I'm sure that when home computers were first introduced there were many "experts" that wrote that they would never catch on because they were way more expensive than a good ol' calculater and when they broke no one would be able to work on them.

I have a Prius and I am happy. "nough said.

I guess the author hasn't heard that Toyota is *increasing* produciton this year to try and finally close the waiting list that has been going on TWO years.

Anyway, that article is an exercise in toad logic. CR made a mistake, so that proves the author's other complaints (that CR is biased) must be true. The stuff of talking points.

Same here, the way I also figure it, is by the time my warranty it out and I can no longer get another one, most shops will have experience with working on Priuses (is that how you spel more than one Prius?)

Prii

Let's see the author of this article says that the vincentric method for estimating hybrid vehicle depreciation was flawed, calling it "creative guesswork." Then he goes off and makes all kinds of his own guesses about what will impact hybrid vehicle depreciation. Then he says that the initial high estimates for depreciation from CR are probably right.
In writing this article, this guy probably thought he was pulling his head out of his ass when he was really only shoving it in deeper.

This article can't decide if it agrees with CR or not. First it questions their credibility for the hybrid error. It suggests because of this, their judgement on vehciles is impared. Then they write CR has a pro-Japanese bias using subjective criteria. (Of course, their hybrid error only involved the Civic and Prius from Japanese manufacturers. Shouldn't they have errored in their favor to support their bias?)

After bashing their error, the article later uses this same error, that Prius costs $5,900 extra, as an examply why it shouldn't have been a top pick. They say CR lost credibility and they cite the figure in question as evidence?

At the end of the article, they say CR probably was right after all. What were they trying to say? Can't have it both ways.

This is the original CU correction.

April 2006 Issue

YONKERS, NY--March 7, 2006-Consumer Reports is revising the cost analysis in a story that examines the ownership costs and financial benefits associated with hybrid cars. The story, titled "The dollars and sense of hybrids," appears in the Annual April Auto issue of CR on newsstands now.

Consumer Reports is correcting a calculation error involving the depreciation for the six hybrid vehicles that, in the story, were compared to their conventionally powered counterparts. The error led the publication to overstate how much extra money the hybrids will cost owners during the first five years.

CR's revised analysis shows that two of the six hybrids recovered their price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership. The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid provide a savings of about $400 and $300, respectively, when compared with their all-gas counterparts--as long as federal tax credits apply. But extra ownership costs during the first five years and 75,000 miles for the other four hybrids ranged from an estimated $1,900 to $5,500, compared to similar all-gas models.

Previously, Consumer Reports had reported that its analysis showed that none of the six hybrids it had tested recovered its price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership.

The error does not affect the main message of the story, which is that most hybrids do not save their owners money in the first few years, and that the benefits and costs of hybrids vary significantly, depending on the model. Because of the wide range of hybrid vehicles available, it's especially important for consumers to look carefully at all aspects of a vehicle before buying.

"In maintaining our commitment to the highest levels of accuracy and credibility, Consumer Reports is posting a revised version of the report on its Web site as quickly as possible," said CR's Automotive Editor Rik Paul. "We deeply regret the error."

Paul said that it's important for consumers to have the most accurate information in order to make informed buying decisions. Consumers need to know both the pros and the cons of owning a hybrid vehicle, he said.

The revised story, including a new and more detailed comparison chart, will be posted at www.ConsumerReports.org/autos2006.

Consumer Reports has repeatedly pointed to the environmental and performance advantages offered by hybrid sedans and hybrid sport-utility vehicles. Hybrids typically do well in CR's test ratings, as well as in its reliability and owner satisfaction ratings. The story in the 2006 Annual April Auto Issue examines whether hybrids will actually save their owners money over the first five years.

The story is a lot closer to reality than a lot of people may want to give it credit for.

Face it, the Ridgeline is a fine pickup truck, but it's a toy pickup. How it could get the nod for 'best pickup' is somewhat... hard to understand I guess.

And CR does have a tilt towards bias. This is the magazine that once gave the V6 Monte Carlo a "better than average" rating for paint, but the V8 "worse than average" rating for paint. Funny part is, they roll down the same line and are painted by the same process. I guess the V8 is just so fast the paint peels off.

Things like paint are based on the reliability surveys, so more V8 owners reported a problem. CR doesn't test the paint as part of their new car tests.

notice in CR's tests of the Prius that they all have below average rating on the fuel system. Bladder effect, I've never had a problem with the fuel system in any of our Prius. Anybody else? Put gas in and drive when it starts blinking put more in.

Let me begin by stating that I do not currently subscribe to Consumer Reports (CR), and have not examined a current issue in several years. That being said, back in the mid-90s when we did subscribe to CR, we found them to be one of the most biased publications produced. Their self-proclaimed neutrality was simply a joke. CR's test strategy always seemed to be, decide on the results then create the tests to validate them.

It would be a great concept if they could put it into practice properly...

This article is a CLASSIC example of

The POT calling the KETTLE BLACK..!!

Good for a laugh.

"Hybrid sales are slowing, largely because the trendoid buyers have already bought theirs, and the more rational people are saying no to hybrids because of their extra costs and their inability to deliver significantly better fuel economy."

Where do you begin? Hybrids sales are not slowing, people other than "trendoids" are buying them, and they DO improve fuel economy. Oh, I stand corrected, that POS GM truck doesn't,amaybe that is what he's talking about?


"At the same time, newer hybrids will cost less, as GM's Saturn Vue Greenline proves, and future prices are expected to get even lower. "

Oh, I see now: Japanese hybrids bad. U.S. hybrids good.

The real bias comes out here. I hope GM was able to pay off this shill despite their losing billions last year.

When I read the original CR article my reaction was "huh?" How old was their data? And even after I read their correction I'm still scratching my head.

Now, granted, the larger hybrids out there just do not have the fuel economy that the Prius has. So, no I don't think the owners are going to see any real $$ back in their pockets from owning one.

But sales slowing? High premiums? I don't think so. I got my '05 Prius in late October with a $200 discount.

In Virginia the Clean Fluel plate (which you do not have to get, you pay extra for it but it gets you on the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes) is numerical. They started out with ####CF and ran out of numbers. Then they went to ####CX. Mine is at the top of the 6000 range. Since October I've seen mid 7000. And that's just what I happened to notice for those folks who happened to decide to buy a hybrid and drive where I am. And, I've noticed that the low end CF numbers are all old Prii, old Civics and Insights. Upper range CF and CX are all newer models which leads me to surmise that sales have increased steadily over the last few years and are not slowing.