Suppliers Call For Increased Gas Tax To Spur Hybrid Sales

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by Suziebob

It's not the "socialists," (who are conservative by any other nation's standards,) but rather elements of the fringe corporatist right who rely on cheap, non-union labor.

Sorry about that, I knew for awhile "socialist" isn't the best term to always use. If you could use one word to describe these people/law what would it be? So I avoid getting educated in the future.

[tgagneguam]

I was having a hard time figuring out what my next car would be next year. Thankfully, the government seems poised to help me decide. Whew, dodged a major bullet there!

[Suziebob]

Originally Posted by PA Dweller

Sorry about that, I knew for awhile "socialist" isn't the best term to always use. If you could use one word to describe these people/law what would it be? So I avoid getting educated in the future.

Hmm... I'm not sure. Extremist liberals? Something like that? I would say Progressive, but that's what I consider myself.

[Mustapha Mond]

Originally Posted by Suziebob

I honestly didn't mean for it to be offensive. Perhaps aggressive, but not offensive.

No I'm sure you didn't. I guess I just bristle because I work with a number of Muslim people and they're about as radical as the average Anglican.
-Elliott

[megeebee]

$8.00 Gasoline, if imposed all at once, would rape what's left of our economy and there wouldn't be anyone left to buy hybrids, or anything else.


.

[63GrandSport001]

If you take the politics out of this whole debate.....

oil isn't a limitless resource, it has its limits and as populations grow and regions industrialize we will only put more demand on a limited resource.

We need to accept the fact that once peak oil has hit (some rumors stating that it actually hit before the recession hit) fuel prices will only start to soar and instead of gas prices being artificially increased to $8 its going to hit that mark and blow right by it due to market forces anyways.

If they can raise the price of gas to $8 now which will no doubt reduce its use then the point where the market forces will push prices to the point anyways will be prolonged.

Ultimately this is only holding off the inevitable which is gas prices will eventually soar as demand continues to grow and supply continues to slip. Sitting back and not doing anything and allowing the market to work things out isn't going to work very well for the humans living on this planet. A energy replacement for oil needs to be worked out and the sooner it is worked out the better.

In other words this move would only buy us time (how much time no one knows) to solve this major energy problem. Will we go electric? most of the electricity in the US is generated from coal and this will last a lot longer then oil will last. Will we go ethanol? they are finding new ways to refine the stuff which may have the potential to completely replace oil. Will we go hydrogen fuel cell? we are still ways off from going this route however we can go electric first then shift to hydrogen fuel cell. Or will there be some new unseen technology that comes out all together?

[KITT222]

Gas should remain as-is on its rises and falls, and vehicle suppliers should NEVER dictate gas prices. All this means is driving down the road one day you'll start saying to yourself "Prius...Prius...Prius...Prius... Oh, a TDI...Civic hybrid...Nope, no GMs..."

If gas prices rise to $8/gal. domestic car sales will die until the Volt gets out, Ford gets a purpose-built hybrid (not a sedan with hybrid drivetrain), and Chrysler learns has to make a car with over 30MPG. Until then Toyota/Honda sales would go way up.

If this happens, than its onward to England... Or diesels.

[mbukukanyau]

Originally Posted by Mustapha Mond

The state intrudes enough in all our lives already. They cannot be permitted to dictate via tax what kind of vehicles people drive. Moreover such a tax would hurt the poor the most and that isn't fair or ethical.
-Elliott

Goodbye freedom,

[Aprime]

Well no **** they all support gas tax hikes, that could allow them to virtually force-feed all the European stuff in our mouths, have them sell new technology because of a government-influenced situation at a high 'justifiable' price when we don't even want or ask for that technology. Not only that, but most of the companies in question have been hard at work on new fuel-saving innovations and techs for the US market partly because of the last hike we've seen, and seeing as fuel prices are stagnating in the lows because the demand is... What it is, they want to see returns on that spending. Finally, unlike CAFE they're not the one's who are hit if consumers like a certain thing over another.

But I heard you all wanted to be like Canada, eh!

[Aprime]

Originally Posted by Mustapha Mond

Moreover such a tax would hurt the poor the most and that isn't fair or ethical.
-Elliott

Just like any tax or government measure.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by KITT222

Gas should remain as-is on its rises and falls, and vehicle suppliers should NEVER dictate gas prices. All this means is driving down the road one day you'll start saying to yourself "Prius...Prius...Prius...Prius... Oh, a TDI...Civic hybrid...Nope, no GMs..."

If gas prices rise to $8/gal. domestic car sales will die until the Volt gets out, Ford gets a purpose-built hybrid (not a sedan with hybrid drivetrain), and Chrysler learns has to make a car with over 30MPG. Until then Toyota/Honda sales would go way up.

If this happens, than its onward to England... Or diesels.

Actually if you look at fuel economy of the non- hybrid models the American automakers are right up there with everyone else.

If you look at hybrids then yes some of the asian automakers do have more however its not to say that American automakers do not have hybrids of themselves.

Not only that but the cars that will really benefit from this would be cars like the Chevy Cruze which in XFE model is said to get 44MPG highway and the Chevy Spark which is said to get something around 50MPG highway.

I can see other segments like mid sized sedans moving fast to push fuel economy to the high 40s low 50s by adding gears and going with different engines. I can see a Chevy Malibu diesel getting 40+MPG highway.

Not only that but while yes suppliers shouldn't dictate fuel prices but on the same token either should speculators who made a ton of money driving fuel prices to near (and over in some areas) $5.00 a gallon.

[PistonsFan]

CAFE is an indirect gas tax. The tax burden lies on the OEM's and the customers. Government ends up funding a great deal of technology development to help the OEM's meet CAFE. Then the customer ends up having to pay more and more for less car.

A gas tax is much simpler way to achieve the goals of CAFE. There are pros and cons of each.

The biggest issue of the gas tax is that no politician wants to support it. It's political suicide.

In the end, there is no free lunch. We all pay one way or another. (hint: the massive amount of govt. money that is currently available for auto technology development came from where?)

[44 mpg by 2010]

Let's try a long walk around some of the issues related to this problem.

Let's use "the NTHSA average 2008 domestic passenger vehicle fuel economy" of 21 mpg because that is approximately what the average domestic auto owner achieves.

We can also include, for comparison, the "best" combined average that GM has, 30 mpg.

For fuel prices including taxes assume: Gasoline @ $8.00 & diesel @ $10.00per gallon ... hopefully that is a satisfactory range for the forum.

Take the NHTSA average 2008 domestic passenger vehicle fuel economy 21 mpg (4.762 gallons/100 miles @ $8.00/gallon = $38.10/100 miles).

Using the "best" GM domestic passenger vehicle fuel economy according to EPA was 30 mpg (3.33 gallons/100 miles @ $8.00/gallon = $26.64/100 miles).

And the Ford Mondeo Estate diesel at 45 mpg combined (2.222 gallons/100 miles @ $10.00/gallon = $22.22/100 miles).

But what happens to supplies if there is an increase in demand for diesel fuel?

The current typical domestic refining process generally yields about 19.6 gallon of gasoline and 11 gallons of diesel per 42 gallons (1 barrel) of light sweet crude.

What you probably do NOT know is that there is an alternative process that yields about 11 gallon of gasoline and 19.6 gallons of diesel per barrel. This process is common in Europe.

So balancing diesel supply with demand should NOT BE AN ISSUE, particularly as fuel demand per vehicle would be decreasing almost 50% on average switching to diesel.

Currently, US refineries are running at between 84% and 88% capacity compared to almost MAX in early 2008. Still stored finished fuel inventories are increasing due to decreased consumption. Further, some are predicting refinery utalization as low as 78% utilization by Spring 2010. This could easily FORCE SHUTDOWN of some of the less efficient domestic refineries.

Regarding diesel vehicle technologies and possible choices ... take a look at the Fords, Volvos, Fiats, Hyundai/Kias, Mazdas, Minis, Nissans, Subarus, and Vauxhalls (Opels) rated above 51 mpg(Imperial) [43 mpg(US)] combined cycle here

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/sea...lConSearch.asp

And IF you are a truck person try (be aware that Iveco is part of Fiat)

http://www.vca.gov.uk/vandata/vehicles.aspx

As for why not in the US ... the primary argument "seems" to be over 0.250 grams/mile of NOx versus the US limit of 0.030 grams/mile NOx, IIRC (which some newer domestic gasoline vehicles will exceed unless abated).

Meanwhile VW has DEMONSTRATED "THE WILL" to solve the NOx and diesel particle problems for about $1,300 per vehicle (retail market "premium for 50 State compliant diesel"). Now, according to one source, VW has apparently increased the "premium" on their diesels to about $1,800 (about $500/diesel vehicle in ADDITIONAL PROFIT) because of demand.

IF ... BIG IF .. these small displacement Euro type diesels were implemented and BUILT in the US ... that would potentially open a "NEW MARKET SEGMENT above 45 mpg(US) combined average", potentially up to almost 65 mpg(US) combined. Available in Europe today!

This could bring "willing" buyers back into the market. These would be sales opportunities that never existed before in the US regardless of the price of fuel! These sales could EXPAND the US market by 25% to 50% within 6 years ... maybe faster if fuel went to $8 per gallon. This could lead to EXPANDED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ... and EXPANDED DOMESTIC EMPLOYMENT! Plus the introduction of truly exportable product.

NO CAFE ... and NOBODY HAS TO GIVE UP THEIR PICKUPs or POWER-MOBILEs ... it is simply a wider range of personal choices!

The only value of increased fuel prices is an ARTIFICIAL strategy to increase the PRICE ("preceived value") of fuel frugal vehicles.

At least this is the way it seems to me.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by PistonsFan

CAFE is an indirect gas tax. The tax burden lies on the OEM's and the customers. Government ends up funding a great deal of technology development to help the OEM's meet CAFE. Then the customer ends up having to pay more and more for less car.

A gas tax is much simpler way to achieve the goals of CAFE. There are pros and cons of each.

The biggest issue of the gas tax is that no politician wants to support it. It's political suicide.

In the end, there is no free lunch. We all pay one way or another. (hint: the massive amount of govt. money that is currently available for auto technology development came from where?)

I will challenge that notion..... the biggest price pusher in the automotive market is inflation and not fuel economy........

Here is my question, if you had gas at $8.00 a gallon how many Camaro SS's would GM sell in the US?

The 1967 Camaro had a starting price of about $2,800 (this is all I could find in the short time that I looked). Match that with 2008 dollars and that is $17,900 bucks. So the $23,000 starting price for the V-6 Camaro isn't that far off of the base price of the Camaro in 1967. You also must consider that the CPI (consumer price index) low balls inflation and has done so for a very long time. When it somethings goes up in price really fast they just drop it from their equation which keeps the CPI artificially low (substitute rule). So in reality prices are probably inline with what they were in the late 1960s, however our ability to pay these prices have gone down as wages have not on average kept up with inflation. So these vehicles do appear to be more expensive on the outside however if you look into why this is then you see its not the fault of the vehicles price in its self.

[63GrandSport001]

Originally Posted by 44 mpg by 2010

The only value of increased fuel prices is an ARTIFICIAL strategy to increase the PRICE ("preceived value") of fuel frugal vehicles.

At least this is the way it seems to me.

That is the whole point, by increasing the cost of fuel you will make those fuel efficient vehicles seem like a better deal. Thus people will buy them more often and you will end up with a similar situation as you have in Europe where the best selling cars are compacts and sub compacts. Also in Europe though you have a tax based on engine size as well, this seems to be the most effective way to get people into fuel efficient vehicles.

I am one who does feel that a increase in gas tax to make gas cost something like $8.00 a gallon would put a big hardship on the poor (as if they aren't in a big enough one already). With CAFE even if the vehicle costs $900 more this is a cost that would be spread through out the loan of the vehicle. This a poor person can afford and they will benefit even more from the fuel costs savings of it getting better MPG.

Also with CAFE an automaker can meet standards while producing 1,000BHP vehicles as those 1,000BHP vehicles will be very low production.