Here is an article I found this morning:

Full article: http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2807335


Billy

 

From the sound of it, (hopefully) the breaks will be aimed at the more efficient hybrids rather than the SUVs, as obviously those buying an SUV do not take as much of a financial hit as those buying a smaller car with the same added technology since there is a larger profit padding in the SUV models...

 

Could you explain your thinking for me? When shopping for a new vehicle we had budgeted $20K, not the $28K the FEH ran us. (We were looking at another station wagon, not an SUV when we first started out.) From the get-go we knew we'd never recoup the $8K difference, but we felt better realizing we were doing something to reduce our personal dependence on gas. Any tax break or financial assistance we can get will help make us appreciate even more the value of a hybrid vehicle.

 

I'm not saying there should be no break for SUVs, what I meant was that I hope the breaks are proportional to the FE of the vehicles sold, thus encouraging (in general) higher FE when considering a new vehicle. My concern is not so much with the econo-SUVs as much as with the luxury models where the price tag is already very well inflated to begin with. A big break for them seems like a big waste of money, but a break is indeed in order for all hybrids, as long as they make a difference, and so far they are.

If they make the break in proportion to the cost of the vehicle then it's totally backwards, and won't encourage people to buy the more fuel efficient models, that would be yet another break for the more well-off.