To be fair, there are a few people for whom the low desireability of large vehicles is a small windfall. Take my parents as an example. They live at the top of a long, steep driveway in New England. That means plowing, for which they have a truck. It's a 1991 GMC Sierra with...get this...9,000 miles on it. No, I did not forget to add a zero. It goes up and down the driveway with the plow, it goes to the dump, it goes to home depot, it goes up and down the driveway some more...and fifteen years later the thing is turning to dust. All they have to do is wait until gas prices take another major swing in the right direction for the rebates on that new Tundra to get enormous.

 

Yes, my Mom raises minature horses, used to run 40 head of cattle. She has a 100 acre farm and a pickup truck. I really have no problem with working vehicles and with a few dents or mud splatters, actually admire them.

No my problem is with the road warrors who use them as 3-4 ton commuting vehicles. The right tool for the right job and an individual commuting alone in a 3-4 ton vehicle is a waste . . . unless it is armored and in Iraq.

Bob Wilson

 

It's picking the right tool for the right task....golfers don't start up using a putting iron, etc.....brick's parents are using their truck for what it's intended. What' so controversial about commuting to work in a small sedan and using a workhorse if the task truly requires a big hauler? If that's what the general public did, gas prices would not be such a political, economic and national security issue. It's such a sensible thing to do, yet some people get defensive at the suggestion.

 

What they used to do in Western European countries (and probably still do) is to have an additional yearly tax to pickup trucks and other larger vehicles. Anyone who could prove the vehicle is critical to the daily operation of a business (or meets one of the special requirements for private operation) would be exempt. Another tax I recall was levied against vehicles based on engine displacement.

As far as I can see, this approach had many positive ramifications. For the last 20 years everytime I mentioned this, most people around my parts cringe and find the idea a challenge to their freedom of choice.

Anyhow, I came to the conclusion that our politicians have no guts, and lack a long term vision for the future - enough to explain why we are in the situation we are.

MS

 

I think buying an SUV is a great idea. As gas prices go up, it cost more and more to commute daily, so why not just buy a huge SUV, park it at work, and live in it? On weekends, your wife can come by and pick you up in her hybrid so you can spend some time at home with the kids.

And think of the practicality! Cat 5 hurricane coming your way? No problem! We can move inland any time we want. Can't do that with your house now, can you? Think of the money FEMA would've saved, not having to buy those trailers that they didn't use anyway.

That's it! The government should issue Katrina victims an SUV! It would help Detroit with its excess inventory problem!

 

The whole "Silverado hybrids only get 3 MPG more" argument always cracks me up. FAS wasn't designed to save gasoline; it was designed to provide mobile electricity for power tools and camping equipment. It mostly negates the need to bring a portable generator to a work site or campground.

The author also omits the fact that hybrids aren't the only cars that fail to line up with the EPA ideal (and fails to note that, under ideal conditions, you CAN get the EPA estimate.)

Saying that some reviewer "didn't like the feel of the Prius" is pretty disingenuous. She picked a very subjective "fault". One's man's boring car is another man's ideal ride.

I gave her a "1 star" for my feedback.

But it proves my point about the so-called "art" of journalism: you need a degree to be a doctor, engineer, lawyer, or teacher -- but any fool can call himself a journalist.

 

A recent Edmunds article listed 15 hybrids. It should be no suprize that Toyota/Lexus has five, but guess who tied them? GM/Chevy: Edmunds listed the Saturn VUE, the Silverado twice, the Sierra twice.

Not only is the addition suspect, but my simple definition is: "if it's not hybrid-propeled - it's not hybrid", leaving GM with only the Saturn VUE.

 

And the Saturn VUE isn't even available yet. It's still a GM "We're Gonna" product.

The hybrid pickup trucks aren't available for general consumption, just corporate customers in a handfull of states, so you can scratch them off too.

So... For all practical purposes, GM has ZERO hybrids.

 

This is the email I sent to the author in response.


Have you ever driven a hybrid auto?

More specifically have you driven a Prius?

I have a 2005 Toyota Prius. No it's not perfect

and isn't the greatest thing since ice cream.

But I have seen several (6) tanks over 60 mpg

and am averaging 55+ mpg over the life of the

car (24888 miles).

While hybrids are not for everyone, if a driver

is willing to follow the general tips you give for

better mileage 50+ mpg is EASILY attainable

with a Prius.

Also, have you considered the payback on a

Special Edition with all the options in any

model versus the standard model? Or the

payback on any option like a Bose stereo or GPS

navigation? This is why the arguments about

hybrid payback are bogus. There is absolutely

NO payback on a V8 compared to a V6 either.

It's a choice that people make. At least with a

hybrid I am saving money. I never saw a stereo,

GPS system, or V8 do that.

 

Abowles,

Glad you were able to send that. I tried but you seem to have to log in to post to the message board. If you could post her e-mail, that woudl be great. I won't be rude just want to make a similar point to yours.

Should have been titled, "The hidden cost of poor journalism". Does anyone working in the American media actually do research for a story any more, or do they just Google, cut and paste, glue it together and call it a day. I mean really.