The $25k car is going extinct?

> A series hybrid

A key part of my original statement.

A series hybrid or parallel series hybrid will often have a far simpler transmission in terms of moving parts and what not. You're right, they'll use the gas motor for power going highway speeds, but they're still a lot simpler. Many hybrids effectively only have a single speed for the ICE motor in their "transmission", some have 2-4, compared to modern ICE transmissions which are like 7+ gears.

Note, I do agree, there are some hybrid drive trains that are more complicated than their ICE counterparts, but it is not a given. Many hybrids are a good bit simpler in the end.

One example of a simpler setup would be Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. e-CVT's can be radically simpler mechanically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

Yes, that’s why I put deliberately put “series” in my original post.

The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.

So if the claim is that hybrids are more reliable than ICE, there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable. You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.

Transmissions are required for ICE vehicles they aren’t required for hybrids. It’s one of the many failure points that can be removed.

As to in series being more complicated, starter/alternator + battery already has all the mechanical complexity of a barebones series hybrid. You could technically take a standard ICE car change only electronics and get some of the benefits of a hybrid. Obviously for reliability you’d want beefier electric motors, and … before you know it you’re building a more robust system than a pure ICE.

Yes, so the claim is that the complexity electric motors + batteries + planetary gears + all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission. I’m open to that argument but nobody has really elaborated in detail. Admittedly, I’m slightly skeptical (at least in the case of a manual gearbox) but would like to hear more detail.

> the main point is related to the ICE

I didn't limit the original discussion to just an ICE motor versus an entire hybrid power train, I explicitly stated, "Depending on the _drive trains_ being compared, the hybrid _drivetrain_...". In the end people don't give a shit about if the motor is reliable, they care about if the car is reliable. The car, which includes a transmission and a heck of a lot more stuff in it. In the end the reliability of the drivetrain is more important, as that includes the reliability of the ICE and all the other stuff needed to make the car go.

If you want to focus on just the ICE part, then sure mechanically the ICE motor in a hybrid drivetrain will be similarly designed to an ICE-only drivetrain. But an ICE car is more than just an ICE motor. And to have that ICE motor actually be useful, it needs to be paired with other components. As you've aptly stated, the reliability of the system overall is extremely related to the reliability of all the components. Namely, having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable. Having to have an incredibly complicated transmission with tons of friction points and sliding parts and fluid channels relying on specific viscosities of oil is massively more complicated mechanically than a few fixed-ratio planetary gearsets.

But guess what, even if you ignore the rest of the hybrid drive train and focus on just comparing the ICE motors, the ICE in a hybrid will probably outlive the ICE on a similar ICE-only car experiencing a similar usage pattern. The ICE in the hybrid with an e-CVT or similar will pretty much only exclusively operate in its most efficient and lowest stress ranges, while that pure-ICE vehicle needs that gas motor to work in every condition even if it is high stress.

> there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable

I don't think the ICE is more reliable than the hybrid. I've been arguing the opposite. The gas motor may be similarly reliable in a full ICE, but a lot of the other stuff around it becomes less reliable.

Even then thinking about things like water pumps and AC compressors and what not, a lot of that gets to be more reliable working with their own extremely reliable DC motors going exactly the speed they want to go at instead of having to be tied to engine RPMs and belts and clutches and what not wherever they want to be instead of needing to be in the path of the belt. You don't have a wimpy barely sized alternator, you have a much more reliable AC motor/generator along with an inverter and well-sized battery supplying plenty of electrical power to the system which then has a much more stable voltage for your 12V system. You don't have to put nearly as much CCA load on your 12V battery, you won't run it down as much, it stays in its optimal voltage more often, etc.

> at least in the case of a manual gearbox

Ok, let's say you go stupid simple for the transmission and have a super basic classic four-speed manual.

Right off the bat, you've got clutch wear. In that e-CVT, there are no sliding clutches. Everything is connected all the time. Immediately, we see a wear component that will eventually need replacing. Not might need replacing, will need replacing. It is a consumable part, designed to wear.

You now have cable assemblies which will eventually stretch over the life of the car. Those will eventually need adjustment. Once again, these just don't exist at all with the e-CVT system.

Now you have a shifter and gear selector. This will need to slip in and out of other gears. Often this is not a perfect shift, imparting wear on the transmission components. Once again, you don't have a gear selector in an e-CVT, this wear never happens. This wear can cause premature failure of the transmission. This is largely controlled by the skill of the operator, sure.

Just a few quick examples. But this is then also an incredibly basic manual transmission, you won't find such a thing on pretty much any recent mass market car. These days you'll see complicated automatics with servos and what not to control the gear ratios, massively more gear ratios, rely on fluid channels to push things around inside, rely on computers to operate them effectively, etc.

And as Retric mentioned, there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. You already have a DC motor set to drive the car in the starter motor. You already have an inverter, the alternator. You're not really adding a ton of new things, you're just massively upsizing some of the things you already have and massively simplifying a lot of the other components.

you and Retric are using different definitions of "series". A "series hybrid" is a specific term describing a design that uses an ICE engine to generate electricity that powers an electric motor. This design replaces the transmission completely because the ICE rpm doesn't need to be matched to the wheel speed and the electric motor has a much wider RPM range.

Many series hybrids do have a way to power the wheels directly with the engine at highway speeds but it's generally much simpler than a full transmission. Most Honda hybrids for instance have a single clutch that connects the ICE to a "6th" gear.

> You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.

less parts -> more reliability

> all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission

The argument goes like this,

ICE cars have an alternator (electric motor 1), starter (electric motor 2), battery, and transmission. A beefier alternator (generator) + starter (electric motor driving the car) + battery adds less complexity than a transmission. That’s the simplest EV design where the engine only ever charges the battery. It’s perfectly viable for a long range plug in hybrid that only ever uses the engine on long trips.

The downside is batteries have conversion losses, so most hybrids have various ways of directly using engine power which then adds complexity. But ultimately hybrids are more complicated than EV’s but very much can be simpler than modern ICE cars.

PS: Technically some old ICE designs like dynastart used to do the same as hybrids where the same electric motor acted as a starter and alternator but in modern ICE vehicles the tradeoff around now little time the starter is needed and how little power the alternator needs to generate means it’s more efficient to separate it out. http://www.isettadoc.com/files/dynastart.pdf

You seem to be getting wrapped around the axle (ha) to have an argument and not reading my point well.

>having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable.

This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components. Yet you get focused on individual components like transmissions instead of elaborating on the system reliability. I’ll concede that the hybrid ICE may be more reliable (that’s what I meant by asking you to provide details why the ICE is more reliable). But my point is that a more complicated system in series requires all components to be substantially more reliable to have an overall equivalent system reliability.

Consider the life of a traditional ICE engine is about the same as the batteries of a hybrid. Even if the hybrid ICE has a life 30% longer, it doesn’t make the overall system last longer. For round numbers, say the traditional ICE and hybrid batteries have a 200k mile median life (50% reliability).

That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission). Maybe that’s the case, and I’m asking for details and specifics.

Now obviously, it’s more complicated because there are other failure modes in each system and cost differentials as well. From the get-go, you seemed focused on individual component reliability. But unless you’re talking specifics about the system reliability you’re tilting at windmills.

> This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components.

So we both agree, a hybrid and a full-ICE will have many of the same components overall. They both need a battery. They both need some kind of transmission. They both need some kind of inverter. They will both have some kind of electric motor in them. In terms of actual number of components, the hybrid and the ICE are actually pretty similar.

But then we both agree, some of those components in the pure ICE are far more mechanically complicated. Higher mechanical complexity, more moving parts, etc generally means less reliability, agree? And one part of that system being radically less reliable makes the whole system less reliable, correct?

> That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission).

No, your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Your ICE car isn't going to go very far without a motor to spin the transmission. And that traditional transmission is far less reliable than the fixed planetary gears. Comparatively, electric motors are extremely reliable, and chances are your hybrid gas motor will be more reliable for the same kind of required output. So, R(hybrid ICE) > R(gas ICE).

So yes, generally speaking R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) > R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Largely because that R(traditional transmission) is so absolutely terrible in comparison to R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motor). Which is why I'm talking about the transmissions so much, and yet you're continuing to ignore it.

Thanks for taking the time to detail it. I think that’s a reasonable take.

A couple caveats:

1) most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?

2) somewhat of a tangent, but in the original post was regarding cost of ownership, and reliability was brought into the discussion because cost is a function of reliability. But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.

All that to say, reliability and cost of ownership is complicated. I was pushing back on the overly simplistic takes and appreciate you adding some nuance.

Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space. Thanks for clarifying. I was using it in the pure reliability domain sense (similar to the use in electrical circuits)

>less parts -> more reliability

This is the general heuristic but only true if the components in each system are equally reliable (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost). I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.

For example, the hybrid ICE may be more reliable for good reasons (eg consistent RPM). Or the traditional battery may have half the reliability, but 1/50th the cost. All of that factors into cost of ownership.

>there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car.

The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in each system.* (The original point is about cost of ownership). They don’t. So, while both have batteries, the reliability and cost of each is very different. Same with the ICE component etc. My issue is broad generalizations about reliability without speaking to the nuance.

I’m not set against the idea of a hybrid being more reliable or cheaper, but more against the superficial generalization.

* also the analogs miss some of the complexity. Yes, both have a battery, but a hybrid requires high voltage and auxiliary batteries, meaning the battery system is by definition more complex.

>your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission).

No, that was already baked in. I purposefully linked the R(gas ICE) = R(hybrid batteries). Note they were both dropped out of their respective calculation. Just like a hybrid isn’t going to go very far without batteries, but you left that reliability out of your hybrid equation. It seems you’re more interested in arguing that reading posts in good faith, so I don’t think it’s productive to continue the discussion.

> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?

There’s a lot of tradeoffs involved which I’m not an expert on. However, ICE cars need an engine capable of low end torque and a good efficiency across a huge RPM range, hybrids can use a much simpler engine design optimized for where the engine operates best because the EV side handles the low end just fine.

A hybrid engine is also used for fewer hours of operation over its lifespan so in general (because exceptions exist) the gas engine in an hybrid is more reliable than the gas engine in an equivalent ICE. That said, car manufacturers can use up that margin to save weight etc so it’s not a guarantee.

In the end it’s a huge design space, saying something is a hybrid doesn’t actually tell you much about what’s under the hood.

> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?

It really depends on the type of hybrid in question. Those are series, series-parallel, or parallel. Some hybrids essentially just use an electric motor to assist in a traditional ICE-like drivetrain (parallel). This is the kind of setup you'll see in something like the Ford Explorer Hybrid or most of Honda's hybrid systems. In these cases, the electric motor just sits in the regular ICE drive train and supplies additional power especially in low efficiency ranges along with regenerative braking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Motor_Assist

In an e-CVT setup (series-parallel) like what you would find in a Ford Escape Hybrid or most Toyotas using a Toyota Hybrid System or Hybrid Synergy Drive, the overall mechanical complexity of the system is considerably less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive

> I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.

In my experience this kind of nuanced info is unfortunately pretty hard to come by. MFGs know it but have no interest in sharing it. Same for taxi operators (though the number of hybrids in taxi fleets is pretty staggering). Fleet operators usually only look at the first 5 years so longer term maintenance and repairs aren't studied all that rigorously. That said, here's a 5-year fleet TCO analysis where HEVs on average were 6k cheaper than ICE: https://www.afla.org/news/692431/The-Hybrid-Value-Propositio...

Also, here is an analysis from 2016 showing that the 2005 Prius had the lowest 10 year maintenance cost of any model. Toyota had only been making hybrids for 7 years at that point. That level of reliability for a new technology is pretty impressive: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104478_toyota-prius-hy...

> (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost).

speaking to this piece, it can be hard to gauge because its not all that common for companies to sell very similar trims in hybrid and non-hybrid. The two PSD hybrid examples off the dome are the corolla which is +$1500 for hybrid and the first-gen maverick which was -$1100 for the hybrid (before Ford knew the hybrid would sell like hotcakes, then they cranked the price up).

Perhaps Ford just wanted to burn cash but imo PSD hybrids are likely very competitive in terms of per unit cost, which would hopefully translate into lower repair costs. Toyota has also just switched to hybrid only for the Rav4, which is one of the best selling models on the planet. That would be a pretty bold move if they weren't very confident about the reliability and TCO (basically their entire brand value) or their ability to make money selling them (cost vs consumer value prop).

> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?

A typical ICE is most efficient when running at moderate load and somewhere between 1800 and 3000 RPM. That's what happens naturally at highway speeds, which is why traditional ICE cars get better MPG on the highway than in the city, and why hybrids run the engine on the highway.

Hybrids gain a large advantage in stop and go traffic because then they can recover energy through regenerative braking and contribute it back when accelerating, which allows the ICE to either run within its peak efficiency range or not run at all.

So on the highway a hybrid is basically doing the same thing as a normal car. It might eek out a little more efficiency by using electric boost when going up hill and regen when going down hill to keep the engine load more consistent, but it's nearly the same. But highway miles are what put the least amount of wear on a car.

It's stop and go traffic that causes the most wear because then you're putting high loads on the engine during acceleration (and using lower gears which require more engine revolutions per distance traveled) and burning through brake pads during deceleration. Which is the thing hybrids avoid doing by using the electric motor.

> But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.

When alternators or starter motors go bad it's commonly the components like brushes in DC alternator/generators or the clutch pulley or solenoid that hybrid motors don't have to begin with because hybrids typically use AC motors permanently connected to the drive shaft. AC motors are extremely reliable and will typically outlast the rest of the vehicle.

> The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability

The majority of my comment points out how the equivalent analoge on the pure ICE is massively less reliable than the hybrid. Who is ignoring the reliability of the different components here again?

Sure, there is a HV and a LV battery. They're both solid state devices and thus generally pretty reliable when it comes to cars. The LV battery faces far less wear. The overall system is considerably more reliable in the hybrid than the same in the ICE. It's near impossible to generally talk about the prices of something like the HV battery, it varies greatly based on what models you're talking about. One car might have a replacement used battery that's good for many years be $700, another might be extremely bespoke and rare and be $10k. If I were to judge prices of pure ICE transmissions based on extremely rare hyper cars I might say an ICE transmission replacement costs $20k or more. The details matter greatly when judging TCO on potentially low market cars.

If your point is you can’t talk specifics about price of ownership, you’ve wasted both of our time during this entire discussion. That’s what it’s about. A better answer would have just been like the commenter below, who said the information is hard to come by. A hardliner stance where there’s a lot of uncertainty isn’t a great hill to die on.

That’s not quite what they said, in 98% of hybrids sold these components are significantly more reliable than in ICE cars.

He can’t speak to the last 2%, but I doubt your in the market for a hyper car and really this concerned about TCO.

Apologies for misreading your other comment.

> The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.

We both agree with this statement. The system reliability cannot be greater than any single part. In a traditional ICE, there are multiple systems which are radically less reliable than a hybrid with an e-CVT, while generally untrue of the reverse. So, with "the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part", and we can see there are parts of one system that are less reliable, which system is then logically the less reliable one? Not looking at cost at the moment, just reliability.

That is purely talking about e-CVTs and reliability of specific designs, and not necessarily reliability of all hybrids. In the end, the reliability of "a hybrid" can vary wildly. Is it a pure series hybrid we're talking about? A series-parallel e-CVT? A different kind of series-parallel? A parallel? A parallel hybrid is an example of a hybrid that probably does have worse reliability overall, as you still have all the complexity of a traditional ICE but then adding additional systems adding further complication. You're not trading away the complexity of the traditional ICE in this setup, just adding to it. All different reliability metrics on just the basic design concepts, not even then thinking about differences in reliability in manufacturing and what not across different car makers. Some car manufacturers tend to have more mistakes in actually producing things, and a good design might not actually hit planned reliability if they're not actually making the things right.

On top of that, when comparing TCO you'll see differences based on production volumes of that car. A hybrid that was only a compliance car trim level sold in only California in low volumes for a couple of model years with a bespoke battery is probably stupid expensive ($3000+) for a replacement battery after a decade. A hybrid that was mass market with many hundreds of thousands produced with long generations will have tons of used/remanufactured/aftermarket batteries on the market and might only cost $800. A lot of hybrids from the past tend to fall into the first category and not the second and were made as parallel drivetrains with notable exceptions being things like the Prius which routinely is listed as one of the lowest TCO cars out there.

Just asking for a TCO comparison of "a hybrid" compared to "a traditional ICE" is massively oversimplifying and misunderstanding the complexity of that question. Theoretically, one couldn't even say "what is the TCO of a traditional ICE vehicle?" Are we talking an F-250 Superduty or a Kia Rio or a Ferrari F40? Ignoring purchase price, each of these have radically different operating costs per mile. Which vehicle are we talking about?

This is why my original comment started off with "Depending on the drive trains being compared..." I'm not saying every hybrid will always be more reliable than every traditional ICE. It depends on which cars you're comparing.

The hyper car argument is really just a digression and it cuts both ways (which I think was the posters point). If you want to compare hyper car prices, you need to compare hyper gas-only to hyper hybrid. But that’s not really germane to the generalizations being used here.

Where is your 98% claim coming from? The other poster made no such claim.

The irony is there is published info on TCO from companies like Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book. We can take umbrage with some of the factors or weighting, but it’s a better starting point in real data than anything bright up so far. A claim could easily be crafted using such information that addresses everything I’ve raised (maintenance, depreciation, different designs, etc). Yet the discussion seems almost wholly based on vibes and near-ideological bias. It reads to me as conclusions searching for data instead of the other way around.

The best I can tell from that information, TCO is largely a wash. For comparable manufacturers/designs, TCO over the first 5-10 years seems to be about the same. You can pick some designs that favor one side or the other, but in general they are roughly within 10% (usually considerably less) of one another. Given the uncertainty due to the variables in question, it seems reasonable to conclude there aren’t strong conclusions on TCO differences between them.

98% just meant not rare, as the person referenced “rare cars” vs everything else.

I’ve already looked at that those real work TCO numbers for a bunch of cars, that’s part of why I’m saying they’re reliable and lower TCO.

But there’s a big difference between saying that on average these things break down less across all hybrids and saying every single hybrid model is more reliable.

> 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.

I agree there’s a difference. The OP I originally responded to made the claim “Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.” That’s a general claim, and I was seeking information that can support it. I’ve largely received strong general conclusions based on weak general evidence. When pushed, people will seem to cherry pick specific cases, which to you point, isn’t good enough to support the original general claim. Perhaps we’re looking at different data (in which case I’d be interested in understanding why you like one set over the other), but in aggregate, I couldn’t find strong evidence that supports on side or the other.

>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

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531

The majority of hybrids ~70% fall under these models:

Toyota RAV4 Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda CR-V Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford Fusion Hybrid, and Honda Accord Hybrid which have a lower TCO than their gas’s equivalents.

I don’t think we need to consider low production edge cases, to make a statement about the general case.

> 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-hybrid/2024/cost-to-o...

> It did not go over my head.

> Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space.

You acknowledged you did not originally understand what "series" meant when I was talking about a "series hybrid". And your "reminding me" is you continuing to show you were not aware of what my usage of the word "series" meant in terms of hybrid drivetrains and instead "using it in the pure reliability domain sense". And your first comment points out you didn't get the idea that a series hybrid doesn't have a lot of the same ICE components, instead it seems you had a parallel hybrid design in mind.

> but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla

In what timeframe comparison, 5-year? How many miles? Which gas markets, is gas $3/gal or $5? What does a 10-year comparison look like? Are you including residual value on the cars after that 5-year period to see a total cost after depreciation? What does a used comparison look like? And yes, why not compare the Corolla ICE vs Corolla Hybrid, wouldn't that be a more apt comparison? One is a sedan and one is a hatch, they're different cars with different branding presence.

Looking at the numbers, drawing that out from a 5-year comparison to a 10-year comparison (or more) would probably tilt the math towards the Prius being cheaper in the end, and I'd imagine even more so at a 15-year point. But we don't actually have these numbers, and these are projections of what these cars might have in terms of TCO, not any detailed study of actual TCO.

We may be seeing differences in locality, but the first one I checked (Escape) did not support your claim. The gas variant was cheaper than both the hybrid (8% lower) and the plug-in hybrid (24% lower) in TCO. I think this just speaks to my previous point about variance impacting our ability to make strong general claims.

Make sure you’re comparing equal trim levels. PHEV has

18-inch wheels Heated front seats Heated steering wheel Partial vinyl and cloth upholstery 13.2-inch infotainment touchscreen Navigation system Adaptive cruise control (adjusts speed to maintain a constant distance between the Escape and the car in front) Lane keeping system (makes minor steering corrections to help keep the vehicle centered in its lane) Evasive steering assistance (enhances the forward collision mitigation system with steering-based collision avoidance) Rear parking sensors (alert you to obstacles that may not be visible behind the vehicle when parking)

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.

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.

I was being polite to the other poster so I can address the more germane claim in their reply without getting derailed by explaining why the less important point was irrelevant. The fact is the series “term of art” in the reliability domain and the hybrid engineering terminology mean the same thing. They are derived from the same concept.

The numbers come from the Edmunds site. Eg fuel cost by locality, 15k miles a year etc. You can look at the site for all their assumptions, but some of it is proprietary.

>But we don’t actually have these [TCO] numbers

Exactly! So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?! This is why it comes across as if you are an ideological argument instead of a data-literate one.

“I don’t have any data, but it just makes sense to me” is not the type of curious discussion I was after.

Good point. After adjusting for trim level, the gas is still cheaper but not as dramatically.

If I had to guess, you may be getting numbers from a high fuel cost locale. In the end, I don’t think the conclusion that it’s largely a wash is unreasonable. There will be areas with higher cost and those with lower cost.

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.

I’m not discarding all costs, I’m looking at the difference in upfront costs.

Suppose I’m paying cash and it’s an extra 2,000$ by my TCO drops by 0.1% over 5 years is that a worthwhile investment? Without knowing what the car costs you can’t tell.

What matters is the difference in cost vs the difference in TCO. You’re buying a car either way.

I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take, but it does move us away from the generalization that hybrid TCO is lower. It’s like instead saying “Hybrid TCO will be lower if you pay in cash and live in a high fuel cost area.”

That’s a more nuanced take by adjusting the assumptions. Sometimes adjusting them is warranted, and sometimes it’s just to game the outcome you wanted.

> So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?!

I'm not even making that strong of a conclusion. I'm saying "depends" and what not, because I agree it can be fuzzy and not a hard 100% rule that hybrids are cheaper TCO. But I can make some amount of conclusion because I can look at a trend line and extrapolate especially when equipped with extra knowledge about how these systems work and doing my own projections on potential repair costs at a longer interval.

A 5-year TCO evaluation on a new car generally isn't going to figure in the differences between a motor failure or a transmission failure. They won't include a HV battery failure. Depending on fuel price differences it may not even cover initial pricing disparities but could come close. But I can see a rebuilt transmission can often be $2k or more with a lot of labor, and a rebuilt transmission can still be a roll of the dice. A remanufactured battery is easier to test pack health and know the state of the device and can often be only a few hundred dollars and easy to replace.

As you mentioned, the average ownership period of a car is a little over 8 years. The average life of a car far longer than that. Three years more of gas savings on that average first owner, considerably more over the life of the car. And someone especially concerned with TCO will probably be more interested in buying used and paying cash, not having to deal with as much depreciation and finance charges, and probably have their car longer than average.

> I don’t have any data

We do have some data, we have knowledge of how these systems work, we can see trends in component prices and more can make overall projections from it. Following the trend lines from the data we have, the hybrids do usually pay off in TCO. Am I a bit just taking a gut estimate for a general state of things? Sure. But I think I've sure shared a lot of logic as to why that would probably be that way. It is not just some completely empty guess with nothing backing it at all as you seem to suggest.

It doesn’t change if something lowers or increases the TCO, it only scales the impact relative to the costs.

The cash on hand bit isn’t the only take, but if you’re comparing 5 year loans and only keeping the car for 5 years then you can ignore time value of money. Suppose the monthly payment is 50$ more and you save 60$ a month, sure it’s only saving 10$/month but that’s essentially free money.

It’s becoming a tired discussion, but this has already been covered. For someone willing/capable of dropping $30k-$50k in cash, $10/mo. is certainly a small effect size. Under certain cases, hybrid TCO will be lower. For example, if you’re buying an SUV, drive a lot, pay cash, and live in a high fuel cost locale. But that shouldn’t lead to a logical leap that hybrid costs are lower in the general case. (They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.)

I said loan not paying cash. We’re comparing if the drive train is superior, and the most cost efficient new car is a car. Upgrading to a 50k SUV is inherently a different question that has little to do with the drivetrain.

> They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.

The general case of someone keeping a vehicle for 8 years and driving 15k miles per year isn’t close, as long as we’re keeping everything else the same. EX: A 2025 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite has a hybrid option for an extra 1,205$. If the base price is significantly higher than 2,000$ you’re not comparing drive trains but options.

Plug in Hybrids are a separate category dependent on your local electric prices.