Well actually it might be faster as a hybrid. Think for a second, electric engines get full toque at zero rpm. Wouldn't you have an advantage if you started your engine at 60mph instead of from a stand still?

Approved

Looks good, hybrid or not...

Another way round with emissions is to look at say the Georgia Tech carbon capture system
for current combustion engine cars.
Basically, I think fuel efficiency regulation limiting car choice is wrong,
and could be replaced by a more neutral emission tax system
("A New Car Deal for America": http://ceolas.net/#cc25x ),
part of my criticism why all energy efficency regulation is wrong, on the same site
(but not energy efficiency itself, obviously :-) )

Yes, they're beautiful cars.

I think the idea that we can somehow 'have our cake and eat it to' with regards to getting the good things that come from burning fossils then 'canceling out', or 'capturing/storing away', the bad things is disingenuous and ultimately unrealistic given the often times convoluted/expensive means by which to achieve such feats when compared to other cleaner, more efficient, and more simple alternatives out there. Why not have an energy source that's relatively clean throughout it's life-cycle?

I also have to disagree with the view that energy efficiency regulation is wrong. People, in general, do not have enough foresight and often cause their own demise with regards to their own future welfare, both as individuals and as a society. They almost always realize they've done so once it's too late. History has proved this countless times. It's this almost innate human thought process of 'it's not going to be me' that ha been the fundamental reason almost every civilization, technologically advanced or otherwise, has disappeared.

It's fairly obvious, in America at least, the dollar and the 'bigger is better' mentality is king unless a major crisis occurs i.e. $4+ gas. All you heard about when gas was at those prices were people moaning and crying about how they didn't have enough money to go to work because it cost them $150 to fill up their SUV or mpg comparable vehicle. If that isn't a classic case of where prior energy efficiency regulation would've benefited not only the general constituency, but the economy as well, then I don't know what is. The fact that American car companies are in the position they're in today is in large part due to the fact that they fought so long and hard against going the way that the rest of the global market was going, that when they finally stopped, they realized they were the only people in the room and no one wanted their now outdated energy efficient vehicles anymore.

So if people were innately intelligent and were able to make informed choices that were going to benefit them not only today, but in the future, then I'd agree with you on not having to regulate energy efficiency. But sadly, that isn't the world we live in today. I'm sure their were people in Brazil in the late 70's who fought the government mandates relating to sugar cane ethanol as well, but I bet you their not now seeing as they are largely energy independent because of those mandates, and investments, and have a stronger economy because of it. I'm not saying that sugar cane ethanol has it's drawbacks, namely Amazon deforestation, but for the purposes of this debate, I think you can see what I'm getting at.

Do you have a link to the GA Tech carbon capture? I'd be interested in checking it out.

I think I broke my soapbox.