Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?

2456732

Comments

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    On the way to 35 mpg, a good and actually achieveable number is 25 mpg. This represents percentage wise a 36% BOOST from 16 mpg.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,090
    I may settle for an incremental increase in mileage. Though it is unlikely. It just galls me that the rest of the World gets access to great SUVs and PU trucks getting 30 Plus MPG and we get the dregs. I have that new ML 250 Bluetec on my wallpaper, and wonder why if the Germans can build a 5000 lb SUV that gets 39 MPG, why the US, Japan or Korea fail miserably.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,105
    I think Ford is making some pretty good headway with their new Ecoboost trucks. One of the F150's is rated 17 city/23 highway. The best GM is mustering right now, unless you go hybrid, is 15/22 out of a 5.3 V-8 XFE model. I wonder though, if the little tricks that GM probably did to boost its fuel economy, probably taller gearing, different tires, etc, might have compromised load capacity?

    A couple years back, about the best your typical 1/2 ton truck could do was maybe 14-15 city, 19-20 highway, at least according to EPA ratings.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,308
    One of the engine options for the '12 LaCrosse will be the 2.4 with e-Assist. Might be a good choice.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    I wonder though, if the little tricks that GM probably did to boost its fuel economy, probably taller gearing, different tires, etc, might have compromised load capacity?

    Answer to that is yes they did. The F150 Ecoboost V6 can out tow the GM V8. In fact in the test they did, they had to reduce the total load down to the max the GM can pull, and even with that the Ford walked away from the GM as if it were sitting still. There is a video of it out there to prove it.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited July 2011
    Remarkably, or I would argue Un (remarkably), the price per mile driven is pretty well equalized per mile driven. So say a Denmark diesel gets 50/60 mpg/ 8.14 per gal = .1628/.1357 cents per mile driven: diesel.

    Current corner store (US market) 3.77 RUG / 3.97 PUG / 4.11 ULSD

    22/25 mpg is

    .1714/.1508 cents RUG

    .1805/ .1588 cents PUG

    So as you can see, it is more likely WE pay more, per mile driven !!!!!!

    The real fly in the ointment for the revenuers and regulators is current price of diesel in the states (again corner store 4.11 per gal ULSD) with a 50 mpg car

    That is .0822 cents per mile driven diesel !!!! So RUG to PUG mile driven is anywhere between 83.4% to 120% more expensive than ULSD per mile driven.

    In CA, tax on diesel per gal is WAY higher vol/percentage wise than RUG/PUG.
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    .14-.16 per mile in Denmark for a 50-60 mpg deisel.
    The US mpg of 22 is what my set of vehicles average together over the last 2 decades, with hardly a 4 cyl ever included.
    For a long time it was 5 cents to a dime in the US, without giving anything up.

    Latest NASA data shows earth giving off heat at same rate as over a decade ago. I warn that GW alarmists will want to ignore this new finding.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    edited August 2011
    This may change the model predictions but not the overview, because no credible scientist would deny the phenomenon of climate change (global warming is a non-science misnomer), since we have lots of observable data already occurring at a fast pace, on climate change, and it's not based on models. Nor can it be disputed that releasing large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere causes it to retain heat.

    Just more data for the overall mix of things in our quest for accurate scientific knowledge. Good science is supposed to disprove itself---ideology never does.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited August 2011
    Scientists have shown time and time again and continue to rediscover their rediscoverie's: that there have been repeated catastrophic elimination of species over time, (some to many due to climate change) since before recorded history. The nexus here being: most to all of it was done in the BC period. (before cars) Would any credible scientist link the formation of the Sahara Desert due to ....CARS ?????
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    Never at these rates, however, which suggests to me both a natural cycle coming into a perfect storm with the help of the industrial revolution.

    It's one of those rare events in human history where being wrong is not an option.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited August 2011
    Then I would submit dinosaurs could not afford to have been wrong. They died ANYWAY !!??? Or that is what the fossilized records suggest. The concept could have been as Secretary Hillary Clinton suggests, a right wing.... conspiracy. ;) :lemon: :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    Well maybe we do have our brains in our tails, that's true.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited August 2011
    One hypothesis is the age of dinosaurs had a too rich oxygen environment aka one reason why they grew so HUGE. Then NOTHING can really prevent a catastrophic meteor strike. According to some, we are consuming their remains (dino oil) ;)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    I miss dinosaurs. They would have made tourist-watching in Yosemite so much more fun.

    Speaking of dinosaurs, at what point in gas pricing do you think owners who are truly devoted to *huge* SUVS will allow them to be "pried from their dead cold fist"?

    What do you think is the big BAIL OUT!!! number @ $ per gallon for the majority of Americans---

    I'm thinking (and I remember this) when people were ditching their big Cadillacs and Chryslers and Ford during the 1973 "gas crisis". (embargo). I mean, they were treating these cars as if they were plague infested.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited August 2011
    My crystal ball has cataracts: is that an Escalade? ( ;) ) GM/Chrysler and in some indirect ways FORD were SAVED, specifically because they outputed SUV's and PUT's that get less than 16 mpg !!!! This is so even in the face of the 2012 35 mpg standard. This would be a minus-54.3 discount to the standard. When the standard was 25 mpg the discount was 36%.

    Now the real question is really not the fact the American vehicle fleet are mostly large cars (including up to light but HEAVY trucks), the other side of the 100% being 25% small cars, but whether they will go to something like diesel engines for those segments. So for example one of the few diesel engines that they have let in is the Touareg TDI. It posts 28 mpg. given the old standard that is PLUS+12% !!! In light of the new 2012 35 mpg standard that is only a MINUS-.20 %. In addition it has 406 # ft of torque, for a 4900 # suv.

    To wit, you must acknowledge that large cars to SUV's to light trucks (really heavy) really help keep down our price of fuel while those that chose these vehicles really pay much more (price per mile driven fuel. So for example 3.77/16=.2356 cents per mile driven. !!!!!!!! This is way more than the Danish example of 8.14 and 50 mpg.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    That's because their profit margin on those big puppies is very fat indeed. So they only have to sell 1 of those versus who knows how many little guys.

    But still, pain is pain, and 16 mpg at $4 a gallon is one thing---what about $6?

    You don't think many middle class people in their 4X4 Planet Pounders aren't going to bail?

    If they drive 15,000 miles a year, That's almost $6,000 a year in fuel bills....ouch!

    Even if they cut their driving in HALF, (pretty drastic lifestyle change) that's almost $3K a year in gas.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 15,049
    edited August 2011
    LOL ! I wax nostalgic to my 1987 TLC (late 1986) when fuel was either .75 cents or 1.24 (I since have destroyed the records) as IRS requirements are 3 years in arrears. The research at the time was a 2% SUV population. At the time the majority of the mileage was for business.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,105
    If they drive 15,000 miles a year, That's almost $6,000 a year in fuel bills....ouch!

    Even if they cut their driving in HALF, (pretty drastic lifestyle change) that's almost $3K a year in gas.


    Yeah, but sometimes it's best to just tough it out. If they get a vehicle that uses half the fuel (32 mpg) but still drive the same amount, they're still spending $3,000 in fuel (saving $3,000 per year compared to 16 mpg) but now they might have a higher car payment, higher insurance premiums, and probably sold their gas guzzling SUV at a drastic loss.

    So, if the added costs of swapping the guzzler for the fuel sipper come out to less than $250 per month, then you've broken even or are ahead.

    But, most people don't think it through like that, and tend to be knee-jerk in their reactions. They'll blow $10K, $20K or more up front, just to save $50 or $100 per month. And not just in cars, they'll do it in all sorts of transactions. Heck, I'll admit, I'm guilty of it myself. Back in 2008 when home heating oil went to $5.62/gal, I made the decision to swap my oil furnace for an all-electric heat pump. Cost me $11,400 up front, and at the rate things have been going so far, I figure it's saving around $1000-1200 per year. So, it's going to take 10-12 years to break even (maybe less, if oil prices really shoot up). There are other benefits that it's hard to place a dollar value on though, such as improved cooling in the summer, not having to crawl under the house and wrestle with snakes, spiders, groundhogs, feral cats, the transient bums, and other critters to change the filter (with the heat pump it's inside the house) etc.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,090
    You don't think many middle class people in their 4X4 Planet Pounders aren't going to bail?

    I don't think it is all on the middle class to conserve fossil fuel. My neighbor just bought a 20 HP Honda for his boat. He goes just out of the San Diego Bay to fish for rock bass and halibut. His old 30 year old outboard was giving him fits and used a lot of gas. So he considers the $3200 outboard a good investment. We got to talking about government waste. He told me that our Homeland security have boats in the bay. A big boat with four 200 hp outboards nearly swamped his little boat heading out of the bay full throttle. We were trying to figure out how much of our tax money was being wasted for their joyride.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,105
    LOL ! I wax nostalgic to my 1987 TLC (late 1986) when fuel was either .75 cents or 1.24 (I since have destroyed the records) as IRS requirements are 3 years in arrears.

    I started driving in 1987, when I was a junior in high school, and around here at least (DC suburbs) gasoline was usually around 85-90 cents per gallon. I remember we used to gripe when it went over a buck. I don't think I saw $1.24 or higher until Desert Storm. IIRC, it spiked to around $1.75?

    Now going back further, I remember around late 1979/early 80, Mom paying around $1.10/gal for gasoline, and that was one of the things that prompted her to trade in her '75 LeMans 350, which got around 15-16 mpg, for a 1980 Malibu 229, which got 20 or more in her type of driving. That trade probably wasn't worth it just for the fuel savings, but that LeMans was getting kinda ragged by then. Dad had wrecked it in 1977, and it got fixed, but never really ran right after that. I think it had around 60,000 miles on it when she traded.
  • michaellnomichaellno Posts: 4,300
    I started driving in 1987, when I was a junior in high school, and around here at least (DC suburbs) gasoline was usually around 85-90 cents per gallon. I remember we used to gripe when it went over a buck. I don't think I saw $1.24 or higher until Desert Storm. IIRC, it spiked to around $1.75?

    In 1988 my first wife and I bought an Isuzu Trooper - 2.6L 4-cyl and 4 speed automatic. Slow, but oh so roomy. At the time, I think gas was around $1 or so per gallon in Southern California.

    When Desert Storm hit in '91, I remember us paying $30 for a tank - something like $1.50/gal ($1.50 in 1991 is the same as $2.46 in 2011). We thought that was outrageous, so we sold the Trooper and bought a '91 Mazda Protege instead.

    Little did we know that $4 gas was less than 20 years away. I remember paying as little as $1 per gallon ($1.30 in 2011 dollars) as late as 1999-2000 when we owned a Ford Expedition.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,785
    edited August 2011
    I think one of the big reasons we are paying $4 a gallon now is that CAFE was flat from 1985 to 2010. For 25 years the standard was 27.5 because of lobbying by the car companies.

    If, starting in 1990, we'd had a slow but steady rate of increase of even .5 mpg a year we'd now be at 38, and over the last 20 years we would have saved billions of dollars....

    Water under the bridge. And now we have to play catch up.

    But there might be hope on gas prices. Think back to the 1980s and the gas price decline then. I think a fair amount of that was due to CAFE going up from 18 in 1978 to 27.5 seven years later. Our even much more aggressive increase now might give us some steadying of prices in 5 years or so...
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 29,090
    I think one of the big reasons we are paying $4 a gallon now is that CAFE was flat from 1985 to 2010. For 25 years the standard was 27.5 because of lobbying by the car companies.

    The automakers did not want to pay fines for selling lower mileage vehicles.
    The oil companies did not want to sell less gas.
    The FEDS did not want to take in less gas tax.

    We were never taken into consideration. Oil prices dropped in the late 1980s because of increased US production. By that time the Prudhoe Bay field was sending nearly 2 million barrels a day down the pipe to refineries on the West Coast.

    Here is something to think about. Since they started producing oil in the Arctic they have sent just over 16 billion barrels of oil to market. Best guess estimates on ANWR is as much as 16 billion barrels. You don't get it all at once. It takes time to produce 16 Billion barrels of oil.

    http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Pipelinefacts/Throughput.html

    The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,648
    Well of course it's on the middle class. The lower class doesn't own power boats and the rich people can burn all the gas they want.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    edited August 2011
    I was just reading the latest issue of Consumer Reports and they were saying that a 12-ounce cup of Dunkin Donuts cost $1.69 which translates to about $18.03 a gallon.

    If people are not ready to give up their morning Joe at $18 a gallon, by extension I would not expect them to make fundamental changes in their driving habits until gas hits about $20 gallon. And even then, the switch would be perhaps to smaller vihicles but not necessarily in the number of miles driven.

    In the Eastern Caribbean, where people are much poorer, they pay up to $16 a gallon (EC dollars), yet most people still drive used low-mileage SUVs and pick-up trucks imported from Japan. Go figure.

    So folks lets count our lucky stars and enjoy low gas prices while the good times roll.
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    I make my coffee at home with a Keureg, and even that comes out to $4.40 a gallon.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    I don't really understand those comparisons. Last week, I drove to Atlanta. The trip required around 6 gallons of gas but only 12 ounces of coffee.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,582
    Well, they're both high octane fuels....

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    my toothpaste costs $256 per gallon.....let's hope no one decides to move to toothpaste-powered cars.....
  • bwiabwia Boston Posts: 1,289
    I make my coffee at home with a Keureg, and even that comes out to $4.40 a gallon.

    Not so fast acdii, according to Consumer Reports that figure is much higher than $4.40 a gallon because an equivalent 12-ounce cup of Keureg Columbian K-cup coffee cost $1.31 or $13.97 a gallon. (Note: 128 fluid ounces = 1 gallon)

    And how many of those do you drink in a day? I drink 3 K-cups a day myself and I'm not even addicted to coffee. On the other hand I cannot make a living without driving, no matter what the cost of gasoline is. So I believe, IMHO, it will take $20 gas to radically change behaviors.
Sign In or Register to comment.