62 mpg for new cars? It's the US target for 2025

Not going to happen that fast. A shift will naturally occur with $80 Bbl oil to electric and PHEV vehicles. It makes you wonder how they will 'average in' those vehicles in terms of MPG? How many electric cars to 'balance out' those with 30 mpg? And will the 'mileage test' be modified ( by pressure from lobbyists) to bypass the new standards? Maybe they will hire some 'hypermilers' to do the testing?

Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.

Increased fuel efficiency decreases the amount of money in the highway fund, it will have to be made up somewhere. Anyone want to buy your gasoline by the liter?

Fun Facts wrote:

Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.

2.00 of gas at 32 mpg has about 57.2 cents of tax.

1.00 of gas at 64 mpg for the same distance at current rates would only have 28.6 cents of tax so to make the same road taxes the tax would double and the gas would be priced at $1.286

Fun Facts wrote:

Increased fuel efficiency decreases the amount of money in the highway fund, it will have to be made up somewhere.

Result is that you would pay 1.29 instead of 2.00 for the gas to move the same distance. How is this a problem?? Are you innumerate or just dim?

And with lighter cars (to get better mileage) there may be opportunity for a reduction caused by less road maintenance. Those two ton gas hogs are part of the reason for the endless pothole problems.

Fun Facts wrote:

Anyone want to buy your gasoline by the liter?

Dear Mr. Online Loser. I already buy it by the liter. I am in Canada, eh? Who cares how it is measured??? Liters actually make more sense instead of fiddling with US vs Imperial gallons. And gase mileage is in liters per 100 km. Now THAT would be a challenge to 'Fun Facts'.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
2.00 of gas at 32 mpg has about 57.2 cents of tax.
1.00 of gas at 64 mpg for the same distance at current rates would only have 28.6 cents of tax so to make the same road taxes the tax would double and the gas would be priced at $1.286
<quoted text>
Result is that you would pay 1.29 instead of 2.00 for the gas to move the same distance. How is this a problem?? Are you innumerate or just dim?
And with lighter cars (to get better mileage) there may be opportunity for a reduction caused by less road maintenance. Those two ton gas hogs are part of the reason for the endless pothole problems.
<quoted text>
Dear Mr. Online Loser. I already buy it by the liter. I am in Canada, eh? Who cares how it is measured??? Liters actually make more sense instead of fiddling with US vs Imperial gallons. And gase mileage is in liters per 100 km. Now THAT would be a challenge to 'Fun Facts'.

What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds. Currently highway funds from gasoline taxes have gone down. Fuel efficiency and limited travel due to economic conditions have reduced the revenues. Volcker said that the cost of gasoline would look like Europe's, which is much more costly than the US.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

I already buy it by the liter.

Or litre?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

I am in Canada, eh?

I sometimes wonder.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Who cares how it is measured???[Liters] actually make more sense instead of fiddling with US vs Imperial gallons.

There's no, "fiddling" involved, you use whichever measure your country's current system of measurement deems necessary.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

And [gase] mileage is in liters per 100 km.

Without doing a conversion, it's not possible to measure mileage per 100 Kms, you no doubt meant kilometrage, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
What are you talking about?

Your post. Don't you remember it??

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds.

And I pointed to a calculation of this in MY rebuttal. The fact is that you would pay the same TAX as the 2.00 for the 32 mpg distance but only half of the gasoline costs ( due to higher mileage) leading to an overall savings.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Currently highway funds from gasoline taxes have gone down. Fuel efficiency and limited travel due to economic conditions have reduced the revenues. Volcker said that the cost of gasoline would look like Europe's, which is much more costly than the US.

Yes. Europes gasoline is more expensive due to higher taxes. Just as the $1.00 of gas would go to $1.29 to compensate for lower taxes per unit of volume.

You aren't putting me on? You really cannot do the math??

Earthling wrote:

Without doing a conversion, it's not possible to measure mileage per 100 Kms,

That is LITERS per 100 kilometers, dimwit. Mileage per 100 km makes NO sense.

Earthling wrote:

you no doubt meant kilometrage, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

There is no such term (yet. Maybe you should check with Mr. Webster and see if you cannot mangle the language a bit more).

Whether expressed in liters per 100 km, or miles per US gallon, or farthings per Imperial gallon it is just a different unit for the idiom of "mileage".

And if there IS going to be a term called 'kilometerage' it would be in kilometers per gallon? Mileage in Canada is expressed in the reverse order ( liters per 100 km), a totally different metric.

Real economy cars are in the 4+ liters per 100 km. Ford Fusion would be in the 6+ liter per 100 km class. And because both kilometers and liters are defined standards with no ambiguity, the mileage terms are also unambiguous. I wonder if Noah Webster was behind the smaller US gallon as well?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Your post. Don't you remember it??
<quoted text>
And I pointed to a calculation of this in MY rebuttal. The fact is that you would pay the same TAX as the 2.00 for the 32 mpg distance but only half of the gasoline costs ( due to higher mileage) leading to an overall savings.
<quoted text>
Yes. Europes gasoline is more expensive due to higher taxes. Just as the $1.00 of gas would go to $1.29 to compensate for lower taxes per unit of volume.
You aren't putting me on? You really cannot do the math??

Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now.

Mind reading? Brain fart? Not supported. The quote was for EQUIVALENT REVENUES.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system.

Supporting the need to return to EQUIVALENT revenues as stated.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.

Not only not supported but totally without foundation or logic. I gave the numbers needed for what was STATED. The rest is just your paranoid fantasies.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

That is [LITERS] per 100 kilometers, dimwit.

Correct, but consider what you wrote originally:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

And [gase] mileage is in [liters] per 100 km.

Remember now?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Mileage per 100 km makes NO sense.

"Mileage" makes no sense at all when working in kilometres.
And try to remember, in Canada, it's litres, not LITERS.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

There is no such term (yet. Maybe you should check with Mr. Webster and see if you cannot mangle the language a bit more).

You really should check before making wild comments about your weakest subject, English, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty:
Kilometrage (US Kilometerage):
Number of kilometres covered in a certain amount of time, number of kilometres travelled by a car.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Whether expressed in [liters] per 100 km, or miles per US gallon, or farthings per Imperial gallon it is just a different unit for the idiom of "mileage".

Bad excuse, my understanding is that Canada uses the metric system, so you must be a dinosaur living in the past.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

And if there IS going to be a term called 'kilometerage' it would be in [kilometers] per gallon? Mileage in Canada is expressed in the reverse order ([liters] per 100 km), a totally different metric.

Litres per 100 kilometres is correct.
Metric, kilometres, metres, litres in English, transpose the R and E in American English.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Real economy cars are in the 4+[liters] per 100 km. Ford Fusion would be in the 6+[liter] per 100 km class. And because both [kilometers] and [liters] are defined standards with no ambiguity, the mileage terms are also unambiguous.

You really need to concentrate more.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

I wonder if Noah Webster was behind the smaller US gallon as well?

Webster wasn't around at that time, so wonder no longer, here's the answer:
-
"The American gallon is the gallon measure in use at the time of early immigration to America. The British gallon was later redefined at the instigation of the alcoholic beverage industry. The Americans, if they were aware of this change at the time, saw no reason to follow suit, and so we end up with a different measure for the American and the British (Imperial) gallon."

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Correct, but consider what you wrote originally:<quoted text>Remember now?<quoted text>"Mileage" makes no sense at all when working in kilometres.

My GOD, you cannot even read prior posts. No wonder your replies make no sense but have to delve into spelling and syntax!

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

My GOD

Which one?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

you cannot even read prior posts.

You can't read English.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

No wonder your replies make no sense but have to delve into spelling and syntax!

Which you're unable to defend, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
Do you recall writing:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

..that is causes stupid people to make incomplete sentences or any sense whatever?

And:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Still confuseed about the English Language I see.

And:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Even [epystimologists] cannot say that their dictionaries are accurate.

And:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

I have never claimed to be an [epystimologist].

Come clean, man up and admit you don't really have a clue about the use of English?
It's already a widely known fact, so you have nothing to lose.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.

You'd go twice as far per gallon though which means you'd spend less cash overall.

You'd also be nowhere near the amount of tax european countries charge.

I can read wrote:

You'd go twice as far per gallon though which means you'd spend less cash overall.

It may sound like a good plan, but at the moment it's only a government suggestion.
US engine manufacturers would need to rethink their position and completely change what they've been doing for so many decades and that isn't going to be easy for them.

I can read wrote:

You'd also be nowhere near the amount of tax european countries charge.

You hope.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
2.00 of gas at 32 mpg has about 57.2 cents of tax.
1.00 of gas at 64 mpg for the same distance at current rates would only have 28.6 cents of tax so to make the same road taxes the tax would double and the gas would be priced at $1.286
<quoted text>
Result is that you would pay 1.29 instead of 2.00 for the gas to move the same distance. How is this a problem?? Are you innumerate or just dim?
And with lighter cars (to get better mileage) there may be opportunity for a reduction caused by less road maintenance. Those two ton gas hogs are part of the reason for the endless pothole problems.
<quoted text>
Dear Mr. Online Loser. I already buy it by the liter. I am in Canada, eh? Who cares how it is measured??? Liters actually make more sense instead of fiddling with US vs Imperial gallons. And gase mileage is in liters per 100 km. Now THAT would be a challenge to 'Fun Facts'.

as usual, your facts are not too good. TRUCKS are what cause the damage to roads, not cars. The damage increases as to the cube of the weight, so a 20 tonne truck causes 1000 times the damage of a 2 tonne car. each truck of 20 tonnes equals 1000 two tonne cars going by.

Blunt Mocker wrote:

as usual, your facts are not too good. TRUCKS are what cause the damage to roads, not cars. The damage increases as to the cube of the weight, so a 20 tonne truck causes 1000 times the damage of a 2 tonne car. each truck of 20 tonnes equals 1000 two tonne cars going by.

Your estimate is 'slightly' out by almost five times the number of cars versus one 20 tonne truck, BM.
Here's a report from Virginia:
"The Virginia Transportation Research Council says an average 40-ton truck does as much damage to the roadways as 9,600 cars."
http://www.whsv.com/news/headlines/36758349.h...
-
NB: I like your new name for LessFactMoreBollocks!!!!

Blunt Mocker wrote:

<quoted text>as usual, your facts are not too good. TRUCKS are what cause the damage to roads, not cars.

Frost starts it. Cars AND trucks make it worse. Trucks don't travel many city backroads yet they have large potholes from neglect. Main arteries where trucks DO go are often repaved on a regular basis for exactly the reason that trucks do make a lot of damage and thus are well 'controlled for'.

As usual, you pull your 'facts' from you posterior. No wonder you adopted such a stupid monicker.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Frost starts it.

Yeah, frost is new and unknown to civil engineers?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Cars AND trucks make it worse.

Really?

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Trucks don't travel many city backroads yet they have large potholes from neglect.

Plus the fact that, "backroads" aren't built to the same specifics as highways.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Main arteries where trucks DO go are often repaved on a regular basis for exactly the reason that trucks do make a lot of damage and thus are well 'controlled for'.

Total unmitigated and grammatically inaccurate bafflegab.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

As usual, you pull your 'facts' from you posterior.

Pot kettle.

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

No wonder you adopted such a stupid monicker.

Says Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

I can read wrote:

<quoted text>
You'd go twice as far per gallon though which means you'd spend less cash overall.
You'd also be nowhere near the amount of tax european countries charge.

Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline.

Are you the only person who can't understand your own posts?

Try reading what you posted before and what you just posted there, they are utterly different.