I wonder how much truth there is to this

[Curti]

The vid suggests there are high mielage engines made here in the US that are only available in foreign countries due to the decrease in tax revenue.

[Rusty_OToole]

The UK Imperial gallon is 20% larger than the US gallon for a start. Then, the US has the most stringent, and least sensible pollution laws on the planet. These laws have caused untold damage to your economy since the the sixties.

If diesel costs more than gas, and the car costs more than a gas car, and gets about the same mileage who is going to buy it? The reason diesel never caught on in the US.

In other countries diesel cars are popular and get super mileage. One reason is, diesel fuel is cheaper (it is easier and cheaper to make, and you get more diesel out of a barrel of oil). The US and Canada impose a double fuel tax on diesel because only trucks use diesel and they wear out the highways faster.

This brings us to the subject of road tax. In the fifties and sixties they collected enough road tax to build the interstate hiway system. Today the tax is higher than ever. They collect enough money every year to build a 100 lane hiway from coast to coast. Yet America's roads and bridges are falling apart. Might be interesting to find out where all that money goes.

[ply33]

...This brings us to the subject of road tax. In the fifties and sixties they collected enough road tax to build the interstate hiway system. Today the tax is higher than ever. They collect enough money every year to build a 100 lane hiway from coast to coast. Yet America's roads and bridges are falling apart. Might be interesting to find out where all that money goes.

Federal gasoline tax per gallon has not been raised in 20 years and the typical car gets better mileage today than it did then. Result is that that revenue is down not "higher than ever". And cost of construction and maintenance has gone up over the last 20 years which makes the situation worse.

Current freeway system is 46,876 miles long and that is at least 4 lanes wide or about 190,000 "lane miles", the equivalent of a 96 lane freeway from coast to coast. In 2006 dollars it has been estimated that the cost to build the Interstate system was $425 billion. And that does not count the other roads and highways that the Federal taxes go to for construction and maintenance.

It seems unlikely to me that the taxes collected in a single year were ever enough to totally rebuild the interstate freeway system from scratch. That would place it right up with the defense department in spending and it certainly is not and never was that big a part of the federal budget. And that is what you are claiming is the case except for, I assume, waste as implied by your "might be interesting to find out where all that money goes" statement.

And it is pretty easy to "find out where all that money goes": It is passed to the individual states. Those states generally then use competitive bidding for to hire private construction companies to do the work.

Basically the situation is that on a per capita inflation adjusted basis highway taxes and spending are down. Of course things are going to be falling apart if people don't want to pay for maintaining them.

[ply33]

The vid suggests there are high mielage engines made here in the US that are only available in foreign countries due to the decrease in tax revenue.

Key quote from Why European Diesel Cars Are Not Available in the U.S.: Scientific American is:

...but the reason you see so fewer diesel cars in the U.S. is more of a choice by automakers than the product of a decree by regulators on either side of the Atlantic.

[NTX5467]

Yes, the states collect both federal and state gasoline taxes, then sending the federal taxes to "Washington, D. C." to then distribute them back to the states for federal roads and such. BUT . . . some states get more back than they send in and other states are just the opposite.

Here in TX, at least in the parts of the state I was in in the 1960s, there were HUGE numbers of highway construction projects going on! I-20 was being built across the lower states. I-35 was connecting Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. And US-281 was upgraded to handle the larger amount of traffic into San Antonio for the 1968 Worlds Fair. I-20 basically followed the prior US-80 westward to California. And there were many other US Highway projects in the state, too, other than these higher-profile projects.

And, Arlington, TX Mayor Tom Vandergriff put together what became the Texas Tollway Authority to build the "Turnpike" for a direct roadway connection between Dallas and Fort Worth, passing through Arlington on the north. When that roadway was paid for with user tolls, it was de-commissioned to the State, right on schedule. The Texas Tollway Authority then proceeded to fund other Texas Tollway projects . . . NO need for 'public/private investors", as many consider fashionable in more recent times!!!

It's easy to see how those roads built back then, when not on a "beaten path" have held up fantastically 50+ years later! NO crumbling infrastructure AND it looks like they'll be here another 50 years before they need any significant maintenance! Did we have higher standards back then OR better materials? I'm not sure, but I've seen many newer projects (even some current ones!!!) that need "warranty work" very soon after completion. Yet, I see the SAME contractor doing more work for the State!!!

At the present time, I-20 is being "reconstructed" in 10 mile stretches. Going back to the base roadbed and starting over, seemingly, with new concrete and rebar . . . in places were there was no apparent need for anything to be done. No real inkling that anything would need to be done anytime soon! Yet, it's being done as some sort of "age-related" replacements? Or is there some extra money to spend NOW that might not be there in the future? Lower interest rates? Or was there a perceived need for some design enhancements (road crown or slope for improved water drainage) for safety purposes? Or a "use life" past which things deteriorate at a faster pace . . . as some stretches are now 40 years old?

All of these Interstate expansions were done in the 1960s and earlier 1970s. They were massive undertakings in labor and cost (at that time), yet they were federally-funded as "expanding infrastructure", although the original premise of the Interstate Highway System was for defense-related troop and equipment movement from coast to coast, if needed. Original legislation in the middle-1950s timeframe. Done at a time when the US population was less, fewer cars on the road using gasoline and trucks using diesel . . . and I suspect higher income tax rates. "Investment in the Future"??? Yet they also transformed the face of the USA economically, especially in the more rural parts of the nation.

The USA has been on a declining spiral of gasoline use for a good number of years now. The escalation of gasoline prices above $2.00/gallon was a key factor to get people into more fuel-efficient vehicles, by observation, which further decreases "road tax" revenues for the states and the nation.

Back in the President Jimmy Carter administration, he advocated that everybody turn down their thermostats in the winter and raise them in the summer (from the alleged optimum of 72 degrees F.). CAFE standards were raised, I believe, too. A local newspaper article documented how a local couple had complied with Carter's recommendations. They turned their thermostat down to 66 degrees F, wore sweaters in their home, traded-in their larger car and pickup in on import/smaller ones (for better fuel economy), and did what they could to conserve energy. Their reward??? As electricity use dropped, the providers filed for state rate increases. Their smaller vehicles got more fuel economy than their prior ones, but gasoline price increases compensated for the greater fuel economy. End result? Utility bills were the same, or higher. Gasoline bills were higher. In other words, they did what was suggested to conserve energy, spent money they probably could have delayed in their vehicle purchases, and STILL ended up spending more money. Just as if the energy suppliers were going to maintain their positive cash flow amounts (for THEIR investors, I suspect) and profitability . . . but with less volume of product being used. Understandably, the couple felt like they'd "been had", but on the other hand, if they hadn't done the conservation measures, they would have been paying more with the supplier price increases.

And now, in the 2000s, with much more energy efficient transportation means, with higher unit fuel costs, some desire to raise our daily costs even more! CARBON USE TAX, for one! Carbon Credit Trading and penalties, for another! What this money might be used for seems to be less transparent in some respects than what the "road tax" is used for (and where it's used). Respectfully, it looks like another "cash grab" by legislators for more money they can use to allegedly improve things "for the better good".

YET, how does a company purchasing carbon credits from another company really clean anything up??? It can theoretically make the computer model for the particular area "cleaner", but with NOTHING being done, physically, to make things cleaner. "Paper Clean" is NOT the same thing and does nothing to really improve atmospheric/environmental quality.

Unfortunately, one of the larger and first contributors to setting up "exchanges" for the purchase/trading of carbon credits is Al Gore, plus another larger investment bank. Reckon there's some money to be made in that area???

Respectfully,

NTX5467

[earl e rizer]

The amount of road tax on diesel should be calibrated by weight of the vehicle it is being used in. A semi truck does a lot more road damage than a VW TDI. The other thing i noticed about Europe vs. USA & Canada is how many people rely on train & bus service.

If more rail transport were used we could take more heavy trucks off the road, saving both fuel & maintenance. That just doesn't seem to be of any interest to people in North America.

[Guest Oldengineer]

I believe it. I can't believe how good some of the European gas engines are. I owned a 2006 Jaguar S-Type with a 300HP V8 in it for a couple of years. The car easily got 30 MPG or more on trips running interstate speeds. I wish the Honda I own now would get that kind of mileage and its a 4 cylinder model.

Regards:

Oldengineer

[R W Burgess]

If more rail transport were used we could take more heavy trucks off the road, saving both fuel & maintenance. That just doesn't seem to be of any interest to people in North America.

Rail will not work in the US engineer. Most all deliveries are "just it time" deliveries. We had liquid deliveries yesterday morning because a plant shutdown would have been a catastrophe. There are less funds tied up when storage is taken out of the picture.

Wayne

[Curti]

I guess, my real question is; are there separate engines made here in the US that are sent abroad that actually get improved mileage over what are offered here?

[Dave@Moon]

I guess, my real question is; are there separate engines made here in the US that are sent abroad that actually get improved mileage over what are offered here?

If there were, hybrid cars would not be the worldwide phenomenon that they are. Diesel versions of the Smart car are rated the equivalent of 50 mpg (U.S.) combined city/highway by the European Union. Two Prius models beat that, and next year's Ford C-MAX likely will as well. If that's the best Daimler/Benz can get from something as small as a Smart Car, what could possibly be better?

[carbking]

Occasionally, one reads in the automotive press of a vehicle (liked by the author) that "regretably" is not offered for sale in the USA. Often, this has to do with safety regulations, which differ in Europe and the USA.

However, higher mileage vehicles have been discontinued in this country DUE TO LACK OF BUYING INTEREST! Not unusual for a manual transmission version to get 20~30 percent better fuel economy than their auto transmissioned counterpart. Possibily Europeans are less lazy than many in the USA. If the vehicle doesn't sell, the manufacturer won't offer it for sale.

Jon.

[carbking]

One other thing to consider about fuel economy, is that often the speed or driving cycle reported differs from that of the reader. An example:

In 1972 I ordered a new Toyota Corolla 1600 with a 5-speed manual transmission. I calibrated the odometer (Toyota's were more accurate than GM's but still off a couple of percent). I also kept a record of every single drop of gasoline bought for the car. Once broken in, the car would deliver 39.4 MPG at 70 MPH (legal speed limit then in Missouri).

About this time our government passed the 55 MPH speed limit. We had a 600 mile trip planned, and was looking forward to the "increase" the government assured us we get in fuel mileage. Imagine my chagrin when the new fuel mileage was 33 plus (no longer 39 plus). Further testing revealed that I could actually improve the 33 to a tick over 34 by driving in 4th gear rather than 5th! The change in speed lowered the engine RPM out of the efficiency band of the engine. Using 4th gear put it back in the band, but since the gearing was lowered the vehicle did not travel as far.

The point: it might be better to attempt to optimize what one has, rather than wish for something that might not be better, given one's individual driving needs.

Oh, and the Toyota: I sold the car in disgust!

Jon.

[ted sweet]

MY BROTHER owns a hybird, at 4 dollars a gallon it will take almost 100k miles for him to breakeven if had the plain gas model

[rsb]

Want a Real Economy Car ? 75 Mpg? Not In the U.S. | Illinois Conservative Examiner

[Bhigdog]

My old diesel Rabbit got 52 MPG city, hwy, or in between it just didn't care. Now it costs a gazillion bucks to buy some high zoot hybrid that the tree huggers swoon all over as the latest and greatest. Sheeesh..................Bob

[Matt Harwood]

New cars are bigger and full of electronics, safety gear, and features. I'll bet the Toyota Corolla and diesel Rabbit others mention above didn't have power windows, A/C, navigation, remote keyless entry, or any of that stuff we take for granted today. They probably didn't even have power steering. They definitely didn't have airbags and ABS and all the other parts associated with such systems (remember, wire is fairly heavy). So yes, older economy cars were probably better at pulling down good fuel mileage, and everyone shakes their heads at how we can't seem to even match what some cars were doing in the '80s. Well, I'm guessing that not many new car buyers want extreme gas mileage as much as they want A/C, a relatively quiet ride, a decent stereo, a decent amount of passenger space, and safety features to protect their precious snowflakes.

Both of those cars you guys mention were notably smaller than just about anything available today, too. In this forum, of all places, where people constantly rail about how modern cars are "tiny plastic pieces of crap" the Corolla and Rabbit were about 15-20% smaller than a modern Civic or Corolla, and about ten times crappier in every measurable way except fuel economy. The uber-mileage cars in Japan and Europe are positively TINY. How many of you, used to your full-sized American sedans with their effortless horsepower, are going to pile the family into, say, a car the size of a Honda Fit with 45 horsepower and head out for a cross-country trip without A/C? And the Fit isn't even close to being the smallest car on the market over there.

Let's see, no options, no horsepower, no sound deadening materials, and really, really small... Anyone still wondering why we can't "easily" get 40 MPG out of an economy car with today's technology? Makes the hybrids look pretty good, eh?

[Steve Braverman]

My 1984 BMW 325e got 34mpg constantly, and I drove it hard. It had power everything, A/C, ABS brakes, EFI, etc. the only thing missing was airbags and keyless entry. It rode nice, was quiet, handled great, and would smoke the tires down the street. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat, but they all seem to have been used up.

Btw, the 325e was replaced in 1988, by the 325i, which barely topped 20mpg. It was a bit quicker though.

[Matt Harwood]

1984 BMW 325i curb weight: 2359 pounds

2012 BMW 328i curb weight: 3406 pounds

I'm constantly appalled by how new cars get longer, wider, and heavier with each successive generation. Why? Less mass = more performance and better economy. I wonder if BMW just said, "OK, this is as big as the 3-Series is going to get," and just built every car after that one the same size. Would people complain or stop buying BMWs? As Steve says, his 1984 BMW was a nice car that worked well in a reasonably-sized package. Why is the newest one more than 1000 pounds heavier and 15 inches longer?!? We haven't gotten THAT much fatter, have we?

[Bhigdog]

New cars are bigger and full of electronics, safety gear, and features. I'll bet the Toyota Corolla and diesel Rabbit others mention above didn't have power windows, A/C, navigation, remote keyless entry, or any of that stuff we take for granted today. They probably didn't even have power steering. They definitely didn't have airbags and ABS and all the other parts associated with such systems (remember, wire is fairly heavy). So yes, older economy cars were probably better at pulling down good fuel mileage, and everyone shakes their heads at how we can't seem to even match what some cars were doing in the '80s. Well, I'm guessing that not many new car buyers want extreme gas mileage as much as they want A/C, a relatively quiet ride, a decent stereo, a decent amount of passenger space, and safety features to protect their precious snowflakes.

Both of those cars you guys mention were notably smaller than just about anything available today, too. In this forum, of all places, where people constantly rail about how modern cars are "tiny plastic pieces of crap" the Corolla and Rabbit were about 15-20% smaller than a modern Civic or Corolla, and about ten times crappier in every measurable way except fuel economy. The uber-mileage cars in Japan and Europe are positively TINY. How many of you, used to your full-sized American sedans with their effortless horsepower, are going to pile the family into, say, a car the size of a Honda Fit with 45 horsepower and head out for a cross-country trip without A/C? And the Fit isn't even close to being the smallest car on the market over there.

Let's see, no options, no horsepower, no sound deadening materials, and really, really small... Anyone still wondering why we can't "easily" get 40 MPG out of an economy car with today's technology? Makes the hybrids look pretty good, eh?

Partially true. My rabbit was quite big enough for 4 adults and as a city or commuter vehicle it was IDEAL. Did it have back up cameras, a 16 speaker audio system with Blue Tooth, GPS, and enough geegaws that the owners manual was 2" thick like my new Jeep's is? NOPE. Did it get me back and forth to work all week on 5 gallons of gas. YUP. Was it superb in snow? YUP. Was it easy to park? YUP. Did I ever REALLY suffer because it didn't have all the new normal doodads. NOPE. Would I buy another if I could? YUP..............Bob

[junkyardjeff]

The 53 Olds I had back in 84 would get 25 on the highway with a 2 bbl 303 and 4 speed hydro and had no complicated electronics,the 53 that replaced it got around 21 with a 59 371 and jetaway and would blow away almost new corvettes in 85.

[carbking]

The Corolla did have factory A/C; other than that, none of the other economy robbing "options" that some think they cannot live without.

It was comfortable for 4 average sized adults or two adults 6' 6'' and 2 kids.

It did come with seatbelts (mandatory) and shoulder harness (option, but I special-ordered the car, and wanted the protection).

Would I buy another? Probably not, because now I am pretty much "buy American". But I certainly would buy another new car with a manual transmission.

Jon.

[NTX5467]

The other thing i noticed about Europe vs. USA & Canada is how many people rely on train & bus service.

If more rail transport were used we could take more heavy trucks off the road, saving both fuel & maintenance. That just doesn't seem to be of any interest to people in North America.

Rail HAS taken many trucks off of the road. It's not uncommon to see "container trains" (with shipping containers, minus the truck tractor 5th wheel and the rear duals) stacked two high on rail cars . . . heading into Tower 55 in Fort Worth, TX from the west. A complete train of these things. At least 100 trucks worth!!

Regards,

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

One major reason the weight of the BMW 3-series cars mentioned has to do with safety issues . . . as in structural strength and such. Not specifically electronics or other things. The Chrysler Pacifica (production vehicle) gained about 500 lbs from its original version, as a 5 star safety rating was desired . . . otherwise, it would have been a 4 star rating. That extra weight makes that vehicle definitely feel "porky" to me.

Europe is configured much better for public transportation rather than personal transportation. It seems to work better over there than over here for some reason. They're also more advanced in their high speed rail vehicles, too! LOTS of really narrow streets that'll scrape the wheel openning moldings on a '67 Chevy Caprice.

In the '80s, it seemed that the European emissions regs were less stringent than over here, so their engines were more powerful and more fuel stingy at the same time. BUT . . . at that time, they'd been paying $4.00 gallon (THEIR gallon, I suspect) for many years, due to taxes. There were also taxes on vehicle horsepower, too. End result was that they were much better at building smaller engines with better fuel efficiency and power, as that was the necessary way they HAD to do things. Each nationality of vehicle had their own character, too, in engine design and also chassis design/orientation.

One reason GM stopped building manual transmission light duty trucks was that there was no need for them with lockup torque converters and such. Plus, an automatic is easier to get past the emissions tests for certification. In many cases, now, the torque converter locks up in the lower gears rather than just in the top gear.

Europeans never did really get away from diesels in their cars like we did over here. One reason the VW TDI has been continually evolving, as have other Euro diesels, since the 1980s. For a good while, several Chrysler Corp models have been available in Europe with diesel engines . . . when they sent some over here a year or so ago, they sold out in short order. One of the engine choices for the Holden Cruze was the GM 2.0L turbodiesel 4 cyl, in Australia. Seems that everybody else in the world, other than the USA, is not afraid of diesels and their higher fuel efficiency . . . other than in VWs or Benzs, it seems.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467