U.S. News - There's a Hybrid in Your Future

Hmmm... as mentioned elsewhere, this article states a number of things I think are questionable -- including "are you saving money on a hybrid", using the Hondas instead of the Prius (which have significantly poorer MPG).

Not an awful article, but I think they're having to reach in most of their arguments against hybrids. Since I didn't buy them to recoup my money in the long haul, most of their arguments don't apply to me.

 

I am "sitting on the fence" trying to decide if its right for me. I know the Prius has all the room I need. I have a convertible to drive on the weekends, so I will still have a fun performance car. I don't know if I will miss my electric heated seats. I considered the RX400h. The Lexus is a nice car, but 30 mpg isn't that fantastic. My Corolla always averaged 30 mpg. ....

For me the thrill is in the car shopping......(sad, but true)

 

i cited this article in the Newsweek thread...dont forget to check out the side article about the GM hydrogen car... it makes some even doozier (or woosier) statements than this article does.

 

Okaaayyyy....

Here's what I don't get.

"GM engineers disassembled the car at the company's Vehicle Assessment Center in Warren, Mich., and laid the guts of the propulsion sys-tem out on a long shelf. One major discovery: The Prius's hybrid power train contains 42 percent more parts than the machinery that moves a similar-size Chevrolet Malibu. That, argues Burns, is too much complexity for the car of the future."

Now...if you dissected a normal current car and compared it to a car of the, way 50 years ago and then one of the first cars....wouldn't a 1950's car have more moving parts than one of the first cars...and wouldn't a current car have more moving parts than a car of the 1950's? Is that necessarily a bad thing?

So GM is saying hybrid bad. And in the last paragraph "GM and DaimlerChrysler recently joined forces on a crash R&D program, and both companies plan to introduce their first full hybrids in 2007."

So...hybrid is bad but we're hurrying to build them anyway. But for the Chevy Silverado pickup truck and the TrailBlazer SUV, where being a hybrid will be in name only and will do not good whatsoever except to be more stuff to break due to poor design and manufacturing.

Huh?

It's like improving on a failed technology so you can be a more efficient failure. Either you believe in it and you work to make it better....or put your efforts somewhere else that you do believe in.

Or maybe I'm not reading mixed signals?

 

again nothing but spin...

what he should have said is that poorly implemented technology of ANY complexity is unacceptable. frequently , to advance technology you must have more complexity. more complex technology is only worse if it doesnt work and needs to be repaired frequently.

in my mind, i wonder if GM could build a reliable vehicle even if it only had 3 parts to it.

 

Perhaps GM picked the Malibu to compare because it's one of their few models that has had anything like decent reliability in the recent past, although Consumer Reports calls the reliability "subpar" in the first year of the redesigned Malibu. And CR still doesn't recommend the Malibu.

Let's see...an uninspired poor gas mileage sedan with subpar reliability, not that much cheaper than the Prius and without a number of the same options available as the Prius, or a tested, successful and innovative hybrid with excellent mileage, reliability and a wealth of standard features, AND Toyota quality? Wow. What a tough choice...NOT!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva\";p=\"86929)</div>

I'm not reading them either -- or at least not many of them. But one way or another, you hit on the worst argument I found in this article.

 

Ho hum - YET ANOTHER hybrid story that makes no mention at all of a major reason I and many other people bought Priuses: To reduce emissions dramatically compared with a conventional car. (Of course, not all hybrids are as clean as the Prius.)

And, except for one brief aside about dependence on foreign oil, even the gasoline argument is framed simply as a matter of dollars and cents. My wife and I got a Prius in order to use LESS gasoline, not necessarily to save money on it.

All in all, very little content for the space consumed. Or am I just over-sensitive after a long day at work? :?

 

Ok, lets think macroeconomically. Less oil consumption means improved balance of trade, less dead soldiers, smaller budget deficits and a cleaner environment. The GM model thinks poor quality, size and cubic inches is more important. As Mr. Lutz would say, "Where is the business case?" And we agree, where is the business case for gas guzzling, polluting, high maintenance, poor quality vehicles made by over paid executives? If Honda can build award winning cars in OH and Toyota in KY then why cant GM, Ford or DC? The problem is not on the plant floor.
Thank heavens Toyota is going to build hybrids in the US. Sure would be nice if the GM board could eliminate Mr. Lutz's severance plan.

 

Re: Okaaayyyy....

"One major discovery: The Prius's hybrid power train contains 42 percent more parts than the machinery that moves a similar-size Chevrolet Malibu. That, argues Burns, is too much complexity for the car of the future."

I don't believe this. Did they even count parts in Malibu's automatic transmission? Prius power train should have less part unless they count every wires, chips, magnets in electric motors, and all 168 cells in battery pack. Very misleading.

I want to know how the whole picture would look like if they only count just the moving parts.

Dennis

 

Again with the poor reporting of the important facts of the latest Federal Tax Incentive program:

"Other savings come from a $2,000 federal tax deduction--which President Bush last week proposed raising to $4,000--and state or local incentives."

The current program is an "Adjustment to Income." Yes, effectively it's a deduction, but it's a deduction that's available to all, not just those that itemize using Schedule "C". With a marginal tax rate of 25%, that's $500 in your pocket.

The proposed legislation is for a hybrid tax CREDIT of $1,000. The $4,000 is only for a FUEL-CELL tax CREDIT, which at this point, is quite worthless.

 

there are more parts in the torque converter in the Malibu than in the PSD. never mind the automatic tranny and all the pieces in there. 42% more! no freakin way.

 

"Like sports cars and convertibles, hybrids have become popular for reasons that have little to do with practicality."

Hmmm, so replacing my 15 MPG SUV with a 50 MPG EUV (environmental utility vehicle) is not practical? Saving a 1,000 gallons of fuel the 1st year is not practical? Emitting over 90% less crud is not practical? Hauling lumber and wheelbarrows and passengers in a roomy, comfortable mid-size car with all its gadgets and extras, not to mention the 50 MPG (again) is not practical? All the above for an average of $24K is not practical? Sorry, I could go on...

What part of practical does US News not understand?

 

lets face it... US News has always had a big business slant on all their articles. if you want a consumer mag look at Consumers Reports