New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars

And the Canadian and American governments are pretending that saving $200 a year in fuel will make up for it.
Automakers facing carbon tax in 2011 under tough new standards

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceApril 1, 2010 1:02 PM
Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008.
Traffic on Trans-Canada Highway at Admirals Road/ Mackenzie Avenue intersection for Budget reaction in Victoria, B.C. on Feb. 19, 2008. Photograph by: Darren Stone, Victoria Times Colonist
OTTAWA Automobile manufacturers could face a carbon tax on new vehicles in the 2011 model year if they fail to meet new standards to reduce tailpipe emissions that were announced on Thursday by Environment Minister Jim Prentice.
The declaration confirms that the government still plans to move ahead with a draft plan unveiled in December to impose tougher tailpipe standards on cars, matching new proposed regulations in the United States.
"Since last May, we've been working with the United States to put in place tough North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles," Prentice said at an Ottawa car dealership. "We are pleased to be taking this step to further harmonize our climate change action with the Obama administration a step that will protect our environment and ensure a level playing field for the automotive industry."
Environment Canada estimated in December that the standards would result in a 20 per cent reduction in emissions compared to the 2007 model year. It now estimates the standards would result in about a 25 per cent reduction in emissions for the 2016 fleet of new vehicles when compared with the 2008 model year.
"The proposed standards would require substantial environmental improvements from new vehicles and would put Canadian GHG emission standards at par with U.S. national standards and, by 2016, with the California standards," Environment Canada said in December.
While companies would be forced to comply with the new standards for average emissions of their fleet between 2012 and 2016, they will be allowed to purchase credits or pay a carbon tax to the government to offset emissions at a rate of $20 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for the 2011 model year.
The standards are based on vehicle size to encourage manufacturers to make existing vehicles more efficient as opposed to changing the makeup of their fleet to produce smaller vehicles.
The regulations include a credit system to provide "flexibility" in compliance if they exceed targets, or want to trade credits between companies. The regulations also propose incentives to give double credits for companies that introduce advanced technologies, including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles which run on hydrogen.
Prentice has criticized the Quebec government for introducing its own regulations this year to crack down on tailpipe standards, describing it as a "folly."
But Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp indicated on Thursday that her government intended to stick with its plan if the joint Canadian and U.S. standards fall short of meeting the California standards. California has also decided to sign an equivalency agreement with the U.S. government that delays the pace of its originally proposed standards by one year.
Meantime, Quebec has said that its regulations also include fewer loopholes and more stringent reporting requirements for industry than what the Harper government has proposed.
The Harper government said it will adopt its new regulations by this summer, following a two-month public consultation period. Prentice's announcement comes one day after the government cancelled an incentive program for home renovations to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
The program was also previously cancelled by the government in 2006 but restored under a new name, one year later following public criticism.
With files from Kevin Dougherty (Montreal Gazette) and Marianne White (Canwest News Service).
snipped-for-privacy@canwest.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars"
"The rules will cost consumers an estimated $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, the government said. But the heads of the Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency said car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage."
New Mileage Rules: Pay More for Cars, Less at Pump More miles on less fuel: Gov't efficiency standards will mean higher car prices, fuel savings The Associated Press By KEN THOMAS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON April 1, 2010 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id 257074
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you figure that the average car has a lifetime of over 100,000 miles, and you get the milage to go from 20 miles per gallon to 31 miles per gallon, how many gallons are saved? 100,000/20 is 5,000 gallons of gas. 100,000/32 is 3125 gallons, A savings of 1875 gallons, at a price of $2.50/gallon, that would be 4687.50 total.
Keep in mind that we were able to almost double the gas milage of vehicles simply by switching from carberators to fuel injectors, and putting in computerized electronic ignition and fuel injection control. Switching to vapor injection, flex-fuels, and fuel mixtures could double the milage again. Eliminating obsolete regulations and focusing on innovation to lower emissions could further increase mileage by eleminating PVC, catalytic converter, and permitting mechanically coupled superchargers.
Back in the early 1960s, several states, most notably California, outlawed mechanically coupled supercharges and nitrogen enriched fuels because they didn't want consumers to have cars that could outrun the police cars. Putting these technologies into a 1 litre engine could increase the horsepower of the smaller engine, lowere the fuel to air ratio, and give higher torque, which means that the engines could run at lower RPM and work well with the transmission such that they could get to 60 MPH while the engine runs and 600 RPM.

This is probably more a ploy for companies like GM to raise prices in the wake of falling unit volumes. Ironically, many of the technologies that would lead to hyper-effecient cars would actually lower the production costs, much the same way that computers and electronic ignitions reduced the number of wear points and improved performance.

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

You left out the part about the 100 MPG carburetor that EXXON bought the patent for and has locked away in Area 51 with the UFO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rex B wrote

I had a 1967 Ford Galaxie with a 396 V8 in it, and it was probably about 290 horsepower.
By 1999, my car had a 146 cubic inch V6 in it, and it was 160 horses.
When fuel efficiency came about, we didn't drop gas mileage. We had V6 and V8 turbos. So, we didn't drop fuel consumption, the auto makers made more powerful vehicles!
I had a Ford Escort in Canada 23 years-ago. It was 115 hp, with a 4 cyl.
The same in the UK was 140 hp. But they didn't know an SUV at all.
The makers here took the fuel efficiency and threw it against more horsepower.
So, gas mileage never dropped, though fuel efficiency grew.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ford never built a 396.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 07:27:15 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM

The engines available for the '67 Galaxy 500:
240 cu in (3.9 L) Thriftpower I6 289 cu in (4.7 L) Windsor V8 302 cu in (4.9 L) Windsor V8 352 cu in (5.8 L) FE V8 390 cu in (6.4 L) FE V8 428 cu in (7.0 L) FE V8

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

ISTR that the 352, 390, and 428 engines were all called big blocks. So, did the FE code stand for F'ing Enormous? ;-)
--
Cheers, Bob

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for

Governments LIE and dupe the people into believing they will get more than they put in. There is NO free lunch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Translation: The people who are going to get hurt the most are the very people that democrats say they care most about, those who are poor and those who are on the lower end of the wage scale.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But, if th Democrats increase taxes to the top 5% income, and also reduce the 800 billion dollars military budget by 70%, they could give some money back to those families with an anual income of 50K or less.
VV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here we go again. Progressives wanting to decimate the military so they can get a free gubmint cheese. What do we do for protection or a response when we're attacked the next time?? Will Obama stop aggression by tinpots and lunatic dictators by the sheer power of his personality??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean Obama who is continuing the bush wars and looking to start additional ones?
Welfare and Warfare are tied together politically. You want one, you get the other. The US two wing one party system has one wing that puts welfare first and gets warfare along for the ride and other wing that puts warfare first and gets welfare along with it.
PS: almost all the warfare money is not spent to protect us. War is a Racket. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But, if th Democrats increase taxes to the top 5% income, and also reduce the 800 billion dollars military budget by 70%, they could give some money back to those families with an anual income of 50K or less.
There is no free lunch. It does very littel good to raise taxes, if you are still going to spend more than you receive. When you do that, you have to borrow money. When you borrow money, jus tlike when you or I borrow money, you have to pay interest on that loan. Money spent on paying interest is money you cannot spend on anything else you may want or need. And when that interest is consuming a larger and larger percentage of federal spending, which is happening, that is money you don't have to spend on your pet proejcts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Money back? You have to put money in first. Instead of "money back," it's "somebody else's money."
wrote:

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

Translation, Jerry accepts the bull shit, and pretends to care.
It's all political to Jerry O.
Now! If this came from the mouth of Bush, McCain or Palin.
Jerry wouldn't be involved in this discussion.
Jerry is loyal.
Where is the evidence? Not some right wing crap.
Hell, even $24 Trillion's cite said no such thing as New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for car
He made it up, you moron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost for cars. Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than a publication on carbon credits http://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Introduction%20English.pdf
So it's petty clear that you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less appropriate place).
Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage.
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seat belts were supposed to cost us thousands of dollars too. But they were cheaper than air bags.
My first car was a bloody '58 Ford. No padded dashboard. No lap belts.
I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
If buddy want's a cheap car, there are shit pits made in India for nothing. Windshield wipers are optional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxWq9bKRmc0

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

No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options. People wouldn't buy them back then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.