Subaru Outback Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Submod , ,
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just heard on NPR earlier today that Washington State is forgoing the upcoming federal emissions laws for the tougher California laws which Oregon also is expected to pass soon making the West Coast one of the cleanest. But I expect we still have a long way to go and IMHO it falls short when we have technology for alternative fuel vehicles.
The law should pass soon and effects all vehicles made after 2009.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
very true, but here I think they were gonna have separate tabs for each type of car, for instance, if U had an hummer your tabs would cost a ****load more than those of a camry, I dunno if they ever did do that, but it was a good idea.
 

·
Submod , ,
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Interesting article. I was wondering why the Hummer (f*#% you mobile) got tax breaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
It is because, Bush was trying to encourage farmers so they could buy large trucks and pickups, and maybe even vans so they could haul, but the loophole is, that a realtor can write off his H2 if he says its for buisness. this is now a well known loophole but the government is doing nothing about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
speaking of the tax break. to get teh break the "truck" has to weigh in at over 6000 punds. mysterisouly, i forget which, but either the BMW X5 or the porsche Cayenne weigh in at 6050lbs.
cos, yeah, those are "work" trucks if there ever was one.

"hey tom, throw that load of gravel in my porsche"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
OneOBS said:
Those people should just be lined up and shot.
I'm not seeing a lot of respect for freedom of choice here, perhaps that only applies when others make a choice we agree with.
Here's an idea, why doesn't the government establish a set of criteria and a survey form. Before you buy a new car you fill out the form and based upon your stated needs they provide a list of vehicles you're allowed to choose from.
I wonder if any 18mpg Outback XT's will be on that list. Because if you list the need to go 0-60mph in under 6 seconds they may let you have one.
I drive our '99 SUS to work 9 days out of 10 (40 mile round trip) and my wife drives our pickup (22 miles round trip). The Soobie gets 24/25mpg per tank and the truck get 15/16mpg, so since I have only one gas hog that's not an OBXT do I only get shot in the leg?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
OneOBS said:


Just espressing my opinion in accordance with my constitutional rights. I believe that a chunk of iron as large as an H2 has a bigger impact than just the amount of fuel it consumes.

Those people should just be lined up and shot.
Perhaps your penalties a bit stiff. Before H2 drivers get a cap perhaps all the pandering celebrities in the 10,000 square foot and beyond estates should be first on the chopping block. Do you have any idea how much in resources is used to build one of those places? How about the energy it takes to keep them cool in summer and warm in winter. You could probably run 100 H2's for a year of normal driving on the amount of energy it takes to run Bill Gates' or Larry Ellison's estates. Don't get me started on their private jets....


There's a lot more evil worry about in the world than some soccer mom in an SUV. And no, I don't own an SUV before you ask.
 

·
Submod , ,
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
This is a great place to express one's opinions and there are a lot of very knowledgeable people here but whether we agree or not lets keep it civil please.
Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
334 Posts
In the tax code its known as the "section 179 deduction." It started life in 1997. Subsequently (during the Bush administration) congress has augmented this portion of the tax code at least twice as part of economic stimulus & jobs growth packages. The cumulative effect was that, yes, you could deduct in one year (not pay tax on) over 90% of the cost of an H1 purchased for your business.

Its wrong to claim the government is doing nothing about it. Nobody likes our money more than the IRS & when they're losing out, they take action. As of October 2004, this portion of the tax code was modified to greatly reduce the amount you can deduct on the purchase of such a vehicle. To stick with the H1 example, you can now deduct only about 55%- nothing to sneeze at, but the H1 buyer is now paying tax on an additional ~ $43,000. Definitely enough to change the minds of many prospective buyers. I believe there is also clarified language about open cargo beds over 6 feet & even greater weight ratings, so that self-employed people buying a huge truck or van for actual work purposes can still benefit in a way consistent with the original spirit of the tax break.

Also, remember its not vehicle weight, but GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating)- ie, vehicle + passengers, cargo, & any trailer tongue weight. The Dodge Durango and Porsche Cayenne do not by themselves weigh over 3 tons.

I don't view this as the government encouraging people to buy giant SUV's- the fact that the tax code won't permit you to buy a Civic hatchback for your business & write it off in one year is a *discouragement* to purchasing this type of vehicle.
 

·
Submod , ,
Joined
·
3,022 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
OneOBS said:

Busted over a gross hyperbole. Guess everyone else took it literally as well. Such are the limitations of the written word. :)
I knew you wern't speaking literally and I feel the same about Hummers and other "f**k-you-mobiles".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
Not trying to be dis-civil and apologies to all if that is how my posts were taken. I understand hyperbole perfectly but I don't however understand the vilification of a group of people because the choices in their life aren't the same as mine. It seems that there is a new 'bad guy stigma' every year in this country and it rotates until it affects us all. From smokers, motorcyclists, SUV drivers, fast food restauraunts & customers, big oil to insurance companies; who's next the easter bunny? How long before something you love to do, eat or drive is the next villain?
 

·
Tokyo's between my toes
Joined
·
6,696 Posts
Yes choices are individual, but they affect others who had no hand in making that choice.

For example, when someone decides to drive a Mobile Blind Spot instead of a car that could do the same job, that affects me every time they block my view on the road or in a parking lot. It is a direct threat to my safety. That doesn't even consider their coldhearted calculation that they would "win" in a collision.

I will disparage people like that. Are they so ignorant that they do not know the hazards they present, or do they know quite well but are so rude that they deliberately stick it in your face every time they take to the road? Hmmmm..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,730 Posts
Not only is there no need for such monstrosities as the Hummer H1 and H2, but those things are downright dangerous. Way too heavy and high for driving on the same roads as cars.

Anything smaller then a full-size SUV that gets T-Boned by one of those and the occupants are as good as dead.

Yes, the same thing can be said about 18 wheelers and tractor/trailer rigs, but at least those have a purpose, and they are generally driven by competent, responsible drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
yea, if you have a big family and need a club wagon, that is a good reason for a gulper, but an H2 with one rider in it, is probably gona get the same mileage as the van with kids. also here is some sites
http://www.fuh2.com I was on this website, reading some of the hate mail, and this guy is like "well why dont you guys go after semis, they use more gas than our H2s" buy like fastsly said there is a solid reason behind those
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Just wondering, why does everyong single out the "H2"? To me, the H2 is no worse than the Ford Expedition, GMC Yukon XL/Chevy Suburban (the H2 is Suburban based). Heck what about the Toyota Sequoia? (**** near as big as the tree it's named after). What about Toyota Land Cruisers (new 4.7L V8 added) and Range Rovers (they now have a gas guzzling supercharged engine in their lineup).

My point here? Where do you draw the line? Some Civic owners might point to us Outback owners ask using up too much gas/taking up too much space... (score points for the OBS guys and gals).

Heck, as an avid motorcyclist, I think anytime I see a car with one person in it, I think they should be on a motorcycle, that even a Civic is a waste of Road Space and fuel economy...

As an avid Bicylist...even motorcycles are too noisy and use up resources compared to bikes... Man, I hate stinky exhaust (most bikes don't have cat converters or the owners remove them in favor of "performance exhaust" with no cat converters)

While you may argue that H2's are "too big" and take up "too much space" and use "too much gas" ...the same argument could be made for everything short of a bicycle.

This is America. We are allowed to make our own decisions regarding our own lives. We are allowed to purchase the things we want (or mistakenly think we need). It is one of the principles this country is founded on.

If you're worried about vehicle safety in a collision, write to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. When they do their side impact crash tests, they use a 3100 lb weight. Ask them start a new test with a 5000 lb or 6000 lb weight (lifted 12 to 24" off the floor) to simulate a crash with a much larger, heavier vehicle. The results of these tests would sure scare people into demanding safer vehicles, not the current "illusion" of safety.

Finally, write all of your local, state, and federal lawmakers and ask them to write "tiered" licensing into law, and to require more intensive drivers training. Currently, there's no law against a 16 year old kid with 10 hours of "instruction" from hopping behind the wheel of a large SUV and attempting to drive at freeway speeds with the rest of us. There's also no limitation on someone 4'2" who can barely see over the steering wheel from driving a large SUV.
Tiered licensing based off vehicle weight and horsepower would go a long way towards "discouraging" people from needlessly buying large vehicles. It would also make sure they are trained properly in their safe use.

IMHO, The bigger problem isn't the vehicles the people drive, its the people behind the wheel themselves. Our current system of "driver education" is basically worthless. It teaches you the "laws" of the road, but daily driving quickly erases those 10-20 hours of training. Turnsignals are seen as a sign of weakness. People will close a gap as soon as you turn one on. People will not yeild their lanes to faster traffic (sometimes not even to emergency/police vehicles). Traffic Law enforcement is next to non-existant. Sure you hear about folks getting the occasional speeding ticket, but when was the last time you heard of someone getting a ticket for turning right on "no turn on red" intersections. Or for not using a turn signal? Or for failure to yeild to faster traffic (law on the books in most states is "slower traffic keep right"). How about a simple "illegal U-Turn"?

Until we hire more city police and state police to enforce the rules/laws we have now, making new ones (even tiered licensing) will do us little good. The problem isn't the vehicles, it's the people driving them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
I'm not talking about tiered taxation... I'm talking about tiered LICENSING.

When you first get your license you can only drive cars under 2500 lbs/under 140 HP.

Then after you have had your license for a minimum of 3 years (around age 19), you would be allowed to go up to 3400 Lbs/200 Hp. There would also be more classroom/behind the wheel training, and a harder test.

Then after another 2 years (around 21) to go up to 4000lbs/250 HP. There would also be more classroom/behind the wheel training, and an even more involved test.

From that point on, it would require even more additional classroom training and behind the wheel training, and a even harder/more involved test to qualify for more powerful/heavier/longer vehicles.

They should/could also seperate out peformance vehicles from large vehicles. There's a big difference between driving a STi and a H1, the test for the 2 vehicles should not be the same/in the same class.

This would keep inexperienced drivers of ANY age from behind the wheel of a Hummer, Suburban, a STI/EVO or a Corvette.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Random said:
Just wondering, why does everyong single out the "H2"? To me, the H2 is no worse than the Ford Expedition, GMC Yukon XL/Chevy Suburban (the H2 is Suburban based). Heck what about the Toyota Sequoia? (**** near as big as the tree it's named after). What about Toyota Land Cruisers (new 4.7L V8 added) and Range Rovers (they now have a gas guzzling supercharged engine in their lineup).
the reason that the H2 is singled out is because, for one, it is just plain stupid to remake a hummer for city living, and also, it weighs about 3000 puunds more that the other ones, GM did this on purpose so that they could escape fuel economy ratings and third, the bumber are raised up higher that any car on the road (exept for maybe an H1) making them the most dangerous vehicle to crash into, my younger brothers, friends, mom (who is not his friend anymore) drives an H2 and she was dropping her older son off at soccer practice (typical) and she ran into a pole (one that goes with a low chainlink fence, but instead of running into it, she ran over it and her car was impaled on the pole from the bottom
(and its based on tahoe, not suburban)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top