The Drive-a-Toyota Act
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 14:54 That may be your opinion, but if you think you are correct you had better notify the IRS. There is no listing of any Toyota holding company paying any corporate taxes, on the IRS wed site. LOL mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:afeji.8274$7k7.1410(a)trnddc01... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Those if favor of "tax" assistance do not think of the fact they are the >> ones paying the tax money that is used to "assist," and that is going to >> a foreign corporation that pays NO US federal corporate income taxes >> ;) > > But it's US subsidies do. > > Jeff > >> mike >> >> <dold(a)12.usenet.us.com> wrote in message >> news:f6gclb$dij$3(a)blue.rahul.net... >>> In alt.autos.ford Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>> You can subtract the $787.50 from the savings because *somenone* (the >>>> taxapyer) pays for that. Only if you are a liberal do you ignore such >>>> costs. >>> Only if there were no hybrids. I would like to thank you for paying >>> your >>> portion of my rebate, but the source of it doesn't affect the fit in my >>> pocket. I think of it along the same lines as the development cost for >>> Velcro, also funded by the taxpayer. >>
From: Jeff on 6 Jul 2007 14:59 Mike Hunter wrote: > That may be your opinion, but if you think you are correct you had better > notify the IRS. There is no listing of any Toyota holding company paying > any corporate taxes, on the IRS wed site. LOL Can you please tell us the location of the IRS website that lists which companies pay taxes? I haven't found one that lists the taxes that corporations pay or even one the lists all the corporate tax payers. JEff > mike > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:afeji.8274$7k7.1410(a)trnddc01... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Those if favor of "tax" assistance do not think of the fact they are the >>> ones paying the tax money that is used to "assist," and that is going to >>> a foreign corporation that pays NO US federal corporate income taxes >>> ;) >> But it's US subsidies do. >> >> Jeff >> >>> mike >>> >>> <dold(a)12.usenet.us.com> wrote in message >>> news:f6gclb$dij$3(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>> In alt.autos.ford Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>>> You can subtract the $787.50 from the savings because *somenone* (the >>>>> taxapyer) pays for that. Only if you are a liberal do you ignore such >>>>> costs. >>>> Only if there were no hybrids. I would like to thank you for paying >>>> your >>>> portion of my rebate, but the source of it doesn't affect the fit in my >>>> pocket. I think of it along the same lines as the development cost for >>>> Velcro, also funded by the taxpayer. >
From: Tomes on 6 Jul 2007 15:01 "B A R R Y" ... > Tomes wrote: >> >> Prius owner since January 1 here. The heater does indeed use the >> engine heat as the heat source, no electric augmentation. We had >> plenty of heat, and the heat came on as quickly as it does in my Jeep, >> which is considered to be rather fast and strong. It does lower the >> gas mileage significantly. > > Be aware that most vehicles get lower mileage in the winter, so not all > of the MPG drop you've seen might not be due to the heater. Yep, agreed.
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 15:11 You are free to believe whatever you choose. A modern V8 will run quite efficiently at 1,500 RPMs, even on four cylinders, at 60 MPH. Most 4 cy engines need to run at nearly twice that number of RPMs at 60 MPH. You are confusing EPA test highway figures with what I actually said. ANY car will get better than the EPA figure, driven strictly at speed on the highway. The average is three to four MPG. My V6 Lincoln Zephyr with a fuel computer and six speed double OD tranny, had an EPA mileage of 29 but will constantly do 34/35 at 1,700 RPMs at 60 MPH on a flat road. ;) mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:w6uji.8$V35.4(a)trndny03... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> In general hybrid use a small engine to move the vehicle when not much >> torques is required and to generate electricity when required. The >> electric motor is used when torque is required to get the vehicle going >> and to keep it going on a grade. >> >> We hear of the great mileage while driving at slower speeds in a hybrid >> but one can not continue to do so for long before the engine will need to >> run to recharge the batteries, >> provide heat and AC >> >> Seems to me we should be looking to improve the newer technology, that >> permits several of the cylinders to be disengaged when torque is not >> required. That is a better solution to lowering ones average fuel >> consumption since the majority is mileage is accumulated >> where torque is not required. > > I have to disagree with you on this one. > > To me, it seems that no running an engine at its most efficient speeds, as > the hybrids do, and storing energy as electricity and using that in such a > way the efficiency is maximized will make a better combination than > cutting off cylinders. > > Even buses in NYC use hybrid technology rather than disengaging cylinders > (or in addition to it). And the Swedes are working on hybrid garbage > trucks. > > Plus, but using a hybrid design, you can have a smaller and lighter engine > than with an engine that has a variable number of cylinders. Of course, > the technologies are not mutually incompatible. > >> Several manufacturers are offing that technology and obtaining well over >> 30 mpg, with V8 engines, on the highway and still offering the larger, >> safer, more powerful vehicles that the buyers prefer. > > What manufacturer offers a V8 that gets well over 30 mpg? > > OK, some V8 get close to 30 mpg highway, but none get even 30 mpg highway, > at least in the 2007 or 2008 model years: > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf > >> Cylinder deactivation does not add much to the price of the vehicle as >> apposed to hybrids that cost much more to build and add to the wealth of >> batteries to be build and recycled. > > It's a trade-off. Some people prefer a bigger car, some prefer one with a > smaller environmental footprint, which hybrids may or may not have (I > haven't seen a good accounting of the environmental costs of the batteries > and other technology). > > Jeff > >> mike >> >> >> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message >> news:5f59k4F35r4qqU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> B A R R Y wrote: >>> >>>> who wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <VzZii.7981$7k7.3835(a)trnddc01>, >>>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There is no indication that the life of the batteries are a limiting >>>>>> factor to the life of the car. All indications are that the batteries >>>>>> do not wear out. >>>>> >>>>> Dream on. >>>>> Currently rechargeable batteries start going down hill at about 3 >>>>> years. >>>>> The fact that they are much weaker between 5 and the 8 yr guarantee >>>>> point would not be that noticeable as the Prius battery is very large. >>>>> A Prius might then be running as a mild hybrid, not going so far on >>>>> battery only. >>>> >>>> Which would cause the gas mileage to drop. >>>> >>>> My in-laws are still driving a first generation Prius, a 2002, with >>>> over 100k. The MPG is the same as it ever was. >>> >>> Ha ha! But Toyota slipped up by uncluding in that article that it would >>> not even go a mile on battery only. That says that the battery is a >>> small factor in its overall economy. And in most driving situations, >>> regenerative braking probably barely (or doesn't quite) make up for the >>> extra weight of batteries and controls it is carrying around. (IOW - >>> the economy is from a small, optimized-for-efficiency IC engine.) >>> >>> Bill Putney >>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>> address with the letter 'x') >>
From: Mike Hunter on 6 Jul 2007 15:12
You make lots of counter claims that you do not back up LOL mike "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:n9uji.9$V35.3(a)trndny03... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> One should know by now that our fried Jeff likes prefers others do his >> homework. ;) > > Sorry, but if one makes a claim, it is up to the one making the claim to > support it, not me. > > Expecting one to support his own claims is not the same as not doing my > homework. > > Jeff > >> mike >> >> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:CEfji.7467$fw2.4379(a)trnddc04... >>> Bill Putney wrote: >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <5f5catF3bdrnjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You know - I find it particularly and disgustingly dishonest for a >>>>>> person to ask me specifically why I don't give some authoritative >>>>>> information (in this case on NiMH battery life), and then when I do >>>>>> exactly that, that same individual says I (therefore) am a >>>>>> know-it-all and that his part in the discussion is essentially over. >>>>> I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention: what authoritative information >>>>> did you give? >>>>> And what authoritative sources did you cite? >>>> More dishonest tactics. The jig is up. >>> Yeah, you've got that right. >>> >>> You claimed that you cited authoritative sources, yet you can say what >>> they are. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>>> Bill Putney >>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>>> address with the letter 'x') >> |