[DBrow]

The article is a public relations piece, propaganda, if you will. It is attempting to change the public's attitudes toward hybrids, trying to make them more acceptable.

Lots of people don't trust industry public relations releases, based on past history.

Chesterfield cigarettes used to be endorsed by physicians, for example. Bacon was touted as health food by Beech Nut Packing Company. There were lots of misconceptions about microwave ovens that were handled with a similar PR campaign.

So what you are seeing is the reaction to what could be a misleading set of "facts". If someone in the hybrid car industry claims 60 MPG but nobody actually gets that, and there are questions about test methods, then people will scrutinize other claims that are being made as well.

If you work the numbers, the hybrids save a gallon per day if your drive to/from work is 40 miles, and some folks then question whether a hybrid is worth the extra cost, and the risks of not knowing all of the maintenance factors (since the technology is new), just to save one gallon.

Questions about disposal or replacement of the battery pack are certainly legitimate, and being told that "gosh, we never have replaced one yet" is not that reassuring- it's a way of dodging the question without quite saying "we just don't know".

I think that once the skeptics friends drive hybrid cars, that direct contact will shift attitudes. I don't think we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to conservation efforts, but rather a skeptical look at a new technology and the propaganda promoting it.

[fix]

None of that explains away the fact that posters here discussing myth #1 as if it were fact rather than myth. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find out for yourself that the Prius and the Escape don't have to be plugged into your house to charge overnight. So perhaps I should amend my original statement a bit...

The willful ignorance on this thread is astounding.

Better?