Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

This is why you can't blame the big-3 for not having more hybrids for
sale, or that they would be in better financial shape if they had more
hybrids (or even small cars) in their fleet.

The american car consumer is schizophrenic if not irrational and their
purchasing habbits and tendencies change with the wind and weather.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hybrid17-2009mar17,0,6682265.story

Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

The gas-electric vehicles are piling up on dealers' lots as anxiety over
gasoline prices evaporates. But more hybrid models are on the way.
By Ken Bensinger
March 17, 2009

The Ford and Honda hybrids due out this month are among dozens planned
for the coming years as automakers try to meet new fuel-efficiency
standards and please politicians overseeing the industry's
multibillion-dollar bailout.

Unfortunately for the automakers, hybrids are a tough sell these days.

Americans have cut back on buying vehicles of all types as the economy
continues its slide. But the slowdown has been particularly brutal for
hybrids, which use electricity and gasoline as power sources. They were
the industry's darling just last summer, but sales have collapsed as
consumers refuse to pay a premium for a fuel-efficient vehicle now that
the average price of a gallon of gasoline nationally has slipped below
$2.

"When gas prices came down, the priority of buying a hybrid fell off
quite quickly," said Wes Brown, a partner at Los Angeles-based market
research firm Iceology. "Yet even as consumer interest declined, the
manufacturers have continued to pump them out."

Last month, only 15,144 hybrids sold nationwide, down almost two-thirds
from April, when the segment's sales peaked and gas averaged $3.57 a
gallon. That's far larger than the drop in industry sales for the period
and scarcely a better showing than January, when hybrid sales were at
their lowest since early 2005.

In July, U.S. Toyota dealers didn't have enough Prius models in stock to
last two days, and many were charging thousands of dollars above sticker
price for the few they had.

Today there are about 80 days' worth on hand, and dealers are working
much harder -- even with the help of $500 factory rebates -- to move the
egg-shaped gas-savers off lots from Santa Monica to Miami.

This month, Honda is offering $2,000 in cash, financing and leasing
incentives to buyers of the formerly sold-out Civic hybrid, while a
dealer in northern Michigan is dangling $6,000 cash back to those
willing to buy a hulking Chevy Tahoe hybrid.

Yet automakers believe they have little choice but to make more hybrids.
Though car buyers are losing interest, politicians are pushing them as
key to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and limiting the
global-warming gases that cars emit into the atmosphere.

In January, President Obama called on the industry to "thrive by
building the cars of tomorrow" and prepare for federal and state
regulations that could push average fuel economy above 40 miles per
gallon by 2020.

"The automakers are in the situation of needing to pacify politicians
that are in the position to bail them out with expensive fuel-efficient
cars," said Rebecca Lindland, auto analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But
shouldn't it be more about satisfying the needs of the American
consumer?"

Dubbed the Prius-fighter because of its similar looks and performance,
the new Honda Insight hybrid is set to arrive on dealer lots in the next
few weeks. Next year, the Japanese automaker will make a sporty hybrid
coupe. Hyundai and Audi will deliver their first hybrids in 2010, and
Toyota has a redesigned Prius and a new Lexus hybrid coming this spring.
Toyota said Friday that it would make a subcompact hybrid priced below
$20,000 in 2011.

The biggest push is coming from Detroit. Ford plans to follow its new
41-mile-per-gallon Fusion and Mercury Milan hybrids with a
battery-powered van in 2010 and a "family" of hybrids by 2012. And last
month, in their request to the Obama administration for $21.6 billion in
additional bailout cash, both General Motors and Chrysler announced a
hybrid onslaught.

Chrysler promised eight new hybrids or electric vehicles by 2015, and
GM, which already sells eight hybrids, said 26 of the 33 cars it sells
in 2015 won't run on gas alone, including the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in
hybrid due out next year.

The hybrid flood marks a lasting commitment to a powertrain technology
that currently represents only about 2% of U.S. vehicle sales and, by
most accounts, is deeply unprofitable.

Toyota said last year that it was finally making money on the Prius
after nearly a decade producing it, but executives at other automakers
acknowledge that they lose money on every hybrid sold. "If we were
making money on the Civic hybrid, we weren't making a lot," Honda
spokesman Chris Martin said.

That may help explain why fewer than 2 of every 100 Chevy Malibus sold
last month had the hybrid powertrain and why Ford priced its new hybrid
Fusion, which dealers expect to start receiving this month, $8,000 above
the gasoline-only version.

Ford expects to produce about 20,000 Fusion and Milan hybrids this year,
or about 1% of its total production.

"It's a tough time to bring out almost any product right now," said
George Pipas, the company's chief sales analyst. "But getting hybrids
out right now is as much about image as anything else."

In November, months before Honda even announced the price of its new
Insight, Jim Johnson of Eagan, Minn., plunked down a $500 deposit for
one.

"I asked to be on the waiting list, and the salesman said he didn't have
one," said Johnson, who works in investments. "So I said, 'OK, I want
you to start a waiting list.' "

As evident on the streets of cities such as Los Angeles and San
Francisco, hybrids have an almost cult-like following, but getting the
masses to buy them with any consistency is another matter. In their zeal
to meet what seemed an insatiable appetite for hybrids in the middle of
last year, carmakers may have gone too far, said IHS Global Insight's
Lindland.

At the end of June, AutoNation, the country's largest chain of new-car
dealerships, had only a two-day supply of Honda Civic hybrids and a
14-day supply of the non-hybrid Civic. By year's end, the picture had
flipped, with AutoNation holding 107 days' worth of regular Civics,
compared with 148 days' stock of the hybrid version.

In December, Toyota terminated plans to build the Prius in a
$1.3-billion plant it had built in Mississippi, and Chrysler closed its
only hybrid-producing factory.

"The price of gasoline dictates what people buy," AutoNation Chief
Executive Mike Jackson said. "Gas fell to $2, and now my lots are filled
up with fuel-efficient cars that aren't moving."

Consumers who do buy these days tend to focus more on present-day
arithmetic than long-term commodity speculation.

Three weeks ago, Jerome Haig, a lawyer in Torrance, put down a $500
deposit on a Fusion hybrid, even though he hasn't even test-driven one
because they have yet to hit lots. "I do like the idea of getting a
hybrid," Haig said.

But he concedes that he might not have considered the car had it not
been for a $3,400 tax credit on Ford hybrids and a deduction on new-car
sales tax. The latter was part of the $787-billion federal stimulus
package. "The tax advantages are a pretty big incentive."

A sales-tax deduction does little to move vehicles like the $74,085
Cadillac Escalade hybrid or the Lexus LS600h, which starts at $105,885.
Neither gets better than 21 mpg, and buyers pay a premium over similar
gasoline-only vehicles that would take decades for owners to equal in
fuel savings even if gas hit $5 a gallon. So far this year, only 415 of
the pair have sold nationwide.

Still, some consumers see the depressed hybrid market as a buying
opportunity.

Chad Gallagher, a lawyer in Berkeley, took advantage of a Presidents Day
promotion, plus a healthy measure of dealer desperation, to buy a fully
loaded Prius last month for $5,000 under sticker price.

"We got the touring package, leather seats, navigation, Bluetooth,
everything," Gallagher said.

"I think they were just happy to sell the thing."

 

The hybrids are not more fuel-efficient than modern turbodiesels.

Better to pay a premium for a diesel than for a hybrid.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

That's not the point of my post.

Better to not buy a diesel car in the first place. And who wants the
extra expense and maintainence of a turbo charger? That's another
downfall of diesel cars - you won't find one without a turbo.

 

While I'm afraid my late lamented '87 Lebaron Turbo Coupe had more
than its share of issues, the turbo wasn't one of them. What extra
maintenance do you have in mind? (the extra expense is, of course,
simply part of the cost of the car)

 

I thought the point of your post was to note that buyers are refusing to pay
the extra for hybrids.

All I am saying is that this is probably sensible behaviour for many people,
but if one does a sufficiently high mileage (about 12K- 15K in the UK) then
the non-regular-petrol car to buy is a diesel.

Why would one want a non-turbo? Great fuel consumption and power. Am not
aware of particularly high maintenance costs of turbos in general.

It is precisely the turbo-charger in private vehicles that makes diesels so
attractive (in the right circumstances). I used to own a non-turbo diesel
car (72 PS weighing 1400 kg, 0 to 60 in a week) and have driven plenty of
modern turbodiesels. No contest.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

The point was to show that the american car buyer is brain dead. Gas
went to $4 a gallon last July and the stupid people were paying a few k
more above list for a hybrid. Everyone who was buying, or planning on
buying a car, was swearing off the traditional cars, SUV's, trucks.

Now that gas is under $2 a gallon, you can't give a hybrid away.

And when gas rises again above $3.50 this summer, the stupid people will
again pay list and higher for the hybrids as they try to sell the truck
or SUV they bought this fall/winter.

So blaming the big-3 for making cars that people don't want (and not
making the cars they do want) is a fools game when the car buyer is a
brain-dead american who's desires twist in the wind.

What the hybrid does that no regular car does is capture energy lost
during braking. What it also does is capture all the heat of the
various circulating fluids by storing them in insulated storage systems
when the car is parked. (I'm speaking of non plug-in hybrids, which is
the vast majority currently).

Other than that, the hybrid has a very small engine which naturally will
give you good milage even if it wasn't a hybrid. The extra weight of
batteries and electric motors is a liability.

The thing that really tilts the hybrid cost/benefit ratio into the cost
side is the huge cost of replacing the batteries, which pretty much
negates all the operating benefit you get by having them.

Something that is really never mentioned is that some chunk of the
hybrid's efficiency comes from the drivers who tend to drive them VERY
conservativly because they have this realtime, in-dash readout of how
much energy they're consuming or generating. They accelerate slowly,
they like to coast, they brake strategically, and they stay 5 or 10
km/hr below the posted city speed limits. If you took those same driving
habbits and used them in a conventional non-hybrid small or mid-sized
car, you'd also see improvements in milage and fuel efficiency.

There's no replacement for displacement.

I can do without the gimickry of a turbo charger. Just one more thing
that can go wrong, and can make emissions testing more expensive if it
needs to be fixed.

And ultimately puts more strain, wear and tear on small displacement
engines.

Well, by not having one at all, that will certainly have a zero
maintenance cost.

Why is it that you never see a diesel vs gasoline engine comparison
(fuel economy) where the two vehicles are matched in terms of both
engines having (or not having) turbo, and both engines have the same
displacement, and both cars are the same model (or at least matched in
weight). ?

 

Dori - Would it be correct to say that in many (most? all?) European
countries, you get penalized tax-wise (initial purchase as well as
annually) for the engine displacement on your vehicles?

If so, that would put a huge plus sign in the turbo diesel (or turbo
otherwise) column (unless they also steal from you for having a turbo
too - maybe they do - I don't know).

 

Well, in the real world (outside NA) we tend to compare power output, and
that's the point. With a turbocharger you don't need such big engines. A
turbo is no gimmick, it is well tried and tested technology. In car reviews
engine sizes and fuel consumption figures are always given, so the reader
can easily decide.

No commercial vehicle would be without one (which is why European
tractors -- the motorised front bit on an articulated vehicle -- haven't had
long snouts for decades), and (the operators of) these lorries are also very
cost-sensitive.

As regards t he careful behaviour of hybrid drivers because of the permament
energy display, I have a display which gives me a current mpg figure. It is
well-known that the best route to better fuel consumption is a feather-foot.

A friend of mine has a Toyota Prius, mainly to be exempted from the
co-called Congestion Charge in London, and I know his fuel consumption isn't
that good. This has been reported in the UK press also, so it doesn't
matter how technologically fancy its 'energy capture' is, and which is why I
commend diesel.

BTW, I suspect my friend's move on the Prius was more politically motivated
since the annual Congestion Charge is 'only' GBP 204 for a residents' annual
season ticket. The previous mayor of London, who introduced the whole daft
and totally un-transparent scheme was very unpopular in certain quarters.

Yes, road usage tax tends to be displacement-dependent, though there has
been a move to CO2-emission scales. I don't know in which countries there
is a bigger tax on bigger engines. In GB and Germany there is a single rate
of VAT on all cars. In some countries cars are (or used to be) taxed more
as a luxury good (e.g. in Greece), but again there may not have been an
engine-size differential.

In some countries, e.g. NL, there was/is an extra sales tax on diesel cars
to counteract the very low diesel fuel prices. The idea is that commercial
vehicles benefit from (relatively) low fuel prices but not private users.

Things are fluid, especially with the trend towards harmonisation within the
EU, so I can't tell you off the top of my head what the actual situation is
in each country and, frankly, I am not bothered to know... All I look at is
the fuel price at the pump... e.g. Poland is lower than Britain, but
probably higher in purchasing-power terms.

The other day I drove over to Cologne and all I could influence was to
maximise the fuel I filled in the UK. It was a business trip so I could
reclaim any UK VAT (sales tax) paid. So I aimed to fill up at the British
coast on the way out and on the way back (making sure I timed it to be near
empty on arrival at Folkestone on the return journey. It was only worth a
few pounds in tax advantage but I'll do (almost) anything to avoid tax....
The price of fuel in Germany and Belgium is no longer lower than in UK.

Finally, to make it clear, my cars are petrol. They do such low mileage
that anything else is not worthwhile.

Etc etc

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

Things may have changed since I left UK nearly 20 years ago but at that time
there were definitely tax implications related to engine size. I recall that
there was, as well as the VAT, a "Special Car Tax" built into the price of
the vehicle of around 8% which meant the VAT was a tax-on-a-tax and one
reason cars were always more expensive in Britain than pretty much anywhere
else in the world. (I was shocked how much cheaper vehicles were here in
Canada when i arrived here). I believe this Special Car Tax was not engine
size related.

However, if I recall correctly, the engine size effects were related to
income tax. At that time around 80% of cars were company purchased but
available for private use by the employee and he was (still is?) taxed on
this as an "income". I seem to remember you paid a lot more tax if the
engine was above 1.8 litres so the trend towards hotted-up small engines
became well entrenched.

As I say, this all may have changed. I would be interested to hear if so.

 

It's never much good bringing up 20-yr-old info...

Special Car Tax was abolished in 1992. As it happens the government is
planning to (re)introduce something similar under another name.

It was 10% of the pretax-price. I paid it on a couple of cars I imported
from Germany in the early and mid-eighties.

Because of the complications of UK company car taxable benefits I did not
bother to mention them here. Furthermore, they fall under the general
concept of taxation of car useage. The way things have gone (deliberate
govt policy) there are far fewer company cars on the road now --

A CO2-emissions-related charge is still roughly rate to engine size. Each
car comes with an official rating in mg per distance.

The other thing to mention is the extraordinary torque and acceleration of
(turbo)diesels. In general we don't have non-tubodiesels any more in
Europe.

The low price of cars in NA was well known here, especially if they were
American-made.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

 

You know - I don't enter into these discussions with the intent of
coming around to this, but one thing that just sickens me once I start
reading what was just discussed is how totally micromanaged people in
certain parts of the world are by government policy and taxes designed
to alter the behavior of the people so they act as the government thinks
they ought to act. We (the U.S.) is rapidly headed that way - at an
accelerated pace. One thing that apparently you already deal with that
is just now on our horizon is the totally fabricated "carbon economy".
Like I said, it is absolutely sickening.

If my points aren't obvious to you, just read back over your last post
and see how much of your hour-by-hour decision making was based on
artificial (government mandated) criteria that have little to nothing to
do with reality of the natural world. That is borne out by the fact
that the government-mandated behavior is at times exactly the opposite
from one country to the next when the stated goal is the same. I have a
feeling that the actual effects (of these government rules) on people's
behavior have very little to do with accomplishing anything whatsoever
towards the stated intentions. It also says that governments are
fooling themselves into thinking they understand how things really work
much more than they actually understand, and that what matters (to them)
is that a lot of activity takes place for the activity's sake.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I would agree there is an element of that (micromanagement) but it probably
looks worse than it is when described in a few words here.

As an example I take the reference to UK company-car taxable benefits. Many
years ago (say about 20/25), when we had penal rates of marginal tax rates
(up to 83% on 'earned' income, IIRC, and even higher on interest on savings)
employers would give material benefits in lieu of a salary increase, the
most popular being a car. (Which is why the UK had such a high proportion
of company cars on the road.)

These benefits were not taxed, or taxed so little it made no difference.

As these income tax rates came down the government started assigning values
to these material benefits so they could be taxed. The ultimate aim was to
make having benefits or a company car or cash in lieu for running a car
privately income-neutral. It's almost there.

From a fairness point of view I can't argue with this aim. With the advent
of the reliable car (cars now are so much more reliable than, say, 30 years
ago) the hassle of owning your own car is not so great.

The taxable-benefit values were engine-size related, but only at a few
points, e.g. 1.6 l and 2 litres, so that it made more sense to have a 1997
cc engine than a 2100 one, leading car manufacturers to offer a bigger
choice at these points. This is what Simon referred to.

Road tax (Vehicle Excise Duty) itself used to be a standard amount for ALL
cars. Of course there were lobbies calling this unfair.

Now we have a scale based on CO2 emissions. Germany had a graduated scale
based on displacement but has now moved to CO2 emissions, if I am not
mistaken.

If the aims are to reduce fuel consumption then this is better than
dictatorial bans on certain engine sizes. Of course the tax on fuel also has
an influence but could be considered socially more divisive since a high
mileage is incurred not only by rich people though, of course, a smaller or
more efficient engine uses less of it. These are not issues which have
single, final answers but I do agree that some decisions that have little to
do with what is 'right' from a scientific point of view.

My own hobby horse is recycling. The only material that is really worth
recycling is drinks cans made of aluminium, since it takes a lot less energy
to do that than mine and process the ore. Everything else might as well be
incinerated... but nobody wants an incinerator next door, and you certainly
could not biuld one in the middle of Manhattan and the nearest one on Long
Island or new Jersey might be so far away that trucking makes no sense...

Re-using paper is ok (e.g. as packing material, as they do in poorer
countries), but reprocessing (recycling) it... And glass... the raw material
is infinitely available...

I won't bore you with the details how local councils (local government
authorities) distort the market so that the waste collection companies get
incentives to collect recyclable waste which is not really worth
recycling... scandals about garbage piling up unsorted in warehouses...

I had better get off my hobby-horse now...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

Re micromanagement, we had a chancellor (finance minister) who loved to
micromanage and fiddle with the tax system. This man is now our prime
minister, Gordon Brown.

He must have been a godsend for accountants, as he kept making little
changes to the rules, creating burden after burden for business...

DAS
-
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

It's laughable that you're comparing the differences in gov't policy as
they pertain to enging sizes in the range of 1.6 to 2.0 L. Those are
pathetically small engine sizes for us here in North America.

How much more would it cost me to buy a car with a 1.99 liter engine, vs
2.2, 2.7, or 3.5L?

Factor in the insane fuel tax on top of displacement taxes and you'll
have the entire reason for the sub-2L turbo diesel in Europe.

It's not because it's the natural or logical result of free market
technology / competition at work here.

Diesel engines require much higher compression ratios compared to
gasoline. That puts their NOx emmissions at a much higher level.
Diesel requires fuel injection, which was expensive to do correctly up
until 10 or 15 years ago. Diesel engines tend to idle more roughly, and
noisily compared to gasoline. That higher compression ratio meant more
trouble for head gaskets, heavier blocks (perhaps no useage of
aluminum?) valves and seals had to work better, etc. Diesel engines
deliver more torque vs gasoline (at the same displacement and rpm)
because diesel contains more energy per volume, and because of the
higher compression ratio used. And partly because there's no ignition
system, those engines operate at lower rpm's compared to gasoline. So
you have different constraints on the transmission in order to turn
low-rpm torque into horsepower to get you moving from a standing start.
The turbocharger is yet another add-on in order to compensate for the
shortcomings of the low-displacement diesel engine.

None of that is attractive to a car driver unless the gov't taxes the
hell out of fuel and taxes the hell out of engine displacement. But all
of you in Europe think that small turbo diesel engines is superior or
the "normal" thing to put into a car, but you don't fully understand the
reasons behind it.

Something that is completely overlooked by everyone (environmentalists,
the auto industry, policy makers, politicians) is that we could achieve
a huge savings in fuel consumption by simply having a better
traffic-light control system. Traffic signalling systems that can sense
the real-time flow of vehicles and can dynamically adjust traffic signal
lights at every intersection so that the maximum flow is maintained.
Every time a moving vehicle must slow down or stop, that is a waste of
energy, especially if the vehicle had to stop at a light with very
little, or perhaps no cross traffic.

Traffic lights with appropriate sensors can measure the vehicle count
and direction and pass that on to the neighboring traffic lights, so
those lights can prepare and make decisions on how to best adjust the
next cycle to allow the most vehicles to maintain their energy by giving
them the green light. These systems would be able to maintain a
database of traffic patterns based on time of day, day of week, etc, and
can dynamically adapt their behavior - ie to learn - what signalling
pattern is most efficient for their particular intersection, and
possibly to "negotiate" with their neighboring intersections to arrive
at the best over-all signalling pattern for an entire region. All of it
done programatically. It would be a far better use for computer science
students and programmers vs another activity, such as game development.

Of course, you have round-abouts in UK and Europe, while we in North
America do not. I have no idea if the efficiency of round-abouts have
been studied as a factor of traffic density, and if at some point a
4-way traffic signalling system becomes more efficient than a
round-about.

But clearly the future of vehicular energy conservation will have to
include intelligent traffic signalling,

Recycling here in north america is not so much preoccupied with energy
recovery as it is with landfill capacity and the increasing need to keep
as much material out of municipal garbage dumps as possible.

The real 800 lb gorilla in the room is that the root cause of all these
concerns is population growth.

I can choose to not recycle. I can choose to own vehicles with large
engines. I can choose to live in a big house and consume lots of energy
to operate it. But if I also choose to have no children, then I've just
shifted / minimized my carbon footprint to a huge degree, moreso than my
neighbors who go to extreme lengths to conserve energy and recycle
garbage.

That has other implications, of course. We here in north america
riducule you in the UK because you seem to be on a demographic course to
islamify your country. It seems that voluntary population reduction is
not part of the mindset of some cultures...

 

We encountered a few -- "rotaries" they were called there -- in
Massachusetts. The cities of Holland and Zeeland in W. Michigan are each
talking about replacing an existing intersection by a roundabout.

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that many London-area
roundabouts had light-controlled access to the roundabout.

Taipei had many roundabouts when we lived there at first, but many of
those were replaced by light-controlled crossroads. Of course the total
lack of lane discipline made the use of roundabouts problematic: drivers
went into the land with the least number of cars, even if it was the one
least convenient for their next turn. But they still do that at
light-controlled intersections.

Agreed. But when each little town(ship) is a law unto itself,
coordination (whether of signaling or of speed limits) on a road that
passes through several municipalities can become difficult.

Perce

 

See below.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

FROM DAS: I have a 1997 cc car. Even though it is 15 yr old I can easily
hit an indicated 100 mph but, of course, In Britain I am not allowed to. I
crise happily at 70 - 85 mph. Of course I get to 60 quicker in my 3.2 l car
and have reached 120 mph, but if push comes to shove 2 litres aren't bad.

We think the ridiculously large NA engines are pure profligacy. Amazing how
many North Americans have recognised this and are no longer buying 5-litre
engines...

DAS: Dunno. I was talking about company car taxation and I haven't had a
compan car in 10 years. Look up the HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs)
website for more info if you must... ;-) www.hmrc.gov.uk/index.htm

DAS: No, turbodiesels followed regular diesels, which have been popular for
many years in various European countries partly because of lower fuel
prices. Diesels have only relatively recently become sidespread in the UK,
not always for rational reasons. Diesel fuel has cost more that petrol for
some time, reflecting the fact that diesel is no longer taxed at a
favourable rate.

Whilst we in Europe may not agree with the current high tax levels on fuel
9though in real terms it is lower in the Uk than some time in the past,
there is a consensus that the level in North America is too low, even in
Canada.

DAS: The North American population consumes a huge percentage of the total
energy (25%?) because of lack of encouragement towards more efficient use of
it, and it's not just the greater use of air-conditioning.

DAS: I personally think that if tax is levied on gas emissions it should be
more on NOx. People forget another 'greenhouse' gas, namely humidity...

I don't recognise the maintenance issues you raise about old pre-turbo
engines. They were considered reliable and robust. That's why they are in
taxis, also because of the much better fuel consumption in short, urban
journeys.

DAS: The reasons are less important than the results. I don't have to know
how a computer works in order to use one.

DAS: I am not sure how the computer (and there is a central computer)
controls the traffic lights in London but I can tell you that in cities in
Germany and maybe other places guide speeds are shown which help you drive a
'green wave', getting you through several lights without needing to stop for
red.

DAS: Roundabouts are particularly popular in the UK. We now have
mini-roundabouts, at times more a question of a painting in the road. They
regulate priorities at uncontrolled uran intersections because, AFAIK, we
don't have any overarching rules of priority, e.g. right before left in
countries driving on the right. Cars on roundabouts have priority.

DAS: Yes, also in UK. But one way of keeping stuff out of landfill sites
is to burn it. In some places they use incinerators to heat water and
distribute it to nearby domestic or industrial premises.

DAS: This is the political question. You think you have the free choice to
recycle or have a big-engined car, but you don't always (because of the 800
lb gorilla).

DAS: My only comment is: This last bit is a product of ignorance...

 

Here in North America, it's never about what top speed you can hit. The
vast majority of people are uncomfortable driving at anything more than
80 mph, even if they have a radar detector. Here it's about how fast
you can hit 60 mph from a standing start.

The 5 liter engine disappeard from the vast majority of passenger cars
20 years ago here in north america.

What happened is that light truck sales increased dramatically and at
some point during the past 5 years there were as many sales of 5L pickup
trucks as there were passenger cars. I don't think you see that many
personal pickup trucks in Europe as you do here. Now, why that is, is a
whole other conversation.

About the UK becoming islamified?

Wasn't the second most-popular name for a baby boy in the UK last year
Mohammed? Right after Henry?

 

The new Diesels from Mercedes and VW are very nice engines, but
unfortunately the higher price of diesel fuel in some countries negates
much of the diesel fuel mileage advantage.

In the USA I believe diesel fuel is about 25% higher in price.
In Canada diesel fuel price is similar to gasoline, but you may have to
travel a bit to find a location selling it. The local stations I fuel
up at don't carry diesel.

 

Funny how it never even occurs to the "modern" mind not to tax either one.

Ironically from some British musicians:

"The Taxman"
(by The Beatles):

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

Oh geez - talk about a scam and taxes because you've run out of things
to tax. Al Gore peeeyeww.

 

Imagine the waste of toll roads before "Smart Pass"! Still wasteful for
the cars that aren't local and that have to stop and pay with real $.
What a stupid idea.