MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
 ·Comcast
| reply to rantou
Re: What about that marketing scheme???
said by rantou  :So they will use gas guzzling Hummers for advertising, but they want to be green otherwise? Sounds like the pot called the kettle black! They don't give a crap about the environment. They want to save money on gas. Anything that will cut costs is positive for them and much needed. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by MadMANN :They want to save money on gas. Anything that will cut costs is positive for them and much needed. Hybrid vehicles generally cost so much more than gasoline powered equivalents that any savings from gas use is minimal at best.
According to the article, Verizon had their vans equipped with after-market hybrid technology. This process adds significantly more cost to the vehicles (assuming they were purchased new). It is unlikely they will recoup any savings from gasoline purchases using this approach.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :According to the article, Verizon had their vans equipped with after-market hybrid technology. This process adds significantly more cost to the vehicles (assuming they were purchased new). It is unlikely they will recoup any savings from gasoline purchases using this approach. As a field tech, I put about $100-125 in my tank every week. In a year, that's $5200. In five years (the average life of a field vehicle, sometimes more), that would be $26,000. So you are telling me that a hybrid truck would cost close to $26,000 more than a normal truck?
The savings are obvious. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by MadMANN :As a field tech, I put about $100-125 in my tank every week. In a year, that's $5200. In five years (the average life of a field vehicle, sometimes more), that would be $26,000. So you are telling me that a hybrid truck would cost close to $26,000 more than a normal truck? The savings are obvious. What is not being told here is how much Verizon spent on each vehicle to have it converted. Given how much more hybrid cars cost than non-hybrid cars, it is not reasonable to assume that the cost of converting each vehicle for hybrid use could be that high. For example, compare the cost of a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid Sedan to a non-hybrid Honda Civic Sedan. The hybrid costs about $7500 more than the non-hybrid (assuming the lowest MSRPs are used).
Another factor is that hybrid cars realize much of their gas savings from the fact that they are small. Compare the 4 cylinder Saturn VUE SUV to its non-hybrid counterpart. The former gets 27-32 MPG and the latter gets 22-27 MPG. That isn't exactly a stellar difference.
I am also assuming that a field truck gets more abuse than a standard car, so there might also be a battery replacement needed (especially since older batteries lose their ability to retain charge). There's another ding in the potential savings.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to MadMANN
said by MadMANN :said by pnh102 :According to the article, Verizon had their vans equipped with after-market hybrid technology. This process adds significantly more cost to the vehicles (assuming they were purchased new). It is unlikely they will recoup any savings from gasoline purchases using this approach. As a field tech, I put about $100-125 in my tank every week. In a year, that's $5200. In five years (the average life of a field vehicle, sometimes more), that would be $26,000. So you are telling me that a hybrid truck would cost close to $26,000 more than a normal truck? The savings are obvious. No, I am telling you that the 10 to 20% fuel savings ($5,000 over 5 years in your example) does not cover the cost of the conversion.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
mtech
join:2002-10-20
Jonesboro, AR
| reply to MadMANN
Your math is off. You are looking at total fuel cost, not difference in fuel costs between the two types of vehicle. 18-21 mpg for hybrid vs.16-22 mpg for standard engine (per specs for Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Work Truck). That works out to an 11% savings for in-town driving and a loss for highway driving. Assuming only in-town driving, that works out to $11 to $14 savings per week. In a year, that would be a savings of only $572 to $728 and a savings of $2625 to $3640 over a five year lifespan. There is approximately $6000 difference in retail prices between a hybrid and a standard engine Silverado.
Not so obvious savings.
I totally support research into alternatives, but the solution is not there yet. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Hybrid vehicles generally cost so much more than gasoline powered equivalents that any savings from gas use is minimal at best. Possibly true. However, if I had a choice on wether to use my money to fund further further fuel consumption (from dubious countries overseas), or spend it on an innovative product, I'd personally rather not fund that whole region as much as possible. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to jaa
said by jaa :No, I am telling you that the 10 to 20% fuel savings ($5,000 over 5 years in your example) does not cover the cost of the conversion. My previous 2000 Camry was getting 20 MPG. My 2007 Camry Hybrid is getting an actual ~32 MPG. That was certainly more of a savings than 10%. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Thaler
said by Thaler :I'd personally rather not fund that whole region as much as possible. I agree completely... I just think that hybrids are not the best solution to that problem. I would suggest opening up more US territory to oil production, opening more refineries in the USA, pushing for significantly higher fuel economy standards for all vehicles, and possibly funding a "no holds barred" effort to develop an alternative fuel that uses raw materials that are found or manufactured in abundance in the USA.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Like natural gas? There's a series on Discovery running for the past month called Future Car. One of the portions is on new fuels, and a natural gas engine is covered that looks pretty feasible. Since we already have a national distribution network (right to your house!) it would be REALLY easy to kick this off. Plus natural gas has VERY low emissions. Many public transportation systems already use natural gas, and the US produces collects most of the natural gas it uses domestically. Of course it would just be a patch. Hydrogen is even better.
And before you say, "but it's explosive!" so is gasoline.. using nat gas or hydrogen is actually safer as a leak will naturally disperse upwards instead of covering the occupants in flammable liquid and cooking them alive... |
|
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
What we realy needto do in the short term, is reduce the cost of hybrids. If there isent/wasent such a major price diffrence, then hybrids would be more main stream, get them down to the range of manual v.s. automatic tranys and then we'll see them realy take off. BTW ever notice how widely available automatic tranys are now, and the big price diffrence when they first started to come out? nowadays on most vehicles it a less that 1,000 diff for an auto trany. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :I agree completely... I just think that hybrids are not the best solution to that problem. I would suggest opening up more US territory to oil production, opening more refineries in the USA, pushing for significantly higher fuel economy standards for all vehicles, and possibly funding a "no holds barred" effort to develop an alternative fuel that uses raw materials that are found or manufactured in abundance in the USA. I'd agree to opening up oil/fuel resources more...if it could actually be fruitful to a stopgap measure awaiting future alternative fuels. Oil is a limited resource, nomatter how one chooses to address the issue. However, I'm lending to believe that in the current economy, simply opening up territory will only lend to short-term profits by the oil industry with little interest paid into alternative fuel sources. Should energy become more impending a concern in the future, no doubt alternative fuel research investments will have to be a bloated government-funded kickoff, as these companies are currently too entrenched with the profit margin they enjoy now.
The future energy problem is complex, and I doubt there's a one-size-fits-all solution like hybrids...but it's a start. In the here-and-now, however, buying a hybrid car (longterm) is less resources used, less money funding "iffy" regions, and a marginal savings. I'd say the money was well worth it, even if I broke even. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Thaler
You can't compare a car built in 2000 with one built in 2007. A 2007 Camry gets 24/34 vs 40/38 for the hybrid. Making it 11% savings on the highway and 40% in the city. Assuming you had an even mix of driving you get a 26% average savings.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to MadMANN
As others stated, only an electric truck will eliminate the $26,000 cost you mention, the actual savings will be a wash compared to the cost of the conversion.
In the end the added cost of conversion is a wash. This is the case with most hybrids, with the biggest benefit not being a cost savings but a more "green" vehicle.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to cmaenginsb
said by cmaenginsb :You can't compare a car built in 2000 with one built in 2007. A 2007 Camry gets 24/34 vs 40/38 for the hybrid. Making it 11% savings on the highway and 40% in the city. Assuming you had an even mix of driving you get a 26% average savings. I can't? My 2000 Camry was rated 23/32, yet I still only saw ~20 MPG actual performance for this terrain. A 2007 Camry is only better on the specs by 1-2 MPG.
All I know is that my obtained MPG in the 2007 hybrid was effectively 160% that of my 2000 car which still retains specs similar to that in the base Camry model today. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to RIRWIN1983
said by RIRWIN1983 :What we realy needto do in the short term, is reduce the cost of hybrids. Hybrids are of limited supply, and the demand is great. The price could very well be lower, but dealers are capable of selling them at suggested retail, or even marking them up for the added "green" factor. My 2007 Hybrid Camry was a relative "steal" for getting it ~$1k under sticker price.
...or at least that's how the dealers in So. Cal. operate. |
|
RIRWIN1983
join:2005-08-30
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Well in Cali your in the 3-4/gal range thus i think the dealers can get away with that a lil more than back out here where were sub 2/gal area. i can understand the cost big auto has in researching and developing this tech, but they could get a faster reurn on that expence if they dident price them so far out of most peoples willingess to spend, even if it means saving money on gas. I would fully buy a hybrid car, only if it dident mean working 3 jobs just to afford the "luxury" of being envio frendly. |
|
CConverse
join:2006-01-31
Syracuse, NY
| reply to MadMANN
You know what? If they're saving $$$, GREAT!!! Maybe it will send the message to other businesses that they can take steps to become environmentally responsible without cutting into profits, if not potentially increasing them after the initial investment.
Kudos to Verizon. They just gained a lot of points in my book today. (and they had a pretty good debt racked up, too...) |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| reply to cmaenginsb
said by cmaenginsb :You can't compare a car built in 2000 with one built in 2007. A 2007 Camry gets 24/34 vs 40/38 for the hybrid. Making it 11% savings on the highway and 40% in the city. Assuming you had an even mix of driving you get a 26% average savings. I don't know in what areas they are deploying the hybrids, but in metro areas like NYC, almost ALL of the driving these guys do is "city" driving which is where the hybrids (of any size) really shine. Verizon is a greedy company, they would not do this just to enhance their public image.
We also don't know if these hybrid systems they are using have a plug or not. If they do, then they are going to "fill up" overnight and save even more (an all electric car is far, far cheaper to "gas up" than a gasoline car). |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| reply to CConverse
said by CConverse :You know what? If they're saving $$$, GREAT!!! Maybe it will send the message to other businesses that they can take steps to become environmentally responsible without cutting into profits, if not potentially increasing them after the initial investment. I agree. |
|
