Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:13:16 -0600
>> And who wouldn't want a Ford Americar ;)
>
> Just about anyone who doesn't live in the USA and for whom "american
> car" is synonymous with "enormous, expensive, gas-guzzling lemon with
> an automatic transmission and a top speed of less than 100 kph"? :p
>
Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
get stateside that are really all that much better....

If they couldn't get over 100kph, they couldn't run the speed limits on most
roads over here.....

Most cars can still be bought with a manual transmission
too....though...that does bring to mind a question.....are there any
official rules on the difference between a manual and automatic transmission
for SR? I mean....they do have their major differences and
advantages/disadvantages....
Message no. 2
From: u.alberton@*****.com (Bira)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:18:53 -0200
On 1/12/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
>
> Most cars can still be bought with a manual transmission
> too....though...that does bring to mind a question.....are there any
> official rules on the difference between a manual and automatic transmission
> for SR? I mean....they do have their major differences and
> advantages/disadvantages....

Not major enough to warrant translation into game rules, I think.
Besides, when you can fit your car with a neural interface, it's a
fair bet to assume the kind of transmission it uses is better than
anything that can be made today.



--
Bira
http://compexplicita.blogspot.com
http://sinfoniaferida.blogspot.com
Message no. 3
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:25:45 +0100
According to Derek Hyde, on 12-1-07 07:13 the word on the street was...

> Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
> american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
> get stateside that are really all that much better....

There must be different versions of European cars that get exported to
American than that are sold over here, then ...

> Most cars can still be bought with a manual transmission
> too....though...that does bring to mind a question.....are there any
> official rules on the difference between a manual and automatic transmission
> for SR? I mean....they do have their major differences and
> advantages/disadvantages....

I think that sort of thing would get put into the car's Handling and/or
Acceleration ratings.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:01:08 -0500
Derek Hyde wrote:
>>> And who wouldn't want a Ford Americar ;)
>> Just about anyone who doesn't live in the USA and for whom "american
>> car" is synonymous with "enormous, expensive, gas-guzzling lemon with
>> an automatic transmission and a top speed of less than 100 kph"? :p
>>
> Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
> american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
> get stateside that are really all that much better....

Yeah, Diesel Volkswagens are about all that spring to mind.

Oh, and the SmartCar
Message no. 5
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:41:18 -0600
>> Most cars can still be bought with a manual transmission
>> too....though...that does bring to mind a question.....are there any
>> official rules on the difference between a manual and automatic transmission
>> for SR? I mean....they do have their major differences and
>> advantages/disadvantages....
>
> Not major enough to warrant translation into game rules, I think.
> Besides, when you can fit your car with a neural interface, it's a
> fair bet to assume the kind of transmission it uses is better than
> anything that can be made today.
>
I was actually hoping that the world wasn't going to end up going towards
the new transmission that Nissan is putting in their cars....it's not even
an automatic, it's supposed to be like a belt drive system that keeps the
drive ratio at an optimum one to do what you're wanting it to do based on
your throttle position, and keep the engine in its powerband....so when
cruising you can hit the gas and it *should* be immediately responsive...no
shifting at all....kinda scary.
Message no. 6
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:44:08 -0600
>> Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
>> american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
>> get stateside that are really all that much better....
>
> There must be different versions of European cars that get exported to
> American than that are sold over here, then ...
>
That wouldn't surprise me at all....the average car over here that I've seen
as a european import gets between 20-30mpg, and they're trying to get the
american cars into that range consistantly too. Japanese cars over here
usually get a little better (mid 30's). Keeping in mind, I'm looking at
cars that run under $50,000.....
Message no. 7
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:46:50 +0100
According to Derek Hyde, on 12-1-07 15:41 the word on the street was...

> I was actually hoping that the world wasn't going to end up going towards
> the new transmission that Nissan is putting in their cars....it's not even
> an automatic, it's supposed to be like a belt drive system that keeps the
> drive ratio at an optimum one to do what you're wanting it to do based on
> your throttle position, and keep the engine in its powerband....so when
> cruising you can hit the gas and it *should* be immediately responsive...no
> shifting at all....kinda scary.

Do you mean a CVT?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission>; That's
been around since the 1960s, as any good Dutch person should know ;)
(DAF model 55 and 66 cars had one, and could be driven equally fast in
either direction, leading to a 1980s TV show in which all cars raced in
reverse gear.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:55:57 -0600
On Friday 12 January 2007 08:41, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com>
wrote about 'Re: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))':
> I was actually hoping that the world wasn't going to end up going
> towards the new transmission that Nissan is putting in their
> cars....it's not even an automatic, it's supposed to be like a belt
> drive system that keeps the drive ratio at an optimum one to do what
> you're wanting it to do based on your throttle position, and keep the
> engine in its powerband....

Actually, CVTs *rock*! Have you ever driven one?

--
Da Twink Daddy
DaTwinkDaddy@*****.com
ICQ: 514984 (Da Twink Daddy) YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
Message no. 9
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:40:17 -0800
On 1/11/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> >> And who wouldn't want a Ford Americar ;)
> >
> > Just about anyone who doesn't live in the USA and for whom "american
> > car" is synonymous with "enormous, expensive, gas-guzzling lemon with
> > an automatic transmission and a top speed of less than 100 kph"? :p
> >
> Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
> american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
> get stateside that are really all that much better....

We're *finally* starting to see them stateside (gas is still too cheap
to really see them take off), but my impression was that Europe has a
lot more subcompacts than we do. I can't think of all of the European
made ones off the top of my head, but I'm talking about stuff like the
Mini, Yaris, and Fit.

Mark
Message no. 10
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:40:12 -0600
------- Original message -------
From: Mark <toast.in.the.machine@*****.com>
Sent: 12.1.'07, 10:40

> On 1/11/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> > >> And who wouldn't want a Ford Americar ;)
> > >
> > > Just about anyone who doesn't live in the USA and for whom "american
> > > car" is synonymous with "enormous, expensive, gas-guzzling lemon
with
> > > an automatic transmission and a top speed of less than 100 kph"? :p
> > >
> > Now now, lets be fair, while the asian imports get better milage than most
> > american made cars, I can't think of very many of the european ones that we
> > get stateside that are really all that much better....
>
> We're *finally* starting to see them stateside (gas is still too cheap
> to really see them take off), but my impression was that Europe has a
> lot more subcompacts than we do. I can't think of all of the European
> made ones off the top of my head, but I'm talking about stuff like the
> Mini, Yaris, and Fit.
>
> Mark
>
last I'd checked, the mini that we get stateside doesn't get much over 30mpg now...it's
one of the cars that I'd love to have....between the cost, the fuel
economy, and going on the assumption that since the motor's a bmw that it'll require
premium grade fuel like the bmw cars do, that will keep me looking at the
nissan altima and maxima

but, as far as th cvt being an awesome thing, I don't know, I love manual transmissions,
and think it'd be tough to give up completely.

and back on topic, the reason for the question is that I'm considering building a
character with a bit of character affinity without it being a rigger, and
that's one of the things that I was going to write into his background....

if manual transmissions are pretty much an antequated thing of the past, that may put an
interesting spin on him too.
Message no. 11
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:56:02 -0800
On 1/12/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> last I'd checked, the mini that we get stateside doesn't get much over 30mpg
now...it's one of the cars that I'd love to have....

Ack! I thought the 2007 redesign was supposed to get over 40 mpg. I
was contemplating it as my next car. If you get the S or want a
convertible you lose some mpg, but there's no reason you have to.

Mark
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:57:15 +0100
According to Derek Hyde, on 12-1-07 20:40 the word on the street was...

> but, as far as th cvt being an awesome thing, I don't know, I love
> manual transmissions, and think it'd be tough to give up completely.

My parents have a Nissan Primera (about 6-7 years old, IIRC) with a CVT,
and it has the option of manual gear change as well as automatic by
simply moving the gear stick to the side a bit. Admittedly, this makes
it semi-automatic, but it does give you the option of deciding when to
shift.

> and back on topic, (...) if manual transmissions are pretty much an
> antequated thing of the past, that may put an interesting spin on
> him too.

I don't know, I'd assume cars in the 2050s-'70s tend to still come with
either option. If automatics are more common, then you'd perhaps pay
more to get a manual transmission. It's not something represented in the
SR rules, because like I said before, IMHO this gets taken care of
mainly by the car's Handling rating, but if you want to distinguish, I'm
sure you could find some BTB modification to the car that has much the
same effect as using a manual vs. an automatic transmission would, and
apply it under that name instead of its normal one.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 13
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:17:32 -0600
> Ack! I thought the 2007 redesign was supposed to get over 40 mpg. I
> was contemplating it as my next car. If you get the S or want a
> convertible you lose some mpg, but there's no reason you have to.
>
> Mark
>
>
Hadn't looked at the '07, but, the premium fuel requirement still is a
drawback for me, why require me to spend $0.20+/gallon more just to drive
the car....I can understand saying "it won't get as much performance" but
having a dummy sensor that complains if fuel below a certain octane level is
used....is ridiculous.
Message no. 14
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:18:55 -0600
> My parents have a Nissan Primera (about 6-7 years old, IIRC) with a CVT,
> and it has the option of manual gear change as well as automatic by
> simply moving the gear stick to the side a bit. Admittedly, this makes
> it semi-automatic, but it does give you the option of deciding when to
> shift.
>
The sound of their new one is that it doesn't do "gears" at all, but rather
works totally differently
Message no. 15
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:58:57 -0800
On 1/12/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> Hadn't looked at the '07, but, the premium fuel requirement still is a
> drawback for me, why require me to spend $0.20+/gallon more just to drive
> the car....I can understand saying "it won't get as much performance" but
> having a dummy sensor that complains if fuel below a certain octane level is
> used....is ridiculous.

It's actually got sensors? The mechanics I've talked to over the
years have told me that as long as the engine doesn't start knocking
you can try dropping the octane. Also, $.20 more isn't what it used
to be.

Mark
Message no. 16
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:06:17 -0500
On 1/12/2007 8:58 PM, Mark wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
>> Hadn't looked at the '07, but, the premium fuel requirement still is a
>> drawback for me, why require me to spend $0.20+/gallon more just to drive
>> the car....I can understand saying "it won't get as much performance"
but
>> having a dummy sensor that complains if fuel below a certain octane
>> level is
>> used....is ridiculous.
>
> It's actually got sensors? The mechanics I've talked to over the
> years have told me that as long as the engine doesn't start knocking
> you can try dropping the octane. Also, $.20 more isn't what it used
> to be.

It was less? It's been 10c increments from 87-89-91 octane for years.
Message no. 17
From: ggerrietts@*****.com (Geoff Gerrietts)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:43:21 -0800
On 1/12/07, Justin Bell <justin@***********.net> wrote:
>
> It was less? It's been 10c increments from 87-89-91 octane for years.


I think the point he's making is that when 87 octane sold for $.99/gal, $.20
was a 20% premium, while today's $2.50/gal makes it an 8% premium. As prices
rise, the difference blends into noise.
Message no. 18
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:03:33 -0600
> It was less? It's been 10c increments from 87-89-91 octane for years.
>
>
Uhm.....yeah, here it's 84-86/87-88/89-91 for the gas grades, no ethanol or
anything of the like and right now it's 2.19/2.26/2.45 at the gas station
that I prefer to give my business to....
Message no. 19
From: adam_carter@******.net (Adam Carter)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:14:27 -0800
<<
Hadn't looked at the '07, but, the premium fuel requirement still is a
drawback for me, why require me to spend $0.20+/gallon more just to drive
the car....I can understand saying "it won't get as much performance" but
having a dummy sensor that complains if fuel below a certain octane level is
used....is ridiculous.
>>
Is it a requirement for all BMW engines, or just the turbo charged ones? I
would guess you could fill a Cooper (but not Cooper S) on midgrade or
regular and be ok.
Message no. 20
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:37:45 -0600
> <<
> Hadn't looked at the '07, but, the premium fuel requirement still is a
> drawback for me, why require me to spend $0.20+/gallon more just to drive
> the car....I can understand saying "it won't get as much performance" but
> having a dummy sensor that complains if fuel below a certain octane level is
> used....is ridiculous.
>>>
> Is it a requirement for all BMW engines, or just the turbo charged ones? I
> would guess you could fill a Cooper (but not Cooper S) on midgrade or
> regular and be ok.
>
I would guess it's a requirement on all since neither the Z4 or the 745i
that I had driven were turbocharged and they both said "premium unleaded
only" on them. I think it has to do with the fact that their engines are
designed to a lot finer tolerances than what most cars are, and as such,
using anything too far from the expected fuel will cause them to have
problems more often. I would say if you can afford to pay the BMW
dealership to work on your car if it messes it up, feel free to use what
ever fuel in it you like, if not, use what they tell you to.
Message no. 21
From: pasquires@*****.com (Paul Squires)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:23:22 +0000
On 1/14/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> I would guess it's a requirement on all since neither the Z4 or the 745i
> that I had driven were turbocharged and they both said "premium unleaded
> only" on them. I think it has to do with the fact that their engines are
> designed to a lot finer tolerances than what most cars are, and as such,
> using anything too far from the expected fuel will cause them to have
> problems more often. I would say if you can afford to pay the BMW
> dealership to work on your car if it messes it up, feel free to use what
> ever fuel in it you like, if not, use what they tell you to.
>

One thing I've not seen anyone mention is that, when talking about
European designed cars, we don't have regular petrol any more (This
was once talked about on Top Gear in reference to American cars)! I
can't remember the exact octane values, but IIRC, our regular unleaded
is actually the equivalent of premium in the US. Then of course are
the "Super" fuels - which actually have some benefit across the range
(I get enough additional economy from BP Ultimate Diesel in my Accord
2.2 tdi to /just about/ make it worthwhile)

Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline)

"Different countries have some variation in what RON (Research Octane
Number) is standard for gasoline, or petrol. In the UK, ordinary
regular unleaded petrol is 91 RON (not commonly available), premium
unleaded petrol is always 95 RON, and super unleaded is usually 97-98
RON. However both Shell and BP produce fuel at 102 RON for cars with
hi-performance engines, and the supermarket chain Tesco began in 2006
to sell super unleaded petrol rated at 99 RON. In the US, octane
ratings in fuels can vary between 86-87 AKI (91-92 RON) for regular,
through 89-90 (94-95) for mid-grade (European Premium), up to 90-94
(RON 95-99) for premium unleaded or E10 (Super in Europe)"

Cheers,
Paul


--
Paul Squires
pasquires@*****.com | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
http://pasquires.net
Message no. 22
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:32:15 +0100
On 14 Jan 2007, at 10:23, Paul Squires wrote:

> One thing I've not seen anyone mention is that, when talking about
> European designed cars, we don't have regular petrol any more (This
> was once talked about on Top Gear in reference to American cars)! I
> can't remember the exact octane values, but IIRC, our regular unleaded
> is actually the equivalent of premium in the US. Then of course are
> the "Super" fuels - which actually have some benefit across the range
> (I get enough additional economy from BP Ultimate Diesel in my Accord
> 2.2 tdi to /just about/ make it worthwhile)

Yup. Here in France, "regular" fuel (what I put in my Saxo[1]) is 95
unleaded, and premium usually is 98 unleaded. And about half our cars
run on diesel fuel (which IIRC isn't that popular in the US, outside
of trucks).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroen_Saxo

-- Wild_Cat





___________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son
interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 23
From: derek@***************.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:10 -0600
> Yup. Here in France, "regular" fuel (what I put in my Saxo[1]) is 95
> unleaded, and premium usually is 98 unleaded. And about half our cars
> run on diesel fuel (which IIRC isn't that popular in the US, outside
> of trucks).
>
That's mainly because now, if you tried to bring something that was a diesel
car over here it'd have to get 45-50mpg to compensate for regular diesel
being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded at most gas
stations....and people like to fill up on the cheap stuff....
Message no. 24
From: toast.in.the.machine@*****.com (Mark)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:53:42 -0800
On 1/15/07, Derek Hyde <derek@***************.com> wrote:
> > Yup. Here in France, "regular" fuel (what I put in my Saxo[1]) is 95
> > unleaded, and premium usually is 98 unleaded. And about half our cars
> > run on diesel fuel (which IIRC isn't that popular in the US, outside
> > of trucks).
> >
> That's mainly because now, if you tried to bring something that was a diesel
> car over here it'd have to get 45-50mpg to compensate for regular diesel
> being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded at most gas
> stations....and people like to fill up on the cheap stuff....

Don't most diesels get roughly that kind of mileage? And I don't know
about Texas, but diesel certainly isn't more than twice the cost of
normal gas. (if you're expecting more than twice the mileage)

I thought the problem with diesel was that the older ones spew all
sorts of nasty stuff into the air.
Message no. 25
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:05:01 -0500
On 1/15/2007 11:31 AM, Derek Hyde wrote:
>> Yup. Here in France, "regular" fuel (what I put in my Saxo[1]) is 95
>> unleaded, and premium usually is 98 unleaded. And about half our cars
>> run on diesel fuel (which IIRC isn't that popular in the US, outside
>> of trucks).
>>
> That's mainly because now, if you tried to bring something that was a diesel
> car over here it'd have to get 45-50mpg to compensate for regular diesel
> being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded at most gas
> stations....and people like to fill up on the cheap stuff....

Here I thought it was because Diesel cars are viewed as dirty and
powerless. I.e. spewing a trail of smoke behind them and not having much
get up and go. Oh, they are also noisier.

Yes, I know that isn't the case any more, but that's the stereotypical view.
Message no. 26
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:25:44 +0100
According to Derek Hyde, on 15-1-07 17:31 the word on the street was...

> regular diesel
> being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded

Do I read that right? Diesel is _more_ expensive than gasoline?
http://www.brandstofprijzen.nl/tanks.php3?sort=i_diesel&periode=m may be
in Dutch, but you don't need to speak that to be able to check the fuel
prices (in eurocents per liter -- 1.00 per liter = US$4.89 per US
gallon) in the table ...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 27
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:32:42 +0100
On 15 Jan 2007, at 18:05, Justin Bell wrote:

>> That's mainly because now, if you tried to bring something that
>> was a diesel
>> car over here it'd have to get 45-50mpg to compensate for regular
>> diesel
>> being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded at
>> most gas
>> stations....and people like to fill up on the cheap stuff....
>
> Here I thought it was because Diesel cars are viewed as dirty and
> powerless. I.e. spewing a trail of smoke behind them and not having
> much
> get up and go. Oh, they are also noisier.
>
> Yes, I know that isn't the case any more, but that's the
> stereotypical view.

The last 24 Hours of Le Mans winner was a diesel-powered car [1], so
yeah :p

Another thing to note is that in Europe, diesel fuel is actually
cheaper than gasoline. This, combined with the engines' (especially
turbo/supercharged ones, which are the standard nowadays) better fuel
efficiency (10 to 40 percent more mpg [2]), makes diesel-powered cars
an excellent alternative if you don't want to spend much on gas.

-- Wild_Cat

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Diesel_engine#Advantages_and_disadvantages_versus_spark-ignition_engines





___________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son
interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 28
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:40:29 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/15/2007 1:25 PM, Gurth wrote:
> According to Derek Hyde, on 15-1-07 17:31 the word on the street was...
>
>> regular diesel
>> being about 15-20 cents more expensive than premium unleaded
>
> Do I read that right? Diesel is _more_ expensive than gasoline?
> http://www.brandstofprijzen.nl/tanks.php3?sort=i_diesel&periode=m may be
> in Dutch, but you don't need to speak that to be able to check the fuel
> prices (in eurocents per liter -- 1.00 per liter = US$4.89 per US
> gallon) in the table ...

Yep

Locally
http://www.indianagasprices.com/Bloomington/index.aspx
http://www.indianagasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFq8qdEAjMCIc61qgRAmLIAJ41LwLRAxqInW522hNO9kjKYRQQqQCdEgo6
PsStANZvpLH24QchI1HW6gk=UiB0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 29
From: justin@***********.net (Justin Bell)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:44:04 -0500
On 1/15/2007 1:32 PM, Max Noel wrote:
>
> On 15 Jan 2007, at 18:05, Justin Bell wrote:
>
>>> That's mainly because now, if you tried to bring something that
>>> was a diesel car over here it'd have to get 45-50mpg to
>>> compensate for regular diesel being about 15-20 cents more
>>> expensive than premium unleaded at most gas stations....and
>>> people like to fill up on the cheap stuff....
>>
>> Here I thought it was because Diesel cars are viewed as dirty and
>> powerless. I.e. spewing a trail of smoke behind them and not having
>> much get up and go. Oh, they are also noisier.
>>
>> Yes, I know that isn't the case any more, but that's the
>> stereotypical view.
>
> The last 24 Hours of Le Mans winner was a diesel-powered car [1], so
> yeah :p

Yes, I know that.

But it's still hard for many people to shake that stereotype.


> Another thing to note is that in Europe, diesel fuel is actually
> cheaper than gasoline. This, combined with the engines' (especially
> turbo/supercharged ones, which are the standard nowadays) better fuel
> efficiency (10 to 40 percent more mpg [2]), makes diesel-powered
> cars an excellent alternative if you don't want to spend much on gas.

Agreed.

Oh yeah, there's also the "diesels don't do well in the cold" view that
pops up from time to time.
Message no. 30
From: pasquires@*****.com (Paul Squires)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:58:14 +0000
> > Another thing to note is that in Europe, diesel fuel is actually
> > cheaper than gasoline. This, combined with the engines' (especially
> > turbo/supercharged ones, which are the standard nowadays) better fuel
> > efficiency (10 to 40 percent more mpg [2]), makes diesel-powered
> > cars an excellent alternative if you don't want to spend much on gas.

Cough... That's where we're different :)

Diesel here is about 4-5pence per litre more expensive than unleaded
petrol, but it still makes having a diesel car more economical. I
spend a lot of time in Ireland where diesel is cheaper than unleaded -
I'm amazed that everyone doesn't have diesel cars!


--
Paul Squires
pasquires@*****.com | OpenPGP Key ID: 0x423003E0
http://pasquires.net
Message no. 31
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:08:30 +0100
According to Paul Squires, on 15-1-07 22:58 the word on the street was...

> I spend a lot of time in Ireland where diesel is cheaper than unleaded -
> I'm amazed that everyone doesn't have diesel cars!

That's because for diesel cars (at least over here) you tend to pay more
road tax -- so they're only more economical if you drive a lot.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Van e-mail bakt men cyberbrood.
-> Former NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UB+ P(+) L++ E W++(--) N o? K w-- O
M+ PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 32
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of))
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:34:18 -0700
> According to Paul Squires, on 15-1-07 22:58 the word on the street was...
>
> > I spend a lot of time in Ireland where diesel is cheaper than unleaded -
> > I'm amazed that everyone doesn't have diesel cars!

I found this good article on the net. Musta made my Research roll ;)

http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/04-12/diesel-vs-gasoline-article.htm

--
-Graht

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicles...(was Re: Decker arguments (kind of)), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.