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
  #11  
Old July 18th 05, 11:15 PM
Jim Chinnis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

fireater > wrote in part:

>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.


Gas guzzlers are sometimes the only way to do a job and sometimes
are just plain wasteful. The regulatory doofuses will keep
imposing credits and oddball special rules (like CAFE) until our
"leaders" face the facts and phase in a large tax on oil and
gasoline. Then people can just make their own decisions re cars
based on their needs and costs.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Ads
  #12  
Old July 19th 05, 03:07 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Horner wrote:
> 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


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?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
  #13  
Old July 19th 05, 03:26 AM
Jim Chinnis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
  #14  
Old July 19th 05, 04:36 AM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #15  
Old July 19th 05, 04:45 AM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
>
> 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.


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

> 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.


Not if it were specifically designed to do so as your Hybrid is.


  #16  
Old July 19th 05, 05:05 AM
Joseph Oberlander
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Nomen Nescio wrote:

> 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!


We do this all the time with other things, to get the public to
start using new technologies.

Let me guess - the last refirgerator or water heater you bought
you decided to NOT get the rebate from the energy company?

Lol.

  #17  
Old July 19th 05, 05:06 AM
FanJet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Horner 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

>
>
> 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



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. No doubt, the same increase in efficiency could be realized,
and just as easily, from a gasoline engine only powered vehicle. Not as
glitzy though and, of course, no "free" federal $$ involved.



  #19  
Old July 19th 05, 05:10 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In alt.autos.ford FanJet > wrote:

> How's that? To use regenerative braking, the car needs to be moving.


Brakes produce heat. That's wasted energy.
During normal braking, a Ford Escape Hybrid doesn't use the brakes at all
for the majority of the braking. What would be wasted as heat is captured
to the batteries.
Cars.com: "To test this claim, I poked my finger through the spokes and
touched the discs after 30 minutes of stop-and-go driving. The front ones
were cold to slightly warm. The rear discs were searing hot, though, which
makes sense because the rear wheels don't perform regenerative braking."

When the dam was built at Lake Shasta in the late 40's, the downhill
conveyor belts used to haul excavated rock from the dam site down to the
onsite concrete plant were slowed by conventional brakes which burned out
frequently. These were replaced with motor generators that in turn power
most of the construction project.

The school bus in Point Arena, CA, had a bank of resistors at the front of
the bus, tied to generators on a PTO. Going downhill, the PTO generated
heat, wasted out those resistors, and didn't use the brakes at all.

  #20  
Old July 19th 05, 05:10 AM
Joseph Oberlander
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



wrote:

> 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

Ah - but there's a problem with that math. It's parts per million.
That means it's in relation to how much fuel is being burnt, and
if the one vehicle uses 2/3 the fuel, that's 2/3 the net effect
over time. So ist comes in at closer to 5 and 5 if you adjust for
the amount of fuel being consumed.

 




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 12:10 AM.


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