Hybrid car sales go from 60 to 0 at breakneck speed

The few times I've been in a NYC cab crossing the various toll bridges,
I've wondered why the cab I was in was stuck in a cash lane and didn't
have a smart-pass reader.

 

Am not sure what you mean by "scam". Personally I have my doubts about
using CO2, but if you are going to levy a road useage tax and wish to
influence certain behaviour, then that is a way to do it, isn't it?

I liked the old way of a fairly low single sum for all vehicles...

DAS

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

 

Cap and trade. Basing vehicle taxes on CO2 is just to train the masses
into thinking of CO2 as the new currency. *That's* the scam part.

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

 

The old way was simple, but it never seemed fair. A tax (registration
fee, if you prefer) based on vehicle weight or on engine size always
seemed preferable. And what about the old system under which 3-wheel
vehicles (even those with comparatively large engines) were taxed as
motorcycles? That never made any sense to me either.

Perce

 

Don't disagree.

As regards 3-wheelers, how many of those were around?

So the simplicity outweighed a bit of unfairness.

DAS


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

 

I can't tell you how many 3-wheelers there were altogether, but I do
recall seeing many Messerschmidt (sp?) 3-wheel "bubble cars"; also some
fibreglass-bodied 3-wheelers, which I think might have been called
"Reliant" or "Regal." This was during the 1950s and early 1960s.

Perce

 

I agree, The UK sticks to small engines to avoid higher taxes.
Probably in Europe as well, but I'm not familiar with Europe's taxation.

In Canada a relative has a 2001 Volvo turbo and my wife has a 2001
Sebring 2.7L V6. These cars are about the same size, but the Volvo is
about 60% more in price.
The Volvo is slightly more powerful, but the Sebring is no slouch,
having more power at 200 hp than we use. Their handling is similar.
These cars get almost identical fuel mileage, both highway and city, but
the Volvo requires higher octane fuel which costs about 12% more here.
So the Volvo with all it's technology to get more power our of a
slightly smaller engine than the Sebring, cost more to fuel.

As for driver and passenger comfort the Sebring is quite a bit better
than the Volvo, particularly for adults in the rear.

Another example I have is a Focus wagon we rented in the UK, which had
a 1.6L engine, but only got about 10% more mileage than the 2.7L Sebring.
There was no comparison in passenger driver comfort, available power,
and handling; the Sebring being far superior in all respects.

 

You seem to be missing a point. The turbochargers are mostly on diesel
engines, and they make a world of difference to the performance, as I
mentioned in an earlier post. I don't think the UK -- traditionally
diesel-unfriendly -- would have so many diesel cars now without turbo.

Excellent for lorries because it means you don't need long snouts at the
front.

DAS


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

 

What made even less sense ti me was those UK 3 wheeled vehicles had the
single wheel on the front. (Reliant?)
They sure tipped when cornering a lot.

 

I frequently saw the Reliant in SW UK in the mid 80s.
A relic from the past, which shouldn't have been allowed on the road.

 

I'm not missing the point for NA. I was referring to NA.
Here turbos are mostly on smaller gas engined European cars.
We don't have many diesels- yet.