<p>When we buy vehicles, we keep them until they die. My car has 95,000 miles and the work truck is up to 130K. We will definitely buy a low, low mileage vehicle next, but not until one of these don’t run. Luckily by then, the lower mileage standards would have kicked in and we will have more and better choices.</p>
<p>Actually, momfromme, I predict that a lot of costs will go up. Increased usage in the auto industry will drive up costs of key materials like lithium and aluminum, and even the thousands of miles of copper wire used in the motor armatures. Adding features to cars has driven up the absolute cost of vehicles for the last 35 years. I believe that adding a second powertrain to a vehicle will mean that the cost will never again approach today’s costs. It’s just not possible. </p>
<p>You’re probably right that costs of some of the technology components, like the hybrid controller, will come down, but I believe the jury is still out on the price pressures for the basic commodities.</p>
<p>There is a great “MPG by Geographical Area” graph on this Website (it’s from the IEEE): [IEEE</a> Spectrum: Stricter U.S. Gas Standards Stalled](<a href=“http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4376]IEEE”>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4376). It’s a few pages down.</p>
<p>The US has the 102nd highest gas prices in the world: [NationMaster</a> - Gasoline prices (most recent) by country](<a href=“Countries Compared by Energy > Gasoline prices. International Statistics at NationMaster.com”>Countries Compared by Energy > Gasoline prices. International Statistics at NationMaster.com). Most countries with lower gas prices are either desperately poor or produce a lot of oil.</p>
<p>The worst fleet fuel economy in the world is in the region reported that has the lowest fuel taxes. Funny, isn’t it? Congress is gutless on this issue. So is the President.</p>
<p>We always buy the basic car, no fancy features, so that keeps our costs down. Market pressures will limit increases in price. And limiting our appetite for foreign oil is well worth some increased cost for a new car, particularly since I buy new cars very, very infrequently. </p>
<p>I’m sure the bill is not perfect and I know deals were made to prevent a veto, but I don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is an improvement from what we have.</p>
<p>You can call Congress and the President gutless if you want but it’s based on knowing what the people want and how they will vote – also known as democracy.</p>
<p>I think the Prius is a great car. In satisfaction rankings, it is number 1. (I actually own the number 1 and number 2 car :)). OK, my wife owns the Prius. 
She loves it.</p>
<p>The technology changes in the next 13 years are going to take care of the naysayers. We are going to have battery run cars and plug-in hybrids. We may even have fuel cell cars. Honda already has one.</p>
<p>35 MPG is a piece of cake.</p>
<p>Ethanol run cars are a joke.</p>
<p>Congress failed in duty. They should not have passed this to increased gas mileage. Free markets should dictate mileage. So what if the inefficient fail, they deserve it.</p>
<p>Most Americans disagree with you. They have a different view of the proper role of government. Congress, in this case, reflected the people’s views and thus represented them. Is that not their duty (especially as most members of Congress also support higher mileage standards)?</p>
<p>It sounds like now’s the time to buy a performance vehicle before they’re legislated away for all but the super-rich.</p>
<p>
I agree - let the market dictate it.</p>
<p>“It did not take long to see that hackneyed argument about the cost of added taxes. People do indeed have to drive, but the cost of fuel is hardly the biggest cost of owning a car. Also, people do not have to have a couple of cars per family, which seems to be the rule of thumb, even in the trailer parks.”</p>
<p>I’m glad you agreed with me. By taxing new cars progressively according to their gas mileage (but all of them get taxed), there will be fewer new cars sold (and less energy expended in producing them), fewer cars period, and gas-guzzlers will pay for their habits. Doesn’t send like a leftist argument to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The list price for a 2008 Toyota Camry LE V6 Sedan is $23,640.00.</p>
<p>The list price for a 2008 Toyota Camry Hybrid 4-Door Sedan is $25,200.00.</p>
<p>Thus, it costs $1,560 more for the hybrid. It’s more than $1,000 but not hyrsterically wrong. </p>
<p>Mileage for the regular Camry is 19 in city and 28 on the highway.</p>
<p>Mileage for the hybrid is 33 in the city and 34 on the highway.</p>
<p>If you drive 15000 miles per year, half highway and half city, then you will spend $1,915 for gas in the regular Camry if gas is at $3 per gallon. If you drive the hybrid, you will pay $1,343 for gas. That is a savings of $572 per year in gas. </p>
<p>If you keep your car for two years, you lose money on the hybrid. If you keep your car for seven years, you save about $2,500 over the life of the car.</p>
<p>The savings are even better as the price of gas rises which is more likely than not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technologies are indeed feasible, but why would customers have to pay a penalty for endorsing it BEFORE the prices fall. What would be the impact of a 10 cents added tax on the entire fleet if every penny collected is then used to offer a rebate on cars that are efficient? For instance, could such rebate allow Ford to sell its Escape Hybrid at the same exact cost than its regular model, or ven better at a $2,000 discount. Mr. Lutz seems to claim that the cost of building a more efficient car would be high. So, why not tax all the non-efficient automobiles and put more efficient models on the road. If you do not like the extra cost, simply order one of the new ones that come withe rebate? </p>
<p>The long and the short is that the changes to newer technologies should BENEFIT the early endorsers, and not punish them. The correct market incentives DO work. Merely hoping for higher production to magically reduce costs is not enough. Take a look at the wind energy industry.</p>
<h1>28. Not against high mileage or energy efficient products, I just object to the subsidies that we give to the few who don’t necessarily need it or need the tax incentive or tax exclusion to make it happen:</h1>
<p>The domestic automakers can build better autos, the oil companies can find more oil, the electric companies can deliver more electricity, everyone can use compact florescent lights, we can use 1.6 liter toilets, we can turn down the thermostats in the winter and up in the summer… just that no one wants to spend their own money. </p>
<p>We can say the same about health care. We can loose weight, we can eat fruits and vegetable, we can walk instead of taking the auto, we can drink water instead of sugar drinks or coffee, we can get vaccinations, … we can but won’t because its easier to pay in insurance and taxes. </p>
<p>W is an idiot because he espoused these things but too stupid to say no to his handlers.- If he had any sense, he should listen to his wife.</p>
<p>BTW: Buy a washlet bidget and save in TP. If figure a family of 3 can recapture the cost in 3 years and save a bunch trees. Your rear will thankyou too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but the basic 4-cylinder Camry – the traditional gasoline-engine model with performance equivalent to the hybrid – is 19,620. You’re cherry picking by comparing the most expensive 4-door Camry to the hybrid. If you want to pile on, why not choose the Camry Solara SLE Convertible at $30,460? Then you could demonstrate that the purchase price of a hybrid is actually $5,000 cheaper!</p>
<p>thisoldman, you are the biggest anti-supporter of TP!</p>
<p>So, Mini, DS was told by one of his Indian classmates to get some Rupee- I said, to make US$ -> INR exchange in India, its too difficult to get Rupees in US. What do you do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You make a good point. Based on the cars you selected, it would not make sense to go hybrid based on the 2008 model. I didn’t intend to cherry pick. I am sure there are people are out there, but I really don’t know anyone who has ever bought the 4 cylinder version of the Camry. I doubt you will find many stocked at your local dealer, although it is possible. </p>
<p>Most cars are overpowered today. The six cylinder Camery is definately over powered for all but race car drivers. Cars today have more horsepower than one really needs to have adequate acceleration. Using your example, the CAFE rise will have minimal effect on people becuase dealers will simply switch from selling six cylinder vehicles to four cylinder vehicles. This is a small price to pay for helping eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.</p>
<p>“helping eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.”</p>
<p>No way will any minor change eliminate our dependence. Maybe a slight decrease, temporarily.</p>