IRS should cancel tax credits on gas guzzler "hybrids"

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Well, if the hybrid uses regenerative braking, it's entirely possible
that it will get better economy in stop and go driving.

nate

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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-FORD-EscapeHEV-05.htm

 

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.

 

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')

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.