Funny Article About The Toyota Prius

[Inspector]

I've been saying this for years. Surprised that it got printed in the Wall Street Journal:

Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

The Wall Street Journal

By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.

Nov. 30, 3005

We at the Toyota Motor Corporation are writing to address certain misconceptions that have arisen about your Toyota Prius model, which we are proud to note is driven by many celebrities, including Prince Charles and HBO's Larry David.

Our pioneering gasoline-electric hybrid, introduced in 1999, has become an object of adoration to the world's enlightened car buyers. Our competitors, including America's Big Three, are rushing out hybrid vehicles of their own. Unconfirmed media reports say that we at Toyota intend to double our hybrid output to 500,000 vehicles next year. Along with other members of the auto industry, we will be lobbying for tax breaks and HOV privileges for hybrid vehicles.

However, any romance entering its seventh year tends to go stale. Some purchasers have begun to question the practical value of our Hybrid Synergy Drive technology. You may be aware that a survey by Consumer Reports found that our vehicles achieve considerably less mileage (some 26 percent less) than the sticker rating implies. This has led to some unflattering media stories.

Let us assure you that the Prius remains one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year.

And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology.

We recognize that our customers have an "emotional" relationship with their vehicles. This transcends even the regrettable truth that driving a fuel-efficient car does not yield any substantial benefits for society if it doesn't save the owner money.

Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse pollutants are released. Also, please note that the warranty and owner's manual say nothing about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an oversight. The Prius is an "oil-dependent" vehicle. It runs on gasoline, supplied by the same world market that fuels other vehicles.

The Toyota Corporation regrets any misunderstanding our marketing may inadvertently have caused (or may cause in the future).

We share your belief that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered. Further research by our economists suggests this will happen when the price of gasoline rises high enough to make alternative technologies cheaper than gasoline-powered cars.

We at Toyota want you to know we recognize this effect and have taken steps to compensate with the rest of our vehicle lineup.

Our 2006 Tundra pickup will be equipped with Toyota's new eight-cylinder engine, making it every bit as much of a gas guzzler as any American pickup. We are also redirecting our efforts to use our Hybrid Synergy Drive to increase power output rather than reduce gasoline consumption.

Take our new hybrid SUV, which produces 38 more horsepower but gets the same mileage as our conventional version. A New York Times reviewer wrote, "One question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits?"

We hope this corrects any misimpression caused by our latest slogan ("Commute with Nature"). Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers.

You will share our pride in the latest figures from J.D. Power & Associates, which show that the Prius continues to move off a dealer's lot in just eight days, compared to 36 days for a Honda Civic hybrid. Clearly, our customers are willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of showing themselves behind the wheel of so conspicuously virtuous a vehicle.

But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience.

We want you to know that Toyota remains committed to advancing hybrid technology just as long as our customers are willing to make it worth our while. Our esteemed competitor, Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, was recently quoted saying, "There's such a buzz today that no CEO of a car manufacturer dares to say his real opinion of hybrid because he's accused of being retarded."

Another esteemed competitor, GM, has suggested that hybrid technology is best deployed in city buses, where large fuel consumption and stop-and-go driving might actually make it economically sensible.

These are just two examples of the short-sighted, stick-in-the-mud marketing instincts of our fellow automakers that are helping to make Toyota the largest car company in the world.

Yours Truly, the Toyota Corporation.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Inspector

[HaloNoble6]

If the facts supporting this are true, this is hilarious.

[Inspector]

It's worse than that, Jim. </McCoy>

And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology.

That's assuming of course that you don't have to pay > $3000 to replace the batteries by then, which won't be covered by the warranty. And you almost certainly will.

[gags]

I enjoy driving my Suburban.

[EC]

I love my Explorer with the V8 that get's 11.6 mpg with the way that I drive.

Edited December 2, 2005 by EC

[Inspector]

Haha, wonderful! Drive 'em with pride.

[Yes]

I will admit that not all of us cherishes the thought of paying an inordinate sum of money to fuel up a car.

To me, that is the only justification for driving an economy car- that you simply do not want to pay a large sum of money for fuel.

That being said, a vehicle like the Prius would still be attractive to someone who would rather spend his dollars on vacations he dreams about than the "necessity" of gasoline.

The so-called environmental benefits of such a car are sheer bunk, however.

[Inspector]

I will admit that not all of us cherishes the thought of paying an inordinate sum of money to fuel up a car.

To me, that is the only justification for driving an economy car- that you simply do not want to pay a large sum of money for fuel.

That being said, a vehicle like the Prius would still be attractive to someone who would rather spend his dollars on vacations he dreams about than the "necessity" of gasoline.

...it seems that you've missed the entire point of the article: That the Prius' price of purchase makes the fuel savings moot.

Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year.

And then what happens in ten years, as you're still struggling to make up for your purchase price, and the batteries need to be replaced for... how many thousands of dollars? You can bet it'll be out of warranty by then. Add to this the fact that the car is getting nowhere CLOSE to the advertised EPA MPG estimates, and you'll start to understand just how much of a fiasco this government-subsidized "green machine" is.

This is not a car that will save it's owner money. If you want to save money, then a used economy car with a nice long warranty is your best bet.

[fatdogs12]

I have a hard time believing that a established company actually wrote this article. It sounds nothing like the typical marketing spin companies put on things. I have to wonder why a lot of it is worded the way it is. It almost sounds like they are trying to put the customer down. Good points in it but I think it's really stupid from a business perspective. I have lost a lot of respect for Toyota for that. I have owned a Lexus for 6 years now but this makes me reconsider what I will buy next time.

Edited December 11, 2005 by fatdogs12

[Inspector]

LOL, no this is not written by Toyota. It is satire. But the facts about the flaws of the Prius are true.

[Capitalism Forever]

I have lost a lot of respect for Toyota for that. I have owned a Lexus for 6 years now but this makes me reconsider what I will buy next time.

If the article had actually come from Toyota, I would want to buy a Lexus! There's nothing that makes me respect a company more than a willingness to put down environuts.

[Yes]

LOL, no this is not written by Toyota. It is satire. But the facts about the flaws of the Prius are true.

Its biggest flaw is there is no real payback over the savings of gas it delivers vs. the premium in price.

And you apparently did not read the final statement of my post in which I said that the environmental benefits are sheer bunk. Had you read that, you would not have stated that I missed the point of the article.

[Inspector]

Its biggest flaw is there is no real payback over the savings of gas it delivers vs. the premium in price.

And you apparently did not read the final statement of my post in which I said that the environmental benefits are sheer bunk. Had you read that, you would not have stated that I missed the point of the article.

I'm sorry if I have offended you as I didn't intend to. But your post did indicate that you had missed the point of the article.

The point of its environmental benefit being bunk was touched on by the article, but I don't think it was the "point" of the article. The point of the article was that the Prius is not an economical car.

The following statement which you made indicates clearly that you missed that point:

That being said, a vehicle like the Prius would still be attractive to someone who would rather spend his dollars on vacations he dreams about than the "necessity" of gasoline.

The simple fact is that someone who values spending his dollars on vacations rather than car-related expenses should most emphatically not buy a Prius.

[Ranil]

Hillarious.

However, despite the way the Prius is marketed (and this includes its sticker price), you have to admire the actual technology of the Hybrid engine. With more development and production (and the consequent drop in production costs), I think it will deliver some great advantages to drivers.

I can't wait till they make a hybrid sports car (like a new Supra or an NSX). If it's not priced too much above its conventional engined model, I'd buy one.

There's something about innovative motors that I really excites me.

[Scott_Connery]

I don't really see how they could improve on the turbo Supra engine fromt he last generation (2JZ-GTE) I haven't really heard of myuch they couldn't do. I miss mine

[Inspector]

I don't really see how they could improve on the turbo Supra engine fromt he last generation (2JZ-GTE) I haven't really heard of myuch they couldn't do. I miss mine

It's really too bad they stopped making that one. I rode in one once and it was really fun.

[Ranil]

Yes, the demise of the Supra was extremely sad. But aren't toyota working on another car (may be branded Lexus) that has a 4.5l normally aspirated V8? I vaguely remember hearing about a concept car they did a couple of years ago.

I would really like to see an NSX with a hybrid engine. One of the biggest criticisms of that car was that the V6 it had just wasn't powerful enough to compete with the best from Europe. But imagine a small displacement V6 with a hybrid electric motor... same fuel economy as a V6, power of a V8 or V10...

[Inspector]

But imagine a small displacement V6 with a hybrid electric motor... same fuel economy as a V6, power of a V8 or V10...

Generally, people who buy $90,000 sports cars aren't too interested in fuel economy. I'd rather they just use the v8 or v10 and take the difference off the price... or put it into more power!

And I'm perplexed as to why so many people think it's impressive when such-and-such engine gets x power per liter. The amount of liters in the engine don't do anything at the track. X power per pound of engine weight is a much better metric, IMO. Notice that the "primitive" GM 5.7L V8 is lighter weight, more compact, gets better gas mileage, and makes more power than the "advanced" Ford 4.6L V8. ("advanced" because it makes more power per liter, as if that mattered for any practical purpose)

Yes, I understand that in Europe and Japan there is a tax on displacement. So I'm supposed to act like there's one in America? Or like it was a good idea to have such a tax? Feh!

Just so you know, I'm not going off on you Ranil!

I just wish that some of these so-called "cutting edge" Japanese companies would build a 427 cu in motor (that's 7.0 L for those unfamiliar with classic muscle cars) to compete with the real engines made over here.

[Ranil]

Fuel economy wouldn't be a primary motivation for me buying a sports car (I drive an RX-7) but it would be a nice bonus.

I suspect the reason why people get excited at the x amount of power per litre is the same reason why you get excited at the x amount of power per pound of engine weight. It's the classic quest to get more out of less. As I understand it, all else being equal, a lower engine displacement equals lower engine weight. But you're right, amount of power per pound of engine weight is a much better metric, but I'm sure there is a strong correlation between the two measures.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a 7.0l V8 from a Japanese company when the 2.6l RB26DETT Skyline GT-R engine can be tuned to 700+ street legal HP without too much trouble.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Ranil

[EC]

I hate Jap cars. I'm glad nobody really drives them around here. The only vehicles I hate more are those supposedly "superbly engineered" German cars that really seem like they were engineered by obsessive-compulsive Germans on crack.

[Inspector]

I hate Jap cars. I'm glad nobody really drives them around here. The only vehicles I hate more are those supposedly "superbly engineered" German cars that really seem like they were engineered by obsessive-compulsive Germans on crack.

LOL, what kind of car do you like/drive, EC?

My guess from what you don't like would be an American Muscle Car like myself, but maybe not...?

[gags]

I hate Jap cars. I'm glad nobody really drives them around here. The only vehicles I hate more are those supposedly "superbly engineered" German cars that really seem like they were engineered by obsessive-compulsive Germans on crack.

Yep, you can take the boy out of Detroit, but you can't take Detroit out of the boy.

[softwareNerd]

...supposedly "superbly engineered" German cars ...

You mean like BMWs? In what sense do you say "supposedly"? Are they "over" engineered in some sense? Or, it is something else?

[EC]

I drive an '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer edition with the 4.6L V-8 and every option imaginable as I stated in another thread and above (post 5).

Yes, BMW's, Mercede's, VW, etc. They are not over-engineered but engineered wrong. You ever try and install a CD player in a Beemer? It's not fun. Panels are screwed in from the back or glued on, or don't want to come apart without cracking. OTH, in my Explorer, one of the most intelligently engineered vehicles in existence, panels come apart with ease and in ways that don't make the vehicle seem "cheap". Everything is where it should be. Everything put into the vehicle serves a purpose and is easily accessible without sacrificing quality. A BMW is too well put together in the sense that if anything ever goes wrong, say a bad heater control or a bad window roll-up switch you are going to have a hell of a time fixing it. But that's just my two cents on the subject.

[Inspector]

I drive an '02 Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer edition with the 4.6L V-8 and every option imaginable as I stated in another thread and above (post 5).

Sorry about that. I searched the "rides" thread because I was almost certain you had mentioned it already. Right under my nose, it was!