Why don't we just pass a law to make hybrid ONLY cars in the US?

[SeeHopeWin]

That's it, it is the law of the land!!!

Can smart people explain why we can't just do that?

We own two hybrids at my house, we get about 50-100% better gas mileage out of these two cars than the older two we owned. They are affordable, there are plenty of choices, plenty of models, you can even buy the super monster Chevy Tahoe or a Lexus SUV in a hybrid.

Why do we keep making anything less?

Of course, I realize there are other similar or even better technologies out there...etc.

My point is, why continue to settle for anything less?

[Somawas]

1. Because to do so adopts a technology-one that is partly petroleum based.

Why not just set the CAFE standard pretty high and encourage innovations to meet that standard? Better yet, add an emissions ceiling as well as an average mileage.

[SeeHopeWin]

3. Ok, but I just said, we are getting 50% to 100% better efficiency with

the hybrid technology. Why reject even that? right now, when it is out there, at any of your nearest delaership....

[Robb]

7. They also have many problems

It's a big country, there are high places and low places, bumpy places and smooth places, hot places and cold places.

My last town would've eaten a hybrid alive. It would be a great fit where I live now. :shrug:

There are also less expensive ways to get there, if "there" is fuel efficiency. For example, my $1900 motorcycle gets about 78 mpg. And it's not even fuel-injected. :D

[ContinentalOp]

15. That's ridiculous. I live on an incredibly steep hill with really bad roads,

and most of my neighbors drive Priuses :shrug:

[Robb]

36. The world is not California

...Neither is the entire country. Often to our detriment. ;)

[ContinentalOp]

41. I guess I don't understand.

What is special about your part of the country that precludes the use of standard automobiles? The vast majority of American citizens live in regular old cities and suburbs, and drive along fairly flat streets arranged in a grid. Not sure what heat and cold have to do with anything either. :shrug:

[vadawg]

47. remember a lot of americans dont live in cities and suburbs either

my home is accessable only by 4 wheel drive and involves steep dirt roads and crossing sometimes swollen streams, my mother in law drives a prius and cant even make it over the first part of the dirt road, ensuring i have to go collect her. So unless i can get a hybrid that will do as well as my toyota truck for less money then i aint buying.

[ContinentalOp]

51. You are in a tiny minority.

How many Americans have a genuine need for a 4 wheel drive vehicle like you do? Again, the vast majority of us (over 80%) live in cities or suburbs.

"But the 1910 census was the last one in which rural Americans represented a majority of the population; these days, we've become a thoroughly metropolitan nation. Two-thirds of our population lives in the top 100 metropolitan areas, and 84 percent of Americans live in all 363 metros. Being in a metro means being tied to someplace else; the Census Bureau defines metropolitan areas as a city of 50,000 or more, plus the adjacent counties that have close social and economic ties to the urban core."

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1008_smalltowns_katz.aspx

[vadawg]

61. problem is that a lot of the ideas from the enviros are going to impact the rural communities

immensley, it might make people feel good, but whos going to grow the food etc if the rural americans are forced to move to the cities due to enforced environmental laws etc. I sure as hell dont want to move back to the DC area, not for anything.

[ContinentalOp]

62. Sheesh, where to start?

Enviros? You think this is about feeling good? It's time to wake the hell up http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5706307

I guess we shouldn't dare to ask for tighter environmental standards for our cars because we'll all starve when rural dwellers are forced to move to the city? I'm really not following your logic there.

[vadawg]

65. okay, you want to get rid of all trucks etc unless they are hybrids etc

cool but i see some here want to increase gas to $4 or more a gallon, that will shut down rural america, lots of the ideas enviros have are okay if you live in the city but how can public transport help or be of any use to people who live in the more rural areas, im not saying you in particular but ive seen people here trumping for getting rid of all cars etc unless you can prove you really need one.Lots of real prohibitive stuff, my rule is as long as these same people fly all over the place and live in huge houses, then they can shut STFU.

[ContinentalOp]

69. No, I don't want to get rid of trucks.

In fact I don't really agree with the O.P.'s proposal. I agree with what Somawas said in post #37: don't limit the technology, just increase mpg requirements and tighten emissions restrictions.

But there are so many ways to improve our current situation without hurting the small percentage of Americans who really need heavy trucks. For example, how about tax breaks for work-related trucks for farmers, plumbers, contractors, etc. who actually use their trucks but not for self-employed city dwellers who write off their Escalades and Hummers as business expenses? Or if you choose to live in a remote area that requires 4WD to access your home, maybe you should pay higher taxes and registration on your large vehicle to offset the impact you're making on our environment.

Or how about cracking down on existing rules that actually disallow heavy trucks such as the Suburban, the Escalade or the Excursion on residential streets in many areas? http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/ Maybe if you don't live in the city you don't realize that our roads are absolutely clogged with SUVs and idiots driving trucks with perfectly shiny beds that maybe saw a couple of Ikea boxes one weekend.

And you think city dwellers should STFU because we live in huge houses? Have you ever looked at the energy consumption per capita by state? Way down at the bottom of the list you'll see New York, Massachusetts, California, etc. And way up at the top, with the highest energy consumption per capita who do we see? Alaska, Wyoming, ND, TX, AL, WV, IN, MT, OK, etc. It sure as hell ain't the city dwellers who are making the biggest environmental impact.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html

[vadawg]

185. lol so you believe that anyone who lives in a rural area where 4x4 is needed

should be taxed heavily as they are ruining the environment, unbelievable how arrogant you sound, you honestly believe that everyone wants to live in cities or that we should, it reminds me of a envirowacko i knew years ago who thought no one should be allowed in the wilderness apart from people like him as he knew what it was worth and could make sure he did no damage.

[carlyhippy]

195. This is all insanity

not everyone can live in big cities, where mass transit is plenty, in an area where it doesn't snow. I would like to live in one of these areas, but usually these are the most expensive areas of the country to live. So I will continue driving my SUV through the snow/ice that plagues our area 4 months a year.

Heavy taxes on SUV's and pickups is insane. What about the rural farmers, they use ALOT of fuel in their pickups, tractors, combines and hauling trucks. Heavily taxing these folks wouldn't be a good idea, they may give up and stop growing the food for the people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

123. I live in Big Bear Lake

When my friends with the Prius want to come up and play in the snow, I have to meet them down the hill and drive them up.

And I don't believe for a minute that "most" of your neighbors drive Priuses.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

134. I love it up there

As a S. Californian I have spent many, many weeks in Big Bear starting in the early '60's. We will be taking our kids up this summer:) In our '99 Isuzu Rodeo with 37,000 miles on it. We can't afford to buy a new car and begin the nightmare of making payments again. I didn't know that Prius's couldn't handle the climb up the mountain. Hmmmm.

[cherokeeprogressive]

141. Oh no, you misunderstood

His Prius is terrifying on compacted snow, even with chains on. I know, I've been in it. I think it has something to do with the tire size and how little surface area actually meets the road. Plus, I live on "Red Ant Hill", which is just before the zig-zag that leads you to The Village. Lots of steep slopes that he refuses to attempt and that aren't fun even in my 4x4 Tahoe with pretty aggressive snow tires.

So I meet him at a friend's house in Highland and he leaves his car there.

Oh yeah, and he pays for my gas :applause:

I've also been coming up here since the 60's. I quit my job with the Registrar of Voters in OC and we moved up here two years ago this July. I'll spend the rest of my days here. So, if you see a white 4x4 Tahoe that has a large Harley sticker in the back window going down the boulevard, give us a honk!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

168. Hey...

I'd love to meet you and have a beer.

We will be coming up to Big Bear this summer. Let's get together.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

29. Arg...... Does your motorcycle have a catalytic converter?

I keep hearing about how motorcycle without catalytic converters pump out a lot of nasty pollution but get great MPG.
:shrug:

[Robb]

35. Nope

Carburetor. :)

[morillon]

95. My hybrid is faster and more powerful than the gas-only Accords

Honda didn't sell enough Accord Hybrids, alas, so they don't make them anymore, but it's a freakin' awesome car. That is one helluva piece of technology.

This idea of hybrids having anemic performance is based on the very first hybrids and isn't an accurate reflection of what's out there today. :-)

[SeeHopeWin]

96. They have no problems that other cars don't...None.

[donco6]

155. Not more highs, lows, and bumps than in Colorado.

And my hybrid does just fine.

[Somawas]

37. But why limit vehicles to a single technology-

especially when it is a petroleum based technologies. Set mileage minimums, set emissions minimums and let people innovate.

Your post also acknowledges that there are other technologies. Why mandate one?

[Warpy]

2. Since the driving I do is highway driving

I decided on a super economy car. I haven't owned anything with more than 4 cylinders since 1969 and my present car gets over 40 on the highway with the AC on.

My other car is an electric moped.

[AlCzervik]

4. because not everyone wants a hybrid. I already drive a small car and it has a manual

transmission, no hybrid offers that.

[LuckyTheDog]

25. My brother's family of 6...

... would not fit into a Prius. Just sayin'.

[AlCzervik]

27. i understand, my family of 3 can fit in a prius but i don't want one, no stick shift, no sale.

[ContinentalOp]

32. So you would never buy an electric car?

Even if it was cheaper than an ICE vehicle, had a huge range, recharged quickly, etc? Just because of the lack of a stick?

[AlCzervik]

50. sooner or later i won't be able to drive a car with a stick, when i get to that point

i'll buy a hyrid or whatever electric car is on the market but until that happens, no, sorry but i already recyle, live small, drive a small car and conserve as much enegy and water as i can, i'm keeping my small stick that is on the clean air list for the state of california and it gets decent gas milage.

I never own large cars, i keep it small and i keep it manual and that keeps my off the phone and my eyes on the road.

[ContinentalOp]

52. I'm not criticizing, just curious why.

I think driving a stick is fun and if it's a question of manual vs. automatic, the manual usually gets better mileage (depending on how you drive). But I also think it's really cool how electric cars don't require any transmission and I'm looking forward to being able to buy an all electric vehicle and never have to worry about transmission problems, oil changes, smog checks, filters, pumps, radiators, spark plugs, etc. Then again, this is the real reason why they aren't available to us now! The auto industry makes way too much money on parts and service to want to see electric cars succeed.

[AlCzervik]

55. automatics really bore me, i find with a stick i just drive and that's it.

just the thought of an automatic that i will someday have to own is making me sad. Anyhow my daughter is 15 and i'm taking her out tomorrow for an hour of learning to drive a stick shift.

Plus when the zombies rise and they will, farm equiptment may be your only way out of town.

[ContinentalOp]

58. But here's the problem...

When you become a zombie you're really not going to want to deal with all of the shifting and the clutching. With an automatic you can probably creep along without even pushing on the accelerator. Convenient if any of your limbs have been shotgunned off by those few pesky remaining human survivors.

[dflprincess]

182. And manuals are getting hard to find

I just bought a new Civic and half the reason I bought now is because I was able to get one with a manual transmission (according to Vehix.com there are only 6 new manual Civics in the entire Twin Cities area).

My old car was '97 Civic that my mechanic thinks I'm nuts to get rid of (actually I sold it to my niece for what the trade in would have been) but I decided with manuals becoming so rare around here I might as well buy now. The price was good, the interest rate was low and I was able to put enought down to make the payments reasonable. I had thought about a Prius, but it would have run a few thousand more and I just couldn't swing it.

[Tunkamerica]

5. Affordable to who?

Maybe once the used market starts to fill up with them. Speaking as someone who has never owned a new car and probably never will I think your proposal seems to assume that everyone can afford to buy new when the exact opposite is true.

Now, if you're saying you think the government should say car companies can only make hybrids... that's even more ridiculous. Is that to the exclusion of better technologies? If a non-hybrid car got better gas mileage would that be alright? Could I have an electric car? Or only one that used gas and electric?

Our government already mandates mileage standards on new cars and many states have air quality standards that cars must meet. I guess your position is that they should be higher? Is that right?

[UP_4012]

6. In a nutshell, it is ridiculous.

It does contain a petrol-burning engine, it costs more than a conventional car, and a 1994 Saturn SL gets great milage (27/40), and actually has four doors.

[Selatius]

8. We settle for less because we have mediocre people and mediocre leaders who don't want the best.

You're free to be as irresponsible as one who is responsible. There is always a dumb-ass who has to crash a good party.

You want to find a workable solution? Enact an aggressive plan to integrate mass transit into American infrastructure. We're talking big, here. Manhattan Project-sized. We're talking bullet trains powered by electricity that can move you from one city to the next at 160mph safely. We're talking about the ability to move from one side of a city to the other without having to get into a car. The kind of money we're talking about would put tens of millions of people to work simply overhauling and adapting the entire infrastructure of the country to kick the oil addiction.

[MercutioATC]

9. And they should all be brown.

We don't need choice.

:eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

24. LOL right?

Because destroying the environment is like, my personal CHOICE man!

[MercutioATC]

26. Why stop at hybrid cars?

Jet travel causes a LOT of pollution and there's nowhere you can't go by car or boat...

Eating meat wastes natural resources. We should legislate mandatory veganism.

Want that imported wine or strawberries in the winter? Too bad. It should be mandated that all food consumed be locally grown/produced.


...and you just want to legislate CARS??

Lightweight.

[ContinentalOp]

34. Who said anything about stopping?

Build more high speed rail, subsidize the prices, and tax air flight more heavily.

People should voluntarily choose to become vegetarian.

I don't want any imported wine. California wine is fine by me thank you very much. I'm fine with increasing taxation on imported food.

[MercutioATC]

39. Well, then I guess I'm glad you're not running the show.

I'll keep my red meat and French wines, thank you.

[ContinentalOp]

42. That's a shocker. -nt-

[mamaleah]

49. A shocker that people like having choices?

Tax air travel even more. Great idea. More control over people's lives. Thats what we need.

[ContinentalOp]

53. taxes == "control over people's lives"? -nt-

[mamaleah]

57. How high you want to go?

So high people don't want to fly? Or are unable to?

[ContinentalOp]

59. Let's make flight only for the very wealthy.

Let's bring back the in flight piano bar, shirt and tie for the male passengers, etc.

Seriously though, airline taxes probably wouldn't even be necessary. Just focus on a route to convert to rail travel, build the trains, subsidize the rail travel and remove any existing airline subsidies for that route to make the price of the rail travel competitive. If the plane is still faster and you really need to get there asap you can pay a little extra and take the plane. Personally I would gladly go rail though.

[mamaleah]

60. Outstanding idea

Muscle people to bend to your will. It's like the GOP, only it claims to come from the other side.

[ContinentalOp]

63. Yes, because taxes and government subsidies to certain industries are all about "muscling people...

to bend to your will." :eyes: Sure you're in the right place?

[mamaleah]

79. Of course

The old, "you don't agree with me; must be on the wrong forum" BS. Sorry not everyone agrees with you. But as another poster said a little ways upstream, I am glad you aren't running the show. I guess he or she is in the wrong place too?

[michreject]

82. I won't take a train

until they recind the no guns allowed restrictions. I don't fly either.

[vadawg]

83. lol good reason, i wont take the train because i hate them, same as flying

i avoid both as much as possible, i used to hate riding the metro in DC, was the most soul destroying thing in the world, i would rather sit for two hours in my car, then 1 hour on the metro with everybody staring at each other.

[Kalyke]

133. No, but not wanting to spend tons of money to put UAW workers

out of a job to own a too-expensive butt-ugly car is my choice, right now.

And I also like manual transmissions. Haven't owned an automatic since my teens.

[michreject]

10. Because I have a 11,000 RV to pull around

I get 10/12 mpg without it and 6 mpg with it, but it can pull my trailer. Ain't no hybrid made that will do the job.

[Not Me]

11. 6 mpg?

You must really love your RV.
I am not judging...really. But that is an expensive lifestyle.

[ContinentalOp]

17. I'll go ahead and judge...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5706307

[michreject]

81. Yeah. It sux

I'm selling my house and moving to Tn. Gonna have to live in it for a bit. Wife and 2 dogs.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Fucking "A" right.

When those who wish to travel from hotel to hotel buy hybrids, there will be more places to take my RV.

[MajorChode]

45. I think this one would do it

http://www.kenworth.com/6100_pre_mor.asp?file=2105

No?

[JVS]

91. So if you were taking a trip to a place 300 miles away, you'd rather spend $200 on gas...

for the round trip than $40 for the gas in a car with decent (30) MPG and use the extra $160 for lodging? Even if you just left the trailer at home and took the truck you'd have $100 to spend on lodging with the improved consumption. And this comparison doesn't even take into account how much you paid to get, maintain, and insure the trailer.

[michreject]

93. I sleep in my own bed

use my own kitchen to cook my food and my Dogs are happy.

Besides. It's my money. I'll spend it as I see fit.

[ContinentalOp]

106. It also doesn't take into account the fact that you're DESTROYING THE PLANET -nt-

[QueenOfCalifornia]

135. Another moment to preach to

the people less "good" than you.

Your OP and responses have that "holier than thou" --- "my shit doesn't stink" thing going on...

The reason you drive a Prius is so you can feel better about yourself... period. At least that is the tone of your OP and responses.

If someone has a trailer they pull behind a truck that does not make them evil unless they are using it to waterboard/torture people in the thing - Traveling from one point to another os not in any way a desire to destroy the planet. I bet that when you have had to get on a jet you didn't insist that it be all electric or solar powered but instead you got to you destination by using fossil fuel... Jeesh.

[ContinentalOp]

173. I didn't even write the O.P. -nt-

[Tesha]

127. Soon, you won't be able to afford pulling that RV at all. Too bad for you, ehh? (NT)

[michreject]

136. Don't see it happening

I managed to travel when gas was 4.50 a gal. I retired after 30 years with GM and my wife retired after 35 with Oakland County Gov't. Both receive a pension and the house, truck and RV is paid for. I have my 401 and she has her 457.

[cherokeeprogressive]

150. Keep on RVing! n/t

[Greyhound]

177. DO you mean an 11,000 lb trailer? An RV (recreational Vehicle) is self-propelled. n/t

[michreject]

189. A motor home is self propelled

Class A, B or C.

5th wheels, pull behinds and pop-ups all fall under the RV umbrella.

[IDFbunny]

12. I think we should set up a new registration schedule

that taxes weight and engine displacement. People would reconsider if they really NEED a big rig if they're taxed on it every year. A Samoan family I know would be disappointed and unfairly hit, but nothings perfect.
Like wise gas should be taxed to $4/gal. Cheap gas is fueling big trucks for urban cowboys.

[Historic NY]

43. Thats what vehicle registrations are already a tax...

in NY a vehicle is taxed everytime its sold. A car bought new and sold 4 times is taxed each time including the registration fee which is now been increased again. The fee is based on cylinders, weight, axles, etc.

[JVS]

92. Taxing gas serves only to price poor people out of the market. Ration it instead.

That's not regressive.

[IDFbunny]

116. Rationing make no sense either.

Some people, regardless of means, need to drive more. It not like food where everybody might be fine with 3000 calories.

Taxing is indeed regressive, not more than rationoning, and it should be limited and affordable. Keeping gas artificially at around $4 would smooth out the bumps speculation and other market forces. I think the majority of taxes should come from registration and fuel. Most people understand that Europeans pay $8 or more for gas, they don't often know that registration tax is also multitudes higher as well. A German friend had an American style hotrod; a Jeep Wrangler with 350 Chevy and 4 barrel carburator. He found a loophole to register it as a truck for ~$700, otherwise he would have paid a monstrous penalty for that huge by euro standards 5.7L V8 (it effectively doubled what he would have for a 3L I4).

I think a sensible persons day tripper would weigh no more than 4000# powered by 3L inline4. More than that and the schedule should escalate steeply. If somebody really NEEDs a large SUV they're going to have to justify it at the pump and also at registration time as well. Few urban cowboys really need large pickups and SUVs.

[Better Believe It]

13. Why don't we just pass a law to make electric ONLY cars in the US?

Why should we settle for anything less?

Because I and others can't afford a roomy electric car or hybrid that meets our needs, that's why!

[ejpoeta]

14. not all of us can just go buy ourselves a new vehicle, much less a hybrid

or anything else. you don't just pass a law forcing everyone to use a hybrid. Technology is still being developed. Some hybrids aren't even true hybrids, so what is your definition. Down the road the likelihood of people with some form of hybrid or alternative vehicle will be greater on its own. I think it better to provide incentives and let people make that choice for themselves. No one likes being told what to do. The more gas prices go up, and they will... the more people will gravitate towards more energy efficient cars. and you won't need to pass a law about it.

[ContinentalOp]

16. Just look at the answers here to see why we can't do it.

Even the supposed "liberals" and "progressives" here on DU are hung up on the stupid "buy American" nationalist garbage and attached to their supposed "need" for ridiculous trucks and SUVs. If the majority of Democrats aren't even on board with the dire need to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions then we don't have a chance in hell of passing any real visionary reforms.

[anonymous171]

18. lol class bias nt

[ContinentalOp]

21. Yeah, you're right, what was I thinking? It's not like the wealthy ever drive absurdly large...

luxury SUVs that they have absolutely no need for! And I guess the difference between a $19,270 (minus a $1700 tax credit) Ford Fusion Hybrid and a $21,565 Ford F-150 (America's best selling vehicle) really highlights an enormous class difference. :eyes:

[anonymous171]

30. Not everyone can afford to suddenly buy a hybrid. Especially in these hard times.

[ContinentalOp]

33. If all cars were hybrids rather than a few niche vehicles, the prices would come way down. -nt-

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. Wrong.

Even if all cars were hybrids, they'd still cost the same amount of money to build.

[ContinentalOp]

174. So economies of scale magically don't apply to batteries? -nt-

[JVS]

86. Where did you get that price for a ford fusion hybrid? $27,270 is the MSRP from carsdirect

[ContinentalOp]

105. My mistake. I was under the impression that the Fusion was designed as a Hybrid,

like the Prius or Insight. I didn't realize there was an ICE version.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. "Please" "explain" why a "progressive" can't "prefer" to "buy American"..."nt"

[ContinentalOp]

22. I have no problem with preferring to buy American but according to some DUers...

a progressive should never buy a foreign car. Personally I think a true progressive would never drive a truck or SUV as their daily driver.

[JVS]

87. I agree that driving a truck or SUV as a daily driver is usually a bad idea.

And I'm sick of reading "Oh but I have many kids/dogs and a boat/ horses/mobil home/ I enjoy the ability to put my house on a flatbed trailer and move it to a new foundation" as some kind of excuse. It's using excesses to justify further excesses. You want to move a boat, RENT a truck for a day. You have lots of kids or dogs? Get a minivan (they're more efficient). It snows? Get fucking snowtires and learn to cope with the fact that you might have to stay in a few days each winter.

[carlyhippy]

172. OMG yeah....you obviously don't live where it's cold

you cant "STAY IN A FEW DAYS EACH WINTER", yeah, tell that to your boss at your job....gee my prius just couldn't clear that 4 foot snowdrift in my driveway......even with my "snow tires"...good lord, mon.

[vadawg]

184. also some people cant just decide to stay home, when the weathers bad i am at my busiest

ive actually been press ganged into using my 4x4 to collect medical personnel for the hospitals, and in my job im expected to be at work no matter what the weather. Nah no Prius would work for me, hell i even have a snorkel on my SUV to help keep my air filter clear due to all the dust on the roads to my home.

[JVS]

187. Only the tropical paradises of MN, MI, IL, and PA. About your driveway, learn to use a shovel.

Where are you from that people are taught to drive through snowdrifts?

[carlyhippy]

190. MN, jvs, and to a small economy car, anything over 1 ft is a snowdrift

and if you truly lived in MN, you would be fully aware that a great deal of rural people do indeed have winter 4wd vehicles and do not apologize for having them. Please stop trying to belittle SUV and pickup drivers, some have legit reasons for owning one, oh, and btw, if I bought another new vehicle today, unless I move away from this area of the country, it would be a.....ready?....a hybrid S U V.....

[QueenOfCalifornia]

142. Then you don't have

kids, dogs and take trips using your Prius.

You do not have surf boards nor live next to our spectacular beaches which we pay a small fortune to enjoy - We use our small SUV to do everything - grocery store shopping, travel to Grandma and Grandpa's & to take my husband to the trolley so he can use public transportation---I deliver him to the closest stop & I pick him up at the end of each work day using our small SUV.

Our SUV is Japanese.

We recycle. We vote and never for a member of the GOP. We consider ourselves to be Democrats since we are registered as such.

A true progressive living in East County San Diego also has horses and cattle - they drive a pickup truck. They use it for everything. They coach little league and volunteer at their public school. They get to anti war rallies using that pick up truck... but to you, they are less than you because they can't afford a new Prius.

Oy vey... you have a lot to learn.

[DainBramaged]

159. Well said, but thankfully through the use of the magic ignore button

my blood pressure stays low and I don't have to read what you were replying to. You are living just like 90% of us, and a tiny hybrid isn't the answer and we are not about to change our lifestyles to satisfy the faux-greens among us.

[ContinentalOp]

175. LOL

I have one kid and live 10 minutes from the beach. I don't surf or own any horses though so you got me there. I'm not sure how any of those things you mention require a truck though.

[carlyhippy]

171. some progressives have to have a larger vehicle i.e. SUV or truck

you can't fit 3 kids, a 6'4 man and a big dog in an escort, believe me, I know. Also, when it's -40 outside and your little car is stuck in a 3 foot snow drift in the middle of the street with your 6'4 husband, 3 kids and big dog, and you have to get out and shovel the car out, it's not hard to see why some people need 4wd suvs and trucks. I am progressive and have an SUV. Don't put us all in the same group as folks who are lone drivers on tropical climate roads.

If I could have afforded one, I would have bought a hybrid SUV in place of my SUV, the automakers knock up the prices on the hybrids. Hopefully by the time this one is paid off the automakers will have flooded the market with hybrids and they will be cheaper.

[Greyhound]

178. Visionary and American have been made mutually exclusive by generations

of enthusiastic dumbing-down.

I'm surprised some of us can pick our noses without doing brain damage anymore.

[LuckyTheDog]

23. Two reasons

1) It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to implement. Where would the money come from?

2) Americans don't want a lot of hybrid cars. It's a small segment. So, imagine how they'd feel about being forced into cars they don't want.

[Greyhound]

138. Americans didn't "want" (according to our automotive industry) seat belts,

higher gas mileage, child safety seats, high visibility tail lights, and so on.

Americans want what they are told to want by marketing firms.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Are you buying me one?

[madrchsod]

31. here is the april 2008 sales figures for all hybrid vehicles in the usa

http://www.hybridcars.com/market-dashboard/april-2008-hybrids-defy-recession.html

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Because I've got a car fully paid for that gives me...

33 MPG overall and it ain't a hybrid. If I intended to buy a new car, it just might be a diesel Jetta that gives hybrid mileage without the batteries or extra cost and can run on a mixture of waste fry oil, bacon fat, and snot.

Or, it might be a Nissan Versa that gives even better mileage for a lot less money.

I like the Ford hybrids, but the $5,000 or so hybrid cost penalty (before rebates) and reduced towing limit on the Escape tend to turn me off- I'd get rid of the car long before I saw the payback.

Before I'd even think of a Prius, I'd get a Focus and spend just a little bit of the 10 grand I'd save on gas.

[ContinentalOp]

44. And you would emit 2.6 extra tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year in the process.

That means every two people who made that choice and went for the Focus did as much damage to the environment as three Prius drivers.

[TreasonousBastard]

94. Whooppeee! And I would really prefer to take the bus or train ...

for a lot of my travel, but that is impossible. Do you bicycle to work or the store?

With all the CO2 and other greenouse gasses emitted from all sources, don't you dare try to put it on me simply because I don't see any benefit to a car with a huge battery giving it two power sources. Besides, you don't know my overall carbon footprint, which isn't that high.

(Except for the grill-- and that's another thing you'll have to trade off somewhere else.)

[ContinentalOp]

107. I'm not putting anything on you. Just pointing out the fact that these arguments always focus on...

dollar amounts, as though saving a buck or two is the only issue here. There is a bigger, more compelling reason to drive a hybrid.

[Fla_Democrat]

40. when SUV's are outlawed

only outlaws will have SUV's. :evilgrin:

[Mopar151]

46. Hybrids are not the ultimate - why settle for them?

For every type of driving, or situation, or load. and don't forget to figure on battery replacements - $4500 every 4-5 years, according to the Civic Hybrid owner I talked to Saturday.
TDI Volkswagens do hybrid-level performance in a chubby, posh little tank of a car. A scaled-down engine package in a lightweight composite 2-seater would be incredible, and it could be done TODAY.
Taxis and city delivery trucks should be the ultimate use for hybrids - I presume that taxis are doing OK, but UPS is just announcing the prototype of a HYDRAULIC hybrid - and UPS is friggin' ruthless on fuel mileage.
We ain't there yet, and hybrids are only part of the answer.

[ContinentalOp]

54. Agreed.

We should require all-electric vehicles.

[armyowalgreens]

48. Because not everyone can afford a new 25K+ car.

Some people are limited by the amount of money they can spend.

[ContinentalOp]

56. There's already a $20k hybrid and they'll start dropping fast.

If every car were a hybrid the cost of the technology would drop rapidly.

[armyowalgreens]

84. Okay but none the less I'm a college student

that can barely afford gas. At any amount, a hybrid is out of my price range. And that certainly is the situation for many Americans.


The point is to make technology accessible to everyone. As long as you have a capitalist system, technology must be slowly introduced to allow for price drop. And it cannot be forced on a population. The population doesn't magically make more money if you demand that they buy a hybrid. That's not how it works.

[ContinentalOp]

108. Well, you're probably not in the market for any new car then right?

Hybrids are no more expensive than the vast majority of the top 10 best selling cars in the U.S., so most people who are in the market for a new car can clearly afford them. The two biggest technological advances of our capitalist system (and indeed, all of mankind's history) were accomplished very quickly due to large amounts of government spending and the political willpower to make something happen. I'm talking about the Manhattan Project and putting a man on the moon. If we made that same kind of investment in actually make the world a better place for all of us to live, rather than only ever putting that kind of money into military projects, there's no limit to the great things we could accomplish.

Hybrids are already cheap enough that the prices would easily fall lower (thanks to economies of scale) if all cars were built as hybrids and if the government offered better subsidies for the manufacturers and buyers of hybrid vehicles. Think of the advances we could make if we spent a few hundred billion dollars to research improved battery technology for a few years. The government could hold the patents, license them for free to U.S. automakers and license them for a price to foreign automakers.

[SeeHopeWin]

97. New Honda Insight is under $20K - 2010 Prius is under $22K

[Sancho]

64. It would be easier to have a national speed limit of 55...

:think:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. That would save a lot of lives too. Many here find it a ridiculous burden though.

[Fumesucker]

70. The repeal of the 55 mph speed limit in 1995 had virtually no effect on highways deaths..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. So despite the huge safety advances the level has remained fairly constant?

Seems like lowering the speed limit may have an impact on motor vehicle related fatalities after all.

David

[Fumesucker]

72. Look at the slope of the graph around 1995, it didn't change in any significant way..

There was a slight uptick from 1998 to 1999 but after that the slope continued to decline at a very similar rate.

Antilock brakes for one thing is something that has had no apparent effect on safety, primarily because people who have ABS tend to trust their brakes more than those who do not so the net effect on safety is a wash, if you have ABS you are more likely to put off braking until later. Most people really don't understand automobile technology very well and think that ABS will stop you safely under any circumstances, this is not the case.

The number of roads with a higher than 55 mph limit is really quite small in the overall scheme of things anyway and they tend to be limited access highways where the deaths per mile traveled rate is lower than on surface streets with lots of intersections and distractions.

If 55 mph is safer then 45 would be even safer than that and 35 safer still and so on.

The single change that would improve safety the most in America is to drastically toughen up on the licensing standards for drivers, there are entirely too many people out there with valid drivers licenses who do not have a clue how to safely operate a motor vehicle.

A large majority of "accidents" aren't really accidents at all but rather the result of carelessness or inattention, I learned that in commercial driving school about forty years ago now.

Edited for speling.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. There has been no decline in the numbers from your own graph.

Your graph show a decline in deaths per mile driven but not a decline in actual deaths. So your assertion is that airbags, ABS, crumple zones have done nothing to make drivers safer? You'll notice I didn't use the word accident, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to use it.

David

[Fumesucker]

162. I cannot use a word unless you do?

That's a little bizarre.

If the deaths per mile is dropping while actual deaths is holding steady then the explanation is that people are driving more.

Which they indeed were up until the extreme gas price spike last summer and I suspect they are again now although I'm too lazy to go and look it up.

Cars are getting safer but drivers are most certainly not.

The 55 mph speed limit was perhaps the most universally flouted law in the history of the USA, compliance with that low speed limit was down in the teens percentage wise. It's really not good social policy to have laws that the great majority of people knowingly break, it instills a sort of disrespect for all laws.

The fact remains that the single most effective thing that could be done to save lives on our roads is to ensure that drivers actually know how to control a motor vehicle when engaged in driving on those roads, something that current licensing standards do not seriously even attempt to do. Driver education is all but gone from our schools these days and a great many parents are such poor drivers themselves that they lack the capability to teach their children how to be safe drivers even if they wished to do so.

[ContinentalOp]

66. I'm so sick and tired of the cries that hybrids are too expensive and nobody can afford them.

Sure, some people aren't in the market for a new car. That's fine. But let's look at the reality of new car sales in the U.S.

In 2008, eight out of the top ten selling cars are right around the $20,000 mark, as are the Prius, the Insight and the Fusion. A new Prius (the most expensive of the three hybrids mentioned) starts at only $500 more ($22,000) than the top selling vehicle in America, the Ford F-150 ($21,565).

The Fusion ($19,270) is cheaper than 8 out of the top 10 cars sold in 2008 and the Insight ($19,800) is cheaper than 7 of them. If you add up the actual sales numbers for the 8 cars that are around the $20k mark vs. the 2 cars that are around $15k, you'll get the same numbers: 80% of the top 10 best selling cars in America are right around the same price as a hybrid.

And all of this is ignoring tax incentives and fuel and maintenance savings.

numbers from http://autos.aol.com/gallery/2008-top-ten-best-selling

[BzaDem]

85. I'm so sick and tired of people who think they can dictate to others what is affordable to them

and what they want.

But mostly, I am thankful that these types of people are not, and will never be, in any position of power to change anything.

We will eventually drive greener cars. This will come from a gradual increase in fuel efficiency standards, which will incentivize the necessary investment to bring down the cost of manufacturing hybrids. Not a magic-wand policy that will sprinkle magic dust onto the economy that will instantly lower the cost of hybrids.

[ContinentalOp]

104. Your "gradual increases" are a magic fairy tale that won't work.

What if we had decided to let private industry gradually work toward putting a man on the moon? We need a green Manhattan Project that puts vast amounts of money into alternative energy research, coupled with very strict MPG and emissions standards. This would create new jobs, stimulate our economy, ultimately save us all lots of money, and bring the prices of alternative energy sources down to where everyone can afford them. It's amazing what technological feats can be accomplished in a short period of time if there is actually the will to do something. Luckily Obama essentially agrees with this approach as evidenced by all of the green spending in the stimulus package. Hopefully he'll put forth an even bigger and more ambitious environmental plan in the years to come.

[BzaDem]

129. So you want all cars manufactured by the government?

Even if you do want this, it took about a decade to get a man on the moon -- around the same timeframe as it will take to raise fuel standards (by 2016) under Obama's plan.

I have no problem (and I welcome) additional spending. What I (and Obama) have a problem with is a rash decision to immediately ban all non-hybrid cars from the road starting tomorrow (as the OP would like). No one who could actually get elected to anything would ever do that, and I am thankful for it.

[ContinentalOp]

176. Of course it will never happen.

It's a hypothetical discussion. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would want the government manufacturing cars. I'm talking about government funded research into better battery technology plus tax incentives to subsidize the manufacturers and purchasers of high mpg, low emission cars.

[JVS]

88. Your Fusion price is for the base normal model. The hybrid is $8K more

[ContinentalOp]

102. Oops, my mistake. I thought the Fusion WAS a hybrid. Didn't realize there was a ICE version.

Damn, that is expensive. Well, I guess the U.S. automakers still don't have a competitive option then. Prius or Insight it is.

[SeeHopeWin]

98. I am getting two tax benefits this year on my one car:

Sales tax is written off and the credit for buying a Hybrid - Per Obama's stimulus!!!

[yodoobo]

128. I'm tired of people who won't buy me one.

I love to own a hybrid, but nobody will buy me one.

My car is paid for and I have no desire to go into debt. I drive it about 5,000 a year and it'll probably last me another 20 years.

But I will gladly drive any Hybrid purchased for me.

[salguine]

68. For the same reason we don't pass a national health care law, sensible

gun control, aggressive climate change legislation...

[EndersDame]

73. My Neighbor hauls hay since he got laid off

I doubt he could do that in a Prius

[EndersDame]

74. My Car is Recycled

hows that for being green!!

[EndersDame]

75. I think a better law would be to show proof that you haul stuff or go off road

in order to buy a truck or SUV

[vadawg]

77. jeez how hard would it be to prove you needed a SUV

would the fact you have dogs be enough, what about theres sometimes snow, i would hate to see the beaurocracy needed to deal with this.

[ContinentalOp]

111. Not hard at all. We could put some heavier taxes on trucks and SUV...

and then give an equivalent tax credit to people who work in certain industries. This is easily proved by your tax returns. So if you're a contractor you get a tax credit for your big Dodge Ram but if you're an accountant you can't take the tax credit for your Suburban.

[vadawg]

186. and are you going to be the government worker who decides if my road home needs 4x4

are you going to come out and drive it in a prius in all conditions and then decide or is there a formula, then i need you to look at the needs of my land and family, do these justify an suv, sounds a lot like the old soviet system to me of the government rewarding you with a crap car.

[proteus_lives]

76. What about people with old cars?

I drive an '93 Bronco. I can't afford any other car now. What would happen to people in my situation?

[spoony]

78. Imprisonment.

Until you earn enough at three cents an hour stamping license plates to buy a hybrid. Actually you might be going up river anyway since you're driving a Bronco.

While that was written in sarcasm, my experience here tells me there are people who want to punish many of us for the driving choices we make, or eliminate those choices.

[vadawg]

80. lol i laughed until i realised that there are people who want to punish people who drive

vehicles that dont meet a certain standard or brand.

[ContinentalOp]

112. How would a law about new cars sold in the U.S. have any effect on existing cars?

:shrug: Do increased emissions regulations require that you go back and retrofit your existing car to be compliant? No, of course not.

[SeattleGirl]

89. Because not everybody can afford to buy a new car??????

:shrug:

[JVS]

90. We don't need mandatory hybrids, CAFE is also useless, we need HP limits.

Mandatory hybrids will lead to useless hybrids like the accord hybrid. There's no fucking point in making an accord a hybrid if you're going to mate the technology with a V-6 instead of the base I-4.

CAFE standards are what gave us the SUV, as manufacturers realized it was easier to make a truck platform into a large family sedan than it was to make the large family sedan more efficient.

If we try to limit engine displacement, we'll just see manufacturers put turbo and superchargers on them to make them capable of delivering a few hundred horses by drinking gas faster.

40 years ago a porsche 911 had 130 hp. Now it has over 300.

[Mopar151]

100. Nix the HP limits

For 1 thing, they're a joke to guys like me. Second, fuel burned is proportionate to horsepower USED. Granted, high-horsepower engines MAY waste more fuel at low percentages of full output - but fuel injection and other new technologies have largely mitigated this.
Oh, and your beloved 911 example - it is likely that the new one gets BETTER mileage.

[IDFbunny]

121. The 4 barrel carb used to be the hotrodders delight

It actually had better gas mileage as long as the second stage wasn't engaged.

[Mopar151]

144. Same reason FI works now

Better air-fuel mixture control and improved mechanical efficency (reduced "pumping losses"). The engine in my truck uses lots of "hot rod" tricks, so I can manage about 10 mpg towing in the mountains at 12000# GCW.

[ContinentalOp]

113. Ouch. People here aren't even willing to give up their SUVs and you're advocating HP restrictions?

Good luck with that! :P

[JVS]

115. Oh, they can have their SUV, but it's going to be SLOW!

eventually they'd come around to seeing the sense of getting a lighter vehicle.

[IDFbunny]

118. Turbos and Superchargers are actually fuel savers

and shouldn't be penalized. What if I invent a widget that gets a 20 more HP without consuming more fuel. Why should that advancement be punished?

Also the numbers are much easier to fudge and lie about while engine displacement is hard. Manufacturers may detune the motors just so that the new owner can retune it for more HP. Games like that will abound.

[JVS]

120. No they aren't. They are ways to put more gas through the engine and generate more HP.

If you invent the widget, we re-design the engine to get the same performance as before but from even less fuel. The problem is that we've already spent years worth of such advances on getting more power from the engines instead of using them to cut consumption.

[IDFbunny]

124. Typically the turbo options means a smaller engine.

Consider Audi A4 natural 2.8 V6, you can upgrade to the 1.8L I4 turbo; better mileage and better performance. Few fuel conscious truckers would have turbos if they they made things worse.

[JVS]

126. 1.8 L naturally aspirated is more efficient.

Truckers are an exceptional case because in contrast to the typical consumer their decisions are made by people with an eye on fuel consumption and not so keen on zippiness. Their turbos are used in order to prevent them from needing a larger engine, and thus do save fuel. Cars like the Subaru Impreza WRX use it to dump more fuel into the engine and end up getting worse mileage than the the Mustang V6. By capping the HP, you do not eliminate turbos. Turbos are completely welcome, but instead of being used to turn an 2.5 liter engine into something capable of 265 hp they should be used to turn 1.2l engines into 120 hp engines.

[IDFbunny]

130. Turbo does not cost mpg

I just checked this example:

http://www.greencar.com/cars/2009-porsche-cayenne-turbo.php

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo gets the same 14/19 mileage as the natural Cayenne S.


I'll concede that only Grandma can get that mileage on both vehicles. Do we have to suck ALL the fun out of automobiles?

I don't think there should be a turbo/supercharger penalty. In fact they should be encouraged by penalizing big displacements.

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. "Do we have to suck ALL the fun out of automobiles?" If it involves fossil fuel, then yes

Sorry, but that's the reality. The goal has to be to stop using fossil fuel for ground transport, especially inefficient private transport.

[IDFbunny]

153. I disagree. Im sorry I asked, should have know some killjoy would disagree nt

[benEzra]

143. Actually, turbo engines can be a bit more efficient, because the turbine captures some energy

that would otherwise be lost in the exhaust, and uses it to reduce pumping losses. There's also the issue that a turbo allows you to size the engine for most efficient BMEP at cruise loads.

And BTW, it is a common misconception that smaller engines are always more efficient; they aren't if the engine is undersized for the vehicle, resulting in the engine working too hard (and hence less efficiently) at cruise.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mopar151]

161. I am sorry, but you are wrong

There are very finite physical laws at work here, and all the desire in the world will not overcome them. And engine designers have been obsessed with thermal efficency since internal combustion was invented but they are engineers, not styling or marketing.

[ShadowLiberal]

99. Because then idiots who don't care about mileage will buy foreign nonHybrid cars

Seriously, the price of hybrid cars varies a lot based on the price of gas. Take the Prius for example (which I bought a few months ago), before the demand was so high with $4 dollar a gallon gas that you had to go on a several month waiting list to get one, and pay a premium in addition to what it usually costs to buy a Prius.

When I got a Prius a few months ago gas was less then $2 dollars a gallon, there was no more waiting list to get a Prius, and the car dealer even had a big sign readable from the highway as you passed them that said "Get a Prius for $4,000 dollars less". Part of the reason for that was because in a few months the 2010 Prius' were coming out, but another big part of it was the gas prices going down so much. The Prius' there even said on the sticker how much money you'd save in gas each year, assuming gas was priced at something like $4.13 a gallon.

The bottom line, people are unfortunately short sighted and stupid when it comes to getting cars with great gas mileage.

[ContinentalOp]

109. Well, the point would be that all cars sold in the U.S. would have to be Hybrid.

So you couldn't simply buy a foreign car. I don't actually support that idea. I think we just need much stricter MPG and emissions requirements, which would serve the same purpose without mandating a specific technology. Still, the basic idea would work. It's like California's law to require a certain percentage of zero emissions vehicles by a certain year (the one that was crushed by the Big 3).

[LWolf]

101. No one-size-fits all.

Hybrids still use petroleum, and there has to be enough flexibility to allow non-petroleum options to be developed.

Also, there are no good hybrid options for heavier-duty vehicles. Working vehicles.

Trucks that move all those consumer goods, tractors and other farm equipment, excavators, and, for those living rurally or working in construction, heavy-duty pickups that will haul lumber, hay, and livestock. Vehicles that have to have towing capacity.

Will a hybrid tow 5-10 ton payloads?

Not that I don't think there should be MORE, and more affordable, hybrids available.

[upi402]

103. my car gets better MPG than a hybrid on the market

we need loopholes maybe but good idea!

[ContinentalOp]

110. Geo Metro? -nt-

[Posteritatis]

114. Yes! We'll pass a law and everything will magically become perfect! (nt)

[ContinentalOp]

117. Yes, because that's exactly what the O.P. was advocating!

Everything magically becoming perfect! Great argument you have there!

[cherokeeprogressive]

119. Only if they come with a free tunic

In eight shades of gray.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Because technology is moving beyond hybrids, for one thing

mandating the "one" type of vehicle allowed would block further research and experimentation into other, even better technologies. I think we want that to happen here.

Raising CAFE standards - when we can actually make that happen, of course - is better - it sets goals, and allows ingenuity to work on how exactly to meet those goals, without closing off potentially fruitful new avenues.

[Kalyke]

131. Because hybrids are ugly.

Many people don't want to spend that kind of money on an ugly Japanese car.

I know I don't.

I'll wait for the Ford hybrids to come out. They're better built, cheaper and don't look like bubbles.

[slackmaster]

132. I think there's a bit of a problem with getting enough raw materials to make the batteries

And a few other thorny issues along those lines.

[Dappleganger]

137. What is a smart vehicle for a family of 6?

Adult-sized people, that is. We will need to replace our 2001 Chrysler mini-van as soon as dh gets another permanent job and while I hate to get a SUV, the min-van has become too small.
I'm puzzled about what would be a good choice and really do hate SUV's and the waste.

[Fumesucker]

139. In general even the large SUVs don't have any more passenger space than a minivan..

A family member has an Expedition and it really isn't all that big inside, it will haul 9,000 lb trailer though, which a minivan won't do.

And the rear set of seats is accessible only by children because you have to climb over the middle row of seats to get to the rear ones, that is not so with minivans.

[Dappleganger]

148. Well that's not going to help

Our oldest son is 6'4" and all legs, the 11 yr. old son is 6' (not a typo!) and both girls are rather tall as well. We have extended length of minivan and they are miserable on trips.
We refuse to buy a large van, too. I wish the Scion or Element had 3rd row seating because of the headroom.

[DainBramaged]

160. Tahoe or Traverse, and you can get them with second row buckets too

www.chevy.com

http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2009/traverse/overview.do

http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/series/hybrids.do (Tahoe hybrid)

[Fumesucker]

163. There are minivans with second row captain's chairs as well..

But a full size van has more interior space than even the largest SUV and gets about the same gas mileage.

There really aren't very many vehicles on the road in which six large adults are going to be really comfortable on an extended trip.

[DainBramaged]

164. Interior space is measured as a whole, but if you've never sat in a Chrysler minivan

(or any minivan) and then jumped into a Tahoe (or the new Traverse family of vehicles) like I have, you'd stop being an 'engineer' only looking at raw numbers and realize that headroom, legroom, and shoulder room are more important than total cargo space. And the Tahoe and Traverse have it all over any minivan.

[Fumesucker]

167. A full size van has less room than a Tahoe or Traverse?

Not everyone has the money for such costly vehicles, when you don't have to pay for them it's easy to tout the advantages of very expensive cars/trucks/whatevers.

And with gas prices climbing yet again fuel efficiency is a concern that is getting pushed to the fore again, not exactly a great feature of something like a Tahoe.

My point still stands that there really aren't that many vehicles on the road in which six large adults can be comfortable on an extended trip.

[DainBramaged]

169. Whatever......

[Fumesucker]

170. Yes, I know..

[Dappleganger]

192. Thanks, that's the comparison we need.

The Chrysler minivan was perfect for when they were kid-size, but they need leg room AND head room. We go a lot of places together as a family so this is important to us.

[carlyhippy]

183. well, I do know a small economy car isn't going to work for you

Maybe a bigger minivan like a Chrysler town and country, if they still make em, I have a friend that has an Excursion SUV and it is very comfy for taller people, but they are not very good on gas and they are expensive.

[Dappleganger]

193. Chrysler T&C ltd. is what we have now...

we were hoping to find something larger which is a hybrid. Gas prices are already rising again!

[WillowTree]

146. And while you're at it. let's also pass a law requiring ALL pizzas to be pepperoni.

[cherokeeprogressive]

151. While we're at it, let's ban pineapple as a pizza topping! Yuck. n/t

[anonymous171]

181. I think we should be just ban plain cheese pizzas instead.

Seriously, if you are going to order a pizza, at least get some toppings on it.

[janx]

147. Is this some kind of a joke?

In this economy? You don't sound genuine.

[flvegan]

152. Why not a law that everyone has to be vegan?

Much bigger impact than switching to *just* making hybrids.

See how silly that is?

[Throd]

154. No thank you.

[bridgit]

156. Cars don't need motors, they need to 'run' on my MagLev Zippers du Bridgit ~

Hybrids are coming even more into their own as the tech stuff seasons. It's only a matter of time

[jakefrep]

157. Only if we can invoke the Highway Beautification Act to ban the Prius.

nt

[DainBramaged]

158. Does owning two hybrids give you green cred?

Have you considered what the size and weight of a tractor trailer would be to have battery power to haul 40,000 pound loads at a reasonable pace for a reasonable distance????? Have you done your research to realize that A) modern diesels in cars provide nearly equivalent millage at half the cost of hybrids, and B) gas engines are coming on line in the next two years that will provide 40+ MPG highway/City combined without hybrid or EV technology? And not in micro cars.

Lastly, if hybrid technology is the answer, why isn't it cheap? $22,000 for a Honda or Toyota isn't within my reach, but a $15,000 version could be. And since I can buy a car that gets me 35MPG highway for under $14,000 why would I spring for a hybrid? The payoff of the difference between non and hybrid would take almost as long as the loan itself.

[hardtravelin]

165. My Jetta TDI gets better MPG on the highway than any hybrid

At 60-65 MPH, I average 46- 50 MPG, regardless of the terrain. Plus, I have more power, more room, and paid about $5K less.

Suck it, Toyota.

[ContinentalOp]

179. That's just not true.

The '09 Jetta Diesel gets 41 highway while the Prius gets 45. Those are the official numbers. It's not fair to compare your personal number for the Jetta to the official numbers for the Prius.

Cool car though. I wanted to get one and run biodiesel but they took too long to come out in CA and I needed a new car. Plus I had some bad experiences with my the Jetta I previously had.

[NeedleCast]

166. Soon as they start making a Hybrid Jeep Wrangler

[ContinentalOp]

180. So I see there are some valid reasons why people need large vehicles such as trucks or SUVs...

for every day, non work related use. The people who legitimately need those large vehicles could:

- Live in a rural area with dirt roads, snow, water to cross, etc.
- Have a family larger than 4 people
- Have a horse

The problem is over 80% of Americans live in cities and suburbs, the average family has only 2.5 kids, and there are only 2 million horse owners in the U.S. So why are trucks the best selling vehicles in America?

[friendly_iconoclast]

188. Your biggest problem is that this is not Technocratic Underground

You are proposing to revamp the entire motor vehicle industry using immature technologies, *and* introduce a whole new bureaucratic layer to determine what vehicles people will be allowed to buy.

I've got just the guy for you:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

[ContinentalOp]

194. Actually, I'm not proposing anything.

I disagree with the O.P.'s approach and I think we should just tighten MPG and emissions requirements instead. Still, the idea technically would work. No "bureaucratic layer" would be required.

[Echo In Light]

191. I always ask myself that as I'm wading through the land of HUGE vehicles...

...why the hell do ALL of these people need these gigantic behemoths given that apparently none of them ever have anything to haul in them?

Ego