Here's my exchange with the author:

Dear Mr. Levin,
I was pointed to your article, "Save With Toyota's Prius? Buy Two Aveos
Instead" by a post on Priuschat.com and felt compelled to respond.

Let me start off saying that overall I think the article was fair and
relatively accurate...something inordinately rare in articles where the Prius is

mentioned. Unfortunately the title is certainly misleading "Save With Toyota's
Prius? Buy Two Aveos Instead". What it fails to say is that you can "save" a
lot more by buying no car at all. Or if you must have a car that buying a
used econobox will save you even more. What it fails to mention that "saving"
doesn't just mean money...saving gas is also important...not giving money to
big oil or sending it to the middle east is important. Not creating massive
pollution is important.

At 30mpg driving 15k miles/year you're going to burn 500 gallons of gas
annually in the Aveo. Just half that with a 60mpg Prius. Given a conservative

50mpg for the Prius it's still just 300 gallons per year.
Your Aveo will produce 9782 lbs of CO2 per year. (double that if you buy two
as you suggest)
My Prius will produce 5282 lbs of CO2 per year...almost half of the Aveo.

To me comparing the vehicles is akin to saying you can "save" buy buying a
Chevy Aveo instead of a Chevy Corvette. Yes, you can save money, but you're
comparing apples to oranges since the performance and features are what drive
the vehicle choice for most consumers. Those of us who choose to drive the
Prius, in general, didn't choose the Prius to save money...we chose it to save
gas. We chose it to reduce our environmental footprint. We chose it to
support improved vehicle technology. We chose it for it's modern technologic
features and options such as the smart-key-system, NAV, drive-by-wire, etc.
Also, the Aveo is an economy vehicle and in an entirely different class than
the Prius in that regard. Power windows and ABS are not even standard on the
Aveo for goodness sake.

Buying a new car is not and never has been viewed as a 'money saving'
concept. Vehicle choices are much more complex than that for most people, as I

mention above. I would never have purchased an Aveo if the Prius didn't exist
when I was looking for a new vehicle 3 1/2 years ago. I had a Ford Expedition
that I loved to drive, but it made no sense to me to continue to drive
it...but I wanted some thing more reasonable to drive and yet that would tickle
my
technologic fancy, save gas (not money, gas), reduce pollution, and still
give me the driving satisfaction I'd become accustom to in my Ford. Nothing
else really fit the bill like the Prius.
The personal satisfaction and enjoyment of driving a Prius compared to the
Aveo aren't even comparable. After 3 1/2 years and 57k miles of driving my
Prius I still get excited about my car. I'm optimistic about the future of
hybrids, EVs, and other alternative energy choices in cars to come that the
Prius has opened the door to by it's now main-stream acceptance.

For reasons completely incomprehensible to me it's become 'the thing' to do
in the popular press to find fault with the Prius almost always by means of
omission of information to make the Prius/hybrids sound bad and conventional
vehicles sound good. I think such omissions of data are reprehensible and,
frankly, make me question the motivation of the journalist.

I hope you'll consider doing a bit more fact finding and consider doing an
article that describes the benefits, beyond the financial ones, of
owning/driving a Prius or any of the other excellent hybrids on the market.

Evan E. Fusco, MD

His response:
thanks for your note. i admire the prius and the automaker that created it. but
i don't yet accept some of the assumptions about global warming, CO2 creation
and whatnot that helped to make it a successful product.

My reply to that:
Notwithstanding global warming the health consequences of particulate emissions, increased CO2, unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels by archaic automotive technology, etc. are bad for society. Also, if you don't believe in GW then you should make it clear in the article that that is your personal bias and that despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that human CO2 production is a major factor in GW that you choose to omit it as a factor in your suggestion of Aveo over Prius. Again, overall I think the article makes good points and I appreciate your willingness to read and consider my response. But such omissions of data and declaration of your personal biases are unfair and could easily mislead readers. Thank you for your time and consideration. Evan E. Fusco, MD

Continuation of the exchange (I give him credit for reading and replying to all this!):
<blockquote><span style="color:#000000">a) i never said "i don't believe" in GW. B) i see no requirement to declare
that i have lots of questions about GW, its causes and the range of potential
responses to it -- that's the position that any thinking person should have, in
my opinion. the point of view that says the key facts about GW already have
been established and the course for "fixing" it is clear (a la al gore) is
UNthinking in my opinion -- and i do appreciate it when readers holding that
point of view state it up front, so i don't have to finish their notes and
letters. </span></blockquote> My most recent reply to the above:
I understand that, however you presented the Aveo and Prius as comparable vehicles without including relevant performance data. That would be like saying you can get an Aveo for less than a BMW presenting the data that makes the Aveo look good but not including relevant information about the luxury features of the BMW. My point in my original e-mail was that these are relevant data when making a comparison of vehicles...you chose the Aveo as if it were a comparable vehicle to the Prius. My point is that I don't agree with that comparison because you neglected to include pertinent performance, safety, customer satisfaction, reliability and feature information that is clearly in favor Prius. You selected only base cost and gas $$ savings...would you do that comparing the Aveo to a 'vette? I think not. Evan E. Fusco, MD

End of the Exchange, I think:
I replied to this quote:
the point of view that says the key facts about GW already have
been established and the course for "fixing" it is clear (a la al gore) is
UNthinking in my opinion -- and i do appreciate it when readers holding that
point of view state it up front, so i don't have to finish their notes and
letters.

I'm sorry, this line just registered with me. Are you suggesting that I
have an "UNthinking view on GW"? I've no idea how you arrive at such a
conclusion, but it's wrong.

For your information (if you haven't stopped reading already) I do not think
that ALL the facts have been found. But a preponderance of the evidence
according to the huge majority of scientists suggests that human impact on
increased CO2 levels is signficiant. Further science suggests that CO2 may be
impacting GW in a signficant way.

You notice the careful use of the word "may". IMO you can choose to ignore
the potential, do nothing, possibly get the situation get worse while more
data is accumulated over the next 50, 100, or 200 years to confirm the data
that is suggestive now and would have irreversible consequences for the future
generations if they are correct. OR you can choose to make reasonable changes
that will have both certain immediate positive consequences (like reduction
of smog, reduced use of fossil fuels, reduced health consequences for those
with lung diseases like Asthma, reduce foreign oil dependence, and advance
technology to continue this progress into the future) and the possibility for
attenuating the impact of GW IF our scientists are correct. If we learn they
were wrong then no harm has been done and the short term benefits still exists.

For some of us this has value. I assure you I have no GW "agenda". I don't
donate to environmental causes. I drive a couple hybrids. I change over to
CFL light bulbs when old incandescents burn out. I have a timer thermostat
and I make logical changes in a conscious effort to minimize my personal
impact. I assure you I'm on no crusade despite your rapid judgement when I had

the audacity to question your motives with your article. What were your
motives anyway and why the obvious omissions about safety, reliability, CO2,
features, and etc? His reply:
no motives in particular except to show that the prius saves gas, not money and
there are better ways to save gas and money. thanks for the stimulating
repartee.

My exchange post updated above:
http://priuschat.com/index.php?act=ST&...30770&st=0#

Let's see if anyone else is convinced that "saving gasoline is a critical national priority":

State of the Union Address, 2007:
Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

State of the Union Address, 2006:
Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.

State of the Union Address, 2005:
And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology -- from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol. (Applause.) Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.

State of the Union Address, 2004:
Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

State of the Union Address, 2003:
Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. (Applause.) I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home.

State of the Union Address, 2002:
Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Final bump, I think our exchange is complete after I took him to task on his accusation of my impartiality on GW.

lol.. 1.6 litre Aveo gets WORSE mileage than a 1.8 litre Corolla or 1.7 Civic (or even the new 1.8 litre Civic).

Heck, it gets worse than the Suzuki Aerio with a 2.0 litre 145hp engine.