Study Indicates That Electric Car Owners Could Be Saving $1200 A Year On Gas

I wouldn't say "saved". The electric cars carry a premium. It would be years before that premium could be outweighed to reflect fuel savings/costs.

20*1200=24k

Nissan Leaf cost 27.7k

27.7k-24k=3.7k

not sure what you smoking, 3.7k doesn't but you a new car. wake up already.


people often think the saving of the gas has to somehow recoup the entire cost of the car... in reality you need to recoup the premium between the hybrid vs non-hybrid car that has the SAME TRIM options (another thing people often mistaking is you have to compare apple with apple)

look at Camry Hybrid vs regular Camry. for the same Trim, hybrid cost about 3k more than the non-hybrid version. However, you getting on average 41 vs 30 mpg. so assuming gas at 4.3 dollar (which is what CA is paying now), and 15k driving per year, you are looking at 135 gallon gas, or 580 dollars of savings per year.

that works to be around 5 years.


oh, by the way, for the extra 3k you spending on hybrid version, you also getting 200 HP vs 170 HP with 0-60 7.2 sec vs 8.4 sec. the bump in the HP along would cost most car around 1~2k, that cuts recoup years from 5 to about a year or two.


see, it is not too difficult to have an objective comment, once you are not acting like a fan boy.

ghosthunter,

I don't see anywhere where he made that assumption. I have done an analysis of some vehicles (*cough* Lexus) where in order to make up the differential between hybrid and non-hybrid versons given time value of money along with assumptions about oil prices etc. and the amount driven it DOES take 20-years. FYI it wasn't the LS600h- it was an RX of some sort (it has been a long time). The point is that it isnt unheard of to see a 20 year payout.

$1,200 is just a starting point. They should add oil, filters, coolant, etc.

An electric car may not make sense to replace the Family Truckster, but it does for the commuter car.

Oil/Filters/Coolant are far cheaper consumables than the electric vehicle equivalent which are batteries ($7,000 after 100,000 miles); the better way to go with electric cars is lease them.

However, if you are a driving enthusiasts, this is a pointless argument. We buy cars because we love to drive, not because it is a necessary evil. Non-driving-enthusiasts should go to consumer reports and ignore discussions having to do with performance/style/fun, because fuel efficiency requires bad performance, ugly styling and zero fun.

I'm sure electric car buyers are like most BMW M-Car buyers: you sell the car just before the warranty expires to capitalize on resale costs.

Besides, the Leaf is the first true all-electric, mass produced car that has been on sale in the United States in a very long time. We don't know the longevity of the batteries yet. You can not use the Prius or the EV-1 as examples. Nissan is not using the same battery formula, as far as I know, as Toyota has with the Prius. Also, the EV-1 was never sold to the public and GM replaced the batteries.

"So it will take 20 years to recoup the extra cost. No thanks."

that's pretty obviously right? if my follow my calculation, then the only thing that would make sense to his statement is if you can buy gas powered Nissan leaf (which is not available) for 3.7 k. Since there is no new car in the states that cost as little as 3.7k (not even remotely). his statement is obviously flawed.

with that said, you falls into the second category: you are comparing apples with oranges. your logic is akin to saying people who buying 335 are crazy because 328 looks exactly the same. let's face it, higher output drive train cost money. non-hybrid RX provides 245 HP while hybrid RX provides 295 HP, an increase of 20%. are you tell me that a 20% increase in horsepower should not incur any price difference?

again, compare apple with apple. if my million dollar house that has LED lights cost 10 times more than your 100k apartment that has incandescent light, i didn't pay extra 900k just for the LED lights. it is for EVERYTHING.

You are a bit desparate aren't you? You are arguing with an analysis you haven't even seen. Let me point something out: The reason you compare apples to apples is based on the ASSUMPTION that that vehicle is the true alternative- meaning the person is considering purchasing it. Differences in horsepower don't matter if the direct analog doesn't exist; people don't purchase imaginary vehicles. They purchase a specific vechile with a specific price and must compare that with other specific vehicles at a specific price. In some cases people will set and effectively spend an entire budget such that their alternatives are effectively the same price. In that instance the more fuel effective vehicle will be better at time 0 simply because there would be no price difference to recover.

Don't play that last game with me, it makes you look like a pathetic passive agressive (and it is passive agressive- you are trying to say it without saying it) 14 year old who is desparately grasping at straws (and needs to pay more attention in english class). You don't know me, but it makes you look like a moron when my grandparents have owned animals worth more than your house.