| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dalland Samba Member
Joined: September 03, 2010 Posts: 66 Location: norway
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andy198712 wrote: | ha..........ha............ha....
you dont know how lucky you are!!!
in the uk petrol is $2.05 a LITRE!!!! |
pfff, that is cheap, we pay 2.5$ per liter, for the us guys that is about 9.4$ per gallon. and than it is around 600$ in yearly tax and then again around 1200$ in road tax (driving into a city), and to top it off our roads are shit compared to us roads, and we drive our cars all year round inn snow and no problem driving 12 hours to happenings (SCC) etc.
I am not complaining so why are the US guys complaining?
Oh, this was a thread about mpg, my last engine:
1600cc
1.25 rockers
40 hpmx
trimil exhaust
ported heads
40mpg
The one most important thing: Lambda!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eaallred Samba Member

Joined: May 18, 2003 Posts: 5223 Location: West Valley City, Utah
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarthWeber wrote: | | Eaallred wrote: | | My mileage motor is going to be based on 94x64. My focus will be making the heads breath easy. But the rest is a 'secret'. |
Eric, Is your 64mm crank going to be stock or are you counterweighting it or modifying it any way? Will you use a special grind cam? Not asking for specs, just if you are using something other than stock cam specs. High CR? |
Definitly not a stock cam grind. High compression, FI and crank fire of course, knock sensor, etc. Would like to run it on the cheap 85 octane we have here as well. All about seeing how cheap per mile can be (after build, of course).
What I have in mind will have more avaliable power than a stock VW engine, but if driven reasonably, should net some huge MPG's if I go off what i've learned tuning for mpg with my drag motor.
When I get around to it, it will probably end up being an engine built, and tossed into my drag car to check for mileage. Which should be fine, it is currently the same weight as a stock 63 bug is with the roll-cage and heavy disc brakes on all four corners. _________________ Eric Allred
10.29 @ 131mph
Utah's fastest and quickest VW.
Aircooled.Net
Blackline Racing (Formerly ACE) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DarthWeber Samba Member

Joined: November 24, 2007 Posts: 7557 Location: Whittier,CA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spencerfvee wrote: | | mazda has come out with there new 2,000 cc sky g motors they are in the mazda 3. i have talked to guys that have them and on the open road there getting 45 MPG driving 65mph to 70 mph on free ways . in japan the mazda 2s with a 1300cc sky G motor are getting 75 to 80 mpg. |
I'd wager there's a fair amount of Super Squishy type technology going on inside those motors. Very efficient combustion chambers.
I sure wish Sir John @ AC.Net would make a set of SS 85.5mm pistons. 13:1 on 87 octane, hmmm........
Might be what Eaallred is planning with his 94 x 64mm motor?? High compression, real efficient, EFI, crank trigger ignition. Could be a sweet engine! _________________
| Mitey62 wrote: | | Swapped the Compufire for a Bosch blue and some points I had sitting around, started 1st crank. Took her out for a drive, pulls harder, more RPM, and runs smoother. I think I'll be sticking with points from now on. |
| RockCrusher wrote: | JB weld the case halves....that'll keep the fretting to a minimum.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
raygreenwood Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008 Posts: 4936 Location: Des moines Iowa
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The milage motor part is actually less hard than the rest of the car. There are lots of engine configs that will deliever very fine gas milage. The original 1.7L in my 411 and 412's delivered upwards to 35 mpg with the automatic...when very well tuned and driven in its sweet spot.
Highly tuned out in later years (better exhaust, ignition and lots of injection massage).....and most importantly with the factory 4 speed and really good tires....it delivered 37-40 mpg highway between 65 and 70.
However....thats on a still day...with an empty trunk. Put the tools and junk in the trunk and it loses about 2-3mpg. Get a head wind and it loses another 3-5 mpg.
All of this with D-jet injection.
So the things that most do not pay attention to while they are worrying about what "motor" to build...is primarily gearing, tires (rolling resistance) and aerodynamics. Lowering the front end slightly...and not for looks....helped immensly (the 411 and 412's need this especially)
Look hard at what new cars are doing. High compression, efficient engines of course....but carefully selected gear ratios to keep rpms down at all speed ranges.
My parents 2011 Audi (has either a 6 or 8 speed),,,but with the 2.0 turbo...at 70 mph...its loafing along at about 1600-1700 rpm and getting about 36-38 mpg.
My 2012 Golf with 5 speed gets about the same on a still day at 70...and rpm at 70 is right at 1900 rpm.
The engine is designed with it peak torque band between 2100 and 3000 rpm....really losing push around 4000. Sounds stupid?...no....when accelerating onto the interstate....4000 in 3rd gear is about 70 mph.
The vast majority of people building milage motors are thinking about the tranmission later...when you should be thinking about gearing first and where your peak cruising ranges are.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eaallred Samba Member

Joined: May 18, 2003 Posts: 5223 Location: West Valley City, Utah
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DarthWeber wrote: | | spencerfvee wrote: | | mazda has come out with there new 2,000 cc sky g motors they are in the mazda 3. i have talked to guys that have them and on the open road there getting 45 MPG driving 65mph to 70 mph on free ways . in japan the mazda 2s with a 1300cc sky G motor are getting 75 to 80 mpg. |
I'd wager there's a fair amount of Super Squishy type technology going on inside those motors. Very efficient combustion chambers.
I sure wish Sir John @ AC.Net would make a set of SS 85.5mm pistons. 13:1 on 87 octane, hmmm........
Might be what Eaallred is planning with his 94 x 64mm motor?? High compression, real efficient, EFI, crank trigger ignition. Could be a sweet engine! |
Yep, squishies are part of the plan.
But i'm with you, if 85.5 quishies were made, i'd buy a set for a smaller mileage motor for sure. _________________ Eric Allred
10.29 @ 131mph
Utah's fastest and quickest VW.
Aircooled.Net
Blackline Racing (Formerly ACE) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eaallred Samba Member

Joined: May 18, 2003 Posts: 5223 Location: West Valley City, Utah
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think if John offered a "kit" with 85.5's, basically a cam, rocker, and piston set, he would sell a bunch (Imagine a bunch of 40+ mpg VW's cruising around!). Maybe not though. I'm always suprised with what does and doesn't sell in this industry. _________________ Eric Allred
10.29 @ 131mph
Utah's fastest and quickest VW.
Aircooled.Net
Blackline Racing (Formerly ACE) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
66brm Samba Member

Joined: January 25, 2010 Posts: 2527 Location: Perth Western Australia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Eaallred wrote: | | I think if John offered a "kit" with 85.5's, basically a cam, rocker, and piston set, he would sell a bunch (Imagine a bunch of 40+ mpg VW's cruising around!). Maybe not though. I'm always suprised with what does and doesn't sell in this industry. |
I would rip my daily apart if that was available, a complete cam to head package to run 40+ mpg in a 1600cc displacement _________________ Aust. RHD 66 Type 1
Aust. RHD 57 Type 1 Oval
| modok wrote: | | I am an expert at fitting things in holes, been doing it a long time |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004 Posts: 1258
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you are very right on gearing it has every thing to do with milage . i had a stock vw 3.88 trans. in my bug when i got it .every one thinks that if you have a 3.88 geared trans. your going to get better milage. some times this does not hold true. i put a 4.125 trans in my bug . it ran way better and got better gas milage than the 3.88 trans did .and i pulled hills better with the 4.125 trans . it was just a more street friendly trans . all i can say it worked better for me .and your right on tire size i see guys at vw drag racing shows that have tall tires on there vws and they run like shit on the drag strip . and i feal a tall tire on a street bug would allso hold true and not run that well on the street. and your right guys build there motors first . and some never think about gearing or the right tire size . i see it all the time on vw dune buggies and vw pipe buggies and vw trikes . just my 2 cents spencerfvee | raygreenwood wrote: | The milage motor part is actually less hard than the rest of the car. There are lots of engine configs that will deliever very fine gas milage. The original 1.7L in my 411 and 412's delivered upwards to 35 mpg with the automatic...when very well tuned and driven in its sweet spot.
Highly tuned out in later years (better exhaust, ignition and lots of injection massage).....and most importantly with the factory 4 speed and really good tires....it delivered 37-40 mpg highway between 65 and 70.
However....thats on a still day...with an empty trunk. Put the tools and junk in the trunk and it loses about 2-3mpg. Get a head wind and it loses another 3-5 mpg.
All of this with D-jet injection.
So the things that most do not pay attention to while they are worrying about what "motor" to build...is primarily gearing, tires (rolling resistance) and aerodynamics. Lowering the front end slightly...and not for looks....helped immensly (the 411 and 412's need this especially)
Look hard at what new cars are doing. High compression, efficient engines of course....but carefully selected gear ratios to keep rpms down at all speed ranges.
My parents 2011 Audi (has either a 6 or 8 speed),,,but with the 2.0 turbo...at 70 mph...its loafing along at about 1600-1700 rpm and getting about 36-38 mpg.
My 2012 Golf with 5 speed gets about the same on a still day at 70...and rpm at 70 is right at 1900 rpm.
The engine is designed with it peak torque band between 2100 and 3000 rpm....really losing push around 4000. Sounds stupid?...no....when accelerating onto the interstate....4000 in 3rd gear is about 70 mph.
The vast majority of people building milage motors are thinking about the tranmission later...when you should be thinking about gearing first and where your peak cruising ranges are.
Ray |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
raygreenwood Samba Member
Joined: November 24, 2008 Posts: 4936 Location: Des moines Iowa
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spencerfvee wrote: | you are very right on gearing it has every thing to do with milage . i had a stock vw 3.88 trans. in my bug when i got it .every one thinks that if you have a 3.88 geared trans. your going to get better milage. some times this does not hold true. i put a 4.125 trans in my bug . it ran way better and got better gas milage than the 3.88 trans did .and i pulled hills better with the 4.125 trans . it was just a more street friendly trans . all i can say it worked better for me .and your right on tire size i see guys at vw drag racing shows that have tall tires on there vws and they run like shit on the drag strip . and i feal a tall tire on a street bug would allso hold true and not run that well on the street. and your right guys build there motors first . and some never think about gearing or the right tire size . i see it all the time on vw dune buggies and vw pipe buggies and vw trikes . just my 2 cents spencerfvee | raygreenwood wrote: | The milage motor part is actually less hard than the rest of the car. There are lots of engine configs that will deliever very fine gas milage. The original 1.7L in my 411 and 412's delivered upwards to 35 mpg with the automatic...when very well tuned and driven in its sweet spot.
Highly tuned out in later years (better exhaust, ignition and lots of injection massage).....and most importantly with the factory 4 speed and really good tires....it delivered 37-40 mpg highway between 65 and 70.
However....thats on a still day...with an empty trunk. Put the tools and junk in the trunk and it loses about 2-3mpg. Get a head wind and it loses another 3-5 mpg.
All of this with D-jet injection.
So the things that most do not pay attention to while they are worrying about what "motor" to build...is primarily gearing, tires (rolling resistance) and aerodynamics. Lowering the front end slightly...and not for looks....helped immensly (the 411 and 412's need this especially)
Look hard at what new cars are doing. High compression, efficient engines of course....but carefully selected gear ratios to keep rpms down at all speed ranges.
My parents 2011 Audi (has either a 6 or 8 speed),,,but with the 2.0 turbo...at 70 mph...its loafing along at about 1600-1700 rpm and getting about 36-38 mpg.
My 2012 Golf with 5 speed gets about the same on a still day at 70...and rpm at 70 is right at 1900 rpm.
The engine is designed with it peak torque band between 2100 and 3000 rpm....really losing push around 4000. Sounds stupid?...no....when accelerating onto the interstate....4000 in 3rd gear is about 70 mph.
The vast majority of people building milage motors are thinking about the tranmission later...when you should be thinking about gearing first and where your peak cruising ranges are.
Ray |
|
Yes....and a but for instance.....its gearing along with the engine being built to have the correct peak torque and lowest brake specific fuel consumption to use that gearing.
The for instance being...that the 3.88 final drive (again depending on the ratio of the other gears as well)....would give better mileage with a 1.7L type 4 than it would with most stock configured type 1's.
The type 4's 004 four speed had two available final drive ratios....a 3.79:1 and a 3.91:1. Along with the rest of the gear set and quite a bit better aerodynamics than a bug....and the engine delivering its best combination of power and torque at the cruising rpm this combo delivered...actually did very well.
65 mph rpm was about 2800+ rpm with 3000 right at 70. That engines sweet spot for milage (especially with the stock injection) was right at or just below 3000 rpm.
The issue with the tall tires is spot on as well....but again depends on the gearing and engine design. Taller tires have a larger circumference and roll farther with less rpm.....but that can put your engine rpm below the best point of efficiency....depending on its stroke, cam etc.
Conversely...tire diameter that is too small.....will need more revs to roll the same distance. Again...depending on gearing...this mayput your cruising speed into a less efficient rpm range for the engine you have attached to it.
Tire diameter is a modifier or multiplier for the final drive ratio.
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eaallred Samba Member

Joined: May 18, 2003 Posts: 5223 Location: West Valley City, Utah
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gearing is VERY key.
Anyone wonder why my figure was at 70mph and not 65mph which is the legal speed limit here in Salt Lake City?
70mph was 3600rpm with my car when I did my big mileage run, take a look at why I picked that rpm to cruise at:
The two red areas are my most efficient areas. The lower one is peak torque, the upper one is peak rpm. I cruised at my peak torque rpm to maximize my mileage.
Granted, I did get better mileage at 65 than 70, and even better still at 60 (datalogging showed 50mpg @ 60mph), but 70 was right before mileage dropped off (think bell shaped curve) so that is where I did the real world testing with the GPS to back it up.
Getting good MPG figures at 70mph is so much more awesome than 60mph since it's a much more realistic modern-day freeway speed in comparison. _________________ Eric Allred
10.29 @ 131mph
Utah's fastest and quickest VW.
Aircooled.Net
Blackline Racing (Formerly ACE) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JeivoPE Samba Member
Joined: April 22, 2011 Posts: 40
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JeivoPE wrote: | this article could help you
http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=f9kDAAAAMBAJ&a...mp;f=false
1. Head 1300 (valves 1300)
2. Piston 77mm (1300)
3.Crankshaft 76mm
4. Camshaft (short duration and fast ramps 1800 - 3600 max torque in 2400rpm)
5. Twin weber ict-34 (24mm venturi)
6. 180mm flywheel
7. 1974 super beetle 3.88 pinion
8. Taller fourth gear from vw transporter 0.82 |
This article say from 50 to 60 mpg at 55mph |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bewitched Samba Member

Joined: May 13, 2007 Posts: 131
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In holland one liter of unleaded fuel cost $2.40,thats almost $8.40 per gallon |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
808OvalGreasemonkey Samba Member
Joined: September 22, 2010 Posts: 682 Location: Oahu
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
ACVW engines are dinosaurs,especially with carburation,they can be efficient but nearly as efficient as modern high pressure direct injection motors. These engines make incredible HP for their displacement as well as great gas mileage.
They do require premium gas for the turbocharged ones. The trick is making something that is efficient and can use crappy (cheap)gas,and if you guys can pull it off,Kudos to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andy198712 Samba Member
Joined: December 05, 2010 Posts: 471 Location: Cornwall - UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| [email protected] wrote: | | 100mi/day commutes are "Choice" too. But by your argument what are you bitching about, if you don't like the price of gas in the UK move somewhere else. Or ride your bike, right? Your choice? |
oh yes i dont know anyone who wouldn't get niffed by the price of petrol raising, your self included, but doesnt mean you'll move away from usa does it now
if your petrol prices doubled... would you mind?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andy198712 Samba Member
Joined: December 05, 2010 Posts: 471 Location: Cornwall - UK
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UK Luke 72 wrote: | | [email protected] wrote: | | 100mi/day commutes are "Choice" too. But by your argument what are you bitching about, if you don't like the price of gas in the UK move somewhere else. Or ride your bike, right? Your choice? |
Woah hold on John, I'm not the one bitching! I appreciate you guys are generally a lot more spaced out than we are but then we have the continent for some awesome shows should we choose to drive to Germany for a weekend.
Yeah the UK is expensive but then our average pay packet reflects that (IMO) |
mine doesnt  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dawie Samba Member
Joined: July 27, 2008 Posts: 104 Location: Cape Town, South Africa
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe someone (CB, etc), can sponsor a competition to find the most fuel efficient aircooled VW? Driving in convoy at 65- 70 mph for a few hundred miles, repeating the test, and have independent people scrutinize the cars and oversee the results. Categories using (A) a beetle, and (B) a VW bus.
If we can get experts like John, Eaalred, Mark Harney, Darth Weber, Jake, and the many other experts to participate... and make this a yearly event. Maybe even the followers of the blue book can demonstrate the "efficiency" of their 6.5:1 semi-hemi techology
So many old wives tales and controversy floating around in the performance aftermarket. (Gear ratios, "bigger is better", lean mixtures especially at cruising, cam selection, compression, deck height, overheating, etc.)
As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Drag racing guys have their results in seconds. Will be nice to have independently monitored mileage runs (at realistic speeds- maybe 70mph for beetles and 60-65 mph for vw buses?
Darth Weber took the words out of my mouth- If John could find a way to mass-produce his Super Squishies in 85.5mm size.
Think the ideal "mileage cam" does not exist off the shelf. One way of thought suggests early intake valve closing to maximize torque at low rpm's.
But this increases dynamic compression, meaning static compression has to be lower. Resulting in lower expansion ratio. Some say this could be one reason why some gasoline engined commercial vehicle engines have lower than expected fuel efficiency.
On the other hand, keeping the inlet open longer, enables us to use higher static compression, and increases expansion ratio. (At the expense of a bit less torque at low revs). Which is'nt necessarily a bad thing. Resulting lower torque at very low revs may also help reduce possibility of damage to the engine from "lugging" at low revs when oil pressure is low). "Semi over-expansion cycle", making better use of remaining exhaust gas pressure, which would otherwise be lost. However going too far is not good, as this will hurt efficiency at very light loads. Like if you were running full "Atkinson cycle", which is only efficient at full load (as when used in a hybrid).
By the way, i was inspired by Jon Carcey and built a slightly different small mileage engine for my beetle some 20 years ago. Still going fine after over 100 000 miles. It did not fail, melt or explode as some "experts" predicted years ago. Easily cruises at 80mph all day long, while cht's remain cool. Being more efficient, a larger percentage of the fuel is converted to useful mechanical energy and therefore less is wasted as heat to the heads.
Think that, now 30 years later, some improvements to the Carcey type mileage engine concept may be: Fuel injection, improved squish, different camshaft, and 5 speed box. Maybe some of the coatings available nowadays will help as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004 Posts: 1258
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi dawie . that sounds like a great thing to do . we have vw drag racing . i am for a show down on who can get the best MPG out of a air cooled vw motor .i would like to see dean kirsten of hot vws . get into this and report on it in hot vws . . there could be a contest between the 50 states . the cal. guys are allways talking about how they are the leaders in performance . how could they place in a MPG contest mmmmmm????. and the over seas guys . they could have there own MPG contest and there winners could go agaist the USA winners after all high cost of gas is not just in the USA its all over the world .the over seas guys allways come up with some great motor combos. after all they have been dealing with MPG cars for years . great going dawie GO AFRICA this is something i could get into spencerfvee . | dawie wrote: | Maybe someone (CB, etc), can sponsor a competition to find the most fuel efficient aircooled VW? Driving in convoy at 65- 70 mph for a few hundred miles, repeating the test, and have independent people scrutinize the cars and oversee the results. Categories using (A) a beetle, and (B) a VW bus.
If we can get experts like John, Eaalred, Mark Harney, Darth Weber, Jake, and the many other experts to participate... and make this a yearly event. Maybe even the followers of the blue book can demonstrate the "efficiency" of their 6.5:1 semi-hemi techology
So many old wives tales and controversy floating around in the performance aftermarket. (Gear ratios, "bigger is better", lean mixtures especially at cruising, cam selection, compression, deck height, overheating, etc.)
As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". Drag racing guys have their results in seconds. Will be nice to have independently monitored mileage runs (at realistic speeds- maybe 70mph for beetles and 60-65 mph for vw buses?
Darth Weber took the words out of my mouth- If John could find a way to mass-produce his Super Squishies in 85.5mm size.
Think the ideal "mileage cam" does not exist off the shelf. One way of thought suggests early intake valve closing to maximize torque at low rpm's.
But this increases dynamic compression, meaning static compression has to be lower. Resulting in lower expansion ratio. Some say this could be one reason why some gasoline engined commercial vehicle engines have lower than expected fuel efficiency.
On the other hand, keeping the inlet open longer, enables us to use higher static compression, and increases expansion ratio. (At the expense of a bit less torque at low revs). Which is'nt necessarily a bad thing. Resulting lower torque at very low revs may also help reduce possibility of damage to the engine from "lugging" at low revs when oil pressure is low). "Semi over-expansion cycle", making better use of remaining exhaust gas pressure, which would otherwise be lost. However going too far is not good, as this will hurt efficiency at very light loads. Like if you were running full "Atkinson cycle", which is only efficient at full load (as when used in a hybrid).
By the way, i was inspired by Jon Carcey and built a slightly different small mileage engine for my beetle some 20 years ago. Still going fine after over 100 000 miles. It did not fail, melt or explode as some "experts" predicted years ago. Easily cruises at 80mph all day long, while cht's remain cool. Being more efficient, a larger percentage of the fuel is converted to useful mechanical energy and therefore less is wasted as heat to the heads.
Think that, now 30 years later, some improvements to the Carcey type mileage engine concept may be: Fuel injection, improved squish, different camshaft, and 5 speed box. Maybe some of the coatings available nowadays will help as well. |
Last edited by spencerfvee on Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:41 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004 Posts: 1258
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
hay greasemonkey . we vw guys are like the ford flat head forever guys . air cooled forever . if this contest gets going. i would be willing to bet that a air cooled motor can get better MPG than any new water pumper sold today at a dealers show room. spencerfvee | 808OvalGreasemonkey wrote: | ACVW engines are dinosaurs,especially with carburation,they can be efficient but nearly as efficient as modern high pressure direct injection motors. These engines make incredible HP for their displacement as well as great gas mileage.
They do require premium gas for the turbocharged ones. The trick is making something that is efficient and can use crappy (cheap)gas,and if you guys can pull it off,Kudos to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004 Posts: 1258
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
hay john .what do you think about that reply john . now cant we all just get along lol lol spencerfvee | andy198712 wrote: | | [email protected] wrote: | | 100mi/day commutes are "Choice" too. But by your argument what are you bitching about, if you don't like the price of gas in the UK move somewhere else. Or ride your bike, right? Your choice? |
oh yes i dont know anyone who wouldn't get niffed by the price of petrol raising, your self included, but doesnt mean you'll move away from usa does it now
if your petrol prices doubled... would you mind?  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spencerfvee Samba Member
Joined: August 19, 2004 Posts: 1258
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow is all i can say. if our gas is going up . your surely will go up to. that sucks big time spencerfvee | Bewitched wrote: | | In holland one liter of unleaded fuel cost $2.40,thats almost $8.40 per gallon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|