Anybody got any pull with Toyota?

My criticism of the GM Hybrid has nothing to do with a comparison to anything other than their own products.

The gas burning GM 1500 pickup cost $17K- $20K and got 15/19 MPG.

The Hybrid cost $25K- $30K and got 18/21 MPG.

So, for a 50% increase on the price tag, I get an extra 3 MPG. At a time when gas cost $1.50 per gallon.

The math wasn't even close to working. Unless I was interested in investing in the gimmick.

18/21 MPG is not what I call "real" hybrid territory. I looked at these vehicles. Just couldn't justify the added cost and complexity of the vehicle for an additional 3 MPG. I bought a used diesel instead.

SVreX wrote: My criticism of the GM Hybrid has nothing to do with a comparison to anything other than their own products. The gas burning GM 1500 pickup cost $17K- $20K and got 15/19 MPG. The Hybrid cost $25K- $30K and got 18/21 MPG. So, for a 50% increase on the price tag, I get an extra 3 MPG. At a time when gas cost $1.50 per gallon. The math wasn't even close to working. Unless I was interested in investing in the gimmick. 18/21 MPG is not what I call "real" hybrid territory. I looked at these vehicles. Just couldn't justify the added cost and complexity of the vehicle for an additional 3 MPG. I bought a used diesel instead.

Yes, but a year ago gas wasn't $1.50/gallon, and you also don't need to haul around a generator if you normally would. Then you start to get into a more sensible purchase (but still few bought them). Not sensible enough to justify from a purely economic standpoint, but no hybrid to date does pay off purely from economics. Priced out a Lexus hybrid lately???? If you're interested purely in economics, you're not going to buy a new vehicle at all, let alone one with the latest hybrid technology. So why do you want Toyota (or whoever) to build a brand new whizbang that you're not going to buy anyway? The math won't work out. Heck, you can get a used Silverado hybrid for half the price of what they sold for new that gets the same fuel economy as your diesel Ford but uses cheaper fuel and has a whole slew of benefits (both from being a newer vehicle and from being hybrid) and you still won't buy one. Why would you, the math doesn't work out and it's just a gimmick...that mentality is why it's so hard to sell hybrid trucks. You're even open minded and informed and you still think it's a gimmick even with fuel at $4+ a gallon.

Don't worry, with the new EPA requirements it won't require you wanting to pay for a vehicle to force companies to make them. The fuel economy of vehicles will be much better with the new regulations coming into effect in coming years. Unfortunately, that also means prices are going to continue to rise just as they have with increased emissions, fuel economy, and safety regulations in the past. So, you (the consumer) won't see much effect of it because you won't want to pay for the more expensive vehicles and you'll just keep using the older ones because it's more economically feasible.

Bryce

So, you are suggesting that the 3 MPG gain was worth it???

The reason the Prius is a success is that Toyota went all out in developing new solution to an age old problem, and built it for the masses.

When other hybrid builders were building ONLY 2 seaters, Toyota had the guts to bring out the only 4 door hybrid.

And just where are all those Insights now???

They offered a COMPLETE, NO-EXCUSES package, and backed it 100%

GM hybrid truck offered a wacko bolt-on that was just a weird modification of an existing truck, with very minimal benefits at a very large premium.

GM's next venture (the Volt) will at least be a full attempt, but they have failed to adequately assess the market and the costs, so they will roll one out to prove a point, heavily subsidized, and doomed.

Meanwhile, Toyota will blow them away with continued strong growth in an already proven formula (the Prius), sensibly and incrementally better.

I invite you to quote me in 2010 when they both hit the streets.

I would HAPPILY buy the first full package sensible vehicle that could reasonably address the daily needs of my construction business. The GM hybrid was certainly NOT it.

BTW- I have crunched the numbers. We could EASILY run our construction business with a small fleet of micro trucks (72" wheelbase) and 1 or 2 larger tow vehicles. Unfortunately, those vehicles aren't legal in this country.

Yet the insight pulled 70 highway. and was the only hybrid with a manual transmision. The first hybrids needed to be this efficient. If any of these companies rolled out something like the craptacular tahoe hybrid (or half of the other mediocre Hybrids) back in '01-'02, hybrid tech would have been laughed away.

It is what it is, which is UGLY. Those taillights have nothing to do with the body shape, utility, etc. They are just plain ugly, poorly executed, nasty looking junk that don't match the styling of the vehicle at all. That track built into the side of the car for the door to slide has nothing to do with aerodynamics, etc. Minivans have been hiding the door slider for a long while now, Mazda just didn't get the memo, it's ugly. The multiple small windows inserted into the doors (between the a-pillar and mirror and forward of the c-pillar) look ridiculous, serves no gain (except allowing you to roll the windows up and down further because they didn't account for that in their packaging). The back window (between c and d pillar) is painted to look like a porthole window while all of the other windows are squared off...what gives? I don't care for the front end styling, but that's pretty subjective and it's not nearly as horrible as the taillights so I'll leave that be. It's quite clear that the Mazda group didn't spend much on styling, instead focusing on the chassis otherwise. That's fine and dandy for people who don't care if their car is ugly, but to deny its being ugly is silly. There are other minivans that aren't ugly, this one is ugly. While most minivans go for non-descript, they at least avoid ugly. Maybe you really like the cupholders or the color of the seats, whatever floats your boat, but the outside is ugly. The Aztek is ugly, sure it's a great utility vehicle but even their fans will admit they're styled poorly (especially the first model)...I would hope Mazda 5 owners would concede the same. Bryce

You clearly have a lot of angst towards the Mazda5.

Hopefully, as time progresses, the pain caused by your dog being run over by one will pass and you will be able to appreciate the 5 for the wonderful compromise vehicle that it is.

We love ours (2007 5 speed manual) and get compliments on it daily (primarily women that think it's "cute" or "sporty"). Personally, I'm glad that they're not selling well since nothing bothers me more than seeing my car at every corner.

As for mileage, we average 26-27 with probably 80% short-trip city driving.

Seems to me that one niche that has never been effectively filled is the small econo truck, and Toyota is in the perfect position to fill it. Every little truck out there is still dismal in the fuel economy arena, except perhaps the old VW Rabbit diesel (the Caddy), which left a lot to be desired as a hauler. But there is an ENORMOUS number of US buyers that simply want a 2 seater with a hauling box behind it. Now that fuel prices are up enough, I'm convinced there would be buyers for a fuel saving truck.

That 'niche' was filled succesfully for years by all the major manufacturers. My Canyon gets exceptionally good gas mileage, especially considering how big that small truck is. I think you are wrong about how many people want to drive a small truck. I would bet that the majority want to drive the biggest, most comfortable truck they can possible afford, and only drive a midsize truck as a concession.

SVreX wrote: So, you are suggesting that the 3 MPG gain was worth it??? GM's next venture (the Volt) will at least be a full attempt, but they have failed to adequately assess the market and the costs, so they will roll one out to prove a point, heavily subsidized, and doomed. I would HAPPILY buy the first full package sensible vehicle that could reasonably address the daily needs of my construction business. The GM hybrid was certainly NOT it.

Well, let's do some quick math. If you bought the hybrid Silverado last year at a $5000 premium, at $4/gallon you'd have to save 1250 gallons of fuel to break even on the thing purely on fuel costs. If you drive 15,000 miles/year, at 15 mpg average that's 1000 gallons per year. At 18 mpg average that's 833 gallons per year. So, with 167 gallons per year saved it'd take a bit under 8 years (around 100k miles) to break even purely on fuel savings. This is completely ignoring any monetary gains by not having to purchase/haul around a generator, and assumes that the vehicle you were going to buy a new standard Silverado otherwise. Is it worth it? I would say that's up to the consumer, some people buy diesels just because, some people buy Fords just because, some people buy hybrids just because. If your business was building/remodeling with renewable this and green that, then obviously a hybrid is brilliant if for no other reason than image/marketing.

Doing the same exact comparison with a Matrix and Prius ($5000 premium, $4/gallon, 15,000 miles/year) and assuming 45 vs 30 average mpg, it takes the same amount of time (about 8 years, 100k miles) to break even on fuel. Why do you act like I've got the wool pulled over my eyes??? I'm running the numbers, here they are. Why is the Prius such a success and the Silverado hybrid such a failure from a purely economic standpoint? While I agree the latest Prius is pretty well designed, it's also in the third generation so you expect as much.

I'm not some GM fanboi, although I am very hip to hybrids when they make sense. They don't always make dollar sense, sometimes there are fringe benefits that also carry intangible value, it totally depends on the person/company. Like I said, the Silverado hybrid isn't the greatest implementation, but I do think it was good considering it was the first of it's kind. Subsidized rollouts would be standard fare for this kind of stuff, analysts speculate that it wasn't until the latest generation Prius that Toyota was actually making profit. All of the EV cars (all the OEMs had one at some point) were subisidized. Toyota took a hit on the first/second gen Prius to get them out there, tons of reasons for it, but they have shown that it was a wise investment. GM's smart to learn something from Toyota in this case, IMO.

FWIW, I have used a Silverado hybrid before. It was kind of clunky in traffic, but it sure makes a good support vehicle for the endurance races.

That_Renault_Guy wrote: You clearly have a lot of angst towards the Mazda5.

Yeah, for the engineer in me it's just a pet peeve of mine to see big dollar projects skip over such huge details. I am always shocked at how a vehicle that's obviously had TONS of money spent on it get through all of the engineers, managerial approval process, designs, etc. without somebody saying "this is good, but wouldn't it be better if...?" early on in the design process when it would have actually made the vehicle cheaper AND better. The devil is in the details, that's for sure.

Bryce

Yeah, for the engineer in me it's just a pet peeve of mine to see big dollar projects skip over such huge details. I am always shocked at how a vehicle that's obviously had TONS of money spent on it get through all of the engineers, managerial approval process, designs, etc. without somebody saying "this is good, but wouldn't it be better if...?" early on in the design process when it would have actually made the vehicle cheaper AND better. The devil is in the details, that's for sure. Bryce

That's fine, but all of the items you mentioned are styling cues that are entirely subjective - there are no right/wrong answers and what might be "better" for you may be "worse" for someone else.

IMHO, the 5 is the best looking of the small one-box cars out there (although I'm honestly not too crazy about the tail lights). Add the versatility of the six seats/sliding doors and the almost sports-car feel and I'm sold.

Nashco wrote: Is it worth it? I would say that's up to the consumer...

On that we agree. Since the Prius is dominating the market and the GM hybrid truck is no more, I think the consumer has reached a verdict loud and clear.

The GM hybrid truck is coming out again for '09...the hybrid truck chassis previously used is no longer being sold, the new chassis is using an all new design (the "two-mode" setup). There is a time gap between retiring the old hybrid chassis and releasing the hybrid on the new chassis.

Bryce

Nashco wrote: Subsidized rollouts would be standard fare for this kind of stuff, analysts speculate that it wasn't until the latest generation Prius that Toyota was actually making profit.

That is certainly true, and I agree wholeheartedly.

The point, however, is that Toyota put enough of an effort behind it that they WERE able to eventually turn a profit.

I have my doubts on the Volt. If it's a dog, they will get stomped by Toyota quickly and they will pull it off the market to cut their losses rapidly. If it is a success, I am not willing to underestimate GM's ability to blow their market advantage even with a superb product, consider the EV1.

Hybrid development is about R&D, complete and comprehensive design from bumper to bumper, understanding your market, significant investment, significant risk, and the tenacity to stand behind your product and follow through while you develop a new market from scratch. GM simply hasn't proven their willingness to go the distance. Toyota has.

Nashco wrote: The GM hybrid truck is coming out again for '09...the hybrid truck chassis previously used is no longer being sold, the new chassis is using an all new design (the "two-mode" setup). There is a time gap between retiring the old hybrid chassis and releasing the hybrid on the new chassis. Bryce

I'll look forward to seeing their next attempt.