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
I was actually disappointed when I finally found out that the sting of an individual killer bee DOESN'T pack more of a wallop than a regular bee. Thanks a heap, Irwin Allen, for warping my mind as a child! :P
But then along came 2000, 2001, and 2002, before things really started to turn around. I'm 37 now. Needless to say, I'm not retired.
I figure things have been good now for a little over 4 years, not counting a little hiccup at the beginning of this year, and one in May 2006, and maybe a little burp here and there. So I imagine it's soon time for things to head south again? :surprise:
1. global warming
2. diminishing oil supplies and rapidly increasing global oil consumption leading to huge volatility (and an increasing trend) in the price of oil-based products, with the economic consequences that implies
3. the U.S. continues to export a significant portion of its GDP to buy oil from places that aint too friendly to U.S. concerns. Call it funding terrorism if you like, I won't go that far. But high levels of oil imports from the middle east and other places (like Venezuela) are a concern.
And that is before I mention the terrible living and working conditions in some of the places we get oil from that rarely make the news and NEVER make the big splashy headlines; Nigeria is an example.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Multi-displacement System (MDS) on the 5.7L V8.
Their next generation V6 will also have MDS that goes from 6 to 3 cylinders.
1. global warming
Global warming has been occurring throughout history, independent of human activity. That is how we came out of the Ice Age. The question is whether carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are exacerbating naturally occuring trends, and the jury is still out on that one.
nippononly: 2. diminishing oil supplies and rapidly increasing global oil consumption leading to huge volatility (and an increasing trend) in the price of oil-based products, with the economic consequences that implies
We use less energy now to produce one unit of economic growth than we did in the 1970s, so swings in oil prices will not have the same effect as they did in the 1970s.
As supplies diminish, prices will go higher, which will spur more conservation, use of alternative energy sources and changes in consumer behavior. The oil shocks of the 1970s were much more severe - people literally couldn't buy gas at any price in some areas - and the country still recovered quickly.
nippononly: 3. the U.S. continues to export a significant portion of its GDP to buy oil from places that aint too friendly to U.S. concerns. Call it funding terrorism if you like, I won't go that far. But high levels of oil imports from the middle east and other places (like Venezuela) are a concern.
And maybe the problem is that the U.S. is "concerned" about activities in these areas when it really should let the locals handle them, and merely maintain a merchant-buyer relationship with the nations in these areas.
After all, the Arab Oil Embargo taught the oil producers a big lesson - refuse to sell oil to a big customer, and you only hurt yourself in the long run. They need us.
nippononly: And that is before I mention the terrible living and working conditions in some of the places we get oil from that rarely make the news and NEVER make the big splashy headlines; Nigeria is an example.
Living conditions in most of those places were rotten before large oil reserves were discovered; they'll stay rotten if the oil companies leave tomorrow.
"Somehow, I think I'll make it through $5-a-gallon for unleaded." Depending on what you drive and how far you drive that's only $800-$2000 additional each year....after taxes.
An additional $2000 after taxes? That's $165/mo!!! Yep, and there are a lot of people for whom that's chump change. A tip to the Golf Pro for his staff each month. If that person wants to drive a 12 mpg vehicle and spend $2000 additional in taxes each and every year he/she will. No oil will be saved at all!! We will not reduce our usage even one iota with regard to this driver. Yes obviously some will dump their Big SUV's and Big Trucks in favor of more efficient vehicles. A tax seems like a quick and easy way to make people switch vehicles but it's wrongly regressive and it will not accomplish the final purpose of reducing the use of oil as well as making all the vehicles in the nation's fleet 30-50% more efficient.
As nippononly said I too hate the word can't. It's an acquiecence to failure. CAFE has received a lot of bad press and blog blasting because as it was written it allowed Detroit to circumvent it. But this new legislation closes the loopholes and if enacted gives us the driving public the whole range of choices in vehicles.
If you want to drive a small vehicle that gets 50-60 mpg, you'll be able to do so;
if you want to drive a midsized vehicle that gets 35-40 mpg, you can do that too;
If you want to drive a crossover that gets 33-38 mpg, you can get that too;
If you want to drive a midsized truck that get over 30 mpg, that'll be available too;
A big truck with FE in the 25-30 mpg range, yep that too;
A big BOF SUV that gets ~ 20 mpg? Yep that too.
So where are the fewer choices for the drivers?
Oh BTW with the FE values noted above we save anywhere from 30-50% of the fuel that we are presently using. Now that accomplishes what the Congress, the President and in fact most Americans want. Does anyone want to use more oil for transportation?
And we still have all our vehicle choices. Downside?
.
.
.
.
.
.
[what about the prices of the vehicles]
OK, I get it, you are someone who does not believe there is any reason in the world for the government to influence a decrease in oil consumption in this country.
Since the Prez and a majority of the legislators disagree with you on that one, we will probably see it happen anyway, eh?! ;-)
Just for fun, I thought I might add:
1. There are few places left on the planet, besides your house, for which the jury is out. I know there are a few other arch defenders of your POV posting regularly here, so I will leave it at that before a new firestorm erupts, but I am adding my opinion to yours.
2. I never mentioned the 1970s and I don't care about the 1970s. Volatility, as well as a steady increase over time higher than the rate of inflation, of the price of something upon which the economy is founded just CAN'T be called a good thing. No way, uh uh. But I respect your choice to think its effect will be inconsequential. I, of course, disagree once again! ;-)
3. I agree it is a very uneasy relationship we have with some of our biggest foreign oil suppliers - they need us, we need them, both sides continue to posture arrogantly in the hopes of gaining the upper hand. While a dollar for middle eastern oil is not exactly the same thing as a dollar to fund terrorism, we would still be better off keeping our dollars at home through conservation efforts I think. Just as a general principle. And yes, that is just my VERY humble opinion.
As for Nigeria and some other large oil-exporting poor countries, gas purchases here fund large corporations like Shell and Chevron going into those places, ripping off those countries for pennies on the dollar of what their natural resources are worth, and leaving them destitute in a generation. Meanwhile they send said pennies to their sometimes VERY corrupt governments who then live a life of luxury while in some cases committing atrocities on their peoples. Your "living conditions rotten today, rotten tomorrow" remark may technically be true, but it doesn't really change the ethical nature of what U.S. corporations are doing there in our name, now does it?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Are you sure about that? What about the huge credit for flex-fuel vehicles? If that loophole has been closed then could you provide a link?
And we still have all our vehicle choices. Downside?
So you believe this new fleet of vehicles will be the same as the existing fleet with the exception that it gets much better mileage? If that's not the case then the choices have been reduced?
Fuel consumption is a function of efficiency x miles driven. Will CAFE do anything to encourage people to drive less? Efficiency can be affected by how well you maintain your vehicle and your driving style. Will CAFE do anything to address these factors? These more efficient vehicles will only have an impact when they make it into the fleet. Will CAFE create any incentive for people to desire these more efficient vehicles? What's the plus-side? Oh yeah, it represents the magical quick fix that requires no individual sacrifice.
Fine if that's the best we can do then that's simply the reality that must be faced. Here's a question, at what point will we have evidence of whether or not these higher standards are actually reducing fuel consumption? My guess is never but I suspect that even strong supporters of CAFE would say that it will be at least 10 years. So the next question becomes, can we really afford to wait that long? If not then what's the rest of the plan?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regardless I think it is an idea with some merit. My understanding is that it is being tried in some areas. It would be interesting to find out if it is having an impact in terms of miles driven. If we ever transition to EVs the energy costs associated with driving will become minimal. But we might end up having streets so congested that they look like Bangkok. So this fee per mile system would provide a mechanism for dealing with that problem.
Why would it not be the case? Every new vehicle or nearly every one would be far more efficient than at present. Why do you believe that our choices would be reduced? SUV's and trucks are the lifeblood of the 3 domestic makers now. Do you really think that they will all just give up and start making econoboxes? This is the defeatist attitude that I say won't happen. First there's too much money to give up and the very existence of some might be at stake.
Fuel consumption is a function of efficiency x miles driven. Will CAFE do anything to encourage people to drive less? Efficiency can be affected by how well you maintain your vehicle and your driving style. Will CAFE do anything to address these factors? These more efficient vehicles will only have an impact when they make it into the fleet. Will CAFE create any incentive for people to desire these more efficient vehicles? What's the plus-side? Oh yeah, it represents the magical quick fix that requires no individual sacrifice.
Absolutely total fuel usage is a function of efficiency and miles driven. But to assume that if fuel economy were to be increased 35% overall that we all would suddenly start driving 35% longer distances is a far stretch.
As to whether the new efficient vehicles will be desired ... they will be the consumers only choice's, unless they opt for older clunkers which have a more limited life generally.
Again where is the downside for the buyer, or the innovative manufacturer? I think you're seeing evil demons where there aren't any. Also this isn't next year. It's over 10 years away. That's a lot of time for innovation....and most of the tools for these innovations are here today.
Done properly this can be as galvanizing as the commitment to put a man on the moon or the ramp up of American industry during WWII. It can/should involve industry and universities to do 'blue-sky' brainstorming that now only gets directed into glitzy 'high tech' fields. Vehicles and transportation are considered 'low tech' in that they use 100 year old technology with seemingly little interest by the makers in new innovations. Until most recently.
To your last point it may very well be 2030 by the time the 'old fleet' is fully retired and the new more efficient fleet in being fully used. That's 22 years from now. How will we know if fuel is being saved? If the vehicles are 35-50% more efficient then one variable is in place. Monitoring the distances driven by the public is easy to do in fact it's being done already by a lot of states. When your vehicle is inspected each year the odometer is noted. When vehicles are traded the odometer reading is recorded. So the tool to monitor the distance driven is already in place. In addition every new vehicle now has some sort of 'black box'. This can easily be linked by a wireless connection to a central databank or just as with 'Easy Pass' send a wireless signal to a roadside receiver.
You and I should still have all our vehicle choices 12-1/2 years from now, if the vehicle makers don't give up, and they all should much more efficient.
Does the ethanol loophole still exist in this newest energy bill that gives huge CAFE credits for flex fuel vehicles? If so then I really don't think we should be discussing this from a serious perspective.
If anything will keep me in 70's and 80's cars with easily removeable speedometer cables, a law like that certainly would!
I'm with you there! Nice way around the whole thing. Then ten years down the road the big 2 will be complaining about the unfair disadvantage they are at because they were geared for ethanol instead of reduced consumption.
35 yrs ago there was normally one bread winner and one stay at home Mom and the kids all took the school bus or walked. There was normally one vehicle in the family.
Now two working partners each have their own vehicles, even if one stays at home. The kids are often driven to school alone or in local carpools for safety reasons. High schoolers nave far more vehicles than in the past and most college students have one of some kind. Typically there are 3-4 vehicles in the family.
There are far more vehicles on the road that's why consumption has gone up. This is not something we want legislated. We each want our own vehicle...even if we're 15 y.o.
I haven't read the entire bill so I can't specifically say if the flex-fuel loophole is closed or not but I believe that I heard that it was. One of the stipulations though is that 50% of the truck/SUV fleet must be E85 capable by 2015.
For the most part my family was either too poor, or the women too workplace-oriented (or both, perhaps) to ever fall into that idyllic Leave-it-to-Beaver cliche. However, I think there is another force at work...commuting distance. Aren't people, on average, driving further to work these days?
My grandparents on my Mom's side of the family rarely worked more than 2-3 miles away from home, although Grandmom did work down in DC for a few years, which might've been more like 15 miles from home. They were also a rare 2-vehicle family...a car for Grandmom and a truck for Granddad.
On my Dad's side, they worked down in DC, but still only about 10 miles or so away. Now that I think about it, I don't think they even HAD a car until the early 50's...a used 1949 Ford. I think they finally got a car when they moved to the suburbs and out of DC. In town, they could walk to most of the places they need to go, take the streetcar, bus, etc.
When I was a kid, my Mom worked about 18 miles away, and I forget where Dad worked. Nowadays he only works about 12 miles from home. But my Mom and stepdad moved down to Southern Maryland, and while they ride into work together, they also put an easy 120-130 miles per day on the car.
Ethanol seems like the first step but it costs just as much as gas but more is needed to drive the same distance. Overall cost of transportation for each of us should be more but we will end up using less oil.
Butanol and biobutanol seem like the next option in that both seem to have more energy than ethanol so we don't have to spend as much to drive.
Diesel seems perfect for heavy vehicles almost immediately and the gain seems to be 30-40%.
Bio-Diesel seems even better because it eliminates nearly all petroleum usage.
This is why it's so important for us to reduce our personal usage or switch to some biofuel made here.
If we've reached the 'peak oil' point already meaning that all future oil will be harder and more expensive to get or that absolute supplies are declining - but demand is growing, especially in China and India, then our share of the world's oil is going to be reduced dramatically unless we outbid the others for it.
We either will be 'short' x-number of barrels per month or our prices will be far higher than they are now. Three scenarios which we would not want to see ...
Scenario No 1... 40 Gal of gas per household per month
Scenario No 2... Gas was ~ $1-1.25 /Gal 15 yrs ago now it's $3-3.75 / Gal. In 15 yrs could it be $9-10/Gal because we have to outbid the others for it?
Scenario No 3... Political tensions make some producers boycott the US as a customer. Personal driving in the US using fossil fuels is banned except in emergencies. The use of mass transit becomes mandatory.
Given that oil is a global commodity you really can't effectively boycott a particular customer. All you can do is pull oil off the market, which will impact all your customers equally. Could this happen? I certainly think so. Given the minimal margin between production capacity and demand it wouldn't take much.
So I guess that means if you live in, say, Tonopah, Nevada, you either walk or ride a bike (or a horse).
Global consumption is increasing by about 1.5 mbpd every year. If that continues linearily we'll need an extra 37.5 mbpd in 25 years. Even if the Saudis did increase production to 16 mbpd we've got big problems. A major oil crisis will occur far sooner than 25 years from now. At that point we'll put ourself in high gear towards finding a solution. People and politicians will be pointing fingers at one another placing blame and questioning why we didn't start on this path earlier. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the Senate did vote to raise fuel standards so maybe the problem is solved.
EDIT
[Thanks I found it..Hello Google]
BINGO, Andre, you nailed it. Why more companies aren't using it is because it's a joke, a hoax, and some companies probably won't invest in a fraud. In a laboratory, DOD does some good, but in my vast experience with both Chrysler and GM cars that do this, it's a total scam. They get no better mileage than their normal counterparts, because if you want to accelerate, all cylinders must work. If you run into a grade of any sort, all cylinders must be on line. If you have a slight headwind, virtually anything that causes any resistance at all, puts all cylinders online. Therefore, my truck is never shut down at all, unless I'm on a slight downhill grade at least, or decelerating, or have a terrific tailwind. Well, this doesn't happen much, and what goes down, must come back up. It's a total scam as far as I'm concerned..... :mad: Another "feel good" smoke screen to try and justify low mileage vehicles.
No refineries have been built in the United States in over three decades, because refiners say they are too costly. Instead, they have been expanding their existing refineries.
All this is happening as the industry goes through another golden age. After 20 years in the doldrums, the refining business has never been so good for oil companies. Refining margins — the difference between the price of crude oil and the value of refined gasoline made from it — have shot up as much as $25 a barrel for some types of crude oil, compared with about $5 a barrel just a few years ago.
But with a third summer of high gasoline prices, lawmakers are debating legislation they claim would punish oil companies for exploiting the tight supply situation and engaging in “price gouging.” At the same time, they are pressing refiners to produce more fuel.
“Refiners want to keep running in today’s economic environment,” said Mr. Drevna of the refiners association. “But when they shut down they are accused of gouging the system. When they don’t, they are criticized for overrunning their facilities.”
Oil supplies
In some respects this is the "perfect storm". In psychological terms, skitzoid would be a polite reference.
1. What is the logic for example for investing anywhere from 1.5 to 10 billion to build a NEW refinery, when on the other hand you are being told you will be (unfairly) TAXED for the effort.
2. All the while you are being told the stated goal: (when you build the refinery) to cut the overall demand and the amount of oil you actually process.
3. The ideal condition is that you build the refinery and lose money.
4. The perfect conditions is that you spend real money to spot and locate a new refinery and after 5-20 years of fruitless effort, you are finally denied
5. The illogical ramblings go on and on. If it sounds skitzoid, welcome to the political/regulatory landscape.
When the ultra clean diesel starts flowing from the gas fields of Qatar the scramble will be on for diesel cars. I better move quickly.
Pretty good overview article this week from the NYTs:
Why the gas pump drained our wallets this year
Indeed unleaded regular has greater ppm (30) vs 15 ppm than ULSD ultra low sulfur diesel (2 x greater
It is analogous to complaining about LEADED regular, when the switch has been made to unleaded regular!
Other unmitigated unleaded and LEADED gas emitters are small aircraft (bug smashers)
Also vehicles used for governmental purposes i.e.,police cars, etc. do not have to meet mandatory emissions tests, and correction requirements, like us commoners.
"Researchers at UCLA partly based their studies on mice placed more than 100 feet from the Harbor and Santa Monica freeways, a busy corridor known for high diesel-truck and car traffic. Mice already showing signs of high cholesterol were more likely to develop hardened arteries, Nel said." link
So, if there's no ULSD in SoCal, then I guess they left it out?
Of course the air is so filthy now, you can't go back to walking or biking either eh? :P
Of course the air is so filthy now, you can't go back to walking or biking either eh? :"...
Perhaps that is precisely one of the attitudes that have kept ULSD diesel passenger cars off the USA roads in any volume and percentage to even make a dent in the decrease of the GROWTH of unleaded regular use let alone to reduce the overall demand. Hard to reduce the almost 100% percentage use of unleaded gasoline, (the US passenger vehicle fleet is less than 3% diesel with 97% being unleaded gasoline) when all the systems conspire to have 100% of that use remain unleaded gasoline.
Throw in diesel's past reputation, current concerns with p articulates, the general public's ignorance, antipathy, or skepticism, and that may explain why many car makers aren't rushing their diesels to market here.
If I was trying to sell diesel cars here, I think I'd make a diesel hybrid and try to sneak in the back door to US acceptance that way.
Indeed! So with a gasser population of upwards of 97%, from a host of perspectives, etc, it is unreasonable and illogical to expect a 100% build out for a diesel population of less than 3%.
The other is a lesser understood/acknowledged unintended consequence, less need to fill as frequently. So for example a (14.5 gals) Jetta gasser (30 mpg) vs TDI (49 mpg), which for discussion purposes is 420 miles vs 686 miles. This means the gasser needs to fill 1.63 times more frequently given the same miles. So over a years time of 12,000 to 15,000 miles, well anyone can do the math here.