Beach Runner just can't stop lying:
>> <...>
>>
>>>> They don't get significantly more gas mileage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ford Escape Hybrid versys 4cyl-Auto
>>>
>>> MPG (city)
>>> Hybrid: 36 Normal: 22
>>> MPG (hwy)
>>> Hybrid: 31 Normal: 25
>>> MPG (combined)
>>> Hybrid: 33 Normal: 23
>>> Annual Fuel Cost*
>>> Hybrid: $1041 Normal: $1494
>>>
>>> The hybrid is >43% more fuel-efficient. I'd say that's very significant.
>>>
>>> You can compare other vehicles yourself, dummy:
>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
>
> You compare the one endorsed by the Sierra group.

So the **** what? It's one of two models I'm aware of available with
both hybrid and conventional engines. Toyota doesn't make a conventional
Prius and Honda has no conventional Insight.

> It doesn't compare the new Lexus, or Camry.

Neither of which has an available hybrid option for 2005.

> It does compare the Honda Civic.

I did that in a previous post. The hybrid Civic gets >27% better mileage
and cuts down on greenhouse emissions by over 21% -- NOT small gains
over the conventional.

> But take your example "twit"

You're the twit, Slow Bob. A slow bumbling twit.

> as you say, and the compare the Honda Civic
> models.

I did. I used data from the same website:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

> The GREAT DIFFERENCE is 2 mpg,

Uhhh, no. Try 12 MPG city, 18 highway. Or 10 combined.

Regular Civic (1.7 liter/auto) versus Civic Hybrid (1.3 liter/auto)

MPG (city)
Hybrid:47 Regular:35

MPG (hwy)
Hybrid:48 Regular: 40

MPG (combined)
Hybrid:47 Regular:37

Annual Fuel Cost*
Hybrid:$732 Regular:$927

> which is what is expected in
> most of the other new hybrids.

You're blowing smoke out your ass again.

> Hybrid technology is capable of much
> more fuel efficient cars. That's not what is going to be built.

And that's why people are buying them, you bumbling dumb ass.