It takes a lot of 928 love these days to go travel some distance in our beloved sharks. Fuel prices in Europe are approximately EUR 1.45 per liter. This is about USD 2.15 per liter or USD 8,14 per US Gallon.

 

One thing to remember is the distances travelled in europe are much less than here in N.A.....a trip from one side of British Columbia to the other.....from the ocean to the rockie mtns is close to a thousand miles and its a hell of a lot farther than that from top to bottom so even with gas prices ab out half of what they are 'over there'.......$1.10cdn/liter.....we use a lot more. Still, its worth it!

87 euro auto

 

A 90 minute movie cost over $40 by the time you get 2 tickets and popcorn...My local theatre has a Hotdog "VALUE" meal. 2 dogs, and 2 medium drinks for $12.99! Tickets to Disney are now $75 each and again $6 for a dog in the park.

On the other hand 90 minutes in the shark cost less and is far more entertaining. When you think of it as entertainment and not transportation it makes it easier to fill up. I can have quite a road trip for $50 in gas.


BTW Ad0911 is your 928 MooseGrun Metallic? That was the original green of mine, and I might go back. Just want to see a full car that color. Yours looks a little darker than others I have seen.

 

When I tallied up the receipts from my last trip to Sharktoberfest from WA state, it cost me just under $700 for over 2000 miles of smiles.

 

I can get through $150 worth of fuel in about 2.5 hours quite easily in the UK (not on the track)

 

Yeah?????

Well then, how many times has your fuel hog 928 saved your life or close to it? If it has once, it has been worth every penny of the cost, rather than some lesser vehicle with poor ergonomics, vision and response. And how fast has it done it without you even thinking about it?? The last thing on my mind on a long trip or a short trip in a 928 is fuel economy. What if we were forced to give up our machines in favor of some puny econo-mobile? You can get a BB gun for home defense or something a little more effective under seige, right?

 

I considering a trip to Italy next summer, the round trip will be about 4,000 miles. My fuel costs will therefore be £1,300 or $2,700 - I simply can't ignore this cost!

 

I certainly didn't assert that fuel economy should be ignored, but simply that it was not the reason I choose to drive a 928. As fuel prices have risen so greatly in the US, I have lessened the amount of driving I do and limit much of my driving to essential rather than pleasureable trips. I could drive more for pleasure and to tour and explore areas like I once did if I used a car that got better mileage (like my VW Rabbit for instance). But I don't because of fuel costs, and because I feel safer and more effective in my 928. If I was planning a 4000 mile trip I would sacrifice for awhile by eliminating other expenses so that I could take that trip in my 928 which uses more fuel than another car.

 

you could just fly to Italy, but where's the fun in that?

spend the money for the road trip. we here in the USA don't have the luxury of seeing (driving to and back) Europe without having to hop a plane and then rent some crackerbox POS to drive around in.....

And for those here and abroad who continue to bitch about fuel prices.....you should have my fuel bill for the year (now projected to be near $75,000.00) for my big rig.......

$3.32 this week for diesel fuel, and at an average of 3 MPG (when I'm grossing 250,000lbs), it doesn't take long to see where my Porsche play money goes......

Yep, that's my larger than life Peterbilt pulling a CAT 992 D front end loader (155,000 lbs. net), with my wife's new '08 Caddilac CTS.


---Russ

 

I do not for one second think that driving a car that has been designed more than 30 years ago (and the car itself being 29 years old) could be safer than driving a current motorcar with all its safety features. It is just plainly more fun to drive.

 

How about a Cadillac Escalade versus my 1986.5 928? Is the Cadillac safer? You might be more lilkely to survive a crash if you are in one, but then you might also be more likely to crash if you are driving one, than a 928 that demands that you pay attention while driving it rather than let the car drive itself. This is the old worn out false logic that a larger more padded car with more "safety features" is safer, while a small manuverable agile car is less safe. Define safety, and if that definition includes accident avoidance it seems that is the safer car. So Americans worship their huge boats like the old Cadillac and Lincoln monster-mobiles that were regarded as crash worthy, and now they have substituted those for monster SUVs. Same defective reasoning in my not so humble opinion. Get the **** out of the way I say to them. And how anyone could feel alert and responsive in one of those monsters after a couple of hours operating one is beyond my comprehension. Hopefully this argument will be put to rest once and for all time with rising fuel prices so that these monster-mobiles are no longer affordable and we will return to driving nimble cars in human scale and the playing field will be level once again.

 

Just like we do in Europe actually