Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
I think about it every time I need something at Costco or Home Depot now that I am 15 miles away. It takes a gallon to get there and a gallon to get back. I ask myself, is what I am going for worth $9 extra? I consolidate my trips for a couple weeks now. I used to go every day or two when it was only 3 miles away.
My wife took a bag of plums and peaches to her sister this morning. I told her that was going to cost her $9 to deliver 4-5 lbs of fruit to her sister. Her response was SO WHAT! My wife is cheaper than I am except with her family. Then she hands out money like it was nothing.
My wife took a bag of plums and peaches to her sister this morning. I told her that was going to cost her $9 to deliver 4-5 lbs of fruit to her sister. Her response was SO WHAT! My wife is cheaper than I am except with her family. Then she hands out money like it was nothing.
Tagged:
0
Comments
He thinks he's going to get 38 mpg out of the CR-Z, and says the Jeep has been getting around 15. According to his calculations, he should save about $2100 per year in fuel, and said the monthly payments were the same.
So, I dunno, but in this case maybe this is one rare example where trading a fairly new vehicle because of fuel economy actually works?
More like about 28 if he's lucky !!!
I think I told him to budget for 30-32 mpg, and count anything above and beyond that as found money. But he insists that he read on various forums that people can get 38 mpg. And everybody knows that if you read it on the internet, it HAS to be true. :P
I just hope the dude doesn't have more than one friend, because if he does, somebody's getting left at the curb!
I thought you said the CR-V.
The CR-Z can definitely get 38 MPG.
My bad....
Exactly. And, how much do you wanna bet, he's gonna dog it just like he did with his Jeep?
Now, maybe it's easier to beat the EPA ratings on some cars than it is with others? I borrowed my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and I remember once, taking it on a highway run, got around 37.8 mpg. It was EPA-rated 38 by the standard of the time, and by today's standards I think is around 35 on the highway. And I was driving it like an old lady, as this was early 2007, and gas was getting expensive.
Yet I was able to get my 2000 Park Ave ultra to hit ~31 mpg once, yet it's EPA rated 25 highway by today's standards, and 27 for its time. And while I was kinda gentle on it, I drove it a lot faster than I did my uncle's Corolla! I tried to accelerate slowly whenver possible, but cruising speeds were notably higher.
Yeah, but could it get it in "reasonable" local driving, or would you have to hypermile it and do a lot of highway driving?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
So for example, IF we put it in (A) context, say 15,000 miles yearly, then yearly gasoline consumed: 1000 gals, 714, 625, 395.
(1000 -714) > (625-395)
That is the same for all mileage driven... just move the decimal points.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Years ago, when I bought my 2000 Intrepid, part of the consideration was fuel savings. It was EPA rated 20 city, 29 highway, while my old '89 Gran Fury ex copcar was rated something like 13/15. It usually got around 13 mpg in local driving, but surprisingly, could actually break 20 on the highway, and that was without babying it!
Well, I figured that if the Trep really did get 20 mpg in local driving, it could save me about $150 per month just in fuel! At the time, I was figuring around 35,000 miles per year, as I was still delivering pizzas. I also presumed $1.159/gal for the 87 octane the Intrepid could use, versus around $1.459 for the 93 that the Gran Fury preferred. You could cut back the spark advance on the Gran Fury to allow it to run on 87, but then it also got worse economy, so there was no real savings. Plus, it made it run like crap.
FWIW, the numbers came out to $3928/yr for the Fury, $2028 for the Intrepid, or a savings of around $158/mo. That really did seem like a big deal at the time.
I just ran the math again, but using $3.999 for premium (what I paid the last time I filled up) and $3.699 for 87. Today, the numbers would come out to $6473 for the Intrepid and a whopping $10,766 for the Gran Fury! That would be a monthly savings of around $358/mo!
However, if I decided to go back to delivering pizzas, and was in that same situation, at today's fuel prices I'd try to seek out something fairly economical and cheap. If I got something that could manage 30 mpg, that would get it down to $4315 per year, or a savings of around $537/mo, versus that old Gran Fury.
Now, in reality, the savings would have been a bit less, since some of my driving would include highway mileage.
Oh, and one other advantage, which helped a little bit, was that I was able to write off mileage, since I itemized on my taxes. I think it was 28.5 cents per mile back then. So, if I drove 200 miles on a busy night, I'd get a writeoff of $57. Back in those days, that writeoff usually kept me out of the 28% federal bracket, so I figure once you factor in state/local taxes, I got about 35% of that back. So that $57 writeoff gave me $19.95 come tax time. And almost paid for 200 miles worth of premium fuel for the night.
Looks like the mileage rate has been bumped to 55.5 cents per mile now. So 200 miles would see a writeoff of $111. Nowadays, with taxes what they are, I'd see about 1/3, or $36.63. If I was still running the Gran Fury and using $4/premium and getting 13 mpg, I'd be spending $61.53 in fuel, so the tax writeoff would only cover about 60% of the fuel. It would just about cover the fuel costs for a 20 mpg car running on 87 octane at $3.799, though.
Yeah, on a percentage basis, going from 15 mpg to 21 isn't as big of a jump as 24 to 38 mpg is, but since you're using more fuel to begin with, the actual savings is larger.
I've always thought that if the EPA and auto makers put just a little more focus on getting the gas guzzlers to be a little more efficient, rather than taking already-efficient small cars and trying to squeeze every last drop out of them, would do more good.
For instance, there's one little trick I do with my '85 Silverado during the warmer months that often boosts fuel economy by about 10%, sometimes even more. It has a tall 5" air filter, and the top of the air cleaner, rather than being flat, is sort of pie tin shaped, with a ~3" lip. I'll take that air cleaner top on and put a flat one on, which exposes the air filter all around. And suddenly that truck, which had been getting a miserable ~9mpg, is suddenly boosted to 10+. Perhaps that doesn't sound like such a big deal, but for every 100 miles that truck goes, it's saving 1.1 gallons, or $4.40 ($4/gal, and the old beast has a preference for premium)
If you had a car that got, say, 40 mpg, I don't know if there's much of a mod you could easily do to it to suddenly get 44 mpg. And even if you could, you're only going to save about 0.23 gallons every 100 miles. Or 92 cents every 100 miles (at $4/gal). To get that 40 mpg car to save you 1.1 gallons every 100 miles, you'd actually have to mod it to get around 71 mpg!
Oh, and that air cleaner trick doesn't work on my truck in colder weather. It starts taking longer to warm up, runs cooler, stumbles a bit, etc.
But then on the other hand if America really wanted high mileage vehicle AND did not still want or chose to make them, they would let higher mileage vehicles in rather than literally ban to restrict them.
"A modest improvement in fuel economy for a relatively inefficient vehicle can provide greater savings in terms of financial cost to the driver and environmental impact than a proportionately larger increase for a more economical vehicle." (wiki)
So going from 15 to 21mpg is a bigger deal than whatever the other example was.
40% improvement is 40% improvement.
moving from 15 mpg to 21 mpg is 40% improvement (6 divided by 15)
moving from 20 mpg to 28 mpg is 40% improvement (8 divided by 20)
moving from 25 mpg to 35 mpg is 40% improvement (10 divided by 25)
moving from 30 mpg to 42 mpg is 40% improvement (12 divided by 30)
All those are the same.
Larsb "gets it". So if the host kdfyx does not want to put things in "context", the assertion made is literally meaningless.
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?
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)
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.
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)
How, exactly, are you being penalized?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's one of those rare events in human history where being wrong is not an option.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.