Honda Car Forum

In article <Xns9BFBC52BE58EBtegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:

> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided you
> didn't count development costs).

I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.

> Hybrids are an awfully expensive way to save money on gas.

That's not the purpose; it's a side effect. The purpose is to reduce
pollution and extend the petroleum supply.

> They never made sense at all. You can tell they never made sense:
> Nobody's buying them any more.

Nobody's buying any cars any more. So by your logic, cars never made
any sense.

> Roll back "safety" regulations back to what they were in 1988, and
> you could have another Civic HF: Better mileage than the Prius, at a
> /much/ lower cost.

In a smaller car, with fewer upscale features, and of course, a much
less safer car.

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
C105FB.17065328042009@mara100-84.onlink.net:

> In article <Xns9BFBC52BE58EBtegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided you
>> didn't count development costs).
>
> I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.



It happens to be true, sorry.



>
>> Hybrids are an awfully expensive way to save money on gas.
>
> That's not the purpose; it's a side effect. The purpose is to reduce
> pollution and extend the petroleum supply.



The primary purpose of the Prius was to capture sales and prestige from
people who like to wear their cars they way they do their Birkenstock
sandals. It's always been an "image" car for Toyota.

It appears even the Birkenstockers, however, are able to understand the
idea of economic efficiency. Actually, perhaps they understand this
better than most, since many of them are wealthier than the average.



>
>> They never made sense at all. You can tell they never made sense:
>> Nobody's buying them any more.
>
> Nobody's buying any cars any more. So by your logic, cars never made
> any sense.



The Prius is down worse than most. The Tundra might be lower, Im not
sure.



>
>> Roll back "safety" regulations back to what they were in 1988, and
>> you could have another Civic HF: Better mileage than the Prius, at a
>> /much/ lower cost.
>
> In a smaller car, with fewer upscale features, and of course, a much
> less safer car.



1988 "safety" is still awfully darn safe. The difference between then
and now is tiny.

In any case, you would make your money back just about instantly with
the HF, and there was no horrendously expensive battery replacement
lurking ten years down the road. Making your money back with the Prius,
at today's gas prices, is an impossibility.



--
Tegger

In message <gt82j0$vmj$1@news.albasani.net>, Conscience
<nobama@?.com.invalid> writes
>"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
A good catholic.
--
Clive

In message <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>, Tegger
<invalid@invalid.inv> writes
>In any case, you would make your money back just about instantly with
>the HF, and there was no horrendously expensive battery replacement
>lurking ten years down the road. Making your money back with the Prius,
>at today's gas prices, is an impossibility.
Not in London were petrol is about £4:50 a gallon and it cost about £6 a
day to drive in the city, a daily tax called the congestion charge which
hybrid owners are exempt from.
--
Clive

In article <Xns9BFBC52BE58EBtegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:

> Hybrids are an awfully expensive way to save money on gas. They never
> made sense at all. You can tell they never made sense: Nobody's buying
> them any more.

I don't know that they never made sense; they make perfect sense to me,
at least how Toyota did it,

What I don't understand is why people don't buy them. They drive just
like normal cars, but get significantly better gas mileage. I just
don't see the tradeoffs that others are claiming to see.

In article <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:

> >> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided
> >> you didn't count development costs).
> >
> > I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.
>
> It happens to be true, sorry.

So provide a reference to prove it.

> > Nobody's buying any cars any more. So by your logic, cars never
> > made any sense.
>
> The Prius is down worse than most.

Yeah, like Toyota is trying to fight off bankruptcy, like GM is, and is
getting rid of an entire subsidiary like GM just did with Pontiac.

> In any case, you would make your money back just about instantly with
> the HF, and there was no horrendously expensive battery replacement
> lurking ten years down the road.

Not that anyone can say that there's going to be a need for a battery
replacement after ten years, and no one knows what the cost of batteries
will be at that time.

> Making your money back with the Prius, at today's gas prices, is an
> impossibility.

And as wrote before, the purpose is not to make one's money back.
However, I'm getting about double the gas mileage I did with my previous
car (an Acura) with gas that's twenty cents a gallon cheaper. That was
saving me about $1300 a year on gasoline when gas was four bucks a
gallon. Right now, it's saving me about $940 a year.

--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.

On 4/28/09 4:22 PM, in article 49f77382@newsgate.x-privat.org, "Was Istoben"
<entshuldigen@oopla.com> wrote:

>
> "Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
> news:gt7868$qe3$2@news.albasani.net...
>> All too true. I've never driven a vehicle of that size that handled worse
>> than my sister-in-law's Prius.
>>
> You should drive my Explorer. My Prius handles much better than it does.
>
> I couldn't help but notice that both you and Meyer refer to cars you neither
> own nor drive regularily. As with any car, it takes a few miles and a few
> curves to adjust.
>
>

Whether driven regularly or not, the car clearly handled worse than (all)
the cars we had been driving (i30t, Acura TL, Honda Odyssey). The fact that
the Honda Odyssey, a big tub, could out corner it, says something.

I will agree that once you are forced to drive a car with sloppy handling,
you will learn to accommodate it (or die trying). That doesn't make it a
good car and that certainly doesn't make it handle any better.

Michelle Steiner (michelle@michelle.org) writes:
> In article <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> >> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided
>> >> you didn't count development costs).
>> >
>> > I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.
>>
>> It happens to be true, sorry.
>
> So provide a reference to prove it.
>
>> > Nobody's buying any cars any more. So by your logic, cars never
>> > made any sense.
>>
>> The Prius is down worse than most.
>
> Yeah, like Toyota is trying to fight off bankruptcy, like GM is, and is
> getting rid of an entire subsidiary like GM just did with Pontiac.
>
>> In any case, you would make your money back just about instantly with
>> the HF, and there was no horrendously expensive battery replacement
>> lurking ten years down the road.
>
> Not that anyone can say that there's going to be a need for a battery
> replacement after ten years, and no one knows what the cost of batteries
> will be at that time.
>
>> Making your money back with the Prius, at today's gas prices, is an
>> impossibility.
>
> And as wrote before, the purpose is not to make one's money back.
> However, I'm getting about double the gas mileage I did with my previous
> car (an Acura) with gas that's twenty cents a gallon cheaper. That was
> saving me about $1300 a year on gasoline when gas was four bucks a
> gallon. Right now, it's saving me about $940 a year.


No it's not... you haven't subtracted the pro-rata depreciation of the
hybrid battery from your estimated fuel savings.

Pro-rate is... replacement cost of new hybrid battery divided by the
number of years in battery warranty equals _added_ depreciation
per year to the hybrid car.

What is your REAL WORLD fuel economy in miles per U.S. gallons?



>
> --
> It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
14F511.18394928042009@mara100-84.onlink.net:

> In article <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> >> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided
>> >> you didn't count development costs).
>> >
>> > I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.
>>
>> It happens to be true, sorry.
>
> So provide a reference to prove it.




Your flinty-eyed skepticism has yielded success: I appear to be
out-of-date.

According to Forbes,
"Toyota's Prius came out in 1997 and did not break even until just before
the introduction of a second-generation car in model-year 2004."

This from the article
<http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/07/hybrids-cars-suvs-cx_dl_1011feat_ls.html>

Except that now Toyota dealers can't give Priuses away, so the implied
post-'04 profit has probably disappeared.


--
Tegger

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:20:10 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv>
wrote:

>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
>14F511.18394928042009@mara100-84.onlink.net:
>
>> In article <Xns9BFBD4B259210tegger@208.90.168.18>,
>> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Toyota originally just barely broke even on the Prius (provided
>>> >> you didn't count development costs).
>>> >
>>> > I'm surprised that anyone still believes that myth.
>>>
>>> It happens to be true, sorry.
>>
>> So provide a reference to prove it.
>
>
>
>
>Your flinty-eyed skepticism has yielded success: I appear to be
>out-of-date.
>
>According to Forbes,
>"Toyota's Prius came out in 1997 and did not break even until just before
>the introduction of a second-generation car in model-year 2004."
>
>This from the article
><http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/07/hybrids-cars-suvs-cx_dl_1011feat_ls.html>
>
>Except that now Toyota dealers can't give Priuses away, so the implied
>post-'04 profit has probably disappeared.

The auto manufactures are having a hard time giving anything away.
Contrary to what some media is trying to claim, hybrids and other
economical cars are doing relatively better, though not as good as
when gas was $4. The big SUVs and pickups are getting creamed.