Gasoline Prices

[Shining Arcanine]

Today when I was driving from school, I saw an Exxon Mobil gasoline station that was offering $3.13 so I pulled over to fill up, and when I went to select the grade of gasoline, I saw that the pumps in the front and center were charging $3.13 while the ones in the back, where I was because there was only one pump available when I pulled up, were charging $3.79. I never thought that gasoline stations were "price gourging" because the free market and government interference tend to raise the price but that was simply deceptive advertising. I quickly canceled my purchase of gasoline at that pump and went to one that charged $3.13.

Has anyone else had this happen to them?

[Wayne Luke]

No... We had a station locally that adjusted their pump to be off just a little so instead of one gallon you got .90 gallons for your money. The state shut them down and sued them for Weights and Measures fraud. That was three years ago. The station was recently sold to a Shell franchise and re-opened.

Have never seen different prices at different pumps for the same grade.

[Bob Isaac]

You need to come to the UK, prices are up and down like a fiddlers elbow. They also vary from station to station.

Bob

[Shining Arcanine]

They vary from station to station here too, such that you could have one station with $3.15 and another station across the street with $3.19. I have no clue why people in their right mind would go to a station with gasoline for $3.19 when they could go to one with gasoline for $3.15 across the street but they must be going to those stations because those stations manage to stay in business, despite having to pay the same property taxes as their competition.

[cirisme]

They vary from station to station here too, such that you could have one station with $3.15 and another station across the street with $3.19. I have no clue why people in their right mind would go to a station with gasoline for $3.19 when they could go to one with gasoline for $3.15 across the street but they must be going to those stations because those stations manage to stay in business, despite having to pay the same property taxes as their competition.
Yes, all things being equal.
All things being equal, no it doesn't make sense. But, in real life, things are very rarely equal.

But if there is a lot of traffic at the cheaper station and hardly any at the more expensive station, it makes more sense to go to the more expensive one.

Even if you have a HUGE gas guzzling vehicle like a RV and need to fill 40 gallons, it's only a $1.60 difference. Completely trivial when you consider filling up 40 gallons at those prices will cost you more than $120.

For me, I rarely fill up more than seven or eight gallons, and if the cheaper station has a ton of traffic, I'll go to a more expensive station if it's within 10¢ or so. The 2 or 3 quarters I would save are not worth the stress, or the risk of being hit by some bad driver trying to get in or out of the busy station.

Your mileage may vary. (how apropos ;))

[mlucek]

Today when I was driving from school, I saw an Exxon Mobil gasoline station that was offering $3.13 so I pulled over to fill up, and when I went to select the grade of gasoline, I saw that the pumps in the front and center were charging $3.13 while the ones in the back, where I was because there was only one pump available when I pulled up, were charging $3.79. I never thought that gasoline stations were "price gourging" because the free market and government interference tend to raise the price but that was simply deceptive advertising. I quickly canceled my purchase of gasoline at that pump and went to one that charged $3.13.

Has anyone else had this happen to them?
Could that $3.79 pump have been for "full service" ? Stations that offer full service pumps - i.e. they will pump the gas for you, usually charge quite a premium per gallon (puns intended :p) beyond the self-serve pump price. If you think about it, go past those pumps again and see if there's a "full service" sign on them. (yeah yeah yeah, get out all the non-gasoline related "full service" jokes .....:rolleyes:)

Some stations here in the Los Angeles area offer the full service option for those people who are unable to pump their own gas - handicapped/otherwise incapacitated, and those folks who think it's beneath them to be their own gas jockeys, etc.

How many states still won't let you pump your own gas ? 2 ? Oregon/NJ ? Still haven't figured THAT out yet.

[TruthElixirX]

Its 2.79ish here right now and I drive a pontiac sunfire (30 miles to the gallon. w00t.). Its very nice.


Anyways, no I'v never seen it vary from pump to pump.

[filburt1]

I'm driving a Pontiac G6 with a V6 engine right now. It's a rental while my slightly smashed car is being fixed (rear-ended while I was at a red light; I'm not at fault so the other company paid for repairs and the rental). It's moderately powerful, but sucks because I'll get less than 25 MPG and I drive 80 miles round trip for work. It's highways nearly the entire way with no major traffic so it's not that bad except for fuel consumption.

And I can't use my iPod in the rental because I use an aux input adapter in my car, not a tape adapter (no tape player in either car anyway) and I don't have a compatible FM transmitter.

[TruthElixirX]

And I can't use my iPod in the rental because I use an aux input adapter in my car, not a tape adapter (no tape player in either car anyway) and I don't have a compatible FM transmitter.

That would suck. I use an iPod adapter in my car and can't stand to take my parent's car without it.

[filburt1]

A thought did occur that I bought my sister a basic FM transmitter for her MP3 player before I bought her her iPod Mini (aren't I nice?). I might be able to use that given she has an iTrip for her Mini instead.

[Shining Arcanine]

Could that $3.79 pump have been for "full service" ? Stations that offer full service pumps - i.e. they will pump the gas for you, usually charge quite a premium per gallon (puns intended :p) beyond the self-serve pump price. If you think about it, go past those pumps again and see if there's a "full service" sign on them. (yeah yeah yeah, get out all the non-gasoline related "full service" jokes .....:rolleyes:)

Some stations here in the Los Angeles area offer the full service option for those people who are unable to pump their own gas - handicapped/otherwise incapacitated, and those folks who think it's beneath them to be their own gas jockeys, etc.

How many states still won't let you pump your own gas ? 2 ? Oregon/NJ ? Still haven't figured THAT out yet.
I think that it did say full service. The only thing is that there was no one there to pump the gasoline. I was about to pump it myself before I noticed that the price was 66 cents higher than what was advertised.

[pank]

No... We had a station locally that adjusted their pump to be off just a little so instead of one gallon you got .90 gallons for your money. The state shut them down and sued them for Weights and Measures fraud. That was three years ago. The station was recently sold to a Shell franchise and re-opened.

Have never seen different prices at different pumps for the same grade.

We worked with the DA's office a few years back. A driver called in and spilled the beans on a few stations. They were getting in too much Regular (on purpose of course) and having the driver dump the excess in the Premium storage tanks.

http://www.foxchicago.com/_ezpost/data/13507.shtml

The big fraud stories were a few years back when they actually went into the devices and replaced the chips.

It's no secret what we normally do. We run a 5 gallon test and it has to be within 6ci +/- zero. So they made sort of a pirate chip (so good even the pump manufacturers did not catch it at first).

When doing a standard test the pumps would be perfect at 5 gallons. Anywhere in between it would be off. It basically sped itself up to "catch up" and be accurate at 5 gallon intervals. We still use 5 gallon provers but can really test at any gallon amount these days.

Ok, enough shop talk ;)

[Mike Anime]

what i hate is the zone pricing my town used to be cheaper by .12 per gallon now one station is more expensive sometimes by .20 per gallon than surrounding towns.

they need to go to rack pricing so all stations will be closer in price and they wont be able to go up in prices 2x or more per day but instead can only change prices every 24 hours and no sooner.

[Floris]

The prices differ here per town too. Sometimes when we go visit my brother it is cheaper to leave with almost empty tank and fill 'r up halfway the trip.

[Martz]

Just to give you and other people an idea, UK petrol/gas costs $6.88 a litre.

(1 gallon = 3.78 Litres @ £0.98 per liter) = £3.73 per gallon = (*1.84 for dollars) = $6.88 per gallon.

My tank is about 50 litres (13 gallons), so the price difference (66 cents) you talk about would be comparible to $8 if I filled up my own car.

Works out to be ~£49 to fill up in the UK or ~£22 to fill it up in the USA. That is a huge difference! :(

The difference between stattions makes it expensive indeed, but I feel that a lot more money could be saved by driving a car with a decent MPG rating - 25 is not good. 40+ is more sensible and can be increaed to well over 50-60MPG if using modern diesel engines (but is slightly more expensive per litre).

I've made the switch from a diesel to a petrol engine, and I didn't have any control over that since it's a company car. And I really do notice the difference in my wallet.

The higher the prices of fuel, the greater the incentive to be efficient and frugal with it.

[Quillz]

Wow. $6.88/gallon... that's a lot! This is why I want to get a hybrid car.

[Floris]

http://www.smartmoney.com/10things/index.cfm?story=august2006

:)

[TruthElixirX]

Just to give you and other people an idea, UK petrol/gas costs $6.88 a litre.

That is mostly due to taxes imposed by the U.K. government though, correct?

[Mike Sullivan]

That is mostly due to taxes imposed by the U.K. government though, correct?
Correct. While from an end-user perspective it is obviously more expensive, the US-UK gas/petrol price comparison isn't completely apples-to-apples.

[Mike Anime]

while my car is good on gas it still cost me over 20.00 USD to put a little over 10 US gallons today..

3.20 USD/per/gal
X
10 US Gallons
------------
= 1 empty wallet

[Shining Arcanine]

Correct. While from an end-user perspective it is obviously more expensive, the US-UK gas/petrol price comparison isn't completely apples-to-apples.

The UK also produces all of the oil that it needs domestically and does so in excess to the point where it can sell crude oil on the world market in quantities greater than it buys. The US is dependent on foreign oil. The US also lacks VAT and "profit" taxes on oil companies, that like all expenses, are passed on to the general public.

[Bob Isaac]

The UK also produces all of the oil that it needs domestically and does so in excess
Oh really? My brother works on an oil rig for BP and he does not think so.

Bob

[Wayne Luke]

According to the Department of Energy in the U.S, the UK is currently a net exporter of Crude Oil and the largest oil producing nation in the European Union right now. However they also state that they will become a net importer of Crude Oil by the end of the decade.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/United_Kingdom/Background.html

[Marco van Herwaarden]

How much is produced don't always reflect on the internal market.

If i look at the Netherlands, we are a big supplier of natural gas (from natural resources in the the ground before anyone makes jokes ;)). We produce more then our internal needs. However because we have long lasting contracts to export that gas, we end up importing again for our own needs. Also the consumer prize of gas is higher then in the countries we export to.

[gptreasure]

Petrol in israel costs about 2$ a litre and it's always on the rise.
I think i'll start using bicycle from now on... :)

[Floris]

Petrol in israel costs about 2$ a litre and it's always on the rise.
I think i'll start using bicycle from now on... :)
Please don't spam on our forums, thank you.

[chrispadfield]

According to the Department of Energy in the U.S, the UK is currently a net exporter of Crude Oil and the largest oil producing nation in the European Union right now. However they also state that they will become a net importer of Crude Oil by the end of the decade.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/United_Kingdom/Background.html

This is incorrect. The UK is now an oil importer. This is set to escalate as the North Sea reached peak oil back in I believe 2002 and has been falling ever since.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,16849-2264582,00.html

[bfoot045]

I'm eagerly awaiting one of those hydrogen cars. The oil companies are holding us back though, and Bush wouldn't allow it as his oil buddies would get mad. O_o

[Shining Arcanine]

I'm eagerly awaiting one of those hydrogen cars. The oil companies are holding us back though, and Bush wouldn't allow it as his oil buddies would get mad. O_o
That is a misconception. The Japanese automobile manufacturers are also working on hydrogen powered cars and they have made just as much progress as the United States automobile manufacturers, outside of the United States' jurisdiction. The idea that President Bush has been trying to hinder the development of hydrogen powered vehicles was devised to slander him, without regard for whether or not it was true.

[Martz]

You have to admit there is a conflict of interest though, with the people who run the US goverment and their families being heavily involved in the oil business.

Regardless of if a statement is true or not, people will jump to this conclusion because it's so easy to associate the two.

[Shining Arcanine]

You have to admit there is a conflict of interest though, with the people who run the US goverment and their families being heavily involved in the oil business.

Regardless of if a statement is true or not, people will jump to this conclusion because it's so easy to associate the two.
What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things and the fact that the Japanese automobile manufacturers have not had any more progress than the United States automobile manufacturers demonstrates that President Bush has not done anything to inhibit the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. If anything, he has helped accelerate the development as the United States automobile manufacturers are receiving financial aid from the federal government to augment spending on development. So far though, the automobile manufacturers have not been able to develop hydrogen powered vehicles faster than the Japanese, even with the government's cash infusions.

[chrispadfield]

What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things and the fact that the Japanese automobile manufacturers have not had any more progress than the United States automobile manufacturers demonstrates that President Bush has not done anything to inhibit the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. If anything, he has helped accelerate the development as the United States automobile manufacturers are receiving financial aid from the federal government to augment spending on development. So far though, the automobile manufacturers have not been able to develop hydrogen powered vehicles faster than the Japanese, even with the government's cash infusions.


I am not sure why you think the Japanese and the US are on parity with regards to hydrogen vehicles. While neither have mass scale production from what I understand BMW, Nazda and Nissan are far further down the line. Toyota of course has gone for fuel efficiency first.

One reason of course for this is that GM and Ford can't really afford the investment that the Japanese companies can, because they almost both bankrupt.

However, I think the more obvious show of support is that of the failure to pass vehicle emission standards for cars and cut the loop holes on SUVs. Whether this is support for the oil industry or the car industry however is debatable.

[Martz]

What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things...

I agree they are two seperate things - which is why it's a conflict of interest.

If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?

On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher.

On the other hand, if you are an investor/businessman, tax increases will lose you money. Less gas/fuel will be sold and used, and you're companies growth will decline. So you would sell your shares so that you don't lose money or keep them and watch them devalue?

There is a conflict of interst - it's fine that he runs the two seperately, but he's either a good President or a good businessman. He can't be both.

And he's only getting richer.

[tgillespie]

On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher. Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.

[chrispadfield]

Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.

It's much harder to argue against higher gas taxes. It would encourage much more rapid development into alternative fuels thus reducing the West's need to fund corrupt dictatorships. It's unconciable that we fund places like Saudi Arabia and Iran just so we can drive bigger cars. In the short term it would also reduce the demand for gas reducing the hold they currently have over us.

A $2/gallon gas tax might be painful in the short term but in the medium to long term would make the whole world a lot safer, create sources of unlimited and far cheaper fuel/electricity not to mention the environmental benefits.

Anyway, this has got too much into politics .. bailing out :)

[Shining Arcanine]

I agree they are two seperate things - which is why it's a conflict of interest.

If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?

No sane man who drives a car would vote to increase taxes on oil because that would be another tax on him.

On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher.

People will drive the same amount as long as they are able to drive because they do not drive because they want to drive but because they have to drive, so to raise taxes on oil would hurt both the middle class and the economy while the environmental effects and wear and tear will be unhindered, unless there is a Great Depression, in which people will be unable to drive, which would, of course, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and wear and tear on the road, providing the ability to make much needed cuts as government revenues would decline drastically, but the cuts on road maintenance would not cover the decline. The Democrats will propose tax hikes which will supposedly solve the problem, further augmenting the depression and wiping out the majority of the middle class. After that the Democrats will blame the Republicans and institute a war on poverty, in which those who are poor become poorer, those who are still in the middle class become poor and those who are rich become the middle class or become paupers themselves.

On the other hand, if you are an investor/businessman, tax increases will lose you money. Less gas/fuel will be sold and used, and you're companies growth will decline. So you would sell your shares so that you don't lose money or keep them and watch them devalue?

If you are an investor/businessman, tax increases do not mean a thing to you and you will simply pass on the increased costs to your buyers, who will pay because gasoline is essential for them to get from point A to point B and we will see $7 per gallon gasoline prices like they have in England where they have the wonderful oil taxes you describe.

There is a conflict of interst - it's fine that he runs the two seperately, but he's either a good President or a good businessman. He can't be both.

On the contrary, a good businessman will cut expenses and that means eliminating corruption and increasing government efficiency like one would in a business, freeing up money and allowing for tax cuts which will stimulate the economy by increasing the rate at which money moves, further raising the government's income and allowing for further tax cuts.

And he's only getting richer.

The acculumation of wealth is a cyclic effect of the free market as there is a set amount of money that must be spent a year for a particular style of living and those with a greater income will have a budget surplus, verus those with a lesser income who would just be able to save for retirement, and those with budget surpluses will invest, and make more money while those who do not will not be able to invest, but as time passes each generation will be better able to generate income than the last and they too will be among those with budget surpluses and those who are not will be there too one day. Going against this is contrary to the free market and bad for the economy and anyone who wishes to promote peace and equality should not be focused on class envy.

Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.

Traditionally programs that have run afoul the Constitutional powers delegated to the federal government have resulted in government waste and corruption. The no child left behind program is one example of that. Others would include FDR's programs, among which some, like his farm subsides, are still in effect, and also Lyndon B. Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid programs, which paid doctors and pharmacetical companies for products and services that they used to render to the less fortunate for free, leading to continually raising health care costs until we reached the near crisis we have today. The Democrats might have been right about President Bush's IQ, but they were not right about the person they suggested to replace him, who was an even worse student than Bush was:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student? mode=PF

It's much harder to argue against higher gas taxes. It would encourage much more rapid development into alternative fuels thus reducing the West's need to fund corrupt dictatorships. It's unconciable that we fund places like Saudi Arabia and Iran just so we can drive bigger cars. In the short term it would also reduce the demand for gas reducing the hold they currently have over us.

A $2/gallon gas tax might be painful in the short term but in the medium to long term would make the whole world a lot safer, create sources of unlimited and far cheaper fuel/electricity not to mention the environmental benefits.

Anyway, this has got too much into politics .. bailing out :)

How will higher gasoline taxes encourage "much more rabid development?" There is already a need and the car companies are developing hydrogen powered cars as fast as they can. A greater need will not lead to faster development, it will just lead to slower car sales because people will not be able to afford newer cars, slowing down development inside the United States.

If you want to do something, then see to it that alternatively powered cars are made and are on the market at parity with gasoline powered cars, then place a tax on new gasoline powered cars instead of advocating another depression.

You know, people have been talking about alternative fuels since WWII, and after the war, Chrysler started work on an engine that could run on any carbon based fuel. They came up with first, second, third, fourth and fifth generation engines, and by 1979, they had an engine that was superior to any conventional engine on the market in every category and they were ready to begin mass production. However, they were on the brink of bankruptcy and to avoid bankruptcy, they secured a loan from the federal government under President Carter's administration. The loan was made under two conditions, the first was that they sell their M1 tank division, and the second, was that they discontinue development of their turbine engines and keep them off the market.

So there you have it. The federal government kept revolutionary engines that are still superior to anything we have today off the market 27 years ago and if they had not done so, we would be driving cars powered by them today and we would not have our current dependency on foreign oil. Heck, we would not have a dependency on any oil. You could run a turbine engine off olive oil, corn oil, ethanol, jet fuel, you name it, it will run off it. If the federal government took action today, and that means Congress, changing the regulations so that such an engine could be brought to market, Chrysler could probably begin mass production within a few months and bring cars to market with them in one to two years, just as if it were still 1979. If you do not believe me, go read about it for yourself:

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html

[Martz]

Ah, that explains everything then, thank you Shining.

I retract all of my statements, and stand corrected.

I'll pass your comments on to the other few million people world wide who share a similar view point to me.

[MrNase]

You need to come to the UK, prices are up and down like a fiddlers elbow. They also vary from station to station.

Bob

Same here in Germany!

I paid $1.67 for one liter and the other day it was $1.74. And the gas station in the city where I spent my holiday in took $1.77 for one liter. :(

I get the feeling it gets more expensive every damned day. :mad:

[Joe]

Want to save money? Drive slower!

Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.

[Thomas P]

@MrNase: Gas prizes are reeeaaally getting crazy in europe http://images.vbulletin.com/images_vb3/icons/icon13.gif

[MrNase]

Want to save money? Drive slower!

Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.

I assume you have never been to Germany. There are places where you can legally drive as fast as you like. :D ;)

Life's too short to drive slowly. ;)


I get what you mean but that is like another kind of punishment.. Why shall I drive slow? Why don't they make the gas prices lower?!

[cirisme]

If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?

On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in.

To be fair, most conservative idealogy says that taxes do not help society. And I would be inclined to agree with that, especially in this particular case. (gas is heavily taxed already in most states)

What's not needed is more taxes that will drag the entire economy down (while you may not be directly affected because of your efficient car, you will be affected when the pirce of everything else is increase) but an increase in the minimum MPG's that auto-makers put out. No reason that number can't increase year after year right now.

[Shining Arcanine]

Want to save money? Drive slower!

Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.

That is what I do. I find that with all of the red lights, I do not get to my destination much faster when I accelerate to 50 MPH (10 MPH over the speed limit) than when I accelerate to 40 MPH. Also, when I see a red light ahead of me, I do not accelerate and simply coast to the light, even if I am driving at 5 MPH. Another thing I do is that when I am approaching a light at 40MPG, I gradually break so that if the light changes and everyone starts moving, I will not need to convert more gasoline into kinetic energy. Doing this, I manage to get exactly the same fuel economy that the EPA predicted my car should get and I do not have refill the tank as often as I would if I drove like a maniac. :D

To be fair, most conservative idealogy says that taxes do not help society. And I would be inclined to agree with that, especially in this particular case. (gas is heavily taxed already in most states)

What's not needed is more taxes that will drag the entire economy down (while you may not be directly affected because of your efficient car, you will be affected when the pirce of everything else is increase) but an increase in the minimum MPG's that auto-makers put out. No reason that number can't increase year after year right now.

The only question is how will they increase the MPG? Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place, or will the government make it preferable for them to increase the MPG through economic incentives? I think that instead of placing MPG requirements on automobile manufacturers, the several states should come up with a list of the things that the automobile manufacturers could do to increase MPG (e.g. use CVT transmissions, use synthetic motor oil and design motors so that the synthetic oil will not leak through the motor, use longer lasting tires, check tire pressure before sale, etcetera) and raise taxes on vehicles that do not have those things done and lower taxes on vehicles that do have those things done, after giving automobile manufacturers three or so years so that they will have had time to design those things into their vehicles. If the several states do that, it should lead to increases in the MPG ratings we are seeing for vehicles on the market.

[chrispadfield]

The only question is how will they increase the MPG? Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place, or will the government make it preferable for them to increase the MPG through economic incentives? I think that instead of placing MPG requirements on automobile manufacturers, the several states should come up with a list of the things that the automobile manufacturers could do to increase MPG (e.g. use CVT transmissions, use synthetic motor oil and design motors so that the synthetic oil will not leak through the motor, use longer lasting tires, check tire pressure before sale, etcetera) and raise taxes on vehicles that do not have those things done and lower taxes on vehicles that do have those things done, after giving automobile manufacturers three or so years so that they will have had time to design those things into their vehicles. If the several states do that, it should lead to increases in the MPG ratings we are seeing for vehicles on the market.

Why would you want the government designing cars but have problems with them setting MPG requirements or increasing gas taxes? The idea when government interferes is to do so in a non-distonary way as possible. If your end aim is to decrease the use of oil, either price oil higher or go about it in a direct way (MPG requirements). Forcing through individual aspects of car design by legislation is a horribly inefficient (and market breaking) way of trying to get a reduction in fuel usage.

[cirisme]

That is what I do. I find that with all of the red lights, I do not get to my destination much faster when I accelerate to 50 MPH (10 MPH over the speed limit) than when I accelerate to 40 MPH. Also, when I see a red light ahead of me, I do not accelerate and simply coast to the light, even if I am driving at 5 MPH. Another thing I do is that when I am approaching a light at 40MPG, I gradually break so that if the light changes and everyone starts moving, I will not need to convert more gasoline into kinetic energy. Doing this, I manage to get exactly the same fuel economy that the EPA predicted my car should get and I do not have refill the tank as often as I would if I drove like a maniac. :D

Ditto, though I wind up with 2 extra than what was advertised. :)

(but I have never done it for gas reasons, it's just MUCH less stressful)

Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place
What governmental restrictions prevent the mpg's from rising?

[Shining Arcanine]

Why would you want the government designing cars but have problems with them setting MPG requirements or increasing gas taxes? The idea when government interferes is to do so in a non-distonary way as possible. If your end aim is to decrease the use of oil, either price oil higher or go about it in a direct way (MPG requirements).

Raising the cost of oil will not result in cutbacks to usage. Americans rarely drive because they want to drive, rather, they drive because they have to drive, so they will drive the same regardless of the price unless it was a depression, during which they would be unable to drive due to lack of gasoline or their inability to purchase it.

Forcing through individual aspects of car design by legislation is a horribly inefficient (and market breaking) way of trying to get a reduction in fuel usage.

I did not suggest forcing anything. I only suggested that they tell automobile manufacturers things they can do to make their cars more efficient (if I was advising a bunch of politicians on how to do this, I would tell them to assemble a panel of experts to determine what will raise the MPG), give automobile manufacturers a certain amount of time to get it done and then either reward them for doing it through tax cuts or punish them for failing to do it through tax hikes, which would reward or punish them by affecting demand for their cars.

There is a difference between taxes and mandates. With taxes, nothing stops them from selling the cars in the state so long as the taxes are paid but with mandates they cannot sell the cars in the state unless the mandates are met, and if they were met, they would not be the same cars, now would they?

Ditto, though I wind up with 2 extra than what was advertised. :)

(but I have never done it for gas reasons, it's just MUCH less stressful)


What governmental restrictions prevent the mpg's from rising?

I did not say that governmental restrictions did (nor do I claim that they do not as I am not well versed enough in the topic to know), but I do recognize that automobile manufacturers need incentives to do the things that would increase MPG. Currently, if they were to put engines into cars that can use synthetic motor oils, which raise fuel economy, revenues would remain the same and their profit margins would go down. Meaning that putting such engines into cars is currently bad for business. Now, if the government was to raise taxes on vehicles that cannot use synthetic motor oils and cut taxes on vehicles that can use synthetic motor oils, their profit margins would go down from the resulting drop in sales, and that would provide them the incentive to make the change, as making the change would lower taxes, resulting in a rise in sales and therefore a rise revenues, increasing the amount of money in their pockets verus what would have been there if they had done nothing. So while previously putting engines into cars that could use synthetic motor oil would be bad for businss, the simple addition of a tax on vehicles that do not meet standards and a tax cut on vehicles that do meet standards would make putting those engines into cars good for business. If the government was to do this, but for more things (e.g. better quality tires, cvt transmissions, etcetera) and with a certain notice so the vehicle manufacturers have time to design cars to meet the standards, we could get significant changes in vehicles' MPG.

This is by no means a new concept. Nations have done this for centuries, but with different products and for different reasons. They did it in the form of tariffs, and instead of doing it to raise the MPG on vehicles, they did it to protect their industries. In the past fifty years, we have seen mandate after mandate and none of them have worked. Instead of trying something new that does not work, I suggest that we try something old that is known to work, and that we not use it for the same exact reasons for which it was originally used, but to promote one breed over another, like it was original used and like we want to do.

By the way, I have never done it for gasoline reasons either, at least not primarily anyway. :)

[Mike Anime]

i can barley afford gas as it is and i never travel these days unless i HAVE to for work, helping the family shopping and even then i try to concolidate those into as few trips as possible even to the point of napping in my car at the work parking lot between i get out of work @ 11 AM or 12PM and go back in @ 4PM on saturadays. and i only live within 15 minuites of (speedlimit) travel time of work but then im the lucky one most people have to work about 20+ miles away from work x 5 to 7 days a week thats one day at work just for next weeks travel to work in gas money.


my father had a 75 round trip to work and back 7 days a week exept thanksgiving and x-mas and the week they shut down each year for inventory controll. but thats still 51 weeks x 7 days x75 miles per day and at todays prices im just happy he is retired.

and to top it off CT pays higher than the national average because of the "MTBE" we are forced to use.

make matters worse things for the wage increases have not improved that much over the 15+ years i have been working it started @ 4.00 and today is only 5.15

[Shining Arcanine]

The wages could be $100 an hour and you will still not be able to afford things; since as wages rise, the cost of everything else rises to pay for the wage increases. If you want to be able to afford things, you will have to get a job where you earn a salary, not a wage.

[Mike Anime]

not possible when you are forced to be on disability due to bad health. on th ebright side my new car has good gasmilage i see about 25 city because i drive at a steady pace no big speedups and hard breaking here. i have the timing on most of the lkights i go through down pretty good so i know when to start speeding up or breaking just enough to get the lights green.