Waste of time and effort?

[pekwah1]

Well no it can't do because it still retains a combustion engine and therefore needs servicing regularly.
All i was saying is that in terms of the hybrid electric part of the car, it should be perfectly reliable and should never need servicing during the car's life (apart from linkages between the petrol and electric engine maybe)

[defrece]

right! i get you!
but surely the dealers need to train at least one mechanic in how to fix/service the electirc side of the hybrid?! (in case anything breaks or needs replacing under warranty!) does anyone know if this is subsidised by the government? i cant see how it makes economic sense for a manufactorer to produce just 1 model with the hybrid drive-train?

[pekwah1]

Yes they must be trained for faults and maintenance, but barring something going drastically wrong, the electric side should far outlive the car itself.

In terms of cost, yes it has cost Honda a lot in terms of R&D and production. The benefits they get probably outweigh this.

The first and most important is advertising and their reputation. As one of only 3 major hybrid producers in this country (Honda, Toyota, Lexus) they offer a unique product that not many others do.
The second is the government. Yes the government heavily subsidise the hybrid technology. If they didn't, you would expect to pay somewhere around £29,000 for your hybrid civic!

[illegalhunter]

The whole global warming , is all about global carbon tax. The sun has been in a warm cycle for the last 140 years. Go to google and read the other side of the story. All Gore is a washed up vice president. In 70s the big thing was global cooling, in the UN documents..

[civicfan]

Originally Posted by illegalhunter

The whole global warming , is all about global carbon tax. The sun has been in a warm cycle for the last 140 years. Go to google and read the other side of the story. All Gore is a washed up vice president. In 70s the big thing was global cooling, in the UN documents..

Yes and the same reasons were cited by "scientists" as today for the right opposite!

[defrece]

there's a good novel called "state of fear" by Michael Crichton, that talks about it! i would be interested to know how close to the truth it actually is!!

[LNT]

The Bugatti Veyron costs almost a million quid, however, selling them at that price is at a loss because of the R&D that goes into it. Just puts things into perspective.

[defrece]

Originally Posted by LNT

The Bugatti Veyron costs almost a million quid, however, selling them at that price is at a loss because of the R&D that goes into it. Just puts things into perspective.

yep saw somewhere that each one costs about £5million to produce

[FWH]

Hybrid to Veyron in 47 posts.

[pekwah1]

Lol! Yeh the bugatti is making a loss, but it was built for very different reasons, it was just to prove that you could make a car of such extreme proportions!

Honda aren't making a loss on the Hybrids because the subsidised money is obviously going to them along with the purchase price.

[gray52]

is the government spending all this new ved banding money on mother earth.....NO! its just aload of spin to pay for the billions that is wasted by them because its us tax payers footing the bill. how long will it be before band a goes from £0 to having to pay. if every motorist changed to a £0 tax car in the next 3 years the tax would be up to £100+ in the next budget.

if the money for global warming was spent on preventing it then fine, bit like road tax, pay your tax and in return we will give you poorly maintained roads as we spend the money on other things. we should have the best road network in the world and very few gridlocked roads whatever time of the day.

[LNT]

Originally Posted by gray52

is the government spending all this new ved banding money on mother earth.....NO! its just aload of spin to pay for the billions that is wasted by them because its us tax payers footing the bill. how long will it be before band a goes from £0 to having to pay. if every motorist changed to a £0 tax car in the next 3 years the tax would be up to £100+ in the next budget.

if the money for global warming was spent on preventing it then fine, bit like road tax, pay your tax and in return we will give you poorly maintained roads as we spend the money on other things. we should have the best road network in the world and very few gridlocked roads whatever time of the day.

You miss the point. There is no chance of that happening, so whilst the economy grows, and people get richer and buy bigger and more expensive cars, so the tax is increased to allow for it, whilst actually making it better for those lower down the motoring scale, with the odd 1/4 percent proabaly looking at the green issue. The biggest contradiction is the Lexus Hybrid drive. The lowest emission figure for them across the range is 185 which still puts it in band E or F, even as an alternative fuel. It's possible that they've seen the alternative fuel VED Band and thought it might fit into it, but no. Either a mammoth mistake or just a token gesture.

[Courant]

Originally Posted by gray52

is the government spending all this new ved banding money on mother earth.....NO! its just aload of spin to pay for the billions that is wasted by them because its us tax payers footing the bill. how long will it be before band a goes from £0 to having to pay. if every motorist changed to a £0 tax car in the next 3 years the tax would be up to £100+ in the next budget.

if the money for global warming was spent on preventing it then fine, bit like road tax, pay your tax and in return we will give you poorly maintained roads as we spend the money on other things. we should have the best road network in the world and very few gridlocked roads whatever time of the day.

This also misses the point in another way. Money raised in green taxes *is* preventing global warming, full stop, because it's influencing peoples choices and behaviour.

There is a mistaken belief that: green taxes increase the tax burden; green taxes are associated with tax-and-spend left-wing policies; green taxes should be hypothecated. All of these are wrong (but, unfortunately, the current government is using green taxes at the minute to raise the tax burden. This is government's choice - and stealth! - but it is not a necessary consequence).

Consideration of the overally tax bill should take place independently of how those taxes are raised. If you then raise money through green taxes, then they should be used to reduce other taxes, e.g. income tax. I'd much rather polluting cars were taxed to hell (as a Civic owner!) if it were to lead, as it should, to lower personal taxes.

Green tax money should not be used to "save the environment" because that implies that spending can help (which it can, but not always), and that governments spend money wisely and efficiently, which they absolutely do not! Raise the green tax, use that mechanism to change behaviour and reduce taxes in other ways.

Similarly, green taxes are not part of a global conspiracy, they're a intelligent (and predominantly economically liberal, not left-wing) way of tackling a *real* problem. Real being determined by scientists, the owerwhelming majority of whom believe global warming is caused by human behaviour and atmospheric emissions.

Courant

[jazzman]

Originally Posted by LNT

You miss the point. There is no chance of that happening, so whilst the economy grows, and people get richer and buy bigger and more expensive cars, so the tax is increased to allow for it, whilst actually making it better for those lower down the motoring scale, with the odd 1/4 percent proabaly looking at the green issue. The biggest contradiction is the Lexus Hybrid drive. The lowest emission figure for them across the range is 185 which still puts it in band E or F, even as an alternative fuel. It's possible that they've seen the alternative fuel VED Band and thought it might fit into it, but no. Either a mammoth mistake or just a token gesture.

The point is simply that this so called government are merely using the green issue to raise taxes even higher, after all if diesel is greener why does it cost so much more than petrol in this country.

The Lexus is no mammoth mistake as I am sure that you will soon be seeing government ministers riding around in them after all it`s a GREEN car is`nt it and guess who is paying for it.

[gray52]

thats right jazzman, a diesel does more miles to the gallon so less carbon, but the fuel is dear to buy, and the road tax used to be £5 dearer than a petrol with the same emissons. drive a lexus in london and save £8 a day, just because it has an electric motor, but if the battery is flat then run that big polluting engine, nice!!!

[alanwalne]

Originally Posted by gray52

thats right jazzman, a diesel does more miles to the gallon so less carbon, but the fuel is dear to buy, and the road tax used to be £5 dearer than a petrol with the same emissons. drive a lexus in london and save £8 a day, just because it has an electric motor, but if the battery is flat then run that big polluting engine, nice!!!

IMO in a urban environment is where Hybrid technology works. Electric is far more efficient in stop start then combustion. Even if the engine does start to charge the batteries it does it efficiently and the regenerative brakes increase that.
From Oct the London Con Charge (no I have not shortened the word congestion) is purely based on emissions, so Lexus owners will have to pay, they must be gutted. But on the plus side, if they were standard petrols, they would be paying £25 a day.

Civic Hybrid, Prius (although not Prius mk1) and Toyota Aygo owners (the other half's car) can cross our beautiful capital city for free!!

[Courant]

Originally Posted by jazzman

The point is simply that this so called government are merely using the green issue to raise taxes even higher, after all if diesel is greener why does it cost so much more than petrol in this country.

Diesel itself is not greener. Per litre, it produces more pollutants - diesel engines too, produce particulates (nasty if you have asthma) and more NOX, which is also a greenhouse gas.

Thus it should be taxed more per litre - you should tax the fuel, not the technology otherwise you bias future development.

The fact that this government is way overtaxing and overspending should not bias people against green taxes. Both the other two main parties have green taxes at the heart of policies that reduce the overall tax burden.

Courant