US Gasoline Tax Increase Proposed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45173185]How about a higher tax on gas, lower tax (if you even have a substantial tax on cars) on efficient vehicles to make them cheaper?[/QUOTE] It's already done. [url=http://www.toyota.com/prius/#!/Welcome]A Prius is still a $24,000+ car[/url], [url=http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html] the Chevy Volt $26k to start[/url], [url=http://www.teslamotors.com/models]and the Tesla S starts at seventy thousand dollars.[/url]

[QUOTE=darunner;45178772]It's already done. [url=http://www.toyota.com/prius/#!/Welcome]A Prius is still a $24,000+ car[/url], [url=http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html] the Chevy Volt $26k to start[/url], [url=http://www.teslamotors.com/models]and the Tesla S starts at seventy thousand dollars.[/url][/QUOTE] The Prius is doing 50mpg, and that's way beyond what I'm asking for. You can probably get a small car with very decent fuel economy for much less. [editline]22nd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45176447]You do realize that it's not just about affording the vehicle itself right? If the price of gas goes up, the price of everything goes up, because everything is shipped by trucks. So not only wouldn't the lower class be able to afford gas to go to work now, but they also wouldn't be able to afford basic things like food. But hey, at least they have a car that gets good fuel economy.....[/QUOTE] If you have a more efficient car, you'll use less fuel overall. There's probably a balance somewhere, but no, no, no it's completely impossible!

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45176447]You do realize that it's not just about affording the vehicle itself right? If the price of gas goes up, the price of everything goes up, because everything is shipped by trucks. So not only wouldn't the lower class be able to afford gas to go to work now, but they also wouldn't be able to afford basic things like food. But hey, at least they have a car that gets good fuel economy.....[/QUOTE] Raise the petrol excise but keep the diesel excise as it is. Trucks use diesel engines. Unless the US is so backwards that the trucks there use petrol engines. Unfortunately, the two Senators want to raise both excises.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45186909]Raise the petrol excise but keep the diesel excise as it is. Trucks use diesel engines. Unless the US is so backwards that the trucks there use petrol engines. Unfortunately, the two Senators want to raise both excises.[/QUOTE] And then you have everyone driving diesel F-250s instead of cars. You're not going to tax people into driving different cars. The only thing that's going to do is get people in washington voted out or killed until it's repealed. And the types of people are going to get voted in to repeal it are also the type that are going to gut the EPA because now they are going to hate anything that has to do with fuel economy or efficiency. It's not going to happen, and you're not going to force it. The sooner you can understand that, the easier it's going to be. You THINK Obamacare is having a rough time, imagine something that directly affects even more people. It would make people who don't like obamacare look like sane people.....

[QUOTE=wraithcat;45169101]Why do americans insist on automatics then though?[/quote] Because they're lazy. I, personally, won't even consider buying a car with an automatic unless my plan is to literally drive it home, prop it up on jackstands and fit a manual gearbox(Which I'll do when I buy a Crown Vic). Also, you can still have fun with an automatic, it's for example easier to do a burnout with a RWD automatic. Tug it into D, firewall the brakes, firewall the throttle, slowly lift off the brakes until the rear wheels cut loose. Wham bam goodbye rear tires. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;45170195]Driving classes could be better too imo, many Americans drive pretty poorly. Young drivers should learn to adhere to techniques such as on [URL="http://hypermiling.com/"]this website[/URL]. Not sure how it is over there, but a lot of the driving classes here include lots of unnecessary stuff, such as about 6 hours of instruction about alcohol/drugs.[/QUOTE] I didn't have any formal schooling at all. The only reason I can keep a vehicle on the road is because my dad can do so and he drilled it into my head. I don't exactly agree about the hypermiling crap, though. People should be learning how to properly handle a car in the ice and snow, not how to try to extract every last tenth of an MPG they can. Being good at hypermiling does fuck all good if you don't know how to handle slippery roads or a blowout. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=UziXxX;45170264]Almost every new reasonably priced car boasts its MPG. [/quote] That means absolutely nothing. Here's an ad for, basically, my pickup truck. This ad aired in 1984(Mine's an '85, same exact engine/gearbox that they're advertising): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dSLZgRHY0U[/media] TV ad crews have been pushing fuel mileage since the days when leaded gas was considered state of the art. TV ads pushing fuel economy means absolutely nothing. [quote] The wealth inequality is the highest its ever been in America. Even people who work full time jobs are struggling to get by. With times as tough as they are, very few of us can go out and afford to buy a new fuel efficient car.[/quote] This is also definitely quite true. When I bought my F150 I had a budget of just $500. That was it. Five hundred in cash, not a penny more. A 25+ year old half-ton pickup with a lazy straight six was the only thing I could find in that budget that'd stay running. I, incidentally, get ~17-18MPG combined out of it, but uhh, I can 100% assuredly tell you I wasn't in any way even thinking about fuel economy when I was looking at cars that day. My concern was mostly "Will it actually start next week?" ....best $500 I've ever seen spent on a vehicle, by the way. I'm still driving that truck now. [quote]>175,000 miles on it. [/quote] Worthless number is worthless. A taxicab with 75,000 miles on it is going to be worn the fuck out. A grocery getter that's been well kept but has 200K on the clock will be like new mechanically and still have another 150K in it. Relying on a car having 'low mileage' to try to weed out the broken ones is playing the lottery. Mileage means so little that I'm honestly surprised we still have odometers anymore. If you educate yourself on how a car actually works you can look past the odometer and find those gems which still have 15 years of faithful, reliable service on them that cost a pittance because most people are ignorant about cars and assume an arbitrary number on the dashboard = lifespan of the car. [quote]Finding a car that old that is reliable can sometimes be tough. Sometimes that '98 ford explorer is the only thing on the used car market that you can afford that is half way reliable.[/QUOTE] Funny you mention the Explorer. The last car we bought was a '97. It had 203,000 miles on it, but whoever owned it prior took [i]immaculate[/i] care of it. The engine was stronk then and it still is. And 203K on the original automatic which still worked? Nice nice. Admittedly said automatic conked out a month later, but we bought it from a good dealer who rolled half of the rebuild cost into the loan to help us get it back on the road.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45183307]The Prius is doing 50mpg, and that's way beyond what I'm asking for. You can probably get a small car with very decent fuel economy for much less.[/QUOTE] Then your driving a deathtrap, because of all the people who bought suv's and big vehicles

[QUOTE=redsoxrock;45191875]Then your driving a deathtrap, because of all the people who bought suv's and big vehicles[/QUOTE] Somewhere down the line there'll be fewer SUVs and so on, and you'll have to change it at some point either way.

[QUOTE=redsoxrock;45191875]Then your driving a deathtrap, because of all the people who bought suv's and big vehicles[/QUOTE] To claim that someone is driving a death trap, when the car itself is actually reasonable and entirely safe in normal circumstances, just because other drivers on the road are driving overcompensating trucks and SUVs is ridiculous. You guys have your priorities all kinds of fucked up. Unless you have a legitimate reason for your daily driver to be a hulking great truck, or SUV, or other fairly inefficient vehicle, you probably should be buying a more workable car. In the long run it'll cost less to drive, especially if you have an emissions based tax system (some high MPG cars over here are basically tax exempt due to low emissions, mad cheap past the initial investment). Petrol is a limited resource, refusing to change because "oh, well it's just how we are!" is fucking dumb, you wouldn't have to give up being able to drive fast fun cars, but you shouldn't be using them as day to day things when you can avoid it.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45190717]Because they're lazy. I, personally, won't even consider buying a car with an automatic unless my plan is to literally drive it home, prop it up on jackstands and fit a manual gearbox(Which I'll do when I buy a Crown Vic). Also, you can still have fun with an automatic, it's for example easier to do a burnout with a RWD automatic. Tug it into D, firewall the brakes, firewall the throttle, slowly lift off the brakes until the rear wheels cut loose. Wham bam goodbye rear tires. [/QUOTE] Is it worth the cost to put a manual onto an automatic? At least for new-ish cars you're better off trading it in, but I don't remember what year they stopped making crown vics. PS: Stoners will dislike you.

[QUOTE=Cmx;45165307]If I remember correctly there was an attempt to market diesels in the 70s but they used gas engine components and it lead to them being extreamly unreliable and ruined any consumer confidence in diesel cars. There is also a lot of people who think diesels only belong in trucks.[/QUOTE] it's never explained to the market, so unless you do your own research or have mechanic friends who go on about it, you genuinely only know the difference that way. The numbered ones go in my regular car, and diesel is what goes in those giant throaty hunk of soot and grime coated trucks and farm equipment. The few times you recognize diesel in a 'normal' car it tends to be some idiot who put it in a standard engine and it's spewing a giant black plume down the highway [QUOTE=TestECull;45166550]In my area gasoline is $3.15/gal for 87. Diesel is $4.25/gal. You take two identical Jettas with manual gearboxes, only difference being one's TDI and one has the base gas I4, and you run them while comparing fuel costs, you just about break even. Yet the gas Jetta costs quite a bit less to buy initially, quite a bit less to service, and has a more useable powerband.[/QUOTE] Granted it's apparently the highest average prices in the country right now, the Chicago area regularly sees normal gas prices above diesel. It'd be worth it probably

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45192230]Somewhere down the line there'll be fewer SUVs and so on, and you'll have to change it at some point either way.[/QUOTE] And then it will change to "The Prius is an overpriced overhyped heap of shit that nobody in their right mind should buy." BEcause it is. If you're desperate for a hybrid the Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid are all way better buys. [QUOTE=hexpunK;45192245] You guys have your priorities all kinds of fucked up. Unless you have a legitimate reason for your daily driver to be a hulking great truck, or SUV, or other fairly inefficient vehicle, you probably should be buying a more workable car. [/QUOTE] I totally agree. Yes, yes, I do in fact daily drive a half-ton pickup truck, but I have good reason to own it. And not just because it was the most reliable $500 vehicle I could buy in 2007. I use that thing as a truck all the bloody time. Last time was in December when I went with my roomy on a 900 miles each way road trip to his old house for a weeklong Christmas visit there with his folks. Sounds like a massive waste of fuel until I mention that we loaded it up cab-to-tailgate with furniture for the return trip. [i]Literally[/i] cab-to-tailgate. And then there's the times I've towed disabled cars around, winched my friends out of the ditch, driven it through flooded roads that a car would literally drown on to rescue my friends(And once my mom, who drowned the minivan she had at the time), carried lawn equipment and other large/heavy/bulky objects around...yeah, I definitely have good reason to own that old beast. Your average suburbanite does not do those things on a regular enough basis to own a truck, so I do whole-heartedly agree with this. Buy what you [i]need[/i]. I need the cargo carrying capacity and adverse conditions handling regularly enough to warrant owning a half-ton, not everyone does. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;45192382]Is it worth the cost to put a manual onto an automatic? At least for new-ish cars you're better off trading it in, but I don't remember what year they stopped making crown vics. PS: Stoners will dislike you.[/QUOTE] To me it is. It's A: More fun, B: The car's longer lived for it, C: It's harder to steal, D: I don't have to worry about whether or not the gearbox is any good when I buy it since I'm replacing it anyway, so I'm able to buy a car with a fried gearbox and save a pretty penny, E: I get more power to the ground, F: I get more control over what the car's doing, G: I get a significant boost in city mileage and H: I get better passing power. It's also lower maintenance, which is great. So yes, yes it bloody well is worth converting to manual, at least for a 'Vic. And since I keep cars for as long as they're roadworthy the longevity bonuses are of much value, changing a $150 clutch every 10 years or so is waaaaay better than a $1500 automatic gearbox rebuild every 10 years or so.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45196697]So yes, yes it bloody well is worth converting to manual, at least for a 'Vic. And since I keep cars for as long as they're roadworthy the longevity bonuses are of much value, changing a $150 clutch every 10 years or so is waaaaay better than a $1500 automatic gearbox rebuild every 10 years or so.[/QUOTE]True that, how hard of a job is it to do, by the way? My first car I'm being given is an automatic. Is it a difficult job to do on your own even if you're handy?

[QUOTE=TestECull;45196697]And then it will change to "The Prius is an overpriced overhyped heap of shit that nobody in their right mind should buy." [/QUOTE] There was a USED 2009 Prius at a dealership by my house for the low low price of $20,000.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45170096]Well, then all I can say is that I hope the gasoline tax rises to the point where you will.[/QUOTE] Yeah because every single person here can just afford to front out the cash for a $30,000 car, or suffer the insane interest on a three-five year loan. Wow, wish we could all be a rich brat like you. Personally I'm trying to get a motorcycle because of the fuel efficiency, but when it drops to -30 below during the winter with blizzards and other fun deadly things, I can't use it all year. My crappy jeep hardly even runs during the winter, and I have to bite the 13mpg bullet because I can't afford to get anything else. Shit, and my family is considered to be lower middle class now, so good luck getting anyone but the people who can already afford to drive a 3mpg hummer and not give a fuck to even give a slight fuck about fuel efficient vehicles. Those of us who actually care about fuel efficiency can't do a damn thing about it, those who can, will never care because they have enough money to pay for whatever the cost may be to them.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45196842]True that, how hard of a job is it to do, by the way? My first car I'm being given is an automatic. Is it a difficult job to do on your own even if you're handy?[/QUOTE] Depends on the car. On a Crown Vic it's almost easy. Take the engine and transmission out, unbolt and remove the transmission, relocate a suspension crossmember, cut a hole in the transmission tunnel for the shifter, install a clutch pedal, add manual transmission, put engine back in, wire things up, and you're done. The CV makes it easy because it's enormous and dead simple. If you were to try to change something with a cram-packed engine bay and front wheel drive, like a PT cruiser, it'll be a gigantic pain in the ass. Japanese fwd cars have it better, they've got tiny little engines and relatively spacious engine bays, it should be doable but not easy.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;45169101]Why do americans insist on automatics then though?[/QUOTE] no one insists it's just been standard practice for the last 5-10 years because cvt's are more fuel efficient than manuals.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;45196842]True that, how hard of a job is it to do, by the way? My first car I'm being given is an automatic. Is it a difficult job to do on your own even if you're handy?[/QUOTE] It depends on the vehicle you're converting. Vics aren't [i]too[/i] bad since Mustang parts fit them in key areas. Specifically, the pedal box, it's practically a direct bolt-in. You go to a junkyard for the pedal group and a still-good T-56 box, resurface the flywheel, replace the clutch(Might as well it's all apart anyway and clutches are cheap), few other odds 'n ends here, have a driveshaft fabbed...if you're any good at buying secondhand parts you can convert a P71 in your driveway over a week for about $500 to $1000. Search Youtube for P71C1, he does this sort of thing for quite a few people and recently uploaded a chain of videos of him converting one.[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;45197113]There was a USED 2009 Prius at a dealership by my house for the low low price of $20,000.[/QUOTE] Bwahahahahahaha.[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45197154]Depends on what year it is. Later model cars are more difficult to swap. All the hype around hybrids is hilarious, as it's a vehicle that will eventually need its drive batteries replaced, and the end user isn't really going to be able to service that. I see vehicles as 20+ year purchases; as in: Unless the thing is literally falling apart and not working, or has become dangerous to drive, don't get rid of it. Unless it's outlived its usefulness (IE you drove a muscle car and now you've got 3 kids and no need for a V8 behemoth), you shouldn't be sitting around every 5 years saying "man I want a new car". Which unfortunately is the attitude that people tend to have. [/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly agree. When I buy a car I buy it for life. I do not intend to sell my F150. Ever. I don't care how expensive gas is, I don't care if gas has run out entirely(Alcohol carb bolts on, Alky-compatible electric fuel pump and lines get installed, whambamfuckyouOPEC), I will keep that truck. Barring a particularly nasty crash I can keep that old thing going juuuuust fine for the next sixty years or so, and only then because I'll be in my 80s and reaching over the fender to work on the engine will be mighty difficult at that age. I'd love something sporty, RWD and fuel efficient(IE Miata), I'd love to have a 'Vic, but if I never buy another car for the rest of my years I'll be just fine. [QUOTE=Trekintosh;45197256]Depends on the car. On a Crown Vic it's almost easy. Take the engine and transmission out, unbolt and remove the transmission, relocate a suspension crossmember, cut a hole in the transmission tunnel for the shifter, install a clutch pedal, add manual transmission, put engine back in, wire things up, and you're done. The CV makes it easy because it's enormous and dead simple. If you were to try to change something with a cram-packed engine bay and front wheel drive, like a PT cruiser, it'll be a gigantic pain in the ass. Japanese fwd cars have it better, they've got tiny little engines and relatively spacious engine bays, it should be doable but not easy.[/QUOTE] You don't even need to pull the motor from a 'Vic AFAIK. If you've got access to a lift or high enough jackstands you can drop the old box out from underneath and slide the new one in that way. [editline]23rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BrickInHead;45197316]no one insists it's just been standard practice for the last 5-10 years because cvt's are more fuel efficient than manuals.[/QUOTE] Uhh, people have been insisting on it for so long that by the mid 90s the automatic was the standard gaerbox you'd find on dealership lots. By 2000 you couldn't get all the engine options with a manual anymore, usually only the base model and occasionally a sporty or heavy duty one. By 2010 you flat out cannot buy a half-ton pickup with three pedals anymore, hell the only domestic pickup still sporting a manual is a Cummins Dodge. It's insanely frustrating for someone like me who refuses to buy an automatic equipped vehicle. I wouldn't mind a brand new half-ton pickup with a row-your-own, but the only way to get that is to convert it after buying it, which amongst other things will throw the computer into a fit and render it unable to pass emissions because government logic. So yeah. I'm basically stuck in the past on that alone.

[QUOTE=TestECull;45197344] It's insanely frustrating for someone like me who refuses to buy an automatic equipped vehicle. I wouldn't mind a brand new half-ton pickup with a row-your-own, but the only way to get that is to convert it after buying it, which amongst other things will throw the computer into a fit and render it unable to pass emissions because government logic. So yeah. I'm basically stuck in the past on that alone.[/QUOTE] You could just get with the times dude. You'll get used to it. CVT is great. No gears.

People seem to mainly recommend us to switch to fuel efficient vehicles, that's just not viable in the grand scheme of it. I got my first car about a year after I got my license. I got a 2002 Land Rover Discovery II, which gets about 13 mpg combined. I only had to give $5,000 for it back in 2009, despite it being a fully loaded SE7 model. I knew damn well what I was getting myself into. The reason most of us drive vehicles like those are due to the fact that they ARE cheap to buy, and when you're lower middle class you'll be damn happy to be able to buy something your parents have saved up for and not have be in debt for it. If I could go out and buy a fuel efficient vehicle right now you bet your sweet ass I would. I love my Land Rover, don't get me wrong, but I'd gladly take a fuel efficient sedan at this point. I just have no possible way of affording a new car.

[QUOTE=Dalto11;45197720]People seem to mainly recommend us to switch to fuel efficient vehicles, that's just not viable in the grand scheme of it. I got my first car about a year after I got my license. I got a 2002 Land Rover Discovery II, which gets about 13 mpg combined. I only had to give $5,000 for it back in 2009, despite it being a fully loaded SE7 model. I knew damn well what I was getting myself into. The reason most of us drive vehicles like those are due to the fact that they ARE cheap to buy, and when you're lower middle class you'll be damn happy to be able to buy something your parents have saved up for and not have be in debt for it. If I could go out and buy a fuel efficient vehicle right now you bet your sweet ass I would. I love my Land Rover, don't get me wrong, but I'd gladly take a fuel efficient sedan at this point. I just have no possible way of affording a new car.[/QUOTE] Fuel economical and cheap are not mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure, well I'd hope, that not all pre-owned cars in the US have inefficient V8s. [editline]24th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;45170195]Driving classes could be better too imo, many Americans drive pretty poorly. Young drivers should learn to adhere to techniques such as on [URL="http://hypermiling.com/"]this website[/URL]. Not sure how it is over there, but a lot of the driving classes here include lots of unnecessary stuff, such as about 6 hours of instruction about alcohol/drugs.[/QUOTE] Driving classes would help, but what would help more is if people stopped driving V8s.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;45198343]Fuel economical and cheap are not mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure, well I'd hope, that not all pre-owned cars in the US have inefficient V8s.[/QUOTE] You're right, they're not. But area is also a large factor, along with vehicle condition and reliability. I come from an area that sees a decent amount of road salt every winter so a lot of older vehicles have rusted under frames. The Land Rover was the first dependable vehicle that I could find in my budget really. No, they're no mutually exclusive, but they're are so many other factors that make it hard to find something reliable and fuel efficient. Far more people are trying to get rid of the of their fuel demanding vehicles as well. It just doesn't make it an easy situation unless you have closer to 10K for a good used car.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45197506]You could just get with the times dude. You'll get used to it. CVT is great. No gears.[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with not wanting to put your trust in a computer to be the judge of what gear ratio you need to be in. Same with wanting a direct connection between your right hand and the transmission. Driving a car is about more than sitting in a metal box and pushing buttons until you arive.

- Read wrong -

I find it funny that people think that the U.S. is just a bunch of people driving the biggest engine they can find. There are more people driving 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder vehicles than there are people driving 8 cylinder vehicles. Even more so now with things like the EcoBoost 6 cylinder. And don't forget that GM's 8 cylinder engines actually cut cylinders when you're cruising, so that 8 cylinder becomes a 6 cylinder (or 4 cylinder, i can't remember if it drops just 2 or if it drops 4). The U.S. has been getting more and more fuel economy minded for over a decade.

[QUOTE=cartman300;45198466]18.4 [B]US CENTS[/B] per gallon?? And we are paying 6.8 [B]US DOLLARS[/B] per gallon in Croatia. EDIT: If that was the price here i'd fucking bath in gasoline, i swear! EDIT: Hell, even water costs more here.[/QUOTE] No. That's the tax value on it. Here we pay roughly 3.5 usd per gallon. It is higher or lower on a state by state basis.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45197506]You could just get with the times dude. You'll get used to it. CVT is great. No gears.[/QUOTE] People get manuals for fun, not convenience, besides the money saved in transmission repairs. CVTs I'd probably consider the least fun, they'd go well in, say, a Mercedes which is more about providing a comfortable ride since they're smooth. But I'd rather not in most cars. Also they're more expensive to maintain, and afaik they're relatively new, we have no idea how reliable they'll be in say, 10 years. Dual clutches I'd be willing to consider somewhat more, but for the time being I'd rather get a stick shift. [QUOTE=TestECull;45197344]It depends on the vehicle you're converting. Vics aren't [I]too[/I] bad since Mustang parts fit them in key areas. Specifically, the pedal box, it's practically a direct bolt-in. You go to a junkyard for the pedal group and a still-good T-56 box, resurface the flywheel, replace the clutch(Might as well it's all apart anyway and clutches are cheap), few other odds 'n ends here, have a driveshaft fabbed...if you're any good at buying secondhand parts you can convert a P71 in your driveway over a week for about $500 to $1000. [/QUOTE] Yeah, looked at transmission costs and stuff my for my car, a 2013 mustang, I'll probably just stick with the selectshift automatic for a few years until I can trade it in. At the very least there is the select shift but ergonomically it doesn't really feel right.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45197243]So then people can make the decision between buying gas to drive to work or paying for food. Such a good person. Not everyone can afford the 18+ thousand dollars for a vehicle, not everyone has the credit to purchase said 18k vehicle on credit.[/QUOTE] I wasn't trying to attack people who can't afford them, he made it sound like it was simply a cultural choice "They exist, we just don't buy them". It's ridiculous to think I want to make it even harder for poor people in the US. You don't need a hybrid to have a fuel efficient vehicle, but it isn't like you can't have a cheap but fuel efficient vehicle (e.g. a Smart car (they're cheap in Denmark, at least)). Maybe the US should change its requirements for fuel efficiency in new cars for a start: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yuojIYk.png[/IMG] There's also something wrong with the US - 29% of all commute trips are 5 miles or less (and 51% are less than 10 miles), yet only 0.38% bike to work. 76.7% of people drive [I]alone[/I]. [url]http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/[/url]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45198913]I wasn't trying to attack people who can't afford them, he made it sound like it was simply a cultural choice "They exist, we just don't buy them". It's ridiculous to think I want to make it even harder for poor people in the US. You need a hybrid to have a fuel efficient vehicle, but it isn't like you can't have a cheap but fuel efficient vehicle (e.g. a Smart car (they're cheap in Denmark, at least). Maybe the US should change its requirements for fuel efficiency in new cars for a start: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yuojIYk.png[/IMG] There's also something wrong with the US - 29% of all commute trips are 5 miles or less (and 51% are less than 10 miles), yet only 0.38% bike to work. 76.7% of people drive [I]alone[/I]. [URL]http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/[/URL][/QUOTE] It's our 35% obesity rate No that wasn't serious. If you're in a city especially I do agree, why drive just a couple miles, why not walk. We try to encourage car pooling with car pooling lanes and such but it just doesn't happen for some reason.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45197506]You could just get with the times dude. You'll get used to it. CVT is great. No gears.[/QUOTE] How about no? I like my gearbox lasting longer than 125,000 miles or so, thanks. I also like having total control over what that gearbox is doing, not having to do frequent flushes and filter changes, being able to enjoy the car the way I like the car, and did I mention I like not having to replace transmissions? Clutches are a whole hell of a lot cheaper to change out than the entire fucking gearbox, and as long as I don't abuse the gearbox it will last for decades. Literally last for decades.