Hybrids vs High MPG Conventional Cars?

My current car is old, at the end of its life cycle. I got a breakdown
from metal fatigue. I got some rust. Parts are getting hard to get.
This time I got lucky, my mechanic was able to fix it one more time.
It looks this winter will be the smart time to take money I saved and
buy a new car.

Having worked so long to save the money I am concerned about what I
buy. I like the idea of buying a hybrid but I am worried about how
smart of an investment it is for me apart from environmental issues. I
am worried about availability of repairs, availability of parts, and
cost of ownership down the road after the warranty expires. I am also
worried if I will get a significant trade in. Will anyone want them if
better technology comes along or if hybrids fizzle?

Since hybrids still burn gas, would a conventional car that gets the
same MPG ( or near the same ) be just or nearly as "non-bad" in terms
of pollution?

Could anyone recommend such a high mpg car?

Thanks in advance for any info

Roger Blake > wrote:
> The issues you raise are quite valid, especially if you are buying a
> car that you plan to keep for long time. What is probably going to happen
> is that a hybrid car will have essentially zero value once the warranty
> on the battery pack runs out.

Considering most hybrid cars are not yet out of warranty, this doesn't
really seem like a founded statement. Those that are out of warranty
don't seem to have a sharp decline in their value - if you go shopping
for an 8 year old car, other things may be more important in your
decision.

Keep in mind warranties of this scale are like insurances from a
planning point of view: if you offer eight years, you want to be
reasonably sure to have less than e.g. 1 failure per 1000 occurences
within these eight years. In order to do that, you must build the device
so it last way more than eight years. Statistically speaking, looking at
a bell curve that has a cumulated 1 in 1000 failure rate after eight
years causes me not to lose any sleep over the battery in my Prius.

Knowing that those batteries are built out of standard cells similar to
those in a ghetto blaster and that they can be exchanged in packs of six
should even convince a sceptic that a hybrid will not fall apart
unrepairably after the warranty has expired.

cu
.\\arc

On May 28, 8:55 am, Roger Blake > wrote:

> Considering that today's hybrid cars get about the same fuel efficiency
> as a 1980 VW diesel or 1990 Geo Metro, it's hard to get very excited
> about them, particularly when considering all of the potential drawbacks.

Is there a *contemporary* car with about the same MPG? I read that
the Prius gets about 50 mpg. The best conventional car I could find
was about 30 mpg.

I am not a fan of big cars and do not want a big car, but I don't want
to go to the other extreme either. I hate hatchbacks and I don't like
the really small cars that make you feel like you are in a beer can
with wheels.

Thanks for any info

On May 27, 4:01 am, Steve > wrote:
> My current car is old, at the end of its life cycle. I got a breakdown
> from metal fatigue. I got some rust. Parts are getting hard to get.
> This time I got lucky, my mechanic was able to fix it one more time.
> It looks this winter will be the smart time to take money I saved and
> buy a new car.
>
> Having worked so long to save the money I am concerned about what I
> buy. I like the idea of buying a hybrid but I am worried about how
> smart of an investment it is for me apart from environmental issues. I
> am worried about availability of repairs, availability of parts, and
> cost of ownership down the road after the warranty expires. I am also
> worried if I will get a significant trade in. Will anyone want them if
> better technology comes along or if hybrids fizzle?
>
> Since hybrids still burn gas, would a conventional car that gets the
> same MPG ( or near the same ) be just or nearly as "non-bad" in terms
> of pollution?
>
> Could anyone recommend such a high mpg car?
>
> Thanks in advance for any info

Would you consider an ECO Fuel Saver/Performance Enhancer /Additive
that reduces Emissions to almost ZERO (-7% hydrocarbons; -33% carbon
monoxide; -44% oxieds of nitrogen) AND Increases gasoline mileage by
13% and diesel and bio-diesel by 16+% ??? Independent Labs TESTED; EPA
and CARB standards approved - already in the Philippines, endorsed by
their President, to reduce smog and toxic exhaust pollutants in thier
major centres.
"Ultimate ME2" - NEW - visit www.eyicom.com/healthcheck for all
details and TEST results. Order On-line ... depending upon where you
are!

For more information, please contact
Thanks for listening!

Roger Blake > wrote:
> In article >, Marc Gerges wrote:
>> Considering most hybrid cars are not yet out of warranty, this doesn't
>> really seem like a founded statement. Those that are out of warranty
>
> Since the cost of battery replacement is likely to equal or exceed
> the value of the vehicle when it is 10, 15, 20 years old, it is quite
> a relevant issue.

As relevant as a replacement gear box or similar with a conventional
powertrain.

> (I expect a vehicle to last a minimum of 15-20 years. I've been
> driving my current one for 30 years now.)

Wouldn't see why a hybrid couldn't do that. But we'll only know in about
20 years...

>> Knowing that those batteries are built out of standard cells similar
>> to those in a ghetto blaster and that they can be exchanged in packs
>> of six should even convince a sceptic that a hybrid will not fall
>> apart unrepairably after the warranty has expired.
> Replacing just some cells in an old battery pack is most likely going
> to reduce the life of the new cells, as in any other battery-powered
> device.

So what? Replacing the clutch in a conventional car will not improve the
compression of the engine either.

The trick is that at a certain age one repairs a car according to its
value. So when you have a 12 year old hybrid you may do some minor
'patchwork' at the battery to keep it going for another couple years.

> To hybrids, I say thanks but no thanks. The overly-complex Rube
> Goldberg drivetrain and expensive batteries just don't portend well
> for the kind of service life I expect out of an automobile.

Seen a Prius drivetrain? It's marvellously simple, actually, consisting
of a simple planetary gear. It's just sufficiently different from
conventional setups that old fashioned die-hard's don't understand the
logic.

cu
.\\arc

Roger Blake > wrote:
>
> I've seen many cars decades old that have not required major drivetrain
> work. My own 30+ year old driver has never had the head off the engine
> or needed transmission or differential work.

Fine. Many other 30+ year old cars are soda cans. There's no reason yet
why hybrids shouldn't potter along for 30 years.

>> Wouldn't see why a hybrid couldn't do that. But we'll only know in about
>> 20 years...
>
> If you need to replace a battery pack costing a couple of grand that
> will most likely send a 20-year-old hybrid straight to the junkyard.

Just as with a conventional car and e.g. a gear box. Cars usually go to
the junkyard not because repairwork isn't possible, just because it
isn't economical.

> We know that with proper maintenance a well-designed conventional
> drivetrain can run for decades without requiring major repair. It
> is not clear at all that this will be the case with hybrids, given
> the expensive, limited-life batteries involved.

Do you have an idea on the expected lifetime for the batteries? Toyota
says they are good for the life of the car, and nobody has proven them
wrong yet - with many cars beyond 200000 miles already.

>> Seen a Prius drivetrain? It's marvellously simple, actually, consisting
>
> This is obviously some strange new usage of the word "simple" with
> which we were not previously familiar.

My point, sort of.

It's a planetary set, continually engaged. No clutches, no
synchronisation rings that mesh at every gear change, no transmission
bands, nothing of that sort. In comparison, drop a five speed manual or
auto box on the floor and count the parts.

cu
.\\arc

Exactly what type of rust problems are you having with your current
car? Sometimes new plates can be welded into strut towers, etc.


"The trick is that at a certain age one repairs a car according to its
value. So when you have a 12 year old hybrid you may do some minor
'patchwork' at the battery to keep it going for another couple years.
"

Actualll I don't agree with that at all. If you like a car adn want
to keep if for a long time there is no reason not to just keep on
replacing engines and transmissions, etc. as long as you really want
to keep the car. Espically if you own an older car that gets good gas
mileage before the horsepower wars began.

wrote:
> Exactly what type of rust problems are you having with your current
> car? Sometimes new plates can be welded into strut towers, etc.

Don't really know what you're referring to here...

> "The trick is that at a certain age one repairs a car according to its
> value. So when you have a 12 year old hybrid you may do some minor
> 'patchwork' at the battery to keep it going for another couple years.
> "
>
> Actualll I don't agree with that at all. If you like a car adn want
> to keep if for a long time there is no reason not to just keep on
> replacing engines and transmissions, etc. as long as you really want
> to keep the car. Espically if you own an older car that gets good gas
> mileage before the horsepower wars began.

Of course if you have an endless supply of money, you can keep any car
you wish going for as long as you wish. That's not the point.

Ordinary cars though tend to be consumables with an ever-decreasing
value - at around 10, or 15 years, depending on the car and the place,
their market value is quite close to nil. If your 3 year old car needs a
2000 $ repair, you'd very probably do it, considering the car may have a
market value of 12000 or 15000. Ten years and 200000 miles later, with
maybe 1000 $ market value and a bunch of other things that could break
every day now - would you still invest 2000 in a transmission overhaul?

If I wanted to buy a new car and keep it for 30 years, I'd shop with a
manufacturer with a reputation for quality and I'd shop for something
that may be still usable in 30 years. In general I would expect an
internal combustion engine to be an oddity from the past 30 years from
now, but at least one with low consumption may still be financeable.

So, why not a hybrid?

cu
.\\arc

Roger Blake > wrote:
> In article >, Marc Gerges wrote:
>> that may be still usable in 30 years. In general I would expect an
>> internal combustion engine to be an oddity from the past 30 years from
>
> I rather doubt it.

Wanna bet? ;-)

>> So, why not a hybrid?
>
> Because they basically suck for all the reasons that have been
> previously mentioned. I'll certainly never buy one. What you do
> with your money, of course, is your own affair.

We've been there, Roger.

You're in the past. That's ok, considering your age ;-)

cu
.\\arc