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 ;)
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
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
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. ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.