|
Review - No Hybrid!
Hybrids are Evil. You heard it here first, and here's why: they cost more money, don't deliver an equal value for all that cash and will keep the filthy little foreign oil rats in business for another 30 years. Hybrids do nothing well but everything okay. That makes about as much sense as diet soda, fat-free ice cream or low-tar cigarettes. Conservation. Hah - go build a better engine. Less dependence on foreign oil. Yeah - like a heroin junkie can do just a little bit of smack at a time. If you are seriously considering a hybrid vehicle, wake up and turn off the television. And by the way - if you really want to save a tree -- go ride a bike to work or take a train. Hybrid technology is just a ploy to extend the consumer life of the internal combustion engine and - here's the headline - get us to pay more for less. |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
The article is pure fiction. A few bullet points in he claims that electric motors and NIMH batteries generate polution even though electric motors don't do anything and NIMH batteries are non-toxic and easily recycled into fresh new NIMH batteries after they've expired. Basically it's just a made up little story from someone who doesn't understand the issue.
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Amusing drivel
Oddly though, I have a good friend who is a certified, card carrying Democrat with a bent towards believing conspiracy theories who thinks that conserving fuel just allows higher prices -- the same argument this article espouses. And who is all for the environment, if no money comes out of pocket, and ABSOLUTELY NO sacrifice in convenience or slovenly lifestyle is required. There are an awful lot of people who have convinced themselves that this makes for a stronger, healthier country. Luckily for them, they already have excuses lined up to explain failure. |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Conserving fuel allows higher prices? I think he must be confused about the basic principles of economics. Perhaps if the supply was conserved, this would be the case. But, we're lowering demand. That will decrease prices.
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
It doesn't mater to me. I don't care if they burn down a rainforest to get me to work. My reason for buyin a hybrid is I am too lazy to fill up my tank every week.
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Wow!
Reading that whole article was just......well I have a lack of words. Do the folks here know that Prius can only get 48MPG at best....and you'll have cars honking behind you to do it? :angry: I'll have to collect myself before sending a letter to their editor at this link: Editor@autobytel.com |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
I wonder if this guy works for GM?...lol
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
I imagine the author also smokes to save healthcare dollars, and incurs ever increasing credit card debt to support the economy.
It is amazing, and sometimes amusing, to see to what lengths people will delude themselves to square with idiotic behavior. |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Wow! All I can add is "What a TURD!"
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Originally Posted by tbaleno
It doesn't mater to me. I don't care if they burn down a rainforest to get me to work. My reason for buyin a hybrid is I am too lazy to fill up my tank every week.
Your house was just burned down, for the fuel. Your understanding is appreciated. |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
heh
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
That guy is nuts. My Civic gets roughly 45-48mpg at 60-70mph. That is what happens when you were raised by a mule....you turn into a jack-***.
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
It is so nice to see that writers in the auto media can be just as biased as the average writer in the employ of the NY Times or the Washington Post. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a "pay off" article. The points made are so poorly constructed and so opposite of many widely known principals, such as basic micro-economics, that the article has to be a commissioned article by forces that are not on board with hybrid-technology.
I guess everyone has their price. |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Originally Posted by texashchman
I wonder if this guy works for GM?...lol
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
The best real-world mileage you can expect from the likes of a Toyota Prius is around 48 mpg, which really isn't all that much better than most decent cars on the road |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Funny you mention that, Jason, because I thought *exactly* the same thing when I read the article last night.
Since I'm posting here, I'll chime in, briefly. My take (from memory, and not re-reading the article today) is that the writer has such a utopian view of hydrogen and other non-gasoline alternatives, that he discounts the improvement / advances / conservation accomplished by hybrids so far. Granted, the cars still use gasoline. But...isn't it commendable that they use so much *less* ? And significantly reduce emissions at the same time ? In summary, the phrase comes to mind... The perfect is the enemy of the good. :cry: |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
You know what we should have here? Articles that are published in order to directly refute the publications of ignorant journalists. Someone should reference "No Hybrid!," for instance, and show the myriad of incorrect statements. Heck, we could turn into the hybrid watchdogs of the media!
|
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
One thing you need to keep in mind is the incredibly ferocity of the hardliners at GM/Ford/Chrysler who see any technological or marketing advances by non-union companies as a threat on a par with terrorism on our own soil. Signs like this litter the parking lots of auto manufacturers:
http://www.mackinac.org/media/images/1999/vpt99-01a.jpg |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
::chuckle:: First there was the phrase SCLM - So Called Liberal Media.... now we have SCAM - So Called Accurate Media ;)
While I think your idea definitely has merit, I think it key to refute the errors where they originally appeared. And that's where we could come in collectively. Many of us tend to watch for any scraps of articles on hybrids - when we find one worth following up on (good *or* bad), we could learn about it here, and then individually follow up with a letter / email to the publication - in our own words, not using a form / chain letter, so that our individual responses have more force behind them. I've seen threads where some folks do this - but it's on a smaller scale than I would think to be truly effective. This was actually part of my thinking behind the 'red ?' contest that was held recently. My entry would have been called 'Act'. But - I never entered the contest :( |
Re: Review - No Hybrid!
Haha. Well, you should have! There's plenty going on inside this head of mine, though... I need to work on the online store and a few partner programs. Then there's always the possibility of a yellow section...
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands