OOOOOOOOooooooh.... GAS PAINS!
Speed
$1.60 / gallon
Why, oh, why,
does it got to be so HIGH?
Patrick Stadter
$1.49 for Premium in central, PA. You know, the tax and spenders
say the repealing the $0.043 gas tax is a drop in the bucket,
but it is our money, they take too much of it as it is, and
repealing it would be a start.
pas
'89 GTi - 16v, thirsty for expensive petrol
John R Pierce
>Speed wrote:
>>
>> $1.60 / gallon
>>
>> Why, oh, why,
>> does it got to be so HIGH?
>
> $1.49 for Premium in central, PA. You know, the tax and spenders
>say the repealing the $0.043 gas tax is a drop in the bucket,
>but it is our money, they take too much of it as it is, and
>repealing it would be a start.
>
>
$1.829 for premium chevron here in san jose, california last night...
OUCH!
Mark Juliano
In article <319aacbb...@207.1.65.3>,
I can't resist....
Move to Atlanta, standard unleaded is $1.17, and premimum is like $1.37. Of
course alot the roads seem to need repair or widening....
=============================================================
Mark Juliano email: mark.j...@gtri.gatech.edu
Georgia Tech Research Institute
7220 Richardson Road Telephone:(770)528-7881
Smyrna, Georgia 30080 Fax:(770)528-7083
My opinions are my own...
VWcrazyTim
In my opinion, I do not understand why a lot of people are gatting all
upset over gas prices. No matter WHAT the price is, you have to get gas!
Honestly, if you dislike the price THAT much, break out the old Schwinn
and rid away!
I am willing to pay the prices for premium gas because I LOVE to drive my
'84 Scirocco sooooooooo much, I will pay ANYTHING in order to drive it!
Nothing will stop me!
But, that is just MY opinion,
Tim :)
'84 Wolfsburg Edition Scirocco
James Kokernak
In article <319A50...@photon.arl.psu.edu>, Patrick Stadter <psta...@photon.arl.psu.edu> writes:
|> Speed wrote:
|> >
|> > $1.60 / gallon
|> >
|> > Why, oh, why,
|> > does it got to be so HIGH?
|>
|> $1.49 for Premium in central, PA. You know, the tax and spenders
|> say the repealing the $0.043 gas tax is a drop in the bucket,
|> but it is our money, they take too much of it as it is, and
|> repealing it would be a start.
Forgive me for going off subject here, (there is now rec.vw.politics
newsgroup) but I disagree here. Repealing the gas tax will only
shift revenues from a consumption tax to some sort of imposed
tax through raised income tax for example. It is hard enough to
get those taxes down, so I'd rather weather a year of high gas
prices. Lowering the tax will just shift us on the supply/demand
curve and the price will drift back up (ideally).
Also, if you break down gas prices in other countries (take those
in Europe for example), they pay about the same amount for the
product, but the $3 or so difference in prices is due to higher taxes.
Finally, those that are driving newer cars are paying $0.35-$0.65
per mile to operate their vehicle. The increase in gas price adds
about $0.01 to $0.02 to that figure (probably closer to 0.01 for
a VW).
So while I agree that they do take too much of our money, I feel that
this is just an election year ploy concocted (unfortunately) by the
party that I tend to support.
Just my 0.02
--Jim
C. B. Kit Gerhart
Gas is way too cheap in the US. Here is a partial list of the
advantages North Americans would have if the gas tax were
$2.00/gallon.
1) A trivial 20 cent/gallon increase in gas price wouldn't be
so noticable.
2) There would be a lot fewer pickup trucks and "sport utility
vehicles" blocking our view and wasting our resources.
3) There would be a decent mass transit system in place
resulting in fewer cars on the road and therefore better driving
conditions for those of us who like to drive.
4) We would be able to continue driving longer before the
petroleum reserves were depleted to the point that no one could
afford fuel for motor vehicles.
5) Money would be available to properly maintain roads.
Etc. Etc.
ERK
>Etc. Etc.
Yes, and middle class families with two incomes who must commute 40+
miles per day in opposite directions (the people with those minivans
and SUV's) would be hurt the most. Although I agree that conserving
petroleum resources while reducing emissions and their associated
environmental impact is good, the truth of the matter is that there is
a lot of revenue (i.e., tax dollars and leisure spending) already
associated with these SUV's and minivans. It is not as simple as your
post indicates.
Remember, the USA has many wide open spaces and the investment to
develop reliable mass transit to cross (and enjoy) these expanses
would be huge. Besides, politicians would find places other than
roads and mass transit to spend the extra gas-tax revenue, so it would
cost us more to drive the same crappy roads (yes, I live in Michigan)
with near the same volume of traffic, except minivans with v6's might
be replaced by even slower minivans with 4-cyllinders (or worse yet,
electric).
My company does not want to share the opinions I've expressed,
and it does not.
ERK (usrv...@ibmmail.com)
more later...
etc.
Anthony Siino
Gas is actually no more expensive now than when I started driving 15 years
ago. The cheapest I ever remember buying gas for was about $1/gallon for
leaded regular and that was probably at an el cheapo gas station. I
wasn't descriminating about what I put into my VW squareback.
Considering 4% inflation over 15 years that $1 gallon of gas should be
$1.70. The relative price of gas has actually gone down. Regular unleaded
is now around $1.50/gallon and will be back down to the $1.30s once this
temporary price increase is over.
Anthony
Alden Cates
Anthony Siino wrote:
> Considering 4% inflation over 15 years that $1 gallon of gas should be
> $1.70. The relative price of gas has actually gone down. Regular unleaded
> is now around $1.50/gallon and will be back down to the $1.30s once this
> temporary price increase is over.
>
> Anthony
Actually, the "normal" price of regular unleaded in California was about
$1.45. Premium right now is hovering between $1.75 up to $1.93 in some
stations. Wish the price would drop soon...
-Alden
Tullio
ERK wrote:
> Yes, and middle class families with two incomes who must commute 40+
> miles per day in opposite directions (the people with those minivans
> and SUV's) would be hurt the most. Although I agree that conserving
> petroleum resources while reducing emissions and their associated
> environmental impact is good, the truth of the matter is that there is
> a lot of revenue (i.e., tax dollars and leisure spending) already
> associated with these SUV's and minivans. It is not as simple as your
> post indicates.
No, it's not simple at all, but there needs to be a decent middle
ground. One of the reasons that homes, jobs, shopping, etc. is so
spread out is that cheap gas has made it affordable to do so.
Before we had the ability to travel so quickly so cheaply, we built
everything a bit closer together. The small town I live in used to
have a pretty impressive public transportation system. However, as
cars became more popular and more affordable, all the trains,
trolleys, and buses went away.
In any case, the USA is probably more addicted to the automobile
than any other country, and we need to recognize the cost of this
addiction (and it is an addiction - just try to do without it). I
read one study that pegged the actual cost to our society of driving
a car at something like $9 per gallon. This only covers the
financial cost. There is also the cost to our society in the form
of a loss of "community" as we grow farther and farther apart.
Maybe high gas prices aren't the solution, but we don't even have a
reasonable public discussion on the issue yet.
Todd
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
e-mail: tul...@TheRamp.net
Bryan Cowan
In article <4nfblp$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, vwcra...@aol.com
(VWcrazyTim) wrote:
Well, I personally try to ride my bike-I need the exercise. But in a
suburban city like Sacramento, that's not feasible when you actually have
to go somewhere. My 80 Rabbit takes regular, and it gets 23 mpg (on a 10
gallon tank) and I feel sorry for the people with big gas guzzling cars
who have to pay $30 bucks a tank-my Rabbit usually costs around $12 to
fill up with gas around $1.50 a gallon. An ad in the local VW dealer says
that the Golf (the Rabbit was basically a first edition Golf with a
different name for North America) is the most popular car in the world-and
I can understand why! ;)
Bryan Cowan
80 Rabbit
Anthony Siino
Well, I have to disagree. Before, I upgraded to an Autotech chip
(requiring premium gas) I was routinely paying below $1.30/gallon in No.
California. I'm talking Shell, Chevron, Exxon not Rotten Robbie or Arco
gas. This was about 5 months ago. Before, the recent price increase I
was paying $1.45-$1.55 for premium unleaded.
ERK
m...@midtown.net (Bryan Cowan) wrote:
>to go somewhere. My 80 Rabbit takes regular, and it gets 23 mpg (on a 10
>gallon tank) and I feel sorry for the people with big gas guzzling cars
Only 23mpg in a Rabbit? That seems high (a "guzzler" actually).
My carburetted 1984 Rabbit gets 30+mpg driven enthusiastically.
Most new large cars can get better than 23mpg.
Steve Tristram
Bryan Cowan wrote:
> Well, I personally try to ride my bike-I need the exercise. But in a
> suburban city like Sacramento, that's not feasible when you actually have
> to go somewhere. My 80 Rabbit takes regular, and it gets 23 mpg (on a 10
> gallon tank) and I feel sorry for the people with big gas guzzling cars
> who have to pay $30 bucks a tank-my Rabbit usually costs around $12 to
> fill up with gas around $1.50 a gallon. An ad in the local VW dealer says
> that the Golf (the Rabbit was basically a first edition Golf with a
> different name for North America) is the most popular car in the world-and
> I can understand why! ;)
>
> Bryan Cowan
> 80 Rabbit
I too try to ride my bike to work when I can (ie when it's not
lagging it down) When I do drive across town to work I still
get 32 mpg with my Scirocco. I think a Rabbit giving 23 mpg is
one sick bunny! Are you putting low octane fuel in it? Over
here we use 95 RON minimum, but to get more value for money 97
leaded or 98 unleaded - better performance and more miles.
-Steve Tristram in the UK
dr...@le.ac.uk
Petrol in America is cheap!
In England I pay 64pence a litre. Thats 2.90 pounds a gallon
or in dollars at 1.5 dollars to the pound 4.36 dollars a gallon.
That makes a full tank (8 gallon) cost 25pounds or 37 dollars.
Now tell me your fuel is expensive
David James Isham
Yeah, but you folks have a much better selection of econo-box
cars! And they're much more interesting too. All of our cars tend
to be big by european standards. Do they still make the Mini? We
get the ever so popular Geo Metro!!! =(
dave
'84 Rabbit Convertible
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Isham
Environmental Engineering Flush Hard, It's a LONG way to
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo the next town.......
dis...@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herschel Redd
dr...@le.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Petrol in America is cheap!
>
> In England I pay 64pence a litre. Thats 2.90 pounds a gallon
> or in dollars at 1.5 dollars to the pound 4.36 dollars a gallon.
>
> That makes a full tank (8 gallon) cost 25pounds or 37 dollars.
>
> Now tell me your fuel is expensive
Yes, our petrol price is less than in the UK. Are you still using the
Imperial gallon? Is the Imp gal 5 quarts? If so, that should be factored in.
Also we are not taxed on our fuel as you are. Things like health care here
are paid by the individual (or his employer as a part of his salary package).
Am I correct in stating that fuel taxes collected in the UK go to the
general coffers? In the US the fuel taxes go to build the transportaion
system, primarily roads. In most US cities there is simply no reasonable
alternative to the auto. Her in Dallas, a 20 minute morning commute would
take 3 hours on the bus, I would have to leave at 6 AM instead of 8 AM, and
if I took the bus it would require 3 changes, and I would arrive at the
office after a 1.5 mile walk from the bus stop, at 9:30.
If you remove the taxes from the consumer price of the fuel, it is reasonably
consistent worldwide. You would expect this as the cost of shipping crude,
becomes mostly insignificant due to the many ways of shipping, and the volume
it is often shipped in...ie really big tankers
People in the US are more upset with the rate at which petrol has increased
in price.
Take care,
Kristiansen, Rune
In article <4nseee$h...@falcon.le.ac.uk> dr...@le.ac.uk writes:
> From: dr...@le.ac.uk
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.vw.watercooled
> Date: 21 May 1996 12:54:38 GMT
> Organization: University of Leicester, UK
>
> Petrol in America is cheap!
>
> In England I pay 64pence a litre. Thats 2.90 pounds a gallon
> or in dollars at 1.5 dollars to the pound 4.36 dollars a gallon.
>
> That makes a full tank (8 gallon) cost 25pounds or 37 dollars.
>
> Now tell me your fuel is expensive
>
Here in Norway, the worlds third largest oil exporter,
we pay ca 9 NOK per litre. Thats ca 5.7US$ a gallon.
How's that for expensive!
Regards,
-Rune
Tullio
Herschel Redd wrote:
In most US cities there is simply no reasonable
> alternative to the auto. Her in Dallas, a 20 minute morning commute would
> take 3 hours on the bus, I would have to leave at 6 AM instead of 8 AM, and
> if I took the bus it would require 3 changes, and I would arrive at the
> office after a 1.5 mile walk from the bus stop, at 9:30.
Well, it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most US cities
(especially Dallas) were built around the automobile. City planning
from the 50s onward did not take into account efficient alternate
means of transportation such as walking, cycling, or mass transit.
Remember, this is National Bike-to-Work Week.
Spence Spencer
> Here in Norway, the worlds third largest oil exporter,
> we pay ca 9 NOK per litre. Thats ca 5.7US$ a gallon.
>
> How's that for expensive!
>
that price!
Spence..
Weiyun Yu
Spence Spencer <s...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
Hardly the case. Its a case of relative values. In general, the public
transport system in Europe is so much better and convenient that its
partly funded by the levies from petrol/cars etc. Its a great cause
for the environment. Overall, a year of transport costs for an individual there
may be no more than that of a person driving on the LA freeway for a year
of personal travels.
Not insane at all!
ERK
wei...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Weiyun Yu) wrote:
>Spence Spencer <s...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
Valid point. Of course, most of the country does not drive the LA
freeway. Some of us in the USA do not even like California nor large
metropolitan areas in general. Relative values are just thet -
relative.
Joshua Van Tol
In article <31A1EC...@psyc.nott.ac.uk>, Steve Tristram
<s...@psyc.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
Fuel octane will not make any difference in fuel economy. The energy
content of 87 and 92 octane is almost (exactly?) the same. What's
different is the knock resistance. If your car is not built to take
advantage of 93 octane, you shouldn't use it, you are only wasting money.
It won't hurt anything either, but it is not required.
RACEWARE1
See "VR6 30 MPG" thread for actual performance of different octane fuels.
On the 'Bahn,
Randy, a.k.a. BoltMeister
Patrick Stadter
jjva...@cc.memphis.edu (Joshua Van Tol) wrote:
>
> Fuel octane will not make any difference in fuel economy. The energy
>content of 87 and 92 octane is almost (exactly?) the same. What's
>different is the knock resistance. If your car is not built to take
>advantage of 93 octane, you shouldn't use it, you are only wasting money.
>It won't hurt anything either, but it is not required.
You should consider that fact that some grades of petrol use
different cleaners. Often, the best cleaners are only found in the top
grade fuel -- this was true of Texaco at one point, I don't know if it
is still the case in general.
pas
--
'89 GTi - 16v
Bryan Cowan
In article <jjvantol-230...@macduff.csp.ee.memphis.edu>,
jjva...@cc.memphis.edu (Joshua Van Tol) wrote:
> In article <31A1EC...@psyc.nott.ac.uk>, Steve Tristram
> <s...@psyc.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Bryan Cowan wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I personally try to ride my bike-I need the exercise. But in a
> > > suburban city like Sacramento, that's not feasible when you actually have
> > > to go somewhere. My 80 Rabbit takes regular, and it gets 23 mpg (on a 10
> > > gallon tank) and I feel sorry for the people with big gas guzzling cars
> > > who have to pay $30 bucks a tank-my Rabbit usually costs around $12 to
> > > fill up with gas around $1.50 a gallon. An ad in the local VW dealer says
> > > that the Golf (the Rabbit was basically a first edition Golf with a
> > > different name for North America) is the most popular car in the world-and
> > > I can understand why! ;)
> > >
> > > Bryan Cowan
> > > 80 Rabbit
> >
> >
> > I too try to ride my bike to work when I can (ie when it's not
> > lagging it down) When I do drive across town to work I still
> > get 32 mpg with my Scirocco. I think a Rabbit giving 23 mpg is
> > one sick bunny! Are you putting low octane fuel in it? Over
> > here we use 95 RON minimum, but to get more value for money 97
> > leaded or 98 unleaded - better performance and more miles.
>
> Fuel octane will not make any difference in fuel economy. The energy
> content of 87 and 92 octane is almost (exactly?) the same. What's
> different is the knock resistance. If your car is not built to take
> advantage of 93 octane, you shouldn't use it, you are only wasting money.
> It won't hurt anything either, but it is not required.
I believe the owner's manual of my Rabbit says specifically to use 87
octane (I believe that would be 91 RON in the UK) so that's what I use.
The car also burns 1 quart of oil every 135 miles, maybe that has
something to do with it.
Bryan Cowan
80 Rabbit
Gordon Root
Bryan Cowan (m...@midtown.net) wrote:
: In article <jjvantol-230...@macduff.csp.ee.memphis.edu>,
: Bryan Cowan
: 80 Rabbit
Bryan- Thats the reason. It is now a diesel!
Charles T. Collier
> Fuel octane will not make any difference in fuel economy. The energy
> content of 87 and 92 octane is almost (exactly?) the same. What's
> different is the knock resistance. If your car is not built to take
> advantage of 93 octane, you shouldn't use it, you are only wasting money.
> It won't hurt anything either, but it is not required.
What year VW's are built to take advantage of 93 octane?
Scott Ickes
First of all, according to the Consumer Reports article I read a few years
ago, there is actually a slightly LOWER energy content in premium. Not enough
to really effect performance. On the 93 octane thing, don't the A3's have
a 10.8 to 1 compression ratio (or close to that)? If so, they should need
a lot of octane, especially with a chip.
-Scott 87 VW Golf GT, 148k miles, RIP.
matt
> > What year VW's are built to take advantage of 93 octane?
Can't you advance the timing in almost any motor to take advantage of
higher-octane gas? Seems like you could get a couple hp here, too.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
matt
Alden Cates
That's what a new chip does for the car. It advances the timing to get
more power and torque from the engine. It also controls other things,
like the mixture etc. Though once you install it, you can only use
permium fuel, or you're engine will knock it self to death. One thing I
do know, my Corrado has more get-up-and-spin the tires now!
-Alden