Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
Many vehicles on the road today with engines smaller than 3.0 liters amply provide sufficient power, acceleration, comfort and all the bells and whistles of cars normally considered to be of superior categories/bigger engines, meet with safety requirements and because they are considerably lighter do less damage to the communications infrastructure that provides less taxpayer money on road maintenance.
While I know I will be shouted down by the power hungry 0-60's in 3 seconds types, I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
I think it's a terrible idea, there should be no tax on a vehicle purchase other than the sales tax. We already have a gas-guzzler tax on trucks and SUVs as well as a luxury tax on high-end automobiles, do we REALLY need another tax for those who want a car with some horsepower?
What you're really doing is restricting consumer choice by adding a tax onto vehicles with a large engine. I find it ridiculous to attempt to force a person into a vehicle with a smaller engine or force them to pay a tax just to buy one with the more powerful engine.
And trucks/SUV's need to have a big engine, you can't really downsize it considerably without hurting the horsepower/torque numbers.
Why 3.0L exactly? Most mainstream midsized cars usually come with AT LEAST a 3.4L engine. If you would suggest such a tax, I'd at least put down an engine size relative to the size of the vehicle. A 3.0L engine is NOT going to move a full-sized Cadillac DTS or even a few midsized vehicles very well.
Because this is the United States, where we treasure the right to consume as we see fit for our own needs - I do not favor a displacement related tax.
I do not trust the government to decide these kinds of things. Politicians cannot be trusted to do anything.
I agree that displacement would be a poor metric anyway. Fuel consumption is the core issue the OP wants to address. Who cares what the engine displacement is?
The simplest approach to creating additional incentive to build and buy more efficient vehicles is to raise the gasoline tax.
Taxing displacement is useless. A Mazda RX-8 with a 1.3L rotary has a lower fuel economy rating than a Corvette ZO6 with a 7.0L V8. If lowering fuel consumption is your end goal, the easiest and most effective way to do so is to raise the price of fuel. But the government is too cowardly to take direct responsibility for that, so they try to fob off the task on automakers with stupid fuel economy mandates and then let the public direct their outrage at the automakers when they churn out sh*tty cars because they've redirected their entire R&D budget to trying to squeeze one more drop of blood out of a rock.
Volvo is now offering the S80 with a 1.6L Diesel engine in Europe. Though that's probably the smallest engine in the biggest car I know of currently, what it does highlight is that the American myth of needing huge engines is exactly that, a myth.
The Caddy DTS comes with something like a 2.4L here, and BMW delivers their cars with a great 2.0L petrol (and Diesel) in a variety of different outputs.
I don't think a Tax would necessarily be a bad idea, but it needs to be accompanied by a more internationalized pollution policy, allowing all the great smaller engines into the US market.
Any tax collected should also be fed directly into either environmental protection or Natural resource extraction control (sorely needed, as we now know), ideally both.
Using taxation to encourage a certain type of behavior can be very effective (which is why I'm entirely for a huge sugar and "corn" tax), but it's important to have a carrot too, so reduced sales tax on smaller engined economical and environmental cars could be an incentive as well, paid for by parts of the money gained from the tax.
EDIT: That said, I agree that displacement isn't the ideal tax grounds. A slight increase in fuel tax as well as a taxation on pollution or consumption (by testing all cars as they're released on the market under identical situations.) would probably be a better idea.
That said, inviting the automakers to provide small Diesel and petrol engines on the market (or forcing them to) is crucial. There has to be an alternative, not everyone wants to drive a Prius or Civic.
Location: Still in Portland, Oregon, for some reason
890 posts, read 3,701,554 times
Reputation: 743
So basically you're saying that we should punish people who want a car that actually has some cajones and isn't just an appliance for transportation? By using your 3.0 liter standard, even cars like the Honda Accord V6 and Acura TSX V6 would be taxed under your proposed law and despite that, both cars are rated for close to 30 mpg on the highway. Even the aforementioned Corvette Z06 with its enormous 7.0-liter, 505 horsepower V8 gets 25-27 mpg highway. My dad's '07 Acura RL has a 3.5-liter 290 horsepower V6 and yet can still manage 30 mpg on the highway while my mom's 3.0 liter V6 Lexus RX300 struggles to get 22 mpg highway.
Taxing displacement? Bad idea because high displacement doesn't always equal low fuel economy and vice versa (such is the case with the Mazda RX-8). We already have a gas-guzzler tax....we don't need any more taxes. And besides, you can't tax someone into an idea. If you want to drive a fuel efficient car with only adequate power, that's your M.O.
Volvo is now offering the S80 with a 1.6L Diesel engine in Europe. Though that's probably the smallest engine in the biggest car I know of currently, what it does highlight is that the American myth of needing huge engines is exactly that, a myth.,,.
America even makes some great affordable trucks and cars with small engines, all for export.
Europe and other countries have different cars and motors that are pretty cool, all not acceptable in USA.
It is not the public making these available or not - but the government.
Again thou, no body wants to be told we all have to drive the "standard cookie cutter" auto.
The Government should not be interfering with product availability on the market. They already do too much of this, but that's a topic for the politics forum.
When government makes rules we have fewer freedoms. When government can pick on any car with a motor larger than 3.0, they can cherry pick anything they like and don't like until we have no freedoms left at all. If you don't believe it would happen, you're sadly mistaken.
Keep government out of the automotive regulation business, and get them back in the business of securing the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone in Washington remember those words?
Its a terrible idea in that not everyoens needs are the same.The market takes care fo that in that no matter what the cost the person who use more gasoline pays more. But we will need to increase the cost of smaller vehicles as they are tending not to pay enugh for their usage of the roadways causing highway revenues to drop.
Looking at the limitations imposed by State speed limits, I still find it hard to justify motor vehicle engines exceeding 2,5/3.0 liters which would certainly bring down the consumption of gas and valuable resources which are being burned up daily.
Many vehicles on the road today with engines smaller than 3.0 liters amply provide sufficient power, acceleration, comfort and all the bells and whistles of cars normally considered to be of superior categories/bigger engines, meet with safety requirements and because they are considerably lighter do less damage to the communications infrastructure that provides less taxpayer money on road maintenance.
While I know I will be shouted down by the power hungry 0-60's in 3 seconds types, I do believe that a more practical approach should be sought by the Administration and auto manufacturers to support smaller engine use.
Those wishing to have larger cc's/horsepower and etc could either be subject to the following:
For those buying vehicles in excess of 3.0 liters-
a: For fun; - subject to a slight tax increase
b: For work/farm/business vehicles: having justification would not
require additional taxation
c: Collectors: Taxed in Collectors license
d: Government/service vehicles: Not taxed
How does one feel about a proposal or lobbying in the administration for a general reduction in the size of engines for the sedan/wagon/smaller sports car /SUV categories for a real change in fuel conservation measures for the future?
My reasons for suggesting this are that I see so many high cc engines that really have no justification (i.e. the high school kid with the "cool" 5,7 liter V8 that he drives 2 miles to school in and his main use is for weekend "fun" time) that could be amply performed by a very much cooler looking 1,8 liter engine......would be a lot faster in many cases if he is looking for that little extra....
I would appreciate any comments or opinions......
"I think we should tax and spend...the more the better" BHO
Last edited by Pretzelogik; 07-12-2010 at 10:37 PM..
Reason: a
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
