If Honda offers a diesel Accord in the US it won't be the same as what's being driven in Europe. That's actually a diesel Acura TSX.
The 2.2 i-CDTi should run circles around the 2.0L gas engine. And cruise all day at 100+MPH.
I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare a turbocharged diesel engine with a naturally aspirated gasoline engine and attribute all the performance to the diesel. If you also turbocharge the 2.0L gasoline engine it would probably be a fairer comparison and with different results.
"running circles around" is a rather big stretch. A road test (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=99) yielded 0-60 of 9.1 & 9.8s for two different models of the Euro Accord with MT, wich is a smaller (and presumably lighter) car than the USA Accord.
Communism is a type of totalitarianism. "Taking everything away from people" means the government gets to redistribute practically all resources of the society. That's what communism is. When the wisemen get to decide who gets to keep what, down to every minutia of life's necessities, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that the wisemen themselves and their friends get to keep the best there is. The resulting discrouragement that policy does to the actual producers soon reduces the society into poverty. Then the wisemen and their friends have to take pretty much everything just to let themselves have anything, and leave the rest with next to nothing. That's why communism nirvana is inevitably a totalitarian nightmare.
The early Christians actually had a cash economy. There was an anti-tax tendency too even back then, but Jesus, when presented with the loaded question of whether tax was justified, avoided trouble with the Roman authorities by saying "let Caesar have his own coins." The early settlers of Plymouth actually tried communism, and that nearly killed off the colony, until the land plots were divided up into families, each responsible for their own sustenance.
The 2.2 i-CDTi should run circles around the 2.0L gas engine.
That would be wishful thinking. Honda's (official)acceleration numbers (0-62 mph): 2.0 i-VTEC (5-sp manual): 9.6s 2.2 i-CTDi (6-sp manual): 9.4s 2.4 i-VTEC (5-sp manual): 7.9s
It is 2.4 gasoline that would run circles around the other two, albeit at the cost of costing more to operate.
And it is not that people don't buy gasoline powered vehicles in Europe. If they didn't, automakers wouldn't be selling those over there. In fact, I believe a third of the sales are from diesel, the rest gasoline. So, to gain that part of sales, diesels are added. They don't own monopoly. But it might be interesting to discuss why people still buy gasoline powered vehicles when diesel is so efficient and cheap.
Wow, that's quite a pleasant surprise. Wish fuel consumption could be expressed as gpkm (gallons per thousand mile) too at the retail level, so that consumers will be less enamored with impractical cars that have long past the diminishing return point, and focus on making the real guzzlers more efficient.
I was not the one that said the 2.0L was comparable to the diesel 2.2L.
It is interesting that every time performance is mentioned you get the old 0-60 MPH figures. How about driving a long uphill stretch in high gear. How do you suppose those little 4 banger gas engines would perform? Not worth a hoot is the truth. They just keep going to a lower gear to keep in their screaming high RPM torque range. Until you spend time with both you cannot understand the advantages of the current diesel engines. I have not worried about 0-60 since the 1960s when I was drag racing. It is such a worthless stat in this day of trying to squeeze more miles out of each gallon of fuel. I am not a Honda fan. Their diesel has me intrigued enough to test drive one when they arrive.
But it might be interesting to discuss why people still buy gasoline powered vehicles when diesel is so efficient and cheap.
Because the gasoline cars are better :-) The 1.5-1.7 second difference cited is comparable to, if not more than, the difference between V6 vs. I4 for midsize cars like the Accord and Camry. Usually people pay more to get better performance not less :-) The artificially high pump price is what's causing diesel sales in Europe. If fuel price were the same there as in the US, I havea sneaky suspicion that people really would rather drive gasoline cars with better performance instead of diesel cars that deliver better mileage.
For comparable price to modern diesels (all of which are turbo-charged), there are turbo-charged gasoline engines too. They do not lack torque. People prefer larger displacement gasoline over turbocharging because tubocharging results in turbo delays. Modern transmissions are no longer the 3-speed wonders of the early 1980's. A lower gear in a five-speed automatic does not necessarily mean the engine screaming like a banshee :-)
Diesel engines cost more to manufacture, and that cost is generally passed on to the consumer. It's not a hybrid type penalty, but it's probably half-way in between. So that's one reason why someone would still purchase a gasoline engine, the cost of entry is less. It catches up with you at some point, but there are plenty of people who will pay less up front, thinking they are getting the better deal. It's similar to the whole depreciation thing. Yeah, that Chevy Malibu costs less than the Toyota Camry, but when it comes time to trade in the car in 4 years, my guess is you'll probably come out paying LESS overall on the Camry than you did with the Malibu, when the dealer will give you $5k more on the Camry than they will for the Malibu. But some people still make the decision based entirely on the cost to buy the car, and the same would probably be true of a gasoline car versus a diesel. Maintenance on a NA gas car is probably less than a turbo diesel as well, but I really don't know.
How about driving a long uphill stretch in high gear.
How many people have to pull a long 5% grade on a regular basis? Not too many. Diesels do have a lower torque curve but they also have taller gearing to compensate for the lower redline, which diminishes the torque advantage versus a gas car. In practice, modern common-rail turbodiesels seem to give about the same overall performance as a conventional gas engine of the same displacement.
No that's a twisted perversion of communism. Communism is merely an economic system in theory. It is no more a form of government than capitalism was meant to be (which it wasn't meant to be, and is as bad a form of government as communism--but a much better form of economy!).
When economic theory of any type gets hammered and bent into rigid political dogma, duck and cover is my advice. :P
This is not the same as regulation, taxes, etc., which all governments must perform....hopefully for the common good.
Why would one WANT to climb a long grade in high gear if that is not the appropriate ratio for the engine under those circumstances? And why would it matter what gear was appropriate so long as it matched the tool to the task?
I've seen that preference for staying in high gear expressed before but I've never understood it. Shifting is not evil. In my experience, the engines that are most pleasurable to drive have all been strongest ABOVE 4K RPM!
0-60 is a basis of comparison that is usually available and is more representative of straight line performance than any other single piece of data I can think of. And, of course, no one number defines a vehicle.
Communism, as described by Marx, is a philosophy where everyone "takes what they need and produce what they can" for the common good of everyone. If you were the best widget maker on the planet, you would make as many widgets as you could, but would be "compensated" just as much as people that were not as good at making widgets. It would be your civic duty to make those widgets. But, you would not mind because everyone was trying a best they could. You would take just enough food to live and live in a modest house/apartment with no locked doors because everyone had the same stuff. You would get together with your neighbors and sing Koumbaya and everything would be honkey-dory.
but, in the real world people would wonder why they got as much as the lazy person down the hall. You would want more because you were contributing more. Then you would be labeled a counter-revolutionary and disappear in a purge.
I definitely plan on looking at the new diesels when they re-enter the US market.
They can't get here soon enough for me but I will have to buy an interim car with good resale value or just buy something and wait 4-5 years til it's trade-in time. Bad time when I will have to buy. But the diesels will be so close to gas that many people won't know the difference. I forsee a lot of people filling them up with gas instead of diesel. I expect that will be a fairly big problem for a while. I hope they make the diesel nozzles unable to fit into gas fillers. Otherwise there will be a lot of blonde/senior moments out there.
robertsmx: I think the problem is sometimes we try too hard to tell others what they should and what they shouldn’t do. Perhaps we should look at the issue itself.
Agreed, but the problem is that after looking at the issues, too many people decide that the solution is to tell others what they should do...or what they really "need."
robertsmx: Well, those are two different issues. Good to be able to agree on first, but the second, well, believe it or not, many are already feeling the pinch at $3/gallon. That explains why every time gasoline prices jump, so do sales of high fuel economy cars. We cannot deny that fact, can we?
And they are doing this without any more government regulation, or an increase in CAFE. We can't deny this, can we?
robertsmx: I see that as a very poor excuse. I might live in the USA but that doesn’t mean I commute between Denver and Dallas. I live in Dallas.
Europeans are used to limiting themselves to a much smaller area for work, shopping, socializing and even vacationing than Americans are. I know, because several of my relatives are German, and I've been to Europe several times.
Americans are much less likely to do this, although those who want to are certainly free to do so.
If you were to compare the distances I travel to see friends, go shopping, go to church, etc., with the same activities of my German relatives, you would find that my travels cover a much wider geographic area than their similar activities do. And I'm sure that I'm not unique.
I'll repeat the old saying: "In America, 100 years is a long time, in Great Britain, 100 miles is a long distance."
robertsmx: For me, it is city, with a horrible public transportation infrastructure. We don’t need it! We have cars, after all. In fact, just yesterday I was telling a friend of mine who moved from Boston and is used to commuting by train. Instead, he must settle to drive 25 minutes because getting to the nearest railway station (or bus station) would take just as long for him.
There is a train (or bus) system in Dallas, based on your description, but your friend obviously didn't place a high priority on finding a home near one of its stops. Or, at least, a high enough priority, and now he is complaining. He needed to consider this before settling on a place to live.
That is not the fault of the Dallas transit authority (or whatever it is called), people who drive cars to work, or Henry Ford.
robertsmx: I doubt Dallas is bigger than the European countries I speak of.
The relevant comparison is between the Dallas metropolitan area and a comparable European metropolitan area, not Dallas and a European country. Our metropolitan areas - partcularly those in the South and West - have been much more dispersed than a comparable European city.
robertsmx: We must learn to accept that we don’t have good public transportation because we have never felt the need for it.
Because our population is considerably more dispersed, and mass transit has never worked well under those circumstances.
robertsmx: Unless one is a New Yorker, then it becomes a revelation.
If people want to live in New York City, I'm happy for them.
For me, the revelation was that I didn't have to live there and use its mass transit system on a regular basis.
And suddenly, 200 lb-ft of torque looks like a lot!
Actually in a diesel and driving in this area which has only one highway with very expensive tolls there aren't too many places you can full throttle it to begin with. I've driven the truck up winding mountain roads that were so steep the overloaded BIG trucks were stopped in the middle of the hill unable to move ahead. They's try and move their trucks forward a few feet and block the tires then do it again and again. I flew up those hills with no problem going up or coming down. Lots of gas engines overheat on the hills here considering the temps hover between 90-100 degrees. In the mountains it gets cooler tho. depending if you are near the ocean or just in the mountains. I did not get as good economy as I expected but the hill were very winding and steep and (gotta convert this to MPG) roughly 30 mpg. But a lot of traffic so it was like city driving for the full 5 hours to get there. No pen parts of the road at all. Still it does a lot for such a big truck and with small engine. The optional 3.0L engine has 163/343 which is much more powerful than mine. Cost is pretty hefty as well. City driving here is real city driving not like US city driving. Bumper to bumper or max 40kph fro hours on rural roads and no way to pass and when you do you give it all you've got! The busses that come the other way will plow into you head on so you have to be fast and that kills your economy. Most vehicles you get behind are old diesels with no controls on them so you WANT to pass so you can breathe again. :surprise: Still I'd love either this or the 3.0L engine. Toyota would sell a ton of them but no chance as these are not super ultra insanely low crazy Kalifornia emission engines. :P
Mr. Shiftright: Public transportation in America suffers I think from a severe "image" problem that is probably inadvertently encouraged by the auto industry. As far as most Americans are concerned, you might as well take every city bus and on the destination banner put the words "Losers enter here".
If the automakers have this much persuasive power, why aren't they using it to to make people buy their products without hefty rebates?
Mr. Shiftright: But in Los Angeles, for instance, there was nothing inadvertent about it: General Motors bought up all the electric rail cars, tore up the tracks, and dumped them all in the ocean...for which the government got really mad and fined them $5,000.
You can look it up.
I did, and it's a myth.
The movement away from street cars occurred in the 1920s, before GM owned ANY of those mass transit lines.
Ridership began declining in the 1920s (a period of prosperity - so we can't blame bad economic conditions), as people switched to cars.
Those systems were originally built to take prospective clients to various new subdivisions in the Los Angeles area. They were poorly maintained, as the municipalities really didn't want them once the new neighborhoods were built and filled with residents.
The city fathers were happy that GM purchased the systems and switched the systems from trolley cars to buses because:
1. the street car tracks made road maintenance more expensive and difficult; 2. ridership had been declining on the trolley cars for years; 3. buses were seen as more flexible, as they were not tied to a specific route (i.e., the track), and this was thought to be one way to stem the decline in ridership.
After a trial, GM was fined a nomimal amount for conspiring to require its systems to use GM-built buses.
In other words, the upset parties were other bus manufacturers. Those bringing the case wanted other bus manufacturers to have a shot at supplying the buses. THAT was the root of the monopolization charge.
Because our population is considerably more dispersed, and mass transit has never worked well under those circumstances
And the reason is... let us look at your suggestion: “There is a train (or bus) system in Dallas, based on your description, but your friend obviously didn't place a high priority on finding a home near one of its stops. Or, at least, a high enough priority, and now he is complaining. He needed to consider this before settling on a place to live.”
But Dallas is one of the metro areas where space is plenty, and the city keeps expanding. The unfortunate part is, the city and the people have chosen to stick their head in the sand when it comes to improving public transportation. In fact, Dallas’ transit (train) service is barely a decade old. And is getting more respect as gasoline prices are going up.
BTW, my friend chose to live in an area which is right in the middle of the metroplex, and one could get to major destinations in the area in a maximum of 40 minutes. Too bad, that isn't possible at all using public transportation. For that, one will have to live in certain corners while other areas get farther (and have no way to be reached without getting on personal vehicle).
And then we consider a city of 360K people (Arlington), soon to be home of Dallas Cowboys and already is the home to the Texas Rangers and Six Flags. No way to get there, without driving all the way. Why? We don’t need public transportation, do we?
too many people decide that the solution is to tell others what they should do...or what they really "need."
If the majority of people do that, we end up in an ever expanding city with dependency on road and personal vehicles as opposed to public transportation. Too many people vote to build expressways and turnpikes while voting against building train service. Latter isn’t a need after all, is it? At least for now.
And they are doing this without any more government regulation, or an increase in CAFE. We can't deny this, can we?
Why do we have government regulations? Do you think without them humanity will still survive?
Europeans are used to limiting themselves to a much smaller area for work, shopping, socializing and even vacationing than Americans are.
Why? Could it be that they are smarter and value time more than us? I don’t know about vacationing because I meet more Europeans in the far-east than Americans.
Mr. Shiftright: The point is that cars are killing cities. Freeways isolate neighborhoods and devalue property.
No, cars give more people the opportunity to live beyond the city.
The well-to-do have always done this (the Roman elite loved their country villas, and the British upper classes were famous for their country estates), but increasing wealth and more personal mobility have allowed the middle-class in modern-day America to enjoy this option.
Poorly placed freeways do hurt cities...but then, so do poorly placed railway lines.
Mr. Shiftright: Remember what happened in San Francisco when they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway? Just ripped out the whole overhead mess. Businesses howled in rage.
But the entire area transformed in a few years and is now beautiful and prosperous. It was pretty amazing.
And I would like to see what sort of government funding was poured into this area. Knowing how urban and state governments work, I seriously doubt that they tore down the freeway and merely stepped back to allow the rebirth to spontaneously occur.
My pointer was at your mention of how fabulously a 200 lb-ft motor (with 120 HP) performs on steep grades as opposed to gasoline powered ones. The kind of justification I'm repeatedly seeing from diesel proponents. They seem to claim there is no need to shift to lower gears to keep going, yet some of these same people seem to want manual transmission only (if one dislikes shifting, wouldn't auto make more sense to them?).
robertsmx: But Dallas is one of the metro areas where space is plenty, and the city keeps expanding. The unfortunate part is, the city and the people have chosen to stick their head in the sand when it comes to improving public transportation. In fact, Dallas’ transit (train) service is barely a decade old. And is getting more respect as gasoline prices are going up.
If it's getting more respect, I would imagine that it will receive more funds, which means that the problem will take care of itself.
And it doesn't change the fact that your friend is the one with the problem (remember - you brought up the example), as he didn't decide to buy a house near a mass transit stop, which he should have done if it was so important to him that he is now complaining about his commute.
robertsmx: And then we consider a city of 360K people (Arlington), soon to be home of Dallas Cowboys and already is the home to the Texas Rangers and Six Flags. No way to get there, without driving all the way. Why? We don’t need public transportation, do we?
And even with public transportation, most people will still drive.
robertsmx: If the majority of people do that, we end up in an ever expanding city with dependency on road and personal vehicles as opposed to public transportation.
If there are more people moving to the area, I would imagine they would need some place to live, which would require the city to expand, unless we are going to warehouse them into high rises.
Some people like that option, and that is fine, but it's not one that I would prefer.
robertsmx: Too many people vote to build expressways and turnpikes while voting against building train service. Latter isn’t a need after all, is it? At least for now.
Considering that virtually everyone drives, and that when offered mass transit, most people still prefer to drive, and that even people who use mass transit still want to have at least one private vehicle, I would say that roads and turnpikes are a priority.
robertsmx: Why do we have government regulations? Do you think without them humanity will still survive?
That wasn't the question raised. I pointed out that people are changing their behavior without CAFE or any other government regulation, which would lead one to question the value of this particular government regulation. Although I think that we would do fine without CAFE.
robertsmx: Why? Could it be that they are smarter and value time more than us? I don’t know about vacationing because I meet more Europeans in the far-east than Americans.
Having met them, I can say...no. They are more tradition bound, and there just isn't as much room for expansion.
As for meeting Europeans: I've met - and stayed with them - on their home turf. That is a better way to examine how they live.
It's obvious that cheap resources (be it energy, land, water) have defined the American experience, and that is reflected on where we live, what we drive, what we have- and we have been able to afford it. When you travel to places with more expensive resources (Europe and most of the world for that matter, maybe not Australia) you can see that their style of living is way different. And in my business, I have lots of foreign nationals that visit me, and they always laugh at Americans' complaining about "high" fuel prices- and then comment on our huge houses, lots, vehicles, food portions- you get the idea.
And even here- I have a son who lives in New York City- no car, takes the subway to work- loves the place!!! Maybe we can be happy with less consumption
No, that's historically irreponsible whitewashing. The statement is as perverse as some neo-[non-permissible content removed] claiming Nazism was only a theory for the advancement of the German people, never mind the repercussions for all the "undesirables" that are part and parcel of the theory, clearly stated in the -ism's primary doctrine books ("Mein Kampf" and "Das Kapital" respectively). Communism is not "just an economic system and economic theory." It contains the details on how the society is to be organized. Marx himself talked and wrote freely about the establishment of "revolutionary dictatorships," and what to do with "class enemies" (liquidate them en masse).
In fact, communism is not an economic theory at all, as its emphasis is not on explaining why economic activities take place as they do, but primarily presents itself as a blueprint of how an "ideal" society should be organized.
Communism is a "blue print" for how the "ideal" government should be organized, according to its doctrinares. In reality a way of justifying feudalism in the industrial age, as individuals once again become serfs of the government. The only connetion Communism has to eocnomic theory is that communism base its judgement on the presumptions of a bad economic theory: labor theory of value. It views the "fair value" of a product and service as the labor content that goes into it; and any price fluctuation due to changing supply and demand as evil, and tools of exploitation. The whole system fails miserably for obvious reason: because in reality, fluctuating price is what signals change in market conditions so that limited resources can be allocated efficiently. Without such signals, not even the government wisemen knew what to produce.
"Capitalism" is not even an "-ism" per se. It's the derogatory term that communists and their allies gave to practically all their enemies in the 19h and 20th century. What such "capitalists" actually were could range anywhere from advocates of liberty and freedom of individuals to advocates of state industrial monopolies. Obviously, the two groups lumped in together as "capitalists" are quite diametricly different. In the second half of 20th century, some advocates of liberty and freedom of inidivuals took on the "capitalist" label as a way to rub on the nose of avowed communists.
My pointer was at your mention of how fabulously a 200 lb-ft motor (with 120 HP) performs on steep grades as opposed to gasoline powered ones. The kind of justification I'm repeatedly seeing from diesel proponents. They seem to claim there is no need to shift to lower gears to keep going, yet some of these same people seem to want manual transmission only (if one dislikes shifting, wouldn't auto make more sense to them?).
They don't sell automatic transmissions with diesels in the Philippines. Your car/truck would hunt all over gods earth for the right gear. If I had a very steep grade I'd shift it down to 3rd then up again to 4th, 5th was out because the road was very twisty. I'd post some pics of the road but it was foggy and you couldn't see very far coming down. You can see the clouds floating lower than where i'm standing. It was steep. There are 2 sides to the mountain. i will probably go back just before peak season and go up the mountain as it only takes 45-60 minutes to go up and down is about 45 minutes. but it's still a 4-5 hour drive to get there. It'd be great with a performance car like a Porsche on those roads. My truck has only 102HP not 120. Torque is 200 tho. Diesels mate very well to manuals. I don't think it would work out very well with an automatic. Maybe a 400HP Mercedes diesel with an automatic but autos rob a lot of power. I row the gears all the time but won't trade up for a auto even if it were free, with small engines you need a manual, IMHO.
lweiss: And even here- I have a son who lives in New York City- no car, takes the subway to work- loves the place!!! Maybe we can be happy with less consumption.
From my experience, people who love the city tend to be either young (in college, or just out of college), or very rich.
The very rich invariably have country houses that they go to on the weekend, or on holidays.
And they aren't living in third-floor walk-up apartments.
They send their children to exclusive private schools, use limos for transportation and shop at those expensive stores that make the city famous (and tend to intimidate lower class people, who thus stay away, and enable the stores to better informally screen their customers).
The young are more concerned about their careers and love lives than taxes, schools and crime rates. Once marriage and children are in the picture, they tend to move out of the city.
For the middle classes, the city isn't all that great - higher taxes, more crime, and public schools that vary widely in quality (depending on the neighborhood).
That is your opinion. Not often shared by those that have a choice. Diesel sales have gained over the last several years in the EU. Currently they are selling better than gas cars. And some places such as the UK diesel is more than regular petrol. When was the last time you drove a diesel car? Have you ever done a side by side comparison. I believe you would change your story if you did a comparison. Go test drive an E320 CDI and then post your opinion.
City living is way too expensive for the middle class. I don't know about the rest of you. My home would cost $3-$4 million in downtown San Diego, where the price per square foot is at least 4 times as much as 20 miles out of the city center. A very cheap 1 bedroom condo in SD city proper is $800,000.
And the noise and the smell of the city kills it for me. I do not want to hear sirens, screeching tires, airplanes, or people yelling at night. Cricket noises are enough for me, with an occasional coyote yelping. I am just now moving out another 12 miles to be where I cannot be encroached upon by society. I don't care if gas is $20 per gallon.
some advocates of liberty and freedom of inidivuals took on the "capitalist" label as a way to rub on the nose of avowed communists.
Did the founding fathers of this country believe in liberty and freedom? Didn't they also impose tariffs? I believe that Washington even used the US military to enforce collection of some tariffs.
I agree that the free market is probably the most efficient way to allocate resources but I don't agree that most efficient is always synonymous with best. When you're talking about a necessity then security takes on a value that doesn't really register in the free market equation. For instance consider things like food and energy. I believe that most people would give up a little market efficiency and pay a little more for the security of a stable supply. It's equates to buying an insurance policy, which as I said before isn't a wise financial investment unless you value the peace of mind that it brings you.
That is your opinion. Not often shared by those that have a choice. Diesel sales have gained over the last several years in the EU. Currently they are selling better than gas cars.
Why wouldn't that logic apply in reverse? If you're trying to prove that diesel is better by using sales argument, then you lose it here in the USA, and Japan, and Canada. Except for the very few, people don't fantasize diesel engines. The only better part may be the promise of getting 15-20% better fuel economy.
If it were indeed better, European market wouldn't be split 50-50 with gasoline and diesel choices. It would lean heavily in favor of diesel engines. And that isn't the case. Besides, haven't you read about how a particular diesel engine is so good and quiet... for a diesel?
My sentence in the orginal post had a smiley ( :-) ) behind it. It was somewhat tongue in cheek. It may be hard to convey expressions in posts.
Seriously though, consumers usually associate more horsepower with better performance. With increasing number of gears and quicker shifting transmissions, it is more and more close to reality. Having a high torque is a huge advantage when auto trannies had three forward speeds, when the auto trannies have 5, 7 or even 8 forward speeds, torque number becomes increasing irrelevent.
For me, the primary attraction of diesel is the potential for biodiesel, especially the types that can be produced almost from the kitchen. The latest ultra-low sulfer requirement puts a real crimp on it.
Did the founding fathers of this country believe in liberty and freedom? Didn't they also impose tariffs? I believe that Washington even used the US military to enforce collection of some tariffs.
By that argument, you should advocate the keeping of slaves, too ;-)
We have to view historical characters in their historical context. The founding fathers were certainly for the reduction of tax and tariffs. As to your argument about raising tax for security, the root cause of American Revolution was the British proposal to raise a tax to cover the expense of providing security for the North American Colonies. How about that if you want to indulge in the discussion of founding fathers :-)
Further more, as another founding fathers said: those who trade freedom for security shall deserve neither (Ben Franklin) ;-)
On a more serious note, as I illustrated before, there is no real security issue regarding energy. The rapid rise in energy price is the result of debasing dollar! This time and the time in the 1970's; as oil price in gold terms did not really rise much, both times . . . and nobody is postulating either a gold embargo or the world running out of gold. Gold is not even an industrial metal. There are so many sellers of oils, and they all have to sell to someone to keep themselves afloat, embargo is really an unrealistic course of action. Rising oil price (and price of all other commodities) is a reflection debasing dollar. So the analogy here is not buying insurance, but digging deeper when in a hole. Taxation would cause even more economic inefficiency, bigger still government, and lower still dollar, which if you use the dollar to buy oil would lead to even higher price for oil in dollar terms.
Yup, same sentiment here. Also, IMHO, if gas/diesel price goes to $20/gal or $50/gal, city won't be a place to live either, as the expensive fuel would cause food shortage in the cities, especially if the city busybodies are dumb enogh to impose some kind of price control on food, which I think is very likely in that scenario.
By that argument, you should advocate the keeping of slaves, too
I'm not sure what that means. Clearly the predominant point of view at the time was that slavery was acceptable. Are you saying that anyone who agrees with some views of the founding fathers are advocates of slavery?
Further more, as another founding fathers said: those who trade freedom for security shall deserve neither (Ben Franklin)
Not applicable. I'm not suggesting trading freedom for security. I'm suggesting trading money for security. If you don't see the distinction then I'll again refer to my life insurance analogy. Why buy it if not for security? Are you trading freedom for security? Well then Ben Franklin would tell you that you deserve neither. I'll use your analogy of how the airlines hedge their bets against rising fuel cost by purchasing options. Are they trading freedom for security? Over the course of time buying options is not going to reduce your fuel costs. It will simply protect you from the potentially devastating consequences of extreme price fluctuations. If that makes good sense for a corporation why doesn't it make sense for a country to spend some extra resources to hedge its bets against unacceptable consequences?
It has taken the EU a while to accept the new diesels also. I assume you are joking about the acceptance of diesel cars in the USA, Japan and Canada. They have all made regulations to limit access to their markets. Japan is just now allowing the sale of diesels. VW Canada sells about 50% TDI in the models that are available. We will not know the impact on the market here until next year when VW and MB have 50 state diesels available. I can tell you one thing. When I offered my Passat TDI for sale last year, I thought the phone would never stop ringing. I sold it to the first caller for $3K more than I paid new. Yes there is a market for high MPG vehicles. And diesel is the best solution currently built. And they can all run on biodiesel which is %100 renewable. Tell me any other option that compares.
JD Power list of most fuel efficient 2007 models. You tell me which one you would want to buy (assuming money is no object). I'm going with number 9, personally, and I don't even have to do a test drive.
Stereotyped communism or socialism is no more a fantasy world than the Horatio Alger myth in America. You can pervert any system to evil purposes. Economic "failure" needs a time frame to be judged properly.
DIESEL CAR MARKET-- the resale on TDIs is strong because of scarcity, not necessarily because everyone actually wants one.
I don't see diesel passenger cars as becoming a major market in America but I do see room for growth. Diesel cars have an immense image problem to overcome in America...it's just not our thing.
The George Washington that sent in troops to suppress Shayes Rebellion (presumably that's what you were referring to) was the same George Washington that owned slaves. If you want to argue that because he sent in troops to put down a rebellion that started with a tarrif revolt means that he supports tarrifs therefore lovers of freedom and liberty should support tarrifs today; then you as well argue that because GW owned slaves, therefore he supported slavry, therefore lovers of freedom and liberty today should support slavery. BTW, GW sent in the troops not because of the tarrif revolt itself, but because the rebels tried to seize a local federal arsenal.
As for the insurance analogy, I will ask once again, do you buy your life insurance from the government? Does the insurance company tell you that if you die, they may or may not pay up, depending on whatever they call their "research" and is not dependent at all on the circumstance of your death or any action on your part? Insurance are concrete conditional contracts. They are in essence futures contracts, with well defined striking conditions and price. There is no clearly defined values or conditions of fuel tax pay-off; what you get is a "protecion racket" at best. Do you buy "insurance" from the mafia? Furthermore, because government debasement of the currency is the primary cause of the energy price going up (and the rising price of all other commodities), raising taxes only makes the situation worse. In other words, the proper analogy is not "insurance" but digging deeper when in a hole.
No way. Not that many people want diesels, or will ever want diesel cars. Why would they? What would compel them to buy them? The diesel fuel isn't cheaper, the cars aren't any "better" in the average ownership cycle (years owned), the fuel is harder to find and the diesel option costs more money.
What's the percentage of hybrids I wonder? I can't imagine diesels even matching that.
If you could buy biodiesel for $1.50 a gallon, well yeah, that might start something.
Your commie pinko host (not the visiting one :shades: ) has cleaned up a few more founding father posts that seemed a bit too far afield. Maybe y'all can take it to email (and let me know if you want a cc of your missive that I sent to the ether).
I'm with you Chuckhoy (muttering all the way, lol).
Comments
The 2.2 i-CDTi should run circles around the 2.0L gas engine. And cruise all day at 100+MPH.
I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare a turbocharged diesel engine with a naturally aspirated gasoline engine and attribute all the performance to the diesel. If you also turbocharge the 2.0L gasoline engine it would probably be a fairer comparison and with different results.
The early Christians actually had a cash economy. There was an anti-tax tendency too even back then, but Jesus, when presented with the loaded question of whether tax was justified, avoided trouble with the Roman authorities by saying "let Caesar have his own coins." The early settlers of Plymouth actually tried communism, and that nearly killed off the colony, until the land plots were divided up into families, each responsible for their own sustenance.
That would be wishful thinking. Honda's (official)acceleration numbers (0-62 mph):
2.0 i-VTEC (5-sp manual): 9.6s
2.2 i-CTDi (6-sp manual): 9.4s
2.4 i-VTEC (5-sp manual): 7.9s
It is 2.4 gasoline that would run circles around the other two, albeit at the cost of costing more to operate.
And it is not that people don't buy gasoline powered vehicles in Europe. If they didn't, automakers wouldn't be selling those over there. In fact, I believe a third of the sales are from diesel, the rest gasoline. So, to gain that part of sales, diesels are added. They don't own monopoly. But it might be interesting to discuss why people still buy gasoline powered vehicles when diesel is so efficient and cheap.
It is interesting that every time performance is mentioned you get the old 0-60 MPH figures. How about driving a long uphill stretch in high gear. How do you suppose those little 4 banger gas engines would perform? Not worth a hoot is the truth. They just keep going to a lower gear to keep in their screaming high RPM torque range. Until you spend time with both you cannot understand the advantages of the current diesel engines. I have not worried about 0-60 since the 1960s when I was drag racing. It is such a worthless stat in this day of trying to squeeze more miles out of each gallon of fuel. I am not a Honda fan. Their diesel has me intrigued enough to test drive one when they arrive.
Because the gasoline cars are better :-) The 1.5-1.7 second difference cited is comparable to, if not more than, the difference between V6 vs. I4 for midsize cars like the Accord and Camry. Usually people pay more to get better performance not less :-) The artificially high pump price is what's causing diesel sales in Europe. If fuel price were the same there as in the US, I havea sneaky suspicion that people really would rather drive gasoline cars with better performance instead of diesel cars that deliver better mileage.
How many people have to pull a long 5% grade on a regular basis? Not too many. Diesels do have a lower torque curve but they also have taller gearing to compensate for the lower redline, which diminishes the torque advantage versus a gas car. In practice, modern common-rail turbodiesels seem to give about the same overall performance as a conventional gas engine of the same displacement.
When economic theory of any type gets hammered and bent into rigid political dogma, duck and cover is my advice. :P
This is not the same as regulation, taxes, etc., which all governments must perform....hopefully for the common good.
Visiting Host
I've seen that preference for staying in high gear expressed before but I've never understood it. Shifting is not evil. In my experience, the engines that are most pleasurable to drive have all been strongest ABOVE 4K RPM!
0-60 is a basis of comparison that is usually available and is more representative of straight line performance than any other single piece of data I can think of. And, of course, no one number defines a vehicle.
but, in the real world people would wonder why they got as much as the lazy person down the hall. You would want more because you were contributing more. Then you would be labeled a counter-revolutionary and disappear in a purge.
They can't get here soon enough for me but I will have to buy an interim car with good resale value or just buy something and wait 4-5 years til it's trade-in time. Bad time when I will have to buy. But the diesels will be so close to gas that many people won't know the difference. I forsee a lot of people filling them up with gas instead of diesel. I expect that will be a fairly big problem for a while. I hope they make the diesel nozzles unable to fit into gas fillers. Otherwise there will be a lot of blonde/senior moments out there.
Agreed, but the problem is that after looking at the issues, too many people decide that the solution is to tell others what they should do...or what they really "need."
robertsmx: Well, those are two different issues. Good to be able to agree on first, but the second, well, believe it or not, many are already feeling the pinch at $3/gallon. That explains why every time gasoline prices jump, so do sales of high fuel economy cars. We cannot deny that fact, can we?
And they are doing this without any more government regulation, or an increase in CAFE. We can't deny this, can we?
robertsmx: I see that as a very poor excuse. I might live in the USA but that doesn’t mean I commute between Denver and Dallas. I live in Dallas.
Europeans are used to limiting themselves to a much smaller area for work, shopping, socializing and even vacationing than Americans are. I know, because several of my relatives are German, and I've been to Europe several times.
Americans are much less likely to do this, although those who want to are certainly free to do so.
If you were to compare the distances I travel to see friends, go shopping, go to church, etc., with the same activities of my German relatives, you would find that my travels cover a much wider geographic area than their similar activities do. And I'm sure that I'm not unique.
I'll repeat the old saying: "In America, 100 years is a long time, in Great Britain, 100 miles is a long distance."
robertsmx: For me, it is city, with a horrible public transportation infrastructure. We don’t need it! We have cars, after all. In fact, just yesterday I was telling a friend of mine who moved from Boston and is used to commuting by train. Instead, he must settle to drive 25 minutes because getting to the nearest railway station (or bus station) would take just as long for him.
There is a train (or bus) system in Dallas, based on your description, but your friend obviously didn't place a high priority on finding a home near one of its stops. Or, at least, a high enough priority, and now he is complaining. He needed to consider this before settling on a place to live.
That is not the fault of the Dallas transit authority (or whatever it is called), people who drive cars to work, or Henry Ford.
robertsmx: I doubt Dallas is bigger than the European countries I speak of.
The relevant comparison is between the Dallas metropolitan area and a comparable European metropolitan area, not Dallas and a European country. Our metropolitan areas - partcularly those in the South and West - have been much more dispersed than a comparable European city.
robertsmx: We must learn to accept that we don’t have good public transportation because we have never felt the need for it.
Because our population is considerably more dispersed, and mass transit has never worked well under those circumstances.
robertsmx: Unless one is a New Yorker, then it becomes a revelation.
If people want to live in New York City, I'm happy for them.
For me, the revelation was that I didn't have to live there and use its mass transit system on a regular basis.
It's a nice place to visit, but...
Actually in a diesel and driving in this area which has only one highway with very expensive tolls there aren't too many places you can full throttle it to begin with. I've driven the truck up winding mountain roads that were so steep the overloaded BIG trucks were stopped in the middle of the hill unable to move ahead. They's try and move their trucks forward a few feet and block the tires then do it again and again. I flew up those hills with no problem going up or coming down. Lots of gas engines overheat on the hills here considering the temps hover between 90-100 degrees. In the mountains it gets cooler tho. depending if you are near the ocean or just in the mountains. I did not get as good economy as I expected but the hill were very winding and steep and (gotta convert this to MPG) roughly 30 mpg. But a lot of traffic so it was like city driving for the full 5 hours to get there. No pen parts of the road at all.
Still it does a lot for such a big truck and with small engine. The optional 3.0L engine has 163/343 which is much more powerful than mine. Cost is pretty hefty as well. City driving here is real city driving not like US city driving. Bumper to bumper or max 40kph fro hours on rural roads and no way to pass and when you do you give it all you've got! The busses that come the other way will plow into you head on so you have to be fast and that kills your economy. Most vehicles you get behind are old diesels with no controls on them so you WANT to pass so you can breathe again. :surprise:
Still I'd love either this or the 3.0L engine. Toyota would sell a ton of them but no chance as these are not super ultra insanely low crazy Kalifornia emission engines. :P
If the automakers have this much persuasive power, why aren't they using it to to make people buy their products without hefty rebates?
Mr. Shiftright: But in Los Angeles, for instance, there was nothing inadvertent about it: General Motors bought up all the electric rail cars, tore up the tracks, and dumped them all in the ocean...for which the government got really mad and fined them $5,000.
You can look it up.
I did, and it's a myth.
The movement away from street cars occurred in the 1920s, before GM owned ANY of those mass transit lines.
Ridership began declining in the 1920s (a period of prosperity - so we can't blame bad economic conditions), as people switched to cars.
Those systems were originally built to take prospective clients to various new subdivisions in the Los Angeles area. They were poorly maintained, as the municipalities really didn't want them once the new neighborhoods were built and filled with residents.
The city fathers were happy that GM purchased the systems and switched the systems from trolley cars to buses because:
1. the street car tracks made road maintenance more expensive and difficult;
2. ridership had been declining on the trolley cars for years;
3. buses were seen as more flexible, as they were not tied to a specific route (i.e., the track), and this was thought to be one way to stem the decline in ridership.
After a trial, GM was fined a nomimal amount for conspiring to require its systems to use GM-built buses.
In other words, the upset parties were other bus manufacturers. Those bringing the case wanted other bus manufacturers to have a shot at supplying the buses. THAT was the root of the monopolization charge.
And the reason is... let us look at your suggestion:
“There is a train (or bus) system in Dallas, based on your description, but your friend obviously didn't place a high priority on finding a home near one of its stops. Or, at least, a high enough priority, and now he is complaining. He needed to consider this before settling on a place to live.”
But Dallas is one of the metro areas where space is plenty, and the city keeps expanding. The unfortunate part is, the city and the people have chosen to stick their head in the sand when it comes to improving public transportation. In fact, Dallas’ transit (train) service is barely a decade old. And is getting more respect as gasoline prices are going up.
BTW, my friend chose to live in an area which is right in the middle of the metroplex, and one could get to major destinations in the area in a maximum of 40 minutes. Too bad, that isn't possible at all using public transportation. For that, one will have to live in certain corners while other areas get farther (and have no way to be reached without getting on personal vehicle).
And then we consider a city of 360K people (Arlington), soon to be home of Dallas Cowboys and already is the home to the Texas Rangers and Six Flags. No way to get there, without driving all the way. Why? We don’t need public transportation, do we?
too many people decide that the solution is to tell others what they should do...or what they really "need."
If the majority of people do that, we end up in an ever expanding city with dependency on road and personal vehicles as opposed to public transportation. Too many people vote to build expressways and turnpikes while voting against building train service. Latter isn’t a need after all, is it? At least for now.
And they are doing this without any more government regulation, or an increase in CAFE. We can't deny this, can we?
Why do we have government regulations? Do you think without them humanity will still survive?
Europeans are used to limiting themselves to a much smaller area for work, shopping, socializing and even vacationing than Americans are.
Why? Could it be that they are smarter and value time more than us? I don’t know about vacationing because I meet more Europeans in the far-east than Americans.
No, cars give more people the opportunity to live beyond the city.
The well-to-do have always done this (the Roman elite loved their country villas, and the British upper classes were famous for their country estates), but increasing wealth and more personal mobility have allowed the middle-class in modern-day America to enjoy this option.
Poorly placed freeways do hurt cities...but then, so do poorly placed railway lines.
Mr. Shiftright: Remember what happened in San Francisco when they tore down the Embarcadero Freeway? Just ripped out the whole overhead mess. Businesses howled in rage.
But the entire area transformed in a few years and is now beautiful and prosperous. It was pretty amazing.
And I would like to see what sort of government funding was poured into this area. Knowing how urban and state governments work, I seriously doubt that they tore down the freeway and merely stepped back to allow the rebirth to spontaneously occur.
If it's getting more respect, I would imagine that it will receive more funds, which means that the problem will take care of itself.
And it doesn't change the fact that your friend is the one with the problem (remember - you brought up the example), as he didn't decide to buy a house near a mass transit stop, which he should have done if it was so important to him that he is now complaining about his commute.
robertsmx: And then we consider a city of 360K people (Arlington), soon to be home of Dallas Cowboys and already is the home to the Texas Rangers and Six Flags. No way to get there, without driving all the way. Why? We don’t need public transportation, do we?
And even with public transportation, most people will still drive.
robertsmx: If the majority of people do that, we end up in an ever expanding city with dependency on road and personal vehicles as opposed to public transportation.
If there are more people moving to the area, I would imagine they would need some place to live, which would require the city to expand, unless we are going to warehouse them into high rises.
Some people like that option, and that is fine, but it's not one that I would prefer.
robertsmx: Too many people vote to build expressways and turnpikes while voting against building train service. Latter isn’t a need after all, is it? At least for now.
Considering that virtually everyone drives, and that when offered mass transit, most people still prefer to drive, and that even people who use mass transit still want to have at least one private vehicle, I would say that roads and turnpikes are a priority.
robertsmx: Why do we have government regulations? Do you think without them humanity will still survive?
That wasn't the question raised. I pointed out that people are changing their behavior without CAFE or any other government regulation, which would lead one to question the value of this particular government regulation. Although I think that we would do fine without CAFE.
robertsmx: Why? Could it be that they are smarter and value time more than us? I don’t know about vacationing because I meet more Europeans in the far-east than Americans.
Having met them, I can say...no. They are more tradition bound, and there just isn't as much room for expansion.
As for meeting Europeans: I've met - and stayed with them - on their home turf. That is a better way to examine how they live.
And even here- I have a son who lives in New York City- no car, takes the subway to work- loves the place!!! Maybe we can be happy with less consumption
In fact, communism is not an economic theory at all, as its emphasis is not on explaining why economic activities take place as they do, but primarily presents itself as a blueprint of how an "ideal" society should be organized.
"Capitalism" is not even an "-ism" per se. It's the derogatory term that communists and their allies gave to practically all their enemies in the 19h and 20th century. What such "capitalists" actually were could range anywhere from advocates of liberty and freedom of individuals to advocates of state industrial monopolies. Obviously, the two groups lumped in together as "capitalists" are quite diametricly different. In the second half of 20th century, some advocates of liberty and freedom of inidivuals took on the "capitalist" label as a way to rub on the nose of avowed communists.
They don't sell automatic transmissions with diesels in the Philippines. Your car/truck would hunt all over gods earth for the right gear. If I had a very steep grade I'd shift it down to 3rd then up again to 4th, 5th was out because the road was very twisty. I'd post some pics of the road but it was foggy and you couldn't see very far coming down. You can see the clouds floating lower than where i'm standing. It was steep.
There are 2 sides to the mountain. i will probably go back just before peak season and go up the mountain as it only takes 45-60 minutes to go up and down is about 45 minutes. but it's still a 4-5 hour drive to get there.
It'd be great with a performance car like a Porsche on those roads. My truck has only 102HP not 120. Torque is 200 tho.
Diesels mate very well to manuals. I don't think it would work out very well with an automatic. Maybe a 400HP Mercedes diesel with an automatic but autos rob a lot of power.
I row the gears all the time but won't trade up for a auto even if it were free, with small engines you need a manual, IMHO.
From my experience, people who love the city tend to be either young (in college, or just out of college), or very rich.
The very rich invariably have country houses that they go to on the weekend, or on holidays.
And they aren't living in third-floor walk-up apartments.
They send their children to exclusive private schools, use limos for transportation and shop at those expensive stores that make the city famous (and tend to intimidate lower class people, who thus stay away, and enable the stores to better informally screen their customers).
The young are more concerned about their careers and love lives than taxes, schools and crime rates. Once marriage and children are in the picture, they tend to move out of the city.
For the middle classes, the city isn't all that great - higher taxes, more crime, and public schools that vary widely in quality (depending on the neighborhood).
That is your opinion. Not often shared by those that have a choice. Diesel sales have gained over the last several years in the EU. Currently they are selling better than gas cars. And some places such as the UK diesel is more than regular petrol. When was the last time you drove a diesel car? Have you ever done a side by side comparison. I believe you would change your story if you did a comparison. Go test drive an E320 CDI and then post your opinion.
And the noise and the smell of the city kills it for me. I do not want to hear sirens, screeching tires, airplanes, or people yelling at night. Cricket noises are enough for me, with an occasional coyote yelping. I am just now moving out another 12 miles to be where I cannot be encroached upon by society. I don't care if gas is $20 per gallon.
Did the founding fathers of this country believe in liberty and freedom? Didn't they also impose tariffs? I believe that Washington even used the US military to enforce collection of some tariffs.
I agree that the free market is probably the most efficient way to allocate resources but I don't agree that most efficient is always synonymous with best. When you're talking about a necessity then security takes on a value that doesn't really register in the free market equation. For instance consider things like food and energy. I believe that most people would give up a little market efficiency and pay a little more for the security of a stable supply. It's equates to buying an insurance policy, which as I said before isn't a wise financial investment unless you value the peace of mind that it brings you.
Why wouldn't that logic apply in reverse? If you're trying to prove that diesel is better by using sales argument, then you lose it here in the USA, and Japan, and Canada. Except for the very few, people don't fantasize diesel engines. The only better part may be the promise of getting 15-20% better fuel economy.
If it were indeed better, European market wouldn't be split 50-50 with gasoline and diesel choices. It would lean heavily in favor of diesel engines. And that isn't the case. Besides, haven't you read about how a particular diesel engine is so good and quiet... for a diesel?
Seriously though, consumers usually associate more horsepower with better performance. With increasing number of gears and quicker shifting transmissions, it is more and more close to reality. Having a high torque is a huge advantage when auto trannies had three forward speeds, when the auto trannies have 5, 7 or even 8 forward speeds, torque number becomes increasing irrelevent.
For me, the primary attraction of diesel is the potential for biodiesel, especially the types that can be produced almost from the kitchen. The latest ultra-low sulfer requirement puts a real crimp on it.
By that argument, you should advocate the keeping of slaves, too ;-)
We have to view historical characters in their historical context. The founding fathers were certainly for the reduction of tax and tariffs. As to your argument about raising tax for security, the root cause of American Revolution was the British proposal to raise a tax to cover the expense of providing security for the North American Colonies. How about that if you want to indulge in the discussion of founding fathers :-)
Further more, as another founding fathers said: those who trade freedom for security shall deserve neither (Ben Franklin) ;-)
On a more serious note, as I illustrated before, there is no real security issue regarding energy. The rapid rise in energy price is the result of debasing dollar! This time and the time in the 1970's; as oil price in gold terms did not really rise much, both times . . . and nobody is postulating either a gold embargo or the world running out of gold. Gold is not even an industrial metal. There are so many sellers of oils, and they all have to sell to someone to keep themselves afloat, embargo is really an unrealistic course of action. Rising oil price (and price of all other commodities) is a reflection debasing dollar. So the analogy here is not buying insurance, but digging deeper when in a hole. Taxation would cause even more economic inefficiency, bigger still government, and lower still dollar, which if you use the dollar to buy oil would lead to even higher price for oil in dollar terms.
I'm not sure what that means. Clearly the predominant point of view at the time was that slavery was acceptable. Are you saying that anyone who agrees with some views of the founding fathers are advocates of slavery?
Further more, as another founding fathers said: those who trade freedom for security shall deserve neither (Ben Franklin)
Not applicable. I'm not suggesting trading freedom for security. I'm suggesting trading money for security. If you don't see the distinction then I'll again refer to my life insurance analogy. Why buy it if not for security? Are you trading freedom for security? Well then Ben Franklin would tell you that you deserve neither. I'll use your analogy of how the airlines hedge their bets against rising fuel cost by purchasing options. Are they trading freedom for security? Over the course of time buying options is not going to reduce your fuel costs. It will simply protect you from the potentially devastating consequences of extreme price fluctuations. If that makes good sense for a corporation why doesn't it make sense for a country to spend some extra resources to hedge its bets against unacceptable consequences?
JD Power list of most fuel efficient 2007 models. You tell me which one you would want to buy (assuming money is no object). I'm going with number 9, personally, and I don't even have to do a test drive.
DIESEL CAR MARKET-- the resale on TDIs is strong because of scarcity, not necessarily because everyone actually wants one.
I don't see diesel passenger cars as becoming a major market in America but I do see room for growth. Diesel cars have an immense image problem to overcome in America...it's just not our thing.
As for the insurance analogy, I will ask once again, do you buy your life insurance from the government? Does the insurance company tell you that if you die, they may or may not pay up, depending on whatever they call their "research" and is not dependent at all on the circumstance of your death or any action on your part? Insurance are concrete conditional contracts. They are in essence futures contracts, with well defined striking conditions and price. There is no clearly defined values or conditions of fuel tax pay-off; what you get is a "protecion racket" at best. Do you buy "insurance" from the mafia? Furthermore, because government debasement of the currency is the primary cause of the energy price going up (and the rising price of all other commodities), raising taxes only makes the situation worse. In other words, the proper analogy is not "insurance" but digging deeper when in a hole.
Swear a lot and mutter to myself? :confuse:
Now, lets get back to calling each other pinko commies! :P
And in even more unrelated news, the Bulls drafted Noah!!!!!! Hooray!!!!!
What's the percentage of hybrids I wonder? I can't imagine diesels even matching that.
If you could buy biodiesel for $1.50 a gallon, well yeah, that might start something.
Ok you pinko commie.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm with you Chuckhoy (muttering all the way, lol).