IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

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.

I won't be able to argue with FanJet anymore. The fix is obviously in.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 reas>What the government should be eliminating is the tax credit for

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

I thought the "hybrid deduction" was due to phase out in 2004, now it's extended, probably as new hybrids are coming to market.

Been done. Several years ago in France. Works quite well, too.

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.

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.

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:

Joseph Oberlander wrote in part:

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.

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

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 th>Joseph Oberlander 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

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.

$1 USD per 62 miles. 200 mile range. 70mph top speed. It's basically a stretched Smart Car.