I think the article is a bunch of hooey. BUT, to be fair, I don't think it was wrong to include both the price premium and extra financing cost. The former is how much more you pay in price of the vehicle, the latter is how much more you pay in interest to finance that larger price. IF you finance, as most people do (I think), you have to pay both. The fact that you don't pay the entire price premium "up front" if you finance doesn't mean you don't pay it at all, you just pay it over time. Unless you sell before the vehicle is paid off, you do end up paying both the higher price and some extra interest.

It was very unfair and unreasonable to "discount" the hybrid mileage so much from EPA, but not to do the same to the non-hybrid. And, as I've pointed out, the whole depreciation thing is ridiculous.

Finally, perhaps many hybrids won't seem to "make sense" to many "average" drivers, concerned with cost alone, but a fair article would at least point out where such assumptions break down - for people who drive more than average on longer trips, in pleasant climes; those who are willing to adjust their driving styles to drive more "gently" when given sufficient feedback to do so; those who might buy a Prius instead of some vehicle that gets 25 mpg; etc., and would also at least *mention* the "non-financial" benefits that some people might find appealing.

I'm thinking of writing something myself...