This makes no financial sense; SUV vs. Hybrid

[jagec]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
without profit, there would be nothing left to give to Mother Teresa (God bless her in Heaven) resources to do good.

Why does Profit have to = cold + heartless?

Profit does extreme good in this world. It employs the unemployed and brings wealth into the economy.

If all we cared about was profit, we wouldn't give to charity...seeing as that cuts into our profits, you know.

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying that not everyone in the world is Donald Trump.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: FlyLice

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: FlyLice
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?

I don't know how to argue with you. You really are 100% convinced that every single person on earth wants to make money on their agenda. I don't know HOW you explain Mother Teresa. Or the many individuals who HAVE tried to make fuel efficient cars on their own, lost thousands of dollars, but CONTINUED TO TRY just because they were convinced people should drive fuel efficient cars. Sorry, but that blows your argument out of the water.

The only people who have made money on hybrids have been long-standing corporations. And they didn't try until they COULD make money off it, once again showing the difference between individuals (who may be profit- or idealism-driven) and corporations (profit-driven)

Well, I'll let you get back to your cold, heartless, solely profit-driven world. I wish you the joy of it.

without profit, there would be nothing left to give to Mother Teresa (God bless her in Heaven) resources to do good.

Why does Profit have to = cold + heartless?

Profit does extreme good in this world. It employs the unemployed and brings wealth into the economy.

You totally miss the point.

Your world is blinded by money. Someday that will change.

Are you predicting Communism?

 

[MisterCornell]

Hybrid cars are the biggest racket. They will not save you money, unless you drive them for over a decade.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: FlyLice
without profit, there would be nothing left to give to Mother Teresa (God bless her in Heaven) resources to do good.

Why does Profit have to = cold + heartless?

Profit does extreme good in this world. It employs the unemployed and brings wealth into the economy.

If all we cared about was profit, we wouldn't give to charity...seeing as that cuts into our profits, you know.

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying that not everyone in the world is Donald Trump.

Corporations make profit, and give a lot to charity. U R t3h dumb. get an econ major.

Individuals make profit and give to charity. They make more profit, they give more to charity.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: FlyLice
without profit, there would be nothing left to give to Mother Teresa (God bless her in Heaven) resources to do good.

Why does Profit have to = cold + heartless?

Profit does extreme good in this world. It employs the unemployed and brings wealth into the economy.

If all we cared about was profit, we wouldn't give to charity...seeing as that cuts into our profits, you know.

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying that not everyone in the world is Donald Trump.

Heh I shoulda checked your profile and saw you're from Seattle. I'm done with you.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: FlyLice

Originally posted by: SampSon
You totally miss the point.

Your world is blinded by money. Someday that will change.

Are you predicting Communism?

IIRC Sampson has a decent amount of money, and so has some perspective on this.

We're not saying money is bad. We're saying money isn't the only thing life is about. Stop seeing the world in black+white.

 

[MisterCornell]

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Hybrid cars are the biggest racket. They will not save you money, unless you drive them for over a decade.

Not true. In a decade, it is very possible that gas prices will become less than $1/gallon, and/or fuel cell tech will take over. Buying a hybrid now is pure speculation.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
hey ass, i didn't post it. i just read it without putting my hippie agenda logic to it. once again, thanks.

and because you can't subtract, 2005-1992 does not equal 30-40. who is a moron?[/v]

You still are.

You said he didn't need a new car. By that logic we should all keep our cars for 30-40 years and just keep fixing them as they break. That would make more financial sense than buying a new car wouldn't it?

where did i say he should keep his car for 30-40 years?

he didn't need a new car. it was in fact said in the original post that his car was in great condition and that he loved it. he simply didn't like paying the gas bill.

then you say:

"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."

this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POST. nowhere in the post does the OP say the guy needed a new explorer. ANYWHERE. so it really doesn't matter what a new explorer costs. the guy wanted to pay less for gas, period. he didn't want/need a new car yet. for all you know his explorer could run fine for another 10 years. that still wouldn't be 30-40 years which you seem to be fixated on.

i could say something ignorant like "by your logic everyone should buy a new car every year!" but i don't because logic requires thinking.

edit: to fix your inability to use bold correctly.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Hybrid cars are the biggest racket. They will not save you money, unless you drive them for over a decade.

Again - it's not all about money for alot fo people. Can your materialistic minds not see that?!?!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

way to totally distort the OP again! having been an explorer owner in the past i can tell you that i did not need to put premium in it. and not everyone lives in socal. premium here is about 2.30 a gallon, regular right around 2 bucks.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

way to totally distort the OP again! having been an explorer owner in the past i can tell you that i did not need to put premium in it. and not everyone lives in socal. premium here is about 2.30 a gallon, regular right around 2 bucks.

2.50 here in lowly FL for regular - and it isn't even summer yet.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

way to totally distort the OP again! having been an explorer owner in the past i can tell you that i did not need to put premium in it. and not everyone lives in socal. premium here is about 2.30 a gallon, regular right around 2 bucks.

2.50 here in lowly FL for regular - and it isn't even summer yet.

oops. read again to answer my own question. that's insane. i'm only one state north of you.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

way to totally distort the OP again! having been an explorer owner in the past i can tell you that i did not need to put premium in it. and not everyone lives in socal. premium here is about 2.30 a gallon, regular right around 2 bucks.

2.50 here in lowly FL for regular - and it isn't even summer yet.

for regular or premium?

RIF 😉

 

[FlyLice]

Summer will come back down to $2

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Heh I shoulda checked your profile and saw you're from Seattle. I'm done with you.

Oh, you mean Seattle, home of Amazon, Starbucks, Microsoft, and Boeing?

Aggressive, expansionist, questionable-business-practices, monopoly Seattle?

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Not true. In a decade, it is very possible that gas prices will become less than $1/gallon, and/or fuel cell tech will take over. Buying a hybrid now is pure speculation.

Neither will happen.
We have enough petroleum reserves to last for decades and decades to come, we're certainly not running out of oil...but it's not as easy to extract as it used to be. I can see gas dipping back below $2, but it will never again dip below $1 in this country.

Fuel cell tech is interesting, but still too expensive to take over, not to mention the lack of fueling stations. That will not change anytime soon. I did fuel cell research, and while it's interesting, it's just outrageously expensive right now.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Summer will come back down to $2

lol - IIRC, the price usually peaks in the summer months 😉

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

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.

Since when does gas cost $3 a gallon? If that's how much tthey are charging in your state, you've got bigger problems.

Premium hit almost $2.80/gallon about a week or so ago here in SoCal.

way to totally distort the OP again! having been an explorer owner in the past i can tell you that i did not need to put premium in it. and not everyone lives in socal. premium here is about 2.30 a gallon, regular right around 2 bucks.

2.50 here in lowly FL for regular - and it isn't even summer yet.

for regular or premium?

RIF 😉

noted and edited.

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Summer will come back down to $2

lol - IIRC, the price usually peaks in the summer months 😉

Historically yes, but oil futures right now are so overpriced by speculators many futures analysts are predicting a summer crash.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Hybrid cars are the biggest racket. They will not save you money, unless you drive them for over a decade.

Again - it's not all about money for alot fo people. Can your materialistic minds not see that?!?!

Yeh. My wife really wants to pick up a Highlander Hybrid simply for the "green" aspect of it being very low pollution. The increased gas milage is just a plus for her.

Can't knock her for wanting to keep the skies a little cleaner and save a little money at the pump along the way. She has the income to easily ignore the $3,000 price difference and is still being reasonibly responsible because she chose a Highlander instead of a BMW or Lexus that would be more in line with her income.

 

[Vic]

Per fueleconomy.gov, estimating average annual miles driven at 15,000 and fuel cost at $2.06/gallon -- the Explorer would cost $1817 per year in gas, while the Accord Hybrid would cost $967. A savings of $850 per year. With a net acquisition cost of $29k, it would take 34.1 years to acheive ROI for the Accord, or 511,764 miles.

But yeah, it's apples and oranges, as buying a new car never makes good financial sense. I just did this because no one else had bothered to do the math 😛

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Hybrid cars are the biggest racket. They will not save you money, unless you drive them for over a decade.

Again - it's not all about money for alot fo people. Can your materialistic minds not see that?!?!

Yeh. My wife really wants to pick up a Highlander Hybrid simply for the "green" aspect of it being very low pollution. The increased gas milage is just a plus for her.

Can't knock her for wanting to keep the skies a little cleaner and save a little money at the pump along the way. She has the income to easily ignore the $3,000 price difference and is still being reasonibly responsible because she chose a Highlander instead of a BMW or Lexus that would be more in line with her income.

does hybrid cancel out the fact it's a SUV?

 

[FlyLice]

Originally posted by: Vic
Per fueleconomy.gov, estimating average annual miles driven at 15,000 and fuel cost at $2.06/gallon -- the Explorer would cost $1817 per year in gas, while the Accord Hybrid would cost $967. A savings of $850 per year. With a net acquisition cost of $29k, it would take 34.1 years to acheive ROI for the Accord, or 511,764 miles.

But yeah, it's apples and oranges, as buying a new car never makes good financial sense. I just did this because no one else had bothered to do the math 😛

Discount Rate used?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
hey ass, i didn't post it. i just read it without putting my hippie agenda logic to it. once again, thanks.

and because you can't subtract, 2005-1992 does not equal 30-40. who is a moron?

You still are.

You said he didn't need a new car. By that logic we should all keep our cars for 30-40 years and just keep fixing them as they break. That would make more financial sense than buying a new car wouldn't it?

where did i say he should keep his car for 30-40 years?

he didn't need a new car. it was in fact said in the original post that his car was in great condition and that he loved it. he simply didn't like paying the gas bill.

then you say:

"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."

this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POST. nowhere in the post does the OP say the guy needed a new explorer. ANYWHERE. so it really doesn't matter what a new explorer costs. the guy wanted to pay less for gas, period. he didn't want/need a new car yet. for all you know his explorer could run fine for another 10 years. that still wouldn't be 30-40 years which you seem to be fixated on.

i could say something ignorant like "by your logic everyone should buy a new car every year!" but i don't because logic requires thinking.

edit: to fix your inability to use bold correctly.

Hey genius, you have your timeline all mixed up.

I posted this first: "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."

then you posted this: "he didn't need a new car."

so I made a point based on your post: "By that logic we should all keep our cars for 30-40 years and just keep fixing them as they break. That would make more financial sense than buying a new car wouldn't it?"

I was drawing one possible conclusion based on your post to make a point. 30-40 years was just an arbitrary number I threw out there to help make the point. Not everything needs to be spelled out in black and white. I was using something called deductive reasoning in my response.

Good grief, arguing with you is like arguing with a two year old. I'm done with this. :roll: