Delta's Notes:

• EV's don't have the range to get market share
• Fuel Cell Vehicles are at least ten years away
• The author quote of hybrid fuel economy must be with NASCAR drivers. Certainly not comparing EPA figure when comparing hybrids vs. 1980's cars.
• Since the 1980's, cars are heavier to take crashes better and to have airbags
• Since the 1980's people want cars go from 0-60mph in ten seconds - not fifteen.
• The Civic is bigger these days.
• How many times have we all heard these "facts"?

__________________________________________________ ___________________________

from http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?LID=1850
Hybrid Cars Won’t Help Energy Woes

Everyone (almost) believes that hybrid cars will minimize or eliminate pollutions that cause a myriad of problems from global warming to health problems.
This is a myth being presented to us by politicians, auto builders, and global warming activists. Just look at the facts.
Hybrids get anywhere from 32 to 47 miles per gallon — remember miles per gallon. Old time Dodge Shadows got 32 to 37 miles per gallon. New Honda Civics get 27 miles per gallon. Hyundia Elentra gets 34 miles per gallon. Geo Metro gets 45 or more MPG .
The significant thing about this is the cost and maintenance of the hybrids are much more than the normal car. They provide no significant improvement of mpg's which equates to no improvement in air quality per mile driven. If we want economy with good quality air and to reduce global warming we want either fully electric or fuel cell-powered cars. Fully electric cars have limited range without a recharge and the fuel cells require hydrogen fuel stations, which are supposedly unsafe.
But your kids will some day drive hydrogen cars. The point is that we are led to believe that hybrids will solve all problems and the truth is that they are no better than gas engine vehicles. If you watch TV, one candidate is selling himself by saying he will put through legislation for hybrid cars. But he hasn't done his homework — more myth being presented to the public as fact. The hybrids are much higher in cost.
George Lampron
Broadway

 

"The significant thing about this is the cost and maintenance of the hybrids are much more than the normal car. "

Does the writer provide any basis for this statement?

 

Hi,

First off, arguments presented here have little to no effect. What is needed are well crafted letters to the editor to answer Lampron on a point by point basis. Such letters take time but I'll share my outline:

1. "Hybrids get anywhere . . ." - list the relative MPG of the hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles as a compare and contrast. Point out his is an apples to road-apples comparison (Shenndoa has a lot of horse people.)

2. "Maintenance of the hybrids . . ." - cite the Dept. of Energy fleet study of their maintenance cost from the Vancouver report. Facts and data are the hammer that gets an editor's attention. Include the extended warrantee information too.

In summary, point out that Lampron's facts are wrong, a false witness to hybrid vehicle facts. Identify a local Toyota or Ford dealer whom readers can contact to get the truth that Lampron is a stranger to.

Bob Wilson

 

It appears this is just a letter to the editor by some mis-informed local yokel. I wouldn't worry to much about this.

 

Not according to FuelEconomy.gov, they don't. They're listed as 23/28.

The regular Civic is rated for 30/40.

I also had a particular issue with:

Amount of gas used does not equate to air quality. Even if you only compare greenhouse gas emissions:

2006 HCH2: 49/51mpg, 3.7 tons of greenhouse emissions annually
2006 Civic: 30/40 mpg, 5.5 tons
1993 Shadow: 23/28 mpg, 7.3 tons
1993 Civic: 30/38 mpg, 5.5 tons

 

[QUOTE=blinkard
I also had a particular issue with:

" They provide no significant improvement of mpg's which equates to no improvement in air quality per mile driven."

Amount of gas used does not equate to air quality. Even if you only compare greenhouse gas emissions:

2006 HCH2: 49/51mpg, 3.7 tons of greenhouse emissions annually
2006 Civic: 30/40 mpg, 5.5 tons
1993 Shadow: 23/28 mpg, 7.3 tons
1993 Civic: 30/38 mpg, 5.5 tons[/QUOTE]

This is my biggest pet peeve. MPG is not the only correlation to emmission reduction. This is the biggest myth that I wish would be addressed by the hybrid community. I wish the manufacturers would market the SULEV aspect of the vehicles alot more aggressively. You can't put a price on the reduced emmision aspects of the Hybrids.

 

Prius (and probably other hybrids as well) are among the cheapest cars to maintain. No automatic transmission, brakes lead an easy life, awfully well-built, and Toyota has provided lots of 'extra-warranty' coverage to problems that have appeared. This is my impression from owning a 2001 Prius, and from participating in several internet groups.

Other hybrid drivers, has this been your experience, or are these cars (as the media would have it) maintenance nightmares? Would really like to know.

I believe that all problems however small get reported to the internet groups, while the larger proportion of drivers just hum along happy with their fuel savings and lack of maint issues. If wrong in this I would very much appreciate being corrected.

Then perhaps we can bust the myth about maintenance costs.

DAS