To show how ridiculous the premise really is. The whipping boy of the anti HP side, that are in truth anti-SUV, is the Hummer2. It has a weight to HP ration of 20Lbs per HP. The Accord V6 is only 13Lbs per HP. By my calculations the Accord should be taxed 35% higher than the Hummer2. Makes sense to me. You have to wonder what kind of a mind would think of taxing on a weight to HP ratio. If the Hummer is an excessive vehicle that really makes the Accord V6 way out there.
If they are not smart enough in the state capitols to charge a tax by the mile the next best thing is to tax by the gallon as they have done for many years.
Next they will want us to all have a GPS implant and tax each individual, based on the average speed we travel.
So maybe we can say that the majority of speeders is responsible for 20% of the fatalities, whereas the minority of law abiders is responsible for the remaining 80%?
minority of law abiders is responsible for the remaining 80%?
The fixation with speed being involved and the major law that is broken in accidents is what is disturbing. How about running red lights and stop signs. How about turning left into oncoming traffic. Driving under the influence. In-attentiveness, talking on the phone, messing with the radio, CDs or NAV. Speeding is just one of many, many causes of fatal accidents. When a cheapo car can go 100 MPH it is not HP that is the problem. It is the same as always. It is careless People that are the problem.
To show how ridiculous the premise really is. The whipping boy of the anti HP side, that are in truth anti-SUV, is the Hummer2. It has a weight to HP ration of 20Lbs per HP. The Accord V6 is only 13Lbs per HP. By my calculations the Accord should be taxed 35% higher than the Hummer2.
Spot on. It's a ridiculous premise that would favor gas guzzler trucks over mid-size sedans. The result would be to reward those with the lowest fuel economy, highest emissions, and that pose the most risk to drivers of smaller cars.
Let's just face it -- he picked this HP/weight ratio because the obvious target is sports cars. It goes back to the real agenda, which is the hope that sports car taxes will slow people down, while forgetting that plenty of kids turn Honda Civics into rice rockets that go plenty fast...
Logically, registration fee should cover the cost of paper work, then a tax, if any, should be assessed based on the weight of the vehicle. Pretty simple to figure out the wear on roads based on weight. What in the world does the HP have to do with anything? Taxing by price of the car is not a registration fee at all. It is a tax. Another soak the rich scheme. I guess one could move to Oregon. Considering the cost of maintaining and building roads, taxes have to levied, but they should be based on weight, or if you don't like that a flat tax for road use.
Pretty simple to figure out the wear on roads based on weight.
The differences in weight among passenger cars aren't great enough to make much difference in road wear. Much road wear comes from heavy vehicles, such as semis pulling trailers, that put a significant strain on highway wear. So assessing different fees to an SUV vs. econobox based on weight isn't terribly fair, either, given that both do about the same amount of damage.
But yes, I agree that horsepower also has nothing to do with it. It's really intended to be an attack on sports cars, nothing more.
"But yes, I agree that horsepower also has nothing to do with it. It's really intended to be an attack on sports cars, nothing more."
There is no problem with that. Cars and SUVS that pollute (as defined by NOx, CO, CO2 standards) to excess should be taxed. Escalade and SVT are SUV examples, Vette, M5, Viper and GTR are sports car examples. I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can come up with a list.
I'm going to leave that definition to the government. If you don't remember, a "gas guzzler" tax is imposed on certain cars, so the government already has prior experience in defining excess gas consumption.
I'm going to leave that definition to the government.
The same government that hasn't required light trucks to meet the same emissions standards as cars? The same government that lets a Camry in Kansas pollute more than one in California? OK, that sounds very consistent....
Incidentally, all of these cars that you're complaining about are legal. If the government considered them to be excessive, they would be illegal...but they're not.
..."I'm going to leave that definition to the government. If you don't remember, a "gas guzzler" tax is imposed on certain cars, so the government already has prior experience in defining excess gas consumption."...
Actually, I have said several things that indicate this is already being done. First of all, ALL these cars are LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL !!! Did I mention these cars are legal? I am not sure what "born again taxation" mission you might be on to "re invent the (taxation) wheel/s"
Again, from my perspective, taxes need to be scaled back. Government needs to be (less) onion like and shed multiple layers of regulation/s and taxation/s.
In some ways, I am glad for your reiterations, so let me reiterate that government/s will more than likely raise its taxation/s when the fuel mileage indeed goes up. Why? They are/will be getting less taxation per mile driven.
Whatever move afoot there has been to more fiduciarily steward the monies in a more fair equitable and efficient way has been totally tramped out of the equation.
You are already starting to see the results. So for example now that the max political media buzz has been gotten out of the Prius, most folks don't know for example, that one has to have Prius "ACCESS" stickers to go solo in the commuter lanes. If you do not have one, you will in fact face a moving violation INXS of 271 dollars !!! Well simple, apply for one!! However a "CAP" has already been placed/in place and exceeded!!!!
Now my personal feeling is commuter lanes are a travesty for many many reasons. However one graphic one is the "lexus" i fication of commuter lanes bought and paid for by "our" transportation tax dollars.
The spirit and intent has been to transport MORE people in LESS cars and decrease the traffic. It to me has been an utter failure and in fact the reality is it causes MORE congestion not less. A lone driver in a car (Prius) meets none of that spirit and intent!!! However it does meet the "one ups man ship" METRIC, which is my criticism of the lexus ification of essentially "our" tax dollars. Not too much different from Governor Davis "pay to play" style of democratic leadership. The fact they would even implement the "solo fication" of a specific car is defacto admission of the utterly FAILED policies.
Off topic but we just has a small earth quake. 1005 hours Pacific time.
"The same government that hasn't required light trucks to meet the same emissions standards as cars? The same government that lets a Camry in Kansas pollute more than one in California? OK, that sounds very consistent.... "
Yes, it's far from perfect. The same government that uses weight as a basis for registration fees on one case and the other case uses value. I agree...it's very consistent.
This is a discussion forum and the topic is "The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits", nobody is talking about legal vs illegal. The continual push to increase horsepower has ramifications downstream from the tailpipe, these items/issues have already been discussed.
{quote} "The continual push to increase horsepower has ramifications downstream from the tailpipe, these items/issues have already been discussed.
True, and I've shown you how the EPA tells us that a Scion creates more pollution than does a Corvette. Funny how you keep ignoring this. " {unquotes}
Yes, the logic KDShapiro ( et al) would foist would dictate vilification of all of those vehicles that were so called "less legal" than the Corvette Z06. However the ones under the (scores of the) Corvette do not fit into your "neat logic" now does it? i.e.,4 cylinder Scion? and 6 cylinders vs the hated V8? Mini (your model for low hp low emissions? )
Indeed my own view has always been buyer beware, and truly it is not my business to comment on what others actually decided given the "legal" options.
you: The continual push to increase horsepower has ramifications downstream from the tailpipe, these items/issues have already been discussed.
me: So if we burn a little less gas by getting slightly higher mpg, we reduce emissions. What I want to know from you, since you're so sure this is what needs to be done, what effect is it going to have on our lives. I think that is a fair question. You're asking us to give up something, what do we get in return?
Does it reduce global oil consumption much? Or does that oil simply get burnt elsewhere? Is it better for gasoline to be burnt in an American car or a dirtier Chinese or Mexican market? You do realize that emissions and pollution is a global issue? You do realize that energy consumption is increasing every year?
Please tell us how a few million Americans can change the course the world is on (please use some data), by buying 150hp cars rather than 300+hp cars. Or are you like many other environmentalists who haven't thought that far, and don't want to because of the answers.
I say that as long as fossil fuels are our primary fuel source + the population increases + people want a better standard of living (for instance - people who couldn't afford a car, getting one); we will use more energy and oil not less. Conservation can lower but not stop the long-term growth of energy consumption. We have been through significant conservation programs in the 70's and 80's; the only thing that reins in usage is price. More people, more cars, longer commutes, more money for energy, more than offsets any CAFE improvements we've made or will make.
Funny how you keep ignoring the fact the EPA is considering CO2 as a "pollutant", when CO2 is factored in Vette loses big time.
No, it doesn't. It labels it as a "greenhouse gas", which is certainly not a good thing but is not the same as a "pollutant." If it was a pollutant, EPA would include it in the Air Pollution Score.
The funny thing is that I have provided the EPA data -- you never did. And I pointed out that most cars in the country don't qualify for an EPA green rating, largely because they lack California emissions equipment.
The attack on horsepower is just silly, when it is but one component of what goes into a car's performance, and when many cars with relatively low power have high levels of tailpipe emissions. At least on this thread, it is an excuse to attack sports cars and to complain about the speed limits, despite any facts to support the argument.
Again:
-If you care about fuel economy, then focus on it. Price fuel so that people are encouraged to buy less of it, and provide better alternative transportion options so that people don't drive.
-If you care about air pollution, then encourage people to drive less and increase tailpipe emission standards across the US to match California levels, and extend that standard to include trucks.
-If you care about greenhouse gases, do the above plus encourage alternative fuels and improved fuel economy.
-If you care about safety, let the traffic engineers set the speed limits based upon the flow of traffic, educate drivers about lane discipline and improved attention spans, build freeways in areas in which two-lane roads carry heavy traffic, and encourage mass transit, trains and flying in place of driving.
Rather than use gimmicks to attack faster cars, address the real problem. And drive in the right lane, while you're at it...
No, it doesn't. It labels it as a "greenhouse gas", which is certainly not a good thing but is not the same as a "pollutant"
Did you even see my prior post where I quoted that remark. I understand the CO2 is a greenhouse gas and not a pollutant. CO isn't a pollutant either, but one doesn't want to breathe it in.
I'm okay if you want to get a superpowerful car, you should pay your due for the environmental damage and waste of resources. And by the way, obey all traffic laws...
..."-If you care about fuel economy, then focus on it. Price fuel so that people are encouraged to buy less of it, and provide better alternative transportion options so that people don't drive.
-If you care about air pollution, then encourage people to drive less and increase tailpipe emission standards across the US to match California levels, and extend that standard to include trucks. "...
I think in truth things are totally bassackwards. I posted not too far back hydrogen is at 16 per gal (weight actually) with 22 mpg in a Honda Civic. With fuel priced at 2-8 dollars this is an absolute no brainer. So to make it another no brainer, price hydrogen at 1-2 per gal(weight actually) and unleaded regular fuel at 16. Then you will wonder why you ever even bought petro products!
you: Conservation always is in our best interests, and is not a black and white proposition.
me: and I'll ask you again to explain specifically how much fuel we'd save, how much emissions are reduced, and how this makes any of our lives noticeably better. Or if you wish explain how future generations will be better off by saving this amount of fuel.
Either you have no idea, or you know it is not a significant amount. Which is it? Or if my analysis of the data and trends from the DOE, that I've done over the years is wrong please feel free to prove your argument. Otherwise you're just trying to organize a bucket-brigade to bail on the Titantic - a good intention, but futile.
you may be interested in the following study by the DOE, that shows that CO2 emissions will continue to grow because of growing economies. Most of the growth will be in "emerging economies" which will surpass the U.S. and Europe. See P.77 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf Would you like to tell those emerging economies that they shouldn't try for a better lifestyle?
you: you should pay your due for the environmental damage and waste of resources.
me: But a Vette gets better mpg in non-urban driving than many other vehicles. A minivan, SUV, PU, and many older cars have lower mpg than a new Vette. The Vette sips fuel at highway speeds, running low rpms. I would guess the people using the most resources are the typical family driving the AWD Chrysler MV, with the 3 kids who need to be driven to sports practices, the mall, and school everyday. The amount of driving people do in their lifestyles these days, is AT LEAST as important in fuel usage as what they drive.
"and I'll ask you again to explain specifically how much fuel we'd save, how much emissions are reduced,"
And I'll ask you to say how much fuel is used and what the percentage of pollution contributed by large displacement and high horsepower engines to the total contributed by cars burning petrol.
"Would you like to tell those emerging economies that they shouldn't try for a better lifestyle?"
Would you like to have a habitable earth in a few hundred years? Or are you part of the me, me, me generation? Conservation is in our best interests.
"But a Vette gets better mpg in non-urban driving than many other vehicles."
Yes, but it pollutes more. There is no getting around this. In general, the higher the horsepower the worse the gas mileage the worse the pollution (including CO2). As previously said, getting high gas mileage going down a hill with the foot off the gas is a no-brainer. Get the same gas mileage in massive traffic jams and stop and go traffic.
I think you understand, but your post indicates that you utterly fail to grasp what is truly being said. CHINA itself ALONE in the not too distance future is on track to use MORE oil than what the TOTAL WORLD uses NOW !!!!!
So here is an interesting tidbit actually massive, if you need a grindstone to put your shoulders to. The cars being manufactured for China's use do not even meet European and USA emission standards!!!!!
So you really need to direct the question of whether this modified communist system is of the me me me generation!? Or do we shoot em in the head NOW and end their misery?
And I'll ask you to say how much fuel is used and what the percentage of pollution contributed by large displacement and high horsepower engines to the total contributed by cars burning petrol.
What's astounding is that you could absolutely care less about cars with low horsepower that pollute just as much, if not more, than some of the higher powered ones.
You are obviously using these emissions comments as a cover-up for what you really want, otherwise you'd wish to control high emissions levels, regardless of the power of the car that creates them.
Just for a moment try to put yourself the place of a young urban professional. He is working up the ladder saving money so someday he can buy that fancy sports car and cruise across this great nation of ours in style. His office is at the top of the Twin Towers. One day his dream vanishes along with his life.
You say why would anyone work for that kind of dream? Who in their right mind would work their tail off, riding to work on a subway in a stinky big city, to own a Corolla?
Dreams are what made America great. You would like to eliminate some of them, for what? A few less grams of CO2 or NOx? If you are right, we will be out of oil in a very short time. There will be some other cause to fight for. The people cutting down the redwoods for biodiesel. Or destroying our crop lands to grow ethanol.
Enjoy life, get a Porsche, it could all be gone in a minute. Remember 9/11
you: And I'll ask you to say how much fuel is used and what the percentage of pollution contributed by large displacement and high horsepower engines to the total contributed by cars burning petrol.
me: The question was posed to you, so that you can use your own definition of excessive and high hp, or else you'll have a problem with my definition, right?
My calculations on an SUV board a while ago, were that if you got everyone out of an SUV and into a 4-cyl Camry, the U.S. would save approx. 2% of the oil it uses. It is about 0.5% of the global usage. So if we normalize our oil usage to 100 and then our oil usage going forward each year is going to be 100, 102, 104, 106 ... If we switched everyone to Camry's instead of SUV's then it will be 100, 98, 100, 102, 104 ... You get a minor difference.
Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you tell us what you define as excessive, and how many of those vehicles are on the road, and then you can determine what they're mpg is, and how much they can be improved.
Guys - I suggest if kd can't come up with some data and some sort of logical argument other than restating a mantra like a robot, that we move on, and don't respond to what then must be considered spam.
"I think you understand, but your post indicates that you utterly fail to grasp what is truly being said."
My fellow poster, you have totally failed to grasp what it being said. Just because my neighbor let's all of the faucets run in his house 24x7 doesn't mean I should do just the same. Just because China's energy usage is on the increase, doesn't mean we should blow it all in one pop and continue to be the worlds being energy waster.
"Guys - I suggest if kd can't come up with some data and some sort of logical argument other than restating a mantra like a robot"
You can't come up with any data either, other than the "Live Free or Die" stuff. Maybe we should just close the whole thing down because nobody can come up with any hard and fast fact.
"My calculations on an SUV board a while ago"
Me thinks that a huge savings. Taking pressure off the price with the biggest benefit being the environment. In 2000 the US was using about 20mbbl/day with over 40% going toward transportation. Saving 2% or 40,000 bbl/day sounds like a great proposition to me.
You continually miss the point. First I believe that city number on the Vette is about 20% high. The real number is closer to 16 for city. Second you fail to take into account the total pollution index of both vehicles. Pollution is hydrocarbons + CO + CO2 and other chemicals. Vette wins (for the most pollution).
Very odd -- perhaps the wealth of EPA data I've provided doesn't appear on your monitor.
Before I call my IT guy, I have to ask the other posters here -- are all of you able to see those posts that I provided, or is Shapiro the only one who can't seem to access them?
Hydrogen is a ways off (my swag 15-25 years) by that time the TDI should be way long in the tooth and at current consumption 812,000 miles. Over 250,000 miles is new territory for me. Now here's hoping the price of hydrogen per gal (weight wise) will be 1-2 bucks or at 16 per gal, Id be happy with 295 mpg!!!
Are we not coming out of the ice age. Would this not mean warmer? Hasn't the world been warmer more years than the ice years? What does this have to do with a registration of a car. Do you mean environmental damage tax, instead of a registration of a car?
So when cars only emit water out the tail pipe, does this mean more humidity, and wet, dangerously slippery, and decaying roads ahead? Oh the humanity!!! And they thought hydrogen cars were safe :sick:
quite the argument here, folks! a couple little points. - while driving my 400hp car on interstates, it sometimes seems ridiculous that i'm on the same road as all the silly slowpokes on roads where there is no proper lane discipline (e.g. the right lane is the fast lane). i think we all know that differences in speed on highways are a risk factor. could it be that differences in acceleration are also a risk factor? - don't insurance costs often entail more cost for high-hp cars, so maybe that factor is already helping to mitigate the sales of those? i do see the car magazines often mentioning insurance cost as a reason for the low sales of some high-hp cars (camaro!) on the other hand, insurance isn't required in all states but realistically most people have to buy it due to liens. - gas tax is the obvious way to reduce gas consumption if we think the price of fuel is not increasing fast enough. "keep it simple, socialists!" - as long as folks are talking about obtrusive government techniques to reduce fuel usage, let's legislate that hybrid cars must stay out of the carpool lanes so they use less total fuel - they'll stay in their "city mpg" sweetspot if we legislate they stay in the stop-n-go traffic while the left lanes are reserved for the fast cars which excel at highway mpg... oh, to dream. - lots of discussion about what appears to be property tax (aka excise tax) assessed by towns on car registrations. around here that tax is assessed based on vehicle value. i wonder if it would be constitutional/legal to include hp in the calculation used for car excise tax assessment.
you: - don't insurance costs often entail more cost for high-hp cars, so maybe that factor is already helping to mitigate the sales of those?
me: yes there is a slight increase over the typical sedan, which can be worse if there are drivers with points or teens on the policy. I have no points and my Firebird Formula with the same coverage is about 20% more than my Silverado, but the same as my X-Type. So the premium is not really following the hp-trend. When I 've owned small cars such as a CRX, Escort and Impreza I always saw rates higher than my other typical sedan.
you: - gas tax is the obvious way to reduce gas consumption.
me: that is true. If it keeps people from driving the roads will be less congested too, which thus decreases accidents and thus fatalities and injuries. I'm not for a gas tax higher than needed to maintain the roads though. A gas tax should not be used to discourage driving; market forces can take care of that.
you: i wonder if it would be constitutional/legal to include hp in the calculation used for car excise tax assessment.
me: I doubt there is anything in your state constitution addressing this. All it takes for it to be legal is for your legislature to make it a law. Legislatures could write a law tomorrow taxing you on how many speakers your car has, or tax it based on what color it is. My state and town also taxes on value. I'm not sure if there is differentiation between a V-6's value and a V-8's, but I'm sure when the model name changes like Impreza to Impreza WRX the value is rated higher. So indirectly at least some cars are taxed higher for having higher hp.
"What's astounding is that you could absolutely care less about cars with low horsepower that pollute just as much"
I agree hydrocarbons should be reduced as well. What's astounding is that you fail to see they are all still legal. But a smaller engine produces less greenhouse gases.
But a smaller engine produces less greenhouse gases.
You must have missed Tony Blair's speech on GHG. The UK has all but given up on the Kyoto Treaty. He stated that meeting the goals would be impossible in a growing economy. Japan is not close to reaching their goal on GHG. Global Warming is a non issue to most of the World. In spite of a few ignorant political pundits like R. Kennedy jr. If Global warming causes hurricanes like Katrina, so be it. The environmentalists cannot have it all ways. The easiest way to cut CO2 in cars is use less fuel. Diesel cars use less fuel. But they put out a little more NOx. We all cannot own a super clean hybrid. Nor do most of us want one. Heck Toyota cannot build enough of the Prius to satisfy a niche market. If you follow the hybrid market trend, you know that most of the vehicles offered tout MORE HORSEPOWER for the same or a little less gas. Even the people that are supposedly concerned about the environment enough to spend several thousand dollars in hybrid component premiums, want MORE HP. Or so it would seem to me. Two out of the 3 hybrids offered by Toyota put out a ton per year more GHG than the Jetta TDI. Yet the Toyota hybrids are the Green ones. Plus they have a higher HP to weight ratio than a Hummer2.
"Global Warming is a non issue to most of the World"
Well there we have it, so we shouldn't be concerned either.
"MORE HORSEPOWER for the same or a little less gas"
Horsepower/torque from electric motors is not that same as gas engines. Electric motor horsepower does nothing except at slow speeds and we are not talking about electric motor torque. Hybrids bring a whole new set of fascinating envirnomental issues as there will be truckloads of batteries in the waste-stream starting in about 5 years.
In addition, comparing CNG to DIESEL to GAS is not an apples to apples comparision with regards to pollution. With regards to your comments about Hummers, it is classified as a "truck". The standards to which that classification is applied needs to be revisited as "trucks" whose primary duty is a 4/5/6/7 seat passenger vehicle have to be included in the CAFE standards. At which time it would be subject to a gas-guzzler tax.
comparing CNG to DIESEL to GAS is not an apples to apples comparison with regards to pollution.
I agree. They each have pros & cons. I was pretty sure you could see the pitfall that hybrids offer. So far the hybrids are a niche market and only two have any kind of momentum. I think the same holds true for sports cars. We are not talking a lot of cars. Corvette is probably the best selling. How many do you think hit the road, 30k for the year? They also historically do not get driven a lot. I think high HP sports cars are insignificant. PU trucks and SUVs might be a different story. But they are not known for high HP to weight ratio. So that leaves the real HP culprits the, Accord, Camry & Altima V6s. Or any family vehicle with more than 175 HP. Taxing them heavily would bring in significant revenue. I see more family sedans flying by me on the freeway at 80+ MPH than sports cars.
Yes through a quirk the environmental types should get a head start and start to ban the next new answers to "world peace in our times" One lead off: the hydrogen nuclear weapons!!
Just using the Vette as an example and I whole-heartedly agree Vette is a small market -- but is easy to use as an example. Another example could be the 8 cylinder engine Nissan is thinking of stuffing into the Z.
My thought though is to tax the excess consumption/total pollution on a sliding scale, both in low weight high horsepower (even those with supposed great gas mileage) and high weight passenger duty vehicles.
Comments
If they are not smart enough in the state capitols to charge a tax by the mile the next best thing is to tax by the gallon as they have done for many years.
Next they will want us to all have a GPS implant and tax each individual, based on the average speed we travel.
That's a very disturbing thought, isn't it?
The fixation with speed being involved and the major law that is broken in accidents is what is disturbing. How about running red lights and stop signs. How about turning left into oncoming traffic. Driving under the influence. In-attentiveness, talking on the phone, messing with the radio, CDs or NAV. Speeding is just one of many, many causes of fatal accidents. When a cheapo car can go 100 MPH it is not HP that is the problem. It is the same as always. It is careless People that are the problem.
Spot on. It's a ridiculous premise that would favor gas guzzler trucks over mid-size sedans. The result would be to reward those with the lowest fuel economy, highest emissions, and that pose the most risk to drivers of smaller cars.
Let's just face it -- he picked this HP/weight ratio because the obvious target is sports cars. It goes back to the real agenda, which is the hope that sports car taxes will slow people down, while forgetting that plenty of kids turn Honda Civics into rice rockets that go plenty fast...
Loren
The differences in weight among passenger cars aren't great enough to make much difference in road wear. Much road wear comes from heavy vehicles, such as semis pulling trailers, that put a significant strain on highway wear. So assessing different fees to an SUV vs. econobox based on weight isn't terribly fair, either, given that both do about the same amount of damage.
But yes, I agree that horsepower also has nothing to do with it. It's really intended to be an attack on sports cars, nothing more.
There is no problem with that. Cars and SUVS that pollute (as defined by NOx, CO, CO2 standards) to excess should be taxed. Escalade and SVT are SUV examples, Vette, M5, Viper and GTR are sports car examples. I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can come up with a list.
What does "pollute to excess" mean? Should we eliminate the three Scions and the Mini, all of which pollute more than the Corvette?
I'm going to leave that definition to the government. If you don't remember, a "gas guzzler" tax is imposed on certain cars, so the government already has prior experience in defining excess gas consumption.
The same government that hasn't required light trucks to meet the same emissions standards as cars? The same government that lets a Camry in Kansas pollute more than one in California? OK, that sounds very consistent....
Incidentally, all of these cars that you're complaining about are legal. If the government considered them to be excessive, they would be illegal...but they're not.
Actually, I have said several things that indicate this is already being done. First of all, ALL these cars are LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL !!! Did I mention these cars are legal? I am not sure what "born again taxation" mission you might be on to "re invent the (taxation) wheel/s"
Again, from my perspective, taxes need to be scaled back. Government needs to be (less) onion like and shed multiple layers of regulation/s and taxation/s.
In some ways, I am glad for your reiterations, so let me reiterate that government/s will more than likely raise its taxation/s when the fuel mileage indeed goes up. Why? They are/will be getting less taxation per mile driven.
Whatever move afoot there has been to more fiduciarily steward the monies in a more fair equitable and efficient way has been totally tramped out of the equation.
You are already starting to see the results. So for example now that the max political media buzz has been gotten out of the Prius, most folks don't know for example, that one has to have Prius "ACCESS" stickers to go solo in the commuter lanes. If you do not have one, you will in fact face a moving violation INXS of 271 dollars !!! Well simple, apply for one!! However a "CAP" has already been placed/in place and exceeded!!!!
Now my personal feeling is commuter lanes are a travesty for many many reasons. However one graphic one is the "lexus" i fication of commuter lanes bought and paid for by "our" transportation tax dollars.
The spirit and intent has been to transport MORE people in LESS cars and decrease the traffic. It to me has been an utter failure and in fact the reality is it causes MORE congestion not less. A lone driver in a car (Prius) meets none of that spirit and intent!!! However it does meet the "one ups man ship" METRIC, which is my criticism of the lexus ification of essentially "our" tax dollars. Not too much different from Governor Davis "pay to play" style of democratic leadership. The fact they would even implement the "solo fication" of a specific car is defacto admission of the utterly FAILED policies.
Off topic but we just has a small earth quake. 1005 hours Pacific time.
Yes, it's far from perfect. The same government that uses weight as a basis for registration fees on one case and the other case uses value. I agree...it's very consistent.
This is a discussion forum and the topic is "The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits", nobody is talking about legal vs illegal. The continual push to increase horsepower has ramifications downstream from the tailpipe, these items/issues have already been discussed.
True, and I've shown you how the EPA tells us that a Scion creates more pollution than does a Corvette. Funny how you keep ignoring this.
True, and I've shown you how the EPA tells us that a Scion creates more pollution than does a Corvette. Funny how you keep ignoring this. " {unquotes}
Yes, the logic KDShapiro ( et al) would foist would dictate vilification of all of those vehicles that were so called "less legal" than the Corvette Z06. However the ones under the (scores of the) Corvette do not fit into your "neat logic" now does it? i.e.,4 cylinder Scion? and 6 cylinders vs the hated V8? Mini (your model for low hp low emissions? )
Indeed my own view has always been buyer beware, and truly it is not my business to comment on what others actually decided given the "legal" options.
me: So if we burn a little less gas by getting slightly higher mpg, we reduce emissions. What I want to know from you, since you're so sure this is what needs to be done, what effect is it going to have on our lives. I think that is a fair question. You're asking us to give up something, what do we get in return?
Does it reduce global oil consumption much? Or does that oil simply get burnt elsewhere?
Is it better for gasoline to be burnt in an American car or a dirtier Chinese or Mexican market? You do realize that emissions and pollution is a global issue? You do realize that energy consumption is increasing every year?
Please tell us how a few million Americans can change the course the world is on (please use some data), by buying 150hp cars rather than 300+hp cars. Or are you like many other environmentalists who haven't thought that far, and don't want to because of the answers.
I say that as long as fossil fuels are our primary fuel source + the population increases + people want a better standard of living (for instance - people who couldn't afford a car, getting one); we will use more energy and oil not less. Conservation can lower but not stop the long-term growth of energy consumption. We have been through significant conservation programs in the 70's and 80's; the only thing that reins in usage is price. More people, more cars, longer commutes, more money for energy, more than offsets any CAFE improvements we've made or will make.
Funny how you keep ignoring the fact the EPA is considering CO2 as a "pollutant", when CO2 is factored in Vette loses big time.
Conservation always is in our best interests, and is not a black and white proposition.
No, it doesn't. It labels it as a "greenhouse gas", which is certainly not a good thing but is not the same as a "pollutant." If it was a pollutant, EPA would include it in the Air Pollution Score.
The funny thing is that I have provided the EPA data -- you never did. And I pointed out that most cars in the country don't qualify for an EPA green rating, largely because they lack California emissions equipment.
The attack on horsepower is just silly, when it is but one component of what goes into a car's performance, and when many cars with relatively low power have high levels of tailpipe emissions. At least on this thread, it is an excuse to attack sports cars and to complain about the speed limits, despite any facts to support the argument.
Again:
-If you care about fuel economy, then focus on it. Price fuel so that people are encouraged to buy less of it, and provide better alternative transportion options so that people don't drive.
-If you care about air pollution, then encourage people to drive less and increase tailpipe emission standards across the US to match California levels, and extend that standard to include trucks.
-If you care about greenhouse gases, do the above plus encourage alternative fuels and improved fuel economy.
-If you care about safety, let the traffic engineers set the speed limits based upon the flow of traffic, educate drivers about lane discipline and improved attention spans, build freeways in areas in which two-lane roads carry heavy traffic, and encourage mass transit, trains and flying in place of driving.
Rather than use gimmicks to attack faster cars, address the real problem. And drive in the right lane, while you're at it...
Did you even see my prior post where I quoted that remark. I understand the CO2 is a greenhouse gas and not a pollutant. CO isn't a pollutant either, but one doesn't want to breathe it in.
I'm okay if you want to get a superpowerful car, you should pay your due for the environmental damage and waste of resources. And by the way, obey all traffic laws...
-If you care about air pollution, then encourage people to drive less and increase tailpipe emission standards across the US to match California levels, and extend that standard to include trucks. "...
I think in truth things are totally bassackwards. I posted not too far back hydrogen is at 16 per gal (weight actually) with 22 mpg in a Honda Civic. With fuel priced at 2-8 dollars this is an absolute no brainer. So to make it another no brainer, price hydrogen at 1-2 per gal(weight actually) and unleaded regular fuel at 16.
me: and I'll ask you again to explain specifically how much fuel we'd save, how much emissions are reduced, and how this makes any of our lives noticeably better. Or if you wish explain how future generations will be better off by saving this amount of fuel.
Either you have no idea, or you know it is not a significant amount. Which is it? Or if my analysis of the data and trends from the DOE, that I've done over the years is wrong please feel free to prove your argument. Otherwise you're just trying to organize a bucket-brigade to bail on the Titantic - a good intention, but futile.
you may be interested in the following study by the DOE, that shows that CO2 emissions will continue to grow because of growing economies. Most of the growth will be in "emerging economies" which will surpass the U.S. and Europe. See P.77 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf Would you like to tell those emerging economies that they shouldn't try for a better lifestyle?
me: But a Vette gets better mpg in non-urban driving than many other vehicles. A minivan, SUV, PU, and many older cars have lower mpg than a new Vette. The Vette sips fuel at highway speeds, running low rpms. I would guess the people using the most resources are the typical family driving the AWD Chrysler MV, with the 3 kids who need to be driven to sports practices, the mall, and school everyday. The amount of driving people do in their lifestyles these days, is AT LEAST as important in fuel usage as what they drive.
And I'll ask you to say how much fuel is used and what the percentage of pollution contributed by large displacement and high horsepower engines to the total contributed by cars burning petrol.
"Would you like to tell those emerging economies that they shouldn't try for a better lifestyle?"
Would you like to have a habitable earth in a few hundred years? Or are you part of the me, me, me generation? Conservation is in our best interests.
Yes, but it pollutes more. There is no getting around this. In general, the higher the horsepower the worse the gas mileage the worse the pollution (including CO2). As previously said, getting high gas mileage going down a hill with the foot off the gas is a no-brainer. Get the same gas mileage in massive traffic jams and stop and go traffic.
So here is an interesting tidbit actually massive, if you need a grindstone to put your shoulders to. The cars being manufactured for China's use do not even meet European and USA emission standards!!!!!
So you really need to direct the question of whether this modified communist system is of the me me me generation!?
The real task is to get rid of traffic jams that require massive fuel waste!!!! (idling)
What's astounding is that you could absolutely care less about cars with low horsepower that pollute just as much, if not more, than some of the higher powered ones.
You are obviously using these emissions comments as a cover-up for what you really want, otherwise you'd wish to control high emissions levels, regardless of the power of the car that creates them.
carbon monoxide: an odorless very poisonous gas that is a product of incomplete combustion of carbon
Something gas cars spew more of than diesel cars. And you are right we don't want to breathe it. Why is this deadly gas not regulated?
Just for a moment try to put yourself the place of a young urban professional. He is working up the ladder saving money so someday he can buy that fancy sports car and cruise across this great nation of ours in style. His office is at the top of the Twin Towers. One day his dream vanishes along with his life.
You say why would anyone work for that kind of dream? Who in their right mind would work their tail off, riding to work on a subway in a stinky big city, to own a Corolla?
Dreams are what made America great. You would like to eliminate some of them, for what? A few less grams of CO2 or NOx? If you are right, we will be out of oil in a very short time. There will be some other cause to fight for. The people cutting down the redwoods for biodiesel. Or destroying our crop lands to grow ethanol.
Enjoy life, get a Porsche, it could all be gone in a minute. Remember 9/11
me: The question was posed to you, so that you can use your own definition of excessive and high hp, or else you'll have a problem with my definition, right?
My calculations on an SUV board a while ago, were that if you got everyone out of an SUV and into a 4-cyl Camry, the U.S. would save approx. 2% of the oil it uses. It is about 0.5% of the global usage. So if we normalize our oil usage to 100 and then our oil usage going forward each year is going to be 100, 102, 104, 106 ... If we switched everyone to Camry's instead of SUV's then it will be 100, 98, 100, 102, 104 ... You get a minor difference.
Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you tell us what you define as excessive, and how many of those vehicles are on the road, and then you can determine what they're mpg is, and how much they can be improved.
Guys - I suggest if kd can't come up with some data and some sort of logical argument other than restating a mantra like a robot, that we move on, and don't respond to what then must be considered spam.
My fellow poster, you have totally failed to grasp what it being said. Just because my neighbor let's all of the faucets run in his house 24x7 doesn't mean I should do just the same. Just because China's energy usage is on the increase, doesn't mean we should blow it all in one pop and continue to be the worlds being energy waster.
You can't come up with any data either, other than the "Live Free or Die" stuff. Maybe we should just close the whole thing down because nobody can come up with any hard and fast fact.
"My calculations on an SUV board a while ago"
Me thinks that a huge savings. Taking pressure off the price with the biggest benefit being the environment. In 2000 the US was using about 20mbbl/day with over 40% going toward transportation. Saving 2% or 40,000 bbl/day sounds like a great proposition to me.
Not too many folks have neighbors like yours.
2002 BMW 330ci Automatic: : 19 mpg / 27 mpg
2001 Corvette Z06 19/28 mpg
Thanks for the back at ya.I knew you would agree the comparison numbers do not indicate WASTE.
HOWEVER
the BMW 540I gets EPA Manual: 15 mpg / 23 mpg Automatic: : 18 mpg / 24 mpg.
Now I know you are NOT going to tell me the BMW 540I gets better mileage than EPA 19/28 mpg
...otherwise, no one will whom you wish to convince will be swayed...
...since you do not give an argument to listen to.
Very odd -- perhaps the wealth of EPA data I've provided doesn't appear on your monitor.
Before I call my IT guy, I have to ask the other posters here -- are all of you able to see those posts that I provided, or is Shapiro the only one who can't seem to access them?
"when CO2 is factored in Vette loses big time."
Miss the point!?
2002 BMW 540i 10.4 tons
2002 BMW 330i 8.6 tons
2001 BMW 540i 10.4 tons
2001 BMW 330i 8.6 tons
2001 Corvette 8.5 tons
Green house gases
So when cars only emit water out the tail pipe, does this mean more humidity, and wet, dangerously slippery, and decaying roads ahead? Oh the humanity!!! And they thought hydrogen cars were safe :sick:
- while driving my 400hp car on interstates, it sometimes seems ridiculous that i'm on the same road as all the silly slowpokes on roads where there is no proper lane discipline (e.g. the right lane is the fast lane). i think we all know that differences in speed on highways are a risk factor. could it be that differences in acceleration are also a risk factor?
- don't insurance costs often entail more cost for high-hp cars, so maybe that factor is already helping to mitigate the sales of those?
i do see the car magazines often mentioning insurance cost as a reason for the low sales of some high-hp cars (camaro!)
on the other hand, insurance isn't required in all states but realistically most people have to buy it due to liens.
- gas tax is the obvious way to reduce gas consumption if we think the price of fuel is not increasing fast enough. "keep it simple, socialists!"
- as long as folks are talking about obtrusive government techniques to reduce fuel usage, let's legislate that hybrid cars must stay out of the carpool lanes so they use less total fuel - they'll stay in their "city mpg" sweetspot if we legislate they stay in the stop-n-go traffic while the left lanes are reserved for the fast cars which excel at highway mpg... oh, to dream.
- lots of discussion about what appears to be property tax (aka excise tax) assessed by towns on car registrations. around here that tax is assessed based on vehicle value. i wonder if it would be constitutional/legal to include hp in the calculation used for car excise tax assessment.
me: yes there is a slight increase over the typical sedan, which can be worse if there are drivers with points or teens on the policy. I have no points and my Firebird Formula with the same coverage is about 20% more than my Silverado, but the same as my X-Type. So the premium is not really following the hp-trend. When I 've owned small cars such as a CRX, Escort and Impreza I always saw rates higher than my other typical sedan.
you: - gas tax is the obvious way to reduce gas consumption.
me: that is true. If it keeps people from driving the roads will be less congested too, which thus decreases accidents and thus fatalities and injuries. I'm not for a gas tax higher than needed to maintain the roads though. A gas tax should not be used to discourage driving; market forces can take care of that.
you: i wonder if it would be constitutional/legal to include hp in the calculation used for car excise tax assessment.
me: I doubt there is anything in your state constitution addressing this. All it takes for it to be legal is for your legislature to make it a law. Legislatures could write a law tomorrow taxing you on how many speakers your car has, or tax it based on what color it is.
My state and town also taxes on value. I'm not sure if there is differentiation between a V-6's value and a V-8's, but I'm sure when the model name changes like Impreza to Impreza WRX the value is rated higher. So indirectly at least some cars are taxed higher for having higher hp.
I didn't give an argument for the gas-guzzler tax either...
I agree hydrocarbons should be reduced as well. What's astounding is that you fail to see they are all still legal. But a smaller engine produces less greenhouse gases.
You must have missed Tony Blair's speech on GHG. The UK has all but given up on the Kyoto Treaty. He stated that meeting the goals would be impossible in a growing economy. Japan is not close to reaching their goal on GHG. Global Warming is a non issue to most of the World. In spite of a few ignorant political pundits like R. Kennedy jr. If Global warming causes hurricanes like Katrina, so be it. The environmentalists cannot have it all ways. The easiest way to cut CO2 in cars is use less fuel. Diesel cars use less fuel. But they put out a little more NOx. We all cannot own a super clean hybrid. Nor do most of us want one. Heck Toyota cannot build enough of the Prius to satisfy a niche market. If you follow the hybrid market trend, you know that most of the vehicles offered tout MORE HORSEPOWER for the same or a little less gas. Even the people that are supposedly concerned about the environment enough to spend several thousand dollars in hybrid component premiums, want MORE HP. Or so it would seem to me. Two out of the 3 hybrids offered by Toyota put out a ton per year more GHG than the Jetta TDI. Yet the Toyota hybrids are the Green ones. Plus they have a higher HP to weight ratio than a Hummer2.
Well there we have it, so we shouldn't be concerned either.
"MORE HORSEPOWER for the same or a little less gas"
Horsepower/torque from electric motors is not that same as gas engines. Electric motor horsepower does nothing except at slow speeds and we are not talking about electric motor torque. Hybrids bring a whole new set of fascinating envirnomental issues as there will be truckloads of batteries in the waste-stream starting in about 5 years.
In addition, comparing CNG to DIESEL to GAS is not an apples to apples comparision with regards to pollution. With regards to your comments about Hummers, it is classified as a "truck". The standards to which that classification is applied needs to be revisited as "trucks" whose primary duty is a 4/5/6/7 seat passenger vehicle have to be included in the CAFE standards. At which time it would be subject to a gas-guzzler tax.
I agree. They each have pros & cons.
I was pretty sure you could see the pitfall that hybrids offer. So far the hybrids are a niche market and only two have any kind of momentum. I think the same holds true for sports cars. We are not talking a lot of cars. Corvette is probably the best selling. How many do you think hit the road, 30k for the year? They also historically do not get driven a lot. I think high HP sports cars are insignificant. PU trucks and SUVs might be a different story. But they are not known for high HP to weight ratio. So that leaves the real HP culprits the, Accord, Camry & Altima V6s. Or any family vehicle with more than 175 HP. Taxing them heavily would bring in significant revenue. I see more family sedans flying by me on the freeway at 80+ MPH than sports cars.
My thought though is to tax the excess consumption/total pollution on a sliding scale, both in low weight high horsepower (even those with supposed great gas mileage) and high weight passenger duty vehicles.