Auto makers using “hybrid” technology to give cars additional horsepower — not better mileage – It’s idiotic, a loophole in government tax credits, and a waste of good technology. And people who claim they are “going green” without making any “sacrifices” seem to lack all semblance of common sense.
Aside
Whatever it’s used for, it’s still a hybrid – the scare quotes aren’t really fair. It may not be “green”, but it’s still a hybrid.
I’m not sure how to respond to your comment, because I’m not sure which quotes are “scare quotes.” The point I was trying to make is that sure, its still a hybrid, but its not fulfilling the promise of hybrids. The idea of going green without making any performance sacrifices is a silly one, because one is not “going green” at all. Or, as the article says:
bq. Hybrid technology, it seems, is being used in much the same way as earlier under-the-hood innovations that increased gasoline efficiency: to satisfy the American appetite for acceleration and bulk.
We have made internal combustion engines highly efficient and “clean” compared to what they were 50 years ago, but instead of using those innovations to create cleaner, safer, smaller, lighter cars, we’ve continued to push the limits of performance, and cars today are much more powerful and faster and (sometimes) larger than cars of the 50s, even though none of that is *needed* — whereas better-performing, cleaner, smaller, more efficient cars would benefit us all. That hybrid technology is in a sense being co-opted to serve the same ignoble ends is very sad indeed.
The bold part is the “scare quotes” I was referring to. I see your point, but my beef with the way you present it is that by including the word “hybrid” in quotes, you’re implying that the Accord isn’t really a hybrid (just like quoting the phrase “going green” appropriate mocks the actual non-green-ness of the car).
The point to be made isn’t that the Accord is a faux hybrid; rather, the argument should be that the hybrid technology is being used in a way other than originally intended or expected (i.e. for power rather than environmental friendliness)… and that this is bad, etc.
Obviously, this is over-textualizing a bit, but I hope you see the point nonetheless.
Oh, that wasn’t my intention at all. I was just suggesting that “hybrid” is a bad word choice for this new technology, whatever it is.
A hybrid as I learned it was when two animals interbreeded to produce something new and different. I’m not sure our current “hybrid” cars are really taking the best elements of two technologies and making them into one different technology, rather it is a stepping stone to a better solution because it consists of basically sticking two different types of motors, side by side, in one chassis, and getting a computer to turn them on and off.
I actually like the marketing term “synergy drive” better, because it both sounds cool and is more accurate — two things working in tandem to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their parts.