The Pinto and Vega predated the first oil crisis by more than two
years. They were both introduced in 1970 as 1971 models. The first oil
crisis didn't hit until 1973. I would argue that US automakers had
first tried to address the desire of Consumers for smaller cars in the
early 50's (Metro, Henry J) and then in the late 50's/early 60's
(Corvair, Falcon, Valiant). Even the late 60's Ford Maverick was a
relatively small car. Volumes were often good for the smaller cars
(Ford had great success selling Falcons, Mavericks, and Pintos) but
the profits were not so good. Low end cars had to compete with used
cars. Given the gas prices in the 60's and early 70's what do you
think must Consumers would rather have - a new Maverick, or a low
mileage 1 or 2 year old Mustang or Torino? I bought my first import in
1975 - a Datsun 280Z. I bought it because it was different, not
because of reliability (it wasn't) or fuel economy (it wasn't
particularly good on gas). A lot of people I know who bought imports
early on bought them because they were different. Over the years I
have owned imports from England (2 seat sports cars), Germany (Audi),
and Japan (Nissan, Mazda, and Toyota). I've never been overly
impressed with the quality or value of imported cars compared to
domestic cars. I really don't understand why Toyota has become so
successful. In terms of what I look for in a car, Toyota has
consistently been far down the list - even compared to the Japanese
rivals. Apparently boring is what Americans want.

Ed

Need I say do you own homework?   ;)

mike

Might I add that the banning of CFC's was date certain, not technology
or business driven. You either did it or paid the fines. I'm NOT
saying this would work in all industries but it is one example that
did work [except in all other countries who banned CFC's when they
decided]

The EPA ratings are not he same as actual fuel economy. The EPA
highway test is still stuck at 55 mph as a maximum speed and still
includes some stop and go portions. For the Civic Hybrid Consumer
Reports' overall fuel mileage was an impressive 37 mpg. They recorded
26 in the city, 47 on the highway and got 45 mpg on their 150 mile
trip. For the regular Civic the results were 31 overall, 22 city, 40
highway, and 37 on the 150 mile trip. For the Camry hybrid, CR
recorded 34 mpg overall, 28 city, 41 highway, and 37 on the 150 mile
trip. Pretty impressive for such a large car. The conventional 4
cylinder automatic Camry got 24 overall, 16 city, 36 highway, and 29
on the 150 mile trip.

To be clear - I have nothing against hybrids. For some applications,
it appears to be a great technology. Because of the nature of Japanese
traffic, I can see why hybrids were developed their first and best.
Lots of crawling along at low speeds with a lot of stop and go
driving. However, given the way hybrids work, why would you expect a
Civic hybrid to get significantly better gas mileage than a regular
Civic on a long trip down I-95 for instance (assuming it wasn't during
one of the frequent I-95 and stop and go wreck aftermaths)? The Civic
hybrid has a smaller engine than the standard Civic (1.3L vs. 1.8L),
so this might allow for slightly better highway cruising economy. It
also might affect performance. For the regular Civic (manual
transmission, 1.8L engine), the 0-60 was 8.6 seconds. For the hybrid,
it was 11.7 sec. So clearly, the cars don't have equivalent
performance. Too bad we don't have a 1.3L non-hybrid Civic for
comparison. As for the Camry, the hybrid Camry had a 8.4 sec 0-60
time. The conventional 4 cylinder automatic Camry only managed a 9.6
sec 0-60 (the V-6 automatic could do 7.1 sec 0-60s, and the fuel
mileage was only about 1 mpg worse). It is pretty obvious to me  that
Toyota knows more about hybrids than Honda.

But the real question is, will you save enough on the cost of gasoline
to pay for the difference in initial cost? The Civic hybrid is at
least $3000 more expensive than the EX Sedan, if you assume the CR
average fuel economy is a good estimate of the real world, the math
works out as follows:

Gas used in 150,000 miles, and cost  assuming $3 gasoline -
Hybrid Civic - 4054 gallons / $12,162
Regular Civic (manual transmission) - 4,839 gallons / $14, 516

You can spend $3000+ to save less than $1400. Of course if you keep
the car longer, or gas prices continue to rise, the hybrid might make
more sense, but then there is the question of maintenance costs, extra
financing spent for the more expensive car, etc. I don't have a good
feel for these factors.

Likewise for the Camry -

Gas used in 150,000, and cost assuming $3 gasoline

Hybrid Camry - 4,412 gallons, $13,235
Regular Camry (4 cylinder automatic) - 6250 gallons, $18,750

So a hybrid Camry could save you $5,525 compared to as conventional
Camry. Of course to save this, you are going to spend $6000 or more
initially. And again there are all the questions about relative
maintenance costs, long term gas cost, financing charges, etc.

It is difficult for me to see the hybrids as a cost effective solution
for most drivers. Of course if you do a lot of in-town driving, plan
to keep the car for a very long time (and drive a lot of miles), and
assume the maintenance cost aren't much different, you might decide
the hybrid makes a good choice.

One thing for sure, Toyota has the best hybrids at this time.

Ed

On a MPG/Cost of car, ratio, how do those cars rank?
1
2
3
etc

I ask because I can find a 15 yr old 200K miles car in the newspaper
for $900 and it would get no more than 12MPG. So my MPG/Cost of car
ratio would kick some a.s.

With a new car around $20K, and my imaginary car costing $900, do you
realize how many gallons of gas I could buy with $19,100 ? How many
miles could I get @ my 12MPG? In the long run, even 5 years or longer,
I would win in money saved. I don't see how this could even be
disagreed on.

Get the calc.exe handy please.