Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

1303133353679

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I am all for any alternative to foriegn oil that is competitive on its own merit.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "Chevron plans 3% yearly production boost"
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Well, so am I sort of, but I'm also very much in favor of using some of our tax dollars to expand R&D, as well as partially subsidizing implementation of a delivery system for any truly viable, non-carbon alternative.

    IMO, without the push, we won't get off oil, and it's past time we did..
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I do not see us using less oil until a usable Electric Vehicle becomes available. R&D is one thing. Dumping billions into corporate coffers for a product that is marginal at best, is quite a different story. I wonder what the excuse will be when they shut down the corn ethanol plants WE are building now? The technology for making switch grass ethanol is totally different than for corn ethanol production. Oh well it was only a few more billion down the corporate drain.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    on corn ethanol. I think it's nothing more than subsidies to agrabiz special interests.

    Unfortunately my take is that if W voices any positive sentiment on it, something is rotten in Denmark...
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/UPDATE/703140458

    It amazes me Dow Chemical company has the Grapefruits to tell congress what is good for the enviroment. We are talking about a company that has dumped more toxic pollution in the Rio Grande, Mexico, and in other third world country's than any other company ever. I want to know what their real motive is ?????

    Rocky
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    If you are asking rhetorically, I will let the discussion develop more. If not, the move/s makes all the sense in the world.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    ruking, what is their motive ? Why did they come to congress to speak on CAFE/EPA laws unless they are going to profit in some way ?

    Rocky
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    There are a lot of ways to frame it, but let me frame it in the context of the article and the subject of this thread:

    Although you did not say this directly, it is not a stretch to see NONE of the cited CEO's, more importantly the businesses they are directly associated are directly affected? :) Don't forget legislative power and productivity.

    ..."A group of CEOs joined two U.S. Senators in calling on automakers to increase the efficiency of the vehicle fleet by 4 percent per year beginning in model year 2012 and ending in 2030."...

    I think those very same CEO's and Senators would probably take extreme umbrage if say a 4% or more reductions were on the table in the areas directly affecting their industries were being proposed!?: military retirement pay, senatorial/congressional perks and salaries, reduction in plane fuel use, solid waste stream reduction, etc.It is commonly known Senators and Congressmen are on the job app 1 day a week, why not let the pay reflect? :)

    I follow the Honda Civic Real World MPG numbers. To further frame the gist of the posts, arguably, Honda Civic is first, one of the better/best 4 banger "economy" economic gasser/auto transmission car. So a Honda Civic 2004 has an EPA of 29 City/38 highway. In a normal commute I get anywhere from 38-42 mpg. As you know, the EPA has down graded this example anywhere from 5 to 20% for a host of reasons, among one being these estimates are not "REALISTIC". If you further read the EPA FINE PRINT on the new car sticker, the range of mpg BEFORE the down grade was between 24 mpg to 44 mpg. So which would you do a 4% of?

    24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,? :)

    Now with the "NEW IMPROVED" EPA estimates, anywhere from 5% to 20% less?? 19-22 mpg? :)

    This is for one of the BEST MPG gassers on the market!! :) They will be talking for a long, long, long......... time. :)

    Indeed it is commonly known in the trucking industry, that a fully loaded tractor trailer gets app 6 mpg. (with a STIFF TAIL WIND) Not a BREATH about a 4% or 6.24 mpg standard? Or, why not move double the load or require a double or triple trailers!? :)

    A (very fuel efficient) 767 aircraft "stretch", app 245 passengers ) gets app 42 gal per butt for 3000 miles. So do we make the A/C manufacturers rehab planes to get 40.32 gals per butt? Do we not let a less than fully loaded plane fly? :) (to get 42 to 40.32 gals per butt? (42 gals/3,000 miles = 71.42 mpg. 40.32/3000 is only 74.4 mpg)
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    ruking1,

    Boy you really went into detail and I appreciate it. You really put things in perspective. I hope your right that they will be fighting this out for a long time and some knee jerk policy that is unrealistic doesn't get implemented. If congress really wants to increase standards they better pony up the capital to help achieve these objectives otherwise it's only going to be hot air as the numbers are unrealistic unless we all drive Civic hybrids. :sick:

    Rocky
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    it's only going to be hot air as the numbers are unrealistic unless we all drive Civic hybrids.

    Brother,
    I got news for you. Many folks would love to force you into a Civic hybrid, one way or another. There are a posters here on Edmund's that would vote to force everyone into a small car for any number of reasons. And preferably a foreign car as they believe American automakers are the devil for building what the people want to drive, big SUVs and PU trucks. If GM is going to make a turn around, the 77k full size PU trucks they sold last month is going to be a big part of it. Toyota and Honda together only sold 62k CamCords. At a much, much lower margin of profit.

    PS
    Toyota has grand plans to sell 250k Tundra PUs this year. They better get on the stick. Right now they are 25% behind last year sales. GM must have grabbed some of those buyers after they looked at the Tundra.

    So will our oil independence ever end. Not if Toyota can sell you a big truck it won't.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I was watching "C-Span" (or some such channel that televises the proceeding in our nation's capital) where I heard a very high auto union official (President? or something) testify before some Congressional committee, imploring not to implement minimum fuel standards, as they would DECIMATE AMERICAN auto industry jobs.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    In an effort to have the best mileage in a full sized PU truck GM has made the truck out of much thinner sheet metal It makes for a cheaper feeling vehicle. I like heavy sheet metal and do not mind getting just a bit less mileage as a result. Take your LC, does the top cave in when you are washing it? I think not. My 4 trucks previous to this 2005 all had thicker sheet metal. This also costs more to repair when you have an accident. I miss the old 1949 Packard. I will say it again. If there is any real desire to save fuel, we would have a big selection of large and small diesel vehicles. I have been on this campaign since the late 1990s when I spent time with those fellows that drove from the tip of So America to the Arctic coast. They averaged 45 MPG in a Ranger crew cab with a 4 cylinder diesel and 5 speed transmission. Congress has no desire to cut fuel consumption. They only pass legislation to get votes and money from corporate lobbyist.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    "Congress has no desire to cut fuel consumption. They only pass legislation to get votes and money from corporate lobbyist. "

    As you have noted, that is the REAL CONSERVATION !! (GAME) i.e., the CONSERVATION of the ability to flow massive amounts of (power) and money.

    Yes, as an aside the sheet metal on the 1987 TLC was EXCELLENT. (heavier gauge also)
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    World Wide demand for oil is on track for a year to year INCREASE of 2-4% per year.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    ..."I will say it again. If there is any real desire to save fuel, we would have a big selection of large and small diesel vehicles. I have been on this campaign since the late 1990s when I spent time with those fellows that drove from the tip of So America to the Arctic coast. They averaged 45 MPG in a Ranger crew cab with a 4 cylinder diesel and 5 speed transmission. Congress has no desire to cut fuel consumption. They only pass legislation to get votes and money from corporate lobbyist."...

    Actually there are only a few things that are remarkable about a 50 mpg VW Jetta TDI

    1. how utterly few (both volume and percentage wise) vehicles there are in the passenger vehicle fleet ACTUALLY capable of getting between epa of 42/49 and actual of 44-62 mpg.

    2. along with that, the capability of using alternative fuels, i.e., bio diesel from a virtual myraid of sources, as compared to ULR gasoline.

    3. how vilified the use of LESS resources (diesel) are.

    4. almost no waiting in almost all instances to get diesel fuel.
  • highenderhighender Member Posts: 1,358
    I would agree with Ruking on this....

    Diesels are good for America, if we can increase the usage.
    SOme power plants are using diesel fuel for power generation....and I would hope that we could build some type of nuclear reactor :surprise: ( I know) in the outskirts of populated areas.. to supplant these diesel generators.....thus freeing up more diesel for vehicles....

    I do not know what impact it will have...but anything to help....

    I think many countries now have a significant percentage of their electricity come from nuclear power plants...France, Japan, Taiwan, etc.....
  • corvettecorvette Member Posts: 11,361
    The calculator is just an estimate of the 2008 rating, right? If so, it's probably reducing currrent ratings by a set formula (possibly taking into account things like engine size and curb weight), but the real 2008 rating (after actual testing is done) may vary from what the calculator predicts.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Yes, you're correct about the calculator being an estimate. So it will be interesting to see how actual 2008 ratings compare to the original ratings of the same models/engines in the last couple or so years.
  • esther4esther4 Member Posts: 1
    The "Harvard publication" mentioned is one I edit for employees. We publish recommendations from readers -- mostly for restaurants but also for stores, theaters, services, garages, etc. We don't follow-up on the recommendations, as it is a community-based publication where we trust community members to represent ONLY themselves, not a product salesment. I received a recommendation for "The Blade" which I though was a legitimate reader suggestion, but am now looking into the veracity and honesty of the submission. Harvard in no way endorses or has anything to do with this product.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Welcome to the Forum.

    In this day of Internet so much that is reported as fact is only opinion. Thank you for keeping us all honest. I am sure your publication does not like to be used for erroneous endorsements.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Moved out of the diesel discussion to the hybrids,

    Every automaker jumping on the hybrid bandwagon.

    Reason? They had no idea how many suckers were out there. We all know that the reliability of the Prius is a big question mark. If I was selling them they would be the best thing since peanut butter.

    Nissan for one is not jumping on willingly. They know the future holds nothing but grief for all that added complexity. Just the NAV screen alone is a grand to replace and it has not been without its failures. I notice everyone ignored the poster with the latest screen failure. The only Prius posters that get recognition are the ones that have something good to say.

    Quote from surprised Prius owner:
    After I went ballistic, I've been trying to find out who I complain to about highway robbery. One part! $1000. I'm only a teacher but I do know that unless it's gold or diamond-encrusted, it shouldn't cost $500-1000.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary says, "We all know that the reliability of the Prius is a big question mark."

    "we" who? The small cadre of hybrid bashers on this board?

    Because there is no data from any source that says Prius reliability is anything but FAR FAR above average.

    And the person or persons who have high Prius part replacements? I feel for you, but you should have done one of two things if expensive parts are a problem for your budget:

    1. Bought a 1985 chevy pickup, where all the replacement parts are less than $300, or
    2. Bought a 100K mile bump-to-bump warranty for your Prius.

    As far as PURELY economy-based "bang for the buck" goes, it's still hard (even with the hybrids evolving and getting better) to beat a basic $12,000 to $14,000 car that gets 35-40 MPG.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    As far as PURELY economy-based "bang for the buck" goes, it's still hard (even with the hybrids evolving and getting better) to beat a basic $12,000 to $14,000 car that gets 35-40 MPG.

    There we agree. My point has been from the get go, that the hybrids are too complex to be considered economical to own. If you like lots of unneccesary gadgetry and are willing to plunk out a lot of cash for a high mileage warranty, go for it. Have you tried to get a 10 yr bumper to bumper warranty? Not an easy thing to find. Why because the automakers are not building cars to last that long anymore. High mileage no problem. 10 years not much chance. They have thrown true environmental thinking out the window. I still remember when a 10 year old car was considered just about average. It is the best you can do for the environment and you wallet to get a vehicle that will last a long, long time. Hence the best bang for the buck is an old car that runs good. Don't see many anymore. We are conditioned by the automakers to buy a new one to avoid big repair bills.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Gary, just because 100% of the people on Planet Earf cannot afford a hybrid does not mean they should just stop making them.....

    There are varying levels of car needs and car budgets. There are various ways to help the environment with your vehicle choice. There are various ways to employ hybrid technology, not just the "go for the highest mileage" route.

    If there is anything I have learned in my 43 years, it's that "having more choices" is more often than not a VERY GOOD thing because there are so many people with SO MANY differing points of view that you cannot please everyone with ONE option.

    We all (at least those over 40) remember the days when cars (and life) were FAR LESS complicated. That does not mean that is the BEST way to go forward. Life, and vehicle technology, move forward, regardless of how many old timers want to go back to the older, simpler ways. Cars are going to get (and have been doing so for years, BEFORE hybrids came along) more complicated, and parts are expensive for complicated components.

    That's just life.

    The good thing for people making $20,000 or less a year is that there ARE low-dollar, high-ish MPG cars available on the market for the taking.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    An article I read last year in one of the automotive news sources (Auto News, perhaps Det News or Free press) listed the current age of the fleet at that time as nine years, the highest it had ever been.

    So it continues to creep up. Cars do last a long time now, mechanically, but whether all the frippery in the cabin continues to work as it is supposed to through the life of the car is much more uncertain.

    The Prius was a good marketing move for Toyota, nothing more. People who wanted the fuel economy of the Echo (which I drive, very happy with the average of 41 mpg) but wanted options they couldn't get in a cheap car and wanted some high-profile greeny-ness could get a Prius. That's all. If I wanted auto-climate control and pwoer everything, I probably would have got a Prius as well, but I am more minimalist than that.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well, for around $22K you can buy a Honda Accord SEV6, with a 0-60 around 6.6 seconds, with a MPG of 29 or better freeway, depending of the heavy foot. I would say that the bang for buck is pretty good. The HP is 244. Relatively low price to buy, wonderful handling, and resale value - what's not to like? Or you could get the i4, with a little less go power, but higher MPG. If you mean pure MPG per dollar, the old Civic HX model got 44 MPG at the least on freeway, with some reporting closer to 50 MPG. I do believe the model was dropped though. It was the ultimate dollar value per MPG.

    In a sports car, the Corvette can get around 28 MPG with the 6 speed stick. Lots of bang for buck, with MPG.

    Loren
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I greatly miss the old Civic HX. The new hybrid is no substitute. :-(

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    The really sad part is that the few HXs that are still on the road are being (or have already been) grabbed up by the "tuner" crowd.

    They are desirable to the "F&F" types because of their light weight and the fact that it's an easy swap to drop a hot Integra or Prelude engine in them. :sick:

    james
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    "having more choices" is more often than not a VERY GOOD thing because there are so many people with SO MANY differing points of view that you cannot please everyone with ONE option.

    I am here to tell you that after 64 years of hanging around and watching the automobile evolve I see less options as time goes by. I cannot remember a time that I did not find several vehicles appealing to me. Now there are hardly any. They all look like kiddy cars. Designed by the same people that create the horrible cartoons that some parents let their young children watch. I do not find it an exhilarating era at all.

    When I look at new cars now all I see is plastic crap designed to disintegrate in a crash. They have done this under the guise of crumple zones for safety. What they do not talk about is the cost to repair a very minor fender bender. More and more cars are totalled for very minor collisions.

    Inside they throw every piece of crap technology available to mankind, full well knowing it will make them a fortune if you keep the car past the warranty.

    The biggest crime I see against the average buyer is teaching the mentality that you are bound to be paying a monthly car payment, so why not trade that 3 year old car in for a new one. We are like Pavlov's dogs following each new trick to keep us from ever getting out of debt.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The CRX version was the best handling Honda I was ever in. I thought they were great little cars and so much fun to drive. You have to buy an S2000 to get that much driving pleasure from a Honda today. Lots of bang for the buck in that era from Honda.
  • orphanmistorphanmist Member Posts: 2
    In 1992 I had the Geo Metro (which was a Suzuki Swift), it was a standard shift with a 3 cylinder engine. With the AC running and driving 70 to 75 mph I still averaged 45 miles to the gallon commuting back and forth to work. Now looking through the economy cars of today there are none that do that well (that are low cost), even Suzuki doesn't have one that does that good anymore, atleast in the USA. Why are cars going backwards in the fuel economy area?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Very good question and welcome to the Forum.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    While I don't often do 75 mph, I do plenty of 65-70 mph and run the A/C in my Echo just as much as I like, and average 41 mpg around town, 46-50 mpg on all-highway trips.

    And it's a 4-cylinder with a good 40 horses more than the old 3-cyl Swift, and it's pretty low-cost. There are still one or two models out there, they are just getting harder to find.

    My thinking is, they shouldn't BE this hard to find now, with the gas prices so elevated and going into their third year in that state.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • orphanmistorphanmist Member Posts: 2
    That is pretty good these days, I saw some on the Carmax site and as late as 2004. Did the Yaris replace the Echo or was it and addition to their lineup?
    I was just surprised to look at the year to year fuel economy on some of the vehicles that have been around for a little while and it appeared that the mpg's were going down instead of up.
    Thanks for your input nippononly, it will give me something to look at as I'm looking for a good economy commuter car.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You saw it as it is. The fuel mileage has gone down as the HP and size goes up. We are in a HP race in this country. Not that many of us are interested in fuel economy. For example the Camry is a luxo barge compared to a 1990 Camry.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    The Yaris replaced the Echo, in fact the Echo was called the Yaris in all the other countries where it was sold, except Canada!

    The new Yaris is rated just about the same from the EPA, down one point for highway and that's it, so you should be able to do about the same in the new model as I do in mine.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Friday, April 13th, 2007
    Fighting Terror with Hypercars
    By Chris Nelder


    Lately I've been fascinated by the way so many former CIA and State Department officials, once freed from their jobs, have gone to work lobbying for energy security.

    While on the government payroll they mostly behaved like good soldiers, stuck to their talking points and didn't say anything that might upset the apple cart.

    But once out on their own, they've been blunt about how energy policy has everything to do with a sound national security strategy and a successful foreign policy.

    Among them are former CIA heads James Schlesinger and John Deutch and former Secretary of State George Shultz.

    But the most outspoken of these ex-officials is James Woolsey, former director of the CIA under President Clinton. He's been traveling the world since 9/11 to champion renewable energy and educate the public about the intimate relationship between oil dependence and terrorism. (He also walks the talk, driving a hybrid and powering his farm with solar.)

  • railroadjamesrailroadjames Member Posts: 560
    This looks to be a viable future car to go beyond fuel economy. The car runs on "compressed air". Check it out on the web. Someone in France has a better idea and its just around the corner. I like what I see. Coming soon to a dealer near you...I hope. We'll see.
  • scape2scape2 Member Posts: 4,123
    Seen the article on the Air cars developed in France and Australia? Go to your web browser and type in "air car". This is the answer to freedom from OPEC once in for all!@! The Australian guy is a genius, his design is so simple! I also read that Mexico has ordered 4,000 of these cars to replace thier cab fleets. The answer to high priced oil is right in front of our eyes. I hope they make it here to the States in the next few years...
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I hope they make it here to the States in the next few years...

    I hear they are coming over to the US the year after the Fusion outsells the Accord. :D
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Would you consider an Air Car?

    http://www.theaircar.com/
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    Sardines, anybody ? :surprise:

    Rocky
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    but the storage requirements and pumping losses make long-distance use infeasible.
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Member Posts: 867
    I went looking at the aircar web site yesterday. Is this for real or is it a pyramid scheme on a grand scale? I see where they show 'calculations' where the air only car could do as much as 150 miles before recharging the air tank (from stations after they are established or overnight via a built in electric compressor). BUT, I think so far they have only gotten maybe 5 miles per charge...still a long way to go.

    They do have a dual vehicle...air for around town and normal fuel for longer trips.

    Their model seems to be selling licenses to build vehicles for an area/region/country once the mother factory starts production. So, far they have sold maybe 50 of the 400 licenses to be available worldwide. Maybe this will work out, maybe it will develop into a niche vehicle.

    I don't know if this one will really develop into the ultimate fuel saver (you have to have some fuel to generate electricity for charging the air supply) but eventually something like this will get a foothold and help.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Here is a page which shows how much the TCH and Prius dropped....

    Less than 13% combined each.....

    OLD EPA test versus new for TCH and Prius
  • rayainswrayainsw Member Posts: 3,192
    This estimate appears to be the same 'tool' that has been on fueleconomy.gov for some time.

    It appears to merely apply the average expected reduction to the 2007 numbers.

    No official 2008 numbers have been posted on that web site, as of 10 minutes ago....

    - Ray
    Not a born skeptic, but...
    2022 X3 M40i
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,817
    i iwonder if some vehicles have already been tested? '08 escape is for sale. i would imagine they cannot guess at the numbers on the sticker.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Ford site list the following for 2008 Escape:

    Fuel economy (Manual FWD)
    EPA est. mpg: 22 city/28 hwy, for 2.3L

    Fuel economy (Automatic FWD)
    EPA est. mpg: 20 city/26 hwy for 2.3L
    EPA est. mpg: 18 city/24 hwy for 3.0L

    Fuel economy (Automatic 4WD)
    EPA est. mpg: 19 city/24 hwy 2.3L
    EPA est. mpg: 17 city/22 hwy 3.0L

    The city figures are down 2-3 mpg and highway down 0-1 vs. the 2007 numbers.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

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.