IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

Page 1 of 4  
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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jonathan Race wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet wrote:

Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely possible that it will get better economy in stop and go driving.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N8N wrote:

How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving. Gasoline is required to get the car moving either from a gasoline charged battery or directly from the gasoline powered engine. There are considerable losses involved in converting gasoline to electricity and the reverse. If the manufacturers really are saving energy with Hybrids, they could do exactly the same thing with gasoline only powered vehicles. In fact, they should be able to do better since these vehicles wouldn't be carting extra batteries, a heavy electric motor and assorted control doodads around. I think Hybrids buyers are being had. On the other hand, they are probably funding some research that may prove useful in the future so it might not be all bad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Brakes produce heat. That's wasted energy. During normal braking, a Ford Escape Hybrid doesn't use the brakes at all for the majority of the braking. What would be wasted as heat is captured to the batteries. Cars.com: "To test this claim, I poked my finger through the spokes and touched the discs after 30 minutes of stop-and-go driving. The front ones were cold to slightly warm. The rear discs were searing hot, though, which makes sense because the rear wheels don't perform regenerative braking."
When the dam was built at Lake Shasta in the late 40's, the downhill conveyor belts used to haul excavated rock from the dam site down to the onsite concrete plant were slowed by conventional brakes which burned out frequently. These were replaced with motor generators that in turn power most of the construction project.
The school bus in Point Arena, CA, had a bank of resistors at the front of the bus, tied to generators on a PTO. Going downhill, the PTO generated heat, wasted out those resistors, and didn't use the brakes at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet wrote:

It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine. In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N8N wrote:

It's not really all that simple and that is the basis for my gripe with the manufacturers. For example, you ignore the inefficiencies involved with converting the DC derived from the batteries to the AC required by the electric motor. Then additional inefficiencies when the AC is converted to mechanical energy by the electric motor. These inefficiencies generate heat which is wasted. Then there's the viable possibility of using a less expensive version of regenerative braking on a gasoline engine only powered car. Equipped with an ECU controlled alternator clutch, regenerative braking could be used to charge the car's battery. Using relatively simple technology, heat from the brakes could be used to assist in heating the passenger space too. There are many possibilities and some far less expensive than those used by current hybrids. However you look at it, none are as simplistic, clean, or effective as the manufacturers would have us believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet wrote:

This is true, but it's still better than nothing at all, which is the other option.

There's enough energy generated in one braking event that the battery would be fully charged very quickly, you'd be back to regular friction brakes almost instantly.

Heating the passenger space is never a problem. The regular heater uses waste heat from the engine.

Regenerative braking is actually a darn good idea, even if it doesn't appeal to my inner Luddite.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What the government should be eliminating is the tax credit for the production of ethanol. Recent studies have proved that it requires 24% to 54% more energy to produce ethanol than the energy produced by ethanol. If adding alcohol to gasoline is going to reduce pollution then the oil companies should be allowed to make if from the methanol that they now must burn off as a byproduct of oil production. Mental can be produced less expensively and will not need an tax credit to do so.
mike hunt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Be careful what you wish for or suggest....
California forced the issue of low emission fuel additives. Then they found that the fuel ruined engines. Then they tried to repeal the mandate and get rid of the fuel which had already been produced. That's when the Feds stepped in and refused to allow California to get rid of it. They could store it or use it, but not dispose of it. This resulted in the financial loss to companies and individuals for the repairs and or replacements... which impacted shipping costs across the board.
As for taxes and credits, one thing everyone should have noticed is that once in place, a tax, just like government programs and agencies, is nearly impossible to terminate. Politicians and special interests usually find a reason to extend the tax, or to use it for some other purpose. They reason that the public has become used to paying it, so if it remains in place, or is used for some other purpose for "the public good", nobody will mind continuing to pay it. That's IF it ever was used for the intended purpose for which it was instituted in the first place.
Take away the credits, and the companies claim no reason to invest corporate funds in R&D/Production. They aren't in it for the clean air.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:03:35 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mailcity.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I thought the "hybrid deduction" was due to phase out in 2004, now it's extended, probably as new hybrids are coming to market.
--
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
New DOMESTIC hybrids coming on line you mean? There were many in congress that did no like the fact we were subsiding an import hybrids, like the Prius, for a company that does not pay a penny in US federal corporate income taxes and for dealers that did not pass the discount on to the buyers, but demanded over MSRP before they would sell the vehicle.
mike hunt
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Horner wrote:

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')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in part:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.