The misquote is inexcusable. The quotes are obviously slanted to fit the point of the article. Hope you get an explanation and apology. I also volunteered for him to contact me. Guess he couldn't reach me.

Misquotes aside, the article makes a point, whether that was the intent or not. The industry is not using this technology to its full advantage. We need more options that get 50+ MPG. That reduces consumption, and is more environmentally friendly. I don't care if that comes in a $21,000 Civic or a $35,000 Accord. If BMW made a 3-series that got 50 MPG and performed well, I'd own one in a heartbeat (well, maybe I'd have to wait for a used one of those... ).

I think we're starting to be pacified with a few high-mileage options while the industry is putting hybrid technology in vehicles where the mileage is only a secondary thought and the key motivator is performance. I think the car makers are holding out on us. I think they can make a 50 MPG Accord. I suppose I was being naive to think politics wouldn't be involved.

I just want them to keep moving forward, not just equip already high-end cars with more high-end performance and only realize +2 or 3 MPG.

Oh - and anyone supporting the technology deserves the tax break. Gas savings shouldn't matter. If you're buying a hybrid, you're casting a vote that says this technology is important. In some cases, you're paying more for a car that will never be recovered in gas savings (any time soon). That's worth a tax break.