Is this true?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(carleric @ Jul 27 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]486295[/snapback]</div>

You've gotten great answers to this, I'm going to take on the CNG Civic in a bit more detail.

The CNG Civic was discussed in a separate thread on this board a few weeks back.

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=35838&hl=cng

As far as I can tell, the CNG civic offers NO advantages over the HCH. Here are the mileage and pollution data from the EPA (www.fueleconomy.gov) site:

Regular Civic, Civic CNG, and Civic Hybrid

MPG 29, 28, 42
Annual fuel cost $1532, $776, $1057
Tons C02 6.3, 5.4, 4.4
Air pollution score, 6, 9, 9

You can see that the only place where the CNG Civic outscores the HCH is fuel cost, based on the EPA data (2007 vehicles). If you fill at home the cost of the fill device and its maintenance more than offset the lower fuel cost. I also think natural gas prices are going nowhere but up, for reasons I explained in that thread.

So, the idea of buying a CNG Civic in preference to an HCH, for the environmental advantages, is just not borne out by the numbers, at least at this level. Natural gas may be cleaner per unit of energy, but the HCH makes up for that by being more efficient.

 

Well in 8 years if I need to replace my battery (unlikely), there will either be cheap aftermarket batteries that cost around 500 bucks, or there will be lithiium ion batteries that will give me better performance. That is my guess. If I could only travel forward in time and buy a car that runs on old man anger and bring it back here I would have it made.

 

Here Is Warren's Latest

I've often been accused of stridency, of thumping my chest and shouting: "I'm right!" The charge has come from spouse and children, friends and acquaintances, and from more than a few of my fine editors at The Washington Post, one of whom wondered about my affection for "diatribe."

True

And beloved readers, another thing is true: To know me is not necessarily to love me, unless you love to fight and argue. So let's get it on.

Also True

The second matter has to do with the deification of the Toyota Prius gas-electric hybrid car as the answer to our fuel-economy problems. I've often commented that Prius praise primarily is puffery -- more hype than anything else. It is not that I dislike hybrid automotive technology. I strongly support it. But I reject the silver bullet mentality, the idea that the Prius is the only answer and that all other car companies that don't fall in lockstep with Toyota are fuel-economy laggards.

Fair Enough, though you most folks would have a hard time discerning the "strong support" in most his writings.

Gasoline-electric technology is one solution. But even the engineers at Toyota will tell you that it isn't the best solution, or the only fix for our crippling oil dependency. Diesel-electric technology, for example, would be more efficient than gas-electric hybrids. Advanced common-rail diesel engines without a hybrid component often are as fuel-efficient, and sometimes more fuel-efficient than gas-electrics. Honda's compressed natural gas Civic matches or beats comparable gas-electrics in lowering tailpipe emissions.

His love for diesels shines, but you'll note he always compares mpg to mpg not energy efficiency when touting how diesels can 'equal' gasoline hybrid economy. With the BTU/Gallon advantage of diesel, if it 'only' gets the same miles per gallon than a gasoline hybrid it is still 11% less efficient on a Miles/BTU basis. I also love the way he touts Diesel Hybrids. Theres a reason they don't exist, there are serious difficulties in making a Prius-like hybrid with a diesel engine, and the payoff is less than with the gasoline engine. Car and Driver and Popular Mechanics have both run the physics on that equation. However, don't expect Warren to follow such technical discussions. That's not his forte. He also has to wriggle over to CNG to find an emissions gripe. At least he's not foolish enough to go there with Diesels.

There are myriad other alternative propulsion technologies and fuel systems. It makes little sense at this point to anoint one at the expense of developing the others.

A good point, but beside the point. We aren't talking about not developing other choices, we're talking about making a choice from the options AVAILABLE TODAY. Saying 'just wait, Diesel/Hyrdogen/Whatever is going to make hybrids obsolete' is fine for a FUD campaign, but it doesn't address the choices available to someone who has to buy a car today. Of course Cars, Computers, Phones, TVs and everything else will improve over time, but I believe everyone understands that, and they also understand that at some point you have to make a decision based on current reality.

He then goes on to cite the Samuelson Article on the Prius as a display of status rather than a valid conservation choice.

And so I congratulate columnist Robert J. Samuelson for knocking "Prius politics" in his op-ed column in The Post (July 25). Prius frenzy isn't about saving the world. It's about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions," Samuelson wrote.

I do not wish to do to Prius owners what too many critics are so willing to do to owners of Hummers, which is to scorn them as a wayward, monolithic group. Individual buyers making individual purchase decisions for individual reasons exist in both camps. But I do wonder about the Prius owners who park their cute little battery-gas cars in mini-mansion driveways and garages.

That was disengenuous when Samuelson said it. Standard sleazy debating tactic. "I'm too good to call you names, like all the others are. Here are the names they call you, but notice I'm too good to do that".

Warren gets off double cheap. He gets to quote Samuelson, while still slipping in the slurs. Nice Job.


But, that's Warren. He has an agenda, and he's not that techincally bright, so he's an easy target. Unfortunately he does have a fairly wide audience.

I've noticed recently though that he's getting a little nervous about the blowback his biases are generating. People are beginning to notice and call him on it more. That's why he started out with the 'explanation'. Not that it really explained being illogical and ideological, but it does hilight another cheap debating tactic - the "I'm not really biased or an A-Hole - I'm just blunt" gambit. There's a whole sub-class of people who go through life being obnoxious and using that one as cover