Apr 18, 2007 11:34 am) I also find technical documents much easier to read. I don't see that as a basis to discount something if we do not understand it. I worked for 45 years with electronics. I cannot say I understand how an electron moves through a wire. I just accepted the results of current flow. I have a hard time reading most legal documents. That does not mean they are at fault. There is a discussion between the author of the CNW report and David Friedman. If the director of Union of Concerned Scientists was willing to go on TV with this person, he must have considered him a credible scientist or statistician. I guess I could understand if it was done to get a government grant. There are thousands of those studies that mean absolutely nothing. This was done for the sake of learning and I am willing to learn more about this subject of energy costs. I would say that Art Spinella's credentials are as good as any of the poster's on Edmund's. He has a history in the automotive field.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 18, 2007 4:11 pm) Gary, credentials don't mean DIDDLY SQUAT if you say or do something STUPID. See Jimmy The Greek. See Don Imus. See OJ Simpson. See Pete Rose. If you have "credentials" and you do or say something that is incredibly ridiculous, no amount of those credentials are going to allow you get away with it. Such is this garbage study with Art Spinella. He lost a lot of ground with a lot of people with this, you can bet. And he probably made a few friends, like you for example Gary. But when common sense and basic math are thrown into his results, the study results start looking moronic, as myself and other posters have shown. $300,000+ for a Prius for 109K miles - Puh-Leeze. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Apr 18, 2007 3:30 pm) |
|
|
We get it again... you disagree on this subject. Let's stop the barbs and keep this thing from escalating now. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrids - News, Reviews and Views in the Press
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Camry Hybrid
2010 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
2011 Honda Civic
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
