Quote:
Originally Posted by litesong
The only thing that could have "fixed" VW, was if the "higher ups" were in jail. But "higher ups" are too "higher up" to be in jail.....kinda like Epstein.
|
How does jail time fix a problem? That's like me stealing your money, and claiming your loss is fixed merely by me spending time in jail, having done nothing to compensate your loss.
That isn't to say that I'm against jail time for those who willfully break laws (what is the punishment for falsifying emission specifications?). Often times punishment involves fines or punitive compensation rather than incarceration.
I'm not familiar with the law(s) that Epstein has broken, so I'd be curious to learn about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
I'm not looking for a Hybrid vs ICE fight here. My original comment was to Redpoint's statement:
That is just factually wrong. Hybrid technology improves both city and highway fuel economy. The improvement in city economy is much greater than highway but it highway fuel economy is still improved.
|
How can my statement be factually wrong if there's a huge variability in what can be considered "steady highway cruising" or what constitutes equivalent ICE vs hybrid vehicles?
The 2010 Toyota Camry is rated 32 MPG highway, and the hybrid is rated 34 MPG. The hybrid carried ~$3,000 price premium at the time. At 12k miles per year, the hybrid would save 22 gallons, or about $65. Payback is 46 years in this scenario. That isn't "never", but you get my point. It still doesn't factor in the extra financing charges associated with the $3k hybrid premium, or the lost interest potential of investing the $3k saved by not buying hybrid.
As hybrid technology improves and cost premiums decrease, it will increasingly make more sense for vehicles to include the technology, but to imply that all use cases financially favor hybrid tech is "factually wrong".