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.

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

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...06c9082843.jpg

VetteOwner -

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

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

CarloSW2

Yeah, but on 280 gallons I could go 14,000 miles, :p

Nautical ? :p

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.

SVOboy -

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

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.:eek:

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.

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.

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.