Greetings and Camry Hybrid

I've lurked around this group for a while, and have found it very
interesting and useful. Thanks to all those who've left helpful info in
the archives. And thanks to Tegger for maintaining a worthwhile FAQ.

My DIY ambitions don't extend byond changing my oil, PCV and air
filter, but I know enough to keep my '96 Accord LX AT in tip-top shape.
I had the timing belt and cracking CV boots replaced at 97,000 miles -
all other upkeep according to schedule. I'm at 102,000 now, and the car
runs like new, especially with a new set of Potenzas and three coats of
Klasse sealant glaze. I fully expect it to continue to run (and be fun
to drive) until I'm ready for a new car - when some lucky buyer
inherits my baby.

So I'm definitely a Honda fan. I love the reliability, attention to
detail, ergonomics and sprightly drive. But right now I'm thinking the
unthinkable: I may end up buying a Camry if Honda doesn't re-evaluate
it's hybrid strategy.

I don't plan to get a new car until probably 2008, when I'm at about
150,000-200,000 on the LX. But if gas prices are still ~3.00/gallon or
more when I do, mid-size, economical hybrids will be on my short list.
The new Camry hybrid, with a combined (electric and gas) 192 bhp,
realistic (not EPA) mid-30's mileage city and highway and normal,
non-funky-hybid design, priced below the top-of-the-line V-6 model,
seems to be a formidable combination.

The Accord Hybrid is no doubt an impressive machine. It has power and
luxury to spare, but doesn't offer value or economy the way the Camry
hybrid does.

So we'll see what happens in 2008. Unless I'm missing something about
Honda's hybrid strategy, the next generation Accord will offer a
mid-size option with real economy. If not, I think the sales figures we
will see from the Camry hybrid will show a huge missed opportunity for
Honda. It seems to me that a 4 cylinder, ~160hp Accord EX hybrid in the
mid to upper 30 mpg range would command a good chunk of the hybrid
market. It would definitely be at the top of my list. But I've been
wrong before.

 

When you can go out and buy a used Accord EX and get 35mpg on the
freeway in summer with the A/C on, you re-think the whole hybrid thing.

And what about safety? From what I've seen, there's no question that
Honda is one of the safest, if not the safest, cars on the road.

 

Wife and I saw a Prius on a dealer's lot last week. Going by the sticker in
the window, we determined that if she were to drive a Prius the way she
drives her Tercel right now, it would take fifteen years of gas savings to
recoup the cost of a new Prius over a new Corolla, even when disregarding
financing costs

Hybrids are bought as a political statement. The have no other function.

 

Exactly so.

 

What you say is true but you are not telling the whole story. Toyota
Hybrids get their best mpg in town, not on the highway. So if the OP
uses his car in a way that takes best advantage of the Hybrid Synergy
Drive he can save $$ at the gas pump. The Camry Hybrid lists for $26K,
several thousands more than a comparable I4 Camry (which gets as good
mpg as an Accord) but the potential is there for a $500/year savings in
fuel. Not to mention any tax or HOV advantages.

Bottom line, Honda's hybrid assist is simple but fails to deliver the
advantages of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. If you drive in town, a
Toyota hybrid could save you money over the long haul. If most of your
miles are on the highway, hybrids can't deliver the goods unless you
drive real slow - see AuotWeek's article on their day trip comparing a
Jeep SUV, Corvette, Accord Hybrid, Prius and Jetta TDI. (Yes, the Jetta
got the best $$/mile by a wide margin.)

You're on thin ice here. Honda is safe but no safer than Toyota. In
fact, the 2007 Camry has safety features not available on the Accord.
Still, I'd rather be in a Mercedes S-class if I had the choice.

 

What are also bought as a political statement are those "Smart" cars
available in Canada. Those are some expensive phone booths.

You could never save enough on gas to make up for the inflated purchase
price. They're always bought by affluent-looking people in their late-40s
or older. And in spite of that, Mercedes loses money on each one sold.
Stupid.

 

Actually I would rather NOT be in an accident in a Ford Pinto than in an
accident in ANY car.

 

You sound like you have something hard and sharp up your butt.

You're forgetting some key points. One is that not everybody drives the car
like your wife drives her. The other is that you assume you'll always be
able to get fuel. Finally, you're assuming hybrid vehicles are going to
remain slightly expensive. Their relevance to your own situation may vary
in each case, but what if... oooh... fuel quadruples in price? Would the
car pay for itself in three years then?

But regardless, from the sounds of it your wife does a pretty limited
mileage? Then a car is the *last* thing she needs. Walk. Get the bus.
Get the train. Use a push bike.

 

You may have to refresh my memory, but the hybrid Accord is a V6 isn't it?
There are two things that impress me most about the Prius. No, no, three.
One is how bloody clever Toyota are. Two is how much squirt the combined
engines have in the performance stakes. Three, how efficient it is.

But in this case, do you *need* the Accord? In my ever so humble opinion
people riding in the back are freeloaders and can put up with less room...
so what about the Civic?

 

Hmm. Perhaps. Hybrid technology comes into its own under certain
conditions, and the motorway isn't one of them.

Thing is about safety is the number of gadgets doesn't necessarily reflect
the safety of it all.

 

No.

 

Nope. Smart have the right idea. The average number of seats being
occupied in most major cities around the world is 1.2. Smart give you 2.0.
What is the point in having a car with 5.0 seats if for 90% of the time only
one person sits in it? That's the ethos behind the Smart.

You need to think outside your own nation.

Yes you absolutely can. Depends on what you're comparing it with and what
you need. Also depends on the fuel price. When the price of fuel
quadruples, it's amazing how people can suddenly make compromises.

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but you're dismissing most of the point.

You cite this as though it's a bad thing, though?

 

Sometimes a V-6, sometimes a "3" with some excess weight. ;-)

That would be my question about all of the recent hybrids. They are back
into a horsepower race, not an MPG race.

I read an article that said that the "green" market had been saturated.
All of the people inclined to buy an Insight bought them long ago. The
Civic and the Prius can be used by normal people, but that market has been
saturated as well, so along come the vehicles where you get to say you're
green while peeling rubber in an SUV.

Is the Camry hybrid about better MPG, or more power?

 

192 HP? Why would you want that, if your goal is economy?

I'm not sure what "funky" means in this context. The Toyota would be the
space age variety, a completely hybrid design. The Honda system is far
simpler and more elegant, easily fitted to any existing vehicle. I don't
see that as funky. I don't agree with fitting the Accord Hybrid with a V-6
for more power, instead of a 4 for more MPG, but that's where the hybrid
market is headed.

If it's another couple of years before your 12 year old car has 120,000
miles on it, then a hybrid is not about saving gas money. I think you need
to hit 100,000 miles before the hybrid pays off, and if that's going to be
10 years, you could do something else with the money.

I don't know. The V-6 hybrid production is being cut, which might indicate
an I-4 in the future, or nothing.