It's $3,000 to change the A3 from gas to diesel engine at the Audi list price.
Yes, but that diesel does not keep up with the gasoline engine. I looked into this in the past, and to get equivalent performance, the difference seems to average about $5000. Even then, the engine will end up being heavier, which will affect handling. And obviously the highest-powered gasoline engines have no diesel equivalent.
In the US, diesel is also more expensive than gasoline, which makes the payback period even longer. Of course, if you are only keeping the vehicle for a few years, you will get some of the diesel cost back upon resale.
I agree with you - the range of diesel is a big selling point. I looked into it the last time I was car shopping, and I just couldn't justify the cost. I drive fewer than 10,000 miles per year. My car will rust away before I see a payback from going to diesel.
It's true that our diesel selection is unimpressive, but for good reason: expense. Remember that your "36 MPG" in diesel terms is equivalent to "33 MPG" in gasoline because diesel is about 9% more energy-dense than gasoline. Still very good, but not quite as eye-popping. Factor in payback period, and it makes little sense for most of us to drop $5000 extra for a diesel.
Fudging is hard, but not impossible (see Kia). The EPA spot-checks 15% of all vehicles sold in the US in its own lab, each year. 2/3 of those are randomly selected. So you, as cheating Joe Automaker, have a 1/10 chance that your model will get selected at random. Even if you only have one model that you cheat on, this can't be a long-term strategy or you will get caught, on average, once every 10 years.
And to complicate things, the MPG figure you see on the window sticker is not the same figure used to calculate aggregate fuel efficiency for CAFE requirements.
That was sort-of true until this year. It is true that automakers could use the older methods to calculate fuel economy. But they then had to run the results through a set of equations that estimated the results if the more modern tesst were used instead. Starting this year, everyone has to use the more modern tests.
The cars are tested with pure gas
That isn't true, though I'm not sure what you mean by "pure gas", which itself is a cocktail. They have a standard fuel that they test with, which is 93-octane. For CA-rated cars, they use 91-octane. To get to 93-octane, you need to have ethanol, or some other anti-knock agent "watering" down the gas. The differences you get tank-to-tank are going to account for far more than the variation you'll see between a bit more ethanol added here or there compared to the EPA test.
Anyway, there will never be a "paragon" for predicting how consumers will drive a yet-to-be-sold car - all we can do is try to guess. The EPA test does a fair job, though I think people see the highway number as a bit optimistic unless you really restrain yourself. The city number is pretty realistic.
The problem is that automakers start designing cars to the unrealistic test, and not to get real-world gains. Even if this only accounts for 1 MPG, that is a huge amount of fuel for the entire fleet.
This topic comes up every time we discuss fuel efficiency on here. Someone inevitably complains that the high-efficiency European cars are not available in the US, and then someone else points out that the Euro cars would not do very well on the EPA test. Hijinks ensue.
As much as I agree that freedom and freedom to innovate should be preserved and fostered, it should not be a the cost of forgetting the notion of common good.
As a person paying $1.50/month for 911 service through my VOIP provider, I guess my main hangup is personal responsibility. I think it's great when the government steps in to correct chaos for the common good: regulate telephone poles and utilities, roads, the airwaves and other common property. I'm not as into "do this, it's for your own good". If some jackass wants to save a few pennies by skimping on 911 service, let 'em. The only reason I will acquiesce and admit that it's probably a good idea is that jackasses have children. Hell, my kid might even be playing at the jackass's house and might need help.
I think you missed the point - Skype is more expensive despite avoiding the French regulations. Skype is not "just" a VOIP service, so on some level this probably makes sense. But it was still surprising to me.
I agree that telecommunications are amazingly cheap these days, though lately I've been finding out that I've been overpaying a large amount by not taking advantage of VOIP and prepaid wireless.
I should add that I don't really care what policies the people of France have - if they want to over-regulate, so be it. I'm in the US, and I'd be pretty sore if they made my cheap-ass computer-based VOIP thingy support 911... who would call 911 on that, anyway? On the other hand, I'm one of those weirdo responsible people who actually springs for the extra $1.50/month on my VOIP service for 911...
As long as France's standards apply across all competitors, then I see no problem with this.
I see no problem with it, so long as the original reason for the regulation still applies. In other words, what would be the consequences if Skype (or other VOIP services) were to NOT follow the regulations?
But then isn't the answer to simply avoid a physical presence in France? Surely they can still offer competitive rates while hooking into POTS in one of the other EU states? I'm asking this because I'm totally ignorant of European telecom laws.
A pension, whether in the public or private sectors, is an agreement between employer and employees.
Not where I live (Pennsylvania). All sorts of laws trump what can be negotiated with certain types of occupations. For instance, if you hire a public school teacher, you must use the state pension system and you must give them tenure after 3 years. So in some cases, it is as much political as it is negotiated.
It's subject to some debate. Basically, mostly the differentiation between a gas giant and a small brown dwarf comes down to how it formed and the physics going on inside.
I'm out of the loop, so forgive me if iOS has stalled. It looks to me that the iPad shipped with iOS 3, and now they are up to 6. It looks like that includes some pretty big features, such as Facetime, Siri, and full multitasking. When I look at the iOS 6 change list, it looks pretty substantial, and it only came out in September.
But when you're talking about what fuel an exotic engine runs on, then using "gas" to mean "gasoline" is just as completely wrong in American English as it is in any other dialect.
No it isn't. We all go to the "gas station" here. When you are talking cars in America, gas is gasoline. We do have CNG, LPG, and LNG cars here (and trucks - most UPS trucks, for instance), but no one would call those "gas powered".
Did you mean to say "Microsoft"? Apple is the company that has transitioned most of its revenue to mobile devices. Microsoft is the one stuck on the desktop. Even Google is having trouble monetizing mobile, though I think they are playing it right with their phenomenally successful Android.
I think cars should be equipped with a simple reaction-time game that enables them to start. This would stop people from driving over-tired, intoxicated on any substance, or just plain too old to be driving. Old people would raise hell, so it will probably never happen.
I know this site has an international audience, but did anyone really think that this thing ran on some non-specific, presumably flammable "gas"? In the US, "gas" is the most common way to refer to gasoline/petrol. We would call a CNG vehicle a "natural gas" car, and propane or hydrogen would be referred to as just propane or hydrogen.
You have it exactly right. If you absolutely want to be sure that your ads are being served to most of your customers, host them yourself and don't make them so intrusive that it is worth some else's time to parse and block them from your site.
Slashdot Mirror
It's $3,000 to change the A3 from gas to diesel engine at the Audi list price.
Yes, but that diesel does not keep up with the gasoline engine. I looked into this in the past, and to get equivalent performance, the difference seems to average about $5000. Even then, the engine will end up being heavier, which will affect handling. And obviously the highest-powered gasoline engines have no diesel equivalent.
In the US, diesel is also more expensive than gasoline, which makes the payback period even longer. Of course, if you are only keeping the vehicle for a few years, you will get some of the diesel cost back upon resale.
I agree with you - the range of diesel is a big selling point. I looked into it the last time I was car shopping, and I just couldn't justify the cost. I drive fewer than 10,000 miles per year. My car will rust away before I see a payback from going to diesel.
It's true that our diesel selection is unimpressive, but for good reason: expense. Remember that your "36 MPG" in diesel terms is equivalent to "33 MPG" in gasoline because diesel is about 9% more energy-dense than gasoline. Still very good, but not quite as eye-popping. Factor in payback period, and it makes little sense for most of us to drop $5000 extra for a diesel.
There is at least as much fudging there.
Fudging is hard, but not impossible (see Kia). The EPA spot-checks 15% of all vehicles sold in the US in its own lab, each year. 2/3 of those are randomly selected. So you, as cheating Joe Automaker, have a 1/10 chance that your model will get selected at random. Even if you only have one model that you cheat on, this can't be a long-term strategy or you will get caught, on average, once every 10 years.
And to complicate things, the MPG figure you see on the window sticker is not the same figure used to calculate aggregate fuel efficiency for CAFE requirements.
That was sort-of true until this year. It is true that automakers could use the older methods to calculate fuel economy. But they then had to run the results through a set of equations that estimated the results if the more modern tesst were used instead. Starting this year, everyone has to use the more modern tests.
The cars are tested with pure gas
That isn't true, though I'm not sure what you mean by "pure gas", which itself is a cocktail. They have a standard fuel that they test with, which is 93-octane. For CA-rated cars, they use 91-octane. To get to 93-octane, you need to have ethanol, or some other anti-knock agent "watering" down the gas. The differences you get tank-to-tank are going to account for far more than the variation you'll see between a bit more ethanol added here or there compared to the EPA test.
Anyway, there will never be a "paragon" for predicting how consumers will drive a yet-to-be-sold car - all we can do is try to guess. The EPA test does a fair job, though I think people see the highway number as a bit optimistic unless you really restrain yourself. The city number is pretty realistic.
The problem is that automakers start designing cars to the unrealistic test, and not to get real-world gains. Even if this only accounts for 1 MPG, that is a huge amount of fuel for the entire fleet.
This topic comes up every time we discuss fuel efficiency on here. Someone inevitably complains that the high-efficiency European cars are not available in the US, and then someone else points out that the Euro cars would not do very well on the EPA test. Hijinks ensue.
Of course they're malnourished, look how small their trunk is! They probably have to eat with their hands. Gross.
Do animals build prisons to hold and torture fellow animals?
No, but apparently they post on Slashdot.
As much as I agree that freedom and freedom to innovate should be preserved and fostered, it should not be a the cost of forgetting the notion of common good.
As a person paying $1.50/month for 911 service through my VOIP provider, I guess my main hangup is personal responsibility. I think it's great when the government steps in to correct chaos for the common good: regulate telephone poles and utilities, roads, the airwaves and other common property. I'm not as into "do this, it's for your own good". If some jackass wants to save a few pennies by skimping on 911 service, let 'em. The only reason I will acquiesce and admit that it's probably a good idea is that jackasses have children. Hell, my kid might even be playing at the jackass's house and might need help.
I think you missed the point - Skype is more expensive despite avoiding the French regulations. Skype is not "just" a VOIP service, so on some level this probably makes sense. But it was still surprising to me.
I agree that telecommunications are amazingly cheap these days, though lately I've been finding out that I've been overpaying a large amount by not taking advantage of VOIP and prepaid wireless.
TIL my flatulence lasts for 20 years? That's awesome...
I should add that I don't really care what policies the people of France have - if they want to over-regulate, so be it. I'm in the US, and I'd be pretty sore if they made my cheap-ass computer-based VOIP thingy support 911... who would call 911 on that, anyway? On the other hand, I'm one of those weirdo responsible people who actually springs for the extra $1.50/month on my VOIP service for 911...
As long as France's standards apply across all competitors, then I see no problem with this.
I see no problem with it, so long as the original reason for the regulation still applies. In other words, what would be the consequences if Skype (or other VOIP services) were to NOT follow the regulations?
You are right - I just checked mine (CallCentric), and their rate is 0.0198 USD to France, while Skype is 0.023 USD.
But then isn't the answer to simply avoid a physical presence in France? Surely they can still offer competitive rates while hooking into POTS in one of the other EU states? I'm asking this because I'm totally ignorant of European telecom laws.
Most people would call that "lobbying" but the means and goals are the same as plain-ol' bargaining.
Whatever it's called, there's no denying it is "political", which is the point I was trying to make.
A pension, whether in the public or private sectors, is an agreement between employer and employees.
Not where I live (Pennsylvania). All sorts of laws trump what can be negotiated with certain types of occupations. For instance, if you hire a public school teacher, you must use the state pension system and you must give them tenure after 3 years. So in some cases, it is as much political as it is negotiated.
It's subject to some debate. Basically, mostly the differentiation between a gas giant and a small brown dwarf comes down to how it formed and the physics going on inside.
I'm out of the loop, so forgive me if iOS has stalled. It looks to me that the iPad shipped with iOS 3, and now they are up to 6. It looks like that includes some pretty big features, such as Facetime, Siri, and full multitasking. When I look at the iOS 6 change list, it looks pretty substantial, and it only came out in September.
Litigation is a direct result of IP law in this country/world. Don't hate the playa...
But when you're talking about what fuel an exotic engine runs on, then using "gas" to mean "gasoline" is just as completely wrong in American English as it is in any other dialect.
No it isn't. We all go to the "gas station" here. When you are talking cars in America, gas is gasoline. We do have CNG, LPG, and LNG cars here (and trucks - most UPS trucks, for instance), but no one would call those "gas powered".
Did you mean to say "Microsoft"? Apple is the company that has transitioned most of its revenue to mobile devices. Microsoft is the one stuck on the desktop. Even Google is having trouble monetizing mobile, though I think they are playing it right with their phenomenally successful Android.
I think cars should be equipped with a simple reaction-time game that enables them to start. This would stop people from driving over-tired, intoxicated on any substance, or just plain too old to be driving. Old people would raise hell, so it will probably never happen.
Hear, hear! China is not the threat some make it out to be... truly Iran is our economic rival!
I know this site has an international audience, but did anyone really think that this thing ran on some non-specific, presumably flammable "gas"? In the US, "gas" is the most common way to refer to gasoline/petrol. We would call a CNG vehicle a "natural gas" car, and propane or hydrogen would be referred to as just propane or hydrogen.
You have it exactly right. If you absolutely want to be sure that your ads are being served to most of your customers, host them yourself and don't make them so intrusive that it is worth some else's time to parse and block them from your site.