So that means that 49 out of 50 states do not meet the higher CA standards/goals by law!??!! Tsk tsk!!
So IF the registered passenger vehicle fleet in CA is 20M registered vehicles out of 232.2 M USA, THEN an optimistic percentage that meets the higher CA goals are MAX 8.6% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
So again, how long will it take to cycle out (232.2M-20M=) 212.2M vehicles just to have all vehicles meeting the CA standard?
So again how long will it take to cycle out (232.2M-20M=212.2M vehicles just to have all vehicles meeting the CA standard?
Unless the fed's raise their requirements to match the California standards, it won't happen. As you can see, even Toyota is happy to sell cars that pollute more if the laws don't make them do otherwise.
Why not try defining "excessive", "massive", etc. so that we know what you're talking about? (You must think that punishing the few people who buy Veyron's is going to clean our air overnight, while you ignore a simple way to clean up Camry's that are being sold to many thousands of people.)
And what state do folks like KD Shapiro live? Looks states like his have cars which don't meet the CA standards while cars in CA DO!!! Don't you just hate those scofflaws?
So indeed a CA Corvette Z06, probably pollutes less than "whatever" in a 49th state.
No middle ground on HP and more realistic highway speed limits. Some of us want as much HP as our wallet will stand. Others would limit HP with repressive taxation.
Don’t hear folks complaining about repressive taxation on tobacco, alcohol, huge mcmansions. They don’t have to buy this stuff. But, they got to have these. They willingly buy these things, so they pay the associated taxes. Should be no different for those that got to have and can afford M’s, AMG’s, Z06, Bugatti, etc. or upcoming future car with Harrier jet HP that a poster desires. If you want it so bad and can afford it, you can pay the taxes on it.
Invoked simple internet search engine for state license fee hp and found thousands of replies. Of course, numerous would not apply. But, the first two that came up were for states of New York and Missouri. Do not have time nor inclination to sort through the rest. What was found:
New York charges license fee by weight of vehicle. There were 50+ brackets ranging from $20-$112.
Missouri charges by vehicle HP and there were 7 brackets ranging from $21.75-$54.75.
So, charging for personal vehicle by weight or HP is being done. Of course, everyone knows that vehicle owners pay taxes for roads every time they fill up at pump. But, concept to also be taxed based on vehicle weight and capacity (HP) is in use and obviously legal. This is no different than having to pay higher taxes for a larger vacant piece of land vs smaller one. And, is same as paying more real estate taxes for bigger house vs smaller house. So, the more weight and/or HP your vehicle has, the more you pay. It is the American way and it is fair.
And, we are already taxed for energy (natural gas, electric, etc.) that we use to run our houses. Same neighborhoods apply (for lots, houses) of course – apples to apples.
So indeed a CA Corvette Z06, probably pollutes less than "whatever" in a 49th state.
Well, not quite -- a 2006 Vette only gets a "3". But then again, the 2.5 liter Nissan Sentra, the entire Scion range (Xa, Xb and Tc), some models of the Toyota Matrix, and some 2.0 liter models of the Ford Focus were actually worse!
While I do not want to cast aspersions on your state. You might want to see just how addicted it is to: i.e., tobacco taxes and lawsuit settlement revenues. They are so addicted that there are literally tax free bonds which states "monitize" collaterialized on "future" revenues, ie tobacco settlement monies.
Take a look at the Ford Focus. It is 9.5 SULEV II rated in the CARB states. The Same Identical car with the same under hood ID of 6FMXV02.0VZP is rated an 8 in the other 45 States. It is the sulfur content in most of the gas sold in the US that negates that PZEV rating. Even the darling of the hybrid crowd is only rated an 8 when using the 45 states gas. The very reason several high mileage Prius owners have had to replace a $2000 catalytic convertor no longer under warranty.
Based upon the EPA list, it seems that the Vette is a 50-state car, i.e. California-ready cars are sold to everyone. (Makes sense, as it is probably too costly to build multiple versions at those low volumes.)
Interestingly though, there is no difference in air pollution score between the 400 hp 6-liter and the 505hp 7-liter. And both are still better than those Scions...
kdshapiro: As I said before the EPA now considers CO2 to be pollution. In that vein the 500 hp vehicle will emit more pollution than a 4 cyl Corolla. So your statement is incorrect.
The Clean Air Act does not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Listed as pollutants for purposes of vehicular emissions control under the Clean Air Act are ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. Under the Clean Air Act, a 500 horsepower vehicle cannot, by law, pollute more - by emitting increased amounts of those items listed - than a 100 horsepower vehicle.
When the EPA has authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, then it will be considered one for this discussion. Otherwise, your statement is incorrect.
California does have different fuel formulations, but there are also differences in emissions equipment as well. The cars are built differently, there are very few models that can be sold in all 50 states without modifications for California.
x2runner: So, the more weight and/or HP your vehicle has, the more you pay. It is the American way and it is fair.
The only correlation between a harmful side effect and increased weight and horsepower is increased fuel consmuption. There is no proof that increased performance decreases safety (and increased weight IMPROVES safety, even in single-vehicle crashes) and, as we've seen, there is no correlation between increased horsepower and increased emissions.
More weight and horsepower can cause a drop in fuel economy, but since gasoline is already taxed at the federal and state level, people are already paying...at the pump. Which is the easiest, fairest and most non-bureaucratic method.
Under the Clean Air Act, a 500 horsepower vehicle cannot, by law, pollute more - by emitting increased amounts of those items listed - than a 100 horsepower vehicle.
Again, there are multiple tiers of emissions levels, and not all cars have the same tailpipe emissions. Complying with the law does not equate to identical emissions levels being created by each car.
True, but within a tier, all cars and light trucks must meet the same standard, regardless of horsepower. If that baseline standard is good enough for the EPA or CARB, it is good enough for me. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake.
And, as you've shown, higher horsepower doesn't automatically equate to more pollution.
But within a tier, all cars and light trucks must meet the same standard, regardless of horsepower.
That's true. In respect to this discussion, EPA doesn't concern itself with engine output (hp), just tailpipe emissions. It doesn't really care how you get there, just so long as you find a way to reduce tailpipe emissions and get decent fuel economy. Make a hybrid, and you'll be almost certain to get EPA's green blessing.
"Unless the fed's raise their requirements to match the California standards, it won't happen. As you can see, even Toyota is happy to sell cars that pollute more if the laws don't make them do otherwise. "
...was divergence between speed limits and horsepower?
Incidently, just who is BUYING all these high HP cars?
I suspect the Boomers are. They are the ones currently bidding up the values of the older "classic" muscle cars! Are they using the newer cars newfound HP to:
1.zig zag in and out of traffic more quickly? 2.pull heavier loads (bigger boat, RV, etc.) 3.burn rubber / drift into smoking RWD bliss?
What about Gen-Y? They seem to be more into information / entertainment than sheer horsepower.
Note: there is no way I am trying to generalize everyone. But there do seem to be specific groups that like certain vehicle characteristics more than others.
me: So raise the gas tax. Everyone who buys cigarettes and alcohol pay based on the amount they buy. We do the same with gasoline now.
you: Why not same for someone that has indulgence for Harrier jet HP in car or Viper HP or Bugatti 1000 HP?
me: why should they pay an extra tax? Simply because they can afford it? Somehow you've created the logic that because there are a few things taxed (maybe for a reason), higher hp vehicles should be tax - though you offer no reason other than you don't like it.
I also don't understand why you don't want more advanced vehicles then we have now? Without more power you will not have advances in speed. Just as going from the first plane to the modern jetliner you needed more power. it is a good thing. Going from the first cars in 1900 to today's cars you have more power and higher speeds. Why do you feel we should not progress?
That progression may come from new power sources, or automated controls that make accidents an extremely rare event only due to mechanical failure. And I see no reason why we should limit our thinking that a vehicle could not have some sort of flight capability. In 20-30 years, computing power will be powerful and cheap enough, to pilot the vehicle. Vehicle capabilities should be advanced on all technological fronts, so that an advanced control system will have available engine power technologies to take advantage of them.
thought the topic here was divergence between speed limits and horsepower?
I think it was, but it has since morphed into a tax crusade for one and an environmental discussion for another...
Are they using the newer cars newfound HP to:
1.zig zag in and out of traffic more quickly? 2.pull heavier loads (bigger boat, RV, etc.) 3.burn rubber / drift into smoking RWD bliss?
My speculation that is largely a function of a desire for a sense of luxury and comfort, i.e. having a car that accelerates effortlessly. The way I see these Chrysler 300's, etc. being used, these drivers seem to want to be able to blip the throttle without worrying about high-pitched whines coming out from under the hood, strained right feet or air conditioners slowing them down. But that's just a guess on my part...
That would be my guess also. It is also different than what a BWM 3 series driver with a stick shift would want, which again would probably be different that what a BMW 7 series driver would want which is usually equipt with an automatic, etc.
More weight and horsepower can cause a drop in fuel economy, but since gasoline is already taxed at the federal and state level, people are already paying...at the pump. Which is the easiest, fairest and most non-bureaucratic method.
Agree that it is fair and easy to tax fuel at the pump. But, it is also fair, easy and “legal” to also tax vehicles by HP with license plate fees. Apparently the state of MO has no trouble collecting license plate fees based on HP. Do you think that MO DMV is doing something illegal?
The taxable HP amounts are already printed on the titles in state of MO. Is that a no-brainer or what? You might have a point if this were 1940 and there were no computers or readily accessible data bases.
To address this board topic, license plate fees based on HP would be an incentive for consumers to not buy extra HP that is not needed for normal driving. Perhaps MO fees could be higher for higher HP. Those that want to go to drag strips, do illegal drags on public roads, or other frivolity, can still buy higher HP cars. They just have to pay for the priviledge. MO thinks that people should pay more based on HP. Go argue with them.
To address this board topic, license plate fees based on HP would be an incentive for consumers to not buy extra HP that is not needed for normal driving.
Is every post from you going to be a rewording of the same exact message? Great, so you don't like horsepower -- I think we already knew that!
Would you care to finally tell us how someone would determine what is "not needed for normal driving"?
There is no proof that increased performance decreases safety
Insurance companies would disagree with that.
Following from a previous post:
From insurance.com: “In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly.”
Note that this says that sports cars and other high-performance cars are classified as higher risk because of theft and people who own them "tend" to drive more recklessly. It also says that you will "likely" pay more for perf than for low-risk vehicle. "Likely" means that there are some - don't know amount and why - that won't pay more.
Maybe some 50-year old person with a new Viper with no accidents or tickets ever, living in a far out suburb with almost no crime, uses Viper for pleasure not commuting, etc., will not pay more then he/she would for an Impala V6.
From Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
Auto insurance companies charge higher premiums for high HP cars. Drivers of these cars are higher risk and have greater probabilities of claims.
Have never heard of anyone having successful lawsuit in court against insurance company that higher premium for high HP is unfair and rates not established correctly. If there were a successful lawsuit, then auto insurance companies could not charge more for high HP high perf at times.
Would you care to finally tell us how someone would determine what is "not needed for normal driving"?
This has already been done "numerous" times on this board by someone who owns and drives 400 HP Caddy, and 2 FWD 100+ HP sedans. He is but one person, of course, but he says that 260 approx HP base engine on same Caddy would be very good and would meet his needs nicely.
xrunner2: From insurance.com: “In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly.”
The factors relate more to design than simply horsepower.
During the 1960s, British sports cars had a higher loss rate than American sedans. But most of them weren't exactly high powered.
xrunner2: Note that this says that sports cars and other high-performance cars are classified as higher risk because of theft and people who own them "tend" to drive more recklessly. It also says that you will "likely" pay more for perf than for low-risk vehicle. "Likely" means that there are some - don't know amount and why - that won't pay more.
And note that he specifically said "sports cars" and "high performance cars," which generally means two-seaters or limited-purpose coupes (Mustang GT). That, again, relates more to the type of buyer than the horsepower itself.
xrunner2: From Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
Lots of vague generalities in that sentence that, upon closer examination, prove nothing. For example, a "speed related" crash is defined so broadly by NHTSA that it encompasses driving too SLOWLY, or driving too fast for conditions (45 mph is too fast in an ice storm, but if you wipe out at that speed, the accident becomes "speed related"). Plus, lots of drunk driving accidents are "speed related."
You should know, being that I keep asking you this question and you don't answer it.
-Preface: We already know you want a HP tax of some sort, so you needn't restate it. Let's move on to specifics.
-You continually use adjectives such as "massive", "excessive", etc., but none of us know what that means.
OK, so let's pretend that you are going to be leaving for a desert island, and we'll need notes from you to understand the basis of your plan.
The fact is, aside from your belief that it just seems really, really, bad, I haven't got a clue why you don't like HP, or how I can sort out the logic that gets you to be OK with one amount and not OK with another.
Running through things, I just don't see your motivation:
--It can't be fuel efficiency. I know you like to make mention of it, but you don't really seem to care that much about it, because you ignore that data when it is presented to you. In your world, a higher HP car with better fuel economy would pay more than a lower HP car with worse fuel economy, so obviously, fuel isn't the issue with you.
--It can't be safety, because you've provided no linkage between safety and HP. You seem just as eager to tax a Crown Victoria with a V-8 as you would a Mustang, even if they are driven differently. And you don't seem to care about the driving record of the buyer, or care much if the bad driver ends up driving a Hyundai instead of a Mustang.
--It can't be emissions, because I've already provided you with plenty of EPA data, yet you seem uninspired by it. The fact that a 4-cylinder Camry in Kansas or a 1.5L Scion anywhere in the US pushes more tailpipe emissions than does a 3.8L Grand Am doesn't seem to bother you -- you're still going to nail the guy with the Grand Am.
So what exactly is so bad about HP, and at what point are we supposed to pay for it, and how much for it? What benchmarks make it good or bad? I really can't figure out what it is you want, or why you'd bother wanting it, and telling me yet again that the tax is "fair" (whatever that means) won't help provide that answer.
Apparently the state of MO has no trouble collecting license plate fees based on HP.
Fortunately all states are not as Repressive as Missouri. It does seem that every state has some quirky tax that makes no sense at all. HP tax is one of them. It is about as goofy as the window and door taxes of ancient times.
How do the wise politicians in MO tax the fellow that buys a 100 HP Civic and builds the engine up to 300 HP?
why should they pay an extra tax? Simply because they can afford it? Somehow you've created the logic that because there are a few things taxed (maybe for a reason), higher hp vehicles should be tax - though you offer no reason other than you don't like it
"Few things taxed"? Numerous things are taxed in US.
Does not have to do with not liking. I suppose you think that tax on HP in MO is unconstitutional?
Would you like people to pay same fee for license plate in MO regardless of HP of vehicle? Is MO wrong?
And, New York charges license fee based on weight of vehicle. Is NY wrong?
From Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
Do you work for the IIHS? The only data source you seem to like is part of the insurance lobby.
-- We already know that 80% of fatal accidents aren't speed related, thanks to NHTSA (read: your federal government, the folks that keep tabs on this stuff.) No reason to use a vague term such as "leading" when we have a specific statistic to quote that provides more and better detailed information.
-- You have provided no data to lead us to believe that cars with higher HP numbers are more likely to be involved in accidents. All you've shown is that one subset of cars that also tend to (but don't always) have above-average horsepower tend to cost more to insure.
That doesn't mean all cars with higher horsepower cost more to insure, nor does it tell us the relative importance of horsepower in setting a premium. In fact, your link leads us to believe that the correlation is between specific cars (particularly sports cars) and the types of people who buy those specific cars, not with the amount of horsepower. For it is possible to buy equally powerful cars without paying the same premium. The buyer of a Cadillac or BMW sedan may well pay less than the same driver if he were to buy a less powerful, less costly and slower Mustang.
In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly.
Read carefully: It says "sports cars." I hope you do realize that not all sports cars have high horsepower engines, and that not all cars with high horsepower engines are sports cars.
A Mazda Miata with 170 hp and Lotus Elise with 190 hp are considered to be sports cars. A Honda Accord V-6 with 244 hp and a 290hp Cadillac DeVille are not. You need to learn that horsepower alone does not make a car a "sports car" or "performance car", and that a "sports car" doesn't have to have a lot of ponies if it has other characteristics.
You seem just as eager to tax a Crown Victoria with a V-8 as you would a Mustang, even if they are driven differently. And you don't seem to care about the driving record of the buyer, or care much if the bad driver ends up driving a Hyundai instead of a Mustang.
Have given example number of times of equitable license plate fees based on combo of weight and pounds/HP ratio. This combines MO and NY methods.
My posts for most part have "addressed" issue of board topic. For umpteenth time, license plate fee using weight and HP factors would be incentives for people to buy lower HP vehicle or higher numbered ratio pounds/HP vehicles. Although not a board topic, this would also cut down on US oil imports.
Have only looked at 2 states (plus own) in internet search and have found legitimacy in taxing by HP or weight. Is someone here going to claim that MO and NY DMV fees are unconstitutional?
A Honda Accord V-6 with 244 hp and a 290hp Cadillac DeVille are not.
And, the pounds/HP ratio number of these cars is probably double that of a Z06 or Viper. The Z06 and Viper with lots of HP and a relatively low ratio number would have a higher license plate fee than an Accord or DeVille.
For umpteenth time, license plate fee using weight and HP factors would be incentives for people to buy lower HP vehicle or higher numbered ratio pounds/HP vehicles.
Yes, I know that raising the price of something will typically lower demand.
That wasn't what I asked you. I want to know why this is so important to you. As covered in my prior post, if you really cared about safety, fuel economy or emissions, you would focus on those things.
But since you aren't, I really haven't got a clue what your issue is. Do you?
Yes I do. I also think the license fees in CA based on the price of the car are wrong. Especially after you have paid 8% sales tax buying the car. These are all things that one has to look at when deciding where to live. it would probably surprise you the state that is the least offensive when it comes to taxation. You find it for yourself. I am looking for a good place I can afford to retire.... I don't want some goober putting a dyno on my car to figure the taxes.
"I don't want some goober putting a dyno on my car to figure the taxes."
Agreed. The taxes should be figured from the stock number of hp. In addition, I don't want goobers weighing my car to figure out taxes, I don't want appraisers looking at my property to figure out my real estate taxes. I don't want the government looking at my tax return. I don't want to pay taxes, I also want good roads, clean water and clean air.
With the EPA considering CO2 as pollution I would think in total the Grand AM pushes more total pollution.
Actually, no. The Grand Prix (sorry, Grand Am was a typo) made for California with the 3.8 liter 6-cylinder gets a EPA "Smartway" recommendation. None of the Scions with their smaller 4-cylinder motors do.
you: I suppose you think that tax on HP in MO is unconstitutional?
me: I think I've given you many examples in U.S. history of laws that were repealed. Because a law exists and something is legal does not make it sensible There is nothing to stop states from taxing cars based on wheel size or color, but does that make sense? There should be a clear reason for the tax.
you: Is MO wrong?
me: I'd think it more likely that if 49 states think oppositely, MO might have got that law thru some travesty of the political system - sort of how "pork" gets attached to other bills.
you: And, New York charges license fee based on weight of vehicle. Is NY wrong?
me: this might be more sensible since a heavier vehicle would place more wear and tear on roads and bridges.
Now here's the thing about a tax like MO's. It's not enough $ to change anyone's decision. And if the tax was raised very high people would work around it. For instance, if all the state did was check what power the car had when bought, the way people would get fast cars is to go to the aftermarket. For instance I can go to the GM Performance website, buy a 600hp engine and have it installed in a few weeks. If a car was forced to be dyno-tested, I'm sure there would be a lot of alternate engineer software programs written to reduce power for those tests.
you: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
me: Well since the majority of drivers speed, it is not surprising that most people who have accidents were speeding when they got in a fatal accident! Brilliant! What would have been surprising is that if the minority of the drivers who don't speed caused most fatal accidents.
Sorry if that's not the facts, I haven't researched it. What I meant was that if 80% of the people on the road are legally speeding, I would not be surprised if 80% of the people in accidents and killed are written up in the accident report as having been speeding. It's like saying that 50% of all thieves are over 200Lb, and 50% of the population is over 200Lb. An amazing coincidence of non-significance.
the gas consumption was a lot closer than it would appear on the surface. not only that, we got to all be together and only took up 1 parking space. how many 'special occasions' are enough? thanks for making me squint. amazing that there have been 20 pages of posts in the last 3 days! keep it going!
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
an example of an appropriate anti-hp argument. I'll show you how to 1) make your point - i.e. environment, safety, mpg; 2) explain the effect of lowering hp on your point; and 3) then explain how the effect makes a significant change in the future.
If you can't make the argument all the way thru 3) then I really don't understand why anyone is going to give up something they really like. Laws are not effective when the majority disagree with them. So let's try an example of making a decent argument (maybe Edmunds can use this as a guide in FAQ. )
Example 1): I believe that high hp use too much gasoline. I define high hp as any vehicle with a hp/Lb ratio over 10. I have randomly selected 12 cars with 2 engine choices that put the V-6 under the 10 hp/Lb ratio and the V-8 model over the 10 hp/Lb. I have found that the combined mpg difference favors the V-6 by 8% mpg. I have found that approx. 2M vehicles have over a 10 hp/Lb ratio, and that the average mpg of these vehicles is 8,000 miles/year. Doing the math, I find ______ gal. of gas could be conserved. I went to the DOE website and found that the U.S. uses _______ gal. of oil, so we would save ______ % of our fuel. This means that instead of the world running out of oil in 2050 as estimated, the world runs out in _______. This means that if we all sacrifice very hard, and the Chinese don't buy the oil we just conserved, civilization will not be destroyed, because we will all grow wings in 2051 (X-Men?).
Replace mpg with emissions or safety if you wish. Explain to us all how restricting hp will make our lives significantly better.
Whether SUV are responsible for the fuel increase or not, every car pollute/uses fuel so should pay the gas guzzling tax through a high gas price. Those who use more gas will pay more, those who use less will pay less but will pay anyway.
Cheap gas pushes drivers to become lasy when it comes to adopt healthier resource saving habits.
I remember when I ordered a Pizza some time ago in the L.A area, it came delivered with quite a big van with a 3,5L V6 (i think) engine. looking at this, I estimate the mpg at 15 at best (forgot band, but seems to be a standard american one). A 60 mpg scooter with a big boot should be enough for this kind of service. or a tango.
Comments
So IF the registered passenger vehicle fleet in CA is 20M registered vehicles out of 232.2 M USA, THEN an optimistic percentage that meets the higher CA goals are MAX 8.6% of the passenger vehicle fleet.
So again, how long will it take to cycle out (232.2M-20M=) 212.2M vehicles just to have all vehicles meeting the CA standard?
Unless the fed's raise their requirements to match the California standards, it won't happen. As you can see, even Toyota is happy to sell cars that pollute more if the laws don't make them do otherwise.
So indeed a CA Corvette Z06, probably pollutes less than "whatever" in a 49th state.
Don’t hear folks complaining about repressive taxation on tobacco, alcohol, huge mcmansions. They don’t have to buy this stuff. But, they got to have these. They willingly buy these things, so they pay the associated taxes. Should be no different for those that got to have and can afford M’s, AMG’s, Z06, Bugatti, etc. or upcoming future car with Harrier jet HP that a poster desires. If you want it so bad and can afford it, you can pay the taxes on it.
Invoked simple internet search engine for state license fee hp and found thousands of replies. Of course, numerous would not apply. But, the first two that came up were for states of New York and Missouri. Do not have time nor inclination to sort through the rest. What was found:
New York charges license fee by weight of vehicle. There were 50+ brackets ranging from $20-$112.
Missouri charges by vehicle HP and there were 7 brackets ranging from $21.75-$54.75.
So, charging for personal vehicle by weight or HP is being done. Of course, everyone knows that vehicle owners pay taxes for roads every time they fill up at pump. But, concept to also be taxed based on vehicle weight and capacity (HP) is in use and obviously legal. This is no different than having to pay higher taxes for a larger vacant piece of land vs smaller one. And, is same as paying more real estate taxes for bigger house vs smaller house. So, the more weight and/or HP your vehicle has, the more you pay. It is the American way and it is fair.
And, we are already taxed for energy (natural gas, electric, etc.) that we use to run our houses. Same neighborhoods apply (for lots, houses) of course – apples to apples.
Well, not quite -- a 2006 Vette only gets a "3". But then again, the 2.5 liter Nissan Sentra, the entire Scion range (Xa, Xb and Tc), some models of the Toyota Matrix, and some 2.0 liter models of the Ford Focus were actually worse!
Take a look at the Ford Focus. It is 9.5 SULEV II rated in the CARB states. The Same Identical car with the same under hood ID of 6FMXV02.0VZP is rated an 8 in the other 45 States. It is the sulfur content in most of the gas sold in the US that negates that PZEV rating. Even the darling of the hybrid crowd is only rated an 8 when using the 45 states gas. The very reason several high mileage Prius owners have had to replace a $2000 catalytic convertor no longer under warranty.
Interestingly though, there is no difference in air pollution score between the 400 hp 6-liter and the 505hp 7-liter. And both are still better than those Scions...
The Clean Air Act does not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Listed as pollutants for purposes of vehicular emissions control under the Clean Air Act are ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. Under the Clean Air Act, a 500 horsepower vehicle cannot, by law, pollute more - by emitting increased amounts of those items listed - than a 100 horsepower vehicle.
When the EPA has authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, then it will be considered one for this discussion. Otherwise, your statement is incorrect.
The only correlation between a harmful side effect and increased weight and horsepower is increased fuel consmuption. There is no proof that increased performance decreases safety (and increased weight IMPROVES safety, even in single-vehicle crashes) and, as we've seen, there is no correlation between increased horsepower and increased emissions.
More weight and horsepower can cause a drop in fuel economy, but since gasoline is already taxed at the federal and state level, people are already paying...at the pump. Which is the easiest, fairest and most non-bureaucratic method.
Again, there are multiple tiers of emissions levels, and not all cars have the same tailpipe emissions. Complying with the law does not equate to identical emissions levels being created by each car.
And, as you've shown, higher horsepower doesn't automatically equate to more pollution.
That's true. In respect to this discussion, EPA doesn't concern itself with engine output (hp), just tailpipe emissions. It doesn't really care how you get there, just so long as you find a way to reduce tailpipe emissions and get decent fuel economy. Make a hybrid, and you'll be almost certain to get EPA's green blessing.
That was my take also!!
Incidently, just who is BUYING all these high HP cars?
I suspect the Boomers are. They are the ones currently bidding up the values of the older "classic" muscle cars!
Are they using the newer cars newfound HP to:
1.zig zag in and out of traffic more quickly?
2.pull heavier loads (bigger boat, RV, etc.)
3.burn rubber / drift into smoking RWD bliss?
What about Gen-Y? They seem to be more into information / entertainment than sheer horsepower.
Note: there is no way I am trying to generalize everyone. But there do seem to be specific groups that like certain vehicle characteristics more than others.
me: So raise the gas tax. Everyone who buys cigarettes and alcohol pay based on the amount they buy. We do the same with gasoline now.
you: Why not same for someone that has indulgence for Harrier jet HP in car or Viper HP or Bugatti 1000 HP?
me: why should they pay an extra tax? Simply because they can afford it? Somehow you've created the logic that because there are a few things taxed (maybe for a reason), higher hp vehicles should be tax - though you offer no reason other than you don't like it.
I also don't understand why you don't want more advanced vehicles then we have now? Without more power you will not have advances in speed. Just as going from the first plane to the modern jetliner you needed more power. it is a good thing. Going from the first cars in 1900 to today's cars you have more power and higher speeds. Why do you feel we should not progress?
That progression may come from new power sources, or automated controls that make accidents an extremely rare event only due to mechanical failure. And I see no reason why we should limit our thinking that a vehicle could not have some sort of flight capability. In 20-30 years, computing power will be powerful and cheap enough, to pilot the vehicle. Vehicle capabilities should be advanced on all technological fronts, so that an advanced control system will have available engine power technologies to take advantage of them.
I think it was, but it has since morphed into a tax crusade for one and an environmental discussion for another...
Are they using the newer cars newfound HP to:
1.zig zag in and out of traffic more quickly?
2.pull heavier loads (bigger boat, RV, etc.)
3.burn rubber / drift into smoking RWD bliss?
My speculation that is largely a function of a desire for a sense of luxury and comfort, i.e. having a car that accelerates effortlessly. The way I see these Chrysler 300's, etc. being used, these drivers seem to want to be able to blip the throttle without worrying about high-pitched whines coming out from under the hood, strained right feet or air conditioners slowing them down. But that's just a guess on my part...
Agree that it is fair and easy to tax fuel at the pump. But, it is also fair, easy and “legal” to also tax vehicles by HP with license plate fees. Apparently the state of MO has no trouble collecting license plate fees based on HP. Do you think that MO DMV is doing something illegal?
The taxable HP amounts are already printed on the titles in state of MO. Is that a no-brainer or what? You might have a point if this were 1940 and there were no computers or readily accessible data bases.
To address this board topic, license plate fees based on HP would be an incentive for consumers to not buy extra HP that is not needed for normal driving. Perhaps MO fees could be higher for higher HP. Those that want to go to drag strips, do illegal drags on public roads, or other frivolity, can still buy higher HP cars. They just have to pay for the priviledge. MO thinks that people should pay more based on HP. Go argue with them.
Is every post from you going to be a rewording of the same exact message? Great, so you don't like horsepower -- I think we already knew that!
Would you care to finally tell us how someone would determine what is "not needed for normal driving"?
Insurance companies would disagree with that.
Following from a previous post:
From insurance.com: “In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly.”
Note that this says that sports cars and other high-performance cars are classified as higher risk because of theft and people who own them "tend" to drive more recklessly. It also says that you will "likely" pay more for perf than for low-risk vehicle. "Likely" means that there are some - don't know amount and why - that won't pay more.
Maybe some 50-year old person with a new Viper with no accidents or tickets ever, living in a far out suburb with almost no crime, uses Viper for pleasure not commuting, etc., will not pay more then he/she would for an Impala V6.
From Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
Auto insurance companies charge higher premiums for high HP cars. Drivers of these cars are higher risk and have greater probabilities of claims.
Have never heard of anyone having successful lawsuit in court against insurance company that higher premium for high HP is unfair and rates not established correctly. If there were a successful lawsuit, then auto insurance companies could not charge more for high HP high perf at times.
This has already been done "numerous" times on this board by someone who owns and drives 400 HP Caddy, and 2 FWD 100+ HP sedans. He is but one person, of course, but he says that 260 approx HP base engine on same Caddy would be very good and would meet his needs nicely.
If you want to cite numbers without context, I'll make mine 2,000 hp and leave it at that. (See how meaningful that was?)
If you want to cite numbers without context, I'll make mine 2,000 hp and leave it at that. (See how meaningful that was?)
Sorry. Don't know what you are talking about.
The factors relate more to design than simply horsepower.
During the 1960s, British sports cars had a higher loss rate than American sedans. But most of them weren't exactly high powered.
xrunner2: Note that this says that sports cars and other high-performance cars are classified as higher risk because of theft and people who own them "tend" to drive more recklessly. It also says that you will "likely" pay more for perf than for low-risk vehicle. "Likely" means that there are some - don't know amount and why - that won't pay more.
And note that he specifically said "sports cars" and "high performance cars," which generally means two-seaters or limited-purpose coupes (Mustang GT). That, again, relates more to the type of buyer than the horsepower itself.
xrunner2: From Russ Rader, spokesman for the IIHS: "In general, vehicles with a lot of horsepower encourage fast driving, and speeding is a leading factor in fatal crashes"
Lots of vague generalities in that sentence that, upon closer examination, prove nothing. For example, a "speed related" crash is defined so broadly by NHTSA that it encompasses driving too SLOWLY, or driving too fast for conditions (45 mph is too fast in an ice storm, but if you wipe out at that speed, the accident becomes "speed related"). Plus, lots of drunk driving accidents are "speed related."
You should know, being that I keep asking you this question and you don't answer it.
-Preface: We already know you want a HP tax of some sort, so you needn't restate it. Let's move on to specifics.
-You continually use adjectives such as "massive", "excessive", etc., but none of us know what that means.
OK, so let's pretend that you are going to be leaving for a desert island, and we'll need notes from you to understand the basis of your plan.
The fact is, aside from your belief that it just seems really, really, bad, I haven't got a clue why you don't like HP, or how I can sort out the logic that gets you to be OK with one amount and not OK with another.
Running through things, I just don't see your motivation:
--It can't be fuel efficiency. I know you like to make mention of it, but you don't really seem to care that much about it, because you ignore that data when it is presented to you. In your world, a higher HP car with better fuel economy would pay more than a lower HP car with worse fuel economy, so obviously, fuel isn't the issue with you.
--It can't be safety, because you've provided no linkage between safety and HP. You seem just as eager to tax a Crown Victoria with a V-8 as you would a Mustang, even if they are driven differently. And you don't seem to care about the driving record of the buyer, or care much if the bad driver ends up driving a Hyundai instead of a Mustang.
--It can't be emissions, because I've already provided you with plenty of EPA data, yet you seem uninspired by it. The fact that a 4-cylinder Camry in Kansas or a 1.5L Scion anywhere in the US pushes more tailpipe emissions than does a 3.8L Grand Am doesn't seem to bother you -- you're still going to nail the guy with the Grand Am.
So what exactly is so bad about HP, and at what point are we supposed to pay for it, and how much for it? What benchmarks make it good or bad? I really can't figure out what it is you want, or why you'd bother wanting it, and telling me yet again that the tax is "fair" (whatever that means) won't help provide that answer.
Fortunately all states are not as Repressive as Missouri. It does seem that every state has some quirky tax that makes no sense at all. HP tax is one of them. It is about as goofy as the window and door taxes of ancient times.
How do the wise politicians in MO tax the fellow that buys a 100 HP Civic and builds the engine up to 300 HP?
"Few things taxed"? Numerous things are taxed in US.
Does not have to do with not liking. I suppose you think that tax on HP in MO is unconstitutional?
Would you like people to pay same fee for license plate in MO regardless of HP of vehicle? Is MO wrong?
And, New York charges license fee based on weight of vehicle. Is NY wrong?
Do you work for the IIHS? The only data source you seem to like is part of the insurance lobby.
-- We already know that 80% of fatal accidents aren't speed related, thanks to NHTSA (read: your federal government, the folks that keep tabs on this stuff.) No reason to use a vague term such as "leading" when we have a specific statistic to quote that provides more and better detailed information.
-- You have provided no data to lead us to believe that cars with higher HP numbers are more likely to be involved in accidents. All you've shown is that one subset of cars that also tend to (but don't always) have above-average horsepower tend to cost more to insure.
That doesn't mean all cars with higher horsepower cost more to insure, nor does it tell us the relative importance of horsepower in setting a premium. In fact, your link leads us to believe that the correlation is between specific cars (particularly sports cars) and the types of people who buy those specific cars, not with the amount of horsepower. For it is possible to buy equally powerful cars without paying the same premium. The buyer of a Cadillac or BMW sedan may well pay less than the same driver if he were to buy a less powerful, less costly and slower Mustang.
Read Post 1352. Insurance companies and IIHS think that there is connection between high HP high perf and higher risk.
In general, sports cars and other high-performance, flashy vehicles are classified as higher risks because they are common targets for thieves and vandals, and because statistically, the people who own them tend to drive more recklessly.
Read carefully: It says "sports cars." I hope you do realize that not all sports cars have high horsepower engines, and that not all cars with high horsepower engines are sports cars.
A Mazda Miata with 170 hp and Lotus Elise with 190 hp are considered to be sports cars. A Honda Accord V-6 with 244 hp and a 290hp Cadillac DeVille are not. You need to learn that horsepower alone does not make a car a "sports car" or "performance car", and that a "sports car" doesn't have to have a lot of ponies if it has other characteristics.
Have given example number of times of equitable license plate fees based on combo of weight and pounds/HP ratio. This combines MO and NY methods.
My posts for most part have "addressed" issue of board topic. For umpteenth time, license plate fee using weight and HP factors would be incentives for people to buy lower HP vehicle or higher numbered ratio pounds/HP vehicles. Although not a board topic, this would also cut down on US oil imports.
Have only looked at 2 states (plus own) in internet search and have found legitimacy in taxing by HP or weight. Is someone here going to claim that MO and NY DMV fees are unconstitutional?
And, the pounds/HP ratio number of these cars is probably double that of a Z06 or Viper. The Z06 and Viper with lots of HP and a relatively low ratio number would have a higher license plate fee than an Accord or DeVille.
I suppose you feel that MO is wrong and backward.
Yes, I know that raising the price of something will typically lower demand.
That wasn't what I asked you. I want to know why this is so important to you. As covered in my prior post, if you really cared about safety, fuel economy or emissions, you would focus on those things.
But since you aren't, I really haven't got a clue what your issue is. Do you?
Yes I do. I also think the license fees in CA based on the price of the car are wrong. Especially after you have paid 8% sales tax buying the car. These are all things that one has to look at when deciding where to live. it would probably surprise you the state that is the least offensive when it comes to taxation. You find it for yourself. I am looking for a good place I can afford to retire.... I don't want some goober putting a dyno on my car to figure the taxes.
With the EPA considering CO2 as pollution I would think in total the Grand AM pushes more total pollution.
Agreed. The taxes should be figured from the stock number of hp. In addition, I don't want goobers weighing my car to figure out taxes, I don't want appraisers looking at my property to figure out my real estate taxes. I don't want the government looking at my tax return. I don't want to pay taxes, I also want good roads, clean water and clean air.
Actually, no. The Grand Prix (sorry, Grand Am was a typo) made for California with the 3.8 liter 6-cylinder gets a EPA "Smartway" recommendation. None of the Scions with their smaller 4-cylinder motors do.
Why?
me: I think I've given you many examples in U.S. history of laws that were repealed. Because a law exists and something is legal does not make it sensible There is nothing to stop states from taxing cars based on wheel size or color, but does that make sense? There should be a clear reason for the tax.
you: Is MO wrong?
me: I'd think it more likely that if 49 states think oppositely, MO might have got that law thru some travesty of the political system - sort of how "pork" gets attached to other bills.
you: And, New York charges license fee based on weight of vehicle. Is NY wrong?
me: this might be more sensible since a heavier vehicle would place more wear and tear on roads and bridges.
Now here's the thing about a tax like MO's. It's not enough $ to change anyone's decision. And if the tax was raised very high people would work around it. For instance, if all the state did was check what power the car had when bought, the way people would get fast cars is to go to the aftermarket. For instance I can go to the GM Performance website, buy a 600hp engine and have it installed in a few weeks. If a car was forced to be dyno-tested, I'm sure there would be a lot of alternate engineer software programs written to reduce power for those tests.
me: Well since the majority of drivers speed, it is not surprising that most people who have accidents were speeding when they got in a fatal accident! Brilliant! What would have been surprising is that if the minority of the drivers who don't speed caused most fatal accidents.
But that's not the case. Only 20% of fatal accidents are speed related, meaning that 80% (four-fifths) are not.
how many 'special occasions' are enough? thanks for making me squint.
amazing that there have been 20 pages of posts in the last 3 days! keep it going!
If you can't make the argument all the way thru 3) then I really don't understand why anyone is going to give up something they really like. Laws are not effective when the majority disagree with them. So let's try an example of making a decent argument (maybe Edmunds can use this as a guide in FAQ.
Example 1): I believe that high hp use too much gasoline. I define high hp as any vehicle with a hp/Lb ratio over 10. I have randomly selected 12 cars with 2 engine choices that put the V-6 under the 10 hp/Lb ratio and the V-8 model over the 10 hp/Lb. I have found that the combined mpg difference favors the V-6 by 8% mpg. I have found that approx. 2M vehicles have over a 10 hp/Lb ratio, and that the average mpg of these vehicles is 8,000 miles/year. Doing the math, I find ______ gal. of gas could be conserved. I went to the DOE website and found that the U.S. uses _______ gal. of oil, so we would save ______ % of our fuel. This means that instead of the world running out of oil in 2050 as estimated, the world runs out in _______. This means that if we all sacrifice very hard, and the Chinese don't buy the oil we just conserved, civilization will not be destroyed, because we will all grow wings in 2051 (X-Men?).
Replace mpg with emissions or safety if you wish. Explain to us all how restricting hp will make our lives significantly better.
Whether SUV are responsible for the fuel increase or not, every car pollute/uses fuel so should pay the gas guzzling tax through a high gas price. Those who use more gas will pay more, those who use less will pay less but will pay anyway.
Cheap gas pushes drivers to become lasy when it comes to adopt healthier resource saving habits.
I remember when I ordered a Pizza some time ago in the L.A area, it came delivered with quite a big van with a 3,5L V6 (i think) engine. looking at this, I estimate the mpg at 15 at best (forgot band, but seems to be a standard american one). A 60 mpg scooter with a big boot should be enough
for this kind of service. or a tango.