# Hang on to Your Gas Guzzlers...



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

Like my two '74 Chevy Novas.

Congress "Cash For Clunkers" proposal

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28663037/



> _Drivers would be eligible for reimbursement for purchase of a new or used vehicle with a fuel economy rating that exceeds federal targets for that class of vehicle by at least 25 percent. The vehicle must have a manufacturer suggested retail price of less than $45,000 and be a model year 2004 or later._
> _The vehicles turned in must be drivable, registered in the United States and have a when-new fuel economy rating of less than 18 miles per gallon._
> _In the first year of the program, a person trading in a vehicle that is model year 2002 and later would be eligible to receive $4,500 for purchase of a new vehicle, $3,000 for purchase of a used vehicle or $3,000 for transit fare credit. For model year vehicles 1999 to 2001, drivers would get $3,000 for the purchase of a new vehicle. Those who trade in vehicles that came out in 1998 or before could get a credit of $2,000 for a new vehicle._
> _"This is an even better trade-in offer than they could get from any car dealership," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., also a co-sponsor._


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

tj4fa said:


> Like my two '74 Chevy Novas.
> 
> Congress "Cash For Clunkers" proposal
> 
> ...


Sounds like a nice way to get car companies to jack up the retail price on priuses etc even more.

They'll probably screw all of the DIY electric builders with being unable to get the tax credit.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Sounds like a nice way to get car companies to jack up the retail price on priuses etc even more.


'Zactly... which equates to more indirect government bailout money. 

Aren't they getting (more) than enough already?


----------



## order99 (Sep 8, 2008)

I don't suppose I could just build my EV and let them BUY my ICE car outright? Nah, that would make too much sense...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I never thought I'd post the "S" word, but this is socialism at its worst.

Old cars that are still in good working order should not be destroyed, they should be maintained and upgraded (maybe even converted to electric!). Buying a whole mess of new hybrid cars with minor improvements in fuel economy is not going to solve our problems. I have some older vehicles that would fall under these guidlines, and they can have them when they are pried from my cold dead fingers.

This is just another way to try and bail out the auto indusrty that should have died a long time ago.

I am sympathetic to workers who are hurting, but that only goes so far. Sooner or later you must accept the fact that you cannot stop a rising tide. Its over, now move on and stop throwing money at detroit. They hade a good run, but its time to move on.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

david85 said:


> I have some older vehicles that would fall under these guidlines, and they can have them when they are pried from my cold dead fingers.


What are you afraid of? This is an *incentive*, not mandatory. If you want to keep your clunker, you can.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

Technologic said:


> They'll probably screw all of the DIY electric builders with being unable to get the tax credit.


Do DIY electric builders really get any meaningful tax credits right now? They sure aren't going to get that $7,500 that Volt buyers will.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> I never thought I'd post the "S" word, but this is socialism at its worst.


Heh. That comment made me think you were from one of the more right adjusted parts of US, then I checked out where you lived. Still, it's a very interesting statement...


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

saab96 said:


> What are you afraid of? This is an *incentive*, not mandatory. If you want to keep your clunker, you can.


I think most people realize that the Prius price increased when these incentives happened. And when it was announced that the Volt would receive a $7500 tax credit, the price increased $5000.

I think instead of giving "incentives" the government should simply be "removing regulations".


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Who on earth said that people would buy electric cars?
All it does is encourage a few people to dump their old ICE for a new one. it will help failing motor companies shift some of there stock and everyone un the USA pays for it in taxes
On the other end of that, people with better MPG would have some money savings and may buy more things boosting the economy.
and the third hand, people who are stupid, and believe in sales, will look at this like a payday and then take out a loan to buy a car that there getting a great deal on, this will help out the banks.

while this seems to work its a cash injection by stealth and is paid for by the people- generally its a step forwards , but by no means great. the people who will profit are the car companies and banks.
for the common person, the saving on fuel will probably be taken back on the interest payments for the car loans.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I oppose the idea because 

1; they further the myth that old vehicles are junk and buying new vehicles is good for the environment. This is not true when you factor in the enviromental cost of building newer cars for some one that traded up every few years.

2; there may be a choice right now, but you don't have a choice of weather you want to pay for it or not, and this program will be costly. Also, while it is only and inscentive right now, it may become more stringent later on. Restrictions on freedom have a way of creeping up on you.

3; when you look at the cost, its completely unsustainable and with such large amounts of money getting moved around, its quite likely that it could end up being another slush fund.

Just because something is old, doesn't mean you throw it away. Older cars that are well tuned can get supprisingly good fuel economy and low emissions.


----------



## saab96 (Mar 19, 2008)

david85 said:


> Just because something is old, doesn't mean you throw it away. Older cars that are well tuned can get supprisingly good fuel economy and low emissions.


This incentive is not targetting old Geo Metros.

You are reading way too much into this proposal that isn't there.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

saab96 said:


> This incentive is not targetting old Geo Metros.
> 
> You are reading way too much into this proposal that isn't there.


I still believe that this will simply increase the price of the more fuel efficient cars MSRP, and be a general waste of space

it's not as if they are giving tax write offs for all EVs purchase price or the entire cost of an EV to build if you use it for say over 10k miles a year... which IMO would be far better.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

I dont know about over there, but here the government just anounced a £20 million for EV development- Vans and buses only! most of the companies already have these products on the road, so I guess its just a return on investment that those companies paid out already. shame its not going anywhere more useful.

Anything like that going on over your side of the pond?

Also, the USA pay's about 1/4 the european costs for gas! perhaps if they put it up to half, then more people would want to convert to EV's the extra revs made could fund EV development.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

GTWCMT said:


> I
> 
> Anything like that going on over your side of the pond?
> 
> Also, the USA pay's about 1/4 the european costs for gas! perhaps if they put it up to half, then more people would want to convert to EV's the extra revs made could fund EV development.


lol are you suggesting throwing 80% taxes on gasoline like in europe as a possible solution to EVs here?

/facepalms

To answer your question pretty much nothing goes on in the US with EVs from the government.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Technologic said:


> lol are you suggesting throwing 80% taxes on gasoline like in europe as a possible solution to EVs here?
> 
> /facepalms
> 
> To answer your question pretty much nothing goes on in the US with EVs from the government.


well, if it cost 4 times more to drive on gas, wouldnt you start looking for other means to get around?

In the past few years, I get 60% less gas miles.
1992 - 36 pence litre, 1999 - 67 pence a litre, 2004 - 76 pence a litre, 2005 - 88 pence litre, 2006 - £1.10 litre, 2008 - 99 pence a litre, 2009 - 89 pence a litre.

4.54 litres to a gallon. since 1992 wages have about doubled as a comparitive and only in the last 5 years. So over here, there is more of an incentive for people to convert to EV's


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I don't see low gas prices as being a problem. High EV tech prices are the problem. The cost of EVs can be driven down by natural free market competition, but if you subsidize EVs that process will actually slow down, not accelerate. Its happened many times before.

Part of me wants to think there is a good role for governments to play in promoting EVs, but I'm having a hard time remembering any good that has ever come from it. Money is being thrown at detroit to help them build cars that they should have been building 30 years ago, how is this constructive? In reality, the market is no longer ripe for a super hypermiler that costs ~$40k anyway.

If you were to place an EV tax on oil and use the money as rebates for the purchase of hybrid/electric cars, all that would happen is a public backlash against EVs, and we could have EVs on the roads that are below our standards. 

There are valid points in this discussion, but its purely hypothetical because right now there simply are no practical passenger EVs on the roads right now that are being mass produced that are affordable.


----------



## hidbulb (Jan 26, 2009)

that will be a good catch...I hope we have it here


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

well the higher EV prices are down to batteries and the research and development, this has just left a massive gap in the market for more mid range priced good batteries. I almost fell over at thinking you could have to pay $20,000 on decent batteries!

The governments in this world have always been good at stealth taxing. Take for example our Road tax, this doesn’t go on the roads and lighting that’s what the local governments taxes are for..

One of the problems with EV's (over here anyway) is that they are not well known about in the public domain, I only happened over the EV1 and its history.
The only real news was the Tesla on top gear about two weeks ago. I didn’t even know it was in production. While I do know where two of the old little EV;s are (parked out side one guys house for the past 20 years!) there was nothing until you go back to the old milk floats apart from this: http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/sir_clive_sinclair.htm.


To get the 'word out' a large amount will need to be spent on EV advertising so that the general public will see it. tesla made the first statement.. but this advertising can be equal to the R&D costs of any car if not more.

Yeah they should have been producing the cars back then, they would have been more mainstream by now. I read that GM regret pulling the plug now - (according to inside info unconfirmed)
While there isn’t any practical cars, to which I will hopefully be joining that group! I plan of developing a 2 seater sports EV that is affordable. and should not cost more than a normal car and in fact should come in under! but we will have to wait and see. But yes there is a family market that need to be addressed, So far I haven’t been able to source anything to target that market with that meets with the criteria. But I’m not a fan of converting ICE's to EV when you can make an EV easy enough and conserve weight and better design them over ready made ICE cars.
But I don’t think people will make substandard EV's


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

GTWCMT said:


> well, if it cost 4 times more to drive on gas, wouldnt you start looking for other means to get around?
> 
> In the past few years, I get 60% less gas miles.
> 1992 - 36 pence litre, 1999 - 67 pence a litre, 2004 - 76 pence a litre, 2005 - 88 pence litre, 2006 - £1.10 litre, 2008 - 99 pence a litre, 2009 - 89 pence a litre.


You realize for many many "common" people there isn't any alternative ways to get around and all you're asking for is larger government involvement and economic stagnation?


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

Technologic said:


> You realize for many many "common" people there isn't any alternative ways to get around and all you're asking for is larger government involvement and economic stagnation?


Well economic growth to me mean adding to the cost of selling something that doesnt cost anymore to produce.

poor people using cars will always be poor people and the more the prices of fuel rise the less money they will have, typically this effect how they eat and there health and then they become less productive.

If you had a million dollars, and went out and bought as many kits you could for EV convertions and gave them to the poor for a small fee, what would happen? not to mention that you get new businesses and trades starting up from making things happen. lets quickly go into EVs and off trades - Recharge stations and the building of; motor production, coversion mechanics, sales offices, battery industry, new car companies..

and with that last one, new car companies, how many ICE plants are failing? it all balances out in the end.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

GTWCMT said:


> Well economic growth to me mean adding to the cost of selling something that doesnt cost anymore to produce.


lol not when it's a monopoly and a government fed one at that... you need to research economics



> poor people using cars will always be poor people and the more the prices of fuel rise the less money they will have, typically this effect how they eat and there health and then they become less productive.


....... and you don't factor in the general total national cost of converting every car, the government attempting to STOP that since they own 80% of the taxes on gas, and the likelyhood that many people wouldn't want to trade in their guzzlers for an electric car nor have the finances to do it?



> If you had a million dollars, and went out and bought as many kits you could for EV convertions and gave them to the poor for a small fee, what would happen? not to mention that you get new businesses and trades starting up from making things happen. lets quickly go into EVs and off trades - Recharge stations and the building of; motor production, coversion mechanics, sales offices, battery industry, new car companies..
> 
> and with that last one, new car companies, how many ICE plants are failing? it all balances out in the end.


lol you don't hand people things like that, that's the kind of crap that gets spray painted, etc. Without the effect of ownership people 1) destroy the property or 2) don't take it seriously. Why do people dress up their cars so much in the US? because it's a STATUS symbol of what they worked for....

You assume that kind of infastructure would ever ever see the government subsidies. It's far far far more likely that the government would just eat the money into more socialistic programs, that it would bankrupt many fields of industry (like plastics) and that people would be poverty sticken from not being able to get to work in their SUVs.... they couldn't even sell the damn things to buy an EV in a market like that.

Completely horrible idea.

Deregulate ALL of the stoppers on EVs, wind power production, etc and make them tax FREE, that'd get the ball moving.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Making something tax free would amount to a subsidy, but being able to write off expenses for income tax does seem to have positive effects. It could work, and it wouldn't cost much either. 

What would also be nice is if there were a production minimum requirement for crash testing or high tech safety equipment. ABS, ESP, and air bags are so costly to develop that it makes it nearly impossible to develop a new car company from scratch, and yet thats exactly what's needed. A completely new car company with no ties to detroit.

However once again, that could produce a backlash because victim's rights lobbyists could claim that safety regulations are being weakened.

I agree that conversions of heavy, bloated, steel body cars are not ideal, but its the best we have right now when you consider all the red tape involved in certifying a new car for public roads.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Making something tax free would amount to a subsidy,


a Subsidy, is nothing more than a government issued refund or something.

a tax free thing could simply mean the business or person is free from paying taxes on the item (which only produces growth btw... at least among that particular microeconomy).


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

its not all you got to convert, trust me. I was thinking about converting ICE cars and found that this was really impractical due to space and weight so I looked at other producers.
I know over here we have quite a few small car companies, like aston Martin, Morgan and Caterham, I believe you have more sports cars like nas car? but the pricables are the same, you have a SVA there I believe?

Doesnt business mean charge what the markets will hold and what people will pay. make as much profit to keep stake/share holders happy while lining your pockets at other peoples exspence.

You know people in general are really really stupid. one of my companies produced state of the art computer systems, real winners and I would sell them for a small profit to turn over the business, I couldnt sell them. so I added 40% on top and then they started to buy them. funny old world!
(The profits I made went to pay for my charity work that I did)

Any sub, would just mean that the government dont make much money on it. Im not sure about you guys but employees pay 22% tax on what they earn, 12.5% on everything that they buy and around 2.5% on anything they save, so they make it back one way or the other.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

You make a valid point, GTWCMT. Being too cheap can sometimes be counter productive even if you can make a profit selling at a low price.

What we have right now with factory built EVs, is really high end sports cars and REALLY low end puddle hoppers with horrible performance. The problem is that there is nothing in between. I am not suggesting that an EV has to be cheaper than a comparable ICE powered car, but it has to be at least close in price before anyone would consider it based on its natural advantages.

Another thing to bear in mind, is that any small startup company need not waste too much effort making the cars as cheap as possible, because the limited production capacity means that a small customer base is not as critical as say, for GMC. The catch is that the price cannot stay high and must be driven down to something more comparable to ICEs once the initial novelty wears off.

Aggressive advertising can also backfire especially if demand outstrips supply. You are also in a situation of trying to control something that can bite you....the mainstream media. If you start small and carefully select your first few customers, you will have more control over how your product is perceived in the world.

My guess for a family car is that if after 5 years of production a drop in price is not possible, the company will not survive and the cars will fade away like many other novel ideas.

As far as only using ICE cars, there might be a place for that, but its far from ideal. I'm doing a conversion mainly as a test run for now.

What did you mean by "SVA"?


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

david85 said:


> You make a valid point, GTWCMT. Being too cheap can sometimes be counter productive even if you can make a profit selling at a low price.
> 
> What we have right now with factory built EVs, is really high end sports cars and REALLY low end puddle hoppers with horrible performance. The problem is that there is nothing in between. I am not suggesting that an EV has to be cheaper than a comparable ICE powered car, but it has to be at least close in price before anyone would consider it based on its natural advantages.
> 
> ...


Oddly we have a few cars about that are not far off main stream cars, you guys there would call them small cars, but never the less I still think of them as small.
http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/quiet-car-2-electric-cars/

but I have to agree that most cars have gone a bit to far with concept, many have OK speeds (depending on requirements) but some have pitaful range - here is a list of whats about and the stats
http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/electric-vehicles-cars.htm

I don’t believe that the main stream will look at EV on cost but simply on performance, and looks, in fact I think that 80% will go on looks alone as most people are that shallow lol 
For the most part, they need to meet a criteria of a speed of 70mph a 0-60 in less than 8 sec, and have a range of about 100 miles.
A percentage will buy them because they are environmentally friendly, some will look at the running costs and other will buy for the fad. (Hence why most EV go to Celebes)

I also think that current marketing by most companies are very negative towards themselves, by that I mean that it has a range of X and a top speed of X we use this battery tech.. but at the end of the day, most people haven’t got a clue about the battery tech. and a plus point would be talking about 3 year cost of ownership savings, then speeds and emissions and then MPG equiv then lastly the range. 
But of course what you need is a recharge station infrastructure, or some incentives there. What if your works would left you charge, some places wont.
You want adverts of people laughing at the prices of fuel, having fun, wheel spinning and fast driving, not look at my battery, watch me plug in a charge up.. you will see it on all/most adverts.

Hybrids and serial hybrids are coming, and they are here, this gives people what they want, because they can go further and don’t really have to worry to much about plugging in. But these in between stop ga[s are very costly to make and design so have a elevated price tag. After a few years people may see that they don’t need to have a serial hybrid and then opt for all electric, but with the low range on the production models for hybrid electric, you will find that this will stall the move.

The SVA is a car test place it has different regulations that mass-produced cars, you get low volume cars and mod cars through the test to make sure its road worthy http://www.bmsesva.co.uk/ESVA.htm
I would imagine that you would have something like that there as well.


----------



## tj4fa (May 25, 2008)

saab96 said:


> Do DIY electric builders really get any meaningful tax credits right now? They sure aren't going to get that $7,500 that Volt buyers will.


GM sucks.

I wouldn't buy crap from them. Especially a lame half-assed attempt like the GM Volt.

http://www.ev1.org/


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

GTWCMT said:


> Oddly we have a few cars about that are not far off main stream cars, you guys there would call them small cars, but never the less I still think of them as small.
> http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/quiet-car-2-electric-cars/
> 
> but I have to agree that most cars have gone a bit to far with concept, many have OK speeds (depending on requirements) but some have pitaful range - here is a list of whats about and the stats
> ...


I think you are right about a lot of things, but your comment on advertising really struck me. Have you seen the commercials for the EV1 on Utube? many don't even show the car and offer a grim, cryptic atmosphere that scare you more than anything else. Some suggest that this was deliberate on GM's part. 

EVs are in fact VERY fun vehicles if designed properly. The environment, plugging in, battery tech, and fuel prices should not even be in the ad when you consider the limited attention span of some one watching a commercial or reading a newspaper ad. Once you have their attention, then you can show them the way to a website with all the specs, but the ad itself has to be as simple as possible.

The look also matters a lot. I can't help but wonder if some of the more wild concept cars have done more harm than good to promote EVs. Sure it looks good, or different, but is it something that some one really wants to spend money to buy? There is a difference to being a curiosity, and being taken seriously.

I've heard of the limited production rules that are present in the UK, but I'm not sure if something exsists in canada or the states. Kit cars are as popular in the states and canada as they are in the UK, so those are not a problem to certify, but I'm not yet sure how it works for selling a car that has been built from scratch. I know it has to be inspected by an acredited shop, but I don't know if that is enough if the car is built for sale. Other than that, you have the low speed vehicles that can be produced in any numbers without being crash tested.


----------



## GTWCMT (Jan 22, 2009)

I dont think many kit cars are crash tested and by mist accounts they are mass produced, its just that different people build them. I would think that if the law was that they couldnt be sold on, then the market for used kits and small production cars would now be around over there. prob out law sales of kits cars atleast..

BTW there is nothing stopping you buying a light weight kit car and making it an EV. or EV kit.


----------

