- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Another Perspective
Cars, Climate, Fuel Efficiency, and the American Consumer
I make it a practice to start reading the auto section of the newspaper whenever the car I am driving clears 100,000 miles. This allows ample time for detailed research on various options out there since I routinely drive a car well past 130,000 miles or more. In fact, my odometer is already registering over 160,000. You could call me a Detroit nightmare.
Since all but one of our children, a college student, has flown the nest, my wife and I no longer drive the big boomers we used to, an extension van or a full-size station wagon back in the days of soccer leagues and cross-country vacations. We pretty much stick with the basic sedans, which are priced right and reasonably fuel efficient, a plus in terms of our budget.
This means that we will probably not be availing ourselves to the latest congressional porker program, "Cash for Clunkers," which will reward the worthy owners, say, of a 1998 Mercedes-Benz M-Class sport utility or a 1992 BMW 8 Series if Kendra Marr of the Washington Post is to be believed ("You Call That a Clunker?"). Evidently, mileage is the key determinant of the government's largess which, therefore, rewards gas guzzlers who did not read the memo on fuel-efficiency or carbon footprinting.
A billion dollars are being thrown at this effort to promote fuel-efficiency, which is a drop in the bucket in terms of the total automobile stock of high-mileage cars and trucks out there. But, hey, who said federal legislation had to be cost efficient? Approximately 250,000 sales may be generated by this program out of reduced total car sales of 10 million this year. Still, that leaves a quarter of a million voters, plus the UAW, what's left of the Big 3 and the congressional delegations of Michigan and Ohio, who will be pleased. Unlike a gas tax or a revenue-neutral carbon tax, this accomplishes nothing significant, either economically or environmentally. It simply optimizes political symbolism and constituent loyalty.
As to my research on a new vehicle, I read a perceptive review of the 2009 Toyota Yaris S, a little bulldog of a car that provides basic transportation in the city and suburbs at a pretty reasonable price. The review in Sunday's Post, "What We Say We Want, Not What We Really Want," by Warren Brown, quickly veers away from the subject at hand into a perceptive analysis of Americans' stubborn refusal to buy these smaller, efficient, cheaper vehicles.
Despite the calls for more fuel-efficient cars and numerous complaints whenever Mr. Brown files a review on a new truck, sports car or luxury automobile, he is deluged with complaining letters, calls and e-mails.
"You [the readers] say that such automotive reviews are meaningless and bordering on consumer insult in our deepest economic downturn in decades," reports Brown. "You urge me to review more practical, affordable vehicles. I have and will continue to do so."
But maybe his readers can't stand the truth, to steal a line from a Jack Nicholson character. Says Mr. Brown: "But here is what for many of you will be a hard-to-swallow truth: Fuel-sippers such as the Yaris are selling in numbers well below those of the Ford F-series and Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks." He then details the Automotive News Data Center top-10 rankings for the first six months of 2009:
The Ford F-Series trucks hold the top sales of 179,632. The Toyota mid-size family sedan comes in second with 150,242; and the Chevrolet Silverado pickup -- "in a year when GM, its parent company entered and exited bankruptcy" -- is a close third with sales of 149,949.
As for "genuine fuel misers," including the Prius hybrid with sales off by almost half compared to last year, "it's been an awful retail season." The Yaris, which Brown claims is built with "legendary Toyota quality and reliability," and is priced in the $12,000 to $14,825 range, has retail numbers down 40.4 percent in the first six months of 2009. Given the widespread interest in substantially reduced fuel consumption, as expressed in readers' reactions, the media and through the political process, there appears to be cognitive dissonance, writ large, exhibited in consumers' actual behavior.
Warren Brown believes "the problem is us."
"We want cars such as the Yaris and Fit when gasoline prices are high, or when gasoline is in short supply. But when gasoline is flowing at prices that make us smile, which it usually does in the United States, we'd much rather have a Chevrolet Camaro SS with a 6.2 liter, 426-horsepower V-8 engine," says Brown. "Strange as it might seem in these hard times, Chevrolet isn't having any trouble selling that one."
Cheap gasoline is either a blessing or a curse, depending on your views on consumer choice, national security, and the role of carbon emissions in a changing climate. American automobile companies are caught in a cross-fire between conflicting consumer and policy choices and will find it difficult to survive unless politicians quit focusing on them and either offer relief from regulatory mandates on fuel efficiency or shift their focus to the price of gasoline, which is at the root of consumer preference for "muscle" cars, big trucks, and SUVs which are great fun, often a practical necessity and, evidently, still affordable for a big part of the automotive market. Focusing on the price of gasoline would still allow for consumer choice while fundamentally altering demand in favor of greater fuel efficiency. It might also save a domestic industrial sector on the brink of extinction.
There is no certainty either way. But a gas tax would be a more "market-oriented" approach than the current approach. I confess to a certain ambivalence here, but clearly the sales of "fuel misers" were more robust when gas was closer to $4/gallon. As things stand now, domestic auto manufacturers face the worst of all possible worlds: regulatory mandates to sell cars Americans don't want to buy.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
ADVERTISEMENT
JAWilson| 7.21.09 @ 6:41AM
What does it matter what we want, we are going to be treated like lab rats by the brains at the EPA and the rest of the government. The one thing that I can say for a certainty is that I will never buy a car made by GM or Chrysler.
Appleby| 7.21.09 @ 7:30AM
The Province of Ontario is trying to bribe people to buy $40,000 electric cars with *up to* $10,000 rebates, while at the same time proposing to shut down all our coal-fired electricity plants and replace them with, er, nothing. (They have just started waffling on building another nuclear plant because apparently they have just discovered that the only Canadian contender is corrupt, wasteful, incapable and bloated.)
Leaving aside the fact that most of the people who would buy these things live in downtown condos where there is neither parking nor plug-ins, and that cold weather sucks the power out of these cars and severely limits their range -- we are also installing *smart meters* that charge us more for power at*peak hours* -- and raise your hand if you think Peak Hours will not suddenly become those hours when yuppies plug in their electric cars....
Give me a Mini Cooper S and get out of my way. One of these was clocked at 200 kph on a city street last week -- by a Hollander who said he had no idea we were not allowed to drive like that in Ontario ...
Curly Smith| 7.21.09 @ 8:09AM
Has it occurred to you that the people who say that they want "smaller, efficient, cheaper vehicles" aren't, in fact, the people who actually buy cars? Has it occurred to you that it's all just another phony poll to hopefully fool the rubes into doing what "the experts" want them to do? And, finally, has it occurred to you that "when the rubber meets the road" people actually do make rational decisions about what type of vehicle *they* need and don't give a flip about what type of vehicle a mass-commuting, high-rise-living liberal says they need?
Tony in Central PA| 7.21.09 @ 8:32AM
If you're talking about cognitive dissonance, why would anybody buy a hybrid if gas prices aren't over ten dollars a gallon ? I recently looked at a Honda Civic Hybrid. I asked the dealer, " What happens when the battery needs to be replaced ? ". He told me that " Honda has always replaced them free of charge ", even when they were past warranty. How can this be ? How can a company stay in business selling millions of vehicles and giving away free batteries and installation for them, especially when the Blue Book value of the car isn't that much more than the cost to install a new battery ?
The Honda batteries go for about $2000 right now, not including installation. I have heard the Prius batteries are more like $ 6000. Why would anybody buy one of these cars used ?
If people want a good, fuel - efficient vehicle, it would seem to make more sense for companies to be investing in clean diesel engines, like the VW TDI Jetta. They get the same mileage as the Prius, but without batteries. I'm sure the Japanese could create vehicles far more reliable than VW. I also have to wonder about the environmental " footprint " of all these batteries. From the mining of their components to their disposal, it has to be nasty.
Louis Jenkins| 7.21.09 @ 9:12AM
But a gas tax would be a more "market-oriented" approach than the current approach.
Oh yeah. Just what we need. Additional taxes. Tag registration fee (tax), inspection fee (tax), road use milage tax (soon on the way via GPS monitoring), property tax, driver's license fees, soon to have a tax on the labor for fixing the darn thing, in my state anyway, wow!! The sky is the limit for additional taxes. Does anyone think that all these other auto related taxes will go away or lessen if you purchase an auto that gets 100 mpg? The District of Crimminals and State governments will increase the fees already in existence in the name of the children, better roads, schools, the environment, etc. If we all rode scooters they'd come up with ways to tax that. Cap and Trade, Carbon Footprints, emmisson standards, it is a leftist war on American mobility. A concentrated effort to force Americans to move to the urban environment and public transportation coridors. By limiting American mobility the screws are further tightened. Automobile ownership has been a history of personal expression and utility. The left cannot tolerate individuality, and they sure cannot stand for a journeyman to make a living if it includes his work truck.
jerryofva| 7.21.09 @ 9:48AM
Mr. Mehan:
You can have a fund to drive, small sedan and get a car that gets much better fuel economy then an unsafe econobox like a Yaris. It's called the Jetta TDI and dealers can't keep them in stock.
deadlyaim| 7.21.09 @ 9:49AM
Mr. Mehan, how does a gas tax, which is nothing more than government manipulating the price of gasoline, translate to a "market-oriented" approach?
A "free market-oriented" approach (you avoided the word "free" in terminology BTW) would let the market determine the price of gasoline, would let consumers choose the vehicle they prefer, wheter the choice is driven by need or want, and let supply and demand determine price.
Stan Redmond| 7.21.09 @ 9:51AM
As with most liberal plans.....
"I want everyone else to have small little cute smart-cars because I bought a prius."
Control control control. Nothing more.
Choey| 7.21.09 @ 10:26AM
Oh, but you can't be allowed to make your own decisions. Heaven knows you might make the wrong choice. Better to let the pompous ass "betters" in Washington make the choices for us.
Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 11:36AM
There should be no taxes on gasoline, energy, food, housing, healthcare, medicine or any other necessities of life.
The revenue can come from elsewhere. Plus we all know the gas tax is misspent.
Paul from SA| 7.21.09 @ 11:42AM
If I want to drive a tank or a micro-car, foreign or domestic (as long as it's meets safety requirements), it should be my choice.
The converse is true. You should make your own choice and just freakin leave me alone.
The same applies to the size of a person's house.
We know what this is all about: Liberals -- do as they say, not as they do.
Marc Jeric| 7.21.09 @ 11:47AM
If Hollywood made a film where the government takes over General Motors and Chrysler, then gives the majority ownership to the union, and then puts the union goon who destroyed our steel industry in charge of Chrysler as its CEO - I would have said this is nonsense, too much crazy script. But then - it is true, not a movie but a living nightmare. And then the vast ignorance with those hybrids and battery-operated cars: where do those ignoramuses think the electricity will come from? From the nearby wind mill?
ds80| 7.21.09 @ 12:12PM
jerryofva: "a car that gets much better fuel economy then an unsafe econobox like a Yaris. It's called the Jetta TDI and dealers can't keep them in stock"
VW salesman, are you? Or trying to justify that Jetta purchase?
Jetta TDI: 21 mpg city, 29 mpg hwy, MSRP $21,990
Yaris: 29 mpg city, 36 mpg hwy, MSRP $12,205
ACynic| 7.21.09 @ 12:12PM
A gas tax would cause the price of many commodities to increase - food, anything shipped by truck, Fed Ex., etc., and in general raise the cost of living for most Americans.
(Except the ruling, elite millionaire class in Congress for whom the taxpayer pays much of their bills. Also, as millionaires, if gasoline goes to even 10 bucks a gallon, it is just pocket change to them. )
This country has ample supplies of natural gas, has intentionally thwarted the use of nuclear power, and years ago embarked on a domestic "energy policy" guaranteed to create artificial shortages of oil, gasoline and diesel gasoline.
It is the US Congress - a bunch of criminally negligent mostly millionaire elitist pigs, beholden to the fascist/bolshevik "environmental" movement - basically a group of nazis - that has screwed up the energy supply in this country. It is the average working stiff who gets totally screwed, while the mostly wealthy "environmentalists" in SF, NYC , DC and LA, are too rich to notice the price of gasoline.
By the way, diesel cars are available that get 45 mpg on the highway. Oh, that's right, most diesel in the USA is shipped to Europe.
Global warming "scientific consensus." Since when is "consensus" science?? Consensus is politics. What ever happened to the scientific method of presenting an hypothesis and then actually - get ready for this folks - proving the hypothesis?
Our energy problems have been created, worsened, and worsened by our multi-millionaire criminal, elitist US Congress and their KAPOS in the EPA.
They are the cause of our energy problems.
Tim| 7.21.09 @ 12:29PM
Of course people do not buy the cars they should. This ist vy wir mussen force dem to gekaupf eine kleine auto!
Sieg Hybrid!
Sieg Hybrid!
Sieg Hybrid!
Jerry| 7.21.09 @ 1:10PM
4-seat Prius (or any other lightweight hybrid deathtrap) @40mpg (stripped down, 55-mph EPA rating)--160 person-miles
15-seat kid-hauler @14mpg (real-world, barrelling down the highway @75+ mph)--210 person-miles
Not only am I and my large-carbon-footprint brood 'better for the environment', I think I'll trust the safety of me & my family in our big ol' van!
Belize042| 7.21.09 @ 1:53PM
I'm neither a seller or buyer of VWs, but I see EPA numbers for Jetta TDI of 29mpg city, 40mpg highway.
wolflen| 7.21.09 @ 2:06PM
The comments about the new Camero made me smile..being that Chevy thought taking their sport car out of the market for several years might hurt Mustang sales..??
What was their tag line awile back about being the heart beat of America? Right....if Chevy is the heartbeat of America..the country is dead.
While I can't justify a muscle car for myself...my VW GTI has made some BMW drivers ask...what happened to me?
Al Adab| 7.21.09 @ 2:22PM
I for one just can't wait until the Govt. pays me to but their car and taxes the life out of the rest of you who want something safe, confortable and useful.
Out here in the West, where towns are a couple hundred miles apart, we like a nice roomy ride. Throw in a couple kids, a dog and that explains why big trucks and SUV's (gasp) fill the highways.
The soon to come Governmnet Motors " yugo won't fit the bill. Ahh what a brave new world.
JerseyJ| 7.21.09 @ 2:34PM
Tony in PA ... "I also have to wonder about the environmental " footprint " of all these batteries. From the mining of their components to their disposal, it has to be nasty. "
Sort of like all that mercury we're going to have to deal with when those nifty squiggly compact florescents start piling up in our landfills. Great.
BTW, glad to see the positive comments on the Jetta TDI. Mine's 3 years old and has never gotten below 42 miles average on any tank of diesel in those 3 years. I keep MPG religiously and can easily get 50 average on a 14 gallon tank with a bit of care instead of the 75 mph I usually do on the way home. Sorry ds80, from first hand experience, your figures are wrong.
Pat| 7.21.09 @ 2:45PM
There's an old joke about a businessman who decides to burn down his business for the insurance money after talking to a friend who collected a whopping settlement after his friend's business was destroyed in a flood. The punch line is: How did you start a flood?
So, how do you levy a federal gas tax of $4 or $5 a gallon to drive the price of gas into the range Europeans are used to and make that gas tax progressive in nature? Like how do you start a flood, the answer is you don't. The rich don't pay the gas tax while "the poor" are completely exempt and the middle class actually pays the bulk of the tax dollars.
Obama's problem is how to bailout the auto industry "in the national interest" meaning how do I save the UAW? At this point, the story has only started, the taxpayers have revitalized GM and Chrysler financially but there's still much to be done. Increasing unit sales of new cars is vitally necessary even if the Japanese reap some of the benefits - Cash for Clunkers has a nice ring to the environmentalists as well. Wiping out excess dealerships is another ploy - cut GM's overhead related to dealers and cut the price competition on new cars by limiting the number of competing retail outlets - the successful Japanese model.
Finding a politically acceptable combination of life jackets to throw the auto industry is Obama's dilemma - raise gas taxes, lose votes among the masses. Don't "go green" in a big way - lose votes among the special interests. Serving the "national interest" by helping pressure groups like the UAW will always be politics first, free market logic last. We'd better get used to it, there are many years left on Obama's lease on the White House.
Al Adab| 7.21.09 @ 3:13PM
PAT,
Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. That is now the Govt. problem. Too much Hope placed in falsehoods and ideology and now driven to the precipice by their own beliefs. Trouble is, they expect us to submit and pay the bill. Now we must follow their decisions and perform as they see fit. Last time I checked that was called slavery.
Bu$h Derangement Syndrome | 7.21.09 @ 3:44PM
By Black Cell / Marcell
We finally get a chance to hold the Republican base & their leaders accountable for marketing & supporting former President Bu$h.
They created the term, “Bu$h Derangement Syndrome,” because they wanted us to stop attacking him knowing that they created & cheer leaded for practically every failed policy that he, Bu$h, created.
Bu$h may be history, but the people who voted & marketed his failed policies are still around. They are now trying to give the false impression that they know how to solve America's problems.
It makes sense for us not to forget the Repubs failed agendas & economic philosophies like doing nothing to save Bu$h's plummeting economy. If the Republican Party do nothing agenda for this year had been sucessful, America would have lost more jobs.
Now the Repubs are trying to complain about job losses when it was their policy of allowing lenders to run amuck as they created schemes to get rich on the backs of typical Americans in the same ways that Enron scammed their employees.
The end result was that the banks went broke & needed the federal government to step in & bail them out, yet the Repub base hate Bu$h for trying to save jobs at the end of his term by bailing out the banks.
Ask yourself, "What would our economy look like if he wouldn't have bailed out the banks?" Even though that is another story, it is still a relevant question.
Right now I am revisiting the history of the failed conservative ideals.
One of the first accomplishments that undermined Americans by Bu$h supporters economic philosophies was to do nothing to help Californians during the time when we were being put through the ringer by power companies who used the federal regulations to create blackouts. The end result is we all now pay far more for gas & electricity, because of the Bu$h supporters blind faith loyalty to his policies.
It took for Bu$h's California supporters to start feeling the ills of Bu$h's do nothing policy to convince him to agree with the then Governor Gray Davis' price caps.
The price caps put an end to the blackouts, but Bu$h's friends within the energy sector made out like fat cats, & the end result for Californians & the rest of America was higher energy prices.
Don't forget the energy bill that they all supported. That energy bill that Cheney took the lead on didn't bring down the price of oil, gas, natural gas or electricity, their energy policy was just a prelude to us paying higher prices & Cheney's friends in the power industry getting richer off our backs.
While the Repub's base & their leaders were marketing the energy bill that did nothing to drive down the price of energy, they were also marketing gas guzzler cars & attacking solutions like hybrid cars to save gas, & solar panels to lower electricity bills.
Don't forget that the price of every thing sky rocketed during the Bu$h administrations reign. The prices for goods use to be cheaper at stores like Wal-Mart & many of the lower priced retailers than today.
If you don't believe that the higher prices for goods have anything to do with the higher costs for gas & fuel, you don't know simple economics; if it cost a retailer more to get the products to the costumers, it will cost more for the products.
Don't forget the Bu$h administrations health care plan that wasn't deficit neutral & didn't bring down the price of health care a tad bit. At least the Dems are fighting among themselves to find ways to pay for their health care bill.
On the other hand, the Republicans & conservatives marched in lock step, while accomplishing nothing but a recession for us Fighting Dems to solve, while they, the Repubs spin in an attempt to give Obama the job losses that their policies created.
Now the Repugs are acting as if they didn't vote for, or support Bu$h's failed economic policies.
They, the Repugs are still trying to undermine the average Americans wallets by not only promoting the idea of do nothing to save American jobs & industries, but they are also trying to give the false impression that Obama's stimulus package didn't save or create jobs in many of the Republicans favorite politicians districts.
With that said, we as Obama supporters should be reminding the American people that the same Republican strategist who gave us the Bu$h Crime Family like Rush Limbaugh & Faux News' host are the same people who gave us the poor advice that created our economic mess.
So, the question is do you trust those who created this economic train wreck more than you trust those who are now fixing the problem? & the answer is “NOOOOO!!”
Pat| 7.21.09 @ 4:08PM
Al Adab: I agree with you completely but I don't see what we can do about it, at least for the next 4 years. Some future President and Congress may decide to kill the auto bailout and let GM and Chrysler sink or swim on their own, usually those industries nationalized in "the best interests of the Nation" schemes have a short half life. England failed in their nationalization of the auto companies, Mitterand failed in nationalizing the French banks.
The problem isn't which industries are nationalized, it's the mindset that sees nationalization as a workable solution. At the present moment, Obama has a perfect window to advance all the socialist dreams of the Democratic think tanks. How long Obama's precious window of opportunity will last is problematical due to the various underlying voter complaints that led to his election. But it does look like he intends to pull out all the stops to achieve his goals, not only for a second term, but to vindicate the ideologues among the Democrats.
JerseyJ| 7.21.09 @ 4:17PM
Pat laments ... "I don't see what we can do about it, at least for the next 4 years."
It's not 4 years Pat, it's 16 months. We need to throw out every bum in Congress in November 2010. Make no mistake, it's our so-called representatives sticking it to us, not just the teleprompter-in-chief. Make sure you know how your rep voted and how your senators voted for all the measures that are making your life miserable. If they don't represent you and those around you, make sure you all vote them out.
Doug Welty| 7.21.09 @ 4:22PM
How about if I drive the sort of truck I like (a Chevy Trailblazer) and granola-eating Washington Post reporters drive the sorts of little tin boxes they like, and the federal govmint leaves us alone? That way everybody wins, most especially (a) drivers and (b) taxpayers.
Pat| 7.21.09 @ 4:49PM
JerseyJ: Point taken, but it's hard to see how "we" can drive a major change in the party demographics of Congress. "You" or "I" can vote for change but we can't make everyone else vote the same way. "Throw the bums out" may be a good rallying cry, but it takes a majority of voters to start heaving "the bums" around.
And remember, Obama didn't get in on a technicality, he had a healthy majority of voters behind him, even if he did bring a wealth of inexperience to this job. Read the Detroit Free Press for instance, Obama has been advanced to sainthood in Detroit and the surrounding burbs, he's not going anywhere soon and neither are his allies in Congress from Michigan. A sizable group of voters in that region haven't the slightest qualms over Big O's treatment of stockholders and bondholders. Killing off mom and pop auto dealerships in the name of serving the greater good is currently a Motown hit single. So, you and I can only do our part - for whatever that's worth.
jerryofva| 7.21.09 @ 5:31PM
Ds80:
I see someone already identified your mistake caused by your ignorance. By their own admission the 29/40 mpg rating underestimates the actual mileage because the models they use do not accurately measure diesel engine performance. The observed mileage for the 2009 TDI are more like 35 city/45 highway. I have an earlier model with a smaller, less powerful engine. It's EPA rating is 42/49. I get a little less in the city and low to mid 50s on the highway.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.21.09 @ 5:49PM
Jerry,
I can't beat you by the mile but my late 70's Lincoln with the 460 engine drubs you for sure by the amount of gas I consume in a year. It costs less than forty dollars to license and my insurance is minimal. (My last ticket was in 1972 and my last accident, which was not my fault 1980.)
It is one nice ride and no they cannot have it for a "clunker" rebate.
Thom| 7.21.09 @ 5:50PM
“But a gas tax would be a more "market-oriented" approach than the current approach.” I’m confused…..
Current owners of lower mpg vehicles, say 15 mpg average, pay twice the cost and tax that I do now. Things like H2 Hummers are off the scale per mile cost in the wrong direction and certain hybrids are well above where I’m at right now so how is increasing the gas tax going to solve the lower mpg problem without punishing those already driving eco boxes like mine or better? At least it was an Eco box in 1989 when I bought it but no more. By this logic Europe should be well beyond Utopia on this subject with half their cars/trucks diesels and most of the rest micro cars. At last check it cost more there to own and operate a very high mpg vehicle there than that same 15 mpg pickup/suv here. All that taxation over 50 years has not produced that silver bullet as I recall.
Back when the average American car/pickup truck got about 10 miles per gallon I was driving something that got 25 mpg. When gas went from the mid to low twenty cents per gallon to well over 45-50 cents per gallon in the mid seventies the average car mpg went up to around 15 and its weight down to 3800 from around 5000 lbs. I went up to 31 mpg average and my current 20 year vehicle has the same 31 mpg average with 50% more weight, comfort and safety and 50% more horsepower. I routinely get 40+ mpg on the road. Mid to upper 30s is easy to do even on short road trips yet the EPA rated my car 24/30 mpg in 1989. Did 20% better than that right out of the box new. My friends 1995 Honda VX delivers 50 mpg everyday average and is approaching 400,000 miles. Do the math on the annual gallons consumed on that.
The day I bought a house my eco box became less suitable. I often have to borrow utility vehicles to support up keep on a house. Apartment dwellers, City Folk, younger folks tend to see things in different perspectives than those with a home and children to support. The utility of a vehicle changes with one’s age and responsibilities through life. I’ve been fortunate to not have to own one of those 15-20 mpg utility vehicles but half the vehicles on my block are of that type and that is not driven by a fade. When I bought my first car this nation had about 200,000,000 population and now we are over 50% more than that and a much higher percentage of two parent families have to work and commute to a work place in some vehicle than did in 1960 for example.
Strikes me taxing “gas” more isn’t going to address the root cause of the increased fuel usage over the last 50 or so years but it will lower almost everyone’s standard of living like it does in Europe which seems to be the desire of those for whom $4 – 5.00 a gallon gas, $36,000 annual electric bills, 747 Corp jet per hour cost, 100 foot house boat operating cost and really lousy armored Cadillac mpg means nothing. The view from the top seems to be some of us are the problem and others aren’t.
Might want to be real careful what you wish for here. Those with the means always get what they want while the rest eat cake under such schemes as suggested above.
Louis Jenkins| 7.21.09 @ 6:50PM
"but they are also trying to give the false impression that Obama's stimulus package didn't save or create jobs in many of the Republicans favorite politicians districts. " The two workers I've seen that were paid for by the stimulus plan are worse than community service workers. In fact, community service workers have more gumption and energy. A waste of time and tax payer money.
Pat| 7.21.09 @ 7:17PM
What this author doesn't recognize is that a gas tax not only alters consumer preferences, it also promotes sales of new vehicles. Analyze the existing fleet of American cars and a marketing expert sees a few interesting data points. Cars last longer now, with proper maintenance - those buy new vs. keep a few more years decisions lean toward keep the old clunker unless you can drive up the fuel prices or penalize those who cling to their current vehicles.
New car sales are what Obama desperately needs, GM and Chrysler don't make "used cars" - so getting you interested in that new car smell only works if many citizens come to appreciate the math behind the decision. And the math can say buy new with a combination of increased fuel taxes and taxpayer funded purchase rebates on "green" cars.
GM recently received hundreds of millions in federal and State of Michigan subsidies to refurbish a new "fuel efficient" car plant in Orion, Michigan. The UAW was solidly behind this move as well, with your money of course. By using the ploy of "save the planet", consumers can be gently nudged toward a new "green" car, hopefully one made by GM. There's a subtle master plan at work here.
Another marketing tactic disguised as "energy savings" could be a new federal "gas hog" surtax based on the age and gas mileage of your vehicle. California does this now but instead of a surtax, the state requires more frequent, and expensive, emission testing of your vehicle as it ages - you pay the fee for the testing of course, the testing stations and new car dealers benefit.
With the feds providing the right carrots and sticks, GM can move away from the rebate mentality approach to draw you into the showrooms. They need to make $4,000 to $5,000 per unit sale rather than a paltry $1,500 for your new "little" car - and no exorbitant "sale" rebates to suck the profit from the sale.
Obama has recruited experts that understand the underlying economics of the industry, but what consumers are told isn't always the "behind the scenes" reason for the feds' nimble moves.
Ed in Texas| 7.21.09 @ 7:44PM
ds80| 7.21.09 @ 12:12PM
Wrote: "Jetta TDI: 21 mpg city, 29 mpg hwy, MSRP $21,990
Yaris: 29 mpg city, 36 mpg hwy, MSRP $12,205"
Until my daughter totaled it, I drove a 1985 Ford Escort Diesel (Standard 5 speed). Driving a little over 100 miles per day (exceeding the 55 MPH limit), I averaged just under 50 MPG (52.5 MPG when observing the "double nickle"). But most Americans wouldn't buy a diesel car if their life depended on it. Today's econoboxes, hybrids and plug-ins still don't turn in that sort of fuel economy or range.
Thom| 7.21.09 @ 7:55PM
Pat, every time gas prices have spiked or a recessions has occurred vehicle sales have dropped significantly. Do you know why? With over 230,000,000 gasoline and diesel vehicles in this country, the average production of new vehicles of all types and their average age (particularly the non-fleet stuff) the idea that large scale rebates (somebody has to pay the tax hike to pay for the rebates) and alike are going to make a large number of people cast off their older but serviceable vehicles for what is typically smaller and less useful in the scheme of things is non sense. California’s efforts are causing people to leave the state in measureable numbers and making cars even more unaffordable there. Home economics (which includes a lot more than just gas cost in a new vehicle) will be the ultimate determinate of what and when people buy something “new” and short of “force” being used by the government telling people that they have to buy something new for the “good of the nation” this scheme hasn’t generally went over too well. The average wage and the average vehicle price, annual operating cost, taxes and insurance on said vehicle have some relationship in the scheme of things and when people advocate something ridiculously off that relationship line most people have a natural tendency to tell you where to stick it by one means or the other. Grand schemes have a tendency to become grand failures because they go against human nature and self interest. I’ll buy my next vehicle when I choose to and it will cost what I choose to pay for it. If the government makes it more expensive to buy a new vehicle that also has a higher operating and replacement cost I’ll just wait and watch more of the auto industry dry up and die. A paid for vehicle is a lot easier on the wallet than a new car payment, property taxes on “green” car costing 25-100% more than it is worth, insurance on said inflated value vehicle, etc.
What’ve outlined is both a receipt for killing the rest of the auto industry in this country and armed revolution. The only question is which one comes first?
Happy with a Jetta TDI| 7.21.09 @ 9:02PM
2005 Jetta TDI: 40 miles per gallon and 80 miles per hour. Love it.
stmichrick| 7.21.09 @ 9:54PM
So the clunkers that are traded in just re-sold?
Where is the enviro-value in that? I think they should be shipped to Al Gore's front yard for disposal.
People who enjoy automobiles ought to keep one of each...drive the miser when prices are up and when they come down, let the good times roll with a more satisfying machine.
Thom| 7.21.09 @ 9:58PM
1989 Honda Accord, 210,000 miles 41 mpg, 31 around town (120 hp blows doors off Jetta TDI). Paid for in 1991....less than $3000.00 repair cost in 20 years. Before that 1977 VW Scirroco (270,000 miles, 3 heads, 2 sets of injectors, lots of alternators, no working AC most of 25 years on the road, lots of oil consumption and paint peeling off, 40 mpg on the road and 31 life time average - 2000 lbs, 78 hp blows doors off Jetta TDI.... 2009 Honda Fit 117 HP 42-45 mpg on the road brand new, blows doors off Jetta TDI $10,000 cheaper. 2004 Honda Accord, 160 hp 2381 miles across I-40 from AZ to VA. 37.44 average mpg. 41 across NM, OK and TX. 32 mpg up 5000 foot grade from PHZ to Flagstaff at 75 mph. Blows doors off Jetta TDI without having to downshift to do it. Larger and cost less than Jetta TDI. So? 40 mpg on the road is nothing. Its when gas hits 5-6 dollars again that even the hybrid owners will start to complain. 60-70 mpg won't be enough if more oil/energy isn't produced in the next few years. We'll all be riding bikes to work.
Earl_E| 7.21.09 @ 10:51PM
It is refreshing to read about gas taxs and free markets. People used to think gas was cheap because they didn't care about the thousands of dead soldiers that held the spigott open.
You can call it a gas tax, I call it a Patriot Tax. You see, if my sons are to die patroling a supertanker channel in the Straits of Hormuz, I will stop using gasoline and walk.
If our soldiers are dying for the black gold, then we should treat it as if it were the blood of Christ.
Exxon never pays for the US Navy riding shotgun, I think in a real free market, the cost of boots on the ground should be added to the price of a gallon of gas.
Oil has never been a free market, it is the ultimate base of the oil socialistic nation.
jerryofva| 7.21.09 @ 10:56PM
Tom:
I don't think you blow the doors off of even my 2005 TDI. It's not a rocketship but its not much more then a second slower off the line then a new four cylinder Honda Accord. At speed in 5th gear I will run you down all the way to my maximum speed of 111 mph.
The 2009 TDI has 140 hp and 236 ft/lbs of torque. 0-60 time 8.4 seconds with DSG and closer to 8 flat with a manual. It blows the doors off any four banger Honda. It has a top speed of 130mph which is 10 mph faster then a four cylinder Accord. The 2009 Accord has a 0-60 speed of 9.1 seconds. Your 117 gasoline hp fit is about the same as my 2009 (10.2 seconds) with its 100hp/175 ft/lbs of torque 1.9 liter engine and if we ever run into each other at 60mph I will be walking away from the crash while they pry you out of your econobox. If I decide to hypermile I can get 60+mpg especially when I can coast in gear. A direct injection diesel uses zero fuel above idle speed if you take your foot of the accelerator. A 2009 TDI holds the record for cross country fuel economy averaging 58 mpg.
You are a typical American driver who is absolutely ignorant about modern diesel technology. I appreciate your rejection of diesel power. It will keep my fuel costs down.
jwhenry| 7.22.09 @ 1:25AM
You can either Lease or buy a new car to use the cash for clunkers program. It has to be new vehicles and not used ones.
henry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
Pingback| 7.22.09 @ 8:27AM
Global Cooling | FortPatriot.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JerseyJ| 7.22.09 @ 11:47AM
Earl ... "You see, if my sons are to die patroling a supertanker channel in the Straits of Hormuz, I will stop using gasoline and walk. "
Not exactly sure the point you're trying to make but it's worth noting that if we were to permit drilling more of our domestic sources, we wouldn't have the problem of protecting shipments from the middle east (not to mention lots of other problems).
Ed Hardy Sunglasses| 7.24.09 @ 1:54AM
i like this
cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 6:57PM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.28.09 @ 10:40PM
lv outlet , commonly referred to as
louis vuitton outlets, or sometimes shortened to
louis vuitton handbag outlet has become one of the most
sale louis vuitton luxury brands.
LV Damier Graphite handbaglook
vuitton salel like
handbags for salegood
purses for salenice
RWT| 8.11.09 @ 12:01PM
The gasoline Jetta gets 21/30 mpg.
The diesel Jetta (TDI) gets 30/41 mpg.
Silly rabbit.
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 11:23AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Graham Watches
Replica Gucci Watches
Replica Guess Watches
Replica Harry Winston Watches
Replica Hermes Watches
Replica Hublot Watches
Replica Hugo Boss Watches
Replica IWC Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Bobby| 9.11.09 @ 7:33AM
And remember, the reason GM and Chrysler were seized was that both of them made as their dominant vehicle of choice trucks. The truck-based model is illegal because Obama demands automakers' majority of lines be minicars and microcars. Cash for Clunkers was a War on SUV's they won by crushing trucks while people began buying the tiny cars.
Ford, while the F-Series sold tops, balanced it out with a gaggle of Mazdas -- the current Focus uses a Mazda engine, and the other two hot-sellers, the Escape crossover (a raised wagon variant of the late-90's Mazda Capella aka 626), and the Fusion Hybrid (brand-engineered Mazda Atenza aka Mazda6). Ford is replacing the current Ford-designed Focus with the smaller European Focus, a brand-engineered Mazda Axela (also called the Mazda3). They took taxpayer cash under the Pelosi Energy Act to build them, and Obama will likely call the jobs producing the plug-in variant of this car a Green Job.
And crossovers are small or compact cars raised to look like an SUV, but don't have the towing capacity (usually a front-wheel drive car) or the durability (does not have a frame) of a real SUV -- mid-size or full-size. They are popular because they look like an SUV but don't have the toughness of one. Rush would call it symbolism over substance.