Article Comments - 2007 Hybrid Sedan Comparison Test - READ ONLY

44 messages, Last post on Mar 18, 2008 at 2:34 PM

You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Toyota Camry Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, Saturn Aura, Hybrid Cars, Sedan

Article comments for 2007 Hybrid Sedan Comparison Test - Comparing hybrid sedans is a little like pitting Rush Limbaugh against Al Gore in a Thunderdome-style death match. The fight itself might put you to sleep, but the results, which speak volumes about the commitment of the combatants, will have everyone taking notice. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 5 of 5: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Prev; Next; Last

#35 of 44 Re: Article Comments - 2007 Hybrid Sedan Comparison Test [saabgeorge] by actualsize Jul 31, 2007 (11:49 am)
Replying to: saabgeorge (Jul 29, 2007 3:39 am) You downgraded the Altima because of it's smaller trunk size - you listed it at 9.1 cu/ft compared to the Camry's 10.6 cu/ft. I don't know where you obtained the measurements but the Nissan site lists the trunk size for the Altima Hybrid at 10.1 cu/ft. - not that big of a difference. I'll check those figures against the Nissan press information we have. But I doubt it would change the relative score. Why? One of the Camry's 60/40 rear seats (the "60" one) folds down to reveal a pass-through. It's not fully unobstructed to be sure, but at least it has one. The same cannot be said of the Altima. Replies to this message: saabgeorge (Jul 31, 2007 1:50 pm)
#36 of 44 Re: Article Comments - 2007 Hybrid Sedan Comparison Test [actualsize] by saabgeorge Jul 31, 2007 (1:50 pm)
Replying to: actualsize (Jul 31, 2007 11:49 am) I believe your review's discription of the Camry's pass-through was a "half-hearted attempt". Not that I'm biased just because I own a Altima Hybrid but I think it's interesting that the Altima was the personal choice for every editor who participated in the test.
#37 of 44 But which has the better sound system? by kannikanwo Aug 06, 2007 (3:36 pm)
Does anyone know which has the better sound system. To be honest, I am disappointed with the sound from the NAH's Bose. My Audi S4 Bose sounded much better.
#38 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [masospaghetti] by engnrng Feb 01, 2008 (8:31 pm)
Replying to: masospaghetti (Jul 23, 2007 2:41 pm) I don't own a car until it is worth 0$, so payback on some feature is only relevant if it never affects resale prices in the future. GAS SAVING PAYBACK FOR HYBRIDS IS NOT RELEVANT. Sorry for the yelling, but Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other otherwise responsible writers are ignoring simple cost analysis. Life cycle costs during the time of ownership include purchase and sales prices - and no used hybrid sells for the same price as its non-hybrid cousin!!! Every cost analysis I have seen where a gasoline savings payback is necessary to justify buying the hybrid version seems to assume that the moment you drive the hybrid off the lot, it is worth exactly the same as the non-hybrid model (that a "premium" was paid). A hybrid costs more, but is it more expensive? In actual fact, hybrids retain a higher percentage of their original purchase price for the same age/mileage as non-hybrids. If I buy a $25,000 car and 4 years later sell it for $18,000, OR I buy a $20,000 car and 4 years later sell it for $10,000, which car cost more to own? And that is before any gas or maintenance costs are figured in. The Prius is now listed as one of the lowest cost to own cars - if there is such a purchase price premium that takes 10 years to "pay back", how can it be less costly to own? Would be nice if people started using proper cost analysis techniques... Sorry for the rant, not sorry for the intent. Thanks! Replies to this message: gagrice (Feb 02, 2008 1:51 pm) talmy1 (Feb 04, 2008 8:38 am) kdhspyder (Mar 18, 2008 2:34 pm) langjie (Feb 04, 2008 10:48 am) talmy1 (Feb 04, 2008 11:41 am) langjie (Feb 07, 2008 12:50 pm)
#39 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [engnrng] by gagrice Feb 02, 2008 (1:51 pm)
Replying to: engnrng (Feb 01, 2008 8:31 pm) I am not sure of what you were driving at. I just did a quick TCO from the Edmund's used car website. They show the TCO on the 2007 Camry Hybrid at 60 cents per mile. The Camry XLE top of the line 4 cyl is only 56 cents per mile total cost to own. So over 5 years and 75,000 miles the hybrid will cost you $3000 more, with all else being the same. Making the non hybrid the better choice. PS If all you are looking for is a cheap car to drive. The Fit or Yaris are much less expensive to own than the Prius. Replies to this message: talmy1 (Feb 04, 2008 8:38 am) kdhspyder (Mar 18, 2008 2:34 pm)
#40 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [gagrice] by talmy1 Feb 04, 2008 (8:38 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Feb 02, 2008 1:51 pm) I think it is close, but the TCO calculations here are estimates and potentially flawed. First they assume the car is financed, which makes cars with higher initial costs even more expensive. Second the calculations exclude any tax credits, which vary by state. Third, the resale price of a 2007 Camry Hybrid in 2012 needs a crystal ball since the car has no history one way or another. Fourth, rising gas prices will increase the gas savings of the TCH over the XLE, and will also raise the resale value of the TCH compared to the XLE. On the other hand, bad battery problems with the TCH in the future could ruin the TCO of the TCH both in operating expense and reduced resale value. But the problems with the conventional Camry's automatic transmissions could ruin the XLEs TCO as well. Come back in 2012 and we will see how it does!
#41 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [engnrng] by langjie Feb 04, 2008 (10:48 am)
Replying to: engnrng (Feb 01, 2008 8:31 pm) yes, i'm not sure where you're going with this. are you saying that it costs more or less to own a hybrid? Replies to this message: talmy1 (Feb 04, 2008 11:41 am) langjie (Feb 07, 2008 12:50 pm)
#42 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [langjie] by talmy1 Feb 04, 2008 (11:41 am)
Replying to: langjie (Feb 04, 2008 10:48 am) I'm saying it could be too close to call. There are many factors involved which cannot be accurately predicted or accounted for in the Edmunds TCO calculations. My own personal estimations showed it to be a wash. However we went with the TCH because of its quiet, smooth ride. If it ends up saving money, that will be a bonus. If it costs more money, well we had a nicer car. Replies to this message: langjie (Feb 07, 2008 12:50 pm)
#43 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [talmy1] by langjie Feb 07, 2008 (12:50 pm)
Replying to: talmy1 (Feb 04, 2008 11:41 am) ok, gotcha.... well with the altima there are pro's and con's. smaller trunk is a con for the hybrid but getting TCS and VDC is a major PRO (you can't get it with the 2.5 models)
#44 of 44 Re: Economics of a hybrid [gagrice] by kdhspyder Mar 18, 2008 (2:34 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Feb 02, 2008 1:51 pm) The problem with Edmund's analysis ( all their analyses of this sort ) is that they don't factor in any amount for future fuel price increases. At most they figure that gas will be $2.85 forever.. I've called them out on this subject before but it's built into their system based on 1990's experience. Well they're just wrong as we can see today. Fuel is not $2.85 forever. A more realistic way to calculate it is to plan on a 'fuel inflation factor'. This is what a small business would do if it was planning on buying an asset. Length of ownership: Months or Years Distance driven: per Month or Year Cost of Fuel: $/Gal, factored for inflation Fuel economy: # Gal / 1000 mi driven Purchase price: Less: Resale Value Less: Tax Credits, if any Cost of Fuel: Avg $/Gal over lifespan x Total distance driven Then do the math.....it's a snap on a spreadsheet. In every case from 2 yrs to 5 yrs to 7 yrs to 10+ yrs the hybrid Camry comes out ahead of the non-hybrid version. In the shorter term the higher residual value on resale makes the TCH cost less overall. In the longer term both vehicles are worth little to nothing but the cost of the escalting fuel year after year makes the TCH cost less to own. 2007 4c XLE vs 2007 TCH level 2 ( w / SR ), both vehicles driven 30000 mi since new Purchase Prices XLE 4c ..$25400 TCH #2 ..$27900 Resale value ( 3/18/08 Black Book ) XLE 4c .. $18100 TCH #2 .. $21900 Tax Credits: XLE 4c .. $0 TCH #2 .. $2200 ( now $0 ) Avg Cost of fuel / Gal..Actual ( Est ) 2006 .. $2.50 2007 .. $2.85 = 2 yr Avg $2.68 2008 .. ( $3.30 ) = 3 yr Avg ( $2.90 ) 2009 .. ( $3.80 ) 2010 .. ( $4.30 ) = 5 yr Avg ( $3.35 ) 2011 .. ( $4.80 ) 2012 .. ( $5.30 ) = 7 yr Avg ( $3.80 ) 2013 2014 2015 .. ( $6.80 ) = 10 yr Avg ( $4.55 ) 2016 2017 After 2 yrs ( today ) and 30000 miles the cost equation is.. XLE 4c $25400 - $18100 = $7300 vehicle cost TCH #2 $27900 - $21900 - $2200 = $3800 vehicle cost !!! Fuel used ( 2008 EPA values ) XLE 4c .. 25 mpg Combined = 40.0 gal / 1000 mi driven = 1200 Gal x $2.68 = $3215 TCH ...... 34 mpg Combined = 29.4 gal / 1000 mi driven = ..882 Gal x $2.68 = $2365 Total costs thus far XLE 4c .. $7300 + $3215 = $10515 TCH #2 .. $3800 + $2365 = $6165 That's a pretty huge difference in favor of the hybrid Camry after just two years!! OK factor out the $2200 Tax credit. That's still a $2000+ advantage in favor of the TCH after only 2 yrs ( higher resale ). Do all the same math but do it over 10 yrs 15000 mi/yr and estimate that the residual value of both vehicles with 150,000 miles is $1000....and there is no Tax Credit involved. The net result is: XLE 4c Total cost ( V + F ) = $24400 + $27300 = $51700 TCH #2 Total cost ( V + F ) = $26900 + $20065 = $46965 That's $4700 in favor of the TCH after 10 yrs of use and 150,000 miles ( CARB warranty )