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.
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.
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.
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.