How Much is US Gas/Gallon right now? (In your area)

[Mr Manifesto]

I can't find anything that says how much US gas is per gallon. I'm wondering if it's higher than Australian prices which, if I'm not mistaken, are based on the Asian market. The reason I'm interested is that people here go into a panic whenever the US oil/barrel prices skyrocket.

It's very hard for me to ask that question, too... It ought to be petrol (unless you all run on LPG or something) per litre (stupid non-metric system bastards). <---- :D for the morons

[shanek]

Around here, 87-octane goes for anywhere from $1.78/gal to $1.85/gal.

Over 40&cent; of that is taxes, BTW.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek
Around here, 87-octane goes for anywhere from $1.78/gal to $1.85/gal.

Over 40&cent; of that is taxes, BTW.

If it were up to me, you'd be paying two bucks a gallon in taxes, you gas-guzzling gluttons! (that goes for Aus, too)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If it were up to me, you'd be paying two bucks a gallon in taxes, you gas-guzzling gluttons! (that goes for Aus, too)

Don’t blame us. Blame the idiots who designed the layout of our cities and suburbs. If it were up to me, I wouldn't even own a car. Unfortunately, not having a car is practically a death sentence in Houston.


Gas in my area is around $1.75 for the lowest octane (87).

[Mr Manifesto]

So, it works out that US petrol is about 2/3 of the price of Australian petrol.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
Don’t blame us. Blame the idiots who designed the layout of our cities and suburbs. If it were up to me, I wouldn't even own a car. Unfortunately, not having a car is practically a death sentence in Houston.


Gas in my area is around $1.75 for the lowest octane (87).

I feel your pain. The traffic in my town is a *****-fight, so the council and state government are going to fix it by... Cutting out the railway line! GOOD ONE!

[Mr Manifesto]

Actually, I'd have to be careful and only prohibitively tax petrol in city areas. It'd be a bit of a bummer to live in rural areas and have to pay through the nose for fuel when you're already living hand-to-mouth as it is (especially in Australia where it's almost becoming a tautology to call it 'drought-stricken').

[karl]

Where I live, less than $5 per gallon would be considered a bargain.

[Lisa Simpson]

$2.09 as of yesterday in Southern California.

[DaChew]

Paid $1.92 a gallon just this morning. That's .833 Imperial gallons or 3.79 liters. About $0.51 per liter.

[The Don]

Around here 95 octane (the lowest available) is 85p/litre which works out to be £3.86/gallon or about $5.60 (U.S.) per gallon (U.S.) or $7 per imperial gallon.

[pgwenthold]

In my area of the US, it jumped to $2.06/US gallon on Monday, after sitting about $1.85 over the weekend.

I'm waiting for it to come back down before filling again.

[Tmy]

Its about $1.85- $2.00. While about .40 may be taxes, that tax amount has been steady over the last couple years whiel the price has risen 40. - .50 cents

[circuit slave]

What ever you do, don't go back to Cali, to Cali, don't go back to Cali at $2.17 a gal, I don't think so.

[Segnosaur]

This is for Canada rather than the U.S., but you can get local gas prices from a web site:
http://www.ottawagasprices.com

[Number Six]

About $1.95 per gallon for the low octane (87) and about $2.15 per gallon for the higher octanes. Did someone say the lowest octane where they live is 95? That's probably the highest where I live. I used to get the higher octane all the time until someone told me it wasn't necessary. I looked in my car owners manual and by golly they were right...87 octane is what it calls for. I shudder to think how much money I wasted over the years by always buying the highest octane.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Number Six
I shudder to think how much money I wasted over the years by always buying the highest octane.

True... the cars that need the highest octane settings are high performance 'muscle' cars or cars that have high compression ratios in the cylinders. (Note I'm not a mechanic, just repeating what I've heard from someone who seems to know what they were doing.)

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Number Six
About $1.95 per gallon for the low octane (87) and about $2.15 per gallon for the higher octanes. Did someone say the lowest octane where they live is 95? That's probably the highest where I live. I used to get the higher octane all the time until someone told me it wasn't necessary. I looked in my car owners manual and by golly they were right...87 octane is what it calls for. I shudder to think how much money I wasted over the years by always buying the highest octane.

The US uses a different method of octane rating than most of the rest of the world. 95 (R method) octane in Europe is the same rating as 87 [(R+M)/2 method] in the US.

--edit: or close anyway, I don't remember the exact correlation.

[fishbob]

In Anchorage, the price per gallon for 87 Octane ranges from $1.95 to $2.01.

In the villages, gasoline ranges up to $3.85 per gallon.

[Charlie Monoxide]

In South Lake Tahoe for 87 octane, it was $2.59/gal over the weekend.

A short drive over a mountain to Nevada will get you gas for $2.08/gal.

Charlie (let's invade Nigeria) Monoxide

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Around here, 87-octane goes for anywhere from $1.78/gal to $1.85/gal.

$5.61/gal in Denmark. Stop whining.

......what do you mean, "87-octane"??? You can't even get that here. You can get 92 octane and up. Most drive 95 and up.

87 octane?? How inefficient! Time to go a little socialist and get some efficiency, it seems.... ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
$5.61/gal in Denmark. Stop whining.

Who's whining? The man asked a question; I gave an answer. But your bigotry of me is so astounding that you just have to take any little opportunity to flame me...

what do you mean, "87-octane"?

Exactly what I mean: 87 octane.

You can't even get that here. You can get 92 octane and up. Most drive 95 and up.

Not my problem.

87 octane?? How inefficient! Time to go a little socialist and get some efficiency, it seems.... ;)

What does the octane level have to do with efficiency? Learn a little something about what you're blathering on about for once:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1997/June/09.html

Lower octane can cause pinging and overheating, which can damage the engine. And higher-than-required octane is simply a waste of money. (emphasis mine)

And also note that at higher altitudes you need less octane. That's why this guy can get away with 85 octane.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1993/April/15.html

Tom: You've fallen for the marketing hype, Joe. Like many people, you have come to equate octane with "goodness." Therefore, the more, the merrier, right?

Ray: But it's actually more like shoe size. You want the one that fits. Getting a shoe that's smaller than you need is no good. But getting one that's too big won't necessarily make you run any faster, or make your foot last any longer.

You might also want to read this:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

High performance cars require high octane. That does NOT mean that high octane gas is in any way more efficient. In fact, the sports cars that make up high octane are notoriously inefficient, and the more efficient cars DON'T NEED IT. The extra octane does NOTHING.

In short, your Socialist government is forcing you to waste money. Big surprise.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Who's whining? The man asked a question; I gave an answer. But your bigotry of me is so astounding that you just have to take any little opportunity to flame me...

You need to let go of your personal animosities. Really.

Originally posted by shanek
Exactly what I mean: 87 octane.

I am just a wee bit surprised, that's all. Oh, well..

Originally posted by shanek
Not my problem.

Sure.

Originally posted by shanek
What does the octane level have to do with efficiency? Learn a little something about what you're blathering on about for once:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1997/June/09.html

Man, I really wish you wouldn't post links that proved my point. Does the term "early burning" mean "efficient driving" to you?

Originally posted by shanek
And also note that at higher altitudes you need less octane. That's why this guy can get away with 85 octane.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1993/April/15.html

Do you have something scientific?

Originally posted by shanek
High performance cars require high octane. That does NOT mean that high octane gas is in any way more efficient. In fact, the sports cars that make up high octane are notoriously inefficient, and the more efficient cars DON'T NEED IT. The extra octane does NOTHING.

So, why do European cars use high octane gas?

Originally posted by shanek
In short, your Socialist government is forcing you to waste money. Big surprise.

Eh.......shanek? You need to get out more. In fact, you need to get out, period. The current Danish government is right-wing, not socialist.

I have to admit that your perpetual ignorance astounds even me... I will look forward to throwing that statement in your face at TAM3: "your Socialist government"....

Whattamaroon....

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, why do European cars use high octane gas?


I'm not sure you do. I think you express octane differently. Don't you bubbas express octane strictly as a function of RON (Research Octane Number) without regard to MON (Motor Octane number) which is lower?

We express octane as an average of the two ( (r+m)/2 )

Your 92 is probably pretty close to our 87, or perhaps just a tad higher. I used to have a calculator handy but alas, the link is no more. I can't imagine our products would differ by much.

I'd be interested in seeing the exact conversion.

[phildonnia]

I paid $2.11 yesterday in Sacramento. This was at a Costco, which buys gas on the spot market (usually cheaper, but subject to wider swings)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You need to let go of your personal animosities. Really.

You were the one who said I was "whining."

Man, I really wish you wouldn't post links that proved my point. Does the term "early burning" mean "efficient driving" to you?

READ the link. Whether or not it's early burning DEPENDS ON THE ENGINE. You don't use anything lower than the engine requires. If you put in more than what the engine requires, you are WASTING MONEY.

Eh.......shanek? You need to get out more. In fact, you need to get out, period. The current Danish government is right-wing, not socialist.

Socialist was YOUR word.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I can't find anything that says how much US gas is per gallon. I'm wondering if it's higher than Australian prices which, if I'm not mistaken, are based on the Asian market. The reason I'm interested is that people here go into a panic whenever the US oil/barrel prices skyrocket.

It's very hard for me to ask that question, too... It ought to be petrol (unless you all run on LPG or something) per litre (stupid non-metric system bastards). <---- :D for the morons

I just paid $2.17/gallon (cheapest grade) in Fullerton (Orange County),CA

[Nyarlathotep]

The best I have found in Carson City, Nevada is $2.07/Gallon.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The best I have found in Carson City, Nevada is $2.07/Gallon.

In CA, the gas is oxygenated, which makes it more expensive. I happen to know that it's 2 miles from South Lake Tahoe to the first NV gas station; well worth the drive.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It's very hard for me to ask that question, too... It ought to be petrol (unless you all run on LPG or something) per litre (stupid non-metric system bastards). <---- :D for the morons You're claiming petrol is a better name for the fuel than gas? Ours is short for gasoline. Yours is presumably short for petroleum. The fuel is gasoline, not petroleum. So you object to us using a shortened form, which also happens to be word with other meanings (this has actually happened before in the English language, and usually goes by without comment), instead of your word shortened from a word which only means something other than what we're talking about. And your word is better how, exactly? :p

I don't pay attention to fuel costs. I don't use enough that it matters.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by The Don
Around here 95 octane (the lowest available) is 85p/litre which works out to be £3.86/gallon or about $5.60 (U.S.) per gallon (U.S.) or $7 per imperial gallon.

Dang. I can't even find 95 octane. 92 is the highest I can find.
I have to get 92 and add tolulene to get it around 101 for my Ducati.

I pay around $2.20 a gallon for 89 octane (middle grade) for a Dodge truck that gets about 12.5 mpg downhill with the wind at my back. When towing a horse trailor, it's closer to 10 mpg.

I have no friggin' idea what that is in kilometers per liter, but I'll bet it sounds better.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It's very hard for me to ask that question, too... It ought to be petrol (unless you all run on LPG or something) per litre (stupid non-metric system bastards). <---- :D for the morons [/B]
I suppose you also think it should be AUS$, right?

And as long as we're needling each other over nomenclature:

What the "L" stand for in "LPG"? Hmm? If you're going to consider LPG a gas, isn't gasoline a gas too? And isn't "propane" a more specific name?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CFLarsen Originally posted by shanek
Who's whining? The man asked a question; I gave an answer. But your bigotry of me is so astounding that you just have to take any little opportunity to flame me...
You need to let go of your personal animosities. Really.I have to admit that your perpetual ignorance astounds even me... I will look forward to throwing that statement in your face at TAM3: "your Socialist government"....

Whattamaroon.... Wow - you guys are good...

"Hey, he asked how much gasoline costs where you live... sounds like a good excuse for a flame war!"

Next topic: "Why I Love My Mommy"

"Don't call my mommy a whore, you a**hole!"

"Don't call me an a**hole, you stupid son of a whore!"

"#$%^ you!"

"No, #$%^ you!"


Oh, back to the topic: $1.85 or so for 87. But drive south about ten miles to Prince William Country and it'll probably be about a buck-sixty, sixty-five. Don't understand why.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You were the one who said I was "whining."

And you were. Nothing personal. I've never heard an American who did not whine about "high" gas prices. They are not "high" in the US.

Originally posted by shanek
READ the link. Whether or not it's early burning DEPENDS ON THE ENGINE. You don't use anything lower than the engine requires. If you put in more than what the engine requires, you are WASTING MONEY.

I did read the link. I asked for something more scientific. You haven't got any. Fine.

Originally posted by shanek
Socialist was YOUR word.

Did I say we have a socialist government?

Did you happen to see that little smiley at the end?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And you were. Nothing personal. I've never heard an American who did not whine about "high" gas prices. They are not "high" in the US.

Actually, it's all relative to what you're used to. They really are not all that high from a historical perspective, especially when adjusted for inflation. They are rather high from a recent perspective.

Do you think the tax on your gasoline is too high? If not, do you agree with the manner in which that revenue is spent? Inasmuch that a tax at the pump is a direct tax (flat), rather than proportional (progressive) tax, do you think it is a fair a fair way to gather revenue?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Actually, it's all relative to what you're used to. They really are not all that high from a historical perspective, especially when adjusted for inflation. They are rather high from a recent perspective.

I tend to see things in a historical perspective. One of the benefits is that I don't panic.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Do you think the tax on your gasoline is too high?

No.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If not, do you agree with the manner in which that revenue is spent?

Tax revenue on a commodity is not spent on specific things, but go into the Big Budget. And that's a whole different discussion...

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Inasmuch that a tax at the pump is a direct tax (flat), rather than proportional (progressive) tax, do you think it is a fair a fair way to gather revenue?

IIRC, progressive taxes here are only for income, not commodities. E.g., there's a Value Added Tax (moms) on all goods, from milk to cars. Is it "fair"? I dunno - can you think of something more fair? Again, that's a whole different discussion...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You're claiming petrol is a better name for the fuel than gas? Ours is short for gasoline. Yours is presumably short for petroleum. The fuel is gasoline, not petroleum. So you object to us using a shortened form, which also happens to be word with other meanings (this has actually happened before in the English language, and usually goes by without comment), instead of your word shortened from a word which only means something other than what we're talking about. And your word is better how, exactly? :p

Fine, fine! Call it what we call it, then: Benzin! :p

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
What the "L" stand for in "LPG"? Hmm?
I'd like to play thanks Eddie and I'll pick c: Liquified.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
If you're going to consider LPG a gas, isn't gasoline a gas too?

At STP, gasoline is a liquid and LPG is a gas, so no.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
And isn't "propane" a more specific name?
For LPG? No. LPG is a mixture of Propane, Butane, and some aromatics.

Pfffft! And you want to be my latex salesman!

[shanek]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I pay around $2.20 a gallon for 89 octane (middle grade) for a Dodge truck that gets about 12.5 mpg downhill with the wind at my back. When towing a horse trailor, it's closer to 10 mpg.

I have no friggin' idea what that is in kilometers per liter, but I'll bet it sounds better.

If you need to know stuff like this, just go to Google, in their regular search engine, right on the home page, and type in:

10 miles/gal in km/liter

I just did that, and got:

10 (miles / gal) = 4.25143706 km / liter

Cool stuff...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And you were.

How? He asked a question, I answered it! I made no comment about how "high" I thought it was. I just answered the question!

I did read the link. I asked for something more scientific. You haven't got any. Fine.

What would you require? It's not like this is the cutting edge of quantum physics or anything.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
If you need to know stuff like this, just go to Google, in their regular search engine, right on the home page, and type in:

10 miles/gal in km/liter

I just did that, and got:

10 (miles / gal) = 4.25143706 km / liter

Cool stuff...

Google is so cool.

The internet is so cool.

Thank god we had a government that could/would encourage and enable such a thing. :)

[Cleon]

True story; I was in Spain about four years ago with a university-sponsored tour. For many in the group, it was their first time overseas.

Upon our arrival and bus trip to the hotel, many were looking around at the scenery. As we passed a BP station, several people took note of the gas price and calculated that, from pesetas (this was pre-Euro) to dollars, it was about $1.50. One individual--I will leave it up to you to figure out her hair color and voting habits--promptly went on a tirade about how the gas wasn't that much more expensive, and how dare the "damn liberals" go on about how much better we have it than Europe while complaining about her 12-mpg SUV.

After about five minutes of free-associating babble, yours truly politely informed this young, eligible-to-vote-yet-never-held-a-job-in-her-life woman that those prices were per liter, which isn't quite the same as per gallon. When told just how many liters are in a gallon (a bit less than four), and after another round with the calculator, she actually shut up.

(Needless to say, for those who've been to Andalucia before, this young woman's first encounter with Gypsies was quite amusing.)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cleon
True story; I was in Spain about four years ago with a university-sponsored tour. For many in the group, it was their first time overseas.

Upon our arrival and bus trip to the hotel, many were looking around at the scenery. As we passed a BP station, several people took note of the gas price and calculated that, from pesetas (this was pre-Euro) to dollars, it was about $1.50. One individual--I will leave it up to you to figure out her hair color and voting habits--promptly went on a tirade about how the gas wasn't that much more expensive, and how dare the "damn liberals" go on about how much better we have it than Europe while complaining about her 12-mpg SUV.

After about five minutes of free-associating babble, yours truly politely informed this young, eligible-to-vote-yet-never-held-a-job-in-her-life woman that those prices were per liter, which isn't quite the same as per gallon. When told just how many liters are in a gallon (a bit less than four), and after another round with the calculator, she actually shut up.

(Needless to say, for those who've been to Andalucia before, this young woman's first encounter with Gypsies was quite amusing.)

That's a funny story, and I enjoyed it. I would however like to take the devil's advocate (EU advocate...same thing) POV. There are (or may be) actual economic advantages in taxing gas as much as the Europians do.

Discourage gluttony and/or wastefulness
Use revenue as a future hedge against shortages
Higher cost = reduced use = cleaner environment
Less dependance
Less need to build wider/more roads
More emphisis on public transportation
Greater motivation to actually live in the city in which you work

These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head (which I admit is rather small and pointy)

Perhaps some EUians and USians will debate the point so I can be more betterestly edumacated.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
How? He asked a question, I answered it! I made no comment about how "high" I thought it was. I just answered the question!

And added this comment: "Over 40% of that is taxes, BTW."

As usual, you don't tell the whole story. Or even the correct one.

Originally posted by shanek
What would you require? It's not like this is the cutting edge of quantum physics or anything.

Nobody claimed it was. I asked for something more scientific than a car talk column. Now, do you have it or not?

Did I say we have a socialist government?

Did you happen to see that little smiley at the end?

Do you really think you can continue claiming that you answer all questions?

[fishbob]

Mr Redman in Minnesota said:I don't pay attention to fuel costs. I don't use enough that it matters. Maybe not for driving, but you probably heat your house and cook your food.

A short story told to my by an Exxon gas station owner.

Fort Worth, Texas; 1989 - just after the Valdez oil spill;

A woman pulled up to his full service pumps in a big Buick, lowered her power window, waved at him for assistance. When he got there, she called him a 'seal killer', spit on the driveway, then burned rubber out of there.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That's a funny story, and I enjoyed it. I would however like to take the devil's advocate (EU advocate...same thing) POV. There are (or may be) actual economic advantages in taxing gas as much as the Europians do.

Discourage gluttony and/or wastefulness
Use revenue as a future hedge against shortages
Higher cost = reduced use = cleaner environment
Less dependance
Less need to build wider/more roads
More emphisis on public transportation
Greater motivation to actually live in the city in which you work

These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head (which I admit is rather small and pointy)

Perhaps some EUians and USians will debate the point so I can be more betterestly edumacated.

Well, the point of my story wasn't to argue for or against European-style taxation. It was mainly just to amuse. :)

I, personally, would like to see way more energy (and money) put into mass transit and alternative fuels. Mostly mass transit; in Atlanta, the MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) is excellent for going to the airport, absolutely frikkin' useless for anything else. It receives zero state funds, and is in generally poor shape; of course, they have to cut service, because, oddly enough, ridership is down.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And added this comment: "Over 40% of that is taxes, BTW."

Yes, because I thought it might be relevant to compare tax values across countries. Again, I was just passing along information.

As usual, you don't tell the whole story. Or even the correct one.

What did I leave out? What did I say that was incorrect?

Nobody claimed it was. I asked for something more scientific than a car talk column. Now, do you have it or not?

Well, geez, you can Google as easily as I can:

http://keystonecenterpolicysummit.org/upload/Gasoline-Powered%20vehicles.doc

On page 8:

Many consumers believe that filling their tank with a higher octane of gasoline means that the fuel will burn cleaner. This is not the case.

Did I say we have a socialist government?

That was most certainly your implication. You replied, "Time to go a little socialist and get some efficiency, it seems" while talking specifically about Denmark.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, because I thought it might be relevant to compare tax values across countries. Again, I was just passing along information.

So, you are not dissatisfied with the 40% tax at all?

Originally posted by shanek
What did I leave out? What did I say that was incorrect?

You left out that you mentioned the 40% tax.

Originally posted by shanek
Well, geez, you can Google as easily as I can:

There's a reason why we say "The onus is on the claimant". Why should we give you a free ride and not the (other) woowoos?

Originally posted by shanek
http://keystonecenterpolicysummit.org/upload/Gasoline-Powered%20vehicles.doc

The site is nowhere done - in fact, most of the links lead to empty template-pages. Not very impressive.

Originally posted by shanek
On page 8:

Excellent. Now, where are the scientific studies that support this? Oh, wait....Laura Fay - whose credentials are completely missing - doesn't say. The paper has no references of any kind.

Who is Laura Fay, shanek?

Originally posted by shanek
That was most certainly your implication. You replied, "Time to go a little socialist and get some efficiency, it seems" while talking specifically about Denmark.

Don't tell me what I implicated. No, I did not implicate that we had a socialist government.

Now, contrary to what you do, I won't call you a liar for misunderstanding what I say. But I will call you a fool.

[Tony]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There's a reason why we say "The onus is on the claimant". Why should we give you a free ride and not the (other) woowoos?

Because what he says is practically common knowledge. All you do is show your ignorance and bigotry by being so stubborn.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you are not dissatisfied with the 40% tax at all?

I didn't say that. I just stated facts here. YOU are the one trying to bring other issues into it. (And it's a ~40&cent; tax, not a 40% tax.)

There's a reason why we say "The onus is on the claimant".[/b]

Yes, which is why I'm puzzled that you're demanding that I provide evidence when YOU were the one that claimed high octane gas was more efficient to begin with.

[Claus using irrelevancies to dismiss the evidence deleted]

Claus, why don't YOU provide evidence to support YOUR claim that high octane gas is more efficient?

Don't tell me what I implicated.

I have reading comprehension, Claus. Your comment only makes sense if Denmark is, at least in part, socialist.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by fishbob
Mr Redman in Minnesota said: Maybe not for driving, but you probably heat your house and cook your food. Actually, that comes free with my rent. But, of course, the cost of fuel obviously will have an effect on me, sooner or later.

This thread looks about worth abandoning at this point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I didn't say that. I just stated facts here. YOU are the one trying to bring other issues into it. (And it's a ~40&cent; tax, not a 40% tax.)

Sorry, that didn't translate to a Danish browser. (odd...?)

But what are your feelings about the 40 cent tax?

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, why don't YOU provide evidence to support YOUR claim that high octane gas is more efficient?

You can find a Danish report (with English summary) here (http://nobel.unf.dk/pdf/Ganesalingam.pdf), from the Danish Youth Association of Science, Nobel Prize department.

Originally posted by shanek
I have reading comprehension, Claus. Your comment only makes sense if Denmark is, at least in part, socialist.

That may be. But that doesn't mean we have to have a socialist government. Like you claimed we had. Fool.


Now, a few outstanding questions:

Where are the scientific studies that support Fay's paper?

Who is Laura Fay?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But what are your feelings about the 40 cent tax?

First of all, a bit of a clarification: 19.5&cent; is Federal taxes. State taxes make up the rest; they're generally 20&cent; or more, but they vary. In NC it's currently 22.1&cent;.

My feeling about it is that, as an excise, it's the least objectionable form of tax. The idea is that they tax the drivers who use the fuel and use the money to pay for roads and other related infrastructure. As far as that goes, I don't have a problem.

The problem is, they aren't auctally doing that. So much of it is being used for unrelated pork barrel spending that I think it's really hard to justify that amount.

You can find a Danish report (with English summary) here (http://nobel.unf.dk/pdf/Ganesalingam.pdf), from the Danish Youth Association of Science, Nobel Prize department.

Um...

A car with a high compression ratio requires petrol with a high octane number.

Like what my sources have been saying. Furthermore, nowhere (at least in the English section) does it say that higher octane gas is more efficient. In fact, it specifically says:

The octane number can be increased by adding methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE). This additive is made of isobutene and methanol and has an octane number of 117. The problem with MTBE is that it is soluble with water thus it can mix with the ground water. A very little amount of MTBE can make enormous amounts of water undrinkable because of a strong smell of petroleum. Furthermore MTBE is cancer-producing.

To avoid a serious environmental disaster it is important that we enhance the research work concerning the problems with MTBE.

This is NOT saying that higher-octane fuel is more efficient; it is saying it is WORSE for the environment and so needs to be MADE more efficient.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I'd like to play thanks Eddie and I'll pick c: Liquified.

At STP, gasoline is a liquid and LPG is a gas, so no.
You don't see anything discordant about those two statements? If LPG is a gas, it's not L, is it? When they're in the fuel tank, both are liquids. When they're in the engine, both are gases. I don't see how STP is relevant.

For LPG? No. LPG is a mixture of Propane, Butane, and some aromatics.
Hmm. I guess shouldn't trust Google so much.

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Actually, that comes free with my rent.
More precisely, it comes included in your rent.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
First of all, a bit of a clarification: 19.5&cent; is Federal taxes. State taxes make up the rest; they're generally 20&cent; or more, but they vary. In NC it's currently 22.1&cent;.

My feeling about it is that, as an excise, it's the least objectionable form of tax. The idea is that they tax the drivers who use the fuel and use the money to pay for roads and other related infrastructure. As far as that goes, I don't have a problem.

The problem is, they aren't auctally doing that. So much of it is being used for unrelated pork barrel spending that I think it's really hard to justify that amount.

........so, you did whine. Nobody asked about taxes. You brought it up. So, you whined.

Originally posted by shanek
This is NOT saying that higher-octane fuel is more efficient; it is saying it is WORSE for the environment and so needs to be MADE more efficient.

You do have a reading comprehension problem. It is worse because of the additives.

Now, for the third friggin' time:

Where are the scientific studies that support Fay's paper?

Who is Laura Fay?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
........so, you did whine. Nobody asked about taxes. You brought it up. So, you whined.

Bringing up a related fact is whining because nobody specifically asked for it? Whatever, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

[insult deleted]

You do have a reading comprehension problem. It is worse because of the additives.

And the PURPOSE of the additive is to RAISE THE OCTANE LEVEL!

[irrelevancies deleted]

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

For the 4th time:

Where are the scientific studies that support Fay's paper?

Who is Laura Fay?

It is not "irrelevant", because you pointed to her paper.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
If you need to know stuff like this, just go to Google, in their regular search engine, right on the home page, and type in:

10 miles/gal in km/liter

I just did that, and got:

10 (miles / gal) = 4.25143706 km / liter

Cool stuff...

Just don't forget there is the real gallon that the British used to use and the upstart one the USA uses. And of course the British one is a bit larger. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is not "irrelevant", because you pointed to her paper.

I pointed to her DATA. YOU are the one trying to make it argument by authority. At least I didn't pretend my paper said something other than what it did like YOU did.

So, Claus, why don't YOU provide evidence to support YOUR claim that high octane gas is more efficient?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I pointed to her DATA. YOU are the one trying to make it argument by authority. At least I didn't pretend my paper said something other than what it did like YOU did.

What "data"? It is not an argument from authority, I just want to know who she is and what she bases her claims on.

It is relevant, whether you like it or not. Are you going to answer?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What "data"? It is not an argument from authority, I just want to know who she is and what she bases her claims on.

You can tell what she bases her claims on by reading her paper. No, you just want to find excuses for attacking the source, like you do with ALL papers you disagree with.

And yet again, this is YOUR claim; it is up to YOU to back it up. The paper you cited DOES NOT back you up&mdash;in fact, it CONTRADICTS your claim.

Stop weaseling and support your assertion that higher octane gas is more efficient.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You can tell what she bases her claims on by reading her paper. No, you just want to find excuses for attacking the source, like you do with ALL papers you disagree with.

And yet again, this is YOUR claim; it is up to YOU to back it up. The paper you cited DOES NOT back you up&mdash;in fact, it CONTRADICTS your claim.

Stop weaseling and support your assertion that higher octane gas is more efficient.

No data, then. No scientific evidence, then. No mention of any scientific credentials, then. No mention of any credentials at all, then.

Your reference is dismissed.

I hope you understand why. I fear you don't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No data, then. No scientific evidence, then. No mention of any scientific credentials, then. No mention of any credentials at all, then.

Your reference is dismissed.

I hope you understand why. I fear you don't.

I understand why: because you don't even believe YOUR OWN CLAIM enough to back it up like you're supposed to, and so it's natural that you'll look for any excuse to deny VALID DATA showing that you are WRONG.

It's YOUR claim. YOU'RE supposed to be the one that needs to back up what he says. You CAN'T. So, like a woo-woo, all you do is dismiss the rebuttals presented to you and insist that you MUST be right.

And you wonder why I call you a pseudo-skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

My fears were validated.

[shanek]

More evidence for Claus the pseudo-skeptic to ignore:

http://www.christianccc.org/Educational_Information/Saving%20Money%20at%20the%20Pump.htm

The octane number is simply the measure of the antiknock performance of a gasoline. Most cars only need regular (87) octane to resist engine knock. Some sports and luxury cars need higher octane (89 or 92) because they have high-compression engines. In general, higher octane gasoline will not increase your car’s power or acceleration.

Unless your engine is knocking or pinging, you car won’t benefit from higher octane.

As a rule, high octane gasoline does not outperform regular octane in cleaning engine deposits. In fact, the law requires that all octane grades of all brands of gasoline contain engine cleaning additives to protect against the build-up of harmful levels of engine deposits during the expected life of your car.

Using high octane every few tankfuls in a car that does not knock on regular gasoline provides no benefit to your car, and is simply a waste of money.

There is no scientific evidence that higher octane burns cleaner or pollutes less than regular. In fact, high octane gasoline consumes more energy to produce at the refinery and, in that sense, is worse for the environment.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/octane.htm

In fact, in most cases, using a higher octane gasoline than your owner’s manual recommends offers absolutely no benefit. It won’t make your car perform better, go faster, get better mileage or run cleaner. Your best bet: listen to your owner’s manual.

Unless your engine is knocking, buying higher octane gasoline is a waste of money, too. Premium gas costs 15 to 20 cents per gallon more than regular. That can add up to $100 or more a year in extra costs. Studies indicate that altogether, drivers may be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year for higher octane gas than they need.

Dismiss away, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
My fears were validated.

Then why won't you back up YOUR OWN CLAIM???

[Dorian Gray]

On NPRs Marketplace, or one of those after 5pm shows, they announce the national average every couple of days or so. Last time, which was Friday, they said the national average was $1.98 per gallon. That translates to about 9.54 Euros per centimeter.

*note to Crimresearch: That last sentence is what is referred to as a double joke, where the first joke is that the units and exchange rate are wrong, and the second is that Americans don't know units and exchange rates, because why should they? So don't come along and accuse me of being a technophile or something.

[shanek]

Hmm...let's blow Claus's assertions away some more:

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/59600.html

The government has put forward a proposal to introduce a so-called 'green tax' on MTBE to encourage drivers to switch from 98-octane petrol to 92- or 95-octane fuels, which do not contain the additive. According to the oil industry itself, the nation's high-octane fuel consumption is two to three times higher than it should be: thousands of cars will drive just as well on the lower octane petrol.

So Claus's own government, which he spends so much time shilling for, is against him here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
So Claus's own government, which he spends so much time shilling for, is against him here.

Shanek, you really, really need to read what people write.

I am not "shilling for" the Danish government. The Danish government is right-wing liberal (in the European sense), I am social-democrat(ish).

Please, please learn that there are other countries, other political parties that the one(!) you know of.

[shanek]

Wow. Claus takes his most transparently desperate ploy ever to avoid acknowledging that he is WRONG about something. Claus, your claim about higher octane gas being more efficient is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. And EVERY source I have checked confirms it.

[Matabiri]

Well, as long as petrol keeps going up in price...

(Apologies for the wide image...)

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif

[Dorian Gray]

I was a little off before. It's a service that NPR quotes, they do it each week, and the national average is now $2.02.