Comments on: Trading in For a Hybrid Could Be Costly

By: G. Robinson

G. Robinson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:17:05 +0000

Respectfully disagree with hank’s 5/30/08 comment re: tire wear – totally false.

From Honda’s website: the Civic Sedan Hybrid weighs less than 200 lbs. more than the non-hybrid Civic. That is hardly enough to make your tires “wear 2-3 times faster” as claimed.

But I do agree with the basic tenet that hybrid payback is much longer than expected – but that number is diminishing as gas prices continue to climb.

My spouse’s 1989 Honda Civic cost $10,000 in 1988 and gets 30 mpg around town and almost 40 mpg on the highway and it’s almost 20 years old!!

By: hank

hank — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:22:44 +0000

To tack on to FFB’s point – batteries are heavy in these vehicles. Heavy enough to wear your tires 2-3 times faster than in a standard vehicle with the added weight. Don’t forget buying new sets of tires 2-3 times faster than in a standard vehicle, and new tires aren’t cheap either…

By: girlndebt

girlndebt — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:46:27 +0000

I agree 100% with this post and have been arguing this subject for months! So many people I know have given in and bought a hybrid. When they brag about their gas mileage I think…well my non-hybrid little Honda Civic is right behind yours at almost 1/2 the price!

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:39:08 +0000

@ David – I couldn’t agree with you more. In my opinion, there’s no reason to pay more than about $5,000 on a car. I drive a 1995 Dodge Neon, which gets about 32 mpg. Its pretty sad that vehicles made 12 years ago only lag behind hybrids of now by about 10 mpg.

By: David Carter

David Carter — Wed, 28 May 2008 18:51:57 +0000

You could always just trade in for a more fuel efficient car. Hybrids can be expensive. This is only because its new technology. I have a 14 year old car that gets 36 mpg. You could buy one for $1,000 and it is super reliable (but very small).

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:39:28 +0000

@FFB: Agreed. Here is a link to a wrenchers forum on the topic: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=135399&page=1

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:24:41 +0000

@ Ronald – I could have worded that better. I was referring to our current housing market, where many homes have depreciated. How about “homes may temporarily depreciate with time.”

@ Pinyo – From what I understand, most hybrids are ordered because of their desirability. Meaning, most dealership can’t even keep them on their lots. Because of this, I would imagine the resale value is very high on them.

By: Pinyo

Pinyo — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:55:45 +0000

Good post. What about buying a 2 years old hybrid that just came off a lease. I think that’s a good option, but I am sure they are more expensive than an equivalent used car.

By: FFB

FFB — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:55:30 +0000

Most people haven’t considered the cost of replacing the battery in a hybrid vehicle. From what I understand they a very expensive! And they are not standardized meaning you can’t go to the nearest auto parts store and buy a generic version. You may very well have to go to the dealer for a new battery and we all know the dealership doesn’t exactlty give you great prices.

By: Ronald Sampson

Ronald Sampson — Wed, 28 May 2008 05:22:05 +0000

Houses DO NOT Depreciate with time! Where in the hell did you hear that?

By: Pete @ biblemoneymatters.com

Pete @ biblemoneymatters.com — Wed, 28 May 2008 04:22:48 +0000

most people don’t think about the fact that even though they may be saving gas, they aren’t going to be saving anything in the long run. In fact they’re probably paying more by getting a hybrid. Great article!

By: Vered

Vered — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:28:14 +0000

“it is more cost effective to keep driving your gas-guzzler, until fuel-efficient cars drop in price.”

That was pretty much our conclusion when we looked into buying a Hybrid. Thanks – great info.