Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

This is why you can't blame the big-3 for not having more hybrids for sale, or that they would be in better financial shape if they had more hybrids (or even small cars) in their fleet.

The american car consumer is schizophrenic if not irrational and their purchasing habbits and tendencies change with the wind and weather.

--------------------------------------------

formatting link
Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

The gas-electric vehicles are piling up on dealers' lots as anxiety over gasoline prices evaporates. But more hybrid models are on the way. By Ken Bensinger March 17, 2009

The Ford and Honda hybrids due out this month are among dozens planned for the coming years as automakers try to meet new fuel-efficiency standards and please politicians overseeing the industry's multibillion-dollar bailout.

Unfortunately for the automakers, hybrids are a tough sell these days.

Americans have cut back on buying vehicles of all types as the economy continues its slide. But the slowdown has been particularly brutal for hybrids, which use electricity and gasoline as power sources. They were the industry's darling just last summer, but sales have collapsed as consumers refuse to pay a premium for a fuel-efficient vehicle now that the average price of a gallon of gasoline nationally has slipped below $2.

"When gas prices came down, the priority of buying a hybrid fell off quite quickly," said Wes Brown, a partner at Los Angeles-based market research firm Iceology. "Yet even as consumer interest declined, the manufacturers have continued to pump them out."

Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds from April, when the segment's sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a gallon. That's far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at their lowest since early 2005.

In July, U.S. Toyota dealers didn't have enough Prius models in stock to last two days, and many were charging thousands of dollars above sticker price for the few they had.

Today there are about 80 days' worth on hand, and dealers are working much harder -- even with the help of $500 factory rebates -- to move the egg-shaped gas-savers off lots from Santa Monica to Miami.

This month, Honda is offering $2,000 in cash, financing and leasing incentives to buyers of the formerly sold-out Civic hybrid, while a dealer in northern Michigan is dangling $6,000 cash back to those willing to buy a hulking Chevy Tahoe hybrid.

Yet automakers believe they have little choice but to make more hybrids. Though car buyers are losing interest, politicians are pushing them as key to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and limiting the global-warming gases that cars emit into the atmosphere.

In January, President Obama called on the industry to "thrive by building the cars of tomorrow" and prepare for federal and state regulations that could push average fuel economy above 40 miles per gallon by 2020.

"The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient cars," said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But shouldn't it be more about satisfying the needs of the American consumer?"

Dubbed the Prius-fighter because of its similar looks and performance, the new Honda Insight hybrid is set to arrive on dealer lots in the next few weeks. Next year, the Japanese automaker will make a sporty hybrid coupe. Hyundai and Audi will deliver their first hybrids in 2010, and Toyota has a redesigned Prius and a new Lexus hybrid coming this spring. Toyota said Friday that it would make a subcompact hybrid priced below $20,000 in 2011.

The biggest push is coming from Detroit. Ford plans to follow its new

41-mile-per-gallon Fusion and Mercury Milan hybrids with a battery-powered van in 2010 and a "family" of hybrids by 2012. And last month, in their request to the Obama administration for $21.6 billion in additional bailout cash, both General Motors and Chrysler announced a hybrid onslaught.

Chrysler promised eight new hybrids or electric vehicles by 2015, and GM, which already sells eight hybrids, said 26 of the 33 cars it sells in 2015 won't run on gas alone, including the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid due out next year.

The hybrid flood marks a lasting commitment to a powertrain technology that currently represents only about 2% of U.S. vehicle sales and, by most accounts, is deeply unprofitable.

Toyota said last year that it was finally making money on the Prius after nearly a decade producing it, but executives at other automakers acknowledge that they lose money on every hybrid sold. "If we were making money on the Civic hybrid, we weren't making a lot," Honda spokesman Chris Martin said.

That may help explain why fewer than 2 of every 100 Chevy Malibus sold last month had the hybrid powertrain and why Ford priced its new hybrid Fusion, which dealers expect to start receiving this month, $8,000 above the gasoline-only version.

Ford expects to produce about 20,000 Fusion and Milan hybrids this year, or about 1% of its total production.

"It's a tough time to bring out almost any product right now," said George Pipas, the company's chief sales analyst. "But getting hybrids out right now is as much about image as anything else."

In November, months before Honda even announced the price of its new Insight, Jim Johnson of Eagan, Minn., plunked down a $500 deposit for one.

"I asked to be on the waiting list, and the salesman said he didn't have one," said Johnson, who works in investments. "So I said, 'OK, I want you to start a waiting list.' "

As evident on the streets of cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, hybrids have an almost cult-like following, but getting the masses to buy them with any consistency is another matter. In their zeal to meet what seemed an insatiable appetite for hybrids in the middle of last year, carmakers may have gone too far, said IHS Global Insight's Lindland.

At the end of June, AutoNation, the country's largest chain of new-car dealerships, had only a two-day supply of Honda Civic hybrids and a

14-day supply of the non-hybrid Civic. By year's end, the picture had flipped, with AutoNation holding 107 days' worth of regular Civics, compared with 148 days' stock of the hybrid version.

In December, Toyota terminated plans to build the Prius in a $1.3-billion plant it had built in Mississippi, and Chrysler closed its only hybrid-producing factory.

"The price of gasoline dictates what people buy," AutoNation Chief Executive Mike Jackson said. "Gas fell to $2, and now my lots are filled up with fuel-efficient cars that aren't moving."

Consumers who do buy these days tend to focus more on present-day arithmetic than long-term commodity speculation.

Three weeks ago, Jerome Haig, a lawyer in Torrance, put down a $500 deposit on a Fusion hybrid, even though he hasn't even test-driven one because they have yet to hit lots. "I do like the idea of getting a hybrid," Haig said.

But he concedes that he might not have considered the car had it not been for a $3,400 tax credit on Ford hybrids and a deduction on new-car sales tax. The latter was part of the $787-billion federal stimulus package. "The tax advantages are a pretty big incentive."

A sales-tax deduction does little to move vehicles like the $74,085 Cadillac Escalade hybrid or the Lexus LS600h, which starts at $105,885. Neither gets better than 21 mpg, and buyers pay a premium over similar gasoline-only vehicles that would take decades for owners to equal in fuel savings even if gas hit $5 a gallon. So far this year, only 415 of the pair have sold nationwide.

Still, some consumers see the depressed hybrid market as a buying opportunity.

Chad Gallagher, a lawyer in Berkeley, took advantage of a Presidents Day promotion, plus a healthy measure of dealer desperation, to buy a fully loaded Prius last month for $5,000 under sticker price.

"We got the touring package, leather seats, navigation, Bluetooth, everything," Gallagher said.

"I think they were just happy to sell the thing."

Reply to
MoPar Man
Loading thread data ...

The hybrids are not more fuel-efficient than modern turbodiesels.

Better to pay a premium for a diesel than for a hybrid.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

That's not the point of my post.

Better to not buy a diesel car in the first place. And who wants the extra expense and maintainence of a turbo charger? That's another downfall of diesel cars - you won't find one without a turbo.

Reply to
MoPar Man

While I'm afraid my late lamented '87 Lebaron Turbo Coupe had more than its share of issues, the turbo wasn't one of them. What extra maintenance do you have in mind? (the extra expense is, of course, simply part of the cost of the car)

Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

I thought the point of your post was to note that buyers are refusing to pay the extra for hybrids.

All I am saying is that this is probably sensible behaviour for many people, but if one does a sufficiently high mileage (about 12K- 15K in the UK) then the non-regular-petrol car to buy is a diesel.

Why would one want a non-turbo? Great fuel consumption and power. Am not aware of particularly high maintenance costs of turbos in general.

It is precisely the turbo-charger in private vehicles that makes diesels so attractive (in the right circumstances). I used to own a non-turbo diesel car (72 PS weighing 1400 kg, 0 to 60 in a week) and have driven plenty of modern turbodiesels. No contest.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

The point was to show that the american car buyer is brain dead. Gas went to $4 a gallon last July and the stupid people were paying a few k more above list for a hybrid. Everyone who was buying, or planning on buying a car, was swearing off the traditional cars, SUV's, trucks.

Now that gas is under $2 a gallon, you can't give a hybrid away.

And when gas rises again above $3.50 this summer, the stupid people will again pay list and higher for the hybrids as they try to sell the truck or SUV they bought this fall/winter.

So blaming the big-3 for making cars that people don't want (and not making the cars they do want) is a fools game when the car buyer is a brain-dead american who's desires twist in the wind.

What the hybrid does that no regular car does is capture energy lost during braking. What it also does is capture all the heat of the various circulating fluids by storing them in insulated storage systems when the car is parked. (I'm speaking of non plug-in hybrids, which is the vast majority currently).

Other than that, the hybrid has a very small engine which naturally will give you good milage even if it wasn't a hybrid. The extra weight of batteries and electric motors is a liability.

The thing that really tilts the hybrid cost/benefit ratio into the cost side is the huge cost of replacing the batteries, which pretty much negates all the operating benefit you get by having them.

Something that is really never mentioned is that some chunk of the hybrid's efficiency comes from the drivers who tend to drive them VERY conservativly because they have this realtime, in-dash readout of how much energy they're consuming or generating. They accelerate slowly, they like to coast, they brake strategically, and they stay 5 or 10 km/hr below the posted city speed limits. If you took those same driving habbits and used them in a conventional non-hybrid small or mid-sized car, you'd also see improvements in milage and fuel efficiency.

There's no replacement for displacement.

I can do without the gimickry of a turbo charger. Just one more thing that can go wrong, and can make emissions testing more expensive if it needs to be fixed.

And ultimately puts more strain, wear and tear on small displacement engines.

Well, by not having one at all, that will certainly have a zero maintenance cost.

Why is it that you never see a diesel vs gasoline engine comparison (fuel economy) where the two vehicles are matched in terms of both engines having (or not having) turbo, and both engines have the same displacement, and both cars are the same model (or at least matched in weight). ?

Reply to
MoPar Man

Dori - Would it be correct to say that in many (most? all?) European countries, you get penalized tax-wise (initial purchase as well as annually) for the engine displacement on your vehicles?

If so, that would put a huge plus sign in the turbo diesel (or turbo otherwise) column (unless they also steal from you for having a turbo too - maybe they do - I don't know).

Reply to
Bill Putney

Well, in the real world (outside NA) we tend to compare power output, and that's the point. With a turbocharger you don't need such big engines. A turbo is no gimmick, it is well tried and tested technology. In car reviews engine sizes and fuel consumption figures are always given, so the reader can easily decide.

No commercial vehicle would be without one (which is why European tractors -- the motorised front bit on an articulated vehicle -- haven't had long snouts for decades), and (the operators of) these lorries are also very cost-sensitive.

As regards t he careful behaviour of hybrid drivers because of the permament energy display, I have a display which gives me a current mpg figure. It is well-known that the best route to better fuel consumption is a feather-foot.

A friend of mine has a Toyota Prius, mainly to be exempted from the co-called Congestion Charge in London, and I know his fuel consumption isn't that good. This has been reported in the UK press also, so it doesn't matter how technologically fancy its 'energy capture' is, and which is why I commend diesel.

BTW, I suspect my friend's move on the Prius was more politically motivated since the annual Congestion Charge is 'only' GBP 204 for a residents' annual season ticket. The previous mayor of London, who introduced the whole daft and totally un-transparent scheme was very unpopular in certain quarters.

Yes, road usage tax tends to be displacement-dependent, though there has been a move to CO2-emission scales. I don't know in which countries there is a bigger tax on bigger engines. In GB and Germany there is a single rate of VAT on all cars. In some countries cars are (or used to be) taxed more as a luxury good (e.g. in Greece), but again there may not have been an engine-size differential.

In some countries, e.g. NL, there was/is an extra sales tax on diesel cars to counteract the very low diesel fuel prices. The idea is that commercial vehicles benefit from (relatively) low fuel prices but not private users.

Things are fluid, especially with the trend towards harmonisation within the EU, so I can't tell you off the top of my head what the actual situation is in each country and, frankly, I am not bothered to know... All I look at is the fuel price at the pump... e.g. Poland is lower than Britain, but probably higher in purchasing-power terms.

The other day I drove over to Cologne and all I could influence was to maximise the fuel I filled in the UK. It was a business trip so I could reclaim any UK VAT (sales tax) paid. So I aimed to fill up at the British coast on the way out and on the way back (making sure I timed it to be near empty on arrival at Folkestone on the return journey. It was only worth a few pounds in tax advantage but I'll do (almost) anything to avoid tax.... The price of fuel in Germany and Belgium is no longer lower than in UK.

Finally, to make it clear, my cars are petrol. They do such low mileage that anything else is not worthwhile.

Etc etc

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Things may have changed since I left UK nearly 20 years ago but at that time there were definitely tax implications related to engine size. I recall that there was, as well as the VAT, a "Special Car Tax" built into the price of the vehicle of around 8% which meant the VAT was a tax-on-a-tax and one reason cars were always more expensive in Britain than pretty much anywhere else in the world. (I was shocked how much cheaper vehicles were here in Canada when i arrived here). I believe this Special Car Tax was not engine size related.

However, if I recall correctly, the engine size effects were related to income tax. At that time around 80% of cars were company purchased but available for private use by the employee and he was (still is?) taxed on this as an "income". I seem to remember you paid a lot more tax if the engine was above 1.8 litres so the trend towards hotted-up small engines became well entrenched.

As I say, this all may have changed. I would be interested to hear if so.

Reply to
Simon

It's never much good bringing up 20-yr-old info... :-)

Special Car Tax was abolished in 1992. As it happens the government is planning to (re)introduce something similar under another name.

It was 10% of the pretax-price. I paid it on a couple of cars I imported from Germany in the early and mid-eighties.

Because of the complications of UK company car taxable benefits I did not bother to mention them here. Furthermore, they fall under the general concept of taxation of car useage. The way things have gone (deliberate govt policy) there are far fewer company cars on the road now --

A CO2-emissions-related charge is still roughly rate to engine size. Each car comes with an official rating in mg per distance.

The other thing to mention is the extraordinary torque and acceleration of (turbo)diesels. In general we don't have non-tubodiesels any more in Europe.

The low price of cars in NA was well known here, especially if they were American-made.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

You know - I don't enter into these discussions with the intent of coming around to this, but one thing that just sickens me once I start reading what was just discussed is how totally micromanaged people in certain parts of the world are by government policy and taxes designed to alter the behavior of the people so they act as the government thinks they ought to act. We (the U.S.) is rapidly headed that way - at an accelerated pace. One thing that apparently you already deal with that is just now on our horizon is the totally fabricated "carbon economy". Like I said, it is absolutely sickening.

If my points aren't obvious to you, just read back over your last post and see how much of your hour-by-hour decision making was based on artificial (government mandated) criteria that have little to nothing to do with reality of the natural world. That is borne out by the fact that the government-mandated behavior is at times exactly the opposite from one country to the next when the stated goal is the same. I have a feeling that the actual effects (of these government rules) on people's behavior have very little to do with accomplishing anything whatsoever towards the stated intentions. It also says that governments are fooling themselves into thinking they understand how things really work much more than they actually understand, and that what matters (to them) is that a lot of activity takes place for the activity's sake.

Reply to
Bill Putney

I would agree there is an element of that (micromanagement) but it probably looks worse than it is when described in a few words here.

As an example I take the reference to UK company-car taxable benefits. Many years ago (say about 20/25), when we had penal rates of marginal tax rates (up to 83% on 'earned' income, IIRC, and even higher on interest on savings) employers would give material benefits in lieu of a salary increase, the most popular being a car. (Which is why the UK had such a high proportion of company cars on the road.)

These benefits were not taxed, or taxed so little it made no difference.

As these income tax rates came down the government started assigning values to these material benefits so they could be taxed. The ultimate aim was to make having benefits or a company car or cash in lieu for running a car privately income-neutral. It's almost there.

From a fairness point of view I can't argue with this aim. With the advent of the reliable car (cars now are so much more reliable than, say, 30 years ago) the hassle of owning your own car is not so great.

The taxable-benefit values were engine-size related, but only at a few points, e.g. 1.6 l and 2 litres, so that it made more sense to have a 1997 cc engine than a 2100 one, leading car manufacturers to offer a bigger choice at these points. This is what Simon referred to.

Road tax (Vehicle Excise Duty) itself used to be a standard amount for ALL cars. Of course there were lobbies calling this unfair.

Now we have a scale based on CO2 emissions. Germany had a graduated scale based on displacement but has now moved to CO2 emissions, if I am not mistaken.

If the aims are to reduce fuel consumption then this is better than dictatorial bans on certain engine sizes. Of course the tax on fuel also has an influence but could be considered socially more divisive since a high mileage is incurred not only by rich people though, of course, a smaller or more efficient engine uses less of it. These are not issues which have single, final answers but I do agree that some decisions that have little to do with what is 'right' from a scientific point of view.

My own hobby horse is recycling. The only material that is really worth recycling is drinks cans made of aluminium, since it takes a lot less energy to do that than mine and process the ore. Everything else might as well be incinerated... but nobody wants an incinerator next door, and you certainly could not biuld one in the middle of Manhattan and the nearest one on Long Island or new Jersey might be so far away that trucking makes no sense...

Re-using paper is ok (e.g. as packing material, as they do in poorer countries), but reprocessing (recycling) it... And glass... the raw material is infinitely available...

I won't bore you with the details how local councils (local government authorities) distort the market so that the waste collection companies get incentives to collect recyclable waste which is not really worth recycling... scandals about garbage piling up unsorted in warehouses...

I had better get off my hobby-horse now...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Re micromanagement, we had a chancellor (finance minister) who loved to micromanage and fiddle with the tax system. This man is now our prime minister, Gordon Brown.

He must have been a godsend for accountants, as he kept making little changes to the rules, creating burden after burden for business...

DAS

- To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

It's laughable that you're comparing the differences in gov't policy as they pertain to enging sizes in the range of 1.6 to 2.0 L. Those are pathetically small engine sizes for us here in North America.

How much more would it cost me to buy a car with a 1.99 liter engine, vs

2.2, 2.7, or 3.5L?

Factor in the insane fuel tax on top of displacement taxes and you'll have the entire reason for the sub-2L turbo diesel in Europe.

It's not because it's the natural or logical result of free market technology / competition at work here.

Diesel engines require much higher compression ratios compared to gasoline. That puts their NOx emmissions at a much higher level. Diesel requires fuel injection, which was expensive to do correctly up until 10 or 15 years ago. Diesel engines tend to idle more roughly, and noisily compared to gasoline. That higher compression ratio meant more trouble for head gaskets, heavier blocks (perhaps no useage of aluminum?) valves and seals had to work better, etc. Diesel engines deliver more torque vs gasoline (at the same displacement and rpm) because diesel contains more energy per volume, and because of the higher compression ratio used. And partly because there's no ignition system, those engines operate at lower rpm's compared to gasoline. So you have different constraints on the transmission in order to turn low-rpm torque into horsepower to get you moving from a standing start. The turbocharger is yet another add-on in order to compensate for the shortcomings of the low-displacement diesel engine.

None of that is attractive to a car driver unless the gov't taxes the hell out of fuel and taxes the hell out of engine displacement. But all of you in Europe think that small turbo diesel engines is superior or the "normal" thing to put into a car, but you don't fully understand the reasons behind it.

Something that is completely overlooked by everyone (environmentalists, the auto industry, policy makers, politicians) is that we could achieve a huge savings in fuel consumption by simply having a better traffic-light control system. Traffic signalling systems that can sense the real-time flow of vehicles and can dynamically adjust traffic signal lights at every intersection so that the maximum flow is maintained. Every time a moving vehicle must slow down or stop, that is a waste of energy, especially if the vehicle had to stop at a light with very little, or perhaps no cross traffic.

Traffic lights with appropriate sensors can measure the vehicle count and direction and pass that on to the neighboring traffic lights, so those lights can prepare and make decisions on how to best adjust the next cycle to allow the most vehicles to maintain their energy by giving them the green light. These systems would be able to maintain a database of traffic patterns based on time of day, day of week, etc, and can dynamically adapt their behavior - ie to learn - what signalling pattern is most efficient for their particular intersection, and possibly to "negotiate" with their neighboring intersections to arrive at the best over-all signalling pattern for an entire region. All of it done programatically. It would be a far better use for computer science students and programmers vs another activity, such as game development.

Of course, you have round-abouts in UK and Europe, while we in North America do not. I have no idea if the efficiency of round-abouts have been studied as a factor of traffic density, and if at some point a

4-way traffic signalling system becomes more efficient than a round-about.

But clearly the future of vehicular energy conservation will have to include intelligent traffic signalling,

Recycling here in north america is not so much preoccupied with energy recovery as it is with landfill capacity and the increasing need to keep as much material out of municipal garbage dumps as possible.

The real 800 lb gorilla in the room is that the root cause of all these concerns is population growth.

I can choose to not recycle. I can choose to own vehicles with large engines. I can choose to live in a big house and consume lots of energy to operate it. But if I also choose to have no children, then I've just shifted / minimized my carbon footprint to a huge degree, moreso than my neighbors who go to extreme lengths to conserve energy and recycle garbage.

That has other implications, of course. We here in north america riducule you in the UK because you seem to be on a demographic course to islamify your country. It seems that voluntary population reduction is not part of the mindset of some cultures...

Reply to
MoPar Man

We encountered a few -- "rotaries" they were called there -- in Massachusetts. The cities of Holland and Zeeland in W. Michigan are each talking about replacing an existing intersection by a roundabout.

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that many London-area roundabouts had light-controlled access to the roundabout.

Taipei had many roundabouts when we lived there at first, but many of those were replaced by light-controlled crossroads. Of course the total lack of lane discipline made the use of roundabouts problematic: drivers went into the land with the least number of cars, even if it was the one least convenient for their next turn. But they still do that at light-controlled intersections.

Agreed. But when each little town(ship) is a law unto itself, coordination (whether of signaling or of speed limits) on a road that passes through several municipalities can become difficult.

Perce

Reply to
Percival P. Cassidy

See below.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

Here in North America, it's never about what top speed you can hit. The vast majority of people are uncomfortable driving at anything more than

80 mph, even if they have a radar detector. Here it's about how fast you can hit 60 mph from a standing start.

The 5 liter engine disappeard from the vast majority of passenger cars

20 years ago here in north america.

What happened is that light truck sales increased dramatically and at some point during the past 5 years there were as many sales of 5L pickup trucks as there were passenger cars. I don't think you see that many personal pickup trucks in Europe as you do here. Now, why that is, is a whole other conversation.

About the UK becoming islamified?

Wasn't the second most-popular name for a baby boy in the UK last year Mohammed? Right after Henry?

Reply to
MoPar Man

The new Diesels from Mercedes and VW are very nice engines, but unfortunately the higher price of diesel fuel in some countries negates much of the diesel fuel mileage advantage.

In the USA I believe diesel fuel is about 25% higher in price. In Canada diesel fuel price is similar to gasoline, but you may have to travel a bit to find a location selling it. The local stations I fuel up at don't carry diesel.

Reply to
Just Facts

Funny how it never even occurs to the "modern" mind not to tax either one.

Ironically from some British musicians:

"The Taxman" (by The Beatles):

Let me tell you how it will be There's one for you, nineteen for me 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small Be thankful I don't take it all 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for If you don't want to pay some more 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die Declare the pennies on your eyes 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me.

Oh geez - talk about a scam and taxes because you've run out of things to tax. Al Gore peeeyeww.

Reply to
Bill Putney

Imagine the waste of toll roads before "Smart Pass"! Still wasteful for the cars that aren't local and that have to stop and pay with real $. What a stupid idea.

Reply to
Bill Putney

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.