Green Cars that are illegal to buy in most states

[The_Animus]

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974

There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Only there can you buy this Accord, or the roughly two dozen other models that meet so-called Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, PZEV for short.


Related Link: 2008 Honda Accord Preview (http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024971)

(http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024971)
Not only can't you buy one, but the government says it's currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off—anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500. Volvo (http://autos.msn.com/browse/Volvo.aspx) sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2007&make=Volvo&model=S40) and V50 (http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/overview.aspx?year=2007&make=Volvo&model=V50) models were only for the special states.


Go capitalism!

Any thoughts anyone?

[The Atheist]

Any thoughts anyone?

Well, no. Not until I figure out which laws they break and the article doesn't cover that. Can you expand on it at all?

[drkitten]

Well, no. Not until I figure out which laws they break and the article doesn't cover that. Can you expand on it at all?

That was my thought, too. As written, I'm not sure I buy it....

[quixotecoyote]

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974



Go capitalism!

Any thoughts anyone?

You do realize that the restrictions are coming through the government, not the free market,correct?

[balrog666]

Rule 10 and 12 violations removed

[Ducky]

So what's to stop me from going to California, buying the car, and driving it back to Minnesota?

[mhaze]

There's only one catch: You can't actually buy this ultra-green Accord, or the four-cylinder version that also produces near-zero pollution. That is, unless you live in California, New York or six other northeast states that follow California's tougher pollution rules. Go capitalism!

Any thoughts anyone?
According to Honda's preliminary estimates, the best government mileage rating for a 2008 Accord is with the 4-cylinder engine mated to the 5-speed manual transmission: 22 city /31 hwy mpg.




What's so great about it?

[Wolfman]

I did some quick research on this, and found that it is basically true. However, the reason it is true is that the PZEV engines have substantially different designs, and with the exception of the states listed above, most states do not currently have in place specific standards for the sale of such engines.

It is not that there is any law that specifically targets PZEV engines; any fundamentally new engine design that was not covered by existing standards within a state's regulations would face the same situation. And that $27,500 fine that you have to pay? Actually, the fine would be much smaller in most states, and it is doubtful than many states would actually impose such a fine on a private sale (but car dealerships still need to be wary). It is likely this issue will be addressed within a few years.

The fact is, PZEV cars just don't have a terribly high market demand. They decrease emissions significantly, but don't increase mileage; plus, you have to pay more money to have a PZEV system installed in your car. So the only motivation for buying a PZEV car is to reduce pollution...while you pay more money for buying the car, and pay the same or more in gasoline costs to fuel it.

It took a lot of time, and a lot of marketing, for hybrid cars to start to catch on (and they still have only a tiny share of the overall market), despite the fact that they can offer significant savings in terms of fuel costs. I predict it'll take quite a bit longer for PZEV vehicles to catch on, unless/until they can offer similar economic savings as an incentive.

So, is there some 'grand conspiracy' here?

Yes, there is.

But I'd argue that its not a government conspiracy ("Oh my god, they're trying to stop them from selling cars that almost nobody wants to buy!"). And its not an automobile industry conspiracy ("They're trying to get the government to assist them in stopping people from buying cars that they don't really want!").

It is, as is so often the case, a conspiracy of human selfishness and greed. If ever state in the U.S. added standards for PZEV vehicles tomorrow, making it legal to sell them, the sad fact is that very, very few people would buy them anyway. This is borne out by the fact that sales of PZEV cars in the few states that currently have standards for them are abysmally low.

[godless dave]

So what's to stop me from going to California, buying the car, and driving it back to Minnesota?

Nothing. It sounds like the state laws prohibit selling it, not operating it.

[Ohmer]

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024974
Go capitalism!

Any thoughts anyone?

Go capitalism!(without irony) Private companies have produced environmentally friendly cars and now government has to play catch-up. Capitalism in action.

[drkitten]

Go capitalism!(without irony) Private companies have produced environmentally friendly cars and now government has to play catch-up. Capitalism in action.

Sounds like you have the wrong end of the stick here. The only reason those environmentally-friendly cars exist is because of government regs that mandate them. From a capitalistic point of view, they're a failure (no one buys them).

[mhaze]

The fact is, PZEV cars just don't have a terribly high market demand. They decrease emissions significantly, but don't increase mileage; plus, you have to pay more money to have a PZEV system installed in your car. So the only motivation for buying a PZEV car is to reduce pollution...while you pay more money for buying the car, and pay the same or more in gasoline costs to fuel it.

Okay, looks like I got it right.

It's a bad deal.

[The_Animus]

It took a lot of time, and a lot of marketing, for hybrid cars to start to catch on (and they still have only a tiny share of the overall market), despite the fact that they can offer significant savings in terms of fuel costs. I predict it'll take quite a bit longer for PZEV vehicles to catch on, unless/until they can offer similar economic savings as an incentive.
It was my understanding that these companies had hybrids, greener cars, and the ability to make cars with better gas mileage available a long time ago but intentionally didn't advertise or market it so many people wouldn't know it existed. This way people would just continue to buy the current cars and continue to buy more gas and wouldn't have to incur the extra costs of having to mass produce two or three kinds of cars.

So I'm not so sure it's that it took a lot of time to catch on. More that many people didn't know about it, which resulted in no mass demand and no mass production, which in turn resulted in these cars having a higher price tag as you mentioned. Of course this higher price along with the poor marketing made for a double whammy.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17333/

[Ohmer]

Sounds like you have the wrong end of the stick here. The only reason those environmentally-friendly cars exist is because of government regs that mandate them. From a capitalistic point of view, they're a failure (no one buys them).

As far as I can tell from the articles, these cars go way beyond what is required. Otherwise, every new car would have to match their emissions. The point is that a private company went beyond what is required by the government. If fact, the government is making it difficult for the private companies to sell cars that go beyond the regulation.

I'll give you the point about poor sales. It sounds that the companies are going for a niche market of people who are willing to pay more for the warm fuzzy of reducing emissions. It will probably contribute to California's Smug problem*

*Southpark reference

[Wolfman]

It was my understanding that these companies had hybrids, greener cars, and the ability to make cars with better gas mileage available a long time ago but intentionally didn't advertise or market it so many people wouldn't know it existed. This way people would just continue to buy the current cars and continue to buy more gas and wouldn't have to incur the extra costs of having to mass produce two or three kinds of cars.

So I'm not so sure it's that it took a lot of time to catch on. More that many people didn't know about it, which resulted in no mass demand and no mass production, which in turn resulted in these cars having a higher price tag as you mentioned. Of course this higher price along with the poor marketing made for a double whammy.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17333/
That's a popular myth.

Yes, the technology existed in theory...but the cost for such a car was so much higher than for a regular car that nobody would have bought it. What business is going to build a car that nobody will buy?

It took a lot of time and research before that technology became affordable. It is easy enough to look at a real-world example -- when the Prius, a hybrid car, first hit the market, it was quite unpopular. It took significant marketing on the part of Toyota to build and develop the market. And today, although hybrid cars are readily available, only a very small fraction of the population actually buy them.

In addition, your claims make no sense whatsoever from a business point of view. Car companies sell cars. Not gasoline. A car company that makes a popular car that sells to lots of people will not refuse to make a new kind of car or engine just because of the type of fuel it uses, or its fuel efficiency. It will make a car that it feels has the best chance of selling.

"Oh, but the car companies and the oil companies are working in league with each other!", you cry.

Well, let us assume (although I think its a faulty assumption) that this is true of the American car companies. But what about Japanese car companies? Korean? European?

The truth is simple, as I stated above. Stop trying to blame car manufacturers...they are selling what people want to buy!!! As stated above, even though hybrid cars are readily available, almost nobody buys them, even though they offer significant savings in fuel costs! A PZEV vehicle doesn't even offer the advantage of saving on fuel, while it costs more money to buy it!

Why should automobile companies produce vehicles that have a low demand and limited market? It is their job to meet market demand...and the market has made it more than clear what kind of vehicles it wants.

[balrog666]

Rule 10 and 12 violations removed

Oops, sorry all.

:th:

[drkitten]

As far as I can tell from the articles, these cars go way beyond what is required. Otherwise, every new car would have to match their emissions.

No. Typical clean-air regs are written in terms of fleet averages or distributions; the California regs are written in terms of overall pollution levels. The point is to have an ultra-low emissions car available in the fleet to counterbalance the larger and more emissions-heavy vehicles for which some people have a genuine need. It's not reasonable to completely ban SUVs.... but it is reasonable to try to minimize the use of SUVs when people don't actually have a need for them.


The point is that a private company went beyond what is required by the government.

That is indeed the point. The private company did NOT go beyond what was required; the California government mandates the availability of such a car, but can't mandate that the entire public buy it.

[The_Animus]

Wolfman, I agree that supply and market demand play a large role in economics and the decisions that businesses make, in this instance it wasn't as much about market demand as overall profits.

In the U.S., the centerpiece of its effort to improve automotive efficiency was the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), a $120 million a year, seven-year program launched in 1993.PNGV funds were available only to American companies. Recipients agreed to unveil a concept car by 2000, a preproduction prototype by 2004 and be in full production by 2010. All three, Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler introduced concept cars in early 2000. And there development stopped. Why? Because the American car companies refused to commercialize a car they would initially lose money on, even if the losses would be temporary.Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but is that $120 mil money from the government to work on making hybrid cars? If so why is it that they used that money for 7 years to fund research and design for the hybrid cars and then didn't didn't go through with making these cars available to the public.

Daimler/Chrysler, for example, announced in 2000 that it would not commercialize its diesel hybrid (ESX3) because it cost $7,500 more to make than their comparable gasoline powered car, a Dodge Intrepid. As late as April 2002 General Motors' CEO and President G. Richard Wagoner Jr. told Business Week, "How will the economics of hybrids ever match that of the internal combustion engine? We can't afford to subsidize them."Can't huh? Well Toyota did it and they are quite fine aren't they.

This year Toyota is the most profitable car manufacturer in the world.

It has nothing to do with can't.

From 1997 Toyota was selling 1000 of their cars a month. From that point their sales steadily rose.

This year (2003, when the article was posted) Toyota announced that it is making a profit on each Prius. A few weeks after making that announcement, the Prius was declared Car of the Year by Motor Trend magazine, one of the industry's most coveted awards.Now they are making a profit. They did take a few years of losses, but ultimately they ended with a profit after 6 years of working on it. Had the other companies done the same thing Toyota did they would have been able to do the same. Not only that but multiple companies offering multiple hybrids would have resulted in competition and marketing of the product. Up until now there hasn't been any real marketing of hybrid cars at all. Over the last 10 years how many hybrid car commercials did you see? It's pretty difficult for there to be much market demand for an item when the American companies won't make it, sell it, advertise it, or make an effort to work on lowering the cost of the hybrids. If there is no advertising or marketing there is significantly less market demand, and with significantly less market demand comes a higher price tag if you do learn about it and want it. It is a cycle.

First month sales of the new Prius in Japan were 17,000 and in the United States there were 10,000 pre-orders. Toyota expects to sell 100,000 hybrid vehicles this year and perhaps 350,000 by 2006.Again this is one company. If all car companies sold as many that would be a pretty decent market demand. But if you are an American car company who cares? Why not just ignore environmental concerns, demand, intentionally not market the car, and instead continue to sell the same thing they always have. It means bigger profit for them.

American car manufacturers are scrambling to catch up with the Japanese. They've discovered they are years, not months behind. In late 2002 Ford announced it would be introducing a hybrid in the fall of 2003. In late 2003 Ford announced it was postponing introduction until late 2004. GM declared it would introduce a hybrid pickup in 2004. In late 2003 it announced it was delaying introduction of a full hybrid until 2007. Dodge had said it would introduce a hybrid Ram Contractor in 2005. In late 2003 Daimler/Chrysler canceled its plans to build a hybrid SUV.Man, so what did they use that $120 mil of government (public taxes) money for?

Regrettably, we not only let these CEOs get away with their negligence, we reward them for it. In a remarkable reward for irresponsible behavior, the White House and Congress enacted tax incentives such that the owner of a Hummer, which gets less than 10 miles per gallon, receives a tax deduction of $34,000. The deduction for an efficient hybrid car that gets over 50 miles per gallon is $4,000.
For every 100,000 SUVs sold this year, American taxpayers will be paying a subsidy of some $1 billion. Revealingly, that's about the same amount of money the federal government spent in the 1990s to encourage American car companies to build hybrid cars. It's also about the same amount we are spending each week to keep our troops in oil-rich Iraq.
Yes. I love paying taxes. They use the money so well! And again where did that $1billion in taxpayer money go?

Next fall Toyota will introduce its first hybrid SUV. It will get about 40 miles per gallon, maybe twice that of a comparably sized SUV. Meanwhile the American car companies successfully convinced Congress not to raise the fuel efficiency standard for SUVs by two miles per gallon.So the car companies spent money and effort to get congress to NOT raise fuel efficiency standards. Is that part of market demand? People must love having to constantly pay money to fill up their tanks.

Seriously, do I need to continue?

They use American tax dollars to work on making a hybrid car and then after taking that money do not produce them. They get congress to keep fuel efficiency standards low. They refused to make or market a product even in 2003 when it had 100,000 sales in the US alone.

Sorry I just think the actions of the American car companies are selfish, greedy, and above all utterly retarded.

And you can bet that they have oil interests. With the rise in hybrid cars it means less gas being bought. But have no fear, because now there are hydrogen stations too. Why use pure electric cars that use batteries that you can charge at home? Sure they only get about 100 miles to the battery, but why not just have two or three charged and ready? It's not like the average person drives 100 miles a day anyway.

But that wouldn't require people to keep paying to fill up their car. So instead of making a car that does not require extra money all the time to fill up, (aside from electricity to charge the battery), let's instead make hydrogen hybrid cars and have to built tons of hydrogen stations just like gas stations now, and lets have to keep making the special hydrogen to put into the cars and make sure to ship it all across the country to supply those stations. I'm sure consumers love that idea more than just charging their car battery at home for a lower cost.

In any case I'm done ranting for now.

[jimlintott]

The big three do produce hybrids and have offered them for a while now.

They have taken a different approach though. Instead of compact cars they have done larger vehicles. GM and Chrysler offer hybrid pick up trucks. Ford has the Escape. It actually makes more sense than compact cars. Compact cars already have good fuel efficiency so the savings on being hybrid is smaller than a hybrid gas guzzler.

GM says hybrid cars don't make sense. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/06/pf/autos/detroit_gm_hybrids/)

Hybrid vehicle web site. (http://www.hybrid-vehicles.net/gm-hybrid-suv.htm) It looks like GM may offer more hybrid models than anyone. Like this one. (http://www.hybrid-vehicles.net/gm-allison-hybrid-bus.htm)

The problem with fuel efficiency is with the laws of physics. Small light vehicles need less energy to get around. Which is great until you need to load up a family of six to go anywhere. Many people simply need bigger vehicles. Making these big vehicles more efficient will get us more fuel savings. It seems that maybe GM is actually ahead of the curve here.

Making super fuel efficient compacts won't help if they are totally impractical for consumers.

[technoextreme]

And you can bet that they have oil interests. With the rise in hybrid cars it means less gas being bought. But have no fear, because now there are hydrogen stations too. Why use pure electric cars that use batteries that you can charge at home? Sure they only get about 100 miles to the battery, but why not just have two or three charged and ready? It's not like the average person drives 100 miles a day anyway.
Batteries are one of the major problems involving electric cars and hybrids because they are expensive. I remember reading about how the savings of a hybrid vehicle basically go away spending $2000.00 to replace the batteries. Not to mention the fact that battery packs are usually unwieldy to the point where you can't actually swap them out easily. I'd also hate to imagine the repair costs on such an exotic vehicle. Hydrogen has plenty of advantages. I know one of the possible ideas is the ability to actually render hydrogen in a safe enough manor that you could buy it anywhere.

[rjh01]

There are two big related problems with hydrogen
1.Is the volume of storing it as a gas.
2. If you then turn it into a liquid that takes a lot of energy and it is still bulky.

Not to mention you need somehow to make it. I just do not see a future where a significant % of cars run on hydrogen.

[technoextreme]

There are two big related problems with hydrogen
1.Is the volume of storing it as a gas.
2. If you then turn it into a liquid that takes a lot of energy and it is still bulky.

Not to mention you need somehow to make it. I just do not see a future where a significant % of cars run on hydrogen.
Choice three: Don't store it in it's elemental form to which I alluded to like a moron. I was thinking of the byproducts with the end result being that you have cars running on fuel cells that makes soap. The fuel itself is less dangerous than gasoline but still not safe to put in a supermarket.

[Geek Goddess]

Batteries are one of the major problems involving electric cars and hybrids because they are expensive. I remember reading about how the savings of a hybrid vehicle basically go away spending $2000.00 to replace the batteries. Not to mention the fact that battery packs are usually unwieldy to the point where you can't actually swap them out easily. I'd also hate to imagine the repair costs on such an exotic vehicle. Hydrogen has plenty of advantages. I know one of the possible ideas is the ability to actually render hydrogen in a safe enough manor that you could buy it anywhere.

There are two big related problems with hydrogen
1.Is the volume of storing it as a gas.
2. If you then turn it into a liquid that takes a lot of energy and it is still bulky.

Not to mention you need somehow to make it. I just do not see a future where a significant % of cars run on hydrogen.


The ethylene process makes excess hydrogen, but refineries need lots and lots of hydrogen in catalytic crackers and reformulators, to break the complex crude oil hydrocarbons into simpler molecules for gasoline, jet fuels, plastic pre-cursors, and so on. They have to make hydrogen, usually by steam reformers. It is a net energy hog - you burn methane, a very clean fuel, to make hydrogen. The conversion rate is not 100%