>After all, the car is using public roads and interfacing with other vehicles
This is true for cars on the roads, not cars who stay at home
in any case any tax must take the actual mileage = Road usage + pollution into consideration. Therefore any fixed fee/tax should be withdrawn in favor of higher fuel tax. Owning a car is not the problem, but using it is.
>The user of a car with high HP and high performance is more likely to drive recklessly and hurt someone on a public road or damage public property
Isn't third party insurance compulsory in the US? If it is, then the owner covered this risk already. Why paying twice for a risk which evaluation is questionable?
Just KISS (keep it straight and simple) : one single heavy fuel tax that everybody pay when filling up. This is the best reminder that to every motorist that petrol is scarce
If the Gallon is doubled to 5 USD, many other unfair/complicated/time consuming taxes could be withdrawn, with huge governement personnel/administration savings at stakes.
The British example with about 4£ a Gallon deserves some more thought
We're back in this endless circle of "your're ignoring this", "my source is better than your source", etc., with a lot of off topic stuff thrown in as well.
If you'd like to get back to discussing the topic, great, but I get the feeling that this one has spun off into the ether.
My mistake -- I was comparing the 1.8 liter turbo and the 2.0 liter turbo used by Audi. I missed that you were comparing the 1.8 turbo to the 2.0 liter normally-aspirated version available from VW. (Audi doesn't have a 2.0 liter non-turbo in the US.)
Here's a comparison of the two turbo'd versions used by Audi in the US version of the A4:
Result: The 2.0 liter turbo produces 18% more horsepower, yet has increased fuel economy in both urban and highway driving. In addition, real world performance is better -- the 1.8 liter had noticable turbo lag, while the 2.0 liter has little or none (at least with a manual transmission), plus acceleration times have improved.
(To be fair, some of the differences may be due to gearing, but the engines sit in cars with fairly similar platforms of similar weight, so the comparison is valid. Plus, the 2.0 liter is of a more recent design that has different technology at work to help improve fuel economy.)
Another example: The new BMW 3-series sedan. Compare the two engines available:
Going around in circles again, increased fuel economy has nothing to do with increased pollution including: CO2, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and the rest of the stuff. With some exceptions a bigger engine pollutes more.
Call it a cop out if you will but I asked for some data and didn't get all of it. When I can research it more I will comment. I don't want to comment right now because last time someone made this claim on vehicle weighed 15% more than the other. Plus I would like to see some other things.
Unlike you I try to get all the facts before I make the claims. Not just what will support my opinions.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Going around in circles again, increased fuel economy has nothing to do with increased pollution including: CO2, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and the rest of the stuff. With some exceptions a bigger engine pollutes more.
Actually, if you compare the BMW's listed in #1231, you'll see that they get identical ratings for greenhouse emissions from the EPA: www.fueleconomy.gov/
Rather than make your claim, why not enhance your credibility by proving it? Obviously, I've shown one example above where you aren't correct.
Which is contrary to the argued position that larger displacement engines will have the higher horsepower and the worst fuel efficiency in comparison with smaller displacement engines.
Who argued that? Or are you setting up another strawman argument?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Call it a cop out if you will but I asked for some data and didn't get all of it. When I can research it more I will comment.
Well, get busy researching then. We'll be waiting.
In any case, you can't prove that there is a linear relationship between horsepower and fuel economy because these posts prove otherwise. While I would agree that more powerful engines often use more fuel, they don't always, and there is no reason to simply presume that a more powerful motor will lead to more consumption.
Again, if you care about consumption, then focus on consumption. If that is your real concern, the focus on output is a waste of time.
kdshapiro: Going around in circles again, increased fuel economy has nothing to do with increased pollution including: CO2, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and the rest of the stuff. With some exceptions a bigger engine pollutes more.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural byproduct of respiration, and necessary for plant growth. It is not regulated by the Clean Air Act. Repeatedly calling it a "pollutant" will not make it one.
As for the idea that bigger engines pollute more - this is false. ALL engines, whether they are 1.8 liters or 7.8 liters - are limited by the Clean Air Act in the amount of pollutants they can emit. A larger engine does not receive a "pass" under the statute. A large engine is held to the same standards as a smaller one.
The simple fact is that over 50 percent of vehicular pollution comes from 5 percent of vehicles - old, out-of-tune clunkers. The air pollution problem isn't caused by Corvette Z06s. It is caused by that oil-burning 1990 Cavalier. Focusing on high-horsepower vehicles is a waste of time from a public policy standpoint, as well as an effectiveness standpoint.
Modern vehicles are incredibly clean. A 2000 Ford Explorer emitted fewer pollutants running than a brand-new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 emitted will standing still, with the engine not running (due to leakage from the engine and fuel-delivery system). A 2006 Explorer is even cleaner. Blaming modern vehicles - let alone high-horsepower ones - for pollution shows a lack of understanding of this subject. (Incidentally, air quality in America is the best it has been since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Who said so? How about President Bill Clinton.)
Not sure I would believe the source, but I do agree that the air is cleaner. I can well remember Los Angeles in the 1950s and 1960s. I could not breathe, the air was so bad my chest would hurt.
..."The simple fact is that over 50 percent of vehicular pollution comes from 5 percent of vehicles - old, out-of-tune clunkers. The air pollution problem isn't caused by Corvette Z06s. It is caused by that oil-burning 1990 Cavalier. Focusing on high-horsepower vehicles is a waste of time from a public policy standpoint, as well as an effectiveness standpoint. "...
This is true!! The obstensible reason why for example in CA they have that 10 year smog only test- to ID and get off the road a good portion of that 5%. Which if you even take a cursory look at it, is usually the so called "smaller displacement and or low hp motor" that are the PRIME offenders !!!!!!???? For me the objection was they fully draw that from a 100 % "what they refere to as most likely " whatever that means. aka attempts at being fair. When I brought my Toyota Landcruiser, an suv by the way, I knew it would pass, but I personally didnt think it would yield actually lower numbers than its first bi annual inspection. (at the two year mark)
So in effect the use of language tries to criminialize what is already within the bounds of the law. The anti hp types should really stop doing that, and go after that 5%. But I am sure the fees gathered would lessen considerably. On the practical side, this is probably the REAL reason for the procedure.
I would absolutely agree!! I spend a summer in Riverside in 1972. There were days it quite literally felt one was dying or like someone was standing on your chest as you were trying to breath. Oyxmoronically at that time there were LESS CARS than now!!!
I hope we soon do get nuclear fusion power plants and then we can produce all the H2 we want, and have very powerful vehicles that have no environmental issues.
What will be the source of H2? Will speed limits then have to come down because of danger of collisions at high speeds with cars with H2 tanks? Will this solve our board question?
If you are at all familiar with the storage and transportation of "tanked" gasses, the more widespread use can be problematic. However the concept being researched is the sponge type concept. UPSHOT being, H2 can be transported stored etc at lower pressure.
"Rather than make your claim, why not enhance your credibility by proving it?"
I don't have to prove anything, you can prove the converse. And I did say with some exceptions. (BMWs 2.5 and 3L engines are both 3L btw). If you want to prove a 6L engine has the same efficiency, same pollution index and same gas mileage as a 2L engine, have at it.
Not to engage in a pissing contest about non-vehicular matters
I would suggest that you clean up your language, read Edmunds rules of dialogue and speak in a civil and friendly manner.
And property taxes tend to be on an ad valorem basis, and it is generally the case that such things as bedroom counts, bathroom counts, etc. for a given location affect value -- a three-bedroom house on a lot will be worth more than an otherwise similar two-bedroom house on the same lot.
I will try again. We live in different states. Your state may have different methods.
Tax assessment for new house in my county is based on purchase price plus other increments. Those increments include square feet. Square footage is the capacity of a house. In a similar fashion, HP relates to capacity of a vehicle's power plant. Houses are tax assessed in part on capacity. It is perfectly legitimate for states to tax vehicle license plate in part on capacity of vehicle's power plant. It has been done. Perhaps it is being done in a state other than mine at this time that I am not aware of.
A license plate fee, determined in part by HP, addresses board topic. It gives people incentive to purchase vehicles with sensible sized pounds/HP ratio vehicles and provides additional revenue for road construction/maintenance. It is fairer than the regressive and unfair high taxes at fuel pump used by Europeans.
Well, thanks for that credibility builder. If you are going to make a "factual" statement, then either stand behind it or don't be surprised when it is shown to be incorrect.
I've explained to you how property taxes work, and I'm familiar with tax rules across the US, so enough with your flawed analogy. At least do us the favor of finding a better analogy, as your property tax one is wrong and isn't working here -- this is a car forum, remember?
Anyway, I still want to know what "sensible" is supposed to mean. You are extremely repetitive with the use of this "sensible" jargon, yet no one here knows what this means exactly.
Talk about a circular argument -- apparently in your world, "sensible" is defined as "whatever Xrunner thinks is sensible." Who needs an explanation when Xrunner can merely repeat his belief, over and over and over again?
I've explained to you how property taxes work, and I'm familiar with tax rules across the US, so enough with your flawed analogy.
My apologies. I now understand that I am the fool and you are the expert. I take your word that you have expert knowledge of tax assessment methods in all counties of 49 states and all parishes in 1 state.
You've used the word "sensible" in five posts on this thread.
The term "massive" is used in twelve of your responses.
"Excessive" has appeared in fourteen posts.
At some point, are you going to tell us what these terms are supposed to mean? We're obviously not all on the same page, so if you can provide us with a logical construct that allows you to define these terms, that might help this discussion.
Looking at those three VW examples that gogo gave (that was kinda fun to say) gogo gave them correct?
Anyways, I can understand why a smaller engine may actually get worse gas mileage than alarger one so ....especially looking at the engine displacement. It's basically a lawn mower engine powering a 2500lb car. So it wouldn't surprise me that a slightly larger engine would give better gas mileage.
As for the third engine in the examples. It's a TDI and a completely different animal. Similar to comparing a turbo engine to a non turbo engine.
My feeling is once you get past the sweet spot of the power to weight ratio, mpg numbers will go down.
I was trying to limit the engines to the same year models.
The current Golf/GTI won't get the new 2.0 Turbo until maybe March or April.
But, yeah, I sure wish I could've waited to buy the soon to be released GTI... That is one nice car, with good fuel economy, considering that it's a 'sports' car.
Just for the fun of it, I was on the way home from running the Corvette for the day at Laguna Seca Raceway last Monday, and I wondered what the mileage would be if I took it easy. Not hard to do after hitting 115+ down the hill into the hairpin repeatedly. Also it started to rain as I left so good day to take it easy. My 350HP 6sp arrived at home with the computer mileage having been reset as I exited the track and the reading at home, 105 miles was 30.5mpg. Some how since my old Nissan Pulsar used to get in the low 20's I think how you drive is much more important than what you drive. Mileage is not linear with HP unless all else is equal, which is seldom the case. Randy
"Well, thanks for that credibility builder. If you are going to make a "factual" statement, then either stand behind it or don't be surprised when it is shown to be incorrect."
You are welcome to "prove" me incorrect or voice another opinion. But please don't talk about credibility.
You are welcome to "prove" me incorrect or voice another opinion.
I just did prove you incorrect. But since it's your opinion, I would think that you would want to support it yourself. You have folks such as Gogogodzilla going to a lot of trouble to prove his point, you could return the favor by at least attempting to do the same.
It is fairer than the regressive and unfair high taxes at fuel pump used by Europeans.
I think you have convinced yourself it is fairer. I personally think charging road tax by the mile is the closest to being fair.
Example: The Toyota Corolla weighs approximately 2500 Lbs. The Toyota Prius weighs about 2900 Lbs. So the Corolla has a 14% lighter footprint on the highway. Yet the owner of the Corolla currently pays 41% more highway tax than the Prius owner.
Both your idea of trying to figure out a tax based on HP to weight ratio or a higher gas tax are unfair. Using a HP to weight ratio the guy in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid would pay a much higher tax than the guy driving a Suburban. My Suburban had less HP than an Accord Hybrid. That would make his tax at least twice as much as my Suburban.
Anyways, I can understand why a smaller engine may actually get worse gas mileage than a larger one so ....especially looking at the engine displacement. It's basically a lawn mower engine powering a 2500lb car. So it wouldn't surprise me that a slightly larger engine would give better gas mileage.
I think that's essentially the point. The engine doesn't just work in a vacuum, it has to power the car in real world conditions, and those conditions influence driver behavior and affect the resulting fuel economy.
A lower-powered motor is going to inspire some drivers to push them harder, which can result in them burning more fuel because they must work harder to deliver similar results.
Also in the real world, factors such as gearing and final drive ratio are also going to influence fuel economy. A car with a smaller motor will probably have higher gearing to compensate for the lack of power, which means that the engine turns at higher speeds for a given amount of travel speed, which in turn influences fuel economy.
In a hypothetical comparison of two different motors on a dyno in a lab, the lower powered one may burn less fuel, but mate them to the drivetrain most appropriate to real-world driving, and the variance declines, or perhaps even reverses as we see in the VW and Audi examples. You can't just consider hypotheticals, but how such engines are used by drivers and automakers in the real world.
i>I think you have convinced yourself it is fairer. I personally think charging road tax by the mile is the closest to being fair.
Might be fair. Would it address the board topic? How would it be administered and what would that cost vs tax receipts? If odo were involved, aren't people able to monkey around with these, even when controlled by chip?
Both your idea of trying to figure out a tax based on HP to weight ratio or a higher gas tax are unfair. Using a HP to weight ratio the guy in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid would pay a much higher tax than the guy driving a Suburban.
No. I have been against higher gas tax as is used in Europe. European type tax is unfair and discriminates against lower income people. I think one poster on this board might have advocated the European tax in US. However, the European tax in US would very directly address our board topic. People would start to buy more high MPG vehicles and sales of lower MPG vehicles, typically higher HP, would slacken.
In a couple of my previous posts, one idea I suggested was a formula of some type that might charge a basic yearly license plate fee (road user fee?) amount, then an increment for gross weight and another increment for pounds/HP. This might be fairest in that people could still choose any vehicle that filled their needs/desires. Those that desire very high (massive) amounts of HP such as Viper, Z06, 300C SRT8, Bugatti, M’s, AMG’s, etc., would pay more for yearly license plate fee. Those people of modest income and smaller, lower HP cars would pay less.
My state has same yearly license plate fee for any type of personal vehicle. A Chevy Aveo owner pays same as owner of Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion.
I Think we should agree that more powerful Engines tend to use more fuel but that new powertrain technologies give way to a growing number of exceptions.
Now should the new technologies used for more power, or for more mpg, given that SL may slightly increase at best? This is one debate.
>European type tax is unfair and discriminates against lower income people.
Usually everyone in the now defunct (wonder how that happened?) Speed Limits Repealed discussion wants to talk about how wonderful Europe is with the Autobahn, you know, and all those ideals that Americans just can't understand. Now their gas tax is NOT the right way to go?
I believe everyone uses a gallon of gas and they can pay the tax on it. Everyone needs to pay their share of the cost of the infrastructure; if we're going to exempt those who don't work, can't work, don't feel like working to contribute income tax and property tax, then somehow everyone needs to carry their weight. One person = one unit of cost for roads, speed limits signs, government, services, etc. Too long we've heard the catch phrase but the "poor" would have to pay their share.
Usually the idea is to tax some high taxpayer over there behind that tree. But then we find that the real high earners avoid taxes like the Kennedys, who advocate high taxes on the wealthy. So the equalization is to tax the item; if you use a gallon, you pay tax ont he gallon that everyone else pays.
Actually you didn't "prove" anything. Within a reasonable number of exceptions higher horsepower results in lower gas mileage, more emissions, more pollution, more greenhouse gases. That's the point here in this thread, higher and higher horsepower in vehicles are for bragging rights only. One does not need let's say the 500 hp in a Vette in daily driving.
Within a reasonable number of exceptions higher horsepower results in lower gas mileage, more emissions, more pollution, more greenhouse gases.
There seem to be quite a few exceptions vis-a-vis emissions. Improvements in engine design and control systems have been so significant that your point doesn't hold up when examined under real world conditions.
Did you notice how BMW can pull 19% more power out of a motor without affecting emissions whatsover?
Rather than speaking in broad generalities, you might want to consider that emissions are a function of numerous variables, and output (horsepower) can increase with no relevant variation in emissions. If you want to focus on emissions, then deal with the resulting emissions, rather than make broad statements that don't stand up under individual scrutiny.
I Think we should agree that more powerful Engines tend to use more fuel but that new powertrain technologies give way to a growing number of exceptions.
I'd concur with that. If the difference is one between a 50 hp motor and a 500 hp motor, it's a fair guess that the latter will produce more smog and burn more fuel.
The issue arises more in the middle of the range, i.e. the types of cars that people actually buy. And while a larger, heavier vehicle such as an SUV can be expected to burn more fuel than would a less powerful, significantly lighter one, the incremental differences within vehicle classes and between similar vehicle classes aren't nearly so neat, particularly when one considers the other factors such as gearing, as well as the difference in behaviors among drivers. In any case, if we really care about fuel economy, the EPA already gives us a reasonable benchmark of how the vehicles compare to one another, which can be used accordingly.
A lower-powered motor is going to inspire some drivers to push them harder, which can result in them burning more fuel because they must work harder to deliver similar results.
Also in the real world, factors such as gearing and final drive ratio are also going to influence fuel economy. A car with a smaller motor will probably have higher gearing to compensate for the lack of power, which means that the engine turns at higher speeds for a given amount of travel speed, which in turn influences fuel economy.
I agree with you. My only complaint as far as this discussion goes is I think that once HP gets to a certain point regarding HP to weight ratio, the benefits of the HP degrade significantly. And for an example I would guestimate (and I've said this in the past) for a typical sedan, most requiremnets do not need more than 300 HP. In fact, a matched HP/Torque output of around 220-250 is just about right. Those numbers will move you off the line crisply and accelerate to 60 mph around the 5 to 7 second range (depending on gearing)
My only complaint as far as this discussion goes is I think that once HP gets to a certain point regarding HP to weight ratio, the benefits of the HP degrade significantly.
You're basically referencing the concept of diminishing returns -- with every added unit of X, the increment benefit of Y is reduced. So the resulting performance improvements between a 100 hp and 200 hp motor will likely be greater than what the contrast between a 200 and 300hp motor.
I agree with that, but with the reduced incremental benefit also comes an incremental reduction in cost. So the fuel economy loss between the 200- and 300-hp cars will likely also be greater than that of the former pair. It works both ways, with plenty of room for variation in between. (As we saw, BMW can offer more power, yet not harm economy at all.)
An anecdote to illustrate what technology has done. I currently own a car with a 2.0 liter motor; twenty years ago, I bought a Nissan that also had a 2.0 liter motor. What a difference:
-The current car has twice the horsepower of the older car (200 vs. 102 hp) -The current car needs three fewer seconds to go 0-60 -The current car gets better fuel economy on the highway (EPA 27 vs. 32), despite weighing about 300 pounds more than the older car
Add to that, the current car has better handling, braking, emissions, comfort and balance than the older car. On the whole, a more efficient and safer package than was available twenty years ago.
you: I personally think charging road tax by the mile is the closest to being fair.
me: The gas tax we currently have already taxes elements of various taxes people proposed here, and t is almost impossible to avoid unless you fill-up at the refinery. 1) The more you drive (the more miles you go) the more gas you're going to use, the more tax you'll pay. 2) The lower you're mpg the more gas you're going to use, and you are thus taxed more. 3) The more emissions you make the more gas you've burnt, the more tax you've paid.
So there already is a tax that covers all this, is easy to administer, and doesn't create another system.
I'll let my original statement stand, which is with a few exceptions higher horsepower vehicles tend to consume more resources and emit more pollution. Saying that y=f(x) gives less information than a generalization.
..."I'll let my original statement stand, which is with a few exceptions higher horsepower vehicles tend to consume more resources and emit more pollution. Saying that y=f(x) gives less information than a generalization"...
While I realize this is based on time proven generalities, I am not sure what this in fact buys you ,or in the worst case be an impediment to what you can/will buy in the future.
..."An anecdote to illustrate what technology has done. I currently own a car with a 2.0 liter motor; twenty years ago, I bought a Nissan that also had a 2.0 liter motor. What a difference:
-The current car has twice the horsepower of the older car (200 vs. 102 hp) -The current car needs three fewer seconds to go 0-60 -The current car gets better fuel economy on the highway (EPA 27 vs. 32), despite weighing about 300 pounds more than the older car
Add to that, the current car has better handling, braking, emissions, comfort and balance than the older car. On the whole, a more efficient and safer package than was available twenty years ago."...
So given the above older but very low hp 102 hp engine that gave epa 27 mpg, vs a 2001 Z06 385 hp engine that gives epa 28 mpg = much higher hp, obviously bigger engine and uses LESS resources???
Another anomoly hidden in plain site as an example is the Honda Civic, acknowledged to be one of the BEST economy and economical cars, actually emits more green house gasses (5.9 Tons than the VW TDI.4.7 tons)
EPA's are 29/38 vs 42/49.
Unofficial's, but do able are 37-41 /30 mpg combos vs 43-62/ 48.6 combos. Yet a very small % of the passenger vehicle fleet are diesels MAX 3% vs 97% gassers.
I am sure you would agree that the diesel uses less resources?
I asked how it addressed the board topic and how it would be administered.
I think the simplest way would be to issue a profile card with your license. Then add the tax commensurate with the EPA mileage rating. You don't pump gas until you slide in the profile card. Or just add the tax when you relicense each year with a ODO reading. It is a Federal offense to tamper with the Odometer.
Oregon is already testing a very complex GPS system which seems way too invasive and complex.
Diesel is a different technology. We can also compare a CNG vehicle with fossile fuel vehicle and come up with an apples to oranges comparison. A point was made a while back about an E320 that had better gas mileage than some other compact. That may be true, but the E320 is also a bigger polluter.
Comments
This is true for cars on the roads, not cars who stay at home
in any case any tax must take the actual mileage = Road usage + pollution into consideration. Therefore any fixed fee/tax should be withdrawn in favor of higher fuel tax. Owning a car is not the problem, but using it is.
>The user of a car with high HP and high performance is more likely to drive recklessly and hurt someone on a public road or damage public property
Isn't third party insurance compulsory in the US? If it is, then the owner covered this risk already. Why paying twice for a risk which evaluation is questionable?
Just KISS (keep it straight and simple) : one single heavy fuel tax that everybody pay when filling up. This is the best reminder that to every motorist that petrol is scarce
If the Gallon is doubled to 5 USD, many other unfair/complicated/time consuming taxes could be withdrawn, with huge governement personnel/administration savings at stakes.
The British example with about 4£ a Gallon deserves some more thought
... and own the GTI, the 1.8 liter engine has more horsepower and torque available then the 2.0L.
Much more.
Considering I stated, in the original post, that the smaller engine had the larger amount of hp and torque... I wonder why you posted the following:
"...the real world performance of the 2.0 liter is significantly better than that of the 1.8 liter -- more usuable and tractable output."
Stating that the larger engine has more hp and torque, when the information (not to mention personal experience) I posted reveal the opposite.
If you'd like to get back to discussing the topic, great, but I get the feeling that this one has spun off into the ether.
Here's a comparison of the two turbo'd versions used by Audi in the US version of the A4:
Displacement: 1.8 / 2.0
Horsepower: 170 / 200
EPA City: 22 / 23
EPA Highway: 31 / 34
Result: The 2.0 liter turbo produces 18% more horsepower, yet has increased fuel economy in both urban and highway driving. In addition, real world performance is better -- the 1.8 liter had noticable turbo lag, while the 2.0 liter has little or none (at least with a manual transmission), plus acceleration times have improved.
(To be fair, some of the differences may be due to gearing, but the engines sit in cars with fairly similar platforms of similar weight, so the comparison is valid. Plus, the 2.0 liter is of a more recent design that has different technology at work to help improve fuel economy.)
Another example: The new BMW 3-series sedan. Compare the two engines available:
Car: 325i / 330i
Displacement (liters): 3.0 / 3.0
Horsepower: 215 / 255
EPA City: 20 / 20
EPA Highway: 30 / 30
Result: Same platform, same displacement -- the 330i has 19% more horsepower, yet the cars have identical fuel economy ratings.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Unlike you I try to get all the facts before I make the claims. Not just what will support my opinions.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually, if you compare the BMW's listed in #1231, you'll see that they get identical ratings for greenhouse emissions from the EPA: www.fueleconomy.gov/
Rather than make your claim, why not enhance your credibility by proving it? Obviously, I've shown one example above where you aren't correct.
Who argued that? Or are you setting up another strawman argument?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, get busy researching then. We'll be waiting.
In any case, you can't prove that there is a linear relationship between horsepower and fuel economy because these posts prove otherwise. While I would agree that more powerful engines often use more fuel, they don't always, and there is no reason to simply presume that a more powerful motor will lead to more consumption.
Again, if you care about consumption, then focus on consumption. If that is your real concern, the focus on output is a waste of time.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural byproduct of respiration, and necessary for plant growth. It is not regulated by the Clean Air Act. Repeatedly calling it a "pollutant" will not make it one.
As for the idea that bigger engines pollute more - this is false. ALL engines, whether they are 1.8 liters or 7.8 liters - are limited by the Clean Air Act in the amount of pollutants they can emit. A larger engine does not receive a "pass" under the statute. A large engine is held to the same standards as a smaller one.
The simple fact is that over 50 percent of vehicular pollution comes from 5 percent of vehicles - old, out-of-tune clunkers. The air pollution problem isn't caused by Corvette Z06s. It is caused by that oil-burning 1990 Cavalier. Focusing on high-horsepower vehicles is a waste of time from a public policy standpoint, as well as an effectiveness standpoint.
Modern vehicles are incredibly clean. A 2000 Ford Explorer emitted fewer pollutants running than a brand-new 1969 Ford Galaxie 500 emitted will standing still, with the engine not running (due to leakage from the engine and fuel-delivery system). A 2006 Explorer is even cleaner. Blaming modern vehicles - let alone high-horsepower ones - for pollution shows a lack of understanding of this subject. (Incidentally, air quality in America is the best it has been since the beginning of the Industrial Age. Who said so? How about President Bill Clinton.)
Not sure I would believe the source, but I do agree that the air is cleaner. I can well remember Los Angeles in the 1950s and 1960s. I could not breathe, the air was so bad my chest would hurt.
This is true!! The obstensible reason why for example in CA they have that 10 year smog only test- to ID and get off the road a good portion of that 5%. Which if you even take a cursory look at it, is usually the so called "smaller displacement and or low hp motor" that are the PRIME offenders !!!!!!???? For me the objection was they fully draw that from a 100 % "what they refere to as most likely " whatever that means. aka attempts at being fair. When I brought my Toyota Landcruiser, an suv by the way, I knew it would pass, but I personally didnt think it would yield actually lower numbers than its first bi annual inspection. (at the two year mark)
So in effect the use of language tries to criminialize what is already within the bounds of the law. The anti hp types should really stop doing that, and go after that 5%. But I am sure the fees gathered would lessen considerably. On the practical side, this is probably the REAL reason for the procedure.
What will be the source of H2? Will speed limits then have to come down because of danger of collisions at high speeds with cars with H2 tanks? Will this solve our board question?
I don't have to prove anything, you can prove the converse. And I did say with some exceptions. (BMWs 2.5 and 3L engines are both 3L btw). If you want to prove a 6L engine has the same efficiency, same pollution index and same gas mileage as a 2L engine, have at it.
I would suggest that you clean up your language, read Edmunds rules of dialogue and speak in a civil and friendly manner.
And property taxes tend to be on an ad valorem basis,
and it is generally the case that such things as bedroom counts, bathroom counts, etc. for a given location affect value -- a three-bedroom house on a lot will be worth more than an otherwise similar two-bedroom house on the same lot.
I will try again. We live in different states. Your state may have different methods.
Tax assessment for new house in my county is based on purchase price plus other increments. Those increments include square feet. Square footage is the capacity of a house. In a similar fashion, HP relates to capacity of a vehicle's power plant. Houses are tax assessed in part on capacity. It is perfectly legitimate for states to tax vehicle license plate in part on capacity of vehicle's power plant. It has been done. Perhaps it is being done in a state other than mine at this time that I am not aware of.
A license plate fee, determined in part by HP, addresses board topic. It gives people incentive to purchase vehicles with sensible sized pounds/HP ratio vehicles and provides additional revenue for road construction/maintenance. It is fairer than the regressive and unfair high taxes at fuel pump used by Europeans.
Well, thanks for that credibility builder. If you are going to make a "factual" statement, then either stand behind it or don't be surprised when it is shown to be incorrect.
Anyway, I still want to know what "sensible" is supposed to mean. You are extremely repetitive with the use of this "sensible" jargon, yet no one here knows what this means exactly.
Talk about a circular argument -- apparently in your world, "sensible" is defined as "whatever Xrunner thinks is sensible." Who needs an explanation when Xrunner can merely repeat his belief, over and over and over again?
My apologies. I now understand that I am the fool and you are the expert. I take your word that you have expert knowledge of tax assessment methods in all counties of 49 states and all parishes in 1 state.
You've used the word "sensible" in five posts on this thread.
The term "massive" is used in twelve of your responses.
"Excessive" has appeared in fourteen posts.
At some point, are you going to tell us what these terms are supposed to mean? We're obviously not all on the same page, so if you can provide us with a logical construct that allows you to define these terms, that might help this discussion.
gogo gave them correct?
Anyways, I can understand why a smaller engine may actually get worse gas mileage than alarger one so ....especially looking at the engine displacement. It's basically a lawn mower engine powering a 2500lb car.
So it wouldn't surprise me that a slightly larger engine would give better gas mileage.
As for the third engine in the examples. It's a TDI and a completely different animal.
Similar to comparing a turbo engine to a non turbo engine.
My feeling is once you get past the sweet spot of the power to weight ratio, mpg numbers will go down.
I was trying to limit the engines to the same year models.
The current Golf/GTI won't get the new 2.0 Turbo until maybe March or April.
But, yeah, I sure wish I could've waited to buy the soon to be released GTI... That is one nice car, with good fuel economy, considering that it's a 'sports' car.
Randy
You are welcome to "prove" me incorrect or voice another opinion. But please don't talk about credibility.
I just did prove you incorrect. But since it's your opinion, I would think that you would want to support it yourself. You have folks such as Gogogodzilla going to a lot of trouble to prove his point, you could return the favor by at least attempting to do the same.
I think you have convinced yourself it is fairer. I personally think charging road tax by the mile is the closest to being fair.
Example:
The Toyota Corolla weighs approximately 2500 Lbs.
The Toyota Prius weighs about 2900 Lbs.
So the Corolla has a 14% lighter footprint on the highway. Yet the owner of the Corolla currently pays 41% more highway tax than the Prius owner.
Both your idea of trying to figure out a tax based on HP to weight ratio or a higher gas tax are unfair. Using a HP to weight ratio the guy in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid would pay a much higher tax than the guy driving a Suburban. My Suburban had less HP than an Accord Hybrid. That would make his tax at least twice as much as my Suburban.
I think that's essentially the point. The engine doesn't just work in a vacuum, it has to power the car in real world conditions, and those conditions influence driver behavior and affect the resulting fuel economy.
A lower-powered motor is going to inspire some drivers to push them harder, which can result in them burning more fuel because they must work harder to deliver similar results.
Also in the real world, factors such as gearing and final drive ratio are also going to influence fuel economy. A car with a smaller motor will probably have higher gearing to compensate for the lack of power, which means that the engine turns at higher speeds for a given amount of travel speed, which in turn influences fuel economy.
In a hypothetical comparison of two different motors on a dyno in a lab, the lower powered one may burn less fuel, but mate them to the drivetrain most appropriate to real-world driving, and the variance declines, or perhaps even reverses as we see in the VW and Audi examples. You can't just consider hypotheticals, but how such engines are used by drivers and automakers in the real world.
A LOT of this comes from trying to prove something to the other side when it's OBVIOUS that the other side is never going to see things your way.
Agree to disagree and move on.
Might be fair. Would it address the board topic? How would it be administered and what would that cost vs tax receipts? If odo were involved, aren't people able to monkey around with these, even when controlled by chip?
Both your idea of trying to figure out a tax based on HP to weight ratio or a higher gas tax are unfair. Using a HP to weight ratio the guy in the Toyota Highlander Hybrid would pay a much higher tax than the guy driving a Suburban.
No. I have been against higher gas tax as is used in Europe. European type tax is unfair and discriminates against lower income people. I think one poster on this board might have advocated the European tax in US. However, the European tax in US would very directly address our board topic. People would start to buy more high MPG vehicles and sales of lower MPG vehicles, typically higher HP, would slacken.
In a couple of my previous posts, one idea I suggested was a formula of some type that might charge a basic yearly license plate fee (road user fee?) amount, then an increment for gross weight and another increment for pounds/HP. This might be fairest in that people could still choose any vehicle that filled their needs/desires. Those that desire very high (massive) amounts of HP such as Viper, Z06, 300C SRT8, Bugatti, M’s, AMG’s, etc., would pay more for yearly license plate fee. Those people of modest income and smaller, lower HP cars would pay less.
My state has same yearly license plate fee for any type of personal vehicle. A Chevy Aveo owner pays same as owner of Chevy Suburban or Ford Excursion.
Now should the new technologies used for more power, or for more mpg, given that SL may slightly increase at best? This is one debate.
Usually everyone in the now defunct (wonder how that happened?) Speed Limits Repealed discussion wants to talk about how wonderful Europe is with the Autobahn, you know, and all those ideals that Americans just can't understand. Now their gas tax is NOT the right way to go?
I believe everyone uses a gallon of gas and they can pay the tax on it. Everyone needs to pay their share of the cost of the infrastructure; if we're going to exempt those who don't work, can't work, don't feel like working to contribute income tax and property tax, then somehow everyone needs to carry their weight. One person = one unit of cost for roads, speed limits signs, government, services, etc. Too long we've heard the catch phrase but the "poor" would have to pay their share.
Usually the idea is to tax some high taxpayer over there behind that tree. But then we find that the real high earners avoid taxes like the Kennedys, who advocate high taxes on the wealthy. So the equalization is to tax the item; if you use a gallon, you pay tax ont he gallon that everyone else pays.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There seem to be quite a few exceptions vis-a-vis emissions. Improvements in engine design and control systems have been so significant that your point doesn't hold up when examined under real world conditions.
Did you notice how BMW can pull 19% more power out of a motor without affecting emissions whatsover?
Rather than speaking in broad generalities, you might want to consider that emissions are a function of numerous variables, and output (horsepower) can increase with no relevant variation in emissions. If you want to focus on emissions, then deal with the resulting emissions, rather than make broad statements that don't stand up under individual scrutiny.
I'd concur with that. If the difference is one between a 50 hp motor and a 500 hp motor, it's a fair guess that the latter will produce more smog and burn more fuel.
The issue arises more in the middle of the range, i.e. the types of cars that people actually buy. And while a larger, heavier vehicle such as an SUV can be expected to burn more fuel than would a less powerful, significantly lighter one, the incremental differences within vehicle classes and between similar vehicle classes aren't nearly so neat, particularly when one considers the other factors such as gearing, as well as the difference in behaviors among drivers. In any case, if we really care about fuel economy, the EPA already gives us a reasonable benchmark of how the vehicles compare to one another, which can be used accordingly.
Also in the real world, factors such as gearing and final drive ratio are also going to influence fuel economy. A car with a smaller motor will probably have higher gearing to compensate for the lack of power, which means that the engine turns at higher speeds for a given amount of travel speed, which in turn influences fuel economy.
I agree with you. My only complaint as far as this discussion goes is I think that once HP gets to a certain point regarding HP to weight ratio, the benefits of the HP degrade significantly.
And for an example I would guestimate (and I've said this in the past) for a typical sedan, most requiremnets do not need more than 300 HP. In fact, a matched HP/Torque output of around 220-250 is just about right.
Those numbers will move you off the line crisply and accelerate to 60 mph around the 5 to 7 second range (depending on gearing)
You're right, only the Golf GT model was a diesel.
You're basically referencing the concept of diminishing returns -- with every added unit of X, the increment benefit of Y is reduced. So the resulting performance improvements between a 100 hp and 200 hp motor will likely be greater than what the contrast between a 200 and 300hp motor.
I agree with that, but with the reduced incremental benefit also comes an incremental reduction in cost. So the fuel economy loss between the 200- and 300-hp cars will likely also be greater than that of the former pair. It works both ways, with plenty of room for variation in between. (As we saw, BMW can offer more power, yet not harm economy at all.)
An anecdote to illustrate what technology has done. I currently own a car with a 2.0 liter motor; twenty years ago, I bought a Nissan that also had a 2.0 liter motor. What a difference:
-The current car has twice the horsepower of the older car (200 vs. 102 hp)
-The current car needs three fewer seconds to go 0-60
-The current car gets better fuel economy on the highway (EPA 27 vs. 32), despite weighing about 300 pounds more than the older car
Add to that, the current car has better handling, braking, emissions, comfort and balance than the older car. On the whole, a more efficient and safer package than was available twenty years ago.
me: The gas tax we currently have already taxes elements of various taxes people proposed here, and t is almost impossible to avoid unless you fill-up at the refinery.
1) The more you drive (the more miles you go) the more gas you're going to use, the more tax you'll pay.
2) The lower you're mpg the more gas you're going to use, and you are thus taxed more.
3) The more emissions you make the more gas you've burnt, the more tax you've paid.
So there already is a tax that covers all this, is easy to administer, and doesn't create another system.
While I realize this is based on time proven generalities, I am not sure what this in fact buys you ,or in the worst case be an impediment to what you can/will buy in the future.
..."An anecdote to illustrate what technology has done. I currently own a car with a 2.0 liter motor; twenty years ago, I bought a Nissan that also had a 2.0 liter motor. What a difference:
-The current car has twice the horsepower of the older car (200 vs. 102 hp)
-The current car needs three fewer seconds to go 0-60
-The current car gets better fuel economy on the highway (EPA 27 vs. 32), despite weighing about 300 pounds more than the older car
Add to that, the current car has better handling, braking, emissions, comfort and balance than the older car. On the whole, a more efficient and safer package than was available twenty years ago."...
So given the above older but very low hp 102 hp engine that gave epa 27 mpg, vs a 2001 Z06 385 hp engine that gives epa 28 mpg = much higher hp, obviously bigger engine and uses LESS resources???
Another anomoly hidden in plain site as an example is the Honda Civic, acknowledged to be one of the BEST economy and economical cars, actually emits more green house gasses (5.9 Tons than the VW TDI.4.7 tons)
EPA's are 29/38 vs 42/49.
Unofficial's, but do able are 37-41 /30 mpg combos vs 43-62/ 48.6 combos. Yet a very small % of the passenger vehicle fleet are diesels MAX 3% vs 97% gassers.
I am sure you would agree that the diesel uses less resources?
30 mpg combo, 2004 Honda Civic vs 2003 VW Jetta TDI, 48.6 combo!!??
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
you: I personally think charging road tax by the mile is the closest to being fair.
That is not correct. The above sentence was posted in message 1256 by gagrice at 9:11 am on 2-2-06. Please reply to him/her.
I did comment to gagrice that it "might" be fair. I asked how it addressed the board topic and how it would be administered.
I think the simplest way would be to issue a profile card with your license. Then add the tax commensurate with the EPA mileage rating. You don't pump gas until you slide in the profile card. Or just add the tax when you relicense each year with a ODO reading. It is a Federal offense to tamper with the Odometer.
Oregon is already testing a very complex GPS system which seems way too invasive and complex.