By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
How is the test now not fair, since it is the same test used on every vehicle?
And by the way - if you go look at fueleconomy.gov and search the 2009 diesel SportWagen, the only owner reporting mileage is reporting 46 miles per gallon.
I have been consistent on my views of the tax credit from day one and have not wavered. I think the qualities of the CAR need to stand out, and the tax credit should not be a deciding factor at all.
And because of alt min tax rules, I only got to take $829 of my supposed $2600 tax credit for the TCH. ( That is neither here nor there, because I did not buy the car with the tax credit in mind anyway. It was just gravy on top. Getting a great car with great MPG is the true benefit. )
That will be the way the buyers of the Jetta should feel too. Don't buy the car just because of the $1300 credit, because if you can afford it easily, you PROBABLY earn too much money to benefit very much from the tax credit anyway.
Anyone who earns low enough to take the full tax credit is going to be "pushing their budget" to buy a $25K car with it's associated $500 a month payment.
No, the drivers involved are there and so is the damage. No independent witnesses.
I had a friend of mine hit from behind, who then hit the car in front of him ticketed for following too closely, AND responsible for the damage.
If you are going to tail gate is it better to be inches away than feet away assuming in either case that you could not possibly stop if the driver in front of you hits his brakes?
Another reason to support shipment of goods via rail...
It uses a one size fits all fomula. Will you be happy if they use the same test for the PHEV or EVs. If the EPA cannot do legitimate tests for each type vehicle they should "BUTT OUT"
Yes I saw one person posting 46 MPG combined for the new Jetta TDI. That is just as good of a number as the EPA number of 33 MPG Combined. As you said they only tested one diesel out of 600+
I would like to see the EPA contract the testing out to a private company that can be questioned without dealing with political hacks in places of power. Or let the company post their own figures and be responsible to the buyers.
The EPA has oversight - I posted that this morning.
By the way - the EPA combined number for the Jetta Sportswagen TDI is 34.5 (29 City/40 Hwy)
You did not answer my questions either.
Will you be happy when they try to use the same tests for the PHEV? If the test comes back with the same mileage as the basic hybrid?
Yes you posted the oversight link and I mailed them a letter. We shall see how they respond to a tax payer. I will post their response when I get it.
Provided you don't get hit by lightning, win the lottery, and have a heart attack when your passing a certain someone blocking the fast lane.
Yes, we should all live our lives based on things that might happen once every millenia.
And if/when the insurance runs out who pays for the care/financial support of that individual who drive considerably faster than the posted limit?
We the people!
So you want the "freedom' to drive 80-90 becasue you got the ride or the skills?
Great if you got an extra 5 mil laying around!
The insurance industry does lobby Congress for lower speed limits, but it's not for safety reasons, but for revenue generation for arbitrary speeding tickets. The Police are generally terrible and lazy at doing their jobs, and often have poor judgment and power of observation. The Insurance Industry is full of scum lower than the lowest of the low on Earth, and I'd rank Drug Dealers to young kids higher on the totem pole of ethtics than Auto Insurance people.
Yes, an accident at 80 MPH is more serious than one at 60 MPH, but if and ONLY when you have an accident in the first place. We might be going down a 4 lane divided highway (2 lanes going in each direction), and you might be doing 60 in the slow lane, and I'm doing 80 in the fast lane.
Two deer run across the road at the same time, but I'm already ahead of you and the deer runs right behind me, and I miss him, but you hit him because your going too slow. If you had been going 80, you'd of beat him to the spot and been long gone too, and therefore no collision. Since you were going 60, you got caught between a rock and a hard place.
You see, going fast doesn't cause more severe accidents because it might help you avoid accidents, and no accident is better than a less severe accident.
So the taxpayers might be paying more due to lower speed limits where people can still get injured. The best way to avoid injuries is to avoid accidents all together, and that can be accomplished through better driver training and certification / licensing, better lane discipline and enforcement, and more attentive and competent drivers with realistic speed limits on the road.
Also, less highway patrol men would probably DECREASE accidents, as supposed "speeders" often have to pay more attention to cops that might be hiding rather than on the road ahead of them.
Two deer run across the road at the same time, but I'm already ahead of you and the deer runs right behind me, and I miss him, but you hit him because your going too slow.
Looking from the other side of it, if the deer ran across the road sooner the 80 mph driver hits them because he is further down the road. The 60 mph driver, since he is going slower and doesn't require as much distance to stop, has more time to apply his brakes and avoid an accident.
Ahhhh.. True, yes, it's possible, but that just goes to show that hitting the brakes is not the only way to avoid an accident.
Sometimes, hitting the gas and going from 80 to 100 might be the safest manuever as that deer might be the Momma with 3 more deer in the family following right behind it. Maybe swerving without braking nor accelerating providing maximum traction to manueverability is the best choice.
The key is that speed has nothing to do with the accident, unless you bring in bad timing into the equation, in which case going slower could result in bad timing as well.
But when I do drive, I like to get there at a fast, safe, comfortable speed. Not some forced to save gas speed limit measure that suppose to fit all drivers
. Why dont they force people to save for retirement THATS THE REAL CRISIS FACING THE NATION I can save just as much gas between stop lights as if I were doing 55 down a freeway.
I'll have to put "how to save gas" on my blog then tell my senator to look at it when he gets back from vacation. How do they get elected?
Average high beam headlight range is about 350 feet, but on low beam only 160 feet. If you are traveling at 60 mph, you are covering about 90 feet per second. The average attentive person's reaction time is .75 to 1.50 seconds. A person's reaction distance at 60 mph would be somewhere between 67.5 and 135 feet; add braking distance to that and the total is over 300 feet. Put this all together, and on low beams, if something is in your path anywhere within up to 300 feet (the length of a football field), you can't stop in time to miss it. If you cannot steer around it, you're doomed; this is called "out-driving your headlights."
This paragraph is referring to old not halogen lights. Still its very easy at speed to fast enough to doom yourself. All you need is for someone to loose something out of the pack of their pickup and not notice it.
Mark.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20080815_Tires_fly_off_truck__killing_van_driv- er.html
I think you must have misread the document. Maybe the EPA "expected" the new numbers to be something they were not.
The new EPA numbers are definitely closer now in real-world driving in all cars except for the diesels, WE THINK, because there are only about 3 diesel vehicles we can even talk about right now.
Go look at some popular 2008 and 2009 models at fueleconomy.gov and see what the real drivers have posted. They are very close now.
The new test now is FAR better for 99% of the cars on the road than the old test.
All cars must have mandatory safety checks performed every year at state facilities at no charge.
I drive various segments of I90, rush and other times. "Everybody" does not go 75-80.
As to a speed limit of 85, absolutely ridiculous. Most of the drivers have no sense of how to drive at anything over 65 in terms of avoiding, driving around, escape routes, stopping distance. That includes the ones thinking their special car with 22 inch wheels is extra great because they are 19 and can drive better than everyone else. GMAB.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The head of the trucker association was advocating a 65 mph speed limit for everyone, not just truckers. Quite a difference, in my view. This is too slow for most passenger cars and light trucks.
Limits also shouldn't be dumbed down to appease those flying past middle age in hoary pushrod-powered mobile sofas who can't handle more than a mile a minute.
If people want to buy guzzlers, let them, and let them pay the price later on. The suburbanite who buys a Suburban and then can't pay the gas bill isn't deserving of sympathy. The posers who buy these are irrelevant to speed limits.
I'd argue (correctly in my opinion) that a 55 MPH speed limit would be 1,000 TIMES more ridiculous than an 85 or 90 MPH speed limit.
Just because most drivers have no sense on how to drive doesn't mean someone that has that sense should be regulated and dumbed down.
Some drivers do know how to drive 85 to 90 MPH safely in certain vehicles under certain conditions, and they should be allowed to do so since it is absolutely safe. For the drivers that know they can't handle it, I'd suggest they don't drive it. Just because the speed limit is 85 MPH doesn't mean you have to drive 85. They can putter along at 65MPH in the slow far right lane.
Thank you very much!
It was tried once, and it failed. It dumbed down car design in this country, and did nothing to improve safety. It also resulted in lots of unjustified tickets.
And it completely ignores the differences in driving conditions between various regions. It's ridiculous to expect Texans, for example, to drive 55 mph on their limited access highways.
imidazol97: People already are buying SUVs and low gas mileage vehicles from all brands because gas has been reduced a little in price. The people are so dumb. In a year they'll be complaining again how unfair it is that they have those 15 mpg Tundras and Sequoias and Suburbans and Expeditions and therefore gas shouldn't be $4.75 gallon.
Do you have proof of this? The latest figures I've seen (for July) show that SUV and pickup sales are still dropping. Even sales of "cute UTEs" (Escape, CR-V, etc.), are down. The sales results for August (as opposed to estimates) have not yet been released.
And if someone does complain about rising gas prices after buying a gas gulper...so what? They are exercising their first-amendment rights. That doesn't mean we have to listen to them, anymore than we have to listen to those who wail about drivers traveling over 65 mph on limited access highways.
imidazol97: As to a speed limit of 85, absolutely ridiculous. Most of the drivers have no sense of how to drive at anything over 65 in terms of avoiding, driving around, escape routes, stopping distance.
Except that studies have shown that those who driver over the speed limit are safer than those who drive at or under the speed limit. So you're contention has not proven true in real-world experience. Speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile. This is the sound way to set speed limits, accepted by reputable traffic safety engineers.
And speeds of 85 mph are entirely appropriate in places out west, such as New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona. Imposing a 55 mph on those areas is counterproductive at best, and foolish at worst.
It is easy to fix. Drivers must be educated how to drive instead of rotating the wheel, eating and talking in same time while driving 55mph. Driving skills test must be up to German standards, but it not gonna happened because lot of people not be able to pass it. Current driving license test is a joke.
"The fatality rate of 1.37 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled in 2007 was the lowest on record, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in its report."
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080815/NEWS01/8081- - 50364/1001/NEWS
It sounds to me like the cars we are driving and how we drove in 2007 was relatively safe.
Who told you that? That is only part of the formula. There is a complicated formula for the tax credit and it is as follows:
Who Qualifies for What
Along with the new system come new requirements. The exact amount of a specific credit is based on a complex formula determined by vehicle weight, type of hybrid technology, fuel economy, and emissions data. Basically, the combination of the following two factors is what largely determines how much your tax credit is.
1. Conservation Credit: A vehicle qualifies for a $250 credit if it is expected to save at least 1,200 gallons of gas over its lifetime (estimated by the IRS at 120,000 miles) compared to a fuel consumption average gathered from vehicles of similar weight and class. For each additional 600 gallons of gasoline savings, the vehicle earns $250 in tax credits, up to $1,000.
2. Fuel Economy Credit: This credit amount is also based on the vehicle's fuel economy compared to similar vehicles in its class. A $400 credit is awarded if the car or truck gets at least 25 percent better fuel economy. The credit increases by $400 for every 25 percent improvement after that, up to $2,400. The maximum combined credit is $3,400.
See the full story on this page:
Understanding the Hybrid Tax credits
The problem is that every person thinks they are the most capable driver when it comes to speeds over 45, of course. And the same person thinks their car is the best for driving at 85 on any road. The real problem comes with attitude. If you go to the inconsiderate driver discussion there are many of the overconfident drivers complaining about people using their high speed lane at 65 and their cure is to tailgate rather than be courteous and put their driver training to work.
And you are right on about people playing with their CDs, sounds systems, cell phones, drinking, eating, and even farding while driving. Driving needs to be the sole activity.
But many people don't use the drivers training they got even in states like Pennsylvania to drive courteously and effectively.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You need to look at the chart on your link. The credit for the Prius was based on 60 MPG city driving. Annual gallons saved 2744. Over what car was this calculated? One of the many mysteries in the EPA secrets archive. EPA was pro hybrid and are anti diesel. Finding out who is to blame would cost millions of tax dollars. They are too big for their own good. Where is the open government we are supposed to have. They won't even divulge which of the cars they test and which the automaker tests. Makes it real easy to lie about the tests.
We shall see if the over sight people you are so proud of are just as secretive as the lady I corresponded with at the EPA.
You are 100% right. People is US drives better than drivers in Italy, but much more worse than in Germany.
Let's try and keep it respectable on this board.
They are merely PRO CLEAN AIR. Now that the diesels are CLEAN ENOUGH, the EPA is promoting them.
You still did not comment on why such an anti-diesel agency as the EPA would have a RED STAR at the TOP of the fueleconomy.gov website which points out the new tax incentives for the new clean diesel vehicles.
Seems like they WANT people to know about the tax incentives. Could that be TRUE Gary?
What are you talking about? :confuse:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I am sure just to let people know it gets the tax credit.
You just will not accept that the test did not fairly rate the VW Jetta TDI. You also did not comment on how you will feel if they try to rate the PHEV with the same test.
Untrue on both accounts. The difference is 6.5 MPG on the combined mileage between the EPA test and the other test. I'm saying "big freakin whoop" just like I said big freakin whoop when the EPA gave the Prius 60 city and most people were getting in the low 50s.
On the Jetta test, A Big Ole' Whopping 6.5 MPG was the tested difference. That can be caused by just tire inflation.
And I did comment on the PHEV. I said as long as the same test is done on ALL types of vehicles, there inevitably will be variances based on technology differences.
Let's hope for the guvmint's sake they change the tax credit formula for the PHEVs, or we're going to be seeing tax credits in the $8,000 range with vehicles getting 100 MPG on the test.
I dont think we should increase the speed limit everywhere, but in flat landscape areas where the weather is usually good, Im all for it.
Things I should be allowed to do as a good - OFFENSIVE DRIVER
1) I should also be allowed to put a mad max type grill on my ride to move people out of the left lane that still havent figured out that they should move over if they are going slower than the person behind them.
2) Honk at any moron that has a cell phone to their ear. Its now illegal in my state and I have the right to not only honk at you but to report you to the cops. Its illegal, take 5 bucks and buy an earpiece. Still makes my blood boil when all these rich clowns driving their Benzos and BMWs can afford a 60K vehicle but not a sub 30 dollar earpiece.
3) Honk and hit anyone with my madmax grill that rolls through a stopsign. California stops drive me nuts.
As you can tell I like to drive fast and love my horn ( I wish it was louder).
Amen to that. It always amazes me when I'm on one of my transcontinental bicycle rides, perhaps climbing a slow mountain pass on the edge of a winding road (no shoulder), and cars will pass me on a two-lane road with double yellow line in the middle of a blind curve. They're usually at least halfway or more into the oncoming lane with absolutely no way of knowing what might be approaching from the other direction around the bend.
I haven't seen any head-on collisions because of this but it could easily turn into a great opportunity for an airbag check. Are people in such a hurry that they can't wait an extra 10 seconds to see what's around the bend?
A Big Ole' Whopping 6.5 MPG was the tested difference
On the city mileage that counts for the tax credit there was 9 MPG difference. Or 24% which is significant. It probably would have at least doubled the tax credit for the consumers. Of course I would not expect you to scream unless the miscarriage of justice was against the hybrids. Someone has to speak up against the hoodlums running that secretive organization in Washington DC.
The tax credit goes away in 2010 so no PHEVs will get any under the current program. The chances of getting another through is slim. Congress will spend all their time to get carbon credit "CAP & TRADE" programs going so they can collect those taxes with higher electric bills. Coming to an electric utility near you SOON....
Hmm...my company firewall blocks me from reading the link. However, there is an article in today's paper by Ken Thomas of the Associated Press that talks about this - probably the same press release.
Here are some highlights:
"Transportation Secretary Mary Peters credited safer vehicles and aggressive law enforcement as contributing to the drop."
"Economic turndown and high gas prices are given as some of the reasons for the continuing decline in traffic deaths nationally."
I think they put out about 2 million decibels,,
It's a big hobby in some circles. The air tanks are too big to haul around on a bicycle unfortunately.
I don't agree with 55 mph limit at all. A few years ago, I went to S.Dakota with three others in a '99 Accord LX 4-cyl. with a manual, and got 38 mpg on I-90 doing a constant 82 mph (speed limit 75 mph) for over 200 miles. Seriously, where is the drop in efficiency above 55? I have yet to see it.