>Hi Fred,
>
>Because this is the second time you've mentioned cost-effectiveness, I just had to ask...
>
>Given the vehicles we see on the road, what percentage do you honestly think pay ANY attention to the cost-effectiveness of their vehicles?
>
>I'd say less than 5% myself.
>
>I believe this cost-effectiveness "argument" is just a handy one to hide other factors that REALLY are the issues. The Prius became "fashionable" amongst a certain set and others followed the trend. And production has, in my opinion, been kept deliberately low to keep the cachet alive.

I agree with you Jim. The ones that are currently driving the hybrids certainly can't be doing it because of the "savings", since they don't really exist. Some may actually be doing it, damn the cost, thinking they're protecting Mother Earth. But by and large, the majority are doing it because it is as you put it, "fashionable".

>
>My take is: I would have bought a Prius if I could have afforded the price of buying it because doing my bit for the environment is far more important than any calculated "cost-effectiveness". I bought compact fluorescent lught bulbs when they were $25.00 each for the same reason. Those I could afford, but $38,000. for a car was too much.

I personally am driving a Honda Civic as my commuter car, not nearly as much for it's improved gas mileage over my Corvette, but to keep from putting all those extra miles on the 'Vette. The difference in price in regular vs. premium gas, and the approximately 30% better MPG was a factor, but it was really more the "wear and tear" that forced me into it. Also, my 15 year old son gets his driver's license next year, and what better way to know how a used car was treated than driving it! He'll get the Honda with about 20K miles on it, and I'll go back to the 'Vette (currently with 90K miles). BTW, the 'Vette get's pretty decent MPG, about 24+ for the type of commuting I do, and 30+ on trips.

>cheers
>
>
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>I agree, they certainly need to keep trying. It's just the current version ain't quite good enough!
>>
>>I've read there's a conversion kit you can add to an existing hybrid that bumps the MPG up to 100 but it's several thousand more $$$. If they came from the factory with that capability, and the cost wasn't too much, and the ROI was more like under 2 years, then they'll have something. As it is, they're not yet cost effective.
>>
>>
>>>Hi Fred,
>>>
>>>At least the car companies are trying now, I predict that fleet averages of new cars will increase several MPG over the recent past (not because of hybrids). When they do, we need to bump up the CAFE standards while its hard for the auto manufacturers to say how hard it is and how much it will cost.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>>>>>New study shows some hybrids pay for themselves in three years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210038,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not unless you got the hybrid version cheap, got a big incentive, drive more than 500 miles a week and gas prices approach $5.00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NMPG = Nonhybrid MPG 35
>>>>>>HMPG = Hybrid MPG 60
>>>>>>MilesWeek = 400 miles a week (more than most people drive)
>>>>>>HybridPremium = $3000
>>>>>>GasPrice = $2.79
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PayBackYears = HyBridPremium/(((MilesWeek*52)/NMPG-(MilesWeek*52)/HMPG)*GasPrice)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Using the above numbers, it's over 4 years 4 months. And that doesn't even include the probably higher maintenance costs of the hybrid technologies. For Gas at $3.50 and 250 miles/week it's over 5.5 years. And most Hybrid premiums are larger than $3K. YMMV ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't forget to factor in the need to replace the batteries after they can no longer be re-charged.
>>>>
>>>>I just don't see hybrids as being viable until the cost difference is nearer to zero, or gas goes to $10.