Autoblog

Though not a "pro hybrid" guy in any sense (they are a poor stopgap measure at best) the much of the science that says they have a life time net negative impact is faulty. That said, there are far more effective and elegant solutions that could be mainstream tech if the media and public had not gotten caught up in hybrid mania.

↓↑report

Much of that science completely ignores energy requires to maintain and operate ships, trucks, trains, rail, roads, ports, all the energy required to extract minerals, recycle materials, fumes from everything associated with it.

It is by far a greener choice to maintain an older vehicle well.

↓↑report

Here we go again. And again. And again....

↓↑report

Hybrids are terrible for the environment and the economy:
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188

My biggest issue is that hybrids are built with MY tax dollars. Strip away the subsidies and watch them sink while practical solutions emerge.

↓↑report

Vintage, seriously, you need to stop with the spamming and the repetitive nature of your comments.

And read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2194989/

It's a cradle to grave comparison between a new Prius and a used Corolla in regards to their respective consumption. The Prius wins. Enjoy.

↓↑report

wow what a biased article that stretchsje quotes. I love how they compare the money spent per mile on a prius to a hummer. They add in the money spent making the vehicle but then state that the prius is only good for 100k miles but a hummer is good for 300k. so therefore a hummer costs less to operate than a prius. The real problem is the plant in Ontario that mines the nickel. I dont hear the article b*tching about oil drilling practices when talking about the extra gas consumed by the hummer.

↓↑report

Your article compared the Prius to a Corolla, hardly a fair matchup. I would hope a car that costs well beyond twice as much to make, with all that cost going into fuel economy, gets at least a little better mileage.

A Corolla, on the other hand, is meant to be cheap to own (low MSRP) and have a modicum of style and practicality. Those are different goals than the Prius.

The point here is that if a company were to put its efforts into making a fuel efficient, impractical, slow vehicle for $23k (even ignoring all the government subsidies), they would make something that would beat the Prius in energy consumption while NOT WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS. Obvious improvements could be switching to Atkinson-cycle engines (which the prius uses, but these need not be limited to hybrids), diesel fuel, and emphasizing light weight (something LONG ignored in America).

This isn't hypothetical: look at the variety of cars Europe has. Some of their fuel-efficient vehicles have both more cargo space and better acceleration than the Prius.

The problem is that nobody in America will buy a car with lousy performance and practicality for $23k+ unless it has that stupid "hybrid" badge. It's all marketing. Americans, for $23k, instead get larger or faster (or both) cars such as a Camry or Mazdaspeed3.

The Camry is great example since the 4cyl is faster than the hybrid and costs about $5k less. It also has vastly more cargo space. Why not put the Atkinson cycle engine in the base Camry so they get identical highway mileage at the expense of 20hp? Cause nobody wants that!

↓↑report

Stretch, that article is retarded. It assumes the H2 will last 300k, while the Prius will only last 100k. Based on that alone the whole argument is completely flawed. Please don't ever post that again because you're insulting the intelligence of everyone here.

↓↑report

Perhaps that wasn't the correct article to link, as my point wasn't that a Hummer is more environmentally friendly. More recent tests of the Prius have it as 30% more cost-effective (sometimes better), but still falling way short of a typical economy car... which is what I really intended to compare the hybrid to.

Hybrids are not an interim technology. Full electric cars make sense for commuters. Fuel-efficient gas cars make sense for families. Hybrids make sense for nobody.

Again, take the case of the Camry. If you took the Atkinson cycle engine from the Camry hybrid and put it into the base Camry, you'd get a car with BETTER highway mileage than the hybrid (same aero drag, less tire drag due to lower weight), similar acceleration (similar power-to-weight despite lower horsepower), and equal cost (atkinson-cycle is no more advanced than traditional designs).

Then there's the ultra-poor tires used on hybrids, usually Goodyear Integrities. These tires suck, with very low grip, however they also produce low drag for better mileage. Why not put these on other cars? Because nobody wants crappy, no-grip tires.

We don't see fuel-efficient designs because the emphasis gets placed on performance instead. And why should a manufacturer bother, since the government subsidizes hybrids and there's such an Al-Gore driven marketing push behind them? Stamp hybrid on any piece of junk, and it'll sell... again, witness any of the impractical current hybrids, whose trunk space is compromised by batteries.

To argue that a hybrid is better than an SUV is missing the point. Hybrids are just a large sponge of your tax dollars. Pull that away and let folks vote with their OWN dollars, and you'll see far more practical designs emerge. They are currently being suppressed by a rather ignorant "green" movement... witness fuel from corn, too.

Again, look to Europe and their vehicles. They've long had non-hybrids with more cargo space and stronger acceleration than a Prius- for less cash, and without tax incentives.

↓↑report

Bottom line, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards supporting hybrids than tax loopholes that allow "business owners" to deduct the cost of ownership and operation of a Hummer due to it's overbearing curb weight.

And besides, those tax incentives for hybrid development are good for the entire auto industry. It's forcing manufacturers to develop better products that target customer demand for fuel efficiency. Thnik of it as a trickle-down effect. Certainly that concept isn't lost on you conservatives out there.....

↓↑report

Li-on batteries aren't ready for mass production yet and can't be sold in a $20k car. Which is why the Volt has been hinted to be released around $30-40k by Bob Lutz.

Toyota does have huge investments in Li-on batteries as well, but being that the car is going to be released next-year Li-on isn't the solution, especially when there are still safety and performance questions.

↓↑report

No, it's not good for the auto community. How is a diversion ever helpful? I don't see any "better products" resulting from this R&D... just a bunch of rubbish that has yet to catch up to basic European diesels. The only relevant technology that could trickle is battery tech for future full-electric vehicles, but that existed on its own well before hybrid cars.

I don't think tax incentives should exist on any automobile. The Federal government has no business manipulating the industry as it does... it's unconstitutional. What it does is Fascism, which is Government regulation of private business- exactly what we have. I don't have conservative values, just American values.

http://www.despair.com/government.html

↓↑report

Vintage, 1997 called and wants its arguments back.

↓↑report

Screw the Prius, and screw Vintage!
They both SUCK!

↓↑report

P.S, Autoblog, ban vintage from reading/commenting on Prius articles.

↓↑report

i hope you mean the insight, cause the honda civic hybrid is the best looking hybrid out there right now by far.

↓↑report