If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"
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 "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message ... > 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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Race wrote:
> 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 > > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message > ... >> 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. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Race" > wrote in message ink.net... > Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to increase > fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Jonathan Race" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>Many of the new generation hybrids aren't specifically designed to > > increase > >>fuel economy more than a few MPG but rather to reduce emissions. > > > 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 > > i just think a larger gas guzzler tax needs to be invoked for these 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FanJet wrote: > Jonathan Race wrote: > > 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 > > > > "Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message > > ... > >> 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. > > 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. Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely possible that it will get better economy in stop and go driving. nate |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan Race wrote:
> 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 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FanJet 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. > > 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In alt.autos.ford Ted Mittelstaedt > wrote:
> the tax credit needs to be revoked for these "green turbocharged" vehicles. I have an Escape Hybrid. I agree with the state of California that it doesn't belong in the HOV lanes when higher mileage Hybrids are allowed (whether that is a good use of HOV lanes is a separate issue... I think not). I agree with Google, who will sponsor their employees' purchase of a Hybrid, but only the high mileage ones. The Escape, at least, puts a smaller engine in the hybrid, although it is an engine that is available "naked". The Civic shrinks the engine to one that is not otherwise available. The Accord/Highlander/RX400H, topics of the unfavorable NYT article, are a different thing altogether. Should there be a tax credit of any sort? Why is the credit being given to any Hybrid? To subsidize development of something that Congress feels needs a subsidy. "Hybrids should be encouraged, Callahan said, because their electric components some day could be useful in an all-electric car..." I can accept that logic, but a loophole that allows someone to take the already overpowered Accord V6 and add more power, shouldn't be closed. Someone buying an Escape hybrid should. I eliminated a 13mpg Durango when I bought my Escape, and it still tows my horse trailer. Eventually, when hybrids become more accepted, plug-in hybrids could get us to the point that electric cars were never able to achieve, being able to replace any car, instead of a commute-only limited application. If my Escape could give a 25 mile range all-electric, it would only need gasoline on longer trips, and be all electric during the typical week, getting it's plug in recharge from my solar system at home. Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a lot. On the other hand, on level ground, I drove about seven miles on electric, followed by a few miles where I watched my "average" plummet from 99mpg to 38mpg, as the batteries were being recharged. I calculate an average of 38mpg for 10 miles was actually 7 at 0 usage, 3 at 11mpg. Recharging the batteries was pretty costly. But I got 38mpg over the stretch, something I'd be hard pressed to do in that traffic in any other car. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In alt.autos.ford John Horner > 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? 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-F...capeHEV-05.htm -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Credit Card Scam -- should I cancel my card?? | Dan | Chrysler | 1 | March 1st 05 04:25 AM |
Credit where credit's due | Scott Adams | Saturn | 0 | January 28th 05 10:41 PM |