Should we force automakers to make hybrids?

[camero]

Poll question: Should we force automakers to make hybrids?

Any opinions on this? Since we import 55% of our oil, most coming from the unstable Middle East, I believe that this would save us alot of oil.

The Japanese are way ahead of us in hybrid technology that thier market share in the US market is increasing. Just like the 70s.

It seems our automakers are too addicted to oil to do anything.

[demnan]

1. Yes

My next car purchase will definitely be a hybrid.

[htuttle]

2. Use tax incentives...

..and also remind the Big Three US automakers that we don't intend to bail their ass out again, once the Japanese car makers take their markets away from them...again (just like in the late 70's).

No more bailouts!

[camero]

5. I agree with that

No bailouts. But I also think we should link tax incentives to legislation increasing fuel economy standards. Even though in this Congress, it most likely wouldn't make it to the floor.

[NeonLX]

16. The "bailout" was more of a loan...

Low interest, to be sure, but the car company in question (Chrysler) paid it back well before it was due.

Of course, Chrysler is now owned by Daimler/Benz, of Mercedes fame...

[aldian159]

66. the true story of the chrysler bailout

Don't have a link, will look for one.

Chysler was dying, bought out American Motors (remember Gremlins?) in order to get Jeep. Bought AM, dismantled it, and kept Jeep. Jeep foundered, Chrysler needed $680M to pay back buyout loan. Went to senate, put up pension fund (worth $1 B) as collateral for a ten year low intrest loan. Iacoca, a former engineer with ford motors and current chysler CEO, looks in American Motors blueprints and discovers what will eventually be the Chrysler Town and Country, Plymouth voyager, and Dodge Caravan. Chrysler beats out Ford and GM and uses the huge profits from the first minivan to pay back the loan and retire.

[wuushew]

17. If the automakers were going under would it be wise to lose UAW support?

n/t?

[htuttle]

21. I've seen too many small businesses fail in the last 20 years...

...to have any sort of sympathy for large corporations.

Yes, it would be a shame to lose all the Union jobs, but look at the LAST big corporate bailout. The airlines took the $15B, gave the executives raises, then laid off a lot of their workers.

My new theory on corporate bailouts is thus:

If a corporation is critical enough to the United States to bail out, then it's critical enough to Nationalize.

[A HERETIC I AM]

74. Keep in mind, the "Bailout" saved thousands of high paying jobs.....

High paying UNION jobs that were threatened with destruction. Jobs that supported families and towns. (I hope you were refering to the Chrysler bailout, which if i am not mistaken the governemt actually made a profit on)

[NeonLX]

3. Wish we could design our cities so we didn't need cars for everything

To me, that's the bigger issue--grossly inefficient development patterns in our metropolitan areas. We're forced to drive our cars everywhere; we work in one suburb, shop at the mall in another and live in yet another.

I'm fortunate in that I work near the center of the city and we live along a reasonably good transit route. There's also a bike path not too far from our house. But I'm the exception, rather than the rule--the explosion of 'burbs after WWII was designed around the private auto, not more efficient forms of transport.

[camero]

7. That takes years

And peak oil is estimated at 2010. I agree that cities should become more pedestrian-friendly. I live in the worst when it comes to that.

We could do that by electing local politicians who don't kowtow to developers.

[kyrasdad]

4. Automakers already get enough tax incentives...

change the CAFE standards so the ONLY way they can meet it is by using alternative energy sources

[jus_the_facts]

11. Heh..they should be FORCED to PAY MORE TAXES to enviornmental causes...

....along with OPEC to help clean up the deplorable mess of the planet they've financed for decades...then put out of buisness forever. :mad: :grr:

[adriennel]

6. nope

We need the government to raise CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards and force automakers to make more fuel efficient vehicles. Fuel efficient technologies have existed for years, whereas CAFE standards have barely changed since they were created 25 years ago. This would be a big cost for the automakers and the government gets too much money from them to ever raise fuel economy standards.

Sorry, but hybrids are not the answer. They will go the way of the electric car. There are market and availability issues, plus hydrogen is very expensive.

adriennel, vehicle emissions librarian (yes, it's my life!)

[wuushew]

12. Why are hybrids not practical?

they use combination of conventional gasoline combustion and supplimental electic power.

50-70 miles per gallon no strings attached, sounds good to me



Start driving the next generation, mid-size 2004 Prius with Hybrid Synergy Drive.® Completely reconceived with cutting-edge technologies throughout, the gas/electric Prius offers all the power of a conventional vehicle, an unheard-of 55 estimated combined mpg <2> and an Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) rating. <3> Plus, you never need to plug-in for recharging -- which makes the Prius a solution with no cords attached.

[Webster Green]

15. Hybrids do not use hydrogen.....

Vehicles utilizing fuel-cell technology would use hydrogen fuel. That technology is many years away from being practical for vehicles. Hybrid technology is already working and very efficient.

[adriennel]

19. it's all on fuel cells now

The FreedomCar initative is fuel cell/hydrogen, which indicates that "the latest" trend in fuel efficiency research is fuel cell, not hybrid. There are a few hybrid models currently on the market, but I don't think they'll ever reach saturation. I see little research and interest in hybrids these days (about the same as electric cars). Plus, there are less expensive technologies than either hybrid or fuel cell!

[wuushew]

22. links?

what are these technologies that are less expensive than hybrids?

I can think of only three things that will measurably improve cars.

Lighter bodies, more efficient transmissions or smaller less powerful motors.

The Detroit lobby has killed any talk of these improvements and in the best case these technologies come no where near current mpg of hybrids such as the Prius or Insight.

[adriennel]

79. links I work with

sorry, been slammed at work.

ok, I'm not an engineer, so I probably shouldn't talk about the cost-effectiveness of fuel economy technology. We have lots of scientists here studying this but I'm not one of them.

Remember the original question was should we force automakers to produce hybrids. I think a better, more reasonable tactic is to force the automakers to improve their fuel economy, which would lead to incremental improvements. There is no incentive to do this now. Unfortunately I don't know how to do this. It would cost the automakers more, but possibly the consumer less than the price of a new hydrid car.

There are many good alternative fuel options currently being researched; natural gas, hydrogen, hybrid, clean diesel, etc. The problem as I see it (and with the most recent Energy Bill) is that there is no consensus for the future regarding which technology to pursue. I don't know how we can move forward or reach critical mass with an alternative fuel if we don't have clear leadership or vision for the future beyond oil.

Here are some of our most referenced sites:

Green Vehicle Guide
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/

Fuel Economy Guide
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/

Office of Transportation and Air Quality
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

Alternative Fuels Data Center
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/

[camero]

80. Hybrid is the best option, IMO

Natural gas and so-called "clean diesel" are fossil fuels. Clean diesel is just unrefined oil with ethanol added or the sulfer completely taken out. Low sulfer diesel has actually reduced fuel mileage in semis since its inception.

Hydrogen would be too expensive to make, as others have pointed out.

That makes hybrids the best option to me. The effect would be to lower demand of gasoline and would in effect, create a glut of oil in the market. Causing vastly lower gasoline prices. Which is precisely why Bush dropped the funding, I think.

You're right though, we do need real leadership on this issue.

[NeonLX]

24. Well, that may be the way "the government" is heading...

But you gotta wonder who benefits from it, if it's an initiative of the current administration. Everything I've read seems to say that the production of hydgrogen is so energy intensive that it's a zero-gain technology. It takes as much energy to produce the hydrogen as you get out of the hydrogen itself. Sounds pretty rinky-dink to me.

But if someone can show me evidence to the contrary, I'll be more supportive of the technology.

[wuushew]

26. Its headed that way because of Bush's false hydrogen promise

which came at the expense of current hybrid funding.

Yet another reason I miss Al Gore. These trends can be reversed it is just a simple matter of changing the current occupant of 1600 PA Avenue.

[NeonLX]

27. I kinda figured that...

...some of his friends in the "awl bidness" musta wanted to get into government funded hydrogen research as well...

Right-wingers are so transparent...

[aldian159]

68. Great book

just finished it.

[alfredo]

75. There was interest in hybrids until Bush pulled the funding in favor of

a gasoline based hydrogen car. The hybrids were well on their way when Bush pulled the rug out from under them. Now Japan has taken the lead, and we are now up to a decade away from developing a fuel cell car.

Bush wants us to stay dependent on oil. that is the source of his families wealth.

[screembloodymurder]

77. You need to drive one.

My next car will be a hybrid.

[wuushew]

8. Don't forget to repeal the SUV tax credit now!

[camero]

9. No doubt

That is a rediculous credit.

[kyrasdad]

10. AMEN

[NeonLX]

20. Agreed...

And it might not be a bad idea to have SUVs' fuel economy factored into CAFE as well...

Jeez, even Toyota and Lexus are making big-honkin' SUVs these days; almost got run over by a HUGE Lexus LX-470 yesterday (I got a good look at the nameplate & rear license plate as the thing went whizzing by me).

[Sven77]

13. how many billions

how many billions over the years has the govt given the big 3 automakers to develop alternative energy cars, and not even a prototype to show for it. toyota prius has been on the market for 5 years and is finally making them a profit. that will be my next car.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/prius/exterior.html

consumers should get big tax breaks on hybrid cars, not rich oil companies.

[camero]

14. Tax incentives to consumers

Advertised well enough, would likely increase sales to allow automakers a quicker profit. Haha, free hybrid with your trade-in instead of a free Hummer. How about that?

[LeahMira]

18. Honda also

Honda also has a nice hybrid Civic model. According to the man who parks his in the parking lot next to where I work, his car gets well over 50 mpg. It's a cute car, too.

[jhfenton]

23. It is seldom a good idea for the government to dictate to the market

what to make. That has never worked. Consumers will ultimately determine how successful hybrids are. If the Japanese versions are successful, you can bet the Big 3 won't be far behind.

Personally, I will look at a hybrid when it comes time to replace our VW Passat.

[maggrwaggr]

53. gee, you mean like seatbelts?

Your argument is exactly the same that the auto manufacturers use whenever faced with anything that might raise their costs. They opposed seat belts, air bags, pretty much any safety requirements that came along.

Is not the safety of our planet an issue here?

[Brian Sweat]

25. I disagree.

If you want a hybrid, buy one of the ones that is already on the market. If the demand is there, they will make more.

On the other hand, when U.S. automakers lose huge amounts of market share because they failed to act, the government should not bail them out.

[Nederland]

28. No

Government should not dictate solutions to businesses, it should define the problems it wants solved and create incentives for businesses to sove them in whatever manner they choose. In this case, the problem is not that we have too few hybrids on the road, the problem is that current vehicles use too much gas and pollute too much. What government should do therefore, is raise gasoline taxes and create new taxes on pollution. Businesses will respond to those new market variable in the most efficient way--which may or may not involve the creation of hybrids.

In sum, government has no business picking techological winners and losers, the market should do that.

[seasat]

29. Tax incentives by raising taxes on gas.

If you make the gas more expensive, then more people are going to demand higher milage vehicles and take public transportation. I'd also only tax the portion of the gas that is petroleum based. If the gas contained 10% ethanol and the tax was 50 cents a gallon per petroleum, then they would pay 45 cents a gallon tax. If the fuel was 100% biodiesel, then no tax. It'd also subsidize the biofuels market indirectly and we would not have to subsidize them directly. It'd encourage the development of alternative sources such as hydrogen production by electrolysis using solar panels or wind turbines as the source. Hydrogen produced by catalyzing fossil fuels would still be taxed. I'd change the SUV tax credit so it can only be used for people really needing a heavy vehicle like a farmers or construction workers. I'd also add a luxury tax on large gas guzzlers. That'd work IMHO.

[bigrootcanal]

30. Yes, enforce but allow muscle cars for those that like them

Is that ok to say?

[camero]

47. I doubt if all the muscles will be off the roads

Just like there are still some leaded gasoline cars still on the road.
But we must do what we can to reduce dependence on oil or when it runs out, it will be catastrophic.

[guitar man]

48. Right on!

My daily driver is a 1995 Lincoln Mark VIII,which is a luxury muscle coupe.It has the 4.6 32v v-8 which is essentially the same as a Mustang Cobra,it turns out 290 hp/290 ft.lb. stock and will rip some treads. the cool thing is,my commute is all highway and I am getting 26-28 mpg. highway mileage.

[Kolesar]

31. Raise SUV & truck CAFE standards to meet auto CAFE standards

I think that that is why we are overconsuming petroleum. I remember when front wheel drive cars were introduced and consumers were delighted to have aerodynamic cars that got great mileage. The truck/suv styling trend has been a disaster.

[Fescue4u]

32. Thats only half the equation.

If you are going to force companies to build them, you also need to force consumers to buy them.

But why bother? Companies are alrady building them and people are already buying them.

If you get people wanting to buy these things, companies will fall all over themselves to build and sell'm.

btw, our automakers are not addicted to oil, they are addicted to $$$. And since automakers don't sell oil, they only way to get $$$ is to sell cars.

[camero]

45. You're not taking into account collusion

Which is rampant in the Bush economy. These guys all sit at the same table. So, any talk of not regulating or dictating to business i take as much stock in as the "invisible hand" theory.

[Fescue4u]

55. true

But I've had my glimpse of the American auto manufacturing business. These numbnuts cant even organanize themselves within one company. There's no way the could collude across multiple industry and multiple behomeths companys.

Im not saying they don't collude, but just that they are to inept to do it effectively.

[camero]

59. They're smarter than you think

It's called campaign finance. A form of collusion, IMHO.

[Fescue4u]

76. smart is as smart does

Your point about campaign finance is well taken, but we are talking about the building of autos with certain features.

And from what I have seen the only reason that a company like GM is in business is because of momentum. Easily the worst managed large company I've ever has the displeasure of working with.

[RichardRay]

33. Agree, tax incentives, but incentivize with gas taxes

Let the price of a gas climb over time. Raising gas costs to $4 or $5/gal in the short run is regressive, but do it over enough years to let consumers make different choices and everybody who can would be driving a Prius!

(Note that I will be paying $4/gallon since my cabin is inaccesible 6 months out of the year without 4WD and adequate clearance. I haven't seen any really good hybrid vehicles that can handle two feet of snow and a 20% grade, but if there were one I'd buy it!)

[camero]

46. Ford is developing them

They are partial hybrid SUVs which use gas for certain cylinders. They say they will be ready in the 2007 model year. They don't go far enough IMO.

[LinkingRings]

34. Absolutely NOT

Should they be forced to make them? Hell No!

For if you force them to make them, to have any actual impact you would have to force consumers to buy them.

[camero]

49. In the 70's

Gov't required fuel makers to only sell unleaded gas. and now we only buy unleaded gas. If they are there consumers will buy them. This argument has no merit because we have other regs on business and they are just fine.

[Deja Q]

35. If the FCC can force HDTV and the copy protection that goes along with it,

then our government can do reasonable and helpful things too.

Automakers, oil industry, and people who support the oil industry.

At this point, I'm at the point where the oil industry can bathe in money until the oil runs out, at which point I'm hoping I won't be around because it'll mean the end of our society as we know it, if not the end of society.

[rustydog]

36. If we can force women to not have a choice of abortion...

You know the rest

[camero]

51. Save it for another thread

not the place for this issue

[Hammie]

37. No way

Remember those POS cars from the 70's when the govt. forced auto makers to put on a bunch of mandatory polution control equipment? It took almost two decades before automakers could make a decent motor with all that stuff on it.

Car makers aren't stupid, they build what people want to buy. If you think that auto makers should build hybrids, then buy one.

If I was going to buy a new vehicle for commuting in, I would probably buy a hybrid, they seem like the best of both worlds. Highly efficient and with the long range of a petroleum fuel.

[Guaranteed]

38. We have to force them.

Tax incentives aren't enough- the oil industry has way too much financial and political leverage.

[LinkingRings]

40. If they are forced

then a certain % of consumers will have to be forced to buy them.

Why do you support the forcing of a specific auto purchase on some people?

[htuttle]

43. You are forced to purchase a car with certain safety equipment...

...and there are already (pathetic) fuel efficiency standards that automakers are 'forced' to follow.

How is this so different?

[Guaranteed]

64. It's like TV.

People will buy from the choices they are given.

[TexasMexican]

39. Yes.

American automobile makes need to get with the times.

If we dont force them in a few years they will be bitching about unfair competition from Japan, because people wont want to buy unefficient American cars anymore.

Then us taxpayers are going to have to pay for government subsidies to bail them out.

[arewethereyet]

41. Buy them and you will see more

the customer is always right

[aldian159]

69. The invisible hand theory.

only hybrids vs. regulars instead of Smith's pots and pans.

[camero]

71. I couldn't have said it any better myself

bravo

[Zynx]

42. Offer a massive reward for those who do.

That will get it going.

[mmonk]

44. tax incentives

everybody's happy and it gets done.

[camero]

50. Like someone on another thread suggested

We could replace the Hummer credit with the hybrid credit. It's a good idea.

[leesa]

52. The forcing down the throat of the HUGE trucks and SUVs must be

some sort of sweetheart deal between the Congress and the Saudis. I say force tax rebates and withhold any tax rebates unless they meet stringent...California like clean air standards. HUGE trucks should pay a penalty for fouling the air. They pollute more, they should pay a penalty for the clean-up required.
Also, requirements that hybrids be advertised like the trucks and SUVs are. Has anyone ever seen a TV ad for a hydrid?

[camero]

54. you're right

I haven't seen any ads for them. But taxing SUV's is what got Gray Davis thrown out. It may not be politically doable. But I do think the car tax was a good idea.

[tinanator]

56. who's "we"?

You saying we have a say? Hybrids? What the hell was wrong with the ZERO emission vehicle quota that was supposed to go into effect here in California a few years back? The one the Japanese manufacturers had goods ready for? The one Gray Davis cancelled at the last minute?
I mean, Im all for any sort of improvement, but dont you think you are being a little presumptuous, or naively optomistic? Please check out recent history and apply it to the question you pose. "They" have us screwed blewed and tattooed in terms of this sort of mandate, and "they", are perfectly bipartisan in their machinations. Seriously. Who's "we"?

[camero]

58. Yeah, I'm being optimistic. Silly me.

We are the government, if we would just get off our lazy asses and vote.

[tinanator]

61. I think that would work

IF "we" got to count them, anyways.

[camero]

62. That too

I don't really think it would get an ounce of ink with this cabal in power. But it doesn't hurt to plan for the future.

[Fescue4u]

57. Id buy one now but

All they make is tiny little death traps that are ugly as sin.

Id like to see some stylish, larger hybrid vehicles. I have a feeling that if one is manufactured, consumers would grab'm up.

[arewethereyet]

60. the only way you get your wish is to buy the econobox

they made them that way because they feel that its the most atractive package for their idea of the Hybrid buyer. if they ever start to sell then you will see a more varied offering. detriot has a formula and it doesn't really vary from it.

[Lorien]

70. You have not seen the 2004

Prius, then. Great safety features, as big as a Camry inside, and looks just fine. Something like 65 miles to the gallon, too. I'm making it my next vehicle!

[camero]

63. kick

not a bad subject for my first poll, eh?

[camero]

78. kick

kick

[aldian159]

65. If America wants to save oil, we gotta wean ourselves

off of SUVs. There is no reason that most people should be driving an Escalade or a H2

[camero]

67. One part of the equation

But they could adapt hybrid technology for SUV's. Plus, it's not just SUV's that are using the oil, but also the millions of other vehicles too. This definitely adds up.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. Use tax incentives... Republicans can't disagree with tax incentives...

[camero]

73. Politics would make strange bedfellows

Just imagine the environmental groups aligned with automakers against the oil industry. Wouldn't that be something?