By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Back in the day, I remember seeing a school bus picking up men in West Philly to take them to work on farms in Chester County. At least at one time native Philadelphians weren't too proud to do farm work, that is until they were replaced by illegals whom the farmers could pay less.
When better fuel-efficient cars are built, Buick will build them!
In this case they have a right to. Nuclear plants not only have safety consequences that range far and beyond the physical area of the plant and its workers, but there are also national security implications as far as vulnerability to, oh, say, someone crashing a plane into it, or stealing spent fuel, etc. .
Along the way we lost consumer electronics, apparel, textiles, furniture, small appliances, and are in imminent danger of losing our automobile industry. Shoot, books aren't even printed and bound here anymore. I picked up a hardcover book and the dust jacket read "Printed in China." Ugh!!!
What have we got now? Wal~Mart? Feh! One of the reasons gasoline is so high is because the dollar is worthless. Why is the dollar worthless? One of the big reasons is because we don't make anything here anymore.
I think the 3.5 is slightly more efficient than the 3.8. IIRC, the 3.5 Impala is rated at something like 20/31, while the 3.8 was rated at 20/30 (this is the older 1985-2007 style ratings). I think the older 3.4 Impala was actually rated at 21/32!
The 3.6 is a more powerful, more performance-oriented engine, so it's not going to be as efficient as the 3.8. I think the Saturn Aura with this engine, and the 6-speed auto, was rated at 20/28. And while an Aura is smaller than an Impala, I don't think it's noticeably lighter, so this is probably a fair comparison. For some reason, the 3.5 in the Aura was only rated at 20/30...just a touch lower than the Impala.
IIRC, the 3.8 Lucerne was rated around 19/28, compared to 17/24 for the Northstar-powered cars. So you wouldn't really be saving a whole lot of fuel. Maybe 11-12%. And unless you do an awful lot of driving, that's really not going to add up to much.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If memory serves me we had some nuclear power plants under construction or in the planning stages when Three Mile Island failed. They were abandoned. I am not sure what CA will do if there is a big surge in EVs. They refuse to buy coal fired electricity. There are some very good nuclear power plant designs being used worldwide. We need to use the best designs not the cheapest bids. That was an issue with Three Mile Island nuke plant. Building coal plants at the source seems wise. Though transport of electricity has its own issues to deal with. Most clean sources of energy such as wind and solar are running into environmental roadblocks or NIMBY problems.
My '82 Cutlass Supreme had the 3.8. I think it was even firing by that time, but it just had a 2-bbl carb and 110 hp. It was slow from 0-60, but was a good highway cruiser, and actually seemed to have a fairly good upper range. At least, for that era, I guess. I also had an '80 Malibu with the Chevy 229. 115 hp. About the same from 0-60, but it seemed to run out of breath quicker. I only got maybe 21-23 mpg on the highway with that Cutlass, but it also just had a 3-speed automatic, no overdrive.
I only wanted to comment because this caught my eye. I do not disagree with it or intend to refute this, as I think it is a good observation, but isn't it a very bizarre situation. It just drips with irony.
Fortunately for residents of San Diego, there are some Indian tribes with the fore thought to put in Wind Farms on their reservation. They make money selling the electricity and we get clean energy. A win win in my book.
History tells us that most often the only time we make painful changes is when we are forced to. I don't see long term gas prices going down. World wide fossil fuel consumption will continue to climb. Changes must occur. They can be reactive or proactive. I would rather us be proactive.
I believe Detroit would be better off if they would lead the charge instead of constantly being the last ones to figure things out. How about we make the mental adjustment to accept that things have changed and that rather than be stuck in the past that we take leadership and lead the change? Americans are capable of figuring out how to build quality, fun, fast, safe automobiles that are highly fuel efficient. Let's get busy and make the best high mileage autos in the world. That is the kind of change I am hoping for.
I'm not sure I see it as surprise. Maybe more a case of denial.
I find the news of this to be bizarre since GM has been advertising it's "Green" stance with images of the Volt for many months, like it was already some triumphant reality.
GM Board of Directors also just approved funding to start designing a "next generation" small car they hope will achieve as good of gas mileage as a 1977 Honda Civic.
Such wierdos.
Such wierdos.
FWIW, the 1978 Honda Civic (numbers aren't available for 1977) was given the following EPA estimates:
29/37 (manual)
23/30 (semi-automatic)
26/44 (manual, CVCC model)
29/35 (semi-automatic, CVCC model)
This is for a tiny little car that was probably a step below subcompact, and could barely move out of its own way.
Just for comparison, in 1996, the Buick Century, a midsized car, scored...
27/40, (4-cyl, 3-speed automatic).
Even a 1996 Impala SS, with the pavement ripping LT-1 V-8, and automatic, scored 19/33.
Figures sound a bit optimistic for those GM cars? That's because those are the raw, unadjusted laboratory numbers. They haven't put those numbers on cars since 1984. From 1985-2007 they adjusted the numbers downward, and starting in 2007, adjusted them downward again.
Needless to say, the 1977 Civic ain't no great shakes with respect to fuel economy. Keep in mind that it probably didn't have air conditioning, power steering, or power brakes as tested, either. While the EPA didn't test cars with the a/c running, just having it is still going to increase the load on the car.
For 2008, Chevy is getting 27/42 out of the 4-cyl/4-speed auto Malibu, and 27/45 out of the 4cyl/6-speed auto version.
The Cobalt XFE model, which was designed with efficiency in mind, is raw-number rated at 32/50!
So, when you do apples-to-apples comparisons with the EPA numbers, it's not like GM is just now trying to say they're going to match the fuel economy estimates of a little rust bucket from the Star Wars and disco era.
A reporter would like to talk to consumers who are in the market for (or have recently purchased) a Honda as a result of high gas prices. Please respond to jwahl@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information, as well as your current vehicle and the Honda you have purchased or are considering no later than Tuesday, June 10th.
A reporter would like to talk to mothers who use a large SUV to transport children but are now considering a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicle as a result of high gas prices. Please respond to jwahl@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information along with your current vehicle and the vehicle/s you are considering no later than Wednesday, June 11th.
Thanks,
Jonathan Wahl
Corporate Communications
Edmunds Inc.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Gas prices are going up. XYZ Oil Inc. made $50 gazillion last year. So, let's tax XYZ at a higher rate. That'll do it.
or maybe I am just missing something.
Me, too. If we want oil companies to produce more oil and gas, it would seem raising taxes is the last thing we'd ever want to do...they're already having trouble finding enough attractive (i.e., profitable) projects as it is. Adding taxes will only make that worse.
So maybe it would be possible to collect an extra $25B from the oil companies, and put it towards our $300B annual deficit. The problem is a slowing economy might increase the deficit $50B.
Taxing the oil companies will not reduce our gas or home heating oil prices $0.01. The only way to reduce prices is to reduce demand (usage). And I think you'll see in the not too distant future an implosion of the oil price increase. A lot of traders are going to lose a lot when the price-of-oil bubble pops.
Whenever people start piling on board a trend saying "it must go up because it's been going up", it's time to bail. Sure long-term oil will go up, but this is a speculative-bubble on top of the normal trend.
Yet nobody complained about the massive profits that the housing industry was raking in. Oil exploration and production is a much more risky venture. When things go good, the profits can be immense. But when things go wrong, so can the expenses.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp- orts/current/import.html
They had problems with the Kamatsu trucks because they grades are so long and so steep that the trucks would overheat and break down. In at least one case the truck got so hot that it combusted and started a massive metal fire that could not be put out by any means. They just had to wait until the fire burned itself out. Those trucks would probably be ok under less extreme conditions but they failed to work at that particular mine.
Also AFAIK Firestone is the only company that makes those massive haul truck tires so it doesn't take much excess demand to put a strain on the supply.
On the nuclear front there's loads more to it than Three Mile Island. Generally utilities want something near guaranteed profit and nukes don't provide that. One of the classic attempts to make a fortune and end up losing one was the Washington Power Supply System known as WPPS or more accurately Whoops!
The article is hardly comprehensive but you get the idea.
An actual good idea that we could borrow from France, if our pride would allow that, would be coming up with a standard nuclear plant with interchangeable parts. Our plants are largely one offs. If you had a standard plant you could do uniform safety standards more easily and new problems found in one plant could be fixed before they became a problem in the others.
The nuclear industry has actually come along way in public perception. Of course most people are now saying great idea - build it somewhere else. I'd welcome a nice modern plant with the proviso they shut the oldest operating public plant that's not 10 miles from my house.
Now I'm not real clear on exactly what constitutes a windfall in this debate or what should be considered an unreasonable profit. I'm sure there is a way to establish that, but the thing that strikes me is this comes real close to putting it into the government's hands to decide when a company has made too much money. That's a pretty scary path to go down I think.
"Corn has jumped 10% since last Tuesday, boosted by recent rain in the Midwest."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/corn-rises-fifth-day-usda/story.aspx?guid=- - %7BDA7D00C9%2D7023%2D4876%2DBD0A%2D83FCADC5F74F%7D
What do you expect? We have terrorists willing to crash planes into buildings and corporations who pay more attention to their lobbyists then their engineers when it comes to safety. I wouldn't want it in my backyard either under those conditions. :shades:
Regarding what someone else said: yeah, maybe we don't use much in the way or petroleum to make electricity. But to switch to all these wonderful electric cars that people want we're going to need additional electric supply. How else you going to produce it?
Chrysler once sold a vehicle similar to the above. It was called the Neon - remember the cute little "Hi" expression on the front fascia? Our family owned two of these back in the late 90s and I recall they got decent gas mileage, at around 30 mpg as a daily driver. The performance wasn't all that bad either.
Chrysler stopped building them because not enough people were buying them to justify the expense. Maybe they saved the tooling in some warehouse that they could possibly dust off and reuse.
I wonder what kind of fuel economy a Neon would get with hybrid technology?
For myself I have spent 40 year running the rat race and I plan to slow down and smell the roses. As long as I am obeying the speed limits, I do not think I should be penalized for doing this. I have driven since I was 15 --- I am a good driver who has driven high speeds for many years, access the on-ramps correctly, and try to be a courteous driver. But that does not seem to count for much these days. Even getting someone to lower their bright lights seems impossible, I find.http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxi- cons/emotorcons/emo_sick.gif
sick
My point is that, eventually, something has to give. They can't keep offering generous prices for gasoline in the face of the cost of crude these days. Eventually, they'll buckle or change their program to something realistic before that occurs. When this happen, theoretically, it should have a noticeable impact on the cost of oil as it is traded worldwide. Of course, it may not...but then we'd know that if there's no tangible change, someone somewhere must be pulling some strings.
I entertain myself by visiting the local auto auction from time to time. They get quite a few neons. And almost invariably, said Neons belong to the smoking section (i.e. they are spewing smoke in a manner inconsistent with a fully functional car). In addition, I have a friend whose neon broke down so many times it's not even funny. It finally underwent terminal failure a month ago...
Looking at Consumer reports, apparently the reliability improved a lot in later years, but I would still not showcase a neon as a good example of a fuel-efficient American car.
I'm not sure I see it as surprise. Maybe more a case of denial.
Maybe more a case of bribery.
Car makers bribe law makers not to require any advancement in technology (they'd never do it on their own) by keeping the CAFE standards stagnant for 20 years. That way, they keep churning out the same gas-guzzling junk every year, artificially boosting their stock prices, so the execs can cash out rich.
When gas prices spike and their business crashes, the new execs blame everyone but themselves, fire tens of thousands of people, then bail out with golden parachutes.
Then, when they're finally on the verge of going out of business, Congress bails them out with our money.
God Bless America.
Google news Asian Fuel Subsidies
Ahh scanning the news stories is an article by Forbes saying exactly what I was talking about in regards to China and India.
Forbes article
It's all a matter of cost/benefit. If the subsidies they provide cost less than the increased revenue growth from the taxes collected on the booming economies then yes, they can and will continue to subsidize fuel prices.
And last I checked, China won't let us look at their books to verify this stuff. But their economy is humming along pretty nicely, now isn't it?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Precisely because China won't let us look at the books, we don't really know if the "official" statistics on how its economy is performing are accurate. Several economists have said that China is greatly overstating its economic performance.
Another thing to consider - any country subsidizing energy below the 'market' cost is setting themselves up for trouble. They are mandating inefficiency. Imagine how much waste goes on in Venezuela with gas at something like $0.20/gallon. Their use of oil per unit of economic output is staggering, and they will (eventually) pay a price for this. Only so long as their oil exports can support these massive subsidies can they survive under the current system, and the subsidies cause domestic use to skyrocket, reducing exports.
I think there are two reasons for that:
First, many of the projects are best placed where rich elitists have there playgrounds. Sure, put that windmill in a slum and they're all for it but if it impacts their view, screw the environment. Best typified by Ted Kennedy putting the ky-bash on wind power offshore where HE would see it.
Second, the environmental movement which has become so radical and fanatical that ANY human activity is seen as the rape of mother nature. These folks will not be satisfied until we elect a Bison as president and all humans are required to hold their breath to reduce CO2 emissions.
We regular folks are caught in the middle of this insanity.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It will work but we all have to do it. Write your congressman and tell them to DROP THE SPEED LIMIT TO 55.
I have a 1995 Lincoln Mark VIII and on the freeway with the cruise set at 55 mph I get 32 MPG ..
LOL. The farmer subsidy hype is only second to the hype about oil profits. I guess when things go south people need somebody to blame. "Greedy" oil execs and "rich" farmers are easy targets because we don't know anybody like that. So it's easy to be mad at "them". Basic tribal behavior that the politicians play like a fiddle.
Hitler blamed the Communists. Look how far he got with that.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
We do power our country with nuclear power. See the list below. Power stations need to be relatively close to your population centers, the closer the better. Central Nevada is too far removed.
U.S.
Number of Generators Generator Nameplate Capacity in Megawatts
Coal 1,493 335,830
Petroleum 3,744 64,318
Natural Gas 5,470 442,945
Other Gases 105 2,563
Nuclear 104 105,585
Hydroelectric Conventional 3,988 77,419
Other Renewables 1,823 26,470
Pumped Storage 150 19,569
Other 47 976
Total 16,924 1,075,677
Source EIA
France did the nuclear thing because they were dependent on expensive oil back in 1973. The US has cheap coal that works just fine for base load power.
"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still will not be able to meet current global demand promptly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
So how do you think we can produce dozens of nuke plants a year?
Electric cars will help reduce the pain at the pump down the road. Just do not expect that most will get their electrons from Nuclear energy.
If we build one a year for the next 20 years, we'll have 20 more by 2028.
Just like if Congress had increased the CAFE standards by just 1 mpg per year over the past 22 years (instead of leaving them stagnant like they did), then the average car would be getting close to 40 mpg today.
We're already late to the game, and we're paying a heavy price. The more excuses we use NOT to improve our energy sources, the later we'll be, and the more we'll pay.
Speaking of Architecture...
A few months ago while doing some stock research I ran across this company called Aerovironment. They primarily build small UAVs for the military but they also have two smaller side businesses and one of them is called Architectural wind. They mount small wind turbines on the leading edge of a building to pick up the wind as it comes up the side of the building.
They design the turbines to fit in with the look of the building so they are kind of a moving modern art piece.
The company impressed me so much that I bought some stock in it and I am still buying stock when it dips down.
link title
The same company also makes this system called Posicharge that rapidly charges battery powered equipment like forklifts. The system can charge a forklift in minutes instead of hours...
Now how does that sound for rapid charging electric vehicles?