Well, I've read the article twice, and I don't find it offensive. I agree with his point: making something a hybrid doesn't make it "green", and slapping a handle on an elephant doesn't make it "portable".

As for the Prius paragraph, one has to wonder what sort of speed they were running. (It was a car magazine, after all.) I do find it hard to believe that a Corolla "might" beat it, but IF all you do is extralegal highway driving AND you don't count the tax credit, then price-wise, you may be better off.

All of us--except for Insight drivers--have a reason why we got the car we got, rather than something more efficient. As an HCH2 owner, I feel like I'm greener than FEH owners, but I freely admit that Prius drivers have the edge. (Of course, they'll all be blind from staring at that hideous dash.) All of us feel we're more responsible than the massive-SUV-hybrids. So, perhaps the point of the article should be, "There's a cut-off point for being one of the cool kids."

 

It just goes to show you: Anyone Can call themselves a journalist. You don't have to he truthful or accurate. You just need a newspaper column, TV show, or radio program.

 

I think the article has good points and I think that everyone here also has posted good points. I feel that the good name of the "hybrids" may be in jeopardy. Here's why:

In my opinion, the goals of the original designers of the hybrid systems should have been to:

1. Increase fuel life by reducing consumption, thus creating a less dependency for oil

2. Create a vehicle with less emissions that will me more friendlier to the environment than its non-hybrid based counterparts.

3. Improve and build on the technology so that better engines can be built thus increasing goals one and two(dont know how much this would apply to the second one).

I think that initially the hybrids were made for these purposes but the marketing vultures of these car companies saw the dollars from the skyrocketing sales of hybrids and now are going to destroy the basic concepts of what the hybrids were intended to achieve by creating everything under the sun as a "hybrid" or "Poser as people call them".

Everyone seems to agree that hybrids in general are not the solution but they are a step in the right direction. If the car companies dont market the technology right then people will see that they can get just as good gas mileage, spend less, and get a non hybrid rather than spend more money(all comes down to the allmighty dollar for a lot of people). If this happens then general interest in the hybrid technology may drop and the little baby step we took forward could turn into a giant leap backward.

I'm not saying im right. Just my opinion.

Brian M.

 

Brian; you are right in mentioning that the "hybrid" concept could easily be bastardized.

But that is marketing...once that a new buzzword catches on, it is abused beyond belief. Take for instance, the "digital" name that is attached to almost everything in the electronics world. The "Windows-compatible" name in software and computers several years ago. In some instances it was a real improvement, but in many others it was just a marketing word game.

 

You mean to say that "Hybrid" will be just as passée in 10 years as "Dual Overhead Cam 16 valve" is now and "Turbo" was before that? *shudder*

Sadly, you're probably right. But hopefully by then, we'll have full EV's or FCV's readily available. I hate to say it, but I won't mind when this car is obsolete.

 

I don't object to the rest of his article, however his main point-some hybrids don't get great mpg- could be stated in just 6 words"SOME HYBRIDS DON'T GET GREAT MPG".
The bit about the Corolla VS Prius in hy mpg is BS and he knows it is BS. If it weren't BS he wouldn't have put the "MIGHT" in there. It is impossible to design a hy driving experiment in which an Auto trans Corolla "beats' a .26CD Prius. The Corolla has about a ~.33CD maybe??Same frontal area more or less? Bigger engine that turns 2800 RPMS at 60 mph(the Prius turns 1400-1800 at 60mph). It can't beat a Prius-not possible.Thanks,Charlie
PS I have a 2001 Corolla(actually a Prizm, but same car,same assembly line). The current Corolla has about 5hp more and probably is 50 lbs heavier and a little bit taller.I think it EPAs about 2mpg better, but in real life the older one is a wash with the current one. It is a good car mpg wise(dull vanilla car otherwise), but I scanguage and Miles/gallons pumped it all the time. The Prius will go about 60-70% farther per city mile.Hy the Prius is about 28% better. They just aren't even close.With the $3150 credit it is actually cheaper to own a side airbag Prius over 80,000 miles than a Corolla. Without the credit the ownership costs cross at about 135,000 miles or so.If gas goes over $3, then the payoff is quicker. This assumes you would pay about $19,000($17250+TTL) for a loaded Corolla vs $22850 for a PK4 Prizm($26000-$3150). I have a Corolla;take my word for it, you don't want 2 Corollas.

 

It's just comical. That's all. Really sad, but I'm laughing everyday at my poor choice. Wow. Ignorance is rampant. Now I see why EVs have had/are having such a hard time. We as a species really WANT to kill off ourselves. And no one can stop us. Try to use less/pollute less? Bah, that's not important...

 

Let's put it this way: it won't be in the news that Leonardo di Caprio or Cameron Diaz drive one.

 

Let's look at it in a more positive way:

We want to kill everyone else off, and are willing to sacrifice ourselves to get it done.