Comments on: CARB Rules May Pull Plug on Plug-in Conversions

By: Yo Mama

Yo Mama — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:59:44 +0000

A prius puts out hardly any emmissions. Adding on a couple more batteries would hardly change the composition. Why doesn't CARB go after the cancer causing diesels that are on the road that are belching black dirty smoke every day... Give me a break!

Toyota got it right, Bob Lutz and his Chevy Volt, got it wrong.

For many years, Lutz laughed at toyota and the prius, calling it a novelty item. The last years have made Lutz eat his words. All he cared about was producing gas guzzing muscle cars. Now his piles of junk are sitting on american showroom floors where no one is buying them. Every body has turned to fuel efficient cars. GM aka Greedy Men, is trying to catch up but it will the several years down the road. In the mean time, Toyota and other will be laughing all the way to the next technology level, and GM will be out dated. Wanna Make GM profitable? FIRE BOB LUTZ and all the WHITE HAIRED, YELLOW TOENAILED, OLD Schooled, Good ole boys, and replace them with Fresh New Toyota talent. That is the only way. GM has gone from the Big three to the Tiny three, shortly to be bye, bye...wee..wee.

By: Lizard Eater

Lizard Eater — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:45:29 +0000

CARB strike again indeed. The public presentation was the 16th Juky and you had to have comments in by the 22nd!! The warranty conditions they wanted are exorbitant, battery charging is none of their business - the rules are in your face outrageous, as usual, to ensure nobody ever sees an EV.

Lizards like it hot don't you know.

By: NMO

NMO — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:38:49 +0000

CARB is simply unpredictable and often times we are left wondering what’s really going on. They never seem to support the small manufacturers, even though they are a key component of positive change. It’s political, it’s regulatory and at times it’s individuals with too much power to make decisions but it seems the big, entrenched companies always come out on top.

By: Shines

Shines — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:14:19 +0000

The proposed regulation is not that difficult to understand. When I read it, it seems to be saying lets make sure plug in kits are warranted, reliable and have been tested. I can see the risk of getting ripped off by some fly by night operation selling some shoddy conversion kit or worse ruining a good hybrid by damaging its batteries or ignition system. The way I read the proposal, is that it is a good safeguard. Sure it is an obstacle for start ups, but I’d feel better knowing my spending $20K to modify my $18 – $35K Prius/Civic/Camry is warranted and being done by a legitimate company with documented installers.

By: Boom Boom

Boom Boom — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:16:30 +0000

This isn't just about emissions, CARB is requiring that they also have a minimum charging time, which has nothing to do with emissions.

If CARB wants to do its job, it can say, very simply, that any modification that increases the emissions beyond the required amount is banned. Each add-on manufacturer would provide a model for testing and those that pass are allowed and those that don't aren't allowed. They've got no business getting into the charging time, warranties, quality control or anything else about the batteries.

And even if they did, it seems rather ironic that they'd be stopping a 100 mpg Prius from emitting an additional 10% of greenhouse gases when that amount is still far below 99% of the cars on the road. And isn't the whole point behind the increased battery packs that the engine isn't turned on as much? So you convert your Prius so you can drive 30 miles on battery only, but the last 5 miles your engine turns on and emits 50% more pollution (a rather extreme example) for those miles. You still drove 30 miles with out emitting any CO2. Shouldn't that count for something?

Seems pretty nuts.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:11:42 +0000

It would be interesting to see who is paying for the test that are finding the increased levels of pollution.

By: NCyder

NCyder — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:39:56 +0000

Once created, a government bureaucracy survives by validating their existence. This is usually done by showing "progress". And progress is never measured in reductions of involvement, but in more and more meddling in the affairs of those they "regulate".

Disclaimer: I actually work in an automotive field that benefits from more regulation of the kind that CARB produces. I am a walking paradox .... but I always have been.

By: Dom

Dom — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:59:20 +0000

CARB strikes again! Only this time they’re picking on the hybrids, not the diesels. I guess all’s fair in love and war. I think CARB may have outlived their usefullness. Anyway, as the recent article on the new Jetta TDI pointed out, improvements beyond the current emission standards are very small. I say we need to back off emissions and focus on fuel economy goals instead, especially since emission gains have a tendancy to reduce fuel economy.

By: Need2Change

Need2Change — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:49:19 +0000

In fact, 30% could be conservative for many drivers. If a plug-in can run for 20 miles on electric only, and a person typically commutes 5-8 miles each way, the engine may rarely turn on. Seems like there should be a factor applied to the emissions test -- at least reduce it by 50%.

I do like the idea of providing a warranty -- but 10 years seems excessive. Maybe 3 years on basic operation and damage to the car's existing systems (including stock battery), and 7-10 years for the new battery only.

By: steved28

steved28 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:30:14 +0000

I was thinking the same as anon. Are we missing the big picture? If ICE emissions rose 5%, but the engine ran 30% less in a typical driving cycle, perhaps they missed the point.