Roadside Assistance - RACV vs Budget Direct

I currently drive an old 1997 Toyota Camry that I purchased when I was a student. I've been driving it for about five years now and it has done about 260,000 kilometres. Because it is an old car, it is essential that I have roadside assistance in case something goes wrong. Some people have asked me why I don't just buy a new car. The answer is that new cars, e.g. a brand new $30,000 Toyota Camry, will lose about $3000 worth of value per year on average. I purchased my old Camry about five years ago for $7000 and a search on the internet of similar cars reveals that it is worth about $4000 today, so that is depreciation of about $600 per year compared to $3000. Sure, an old car may need to be serviced and repaired more, but I am sure that cost will not be greater than $2400 per year. A cheaper car is also cheaper to insure.

Back to the topic of roadside assistance. I've been with RACV for a few years now. I have recently received a bill from them to renew my roadside assistance. They are charging $95! Seems a little expensive. I did a quick internet search and found that Budget Direct charges $70. However, digging around a little more I have noticed one feature of Budget Direct's roadside assistance package that worried me: they only offer towing of up to 40km in the country. The biggest fear I have with this is, if my car broke down in the country, would the tow truck only haul my car 40km and that is it? What if 40kms is not enough? According to RACV's website, they offer the following if you breakdown 100km from your home: "$750, Taxi (1@$50), Rental vehicle, Alternative transport, Accommodation." The RACV benefit sounds much more reassuring.

Insurance is difficult because no insurance is the same. We are talking about highly differentiated products. It is not like petrol. Petrol is approximately the same and so you can easily compare petrol prices of different service stations according to price per litre. Insurance is not so easy. The key to comparing insurance, I think, is to look at what benefits you really think you need and then trying to find insurance that provides those benefits for the lowest cost.

What to do about a dirty engine

Recently when I get out of my car, I can smell a smoky smell. My mother thought that maybe there are something wrong with the car and that, if left untreated, the car might explode. I have since spoken to an expert who told me that the oil leaks in my car. Because the oil leaks onto the engine, dirt sticks to the engine. Because the engine gets hot when it runs, it burns the dirt, producing that smoky smell. I asked him whether it was something to be concerned about and he said no. It was normal in old cars.

Where there is a profit there is a rip off

The article Mr Money: the most profitable car companies claims that consumers looking to buy cars should consider buying from car manufacturers who are highly profitable. According to the author, these companies, because they are profitable, are able to offer more discounts:

For customers in the market for new cars, it's essential to know which makers are rolling in money and therefore able to lower their prices or offer incentives such as zero per cent finance or free insurance. Equally, it's just as important that consumers know if they're buying from a struggling manufacturer which might be unwilling or unable to offer good deals or even offer a little flexibility on price.

However, I think this is the wrong way to think about company profitability and finding a car that is value for money. Suppose a can of Coke costs $1. Suppose I buy it from someone who sells it for only $1 and hence that individual makes no profit. Suppose I buy it from someone who sells it for $10 and therefore makes a $9 profit. Clearly I am being ripped off by the provider who sells the Coke for $10. All else equal, the higher the profit, the greater the rip off.

If a company is many enormous profits, a customer should wonder how that company many enormous profits in the first place. There is a good chance that it has ripped off consumers by charging prices that are well above costs.

Used Armoured Cars

At work I spoke to a young friend about the housing affordability crisis (HAC) in Australia. He lamented that buying a house now would cost about $500,000. My young friend is absolutely crazy because there are plenty of houses much cheaper than $500,000. For example, you can buy a house in Melton for about $250,000. However, he then said that he didn't want to buy a cheap house because "it's poor for a reason." He claimed that cheap houses were normally in bad neighbourhoods where there is a lot of crime.

I don't actually know what the crime rate is in Melton, but assuming that high-crime suburbs have lower price, I started wondering if it is worth it paying a vey high premium in house prices (or rent) just so you can the chances of being a victim of crime when there are other perhaps cheaper ways of reducing your chances of being a victim of crime. For example, perhaps it would be cheaper overall to buy a house in a cheap suburb but then protect yourself by putting a concrete wall around your house to keep you safe. To protect yourself when you go in and out of the house you will need a strong automatic garage door as well as an armoured car.

My friend scoffed at the idea, saying that an armoured car is extremely expensive. I didn't know whether this was true or not, but I checked the internet and have found a site (in America) that sells used armoured cars, and there are some used armoured cars there for only US$25,000, so that is pretty cheap.

For me, safety comes first, so I think maybe it might be a good idea to buy an armoured car. Many people tell me that if I live in a good neighbourhood then I will be fine, but I think that crime doesn't disappear just because the net worth of the people around you rises. It's better to be safe. There's no harm in being prepared.

Urinating While You Drive

I remember a few months ago I was driving to work. When I drive to work I have to drive 25 kilometers to the city, so going to work and back eats up 50 kilometers from my car.

Unfortunately for me I drank too much water before leaving home. Because of this I was busting to urinate while on the way there. The problem was that I didn't know where the toilets were. The traffic was also very bad.

I arrived at work just in time, rushed to the toilet, and relieved myself.

Learning from my mistake, today I have thrown an empty 2-liter plastic milk bottle in the back seat of my car. If I ever have to urinate during a trip I will pull up at a deserted residential street and urinate in this milk bottle.

Fair Trade Ethanol Fuel

Here in Australia they are starting to sell E10 petrol you can fill into your car. E10 is 90% petroleum and 10% ethanol. E10 is cheaper than normal petrol but less efficient. You can use it in any normal car with fuel injected engine without conversion. Most ethanol is produced in America and Brazil, but I think it would be great if, like tea and coffee, ethanol can be created in very poor countries and consumers can opt for a fair trade brand, allowing motorists to support employment in poor countries while driving their cars.

The Psychology of SUV Drivers

In my parking lot at work, a really small woman got into her 4WD (or SUV) and backed into a concrete pillar. She swore and then lurched the car forward, almost hitting me as I walked by. She got out to inspect the damage. I told her, "It looks okay." She replied, "Thank God I drive a 4WD." That started to make me wonder if this woman drives a 4WD just because she knows deep down that she is a poor driver.

A friend of mine who works at university as a chemist purchased a 4WD. He told me that he wanted it so that he could, as he said, "drive down the road and tell other people to get out of my way or I'll run them over." Once again, it seems as if 4WDs give their drivers a sense of strength, invincibility, or superiority.

Another friend, a carpenter, purchased a 4WD and told me that he wanted to get a 4WD so that he can "watch the environmentalists squirm." Getting a 4WD then is for the purpose of rebellion. Given that a car is a major purchase, it's quite strange that this person is basing his decision to buy on the childish emotion of rebellion, wanting to be cool or unique by being bad.

The catch is that these three people were driving small 4WDs. The girl at work was driving a two-door compact Suzuki 4WD while the chemist was driving a Toyota Rav4. The anti-environmentalist was driving a Nissan X-Trail. When I think of 4WDs I don't think of these cars. I think mainly of three cars: the Land Rovers (Discovery and Range Rover), Toyota Landcruiser, and the Nissan Patrol. The Land Rover is a marque that is dedicated to 4WDs and the brand has a strong reputation of building vehicles that can go through almost any terrain in the bush or the desert. On the downside Land Rover has a poor history of reliability. The company has changed hands countless times. It used to be owned by BMW, who then sold it to Ford, who then sold it to Tata. The Toyota Landcruiser is a favorite especially among Australians. The Nissan Patrol is used by the United Nations. While these three are highly able off-road vehicles, on road they are not pleasant to drive. Marketers then decided to capitalize on the imagery of the 4WD and created what is known as the soft-roader. These cars are really just normal hatchbacks that are jacked up a little to make it look like a 4WD. Therefore, they have the fuel economy and drive comfort of a small car but the imagery of a 4WD. This marketing magic resulted in a huge swing from real, truck-like 4WDs to these pretend cars. Soft-roaders include cars like the Toyota Rav4, Honda CRV, Nissan X-Trail, BMW 5-Series, and Mercedes M-class. Some of the ads really go far to express the 4WD psychological imagery inherent in these cars. For example, the Nissan X-Trail's ad features a man who, instead of driving around with a puppy dog, drives around and plays with a crocodile as a pet. How many of these soft-road drivers will actually use their cars to haul around crocodiles?

As petrol prices go up, many people are switching away from large cars, but although small cars sell well, many people are also switching to these soft-road cars.

Top Gear Crew Attacked in Redneck Territory

I have just watched one of the most frightening moments on Top Gear, a British TV show about cars that was on SBS today. Clarkson, Hammond, and May drive through Alabama with provocative text on their cars, e.g. "Nascar Sucks" and "Man Love Rules OK."

When they stop off at a petrol station, the owner calls over a bunch of redneck thugs on the back of a pickup. What I find hard to believe is how they managed to amass an army of hillbillies so fast. Are these people waiting around for a fight? Rocks were pelted and the Top Gear crew made a run for it. The camera crew was also attacked.

What the Top Gear crew did may have been very provocative and politically incorrect in that part of the country, but I would believe it is protected by the First Amendment.

Increasing Tariffs to Protect the Australian Car Industry

I have just been at Drive Blog where Glen Butler wrote a piece titled Import tariffs: Why Australia needs them to survive. I had a lot to say and I will write it here as well.

Did you know Australia has the lowest tariffs of any country with its own car industry?

This idea that there be some equality in tariffs in one area over another makes no economic sense. Economic progress usually involves specialization, with areas forming hubs where they specialize according to comparative advantage or because of just convention. For example, take the states of America. Finance is concentrated in New York, car manufacturing is concentrated in Detroit. Entertainment is concentrated in LA. It is concentrated in Silicon Valley. People of similar trades congregate in the same place to take advantage of lower transport costs. For some state in America, say, Florida to say, "We want to have our own car industry instead of importing it from Detroit" would be economic suicide. To intervene into the market and impose some kind of centralized planning that sees industries uniformly distributed for not apparent reason other than numerical aesthetics, is nonsense.

Thailand? We do have a free trade agreement there, too, but it's only free trade one way. Guess which way? That's right, our vehicles are taxed going into Thailand, but theirs are not coming to Australia. Honda's sales have gone gangbusters in the last five years, because almost all its models come from Thailand and can be sold at a more competitive price than others.

This is another sneaky example. You say that cars flowing from Thailand to Australia face low tariffs compared to cars flowing from Australia to Thailand and then suggest that "Australia" suffers. The reality is that Australia is made up of not just car manufacturers but also consumers who may want cars from Thailand for whatever reason.

If you think the Australian car industry needs protection, why doesn't the government protect any other industry? If you're a banker who gets fired for some guy in France, would the government help you? If your firm in Victoria gets beaten by another firm in Queensland, should the Victorian government help you? For the sake of fairness, if we apply one set of standards for the carmakers, we will need to apply it to all other people. Everyone will be able to get protection and handouts from the government whenever they fail. When you go to work, there is no need to work hard. Just sit back and do nothing. Even if the business fails the government will bail you out and pay your salary all in the name of protecting the local culture.

Of course, when there's no competition, laziness, and central control by government, Australia will be recognized as Communist, because these are the symptoms that define Communism.

For free trade to work properly, it must work both ways.

Let me explain why this is not true using a simple story.

Suppose I live with my family in my house. I live with Mum and Dad. Suppose mum used to make a sandwich for me for lunch. However, my mum is not a good cook. Suppose she takes five hours making one sandwich. Because she takes so long making a sandwich she decides to charge me $20 for the sandwich. I have no choice but to buy this expensive sandwich because there are trade barriers around the home (imagine there are walls all around the house) and I can't go anywhere else.

Now suppose restaurant opens up across the road and the walls around my house fall, i.e. trade barriers are gone, or there is a tariff reduction. The restaurant across the street can make one sandwich is five minutes. Because they are so fast and efficient, they charge only $1, and I buy the sandwich from the restaurant and save $19, so I win.

My mum would lose because she can no longer make sandwiches for me, yet she was a horribly slow sandwich maker to begin with. Instead, she gets a job as a nurse at the local hospital and earns $20 per hour for five ours. Her skills are transferred to where it is more productive.

This idea of a level-playing field is absurd. Even though I buy sandwiches from the restaurant, the restaurant doesn't buy anything from me or my household. It doesn't matter. I still benefit.

Suppose my mum doesn't know how to be a nurse. She only knows how to be a sandwich maker. Then she simply walks to the restaurant and asks for a job there. If the restaurant rejects her because she is too slow, that is just the way capitalism works. It rewards the best.

In case you didn't realize, all this is analogous to what is happening in Australia.

THE CANDLEMAKERS' PETITION

In the spirit of Frédéric Bastiat I will submit the following argument against protectionism.

Australia has a local candlemaking industry. See http://www.australianwaxco.com.au/

The problem is that candlemakers face competition from cheap sources of light. This competition comes from the sun, which is able to flood the earth with vast amounts of cheap light.

Australian candlemakers then talk to John Howard, begging him to pass a law that states that all Australians must stay indoors, shut their windows, seal all cracks, and live in darkness. This will restrict the entry of imports of light arriving into the hands of Australian consumers. Because Australians can no longer opt for cheap light from outside Australia (outside Earth even) they are forced to buy more candles made in Australia, thereby creating a thriving Australian candlemaking culture.

To see Bastiat's original paper, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemakers'_petition

Is Angelina Jolie a Believer in the FSM?

According to this Norwegian guy, Angelina Jolie owns a Prius. She has also been photographed driving a Range Rover.

From Popsugar.com I have found a paparazzi picture of Angelina with Maddox. In the picture is a black Prius with an FSM badge on it. If this Prius is Angelina's Prius (it may not be) the FSM badge may suggest she is a member of the Church.

Links: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Diesel and Cancer

"There's a substantial body of expert opinion to say the fine particles from diesel exhaust are the most dangerous elements of the traffic pollution that's responsible for about 1,200 deaths a year in Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1179825.htm


"Diesel's predominance leads to some surprising results. For example, San Francisco, California shows a risk level of 2,600 additional cancer cases per million, with 90 percent of the risk coming from diesel emissions. The goal set in the Clean Air Act for air toxics is a maximum of one additional case per million."

http://www.rag.org.au/buc/cancerrisk.htm


"Diesel exhaust is more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke...Research overseas shows that people exposed to diesel exhaust at high levels in enclosed spaces for long periods of time – such as truck drivers, railway workers, and miners – face up to 30 per cent increased risk of lung cancers, even after the effects of smoking are taken into account."

"While only 10 per cent of cars and trucks run on diesel [in Australia], they're responsible for around 80 per cent of fine particles from vehicles."

http://www.abc.net.au/health/regions/features/diesel/


"Diesel emissions are the primary culprit behind Americans’ one in 2100 risk of developing cancer from breathing outside air—500 times the Clean Air Act’s protective threshold of 1 in 1 million, according to a recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a national public interest advocacy group. Dangers of Diesel: How Diesel Soot and Other Air Toxics Increase Americans’ Risk of Cancer examines the cancer risk of 33 hazardous air pollutants, focusing on five from mobile sources: diesel soot, acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and formaldehyde. Diesel emissions represented 89% of the increased cancer risk, 60% of which come from nonroad vehicles such as construction and farm equipment."

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2002/oct/policy/lk_dieselcancer.html

Google.org RechargeIT: Plug-in Hybrids

For more information see http://www.google.org/recharge/.

Nissan Dualis: Safest Car Yet

The Nissan Dualis (also known as the Nissan Qashqai in Europe and the Nissan Rogue in the United States) is a compact SUV that has received the best ever crash test rating from Euro NCAP meaning it is the safest car yet. As Euro NCAP said, "The Nissan Qashqai, a small family car, received almost maximum points in Euro NCAP’s strict front, side impact and pole crash tests as well as a high performance score in the child occupant protection rating." This is a car I'll definitely be keeping my eye on.

Hybrid Sales Going Up

Whether or not Al Gore's son's speeding scandal had anything to do with it, Prius sales are on the way up. The graph above from Green Car Congress shows sales increasing year after year.

Will I buy a hybrid? Unlikely. They have fantastic fuel economy, but a brand new Prius will cost AU$37,000, which is very expensive for a mid-sized car. This means that this sort of car will mainly be used by the rich.

Toyota claims that as more and more people buy hybrids, prices will go down because of economies of scale and mass production.

Preventing Carjacking with Speed-Dependent Central Locking

Most modern cars automatically unlock the doors after you have crashed. I don't know whether my car does this. The car unlocks its door after a crash so that anyone can rescue you easily. But why not just drive the car with its door unlocked in the first place? If you do this, you will be more vulnerable to carjacking.

A solution to this problem then is a car that automatically unlocks the locks the doors when the car is going faster than the speed at which it is impossible for a stationary carjacker to carjack the car, maybe 30km/h. If you are going over 30km/h, chances are any crash you get into will be serious enough that you will want someone else to rescue you if you crash because you will likely be injured. When the car is going under 30km/h then automatically the doors lock to provide protection from stationary carjackers.

I talk about stationary carjackers because, when you think about it, carjacking can occur at high speeds e.g. if someone in another car jumps on your car. This, however, is something I suspect you'll only see in Hollywood movies. Most real-life carjackers just walk around in a traffic jam and steal cars, so they are more or less stationary.

The Diesel Cancer Threat

The bad news is that emissions from diesel engines are harmful to your health. That includes the latest generation of so-called "clean" diesels.

The Federal Government's Green Vehicle Guide, which ranks vehicles on their greenhouse gas and air pollution performance, doesn't have a single diesel vehicle in its top 50 list of low polluters.

Just one makes the top 150 and there are only five in the top 200 vehicles.

Jon Real, a spokesman for the Federal Department of Transport, which maintains the guide, says diesel cars are marked down because they have a "much more significant health effect".

He says diesels produce about the same amount of hydrocarbons as petrol but significantly more nitrogen oxides (NOx) - a precursor to smog - and particulate matter.

Air quality experts estimate that diesel engines produce particles at about 20 times the rate of petrol engines and it is those emissions that are bad for your health.

Particulate matter has been linked with thousands of deaths worldwide. Side effects range from cancer to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. NOx have also been linked to serious health problems, including asthma, respiratory disease, infections and reduced lung function in children....

Source: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=40556&s_cid=mktgedm&IsPgd=0

Volkswagon Lupo Versus Toyota Prius

In terms of fuel efficiency, the Prius is not the best. This is because although the Prius drinks 4.4L/100km, the Volkswagon Lupo 1.2L turbo diesel consumes 3.0L/100km. However, although the Prius is classified as a midsized car, the Lupo is a supermini. The length of a Lupo (3529mm) is about one meter less than that of a Prius (4450mm). The kerb weight of a Lupo is 854kg compared to the Prius's weight of 1325kg, which makes the Lupo less safe. Although the Prius received a five-star Euro NCAP rating the Lupo recieved a still respectable four-star rating.

Problems with Hydrogen Cars

One of the problems with hydrogen is the availability. If you had a hydrogen car today, virtually no service station has hydrogen available. Plug-in electric cars, however, can be plugged into a power point at home.

Hydrogen also has low energy density. Ten liters of petrol will bring a sedan 100km but 16 liters of LPG is needed to bring the same car the same distance. Even more hydrogen is needed, which means bigger tanks. This presents a major problem in terms of carrying the stuff in your car as well as transporting it one trucks from one place to another. Solutions to the problem include compression of the hydrogen, but that will create more emissions.

Hydrogen is also scarce and is usually made from electrolysis of water, which requires electricity, which usually requires coal, which produces emissions. Many scientists believe converting electricity to hydrogen, compressing it, distributing it, and then passing it through a fuel cell again to create electricity is a lot more wasteful than simply bringing the electricity straight from the power plant into an electric car.

Prius v. Hummer

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."
- Bertrand Russell

An average sedan consumes about 10 liters of petrol per 100km traveled. A small car does about 7 liters. The Toyota Prius hybrid car, however, has a rated fuel efficiency of 4.4 liters per 100km. Even though it has low fuel consumption, the Prius in Australia is priced at $37,000. This means that it is about double the price of a Yaris. The Prius then is not exactly a mainstream car like the Corolla is. Research by J.D. Power shows that the average Prius buyer's income is over $100,000 and this suggests an intention by Toyota to sell the car as a environmental status symbol for the wealthy.

The Prius has been popular among celebrities. Titanic star Leonardo Di Caprio says, "I own a Toyota Prius; it's a step in the right direction. It's a gasoline-electric midsize car that gets about 50 miles per gallon. We have the technology to make every car produced in America today just as clean, cheap and efficient." Cameron Diaz says, "It gets 52 miles per gallon. In the city. Isn't that exciting?" Other celebrity Prius drivers include Alicia Silverstone, Billy Crystal, Billy Joel, Brad Pitt, David Duchovny, Ellen DeGeneres, Ewan McGregor, Harrison Ford, Jack Black, Jack Nicholson, Larry David, Kevin Bacon, Kirk Douglas, Kurt Russell, Patricia Arquette, Prince Charles, Robin Williams, Salma Hayek, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Ted Danson, Tom Hanks, and Woody Harrelson.

Some time ago, a study by CNW Marketing Research claimed that the Toyota Prius hybrid car is more environmentally harmful than the Hummer SUV. The study claims that the Prius only lasts for about 100,000 miles whereas the apparently more durable Hummer lasts over 300,000 miles, meaning its environmental costs are spread out more over its lifetime.

According to the study, the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles while the Hummer costs $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles.

This is all very perplexing because I remember reading a paper in which Toyota expects the batteries to last the life of the car and to date not one battery has been replaced.

"Toyota claims that not one has required a battery replacement due to malfunction or 'wearing out.' The only replacement batteries sold--at the retail price of $3000--have been for cars that were involved in accidents. Toyota further claims that the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery packs used in all Prius models are expected to last the life of the car with very little to no degradation in power capability.

"According to Toyota, the life of the Prius battery pack is determined more by mileage than by time, and it has been tested to 180,000 miles. Supporting this are first- and second-generation Prius taxis in Canada that have reportedly traveled more than 200,000 miles without suffering any battery problems."

Source: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/...


"Toyota have lab data showing the Prius battery can do 290,000km of normal driving with absolutely no degradation of the battery’s performance. To give some real life examples, there is a Taxi driver from British Columbia, Jatinder Parhar, who has done over 410,000km in his Prius Taxi and has had to do nothing to his Prius other than standard servicing. Toyota has sold over 500,000 Generation II and III Prius worldwide and say they have never had to supply a battery pack for replacement due to wear and tear. Given all this, the price of a replacement battery is probably irrelevant, however in the extremely unlikely event you needed to replace the battery in your Prius, current cost, at time of writing (Oct 2006), is NZ$3900.00 for a Generation II Prius and NZ$2700 for a Generation III Prius. However this is coming down all the time."

Source: http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/faq-prius


So of course we'll just have to wait and see whether some taxi can clock more than 300,000 miles. The Prius taxi in Canada has done 410,000km, which is 254,901 miles.

The CNW Marketing study stated that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles and the Hummer costed $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. Assuming that the Prius taxi with over 200,000 miles on the odometer was not an anomaly and that its results are representative, then the initial reported cost of the Prius of $3.25 per mile assuming 100,000 expected lifespan would now be $1.63 per mile assuming the Prius can last till 200,000 miles (which it has done). At $1.63 the Prius is better environmentally than the Hummer. However, if the Hummer lasts longer than 300,000 miles then the results change.

As I said, the study that claims Hummers were greener than Priuses was done by CNW Marketing Research. The study did not have any peer review and had no support from mainstream scientific papers. The results of the CNW Marketing Research firm contradict data from MIT and the Argonne National Laboratory (see the Pacific Institute paper).

According to Gleick from the Pacific Institute, "A quick re-analysis with peer-reviewed data leads to completely opposite conclusions: the life-cycle energy requirements of hybrids and smaller cars are far lower than Hummers and other large SUVs."

The CNW study provides no explanation for where they got the assumption that the Prius only lasts for 100,000 miles, so it could be that they just plucked it out of the air or, if you are cynical, selected it to artificially skew the results and conclusions.

The Prius taxi in Canada clocked 410,000km, but I don't know anyone who drives a car until 410,000km. When the RACV does analysis on car operating costs they use 15,000km per year as the number of kilometers done by the average driver. So if we assume that the Prius taxi in Canada is representative of all Priuses then a Prius should last you over 27 years (=410000/15000).

Some people, like Jeremy Clarkson, claim that diesel is better than hybrid. But according to HybridCars.com it is not an either-or situation: "It's technically possible to use a hybrid drivetrain with a diesel engine. In fact, PSA Peugeot Citroën recently showed a diesel-hybrid prototype: the 307 CC Hybride HDi, a compact convertible that gets 70 miles per gallon, about 30 percent better fuel economy than the existing diesel version."

A diesel hybrid truck has been made by Hino and will be available in Australia.

While a diesel's fuel economy is similar to that of hybrids, there are health worries associated with diesel. Studies into pre-1990 diesel engines have found a link between diesel emissions and cancer. Modern diesel engines, however, are cleaner but more stringent regulation from the US EPA means many diesel-engined cars will be banned in the US and maybe other governments will pass similar laws in an effort to improve air quality.


Further Reading:

• The Anti-Hybrid "Dust-to-Dust" Cost Study that Just Won't Die, But Needs To
• Prius Versus Hummer: Exploding the Myth
• Oh, So a Hummer is Not Greener than a Prius
• George Will Promotes a Denialist Report
• Hollywood Loves Hybrid Cars
  

More on the Prius Taxi:
Cab Driver Passes 400,000km Mark in Prius
Hybrid taxi paid for itself in no time

Auto Versus Manual Transmission

At http://www.missico.com/personal/thoughts/make_car_last.htm it says the following: "Manual transmissions cost less and are cheaper to maintain than automatics..."

However at http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.cars/msg/6228780526a60c29 it says the following: "Transmission: get an auto. Unless you don't mind paying for clutch replacement and you can do this yourself, an auto will be cheaper to maintain in the long run."

So who is correct?

I am a second-hand car buyer. I never buy new cars because of their depreciation. Second-hand cars depreciate too but not by as much. My dad and my brother both tell me that a manual car is cheaper to maintain than an auto in the long run. My brother tells me that with an auto you must constantly change the transmission fluid and each time you do this you must pay a small amount. With a manual, there is no transmission fluid. However, because of this there is gear wear and your transmission needs to be replaced. He says the cost of replacing the manual transmission every, say, 200,000kms, is about $1000 while the cost of replacing the transmission fluid every, say, 20,000kms is about $200, so in the long run you're better off with a manual.

But this assumes that you buy a new car! If you buy a second-hand car just before the manual transmission is fully worn out, then you are in for a large repair bill. You would probably be better off with an auto. As I said, this issue is a grey area for me, and nobody seems to have given me any firm evidence about what is right. I hear one person saying one thing and another person saying the complete opposite.