In article .com,
wrote:
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.

But the main misrepresenting is in the hype and advertising.

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.

The fact remains that the way of calculating official mpg results is even
more inaccurate with hybrids. That's one of the reasons they were
developed. But the main one was to produce very low emissions under
certain circumstances at the point of use. Ie, specifically for some parts
of the Californian market. Hence the petrol, rather than diesel, engine.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

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