Smart Car of America Forum banner

21 - 40 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Very true Alan.
But I'm more concerned about the fact that somehow Smart owners are a bit sidelined by not receiving benefit that for example Civic Hybrid or Prius owner would based on Energy Policy Act (Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) -- or for that matter someone who installs solar panels as a source of energy for their home. Even The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has recognized Smart as one of the greenest vehicles. Shouldn't that translate into tax insentives?

Quite to the contrary: 20mpg is great for a 6,000lb vehicle. Face it, Silverado/Tahoe/Escalade buyers are not cross shopping smarts/Yarises/Priuses. There are over 1 million full-sized pick-ups sold each year in the US. Even if a fraction of the largest (in terms of both physical size and market share) vehicles can increase mileage ~40%, that is an enormous step in improving overall fuel consumption.

In comparison, the 25,000 smarts sold here last year had an insignificant impact.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Even The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has recognized Smart as one of the greenest vehicles. Shouldn't that translate into tax insentives?
No, it shouldn't.

Smart sold every car it could send here last year, with waiting lists months deep for most of the year; no incentives were needed, so none should be given.

Besides, as has been pointed out, the reason for incentives on hybrids (and solar, in your example) is to offset the cost of the technology in order to increase volume to the point that it is profitable for manufacturers to develop fuel-efficient hybrids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
I'm not sure if I agree. If incentive was based on marketing scheme, then yes, you have a valid point. The credit however, is based on fuel economy and "green" factor. If that is the case, then I think there appears to be a double standard. I'm certainly not trying to penny and dime the US government, but in interest of fairness it would be nice to have a discussion from that perspective.

No, it shouldn't.

Smart sold every car it could send here last year, with waiting lists months deep for most of the year; no incentives were needed, so none should be given.

Besides, as has been pointed out, the reason for incentives on hybrids (and solar, in your example) is to offset the cost of the technology in order to increase volume to the point that it is profitable for manufacturers to develop fuel-efficient hybrids.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Did you read the Wikipedia information you provided the link to? The objective is clearly to promote alternative energy and alternative fuels, not specifically "fuel economy and 'green' factor". If it was about fuel economy, there are hundreds of cars that get over the 20mpg obtained by the full-sized hybrid SUVs. And the smart is not particularly 'green'.

And again, the bottom line is that every smart possible was sold at MSRP with waiting lists months long. A tax credit or rebate would therefore be a reward, not an incentive, and that's not why the Energy Policy Act was established.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #25
Did you read the Wikipedia information you provided the link to?
Indeed I have..

The objective is clearly to promote alternative energy and alternative fuels, not specifically "fuel economy and 'green' factor".
It is in fact appears to be the underlying factor. Not the final price tag as you had seemed to suggest in your prior post. I do agree, however, that alternative energy products do tend to be more costly.

And the smart is not particularly 'green'.
From the production line to the actual product on the street it is one of the leaders in "green" technology

And again, the bottom line is that every smart possible was sold at MSRP with waiting lists months long. A tax credit or rebate would therefore be a reward, not an incentive, and that's not why the Energy Policy Act was established.
Just as an aside note, there are other vehicles that have waiting lists as well as qualify for the benefit.

Thanks for your input Alan.
-Tatyana.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Well, the word 'conservation' is used twice. If you interpret that as a factual determination of the underlying intent of the act, I can't argue with you.

When the term 'green' is used to describe cars, typically it is in reference to emissions. The smart is an ULEV, which most modern cars are. It cannot compete with SULEVs or PZEVs in this regard.

As far as waiting lists for qualifying cars, that's great. The more sold, the lower the cost, and the advancement of battery technology is furthered. Like booked solar installers in this area, many of those sales are a result of the incentives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #27 (Edited)
Well, the word 'conservation' is used twice. If you interpret that as a factual determination of the underlying intent of the act, I can't argue with you.
Alan:
I don't mean to correct you, but if it's wikipedia article you're referring to, the word "conservation" was actually used three times, not twice. And to answer your question further, my interpretation was not based on a single word nor online encyclopedia's article (it was merely a reference). You've made your point abundantly clear. Thank you again.

EDIT:
forgot to include reference link for current top 10 green cars as rated by KBB (no doubt a reliable source) http://www.kbb.com/kbb/green-cars/articles.aspx?BlogPostId=646&r=481763713466896400
You will see that Smart is listed as #3.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Again, did you read the KBB link you provided? The smart was awarded the spot on their 'green' list due to its fuel economy. I stated in the last post that the smart is not particularly 'green' from an emissions standpoint.

I may have missed one of the 'conservation' guidelines that was in reference to improvements in the home. But then that isn't the topic of this thread or discussion, is it?

You've made your point clear as well: You feel entitled to a government handout for simply buying a fuel efficient vehicle even though that $25 million (25,000 X $1,000) government expenditure for one model year would do nothing to advance energy efficient technology.

So where would you draw the line? Certainly Yaris, Fit, and MINI buyers would then expect some free cheese as well...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Again, did you read the KBB link you provided?
Indeed I did read it.

The smart was awarded the spot on their 'green' list due to its fuel economy.
Precisely the factor at the heart of the issue here.

I stated in the last post that the smart is not particularly 'green' from an emissions standpoint.
Arguable point at best. If you have to prove to the smart owner that the car is green enough then I seriously have better things to do with my time.

I may have missed one of the 'conservation' guidelines that was in reference to improvements in the home. But then that isn't the topic of this thread or discussion, is it?
LOL

You've made your point clear as well: You feel entitled to a government handout for simply buying a fuel efficient vehicle even though that $25 million (25,000 X $1,000) government expenditure for one model year would do nothing to advance energy efficient technology.
First and foremost it is not a handout, but a reward for consumer making an environmentally conscious choice. My claim is not that unfounded. Just about every country where smart brand is marketed has recognized its “urban” and “eco” benefit. Drivers in Canada get tax credit, drivers in Germany get tax credit, drivers in Italy get tax credit, and the list goes on.

Secondly, this is precisely the kind of logic that affords retardation in “green” technology development and further rewards companies such as Ford and GM for their lack of foresight into marketing and developing environmentally friendly products. And if that’s not adding insult to injury, we the taxpayers are actually funding their bailout. More people should get their heads out of the sand and yes, ask more questions as such. If anything, perhaps it would assist in promoting more responsibility.

So where would you draw the line? Certainly Yaris, Fit, and MINI buyers would then expect some free cheese as well...
The line is pretty clear in my opinion. It is loopholes that need to be further looked at.
Smart fortwo was certified by EPA as Tier II bin 5 standard. You, living in California my friend, also probably are aware that Smart was classified as a ULEV by the CARB (California Air Resources Board).

In closing, to me personally it is benefit enough to own a car. It has so many positive impacts, and I’m a devout supporter of the brand. I’m absolutely certain and plan on having my next commute vehicle to be Smart electric drive.


Thanks again everyone for the info. My apologies for the "difference of opinion" rants here.
-Tatyana.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Until GM sells hybrids at Toyota volumes, it will lose money on every full-sized hybrid truck.
Heard a GM official interviewed yesterday from the Auto Show in Detroit. He was asked about the Volt and said it would be very expensive and GM would have to price it to sell and lose money on every car.

Tell me again why we are giving them billions of dollars? Take away their shovel and make them stop digging that hole they're in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Toyota sold every Prius at a loss for over four years; something like 100,000 vehicles.

We're giving the Big 3 billions of dollars because they did not invest in technology sooner.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
First and foremost it is not a handout, but a reward for consumer making an environmentally conscious choice.

Handout/reward...it's semantics. The incentive is to promote technology, not reward environmental consciousness.

Secondly, this is precisely the kind of logic that affords retardation in “green” technology development...
There is no 'green' technology in the smart.

Smart fortwo was certified by EPA as Tier II bin 5 standard. You, living in California my friend, also probably are aware that Smart was classified as a ULEV by the CARB (California Air Resources Board).
Yes, I stated that earlier in the thread. I also pointed out that a ULEV is not particularly 'green'; most modern cars fall into this category. Here's the list:

http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/fleetrules/1191/2008_PC.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
[/font][/color]
There is no 'green' technology in the smart.
A gallon of gas burned by a hybrid or smart or a hummer is a gallon of gas GONE. Question is how engine controls the amount of fuel they burn. For example, I’d like to cherry pick the treehugger’s least favorite: CO2, shall we on 2008 models? (That’s the stuff that many believe causes global warming.)
Prius Co2 emissions are
104g/km
Smart (8% increase over Prius)
113g/km
Yaris
141g/km (36% increase over Prius or 25% increase over Smart)
Well, vs. Hummer H3
327g/km

Nirogen oxides (NOx) – acid rain stuff is where air pollution rating of smart falls a bit short. But still a bit of a rush to judgment stating that smart is not green.

One could list countless things, such as recyclable plastic that body panels of smart are made out of, and that’s just a tip of the iceberg.

Or could take an opposite stand stating that crude material mining for hybrid NiMH batteries (which by the way China has pretty much monopoly on), environmental impact of production of which is still under question due to their recent appearance on the market (in other words, that jury is still out even with the recycling factor).

Toyota has yet to publicly admit that they are indeed operating at a loss.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Question is how engine controls the amount of fuel they burn.
Note that the smart shares the same ULEV categorization as some of the same cars that were subject to the government's gas-guzzler tax in 2008:

http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/fleetrules/1191/2008_PC.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/guzzler/420b07018.pdf

The high fuel economy of the smart is due to its diminutive size. It is not a clean burning engine when compared to the SULEVs and PZEVs (also listed in the link above) available, most of which weigh over twice as much and produce many times more power.

Again, no 'green' technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
192 Posts
Toyota sold every Prius at a loss for over four years; something like 100,000 vehicles.

We're giving the Big 3 billions of dollars because they did not invest in technology sooner.
Why would they, gas was a dollar a gallon, and they were making big bucks on Trucks. Remember (to everyone not just Alan) the Japanese gov't help fund Honda and Toyota with Hybrids. And who says 20mpg in a full size truck/suv is bad, 35mpg in a 3cyl. minicar is bad.

And to stay on topic, no the smart should not be eligible for the credit. I agree, no "green" tech.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Why would they, gas was a dollar a gallon, and they were making big bucks on Trucks.
Getting off topic, but they should have been developing efficient technology and lobbying for incentives on them when gas was cheap to better position themselves for inevitable crude oil spikes, rather than lobbying for reduced safety, emissions, and economy requirements on trucks to maximize revenue in the short term. The Big 3 were not making big bucks on trucks; they were barely staying afloat selling trucks while market share was steadily declining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,891 Posts
The Big 3 were not making big bucks on trucks; they were barely staying afloat selling trucks while market share was steadily declining.
THe big 3 were making BIG profits on the trucks and SUV's compaired to their Gas sipping cars. This is why they invested so much more into them than Gas sipping cars. Even MB was losing money on the Gas sipping Smart, but they stuck it out until it made a profit and now they are the big winners and the factory is most likey paid off.

Same with Toyota, they stuck it out Investing in the future with the Prius and now everyone is trying to catch up at a time where they can't afford to make any mistakes or they WILL go under.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
THe big 3 were making BIG profits on the trucks and SUV's compaired to their Gas sipping cars...
Don't confuse revenue with profit. The Big 3's revenue came from trucks, but they have not been profitable. Both GM and Ford have been on the brink of bankruptcy for years, with stock prices for both in steady decline for over a decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,891 Posts
Don't confuse revenue with profit. The Big 3's revenue came from trucks, but they have not been profitable. Both GM and Ford have been on the brink of bankruptcy for years, with stock prices for both in steady decline for over a decade.
So what you are saying is their has been nothing about their buisness plan for the past decade that was profitable. How do they plan on staying in buisness, and why did we give them any money?

On second thought never mind, THis is way off topic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
So, there are total of 5 vehicles out of 100+ (I did include Ford Mustang while the actual model was not specified) that are in ULEV category. Now, here's what's funny to me, luv... one of the SULEV model rated by the chart you've reference (which I trust you DID read) is 2008 Ford Taurus X AWD. Let's recap the general parameters of that one, shall we?
MPG (city) 15
MPG (highway) 22
MPG (combined) 18
That only goes to prove my point further, that unless you're educated on ins and outs of how these general ratings are obtained, using them to argue who's green who is not is perhaps is not the best strategy.

Note that the smart shares the same ULEV categorization as some of the same cars that were subject to the government's gas-guzzler tax in 2008:

http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/fleetrules/1191/2008_PC.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oms/cert/mpg/guzzler/420b07018.pdf

The high fuel economy of the smart is due to its diminutive size. It is not a clean burning engine when compared to the SULEVs and PZEVs (also listed in the link above) available, most of which weigh over twice as much and produce many times more power.

Again, no 'green' technology.
 
21 - 40 of 80 Posts
Top