Hybrids have worse fuel economy than many other cars on the road

A Honda customer is taking the road less traveled to sue the Japanese auto maker for allegedly making false mileage claims about her 2006 Civic Hybrid.

Heather Peters is set to appear in court Jan. 3rd,  2012 in Torrance, Calif., the home of American Honda Motor, to argue that her vehicle never delivered the 50 mpg touted by the auto maker in a sales brochure.

Peters said that her car never delivered "more than 41 or 42 mpg on its very best day," adding that the mileage normally came in around the high 30s.

All of this for a car with a $7,000 premium in its price tag and a $7,500 greenie weenie rebate paid for by you and I the taxpayer. Total cost of this vehicle today without rebate?

$26,000.

A bit pricey for a weed- whacker you say? The contention of the green goblins was that you would "make up the difference" in the overpriced, over-subsidized, uncomfortable, unsafe vehicles by recouping money on fuel. Of course - the economics of that fall apart when fuel is less than $3.50 per gallon.

Let's read some more of what Ms. Peters has to say about her hybrid. She said she became really "ticked off" last year when Honda performed a software update to prevent vehicle batteries from deteriorating too quickly. The car's mileage suffered as a result of the battery fix, Peters said, dropping to the high 20s per gallon, which eventually forced her to take legal matters into her own hands.

Peters, a former corporate defense attorney, is urging other disgruntled Honda customers to opt out of a class action lawsuit over the mileage claims, and seek a larger payout in small claims court.

She launched a website "Don'tSettleWithHonda.org" with the intention of taking her legal fight viral.

Peters said claimants could be awarded up to $10,000 in small claims court, as opposed to the $200 in cash and a rebate of $500 to $1,000 toward a new Honda vehicle that will be awarded in the class action settlement.

"Class actions are great for little cases, but not for cases like this where Honda's false advertising is costing already cash-strapped families more every day at the gas pump," Peters said.

Peters estimates that if other customers follow her lead, the automaker could be forced to pay $2 billion for its questionable fuel-efficiency claims - all of which were backed, endorsed and certified by (wait for it!) - the government agency responsible for all false claims of greenness - the EPA!

So let's take the high road and give the Hybrid Civic a 34 MPG COMBINED city/highway rate since she mentions both high 20's and low 30's - we'll split the difference. We'll analyze what the difference is between a wind-up mobile and a real car if you are thinking with your head, and not with your tiny greenie weenie. Surely no non-hybrid car could approach the EPA ratings of these expensive, uncomfortable, poor performing and dangerous little cars? Let's take a look:

Jetta TDI Diesel

• Diesel engines get better mpg generally speaking, but they are still a tough sell in North America. The 1970s brought several underpowered, smelly, smoke-belching diesels to American shores, and the buying public hasn't forgotten them. It's too bad, because clean diesel technology powers the sleek Jetta to a muscular 41 mpg on the highway with a very respectable 34 mpg for combined highway and city driving.

Wow - the Jetta is at least as good as the pie-brid.

Mini Cooper

• The Cooper delivers good fuel efficiency, along with a cool factor, though the luster has worn off a bit since its release. Very good highway numbers (37 mpg) bring the Mini's combined mpg to a robust 32.

Wow - I can look cool, and get the same mileage as the pie-brid?

Chevy Cobalt

• A surprise for Americans is that they have such a versatile gas-sipper in their own backyard. The Cobalt uses a large overdrive gear and direct injection to achieve 37 mpg on the highway, which more than offsets its middling 25 in the city for a great 32 mpg average.

            American made? And still as efficient as a hybrid? For $10,000 less????

Ford Focus

• Another American-born entry quietly delivers solid numbers by virtue of its gaudy 34 on the highway. The low city number of 24 prevents this from being a standout pick, but 29 mpg combined makes it worth consideration.

Wow - 10% more gas than the hybrid - over the course of a year it will cost me an extra $100 bucks or so to have a cool car with comfort and power - not to mention the $10,000 savings?

Nissan Versa

• There's not a "2" in sight on this miser's stat sheet. A superior 30 in the city (that's just three less than the tiny Dumb for Fortwo) yields a combined 32 mpg. City dwellers often suffer in the mpg category, but the Versa spreads the wealth for outstanding surface street driving and an adequate highway number of 34 mpg.

Larger trunk space, better handling, no batteries, seats 4 comfortably, priced some $15,000 cheaper than the hybrid Civic and has BETTER mileage? Given this range of choices, calling your vehicle a "Smart Car" can't make up for the fact you are a dumb consumer. Hang your heads in shame.

Next on Ketchup Chips - the Great Battery Bailout, or when the value of used hybrids falls to zero in the next two years.

Regulated to Death - Literally.

Other than the constant "bring down" about business being bad for America, supported by the Fast and the Spurious in Washington what are the costs brought about by bad legislation, bad bureaucrats with bad intentions (Solyndra) operating in bad faith in order to be bad for business? Let's look at a few:


 Fuel economy and emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles imposed jointly by the EPA and NHTSA. Annual cost: $10.8 billion (for model years 2012 to 2016). For automakers to recover these increased outlays, NHTSA estimates the standards will lead to increases in average new vehicle prices ranging from $457 per vehicle in FY 2012 to $985 per vehicle in FY 2016.


Mandated quotas for renewable fuels. Annual cost: $7.8 billion (for 15 years). Utilizing farmland to grow corn and other crops used in renewable fuels will displace food crops, leading food costs to increase by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA.


Efficiency standards for residential water heaters, heating equipment, and pool heaters. Annual cost: $1.3 billion. The appliance upgrades necessary to comply with the new standards will raise the price of a typical gas storage water heater by $120.


Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Home-buyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953.

Regulatory Reductions - Gone in 60 Seconds

Measures to reduce regulatory burdens, by contrast, were few and far between in 2010. Only five significant rulemakings adopted last year reduced burdens. Of these, cost reductions were quantified for only two, for reported savings of $1.5 billion. This leaves a net increase in the regulatory burden of $26.5 billion.

Moreover, one of the five measures—though technically deregulatory in nature—relates to an unparalleled expansion of EPA powers. Due to its determination last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants, the agency is moving to set emissions limits for such gases. To follow the standards in the Clean Air Act would corral millions of currently unregulated “facilities,” including offices and apartment buildings, shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, houses of worship, theaters, and sports arenas into the EPA regulatory regime. In hopes of quieting political outrage over so sweeping a dictate, the EPA’s “Tailoring Rule” set a minimum threshold level for regulation. Therefore, fewer facilities would be subject to permit requirements, making imposition of the emissions limits more feasible. Rather than reduce overall burdens, this action actually facilitated increased burdens.

It should also be noted that reported costs are likely minimized by allowing agencies to make the initial calculations, thereby casting their proposals in the best light. This could have a substantial impact: Overall, there is evidence that agencies systematically understate regulatory costs. In its 2005 report to Congress, the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs conducted ex ante analyses of regulations to test the accuracy of cost-benefit estimates. The study determined that regulators overestimated benefits 40 percent of the time and underestimated costs 34 percent of the time.

Even a finding that costs exceed benefits does not necessarily stop a new rule from going into effect. For instance, in evaluating new regulations for train-control systems, the Department of Transportation identified costs of $477.4 million, and benefits of a mere $22 million. Nevertheless, the regulations were adopted.

The EPA is prohibited by law from considering costs in devising regulations under the Clean Air Act and other major environmental statutes. Thus, the agency recently set new, more stringent standards on emissions of nitrogen dioxide without formally considering the economic or technical feasibility of compliance. 

Many, many more regulations are in the pipeline. According to one estimate, financial regulation legislation recently adopted by Congress, known as the Dodd–Frank bill, will require 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies.So wide-ranging are regulators’ new powers, in fact, that the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to meet one-third of the deadlines mandated by the new federal health care law, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.

It looks like unstopped, the Obamanites will either tax you out of business, regulate you out of business or just plain make sure you don't have the will or the resources to continue in business. Taken in context, bureaucrats have found the magic formula to ensure that people are more beholden to the gov't for their financial well-being than the fruits of their own labor and risk-taking. That makes it all un-American and just plain bad. Our prosperity will be more short-lived than a Kardashian divorce.

rick perry

ketchup occupy wallstreet
steve jobs
apple
iphone for sale