What are the disadvantages of a hybrid vehicle?
- Thread starter Eeezee
- Start date
They're ugly. (subjective)
They have very complex systems.
Very few repair places will have available parts and know-how to work on one properly.
In many cases, parts are specific to the hybrid vehicle - since they are relatively uncommon, they will be somewhat hard to find, and expensive when you do locate them.
The batteries don't last forever, and probably cost a fortune to replace.
I'll stick with gas for a while, until the technology is more mainstream.
They have very complex systems.
Very few repair places will have available parts and know-how to work on one properly.
In many cases, parts are specific to the hybrid vehicle - since they are relatively uncommon, they will be somewhat hard to find, and expensive when you do locate them.
The batteries don't last forever, and probably cost a fortune to replace.
I'll stick with gas for a while, until the technology is more mainstream.
I've always been confused by this. The complexity of hybrid vehicles is something that I think would greatly appeal to the AT masses. But we hear nothing but hybrid bashing from people who don't even blink when they spend $400 on a new video card.
I think hybrid technology is infinitely more productive and interesting than video card technology, but no one else seems to think so.
Why is that? Is everyone that afraid of being called an environmentalist weenie?
I'm not bashing. I view it as a disadvantage because complex systems, by nature require lots of technical training and familiarity with it to pinpoint problems accurately instead of just throwing money at it. Greater complexity = generally higher cost to repair or diagnose problems, only because there's so many more parts and unfamiliar components than conventional systems.
Look at modern electronic fuel injection vs carburetors, for instance. Carburetors are very simple by comparison, and problems are generally easy to pinpoint and fix. EFI is MUCH more difficult, because of its complexity when compared to carb.
EDIT: A video card is not a valid comparison. If you fry a vid card, you throw it out or return it under warranty, and get a new one. Once the warranty runs out on a hybrid, you're on your own. Even if you do have issues with it under warranty, chances are it'll be hard to find a tech who knows much about them.
Isn't improved and more efficient technology a good thing? All this complexity isn't useless; it creates a less environmentally-damaging vehicle that relies on electric power for much of its propulsion.
I'm just surprised that AT members are so eager to shy away from a complex system. You can't have better technology unless things become more complex.
This is true, to a point. It's great - when everything works as it should. But hybrids are machines, just like any other vehicle. ALL machines WILL break down or develop problems at some point - and when those problems do occur, you might find yourself in a bit of trouble when it comes to getting quality service or finding parts...
At what point can you finally say you trust the technology? The Prius, I believe, is in its 3rd generation with the 2006 being released this fall. I don't think I would have purchased the 1st gen myself.
I guess with a handle like Black88GTA, your answer is fitting.
Seriously though, your arguments strikes me as, "Well, all this great technology isn't worth it because it will eventually break."
Sure it will; cars aren't meant to be durable anymore past 10 years or so (usually the body falls apart around the engine; the engine is probably the most reliable part). But that's no reason to refuse adoption of new technology. If anything, it'll help engineers learn even more about the vehicles they designed.
I wasn't sure what the warranty was on them. Once that warranty runs out, though, you're on your own. I guess that doesn't matter if you only plan on keeping it a couple years, but if you're in it for the "long haul" then it may be more of a concern.
I never said that it "wasn't worth it." It's very worth it. Nothing would be the way it is today without innovation. The OP asked what the disadvantages of hybrids were (at this point in time is assumed) and I listed ones I can think of.Originally posted by: jumpr
I guess with a handle like Black88GTA, your answer is fitting.
Seriously though, your arguments strikes me as, "Well, all this great technology isn't worth it because it will eventually break."
Sure it will; cars aren't meant to be durable anymore past 10 years or so. But that's no reason to refuse adoption of new technology. If anything, it'll help engineers learn even more about the vehicles they designed.
Here's a hypothetical. You're on a long cross-country trip in your hybrid, and your buddy is following behind in his Jeep. You're passing through the marshes of backwater Louisiana, and your both start having car problems (unrealistic, I know-but bear with me
). The only shop within 100 miles of your location is a 500 sq foot place called "Big Earl's Bait, Tackle, and Auto Fixit."Who do you think is going to be driving out of there tomorrow, and who's going to be stuck?
All I'm saying is, this is still very new tech. Until it is more mainstream, it's going to be tougher to take care of problems as they arise.
You're completely correct. Hell, I wouldn't own a hybrid just because of the added expense of 'em. But I salute the pioneers who did buy them and are helping improve the technology for future generations of hybrids.Originally posted by: Black88GTA
I never said that it "wasn't worth it." It's very worth it. Nothing would be the way it is today without innovation. The OP asked what the disadvantages of hybrids were (at this point in time is assumed) and I listed ones I can think of.Originally posted by: jumpr
I guess with a handle like Black88GTA, your answer is fitting.
Seriously though, your arguments strikes me as, "Well, all this great technology isn't worth it because it will eventually break."
Sure it will; cars aren't meant to be durable anymore past 10 years or so. But that's no reason to refuse adoption of new technology. If anything, it'll help engineers learn even more about the vehicles they designed.
Here's a hypothetical. You're on a long cross-country trip in your hybrid, and your buddy is following behind in his Jeep. You're passing through the marshes of backwater Louisiana, and your both start having car problems (unrealistic, I know-but bear with me
Who do you think is going to be driving out of there tomorrow, and who's going to be stuck?
All I'm saying is, this is still very new tech. Until it is more mainstream, it's going to be tougher to take care of problems as they arise.
Either way, you've got to admit that the technology is damn cool.
Heh, no argument there - it's very cool. If they made one that was more sports car and less econobox, I'd even consider buying one in 5-10 years.Originally posted by: jumpr
You're completely correct. Hell, I wouldn't own a hybrid just because of the added expense of 'em. But I salute the pioneers who did buy them and are helping improve the technology for future generations of hybrids.Originally posted by: Black88GTA
I never said that it "wasn't worth it." It's very worth it. Nothing would be the way it is today without innovation. The OP asked what the disadvantages of hybrids were (at this point in time is assumed) and I listed ones I can think of.Originally posted by: jumpr
I guess with a handle like Black88GTA, your answer is fitting.
Seriously though, your arguments strikes me as, "Well, all this great technology isn't worth it because it will eventually break."
Sure it will; cars aren't meant to be durable anymore past 10 years or so. But that's no reason to refuse adoption of new technology. If anything, it'll help engineers learn even more about the vehicles they designed.
Here's a hypothetical. You're on a long cross-country trip in your hybrid, and your buddy is following behind in his Jeep. You're passing through the marshes of backwater Louisiana, and your both start having car problems (unrealistic, I know-but bear with me
Who do you think is going to be driving out of there tomorrow, and who's going to be stuck?
All I'm saying is, this is still very new tech. Until it is more mainstream, it's going to be tougher to take care of problems as they arise.
Either way, you've got to admit that the technology is damn cool.
Fair enough. But that's only the Insight and the Prius. All other hybrid vechicles look exactly like there non-hybrid counterparts
Yes and no. The Honda's IMA is not as complicated as Toyota's Synergy system.
This is why you go back to Honda or Toyota directly.
As noted already in this topic, 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on the hybrid systems. So this point is moot.
Your call. Yes I spend a premium for my Civic Hybrid, but with tax credits, longer maintenance schedule, standard features which are optional on non hybrid Civics, in addition the gas and time savings, I will most definitely get another hybrid vehicle in the future.
1. You will be flattened by an SUV.
2. When they try to extract you from said vehicle with the Jaws of Life, high voltage battery wires will short out resulting in a large fire.
3. Because said vehicle is a hybrid and not fully one way or another, the gasoline will burst into a ball of flames and consume you.
4. You will be flattened by an SUV
2. When they try to extract you from said vehicle with the Jaws of Life, high voltage battery wires will short out resulting in a large fire.
3. Because said vehicle is a hybrid and not fully one way or another, the gasoline will burst into a ball of flames and consume you.
4. You will be flattened by an SUV
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Don't drive much, do we? 100k miles is nothing. On a base model Accord hybrid, you'll be paying >$500/month on a 5-year payment plan. That's 60 months. 1667mi/month. 55mi/day. That's NOT much. Do you want it to start costing an arm and a leg to fix before you finish paying for it? Want satellite navigation, chrome wheels, ? I hope you work at home. Because you can only drive 43 miles each day.
The Civic hybrid takes a bit more driving to "kill" before it's paid off on the same $500/month payment plan. 67 miles a day, to be exact. That's even loaded! Nekkid, you can do even more. But there's one ENORMOUS problem... It's a Civic. You wouldn't DO more than 67 miles a day, because if you have to drive 67 miles a day, you appreciate the finer points of driving because otherwise you'd flip out and go insane. The Civic doesn't appreciate those finer points with a proper engine, much less with TWO engines.
And I swear to god if anyone says "It's a Honda, they don't break," I'll kill you. If you do 100k mi in ANY car, SOMETHING is going to need to be fixed. And frankly, if you do 100k in that Civic, it's YOU that's going to need to be fixed. I rode in the passenger seat of a Civic hybrid once. Up until that point, I'd thought Maryland's highways were rather smooth. I was wrong.
Want a Prius? A loaded prius is EXACTLY the same as the base model accord - you've got 55mi/day to drive. Base model is close to the Civic.
Escape Hybrid... I don't suppose Ford has this ridiculous warranty we're discussing, but lets pretend they do. Base model is virtually the same price as the base Accord, so to save me the time of recalculating everything again, it's 55mi/day. If you want it loaded... Well, I hope you don't want rear floor mats with your premium stereo, because Ford doesn't want that atrocity. But it's just a little tiny bit better than the loaded-for-bear Accord. 46 miles/day.
Now to berate these pieces of junk from another angle. Since the only one of these four that any sane person would buy is the Accord, lets configure one. The ATOT Accord Hybrid.
Lets see. What do we want. Well, we want Satellite navigation. Automatic transmission because, well, you can't have it any other way. Some alloy wheels. Fog lights. Chrome exhaust. Metal trim. A fancy pants rear-view mirror which automatically switches for night and day, and it has a compass, too! Oh, and the MP3 CD player, which for some reason, also plays WMA. That makes our Honda Accord Hybrid $35193. We have to drive that 43 miles or less every day to have it paid off before the warranty runs out.
On a standard Accord, with the petrol engine, we have to get the EX V6 version to get our satnav. Again, for some inexplicable reason, Honda won't sell us a manual transmission. But that also gets us 40 more horsepower than the hybrid. With the same kit, you get it for $33193. So you ONLY save $2000.
But will you spend $2000 more for gas in the Accord EX V6? Lets find out. The hybrid gets 29/37. We'll call that 33mpg. Never mind that the entire damned planet except for North America has diesels in cars this size that do better than that. Over 100,000 miles, the car will consume 3030 and some change gallons of gas. Honda specs regular unleaded, which is $7312.13 at today's current average price of $2.413.
Our EX V6 gets 21/30 - we'll call that 25.5mpg. Over 100,000 miles, that's 3921 and some change gallons. Again, Honda specs regular unleaded. $9462.75 worth of gas. A difference of exactly $2150.62. So the Hybrid comes out $150.62 on top. Or does it? You see, Honda specs the tune-up interval for both models at 105,000 miles. Just a few months after our warranty expires. There is NO doubt in my mind that this would cost at least $151 more to perform on the Hybrid, since there are WAY more than twice as many moving parts to degrade.
So - if you're buying a hybrid as an economic decision, you're a moron. If you're buying a hybrid for a driver's car, you're REALLY a moron. If you're buying a hybrid as a political statement, you're a moron. Write congress and the car companies and beg for a diesel instead. They might actually care. And since you probably have no idea what I'm on about - in Europe and Asia, there are diesel engines that don't suck at gas mileage. Take a big land-yacht of a car like a BMW 5-series. 53MPG for the diesel (converted to US units) vs. 37.8 for gas. Our version doesn't even have a gas engine that efficient (and/or the euro testing is done differently from the EPA). The US version gets 23.5mpg. So, even if my conversion is off, using proportions, the US diesel version would get 33mpg. In a land yacht like a 5-series! That's the same as our little tiny Accord HYBRID. Granted, diesel is just a tiny tiny tiny bit more expensive than gas.
But we're comparing a 5-series to an Accord. What about an Accord diesel? Well, the engine has it's own website... That's just freaky. But in US units (using teh proportions, again, instead of converting directly), a US Accord Diesel would get a MONSTROUSLY huge 47.5mpg. Has a car that does that been sold in the US, EVAR?
Cliffs: Hybrids suck, beg for those european diesel engines instead.
They cost EXACTLY the same over the "lifetime," with the hybrid edging out the normal model only after the warranty has expired and you're exposed to the sickeningly high parts costs involved with having two engines. See the mammoth post for proof of concept.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
It's a Honda, they don't break!
BTW-You are rambling on like an idiot. WTF are you talking about? $500/mo, 55 miles a day? Are you insane? And please show me a gas engine BMW 5 series that gets 37.8mpg.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter