Back in California

huh? am i missing something?

No, I don't want to talk about it.

No, I don't want to talk about it.

Welcome back to Cali :/

So whats the deal?

Shane

SO you don't wanna talK, eh? How's about you type something then? :macos: Do they still outlaw pumping your own gas in Oregon? And is that reason enough to leave? :ebc:

No, I don't want to talk about it.

Do they still outlaw pumping your own gas in Oregon? And is that reason enough to leave? :ebc:

Ugh. I go out there every summer and that DRIVES ME NUTS. If no one gets to me right away I just start it myself and feign ignorance.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't move there in a second if I had the chance.

Whatever it was, my condolences that you had to go back to California.

I'm sorry to hear things didn't work. Go life. Whoo. :^/

Just out of curiosity... did you fall back into the same salt mine when you got back (connections and all), or did you find somewhere to work that *didn't* suck?

Wait. Working sucks, by definition. Never mind.

--Peace

. . . best of luck in the new position and accomodations.

jt :mac:

Plus I found a nice apartment that's right across the street. If I jay walk, I can be there in 4 minutes without jogging. 15 if I use the light.

Isn't that awesome? I've got the same deal--I never have to drive to work. And if I sit on the front lawn with my AlBook, I can connect to our wireless network.

Do they still outlaw pumping your own gas in Oregon? And is that reason enough to leave?

I remember that. We drove through Oregon once and my dad started pumping the gas and they made him stop. He was really pissed off, and it was really funny.

wow...the last full service station i knew of that actually pumped gas, checked oil, and washed windows was in Gainsville Texas, and they had to close because the city was being stupid to them.

and I can't say I miss getting my hands gas-smelly.

Once you get used to sitting back and relaxing in yer car while some low-paid flunky (me, for a year, a couple o' decades ago) pours some high-priced gallons into yer tank, it's positively unpleasant to handle a stinky, foul gas pump nozzle.

I could never figger how NJ gas was still so cheap, even with full-serv. Plus is back under $1.80/gal, how's that compare to you self-serve states?

dan k

Around Minneapolis we're at about $1.75 for regular, $1.79 for Plus. No full-service here, but my hands don't smell like gas when I'm done pumping so I really don't care.

We hit $1.64 for regular here in Independence KC/MO a couple days ago. If I want full-service I can go to Sinclare for gas at self-serve prices. I don't like them so much, so I go to QT for my fuel and snakage needs. QT rocks. If I wanted to save $.01/gallon (on a good day) I can use the unmanned gas stops and pay with cards or cash, but that $.01 isn't worth it 100% of the time...

Here in Philadelphia I just filled up with regular for $1.96 a gallon -- and that's the cheapest it's been in months.

Matt

It's probably about time I rolled out the old "you don't know how good you've got it"...

I filled up with 17 gallons (US) of diesel on Sunday (self service, I haven't seen anyone pump fuel in the UK since the mid 80's), cost? how does $120 sound to you? Unleaded would of been about $105 for the same amount...

Don't you live on a little island?

Here in Blighty we're lumbered with the highest fuel prices in Europe, with Diesel and Unleaded usually being the same price or 1 or 2 pence difference, however the service station I filled up at in Edinburgh was a rarity in that unleaded was the cheaper of the two :o If I'd had been driving my own car it would of been cheaper to fill up for a change (same size fuel tank but nowhere near the same fuel economy, 27mpg Vs 44mpg).

In all the places I've lived, the cheapest I've ever seen was $0.98 (in Keyport, WA) and the most expensive I've seen it is around $2.20 (here, Leesburg VA).

Gas is sitting around $2.20US a gallon in Calgary right now. Lowest fuel prices in the country. It's sitting at about $0.60 a litre ($0.80 CDN) with some places dipping down into the low 70's to high 60's (per litre). Funny thing is, approximately 27cents on the litre (Canadian) goes to the oil companies (everything from taking it out of the ground to putting it in your tank), the rest goes to the government for taxes. Yay for Socialism!

The Czar

The cheapest I remember prices being was 29 cents per gallon (circa 1969) in Upstate, NY as a child. The highest is got here was $237 for self-serve regular while the price as of today, September 8th, is $1.65 (the high point was only two months ago!). Way to go George Bush. More wars with less reason. Death as a family value!

Thank God that I am relatively comfortable as a Mac tech. My living does not allow me to purchase a house (2 bedroom homes for $440,00), but I rent a house on the water in the quiet woods of Cape Cod and work on Macs for a living. Not too bad.

Still have the house? Willing to rent? I could use somewhere to live

Dog
Classes start Sept 27th in Portland

did a hurrican blow it up yet?

Man that would be one hell of hurricane.

I rest my case for QT, it got Top Tier rating for all grades. The only other retailer listed is Chevron. We don't have those around here that I know of.
Qt gas info

About QT

I kinda pout if I can't find a QT. Everything else is no fun.

I dunno, Ivan looks pretty bad if it turns and goes up florida.

I'm paying roundabout 2.30/gal for 91 octane (have to use 91, my car's turbocharged) in Los Angeles, and cringe at filling up my tank. My car's a straight six, with 22 (on a lucky day) MPG highway.

I just sacrifice torque for mileage, and drive round town in fifth gear at 1000RPM. streches out my tank considerably.

CCC

I'm paying roundabout 2.30/gal for 91 octane (have to use 91, my car's turbocharged) in Los Angeles, and cringe at filling up my tank. My car's a straight six, with 22 (on a lucky day) MPG highway.

I just sacrifice torque for mileage, and drive round town in fifth gear at 1000RPM. streches out my tank considerably.

CCC

TOM

Here in the south of the UK we pay $7.15199 a gallon.

Our car is below 1 litre so its ok. Most ppl drive cars below 2 litres anyway...

Heh, we drive the big engine'd machines over here. I haven't owned a car with less than a 2.0l engine, and most have been well over 3.0l. Those 5.2l v8s liked gas a little TOO much. At least the 3.8l and 4.3l vehicles we have now are fuel-injected v6s... still not as good as the 1.6l Honda did on gas that my wife drove back in the day.

Why do you need so much power? When we go cruising in our friends 1.3L, it easily hits the 70mph speed limit. Its acceleration is certainly adequate.

I stopped going on these "cruises" as I don't like weed and it a bit scary when the stoned driver falls asleep, at 80 down the motorway!

A full size 1/2ton truck is a little sluggish with smaller motors, even if it's 4.3l. My wife's 3.8l minivan gets an average of 20mpg, and about 25 or so on the highway. There were 2.4l minivans available, but they are dogslow and above our price range anyway. It's awful hard to beat that luxury minivan (Town&Country) for the price we payed. I've lately been giving some serious thought to buying a small car to tool around in. Something as in a super-cheap (sub-$1000) old Honda, Geo, or something. I wouldn't care about power in it as much, as it would be a beater anyway...

Your welcome to pollute your country as much as you want, for no other reason than because you can, but when your pointless emissions effects the rest of the world, including me, them it justs sounds plain greedy.

A large displacement does not directly indicate more/worse pollution.

A large displacement does not directly indicate more/worse pollution.

Of course, it does imply greater gasoline consumption, which means more pollution from refining, transportation, oilfield exploitation, etc, regardless of the efficacy of the pollution control equipment on the vehicle proper. And of course there's the fact that no matter *how* "cleanly" it's burned carbon-based fuel results in carbon dioxide emissions proportional to the amount consumed. (Emission controls are designed to prevent the formation of poisonous and smog-causing chemicals, ideally reducing everything to CO2 and water vapor. If you consider CO2 a problem, which it may be, then the only solution is to not burn hydrocarbons. Or at least burn less of them.) Let's also not forget that burning more gasoline means the more rapid depletion of a finite global resource... but, hey. Let's not bother splitting hairs or anything.

--Peace

Large displacement motors are generally found inside large vehicles. Large vehicles naturally consume more resources, both in manufacturing and in operation, which naturally produces more pollution. Pollution includes all the byproducts of generating energy, gathering raw materials, refining those materials, etc.

Of course, there are those who don't consider all that stuff (eg: the byproducts of burning fossil fuels) to be pollution. Others consider pollution to be of no consequence, or are oblivious to its consequneces. Some even enjoy fouling their living space. It takes all kinds. Apparently.

dan k

Most ppl drive cars below 2 litres anyway…

I get better fuel economy out of my 2.3 than my 2.0. And to top it off the 2.3's an autobox that's happy to leave strips of rubber in 1st and 2nd... ::)

Besides, have you ever tried driving anything less than a 1.9? Other than my old Peugeot diesel I've found things with small engines to be painfully slow and noisy as hell at 80+ mph (and unwilling to accelerate gracefully at those kinds of speed).

Manufacturing most anything causes pollutants and waste and uses resources. Operating most anything uses resources and likely causes pollution/waste. If we're not gonna split hairs, we gotta go full Luddite and not make/use ANYTHING. Is it better to use something that pollutes a little less, or something that doesn't pollute at all? And if you go for less, when does "less" become "less enough"? It's all the same arguments that have been going around and around the dabates over this stuff for decades. It all really boils down to personal opinion on what constitutes acceptable levels of damage, in any form. FWIW life can't exist without changing it's environement, for better or worse. The better or worse condition is, of course, dependent on the desired outcome. Humans live, and we change the world. Whether what we do when that happens is good or bad is very dependnat on who you ask. Hence, our fuel debate... And a much more diverse thread hijack...

My 2.5L Cirrus gets better gas mileage than a 2.4L Stratus does, and more overall HP as well. The only downside is that the 2.4 gets better torque. (Torque doesn't matter a whole lot to me anyway; the slushbox in the cloud cars sucks a lot of power regardless of the engine. When I get some money saved up, I think a shift kit is in order.)

Yeah, my 2.3 has more HP than the 2.0 (203 Vs 128) but also has about twice the torque to go with it too (238lb/ft Vs 127lb/ft). It's just mildly annoying that I get better fuel economy driving a powerful (turbo-charged) automatic, instead of a lower-powered manual.

USA, land of oblivious overconsumption.

It's a fact that Americans enjoy living large, add up all those 'individual' choices and we have a society that uses considerably more energy per capita than any other. Should we Americans reduce our energy consumption even a little, I think there'd be many positive effects. Take Iraq . . . please! (ba-dum-bum!)

dan k