Replies

The author seeks to gain credibility with his math skill.

“The cost to fill the 9 gallon tank with $4 a gallon gas is $38.”

Being a car guy and a math guy, I lost interest at that point.

Anybody driving a vehicle other than the cheapest to operate, is deciding on non-economic criteria.

Gas-electric hybrid works great. Electric only not so much, with some exceptions.

Do we have any people here that would pick a Corvette over say a Cruze?

A major goal in life for many, is to reach a point where not all decisions have to be just economics.

I would agree that people strive for luxuries and economics should not be the main factor for those people.

However all taxpayers are subsidizing electrics and hybrids for those that can afford them when in fact they themselves cannot afford them, in my view that’s wrong.

Gas-electric hybrid works great.

Not so much. Ultimately, the fuel used to get somewhere is a function of the total work to be performed, and a heavier car (meaning one with a lot of weight in batteries and electric motors) will take more total energy (fuel) than a lighter car.

The only exception to that is if you waste a lot of fuel in non-productive segments - such as low-speed, slow-acceleration, start-and-stop driving. If your primary driving is on congested city streets, then a hybrid might be competitive on total fuel used - though never on cost.

One way they make the hybrids seem competitive is by decreasing performance. As an example, a Prius weighs 1/3 more than an Echo (both by Toyota), but the combined gas/electric power of the Prius is 98 hp. vs. 108 hp. for the Echo. If you put a 70hp engine in an Echo, it would get better gas mileage than a Prius and still have a higher power-to-weight.

If the EPA really wanted to help the citizenry (which they obviously do not) then they would create a third category of mileage - highway, city, and congested city. On the third (but only the third) hybrids would be competitive. If that is a driver's primary situation, then they should buy a hybrid and I'm glad they have the choice. But forcing it - through subsidies - on the rest of us is not good economics, it's not good environmental policy, it's not good energy policy, and - ultimately - it's not fair.