-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Ford opposes proposed Cali hybrid bill!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sandorski
No Lifer
The Big 3 have been protected from foreign competition for Decades now and they are still losing ground. From "Market Dumping" to SUV classification shenanigans they have been surviving all the while avoiding producing competitive products. Remove the Protections and they'll be forced to compete.
On a somewhat related Trade Protection scheme that is backfiring, the Softwood Lumber Tarriffs(some 26% tarriff last I heard) imposed to keep cheap Canadian Softwood Lumber out of the US has had an unforeseen result. The Canadian Softwood Lumber Industry has grown leaner and meaner not only surviving the extremely high Tarrifs and the dramatic strengthening of the $CDN, but they are once again very fiscally healthy at the time that repeated Trade Panels have ruled that the US Tarrif is likely twice what they should be.
Protectionism doesn't work! Especially when Industry's sole purpose is to maximize Shareholder returns above the need to be Competitive. Remove the need to be competitive, remove the ambition to try and be competitive.
On a somewhat related Trade Protection scheme that is backfiring, the Softwood Lumber Tarriffs(some 26% tarriff last I heard) imposed to keep cheap Canadian Softwood Lumber out of the US has had an unforeseen result. The Canadian Softwood Lumber Industry has grown leaner and meaner not only surviving the extremely high Tarrifs and the dramatic strengthening of the $CDN, but they are once again very fiscally healthy at the time that repeated Trade Panels have ruled that the US Tarrif is likely twice what they should be.
Protectionism doesn't work! Especially when Industry's sole purpose is to maximize Shareholder returns above the need to be Competitive. Remove the need to be competitive, remove the ambition to try and be competitive.
RagingBITCH
Lifer
They DIDN'T license the technology from Toyota. Try being informed on the subject before you make assumptions.
coremortality
Member
Ok, I was wrong regarding the licensing thing. But if their technologies are so similar that they ARE licensing the patents to avoid lawsuits, then Ford (in theory) should be able to match anything Toyota does.
NFS4
No Lifer
They did "technically" license technology from Toyota, but the hybrid systems in each are unique:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-05-13-escape-side_x.htm
While overall I think this is a dumb idea, the dumbest part of it is legislating a single technology (hybrid drivetrain), rather then the effect they want to encourage (reduced emmisions).
If legislation is neccesary, then legislate the metric and let the market decide how to get there.
Kind of like how CA used to (still may?) have some sort of legislation requiring some % of sales to be zero emission vehicles, which basically limits you to electric, because hydrogen and/or fuel cell vehicles still have a tail pipe ... even if it only exhausts water vapor.
If legislation is neccesary, then legislate the metric and let the market decide how to get there.
Kind of like how CA used to (still may?) have some sort of legislation requiring some % of sales to be zero emission vehicles, which basically limits you to electric, because hydrogen and/or fuel cell vehicles still have a tail pipe ... even if it only exhausts water vapor.
coremortality
Member
CPA: It was just an example. As a college student who also works full time and commutes to school and work it hard to afford anything BUT a junker. Anything to encourage better fuel effiency, with lower emissions and also improving traffic i think is welcome.
Vic
Elite Member
I'm with Ford on this. High Occupancy Vehicle lanes are for vehicles with more than 1 occupant.
And hybrid cars are a marketing scam. A hybrid is an IC engine powered vehicle with an electric motor transmission. Nothing more. As was already pointed out, the EPA gas mileage figures for hyrbids are grossly inflated. In reality, they get similar gas mileage as a mechanical transmission vehicle with similar specifications, with a slight advantage in city driving.
And hybrid cars are a marketing scam. A hybrid is an IC engine powered vehicle with an electric motor transmission. Nothing more. As was already pointed out, the EPA gas mileage figures for hyrbids are grossly inflated. In reality, they get similar gas mileage as a mechanical transmission vehicle with similar specifications, with a slight advantage in city driving.
sandorski
No Lifer
They are not being Protectionist, they are encouraging Fuel Efficiency. The fact that Toyota has succeeded shows that it is possible, the fact that no one else has really tried to make a competitive Product is tough sh1t for them.
Social Engineering? Sure, but though this term is relatively new, Social Engineering has been going on ever since 2 cavemen decided not to club each other to death and instead work together to accomplish a common goal. Without it DRivers would mow down Pedestrians, Sewage would run down the street, we'd all be running around Naked in an African jungle assuming we hadn't become extinct by now. The term "Social Engineering" as used in Modern speak is a meaningless phrase designed to evoke fears of Commies, because yelling "Commie!" makes one look ridiculous. 😉
They are being protectionists. They are writing a law targeted largely at the Prius to make it more competitive in the marketplace.
And protectionism has been going on since the first caveman told the second one he can't come in his cave and screw his wife. So why are you b!tching about protectionism and not social engineering?
sandorski
No Lifer
The Market is great for determining Prices, but that's about it. If it was left to the Market the Internal Combustion Engine would last far longer than it should. R&D into alternatives has been going on for a long time now, it's time to start putting Alternatives to use. Also, though California is a major Economy in its' own right(in comparison on a Global scale, something like the 4th largest economy in the world!), it is still just a State with limited ability to affect Regulations and even Technologies. As such, they can't do much more than what they are proposing with this Bill.
Vic
Elite Member
The results of false marketing in action! :roll:
A hybrid is 100% powered by an Internal Combustion Engine. A Toyota Prius is a 100% gasoline-powered vehicle with an electric motor transmission instead of a traditional mechanical transmission. Its fuel economy is comparable to other vehicles with mechanical transmission of similar weight, power, and other specification, the biggest difference being that hybrids are more expensive to manufacture and purchase, and thus are a major "upsell" for manufacturers. In other words, marketing. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
And this is all about prices. Economics is everything. If an alternative can do what an ICE does, but do it cheaper, ICEs will be out faster then you can spit. But you have to add in the total cost. Maybe hydrogen fuel cells will do it better ... but wait, there's no fuel distibution infrastructure for hydrogen ... cha-ching.
Now ICEs are remarkably efficient and reliable ... they've been being perfected for a long time. So the bar is very high for an alternative, especially in the US where fuel prices are such a small part of the TCO for most vehicles. Here's an example:
Honda Civic EX: MSRP $17260, 37/32 MPG
Honda Civic Hybrid: MSRP $19650, 51/46 MPG
(from cars.com)
Driving 15K miles/year with fuel @ $2/gallon, it will take 8.4 years to pay off the price difference for comperably equipped vehicles. That's for city driving. For highway it's about 10.7 years. Of course, you should add in depreciation as well, and I suspect that the hybrid may depreciate faster due to maintenance concerns.
So, right now, the technology is not yet economically viable. Until it gets closer to being economically viable, research investment will be minimal.
So, if we consider it to be a good thing to lower fuel consumption (which = less emissions) then something needs to offset that difference. Legislation may be an answer, but it shouldn't try to pick the winners. Probably the fairest way to do this is fuel taxes. An econobox car isn't feasible for everybody, but moving to an SUV that gets 25MPG instead of 20MPG saves as much gas as an econobox that gets 45mpg instead of 40mpg. But I think gas prices would have to get MUCH higher before we'll see that kind of thinking.
I think I've diverged a bit. Oh well.
Where do they teach you people math nowadays?
1/20 - 1/25 = 0.01 gallon/mile saved
1/40 - 1/45 = 0.0028 gallon/mile saved
It saves more than 3 times as much fuel to improve the mileage from 20 to 25mpg than from 40 to 45.
Maybe we need to measure in gallons per mile, like Honda wants to, because Americans are clueless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
