Autoblog

What's so bad about this? If the US Government "trounced on free trade" a little maybe we wouldn't be so beholden to corrupt royal families in the Mideast. Oh wait, aren't there tax breaks on hybrids? Looks like we are already "countering the evils of capitalism."

I wholeheartedly support this move. If anything, it'll help make our fuel prices come down a bit. Can you imagine the drain on petroleum if 1.3 billion people suddenly decided they wanted to drive Hummers?

Reply

↓↑report

A 2.0+ litre engine is a big engine? Ouch.

Reply

↓↑report

Hey - I'm not saying the Chinese government is abastion of fairness, but look at it this way. They've seen America's obsession with huge vehicles (to the point of scaring reasonable people out of small efficient vehicles) and they see an opportunity to keep behemoths off their soon-to-be crowded roads.

I'd love to run them off the planet myself. America uses over forty percent of the world's resources and that's the kind of wasteful chauvenism that make us the scorn of other cultures. It's a fact, Jack.

Reply

↓↑report

China is also the world's worst pollutor, and they know it. By taxing larger vehicles, hopefully they can stem the tide of the already uncontrolled atmospheric pollution. There are remote river valleys that are just as bad as downtown LA.

I think it's best to have an emissions tax, like the EU. You pay a flat tax, when you purchase the vehicle, based upon the amount of pollutants your vehicle will expell in a year or normal driving. This way, if you want to drive a fuel hogging, polluting SUV, so be it. But, you'll pay more for it up front.

Reply

↓↑report

I pay a large engine tax here in Quebec but it'S for engines over 4.0 L.

Reply

↓↑report

2.0 litres? I hope that's a misprint. That leaves about the only viable option for getting around a go-kart with a shell and a Hayabusa engine.

The bright side : Mazda's current Renesis engine is only 1.3 litres (but it also burns about as much gas as most large SUVs anyway...a small setback, but whatever). Perhaps sales of the RX-8 will skyrocket in China and Mazda will start dropping rotaries in everything. Mazdaspeed 3 with a rotary and AWD...oooh.

Reply

↓↑report

this doesnt seem like a bad idea at all. they do it all the time in europe. 2.0 L is plenty of engine for any normal person and in a lighter smaller car that isnt say chevy tahoe sized it can be plenty sporty.

civic SI has a 2.0 L non aspirated and vw has a great direct injection 2.0 L engine. same with the 2.0 L turbo in the lancer evo / sti

anyhow, in ireland i know you get a displacement tax for any size displacement and people regularly are fine with an audi a3 with 1.6 L.

Reply

↓↑report

Doesn't the American "gas guzzler tax" not apply to SUV's?

Reply

↓↑report

Bingo. Europe does it too.

2.0L is a huge engine in Europe, FWIW.

(Note: I actually live in the US)

My car has a 1.6L diesel engine. It's only got 52 horsepower - however, my car only weighs about 2200 pounds, so it has enough power (just).

My next car will have either a 1.9L or 1.4L diesel engine. (Note: the 1.4 isn't available here in the US, but by the time I buy a new car, it *should* be...) It'll have either 90 (an older model of the 1.9) or 75 (possibly more if they use common rail on the US 1.4) horsepower.

If you're not moving as much car around, you don't need as much power. You need an 8.1L or however big of an engine the H2 has to move something that big around.

Reply

↓↑report

the 2.0 liter taxation is nothing new.

In Europe, engine displacement taxation has existed for some time. heres a wikipedia link on the subject, and a few examples of different countries tax methods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_displacement

Ferrari sold a 208 model in the 80s as a way to get around the tax issue, it was a 2.0l V8 fitted with a turbo. Obviously Ferrari learned quickly the rich dont worry about taxes so that product segment was dropped.

Reply

↓↑report

#6 ...I am dumber after reading that.

Reply

↓↑report

The EPA�s gas guzzler tax indeed doesn�t apply towards SUVs or trucks, if it did, the average new domestic brute-ute would come with a $2000-$4000 fuel tariff. The Europeans have been charged displacement based taxes for decades. My older brother is currently employed for the German equivalent of the DMV; and has been kind enough to share some of his inside knowledge with me:

Small cars are relatively cheap to register, larger cars face exponential tariffs. Examples:
� Cars 1500CC and under (1.5 liters)
o $80 per year
� Cars 1501-2500CC (1.5- 2.5)
o $120 per year
� Cars 2700-3500CC (2.7-3.5)
o $240 per year
� Cars 3500-5000CC (3.7-5.0)
o $480
� Cars 5000CC+ (5.0 liters plus equivalent to typical large American SUV H2/Suburban/Expedition/Etc�)
o $960
By charging such tariffs, governments in Europe foster environmentally concerned societies that hold fuel economy and conservation dear to heart and pocket. I strongly support similar taxation in the States, let the prominent drive their H2�s if they choose, yet impose steep tariffs for their wasteful choices. By imposing such taxation, Americas will start to rethink their vehicle choices and what they really need. My dream for the automotive economy in this country is simple. I fervent the day that the average American would agree that 2.0 liter engine is enough to sustain transit without sacrificing lifestyle.

Reply

↓↑report

Correction for #9

H2 comes with the Vortec 6000 (6L) small-block not the Vortec 8100 (8.1L) big-block

Reply

↓↑report

Kudos to China. I agree 100%

There's no more room for another country, to stick their fat people in more fat cars than America.

Reply

↓↑report

"#6 ...I am dumber after reading that."

I'm glad I could help. Kidding aside, look at the acceleration times of most vehicles with an engine smaller than 2.0L. For any typical passenger vehicle larger than a small hatchback, the time would only be tolerable if you're on ether. Forced induction helps, but still burns quite a bit of extra fuel too. A hybrid system would help (instant torque, gotta love it), but that's going to hike up the prices and add even more maintenance issues. Plus, that doesn't really do much for the affordable range and means that you might as well pay the tax. Otherwise, most people might as well stick to public transit or gamble your life on a motorcycle. Considering everything, might as well just keep it simple and place the taxes on fuel source itself if curbing consumption (and the pollution produced by consumption/combustion) is the goal.

Not that I might not mind a similar tax system here...it might keep people that actually don't enjoy driving or treat it as another chore while grooming themselves or reading (saw that one again yesterday) off of the roads. Plus, a few less trucks on the road would mean that people could actually consider buying something like an Elise because there would be a chance that you wouldn't die in the smallest of accidents.

Reply

↓↑report

I have to thank Chinese officicals that made this mandate. Hopefully wiht their self restricting use of gas, I can keep enjoy my giant SUV here in the US. Long live my rumbling V8.

Reply

↓↑report

"Considering everything, might as well just keep it simple and place the taxes on fuel source itself if curbing consumption (and the pollution produced by consumption/combustion) is the goal"

Excellent idea zoom, and yet China does just the opposite. Their state co for oil is mandated to sell their oil for $45 a barrel domestically, which I suppose is why they are trying to "mandate: small engines. This policy comes with a HUGE downside--how do you now sell those cars overseas?
The Chinese car industry may be dead as a US exporter before it even began.

Reply

↓↑report

I now understand why European companies are so much better at squeezing out more power from smaller engines - they can't just add liters.

#8, US fuel efficiency laws have been the biggest loop hole in the last 25 years. Written in the 70's, they were intended to apply to most vehicles. An exception was made for light trucks, mostly to benefit farmers. At the time, trucks made up a tiny % of all sold (they weren't yet fashionable). Two things then happened. Our companies didn't keep up with efficiency developments so less displacement meant much less power (and FWD) and any vehicle build on a truck platform qualified as a truck.

SUVs and mini vans in the US are classified as trucks and therefor fully exempt from efficiency laws. Buyers could choose one of these or a woefully underpowered sedan or pay fees. For extra fun, the Republicans passed another law a few years back that allows business owners to write off the cost of heavy work vehicles. Yes, this again includes anything classified as a truck. US taxpayers then, directly subsidize business owners to buy SUVs above a certain weight, namely Suburbans, Range Rovers, and Hummers.

Reply

↓↑report

Outside of the US, especially in Asia, this form of taxation is common. I am actually surprised that they haven't existed in China before.

Reply

↓↑report

in essence, what it is doing, is trying to give their domestic manufacturers a competitive advantage at the expense of their transplants. GM's (chevrolets,buicks, and cadillacs) is neck and neck for being the largest manufacturers and sellers over there. the buick line is immensely popular, and they have 3.1-3.9L V6's...never mind when you look at the US models that offer 4's and 6's (say, the chevy malibu, or honda accord), the MPG penalty between the base 4cyl/auto and the V6/auto is about 1-2 mpg.

Reply

↓↑report