just wondered if anybody from the us could tell me how much fuel cost over there compared to here in the uk?

If I recall correctly, fuel costs about $3 per gallon in the US of A. That's about 40p per liter.

Yep, that sounds about right. In Mainland Europe, I think it costs about the same as in the UK, but in Euros, so it's about 25% cheaper there.

Except for the Netherlands. One liter of unleaded costs €1,45 here.

Finland prices

Wouldn't complain from 3$/gallon, whatever that makes per litre in euros, it will be ridiculously cheap

this is for where i live in Ohio

http://www.ohiogasprices.com/

It is about 40p a liter, but you can't really use the exchange rate so if you live in the states, making dollars it's .80cents a liter.

It's still less than here, but it's not that much less and it's definatly not as big of a disparity as people make it out to be.

So it's .80 a liter instead of 1.03. But then you have to add in the fact that Americans on average make double the income of a British person, and pay less tax every year...

Before this topic heads in the direction I would predict it heading with you all saying how cheap it is for us, I have a question....

What is the average milage (or km, I can do the conversion) the general public puts on a car? I know I put about 20,000 miles a year on my car just driving back and forth to work. The wife's car probably gets around 12-15,000 miles a year with her not working. That is the grocery store trips twice a month, taking her mom grocery shopping now and then as well, since her mom doesn't drive much. Taking the kid's to the doctor's, visiting the kid's grandparents on both sides, holiday driving, and driving to the school now and then. My car is a work commuter only as it is quite old, and her new car is the everything-else car that we both drive.

Before the topic went where these usually head with the UK/Europe vs. US fuel, you can now see what fuel prices could do to someone over here. For me and my family, that is a combined 35,000 miles a year driving at $3 per gallon. It nets us over $5000 in fuel per year which is a difficult number to swallow on a single average income.

So, what is the average distance driven in the UK? The national average here is listed as 14,000 per person here I believe, which puts me slightly above national average. But I'm probably well below average if I knew the numbers to compare with just in my local area.

I've done this many times and I get bored of it now.

Americans pay so "little" because their currency is worthless, if you look through averages prices and wage in the US it is the same as in the UK if you don't convert the currency. We only pay what we do because we get taxed to fook.

Also don't forget that US petrol is dish water compared to what we use over here.

I got gas yesterday for $2.79/gallon. Georgia is usually one of the cheaper states for gas.

The fact your millage is so high and more to the point fuel economy is so low is largely because of the cost of fuel. Whilst I would love it if I could moan about petrol being too expensive at less than half the price of over here one definite effect of high petrol prices in the UK is that people are starting to drive more sensibly engined cars, rather than the vastly excessive engine sizes seen in the states, where most cars seem to have to be fitted with at least a 3 litre V6 to sit in traffic jams all day.

I remember an advert whilst I was in California for the VW Jetta, the main advertising feature was the fuel economy, which was under 30mpg. Of course when you see the number of H2s on the road, a car so heavy it counts as a truck and doesn't have to meet any fuel consumption requirements and does less than 10mpg you can soon understand why Americans complain about fuel prices. I've been in a 32 ton Renault Magnum arctic with 3 racing cars and all the kit needed to run them for 24 hours which does 12mpg, a frighteningly unremarkable figure for American cars.

I'm not convinced about global warming and love cars but I can see absolutely no point in a road car with anything much larger than a modern 2.5 litre engine for road cars, anything bigger isn't usable on the road and a complete waste of fuel and money.

As to the whole comparing relative value of fuel the average income for the states is $43800 and $31800 for the UK, I know that in the states there is a much broader spread of wealth but it seems that just about everybody can afford, and does, run a car, and not some little supermini either. In the UK there are a lot of people who simply can't afford to drive anything other than a comparatively tiny little boxes with minute little engines, and then there are a lot who choose to drive a sensibly proportioned car

National average in Finland is perhaps 20 000km or bit above as we have long distances here and work is often quite far away.

I personally drive around 50 000km in year because of job + what I drive on freetime, so maybe 60 000km in year.

Quote from ajp :

.......

You can't really generalize the size requirements of cars as they are built for different reasons. If I lived in the city and only had to commute across town a few minutes to work, a little tiny econobox fits perfectly. But, in the case of the wife's car, she is hauling 2 kids and her mother at least 40 miles on back roads in 2 feet of snow to get groceries. Find me a car that can safely haul your 4 and 7 year old loved ones through 2 feet of snow while getting 30 mpg.

Car size is also a safety thing as well in my eyes. I don't want to be involved in an accident with someone who was traveling at 60-70 mph while I'm driving in a little tin box. 99% of the driving in my area by the majority is at least at 60 mph, if not more. I want to be inside something substantial.

I've seen plenty of posts on this forum and elsewhere on some examples of the cars popular in the UK. 70 HP? It would be quite frustrating to travel up and down all the mountain roads around here with that thing. Moped? You wouldn't catch me ever riding a moped. Far too dangerous with it's lack of power. What do you do when trying to pull out on the road when you can't see traffic coming due to a hill? The traffic is coming up the hill out of view at 70 mph and there you are on your moped pulling out blind.

You have to look at vehicle size relevant to the area. I agree with the Hummers and giant SUV stuff. But that is really only a stereotype and you don't see them as much as the UK seems to think.

Of course, large 4x4 pickup trucks are a different subject, at least in my location. I am in a redneck area where people drive into the middle of the woods to hunt, to cut and haul wood, use pickup trucks to haul stuff on their mini-farms, etc. Then, during the week, they are driving them to work. It wouldn't be feasable to purchase an entire 2nd car just to save money on fuel to get to work, would it? If you take your average 15,000 miles in a truck getting 15 mpg and compare that to buying a 2nd car getting 30 mpg for $25,000 you are looking at 16+ years to break even with the twice the fuel economy. Doesn't make sense to me.

Much has to do with comfort and usability. I certainly wouldn't want to try hauling a load of hay for the horses in my Honda Fit. I also wouldn't be able to have a truck to haul that hay, as well as a 2nd car to drive to work, so the requirements call that I have the truck. With the small SUVs, it's a comfort thing. I'm claustrophobic and can't stand being wedged into a tiny econobox. I need leg room and room to move. I have 2 kids in the back seat who's legs I don't want wedged in between the back of my seat and their seat. I have to drive through quite a lot of snow and ice 4-5 months a year. And, the visability you have sitting in the higher vehicle type such as mine is beneficial. I feel like I'm wedged into mine and feel like I'm sliding my butt along the ground when I get into my work commuter.

My cars, a 2006 Mazda Tribute and a 1996 Nissan Altima. Which by the way, the 3.0 L V6 Mazda does get better fuel mileage than the 2.4 L 4-cyl Nissan. I get around 20 with the Nissan and 22-24 with the Mazda.

Quote from mrodgers :

Car size is also a safety thing as well in my eyes. I don't want to be involved in an accident with someone who was traveling at 60-70 mph while I'm driving in a little tin box. 99% of the driving in my area by the majority is at least at 60 mph, if not more. I want to be inside something substantial.

You, my puppy, are misguided

Size really does not matter so much as they show in this video

Of course new big car is better than older than certain age, due improvements in safety technology, but still size does not matter nowdays because of same improvements.

But I won't get small new car either, I prefer bigger car for simply because I drive quite a lot and I prefer being relaxed after trip. Also even that 940 is quite weak in today's standards, I still am going to get one, what it has is active safety lot better than new cars.

thats 5th gear for ya, absolute crap.

Quote from LFSn00b :

That video is a complete joke. I mean, buy a Volvo, take the engine off, and do a head-on with a modus. Ofcourse, they wanted Modus to win it. I bet the Volvo would have won is it would have been a fair test

It has engine in it, also it is not fake or skewed result really. Today's computer programs used in designing car bodies are quite far advanced and usage of high strength steel is giving lot more safety than old methods.

Still I prefer driving a death trap, at leas I'm in control and actually can do something in emergency situations instead of locking my shoulders and pushing panic brake button

6.50 into that video you can clearly see the engine

The smaller car might be safer, but it doesn't have the road presence of a large car. People react differently to you if you're in a big saloon than they do if you're in a super mini, and that presence alone makes you slightly less likely of being hit. Spend a week driving around in an executive saloon (in my case a Vauxhall Omega), then spend a week in a small car (in my case a Kia Pride), people cut me up more, pull out in front of me and generally pulled off a lot of stunts around me they never did in the Omega.

Agreed that isn't a totally fair test, but is was enough for me to never want to drive a small car.

Also, did you notice the Lambda on the front of the Volvo? That'd be enough reason for me to buy it.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Also, did you notice the Lambda on the front of the Volvo? That'd be enough reason for me to buy it.

Why is that?

Every new car that burns petrol has one and also catalytic converter, so that is quite non important bit as those without it are quite few today already.

I agree that with bigger car you are much safer in city driving than small car, on highway it makes not so much difference, but how car goes on road and comfort level is completely different, also that I carry quite lot of stuff with me, luggage space is quite important too.

Quote from JTbo :

Why is that?

Every new car that burns petrol has one and also catalytic converter, so that is quite non important bit as those without it are quite few today already.

I agree that with bigger car you are much safer in city driving than small car, on highway it makes not so much difference, but how car goes on road and comfort level is completely different, also that I carry quite lot of stuff with me, luggage space is quite important too.

I was being a bit of a geek as the Half-Life logo is a Lambda.

Comfort is another reason why I like big cars, I'm almost an old man when it comes to cars, but anything that even resembles "sport" packages and I wont touch it, as it means the suspension has been replaced with blocks of steel.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

I was being a bit of a geek as the Half-Life logo is a Lambda.

Comfort is another reason why I like big cars, I'm almost an old man when it comes to cars, but anything that even resembles "sport" packages and I wont touch it, as it means the suspension has been replaced with blocks of steel.

Oh, I never have been fan of Half-Life so how should I know

Also Volvo 940 has best seats any passenger car have had so far, one good point when you spend straight 8 hours driving, it is amazing how not even luxurious class new cars can't compete with it. Noise level inside is also surprisingly low for such old car, maybe something like S-class can get close, but again there is not many new cars that can come near.

My opinions is not skewed at all

Quote from mrodgers :

You can't really generalize the size requirements of cars as they are built for different reasons. If I lived in the city and only had to commute across town a few minutes to work, a little tiny econobox fits perfectly. But, in the case of the wife's car, she is hauling 2 kids and her mother at least 40 miles on back roads in 2 feet of snow to get groceries. Find me a car that can safely haul your 4 and 7 year old loved ones through 2 feet of snow while getting 30 mpg.

You talk of having to get through the snow yet one of your cars (the Nissan) is just an everyday saloon. It's just a typically American car, a better designed European car would give you far better economy, for example the Mondeo does 30mpg in 2.5 litre from and 35mpg with the 2 litre engine which should be sufficient. I drive a 1.6 litre Focus that'll carry 4 adults in comfort and would happily cruise at the far side of 90 if the law permitted, I used to do a run that was very steep in it, it never really got frustrating because you ended up getting stuck behind SUVs in the corners anyway. An well designed medium sized car like the Focus is far more economical (even with the sportiest engines) than an SUV, offers better leg room due to good ergonomics design (I can travel comfortably in the back of the Focus, I don't have enough leg room to travel comfortably in a Discovery, 3 series or Volvo XC90, they're all big cars that just don't use the space well) and as has been shown there contrary to belief this whole SUVs being safe is bollocks. I would hate to have a collision in such a high vehicle, especially one with a needless high ride height for its actual use the chance of a roll is so much greater and your hopes in a high speed roll are pretty low. I'd far rather be in any modern supermini in a crash than an SUV because efficient energy absorption is the key to crash safety purposely going out and creating a car with more energy in it in an attempt to obliterate anything in your path is silly and doesn't work.

A lot of crashes are still single car accidents and you stand a far better chance of walking away in a small modern car.

Quote :

I've seen plenty of posts on this forum and elsewhere on some examples of the cars popular in the UK. 70 HP?

What we'd describe as medium sized cars would probably have around 115bhp from a 1600cc engine as the more basic option. The Polo Bluemotion has about 85bhp IIRC and that's a tiny diesel triple designed for superb economy (over 70mpg IIRC) and low emissions (under 100g/km). That's not the kind of car I'm suggesting most Americans should be driving though, although it's perfectly good if that's what you want. I think you'll find average power to weight ratios for cars in the UK are significantly higher than those in the states.

With your comments about mopeds and tiny boxes I think you've got the wrong idea that's not what I'm talking about with a sensible 1.6-2 litre engine most of the medium sized cars over here are as fast if not faster cars you drive the key is weight reduction (Ford Europe reckons it can get another 300kg out of the Focus by using better construction techniques without compromising safety) and then putting in smaller more efficient engines.

Quote :

You have to look at vehicle size relevant to the area. I agree with the Hummers and giant SUV stuff. But that is really only a stereotype and you don't see them as much as the UK seems to think.

There were certainly a large number driving around California, probably more Hummers alone than Chelsea tractors in the UK. Even the dreaded Range Rover Sport looks acceptable next to an H2 with double the fuel economy.

Quote :

Of course, large 4x4 pickup trucks are a different subject, at least in my location. I am in a redneck area where people drive into the middle of the woods to hunt, to cut and haul wood, use pickup trucks to haul stuff on their mini-farms, etc. Then, during the week, they are driving them to work. It wouldn't be feasable to purchase an entire 2nd car just to save money on fuel to get to work, would it? If you take your average 15,000 miles in a truck getting 15 mpg and compare that to buying a 2nd car getting 30 mpg for $25,000 you are looking at 16+ years to break even with the twice the fuel economy. Doesn't make sense to me.

But why do you need a stonking great V8 in your pickup truck a second hand Defender or Hilux would do the trick if you wanted a second vehicle that was indestructible and far better at doing the said activities/winter days whilst you could still have a normal car for daily use hardly noticing the small amount you'd spend on a vehicle that you kept for longer. Or if you insist on driving a pick up on a daily basis why does it have to be a big V8 something like the Hilux or L200 would do the job equally well and the 3.0 litre diesel Hilux produces 171bhp and returns 34mpg. Please tell me that 0-60 in 12 seconds is fast enough for your pickup truck

Quote from JTbo :

You, my puppy, are misguided

Who'd want a Volvo

Quote from LFSn00b :

That video is a complete joke. I mean, buy a Volvo, take the engine off, and do a head-on with a modus. Ofcourse, they wanted Modus to win it. I bet the Volvo would have won is it would have been a fair test

Sorry I don't see what's so wrong in that video, it's a pretty simple demonstration of what happens if you drive two cars into each other.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

The smaller car might be safer, but it doesn't have the road presence of a large car. People react differently to you if you're in a big saloon than they do if you're in a super mini, and that presence alone makes you slightly less likely of being hit. Spend a week driving around in an executive saloon (in my case a Vauxhall Omega), then spend a week in a small car (in my case a Kia Pride), people cut me up more, pull out in front of me and generally pulled off a lot of stunts around me they never did in the Omega.

Yes but there's a reason no one ever overtakes or cuts up a Vauxhall Omega

Generally though I work on the principle of trying not to crash into things, I know I'm less courteous to certain types of car and on a matter of principle will never let Range Rovers or Cayennes out, seeing as I've never seen any courteous driving come from any of the silly women that drive them. In fact I really pissed off an S class the other day when I held my ground and made him back up when he tried to be too aggressive down a street with cars parked on it.

The only things I actually watch out for when making a decision to pull out are things that aren't going to be able to stop, ie. lorries.

Quote from ajp71 :

Yes but there's a reason no one ever overtakes or cuts up a Vauxhall Omega

Generally though I work on the principle of trying not to crash into things, I know I'm less courteous to certain types of car and on a matter of principle will never let Range Rovers or Cayennes out, seeing as I've never seen any courteous driving come from any of the silly women that drive them. In fact I really pissed off an S class the other day when I held my ground and made him back up when he tried to be too aggressive down a street with cars parked on it.

The only things I actually watch out for when making a decision to pull out are things that aren't going to be able to stop, ie. lorries.

True enough, it is another reason why I like the car so much.

That whole sort of nonsenses is what causes road rage, I very rarely let cars out unless doing so benefits me some how (like they stopped badly at the end of a junction which I need to go down) just because whenever I've seen people do it, it either pisses off everyone behind them, or people start pulling off some pretty stupid moves, like on Tuesdays, someone stopped to let me turn right, but because someone behind them didn't like waiting they decided to mount the pavement then have to stop hard because they almost knocked down some kid.

It is nice when people let you through, but it causes a lot of problems.

Driving licenses should allow only automatic gears by default, then one could go to harder test to get manual.

It is because with automatic gears, average person has lot more patience, drives more relaxed and overall better than with manual gearbox.

Well generally those that can't keep emotions under control should be not in traffic, remove licenses from all of those