5 ms·

> For comparable manufacturers/designs That's the thing though, you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and

> For comparable manufacturers/designs That's the thing though, you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math, as if "hybrid" means only one thing. I've been trying to tell you, "hybrid" means a lot of different things and really shouldn't be seen as one technology, "depending on drive trains compared" and all. Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head. When I'm talking about a bespke battery on a low-market car, I'm not talking about some hybrid supercar. I'm talking more about the hybrid compliance car trim levels that are only really sold in small numbers in some markets, like the Ford Explorer Hybrid. You practically won't find them in most states, they were essentially only delivered to a few markets in very small numbers. Its components are far more bespoke and thus expensive to find replacements. Pretty much nobody makes remanufactured batteries for this car. It's a parallel hybrid, so it still has all the complexity and reliability of the traditional ICE drive train. This is pretty much true of a lot of "the same ICE car, but now hybrid!" They're often going to be low production models, bespoke batteries, and probably a parallel hybrid. And I agree, good chance the TCO won't work out in the hybrid's favor in the end. Compared to something like the Prius or Maverick Hybrid or the new RAV4, which are extremely mass market. These have a much different drive train than that Explorer Hybrid, being e-CVTs. There's a big market for remanufactured batteries since there are so many more out there. Parts are considerably cheaper, and thus they have (or will probably have, the new RAV4s are still new) low TCO. Its not fair to group the Explorer Hybrid and the Maverick together as one category of "hybrid", since they're such different designs on how they operate leading to radically different outcomes on TCO.

bumby 1y ago
>you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math I’m not though, you’re just making that assumption. For example, as “comparable manufacturers” if I select Toyota (because it has a reputation for reliability) I can compare the Prius to the Corolla (because they’re both at a similar price point in their respective categories). This “should” favor the Prius because the Corolla has a CVT (which is known to be less reliable) but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla. I’m not lumping all together, I’m deliberately trying to make reasonable comparisons. Now I could also pick and choose to go the other way with a similar comparison. The end result seems to be that there is a distribution of differences that are reasonably close, but with enough variance to say it looks like a wash in TCO. Point being, strong conclusions may not be warranted. >Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head. It did not go over my head. In fact, I brought it up in the very first post before you responded. [1] I even reminded you of that [2]. This is why I’m saying it seems like you are reflexively responding without actually reading for comprehension or clarity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44422207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44422207 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531
- Retric 1y ago
  > compare the Prius to the Corolla That’s not a direct comparison. Toyota sells hybrid and non hybrid corolla’s and the hybrids are cheaper to own @ 5 years here. https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla-hybrid/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla-hybrid/2024/cost-to-o...
  - bumby 1y ago
    That’s fair. But looking at the numbers for my locale, the effect size is extremely small: about 0.6% cheaper. So, to piggyback on the points made earlier, if we have high variance and small effect size, we probably shouldn’t be making any strong claims. The more appropriate conclusion is that there is no difference, or not strong enough data to make a claim one way or the other.
    - Retric 1y ago
      It’s not that small of an effect size relative to the upfront price difference. Subtraction of the initial cost of the non hybrid from both numbers is very reasonable because you know what that is for both. Also, the payback for a more expensive upfront car at year 5 on a car likely to last ~26 years doesn’t mean they are also equal for the next 21 years.
      - bumby 1y ago
        Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but TCO factors in the upfront cost, including financing assumptions. I can’t think of a good reason why you’d want to disregard upfront cost when calculating TCO; it’s probably the #1 determining factor for most people buying a car. (And not to belabor the point, but the original claim was about TCO). I’m not sure I would use the 25+ life because that doesn’t reflect how long a person will keep it. The depreciation captured by the TCO is a better representation of that effect.
        1y ago

bumby 1y ago

>you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math I’m not though, you’re just making that assumption. For example, as “comparable manufacturers” if I select Toyota (because it has a reputation for reliability) I can compare the Prius to the Corolla (because they’re both at a similar price point in their respective categories). This “should” favor the Prius because the Corolla has a CVT (which is known to be less reliable) but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla. I’m not lumping all together, I’m deliberately trying to make reasonable comparisons. Now I could also pick and choose to go the other way with a similar comparison. The end result seems to be that there is a distribution of differences that are reasonably close, but with enough variance to say it looks like a wash in TCO. Point being, strong conclusions may not be warranted. >Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head. It did not go over my head. In fact, I brought it up in the very first post before you responded. [1] I even reminded you of that [2]. This is why I’m saying it seems like you are reflexively responding without actually reading for comprehension or clarity. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44422207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44422207 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531

Retric 1y ago
> compare the Prius to the Corolla That’s not a direct comparison. Toyota sells hybrid and non hybrid corolla’s and the hybrids are cheaper to own @ 5 years here. https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla-hybrid/2024/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla-hybrid/2024/cost-to-o...
- bumby 1y ago
  That’s fair. But looking at the numbers for my locale, the effect size is extremely small: about 0.6% cheaper. So, to piggyback on the points made earlier, if we have high variance and small effect size, we probably shouldn’t be making any strong claims. The more appropriate conclusion is that there is no difference, or not strong enough data to make a claim one way or the other.
  - Retric 1y ago
    It’s not that small of an effect size relative to the upfront price difference. Subtraction of the initial cost of the non hybrid from both numbers is very reasonable because you know what that is for both. Also, the payback for a more expensive upfront car at year 5 on a car likely to last ~26 years doesn’t mean they are also equal for the next 21 years.
    - bumby 1y ago
      Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but TCO factors in the upfront cost, including financing assumptions. I can’t think of a good reason why you’d want to disregard upfront cost when calculating TCO; it’s probably the #1 determining factor for most people buying a car. (And not to belabor the point, but the original claim was about TCO). I’m not sure I would use the 25+ life because that doesn’t reflect how long a person will keep it. The depreciation captured by the TCO is a better representation of that effect.
      - 1y ago