My point exactly. I have no idea of what the actual figures are, but I'd say an average car consumes around 3 litres per day at least. Some will do more, others less, depending on how much and under which conditions they are driven (summer/winter, urban/country, commuter/shopper, etc).
Still works out for over €32 billion per annum in taxes, assuming average diesel/petrol tax of €0.75, and an even 50:50 distribution between diesel and petrol and 40 million vehicles. And that's the private sector in Germany alone, i.e. not counting commercial traffic.
I use Mobil 1 oil as even cold it stays close to it's rated minimum viscosity. I also inflate my ego err tires to 35 PSI. My commute is 13 miles total every day. I use 2 liters almost exactly for that! Much is wasted not just in warm up but also at traffic lights and freeway entrances.
If I do the late night trip without other traffic I use 20% less fuel!
(Ain't modern gas gauges wonderful!)
There you go, it seems we estinated just about right, off hand.
Frankly, I don't understand the fact that the givernment subsidizes airlines by not taxing airplane fuel. If they did, that would increase their revenues I suspect by at least 25%, if not more.
And Lufthansa needs their wings clipped, they have become too big for their boots some years ago. My wife gets to travel with them four or five times a year, and in the last 5 years, she started or finished on time her journey NOT ONCE, sometimes with several hours of delay.
This is probably a matter of logistics, but it also shows that they are far too strung up, one delay can throw the whole schedule off course.
It's because the different governments don't or can't reliably work together so when the UK says they are thinking of taxing aviation fuel the airlines say fine we'll move our hubs to France or Germany and if Germany say that they are thinking of taxing fuel they threaten to go to UK or France etc.
Same reason there is no transaction tax on share dealings even though that would eliminate many of the dangers of computerized share dealings and would generate revenue from the people/institutions who are responsible for the current global financial problems.
PS: I never really had an issue with your rough calculation, only with your estimate that the true amount might be 12x higher.
Same reason there is no transaction tax on share dealings even though that would eliminate many of the dangers of computerized share dealings and would generate revenue from the people/institutions who are responsible for the current global financial problems.
PS: I never really had an issue with your rough calculation, only with your estimate that the true amount might be 12x higher.
Last edited:
Yes, for a "Union", Europe is a stragely hectic place. Recently, I read that the EU Commission had to rule on car prices, because they discovered that the same car has VERY different prices around the Union - and NOT because of the manfucaturers. For example, a German made car costs 40% (!!!) more in Denmark than in Germany because Denmark has criminally high taxes. So Danes simply jumped over to Germany, bought their car there, and that was that.
To an extent, there has to be a difference, because transporting a car to say Portugal or Greece must add some transportation costs, no doubt, but a 40% difference?
As for my calc, as I said, I didn't know aviation fuel was not taxed. Given that the basic load unit there is a ton, you must admit that would have changed the calc a very fair bit. Ditto for shipping. Also, we may have forgotten local policies on raw oil, which is an import to the EU, meaning that there are very likely to be some taxes, and thus government income could in fact be twofold.
I couldn't agree more on transaction taxes - sooner or later, they will be introduced, mark my words, once the cowards collect enough grit to do the obvious.
The usual excuse, it seems, everywhere. We hear it all the time here, yet our roads are getting worse, much to the delight of the road mafia. It keeps them in a fat business - they come, loosely fill up the holes, throw another layer of tarmac, and it looks ggreat. But, after the next winter, it's potholes all over again.
A local joke illutrates this perfectly.
Two friends, living next door. They go to school togegher, they go to high school together, get a professional degree together. One joins the Socialists, the other the Democrats. At the time, the Socialsts are in power. A few years later, the Democrat says to the Socialist:
"Hey brother, what is this? All our lives we lived together and now, you have a brand new house, a brand new car, you just bought a summer house, and I can't put enough money together to just paint my house. What gives?"
The Socialist says: "Let me explain. You see that highway over there?"
"Yes", says the Democrat.
"Well, a centimeter shorter here, another there, and it piles up," says the Socialist.
A few years later, the Socialists are ousted from power and the Democrats take over. One day, the neighbors get together, and the Socialist says:
"Hey friend, what is this? You have a brand new house on three levels, you, your wife and son drive a brand new Mercedes each, you have three summer houses, how come?"
"Let me explain," says the Democrat. " You see that highway over there?"
"No," says the Socialist, "thre's nothing there".
"THAT'S what I'm talking about, brother!" says the Democrat.
Well, in the immortal words of Gaius Iulius Caesar: Allea iacta est.
I just ordered a brand new Chevrolet Cruze hatchback. Color silver metallic. Engine 1.8 litre, 141 hp/177 Nm, VVT normally aspirated engine, manual 5 gear box (I hate automatic gearboxes). Equipment package LTZ, i.e. the best available, as the LTZ+ package above it different by using leather seats only, and I wouldn't be caught dead with leather seats.
With all the discounts I could negotiate, it will cost me €14,600, or about €15,200 on the road, including registration, new plates, etc. That's about US$ 20,000, give or take.
Unlike you guys over the Pond, GM's comprehensive warranty is 5 years, making them a market leader, but by no means alone, as VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Renault, etc also extend such a warranty, while the De Luxe group, such as BMW, Mercedes Benz, Ford and a few others still give only a 2 year warranty.
This would be a literally perfect car for me, but for two details. One is that GM does not have a version with a 1.4 litre turbo engine - since it is in regular supply for GM's more upmarket German made Opel, I suspect this is an internal attempt from GM not to compete with its own self, and that engine is a valid choice in the USA since they shut down their Saturn chapter, which sold rebadged Opel cars, so they have no internal competition. An equivalent Opel Astra with that engine and with this level of equipment would cost me just under €20,000, or about US$ 26,500.
On the other hand, this version is mechanically and electrically simpler, and should thus be more reliable. But this is theory, we'll see how it all turns out.
The other detail is that the Cruze unfortunately does not have a refrigerated glove compartment. I can't say I'm crazy about that particular feature, but it is a good and very practical idea in a country where summer temperatures never go below 35 celsius (app. 95 F), and do on occasion reach as much as 40 C (app. 104 F). And in a city, meaning the damn tarmac is radiating like crazy.
At this moment, my car is somehwere in the China sea, on a ship, and will arrive in the port of Koper (Slovenia) in the Adriatic sea on 2 June. Then it has to be transported across two borders to me and the local "#$%&/() customs have to take their "#$%%&/&(()= 9%. All of which means that I will receive it in the second half of June. Which is good, as it gives me all of July to drive around and get used to it before hitting the beach in Greece on 6 August (God Elektron bless bookings.com).
I should be parting with my Daewoo Nubira sometime in the next two weeks. As it happens, I actually have three parties trying to outbid each other for that car simply because it has a clean history in an authorized service center and one service more than it's supposed to have, so for the buyer, it's a perfect car history.
That Nubira also had a German made Opel engine. 2 litres, 133 hp/184 Nm, car mass 1,292 kilos net, or 1,407 kilos with me at the wheel (app. 10.58 kg/hp). In priciple, I am very happy with its overall performance, my only two complaints being that it is "US soft" (too softly sprung for my taste) and that its brake performance is a little outdated by European standards for that category of cars, needing about 43 m to go down from 100 km/h to zero. According to two tests I saw of Cruze, the 200 kg heavier diesel version needs 38.1 m for the same job, and since mine is lighter, I can assume it will need a tick below 38 m, which is about middle of the road for its current class, better than most, poorer than a few. As the engine delivers 141 hp, and its maximum mass is 1,310 kg, or 1,425 kg with me, I have some 10.1 kg per hp, a minimally better ratio than before which I doubt I will notice, or, even if I do, it will be in extremes only.
More of an issue is the torque delivered - the 2 litre engine was rated at 184 Nm, and this one is rated at 177 Nm. However, while it was Daewoo, it showed rather large trabnsmission losses, and Welcome to Rototest Research Institute measured it on the wheel power at just 116 hp and 166 Nm (123 lb.ft), a loss of 12/10% respectively. Modern Opel engines have smaller losses, so in real life, it could be that it may turn out to be a bit faster, desipite the 200 cc loss of displacement. And this is a VVT engine, which the 2 litre one wasn't, which also helps, delivering its maximum torque at 3,800 rpm, rather than 4,500 rpm as the old engine does.
A 2006 Opel Astra with the same engine delivered 1 nM of torque MORE and some 17 hp MORE than the old engine.
Oh, well, ...
Wish me luck.
I just ordered a brand new Chevrolet Cruze hatchback. Color silver metallic. Engine 1.8 litre, 141 hp/177 Nm, VVT normally aspirated engine, manual 5 gear box (I hate automatic gearboxes). Equipment package LTZ, i.e. the best available, as the LTZ+ package above it different by using leather seats only, and I wouldn't be caught dead with leather seats.
With all the discounts I could negotiate, it will cost me €14,600, or about €15,200 on the road, including registration, new plates, etc. That's about US$ 20,000, give or take.
Unlike you guys over the Pond, GM's comprehensive warranty is 5 years, making them a market leader, but by no means alone, as VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Renault, etc also extend such a warranty, while the De Luxe group, such as BMW, Mercedes Benz, Ford and a few others still give only a 2 year warranty.
This would be a literally perfect car for me, but for two details. One is that GM does not have a version with a 1.4 litre turbo engine - since it is in regular supply for GM's more upmarket German made Opel, I suspect this is an internal attempt from GM not to compete with its own self, and that engine is a valid choice in the USA since they shut down their Saturn chapter, which sold rebadged Opel cars, so they have no internal competition. An equivalent Opel Astra with that engine and with this level of equipment would cost me just under €20,000, or about US$ 26,500.
On the other hand, this version is mechanically and electrically simpler, and should thus be more reliable. But this is theory, we'll see how it all turns out.
The other detail is that the Cruze unfortunately does not have a refrigerated glove compartment. I can't say I'm crazy about that particular feature, but it is a good and very practical idea in a country where summer temperatures never go below 35 celsius (app. 95 F), and do on occasion reach as much as 40 C (app. 104 F). And in a city, meaning the damn tarmac is radiating like crazy.
At this moment, my car is somehwere in the China sea, on a ship, and will arrive in the port of Koper (Slovenia) in the Adriatic sea on 2 June. Then it has to be transported across two borders to me and the local "#$%&/() customs have to take their "#$%%&/&(()= 9%. All of which means that I will receive it in the second half of June. Which is good, as it gives me all of July to drive around and get used to it before hitting the beach in Greece on 6 August (God Elektron bless bookings.com).
I should be parting with my Daewoo Nubira sometime in the next two weeks. As it happens, I actually have three parties trying to outbid each other for that car simply because it has a clean history in an authorized service center and one service more than it's supposed to have, so for the buyer, it's a perfect car history.
That Nubira also had a German made Opel engine. 2 litres, 133 hp/184 Nm, car mass 1,292 kilos net, or 1,407 kilos with me at the wheel (app. 10.58 kg/hp). In priciple, I am very happy with its overall performance, my only two complaints being that it is "US soft" (too softly sprung for my taste) and that its brake performance is a little outdated by European standards for that category of cars, needing about 43 m to go down from 100 km/h to zero. According to two tests I saw of Cruze, the 200 kg heavier diesel version needs 38.1 m for the same job, and since mine is lighter, I can assume it will need a tick below 38 m, which is about middle of the road for its current class, better than most, poorer than a few. As the engine delivers 141 hp, and its maximum mass is 1,310 kg, or 1,425 kg with me, I have some 10.1 kg per hp, a minimally better ratio than before which I doubt I will notice, or, even if I do, it will be in extremes only.
More of an issue is the torque delivered - the 2 litre engine was rated at 184 Nm, and this one is rated at 177 Nm. However, while it was Daewoo, it showed rather large trabnsmission losses, and Welcome to Rototest Research Institute measured it on the wheel power at just 116 hp and 166 Nm (123 lb.ft), a loss of 12/10% respectively. Modern Opel engines have smaller losses, so in real life, it could be that it may turn out to be a bit faster, desipite the 200 cc loss of displacement. And this is a VVT engine, which the 2 litre one wasn't, which also helps, delivering its maximum torque at 3,800 rpm, rather than 4,500 rpm as the old engine does.
A 2006 Opel Astra with the same engine delivered 1 nM of torque MORE and some 17 hp MORE than the old engine.
Oh, well, ...
Wish me luck.
Last edited:
Actually the state government came up with a new tactic. After trying years of hiring just out of college engineers to supervise roadwork they added a new specification to the standard low bid contract. The contractor has to guarantee the repairs for a few years.
The improvement is impressive. The steel rebar going into roads is no longer the rusty mess it used to be. It is now all shiny green protective coated. The first winter you no longer see a pothole.
Now, THERE'S a good idea! Make 'em give a warranty for their work, so when they start "saving", they know they are liable for it.
In my state, road use tax is to be robbed for whatever the Governor sees fit. Then they can levy additional taxes for road work. We put at least two of them in jail. More should follow.
That is why at the very least you might consider giving money or other support to candidates! Just voting doesn't give you any clout.
Lola was and is British, they were also responsible for the design and manufacture of the GT40, with some input and an engine from those that commisioned it, Ford.
Actually a petrol can reach about 35% now and diesels can be significantly more than 45%.
Not any more, not with common rails anyway. Their ecu's are power hungry as are the injectors.
Again with fuel, common rails will only run on pump diesel or very carefully refined bio diesel.
Tell that to Audi and Peugeot, remind me how many Lemans and endurance races they have won ?!
Yes but a diesel will pull a much higher gear ratio because of the higher torque, so for that shorter power band it will reach a higher speed for a given engine power.
Isn't max speed determined by engine power (in order to overcome the combined resistances)? Torque has little to do with that (more torque given the same engine power just means it delivers that power at less RPM).
vac
I didn't phrase that very well. I meant it to say that although the engine has a shorter power band, it will accelerate the vehicle to a higher speed during the span of that power band in a given gear, due to the higher torque. Or, the engine doesn't have to rev as fast to accelerate the vehicle at the same or an even faster rate than a petrol engine.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.