I don't own one, but the hybrid looks very interesting.

Owners of the Camry hybrid are ahead $5,000 in cost, right off the bat, over owners of the Accord.


Paul
Allscion -- an e-commerce Website with news and accessories for your Scion vehicles
http://www.allscion.com/store




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/au...gewanted=print

 

not surprised. Toyotas hybrid technology > Hondas hybrid technology.

 

One thing people ALWAYS forget about doing a cost analysis of a hybrid, is that the cost/benefit ratio is COMPLETELY dependent on the price of gas. The higher the price, the higher the savings. . .

. . . a study done in 2001 regarding the cost/benefit may find hybrids to be worthless, but if gas prices have jumped over $0.60, then recalculations need to be done. I personally did a study at $2.06, and found the break even point to be about four years. . .

Another note to remember is that hybrids retain some value above conventional models, and that needs to be figured into cost/benefit calculation. However, inflation lessens this effect. All in all if gas prices go where everyone is predicting it will go, hybrids will carry a significant economic advantage, so long as the price premium stays around $3-4k. . . which isn't always the case. But with time, the technology SHOULD get cheaper.

And considering the amount of fuel consumed by the US, I'd love to see someone tackle the impossibility of producing enough bio-diesel to power the nation. Oil is still pretty damn cheap, relative to most output items. . . but producing enough corn to power the nation has significant cost barriers. The main barrier would be that after a certain point, it becomes exponentially more expensive to produce! Hybrids aren't the answer, but bio-diesel doesn't make much sense, IMO. . . at least on large scale. Bio-diesel maybe great for the Ben and Jerry's eating drug abusing hippie, but let's see millions of people waiting to buy thousands of gallons of fuel.

So far Europe has a semi-good thing going with REGULAR diesel. . . but the real solution will be with hydrogen. . . if they ever figure out a way to efficiently extract it from water, and not from oil, like they do now. . .

 

There is also a huge cost savings that defies all calculations you are using. The lessening of the environmental impact of the vehicle that you drive. It has been said that driving a Prius for 8000 miles emits as much hydrocarbon output as spilling 1 cup of unleaded fuel on the ground. I agree that hydrogen is the way to go, but IMO we are decades away from that being a viable solution. Also, I think my Libertarian coworker who produces his own biodiesel and uses it every day will be very interested to find out that he is a hippie junkie. Peace.

 

You missed my point. . . there is no viable way to produce enough biodiesel to satisfy the fuel demand of the entire nation. . . and probably not even enough to fuel California alone.

If you tried to support the excess demand, you'd end up paying $40 gallon. And say good bye to cooking food.

Ask an economist, but a lot of the "radical" approaches are so costly, that it would make more sense to pollute now and pay for the clean up later. . . . remember a $1 saved today is worth more than a $1 saved tomorrow, due to the time value of money. But most people don't go further than thinking that any benefit to the environment is good, no matter the cost.

Hydrogen is indeed a decade away, but there is no way that we will ever have as many bio-diesel vehicles as there are hybrids on the road now. There simply isn't enough biodiesel around. And forget about trying to grow it. . .

Bio-diesel is great, so long as no more than a handful of people use it. But it is physically, economically, and financially IMPOSSIBLE to use it on a large scale.

 

I'm actually not disagreeing with you. Biodiesel is even only feasible on a small scale if individual owners produce their own. With our government beholden to the oil industry, there is little we can do to exact widespread change right now. We need realistic and ambitious mileage requirements to be imposed on the automakers. We need Hummers and Excursions to be held to the same standards as any other car. We need mandated reductions in greenhouse gasses and we need to ratify Kyoto and follow it. All of these things are just a small step in the right direction.

Let me ask exactly who needs a 300hp 4 door sedan to take the kids to the mall? The answer is, no one. As long as automakers keep making cars like this a viable option, we won't get anywhere. How about, impose a mandatory average mileage of 40 mpg per automaker. Not highway mileage, average actual tested mileage. Can't be done? I think you'd see Toyota, Honda and maybe Nissan be able to hit it in a breeze. GM, Ford and Chrysler mat have a tougher time, but so what. Thinks need to change now, not 20 years from now.

I wounder if everyone who buys an Impala SS or Carger Hemi realize that they are killing their grandchildren?

 

I'm all for removing waste, but I personally like the direction Toyota/Lexus is going. The new IS350 has more power than it's predecessor (almost 100 more hp to be exact) and gets better MPG and has cleaner emissions. The hybrid GS and RX models perform better than their standard counterparts and have better MPG and emissions as well. Yes, they're going about it backwards, but when the people on top drive hybrids (and you make them fast, cool, and liveable), you open the door for mass market acceptance. I think Toyota's plan to have hybrids eventually available on all models is doable, realistic, and damn smart. It may not be perfect, but it's better than a sea of 20L V10 SUV's. . .

I think hybrids are a step in the right direction. . . and in the mean time, the world will continue to take baby steps until something cost effective, efficient, and eco-friendly comes along.

I just don't like how the far left likes to slander hybrids by touting how great bio-diesels and foot powered flintstone cars are. The "extreme" options are usually not viable for the masses (or for large scale output). And when articles are printed discouraging people from buying hybrids, they won't go buy some corn powered plastic unicycle. . . they'll go buy some gas wasting behemouth.

It's the Nader effect. . . but with cars. It's not about the best candidate, because the best may not necessarily win. It's about the best candidate that can win.

 

I've said for a long time that hybrids are merely a stopgap between the internal combustion engine and fuel cell technology. They require no new refueling infrastructure and are quite inobtrusive to the driver. I was just in a conversation this morning about bio v hybrid. In my area there is no true cost difference between bio and standard diesel. Yes, bio has a lower emissions output than standard diesel, but neither has a lower output than a Prius.

I think you and I agree on 95% of the issue and are somewhat splitting hairs at this point. Do I think biodiesel is a viable fuel source? Yes. For the masses? No. Are nybrids a step in the right direction? Certainly. Are they the final solution? Not at all.

The simple fact is that Americans are going to need to be pushed into true alternative fuel technology a little bit. I somehow think it will be the automakers that lead the way a little bit.

Also, I don't think of environmentalists as left and right any longer. Certainly those to the far right are rarely environmentally concerned; atleast in as much as it effects their profits. I also think that there are "liberals" who are not environmentally friendly or who atleast don't do all they could to help out on a daily basis.

 

hybrid camry's aren';t even out yet folks , wait till jun/july....


the v6's are nice tho , people seemed to like them at the last ride and drive I worked.

 

I can agree with that 100%. . . I like to make jokes about extremists to keep things entertaining, but on a serious note, you're 100% correct, and I feel the exact same way.

 

but hybrids ARE the final solution. Having hybrid engine, no matter if it is petrol, diesel or hydrogen (or E85, biodiesel, fuel cell) , will make any car 30% more efficient.

And cool thing about Camry is that it is ONLY 1k more than 4cly XLE, and plus it has more equipment than 4cly XLE. It is certainly great value.

 

accord is a v6 though correct? I guess the mileage is understandable, but a person who buys a hybrid is after fuel savings first, not really performance. I wonder what honda was thinking...