2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I was talking to my dealer yesterday in Fort Worth, Texas, they are big dealer here in Texas.
He said they sell very very few Hybrids vs Gas Models.
He claimed they are not popular here, lack of rebates / discounts available, higher cost and their lack of stocking.
I now know my gas mileage is at least 7-9 mpg (around town about 17 mpg) less than a hybrid would have been.

I see now that the only way to get the Advanced safety tech package is to get a limited and once you and the S package the retail goes up to $48,580 verses a loaded Touring L at $41,265 with much higher rebates available. That could mean a $10,000 or more difference, that will be a lot of gas!

Any comments?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Last year in the US, Chrysler sold about 7,000 hybrids and 111,000 gas models. The reason why they don't sell well is they don't know how to sell it. Texas did have a $2500 state rebate that expired in March. Plus up to $7500 tax credit so the hybrid could cost less than the gas version. It costs me about $1 to drive 30 miles of electric range vs $2.50 for gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Last year in the US, Chrysler sold about 7,000 hybrids and 111,000 gas models. The reason why they don't sell well is they don't know how to sell it. Texas did have a $2500 state rebate that expired in March. Plus up to $7500 tax credit so the hybrid could cost less than the gas version. It costs me about $1 to drive 30 miles of electric range vs $2.50 for gas.
Some other things to consider on that 7k to 111k ratio is how many of those 111k were fleet orders. A good chunk of Pacificas likely go to rental fleets. I doubt very many of the 7k PacHys were fleet orders (although it is true that Waymo bought some).

Then there's the trim levels. PacHys are restricted to Limited, Touring L, and Touring Plus, all the highest level trims. There are no lower LX or L PacHys. So, you'd have to eliminate those trims from comparison, too.

Finally, I wonder how production-limited the PacHy might be, i.e., maybe FCA can only build so many of them due to the complexity versus the gasser. IOW, what's the likelihood that 7k PacHys were sold because that's the number they set-up to build, and no more.

Then, as mentioned, FCA hasn't really pushed the PacHy, and I would imagine there's a good reason for it, and that's simply profit. It's been speculated that FCA actually loses money on each PacHy (the same had been said of the Volt when it first came out). The same situation existed with the Fiat 500e, a vehicle which Marchionne himself said was only built and sold for CARB compliance to be able to sell ICE vehicles in California, and the profit from those sales would make up the loss on the EVs.

With those fleet, lower trim, and production adjustments, the ratio might not be quite as dramatic as it first seems. Taken as a whole, sales of the PacHy might be exactly where FCA wants them to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
Last year in the US, Chrysler sold about 7,000 hybrids and 111,000 gas models. The reason why they don't sell well is they don't know how to sell it. Texas did have a $2500 state rebate that expired in March. Plus up to $7500 tax credit so the hybrid could cost less than the gas version. It costs me about $1 to drive 30 miles of electric range vs $2.50 for gas.
No, the reason it does not sell well is that Chrysler does not want to sell more. It is a loss project that is for design and viability research, plus the p.r. advantage of having the first hybrid minivan. Your "tax credit" is actually money forcibly taken out of my pocket and put in yours. It is pot holes not repaired, and rusty bridges not being replaced. When the government gets out of funding car purchases and lets the free market determine what people buy, then I'll be all for electric and hybrid vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
No, the reason it does not sell well is that Chrysler does not want to sell more. It is a loss project that is for design and viability research, plus the p.r. advantage of having the first hybrid minivan. Your "tax credit" is actually money forcibly taken out of my pocket and put in yours. It is pot holes not repaired, and rusty bridges not being replaced. When the government gets out of funding car purchases and lets the free market determine what people buy, then I'll be all for electric and hybrid vehicles.
too funny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Last year in the US, Chrysler sold about 7,000 hybrids and 111,000 gas models. The reason why they don't sell well is they don't know how to sell it. Texas did have a $2500 state rebate that expired in March. Plus up to $7500 tax credit so the hybrid could cost less than the gas version. It costs me about $1 to drive 30 miles of electric range vs $2.50 for gas.
And for city driving the cost difference may even be more than you are stating. It costs me about $1 in fuel cost to drive 30 miles in my PacHy (electric only). But if I drove a Gas Pacifica it would get about 19 mpg (city driving) and at $2.70 a gallon for gas that translates to about $4.25. Another thing to keep in mind is that, in my opinion, it’s easier to reach the EPA estimated mpg in a hybrid than it is in a gas vehicle. Realistically your mpg in a gas Pacifica will probably be closer to 15 mpg / city. That would translate to a fuel cost of around $5.40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
In that case, show us your tax returns where that money is taken from you to give me. :grin2:
Yes, I think it is over-simplifying the situation to say that the government takes money from one person’s pocket and puts it into another’s pocket. And while it is unjust in the opinion of many to use taxpayer money to offer rebates to people who buy electric or hybrid vehicles, there are many, many more injustices that should be focused on before this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
Yes, I think it is over-simplifying the situation to say that the government takes money from one person’s pocket and puts it into another’s pocket. And while it is unjust in the opinion of many to use taxpayer money to offer rebates to people who buy electric or hybrid vehicles, there are many, many more injustices that should be focused on before this one.
So the answer (i.e. retort) is to prioritize injustices so that one injustice gets ignored while another more worthy injustice receives attention? Anyway, I never called it an injustice. It has been legislated, so it's legal.

What I am saying it's morally wrong. And it's not an oversimplification. I pay federal taxes, and part of that pot of collected taxes goes to pay people who decide to purchase a product that the government has decided that I have help them pay for. To add insult, it is a totally unnecessary product to the well-being of that purchaser. It's not a wheel chair, or food, or doctors' care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Yes, I think it is over-simplifying the situation to say that the government takes money from one person’s pocket and puts it into another’s pocket. And while it is unjust in the opinion of many to use taxpayer money to offer rebates to people who buy electric or hybrid vehicles, there are many, many more injustices that should be focused on before this one.
This reminds me of that rabid pro-PacHy user Madbot. Maybe he should get together with a rabid anti-PHEV guy so they can cancel either other out.

One of the more interesting things about the tax credit is how, in the beginning, it wasn't a credit, at all, but something like a $2k reduction in stated income, making the actual tax reduction substantially less. Of course, that income reduction applied to everyone; the current full tax credit only applies to those with a tax burden of at least $7500.

Then, the biggest credit also only applies to vehicles that have a battery above a certain size, as well. And many states are now placing an annual registration surcharge on not only plug-in EVs, but non-plug-in hybrids, as well (Ohio: $200/$100). Washington state is considering raising their annual surcharge from $150 to $350, and Illinois wants to raise it to a whopping $1000 per year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
So the answer (i.e. retort) is to prioritize injustices so that one injustice gets ignored while another more worthy injustice receives attention?
Yep.

Anyway, I never called it an injustice. It has been legislated, so it's legal.
Just because something is legal certainly doesn’t make it just. Abortions are legal and there are many varied opinions on whether they should be or not but I can guarantee that there are more than a few people who regard them as unjust.

What I am saying it's morally wrong. And it's not an oversimplification. I pay federal taxes, and part of that pot of collected taxes goes to pay people who decide to purchase a product that the government has decided that I have help them pay for. To add insult, it is a totally unnecessary product to the well-being of that purchaser. It's not a wheel chair, or food, or doctors' care.
Part of the federal tax you pay goes toward the defense budget and the military sometimes kills innocent people. You are also paying taxes that the government uses to pay people that are deadbeats and don’t want to work. Lots of unjust and immoral things in this world. And whoever said that a government’s job is to only give things to people that benefit their well-being? The government gives away free needles to drug addicts. That’s debatable as to whether it benefits their well-being. The government has already given the state of California 2.5 billion dollars toward a hi-speed rail system that would connect SF and LA. That’s ‘your’ money and unless you live in CA you’ll probably never benefit from it. In fact, CA may never benefit from it at the rate they’re going.

I’m sure I could go on and on....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
Yep.


Just because something is legal certainly doesn’t make it just. Abortions are legal and there are many varied opinions on whether they should be or not but I can guarantee that there are more than a few people who regard them as unjust.



Part of the federal tax you pay goes toward the defense budget and the military sometimes kills innocent people. You are also paying taxes that the government uses to pay people that are deadbeats and don’t want to work. Lots of unjust and immoral things in this world. And whoever said that a government’s job is to only give things to people that benefit their well-being? The government gives away free needles to drug addicts. That’s debatable as to whether it benefits their well-being. The government has already given the state of California 2.5 billion dollars toward a hi-speed rail system that would connect SF and LA. That’s ‘your’ money and unless you live in CA you’ll probably never benefit from it. In fact, CA may never benefit from it at the rate they’re going.

I’m sure I could go on and on....
Oh my! We have almost complete agreement on all those things you cited, except concerns about the military budget. But back on track. This forum is about cars, and I don't think anyone should be paid $7500 ($15,000 in Canada) for buying a car the government deems worthy of such largess. The rest of the stuff is for another forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Oh my! We have almost complete agreement on all those things you cited, except concerns about the military budget. But back on track. This forum is about cars, and I don't think anyone should be paid $7500 ($15,000 in Canada) for buying a car the government deems worthy of such largess. The rest of the stuff is for another forum.
I will definitely agree with you on the idea that the government shouldn’t be paying people $7500 to buy a certain type of car. But you stated that you won’t be interested in an electric or hybrid vehicle unless the government gets out of the funding process and lets the free market determine what people will buy. My point is that if I wanted to buy a hybrid car anyway and the government just happened to be also handing out $7500, I’m going to go ahead and take advantage of it. It doesn’t bother me much that they are taking your money and giving it to me because it’s happening everywhere. There’s no way to get away from it. Your reasoning is like saying that the government is forcing car makers to put on all of this pollution control junk and catalytic converters and seat belts and corporate average fuel economy standards, etc. so I’m not going to buy any car until they get their hands out of it and let the free market determine.

Well the fact is, you *have* purchased cars which have been artificially modified by the government to do or not do certain things. In effect, they are ‘taking’ your money by forcing you to pay the car makers for things you may not really want or need. The $7500 tax credit is just another travesty on their part but it’s just one more in a long list of things that have been done. There’s really no way around it. The government didn’t have to convince me to buy a hybrid. I was already going to buy one regardless of whether there was a tax credit or not. But if they’re going to give me some money for making a decision that was already made in my mind then I’m gonna take advantage of it because they’ve already taken plenty of my money and done things with it that I’m not 100% in agreement with. So why not get a little bit of ‘my money’ back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
I will definitely agree with you on the idea that the government shouldn’t be paying people $7500 to buy a certain type of car. But you stated that you won’t be interested in an electric or hybrid vehicle unless the government gets out of the funding process and lets the free market determine what people will buy. My point is that if I wanted to buy a hybrid car anyway and the government just happened to be also handing out $7500, I’m going to go ahead and take advantage of it. It doesn’t bother me much that they are taking your money and giving it to me because it’s happening everywhere. There’s no way to get away from it. Your reasoning is like saying that the government is forcing car makers to put on all of this pollution control junk and catalytic converters and seat belts and corporate average fuel economy standards, etc. so I’m not going to buy any car until they get their hands out of it and let the free market determine.

Well the fact is, you *have* purchased cars which have been artificially modified by the government to do or not do certain things. In effect, they are ‘taking’ your money by forcing you to pay the car makers for things you may not really want or need. The $7500 tax credit is just another travesty on their part but it’s just one more in a long list of things that have been done. There’s really no way around it. The government didn’t have to convince me to buy a hybrid. I was already going to buy one regardless of whether there was a tax credit or not. But if they’re going to give me some money for making a decision that was already made in my mind then I’m gonna take advantage of it because they’ve already taken plenty of my money and done things with it that I’m not 100% in agreement with. So why not get a little bit of ‘my money’ back?
Absolutely, you take the money if it's there. You'd be stupid not to. I suspect (from observation here in this forum) that most of the hybrid buyers want a minivan, and calculate the $7500 ($15,000 in Canada) and decide the hybrid is a better deal. (I did not make this calculation because I decided I need the Stow n Go seating, not because I'm against hybrids.) Certainly if the tax credit and the credit that Chrysler gets for building hybrids were taken away, the Pachy would probably cost over $6000 more (wild conservative guess!) than the gas version. Non plug-in hybrids cost about $4600 more. It would take a huge rise in fuel prices for any savings to be realized in less than six years of ownership without that credit.

I'll leave the discussion about saving the planet for another time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
My 2 cents.


I could care less about saving the Planet but, I'll do anything to save the Green in my wallet.


I got the Limited PacHy last year and so far, I have driven 5,500 miles and filled up the tank only 3 times. That has saved me lots of Green so far.


I already received $7,500 Federal Tax Credit plus $2,500 Rebate from the State of Texas earlier this year so, I saved lots of Green compared the the Limited Gasser that I almost bought.


Finally, for as long as we have this deadbeat president who has never paid any taxes, I'm going to take advantage of any Federal Credit/Deduction that would help me reduce the Green what I'm forced to send him. For the next filing season, I already got thousands in Tax Credit for the Solar Panels I just installed on my Roof and I'm looking to replace my other Car with another PHEV or, an EV like the Tesla 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Hmmm. Change is often difficult and unwelcomed, and sometimes comes at a price for the greater good in the long run. This is how I see all moves toward more sustainable and environmentally friendly shifts. Not saying that every move and initiative is flawless, but overall it helps move (usually slowly) the entire system towards something that is much better from a global view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
One other injustice of the tax credit is the way it is applied- the EV/PHEV buyers need to have at least as much tax liabilities to take the full advantage of it. Many moderate income families don't pay enough to fully benefit from the tax credit. The government subsidizes people who can afford to pay for their transportation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
And many states are now placing an annual registration surcharge on not only plug-in EVs, but non-plug-in hybrids, as well (Ohio: $200/$100). Washington state is considering raising their annual surcharge from $150 to $350, and Illinois wants to raise it to a whopping $1000 per year.
This sounds like a good way to kill electric adoption. I bet none of the politicians passing these things are backed by big oil!
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top