This makes no financial sense; SUV vs. Hybrid

[jagec]

Originally posted by: FlyLice

damn, you're on a roll!

OK, let me get this straight. Person A has an agenda. That agenda has to do with hippie-ish ideas about the environment. Person A USES money to try to get companies to fall in line and further his agenda.

Person A uses money. But their agenda is not about money.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but try to stay with me.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Apples to oranges.

That accord will last longer than the explorer will.

but what if someone rear ends him and the batteries break, leak and emit poisonous fumes into the environment!?! Oh nos@1!!

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: FlyLice

Originally posted by: SampSon
Apples to oranges.

That accord will last longer than the explorer will.

but what if someone rear ends him and the batteries break, leak and emit poisonous fumes into the environment!?! Oh nos@1!!

Um - no, proven to be wrong, and very unlikely. Plus, the batteries can be recycled.

 

Originally posted by: FlyLice

Originally posted by: SampSon
Apples to oranges.

That accord will last longer than the explorer will.

but what if someone rear ends him and the batteries break, leak and emit poisonous fumes into the environment!?! Oh nos@1!!

go go gadget insurance adjuster!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Between purchasing overpriced iCrap, Monster Cables, Bose speakers, AOL IP, $300.00 sunglasses, several hundred dollar video cards, and multi thousand dollar, teeth rattling, tire & wheel combos, there's NOTHING more our retarded American consumers can spend their money on, that will surprise me in the least!

Reading that makes me hate people.

The Accord Hybrid does high 6 from 0-60, and low 15 on the 1/4. That's NICE, compared to the "roll me over" Explorer.

Except, again, the guy said this was ENTIRELY about money.

92' Explorer crapping out, poor mileage, he needs new car. Gets a Honda.
Instead of getting another gas guzzling monster that won't last long and stay strong performance-wise, he settled for the opposite.
The Honda will last a lot longer and is more reliable than an aging new SUV, thus he'll be filling up the thing for a longer period of time (for as long as the Honda survives) but less frequently(good mpg).

Except, again, the guy said this was ENTIRELY about money.

Apples to oranges.

That accord will last longer than the explorer will.

Except, again, the guy said this was ENTIRELY about money.

Does anybody read a post anymore before answering? I am sure that reading comprehension is getting worse around here.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: FlyLice

damn, you're on a roll!

OK, let me get this straight. Person A has an agenda. That agenda has to do with hippie-ish ideas about the environment. Person A USES money to try to get companies to fall in line and further his agenda.

Person A uses money. But their agenda is not about money.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but try to stay with me.

So you're telling me the following isn't true?

1. Invent Fuel Efficient Vehicles
2. ???
3. Profit!

No matter how hippie, if you can't make money off it (or attempt to) people won't do it.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
It's not about the price difference. Ever think that some people care about the environment too? 😛

No, apparently all that anyone cares about is money:roll:

Originally posted by: FlyLice
So you're telling me the following isn't true?

1. Invent Fuel Efficient Vehicles
2. ???
3. Profit!

From the company's point of view, obviously. But companies ARE all about money. From the individual's point of view, it's not just money.

 

[eelw]

dang, how did us retarded americans

98% of the population

become the most powerful (economic + military + science, technology) country in the world!?!?!

2% of the population

And reading of the more responses of flylice after the one I quoted, he most definitely falls in the 98% of the moron population.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: spidey07
at 3 bucks a gallon...averaging 1500/month (could be much more)

15 mpg = 100 gallons = 300 bucks a month.
37 mpg = 40 gallons = 120 bucks a month.

double that and you have 600/mo and 240 a month.
a big difference of 360 bucks a month, which could pay for the car.

on a 30k car? plus you have to remember that these things need an expensive battery change every few years. so throw that in there as well. seems to be the wise choice is to spend less on a regular accord and get 29 mpg, but i'm silly.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: rbloedow
It's not about the price difference. Ever think that some people care about the environment too? 😛

No, apparently all that anyone cares about is money:roll:

Originally posted by: FlyLice
So you're telling me the following isn't true?

1. Invent Fuel Efficient Vehicles
2. ???
3. Profit!

From the company's point of view, obviously. But companies ARE all about money. From the individual's point of view, it's not just money.

Answer me this and you will realize it IS all about the money: Why wasn't less-polluting vehicles produced during the time we realized it was polluting the environment (70s, 80s?)?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I know a guy that drove a '92 Explorer. Was in GREAT shape, he loved that truck. But he didn't like paying for gas. So he sold the Explorer for $1000... and bought a BRAND NEW Accord Hybrid.

Lets say the Explorer did 15mpg. The Accord Hybrid does 37mpg, and initially cost $30,000. At $3/gallon, how the hell many miles does he need to drive to make this make any damn sense? It hurts my head.

What does a new Exploder cost?

$30k for a new Exploder vs $30k for a Hybrid Accord...I don't see a problem with this.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: eelw

dang, how did us retarded americans

98% of the population

become the most powerful (economic + military + science, technology) country in the world!?!?!

2% of the population

haha touche...

BUT, the 2% would be nothing without the 98

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I know a guy that drove a '92 Explorer. Was in GREAT shape, he loved that truck. But he didn't like paying for gas. So he sold the Explorer for $1000... and bought a BRAND NEW Accord Hybrid.

Lets say the Explorer did 15mpg. The Accord Hybrid does 37mpg, and initially cost $30,000. At $3/gallon, how the hell many miles does he need to drive to make this make any damn sense? It hurts my head.

What does a new Exploder cost?

$30k for a new Exploder vs $30k for a Hybrid Accord...I don't see a problem with this.

he didn't need a new car. he only wanted to stop paying his gas bill. read the post. thanks.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: rh71
... and driving an accord is not more fun than driving an explorer... I don't think it gets any more dull than driving Hondas...except, of course, driving an Exploder.

Fixed.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
I know a guy that drove a '92 Explorer. Was in GREAT shape, he loved that truck. But he didn't like paying for gas. So he sold the Explorer for $1000... and bought a BRAND NEW Accord Hybrid.

Lets say the Explorer did 15mpg. The Accord Hybrid does 37mpg, and initially cost $30,000. At $3/gallon, how the hell many miles does he need to drive to make this make any damn sense? It hurts my head.

What does a new Exploder cost?

$30k for a new Exploder vs $30k for a Hybrid Accord...I don't see a problem with this.

I think the alternative was KEEP existing Ford.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
He's a truck guy. And his ENTIRE justification is that the damned thing is "cheaper".

OK, so he's dumb. But he must have at least wanted a new car, so you can't compare the $30,000 to what he saves in gas...you'd have to compare it to, say, the price of a new Explorer.

But he said the entire justification was money, so there's no need to compare it to a new explorer. The comparison should be to the old one!

eventually there will be need - plus he gets EQUITY of ~30K. It's not like his 30K is gone, it's just tied up in the car

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: spidey07
at 3 bucks a gallon...averaging 1500/month (could be much more)

15 mpg = 100 gallons = 300 bucks a month.
37 mpg = 40 gallons = 120 bucks a month.

double that and you have 600/mo and 240 a month.
a big difference of 360 bucks a month, which could pay for the car.

on a 30k car? plus you have to remember that these things need an expensive battery change every few years. so throw that in there as well. seems to be the wise choice is to spend less on a regular accord and get 29 mpg, but i'm silly.

yeah, but those savings are constant and never ending so you could model it for 3 years or even longer. There would be a total cost of ownership that we woulc need to figure out that would depend heavily on yearly odometer readings.

And to make it fair it should include any and all maintenance of said 92 explorer in addition to gas cost. I think the accord would actually save money over the long run.

I just threw up some quick numbers to see how fast gas can add up.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Answer me this and you will realize it IS all about the money: Why wasn't (sic) less-polluting vehicles produced during the time we realized it was polluting the environment (70s, 80s?)?

Did you not read what I just posted? Companies are all about money. Individuals are not. If a company came out with a super-efficient car in that era that didn't cost much more than the other cars, people would buy it. AND THEY DID--it was EXACTLY that era that gave Honda/Toyota the edge that they continue to hold today.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: halik
plus he gets EQUITY of ~30K. It's not like his 30K is gone, it's just tied up in the car

Exactly. And right now, hybrids are in an interesting situation where you can sell them for almost what you bought them.

Heck, you can sell a Prius for more than you paid for it.

That said, it was still a poor financial decision, if that's what it was.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
He's a truck guy. And his ENTIRE justification is that the damned thing is "cheaper".

OK, so he's dumb. But he must have at least wanted a new car, so you can't compare the $30,000 to what he saves in gas...you'd have to compare it to, say, the price of a new Explorer.

But he said the entire justification was money, so there's no need to compare it to a new explorer. The comparison should be to the old one!

eventually there will be need - plus he gets EQUITY of ~30K. It's not like his 30K is gone, it's just tied up in the car

Nonetheless, the money saved by not having payments on the ford, and having lower insurance costs on it (while including repairs), vs. the higher insurance and new costs on an accord, even after gas savings, would net him far greater net worth if the monetary difference was put elsewhere, like the stock market.

From a monetary standpoint this is a bad investment with gas prices in the same ballpark they are now. It's really very simple math in that aspect.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Atomicus
92' Explorer crapping out, poor mileage, he needs new car. Gets a Honda.
Instead of getting another gas guzzling monster that won't last long and stay strong performance-wise, he settled for the opposite.
The Honda will last a lot longer and is more reliable than an aging new SUV, thus he'll be filling up the thing for a longer period of time (for as long as the Honda survives) but less frequently(good mpg).

did you even read the post?

Yes, but it doesn't really matter. He bought the car thinking he'd save on gas money. But the buyer doesn't realize he got more than what he bargained for. The Honda will last so long anyways, that the savings point will definitely be met.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Answer me this and you will realize it IS all about the money: Why wasn't (sic) less-polluting vehicles produced during the time we realized it was polluting the environment (70s, 80s?)?

Did you not read what I just posted? Companies are all about money. Individuals are not. If a company came out with a super-efficient car in that era that didn't cost much more than the other cars, people would buy it. AND THEY DID--it was EXACTLY that era that gave Honda/Toyota the edge that they continue to hold today.

Exactly. Individuals did nothing to invent fuel efficient cars because why? ding ding ding, they couldn't make money off it! But a group of individuals got together and formed a corporation to create a hybrid to: ding ding ding make money!!! it's so easy isn't it?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: spidey07
at 3 bucks a gallon...averaging 1500/month (could be much more)

15 mpg = 100 gallons = 300 bucks a month.
37 mpg = 40 gallons = 120 bucks a month.

double that and you have 600/mo and 240 a month.
a big difference of 360 bucks a month, which could pay for the car.

on a 30k car? plus you have to remember that these things need an expensive battery change every few years. so throw that in there as well. seems to be the wise choice is to spend less on a regular accord and get 29 mpg, but i'm silly.

If by few you mean 10. Or at least that's what Toyota says the lifespan are. I would assume Honda would be similar.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: spidey07
at 3 bucks a gallon...averaging 1500/month (could be much more)

15 mpg = 100 gallons = 300 bucks a month.
37 mpg = 40 gallons = 120 bucks a month.

double that and you have 600/mo and 240 a month.
a big difference of 360 bucks a month, which could pay for the car.

on a 30k car? plus you have to remember that these things need an expensive battery change every few years. so throw that in there as well. seems to be the wise choice is to spend less on a regular accord and get 29 mpg, but i'm silly.

yeah, but those savings are constant and never ending so you could model it for 3 years or even longer. There would be a total cost of ownership that we woulc need to figure out that would depend heavily on yearly odometer readings.

And to make it fair it should include any and all maintenance of said 92 explorer in addition to gas cost. I think the accord would actually save money over the long run.

I just threw up some quick numbers to see how fast gas can add up.

i've seen the numbers done many many times and it always comes out to no economical gain. it's just making a statement. had he been really smart he would have picked up a used hybrid like clark howard did!

eventually there will be need - plus he gets EQUITY of ~30K. It's not like his 30K is gone, it's just tied up in the car

hehe. equity in a car. hehehehehe. yeah.

 

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: spidey07
at 3 bucks a gallon...averaging 1500/month (could be much more)

15 mpg = 100 gallons = 300 bucks a month.
37 mpg = 40 gallons = 120 bucks a month.

double that and you have 600/mo and 240 a month.
a big difference of 360 bucks a month, which could pay for the car.

on a 30k car? plus you have to remember that these things need an expensive battery change every few years. so throw that in there as well. seems to be the wise choice is to spend less on a regular accord and get 29 mpg, but i'm silly.

Where is it stated that the car needs a battery change every few years? I've always wondered about that.

As gas prices go up, the money he saves will continue to rise.