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

Ease up a little.

I DID read the article. I noted that the EPA discussed Accords when
they equated the hybrid vs non-hybrid. The article, unless my copy

Now there may be some good points to removing credits for those
vehicles which do not improve mpg and/or reduced emissions. But, no
company is apt to throw millions in R&D to achieve such ends if there
is no return on investment, or at least some break on taxes, etc. You
have to start somewhere if you want to improve things. So maybe a
pro-rated schedule might be a better concept. As for gas guzzler
taxes.... we've been down that road before. And, according to the
latest releases, the new wave of SUVs from the US AND from overseas is
going to smaller vehicles. The makers have seen the light... and the
dollar signs... They know that fewer people are going to buy those
hulks with the rising fuel costs.

With the rising cost of fuels, my concern is for the "little guy", and
the social system... The person who can't afford a new car to meet the
EPA standards or the NTSA standards, or any other standards. Yet, they
have to travel further to their jobs because they can't afford to live
closer to the jobs. Couple that with the added fuel costs which will
drive up prices of the foods we eat, clothes we wear, and everything
else. Now the lower income people can't afford to do even more. So the
option becomes, strike for higher wages, which just gets passed back
to the consumer, or do without, which widens the gap between the haves
and the have not's ever faster. Out of that comes things like class
warfare, breakdown of society, etc.

There are those "experts" who believe that the earth can support all
the humans and more to come. I think it goes with the saying that "two
can live as cheaply as one... for half as long". Want to fix things?
Skip the tax credits and the guzzler taxes. Get rid of half the
people on the planet. It can be done. Either quickly by war and
disease (hopefully avoidable), or at a slower rate by doing something
about the birthrate. Less people... less oil used. Less people, less
resources used. Less people, less forests cut down. Less people less
pollution... A better environment for all the rest.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:58:47 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address

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.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5