- General post (802)
- April 3, 2008: Armchair Economist gets a much-needed update
- April 3, 2008: Ghost of Herbert Hoover
- April 3, 2008: Are you smarter than a high-schooler?
- April 3, 2008: Katrina hero: Wal-Mart
- April 2, 2008: No Child Left Behind
- April 2, 2008: The poverty hype
- April 2, 2008: Oil profits
- April 2, 2008: Don's response
- April 2, 2008: Oil refinements
- April 1, 2008: My profile
High prices and conservation of resources
Like myself, I’m sure you’ve known more than a few people who have recently purchased a new, more fuel-efficient automobile since the spike in gas prices–perhaps you’ve even done it yourself. Because higher gas prices can encourage less fuel consumption, they can also foster conservation of resources. Although, to be fair, the greater fuel economy may just result in more miles driven, with no net change in fuel consumption. Likewise, the person consuming less gas with a more fuel-efficient car may use the savings to purchase other goods detrimental to the environment. All else equal, though, higher gas prices today will likely work in favor of transferring more oil reserves to the future, and they will tend to benefit the environment by encouraging less driving.
With that said, and since I know several people who have recently purchased newer cars with better gas mileage for financial reasons, I’d like to do the math to see if they made good financial decisions. (Warning: In the following analysis, I assume all other variables to remain constant, such as maintenance costs.)
Someone just resently told me he and his wife were going to purchase a newer vehicle for $10,000 to take advantage of the car’s 35 mpg fuel economy. His present car gets 25 mpg. Let’s say the couple puts 50 miles on the car per day, which is 18,250 miles per year. Assuming gas is $3 per gallon (and it remains $3 per gallon), is this a good financial decision based just on fuel economy? I say, no!
Here is how it works out assuming constant gas prices into the future at $3, no interest costs (they pay cash for the car), and constant miles per year of 18,250:
With the old car getting 25 mpg, the couple will consume 730 gallons of gas in a year, which is $2,190 at $3 per gallon. At 35 mpg, the couple will consume 521 gallons, which is $1,564. The couple will only save $625 per year in fuel costs. Not a good deal considering our assumptions. Plus, the couple says they never keep a car longer than 5 years. The payback time, by the way, is 16 years ($10,000/$625).
They should keep their old car if they are just trying to save on fuel costs. Of course, we could make other assumptions and change the result. For example, assuming $10 per gallon gas could certainly change things, but predicting higher or lower gas prices is close to impossible, so we don’t.
March 16, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Did they really buy a new car only for the gas mileage or were they wanting a new car and simply chose a car with better gas mileage? I suspect it is the latter.
So to make the comparison fair, you have to compare what their alternatives were for new car purchases. Not compare a new car against keeping the old one.
Or, if they were really interested only in saving money they could have sold the old car and bought used car that got better gas mileage.
(As an aside, one thing I really don’t like about the blog software you use is I find if I submit a comment and forget to answer the question, when I hit the back button to resubmit I loose everything I’ve typed in. It’s very frustrating)
March 16, 2008 at 11:32 pm
They bought the car only for the mileage. Poor decision. They were not in the market until gas prices keep increasing. If, however, gas prices continue to increase, they may have made a good decision, because cars with good mileage will continue to increase in price due to increased demand for them, all else constant.
I must admit, looking back at the post, that I did not take into account the value of their old car. That’s a mistake. If they got $5,000 for their old car and paid $10,000 for the replacement car, the price received should be taken into account. If the net cost is $5,000, then the payback time is cut to 8 years, not 16. I was in a rush to get to the gym and neglected this critical detail.
I concur that my blogging software has issues. As a result, I’m switching hosts in the coming months.
March 17, 2008 at 7:22 am
The prices are really approaching the skies.
Crude Oil has reached $111, recession is on cards.
All this is not a sign of good happening. I have started saving on my fuel consumption to save energy and subsequently my expenses.
I have been looking around over the web for ideas on saving fuel and realised there are so many things I have been neglecting.
I cam across this site http://www.save-at-the-pumps.com , they helped me discover basic ways of saving on fuel.