You know what they say... "What Americans really want is a more economical car...and they'll pay anything to get it." I think these new Diesels make a lot of sense and will be seamless in operation. This thread is about $4 gas. Just do the math on 15k a year at 20mpg and 40mpg. Further, the high torque characteristics of diesel engines suddenly make much smaller and fuel efficient tow vehicles a reality. Don't tell me otherwise "I've seen the light." (Blues Brothers.") Lol.
Darn it, my new car (Matrix 5-sp) didn't make the list because the identical Vibe with the identical EPA rating made it to #10 in its place! :mad:
:-P
My other car was the #1 gas car in its year (the Echo), but only like #4 on the overall list because back then there were still the Insight, the Civic hybrid, and the Jetta TDI. Oh, and the Prius, so I guess it was #5 overall.
Between the two, I've pretty much got $4 gas covered. ;-) But if it got to $5 or $6 in a hurry, I would probably look afresh at ways of reducing the number of miles I drive.
I will be first in line to try out the new Accord diesel when it gets here, I think they are right on bringing that to market in the States. Ditto Subaru with its new diesel. It would be nice to see a diesel Civic too, to vie with the Hybrids for fuel economy champ. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hybrid total penetration right now is at 2% isn't it? I know I just read that somewhere in the last couple of weeks.
And of course, that's thanks mostly to Toyota. If other carmakers really got into the game, I think hybrids could easily reach 10% of the market. If they can do that, I bet diesel can get 20%. Not only is there less to fear with a diesel from the consumer's POV (vs the "unknown" of the hybrid gadgetry) but the price premium over the equivalent gas model is less than with the hybrid.
Toyota and GM BOTH say they aim to reduce that price premium substantially, but I will wait until the proof is in the pudding on that score.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If it's getting more respect, I would imagine that it will receive more funds, which means that the problem will take care of itself.
Btw, Dallas' public transportation is called DART - Dallas Area Rapid Transit - they operate both trains and buses.
I think using DART has nothing to do with respect. People can time themselves. They will take the least time approach to commute. Lets say someone lives 30 miles away from downtown, 5 miles from the nearest station. His options:
A. Drive for 75-90 minutes in clogged Fwy traffic, park at a high rate, walk 5 mins to office.
B. Drive 10 min to station, walk 5 mins to platform, wait 5-15 mins for train, sit in train for 30 mins, walk 10 mins to office.
A: 80-95 mins B: 60-70 mins
This person will use the DART 5 days/week. Now only if we had sufficient parking at those DART stations.
I live north of Dallas, and I've read a few letters to the Morning News about crime on DART platforms and trains. Also, about car thefts and vandalism in DART parking lots.
Those threats certainly curtail ridership.
MSINDALLAS also unintentionally revealed another major factor in people's disdain for public transportation:
"Drive 10 min to station, walk 5 mins to platform, wait 5-15 mins for train, sit in train for 30 mins, walk 10 mins to office."
In this scenario, the rider spends 25 minutes outside, which most people consider unreasonable. In Dallas, it's 95 deg. in summer, 40 deg. in winter. It rains, it snows, it hails. Occasionally we get a tornado.
People won't spend 20 minutes braving the elements just to save 20 minutes on their commutes. They'll gladly spend extra time in their own cars, with their own climate control, their own music choice, and their own freedom to travel where and when they want.
Are the DART stations well guarded against theft? In our Trolley parking lots we get a lot of car thefts. The perps know you are gone for a good long time. Not worth the hassle. Best bet just don't go downtown. Nothing but trouble in the cities anyway. Plenty of good restaurants in the burbs. People need to spread out to avoid conflicts. Get a motor scooter to save on gas.
Don't forget the parking equation. Are the park and ride lots free? (or at least cheaper than most city lots). Or you can get dropped off or bike to the station.
My friend in Houston lived north of town and did the park and ride routine every day.
I had a one week class downtown San Diego. My wife dropped me at the Trolley and picked me up. I rode downtown with a guy that skateboards a mile to the trolley then a couple blocks to his business. His business, making skateboards. I did not mind the trolley for that week. School was out and the trolley was mostly empty both ways.
Even at $4/gal, that's still only $1500 a year difference; that's assuming 20mpg vs. 40mpg. In reality, the difference is not even close to 20mpg vs. 40mpg, more like 20mpg vs. 25mpg or thereabouts. Then the difference becomes $400/year, barely noticeable.
O.K. I'll help you. $1500 after tax dollars per year is a lot to many people who will be replacing older cars/trucks with a new car/truck. Further, some of us want to pay terrorists less to kill us,conserve resources,etc,etc,etc. Further still, we are only 1 Middle eastern miscalculation away from $5 per gallon!
This poor topic has been twisted, stretched and beaten to death. So here's the final answer to "What will you do when gas price rises above $4 per gallon?"
We'll complain, then we'll pay.
That's it. Same as we all did when gas went over $2/gal. in '03, then went over $3/gal in 06.
I spend $15/week on gas. Oh my! If gas went to $4/gallon, I'd be spending $20/week! Out of an average $500 take home pay, somehow, I don't think I'll notice that I'm spending 1% more money.
I'm getting a new car in the coming months. I'll be going from ~34mpg on regular fuel to ~25mpg on premium. That'll cost me about $10/week. Oh no!
I can't see my wallet noticing the difference at $4/gallon, and at $5, it'll start to register.
You know what they say... "What Americans really want is a more economical car...and they'll pay anything to get it." I think these new Diesels make a lot of sense and will be seamless in operation. This thread is about $4 gas. Just do the math on 15k a year at 20mpg and 40mpg. Further, the high torque characteristics of diesel engines suddenly make much smaller and fuel efficient tow vehicles a reality. Don't tell me otherwise "I've seen the light." (Blues Brothers.") Lol.
Yeah I'm with you on this one but it took actually driving a diesel funny enough it was an highly modified 13B diesel in a 1983 BJ40 Landcruiser that hooked me especially offroad. Gobs of torque! Gs has far better marketing than Diesel. If you get the marketing gurus onto diesel everyone will want one. But you can't sell anyone a diesel unless they've driven one and some are better than others the Hyundai diesels are awful with the turbo lag but the Toyota common Rail turbo stuff is brilliant! The economy is far superior than with premium gas and diesel was last I looked the same as close to premium in price but that was 4+ years ago. Diesel cars have to overcome a lot of Ralph Nader type BS. But once over that hurdle a 50% diesel fleet is entirely possible by 2015. Gas is always going to go up. But economy hasn't really improved all that much, cars just got bigger and heavier and of course safer.
Thanks for the backup. I just believe these modern diesels will be so unobtrusive as to be unnoticible. So the customer goes to the car dealer and has a choice of a 25mpg Honda accord or a 40mpg Honda accord. Don't know about you, but i'm picking the one with 40mpg. Should be an interesting transition
But once over that hurdle a 50% diesel fleet is entirely possible by 2015.
I don't think we can refine enough diesel to accomodate a 50% diesel fleet. Probably not even close. Now bio-diesel would be a whole different story. When you refine a barrel of crude oil you get a certain number of gallons of gasoline and a certain number of diesel. I think this breakdown can be adjusted but only up to a point. That is why we are able to import so much unleaded gasoline from Europe. They produce a glut of unleaded gasoline as a byproduct of refining diesel.
As it is our domestic distillate inventories are already going down. So it wouldn't take much additional diesel consumption to dramatically drive the price of this fuel up relative to unleaded gasoline. That will definitely impact the cost effectiveness of this decision.
We need a breakthrough in biodiesel production, such as algae. With much of our crop land being planted in corn to produce enough ethanol it leaves little land for biodiesel crops. I don't see us going much past 10-15% diesel fleet. You only get so much diesel out of a barrel of oil as you have posted. We need to do something with the other worthless products. So we have gas cars and polyester clothes. Both not worth much in my opinion.
Between biodiesel and ethanol, there is not enough crops in the world to meet all our fuel demands and feed us. Then Monsanto and those guys need to step up to the plate and deliver more hybrids that produce way more crop per acre. I know this becomes a lot better when you account for low temperature cellulostic ethanol production. That is the holy grail of ethanol production.
Then you have to ask yourself this question: Would you rather have you fuel supply controlled by the weather or the crazies in the middle east? It is kind of like asking: Would you rather get the gas chamber or the electric chair? Not a good choice any way you slice it.
Thanks for the backup. I just believe these modern diesels will be so unobtrusive as to be unnoticible. So the customer goes to the car dealer and has a choice of a 25mpg Honda accord or a 40mpg Honda accord. Don't know about you, but i'm picking the one with 40mpg. Should be an interesting transition
Yes it's going to be an easy pick. The new diesels are just so much better and of course the handling of the car is the same. Too bad I will have to buy something before i buy a diesel Accord as it's coming out a year later than I would like.
Unless the 40mpg Accord has the engine characteristics of the 25mpg version, my choice would be the opposite.
Yes it will be easy to find the diesel it's the one with twice as much torque as horsepower. How did Carol Shelby put it. "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races" :shades: I like my grunt down low and pulling strong all the way up. But if I wanted to shift at 8,000 rpms like a Honda Civic Si or a Honda S2000, I'd buy those cars. Give me that feeling of launching off a carrier deck if I push it or nice and smooth most of the time. Diesel aren't fast per se', but they have the low end power and great economy. I think compared to the 4 cyl gas Accord the diesel will sell very well to people who want the power of a 6 cyl and fuel economy better than a Prius.
I don't think we can refine enough diesel to accomodate a 50% diesel fleet. Probably not even close. Now bio-diesel would be a whole different story. When you refine a barrel of crude oil you get a certain number of gallons of gasoline and a certain number of diesel. I think this breakdown can be adjusted but only up to a point. That is why we are able to import so much unleaded gasoline from Europe. They produce a glut of unleaded gasoline as a byproduct of refining diesel. As it is our domestic distillate inventories are already going down. So it wouldn't take much additional diesel consumption to dramatically drive the price of this fuel up relative to unleaded gasoline. That will definitely impact the cost effectiveness of this decision.
Sorry Tpe, but I just don't think diesel will be a problem for a very long time. Lots of people will not switch out of gassers and they are going to use up a whole lot of it compared to diesel. When gas gets too high we will see the car makers come up with amazing technology so we can afford that $7 per gallon gas instead of diesel. Economy will go up but it will be driven by the Gov't insistence to a point and customers voting with their wallets. The latter is far more effective. gas is here to stay but gas hybrids will be city bound, electric cars for people with city commutes and can afford to plus in their giant cell phone/Ipod car and there will be other options as well. But I think by 2015 we will see a huge slowdown of big HP cars with awful mileage except on Commercial trucks and Sports Cars Vette and Viper type cars. But it's pure speculation at this point. raise up gas enough and people will stop buying big gas hogs eventually.
Would you rather have you fuel supply controlled by the weather or the crazies in the middle east? It is kind of like asking: Would you rather get the gas chamber or the electric chair?
I think an even more important question is would we rather buy oil from the Middle East or food from China. My wife took me into the 99 cent store the other day. There were rows of fruit, veggies & pickles in jars. ALL made in China. Hope they were more careful with human food than dog food. I'm not buying any of it. It's bad enough all the produce that is now flowing in from every third world country. Is it all tested by the FDA? I grow a lot of my own and buy from local farmers as much as possible.
1) the 20mpg vs. 40 mpg difference postulated between gasoline and diesel is highly unrealistic. For similar performance, the difference is more like 20mpg vs. 25mpg. That translates to $400/year, or little more than $30/mo. For the same family that amount matters, the price premium of diesel is significant. BTW, diesels of identical displacement usually do not deliver the same performance as gasoline, so you have to compare to gasoline cars of smaller displacement
2) Sustained oil price increase has little to do with what happens in the Middleast per se. Copper, iron, uranium, aluminum, silver, gold, and etc. have gone up just nearly as much as oil and more in some cases, and none of them is dependent on middleast output. Commodity price increase is a reflection of the debasing of dollar. Sure, one more middleastern miscaculation will drive all commodity prices up, just like any other additional government miscaculation, such as a fuel tax.
3) As for terrorism, much of it is just mafia turf fight, over the profit margin between $2/barrel at Saudi Arabian wellhead production cost and the $70/barrel oil price. Until we make a clear decision between non-interventionism (free trade without any co-ercion) and really putting our boots down and stump that place flat (which I doubt we have the stomach for), terrorism just happens to be how the other mafia sends its messages (whatelse is new :-(
When the commute time in a car exceeds the commute time on public transportation...
...that's when I switch.
But that's me.
---
However, as I currently live in Seoul, South Korea... with 12 million other people... I can definitely state that this attitude is in the minority.
There are enough Koreans living in Seoul that will commute via car, REGARDLESS of whether the commute time is shorter via subway, to ensure gridlock on the streets of Seoul during rush hours.
To them, driving is an expression of wealth, a 'keeping up with the Jones's (or Kims, in this case)'. And to ride the subway is to shout to the world that they are too poor to afford a car. And status is FAR more important than time for them.
Heck, I know a few Koreans who bought cars that they knew they could not afford to operate (ie - gas, insurance, repairs, etc). They did so simply to have the car parked in front of their high-rise apartment so they show their friends and family the car - and to get the unspoken respect of having 'made it'.
---
Point is, I'm relatively sure that, for whatever reason, Americans would find some reason to do the same.
Would you rather have you fuel supply controlled by the weather or the crazies in the middle east?
I'd take the fuel supply "controlled" by the crazies in the middleast any day. The crazies have to sell their oil to someone or they are SOL; their crazy regimes can not survive a complete removal of subsidies paid for by oil money. Even the Khomeini Iran, about as crazy as those buggers got, still was selling oil to the west including the US even as the craziest of crazy buggers among them were holding American embassy personnel hostages. The oil trade restriction at the time was imposed by Carter, kinda like cutting off the nose to spite the face, which Carter was known for :-( Reagan solved both problem rather quickly, by hinting at his intention to put American tax dollars to good use (like he would do later with Libyan terrorism). Hostages were released and oil prices went down for the next two decades. An effective government that costs less tax goes a long way at lowering oil prices; much better than a high-tax ineffective government that wastes its time thinking up conservation plans like Carter's. I'm not against conservation. However, conservation should be the individual's job. The government policy goal should be making dollar strong, so oil cost less in dollar terms. That means, low taxes, low regulations, and a credible response in foreign policy terms.
Weather and climate on the other hand are far less predicatable than human behavior, even those of the crazies. If climate gets cold, food production will drop; if that's our fuel supply too, and heating oil demand goes up, there would be a real double-whammy.
but I just don't think diesel will be a problem for a very long time. Lots of people will not switch out of gassers and they are going to use up a whole lot of it compared to diesel.
Well you're correct that the personal automotive fleet will be predominantly gasoline for quite some time. They aren't the only ones competing for diesel. Aviation fuel is diesel. Almost all if not all large,commercial trucks and buses run on diesel. Home heating fuel is diesel. And some diesel goes towards power generation. Even though there aren't many diesel automobiles we are already using up all the diesel that is being refined in this country.
While I do not like to endorse products, I have seen a DVD that has really opened my eyes. BTW, I have no monetary or other gains from this, its just information. Last night I watched the movie “A Crude Awakening – The Oil Crash” a film by Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack. These guys have put together a film that brings to light just how short a span oil is going to be around. It just might make one reevaluate his entire out look on life. Just my opinion, but this is a movie everyone should see.
So, I already get 40 mpg in a very nice little car that costs $13,000. How you gonna beat that by any substantial margin? Sell me a $25,000 diesel? :shades: Now if you could sell me a diesel car as good as a little Scion that got 55 mpg, for the same price, then we're talkin' a big shift in American buying habits. But the thought of owning a VW diesel, as wonderful as they are, scares me. They aren't up to the sturdiness of a Japanese car and everyone knows that right now. As for a 40 mpg diesel Accord, that's a good product and it will sell...but not in any great numbers, because a) it will cost more than a gas Accord, and b) a 4 cylinder Accord already pulls 34 mpg and has 160 ft lbs of torque. So unless you are hauling a firewood trailer 400 miles a day for a living, a gas Accord will suit 98% of Honda buyers just fine I think.
The world was supposed to be running out of oil in the 70's . . . not 1970's, but 1870's! Because all the kerosene street lamps! What a waste! People lived for thousands of years without street lamps!
WWII was to a degree fought over oil. The have-nots wanted to take some from the have's by force . . . because it was believed the world was running out of oil, and tanks and aircrafts all had to run on oil, so for obvious strategic reasons, every dictator had a very strong incentive to make sure he was sitting on a big barrel when the music stopped.
In the 1950's, everyone, even the head of GM, believed that gasoline was only a temporary fuel, until oil ran out, which was supposed to happen in a couple decades.
I don't have to recount what happened in the 70's and 80's, as those are recent memory, that many of us here personally lived through.
The point is, "oil reserve" is defined as the commercially viable underground supply that is already discovered and proved, and it is always only a few decades, because once that number is reached, the oil company has little incentive to spend money on discovery. People outside the industry usually misunderstand the concept and think that's all the oil there is, anywhere. People in the industry has little incentive to correct them, because if a product is perceived to be limited in supply, that makes it more precious. Of course, the last and most crucial ingredient for the repeated retelling of the distopia in every generation is that, distopia sells, in books, movies and in TV series/DVD. Much of humanity just love to plough the death of human suffering vicariously; it's almost like a snuff filim.
The 1957 Plymouth Belvedere that was buried in Tulsa, OK had a can of gasoline and a couple quarts of oil in the trunk in case the internal combustion engine was obsolete by 2007. I guess they expected us to be flying around in nuclear-powered space cars like George Jetson by now. The future ain't what it used to be!
Very true but the scenario of oil shortages in OUR future is backed by some very good data....just as global warming was backed by very good data and poo-pooed by so many people who are now eating their words.
So while it's a great idea to avoid any dooms-day predictions, there is ample evidence for future oil shortages...how short and when is still being clarified because the consumption rates are changing.
Certainly the threat is credible enough to start planning for some mitigation. I mean, whale oil did in fact run out, just like they said it would. They had enough good numbers to know that.
Point is, I'm relatively sure that, for whatever reason, Americans would find some reason to do the same.
They already do. Besides the fact that any form of public transportation also requires people to walk a block or two or three. And when I see people taking elevators instead of taking a flight of the stairs (and there's only one), I know they make for great candidates to never use public transportation.
Its all about prestige (bigger is better), convenience (park as close to desk as possible as it cuts down time wasted in walking, the time that can be used on a treadmill at home to burn all that fat).
I walk about four blocks to the bus stop when I take SEPTA. It seems the bus comes every 20 minutes. As long as I arrive at an interval close to the 20 minute mark, I'm OK. I can still walk to work in 40-45 minutes if need be.
I've always loved the rational that because a prediction was wrong once it will therefore always be wrong.
I predict that within 10 years solar energy will be viable. I've heard people respond that this prediction was made in the 1970's and was obviously incorrect. Which somehow proves that I am also incorrect. I very well may be wrong but the case has by no means been proven.
Someday both Chicken Little and Nostradamus will be right...and even "Psychic Detectives" may score a hit one day! :P
Real science doesn't "predict" anything, does it? I mean...it presents data that is evaluated and if necessary, re-evaluated for a different conclusion from the same data!
That's the difference between science and magical thinking. Scientists are capable of changing their minds--in fact, they are trained to do so.
Remember turbine cars? Atomic cars? Flying cars? Perpetual motion cars? They were explored and rejected, but some day they might work. But it'll be science that makes them work or proves them wrong, not motivational speakers, "futurists" or apocalyptics.
I believe the CNG Civic is actually worse in energy use and CO2 output than the Civic hybrid, but better than the gas. Which is also important to me, even though this is the dollars and cents thread I know.
Certainly, because of the price of CNG, the dollars and cents work out substantially in favor of the Civic GX. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Remember turbine cars? Atomic cars? Flying cars? Perpetual motion cars? They were explored and rejected, but some day they might work. But it'll be science that makes them work or proves them wrong, not motivational speakers, "futurists" or apocalyptics.
A lot of people have difficulty driving in two-dimenstional situations. I can't imagine the carnage if they had to deal with three-dimensional driving. Although, I can't wait until we have the "Mr. Fusion" engines from the Back to the Future movies. :shades:
Lemko, how long does it take the bus to get you to work? My Dad used to rely on public transporation to get to work, for years. On a good day, it would take him about an hour to get to work. And it's only about a 6 mile drive! He drives it now, in the relative comfort of his 2003 Regal, and I think on a bad day, it might take him 20 minutes.
There's no bus route that would really run very convenient for me to get to work. The nearest stop is about 1 1/2 miles away from my home, and at that point I'm less than 2 miles from work.
I did discover, a few weeks ago, that if I really had to, I can walk to work in about 45 minutes. A few weeks ago, naturally on a blistering hot day, my New Yorker decided it didn't want to start up, so I decided to hoof it home. I made it a little more than halfway there, when my roommate picked me up along the road. I timed myself and had only been walking for about 25 minutes, so I was impressed with the pace I'd kept up. It would get old fast if I had to do it every day, though!
It doesn't take me long, maybe about 15 minutes 'cause I'm already in the city. If you miss the bus or are too early, you can wait as long as 20 minutes or more for it.
I believe the CNG Civic is actually worse in energy use and CO2 output than the Civic hybrid,
Correct on both.
The EPA rates the CNG Civic at 5.4 tons of CO2 per year and the Civic Hybrid at 4.4 tons. Lower is obviously better but these are both extremely good ratings. The Civic hybrid also gets more miles per gallon than the CNG get per gge (gallon of gas equivalent) 42 to 28.
I used to take a bus to work when there was one available. Six miles in about 20 minutes (about 5-10 minutes more than it took me to drive in traffic) but it was well worth it.
Now I live about 14 miles (15-20 minutes) from work, and the nearest bus stop is 15 miles out (a mile from my work).
That said, I almost never drive to downtown Dallas if going to see an event at American Airlines Center (usually the Mavericks). Train takes longer, but getting out of the parking lot after the even it worse. Parking at the arena itself costs more than the cost of gas to drive to a train station and the day pass ($2.50).
Now, that flexibility isn't available if I visit the ballpark (or the upcoming Cowboy stadium) in Arlington. Those 20 miles must be done on extremely congested freeways and city streets.
Let's circle back a bit closer to tying comments to $4 a gallon gas and what you are going to do if/when it hits that price.
Watch people burn their gas guzzlers? Two SUVs were sighted burning next to each other when gas prices were in lower 2s. I suspect, we will see 4 or 5 of them once the price hits $4. :P
It was interesting enough to see someone pay $92.51 for a fill up at the pump @ about $3/gallon before I got there. I can only imagine what $120/fill up would look like. That would be 3 times the cost of filling up the tank compared to late 90s.
I think using DART has nothing to do with respect. People can time themselves. They will take the least time approach to commute. Lets say someone lives 30 miles away from downtown, 5 miles from the nearest station.
Trains actually seem to suffer less with social stigma than buses. And people find it easy to ignore or dismiss public transportation in cities like Dallas but not so in cities where they are desperate to seek alternatives (NYC, Bay Area etc). Perhaps it is desperation that the populace needs to get to before they start respecting public transportation.
As far as time spent goes, I don't have the convenience to commute by bus or train if I wanted to (unless I opted to live by crowded freeways or well in the city). But any opportunity I do get, puts me in DART or TRE services (generally TRE since West Irving station is about 20 minutes from my house, downtown another 30 minutes or so from there). I could drive to downtown in about 35 minutes, saving 15 minutes. And I usually do, not because it takes me 15 minutes more to get there, but because the train services are 1 hour apart, end early (and don't run on Sundays). Besides, the station is well off the route.
So, the incentive generally is to take the train when going to a concert or a Mavericks/Stars game at the AAC. I used to commute by BART in Bay Area, and it took me an hour to get to my work. Less, if I drove, but that wouldn't have been my choice anyway. Perhaps I was desperate to save myself from traffic (and the cost of parking).
There's a fundamental difference between these two types of predictions. Technological advance makes solar energy more and more feasible, yet make energy exhaustion less and less likely as the progress itself makes more types of energy available.
Also, time value is critically important in any prediction. Investing in something that will probably pay off in 10 years may have some marginal investment value; investing in something that will take 50 years or 100 years or more to have any chance of paying off probably has no value or negative value. Sure eventually the universe will have all its energy content evenly distributed (law of entropy), and there won't be any differentiation for us or any other biological mechanism to eek a living out of . . . however that has nothing to do with whether a tax should be raised today. Unless, the wannabe statists are really desperate :-)
Comments
:-P
My other car was the #1 gas car in its year (the Echo), but only like #4 on the overall list because back then there were still the Insight, the Civic hybrid, and the Jetta TDI. Oh, and the Prius, so I guess it was #5 overall.
Between the two, I've pretty much got $4 gas covered. ;-)
But if it got to $5 or $6 in a hurry, I would probably look afresh at ways of reducing the number of miles I drive.
I will be first in line to try out the new Accord diesel when it gets here, I think they are right on bringing that to market in the States. Ditto Subaru with its new diesel. It would be nice to see a diesel Civic too, to vie with the Hybrids for fuel economy champ. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And of course, that's thanks mostly to Toyota. If other carmakers really got into the game, I think hybrids could easily reach 10% of the market. If they can do that, I bet diesel can get 20%. Not only is there less to fear with a diesel from the consumer's POV (vs the "unknown" of the hybrid gadgetry) but the price premium over the equivalent gas model is less than with the hybrid.
Toyota and GM BOTH say they aim to reduce that price premium substantially, but I will wait until the proof is in the pudding on that score.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Btw, Dallas' public transportation is called DART - Dallas Area Rapid Transit - they operate both trains and buses.
I think using DART has nothing to do with respect. People can time themselves. They will take the least time approach to commute. Lets say someone lives 30 miles away from downtown, 5 miles from the nearest station. His options:
A. Drive for 75-90 minutes in clogged Fwy traffic, park at a high rate, walk 5 mins to office.
B. Drive 10 min to station, walk 5 mins to platform, wait 5-15 mins for train, sit in train for 30 mins, walk 10 mins to office.
A: 80-95 mins
B: 60-70 mins
This person will use the DART 5 days/week. Now only if we had sufficient parking at those DART stations.
Those threats certainly curtail ridership.
MSINDALLAS also unintentionally revealed another major factor in people's disdain for public transportation:
"Drive 10 min to station, walk 5 mins to platform, wait 5-15 mins for train, sit in train for 30 mins, walk 10 mins to office."
In this scenario, the rider spends 25 minutes outside, which most people consider unreasonable. In Dallas, it's 95 deg. in summer, 40 deg. in winter. It rains, it snows, it hails. Occasionally we get a tornado.
People won't spend 20 minutes braving the elements just to save 20 minutes on their commutes. They'll gladly spend extra time in their own cars, with their own climate control, their own music choice, and their own freedom to travel where and when they want.
Who could argue with them?
My friend in Houston lived north of town and did the park and ride routine every day.
We'll complain, then we'll pay.
That's it. Same as we all did when gas went over $2/gal. in '03, then went over $3/gal in 06.
It gets an equivalent of 80-100mpg! 30miles for $1 worth of CNG. No expensive electronics or batteries, either.
I'm getting a new car in the coming months. I'll be going from ~34mpg on regular fuel to ~25mpg on premium. That'll cost me about $10/week. Oh no!
I can't see my wallet noticing the difference at $4/gallon, and at $5, it'll start to register.
Yeah, here's me, not caring at all.
Yeah I'm with you on this one but it took actually driving a diesel funny enough it was an highly modified 13B diesel in a 1983 BJ40 Landcruiser that hooked me especially offroad. Gobs of torque! Gs has far better marketing than Diesel. If you get the marketing gurus onto diesel everyone will want one. But you can't sell anyone a diesel unless they've driven one and some are better than others the Hyundai diesels are awful with the turbo lag but the Toyota common Rail turbo stuff is brilliant!
The economy is far superior than with premium gas and diesel was last I looked the same as close to premium in price but that was 4+ years ago.
Diesel cars have to overcome a lot of Ralph Nader type BS. But once over that hurdle a 50% diesel fleet is entirely possible by 2015. Gas is always going to go up. But economy hasn't really improved all that much, cars just got bigger and heavier and of course safer.
I don't think we can refine enough diesel to accomodate a 50% diesel fleet. Probably not even close. Now bio-diesel would be a whole different story. When you refine a barrel of crude oil you get a certain number of gallons of gasoline and a certain number of diesel. I think this breakdown can be adjusted but only up to a point. That is why we are able to import so much unleaded gasoline from Europe. They produce a glut of unleaded gasoline as a byproduct of refining diesel.
As it is our domestic distillate inventories are already going down. So it wouldn't take much additional diesel consumption to dramatically drive the price of this fuel up relative to unleaded gasoline. That will definitely impact the cost effectiveness of this decision.
Then you have to ask yourself this question: Would you rather have you fuel supply controlled by the weather or the crazies in the middle east? It is kind of like asking: Would you rather get the gas chamber or the electric chair? Not a good choice any way you slice it.
Yes it's going to be an easy pick. The new diesels are just so much better and of course the handling of the car is the same. Too bad I will have to buy something before i buy a diesel Accord as it's coming out a year later than I would like.
Yes it will be easy to find the diesel it's the one with twice as much torque as horsepower. How did Carol Shelby put it. "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races" :shades:
I like my grunt down low and pulling strong all the way up. But if I wanted to shift at 8,000 rpms like a Honda Civic Si or a Honda S2000, I'd buy those cars. Give me that feeling of launching off a carrier deck if I push it or nice and smooth most of the time. Diesel aren't fast per se', but they have the low end power and great economy. I think compared to the 4 cyl gas Accord the diesel will sell very well to people who want the power of a 6 cyl and fuel economy better than a Prius.
As it is our domestic distillate inventories are already going down. So it wouldn't take much additional diesel consumption to dramatically drive the price of this fuel up relative to unleaded gasoline. That will definitely impact the cost effectiveness of this decision.
Sorry Tpe, but I just don't think diesel will be a problem for a very long time. Lots of people will not switch out of gassers and they are going to use up a whole lot of it compared to diesel.
When gas gets too high we will see the car makers come up with amazing technology so we can afford that $7 per gallon gas instead of diesel.
Economy will go up but it will be driven by the Gov't insistence to a point and customers voting with their wallets. The latter is far more effective. gas is here to stay but gas hybrids will be city bound, electric cars for people with city commutes and can afford to plus in their giant cell phone/Ipod car and there will be other options as well. But I think by 2015 we will see a huge slowdown of big HP cars with awful mileage except on Commercial trucks and Sports Cars Vette and Viper type cars.
But it's pure speculation at this point. raise up gas enough and people will stop buying big gas hogs eventually.
I think an even more important question is would we rather buy oil from the Middle East or food from China. My wife took me into the 99 cent store the other day. There were rows of fruit, veggies & pickles in jars. ALL made in China. Hope they were more careful with human food than dog food. I'm not buying any of it. It's bad enough all the produce that is now flowing in from every third world country. Is it all tested by the FDA? I grow a lot of my own and buy from local farmers as much as possible.
1) the 20mpg vs. 40 mpg difference postulated between gasoline and diesel is highly unrealistic. For similar performance, the difference is more like 20mpg vs. 25mpg. That translates to $400/year, or little more than $30/mo. For the same family that amount matters, the price premium of diesel is significant. BTW, diesels of identical displacement usually do not deliver the same performance as gasoline, so you have to compare to gasoline cars of smaller displacement
2) Sustained oil price increase has little to do with what happens in the Middleast per se. Copper, iron, uranium, aluminum, silver, gold, and etc. have gone up just nearly as much as oil and more in some cases, and none of them is dependent on middleast output. Commodity price increase is a reflection of the debasing of dollar. Sure, one more middleastern miscaculation will drive all commodity prices up, just like any other additional government miscaculation, such as a fuel tax.
3) As for terrorism, much of it is just mafia turf fight, over the profit margin between $2/barrel at Saudi Arabian wellhead production cost and the $70/barrel oil price. Until we make a clear decision between non-interventionism (free trade without any co-ercion) and really putting our boots down and stump that place flat (which I doubt we have the stomach for), terrorism just happens to be how the other mafia sends its messages (whatelse is new :-(
...that's when I switch.
But that's me.
---
However, as I currently live in Seoul, South Korea... with 12 million other people... I can definitely state that this attitude is in the minority.
There are enough Koreans living in Seoul that will commute via car, REGARDLESS of whether the commute time is shorter via subway, to ensure gridlock on the streets of Seoul during rush hours.
To them, driving is an expression of wealth, a 'keeping up with the Jones's (or Kims, in this case)'. And to ride the subway is to shout to the world that they are too poor to afford a car. And status is FAR more important than time for them.
Heck, I know a few Koreans who bought cars that they knew they could not afford to operate (ie - gas, insurance, repairs, etc). They did so simply to have the car parked in front of their high-rise apartment so they show their friends and family the car - and to get the unspoken respect of having 'made it'.
---
Point is, I'm relatively sure that, for whatever reason, Americans would find some reason to do the same.
I'd take the fuel supply "controlled" by the crazies in the middleast any day. The crazies have to sell their oil to someone or they are SOL; their crazy regimes can not survive a complete removal of subsidies paid for by oil money. Even the Khomeini Iran, about as crazy as those buggers got, still was selling oil to the west including the US even as the craziest of crazy buggers among them were holding American embassy personnel hostages. The oil trade restriction at the time was imposed by Carter, kinda like cutting off the nose to spite the face, which Carter was known for :-( Reagan solved both problem rather quickly, by hinting at his intention to put American tax dollars to good use (like he would do later with Libyan terrorism). Hostages were released and oil prices went down for the next two decades. An effective government that costs less tax goes a long way at lowering oil prices; much better than a high-tax ineffective government that wastes its time thinking up conservation plans like Carter's. I'm not against conservation. However, conservation should be the individual's job. The government policy goal should be making dollar strong, so oil cost less in dollar terms. That means, low taxes, low regulations, and a credible response in foreign policy terms.
Weather and climate on the other hand are far less predicatable than human behavior, even those of the crazies. If climate gets cold, food production will drop; if that's our fuel supply too, and heating oil demand goes up, there would be a real double-whammy.
Well you're correct that the personal automotive fleet will be predominantly gasoline for quite some time. They aren't the only ones competing for diesel. Aviation fuel is diesel. Almost all if not all large,commercial trucks and buses run on diesel. Home heating fuel is diesel. And some diesel goes towards power generation. Even though there aren't many diesel automobiles we are already using up all the diesel that is being refined in this country.
That's because, in races like Le Mans, the peak horsepower of a car is regulated, and torque therefore becomes the loophole to maximize on.
Last night I watched the movie “A Crude Awakening – The Oil Crash” a film by Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack.
These guys have put together a film that brings to light just how short a span oil is going to be around. It just might make one reevaluate his entire out look on life.
Just my opinion, but this is a movie everyone should see.
WWII was to a degree fought over oil. The have-nots wanted to take some from the have's by force . . . because it was believed the world was running out of oil, and tanks and aircrafts all had to run on oil, so for obvious strategic reasons, every dictator had a very strong incentive to make sure he was sitting on a big barrel when the music stopped.
In the 1950's, everyone, even the head of GM, believed that gasoline was only a temporary fuel, until oil ran out, which was supposed to happen in a couple decades.
I don't have to recount what happened in the 70's and 80's, as those are recent memory, that many of us here personally lived through.
The point is, "oil reserve" is defined as the commercially viable underground supply that is already discovered and proved, and it is always only a few decades, because once that number is reached, the oil company has little incentive to spend money on discovery. People outside the industry usually misunderstand the concept and think that's all the oil there is, anywhere. People in the industry has little incentive to correct them, because if a product is perceived to be limited in supply, that makes it more precious. Of course, the last and most crucial ingredient for the repeated retelling of the distopia in every generation is that, distopia sells, in books, movies and in TV series/DVD. Much of humanity just love to plough the death of human suffering vicariously; it's almost like a snuff filim.
So while it's a great idea to avoid any dooms-day predictions, there is ample evidence for future oil shortages...how short and when is still being clarified because the consumption rates are changing.
Certainly the threat is credible enough to start planning for some mitigation. I mean, whale oil did in fact run out, just like they said it would. They had enough good numbers to know that.
They already do. Besides the fact that any form of public transportation also requires people to walk a block or two or three. And when I see people taking elevators instead of taking a flight of the stairs (and there's only one), I know they make for great candidates to never use public transportation.
Its all about prestige (bigger is better), convenience (park as close to desk as possible as it cuts down time wasted in walking, the time that can be used on a treadmill at home to burn all that fat).
I predict that within 10 years solar energy will be viable. I've heard people respond that this prediction was made in the 1970's and was obviously incorrect. Which somehow proves that I am also incorrect. I very well may be wrong but the case has by no means been proven.
Real science doesn't "predict" anything, does it? I mean...it presents data that is evaluated and if necessary, re-evaluated for a different conclusion from the same data!
That's the difference between science and magical thinking. Scientists are capable of changing their minds--in fact, they are trained to do so.
Remember turbine cars? Atomic cars? Flying cars? Perpetual motion cars? They were explored and rejected, but some day they might work. But it'll be science that makes them work or proves them wrong, not motivational speakers, "futurists" or apocalyptics.
Certainly, because of the price of CNG, the dollars and cents work out substantially in favor of the Civic GX. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A lot of people have difficulty driving in two-dimenstional situations. I can't imagine the carnage if they had to deal with three-dimensional driving.
Although, I can't wait until we have the "Mr. Fusion" engines from the Back to the Future movies. :shades:
There's no bus route that would really run very convenient for me to get to work. The nearest stop is about 1 1/2 miles away from my home, and at that point I'm less than 2 miles from work.
I did discover, a few weeks ago, that if I really had to, I can walk to work in about 45 minutes. A few weeks ago, naturally on a blistering hot day, my New Yorker decided it didn't want to start up, so I decided to hoof it home. I made it a little more than halfway there, when my roommate picked me up along the road. I timed myself and had only been walking for about 25 minutes, so I was impressed with the pace I'd kept up. It would get old fast if I had to do it every day, though!
Correct on both.
The EPA rates the CNG Civic at 5.4 tons of CO2 per year and the Civic Hybrid at 4.4 tons. Lower is obviously better but these are both extremely good ratings. The Civic hybrid also gets more miles per gallon than the CNG get per gge (gallon of gas equivalent) 42 to 28.
Now I live about 14 miles (15-20 minutes) from work, and the nearest bus stop is 15 miles out (a mile from my work).
That said, I almost never drive to downtown Dallas if going to see an event at American Airlines Center (usually the Mavericks). Train takes longer, but getting out of the parking lot after the even it worse. Parking at the arena itself costs more than the cost of gas to drive to a train station and the day pass ($2.50).
Now, that flexibility isn't available if I visit the ballpark (or the upcoming Cowboy stadium) in Arlington. Those 20 miles must be done on extremely congested freeways and city streets.
Watch people burn their gas guzzlers? Two SUVs were sighted burning next to each other when gas prices were in lower 2s. I suspect, we will see 4 or 5 of them once the price hits $4. :P
It was interesting enough to see someone pay $92.51 for a fill up at the pump @ about $3/gallon before I got there. I can only imagine what $120/fill up would look like. That would be 3 times the cost of filling up the tank compared to late 90s.
Trains actually seem to suffer less with social stigma than buses. And people find it easy to ignore or dismiss public transportation in cities like Dallas but not so in cities where they are desperate to seek alternatives (NYC, Bay Area etc). Perhaps it is desperation that the populace needs to get to before they start respecting public transportation.
As far as time spent goes, I don't have the convenience to commute by bus or train if I wanted to (unless I opted to live by crowded freeways or well in the city). But any opportunity I do get, puts me in DART or TRE services (generally TRE since West Irving station is about 20 minutes from my house, downtown another 30 minutes or so from there). I could drive to downtown in about 35 minutes, saving 15 minutes. And I usually do, not because it takes me 15 minutes more to get there, but because the train services are 1 hour apart, end early (and don't run on Sundays). Besides, the station is well off the route.
So, the incentive generally is to take the train when going to a concert or a Mavericks/Stars game at the AAC. I used to commute by BART in Bay Area, and it took me an hour to get to my work. Less, if I drove, but that wouldn't have been my choice anyway. Perhaps I was desperate to save myself from traffic (and the cost of parking).
Also, time value is critically important in any prediction. Investing in something that will probably pay off in 10 years may have some marginal investment value; investing in something that will take 50 years or 100 years or more to have any chance of paying off probably has no value or negative value. Sure eventually the universe will have all its energy content evenly distributed (law of entropy), and there won't be any differentiation for us or any other biological mechanism to eek a living out of . . . however that has nothing to do with whether a tax should be raised today. Unless, the wannabe statists are really desperate :-)