I guess, all things considered, I probably should have purchased some kind of smaller, 4WD car (I *need* 4WD in the winter up here in snow country; my sister's driveway alone is about 2/3 mile, up a steep hill, unpaved, rutty - sometimes I need 4WD to get up it even in the summer! - not to mention the road I take to/from work, over a hill, that often isn't plowed for a day or two after a big storm, and my own driveway, which I CANNOT get out of without 4WD after a big storm), like a Subaru, that might get the same or even better mileage than my FEH. Might even have been cheaper. But I (1) really enjoy the hauling capacity (and flexibility) for extended tent/car camping trips, not to mention hauling my son and his 2 or 3 friends, or various members of my extended family, or bringing home various and sundry junk from Home Depot, and (2) I wanted to support the development of hybrid technology. So I ante'd up the additional $4K to make a statement AND save some gas at the same time. Was that so wrong? Hey, if Subaru makes a hybrid version of their Outback or Forester, I certainly will consider it; I would have bought a Prius a long time ago if it came in 4WD.

I DID consider the tax break(s) (it is unclear whether NY will reenact its tax *credit* - not a deduction, but a "rebate" or true credit - for 2005 and beyond, more on that later) when making the decision, as well as the gas savings, "green" statement (very important here in Ithaca! ), and the sheer coolness factor of the technology, in making the decision.

I think the proposed (not yet signed into law) new tax credit scheme here in NY is pretty fair; it gives a tax credit, the size of which depends on the percentage improvement in gas mileage over the "standard" version of the same class of vehicles. So my FEH would get a $1,500 credit, because I get between 40 and 60% better mpg than the average for the class of small SUVs. If a vehicle shows a more than 60% improvement over its class, it gets a $2,000 credit; between 20-40% improvement gets $1,000, etc. I don't know if there's a category for >80% (getting a $2,500 credit), I can't remember. I don't know if that law will be enacted, but it is an option that seems to address many of the points made here. I guess the thinking is that you can't compare apples to oranges, a person may have a need for a particular type of vehicle and we want to encourage the best choice that will fill the need.

Any other states out there that have a similar scheme?

 

I was very disappointed that the Accord hybrid went for V8 performance instead of 45mpg. But the Accord has always been marketed as a sport sedan, where sport means vroom.

I not only own my 04 HCH, I also own a 3/4 ton windowless 97 Dodge Ram Van. Until I bought the HCH, it was my daily driver. I had been shopping for over a year, but couldn't commit to the HCH because I drive for work and have to carry a car stock of parts. When gas started jumping up and I had mechanical problems with the van simultaneously, I went for it. My HCH is basically a one seat automobile, as the passenger, and rear seats are full of parts, as is the trunk. But I still need the van for its class 4 trailer hitch.

I would love to see a full sized truck or van equipped with a much more aggressive and powerful Integrated Motor Assist. Not some wimpy 20 hp on the electric side, but more like 75 to 100 hp electric motor, 100 amp/hr 150v pack, and only a small 2.5 to 4 liter 4 or 6 cylinder engine, with displacement on demand as well. The electric motor would be great for towing. And with displacement on demand, you could have a full size truck getting 30 to 40 mpg. I also believe that if Honda would attach the HAH assist motor to the Civic Si 2.0 liter engine, give the 2.0 displacement on demand option to kill two of the four cylinders when cruising, and use the electric motor more agressively for acceleration on level ground and RPM's for hills, the combination could produce a 60 mpg EPA Civic.

But then again, I still think a Civic Hybrid WAGON would sell like hotcakes. Just look at all the wagons coming back on the market. Mazda 3, 6, Kia Rio Cinco, Mitsubishi Galant, Kia Spectra, All the Subaru's, Saab 9-2, 9-3, Ford Focus, Chrysler PTCruiser... But no Civic Wagon, Hybrid or not, and no Hybrid CR-V either.

 

From what I hear, Toyota is planning on making a pickup hybrid based on one of its concept vehicles. However, electric motors aren't great for towing because they heat up if they don't move. What happens if the load is too heavy? That's one hot motor. And motor-go-bye-bye. So, the hybrid system disables it and you have nothing but the sole engine.

 

Just raise the CAFE figures. That's the current system (and not a broken system by any means) to regulate fuel economy in new vehicles. No sense creating new laws when the existing ones work just fine. Eliminate the separate CAFE for trucks and cars (currently something like 22.1mpg for trucks/SUVs by 2007 and 27.5mpg for cars) so that ALL vehicles with GVWR under 15,000 pounds are subject to the same 25mpg CAFE.

Since we're currently at about 50/50 sales in the USA for trucks/cars, this would be a pretty fair starting point, then just raise the CAFE as desired. Since trucks would have a far more difficult time achieving a high CAFE rating, it would have the effect of both pushing buyers into cars and sport wagons as well as driving more exotic and effective means of improving fuel economy for our least efficient vehicles.

 

I'm inclined to think it helps them instead.

Years ago, there was a commericial - think it was an oil filter one. The spokesman was a mechanic. His clincher line was:

"Pay me now...."

{looking back at a car with the hood up}

"....or pay me later"


Just picture how automotive history might be different:

What if in 1993, when SUV sales were 10% - not 25% a decade later, the CAFE standards at least partially closed the light truck loophole. I don't mean a drastic ovenight change, but enough that Detroit would have found supersizing the SUVs a lot less profitable. Also, what if the business vehicle tax break excluded large vehicles unless it was obvious it was essential (i.e. tractor-trailers, etc.)?

I would hope there would have been enough smart minds at GM, Ford, and Chrysler that would have focuses their energies on sedans and smaller cars. We would still see Taruses and Oldmobiles on the roads - Saturns would be giving Accords and Camerys a run for the money. American hybrids would have been introduced sooner. And the layoffs GM and Ford have announced this quarter could have been avoided.


Lenient CAFE standards has cost American jobs.

 

What about diesel-electric locomotives? And 100-ton earth movers? They do an OK job of towing. It's the huge torque at low revs that makes electric motors ideal for towing.

 

Tax incentives should be based on mileage, period. It shouldn't be about the technology, but about the mileage. It is wrong for a non hybrid getting 40 mpg to not get a tax break while a Lexus Hybrid getting 25 mpg to get a tax break. The goal should be to save energy and cut greenhouse emissions. This is not served by rewarding those who choose to drive SUVs. If you choose to get an SUV or feel you must have one, fine. But don't ask to be subsidized by the taxpayer. This is especially true when we see automakers mostly using hybrids to increase speed and power when we have more speed and power than we'll ever need right now.

On top of incentives for better gas mileage, I'd like to see more incentives to drive less. A 60 mile commute in a Prius is no better than a 20 mile commute in an SUV. Yes, there are people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves a long way from work. But most people make a conscious choice to live far from work because they think the tradeoff is worth it. Well, let's change the way the tradeoff is computed.

Many people choose to pay more for housing to live closer to work. They should be rewarded for this behavior. Others, many living near me, commute 30 to 60 miles simply because they want to live in the mountains.

 

I do agree that all very high mileage vehicles should be rewarded with tax incentives. However, we all need to give careful consideration to our goals. If the goal is really "to save energy and cut greenhouse emissions" then why would you want to only reward people who are most likely already doing their part to help the environment. That's like preaching to the choir! Don't you think we would achieve the stated goal much faster if everyone improved fuel efficiency by 10% from where they are today and were rewarded for it? The idea of only rewarding the "3 sigma" actions might be one of the reasons environmentalism isn't further along in this country today. Although I drive a Civic Hybrid and I'm retired so don't commute at all, I am sure most people are not in my position and probably won't make the same environmental choices. So, do I wave my environmental flag and shake my finger at SUV drivers, only rewarding the best actions, or do I reward improvement across the board and make MUCH more progress in achieving environmental goals. I say reward all improvement and gradually move everyone toward good environmental choices. Its called successive approximations -- rewarding changes in behavior, gradually moving toward the behaviors you really want.

 

First off, I don't think I'm in favor of tax incentives at ALL. It's a bad move. That said, it's also dangerous to lure people to make a small step instead of a leap. Why? Mindset & lifestyle. If people are trying to beat the system, they'll be determined not to change their lifestyle. If they don't change their lifestyle, they'll never be able to make the jump. They'll refuse. If you give them a reward after a tiny little step, there's no reason to go all the way. It's a virtual loophole.

Once everyone's on hybrid diesel SUVs, what's the next move? THEN downsize them? Yeah, right.

 

Actually Jason, incrementalism is extremely well documented to be the most effective way to get a very large social change accepted. There's so many examples that it's hard to pick one in particular, but income taxes are probably the best - an upper income individual these days will pay around 50% income tax when you add up all the different levels of taxation (fed, state, county, sometimes others). Such a thing would have never been accepted all at once. It was started as a 1% tax on the top 1% income earners and expanded from there. Incrementalism is deviously effective at getting what you want.