How much does gas need to cost for hybrids to pay off?

[Louder North]

Good read today on driving.ca about the estimated pay back period for various hybrids.

 

If government really want to meet their climate change goals, they are going to have to put a price on carbon or put better incentives on plug-ins at least.

 

For me, it was never ONLY about the price of gas anyway.

 

I heard on interview on the radio of one industry person at the International Auto Show in Toronto (in this context of cheap gas) that 2 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation (about hybrid economics) so who knows where we will be two years from now?  I thought that was a comment worth repeating.

 

cheers,

Edited February 12, 2016 by Louder North

[stevedebi]

Good read today on driving.ca about the estimated pay back period for various hybrids.

 

If government really want to meet their climate change goals, they are going to have to put a price on carbon or put better incentives on plug-ins at least.

 

For me, it was never ONLY about the price of gas anyway.

 

I heard on interview on the radio of one industry person at the International Auto Show in Toronto (in this context of cheap gas) that 2 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation (about hybrid economics) so who knows where we will be two years from now?  I thought that was a comment worth repeating.

 

cheers,

For those who don't follow the thread, the break even cost was about 19 bucks a gallon for a plug in to break even in 4 years. That was for the Fusion Enerigi, the best of the examined brands. Not sure, that might be Canadian, in which case the number would be $13 per gallon.

[Louder North]

I would recommend you read the article as there are lots of things to compare. 

 

One of the comparisons was "what would the price of gas have to be for an electrified car to pay off its premium in 48 months?" 

 

And the answer was "The Fusion Hybrid was [still] the winner, of course, its break-even price about $2 a litre — roughly $8 a U.S. gallon — compared with the bare-bones 2.5-litre-powered Fusion S."  Two years ago, it seemed $2 / L gas seemed around the corner.

 

The other observation was that the premium for adding the hybrid technology to the base model disappears the higher up the luxury chain you go.

[stevedebi]

I would recommend you read the article as there are lots of things to compare. 

 

One of the comparisons was "what would the price of gas have to be for an electrified car to pay off its premium in 48 months?" 

 

And the answer was "The Fusion Hybrid was [still] the winner, of course, its break-even price about $2 a litre — roughly $8 a U.S. gallon — compared with the bare-bones 2.5-litre-powered Fusion S."  Two years ago, it seemed $2 / L gas seemed around the corner.

 

The other observation was that the premium for adding the hybrid technology to the base model disappears the higher up the luxury chain you go.

Yeah, I suppose folks on this forum would be more interested in the hybrid. I own the plug-in, so I was quoting those numbers.

[zalusky]

I think if one was truly just about cost and breakeven then you should probably just buy the cheapest car period.  

Whats the payoff on better looking materials?

Whats the payoff on 0-60 times?

Whats the payoff on tech like backup cameras or bluetooth?

Whats the payoff on 7 seats vs 5 if you only use them every few weeks?

.

.

.

In many cases now hybrids are cheaper than before because they are just not as popular and how does that affect all the analysis.

[Kelleytoons]

Yeah, and that's only over four years -- a lot of us keep our vehicles a LOT longer (I haven't owned anything I've kept less than 10 years, and the last three we owned for 15+).  While the gas cost is low now, even if it stayed low I have no doubt the C-Max (hybrid, of course) will pay for itself well before we get a new one.

 

Plus... it's a lot easier to budget for a car than it is to budget for gas.  Long after our Durango was paid off we used to avoid making long trips because it just cost WAY too much.  Adding $20+ to go into town for dinner made that night out just too expensive.  Even with higher gas prices, we'd now laugh at that thought in Maximis -- a couple of bucks is no big deal.

[Marc Smith]

Just went on on Ford.com... to compare the Fusion ICE/Hybrid MSRP

 

S ICE-  22,110  City 22

S HYB  25,185  City 44

Price Diff 3075

 

 

SE ICE- 23,680

SE HYB- 25,990 

Price Diff 2310

 

 

Titanium ICE 30,630

Titanium HYB 30,940

Price Diff 310

 

Current Fuel prices are hovering around 2 buck a gallon  So if we assume 10K miles per year. @ city driving....

in year one

 

S ICE will use  454 gallons of fuel at a cost of 909.

S HYB will use 227 gallons of fuel at a cost of 454.  year one saving of 454 bucks.  at the current fuel price it will take 6.7 years for the hybrid S to break even with the ICE S.  this does not take into account consumables (oil changes, brakes ect)  In theory the HYB should have a lower maintenance cost, less use of brakes, and longer oil change intervals.

 

So the SE payoff will have the same fuel consumption but the price difference is less... the break even is a tick over 5 years.

The Titanium  payoff is less than a year.

 

The Linc MKZ ICE/HYB  the prices are the same....

 

So in this instance, I am assuming the trim/tech between each package  s, SE, Titanium  is the same.

 

if fuel jumps to $4 a gallon...the break even point is halved...just on fuel usage...

 

With the ford its easy to compare the models  HYB vs ICE  Obviously when comparing across brands  it makes it a bit harder to compare vehicles, trim levels, ect...

 

Fuel economy did pose a huge factor my orginal prius purchase VS the Chevy HHR  when the tree fell on the prius and I was comparing the prius and cmax  the fuel economy was close enough that interior fit/finish became more of the driving factor.

[scottwood2]

Nice post Marc

 

I figured about 5 years too for payback but that was comparing to the cost of my old Scion xB to the C-Max.   Of course fuel prices have went down but the C-Max is a very different car from the xB too.  Not really a apples to apples comparison.  $16k for the Scion and $22k for the C-Max. 

[Marc Smith]

when I was comparing the HHR to the prius  I was looking at cars with similar age, milage and price.  when the prius got trashed  i was comparing the prius and Cmax  on price,  I was able to get a 2013 with 11k miles  while the comparable prius' were a couple years older with more miles.  When I got my prius  it had been sitting for about 3 months on the dealers lot  and with cash in hand I got a real good deal.  I feel I got a deal on the Cmax as well  45 days on the lot...

[zalusky]

Try looking up real world selling prices.  I don't think hybrids are commanding that much of a markup in todays market. 

[Marc Smith]

Zal,  Try to realize that its much easier to take the  posted MSRP  and crunch some quick numbers.  Yes with oil so low hybrids can come in cheap and get very close to their ICE equivaents.  So yes if you make a better deal the payback could happen quicker.

 

But by all means be my guest to go research current prices  ensure same trim levels, ect and post back what you come up with...

[Louder North]

when I was comparing the HHR to the prius  I was looking at cars with similar age, milage and price.  when the prius got trashed  i was comparing the prius and Cmax  on price,  I was able to get a 2013 with 11k miles  while the comparable prius' were a couple years older with more miles.  When I got my prius  it had been sitting for about 3 months on the dealers lot  and with cash in hand I got a real good deal.  I feel I got a deal on the Cmax as well  45 days on the lot...

 

I bought mine used and found the price differential with the other (non-hybrid) vehicle I was looking at to be trivial.  Prices differences on new models at different trim levels are good when making comparisons, but tend to disappear when buying used. 

 

Pretty happy with cold weather performance right now!  Minus 25 in Ottawa and it started right up; did affect the regenerative braking animation though. 

[C-MaxSea]

For us it was also never ONLY about the price of gas !!!

 

Thankfully most of us still buy cars and not appliance cars. Stuff matters; like entry, head room, 0-60 speed / power to climb hills, cabin appointments, road manners, steering, sound deadening, door closure sound, ………………………………….. not to mention less ICE pollution !!!

 

Great wisdom Zal, Kelley, Louder North; great numbers Marc !

 

Our C-Max ‘broke even’ the day we drove it off the lot – far greater ‘value’ (to us) than anything else available.
 

Nick   (((Love those $25 fill-ups - Gas guzzlers be-gone !!!)))  :skateboard:

 

(2015 SELs w/ NAV, Parking assist ............. advertised for less than 25K in our neighborhood)

Edited February 15, 2016 by C-MaxSea

[raadsel]

Try looking up real world selling prices.  I don't think hybrids are commanding that much of a markup in todays market. 

 

Looking at TrueCar for my area, these are the "TrueCar" price I get without needing to sign in:

 

S:  20,389

S Hybrid: 22, 609

Diff: $2,220

 

SE: 20,957

SE Hybrid: 23,319

Diff: $2,362

 

Titanium: 27,303

Titanium Hybrid: 27,803

Diff: $500

 

It appears that the S and SE models include a few things not found on their gas counterparts. For example, Dual Automatic Climate control is standard on both the Hybrid models but not on the gasoline, also the S stereo is slightly upgraded on the Hybrid (6 speakers instead of 4). There may be a couple of other things I missed.

[jackalopetx]

The problem with this kind of analysis is that they always use highway MPG or mixed MPG. 

 

The vast majority of people commuting are NOT cruising at 65mpg, they are in traffic. Just because you're "on a highway" doesn't mean you're doing "highway miles". The average consumer is too ignorant to understand that. On my commute my C-Max gets 45mpg and up to 57mpg on a good day. The Volvo V70 I had before under these conditions would probably be getting about 15mpg. 

 

But the typical car buyer looks at the Volvo and says "Oh I sit in gridlock on the highway every day so I will get 30mpg!"

Edited May 7, 2016 by jackalopetx

[raadsel]

The problem with this kind of analysis is that they always use highway MPG or mixed MPG. 

 

The vast majority of people commuting are NOT cruising at 65mpg, they are in traffic. Just because you're "on a highway" doesn't mean you're doing "highway miles". The average consumer is too ignorant to understand that. On my commute my C-Max gets 45mpg and up to 57mpg on a good day. The Volvo V70 I had before under these conditions would probably be getting about 15mpg. 

 

But the typical car buyer looks at the Volvo and says "Oh I sit in gridlock on the highway every day so I will get 30mpg!"

 

This is definitely an issue I have, in trying to figure out city/highway. Once I leave my neighborhood, since I live at the edge of the city, 40 mph is about the lowest speed limit I see. This also is a challenge with mpgs -- I have that minumum of 40 mpg speed limits but often still have lights every 1/2 mile or so. This means I accelerate up to 40 or higher, then may need to stop in half a mile or mile, so I don't get a chance to cruise under electric power long enough to "pay off" the energy used to accelerate. Worse, the lights tend to use pressure plates to determine when to change, making the lights hard to predict.

[Kelleytoons]

If your lights are really 1/2 mile apart and there is a limit of 40 between them it's a pretty weird drive (I've never seen that -- I have seen it at 35 or so, though).  In that case, however, I'd just drive a bit under 35, as that kind of drive ought to work REALLY well even with the stop and go of missing most (or even all) of the lights).  No need to go any faster, since it doesn't sound like there's any traffic anyway (or IT would be tripping those pressure plates and you wouldn't have any trouble predicting things).  Faster wouldn't make your commute any shorter anyway (due to the time lost accelerating and decellerating).

 

Just because the posted limits are higher doesn't mean you have to drive them (they are LIMITS, not speeds you have to drive at).  Our car is VERY efficient at around 30mph even with stop and go (I once did around 30 miles of that and I got the highest mpg I ever got, around 70, which got me SO excited until I realized that it was a weird condition I was never going to be in again).

Edited May 8, 2016 by Kelleytoons

[raadsel]

If your lights are really 1/2 mile apart and there is a limit of 40 between them it's a pretty weird drive (I've never seen that -- I have seen it at 35 or so, though).  In that case, however, I'd just drive a bit under 35, as that kind of drive ought to work REALLY well even with the stop and go of missing most (or even all) of the lights).  No need to go any faster, since it doesn't sound like there's any traffic anyway (or IT would be tripping those pressure plates and you wouldn't have any trouble predicting things).  Faster wouldn't make your commute any shorter anyway (due to the time lost accelerating and decellerating).

 

Just because the posted limits are higher doesn't mean you have to drive them (they are LIMITS, not speeds you have to drive at).  Our car is VERY efficient at around 30mph even with stop and go (I once did around 30 miles of that and I got the highest mpg I ever got, around 70, which got me SO excited until I realized that it was a weird condition I was never going to be in again).

 

I think the reason the roads are that way in my area is because of the way Houston is so "new", the fact that the population has exploded over the last few decades. Most of the roads in my area started as roads that connected Houston to the outlying towns -- so basically they were roads through scrub forest and farmland. As neighborhoods were built, they were largely built between these roads, with only a couple of roads connecting to the main roads -- so the main roads maintained rather high speed limits. In the 15 years I've lived here, this area has changed a great deal; with several housing developments and businesses having moved in to areas that previously were undeveloped.

 

This seems to be pretty typical of Houston generally -- of course the other reason is because Texans are so in love with their cars. Of course, it is also worth noting that the Houston Metro area is extremely large and spread out; basically the Houston Metro area is roughly the same size as the state of Massachusetts.

[Kelleytoons]

Yeah, I lived out west (Nevada, for over 30 years) and I am very familiar with the wide open spaces and the accomodations needed for travel to be efficient.  Texas, obviously, is so much larger than any other state, with so much distance to travel, it's almost an entire country (with Nevada it's more a case of "nothing between here and there" so you need to go as fast as possible to actually get some where :>).

 

I don't think Maximis would have done as well there -- certainly winter would have been a challenge, but also the fact there was very little "moderate" driving.  Would have been interesting to try, though.

[SnowStorm]

... Texas, obviously, is so much larger than any other state, with so much distance to travel, it's almost an entire country ....

Really?  Alaska could split 3 ways and make Texas only 3rd largest - and leave another state bigger than New Mexico!

(Maybe there are no C-Maxes up there so it becomes a moot point?)

[tr7driver]

This is definitely an issue I have, in trying to figure out city/highway. Once I leave my neighborhood, since I live at the edge of the city, 40 mph is about the lowest speed limit I see. This also is a challenge with mpgs -- I have that minumum of 40 mpg speed limits but often still have lights every 1/2 mile or so. This means I accelerate up to 40 or higher, then may need to stop in half a mile or mile, so I don't get a chance to cruise under electric power long enough to "pay off" the energy used to accelerate. Worse, the lights tend to use pressure plates to determine when to change, making the lights hard to predict.

 

I have the same issue, except I commute on an beltway that goes around the town with a 45 mph speed limit.  In the past 20 years there has been so much development that it is now 3 lanes each direction with duel turning lanes at lights spaced about every 1/3 mile to accommodate all the new big box stores, corporate campuses and subdivisions.  It seems the common and accepted way to drive this is to race from one stop light to the next then sit for five minutes at a red until the next heat.  Putting along at about 30 mph gets you close to synced with the lights (and about 4 fingers per segment) but is an invitation for fender benders. 

 

I finally figured a route through town at 30 mph.  Ironically, it takes the same amount of time to drive even though the trip is two miles longer.  Since the beltway goes around the city, there are several alternate options available to me, some good, other not so much.  When I used to drive to work at 4:30 am I could time them and cruise along with only one stop, Now I start at 7:15 and get caught among all the "good neighbors" late for work heading to the insurance companies HQ and State Office in their BMW's.

[stevedebi]

Really?  Alaska could split 3 ways and make Texas only 3rd largest - and leave another state bigger than New Mexico!

(Maybe there are no C-Maxes up there so it becomes a moot point?)

I love Alaska, but try comparing the miles of roads in Texas with the miles of roads in Alaska and get back to me.

[SnowStorm]

I love Alaska, but try comparing the miles of roads in Texas with the miles of roads in Alaska and get back to me.

OK, per DOT data, Texas has over 21 times more "lane miles" than Alaska so I guess Texas is "the biggest".... but wait.  Virginia has the most US presidents born in the state so Virginia is the "biggest"! 

(Not sure what all this has to do with this topic but I once worked with a great guy who liked to say "consistency is the mark of a small mind"!  So I guess consistency to the original topic is at least the mark of an unimaginative one!)

P.S.  I once drove all the way across Texas, east to west, and its a loooong way!

P.P.S. My answer to the original question? --- "The C-Max is so much fun to drive it makes gasoline cost irrelevant!"

[mtta]

The problem with this kind of analysis is that they always use highway MPG or mixed MPG. 

 

The vast majority of people commuting are NOT cruising at 65mpg, they are in traffic. Just because you're "on a highway" doesn't mean you're doing "highway miles". The average consumer is too ignorant to understand that. On my commute my C-Max gets 45mpg and up to 57mpg on a good day. The Volvo V70 I had before under these conditions would probably be getting about 15mpg. 

 

But the typical car buyer looks at the Volvo and says "Oh I sit in gridlock on the highway every day so I will get 30mpg!"

 

It matters what you do. My highway commutes in terrible traffic get over 50 MPG, since I sit back and accept a slow average speed. In lighter traffic I'll get 44 MPG, due to the requirement to speed up to 60 mph.

 

How most people drive ruins their MPG. Accelerating randomly to scream up to the next red light probably adds 20-30% to people's gas bills.

 

This is definitely an issue I have, in trying to figure out city/highway. Once I leave my neighborhood, since I live at the edge of the city, 40 mph is about the lowest speed limit I see. This also is a challenge with mpgs -- I have that minumum of 40 mpg speed limits but often still have lights every 1/2 mile or so. This means I accelerate up to 40 or higher, then may need to stop in half a mile or mile, so I don't get a chance to cruise under electric power long enough to "pay off" the energy used to accelerate. Worse, the lights tend to use pressure plates to determine when to change, making the lights hard to predict.

 

The other issue I have seen - especially in quickly growing areas - is untimed traffic lights. More effort by local governments to sync their traffic signals would result in a meaningful improvement. Ideally you would have a 45 mph speed limit and by actually proceeding at 40-45, you would only catch a red light once in every several signals.

[ptjones]

Really?  Alaska could split 3 ways and make Texas only 3rd largest - and leave another state bigger than New Mexico!

(Maybe there are no C-Maxes up there so it becomes a moot point?)

I sold a set of Grill Covers to CMAX Owner Alaska,LOL. :) Going I-20 - I-10 across Texas is about 850 miles, one day of driving. ;)

 

 

Paul

Edited May 10, 2016 by ptjones