Dirty Secret: Green Cars Automakers Won't Sell You

[CptSternn]

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article....4974&GT1=10365

On a recent run from Boston to Cape Cod, I test drove the 2008 Honda Accord, the latest version of this family favorite. The new Accord boasts an environmental first: a six-cylinder gasoline engine that's cleaner than many hybrid systems.

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.

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 sent its dealers a memo alerting them to this fact, noting that its greenest S40 and V50 models were only for the special states.

So, just how green is a PZEV machine? Well, if you just cut your lawn with a gas mower, congratulations, you just put out more pollution in one hour than these cars do in 2,000 miles of driving. Grill a single juicy burger, and you've cooked up the same hydrocarbon emissions as a three-hour drive in a Ford Focus PZEV. As the California Air Resources Board has noted, the tailpipe emissions of these cars can be cleaner than the outside air in smoggy cities.

That's amazing stuff. But what's more amazing is how few people have a clue that the gas-powered, internal combustion engine could ever be this clean.

Naturally, no company wants to bring too much attention to a car that most people can't buy, unless it's Ferrari. And there's the catch. PZEV models are already available from Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Subaru, Volvo and VW. They're scrubbed-up versions of familiar models, from the VW Jetta to the Subaru Outback. But chances are, you've never heard of them.

These cars aren't the only green leaf that's being dangled over our heads. The sweet-looking, sporty-handling Nissan Altima Hybrid borrows its hybrid system from the Toyota Camry, and sipped fuel at 32 mpg during my week-long test drive here in New York. But once again, if you'd love to buy the Nissan and burn less fuel, you're out of luck—unless you live in California or the Northeast.

It's not all the fault of the car companies. The crazy quilt of environmental regulations is forcing carmakers to design and build two versions of the same cars. And it costs real money to make a car this green. So in states where there are no regulations to force their hand,automakers don't want to have to boost their prices for the green versions—or to simply eat the extra cost and make less profit.

Honda appears to be doing just that. It currently charges Californians and other green-staters about $150 extra for these solid-citizen models. But experts suggest that it costs carmakers closer to $400 a pop to install the gear.

Another issue: The PZEV cars don't get any better mileage than conventional versions. Would most self-interested Americans even pay a lousy 100 bucks for cleaner air that doesn't put fuel savings back in their pocket? "With hybrids, the selling point is fuel economy, so there's a dollar amount on that," said William Walton, Honda's product planning chief for U.S. cars. "We want to give people the cleanest vehicles we can produce, but how much are people willing to pay for clean air?"

Then again, so what if Honda or others lose a few million at first? Toyota clearly went into the red on every Prius it sold in the early years, but shrewdly viewed that cash as an investment to create buzz and build a loyal following. Today, Toyota dealers can barely keep the Prius in stock—and the company has surrounded itself with a green halo that's priceless.

As often as automakers express envy and resentment over Toyota's image, you might think Honda would be filming TV ads, erecting billboards, shouting from rooftops that the Accord is the world's cleanest six-cylinder car. In the green game that Toyota has played like a chess master, it seems like this is a lost opportunity for Honda, Nissan and the rest to siphon off some of Toyota's goodwill.

So give Honda's talented engineers credit for this clean-burning Accord. But give its marketing department a big, smoggy raspberry for keeping it a virtual secret—and keeping it off-limits to buyers in 42 states.

Lawrence Ulrich lives in Brooklyn and writes about cars. His reviews and features appear regularly in The New York Times, Popular Science, Men's Vogue and Travel + Leisure Golf.


It's amazing these are in existence, and the American government is fighting to keep the public from having them - issuing fines and jail terms for anyone attempting to buy a green car outside of certain areas.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Wait...I still don't understand why the government wouldn't let anyone get this kind of car...

I thought it said it didn't use less gasoline or anything, so what's the problem?

[delicti]

PZEV cars use special filtration to get their near zero-emissions numbers. While they're interesting at least, they're a temporary fix that does nothing to change the culture of excess in America that leads to high pollution numbers in the first place. It also continues to support the existing fuel industries and their obvious corruption.

As the article says, their illegality is due to an unintended consequence of the clean air act, and there are groups working on changing awareness and the act itself. Even still, PZEV cars will likely never make it into mainstream America without government regulation dictating it. As stated above, they're far more expensive to manufacture than normal vehicles.

I'm still holding out for companies like Tesla to be the ultimate disruptive technology in the marketplace. They have the money, the peoples' fascination, and a surprising amount of entertainment business support. Now they just need to come to market with an affordable product, and use all of those resources to take over the American markets.

I'm actually surprised you support these if you see hydrogen power as a distraction. They're both basically the same concept when it comes to manipulating the alternative energy market, except that these already exist.

[IsolatedReptile]

While I have to agree that it doesn't fix the long term problem of over consumption, it's at least a temporary solution to our pollution and smog issues.

[CptSternn]

I agree its a temporary solution, however, if such a small investment could reduce pollution now, why is the government fighting it?

Two reasons:

First, as they mention it's an 'unintended' result of the Clean Air Act. Yeah, right. The bush admin 'ammended' the Clean Air Act and also introduced the Clear Skies Act.

Those changes are whats blocking these from being sold elsewhere. It can be noted under bush's changes that companies were uncapped and all penalties for polluting were removed. The 'act' was altered to allow the exact opposite of what it was intended. This is another attempt by the bush administration to remove environmental protections.

In this case, they not only remove them, they keep them from being used in other areas, for no other reason than they don't want people being aware of such technology. I mean, if the average consumer knew they could reduce all pollution in cars, they might start buying these cars. That in turn would cause more government legislation into pollution with so many people getting involved, which is exactly what the bush admin does not want.

The second reason - all this equipment comes from Japan. Even the Ford Taurus that has this is using Japanese parts. If states are mandated (or allowed) to sell these cars, it is another nail in the coffin of US car companies. If other areas can sell them, and they take off, well, that means even less people buying American made cars.

If zero emissions is mandated by the government, US car makers can no longer sell cars without buying large systems to put in their cars that have to come from Japan.

So, in efforts to keep the people from getting environmentally active and seeing whats really happening and at the same time keeping foreign companies from taking a larger share of the auto market, the bush administration has seen fit to once again abuse the environment in the name of corporate american profits.

[Aaroneet]

Something similar was done with the electric car concept. Remember that? A car that could beat the then-Mazda Miata in a race, be more accomodating to the driver, and get better gas mileage than the Miata as well. If I recall, both American and Japanese car companies started selling these. And they sold like hotcakes. But one had to get on a waiting list and go through numerous tests in which the details of one's life (i.e where they worked) would be randomly picked out by administrators. They were trying to see who was "worthy" of purchasing these models (i.e General Motors' EV1). Only to have these electric cars towed from paying customers' lots, and replaced in marketing by the less efficient, less animated hybrids that would then pant if sent up a hill.

Keep in mind-Japanese companies manufacture their cars in North America. So it might just be bigger than North America alone; there's a sense of fear in the idea of drivers no longer relying on the proverbial gasoline pump to fuel their cars. Although North America has a history of downplaying reforms to improve the emissions of vehicles in general. Instead of showing how many gallons a vehicle uses to be completely filled, the North American standards show how many miles per gallon a vehicle gets to make it appear as though North American leaders and generael automakers are doing more to improve emissions. In my opinion, North American leaders (those who have power in general) fear what puts everyone on a more equal footing, not just the Bush Administration; that means everybody being able to afford cars that improve emissions significantly, like the electric car or a PZEV model. If that means keeping costs higher for hybrids that are not as effective as technology would allow, then that's what will go into effect. It's also indicates a general fear of change, but that's another story entirely.

[IsolatedReptile]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The second reason - all this equipment comes from Japan. Even the Ford Taurus that has this is using Japanese parts. If states are mandated (or allowed) to sell these cars, it is another nail in the coffin of US car companies. If other areas can sell them, and they take off, well, that means even less people buying American made cars.

I actually did not think about the fact that the parts were coming from Japan. I'm willing to wager that that outweighs the hatred of clean air from the Bush administration.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by IsolatedReptile

I actually did not think about the fact that the parts were coming from Japan. I'm willing to wager that that outweighs the hatred of clean air from the Bush administration.

That's probably more on than the conspiracy theory presented.

The big problem with why these cars will not be adopted is because the American consumer is not going to accept higher prices for no payback. Until we address the real problems of public transit, and electric cars become a reality, the market simply won't exist for environmentally better vehicles.

Something similar was done with the electric car concept. Remember that? A car that could beat the then-Mazda Miata in a race, be more accomodating to the driver, and get better gas mileage than the Miata as well. If I recall, both American and Japanese car companies started selling these. And they sold like hotcakes.

I think you're referencing the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The problem I have with that movie is that it makes it look like electric cars were a reality for the marketplace at the time. In fact, the EV that was being marketed was capable of 50 miles driving. Not to mention that recharge rates were miserable. Battery technology was simply not there to make up for the lack of infrastructure.

The performance goal that the large American motor companies have for a car to get to market is 300 miles on a full tank/charge. That is starting to become a reality at the moment, with EVs now being about to go 220-250 miles on a charge. Once the technology is affordable, I can't imagine why anyone would want to stick with ICE-based cars.

What's funny is that the demand for this technology is so high that the tech sector is where the new EVs are coming from. The old motor companies have too much loyalties to their oil partners. Personally, I'm glad for this - the new EVs will be a disruptive technology, and I'll be happy to see the old guard of oil & automotive disappear. Although, I think they'll eventually adapt, but hopefully the hit will be enough for them to ditch their current tactics.

[IsolatedReptile]

Originally Posted by delicti

What's funny is that the demand for this technology is so high that the tech sector is where the new EVs are coming from. The old motor companies have too much loyalties to their oil partners. Personally, I'm glad for this - the new EVs will be a disruptive technology, and I'll be happy to see the old guard of oil & automotive disappear. Although, I think they'll eventually adapt, but hopefully the hit will be enough for them to ditch their current tactics.

I doubt that the American companies will be able to keep up, being as their in the hole right now an seemingly unable to make it out (unless they have in the last month or two and I missed it). I would not be surprised in the least to find out that the foreign companies (with the exception of VW, they don't seem as decent as they used to be) are able to adapt fast enough.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

That's probably more on than the conspiracy theory presented.

The big problem with why these cars will not be adopted is because the American consumer is not going to accept higher prices for no payback. Until we address the real problems of public transit, and electric cars become a reality, the market simply won't exist for environmentally better vehicles.

Thats untrue. The article states hundreds of people are trying to buy them, but are being denied. If there was no demand for these and Americans didn't want them, there wouldn't be hundreds of people being denied the opportunity to buy them.

The fact the government is actively fighting consumers right to purchase these means there is a demand out there, and for what ever reason they are fighting against the consumer demand.

I think you're referencing the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The problem I have with that movie is that it makes it look like electric cars were a reality for the marketplace at the time. In fact, the EV that was being marketed was capable of 50 miles driving.

She was refering to that, and more importantly, your wrong again. The EV1 had a range of over 100 miles, and with the new batteries, which were never used but were developed and exist now, you can get 180 miles out of one charge. I have that movie here - it's a must watch.

The average American driver who drives to work goes about 40 miles a day in their car. That means for a majority of Americans who drive to work everyday that even if the battery was only 50 miles as you claimed (incorrectly) then it would be fine for a majority of Americans.

But as I said, their batteries were well into 100 miles per charge, and the new batteries which they developed for the cars (but scrapped when they canceled the project) could do 180 miles off one charge.

Also, you assertion that they are hard to charge is also incorrect. They included a device that could be plugged into any household socket to recharge, meaning they could be charged anywhere there was electricity. They had chargers that did the job in 1/3rd the time installed in the owners homes, but that didn't limit them from recharging elsewhere, it just took a few hours to do what those charges did in a shorter period of time.

delecti - I have to ask - is this going to be like the Sicko thread where you argue the finer points of yet another movie you have neglected to see but have decided to come online and debate the topics you never have even viewed?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Thats untrue. The article states hundreds of people are trying to buy them, but are being denied.

Hundreds of people doesn't make for profitable demand in the automotive industry.

But as I said, their batteries were well into 100 miles per charge, and the new batteries which they developed for the cars (but scrapped when they canceled the project) could do 180 miles off one charge.

The EV1 used lead-acid batteries - no lead-acid battery will give you that much range under existing configurations. Furthermore, the EV1 batteries you're talking about had a 75-150 mile range; that type of variance is unacceptable to the consumer.

That is exactly why Tesla uses Li-Ion batteries. You should read Tesla's CEO's blog.

Now, the reason you're not going to win anyone over with a 40, 50, or even 100 mile range is because Americans don't want to invest in a car that only goes 100 miles. That's pretty much fact. And 75-150 miles for a range is just stupid.

Also, you assertion that they are hard to charge is also incorrect. They included a device that could be plugged into any household socket to recharge, meaning they could be charged anywhere there was electricity. They had chargers that did the job in 1/3rd the time installed in the owners homes,

I didn't say they were hard to charge. Although most people are not going to feel comfortable having an outdoor socket, especially if they don't have a garage or live in an apartment. So the key is to keep the recharge time down, so that people don't have to have those worries.

1/3 the time is still far too long. You're talk 1/3 of what - 4 hours? That's not going to fly. The new battery technology coming out has a recharge rate of 5-10 minutes (depending on the voltage), and goes over 200 miles. That's a technology that's actually marketable.

Here's why you should be opposed to zero-emissions cars:

First off, you're not preventing the gases from going into the atmosphere, you're just delaying the process. Carbon capture technology is horribly broken, and this only makes the problem harder to deal with.

Secondly, by the time you remove the Federal barriers, and get states to mandate these vehicles (the only way they're really going to be adopted at the scale that's necessary), it's going to be at least a decade of work. Even then, you'll have to fight against transportation waivers for large vehicles. Not to mention the carbon emissions from transport to this country, and the ones made by actually getting the oil and refining it. It's not fixing the problem, it's hiding it.

Thirdly, by the time EVs put out by the new companies making them, you still won't be done with all the political work you'll need to do. We should instead be lobbying our states to make sure there is a clear path for the new EVs when they come to market.

Fourthly, crying over the EV1 is stupid; it's spilled milk. Get over it, there's a bright future for EVs that aren't being manufactured by GM.

delecti - I have to ask - is this going to be like the Sicko thread where you argue the finer points of yet another movie you have neglected to see but have decided to come online and debate the topics you never have even viewed?

If you continue to refuse facts that come from anywhere other than a single dubious source; absolutely. It's amazing how we continue to agree on problems, but since you refuse to look at what the people who are actually making efforts in the real world are doing, you continue to argue with me.

[CptSternn]

So I take it you didn't see this movie either.

Much like Sicko, every bit of information you present is the same tripe the bush admin tried to sell the public. Every argument hat you have here is rebuffed in great detail in the film.

My advice, actually watch a film with real data instead of once again cut-n-pasting stuff you found on pro-bush websites.

If could learn so much if you actually took the time to watch a film before trying to attack the facts presented in them.

[Linen]

That is FUBAR.

So what if someone lives in California and buys one of these cars, then later moves to another state where they're not allowed??? Are they forced to give up their car? Can they only resell it in one of those states?

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So I take it you didn't see this movie either.

Nope, I'm all set with watching pity-parties being passed off as entertainment.

every bit of information you present is the same tripe the bush admin tried to sell the public. Every argument hat you have here is rebuffed in great detail in the film.

Oh, reeeeeeally now? I'll get that in a minute.

First off, you're changing the topic AGAIN. But more importantly...

My advice, actually watch a film with real data instead of once again cut-n-pasting stuff you found on pro-bush websites.

Whoa, so Wikipedia is a pro-Bush site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

For that matter, it looks like this EV1 owners club are actually all Bush lackeys in disguise:
http://ev1-club.power.net/archive/981205/981205.htm

And so is this anti-GM site. I wonder if they know?
http://cleanup-gm.com/ev1.html

For that matter, I'm sure the folks at TreeHugger spent a post ranting about how much the EV1 sucked, because well, Bush... Tree... close enough, right?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006..._criticism.php


And guess which person they all disagree with here. (HINT: YOU!)


Do you want me to give you a bunch of environmentalist and anti-Bush sites that hate carbon capture as well? I mean, carbon capture's most practical application is in coal plants. Bush's relationship with the coal industry is well-documented.

Of course, carbon capture for coal doesn't work out in cradle-to-cradle terms - but that's besides the point, right? I'm sure you'd be willing to call William McDonough and Michael Braungart a bunch of crazy neocons too, if it meant not having to swallow the pill that you are once again utterly, stupendously, and self-mockingly wrong.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by IsolatedReptile

I doubt that the American companies will be able to keep up, being as their in the hole right now an seemingly unable to make it out

Well, Tesla and Pheonix Motorcars are American, so I'm sure we'll be fine. As far as the current automotive manufacturers? Good riddance to bad rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.

[CptSternn]

delicti -

All of your arguments are a re-hash of the same arguments they dispel in the film. I could sit here and copy the script verbatim to discount the arguments you present, but its easier to just tell you to actually watch the film, before coming in here making claims based on myths that have already been debunked.

However, you seem to be quite fond of trying to argue about things you have no concept of. This is what? The third thread where you try and argue facts presented in a film you have yet to view?

Weak.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

However, you seem to be quite fond of trying to argue about things you have no concept of. This is what? The third thread where you try and argue facts presented in a film you have yet to view?

Weak.

Excuse me?

YOU'RE the one who brought up the film. And here's a newsflash for you - if the owners of a product, the manufacturer of a product, the manufacturers of the components of a product, the people who advocated for a product, as well as the basic physics of a product ALL disagree with a film about the product, then the film is wrong.

Get another source, or learn how to swallow your pride and take not being right like a man. I know THAT is a service that the government won't give you for free, but I'm sure you can afford it.

[CptSternn]

I find it hard to believe th owners, which showed up in masse for the film and signed a petition to save the EV1 later after the film changed their minds, and then started that website.

They had interviews with ALL the former owners, group meetings, etc.
Whatever website you found that claim the owners didn't want them is bunk.

Of course, having seen the film with the actual interviews, you would know this.

[maggot]

Is it just me, or are you using 'pro-bush' as a buzzword to inspire us to instantly think "HE'S WRONG!"


Huh.


Of course, I'm on the fence here. Being some stupid kid, I don't give a shit about cars and gas emission and all hoop-a-joop.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

They had interviews with ALL the former owners, group meetings, etc.
Whatever website you found that claim the owners didn't want them is bunk.

Of course, having seen the film with the actual interviews, you would know this.

I'm losing patience on this thread. You won't even bother reading my sources.

I rejected and repudiated your only source successfully. If you refuse to read my sources, then you're just looking to argue.

You've cited range and charging specifications for the EV1 that are fictitious. If you got these stats from the movie, then it brings the credibility of the movie into question. That is a shame, because while I always thought the movie should have been called "Electric Vehicles for Amateurs," I never imagined that it presented anything untrue.

The EV1 didn't have a chance to start with. GM, like all the major US auto manufacturers, has been flashing clean technology since the 60's, only to bring the tech to market. Whining that GM killed the EV1 is like whining the GW took some rights away - DUH. You really didn't see it coming?

Here's some advice from worldchanging.org - get over it.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004627.html

The EV1 is all but ancient history in the world of electric vehicles. I can't believe that this is breaking and controversial stuff to you. I can only imagine the blank slate that is your brain, for all these amateurish articles you post to be shocking news.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by maggot

Is it just me, or are you using 'pro-bush' as a buzzword to inspire us to instantly think "HE'S WRONG!"

Sadly, he does that all the time. He once said I was a pro-Bush nut for saying that Bush's environmental policies didn't go far enough.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by delicti

Nope, I'm all set with watching pity-parties being passed off as entertainment.


Oh, reeeeeeally now? I'll get that in a minute.

First off, you're changing the topic AGAIN. But more importantly...



Whoa, so Wikipedia is a pro-Bush site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

For that matter, it looks like this EV1 owners club are actually all Bush lackeys in disguise:
http://ev1-club.power.net/archive/981205/981205.htm

And so is this anti-GM site. I wonder if they know?
http://cleanup-gm.com/ev1.html

For that matter, I'm sure the folks at TreeHugger spent a post ranting about how much the EV1 sucked, because well, Bush... Tree... close enough, right?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006..._criticism.php


And guess which person they all disagree with here. (HINT: YOU!)


Do you want me to give you a bunch of environmentalist and anti-Bush sites that hate carbon capture as well? I mean, carbon capture's most practical application is in coal plants. Bush's relationship with the coal industry is well-documented.

Of course, carbon capture for coal doesn't work out in cradle-to-cradle terms - but that's besides the point, right? I'm sure you'd be willing to call William McDonough and Michael Braungart a bunch of crazy neocons too, if it meant not having to swallow the pill that you are once again utterly, stupendously, and self-mockingly wrong.

You are my new hero

[Anguelon]

*Remembering the days back in debate club*
*Ducks down and runs for her life*

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

I'm losing patience on this thread. You won't even bother reading my sources.

I rejected and repudiated your only source successfully. If you refuse to read my sources, then you're just looking to argue.

I visited your links mates *and* read what they had to say. Don't think I just skim yer argument and post without checking what ye posted!

That being said, those sites contridict 100% the movie, which was made by the people who purportedly created that website and gave testimony for the other websites.

The problem is, in the Who Killed The Electric Car film, they have a petition signed by *all* EV1 owners which they use to try and keep the company from taking their cars - they FIGHT to keep them, henceforth the whole crux of the film.

They have interviews with these people, they have meetings with celebs and congressmen where *all* the owners attend.

I find it hard to believe these same people while making this film were secretly saying the opposite, behind closed doors on a no-name website. Anyone can register EV1-Owners.com or a similar site.

See what I'm getting at?

I mean, these people made a film. All of them, together. You have a link to some websites which *claim* to be the words of these people, but there is no way to verify that these websites were made by them, where as the movie clearly was, contained interviews, and had testimonials made in person - which contradict 100% the claims and statements made on those websites.

The one website claims that it is the voice of the people who made the movie, which doesn't make any sense. It would be like someone claiming to be Michael Moore coming out and blasting his documentary on a website called MyMovieWasFake.Com and then criticizing himself.

It doesn't pass the sniff test if you get what I mean.

[1 4m 4n 3gg ph34r m3]

To infinity and beyond!