Ford Focus Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was just thinking about this while driving... I believe the new transpartation bill includes extending tax credits for hybrid vehicles.. (Even though some hybrids are designed for performance, not necessarily, but I digress..)

Since Continuously Variable Transmissions are undoubtedly better for fuel economy than your 4/5 speed automatics, why not subsidize the development and manufacture of these to be put in as many new vehicles as possible in the US?

Of course this would only be needed in the short term, as the integration of this technology is already well under way. But even for a year if it could get things jump-started a few extra MPG per vehicle could mean a huge difference!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Does a Nissan Murano with a CVT deserve a tax credit?
Not saying tax credit, I'm saying subsidise manufacturers to develop and place these transmissions into vehicles. The consumer wouldn't pay a difference, besides at the pump. A Murano with a CVT is more efficient than a Murano w/o... If every new car/SUV in the US had one it would be a significant difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,547 Posts
Sure, why not? Some people want to drive something that size, why not encourage them to drive one with better mileage? My parents just got one and it gets remarkable mileage compared to the Jeep Liberty they traded in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Sure, why not? Some people want to drive something that size, why not encourage them to drive one with better mileage? My parents just got one and it gets remarkable mileage compared to the Jeep Liberty they traded in.
This likely has more to do with the engine than the transmission. The overall efficiency gain of CVT's is not that remarkable and and they are still less efficient than a manual transmission.

BTW, CVT's have likely seen the peak of their success already. The future use of them is expected to decline. Ford will discontinue it's use of them over the next two years in favor of a six-speed auto.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,176 Posts
Because the just passed energy bill is more of a give away to big oil than anything else.

Where is the increased CAFE standards?

Where are credits or subsidies for non petrolium energy?

The extended credits for hybrids only keep current credits from expiring.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,374 Posts
Subsidies for hybrids are stupid too!

Who gives a crap if its a hybrid? Fine, I'll make a hybrid Excursion that I'll drive to work. The electric motor will be so small it'll run on the V10 I mated it to most of the time.


They should reward actual fuel economy. If your car gets over "insert mpg threshold", you get a tax credit. Heck, they can even do it based on some formula for the amount of passengers it can carry in some miles per gallon per passenger count if they want to.

But its kind of lame that if they bring over a 60mpg+ Fiesta diesel that it won't qualify for the discount a 27mpg (much lower in the real world) hybrid Highlander gets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Subsidies for hybrids are stupid too!

Who gives a crap if its a hybrid? Fine, I'll make a hybrid Excursion that I'll drive to work. The electric motor will be so small it'll run on the V10 I mated it to most of the time.


They should reward actual fuel economy. If your car gets over "insert mpg threshold", you get a tax credit. Heck, they can even do it based on some formula for the amount of passengers it can carry in some miles per gallon per passenger count if they want to.

But its kind of lame that if they bring over a 60mpg+ Fiesta diesel that it won't qualify for the discount a 27mpg (much lower in the real world) hybrid Highlander gets.
Well, see, your idea makes sense by tying incentives directly to the desired result. Since it makes perfect sense, no one supports it.

It's sorta like "environmental" building codes - they regulate items in your house rather than fuel usage. I want to replace my windows but local codes mandate that I put in windows that allow less solar heat inside. Considering I have no cooling systems, not even so much as a floor or ceiling fan, this is going to raise my fuel use two thirds of the year while having no effect on my fuel use the other third of the year. What a smart government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
They should reward actual fuel economy.
You do get a reward, every time you go to the pump. Why do you need more than that?
 

·
INCREDIBLY SHRINKING POST COUNT!!! (PSST...Add 10K
Joined
·
6,259 Posts
Because the just passed energy bill is more of a give away to big oil than anything else.

Where is the increased CAFE standards?

Where are credits or subsidies for non petrolium energy?

The extended credits for hybrids only keep current credits from expiring.
I agree.Sadly it is not going to happen with (I made my fortune in oil) G.W. Bush and Cheney.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,666 Posts
The thing is your not going to change anything over night with reguards to our countries depenance on oil, there are too many companies interests at stake to let that happen. The biggest thing out of the Energy bill is that they extented Day light Savings time..Yey!
 

·
Professor PowerSlide
Joined
·
5,944 Posts
Sure, why not? Some people want to drive something that size, why not encourage them to drive one with better mileage? My parents just got one and it gets remarkable mileage compared to the Jeep Liberty they traded in.
This likely has more to do with the engine than the transmission. The overall efficiency gain of CVT's is not that remarkable and and they are still less efficient than a manual transmission.

BTW, CVT's have likely seen the peak of their success already. The future use of them is expected to decline. Ford will discontinue it's use of them over the next two years in favor of a six-speed auto.
What??? I am hearing exactly the opposite. The six speed's replacing the 4 speed..to the best of my knowledge the CVT will be in all future hybrids brought out by Ford. Including the proposed hybrid Fusion
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,374 Posts
You do get a reward, every time you go to the pump. Why do you need more than that?
Actually, I'm with you on that.

That is the reward and no you shouldn't need more than that.

My argument was just based on IF you are giving out subsidies, it should be for a result, not just for the sake of a particular technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
My argument was just based on IF you are giving out subsidies, it should be for a result, not just for the sake of a particular technology.
What if that technology produces the result, even for people who aren't interested in that result.

For example... Hummer owners don't give a [censored] about fuel economy. But they'll buy Hummers anyways. If CVT's were offered in Hummers you'd have the same people buying them, but they would each get maybe 2-4 MPG more. Add up all of the Hummers and other ATX vehicles and you'd be saving a significant about of fuel overall..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,666 Posts
What??? I am hearing exactly the opposite. The six speed's replacing the 4 speed..to the best of my knowledge the CVT will be in all future hybrids brought out by Ford. Including the proposed hybrid Fusion
From what I understand Hybrids dont use CVTs and the Fusion hybrid will use a form of the Escape Hybrid powerplant in it.
 

·
I can't stop typing...I can't stop typing...I can'
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
They should reward actual fuel economy.
You do get a reward, every time you go to the pump. Why do you need more than that?
This is the most obvious way you can make polluting vehicles less desirable than less polluting…

ELMINATE calf MPG regulations, eliminate all tolls, and eliminate government subsidizing road repair in this country. Raise the gas tax significantly, make gas $4-$5 a gallon in this country. Make it mandatory that all gas tax money goes into road repair and maintenance. Now there is no more lost time from slowing down for tolls, and wasted money on complex systems like EZPass, The bigger (and less efficient) a vehicle is the more tax people pay for the wear and tear on the roads and environment. The more someone drives the more tax they pay.

You want to save money? Buy a smaller vehicle that puts less wear on the highways. Don’t want a smaller vehicle? Then move closer to your job so you drive less. Don’t want to move, well take public transit. (For this to work, money that used to be used to subsidize roads, would need to go towards public transportation)

Honestly would this really cost people more money? Probably not, the money for the roads are already taken from general taxes. Those taxes would be able to be lowered now. This system would automatically collect the right amount of money for road maintenance, since the more people drive, the more tax money the government would get (but it would be mandatory that it went to roads, NEVER anything else)

It might even lower insurance, by having roads with less potholes causing damage to vehicles.

Also here is a CRAZY idea…

Manual cars get better mileage than any kind of autos. Well how about you offer to subsidies driver training done on manual cars. If you learn to drive on a manual car, take your driver test on a manual car, and then buy (or already own) a manual car, all your training, and testing fees are waved. You could even offer a few $100 government credit to buy manual cars, not to mention the lower price of the vehicle for not having a manual (at least in most cases.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,983 Posts
This is the most obvious way you can make polluting vehicles less desirable than less polluting…

ELMINATE calf MPG regulations, eliminate all tolls, and eliminate government subsidizing road repair in this country. Raise the gas tax significantly, make gas $4-$5 a gallon in this country. Make it mandatory that all gas tax money goes into road repair and maintenance. Now there is no more lost time from slowing down for tolls, and wasted money on complex systems like EZPass, The bigger (and less efficient) a vehicle is the more tax people pay for the wear and tear on the roads and environment. The more someone drives the more tax they pay.

You want to save money? Buy a smaller vehicle that puts less wear on the highways. Don’t want a smaller vehicle? Then move closer to your job so you drive less. Don’t want to move, well take public transit. (For this to work, money that used to be used to subsidize roads, would need to go towards public transportation)

Honestly would this really cost people more money? Probably not, the money for the roads are already taken from general taxes. Those taxes would be able to be lowered now. This system would automatically collect the right amount of money for road maintenance, since the more people drive, the more tax money the government would get (but it would be mandatory that it went to roads, NEVER anything else)

It might even lower insurance, by having roads with less potholes causing damage to vehicles.

Also here is a CRAZY idea…

Manual cars get better mileage than any kind of autos. Well how about you offer to subsidies driver training done on manual cars. If you learn to drive on a manual car, take your driver test on a manual car, and then buy (or already own) a manual car, all your training, and testing fees are waved. You could even offer a few $100 government credit to buy manual cars, not to mention the lower price of the vehicle for not having a manual (at least in most cases.)
Excelent post.


I'll only add one thing. And this is out there pretty far so bear with me. ELIMINATE all emmissions requirements for cars that can achieve a specified MPG requirement. Maybe something like 40mpg to start. It would then have to be studied and adjusted on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 or 10 years and moved up to match current technology and to 'raise the bar'.

Anyway, my theory is that if you were to remove all of the emmissions equpment a few things would happen. First of all, you'd allow the manufacturers to concentrate on fuel economy only (conservation, which is a good thing as well and is arguably just as important as polution) for these types of vehicles. Naturally, the less fuel burned the less polution. The extra incentive would be the removed costs of the emmissions equipment as well as all of the R&D that goes into them. I truly think that it would be easier (lest costly) to design a to a fuel economy standard than an emmissions standard. Imagine this...A vehicle that gets better fuel economy, is lighter and simpler, has a better power/liter ratio, and is cheaper. Think that would sell?

FOCALJET: Fixing the world one post at a time.
 

·
I can't stop typing...I can't stop typing...I can'
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Excelent post.


I'll only add one thing. And this is out there pretty far so bear with me. ELIMINATE all emmissions requirements for cars that can achieve a specified MPG requirement. Maybe something like 40mpg to start. It would then have to be studied and adjusted on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 or 10 years and moved up to match current technology and to 'raise the bar'.

Anyway, my theory is that if you were to remove all of the emmissions equpment a few things would happen. First of all, you'd allow the manufacturers to concentrate on fuel economy only (conservation, which is a good thing as well and is arguably just as important as polution) for these types of vehicles. Naturally, the less fuel burned the less polution. The extra incentive would be the removed costs of the emmissions equipment as well as all of the R&D that goes into them. I truly think that it would be easier (lest costly) to design a to a fuel economy standard than an emmissions standard. Imagine this...A vehicle that gets better fuel economy, is lighter and simpler, has a better power/liter ratio, and is cheaper. Think that would sell?
See the only problem with that is there are some situations where air quality is more of a concern than just efficiency. Take states like Cali, and the northeaster US. There are so many cars driving, or the area is so densely populated that pollution is a serious problem. That’s why these stares already have different emission regulations from the rest of the US.

Maybe what you are saying would work for some states, but I think densely populated places like here need the emission regulations.

Now I have no problem eliminating regulations mandating how those standards are met. For example I think it should be legal for car companies to NOT put a cat on there car if they can get the vehicle to pass emissions tests without it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,374 Posts
For example... Hummer owners don't give a [censored] about fuel economy. But they'll buy Hummers anyways. If CVT's were offered in Hummers you'd have the same people buying them, but they would each get maybe 2-4 MPG more.
Think about what you are saying.

People that buy Hummers don't care that they are spending more money to operate their cars (higher fuel cost). OK...

However, the manufacturer will provide a CVT due to the high demand that somehow exists now, even though the extra fuel costs before are supposedly inconsequential to those people. So why do they care about saving money ONE way (CVT discount) and not the other (actual fuel economy boost)?

That doesn't make sense.

That Hummer would also probably benefit from a more efficient V6 or a turbo-diesel too... surely a lot more than a CVT (they really don't do that much and are just comperable to MTXs). Do we give them discounts too? Who is paying for these discounts? You and I with our MTX Foci so that a Hummer can go from 14 to 16mpg? Woot!

No thanks. About 1/3 of our current gas costs are pure taxes. If that was increased to half (which is damn high if you ask me), yeah that would provide additional incentive. But its plenty high at $2.50 IMO.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top