Up to $2k rebate for efficient cars (not just hybrids) in CDN budget - guzzlers taxed

[MetroMPG]

Psy: I take it you won't be wishing me a happy Canada Day this July?

Originally Posted by cfg83

Based on what you said, the law would encourage automakers to offer smaller engine displacements.

Not necessarily - Toyota manages to get reasonably good efficiency out of the Yaris' 1.5L motor. The Corolla's 1.8 is also on the rebate list.

I only pointed out the smaller displacement options for the Aveo because they appear available right now in other markets, and I assume they're more efficient - they don't seem to be able to coax decent FE out of their 1.6 drive train.

(EDIT: PS - it's not a law. It's a just a rebate ... incentive. Doesn't force anyone - individuals or corporations - to do anything they don't want to.)

[The Toecutter]

In a ideal world you wouldn't have cradle to grave government and numb skull folks that believe in big brother. Sounds like the Big brother thing is alive in well in Canada.

Even moreso in the U.S. Compared to Canada, our government trades more social and political freedom in support of a monopoly-run faux free market system.

I just wrote my politicians promising a war on my part if they dare do something stupid like this.

It is pretty stupid, mostly because:

a) Regulations don't work unless they are extremely strong and enforced very well
b) Regulations often discourage innovation
c) These particular regulations are laden with gaping loopholes
d) Regulations often impose unnessessary burdens onto individual people who wish not to be subjected to them

In an ideal world, however, there would actually be lots of small auto companies, and not a few giant behemoths that pretend to compete while shoving onto the consumers a limited array of choices. But these particular companies aren't individual people, and have managed to overregulate small busiensses to the point that they can't compete while the large automakers have the cash to stay afloat.

I also advocate pulling our industrial interest out of Canada. And tightening up the borders.

Border tightening, like most regulation, won't do much. In order for it to work, an extreme amount of effort must be focused to this one issue, but by that time, you've turned America into a police state. Your paper's please? Oh, wait...

Our industrial interest should be centered in America, Canada's should be centered in Canada. NAFTA, WTO, GATT, and the like all erode our national sovereignty. The people of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would mostly appreciate it if these things were ended, except for those business interests and bureaucrats profiting from it all. Canada and the US have been rapidly losing their manufacturing base. A service economy cannot sustain itself forever.

[Silveredwings]

I propose a separation of oil and state.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

NAFTA, WTO, GATT, and the like all erode our national sovereignty. The people of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would mostly appreciate it if these things were ended, except for those business interests and bureaucrats profiting from it all. Canada and the US have been rapidly losing their manufacturing base. A service economy cannot sustain itself forever.

This may be true about Sovereignty, but with the European Union strengthening, North America needs to unite to be competetive on a global scale. In our Capitalistic society, there will always be profiteers and bureaucrats eating up the cash, but if "We the People" keep an eye on things instead of blindly living our lives, then these agreements can benefit the Continent. Free trade can work if the proper individuals are at the helm. Compared with the Euro (or especially the British Pound), the U.S. Dollar is weakening (it even has with the CDN Dollar) and that's a problem. I think the open nature of the EU is a good reference model.

Even further, China's offset pricing structure and "Big-Box" Wal-Mart stores eating up the merchandise at the cost of the U.S. Citizenry also needs to be addressed.

Canada, the U.S. and Mexico all have respective strong points to offer one another. In the global marketplace, this team must be forged to compete.

Now on a lighter note:

cfg83: thank goodness you weren't referring to this "K-Car"



RH77

[Silveredwings]

Heck, let's rope in sough America too. We'll have a common currency called "Amerigos"

[kps]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I just had a quick look, and the Daewoo Kalos (the same car in European and Asian markets) is sold with three smaller engine options than the 1.6 we get in North America. All 4-cylinder, they have 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5L displacements.

Likewise the Honda Fit; elsewhere there are smaller and/or more fuel efficient engine (1.2L, 1.3L, and 1.5L i-DSI vs the 1.5L VTEC here) and transmission (CVT and taller manual) options.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

It is pretty stupid, mostly because:

a) Regulations don't work unless they are extremely strong and enforced very well

Just to repeat: these aren't laws/regulations in the conventional sense. They're incentives and selective taxes that don't force anyone to do anything they don't want to.

That said - your sentiment was echoed in a number of media forums I followed - the suggestion being that the disincentives (the guzzler tax tiers) aren't high enough.

b) Regulations often discourage innovation

In this specific case, I can't see that happening. Particularly because the carrots/sticks are technologically neutral; e.g. they're not rewarding hybrids only, rather efficiency in general. Manufacturers are free to ignore the dis/incentives, or use whatever technical approach they wish to leverage them to their advantage.

c) These particular regulations are laden with gaping loopholes

No argument there.

d) Regulations often impose unnessessary burdens onto individual people who wish not to be subjected to them

Yes, and? That goes without saying.

In an ideal world, however, there would actually be lots of small auto companies, and not a few giant behemoths that pretend to compete while shoving onto the consumers a limited array of choices.

True, true.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by kps

Likewise the Honda Fit; elsewhere there are smaller and/or more fuel efficient engine (1.2L, 1.3L, and 1.5L i-DSI vs the 1.5L VTEC here) and transmission (CVT and taller manual) options.

Yeah, I had read that also. It's not rocket science. They could give us more efficient choices, they just don't.

The more I read of the auto makers' responses, the more skeptical I'm becoming that (a) this program is going to stand as-is, and (b) that the automakers are willing to respond technologically.

Hyundai's response has been "we have to ratchet up our marketing (to promote their warranty differences)."

The only manufacturer to come out in favour of it has been (not surprisingly) Toyota:

Drop in the bucket makes a lot of waves
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Unhappy auto companies that sell subcompact cars are revising marketing plans and sales forecasts now that Ottawa has provided a competitive advantage to Toyota Canada Inc. with environmental provisions in the new federal budget.

---

The Honda Fit, which has a rating of 6.6 litres for every 100 kilometres, doesn't make the grade.

?The Honda guys are fit to be tied,? a source at another auto maker said yesterday.

Honda Canada Inc. refused to comment.

?We're not going to negotiate with the government through the media,? spokeswoman Sandy Di Felice said.

[kps]

I'll be pleased if a gearing change is enough to get the Fit to 6.5. Then I'll find a <strike>ricer</strike> performance enthusiast with an '08 to swap transmissions.

[MetroMPG]

That's a downright entrepreneurial idea!

(You do know you live in Marxist Canada, don't you? Might want to keep those ideas under your hat. )