What would it take to make small cars desirable? - Page 22 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2007, 06:50 PM   #211
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvanengen View Post
I guess my main complaint is that simply tacking a huge tax onto a gallon of gasoline will not solve anything. The money will not be spent to correct any of the problems that are caused by gasoline consumption, rather, in the true nature of Washington, will be spent on things totally unrelated....
I have to agree, at last partially. Govt will take the money and spend as we/they decide, never spending as originally promised. Old story.

And AMERICAN people do hate taxes. My EU-raised dad, on the other hand, has always said that he wishes he had to pay LOTS of taxes. Because that would mean he was raking it in!

In an idealized scenario we wouldn't subsidize the oil companies, and they'd have to charge the real cost for their products. Govt. would bill them for mideast military operations, or we wouldn't do those ops. Etc. etc. That would force the fuel prices up to their real level and people would decide to pay up or use less fuel.

But in the real world, that's not going to happen. Adding the tax to the fuel sold is a workable substitute. Forces consumers to rethink their decisions. Doesn't function EXACTLY the same as the idealized scenario but works pretty good in EU. Loads of diesel and high-mpg things on the roads there - and it's not just because of the tiny roads.
__________________

__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 08:52 PM   #212
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
ajohnmeyer -



110% agreement. That's why I have a WWII gas ration card on my car :


CarloSW2
speaking of, im restoreing my great grandpas 1929 Ford Model AA truck. when my grandprents went to get the title out of the bank they found they also had a WWII ration card for it with it. here it is below

__________________

VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 09:51 PM   #213
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
VetteOwner -

Quote:
Originally Posted by VetteOwner View Post
speaking of, im restoreing my great grandpas 1929 Ford Model AA truck. when my grandprents went to get the title out of the bank they found they also had a WWII ration card for it with it. here it is below

...
Wow. At 3100 miles max per year, I'd be maxxed out in two months, .

Maybe the miles were longer back then?!?!?!

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 09:56 PM   #214
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
Yeah, but on 280 gallons I could go 14,000 miles,
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2007, 10:04 PM   #215
Registered Member
 
trebuchet03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 812
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to trebuchet03
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfg83 View Post
Maybe the miles were longer back then?!?!?!

CarloSW2
Nautical ?
__________________
Time is the best teacher. Unfortunately it kills all its students.


Bike Miles (Begin Aug. 20 - '07): ~433.2 miles

11/12
trebuchet03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2007, 01:25 AM   #216
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 298
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by northboundtrain View Post
- Basic sedan or hatch/wagon.
- Four doors, seats 5
- 1.3/1.4 liter engine 85-95 hp
- 6 speed manual tranny with typical gearing for 1-5 and 6 being the highway gear that puts the overall final drive ratio at approx 2.25:1
- 2,200 - 2,400 lb. curb weight
- 4-5 star crash ratings
- 0.25 drag coefficient (same as Insight, not hard to do)
- offered in base, no frills model
- starts at $15k, same as a civic or corolla.
This is PRECISELY the kind of car that has managed to turn people AWAY from small cars. Although this sort of car is no longer built, many people still have BAD memories of hamster-powered small cars that have SO little power, that people are terrified to merge or pass (think small cars from the pre-MPFI and multivalve days). 85-95HP with the meager torque that a 1.3/1.4 liter engine is likely to give is just WAY too little for a 2200-2400 pound car to be driven with safety or confidence on the American road. Something has to give here. And what I would like to see here is less weight. Perhaps if the car could be made from aluminum or even a stronger alloy steel (which would allow the use of less material), weight could possibly be brought down by at least a few hundred pounds. The car would then have acceleration that most people would deem acceptable. And as a happy side effect, fuel economy would actually increase as well.

The other possibility would be to make the car as is, but make it a light hybrid. That would certainly help to deal with the inevitable acceleration problems associated with having such a small, low power engine in such a relatively large car.
StorminMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2007, 09:18 AM   #217
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
SVOboy -

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy View Post
Yeah, but on 280 gallons I could go 14,000 miles,
You mean 4*(70 per quarter), right? I didn't reference that because I wasn't sure of it was in gallons. If it is 280 gallons, I could go 11,200 miles. Soooooo, I would be cut off around mid-year ... With that restriction, I'd be forced to get a Honda Insight and/or a motorcycle. At least I've have another excuse to work from home!

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2007, 09:33 AM   #218
Registered Member
 
rvanengen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucepick View Post
I have to agree, at last partially. Govt will take the money and spend as we/they decide, never spending as originally promised. Old story.

And AMERICAN people do hate taxes. My EU-raised dad, on the other hand, has always said that he wishes he had to pay LOTS of taxes. Because that would mean he was raking it in!

In an idealized scenario we wouldn't subsidize the oil companies, and they'd have to charge the real cost for their products. Govt. would bill them for mideast military operations, or we wouldn't do those ops. Etc. etc. That would force the fuel prices up to their real level and people would decide to pay up or use less fuel.

But in the real world, that's not going to happen. Adding the tax to the fuel sold is a workable substitute. Forces consumers to rethink their decisions. Doesn't function EXACTLY the same as the idealized scenario but works pretty good in EU. Loads of diesel and high-mpg things on the roads there - and it's not just because of the tiny roads.
Uhh...just because there isn't the political backbone to do the RIGHT thing, doesn't mean that doing the easy-thing (tax the little guy) is the *almost* RIGHT thing. IMO, taxing the group least able to resist the imposition of taxes is pretty much the definition of the most WRONG thing. Guess they are the same people that think it would be ok to steal lunch money from the geeks/nerds instead of going after the football team's money. So...sounds like a rehash of the old "ends justifies the means" argument...and look where that got a lot of people in Europe.

And, no disrespect intended to your father, but just because you pay more in taxes, doesn't mean you take more home at the end of the day!! Sometimes, yes... (shrug).

I would counter that the MUCH shorter distances between destinations, smaller roads, lower speed limits, history (WWI, WWII, etc), lack of urban sprawl for many more years, rampant lawsuits, differing safety standards, and a few other unnamed factors (consumer perception, marketing, etc) have lead to the smaller more FE vehicles that are abundant in the EU.

The lack of diesels, though, I think we can lay mostly at the feet of California and the New England states that have followed their completely misguided approach to emissions in the last several years.
__________________
-- Randall


McIntyre's First Law: "Under the right circumstances, anything I tell you may be wrong."

O'Brien's First Corollary to McIntyre's First Law: "I don't know what the right circumstances are, either."



rvanengen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2007, 10:29 AM   #219
Registered Member
 
ajohnmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 87
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to ajohnmeyer
About California (and thereby the rest of the country's) diesel and gas emission standards, It's mainly a problem of government regulatory agencies (bureaucracy anyone?) being a few decades behind. They're mainly concerned with particulate and smog forming emissions. Sure, those were a big deal back in the 80's with all the LA smog and acid rain and such. But we've had that situation under control for over a decade, just another decade to go before they realize it.
__________________
"I got 350 heads on a 305 engine. I get 10 miles to the gallon. I ain't got no good intentions." -The Drive By Truckers

Team OPEC Busters!
ajohnmeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2007, 10:41 AM   #220
Registered Member
 
ajohnmeyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 87
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to ajohnmeyer
not saying it won't come back, just that it won't come back if we stick to our current level of emission standards. We don't need to keep tightening particulate emission standards every couple of years. We need to be worried about cutting total emissions. Reducing average engine displacement and increasing MPG standards would help cut both CO2 and all the particulates.
__________________

__________________
"I got 350 heads on a 305 engine. I get 10 miles to the gallon. I ain't got no good intentions." -The Drive By Truckers

Team OPEC Busters!
ajohnmeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Combined totals of all my vehicles? nizationpcs Fuelly Web Support and Community News 0 03-30-2009 07:41 AM
exhaust wrap - interesting results lindermant Experiments, Modifications and DIY 22 09-25-2006 09:51 AM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM
Pumping air to gasoline Capcom General Fuel Topics 5 12-09-2005 05:23 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.