Given a certain price for gas, whatever it is, switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle will not create an incentive to drive less.
I think I'm starting to see Pat84's point. If fuel prices shoot up high enough, to the point that even buying a more efficient vehicle isn't going to save you much money, it's going to cause an incentive to drive less.
At least, if you're talking about extreme, post-apocalyptic examples like $40 or $80 per gallon!
At $3.25 per gallon, my 7 mile round trip commute to work today probably cost me about $1.89. I drove my pickup, which probably gets about 12 mpg. If gas suddenly shot up to $80 per gallon, that round trip would cost me about $47. :surprise: Even if I got into something that tripled my fuel economy, the bill for that short commute would still be about $16.
Now, in an extreme example like this, I'd still probably end up driving the 36 mpg car to work rather than walk or ride a bike, but if it was costing me $16 for every 7 miles I drove, I sure wouldn't be doing much unneccessary driving!
So in and of itself, switching to a more fuel efficient car isn't going to encourage people to drive less. But in an extreme example where fuel prices shoot up high enough, it's probably going to cause a reduction in driving.
Have you changed your behavior as a result of steeper gasoline prices?
Gas prices are spiking again — to an average of $3.22 a gallon, and close to $4 a gallon in many areas.
And some oil executives are now warning that the current shortages of fuel could become a long-term problem, leading to stubbornly higher prices at the pump.
They point to a surprising culprit: uncertainty created by the government’s push to increase the supply of biofuels like ethanol in coming years.
Add to that the miserable shape of the refining/supply chain and the sky's the limit! (Not to mention our continuing dependance on the guys controlling the supply).
...how about a motorcycle? Heck, this might just be my excuse. How does a motorcycle do as far as fuel economy? Would a Harley-Davidson be a "gas hawg?"
I'd probably quit my part-time gig if fuel prices shot up to something ridiculous. I have to travel to different stores for physical inventory and $4.00+ gas prices would render it not cost-effective.
Andre, could you imagine doing pizza delivery with today's psychotic pump prices?
It is interesting that the government is calling on the oil industry to expand refining capacity while at the same time stating a goal of reducing oil consumption by 20%. A refinery is a major, long term investment. Why would you undertake this investment in an environment where demand for refined oil is supposed to shrink? Not that I believe demand will actually shrink but the government's positions here are clearly inconsistent.
Andre, could you imagine doing pizza delivery with today's psychotic pump prices?
Shoot, I don't think I'd do it at today's prices! I delivered mainly from February 1996 to November 2000, although I went back briefly from around Mar-April 2001, and then a month in the fall, from September 10 to Columbus Day 2001.
On a busy Friday or Saturday night, I could easily put 200 miles on the car. Back when I drove my Dart, Newport, or Gran Fury, I remember that if I started the night with a full tank, I could usually fill it back up at the end of the night for about 20 bucks, tops. And on a good night, I'd walk out of there with $140+ in cash. So $20 was a small price to pay in fuel. Gas was usually running about $1-1.30 per gallon, as I recall.
Ironically, right around the time I bought my Intrepid, November 1999, that's when fuel prices started going up. I think the first time I filled up that car, it was about $1.399 per gallon. And a few times that summer it spiked to maybe $1.70-1.80 or so.
Actually, if I had to go back to delivering nowadays, and used something like my uncle's Corolla, I might be able to get through a busy Friday or Saturday night on about 20 bucks or so. I figure his car might get 30 mpg in that type of driving, so 200 miles would be 6.67 gallons. Last time I filled up, 87 octane was about $3.119 per gallon, so that would come out to about $20.80, about what it would've cost me 8-10 years ago with one of those big cars.
I'd never use something like a V-8 Dart or Newport to deliver pizzas in today, though. That same 200 miles would end up costing more like 50 bucks in fuel.
There are good ones (650cc and under) that can get 40 mpg plus, great ones (under 500 cc) that might get 60 mpg, and then there are ones that do no better than a Corolla (Harleys and other cruiser types, along with various crotch rockets) - their engines are getting the size of a Corolla, if not bigger (Triumph makes a 2.3l in-line 3 :surprise: ).
"Between Feb. 1 and Monday, Bartlett said, the average wholesale price paid by service stations in Milwaukee to buy gasoline rose from $1.66 to $2.94. Add in taxes paid to the federal and state governments, as well as transportation costs, and the average service station had to cover $3.47 on Monday, without charging any profit. On that day, stations were charging their customers $3.47 on average in Milwaukee, according to AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report."
Similar story - many of the bigger stations make more money per month on their bottled water sales. Think about it - $1+ for a bottle of something that comes out the tap practically free. Now there's a profit margin!
It is interesting that the government is calling on the oil industry to expand refining capacity while at the same time stating a goal of reducing oil consumption by 20%.
...the government's positions here are clearly inconsistent.
Worse than inconsistent...we have no coherent energy policy, so this kind of nonsense is what you get.
Even worse (in terms of causing high gas prices), the NY Times today reports that the rise in gas prices will be exacerbated by the drive to increase ethanol production and use for vehicles.
Refinery capacity has been noted here as a contributing cause to price rises and the story reports that the US oil industry had cut back on its plans to increase capacity by 1.6-1.8 M barrels a day over the next 5 years (about 10%) because demand is going to be reduced (replaced) by ethanol.
OTOH, the high prices will, in turn, spur more R&D for energy alternatives, so....depends on your POV as to how bad this is.
And, of course, this could just be an excuse for the oil industry to keep prices high.
So what's causing the danger here, the Civic's small size or the SRT's large size?
What's causing the danger is the difference in size, in weight, in frame height and frame stiffness. And, if the PU is used (as so many are) for grocery hauling, it's caused by ethical indifference. Oh wait, wrong topic.
What's causing the danger is the difference in size, in weight, in frame height and frame stiffness. And, if the PU is used (as so many are) for grocery hauling, it's caused by civic indifference.
Call me old fashioned, but I say what's causing the real danger is the nut behind the wheel! Cars do not behave, they are behaved upon. What's causing the danger? The DRIVER!!
Call me old fashioned, but I say what's causing the real danger is the nut behind the wheel! Cars do not behave, they are behaved upon. What's causing the danger? The DRIVER!!
Um, no....replace the PU with another civic, same driver, different result.
Vehicles do not behave but they have differing physical characteristics resulting in differing outcomes.
Hey, one thing we'll do if higher gas prices cause folks to downsize vehicles is that we'll have fewer folks acting unethically. Good news!
Oh well I tried. I sorta miss the old IDLSWDY. Sometimes that is. I have work to do in the yard and my wife gets upset if I spend too much time on Edmund's.
And, of course, this could just be an excuse for the oil industry to keep prices high.
The oil companies do not need to come up with excuses. Our worthless Congress & state legislatures give them all they need. What the government leaves out the media inserts for a perfect storm at the pumps.
"And, of course, this could just be an excuse for the oil industry to keep prices high."
Imagine that.
I understand some of the factors that are driving prices but this idea that because there will be other players in the market that the price has to go up is downright silly.
One thing the oil guys like to do is keep refining capacity at just about how much they think they can sell. Refining more that that only drives the price down.
It's the old story - they can make more profit by pumping less of a limited resource so that's what they'll do. It's what is in their best interests even though it's not likely in our best interests.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Those numbers as accurate. The Corolla's ability to get 35 mpg is well documented, and really, if you own an SRT, are you going to keep your foot out of it? Certainly not. STi owners don't keep their foot out, EVO owners don't keep their foot out, and Ferrari owners sure don't. So why shouldn't we expect the low end on the SRT?
EPA for the SRT is 9.5--12.5 mpg according to infoplease at least.
I bet most people would scream "uncle" after a few months of taking the SRT to the gas pump, at least at today's prices in CA.
Um, no....replace the PU with another civic, same driver, different result.
Vehicles do not behave but they have differing physical characteristics resulting in differing outcomes
And various drivers have differing characteristics as well, resulting in different outcomes as well. Now sure, if you take some chronic tailgater who has a propensity for rear-ending others and take him out of a Civic and put him in some big, hulking mastodon, then yeah, that's just asking for trouble. And honestly, I'd rather have all the bad drivers put in small, lightweight cars that do relatively less damage when they hit something.
Still, every time that I've gotten hit by somebody (I got rear-ended twice in my pickup truck in the course of about two months last year), I didn't blame the VEHICLE that hit me, but rather the DRIVER! Although I'm glad that both times I was hit with relatively small cars (first time a 2000 I30 and the second time a 2004 or so Hyundai Elantra). I wouldn't want to get hit by another full-sized pickup!
"It's the old story - they can make more profit by pumping less of a limited resource so that's what they'll do. It's what is in their best interests even though it's not likely in our best interests."
Last time I checked, oil companies were not charitable organizations. ANY company will attempt to adjust its production to optimize its bottom line, there's nothing nefarious or unethical in that. Why would you expect oil companies to do otherwise? It may be in your best interest for oil companies to give it away, but that's not an effective business model.
OK. You talked me out of the SRT. I am still looking at the GL320CDI. I want big and good mileage. Why can't anyone but Mercedes see that? They offer three sizes of SUV and an E class with great diesel engines that get very good mileage. I can drive a GL320 CDI that same 15,000 miles for about $1800 at todays price of diesel. Driving a Corolla to save $500 a year does not make sense to me.
I didn't blame the VEHICLE that hit me, but rather the DRIVER!
I'm not blaming the vehicle for the accident, either. I'm saying the vehicle choice affected the outcome. That's blaming the driver, too, assuming they chose the vehicle they're driving.
And honestly, I'd rather have all the bad drivers put in small, lightweight cars that do relatively less damage when they hit something.i>
Sure, we all would, but that program hasn't been implemented yet. But I think Dubya's about to propose it
Finally we got some nice weather here in New Hampshire, so I decided to get out the mountain bike. I won't ride the bike if it's under 40F in the morning - too much wind-chill. I also won't ride if it's going to rain.
I have a 3.9 mile commute. It took about 20 min today, but I think I'll do better. I'm really not doing it because I need to save the gasoline, but more to get some exercise and enjoy the weather. We also are having a lot of road construction right now, so I can make it almost as fast as driving.
Oh, fortunately we have a wellness center at work with showers, so I got here 20 minutes early. Now we have 5 showers in each locker room, and 500 employees; so what happens if more of us start biking? Maybe we'll have 1 of those shower facilities like in Stormship Troopers?
But biking here is not really a year-long alternative. I couldn't see riding on any sort of slick surface with cars. It's dangerous enough now (I stay on the sidewalks when possible).
I think the answer to your question is that "there are diesels and there are diesels".
When Americans think "diesel", they think the kind of engines that propel tractor-trailers....huge torque monsters of incredible displacment running at low RPM.
This works great for hauling boulders, but not so good for use in passenger cars. That type of use requires a much more sophisticated diesel engine, and in this regard the Europeans are ahead of either America or Asia by a 4-5 year margin in development.
My only hesitation about diesel engines is:
More diesels sold, more demand for diesel fuel....price of diesel fuel goes up....diesel loses primary advantage to passenger car owner, which is/was solely economy.
li_sailor: Sure, but it don't mean much until passed.
But his support increases the likelihood that it will be passed. That is the way government works.
li_sailor: I really don't want to be sidetracked by politics here,
Then don't keep bringing them up by bashing Bush.
li_sailor: but no, I haven't moved an inch. Bush is totally opposed to CAFE, but he's not opposed to pretending that he is.
In which case, you're still wrong.
Please re-read the articles I posted from The Detroit News. You need to become better informed if you want to have any credibility on this subject.
Please also show your "proof" that he is merely pretending to support an increase in CAFE.
Hint - if your post consists of "because I said so," you automatically receive an "F."
Another hint - spend less time on attempts on mind reading, and more on becoming better informed on the subject matter at hand.
li_sailor: Yada yada. Best to stick to the subject, it ain't me. Esp considering that you were misinformed about my POV.
You're the one who apprears to be misinformed, not me. You stated that the President opposes a CAFE increase, that this was "a fact," (your exact words), and now you are dodging and weaving when shown that you are mistaken in your views.
On Wednesday, the market reversed previous gains to close lower, after Greenspan said he feared the Chinese stock market was headed for a "dramatic correction."
Overnight, the Shanghai Composite fell 0.5%, with the Chinese government warning about the risks of investing in China's booming stock market.
Now, if China's economy has a "Dramatic Correction", followed by a "Dramatic Recession" could that spell the end of $3 a gallon for the forseeable future??? Any comments???
The question would then become do we continue to get religion on fuel efficiency or do we say "Man, that was a close one!" and go trade the 6 month old Prius in on a new Suburban?
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I wouldn't say trade the Prius for the Suburban, LOL.
Yet, maybe it proves that cooler heads should prevail, and you can probably still be able to run the vehicle you want w/o much regard to gas prices, even at $3-4. Still, we should keep the religion in mind, and find ways to reduce our energy dependance.
if we get a dose of $4.00 per gallon gasoline, and then it settles back down to $3.00 per gallon, if people will suddenly get conditioned into thinking that's "cheap", and start splurging on guzzlers again?
Part of me was getting the itch on a hybrid to replace the old Accord then it occurred to me - how much do I pay per month on the loan for the Accord? Zero. How does it run? Fine. There's no way I could save money on a hybrid.
Obviously I'm not the only one who starts to thinking on such things. The problem, such as it is, is that some people get that initial thought of mine and then act on it. And then they are unhappy with the car because they bought strictly on mileage instead of weighing in other factors like what they actually like.
Once I DO replace the Accord, which by my estimate might not be for another five years, sure I'll look at hybrids, diesels and whatever things are out there because I'm a cheapskate on gas.
So it goes...
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well, It's possible. I think, relatively speaking, is gas spiking now, or is this the post 9/11 and Katrina norm?
10 years ago, gas was like $.80 in the winter and $1.20 in the summer, a 50% hike. Now, we saw $2.25 in the winter, and it's on it's way to $3.25-3.35 (here in RI). Again, about a 50% hike. I heard more people are gonna drive on vacation this weekend than ever!! Maybe they just won't go as far. Or, maybe they budgeted for $3.50 a gal. Who knows? One thing is for sure, it's still cheaper to drive an inefficient PAID FOR Suv, than it is to drive a brand new fuel efficient car, that has payments to be made :P
No that doesn't usually happen unless price rises and falls are very very gradual. Conditioning takes place over time
for instance, what price would gas have to drop to, tomorrow morning, for you to be startled and say WOW THAT'S CHEAP!
I'd need it to drop to say $2.25 or so. That feels "cheap" to me. $2.75 feels like yesterday to me.
NEW vs. USED: Yeah, it's cheaper to push around a gas-guzzler that's paid for than to make car payments, PRESUMING that gas-guzzler never breaks down. If it does, then the advantage over new is quickly lost in repair costs.
Saw a thing on the local (New York) news yesterday. Some guy with a Citgo station that had been selling regular for something like $3.39 got in a promotional deal with a local radio station and lowered the price to $2.27. Self serve only and only for passenger vehicles. They had a line over two hours long! People gushing about saving $10. For a two hour wait? I've got better things to do with my time.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The car cost issue is one reason this won't change over night - people recognize getting a new, high-mileage car only makes sense about when you were going to get a new vehicle anyway. The low-mpg fleet of SUVs, etc., is going to take years to flush out of the system (they're still there when there're used). And the ethanol subsidies actually act to increase E85 SUV sales, even if they never see a drop of the stuff :mad: .
All in all, I think ethanol can be a good thing, if we can get it out of a higher density crop than corn. Even if we just supplement it with corn based ethanol. I'd rather see a subsidy for ethanol, and let the farmers grow all the crops they can to make a profit, than pay them a subsidy NOT to grow crops. Those are American jobs we would be creating. I'm sure that companies like Exxonmobil won't hurt too much, as we still need petroleum based products for raw materials like plastics.
The low-mpg fleet of SUVs, etc., is going to take years to flush out of the system
That's for sure. And if higher CAFE standards make it difficult for manufacturers to sell this type of vehicle people will only hold onto them that much longer.
Exactly right. My info (brother #1 chemical engineer, designs ethanol plants because the pay is good, not because he thinks they're the right idea, and brother #2 also chemical engineer in gas refining and marketing) both consider it an agribusiness boondoggle that is driving up gas prices through tight ethanol supplies and the requirement to reformulate the rest of the gas to make up for the high vapor pressure of ethanol (sorry about the technicalities). EPA agrees it does nothing to decrease pollution. And, because E85 complient SUVs get a CAFE credit (remember all those GM ads for flex fuel Tahoes, etc.) the actual gasoline use increases because these vehicles almost always are burning gasoline, not E85. There were good articles in both Scientific American and Consumer Reports about the sham that is ethanol. Not that I have an opinion on the matter...
I noticed how you made sure you didn't have an opinion. I have the same non-opinion.
Ethanol as a whole has one set of problems but at least if you are doing what Brazil is doing and getting it from sugar cane there is at least a reality to it.
What we have is a situation where your tax dollars are guaranteeing the price of corn to encourage farmers to grow it. That worked as we planted the largest crop of corn in over 60 years! Thus feed corn is up, corn that we actually eat is up - all to put in our tanks.
It doesn't end there. imported ethanol is taxed to the tune of 53 cents per gallon.
The price of E-85 is subsidized eight ways to Sunday because if it weren't it would cost more per gallon than gasoline while delivering less energy and polluting to boot. Biodiesel this isn't.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
texases:The low-mpg fleet of SUVs, etc., is going to take years to flush out of the system
tpe:That's for sure. And if higher CAFE standards make it difficult for manufacturers to sell this type of vehicle people will only hold onto them that much longer.
In theory, that might be true, if demand stayed constant, but given high gas prices, I suspect that demand will shrink back down to those that actually need them (iow, tow/heavy haul/off road). On balance, they will probably exit the fleet somewhat normally, IMO.
You could well be right, but given the high quality and long life of cars and SUVs these days, that'll be a while. The CAFE increase will be gradual, so there may not be a shortage that causes people to hold onto low mpg vehicles for an unusually long time.
Comments
I think I'm starting to see Pat84's point. If fuel prices shoot up high enough, to the point that even buying a more efficient vehicle isn't going to save you much money, it's going to cause an incentive to drive less.
At least, if you're talking about extreme, post-apocalyptic examples like $40 or $80 per gallon!
At $3.25 per gallon, my 7 mile round trip commute to work today probably cost me about $1.89. I drove my pickup, which probably gets about 12 mpg. If gas suddenly shot up to $80 per gallon, that round trip would cost me about $47. :surprise: Even if I got into something that tripled my fuel economy, the bill for that short commute would still be about $16.
Now, in an extreme example like this, I'd still probably end up driving the 36 mpg car to work rather than walk or ride a bike, but if it was costing me $16 for every 7 miles I drove, I sure wouldn't be doing much unneccessary driving!
So in and of itself, switching to a more fuel efficient car isn't going to encourage people to drive less. But in an extreme example where fuel prices shoot up high enough, it's probably going to cause a reduction in driving.
Have you changed your behavior as a result of steeper gasoline prices?
Gas prices are spiking again — to an average of $3.22 a gallon, and close to $4 a gallon in many areas.
And some oil executives are now warning that the current shortages of fuel could become a long-term problem, leading to stubbornly higher prices at the pump.
They point to a surprising culprit: uncertainty created by the government’s push to increase the supply of biofuels like ethanol in coming years.
Add to that the miserable shape of the refining/supply chain and the sky's the limit! (Not to mention our continuing dependance on the guys controlling the supply).
Regards,
OW
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-17-gas-prices_N.htm
Andre, could you imagine doing pizza delivery with today's psychotic pump prices?
Shoot, I don't think I'd do it at today's prices! I delivered mainly from February 1996 to November 2000, although I went back briefly from around Mar-April 2001, and then a month in the fall, from September 10 to Columbus Day 2001.
On a busy Friday or Saturday night, I could easily put 200 miles on the car. Back when I drove my Dart, Newport, or Gran Fury, I remember that if I started the night with a full tank, I could usually fill it back up at the end of the night for about 20 bucks, tops. And on a good night, I'd walk out of there with $140+ in cash. So $20 was a small price to pay in fuel. Gas was usually running about $1-1.30 per gallon, as I recall.
Ironically, right around the time I bought my Intrepid, November 1999, that's when fuel prices started going up. I think the first time I filled up that car, it was about $1.399 per gallon. And a few times that summer it spiked to maybe $1.70-1.80 or so.
Actually, if I had to go back to delivering nowadays, and used something like my uncle's Corolla, I might be able to get through a busy Friday or Saturday night on about 20 bucks or so. I figure his car might get 30 mpg in that type of driving, so 200 miles would be 6.67 gallons. Last time I filled up, 87 octane was about $3.119 per gallon, so that would come out to about $20.80, about what it would've cost me 8-10 years ago with one of those big cars.
I'd never use something like a V-8 Dart or Newport to deliver pizzas in today, though. That same 200 miles would end up costing more like 50 bucks in fuel.
....pulled in next to a Harley guy and his big bike at the air base commissary last week.............
Gave him a salute, asked what sort of mpg he got.
After he answered, I pointed to my old diesel pickup: "Me too".....................
..cheers..ez..
I'm not falling for that IDLSWDY bait
Hit by high prices and fees, some gas station owners stop selling fuel (journalsentinel.com)
...the government's positions here are clearly inconsistent.
Worse than inconsistent...we have no coherent energy policy, so this kind of nonsense is what you get.
Even worse (in terms of causing high gas prices), the NY Times today reports that the rise in gas prices will be exacerbated by the drive to increase ethanol production and use for vehicles.
Refinery capacity has been noted here as a contributing cause to price rises and the story reports that the US oil industry had cut back on its plans to increase capacity by 1.6-1.8 M barrels a day over the next 5 years (about 10%) because demand is going to be reduced (replaced) by ethanol.
OTOH, the high prices will, in turn, spur more R&D for energy alternatives, so....depends on your POV as to how bad this is.
And, of course, this could just be an excuse for the oil industry to keep prices high.
What's causing the danger is the difference in size, in weight, in frame height and frame stiffness. And, if the PU is used (as so many are) for grocery hauling, it's caused by ethical indifference. Oh wait, wrong topic.
Call me old fashioned, but I say what's causing the real danger is the nut behind the wheel! Cars do not behave, they are behaved upon. What's causing the danger? The DRIVER!!
Um, no....replace the PU with another civic, same driver, different result.
Vehicles do not behave but they have differing physical characteristics resulting in differing outcomes.
Hey, one thing we'll do if higher gas prices cause folks to downsize vehicles is that we'll have fewer folks acting unethically. Good news!
The oil companies do not need to come up with excuses. Our worthless Congress & state legislatures give them all they need. What the government leaves out the media inserts for a perfect storm at the pumps.
Imagine that.
I understand some of the factors that are driving prices but this idea that because there will be other players in the market that the price has to go up is downright silly.
One thing the oil guys like to do is keep refining capacity at just about how much they think they can sell. Refining more that that only drives the price down.
It's the old story - they can make more profit by pumping less of a limited resource so that's what they'll do. It's what is in their best interests even though it's not likely in our best interests.
EPA for the SRT is 9.5--12.5 mpg according to infoplease at least.
I bet most people would scream "uncle" after a few months of taking the SRT to the gas pump, at least at today's prices in CA.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Vehicles do not behave but they have differing physical characteristics resulting in differing outcomes
And various drivers have differing characteristics as well, resulting in different outcomes as well. Now sure, if you take some chronic tailgater who has a propensity for rear-ending others and take him out of a Civic and put him in some big, hulking mastodon, then yeah, that's just asking for trouble. And honestly, I'd rather have all the bad drivers put in small, lightweight cars that do relatively less damage when they hit something.
Still, every time that I've gotten hit by somebody (I got rear-ended twice in my pickup truck in the course of about two months last year), I didn't blame the VEHICLE that hit me, but rather the DRIVER! Although I'm glad that both times I was hit with relatively small cars (first time a 2000 I30 and the second time a 2004 or so Hyundai Elantra). I wouldn't want to get hit by another full-sized pickup!
Last time I checked, oil companies were not charitable organizations. ANY company will attempt to adjust its production to optimize its bottom line, there's nothing nefarious or unethical in that. Why would you expect oil companies to do otherwise? It may be in your best interest for oil companies to give it away, but that's not an effective business model.
You talked me out of the SRT. I am still looking at the GL320CDI. I want big and good mileage. Why can't anyone but Mercedes see that? They offer three sizes of SUV and an E class with great diesel engines that get very good mileage. I can drive a GL320 CDI that same 15,000 miles for about $1800 at todays price of diesel. Driving a Corolla to save $500 a year does not make sense to me.
I'm not blaming the vehicle for the accident, either. I'm saying the vehicle choice affected the outcome. That's blaming the driver, too, assuming they chose the vehicle they're driving.
And honestly, I'd rather have all the bad drivers put in small, lightweight cars that do relatively less damage when they hit something.i>
Sure, we all would, but that program hasn't been implemented yet. But I think Dubya's about to propose it
I have a 3.9 mile commute. It took about 20 min today, but I think I'll do better. I'm really not doing it because I need to save the gasoline, but more to get some exercise and enjoy the weather. We also are having a lot of road construction right now, so I can make it almost as fast as driving.
Oh, fortunately we have a wellness center at work with showers, so I got here 20 minutes early. Now we have 5 showers in each locker room, and 500 employees; so what happens if more of us start biking? Maybe we'll have 1 of those shower facilities like in Stormship Troopers?
But biking here is not really a year-long alternative. I couldn't see riding on any sort of slick surface with cars. It's dangerous enough now (I stay on the sidewalks when possible).
I think the answer to your question is that "there are diesels and there are diesels".
When Americans think "diesel", they think the kind of engines that propel tractor-trailers....huge torque monsters of incredible displacment running at low RPM.
This works great for hauling boulders, but not so good for use in passenger cars. That type of use requires a much more sophisticated diesel engine, and in this regard the Europeans are ahead of either America or Asia by a 4-5 year margin in development.
My only hesitation about diesel engines is:
More diesels sold, more demand for diesel fuel....price of diesel fuel goes up....diesel loses primary advantage to passenger car owner, which is/was solely economy.
But his support increases the likelihood that it will be passed. That is the way government works.
li_sailor: I really don't want to be sidetracked by politics here,
Then don't keep bringing them up by bashing Bush.
li_sailor: but no, I haven't moved an inch. Bush is totally opposed to CAFE, but he's not opposed to pretending that he is.
In which case, you're still wrong.
Please re-read the articles I posted from The Detroit News. You need to become better informed if you want to have any credibility on this subject.
Please also show your "proof" that he is merely pretending to support an increase in CAFE.
Hint - if your post consists of "because I said so," you automatically receive an "F."
Another hint - spend less time on attempts on mind reading, and more on becoming better informed on the subject matter at hand.
li_sailor: Yada yada. Best to stick to the subject, it ain't me. Esp considering that you were misinformed about my POV.
You're the one who apprears to be misinformed, not me. You stated that the President opposes a CAFE increase, that this was "a fact," (your exact words), and now you are dodging and weaving when shown that you are mistaken in your views.
Overnight, the Shanghai Composite fell 0.5%, with the Chinese government warning about the risks of investing in China's booming stock market.
Now, if China's economy has a "Dramatic Correction", followed by a "Dramatic Recession" could that spell the end of $3 a gallon for the forseeable future??? Any comments???
The question would then become do we continue to get religion on fuel efficiency or do we say "Man, that was a close one!" and go trade the 6 month old Prius in on a new Suburban?
Yet, maybe it proves that cooler heads should prevail, and you can probably still be able to run the vehicle you want w/o much regard to gas prices, even at $3-4. Still, we should keep the religion in mind, and find ways to reduce our energy dependance.
Part of me was getting the itch on a hybrid to replace the old Accord then it occurred to me - how much do I pay per month on the loan for the Accord? Zero. How does it run? Fine. There's no way I could save money on a hybrid.
Obviously I'm not the only one who starts to thinking on such things. The problem, such as it is, is that some people get that initial thought of mine and then act on it. And then they are unhappy with the car because they bought strictly on mileage instead of weighing in other factors like what they actually like.
Once I DO replace the Accord, which by my estimate might not be for another five years, sure I'll look at hybrids, diesels and whatever things are out there because I'm a cheapskate on gas.
So it goes...
10 years ago, gas was like $.80 in the winter and $1.20 in the summer, a 50% hike. Now, we saw $2.25 in the winter, and it's on it's way to $3.25-3.35 (here in RI). Again, about a 50% hike. I heard more people are gonna drive on vacation this weekend than ever!! Maybe they just won't go as far. Or, maybe they budgeted for $3.50 a gal. Who knows? One thing is for sure, it's still cheaper to drive an inefficient PAID FOR Suv, than it is to drive a brand new fuel efficient car, that has payments to be made :P
for instance, what price would gas have to drop to, tomorrow morning, for you to be startled and say WOW THAT'S CHEAP!
I'd need it to drop to say $2.25 or so. That feels "cheap" to me. $2.75 feels like yesterday to me.
NEW vs. USED: Yeah, it's cheaper to push around a gas-guzzler that's paid for than to make car payments, PRESUMING that gas-guzzler never breaks down. If it does, then the advantage over new is quickly lost in repair costs.
V-ery iffy, ethanol, to call it "beneficial". I'm really on the fence about it, leaning towards "NO".
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
That's for sure. And if higher CAFE standards make it difficult for manufacturers to sell this type of vehicle people will only hold onto them that much longer.
It may be a toss-up between Teton Glacier Idaho Potato Vodka and Blue Ice Idaho Potato Vodka...or perhaps you'd like the 44°North Vodka better?
Ethanol as a whole has one set of problems but at least if you are doing what Brazil is doing and getting it from sugar cane there is at least a reality to it.
What we have is a situation where your tax dollars are guaranteeing the price of corn to encourage farmers to grow it. That worked as we planted the largest crop of corn in over 60 years! Thus feed corn is up, corn that we actually eat is up - all to put in our tanks.
It doesn't end there. imported ethanol is taxed to the tune of 53 cents per gallon.
The price of E-85 is subsidized eight ways to Sunday because if it weren't it would cost more per gallon than gasoline while delivering less energy and polluting to boot. Biodiesel this isn't.
Not necessarily. In any case, it still means little until passed.
Then don't keep bringing them up by bashing Bush.
I didn't bring up Bush in this context, Texases did.
You need to become better informed if you want to have any credibility on this subject.
You need be more civil, and frankly, I have zero interest in your assessment of my credibility.
Have a nice day.
tpe:That's for sure. And if higher CAFE standards make it difficult for manufacturers to sell this type of vehicle people will only hold onto them that much longer.
In theory, that might be true, if demand stayed constant, but given high gas prices, I suspect that demand will shrink back down to those that actually need them (iow, tow/heavy haul/off road). On balance, they will probably exit the fleet somewhat normally, IMO.