FUEL PROTEST

Really? Not without spending a fat wedge on a new or nearly new eco box, thus destroying the mpg savings. Some of these new TSI engines look pretty clever, but again are only on relatively recent and expensive cars no?

Oh, this is the FIRST time people have complained about fuel prices? Course not.

Decent car's doing over 50mpg have been available for a good decade, there efficient cars of all values that do over 50mpg. Anyone who today find themselves in a sub 40mpg car chose badly, or at least chose an inefficient car so sounds stupid complaining about fuel prices.
 
Not this decade.

If you want to reduce your fuel bill, don't bother moaning about a few pence on a litre. That's trivial.

An average 40 mpg car, doing 10,000 miles a year uses 1136 litres, so even a 10p hike only adds an extra £113 on an annual fuel bill of £1300 (based on £1.15/litre).

If however you drove more conservatively, and got 45 mpg rather than 40 mpg, you would save 127 litres or £146!

Likewise if you used your car a little less, just 10% less, leaving the car at home twice a month, working from home, getting on your bike for sub 5 mile trips etc, you'd save £130!


Frankly - I find it ridiculous for people to be complaining about the price of fuel, when they still choose to drive inefficiently (accelerating rapidly, doing 80+ on the motorway etc), still drive ridiculously short trips around town... and finally, choose to buy a car that does less than 40 mpg, or even less than 30 mpg(!) when there are lots of perfectly good cars that do over 50 mpg.

Once you're driving an efficient car, in an efficient way and have cut out unnecessary journeys, then you might have a point about fuel taxation. But until then it just looks stupid to me.

two years ago I changed my car from a v6 alfa NOT because it was an alfa but because it did 28 mpg and i travel arround 80 miles a day to work... I bought a smart roadster that did 52mpg... ive sinse sold that and bough a diesel saab, ive had it mapped and changed the cams in it and now get a nice 56mpg... but my fuel bill keeps going up and up... unfortunatly my salary does not so yes I have a right to protest, ive done my bit to cut down on the fuel I use, I dont use the car at weekends, I either use public transport or cycle. My sister in law is a district nurse and has to use her car for work, she gets 46p per mile and has done for the last five years... that isnt going up, infact its going down.... its her that has to pay not the NHS, her employer. If you personally dont have an interest in protesting then fine by all means read the thread but please dont feel the need to troll it and dish out self righteous comments....it may well not affect you or your way of life but to some of us it makes a real difference.
 
Oh, this is the FIRST time people have complained about fuel prices? Course not.

Decent car's doing over 50mpg have been available for a good decade, there efficient cars of all values that do over 50mpg. Anyone who today find themselves in a sub 40mpg car chose badly, or at least chose an inefficient car so sounds stupid complaining about fuel prices.

I'm not complaining. I chose a 22mpg car because I wanted one. However, I'm not saying I wouldn't like more mpg! But as I say, decent cars with decent mpg are a pretty late development I thought, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

What decent decade old cars are there that do 50+mpg? Sounds great to me.
 
Doesn't really matter anyways, going from a 30mpg car to 50mpg car will only save you £800 a year, based on the fact you will need to spend around 13k+ to make the change, great value for money................ Or thats what all the people who spend 13k on some small eco fiesta will tell you, "saved loads of money on fuel this year...."
 
Doesn't really matter anyways, going from a 30mpg car to 50mpg car will only save you £800 a year, based on the fact you will need to spend around 13k+ to make the change, great value for money................ Or thats what all the people who spend 13k on some small eco fiesta.

This was the point I eventually wanted to raise, but you've done it for me now :D.
 
Doesn't really matter anyways, going from a 30mpg car to 50mpg car will only save you £800 a year, based on the fact you will need to spend around 13k+ to make the change, great value for money................ Or thats what all the people who spend 13k on some small eco fiesta will tell you, "saved loads of money on fuel this year...."

Thats only if your car wasn't due a change anyway. When I changed mine to more economical cars I did it when my cars were on their last legs and the repairs for the year made changing the car worthwhile.

So I saved loads on fuel this year" ;)
 
Doesn't bother me, do you really think if they weren't taxing petrol they wouldn't take it back somewhere else?

If I was to join any protest it would be to roll back state spending for the first time in a generation - that's the only way we'll ever see lower taxes.
 
What decent decade old cars are there that do 50+mpg? Sounds great to me.

Well, "decent" is very subjective... but I'd say something like:

Golf (97-04) 1.9 150ps GTI TDI PD 52mpg
Passat (00-04) 1.9 SE TDI (130ps) 4d 48mpg
320d (01) 49mpg
A3 (96-03) 1.9 TDI Sport (130ps) 52mpg
Civic Hatchback (00-05) 1.7i CTDi 56mpg
X-Type Saloon (01 on) 2.0d Sport Premium 49mpg
 
Doesn't really matter anyways, going from a 30mpg car to 50mpg car will only save you £800 a year, based on the fact you will need to spend around 13k+ to make the change, great value for money................ Or thats what all the people who spend 13k on some small eco fiesta will tell you, "saved loads of money on fuel this year...."

This argument doesn't hold. Every car in the country was bought by someone at some point. The 'mistake' occurred then. The cost of changing is really the cost of the mistake when the last, inefficient car that was bought.

Taken over the ~200,000 mile life of the car, the 50mpg car will save its cohort of owners some £8,960 between them over the years (£1.15/litre), compared to the 35mpg car. It didn't cost nine grand more, other costs over its life aren't going to be nine grand more. More efficient cars are cheaper in the long run.
 
Well, "decent" is very subjective... but I'd say something like:

Golf (97-04) 1.9 150ps GTI TDI PD 52mpg
Passat (00-04) 1.9 SE TDI (130ps) 4d 48mpg
320d (01) 49mpg
A3 (96-03) 1.9 TDI Sport (130ps) 52mpg
Civic Hatchback (00-05) 1.7i CTDi 56mpg
X-Type Saloon (01 on) 2.0d Sport Premium 49mpg

Some good examples there. Shame they're all dagdagdagdag's! I'm actually surprised, I'd be interested what they're like in real life. My car is supposedly 34mpg combined, which is more like 28mpg combined when in grandad mode, and about 22mpg city grandad.
The only experience I have with a vaguely economic car was a 1.2 dynamique clio thing, but I found myself ragging it everywhere which completely defeats the point, it was just painfully underpowered. Was not fun joining motorways with uphill slip roads in that!
 
I used to have a 1.2 dynamique clio, in 2004 I got the Fabia VRS with the VAG 130ps diesel engine. Back then, official mpg figures were pretty accurate. I can easily exceed the Fabia's book figure of 53mpg.

I have heard, but not experienced myself, that today manufactures 'game' the standard efficiency tests and so exaggerate the efficiency you'll see in real life.
 
This argument doesn't hold. Every car in the country was bought by someone at some point. The 'mistake' occurred then. The cost of changing is really the cost of the mistake when the last, inefficient car that was bought.

Taken over the ~200,000 mile life of the car, the 50mpg car will save its cohort of owners some £8,960 between them over the years (£1.15/litre), compared to the 35mpg car. It didn't cost nine grand more, other costs over its life aren't going to be nine grand more. More efficient cars are cheaper in the long run.

Yes whilst someone did pay book price for the lesser MPG car new as a second or third owner this isn't of interest, the interest from my point of view is the cost to change, also you haven't taken into account not everyone whants to drive round in a diesel or a low powered petrol crisp packet.

Also i'd actually half you £8,960 difference over 200k based on the fact many cars on the road don't see much past 100k.
 
...also you haven't taken into account not everyone whants to drive round in a diesel or a low powered petrol crisp packet.

My whole argument is based around that!

My point is that there are efficient options. If someone wants/chooses to buy and drive an inefficient car they are more than welcome to. But when that same person starts moaning about a few pence per litre increase in fuel, I think its stupid as they had the option for far cheaper motoring but rejected it.
 
Even at £1.26~/litre, fuel is cheap.

So no, I don't particularly care.

Lucky you, seeing as you have so much money the cost of fuel is of no interest do you fancy paying the ever increasing bill i face just to get to work??

Exactly, bottled water is more expensive.

And tap water is of higher quality (the UK has the highest quality tap water in the world) and costs less than 0.5p/litre......:rolleyes:
 
Taste is personal preference, quality is not subjective and is based on fact. (I used to work for the UK's no.1 water company!)

Touche. I've never had tap water that didn't taste of dirt, apart from one of my mates supposedly has laser filtered stuff and it does taste gloriously fresh and clean.
 
'demonstrations' over the price of fuel, it doesn't affect the government and only serves to **** everyone else off who needs fuel when you blockade petrol stations. If anyone decides to block the entrances to my local one, I'm going to park the car up, fill up a couple of jerry cans and accidently spill it all over your nice paintwork on the way back to my car.
 
Why would you "spill" fuel on their paint, it wont do anything otherwise every car out there would have missing paint round the filler cap :p
 
Back
Top Bottom