did they factor in the tax rebate?

i have a prob with the fact that they say that the prius dosent meet EPA estimates but use that EPA estimates for the honda civic "lean burn" to show that it gets close to or better than what they did.

 

I don't understand why they seldom mention the tax rebates. A local news station just did a story on hybrids and mentioned the premium associated with them. Here in CO, a state rebate along with the federal rebate can more than wipe out this premium. I emailed the reporter to point out the rebates.

I picked up on that too. I guess you forgot; it's only hybrids that do not meet EPA.

 

Almost 4 years into owning my hybrid and journalists still don't get this right. Hybrids got a bad rap because every journalist and test driver took them out and do what they always do - drive the wheels off them. Then they'd report getting "way below EPA". Truth is none of these people drove the car correctly to get EPA - hybrid or not. If any of them bothered to measure the MPG of any car they test drove, they'd discover the same discrepancy. Problem is they never checked on the other cars - but in a hybrid, high MPG is expected, to they check. None of them seem to be able to figure out that it's them, not the car, that's the problem.

One of the biggest contributions our GH database makes is to counter these rediculous claims.

 

There seems to be less professional journalists these days. Along with satellite TV and the internet, this will just encourage people to tune and listen to what ever they like to hear without regard to it's credibility.

I wonder if most of the hybrid rip jobs are print media? Newspapers are downsizing and closing, and this may promote reporters to get circulation at the cost of accuracy. The New York Times had Jayson Blair.

 

How to spot a bad hybrid article:

What I've noticed is that all of the "hybrid hate" articles all have a few elements in common.

-- They say that hybrids don't get the EPA fuel economy, but fail to mention that conventional vehicles don't either.
-- They typically compare a Prius "real-world mileage to a Corolla's EPA mileage and then state "There's only a 3 MPG difference!"
-- They tout how a hybrid costs $5000 more than a conventional counterpart, but fail to mention the $2k-$3k tax credit. Besides, the last time I checked, the HCH only cost $2700 more than the recular Civic; ditto for the TCH.
-- They scaremonger about the cost of battery replacements, despite the the fact that only a handful of IMA/HSD batteries have been replaced worldwide.
-- They trot out the light hybrid GM Silverado as if that, not the HCH or Prius, is the mainstream hybrid.
-- They state that the user never recoups the cost of the investment (since when are optional features supposed to pay us back?)
-- They state what a bargain diesels are by comparison, but ignore the fact that diesel fuel is dirty and diesel engines are loud.
-- They cite how hybrids have terrible trade-in value (despite that a used Prius sells for nearly the same price as a new one).
-- They imply that fuel cells are the "real" next step in automotive science -- yeah, maybe by the 22nd century.
-- They omit the fact that every hybrid in existence has equal or greater horsepower than their conventional counterpart.

It's just so pathetic! It's like the hack journalists just recirculate the same piece of crap and just change the byline.

 

This is why I appreciate the Consumer Reports evaluation of MPG numbers for all cars. They found that something like 95% of the automobiles got below the EPA estimates. Across the board, they showed that nearly every car, in their controlled (but agressive) tests got well below the EPA numbers.

 

-- They always compare the manual transmission non-hybrid, not the automatic, to the automatic hybrid.

I've been thinking about putting together a web page listing the 'hybrid myths' but I think your list for the 'hybrid hacks' is even better. Have you thought about starting a web page or collection of these "tells"?

I'd be happy to offer a few more although most are already in the "You know your a real hybrid driver when . . ." thread.

GOOD JOB!

Bob Wilson

 

I had a 1988 CRX HF before getting a 2000 Insight. The CRX HF is very similar to the Insight, less the hybrid powerplant. Both are 5-speeds and weigh about 1,800 pounds empty. Zero to sixty is a full second faster on the Insight, but zero to thirty is even more dramatic because that is where the electric motor acceleration excels. Not to be proud of this, but the max speed on the CRX HF was 95mph, Insight 113mph.

In good condition, the CRX HF could get over 60mpg at 60mph - it possibly got 76mpg poking at 50mph once. The Insight can get about 70mpg and 80+mpg at those speeds.

Even factoring the CRX was abused more, the Insight is better bulit. I had to replace my battery pack just before 94,000 miles due to bad software/bad driving the 1st two years. At 105,000 miles, this has not happend to my Insight:

• Replace transmission
• On 3rd set of brakes
• On 3rd CV boot
• Replace struts

This was the case with the CRX HF. Mechanics at Honda have said the Insight is the most reliable of the line.

Granted, the CRX was last built in 1996, but in many ways I might prefer it over the current crop of mini cars other than the Insight

 

Thanks,

Your posting got me started on a web page to answer the hybrid skeptics. I'd originally planned on one to answer "CNW Marketing's" dusty report but theirs is not alone. The web page will be updated as new frauds join the fray. However, it will also include the real limitations too.

This is my current outline:

* Mileage* Price* Maintenance* Durability* Models* Environment* Safety* SemanticsAny others I might have missed?

Bob Wilson

 

I'm glad that I could be inspirational!