Great I deal and make it something like $20 per one MPH to fast and do it 24 hours a day every day. Maybe that will stop the jerks doing 90 in a 55.
I'd be up for that, if they'd make the speed limits more reasonable, and not just set unrealistically low for revenue purposes. And maybe allow for a few mph because of speedometer discrepancies.
I'd really rather see the cops start patrolling residential areas, school zones, etc a bit more thoroughly...areas where speeding really IS dangerous. But leave the guy who's doing 80 in a 65 out in the middle of nowhere alone.
Same senerio except you have a ton of gold or a 100 million barrels of oil or whatever you want to claim as "wealth" are you then wealthy?
If I had food and shelter and a radio I'd be wealthy...if I had a motorboat I'd be REALLY wealthy. It all depends on the situation...money wouldn't be wealth in that situation because I could not exchange it for anything I would value, and as I mentioned, it's not something people value except as something they can exchange for something they value. I wouldn't value gas because I had no car. Food I would value, or fresh water. Or a means of leaving or communicating. Those would be wealth. You can have all the money or materials in the world and not be wealthy, if that stuff has no value to you.
Now, one might be seeing that gasoline and oil are more valuable to some others than they are to us, but then again, the US dollar is now redeemable for less wealth than it used to be, hence it takes more dollars to get a barrel of crude.
Either that or every econ professor I had was wrong.
Most econ professors are wrong...you notice that when they all give different answers to the same questions. :shades:
Merritt Parkway in Southern Connecticut, no (IIRC) left lane exits. In fact, stop signs at the entrances to the Parkway. You had to pick your spot and GO!. Growing up there, I thought that was the norm... Lovely two lane, no commercial traffic allowed, somewhat winding road through Fairfield County, CT. Much preferable to I95.
So, keep right. Except to pass (or if you must, left lane exit. But please be expedient).
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
"In fact about once per year the CHP announce a Zero tolerance day on the freeways. One MPH past the speed limit can get you a ticket. I think it is to comply with some stupid Federal law."
I tend to think it is really just to raise revenue.
Here in Massachusetts, the Mass Turnpike Authority (a separate bureaucracy from the State Hwy. Dept., which basically exists to pay its employees inflated salaries...) last year had a revenue shortfall. So, they publicly announced that they will be writing ~33% more speeding tickets in '08. I give them credit for truth in advertising, at least... I believe that the head of this authority just retired at a full salary pension of $225,000/yr. He then turned around and was hired on as a "consultant" at $150,000/yr. Good work if you can get it!
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
If I had food and shelter and a radio I'd be wealthy... if I had a motorboat I'd be REALLY wealthy. It all depends on the situation... money wouldn't be wealth in that situation because I could not exchange it for anything I would value
Correct, but oil, gold, or most anything else you would consider as wealth wouldn't be worth anything because you wouldn't be able to trade it for what really mattered. That being Food, water and shelter.
it's not something people value except as something they can exchange for something they value.
You are missing the point, because they can trade it for something of "value" it has value. Oil would be worthless if it couldn't be traded for something of value, same with gold, or stocks or corn or anything else.
The simple fact that it can be exchanged for something that has value means that it must have value to begin with. Since it has value it has the element of wealth. If is didn't you would be giving the clerk at the gas station a couple of chickens for your tank of gas.
You can have all the money or materials in the world and not be wealthy, if that stuff has no value to you.
Just remember that you can replace "money" in that statement with "oil" or "gold" or anything you would consider to be an element of wealth and it would still be true.
Most econ professors are wrong
Tell me where did you get your econ degree from?
you notice that when they all give different answers to the same questions.
Didn't notice that in any of my studies.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Here in Massachusetts, the Mass Turnpike Authority (a separate bureaucracy from the State Hwy. Dept., which basically exists to pay its employees inflated salaries..
All I will say is that I work at the IL tollway authority and I will say without fear of being contradicted that I could make more money in the private sector.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I know I was reading an article about 3 weeks ago, I'm sure I'm not the only one who read it, but there was a guy who was complaining that he couldn't get a fair trade on his 04 Lexus SUV something or other, which he only bought so that his one child would be safe.
The article was also saying that most used car dealerships are turning SUVs away because they can't sell them. There was also another bit where they said that they have begun shipping SUVs overseas to anybody who has the money and wants one. I can't remember the name of the article for the life of me, but it was on yahoo or msn.
Remember the discussion that I started more than a year back ... "What will you do when gas prices will hit $4/ gallon?". The discussion grew very fast, and it was closed only after several thousands comments were received. Yet, most posting at that time didn't believe gas could reach $4 so fast. Guess what - I was among those who believed this was going to be the case. So, I traded in my Chevy Blazer for a Honda CR-V then (in 2006). The CR-V gets nearly 30 mpg on highway, and is very good compared to 20 mpg of Blazer. My next plan is to trade in my Mazda Protege (which also gets 30+ mpg on highway) for a Prius! I love my Mazda, but Prius will do better at $5/ gallon!
The interesting points for me are socio-economic ones such as...
Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes.
People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.
The inequities of this will be felt by society as a whole eventually. IMO it's going to get far beyond "If I can afford it I'll use it."
Those of us who have to free time and wherewithal to debate the finer points of belt-tightening on the internet rather than figuring out simply how to get to work in order to feed the family are probably not representative of the country as a whole.
That's very true... I know several people other than myself who are making these decisions like "food or gas?" Love to help them out by my budget's getting stretched too.
This whole rising gas prices thing is a serious socioeconomic issue, so it's kind of understandable that we might look at economics every once in a while. Because it's really the base for our economy it impacts EVERYTHING...take the economic stimulus for example....how many of us figured it was enough back when it passed, but now, because of rising gas prices (or rising other prices caused by rising gas prices) decided to put it away in the bank instead of going a-stimulating? Or ended up putting it directly in the tank?
Me, I was originally going to go a-stimulating, but I ended up changing my mind. It's sitting in the bank for when gas hits $6 a gallon. :shades:
cost per gallon, cost per fillup, miles per gallon, cost per mile.
The lowest fuel cost per mile was 4.9 cents back in Jan 02 (80% highway). The highest cost per mile was 24.9 cents this April (all city driving & a 30 minute period in traffic waiting for a train).
And the ever important cost per month 2001 25.1 2002 31.2 2003 61.2 2004 69.1 2005 80.0 2006 81.7 2007 84.1 2008 100.5
A hundred dollars a month is still very manageable, especially when about a third of the miles each year is for work (paid for at 45 cents per).
The bottom line, the fuel costs for my car went from about $25 per month to about $75 per month (personal use). Not much of an impact. Increased costs from cable, cell phones and groceries easily exceeded the extra fuel costs for the family by a factor of 3.
"but there was a guy who was complaining that he couldn't get a fair trade on his 04 Lexus SUV something or other, which he only bought so that his one child would be safe."
The guy trading in the SUV apparently doesn't know that you should buy an SUV when gas prices are high and trade it in when prices are low.
I guess he no longer cares about the safety of his kid. :confuse:
This weekend I checked out the local car lots. Not a single new Civic, Yaris or Corolla in town. The lots were full of vehicles that averaged about 16/22 mpg. I suspect they will continue to sit there as AAA is reporting RUG is up to $4.023.
And another piece of news, the folks at the oil drum did a nice story on oil production in the North Sea. http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4112#more The graph is scary looking. The decline in oil production is close to half a million barrels a year.
Got my stimulus check last week. I took a friend and his wife to dinner at Applebee's. Dinner for three (appetizer, entrees, and drinks) was $42 plus tip -- quite a bargain!
But that's all I'm planning to "stimulate." The rest of the cash will stay in my pocket until I need it for unforeseen expenses.
Gasoline, fortunately, won't be one of them. I neutered OPEC's influence on my life last year when I bought a Civic Hybrid. It costs me $20/week in gas.
So I was forum hopping this morning and I was reading the Toyota echo forums and how the Echo with automatic gets 20% less mileage than the one with the manual (mid 30s vs. mid 40s in the MPG). I also know from my addiction to Saturn Astra forums that the automatic version seems to get mid to upper 20s, but the manual version gets in the mid to upper 30s in MPG.
Is the difference that enormous for most for most cars or only for select examples? This seems like a very inexpensive (saves you $1000 before you even start saving on gas) way to increase mileage, but some news sources and the EPA insist that the gas savings aren't that great.
Cool! I'm frequently thinking of a Civic Hybrid myself these days. Trouble is, I wouldn't really be saving any money if I had another car payment. If I could pay for it in cash, I'd probably get one and retire my Park Avenue.
What I'd save in gas with a manual transmission would soon be spent on psychological couseling. Rowing through the gears in tight city traffic would make me have a nervous breakdown.
The smaller the car the wider the gap between auto and manual transmission. I just looked at the 2008 Corolla. Average driver gets 38.3 MPG with a manual and 32.8 MPG with an automatic. If you drive 15k miles per year and pay $4 per gallon for gas it will save you about $22 per month. Last I read less than 10% of Americans want a stick shift. Maybe as the price of gas goes up they will rethink that position. It looks like mileage winner in the current crop of econoboxes, is the Corolla stick shift. It barely beats out the Yaris manual. The Civic manual lags behind the Corolla according to actual drivers by about 11%. The 2005 Echo easily beats all of them with real world mileage of 41.7 MPG. I guess Toyota did not want any cars that could compete against their Prius mileage.
You're correct that you won't save money if you dispense with one perfectly good car just to buy a hybrid.
Hybrids only "save" money if you're buying a new car because you NEED a new car.
But with $4/gal. gasoline, people choosing hybrids vs. regular cars enjoy a quick payback on the additional expense. My HCH has averaged 48 mpg over 24,000 miles (not just my claim, but the actual computer-calculated mpg on the dashboard display).
Park Avenue? Which engine does it use? 3.8L pushrod? 3.8L is actually quite fuel-efficient. On highways you should get 26-28 mpg easily and you should easily get 20+ mpg on city. Am I wrong in guessing these numbers? Last year I drove a rental Le Sabre for over 2 weeks and I was surprised by its fuel efficiency (and, ability to seat 3 in the front-bench seat!). These cars are far more reliable and efficient than unreliable guzzlers like TrailBlazer. At least, that's the impression I have.
My 1988 Park Avenue has the 3.8 V-6 as does my girlfriend's 2005 Buick LaCrosse. Both deliver excellent fuel economy and are the cars we most frequently drive. Both are extremely reliable. I was never interested in SUVs even when gas was cheap. The Park Ave is just getting old and I will drive it until something catastrophic kills it.
Before fuel prices became sociopathic, I would drive a 2002 Cadillac Seville STS which I replaced last year with a 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance. These days, I drive the new car only occassionally.
Hybrids only "save" money if you're buying a new car because you NEED a new car.
This is something I have wondered about and it hasn't shown up either in this thread or in the media much that I can tell.
I would just have to guess that the average length of time of ownership has to be increasing or will increase in the foreseeable future. Maybe that is currently balanced somewhat by folks dumping SUV's even at a loss. Pure speculation on my part, but maybe folks are really rethinking whether or not to pull the trigger as often as they have in the past.
Well, I know I've decided to hang on to my Mazda3 a bit longer at this point...much as I'd like to get an Elantra Touring or a Rogue, I'm thinking take some more time and then get a hybrid later. Maybe Hyundai will have hybrids by then, or Nissan will come up with a Rogue Hybrid. The selection should expand (and prices drop) as a couple of years go by.
I would just have to guess that the average length of time of ownership has to be increasing
Hmmm, I haven't traded in a car younger than 10 years old since '82. At this rate I'll be drawing Social Security before another new vehicle graces the driveway. Either that or I'll pick up a new, guzzling 20 mpg minivan when prices really crash.
Now that bus fare is half the price of a gallon of gas in some places, I suppose those rates will go up.
I think you are right that vehicle ownership will be extended as people have less money due to inflation of food and fuel and utilities etc. Vehicle sales overall are way down this year. That is the best indicator people are hanging on to what they have.
Our 19 year old Lexus gets driven twice per week. Sunday 3 miles to Church. Fridays my wife volunteers at public school 10 miles away. The Sequoia gets driven even less. Trips to the store are usually in my old beater Ford Ranger. I keep thinking the LS400 should give out some day. It keeps running good since we quit using Lexus for service. Probably good for another 10 years. It is already past 94,000 miles
does the hybrid Civic still have a tax credit? I'd almost be tempted, the next time I'm in the market for a car. But as little as I drive, I don't think I'd ever recoup the cost. I'm only doing around 5,000 miles per year these days, most of it local. If I averaged, say, 48 mpg with the hybrid, but only 30 with the regular Civic, it looks like it would save me around $250 per year, at $4.00 per gallon. But it looks like the hybrid Civic carries a premium of around $3,000, over the EX model. It would take me 12 years to break even!
Of course, if you drive more, the hybrid starts to make more sense. At 15,000 miles per year, you'd save $750 and essentially break even in 4 years. Sooner, if gas prices rise further.
Shoot, had I known things would get this ridiculous, I'd have held onto my 2002 Cadillac Seville STS instead of trading it. Well, I'll hang onto the Park Avenue as long as it remains reliable. Heck, I might even fix it up a bit now that it's become my primary vehicle. If I were crazy enough to dump my DTS, I don't think I'd take a loss on it but would probably break even. Of course, with my luck, fuel prices will crash next week. Maybe I should do it and take one for the team?
I wonder how many of those SUV owners traded in a car with negative equity on it? If they dump the SUV for an econo vehicle, they'll get a double-gonzo on negative equity. That Civic could cost the equivalent of a loaded luxury car in such a situation.
NOTHING gets great mileage on short trips...a hybrid will do better than a regular ICE though, especially if it's city driving (which hybrids absolutely shine at).
it's a double whammy for the suv's. current suv owners who are looking for a new vehicle aren't looking at them. people who normally would want to trade up to a new suv aren't looking at them. Current suv owners can't trade or sell their suv's without taking a blood bath. I don't know where you are, but used car lots in my area are filled with suv's.
And you know what's the next group of vehicle to go through this cycle? non-lux v6 sedans.
The hybrids do not get great mileage on short trips. I think you would be disappointed unless you have a long commute.
Really? I thought that's where hybrids tended to do the best? Although I guess with the short trips I take, I might run the batteries down more quickly, and have to rely more on the gasoline engine.
If I'm really gentle on it, I can usually get my 2000 Intrepid to get around 18-20 mpg in the type of short-trip, local driving that I do. Considering that some days, that's just driving 3.5 miles to work and 3.5 miles home, that's probably about all I can hope for. Plus, that's about what its EPA city rating was. Now in the wintertime, I've gotten it down to as low as 17. I think I got 16.6 once, but that was right before a tuneup.
people who normally would want to trade up to a new suv aren't looking at them.
There is still a core market for those who have some justification for light trucks and SUV's. Either for work or they actually intend to take advantage of the utility and not much else. Even that market is softer right now, but it is still there. Certainly there is a shift away from folks considering them for daily drivers and grocery getters.
used car lots in my area are filled with suv's
Around here BHPH lots are flooded with SUV's. I haven't noticed the same at new car dealer used lots. I'm thinking dealer's are probably sending them to auction more quickly just so they don't have to carry them on their lots.
The hybrid engine starts to warm up the Catalytic converter. Trips under 3 miles will not be great. If your commute is over 10 miles it would be an improvement over a non hybrid of the same caliber. There were a lot of complaints early on from drivers taking only short trips in their hybrids. They should still get 35 or better due to the smaller engine. Short trips and cold weather are tough on all vehicles.
BP chief Tony Hayward says lack of investment to blame for oil spike
"Producers are being hampered by 25 years of low investments, because of low prices," Mr Hayward told the Asia Oil and Gas Conference in Kuala Lumpur today. "The result is a supply chain being stretched to breaking point."
Crude oil surged on Friday to a record $139.12 a barrel in New York, although it had eased off to trade at $137 early on Monday.
Fears about the ability of the oil industry to quickly tap new reserves come on top of existing forecasts that the world will exhaust its oil supplies in the next half century.
Investment in production and exploration has been affected by taxes and governments taking an increasing share of oil and gas revenue, he said. State-run companies are demanding better terms as energy prices surge.
"This is unsustainable and counterproductive," Mr Hayward said. "All it means is that we have less money to invest in new production."
According to the BP boss, the oil industry faces the dual challenge of increasing production and climate change.
Oil prices this morning fell from Friday's record high after Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi said the rapid increase in prices was "unjustified". Opec, of which Saudi Arabia is a leading member, is insisting that the oil market remains well supplied despite the surge in prices.
Ah, BP, the same company that didn't invest in maintaining their feeder pipelines up on the Slope, resulting in a partial shutdown of Prudhoe Bay last year.
These guys can't see beyond the next quarterly financial statement.
Here's an interesting unanticipated consequence - used diesel truck prices have fallen about $6,000 on average:
Plenty of cash -- and challenges Well, part of the problem is one that ExxonMobil shares with every other Western oil company: access to new places to drill. In the 1970s, Western oil companies controlled about 70% of all the world's proven and probable reserves. The rest belonged to the national oil companies of oil-producing countries.
Today, though, the positions of the Western and national oil companies are reversed. Now the national oil companies control about 80% of the world's proven and probable reserves, and they're keeping the most promising geologies for themselves. As a result, Western oil companies with the cash reserves of an ExxonMobil, a Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) or a Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, news, msgs) simply don't have enough places to put their cash to work.
Further, that money doesn't go as far as it used to when it comes to finding new reserves. The places Western oil companies can put their money to work are among the world's most hostile environments and most challenging geologies: in Siberia or beneath a mile of water and a mile of salt, for example. The high price of finding oil And because so many oil companies, Western and national, are exploring for new reserves, and because so many companies are competing to use the world's limited supply of extreme exploration and production equipment in challenging geologies, the cost of exploration has exploded. Oil-field inflation is estimated at 15% or more in 2007.
So when ExxonMobil told Wall Street in March that it would raise capital spending to $25 billion to $30 billion a year from the prior $22 billion, it was really talking about an increase of 13.6% at the low end that actually lost ground to oil-field inflation and an increase of 36.4% at the high end. In dollars, that's an increase at the high end of about $4.7 billion above inflatio
Could ExxonMobil reinvest more in the business of finding oil? Absolutely. The company spent $8 billion in the first quarter of 2008 alone.
But ExxonMobil has decided not to. A culture of investment discipline Other oil companies may be scrambling to find oil in every nook and cranny. Other oil companies may be willing to invest billions in risky and potentially marginal fields. But not ExxonMobil. In management's estimation, investing more in exploration and development would not be a sound business decision at this time. Such investments would not generate the high level of return the company targets in its investment decisions.
To understand those decisions, you've got to understand ExxonMobil's corporate culture. This is a company that prides itself on making very disciplined investment decisions, based always on the return on invested capital.
That discipline has worked for ExxonMobil. This is an amazingly profitable company, even by oil industry standards. ExxonMobil's return on capital is a whopping 23.5%, when the average for major oil and gas companies is 17.7%, and the average for the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) is just 10.7%.
If you look just at returns on capital in the upstream business -- the oil exploration and production business -- ExxonMobil's returns are twice that of Chevron, the second-best company in its industry, according to Deutsche Bank.
Here's an interesting unanticipated consequence - used diesel truck prices have fallen about $6,000 on average:
I just wish I could find a nice clean 3/4 ton Ford PU diesel. I want 1995 or older. I hate the looks of the newer ones and the 7.3 Power stroke is just a better engine. Less emissions crap to fail. When I find one I will sell this under powered V6 Ford Ranger FFV to someone that thinks small is better or Ethanol is the answer.
The latest Galves value guide market report says that many dealers are asking Galves to remove the ADD for a diesel engine on pickups. Galves has not done it yet but probably will when the print the next market report next week.
It is the Boards first and foremost responsibility to make sound financial decisions for the investors. I am glad my 401K has a little XOM in it. You cannot explore for oil without a permit. Trying to get permits through our Congress and state governments is tough. Exxon still holds substantial portions of the oil in the Arctic. The moves by different entities to block further exploration and production in the Arctic make it difficult for the oil companies. They would be better off investing in other ventures that show promise.
I just returned from 4 weeks in Europe where I leased a 2008 Renualt Laguna III 4 door sedan (I suppose it would compare in size to a Cad CTS) which was loaded. It had a 6 speed auto which worked like a charm and a 150 hp turbo diesel. The car was quick (about the speed of my 07 MDX) and achieved over a 9,200 kilometre drive from Scandinavia down to Italy, an average of 7.4 litres/100 kilometres which is 31.78 mpg. Average speed was around 40 mph but much of the driving was at 150 to 160 kph. In 07, diesel was quite a bit cheaper in Europe than unleaded gas but this year, it was slightly higher than regular but still cheaper than premium.
Comments
I'd be up for that, if they'd make the speed limits more reasonable, and not just set unrealistically low for revenue purposes. And maybe allow for a few mph because of speedometer discrepancies.
I'd really rather see the cops start patrolling residential areas, school zones, etc a bit more thoroughly...areas where speeding really IS dangerous. But leave the guy who's doing 80 in a 65 out in the middle of nowhere alone.
If I had food and shelter and a radio I'd be wealthy...if I had a motorboat I'd be REALLY wealthy. It all depends on the situation...money wouldn't be wealth in that situation because I could not exchange it for anything I would value, and as I mentioned, it's not something people value except as something they can exchange for something they value. I wouldn't value gas because I had no car. Food I would value, or fresh water. Or a means of leaving or communicating. Those would be wealth. You can have all the money or materials in the world and not be wealthy, if that stuff has no value to you.
Now, one might be seeing that gasoline and oil are more valuable to some others than they are to us, but then again, the US dollar is now redeemable for less wealth than it used to be, hence it takes more dollars to get a barrel of crude.
Either that or every econ professor I had was wrong.
Most econ professors are wrong...you notice that when they all give different answers to the same questions. :shades:
So, keep right. Except to pass (or if you must, left lane exit. But please be expedient).
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
I tend to think it is really just to raise revenue.
Here in Massachusetts, the Mass Turnpike Authority (a separate bureaucracy from the State Hwy. Dept., which basically exists to pay its employees inflated salaries...) last year had a revenue shortfall. So, they publicly announced that they will be writing ~33% more speeding tickets in '08. I give them credit for truth in advertising, at least... I believe that the head of this authority just retired at a full salary pension of $225,000/yr. He then turned around and was hired on as a "consultant" at $150,000/yr. Good work if you can get it!
'21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)
Correct, but oil, gold, or most anything else you would consider as wealth wouldn't be worth anything because you wouldn't be able to trade it for what really mattered. That being Food, water and shelter.
it's not something people value except as something they can exchange for something they value.
You are missing the point, because they can trade it for something of "value" it has value. Oil would be worthless if it couldn't be traded for something of value, same with gold, or stocks or corn or anything else.
The simple fact that it can be exchanged for something that has value means that it must have value to begin with. Since it has value it has the element of wealth. If is didn't you would be giving the clerk at the gas station a couple of chickens for your tank of gas.
You can have all the money or materials in the world and not be wealthy, if that stuff has no value to you.
Just remember that you can replace "money" in that statement with "oil" or "gold" or anything you would consider to be an element of wealth and it would still be true.
Most econ professors are wrong
Tell me where did you get your econ degree from?
you notice that when they all give different answers to the same questions.
Didn't notice that in any of my studies.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All I will say is that I work at the IL tollway authority and I will say without fear of being contradicted that I could make more money in the private sector.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Along the trip, I spent 20 minutes one time waiting for a bus to arrive at my stop.
I had the chance to watch traffic.
What AMAZED me was that the car-to-SUV/Minivan/Truck ratio was somewhere between 3-1 and 2-1 in favor of the CARS. Mostly small cars.
I saw an 80s era VW Rabbit DIESEL 5-dr hatchback - and there WAS NOT a huge trail of black smoke coming from the tailpipe.
I saw at least 3 70s/80s era MB turbo diesels.
I saw one 80s era car which LOOKED like a Mercury Lynx convertible - did they make one of those?
My point is that people at least in Tempe AZ are moving into older diesels and smaller cars and out of the gas guzzlers.
It was GREAT to see that !!!
Nope, but could have it been a Capri? They made those in a ragtop.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Should I state the obvious.
"Economists have only begun to understand when money illusion affects market outcomes."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823141025.htm
There were many aftermarket convertibles during that times, as snake mentions.
On the thread topic, I still see endless SUVs here as people seem to think the economy is healthier - that or they can't trade them in.
I think he talked about oil and gas prices, but who could understand it but another economist. And then they'd argue about it for umpteen years.
So, perhaps we can get back to our little world of unreal (to us) gas prices?
The article was also saying that most used car dealerships are turning SUVs away because they can't sell them. There was also another bit where they said that they have begun shipping SUVs overseas to anybody who has the money and wants one. I can't remember the name of the article for the life of me, but it was on yahoo or msn.
altest, "Are gas prices fueling your pain?" #1, 5 Apr 2007 10:40 am
It seemed like it would be playing with fire just to change the $4 to $5. :shades:
The interesting points for me are socio-economic ones such as...
Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes.
People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.
The inequities of this will be felt by society as a whole eventually. IMO it's going to get far beyond "If I can afford it I'll use it."
Those of us who have to free time and wherewithal to debate the finer points of belt-tightening on the internet rather than figuring out simply how to get to work in order to feed the family are probably not representative of the country as a whole.
This whole rising gas prices thing is a serious socioeconomic issue, so it's kind of understandable that we might look at economics every once in a while. Because it's really the base for our economy it impacts EVERYTHING...take the economic stimulus for example....how many of us figured it was enough back when it passed, but now, because of rising gas prices (or rising other prices caused by rising gas prices) decided to put it away in the bank instead of going a-stimulating? Or ended up putting it directly in the tank?
Me, I was originally going to go a-stimulating, but I ended up changing my mind. It's sitting in the bank for when gas hits $6 a gallon. :shades:
This weekend I updated my MPG spreadsheet. Here are the numbers:
Total fuel costs for 82 months = $5540
Avg cost per month= $67.57
Averages
CPG CPF MPG CPM
2001 1.37 16.7 19.3 7.1
2002 1.43 16.3 20.6 7.0
2003 1.60 18.8 23.4 7.2
2004 1.92 21.8 24.0 8.3
2005 2.34 26.7 23.6 10.3
2006 2.58 31.6 22.6 11.8
2007 2.97 34.8 23.2 13.2
2008 3.50 38.6 21.5 17.1
cost per gallon, cost per fillup, miles per gallon, cost per mile.
The lowest fuel cost per mile was 4.9 cents back in Jan 02 (80% highway). The highest cost per mile was 24.9 cents this April (all city driving & a 30 minute period in traffic waiting for a train).
And the ever important cost per month
2001 25.1
2002 31.2
2003 61.2
2004 69.1
2005 80.0
2006 81.7
2007 84.1
2008 100.5
A hundred dollars a month is still very manageable, especially when about a third of the miles each year is for work (paid for at 45 cents per).
The bottom line, the fuel costs for my car went from about $25 per month to about $75 per month (personal use). Not much of an impact. Increased costs from cable, cell phones and groceries easily exceeded the extra fuel costs for the family by a factor of 3.
The guy trading in the SUV apparently doesn't know that you should buy an SUV when gas prices are high and trade it in when prices are low.
I guess he no longer cares about the safety of his kid. :confuse:
This weekend I checked out the local car lots. Not a single new Civic, Yaris or Corolla in town. The lots were full of vehicles that averaged about 16/22 mpg. I suspect they will continue to sit there as AAA is reporting RUG is up to $4.023.
And another piece of news, the folks at the oil drum did a nice story on oil production in the North Sea.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4112#more
The graph is scary looking. The decline in oil production is close to half a million barrels a year.
But that's all I'm planning to "stimulate." The rest of the cash will stay in my pocket until I need it for unforeseen expenses.
Gasoline, fortunately, won't be one of them. I neutered OPEC's influence on my life last year when I bought a Civic Hybrid. It costs me $20/week in gas.
Is the difference that enormous for most for most cars or only for select examples? This seems like a very inexpensive (saves you $1000 before you even start saving on gas) way to increase mileage, but some news sources and the EPA insist that the gas savings aren't that great.
Hybrids only "save" money if you're buying a new car because you NEED a new car.
But with $4/gal. gasoline, people choosing hybrids vs. regular cars enjoy a quick payback on the additional expense. My HCH has averaged 48 mpg over 24,000 miles (not just my claim, but the actual computer-calculated mpg on the dashboard display).
Before fuel prices became sociopathic, I would drive a 2002 Cadillac Seville STS which I replaced last year with a 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance. These days, I drive the new car only occassionally.
This is something I have wondered about and it hasn't shown up either in this thread or in the media much that I can tell.
I would just have to guess that the average length of time of ownership has to be increasing or will increase in the foreseeable future. Maybe that is currently balanced somewhat by folks dumping SUV's even at a loss. Pure speculation on my part, but maybe folks are really rethinking whether or not to pull the trigger as often as they have in the past.
Hmmm, I haven't traded in a car younger than 10 years old since '82. At this rate I'll be drawing Social Security before another new vehicle graces the driveway. Either that or I'll pick up a new, guzzling 20 mpg minivan when prices really crash.
Now that bus fare is half the price of a gallon of gas in some places, I suppose those rates will go up.
lemko, "Report Your Local Gas Prices Here" #7778, 9 Jun 2008 5:31 am
Are the security guys following on bikes or in gas guzzling Suburbans? Is that an American brand/built bike?
Of course, if you drive more, the hybrid starts to make more sense. At 15,000 miles per year, you'd save $750 and essentially break even in 4 years. Sooner, if gas prices rise further.
I wonder how many of those SUV owners traded in a car with negative equity on it? If they dump the SUV for an econo vehicle, they'll get a double-gonzo on negative equity. That Civic could cost the equivalent of a loaded luxury car in such a situation.
And you know what's the next group of vehicle to go through this cycle? non-lux v6 sedans.
Really? I thought that's where hybrids tended to do the best? Although I guess with the short trips I take, I might run the batteries down more quickly, and have to rely more on the gasoline engine.
If I'm really gentle on it, I can usually get my 2000 Intrepid to get around 18-20 mpg in the type of short-trip, local driving that I do. Considering that some days, that's just driving 3.5 miles to work and 3.5 miles home, that's probably about all I can hope for. Plus, that's about what its EPA city rating was. Now in the wintertime, I've gotten it down to as low as 17. I think I got 16.6 once, but that was right before a tuneup.
There is still a core market for those who have some justification for light trucks and SUV's. Either for work or they actually intend to take advantage of the utility and not much else. Even that market is softer right now, but it is still there. Certainly there is a shift away from folks considering them for daily drivers and grocery getters.
used car lots in my area are filled with suv's
Around here BHPH lots are flooded with SUV's. I haven't noticed the same at new car dealer used lots. I'm thinking dealer's are probably sending them to auction more quickly just so they don't have to carry them on their lots.
"Producers are being hampered by 25 years of low investments, because of low prices," Mr Hayward told the Asia Oil and Gas Conference in Kuala Lumpur today. "The result is a supply chain being stretched to breaking point."
Crude oil surged on Friday to a record $139.12 a barrel in New York, although it had eased off to trade at $137 early on Monday.
Fears about the ability of the oil industry to quickly tap new reserves come on top of existing forecasts that the world will exhaust its oil supplies in the next half century.
Investment in production and exploration has been affected by taxes and governments taking an increasing share of oil and gas revenue, he said. State-run companies are demanding better terms as energy prices surge.
"This is unsustainable and counterproductive," Mr Hayward said. "All it means is that we have less money to invest in new production."
According to the BP boss, the oil industry faces the dual challenge of increasing production and climate change.
Oil prices this morning fell from Friday's record high after Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi said the rapid increase in prices was "unjustified". Opec, of which Saudi Arabia is a leading member, is insisting that the oil market remains well supplied despite the surge in prices.
These guys can't see beyond the next quarterly financial statement.
Here's an interesting unanticipated consequence - used diesel truck prices have fallen about $6,000 on average:
Diesel Deflation (Straightline)
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/IsExxonMobilsFuture- - RunningDry.aspx
from the middle of the article.
Plenty of cash -- and challenges
Well, part of the problem is one that ExxonMobil shares with every other Western oil company: access to new places to drill. In the 1970s, Western oil companies controlled about 70% of all the world's proven and probable reserves. The rest belonged to the national oil companies of oil-producing countries.
Today, though, the positions of the Western and national oil companies are reversed. Now the national oil companies control about 80% of the world's proven and probable reserves, and they're keeping the most promising geologies for themselves. As a result, Western oil companies with the cash reserves of an ExxonMobil, a Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) or a Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, news, msgs) simply don't have enough places to put their cash to work.
Further, that money doesn't go as far as it used to when it comes to finding new reserves. The places Western oil companies can put their money to work are among the world's most hostile environments and most challenging geologies: in Siberia or beneath a mile of water and a mile of salt, for example.
The high price of finding oil
And because so many oil companies, Western and national, are exploring for new reserves, and because so many companies are competing to use the world's limited supply of extreme exploration and production equipment in challenging geologies, the cost of exploration has exploded. Oil-field inflation is estimated at 15% or more in 2007.
So when ExxonMobil told Wall Street in March that it would raise capital spending to $25 billion to $30 billion a year from the prior $22 billion, it was really talking about an increase of 13.6% at the low end that actually lost ground to oil-field inflation and an increase of 36.4% at the high end. In dollars, that's an increase at the high end of about $4.7 billion above inflatio
Could ExxonMobil reinvest more in the business of finding oil? Absolutely. The company spent $8 billion in the first quarter of 2008 alone.
But ExxonMobil has decided not to.
A culture of investment discipline
Other oil companies may be scrambling to find oil in every nook and cranny. Other oil companies may be willing to invest billions in risky and potentially marginal fields. But not ExxonMobil. In management's estimation, investing more in exploration and development would not be a sound business decision at this time. Such investments would not generate the high level of return the company targets in its investment decisions.
To understand those decisions, you've got to understand ExxonMobil's corporate culture. This is a company that prides itself on making very disciplined investment decisions, based always on the return on invested capital.
That discipline has worked for ExxonMobil. This is an amazingly profitable company, even by oil industry standards. ExxonMobil's return on capital is a whopping 23.5%, when the average for major oil and gas companies is 17.7%, and the average for the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) is just 10.7%.
If you look just at returns on capital in the upstream business -- the oil exploration and production business -- ExxonMobil's returns are twice that of Chevron, the second-best company in its industry, according to Deutsche Bank.
I just wish I could find a nice clean 3/4 ton Ford PU diesel. I want 1995 or older. I hate the looks of the newer ones and the 7.3 Power stroke is just a better engine. Less emissions crap to fail. When I find one I will sell this under powered V6 Ford Ranger FFV to someone that thinks small is better or Ethanol is the answer.