What we fail to see is that the price of energy, gasoline in particular has been held artificially low for quite a while now because of the huge business lobby putting pressure on the government to secure cheap oil. Lots of highly undemocratic things have transpired around the world because of this "need" for cheap oil, such as the massive support of the Saudi royals in order to have access to their oil, and the overthrow of the democratic government of Venezuela (luckily the people rose up against the US coup) and the two gulf wars.

I don't know if I can justify all these horrendous international injustices in the name of keeping the price at the pump low so that business can continue to grow and prosper. It sounds fine when you disconnect from the reality of how the prices stay low, and the real costs of doing that (no concern for the FE of vehicles etc) but when you take everything into account, and look at the history of the price of oil and gas, you'll see how the price we pay right now is insanely low, regardless of the suffering it may cause for it to be doubled in price, it should be even higher, if it kept up with normal inflation.

I don't see the price at the pumps as the final solution, but it's definitely part of the problem. Road taxes in proportion to vehicle weight and FE would also help encourage smaller, lighter cars as well as put the burden of road maintenance costs on the shoulders of those doing the most damage, proportionally. Overall this will 'hurt' the economy, in that instead of the way things are right now with polluters and large vehicle drivers paying very little of their impact costs, they will have to pay their fair share. Why are we so worried about the economy? Can't the market survive change? The changes are coming, either naturally (peak oil) or we can choose to ease the changes in slowly by doing things with purpose and forethought, through education and progressive policy.

 

Hmmm.

Wait, how dare the manufacturer take a technology WE wanted them to use ONLY for conservationism and use it to produce cars that the consumer wants? Well we'll just bring out the big club of government and force everyone around.

C'mon, all, trust the free market. If oil gets hard to produce because it's being used up, its price will go up; if its price goes up, people will be inclined towards more efficient vehicles.

This happens smoothly with the free market without the interference of government. In fact it happens *more* smoothly without government interference. The rise of the SUV happened exactly because a) government tried to impose fuel standards on cars; b) the disparity between the natural price/efficiency of the market and the artificial government standard was reflected in an unmet consumer demand; so c) the car makers found a class of vehicles not included in the artificial standard (light trucks or 'utility' vehicles) and satisfied the consumer demand.

Now as a result of monkeying about we have these hordes of oversized, top-heavy monstrosities out there instead of merely having some larger ordinary sedans.

Secondly, do you guys believe Consumer Reports, or our own database? I see 29.8mpg listed here for the Accord hybrid with 43 vehicles; CR said 25? What's their sample size, one test run in February?

Thirdly, if you improve an SUVs milage from 20 to 29 (as in the Ford Escape, regular vs. hybrid) you're getting a better % ROI than improving an already-efficient Civic by 20% with a hybrid. Also, these SUVs are already expensive, so adding on the cost of the hybrid system isn't prohibitive as it has been for many buyers. Likewise for performance cars which already come standard with a big pricetag.

Lastly, and most importantly, if hybrids sell, whether it's to get great MPG like an Insight or to get OK MPG while pulling a boat up to the lake like an Escape or even to get OK MPG while running fast 0-60 times, it makes developing the next generation of hybrid tech economically feasible; it means car makers will put hybrid tech into more cars at less cost per car; the whole country's MPG goes up; and we get closer to the day when hybrid or other advanced fuel tech is just assumed to be in every car.

There is no 'wrong' use for hybrids.

 

To get this discussion back on track...

Let's not consider the government incentives to be all or nothing. The current Federal legislation will be giving tax breaks proportional to the amount of fuel efficiency of a hybrid when compared to similar gas powered vehicle. Also, in California they will only allow hybrids in commuter lanes IF it has 45MPG or greater EPA rating (so the hybrid SUVs will not be eligible).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

First off, I don't think I'm in favor of tax incentives at ALL. It's a bad move. That said, it's also dangerous to lure people to make a small step instead of a leap. Why? Mindset & lifestyle. If people are trying to beat the system, they'll be determined not to change their lifestyle. If they don't change their lifestyle, they'll never be able to make the jump. They'll refuse. If you give them a reward after a tiny little step, there's no reason to go all the way. It's a virtual loophole.

With this line of reasoning, America would miss the opportunity to convert the worst polluters and highest gas guzzling fleets. Would you also suggest there should be no government incentives for converting buses to diesel hybrids, rather manufacturers should just make small hybrid commuter vans in order to change American lifestyle since it would be more efficient?

The biggest impact of hybrid conversion will not come from small cars like the Prius (where comparable small cars already have good MPG). America needs to convert the largest fleets of gas guzzlers, which in order are: large pickup trucks, midsized cars, and midsize SUVs. It is not likely that these vehicle category owners would trade-in for a small hybrid. Better chances they would trade-in for a no-compromise small SUV hybrid like the FEH.

Those of you against giving hybrid SUVs incentives fail to consider that many of us ARE downsizing. I have seen many other posters that indicated they traded-in a full-size SUV for the FEH just like I did, where we cut our fuel consumption in half as well as our pollution output. A sedan does not have the capabilities I need for my family, such as towing a trailer and carrying lumber or canoe on the roof (there are many sports enthusiasts and DIY like myself out there).

One of the biggest hybrid impacts may come from bus conversions. I recently returned from Yosemite Valley, where they are using new hybrid buses to move the thousands of visitors around. These diesel-hybrid buses were great, they can run on bio-diesel and turned engine off while waiting for passenger loading/unloading (without the gagging fumes of normal buses). Never guess who makes them … GM! GM hybrid powered buses are currently operating in several U.S. cities including Seattle, Philadelphia, Houston, Minneapolis, Portland and Honolulu. In Seattle/King County alone, there are 235 GM hybrid-powered buses.

If the largest U.S. cities replaced their conventional buses with hybrid powered buses, they'd save millions of gallons of fuel annually - a positive impact the whole country could feel, while reducing 90% particulate and hydrocarbon emissions and 50% reduction in NOx when compared to a typical diesel bus.

Hopefully the next move will involve better, more efficient technology with alternative fuels in vehicles that Americans show a willingness to buy ... right, Yeah.

-Dan

See links to articles from HybridCars.com or read summary below:
www.hybridcars.com/newsletter/hybrid-cars-news-0016.html#pickup
“PICKUP TRUCKS IN THE EYE OF THE HYBRID STORM"
A 10 percent increase in fuel economy across the entire large pickup truck market would save more than twice the number of gallons of gasoline as an equal gain in small cars, three times as much as the same gain in minivans, and perhaps 30 times as much as small SUVs. Why? Because American buy millions and millions of pickup trucks every year.
...General Motors, in partnership with Daimler Chrysler, has come out full force with their plans to introduce mild hybrid pickup trucks in 2007 and full hybrid pickups in 2008. For hybrid enthusiasts, what makes more sense? Continue to criticize General Motors for being behind Toyota in bringing hybrids to the market, or to cheer them on for their efforts to move into the market segment that could make the biggest difference.

HybridCars.com blogger Walter McManus put together some interesting statistics in "Save Fuel, Drive A Large Pickup Truck"
www.hybridcars.com/blogs/blog.php?thread_id=14&post_number=294

 

Keeping 50% of America in SUV's and trucks is ludicrous, and suicidal to the country and environment. 99% of America have to drive around in a 40 mpg or greater vehicle -- when they are driving at all. The remaning 1% will pass on the the cost of doing business, or simply be in a position to pay for for what should be a very expensive hobby.

Using a 15 mpg vehicle as a reference point for improvement completely ignores the scope of the problem. Keeping people in gas guzzlers, even if they are much more efficient gas guzzlers, does not solve the problem. Continuing to do the same as last week is a want of many americans, that is called a 'need' to hinder change.

Put bluntly: A vehicle used for personal transportation that gets less than 40 mpg today is part of the problem.

 

I agree completely. Gillman, I'm not saying that busses and other such vehicles that _require_ size shouldn't be converted. I'm saying that if the driver doesn't actually need such a large vehicle, they should downsize, rather than just hybridize an overkill-machine-on-wheels.

 

On this we are in agreement. Buses and some other gas guzzling vehicles such as pick-up trucks are needed and should be converted to the latest most fuel efficient technology available. To persuade consumers and companies to replace their current gas guzzlers with the more expensive vehicle, there should be government incentives.

What are the best methods to influence people, who don't need large gas guzzling vehicles, to downsize and buy more fuel efficient vehicle such as a hybrid? A few methods come to mind:
- Have gas prices go up high enough to make people consider downsizing if they don't need it.
- Come out with small hybrid SUVs, that offer over twice the fuel efficiency such that many large or mid-size SUV owners will downsize.
- Provide government incentives for hybrids that off-set the premium cost.

It just so happens these things are happening simultaneuosly and the auto manufacturers are getting the message to produce more due to the incredible demand.

However, to imply that pick-up trucks and SUVs with less than 40MPG rating should not be made, such that these owners must change their lifestyle and buy a small hybrid is simply unrealistic.

That is like saying small car owners who don't carry much around should make a lifestyle change and drive a motorcycle, where they could use a backpack or saddle bags. If they have more than one passenger they could use a sidecar...

-Dan

 

Reality is going to smack all of us in the face much sooner than most realize, and the opportunity to deal with it in a less disruptive manner will have been squandered.

If we actually paid the *real* price of fossil fuels, substantial change would have happened decades ago. That is the real pity of this entire debacle; the piddly incentives the gov is giving out to give the appearance of being progressive is just eye candy for the ignorant.

The *only* realistic goal is zero fossil fuel consumption. 40 mpg vehicles today is not the end-target -- it is a fair place to be today, so long as rapid progress is being made on the order of 2% a year further annual decrease. ENCOURAGING 25 mpg vehicles for personal transportation is so asinine, it is funny.

 

I'd like to see laws passed that mandate large vehicles be manufactured with the best possible fuel saving, pollution reducing equipment possible. Making a few mild hybrid trucks and 'encouraging' people to buy them by tax incentives will not put much of a dent in the fuel consumption of the entire fleet when people can still buy a dirty, cheap conventional guzzler that has plenty of rebates and low interest loans. But I know the government doesn't really want to solve the problem, they just need to make it appear as if they care.