2004 Prius Worth Twice as Much as Same Year Ford F150

Honda Insight have kept their value really well too, it's just too bad that so few of them were ever made.

There are other factors going for the Prius, such as consumer demand. You can't just walk onto a car lot and buy a Prius, there's a waiting list. I wonder how a F150 compares to an Escape Hybrid (more apples to apples) comparison.

"There are other factors going for the Prius, such as consumer demand. You can't just walk onto a car lot and buy a Prius, there's a waiting list. I wonder how a F150 compares to an Escape Hybrid (more apples to apples) comparison."

That's true, and probably explains the 95%. I think some insights now sell for more than they originally sold..

But notice how the regular Civic also keeps 75% of its value.

This is ridiculous. It's all supply and demand. Compare the production numbers between the two. There were WAY more Ford F150's produced and sold in the US than tiny quantity of Toyota Prius's. Now, compound the fact that people don't want fuel inefficient vehicles and it's not surprising that the resale value is so high. But what that also means is that those of us that need a new car, and don't have much money are going to be purchasing the gas hog and destroying the environment. Wait until the market becomes saturated with other, similar vehicles and the 2004 Prius will be just another used car.

I wonder if people are considering the depreciated value of the batteries on a used hybrid...

"This is ridiculous. It's all supply and demand"

Who said it wasn't?

"I wonder if people are considering the depreciated value of the batteries on a used hybrid..."

Batteries have been tested to be good for the life of the vehicle, and some cabs in vancouver (iirc) have put over 300,000 miles on Priuses over only a few years without any noticeable effect.

Shouldn't be a problem, the rest of the car will probably start to go bad before the batteries, and even if they lose charge a bit, it's not like gas cars stay as efficient over their lifetime either.

Few things here Mike

- These are different vehicles designed for different things; as per above, it's a tough comparison.

- Cars are not investments, they are depreciating assets.

- High fuel economy is not more attractive environmentally, it just encourages you to drive and pollute more.

- Another good way to save money is to buy a used F150 and not drive it except when you need to - as you mention, you can get one for a song.

To be fair, you should also compare resale value after 4 years of a Ford pickup vs a (non-hybrid) Toyota pickup. Maintaining resale value isn't as much a "hybrid vs. non-hybrid thing" as it is a "Toyota vs. Ford thing".

We got about $2500 back from federal and Colorado taxes on our 2004 Prius, so if the rest of your numbers are right, our car has actually appreciated over 4 years of ownership. Kelly usually overstates used values significantly, so I doubt it's quite that good, but still. Our car, despite being a very early example of a new model, has never needed anything other than routine maintenance. Not much fun to drive, but as a transportation appliance, undoubtedly the best purchase we could have possibly made.

Mark,

"- These are different vehicles designed for different things; as per above, it's a tough comparison."

I'm not comparing the utility, I'm comparing the resale value. If you look at sales of crewcab trucks (going off a cliff), we can deduce that lots of people bought them without real need for them.

If drivers were already picking vehicles based mainly on their needs, the comparison would be more problematic. But since many (maybe a majority) of people buy cars for reasons other than actual needs, and that their needs can be filled by a whole range of vehicles, comparing models in different classes has relevance (even if that's not what I'm doing here).

All those people who used to buy SUVs and are now buying Corolla or Camrys, did they needs change as soon as gas prices went up?

There was a survey on a Prius online forums, and tons of Prius drivers used to drive big SUVs and pickup trucks.

"- Cars are not investments, they are depreciating assets."

Of course. But it's still a better use of your money if you can resell it for twice as much. A better investment in the colloquial meaning of the word.

"- High fuel economy is not more attractive environmentally, it just encourages you to drive and pollute more."

It has a small effect, but it totally incorrect to say that it is linear like that.

People who have 30mpg vehicles don't drive twice as much on average as people with 15 mpg vehicles (and those that do probably do so because they knew they were going to drive a lot, so they bought an efficient car; not the other way around like you imply).

It's not like there's a fixed gas budget for everybody. People with gas guzzlers spend more on gas, and when they buy a more efficient car, they spend less on gas. They don't drive twice as much to make up for it, they'd rather spend the money on other things.

"- Another good way to save money is to buy a used F150 and not drive it except when you need to - as you mention, you can get one for a song."

If you don't drive in the first place, sure. But it's still better for the environment to have an efficient car and only drive when you need it. For the price of a used F150, you could get many models of smaller cars on the used market (incl. from Ford, GM, Hyundai, etc). And by buying big inefficient vehicles you don't need, you send a market signal to companies to keep making more of those (even on the used market).

"To be fair, you should also compare resale value after 4 years of a Ford pickup vs a (non-hybrid) Toyota pickup. Maintaining resale value isn't as much a "hybrid vs. non-hybrid thing" as it is a "Toyota vs. Ford thing"."

There's always been a difference between brands, but I think what's new is that this is magnified by "fuel efficient vs. not fuel efficient", which makes total sense now, but used to matter A LOT less in the US.

I'm not comparing the utility, I'm comparing the resale value. If you look at sales of crewcab trucks (going off a cliff), we can deduce that lots of people bought them without real need for them.

>>>you can't compare resale value of two different vehicles - how about a bicycle and a tractor trailer then?

All those people who used to buy SUVs and are now buying Corolla or Camrys, did they needs change as soon as gas prices went up?
>>>Yes, they did. They refactored what they needed in a vehicle and the price of gas was part of it..

"- High fuel economy is not more attractive environmentally, it just encourages you to drive and pollute more."

It has a small effect, but it totally incorrect to say that it is linear like that.
>>>It was written as more, not linear; when you buy a vehicle with more MPGs, there is a real economic tendency to use it. You might be saying Prius buyers don't respond to economic signals as well as others, and that's interesting; I doubt it though.

People with gas guzzlers spend more on gas, and when they buy a more efficient car, they spend less on gas.
>>>No no no, the amount you spend on gas is independent of the vehicle you own, its a function of how often you drive it.

They don't drive twice as much to make up for it, they'd rather spend the money on other things.
>>>like driving?

But it's still better for the environment to have an efficient car and only drive when you need it. For the price of a used F150, you could get many models of smaller cars on the used market (incl. from Ford, GM, Hyundai, etc). And by buying big inefficient vehicles you don't need, you send a market signal to companies to keep making more of those (even on the used market).
>>>Again, need is irrevelant - its a price for a product. Obviously the F150 must have some pretty big advantages in a vehicle because its the best selling car . you could get a smaller vehicle, but why buy something that doesn't suit your needs when you can buy a already existing truck and only drive it when you need to?

">>>you can't compare resale value of two different vehicles - how about a bicycle and a tractor trailer then?"

Sure you can. You can compare the resale value of a computer and a house plant. One keeps its value, the other loses it fast.

My point here is that in this new energy context, fuel efficient vehicles are more advantaged when it comes to resale value than even a few years ago independently of other characteristics (but I also bet that more fuel-efficient trucks do better than less fuel efficient trucks, everything else being the same).

">>>Yes, they did. They refactored what they needed in a vehicle and the price of gas was part of it.."

If your definition of "needs" is so broad as to include any "wants", then maybe. But if these people can drive a Camry now, they could probably have driven one before gas prices went up, they just didn't *want* to, which isn't the same.

">>>It was written as more, not linear; when you buy a vehicle with more MPGs, there is a real economic tendency to use it. You might be saying Prius buyers don't respond to economic signals as well as others, and that's interesting; I doubt it though."

You are referring to the Jevons Paradox. Of course there is an incentive to use more as things become more efficient, but in the real world when it comes to cars, you still most of the net benefits of efficiency left.

If someone commutes to work 5 days a week, goes out twice on the weekend, etc.. He won't start commuting 10 times a week, go out 4 times per weekend, etc.. when he buys a Prius. Maybe he'll drive a bit more, but it won't eat the efficiency gains.

">>>No no no, the amount you spend on gas is independent of the vehicle you own, its a function of how often you drive it."

Independent of the vehicle you own? You really believe that? Fact is, if you look at how many miles someone drives in a year, it stays fairly constant over someone's life as long as they have the same job and live in the same place. It doesn't go: 10,000 miles a year when I owned a pickup. 30,000 miles a year when I drove a Yaris, etc.

So while there's might be some variation as mentioned above, the end result is that you still drive a similar amount of miles which you then multiply by the MPG of your vehicle.

If reality was as you think it is, people wouldn't be looking to buy more efficient cars right now because it wouldn't make a difference.

">>>Again, need is irrevelant - its a price for a product. Obviously the F150 must have some pretty big advantages in a vehicle because its the best selling car . you could get a smaller vehicle, but why buy something that doesn't suit your needs when you can buy a already existing truck and only drive it when you need to?"

Exactly. those who NEED a F150 will be stuck with the devaluation. Not fair, but such is life. Others who don't really NEED a F150 and could be driving something else can look at those numbers and decide that it's one more reason why they'll be better off buying someone more efficient.

The F150 is the best selling car in the US in good part because gas was very cheap there compared to the rest of the world for a long time, but also because the "F150" badge includes many different models, some of those are very different from each other (cube trucks, etc), and many are fleet vehicles. It's not the best-selling vehicle anymore, in any case.

But if these people can drive a Camry now, they could probably have drive one before gas prices went up, they just didn't *want* to, which isn't the same.
>>>They probably could have ridden a bike; I don't find the moral argument to be particularly useful; people know what they need/want, and what they can afford.

If someone commutes to work 5 days a week, goes out twice on the weekend, etc.. He won't start commuting 10 times a week, go out 4 times per weekend, etc.. when he buys a Prius. Maybe he'll drive a bit more, but it won't eat the efficiency gains.
>>>You're right, buying a Prius is a vote for the status quo; the buyer won't reduce their driving, they'll just keep on driving as much as they always did. Now buying an used F150 is the correct environmental stance - unless your a millionnaire, you will reduce your driving.

Not sure where you are on the gas thing; you only burn gas when you drive...

The F150 was good value for the money; I agree its probably not as good a value now.

">>>They probably could have ridden a bike; I don't find the moral argument to be particularly useful; people know what they need/want, and what they can afford."

Here's the difference between "need" and "want".

scenario: You need to commute x miles a day. You have a family of X people. etc.

Knowing those factors, there's a range of options. Some are at the extremes (a unicycle and a tank), but most could live happily with the obvious choices in the middle of that range, and wouldn't consider options below a certain threshold to be satisfactory (ie. a scooter might not cut it, etc).

Now some people might WANT an Escalade with bling, but the reason why they can decide to buy a smaller car the next time they buy is because of their needs.

If you are a contractor who tows and carry a lot of stuff each day, your needs will keep you from getting a smaller car.

">>>You're right, buying a Prius is a vote for the status quo; the buyer won't reduce their driving, they'll just keep on driving as much as they always did. Now buying an used F150 is the correct environmental stance - unless your a millionnaire, you will reduce your driving."

This is getting into bizarro world logic. It's a false choice; reality is not "either drive a lot in a prius or don't drive much in a F150".

In practice, people still need to go to work, to buy groceries, to pick up the kids at daycare, etc. In the real world, as I already said, the number of miles driven in a year doesn't vary that much independently of the vehicle you drive (which is why you see all these news stories about people cutting back on vacations, luxury goods, etc, to pay for gas).

The biggest limiting factor on people's number of miles driven is "where they need to go", not gas prices or vehicle MPG. This explains both why they spend more on gas when prices go up (and cut elsewhere), and why drivers of efficient cars aren't spending all their free time making up new places to go to to somehow spend as much $ as they would in a F150.

"Not sure where you are on the gas thing; you only burn gas when you drive..."

Yes, and if people's driving patterns were like you say they are, your approach would work. Unfortunately, it isn't the case. Maybe it is for you personally, I don't know.

"The F150 was good value for the money; I agree its probably not as good a value now."

Depends what you used it for. If it was to commute alone, never carrying much that wouldn't fit into a regular trunk except a few times a year (which is probably the average F150 owner), then it was just a luxury toy. Energy prices are making people cut luxuries first, not necessities. That's why crewcabs aren't selling anymore, but the models bought by contractors are holding better.

"You're right, buying a Prius is a vote for the status quo; the buyer won't reduce their driving, they'll just keep on driving as much as they always did."

Yeah, and use one-fourth the gas doing so. That's 20 gallons of gas as opposed to 80 gallons of gas.

You realize, of course, that SUVs and LTs make up 40% of the US fleet, but because of their fuel efficiency (or lack thereof) burn 55% to 60% of the fuel used in the US? Replace just half of them with a Prius or Civic HB or their equivalent, and you would save 100 to 133 million gallons of gasoline EACH AND EVERY DAY.

"You're right, buying a Prius is a vote for the status quo"

Buying a Prius is a market signal for more efficient vehicle with cleaner emissions, and for the development of EV technology.

Buying a F150 (even propping up the used market), now that is a vote for the status quo.

Think about it. You could own a Prius for 4 years for only 5% of its total value.

You can't beat that! You have a car almost for free, you just pay for gas, and it gets very good gas mileage...

One thing not mentioned is that the older Priuses came with the environmental sticker that allowed for driving solo in the car pool lanes. That sticker alone has boosted demand for older Priuses in Socal over new ones.

Thanks for your definition of need and wants; not sure if others share your perspective. Again, many people such as myself are more market-oriented and make decisions basely primarily on cost, try and get the most luxury and utility for what they can afford. I have yet to hear an environmentally-minded argument that suggests this is not a constructive approach e.g. your article.

Why the fixation on the need to drive? You can simply cut your mileage; in fact, many people who have kept low MPG vehicles have done this because they couldn't afford a more economical car.

Eco is about options, so if you're going to trade in a F150 for a Prius, you can take a hit on the truck, write a large check for a Prius, and continue going about your driving as usual. Another good option is simply keep your truck or buy a used one and make the commitment to cut your driving; there are + and - on both sdies, but on the environmental balance, the latter is probably the better choice.

"Thanks for your definition of need and wants; not sure if others share your perspective. Again, many people such as myself are more market-oriented and make decisions basely primarily on cost, try and get the most luxury and utility for what they can afford. I have yet to hear an environmentally-minded argument that suggests this is not a constructive approach e.g. your article."

I didn't say anything about luxury. There's a bit difference between buying a bare-bones mid-sized Kia sedan an a fully loaded mid-sized Acura sedan.

I also didn't say that trying to get the most utility possible was wrong, just that it was a luxury that gets cut when things like energy prices go up. Why does it get cut? Because it's "wants", not "needs". Needs are cut last. That's just how it works. My intentions are descriptive, not prescriptive.

"Why the fixation on the need to drive? You can simply cut your mileage; in fact, many people who have kept low MPG vehicles have done this because they couldn't afford a more economical car."

It's not a fixation, it's how the real world works for most people. I can wish they'd all cut their miles driven by 50% and hop on a bike, but it's not realistic to expect that to happen overnight for hundreds of millions of people. They need to get to work, etc. Maybe someday they'll move or telecommute, but that won't be most people for a while, and in the meantime, you're better off with an efficient vehicle than with an inefficient one. Your description of a world where miles-driven is a totally elastic variable, and where the same individual will have vastly different driving patterns based on which vehicle he has isn't plausible as a general rule. In fact, people buying big SUVs and trucks usually have more money than people who buy small cars and probably are less price-sensitive. The reason why it makes the evening news is that things have gotten to the point where even people with money feel it. Anyway, I don't want to repeat myself anymore than that, see earlier comments for more details.

"Eco is about options, so if you're going to trade in a F150 for a Prius, you can take a hit on the truck, write a large check for a Prius, and continue going about your driving as usual. Another good option is simply keep your truck or buy a used one and make the commitment to cut your driving; there are + and - on both sdies, but on the environmental balance, the latter is probably the better choice."

That's one specific scenario. There are countless others. But again, there's a false choice in there: You can buy smaller cars (many less expensive than used F150s) on the used market, not just big trucks, or you can trade in your F150 for something efficient that is less expensive than a Prius, etc. But the resale value argument was mostly for people buying new anyway (there will always be some of those).

Fact is, in the real world, people buy cars, and it's better for the environment if the cars they buy are more fuel efficient and have cleaner emissions, whether it's on the used market or new. Building up scenarios that are exceptions to that general rule don't mean the rule isn't correct for the vast majority of people.

If you are an exception, good for you.

It's not an exception Mike; Jim Kunstler wrote recently about how difficult the problem is [on transportation]:

"This is a broad cultural phenomenon and helps to explain why even the greenest captains of environmentalism strive to find groovy new ways to run all our cars, while their counterparts on Wall Street strive desperately to salvage a set of "innovative" financial rackets based on getting something for nothing."

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/08/shoulder-season.html

Why mileage reduction is such a terror, I don't know; I can't pretend that I understand how the world works for most people. We're at different levels on the solution to this problem.

I don't see how that has anything to do with what we're talking about. Could you be a bit clearer please?

In any case, the whole thing pretty much boils down to:

1) higher efficiency is better than lower efficiency

2) driving less is better than driving more

The difference between you and I is that I think we should try to try to go for the best of these two variables whenever possible, while you seem to say that one out of two is good enough.

You also seem to be claiming opposites: People have no control over themselves, if they buy an efficient car, they'll drive a lot more AND people have control over themselves, it's easy, they can keep the big car and just need to drive a lot less.

You all just don't get it, do you?

The point is that in 2004 people should have known better. Hell, after Gulf War I they should have known better, but after 9/11 anyone who was idiotic enough to buy an SUV/light truck and wasn't a contractor is a complete and utter s***4brains.

Waaaaa.... mommy, its too expensive to drive my truck to work and I don't have the money for a Prius because my trade in is for s**t. Tough. Survival of the fittest, at least that's what you thought when you bought that huge POS vehicle. Not so great now that you're on the other side of that equation. Suck it down.

The alternatives are to buy an expensive, efficient vehicle and then drive it as little as possible, as compared to buying/keeping a cheap, not as efficient vehicle and driving it as little as possible. So we agree that driving less is good.

There is the problem of the cash required to purchase such an expensive, modern, sophisticated vehicle, and the behavioral change that will supposedly occur, seemingly in the face of economic reality, where the operator has just bought a car well over the sticker price of 25K and will have the... fortitude, shall we call it... to allow it to sit in their driveway untouched.

Is this an appropriate use of resources? Probably no, and to hope that this particular car from this particular manufacturer will retain 95% of its value over 5-10 years borders on fantasy. Ala Kunstler, it is Happy Motoring dreams like these that keep many Americans from real betterment of their own lives. Solutions such as these are often billed as incremental, steps towards the goal, etc... but often are just timid, and cause a lot of financial pain for a few potential cleaned up externalities.

Maybe that's the problem. You seem to think that it's Prius vs anything else, or new vs. used, while I never said that. It's the headline of the post because it was a striking example, but it's not the only choice and you can usually get efficient vehicles cheaper (acquisition + operating costs) than inefficient ones (f.ex. Corolla, Civic, Fit, Yaris, Elantra, Accent, Cobalt, Focus, Aveo, Mazda 3, Scion, Cavalier, Vibe, Versa, Sentra, etc, etc)

In any case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because my complete answer to your last comment would be variations on things I've already said above. That probably means that we've exhausted this topic.

Cheers,

Mike

With the market as it is, I'd think you would be hard pressed to beat an SUV or F150 now for acquisition + operating costs.

There are many choices. I'll write something up and post on it, reference the thread.

I would recommend against that. Even if it was the case, and I don't think it is, TreeHugger is about green, not a personal finance blog. You can't justify buying a used F150 over a used Cavalier from a green point of view unless you are a contractor (or whatever), in which case you don't have a choice anyway, so the point it moot.

If you still want to write a post about it, clear it with Meg first.

Thanks.

Lets say you buy a used F150 for 9.7K. You drive it 12,000 miles a year, get 15 mpg (real world is probably lower), and gas averages $3.50 over the following 4 years (probably optimistic for next 4 years).

Thats:

9.7k + (12,000/15 * 3.5)*4 = $20,900

A Prius: buy for 21k, drive it 12,000 miles, get 45 mpg, gas averages $3.50 over 4 years.

21k + (12,000/45 * 3.5)*4 = $24,733

For about 4k, you will have burned 4 times less gas, you'll have AT-PZEV emissions, and when you resell it, it'll more than make up for the 4k difference. You'd probably come up much further ahead if gas is higher than $3.5.

Seems like a good deal to me. You could save a lot more money by getting a non-hybrid for around 10-12k, too.