The top speed of the Prius is listed as 104mph, so he must have been going some

If you were to look at the overall cost of these vehicles you would be well avised to buy a huge four wheel drive instead.

It would not surprise me if Toyota, and their ilk, even made a loss on them and then if you look at the costs of building them (not much car for the buck), running them (lots to go wrong) and, more importantly, disposing of them (especially the hugely expensive batteries) it all adds up to a lot more dineros and carbon emissions than a conventional vehicle.

So the latest fad actor gets out of his Learjet and into his Prius - only goes to show how stupid he actually is.

I know that this is not the main point of the article, but I can confirm that a few weeks ago I followed a Prius along a dual carriageway and it never dropped below 95 mph over a four mile stretch. I would say that 100 mph is quite possible for this model.

I know when I fly little planes, I get a bit more speed when the wind is in my favour, I'm losing altitute, and I'm nose-heavy...

Maybe he'd driven it off a cliff and gravity had decided to come to the party

> If you were to look at the overall cost of these vehicles you would be well avised to buy a huge four wheel drive instead.

Well, let's examine your arguments:

> It would not surprise me if Toyota, and their ilk, even made a loss on them

Great, so I get a subsidised car.

> and then if you look at the costs of building them (not much car for the buck)

Well actually it can't be that bad if they're selling them at a loss, can it?

> running them (lots to go wrong)

There have been a couple of recalls, but these don't impact the customer financially particularly, and generally they've been very reliable.

> and, more importantly, disposing of them (especially the hugely expensive batteries)

Probably just sell it on, for now.

> it all adds up to a lot more dineros and carbon emissions than a conventional vehicle.

Well so far you haven't mentioned anything that argues that it's a worse carbon emitter than the "huge four wheel drive". All you've said is:

o It's subsidised by Toyota, ie you pay less for the car than it's worth.

o You don't get a lot of car for your buck, ie you pay more for the car than it's worth.

o There's lots to go wrong (it being a modern car n all).

o It might be difficult to dispose of, which assumes you wouldn't just sell it on.

Now going on the subtlety of your arguments so far, you're probably going to think I'm some hemp-wearing, fruit-loving car-o-phobe, but I'm not. It's just that I'm a bloke, and so have had all my life to learn to recognise bollocks.

Having driven a Prius at speeds up to the (very low) 100s, they indeed do go that fast. They're not big fans of it though - reduces the fuel economy to nil.

They'll do 80 all day though.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, buy a small diesel and you'll save money on the initiial purchase and fuel costs (currently diesel is cheaper than unleaded!) and be more enviromentally friendly to boot...

As for the driving around city centres argument; the Prius is a Focus or Golf size car which, given most cars in city centres only have 1 person in them, makes it pretty inefficient. Surely a hybrid Smart car, VW Lupo or similar would make much more sense.

Having owned a Prius for 3 years, I can confirm that, yes, they do reach 100mph quite easily. Apparently, they are limited to 104mph to ensure that no damage can occur to the electric motor.

To Robert Grant "I'm a bloke, and so have had all my life to learn to recognise bollocks."

See http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

"CNW Marketing Research Inc. spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. This includes such minutia as plant to dealer fuel costs, employee driving distances, electricity usage per pound of material used in each vehicle and literally hundreds of other variables. " 458 pages, and a spreadsheet.

The Prius is way up there with the Premium SUVs and sports cars in terms of whole-life costs. Toyota are said to have "gone ballistic" on seeing this report, but were apparently unable to challenge it factually...

Hope you have plenty of learning life left :)

By Robert Grant

Posted Monday 9th July 2007 07:56 GMT

> If you were to look at the overall cost of these vehicles you would be well avised to buy a huge four wheel drive instead.

Well, let's examine your arguments:

> It would not surprise me if Toyota, and their ilk, even made a loss on them

Great, so I get a subsidised car.

>> and then if you look at the costs of building them (not much car for the buck)

>Well actually it can't be that bad if they're selling them at a loss, can it?

Just look at it from the planet's point of view, rather than your own. Somewhere, somehow, those resources have to be paid for.

>> and, more importantly, disposing of them (especially the hugely expensive batteries)

>Probably just sell it on, for now.

Did I mention an immediate disposal? Yet, sooner or later the vehicle has to be disposed of.

>Well so far you haven't mentioned anything that argues that it's a worse carbon emitter than the "huge four wheel drive".

Try this:

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

Thank you Steve, took the words out of my mouth. :) I wrote my response before I saw your's.

While personally I think most current hybrids a bit pointless, the CNWMR report is hilariously biased against the Prius, both on assumptions about usage/maintenance and about distribution of energy usage throughout a typical manufacture/usage life cycle. See http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf which although in itself may be biased (it is from a left-leaning org), it does highlight a significant number of concerns about the quality of data used in the CNWMR report. I’m not saying that I think that the Prius is even a particularly good solution, but just that maybe those quoting this report should actually read it and look a little deeper rather than just blindly quoting it.

I wonder if Al Jr. Jr. will get the same pokey time as Ms. Hilton, of, as is more often the case in Tennessee, be released "on his own recognizance" and have the sentence reduced to "community service" (fulfilled, no doubt, by working on Dad's green publicity programs).

The Gores are a very sore spot with the residents of the Volunteer State, being well known there for "bending" laws to assist their political ambitions.

I think the poor Prius is the victim here...maybe a new Volkswagen advert (along the lines of the Teddy Kennedy advert* from the '70's) could be adopted:

"If Al Gore Jr. Jr. were driving a Volkswagen, he'd be home today."

* - The original spoof advert in the "National Lampoon" had the tag line "If Ted Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagen, he'd be President today", and showed the famous graphic of a Beetle floating in a pond...

Hands up anyone who can recognise a troll when they see one?