Hybrid XL or Tremor which would you keep?

[AHarris67]

Hybrid

Sponsored

 

[brnpttmn]

so you baked in a number of “opportunity cost” of spending more on gas while ignoring any possible “opportunity cost” of driving a fwd hybrid over a 4WD? You ignored the difference in possible depreciation/appreciation but add in opportunity cost of “not having that extra money cuz gas?” You see no problem with that?

I just don’t find these extra numbers to be good estimates is all. The difference in purchase price + gas, sure. The rest is conjecture to me.

What's the future value (or even present value) of driving an AWD over FWD? Qualitative experiences are generally not considered for TCO analyses because they're valued differently by different people. I provided the quantitative analysis; a potential purchaser needs to determine whether the cost difference is more/less than the added value/utility they receive.

No, I don't see any problem with making a very basic TCO analysis. I already mentioned in a previous post that the biggest caveat is resale value, which you're free to estimate and subtract from the number.

Frankly, I just don't really care what your find a good/bad estimate. I mean, if you think future value of money is "conjecture," I don't know what to tell ya man. The money doesn't disappear if you don't spend it.

 

[Ozuye10]

Now that I have the Hybrid, I’m even more excited to compare it to the Tremor. Going to be a hard decision.

 

[bearsfan647]

What's the future value (or even present value) of driving an AWD over FWD? Qualitative experiences are generally not considered for TCO analyses because they're valued differently by different people. I provided the quantitative analysis; a potential purchaser needs to determine whether the cost difference is more/less than the added value/utility they receive.

No, I don't see any problem with making a very basic TCO analysis. I already mentioned in a previous post that the biggest caveat is resale value, which you're free to estimate and subtract from the number.

Frankly, I just don't really care what your find a good/bad estimate. I mean, if you think future value of money is "conjecture," I don't know what to tell ya man. The money doesn't disappear if you don't spend it.

dude… you used future value calculation when NOT actually calculating future value. You literally used an incorrect formula for what you’re trying to prove. Why in God’s name did you use a FV calculation on the DIFFERENCE in purchase price LOL? Why are you appreciating the difference in purchase price? I’ve asked this many times now. I SEE your numbers. WHY are you using any of these numbers at all? You’re quite literally making things up as you go.

i directly asked you why your charts return 4 different total amounts, which you used, and how you got there and not a single time did you explain. You reposted the numbers lol.

you are also all over this website arguing. Just look at you in the tremor mpg thread. We get it., it’s not your thing. Find a better hobby than making up things to support your point. It’s hilarious.

 

[710-oil-614]

Now that I have the Hybrid, I’m even more excited to compare it to the Tremor. Going to be a hard decision.

I'll buy whichever you don't want!

Ha - I had an XL Hybrid ordered until Ford told me I won't get it and then I ordered the Tremor they are two totally different vehicles, but I want both! Whichever you decide you don't want - I'll be your huckleberry!

 

[brnpttmn]

dude… you used future value calculation when NOT actually calculating future value. You literally used an incorrect formula for what you’re trying to prove. Why in God’s name did you use a FV calculation on the DIFFERENCE in purchase price LOL? Why are you appreciating the difference in purchase price? I’ve asked this many times now. I SEE your numbers. WHY are you using any of these numbers at all? You’re quite literally making things up as you go.

i directly asked you why your charts return 4 different total amounts, which you used, and how you got there and not a single time did you explain. You reposted the numbers lol.

you are also all over this website arguing. Just look at you in the tremor mpg thread. We get it., it’s not your thing. Find a better hobby than making up things to support your point. It’s hilarious.

If you want to know the difference in "total cost" of owning the Tremor over the Hybrid (which is related the OP), just taking the present value understates that total cost because either 1) you're losing out on the opportunity to grow the value of that money (i.e., investment opportunity cost) or 2) you're paying for use of someone else's money to expand your purchasing power (i.e., financing interest cost). Keep in mind, I never said the Tremor costs you $26K more today, I specifically said that will cost an estimated $26K more than the hybrid over ten years. I was very clear about my calculation and results. I'm not sure what numbers you think I'm "making up," but the tables I showed were the results of my calculations (simple inputs/outputs), so you'll have to be more specific about what I "made up."

I'm sorry you're taking my analysis as "arguing," but I've now answered your "why" question multiple times. I'm sure it's very frustrating to not understand simple calculations and concepts. You're free to either ignore and move along or do your own calculations. I was just providing information related to the OP using a pretty standard 10-year TCO calculation.

 

[bearsfan647]

If you want to know the difference in "total cost" of owning the Tremor over the Hybrid (which is related the OP), just taking the present value understates that total cost because either 1) you're losing out on the opportunity to grow the value of that money (i.e., investment opportunity cost) or 2) you're paying for use of someone else's money to expand your purchasing power (i.e., financing interest cost). Keep in mind, I never said the Tremor costs you $26K more today, I specifically said that will cost an estimated $26K more than the hybrid over ten years. I was very clear about my calculation and results. I'm not sure what numbers you think I'm "making up," but the tables I showed were the results of my calculations (simple inputs/outputs), so you'll have to be more specific about what I "made up."

I'm sorry you're taking my analysis as "arguing," but I've now answered your "why" question multiple times. I'm sure it's very frustrating to not understand simple calculations and concepts. You're free to either ignore and move along or do your own calculations. I was just providing information related to the OP using a pretty standard 10-year TCO calculation.

I am laughing so hard at this entire comment. in your mind only the tremor “loses opportunity cost”.

Let’s factor opportunity cost of the hybrid catching fire. Or your inability to use in the winter in many, many places. Maybe the CVT will die? Or anything else I want to make up on the spot as you did.

Absolute hilarity that you think you can come up with some made up number in favor of the hybrid based on NOTHING but conjecture, while you say things like “oh well we can’t do that for the hybrid cuz who knows how much a 10k less vehicle will be worth in the future! I bet more!”

Notice you still have not once answered a direct question regarding the numbers? You do NOT use a FV valuation on the purchase price difference between 2 entirely different vehicles and say that’s the best you can do. It literally isn’t done. I’m still waiting for a single explanation as to why you used FV at all. You keep saying “opportunity cost” while applying NO adjustment the other direction. Please direct me to some literature that suggests you use one way FV calculations to when comparing assets.

weird, weird behavior.

 

[brnpttmn]

I am laughing so hard at this entire comment. in your mind only the tremor “loses opportunity cost”.

Let’s factor opportunity cost of the hybrid catching fire. Or your inability to use in the winter in many, many places. Maybe the CVT will die? Or anything else I want to make up on the spot as you did.

Absolute hilarity that you think you can come up with some made up number in favor of the hybrid based on NOTHING but conjecture, while you say things like “oh well we can’t do that for the hybrid cuz who knows how much a 10k less vehicle will be worth in the future! I bet more!”

Notice you still have not once answered a direct question regarding the numbers? You do NOT use a FV valuation on the purchase price difference between 2 entirely different vehicles and say that’s the best you can do. It literally isn’t done. I’m still waiting for a single explanation as to why you used FV at all. You keep saying “opportunity cost” while applying NO adjustment the other direction. Please direct me to some literature that suggests you use one way FV calculations to when comparing assets.

weird, weird behavior.

There may be additional upkeep/maintenance costs for one or the other, but research has shown that HEVs have less upkeep/maintenance costs than ICEVs over the total life, so rather than complicate the formula I decided to call it even.

There are real questions whether a boutique trim level that's significantly less efficient than the comp will maintain its value over 10 years as much as a base model that's almost twice as efficient.

As I've said this is a very basic TCO, and you're welcome to include any additional inputs you'd like. Good thing is if you have an estimate of what the difference in market value between the two models will be in 10 years you should easily be able to subtract that value from $26K.

I'm also not sure what direct question I haven't answered, and I'm not sure what you mean by "one way FV calculation." But the lit I linked up top includes the excerpt below about the opportunity cost of money. I use the $8000 difference in purchase price as the principle for future value, and grow it at 6% (all of that I answered right away). Do you take issue with the rate of growth? It's relatively conservative. Do believe that $8000 present value accurately reflects the total cost of that initial investment? If so, would you give someone $8000 to keep for 10 years at no cost?

The discount rate mathematically represents the opportunity costs of cash flows at different times. We distinguish between upfront costs and ongoing costs, as future costs are discounted. For the vehicle purchase, we further distinguish between paying cash up front and financing. For an up-front cash payment, the opportunity cost is the alternative use of the money, which may be represented, for example, by an interest rate for ordinary saving accounts or safe short-term investments. Thus, an initial cash payment can be annualized at the real after-tax interest rate on investments or savings foregone by paying cash for transportation. In the case of a loan, the actual cost to the borrower is not the initial cost of the vehicle, but rather the periodic cash loan payment. Hence, for a borrower, one first must calculate the actual loan payments, which depend on the amount of the loan, the life of the loan, and the interest rate on the loan, measured as an annual percentage rate (APR). The resulting loan payment series then is treated as an ordinary annuity; one finds the present value of the loan payment series, on the basis now of the discount rate: the interest rate for consumer savings or similar safe short-term investments. Finally, this present value can be annualized over the entire life of the vehicle, again on the basis of the discount rate qua personal opportunity cost of money. This procedure is necessary because the interest rate that pertains to loans is different from discount rate – the interest rates that express consumers’ opportunity cost of money – and because the life of the loan is different from the life of the vehicle financed with the loan. (Note that it is standard practice to calculate the lifetime cost on the basis of monthly interest rates and monthly travel, rather than annual interest rates and annual travel. There is a slight difference between the two methods. The monthly interest rate is 1/12th of the assumed annual rate, and the monthly mileage rate is 1/12th of the estimated annual mileage.) If the discount rate is lower than the interest rate on the loan, such as with low-APR purchase incentives, it can be financially advantageous to finance a vehicle in spite of the nominal increase in cost. In general, however, loan rates are higher than the discount rate. The opportunity cost can be viewed as a foregone reasonable investment over the given timeframe. For large, infrequent purchases, this can be assumed to be comparable to interest rates on treasury notes, which have historically averaged about 3.2% (FRB 2021b, table H.15). For ongoing expenses, this can be compared to a savings account, which generally offers lower interest rates than longer-term certificates of deposit. For businesses, a nominal cost of capital of 5% is assumed. This is necessarily higher than for individual consumers, as otherwise a business would solely invest in bonds rather than into the company itself.

 

[Solo]

Made a vid about my Hybrid and Tremor orders. Not trying to spam for views, it’s relevant to the Maverick. Which would you all choose?

Gotta keep the hybrid for my needs. Decent power for the economy you get. Plus the hybrid engine uses port injection, not direct injection. I currently own a Ford with a 1.6L direct injection. I paid the dealer $200 to have the intake system 'cleaned' (at about 70k miles, some improvement after). Haven't bothered to have a drip can installed. Don't want the hassle of all that with the Maverick.

 

[bearsfan647]

There may be additional upkeep/maintenance costs for one or the other, but research has shown that HEVs have less upkeep/maintenance costs than ICEVs over the total life, so rather than complicate the formula I decided to call it even.

There are real questions whether a boutique trim level that's significantly less efficient than the comp will maintain its value over 10 years as much as a base model that's almost twice as efficient.

As I've said this is a very basic TCO, and you're welcome to include any additional inputs you'd like. Good thing is if you have an estimate of what the difference in market value between the two models will be in 10 years you should easily be able to subtract that value from $26K.

I'm also not sure what direct question I haven't answered, and I'm not sure what you mean by "one way FV calculation." But the lit I linked up top includes the excerpt below about the opportunity cost of money. I use the $8000 difference in purchase price as the principle for future value, and grow it at 6% (all of that I answered right away). Do you take issue with the rate of growth? It's relatively conservative. Do believe that $8000 present value accurately reflects the total cost of that initial investment? If so, would you give someone $8000 to keep for 10 years at no cost?

I take issue with both your made up numbers that you think “sound right” that all tell a different story.

I take issue with you have no problems with estimating the FV of a vehicle based on the literal purchase difference. It’s hilarious. That’s literally not how any of that works. So every single vehicle created that costs more than a maverick is “losing opportunity cost and therefore has a lower FV due to that”? That is the funniest thing I’ve read in years.

I take issue with you saying you’re unable to appropriately estimate anything intanagile when you pull a number out of your hat and did just that lol.

let the class know when you can answer a direct question.

 

[brnpttmn]

I take issue with both your made up numbers that you think “sound right” that all tell a different story.

I take issue with you have no problems with estimating the FV of a vehicle based on the literal purchase difference. It’s hilarious. That’s literally not how any of that works. So every single vehicle created that costs more than a maverick is “losing opportunity cost and therefore has a lower FV due to that”? That is the funniest thing I’ve read in years.

I take issue with you saying you’re unable to appropriately estimate anything intanagile when you pull a number out of your hat and did just that lol.

let the class know when you can answer a direct question.

Aha, I'm starting to understand why you're struggling with my number. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the term future value. Future value=/=the future value of the vehicle. Both will likely be worth much less than that in ten years. Future value is just the value of a given defined asset in the future based on expected growth. The asset, in this case, is the "cash" difference in cost of ownership of the two vehicles. Initial difference in purchase price is a big part of that future value (particularly because it has the greatest present value). As is monthly cost of ownership (which gas cost represents the primary cost factor).

I'm not sure what you mean when saying "unable to appropriately estimate anything intanagible [sic]." You can come up with a method to estimate pretty much anything, but there will always be questions about rigor once you try to estimate non-monetary variables. That's why it's up to the purchaser to define that side of the equation.

 

[Ozuye10]

I should be getting an update on when the Tremor will be completed. Been in production for about 5 weeks.

Sponsored