Delta,

There are a few points I'd like to prove you wrong on here, mainly it's about generalization, but I'll try to do it in a friendly way

Point #1 In 1980, my Dad was woking in the construction trade, more importantly, he owned 3 construction firms, and was Production Manager for Huber Heights (Ohio). During this time, my mother always had a new car, but my dad used his 1978 F-250 4X4. Dad had a position that demanded respect, and in that trade, respect was given to those that owned/drove pick-ups as daily drivers. Business deals were made because of that truck. (quite often, it was the only vehilce that could access the property to discuss building upon). Flash forward to 2005/2006. We experienced, as a nation, one of the single most largest building booms in history. New house build increased all across the nation (we'll get into the reason at a later time) and the construction trade was teeming with qualified skilled and unskilled labor. But, again, the truck became a necessary evil. Not only for driving the people to work, but also to haul the persons tools. 4 door trucks became VERY popular for thier ability to be used for work and family. The truck has become, once again, an all around vehicle that has adapted to consumer needs. Trucks have all of the creature comforts as most luxery cars, are extremely comfortable, and have the ability to haul people and acargo into areas of this nation you couldn't get to elsewhere. Think of the lieves they saved during Katrina? During any other natural/manmade disaster in the past 70 years?


Point #2 The average median income for the American populace was
$45,817 to $46,326. After taxes come out, that would mean that the average household has roughly $36,000 spendable. Average state sales tax in the our nation is sitting at 6.5%. That brings spendable income down to $33,000. Taking into the equation that almost all households have to make house payments (see info in Point #1), the cost of electricity, gas, property taxes brings that figure even lower to the neighborhood of $15,000. We haven't had the chance to tap on food prices, but just imagine the cost!

The price of the average hybrid is in the neighborhood of $25,000-$35,000 each. Add into that the price of financing and more taxes, then it shows that the average family cannot own a second fuel effecient automobile. Most families purchase automobiles every 5 years, the cycle of auto financing. At the end of 5 years, the average automobile is no longer as efficient as it was the day it rolled off the assembly line floor.

The price of the Hybrids must come down, technology must improve, and the Hybrids must exhibit the same qualities in power, torque, and creature comforts (roominess) as their gas counterparts before the general public will purchase them in larger quantities.

**Information on average median household income came from Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 which was published in August 2006.


One hitch in receiving the tax credit is that the Energy Policy Act limits the number of vehicles from an automaker that can receive the credit. Once a manufacturer sells 60,000 vehicles, the credit gradually decreases over a period of 15 months until it is phased out entirely. While the act keeps the tax credit in effect until 2010, some automakers could conceivably sell their maximum number of qualifying vehicles much sooner. Toyota, for example, which sold about 130,000 Priuses in 2006, will likely reach the 60,000-vehicle maximum in the middle of 2007.


PMagnavox

 

Wow...

According to you:

Point 1 - The nation owes a great debt to the truck phenomenon in North America. The other 4 Billion people around the world do not build good housing because somehow they do not exhibit the same wasteful comsumerism as we do along with the appreciation these vehicles deserve.

Are you sure we need trucks to have the same creature conforts as cars? Most farmers and building contractors around my parts often complain that since automakers started adding extreme creature conforts to appeal to the urban driver, the base prices on these types of vehicles have risen to the point that they can no longer afford them as well, and when they do, they worry that they no longer can get into the vehicle with their dirty clothes as they once did without "damaging" it.

Also, "some" would take issue with your view that somehow trucks played an indispensable and significant role in post Katrina events (If I recall, the helicoper did). How? Well, let me explain: Are you sure that the insatiable and wasteful appetite for trucks was not an exarcebating contributor to the event? Even in the slightest of ways?

Point #2 - ...

... wait a minute... I SHOULD know better!

I'm likely feeding a tr*ll.

 

Earthling makes a good point:

Back when I was a roofer, you could buy a plain-old WORK TRUCK. It didn't has an all-leather interior. It didn't have a 6-speed automatic or a 6-CD changer. It didn't have power windows, power mirrors, or a power robot hand to wipe your rear-end for you.

The WORK TRUCKS of olde usually had a v6, not a mutant/gigantic v8 or v10. It had cloth or vinyl seats. It had a sturdy 5-speed manual transmission. It lasted for close to 200k miles. You could get a WORK TRUCK for under $20k. And their gas mileage wasn't terrible.

That's my gripe: I'd like to own a truck, but I don't want a bloated monstrosity. It would be nice to have the ability to buy an i4 or v6 utility truck for moving a couch or hauling supplies from Home Depot.

A truck the size of a Chevy S10 or a 1990s-era Ford Ranger, equipped with FAS, would pretty much be the perfect homeowner/utility truck. You'd have the ability to haul things, have acceptable gas mileage, and be able to run power tools -- in a sub-$25k package.

And I am pretty sure your average Harry Homeowner could do just fine with a truck the size (and price) of a Chevy S10.

 

I agree, as well. However (devil's advocate, again), consider how many "luxury" options that have become so common place in modern cars. For instance, try to find a bare bones utility car (like a Honda Civic) which does not come equipped with power windows, power door locks, power mirrors, etc. In the 1980's, none of these options were even available on a Civic. It stands to reason that the same effect is seen in all vehicles.

PS: Leather interiors weather heavy duty and abuse better than any other material.

 

You're right about that,wrt cars. The 2006-2007 HCH got jacked up be $2,600 because they added a bunch of things to the car. For cryin' out loud! I'm not so lazy that I can't roll up my own windows and lock my own doors! You could get a hybrid for under $20k if it didn't come preloaded with all that junk! The car would then weigh less and get better gas mileage too.

 

There was some talk a few pages ago about a gas guzzler tax, so I thought I'd mention the one already existing in Ontario:

Cars getting 6-9 L/100 km [26 - 39.2 MPG] and SUVs at 8-9 L/100 km [26 - 29 MPG] pay a $75 tax at purchase. The tax increases with increasingly poor fuel economy, capping out at $7000 for cars that use more than 18 L/100 km [<13 MPG] ($3200 for SUVs at the same top consumption). Cars that can achieve better than 6 L/100 km [>39.2 MPG] get up to $100 deducted from the purchase. (There's a seperate rebate for hybrid/alternative fuel vehicles that's in addition to this small incentive).

It doesn't apply to trucks, vans, motorcycles, or ATVs. [full chart @ http://www.trd.fin.gov.on.ca/userfil...3/Rsie_513.htm ]

In practice, it doesn't seem to have a huge impact on consumer behaviour: many people consider it just part of the cost of owning a vehicle that uses more gas (whether it's because the vehicle is cheaper overall than a comparable more efficient one, or is more powerful/luxurious, etc.), or they only see the tax just before closing the deal, and consider it just another tax/charge associated with closing, as it's a small line item right underneath frieght & PDI. (Though it may be the deciding factor for a number of edge cases).

Also, the Ontario market is too small for the manufacturers to try to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of any model to try to come in below any given threshold...

Anyhow, hope that helps.

 

Rita hit Houston right after Katrina and some guy at www.gassavers.com was boasting about how high his Tahoe above the flooded roads. I also recall a lot of vehicles out of gas on I45 evacating Houston, needing the National Guard to bring gas. I also think about congestion - on a mile of I45, how many Suburbans can fit vs Priuses?

A lot of people are familiar with me (including newbies "researching hybrids" ) They know I'm fine with trucks put to work as haulers and commercial work - it's tens of millions that are using trucks in place of sedans that's the problem. I may be wrong on somethings, but the trend over the past couple of decades of cars being traded in for pickups and SUVs is not one of them.

According to pmagnavox, early adopters must be a bad thing for things like computers, TV, cell phones, internet connections, etc. because of all their limitations when they were introduced. All those things got better as market share increased.

Might want to check into how many one vehicle households are around today - it's less than there use to be. It's a pretty common sight to see vehicles in the 25K-35K price range. Most of those have options that use more gas - not save it. Then there is the option of simply getting a more fuel efficient vehicle - the average US vehicle gets 22mpg.

It seems strange for someone to join saying they are about to buy a hybrid, then find all kinds of reservations with hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles. Over the past week, there has been an unusual amout of them, and they sound similar.

 

Toyota does make a I4 Tacoma but it's pretty rare, I got mine for $18K, so the vehicle you want is available. 28+mpg so far.

The V6 Tacoma will put you in Monster Truck status though.

 

I see that attitude as a major problem with people's choice of vehicles.

We had three children, and got by just fine with a Taurus station wagon that got 31 miles per gallon highway.

There is no reason on earth that a family with three children can't get by just fine with a fuel-efficient car, i.e. a station wagon.

The real problem is that people give fuel economy such a low priority that they don't even bother putting forth the effort to find a vehicle that meets their needs and provides good fuel economy. Those vehicles are out there, you just have to put in the effort to discover them!

Harry

 

This has been most amusing! However, just because someone challenges your opinion, or offers an opinion of their own, does not warrant a personal attack or accusations of "baiting" or "trolling" (which I assume is wiggling the bait?). Can't we all just play nice?

The phenomena you are experiencing is called engagement. In a debate, it is necessary to engage your opponent, to solicit an intellectual and emotional commitment to the discussion. Ideally, it is conducted in a friendly, non-abusive manner.

Shannon said it so eloquently a few pages ago:
Now, we could all open self-righteous threads, patting each other on the backs and claiming the rest of the world is crazy, thereby "preaching to the choir." That might be useful for a session of baking cookies, but it's not exactly what you would call debating an issue.

"occ" and I opened a thread in the General Forum called "In a World Without Fossil Fuels." Come on by, & we'll show you how it's done.