SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Compartmentalising sure adds cost though, to manufacture and in upkeep. spend on gas or spend in the shop?

There would be a lot of technical aspects to consider as well (and I am far from an expert or even remotely understanding the difficulties). I would assume net mechanical weight increase, probably more total fluid volume would be needed further increasing the weight. Then there are cooling and sealing concerns for each compartment too.

And yeah! The shop costs would likely leap up for the extra time to drain and refill 3 or 4 separate compartments. Or do it yourself and have the extra headache. Not to mention when the shop (or we) mess it all up and have to do it all over again 5 miles down the road

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Yup. A gas tax high enough to care of all the outstanding infrastructure repairs and needs would likely curtail consumption, but that's a regressive tax. Luxury and gas guzzler taxes would be a more progressive [tax] solution. With the right luxury and gas guzzler tax combo we could start getting trucks back to being utility vehicles rather than 3+ ton luxury vehicles.
Yup, it's the "poor folk" who trot down to the dealer and plunk down for a Prius. No guzzler tax for them.

 

[Jetronic]

If you want to cut consumption, you have to make consumption expensive. A fuel tax might make some think about their driving habits aswell, and as we're all aware that has as much influence on consumption as the engine size.

Just think what happened when the fuel prices were high, and definitely when they dropped.

If you're going for a gas guzzler tax, everybody not strapped for cash will be getting big hybrids (Panamera, hybrid trucks will appear, etc...) and they'll just run them on cheap gas. You'll have no gas uzzler tax money, and no fuel tax money to spend on infrastructure.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
If you want to cut consumption, you have to make consumption expensive. A fuel tax might make some think about their driving habits aswell, and as we're all aware that has as much influence on consumption as the engine size.

Just think what happened when the fuel prices were high, and definitely when they dropped.

If you're going for a gas guzzler tax, everybody not strapped for cash will be getting big hybrids (Panamera, hybrid trucks will appear, etc...) and they'll just run them on cheap gas. You'll have no gas uzzler tax money, and no fuel tax money to spend on infrastructure.


Problem being that higher fuel taxes are regressive by their nature.
In this country, we have many lower income people who must drive cars just to get to their lower wage jobs and to buy their groceries. In most of America, there are no realistic mass transit options.
Lower income folks buy whatever seems most decent that they can afford. Why should lower income people in a nation that due to its residential and economic dispersion can never have mass transit in most of it pay more for the fuel they need just to survive?
For that matter, why should I, having already made efficient daily-driver choices pay more for fuel just to discourage what I would consider the foolish vehicle selections of others?
CAFE seems like a fair alternative to higher fuel taxes as a way of encouraging lower fuel consumption.
Infrastructure?
It's a national asset that benefits everyone and should therefore be financed out of something more than a tax on motor fuel.

 

[SonofJoe]

I guess we're getting a bit off topic but here's what I think...

Here in the UK we've had a policy of taxing fuel (both gasoline and diesel) very heavily for at least the last two decades. Yes people whine but IMO it's been one of the most sensible policies we've ever had. It's great achievement is to promote efficiency. We have small, light cars with efficient engines. The Ford Fiesta is the biggest selling car in the UK which is plenty big enough for the average family. The system isn't regressive in that anyone who wants to drive say, a Bentley, can do but will pay proportionately more in tax because of the cars appallingly low mpg. The fuel tax is coupled to a road tax system which is based on CO2 emissions. And lest anyone forgets, global warming is real and is only going to get worse if we sit on our hands and do nothing about it.

Tax, whilst no one likes paying it, isn't quite the dirty word it seems to be in the US simply because most people accept that we get something for it. The National Health System, despite the fact that it's creaking at the seams, is a highly efficient way of delivering healthcare to the majority of the population. We joke here that if Walter White had been born British, Breaking Bad would have only lasted one episode because he would have got his lung cancer treated free, gratis and for nothing!

 

[fdcg27]

Any tax on consumption of anything other than luxury goods is by its nature regressive since lower income people end up paying a greater share of their income to cover the tax than do the more fortunate.
Fuel is anything but a luxury for most people in this country, since most areas lack any alternative to personal transportation to get to work and to the grocery store. There are no other options. Most newer developments actively discourage walking with a lack of sidewalks and suicide pedestrian crossings on four to six lane main surface streets.
There are those like me who'd grumble about a buck or two a gallon tax but could afford it and there are those who'd find their already constrained finances seriously impacted.
Anyway, the genesis of European and UK fuel taxes was in the early postwar period when all of these economies were seeking to reduce imports and increase exports. A heavy tax on refined petroleum products was seen as and turned out to be an effective way of limiting consumption. Environmental concerns had nothing to do with it. Then as now, those who could afford to buy and run a Bentley weren't too concerned.

 

[SonofJoe]

Yes and no. Yes, post-war Britain did use tax, and restrictions on engine size, to restrict fuel consumption but the really big hikes in tax were made in the early 90s when the Fuel Duty Escalator was introduced. The idea behind this was that year after year, fuel tax would be increased faster than inflation. Simultaneously it would generate more tax, reduce consumption, be 'green' and cause the consuming country to retain a higher percentage of the value of oil. It worked really well until lorry drivers rebelled at which point it was toned down.

Consumption taxes maybe be regressive but having been pushed hard by Thatcher in the 80's and widely copied in many countries, they are very much the norm now. All I can say is you get used to them after a while. One question you might ask is given the two different models of tax, which county does the better job of taking care of their poor; the UK or the US? I'd be genuinely interested in your response.

 

[fdcg27]

Who takes better care of their poor?
I honestly don't know.
The UK has lower per capita GDP than does the US and also has a higher cost of living.
While we have sales taxes on most goods other than food in the US, they are nowhere near as high as VAT is on goods sold in the UK. Overall, a unit of currency goes farther in the US than it does in the UK. It isn't just the price of fuel and motor oil that's lower in the US. So is everything else.
The US does offer fairly generous housing, food and health insurance assistance to the poor including those who work as well as a partial tax rebate called the Earned Income Tax Credit. Temporary cash assistance is also offered to single or abandoned mothers with children.
Unemployed workers are offered at least six months of cash assistance and that was extended to as long as two years for some unemployed workers in some states in the last recession. Social Security is available to most retirees in the US as well as disabled younger workers along with health care benefits. Social Security often makes the difference between a financially secure retirement and one of penury.
What little I know of the UK's provision for the poor comes from what I read in "The Economist" but I don't think that the UK is as generous as the US in caring for its poor.
There is substantial evidence that programs with their roots in the Johnson era War on Poverty have substantially reduced poverty in this country.

 

[SonofJoe]

Thanks for the reply. TBH, if you watch the TV here, the message of how the US treats its less well off is unremittingly bad. The Republican Party in particular seems to have a pathological hatred of welfare in general and something called food stamps in particular. You also get the impression that the poor and unemployed don't have any effective voice in the US political process with the only people seeming to matter being the middle classes who might be persuaded to swing either way.

Anyway, I found this recent article on the BBC about how welfare compared. Should I ever find myself down on my luck, I think I'm going to emigrate to Japan!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37159686

 

[fdcg27]

While one party may be fond of stigmatizing the less fortunate among us, that party does not in and of itself determine either the laws or policies applied in our treatment of the less well-off. Most of what these folks have to say is no more than loose talk intended to please an audience. To steal a line from some old Brit, it's full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The reality is that we have a mixed economy in this country, just as every other developed country does.
The S word (socialism) is anathema to some on the right side of our political spectrum, but we've had socialist elements in our economy since before the founding of the republic and our declaring ourselves independent of your lot.
In viewing other countries, it's always important that we not confuse atmospherics and bloviation with reality. Those of us here understand that there will never be a mass deportation of Mexican nationals nor will there be a wall while those elsewhere may not understand that this is merely talk intended to please a certain constituency.
Could such confusion domestically have resulted in the fateful decision that the UK will leave the EU?
I'm asking this of you since you are a man on the ground while those of us elsewhere are no more than observers.

 

[4WD]

It is about metrics - the trends going the wrong way. Programs meant to be a bridge are now an Interstate Freeway in length - exit and take the next (generation on the dole) ...
Most Americans are generous - I live simple despite a large income - and help folks often. Folks who are trying - working two jobs and not enough...Many here do that ...

 

[fdcg27]

This was once true but has not been the case since welfare reform was signed into law by, irony of ironies, a Democratic president by the name of Clinton.
While we once had Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) we have had since that time Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
The long term lifestyle of income without work has been over for twenty years now and this was a piece of legislation made law by a Democrat.

 

[4WD]

Semantics to me when record numbers are getting stamps - I was floored the day I heard advertising to come sign up for stamps - in the final days before the last election ... (All tax payers paid for that - who got the votes ?)
Perhaps we can't count on the D or the R mobs and need to do things better. How about buying an American product once in a while ? (I know, fire in the hole) ...

 

[fdcg27]

I personally buy American whenever I can.
Out of seven vehicles in the family fleet, five were built in this country.
Only the Forester was built in Japan and the old BMW was built in Germany.
I'll gladly pay a couple of more pence for a product made in this country.
Too bad all of those good business leaders don't see it that way.
Many have actually moved their companies offshore on paper just to avoid paying taxes legally and properly due on corporate income earned in our country.
Good conservatives all of them.

 

[4WD]

Blue collar jobs only. Hope you did not assume how I vote - I don't vote party lines. You do and work for who ?
Need to end this or lock.