But it can be achieved, which is my point... And his point was "no fucking way"
Your link backs him up. The majority get in his range, not yours. Let alone that is a non-scientfic sample so the rates are higher then average.
Diesel and Gasoline have differant tax rates.
But raising rates on diesel would make trucking companies look at milage even more and would make the makers of rigs work harder for fuel milage.
But it can be achieved, which is my point... And his point was "no fucking way"
No it can't be achieved by most.
I be willing to bet the few that got that were hypermiling at best or just outright lieing.
My cousin owns one. She gets the 40+mpg. She doesn't hypermile at all. She has a 1996 Honda Civic DX.
My cousin drives a airplane to work that runs on donuts.
<He told me so and its on the internet-its true>
And I happen to have been in the car with her a lot when she gets these 40+ mpg runs... She drives normally.
But it can be achieved, which is my point... And his point was "no fucking way"
My parents are in their 50s and looking for a new vehicle, which wil be an SUV. I'm their only child and I'm on my own and own my own car, so why do they even need it?
The simply answer is that my mom likes SUVs. She's been driving one for the past 11 years and she feels more comfortable driving one, especially in bad weather. My dad is fairly neutral on the topic but also likes SUVs. They might not need an SUV, but they can definitely afford it and they're willing to pay, so who am I to try and convince them otherwise?
Diesel and Gasoline have differant tax rates.
But raising rates on diesel would make trucking companies look at milage even more and would make the makers of rigs work harder for fuel milage.
Look at boeing. One of the biggest things they brag about the 777 is its fuel usage. Its a big selling point.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=12609&details=on
Many reports of 40+ with 1996 Civic...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=12609&details=on
Many reports of 40+ with 1996 Civic...
I understand that but if the goal is to get more fuel efficient cars then I am not sure just taxing gasoline is a good idea as the stated goal can be circumvented by buying a diesel vehicle - assuming one can afford to do so
If they slowly increased this tax over a number of years I would be ok with the increase but to do so quickly (IMO) would hurt the economy. Not everyone can afford a new car. Not everyone can change where they live in relation to their work. The less financially prosperous would be harder hit by this as well as they have less disposable income available to absord the tax/make the car/drive distance changes
I lived in MN for 22 years. While there I drove a RWD Ford Ranger (non 4x4, empty bed except for 40lb sand bags), a FWD Grand Caravan, a conversion van, and a Toyota Tercel. Never once did I go into the ditch or spin out. This winter I had to drive from JFK airport to Connecticut in a blizzard. Didn't spin out, didn't have a single problem in my Honda Accord.
Only a fool thinks that the type of vehicle can help you in bad weather more than a good brain and driving skills. Ironically, I've seen more SUVs on the side of the roads in MN and the north east than I saw cars. Maybe that's more due to the *feeling* of "safety" SUVs drivers have.
And I happen to have been in the car with her a lot when she gets these 40+ mpg runs... She drives normally.
The little Rabbit, combined with the optional 1.5l 4 cylinder Diesel delivered superb fuel economy (45 mpg city/up to 57 mpg highway)
lol.. unless the gas pump lies and her odometer is lying too... she gets 40mpg+ regularly.
I think Chevy would be a lot more likely to sell more Cruze's than Volts if this happened.
My brothers V8 Dodge Ram 4x4 gets 85 mpg runs. I've seen it!