So the only two people who raised their hands to prove me wrong are the two people driving the two most fuel-efficient models on the market today?
Well if I can chime in here, my round trip is 21 miles so that works out to be 105 miles of commutting a week. Over the last few years I have averaged a little less than 200 miles a week. So I am doing more than 50% of my driving in my commute.
Its a 2000 Elantra Station Wagon so while good on gas there are a lot more efficient cars out there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Pulled from "http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce". The dollars are unadjusted, it appears. Criteria selected: "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers - Seasonally Adjusted."
Series Id: CES0500000008 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector: Total private Industry: Total private NAICS Code: N/A Data Type: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
Based on your figure and in strict dollar terms, it took up to 60% of an hour for a 1908 worker to earn gas. Of course, your average worker then was probably more dependent on his or her two feet, a horse, bike, or trolley; and most career, durable or perishable good, or service needs wasn't too far from the doorstep or delivery carriage wagon route.
Nowadays, it takes about 13 minutes (pre-tax) an hour to earn a gallon. There are so many more things to pay for nowadays at higher prices that the savings over what the 1908 worker might have paid are probably negated.
I paid my car note off recently, which gives me more wiggle room in the budget. I should be fine for the moment. Fuel costs me $220/month (including taxes).
In the 7 yrs from 2000 to 2008 the wages have gone up an average of 4.1% per year. Those are the terrible 'Bush' years. I only got as high as 4% only once in those 7 years. I guess NAFTA hit me much harder than it hit the average production worker.
4 yrs commute fron '04 to '08 = 86,000 miles Other miles driven include Fla and back twice, Colo and Back once my commute % was over 80% of total miles driven for those 4 years. Done with 3.8 liter
All the sources out there providing "tips for fuel economy" always suggest using cruise control, something I use a lot mainly because it is convenient. I wonder if that can really have a noticeable effect on reducing gas consumption though...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder if that can really have a noticeable effect on reducing gas consumption though...
It might depend on the car and how the cruise control is designed. I've never used the cruise in my Intrepid for a long enough period to see if it saves gas, simply because I've never gotten out on a long enough stretch of empty highway to use it for more than a short while.
However, I've had it actually downshift on its own, when going downhill, to keep from picking up too much speed! Now, whether it's running in top gear or 3rd, probably doesn't make any difference on fuel consumption while your foot is off the gas pedal. However, it's going to limit how far you can coast, which means you're going to have to put your foot back on the pedal sooner.
And when going uphill, it's going to try a bit harder to maintain the speed its set on, whereas if I'm not using the cruise (and I'm not holding up traffic), sometimes I'll let the car lose a little speed on the hill.
In addition to the design of the car, I guess your driving style is also a major factor.
...Auto sales in China have been largely unaffected by high global oil prices because government controls have kept retail gasoline and diesel prices at levels that are among the world's lowest. Automakers say sales of SUVs and luxury sedans are growing at annual rates of up to 100 percent.
But when controls let the price balance against the market, watch out below!
However, I've had it actually downshift on its own, when going downhill, to keep from picking up too much speed! Now, whether it's running in top gear or 3rd, probably doesn't make any difference on fuel consumption while your foot is off the gas pedal. However, it's going to limit how far you can coast, which means you're going to have to put your foot back on the pedal sooner.
And when going uphill, it's going to try a bit harder to maintain the speed its set on, whereas if I'm not using the cruise (and I'm not holding up traffic), sometimes I'll let the car lose a little speed on the hill.
The big enemy of economy is inconsistency (and of course, absolute speed). Where cruise helps is in being consistent. So in your example of losing speed on the hill, for most people they have to accelerate to regain that speed. It takes more energy to scrub off/add on than it takes to maintain.
The big enemy of economy is inconsistency (and of course, absolute speed). Where cruise helps is in being consistent. So in your example of losing speed on the hill, for most people they have to accelerate to regain that speed. It takes more energy to scrub off/add on than it takes to maintain.
Well, let's say I had my cruise control set on 60, and came to a valley. My Intrepid would hold that speed going downhill, and at the bottom of the valley, would still only be doing 60. So it wouldn't coast as far up the other side of the valley. Then it would have to kick in harder to maintain that speed going up the other hill. With the cruise off, and coasting, it might get up to 70 mph by the time I'm at the valley floor. That will let the car coast up the other side further, as it loses speed. I'd have to give it a little gas to get up the hill, but, say I let it drop down to 55. I could always get back up to 60 at a gentle pace, once I'm back on level ground. It's going to take less fuel to get back up from 55 to 60 on level ground than it would have been to try maintaining 60 all the way up that hill.
In a case like this, cruise control is going to hurt your fuel economy. Now I never read the Intrepid's owner's manual from cover to cover, as I think the script for "Gone with the Wind" is shorter. I think back in the day though, they said that using cruise control in hilly areas was not good for fuel economy.
If you're on level ground, it's going to take more energy to scrub/add than it will to maintain, because it's you, the driver, controlling that with your brake and accelerator pedals. But in my example, gravity is playing a larger role.
I think the available amount of engine torque plays a huge part in how much gas can be saved on cruise control.. I have an over 300 horse Chevy Impala SS that is obviously not "wonderful" on gas, but with the cruise on at a steady 70 MPH, the car returns 27 or 28 MPG.
The reason for this is that even going up moderate grades, the engine never downshifts regardless of the incline since so much torque is available the engine just loafs along at about 1950 RPMS and inclines mean the engine might increase 100 RPMS or so, so in that regard the car is a real "economy" model.. Course I wouldn't dare mention the city mileage.
Personal mileage should be gauged tank to tank...I dare you!
BMW 330xi = 22 mpg Tank to Tank for me. Heavy cruise control use.
I am waiting for the US government to subsidize the price of our energy. Once the war is over in Iraq, there will be free capital everywhere to boost the economy.
Well, my point in the last post was only regarding cruise control on the Interstate, but in my "tank to tank" calculations, I average about 17.3 gallons doing about 75% city, the rest interstate. To add to my cost, it has to be 93 octane or I notice a definite decrease in performance, at least to my eyes.
Don't get wrong, I'm not complaining, my first new car was a 1965 Chevy Impala SS with a 396. I've purchased about 38 new GM cars in the ensuing years, ALL of them with the biggest engine I could get, I think my time is running out.
...when I set the cruise on either my 1988 Buick Park Avenue or 1989 Cadillac Brougham, they return phenomenal fuel economy. My Caddy got such good gas mileage during the trip to and from the Carlisle All-GM show I was afraid the gas gauge was broken. I filled it on my return to Philly and it really did only use that little fuel!
Don't get wrong, I'm not complaining, my first new car was a 1965 Chevy Impala SS with a 396. I've purchased about 38 new GM cars in the ensuing years, ALL of them with the biggest engine I could get, I think my time is running out.
My Dad had a '65 Impala SS396, with the 425 hp setup and a 4-speed. When he had it though, it was just a used car, and he dogged it. It threw a rod one night on a lonely country round around 1971-72, and he just abandoned it there!
I'd say that considering the size of the engine and the power, the V-8 Impala is actually pretty economical! Using the older 2007 numbers, it was rated at 18/27, whereas a 5.7 Hemi Charger was 17/25, as was the Crown Vic. I know the Crown Vic isn't really competitive with those other two, but it's the closest Ford I could think of to equate...V-8 and a large-ish sedan. I guess having to run premium does negate a bit of that advantage, though.
yeah, my brand new 65 SS was a 396 with 390 horse, 4 speed, which was the second biggest setup at the time. Funny, all my friends were into intermediate size hot cars, Chevelles, GTOs etc, while I always had the biggest cars with the same engines, always liked the big boys and still do today.
Spent about 7 of my 31 years in high-speed traffic enforcement and during the late 60;s and very early 70's, we used 427 Biscaynes, 460 LTDs and 455 H.O. Pontiac Catalinas as our Interstate enforcement machines, leaving the 327 Chevies, 351 Fords and small block 400 Catalinas as our city patrol machines, mind you, NOT to save gas as that was something no one cared about. I doubt if we ever averaged more than 10 MPG day after day, betcha the government cares now.
I let a lot of good ones get away during the years, I could be much more comfortably retired if I had held on in storage etc. with some of those bad boys.
That 3500 pound Mustang seems awful bloated when my full size SS with six passenger seating is only something like 3700 pounds. You would think that 2800 or 2900 pounds would be doable with the Mustang.
Too bad you didn't keep up that SS396. It's a classic that still makes my mouth water!
Yeah, it would be a cool car. It was a 2-door hardtop, black. But it was gone before my time. I'll have to ask my mother if she remembers it, but to her, all cars seem to blur together over time.
My Dad was pretty rough on cars back then though, so I'm sure if it hadn't thrown that rod, he would have found some other way to destroy it. :sick: My Mom had a '66 Catalina convertible when they met, and he ragged it out pretty thoroughly too. In 1972, Mom swapped it with my grandparents for their '68 Impala, a relatively sedate 4-door hardtop with a 327, I think, and then my grandparents used it as a trade for a brand-new '72 Impala. Part of their reasoning was that Mom didn't like driving around in a convertible with an infant, but over the years I also heard that Dad really tore that Catalina up, and it needed major brake work.
Today, Dad drives an '03 Buick Regal, and says that if he'd bought that type of car back when he was young, it would have kept him out of A LOT of trouble! :shades:
That 3500 pound Mustang seems awful bloated when my full size SS with six passenger seating is only something like 3700 pounds. You would think that 2800 or 2900 pounds would be doable with the Mustang
Exactly...here's how it was done when cars were cars:
Specifications for the 1969, 1970 Ford Mustang: Wheelbase, inches: 108.0 Length, inches: 187.4 Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,690-3,210 (1969); 2,721-3,240 (1970) Width, inches: 71.3-71.7
...While oil use in emerging economies such as China and India continue to increase rapidly, the U.S. still uses nearly three times as much oil as China, the second largest crude consumer, according to the CIA's world fact book. A dip in U.S. demand can have an amplified effect on the oil market.
So Wal-Mart debuts their first store in Beijing and they find that a local store already has a 15% market share. Yep Wu-Mart. Good old Sam Wu. Oil down nicely today, 1st in10 do it again.
Using the Gas Miliage Payback Calculator on the site was enlightening.
Gas Saving Calculator- V6 Stick 2005 Silverado vs V6 Auto 2008 Silverado. Amount Saved on Gas per month: ($-136.16) Number of months to break even and begin saving money on gas: 0 You will not save any money by trading in your vehicle.
watch NBR last night? US had cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day due to reduced use of gas over last 12 months. China has swept up all that unused oil. World oil production is 85 million barrels a day. World oil demand is 86.4 million barrels a day. Our cutbacks won't dent the world market or change price. China consumed 9 million new vehicles last year. Up from half that amount in just a few years. China will drive demand for world from 86.4 to 95 million barrels a day in a few more years. How could there possibly be an answer to this?
According to Edmund's calculator, we should all be driving our grandparents' '71 Oldsmobiles. Think of all the money we'd save!
In case the sarcasm isn't thick enough, here's the flaw in the raw dollars calculation; it doesn't assign a value to modern conveniences and new car reliablility, or a price to used car repairs and being stranded somewhere because the old "money saver" breaks down. It simply says car A is paid for, while car B costs money, therefore, car B is a foolish purchase.
In 1984, I bought my aunt's 1977 Buick Century for $1,500. Seemed like a bargain at the time. But it was always breaking down, stranding me somewhere, forcing me to cancel plans, and costing $100-$200 to fix.
Technically, I "saved" money versus buying a new Honda or Toyota for $4,000. But I would have been better off making the payments on a new car and being able to use the thing when I wanted to -- like when I wanted to take my girlfriend on a beach vacation during spring break.
Couldn't afford the airfare, but I could have paid the gas if we drove. Except I wouldn't dare take that GM battleax on a road trip. So we spent S.B. hanging around the hometown, and I just took her to dinner and a few movies.
Again, I saved money, but what did I (we) lose by NOT enjoying a vacation and the memories that would have lasted a lifetime?
New car reliability and efficient, low-cost operation are worth money. They add up to "freedom to travel," which is why we buy cars in the first place.
Here's another factor in the gas-guzzler vs. fuel-sipper payback calculation:
The higher gas prices go, the LESS an suv is worth and the MORE a small car is worth. Just look at what has happened to truck and suv values the past few years. And look at what a Prius or Civic Hybrid is worth today -- almost as much as the buyer paid new!
So, in Edmunds' example of trading in an suv for a Prius, they should also calculate the hyper-depreciation of the suv, contrasted by the near-zero depreciation of the hybrid.
Another example of how raw numbers written on a piece of paper and real-world value are often two different things.
what has happened thus far won't go much further. My truck is dropping about $30 a day in value recently. It uses $7 a day of gas to commute 30 total miles the one day a week I drive it. The other 6 days a week it depreciates $180 sitting in the garage. They now offer my truck on lease for $10 a day, new. Those dealers are going to lose their shirts. At continued $30 a day depreciation, my truck's value will hit zero next April? The new Prius will still be worth $26k when it is 10 years old? The calculator is saying that you will get nothing for your V8 trade and the 4 cyl model you want goes for full sticker and will save you some fraction of that $7 a day of gas. It also mentions that the $900 a year of gas savings gets put towards sales tax, excise tax, drive off the lot day depreciation, and interest on the loan for the difference in value. In other words, you will never see the $900 a year in savings so an OK option is to keep your 3 yr old 4X4 or 8 pass SUV and pay the $900 a year in gas.
So you think that gas is going to stay at $4 a gallon? Remember the comment just a few posts up about world wide demand for oil and production capacity? And it will just get worse. New oil discoveries cannot keep up with increased demand AND the depletion of existing oil fields.
Remember the days of $4 gas... those were the good old days. :shades:
I think China market is set to go over 15 million new vehicules a year by 2014. India, Russia, south America are following up.
>How could there possibly be an answer to this?
There aren't any easy answers but it it possible to do something. An inevitable mix of mass transit and oil free technologies. If we don't do this quickly, just driving a car will become a very dear luxury.
Yes, high gas prices have hurt everyone. As gas prices increase north of $4.00 per gallon analysts have noticed a link between fuel prices and the increase in cost of living and declining stock market values. People don't want to buy anything they don't have to including stocks, cars, food (as it gets more expensive) etc. Some would say ''oh its a great time to buy stocks''. I say ''yes'' for those who can afford to, but it also shows a decline in our society. When times were good we could count on increasing values of stocks and a stable economy, and the hope to retire safely in style. Now people are losing their shirts, stocks were bottoming out as of 2 days ago. They seem to have flattened or increased now since the Fed announced that the barrel of oil will decrease in value in 2 years to $100. I believe our society should be fair for everyone who is willing to work hard and get ahead. But when the society declines like it has, those opportunities for the common person start to disappear, it slowly becomes a place for the ''haves'' and ''have nots'', somewhat elitist thinking arises (a feeling of ''I deserve to live better more than ''they'' do), and the US becomes less and less the place of the American dream. I do not want to see that happen. The US is great for many reasons, having the opportunity to get ahead is one of them. The others would be the US being a great leader in economy, finance, investment, diplomacy, technological advancement,human rights,democratization,power and position, etc,etc..It leads the world and tells other countries, ''this is where you should be, please change your ways and catch up''. But if the US declines who will lead the way?? China, India, Germany, England, Mexico, Canada?? Who?? The US has an obligation to itself and its leaders since it has the greatest potential for positive change in the world. On a different note, at church I have a friend who is a foreman for a construction company and runs a crew of workers,and drives often with his large heavy diesel pickup work truck to several different cities. This truck and the gas it expends is a necessity. I really wonder how those high gas prices affect the construction industry, and transportation. Is it really necessary to have such high gas prices? We need several fuel sources like CNG, Electric cars, hydrogen as soon as possible. We need to spread it out the dependency or else it will sink the economy.
I think China market is set to go over 15 million new vehicules a year by 2014. India, Russia, south America are following up.
How much longer do you think that China will be able to subsidize gas/energy prices? I believe India is doing the same thing. It must be getting very expensive for these governments.
I also believe these countries that are encouraging the expansion of automobile use and oil consumption are making a big long term mistake. It's a mistake that we made and are now paying the price for.
There's a good point in that...if becoming dependent on cars is the cause for the economic sickness of the western world - let China and India become dependent too!
There aren't any easy answers but it it possible to do something. An inevitable mix of mass transit and oil free technologies. If we don't do this quickly, just driving a car will become a very dear luxury.
Saw a report on tv news recently that gas is $11/gallon in Turkey and inflation is over 10 percent. Must be a lot of taxes attached to a gallon.
Speaking of "mass" transit - On Tuesday, followed a full size bus for a few miles, heading from a rural town toward a mid-size town about 15 miles away. There was only "one" passenger on this bus. The bus line is subsidized by public funds.
Besides individuals taking own actions, such as buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, the public transit companies that are subsidized need to rethink the methods of their services just as the airlines have done.
Wonder what private bus lines (Greyhound?) are doing to maximize amount of passengers on their runs and/or cancel unprofittable runs.
One possible way for private bus line to make money is to charge fare by amount of people that show up for a run between two cities. A fare on a bus half-full would cost twice as much as a fare on a full-bus run. Maybe a run would not be made unless a threshhold amount of passengers showed up. That threshhold would assure a fair profit for the bus company. Scheduling obviously would be very difficult.
My life has changed a bit .In winter i have to use my car so i have beater to take me on my 2 mile drive to the T Station. I use the commuter train and spend 230$ for a monthly pass half of that is refunded by the company and other half is pretax.In summer and grocery run i use my sport bike.The funny thing is my motorcycle which is sporty high performace version had luggage now and give me 50 mpg . for ride below 10 miles and T in summer i ride my pecal cycle.
final milage last year 2000 miles on the car 2200 on my bycycle 11000 on my ride - recreational miles are 80% .travelling cross contry and a few states in summer.
Greyhound is a mere shell of its former self back when there was a more viable Trailways and some other competition. Even then the schedules weren't all that convenient, although I did make it to San Fran when I was a teen via the one bus a day that left town - there's nothing like a ~50 hour bus trip. :shades: Then I rode it back home!
A better example may be Mexico, a country where most people can't afford gas, much less a car to put the gas in. Eight years ago we parked our car in Tucson and caught a bus south, and went to Cancun. We took 2+ months to get there, but when we got ready to hit the next town, we'd walk to the bus station and pretty much hop on. If we were going more than a couple of hours down the road we might reserve a seat the next day on a first class express bus, complete with snacks and video screens. We got stuck in one town due to a bus strike, so we walked 2 blocks to the highway and caught a bus run by another company, never missing a beat.
There's plenty of empty spaces down there but getting around without a car is pretty easy. Ditto most other places I've visited, except Canada.
Trains are the best though - I'd rather ride a train than fly any day.
It seems that you are leaving out the overall fare setting policy... so if a bus line looks at ridership and says " if we AVERAGE 200 riders a day, at $40 a head, then we'll be ok"... Some days, 600, other days 150....
The surest way to go out of business is to be inconsistent. Would anyone ride a transit system if they thought it may or may not run, and were not sure what it costs?
In addition, on at least some of those routes the carrier has a choice - low ridership, or no ridership, since they need to get the vehicle back to where it is needed.
A fare on a bus half-full would cost twice as much as a fare on a full-bus run
San Diego Transit is doing an interesting thing. On the heavy morning and evening runs to our little town the fare is $5.25. The mid morning and early afternoon run is $2.75. They also have monthly passes that would save a lot of money. It still does not solve the problem of empty or nearly empty buses polluting the air.
Doesn't solve the problem but it's the direction to move - trying to give incentives to folks who can work with different hours. The idea is like the charging per passenger but done in a way to ensure predictable prices.
I wonder where the gas price is that will start really putting people into mass transit? I admit I'd rather not find out.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
A better example may be Mexico, a country where most people can't afford gas, much less a car to put the gas in. Eight years ago we parked our car in Tucson and caught a bus south, and went to Cancun. We took 2+ months to get there,
Need a lot of flexibility for 2 month bus trip. Were buses like Romancing the Stone bus on mountain in Columbia, with lots of people carrying odd things such as chickens?
Public not-for-profit transportation has to do a much better job at scheduling "and" filling the buses, train cars, etc. Have many, many times in past years seen small amount of passengers (1,2,3, 4...) on full-size public buses, both in semi-rural and suburban settings. When fuel was cheap and plentiful, obviously didn't matter. But, not today.
The US is great for many reasons, having the opportunity to get ahead is one of them.
I agree with much of what you said but this statement sticks out for me.
In times of change that is often when the most money can be made by those with a clear balanced view of what could happen in the future. These people are often called visionaries but they are also entrpreneurs. Right now there is a fantastic opportunity to make a fortune giving the US public what it wants in terms of fuel availability. All the alternate fuel sources you noted are certainly immediate opportunities to 'get ahead'.
Pessimism serves no purpose. Optimism see opportunities in everything. Just Do It! ( to borrow a phrase :shades: )
Most of the buses we rode were clean and newer. There are some second class buses with the odd chicken. But there are so many buses on the roads, you literally can wander into most any small town bus station and be on your way within an hour or so. Several times we'd walk in and be on a bus within 5 minutes.
Schedules are posted all over so it's easy to plan if you don't have much flexibility. A few times we just did a flag stop and got on a bus that way.
It wasn't much different in Italy last year when we went over for a week or so - took a train for a couple of hours, then bused around until it was time to train back to the airport.
We're meeting friends in Chicago in a few weeks and they get to take the train - we're stuck with flying (not enough time to drive). I keep waiting for Northwest to call and say our flight has been cancelled.
If gas does double in price, maybe that will make more public transportation options feasible just from the economics - the last thing I need when I get to Chicago is a car (already got a transist pass in the mail)
Trailways is gone? I remember when I was a kid in the early 1970s I used to take a lot of bus trips with my Mom on Continental Trailways in very classy buses called the Silver Eagle or the Golden Eagle. The buses were red and white with gleaming stainless steel sides. Heck, even the driver was smartly dressed. He looked more like an airline pilot than a bus driver.
There are a lot of smaller regional bus companies, but I bet they're now being decimated by psychopathic pump prices.
If gas does double in price, maybe that will make more public transportation options feasible just from the economics - the last thing I need when I get to Chicago is a car
Disregard if done already. For a 2-3 hour view, afternoon or evening, of the most spectacular skyline in the world, try Odyssey cruise boat (at Navy Pier) on Lake Michigan. Cruise has dinner/drinks option.
Read somewhere that some personal boats in $200-$300K price range only get one mile to the gallon of fuel. But, people in this bracket could probably care less about the price of fuel.
A few months ago, read that Illinois Governor made provision for those of senior age (65+) to ride free on Chicago buses, EL trains subway. Pretty good deal for them.
Greyhound acquired Continental Trailways in '87 but the other ~80 Trailways franchises are still around. They seem to focus on charters and local hauls. You can't even get a "Trailways" schedule from their web site.
Yes, thanks. I watch it every night. I saw that piece. I know the answer is complex but soon China will need to lessen Gov't subsidies which will help on the demand as will further changes to the old infrastructure that uses fossil fuel...we just won't be around to witness the entire process!
Comments
Well if I can chime in here, my round trip is 21 miles so that works out to be 105 miles of commutting a week. Over the last few years I have averaged a little less than 200 miles a week. So I am doing more than 50% of my driving in my commute.
Its a 2000 Elantra Station Wagon so while good on gas there are a lot more efficient cars out there.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Series Id: CES0500000008
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: N/A
Data Type: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr&nbs- p; May Jun Jul Aug- Sep Oct Nov  - ;Dec Annual
1998 12.79 12.84 12.88 12.92 12.96 12.99 13.01 13.09 13.11 13.14 13.18 13.21
1999 13.27 13.30 13.34 13.38 13.43 13.47 13.52 13.55 13.61 13.64 13.66 13.70
2000 13.75 13.80 13.85 13.91 13.94 13.98 14.03 14.07 14.12 14.18 14.23 14.28
2001 14.29 14.38 14.42 14.45 14.50 14.55 14.56 14.60 14.64 14.66 14.72 14.75
2002 14.76 14.79 14.82 14.83 14.88 14.95 14.98 15.02 15.07 15.12 15.15 15.21
2003 15.22 15.29 15.29 15.28 15.34 15.36 15.40 15.42 15.42 15.43 15.47 15.48
2004 15.51 15.54 15.57 15.60 15.64 15.67 15.71 15.75 15.79 15.82 15.85 15.87
2005 15.91 15.93 15.98 16.02 16.05 16.08 16.15 16.18 16.20 16.30 16.31 16.37
2006 16.43 16.49 16.55 16.66 16.66 16.72 16.79 16.83 16.88 16.95 16.99 17.07
2007 17.12 17.17 17.24 17.29 17.34 17.41 17.47 17.51 17.57 17.59 17.64 17.70
2008 17.75 17.81 17.87 17.89 17.95(p) 18.01(p)
p : preliminary
Based on your figure and in strict dollar terms, it took up to 60% of an hour for a 1908 worker to earn gas. Of course, your average worker then was probably more dependent on his or her two feet, a horse, bike, or trolley; and most career, durable or perishable good, or service needs wasn't too far from the doorstep or delivery carriage wagon route.
Nowadays, it takes about 13 minutes (pre-tax) an hour to earn a gallon. There are so many more things to pay for nowadays at higher prices that the savings over what the 1908 worker might have paid are probably negated.
I paid my car note off recently, which gives me more wiggle room in the budget. I should be fine for the moment. Fuel costs me $220/month (including taxes).
4 yrs commute fron '04 to '08 = 86,000 miles
Other miles driven include Fla and back twice, Colo and Back once
my commute % was over 80% of total miles driven for those 4 years. Done with 3.8 liter
All the sources out there providing "tips for fuel economy" always suggest using cruise control, something I use a lot mainly because it is convenient. I wonder if that can really have a noticeable effect on reducing gas consumption though...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Cruise does help, a lot! Seems like the ole computer is way better at holding a steady speed than your right foot is.
It might depend on the car and how the cruise control is designed. I've never used the cruise in my Intrepid for a long enough period to see if it saves gas, simply because I've never gotten out on a long enough stretch of empty highway to use it for more than a short while.
However, I've had it actually downshift on its own, when going downhill, to keep from picking up too much speed! Now, whether it's running in top gear or 3rd, probably doesn't make any difference on fuel consumption while your foot is off the gas pedal. However, it's going to limit how far you can coast, which means you're going to have to put your foot back on the pedal sooner.
And when going uphill, it's going to try a bit harder to maintain the speed its set on, whereas if I'm not using the cruise (and I'm not holding up traffic), sometimes I'll let the car lose a little speed on the hill.
In addition to the design of the car, I guess your driving style is also a major factor.
But when controls let the price balance against the market, watch out below!
Regards,
OW
And when going uphill, it's going to try a bit harder to maintain the speed its set on, whereas if I'm not using the cruise (and I'm not holding up traffic), sometimes I'll let the car lose a little speed on the hill.
The big enemy of economy is inconsistency (and of course, absolute speed). Where cruise helps is in being consistent. So in your example of losing speed on the hill, for most people they have to accelerate to regain that speed. It takes more energy to scrub off/add on than it takes to maintain.
Well, let's say I had my cruise control set on 60, and came to a valley. My Intrepid would hold that speed going downhill, and at the bottom of the valley, would still only be doing 60. So it wouldn't coast as far up the other side of the valley. Then it would have to kick in harder to maintain that speed going up the other hill. With the cruise off, and coasting, it might get up to 70 mph by the time I'm at the valley floor. That will let the car coast up the other side further, as it loses speed. I'd have to give it a little gas to get up the hill, but, say I let it drop down to 55. I could always get back up to 60 at a gentle pace, once I'm back on level ground. It's going to take less fuel to get back up from 55 to 60 on level ground than it would have been to try maintaining 60 all the way up that hill.
In a case like this, cruise control is going to hurt your fuel economy. Now I never read the Intrepid's owner's manual from cover to cover, as I think the script for "Gone with the Wind" is shorter. I think back in the day though, they said that using cruise control in hilly areas was not good for fuel economy.
If you're on level ground, it's going to take more energy to scrub/add than it will to maintain, because it's you, the driver, controlling that with your brake and accelerator pedals. But in my example, gravity is playing a larger role.
The reason for this is that even going up moderate grades, the engine never downshifts regardless of the incline since so much torque is available the engine just loafs along at about 1950 RPMS and inclines mean the engine might increase 100 RPMS or so, so in that regard the car is a real "economy" model.. Course I wouldn't dare mention the city mileage.
BMW 330xi = 22 mpg Tank to Tank for me. Heavy cruise control use.
I am waiting for the US government to subsidize the price of our energy. Once the war is over in Iraq, there will be free capital everywhere to boost the economy.
When in China, act like the Chinese.
Regards,
Regards,
OW
Don't get wrong, I'm not complaining, my first new car was a 1965 Chevy Impala SS with a 396. I've purchased about 38 new GM cars in the ensuing years, ALL of them with the biggest engine I could get, I think my time is running out.
My Dad had a '65 Impala SS396, with the 425 hp setup and a 4-speed. When he had it though, it was just a used car, and he dogged it. It threw a rod one night on a lonely country round around 1971-72, and he just abandoned it there!
I'd say that considering the size of the engine and the power, the V-8 Impala is actually pretty economical! Using the older 2007 numbers, it was rated at 18/27, whereas a 5.7 Hemi Charger was 17/25, as was the Crown Vic. I know the Crown Vic isn't really competitive with those other two, but it's the closest Ford I could think of to equate...V-8 and a large-ish sedan. I guess having to run premium does negate a bit of that advantage, though.
Don't be so sure! It just takes ingenuity and desire.
link title
The Big..ahem...small 3 do not want to invest in this for some strange reason...I hope this guy doesn't just up and disappear!!
Regards,
OW
Here is the Mustang specs which is the reason FORD is still in business outside of their trucks. The problem with these cars is they've gained weight!
2008 Ford Mustang GT
4.6L V8 Engine
5-speed Manual Transmission or Automatic with overdrive
300 hp and 320 lb.-ft of torque
Vehicle Curb Weight: 3,540 lbs.
0 to 60 mph: 5.1 seconds
1/4 Mile Time: 13.8 seconds
Base Invoice Price: $25,104/Retail Price: $27,260
Destination Charge: $745
15 mpg city/22 mpg highway
$2,485 EPA Estimated Yearly Fuel Cost
EPA Estimates $4.14 cost per 25 miles drive
Regards,
OW
Spent about 7 of my 31 years in high-speed traffic enforcement and during the late 60;s and very early 70's, we used 427 Biscaynes, 460 LTDs and 455 H.O. Pontiac Catalinas as our Interstate enforcement machines, leaving the 327 Chevies, 351 Fords and small block 400 Catalinas as our city patrol machines, mind you, NOT to save gas as that was something no one cared about. I doubt if we ever averaged more than 10 MPG day after day, betcha the government cares now.
That 3500 pound Mustang seems awful bloated when my full size SS with six passenger seating is only something like 3700 pounds. You would think that 2800 or 2900 pounds would be doable with the Mustang.
Yeah, it would be a cool car. It was a 2-door hardtop, black. But it was gone before my time. I'll have to ask my mother if she remembers it, but to her, all cars seem to blur together over time.
My Dad was pretty rough on cars back then though, so I'm sure if it hadn't thrown that rod, he would have found some other way to destroy it. :sick: My Mom had a '66 Catalina convertible when they met, and he ragged it out pretty thoroughly too. In 1972, Mom swapped it with my grandparents for their '68 Impala, a relatively sedate 4-door hardtop with a 327, I think, and then my grandparents used it as a trade for a brand-new '72 Impala. Part of their reasoning was that Mom didn't like driving around in a convertible with an infant, but over the years I also heard that Dad really tore that Catalina up, and it needed major brake work.
Today, Dad drives an '03 Buick Regal, and says that if he'd bought that type of car back when he was young, it would have kept him out of A LOT of trouble! :shades:
Exactly...here's how it was done when cars were cars:
Specifications for the 1969, 1970 Ford Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 187.4
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,690-3,210 (1969); 2,721-3,240 (1970)
Width, inches: 71.3-71.7
Regards,
OW
How can we change this fact?
Regards,
OW
Would be good, but just as likely they'll catch up, using more :sick:
Gas Saving Calculator- V6 Stick 2005 Silverado vs V6 Auto 2008 Silverado.
Amount Saved on Gas per month: ($-136.16)
Number of months to break even and begin saving money on gas: 0
You will not save any money by trading in your vehicle.
Great info.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
US had cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day due to reduced use of gas over last 12 months. China has swept up all that unused oil.
World oil production is 85 million barrels a day.
World oil demand is 86.4 million barrels a day.
Our cutbacks won't dent the world market or change price.
China consumed 9 million new vehicles last year.
Up from half that amount in just a few years.
China will drive demand for world from 86.4 to 95 million barrels a day in a few more years.
How could there possibly be an answer to this?
In case the sarcasm isn't thick enough, here's the flaw in the raw dollars calculation; it doesn't assign a value to modern conveniences and new car reliablility, or a price to used car repairs and being stranded somewhere because the old "money saver" breaks down. It simply says car A is paid for, while car B costs money, therefore, car B is a foolish purchase.
In 1984, I bought my aunt's 1977 Buick Century for $1,500. Seemed like a bargain at the time. But it was always breaking down, stranding me somewhere, forcing me to cancel plans, and costing $100-$200 to fix.
Technically, I "saved" money versus buying a new Honda or Toyota for $4,000. But I would have been better off making the payments on a new car and being able to use the thing when I wanted to -- like when I wanted to take my girlfriend on a beach vacation during spring break.
Couldn't afford the airfare, but I could have paid the gas if we drove. Except I wouldn't dare take that GM battleax on a road trip. So we spent S.B. hanging around the hometown, and I just took her to dinner and a few movies.
Again, I saved money, but what did I (we) lose by NOT enjoying a vacation and the memories that would have lasted a lifetime?
New car reliability and efficient, low-cost operation are worth money. They add up to "freedom to travel," which is why we buy cars in the first place.
The higher gas prices go, the LESS an suv is worth and the MORE a small car is worth. Just look at what has happened to truck and suv values the past few years. And look at what a Prius or Civic Hybrid is worth today -- almost as much as the buyer paid new!
So, in Edmunds' example of trading in an suv for a Prius, they should also calculate the hyper-depreciation of the suv, contrasted by the near-zero depreciation of the hybrid.
Another example of how raw numbers written on a piece of paper and real-world value are often two different things.
The calculator is saying that you will get nothing for your V8 trade and the 4 cyl model you want goes for full sticker and will save you some fraction of that $7 a day of gas. It also mentions that the $900 a year of gas savings gets put towards sales tax, excise tax, drive off the lot day depreciation, and interest on the loan for the difference in value. In other words, you will never see the $900 a year in savings so an OK option is to keep your 3 yr old 4X4 or 8 pass SUV and pay the $900 a year in gas.
Remember the days of $4 gas... those were the good old days. :shades:
JRW
I think China market is set to go over 15 million new vehicules a year by 2014. India, Russia, south America are following up.
>How could there possibly be an answer to this?
There aren't any easy answers but it it possible to do something. An inevitable mix of mass transit and oil free technologies. If we don't do this quickly, just driving a car will become a very dear luxury.
On a different note, at church I have a friend who is a foreman for a construction company and runs a crew of workers,and drives often with his large heavy diesel pickup work truck to several different cities. This truck and the gas it expends is a necessity. I really wonder how those high gas prices affect the construction industry, and transportation. Is it really necessary to have such high gas prices?
We need several fuel sources like CNG, Electric cars, hydrogen as soon as possible. We need to spread it out the dependency or else it will sink the economy.
How much longer do you think that China will be able to subsidize gas/energy prices? I believe India is doing the same thing. It must be getting very expensive for these governments.
I also believe these countries that are encouraging the expansion of automobile use and oil consumption are making a big long term mistake. It's a mistake that we made and are now paying the price for.
Saw a report on tv news recently that gas is $11/gallon in Turkey and inflation is over 10 percent. Must be a lot of taxes attached to a gallon.
Speaking of "mass" transit -
On Tuesday, followed a full size bus for a few miles, heading from a rural town toward a mid-size town about 15 miles away. There was only "one" passenger on this bus. The bus line is subsidized by public funds.
Besides individuals taking own actions, such as buying more fuel-efficient vehicles, the public transit companies that are subsidized need to rethink the methods of their services just as the airlines have done.
Wonder what private bus lines (Greyhound?) are doing to maximize amount of passengers on their runs and/or cancel unprofittable runs.
One possible way for private bus line to make money is to charge fare by amount of people that show up for a run between two cities. A fare on a bus half-full would cost twice as much as a fare on a full-bus run. Maybe a run would not be made unless a threshhold amount of passengers showed up. That threshhold would assure a fair profit for the bus company. Scheduling obviously would be very difficult.
for ride below 10 miles and T in summer i ride my pecal cycle.
final milage last year
2000 miles on the car
2200 on my bycycle
11000 on my ride - recreational miles are 80% .travelling cross contry and a few states in summer.
A better example may be Mexico, a country where most people can't afford gas, much less a car to put the gas in. Eight years ago we parked our car in Tucson and caught a bus south, and went to Cancun. We took 2+ months to get there, but when we got ready to hit the next town, we'd walk to the bus station and pretty much hop on. If we were going more than a couple of hours down the road we might reserve a seat the next day on a first class express bus, complete with snacks and video screens. We got stuck in one town due to a bus strike, so we walked 2 blocks to the highway and caught a bus run by another company, never missing a beat.
There's plenty of empty spaces down there but getting around without a car is pretty easy. Ditto most other places I've visited, except Canada.
Trains are the best though - I'd rather ride a train than fly any day.
The surest way to go out of business is to be inconsistent. Would anyone ride a transit system if they thought it may or may not run, and were not sure what it costs?
In addition, on at least some of those routes the carrier has a choice - low ridership, or no ridership, since they need to get the vehicle back to where it is needed.
San Diego Transit is doing an interesting thing. On the heavy morning and evening runs to our little town the fare is $5.25. The mid morning and early afternoon run is $2.75. They also have monthly passes that would save a lot of money. It still does not solve the problem of empty or nearly empty buses polluting the air.
I wonder where the gas price is that will start really putting people into mass transit? I admit I'd rather not find out.
Need a lot of flexibility for 2 month bus trip. Were buses like Romancing the Stone bus on mountain in Columbia, with lots of people carrying odd things such as chickens?
Public not-for-profit transportation has to do a much better job at scheduling "and" filling the buses, train cars, etc. Have many, many times in past years seen small amount of passengers (1,2,3, 4...) on full-size public buses, both in semi-rural and suburban settings. When fuel was cheap and plentiful, obviously didn't matter. But, not today.
I agree with much of what you said but this statement sticks out for me.
In times of change that is often when the most money can be made by those with a clear balanced view of what could happen in the future. These people are often called visionaries but they are also entrpreneurs. Right now there is a fantastic opportunity to make a fortune giving the US public what it wants in terms of fuel availability. All the alternate fuel sources you noted are certainly immediate opportunities to 'get ahead'.
Pessimism serves no purpose. Optimism see opportunities in everything. Just Do It! ( to borrow a phrase :shades: )
Schedules are posted all over so it's easy to plan if you don't have much flexibility. A few times we just did a flag stop and got on a bus that way.
It wasn't much different in Italy last year when we went over for a week or so - took a train for a couple of hours, then bused around until it was time to train back to the airport.
We're meeting friends in Chicago in a few weeks and they get to take the train - we're stuck with flying (not enough time to drive). I keep waiting for Northwest to call and say our flight has been cancelled.
If gas does double in price, maybe that will make more public transportation options feasible just from the economics - the last thing I need when I get to Chicago is a car (already got a transist pass in the mail)
There are a lot of smaller regional bus companies, but I bet they're now being decimated by psychopathic pump prices.
Disregard if done already. For a 2-3 hour view, afternoon or evening, of the most spectacular skyline in the world, try Odyssey cruise boat (at Navy Pier) on Lake Michigan. Cruise has dinner/drinks option.
Read somewhere that some personal boats in $200-$300K price range only get one mile to the gallon of fuel. But, people in this bracket could probably care less about the price of fuel.
A few months ago, read that Illinois Governor made provision for those of senior age (65+) to ride free on Chicago buses, EL trains subway. Pretty good deal for them.
All I have to do is convince the family that would be a good vacation...
The Green Tortoise is still going strong I guess.
Regards,
OW