how much are you paying for gas?? - Page 2 - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

syco3d · 02-28-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff240sx
LOL! 91 isn't premium. 93 is premium, and 94 is super-premium.
How many other towns/cities have a Speedway that sells 100 octane gas? What about Nebraska people that have Methanol in their gasoline? What are the prices for the "exotics?"
-Jeff

LOL I know that 91 isn't premium, that's why I placed it inside of quotation marks. It's just that all the area stations refer to it as such seeing that's about as high as you can get in good 'ol Topeka.

96SEChick · 02-28-2003, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 96SEChick
It looks like Tulsa is one of the cheaper places for gas. Right now:

$1.47/gal for 87
$1.52/gal for 89
$1.61/gal for 93
$1.43/gal for diesel (I remember when diesel was a LOT cheaper than gasoline)

We went up to $1.55/gal for 87 today

BadMoJo · 03-01-2003, 12:14 AM

god damn cali, best we get is 91!

azn_romeox · 03-01-2003, 02:34 AM

I'm paying too much.
$1.93 for prem.

WHo'ever is charging us for these prices should just meet there match against someone. I bet you I could kick the guys ass!

Its no wonder that toyota is going all electric in 2005. Then those bastards will slowly loose money!

RedlineRacer · 03-01-2003, 11:03 AM

$1.49 for 87 (some spots around have it for 1.39)
$1.69 for 93

**Phlip** · 03-01-2003, 12:52 PM

1.59 for regular (87)
1.69 for plus (89)
1.69 for premium (93) in some places, 1.79 in most (aint that some shit?
There is this little station called daytona where you can get 100 octane for 3 bucks or you can get it at the dragstrip for 5... I do them all one better if I'm going to the strip, I stop by the airport and fill up my gas can with 110 octane for 2.93/gallon... I remember putting 93 in my first car for 1.13 a gallon back in 96.

doh boy · 03-01-2003, 02:18 PM

$2.04 for 87
$2.10 for 91

blaqsilvia · 03-01-2003, 03:40 PM

$1.80 for premium and $1.66 for regular

datkwikracer · 03-03-2003, 02:15 AM

i saw $2.19 for "premium"(91) today

uiuc240 · 03-03-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff240sx
Sorry. I'm pretty sure I was paying for the roads with my license plate tags, and renewal fees. If not.. what the hell are they paying for??
-Jeff

Not true. Licensing and registration barely makes a dent in the cost of road maintenance. One of the only things that costs more money in the U.S. is our defense budget, which this year is over $400 BILLION. The Dept. of Transportation budget last year was as follows:

U.S. Department of Transportation Funding, 2002:

$32,300,000,000 54% Highways
$14,000,000,000 23% Aviation/ airports
$ 5,000,000,000 Mass transit
$ 4,000,000,000 Maritime
$ 521,000,000 -1% Amtrak
$60,000,000,000 TOTAL USDOT BUDGET

read this webpage: http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/adv.../transport.htm

And that's just at the Federal level. Your states are also pitching in for their own roads. You pay property taxes and sales taxes on gas for that. Roads are not free. We pay for them. One of the biggest funders is gas. And if we paid more for gas, we might enjoy better roads that are built properly and not full of potholes and other frimfram.

Eric

b_dyche · 03-03-2003, 10:35 AM

dang... you guys have it good... we've seriously been hit up here in the PNW...

ARCO has risen to $1.849 here in Mt. Vernon/Burlington, WA, and Texaco is up to $1.939 for 87 octane... the Shell station next to my apartment is up to $1.979 for 87...

In Oak Harbor things are even worse... $2.159 for 87 Octane, $2.399 for 92 octane...

Some of this hits really hard, 'cause I go through 3 tanks of gas a week in my Sentra... around 1000 miles... at $25ish/tank... $75/week... $300/mo on gas!!!

xS1LV1Ax · 03-04-2003, 10:36 PM

I drove through DC last night and saw $2.09 for premium (93) at a Exxon station....that is some crazy sh*t!!!! I am gonna carpool!!

Rennen · 03-04-2003, 11:48 PM

well damn, I had to pay $3.58 per gallon of MILK yesterday, I mean WTF!!!!

-Matt

DuffMan · 03-06-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by uiuc240
bah. quit whining. all of you. we *should* be paying what the rest of the world is paying...which is about $3-4 (US) per gallon.

paying more money means more money to pay for the roads that we all need so badly (because our stupid gov't won't spend a dime on mass transit). right now, we all assume that roads are "free"...something you get to use just because you have a car. well, it's the single most expensive thing in this country. we spend more on road maintenance and construction than anything else. gas taxes are the best way to pay for that. that way, only people that drive, pay for the roads.

i'd love to see the price hit $3 per gallon. the friggin' SUVs would start to disappear, and maybe we'd start to see some of the kick ass diesel cars start to show up on these shores. you'd be amazed at what they have in europe.

anyway, that's all i'm going to say on that. i could go on forever.

Eric

I see one major problem with this. Gas taxes are extremely regressive, meaning it affects poor people more than rich. Everyone who doesn't live in an urban area pretty much has to drive. The exception would be long trips for leisure, and the extra gas you use for an suv/sports/luxury car, but besides that, you are pretty much forced into buying as much gas as you buy.

For a rich person this tax would represent a very small amount of their income while to a poor person it would be huge. If it were an income tax it would actually scale downwards in percentage the more money you make.

It could still be done fairly if there was a way to compansate for income but that would be complicated and make the tax code more confusing. I think increasing the gas guzzler tax when you buy a car and raising CAFE standards would work better.

uiuc240 · 03-06-2003, 11:13 AM

I agree with that. CAFE standards are really messed up, and the gas guzzler tax should come back in full force.

However, I think the point I'm trying to make is that allowing the price of gas to climb would start the ball rolling for other changes. For instance, if poor people didn't have to commute in their old, guzzly car, but instead they lived and worked in the same area, the wouldn't need so much gas.

Oh man, there are entire books on this issue. I don't have the time to get into it. The point is, we've been building our cities improperly for too long. Now we rely on cars and gas, and we shouldn't have to. We need better cities and towns that have strong mass transit networks, and we need to plan for the mixture of poor and wealthy people (affordable housing works really well at a ratio of 1:10).

Anyway, I'm saying that I agree with what you're saying about the difficulties of high gas prices...but keeping the prices low is not going to solve the problem.

Remember that the same people you mention that have no problem buying expensive gas, probably have no problem paying the gas guzzler taxes either.

The point is, we have to get people out of their cars. We need to spend money and time building better cities that allow us to use our cars for what they are good for: trips longer than 75 miles. Short trips and 20-50 mile commutes should be done on mass transit. One line of rail can accomodate the same amount of passengers as an entire 12 lane freeway. Think about that for a while.

Eric

240 2NR · 03-08-2003, 04:38 PM

Whats better for poor people....

1. To be forced to own a car by continuing and encouraging only car based transportation, incurring costs like car ownership, maintenence (when it stops working you're stuck fixing it or having another car since no other convienient option exists), insurance, parking, and gas (a very small percatage of car ownership provided a commute is not insanely long, in 15000 miles and 1.5 years with only premium gas, the cost of fuel has been less than my annual cost for insurance, which is still only a fraction of the total cost of ownership). If the commute is long, you have to ask why they live so far away. Is there not another option that can work? If not, whay are we not providing it? It is a cost of living that should be factored into living expenses. Gas taxes, while being regressive, do not represent a tax on a true need, aside from the fact that we have built a dependance to gas, that only gets greater, the cheaper we make it (and that includes all aspacts of car encouragement from cheap gas to free parking and more lanes). Remeber, cars came after cities, and helped enable widespread suburbia. Driving has only become a priority because we made/ let it become one. Only recently have we begun to see how limiting it actually is to be so reliant on a highly inefficient system of personal transport.

2. Viable, reliable mass transit. Right now for me to commute 5 days per week on the Chicago EL is about $60 per month. Driving the same distance would cost me $60 per month in gas alone, before factoring in all the variables listed above (it actually takes roughly the same time as driving due to traffic, and saves about $12 per day in parking). In addition, in a car based plan I would have to drive for all other needs like grocery shopping, getting bagels on sunday morning, going to the post office, buying clothes, going out for dinner, etc. Where I live, all these tasks can be accomplished by walking around the corner. If the EL isn't for you there's also a bus stop in front of my flat, a cab drives by about every 5 minutes and if need be I can walk, ride my bike or take my car if I choose. Fewer roads and more expensive gas would mean MORE choices for everyone.

For those of you who say they couldn't give up their privacy and space, there are blocks of single family detatched houses (I'd guess an average of 3000 sqft) with 2 car garages, and small yards right around the corner from me.

03-01-2003, 12:14 AM	#33
BadMoJo Nissanaholic! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo, Ca Age: 39 Posts: 1,931 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	god damn cali, best we get is 91! __________________ ----Gone----

03-01-2003, 03:40 PM	#38
blaqsilvia Zilvia Junkie Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middletown NJ Age: 38 Posts: 407 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	$1.80 for premium and $1.66 for regular __________________ No 240 right now- looking for another one..

03-03-2003, 10:35 AM	#41
b_dyche Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Mt. Vernon, WA Age: 37 Posts: 36 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	dang... you guys have it good... we've seriously been hit up here in the PNW... ARCO has risen to $1.849 here in Mt. Vernon/Burlington, WA, and Texaco is up to $1.939 for 87 octane... the Shell station next to my apartment is up to $1.979 for 87... In Oak Harbor things are even worse... $2.159 for 87 Octane, $2.399 for 92 octane... Some of this hits really hard, 'cause I go through 3 tanks of gas a week in my Sentra... around 1000 miles... at $25ish/tank... $75/week... $300/mo on gas!!! __________________

03-04-2003, 10:36 PM	#42
xS1LV1Ax Zilvia Addict Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Some people call it a box. I call it home :) Age: 36 Posts: 641 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	I drove through DC last night and saw $2.09 for premium (93) at a Exxon station....that is some crazy sh*t!!!! I am gonna carpool!! __________________ PJ

03-04-2003, 11:48 PM	#43
Rennen Zilvia Addict Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: WichitAr, KS Age: 38 Posts: 877 Trader Rating: (0) Rides Gallery: Rennen Feedback Score: 0 reviews	well damn, I had to pay $3.58 per gallon of MILK yesterday, I mean WTF!!!! -Matt __________________ '89 Nissan 240SX fastback: #23 DSP/RallyMod2/Track Slut '95 BMW 540i 6 speed: Ultimate Commuting Machine PFM Racing www.solo2.org www.midwest240sx.com

03-01-2003, 02:34 AM	#34
azn_romeox Zilvia Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 288 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	I'm paying too much. $1.93 for prem. WHo'ever is charging us for these prices should just meet there match against someone. I bet you I could kick the guys ass! Its no wonder that toyota is going all electric in 2005. Then those bastards will slowly loose money!

03-01-2003, 11:03 AM	#35
RedlineRacer Zilvia FREAK! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Clemson, South Carolina Age: 37 Posts: 1,054 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	$1.49 for 87 (some spots around have it for 1.39) $1.69 for 93

03-01-2003, 02:18 PM	#37
doh boy Leaky Injector Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Garden Grove, California Posts: 123 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	$2.04 for 87 $2.10 for 91

03-03-2003, 02:15 AM	#39
datkwikracer Zilvia Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: 909/714 So Cal Age: 39 Posts: 164 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	i saw $2.19 for "premium"(91) today

03-06-2003, 11:13 AM	#45
uiuc240 Nissanaholic! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Naperville, IL Age: 42 Posts: 2,093 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	I agree with that. CAFE standards are really messed up, and the gas guzzler tax should come back in full force. However, I think the point I'm trying to make is that allowing the price of gas to climb would start the ball rolling for other changes. For instance, if poor people didn't have to commute in their old, guzzly car, but instead they lived and worked in the same area, the wouldn't need so much gas. Oh man, there are entire books on this issue. I don't have the time to get into it. The point is, we've been building our cities improperly for too long. Now we rely on cars and gas, and we shouldn't have to. We need better cities and towns that have strong mass transit networks, and we need to plan for the mixture of poor and wealthy people (affordable housing works really well at a ratio of 1:10). Anyway, I'm saying that I agree with what you're saying about the difficulties of high gas prices...but keeping the prices low is not going to solve the problem. Remember that the same people you mention that have no problem buying expensive gas, probably have no problem paying the gas guzzler taxes either. The point is, we have to get people out of their cars. We need to spend money and time building better cities that allow us to use our cars for what they are good for: trips longer than 75 miles. Short trips and 20-50 mile commutes should be done on mass transit. One line of rail can accomodate the same amount of passengers as an entire 12 lane freeway. Think about that for a while. Eric __________________ 2002 Mazda Protege5 1989 S13 w/SR20DET (sold)

03-08-2003, 04:38 PM	#46
240 2NR Zilvia FREAK! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Denver Posts: 1,131 Trader Rating: (0) Feedback Score: 0 reviews	Whats better for poor people.... 1. To be forced to own a car by continuing and encouraging only car based transportation, incurring costs like car ownership, maintenence (when it stops working you're stuck fixing it or having another car since no other convienient option exists), insurance, parking, and gas (a very small percatage of car ownership provided a commute is not insanely long, in 15000 miles and 1.5 years with only premium gas, the cost of fuel has been less than my annual cost for insurance, which is still only a fraction of the total cost of ownership). If the commute is long, you have to ask why they live so far away. Is there not another option that can work? If not, whay are we not providing it? It is a cost of living that should be factored into living expenses. Gas taxes, while being regressive, do not represent a tax on a true need, aside from the fact that we have built a dependance to gas, that only gets greater, the cheaper we make it (and that includes all aspacts of car encouragement from cheap gas to free parking and more lanes). Remeber, cars came after cities, and helped enable widespread suburbia. Driving has only become a priority because we made/ let it become one. Only recently have we begun to see how limiting it actually is to be so reliant on a highly inefficient system of personal transport. 2. Viable, reliable mass transit. Right now for me to commute 5 days per week on the Chicago EL is about $60 per month. Driving the same distance would cost me $60 per month in gas alone, before factoring in all the variables listed above (it actually takes roughly the same time as driving due to traffic, and saves about $12 per day in parking). In addition, in a car based plan I would have to drive for all other needs like grocery shopping, getting bagels on sunday morning, going to the post office, buying clothes, going out for dinner, etc. Where I live, all these tasks can be accomplished by walking around the corner. If the EL isn't for you there's also a bus stop in front of my flat, a cab drives by about every 5 minutes and if need be I can walk, ride my bike or take my car if I choose. Fewer roads and more expensive gas would mean MORE choices for everyone. For those of you who say they couldn't give up their privacy and space, there are blocks of single family detatched houses (I'd guess an average of 3000 sqft) with 2 car garages, and small yards right around the corner from me. __________________ Steve 93 240sx FB currently very clean and for sale

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode