Ford Escape Hybrid Price...

Unless you already have an order in with a dealership, forget about it. Ford has 5,000 more orders than vehicles it can built this year. The hybrid sill not have a rebate and the dealers will add $1,500 in smoke and mirrors, just like all the other dealers that now sell hybrids. They need to cover the costs of new tools and training as well has higher wages for their techs. By the way that $3,300 alone will buy ALL of the fuel for a regular V6 Escape for about FOUR years. It will take eight to ten years to break even on fuel costs on the difference in fuel mileage. The average new vehicle buyer in the US replaces their vehicle in three to four years. Buy hey if you want o save the world from global warming, and can afford to do so, go for it ;)

mike hunt

Greg wrote:

Don't forget the oppurtunity to make a quick buck when they have the upper hand. Nothing wrong here: it is the American way.

Don't forget taxes, a lack of discounts compared to other Escapes, etc.

There is, however, a $2000 tax deduction and up to $1500 in state tax credits, for savings of around $2000.

8 years x 12,000 mi / year = 100,000 mi. (I rounded a bit)

100,000 mi / 20 mi/gal = 5000 gal of fuel over 8 years.

100,000 mi / 35 mi/gal = just under 3000 gal, a difference of about 2000 gal of fuel over 8 years, which is about $3500. The actual savings I could see being from about $2000 to about $4500 depending on how the vehicle is driven (e.g., city vs. highway), the cost of gas, etc.

So with tax savings, you could come out behind by about $1000 to ahead by maybe $2000, a difference of less than 10% of the cost of the vehicle. If you subtract the $2500 rebate on a new 2004 Escape, it is hard to come out ahead.

Over 8 years, at best it is a break-even proposition. At least the truck has a 100,000 mi warranty on the hybrid components and the CVT. I wonder how dependable these will be after 8 years for the initial model year. Considering they got some of the technology from another vendor with more experience in Hybrids (Toyoda), I suspect the truck will be pretty dependable, but I wouldn't take a chance at the moment.

It won't save the world, but it will help. Not to mention help decrese the US's dependence on Iraqi oil. OF course, you can get a more fuel efficent car (like the VW diesel, take public transportation, or, heaven forbid, ride a bike).

Jeff

I hope a lot of buyers are willing to choose to pay the extra cost of owning a hybrid to save the plant and extend the worlds oil reserves. I will make more gasoline available for those of us that like to drive high power vehicles. The only problem is if there would be a decline in demand, as a result, the price of fuel will go up. ;)

mike hunt

Jeff wrote:

If there is a decline in demand of fuel, the price of fuel will go down.

Jeff

In your dreams, not as long as OPEC controls the production it will not go down.

mike hunt

Jeff wrote:

Actually, considering that there is oil produces in Latin America (that country that begins with a 'V' - I can't spell it and Mexico), Iraq isn't part of Opec any more, and Russia and other counties are making more oil, I would expect the oil price to go down maybe 10-20%. Opec doesn't want to stop the economic expainsion throughout the world, or else people won't need the oil. I think their target price is like $28-33 per barrel, versus around a market price of $40 now.

Besides, a 33% increase in the price of oil does not explain a 50% or 60% rise in gas prices, before taxes and the profit the gas station makes (which is about 10 or 12 cents per gallon).

Be that as it may, if the demand for oil goes down, the price of oil would be expected to go down, not up, as Mr. Brick Mason indicated. That is called the law of supply and demand.

Jeff

All of you who keep waving the "supply and demand" flag don't seem to understand one key flaw that you keep ignoring...if people are using less, why the heck should I (the refiner/oil producer) keep producing as much if nobody is going to use the excess? If anything, I'll cut production to keep the price where it is.

OK, but if demand goes down, that won't cause gas prices to go up.

That was my point.

Jeff

Supply and demand is not the only controller of crude price. The reason that OPEC can control the price of crude in a declining market is mid east oil production cost per barrel is at least $11 below that of any other supplier. Once the cost per barrel get down to $25 many suppliers reach their production cost. In addition mid east oil producers, over the past ten years have built their own refineries in their countries.

mike hunt

Jeff wrote:

Oil is produced in several Latin American countries including Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. Mexico is a "North American producer, although it is definitely also part of Latin America.

Only Venezuela and Mexico are really big exporters.

OPEC members are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.

As far as I know Iraq is still considered a member of OPEC. It will interesting to see how the "interim" government handles oil production starting next month.

The "law of supply and demand" is not a law at all. It is just a theory and the theory assumes there are a lot of independent buyers and seller operating in a free market. The oil industry has lot of independent buyers, but not a lot of independent sellers. OPEC has a large degree of monopoly power (and mostly that is held by the Saudis). This gives them the ability to set the price. Monopolies don't set the price at the free market price, they set the price that maximizes their profit. OPEC works to set the highest price consistent with maximizing income, while not encouraging alternate energy sources. If i was elected "King" of the US, one of the first things I would do would be to break the OPEC monopoly. A slowly escalating, but eventually very high tariff would be added to all petroleum. It might take 15 years, but I would do my best to stop buying a crucial raw material from one of the most unstable regions on earth. We are literally financing our own enemies.

True, except I don't know why they should be enemies. There is no reason why they can't be our friends, although we should eliminate our need on oil.

If I were King, I would start taxing energy, maybe staring at $3/barrel (or equivilent) and going up $3 per year. I would give a this back as a tax rebate, but the incentive would be there.

Jeff

Yes in favor of saving the world (SETTING AN EXAMPLE) and that is worth the money !