IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

Page 3 of 4  
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:


They get v8 power out of a V6 sized engine. Nearly 30mpg. Compared to the v8 version, it's a huge gas savings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

But that's not really how it works and the point of the article.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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

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
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

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.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

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

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.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

The real Metro problem is that it, unlike your Honda, was designed to be cheap not fuel efficient.

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.

To each... but I'd be willing to purchase a Smart Car if I could.

True and I haven't seen any figures like this for SC. OTH, your Civic obviously uses more fuel as the load increases.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com 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. 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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_"
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
FanJet 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@XReXXIRSXs.usenet.us.com wrote:

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.

If they were available at equivalent prices. For now, hybrids are expensive gadgets.
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.