Halfway through a NY Times article on how gas prices are affecting us, I come across this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

Let's just put wealth aside for one moment. When I look around on the road, I see loads of SUVs -- actually in alarming numbers. When I count the peole inside these SUVs I see alarmingly LOW numbers of occupants.

I especially see a substantial quantity of brand-new luxury SUVs (Hummer, Escalade, Navigator, etc.). But I also see a number of beat-up old non-luxury SUVs with equally few occupants (generally the number of occupants inside = 1))

If you can afford _any_ new car, then you probably don't qualify as 'poor'. We're talking about new-vehicle purchases at dealerships. Including people who can barely scrape bus-fair together isn't a realistic argument for declaring that hybrids are for the wealthy... for these people 'car ownership' is for the wealthy. So lets just look at those who are, frankly, wealthy enough (I didn't say "rich") to walk into an average car dealership and purchase an average new car.

Conclusion (completely non-scientific): Americans will spend boat-loads of money to buy over-sized and completely unjustified SUVs with miserable gas-mileage and an even more miserable emissions rating even though they can't forward any arguments to support why they NEED a vehicle that large. But at the same time, if you ask them about buying a reasonably sized vehicle that still carries the passengers or cargo they need (as if they bought their SUV for "cargo"), they immediately retort that the hybrids are "expensive" as compared to normal cars and don't pay-off over the life of the vehicle.

Annoyingly, the press seems to support this myth.

If they want to shop for cars based on the numbers and whether their investment is being wasted vs. providing actual value, then they should be consistent about that approach and bash the SUVs with equal enthusiasm.

I realize the NY Times article wasn't "bashing", but I'm annoyed that they perpetrate the myth that only the wealthy can afford a hybrid.

They also tend to ignore the tax credits and benefits of buying a hybrid when they mention the cost.

As far as the "I need to haul big stuff" argument... my response is "how often?" I occasionally need to haul big stuff too. But I've noticed that the local Home Depot will rent me a flat-bed with more space than any SUV on the market for a mere $19/day. I really don't see the need to own a 15-mpg SUV 365-days a year based on the idea that I need to haul big stuff once or twice in a year.

Ok... I'll step down from my soap box now. =)

(Gosh I feel better)

We feel your PAIN.

I and many other Hybrid Advocates have been battling this "anti-hybrid" media bias for years.

It's for some reason been sustained and repeated over and over and over again.

The tax breaks have helped - there are a lot of stories on the Web which say with the generous tax breaks and higher gas prices, hybrids "pay off" a lot sooner than they did previously.

The whole "pay off" thing is irritating to me to. Do "custom wheels" have to "pay off"to be a value to the buyer? What about other extra costs items? Hybridization is just another item on a car which adds cost, like airbags or ABS brakes.

It's just UNLIKE those items, the hybrid option saves fuel EVERY MILE and pollutes less EVERY MILE.

Both of you have excellent points. However, the more I'm reading these articles the more I'm convinced that journalists are not intentionally trying to perpeturate these myths. They're just given unverified facts by people with an agenda and they're too lazy to investigate it for themselves.

After all, it took me almost five minutes to compare the price of a Camry LE optioned the same as my TCH to realize there is no cost differential after taking into account the tax credit.

Yes, a lot of that is true - the myth is perpetuated by journalists not doing their homework properly.

To be fair, you could have gotten a few thousands discount from MSRP on the non-hybrid, but not on the hybrid. On the other hand, most of that difference will be returned at trade-in time.

There is thousands more paid up front in the actual purchase price, with some returned in next year's tax (for this year), and some returned much later when selling the vehicle (and some returned with each gas fill-up, and some returned when you don't replace the brake pads, and some returned...).

The real conclusion is the amount returned in pride and fun of driving a hybrid -- PRICELESS!

-- Alan

It's tempting to just leave the hybrid-phobic and hybrid-haters alone, and quietly save money while they whine at the pump....that BP pipline is out until next January (after the elections )...who knows what other crimp will happen in the world's oil supply.

Let's just sit back and see how much pain at the pump they can take.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

It really doesn't matter how often they want to be able to haul big stuff. It's there hard earned money and if they feel it is better spent on a vehicle that gives them the option to carry large items or more people, that is there parogative. Just like it is your poragotive to give up the cargo capacity and purchase a smaller car with better gas mileage.

Some Hybrids can be purchased for less than MSRP. We purchased our Mariner Hybrid for $1993 below MSRP ($700 over invoice). The dealer was offering only slightly larger discounts on "regular" versions. My "Hybrid Premium" worked out to about $1150 after the federal and local tax credits.

As for bashing SUV's....well, I got the best of both worlds.....Hybrid and SUV. Room for my family and all our stuff and over 30mpg City and Highway! (EPA says 29 hwy, my computer says 31-32 Hwy). Ignore my signature mileage as I just hit 3,000miles and I am currently averaging over 30mpg after the break-in.

-Tim

2006 Mercury Mariner Hybrid AWD
Black with Pebble interior
Premium Package with Nav & Moonroof



Current ODO: 26,152
Typical Drive: 20 min crosstown in heavy traffic (3.5mi there and back twice a day)


532 Gallons of gas saved
That's 10,642 lbs less CO2 emitted

This is my opinion on matter such as these:

A lot of times, people purchase an SUV because it is the easy, or familiar, or traditional thing to do. They don't even STOP to think AT ALL about how they could manage their life in a six-passenger car or another smaller sedan. Many many people do not even consider going smaller. The dealer uses his magic to convince them to buy the vehicle which HE makes more profit on - the SUVs.

That's our job - to inform people about the advantages of moving out of the SUV and into the car.

If 50,000 people a year moved out of SUVs because they COULD if they THOUGHT IT THROUGH do without the SUV, that would be WAY good for the environment.

What would you think if you lived in a place where water is scarce such as Phoenix in the summer and some one is watering their lawn and the pavement during midday? I suppose that some of you would be upset that they would be aggrivating water rationing and higher utility bills. Yes I realize that in many places you would get fined, although only a few years ago, you could get away with it in Dallas.

Are some of you going to say "it's their preroggative?".

It's the preroggative for billionaire George Soros to pay GM $200 million to build Chinese vehicle for sale in the US. Yeah, he can do it, but is it this anyway for an American to help their country?!

Sure, some will buy a set of wheels that seats 6-8 with just one driver 80% of the time. "It's their perogattive". To heck with the economic and environmental fallout.

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated