Euro diesel reaches the US

Coral reefs expel their algae and die?

 

Craziest thing you've ever said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#United_States_of_America

California (25 July 2007)

State gas excise tax 18.0 cents per gallon

Other state taxes (general sales tax, average county/local sales tax,
environmental fees, wholesale taxes) 26.4 cents per gallon (7.25% +
1.2)

State tax total 44.4 cents per gallon

State + federal tax total 62.8 cents per gallon

 

Why? Face up: the US must realise that the era of cheap energy is over,
and that if you want to conserve supplies and reduce CO2 emissions, the
best way (for vehicles) is to tax heavy use.

That promotes (a) the building of more efficient vehicles and (b) less
vehicle use anyway.

About 33 UK pence. Peanuts.

 

Yes, agreed.

I am *sure* you are right.

I think you're right again. Although the US has been a net importer
for... what, 30-odd years?

The UK has been a net exporter for some 25-30 years, don't forget. Or as
close to a balance as makes no difference. We have *never* had cheap
fuel, unless you accept that in real purchasing terms, fuel has not got
much pricier. Which it hasn't, over the years.

 

Do you actually know what the word 'subsidy' means? You are still
talking nonsense.

It depends how you look at it. Take the Jaguar S-Type (first luxury
diesel car whose UK prices I could find in a hurry). The 3.0 litre V6
petrol is £32085. The 2.7 litre diesel is exactly the same price, but in
a slightly lower spec. So there is a price difference, buit it's very
minor.

This is true. The luxury cars still tend to use petrolk more than
diesel. Where you have more mass-market ranges, the percentage of diesel
ownership is far higher. Take Ford, for example - the 1.6 turbodiesel,
again, is actually *cheaper* than the petrol, but again, it's
lower-specced.

If you compare it spec-for-spec, it's about £500 pricier, but then its
performance figures in 'normal' driving (ie: mid-range power and torque,
which is where diesels really score) is better than the petrol. Put it
against the slightly larger 1.8 and there's no price difference.

I strongly suspect that the pricing of diesel engines has more to do
with marketing and selective pricing than the actual build cost. But by
and large, where there is an increase, it's minor.

 

So. Apparently your position is that the wasteful use of energy is a
sin, so we should all tax this sin so heavily that the majority of
drivers cannot afford to fuel their vehicles.

But *you* should be able to continue to drive *your* vehicle, because
you're somehow
"worthy" of such a priviliege.

Isn't that about it, in a nutshell?

As an American, I regard most taxes as abusive. Americans fought a
revolutionary war over taxes, as I recall...

But, you seem to believe that Americans should happily pay 10 times as
much taxes on fuel as they are paying now, because the tax is fixed on
the quantity of purchased, not upon the speculative value of crude oil
futures and market supply and demand.

We're not supposed to notice that the price of crude has gone up,
because it's so much less than the arbitrary tax on a liter of fuel.

And where does that tax money come from, and where does it go, anyway?

If fewer people can afford to drive, you don't need to built new
highways or bridges.

And, as less people can afford to buy cars or drive, and they start
using public transportation or riding bicycles, what happens to the
agencies that depend upon this
huge fuel tax, who do they suck their blood money out of next?

 

You're not really that bright, are you? It can be argued that all
waste is sinful, but I won't. I'll just say that the rest of the world
(except you) seems to agree that we must cut emissions and the
squandering of non-renewable energy sources. As for "the majority of
drivers cannot afford to fuel their vehicles" - this is nonsense, even
for you.

You see, if you buy more economical vehicles, guess what happens?
Yes!! You buy less fuel. The price of fuel doubles, but you now drive
a car that does 40mpg instead of 20mpg and... Well, you do the maths.
How much more are you paying?

No. I am doing what I can to reduce my vehicle use. I sold a fuel-
guzzling Saab and bought an economical diesel car. I use a small 125
for running around London instead of a bigger bike. I don't actually
object to fuel taxation.

Oh, do grow up.

Read what I said above about emissions and non-renewable energy.
*This* is the issue, you idiot.

They always find somebody. Don't worry.

I frequently wonder how you manage to come up with these leaps of non-
logic that you maintain are self-evident truths.

 

Of course. Mind you, that was when your production was at its peak and
world demand was a fraction of today's.

Sounds realistic. I don't know the exact figures, but I do know the US
is a net importer now, whereas it used to be a net exporter.

Agree 100%

Interesting, that.

Heh. Very true.

 

Unless something has changed recently, the "tax benefit" in Germany was
that you paid a little less for Diesel compared to petrol.

However, the yearly taxes on vehicles are calculated based on engine
displacement and fuel type. Diesel engines, unsurprisingly, attract a
noticeably higher tax (something between 50% to 75% more IIRC). To break
even, it used to be that you needed to do about 20k+ miles/year at
least. However, the average mileage is/was only about 6k-8k miles/year.

 

Cite where I ever said that we shouldn't reduce emissions.

I wouldn't be buying very much gasoline if my dear Uncle Sam wasn't
filling up my bank account every month. As it is, I'm spending an
appalling amount of money to amuse myself by driving my Jeep around
the Sierras, and the federal + state taxes on that fuel amounts to
about 20% per gallon.

And you're saying that paying 80% tax on every gallon of fuel is
somehow a "good thing" because it discourages unnecessary driving.

If gasoline taxes jumped that high over here, I'd be riding a bicycle
and most people would be trying to sell their cars. But there wouldn't
be any buyers.

Besides, you don't have to pay the fee to enter Central London if you
ride the motorbike. What is it, �5 a day?

What would it matter if you did? Would you demonstrate outside of
Parliament?
Would your government suddenly drop the taxes because you didn't like
it?

If you ever see me use the phrase, "we hold these truths to be self-
evident", I'm talking about Thomas Jefferson and his use of
misunderstood language that follows.

 

You're really not that bright, are you?

 

Wasn't it Mao who said much the same thing? Some demagogue, anyway.

 

*Sigh*. Christ, I dunno why I bother sometimes.

<Slow simple voice>

A subsidy is someone giving you money to do or perform or grow or build
something.

A tax is you giving someone money. The fact that two tax rates are
different does not make the lower tax a subsidy.

</ssv>

Look, check this url:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy

I trust you have no obhection to what as authoritative a source as this
says?

 

Yes, and common rail injection is very sophisticated. Still, once
designed, it's not really any different from an ordinary FI system, is
it? Maybe a more powerful pump, and different injectors, but that's all
it is - fuel injection.

Diesels are heavier, yes. Diesel cars typically have slightly uprated
front suspension to cope, and some testers note the difference in
understeer between a diesel and alighter petrol engined car. So a little
bit more money for raw material?

In their design, yes, I agree. But once design is finished and done
with, there's really not much difference in construction costs.

 

Ah, that explains a puzzle I had at the weekend. A Ford pick-me-up
went past, rattling like only an old diesel could. I checked and it was
a -56 or so plate. "Funny, I thought modern diesels were all common rail?"
Looks like it was an old US design, probably fully imported?

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

AFAIK, the CR diesel revolution hasn't reached the US yet, although
it's penetrating the truck market, given that virtually all (if not
actually all) US heavy truck brands are now owned by European
companies. That was the point of the original news item: European car
makers are trying to penetrate the US market.

I remember a Swede I once knew who had the US idea of a diesel car,
circa 1978. It was an Oldsmobile Cutlass something-or-other, which was
powered by a truck engine. Nothing more, nothing less. Extraordinary.

 

AFAIK, the CR diesel revolution hasn't reached the US yet, although
it's penetrating the truck market, given that virtually all (if not
actually all) US heavy truck brands are now owned by European
companies. That was the point of the original news item: European car
makers are trying to penetrate the US market.

I remember a Swede I once knew who had the US idea of a diesel car,
circa 1978. It was an Oldsmobile Cutlass something-or-other, which was
powered by a truck engine. Nothing more, nothing less. Extraordinary.

Was there not a GM V8 diesel, I am sure I looked at it as a conversion for a
petrol RangeRover, and that was the mid 80's when I couldn't live with
<16mpg.
I also suspect that engine was alloy and had a history of cracking heads?

Des

 

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716897
Since this is a MC group and we're talking diesels. I know it's OT but what
the heck.
Funny line in the middle about technology years ahead of it's time or
something like that.


btw 256,000 miles at 10 MPG cost $64,000 using a $2.50 gallon. ( I know,
it's over $3 but it hasn't always been). A 20MPG diesel would have used half
of that, saving $32,000 on fuel.
Also, I think a very punishing tax (int the order of 100%) on fuel for
pickups that can't prove that they ever haul a load would go a long way
towards cleaning up emissions.
my 3 cents

 

I rented a Ford Fusion in Italy. Note that this is *not* the same car
as sold under the Fusion name in the USA. This car was a little wagon
somewhat similar to my Focus wagon, but smaller. It had a 1.4l turbo-diesel
engine. It was plenty peppy, very much unlike the old diesel Rabbit
I drove years ago. The Fusion 1.4 TDCi is also is rated at over 50 mpg[1].
Why Ford doesn't sell that car in the USA I have no idea but I bet they'd
sell a boatload of them.

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ford-fusion-1.4-tdci-1003547.html

[1] The claimed fuel economy in the above article is "64 mpg combined"
but remember those are UK gallons, which are 1.2 US gallons, making the
US combined mpg about 53 mpg.

 

There were a few diesel Ford Escorts sold but they

They did badly here, too, during the 1980s. Dreadful engines and the
rest of the car was as you describe.

For many years, by far the best four-cylinder diesel engines came from
Peugeot/Citroen (PSA) in France, probably because France always had a
big diesel market as the fuel used to carry much less tax than petrol
(it's still cheaper, but not by much). PSA turbodiesels, pre common
rail, were also used by Rover. Some think that France still makes
better smaller diesels than the other Europeans, and I tend to agree.