Ignorant Reporter

Hi ISR,

I though I read on here somewhere that the Gen II Prius Hybrid battery is $2400. With 85000 prorate, the cost for this person would be $1360. Replacement labor might be $400, but still, that is awful steep for 1 hours work, which also nets the service organisation $200 battery finders fee. Something smells in these numbers.

Another line would be - why does she want and need to replace the battery? Has a mechanic indicated its neccassary? Is the car still driving? If it is, and there are no warning lights, then the replacement would be more a physcological need than a requirement. In which case, Toyota may require the full cost of the battery.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ May 22 2007, 06:44 PM) [snapback]447648[/snapback]</div>

Why should it cost anything, prorated or not? Why should she pay labor. It's under warranty.

 

Could it be that the word "need" was misused in that reporting, and that the intent was to say, e.g., "this is a car that AT SOME POINT will require the replacement of a $3K battery...), as in "this car "takes" (uses) an expensive battery"...to juxtapose a future liability with a present/future asset?

 

This thread's title is redundant. <_<

 

I think IsrAmerica is absolutely right, but it seems like a relatively minor mistake on the reporter's part. She just doesn't understand how the battery warranty works.

I'm also curious why the person she interviewed thinks she "needs" a new battery. I've actually never heard of one being replaced before.

 

I love it [sarcastic] when reporters 'report' on subjects for which they were obviously ignorant when they began their investigation. The reporters tend to confirm that ignorance remained when their reports are rife with mistakes or inaccuracies that only someone who is ignorant or has just the basic precursory knowledge would say. They don't know enough to know what they are saying is wrong.

Just this morning, a couple of talking heads were reporting on how to save gas. One of them said, [not an exact quote] "it's best to keep the air conditioner on and the windows up because of . . . um . . . you know." Then she went on to say, [again, not an exact quote] "and with a truck you should lower the tailgate because of the bubble of air in the back."

The first quote is not always correct. The second quote is just plain WRONG!

 

Most written articles on the Prius are astonishingly ignorant, apparently written by people who have never sat in a Prius, or if they have, they haven't driven one for more than a mile.

Harry

 

Ignorant and irresponsible reporting is an epidemic in this country. Sounds like this one has a terminal case.

 

One of the rites of growing up is when you acquire enough experience and education on some subject matter to discover that the popular press coverage of that subject is terrible. It doesn't take a large leap of inductive reasoning to draw a conclusion about the quality of journalism in other subject matters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ May 23 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]448284[/snapback]</div>

Oh, there's definitely a bubble of air. However, it's between the reporter's ears.