By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And after conversion to U.S. numbers, I think its combined fuel economy rating was about 45 miles per U.S. gallon....
Old man Tata should bring his car to the States! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That is our one extravagance,but if gas hits $4 per gallon might have to find a way to amuse ourselves at home. Our KIA gets good gas mileage,but not THAT good.
taxes are half of the high price of gas. taxes make trading a lower mileage car for a new one that gets higher mileage a losing proposition. Lucky though, many of us work for the gov't that collects all this tax and it allows us to live well and almost balance the budgets.
cadillac just evolved the engines in their CTS to help the world oil supply. They upped the base engine from 250 to 304 HP (V8). They upped the optional engine to a supercharged V8 with 450 HP I think. The billboard on the way to work shows an infiniti G35 with 330 HP. This is the direction that the wealthy are going, wanting more power in their cars. In India, they are upgrading from motorcycles to tiny cars. Same direction.
I plan to put 6 to 10k miles a year on my V8 truck for the next 15 years, after which it will 22 yrs old and have 140 k miles on it. Fuel Cost of doing that this year is $122 a month. Fuel Cost of same in a Prius is $41 a month plus however many batteries it needs in 22 years. It would be hard to argue that the $81 a month saved in the Prius will cover whatever elec motor and battery expenses add up to in 22 years. The trade in for my truck will pay for half of a new Prius. The $81 a month is starting to look puny.
Reality check:
Jan 2 2007 oil was priced at $60 /bbl..... fuel prices eventually ran up to ~$3 and stuck.
Jan 2 2008 oil was priced at $100 /bbl....
Does anyone seriously think that this runup in pricing for the main feedstock for our vehicles will just be absorbed by the kindly oil companies and refiners? Yes they can afford a 67% increase in the cost of their raw material but their shareholders would never allow the various managements to absorb such an increase, take such losses, and devalue the equity of the companies by such a figure.
There may not be a 67% increase ( $5.00 ) in fuel prices but I'd be shocked if there wasn't a 40-50% increase ( $4.20-$4.50 ). It would just be bad business not to do that. Bad business such as the Board of Directors demanding that Management implement the increases or be fired. To believe otherwise is to live in Neverneverland where you never have to grow up.
It's just good capitalism at work. Our job as consumers is to lessen the effects and look for alternates ( walking, biking, carpooling, mass transit, staying at home more, more efficient vehicles, alternate sources of fuel ). That too is good business. They do what's best for them. We do what's best for us.
Congrats for 'Doing the Right Thing' by sticking with what you've got and just driving it into the ground. The vehicle makers hate your guts but that's a different forum. j/k.
But in your analysis here is one factor that IMO everyone gets wrong. Fuel is not going to stay at $3.00 gallon for the next 15 years. It is going to go up and it's going to go up A LOT !!!!!
This is due to a number of factors like China and India and lessening supplies of easy oil from the MidEast. But to me the key factor for us in NA is population growth. We are now ~300 million in the US with maybe 200 million drivers ??
In 15 yrs we will be well over 350 million and nearing 400 million by 2030. 400 million of us means about 275 million drivers, more? 300 million? The demand for fuel just inside our own borders is going to be 40-50% higher than it is now. So it comes down to either you drive or I drive. It's that simple. We have to outbid each other for the fixed supply of fuel. Supply and demand.
If you don't plan of fuel being in the $10 per gallon range by the decade of the 20's well then you're living in a dream of the 90s where fuel was dirt cheap for 10 yrs.
More and more people believe this country is heading into a recession. When it comes to buying and selling futures on the commodities market perception is definitely reality. I'm thinking that we'll be seeing falling gas prices in the next few months, maybe as much as 50 cents a gallon.
Those numbers are very accurate but they aren't being driven by domestic population growth, which is close to zero. I'm not trying to make a personal commentary here but those figures represent immigration growth. So let's keep projecting these population numbers. When will we hit 1 billion, 2 billion? Even the most pro-immigration will have to eventually agree that the US has hit the point where "enough is enough". So future projections are somewhat based upon when the majority will agree that point has been hit.
In order to makes our budget work we have had to make major changes even now. We only drive when we have to. Like Church on Sunday, food shopping is always combined with some other thing we have to do. We no longer just go for a drive. If the Dr. appointments (which are 100 miles away) can not work in with some other activity we re schedule. We are now down to to about 80 gallons a month, and I don't see how we can lower that anymore.
Also with the numbskulls that thought using corn for fuel would help bring down costs, have you seen how anything that uses corn or heat to make has gone way up? Food alone has gone up about 10% in the last 6 months. We help the farmers to grow corn. If the real cost of fuel made with corn were actually added in, E-85 or gas+10% would be a lot higher.
We are in a real recession and until it hits each one of us in the pocket where it hurts, then we will continue to buy those gas eaten hogs, like Hemi's and those big engine vehicles.
As gas heads to $ 4.00 a gallon we will use the car less and less. What choice do we have? Every dime more we spend for fuel is money taken away from some place else. I have yet to hear any person running for President mention how to fix our economy. I think we have become a slave to China, and we don't even know it.
Well that's my dimes worth of opinion.
farout
We help the farmers to grow corn.
Nice way of saying we subsidize them to the hilt. I smell a nice fat farmer's backlash landing right in Willie Nelson's lap.
I thought Bio-Willie came from McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken joints. Maybe Uncle should take that 50 cent subsidy off of ethanol and put it on domestic oil production.
Willie supposedly makes the agribiz/family farmer distinction, but as both gas and milk try to hit (or pass) $4 a gallon, people mostly wonder why the farmers get paid not to grow stuff.
Wouldn't another solution be to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? I noticed again a mention of China drilling off Florida. As I started checking I found Mexico had a big oil hit. But we're wanting to save the Everglades so we don't drill? But apparently other countries don't have to save the Everglades.
2006 China drills
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, the only pleasure is in pointing out the that a "local" simplistic idea is not a valid solution for the drivers and people of the world.
For instance in these discussions you frequently hear the simplistic solutions we might take like 1) ride a bike, 2) buy a hybrid, 3) wait for the EV's, 4) use hydrogen, 5) ethanol from corn, 6) solar cars, ...
Yes they are all solutions for a few people; but weather, environment, commuting distance, decreased safety (bikes), the simple fact that these vehicles would take 10+ years to replace our fleet, and lack of electrical generating power make these technologies unviable. Unviable especially given the topic of $4/gal gas which will hit within 1-2 years, but most probably within 5 years.
So if you want to follow the topic, given what we know today about oil prices and demand, then we really are addressing what the typical person can do in the next few years, given the used vehicles on the road, and the current vehicles being built and sold.
I would also like to challenge you and anyone else to ponder and answer whether they think it is good for the Nuclear regulatory Commission to frequently give waivers to nuclear generating plants to operate well beyond their planned life-time!! Because that is what is happening more and more frequently just to keep the lights on now. Our electrical generating capacity would be declining in this country if it were not for the NRC pushing the safety limits - by allowing operation beyond their planned licenses, and to increase power levels. Consider that when you hear someone optimistically say, "we'll just plug it in", as if the electricity just magically appears.
My point is that fuel costs are high- but seem to overshadow the big costs of owning a vehicle, which is depreciation. And besides, to have nice car/truck and spend an extra $10/week on fuel to drive it- still not a big cost for many people
Why does there have to be one solution that works for all the drivers in the world? In the immediate future individuals will deal with high gas prices in a variety of ways, which may or may not work for someone else. Some people might walk or ride a bike. Your response is "not everyone can do this". Some people might buy a hybrid, again your response is "not everyone can do this". Some people might move closer to their work, oh yeah, not everyone can do this. Some people might take public transportation, bad idea since not everyone has access to public transportation. I think you get my point. You've become somewhat of a broken record in your responses to how people will deal with high gas prices.
Also our energy/oil problems are not something that will be solved in 3 years so to dismiss an approach that might take 10+ years to implement is not valid.
Consider that when you hear someone optimistically say, "we'll just plug it in", as if the electricity just magically appears.
The only time we don't have any extra capacity for generating electricity is during peak hours. At night we use a fraction of this amount, the difference represents extra capacity. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp. Most powerplants are actually wasting energy at night because they can't be brought down completely or even to a level that matches the minimal demand. These utilities want people to be using more electricity at night. Could they suddenly handle 100 million EVs? No, but that's totally irrelevant. Could they handle 100 million EVs in 20 years? Why not? In fact I've read credible articles that state there is enough electricity generating capacity right now to handle a fleet comprised of 85% EVs if these vehicles were charged at the right time.
Public charging stations will in all likelihood have some sort of load management system incorporated. If there's no electricity available then they won't be charged. This will very effectively even the load at the power plants, which is a good thing. And if we are talking about PHEV's, they can still operate without being charged. As far as people charging at home they will naturally want to do this when it's cheapest.
The typical EV driver will use about as much energy per day as a 1500 Watt space heater being left on for 5 hours. Where I live the stores sell a lot of these things in the winter so I can only assume people are using them. Amazingly we've never had any blackouts.
Yes I think that isn't much either; though there certainly are people who can't afford $2 or $1 gas. The cost of a running car, insurance, and registration keep the very poor from getting a car.
But what I'm surprised about in this topic is the lack of discussion on how people will modify their lives, if at all. basically what changes in consumption choices do they make. For instance most people have cable and cell phones. Do you get rid of the cell-phone before you decrease driving? Do you cut back on HBO, or pull the cable? do you start taking your lunch or coffee, instead of buying at a restaurant? I thought those would be the sort of things being tossed around here; not the theoretical - go buy an EV (which doesn't exist).
I thought this would be a discussion of small everyday things that everyone can do. It seems to get off-track into spend $25K on a hybrid - again something that doesn't exist for the numbers of people in the U.S.
Personally since I don't do much driving - 4 mile commute, I'm not changing a thing. Life should be enjoyed. I'll save a little less, or try to make a little more, and still drive my '05 Jag X-Type 3.0 (bought used for $19K with 27K on it), as I want. (The money I saved on the new-car depreciation buys a lot of gas! ).
I still see a lot of people buying lottery tickets, cigarettes, liquor, running around with cell-phones, and eating in restaurants. These people may be hurting, but I guess they're unwilling to give anything up. I certainly hope I'm not bailing them out in someway, either through subsidies, low taxes, or hand-outs.
But then again, I live in an affluent part of the country- maybe way more of an impact in the areas where people have fewer resources ($$$) to cope. Around here, people are more complaining that their overpriced houses have lost 10% of their value in the past year- ha!
My personal opinion is that any solution that involves drilling for more oil represents driving further down a road that we know is a dead end. It may be something we have to do in the short term but it should be described as "buying time" not really a solution.
Maybe the issue here needs to be defined better. I'm assuming $4/gal gas is within the next 5 years. I think most would agree. I think that some people digress into the future much further than 5 years. That's fine in general; but I didn't think that's the topic here. We're talking the short-term here; the next few years.
So if someone says "my solution was to go buy a hybrid" that is valid. When someone says "You should all go buy a hybrid or EV" I assume they are addressing this as a solution to all the potential readers of the post. And that is not a solution for the many millions of people of the reader-population.
In fact I've read credible articles that state there is enough electricity generating capacity right now to handle a fleet comprised of 85% EVs if these vehicles were charged at the right time.
Sure I could see that, and I could probably model that. But I think you know that wouldn't happen. Multi-car families will probably have 1 charger (unless their really cheap) and those would be recharged whenever it was free. Business vehicles used so much during the day, would be charged during lunch. If batteries become weaker they will need more frequent charging. Cold climates where heaters and defrosters and warmup periods are required, and lights will decrease range.
Public charging stations will in all likelihood have some sort of load management system incorporated. If there's no electricity available then they won't be charged. This will very effectively even the load at the power plants, which is a good thing.
So you think it's ok if say 10% or 20% of the people need a charge during the day, and they come out of work during a heat-wave or blizzard such that recharging wasn't turned off, that they couldn't get home? They'd sit in the office until 9pm, then recharge for 3 hr, and get home at 1 am? Maybe people's work could setup some type of communal kitchen/cots?
The typical EV driver will use about as much energy per day as a 1500 Watt space heater being left on for 5 hours. Where I live the stores sell a lot of these things in the winter so I can only assume people are using them.
Yes but when they use a space-heater they are substituting 1 type of heat for another, and maybe saving energy by only heating a small portion of the house. So the furnace which uses electricity to ignite fuel and run the blowers can shutdown. Even better if you have electric heat you can heat 1 room instead of all the rooms. So you save some or a lot of electricity by using a space-heater. But an EV does not save electricity in the house, it is simply a load on top of the existing draw.
You do realize that 1500W for 5 hours is quite a bit if many houses did that? Note the programs are to try and get people to save 75W per lightbulb, save 15 watts with an Energystar appliance, unplug the computer... to keep from stressing the electrical grid. These are small per personal but significant in total. EV's electrical draw would dwarf these savings.
But please answer the question on whether you're for less-safety by lcontinuing waivers on the aging nuclear-plants. Take some time and google "Vermont Yankee" and "Pilgrim" nuclear plants. I'm sure there are many more, as those are just in my neighborhood.
At the present time ,what other options are there? Maybe rationing? Speaking as a more or less liberal (tree hugger) I dont understand why we cant drill for oil almost anywhere as long as the enviroment is protected. I just can't believe that with modern technology we couldn't keep the damage to it to the minimum.
They never caught on.
I don't think the Nano would catch on here in the US even if it got an exemption from all the safety and emissions regs.
I'd like to know just how much oil we're talking about. If we opened up all these areas for drilling would we be able to satisfy our domestic oil demand or would it result in us importing 10 billion barrels per day as opposed to 12 million barrels or would it simply allow us to maintain our current level of production? And how big are these reserves, how long will they last? And would it actually drive down the price of oil or would OPEC simply reduce their output so the global supply remained static? I conceded that in the short term we may have to do this but what's next? We need to be taking action now for a world where demand exceeds supply no matter how much we are drilling.
That's an unrealistic scenario. First it is based upon these people having pure EVs not plug-in EVs, which can also run on gas. It also assumes these EVs have a range that is insufficient to make a round trip commute to work. And it also assumes that during an 8-9 hour day there was no period where the power plants had any extra capacity.
I don't know much about nuclear power plants. I'd like to believe that they are rigorously inspected and these waivers wouldn't be granted if the inspectors thought the plant was unsafe.
I guess you missed the "sleeping nuclear plant security guards" story last month. That sort of incompetence and short-cutting carries over into all organizations (NASA would be the poster child, or perhaps the Big Dig would hit closer to home for the folks in the Northeast).
The Alaska pipeline is over 30 years old. Maintenance has been questionable and it's been operating past its expected useful life. But the spills (and there have been spills) are mostly containable, unlike radiation leaks.
At least I'll be dead before the plutonium that's leaking into the Snake River aquifer from INEL reaches me (link). Well, hopefully not, since DOE lowered the "expected arrival" date in 1995 from 80,000 years to 30 years, so I could enjoy a sip of radioactive water when I turn 73.
When a nuclear power plant has exceeded its expected useful life what exactly is worn out? Obviously things do wear out over time but they are replaceable. Something isn't necessarily unsafe just because it is old. I'd like to know what components of these facilities, due to their age, have a high probability of failure and what risks are associated with these failures. Maybe they are unsafe and should be retired but I won't immediately make that assumption based purely on age.
The answer is: they won't. $4 gas is barely more than most kalifornians are paying right now. Even a study a few years ago (when gas was $2) revealed that most Americans won't change anything unless gas goes over $5.
That'll happen soon enough, but I doubt even then that we'll see any mass behavioral changes. As you said, there's always a few more dollars to buy cigs and lottery tickets. The rising price of gas takes everyone's money in small increments, not large chunks. So no real incentive to modify behavior.
People who need pickup trucks to haul hay and horse trailers (a lot of 'em here in Texas), can't "modify" their needs and buy a Prius. People who buy Chevy Suburbans to hold their 5 kids (plenty of those here in Texas, too), can't squeeze the little darlings into a Civic Hybrid. And people who buy Cadillac Escalades because they think other people will envy them won't modify their idiocy. On the contrary, the higher the price of gas, the more conspicuous their pretense of conspicuous consumption appears. $4/$5/$6 gas will only encourage them.
So, forget change.
.
Yes, if it's gradual $$ increase only, not much untill $5+/gallon, if that. What would drive change more quickly is shortage. Gas lines would, IMHO, drive people to smaller cars, carpool, etc., if only for a short period. Then you'd see long range cars (such as diesels and hybrids, if they have large tanks) sell well.
It is a machine, just as a car is a machine. Everything wears out, and becomes less reliable. And in a nuclear reactor you have a lot of neutrons striking the thick metal walls, but the metal will only last so long.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor_vessel
and
http://www.evacuationplans.org/Board_to_take_up_coalition's_VY_challenge.html
The older the plant is the more likely those sirens, evacuation plans, and stocks of iodine would be needed. Sorry if you think this is pessimistic, but the reality is everything wears out and breaks, and some business-men in corporations will gamble (take higher risks of a major accident), that they know more than the engineers who built it. I guess this genius, justifies them paying themselves so much?
In response to an earlier contention filed by NEC, Entergy performed calculations related to metal fatigue.
"They are inadequate and completely flawed," said Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, an expert on the interactions between metals and their environment, in particular a nuclear reactor environment.
Hopenfeld said Entergy's formula used to determine the effects of reactor conditions on metal components and piping was created to get the results Entergy was looking for.
"What they have done is completely unacceptable."
And I am a proponent of nuclear energy and think more plants should be built. I'm not anti-nuclear. And I am a proponent of EV's; but we need the safe, reliable and abundant electrical sources before they can be reality.
That is sort of true. I have read that Cuba looking for some kind of income is doing exploratory drilling half way to Key West. That is only 45 miles from Florida. I guess we could buy OUR oil from Castro. Like we buy OUR oil from Canada and Mexico. NIMBY may be the biggest problem our country faces where energy is concerned. Be it nuclear, solar, wind, geo thermal, hydro or fossil fuel.
-moo
People are reacting already.
There's a 'tipping point' and I think we've reached it as vehicle consumers. At $4.00+ per gallon the flow may become a deluge simply because people value their own assets ( cash in pocket ) more than anything else.
The figures are clear. From 2003 til now a million buyers annually have deserted the BOF SUVs and trucks. They are buying more efficient vehicles. Perspective: There are approximately 8 million new trucks sold each year in the US. These trucks are not necessarily pickups. They include the Odyssey, RAV4, HHR, PT Cruiser and a host of other vehicles other than BOF types.
The real number of BOF vehicles SUVs like the Suburban, 4Runner, Durango and all the Pickups is more like 4 million units annually. In losing 1 million buyers annually that's 25% of the market for these vehicles going elsewhere. We are voting with our wallets for crossovers, midsize sedans and small vehicles....and this is just in the movement of fuel from ~$1.50 to $3.00. Now jump it again to the $4.50 range and we may see the public ignoring the BOFs forever except when absolutely necessary for work or other limited uses.
That'll happen soon enough, but I doubt even then that we'll see any mass behavioral changes. As you said, there's always a few more dollars to buy cigs and lottery tickets. The rising price of gas takes everyone's money in small increments, not large chunks. So no real incentive to modify behavior
Actually there is a seachange occuring ( see prior post ) but most news outlets don't have the the insight to do the necessary investigation thus this very signigicant trend goes unreported. By not being reported, the public which depends on others to do the analysis does not see the actual picture.
The vehicle makers live and die by these trends but the analyses are kept closely held so as not to tip off others what a future strategy might be.
The result is that we don't see that 25% of a given buying group has already changed it's buying pattern within 4 years. That's HUGE. These are momentus changes for everyone. The vehicle makers obviously ( Toyota and Honda were probably ahead of the curve while Chrysler may not yet have recognized that it's happened ); we as consumers because our choices of vehicles is different now than before.
SOTP I'd estimate that in a population of 300 million with about 200+ million drivers, an annual production of 16 million new vehicles annually with a realisitic lifecycle of 12 yrs - on average - that there are approximately 200 million new and used vehicles on the road here in the US. That would make about 100 million 'trucks' of which maybe 60 million are BOF-types.
Using 12 years as a realistic lifecycle this total population will be 'retired' roughly at the same rate that it's being renewed, 16 million annually. Again very SOTP if there are 16 million 12 y.o. vehicles out there of which say 4.5 million are BOF-types That would mean that there are about 50+ million BOF-type vehiles in service. To eliminate them is unrealistic because there will always be a need for a real truck of some kind. SUVs somewhat less 'need'.
But now with the change in buying patterns 3+ million new BOF vehicles are being added each while on average 4+ million such vehicles are being retired after about 12 yrs of service. What this shows is that as vehicles are being retired they are not being replaced by new BOF-type vehicles.
What's the baseline for these types of vehicles. By that I mean there will always be some demand for them just out of basic need. I'd guess it to be between 1.5 and 2.0 million units. It will probably take us a full 10-12 years to reach a 'baseline' for the entire fleet. But each year will be an improvement.
[Project to self: track the rate of change in BOF's for the industry since 2003]
For those that think the big SUV is dead, wander over to the Sequoia threads. Much busier than the Prius or any other hybrid. Not loaded with SUV haters either.
Many like to bash the full size BOF SUVs, but many midsize crossovers don't get much better gas mileage. My Suburban gets about the same fuel economy that I got with a Nissan Pathfinder that I had previously. Only about 1 mpg separated them.
According to Consumer reports, they avg. 20mpg in a Honda Pilot vs. 17mpg in a Suburban over a 150 mile trip. Hardly a huge difference considering the bigger engine and extra 1500lbs of the Suburban.
$4/gal gas won't make me change a thing other than spend more on a fill up in the Burb and boat. At $5 it might start to make economic sense to buy a fuel efficient car to drive around in.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
I agree. $4/gallon gas will represent an annoyance. $5/gallon will be a greater annoyance. $6/gallon might represent the time to make some adjustments. Of course these are personal thresholds that will vary by individual
My guess is that you could do the math but it wouldn't really matter. You like diesels. That's fine, no need to justify it. By the same token hybrid owners shouldn't feel like they need to justify their preference.
My guess is that you could do the math but it wouldn't really matter. You like diesels. That's fine, no need to justify it. By the same token hybrid owners shouldn't feel like they need to justify their preference.
I think one of the main issues right now is the lack of diesels in half-ton light duty pickups and SUVs. Diesel itself isn't so much of a surcharge as Honda is adopting it for the Accord, and VW has embraced it (along with Mercedes). The VW's surcharge for a diesel motor is the ADM sticker. In the 80s and 90s, the diesel Jetta was cheaper than the gasoline version.
As far as the cost of gasoline vs the cost of diesel, lets wait until summer and see what happens. The demand for gasoline is elastic, more people drive, more demand, cost goes up, diesel is much more stable (until diesel motors are available in passenger cars and light duty trucks).
My personal opinion is that diesel will never again sell for less than unleaded gasoline. However, I've been wrong before.
From my observations, on-road diesel has much more price stability than gasoline, so if gas prices fall quickly diesel will seem much expensive until it slowly falls back into line. Conversely, a sharp rise in gas prices will see diesel cost less than 87 for a while until it rises back into place, which is typically within a dime of 93 locally.
Good question. The boat is a major source of our family entertainment in the summer. I'd guess it would have to get to the $6-7/ gal range.
We've been wanting to get a bigger boat in the future and high gas prices could possibly change that decision. Our current boat is 21' with a fuel injected 305 v8, so as long as I'm not running around full throttle it's not to bad on gas. Also, our kids love to swim and play on the beach so we can be out on the lake all day and only put an hour or two on the engine, using maybe 4-8 gallons. We spent about $400 on boat gas last season, so it's not really an issue. I'm sure I spent more towing the boat to the lakes and back.
One thing we have changed is we've signed up for a seasonal campsite on a fairly large lake about 60 miles away. I'll be able to keep the boat down there with the camper, thus not have to tow the camper (7mpg towing with Suburban or the boat 11mpg towing). We can take my wife's car and save some fuel.
When gas started getting over $2.50/gal we started watching how far we'd tow the boat to go boating. Towing gas mileage is bad so a round trip to a lake 100 miles away could darn near burn a tank of gas in the Suburban alone.
I do the math also. That is another reason the hybrids are totally out of the question. I suppose if I put a lot of miles on a vehicle in a year I could justify one. With my history of less than 7000 miles per year on any vehicle the hybrid is a very poor choice. I am always on the lookout for a VW Beetle TDI. I would get one for running all my errands. I have the Ranger PU that only gets about 17 MPG. I have put almost 3000 miles on the PU since August. I am using it to move and we are taking our time as it is going on 6 months since we started the move into the new house. With 3 vehicles I really cannot justify another. Insurance becomes a bigger factor than the difference in fuel costs. I won't like $4 gas but I will pay it and hope it keeps a few more people off the highways during the daytime when I run my errands.