"Why invest in refineries when not doing so will squeeze the supply and cause gasoline made from exactly the same oil"
Here's a better one - why invest in refineries when the government has mandated reduced use of the product through nonsensical ethanol requirements. It would be nuts to invest when the feds require ever-growing volumes of ethanol to replace gas. I'm always amused when, during high prices, people think Big Oil suddenly figured out how to manipulate the market. Why'd they wait so long? And why'd they 'quit' doing it back in the 80's? Why'd they let oil get down to $10/bbl in the 90s, if they're so smart? Hmmmmm
You are not providing financial assistance to the unit of government responsible for road building and maintenance when you pay your vehicle registration and driver's license fees.
I certainly am. That money I pay for auto registration and other fees I listed the other day does not go to the donut fund for the local police department.
As was shown by kernick a few days back, the biggest problem is weather, and its effects on roads, not cars.
I've been to Michigan and, more specifically, the Detroit area a lot over the past 15 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that many of the Detroit roads are in terrible shape and the many, many 30+ wheeled trucks (you should see some of those monsters) that support the local manufacturing industry have nothing to do with contributing to the road conditions.
More weight equals more wear and tear? Now there's a thought.
Why invest in refineries when not doing so will squeeze the supply and cause gasoline made from exactly the same oil, with the same processing costs, to sell for more?
The refineries are making so little money right now they are actually cutting back on production. There's little incentive to build new or expand existing refineries when you aren't even using the capacity you have. We currently import a lot of refined gasoline because it is cheaper than refining it here. That will probably continue to be the case so this argument about the lack of refining capacity isn't all that valid.
"Many of us use bicycles for transportation and save a lot more resources than any hybrid ever made."
I agree that bikes are a great gas saver and I agree that they have every bit of legal right to be on the road as any other vehicle operated on the road. But I also agree with many that have said there are certain rodes that bike riders should either have the common sense to stay off of for safety reasons or have the consideration to other motorists to stay off of. And read that again, I'm only saying on certain roads.
We have a few frontage roads around here that are 10 miles long (between interstate exits), have a 65mph speed limit with no stop lights or stop signs the entire length, and no shoulders. The road edge ends on the white line. These are BUSY roads. When bikes are on them, all of the cars in the same lane have to basically stop (or slow to the speed of the bike), until there is no traffic coming from the other way. During busy times, only one or two cars can squeeze around the bike and only by flooring it to do so quickly before the other oncoming traffic arrives (at 65mph). So one bike will have 20 - 40 cars at a time coming to nearly a stop, then flooring it to get around them when there are little breaks in oncoming traffic. (this lasts for as long as the bike rides this 10 mile road).
Add in the safety issue for the biker when cars are having to squeeze by and safety issue with cars darting into the 65mph-oncoming traffic...well, you get the idea. There are just places it is just too disruptive to traffic flow. Also, in this particular situation, the amount of gas the biker saves is more than lost by slowing a hundred plus cars to nearly a stop and then accelerating them back up to the speed limit.
Sorry for my confusing comment, I was trying to say that if company does not pay dividends, it must be using that money for something. But many/most oil companies that I know of (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, Total, etc) continue to pay dividends.
But I also agree with many that have said there are certain rodes that bike riders should either have the common sense to stay off of for safety reasons or have the consideration to other motorists to stay off of.
There are several roads around my area like that. Although I can legally ride on any public road here in MO, except for an interstate, there are a few I would not consider doing so.
I've ridden on a few roads where I have to get from point A to point B. The only non-interstate road may have had no shoulder. In those cases I either pedal absolutely as fast as I can or I will pull off at the first available opportunity and let traffic pass if I notice in my helmet miror that a line has formed behind me.
The roads in GA that we had to share with the mobile home movers during one trip were "exciting". 12 ft wide lanes and 14 ft wide mobile homes made for some great sprint workouts to the nearest pullout.
However, I think I'm drifting away from the topic of this thread.
Well, that really presents the evidence very clearly: by far the best thing you can do to enhance your fuel economy is to SLOW DOWN, regardless of the vehicle you drive. And you don't just improve it a little - in the Edmunds tests, it was often improved by 1/3 or more.
Ever since Katrina I have followed the speed limit even more rigorously than ever for the express purpose of saving gas, and in every vehicle I have owned in that time, my around-town running average for fuel economy has matched or exceeded the vehicle's highway EPA rating. Not just sometimes, ALL the time, EVERY vehicle.
We are a society in a hurry - everywhere, all the time,. But if we could just ease up on the gas and obey the speed limit, we would save a LOT of gas. Imagine saving 1/3 of your gas bill every month. For me right now, that would be at least a $50 savings I could have in my pocket every month, and my cars are gas-sippers. If I had a truck, my savings could easily be 2-3 times that figure. That's real money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Cool test. I didn't see any mention of what drafting behind a semi did to the mpg figures. Maybe I missed it. I do know that can result in significant savings. I drafted behind a truck one time at nearly 40 mph for 10 miles on my bike on level ground. Something that would have been impossible on my own.
I noticed they said the mpg went up when they had the tailgate open. Mythbusters did a test on that once and they got just the opposite results.
I was surprised about the varying tailgate results - I thought it was best for all tailgates to be up, but it seems to vary among makes..
Under the Lexus - Aerodynamics section, "In our test, however, we found our fuel economy unchanged while drafting behind a truck." That said, I think the editors were reluctant to really crawl under the truck bumper. Maybe there's a more noticeable impact with bike drafting too?
Why'd they let oil get down to $10/bbl in the 90s, if they're so smart? Hmmmmm
When the Alaska oil from the Prudhoe field started flowing in the late 1970s at $30 per barrel the oil companies thought it would never go down. They were in a panic by 1985 and cut exploration to the bone. Thousands of workers in the oil field got big pay cuts and many lost their jobs. The state revenue went down. I did not hear one peep out of Congress that we should give the oil companies some incentive to drill for more oil. I think if people delve into the so called subsidies they would find it is just the write-offs for money spent on exploration. That is a part of the oil business, looking for more oil. Taxes from oil support states like Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and now North Dakota.
"Why'd they let oil get down to $10/bbl in the 90s, if they're so smart?"
They didn't LET oil prices drop in the 90s. Saddam Hussein flooded the market with prohibited oil, using that corrupt U.N. "oil for food" program as cover. When the U.S. military invaded Iraq, that stopped the flow, and prices rose dramatically.
We benefitted from the corruption in the 90s. We're suffering from the corruption today.
The Oil Barons think most consumers are stupid and they're correct. In a capitalistic society there is only one definition for the word ":profit" "Profit" is what is left over after all other company costs have been met, including, advertising, exploration, drilling, transportation of the product, processing of the product, salaries and operating costs, employee benefits, etc. "Profit" is what the shareholders receive. It doesn't go back into the company! If a company creates a product that is unique and is only produced by a limited number of companies to the exclusion of all others and regularly and arbitrarily increases the prices to the consumers for the sole benefit of the shareholders, then the obvious solution is to "NATIONALIZE" the whole industry. It will only happen when and if the public gets so aroused that the politicians panic over losing their subsidized jobs. After all just look at who contributes to their campaign funds. As it stands now the Congress is subsidizing these same companies with tax payer dollars to the tune of hundreds of millions plus the outrageous profits they're taking. There needs to be a body of just plain citizens who will go after the politicians who refuse to do anything and get them out of office. Attacking the Oil Barons is an exercise in futility. They will continue to bribe these politicians until such time as the people make it a crime to do so or to take money in any form so as to influence their votes.
Here are the calories burned per hour, now somebody with a lot of time on their hands needs to get to work on the conversion between calories consumed and MPG.
Bicycling, 20mph, racing 1380 Bicycling, 10-11.9mph, light effort 518 Bicycling, 12-13.9mph, moderate effort 690 Bicycling, 14-15.9mph, vigorous effort 863 Bicycling, 16-19mph, very fast, racing 1035 Bicycling, BMX or mountain 733
tedebear: I certainly am. That money I pay for auto registration and other fees I listed the other day does not go to the donut fund for the local police department.
Again, no. You are paying a user fee, which directly benefits you by building and maintaining roads and bridges. Which you are still using, as you own a vehicle. (And you still use them when you ride a bicycle. I assume that you are not riding through fields or over dirt paths to get to work.) That does not meet the definition of a subsidy, let alone financial assistance.
tedebear: I've been to Michigan and, more specifically, the Detroit area a lot over the past 15 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that many of the Detroit roads are in terrible shape and the many, many 30+ wheeled trucks (you should see some of those monsters) that support the local manufacturing industry have nothing to do with contributing to the road conditions.
More weight equals more wear and tear? Now there's a thought.
Read my original post. Kernick noted that weather is the main factor in road deterioration.
Perhaps some of your many visits to Detroit over the past 15 years occurred in the November-April time frame. If so, you may have noticed that Detroit's winters are very harsh, with lots of snow, ice and below-freezing temperatures, which are hard on the roads.
You are also bringing 30-wheelers into the discussion, when your original point was that by riding a bike instead of driving a car, you were saving wear-and-tear on the roads. Those are two entirely different examples. You can't switch to that argument, unless you were driving a Kenworth pullling a fully loaded trailer to work, and then switched to a bicycle for commuting.
As I explained before, roads have to withstand the pounding of heavy tractor trailers, such as the ones you cited. The weight of the typical passenger car is nothing compared to these monsters. So, unless you were driving that Kenworth to work before you started cycling, your switch isn't really doing anything to save wear-and-tear on the roads.
" "Profit" is what the shareholders receive." You were correct until there. "Dividends" are what the shareholders receive, not "profit". Undistributed profit is "retained earnings". And who are these evil shareholders? Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
"the obvious solution is to "NATIONALIZE" the whole industry" A recipe for disaster of the highest magnitude. Not opinion, fact. Look at Mexico, their nationalized oil industry's production is plummeting, and they lack the technical know-how to develop their new, huge, deepwater fields. When is the last time you looked at a government-run entity and thought "wow, that's great"?
Well, that really presents the evidence very clearly: by far the best thing you can do to enhance your fuel economy is to SLOW DOWN, regardless of the vehicle you drive. And you don't just improve it a little - in the Edmunds tests, it was often improved by 1/3 or more.
I topped off my 2000 Intrepid 2.7 yesterday afternoon. It had gone about 121 miles since the last fill-up, but it still shocked me when I saw that it only took 3.8 gallons to fill up! That comes out to about 32 mpg! Personally, I don't believe it. I think the pump just shut off prematurely. I mean, I could see getting 32 mpg on the highway if I was gentle. I have broken 30 on several occasions. But this last time was purely local driving. Now, I have been driving really gently, and have the tires infated to 40 psi all around, but I still think 32 mpg is wildly optimistic! FWIW, it was EPA-rated at 20/29, but I imagine the 2008 dumbed-down rating is probably 18/27.
I'm curious to see how the next fill-up is. I'm predicting my fuel economy that time will look really bad, as it balances out the optimistic number I saw yesterday.
We are a society in a hurry - everywhere, all the time,. But if we could just ease up on the gas and obey the speed limit, we would save a LOT of gas.
Yeah, ain't that the truth. But people aren't doing it. This morning, as I was about to leave for work, a school bus shot past my house doing about 50. Then, a Prius came rolling through about the same speed. In a 30 mph zone with an S-curve at the end of the road with 10 mph cautionary signs. And once I was out on the road, doing 30, a Corolla S come flying over the hill behind me, and in no time flat was right up on my tail. She would have blown past me on the right, but there were two maintenance trucks parked in that lane. In fact, as I cleared the last truck and started to get into the right lane, she tried to jig right at the same time to pass me!
No doubt, these same people are probably the biggest whiners when it comes time to fill up. Well, the school bus probably fills up at a county facility, which means that, in the end, I, the taxpayer, and picking up the tab for that one. :mad:
" "Profit" is what the shareholders receive." You were correct until there. "Dividends" are what the shareholders receive, not "profit". Undistributed profit is "retained earnings". And who are these evil shareholders? Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
Yes, dividends are paid regardless of profit. GM has been paying dividends every quarter for years and we all know GM hasn't generated much profit over the past several years. Granted they did reduce the amount of dividends being paid out, but they are paid out regardless.
It just depends on the company. Growth companies tend to pay a low to no dividend to reinvest in the company and the share holders win by the stock price that should go up with each increase in earnings.
"Dividends" are what the shareholders receive, not "profit". Undistributed profit is "retained earnings".
Yes and please let me further explain your point. Most corporations distribute a token dividend back to the shareholders - a few percent of the value of a share of stock. Many stockholders are fine with that, as they have to pay tax on whatever they get. But if the corporation retains the earnings, they typically reinvest that money in their existing business, or look for other business ventures to get into. A corporation does not want its cash sitting around for long, anymore then we stuff it in a bank at 3% interest. So a company like Exxon will either spend the money on exploration, a refinery, maybe purchase land, or buy some other business - like a chemical company.
Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
People like me - I've recently put $25,000 in a natural gas mutual fund. If I, and others, think the government's going to come in and hit the industry with increased taxes, and the gas companies profits are going down, I and others pull the money out, the stock-price goes down, and now the companies are hurting financially. Then gas what - you have a natural gas shortage and high prices.
If you take the profit-factor out of any business, you'll ruin that business. We have oil, natural gas, coal and such because we allow people to earn a decent profit at it. Just like we have computer software - because we allow computers a good profit to stay in business.
How hard/expensive would it be to re-gear a rear-end? A couple years ago, I talked to a mechanic about doing that with my '79 5th Ave. It has a tall 2.45:1 rear, and I thought something like a 2.94:1 like the police cars had would be fun. Until he told me it would be about $800! I think that included totally rebuilding the rear end, though. They wouldn't just swap the gears. And this wasn't the easy-to-change rear, either, like the old Mopar 8 3/4, where you just loosened the axles, took out some bolts, and the center section and all the gears came out in one chunk.
"Profit" is what the shareholders receive. It doesn't go back into the company! If a company creates a product that is unique and is only produced by a limited number of companies to the exclusion of all others and regularly and arbitrarily increases the prices to the consumers for the sole benefit of the shareholders, then the obvious solution is to "NATIONALIZE" the whole industry.
As texases noted I was with you up to this statement but from here on you've got your definitions wrong and you have put the blame in the wrong place.
In our capitalistic society the oil companies should try to make as much profit from us as they can. It's our system of business. It's the basis for the most efficient markets in the world since the beginning of time. The Seller tries to get as much as it can from the Buyer. The Buyer tries to buy as inexpensively as possible from the Seller or, and this is the key, the Buyer refuses to buy and uses something else instead denying the Seller any sale or profit. Then the Seller reacts and lowers its price to attract the Buyer back again. Or, it goes out of business.
You and I and everyone else here actually have ALL the control. If you/we don't buy from them then they don't make any profits or dividends. Thus all the power and all the blame actually rest in your hands.
A good aftermarket r&p set for the 14-bolt is about $300, and maybe $1-200 more for the full pumpkin rebuild kit (no sense in reusing the old junk in there when pulling the gear) plus whatever your labor costs might be.
I thought long and hard about which gearing to get in my '03 Avalanche when I bought it. I ended up ordering the 4.10 vs. the 3.73. It moved the vehicle through the gears with more ease. With all the research I did, and comparing to other's real-world experience, I detemined that the gas mileage would not until my speeds exceeded 65mph. Up to 65mph, the real-world hwy mileage was the same for the two different gearings.
There may even be some arguement that the city and/or towing mileage was better because, with the lower gearing, it accelerated the truck with less work from the engine and shifted into overdrive sooner. And it would shift into overdrive at around-town speeds at which the 3.73 would stay in direct drive. Also, I've noticed that I can easily tow lighter trailers and boats in overdrive rather than direct drive. It doesn't hop back and forth between overdrive and drive and even pulls up hills without downshifting. A 3.73 wouldn't do that. Even when I'm not towing, it pulls up really steep interstate hills without downshifting (I live near the Rockies).
For this particular V8 engine, the turning point, for power and mileage, is 2,000 rpm. With the 4.10, I turn 2,000 rpm at 65mph. A 3.73 in the same vehicle turns 2,000 rpm at 70mph, so you can drive a tad faster and turn the same rpm (and get about the same mileage in this case). For me, at 70mph, it's maybe 2,300, and from there on up, my mileage starts dropping fast. Driving 75mph (almost 2,500 rpm and more wind resistance) rather than 65mph makes my mileage drop about 10%.
When I bought it new, I didn't really care about mileage. Now, 5 years later, I do. A couple years ago, I thought about changing the gearing, but it's a 4x4 so I'd have to change them in both the front and rear differentials. Besides, I tend to not drive over 65mph, unless I'm holding up traffic, so it wouldn't really be that much of an advantage for my mpg and it may even be a disadvantage for the reasons mentinoed above (it would downshift more on hills and towing, and wouldn't shift into overdrive as soon for slower 40mph-around-town driving). So currently, I'm happy with the gearing and don't even think about changing it now. I get 20mpg at 65mph so no complaints.
A gear swap might make sense for others, though, depending on your vehicle, the speeds you drive, and if you spend more time in city or hwy driving.
I totally agree. I think our school systems must be doing a lousy job not only in personal finance, but in explaining the purpose of the markets and businesses in a capitalistic society - like the majority of the globe.
The purpose of an oil company, coal company, trucking company, drug, computer, food, clothing ... is to increase the wealth of the owners - the shareholders. People do not risk their money putting it into a corp.'s stock simply for the societal purpose of giving the product away for the cost of producing it. I want any business I invest in to charge the most it can for the product it offers - whether it be oil, heart medication, or paper-towels. If the corporation does not perform well, I'm likely to withdraw my money and put it in a business that is making better profits.
The reality of the situation is that there is not enough oil for everyone who wants oil, and the way the supply is divvied up is fair, by selling it to those who are willing to pay the most for it. Maybe there's enough oil for 1 billion out of the 6 billion people in the world?
You have a few options at this point: 1) make more or get a better job, 2) use less, 3) find an alternative fuel, or 4) divert $ from some other expenditure (cable TV, cell phone, lottery as some common examples).
So if you want to stay in the group of 1 billion (est.) people who get oil, you need to figure out what you're going to do to stay there. And consider that others around the world are gaining on you when you hear of their economies growing, AND the value of the $ declining.
Exxon or any other oil company does not owe you the right to cheap oil. If you want oil/gasoline pay the price, or it will be sold to someone else. The U.S. government also doesn't owe you that right.
A good aftermarket r&p set for the 14-bolt is about $300, and maybe $1-200 more for the full pumpkin rebuild kit (no sense in reusing the old junk in there when pulling the gear) plus whatever your labor costs might be.
Hmm, so maybe $800 total, labor included, isn't so evil, then? And at least they were willing to do it. I know another mechanic, who specializes in older cars, but he said he wouldn't even mess with my New Yorker's rear end. He suggested a more ham-boned approach...find out if there are any older Mopar cars that used the 8 3/4 rear, and had the same spring perch (or close, at least) as an R-body. Then get one of those and put it on, and then throw in a center carrier with whatever gear ratio I want. I dunno if that would really be any cheaper, though. But if I didn't like whatever ratio I had in there, it wouldn't be that hard to swap it, for something else.
In my case, the truck as it's set up now runs about 2700 rpm at 60 mph, which is way too high for the old V6. (The engine is built to run that fast all day long, but it swills gas doing it.) The gear swap and 30% overdrive would knock it down to around 1500 rpm, which is a lot nicer and just below the torque peak. The heaviest thing I'd ever tow is a car trailer, and the V6 is a dead-flat torque monster anyway so I don't think the taller gear would hurt it any.
I know another mechanic, who specializes in older cars, but he said he wouldn't even mess with my New Yorker's rear end.
The main thing about gear swaps is taking the time to properly set the ring and pinion themselves. It involves a lot of trial-and-error with various shim thicknesses and being very anal about getting things just right. It can chew up a lot of time, and some people don't want to mess with it.
Sell my boat. If gas is $4 a gallon for cars, it will most likely be $4.50 for marine fuel. Getting too painful to fill her up when she holds 65 gallons and gets 1 to 2 miles per gallon.
Getting too painful to fill her up when she holds 65 gallons and gets 1 to 2 miles per gallon.
I won't sell our current boat, we were thinking of going bigger and I don't think I'll do that now. Current boat is 21' w/ a fuel injected 270hp 305 v8 w/ 35 gallon tank. It's really not that bad on gas as long as I keep the rpm at 3000rpm (32mph) or less. A few hours of skiing and tubing might cost $30, not a big deal.
But moving up to a bigger boat with a big block would certainly increase the gas bill.
"The main thing about gear swaps is taking the time to properly set the ring and pinion themselves. It involves a lot of trial-and-error "
Yes, I remember blowing out my '72 Duster's diff at college (don't ask me how, with all of 198 CID!), pulled the cover, quickly discovered it wasn't a parking lot kind of repair. Instead, I went to the junk yard, they had a dozen to pick from, so I bought one for $35 (year ago, of course), and swapped it out in the dorm lot. It was a lower (numeric) ratio, so I had to replace the spedometer gear in the transmission, but that was easy. These days, I don't know how many junk yards have rear axles in stock, but it'd much preferred to trying to swap out actual ring gear/pinion sets.
Pleasure boating is going to be one of the first industries to bite the dust IMO as fuel ratchets higher and higher.. Boating is a enormously less efficient than autos or even trucks.
That's a huge industry that has a very dark future. Not only that but all the ancillary businesses that are associated with it are going to suffer. Depending on income levels and yes even availability pleasure boating may shrink only to a very well-to-do few.
VERY fuel efficient but the residual benefits paid to the rowers is what really kills this opportunity. In addition to Foremen ( one per side ) and a Chief who are all on salary you have to factor in the costs of whips, chains and manacles as well as a break room, infirmary and medical staff.
Then when the wind picks up and the rowers are not needed do you still have to pay them via some Jobs Bank program? Way to inefficient methinks.
This reminds me of a cartoon from a long, long time ago. There is the big ship with the oars hanging out and all and they are loading the the peasants onto the boat and one says to the other "What a magnificent ship. What makes it go?"
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"In my case, the truck as it's set up now runs about 2700 rpm at 60 mph, which is way too high for the old V6. (The engine is built to run that fast all day long, but it swills gas doing it.) "
By your description, it sounds like your V6 likes to run closer to the sweet spot rpm of a V8. Actually, I think I've only owned one V6 in my life, and that was in an 87 Thunderbird with the digital dash and no tach, and I never worried about mileage with that. On the other hand, I've owned many a inline 6, in pickups and cars and they seem to have a sweet spot about 1,000 rppm higher than a V8. My wifes car has an inline6 and 5speed manual and gets the same mileage at 55mph (around 2,000rpm) as it does at 70 (3,000 rpm) and that is over 30mpg. Mileage doesn't really start to fall off until almost 80mph.
"The gear swap and 30% overdrive would knock it down to around 1500 rpm, which is a lot nicer and just below the torque peak. The heaviest thing I'd ever tow is a car trailer, and the V6 is a dead-flat torque monster anyway so I don't think the taller gear would hurt it any. "
The combo of taller geared dif plus the addition of an overdrive sounds like a great solution for you. Those times that you need the extra 'go' (like while towing), you just take it out of overdrive.
They used to make a quick swap, reversible rear dif for common rear ends. I can't remember the details, but you could pull out the guts and flip them around in an hour or so. That resulted in having two gearing options (though it took time to switch it). You'd get a deep gear with it installed one way, like a 4.16, and a tall gear installed the other way, like a 2.72 or 2.18. Not a bad option to have, but not as good as something that can be used on the fly.
Having more tranny gears is a better solution in the quest for lower rpm and better mileage. Some cars now have two gears that are overdrives. That allows for deeper dif gearing, but still a reasonable cruising rpm. Many aftermarket tranny's offer the same thing. The top overdrive isn't meant to be used until you are at interstate speeds because it's such a high gear. I wish more production cars would offer the same, though it takes a pretty powerful engine to overcome the high gearing. Also, many automatic trannies are now 6 or 7 speeds instead of 4, in an attempt to allow the engine to stay in it's most efficient rpm range.
Pleasure boating is going to be one of the first industries to bite the dust IMO as fuel ratchets higher and higher.. Boating is a enormously less efficient than autos or even trucks.
That's a huge industry that has a very dark future. Not only that but all the ancillary businesses that are associated with it are going to suffer. Depending on income levels and yes even availability pleasure boating may shrink only to a very well-to-do few.
I don't agree. The boating industry has survived every downturn and even the 70's fuel crisis and all the other economic issues of the 70's. Sure, some boat builders may go out of business, but many will survive. Last I checked their are plenty of pleasure boaters in Europe paying $7+ gallon.
No doubt some will get out because of costs, but in general boaters and RVer's are a dedicated bunch that love the activity. Last year we put 50 engine hours on the boat, but probably 4 times that amount actually enjoying it. I keep track of my boat costs in Quicken and we spent $450 on gas last year and that was boating on most weekends from June to Sept. At this rate, gas could double to $7/gal and I still wouldn't change how I use it. May not tow it as far though.
As far as efficiency, true, pushing a 3000lb+ boat at 40mph takes a lot of fuel, but rarely do I ever hop in the boat to go from point a to point b. MPG don't mean a lot (unless you are going to a specific spot), but gallons per hour do. If I'm at idle, I burn a bit less than a gallon an hour. At WOT I'll burn over 20gph. Pulling my daughters on a tube at 20-25 mph will burn about 4-5gph. The smiles on their faces and that of their friends makes it worth every penny.
BTW, the local lake near us still has over a year wait for a boat slip.
By your description, it sounds like your V6 likes to run closer to the sweet spot rpm of a V8.
I'd bet he's talking about GMs 4.3 which is a 350 minus two cylinders. I had that engine in my previous boat and it had tons of torque under 3000rpm. I never liked how it sounded when being pushed, but never complained about lack of torque.
Comments
Here's a better one - why invest in refineries when the government has mandated reduced use of the product through nonsensical ethanol requirements. It would be nuts to invest when the feds require ever-growing volumes of ethanol to replace gas. I'm always amused when, during high prices, people think Big Oil suddenly figured out how to manipulate the market. Why'd they wait so long? And why'd they 'quit' doing it back in the 80's? Why'd they let oil get down to $10/bbl in the 90s, if they're so smart? Hmmmmm
I certainly am. That money I pay for auto registration and other fees I listed the other day does not go to the donut fund for the local police department.
As was shown by kernick a few days back, the biggest problem is weather, and its effects on roads, not cars.
I've been to Michigan and, more specifically, the Detroit area a lot over the past 15 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that many of the Detroit roads are in terrible shape and the many, many 30+ wheeled trucks (you should see some of those monsters) that support the local manufacturing industry have nothing to do with contributing to the road conditions.
More weight equals more wear and tear? Now there's a thought.
The refineries are making so little money right now they are actually cutting back on production. There's little incentive to build new or expand existing refineries when you aren't even using the capacity you have. We currently import a lot of refined gasoline because it is cheaper than refining it here. That will probably continue to be the case so this argument about the lack of refining capacity isn't all that valid.
I agree that bikes are a great gas saver and I agree that they have every bit of legal right to be on the road as any other vehicle operated on the road. But I also agree with many that have said there are certain rodes that bike riders should either have the common sense to stay off of for safety reasons or have the consideration to other motorists to stay off of. And read that again, I'm only saying on certain roads.
We have a few frontage roads around here that are 10 miles long (between interstate exits), have a 65mph speed limit with no stop lights or stop signs the entire length, and no shoulders. The road edge ends on the white line. These are BUSY roads. When bikes are on them, all of the cars in the same lane have to basically stop (or slow to the speed of the bike), until there is no traffic coming from the other way. During busy times, only one or two cars can squeeze around the bike and only by flooring it to do so quickly before the other oncoming traffic arrives (at 65mph). So one bike will have 20 - 40 cars at a time coming to nearly a stop, then flooring it to get around them when there are little breaks in oncoming traffic. (this lasts for as long as the bike rides this 10 mile road).
Add in the safety issue for the biker when cars are having to squeeze by and safety issue with cars darting into the 65mph-oncoming traffic...well, you get the idea. There are just places it is just too disruptive to traffic flow. Also, in this particular situation, the amount of gas the biker saves is more than lost by slowing a hundred plus cars to nearly a stop and then accelerating them back up to the speed limit.
If they don't pay dividends, then the money gets used to find/produce more oil - a good thing, right?
There are several roads around my area like that. Although I can legally ride on any public road here in MO, except for an interstate, there are a few I would not consider doing so.
I've ridden on a few roads where I have to get from point A to point B. The only non-interstate road may have had no shoulder. In those cases I either pedal absolutely as fast as I can or I will pull off at the first available opportunity and let traffic pass if I notice in my helmet miror that a line has formed behind me.
The roads in GA that we had to share with the mobile home movers during one trip were "exciting". 12 ft wide lanes and 14 ft wide mobile homes made for some great sprint workouts to the nearest pullout.
However, I think I'm drifting away from the topic of this thread.
Drifting is a gas saving technique. Ok, so that wasn't a typo. :shades:
Not a particularly safe one though.
Gas Saving Bonanza!
Works for me!
Well, that really presents the evidence very clearly: by far the best thing you can do to enhance your fuel economy is to SLOW DOWN, regardless of the vehicle you drive. And you don't just improve it a little - in the Edmunds tests, it was often improved by 1/3 or more.
Ever since Katrina I have followed the speed limit even more rigorously than ever for the express purpose of saving gas, and in every vehicle I have owned in that time, my around-town running average for fuel economy has matched or exceeded the vehicle's highway EPA rating. Not just sometimes, ALL the time, EVERY vehicle.
We are a society in a hurry - everywhere, all the time,. But if we could just ease up on the gas and obey the speed limit, we would save a LOT of gas. Imagine saving 1/3 of your gas bill every month. For me right now, that would be at least a $50 savings I could have in my pocket every month, and my cars are gas-sippers. If I had a truck, my savings could easily be 2-3 times that figure. That's real money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I noticed they said the mpg went up when they had the tailgate open. Mythbusters did a test on that once and they got just the opposite results.
Do the Test (YouTube-ish)
I was surprised about the varying tailgate results - I thought it was best for all tailgates to be up, but it seems to vary among makes..
Under the Lexus - Aerodynamics section, "In our test, however, we found our fuel economy unchanged while drafting behind a truck." That said, I think the editors were reluctant to really crawl under the truck bumper. Maybe there's a more noticeable impact with bike drafting too?
When the Alaska oil from the Prudhoe field started flowing in the late 1970s at $30 per barrel the oil companies thought it would never go down. They were in a panic by 1985 and cut exploration to the bone. Thousands of workers in the oil field got big pay cuts and many lost their jobs. The state revenue went down. I did not hear one peep out of Congress that we should give the oil companies some incentive to drill for more oil. I think if people delve into the so called subsidies they would find it is just the write-offs for money spent on exploration. That is a part of the oil business, looking for more oil. Taxes from oil support states like Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and now North Dakota.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
They didn't LET oil prices drop in the 90s. Saddam Hussein flooded the market with prohibited oil, using that corrupt U.N. "oil for food" program as cover. When the U.S. military invaded Iraq, that stopped the flow, and prices rose dramatically.
We benefitted from the corruption in the 90s. We're suffering from the corruption today.
Bicycling, 20mph, racing 1380
Bicycling, 10-11.9mph, light effort 518
Bicycling, 12-13.9mph, moderate effort 690
Bicycling, 14-15.9mph, vigorous effort 863
Bicycling, 16-19mph, very fast, racing 1035
Bicycling, BMX or mountain 733
bike mpg
Again, no. You are paying a user fee, which directly benefits you by building and maintaining roads and bridges. Which you are still using, as you own a vehicle. (And you still use them when you ride a bicycle. I assume that you are not riding through fields or over dirt paths to get to work.) That does not meet the definition of a subsidy, let alone financial assistance.
tedebear: I've been to Michigan and, more specifically, the Detroit area a lot over the past 15 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that many of the Detroit roads are in terrible shape and the many, many 30+ wheeled trucks (you should see some of those monsters) that support the local manufacturing industry have nothing to do with contributing to the road conditions.
More weight equals more wear and tear? Now there's a thought.
Read my original post. Kernick noted that weather is the main factor in road deterioration.
Perhaps some of your many visits to Detroit over the past 15 years occurred in the November-April time frame. If so, you may have noticed that Detroit's winters are very harsh, with lots of snow, ice and below-freezing temperatures, which are hard on the roads.
You are also bringing 30-wheelers into the discussion, when your original point was that by riding a bike instead of driving a car, you were saving wear-and-tear on the roads. Those are two entirely different examples. You can't switch to that argument, unless you were driving a Kenworth pullling a fully loaded trailer to work, and then switched to a bicycle for commuting.
As I explained before, roads have to withstand the pounding of heavy tractor trailers, such as the ones you cited. The weight of the typical passenger car is nothing compared to these monsters. So, unless you were driving that Kenworth to work before you started cycling, your switch isn't really doing anything to save wear-and-tear on the roads.
You were correct until there. "Dividends" are what the shareholders receive, not "profit". Undistributed profit is "retained earnings". And who are these evil shareholders? Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
"the obvious solution is to "NATIONALIZE" the whole industry"
A recipe for disaster of the highest magnitude. Not opinion, fact. Look at Mexico, their nationalized oil industry's production is plummeting, and they lack the technical know-how to develop their new, huge, deepwater fields. When is the last time you looked at a government-run entity and thought "wow, that's great"?
Can we imagine our congress people in charge of a national oil company? Pelosi? Bush? Sherrod Brown? John Boehner?
Pork? Special favors? Brother-in-laws with contracts?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I topped off my 2000 Intrepid 2.7 yesterday afternoon. It had gone about 121 miles since the last fill-up, but it still shocked me when I saw that it only took 3.8 gallons to fill up! That comes out to about 32 mpg! Personally, I don't believe it. I think the pump just shut off prematurely. I mean, I could see getting 32 mpg on the highway if I was gentle. I have broken 30 on several occasions. But this last time was purely local driving. Now, I have been driving really gently, and have the tires infated to 40 psi all around, but I still think 32 mpg is wildly optimistic! FWIW, it was EPA-rated at 20/29, but I imagine the 2008 dumbed-down rating is probably 18/27.
I'm curious to see how the next fill-up is. I'm predicting my fuel economy that time will look really bad, as it balances out the optimistic number I saw yesterday.
We are a society in a hurry - everywhere, all the time,. But if we could just ease up on the gas and obey the speed limit, we would save a LOT of gas.
Yeah, ain't that the truth. But people aren't doing it. This morning, as I was about to leave for work, a school bus shot past my house doing about 50. Then, a Prius came rolling through about the same speed. In a 30 mph zone with an S-curve at the end of the road with 10 mph cautionary signs. And once I was out on the road, doing 30, a Corolla S come flying over the hill behind me, and in no time flat was right up on my tail. She would have blown past me on the right, but there were two maintenance trucks parked in that lane. In fact, as I cleared the last truck and started to get into the right lane, she tried to jig right at the same time to pass me!
No doubt, these same people are probably the biggest whiners when it comes time to fill up. Well, the school bus probably fills up at a county facility, which means that, in the end, I, the taxpayer, and picking up the tab for that one. :mad:
You were correct until there. "Dividends" are what the shareholders receive, not "profit". Undistributed profit is "retained earnings". And who are these evil shareholders? Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
Yes, dividends are paid regardless of profit. GM has been paying dividends every quarter for years and we all know GM hasn't generated much profit over the past several years. Granted they did reduce the amount of dividends being paid out, but they are paid out regardless.
It just depends on the company. Growth companies tend to pay a low to no dividend to reinvest in the company and the share holders win by the stock price that should go up with each increase in earnings.
Yes and please let me further explain your point. Most corporations distribute a token dividend back to the shareholders - a few percent of the value of a share of stock. Many stockholders are fine with that, as they have to pay tax on whatever they get. But if the corporation retains the earnings, they typically reinvest that money in their existing business, or look for other business ventures to get into. A corporation does not want its cash sitting around for long, anymore then we stuff it in a bank at 3% interest. So a company like Exxon will either spend the money on exploration, a refinery, maybe purchase land, or buy some other business - like a chemical company.
Anyone holding stock, including every retirement fund in the US, and most people who have a mutual fund.
People like me - I've recently put $25,000 in a natural gas mutual fund. If I, and others, think the government's going to come in and hit the industry with increased taxes, and the gas companies profits are going down, I and others pull the money out, the stock-price goes down, and now the companies are hurting financially. Then gas what - you have a natural gas shortage and high prices.
If you take the profit-factor out of any business, you'll ruin that business. We have oil, natural gas, coal and such because we allow people to earn a decent profit at it. Just like we have computer software - because we allow computers a good profit to stay in business.
As texases noted I was with you up to this statement but from here on you've got your definitions wrong and you have put the blame in the wrong place.
In our capitalistic society the oil companies should try to make as much profit from us as they can. It's our system of business. It's the basis for the most efficient markets in the world since the beginning of time. The Seller tries to get as much as it can from the Buyer. The Buyer tries to buy as inexpensively as possible from the Seller or, and this is the key, the Buyer refuses to buy and uses something else instead denying the Seller any sale or profit. Then the Seller reacts and lowers its price to attract the Buyer back again. Or, it goes out of business.
You and I and everyone else here actually have ALL the control. If you/we don't buy from them then they don't make any profits or dividends. Thus all the power and all the blame actually rest in your hands.
What are you going to do about it?
There may even be some arguement that the city and/or towing mileage was better because, with the lower gearing, it accelerated the truck with less work from the engine and shifted into overdrive sooner. And it would shift into overdrive at around-town speeds at which the 3.73 would stay in direct drive. Also, I've noticed that I can easily tow lighter trailers and boats in overdrive rather than direct drive. It doesn't hop back and forth between overdrive and drive and even pulls up hills without downshifting. A 3.73 wouldn't do that. Even when I'm not towing, it pulls up really steep interstate hills without downshifting (I live near the Rockies).
For this particular V8 engine, the turning point, for power and mileage, is 2,000 rpm. With the 4.10, I turn 2,000 rpm at 65mph. A 3.73 in the same vehicle turns 2,000 rpm at 70mph, so you can drive a tad faster and turn the same rpm (and get about the same mileage in this case). For me, at 70mph, it's maybe 2,300, and from there on up, my mileage starts dropping fast. Driving 75mph (almost 2,500 rpm and more wind resistance) rather than 65mph makes my mileage drop about 10%.
When I bought it new, I didn't really care about mileage. Now, 5 years later, I do. A couple years ago, I thought about changing the gearing, but it's a 4x4 so I'd have to change them in both the front and rear differentials. Besides, I tend to not drive over 65mph, unless I'm holding up traffic, so it wouldn't really be that much of an advantage for my mpg and it may even be a disadvantage for the reasons mentinoed above (it would downshift more on hills and towing, and wouldn't shift into overdrive as soon for slower 40mph-around-town driving). So currently, I'm happy with the gearing and don't even think about changing it now. I get 20mpg at 65mph so no complaints.
A gear swap might make sense for others, though, depending on your vehicle, the speeds you drive, and if you spend more time in city or hwy driving.
The purpose of an oil company, coal company, trucking company, drug, computer, food, clothing ... is to increase the wealth of the owners - the shareholders. People do not risk their money putting it into a corp.'s stock simply for the societal purpose of giving the product away for the cost of producing it.
I want any business I invest in to charge the most it can for the product it offers - whether it be oil, heart medication, or paper-towels. If the corporation does not perform well, I'm likely to withdraw my money and put it in a business that is making better profits.
The reality of the situation is that there is not enough oil for everyone who wants oil, and the way the supply is divvied up is fair, by selling it to those who are willing to pay the most for it.
Maybe there's enough oil for 1 billion out of the 6 billion people in the world?
You have a few options at this point: 1) make more or get a better job, 2) use less, 3) find an alternative fuel, or 4) divert $ from some other expenditure (cable TV, cell phone, lottery as some common examples).
So if you want to stay in the group of 1 billion (est.) people who get oil, you need to figure out what you're going to do to stay there. And consider that others around the world are gaining on you when you hear of their economies growing, AND the value of the $ declining.
Exxon or any other oil company does not owe you the right to cheap oil. If you want oil/gasoline pay the price, or it will be sold to someone else. The U.S. government also doesn't owe you that right.
Hmm, so maybe $800 total, labor included, isn't so evil, then? And at least they were willing to do it. I know another mechanic, who specializes in older cars, but he said he wouldn't even mess with my New Yorker's rear end. He suggested a more ham-boned approach...find out if there are any older Mopar cars that used the 8 3/4 rear, and had the same spring perch (or close, at least) as an R-body. Then get one of those and put it on, and then throw in a center carrier with whatever gear ratio I want. I dunno if that would really be any cheaper, though. But if I didn't like whatever ratio I had in there, it wouldn't be that hard to swap it, for something else.
The main thing about gear swaps is taking the time to properly set the ring and pinion themselves. It involves a lot of trial-and-error with various shim thicknesses and being very anal about getting things just right. It can chew up a lot of time, and some people don't want to mess with it.
I won't sell our current boat, we were thinking of going bigger and I don't think I'll do that now. Current boat is 21' w/ a fuel injected 270hp 305 v8 w/ 35 gallon tank. It's really not that bad on gas as long as I keep the rpm at 3000rpm (32mph) or less. A few hours of skiing and tubing might cost $30, not a big deal.
But moving up to a bigger boat with a big block would certainly increase the gas bill.
1995 1.28
1996 1.35
1997 1.30
1998 1.30
1999 1.48
2000 1.42
2001 1.46
2002 1.32
2003 1.60
2004 1.82
2005 1.93
2006 2.21
2007 2.29
2008 2.99
Mar 15 3.62
Since gas has risen 2.78 times since 1994, how much has your income risen?
How much has your home risen in value?
Perhaps the real problem is not the price of gas.
Yes, I remember blowing out my '72 Duster's diff at college (don't ask me how, with all of 198 CID!), pulled the cover, quickly discovered it wasn't a parking lot kind of repair. Instead, I went to the junk yard, they had a dozen to pick from, so I bought one for $35 (year ago, of course), and swapped it out in the dorm lot. It was a lower (numeric) ratio, so I had to replace the spedometer gear in the transmission, but that was easy. These days, I don't know how many junk yards have rear axles in stock, but it'd much preferred to trying to swap out actual ring gear/pinion sets.
That's a huge industry that has a very dark future. Not only that but all the ancillary businesses that are associated with it are going to suffer. Depending on income levels and yes even availability pleasure boating may shrink only to a very well-to-do few.
Then when the wind picks up and the rowers are not needed do you still have to pay them via some Jobs Bank program? Way to inefficient methinks.
LOL, with all those oars that need tended to, that would be a lot of mouths to feed:)
How much has your home risen in value?
Actually a lot more than 2.78x. I entered the work force after college in '95 got married in 96. Our income has risen almost 6x since then.
By your description, it sounds like your V6 likes to run closer to the sweet spot rpm of a V8. Actually, I think I've only owned one V6 in my life, and that was in an 87 Thunderbird with the digital dash and no tach, and I never worried about mileage with that. On the other hand, I've owned many a inline 6, in pickups and cars and they seem to have a sweet spot about 1,000 rppm higher than a V8. My wifes car has an inline6 and 5speed manual and gets the same mileage at 55mph (around 2,000rpm) as it does at 70 (3,000 rpm) and that is over 30mpg. Mileage doesn't really start to fall off until almost 80mph.
"The gear swap and 30% overdrive would knock it down to around 1500 rpm, which is a lot nicer and just below the torque peak. The heaviest thing I'd ever tow is a car trailer, and the V6 is a dead-flat torque monster anyway so I don't think the taller gear would hurt it any. "
The combo of taller geared dif plus the addition of an overdrive sounds like a great solution for you. Those times that you need the extra 'go' (like while towing), you just take it out of overdrive.
They used to make a quick swap, reversible rear dif for common rear ends. I can't remember the details, but you could pull out the guts and flip them around in an hour or so. That resulted in having two gearing options (though it took time to switch it). You'd get a deep gear with it installed one way, like a 4.16, and a tall gear installed the other way, like a 2.72 or 2.18. Not a bad option to have, but not as good as something that can be used on the fly.
Having more tranny gears is a better solution in the quest for lower rpm and better mileage. Some cars now have two gears that are overdrives. That allows for deeper dif gearing, but still a reasonable cruising rpm. Many aftermarket tranny's offer the same thing. The top overdrive isn't meant to be used until you are at interstate speeds because it's such a high gear. I wish more production cars would offer the same, though it takes a pretty powerful engine to overcome the high gearing. Also, many automatic trannies are now 6 or 7 speeds instead of 4, in an attempt to allow the engine to stay in it's most efficient rpm range.
That's a huge industry that has a very dark future. Not only that but all the ancillary businesses that are associated with it are going to suffer. Depending on income levels and yes even availability pleasure boating may shrink only to a very well-to-do few.
I don't agree. The boating industry has survived every downturn and even the 70's fuel crisis and all the other economic issues of the 70's. Sure, some boat builders may go out of business, but many will survive. Last I checked their are plenty of pleasure boaters in Europe paying $7+ gallon.
No doubt some will get out because of costs, but in general boaters and RVer's are a dedicated bunch that love the activity. Last year we put 50 engine hours on the boat, but probably 4 times that amount actually enjoying it. I keep track of my boat costs in Quicken and we spent $450 on gas last year and that was boating on most weekends from June to Sept. At this rate, gas could double to $7/gal and I still wouldn't change how I use it. May not tow it as far though.
As far as efficiency, true, pushing a 3000lb+ boat at 40mph takes a lot of fuel, but rarely do I ever hop in the boat to go from point a to point b. MPG don't mean a lot (unless you are going to a specific spot), but gallons per hour do. If I'm at idle, I burn a bit less than a gallon an hour. At WOT I'll burn over 20gph. Pulling my daughters on a tube at 20-25 mph will burn about 4-5gph. The smiles on their faces and that of their friends makes it worth every penny.
BTW, the local lake near us still has over a year wait for a boat slip.
I'd bet he's talking about GMs 4.3 which is a 350 minus two cylinders. I had that engine in my previous boat and it had tons of torque under 3000rpm. I never liked how it sounded when being pushed, but never complained about lack of torque.