Last post on Jan 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Camry Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, Lexus RX 400h, Hybrid Cars
#588 of 627 Re: This is new [larsb]
Oct 28, 2010 (5:46 am)
I was surprised to see the True Cost Of Ownership for the TCH was higher than that of the Accord - $0.57 vs $0.52. Considering the gas mileage of the TCH is about 30% higher than the Accord, it probably means the maintenance on the TCH is that much higher. You couple that with the performance superiority that non-hybrid cars have over the hybrid (shiftable auto transmission, etc) and you will see why some folks are not very hot for hybrids...
#589 of 627 Re: This is new [connecticut2]
Oct 28, 2010 (7:26 am)
That surprises me. I'd like to see the metrics for that cost, because I've spent SQUAT for the 1st 70K miles of my TCH on maintenance.
I'm on my second set of tires (they are almost gone though) and I have done only oil changes and tire rotations - no other service.
There was a wire harness they had to replace under warranty, but that's because it was damaged ( unknown to everyone) when my Mom had a 5-mph fender bender.
I'd say I've spent about as little on the TCH for the first 70K miles as I have for any other car I have owned.
#590 of 627 Re: This is new [larsb]
by pf_flyer HOST
Oct 28, 2010 (8:34 am)
Isn't amazing how pretty much any vehicle will hold up if you maintain them I've averaged about 180,000 miles per vehicle on all the vehicles I've owned and the only thing I'd call major was a head gasket I had to replace on a pickup truck at 70,000 miles. It's called preventative maintenance for a reason
#591 of 627 Re: This is new [larsb]
Oct 28, 2010 (10:43 am)
There is no difference in the ownership costs due to maintenance between the Accord and TCH. The difference is the higher initial cost and 5 year depreciation is greater than than the fuel savings for a TCH versus a similarly equipped 4 cylinder Accord or even Camry for that matter.
#592 of 627 Re: This is new [bamacar]
Oct 28, 2010 (11:57 am)
bamacar says, "...versus a similarly equipped 4 cylinder Accord or even Camry for that matter. "
Well, that's an incorrect comparison.
The TCH compares more favorably and correctly with the Camry XLE when considering features, and the performance of the TCH engine compares more favorably to the V6 than the 4-cyl options in the line.
#593 of 627 Re: This is new [larsb]
Oct 28, 2010 (6:22 pm)
larsb said "the TCH engine compares more favorably to the V6 than the 4-cyl"
Well, your response was incorrect but it sounded good to some I'm sure.
4cylinder 169-179 hp 0-60 8.6sec
TCH 187 hp Total System hp 0-60 8.7 sec
V6 268hp 0-60 6.2 sec
So, no the numbers are very obvious; the Camry V6 is sports car like in acceleration while the TCH is much like a very average 4 cylinder from 0-60.
I never said which model I compared the TCH to. Did you assume I thought a base model compared to the TCH? Incorrect again. Seems to be a pattern developing here.
The total cost to own compares the models with no options, so a TCH with no options as compared to a XLE 4 cylinder with no options reveals the following:
The XLE has heated mirrors, illuminated vanity mirrors, leather steering wheel, power passenger seat, moonroof, sat radio, JBL system with CD changer, bluetooth, alloy wheels, fog lights, auto dim mirror, and a sliding armrest. The TCH has none of those standard. The TCH does have Smartkey though. Of course the XLE has significantly more cargo space and 307 fewer pounds that eat up that measly 8-18hp advantage over the regular 4 cylinder.
Sorry - strike 3. The base TCH is well below the base 4cylinder XLE in standard equipment.
The point of my post was that the difference in total cost has nothing to do with maintenance costs. It has to do with greater initial cost and depreciation not offsetting a reduction in fuel costs during the 5 year period.
#594 of 627 Re: This is new [bamacar]
Oct 29, 2010 (7:54 am)
Operating Cost Ratings
This rating displays the vehicle's relative operating cost ranking, compared to all other new vehicles. This rating represents the ongoing "out of pocket" costs of owning and operating a new vehicle: Financing, Insurance, Taxes & Fees, Fuel, Maintenance and Repairs..................
So, the fuel consumption does come in to play here....
#595 of 627 Re: This is new [bamacar]
Oct 29, 2010 (9:58 am)
1. I own a TCH. I don't race it in a 0-60 competition very often. Actually, NEVER. When I DO need it to GET UP AND GO, it DOES IT. Very well. The electric hybrid system kicks in when you "floor it" and it acts as a little "electric turbo charger." Every single friend who has ridden with me and seen this in action says, "I thought you said this was a Hybrid !!!" The TCH has all the acceleration anyone should need under almost ANY circumstance.
2. I did not say the "base" TCH had all the trimmings of a V6 XLE, did I ? I said a base TCH has more in common with an XLE than a base non-hybrid Camry does. That is true. The TCH does in fact have a leather-wrapped steering wheel standard - at least my 2007 does. ( I just looked at the sticker, which I carry in my briefcase - it's not on there as an option, but my steering wheel is leather-wrapped. )
3. You can get options on the TCH which are NOT available on the LE models, but ARE available or standard on the XLE. Again, more in common with the XLE.
bamacar says, "The point of my post was that the difference in total cost has nothing to do with maintenance costs. It has to do with greater initial cost and depreciation not offsetting a reduction in fuel costs during the 5 year period. "
The first part is right, but the second part is wrong. The TCH does indeed depreciate as well as the XLE, and way better than the LE.
Oct 29, 2010 (9:35 am)
Let's not let things get carried away and turn this into a personal beef, please. We can disagree about things without the personal references.
Thanks for your participation and cooperation
#597 of 627 Re: Easy [pf_flyer]
Oct 29, 2010 (10:17 am)