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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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