Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

Report Your Local Gas Prices Here (retired discussion, please see the new one)

1111112114116117206

Comments

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,671
    >trade them in for All American gas hogs

    How about Armadas and all the large and midsized SUVs from foreign manufacturers. I drive an American car that gets 33 mpg cruising on the interstate and 24 in short trip driving, seats 6 _comfortably_, and has large trunk.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I agree, there are foreign automakers that produce gas guzzlers too. My comment wasn't so much directed at the domestic automakers as the American mindset. The average American doesn't want anyone telling them how much gas they can or should use. Okay, that's a legitimate point of view but if market conditions drive the price way up these people shouldn't now come whining to the government for assistance.
  • ricardoheadricardohead Member Posts: 48
    First off, my house is paid in full, so that law tax code does not affect me. Also, unless you are a person who wants to pay interest their whole life, that law will only impact you for a while, and no one forces you to take the deduction, do they.

    BUT ... that law does not FORCE someone to buy a house in a certain manner. In fact, far more adults rent a domicile than go carless. Tax incentives to own a house are an encouragement but not compulsatory - higher taxation of gas is a compulsatory imposition of "correct behavior" thru taxation.

    I don't force you to take your tax deductions - why do you want to force me to pay your desire? What is it about your psyche that thinks you know more about my needs or protecting me than I do? I am 100% certain you don't, but if you are so bent on paying higher gas taxes, total up your gallons every year and cut your check to Uncle Sam whom you trust so much, or to your local government of choice. The only thing stopping you is your own hypocrisy in not doing so. Live up to your higher tax nonsense and prove your point before you inflict your unwanted pseudo-protection on me.

    Oh wait - asking someone to live up to their word is probably going to far for most - particularly the "we need more taxes" crowd.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,671
    I understand but that was stereotyping--which doesn't work.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342

    I don't force you to take your tax deductions - why do you want to force me to pay your desire? What is it about your psyche that thinks you know more about my needs or protecting me than I do? I am 100% certain you don't, but if you are so bent on paying higher gas taxes, total up your gallons every year and cut your check to Uncle Sam whom you trust so much, or to your local government of choice. The only thing stopping you is your own hypocrisy in not doing so. Live up to your higher tax nonsense and prove your point before you inflict your unwanted pseudo-protection on me.


    I never said I knew better what your needs are. I'm merely stating an opinion held by many that it would be in our (American's) collective best interest to be energy self sufficient. There are a lot of leading economists that are coming to the conclusion that higher gas prices will accelerate the process.

    I could total up the gallons of gas I burned and tax myself and send a check to the government but exactly what would that accomplish? Would my choosing to tax myself have any impact on market behavior? I'm not entirely sure why you would make such a ludicrous comment. I'm sure it seemed brilliant at the time.

    Oh wait - asking someone to live up to their word is probably going to far for most - particularly the "we need more taxes" crowd.

    If you actually read my posts you'd realize that I never advocated more taxes. My position is the fuel tax would be revenue neutral and it would result in a reduction in other taxes. Again, the majority of fuel tax advocates are taking this position. Apparently you're like most people. They see the word tax and their brain goes immediately numb and are no longer capable of further comprehension.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,022
    I filled up my '85 Silverado at the local Citgo. Prices were up a bit since the last time I filled up. 89 octane cost me $2.299 per gallon this time, versus $2.259 when I filled up about 12 days before.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    OMG...... fintail, I'm outraged !!!!!

    Did you catch the last two paragraphs ?

    However, he said, "People need to step back and keep that in perspective, and not mislead the public into thinking that's how we're going to get off oil if we do all these other things.

    "Because it isn't going to happen. They're just not ever going to be big enough."


    He is basically saying arrogantly we in big oil, are in power and are here to stay. There isn't a damn thing you consumers can do about it either. :mad:

    Rocky
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,411
    That's a good translation, yes.

    I guess it's easy to be arrogant when you pull the puppet strings... :sick:
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Yes :cry: :sick:

    Rocky
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I guess it's easy to be arrogant when you pull the puppet strings

    Its also easy to be arrogant when you're the only game in town. Yeah, the government can eliminate all these sweetheart deals and the oil companies can just raise prices. What are we, as consumers, going to do? I'll tell you, we'll pay the higher prices because we have no choice. The government can then enact price controls and the oil companies can choose to not produce. The next step is nationalizing the oil industry. I personally don't think that is a good idea but its certainly been done in other countries.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    tpe,

    I look at it this way god, made the earth and oil. Not the oil company's. :mad:

    If big oil isn't going to invest in alternative energy's then we need to throw the whole cartel out of office and out of our politics. :mad:

    My children, deserve better. Luckily the common people have people of power like GM CEO Rick Wagoner, that is leading the fight against the oil industry because company's such as GM, have felt the Oil cartels greed in their bottom-line. I'm pretty sure big Rick, would like to slam dunk that Exxon CEO suit through a Duke University rim. ;)

    Rocky
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Well this is another one of those rare times that we agree. I don't know if GM's CEO is sincere or not but I definitely like what he's saying.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I gaurantee he's sincere.....He was very upset when the oil cartel inflated our gas prices and GM, lost billions in revenue on SUV and Truck sales. He was also forced to downsize rapidly and was forced with having to close plants and lay-off good people. I honestly can see revenge in Rick's eyes and him being a former Duke basketball player he obviously doesn't like to lose. ;)

    Rocky
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I really hope you are right. While we all know that GM is struggling they are still one of the few entities that may have the resources to challenge the status quo. If their intention is to roll the dice and go with this approach I applaud them and am definitely rooting for their success.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    tpe,

    I will also say this......GM, has invested millions in the alternative fuels industry. They are one of the founding fathers that have jump started the E85 program. They have gambled a large sum of chips on risky returns. I think being back-stabbed by the oil elites has forced GM, to take such a risk in a financial hard time. ;) The good thing today is 51% of GMAC sold for $14 Billion to free up some cash and their credit rating went back to BB status. ;)

    Wife told me Gas Prices in Dumas, this evening were $2.17-2.19 so a few went down while others stayed the same. :surprise:

    Rocky
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Okay, we were on a roll for a while but once you mentioned E85 you lost me. I can't see that as anything but a loophole that allows manufacturers to avoid CAFE penalties. I also hate CAFE so I am somewhat conflicted here.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    tpe,

    I understand that.

    I was just pointing out that the E85 program was a retaliatory way back at the oil company's since they don't realistically support alternative fuels with their R&D. ;)

    The oil company's blow smoke and not money on alternative fuels. :sick:

    Rocky
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "The oil company's blow smoke and not money on alternative fuels."

    Let me get this straight:

    You guys are angry at 'Big Oil' due to their current effective monopoly on energy used to get everybody from point 'A' to point 'B'.

    But you want them to devote R&D money to alternative fuels? Ummm,if Exxon-Mobile/Texaco/BP actually DEVELOPED cheap viable alternative fuels, wouldn't that just CONTINUE their monopoly? Is this what you want?
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Member Posts: 1,060
    went from $1.99/9 to 2.11/9 in the past week!!!
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Ummm,if Exxon-Mobile/Texaco/BP actually DEVELOPED cheap viable alternative fuels, wouldn't that just CONTINUE their monopoly? Is this what you want?

    Actually my alternative fuel of choice is electricity, which could one day be cost effective for the consumer to generate on his own. That would pretty much cut the oil companies and OPEC out of the loop. It's not that far fetched. There are already people doing it. It just doesn't make sense from a financial perspective, at least not right now.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,671
    Please explain to me how the consumer's generating electricity is going to be cost efficient from a operational and overall cost to the environment standpoint. I don't believe that to be the case.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Finally, someone who's making sense.

    Personally, I think ethanol/E85 is a boondoggle, the chief beneficiary of which will be the giant ag company ADM. Simply burning hydrogen in the engine (as in the new BMW 7) is a nonstarter also, IMO.

    I think the near- to medium-term future lies in hybrids (with or without plug-in capability), clean diesels, and batteries alone. Affordable fuel cells are still a long way off.

    Regarding electricity, it's a lot easier to control emissions at a relatively small number of power plants than on the 200+ million vehicles on our roads.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,671
    Agree on all three points! ;)

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Please explain to me how the consumer's generating electricity is going to be cost efficient from a operational and overall cost to the environment standpoint. I don't believe that to be the case.

    I must not do a very good job of expressing my opinions. I specifically said that it "could one day be cost effective" and that it doesn't make sense from a financial perspective right now. Presently electricity generated from solar PV cells costs about 3x as much as electricity bought off the grid. There is a lot of venture capital being pumped into this field right now, which is funding aggressive R&D that could double the efficiency of these cells and also significantly reduce the manufacturing costs. And during this time I think its safe to assume grid electricity will become more expensive. If I were to make a guess I'd say there's a very real chance that solar energy will be competitive with the grid within 10 years. Obviously this is somewhat location dependent. Seattle won't be as advantageous as Phoenix. This technology has come a long way in the last 30 years. Solar electricity used to cost over 30x as much as grid electricity to generate.

    BTW, this is not some hair brain idea I came up with. Tesla Motors has entered into an arrangement with PV installers for people that want to go this route for recharging their electric Tesla Roadster.

    I don't know any reputable source that doesn't acknowledge solar energy being far better for the environment than burning fossil fuels.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,671
    Thanks for responding.

    I picture it as a windmill which costs to erect and maintain and then the windmill has to have a generator for the vanes to turn. The wiring has to be installed and equipment has to be installed to integrate the local generator source with the 60 Hz power grid for your home. If you are using solar cells, I see the same cost and more maintenance and replacement due to aging through the years.

    I picture both of these as having an environmental impact because of the metals used in the motors and in the solar cells and in the batteries which they charge and in the equipment to integrate the source with the batteries and the local 60 Hz grid.

    Throwing motors and batteries and solar cells into the trash is an environmentally unfriendly act. I.e., nickel-cadmium batteries are a problem ending up in the trash and landfill.

    The local power company can be very pollution friendly with their large power plant and they can supply the electricity as a lower environmental cost than the same electricity supplied from 1000s or more of individual sources.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I don't think people are using nickel cadmium batteries for these types of systems. Lead acid is still the battery of choice, which isn't great for the environment but can be recycled to some extent.

    Actually most people that are going solar are having grid tied systems installed, which doesn't require batteries. This is considerably cheaper and provides more security. With this type of system during times you are generating more power than you are using it actually flows into the grid and you receive credits to be used when your system isn't generating power. The utility companies like these systems because it provides some load levelling for them. Your system will be producing this excess electricity during the day, obviously, which is when the grid needs power the most. You will be drawing off the grid at night when the grid has excess capacity. This is really the best way to go because it doesn't matter whether the utilities raise their rates. As long as you, on average, provide as much as you use your utility bill will be zero.

    To make this post somewhat automotive related.

    http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsASMA77.htm
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Finally, someone who's making sense."

    I hope I didn't violate the Townhall User's Agreement.....
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    What some of us want rorr, is the oil company's if they want to stay in power to develope alternative energy's that are inexpensive and good for the enviroment. If they want to stay on oil, they need to be broken up or taken over by the government. We only have one earth, and preserving it as much as possible takes priority over the greed of a select few.

    Rocky

    P.S. Gas is still $2.17-$2.19 a gallon in Dumas.
  • odie6lodie6l Member Posts: 1,173
    I went over to costco yesterday (11/30/06) and the 87 grade was $2.179, I then had to run over there today before work (12/01/06) and it jumped to $2.299. That's 12 cents in less then 24 hours. I'm glad I filled up yesterday when it was only $2.179.

    Odie
    Odie's Carspace
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    All corporations exist to maximize profits. The oil companies just happen to be in a fairly rare and unique position where they basically have a license to print money. I don't think that they created this situation but they are exploiting it, as all corporations would. We demonize them because we don't like paying a lot for gas. It's a popular sentiment but it isn't entirely fair. Here's an analogy. Until recently home prices were going up over 10% a year. Lets say you bought your home for $200k seven years ago and the market dictated that you could now sell it for $450k. Would you choose to list it at $250k because that seemed like a fair profit? I'm guessing the answer is NO. Meaning you will sell it at market price. The oil companies are selling there oil at market price, which is currently a little over $60/barrel. The fact that their cost might only be $25/barrel is irrelevant. With all that said I think the market has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. The commodities traders are having a bigger impact on what we pay at the pump.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Good analogy -- here's another:

    Suppose you bought a brand new Pontiac GTO in '66 for $3,500 and kept it in mint condition all these years.

    Would you still sell it now for $3,500? Or even $3,500 times the rate of inflation over the last 40 years?
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Suppose you bought a brand new Pontiac GTO in '66 for $3,500 and kept it in mint condition all these years.

    Would you still sell it now for $3,500? Or even $3,500 times the rate of inflation over the last 40 years?


    Well if I had this vehicle for sale the first thing that I would do is find out how much similar vehicles were selling for, i.e. market price. Whether it was $500 or $25000 has nothing to do with me, and if I make a profit or loss doesn't determine whether or not I'm a good or bad guy. That's my position with the oil companies. If they are somehow conspiring to drive the price of oil above $60/barrel then they are bad guys. If they are simply capitalizing on favorable market conditions then we should get off their backs.
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Member Posts: 1,060
    Yesterday, $2.11/9 This morning, $2.15/9. That's up 15 cents/gallon in the past two weeks.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "What some of us want rorr, is the oil company's if they want to stay in power to develope alternative energy's that are inexpensive and good for the enviroment."

    Cut me some slack rock. What you want is a return to cheap gas without having to curb your urge for 400+hp honkin' huge GM land sleds. If you want 'alternative energy' and 'good for the environment' you wouldn't keep expressing a burning desire for full-size GMC trucks or SUV's.

    "If they want to stay on oil, they need to be broken up or taken over by the government."

    I'm with you on the 'broken up' part. But think about who was at the helm when some of the biggest mergers went thru: Exxon-Mobile (merged in 1999). Texaco merged with Shell and Saudi Aramco(1998). BP merged with Amoco (1998). Only Chevron-Texaco (2001) and Conoco-Philips (2002) occurred under Bush's watch.

    Taken over by the government? On what grounds? We aren't some tin-pot dictatorship where various industries can just be nationalized on a whim. Unless you think that ANY industry that shows "too much" profit should just be taken over by government since the owner's were obviously just being 'greedy'. (Although if your aim is to eliminate profit, then having an industry run by the government is a surefire solution....)

    "We only have one earth, and preserving it as much as possible takes priority over the greed of a select few."

    Then you should be actively seeking HIGHER prices, not lower. Higher prices ultimately mean that less fuel is consumed. Less fuel consumed = better for the 'one earth'.

    Why aren't you actively seeking about a $2/gallon tax levied by the feds with the money earmarked for alternative fuel research. THAT would actually make more sense than you 'wishing' that Big Oil would simultaneously lower the prices at the pump AND spend EVEN MORE money on alternative fuel research.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    $2.17 today 12-5-2006

    That's up

    13 cents

    in the last month.....Whew !! ( Thank gosh for hybrids !! ) :shades:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,022
    prices have shot up a bit over the past few days. Local Citgo is now up to $2.299 for 87, Shell is $2.319. That's about a 10-12 cent bump.
  • KCRamKCRam Member Posts: 3,516
    My usual Sunoco truck stop, Palisades Park NJ. All gas up 6 cents from last week, diesel up 4.

    87 - $2.159
    89 - $2.259
    91 - $2.319
    93 - $2.359
    diesel - $2.479

    kcram - Pickups Host
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,723
    most stations around 2.39x up 10 cents from thanksgiving.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,022
    this morning I noticed the Shell on my way into work bumped up slightly...from $2.319 to $2.339 for 87. I didn't pay attention to the other prices or see the sign on the local Citgo. Last nite though, I filled up the truck with 89 octane at the Citgo for $2.399 per gallon. Took just under 30 bucks to fill it up. I guess that's the last time I'll be below that barrier. Oh well, still beats the heck out of $45+!
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Took just under 30 bucks to fill it up. I guess that's the last time I'll be below that barrier."

    Nah. You can always just get into the habit of refueling when you get to a half tank.....bingo, less than $30 to fill it up. :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,022
    Nah. You can always just get into the habit of refueling when you get to a half tank.....bingo, less than $30 to fill it up.

    Yeah, I've thought of that. On a psychological level, it might help me feel better. FWIW, that $29-30 I spent to fill up got me about 12.1 gallons, 138 miles, and ~11.4 mpg. I guess that's not TOO scary, considering my old Silverado tends to get really thirsty when the weather gets colder, and my short commute doesn't give it much time to warm up. There was still frost on the hood this morning when I got to work.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The signs say:

    $2.35
    $2.45
    $2.65
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,709
    unleaded 87 here in Willcox, AZ, is at the Mustang ghastly station. There you will pay $2.11/gal.

    Not bad, but isn't it amazing how we just can't seem to creep below that Mendoza line of $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead? Wonderful profits can still be had if you gouge them for at least $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    Wonderful profits can still be had if you gouge them for at least $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead.

    When the wholesale price of unleaded gas is $1.62, which doesn't include the 40+ cents for taxes or the transportation cost I'm not sure how a wonderful profit can be made at $2/gallon.
  • waiwai Member Posts: 325
    You will save some bucks by fueling 93 and 87 both to get 89.
    Sunaco at Delaware here 87 at 2.27, 89 2.44, 93, 2.54. Shell every thursday less 5 cents all gas, 87, 2.24, 89 2.39, 93, 2.49.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,709
    with the wholesale price of 87 no-lead at $1.62/gal. Seems about 75 cents a gallon too high. For the middle-man or station owner to then make their profit everybody overpays.

    Ghastly shouldn't cost over $2.00/gal for 87 no-lead no matter where you live in the U.S. That's why I refer to it as ghastly and not gasoline.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Seems about 75 cents a gallon too high."

    Based on......?
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,709
    of iluvmysephia1's good sense and sensibility.

    And bang-for-the-buck.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    with the wholesale price of 87 no-lead at $1.62/gal. Seems about 75 cents a gallon too high. For the middle-man or station owner to then make their profit everybody overpays

    I don't think you understand. If the wholesale price is $1.62 and fuel taxes are 43 cents a gallon and distribution/marketing costs run around 10 cents a gallon the station owner needs to charge $2.15/gallon just to break even and that doesn't cover any of his operating costs. For the most part station owners are not getting rich selling gasoline. In fact the cheapest stations usually have some sort of mini-mart on the premises, which is where they make the bulk of their profits. They simply sell gas as a way to lure in customers.

    For gas to drop below $2/gallon the wholesale price would have to go below $1.40/gallon, which means the price of oil would have to drop below $50/barrel. It's certainly possible but right now it doesn't look likely. And there's a new variable to consider. The dollar is losing ground against other currencies. If this trend continues it will be just one more factor supporting higher fuel prices.
This discussion has been closed.