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?



  • texasestexases Posts: 5,423
    Well, 40% improvement is the same, but the gallons saved varies widely, that's the point. Improving a gas guzzler by 40% save way more gallons/year than improving a 30 mpg car by 40%. Over 15,000 miles:
    15 to 21: Saves 286 gallons
    30 to 42: Saves 143 gallons

    So we'd save a lot more gas getting folks out of 15 mpg vehicles and into 21 mpg vehicles than the 30 to 42 swap. And the whole goal is saving gallons, right?
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    Yep I see that. You'd save twice as much money on gas. Weird.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,477
    edited July 2011
    Yes, that would be one consequence. But one has to wonder why the AGGREGATE savings is not important??? Keep in mind that 75% of the vehicle fleet are large cars and greater (much lower to low mpg ANYWAY). So while I agree with the premise and consequences...... who really cares !!! ????

    So for example, if I want to get 50 mpg and BETTER, why am I penalized? (There are only app 2 vehicles of 585 that are capable of 50 mpg let alone PLUS+ !!??) Not only that, the real insult to injury is they (American OEMS) are saying higher mpg cars will cost app 3,000 to 6,000 more !!! I say poppycock. Just let in those (European) cars in that actually do get 50+ mpg. !!!

    We all of course know why that will NEVER happen. So for example, I am grateful for the ones that actually slip through the cracks (VW Jetta TDI, 2003)
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,578
    Doesn't a 40% improvement mean the same thing regardless of the actual numbers?

    Percentage-wise it's the same, but when you're talking about gallons of fuel saved, and money saved, it's not. If you're using 1000 gallons per year, a 40% savings is 400 gallons. If you're only using 400 gallons per year, there's no way you can save 400, unless you totally give up the internal combustion engine. And, if you're using 400 gallons per year, a 40% savings is only 160 gallons.

    So, end result is, your savings is less. However, you were spending much less money to begin with, so overall you're still paying less.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,921
    edited July 2011
    In this context, I think Texases gets it too. Tis better to first retire the guzzlers than to expend efforts to make subcompacts even lighter. Diminishing rate of returns at work.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,477
    edited July 2011
    The answer is really (STILL) no. I mean, what full sized car or truck was really put on the chopping block (other than model lines that already were sladed for the glue factory? Mercury for example) ? The Ford F-150 (probably the most ubiquitous and best selling PU for easily 25 years? Oh please. Here is an take ..."For 2011 the Ford F-150 gets an all-new, all-powerful engine lineup, effectively addressing the one main weakness in this best-selling pickup. "... According to fuel, it (2011 Ford F-150) gets 16 mpg on a GOOD day. This represents a 36% discount to the current 25 mpg standards. It WILL be a 54% discount to the upcoming 2012 35 mpg standards.

    Again if they (OEM, CONSUMERS and legislative to enforcement systems) are fine with 12-16 mpg, I, TOO am just fine with that. But like I have said, why should I be penalized because I want to use WAY less? (I truly know the reasons why)
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,578
    But like I have said, why should I be penalized because I want to use WAY less? (I truly know the reasons why)

    How, exactly, are you being penalized?
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,633
    What texases said! :)
  • acdiiacdii Posts: 753
    Problem is, if you try to get a pickup to reach 35 MPG, you take away everything that a pickup is for. A pickup truck is just that, a truck. It needs power and torque, it needs to be able to haul a lot of weight. Make it lighter, reduce the engine, and you no longer have a pickup truck.

    Now here is the thing, people need to stop buying gussied up pickups for driving to and from work or the store. They are for hauling, and towing, not cruising. If you buy it to use it for driving and not hauling and towing, well, stopurbitchin.

    I have an F350 Dually, it stays in my garage, only drive it when I need to. I used to drive it as my daily driver, when diesel was cheap. Tried the hybrid route, but they are soo boring to drive for 2 hours every day. It boils down to a balance of getting as good MPG as you can yet still enjoy driving what you have. The one thing about the F350, 18 MPG, 8000 pounds. 21 highway. My Flex only does a little better. Add up the cost of diesel, wear and tear, and oil changes, the F350 costs far more to drive than the Flex, even if it only gets 1 MPG better average driving.

    I don't know how they can ever get pickups to meet 35 MPG standards, even if they went all diesel. If you try to hybrid it, the weight of batteries alone would take away from cargo capacity, and from Gm's flop of a hybrid the gains are minimal.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,067
    It boils down to a balance of getting as good MPG as you can yet still enjoy driving what you have.

    In that case, something like my wife's LaCrosse or my old Park Avenue is it. The new LaCrosse is so nice, I wouldn't feel deprived if I had to give up my Cadillac DTS. I believe you can even get a four-cylinder in the new LaCrosse.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,477
    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: 28,678
    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: 21,578
    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: 4,118
    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: 14,477
    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: 1,479
    .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.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,633
    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.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 14,477
    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 ?????
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.