Bonus Malus 2011 new car: Update

[pb2488]

We often debate this forum the possibility for manufacturers to manufacture vehicles consuming 2 liters of fuel per 100km and above all TO REFUSE TO MANUFACTURE THEM ...

It is the consumers who refuse to buy them and not the manufacturers who refuse to build them:
https://www.econologie.com/voiture-a-1l-aux-100km-telechargement-4142.html

[I Citro]

We often debate this forum the possibility for manufacturers to manufacture vehicles consuming 2 liters of fuel per 100km and above all TO REFUSE TO MANUFACTURE THEM ...

It is the consumer who refuses to buy them and not the manufacturers, not the manufacturers who refuse to build them:
https://www.econologie.com/voiture-a-1l-aux-100km-telechargement-4142.html

I have already given my point of view and my disagreement on this point with the allegations of JM.Jancovici ...
I do not believe that manufacturers offer us such products at a fair price.

[Remundo]

Jancovici is right in the quoted excerpt. The economic system has found an interest in selling energy (but it is temporary !!), which has led to deep wasting behaviors, resulting in the automobile by the inadequacy of the product to the real need for travel. A deuche of 20 CV and 500 kg does the job of a modern sedan of 1800 kg and 150 HP very well. It takes just 1 hour 20 minutes where the sedan takes 1 hour (and still in traffic jams ...)

That said, Citro is also right to say that the current supply of new EVs is not credible at all (and even almost non-existent!). For my part, I prefer good PSA occasions than any VE model of the moment, mainly because of their prohibitive price and the rental of their batteries.

In an EV, the batteries have a status substantially similar to that of the heat engine in a VT. I am not sure that a thermal Laguna offer at € 30 + motor rental / leasing would appeal to many people in the thermal sector

It is however the kind of proposals which are profiled at Renault Fluence electric.

At PSA, small soaps at € 35 are priced delusional.

Add to this the undeniably reduced autonomy and benefits of the EV compared to the VT and the not yet dissuasive price of the liter of petrol: everything is done to divert buyers from EV to VT, and that for a long time.

[Christophe]

+1 but uh seems to me that this has already been widely debated, notably probably in the subject on the cited ...

Similarly, there has simply never been an offer for a 4 L / 2 100-wheel vehicle... then pretend that it is the consumer who does not want it ... hum hum ... well you have to be a diviner?

[Did67]

1) FYI, the LPG tax credit jumps to January 1st. These are indeed fiscal measures ("there's more money!") More than "ecological" measures.

2) That said, on the principle of a sliding bonus / penalty (we gain eg 5 g of CO² every year), I totally agree ...

3) On a first thread concerning this "bonus-malus", I remember that some of you were copntre, defending that it was a disguised taxation. In fact, at Borloo, at the time, no enarque had anticipated the slippage of the market towards small cars. They had fixed tariffs and emission rates on the basis of the market "before Grenelle" ... As a result of the races, the market slipped very significantly downwards, the deficit was for the State and .. the tax bar is being raised today. Who still remembers Grenelle "promises"? Borloo is collecting and we are talking mainly about unemployment and public deficits, Greece and Ireland ...

4) I quite agree with Citro: there are affordable solutions allowing everyone to "go towards ...". Citro has taken a radical option but not generalizable (yes: there are not 500 electric Saxos found on the market!).

For my part, I have a less radical but generalizable: my C1 LPG is produced mass, available at call prices. LPGized, it achieves emission values ​​comparable to the Prius (a little more CO², significantly less particles, CO and NOx).

Before the tax credit is canceled, all for around € 7 including tax. New.

On January 1, add € 2.

Obviously, it's not the same showing off when I park with my C1 !!!! No crowd around ... But all the same already two colleagues who think GPL (including one who took action and bought the Clio Campus equipped with orign).

5) So I conclude like Citro is that the consumer is also responsible for his choices and therefore the situation. How is it that there are so few who think a little bit about available, affordable, generalizable options ...

I repeat: of course this is not a "radical" or "total" solution. That said, the electric vehicle is not as radical as many think: it is necessary to use the electricity produced as we know it in France (except here again, to be completely consistent like Citro with its PV roof - all this so as not to over-react to these flats).

See the thread just beside where it is question of 4x4, with people who defend quite "normally" the SUV !!! In all sincerity. https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-disposi ... 10285.html

So the consumer has a large share of responsibility.

[Obamot]

We often debate this forum the possibility for manufacturers to manufacture vehicles consuming 2 liters of fuel per 100km and above all TO REFUSE TO MANUFACTURE THEM ...

It's the consumer who refusesnt to buy them and not the builders, not the builders who refuse to build them:
https://www.econologie.com/voiture-a-1l-aux-100km-telechargement-4142.html

I have already given my point of view and my disagreement on this point with the allegations of JM.Jancovici ...
I do not believe that manufacturers offer us such products at a fair price.

òh the beautiful troll! It is true that if I had the choice between a vehicle that consumes 2l per 100km VS another 14, I would take the latter "because I would refuse to buy the one allowing me to achieve such savings" .... All idiots, we are all idiots ... mmmmwouhahahah mdr collapsed on the ground

... then pretend that it is the consumer who does not want it ... hum hum ... well you have to be a diviner?

... yes but in moderation

[Did67]

.... All idiots, we are all idiots .... mmmmwouhahahah mdr collapsed on the ground: P

I am not at all sure that I understood correctly! But :

- yes, the "appearance" is sometimes more determining in our choices than the economic "rationality".

- yes, lots of people are "intoxicated" by the marketin and it is difficult to take a step back from the "arguments" ...

- yes, there is an addictive aspect in consumption ("I consume therefore I wipe ... my mediocrity in appearing, doing it like the others ...").

So if the 2L car existed, well there would be plenty to buy SUVs to go to town. I'm not convinced. See the thread relating to the 4x4; of course, they would create a whole "universe" to justify their choice (fridge to transport: "it's so practical" - it's even more practical to have it delivered! ...

There is a "fairly low-polluting" car that is economical enough to shop for shopping, as I mentioned above! Have you seen a lot of them?

I sincerely mean it. I'm still going to be treated as a troll, but that's okay, I don't know 100% what it is!

[Christophe]

Uh I wonder if we do not mix 2 debates:

a) the end of the scrapping premium
b) updating bonus penalties

a) it was a pure and simple subsidy to the change of vehicle = anti econological

b) if balanced is supposed to favor sober vehicles but as long as it is not (the State, so our taxes must compensate), well we fall back on the principle a) = anti-economic

But do not "worry" (or rather if): the a) and b) will be compensated by "internal" discounts by the manufacturers ...

As with solar PV, the auto market will adapt to the cuts in aid. The difference with PV is that the auto market is viable without any help ... and it would not deserve it when we see how their leaders relocate while taking advantage of public aid ...

[Did67]

For my part, I was well on the bonus / penalty (and by "extension", the elimination of the GPL tax credit). Which I claim that it is above all a fiscal measure (the usppression, because more money in the coffers of the State) disguised under an "ecological" rationality ("to encourage the manufacturers to make more efforts") .

And from there, I fully admit the interest of a sliding bonus / penalty to encourage manufacturers to go towards less polluting vehicles ...

While admitting that consumers are anything but rational, there will always be too many - too many? - to buy SUVs consuming 8 l / 100 even if the manufacturers offer "UC" (Urban Chiottes) at 2 l / 100 and justifying their "ego" (their need to appear) under the argument of the fridge to be transported.

In summary: I am for a sliding bonus / penalty (I have been from the start - as I am for the defunct carbon tax). I think that will pull the emission rates down. But that won't stop people from preferring big ones! What do you want; they do not love the little ones. To believe that their cars is their cock!

That's my point of view to be clear.

[Did67]

To believe that their cars is their cock!

.

Maybe a substitute?