Not yet. I am leaning toward the X5 diesel when it arrives. Or I may still go for the ML320 CDI. I was hoping the tax credits would be on a par with hybrids. The idea was both cleaner and using less fuel. Why the EPA decided to use city rather than combined mileage is anyone's guess.
Gary says, "A clear bias toward hybrids. Been that (sic) a long time."
Like I have said before - the only "evidence" you have regarding this is your own opinion.
I have produced logical evidence to the contrary. Seems like this is a clear-cut case.
If this were a court case, the judge would have thrown out the case and fined you for contempt for repeatedly saying the same thing over and over without any concrete information.
I'm in a similar boat. My commute is about 3.5 miles each way. I only have to come in 4 days per week, and when I do, I come in early, leaving at about 0530. I can make it to work in 6-8 minutes in the morning. Going home it usually takes 15 minutes or so, due to traffic and poor traffic controls. It makes no time difference if I take either route available, one on surface streets entirely or one with a short freeway jaunt (maybe 200 yards). When it has snowed or there are storms, it has taken me 30-45 mins to get home a few times, as 2" snow = armageddon, in these parts.
Gary says, "EPA is just another corrupt agency of a corrupt Federal government. "
Once again, your opinion, with no facts to back it up. At least in regard to the legitimacy of the EPA mileage test. The EPA has indeed broken the law, been sued, paid fines, etc.
I have already explained with virtually perfect logic that there is NO WAY the EPA test could have possibly been biased toward hybrids since the test came first.
Do you have some contradictory logic, or are you merely issuing your unfounded opinion? Again.
...cut my commuter miles from 40+ miles per day to nothing and my total mileage from >20K to about 6-7K per year. I feel sorry for outside sales people who must use their cars to get around as I did. Years ago we had gas trade-outs but those disappeared with the escalation of prices to over $2.00/ Gas dealers were/are getting such narrow margins they can no longer justify swapping gas for ad time.
I tried to talk them into letting me telecommute as well. My rationale is that most of the work I do is on the computer anyway, and if they really needed me here, in person, I could make it in in 10 mins. Unfortunately, they didn't buy it.
Dense traffic and population where I live...I "could", but I don't. Bicycle would be bad, it rains a lot here, I have several 4-5 lane roads to cross, and there are hills. I am also lazy, either in the early morning or after an eon at work having to ride a few miles in a cold rain wouldn't have me smiling. I'd rather exercise in a warm gym where a trophy wife in a Range Rover is less likely to plow into me. I'd consider a proper motorcycle first, but even then I am a bit chicken...the people here scare me enough in my multi-airbag car. I still almost always use less than 5-6 gallons of gas per week, so it's not a big deal.
I'd consider other transportation if I lived in a less populated area. I could actually take an early morning bus and not have too much walking or time inconvenience...but I would lose a good 40 minutes taking it home.
Almost the same story here. That and the network I use is problematic enough from the office, getting connected from home is bound to be a disaster. Oh well.
fin - sorry to hear that your employer is against the idea of telecommuting.
My employer seems to actually encourage folks to become "remote" employees. In all honesty, there just aren't that many positions where you work with the same team in the same location. Given the global nature of my job, nobody really cares where my body is physically. Add to that the fact that I have just as fast of a network connection from home as I do at the office, a dedicated home office, VoiP for phone and a combination fax / scanner / copier / printer, I've pretty much got everything I need.
Except for peace and quiet. Darn pets ....
It's especially nice to work from home in the winter, when my normal 25-35 minute commute has been as long as 60-90 minutes when the snow falls and people forget how to drive in it.
My wife's commute, OTOH, is about 15 miles long and involves all of 3 traffic signals. When the weather gets bad, the DOT has been known to close the road between the town where we live and the town where she works. However, she's got AWD on her SUV (and she's lived her whole life here), so she just goes slow. She's been driving for 25 years and has not been in one accident.
You are trying so hard to find an angle to argue, and what you fail to realize is that, on this point, I am not arguing with you. The net effect of the whole thing is that hybrids are favored. If it pains you too much too simply acknowledge that, I'm ok with that. If you would rather argue the merits of the rationale behind it all, we can get to that later.
Hybrids are not "favored" and I will never agree to that statement.
The fact is, the hybrids did well on the old test because the battery ran a lot during the city portion of the test.
That's all it was. It was just an accidental fortunate alignment of a flawed test and a new technology that was not on the road back when the test method was created.
No one was harmed in the collision of these two factors. In fact, the air being cleaner and the amount of gasoline that has gone unsold are the two main results.
have ever seen the epa headquarters building in washington, dc? i am sure you would be impressed by the gold plated exterior fixtures. that was #3 after the lincoln and vietnam memorials. i respect the first 2.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Ah, I see. I can appreciate your disappointment. I personally like the GL, but it's just a leeeettle out of my reach. I also would like the credits to be a bit more generous for diesels.
The credits have to be tied to some metric. The feds have a tendency to hang everything on efficiency standards and draw parallels to other issues. That's the basis of the current dispute between your state and the feds. Feds say increased efficiency alone is enough to achieve emissions goals. CA says the feds dismissively discount other approaches to reducing emissions.
I'm not entirely convinced that reducing emissions was much of a motivation in crafting the tax credit system, but rather it is just a nice bonus. I would guess the feds saw city MPG as the area that provided the most potential for improvement, so that's what they focused on. In doing so, hybrids end up benefiting more than other technologies.
The fact is, the hybrids did well on the old test because the battery ran a lot during the city portion of the test.
Maybe you can explain why the Prius is still given a 66.6 MPG rating for the 2008 Prius. Those numbers should reflect the new supposedly better tests? No difference from the 2004. You can check the datafiles all the way back to 1978. There is a difference for the VW TDI. So maybe they did in fact test them with the new test. They just used a formula for the Prius and who knows what other vehicles. Your mind is made up. There are folks here that are interested in getting to the truth about the EPA. What are we getting for the money spent?
You'll have to help me out here Gary. When I download the '08 Fuel Economy Guide from your link, all the Prius numbers are 48/45. The zip file opens a spreadsheet that says 66.6 under heading like UNRND CITY (EPA), UNRND HWY (EPA) and UNRND COMP (EPA). I don't know what those headings mean. Unrounded before all the tests were completed?
Under the "normal" mpg headings (CITY MPG (GUIDE) HWY MPG (GUIDE)) on the same spreadsheet, the Prius still comes in at 48/45.
According to the letter I just received from the EPA. The tax credits are based on the CAFE city mileage ratings. Those ratings are the EPA unadjusted numbers. Someone posted that link that shows the data files with unadjusted numbers that CAFE uses. I have not found any explanation as to where those numbers were derived. More EPA smoke and mirrors.
The letter states. "Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, EPA is required to determine the test methods and calculations for two major fuel economy programs": CAFE and consumer friendly fuel economy information posted on new vehicle labels.
larsb likes to argue that the tax credits are fairly allocated. If that was the case the criteria would be based on combined mileage not city only. This program was for alternative fuels and hybrids. Yet it was tilted toward hybrids by using city mileage as the criteria.
Lazy is a big issue for me, especially if it is 41F outside in pouring rain with 30mph winds, hills, lots of traffic, and very few bike lanes. The electric bike solves one of the problems, but I am not in relatively flat and dry AZ...so there are at least a couple other issues I can't eliminate.
Some of it is being too cheap to get it going, the other is that for some specialized jobs, the connectivity and software involved seems to carry a high cost. Lately there have been a lot of issues even at the office, they wouldn't be able to troubleshoot at remote locations. And there's a little micromanagement involved, too.
When it snows here and I am going to work, I will simply call in and not go, or come in late. But my luck is rarely so good...it usually snows and ices up 10 mins before I am set to leave.
commuting to work in the Seattle area, my homeland but no longer my home, are as follows:
1) Watch out for the logging trucks...I'd have to share the I-5 freeway with them from up north in Skagit County and tool along around them on the way south to the Everett Boeing plant. They're basically ruthless as hell, they know they're large and they take advantage of it. Rocks fly out from their tires and loads at will and at random. The rocks are murder on your windshield.
2) Overall the commuter force as a whole are a bunch of jerks. Rude and in such a hurry it was ridiculous.
I am glad to be baking in the sunny SW desert here in Arizona than be back in my homeland Puget Sound, commuting with the neanderthals. Rude, tailgating idiots.
They can have it, artificially-inflated home prices and all. On the flip side, Dick's Drive-In did make a mean deluxe and special hamburger and the fries were good. Seattle has the mah-va-lous Seahawks, the pitiful Mariners and now they no longer have my beloved Sonics. Trying to talk about the Supersonics at Boeing was like talking to brick walls! They'd even turn away like you were talking about the Bubonic plague or something. If it was the horrible Seattle Mariners baseball club they'll talk your ear off. Boy, how exciting, following MLB. What's wrong with these people? :sick:
Perhaps my favorite thing about my homeland-besides the Supersonics(now the Oklahoma City Thunder ), are the beautiful mountains, the coastline, the Olympic mountains, the rivers, the mountain lakes, etc. The Space Needle is pretty cool, Pike Place Market, EMP music venue, oh...all of the Pacific NW is van-tastic for music of many kinds. It's an American music mecca and hothouse, full of anger and angst, suicides, and some of the hottest rock and roll available. I think I'm gonna have to head back for a vacation in the spring of '09 sometime. :shades:
Dick's Drive-In did make a mean deluxe and special hamburger and the fries were good.
That's in Wallingford? I have an in-law a few blocks from it and have driven by it a dozen times in past years. Guess I'll have to pull in one of these days.
The Boeing strike continues so perhaps the commute has eased a bit in the last couple of weeks.
been doing the same commute for the past 12 years. I figure I am in the neighborhood of riding the same road about 5,000 times. It's about 20 miles one way and 18 miles of it is one road, so there is no other good variation. I leave at 5:30 to beet the morning rush and make it in 30 minutes. The afternoon takes about 45 minutes.
I use to play games to keep my mind occupies like finding the oldest house that has a plaque on it with the year it was built (1698 btw) , the driveway with the most cars(8) or house I would buy if money was no object. I ran out of those games a few years ago and now just try to spot new model cars.
I wonder how well an electric Jeep would go over. Jeeps and other vehicles that are used to travel away from inhabited areas need long ranges of operation
Just get you a little 29 lb Honda 1kw genset and toss it in back. They run like 8 hours on a gallon of gas. Charge that baby up and over the mountain you go.
Gary says, "larsb likes to argue that the tax credits are fairly allocated. If that was the case the criteria would be based on combined mileage not city only. "
I already explained that in full.
The purpose of the hybrid tax credit was to get cleaner cars on the road.
The majority of air pollution problems are in big cities, in densely populated areas, and is also the place where air pollution is most dangerous to the health of the citizens.
So cars which do WELL and pollute LESS on the CITY portion of the test would be more beneficial toward cleaning the air.
Thus, the hybrids, which were designed to perform well in city environs, were pimped to the public with the high City mileage in a part of the effort to CLEAN THE AIR.
If you cannot latch on to that perfect logic, then you have personal issues.
Yes, it is a rounding formula they are using. Looking over the spreadsheet, the cars usually are rated at 72-77% of their actual test results. That was in an attempt to get the test results to be more realistic for real-world driving.
Brand Model Style City Hwy Unrounded city unrounded hwy SATURN ASTRA 2D HATCHBACK 24 32 27 30.9 45.1 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI 29 40 33 38.5034 56.6944 TOYOTA PRIUS 48 45 46 66.6 64.8
This following paragraph will PUT AN END to the argument that the "Jetta TDI GOT SCREWED" by the EPA test.
Because if you look at the numbers, the Jetta TDI was given a rating which was 75.3% of it's actual city test result, while the Prius was only given a rating which was 72% of it's actual test result. On the hwy test, the Jetta TDI was given 70.5% of it's actual test result, while the Prius was given only 69.4% of it's actual test result. So the TDI actually was given a BETTER NUMBER than the Prius based on the formula.
So now, Gary, FINALLY you can GET OVER the problem/issue you have experienced regarding your completely FALSE belief that the Jetta TDI got screwed by the EPA.
The numbers PROVE YOU WRONG, Amigo. Time to be a man and admit it.
Dangit, I LOVE the smell of being RIGHT in the morning.
The only one with a problem is yourself. The New Energy Credit Tax Bill was for all energy conservation. The credits were ALL based on fuel saved. Not how clean they are. That is why diesels are now getting it. You would like to believe it was designed for the hybrids. It was NOT. The CNG & EV cars were getting it prior to hybrids being brought to this country. They changed the criteria in the 2005 Energy bill. Prior to that the Hybrid only got a clean air $2000 tax deduction. It is based on fuel economy not how clean it is. They do have to meet emissions standards. That was not the main criteria. It was to save on fuel. Not just in the city. I would guess some zealous EPA person saw the higher City mileage on the Prius and convinced the rule makers to base it on City mileage rather than combined. That is as good an explanation as yours. Without having any documentation that refutes my position, I will stick with that.
Automobile Tax Credits Buying and driving a fuel-efficient vehicle and purchasing and installing energy-efficient appliances and products provide many benefits such as better gas mileage – meaning lower gasoline costs, fewer emissions, lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution.
Individuals and businesses who buy or lease a new hybrid gas-electric car or truck are eligible for, and can receive, an income tax credit of $250-$3,400 – depending on the fuel economy and the weight of the vehicle. Hybrid vehicles that use less gasoline than the average vehicle of similar weight and that meet an emissions standard qualify for the credit. “Lean-burn” diesel vehicles could also qualify, but currently available diesel vehicles do not meet the emissions standard. There is a similar credit for alternative-fuel vehicles and for fuel-cell vehicles.
The numbers PROVE YOU WRONG, Amigo. Time to be a man and admit it.
The numbers PROVE NOTHING. Only that some over paid Civil Servant has a computer with Excel. There is no good evidence that we can trust the people that are doing the tests. Think Fannie Mae and the FED. ALL CROOKS getting paid and doing little to protect US.
When I see a real world test that matches the average driver's mileage I will believe the system works. Till then it is BROKE, and we are stuck paying the bill. Lies on a window sticker are worse than no mileage information at all. Most of my vehicles over that last 20 years did not have EPA ratings and I was fine with it.
Your little calculations should prove to you how flawed their system is. Can you come up with a reason that the percentages are all different? There are no tests involved according to my letter. They call them "adjustment factors". I tell them to factor this you bunch of useless bums :P
Gary says, "The credits were ALL based on fuel saved. "
Exactly.
More Fuel Saved = Cleaner Air More Fuel Saved = The Cars Who Do Best In Populated Areas Help More Than Cars That Do Well In Rural Areas More Fuel Saved = Give Bigger Credits To The Cars Who Save The Most Fuel And Therefore Help Clean The Air
I never said the tax credit was designed for the hybrids. It wasn't. It was indeed designed for clean, high mileage cars.
You can stick with your illogical position all you want to, but that does not make it any more logical.
Gary says, "I would guess some zealous EPA person saw the higher City mileage on the Prius and convinced the rule makers to base it on City mileage rather than combined."
That's completely laughable. Give me a few seconds to laugh....................Hard to figure out how much more ridiculous some of your stuff can get but this one really is near the top.
My position = based on logic and is completely sound and logical. Your Position = based on some far-out assumption that ONE PERSON could have decided at random "Hey, let's use CITY" and had no logical reason to do so.
Every post you put here makes me look smarter and smarter. Keep this up and soon I will become the Einstein of Edmunds.
Just in case anyone wants a break from the emotional venting and mudslinging here...
My understanding is the spreadsheet gives the CAFE figures which are used for determining if a manufacturer meets that standard. These differ from the published numbers in the fuel economy guide and window stickers in that they do not use fudge factors to adjust them and I believe they also do not use the new test components (higher speeds/acceleration, cold weather, A/C use).
It's not that your logic is flawed. Your understanding of the purpose is.
The purpose of the hybrid tax credit was to get cleaner cars on the road.
Read the legislation. This is an energy act, not a clean air act. The energy act does include the provision that qualifying vehicles must meet emissions standards, but there is no provision that they show any improvement in emissions. Most of the factors used to determine eligibility and actual credit are tied to fuel consumption, not emissions.
The act is riddled with statements regarding improved fuel efficiency, energy independence, energy security, lower fuel consumption, exceeding baseline MPG, and on and on. There is no mention at all about improved air quality. Cars must meet established emission standards, but there is no requirement that they exceed them.
The purpose is to improve fuel efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and ultimately move towards energy independence and energy security.
Cleaning up the air is a bonus, not the motivating factor, and the language in the act certainly does not establish that as the purpose of the act.
Yes, you can make the argument that reducing fuel consumption and such does indeed result in cleaner air. You can argue that cleaning up the air and reducing pollution are worthy pursuits, and that focusing efforts on more populated areas with the greater problems makes sense. You can even make the argument that this act has indeed resulted in cleaner air since diesels had to improve to meet the emissions standards to become eligible for the tax credits. Those arguments have a lot of merit. That's just not the purpose of this act or this tax credit system. If it was, the language in the act would reflect that.
But see, it's already getting impractical. Now in addition to my $30K electric Jeep, I have to go out and buy a Honda generator, and keep it in the trunk? And how far will I go on an 8-hour charge?
I dunno. It sounds semi-plausible to put an electric drivetrain in the silly little Patriot or Compass, as they will just be commute vehicles anyway. But I am not much in favor of keeping them in the Jeep lineup at all.
The only one I see with any potential is the electric minivan.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
mattandi says, "The purpose is to improve fuel efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and ultimately move towards energy independence and energy security. "
I'll concede that point. But lower consumption and cleaner emissions have a side effect, clean air, which is just as important in the mission of the EPA.
Clean Air Act Roles and Responsibilities
The Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country. However, states, tribes and local governments do a lot of the work to meet the Act's requirements. For example, representatives from these agencies work with companies to reduce air pollution. They also review and approve permit applications for industries or chemical processes.
EPA's Role
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets limits on certain air pollutants, including setting limits on how much can be in the air anywhere in the United States. This helps to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution for all Americans. The Clean Air Act also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. Individual states or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws, but they may not have weaker pollution limits than those set by EPA.
I think it is short-sighted and naive to think that vehicle testing and MPG ratings are not also linked to the clean air responsibilities of the EPA.
And if you want to tie in the tax credits and try to figure out why they used the city mileage figures for applying the credit:
Since lower consumption was a stated goal, and the vast majority of commuter miles are driven in city driving, then the cars which achieve higher numbers on the City portion of the test SHOULD have been rewarded for that, in relation to reducing fuel consumption in the areas where it was most needed.
There is a lot of overlap in the mandates to these various departments and agencies. The case in point, the tax credit system is managed by the DOE, but it is tied to tests conducted by the EPA, and it nets out at the IRS, and it has ancillary notice over at the DOT.
Energy is not mandated to concern itself with Environment, but clearly energy and the environment are intimately related. Likewise, the DOE has little interest in building codes and development regulations, but activities and mandates handed to Energy have profound effects over at HUD and Interior.
I hope you understand that I do not think you are just dead wrong in your assessment of all this. The EPA is the agency that conducts and monitors the mileage tests and publishes the MPG numbers. It is only logical that they do so in light of their mandates regarding the environment. Frankly, the fuel efficiency deal seems to me to be more within the purview of the DOE, but they didn't ask me.
Well, I could drive a scooter, but it's either the car or the scooter. I can't afford to have both. I could ride a simple bike, but Houston is so hot that I would have to take a shower as soon as I get to the office for most of the year... besides I couldn't possibly ride the bike in my skirt suits (I work on neogtiations, I really meet a lot of high profile customers so I wear suits 90% of the time)
I agree with you completely Fintail. Also, the way most people drive, I'd die from a heart attack driving a bike during rush hour on a rouad without a bike lane and where everybody is trying to cut everybody off to get on the freeway.
In the rain here, it seems 95% of the vehicles going excessive speeds are trucks and SUVs. They isolate the driver and give an impression of false confidence. Nothing like seeing a simp in a F350 or jacked up Ram weave and tailgate in a rainstorm. When it ices up here, guess who usually finds the ditches first.
Comments
Not yet. I am leaning toward the X5 diesel when it arrives. Or I may still go for the ML320 CDI. I was hoping the tax credits would be on a par with hybrids. The idea was both cleaner and using less fuel. Why the EPA decided to use city rather than combined mileage is anyone's guess.
The old EPA test was around LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG before the first hybrid.
Thusly, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the test to inherently possess any hybrid bias.
Like I have said before - the only "evidence" you have regarding this is your own opinion.
I have produced logical evidence to the contrary. Seems like this is a clear-cut case.
If this were a court case, the judge would have thrown out the case and fined you for contempt for repeatedly saying the same thing over and over without any concrete information.
Once again, your opinion, with no facts to back it up. At least in regard to the legitimacy of the EPA mileage test. The EPA has indeed broken the law, been sued, paid fines, etc.
I have already explained with virtually perfect logic that there is NO WAY the EPA test could have possibly been biased toward hybrids since the test came first.
Do you have some contradictory logic, or are you merely issuing your unfounded opinion? Again.
But the whole tax credit thing is not really EPA's screw-up, it is Congress's in misunderstanding what those little numbers EPA produces really mean.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
isis867 and fintail
If you drive to work alone:
Living that close to work, you could easily drive a scooter or a bicycle could you not?
If you have kids to deliver or pick up, I can see the problems with getting out of a car for your commute.
But by yourself, 2.1 and 3.5 mile commutes? On all but the absolute WORST weather days, could you not use something besides a car?
I'm glad I quit.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I'd consider other transportation if I lived in a less populated area. I could actually take an early morning bus and not have too much walking or time inconvenience...but I would lose a good 40 minutes taking it home.
My employer seems to actually encourage folks to become "remote" employees. In all honesty, there just aren't that many positions where you work with the same team in the same location. Given the global nature of my job, nobody really cares where my body is physically. Add to that the fact that I have just as fast of a network connection from home as I do at the office, a dedicated home office, VoiP for phone and a combination fax / scanner / copier / printer, I've pretty much got everything I need.
Except for peace and quiet. Darn pets ....
It's especially nice to work from home in the winter, when my normal 25-35 minute commute has been as long as 60-90 minutes when the snow falls and people forget how to drive in it.
My wife's commute, OTOH, is about 15 miles long and involves all of 3 traffic signals. When the weather gets bad, the DOT has been known to close the road between the town where we live and the town where she works. However, she's got AWD on her SUV (and she's lived her whole life here), so she just goes slow. She's been driving for 25 years and has not been in one accident.
You are trying so hard to find an angle to argue, and what you fail to realize is that, on this point, I am not arguing with you. The net effect of the whole thing is that hybrids are favored. If it pains you too much too simply acknowledge that, I'm ok with that. If you would rather argue the merits of the rationale behind it all, we can get to that later.
The fact is, the hybrids did well on the old test because the battery ran a lot during the city portion of the test.
That's all it was. It was just an accidental fortunate alignment of a flawed test and a new technology that was not on the road back when the test method was created.
No one was harmed in the collision of these two factors. In fact, the air being cleaner and the amount of gasoline that has gone unsold are the two main results.
i am sure you would be impressed by the gold plated exterior fixtures.
that was #3 after the lincoln and vietnam memorials.
i respect the first 2.
The credits have to be tied to some metric. The feds have a tendency to hang everything on efficiency standards and draw parallels to other issues. That's the basis of the current dispute between your state and the feds. Feds say increased efficiency alone is enough to achieve emissions goals. CA says the feds dismissively discount other approaches to reducing emissions.
I'm not entirely convinced that reducing emissions was much of a motivation in crafting the tax credit system, but rather it is just a nice bonus. I would guess the feds saw city MPG as the area that provided the most potential for improvement, so that's what they focused on. In doing so, hybrids end up benefiting more than other technologies.
Maybe you can explain why the Prius is still given a 66.6 MPG rating for the 2008 Prius. Those numbers should reflect the new supposedly better tests? No difference from the 2004. You can check the datafiles all the way back to 1978. There is a difference for the VW TDI. So maybe they did in fact test them with the new test. They just used a formula for the Prius and who knows what other vehicles. Your mind is made up. There are folks here that are interested in getting to the truth about the EPA. What are we getting for the money spent?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
Under the "normal" mpg headings (CITY MPG (GUIDE) HWY MPG (GUIDE)) on the same spreadsheet, the Prius still comes in at 48/45.
link to wiki: can you find an epa rating for this?
The letter states. "Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, EPA is required to determine the test methods and calculations for two major fuel economy programs": CAFE and consumer friendly fuel economy information posted on new vehicle labels.
larsb likes to argue that the tax credits are fairly allocated. If that was the case the criteria would be based on combined mileage not city only. This program was for alternative fuels and hybrids. Yet it was tilted toward hybrids by using city mileage as the criteria.
Could not find it listed on the EPA site.
When it snows here and I am going to work, I will simply call in and not go, or come in late. But my luck is rarely so good...it usually snows and ices up 10 mins before I am set to leave.
1) Watch out for the logging trucks...I'd have to share the I-5 freeway with them from up north in Skagit County and tool along around them on the way south to the Everett Boeing plant. They're basically ruthless as hell, they know they're large and they take advantage of it. Rocks fly out from their tires and loads at will and at random. The rocks are murder on your windshield.
2) Overall the commuter force as a whole are a bunch of jerks. Rude and in such a hurry it was ridiculous.
I am glad to be baking in the sunny SW desert here in Arizona than be back in my homeland Puget Sound, commuting with the neanderthals. Rude, tailgating idiots.
They can have it, artificially-inflated home prices and all. On the flip side, Dick's Drive-In did make a mean deluxe and special hamburger and the fries were good. Seattle has the mah-va-lous Seahawks, the pitiful Mariners and now they no longer have my beloved Sonics. Trying to talk about the Supersonics at Boeing was like talking to brick walls! They'd even turn away like you were talking about the Bubonic plague or something. If it was the horrible Seattle Mariners baseball club they'll talk your ear off. Boy, how exciting, following MLB. What's wrong with these people? :sick:
Perhaps my favorite thing about my homeland-besides the Supersonics(now the Oklahoma City Thunder
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
That's in Wallingford? I have an in-law a few blocks from it and have driven by it a dozen times in past years. Guess I'll have to pull in one of these days.
The Boeing strike continues so perhaps the commute has eased a bit in the last couple of weeks.
I use to play games to keep my mind occupies like finding the oldest house that has a plaque on it with the year it was built (1698 btw) , the driveway with the most cars(8) or house I would buy if money was no object. I ran out of those games a few years ago and now just try to spot new model cars.
Just get you a little 29 lb Honda 1kw genset and toss it in back. They run like 8 hours on a gallon of gas. Charge that baby up and over the mountain you go.
I already explained that in full.
The purpose of the hybrid tax credit was to get cleaner cars on the road.
The majority of air pollution problems are in big cities, in densely populated areas, and is also the place where air pollution is most dangerous to the health of the citizens.
So cars which do WELL and pollute LESS on the CITY portion of the test would be more beneficial toward cleaning the air.
Thus, the hybrids, which were designed to perform well in city environs, were pimped to the public with the high City mileage in a part of the effort to CLEAN THE AIR.
If you cannot latch on to that perfect logic, then you have personal issues.
Brand Model Style City Hwy Unrounded city unrounded hwy
SATURN ASTRA 2D HATCHBACK 24 32 27 30.9 45.1
VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI 29 40 33 38.5034 56.6944
TOYOTA PRIUS 48 45 46 66.6 64.8
This following paragraph will PUT AN END to the argument that the "Jetta TDI GOT SCREWED" by the EPA test.
Because if you look at the numbers, the Jetta TDI was given a rating which was 75.3% of it's actual city test result, while the Prius was only given a rating which was 72% of it's actual test result. On the hwy test, the Jetta TDI was given 70.5% of it's actual test result, while the Prius was given only 69.4% of it's actual test result. So the TDI actually was given a BETTER NUMBER than the Prius based on the formula.
So now, Gary, FINALLY you can GET OVER the problem/issue you have experienced regarding your completely FALSE belief that the Jetta TDI got screwed by the EPA.
The numbers PROVE YOU WRONG, Amigo. Time to be a man and admit it.
Dangit, I LOVE the smell of being RIGHT in the morning.
Automobile Tax Credits
Buying and driving a fuel-efficient vehicle and purchasing and installing energy-efficient appliances and products provide many benefits such as better gas mileage – meaning lower gasoline costs, fewer emissions, lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution.
Individuals and businesses who buy or lease a new hybrid gas-electric car or truck are eligible for, and can receive, an income tax credit of $250-$3,400 – depending on the fuel economy and the weight of the vehicle. Hybrid vehicles that use less gasoline than the average vehicle of similar weight and that meet an emissions standard qualify for the credit. “Lean-burn” diesel vehicles could also qualify, but currently available diesel vehicles do not meet the emissions standard. There is a similar credit for alternative-fuel vehicles and for fuel-cell vehicles.
http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm
When they have three mass-produced cars for sale, get back to me. Until then, it's just a trio of VAPORMOBILES.
The numbers PROVE NOTHING. Only that some over paid Civil Servant has a computer with Excel. There is no good evidence that we can trust the people that are doing the tests. Think Fannie Mae and the FED. ALL CROOKS getting paid and doing little to protect US.
When I see a real world test that matches the average driver's mileage I will believe the system works. Till then it is BROKE, and we are stuck paying the bill. Lies on a window sticker are worse than no mileage information at all. Most of my vehicles over that last 20 years did not have EPA ratings and I was fine with it.
Your little calculations should prove to you how flawed their system is. Can you come up with a reason that the percentages are all different? There are no tests involved according to my letter. They call them "adjustment factors". I tell them to factor this you bunch of useless bums :P
Exactly.
More Fuel Saved = Cleaner Air
More Fuel Saved = The Cars Who Do Best In Populated Areas Help More Than Cars That Do Well In Rural Areas
More Fuel Saved = Give Bigger Credits To The Cars Who Save The Most Fuel And Therefore Help Clean The Air
I never said the tax credit was designed for the hybrids. It wasn't. It was indeed designed for clean, high mileage cars.
You can stick with your illogical position all you want to, but that does not make it any more logical.
Gary says, "I would guess some zealous EPA person saw the higher City mileage on the Prius and convinced the rule makers to base it on City mileage rather than combined."
That's completely laughable. Give me a few seconds to laugh....................Hard to figure out how much more ridiculous some of your stuff can get but this one really is near the top.
My position = based on logic and is completely sound and logical.
Your Position = based on some far-out assumption that ONE PERSON could have decided at random "Hey, let's use CITY" and had no logical reason to do so.
Every post you put here makes me look smarter and smarter. Keep this up and soon I will become the Einstein of Edmunds.
My understanding is the spreadsheet gives the CAFE figures which are used for determining if a manufacturer meets that standard. These differ from the published numbers in the fuel economy guide and window stickers in that they do not use fudge factors to adjust them and I believe they also do not use the new test components (higher speeds/acceleration, cold weather, A/C use).
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f04053.htm#cafe
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm
The purpose of the hybrid tax credit was to get cleaner cars on the road.
Read the legislation. This is an energy act, not a clean air act. The energy act does include the provision that qualifying vehicles must meet emissions standards, but there is no provision that they show any improvement in emissions. Most of the factors used to determine eligibility and actual credit are tied to fuel consumption, not emissions.
The act is riddled with statements regarding improved fuel efficiency, energy independence, energy security, lower fuel consumption, exceeding baseline MPG, and on and on. There is no mention at all about improved air quality. Cars must meet established emission standards, but there is no requirement that they exceed them.
The purpose is to improve fuel efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and ultimately move towards energy independence and energy security.
Cleaning up the air is a bonus, not the motivating factor, and the language in the act certainly does not establish that as the purpose of the act.
Yes, you can make the argument that reducing fuel consumption and such does indeed result in cleaner air. You can argue that cleaning up the air and reducing pollution are worthy pursuits, and that focusing efforts on more populated areas with the greater problems makes sense. You can even make the argument that this act has indeed resulted in cleaner air since diesels had to improve to meet the emissions standards to become eligible for the tax credits. Those arguments have a lot of merit. That's just not the purpose of this act or this tax credit system. If it was, the language in the act would reflect that.
I dunno. It sounds semi-plausible to put an electric drivetrain in the silly little Patriot or Compass, as they will just be commute vehicles anyway. But I am not much in favor of keeping them in the Jeep lineup at all.
The only one I see with any potential is the electric minivan.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'll concede that point. But lower consumption and cleaner emissions have a side effect, clean air, which is just as important in the mission of the EPA.
Clean Air Act Roles and Responsibilities
The Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country. However, states, tribes and local governments do a lot of the work to meet the Act's requirements. For example, representatives from these agencies work with companies to reduce air pollution. They also review and approve permit applications for industries or chemical processes.
EPA's Role
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets limits on certain air pollutants, including setting limits on how much can be in the air anywhere in the United States. This helps to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution for all Americans. The Clean Air Act also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. Individual states or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws, but they may not have weaker pollution limits than those set by EPA.
I think it is short-sighted and naive to think that vehicle testing and MPG ratings are not also linked to the clean air responsibilities of the EPA.
And if you want to tie in the tax credits and try to figure out why they used the city mileage figures for applying the credit:
Since lower consumption was a stated goal, and the vast majority of commuter miles are driven in city driving, then the cars which achieve higher numbers on the City portion of the test SHOULD have been rewarded for that, in relation to reducing fuel consumption in the areas where it was most needed.
There is a lot of overlap in the mandates to these various departments and agencies. The case in point, the tax credit system is managed by the DOE, but it is tied to tests conducted by the EPA, and it nets out at the IRS, and it has ancillary notice over at the DOT.
Energy is not mandated to concern itself with Environment, but clearly energy and the environment are intimately related. Likewise, the DOE has little interest in building codes and development regulations, but activities and mandates handed to Energy have profound effects over at HUD and Interior.
I hope you understand that I do not think you are just dead wrong in your assessment of all this. The EPA is the agency that conducts and monitors the mileage tests and publishes the MPG numbers. It is only logical that they do so in light of their mandates regarding the environment. Frankly, the fuel efficiency deal seems to me to be more within the purview of the DOE, but they didn't ask me.
But it's still than heay rain = trucks floor it and fly past you. It must be a Texas thing...