Newsday finds the Nissan Altima hybrid to be quite the moneysaver
A little over a year ago, we put the 2007 Nissan Altima hybrid through its paces in the AutoblogGreen Garage. We found the sedan to be a solid performer but left unanswered the question of whether the hybrid cost premium made the ride worth it for everyone. Over at Newsday, Tom Incantalupo similarly enjoyed the Altima hybrid (most likely the 2008 model) but comes out unabashedly in favor of paying the extra money for the hybrid. Back in our Earth Day calculations about hybrid payoff times, we figured it would take 300,000 miles of highway driving (or about 70,000 in the city) to recoup the hybrid Altima's premium. But, as we stated, these numbers don't figure in tax credits, which vary. In this particular case, Incantalupo says, by figuring in the tax credits and using $3.75 as the price point of a gallon of gas (we used $3.50) the Altima hybrid pays for itself in just over three years. There are other variables - hybrids aren't exactly easy to find these days - which you can read about over at Newsday.
Gallery: 2007 Nissan Altima Hybrid
[Source: Newsday]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Michael 5:20PM (4/29/2008)
Don't forget the resale cost. Since hybrid cars keep their value better than their gas-only counterparts, you tend to recoup the premium faster.
Reply
psarhjinian 5:24PM (4/29/2008)
That figure--300,000 versus 70,000--is an important one. If you drive mostly urban cycle, a hybrid pays for itself very quickly. I was able to make nearly my entire commute from home to work in both a Prius and and Escape almost entirely without using the gas engine. It's an important reason hy hyrbids make total sense for, say, in-city Fedex/UPS/DHL fleets as well. It's also why the Lexus LS600h isn't nearly as stupid a purchase if you live in Manhattan, London centre or Tokyo.
I read a lot of hybrid naysaying and it's really a matter of "does it work for your needs?" If it does, great. If you're better suited to a tiny turbodiesel, that's fine too. Don't assume a hybrid is snakeoil that works for no one just because it doesn't work for _you_.
Reply
Scott 7:06PM (4/29/2008)
I would love to buy a hybrid Altima if it were available in my area. I beleive it's only available in a handful of states that follow California's emission requirements. This is a fabulous car with great styling (for those who shy away from Prius) and it would serve as a great replacement for a family sized SUV. Nissan, get with the program and roll this car out nationwide!
Reply
mike 9:13PM (4/29/2008)
What's a 500 hp Ford Mustang payoff period? Never, you'll be Kissing ARAB Butt for the rest of your life! Go Ford!
Reply
Luke 10:53PM (4/29/2008)
. Wow, the article actually says that you're saving the planet on the first mile you drive. So, instead of buying an existing used car, having a new car made from scratch is now saving the planet. I hope those of you who can afford it buy a couple dozen so that we get that much closer to saving the planet. LOL!
In addition, "payback" is defined by the difference between a new hybrid and a new non-hybrid. I guess it's time for those of you who are bad at math to rush out and spend 25k so that you can save it. LOL!
Reply
Dave 4:43AM (4/30/2008)
I'm not sure why when people look at hybrids, they immediately must calculate their payoff period.
While a short payoff period is beneficial, think of how many options you buy which have no payoff period at all.
Let's compare the Altima hybrid to the Prius Touring - both are similar in size and specs. But the Altima commands a $2000 price premium and consumes about 20% more fuel. So in this case, the Altima will never pay for itself and is always more expensive. That $2000 gets you a tiny bit more interior width and a bit more power under the hood, but do you really need it?
Nevermind how so many of these "payoff" period calculations neglect all the other benefits of a car which consumes less fuel - less pollution - reduction in foreign oil dependence, etc.
The focus is nearly always purely on the economical aspects of it and AutoblogGreen is guilty of making this same mistake all the time - when it should be taking the time to make informed comparisons instead of regurgitating the last news stories with some needless spin.
Reply
Luke 5:37AM (4/30/2008)
You miss the point that the hybrid already has consumed more energy in the production process. It has more parts, which is reflected in the price. Imagine, for example, that it is possible to make a military tank that gets 200 miles per gallon. Would we be "saving the planet" by buying a 10 million dollar vehicle?
The way to consume the least energy (if you are going to buy a car) is to buy a used car.
Reply
Jon 12:40PM (4/30/2008)
I know the idea that we should drive used cars has a lot of surface logic to it, but it doesn't really hold up.
First, it's a very well settled point that the great majority of energy expense involved in a vehicle is taken up during its operating cycle, not during manufacture.
Also, the logical conclusion of this presumption that we should all just drive used cars is that we should stop making new cars. Is that possible do you think? Given that new cars will and should be made, isn't it logical that those new cars should be more efficient than the cars they replace? Saying otherwise makes no sense.
Given that energy costs are rising sharply, and that the largest amount of energy used in the auto life-cycle is during the auto's operation, an argument could be made that we should quickly replace our existing, low-efficiency fleet with a new higher-efficiency fleet to maximize total energy savings.
That might be an extreme stance, but constantly suggesting that used cars are ultimately better than more efficient new cars is an even more extreme and considerably less justifiable stance.
Reply
Luke 10:11PM (4/30/2008)
You forgot the topic, and the comments that were made. The article said that we save the planet by driving a hybrid that pays for its increased cost after 8 years. The hybrid only recovers the increased cost, not the rest of the cost (which is the majority).
Also, no one said that EVERYONE should or could buy a used car. Rather, I said that doing so has far less environmental and financial impact. If you are reading this, the comment applies to you. Likewise, I might suggest to you that it would be wise for you to buy a particular house. By saying that, I am not suggesting that it is possible for everyone on the country to live in that same house. Get real.
The fact is that the majority of econoboxes (by no means all – for those of you who like to exaggerate) can be purchased for less than 6k after 4 or 5 years, with aprox. 40,000 miles on them. The money saved (about 17K) can certainly pay for increased gas prices for the rest of the life of the car. No hybrid can make the same claim. It’s simple math.
And, again, to argue that the fuel savings of a hybrid justify everyone buying the car to save energy returns us to the absurdity pointed out in my comment above. It uses NO ENERGY to bring a car that already exists into existence. To bring a new car (regardless of its means of propulsion) into existence requires an immense amount of energy.
Reply