Printable View
at the end of the day we are really not paying more then our parents did ages ago even though it seems that way, i was thinking about this today. back years ago, gas was cheaper.. but the fuel economy was no where as good. so they would visit the pumps more. where as now the gas is more expensive and we visit less. just costs more but less visits vs costs more but more visits. not an exact science but just some food for the mind.
I was able to get 10.24l/100km on my 2010 mazda5 gt. with 2 kids usually in car seats and my wife. About 70-30 highway to city ratio. Of course, my driving was uneventful. I imagined I was 'driving miss Daisy' the whole time.
Gas is $1.40/L, My first tank was $0.54/L, nearly 3 (2.5925 to be exact) times as bad. I don't get 3 times the mileage I got back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Booter22
lol i didnt say it was an exact science :P make you wonder if the gov will step in and do something about it like they had beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kessly Snipes
I sure hope so!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Booter22
Gas in Montreal hit $1.50 in some areas.
This highest it has ever been was I think $1.56 back in 2008. I really think its going to hit $1.60 by mid summer this year. Sad.
Time to get a bike!
I got gas yesterday in Barrie for $1.32 and when I got into T.O. it was $1.40 so quite the difference for 75KM distance.
Does anyone know why the price of a diesel engine in a car would cost approx $4,000 more then a gas engine? This seems a little excessive and is not justified in my view. Thoughts on this?
You can't just pull a gas engine and put in a diesel one. It's not that easy. There are a bunch of further complications associated with it. To answer your question for cost, one big reason is due to the aftertreatment of exhaust gases. There is a whole system in place to deal with the emissions from a diesel engine, which in turn drives the cost up. There's other things as well, but this is one main reason, and is a reason not many are aware of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimz
Sorry I meant when buying a new car and not converting from gas to a diesel engine in an a existing one. I do see your point in additional cost for the exhaust system but not 4G worth. I feel that the main reason for it in Canada at least is due to the lack of available choice and it's just a cash grab if you want the better fuel economy of the diesel over the gas.
Yea, my explanation about the emissions control still applies for buying new diesel vehicles versus buying new gasoline vehicles. The regulations are much more stringent for diesels, and since it's not as popular as other places (yet), they're not masses of production to lower the cost of these control devices. But you are right as well; there is definitely a limited amount out there to choose from. But you would probably make back that extra initial investment within a couple years I'd say, due to the fuel savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimz
I call BS on this one. No way are diesel emissions more stringent. They weren't at all controlled until 2008. Sure, there's some controls now, a soot filter of sorts. Gas engines have had ever increasing pollution standards for 40 years now. Way less particulates in a modern gas engine than a modern diesel I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by FD22
The diesel engine shouldn't really cost any more than a gas engine. Of course the appeal of lower fuel costs is appealing to a customer. Since VW has a near monopoly in this niche they can justify the price increase.
You definitely got this wrong buddy. It's the other way around. Hence my explanation for the higher cost. With no sort of emission control, diesel fuel would emitt way more unwanted gasses and particulate matter out the tailpipe of a car when compared to a gasoline engine. That's one very well known fact, and is one of the main drawbacks to why people didn't buy diesels before. The harmful emissions were too much to handle, and is basically what give diesel a bad reputation in the public's eye. That's why even now when these emissions are being controlled properly (despite the higher price to implement these controls) most people still think of diesel engines as lound, dirty, smelly ones. This isn't the case anymore however, as there are safisticated emission control strategies to deal with the pollutants that diesel fuel emitts when combusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester_Lampwick
Can you agree with me that diesels are quite popular in other places like Europe? Now, people always complain "why can't we just bring those diesels here for sales in North America?" Let me ask you; why do you think this is the case? Well, the big reason is that most of those other countries with roads widely populated by diesel vehicles have less lower emission standards. North America has more stringent standards for diesel fuel emissions (to allow the emissions to be comparable to those out of a gasoline vehicle) so there needs to be added measures to deal with the diesel emissions here in North America. That's why there aren't as many diesels on the road (yet) here in North America, as this initial added premium to a vehicle isn't worth it to most customers, and so companies shy away from having a full range of diesel vehicles to choose from, if any.
Sorry for the lengthy response there, but in short, my reply to your statement "Way less particulates in a modern gas engine than a modern diesel I'm sure" is that you have it completely backwards. My current job involves working with exactly what we're talking about here, so coming from someone in the industry, I can assure you I somewhat know what I'm talking about, and this isn't "BS" as you so referred to it earlier.
Sorry, going to have to disagree. I believe I am probably older than most contributors here, and I have been driving since late 1972. I have driven small cars only in all that time, with the biggest being a Camry V6 wagon in 1989.Quote:
Originally Posted by Booter22
My first car was a 1969 MGB and while my new Mazda does get better overall mileage gasoline was only 39 cents a GALLON when I first started driving. I could fill up the MG for well under $5 and easily get 225 - 250 miles to the entire 10 gallon tank. The other day I filled up (before the price jump) and it cost me $45.06 for 33.752 liters which equates to 8.9 gallons, yet I only got 260 odd kms to that amount, or 161 miles.
So, while overall today's cars are far more efficient, will deliver far better mileage on long runs and are exceedingly more reliable, the cost of gas is NOT comparable. It is vastly more expensive now.
Where you comments may have some validity is if your parents were driving inefficient land yachts in the "olden days". But some of us never did, so your comments are far too broad to be wholly accurate.
Sorry.
That's one long way to say 'Nah I disagree.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer
:P
He was just trying to bring some optimism lol! And/or give some insight because technically we could all get motorcycles, then his comment would probably hold!
i got 780km before the low gas light came on today..
filled up to the max and used a scangauge to track fuel economy.
mostly highway driving to niagara falls and back and some more highway driving to other places
kept it under 100 and did not go over 2.3k revs. cruised controlled and on no frills regular unleaded gas.
sorrryy gas like came on around 700
What car do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by nguy3nha
Also, cruise control is less efficient than your foot. You'd know what I mean if you've ever been on a hill.
I need to find a higher paying job so I won't have to bend over as much at the pumps. ****ing gas companies making record profits and still jacking the price up.
You can always be a drug dealer. They make madz money. ;)
vastly more expensive is relative.... to compare the historical cost of gasoline with today's values, it needs to be adjusted for inflationQuote:
Originally Posted by Observer
or put it in a better context that the salary range back in the early 1970s was anywhere from 2,000 to 7,000 PER YEAR.
using a crude math example...
1972: let's assume a $3,000/year salary, $5 per fill up every week (40L @ $0.125/L), that's $260/year in gas and 8.7% of the annual salary
2012: let's assume a $30,000/year salary, $50 per fill up every week (40L @ $1.25/L), that's $2600/year in gas and, oh, the same... 8.7% of the annual salary
where the cost of gas has really gone up is in the amount of trips in traffic and/or kms driven now. we are pumping more because we drive more - people work in Mississauga but live in Markham, as an example, or people commute but are stuck in stop-and-go for hours on end.
2011 mazda 3 sport, 2.5L autoQuote:
Originally Posted by Gloomfrost
:DAgree to a point, the difference being in 1972 I was still in Uni and was not making anywhere near the salary you mention. After graduating in 1978 though I was making 7 times the salary you offered up. And even today, I am making 4 times the salary you offered up for 2012.:D yet it still pains me to spend $50 on half a tank of gas.Quote:
Originally Posted by MajesticBlueNTO
Agree things are all relative, but a dollar in 1972 or even 1978 went a lot further than it does now. And even if you factor in inflation and increased salaries a full tank of gas now represents a higher % of disposable income (not gross income). And let us not forget that in the intervening years taxes have increased substantially.
Lastly, I don't know if I agree about people driving more now. Agree people spend a lot more time in traffic, but back in the '70's and '80's it was still very common for people to go on lengthy road trips for their vacation. And even then Markham, Mississauga and Brampton existed and people commuted into downtown Toronto to work because the GO had not been invented yet.