Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

Oh.

So it's VERY BAD when it happens to you, but it's "good business" when it happens to somebody else?

Now you know how it feels like.

BTW we're still waiting to be reimbursed for that ILLEGAL softwood lumber tariff.

 

Can this actually be posted to WSJ directly through some complaints avenue or something to warn them against such 'yellow journalism' articles?

Replying to Jenkins may not get its space/time on WSJ due to biased filtering on his part.

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to do that. As you say, Jenkins isn't likely to share it because if I do say so myself, I throroughly and righteously trashed his little article.

 

There's a list of contact addresses at http://online.wsj.com/public/page/contact_...page=Contact+Us where your rigorious, and apt rebuttal can probably be better submitted.

Maybe this email: [email protected], or this [email protected].

 

blah...blah....blah....blah.....

I bought my Prius because I thought it was the right thing to do and the right car for me. I'm not looking to justify cost or impress anyone. But I AM very interested in getting 48-50 miles per gallon, which is exactly what I'm getting.

As far as the WSJ writer is concerned.....he needs to hop back into his big fat smelly Hummer and do his little "thumbs up" to all the other folks driving those big fat smelly trucks and SUVs. Think about it...he HAS to write this crap, he needs the money...to pay for the gas he uses in the big fat smelly gas guzzleing cow he drives!!

 

Anyone look up the names on the letter to see if they were bogus? I think it's pretty clearly satire, but you have to admit that the letter raises interesting and honest questions: "gas saved?", " end of the internal combustion engine?" "Our Tundra is as much of a gas guzzler as any....". Toyota would never use so idomatic an expression as "gas guzzler". In their endless Oriental politeness, they would more likely refer to the Tundra as "using the amount of gasoline appropriate for a vehicle of its size."

Made me think, though, about being a sucker.........
B

 

Dear Holman Jenkins, WSJ:

Thank you for your recent WSJ piece that, upon brief reflection, unambiguously and unequivocally justified virtually every reason I had for my recent purchase of a Toyota Prius. Mind you, I'm already very happy with the vehicle and am constantly reminded of what an outstanding value it is, but it never hurts to add some icing to the cake. Perhaps that wasn't the main goal of your recent piece, but a simple deconstruction of the sarcastic half-truths, misrepresentations and outright falsifications made the vindication simple, trivial and complete.

Yes, we all know that the EPA mileage tests typically overrate all cars' true mileage (not just hybrids) under real-life driving conditions, as the EPA will attest (and is trying to remedy), but when I routinely meet and exceed the highway mileage rating (rated 51 mpg, achieved 50-55) and still manage high 40s in suburban driving, without any mileage optimization techniques, I can laugh at (and cry for) the SUV, pickup and luxury car drivers that are lucky if they achieve 1/3 that mileage.

And a $9500 premium? Granted there is no direct non-hybrid comparison for the Prius, allowing one to freely invent any number one wants, but that whopper is over 3 times the estimated ~$3K premium (which is consistent with estimates from the Honda Civic that allows for a more direct comparison). And perhaps the true premium is zero or negative: maybe you can suggest to me a mid-size car that comfortably transports 5 adults, has a high-end stereo w/ 6-CD changer, keyless entry/start, auto-climate control, steering wheel system controls, security system, full front/side/curtain air bag coverage, vehicle stability control, HID headlights, fog lights, wireless bluetooth, and a voice-activated DVD/GPS navigation system ..., all for mid $20's? Oh, and I forgot to mention Toyota's legendary reliability, refinement and overall quality. And I also forgot the high-tech, high-efficiency hybrid drive drain. Even if we take the $3K premium for laughs, your refreshingly more accurate $580 gas savings/year shows a 5-year recovery. Given the high resale values and long-life expectancy of the Prius, that's a an easy "investment."

Hmm, no benefits for society. Living south of LA, and being frequently assaulted by the smog clouds, it is abundantly "clear" (pun intended) that a vehicle that achieves twice the mileage and 5-10 times lower emissions than comparable vehicles is a great benefit to society. Sure hybrids are a new technology and a small (but rapidly growing) fraction of total vehicle sales, but as they say, "think globally, act locally." Consider for a moment the benefits if all vehicles employed hybrid technology to achieve high mileage. Oops, guess you blew that one too.

And petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." That's a gut buster. Please return to Economics 101. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200. Do you really think that if every car on the road in the US were achieving 50+ MPG, our nation would still vaporize 20+ million barrels of oil per day? (and let's not consider the costs of air pollution, oil spills, greenhouse warming, wars, terrorism, non-renewable resource depletion, etc, that are unfortunately concomitant with insuring this vast consumption rate.)

I've never heard anyone claim that the Prius is not an oil-dependent vehicle, but I suppose one can always restate the obvious. And as long as we're restating the obvious, be reminded that it consumes about 1/2 the gas of other comparable vehicles, which, by the way, goes a long way to reducing the net costs of gasoline powered cars.

Toyota, like all car companies, is in business to make money (something the WSJ should understand), and is apparently doing so very, very well. It is thanks to this money-making success and long-term vision to perform the necessary R&D that has made hybrid technology a technical and economic reality. The market demands big pickups and SUVs, Toyota too delivers big pickups and SUVs. But Toyota does so by consistently achieving significantly higher corporate average fuel economy numbers (for both cars and light trucks) than virtually all other car companies (Honda being the one true competitor here). Check out the NHTSA website if you want details. I agree (finally!) that the RX400h is a bit dubious in the expense/benefits category: the hybrid version does achieve lower emissions, but mileage is little improved. Like the Honda Accord Hybrid, this demonstrates how the success of hybrid technology is allowing it to used as needed to meet market demands, be they higher power and/or higher mileage.

You seem concerned by the higher relative market demand for Prius's (Prii?) compared with Civics, and attribute this to a desire to be seen in a conspicuously virtuous vehicle. Maybe you should look a little deeper and consider that the Prius is bigger, higher power, faster, and gets higher mileage, for little difference in price, and consider what effect this might have on the market demand (this is so for the pre-2006 Civic; the new Civic hybrid model is more competitive). And then consider further that the unique and chic Prius styling is a classic case of form following function: with a coefficient of drag of 0.26, the Prius is nearly (or maybe actually) the most aerodynamic mass-produced vehicle on the planet. And that does result in a uniquely shaped vehicle. But the conspicuousness of the Prius is arguably no more so than that of sports cars, luxury cars, or shiny SUVs (and a heck of a lot cheaper!), and my general impression is that Prius drivers are not generally the flashy sort. Again, your rationales are flawed.

Finally, given that GMs hybrid buses have been a huge disappointment (much more expensive and little or no better mileage that non-hybrid), you'll have to agree that the Toyota Prius approach (little or no more expensive and much better mileage) is indeed a far more sensible approach to addressing a long-latent market demand for high-mileage, low-emissions "green" vehicles.

Thank you again for the further enlightenment.

Sincerely,

A "Sucker" in San Diego

 

Jane Smiley has written a great rebuttal to Junior Jenkins. I've posted it.

 

Bob,

The article was satire, written by a Mr. Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal. Very bad satire I might add, and I'm sorry to hear it made you think, because all of its important points are totally bogus. Let me put your mind at ease. Consider:

Article quote:
"...petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else."
This statement is false, as proven by the following:
According to Mr. Jenkins, pretroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not saved becasue of "basic economics". Basic economics says that reducing demand for a commodity results in greater supply. Greater supply leads to a reduction in the cost. Lower cost leads to higher consumption, and thus the cycle repeats like a treadmill, getting nowhere. This could be true in theory, but is obviously wrong in reality. Conisder this. Do you (and I, and 1000's of others) save fuel by driving a Prius? Yes. Are gas prices down as a result of our lower demand? NO. Gas prices are up 50% since the indroduction of hybrid cars in the U.S. Why? Because in the big global picture, oil demand is still up and so are prices. Therefore, there is no "treadmill" cycle, and you can rest assured that any oil you saved will remian saved.

Article quote:
"Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle..."
Do you think you paid $9500 more for your Prius than the car you would have purchased in its place? And if so, do you think that car was comparable? I doubt it.

Article quote:
"Hybrid technology is not "green" technology."
A completely false statement. Hybrid technology is very "green". It saves fuel and it significantly reduces pollution. According to the EPA, the current Prius and Civic hybrids are the cleanest cars sold in the U.S. They have no competition, and beat out all other cars and trucks.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/all-rank-06.htm

 

Very well said. A brilliant piece! I hope you actually sent this to Mr. Jenkins, who may be reached at:
[email protected]

 

Thanks, Yes, I in fact did send that note to Jenkins, exactly as shown here. Interestingly, he sent me back a note within an hour or so (on Saturday afternoon: at least he's industrious!) that was a bit more sober a straightforward (no satire). His reply directly responded to a number of points in my note, so clearly wasn't "generic", as I would have to guess he received a fair bit of email on this piece. I wont post his reply w/o his permission. But paraphrasing what I remember (am on travel and don't have actual response with me), he confessed to using a vanilla civic and/or corolla to somehow come up with the ridiculous $9500 premium, claiming that's what Edmunds.com gave him for a comparison vehicle, so pretty bogus, apples-to-oranges comparison as I see it. Also, mentioned the point cited by someone else here was his "no gas-saving" argument based on "lower gas consumed by you leads to lower prices for gas, which leads to higher consumption by someone else." This is also economically bogus, as we're simply lowering the demand curve (in an infinitesimal way) and resulting price-point. Consumption elsewhere in the demand chain might consequently go up slightly, but no where near by the amount saved. He also claimed that EPA mileage numbers are more over-estimated for hybrids than standard cars, but not sure if that's in absolute or relative terms, so hard to say if it's meaningful. He didn't respond to a number of my points, which I could take as implicit agreement. I was at least encouraged to see a more sober response though I would still argue with most of his points.

 

Ok Malorn, I'm going to throw you a few personal questions I don't expect you to answer openly.... you are sounding just as schizophrenic and double minded as the competitors you condemn.

I don't want to go as far and say "grow up", but how about wise up?

They are all out to make money?.... its nieve to think otherwise.!..... claiming a "green" slogan is only applicable to thier prius. Toyotas slogan is in reference to moving forward.
When moving forward, you don't take a step forward into cutting edge green technology and then "completely toss" the whole rest of the company of the sake of being "green". Everything would crash?.... no more than we could toss gasoline tommorrow and all run off of wind power?.. it takes time to tool up, gear up, and economically be supported for such actions by the public.

They are a very big worldwide company and have been around a long time!... now that they are stepping into the "hybrid" age, are they supposed to just toss the rest of the company? Their global influence is changing the whole world.

As Hybrid picks up, they will integrate this into "all" of thier cars... they have already spoken to that effect. They have a good product and they know it... as the public accepts it, they WILL integrate it into everything! There are good reasons they don't do it all tommorrow, and there are good reasons why they don't just stop making everything except prius's or similiar.

You can't stand on the sidelines licking your wounds and condemning them for not being black or white, for not being good or evil, this is not a moral struggle we are talking about as you have tried to depict it as such by bringing up the "green" thing over and over. This is an evolution! What other company can you name that is more green? Who else is putting the amount of research, money, and actually successfully coming up with marketable products that actually hitting the streets at a price the public can pay?

Are you really going to persisit in condemning toyota because everything they touch is not green?
As they evolve, can't they continue being the toyota they have always been "making remarkably well products with amazing longevity and efficiency"?

It must be very hard for the marketing dept of toyota to express thier excitement about thier product that is so green without having hecklers on the sidelines saying "nay nay.... they are no good because they are not perfect".... well what company is more perfect?
***Let the company that is perfect cast the first stone!...Or let the "dealers" of those perfect companies cast the first stone! and that company certainly is not the companies you represent!.....right??? So what problem do you "really" have?

Lets give them a chance shall we?.. I think they have a heck of a lead with no intentions of slowing down?

Why not let toyota be toyota, and continue to advance and grow and take encouragement from their progress and ingenuinety?

Does it really make you feel better to push them down, and discount them as credible, and belittle them, to count them as less?..... do you really think the perception you are trying to broadcast is really "reality", or just what you wish "it could be" so you would not be so tormented?

Don't take the GM thing so personally, and try to realize when its time for change and give it up and join a winning team!

None of us Hate GM, but we don't have power to undo their decisions, nor do we have power to make thier decisions. They made thier bed, they have to sleep in it now!

The only thing we can do is talk with our money..... your money is where your mouth is!.... and our money says.... toyota is better!.....

BTW, What will be the next car you buy? and why?... and just "who" are you trying to kid anyway? yourself or us?
And answer to yourself who are you "really" supporting?

Don't you know when you are on a loosing side?
Or do you "always" root for the loosers?... does that make you feel like some sort of a saviour or something?

Maybe you just trying to say toyota is not "goody two shoes" because they also carry some characteritics of other vendors.. .like making SUV type rigs?
Goody two shoes implies a moral standing... toyota is not a moral company... only one that makes excellent products and is amongst the first at stepping into the alternative energy world.

Why do you think you don't celebrate what they do, but instead cast them down?

I'll let you answer that one!

I hope I've given you something nice to think tomorrow about as you try to sell your SUV's and gas burners! <_<

All of your unrational rational makes me sick.... Excuse me while I go take a puke..

 

Methinks Mr. Jenkins doth protest too much - he was at it again on the 14th, expanding on his "if you want to save oil, drive a Hummer" argument:

http://commonsensewonder.com/mtarchives/008780.shtml

I'm happy to see that he now refers to fuel economy's role in reducing pollution as "ambiguous" - a big change from the "illusory" he used in his reply to me. (Of course, it's incomprehensible how burning gasoline more cleanly could be "ambiguous," but at least the change is an improvement.)

Andrew Leonard at Salon gets it exactly right about the whining of Jenkins and others of his ilk:

"The free market has spoken: there are an awful lot of people who think we should be behaving more sensibly as to how we consume our planet's resources. They can't be ignored, so they must be ridiculed. I guess that's one more thing to feel smug about."

Full Salon story: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/index.html (Part way down)

 

I'm asking myself; what motivates this fool?

 

I can only guess.... I've marvelled as I have witnessed folks who will defend at all cost something that is wrong because its part of thier "identity". Almost like asif they truly write it off as bad, then they too are worth nothing?

Too bad people can't go deeper than what they do. We are not what we do, or what we drive. We just are..... and we are all valuable.... and what we do or what we drive is only our choices. Choices that can be justified or condemned.

Somewhere along the line, programming gets implanted that wraps self worth up in what we do..... We learn acceptance seems to come with "conditions".


"As a man thinks in his heart, so is he"

Love is unconditional, but respect and trust are not... they are earned.

It's ashamed when someone sticks with the wrong in seach for acceptance and in the process looses all respect because he's too stubborn to see that fat meat is greasy!

There is none so blind as those who "will not" see! Many times its too painful too see. Something they are protecting will be crushed with the truth.

In this case, I think its hopeless, but sometimes I get surprised, so I keep trying!