By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But anyhow, we're shopping for a minivan to replace it. Just hope the Grand Caravans and Grand Voyagers we are looking at can acheive the 18/26 or thereabouts they are rated for so they can do as well as or better than that Lumina we're replacing.
Rocky
I think some of the first diesels ran on peanut oil.
Rocky
Rocky
Last time I checked, BP/ARCO were still the largest manufacturers of solar panels. I can tell you from being in the oil fields for 25 years that when prices go down, exploration and production goes down. Then the prices go up and the oil companies spend money to expand. Just like most businesses.
You want the government to take over a monopoly. Look at Microsoft. They have a strangle hold on the software for over 95% of the World's computers. They make Exxon look like pikers on their net profits.
Rorr hit the nail on the head with all the oil mergers that were allowed during the 1990s. That was not good. Especially allowing Exxon and BP to swallow up the weaker companies.
PS
paid $2.41 at Costco for regular yesterday.
Bingo.
I've yet to figure out why it is somehow preferable to convert natural gas into hydrogen for use in an ultra-expensive fuel cell vehicle rather than just using the natural gas directly as CNG in a conventional vehicle.....even when it is more economical to just burn the CNG directly.
Using a 15% energy conversion efficiency, which is typical of todays photovoltaic panels, it would take roughly 10 square meters in an area that got 6 hours of sunlight a day to produce enough electricity to power a vehicle for the 40-50 miles that is typical of the average daily driving distance. This size system would cost in the neighborhood of $15k, without tax breaks. Not cheap or cost effective but cut that initial investment in half and you're getting in the ballpark. The technology is currently being developed that will allow this cost reduction to take place.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNATE41.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/business/12mileage.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref- =slogin
They expect an average 8% drop for highway ratings, 25% for city, and even more for hybrids. I think it's SO WEAK that manufacturers CAFE ratings will continue to be based on the old testing formula.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This change is only about 15-20 years late. 'Bout dang time !! :shades:
FALSE yet famous?
Well, if the old mantra was false, why is the EPA downgrading the mileage ratings on hybrids by a greater amount than other vehicles?
109 MPG achieved in a Prius.
Real-world average is 48 MPG yet MANY drivers are getting 55-70 MPG in daily usage.
When you have a few squeaky wheels who think they can drive like their normal maniacal speeding self and expect to get 57 MPG who cry when they don't take proper advantage of the technology and only get 40 MPG, it puts a black eye on the whole technology, which is does not deserve.
What the lowering of the EPA estimates will do "PSYCHOLOGICALLY" is lower expectations for the uneducated hybrid buyer and cause them to not complain about their mileage as loudly IN THE BEGINNING before they learn how to best drive their car.
It will give them time to accept the technology and understand it and not expect to automatically get 60 MPG.
"...why is the EPA downgrading the mileage ratings on hybrids by a greater amount than other vehicles?"
Actually, on second thought, I believe you DID answer my question. When driven in an equivalent manner, the mileage gains for a hybrid are not as large as initially expected.
Are high mileage figures POSSIBLE with hybrids? Sure, without a doubt. However, the average Joe Blow doesn't drive that way on a regular basis. Therefore, the EPA ratings were revised to more closely reflect how MOST people drive (whether they are driving a hybrid or not). Hence the mileage ratings were revised downwards MORE for hybrids than other vehicles.
Thus the Prius was in EV mode longer, meaning the MPG was falsely inflated.
Because OF THE EPA TEST. Not because the hybrid technology is faulty.
quote rorr: "the average Joe Blow does not drive that way on a regular basis."
OOOOH, you have hit on a pet peeve of mine. GRRRR !!!
How most people drive these days is IDIOTIC. RACE to the next red light then SLOW DOWN FAST. Repeat at next light.
I usually drive with my two kids in my hybrid with me, and I constantly point out to them: See those people who passed us five blocks ago like they are going to a fire? Where are they now? THEY ARE SITTING RIGHT BESIDE US AT THE NEXT RED LIGHT. They did nothing but waste gas, waste tire rubber, and put themselves and other people at risk with their speeding ways.
More people need to adapt better, more economical driving habits, regardless of what MPG they get out of their car. Buying a hybrid will FORCE you to make economical driving decisions and not be so much of an idiot. It has worked for thousands of hybrid drivers.
Now, after the new EPA tests, which some news stories say might put the HCH at 34/41 hwy/city, we will now have a new, different hybrid mantra:
Hybrids ALWAYS beat the EPA estimates !!!
LOL ROFL !!! :shades:
In other words, the old EPA test didn't accurately reflect the way hybrids were actually driven. I thought that's what I said.
"Because OF THE EPA TEST. Not because the hybrid technology is faulty."
I never said squat about hybrid technology and whether or not it was faulty. Hybrid technology works fine - and it works BEST if the drivers adjust their driving style.
"How most people drive these days is IDIOTIC."
Can't debate that. Whether or not they drive like idiots is however, completely immaterial. All we were talking about was the EPA adjusting their test methodology to more closely reflect how people REALLY drive.
As far as I'm aware, the tests weren't set up to determine what is POSSIBLE to achieve in any particular car (hybrid or otherwise); just to reasonably reflect real-world driving habits and conditions. If that means that the mileage rating dropped MORE on hybrids that other vehicles, so be it. All that means to me is that while hybrids are CAPABLE of very high mileage figures, they are also more sensitive to driver habits.
"More people need to adapt better, more economical driving habits, regardless of what MPG they get out of their car."
Yeah. And we need to eat less red meat, watch less TV, get more exercise, save more for our retirement, etc. etc. etc.
"Buying a hybrid will FORCE you to make economical driving decisions and not be so much of an idiot."
No, it won't. That's like saying buying a Corvette will FORCE you to drive at 100+ mph in traffic or buying a minivan will FORCE you to have more screaming kids.
But what undeniably happens is that people who buy hybrid cars with the intent of maximizing their MPG (and even those who do not have that intent originally but pick up on it when they see the sensibility of that course of action) almost invariably learn to use the technology to improve their mpg.
And in almost all cases, that means they SLOW DOWN.
There are of course the random hybrid buyer who does not really care much if at all about the MPG but bought the hybrid for some alternate reason, and those are the ones who keep the averages down.
Anything that gets people to slow down is a good thing. If they think they need to slow down to get 45 MPG instead of 35 MPG then great for everyone.
More details on new EPA test changes
My comments:
1. Doing the test at 20 degrees F is a good thing. This means there will be fewer "why does my car lose MPG in the winter" complaints.
2. Doing the hwy test at 80 MPH is good too. Cars geared for hwy driving at those speeds will shine brighter.
3. Running the A/C and including harder acceleration is another good change that reflects modern habits.
One hybrid I predict will drop the least (if at all) is the TCH. The estimates now are pretty good. It might drop to a combined 36 versus the current combined 39. People seem to do better than 40 MPG on the hwy, so that one might only come down to 39. I predict 36 city/39 hwy for the TCH.
Possibly.
Does this mean that folks who buy SUVs with the original intent of only buying a trendy vehicle almost invariably learn to use the increased capabilities and actually go camping/hauling/towing more often?
:P
I have been able to meet or exceed EPA ratings easily in every car I have ever owned. With them now being downgraded even further, I will expect in future to be able to easily exceed them.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My point (I think I had one) was that the particular TYPE of vehicle you drive doesn't necessarily transform a person into a different type of driver.
Yes, I'm sure that SOME hybrid owners drive differently now that they own a hybrid. Yes, I'm sure that SOME SUV owners actually find themselves camping/offroading/hauling more now that they own a SUV.
At the same time however, I think that MOST folks get into a hybrid and, even after several months of ownership, drive the same way they ALWAYS did.
My dad ALWAYS drove slow (and was constantly griping at me and my mom to slow down); and he absolutely LOVES his Prius. But neither I nor my mom have shown ANY inclination to drive any more sedately when we drive the Prius.
In fact, sometimes I drive MORE aggressively when in the Prius since I don't feel as much 'gas-guilt' as I do when I drive my Celica aggressively.
That's true but don't you think certain types of drivers will be more inclined to buy hybrids? It's pure speculation on my part but I strongly suspect that Prius owners typically represent people that were already driving conservatively in order to maximize mpg. If this is true then on average they will exceed the new EPA ratings more often then the general population. But this same group would have exceeded the EPA ratings in non-hybrid vehicles also.
At least I know its true for me. I have 4 different vehicles and I'm a completely different driver in all 4. Why? Because of their capabilities. The Accord is my commuter car and pretty sporty, so I drive fast and aggressive. I know my pickup can't accelerate or turn like my Accord, so I certainly don't try (I'd kill myself if I did), and I hang out in the right lane, make sure I'm concientious of those who want to pass me, etc. And when I'm in the Pacifica, I have my wife and child in the car, so, again, I drive completely different. I drive very smoothly. No fast braking, accelerating, or turning, because I don't want to upset the baby. And in my Alfa, I'm a sunday driver. I'm in a slow convertible, so I take my time and enjoy the drive.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
If we are going to discuss the price of fuel, then lets do that. You either agree with it or disagree with it.
I personally think that it is not right and un-American for the big oil rich companies to continue to make over 15 Billion dollars in profit every 3 months. Sure they have to find more oil fields, etc. But how many of their employees are Millionaire or Billionaire? Think about the year end bonuses that they get, $15,000,000.00 MILLION, or the same in separation pay. In addition they get MILLIONS in stocks. Is this what you want to leave as a legacy for your grand children? I sure don't. My family has been here since the early 1600 hundreds and we have not survived by keeping our mouths shut while the other guy is trying to rip us off.
I'm a little confused by the article. It seems there are actually high inventories, so OPEC is cutting production in February. But why is there talk the inventories are low?
Why the jump in price NOW when the proposed cut is in February? Market manipulation at work?
Seems the article has a lot of double-talk in it? Maybe because it's early, but I got a headache reading it. :sick: Anyone care to comment?
And to stay on topic, fuel has actually been going down by me. Filled up yesterday for $2.17 near home, was $2.21 last week. At work fuel is $2.24 @ Shell, was $2.28 last week.
While inventories are high they are lower than they were 2 months ago and they appear to be decreasing further. I personally think its a little misleading to express inventories in terms of barrels of oil. It might make more sense to state inventories in terms of number of days supply. While the US inventory may be 340 million barrels, same as 12 years ago, I guarantee that amount won't last as long today due to our increased consumption in that time period. On the global level the increase has been even greater so comparing today's inventories to past inventories is even more misleading. BTW, 340 million barrels is only a 16 day supply. That doesn't seem like a lot to me.
The other interesting part of that article is that OPEC's proposed cut of 1.2 million barrels a day has only resulted in a 780,000 barrel a day reduction. My understanding is that Saudi Arabia is the only country strictly adhering to these lower quotas and is primarily responsible for this decreased output. Yet countries like Venezuala are calling for further cuts even though they aren't complying with the existing cuts. Basically the other OPEC countries want Saudi Arabia to single handedly shoulder the burden of reducing global oil supply and propping up the prices for them to enjoy. As by far the biggest oil producer they are certainly capable of doing this. Someone commented as to why Saudi Arabia would cut production by 1 million barrels a day and forego $60,000,000 a day in revenue. That's a lot less expensive for them than letting oil drop to $40/barrel. And its not like they've actually given up this revenue, they've just delayed receiving it.
Gas prices in So. Maryland are $2.25/gallon, which is 23 cents higher than the low they hit in mid-October.
My real question is this: when the H2 starts having to carry a window sticker that says "EPA rated 12/16 mpg", will sales fall over a cliff, or do the buyers of these monsters not care about gas or money saving? I tend to think that buyers as a group are already smart enough to know that the numbers are at best a very broad estimate (and will continue to be so, even under the new regs). And in that case, H2 sales will continue unabated I suppose.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree, it would make more sense to report in days supply. I has been reported like that sporadically, usually as a scare tactic by doom & gloomers (is that a word?).
With the article, one could read it as the oil guys trying to do what they can to keep the barrel price up to make more profits.
Someone commented as to why Saudi Arabia would cut production by 1 million barrels a day and forego $60,000,000 a day in revenue. That's a lot less expensive for them than letting oil drop to $40/barrel. And its not like they've actually given up this revenue, they've just delayed receiving it.
Also agree. I's not that they are giving up the profits totally, just giving up getting them now.
I agree, it would make more sense to report in days supply. I has been reported like that sporadically, usually as a scare tactic by doom & gloomers (is that a word?).
With the article, one could read it as the oil guys trying to do what they can to keep the barrel price up to make more profits.
Someone commented as to why Saudi Arabia would cut production by 1 million barrels a day and forego $60,000,000 a day in revenue. That's a lot less expensive for them than letting oil drop to $40/barrel. And its not like they've actually given up this revenue, they've just delayed receiving it.
Also agree. It's not that they are giving up the profits totally, just giving up getting them now.
It is easy to see if we remember that people looking for a Hummer or bigger SUV simply want a hummer or bigger SUV much like people looking for a sports car simply want a Porsche or sports car. They don't care that a Miata gets better fuel mileage than a Porsche. Hummer people don't care that a Subaru might get better fuel mileage than a Hummer.
And if I had to guess how many people place fuel economy in their top three priorities when choosing a vehicle, even now since the big price swings of gas in the last 18 months, I would have to guess it would be less than 1/2.
But as I said before, once this new EPA testing regimen takes effect, I will look forward in future to being able to beat the EPa estimates by a HUGE margin. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well in the mid-late 1990's the average workers wage was almost $28K according to my relatives I spoken to in Norway, which means even your average married couple was pulling down $60K+ which includes free medical, money for raising children (school supplies, clothes) and of course college is free, and they have a social security program also. I know Norway, is still in the Top 3 riches nations in the world per capita since we discussed this subject last year. They all employ socialism, which creates a very strong middle class. Most of my relatives in Larvik Norway, drive Audi Quattro's and Mercedes Benz's When you make more you pay more in Taxes but you do get alot of benefits for your taxes and yes if our country rivaled Noways style of government I'd be all for $5.50 a gallon gas. If our standard of living in this country wasn't going into the toilet we could pull off such a style. However in this country employers would never allow people to have weekends off to spend with their family, let alone a law that says each employee gets a month's worth of vacation when they start a new job like they have in Norway.
Also, since the US is the largest oil importer nationalizing the oil industry would not generate wealth for the country.
Agree, but we might be able to do something like that with being the biggest exporter of bio-fuels or alternative energy's that come on-line. We also aren't pumping our oil to full capacity to keep prices up. I can just look around the Tx Panhandle and see that and have talked to several people in the oil industry. Why should they pump when they are getting government hand-outs for not doing so ?
What's wrong with a little greed? Many people would consider the desire for material possession that far exceeded needs to be a sign of greed, e.g. the type of vehicle you seem to prefer.
I agree their is nothing wrong with a little greed but my point is when CEO's are crossing the Billion dollar mark on retirement packages I throw up the "greed flag" :mad:
They pay this in other countries. Are their citizens rich er than US citizens? I remember when gas was about $1/gallon and I was advocating a $1 gas tax. Very unpopular position and the prevailing argument was that it would cripple the economy. I think we've seen in the last 1 1/2 years that even $3/gallon gas does not devastate the economy. I predict that within the next few years market conditions will have us paying $4/gallon. We'll see what that does to the economy. If these prices were created through taxes the government would have the funds to mitigate the adverse effects this had on the poor.
It won't work in this country unless we have a morale overhaul. Wages would have to go way up and employers would have to stay in this country or be tariff ed. You know as well as I that if employers were paying $4-6 a gallon for fuel many would pack up and leave or close down. The middle class here in Texas panhandle had to move closer to work when gas was $3.00 a gallon and had to leave family and friends behind in their community' s. It was a huge blow to somebody that was working for around minimum wage as I saw college students have to sell H.S. band instruments just to be able to put gas in the car and that was at $3.00 a gallon. So if you raise it another $1-3 bucks hat are those same people going to do tpe ? Walk 10+ miles to work ? Seriously..... :confuse:
Rocky
P.S. Gas prices are the same as yesterday
While the millions of dollars being lavished on oil executives does seem obscene it has no impact on the price we pay at the pump. Oil companies like Exxon/Mobil make almost all their money selling oil and natural gas. These prices are set on the commodities market. How much they compensate their executives might have an impact on their net earnings so if you're a shareholder you have a legitimate complaint.
I couldn't even afford a car in college so I have little sympathy for the college student struggling to pay for gas. College students are supposed to be poor.
I was a poor college student also and just because we were poor doesn't make it right or should be the way the system should stay. I went for a half-semester and was faced with the choice of going to college on student loans or go out into the workforce and still be poor but not quite as poor. I was looking for a job where I could get my education paid for me but unfortunately every place I worked the skill-trades were full of applicants and I'd have to wait my turn. I feel to many americans have the attitude of "because I had to you should also" instead of working to improve the overall system. :sick:
Rocky
I feel to many americans have the attitude of "because I had to you should also" instead of working to improve the overall system.
That's a legitimate point of view. We should always strive for improvement. Improvement often times involves sacrifice and effort. I get the sense that a lot of people feel that they want improvement but someone else should have to make the effort and sacrifice. When I advocate higher fuel taxes it is based on a desire to improve the future and it will also require sacrifice on my part.
How many times in our lives have we all heard this. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's involved in higher taxes.
I live in California and pay some pretty high taxes already. Every year it seems that the politician promise us better roads, etc and they ask for more taxes. How much is enough? :mad:
When I have 5 grand children and 3 grown adults and spend approximately $3,000.00 every year on Christmas presents, which equates to approximately $255.00 in taxes. :sick:
I hate to even mention how much I pay in fuel taxes annually. Put it this way, I have spent over $4000.00 on fuel already this year. The states take approximately 8.5 % of that and the Federal government takes approximately 40%. That's approximately $1,920.00 in taxes for fuel alone. Then there are the taxes we pay on our food, clothing, etc. Then if we decide to take our money and invest it and want to take it out in the future, we pay tax on that same money again. When we get our paychecks they are already taxes the heck out of.
So for the guy who advocates more taxes, shame on you. How much is enough? As far as I'm concerned and millions of other Americans we are tired of being tax out of our homes, food, clothing, etc and want it to stop. Of course we know better, there are too many people out there like the gentleman who advocates higher taxes.
It's pretty clear why there are so many people leaving California. California has one of the highest taxes in the country. Most people are moving out of state to states where the state tax is either, 0% like Oregon and other states or to states back east where the tax is less than 5%. I don't blame them. The cost of living in California is out of control and so our are fuel prices. They have been for several years now. Every since the Bushes have been in the White House.
The regular 89 octane fuel here in So. Calif. went from $2.54 to $2.69 a gallon in one day. How can this be justified? Oh I know, lets blame it on the fog. We have 5 oil tankers waiting to dock out in the sea because of the fog. So lets raise the price of fuel because of the fog now. Well it might be a stormy winter, so lets raise it again. Oh here comes hurricane season, let’s raise it again. Wow, it's election time, lets try and pass a tax bill. Come on People wake up and smell the coffee. We are being ripped off by the BILLIONAIRES and we need to address the real issue. STOP THE OIL COMPANIES FROM STEALING OUR MONEY BEFORE IT COST US $3.50 A GALLON AGAIN OR MORE.
Do you mean 40 Cents and 8.5 cents per gallon for Federal and State, respectively insted of percents?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was a little curious about that myself. California does have an 8.5% sales tax but there are very few states that apply sales tax to gasoline. I grew up in California and never realized that they did this, which doesn't mean it couldn't be true.
The California state fuel tax is actually lower than average but there are also local fuel taxes, which is why there is a pretty big disparity in California gas prices from one region to another.
They all don't need PS3s and Xbox 360s!!