chilly.

I understand your point. However, lets get real. All the cars tested were done on the highway -when we all know hybrids were made to work best in city conditions.

Just a coincidence huh? On the highway, the effects of the hybrid are minimized, just a coincidence right?

Its also just a co incidence that every car basically stayed within a basic range of the EPA .........EXCEPT the highest selling hybrid -which posted ASTRONOMICALLY poor numbers somehow. Who knew?

Give me a break. Automakers will say and do ANYTHING to bash hybrids down -so that the average american wont go buy them. There is HUNDEREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars at stake here in future sales.

Considering these basic facts, is anyone so nieve to believe that the test itself ALREADY had a predicted outcome before it began?

Maybe it did -maybe it didnt type thing? Well, it sure turned out very well for regular cars, and FANTASTIC for those who want to push for diesel, and HORRIBLE for those who like the highest profile hybrid vehicle.

just dumb luck i guess.....................

 

Innkeeper, I think that you misunderstood the intent of my post.

I'm a HUGE supporter of diesels. If someone other than VW sold a reasonably affordable passenger diesel, I would probably own one. (Long story about me & VW).

The TDIs have gotten nicer & been refined. But I remember my friend had an early 90's Passat wagon he could regularly get 50+ mpg with. My point was that the TDI for all intents and purposes has gotten the same results. It's good to hear they've fixed the issues with their slush box.

What I was trying to get at was until recently, the Automotive magazines would tear apart the diesels. They would go on and on about them being underpowered, and even go to the absurd level of saying you would have to use a dirty gas pump to fill the car. Suddenly they are the best thing since sliced bread (confirming what us diesel supporters have been saying all along).

I'm not one of those people that is a diesel or hybrid hater. Personally I think anything to reduce our dependance on oil is a good thing.

 

I wonder when those other tests were done. (consumers and car and driver) where they done with 2006 cars?

there has been a few changes in the tdi's automatic drivetrian making it more efficient plus engine enahncements.

I do performance testing as part of my job, and i can say i can design a test to make anthing i want look good if thats what i set out to do.

so i'm no fool. what news would there be if a hybrid was on top. I'm sure they could have made the test come out the other way, even by choosing diffrent hybrids, or the options in the cars.

I think what autoweek tried to show is that on an even playing field, in a real world sinario, driving what an average consumer would drive, automatics, what miledge you get from the 2006 model year for the average driver.

The point that i think is important is that without hybrid technology, similar economy can be achieved by the average driver.

can you do better then thier numbers... sure. but which way are you stacking the deck. i'm sure somone with a 2006 tdi is look at the same thing saying hey, i can do better then that.

I think its all good, keeps both technologies at thier cutting edge.

now, what about some tax rebates for diesels

 

thanks. sorry if i got my back up about it.

 

Valid arguement. If you want to argue that the test conditions were not set-up to maximize the benefits of the hybrid. No issue.

Coincidence? I don't know. But do you really think that Autoweek has some hidden agenda to destroy the hybrid technology and watch it become next years failure. I would find that very hard to believe.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into the "They most have driven the hybrid differently so it would look bad" theory. The results are what they are. Is it scientific. NO. If you wanted to see a better data sampling they should have repeated the test several times with the drivers switching vehicles and then average the results across drivers. But let's be honest. What magazine is going to spend the time and effort to set up such a test.

Don't really buy into the logic behind this one? If a consumer purchases a hybrid vs a non-hybrid isn't it still a vehicle sold? If sales were the motivating factor I would argue that automakers would be inflating the MPG and performance/cost gains of hybrids so that more people would want them. If this is about future sales wouldn't you want people to to believe that they had to replace their existing technology with the latest and greatest. That is how you generate sales, not by telling people that the car in the garage is just as good. To me that would reduce your sales.

I am not so sure I see how the hybrid results were HORRIBLE. Did it meet the EPA estimates. No, but it did get the second best MPG results under conditions it is not optimized for. I would say those are pretty good results.

 

chilly

i again appreciate your point of view. I do not however, underestimate what lengths people are willing to goto when millions of dollars are at stake.

most autmakers besides toyo and honda DONT have a bunch of hybrids. Its a fact. Its also a basic common sense fact that if propoganda about hybrids keeps gaining momentum, then of course less straight gas cars will be sold and more hybrids.

the media is a VERY powerful tool. The power to corrupt how news is reported is an age old art. To say that isnt happening here is dubious.

We know for a fact the pruis gets better mileage than that. We also know that diff results can come from different parameters of tests. The freedom to set up the test any way you want is ENORMOUS to the result of the test. The freedom to run the test under those selected parameters also affects the result.

Im not trying to take anything away from the deisel vehicle. I believe that it gets that good of mileage. I also believe however, the test parameters were VERY friendly to the diesels peak performance and NOT the hybrid.

The resulting propoganda as 'news' certainly shows the pruis -being the highest profile hybrid, as not living up to its claim . People read this stuff. They go 'ok, hybrids are not the answer' ......

That sure abodes VERY well for automakers who still have a boatload of gas cars to unload . Doesnt it?

The kicker for me is the fact the test parameters were rigged in advance so that there was very little chance the pruis could perform. Again, they already knew the result before they ran the test.

The test wasnt to 'see' what happened. They already knew what would happen. It was to 'prove' it so they could publish it. Under these selected parameters and cars of course.

Try the test again with parameters friendly to the hybrid, and see what the results are.

 

Look, one thing I learned in law school was this: let me control the procedure, and I can get any result I want. I know that's true. And no, this wasn't a scientific experiment. The EPA numbers are supposed to be that, for most practical purposes, and look at the low regard in which they're held, even within this very article.

People will read this story and be influenced, yes, but it's hardly the first article to claim that the Prius doesn't really get the EPA numbers (our database shows that, if nothing else). I don't think that's really slamming the Prius. I also don't think these results mean that there was some kind of conspiracy, because there are people in the database who are regular drivers and see numbers like those for the HAH and the Prius. These people seem to have written the article from the perspective of making a good-faith attempt to be objective.

There's a lot we don't know- did they give the Prius to a driver whose nickname is Leadfoot? Did the 'caravan' stick together in traffic all the way so that the Prius had to go as fast as the Corvette at all times? Were any of these drivers used to using the more exotic cars (because they often take some getting used to, which would give an advantage to the 'normal' cars)? But anyway, they apparently tried to be even-handed, and they give kudos to the more efficient cars, but they probably don't know how to hypermile unless they're hybrid owners themselves, so can we blame them for not doing it for this test? It's hard to see how. Even if a few people read this and think, gee, the Prius isn't all it's cracked up to be, that isn't malicious or propaganda as far as I can see.

Would I like to see more laudatory stories in the press about hybrids? Yes, you bet. But this one isn't going to make my 'most-angry-about' list by a long shot. I've seen far worse, and probably will again, so I'll save my ire.

 

The Prius is over rated. I'm not sure how the "EPA" test was done but something is fishy about that car. You all know that the EPA does not test cars, correct? The OEMs test their own cars using EPA standards and the EPA spot checks a few results here and there.

The HCH is a much more honest car. It is EPA rated lower than the Prius but the database has both cars neck and neck.

 

leah

yes, i agree that the prius may not be the 'spoksman' for all hybrid cars. It IS however, the highest profile. This test was NOT aimed at folks who already have hybrids, or a dig at prius owners.

This test was to showcase to future car buyers. Not bug people who already made the choice.

Like you pointed out -no it isnt the biggest conspiracy since watergate. But it is an example of how to -even in a small way -invade the psyche of the american car buyer.

Like you also pointed out -he who sets up the parameters also sets up the results.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that a highway test over a long stretch is going to go to a performing diesel, NOT a gas car , and certainly not a hybrid which drives on gas and has its electric motor minimized.

To say they didnt know that in advance is almost impossible. These guys already knew -like even you and I would know - what the result was going to be. So what was the point in putting those parameters up?

This is what was , and still is, depressing to me.

 

My bet is Autoweek never considered the fuel tank bladder.

Ken@Japan