A Plug-In Toyota Prius Hybrid is going to be on the south lawn of the White House today, but you’re not going to be able to tell it’s a Toyota because the hood is going to be up for photo time.

Why? Because it doesn’t sit well with the domestic automakers that a Toyota is there (why no Chrysler Hybrid? Oh… wait) and the White House won’t stand up to the Big 3, even though Toyota is creating jobs in his adopted home state of Texas while the Big 3 are cutting jobs and benefits.

That plug-in Prius I just told you about isn’t supported by Toyota even though it gets close to 300 MPG.

The Middle East is as unstable as it can be without devolving into chaos because we don’t make or support many cars that get good gas mileage. But hey, Anna Nicole Smith is getting buried in the Bahamas, so I’m sure everything is going to work out fine.

I don’t need to add any more comment to this one.



  1. malren says:

    Toyota wasn’t invited to the event and they have said they are looking into plug-ins, but don’t recommend people convert their cars to plug-ins, because it might damage the hybrid battery.

    Looks like the original news article held the real, non-conspiracy nut answer all along. It has nothing to do with the Big Three or the White House or any crazy conspiracy – Toyota is being punished by the organizers for crapping all over their electric modification.

    Remember that, people. Always read the original story, not a blogger’s recap.

  2. moss says:

    It’s comforting to see that some folks know about as much about blogging — as they do about plug-in hybrids. Or, rather, as little.

  3. waldo says:

    In fact, Toyota’s “policy” on violating Prius warranties when converted to plug-ins is an exact analogy to, say, an IBM “policy” on violating your Thinkpad warranty by changing out to a larger HD.

    Just as IBM says it’s suddenly OK when they reissue the same model with a larger, faster HD, Toyota will have a new press release when they offer their own plug-in hybrid.

    And the (used-to-be) Big 3 will probably show up in Congress begging for a bailout.

  4. Reddy Kilowatt says:

    C’mon, guys. Don’t crap all over one of our few resident neocons. He’s probably pissed because he didn’t get invited to the funeral in the Bahamas.

  5. moss says:

    Eideard should have used this photo for the story. Malren would have gotten his rocks off for sure.

  6. malren says:

    Ad hominem doesn’t make you any more correct.

    Nice try.

  7. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #1 – From the original article:
    President Bush will inspect electric cars on the White House south lawn this morning

    I’m sure glad Bush is inspecting those cars. He’s a one man brain trust. I won’t drive one of those cars until Bush gives them the big thumbs up… 🙂

    Seriously though, the original Detroit article indicates that the hood will be up to downplay that it is a Toyota. I actually rather agree with your point in #1, because, well… There is nothing in the article that backs up the assertion that the White House wants to downplay Toyota.

    Why would they? Aside from that old saw that Republicans only care about the rich…(It may often seem that way and may often be true, but I doubt there is much merit to the point in this case) Toyota is creating American jobs and the Big 3 are taking them away. It seems logical to me that there is no big deal to be made about the hood being up.

  8. MikeN says:

    What makes a plug-in better than a gas car? Sure it gets 300 mpg, but what about the energy going into charging the battery? Last I checked, most of the country uses coal and oil, so unless they’re in Connecticut, these cars are a waste.

  9. Mark Derail says:

    #8, typical misinformed comment.

    Any power plant, be it coal, gas, oil, is highly efficient, extremely low pollution output in the conversion to electricity.

    Cars on the other hand, lose 60% of the energy is heat and mechanical loss. The pollution output is many times greater due to poor & inadequate catalytic converters.

    Electric cars only lose about 10% in mechanical loss.

    So using plug-in cars to top-off the battery, and use less gas, is better for the environment.

    Now, if you leave in a area where electricity is expensive, like California, solar panels and/or wind mills are a good way to offset.

  10. Mark's agreeing buddy says:

    #8, typical misinformed comment.

    Any power plant, be it coal, gas, oil, is highly efficient, extremely low pollution output in the conversion to electricity.

    Cars on the other hand, lose 60% of the energy is heat and mechanical loss. The pollution output is many times greater due to poor & inadequate catalytic converters.

    Electric cars only lose about 10% in mechanical loss.

    So using plug-in cars to top-off the battery, and use less gas, is better for the environment.

    Now, if you leave in a area where electricity is expensive, like California, solar panels and/or wind mills are a good way to offset.

    Comment by Mark Derail — 2/23/2007 @ 10:00 pm

    — And he’s pretty much, for the most part, correct!!

    Argue, and you’re just a fart in the wind. Poo-poo!

  11. GG says:

    #8: The goal is to charge the batteries with a non-polluting energy source, such as solar panels or a wind turbine. Personally, I want an all-electric car, not a gas hybrid. I don’t want to ever go to a gas station again.

  12. Pterocat says:

    Whenever I drive to work in the morning, a ten mile or so distance, I sometimes think of what kind of vehicle I would really need to get to this destination every day. Electric cars have long had a reputation of being underpowered with limited range, but in this case, so what? Does everyone need a muscle car just to go to the 7-11? In the suburbs, for example, one could have a cheap one of these for going to work, local shopping or whatever, and keep a gas-powered fuller sized vehicle for excursions and long trips (so many people have two cars… why not have one of them be specialized in this way?).

    Now, imagine if we had established our urban centers a long time ago with this more efficient (and possibly easier pollution control) method as a common, accepted way of doing daily short haul transportation. Why couldn’t such a scenario be adopted nowadays? People are just too darned used to doing what they’ve always done, I suppose. Sometimes I wonder, though…

  13. Len says:

    Who cares if the hood is up? Only someone who’s spent the last 5 years in a cave won’t know it’s a Prius. This is because, in addition to making a compelling technology work, Toyota also made an identifiable brand out of the shape of the vehicle. Egad, an original functional design! When is the last time the “pig three” did that!?

  14. Mark Derail says:

    #13, the Matrix, PT Cruiser…very distinctive.

    What’s sad is that the Big 3 have a technology called PZEV, that makes any regular car, like say a Ford Escort, as “clean” as a Prius.

    I’m not talking fuel economy, the same car, same motor, but a different muffler system. Costs an extra 500$ per car.

    It never made outside of California, because the car makers thought that car buyers would never pay for such an “extra”.
    How many SUV’s out there? SUV’s and Pickups should by law be PZEV.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-09-16-cleancar_x.htm

    Notice the date of the article…Sept 2003.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 10437 access attempts in the last 7 days.