Ford watching Europe's reaction to Mustang in new ads

[sportyaccordy]

mzziaz I didn't cherry pick anything. Americans have to drive more just by the way the country is setup. And Americans have to have a higher car ownership rate because of the lack and infeasibility of public transportation. So calling Americans wasteful because we use more gasoline without factoring in context is dishonest. If we're gonna talk about America's consumption lets talk about it in its full context.

[Madman]

Americans have to drive more just by the way the country is setup. And Americans have to have a higher car ownership rate because of the lack and infeasibility of public transportation.

But does that mean Americans have to drive big wasteful cars that are inappropriate for their needs?

[CALL_911]

But does that mean Americans have to drive big wasteful cars that are inappropriate for their needs?

I LOL at your (and most people in this thread's) usage of the word "need." We don't "need" anything more than a horse- fine, a '70 Civic. You, nor do I, have any right to say what someone else "needs." If someone wants a 470 hp C63 AMG and can afford it, why the fuck should the government have any influence on whether they should or should not have it? If I were to own a C63 AMG, I sure as fuck wouldn't consider that fuel wasteful (I want to burn that fuel, I'm more than willing to feed that 6.2L V8), and I wouldn't give a rat's ass if you did or not.

[cawimmer430]

My real + only gripe.. OK, I have two. One is this perpetuation of a culture of guilt/shame (people debadging/downbadging their luxury cars out of fear/shame, EU folks looking down their noses at Americans for not buying in, the LIE that EU folks LOVE to drive little 1L tin cans and pay $12/gal for gas), two is the brazen hypocrisy with which Wimmer (the dude whose famly's cars average fuel economy didn't even add up to 19 MPG in the US cycle in a country where the avg new car sold does 33 MPG) and mzziaz (aka Mr V8 Ranchero) post

Average fuel economy of my dad's 2010 Mercedes E350 CGI is between 7.2 and 7.7 L / 100 km = 32.6 / 30.5 mpg

Average fuel economy of my 2007 BMW 118i is 7.2 L / 100 km = 32.6 mpg

The 500SL is a gas guzzler using anything from 13-15 L / 100 km = 18 / 15.6 mpg. But that's expected and it's not an issue for two reasons: one, my dad can afford it, and two, my dad bought this car because it was his dream car. He wasn't expecting it to get good gas mileage. For what it is, the gas mileage is actually quite "decent" when you put in the power output, weight, 4-speed A/T etc. into perspective.

Wimmer you dont need a 118i, and I am certain the car you are looking to replace it with isn't the most fuel efficient choice. So what gives?

I can assure you that a Citroen C5 Tourer 2.0 HDi 16V with 163-horsepower is officially rated at 5.3 L of diesel per 100 km. That's 44.3 mpg. This car is bigger than a 1-Series, weighs more and has more power and yet is more efficient than a 118i.

[cawimmer430]

The disallows part I take issue with. Discourage is perhaps the better word.

Exactly.

That's the best word to describe the scenario. Discourage.

We are free to drive what we want and what we can afford but the government tries to DISCOURAGE us from buying Ford F-650s or Chevrolet Suburbans. Anyone with the financial means can drive whatever they want in Europe. If you insist on owning a fleet of Ford F-650s in Europe as a daily driver and can afford to fill up both fuel tanks for a price of 914 Euro - then eat your heart out. Just be prepared to pay the expensive fuel prices.


Einmal volltanken ? 914 Euro

590 Liter Tankinhalt. 5,2 Tonnen Leergewicht. Wie lebt es sich mit zu viel Auto? AUTO BILD hat den Selbstversuch gewagt und war mit dem Ford F-650 in M?nchens Innenstadt unterwegs.



http://www.autobild.de/artikel/test-ford-f-650-759175.html

[cawimmer430]

US consumes a lot of fuel for a couple of reasons

- wild variations in climate + higher HVAC consumption (where else in the world has a tropical belt w/the level of development of places like Houston + Miami?????)
- old + inefficient buildings (many of which are being upgraded/retrofitted)
- generating 20% of the world's manufacturing output (despite the small population )

And you forgot the 4th part:

Stuffing overpowered gasoline V6s or V8s into overweight SUVs and not taxing the shit out of that.

Seriously. A BMW 7-Series or Mercedes S-Class driver (who in the US probably drives much less than the average SUV owner) has to pay a gas-guzzler tax but some soccer mommy can do a miserable 9 mpg in her Cadillac Escalade and get away with it?

I'm pretty sure that if Americans actually had a choice of more efficient engines for SUVs they'd get them. But it seems you don't even get a choice except for a range of fuel-inefficient V6/V8 gasoline engines that, to me, make zero sense in a working vehicle.

[cawimmer430]

So what do North Americans here think about the American gas-guzzler tax?

Do any of you find it even ironic how gas-guzzling SUVs are exempt from this penalty? I can understand that there was a time when pickups and SUVs were working vehicles but now they're swallowed up by the masses who don't even need them. Well, if they can afford to run such an SUV then they certainly can pay for more expensive fuel and a gas-guzzler tax. And this will force manufacturers to offer more efficient engines for SUVs, diesels included.

It's about time this rule is changed. SUVs should be penalized with a hefty gas-guzzler tax (even higher than those on luxury cars) to simply discourage those who don't really need them from getting them. And if they can afford it? Then they can afford it, but they're going to have to pay for that pleasure. That's pretty much what the situation is in Europe.

If you can afford an expensive and thirsty car then you certainly can afford to pay the high running costs.

[Galaxy]

The 500SL is a gas guzzler using anything from 13-15 L / 100 km = 18 / 15.6 mpg. But that's expected and it's not an issue for two reasons: one, my dad can afford it, and two, my dad bought this car because it was his dream car. He wasn't expecting it to get good gas mileage. For what it is, the gas mileage is actually quite "decent" when you put in the power output, weight, 4-speed A/T etc. into perspective.

See that is what people take issue with, because you sound like the catholic church in the middle ages. You can be allowed to sin, if you pay the appropriate fine.

For the record I don't consider your 500 SL a polluter because it probably get driven only 1000km per year.

[cawimmer430]

See that is what people take issue with, because you sound like the catholic church in the middle ages. You can be allowed to sin, if you pay the appropriate fine.

I don't really see what the 500SL has to do with me. I had no say in the matter when my father bought this car second hand off his best friend. It was his dream car at the time and it was the only V8-powered car he's ever owned in his life. This was his one and only indulgence so to say. My father doesn't like thirsty cars, even though he can afford to pay for the gas usage. The SL was simply his toy. He's had his fun and now he's actually thinking of selling it - because he doesn't drive it as much as he used to and because he's deriving no more fun out of it. The E350 CGI is his daily driver now, far more practical and far more fuel efficient. He doesn't need two cars. A second car that's hardly used is still an extra cost.

I won't shed a tear if my dad sells this car. I have no practical use for it and I don't really like driving it to.

For the record I don't consider your 500 SL a polluter because it probably get driven only 1000km per year.

Correct. It is driven a maximum of 1,000 to 1,500 km a year. That's very little.

[sportyaccordy]

Wimmer, its not up to you to determine what people "need".

And in any case, for people living in rural areas, a pickup might be a vehicle they "need".

The whole premise of America is freedom that doesn't hurt anyone else. One could argue that driving a gas guzzler hurts the environment. Well so does using water, creating garbage and consuming electricity... pretty much every aspect of modern living is detrimental to the environment.

What your little tirades come down to is using a meaningless platform to gain power + control over others. Folks like you find pleasure in exerting your will over others- in this case by deeming what folks "need" and forcing them to drive what YOU feel is appropriate, without taking into account what their desires might be, or how the actions of you and your family might bode on your decision.

And I dont know where you got those #s from. Maybe you translated to imperial gallons. In any case 30 MPG in urban cycle on an E350 is a pipe dream.

And you forgot the 4th part:

Stuffing overpowered gasoline V6s or V8s into overweight SUVs and not taxing the shit out of that.

Seriously. A BMW 7-Series or Mercedes S-Class driver (who in the US probably drives much less than the average SUV owner) has to pay a gas-guzzler tax but some soccer mommy can do a miserable 9 mpg in her Cadillac Escalade and get away with it?

I'm pretty sure that if Americans actually had a choice of more efficient engines for SUVs they'd get them. But it seems you don't even get a choice except for a range of fuel-inefficient V6/V8 gasoline engines that, to me, make zero sense in a working vehicle.

Again, who are you to say what is overpowered or not?

So what do North Americans here think about the American gas-guzzler tax?

Do any of you find it even ironic how gas-guzzling SUVs are exempt from this penalty? I can understand that there was a time when pickups and SUVs were working vehicles but now they're swallowed up by the masses who don't even need them. Well, if they can afford to run such an SUV then they certainly can pay for more expensive fuel and a gas-guzzler tax. And this will force manufacturers to offer more efficient engines for SUVs, diesels included.

It's about time this rule is changed. SUVs should be penalized with a hefty gas-guzzler tax (even higher than those on luxury cars) to simply discourage those who don't really need them from getting them. And if they can afford it? Then they can afford it, but they're going to have to pay for that pleasure. That's pretty much what the situation is in Europe.

If you can afford an expensive and thirsty car then you certainly can afford to pay the high running costs.

Gas guzzling cars are expensive to run without the high taxes or even the gas guzzler tax. I have seen a lot of folks downgrade as gas got more expensive. So what is the logic in adding taxes on top of that? The operating costs themselves are a built in "tax".

Like I said your whole stance is predicated on exerting your will over others. If you want to argue the environmental impact, fine, but you haven't once. To you it is all about what you feel is appropriate or inappropriate horsepower/gas consumption. You are like those religious nuts who want to ban homosexuality and force prayer in schools. What happened to freedom of choice, and who are you to make those decisions for everybody? How does someone driving a car w/a V8 3000 miles away affect you?

[MX793]

So what do North Americans here think about the American gas-guzzler tax?

Do any of you find it even ironic how gas-guzzling SUVs are exempt from this penalty? I can understand that there was a time when pickups and SUVs were working vehicles but now they're swallowed up by the masses who don't even need them. Well, if they can afford to run such an SUV then they certainly can pay for more expensive fuel and a gas-guzzler tax. And this will force manufacturers to offer more efficient engines for SUVs, diesels included.

It's about time this rule is changed. SUVs should be penalized with a hefty gas-guzzler tax (even higher than those on luxury cars) to simply discourage those who don't really need them from getting them. And if they can afford it? Then they can afford it, but they're going to have to pay for that pleasure. That's pretty much what the situation is in Europe.

If you can afford an expensive and thirsty car then you certainly can afford to pay the high running costs.

The gas guzzler tax is levied against passenger cars.  Trucks/SUVs/minivans are technically classified as commercial vehicles.  Hence, they are exempted from gas guzzler taxes.  However, they are often charged greater vehicle registration fees than passenger cars.  At the time the tax was enacted (late 70s), SUVs pretty much didn't exist yet and trucks and vans were almost exclusively used for commercial purposes, so they were made exempt so as to not to put a damper on businesses using these vehicles.

Personally, if not eliminated altogether, I think the tax should be re-written so that only pickups should be exempt from gas guzzler taxes, as SUVs are clearly a passenger vehicle, but I digress...

Also, I'm not sure if you know how the gas guzzler tax in the US works, but it's not technically paid by the car owner.  The manufacturer (or importer) of the vehicle must pay the IRS for every "gas guzzler" they sell.  They typically pass this onto the consumers by adjusting the price of the vehicle accordingly.  It's a one-time per vehicle sale charge.

I'd also point out that your European manufacturers are the worst offenders for gas guzzlers.  Of the 97 cars on the 2010 gas guzzler list, 81 of them are from European manufacturers (Mercedes and BMW having the lion's share).  15 are from US brands and 1 is from a Japanese brand.

[TurboDan]

SUVs should be penalized with a hefty gas-guzzler tax (even higher than those on luxury cars) to simply discourage those who don't really need them from getting them.

Why? What does it matter to you if someone wants a big SUV? What should it matter to the government? Why should someone pay a tax simply for the sake of paying a tax? What would the government do with the money raised from such a tax?

This thread is really a very, very scary glimpse into Europeans' acceptance of heavy-handed government officials dictating how people should live their lives. Americans aren't like that. We have an inborn distrust of government power and intrusion into our lives – and tax policy is the vehicle governments use to impose their will on citizens.

As for "need," well guess what, I bought my LR2 because I "need" a vehicle that's able to tow my boat. Oh, but I forgot -- boat ownership is another "luxury" only afforded to the rich in Europe due to excessive taxation. It really is a shame when government exists to ensure that only the rich are able to engage in fun activities like fishing and boating. I'd bet most of the politicians who come up with these tax rates think they're very fair – because they can afford to buy whatever car they would like. But for the "little people," the "subjects," well, they have to discouraged from buying such vehicles, right? If that's freedom, may as well live in a dictatorship.

[ergodic]

Wimmer, its not up to you to determine what people "need".

And in any case, for people living in rural areas, a pickup might be a vehicle they "need".

The whole premise of America is freedom that doesn't hurt anyone else. One could argue that driving a gas guzzler hurts the environment. Well so does using water, creating garbage and consuming electricity... pretty much every aspect of modern living is detrimental to the environment.

What your little tirades come down to is using a meaningless platform to gain power + control over others. Folks like you find pleasure in exerting your will over others- in this case by deeming what folks "need" and forcing them to drive what YOU feel is appropriate, without taking into account what their desires might be, or how the actions of you and your family might bode on your decision.

And I dont know where you got those #s from. Maybe you translated to imperial gallons. In any case 30 MPG in urban cycle on an E350 is a pipe dream.


Again, who are you to say what is overpowered or not?
Gas guzzling cars are expensive to run without the high taxes or even the gas guzzler tax. I have seen a lot of folks downgrade as gas got more expensive. So what is the logic in adding taxes on top of that? The operating costs themselves are a built in "tax".

Like I said your whole stance is predicated on exerting your will over others. If you want to argue the environmental impact, fine, but you haven't once. To you it is all about what you feel is appropriate or inappropriate horsepower/gas consumption. You are like those religious nuts who want to ban homosexuality and force prayer in schools. What happened to freedom of choice, and who are you to make those decisions for everybody? How does someone driving a car w/a V8 3000 miles away affect you?

I think this argument arises from different perceptions of how universal/infallible the whole free market/freedom of choice thing is. Europeans don't believe it works when the resource in question is (very) limited, americans from the land of the free (ha ha  ), consider it a holy grail... For instance, currently homosexuality in your example does not relate to such a limited resource anymore, with the world being so overpopulated and all, so it is now becoming a 'free choice'. I'd be willing to bet that the societies that banned this practice when every second child died before he/she could reproduce, were more successful overall (Christianity etc., duh).

Anyway, this is interesting to think about, with America being so successful over the last couple of centuries. I'm more with the European part of this board, on that people and their minute 'I got moneys so fuck you all' attitude are not to be trusted with strategic resources. But I also love the fact that I put 8K miles on my GTI over the last 3 months, and dont have to give a fuck about the fuel consumption every time I press the loud pedal.   

[280Z Turbo]

Why? What does it matter to you if someone wants a big SUV? What should it matter to the government? Why should someone pay a tax simply for the sake of paying a tax? What would the government do with the money raised from such a tax?

This thread is really a very, very scary glimpse into Europeans' acceptance of heavy-handed government officials dictating how people should live their lives. Americans aren't like that. We have an inborn distrust of government power and intrusion into our lives ? and tax policy is the vehicle governments use to impose their will on citizens.

As for "need," well guess what, I bought my LR2 because I "need" a vehicle that's able to tow my boat. Oh, but I forgot -- boat ownership is another "luxury" only afforded to the rich in Europe due to excessive taxation. It really is a shame when government exists to ensure that only the rich are able to engage in fun activities like fishing and boating. I'd bet most of the politicians who come up with these tax rates think they're very fair ? because they can afford to buy whatever car they would like. But for the "little people," the "subjects," well, they have to discouraged from buying such vehicles, right? If that's freedom, may as well live in a dictatorship.

What if global warming/peak oil is real?

[Soup DeVille]

What if global warming/peak oil is real?

Then its better that we burn it up in our highly regulated clean vehicles before the chinese and Indians can burn it up in their un-smogged oil burners.

[SVT666]

What if global warming/peak oil is real?

What if alien invasion is real?

[280Z Turbo]

Then its better that we burn it up in our highly regulated clean vehicles before the chinese and Indians can burn it up in their un-smogged oil burners.

Let's give nukes to Pakistan. No more Indian pollution.

[Soup DeVille]

Let's give nukes to Pakistan. No more Indian pollution.

Pakistan HAS nukes.

[280Z Turbo]

Pakistan HAS nukes.

Well, they obviously need more if India is still around.

Also, those Chinese sons of bitches are going down.

[280Z Turbo]

What if alien invasion is real?

LOL

The majority of scientists say it is real. Surely that must give you some doubt?

[hotrodalex]

Also, those Chinese sons of bitches are going down.

[SVT666]

LOL

The majority of scientists say it is real. Surely that must give you some doubt?

Not at all.  Most scientists who support it receive large amounts of funds from government to research it.  If they start coming out and saying it's not real, they lose their funding.  Follow the money.

[nickdrinkwater]

The world is warming up though isn't it?

[Galaxy]

What if alien invasion is real?

Sorry but that is a silly comparison.

Not at all.  Most scientists who support it receive large amounts of funds from government to research it.  If they start coming out and saying it's not real, they lose their funding.  Follow the money.

Of course it is, there is no profit in fundamental research, irregardless of whether it is environmental, physics or anything else. However scientists do not simply publish their results, they tell how they came to that conclusion in detail. One big flaw to your logic: The best evidence against man made global warming are indications that Mars, and Venus are also undergoing global warming, that info comes.... from government organisations.

You correctly mention in many threads that the Earth permanently goes through heating/cooling phases, and that therefore melting ice caps are something normal. However what er also know is that they are melting faster then they every did before. It is to easy simply say that global warming has to be wrong.

Besides imo the entire argument is irrelevant. Petrochemicals is such a wonderful material for everything from material science to pharmaceutics that is seems a shame to simply burn it.  Also for most countries (not Canada) oil is something that makes them dependent on foreign powers, also something that needs to be addressed.