As long as it is set aside as future reserves I have no problem. What has happened is it has become a holy place for so many environmental groups. Of course they don't bother to go up and see it. Even Jimmy Carter on his trip just went fishing and left. If this was some special part of the Arctic Tundra, I could understand. I defy anyone to fly over the Arctic from Barrow to the Canadian Border and pick out anything unique. ANWR is an old idea. It was [non-permissible content removed] for tat when the Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside in 1923. It had nothing to do with ANWR being some special place in the Arctic. It is not another Yosemite or Yellowstone. The truth of the matter, it is a very small piece of ANWR that is of interest for oil production.
I believe if Congress were to say, OK we will allow drilling in that small corner of ANWR that has known reserves it would be a psychological hit to the market. Though I do not see it going down much below $60-$70 per barrel. It would be at least 10 years before oil would start flowing if the law was signed today. The oil companies are going great guns in the NPR. Who knows how long that will last. Probably 30 years at the current million barrels per day.
Most Americans would be happy with $3 gas again. We have been spoiled for so long it is hard to face reality.
Actually his 5 year energy task force did make its report to him last July.
Cliff notes: There's lots of energy available but all the easy energy is identified and underdevelopment. The rest available ranges from very expensive to ridiculously expensive to extract and develop.
We are using our energy faster than it can be replaced....get the American public out of it's SUVs.
BTW, not surprisingly Al Gore was not given the chairmanship of this task force. The largest number of participants in the task force were the oil industry experts themselves.
As one sports announcer in NY used to say...'You can look it up.'
What are the revised figures for the 1989 Cadillac Brougham w / 5.0 V-8?
Lemko, the EPA figures on your Brougham's window sticker should have been 17/24. The downward-revised 2008 numbers have it down to 15/22.
The old-fashioned raw, unadjusted numbers, which is what they published from 1978-84, have it at a respectable 19/30.
If anything, that shows how far cars advanced during that timeframe, with regards to fuel economy. My '79 NYer, with its 360-2bbl, I'm estimating was around 14/22 (using the 1978 midsized numbers), while your Brougham, a car of similar size and weight, is 19/30 using those same raw numbers. A lot of the highway improvement is probably a result of the Brougham's overdrive automatic. However, computer controls advanced quite a bit in that timeframe as well, which I'm sure helped. Plus, the 307 uses a 4-bbl carb which probably has smaller primaries, which would make it pretty efficient as long as you keep your foot out of it.
The bottom line is that European and Asian taxpayers are not paying taxes to support the U.S. military - which is ensuring the stability of the region that supplies most of their oil. If anyone is getting a free ride because of U.S. military spending to protect the Middle East, it is them, not us.
Also note that if transportation costs make it less feasible for the U.S. to import large amounts of Middle Eastern oil, one would make the same case for European and Asian countries buying large amounts of South American, Mexican and Canadian oil. We are ensuring the reliability of oil supplies located near them. Which further benefits them.
I kind of look at ANWR as a defacto set aside reserve. Sure we call it off limits but that only goes for a long as the public in general supports that. There will be a time when opinion turns and drilling there becomes the popular opinion. Once it's started there will be no turning back even if opinion changes again. I can live with that.
One Senator is now saying if we'd done that ten years ago we wouldn't have this mess. I don't know. Yeah, we'd be extracting oil from there now and that would mean cheaper gas but it would also mean depleting yet more of our reserves when the post-oil economy is nowhere in sight. Whether or not it is the intention of the anti-ANWR folks to have a big reserve that we know we can grab if needed that is the net effect of what we're doing.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Ooh, I just realized something I'd better clarify. That $59-60 worth of beer is for the whole house. I have two roommates. I don't want you guys thinking I'm that much of an alkie! :P
thank you Kias and Hyundai are well represented, but are facing hard competition from the korean made GM cars (Buick Excelle, HRV, Aveo, Epica..) the japanese and the Chinese local brands. They are doing OK but are still challengers.
Price of Gas in China is cheaper than in the US, especially the High sulfur diesel sold over there (to stay on topic) . Car usage is simply exploding. Gas hikes will do little to slow this down. Everyone want a car and rail transport is inexistant if we leave major cities out of the picture.
That was really my point - both parties are screwing up on the oil front. They screw up on loads of fronts because it is a game to them. They are all far past the point where the price of gas means anything to them.
Since the US has become a net importer of oil we've had presidents and Congresses of both parties in all combination and have yet to come up with a coherent plan to drastically reduce our oil consumption. As long as this remains so we will have fluctuations and a steadily rising cost.
I think that you're asking the wrong question here. So many people here over and over have said 'Let the market decide' and I agree wholeheartedly. I think that the politicians are doing just that. There is no good reason for fuel prices to be moderated in the least. They should float to the level where it hurts us and then we do something about it. The market is the great equalizer. If we really start conserving and if we really begin to innovate to find alternate sources for fuel when it hits $6 or more then this is the most efficient way to find solutions.
However there is another issue that simply won't go away and this does require governmental 'influence'. Our population and our usage will be significantly greater in the decade of the 20's. The petro-fuel to feed that usage is just not available, ANWR is not the 'silver bullet' solution. According to EIA the total proved reserves in the US is 21 Billion bbl. That's only 3 years usage at today's rates. Consider that our 'cookie jar' oil, Rainy day oil. Our IRA oil. Something we've put away 'just-in- case'.
The fact is that in 15-20 yrs we will need 20-30% more oil than we do today if we continued with today's technologies and today's usage rates per person. As noted from the President's Energy Task Force report last July that easy oil is not there to feed this growth; North Sea, Mexico and some fields in Saudi Arabia are in decline as are all our own mature sources. Getting and devloping the new sources of oil will be hellaciously expensinve ( price increases at the pump ) and unsure ( potential shortfalls = rationing ) and may be subject to unfriendly political influences ( price increases + rationing ). OH then there's China, India and Asia. They may outbid us for our own ANWR oil. How ironic.
One of the masons working on a project I have is an older gentleman of very few words.... A very good listener and then just comes out with a bombshell of pure clarity after listening to the conversation for a while.
There was great conversation about the price of fuel with discourse and he listened intently to the argument flying back and forth and then remarked;
"If oil is in such sort supply and gasoline, how come there's no (expletive deleted) gas lines? Shouldn't there be gas lines? The price goes up and up like we have a tight supply like that time with the embargo in the '70's but there's no line of cars with people carrying gas cans?"
He had a point.
A casual drive (if you can afford it) going by a gas station pretty much illustrates his point..... The place is dead. Even more comically - I went by a station the other day that had a tanker truck with a drop off, at rush hour.... There was one car getting gas at one of those superstations with a gazillion pumps. Doesn't appear to be a shortage to this casual observer and if I may say so..... A GLUT of gasoline supply..
Who ever is into oil futures right now (and now apparently, a correlation with hedge funds also) has got a lot of explaining to do at a date in the near future, and hopefully, a grand reckoning.. I also hope they lose their shirt on this - futures speculation requires a call, bad or good, that a supply will tighten or lessen. I do not recall any hurricanes or problems with refineries as of late or, a tightened supply of crude.
The "Chindia" argument?.... Talk to the hand - they still don't have the infrastructure, someday sure, but not yet..... Increased petroleum consumption is still only up to the relative few in those countries.
It is true what he says to a point but you know why prices are rising? Because you and I and he and all of us reading this thread agree implicitly to pay the next higher price while doing little or nothing about it. We are the key players in this whole equation, supply, demand, sellers, buyers. If we don't pay the higher prices then they can't climb as fast as they are.
Yes there may be no absolute shortage of fuel. Yes we may be able to pump all that we wish - today. But it is a fact that fuel is tight and we have to outbid other buyers for the right to burn it. This is the key fact.
All of us here are agreeing to outbid the rest of the world for the right to burn oil so that we can drive the vehicle of our choice as much as we want. We all know that $1.00 gallon was too low. $3.00 a gallon makes us sit up. $4.00 per gallon makes us begin to look for ways to conserve..... but that's it. We for the most part are still driving our 1990's technology vehicles. We all accept this and the producers and marketers ( and speculators ) know this. We will pay to keep doing what we want. We will in fact outbid the rest of the world so that we can drive what we wish as long as we wish.
The market is performing perfectly and efficiently.
Your 'Chindia' argument is flawed because of one simple factor. The weight of big numbers. Population-wise China is 5 times larger than we are and India is 3 times larger. If......both countries only had 5% of their citizens driving in 2000 ( I'm guessing here admittedly ) vs the US where it's probably 50-60% this gives the following estimates of usage.
US = 60% of 300 million = 180 million drivers versus.. Chindia 2000 = 5% of 1,800 million = 90 million drivers Chindia 2010 = 10% of 1,800 million = 180 million drivers and that's just those two countries. My guess is that both of these numers is too low. But look at what the upside demand is if it's true? If only 20% of their combined populations drove they would have twice as many vehicles on the road using fuel as we do. That's where all the fuel will go. That's who we have to outbid to keep getting our share.
If I could get 30 MPG from the Brougham, I'd be driving it out to Carlisle every time!
Actually, in the right conditions, you might actually be able to get close to that. Back when my grandparents' '85 LeSabre was still fairly new, they drove it cross-country. On one desert stretch, they averaged 29 mpg. And this is with the 307/4bbl, 4-speed overdrive automatic, 2.73:1 rear end. Although that LeSabre was probably about 500 pounds less than your Brougham (but had two people and a bunch of luggage in it).
Now this was back when we still had the 55 mph speed limit, and Granddad usually only drove about 55-60. So, in flat desert driving at a constant speed, I guess it's possible. This was also in the springtime, so the weather was mild. Not cold enough to affect the car's performance, but not hot enough to require the a/c.
Whenever I drove that car though, about the best I'd get out of it was maybe 22. And when I'd use it occasionally to deliver pizzas, more like 14-15.
On the NY/NJ border at every gas station there are gas lines every day. There are more islands to service cars at each one but it looks like the Mexican border except with cars!
Yes, Rebecca, there will always be gas lines...until we upgrade to ELECTRIC LINES!
Inhofe added. “...I said on the Senate floor that day 10 years ago that in 10 years we would regret this. It’s now 10 years later.”
Hmm, not sure who the "we" is in Inhofe's diatribe, but I sure don't regret that they didn't drill in ANWR. As others stated, it wouldn't make much of a difference, and even if it did, it would just prolong the waste of oil and lack of transition to alternate and renewable energy sources. Some people just don't get it.
You need to recheck your facts about GM's EV-1. There was HUGE demand. There were waiting lists. There was plenty of interest but GM scrapped the program. None of the cars were ever sold. They were all originally leased. When the leases expired, everyone tried to buy the cars and instead, GM took them back and crushed them.
"The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. "
I agree that electric-only cars are not for everyone. The limiting range being the biggest issue. But many families have two vehicles anyway and most driving is a lot less than 80 miles a day. Even if an electric was your only vehicles, a person could rent a car for longer trips. Again, it wouldn't work for everyone, but statistically, the range would work for most or at least fit into the needs of a two car household.
Your numbers aren't far off. As of last year, the rate of car ownership in China was 20 cars per 1000 population.
In the U.S. it was well over 600 cars per 1000.
The Chinese government is now reining in the white-hot economic growth they have over there, so we won't see the Chinese market continue to expand at the double digit rates it has been the last few years. But in 10 years, 20 at the most, it is very likely that the annual car sales in China will exceed those of the U.S., making it the #1 market in the world. (Last year's sales were around 6 million, IIRC)
When that many car drivers hit the roads of China, I suuuure hope they are all driving hybrids or small-displacement clean-diesels, because we are going to have one HECK of a time as a planet meeting their oil needs, without even taking into account the EXISTING demand on oil.
And all my discussion here fails to even MENTION India, another place where demand for cars and consequently oil is going to soar by 2020.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"If oil is in such sort supply and gasoline, how come there's no (expletive deleted) gas lines? Shouldn't there be gas lines? The price goes up and up like we have a tight supply like that time with the embargo in the '70's but there's no line of cars with people carrying gas cans?"
He had a point.
Well he doesn't understand market supply-demand-price that's all. The oil and gasoline shortage is in WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. (There are probably 2 billion around the world who would like to have oil and gasoline and don't have any. So the Earth is hsort on having enough to supply everyone with what they want.) There is no shortage because the price has risen high such that the amount people actually buy = what is being supplied. (Also read kdh's reply as he understands this well, though we disagree on the future ability of other countries to continue to pay higher prices and thus drive the oil to the level he predicts - people making $5,000/yr in China aren't going to match what we can pay in the U.S.).
These price increases then force people totally out of buying oil and gasoline, or more likely in this country make you reduce your consumption 10% 20% 30%.
If you kept the price artificially low, say $2.50/gal, then people have little incentive to reduce their driving and then you would have shortages.
Who ever is into oil futures right now (and now apparently, a correlation with hedge funds also) has got a lot of explaining to do at a date in the near future, and hopefully, a grand reckoning..
A lot of people are in oil-futures. All you have to do is pick-up the phone call a heating oil dealer and ask for a fixed-price contract for heating oil for next year. You have then become a Buyer in the oil futures market! The little mom-and-pop oil dealer will be the middle-man for you, going to the oil market and buying a contract.
There was great conversation about the price of fuel with discourse and he listened intently to the argument flying back and forth and then remarked;
"If oil is in such sort supply and gasoline, how come there's no (expletive deleted) gas lines? Shouldn't there be gas lines? The price goes up and up like we have a tight supply like that time with the embargo in the '70's but there's no line of cars with people carrying gas cans?"
I'm pretty old - old enough to have been driving throughout the 1973-74 & 1979 crunches - & I can answer that question. Simply stated, the answer is that the government did not allow the market to work. Right after the OPEC embargo started in October or November, 1973, the Feds announced that "old" oil - oil taken from wells that were producing prior to 1973 - could not be sold for more than $3 per barrel. Only "new" oil could be sold for market prices. This silly regulation was a nightmare to enforce. After all, "old" & "new" oil look, smell & work exactly alike. To comply with the reg, producers, refiners & distributors had to segregate petroleum products by age. Worse yet, owners of small wells that were producing modest quantities shut their wells down rather than sell their crude for $3 per barrel when the market price for spot delivery was 4 times that much.
Then, in the late 70s, the Feds relaxed this regulation - but only for oil that was refined into jet fuel. (The airlines were screaming about high fuel prices.) The result was predictable: refineries produced more jet fuel & less gasoline from each barrel of crude. When the Shah of Iran was deposed in early '79, the stage was set for gas lines in the spring & early summer of that year.
Late in his administration, Jimmy Carter lifted some of these regulations. Reagan finished them off when he took office, but some of the suits brought by the Justice Department against the oil companies in the mid-70s weren't finally settled until well into the 90s.
This was a textbook example of how government intervention can screw up working markets. I remember driving to a gas station 10 miles away & waiting in line for 2 hours to buy 2 gallons of gas - for a car (inherited from my grandfather) that got 12 mpg. I don't pretend to speak for everyone on this subject, but I'd much rather have gas readily available for $4+ per gallon than gas that no one can buy for half that price.
When that many car drivers hit the roads of China, I suuuure hope they are all driving hybrids or small-displacement clean-diesels, because we are going to have one HECK of a time as a planet meeting their oil needs,...
I agree with the projections based on their assumptions; but I think the assumptions are based on having relatively stable gasoline prices. The projections of how many Chinese and Indians are driving probably does not account for high inflation of gasoline.
Look at the personal income data of China and India vs. the U.S. and Europe. What does the middle-class of China who are supposed to buy these cars and the gasoline make? $7K/yr? $10K/yr? The typical western worker makes $40K? So if gas prices do rise who is going to be the ones to drop out of the market (or never enter the market!).
If the price of gas goes to $5 or $6 ... this reduces the number of Chinese or Indians who buy cars or how much they use them. Similarly the Chinese government does not have the money to subsidize a larger $ amount per gal, and at the same time the number of gallons is increasing!
The economics do not support that you can have BOTH this huge increase in use in relatively poor countries, and at the same time have huge increases in the cost/gal. You may have 1 or the other but NOT BOTH.
Based on the limited availability to increase supply, I foresee that the price of oil and gas will rise moderately over the years, it will dampen the economy somewhat, the Chinese and Indian economies will suffer, and you will see that this explosion of driving in asia will not occur, because the price of gasoline compared to the incomes in that area will not allow a major growth. If you can't afford much $5/gal gas making $40K, how do you think someone in China making $8K is going to buy much?
I agree that electric-only cars are not for everyone.
It all depends on the price of gas. If you took a poll to find out how many people would be interested in an EV when gas was $1.50/gallon and took the same poll today I believe the results would be very different.
There will be inconveniences and sacrifices involved but people will start weighing them against the sacrifices involved in paying $4 or more for a gallon of gas. Let's say you make a few long trips a year that require you to pull over for an extended period to recharge. Definitely an inconvenience. But if the net result is that you're saving over $1,000 a year you've got to consider how many hours at work it took you to earn that $1,000. I suspect it will be considerably more hours than the average person would spend waiting for his EV to recharge.
"SHEBOYGAN, Wis. (AP) — Brian LaFave couldn't care less how high gasoline prices climb these days — he's parked his pickup truck and is refusing to buy gas for a month, possibly longer.
"The goal is to not use one drop of gas for 31 days," LaFave said, calling it his personal stand against the oil companies."
Look at the personal income data of China and India vs. the U.S. and Europe. What does the middle-class of China who are supposed to buy these cars and the gasoline make? $7K/yr? $10K/yr? The typical western worker makes $40K? So if gas prices do rise who is going to be the ones to drop out of the market (or never enter the market!).
That would be us. Don't forget, the Chinese government is subsidizing gas for their consumers, basically (it's at a set price beyond which it can't rise without new laws). They know that higher gasoline prices will curtail their economic boom, and that's the last thing they want happening.
Similarly the Chinese government does not have the money to subsidize a larger $ amount per gal, and at the same time the number of gallons is increasing!
Says who? Remember, all they have to do is cash in all those treasuries they keep buying. :shades: Besides, the booming economies also create additional revenue streams for those governments.
"To no one's surprise, with gas prices the way they're headed, hybrids are selling at record numbers; and also, as you might expect, the Toyota Prius is leading the charge here."
" If you took a poll to find out how many people would be interested in an EV when gas was $1.50/gallon and took the same poll today I believe the results would be very different. "
You also have to take into consideration the environmental impacts that most folks are more aware of today compared to even a few years ago. Also, as electric cars become more common, the technology improves, costs come down, consumer acceptance comes up (due to their exposure to the technology), etc. So besides the impact to ones wallet, more are taking into consideration the environment. The idea of electric powered vehicles are becoming more mainstream (hence accepted).
Back in the seventies the mentality of the public played heavily into the lines as well. Once gas was perceived as being scarce everybody and his uncle wanted to have a full tank. You had people who would wait an hour in line to buy $3 worth of gas which at the time meant maybe 4 - 4-1/2 gallons. The stations would have $3 limits. What they should have done was have a minimum purchase, say $5. If the car doesn't take $5 worth, sorry. It's still $5.
By the second go round with lines - the Carter episode as opposed to the Nixon one - someone figured out the odd/even license plate trick. That stopped the lines in a big hurry.
The current situation is different in that everyone is bugged at the price but not even thinking about shortages. However that price is still a public mentality issue. It's just that this time the public is the oil speculators who keep placing bets that the price will continue to rise which so far has been a self fulfilling prophecy. We'll see how long this takes to pop as a bubble.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Actually, the odd/even plate approach to selling gas was rolled out (in my area, at least) in the late winter of 1974, while Nixon was President. I'm certain of that because I had just taken delivery on a new '74 Honda Civic, for which I paid (I'm ashamed to admit this) fully 50% over sticker. I was desperate because the old Plymouth guzzler that Gramps had left me had given up the ghost.
Selling by odd/even plates was an effective measure. It shortened the gas lines & calmed everyone down.
I'm pretty old - old enough to have been driving throughout the 1973-74 & 1979 crunches
You remember the 1970s just as I do. Price controls did not work then and they do not work now. The Governor of Hawaii tried it a couple years ago. When the wholesale price surpassed the retail price she had set. The stations started shutting down and they dropped the price cap. Since then the price has been very close to CA pricing. Not sure why as it was always much higher in the 1980s and 90s.
I went to work in Anchorage AK in 1970 and there were no lines. Tesoro had a refinery and we had a good supply. The only lines I see today are at Costco as they are a few cents under the other stations. Then it is seldom more than a 2 car wait.
Remember, all they have to do is cash in all those treasuries they keep buying.
You mean U.S. treasuries? Well they lost on those as the $ has dropped vs. other currencies. And they can spend some of that of that rebuilding the country after the earthquake. The fact is we are still much wealthier than China, and their economy is only booming because they have the vast, vast majority of their population working at subsistence levels, to produce at lower cost. And if you think all OPEC nations are also wealthy and going to be able to subsidize their population's gas - NO. Read some recent articles about Iran's finances and how it is on track for a blow-out in a few years. The higher the price of oil goes, the more pressure and incentive there is for Iran to sell and export the oil, rather than subsidize the oil to their own people.
You also have to take into consideration the environmental impacts that most folks are more aware of today compared to even a few years ago.
Well you'll need more fuel for electricity, and the cheapest fuel is coal, so I don't see how that makes environmentalists happy.
The idea of electric powered vehicles are becoming more mainstream (hence accepted).
The typical American expects a 4-dr car, able to carry some luggage and with a range of at least 300+ miles @ 65 mph using AC or heat, headlights, and stereo. I don't see any electric cars that can do this.
I think that China and Japan have a few EVs running around. I still say by the time EPA and CARB get done with any reasonable EV it will be impractical. I have a different opinion on the GM EV-1. It is true that a few people would have bought them at the end of the lease. GM did not want the liability. And CARB pulled the rug out from under the EV mandate. Just as recent state legislation has pulled funding from Tesla. Our state and federal governments DO NOT want us off of the gas standard.
At the beginning of the 70s I was something of a lefty. Didn't trust the markets & believed that government should set prices & regulate supplies. By the end of the 70s, the words "price controls" made my hair stand up.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do try to learn from experience.
I remember right when Nixon started the wage price controls. Everyone seemed to be in favor of capping prices but everyone wanted an exception for their wages. Imagine that.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The problem isn't a real shortage or we would have lines. The refiners play that there isn't enough of a particular blend since the EPA has difference formulas for different areas.
The gas sellers blame the people for the price jumps that we get here. We fill up our tanks and it's our fault the prices go up drastically and stay a day and then start slowly, slowly back down. That maximizes the profit to the gas retailers--Speedway (Marathon).
So we all pay some sort of tax that goes to the local and state governments, and these branches of our government provide certain services. Here's the question, and don't just name 1 or 2 examples, think of the whole country - what sort of vehicles are being bought, and what sort of vehicles do other countries buy to provide the same service?
It seems to me that the V-8 Crown Vics and now the Charger, w/ a mix of large SUV's make up a lot of what the local and state governments buy. What does the rest of the world use for police vehicles? It kind of bugs me that these agencies refuse to change, and their solution is either to raise taxes or cut back on the number of officers and cars.
It's the same mentality regarding the use of mass transit - "Everyone else needs to use it so that not only will the roads be less crowded when I drive to work, but gas will also cost less when I fill up."
What to do with higher gas prices? Switch to a oil coated cotton air filter (after market) KNL makes one that fits Toyotas. See if that helps slightly.
Determine if a higher flow muffler/exhaust system might help. At least in the past, this would be considered "ridiculous" for the hybrid vehicle drivers. These types of mufflers have been generally built for "performance cars" and people who like the exhaust sound rumble. I have not found much information on this. Any comments would be welcome . . even laughter.
Continue to drive a front wheel drive Toyota Highlander Hybrid (2006), gently accelerate and continue to brake ahead of time (this vehicle has re-generative braking). Use the one second delay "turbo" mode only when necessary (it does have not a turbocharged engine; however, if you stomp on the gas pedal, after a 1/2 second to 1 second delay, this vehicle almost "jumps", dramatically accelerating ; the delay also feels longer than 1 second, but it is not).
Chrysler recently launched Refuel America which locked in fuel prices at $2.99/gallon for 3 years with most of its vehicles. If another manufacturer offered you the option to lock in $2.99/gallon fuel price for one year at a time (up to 650 gallons) for $1200.00 each year, would you think:
1. that's a great idea, sign me up 2. not sure - I have to think about it 3. that's a lousy idea - no way.
The typical American expects a 4-dr car, able to carry some luggage and with a range of at least 300+ miles 65 mph using AC or heat, headlights, and stereo. I don't see any electric cars that can do this.
Based upon a lot of posts to this thread the typical American also expects gas to cost less than $4/gallon. So one way or the other we will have to adjust our expectations. Either in what we will accept to pay for gas or in what we accept as adequate utility for a vehicle.
We knew critics of Chrysler's $2.99 Gas Guarantee would crawl out of the woodwork before too long, and here they come. Automotive News reports that The Union of Concerned Scientists has called Chrysler's program a "cynical deal", noting that at today's current average price of $3.61/gallon, a customer would save about $400 a year under Chrysler's program. Being the smart folk they are, the scientists also pointed out that customers could save the same amount from a 3 mpg bump in fuel economy over 15,000 miles or a year of driving, and that better fuel economy also continues saving the customer money after three years. Damn, scientists are so smart with the math.
The criticism hasn't stopped Suzuki, however, from announcing its own free gas deal. For vehicles purchased between May 1st and June 30th, Suzuki is offering 0% financing and three months of totally free fuel in its "Free Gas for Summer" program. Buyers will basically get a stored-value credit card that's charged with a different amount of money depending on the model purchased.
These incentive programs are nothing but promotions designed to grab headlines and make buyers feel like they're getting more money back than they actually are. Playing off the media's hysteria over high gas prices, Chrysler (and Suzuki) is betting buyers will feel that paying $2.99/gallon for three years is more valuable than a $2,000 cash back rebate. Trust the math, it's really not. Nevertheless, it will likely sell more Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles than a boring $2,000 rebate would
Simply put, you get a special credit card when you buy a new Dodge (not every new Dodge, but most). You can use this credit card to buy fuel for $2.99 a gallon at any service station for three years following your date of purchase, regardless of the actual market price. Sounds great right? Everyone else is paying $4-$5 a gallon for gas (or diesel), but you’re only paying $2.99 (provided you buy normal 87 octane gas - they’re not paying for premium). Except for the fact that it’s really not that great of a deal.
First of all, the program only covers enough fuel needed to drive 12,000 miles per year. Too bad the average annual mileage in the U.S. is closer to 15k miles than 12k. So, for average drivers, the last couple of the months of the year their Dodge gas card is going to stop working.
Secondly, since Dodge will have no way of knowing how far you’ve actually driven in order to determine when you’ve hit 12k miles, they’re going to use the EPA average fuel economy estimates for each of their products to calculate how many gallons work out to 12,000 miles. Why is that important? Because Dodge makes you give up most of the cash rebate on the new truck to get the fuel card.
NOTE: Dodge has announced the full program now, and they’re including a $3,000 rebate with the gas card option. So, instead of being a complete rip-off (with no cash), it’s at best a push.
Unfortunately, the “fuel price protection” credit card is actually a worse deal for consumers (at least anyone buying a new Ram 1500). Here’s why:
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that regular 87 octane gas costs $5 a gallon for the next three years. Some people estimate that gas will actually stabilize at $4 a gallon, but let’s be on Dodge’s side and say it hits $5 and stays there. That means you’ll “save” $2 on every gallon Dodge buys you for your new 08′ Hemi Ram 1500. Of course, Dodge is only going to buy you enough gas to go 12k miles a year, which is 857 gallons a year using the EPA estimate.
Dodge has announced the full program now and the math on this graphic is incorrect. Dodge is providing a $3,000 rebate as well as the gas card. It’s still not what we would call a good deal, but it’s not a ripoff either.
If you do the math, you’ll find that IF fuel is $5 a gallon, you’ll save about $5200 over the next three years using Dodge’s fuel price protection program. A quick visit to Dodge’s website showed the current cash incentive you have to forgo is $2500 on new 1500 Rams (at least in the Denver region). If you use the more realistic gas price estimate of $4.00 - $4.50, you only save $2,600 to $4,000 over the next three years.
SO, if gas stays at or near $4 a gallon, you only save about $2,600 over three years.
Too bad that $2,500 today is worth more than $2,600 in gas savings spread out over three years. It’s called time-value of money. If you used the $2,500 in cash rebates as your down payment on a new Ram, you save about $200 in interest over the next three years (assuming you get a 3 year loan at 6%). If you got a 6 year loan at 7.99% (which a lot of people do now), using the cash rebate saves you almost $800 in interest on a loan. So, obviously, unless gas climbs past $4 a gallon, this isn’t much on an offer.
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t going to do this math. They’re going to hear “$2.99 a gallon gas” and run to their nearest Dodge dealer.
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t going to do this math. They’re going to hear “$2.99 a gallon gas” and run to their nearest Dodge dealer.
That means they got the jump on Toyota, GM & Ford. Just like the family price offered by GM in 2005. The other automakers have to come up with a sales gimmick that meets or beats Chrysler. I imagine the biggest incentives will be on the biggest gas guzzlers sitting on all the car lots. Personally I would rather beat the price down way below invoice and write a check. Unless they have a legitimate 0% financing which I have never seen in vehicles.
I still say by the time EPA and CARB get done with any reasonable EV it will be impractical.
I disagree. The current interest in EVs isn't being driven by a mandate. The amount of venture capital being poured into some of these projects indicates that a lot of investors believe that with the current market conditions there is money to be made here. Are you suggesting that these environmental agencies might start imposing EV penalties?
Our state and federal governments DO NOT want us off of the gas standard.
I know that you're aware of the CA's desire to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by 2016. That can only be done by significantly reducing the amount of gasoline burned. This cannot be dismissed as a token gesture to environmentalists. Certainly if we all started driving EVs the state and federal government would lose this tax revenue. So what. They'll tax something else to make it up. I don't believe there exists some unique, special fondness for taxing gasoline.
It's like McDonalds saying you can have a free Coke if you pay more for the fries the fact that Chrysler came up with it tells me a little about their demographic.
lets face it, $4.00 for a gallon of gas today is artificial. It should be much higher when you factor in the cost to the environment, our military presence in the Middle East and out dated subsidies granted to companies making Billions in profit.
I'd like to see people pay the real cost of a gallon of gas here in the States and see what form of alternative cleaner energy would come along.
I'm not saying there is not an interest in EVs. I am looking at what the EPA will require safety wise to make an EV equal to current car crash standards. We know that the EV will be saddled with a lot more weight for a given size vehicle. That means tougher crash tests. You cannot compare an EV to a Prius with only 99lbs of batteries. Even then with all the extra crap it carries around it is a porker. How much do you think a Prius sized EV will weigh. DO I think that CA panders to fringe wacko elements? YES, YES, YES. Look at what the state has done to curb CO2, compared to what they say they will do. ZIP, NADA. Suing the automakers does not constitute improvement. Only lawyers getting fatter.
The Philadelphia Police use a mix of vehicles from bicycles and dirtbikes to SUVs . The most common police cars are a mix of Ford Crown Victorias and Chevrolet Impalas. There are a few Dodge Chargers used mostly by the Highway Patrol.
Comments
As long as it is set aside as future reserves I have no problem. What has happened is it has become a holy place for so many environmental groups. Of course they don't bother to go up and see it. Even Jimmy Carter on his trip just went fishing and left. If this was some special part of the Arctic Tundra, I could understand. I defy anyone to fly over the Arctic from Barrow to the Canadian Border and pick out anything unique. ANWR is an old idea. It was [non-permissible content removed] for tat when the Naval Petroleum Reserve was set aside in 1923. It had nothing to do with ANWR being some special place in the Arctic. It is not another Yosemite or Yellowstone. The truth of the matter, it is a very small piece of ANWR that is of interest for oil production.
I believe if Congress were to say, OK we will allow drilling in that small corner of ANWR that has known reserves it would be a psychological hit to the market. Though I do not see it going down much below $60-$70 per barrel. It would be at least 10 years before oil would start flowing if the law was signed today. The oil companies are going great guns in the NPR. Who knows how long that will last. Probably 30 years at the current million barrels per day.
Most Americans would be happy with $3 gas again. We have been spoiled for so long it is hard to face reality.
Cliff notes:
There's lots of energy available but all the easy energy is identified and underdevelopment. The rest available ranges from very expensive to ridiculously expensive to extract and develop.
We are using our energy faster than it can be replaced....get the American public out of it's SUVs.
BTW, not surprisingly Al Gore was not given the chairmanship of this task force. The largest number of participants in the task force were the oil industry experts themselves.
As one sports announcer in NY used to say...'You can look it up.'
Lemko, the EPA figures on your Brougham's window sticker should have been 17/24. The downward-revised 2008 numbers have it down to 15/22.
The old-fashioned raw, unadjusted numbers, which is what they published from 1978-84, have it at a respectable 19/30.
If anything, that shows how far cars advanced during that timeframe, with regards to fuel economy. My '79 NYer, with its 360-2bbl, I'm estimating was around 14/22 (using the 1978 midsized numbers), while your Brougham, a car of similar size and weight, is 19/30 using those same raw numbers. A lot of the highway improvement is probably a result of the Brougham's overdrive automatic. However, computer controls advanced quite a bit in that timeframe as well, which I'm sure helped. Plus, the 307 uses a 4-bbl carb which probably has smaller primaries, which would make it pretty efficient as long as you keep your foot out of it.
Also note that if transportation costs make it less feasible for the U.S. to import large amounts of Middle Eastern oil, one would make the same case for European and Asian countries buying large amounts of South American, Mexican and Canadian oil. We are ensuring the reliability of oil supplies located near them. Which further benefits them.
One Senator is now saying if we'd done that ten years ago we wouldn't have this mess. I don't know. Yeah, we'd be extracting oil from there now and that would mean cheaper gas but it would also mean depleting yet more of our reserves when the post-oil economy is nowhere in sight. Whether or not it is the intention of the anti-ANWR folks to have a big reserve that we know we can grab if needed that is the net effect of what we're doing.
If I could get 30 MPG from the Brougham, I'd be driving it out to Carlisle every time!
Kias and Hyundai are well represented, but are facing hard competition from the korean made GM cars (Buick Excelle, HRV, Aveo, Epica..) the japanese and the Chinese local brands. They are doing OK but are still challengers.
Price of Gas in China is cheaper than in the US, especially the High sulfur diesel sold over there (to stay on topic) . Car usage is simply exploding. Gas hikes will do little to slow this down. Everyone want a car and rail transport is inexistant if we leave major cities out of the picture.
Since the US has become a net importer of oil we've had presidents and Congresses of both parties in all combination and have yet to come up with a coherent plan to drastically reduce our oil consumption. As long as this remains so we will have fluctuations and a steadily rising cost.
I think that you're asking the wrong question here. So many people here over and over have said 'Let the market decide' and I agree wholeheartedly. I think that the politicians are doing just that. There is no good reason for fuel prices to be moderated in the least. They should float to the level where it hurts us and then we do something about it. The market is the great equalizer. If we really start conserving and if we really begin to innovate to find alternate sources for fuel when it hits $6 or more then this is the most efficient way to find solutions.
However there is another issue that simply won't go away and this does require governmental 'influence'. Our population and our usage will be significantly greater in the decade of the 20's. The petro-fuel to feed that usage is just not available, ANWR is not the 'silver bullet' solution. According to EIA the total proved reserves in the US is 21 Billion bbl. That's only 3 years usage at today's rates. Consider that our 'cookie jar' oil, Rainy day oil. Our IRA oil. Something we've put away 'just-in- case'.
The fact is that in 15-20 yrs we will need 20-30% more oil than we do today if we continued with today's technologies and today's usage rates per person. As noted from the President's Energy Task Force report last July that easy oil is not there to feed this growth; North Sea, Mexico and some fields in Saudi Arabia are in decline as are all our own mature sources. Getting and devloping the new sources of oil will be hellaciously expensinve ( price increases at the pump ) and unsure ( potential shortfalls = rationing ) and may be subject to unfriendly political influences ( price increases + rationing ). OH then there's China, India and Asia. They may outbid us for our own ANWR oil. How ironic.
There was great conversation about the price of fuel with discourse and he listened intently to the argument flying back and forth and then remarked;
"If oil is in such sort supply and gasoline, how come there's no (expletive deleted) gas lines? Shouldn't there be gas lines? The price goes up and up like we have a tight supply like that time with the embargo in the '70's but there's no line of cars with people carrying gas cans?"
He had a point.
A casual drive (if you can afford it) going by a gas station pretty much illustrates his point..... The place is dead. Even more comically - I went by a station the other day that had a tanker truck with a drop off, at rush hour.... There was one car getting gas at one of those superstations with a gazillion pumps. Doesn't appear to be a shortage to this casual observer and if I may say so..... A GLUT of gasoline supply..
Who ever is into oil futures right now (and now apparently, a correlation with hedge funds also) has got a lot of explaining to do at a date in the near future, and hopefully, a grand reckoning.. I also hope they lose their shirt on this - futures speculation requires a call, bad or good, that a supply will tighten or lessen. I do not recall any hurricanes or problems with refineries as of late or, a tightened supply of crude.
The "Chindia" argument?.... Talk to the hand - they still don't have the infrastructure, someday sure, but not yet..... Increased petroleum consumption is still only up to the relative few in those countries.
Yes there may be no absolute shortage of fuel. Yes we may be able to pump all that we wish - today. But it is a fact that fuel is tight and we have to outbid other buyers for the right to burn it. This is the key fact.
All of us here are agreeing to outbid the rest of the world for the right to burn oil so that we can drive the vehicle of our choice as much as we want. We all know that $1.00 gallon was too low. $3.00 a gallon makes us sit up. $4.00 per gallon makes us begin to look for ways to conserve..... but that's it. We for the most part are still driving our 1990's technology vehicles. We all accept this and the producers and marketers ( and speculators ) know this. We will pay to keep doing what we want.
We will in fact outbid the rest of the world so that we can drive what we wish as long as we wish.
The market is performing perfectly and efficiently.
Your 'Chindia' argument is flawed because of one simple factor. The weight of big numbers. Population-wise China is 5 times larger than we are and India is 3 times larger. If......both countries only had 5% of their citizens driving in 2000 ( I'm guessing here admittedly ) vs the US where it's probably 50-60% this gives the following estimates of usage.
US = 60% of 300 million = 180 million drivers
versus..
Chindia 2000 = 5% of 1,800 million = 90 million drivers
Chindia 2010 = 10% of 1,800 million = 180 million drivers
and that's just those two countries. My guess is that both of these numers is too low. But look at what the upside demand is if it's true? If only 20% of their combined populations drove they would have twice as many vehicles on the road using fuel as we do. That's where all the fuel will go. That's who we have to outbid to keep getting our share.
Actually, in the right conditions, you might actually be able to get close to that. Back when my grandparents' '85 LeSabre was still fairly new, they drove it cross-country. On one desert stretch, they averaged 29 mpg. And this is with the 307/4bbl, 4-speed overdrive automatic, 2.73:1 rear end. Although that LeSabre was probably about 500 pounds less than your Brougham (but had two people and a bunch of luggage in it).
Now this was back when we still had the 55 mph speed limit, and Granddad usually only drove about 55-60. So, in flat desert driving at a constant speed, I guess it's possible. This was also in the springtime, so the weather was mild. Not cold enough to affect the car's performance, but not hot enough to require the a/c.
Whenever I drove that car though, about the best I'd get out of it was maybe 22. And when I'd use it occasionally to deliver pizzas, more like 14-15.
Yes, Rebecca, there will always be gas lines...until we upgrade to ELECTRIC LINES!
Regards,
OW
I have to agree that it would be difficult to use much gas in this part of India. I don't believe my Sequoia would fit.
Regards,
OW
Hmm, not sure who the "we" is in Inhofe's diatribe, but I sure don't regret that they didn't drill in ANWR. As others stated, it wouldn't make much of a difference, and even if it did, it would just prolong the waste of oil and lack of transition to alternate and renewable energy sources. Some people just don't get it.
"The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. "
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
wikipedia actually does a reasonable job of summerizing it all.
I agree that electric-only cars are not for everyone. The limiting range being the biggest issue. But many families have two vehicles anyway and most driving is a lot less than 80 miles a day. Even if an electric was your only vehicles, a person could rent a car for longer trips. Again, it wouldn't work for everyone, but statistically, the range would work for most or at least fit into the needs of a two car household.
In the U.S. it was well over 600 cars per 1000.
The Chinese government is now reining in the white-hot economic growth they have over there, so we won't see the Chinese market continue to expand at the double digit rates it has been the last few years. But in 10 years, 20 at the most, it is very likely that the annual car sales in China will exceed those of the U.S., making it the #1 market in the world. (Last year's sales were around 6 million, IIRC)
When that many car drivers hit the roads of China, I suuuure hope they are all driving hybrids or small-displacement clean-diesels, because we are going to have one HECK of a time as a planet meeting their oil needs, without even taking into account the EXISTING demand on oil.
And all my discussion here fails to even MENTION India, another place where demand for cars and consequently oil is going to soar by 2020.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
He had a point.
Well he doesn't understand market supply-demand-price that's all. The oil and gasoline shortage is in WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. (There are probably 2 billion around the world who would like to have oil and gasoline and don't have any. So the Earth is hsort on having enough to supply everyone with what they want.) There is no shortage because the price has risen high such that the amount people actually buy = what is being supplied. (Also read kdh's reply as he understands this well, though we disagree on the future ability of other countries to continue to pay higher prices and thus drive the oil to the level he predicts - people making $5,000/yr in China aren't going to match what we can pay in the U.S.).
These price increases then force people totally out of buying oil and gasoline, or more likely in this country make you reduce your consumption 10% 20% 30%.
If you kept the price artificially low, say $2.50/gal, then people have little incentive to reduce their driving and then you would have shortages.
Who ever is into oil futures right now (and now apparently, a correlation with hedge funds also) has got a lot of explaining to do at a date in the near future, and hopefully, a grand reckoning..
A lot of people are in oil-futures. All you have to do is pick-up the phone call a heating oil dealer and ask for a fixed-price contract for heating oil for next year. You have then become a Buyer in the oil futures market! The little mom-and-pop oil dealer will be the middle-man for you, going to the oil market and buying a contract.
"If oil is in such sort supply and gasoline, how come there's no (expletive deleted) gas lines? Shouldn't there be gas lines? The price goes up and up like we have a tight supply like that time with the embargo in the '70's but there's no line of cars with people carrying gas cans?"
I'm pretty old - old enough to have been driving throughout the 1973-74 & 1979 crunches - & I can answer that question. Simply stated, the answer is that the government did not allow the market to work. Right after the OPEC embargo started in October or November, 1973, the Feds announced that "old" oil - oil taken from wells that were producing prior to 1973 - could not be sold for more than $3 per barrel. Only "new" oil could be sold for market prices. This silly regulation was a nightmare to enforce. After all, "old" & "new" oil look, smell & work exactly alike. To comply with the reg, producers, refiners & distributors had to segregate petroleum products by age. Worse yet, owners of small wells that were producing modest quantities shut their wells down rather than sell their crude for $3 per barrel when the market price for spot delivery was 4 times that much.
Then, in the late 70s, the Feds relaxed this regulation - but only for oil that was refined into jet fuel. (The airlines were screaming about high fuel prices.) The result was predictable: refineries produced more jet fuel & less gasoline from each barrel of crude. When the Shah of Iran was deposed in early '79, the stage was set for gas lines in the spring & early summer of that year.
Late in his administration, Jimmy Carter lifted some of these regulations. Reagan finished them off when he took office, but some of the suits brought by the Justice Department against the oil companies in the mid-70s weren't finally settled until well into the 90s.
This was a textbook example of how government intervention can screw up working markets. I remember driving to a gas station 10 miles away & waiting in line for 2 hours to buy 2 gallons of gas - for a car (inherited from my grandfather) that got 12 mpg. I don't pretend to speak for everyone on this subject, but I'd much rather have gas readily available for $4+ per gallon than gas that no one can buy for half that price.
I agree with the projections based on their assumptions; but I think the assumptions are based on having relatively stable gasoline prices. The projections of how many Chinese and Indians are driving probably does not account for high inflation of gasoline.
Look at the personal income data of China and India vs. the U.S. and Europe. What does the middle-class of China who are supposed to buy these cars and the gasoline make? $7K/yr? $10K/yr? The typical western worker makes $40K? So if gas prices do rise who is going to be the ones to drop out of the market (or never enter the market!).
If the price of gas goes to $5 or $6 ... this reduces the number of Chinese or Indians who buy cars or how much they use them. Similarly the Chinese government does not have the money to subsidize a larger $ amount per gal, and at the same time the number of gallons is increasing!
The economics do not support that you can have BOTH this huge increase in use in relatively poor countries, and at the same time have huge increases in the cost/gal. You may have 1 or the other but NOT BOTH.
Based on the limited availability to increase supply, I foresee that the price of oil and gas will rise moderately over the years, it will dampen the economy somewhat, the Chinese and Indian economies will suffer, and you will see that this explosion of driving in asia will not occur, because the price of gasoline compared to the incomes in that area will not allow a major growth. If you can't afford much $5/gal gas making $40K, how do you think someone in China making $8K is going to buy much?
It all depends on the price of gas. If you took a poll to find out how many people would be interested in an EV when gas was $1.50/gallon and took the same poll today I believe the results would be very different.
There will be inconveniences and sacrifices involved but people will start weighing them against the sacrifices involved in paying $4 or more for a gallon of gas. Let's say you make a few long trips a year that require you to pull over for an extended period to recharge. Definitely an inconvenience. But if the net result is that you're saving over $1,000 a year you've got to consider how many hours at work it took you to earn that $1,000. I suspect it will be considerably more hours than the average person would spend waiting for his EV to recharge.
"The goal is to not use one drop of gas for 31 days," LaFave said, calling it his personal stand against the oil companies."
Wis. man won't buy gas for 31 days, maybe longer (AP)
That would be us. Don't forget, the Chinese government is subsidizing gas for their consumers, basically (it's at a set price beyond which it can't rise without new laws). They know that higher gasoline prices will curtail their economic boom, and that's the last thing they want happening.
Similarly the Chinese government does not have the money to subsidize a larger $ amount per gal, and at the same time the number of gallons is increasing!
Says who? Remember, all they have to do is cash in all those treasuries they keep buying. :shades: Besides, the booming economies also create additional revenue streams for those governments.
Prius is leading the charge here."
Toyota Prius sales are HOT! (Straightline)
You also have to take into consideration the environmental impacts that most folks are more aware of today compared to even a few years ago. Also, as electric cars become more common, the technology improves, costs come down, consumer acceptance comes up (due to their exposure to the technology), etc. So besides the impact to ones wallet, more are taking into consideration the environment. The idea of electric powered vehicles are becoming more mainstream (hence accepted).
By the second go round with lines - the Carter episode as opposed to the Nixon one - someone figured out the odd/even license plate trick. That stopped the lines in a big hurry.
The current situation is different in that everyone is bugged at the price but not even thinking about shortages. However that price is still a public mentality issue. It's just that this time the public is the oil speculators who keep placing bets that the price will continue to rise which so far has been a self fulfilling prophecy. We'll see how long this takes to pop as a bubble.
Selling by odd/even plates was an effective measure. It shortened the gas lines & calmed everyone down.
You remember the 1970s just as I do. Price controls did not work then and they do not work now. The Governor of Hawaii tried it a couple years ago. When the wholesale price surpassed the retail price she had set. The stations started shutting down and they dropped the price cap. Since then the price has been very close to CA pricing. Not sure why as it was always much higher in the 1980s and 90s.
You mean U.S. treasuries? Well they lost on those as the $ has dropped vs. other currencies. And they can spend some of that of that rebuilding the country after the earthquake. The fact is we are still much wealthier than China, and their economy is only booming because they have the vast, vast majority of their population working at subsistence levels, to produce at lower cost.
And if you think all OPEC nations are also wealthy and going to be able to subsidize their population's gas - NO. Read some recent articles about Iran's finances and how it is on track for a blow-out in a few years. The higher the price of oil goes, the more pressure and incentive there is for Iran to sell and export the oil, rather than subsidize the oil to their own people.
Well you'll need more fuel for electricity, and the cheapest fuel is coal, so I don't see how that makes environmentalists happy.
The idea of electric powered vehicles are becoming more mainstream (hence accepted).
The typical American expects a 4-dr car, able to carry some luggage and with a range of at least 300+ miles @ 65 mph using AC or heat, headlights, and stereo. I don't see any electric cars that can do this.
I think that China and Japan have a few EVs running around. I still say by the time EPA and CARB get done with any reasonable EV it will be impractical. I have a different opinion on the GM EV-1. It is true that a few people would have bought them at the end of the lease. GM did not want the liability. And CARB pulled the rug out from under the EV mandate. Just as recent state legislation has pulled funding from Tesla. Our state and federal governments DO NOT want us off of the gas standard.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do try to learn from experience.
The gas sellers blame the people for the price jumps that we get here. We fill up our tanks and it's our fault the prices go up drastically and stay a day and then start slowly, slowly back down. That maximizes the profit to the gas retailers--Speedway (Marathon).
Speedway/Marathon quote
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It seems to me that the V-8 Crown Vics and now the Charger, w/ a mix of large SUV's make up a lot of what the local and state governments buy. What does the rest of the world use for police vehicles? It kind of bugs me that these agencies refuse to change, and their solution is either to raise taxes or cut back on the number of officers and cars.
It's the same mentality regarding the use of mass transit - "Everyone else needs to use it so that not only will the roads be less crowded when I drive to work, but gas will also cost less when I fill up."
Switch to a oil coated cotton air filter (after market) KNL makes one that fits Toyotas. See if that helps slightly.
Determine if a higher flow muffler/exhaust system might help. At least in the past, this would be considered "ridiculous" for the hybrid vehicle drivers. These types of mufflers have been generally built for "performance cars" and people who like the exhaust sound rumble. I have not found much information on this. Any comments would be welcome . . even laughter.
Continue to drive a front wheel drive Toyota Highlander Hybrid (2006), gently accelerate and continue to brake ahead of time (this vehicle has re-generative braking).
Use the one second delay "turbo" mode only when necessary (it does have not a turbocharged engine; however, if you stomp on the gas pedal, after a 1/2 second to 1 second delay, this vehicle almost "jumps", dramatically accelerating ; the delay also feels longer than 1 second, but it is not).
End
Chrysler recently launched Refuel America which locked in fuel prices at $2.99/gallon for 3 years with most of its vehicles. If another manufacturer offered you the option to lock in $2.99/gallon fuel price for one year at a time (up to 650 gallons) for $1200.00 each year, would you think:
1. that's a great idea, sign me up
2. not sure - I have to think about it
3. that's a lousy idea - no way.
Based upon a lot of posts to this thread the typical American also expects gas to cost less than $4/gallon. So one way or the other we will have to adjust our expectations. Either in what we will accept to pay for gas or in what we accept as adequate utility for a vehicle.
You are not the Wind Beneath My Wings $2.99 gas
We knew critics of Chrysler's $2.99 Gas Guarantee would crawl out of the woodwork before too long, and here they come. Automotive News reports that The Union of Concerned Scientists has called Chrysler's program a "cynical deal", noting that at today's current average price of $3.61/gallon, a customer would save about $400 a year under Chrysler's program. Being the smart folk they are, the scientists also pointed out that customers could save the same amount from a 3 mpg bump in fuel economy over 15,000 miles or a year of driving, and that better fuel economy also continues saving the customer money after three years. Damn, scientists are so smart with the math.
The criticism hasn't stopped Suzuki, however, from announcing its own free gas deal. For vehicles purchased between May 1st and June 30th, Suzuki is offering 0% financing and three months of totally free fuel in its "Free Gas for Summer" program. Buyers will basically get a stored-value credit card that's charged with a different amount of money depending on the model purchased.
These incentive programs are nothing but promotions designed to grab headlines and make buyers feel like they're getting more money back than they actually are. Playing off the media's hysteria over high gas prices, Chrysler (and Suzuki) is betting buyers will feel that paying $2.99/gallon for three years is more valuable than a $2,000 cash back rebate. Trust the math, it's really not. Nevertheless, it will likely sell more Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep vehicles than a boring $2,000 rebate would
And:
Not a Deal At All
Simply put, you get a special credit card when you buy a new Dodge (not every new Dodge, but most). You can use this credit card to buy fuel for $2.99 a gallon at any service station for three years following your date of purchase, regardless of the actual market price. Sounds great right? Everyone else is paying $4-$5 a gallon for gas (or diesel), but you’re only paying $2.99 (provided you buy normal 87 octane gas - they’re not paying for premium). Except for the fact that it’s really not that great of a deal.
First of all, the program only covers enough fuel needed to drive 12,000 miles per year. Too bad the average annual mileage in the U.S. is closer to 15k miles than 12k. So, for average drivers, the last couple of the months of the year their Dodge gas card is going to stop working.
Secondly, since Dodge will have no way of knowing how far you’ve actually driven in order to determine when you’ve hit 12k miles, they’re going to use the EPA average fuel economy estimates for each of their products to calculate how many gallons work out to 12,000 miles. Why is that important? Because Dodge makes you give up most of the cash rebate on the new truck to get the fuel card.
NOTE: Dodge has announced the full program now, and they’re including a $3,000 rebate with the gas card option. So, instead of being a complete rip-off (with no cash), it’s at best a push.
Unfortunately, the “fuel price protection” credit card is actually a worse deal for consumers (at least anyone buying a new Ram 1500). Here’s why:
Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that regular 87 octane gas costs $5 a gallon for the next three years. Some people estimate that gas will actually stabilize at $4 a gallon, but let’s be on Dodge’s side and say it hits $5 and stays there. That means you’ll “save” $2 on every gallon Dodge buys you for your new 08′ Hemi Ram 1500. Of course, Dodge is only going to buy you enough gas to go 12k miles a year, which is 857 gallons a year using the EPA estimate.
Dodge has announced the full program now and the math on this graphic is incorrect. Dodge is providing a $3,000 rebate as well as the gas card. It’s still not what we would call a good deal, but it’s not a ripoff either.
If you do the math, you’ll find that IF fuel is $5 a gallon, you’ll save about $5200 over the next three years using Dodge’s fuel price protection program. A quick visit to Dodge’s website showed the current cash incentive you have to forgo is $2500 on new 1500 Rams (at least in the Denver region). If you use the more realistic gas price estimate of $4.00 - $4.50, you only save $2,600 to $4,000 over the next three years.
SO, if gas stays at or near $4 a gallon, you only save about $2,600 over three years.
Too bad that $2,500 today is worth more than $2,600 in gas savings spread out over three years. It’s called time-value of money. If you used the $2,500 in cash rebates as your down payment on a new Ram, you save about $200 in interest over the next three years (assuming you get a 3 year loan at 6%). If you got a 6 year loan at 7.99% (which a lot of people do now), using the cash rebate saves you almost $800 in interest on a loan. So, obviously, unless gas climbs past $4 a gallon, this isn’t much on an offer.
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t going to do this math. They’re going to hear “$2.99 a gallon gas” and run to their nearest Dodge dealer.
That means they got the jump on Toyota, GM & Ford. Just like the family price offered by GM in 2005. The other automakers have to come up with a sales gimmick that meets or beats Chrysler. I imagine the biggest incentives will be on the biggest gas guzzlers sitting on all the car lots. Personally I would rather beat the price down way below invoice and write a check. Unless they have a legitimate 0% financing which I have never seen in vehicles.
I disagree. The current interest in EVs isn't being driven by a mandate. The amount of venture capital being poured into some of these projects indicates that a lot of investors believe that with the current market conditions there is money to be made here. Are you suggesting that these environmental agencies might start imposing EV penalties?
Our state and federal governments DO NOT want us off of the gas standard.
I know that you're aware of the CA's desire to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by 2016. That can only be done by significantly reducing the amount of gasoline burned. This cannot be dismissed as a token gesture to environmentalists. Certainly if we all started driving EVs the state and federal government would lose this tax revenue. So what. They'll tax something else to make it up. I don't believe there exists some unique, special fondness for taxing gasoline.
It's like McDonalds saying you can have a free Coke if you pay more for the fries
the fact that Chrysler came up with it tells me a little about their demographic.
I'd like to see people pay the real cost of a gallon of gas here in the States and see what form of alternative cleaner energy would come along.
Who pulled the plug on the electric car?