On Jul 4, 1:51 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Prius owner are you?
No, I'm not.

The Telegraph should stick to printing planted MI6 stories, their
speciality.

Well at least they got into the thing, and drove it under some sort of
test conditions and compared it with an equivalent small turbodiesel,
and came up with an assessment that isn't entirely based on wishful
thinking.
Which means nothing considering their obvious biased agenda. I don't
need to get into it to know the 'dust to dust' report is skewed.

If you're not an owner have you driven one and read reliable test reports?
Magazines as far apart as Autocar and Which have criticised the
unrealistic running cost claims. Unfortunately since they're based on
official government figures it's not possible to prosecute under the
misleading advertising laws.

But if you're not an owner, why are you so keen on defending the idea?

I don't need to be an owner to defend something that is being
misrepresented.

Regards the 'unrealistic' running costs, that goes for pretty much
every car on the market. I've yet to own a vehicle which ever lived up
to the manufacturer's figures.
Anyway, my point was about references to a skewed report.


--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.