Cost comparison for all Fusion Ti models

[lokicat]

Hi All,

 

I thought I would share my calculations I used to buy the Ti NRG. Here is what I came up with.

 

Assumptions

• 50,000 miles of driving
• Base MSRP of each model - 30,200 (Gas), 32,100(Hybrid), and 40,100(NRG)
• $5250 Federal and state tax credit ($1500 for CA) for NRG
• 26 MPG combined for gas model
• $4 per gallon of gas

What I wanted to know was what my MPGe would have to be for hybrid and NRG to break even for the extra I would pay for hybrid and NRG over gas model. Here is what the calculations came out to be:

 

Titanium Hybrid - minimum 35 MPG average to break even after 50,000 miles

Titanium NRG - minimum 65 MPGe average to break even after 50,000 miles

 

Analysis

 

Maintaining 35 MPG or better for the Hybrid is pretty easy to do so I would say Hybrid is well worth the premium over gas. It's worth mentioning that Ford's claim of 47 MPG combined is highly suspect. The tricky part for the NRG is that 65 MPGe is difficult to calculate because it depends on how much you run on EV and your electricity cost. In my case, I am at least 72 MPGe as my EV usage is about 60% of my total miles. My actuals could be more because I get free charging at times when I shop or dine out.

 

Long Term

 

If you plan to own for more than 50K miles, then NRG really starts to shine. Using the same 35 and 65 MPGe numbers, here is what 100,000 miles looks like:

 

Titanium Hybrid - saves $2,056 over gas model

Titanium NRG - saves $4,581 over gas model

 

Conclusion

 

Both Hybrid and NRG can offset the premium costs over the gas model within 50K miles. For those deciding between Hybrid and NRG it really comes down to lifestyle and not so much dollars. The main reason why I ran the numbers was to refute many professional reviews that stated that the premium over the standard gas model was not worth it.

[DelS]

The elephant in the room is that, If you add in the true costs of gas then the savings would be many, many thousands more.

[Synapse]

Also should mention that the Energi is also the only version that gets HOV-lane access, which can be very worthwhile to certain folks.

[jeff_h]

I had my 2010 FFH for 3½ years and 145k miles, I have a long commute - I also track every fillup on a spreadsheet and on fuelly.  Totals are:

 

Miles - 145,386

Gallons - 3,657

MPG - 39.76

Cost - $11,078 which saves $6,538 in gas over a car that averages 25 MPG or $10,942 in gas over a car that averages 20 MPG.

 

I have only had the 2013 FFH for 13k miles, but thus far the average (manual calc miles / gallons at pump) is 46.74 MPG, so I look forward to beating the above numbers from my 2010.

 

And then we also have my wife's Energi, which should do significantly better than the above two -- it has 1,800 miles thus far and almost time to fill up for the 2nd time... so I'm tracking the MPG on that too but of course the MPGe would be lower and I'll just rely on the display for that.

[jsamp]

Lokicat,

 

  How are you factoring in the cost of the electricity?

 

The elephant in the room is that, If you add in the true costs of gas then the savings would be many, many thousands more.

 

"true cost of gas" - Del, can you elaborate?

[meyersnole]

Lokicat,

 

  How are you factoring in the cost of the electricity?

 

 

"true cost of gas" - Del, can you elaborate?

 

If you look at the "deferred" cost of gas would be another way to state what Del referenced. The price we pay in increased health bills from breathing smog, the cost to stabilize a region of the planet so we can keep the crude flowing, or the cost of increased CO2 in global warming (erratic and frequent weather events) to name a few. 

 

One could argue the measure of effect or causality but I would agree with Del that it is often overlooked. At least this is what I think Del is referring.  

[DelS]

If you look at the "deferred" cost of gas would be another way to state what Del referenced. The price we pay in increased health bills from breathing smog, the cost to stabilize a region of the planet so we can keep the crude flowing, or the cost of increased CO2 in global warming (erratic and frequent weather events) to name a few. 

 

One could argue the measure of effect or causality but I would agree with Del that it is often overlooked. At least this is what I think Del is referring.  

Meyersnole, this is exactly to what I'm referring.    To add to your great explanation, the solar panels on top of my house do not require strip mining our landscapes.  Nor do those panels(like gas) require the injection of thousands of gallons of undisclosed chemicals that bleed into the water table that my water company extracts our tap water from(thank goodness I am able to enjoy a reverse-osmosis water filter!)   The mammoth exporting of dollars thru the gas pump to Canada, Venezuela and the Mid-East, etc is a drain on the economy-- those dollars hardly come back to the states.  But money saved from electricity also stays in your own pocket, or at least stays stateside, lowering the trade deficit.

 

These all add up towards the true cost of gasoline, among others.    

[Russael]

Meyersnole, this is exactly to what I'm referring.    To add to your great explanation, the solar panels on top of my house do not require strip mining our landscapes.  Nor do those panels(like gas) require the injection of thousands of gallons of undisclosed chemicals that bleed into the water table that my water company extracts our tap water from(thank goodness I am able to enjoy a reverse-osmosis water filter!)   The mammoth exporting of dollars thru the gas pump to Canada, Venezuela and the Mid-East, etc is a drain on the economy-- those dollars hardly come back to the states.  But money saved from electricity also stays in your own pocket, or at least stays stateside, lowering the trade deficit.

 

These all add up towards the true cost of gasoline, among others.    

 

To play a little devil's advocate, solar panels put a negative dent in the economy as you are no longer paying for a service.  Think of those poor energy company people who now no longer sell you their product to make money!  All of those employees are having their money taken away from retirement!! ;)

 

Honestly, I want to do the solar thing and have been planning on it since I moved in 5 years ago.  I like the idea of not causing emissions, not draining a precious natural resource, I hate bills, etc.  In all honesty, Big Oil needs to think about CHANGE.  Problem is their product is very limited in what it can do.  Yes, there are loads of chemicals it can do.  It can make plastics.  It can produce heat.  It can make electricity.  The problem is that it isn't clean and it isn't renewable.  Perhaps if they changed their energy source from crude to something more natural, then maybe we wouldn't be looking to go green with electricity.  They don't seem to want to do that which is why electrified vehicles were so rare (it was less expensive to kill off alternative energy than it was to research something smarter)... and even though a lot of individuals really dislike our current president, I think if it weren't for him, cars like the Tesla or Fusion Energi wouldn't be around.

[DelS]

To play a little devil's advocate, solar panels put a negative dent in the economy as you are no longer paying for a service.  Think of those poor energy company people who now no longer sell you their product to make money!  All of those employees are having their money taken away from retirement!! ;)

 

 

 

Haha yes that 'retirement' thing may be true if the electric co didn't already lay off that poor bloke-- previous to my panel purchase, with the advent of smart meters that they monitor from a central database.   They already fired that employee that used to physically sneaker in and check my meter.    And I still pay for the grid, it's maintenance and infrastructure, employees to some extent, which I still am wired to.    They take electricity generated by me as barter, which they sell to my neighbors.  And as I save $, I may spend more, stimulating the economy which uses more energy, making that electrical employee more valuable.

 

We are using more electricity every year, not less, solar panels or not, those vast solar and wind arrays being erected need soles to build, test, monitor, and maintain them.   The solar and wind companies are hirin'.  

[jsamp]

If you look at the "deferred" cost of gas would be another way to state what Del referenced. The price we pay in increased health bills from breathing smog, the cost to stabilize a region of the planet so we can keep the crude flowing, or the cost of increased CO2 in global warming (erratic and frequent weather events) to name a few. 

 

One could argue the measure of effect or causality but I would agree with Del that it is often overlooked. At least this is what I think Del is referring.  

 

Meyersnole, this is exactly to what I'm referring.    To add to your great explanation, the solar panels on top of my house do not require strip mining our landscapes.  Nor do those panels(like gas) require the injection of thousands of gallons of undisclosed chemicals that bleed into the water table that my water company extracts our tap water from(thank goodness I am able to enjoy a reverse-osmosis water filter!)   The mammoth exporting of dollars thru the gas pump to Canada, Venezuela and the Mid-East, etc is a drain on the economy-- those dollars hardly come back to the states.  But money saved from electricity also stays in your own pocket, or at least stays stateside, lowering the trade deficit.

 

These all add up towards the true cost of gasoline, among others.    

 

I see where you are coming from and I applaud your efforts, however your specific situation is rare.  Since ~70% of the electricity in the US is from either coal or fossil fuels, you have to consider the "deferred" cost of electricity.  That means a lot of pollution belched out in the US to run the "typical american's" car if they were to go electric.  Solar is not without it's costs to the environment, with mining of materials, processing waste and EOU disposal concerns.  Granted, those costs are one time for a 20+ year life, but they are not insignificant.  If your solar panels were made in US then the deficit was improved, if not it just changed the source of the imported material.

[meyersnole]

I see where you are coming from and I applaud your efforts, however your specific situation is rare.  Since ~70% of the electricity in the US is from either coal or fossil fuels, you have to consider the "deferred" cost of electricity.  That means a lot of pollution belched out in the US to run the "typical american's" car if they were to go electric.  Solar is not without it's costs to the environment, with mining of materials, processing waste and EOU disposal concerns.  Granted, those costs are one time for a 20+ year life, but they are not insignificant.  If your solar panels were made in US then the deficit was improved, if not it just changed the source of the imported material.

At the risk of turning this into a political discussion (I hope not), I have heard the talking points and there are some merits.  However, i believe doing nothing is not the answer.

 

Yes coal and fossil fuels comprise about 70% of US power grid production in 2009, but that number and lumping them together as equal is not looking at situation fairly. (I think it is time for me to stick my disclaimer in here: These are my thoughts. I am not trying to force any opinion on anyone and just explaining -- or attempting to explain -- how I see the world.) OK... where was I, coal usage as a percentage of our power grid is actually declining. While I would like to say that this decline is offset mainly by renewable energy the main reason seems to be natural gas which is both positive (cleaner then coal or gasoline when burned) and negative (environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing comes to mind).   

 

Now, while gas may account for the majority of the displacement it is not all of it. There is significant investment world wide in renewable energy (biofuels, wind, solar), and efforts in carbon trading, LEED certification, and efficiency through things like CAFE standards (Hello! PHEV) are all having their effects. As mentioned in an earlier rant, I know I am on the front end of this technology and the benefits are not as great as they will be in the future. But as also mentioned earlier, hybrid cars use to be a lot less efficient than they are now. Better battery chemistry, materials, and engineering have come a long way through the experience as I expect PHEV and EV will continue down that path. Yes, the batteries are currently using rare elements and it will not scale to the population. Yes, there are disposal issues with the chemicals in the battery. Yes, some of these vehicles are powered by coal.

 

However, the batteries are improving rapidly in chemical composition and we are learning how to reclaim and deal with hazardous materials. Many of these vehicles are powered by means other then fossil fuels (mine is powered by  nuclear -- which has it own set of issues). Maybe, just maybe Ford, GM, Tesla, Toyota, .... have found an alternate approach to efficiency to help us meet our ever increasing desire for power that will keep us driving down the road just a little longer.  Personally I hope we acknowledge the current issues and keep finding incremental solutions that lead to breakthroughs and new paradigms.

[lokicat]

Lokicat,

 

  How are you factoring in the cost of the electricity?

 

I don't have a separate meter on my charger so I am taking a number that a couple folks have measured in this forum. I am using 7.5 KwH to fully charge and $0.16 per KwH. My actual cost is lower because I probably get more than 20% of my charges free.

[jsamp]

meyersnole,

 

well stated without getting political.  I agree that there are negative impacts from both sides (fossil fuels and electricity) and that was my point.  While one may be better than the other, neither is repercussion free.  Figuring out the "true" cost is quite difficult.

 

 

lokicat,

 

Thanks for the answer.  I saw where your fuel calculations were coming from, but didn't have a feel for how you factored in the electricity.

[rprobst]

Since ~70% of the electricity in the US is from either coal or fossil fuels, you have to consider the "deferred" cost of electricity.  That means a lot of pollution belched out in the US to run the "typical american's" car if they were to go electric.

 

The best source of facts I have found is the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their study shows that 45% of Americans live on grids that deliver power produced cleanly enough that a gas car would have to get over 50 MPG to have a smaller carbon footprint than an electric car (or PHEV in EV mode).

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/cv/electric-cars-global-warming-emissions-fact-2.jpg

 

So would a bicycle be cleaner still? Sure. I guess I am still contributing somewhat to the deferred cost you mention.

 

But I want to drive a comfortable car that looks good and goes well. I love my Fusion Energi, and I'm really happy that, given my average driving distances, it's producing less greenhouse gas than anything but the most extreme tiny diesel gasser could. Even if it is more than a bicycle.

[DelS]

I see where you are coming from and I applaud your efforts, however your specific situation is rare.  Since ~70% of the electricity in the US is from either coal or fossil fuels, you have to consider the "deferred" cost of electricity.  That means a lot of pollution belched out in the US to run the "typical american's" car if they were to go electric.  Solar is not without it's costs to the environment, with mining of materials, processing waste and EOU disposal concerns.  Granted, those costs are one time for a 20+ year life, but they are not insignificant.  If your solar panels were made in US then the deficit was improved, if not it just changed the source of the imported material.

Your thought about pollution 'belched out' because of EV use sounds a bit strange.  Have you ridden behind a diesel truck lately?  I take from your arguments that natural gas or coal plants are completely clean in all of this, that coal and shale oil strip mining, fracking, coal ash floods and disposal issues, etc don't exist?  Or that BP or Shell or whomever never spill or sully land or ocean thru oil exploration? jsamp I do appreciate hearing your point of view for sure.  And rest assured that clean technology is not standing still, but gains in efficiency are moving forward at a great pace.    But rather than get all soap-boxey, I'll include a link that is a bit more than a year old, but still is true today:

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/02/08/myths-and-facts-about-electric-cars/185798#carbon