Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

I would argue that some alternative technologies already are cheaper than petroleum, but cost and price are not synonyms. Pollution, athsma, and global warming are considered 'externalities', and aren't counted in most cost/benefit analyses. These costs may be difficult to quantify, but they are most definitely not zero. Until ALL the costs of any fuel are reflected in the price of that fuel, we will be unable to make informed, intelligent decisions.

 

The fact of the matter remains that there are so many logical flaws in this article that it's hard to tell if the author is writing a sarcastic piece or a satire. If it's a satire, then good on them. If it's sarcasm, then I'll continue my previous tradition of having nothing to do with the WSJ, this just gives me a reason not to.

 

That's one of my big beefs. Toyota announced (sortof) the 4 cylinder hybrid camry (altho there's only one official page I've seen that mentions it's a 4 cylinder) but they'll sing from the rooftops about their upcoming Lexus V8 hybrid that delivers the power of a V12 with the economy of a V6.

Uh.

Way to go Toyota?

 

Lexus promotes far more than Toyota in the first place. This is nothing new for hybrids. They advertise their vehicles to death in comparison to Toyota. It's been that way for years. Oh course you'll hear more from them. After all, that is among the many reasons a Lexus price tag is higher.

Camry is so popular already, what would be the point of off-spotlight promotion anyway? They inevitable announcement at the 2006 Auto Show kickoff in a few weeks will draw plenty of attention.

Chill. And quit making up conspiracies. Since back in 2000, Toyota has followed a carefully laid out game plan... that will take a decade to play out. The patience has paid off so far. Try some yourself.

 

Again with the FUD. And what/where is this premium to comparable vehicle they keep talking about?

It sounds like Toyota needs to do some PR about these frequent FUD.

 

Well, it is an op-ed piece so blame the author for the content and the WSJ for hiring yet another Medill graduate.

 

Where's the gas only version of a Prius?

 

My mother loves our Prius, and I've encouraged her for a year to get one. I asked her recently why she hasn't and she said she was waiting for the camry hybrid. (She has only driven Pontiacs for the last 25 years.)

That Camry hybrid, provided the price is reasonable, is going to sell like hotcakes.
I have faith that Toyota won't design it like the accord, with the hybrid tech. going to power instead of effieciency.

 

Has she had any problems with her Pontiacs or do you want her to get a Camry to be more like you and so another 30,000 Americans will lose their jobs. Scratch that Toyota creates a job for every two they take, so it will only be another 15000 jobs.

 

If the incompetent fools who run GM et al hadn't burned it to the ground, perhaps those American workers would still have jobs.

Let's try like the Hawley-Smoot Trade Tariff (1930). Then you'll know what a depression feels like.

 

Looks like the WSJ is going for the "Jayson Blair Accuracy in Journalism Award".

 

Malorn, if you agree with the American ideas of capitalism and competition in the open market, then why the campaign to get people to buy American out of loyalty, charity, duty, or some other external reason outside of the actual product's merits.
It totally smacks of communism to say that we should buy something we don't want, in the face of a more desirable option, in order to keep the employees of that company that produces said "crap" employeed.
How long do you expect that to go on? Forever? Where is the motivation to ever produce anything better? There isn't.
It is sad that so many people will lose their jobs especially since it is not their fault that the GM management took the company in the direction it did and caused this to happen. GM management has gotten fat, lazy, greedy and rested on its laurels as the world's "largest car manufacturer" long enough. This said, I would actually blame this more on a management culture mindset rooted in short-term focus (ie. next quarter's profits) rather than on individuals.
GM needs to work-out and get into shape. What you're asking us to do is do is feed the pig (GM) so it can get into better shape. It doesn't work that way. It starts with the mind (GM's management) to decide to get off it's fat nice person and go to the gym and workout all of the different muscle groups--innovation, quality emphasis, long-term focus, lean management and operations, etc. Like the analogy?

 

Jayman, you had a problem with your GMC and I acknowledge that. I am asking if she has had problems with her Pontiacs or if her son wants her to buy a Toyota because it is trendy. I would be amazed if she buy Camry, it will get any better mileage than her Pontiac, even if it is a hybrid. Right now the trendy thing to do is buy a foreign car no matter what the consequences. It seems you are all uptight about the US taking advantage of Canada on trade but don't care at all about the US being the dumping ground of all the worlds products. You can defend it and go into all kinds of bul*shit excuses, but this is wiping out the American middle class!

 

Here is an email I sent to the author regarding his satire.


Mr. Jenkins,

Your article, ‘Dear Valued Hybrid Customer’ is the journalistic equivalent of a computer virus, an article that can be of no possible benefit to anyone and can only cause harm. It’s only potential value is to fuel the warped ego of it’s author. Yes, I know you are hiding behind the thin veil of satire, but the opinions behind the satire are clear, and based false information and misconception. Most people don’t really understand hybrid vehicles (take yourself, for example) and are not sure whether to buy one. Helping people make that choice is a worthwhile goal. But your article merely offers up false information and fuels misconceptions about hybrids. This serves no one and is a complete waste of ink and paper. It also reflects poorly on the integrity of the author and the paper that printed it. Allow me to demonstrate my point.

Your article states “"Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year."

The use of the value $9,500 is completely unsubstantiated, and laughably inaccurate by any objective measure. The MSRP of a Toyota Prius is $21,275. It is a midsize sedan.

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/vehic...ota/model/Prius

In order for your statement to be true, the MOST EXPENSIVE non-Prius midsize sedan must cost under $12,000. A base 4 cyl. Toyota Camry (also a midsize) lists for $20,125. A 4 cyl. Chevrolet Malibu 4 door sedan lists for $19,200.

http://www.intellichoice.com/reports/compa...&model=0&trim=0

Is there ANY midsize car that lists for under $12,000? No. $16,000? No. Is the information in the article completely misleading and based on false pretense. Yes.

Article quote:

"Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers."

A completely false statement. Hybrid technology as employed in the Toyota Prius is very "green" technology. First, it saves fuel which even you don’t try to deny. Secondly, 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, they beat out all other cars and trucks. Why, even under the veil of satire, lie about this?

http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/all-rank-06.htm

The Prius produces less than 1 pound of smog forming pollution per 15,000 miles driven. Compare that to the Cherolet Malibu 4 cyl. which gets a 6 rating from EPA. This rating means the Chevrolet produces 12.3 to 12.9 lbs of smog forming pollution per 15,000 miles driven. I would say a car that produces 12 times less smog than a comparable car is "green".

Article quote:

"But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience."

The clear implication here is that the Prius represents a false promise, and that its resale value will be relatively lower than other cars as a result. However, the only relevant facts here are that the Prius has held its value as well or better than ANY comparable car, in most cases dramatically better. To take this information and conclude that in the future the Prius will hold less of its value than comparable cars is baseless speculation, completely lacking in any supporting evidence. According to the NADA vehicle pricing guide, the current average retail of a 2002 Prius is 80.2% of its original MSRP. The comparable number for a 2002 Toyota Corolla is 70.1%. 2002 Toyota Camry 74%. 2002 Chev Malibu 46.6%. 2002 Honda Accord 72.1%. 2002 Dodge Stratus 46.6%. 2002 Ford Taurus 43%.

http://www.nadaguides.com/com/compare.aspx...=U&comp=1&vt4=U

Article quote:

"Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else."

Now you go beyond baseless speculation and falsehood, and stray into the patently absurd. I have saved over 400 gallons of gas since I purchased a Prius (compared to the compact car it replaced). Who stepped up to the plate to use that saved 400 gallons for me? What a laughably stupid statement.... and article.

I would agree that the Toyota Prius (or other hybrid) aren’t for everyone, and an article that objectively helped people make the choice would serve a purpose.

But I ask you, what is the purpose of your article?

 

Nuff said....

 

If the US doesn't want free trade, it shouldn't have asked for it.

 

Yep, you right-wingers are getting what you voted for. Quite funny to see you getting upset about it now. Not that the main opposition party's much better.

 

Yeah, no shit. Where's my comparable Prius sans HSD? Huh? Mr Jenkins? Hello?

Oh, he's probably gone on write more flamebait. Well, "analysts" said similar things about Apple's (more expensive) computers and iPod years ago when they were "groundbreaking but over-expensive"... and look at Apple's stock since then...

similarly take a look at Toyota's stock ... gotta think that they're doing something right.

When pressed with flamebait/trolls like Mr. Jenkins it always helps to have a dose of real facts nearby.

 

A-MEN.

Don't forget the costs of the Iraq war ($250 Billion so far) and the costs of petroleum related accidents (Exxon Valdez?) and more importantly, in comparison to rail/mass transit, compare the road-repair we all pay for as taxes.

Fact is, "externalities" means "hidden costs". Time we as consumers and citizens demand those costs be revealed.

 

You beat me to it. I find it contradictory that a self-professed "captialist" would suddenly invoke Communist ideals.

I've already tried that arguement. It doesn't work.