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
Nah, he's talking about one of those REAL GMC V-6es. Not sure of the exact year, but one of the 60-degree units from the 60's.
My uncle has the 4.3 Chevy V-6 in his '97 Silverado. Considering the size and weight of that truck (extended cab, with a camper shell on the back), I was always impressed with its blend of performance and economy. You're right though...they don't sound too exotic when you stomp on 'em!
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
LOL - if a 20 mph pace is called "racing" I'd win a lot of events. That's casual cruising speed for a 100-mile race. 25 mph minimum or you’re riding solo off the back.
I've done 24 hour endurance races (different than the above), averaging around 18 mph, and consumed a little over 300 calories per hour.
Who came up with this list – AARP magazine?
Again, I’ll have to disagree on that one. A 20 lb bicycle has 0.5% of the weight of a 3,500 lb car. A 3,500 lb car has 7% of the weight of a 50,000 lb semi.
Not even considering the hp factor at the wheels (we can touch on that tomorrow), a car has a much higher weight applied to the road surface than the bicycle.
Any road surface wear and tear caused by a 20 lb bicycle is minute when compared to the average car.
He wishes he'd done this 5 years ago when gas was cheaper; maybe he'd have it out of his system. But he's really not changing his lifestyle all that much at $4 a gallon gas.
Not even considering the hp factor at the wheels (we can touch on that tomorrow), a car has a much higher weight applied to the road surface than the bicycle.
Yeah, but keep in mind the weight of the driver/rider. For instance, I weigh about 200 pounds. So that 200 lb bike is now a 220 lb bike, while the 3500 lb car is now a 3700 lb car. So suddenly that bike+rider is now 6% of the weight of the car+driver.
Then, figure that with the bike, I'm putting down 110 pounds of pressure per tire, whereas with the car, I'm putting down 925 pounds of pressure per tire. And car tires have a larger contact area than a bicycle tire, so the actual PSI might not be that far off.
Still, I can't see a bike doing any harm to a road, unless it's a really hot day and the asphalt has gotten soft.
Anyway, the correlation of road wear to vehicle weight isn't a linear one. A 6,000 pounds SUV isn't going to automatically do 3x more damage to the road than a 2000 lb subcompact. Now on some streets that aren't designed for heavy traffic, it actually might, but not on any road that's designed to handle a school bus, garbage truck, fire engine, etc.
That is currently being addressed. I think '08 or '09 not sure, but I know catalysts are on the way to clean up the exhaust
It has always been said that a boat is a hole in the water you throw money into.
I think that the biggest threat to the boating industry will emissions standards.
I think the biggest threat to the boating industry is boaters themselves. I spent two boat seasons on a Coast Guard small boat station and I still wonder how some boaters survive their hobby.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I don't see boating getting hurt that much.
It is much better to have a boat with your kids and friends skiing behind it on a nearby lake than having your kids boored behind the front seat on a long road trip.
The key for us now is that we live in a community where everything is within 4-5 miles. Work is 2 miles away - a 6 minute commute. How much is your time worth?
We use about 40 gallons of RUG a month, a bit more if we take a trip.
A high salary minus high expenses might be equal to a moderate salary minus low expenses. Just a thought. :shades:
Give me a break. I've been boating nearly my whole life and have never come close to a serious accident.
No doubt their are idiots on the lake, but how did they get there or home? The roads and that's just as scary.
There were nearly 14 million registered boats in 2005 (latest figures I could easily find) 3,451 persons were reported injured and 697 died in boating incidents. Most of those deaths could have been prevented if the deceased would have been wearing a life jacket. Hardly a high risk activity. I'm far more likely to get hurt or killed towing my boat to the lake than I am on it.
Hell, more people died choking on their food.
Hong Kong: liter of gas is about $12 to $15 HK per liter, about $7 per gallon US
Taiwan: liter of gas is about $ 25 NT per liter, about $4 per gallon US
Japan: liter of gas is about $120 to $150 Yen, about $6.70 per gallon...
sorry about rough math...
lots of small cars , small SUVs, small minivans, and small wagons in Asia.
just a small view point from my trip. We took the subway or train most of the time.
Which part of the 70s? Here's why I ask:
I started driving in the 1984. Gasoline cost $1.20, which was quite expensive. Minimum wage was $3.35. Now, gasoline is $3.20, and minimum wage is $5.85.
So between 1984 and now, gas has almost tripled, but min. wage has not even doubled. That's a bad ratio.
But consider this; a year after I started driving, in 1985, the price of oil crashed. That same gasoline in October 1985 only cost 65 cents. Meanwhile, minimum wage remained at $3.35. So by that perspective, even though it looked great then, it makes today's prices look even worse -- gas quintupled while min. wage less than doubled.
That's why economic nostalgia gets tricky -- prices vary, wages vary, and then someone brings up inflation, the rate of which nobody can agree on. Then the whole discussion degenerates into a debate about economic theory.
Anyway, we can all agree that gas prices suck today, and they'll probably get worse in years to come. But for a reference to previous decades, I like to use the minimum wage as a constant for comparison to gas prices.
Today's minimum hourly wage will buy 1.8 gallons.
In 1998, minimum wage ($5.15) would buy 5 gallons.
In 1985, min. wage ($3.35) would buy 5 gallons.
In 1984, min. wage ($3.35) would buy 2.8 gallons.
For further reference, you can use this historical chart of minimum wage:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html
Then compare it to this chart of gas prices (California -- slightly inflated):
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
It's interesting to see how your recollections compare to the actual numbers. Also, it'll be interesting the next few years, as minimum wage increases this July to $6.55, then next July to $7.25.
We'll see if it keeps pace with gasoline prices.
.
I don't know if using minimum wage is a good gauge to measure fuel prices or not. Most people earn more than minimum wage. Even my first job in HS paid more than minimum wage. in 1987, minimum wage as you mentioned was 3.35 and the store I worked at had starting wages of 3.65. My Senior year of HS I was @6.60/hr working part-time stocking shelves which as a HS student I was making almost double minimum wage. I moved up or down (depending on how you look at it) to a Ford Escort getting 30mpg, so my fuel costs went down and the rest of my money went towards chasing the opposite sex, which we all know gas prices pale in comparison. LOL
I think a better comparision would be gas price vs. median wage. But even that is difficult as taxes, insurance deductions and such have changed over the years.
But even if this ratio was the same, do gas prices have the same effect on your budget? probably no, and here's the factor you're missing - we typically drive more these days! More miles/year. That is a factor of more 2-income families, and the sprawl of suburbs.
I think the desire for people to have a larger house on their own lot of land, thus needing 2 incomes, thus causing driving in different directions, has led to increased driving. I think a lot of people have set their lives up such that they now need to drive.
So who's fault is it if you bought a 20mpg vehicle, live 25 miles from work, have to run the kids around to their activities, and can't even walk to a grocery store? Who's fault is it if you don't read the news and understand the economic changes in the world, or the fact that resources aren't unlimited?
Being as this film is 4 years old, one of my favorite parts is when it describes peoples reaction as petroleum prices start going up. To paraphrase one gentlemen, he basically says that when gas hits $4/gallon, people are going to look for a scapegoat. Someone to blame. They complain to the government to do something. They complain to the oil companies that they are charging too much and are unfair. They won't take personal responsibly for their consumption and lifestyle. They won't understand global demand or what we are in for once oil production passes peek. So here we are 4 years later listening to folks doing just that.
Another film that discusses peak oil is A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash
Both "The End of Suburbia" and "A Crude Awakening" are available from Netflix and other rental places, too, if you don't want to buy them. They are worth a look and will put things in perspective, because if people think they have gas and oil issues now, in 10 years they are going to be looking back on 2008 and saying "I can't believe we were complaining when gas was only $4.00 a gallon".
Here's one north of Dallas: http://www.rayzorranch.com/index.php
So it looks like the market agrees that suburbia is not sustainable. People are tired of cookie-cutter houses and having to drive everywhere every day.
.
On the one hand fuel is very insigficant even at $3+ per gallon for incomes 30X higher than the 70's, but on the other hand those that are restricted to minimum wage or slightly above it fuel is a huge expense.
In most retail outlets the typical wage is $10/hr for a well established worker.
Single, no dependents, 40 hours = $400 gross weekly..Net is about $300 weekly
or about $1250 monthly.
Housing............ $300 ( shared )
Food................ $300
Clothing............ $100
Utilities............. $150
Transportation... $450 ( used compact with good FE )
.. Auto ..$250
.. Ins.....$100
.. Fuel...$100
Excess............( $50 )
Obviously the solution is advance to a higher income level. Equally obvious is that such an advancement is not at all easy for certain entire segments of our society.
Yep. That is definitely a good first step and will help get folks more used to the idea that they don't need to travel so far on a daily basis (because they won't be able to, anyway, in 15 or 20 years). But I think the big picture, and long term reality of a "post-peak oil world", is Walmart and Target won't do you much good because they are not going to have goods from abroad. Fuel costs will prevent China and other countries from shipping us goods. Goods may not even be able to be trucked across the US. That would take too much fuel and the road system isn't even sustainable in the really long term (say 50 years) mainly because the economy isn't going to be able to pay for it.
Micro-economies are going to have to develop where goods are grown or created closer to where they are used. Energy, like electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil, gas, and diesel are not going to be available in the quantities they are now and the price is going to be such that most folks will only be able to use the bare minimum.
The biggest impact of the global oil supply peaking is our economy and that is going to be what really cripples most folks.
Note that hitting peak oil doesn't mean we all of a sudden run out. It means that the world has hit the maximum volume of output in a year. Production levels off and then we start down the other side so production levels begin to fall. Economic expansion requires an increase of energy consumption each year. A leveled economy relies on a steady supply at current prices. The only economic result, in the US and abroad, that can result from a decrease of supply AND an increase in unit cost is a downturn in economic growth.
Peak oil scares the heck out of me and it should out of everyone, but most choose to ignore it and that will only make us less prepared. Everyone ignored Hubbert when, in the 50's, he predicted peak oil in the US would occur in the 70's. It happened. His process has been used to predict the peak in countries around the world. Most areas of the world have already peaked. That leaves the middle east. Once the middle-east hits peak oil, the world hits peek oil because they are the last large source (the other sources people talk about are, in reality, drops in the bucket compared to the middle east and won't really impact the global oil market).
Hubbert's Peak
So far, no one has scientifically disputed that there will be a global oil peak. The experts only disagree if we've hit it yet or not. But even those that think we haven't hit it are saying we will in the next 10 or 15 years. Folks need to check into this and really realize that things are going to change in a big way in the future. We can ignore it and have it be a major emergency, or we can take this reality and start working towards solutions.
I agree with some of what you said, and generally agree with your posts. However as a chemical engineer, I think that is a little pessimistic. Most hydrocarbon fuels are interchangeable for most purposes. The basic science and technology is there; it's just a matter of sustained economics - meaning a good assurance the price will stay high, before they are processed. So I tend to lump oil, natural gas, coal, and all the tar-sands (oil-shale) together.
You can fuel vehicles similar to what we have today with either natural oil, coal coverted to oil, or change the engine slightly to run on LNG.
So Peak Oil is not a threat in itself, it is an inconvenience, that would cause us to gradually move to other fuels. The real problem is in 200 years or so, when these combined fuels are depleted. But I wouldn't worry about that either as knowledge is increasing exponentially, and we don't have a good idea of our physical universe yet - dark matter and dark energy for example make up most of the universe!
Our ancestors were faced with a shortage of whales for whale oil too; before they found they were literally standing on great amounts of untapped energy.
No, you cannnot drive to visit clients.
No, you cannot buy more than 15 gal per week.
No, you cannot get to your family on the Holidays
No, you cannot get away on vacation to the shore
This is the worst of the worst IMO but some parts of this belt-tightening may begine to affect all of us sooner rather than later.
But.. we are very resilient, with a huge wealth of creativity and luckily a huge wealth of resources. Our capitalistic system of doing business is also a huge factor in our favor as well.
Alt-fuels has the potential to make a lot of people immensely wealth. Thus where there is money to be made, huge gobs of money, our creativity and wealth of resources should do us very well in the long run. Biodiesel from algae and celluosic ethanol and bio-butanol as well as EREV and PHEV technology using our coal, nuclear and hydroelectic power will certainly surpass oil sometime mid century. This will keep us 'on the road' so to speak.
Once we make all or most of our own fuel then the pricing doesn't matter much. Then it's just a normal market transaction within our own borders.
Let's add a ton of rolling inertia, excess weight, and rolling resistance from the tires, to cancel out the benefits of the hybrid drivetrain.
...
"Now that's just dumb. Let's add a ton of rolling inertia, excess weight, and rolling resistance from the tires, to cancel out the benefits of the hybrid drivetrain. "
Come on, now. I doubt it makes that much of a difference. It probably still gets better mileage than a Camry Hybrid, so if the person wants to put chrome wheels on their prius because they like the look, I say more power to them. Compare their mileage to a Tahoe or '64 impala with 20" chrome mags. Or any of the small twin turbo sports hatchbacks on the market. As a matter of fact, their chrome-wheeled prius is probably getting better mileage than EVERY other car on the road except other Prius with stock wheels. Disagree with the style if you want, but don't rip on them like they are driving a gas guzzler. They are probably getting better gas mileage than you.
I totally agree with you about "too good an energy source would be bad; as there are people who like to blow things up"! The other bad side effect would be people going back to their wasteful ways.
To expand on two items they touch on briefly, the dam that was created to hold back the toxic waste if of real concern. Any wastes that leak from these holding areas, or a dam failure, would result in entire fish stocks being wiped out since it impacts some major salmon spawning rivers. Also the impacts to ground water.
The second item of interest is the amount of natural gas and water used to extract the oil. Natural gas is alreay in short supply and using it to extract another type of energy rather than using the natural gas itself as energy is an issue. As is the amount of water used in this process.
Article below:
------------
Alberta’s Tar Sands: One of the Most Destructive Projects on Earth
One of the Most Destructive Projects on Earth
Located beneath 4.3 million hectares of boreal forest, an area the size of Florida, the tar sands are the dirtiest source of oil in the world. Few Canadians know what is happening in northern Alberta. While many may know about Alberta’s immense oil reserves in the tar sands (2nd only to Saudi Arabia) few know the environmental and social devastation that is taking place.The tar sands could destroy over 149,000 square kilometres or Boreal forest an area the size of Florida.
By 2020 they are expected to emit more than 141 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – more than double that currently produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada. Alberta is now home to the world’s largest dam and it is built to hold the toxic waste from just one Tar Sands operation.The tar sands of Alberta are now the world’s largest industrial operation. Because of their sheer scale, all Canadians have become hostage to their development. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is quickly increasing them and fully half of that emissions growth is projected to come from the Tar Sands.
This is just beginning. The Alberta government has already given approvals that will double the size of existing operations, and has been talking with the US government to grow the Tar Sands five-fold in a “short time span” looking to move from 1 million barrels of oil per day to over 5 million The Tar Sands are now the biggest capital project anywhere on Earth and the biggest energy undertaking anywhere.With the Tar Sands, Canada has become the world’s dirty energy superpower.
A few quick facts:
• The Tar Sands can single handedly prevent Canada from meeting it’s international obligations under the Kyoto protocol. By 2020 the tar sands are expected to release over 141 megatonnes of GHG – twice that produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
• An area the size of the state of Florida (149,000 km2) can be leased to oil sands development in the future.
• It takes 3-5 barrels of fresh water to get a single barrel of oil from the tar sands. 350 million cubic metres is the volume of water currently allocated to the tar sands, the equivalent to the water required by a city of two million people.
• Cumulatively, the environmental impact of the tar sands has made Alberta the industrial air pollution capital of Canada, with one billion kilograms of emissions in 2003.
• 600 million cubic feet of Natural gas is used every day – that’s enough to heat more than three million Canadian homes.
• First Nation communities downstream of tar sands operation have been experiencing unprecedented rates of bile and colon cancer, lupus and other diseased that they believe are attributable to tar sands.
• 70% of the crude oil being extracted from the tar sands is exported directly to the United States mostly for use in transportation.
I guarantee you my used (recycled?) Miata wastes far less energy overall.
How insightful!
About the same amount as if they were made for any other car.
My point was people are slamming someone, driving a prius, for having chrome wheels and calling them idiots because they may or may not be getting the same mileage as the stock rims and tires. Yet the prius driver is still driving a vehicle that gets better mileage than most of the people on this bulletin board...even with a trunk of poop, according to some.
No I didn't. And I don't think peak oil will bring it to a "screeching halt" either. It will be more gradual. Oil production is not going to abruptly stop. It will be a delining curve.
There are few things that ever could 'halt' an economy. It will still be an economy, but quite a bit different than one based on cheap oil as it is today.
How so?
Are you talking from the vehicle's creation until it's destruction? If so, you can't say that until you know the total number of miles both vehicles are used in their life time, so we can't compare that. And even that would have to be averaged out over a hundred of each make/model to be fair because something like a car accident that totals the vehicle would skew the "useful life".
Are we talking simply on a mpg basis? The prius wins.
Dollar value? As in cost per mile? Including wear items like brakes, tires, oil changes, gas, wiper blades, other parts? Again, that would be over the life of the vehicle so no way to compare that until both vehicles are out of service.
Modern toyota's are made in 'zero waste' plants. I don't know about your '93 Mazda. Do we know that one of the two vehicles took significantly less amount of energy to manufacture? What was the location of the manufacturing plant? Was the vehicle made locally or shipped from overseas? Either could win that comparison.
So in what way does your Miata "waste far less energy" than a prius? I won't even take you up on your "guarantee". I just want to know the parameters before continuing with the discussion.
the ice cap will melt and flood 60% of the world population
the iraq war will bankrupt america
the olagallah aquifer will be empty soon
lake mead is disappearing
the hoover dam will collapse soon
the subprime mess will send us into a depression
thistle weed will overtake the entire US soon
the entire west's forests will be killed by the boring beetle
asian bird flu will kill 50% of us
fire ants will cover the whole US
unemployment will continue spiking up past 5.1%
N.O. will never be rebuilt
Carp will ruin the great lakes
zebra mussels will ruin every lake in US
the next hurricane season will be more active than normal
climate change will drive people out of coastal cities
China is working on stealing our last 3 secure military secrets
ethanol production will consume all our aquifers
The leaking nuke subs will destroy the entire North sea fishing
giant net fishing is already harvesting the last 9% of the world's fish supply
No airlines are following maintenance guidelines
Does Al quaida even need to be targeting us? Aren't we on a sure path to total destruction as it is?
"The average price of regular unleaded jumped more than a penny to a national average of $3.303 a gallon"
Gas sets second straight record high (CNN)
A Closer Look at the Scooter
Test #1: Aggressive Driving (heavy acceleration, lots of passing) vs. Moderate Driving
The Cold Hard Facts: Average savings of 31 percent
Test #2: Lower Speeds (65 mph vs. 80 mph)
Cold Hard Facts: Average savings of 12 percent
Test #3: Use Cruise Control
Cold Hard Facts: Average savings of 7 percent
Test #4: A/C On, Windows Up vs. A/C Off, Windows Down
Cold Hard Facts: No measurable difference
Test #5: Check Your Tire Pressure
Cold Hard Facts: No measurable effect
Test #6: Avoid Excessive Idling
Cold Hard Facts: Avoiding excessive idling can save up to 19 percent
.
On the 65 vs 80 mph being 12 percent. That is an average? I would expect a V8 truck to lose 15% and a civic to lose maybe 8%. 8% off of the 34 mpg of the civic is 2.7 mpg loss. The 15% for the truck is a 2.4 mpg loss. Problem is that time is money, now more than ever. Will we have more free time or less free time when oil runs out? I think less because it takes 3 hours to take the city bus to walmart and back, a distance of 10 miles total. Walking takes 4 hours.
I think I grabbed a cab once in that time, but I only had $5 in cash so that ride only cut my total walk in half (was running late for an appointment that day). This was back before most cabs started taking VISA/MC.
If anything, if I'd had a scooter during those years, I would have burnt more gas since I would have been driving to all my errands. I could see myself cruising downtown on one with my snowboard slung across my back and then hitching up the road to the ski hill. :shades: