Calculator or Formula for Petrol vs Hybrid Saving/ break even point

Does anyone know a formula or calculator that you can use for calculating the break even point for buying a petrol vs hybrid car.
The price difference seems to be huge between the 2 cars I’m looking at.

For example:

Purchase price:
Mazda cx 9 touring - $51,000 (8.8l/100km)
Toyota Hybrid GX - $60,000 (5.6l/100km)
Avg Km per year: 13k,
Fuel price let say, ($1.35) 91 octane.

Serving costs… just remove it for now.
Depreciation remove that too.


  • +10 votes

    16 years


      Thats quick mafs


        Becoz Nugs is a ICE Nissan.

  • +9 votes

    At a simple level:

    Mazda - 1144 L required to travel 13k in an year = $1544 in petrol costs
    Toyota - 728 L required = $982 in petrol costs.

    Difference in petrol costs = $562

    Break even = 16 years ($9000 / $562)

  • +1 vote

    Cost of saving the environment = priceless :)

    • +3 votes

      not too sure how much saving of the environment is for a hybrid

      • raw materials that go into making a battery
      • production of battery,
      • end of life for the battery

        raw materials that go into making a battery
        production of battery,
        end of life for the battery

        Battery is an energy storage medium only that can be recharged by your electricity grid (whether powered by fossil fuels/renewables..)

        Petrol is a liquid energy storage medium that comes precharged and can't be easily recreated

        EOL for battery - they can be recycled for raw materials for new batteries


        And petrol just grows on trees?

    • +2 votes

      Is there a calculator to show when we will save the environment? ;)

      • +1 vote

        I doubt it, I was just thinking he’d put the difference on a MasterCard

  • +3 votes

    I doubt the cx9 would hit that number real world. RAV4 is more likely to get the advertised figures. Not that it changes things much.

    • -2 votes

      Same goes for the Hybrid, depends which diving you're doing.
      At highway speeds, the cx-9 should easily get that, where the hybrid will be far worse.
      In city traffic, I doubt the cx-9 would go close to that number, whereas the hybrid is at home and working most economically.


        Highway driving is always around 5L/100km, no matter the SUV. Hybrid or not the engine will be maintaining low revs over long distances, bringing down the average.

    • +1 vote

      It is only a 2.5 four cylinder turbo.
      But still i agree, it's a hefty car and that engine will be revving pretty hard to milk every last drop of performance, in the city the numbers will easily go double digits
      0-100 in 7.9 seconds isn't bad for a big family SUV though
      Pretty impressive.

      The RAV4 would get hit by the depreciation curve much less though if you're looking as a financial incentive OP.

    • +1 vote

      That's why I love the Urban figure:

      Fuel Consumption Combined
      9 L/100km

      Fuel Consumption Extra Urban
      7.5 L/100km

      Fuel Consumption Urban
      11.7 L/100km


      You're spot on, Mazda and Ford are terrible when it comes to their quoted fuel consumption vs real life.


    It would be helpful to know whether you are comparing the two from an 'environtmental' or financial ROI perspective


      Serving costs… just remove it for now.
      Depreciation remove that too.

      Pretty clear.


    Calculator or Formula


  • +2 votes

    This is a very flawed way of looking at the two. The $9k difference isn't for the hybrid tech, it's simply paying $9k more for a different car.

    • -1 vote

      You are right.

      CX9 is 6 or 7 seats.
      RAV4 is only 5 seats.

      Generally RAV4 hybrid vs non hybrid is a worthy comparison. You just don't compare different class of vehicle.

      • +3 votes

        Hybrid GX is referring to a Kluger…


    Yep. I made one up and posted it here about a year or more ago.

  • +2 votes

    Depends on how you're driving the car - if it's primarily driven in the city/stop-start traffic, the fuel savings from the Hybrid will be comparatively much larger. Plus you get to tell everyone you're saving the environment ;).


    Isn't the CX9 AWD Touring a lot closer in price than that? More like 59k DA?
    You would have to compare the AWD price as the Kluger Hybrid's only come in AWD. I'd have thought a Sport is more at that price point

    Either way, I'd still take the CX9 over the povo pack GX.

  • +6 votes

    It's not just as simple as the dollars saved, it also comes down to which drives better and has the better feature-set for the price.

    A V6 2wd Kluger is similar price to the CX9… At the same price, which one would you rather own? After making that decision, does the hybrid matter (if you'd prefer the Mazda)?

    Holy cow look at the purchase process thoughts 😂

    5 posts spanning 8 months, all relatively on the same topic… Really?

    • +4 votes

      Been weighing it up for nearly 2 years!


        been waiting for an OzB deal on Mazda/Toyota before he pulls the trigger.


    Hybrids are better value second hand. A few k’s on the clock saves huge dollars on the price tag.


    Overall cost of ownership needs to be considered

    -insurance, more expensive more you pay
    -maintenance, ie how much a set of tyres cost for each car

    for example, I spent more on tolls than petrol

    • +2 votes

      So now you're saying EVs don't get to use toll roads for free? Unbelievable.

      • +1 vote

        Yeah was shocked (dad joke) that EV buy in and running costs aren't that of a pushbike


    They are only now letting on that the batteries depreciate.
    Where are you going to be in 5, 10 years

  • +1 vote

    You really need to include the (eventual) replacement cost for the battery as well - it's significant (and the environmental impact of end-of-life battery/new battery production).


      the environmental impact of end-of-life battery/new battery production

      Which people feel the need to downplay constantly. It's a huge environmental impact extracting the minerals from the ground and disposing of them at EOL, and production of batteries is dirty at best.


        Lithium batteries are gold for recycling. Just need to build the infrastructure to do so. It’ll be worth building the infrastructure once we get a lot more batteries. At the moment is mostly phones etc so the quantities aren’t there.


          Subsidies required. Not something the backwards federal government wants to participate in.


            @Techie4066: Subsidies are required now, but there will be a tipping point where it’ll be probably more economical to recycle than to dig up new stuff.


              @Euphemistic: The recycling industry is in absolute shambles. If we can't get it right with our household waste, we can't start to think about commercial waste.


                @Techie4066: Why not?

                Recycling industry is in such a state because for too long we stuck it on a ship and sent it OS. Now we are chasing our tail with mounds of stuff we don’t know what to do with.

                Our markets need to deal with waste better. Not sure if it’s still the case, but a few years ago in NSW the EPA attitude was that you had to prove sonething could be reused or recycled to be able to divert it from waste. It should be the other way around. We shouldn’t be able to dump waste unless all avenues of recycling have been exhausted. It’s just backwards thinking.


                  @Euphemistic: That's my point, huge change is needed to efficiently recycle and recapture resources domestically. As a country we're not getting it right at all, 2-3 years down the track since China stopped accepting waste and Malaysia cracked down on the illegal and unsafe imports. Why did China stop accepting waste? They shouldn't be dealing with our rubbish, and we don't know how to recycle so our recycling is contaminated.


    From RAC (WA)

    The disadvantages of HEVs:

    Expense. While there are cheap HEVs, they are generally more expensive than their equivalently-sized and equipped petrol-engined counterparts because of the added cost and complexity of electrification, from the battery pack and electric motor to the unique transmission and generator technology. Case in point: choosing hybrid in Corolla means paying $1500 extra. Plus, with low petrol prices, recouping that difference will take tens of thousands of kilometres of driving.

    Not so great outside the city. HEVs are most efficient around town in slow traffic; out on the open road at speed, they generally lose their economy advantages over normal engined models, as the electric motor isn’t required to save fuel. Basically, highway-only driving squanders the HEV’s potential, and what you’re left with is a car with two propulsion units instead of one to lug around.

    Less luggage space. Batteries are heavy and usually located in the lower rear half of a vehicle, at the cost of luggage capacity, and with a temporary spare tyre instead of a full-sized spare. Some even resort to a fiddly tyre-inflator kit, or expensive and harder-riding runflat tyres.

    More to go wrong. Having two propulsion systems in the one car adds cost and complexity to servicing and repairs, though most have proven reliable and durable as electric motors actually require fewer moving parts than an engine.

    Weighty issues. HEVs can add hundreds of kilograms to a vehicle’s weight, and that extra mass reduces the overall efficiency of the powertrain as there’s more weight to haul around. Additionally, the extra weight means the brakes have to be larger and more powerful to stop the vehicle in an emergency, the suspension has to be braced to deal with shifting forces on the move. The vehicle also steers, handles and corners with less agility and ease than a lighter, regular-engined equivalent. Plus, the added masses drive up car registration costs, since in WA they are calculated by vehicle mass.

    Battery cell degradation. Although battery packs are usually guaranteed for eight years, they wear out and eventually do need to be replaced at a cost of thousands of dollars depending on the manufacturer, so beware of the condition of a battery pack in older and higher-mileage hybrids.

    Shock and awe. HEVs pose an additional safety risk to emergency services workers who must be specially trained to deal with the dangers of high-voltage hardware when attending an accident scene.


    Completely aside form this topic, why is it the norm nowadays that families of 5 must have an excessively large SUV? It's ridiculous! The new Subaru Outback would do the job just fine for $40K, it has a huge wagon-style boot and family-friendly space with many features. As for more appealing Euros, there's the Skoda Octavia Wagon to consider. 640 litre boot and 5.7L/100km economy for $35K, why would you turn that proposition down? Or there's the Skoda Superb wagon for $55K which has a huge second row space, luxury features and much more power. Alternative to that is the Volkswagen Passat.


      Because mums have now discovered you can sit higher than everyone else in a car that isn't a full sized 4WD.


        I get that, and it's more "convenient" and more comfortable in some ways. I just hope the excellent wagons still on offer don't disappear like so many others. Subaru markets the Outback as an SUV to capitalise on sales, but it's still really a wagon in proportions, size and practicality.

        It's sad families no longer understand how much more space wagons provide in the second row and boot, how they're much better value, more economical, lighter and more fun to drive. People's arguments against wagons these days usually involve "being too low and getting blinded by headlights", "having to step down/up and hitting your head", or " not being able to see around the car ahead". There's a false perception that they're of lower quality or unsuitable for human proportions.