A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 19th 05, 05:13 AM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> They get v8 power out of a V6 sized engine. Nearly 30mpg. Compared
> to the v8 version, it's a huge gas savings.


But that's not really how it works and the point of the article.



Ads
  #23  
Old July 19th 05, 10:20 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

FanJet wrote:

>>Someone else suggests that all of the energy ultimately comes from
>>gasoline in a hybrid. That's not true. Regenerative braking helps a
>>lot.

>
>
> This would be true if you only drove down hill and somehow got up the hill
> for free. Think about it.
>


Why not just put really long springs and struts on the rear to raise the
rear of the car up about a foot. That way, the car would always be
going down hill. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #24  
Old July 19th 05, 10:44 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Jim Chinnis" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bill Putney > wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>And when companies and their owners start holding on to every penny even
>>>harder than they are now in response to health insurance premiums
>>>escalating and coverage decreasing at every contract renewal, how
>>>stagnant do you think the economy will become? And what will happen
>>>when the returns in taxes aren't there because the economy has stagnated
>>>as a direct result of the tax that was supposed to have the opposite

>
> effect?
>
>>Uh...the tax should be offset by a decrease in other taxes, of
>>course. The point is to use the tax to reduce a severe dependence
>>on a foreign resource and the related environmental damage.

>
>
> Unfortunately, transportation costs in the societies in most developed
> countries
> today are pretty fixed. Taxing them is going to have unwanted side effects.
> For example let's say that we raise the price of fuel in the US to $4.00 a
> gallon
> tomorrow via tax. That isn't going to curtail the "necessary" driving such
> as
> commuting to work, and buying groceries. Instead it's going to kill the
> recreational driving for vacations, and other non-essential driving. So
> while
> the economies of the cities aren't going to take it in the shorts, just
> about
> every small town in the country that makes it's primary income off tourism
> is going to tank...


Plus, we're suppose to trust that *all* the extra taxes collected will
be put to the intended use by the **same** politicians that take my
money out of my paycheck for my Social Security and divert it off to
other unrelated purposes, the **same** politicians that get lottery
programs voted in by the public on the promise that the profits will be
used for parks and schools and fire stations and then after it is voted
in by the people they say "Hey - look at all the extra money that these
parks and schools and fire stations are getting from the lottery - we
can reduce the amount provided by the general funds to those things by
that much!" and then effectively the lottery profits end up getting
spend on the usual waste! Those are the **same** politicians that I am
supposed to trust with spending for the intended and promised purposes
the extra money taken out of my pocket in the form of gas
taxes!!!!!!!!!!???????????


> At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to
> reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy
> to renewable power sources. And there are not many of them. Wind
> power is really one of the few available that has enough energy to
> run the economy. Nuclear is another if you can accept the waste problem
> (most people can't) The rest of them, such as damming rivers, direct
> photovoltiac conversion, geothermal, biofuel and so forth, either have
> unwanted
> side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't
> enough
> of them, to provide sufficient energy.
>


Just yesterday i heard a report of a "study" (out of Cornell or
something) that said that it takes *much* more energy to process biomass
into biofuels - and I'm thinking "Well - they are reporting what
everyone already knows, but at least they are reporting it", but *then*
the same report ends up saying the same study recommends diverting the
money being spend on biofuel development over to "better" programs like
hydrogen fuels!! - which of course have the same problem of requiring
more energy in than that gotten out!! What a shell game. Makes me
beloeve in conspiracies by those spending our research dollars!!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #25  
Old July 19th 05, 10:52 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Did anyone hear the report I heard the other day on the radio about some
research being done (somewhere in S.A. I think) into using compressed
air to power a vehicle. They are getting something like 300 miles on a
"charge", and the cost of compressing the air is miniscule and works out
to a few cents per mile? Any laws of physics being violated there (to
get that kind of economy)? Can anybody here do the energy conversion
math on that one?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #26  
Old July 19th 05, 01:06 PM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "FanJet" > wrote in message
> news
>> 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.

>
> 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


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?


  #27  
Old July 19th 05, 01:31 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



FanJet wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > 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

>
> How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving.
> Gasoline is required to get the car moving either from a gasoline charged
> battery or directly from the gasoline powered engine. There are considerable
> losses involved in converting gasoline to electricity and the reverse. If
> the manufacturers really are saving energy with Hybrids, they could do
> exactly the same thing with gasoline only powered vehicles. In fact, they
> should be able to do better since these vehicles wouldn't be carting extra
> batteries, a heavy electric motor and assorted control doodads around. I
> think Hybrids buyers are being had. On the other hand, they are probably
> funding some research that may prove useful in the future so it might not be
> all bad.


It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to
accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost
forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy
is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it
(theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets
converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a
perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline engine.
In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine. In steady
state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage to the pure
gasmotor due to lighter weight.

nate

  #28  
Old July 19th 05, 03:17 PM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

N8N wrote:
> FanJet wrote:
>> N8N wrote:
>>> 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

>>
>> How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving.
>> Gasoline is required to get the car moving either from a gasoline
>> charged battery or directly from the gasoline powered engine. There
>> are considerable losses involved in converting gasoline to
>> electricity and the reverse. If the manufacturers really are saving
>> energy with Hybrids, they could do exactly the same thing with
>> gasoline only powered vehicles. In fact, they should be able to do
>> better since these vehicles wouldn't be carting extra batteries, a
>> heavy electric motor and assorted control doodads around. I think
>> Hybrids buyers are being had. On the other hand, they are probably
>> funding some research that may prove useful in the future so it
>> might not be all bad.

>
> It's real simple. In a gasoline powered car the energy used to
> accelerate a vehicle to whatever speed it achieves is basically lost
> forever, as when the vehicle coasts down or brakes the kinetic energy
> is converted into heat. With regenerative braking, some of it
> (theoretically all, but minus various losses and inefficiencies) gets
> converted back into electricity and stored in the batteries. Not a
> perfect system, but better efficiency-wise than a pure gasoline
> engine. In fact, it's city driving where hybrids can really shine.
> In steady state highway driving, it's a wash, with a slight advantage
> to the pure gasmotor due to lighter weight.
>
> nate


It's not really all that simple and that is the basis for my gripe with the
manufacturers. For example, you ignore the inefficiencies involved with
converting the DC derived from the batteries to the AC required by the
electric motor. Then additional inefficiencies when the AC is converted to
mechanical energy by the electric motor. These inefficiencies generate heat
which is wasted. Then there's the viable possibility of using a less
expensive version of regenerative braking on a gasoline engine only powered
car. Equipped with an ECU controlled alternator clutch, regenerative braking
could be used to charge the car's battery. Using relatively simple
technology, heat from the brakes could be used to assist in heating the
passenger space too. There are many possibilities and some far less
expensive than those used by current hybrids. However you look at it, none
are as simplistic, clean, or effective as the manufacturers would have us
believe.





  #29  
Old July 19th 05, 03:51 PM
Jim Chinnis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney > wrote in part:

>Any laws of physics being violated there (to
>get that kind of economy)?


Depends on the size of the car, its speed, etc.

>Can anybody here do the energy conversion
>math on that one?


Yes.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
  #30  
Old July 19th 05, 03:54 PM
Jim Chinnis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in part:

>At any rate, we already know what we need to do to the economy to
>reduce dependence on foreign oil. We need to migrate the economy
>to renewable power sources. And there are not many of them. Wind
>power is really one of the few available that has enough energy to
>run the economy. Nuclear is another if you can accept the waste problem
>(most people can't) The rest of them, such as damming rivers, direct
>photovoltiac conversion, geothermal, biofuel and so forth, either have
>unwanted
>side effects (fish kills) or are too terribly inefficient, or there aren't
>enough
>of them, to provide sufficient energy.


But none of those approaches has a chance while oil is cheap. So,
yeah, we know what we need to do.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Credit Card Scam -- should I cancel my card?? Dan Chrysler 1 March 1st 05 05:25 AM
Credit where credit's due Scott Adams Saturn 0 January 28th 05 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.