[bluesight]

Virtually every car is (or will be) more efficient than the past. Gas-only "hybrids" (by the current definition) happen to use a motor-generator and on-board battery (no outside energy source) as the technology to enhance efficiency. That technology does a pretty good job and has a fairly high initial cost. There are still not a lot of them compared to the total fleet of vehicles. Well, gas-only turbos attempt to achieve the very same goal of enhanced efficiency. They use an exhaust-driven compressor to increase efficient use of the gas in the explosive charge. They don't cost a lot and there are already a lot of them out there with many more coming.

The impact of small-engine turbos on improved fleet efficiency and reduced collection of gas taxes far (far) outweighs the losses from gas-only hybrids. So why are legislatures (particularly Republican) targeting motor-generator/battery technology to be the loser while ignoring the impact of exhaust-driven compressor technology?

Maybe it's just ignorance. But it certainly appears to be political and very specific rather than anything having to do with common sense.

B

PS...vague is the definition of "using" and "propel"