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 Toyota Prius Prius Owners w/50K - What We Think Now
198 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:01 PM
You are in the Toyota Prius Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Sep 28, 2007 9:32 am) Of the 300 or so that I've sold.. ..One couple has had 4. ..One friend has had two, his first Gen 1 he put 38K on it in one year, sold it and bought a Gen 2 in Jan '04. Now at 45 months he's just turned over 166,000 miles with no issues at all. He can't wait for the Gen 3. ..Several have bought one and then come back to buy another right away. Consider how hard it is to being driving for 2-3 yrs getting about 48-50 mpg then having to 'go back' to driving an outdated vehicle that only gets 30 mpg. ..Not one buyer has come back with anything other than good comments, if not raves. ..One has the perfect driving cycle. He's posted his best tank at 85+ mpg, 1025 mi on 11.9 gal. 'Unintended Acceleration' is wishful thinking by the CA crowd IMO.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 01, 2007 1:42 pm) Now I see who is using up all our limited supply of fossil fuel. It is the hybrid owners. I have not accumulated 166k miles on nine new vehicles over the last 20 years. I find it interesting how people embrace entities like CR that tout hybrids, and poo poo the ones like CA & CNW that point out the negative aspects of the hybrids. I do believe and have said before, if you are commuting long distances every day a hybrid may be a good choice. By contrast if you only put a few miles per year and want to keep a vehicle for 10+ years the hybrid will probably be a bad choice.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 02, 2007 5:28 am) You must not own one. There's a lot to like, and if the ONLY reason to buy were to reduce emissions (which is not even MENTIONED here), that would be reason enough to consider a hybrid. But that isn't why I like my Prius; it's because of the quiet, elegant, smooth ride; the great looks; the excellent mileage; and the chance to support a newly developing alternative fuel technology (storage batteries) that will be used in almost every area of consumer electronics in the future. Good enough for me! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 02, 2007 5:28 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 02, 2007 5:28 am) The Problem with both CA and especially CNW is that both have ulterior motives so the data is cherry picked to prove their preconceived notion - or agenda. CA just wants to find customers for it's principals whether it's toothpaste, pharmaceuticals, baby toys or autos. CNW is purely bogus. A number of people have shown how ludicrous his assumptions and therefore conclusions are. My friend with 166,000 miles on his Prius doesnt exist in the CNW world. The failing that everyone picks out is that he arbitrarily chose 109,000 miles for the Prius' useful service and 300,000 miles for the Hummer's. Well at the time of his study the Hummer had only been out a few years so none at all had reached 300,000 miles. In addition he made the erroneous assumption that Prius would be city vehicles that only drove about 7000 miles annually. Using one for a mobile office or to commute 150 mi a day never was considered. Yet these are two of the best reasons to own a Prius. The mega-milers such as my friend are far more likely to buy one simply for the huge savings in fuel. One of the best counter arguments to CNW's whole thesis is presented by Michael Karesh of True Delta. Let me give you one example based on a GM vehicle...standby..  Here is the line from TrueDelta: http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48 An except that pretty much says it all: The least expensive car, allegedly, is the Scion xB. It is projected to cost 0.492 dollars (love the precision to three decimal places!) over a lifetime of 189,000 miles. A little math finds a total cost of $92,988. And this is the cheapest car to own, by a good margin. Five cars from the bottom we’re already at 0.70 dollars per mile. And the lowly Chevolet Malibu, one of the least expensive “lower mid-range” cars? $1.962 per mile. Muliply by the projected lifetime of 163,000 miles, and we’ve got a lifetime cost of $319,806. Let’s assume these cars will be driven 12,000 miles per year. Then that Malibu costs $23,544 per year. Own two similarly mid-level cars? Then apparently you’re paying about $46,000 each year to buy them and keep them going. How can CNW issue a report with these numbers, and keep a straight face? Not just once, but now for the second straight year? These numbers aren’t just off. They’re so far off that the study was clearly based on extreme assumptions that, based on the results, should not have been made. (These assumptions discussed in a subsequent blog entry.) Yes, they’ve calculated the amount of energy required, then converted this into dollars based on the current cost of energy. But in the capitalist system within which we live, virtually all costs end up reflected in the price to the customer. No one is heavily subsidizing General Motors’ electric bill. Or the energy bills of its suppliers. Or the energy bills of its employees. GM pays its employees and suppliers (who pay their employees), and GM’s customers pay GM. But to elaborate to show just how ludicrous this study is.. CNW pretends that a Malibu will 'cost' us $319,806!!! How can this possibly be?? A $23000 vehicle to the consumer ( Big Assumptions here: it costs GM less than $23000 to build it; GM's suppliers sell parts and subassemblies at a profit; neither GM nor its suppliers 'subsidize' various costs to the consumer ). OK the buyer takes delivery of a vehicle at $23000 which is fully costed with no subsidies. The driver puts about 169,000+ miles on the vehicle according to the study at an average fuel economy of say 25 mpg. This equates to about 6800 gal of fuel at say $3 per gallon. That's about $20500 in fuel cost. ( 2nd set of BIG Assumptions: the oil companies are selling the fuel at fully costed prices and making profits from it; they are not subsidizing the purchase price of the fuel ). Here is the clincher and why this whole study is so bogus. Those that keep referring to it should be embarrassed  . The vehicle is scrapped and recycled. The final 'dust to dust' lifetime cost is $319,806 !! Wait a sec.... $23000 + $20500 = $43500, call it $50000 for round numbers. It costs $269,806 to scrap this vehicle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who paid for that? It certainly wasn't the owner. It certainly wasn't me or you. Someone spent $269,000 to scrap and recycle one Malibu??? How did that person get repaid? What about the thousands and tens of thousands and millions of other vehicles on the road that get scrapped each year. Say 2 million vehicles 'leave' the national fleet. Math: 2,000,000 x $260,000 per = a stupid number that somehow was never paid by anyone. The car gods absorbed the cost. |
|
|
Replying to: railroadjames (Oct 02, 2007 5:48 am) And lets hope you don't have to tow a trailer or carry seven passengers with your Prius! Different vehicles for different purposes. I am always interested to see single drivers in the monster vehicles. But I know that sometimes people do need those large SUVs, and perhaps that single woman just dropped all her kids off at school.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stevedebi (Oct 02, 2007 9:08 am) Secondly, I started this thread just to bring attention to the voices of Prius owners who mostly seem to agree with me that this is one heck of a "green" money saving car. There were quite a few naysayers trashing the car b/4 it had its' chance to prove or disprove itself. Things like... "It costs way to much more than a conventional car."...."It was to complex in its' hybride format."..."The batteries will fail costing the owners mega-bucks to replace.".."MPG's fail to live up to EPA ratings"(as we all know no car lives up to those ratings. Oh, and my favorite..."Resales will plunge." I personally know 6 other owners of Prius's and it is unanimous..."Best darn car ever!" I presently and anxiously await a new and better Hybrid Prius or something new to taste this year.(probably 2009) P.S. By the way...A Prius can handle 5 adults reasonably well..o.k. as long as they're not "Andre The Giant."
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stevecebu (Jul 07, 2007 10:40 am) We live in lower New England - get snow, sleet, but it's not too hilly. I would not want to HAVE to drive Prius in bad weather... DH drives Prius to commute 45 min to work; if he knows weather will be bad he sometimes takes AWD SUV instead. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: railroadjames (Oct 02, 2007 10:40 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: dragonsdrive (Oct 02, 2007 12:46 pm) Yes, the Gen 1 Prius was similar in design to the Echo, which was ugly, but very functional and roomy. They sacrificed some of that headroom for the CU Ft of a hatchback, plus the better cD.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Toyota Prius Prius Owners w/50K - What We Think Now
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Toyota Prius
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
