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.
Cute Ann ... LOL! Yeah, even now, I've often felt that the road repair crews have a lot of stock in tire companies, and many of them sideline at Midas doing alignments
the thing i've always wondered...why can't we develop tires that last longer?! oh well...different topic. i feel like they are built to fall apart earlier than they are "rated" for.
Well, yes, the people who design, build and sell the cars. Certainly the technology is there, but there is a cost to implementing it. Overall the cost breaks down as roughly $1,400 in added cost for fuel efficiency gains and $1,600 in mandated safety improvements. This is of course based on current costs, which may very well decrease as the technology is mainstreamed. Either way, it costs more to build a more efficient car with similar power, while achieving mandated emissions levels, retaining desired features and meeting required safety madates.
it seems like the people who have decided oil is the enemy will probably decide to force people into other more fuel efficient cars/choices by pricing them out of oil options.
Hey, I'm in transportation, I don't think "oil" is the enemy. However, you can't deny that it is a major concern to the U.S. It is a vital resource that virtually controls our economy. The less dependent we are on oil for our transportation needs, the better off we will be.
I personally think we need a national energy policy that is geared to reducing our consumption while also expanding our production.
Well, yes, the people who design, build and sell the cars. Certainly the technology is there, but there is a cost to implementing it. Overall the cost breaks down as roughly $1,400 in added cost for fuel efficiency gains and $1,600 in mandated safety improvements. This is of course based on current costs, which may very well decrease as the technology is mainstreamed. Either way, it costs more to build a more efficient car with similar power, while achieving mandated emissions levels, retaining desired features and meeting required safety madates.
i'm sure there is some cost, but i just don't buy the estimates projected by the industry that's trying to avoid implementing these items.
for instance...one thing that causes lower fuel efficiency in some higher-end cars is the incredible amount of sound-proofing insulation used. this makes a car heavier, and more costly, while less fuel efficient. additionally, some technology such as "stop-start" and "direct injection" is actually proving to be less expensive than existing designs, and more fuel efficient. "stop-start" has been around for around 20 years, and is widely used in europe but in the U.S. it's only used in hybrid vehicles. additionally, diesel engines could be more widely used, and increase fuel efficiency of a company's fleet of vehicles.
all of our R&D now goes into higher performance with modest fuel efficiency increases. if they refocus what they are already spending on efficiency rather than performance, i am willing to bet they could achieve it with minor cost differences.
you hit that point later in your post though. but i'd just like to point out...we don't need a car that goes 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. it does nothing for us.
heck...look at the newest mustang GT. they bumped up horsepower significantly, but changed to direct injection. the car gets better mpg and is the same price as last year's GT.
Hey, I'm in transportation, I don't think "oil" is the enemy. However, you can't deny that it is a major concern to the U.S. It is a vital resource that virtually controls our economy. The less dependent we are on oil for our transportation needs, the better off we will be.
I personally think we need a national energy policy that is geared to reducing our consumption while also expanding our production.
i dont like our dependence on oil either but i dont think our government picking and choosing which alternative to support is better. i think we need to allow private enterprise explore other sources of industry and not put in place roadblocks. it seems like government stands in the way of oil drilling here, new nuclear power plants, off shore drilling, etc. etc.
but ultimately, my post was just how i expect things to go. i think the preference of our current leadership is to make oil prohibitively expensive even if there is some collateral damage among the "middle class." they just want to be able to do it without taking a political hit.
Give tax incentives to buy hybrids. Give incentives to turn in your clunkers. Now figure out how to raise taxes with less clunkers and bad fuel economy cars on the road.
i'm sure there is some cost, but i just don't buy the estimates projected by the industry that's trying to avoid implementing these items.
for instance...one thing that causes lower fuel efficiency in some higher-end cars is the incredible amount of sound-proofing insulation used. this makes a car heavier, and more costly, while less fuel efficient. additionally, some technology such as "stop-start" and "direct injection" is actually proving to be less expensive than existing designs, and more fuel efficient. "stop-start" has been around for around 20 years, and is widely used in europe but in the U.S. it's only used in hybrid vehicles. additionally, diesel engines could be more widely used, and increase fuel efficiency of a company's fleet of vehicles.
all of our R&D now goes into higher performance with modest fuel efficiency increases. if they refocus what they are already spending on efficiency rather than performance, i am willing to bet they could achieve it with minor cost differences.
you hit that point later in your post though. but i'd just like to point out...we don't need a car that goes 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. it does nothing for us.
heck...look at the newest mustang GT. they bumped up horsepower significantly, but changed to direct injection. the car gets better mpg and is the same price as last year's GT.
it can be done.
I don't think it's fair to say that the auto industry is against this. What the auto industry is against is random legislation that keeps them ever guessing and changing as to what direction they need to go.
People don't buy SUV's because GM, Ford and Toyota build SUV's. GM, Ford and Toyota build SUV's because people want to buy them. In fact, the entire minivan/SUV craze was simply a reaction to the original CAFE laws that destroyed the ability of car manufacturers to sell the formerly popular station wagon.
The government wants three things, that often compete with themselves:
1. More fuel efficient vehicles.
2. Lower emissions.
3. Increased levels of safety.
They're all great things, but they also work against each other in the car world. Increasing efficiency is most easily done by using less emissions control and making the car light. Pollution controls hurt efficiency through the use of cat's, egr's, etc. Increasing safety standards, means larger, heavy cars, which reduces efficiency and increases pollution.
The industry needs to balance these competing factors while still producing cars that the public wants. People are generally concerned with:
1. Utility, meaning the car meets my needs/purpose.
2. Cost, obviously the average Joe should be able to afford it and it should be reliable.
3. Power, no one wants to drive a lawnmower on the Turnpike or Parkway.
I think, in general, the auto industry knows what their customers want. The trick is giving them what they want while competing with various federal and even state mandates regarding pollution, fuel efficiency and safety.
NHTSA tells them cars must meet newer stricter frontal crash standards. This means adding high strength reinforced steel to the front end of the car. This increases the size and weight of the car. Meanwhile the EPA is telling them that they need to cut emissions despite NHTSA wanting safer cars. Than you can top all that off when the government revises CAFE and decides they want all of that AND the car needs to be more efficient.
There is no better example of government stupidity in energy/transportation than ethanol. There is almost no federal control or oversight for ethanol. The laws surrounding it and acceptable blends are a hodge podge of local and state laws. However, car manufacturers are incentified to build a certain percentage of E85 capable vehicles and make all vehicles E10 compatible. The issue here is that the cars perform worse in terms of MPG and power on the ethanol blended fuel as there is no national standard to allow the companies to actually tune their engines to take advantage of what ethanol can do. So, we end up with a total abortion.
Sounds quite like the loss of tax money from smokers. What to do to support all the programs now supported by tobacco tax.
As any dedicated tax goes to the general fund, raising the gas tax will not solve any intended infrastructure problems.
Realize all these taxes are substitutes for facing the taxpayer and asking for more money. It would be too embarassing and could not be justified given the colossal inefficiency. legal and illegal corruption.
Past time to mine all the wasted taxpayer money squandered as a matter of course.
Would be nice if jobs came back to NJ. All we have and enjoy now is the product of bountiful times. We have to cut back to what we can afford. We can't keep our inheritence, we have to pay the taxes for that which we inherited.
No reason the hybrids shouldn't have a higher registration fee to pay their fair share not collected at the gas pump. They place wear and tear on the roads.
In hard times many social and community programs will have to take a backseat to basic practical needs.
The average passenger car tire costs, let's say $120 and is rated to last 50k miles. On average .13 cents of every dollar you spend on gas is tax, so at $4 a gallon, ~.52 cents of every gallon is tax. If the average car gets 35MPG, you would need to charge about $750 per tire in tax to recoup the lost gas tax revenue at current levels. That would mean buying 4 tires would now cost $3,480, all in one lump sum.
Two points, though, NJGOAT:
1) You forgot to divide your $750 figure by four, as that's how many tires most cars use at once. You would need to recoup about $750 to match gas tax on 50k miles ... But you're using 4 tires. Including that in the estimate gives $187.50 in tax per tire, making a set of four cost about $1,230. Not too bad, IMO if:
2) You also consider that we would no longer be paying taxes on gasoline.
Seems to me if the real issue is just revenue lost from electric cars
1) There's not much to worry about yet. Electric cars aren't all that popular.
2) The suggestion of a tax based on mileage and weight seems to make the most sense. Cars are already required to have a tamper-proof odometer, so it just needs to be read; instead of an emissions inspection the EV owner could have the odometer read.
If you're trying to tie in all sorts of incentives to punish people buying vehicles you don't like, or reward those who buy vehicles you do like, you're just muddying the issue.
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.
