New 2004 Honda Civic Hybrid: Cost vs Savings

[Jimmy Snyder]

I just bought a 2004 HCH last night and will pick it up from the dealer tonight. Probably, when you figure all the energy flows during the production and useful life of the car, there isn't that much energy savings if any at all. However, at $3/gallon for gasoline, I figure it will take roughly three years to pay off the premium I paid over a Honda Civic without the Hybrid. So personally, I may save. I expect that the price of gas is unstable right now and will either go up or down from current levels. While down is obviously better, I may get a psychological boost if it goes up as then I will pay off the premium earlier.

In my opinion, this car is way cool. When you stop at a light, the gasoline engine conks out. When you put your foot on the pedal, the engine starts up again. I don't know if that really saves gas (apparently it doesn't for ordinary cars), but I figure it probably does, or they wouldn't have designed it that way.

 

[DaveC426913]

"When you put your foot on the pedal, the engine starts up again. I don't know if that really saves gas (apparently it doesn't for ordinary cars), but I figure it probably does, or they wouldn't have designed it that way."

Traditional IC engines require a lot of initial kick to get them running, they use MUCH more gas to start up than they do to run. Some say that when waiting idling for a few minutes, there is a threshold, below which you might as well just leave the engine on.


Also:
Don't buy a Hybrid car because you think it'll save you money. Buy a Hybrid car because you want to be an early adopter in a technology that promotes a cleaner world.

 

[chroot]

You'd be much better off, both financially an in your pursuit of environmental friendliness, if you'd bought the normal Civic and spent the extra money on a decent bicycle. Most car trips in the US are under two miles; ride the bike instead. Use the car only when you have to.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for hybrid technology and improvements in fuel efficiency. On the other hand, I'm amazed that the automotive industry has fleeced the American public into thinking that purchasing a hybrid car means you're being environmentally conscious. Now they've talked people into paying 20% more for cars that are 20% more efficient, and pat them on the back for being such wise consumers. American consumers are so attached to car culture that they're willing to pay exorbitant prices for "new technology" that barely even makes a dent in the problem.

The only real, meaningful solution to the pollution and energy problem in this country is to remove cars from the road. Ride a bike instead.

- Warren

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Ride a bike instead.

I don't know about that. I've been told that the internal combustion engine is the most efficient and least polluting solution to the problem that it solves. Have I been misinformed?

 

[chroot]

I don't know about that. I've been told that the internal combustion engine is the most efficient and least polluting solution to the problem that it solves. Have I been misinformed?

What problem is it solving, exactly? And who told you it was the most efficient solution? All it's done is allow people to build their "American dream" houses 50 miles out in sprawling suburbia, then spend two hours a day in their cars, dumping carbon into the atmosphere.

Now there's a new fad: purchase a hybrid car, which is 20% more efficient. Sit in the same traffic for two hours every day, and dump out a still-obscene, but slightly smaller amount of carbon. Smile and pat yourself on the back for being so environmentally-conscious.

- Warren

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

All it's done ...

It also feeds, clothes and houses 300,000,000 Americans. In India, they haven't mechanized yet and you see the result. More hunger and worse pollution.

 

[DaveC426913]

chroot, you make an excellent point. A hybrid car is lip service.


"...the internal combustion engine is the most efficient and least polluting solution to the problem that it solves..."
Sure, with this proviso tacked on: "...without actually giving up the right of every individual adult in the nation to drive a 2000lb hunk of steel to the corner store..."

 

[Astronuc]

I don't know about that. I've been told that the internal combustion engine is the most efficient and least polluting solution to the problem that it solves. Have I been misinformed?

I believe a bicycle, which has a mass of about 10-15 kg + a 70 kg rider is more efficient than using a car (and ICE) which moves 1000-1500 kg + the same 70 kg rider over the same distance, with more wind resistance. Of course, the car travels faster. However, the bicycle is much more efficient, and for short distances may be more practical.

 

[chroot]

It also feeds, clothes and houses 300,000,000 Americans. In India, they haven't mechanized yet and you see the result. More hunger and worse pollution.

I'm not suggesting that trucks and industrial vehicles shouldn't be used. The internal combustion engine, as you have said, contributes significantly to everyone's quality of life via the shipment of goods.

Are you also suggesting that the personal automobile is somehow responsible for feeding and clothing Americans? Do you think Americans could not get to the grocery store and the clothing store without personal automobiles?

I am constantly amazed at the ridiculous rationalizations of people who are totally, completely mired in American car culture.

Yes, yes... we'd all starve to death and wear nothing but rags if we all didn't have our own Lexus SUVs.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I believe a bicycle, which has a mass of about 10-15 kg + a 70 kg rider is more efficient than using a car (and ICE) which moves 1000-1500 kg + the same 70 kg rider over the same distance, with more wind resistance. Of course, the car travels faster. However, the bicycle is much more efficient, and for short distances may be more practical.

I burn 50 Calories per mile on my bicycle. That's an efficiency of well over 1000 miles / "gallon equivalent."

I'm not knocking the hybrid technology. I think it's great. At the same time, I think it's barely a dent in the problem. If people bought normal cars and drove them half as much (because they used bicycles or other means to get around for short trips), it'd have an enormously larger impact on the pollution and energy problems.

And, hell, they'd save tens of thousands of dollars a year, and weigh half as much as they do now.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

However, the bicycle...for short distances may be more practical.

And since the majority of American car trips are under two miles, using a bicycle for such short trips would constitute an enormous improvement in pollution, traffic, and many other problems.

And, truth be told, I can get through city traffic at least five times faster on a bike than in a car.

If only people would try it...

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

Chroot, you may note that its not very easy for a 90 pound housewife to haul 30 pounds of groceries home to her family of 5. Getting rid of cars in this day and age is a rediculous idea. And I really have tremendous difficulty believing you can get anywhere 5x faster in a bike than a car. I personally could not think of any place where i can realistically get to faster in a bike. Going 50mph vs. 15mph on side streets only is no comparison. Where exactly do you live?

 

[Astronuc]

In grad school, I lived about 2 miles from my office. It was faster to take the bicycle - where I could avoid the traffic, by-pass intersections, and get right to the door as opposed to parking in a parking lot which could take several minutes after which I'd still have to walk the equivalent of a football field.

I am strongly consider a bicycle again, although I have to travel 6.5 miles oneway between office and home, and I usually transport laptop and books/reports/bag.

 

[Pengwuino]

Where the hell do all you people live :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Im not within 2 miles of anything that i use regularly.

 

[chroot]

Pengwuino,

How many housewives in this country weigh 90 pounds? :rofl:

The only reason why think getting rid of cars is a ridiculous idea is because you are immersed in a culture which uses cars for everything and you've never tried anything else.

Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't have cars. They have their purposes -- long trips, heavy cargo, etc. However, carrying small cargo on a bike is not hard. Riding two miles on a bike is not hard.

The majority of American car trips are under two miles, have one occupant (the driver), and no cargo. I will dig up the official NHTSA statistics if you'd like. Such trips can absolutely, without any reasonable counterargument, be done on a bicycle.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I am strongly consider a bicycle again, although I have to travel 6.5 miles oneway between office and home, and I usually transport laptop and books/reports/bag.

Get a nice messenger bag! I suggest Chrome bags, from San Francisco. http://www.chromebags.com/ They're the favorites of messengers around here. I absolutely love mine. I can stuff 20 pounds in it and barely notice it on my lower back.

I say you should try the trip by bike. It'll only take you a half hour each way, you'll feel great, and you'll actually save more gas that jimmysynder ever will with his $35,000 hybrid car.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Im not within 2 miles of anything that i use regularly.

Then why the hell do you live there? That sounds like a stupid place to live. :rofl:

- Warren

 

[dav2008]

Chroot, for every mile that you ride your bicycle I'll drive three in my Hummer.

 

[MrOrange99]

I question the prices of the hybrids and if like gasoline prices, they are inflated.





_______________________________________

[[[[[[[[[[ MrOrange99 ]]]]]]]]]]
[[[[[[[[[[ Listening to : http://www.napster.com/player/tracks/16698158 ]]]]]]]]]]

 

[Pengwuino]

I must not get out enough because i can think of 1 place that i go at least once every 2 weeks that is within 2 miles and i usually go at roughly midnight so unless my bike has armor plating, I am not going out in a bike around here. But seriously, i can say the same thing back at you. The only reason you think getting rid of cars is a ridiculous idea is becaues you are immersed in a biking mindset which uses bikes for everything and you've never had to try anything else. How many times have you tried to bring groceries to a family in a bike or gone on a date in a bike or taken a vacation on a bike. The idea that I am wrong because i haven't tried it is a load. That's like if i said people can breathe using water if you're under 10,000 feet and you say you can't and my only response is "you only think that because you've never tried it"

 

[selfAdjoint]

All you bicycle fanatics are OT. The question is CARS, and the alternative to what jimmysnyder bought is some other car. Lots of people want to use CARS and they have a right to do so without being hassled by True Believers.

I could equally claim that walking the average two miles is even better for you, but unfortunately my own average distance is more like five miles; my "green" neighbors have jiggered the zoning laws in our village so we won't have any of them nasty polluting stores around.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Are you also suggesting that the personal automobile is somehow responsible for feeding and clothing Americans?

Absolutely!

 

[Pengwuino]

Then why the hell do you live there? That sounds like a stupid place to live. :rofl:

- Warren

Hey I am not the one who lives in the bay area :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:. I mean really, everytime i go to the bay area i can't help but notice how insanely crowded it is. Theres no freedom there. Walking around i felt like i was going to plow into a starbucks if i didnt keep my eyes on what's infront of me on the sidewalk.

 

[chroot]

And I really have tremendous difficulty believing you can get anywhere 5x faster in a bike than a car. I personally could not think of any place where i can realistically get to faster in a bike. Going 50mph vs. 15mph on side streets only is no comparison. Where exactly do you live?

Have you ever... tried it?

Listen, on Friday evenings, I generally pass literally 600-800 cars (extrapolated from counts I've done while flying past them) in just over a three mile section of road near my work. In any kind of traffic situation where the road is more than 70% capacity, I will absolutely own you on a bike. No question.

Now, if you're using a ten lane superhighway in the middle of night with no traffic, of course you'll beat me. Duh!

Again, most trips in this country are less than two miles, and are entirely on surface streets. If you give me an urban surface street > 70% capacity (i.e. at rush hour), I will beat you on a bike every single time.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

I must not get out enough because i can think of 1 place that i go at least once every 2 weeks that is within 2 miles and i usually go at roughly midnight so unless my bike has armor plating, I am not going out in a bike around here. But seriously, i can say the same thing back at you. The only reason you think getting rid of cars is a ridiculous idea is becaues you are immersed in a biking mindset which uses bikes for everything and you've never had to try anything else. How many times have you tried to bring groceries to a family in a bike or gone on a date in a bike or taken a vacation on a bike. The idea that I am wrong because i haven't tried it is a load. That's like if i said people can breathe using water if you're under 10,000 feet and you say you can't and my only response is "you only think that because you've never tried it"

Give me a break, dude, are you nuts? I own a car -- an expensive one, too. I drove it to work every day for years and years. I grew up in a family with more cars than people. Then I discovered something different, and better. I have never suggested that people use bikes for everything, so stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a family of five and have to carry 100 lbs of groceries, by all means, use your car. On the other hand, most households in the country do not have children, and have far fewer than five members.

I have said, quite correctly, that the majority of American car trips could be done on a bicycle instead with very little inconvenience, and enormous gains in pollution and energy expenditure. Your arguments re: breathing underwater are moronic and irrelevant.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Absolutely!

Are you kidding? You really think that without the automobile, people would not be able to obtain their basic necessities like food and clothing? What justification could you possibly have for this assertion? What did people do prior to the invention of the automobile?

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

Its very easy to figure it out mathematically. 15 minutes to go 15 miles in a car, go figure. Unless I am actually lance armstrong in disguise and don't mind showing up for a lecture drenched in sweat, it isn't happening.

Look at the central valley... what the hell is a traffic jam? I mean its probably better in rush hour trying to get downtown here and maybe if you're in about 3 miles of your office, its worth using a bike. Otherwise its a joke of a race. I can understand how you could develop such a narrow view on things living in hte bay area but come to a place like Fresno :yuck: and you wouldn't use your bike that much. I can believe "most trips" are taken within 2 miles because look at big cities! Everythings compact and built ontop of itself. :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: But look at about 99.999% of america. Not big cities.

 

[chroot]

All you bicycle fanatics are OT. The question is CARS, and the alternative to what jimmysnyder bought is some other car. Lots of people want to use CARS and they have a right to do so without being hassled by True Believers.

Listen, the OP was talking about buying a hybrid vehicle to save gas and money. I'm simply making the argument that it's a hardly a way to save a significant amount of gas and money. There are better, easier ways.

- Warren

 

[DaveC426913]

But seriously, i can say the same thing back at you. The only reason you think getting rid of cars is a ridiculous idea is becaues you are immersed in a biking mindset which uses bikes for everything and you've never had to try anything else.

That's a counterargument that is beneath you Penguino. Biking does not have demonstrably wasteful, harmful effects that we as a society have agreed need to be minimized.

How many times have you tried to bring groceries to a family in a bike or gone on a date in a bike or taken a vacation on a bike.

We have built cities and moved to the suburbs and adopted a car-based lifestyle to such an extent that the grocery store is now too far away to get to by any other means than car.

We live in the environment we do because we drive cars.

But we don't have to. We can make choices.

 

[Pengwuino]

Give me a break, dude, are you nuts? I own a car -- an expensive one, too. I drove it to work every day for years and years. I grew up in a family with more cars than people. Then I discovered something different, and better. I have never suggested that people use bikes for everything, so stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a family of five and have to carry 100 lbs of groceries, by all means, use your car. On the other hand, most households in the country do not have children, and have far fewer than five members.

I have said, quite correctly, that the majority of American car trips could be done on a bicycle instead with very little inconvenience, and enormous gains in pollution and energy expenditure. Your arguments re: breathing underwater are moronic and irrelevant.

- Warren

The only real, meaningful solution to the pollution and energy problem in this country is to remove cars from the road. Ride a bike instead.

Don't be immature and don't assume everything would be done with little inconvenience since I am sure you rarely do a lot of the things necessary to maintain a real family in anything other then NY or LA. Your argument has basically been "I know everything about other peoples lives and any other argument is wrong because everyone else is brainwashed by their culture". This is ridiculous.

 

[chroot]

Its very easy to figure it out mathematically. 15 minutes to go 15 miles in a car, go figure. Unless I am actually lance armstrong in disguise and don't mind showing up for a lecture drenched in sweat, it isn't happening.

How often do you go 60 miles an hour? As I've said repeatedly -- over and over and over again in this thread -- the majority of American car trips are (1) under two miles (2) have one occupant (3) have no cargo and (4) do not involve freeways. These are the trips I am suggesting should be done on bicycles instead. Not trips to LA down Interstate 5.

Look at the central valley... what the hell is a traffic jam? I mean its probably better in rush hour trying to get downtown here and maybe if you're in about 3 miles of your office, its worth using a bike. Otherwise its a joke of a race. I can understand how you could develop such a narrow view on things living in hte bay area but come to a place like Fresno :yuck: and you wouldn't use your bike that much. I can believe "most trips" are taken within 2 miles because look at big cities! Everythings compact and built ontop of itself. :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: But look at about 99.999% of america. Not big cities.

The majority of Americans now commute suburb-to-suburb. The average commute distance continues to rise, but it's still well within the range of a bicycle.

Besides, you're the one who wanted to race me. I don't ride a bicycle because it's faster -- on most trips, I admit, it's not. I ride a bicycle because (1) it saves money (2) it saves natural resources (3) it's fun and (4) I refuse to be a lardass like 70% of the people in the country.

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

We have built cities and moved to the suburbs and adopted a car-based lifestyle to such an extent that the grocery store is now too far away to get to by any other means than car.

We live in the environment we do because we drive cars.

But we don't have to. We can make choices.

So all cities should be made in such a way that there's 15,000 people per square mile? You can have it.

 

[Pengwuino]

The majority of Americans now commute suburb-to-suburb. The average commute distance continues to rise, but it's still well within the range of a bicycle.

Besides, you're the one who wanted to race me. I don't ride a bicycle because it's faster -- on most trips, I admit, it's not. I ride a bicycle because (1) it saves money (2) it saves natural resources (3) it's fun and (4) I refuse to be a lardass like 70% of the people in the country.

- Warren

Your whole argument has been based on the idea that we should do it because its "faster". What are you trying to pull here?

 

[chroot]

Don't be immature and don't assume everything would be done with little inconvenience since I am sure you rarely do a lot of the things necessary to maintain a real family in anything other then NY or LA. Your argument has basically been "I know everything about other peoples lives and any other argument is wrong because everyone else is brainwashed by their culture". This is ridiculous.

No. That's not my argument at all, kid.

Here, let me repeat it AGAIN:

The majority of American car trips are (1) under two miles (2) have one occupant (3) have no cargo and (4) do not involve freeways. These are the trips I am suggesting should be done on bicycles instead. Using a bicycle for such trips would have a far, far greater impact on both the American wallet, waistline and envrionment than buying an expensive hybrid car and using it for the same trips.

- Warren

 

[Pengwuino]

Well I am surprised you have resorted to insults and changing your argument mid-stream. I am done wasting my time.