 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / July 2005IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"
What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax giveaways are given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids that actually guzzle more gasoline than regular cars you and I are destined to purchase! Write your Congressperson today and tell her/him just how you feel about getting the shaft without the benefit of K-Y Jelly. If a hybrid doesn't get at least 15% better gas economy, than it does with its battery removed, tax it double for extra damage it does to the economy and Nation by using a lot of contaminating elements in it's battery pak. >New hybrid cars guzzle gas in quest for performance >Unlike earlier models, they don't save fuel > >Matthew L. Wald >New York Times >Jul. 17, 2005 12:00 AM > >WASHINGTON - Mark Buford is happy with the Honda Accord hybrid that he >bought six months ago, and he has already driven it 13,000 miles. He was >determined to buy a hybrid electric car, he said, and this one is clean, >"green" and accelerates faster than the non-hybrid version. He just cannot >count on it to save much gasoline. > >Many people concerned with oil consumption, including President Bush and >members of Congress, are pointing to hybrids - vehicles with electric >motors as well as internal combustion engines - as a way to reduce fuel >use and dependence on imported oil. The first ones to reach the market did >that; the two-seat Honda Insight, introduced in December 1999, was rated >at 70 miles per gallon, and it was followed by the five-seat Toyota Prius, >also built for reduced fuel consumption. Those cars have no non-hybrid >equivalents. Then came the Civic hybrid, designed to perform almost as >well as the original, only using a lot less gasoline. > >But the pendulum has swung. The 2005 Honda Accord hybrid gets about the >same miles per gallon as the basic four-cylinder model, according to a >review by Consumer Reports, a car-buyer's guide, and it saves only about 2 >mpg compared with the V-6 model on which it is based. Thanks to the hybrid >technology, though, it accelerates better. > >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. > >Despite the use of hybrids to achieve better performance with about the >same fuel economy, consumers who buy the cars continue to get a tax credit >that the Internal Revenue Service allows under a "clean fuels" program >that does not take fuel savings into account. > >And the image of hybrids as fuel-stingy workhorses persists. In a June 15 >speech at an energy forum, Bush proposed a tax credit of up to $4,000 to >"encourage people to make right choices in the marketplace that will make >us less dependent on foreign sources of oil and to help improve our >environment." > >But some hybrids save hardly any fuel, energy efficiency advocates say. >"The new ones are all being used for power," said Kateri Callahan, the >president of the Alliance to Save Energy, a non-profit advocacy group >based here. > >Hybrids should be encouraged, Callahan said, because their electric >components some day could be useful in an all-electric car, perhaps >running on a fuel cell. But she added that the government should be >careful about which hybrids it subsidizes through tax benefits. Now, she >said, the car companies are "building to the high-end market. They think >people want performance." > >The companies may have sized up their customers pretty well. Buford, for >example, bought his Accord hybrid in January, a month after the model came >out, replacing a 2001 Accord coupe. > >Buford, a telecommunications analyst at Kraft Foods who works in the >Chicago area, said he decided on a hybrid because he wanted to "go green," >although he added, "I wasn't willing to make any of the trade-offs >normally associated with a hybrid." He said he liked the way that the >electric motor on his new car kicked in early during acceleration, at a >speed range in which the V-6 gasoline engine is relatively weak. And its >emissions of smog-forming pollutants are low, he said. (The Environmental >Protection Agency puts the hybrid and non-hybrid Accords in the same >emissions category.) > >If sold at list price, the hybrid costs about $3,300 more than the V-6 >with no hybrid. Buford said he was not sure if the gas savings would ever >pay for the difference. But in that price range - about $30,000 - many >buyers are not looking for a car that is the cheapest to buy or to operate. > >Honda spokesman Andrew Boyd said the company already had hybrids that >minimize fuel use, notably the Insight, for customers whose top priority >was to save gasoline, and the Civic for customers who wanted a car that >performs the same but uses less fuel. Performance in the Civic hybrid is >slightly lower than the original model, Boyd said, and as a result it gets >36 mpg instead of 29. Boyd said the Accord split the benefit between fuel >economy and performance. Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. Since the most emissions are generated in slow speed stop-and-go driving, the use of an electric motor for that type of movement reduces emissions on these vehicles to somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the amount a non-hybrid version of the same vehicle produces. Cheers - Jonathan > What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax giveaways are > given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids that actually guzzle more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of > contaminating elements in it's battery pak. > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to > increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> does to the economy and Nation by using a lot of >> contaminating elements in it's battery pak. Lemee see, there's only *one* source of energy for these vehicles. Anyone surprised at the real outcome? BTW, one doesn't run around town on electric power for long before the gasoline engine is needed to charge the batteries that are powering the electric motor. There ain't no free lunch. > > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to > > increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > power for long before the gasoline engine is needed to charge the batteries > that are powering the electric motor. There ain't no free lunch. Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely possible that it will get better economy in stop and go driving. nate > Lemee see, there's only *one* source of energy for these vehicles. Anyone > surprised at the real outcome? BTW, one doesn't run around town on electric > power for long before the gasoline engine is needed to charge the batteries > that are powering the electric motor. There ain't no free lunch. And, the extra weight of the battery packs, electric motor and controllers all works against improved fuel economy. One also has to wonder how much more energy is consumed in the production process for all that extra complexity and how much pollution is created in the production process. John > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase > fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. Wrong! Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase fuel economy more than a few MPG, but rather to INCREASE POWER, espically 0-60 accelleration. The fuel economy in MPG is the same, ful consumption is the same, you just get a higher rated HP. You didn't read No-man's article, I quote: "The Environmental Protection Agency puts the hybrid and non-hybrid Accords in the same emissions category." Next time read what your replying to. And yes, No-Man is correct, the tax credit needs to be revoked for these "green turbocharged" vehicles. Ted >>Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ted i just think a larger gas guzzler tax needs to be invoked for these large suv's.... .. what needs does a person living in the city have for a huge expedition when a winstar does the same thing in town. I could see if you lived in a rural area or a contractor farmer etc but the average businessman driving to work in a 30 storey building needs to pay a guzzler tax... dont ask me how to incorporate it but still it needs to be done. As usual, our government is being far more complex and tricky than is neccessary or sufficient to achieve the desired goals. If the goal is to dramatically reduce petroleum consumption, simply tax the heck out of it. This is working with cigarettes. CAFE, hybrid tax-credits, special car-pool lane privledges and all the rest are the kinds on answers lawyers, accountants and politicians love .... but they are not the kind of answers which get the job done best. Keep It Simple, Stupid ... raise the gasoline and diesel taxes by $.25/quarter over a three year period of time to give people time to adapt. At the end of that time you would have $3.00/gallon of additional tax revenue to spend on next generation transportation infrastructure and the users would change their behavior accordingly. Sadly, simple, effective solutions rarely get implemented! John > As usual, our government is being far more complex and tricky than is > neccessary or sufficient to achieve the desired goals. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John And when companies and their owners start holding on to every penny even harder than they are now in response to health insurance premiums escalating and coverage decreasing at every contract renewal, how stagnant do you think the economy will become? And what will happen when the returns in taxes aren't there because the economy has stagnated as a direct result of the tax that was supposed to have the opposite effect? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in part: >And when companies and their owners start holding on to every penny even >harder than they are now in response to health insurance premiums >escalating and coverage decreasing at every contract renewal, how >stagnant do you think the economy will become? And what will happen >when the returns in taxes aren't there because the economy has stagnated >as a direct result of the tax that was supposed to have the opposite effect? Uh...the tax should be offset by a decrease in other taxes, of course. The point is to use the tax to reduce a severe dependence on a foreign resource and the related environmental damage. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > course. The point is to use the tax to reduce a severe dependence > on a foreign resource and the related environmental damage. Unfortunately, transportation costs in the societies in most developed countries today are pretty fixed. Taxing them is going to have unwanted side effects. For example let's say that we raise the price of fuel in the US to $4.00 a gallon tomorrow via tax. That isn't going to curtail the "necessary" driving such as commuting to work, and buying groceries. Instead it's going to kill the recreational driving for vacations, and other non-essential driving. So while the economies of the cities aren't going to take it in the shorts, just about every small town in the country that makes it's primary income off tourism is going to tank. So you end up throwing a lot of seasonal people out of work, and a lot of others that depend on them out of work. Thus income tax and sales tax revenue go down, and the net result is that you obtain no more tax money than before, and you have restructured the economy so that people end up spending their vacations at home in their backyards and that small town economies become mostly unviable, migrating all those people to the cities, which have to expand to accomodate them, which consumes fuel, and you end up no better off than before. The other problem is that a lot of oil consumed in the US isn't used to make gasoline. It's used to make heating fuel, it's used to fuel electric generating plants, it's used to make plastics. At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy to renewable power sources. And there are not many of them. Wind power is really one of the few available that has enough energy to run the economy. Nuclear is another if you can accept the waste problem (most people can't) The rest of them, such as damming rivers, direct photovoltiac conversion, geothermal, biofuel and so forth, either have unwanted side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't enough of them, to provide sufficient energy. And once we get all that wind generating capacity online, we then need to phase out all the fossil fuel uses. That means no more liquid fueled ground transporatation, also we convert everyone to electric furnaces, and pretty much elimination of interstate trucking in favor of rail. And of course all railways will have to be converted over to be electric. Your talking a huge additional power distribution network. Such a thing can happen but it's going to be gradual. For example a fuel tax on home heating oil could be easily enacted that would make it cheaper to run electric or natural gas heat, thus people would replace oil furnaces But, they aren't going to do it until the existing oil furnace wears out. Ted >>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > every small town in the country that makes it's primary income off tourism > is going to tank... Plus, we're suppose to trust that *all* the extra taxes collected will be put to the intended use by the **same** politicians that take my money out of my paycheck for my Social Security and divert it off to other unrelated purposes, the **same** politicians that get lottery programs voted in by the public on the promise that the profits will be used for parks and schools and fire stations and then after it is voted in by the people they say "Hey - look at all the extra money that these parks and schools and fire stations are getting from the lottery - we can reduce the amount provided by the general funds to those things by that much!" and then effectively the lottery profits end up getting spend on the usual waste! Those are the **same** politicians that I am supposed to trust with spending for the intended and promised purposes the extra money taken out of my pocket in the form of gas taxes!!!!!!!!!!??????????? > At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to > reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > enough > of them, to provide sufficient energy. Just yesterday i heard a report of a "study" (out of Cornell or something) that said that it takes *much* more energy to process biomass into biofuels - and I'm thinking "Well - they are reporting what everyone already knows, but at least they are reporting it", but *then* the same report ends up saying the same study recommends diverting the money being spend on biofuel development over to "better" programs like hydrogen fuels!! - which of course have the same problem of requiring more energy in than that gotten out!! What a shell game. Makes me beloeve in conspiracies by those spending our research dollars!! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed air to power a vehicle. They are getting something like 300 miles on a "charge", and the cost of compressing the air is miniscule and works out to a few cents per mile? Any laws of physics being violated there (to get that kind of economy)? Can anybody here do the energy conversion math on that one? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in part: >Any laws of physics being violated there (to >get that kind of economy)? Depends on the size of the car, its speed, etc. >Can anybody here do the energy conversion >math on that one? Yes. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some > research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed > air to power a vehicle. Been done. Several years ago in France. Works quite well, too. Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in part: >> Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some >> research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed >> air to power a vehicle. > >Been done. Several years ago in France. Works quite well, too. Many energy storage methods have been tried over the years. In the 70s, engineers thought that new ceramic materials might make flywheels capable of sufficient energy density. They were wrong. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Tesla thought you could broadcast electricity through the air to power things. But we all know that the oil barons stamped out that idea. Not to mention that Popular Mechanics way back when predicted atomic powered cars which could run for years on a baseball sized power source. Gosh, what the terrorists could do with that idea. If the compressed air idea had half a chance, you could get tons of it from politicians. Of course, methane would be a way to go... Just hook up a couple of cows. You'd have to travel in spurts, but you'd get there eventually just letting your "power plant" graze along the way. So many bright ideas which have come and gone, and we're still depending on the dinosaurs. I think the next batch of crude will originate with present life becoming extinct, and a few million years later, cockroaches will be tooling around on people juice. >Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >70s, engineers thought that new ceramic materials might make >flywheels capable of sufficient energy density. They were wrong. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address > Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 70s, engineers thought that new ceramic materials might make > flywheels capable of sufficient energy density. They were wrong. This is seeing use. It's cheaper to compress air with an electric motor. There's no pollution, no fuel storage problems, no chemicals(batteries) - it's just two huge air tanks and a really huge version of the air engines you see in those flying toy airplanes. That they can go that far - it's impressive. Beats all other technologies for urban use as well, since the tanks could be refilled at a "station" in minutes instead of hours like batteries. >> Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about >> some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using >> compressed air to power a vehicle. > > Been done. Several years ago in France. Works quite well, too. I wonder what the $$/mile numbers work out to be on costs of compressed air at the pressures and quantities needed. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') Well, let's see... the average US Senator or Congressman weighs X at sea level (Ted K would know about below sea level). If they can hold as much air as they can booze, that works out to Y cubic feet On average they get Z miles off of some lame gipper cause or other And their salaries, perks, retirement work out to $ to the max... Why, I think we just paid for the first manned mission to mars. >>> Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about >>> some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >adddress with the letter 'x') Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address >>> Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about >>> some research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wonder what the $$/mile numbers work out to be on costs of compressed > air at the pressures and quantities needed. $1 USD per 62 miles. 200 mile range. 70mph top speed. It's basically a stretched Smart Car. "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in part: >At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to >reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >enough >of them, to provide sufficient energy. But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So, yeah, we know what we need to do. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So, > yeah, we know what we need to do. But, it isn't cheap, actually. It is just the costs are spread elsewhere. Let's face it, the entire reason Bush invaded Iraq was oil. If the cost of that war was entirely paid for by a federal tax on each barrel of oil, you would see sudden readjustment in people thinking of oil being "cheap" And while we are at it, might as well pay for all the bribery I-mean-foreign-aid that we give Israel, Saudia Arabia, and all the rest of the mid East countries to keep a lid on things over there. One of these days, and I hope I'm alive to see it, the Mid East will run out of oil. When that happens the rest of the developed worlds governments, including China, are going to turn their back on that area of the globe. We will just build a giant fence around it, and let the occupants go free to murder each other over 'their homelands' Maybe once they have had a few generations of total warfare against each other and flattened most of their population centers, they might get sick of it - or if they cannot learn, then they will just end up killing each other off until nobody is left. Either way, problem solved. Until then the rest of the world is stuck dumping money into that snake pit. I guess we ought at least to thank our lucky stars that so many of the people over there are mentally f.cked in the head with all this religion crapola - if the societies in the Mid East ever came to their senses and banded together, the rest of us in the world would be their slaves. Ted "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in part: >> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in part: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >But, it isn't cheap, actually. It is just the costs are spread elsewhere. The marginal cost to a consumer is cheap. That's why alternative sources won't fly. I don't disagree that the hidden costs are substantial, but they are hidden and don't influence consumers' choices. >Let's face it, the entire reason Bush invaded Iraq was oil. If the cost >of that war was entirely paid for by a federal tax on each barrel of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Ted There are religious fundamentalists everywhere. They know what God wants done and they let no one get in the way of carrying out "his" will. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA > ...Let's face it, the entire reason Bush invaded Iraq was oil... Aww - give me a break, Ted! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') I never expected to ever hear from someone, even in a NG, who was that naive' Do you have any idea how much oil is used round the world every day, or all of the products that rely solely on oil for its existence? All of the so called renewable alternative energy sources combined can not replace even half of the oil currently consumed in the world. Even if all of the electricity in the world was generated by nuclear power, and not a single vehicle used gasoline, we would still need millions of barrels of crude oil every day, until we develop cost effective ways to use coal as our carbon source. mike hunt > But, it isn't cheap, actually. It is just the costs are spread elsewhere. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ted >> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in part: >Let's face it, the entire reason Bush invaded Iraq was oil. If the cost >of that war was entirely paid for by a federal tax on each barrel of >oil, you would see sudden readjustment in people thinking of oil being >"cheap" And while we are at it, might as well pay for all the >bribery I-mean-foreign-aid that we give Israel, Saudia Arabia, and >all the rest of the mid East countries to keep a lid on things over there. What are the winning lottery numbers for next week? As long as you can read minds so you KNOW why Bush did what when, I could sure use some extra cash. >One of these days, and I hope I'm alive to see it, the Mid East will run >out of oil. When that happens the rest of the developed worlds governments, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >or if they cannot learn, then they will just end up killing each other off >until nobody is left. Either way, problem solved. When the middle east runs out of oil, or appears to be seriously running out of oil, or is so involved in war to supply the world demand for oil.... expect a world war. Don't think that such warfare will only involve that region. It will spread outside that area, and rather quickly. Japan, in WWII, went to war because that small country lacked resources such as oil, and look at the area of involvement before they were stopped.... they even shelled and bombed the west coast of the US. Germany was destitute and needed sources of resources such as oil to rebuild in the aftermath of WWI and the resultant economy where people carried baskets full of money to buy a loaf of bread. And before they were stopped, look at how far the conflict had spread. Consider the ever exponentially increasing demand for oil and other resources by China. Consider the conditions in countries which have nothing except oil and WMDs, and those other countries which are pushing for the right to develop and possess WMDs. Consider the expanding population growth and the shrinking availability of energy and other resources. By the way, those people have been murdering each other over their "homelands" for hundreds of years already and it has not changed anything. Presently, a recent poll (this past week), indicates that 60% of Americans expect to see WWIII, and 1/3 of the Japanese people expect the same. Every so often throughout history, something has come along to reduce the strain on resources. Diseases like the Black Plague and Influenza. Major wars. On average, a major war erupts about every 50 years... and we are well past that. So, be careful what you wish for. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. >Until then the rest of the world is stuck dumping money into that >snake pit. That money is like buying car insurance. You pay it even while you hope you will never need it. >I guess we ought at least to thank our lucky stars that so many of >the people over there are mentally f.cked in the head with all this >religion crapola - if the societies in the Mid East ever came to their >senses and banded together, the rest of us in the world would >be their slaves. I'm sure the same kinds of things have been said about Catholics, Protestants, etc, as they pushed to have the entire world become Christian of one form or other. Consider the inquisition. Consider the impact upon the Aztec and Inca civilizations.... convert or die... and even convert AND die. The majority of believers of any religion are just common people who want to survive. They want the crops to grow, and the cattle to multiply. They want their families to live and be well and happy. It's the extremists who seek power through whatever means will work. The extremists who don't care even about their own people, and will, as we have seen, sacrifice them without thought. It is the extremist who extols the virtue of sacrifice for the cause, and uses any means to secure that sacrifice. From promises of immediate entry into heaven as a martyr, to financial payment, to threat of violence. >Ted Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address fireater <fake.removehere.@shaw.ca> wrote in part: >the >average businessman driving to work in a 30 storey building needs to pay >a guzzler tax... dont ask me how to incorporate it but still it needs to >be done. Gas guzzlers are sometimes the only way to do a job and sometimes are just plain wasteful. The regulatory doofuses will keep imposing credits and oddball special rules (like CAFE) until our "leaders" face the facts and phase in a large tax on oil and gasoline. Then people can just make their own decisions re cars based on their needs and costs. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA Ease up a little. I DID read the article. I noted that the EPA discussed Accords when they equated the hybrid vs non-hybrid. The article, unless my copy didn't all come through, was otherwise written in generalities (as usual). Now there may be some good points to removing credits for those vehicles which do not improve mpg and/or reduced emissions. But, no company is apt to throw millions in R&D to achieve such ends if there is no return on investment, or at least some break on taxes, etc. You have to start somewhere if you want to improve things. So maybe a pro-rated schedule might be a better concept. As for gas guzzler taxes.... we've been down that road before. And, according to the latest releases, the new wave of SUVs from the US AND from overseas is going to smaller vehicles. The makers have seen the light... and the dollar signs... They know that fewer people are going to buy those hulks with the rising fuel costs. With the rising cost of fuels, my concern is for the "little guy", and the social system... The person who can't afford a new car to meet the EPA standards or the NTSA standards, or any other standards. Yet, they have to travel further to their jobs because they can't afford to live closer to the jobs. Couple that with the added fuel costs which will drive up prices of the foods we eat, clothes we wear, and everything else. Now the lower income people can't afford to do even more. So the option becomes, strike for higher wages, which just gets passed back to the consumer, or do without, which widens the gap between the haves and the have not's ever faster. Out of that comes things like class warfare, breakdown of society, etc. There are those "experts" who believe that the earth can support all the humans and more to come. I think it goes with the saying that "two can live as cheaply as one... for half as long". Want to fix things? Skip the tax credits and the guzzler taxes. Get rid of half the people on the planet. It can be done. Either quickly by war and disease (hopefully avoidable), or at a slower rate by doing something about the birthrate. Less people... less oil used. Less people, less resources used. Less people, less forests cut down. Less people less pollution... A better environment for all the rest. >> Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to >increase [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Ted Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > the tax credit needs to be revoked for these "green turbocharged" vehicles. I have an Escape Hybrid. I agree with the state of California that it doesn't belong in the HOV lanes when higher mileage Hybrids are allowed (whether that is a good use of HOV lanes is a separate issue... I think not). I agree with Google, who will sponsor their employees' purchase of a Hybrid, but only the high mileage ones. The Escape, at least, puts a smaller engine in the hybrid, although it is an engine that is available "naked". The Civic shrinks the engine to one that is not otherwise available. The Accord/Highlander/RX400H, topics of the unfavorable NYT article, are a different thing altogether. Should there be a tax credit of any sort? Why is the credit being given to any Hybrid? To subsidize development of something that Congress feels needs a subsidy. "Hybrids should be encouraged, Callahan said, because their electric components some day could be useful in an all-electric car..." I can accept that logic, but a loophole that allows someone to take the already overpowered Accord V6 and add more power, shouldn't be closed. Someone buying an Escape hybrid should. I eliminated a 13mpg Durango when I bought my Escape, and it still tows my horse trailer. Eventually, when hybrids become more accepted, plug-in hybrids could get us to the point that electric cars were never able to achieve, being able to replace any car, instead of a commute-only limited application. If my Escape could give a 25 mile range all-electric, it would only need gasoline on longer trips, and be all electric during the typical week, getting it's plug in recharge from my solar system at home. Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a lot. On the other hand, on level ground, I drove about seven miles on electric, followed by a few miles where I watched my "average" plummet from 99mpg to 38mpg, as the batteries were being recharged. I calculate an average of 38mpg for 10 miles was actually 7 at 0 usage, 3 at 11mpg. Recharging the batteries was pretty costly. But I got 38mpg over the stretch, something I'd be hard pressed to do in that traffic in any other car.  Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a > lot. This would be true if you only drove down hill and somehow got up the hill for free. Think about it. > On the other hand, on level ground, I drove about seven miles on > electric, followed by a few miles where I watched my "average" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I got 38mpg over the stretch, something I'd be hard pressed to do in > that traffic in any other car. Not if it were specifically designed to do so as your Hybrid is. In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from >> gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a >> lot. > This would be true if you only drove down hill and somehow got up the > hill for free. Think about it. If I only drove downhill, I wouldn't need an engine, but I would have to change the brakes frequently. While going downhill, my hybrid can use the energy that would have been burned off as heat to replace the battery energy that I used going uphill. I see this every day in my Honda, which has a battery level gauge. The battery level decreases going uphill, and recovers going downhill. At some point the batteries are full, and braking is conventional. The difference is noticeable. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 Clearly people knew how to get up hill for free back in the 1930s. I've listened to my father and father-in-law both talk about how they walked to school and back, both ways up hill, in the snow and barefoot. Mustr be some of that lost technology of the ancients they keep finding on Stargate. : ) >In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >point the batteries are full, and braking is conventional. The difference >is noticeable. Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address > In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > point the batteries are full, and braking is conventional. The difference > is noticeable. But the energy to recharge the batteries still comes from gasoline. It takes gasoline to get to the top of the hill so that you can regeneratively charge the batteries on the way down. Yes, recapturing this energy that would otherwise be lost to heat via the brakes is a good thing, but it isn't a perpertual motion machine. Matt In alt.autos.ford Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > But the energy to recharge the batteries still comes from gasoline. It > takes gasoline to get to the top of the hill so that you can > regeneratively charge the batteries on the way down. Yes, recapturing > this energy that would otherwise be lost to heat via the brakes is a > good thing, but it isn't a perpertual motion machine. The energy spent to get the car to the top of the hill is spent to get the car to the top of the hill, not to charge the batteries. Now that the feat has been accomplished, if you want to get to the bottom of the hill, you have to dissipate some energy. You might dissipate it as heat, or you might put it into a battery. Next time you go up a hill, some of the energy that you need can come from the batteries, and some from gasoline. It's not perpetual motion, but it's not all lost either. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >>Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from >>gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a >>lot. > > This would be true if you only drove down hill and somehow got up the hill > for free. Think about it. Why not just put really long springs and struts on the rear to raise the rear of the car up about a foot. That way, the car would always be going down hill. 8^) Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') > In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The Accord/Highlander/RX400H, topics of the unfavorable NYT article, are a > different thing altogether. They get v8 power out of a V6 sized engine. Nearly 30mpg. Compared to the v8 version, it's a huge gas savings. >> In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > They get v8 power out of a V6 sized engine. Nearly 30mpg. Compared > to the v8 version, it's a huge gas savings. But that's not really how it works and the point of the article. > > In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They get v8 power out of a V6 sized engine. Nearly 30mpg. Compared to > the v8 version, it's a huge gas savings. That might be OK if what was happening is that everyone who would normally be buying a V8 bought a V6 hybrid. But because of the way that they are positioning these cars in the market, what is happening is that people that would normally be buying a V6 are looking at a V6 Hybrid so they can have more power. Then when they get the more power they are of course going to use it, so they end up consuming just as much fuel with a V6 hybrid as if they got the V6 non-hybrid. When I see the Corvette shipping with a hybrid V6 instead of the V8 then I'll buy your argument. Ted > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase > fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. Since the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cheers - Jonathan I doubt that the reduction in emissions is any greater than the improvement in fuel economy. The logic seems to be fundamentally flawed. Burning fuel is where emissions start in the first place. If you aren't burning significantly less fuel, how are you generating significantly fewer emissions? John In alt.autos.ford John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote: > I doubt that the reduction in emissions is any greater than the > improvement in fuel economy. The logic seems to be fundamentally > flawed. Burning fuel is where emissions start in the first place. If > you aren't burning significantly less fuel, how are you generating > significantly fewer emissions? The efficiency of an engine lugging away from a stop is decidely less than that same engine at cruising speed. The hybrid assist makes a substantial difference there. I think of the hybrid as the opposite of a turbocharger in that it has zero boost lag, and provides less power at higher RPM. Comments in the California EPA test doucments indicate that the current hybrids are at the extremes of the ability of the testing to judge certain pollutants. Modifications had to be made to the test processes to avoid showing zero emissions during the city cycle. The EPA charts show that the California Escape Hybrid is an improvement over the California four cylinder. Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4 Standard 6cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:3, 18/22mpg, Greenhouse:4 Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8 http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/E-FORD-EscapeHEV-05.htm Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In alt.autos.ford John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8 > http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/E-FORD-EscapeHEV-05.htm Ah - but there's a problem with that math. It's parts per million. That means it's in relation to how much fuel is being burnt, and if the one vehicle uses 2/3 the fuel, that's 2/3 the net effect over time. So ist comes in at closer to 5 and 5 if you adjust for the amount of fuel being consumed. >> Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to >> increase fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John It's as though adding a bunch of batteries, an electric motor/generator & all the electronics to run them results in a significant saving that wouldn't be realized if an equivalent effort were made to the gasoline engine only vehicle. Really doesn't make much sense. Basically, it takes X amount of energy to get a vehicle moving and then to keep it moving. Whether gasoline engine only or today's 'hybrid', all of that energy comes from gasoline. The only possible savings must come from an increased efficiency of the hybrid. No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized, and just as easily, from a gasoline engine only powered vehicle. Not as glitzy though and, of course, no "free" federal $$ involved. > It's as though adding a bunch of batteries, an electric motor/generator & > all the electronics to run them results in a significant saving that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gasoline. The only possible savings must come from an increased efficiency > of the hybrid. Or much more simply - you make the vehicle lighter. Which means making it smaller. But we are getting away from the topic of discussion. The issue wasn't whether hybrids are better or not. The issue is that the tax credit was originally intended to encourage the development and sale of the next generation of economy cars with the assumption that the only way the market would accept an economy car again was by doing a hybrid. Giving the tax credit to non-economy cars that just happen to have a hybrid design is contrary to the original intent of the credit, and is a loophole, and should not be allowed. Ted >> It's as though adding a bunch of batteries, an electric >> motor/generator & all the electronics to run them results in a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ted Actually, an answer is already slated to be available in Canada: http://www.smartcar.com/ why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Anyone? In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > http://www.smartcar.com/ > why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, > Anyone? It's here. http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/8693/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/ Daimler-Chrysler is selling them in Canada, and not the US. Independent importers, led by ZAP, will sell them in the US. High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall, but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering and Automatic. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering > and Automatic. The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North American users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2 people, much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are plenty of Metros around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions. In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: >> High mileage conventional cars have been here before. My daughter >> has a Chevy Metro, 3 cyl, 1100 cc, 5 speed. She gets 40+mpg overall, >> but my Civic Hybrid has more power, more space, A/C, Power Steering >> and Automatic. > The smart car is entirely different. At least the Canadian model. It has > very smart ABS, A/C, a decent heater and all the other things North > American users might want. Certainly not a Metro and, if you're hauling 2 > people, much better and cheaper than a Civic hybrid. BTW, there are > plenty of Metros around with PS, A/C and automatic transmissions. A Metro with A/C, P/S, and automatic transmission is not going to get anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C. Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high mileage Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model? You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for hauling two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe it will be better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher mileage, two passengers. What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains unchanged with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with three. Passenger miles per gallon might be important. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > anywhere near the same mileage. For 1998, the 5 speed is 44/49, the > automatic is 30/34. No mention of A/C. The real Metro problem is that it, unlike your Honda, was designed to be cheap not fuel efficient. > Granted, the smart car might be a nicer car than the Metro, and that > remains to be seen, but it is smaller still. Why is there no high > mileage Mini, instead of a Cooper-S model? That's like asking why there isn't a high mileage Miata. The Mini isn't designed to be economical. It's designed to be a two seat, fun to drive, convertible roadster. For me, they didn't succeed. Others seem to like it. > You think a Smartcar will be better than a Honda Civic Hybrid for > hauling two people? By some definitions, maybe, but I can't believe > it will be better overall. What about a Honda Insight? Higher > mileage, two passengers. To each... but I'd be willing to purchase a Smart Car if I could. > What is the smartcar mileage with two people? My Civic remains > unchanged with one or two people, and I'm not sure I notice with > three. > Passenger miles per gallon might be important. True and I haven't seen any figures like this for SC. OTH, your Civic obviously uses more fuel as the load increases. > In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.internetautoguide.com/auto-news/25-int/8693/ > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861/ ZAP is run by a bonch of self-serving morons who only pretend to care about the environment. I know, I met them years ago when I lived in Santa Rosa. They were runnning around some of the dodgiest electric vehicle deisngs that I'd ever seen all the while touting themselves as "experts" because they refitted Escorts(mid 90's at the time) and the like with a bunch of batteries and some DIY electronics. $20K for 40 mile range? No thanks. That's a 3-4K markup over the cost, typical of the company. Why Smart itself doesn't take over and bury them I don't know. In alt.autos.ford Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote: > ZAP is run by a bonch of self-serving morons who only > pretend to care about the environment. I know, I met > them years ago when I lived in Santa Rosa. I remember them un-fondly from a few years ago, when I was thinking of getting an electric motorcycle. But, they are in the news again today. < http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050724/NEWS/507240324 /1068/NEWS06 > "_The tiniest cars money can't buy_" Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, > Anyone? The Government won't allow it to be tested - they have this Suzuki Samurai fake image in their heads despite it being tested extensively in Europe and passing much tougher standards. They just say that it's "too small" and know that it can't possibly be "safe". Idiots. > > why isn't this available in the US - Honda, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, > > Anyone? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in Europe and passing much tougher standards. They just say that > it's "too small" and know that it can't possibly be "safe". Idiots. Um, plenty of motorcycles out there allowed to be on the roads - the government couldn't possibly consider a Samurai safer than a Kawasaki. I think the real problem is that ZAP got their 10 year exclusive distributorship before fuel prices went through the roof and everybody suddenly fell out of love with the SUV. At the time Smart probably figured they would be lucky to sell a thousand vehicles a year in the US. If Smart hadn't signed that deal and was looking to come into the US market today, their expectations would be far different and they would never have agreed to that deal. Ted In alt.autos.ford Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote: > The Government won't allow it to be tested - they have this Suzuki > Samurai fake image in their heads despite it being tested extensively > in Europe and passing much tougher standards. They just say that > it's "too small" and know that it can't possibly be "safe". Idiots. That's a little too conspiratorial for me. The manufacturer has to submit cars for testing, which is too expensive if Daimler thinks it won't sell in the US. I doubt that the testing agency would ever refuse to test a car from a major manufacturer. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized, > and just as easily, from a gasoline engine only powered vehicle. Not as Would that be the Honda Civic HX compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid? E-VTEC engine, CVT transmission, lighter car. HX 30/34mpg, 9/9 Emissions. Hybrid 47/48mpg, 9/10 Emissions. Or would it be the Escape 4cyl verses Escape Hybrid? Standard 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:6, 19/22mpg, Greenhouse:4 Hybrid 4cyl-4wd-auto Pollution:9.5, 33/29mpg, Greenhouse:8 There are manufacturers squeezing whatever they can out of conventional engines, and they've done a remarkable job compared to cars 30 years ago. Hybrid is the tool for today that's available to the masses. I think a plug in hybrid is the next step. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: >> No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > conventional engines, and they've done a remarkable job compared to > cars 30 years ago. Manufacturers could do a lot more but there's no financial incentive from anywhere to do so, so they don't. It's really that simple. Pushing improvements of this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government. Too bad they've been bought and paid for. > Hybrid is the tool for today that's available to > the masses. I think a plug in hybrid is the next step. If they were available at equivalent prices. For now, hybrids are expensive gadgets. >Manufacturers could do a lot more but there's no financial incentive from >anywhere to do so, so they don't. It's really that simple. Pushing >improvements of this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government. >Too bad they've been bought and paid for. Apparently they can get the message though. The new SUVs being pushed overseas and by US manufacturers are downsized because they know the general public isn't going to flock to buy when the price of gas is soaring. >If they were available at equivalent prices. For now, hybrids are expensive >gadgets. As were the first personal computers, first "cell" phones, etc. As the public accepts and buys, eventually the price will come down.... at which point the manufacturers begin adding all manner of accessories to bloat the price back up..... Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country, I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it." -JFK Inaugural Address In alt.autos.ford FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote: > this sort is one of the areas we pay the Federal government. > Too bad they've been bought and paid for. I won't be able to argue with FanJet anymore. The fix is obviously in. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 > What a ripoff to we taxpayers who pay extra taxes so tax giveaways are > given to rich people who buy expensive hybrids that actually guzzle more > gasoline than regular cars you and I are destined to purchase! We do this all the time with other things, to get the public to start using new technologies. Let me guess - the last refirgerator or water heater you bought you decided to NOT get the rebate from the energy company? Lol. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.